The new Ultra Mega Bad Ass Mother 3000 Political Thread o Rama!

[Adam Crocker]

When you're dealing with someone who's intent on strapping on a bomb and killing as many people as possible it's kill or be killed. Which is unfortunate.


Which still doesn't tell us how to deal with terrorism in the Middle East though. All it says is that violence is involved somehow against terrorist groups.

[matterconsumer]

Which still doesn't tell us how to deal with terrorism in the Middle East though. All it says is that violence is involved somehow against terrorist groups.

If one cannot convince people to not engage in terroristic acts then that leaves imprisonment or death.

Of course many nations in the world have actively been attempting to root out terrorists within their own borders.

The issue remains though with those nations who do not root out terrorists and either encourage or simply allow these activities to continue.

Ideally the nations of the world would join together to compel nations harboring/allowing terrorism to stop. However there are many nations in the world that are repressive regimes and they understand which way the ball is rolling and have no vested interest. Unless of course terrorists cross over into their borders...

[matterconsumer]

That is more middle eastern than it is muslim.

It's a feature of both.

[matterconsumer]

Threat to the "Muslim way of life" because of opposition to violence and misogyny? What is this? Whenever someone throws out this kind of B.S. stereotyping about Christians in general or even Evangelical Christians no one takes this guff, but becomes okay when talking about Muslims?

I'm speaking in a context here of those who strap on bombs and/or commit violence. They would consider themselves to be truer in their practices. Jihadists...

[Jeff Brady]

It'll be interesting to see if terrorism decreases once Bush is no longer president.

Remember when we declared "War on Drugs," and drug use skyrocketed?

[Adam Crocker]

Remember when we declared "War on Drugs," and drug use skyrocketed?

Well marijuana use apparently went down...

...cocaine use on the other hand sky-rocketed.

[Karl J. Barnes]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051119/ap_en_mu/people_springsteen

The one man that most people can actually like and honor and he can't get a little recognition from his New Jersians??

[Adam Crocker]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051119/ap_en_mu/people_springsteen

The one man that most people can actually like and honor and he can't get a little recognition from his New Jersians??

Well it's the entire U.S. Senate and anyways given the tenor of American politics I don't find it surprising in the least.

[Karl J. Barnes]

Well it's the entire U.S. Senate and anyways given the tenor of American politics I don't find it surprising in the least.

Where's Spike-X!!!! I need someone, who'll get properly irritated at this!!

[TCJohnson]

It's a feature of both.

Sigh All Islam says is that both men and women are supposed to dress modestly.

How modestly is intrepreted depends on the region the muslim is from or living in. Often in america it means not showing off cleavage. You have probably seen many muslim women not completely covered and just not realize they were muslim.

There is something called the hadith which is guidelines for living a good muslim life. In the hadith it says women should wear clothers where only their neck up, hands and feet are exposed. The vast majority of muslims, however, see the hadith as guidelines and not law. Only in Afghanistan did the government make the hadith law.

THe burqa of afghanistan and the abaya, hijab and niqab of saudi arabia are considered the most extreme interpretations of modesty by most muslims and most muslims don't bother with them. These forms of dress were also there long before muslim, so it is regional and not muslim.

[Adam Crocker]

Where's Spike-X!!!! I need someone, who'll get properly irritated at this!!

Indeed, where is Spike X? I always appreciate his brand of cutting venom.

[Iangould]

When you're dealing with someone who's intent on strapping on a bomb and killing as many people as possible it's kill or be killed.


Yes buit you seem ot be taking the logical leap: "Somethign needs to be done, this is something, therefore it should be done."

Indiscrimate targetting of civilian populations to deter sucide bombings or in retaliation to them has been tried in Sri Lanka and Israel - it doesn't work.

[Iangould]

That is more middle eastern than it is muslim.

On a related note, how is it American conservatives never launch into tirades about the evils of honor killings in India, China, non-muslim Africa, the Balkans or South America?

[the4thpip]

I don't disagree with that unless of course I was a woman who didn't want to go about covered...
The majority of Muslim women I know do not cover their hair.

The muslim nation of Turkey does not allow female teachers to wear the headscarf at work, because they believe in the separation of church and state. Something Republicans could learn from them.

[the4thpip]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051119/ap_en_mu/people_springsteen

The one man that most people can actually like and honor and he can't get a little recognition from his New Jersians??
My brother brought the new Born To Run Box Set over last night and we watched both the concert and the "making of the album" feature. What an amazing musician, what an album, what a man!

[Samurai]

Looks like the vast majority of Democrats rejected their own plan when it came time to vote...

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/CutRun.jpg

And Kurt Vonnegut sides with the terrorists:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17293730%5E601,00.html

US author lauds suicide bombers
David Nason, New York correspondent
November 19, 2005

ONE of the greatest living US writers has praised terrorists as "very brave people" and used drug culture slang to describe the "amazing high" suicide bombers must feel before blowing themselves up.

Kurt Vonnegut, author of the 1969 anti-war classic Slaughterhouse Five, made the provocative remarks during an interview in New York for his new book, Man Without a Country, a collection of writings critical of US President George W. Bush.

Vonnegut, 83, has been a strong opponent of Mr Bush and the US-led war in Iraq, but until now has stopped short of defending terrorism.

But in discussing his views with The Weekend Australian, Vonnegut said it was "sweet and honourable" to die for what you believe in, and rejected the idea that terrorists were motivated by twisted religious beliefs.

"They are dying for their own self-respect," he said. "It's a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect. It's like your culture is nothing, your race is nothing, you're nothing."

Asked if he thought of terrorists as soldiers, Vonnegut, a decorated World War II veteran, said: "I regard them as very brave people, yes."

He equated the actions of suicide bombers with US president Harry Truman's 1945 decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

On the Iraq war, he said: "What George Bush and his gang did not realise was that people fight back."

Vonnegut suggested suicide bombers must feel an "amazing high". He said: "You would know death is going to be painless, so the anticipation - it must be an amazing high."

Vonnegut's comments are sharply at odds with his reputation as a peace activist and his distinguished war service. He served in the US 106th Division and was captured by German forces at the Battle of the Bulge.

Taken to Dresden and held with other POWs in a disused abattoir, Vonnegut witnessed the appalling events of February 13-14, 1945, when 800 RAF Lancaster bombers firebombed the city, killing an estimated 100,000 civilians.

The experience inspired his book Slaughterhouse Five - the title of the novel coming from the barracks he was assigned in the POW camp. The book became an international bestseller and made Vonnegut a luminary of the US literary left.

But since Mr Bush was elected, Vonnegut's criticisms of US policy have become more and more impassioned.

In 2002, he was widely criticised for saying there was too much talk about the 9/11 attacks and not enough about "the crooks on Wall Street and in big corporations", whose conduct had been more destructive.

The following year he wrote that the US was hated around the world "because our corporations have been the principal deliverers and imposers of new technologies and economic schemes that have wrecked the self-respect, the cultures of men, women and children in so many other societies".

But Vonnegut's latest comments are likely to make many people wonder if old age has finally caught up with a grand old man of American letters.

[the4thpip]

Looks like the vast majority of Democrats rejected their own plan when it came time to vote...



And Kurt Vonnegut sides with the terrorists:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17293730%5E601,00.html


No.

You know, I am glad we had this talk. Hope you feel better soon.

[EdContradictory]

Looks like the vast majority of Democrats rejected their own plan when it came time to vote...

Are your eyes brown? You're so full of crap they must be.

The House GOP did not put the Murtha resolution forward for a vote, and you know it.

And if you didn't know it, you have no right pretending to speak as if you do.

[Harry Angel]

Are your eyes brown? You're so full of crap they must be.

The House GOP did not put the Murtha resolution forward for a vote, and you know it.

And if you didn't know it, you have no right pretending to speak as if you do.

See I told you guys that he had the same talking points.

[Adam Crocker]

If one cannot convince people to not engage in terroristic acts then that leaves imprisonment or death.

So basically just focus on eliminating the terrorist groups, but ignore the political context that fuels the rise of such extremist ideologies. While I can't argue against invading Afghanistan as a legitimate action in striking against Al-Qaeda and a regime that supported it due to its attack on America, the problem with focusing on the military/police solution is that at its heart, political extremism in the Middle East is still a political problem, which requires a political solution.

It is not enough for the House of Saud to simply crack down on terrorist groups, when its existence and the very way it lives and runs the country has made people think that signing up with Bin Laden is a good idea. Most of the population languishes in poverty while the House lives in utter decadence. It relies on foreign workers to man its oil fields and industry rather than provide training for locals. And its suppression of any political activity while relying on Wahhabiyyah clerics to help maintian power means that the only way of expressing political dissent is Wahabiyyah Islam, the most puritanical and strictest form there is...and the form of Islam that happens to be the one Al-Qaeda subscribes to.

The United States is a major ally and business partner with the House of Saud.

Similar applies to Egypt, if minus the oil industry, though it gets a significant amount of aid from the U.S. which even the Egyptian minister who first negotiated it back in 1974 (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html) agrees has been doled out indiscriminately to the regime and given an out not to reform itself.

Then again there is parallels with Iran, where the Shah's rule was similar in character to the House of Saud. Political corruption and extravegance of the elite against the poverty of the masses, plus political authoritarianism stamping out and radicalizing dissent led to the Ayatollahs taking power.

And while it is still worthwhile to go after terrorist groups might I point out that this strategy is going horribly in Chechnya? The whole mess started when the Russians invaded in 1994 because Yeltsin's advisors told him that it would be a short, victorious war and help him in the elections. Which it wasn't, since the Russians got bogged down and were drive out in 1996. But not before the Russian army committed a series of atrocities and reduced a once economically viable region to an improverished hell-hole where kidnapping became a major part of the economy.

And Russia kept foreign aid from getting in to Chechnya because they viewed it as "foreign interference in internal affairs" while giving piss-all for reconstruction aid while the country languished. And so Wahabbiyah, which had previously been disdained by the vast Sufi majority of the country, started making in roads, getting recruits, and began to carve out its own power base. Granted Chechen leader Aslan Mashkadov didn't exactly try to come down on them, even when the populace was clearly in favour of it, though I fail to see what Moscow hoped to accomplish cutting off foreign aid beyond trying to strangle the country. So Wahhabist insurgents build themselves up and attack Russian targets. Putin invades the country again and what happens?

