NationStates Jolt Archive

By James P. Gannon (Article taken from USA Today)

When Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean said the other day that the Republicans were pretty much a "white, Christian party," I must admit I felt a guilty sense of self-recognition. He had nailed me cold, dead to rights. I looked in the mirror and confessed, "Yes, I am a white Christian, and I am a Republican."

Let's get the facts out here:

• I have been white all my life. I was born white in Minneapolis, one of the whitest cities in America. When I was growing up — in the white-bread 1950s, when "multicultural" meant that both Irish Catholics and Italian Catholics lived in the same parish — I knew only white people. There were only two kinds of people in the world, as far as I knew — Catholics and "non-Catholics." You couldn't marry non-Catholics, and you couldn't go to funerals or weddings in non-Catholic churches.

• Fact No. 2: We were Christians, though we never thought of ourselves that way. "Christian" had a vague, slightly non-Catholic feel to it, and it wasn't until after Pope John XXIII and Vatican II that Catholics began to feel comfortable being called "Christians."

• Fact No. 3, and here's where Dean has overlooked something important — we were white Christians, but we were not Republicans. Republicans were mostly Protestant, wealthy and members of country clubs. We were Catholic, middle-class and Democrats.

For most of my adult life, I considered myself a Democrat and voted for Democrats for president — from John F. Kennedy in 1960 to Bill Clinton in 1992. I began voting for Republican presidential candidates, and thinking of myself as Republican, only after it became abundantly clear that people with my views on abortion, prayer in school and other moral issues were no longer considered welcome in the Democratic Party.

A whole lot of us crossed over, taking our whiteness and our Christian beliefs into the party of the country-club set. We didn't feel so much that we had abandoned the Democratic Party as it had abandoned us. Borrowing the spirit of the "No Irish Need Apply" mentality of my grandparents' time, the Democrats posted a "no pro-lifers need apply" sign on their party doors. It became clear that Catholic Democratic officeholders (the Kennedys, Bidens, Kerrys and the rest) had to check their Catholic beliefs at the door and proclaim the Democratic pro-choice loyalty oath to retain good standing in their party.

So if the Republican Party has become the "white, Christian party," as Dean charges, it's partly so because the Democratic Party has made white Christians feel so uncomfortable in its ranks. The Democrats have bent over backwards to please minority groups — blacks, gays, angry feminists and atheists — at the expense of us old white guys (and gals — yes, we're not afraid to call our wives that) who grew up not feeling guilty about being white or Christian.

Of course, Dean is also overlooking an important fact, and that is the only successful Democratic presidential candidates in recent times were two white Christian guys — Jimmy Carter and Clinton, both red-state good ole boys with Southern accents and some familiarity with Scripture. So when Dean vaguely implies that "white Christian" is a pejorative term, he's playing to a Democratic base that's growing narrower and narrower — non-white, non-Christian, non-Southern and non-winning.

As a crossover Republican, I applaud Dean's take-no-prisoners approach to distilling his party into its purest essence. Displaying barely concealed contempt for white Christians is Dean's formula for ethnic and theological purity in the party, and I say, "Pour it on, Howard!" Keep it up and the Democratic Party will be confined to a few zip codes in Manhattan, Hollywood and San Francisco.

The rest of us can just say a little prayer of thanks and join our white Christian neighbors in voting straight Republican.

James P. Gannon is a retired journalist and author of A Life in Print: Selections from the Work of a Reporter, Columnist and Editor, published in March.

So you have no opinions on your own? No questions, no points, no nothing? You'll just post some opinion piece and think it says anything relevant to, well, what exactly?

Yep. Ignore New England.

It just further proves that its the Democrats who are out of touch with todays society and they are only continuing to slowly kill themselves! If you had any brains you would have realized that yourself just by reading the article. I dont think it was that hard to understand!

When I was growing up — in the white-bread 1950s, when "multicultural" meant that both Irish Catholics and Italian Catholics lived in the same parish — I knew only white people.


...but the Irish are famously 'the blacks of Europe'...

It just further proves that its the Democrats who are out of touch with todays society and they are only continuing to slowly kill themselves! If you had any brains you would have realized that yourself just by reading the article. I dont think it was that hard to understand!

But generally you are supposed to comment on the article, not just post it and leave it.

It just further proves that its the Democrats who are out of touch with todays society and they are only continuing to slowly kill themselves! If you had any brains you would have realized that yourself just by reading the article. I dont think it was that hard to understand!

No, it just further proves that the South and Midwest believe themselves to be such absurd things like "today's society" and "real Americans" to the further disenfranchisement of Northeasterners. The Northeast is consistently ridiculed by these "real Americans" for being out of touch with "today's society" when in reality these "real Americans" make up a slight majority. The arrogance of the South and Midwest is in every way equal to the arrogance they claim that "Massachusetts liberals" have, and it is just as sickening.

But generally you are supposed to comment on the article, not just post it and leave it.



I thought it to be pretty self explanitory. I guess I was wrong based on the leftist bias here. I should of guessed the most of you wouldnt understand :rolleyes:

Come on, can you honestly sit there and tell me that you dont know what I was trying to get across with that article? Please!

I thought it to be pretty self explanitory. I guess I was wrong based on the leftist bias here. I should of guessed the most of you wouldnt understand :rolleyes:

Come on, can you honestly sit there and tell me that you dont know what I was trying to get across with that article? Please!

I do understand the premise, it is just preferred that the first poster comment on the subject matter. This is not leftist bias, simply good form. I felt the same way about TRA/MKULTRA/Shadyfiend's posts from Democracynow.

It just further proves that its the Democrats who are out of touch with todays society and they are only continuing to slowly kill themselves!

Are you really trying to be so silly to claim that an opinion piece proves anything?

If you had any brains you would have realized that yourself just by reading the article. I dont think it was that hard to understand!

Nice flaming there.

Come on, can you honestly sit there and tell me that you dont know what I was trying to get across with that article? Please!

That's the whole point. You weren't trying to get anything across. You were just being lazy and trying to piggy-back on someone else's irrelevant point.

No, it just further proves that the South and Midwest believe themselves to be such absurd things like "today's society" and "real Americans" to the further disenfranchisement of Northeasterners. The Northeast is consistently ridiculed by these "real Americans" for being out of touch with "today's society" when in reality these "real Americans" make up a slight majority. The arrogance of the South and Midwest is in every way equal to the arrogance they claim that "Massachusetts liberals" have, and it is just as sickening.



Is that all you can do is post your extremely opionated drivel? Or can you give me some real facts buddy? I'll have you know that I live in New York. A very liberal state. But in my county (Chautauqua) and the rest of Western New York is actually very Conservative. And I'll bet it has alot to do with what was already said in the article above.

The last successful Democratic president was Bill Clintion. And he was actually more moderate then anything else! He actually knew and followed scripture.

Now lets look at Al Gore - Lost because he is totally nuts about banning guns. Far too liberal for your average american.

John Kerry - was obsessed with abortion rights and taking away religion! Great strategy Mr. Kerry! Alientate people even within your own party! And you wonder why Bush had the highest popular vote of ANY president! By the way, do you recall during one of of Mr. Kerry's speeches when he took a "stab" at George Bush saying he mentions God too much in his speeches. A FINE way to alienate religious Democrats!

And you wonder why Bush had the highest popular vote of ANY president!

Maybe because there's MORE PEOPLE IN THE US. :headbang:

That's the whole point. You weren't trying to get anything across. You were just being lazy and trying to piggy-back on someone else's irrelevant point.



I was trying to get across the same point as the original writer! I'm sure not all of you get the USA Today so I wanted to further his message! Is that so terrible? He gives some very good FACTS!

Yep. Ignore New England.
If we do, will it just "go away?" :)

Is that all you can do is post your extremely opionated drivel? Or can you give me some real facts buddy? I'll have you know that I live in New York. A very liberal state. But in my county (Chautauqua) and the rest of Western New York is actually very Conservative. And I'll bet it has alot to do with what was already said in the article above.

The last successful Democratic president was Bill Clintion. And he was actually more moderate then anything else! He actually knew and followed scripture.

Now lets look at Al Gore - Lost because he is totally nuts about banning guns. Far too liberal for your average american.

John Kerry - was obsessed with abortion rights and taking away religion! Great strategy Mr. Kerry! Alientate people even within your own party! And you wonder why Bush had the highest popular vote of ANY president! By the way, do you recall during one of of Mr. Kerry's speeches when he took a "stab" at George Bush saying he mentions God too much in his speeches. A FINE way to alienate religious Democrats!

Cute. You admonish me for not providing facts, and in the same post provide not one single fact. You've yet to post anything but your extremely opinionated drivel, so take the beam out of thine eye, good sir. I never claimed my post to be anything else than my opinion, and the opinion of the vast majority of people in the Northeast, your little corner of New York excluded.

Maybe because there's MORE PEOPLE IN THE US. :headbang:



But yet the amount of people who vote continues to drop :sniper:

Maybe because there's MORE PEOPLE IN THE US. :headbang:

Don't worry. I'm sure a post about percentages and actual equivalent ways of measurement would be a waste as well.

But yet the amount of people who vote continues to drop :sniper:

No, the percentage of people who vote continued to drop, until last election. You're pretty ignorant of the FACTS.

I was trying to get across the same point as the original writer!

By being so lazy as to not write anything of your own?

I'm sure not all of you get the USA Today so I wanted to further his message! Is that so terrible? He gives some very good FACTS!

No he doesn't. It's just an irrelevant opinion piece.

If we do, will it just "go away?" :)

If it meant being in a different nation than people like Reagan Land and you, then absolutely.

What drivel.

By being so lazy as to not write anything of your own?



No he doesn't. It's just an irrelevant opinion piece.



Just because its an opinion piece doesnt mean it doenst contain any facts! Go read it again and actually soak in what is being said. What he said is true! Democrats are alienating there base by becoming secular and too liberal. Your average Joe Schmo doesnt fit in there party anymore!

Don't worry. I'm sure a post about percentages and actual equivalent ways of measurement would be a waste as well.

Johnson won 61.8% of the popular vote in 1964, which today would be 65,702,274 votes, or 10 million more than Bush.

I thought it to be pretty self explanitory. I guess I was wrong based on the leftist bias here. I should of guessed the most of you wouldnt understand :rolleyes:

Come on, can you honestly sit there and tell me that you dont know what I was trying to get across with that article? Please!
This has nothing to do with the forum bias and everything to do with common forum edict
Are you so disillusioned with today’s society that you think someone pointing out your bad form has anything to do with their political bias?

The last successful Democratic president was Bill Clintion. And he was actually more moderate then anything else! He actually knew and followed scripture.

Yeah, followed scripture. Where did Jesus say it was ok to have sexual relations with someone other than your wife again?

John Kerry - was obsessed with abortion rights and taking away religion!

How very laughable. It was Bush who kept bringing up Kerry's stance on abortion - which Kerry actually pointed out he was personally opposed to, as per his own religious beliefs, but that he was not going to force his beliefs upon others. It's one of the few comments he made that I totally and completely respected.

And as for taking away religion - how does "I believe very strongly in my religion but am not going to legislate it upon people," take away religion?

Seriously, if you didn't like Kerry as a candidate, fine, but don't completely misrepresent the election like that.

And you wonder why Bush had the highest popular vote of ANY president!

You are kidding right? You either have to be kidding, lying, or very poorly informed. You really think a couple of percent above his opponent makes the highest popular vote? He barely got a majority and won very few states by more than a 5% margin. The election was incredibly close.

This further proves why I detest the Democratic party. But don't worry Republicans, I've still got contempt for you too.

I guess I was wrong based on the leftist bias here.

What the fuck is the 'leftist bias here'? What we have are a bunch of people, the majority of whom lean towards the left rather than the right: are you seriously claiming that having a political opinion is the same thing as having a bias?

Wait, am I reading that article correctly? It was written by James Gannon? The gay prostitute who was shilling for the White House, passing as a reporter and lying about his identity? Why on Earth would anybody want to listen to what that fellow has to say?! He's been shown to be a professional liar!

Wait, am I reading that article correctly? It was written by James Gannon? The gay prostitute who was shilling for the White House, passing as a reporter and lying about his identity?


:eek:

What the fuck is the 'leftist bias here'? What we have are a bunch of people, the majority of whom lean towards the left rather than the right: are you seriously claiming that having a political opinion is the same thing as having a bias?

Depending on when you're on, there are sometimes more people leaning right than left. And people on this forum are not as monolithic in thought as they imagine.

I characterize myself as right-wing, but there are some issues that I would be called left on. And I do not consider myself a centrist.

Painting with a broad brush is a bad idea.

:eek:
Seriously, are there people who haven't heard about this?

James Gannon is actually Jeff Guckert. He used a false name and was admitted to highly secured areas of the White House as a supposed member of the press. He actually had no qualification to be there, and his questions were obvious plants designed to flatter the administration and help push their propaganda. He actually is a homosexual call-boy with a sex website. He's been caught in lies repeatedly, both in print and in person. Nothing he say is worth a jar of spit, as far as I am concerned.

