DebateGate

XO opined:

Quote

Mormons are supposed to avoid coffee because it contains caffeine, a stimulant. It is the caffeine that Mormons are supposed to avoid, not coffee.

Mormons are supposed to avoid all caffeinated food or drink. Beck is a dolt

Actually XO is the dolt, and once again he gets it wrong.

------------------

It's actually a myth that Mormons are required to avoid caffeine.  What is proscribed are ?hot drinks?, this term having been clarified to mean specifically coffee and tea, and to include cold and decaffeinated versions thereof; but not including herbal teas.

  The source for this is what we call ?The Word of Wisdom?, which is found in the 89th section of the Doctrine and Covenants.  See http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/89
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/128

-----------------

It is these types of stupid comments by XO that Mickey is probably embarassed about. Just how many times can you roll your eyes at this guy?

i see my clarification was unnecessary.   Thanks, RR   

Explosives-filled tractor-trailer in Connecticutt?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_suspicious_semitrailer_conn;_ylt=AoH1ghAr0s.i6nC9XRnZ7a1H2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTNjanBsM2lxBGFzc2V0Ay9zL2FwL3VzX3N1c3BpY2lvdXNfc2VtaXRyYWlsZXJfY29ubgRjY29kZQNtcF9lY184XzEwBGNwb3MDNARwb3MDNARzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA29mZmljaWFsdHJhYw--

First Medal of Honor for Living Afghan War Vet

DES MOINES, Iowa – A 25-year-old soldier from Iowa who exposed himself to enemy gunfire to try to save two fellow soldiers will become the first living service member from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to receive the Medal of Honor, the White House announced Friday.

President Barack Obama phoned Army Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta, on Thursday at the base in Italy where he's stationed to tell him he'd be receiving the nation's highest military honor, Giunta's father told The Associated Press. He will become the eighth service member to receive the Medal of Honor during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The seven previous medals were awarded posthumously.

"It's bittersweet for us," said Steven Giunta, of Hiawatha. "We're very proud of Sal. We can't mention that enough, but in this event, two other soldiers were killed and that weighs heavy on us. You get very happy and very proud and then you start dealing with the loss as well. You can't have one without the other."

Giunta was serving as a rifle team leader with Company B 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment when an insurgent ambush split his squad into two groups on Oct. 25, 2007, in the Korengal Valley in Afghanistan, the White House said in a news release.

Giunta went above and beyond the call of duty when he exposed himself to enemy fire to pull a fellow soldier back to cover. He engaged the enemy again when he saw two insurgents carrying away a wounded soldier, 22-year-old Sgt. Joshua C. Brennan, of McFarland, Wis. Giunta killed one insurgent and wounded the other before tending to Brennan, who died the next day.

"His courage and leadership while under extreme enemy fire were integral to his platoon's ability to defeat an enemy ambush and recover a fellow American soldier from enemy hands," the White House said.

Giunta, who enlisted in the Army shortly after graduating from Kennedy High School in Cedar Rapids, is now stationed in Italy with the Battle Company of the 173rd Airborne Brigade. He was in his second tour of duty in Afghanistan at the time of the ambush.

Giunta, who was previously awarded a Bronze Star and Purple Heart, among other medals, called his parents after hearing from the president, his father said.

"He was very honored to talk to the president but he's very reserved about it," Steven Giunta said. "It's not something he's comfortable with, the event or the Medal of Honor."

Steven Giunta said his son is humbled because he believes he was just doing what he was supposed to be doing.

"He mentions every other soldier would have done the same thing. It kind of rocks his world that he's being awarded the Medal of Honor for something each and every one of them would have done. He's very aware of that."

"What a privilege and honor it is and what the men have done over the years to receive it, the feat, the above and beyond portion of it, it's amazing to me," Steven Giunta said.

Giunta will be awarded his medal at a White House ceremony at a date yet to be determined.

The President will present the Medal of Honor posthumously to Staff Sgt. Robert Miller in a White House ceremony on Oct. 6.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_medal_of_honor

Quote from: Stray Pooch on September 09, 2010, 12:27:01 PM

Ok, this is interesting, if a bit "cold war" scary.  China is using quantum mechanics to develop a super-secure encryption technology for military communications.  Pretty nifty stuff.

We've been working on this for quite a long time.

Ok, this is interesting, if a bit "cold war" scary.  China is using quantum mechanics to develop a super-secure encryption technology for military communications.  Pretty nifty stuff.

China's Quantum leap in teleportation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599201668700

I have a fondness for the female posters that are far too infrequent, in their postings. 

As you mentioned me by name, I am concerned that you may be confused about my gender.  FTR, I'm getting old but it STILL works -lol!