The Russian army continues to brutalize and murder numerous Chechens in El Salvador/Guatemala/Yugoslavia style cleansing operations yet cannot stop guerillas from attacking security installations, never mind civilian populations in Russia border Chechnya. Mashkadov was killed not to long ago by the Russian army, even though he was willing to negotiate with Russians, even though he was a secular leader, even though he condemned acts like the taking of kids hostage in the Belsan school. Yet Putin lumped him in with the Wahabists, claimed he had even been involved in planning this.

Meanwhile nothing continues to improve in the area while the Russians prove they can't do much more that run the country into ruin even further.

Of course the military option against Iran was using Saddam as a cat's paw and building him up in the process.

And even though the Taliban are out, Afghanistan is largely under the control of warlords, the country's main crop is still opium - of which more money has been put in to eradicating by the Bush administration rather than building up agriculture in other areas - and conditions are somewhat similar to the time before the Taliban took over.

And there were plenty of terrorist attacks outside of Iraq after the invasion of that country for that matter.

"Kill or be killed" is fine when faced with the immediate problem of a gun being pointed at you. However, it is a fundamentally superficial and fucking useless as a plan to dealing with the overall problem of political extremism in the Middle East and its targetting the United States.

I'm speaking in a context here of those who strap on bombs and/or commit violence. They would consider themselves to be truer in their practices. Jihadists...

You said "threat to the Muslim way of life," rather than threatening an extremist version of it so you'll forgive me if I missed the point.

[Adam Crocker]

Are your eyes brown? You're so full of crap they must be.

The House GOP did not put the Murtha resolution forward for a vote, and you know it.

No sir they did not!

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=22&art_id=qw1132379640759B262

Republicans, who introduced the surprise resolution hours before lawmakers were to start a Thanksgiving holiday recess, said the vote was intended to show support for US forces.

Unlike Murtha's proposal calling for troops to be withdrawn "as soon as practicable," which he expected would be about six months, the Republican resolution said deployment of the US forces should be "terminated immediately."

So let's drop the partisan bullshit Samurai. They clearly engineered this vote to make their political opponents look bad by putting forth a bullshit proposal that was meant to be voted down. If you have ever expressed outrage over the Democrats BS draft proposal scare-tactic, you have no goddamn right to claim that this was a Democratic initiative or even remotely resembled what Murtha was talking about.

[EdContradictory]

No sir they did not!

So let's drop the partisan bullshit Samurai.
Seriously. Sam, you're either lying or misinformed to the point of ignorance on this. Which is it?

[the4thpip]

One might point out that the only proposal to cut and run came from the Republican side.
Why do they hate America so much? :confused:

[the4thpip]

This also proved how far removed from the Mainstream Republicans are these days. 85% of Americans see it Murtha's way! (http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/21466.exclude.html)

[Pixies Chick]

I don't know about polite.

I'm probably going to disagree with you a bit and say that the leaders in the Middle East tend to not understand anything but force. For instance, Saddam was convinced we wouldn't do anything about the invasion of Kuwait. When we did, he respected the possibility of force enough to stay behind his borders.

So our pulling out of Iraq is going to look like a victory to Osama and his organization. A double victory, since they're going to be able to set up shop there.

In the long term, I do believe if we could get Iraq stable, we would rebuild and the civilians there would be better off. The problem I see is that no matter what, we're not going to get Iraq stable. The civilian population is either passively supporting us, actively opposing us or trying to stay the hell out of the way. In effect, they're voting by their actions and their actions say a majority of them don't want us there or are unwilling to take a stand to keep us there.

Maybe the best we can hope for is to pull out, at least save American lives, and then use our buddies the Kurds to keep some semblance of stability, at least in the North. Because, despite the downsides to leaving, I don't think we're equipped to referee a civil war and I don't think the Iraqis want us to referee one either.

In Afghanistan, we had a populace willing to actively support us. Had we stayed there, rebuilt the place, we could have countered the terrorist's best weapon against us, which is the insistence we're an evil empire and a threat to the Muslim way of life. By going into Iraq, we've made the accuation real for many of them.

Bush, to my mind, made mistakes both going into Iraq and for then not being competent enough to make decisions at the beginning that might have made a difference in our occupation.

Now? We have a no-win scenario. I suspect the best we can do is save our own people.

The Iraqis are screwed.

Great post, and I can see the wisdom behind this.

The one thing that sticks in my head, though, is the possibility that the Iraqis are not screwed. I guess my faith in human nature gets me thinking that the general population in Iraq might actually want to get their country back together and functioning as a viable participant in the world, and not as a black sheep.

If that's the case, why don't we pull the U.S. forces out from within the country, and work on containment. Put a "no fly" zone over the country, guard the borders, and let 'em work it out amongst themselves. Without us drawing attacks, maybe the country could figure out for themselves how they want to interact with each other.

********

What a sad testimony to the deficiencies of the Republican leadership the Republican response to Rep. Murtha has been. Apparently they see one less U.S. leader or hero is a small price to pay if it prevents advancement of any policy other than the administration's "farce wrapped in an illusion" strategy of "victory" as a means of winning. Of all the "there's no there there" policies, "winning" as a way to defeat terrorists has got to be the emptiest promise I've ever heard of.

Occupation as democratization is a theory, but it doesn't appear that the occupation is the factor that is advancing democracy in Iraq. Iraqis don't appear reluctant to take significant risks for the benefit of their country. Iraqis should get credit for what the do. How else can they be proud of what they inherit out of this mess? We can't make that country be what we want it to be, but maybe by leaving it to develop, we can be satisfied with what the Iraqis build for themselves.

[Corrina]

Before everyone completely jumps on Samurai about the issues of discrimination against women in the Middle Eastern/Muslim culture, I agree somewhat that women definitely are seen as second class citizens.

I *think* that it's not necessarily the religion itself. Catholics used to view women very similarly but has managed to move forward.

But the culture treats women very unequally, in my opinion. Look at the firestorm the young female Muslim tennis player, 19, created when she advocated safe sex. She didn't advocate premarital sex, either, which she's against, just that both parties should be informed about how to practice safe sex when married. She also takes a ton of criticism for her tennis attire.

Whatever the equal restrictions on immodest clothing, the fact of the matter is that women are viewed as lesser than men in this culture. They don't have equal say in divorce, parenting rights, or in government and I don't see any indication that the men feel this is wrong or restrictive. The culture has very locked in gender roles and the women have less say in it.

Actually, a good percentage of the Western culture has similar problems but there have been great strides made, recently, which is good. We don't have a law which says women can be sentenced to be raped for the crimes of her family, for instance, which happens a great deal in parts of Pakistan. When the President of Pakistan won't let a victim who spoke out against her gang rape under such circumstances travel abroad to talk about the issue, I'm going to consider *not* an isolated incident and possibly endemic in the culture.

So, yes, I think a large portion of the Muslim/Middle Eastern culture views Western culture as a threat to their way of life. And, you know, they're partially right, because we are, though not in the utterly negative way some of them believe.

Unfortunately, America's actions since 9/11 have not been a very good advertisement for the Western culture among moderates inclined to accept and work for positive change in their own cultures. It's done just the opposite, particularly with the invasion of Iraq. It's created a group even more opposed to change than before.

This does not excuse the terrorists, of course. But if we're to eliminate the terrorists, we have to understand what creates them. And right now, we've created more, not less.

[Corrina]

The one thing that sticks in my head, though, is the possibility that the Iraqis are not screwed. I guess my faith in human nature gets me thinking that the general population in Iraq might actually want to get their country back together and functioning as a viable participant in the world, and not as a black sheep.


I think most Iraqis want to put their country back together. I also don't think these moderates have a strong enough leadership to oppose the extremists on the other ends. There is a chance a moderate who can stand alone will show up after we leave, because he won't be connected to us and therefore suspect among Iraqis.

But it's not a chance I would bet on. We created chaos, we had a small window in which to fix it, we let that window go by, and I'd guess the end result will be a generation-long civil war which will result in another strongman or a religious extremist taking control.

Yes, I am cynical. The American revolution succeeded because the majority of the citizens had a grounding in a democratic system and a respect for the law. That doesn't exist in Iraq.

[the4thpip]

The debate over the use of white phosphorus in the battle of Fallujah took a new twist when it emerged the US Army teaches senior officers it is against the "laws of war" to fire the incendiary weapon at human targets.

A section from an instruction manual used by the US Army Command and General Staff School (CGSC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, makes clear that white phosphorus (WP) can be used to produce a smoke screen. But it adds: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."

(...)

Though the US at first denied it had used WP, the Pentagon has admitted using the weapon against insurgent targets. It insists the use of incendiary weapons against military targets is permitted.

(...)
The Pentagon said it could not account for the discrepancy between its admission that WP was used at Fallujah and the guidance in the teaching manual.


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article327926.ece

Wonder if that means the spin will evolve even more.

[Samurai]

The thing is, Bush has said repeatedly that he'll be able to bring most or all of the troops home as soon as it is practicle and possible given the readyness of the Iraqi govt to stand on its own. So voting on that would have also meant a huge majority of both parties would say yes, even though they mean entirely different things... (to the Dems, "practicle and possible" means as soon as they can get their bags packed, while to the Reps it means as soon as the job is done). Given the many months it took to build up forces in Kuwait for the invasion, if we started immediately, it would probably take almost 6 months to get everyone and everything out. And who knows, most Reps have said they expect that within a year or less, the Iraqis should be well enough trained that we can begin coming home, but given the volatile situation over there, you DO NOT want to put a concrete timetable up.

The real choices were "leave when it is practicle and possible because the Iraqis are ready to stand on their own (ie, the job is finished) or cut and run ASAP, either immediately or within 6 months, whether the job is done or not."

[Adam Crocker]

So voting on that would have also meant a huge majority of both parties would say yes, even though they mean entirely different things... (to the Dems, "practicle and possible" means as soon as they can get their bags packed, while to the Reps it means as soon as the job is done).