Wait, am I reading that article correctly? It was written by James Gannon? The gay prostitute who was shilling for the White House, passing as a reporter and lying about his identity? Why on Earth would anybody want to listen to what that fellow has to say?! He's been shown to be a professional liar!

Thanks Bottle. That's the first thing that occured to me too. I'm glad I scanned the rest of the posts to see whether someone else had brought it up.

I'm surprised that it took until page 2 to happen, honestly. I thought the name Jeff Gannon would set alarm bells off for anyone.

What the fuck is the 'leftist bias here'? What we have are a bunch of people, the majority of whom lean towards the left rather than the right: are you seriously claiming that having a political opinion is the same thing as having a bias?

you obviously haven't been keeping up with the norms of political discourse in the states (lucky bastard). anything and everything can be called 'biased' if it doesn't support the official government line, or at least grant that line a privileged position.

Okay. So far this entire post consists of ad hominem attacks on Reagan Land and James Gannon. Please people, I know you are more intelligent than this. And it really isn't constructive to just say the article is "drivel." So far this thread has been an absolute waste and there is absolutely no useful discussion here at all. And I am absolutely sure that I have used "absolute" too many times.

Speaking for myself, independent of Reagan Land's threadiquette and James Gannon's moral laxity, I believe the article is well-written. As for the issue in general, I agree with Gannon that Dean's remarks help the Republican party far more than the Democrats. His statement that the GOP is white and Christian and fundamentalist only insures that those who actually are these things will stay or become Republican. Obviously these adjectives are four-letter words in the party of Dean. I personally don't vote straight-ticket because I know that all politics is opportunistic, but the Democratic party is fast becoming something to vote against at *almost* all costs.

It just further proves that its the Democrats who are out of touch with todays society and they are only continuing to slowly kill themselves! If you had any brains you would have realized that yourself just by reading the article. I dont think it was that hard to understand!
What this article also lets you notice (if you try) is that there would have been no political platform for "minorities" if the democrats hadn't done so. They'd have been at the mercy of the white christians, thanks to the wonderful representation by the biparty system.

It just further proves that its the Democrats who are out of touch with todays society and they are only continuing to slowly kill themselves! If you had any brains you would have realized that yourself just by reading the article. I dont think it was that hard to understand!
So no intelligent opinion then?

Okay. So far this entire post consists of ad hominem attacks on Reagan Land and James Gannon. Please people, I know you are more intelligent than this. And it really isn't constructive to just say the article is "drivel."
Considering that is was written by someone who is being paid to make commercials for the Bush Administration, not attacking James Gannon's character seems to be wrong to me.
It was well written, but it was also written by someone that certainly didn't mind hanging his "morals" on the door to make money. You need to be critical of this.

The last successful Democratic president was Bill Clintion. And he was actually more moderate then anything else! He actually knew and followed scripture.

Thou shalt not commit adultery . . .

Wow. That article is actually dripping with irony. They left the democratic party because they felt there was a "pro-lifers need not apply" sign out front?

I guess the sun was in their eyes when they entered the Republican party HQ, and they missed the sign "No Anti-Gun or Pro-Choice or Anti-Christian or Socialist or Pro-Gay Rights or Anti-War or Anti-Censorship or Non-White non-Christian need apply." I'm not saying the Democracts aren't guilty of some of the same crap, but come on, they BOTH are.

I hope it is obvious to everyone who that writer really is...

And that attacking the Democrats because they aren't a monolithic pro-Christian pro-White party is really, really sad. I'm more steady in my resolve than ever after reading that, knowing full well that Republicans are indeed going to work for the Christian base, ignoring the fact that a)religon is a strange beast, based largely on superstition and not a good model for functioning government and b)Not everyone is christian, and not all christians are the fundamentalist gay-hating, pro-life kind.

That article suddenly reminded me of an idea I got right after the last election. Let's have the Democrats forsake the "minorities" to some extent and include the white christians they drove out of the party more. Take away some voting base from the Republicans. Then, the minority voters could all give a third party a chance and we might be able to bury this sick biparty system for once. With three parties we might actually give liberals, conservatives, and moderates their own party...
(Another Utopian Fantasy :( )

Ihatevacations']So no intelligent opinion then?

Holy fuck! People keep attacking ReaganLand for not posting his own little opinion after the article. Don't you think it's possible that it perfectly encapsulates his own opinion, or expresses his thoughts more eloquently than he could?

As the poor guy's said already, it speaks for itself.

Both parties are actively taking a DUMP on this country every day.

All in the names of general politicking, the Special Interests Group and Fringe Issues.

How about principled government that does its job? How about EQUALITY instead of BALKANIZATION?

How about FREEDOM OF, not FREEDOM FROM?

About that "no pro-lifers need apply" comment, I believe that the Rep. party is much worse..."No non-christians, gays, non-whites need apply" (generally)

so he's a republican.

he really DOESNT belong as a democrat. the catholic belief on abortion is an utter ban, no middle ground. the democraic party isnt going to go for that. he want prayer in school! another extremely bad idea that the dems arent going to ever support. poor thing

too bad he doesnt realize that while the republicans are willing to give big time lip service to conservative christian issues, they dont act on them. so while he is putting his economic future at risk, his moral issues are no more dealt with than if he were a democrat.

the democrats wont prosper by trying to out conservative the republicans. they need to get their core message out better than they have been.

Holy fuck! People keep attacking ReaganLand for not posting his own little opinion after the article. Don't you think it's possible that it perfectly encapsulates his own opinion, or expresses his thoughts more eloquently than he could?

As the poor guy's said already, it speaks for itself.
General forum edict … cutting and pasting articles is NOT looked on very nicely
(in fact I remember one person at least getting deated more then once for doing this exact same thing)
It has in the past also been considered spam … in a debate forum you are supposed to put forward your argument not just cut and paste things off of websites

General forum edict … cutting and pasting articles is NOT looked on very nicely
(in fact I remember one person at least getting deated more then once for doing this exact same thing)
It has in the past also been considered spam … in a debate forum you are supposed to put forward your argument not just cut and paste things off of websites

You're talking about TRA?

About that "no pro-lifers need apply" comment, I believe that the Rep. party is much worse..."No non-christians, gays, non-whites need apply" (generally)
No, no, they have those under the doormat so you don't see them. They "want" non-whites to vote for them because they share the same conservative values.

You're talking about TRA?
Well he is the most prominant that I can remember lol his democracy now cut and pastes were ... anoying

(TRA then MKULTRA then (something dont remember) then shady something ... )
lol

About that "no pro-lifers need apply" comment, I believe that the Rep. party is much worse..."No non-christians, gays, non-whites need apply" (generally)

Would you care to substantiate that?

General forum edict … cutting and pasting articles is NOT looked on very nicely
(in fact I remember one person at least getting deated more then once for doing this exact same thing)
It has in the past also been considered spam … in a debate forum you are supposed to put forward your argument not just cut and paste things off of websites

Does that justify personal attacks on him? I thought not.

Would you care to substantiate that?

Substantiate the "no pro-lifers need apply" comment.

I thought it to be pretty self explanitory. I guess I was wrong based on the leftist bias here. I should of guessed the most of you wouldnt understand :rolleyes:

Come on, can you honestly sit there and tell me that you dont know what I was trying to get across with that article? Please!

You were trying to get across that the Democrats no longer welcome anyone with Morals or brains and is slowly killing itself.

Yeah, the leftest basis here really pisses me off too.

For the record, since I'm technically half American, and I've travelled around much of America. The South and Midwest pwns the North so bad. If only we had southernors up here...

The US democrats are apparently doing what all Canadian Political parties have been doing since the 60s... :(

You were trying to get across that the Democrats no longer welcome anyone with Morals or brains and is slowly killing itself.

Yeah, the leftest basis here really pisses me off too.

For the record, since I'm technically half American, and I've travelled around much of America. The South and Midwest pwns the North so bad. If only we had southernors up here...

The US democrats are apparently doing what all Canadian Political parties have been doing since the 60s... :(
Morals aren'T morals. Just because some people think it's immoral to hate someone for something they can't help or they have the brains to reason out that evolution seems logical to them, doesn't mean that Republicans are brainless and moralless... the reverse is also true, though.

Does that justify personal attacks on him? I thought not.
But it absolutely deserves being pointed out and it does affect my opinion of their ability to debate in a forum situation.

Morals aren'T morals. Just because some people think it's immoral to hate someone for something they can't help or they have the brains to reason out that evolution seems logical to them, doesn't mean that Republicans are brainless and moralless... the reverse is also true, though.

Morals aren't morals? Very well, they're pizza then.

Are you inferring that I'm rascist? F you pal. My best friend is what you'd call an Indian, and I respect gays.

Anyone who doesn't agree with evolution has no brains... what about Darwin? Didn't he change his mind and write his little black book?
For the record, I DO believe in evolution in a way.

Now you're defending the Republicans, I thought you hated religious/moralistic people?

About that "no pro-lifers need apply" comment, I believe that the Rep. party is much worse..."No non-christians, gays, non-whites need apply" (generally)

And we have certainly seen their resolve in this manner. They alienated an entire subsection of their own party (the log cabin republicans) by refusing to put a tolerance plank in the party platform. Tolerance is such a bad thing, apparently - it is much better to walk a hard-line anti-gay stance.

Morals aren't morals? Very well, they're pizza then.

Are you inferring that I'm rascist? F you pal. My best friend is what you'd call an Indian, and I respect gays.

Anyone who doesn't agree with evolution has no brains... what about Darwin? Didn't he change his mind and write his little black book?
For the record, I DO believe in evolution.

Now you're defending the Republicans, I thought you hated religious/moralistic people?
What? Do you have a point or do you just want to insult me?
You obviously misread my post. Morals aren't morals because they're the basis of what we believe is right or wrong. You would be stupid to consider that we have the same morals and anyone that disagrees with you is doing it because they're evil.
I have no idea where you get the rascist from. Please explain that to me. If I offended you there, I apologize.
I don't hate "moralistic" religious people, I disagree with them. Some very good friends of mine are Republicans.
And why should I not defend Republicans? I doubt that the common voter is a power-hungry monster I feel Bush is.
(As for Darwin, the whole deathbed story was a lie spread by Lady Hope)

Substantiate the "no pro-lifers need apply" comment.

Why should I? I didn't write that piece.

However, you're slandering the Republican Party by resurrecting the old Uncle Tom ghost: that we hate minorities and do not want them in our party. Unless you can give me some good justification for that comment, I think it's safe to say that you're just talking out of your ass.

The only morality the Christian right gives a damn about is relative morality, that is, morality that is only relevant to hardcore christians. The right woudln't be the right without the "christians shouldn't be discrimianted against by not allowing their religion in everything!" or "embryos are people too"

Why should I? I didn't write that piece.

However, you're slandering the Republican Party by resurrecting the old Uncle Tom ghost: that we hate minorities and do not want them in our party. Unless you can give me some good justification for that comment, I think it's safe to say that you're just talking out of your ass.
Um, considering the article's choice of vocabulary, it isn't leaving much room for minorities in America in general...

I was born white in Minneapolis, one of the whitest cities in America. When I was growing up — in the white-bread 1950s, when "multicultural" meant that both Irish Catholics and Italian Catholics lived in the same parish — I knew only white people. There were only two kinds of people in the world, as far as I knew — Catholics and "non-Catholics."
The rest of us can just say a little prayer of thanks and join our white Christian neighbors in voting straight Republican.

Why should I? I didn't write that piece.

However, you're slandering the Republican Party by resurrecting the old Uncle Tom ghost: that we hate minorities and do not want them in our party. Unless you can give me some good justification for that comment, I think it's safe to say that you're just talking out of your ass.

I did no such thing.

Um, considering the article's choice of vocabulary, it isn't leaving much room for minorities in America in general...

That's because it's mocking Howard Dean's assertion that the GOP is the party of white Christians.

I did no such thing.

"No non-Christians, gays, non-whites need apply."

You're full of shit.

"No non-Christians, gays, non-whites need apply."

You're full of shit.

Quote the post where I said that.

And then, when you can't do that, apologize.

That's because it's mocking Howard Dean's assertion that the GOP is the party of white Christians.
And it's saying that it's the only party for white Christians. It's an advertisement for any Christians to join the Republicans.

I have no idea where you get the rascist from. Please explain that to me. If I offended you there, I apologize.

I got the rascist here:
Just because some people think it's immoral to hate someone for something they can't help
I thought that you were calling me and all conservatives gay hating rascists.
Since you weren't I apoligize for the post.

The only morality the Christian right gives a damn about is relative morality, that is, morality that is only relevant to hardcore christians. The right woudln't be the right without the "christians shouldn't be discrimianted against by not allowing their religion in everything!" or "embryos are people too"
Listen here, I want to have the right to pray before I go for a big test without being sent down to the office. But Cristianity has been completely wiped from Public areas, while other religions have the right to do as they please.
Embryos are people in production, killing them IS murder.
If you don't want to get pregnant, either use a condom or do have sex.

Quote the post where I said that.

And then, when you can't do that, apologize.

Wow, don't I feel like a dumbass. Since you interjected yourself into that particular line of argument, I just assumed you were the guy who made that comment and I continued the firefight.