Actually, I have seldom been personally "attacked" myself.  There has been the occasional ad hominem response, and a flame war or two, but that is to be expected.  I have seen, however, some vicious attacks on (and in some cases from) posters like, for example, terra and BSB.  I love intelligent debate, and frankly it is my advancing diabetes which saps my strength and makes it hard to try to cut through the Bravo Sierra.  Also, I get wordy and there is nothing worse than typing a six paragraph response and then accidentally deleting it!!!!

I swear on my mother's grave I just accidentally deleted the words "accidentally deleting it!" in the above para - lol!!!

But I check in here from time to time and see far more cussing, fussing and name-calling than intelligent debate.  That's frustrating.  I have little energy these days and I'd rather spend it honestly analyzing an issue than hearing the litany of ideological word-bombs thrown in place of rational responses.   I seldom debate anymore because this is the place where I debate and other places don't seem like home.  I even tried checking out PIC on MSN just a few months after the breakup of Yahoo Clubs and it was already foreign to me. 

And I have to be perfectly honest.  I frequently think of inviting people here, but some of the threads here would make me embarrassed to let my friends know I hung out here.  If they were infrequent lapses of etiquette it would be one thing.  But there are posters here who see no reason not to use foul language, personal attack, racial slurs and generally offensive behavior.  That's not a place I want to take my friends.  I know it is the opinion of most of the remnant here that civil debate can include those elements, but I believe that not to be the case.

I know, I fall into those same bad habits here.  That is another reason I go away so frequently.  I don't like how I get when I have heard one too many anti-American rant or EITHER side belittling the other instead of engaging them.  I get angry, arrogant and egotistical.   I get snide, self-righteous and condescending.  I get stressed-out, burned-out and pissed-off.  I get other kinds of bad things that come in groups of three.  I get sidetracked by stupid word games.  I get . . . wait, where was I?

Oh yeah.  It isn't necessarily the victims who get driven away by personal attacks, though some surely do.  But some of us stay away because we would rather do something uplifting, which intelligent debate can be, and pointless ideological warfare never is.

Sure you do. Sacrificing your life takes courage.

I disagree, BT, and by an odd coincidence, that very type of claim is the reason that I am here (in the saloon I mean) today.

I joined PIC in the aftermath of 9-11 but not as a direct result of the attack itself.  It was, rather, the infamous incident of Bill Maher comparing the "courage" of the terrorists to the implicitly cowardly way US forces could bomb places from above or send missiles after someone, etc.  This was on his abomination of a TV show "Politically Incorrect."  As I sought out more information on the quote, I ran across the PIC and the rest is history.

But there is no courage involved in committing suicide.  None.  It takes no bravery to kill yourself.  Since you PLAN to die and WANT to die, you have nothing to lose (and 72 virgins to gain, if you believe in that sort of thing).   Contrast that with entering into a situation where you want to live, you hope to come out at the other end alive, and you have lots to live for.   In spite of that, however, you enter into harm's way for a cause (whether that cause be defending your nation, protecting your property or loved ones, or conquering the world for your religion - even imposing an evil dictator's will).  When you want to live, and you are willing to risk or even knowingly give your life to rescue or protect someone, that is courageous.  Simply strapping on a bomb and walking into a disco is nothing more than cowardice.  You haven't got the courage to risk failure AND your life.  Instead, you go for the sure thing and forfeit your life before you ever go into action. 

There are lots of courageous Talibani and Al Quaeda fighters.  They go out and fight against real live flesh-and-blood enemies.  They do hide and run and all those other things that any rational human being would do when under fire from a superior enemy, but at least they come out to put their lives on the line for their (dubious) cause.   American soldiers (and any other rational people) do the same thing.  Suicide bombers are not courageous.  They are cowards who haven't got the courage to fight an armed enemy.

I think that people who suggest there is courage in suicide bombers confuse courage with defeatist resignation.  There are courageous suicide missions.  These are the missions where, for example,  someone volunteers to die to protect someone else.   Think of the typical Hollywood scene, like the pilot who flies into the path of the oncoming missile to save the President's plane, or the character in "A Tale of Two Cities" who dies in place of another ("tis a far, far better thing . . .").  What about real-life actions like the person who dives into the path of the oncoming car to push a child out of the way, or someone who drowns trying to rescue someone else? Or even the soldier who chooses to jump on a grenade or take out a machine gun nest to save his buddies.  These are things that MUST be done.  I might even give the Kamikaze a pass, since the ships they were attacking were actually a direct threat to the homeland.  The Japanese were fighting a conventional war and the actions of their military men were (relative to the realities of war) honorable ones.  Flying a plane into a well-armed warship filled with armed military men who could defend themselves and were a genuine direct threat was a desperate but arguably necessary act.  One could almost even stretch this to include the bombers of the USS Cole (damn their souls) though the Cole was not engaged in warfare.  But flying civilian aircraft filled with unarmed civilians into buildings filled with civilians was just an act of petty vandalism horribly magnified.  It required no courage - just fanatical hatred.