And your basis for this claim about the party's position is what? So far it was only a position articulated by John P. Murtha and even that's wrong. He stated that they could only start pulling out within six months, wants a rapid deployment force for the region to respond to immediate threats, and pursue stability in Iraq diplomatically because he feels that the military solution isn't working. (And if anyone wants to honestly debate this rather than rehash partisan talking points here is the full speech (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html) for anyone wanting to pick over his reasoning for his position.)

This was a blatant B.S. move on the part of the Republicans to blunt any sort of discussion regarding overhauling Bush's failed Iraq policy by creating a strawman version of Murtha's comments that was obviously meant to be shot down in House. Your claims otherwise to defend the party don't change it one lick, yet given your past statements over the draft scare tactic, if Democrats were doing this you'd be up in arms.

[the4thpip]

(to the Dems, "practicle and possible" means as soon as they can get their bags packed, while to the Reps it means as soon as the job is done).


No.

You know, I am glad we had this talk. Hope you feel better soon.

[Samurai]

And your basis for this claim about the party's position is what? So far it was only a position articulated by John P. Murtha and even that's wrong. He stated that they could only start pulling out within six months, wants a rapid deployment force for the region to respond to immediate threats, and pursue stability in Iraq diplomatically because he feels that the military solution isn't working. (And if anyone wants to honestly debate this rather than rehash partisan talking points here is the full speech (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html) for anyone wanting to pick over his reasoning for his position.)

This was a blatant B.S. move on the part of the Republicans to blunt any sort of discussion regarding overhauling Bush's failed Iraq policy by creating a strawman version of Murtha's comments that was obviously meant to be shot down in House. Your claims otherwise to defend the party don't change it one lick, yet given your past statements over the draft scare tactic, if Democrats were doing this you'd be up in arms.
"Pursue stability through diplomacy"? We don't negotiate with terrorists. And what are we supposed to offer them? "You can take over the Sunni triangle as your little terrorist haven/independent country"? "We'll give you money, weapons, oil, whatever you want, just pretty please with sugar on top, don't kill any more Americans... (you can kill your fellow Iraqis all you want, since you seem to enjoy that almost as much)?"

[Corrina]

Not negotiate with the terrorists, Samurai.

Create strong diplomatic ties with the moderates. The good guys. Help those guys.

As for your suggestion about how to hand it over, isn't that what we're doing in Saudi Arabia? "You can have your oligarchy that leaves many in your country poor and breeds terrorists as long as we get your oil..."

[Adam Crocker]

Before everyone completely jumps on Samurai about the issues of discrimination against women in the Middle Eastern/Muslim culture, I agree somewhat that women definitely are seen as second class citizens.

[...]

So, yes, I think a large portion of the Muslim/Middle Eastern culture views Western culture as a threat to their way of life. And, you know, they're partially right, because we are, though not in the utterly negative way some of them believe.

See there's the problem. Why is it that "Muslim culture" is proclaimed to equal "Middle Eastern Culture" when Islam is found in significant numbers in Africa, Indonesia, India, the Balkans, and many of the former Soviet States of Central Asia? Can this statement be made when Pip says that most of Muslim women he knows (in Germany) are not vieled or wear head coverings, or that the majority of Chechnya's population has subscribed Sufi Islam and largely rejected calls to veil their women?

No one's disputing that Islam as found in the Middle East doesn't treat women badly. However, the way people frame the debate they claim that this the feature of Islam everywhere in the world when the idea is questionable at best. I looked up the tennis player incident and found an article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/10/wfatwa10.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/09/10/ixworld.html) that apparently was originally published in the right-wing Daily Telegraph out of the UK no less. This is what it had to say:

The fatwa - in effect, a demand that she cover up - was issued by a senior cleric of the Sunni Ulema Board, a little-known group. Similar fatwas have been issued against Mirza, who comes from a devout Muslim family, but none has ever gained popular support among India's 130 million Muslims.

So the criticisms over her dress come from a small group that doesn't have much popular support and whose statements haven't garnered much popular support either. The only place they seem to be influential in is in her hometown (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_10-9-2005_pg2_12). Meanwhile it was refuted (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/12708455.htm) by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board which apparently arbitrates on religion related issues (http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/Sunpeople/Sunday/Column/20050917142342/Article/index2_html) for most of India's Muslim populace.

And while the reaction to her comments was ridiculous, the Muslim reaction again came from the again the Sunni Ulema Board. (http://www.hindustantimes.com/2005/Nov/17/181_1548968,0008.htm) For protests I only found them coming form the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), an Indian students Union that is not Islamic, but are part of Hindu Nationalist movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindutva) in India, so it wasn't just a conservative Muslim reaction, but a conservative Hindu one as well. Maybe a conservative Indian one as a whole.

More thoughts later as I concretize them. Plus I have stuff to do.

[EdContradictory]

(to the Dems, "practicle and possible" means as soon as they can get their bags packed, while to the Reps it means as soon as the job is done).
So when Bush magically decides it's suddenly "practical and possible" early next year (after the Iraq election and well before the 2006 mid-terms) to start withdrawing troops, will you say he is right or wrong in doing that?

[the4thpip]

Can this statement be made when Pip says that most of Muslim women he knows (in Germany) are not vieled or wear head coverings, or that the majority of Chechnya's population has subscribed Sufi Islam and largely rejected calls to veil their women?




Most of the Turkish women I know here are VERY liberated and modern, they are architects and business women. They say they are proud of their faith, but they dress fabulous and would never cover their hair.

I know a couple of women from Iranian families, and you would not believe how self-confident they are. One of them got a tattoo when she was 17, and I told her I was surprised her family let her do that. She said she was a Persian woman, and those were proud. The Bosnian muslims I know are also quite forward thinking.

That is not to make light of the horrible opression many muslim women face. But I know a woman from Eritrea who always wears the head scarf, and she's a Christian. It would also not be unusual in her culture if she were a victim of female circumcision, though I hope she is not.

What I want people to keep in mind is that (despite of what the Bushie Cult keeps saying), it is not a black and white world. It's really hard to say just what is "typical" of Islam and Christianity when we are mostly exposed to those people who yell the loudest, and those images that get the highest ratings.

[Iangould]

See there's the problem. Why is it that "Muslim culture" is proclaimed to equal "Middle Eastern Culture" when Islam is found in significant numbers in Africa, Indonesia, India, the Balkans, and many of the former Soviet States of Central Asia?

The most populous muslim country in the world is Indonesia.

Javanese women had the right to divorce, to own property in their own names and to custody of their children centuries (literally) before women anywhere else in the world.

Indonesia (along with Pakistan and Bangladesh) has elected a woman President. (Turkey elected a woman Prime Minister which is much the same thing in their politcal system.)

Mistreatment of women is rife in many muslim countries and it's abhorrent but equally bad mistreatment is also rife in South and East Asia and sub-saharan Africa. (Swahili reportedly has no separate word for "woman", the word employed actually means "female livestock" and is also used for cattle.)

[Samurai]

So when Bush magically decides it's suddenly "practical and possible" early next year (after the Iraq election and well before the 2006 mid-terms) to start withdrawing troops, will you say he is right or wrong in doing that?
That depends on how things turn out... if we withdraw and the new govt is able to handle things, then yes, it was the right time. If we withdraw and a week later the new govt collapses and a civil war erupts, then we left too early.

[the4thpip]

The leader of the largest branch of American Judaism blasted conservative religious activists in a speech Saturday, calling them "zealots" who claim a "monopoly on God" while promoting anti-gay policies akin to Adolf Hitler's.

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the liberal Union for Reform Judaism, said "religious right" leaders believe "unless you attend my church, accept my God and study my sacred text you cannot be a moral person."

"What could be more bigoted than to claim that you have a monopoly on God?" he said during the movement's national assembly in Houston, which runs through Sunday.

The audience of 5,000 responded to the speech with enthusiastic applause.

Yoffie did not mention evangelical Christians directly, using the term "religious right" instead. In a separate interview, he said the phrase encompassed conservative activists of all faiths, including within the Jewish community.

He used particularly strong language to condemn conservative attitudes toward homosexuals. He said he understood that traditionalists have concluded gay marriage violates Scripture, but he said that did not justify denying legal protections to same-sex partners and their children.

"We cannot forget that when Hitler came to power in 1933, one of the first things that he did was ban gay organizations," Yoffie said. "Yes, we can disagree about gay marriage. But there is no excuse for hateful rhetoric that fuels the hellfires of anti-gay bigotry."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/reform_jews_conservatives;_ylt=AopwQOcTkRQqwdTrgcy 9BmFhr7sF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[Samurai]

EVERY religion claims to have a monoploy on God and what He wants/expects from people. To single 1 religion out for something they all do shows another motivvation is behind the attacks, and it comes out the 2nd paragraph:

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the liberal Union for Reform Judaism

Politics. That's the only reason he's singling out the religious right. And the fact that a Jew would equate them with Hitler shows his complete lack of perspective on history. He is a lefty attack dog who would insult the death of 6 million fellow Jews for the sake of political expediency... what an ass.

[the4thpip]

the largest branch of American Judaism

I'm glad we had this talk. Hope you feel better sooon.

[Adam Crocker]

Politics. That's the only reason he's singling out the religious right. And the fact that a Jew would equate them with Hitler shows his complete lack of perspective on history. He is a lefty attack dog who would insult the death of 6 million fellow Jews for the sake of political expediency... what an ass.

Samurai, the religious conservative activists he has been attacking are already involved in pushing anti-gay agendas in politics, so criticizing him for taking a political stance by attacking them is pointless.

EVERY religion claims to have a monoploy on God and what He wants/expects from people.

Let's look at this words in context:

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the liberal Union for Reform Judaism, said "religious right" leaders believe "unless you attend my church, accept my God and study my sacred text you cannot be a moral person."

Moreover, let's look at what he said in full including what he actually said about Hitler:

He said he understood that traditionalists have concluded gay marriage violates Scripture, but he said that did not justify denying legal protections to same-sex partners and their children.

"We cannot forget that when Hitler came to power in 1933, one of the first things that he did was ban gay organizations," Yoffie said. "Yes, we can disagree about gay marriage. But there is no excuse for hateful rhetoric that fuels the hellfires of anti-gay bigotry."