I'm sorry.

And it's saying that it's the only party for white Christians. It's an advertisement for any Christians to join the Republicans.

So the author agrees completely with the chairman of the DNC. What's the big deal?

What is masturbation then? Genocide?

Your comment is a great display of why it's important to keep religion out of politics.

By the way, who's preventing you from praying before an exam or whatever?
Will people drag you down to the head's office if you pull out a bible, read a little and look a bit distant for a few moments?

Listen here, I want to have the right to pray before I go for a big test without being sent down to the office.

You have that right, so long as no teacher or administrator is leading you in prayer.

If this right has been abridged, you have all rights to bring a suit against the school. The ACLU has been involved in more than one such case, and you can certainly contact them.

I got the rascist here:

I thought that you were calling me and all conservatives gay hating rascists.
Since you weren't I apoligize for the post.


Listen here, I want to have the right to pray before I go for a big test without being sent down to the office. But Cristianity has been completely wiped from Public areas, while other religions have the right to do as they please.
Embryos are people in production, killing them IS murder.
If you don't want to get pregnant, either use a condom or do have sex.
My belief in religious freedom asserts the right of anyone that wants to to express it without invading other peoples' rights. Praying before a test is perfectly fine, I'm just against having the whole school pray at a certain time if its public. A lot of what is going wrong in the States is due to the fact that there is such intense polarization.
On Embryos: I have no real platform. I find it immoral to use them for research and I find it immoral letting people suffer when we might be able to cure their diseases. I don't feel comfortable deciding which is more immoral.
On abortion: Same as with embryos, both sides are immoral. But my position is that after rape or when the baby's birth would endanger the mother's life, abortion must be legal. For other cases it should be legal (in Germany, you're obliged to take counciling from an accredited institution such as ProFamilia or the Protestant Church (Catholics pulled out of counciling)). I consider myself "choose life". I'd prefer that a young mother not abort, but she should have the right to do so (and it should be difficult to obtain such a right).

Amen, Amen. :)

...kicks up liberalist heels and waits for it all to pass :D ......

......we were white Christians, but we were not Republicans. Republicans were mostly Protestant, wealthy and members of country clubs. We were Catholic, middle-class and Democrats...............I began voting for Republican presidential candidates, and thinking of myself as Republican, only after it became abundantly clear that people with my views on abortion, prayer in school and other moral issues were no longer considered welcome in the Democratic Party.

So why dont you start up your own party that represents what you actually believe in, rather than just joining the Republicans?

So why dont you start up your own party that represents what you actually believe in, rather than just joining the Republicans?

...or simply vote for candidates, rather than parties.

The party system has truly screwed politics in most places and has led to the laziest possible voters. I don't really see how it is easier to vote for something you vaguely recognize as possibly having some relation to your own views (or worse, take your own views from that organization, rather than actually thinking about them) that to examine the issues and figure them out for yourself, but it seems like most people do.

The article is written by one "Jeff Gannon" (actual name James Gucker) who did not retire as a journalist recently so much as become nationally discredited by being revealed as both a political shill for the Bush administration in reporters clothes to ask ridiculous softball questions as well as being similtaniously occupied running a website advertising himself as a gay male escort.

Look it up or google it and you will see.

This article should merit no credibility or attention.

It just further proves that its the Democrats who are out of touch with todays society and they are only continuing to slowly kill themselves! If you had any brains you would have realized that yourself just by reading the article. I dont think it was that hard to understand!
Quite the contrary, just as radical ideas 50 years ago are commonplace today, eventually the current democratic ideas about abortion and religion will become mainstream. The world continually shifts this way
<-----------------

What I seem to be seeing is the typical attack on the Democrats. "You aren't against non-christians enough, therefore you're anti-christian."

It's really very stupid, if you think about it. Just because you don't feel you have the right to tell someone not to do something doesn't mean you feel that doing it is wrong.

That said, Dean was out of line with that statement. The Republican party does not hold the copyright on christianity, only on religious nutters. If he's gonna make fun of the religious right he needs to be more mean about it...

The article is written by one "Jeff Gannon" (actual name James Gucker) who did not retire as a journalist recently so much as become nationally discredited by being revealed as both a political shill for the Bush administration in reporters clothes to ask ridiculous softball questions as well as being similtaniously occupied running a website advertising himself as a gay male escort.

Look it up or google it and you will see.

This article should merit no credibility or attention.

Was that him? Hah! I thought his name looked familiar.

You know, I thought for sure that a literal man-whore like Gannon would be forced to retire peacefully by his party. Perhaps the image that the Republican leadership treats gays as second-class citizens should be revised. Perhaps they are more open minded about prostitution and homosexuality than the common stereotypes indicate.

I believe however, the Dean statement he referred to is the statistical data that shows that 82 percent of Republicans identify themselves as Christian whereas 56 percent of Democrats do. It is worth noting of course that in the Democratic party they are still a majority, a clear one.

Whatever. Its just political infighting. Something I delve into only when I'm waiting around before

Jon Stewart - "Psssst your living in a country of White Christians....they might hear you!"

So, let's summarize.

The original poster posts an article declaring that the reason the Republican Party is 'white Christians only' is due to the fact that the Democrats have repulsed everyone else.

Let me , instead of bashing the original poster, respond to the article!

-0---------------------------------0-

I've been a black, Southern Baptist youth minister for 11 years now. I'm 34 years old, I live in Texas, and I'm married with two children.

A lot of what I believe some would term as 'conservative'. Unfortunately, the party that is attached to 'conservatism' doesn't care about me.

You see, the way this country -- the USA -- is organized really comes down to two factors. How much money you have, and how much you're willing to sacrifice who you are. The rich control 80% of the nation's disposable wealth. The poor, well, don't even amount to much.

When I was growing up, the era of racist segragation for blacks had just ended. It was obvious that there were some whites who saw blacks and hispanics as people, and it was just as obvious that some saw us as ... subhumans. As the political battlelines shifted and warped, we -- black people -- looked at who focused on what we believed.

What Mr. Guckert -- oops, Gannon -- fails to mention is that when his Catholics bolted and his Sunbelt cousins in the Protestant faiths bolted to the Republican party, they took a lot of bigoted human trash. Strom Thurman ran on a party that endorsed the revoking of civil rights acts, segregation, and forced expulsion of blacks.

The Democrats put blacks into their ranks -- COMMON blacks, not rich token blacks or men who had made their own fame. You can name all five blacks associated with the Republican Party easily: Archibald, Colin, Condoleeza, Alex, and Clarence. (Powell's son on the FCC is iffy.) These people have zero contact with the regular black community. They think affirmitive action is 'wrong' even though every single one of them benefited from it. They disassociate themselves from the minority community.

People like me don't particularly like some of the things the Democratic party believes in . . . but we can live with them. Abortion is wrong. Unfortuntely, I live in reality, where if you ban something it hardly stops it from happening. The reason the Democratic party supports such things as abortion and gay rights and affirmative action is that the Republicans drove them to it.

Remember LBJ? Or the earlier Democratic platforms? Remember the Great Society? The original difference was all about how to include the government. The establishment of a social saftey net -- not socialism. The original Democratic platform said that the function of government should be to support , educate, and uplift the people, and NOT to drop bombs on brown people, or deficit spend on the backs of the poor.

Republicans love talking of their Christian virtue, but Republican voters and senators and representatives and judges and mayors and governors consistantly oppose programs to support the poor, or the sick. They oppose health care and they detest the idea that people deserve a second chance. They only want to congradulate themselves on how 'moral' they are and on how 'Christian' they are while screwing around with their neighbors wife, or strutting around in a Porsche.

Some conservatives will not like what I've written. I don't particularly care because you, or your parents, or your grandparents, never particularly cared if I lived or died, or what I thought at all. It's ridiculous to say that Democrats drove people off. Democrats accept EVERYONE, we are the party of the Rejected and the Unacceptible.

It's funny. You heard this same, strident crap when Reagan was in power. And when they took him out, people said the country was going to hell. Clinton was a flawed, sinful man, but at least we didn't have two recessions and layoffs galore under him. At least we didn't have the whole world looking at us like a bloody-handed murderer under the Democrats. At least we didn't get lead into wars by lies, or deal with the deaths of our brave soldiers by the score under the Democrats.

People can belive what they like.

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

My article has just as many 'facts' in it as Gannon's. If you Republicans can't 'absorb' the 'truth' of what I'm saying, then you must not want to hear 'facts'.

So, let's summarize.

Let me , instead of bashing the original poster, respond to the article!

People can belive what they like.

My article has just as many 'facts' in it as Gannon's. If you Republicans can't 'absorb' the 'truth' of what I'm saying, then you must not want to hear 'facts'.

Very well put. It would be commendable if most could raise the level of discussion thusly.

This further proves why I detest the Democratic party. But don't worry Republicans, I've still got contempt for you too.

Same here! :D

Listen here, I want to have the right to pray before I go for a big test without being sent down to the office.


Don't make me laugh. No one will ever force you NOT to pray whenever you like.
The problem is exactly the opposite: forcing students TO pray at certain times, and claiming that this is "freedom OF"

Yep. Ignore New England.


If we do, will it just "go away?"


You want us to go away? Believe me, we're tempted.

You want us to go away? Believe me, we're tempted.

Go. I won't miss you. And California. And New York City.

That should just about do it.

I'm leaving now, so flame me all you want :)

Morals aren't morals because they're the basis of what we believe is right or wrong. You would be stupid to consider that we have the same morals and anyone that disagrees with you is doing it because they're evil.
Then you would argue that NAMBLA members should be able to screw little boys all they want, because it's not against their "morals"...and who are we to impose our "morals" (in the form of laws) on them?

It just further proves that its the Democrats who are out of touch with todays society and they are only continuing to slowly kill themselves! If you had any brains you would have realized that yourself just by reading the article. I dont think it was that hard to understand!
I'm sorry what? I think you may be preachin to the wrong choir here pal.

Then you would argue that NAMBLA members should be able to screw little boys all they want, because it's not against their "morals"...and who are we to impose our "morals" (in the form of laws) on them?
NAMBLA members shouldn't be able to. Having sex (straight or gay) with a minor is illegal.

You want us to go away? Believe me, we're tempted.
Can anybody say 'secession?' Count me in!

Go. I won't miss you. And California
So, if we don't have to worry about blowing ourselves up, us Californians just have to worry about California breaking off to go hang with Hawaii. Alaska can come too.
The end! :D

Go. I won't miss you. And California. And New York City.

That should just about do it.

I'm leaving now, so flame me all you want :)
We'll make you miss us.

NAMBLA members shouldn't be able to. Having sex (straight or gay) with a minor is illegal.
But the illegality of it is imposing your "morals" on them. Who are YOU to do that?

By James P. Gannon (Article taken from USA Today)

When Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean said the other day that the Republicans were pretty much a "white, Christian party," I must admit I felt a guilty sense of self-recognition. He had nailed me cold, dead to rights. I looked in the mirror and confessed, "Yes, I am a white Christian, and I am a Republican."

Let's get the facts out here:

• I have been white all my life. I was born white in Minneapolis, one of the whitest cities in America. When I was growing up — in the white-bread 1950s, when "multicultural" meant that both Irish Catholics and Italian Catholics lived in the same parish — I knew only white people. There were only two kinds of people in the world, as far as I knew — Catholics and "non-Catholics." You couldn't marry non-Catholics, and you couldn't go to funerals or weddings in non-Catholic churches.

• Fact No. 2: We were Christians, though we never thought of ourselves that way. "Christian" had a vague, slightly non-Catholic feel to it, and it wasn't until after Pope John XXIII and Vatican II that Catholics began to feel comfortable being called "Christians."

• Fact No. 3, and here's where Dean has overlooked something important — we were white Christians, but we were not Republicans. Republicans were mostly Protestant, wealthy and members of country clubs. We were Catholic, middle-class and Democrats.

For most of my adult life, I considered myself a Democrat and voted for Democrats for president — from John F. Kennedy in 1960 to Bill Clinton in 1992. I began voting for Republican presidential candidates, and thinking of myself as Republican, only after it became abundantly clear that people with my views on abortion, prayer in school and other moral issues were no longer considered welcome in the Democratic Party.

A whole lot of us crossed over, taking our whiteness and our Christian beliefs into the party of the country-club set. We didn't feel so much that we had abandoned the Democratic Party as it had abandoned us. Borrowing the spirit of the "No Irish Need Apply" mentality of my grandparents' time, the Democrats posted a "no pro-lifers need apply" sign on their party doors. It became clear that Catholic Democratic officeholders (the Kennedys, Bidens, Kerrys and the rest) had to check their Catholic beliefs at the door and proclaim the Democratic pro-choice loyalty oath to retain good standing in their party.

So if the Republican Party has become the "white, Christian party," as Dean charges, it's partly so because the Democratic Party has made white Christians feel so uncomfortable in its ranks. The Democrats have bent over backwards to please minority groups — blacks, gays, angry feminists and atheists — at the expense of us old white guys (and gals — yes, we're not afraid to call our wives that) who grew up not feeling guilty about being white or Christian.