Risk is a necessary component of courage.  When one is already resigned to die in a senseless act, nothing is at risk.

 

You're barking up the wrong tree here Pooch        Plane was indeed more accurate in his analogy, since this isn't a scenario of a proposed Islamic Cultural Center wanting to be built over a large Islamic atrocity in the Middle East.  This is being proposed thousands of miles away, at the gravesite of a large Islamic atrocity, here in the U.S.  So, plane is far more accurate in his analogy, than yourself.  And if we've decided to redefine what the term prejudice means, to include taking the feelings of thousands who lost loved ones on one of the worst days in American history, into account, then fine, I'm prejudiced.

No, Plane's analogy is ONLY valid if all Muslims are terrorists.  ALL NAZI's were evil.  Now I know that some poor Nazi private in a foxhole might have been just doing his job and never laid a hand on a Jew (or condoned it) but the very philosophy of the Nazi's was to exterminate the Jews.  It wasn't a few Nazi's, it was the whole movement.  It wasn't a few quotations taken too literally by a small faction of overzealous SS troops, it was the official philosophy, endorsed and commanded by Der Fuehrer himself.   The policy of islam is NOT to murder innocent people.  It DOES include going to war for Allah, depending on how literally you interpret it,  but the Christian and Jewish religions have exactly the same kinds of scriptural admonishments.  In fact, on several occasions in the Old Testament the people of Israel are scolded and punished for failing to commit full-scale genocide against non-believers.  Plane is directly comparing a Mosque to a Swastika.  That is an invalid analogy.

I have not, in any way, re-defined prejudice.  It is, was, and shall remain the simple act of PRE-JUDGING.  That's the literal denotation and the general connotation of the word.  When you look at a Mosque and think "terrorism" that is prejudice.  When you look at a Mosque and think "swastika" that is prejudice.  There is no association between Islam and terrorism that cannot also be made between Christianity and terrorism, Judaeism and terrorism or pretty much any faith and terrorism at some level.  When I was a young boy I was assaulted and robbed by a gang of black kids.  (They took my Halloween candy, the RAPSCALLIONS!)  After that, everytime I saw a group of black kids I avoided them.  Did I have a rational reason for that fear?  Yes.  But was it a fair judgement?  No.  It was simple prejudice.  A lot of perfectly good black kids wandered through the park who might have become friends with me had they been white.  That was my fault, not theirs - and NOT the fault of those candy-thieving rascals.  (Hope they got fat on it!)

It is natural that people would be prejudice in this situation but that does NOT change the reality that it is still prejudice.   

Distance is not relevent in this case at all. 

It was Islamic terrorists who perpetrated this act.  It is Islamic terrorists and radicals we are still at war with.  It is Islamic terrorists that many Islamic Religious leaders have an apparent acute difficulty in denouncing.  This doesn't brand all Muslim, in any way shape or form.  They simply are the unfortunate repercussions of the few that screwed it up for them. 

Is this an Islamic Terrorist Mosque?  I hadn't heard that.  I understood it was an Islamic Mosque.  If this is an Islamic Terrorist Mosque well then by all means, stop this right now.  Also, please explain to me how, if this doesn't brand all Muslims, what, exactly, are the unfortunate repercussions you refer to?  It seems to me that if I want to build a Mosque in New York to reach out to Americans as a gesture of goodwill after a horrible tragedy, the only objection you could have to that is based on my religion's "association" with terrorism.  That means you are, in fact, branding me.  That also means you are, in fact, judging my religion based on YOUR association of it with terrorism.  I am a Christian.  Many people associate my religion with the Inquisition, the burning of heretics and witches, centuries of war between factions and against Islam, conquest and subjugation of foreign peoples in the name of Christ.  THEY associate me with those things - I don't.  I dissassociate myself.  I want to tell people about the good news of Christ - not force them to believe it or burn to death.   But some people will instantly view me as a fanatic.   That's prejudice.    Some people think I am a racist because many right-wing extremist groups are avowed racists.   The KKK, the Aryan Nation, the Skinheads and a host of little nutcase groups - not to mention the crazy SOBs who bomb gay bars and abortion clinics!  They are all (at least most often) Right Wing nutcases.  So when MT or XO or someone else comes on here and associates them with us, is that valid?  After all, it's just the unfortunate repercussions of a few idiots who screwed it up for the rest of us.  No, it's prejudice.