It's not a direct comparison, but pointing out that the denial of legal status to same-sex partners is bigotry and in the same line as fascism denying legal rights to other groups.

[Noah Johnson]

Oh great, our torturing-innocent-people policy is actually, beyond all belief, EVEN STUPIDER than we thought it was.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_11_13_digbysblog_archive.html#113199610289038 819

Short version; the techniques we're using, that the scum of the earth keep justifying by saying "we need to extract vital intelligence"? They're not even designed for that. They're based on the techniques Communist regimes used to get those false confessions they liked making so much of.

Christ on a bike, this administration could fuck up an orgasm.

[Samurai]

Samurai, the religious conservative activists he has been attacking are already involved in pushing anti-gay agendas in politics, so criticizing him for taking a political stance by attacking them is pointless.



Let's look at this words in context:



Moreover, let's look at what he said in full including what he actually said about Hitler:



It's not a direct comparison, but pointing out that the denial of legal status to same-sex partners is bigotry and in the same line as fascism denying legal rights to other groups.
That's crazy... keeping legally recognized marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is perfectly normal, natural, and reasonable, and has been the most common definition in the western world for centuries. Not wanted to stretch the definition to include gays or polygamy or bestiality is NOT Hitler-esque. (Yes, the law forbidding sex with animals is now under attack in Massachusetts... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47416 )

And very, VERY few Christians feel you can't be a moral person if you are not in their denomination. The vast majority DO believe you can be a good, moral person no matter what you believe... just that no matter how moral you are, you may not get into their version of heaven if you don't follow their faith. Which is no big deal if you don't believe in that version of heaven anyway. This is no different from most major religions, AFAIK.

[Iangould]

Politics. That's the only reason he's singling out the religious right. And the fact that a Jew would equate them with Hitler shows his complete lack of perspective on history. He is a lefty attack dog who would insult the death of 6 million fellow Jews for the sake of political expediency... what an ass.

Do you have any idea what either "reform" or "liberal" mean in Jewish religious terms?

They are not political terms in the least, the majority of right-wing American Jews are probably members of reformed or liberal synagogues.

Edited to add:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Judaism#Origins

Reform Judaism can refer to (1) the largest denomination of Judaism in America and its sibling movements in other countries, ...

Contemporary Reform Judaism movements share most of the following principles:

* allowing individual decisions about which traditional Jewish law and customs, if any, to adopt as binding,
* applying textual analysis, as well as rabbinic modes of study, to the Hebrew Bible and rabbinic literature,
* learning the Jewish principles of faith through non-religious methods, as well as religious ones,
* embracing modern culture in customs, dress, and common practices, and
* complete gender equality in religious observances and ritual.

"In response to Haskalah and Jewish emancipation, elements within German Jewry sought to reform Jewish belief and practice. In light of modern scholarship, they denied divine authorship of the Torah, declared only those biblical laws that are easily understood to be binding, and stated that the rest of Halakhah (Jewish law) need no longer be viewed as normative. Circumcision was abandoned, rabbis wore vestments modeled after Protestant ministers, and instrumental accompaniment --- banned by Halakhah in Jewish Sabbath worship --- reappeared in Reform synagogues, most often in the form of a pipe organ, to model what appeared in churches. The traditional Hebrew prayer book (the Siddur) was replaced with a German text which truncated or altogether excised some parts of the traditional service. Reform Synagogues began to be called Temples, a term reserved in more traditional Judaism for the Temple in Jerusalem. The practice of Kashrut (keeping kosher) was abandoned. The early Reform movement renounced Zionism and declared Germany to be its new Zion. Many of the more radical departures from traditional Jewish practices were later repudiated or modified by adherents of Reform Judaism, while many principles continue to define the modern denomination."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Judaism

Liberal Judaism is a term used by some communities for what is otherwise known as Reform Judaism or Progressive Judaism (particularly in the UK, but also elsewhere).

[Magneto_X]

Not negotiate with the terrorists, Samurai.

Create strong diplomatic ties with the moderates. The good guys. Help those guys.

Agreed.

As for your suggestion about how to hand it over, isn't that what we're doing in Saudi Arabia? "You can have your oligarchy that leaves many in your country poor and breeds terrorists as long as we get your oil..."

Unfortunately, as long as Big Oil and the U.S. government gladly use oil as their means to stay rich (even though oil has been obselete as a power-source since the 40's [IIRC]) nothing will change.

The West should focus on creating and funding new technologies for power-sources the Middle East will treat us in a different light since we wouldn't be assisting in "corruption" there.

[Iangould]

EVERY religion claims to have a monoploy on God and what He wants/expects from people.

Actually Judaism doesn't.

Judaism claims to have a monopoly on what God wants and expects from the Jews.

Jewish beliefs say precious little about the Gentiles and what God has in mind for them. The Talmud and Torah quite specifically recognise the existence of righteous and godly gentiles. Some schools of Judaism, particularly among the Sephards teach a doctrine of universal salvation whereby the gnetiles will also (eventually) attain Heaven.

[Harry Angel]

(Yes, the law forbidding sex with animals is now under attack in Massachusetts... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47416 )



See this is why you get right on my last nerve.

You just gush this garbage out and act like it’s real.

Yesterday you were squawking about that Republican straw man vote and today you are accusing Democrats of being pro-Bestiality when a simple reading of even the WorldNet spin makes it very clear that these four legislators are working to overthrow a set of laws that make homosexual relations illegal and nothing more.


Your inane article clearly points out that the paragraph in question has to do with gay sex and the fact that the word animal is at the very end has nothing to do with the intent of the legislation in question, nor as the article makes perfectly clear would the changing of this law make animal sex legal.


So seriously now, just what exactly is your major malfunction?

I know that it’s considered bad form to bring up Nazi analogies, but you seem to take Gobbels old axiom that the bigger the lie and the more frequently told, the more people are going to believe it.

On the issue of the war, you’ve proven yourself a hypocrite and a coward, on the subject of politics you’ve proven yourself to be the most craven of liars.

You obviously have neither shame nor dignity, and it must be a small and lonely thing to live in your skin.

[Samurai]

See this is why you get right on my last nerve.

You just gush this garbage out and act like it’s real.

Yesterday you were squawking about that Republican straw man vote and today you are accusing Democrats of being pro-Bestiality when a simple reading of even the WorldNet spin makes it very clear that these four legislators are working to overthrow a set of laws that make homosexual relations illegal and nothing more.


Your inane article clearly points out that the paragraph in question has to do with gay sex and the fact that the word animal is at the very end has nothing to do with the intent of the legislation in question, nor as the article makes perfectly clear would the changing of this law make animal sex legal.


So seriously now, just what exactly is your major malfunction?

I know that it’s considered bad form to bring up Nazi analogies, but you seem to take Gobbels old axiom that the bigger the lie and the more frequently told, the more people are going to believe it.

On the issue of the war, you’ve proven yourself a hypocrite and a coward, on the subject of politics you’ve proven yourself to be the most craven of liars.

You obviously have neither shame nor dignity, and it must be a small and lonely thing to live in your skin.
I'm afraid it's you who either are misreading or lying here... the word "animal" has very much to do with the legislation. It mentions "man or beast", and if all they wanted to do was remove the "man", they could just as easily do that. They don't want to. They want to strike down the whole law, which is currently the most severe penalty for bestiality on the books in Massachusetts. All that will be left is a lesser cruelty to animals charge that is a seperate law, the penalty for which is either a fine (max $5000) or no more than 2 1/2 yrs in jail. The more severe charge of bestiality, which carries up to 20 yrs in jail, would be gone.

If for some arcane reason it's far harder to amend the wording of a law than it is to erase it altogether, they could repeal the old one and simultaneously propose a new law that only affects bestiality... they haven't. So, there is really only 1 possible conclusion here... they WANT to weaken the penalties for bestality. (And you'll notice I never said this would legalize it... that was your strawman.)

As for your feeble attempts at personal insults, it simply shows your arguments and ideas to be intellectually bankrupt.

[Harry Angel]

I'm afraid it's you who either are misreading or lying here... the word "animal" has very much to do with the legislation. It mentions "man or beast", and if all they wanted to do was remove the "man", they could just as easily do that. They don't want to. They want to strike down the whole law, which is currently the most severe penalty for bestiality on the books in Massachusetts. All that will be left is a lesser cruelty to animals charge that is a seperate law, the penalty for which is either a fine (max $5000) or no more than 2 1/2 yrs in jail. The more severe charge of bestiality, which carries up to 20 yrs in jail, would be gone.

If for some arcane reason it's far harder to amend the wording of a law than it is to erase it altogether, they could repeal the old one and simultaneously propose a new law that only affects bestiality... they haven't. So, there is really only 1 possible conclusion here... they WANT to weaken the penalties for bestality. (And you'll notice I never said this would legalize it... that was your strawman.)

As for your feeble attempts at personal insults, it simply shows your arguments and ideas to be intellectually bankrupt.


I surrender.

You know what you are?

You are what you is.

[Samurai]

I surrender.

You know what you are?

You are what you is.
... I'm Popeye the Sailor man {toot toot!}

;)

[the4thpip]

But Popeye is a liberal. :confused:

[Noah Johnson]

People, seriously, there are lots of conservatives to argue with around here who can go two, three sentences without transparently stupid lies. Ignoring Samurai just raises the average IQ of everything.

[Samurai]

People, seriously, there are lots of conservatives to argue with around here who can go two, three sentences without transparently stupid lies. Ignoring Samurai just raises the average IQ of everything.
Unfortunately, there are very few liberals around here for me to talk with who can go for more than 2 or 3 sentences without "transparently stupid lies"...

[EdContradictory]

Unfortunately, there are very few liberals around here for me to talk with who can go for more than 2 or 3 sentences without "transparently stupid lies"...
You were the one who lied about the Republican's "Murtha" resolution on Friday.

[Samurai]

You were the one who lied about the Republican's "Murtha" resolution on Friday.
Not a lie... a photoshopped picture of Harry Reid holding the "Democratic Plan in Iraq: Cut and Run" is a joke... It's funny because it hits so close to home, but it's still just a joke. And whether we pull out immediately or some arbitrary time in the very near future before the job is done amounts to the exact same thing...