Of course, Dean is also overlooking an important fact, and that is the only successful Democratic presidential candidates in recent times were two white Christian guys — Jimmy Carter and Clinton, both red-state good ole boys with Southern accents and some familiarity with Scripture. So when Dean vaguely implies that "white Christian" is a pejorative term, he's playing to a Democratic base that's growing narrower and narrower — non-white, non-Christian, non-Southern and non-winning.

As a crossover Republican, I applaud Dean's take-no-prisoners approach to distilling his party into its purest essence. Displaying barely concealed contempt for white Christians is Dean's formula for ethnic and theological purity in the party, and I say, "Pour it on, Howard!" Keep it up and the Democratic Party will be confined to a few zip codes in Manhattan, Hollywood and San Francisco.

The rest of us can just say a little prayer of thanks and join our white Christian neighbors in voting straight Republican.

James P. Gannon is a retired journalist and author of A Life in Print: Selections from the Work of a Reporter, Columnist and Editor, published in March.

Very good post. I can identify with most of that, however I was never a democrat. My dad was a yellow dog Democrat, and my mother never said what she was. Born white in 1943 and brought up a Catholic in a suburb of Boston. Oh, I did vote for a couple of Independent Presidential candidates because I though they had better ideas than the Republicans running at the time did.

John Kerry - was obsessed with abortion rights and taking away religion! Great strategy Mr. Kerry! Alientate people even within your own party! And you wonder why Bush had the highest popular vote of ANY president!

You forget, John Kerry had the second highest popular vote ever. ;)

The US democrats are apparently doing what all Canadian Political parties have been doing since the 60s... :(

It's nice to see parties not snuggle up to the far-right, cheer up. :fluffle:

Must....provoke....laugh....from this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9091100&postcount=90) post.....

Maybe because there's MORE PEOPLE IN THE US. :headbang:

OWNT! Haven't finished reading, but I was waiting for someone to say that... it was actually a rather close election, although Bush did win a bit more convincingly than last time (this time, the election fraud probably wasn't enough to change the outcome).

Just because its an opinion piece doesnt mean it doenst contain any facts! Go read it again and actually soak in what is being said. What he said is true! Democrats are alienating there base by becoming secular and too liberal. Your average Joe Schmo doesnt fit in there party anymore!

First of all, I'd like to apologize if this is a repeat. I am reading, but haven't gotten to the end yet.

Now just a couple of things.

1. The entire point of separation of church and state in this country is that the government is supposed to be secular. You can look at the Middle East and decide for yourself if you thing government should be controlled by religion (and President Bush is working on it). And don't say that government based on Christianity is better than government based on Islam. Just don't.

2. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not very religious at all, but wasn't Jesus all about helping the poor and the sick? What was that about how it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven? Jesus was a liberal. Am I saying he's pro-abortion? No. We have no way of knowing that, and it's a modern extension of the classical idea of liberalism. Was he anti-gun? Well, I doubt it, considering there weren't any.

In summary: Don't say secular is bad, because that's the basis of this country (the gov't, not the people... the people are of many different religions and sects, and the gov't is supposed to be secular so that nobody gets gassed) and don't say that liberal is bad by definition, because Jesus was a liberal (at least on some core issues).

Wait, am I reading that article correctly? It was written by James Gannon? The gay prostitute who was shilling for the White House, passing as a reporter and lying about his identity? Why on Earth would anybody want to listen to what that fellow has to say?! He's been shown to be a professional liar!

Was wondering when someone was gonna pick that up. Wanted to finish reading before I made the point myself, but luckily someone else here knows their facts about this guy.

You forget, John Kerry had the second highest popular vote ever. ;)
Sadly practiced stupidity beats logic, you lose

I suppose I was expecting too much for an honest "Confession of a white Christian Republican" wasn't I?

But the illegality of it is imposing your "morals" on them. Who are YOU to do that?

The imposing or morals is not in play here. It is called the age of consent. Since people felt children do not have the experience to make an informed decession in the matters of sex, society defined an age which it felt they would have such knowledge.

NAMBLA unfortunatly has the right to say their piece which is the lowering of the age of consent.

If we say we have freedom of speech then such crap as NAMBLAs message has the right to be said.

1) Jesus not only supported the poor and sick, he actually said that material posessions were bad (the parable of the wealthy man) He also said the poor and meak would inherit the Earth. I think it is safe to say all politicians are going to hell if Jesus was right about that whole "rich" thing.
b)Freedom of religion. Hokay. You CAN pray anywhere you want. However, in a public school or the like, you cannot force all students to pray. In fact, in my area, the school must allow muslims to leave the room to pray facing Mecca
-I say the Northeast (without upstate New York), the Pacific coast, and Hawai'i break off. And don't say you wouldn't miss us. Connecticut has most health and other insurance corporations, New York has more fourtune 500 corporations than any other state, and California has the worlds 5th (I think) largest economy. Oh, and Hawai'i is just cool.

As for this whole "real American" thing, I exist. I am American. Therefore, I am a real American. Just because I disagree with the south and midwest doesn't mean I cease to exist. Actually, Descartes would agree that since I am thinking at all, I exist...regardless of what those thoughts may be (I prefer Sum Ergo Cogito over Cogito Ergo Sum myself, but either work)

So why do democrats/republicans get so upset when people vote for what they believe in?

It just further proves that its the Democrats who are out of touch with todays society and they are only continuing to slowly kill themselves! If you had any brains you would have realized that yourself just by reading the article. I dont think it was that hard to understand!
Hello, Commando2!

No, the Republicans are equally out of touch. Like the Democrats, they are rich people, and there's nothing modern about half-hearted theocracy.

Also, because you're a Catholic, it does not mean that you have to think your anti-abortion views should be in the law.

Come on, can you honestly sit there and tell me that you dont know what I was trying to get across with that article? Please!
The point? That Republicans are proud that their base is exclusively a bunch of theocratic white people?

But yet the amount of people who vote continues to drop
Untrue, turnout was higher in the 2004 election than in the 1996 and 2000 elections.

Bill Clinton actually knew and followed scripture.
When has any US President (consistently) followed scripture? If you believe that the government should follow the Bible concerning gays, divorce and abortion, why not collective welfare and non-violence?

Democrats are alienating there base by becoming secular and too liberal. Your average Joe Schmo doesnt fit in there party anymore!
Who is the average Joe Schmo? There is no such thing. Maybe you would have a legit claim if they were down to about 20 seats in the Senate (oh, wait that was the Republicans in 1940), but when they have about half the vote under their belts, you can't call them "out of touch".

This further proves why I detest the Democratic party.
I thought you were also pro-choice!


Embryos are people in production, killing them IS murder.
If you don't want to get pregnant, either use a condom or do have sex.
Doesn't the Catholic church also believe contraception to be murder?

Ok I will take a poke at it.

Let's get the facts out here:

• I have been white all my life. I was born white in Minneapolis, one of the whitest cities in America. When I was growing up — in the white-bread 1950s, when "multicultural" meant that both Irish Catholics and Italian Catholics lived in the same parish — I knew only white people. There were only two kinds of people in the world, as far as I knew — Catholics and "non-Catholics." You couldn't marry non-Catholics, and you couldn't go to funerals or weddings in non-Catholic churches.


Ok that was 50 years ago. Dean was refering to day.


• Fact No. 2: We were Christians, though we never thought of ourselves that way. "Christian" had a vague, slightly non-Catholic feel to it, and it wasn't until after Pope John XXIII and Vatican II that Catholics began to feel comfortable being called "Christians."

Again 50 years ago. As to the term Christians, it's interesting that he points out the obvious that the sects are different. However, people seem to like to use the term when defining the ideology of this country (ie: 77% of the people label themselves Christian).


• Fact No. 3, and here's where Dean has overlooked something important — we were white Christians, but we were not Republicans. Republicans were mostly Protestant, wealthy and members of country clubs. We were Catholic, middle-class and Democrats.

Again 50 years ago.


A whole lot of us crossed over, taking our whiteness and our Christian beliefs into the party of the country-club set.We didn't feel so much that we had abandoned the Democratic Party as it had abandoned us.


Ok so they are not the party of white christians?


So if the Republican Party has become the "white, Christian party," as Dean charges, it's partly so because the Democratic Party has made white Christians feel so uncomfortable in its ranks. The Democrats have bent over backwards to please minority groups — blacks, gays, angry feminists and atheists — at the expense of us old white guys (and gals — yes, we're not afraid to call our wives that) who grew up not feeling guilty about being white or Christian.

Ahh ok so it's the demos fault that the repubs are the party of white christians? Much of his claims could be said of liberal republicans, gay republicans.

Angry feminists and atheists? :rolleyes:


Of course, Dean is also overlooking an important fact, and that is the only successful Democratic presidential candidates in recent times were two white Christian guys — Jimmy Carter and Clinton, both red-state good ole boys with Southern accents and some familiarity with Scripture. So when Dean vaguely implies that "white Christian" is a pejorative term, he's playing to a Democratic base that's growing narrower and narrower — non-white, non-Christian, non-Southern and non-winning.

Whatever. Hmmm does that mean the republicans now claim Clinton as one of their own? ;)


As a crossover Republican, I applaud Dean's take-no-prisoners approach to distilling his party into its purest essence. Displaying barely concealed contempt for white Christians is Dean's formula for ethnic and theological purity in the party, and I say, "Pour it on, Howard!" Keep it up and the Democratic Party will be confined to a few zip codes in Manhattan, Hollywood and San Francisco.

Again whatever. It seems Dean is taking tactics from the Republicans.


The rest of us can just say a little prayer of thanks and join our white Christian neighbors in voting straight Republican.

James P. Gannon is a retired journalist and author of A Life in Print: Selections from the Work of a Reporter, Columnist and Editor, published in March.

It's truely sad that people like this are so simple minded that they vote on a party line and party phrases vs measuring the candidate themselves. Such insipid logic is why we have crappy choices in elections.

...but the Irish are famously 'the blacks of Europe'...
Say it out loud everyone: I'm Black, and I'm proud.

Say it out loud everyone: I'm Black, and I'm proud.

What about us Italians? I thought we were the blacks of Europe too. They do call us 'guineas', after all.

What about us Italians? I thought we were the blacks of Europe too. They do call us 'guineas', after all.Your problem is that you don't have Jimmy Rabbitte and awesome Dublin soul to represent you.

The imposing or morals is not in play here. It is called the age of consent. Since people felt children do not have the experience to make an informed decession in the matters of sex, society defined an age which it felt they would have such knowledge.
And thus, society has set a moral standard. Thank you for proving my point. :)

(BTW, I despise NAMBLA and everything it stands for. I was playing Devil's Advocate to prove a point.)

Once again, I apologize if any of this is repeat...


I thought that you were calling me and all conservatives gay hating rascists.
Since you weren't I apoligize for the post.

Certainly not all republicans are gay-hating racists, I wouldn't even say "most", but many are. There is a broad spectrum of beliefs in each party, even if the "party message" is very specific. Most people are somewhere in the middle, and pick the one that they feel is closer to what they believe, even if they have some major issues with the party. I'm sure there are a good-sized handful of gay-hating racists in the Democratic party too, but not nearly as many. Things like racism and homophobia are conservative stances. Not all conservatives hold that stance, just like not all liberals are in favour of gay marriage, but bigotry is a difinitively conservative thing. For that reason, more people who believe in those things flock to the republican banner.


Listen here, I want to have the right to pray before I go for a big test without being sent down to the office.
Certainly. Should definitely be allowed, as long as you don't:
a) demand that the teacher lead the prayer,
b) demand that other people do so as well,
c) purposely make it uncomfortable for non-Christians around you,
d) pray so loudly and vehemently that it disrupts the rest of the class
e) pray at a time when you're supposed to be listening to the teacher

As long as you follow school rules, you should be fine. The first amendment makes sure of that (even though some aspects of the first amendment are limited in schools, such as free speech).


But Cristianity has been completely wiped from Public areas, while other religions have the right to do as they please.

Where exactly do you live? Christianity is generally supported by the existing governmental structure. Could you please give one example where another religion is given a right that Christianity is not given, in the United States? Because let me tell you something, it tends to be the other way around. It took the Supreme Court to keep public schools from forcing Jews to pray to Jesus and read Christian scriptures.


Embryos are people in production, killing them IS murder.
If you don't want to get pregnant, either use a condom or do [not] have sex.

I have read a 70+ page thread on this matter, and it wound up going pretty much nowhere. Let's agree to disagree. TG me if you want to try to convince me or whatever, but don't post here please.

Can anybody say 'secession?' Count me in!


So, if we don't have to worry about blowing ourselves up, us Californians just have to worry about California breaking off to go hang with Hawaii. Alaska can come too.
The end! :D

Heh, I'm not so much into secession (it would hurt EVERYONE involved, on both sides, trust me) but you've gotta love the End of the World :D even though there's a Japanese flag in the Chinese control room (?)

Originally Posted by Bodies Without Organs
...but the Irish are famously 'the blacks of Europe'
We are. Wow i never noticed, lol.