My wife and I can't work in the same hospital in the same department, because we are married.  When I investigated, it was found that a very few married and unmarried couples would bring their troubles to work.  Hospital decided to produce a blanket policy of no couples can work the same dept.  My wife and I didn't do anything wrong, but we have to deal with those repercussions caused by a scant few others

That is an employment policy - and probably not a very fair one.  But many companies follow the same sorts of policies.  There is no inherent civil right to work in the same office with your wife.  There is a codified Constitutional right to build a house of worship where you want to.  It is one thing to feel that prudent family hiring practices stop potential problems.  It is another to suggest (as this example implies) that keeping a Mosque away from the WTC area will prevent any further similar sorts of troubles.  Your work policy is a change to a policy that was abused.  There was no Mosque there before 9-11 and nobody but the most out there conspiracy theorists are suggesting this will be a base for another terror attack.  So the analogy isn't valid.   Your work policy is based on actual problems.  It has nothing to do with how people (your boss included) view married people.  The objection to the Mosque is based soley on feelings.  Prohibiting married couples working together WILL help cut down on marital strife showing up at work.  Banning a Mosque near Ground Zero will NOT prevent another terrorist attack. 

I wanted to flex my schedule with Home Health, in order to help save our company money.  Taking short days when the case load was light, and working perhaps a little longer on other days, but as long as it was within a 40hour week, it was cool.  I'm non-union.  Low and behold legislation was passed that made it mandatory for me to take overtime, anything over 8 hours, and to have a fixed schedule, regardless of my not being union.  Again, I'm actually trying to keep our Home Health agency afloat, but a minority of both Union activists, and the legislators they'd own in their hip pocket, screwed it up for the rest of us.  I can see making it mandatory for all Union Workers, but for those non-union that didn't wish to participate in such, we get screwed.

There are endless examples of the majority being screwed by a minority of the idiotic or even the dangerous.  Way back when (my lifetime), we could keep our doors unlocked & windows open at night.  We chose not to any longer because of those few dangerous folk that make it inappropriate any longer.  The 19 Islamic Terrorists that killed thousands of Americans on 911, on American soil, did so in the name of Islam.  Their terrorist act screwed the vast majority of perfectly innocent Muslims, into America accepting an Islamic Cultural Center, so close to the gravesite of those murdered in the name of Islam.  And it doesn't help that this Imam is showing no signs of his acknowledgement to that, nor have I heard him take back how America, kinda-sorta had it coming

Having served twenty in boots I well understand the concept of mass punishment.  That is not, however, a free ticket for those who object to this Mosque.  The sole reason given as rejection here is because it IS a Mosque.  That's wrong.  Nobody would object if it were a church, a synagogue or a Mormon Temple.  (Well, except the usual suspects in the atheist world - but they would object equally.)  The sole reason that a Mosque alone is rejected is because the objectors UNFAIRLY associate Islam with terrorism due to the acts of a few fanatics.  Those same people would NOT object to a Christian church being built there even if the planes were flown by crazed Presbyterians.  We would be more aware of the faith, and we all know some Presbyterians who we could go talk to.  It's a pretty safe bet a good chunk of Presbyterians would denounce it to us personally - even if they wouldn't come out in public for fear of being murdered by the Fundabyterians.   It's also a safe bet some Presbyterians (assuming there was any perception of persecution or such analogous to the middle eastern view of America) would say something like "Well, look it was wrong and all, but you Americans DID invade Presbyteristan and you are constantly giving weapons and support to those damned Martinists in Luthrael. 

So, no, this isn't a 1st amendment issue, legal issue, or anthing having to do with the Constitution.  Neither is it a religious intolerance issue or one of bigotry, since no one is denying a Muslim's right to practice their religion, or build a mosque/cultural center.  The issue is the location of such building, and how completely insensitive & disrespectful folks are being, in insisting that it be built right there, and no where else

And I don't think I need to go into the realm of how this Mosque/Cultural center is having the polar opposite effect of the supposed reason one is to be built there...that of bringing people together, with a supposed sense of Islamic sensitivity and tolerance.  Where the hell's the tolerance & respect being shown the families of the 911 victims??

Actually, it IS an issue of religious intolerance.  Before the government entities tasked with providing appropriate permits ruled, it was also a constitutional issue.  It no longer is.  I completely understand the gist of your argument, but this IS an issue of prejudice (not bigotry - different bird).

And since you asked where the hell is the tolerance and respect for the victims of 9-11 I'll ask you - where the hell is the respect for Muslims who are American citizens?  I'll tell you where it is - it is in the White House and in the halls of government in New York.  That's where it ought to be, and where our constitution mandates (for our own safety) it be.   So long as we continue to equate the free practice of religion with an act of aggression, I hope the Muslims stick to their principles (which are, in this case, quintessentially American principles) and I will make a point of visiting after it is done.