[Adam Crocker]

That's crazy... keeping legally recognized marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is perfectly normal, natural, and reasonable, and has been the most common definition in the western world for centuries.

You missed the part where I didn't say "marriage" I said "legal protections." The point I was making was that while civil unions are a much more popular concept in the U.S. than gay marriage, the politically active religious right in the U.S. opposes both. And in the recent spate of legislation banning gay marriage in various states also banned anything resembling civil unions. So they're not even willing to compromise and give legal equality. That's bigotted.

And very, VERY few Christians feel you can't be a moral person if you are not in their denomination.

What does that have to do with anything I said?

I'm afraid it's you who either are misreading or lying here... the word "animal" has very much to do with the legislation. It mentions "man or beast", and if all they wanted to do was remove the "man", they could just as easily do that. They don't want to. They want to strike down the whole law...

No.

(From the law the four legislators were introducing (http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st00/st00938.htm) linked at the World Net article.)

SECTION 1. Section 14 of chapter 272 of the General Laws is hereby repealed.

[...]

SECTION 6. Said chapter 272 is hereby further amended by striking out section 34, as appearing in the 2002 Official Edition, and inserting in place thereof the following section:-

Section 34. Whoever commits a sexual act on an animal shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in a house of correction for not more than 2 ½ years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

You know, I'm really glad we had this talk. I hope you feel better soon.

[Samurai]

Hmmm, that's the first time I had seen that... 13 other sections are being repealed entirely, with nothing to replace them, I hadn't heard they just wanted to amend the 14th.

[EdContradictory]

Not a lie... a photoshopped picture of Harry Reid holding the "Democratic Plan in Iraq: Cut and Run" is a joke... It's funny because it hits so close to home, but it's still just a joke. And whether we pull out immediately or some arbitrary time in the very near future before the job is done amounts to the exact same thing...
Bull, the image wasn't the lie, this was:

Looks like the vast majority of Democrats rejected their own plan when it came time to vote...

It wasn't Murtha's resolution that went up for a vote. That's a lie.

And now you're lying about your lie.

That's pathetic.

[EdContradictory]

Hmmm, that's the first time I had seen that...
That's because you talk out of your ass without having the facts first.

[Samurai]

Bull, the image wasn't the lie, this was:



It wasn't Murtha's resolution that went up for a vote. That's a lie.

And now you're lying about your lie.

That's pathetic.
Read what I wrote... I didn't say it was Murtha's plan that went up for a vote, I said it was the Democrats', as a whole. And their plan is to not finish what we've started, to run away before the job is done with our tail between our legs, whether immediately, as some have called for, or in 3 months, 6 months, even 1 year, depending upon who you ask. Like I said before, the real choice is between doing what needs to be done or leaving before we're finished (and if we ARE going to leave before we finish, we might as well do so now and save some American lives...)

[Iangould]

Not a lie... a photoshopped picture of Harry Reid holding the "Democratic Plan in Iraq: Cut and Run" is a joke... It's funny because it hits so close to home,

So a similar picture of George Bush holding a picture of one of the Abu Ghraib torture victims labelled "Republican Plan for Iraq" would also be funny?

[Iangould]

Read what I wrote... I didn't say it was Murtha's plan that went up for a vote, I said it was the Democrats', as a whole.

Which Democrats have actually advocated this plan?

How do you know it's the plan of their party "as a whole"?

If some right-wing nut-job goes on the net and advocates nuking Bahdad tomorrow can I describe it as the policy of the Republicans "as a whole"?

[Adam Crocker]

And their plan is to not finish what we've started, to run away before the job is done with our tail between our legs, whether immediately, as some have called for, or in 3 months, 6 months, even 1 year, depending upon who you ask. Like I said before, the real choice is between doing what needs to be done or leaving before we're finished (and if we ARE going to leave before we finish, we might as well do so now and save some American lives...)

Well besides what Ian said, given the way things have been going in Iraq, how are they going finish?

[the4thpip]

Read what I wrote... I didn't say it was Murtha's plan that went up for a vote, I said it was the Democrats', as a whole. And their plan is to not finish what we've started, to run away before the job is done with our tail between our legs, whether immediately, as some have called for, or in 3 months, 6 months, even 1 year, depending upon who you ask. Like I said before, the real choice is between doing what needs to be done or leaving before we're finished (and if we ARE going to leave before we finish, we might as well do so now and save some American lives...)
No.

You know, I am glad we had this talk. Hope you feel better soon.

[matterconsumer]

"Kill or be killed" is fine when faced with the immediate problem of a gun being pointed at you. However, it is a fundamentally superficial and fucking useless as a plan to dealing with the overall problem of political extremism in the Middle East and its targetting the United States.


I'm just boiling it down.

I agree with you (and others) that grievances are different in varying nations and that these have to be taken into consideration.

But the common core is that there are so many in the world who resolve political disputes within their nations by using violence.

I would suggest that this is the fundamental issue. Resolving this doesn't make the issues of the world go away. It just ensures that people can disagree and live afterwords.

And then the irony arrives inasmuch as those who refuse to renounce violence will either have to be forcibly imprisoned or killed...

[Samurai]

Well besides what Ian said, given the way things have been going in Iraq, how are they going finish?
How will Iraq finish? That remains to be seen. A ton of stuff has been done already, you just seldom hear about it in the Big Media.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/11/02/the_good_news_from_iraq_is_not_fit_to_print/
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/09/16/good_news_from_iraq/
http://unix.dfn.org/A_letter_from_Ray_Reynolds.shtml
http://goodnewsfromthefront.com/archives/iraq/index.php
Latest good news: Zarqawi may be dead: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/20/D8E0F190A.html

It takes years to build a country and a new political philosophy... Where would Germany and Japan be today if we'd decided that the mission of building Democracies in those countries was hopeless and pulled out after a couple of years? Probably much further behind economically, and far more resentful of the west, assuming they didn't slip back into totalianariasm and start WW3. We learned the necessity of giving a hand to an enemy after they've been defeated when the poorly handled aftermath of WW1 led to WW2.

[Lester C.]

How will Iraq finish? That remains to be seen. A ton of stuff has been done already, you just seldom hear about it in the Big Media.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/11/02/the_good_news_from_iraq_is_not_fit_to_print/
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/09/16/good_news_from_iraq/
http://unix.dfn.org/A_letter_from_Ray_Reynolds.shtml
http://goodnewsfromthefront.com/archives/iraq/index.php
Latest good news: Zarqawi may be dead: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/20/D8E0F190A.html

It takes years to build a country and a new political philosophy... Where would Germany and Japan be today if we'd decided that the mission of building Democracies in those countries was hopeless and pulled out after a couple of years? Probably much further behind economically, and far more resentful of the west, assuming they didn't slip back into totalianariasm and start WW3. We learned the necessity of giving a hand to an enemy after they've been defeated when the poorly handled aftermath of WW1 led to WW2.

Both Germany and Japan were easily classified as enemies given the fact that they(Japan) had attacked the United States. Iraq before we invaded had no weapons of mass destruction and had never aggressively attacked the United States which makes the whole endeavor pointless as far as I'm concerned.

[EdContradictory]

Read what I wrote... I didn't say it was Murtha's plan that went up for a vote, I said it was the Democrats', as a whole.
That's another lie. The only "plan" voted on Friday, the plan to "cut and run", was written by Republicans.

You're a liar.

A filthy, pathetic liar.

Liar.

Liar.

Liar.

[Noah Johnson]

I'm thinking someone gets his "facts" from freerepublic.com.

[Dry Observer]

Is Ossama Bin Laden from Iraq of Afghanistan?
How many of the 9-11 terrorists were from Iraq or Afghanistan?

No! Not you too, Pip!

We're not invading Saudi Arabia!

Darn it...

=)

Ralph

[Gilda Dent]

That's crazy... keeping legally recognized marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is perfectly normal, natural, and reasonable, and has been the most common definition in the western world for centuries.

natural:

There is nothing whatsoever natural about marriage. It doesn't occur in nature. It is a man-made institution (remember that we are talking about the legally recognized contract form of marriage, and not the religious form).

Now, even if we grant that it is natural, which it isn't, that doesn't equate with good, beneficial or desirable.

normal:

Of course gay marriage isn't normal. You're absolutely right. You want to know why? Because gays can't marry. This is the same type of circular reasoning Virginia Woolfe argued against in her proto-feminist writing in 19th century England--Women don't want to be able to do certain jobs, so lets make laws that prohibit them from doing those jobs, then lets use the fact that they don't do those jobs as evidence that they don't want to do them.

Change the laws and definitions, and same-sex marriage could become just as normal as traditional marriage.

Also, not normal doesn't equate with bad or undesirable. A genius IQ or being as beautiful as Ming-Na Wen certainly isn't normal, but those are nice things, and we certainly don't want to outlaw them. I know this from personal experience, being in one of the above categories and being married to someone in the other.

reasonable:

Having discounted your normal and natural arguments, I see no reason to prohibit me from having my marriage recognized by the state. Where's the harm? We get a benefit in the form of hospital visitation rights, the ability to jointly apply for loans, file taxes, spousal listing in insurance, etc., while at the same time causing no harm to any person.

Reason dictates that something that benefits one group without harming others is a good thing. Laws banning same sex marriage actively restrict the rights of a minority without benefitting anyone else. Benefit with no harm vs. harm with no benefit. Which is more reasonable?

Not wanted to stretch the definition to include gays or polygamy or bestiality is NOT Hitler-esque.(Yes, the law forbidding sex with animals is now under attack in Massachusetts...

You forgot incest and pedophilia. If you're going to do slippery slope, it's polygamy/pedophilia (choose your p), incest, and bestiality.

What's wrong with this? Those are separate issues that deserve their own separate discussions. You want to debate incest laws? Fine, I can make a good case for doing away with laws agains cousin marriage. You want to debate polygamy laws? Do that, and also with bestiality. By the way, you did notice that the law you cite isn't about marrying an animal, but about having sex with one, didn't you? The equivilent would be laws banning homosexual sex, or heterosexual sex, or miscegenation.