Originally Posted by Bodies Without Organs
...but the Irish are famously 'the blacks of Europe'
We are. Wow i never noticed, lol.

And thus, society has set a moral standard. Thank you for proving my point. :)

(BTW, I despise NAMBLA and everything it stands for. I was playing Devil's Advocate to prove a point.)

It's called a "Democratic Republic". Get used to it.

Law was codified well before any organized religion. Was Hammurabi Christian (or even Jewish)? Nope.

The issue is not so much that we are forcing our morals on others. It's an issue of everyone coming together and deciding what should be legal and what shouldn't. Would it be legal to ban eating meat on Fridays? Certainly. Even though it is a "religious" law, if it comes to a vote and passes, guess what. It's an actual law. Having sex with kids? That's another one of those no-nos that people have agreed upon. This wasn't always the case. In the kingdoms of yore, princes (or even disgusting wrinkly kings) would... er... consort with the prettiest, youngest girl with a period they could find. That's a bit under 18, 16, or 14 (or whatever it is where you live, it's decided on the state level in the US). Voters, in individual states, decided that it would be best to make that law.

Then, you say, what's so different about prayer in schools? If a town (or state, or country) is 80% Christian, they could pass a law forcing kids to pray in public school, right? Wrong. Why? Because of the 1st Amendment. The Founding Fathers told us that we can't do it, and so we can't. See the difference?

I can tell you, from my experience travelling/touring all over the south and the rest of the US: the majority of the openly racist bastards I've met were labor union-type Democrats. They don't like them "rich, white men having anything to do with them damn ni**ers." These types are prevalent in the Deep South and middle northern states (Indiana, Michigan, etc.). My father was a prime example. He threw a complete fit when I started dating a half-black/half-Japanese girl.

The Dixiecrats never went away, they just reintegrated with the Democrat party, because it's easier to oppress a people from behind the scenes than it is to oppress them openly.

I'm not saying the Republicans are blameless. I'm just stating what I've seen.

It's called a "Democratic Republic". Get used to it.

Law was codified well before any organized religion. Was Hammurabi Christian (or even Jewish)? Nope.

The issue is not so much that we are forcing our morals on others. It's an issue of everyone coming together and deciding what should be legal and what shouldn't. Would it be legal to ban eating meat on Fridays? Certainly. Even though it is a "religious" law, if it comes to a vote and passes, guess what. It's an actual law. Having sex with kids? That's another one of those no-nos that people have agreed upon. This wasn't always the case. In the kingdoms of yore, princes (or even disgusting wrinkly kings) would... er... consort with the prettiest, youngest girl with a period they could find. That's a bit under 18, 16, or 14 (or whatever it is where you live, it's decided on the state level in the US). Voters, in individual states, decided that it would be best to make that law.

Then, you say, what's so different about prayer in schools? If a town (or state, or country) is 80% Christian, they could pass a law forcing kids to pray in public school, right? Wrong. Why? Because of the 1st Amendment. The Founding Fathers told us that we can't do it, and so we can't. See the difference?
Ahhhhhhhh... so "morals" are a religious thing. I get it.

So I'm assuming you think Atheists are immoral, eh?

The founding fathers also supported the institution of slavery, and to his dismay, several of Patrick Henry's slaves ran away, apparently taking his quote to heart as did several of Jefferson's slaves.

Ahhhhhhhh... so "morals" are a religious thing. I get it.

So I'm assuming you think Atheists are immoral, eh?

Please read more carefully.

Some morals are religious, but not all.

Note how I said the first codified law (official morals) predated organized religion.

I'm an agnostic myself, and a firm believer in the first amendment, and I believe that everyone should have the right to practice their religious beliefs (or lack thereof), without being hassled or harrassed, as long as it does not preempt the rights of another person.

The founding fathers also supported the institution of slavery, and to his dismay, several of Patrick Henry's slaves ran away, apparently taking his quote to heart as did several of Jefferson's slaves.

Not all of the Founding Fathers supported slavery. In fact, there was a phrase that was deleted from the Declaration of Independence because some of the Southern delegates thought it implied emancipation. Am I saying that the Founding Fathers got everything right? Heck no. There's a reason why they put in the part about amending the Constitution: even they themselves knew that they had to have messed up somewhere, and that people in the future should be able to change it. Emancipation, women's suffrage, you name it, many things have changed since the country was first founded.
I'm sorry if I sounded like I was idolizing the writers of the Constitution, that was not my intent. However, with some of these self-proclaimed "real Americans" saying that you have to be Christian to be a good person, I had to point out that some of the realest Americans of all time wrote the legislation that is in their way.

Please read more carefully.

Some morals are religious, but not all.

Note how I said the first codified law (official morals) predated organized religion.

I'm an agnostic myself, and a firm believer in the first amendment, and I believe that everyone should have the right to practice their religious beliefs (or lack thereof), without being hassled or harrassed, as long as it does not preempt the rights of another person.
And you missed my point completely.

I was just pointing out that people who use the "you can't impose your morals on anyone because that's a violation of their rights" argument are (pardon my French) full of shit, because society imposes a moral code on everyone by the way of law.

I can tell you, from my experience travelling/touring all over the south and the rest of the US: the majority of the openly racist bastards I've met were labor union-type Democrats. They don't like them "rich, white men having anything to do with them damn ni**ers." These types are prevalent in the Deep South and middle northern states (Indiana, Michigan, etc.). My father was a prime example. He threw a complete fit when I started dating a half-black/half-Japanese girl.

The Dixiecrats never went away, they just reintegrated with the Democrat party, because it's easier to oppress a people from behind the scenes than it is to oppress them openly.

I'm not saying the Republicans are blameless. I'm just stating what I've seen.
Dixicrats joined the republicns, since you seem so familiar with down south I dare you to find 10 people that don't vote party line republican and are white or christian

Ihatevacations']since you seem so familiar with down south I dare you to find 10 people that don't vote party line republican and are white or christian
I can find that many in my neighborhood alone (and I currently live in an upscale neighborhood). In fact, you're arguing with one right now. :D

I can find that many in my neighborhood alone (and I currently live in an upscale neighborhood). In fact, you're arguing with one right now. :D
texas is texas, not the south

Ihatevacations']texas is texas, not the south
LMAO! We sure were part of "the South" when the Civil War was going on. Besides, I thought Texas was "one of them thar evil red states". Heck, Bush43 lives here! :eek:

No, it just further proves that the South and Midwest believe themselves to be such absurd things like "today's society" and "real Americans" to the further disenfranchisement of Northeasterners. The Northeast is consistently ridiculed by these "real Americans" for being out of touch with "today's society" when in reality these "real Americans" make up a slight majority. The arrogance of the South and Midwest is in every way equal to the arrogance they claim that "Massachusetts liberals" have, and it is just as sickening.

Oh, what's that I hear? Someone's talking?

Nevermind, it's just wind rattling over the flaming pile of dog crap in a paper bag hanging from the rest of America.

And you missed my point completely.

I was just pointing out that people who use the "you can't impose your morals on anyone because that's a violation of their rights" argument are (pardon my French) full of shit, because society imposes a moral code on everyone by the way of law.

And my personal view is that there is a difference between personal morals and societal morals, and that when societies come to a conclusion it can carry the weight of law, whereas when the morals of one person carry the weight of law we call that a Monarchy (or Despotism or a bunch of other things). You have a group of people, that agree? Great. But when it affects people who do not agree, tough.
For example, you may have as example a person who thinks killing is OK. Even a group of them. But when they interfere with the rights of another human being (who has the right to live) they have committed a crime.
Thus, in my opinion, the issue of abortion comes down to whether or not a zygote is a person. Not a person in the making, but a full-blown person.

Oh, what's that I hear? Someone's talking?

Nevermind, it's just wind rattling over the flaming pile of dog crap in a paper bag hanging from the rest of America.

Real professional, there. I must say you have a way with words. [/sarcasm]

Did you actually have something to say?

And my personal view is that there is a difference between personal morals and societal morals, and that when societies come to a conclusion it can carry the weight of law, whereas when the morals of one person carry the weight of law we call that a Monarchy (or Despotism or a bunch of other things). You have a group of people, that agree? Great. But when it affects people who do not agree, tough.
And my point is that societal morals are nothing more than an extension of the morals of the individuals that make up society.

Right now, the majority think murder is wrong and immoral, so there are laws against it. Right now, the majority believe that adults having sex with minors is wrong and immoral, so there are laws against it.

You agreed to my point even while saying you disagreed. Thank you for making my point for me, again. ;)

Note how I said the first codified law (official morals) predated organized religion.

No, you seemed to say it predated Judaism and Christianity. There is no conceivable sense in which it predated religion - Hammurabi had a religion, and a state one at that.

Islam and TERRORISM is one and the same thing. the Qur'an is a book
of Propaganda. Muhammad came 600 years after Jesus and pinched all
the ideas from the bible.

Islam and TERRORISM is one and the same thing. the Qur'an is a book
of Propaganda. Muhammad came 600 years after Jesus and pinched all
the ideas from the bible.

What about the centuries of Christian persecution of the Jews? It would be a crime to call Christianity a religion of murder simply for the acts of an extremist group of people, and it is the same case with Islam.

What about the centuries of Christian persecution of the Jews? It would be a crime to call Christianity a religion of murder simply for the acts of an extremist group of people, and it is the same case with Islam.

You are correct to say that a wicked Hindu does not mean that Hinduism is evil. You are correct to say that a wicked Christian does not mean that Christianity is evil.

But in the case of Islam, even if EVERY MUSLIM IN THE WORLD WERE THE MOST RIGHTEOUS, gentle, kind and charitable people, the Koran would STILL be evil. The Koran would be evil EVEN IF NO Muslims existed on the face of the earth.

This is because the beliefs and values which the Koran expresses are inherently evil and hateful and spiteful. The Koran describes Allah as a capricious being who damns and blesses whoever he feels like, and intentionally deceives the majority of "unbelievers", stopping their ears, blinding their eyes, MOCKING THEM, and consigning them to eternal torture with no hope of reform, while the righteous slop like pigs at a trough in a paradise of rivers of wine, and unlimited sexual pleasures with supernatural Houri virgins.

Any religion that portrays God in this fashion is evil and monstrous.

Islam and TERRORISM is one and the same thing. the Qur'an is a book
of Propaganda. Muhammad came 600 years after Jesus and pinched all
the ideas from the bible.
How many threads did you post your ignorant ravings on???

-snip-
Tell that to my two arch-conservative Muslim friends.....

How many threads did you post your ignorant ravings on???

What are you on about? Your ignorant.

What are you on about? Your ignorant.
It's you're, not your. Learn English

It's you're, not your. Learn English

I am English you fool!

What are you on about? Your ignorant.

I'm "on about" you posting the exact same rant about Islam on the "Ask a Muslim" thread - I'm wondering how many others got it too?

(Incidentally, as your post demonstrates, being English does not of necessity mean you have a firm grasp of the English language.)

I'm "on about" you posting the exact same rant about Islam on the "Ask a Muslim" thread - I'm wondering how many others got it too?

Well you should not put your rubish on all the threads should you?

And my point is that societal morals are nothing more than an extension of the morals of the individuals that make up society.

Right now, the majority think murder is wrong and immoral, so there are laws against it. Right now, the majority believe that adults having sex with minors is wrong and immoral, so there are laws against it.

You agreed to my point even while saying you disagreed. Thank you for making my point for me, again. ;)

Change "most" to "essentially all", and yeah, you have a point... about those examples.
However, it all comes down to the concept of "freedom". The theory is that you can do anything and everything, as long as it doesn't impinge upon the freedoms of others. There are some arbitrary lines drawn... when you can smoke, when you can drink, when you can drive, when you can get laid... but in general, those are set up by adults to protect children (well, the driving one is to protect everybody). With something like "my religion says it's wrong", and that religion is the only justification, that doesn't make any sense to make it a law. That would mean that people of other religions, who think it should be a different way, aren't allowed to follow their religious beliefs. That's analogous to the State saying that one religion is better than another. Now, read my wording carefully... I said if it's the only justification, then it shouldn't be legal. But, things like murder? People with religions who say to go murder people are just out of luck, because murdering people... well... rather impinges on their freedoms. Laws against murder, therefore, are secular, because they have very clear non-religious reasons, as well as the religious ones.

If I understand the point of this thread, it is to identify why a segment of the Christian white society left the Democrat party and affiliated with Republicans, correct?

The originator of this thread suggests that the opinion piece posted reflects "facts" which underlies the change in political affiliation for many Christian whites.

Without commenting on the accuracy of this suggestion, a few brief observations:

1. The post pre-supposes that no segment of the minority populations are opposed to abortion (ergo, the restriction of the op-ed piece to whites.)

2. The post suggests that the color of the citizen was a deciding factor in the change in affiliation (ergo, the restriction of the op-ed piece to whites.)

3. The post suggests that the Democrats have abandoned conventional political wisdom and catered to minorities at the expense of white Christians. The post sites only the party platform position on abortion, and incorporates the presumption in No. 1, above.