Also, I should point out that these aren't issues related to homosexuality. The most common polygamous marriages in the US have typically been one man with many wives--ie, a form of heterosexual marriage. Most bestiality tends to be in the form of young males with female animals, chiefly sheep, or more rarely women with male animals, chiefly dogs or donkeys. Again, if this behavior is to be equated with one orientatiion, it's more in line with heterosexual than homosexual. But really it's neither. It's more like an orientation to an object than it is to a person.

The point being that if you want to argue bestiality and polygamy as an extension of a form of marriage, polygamy is an extension of heterosexual marriage, and in fact existed in that form, while the homosexual equivilent didn't. And nobody is arguing for marriage to animals, because we are talking about a contract here, and animals can't enter into contracts, oh, and nobody wants to marry animals. Did I say that? It bears repeating.

We change laws and definitions all the time to fit our changing society. Marriage laws change all the time to fit new concepts of morality. Miscegenation was against the law for years, and that was wrong. Changing a law that prevents people from doing something that is good for them and provides a benefit to both them, and yes, to society in the form of stablizing relationships and providing a stable environment for the rearing of children is a moral good, and a practical benefit.

Gilda

[kingdom2000]

Whoa whoa Gilda, your making an rational debate on something that based 100% on religion, itself a very irrational institution. Sam and co are trying to argue the debate at our level to show how fair and understanding they are but really the debate is religion. Religion is said to define marriage as between man and wife and therefore it must be so. Any other rational argument is automatically void in their worldview.

Its the same worldview that allowed them to use religion to argue slavery, second-class status for woman, refusal of rights, refusal to recognize equal protection and equal treatment, well the list goes on. Fortunately, the pendulum of religious fervor that has the country in its grip will loosen over the next few years and once again rational thought will grab hold.

Patience against the religious right is all that has always been needed to engineer social change as suffergetts, slaves, and the civil rights movement all discovered. Right now the pendulum has swung to their advantage and already they are losing their grasp as their power mad leaders have wasted the opportunity on pointless causes and actions. While rational thought held this country under its "evil" sway for nearly 4 decades, its looks like the irrational will only hold it for 8.

[the4thpip]

I wonder how many political battles could be won for the reality-based community if we dumped Haloperidol into the water supplies of Kansas, Tennessee, Utah, Alabama and Texas.

[Samurai]

natural:

There is nothing whatsoever natural about marriage. It doesn't occur in nature. It is a man-made institution (remember that we are talking about the legally recognized contract form of marriage, and not the religious form).

Now, even if we grant that it is natural, which it isn't, that doesn't equate with good, beneficial or desirable. Many animals in nature choose 1 mate for a lifetime, a partner to make and raise young with, a companion and helper. Marriage is simply the human ceremony and codification of that natural instinct, IMHO. And while not everything that is natural is good, it's my belief that this is one of the good ones. It offers the best chance at a stable family life and healthy environment in which to raise kids.

normal:

Of course gay marriage isn't normal. You're absolutely right. You want to know why? Because gays can't marry. This is the same type of circular reasoning Virginia Woolfe argued against in her proto-feminist writing in 19th century England--Women don't want to be able to do certain jobs, so lets make laws that prohibit them from doing those jobs, then lets use the fact that they don't do those jobs as evidence that they don't want to do them.

Change the laws and definitions, and same-sex marriage could become just as normal as traditional marriage.

Also, not normal doesn't equate with bad or undesirable. A genius IQ or being as beautiful as Ming-Na Wen certainly isn't normal, but those are nice things, and we certainly don't want to outlaw them. I know this from personal experience, being in one of the above categories and being married to someone in the other.
No, abnormal is not always bad, but neither is it always outside the mainstream for no good reason. (Brains and beauty have always been seen as good things, so are not a really good example of something traditionally shunned by societies around the world for centuries...) Part of conservative belief is that our forebearers were probably not all that stupid, and maybe they had reasons for what they did... reasons we should carefully examine and consider before willy-nilly changing things as fundamental as the basic social unit in the world. Read up on the fence in the middle of nowhere analogy, if you haven't heard it already... someone built the fence, and must have had a reason to put all that time and effort into doing so. A newcomer shouldn't just assume it's a useless, obsolete atavism and tear down the fence when he comes upon it. Perhaps the fence is no longer needed, but until we know for sure, don't start dismantling it...

reasonable:

Having discounted your normal and natural arguments, I see no reason to prohibit me from having my marriage recognized by the state. Where's the harm? We get a benefit in the form of hospital visitation rights, the ability to jointly apply for loans, file taxes, spousal listing in insurance, etc., while at the same time causing no harm to any person.

Reason dictates that something that benefits one group without harming others is a good thing. Laws banning same sex marriage actively restrict the rights of a minority without benefitting anyone else. Benefit with no harm vs. harm with no benefit. Which is more reasonable?
As you can see, I don't buy the reasoning you've used for dismissing "normal and natural", so I do see a reasonable reason for maintaining things, or at least proceeding with any changes VERY cautiously and carefully. Altering the definition of marriage can have huge (unintended? or just uncaring?) consequences. It can create a legal precedent for further changes in "marriage", as seen in the Netherlands. It could lead to lawsuits against religious people or churches, as has happened in Canada. It could further polarize the right and left in this country, and perhaps create an issue that keeps Republicans in power for decades to come, in order to fight the "culture wars". There are all kinds of things that could happen, and while some people might see some of those as unintended but happy side benefits, many others would disagree. IF we legalize gay marriage or civil unions (a better option, though still not without risk), I think it needs to be done in the least antagonistic way, and with the greatest effort to prevent further alterations and ripples.


You forgot incest and pedophilia. If you're going to do slippery slope, it's polygamy/pedophilia (choose your p), incest, and bestiality.

What's wrong with this? Those are separate issues that deserve their own separate discussions. You want to debate incest laws? Fine, I can make a good case for doing away with laws agains cousin marriage. You want to debate polygamy laws? Do that, and also with bestiality. By the way, you did notice that the law you cite isn't about marrying an animal, but about having sex with one, didn't you? The equivilent would be laws banning homosexual sex, or heterosexual sex, or miscegenation.

Also, I should point out that these aren't issues related to homosexuality. The most common polygamous marriages in the US have typically been one man with many wives--ie, a form of heterosexual marriage. Most bestiality tends to be in the form of young males with female animals, chiefly sheep, or more rarely women with male animals, chiefly dogs or donkeys. Again, if this behavior is to be equated with one orientatiion, it's more in line with heterosexual than homosexual. But really it's neither. It's more like an orientation to an object than it is to a person.

The point being that if you want to argue bestiality and polygamy as an extension of a form of marriage, polygamy is an extension of heterosexual marriage, and in fact existed in that form, while the homosexual equivilent didn't. And nobody is arguing for marriage to animals, because we are talking about a contract here, and animals can't enter into contracts, oh, and nobody wants to marry animals. Did I say that? It bears repeating.

We change laws and definitions all the time to fit our changing society. Marriage laws change all the time to fit new concepts of morality. Miscegenation was against the law for years, and that was wrong. Changing a law that prevents people from doing something that is good for them and provides a benefit to both them, and yes, to society in the form of stablizing relationships and providing a stable environment for the rearing of children is a moral good, and a practical benefit.

Gilda
They are NOT seperate issues. One change creates precedent for further changes. If the man/woman distinction is obsolete and impinges on personal freedom, so too can the number limit, the age limit, and every other part of the marriage definition. Eventually, marriage becomes meaningless and worthless, something unrecognizable from what it's supposed to be. Yeah, yeah, before anyone brings it up, quicky marriages and no fault divorces have already done great harm to marriage, and I'm not a fan of them, and would prefer that people thought about the consequences BEFORE they did them. The argument "look, other things are already weakening marriage, what possible harm is it to water it down even more?" is crazy.

I mentioned polygamy bevcause it's currently happening. The law that made gay civil unions legal in the Netherlands was just used as precedent for legalizing polygamy, and the 1st 3 way marriage has taken place there. It's no longer just some hypothetical slippery slope argument, it has happened. As I've said before, I'm even more opposed to polygamy than gay marriage, and it's my firm belief that if gay marriage is legalized in a slip-shod manner, it could very well happen here too. But once the precedent is set, many judges will follow it, and even expand upon it. Whatever happens, gay marriage is NOT the end of the battle... no matter where we draw the line, there will always be someone to say "Hey, if you recognize that marriage, why won't you recognize mine?"

As for cousin marriage, it's currently a big problem among some immigrants to England... maybe you missed the article I posted about it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm

[the4thpip]

Samurai, how many times do you have to be proves completely wrong until you get too embarrassed to show your face around here anymore and at least get a new screen name?

[Samurai]

Whoa whoa Gilda, your making an rational debate on something that based 100% on religion, itself a very irrational institution. Sam and co are trying to argue the debate at our level to show how fair and understanding they are but really the debate is religion. Religion is said to define marriage as between man and wife and therefore it must be so. Any other rational argument is automatically void in their worldview.

Its the same worldview that allowed them to use religion to argue slavery, second-class status for woman, refusal of rights, refusal to recognize equal protection and equal treatment, well the list goes on. Fortunately, the pendulum of religious fervor that has the country in its grip will loosen over the next few years and once again rational thought will grab hold.

Patience against the religious right is all that has always been needed to engineer social change as suffergetts, slaves, and the civil rights movement all discovered. Right now the pendulum has swung to their advantage and already they are losing their grasp as their power mad leaders have wasted the opportunity on pointless causes and actions. While rational thought held this country under its "evil" sway for nearly 4 decades, its looks like the irrational will only hold it for 8.
Could you BE any more condescending and snobbish? Atheists and agnostics don't have a monopoly on rational thought and reasoning, and I say that as an Agnostic...

[Samurai]

Samurai, how many times do you have to be proves completely wrong until you get too embarrassed to show your face around here anymore and at least get a new screen name?
Wow, great rebuttal to all the points I just made... :rolleyes:

I'm not going anywhere, snookums, so you just better just learn to live with me, unless you'd like to leave...?

[the4thpip]

Wow, great rebuttal to all the points I just made... :rolleyes:

I'm not going anywhere, snookums, so you just better just learn to live with me, unless you'd like to leave...?
Hey, it's your dignity, sugar. If you enjoy making a fool of yourself, knock yourself out. All it does is convince the rest of us that only people with severe problems could still support Bush.

Oh, and I hope you feel better soon!

[Samurai]

Hey, it's your dignity, sugar. If you enjoy making a fool of yourself, knock yourself out. All it does is convince the rest of us that only people with severe problems could still support Bush.

Oh, and I hope you feel better soon!
Oh, I feel fine, always have... hows your rash? Is the ointment helping at all? :D

[kingdom2000]

Could you BE any more condescending and snobbish? Atheists and agnostics don't have a monopoly on rational thought and reasoning, and I say that as an Agnostic...

I sense a challenge...

I am an atheist and straight. I like the institution of marriage and absolutly nothing about the argument against gay marriage makes any sense in a country that values equal treatment (or at least pretends it does). I still don't understand where the harm or unmoral aspect comes from. Its literally an arugment sprung out of thin air made real through repitition rather then fact.

I find the entire argument incredibily insulting and not particularily American. I also have difficulty in hiding contempt for those that don't see that. Additionaly the argument against gay marriage has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with gay. Its interesting that everyone that seems against gay marriage fundamentally don't like or "comfortable" about gays. So here they are arguing about the "instituion of marriage" and how it must be protected when really they are saying they don't like gays, they don't want gays around, and anything that they feel "encourages" gays should be condemned.

This is why the religious thought on gays hinges on the concept of it being a choice. To believe its not a choice would show how reprehensible and fundamentally un-<insert religion here> their behavior is against gays and others. But as long as its a choice...then you are simply saving them and showing them the right direction therefore it ok. Its its not a choice, then that means god made them that way. Which means god either feels being gay is ok...or god made a mistake. Since god doesn't make a mistake..well then the only choice that remains is a horrible incomprehensible thought to many.

[Iangould]

Many animals in nature choose 1 mate for a lifetime, a partner to make and raise young with, a companion and helper.

And many others don't. Some mate promiscuously. Some, such as the Bonobo, appear to engage in something like group marriage. Others practice behaviour analogous to polygamy or polyandry. Same sex partnerships appear in many species. quite a lot of them regularly kill and eat their own offspring.

Care to explain on purely rational grounds why you infer that one pattern of animal behaviour is preferable for humans to others?

[the4thpip]

And no matter what that damn penguin movie said, most penguin females have more divorces than Liz Taylor.

[Harry Angel]

Read what I wrote... I didn't say it was Murtha's plan that went up for a vote, I said it was the Democrats', as a whole. And their plan is to not finish what we've started, to run away before the job is done with our tail between our legs, whether immediately, as some have called for, or in 3 months, 6 months, even 1 year, depending upon who you ask. Like I said before, the real choice is between doing what needs to be done or leaving before we're finished (and if we ARE going to leave before we finish, we might as well do so now and save some American lives...)


"Our" tails?

Since when did you have anything to do with the war effort other then to be a cheerleader?

What exactly was it again that you've invested or sacrificed?

I think you are once again forgetting your status as a Chickenhawk.

[Harry Angel]

That's another lie. The only "plan" voted on Friday, the plan to "cut and run", was written by Republicans.

You're a liar.

A filthy, pathetic liar.

Liar.

Liar.

Liar.


You forgot to add the all important, "Pants on Fire".

[Samurai]

I sense a challenge...

I am an atheist and straight. I like the institution of marriage and absolutly nothing about the argument against gay marriage makes any sense in a country that values equal treatment (or at least pretends it does). I still don't understand where the harm or unmoral aspect comes from. Its literally an arugment sprung out of thin air made real through repitition rather then fact.

I find the entire argument incredibily insulting and not particularily American. I also have difficulty in hiding contempt for those that don't see that. Additionaly the argument against gay marriage has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with gay. Its interesting that everyone that seems against gay marriage fundamentally don't like or "comfortable" about gays. So here they are arguing about the "instituion of marriage" and how it must be protected when really they are saying they don't like gays, they don't want gays around, and anything that they feel "encourages" gays should be condemned.

This is why the religious thought on gays hinges on the concept of it being a choice. To believe its not a choice would show how reprehensible and fundamentally un-<insert religion here> their behavior is against gays and others. But as long as its a choice...then you are simply saving them and showing them the right direction therefore it ok. Its its not a choice, then that means god made them that way. Which means god either feels being gay is ok...or god made a mistake. Since god doesn't make a mistake..well then the only choice that remains is a horrible incomprehensible thought to many.
I know what you mean about not understanding those who have different beliefs from yourself, and the struggle not to be condescending towards them and their illogical, backwards ways, but try a little harder please, and so will I. Have you ever lived outside the country for an extended time? Living in a very foreign culture can really help to teach you be a little more understanding of the "strange" customs and beliefs of others. Some people come away from such an experience as a cultural relativist (everyone has different beliefs, but none are "better" than any other) while others continue to hold that a certain way is better (often their own culture, but not always...). I'm definitely not a relativist, myself... I believe that some ways are simply better for society as a whole, but I try to see things from the other point of view too. Before my time in Japan and the many discussions I've had with gays online, I was dead set against any kind of gay marriage. Now, I'm willing to compromise somewhat with civil unions, if and only if it's done properly, with very strong provisions preventing any further attempts to expand the definition. Because I understand the gays' desire for all the legal rights and protections, and I also understand the conservative desire to protect the definition of marriage and prevent any setting of precedent.

And not everyone who is hesitant to scrap the definition of marriage is uncomfortable with or hates gays. Believe me, among most of my friends, the marriage part is a bigger deal than the gay part. And polls have shown several times that about half of the opponents of gay marriage would change their minds if it weren't called marriage... for them, it clearly IS marriage that matters, not being anti-gay. I've pointed this out time and again, yet still you and other keep repeating the same old diatribe about "It's only about being anti-gay"... not true at all. Civil Unions have a popular majority in the US according to nearly every poll. It's only when they have no choice other than gay marriage or nothing do they choose nothing.

As for the religious reasoning, I'm no expert on religion, but I believe it goes something like this: BEING gay (or having thoughts/feelings about it) is not the sin, having gay sex is, and that is a choice. Whether the feelings and inclinations are natural or not, they believe they are impulses which should not be followed, same as the inclination to screw the hot neighbor woman when you are married to someone else. And priests are assumed to have the normal sexual impulses too, but to act on them is considered a sin. They believe sex should only be used for procreation, not hedonistic pleasure.

[Samurai]

"Our" tails?

Since when did you have anything to do with the war effort other then to be a cheerleader?

What exactly was it again that you've invested or sacrificed?

I think you are once again forgetting your status as a Chickenhawk.
Our as in "our country". You know, the whole country that the terrorists will see as weak and cowardly, the country that has the most powerful military in the world yet lacks the will to ever use it, the country that would rather glorify its attackers as "minutemen" and "patriots" while it spits on its own soldiers and calls them baby killers... the country that is ripe for another terrorist attack because there is no longer any will to fight back.

And a chickenhawk assumes that I actually COULD be in the military if I wanted to... you know what? If I could trade a lifetime of perfect 20/20 vision for a stint in the military, I'd do it. I 100% mean that. You think I fucking like a slow deterioration into complete blindness thanks to a genetic twist of fate? You think I fucking LIKE 1100/20 vision (and getting worse) because it means I'm exempt from your hypothetical draft that'll never happen? But hey, I guess you think people in a wheelchair have no right to support the cause of freedom in Iraq either, right? Why don't you call them chickenhawks too, but you better not ask if they'd be willing to walk again in exchange for military service, because you might not like their answers either.

[Harry Angel]

Our as in "our country". You know, the whole country that the terrorists will see as weak and cowardly, the country that has the most powerful military in the world yet lacks the will to ever use it, the country that would rather glorify its attackers as "minutemen" and "patriots" while it spits on its own soldiers and calls them baby killers... the country that is ripe for another terrorist attack because there is no longer any will to fight back.

And a chickenhawk assumes that I actually COULD be in the military if I wanted to... you know what? If I could trade a lifetime of perfect 20/20 vision for a stint in the military, I'd do it. I 100% mean that. You think I fucking like a slow deterioration into complete blindness thanks to a genetic twist of fate? You think I fucking LIKE 1100/20 vision (and getting worse) because it means I'm exempt from your hypothetical draft that'll never happen? But hey, I guess you think people in a wheelchair have no right to support the cause of freedom in Iraq either, right? Why don't you call them chickenhawks too, but you better not ask if they'd be willing to walk again in exchange for military service, because you might not like their answers either.


Like I've said again and again, it's the complete lack of sacrifce on your part that's the point.

You can't serve in the military?

Fine.

So what is it that you do instead to sacrifice for the war effort?

And like you've said again and again, nothing.

Secondly, I'm not suggesting a draft, I'm suggesting some actual, real life personal commitment and sacrfice.

Sacrifices that you've pointed out again and again that you are unwilling to make.

Going blind or not, it does not change you from being the Chickenhawk that you so proudly are.

[the4thpip]

You forgot to add the all important, "Pants on Fire".
They let Samurai wear pants in the institution? :confused:

[Ian Boothby]

As for the religious reasoning, I'm no expert on religion, but I believe it goes something like this: BEING gay (or having thoughts/feelings about it) is not the sin, having gay sex is, and that is a choice. Whether the feelings and inclinations are natural or not, they believe they are impulses which should not be followed.

And being a bigot isn't a sin but acting on it and trying to keep equal rights away from gays is and that is a choice. Whether the feelings about marriage the bigoted person has are a natural fear of what's different or passed on by bigoted parents. The impulse to act on this repressed attitude and deny others the opportunities they themselves posess should not be followed.

[Magneto_X]

How will Iraq finish? That remains to be seen. A ton of stuff has been done already, you just seldom hear about it in the Big Media.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/11/02/the_good_news_from_iraq_is_not_fit_to_print/
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/09/16/good_news_from_iraq/
http://unix.dfn.org/A_letter_from_Ray_Reynolds.shtml
http://goodnewsfromthefront.com/archives/iraq/index.php
Latest good news: Zarqawi may be dead: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/20/D8E0F190A.html

It takes years to build a country and a new political philosophy... Where would Germany and Japan be today if we'd decided that the mission of building Democracies in those countries was hopeless and pulled out after a couple of years? Probably much further behind economically, and far more resentful of the west, assuming they didn't slip back into totalianariasm and start WW3. We learned the necessity of giving a hand to an enemy after they've been defeated when the poorly handled aftermath of WW1 led to WW2.