4. The post suggests that the decision by a woman in Peoria to have an abortion has a political (as opposed to moral) consequence on a white, male Christian in Alabama (ergo the suggested mass exodus to a political party which has adopted, in its platform, a position opposing abortion.) The post then suggests that the exodus was due to political intolerance of opposing viewpoints.

and finally

5. The piece suggests that Democrat losses in political elections center around an alleged abandonment of what can only be inferred--if the op-ed piece is to be believed---to be white, Christian values.


No moral, political or social intolerance or demogoguery there, folx. :rolleyes:

Well you should not put your rubish on all the threads should you?

Vaevictis was merely commenting on your posting of the same statement twice.

No, you seemed to say it predated Judaism and Christianity. There is no conceivable sense in which it predated religion - Hammurabi had a religion, and a state one at that.

Modern religions. Sorry.

Well you should not put your rubish on all the threads should you?
Wait, it's you're rubbish, isn't it? :D

Vaevictis was merely commenting on your posting of the same statement twice.
The Palestinians are to blame for all the middle east's problems.
Why are the [U.S.] still associated with this malignant cancer known
as the United Nations? They [UN] are anti-American; anti-Semitic; they
cheat, steal and lie (oil-for-food fiasco); they (Kofi) preach being
anti-gun with a stash of high-powered weapons hidden in the basement of
one of their buildings; they have a Human Rights Commission that
includes human rights violators, such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Zimbabwe,
Congo, Libya, China, and Cuba, etc., etc....and now a credible book that
reveals that they are drug-abusing perverts, as well.

The Palestinians are to blame for all the middle east's problems.
Why are the [U.S.] still associated with this malignant cancer known
as the United Nations? They [UN] are anti-American; anti-Semitic; they
cheat, steal and lie (oil-for-food fiasco); they (Kofi) preach being
anti-gun with a stash of high-powered weapons hidden in the basement of
one of their buildings; they have a Human Rights Commission that
includes human rights violators, such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Zimbabwe,
Congo, Libya, China, and Cuba, etc., etc....and now a credible book that
reveals that they are drug-abusing perverts, as well.

The Palestinians are not totally responsible. Both sides have done wrong things and the situation should be seen as such.

The UN has serious flaws within it that need to be fixed, I agree. However, it does good as well, and it is for this reason that the focus should be on reform rather than withdrawal.

You are correct to say that a wicked Hindu does not mean that Hinduism is evil. You are correct to say that a wicked Christian does not mean that Christianity is evil.

But in the case of Islam, even if EVERY MUSLIM IN THE WORLD WERE THE MOST RIGHTEOUS, gentle, kind and charitable people, the Koran would STILL be evil. The Koran would be evil EVEN IF NO Muslims existed on the face of the earth.

This is because the beliefs and values which the Koran expresses are inherently evil and hateful and spiteful. The Koran describes Allah as a capricious being who damns and blesses whoever he feels like, and intentionally deceives the majority of "unbelievers", stopping their ears, blinding their eyes, MOCKING THEM, and consigning them to eternal torture with no hope of reform, while the righteous slop like pigs at a trough in a paradise of rivers of wine, and unlimited sexual pleasures with supernatural Houri virgins.

Any religion that portrays God in this fashion is evil and monstrous.

Please feel free to post where in the Qur'an such things are written; perhaps were you to back up your assertions with evidence one might take you more seriously.

The Palestinians are to blame for all the middle east's problems...

And there's the rest of the unsubstantiated rant. That was some weapons grade cutting and pasting you did there. I begin to suspect you might be a little hard fo thinking?


*goes to check the UN threads to see if it's on there as well*

Please feel free to post where in the Qur'an such things are written; perhaps were you to back up your assertions with evidence one might take you more seriously.

I was going to ask you to come over and rebut his claims. We needed someone with a solid knowledge of Islam. :)

And there's the rest of the unsubstantiated rant. That was some weapons grade cutting and pasting you did there. I begin to suspect you might be a little hard fo thinking?

I wanted to say it but held back... ;)

Please feel free to post where in the Qur'an such things are written; perhaps were you to back up your assertions with evidence one might take you more seriously.

Oh Look its you with your muslim propaganda.
Everything in the Qu'ran is stolen from the bible, face it jesus was around long before mohamed. Or are you denying that fact?

Oh Look its you with your muslim propaganda.
Everything in the Qu'ran is stolen from the bible, face it jesus was around long before mohamed. Or are you denying that fact?

The Torah and Talmud were around before Christianity. Thus, could it be argued by your logic that Christianity stole from Judaism to build its beliefs and laws?

Oh Look its you with your muslim propaganda.
Everything in the Qu'ran is stolen from the bible, face it jesus was around long before mohamed. Or are you denying that fact?

Or perhaps the Qu'ran is a synthesis of the Bible and some later, original ideas from Mohammed? Rather like the Bible is the Tanakh with some new stuff about Jesus.

The Torah and Talmud were around before Christianity. Thus, could it be argued by your logic that Christianity stole from Judaism to build its beliefs and laws?

I'm not a Christian or a Jew so why would I care? You believe in such rubish you must be mad. What is your problem are you crazy?

Islam and TERRORISM is one and the same thing.
I'm trying to figure out if that's more wrong or more offensive... it's both of them to such a high degree that I'm having trouble desiding.
The Qur'an preaches peace, just as much as the Bible. Terrorists are fanatics (not always Muslim fanatics). Saying that all Muslims are members of Al Qaeda is like saying every Christian is a member of the KKK. They are equivolent organizations, one is just better funded.
the Qur'an is a book
of Propaganda.
As is any holy book...
Muhammad came 600 years after Jesus and pinched all
the ideas from the bible.
Yeah, so? Let me get this straight.

You're saying that Muhammad pinched all of his ideas from the Bible. And yet, what he came up with was terrorist propaganda? Now, how could that be? ::shocked:: Pick one or the other, but not both.

Or, how about this: Islam is to Christianity and Judaism as Christianity is to Judaism. In both of those relationships, one comes later, and incorporates (pinches) ideas from the previous sources. If you believe the Bible, Jesus was a good Jewish boy who was the Son of God and the last Prophet, who changed the message sent to the founders of the Jewish faith. Mohammed, on the other hand, said that Jesus was not the last prophet, but rather that he was one as well, and had some changes to make to the message of Jesus. You say that Muhammad is false, because he came after Jesus, and borrowed his ideas? Well, Jesus came well after the Jewish prophets, and the Old Testament is basically the Torah. By your own logic, Jesus was a fake and the Bible nothing but propaganda.
Please make sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in gear... or at least before posting rediculous flames.

I was going to ask you to come over and rebut his claims. We needed someone with a solid knowledge of Islam.

I learned some time ago it is better, if you are going to defend something, to force the opposition to actually make an argument and not to respond to irrational assertions at all. When... or perhaps if, he makes an argument utilizing logic I will respond. So long as he posts incoherent accusations with no reasoning behind them the only response he will get from me is a request for him to show some sensibility.

I'm no a Christian or a Jew so why would I care? You believe in such rubish you must be mad. What is your problem are you crazy?

I'm not crazy, just questioning your logic.

Oh Look its you with your muslim propaganda.
Everything in the Qu'ran is stolen from the bible, face it jesus was around long before mohamed. Or are you denying that fact?

Actually, that is arguable. I am reading it. There are some things that maybe argued as borrowed, but there are many that are not.

Muslims acknowledge Jesus as a prophet and they even talk of his return.

Other then that.......

Oh Look its you with your muslim propaganda.
Everything in the Qu'ran is stolen from the bible, face it jesus was around long before mohamed. Or are you denying that fact?

Asking you to back up your claim is not propaganda. If you can not back it up then it is clear to everyone including yourself just who is posting propaganda.

You are correct to say that a wicked Hindu does not mean that Hinduism is evil. You are correct to say that a wicked Christian does not mean that Christianity is evil.

But in the case of Islam, even if EVERY MUSLIM IN THE WORLD WERE THE MOST RIGHTEOUS, gentle, kind and charitable people, the Koran would STILL be evil. The Koran would be evil EVEN IF NO Muslims existed on the face of the earth.

This is because the beliefs and values which the Koran expresses are inherently evil and hateful and spiteful. The Koran describes Allah as a capricious being who damns and blesses whoever he feels like, and intentionally deceives the majority of "unbelievers", stopping their ears, blinding their eyes, MOCKING THEM, and consigning them to eternal torture with no hope of reform, while the righteous slop like pigs at a trough in a paradise of rivers of wine, and unlimited sexual pleasures with supernatural Houri virgins.

Any religion that portrays God in this fashion is evil and monstrous.

Again, before you flame, I would kindly ask you to consider what it is you're saying.
1. You're saying that a book is evil. Kinda weird and hocus-pocus, but whatever, you can believe what you want.
2. You are claiming that Islam is terrorism, and yet you then said that even if every Muslim were good, Islam itself would be bad. You have yet to substantiate this, except with uneducated claims about the Koran.
3. Do you forget how many people God orders killed in the Bible? Towns destroyed? Do you forget how, even though the commandment says "thou shalt not kill", He tells people to kill other people at times? About how the punishment for adultery is stoning? There are many facets of every supreme being, in every holy book, and for you to look at a few, singled out examples (not certain if they're even in there or not) picked out by someone who's trying to brainwash you into hating Islam and declare that the Koran is evil is very shortsighted of you.

You are a Muslim propagandists.
Yasser Arafat, Mr. Terrorism, This despicable collection of refuse from the garbage pits of the Planet Earth dares to insult the nation of Israel. This graveyard of mostly weak nations run by dictators deserves no honor or obedience. It honors the low, the cruel, the inhumane, the fanatics, the barbarians AND the cowards. It is the epitome of everything that is wrong with international organizations. It has now evolved into the mouthpiece of Satan. No decent nation should be a member. Certainly not God's Land of Israel.

By sticking up for the Palestinians you are saying its ok to blow people up. you are legitimizes terrorism.

You are a Muslim propagandists.
Yasser Arafat, Mr. Terrorism, This despicable collection of refuse from the garbage pits of the Planet Earth dares to insult the nation of Israel. This graveyard of mostly weak nations run by dictators deserves no honor or obedience. It honors the low, the cruel, the inhumane, the fanatics, the barbarians AND the cowards. It is the epitome of everything that is wrong with international organizations. It has now evolved into the mouthpiece of Satan. No decent nation should be a member. Certainly not God's Land of Israel.

You mention nations that are cruel dictatorships and use this to argue that Islam is evil. This is illogical, because for most of its history the Islamic world was the center of culture and learning. These dictatorships were imposed primarily because they were anti-Communist and kept oil cheap for the US. Thus, it is not Islam but these dictators that are responsible for terrorism. A similar situation would occur in any dictatorship that had to hold on to its power at all costs.

You are a Muslim propagandists.
Yasser Arafat, Mr. Terrorism, This despicable collection of refuse from the garbage pits of the Planet Earth dares to insult the nation of Israel. This graveyard of mostly weak nations run by dictators deserves no honor or obedience. It honors the low, the cruel, the inhumane, the fanatics, the barbarians AND the cowards. It is the epitome of everything that is wrong with international organizations. It has now evolved into the mouthpiece of Satan. No decent nation should be a member. Certainly not God's Land of Israel.

By sticking up for the Palestinians you are saying its ok to blow people up. you are legitimizes terrorism.

I have never once defended Yasser Arafat and in fact have denounced him since I was old enough to understand who and what he is.

For the record: what religion is it you follow? I thought I saw you previously state you were neither Christian nor Jew and given your antipathy toward Islam I doubt you are a Muslim.

You are a Muslim propagandists.
Yasser Arafat, Mr. Terrorism, This despicable collection of refuse from the garbage pits of the Planet Earth dares to insult the nation of Israel. This graveyard of mostly weak nations run by dictators deserves no honor or obedience. It honors the low, the cruel, the inhumane, the fanatics, the barbarians AND the cowards. It is the epitome of everything that is wrong with international organizations. It has now evolved into the mouthpiece of Satan. No decent nation should be a member. Certainly not God's Land of Israel.

By sticking up for the Palestinians you are saying its ok to blow people up. you are legitimizes terrorism.

Well you really don't know what the hell you are talking about do you?

I have been to the ME and have spoken to both Israelies and Palistinians.

If you belive all Palistinians belive in suicide bombings, you are rather ignorant.

You are a Muslim propagandists.

I must be one of the very few Jewish Muslim propagandists then.

You are a Muslim propagandists.
Yasser Arafat, Mr. Terrorism, This despicable collection of refuse from the garbage pits of the Planet Earth dares to insult the nation of Israel. This graveyard of mostly weak nations run by dictators deserves no honor or obedience. It honors the low, the cruel, the inhumane, the fanatics, the barbarians AND the cowards. It is the epitome of everything that is wrong with international organizations. It has now evolved into the mouthpiece of Satan. No decent nation should be a member. Certainly not God's Land of Israel.

By sticking up for the Palestinians you are saying its ok to blow people up. you are legitimizes terrorism.


"God's Land of Israel"?

"A mouthpiece of Satan"?

What happened to I'm not a Christian or a Jew so why would I care? You believe in such rubish you must be mad. What is your problem are you crazy???