Every time you neocons compare the "War On Terror" to WW II it just shows the world how truly ignorant and misguided you are.

[Noah Johnson]

And let's just take a moment to point out that this kind of pile-on remains unique to Samurai. We don't do this to Blair, lonewolf2k, the ever-respectable cactusmaac, Loren in his conservative mode, Phoney Bone in his conservative mode, MacQuarrie, or even, god forgive us, Briareos.

So when you're congratulating yourself for standing up for Truth in the face of relentless attacks by the Evil Intolerant Liberals, Sammy-boy, just remember that we have actual proof that the problem here is not us. We're perfectly nice to most conservatives, if a bit snarky sometimes. The problem really is you. You are the broken one.

Maybe you want to think about why that is.

[Samurai]

Like I've said again and again, it's the complete lack of sacrifce on your part that's the point.

You can't serve in the military?

Fine.

So what is it that you do instead to sacrifice for the war effort?

And like you've said again and again, nothing.

Secondly, I'm not suggesting a draft, I'm suggesting some actual, real life personal commitment and sacrfice.

Sacrifices that you've pointed out again and again that you are unwilling to make.

Going blind or not, it does not change you from being the Chickenhawk that you so proudly are.
I've already said what I do, and it is really no less than you do for the anti-war cause that you support. I help those personal friends/families of mine who are serving, and I lend moral support. I can barely make the rent each month and pay the bills, so large donations of cash are out. I work 3 part time jobs and my dad needs me since my mom passed away this summer, so large donations of time are out.

Is your position so bankrupt and bereft of merit that all you can do is stoop to namecalling? How sad...

[the4thpip]

The right-wing crusade against the liberal "war on Christmas" is great for rallying the troops. Too bad the war doesn't exist.

Full story here:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/11/21/christmas/

In fact, there is no war on Christmas. What there is, rather, is a burgeoning myth of a war on Christmas, assembled out of old reactionary tropes, urban legends, exaggerated anecdotes and increasingly organized hostility to the American Civil Liberties Union. It's a myth that can be self-fulfilling, as school board members and local politicians believe the false conservative claim that they can't celebrate Christmas without getting sued by the ACLU and thus jettison beloved traditions, enraging citizens and perpetuating a potent culture-war meme. This in turn furthers the myth of an anti-Christmas conspiracy.

I thought so.

[Samurai]

And let's just take a moment to point out that this kind of pile-on remains unique to Samurai. We don't do this to Blair, lonewolf2k, the ever-respectable cactusmaac, Loren in his conservative mode, Phoney Bone in his conservative mode, MacQuarrie, or even, god forgive us, Briareos.

So when you're congratulating yourself for standing up for Truth in the face of relentless attacks by the Evil Intolerant Liberals, Sammy-boy, just remember that we have actual proof that the problem here is not us. We're perfectly nice to most conservatives, if a bit snarky sometimes. The problem really is you. You are the broken one.

Maybe you want to think about why that is.
So if a rapist targets 1 woman he knows and never molests the others in his life, it's because she brought it on herself? Maybe like her I'm "asking for it" by being too forward, too provacative...

Why don't you ask yourself why it is that I can talk to most people perfectly fine, and yet you and a few others are so filled with anger and bitterness that you feel the need to lash out at me even in the most innocuous threads, replying not to my posts but by making personal attacks and insults? What is your problem? I don't control your behavior, YOU do... blaming me for your choice to hurl insults is insane, and shows a real pathology on your part.

[Samurai]

Full story here:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/11/21/christmas/



I thought so.
All part of the ACLU's "Freedom FROM Religion" rather than "Freedom OF Religion" crusade... Winter break instead of Christmas break, no more carolling in schools, etc. Call it fictional if you want, but I've seen the changes in the schools where I went as a kid, since many of my friends now have kids of their own... things aren't the same.

[the4thpip]

All part of the ACLU's "Freedom FROM Religion" rather than "Freedom OF Religion" crusade... Winter break instead of Christmas break, no more carolling in schools, etc. Call it fictional if you want, but I've seen the changes in the schools where I went as a kid, since many of my friends now have kids of their own... things aren't the same.
http://home.no.net/holodoc/ordinary1.jpg

Really, I hope you feel better soon.

[Samurai]

http://home.no.net/holodoc/ordinary1.jpg

Really, I hope you feel better soon.
Pip, you don't even live inthis country, how the heck do you know the differences between school holiday observances now vs 25 years ago??? I'm talking about the schools I went to and that the children of my friends are now going to... maybe in other places around the country it's different... maybe in some other US public schools they still sing Christmas songs that mention Jesus, etc... I'm just telling you, ours doesn't, and when I went there, it did.

[the4thpip]

You did not even read the article. Unless you are some kind of speed reader.

You just enjoy your ignorance.

I hope you feel better soon.

[Samurai]

You did not even read the article. Unless you are some kind of speed reader.

You just enjoy your ignorance.

I hope you feel better soon.
It requires a site pass and I don't care to register... what does that have to do with the changes to my local schools, though? And again, just what do you know about American schools then vs now? Did you go to an American public school? Have you ever even visited one during the holiday season?

[the4thpip]

Because if you started getting your information from more than one source, you might look like a completely ignorant fool less often.

Just a thought.

Hope you'll feel better soon.

[Samurai]

Because if you started getting your information from more than one source, you might look like a completely ignorant fool less often.

Just a thought.

Hope you'll feel better soon.
And again, rather than answer my question, you turn to insults. Because you have no decent answer, do you? You spouting off about American schools is about as authoritative as if I were talking about the changes in German public education over the last 25 years having never even been to a German school. Why don't you leave this discussion to people who actually know what they are talking about, Pip? You're making a fool of yourself...

[Iangould]

And a chickenhawk assumes that I actually COULD be in the military if I wanted to... you know what? If I could trade a lifetime of perfect 20/20 vision for a stint in the military, I'd do it. I 100% mean that.

http://jobsearch.monster.com/jobsearch.asp?q=&sort=rv&vw=b&re=14&brd=1&cy=IQ

[Iangould]

Maybe you want to think about why that is.

Because liberals hate The Truth?

[Ian Boothby]

Because liberals hate The Truth?

And Freedom.

They're Freedom Hating Truth Rapers.

[PatrickG]

And Freedom.

They're Freedom Hating Truth Rapers.

Now, see... You're just like a liberal. Admit it!

Just because somebody's a little uncomfortable with the idea of too much freedom doesn't make them a Freedom Hater or a Freedomophobe.

Tossing "hate" out there as an issue to disguise your inherant distaste for those who have earned a higher degree of Freedom with their sweat and blood.

And what's with all this talk about "Truth Rapers". I expect you'll burst out into the "no means no" crap. Look, Ashcroft has those "Truth & Justice" statues clothed before he'll set foot at a court. God didn't intend for ideals to have naughty bits. Let's set aside this PC stuff. The bottom line is that sometimes we're confronted with the Naked Truth and when that happens, there's implied consent.

Next thing y'know, you commie tree hugging pinko lefties will be questioning the idea that freedom begins and ends with the armed forces...! And you'll likely start babbling on like you have more rights than the men and women who fight for this country. Well, let's get one thing straight. You don't talk back to a Republican. If you do, expect to find your ass knee deep in the sandfly pit. Speech isn't a right! It's bought with chaste blood! Yessir! Conscription of minors. Virgin sacrifice on the frontlines of war. Not like those deviant leftists in SoHo or Texas. Their blood won't even buy you a tank of gas unless we can take over the middle east. Nosir.

[TCJohnson]

So if a rapist targets 1 woman he knows and never molests the others in his life, it's because she brought it on herself? Maybe like her I'm "asking for it" by being too forward, too provacative...

Why don't you ask yourself why it is that I can talk to most people perfectly fine, and yet you and a few others are so filled with anger and bitterness that you feel the need to lash out at me even in the most innocuous threads, replying not to my posts but by making personal attacks and insults? What is your problem? I don't control your behavior, YOU do... blaming me for your choice to hurl insults is insane, and shows a real pathology on your part.

Comparing yourself to a rape victim is insane.

And I find you trying to show how evil muslims and arabs are insulting, filled with anger and bitterness. You are the one who comes in here with your bigotry and hate, knowing it will piss people off...and then act astonished when people respond to your insulting remarks. Quit the martyr act, it is really sad and pathetic.

[the4thpip]

And again, rather than answer my question, you turn to insults. Because you have no decent answer, do you? You spouting off about American schools is about as authoritative as if I were talking about the changes in German public education over the last 25 years having never even been to a German school. Why don't you leave this discussion to people who actually know what they are talking about, Pip? You're making a fool of yourself...
Unlike you, I can read and understand both texts and charts and graphs. You have demonstrated utter failure to do either.

[EdContradictory]

http://jobsearch.monster.com/jobsearch.asp?q=&sort=rv&vw=b&re=14&brd=1&cy=IQ
What a great bunch of opportunities to support the war effort.

We'll miss you, Samurai.

Well, I won't, because you're a liar and a lousy debator, but I'm sure someone will.

[TCJohnson]

Also, I know for a fact that America needs workers in their embassies around the world. Don't have to pass physicals for that, you just have to be able to get the clearance.

I've applied for a job doing IT support in american embassies in foriegn countries...waiting to hear about getting my clearance which can take a long time.

[Corrina]

Umm...while I don't think Samurai is a good debater, maybe it would be better to term his opinions honestly mistaken rather than calling him a liar?

Sometimes it's really painful to read the personal insults being thrown on this thread, especially when they're not necessary.

And sorry...the mother hormones seem to be in control this morning....

[EdContradictory]

Umm...while I don't think Samurai is a good debater, maybe it would be better to term his opinions honestly mistaken rather than calling him a liar?
If he was honestly mistaken (and that's a big "if"), lying about that and saying you never meant it that wa