To my knowledge, only Jews or Christians (and Muslims, I suppose, but I'm not as sure about that) would refer to the nation of Israel/region of Palestine as "God's Land of Israel". Furthermore, the concept of Satan (named as such) is exclusively a Judeo-Christian one. So I think what we have here is a case of either deliberate lies or just general incoherent trollery. :rolleyes:

I must be one of the very few Jewish Muslim propagandists then.

Apparently there is more than one of you! :D

What are you on about? Your ignorant.

First of all, it's "you're". Substitutions like that kinda tick me off, but especially when they're attached to a flame.

Care to substantiate? I personally think that the previous poster had a point...

I have never once defended Yasser Arafat and in fact have denounced him since I was old enough to understand who and what he is.

For the record: what religion is it you follow? I thought I saw you previously state you were neither Christian nor Jew and given your antipathy toward Islam I doubt you are a Muslim.

Then you are a good man, but your voice is silenced by all the other muslims that praise the attacks.

The Noble Quran is the Holy Words and Revelation of Allah Almighty. It is created from Allah Almighty. It was sent down to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him to be the Light and the Guide to Mankind, and to bring them from the darkness of worshiping idols and other methods of polytheism such as trinity, into the Lightness of Worshiping One True Living GOD Almighty. Let us look at few Noble Verses from the Noble Quran:

"Say: 'O People of the Book (i.e., Jews and Christians)! Come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah.' If then they turn back, say ye: 'Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will).' (The Noble Quran, 3:64)"

"God forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with God is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed. (The Noble Quran, 4:48)"

"Who can be better in religion than one who submits his whole self to God, does good, and follows the way of Abraham the true in Faith? For God did take Abraham for a friend. (The Noble Quran, 4:125)"

"Then Praise be to Allah, Lord of the heavens and Lord of the earth- Lord and Cherisher of all the worlds! To Him be Glory throughout the heavens and the earth: and He is Exalted in Power, Full of Wisdom!. (The Noble Quran, 45:36-37)"


The lie invented by the Muslim scholars suggests that some Quranic verses have been abrogated by other verses. On the other hand, the non-Muslim writers claim that these cases, and other cases they put forward, are in fact contradictions inside the Quran. Consequently, they use these cases as evidence to refute the divinity of the Quran.


See i know a bit about the quran.

You're wrong. Let me get into detail.

The Palestinians are to blame for all the middle east's problems.
There were no problems until their land was taken over. Both sides, the Israelis and the Palestinians, are to blame. They both continue the cycle of violence. Many people think that the Israelis are on the moral high ground, because the Palestinians use suicide bombers... but the Israelis knock down homes and fire missiles at cars suspected of carrying terrorist leaders, in traffic. Both sides are struggling for survival (one with the backing of the US and a hell of a lot of firepower) and neither is playing nice. Please don't be a simplistic as to say that it's "all their fault".

Why are the [U.S.] still associated with this malignant cancer known
as the United Nations?
Hmmm, flamie flamie McFlamesalot...
They [UN] are anti-American;
Ahem, we helped found it...
anti-Semitic;
Ahem, they founded the state of Isreal. Calling the UN Anti-semitic is like calling George Washington anti-American.
they cheat, steal and lie (oil-for-food fiasco);
So does everyone.
they (Kofi) preach being anti-gun with a stash of high-powered weapons hidden in the basement of
one of their buildings;
The US and the UK and many other nations deplore the development of WMDs, even though they themselves are the leading stockpilers...
they have a Human Rights Commission that
includes human rights violators, such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Zimbabwe,
Congo, Libya, China, and Cuba, etc., etc....
The US is buddies with China. China is a permanent member of the Security Council. The US has Gitmo, which is worse than China. Point?
and now a credible book that reveals that they are drug-abusing perverts, as well.
1. What are your standards on "credible"?
2. What exactly do you mean by "drug-abusing perverts"?
3. What in the heck does this have to do with anything?
4. Why are you so misinformed? (This is why we need better public schools...)

See i know a bit about the quran.

Or you know how to search the internet (http://answering-christianity.com/quran_not_eternal.htm)?

[QUOTE=Pacific Northwesteria]You're wrong. Let me get into detail.


There were no problems until their land was taken over. Both sides, the Israelis and the Palestinians, are to blame. They both continue the cycle of violence. Many people think that the Israelis are on the moral high ground, because the Palestinians use suicide bombers... but the Israelis knock down homes and fire missiles at cars suspected of carrying terrorist leaders, in traffic. Both sides are struggling for survival (one with the backing of the US and a hell of a lot of firepower) and neither is playing nice. Please don't be a simplistic as to say that it's "all their fault".

PLEASE! You believe what they say. GOD! you really need help.

If America, France or England had Muslim terrorists crossing there boarder blowing people up every day do you not think they would want some sort of justice.

Israel is one of the tiniest nations on the face of the earth... only about 8,000 sq. miles, 2½ times the size of Rhode Island and only slightly larger than the Canary Islands!. It is only 260 miles at its longest, has a 112-mile coastline, 60 miles at its widest, and between 3 and 9 miles at its narrowest! A very high-powered rifle could launch a projectile right across the country! This is particularly frightening when one considers that 65% of Israel's population is within this 9 mile wide section (Tel Aviv area). Yet Arab propagandists call Israel "expansionist" and the "aggressor" against all Arab peoples. For those unfamiliar with the Arab interpretation of "aggressor," it means one who dares fight back against Arab aggression!! So even though Israel may have fought only defensive wars, the mere fact that she resisted total destruction is viewed as an "act of aggression." That's a case of wacky logic but, unfortunately, Israel doesn't have the luxury of picking her enemies!

Unlike Islam's Koran {Quran}, which commands Muslims to force the entire planet to submit to literal control by Islam, the Jewish Torah promises the children of Israel a modest and reasonable allotment of land. Israel in RED , is a democratic nation 1/19th the size of California, surrounded by 22 hostile Arab/Islamic dictatorships with 640 times her size, 60 times her population and ALL the oil. How dare Arab propagandists call Israel "expansionist!"

By sticking up for the Palestinians you are saying its ok to blow people up. you are legitimizes terrorism.

Israel is one of the most open societies in the world. Out of a population of 6.7 million, about 1.3 million — 20 percent of the population — are non-Jews (approximately 1.1 million Muslims, 130,000 Christians and 100,000 Druze

Oh Look its you with your muslim propaganda.
Everything in the Qu'ran is stolen from the bible, face it jesus was around long before mohamed. Or are you denying that fact?

Please, educate yourself or defer to those who have. The Koran (or whatever of the various spellings you choose) is based on the Bible. Just like the Bible is based on the Torah.
Also, if it's stolen from the Bible, how can it be so wrong, if you're a Bible-lover?
Oh, and your "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this therefore because of this) logic is known to be useless. Consider: Everything President Bush does is stolen from King Louis XIV of France, face it Louis XIV was around long before Bush. Or are you denying this fact?

If you're doing this on purpose just to be funny, please stop. If you're serious, please educate yourself before speaking. In my opinion, speaking with your mouth full isn't nearly as bad as speaking with your mind empty.

I apologize for the bit of a flame, but I couldn't resist, and I did also have constructive stuff to say, unlike... ahem...

[QUOTE=Pacific Northwesteria]Please, educate yourself or defer to those who have. The Koran (or whatever of the various spellings you choose) is based on the Bible. Just like the Bible is based on the Torah.
Also, if it's stolen from the Bible, how can it be so wrong, if you're a Bible-lover?[QUOTE]

I am a not a Bible-lover? But I know more about the Bible and the Torah and the quran then you will ever know in you're lifetime.

[QUOTE=Pacific Northwesteria]You're wrong. Let me get into detail...


Was this direct from Masada 2000 (http://www.masada2000.org/geography.html) or did you lift it from one of the copy sites so that "you" could go into detail?

You are a Muslim propagandists.
Yasser Arafat, Mr. Terrorism, This despicable collection of refuse from the garbage pits of the Planet Earth dares to insult the nation of Israel. This graveyard of mostly weak nations run by dictators deserves no honor or obedience. It honors the low, the cruel, the inhumane, the fanatics, the barbarians AND the cowards. It is the epitome of everything that is wrong with international organizations. It has now evolved into the mouthpiece of Satan. No decent nation should be a member. Certainly not God's Land of Israel.

By sticking up for the Palestinians you are saying its ok to blow people up. you are legitimizes terrorism.

You realize that "Mr. Terrorism" is dead, right? Badmouthing the newly dead is not something that I will acknowledge as civilized.
He insulted Israel, did he? Well, guess what, we insult people all the time. Look at you! You insult more people than anyone.
Mouthpiece of Satan? Are you off your meds?

I'm not sticking up for the Palestinians. Reread my post, and come back when you're on your meds and reading correctly.

-snip-
Wow! :eek:

Who is this wingnut? :headbang:

While I don't fuly believe that Islam is the "religion of peace" as some people say, I don't believe it is "evil" any more than I believe that all Muslims are "evil".

There are good and bad in EVERY religion, race, nationality, etc. It just happens that they super extremist wingnuts (like Hamas, Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, etc) make the rest look bad. Just like the extremist Phelpsians and abortion clinic bombers make Christians look bad. Just like extremist Zionist elitests make Jews look bad.

I'm a Christian. I've read the Torah, Qur'an, Bible and a host of other holy texts. None of them are inherently "evil". It's HUMANS that screw things up by mininterpreting the message.

BTW, has someone called a Mod on this fool yet?

I am a not a Bible-lover? But I know more about the Bible and the Torah and the quran then you will ever know in you're lifetime.

That's a sweeping statement. What do you base the assertion on? What are your (note spelling) qualifications?

I must be one of the very few Jewish Muslim propagandists then.

LOL I love stupid people, don't you, Vaevictis?

LOL I love stupid people, don't you, Vaevictis?

They help me feel good about myself. :)

LOL I love stupid people, don't you, Vaevictis?

You can't win the argument by calling me stupid, when you're really dumb yourself.

Jabba, I'm not even sure I know what the argument is any more. We were having a discussion about one thing and now we seem to be discussing your baseless assertion that Islam is evil, supported by opinions you're passing off as your own but which are actually lifted straight from websites with a known and obvious anti-Islamic agenda.

Then you are a good man, but your voice is silenced by all the other muslims that praise the attacks.

The Noble Quran is the Holy Words and Revelation of Allah Almighty. It is created from Allah Almighty. It was sent down to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him to be the Light and the Guide to Mankind, and to bring them from the darkness of worshiping idols and other methods of polytheism such as trinity, into the Lightness of Worshiping One True Living GOD Almighty. Let us look at few Noble Verses from the Noble Quran:

"Say: 'O People of the Book (i.e., Jews and Christians)! Come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah.' If then they turn back, say ye: 'Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will).' (The Noble Quran, 3:64)"

"God forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with God is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed. (The Noble Quran, 4:48)"

"Who can be better in religion than one who submits his whole self to God, does good, and follows the way of Abraham the true in Faith? For God did take Abraham for a friend. (The Noble Quran, 4:125)"

"Then Praise be to Allah, Lord of the heavens and Lord of the earth- Lord and Cherisher of all the worlds! To Him be Glory throughout the heavens and the earth: and He is Exalted in Power, Full of Wisdom!. (The Noble Quran, 45:36-37)"


The lie invented by the Muslim scholars suggests that some Quranic verses have been abrogated by other verses. On the other hand, the non-Muslim writers claim that these cases, and other cases they put forward, are in fact contradictions inside the Quran. Consequently, they use these cases as evidence to refute the divinity of the Quran.


See i know a bit about the quran.


Much better than your previous... well, I won't go into what your previous posts were.
However, every holy book contradicts itself, unless it says nothing at all. Either they are all not divine (which is a distinct possibility, but does that really matter anymore? These religions have taken on lives of their own), or perhaps God is more complex than you can imagine, so it is not for you to judge what is and is not divine.
And we don't know that you know things about the Qur'an. We just know that you have fully master the use of the "ctrl", "c", and "p" keys.

Jabba, I'm not even sure I know what the argument is any more. We were having a discussion about one thing and now we seem to be discussing your baseless assertion that Islam is evil, supported by opinions you're passing off as your own but which are actually lifted straight from websites with a known and obvious anti-Islamic agenda.

You don't no anything!

Or you know how to search the internet (http://answering-christianity.com/quran_not_eternal.htm)?
Haha my suspicions were right, I knew he didn't know those words :)

To Start: Nice original post by the Reagan person. True or not, the naysayers weren't fair, for a random post around here I thought it was pretty good.

As to the Qur'an copying from the Bible. Not much. It references many stories for the Infancy Gospels of Thomas but we all know that they are cannon and are heretic. But it does tell us something, it tells us that six hundred years after Jesus and two hundred years after the council of Nicaea, that someone, down in the Saudi Arabian peninsula was still handing around copies or verbally remembering a 'fake' gospel that had been disbarred for approximately 200 years already.

One of the many stories about the recording of the Qur’an and Mohammed was that the Prophet was illiterate, however, that's considered as a proof that he was visited by an angelic spirit that proved it's presence by selecting an illiterate man to perform the revelation to (so that he wasn’t copying anything) and miraculously allowed him to memorize all night the book he had to recite back to the spirit (once said to have been a possessed salamander but that didn’t have the desired effect on the audience when they heard it so it was then just said to have been an angel sent from heaven to the cave to meet with him). After perfectly reciting the night’s revelation in the moring, the spirit would leave and the prophet was then free to take the story down from the cave on the mountain and tell it again to ten scribes that would write down all of his words and if there were any errors, they were to destroy that copy and start over again etc.

It’s all very nice. Infancy gospels (Gnostic ones at best, heretical ones at worst –I learn towards heretical myself), Virgin Birth, lessons to the people to follow Moses laws ete., etc., etc.. However, the Qur’an makes absolutely zero, none, zilch mistake about saying the Jesus Christ did NOT die on the cross. They say that you cannot believe he did or else you think God abandon’s his own and can’t defend them. It says instead, that another person was changed to look like Jesus and HE was crucified in Jesus place and Jesus rose into heaven like Elijah (never dying) so that he can return to fight (and lose strangely enough) in the last battle with Lucifer (whoever said Satan doesn’t exist in Islam was mistaken) who kills both Elijah and Jesus before he (Satan) is killed by Allah/Islam.

Now this makes for a dilemma. The New Testament AND the Qur’an cannot both be the same story, as the Qur’an claims. The New Testament says that any ‘prophet’ messenger that comes after and denies that Jesus died and rose again is a false prophet and the Qur’an says that one cannot believe that Jesus died or they are a sinner…

So, in the end, the two books are not compatible.



As for Yasser Arafat, I’m was a once a young American sailor serving in Beirut during the era of the Lebanon War, directly after the US Embassy barracks was bombed, during the Regan years… That man had no love lost for us, constant pot shots and kidnappings etc., even though it was the Israeli army going after the PLO in Beirut, not us,

I will never forget that he gave a speech in the street just before he abandoned the city for the last time, how he promised, no matter what he would say later, to the world at large, that they, his favorite followers, should always remember that he was dedicated to the complete abolishment of Israel and he would never quit (no matter what he had to say in politics later) that he was with them and would never quit until it (Israel) was pushed into the Sea.

Well, me being a 19 year old dork getting shot at by an enemy we weren’t even fighting (we were defending the Airport, Embassy, University etc, but not active in the war except to keep Syrian forces out etc.,) I had no love lost right back for that man when he passed away… Can there be peace now? God willing.

Haha my suspicions were right, I knew he didn't know those words :)

You have got to be kidding me? Are you crazy, I can't even believe what you're saying. Are you for real?

You don't no anything!


No. Clearly. Again, I ask, upon what do you base that assertion? You seem singularly unwilling to answer any of the points I've raised, perhaps it is you who doesn't "no [sic] anything"?

[QUOTE=Pacific Northwesteria]You're wrong. Let me get into detail.


There were no problems until their land was taken over. Both sides, the Israelis and the Palestinians, are to blame. They both continue the cycle of violence. Many people think that the Israelis are on the moral high ground, because the Palestinians use suicide bombers... but the Israelis knock down homes and fire missiles at cars suspected of carrying terrorist leaders, in traffic. Both sides are struggling for survival (one with the backing of the US and a hell of a lot of firepower) and neither is playing nice. Please don't be a simplistic as to say that it's "all their fault".

PLEASE! You believe what they say. GOD! you really need help.

If America, France or England had Muslim terrorists crossing there boarder blowing people up every day do you not think they would want some sort of justice.

Israel is one of the tiniest nations on the face of the earth... only about 8,000 sq. miles, 2½ times the size of Rhode Island and only slightly larger than the Canary Islands!. It is only 260 miles at its longest, has a 112-mile coastline, 60 miles at its widest, and between 3 and 9 miles at its narrowest! A very high-powered rifle could launch a projectile right across the country! This is particularly frightening when one considers that 65% of Israel's population is within this 9 mile wide section (Tel Aviv area). Yet Arab propagandists call Israel "expansionist" and the "aggressor" against all Arab peoples. For those unfamiliar with the Arab interpretation of "aggressor," it means one who dares fight back against Arab aggression!! So even though Israel may have fought only defensive wars, the mere fact that she resisted total destruction is viewed as an "act of aggression." That's a case of wacky logic but, unfortunately, Israel doesn't have the luxury of picking her enemies!

Unlike Islam's Koran {Quran}, which commands Muslims to force the entire planet to submit to literal control by Islam, the Jewish Torah promises the children of Israel a modest and reasonable allotment of land. Israel in RED , is a democratic nation 1/19th the size of California, surrounded by 22 hostile Arab/Islamic dictatorships with 640 times her size, 60 times her population and ALL the oil. How dare Arab propagandists call Israel "expansionist!"

By sticking up for the Palestinians you are saying its ok to blow people up. you are legitimizes terrorism.

Israel is one of the most open societies in the world. Out of a population of 6.7 million, about 1.3 million — 20 percent of the population — are non-Jews (approximately 1.1 million Muslims, 130,000 Christians and 100,000 Druze

This is obviously c&p, seeing as how it includes "Isreal in RED" (yet, curiously, there is no map) but nice try anyway. I'll respond to it, even though it's c&p (at least most of it).

Let's see here.

1. I "believe what they say"? They have videographic proof of what I was talking about. I "need help"? No, I don't, I just know a bit more about the world than you do.
2. You musn't forget that Israel used to belong to the Palestinians. Whether it belonged to the Jews before that doesn't really matter. It was controlled by the Arabs ever since the fall of the last Crusade. Until the UN (which you called anti-semitic... I'll never understand that one) installed the Jews there. Do I think the Jews have a right to a homeland? You betcha. Do I think Israel has a right to exist, and a right to protect itself? You betcha. But do I think that they should bulldoze homes and fire missiles at cars on the road, killing nearby children walking on the sidewalk? No. I think that's going a bit far.
3. Israel's small???????? Really?????? I thought it was 50 times the size of Russia!!!!!!!!! (We get your point, we already knew it, but does it matter?)
4. During Israel's defensive wars, they repulsed the invaders and then took additional land (some of which they eventually gave back). Despite the fact that their neighbors were the aggressors, Israel actually expanded.
5. Ok, so most of the Arab nations aren't exactly pro-Israel. What were you expecting? The sentiment is returned, you can be assured.
6. The last line you already posted earlier. I don't like repeats. However, I will say again that I do not condone terrorism. On either side. So stop putting words into my mouth.

No. Clearly. Again, I ask, upon what do you base that assertion? You seem singularly unwilling to answer any of the points I've raised, perhaps it is you who doesn't "no [sic] anything"?

Perhaps its because the points you raise are pathetic, you need to educate yourself. Then we will be on a level playing field. Why have I always got to talk down to you as if you were a child, you must learn things and try to keep up with me.

[QUOTE=Pacific Northwesteria]Please, educate yourself or defer to those who have. The Koran (or whatever of the various spellings you choose) is based on the Bible. Just like the Bible is based on the Torah.
Also, if it's stolen from the Bible, how can it be so wrong, if you're a Bible-lover?[QUOTE]

I am a not a Bible-lover? But I know more about the Bible and the Torah and the quran then you will ever know in you're lifetime.
Sorry, I must have gotten the wrong impression somehow about your relationship with the Bible.

However, I am rather concerned with your claimed ability to see the future.

[QUOTE=Jabba Huts]

Was this direct from Masada 2000 (http://www.masada2000.org/geography.html) or did you lift it from one of the copy sites so that "you" could go into detail?

Yes, he did apparently lift it directly from there, but the "let me go into detail" was my quote... he doesn't know how to use quotes correctly, and so closes them with [ QUOTE] instead of [ /QUOTE] (extra space to protect against actual usage of the tags).
Anyway, it was me "going into detail".

Perhaps its because the points you raise are pathetic, you need to educate yourself. Then we will be on a level playing field. Why have I always got to talk down to you as if you were a child, you must learn things and try to keep up with me.
You wouldn't happen to be the heathen lovechild of Spaam and AnarchyeL, would you?

Perhaps its because the points you raise are pathetic, you need to educate yourself. Then we will be on a level playing field. Why have I always got to talk down to you as if you were a child, you must learn things and try to keep up with me.

Keep up with the single point you've made, you mean? Islam is evil. OK, I think I can manage to keep up with that. You cite no examples from the Qu'ran to support that, you then tell us that all of the problems in the Middle East are the fault of Palestinians and again singularly fail to support it. It's you who needs the education, not I. You cut and paste hate filled propaganda from dubious internet sites, my arguments and knowledge of the area and the subject are based on the rather firmer qualifications of being a history PhD with a masters in comparative theology. You want a serious debate, bring it on, but I can hardly answer points you've not made and I don't particularly care to be patronised by the semi-literate.

You can't win the argument by calling me stupid, when you're really dumb yourself.
Ah, the sweet irony of that statement...

By the way, I'm rather far from stupid. A historian or social scientist I am not, nor am I an expert on religious texts. I never claim to be. However, I know some things, and not from brainwashing and/or the internet, which is apparently how you know things.
My comment was in response to your ignorance, which is different from stupidity. A simple lapse in diction, my mistake.

Wow!

Who is this wingnut?

BTW, has someone called a Mod on this fool yet?
You know, I thought I recognized the name Jabba Huts. About 17 days ago, he sent an EXTREMELY bizarre TG to one of my puppets. I rarely check the TG's of any of my puppet nations, so I just discovered it yesterday. Now, I don't know this nation and have never had any dealings with him. The TG wasn't threatening or anything, it was just really very weird.

You don't no anything!

Perhaps, but he/she does know quite a lot, which is something that you should aspire to emulate.

The TG wasn't threatening or anything, it was just really very weird.

Well, now everybody's wondering. Can you re-post the weirdness to satisfy our newfound curiousity?

Ah, the sweet irony of that statement...

By the way, I'm rather far from stupid. A historian or social scientist I am not, nor am I an expert on religious texts. I never claim to be. However, I know some things, and not from brainwashing and/or the internet, which is apparently how you know things.
My comment was in response to your ignorance, which is different from stupidity. A simple lapse in diction, my mistake.



You are all debating and that is what this is about so I have done what I set out to do. Islam is not bad or dare I say it not any wores than the other ones.

You have got to be kidding me? Are you crazy, I can't even believe what you're saying. Are you for real?
When you're in a hole, it is advised that you stop digging.

I'm going to ask you to explain what exactly you mean by this, but I doubt you'll care that I asked for the explanation.

Well, so you never meant it, Jabba? You just posted that crap on three threads to stimulate debate? If that were really the case, you'd have started a thread to debate it, not hijacked others, sorry but that has "pathetic excuse" written all over it.

Perhaps its because the points you raise are pathetic, you need to educate yourself. Then we will be on a level playing field. Why have I always got to talk down to you as if you were a child, you must learn things and try to keep up with me.
Now I am singularly confused, and that's not due to a lack of intelligence on my part. I'm starting to think mental illness or joke nation, and I'm not even kidding. I don't mean that as a poorly thought-up insult. I mean that as an actual possibility for his responses.

When you're in a hole, it is advised that you stop digging.

I'm going to ask you to explain what exactly you mean by this, but I doubt you'll care that I asked for the explanation.


I canot debate with you you're lack of what is called a brain makes it hard for me to talk in such a way that you would understand. I not being funny but I'm on another level to you.

You are all debating and that is what this is about so I have done what I set out to do. Islam is not bad or dare I say it not any wores than the other ones.

I suspected the post you had made was not serious.

You are all debating and that is what this is about so I have done what I set out to do. Islam is not bad or dare I say it not any wores than the other ones.
What? Sorry, I really couldn't understand what you were saying...

What? Sorry, I really couldn't understand what you were saying...

I understand that. You just listen, like a good boy.

I canot debate with you you're lack of what is called a brain makes it hard for me to talk in such a way that you would understand. I not being funny but I'm on another level to you.

No, you're not being funny, you're being pathetic. Every post you've made on this thread suggests a basic want of intelligence and when challenged to defend your "points" all you've done is insult our intelligence. I agree, you are on another level to me, but I don't think it's a higher one. And, whatever your protestation now, I do think you meant your original post, which is just sad.

my arguments and knowledge of the area and the subject are based on the rather firmer qualifications of being a history PhD with a masters in comparative theology. I don't particularly care to be patronised by the semi-literate.

Where did you buy you're PHD from? and check you're own spelling semi-literate would be a good way to discribe it.

Well, now everybody's wondering. Can you re-post the weirdness to satisfy our newfound curiousity?
Basically, it was the World Factbook Entry from his region: Hells fire the deepest pit. Go check it out.

I canot debate with you you're lack of what is called a brain makes it hard for me to talk in such a way that you would understand. I not being funny but I'm on another level to you.
That much is clear. You didn't have to tell me. I'm looking down at that level right now. I may be in high school, but according to standardized testing, i'm in the top 1% of the US for my age, in every category that they measure (they don't measure artistic talent... I'd probably be in the bottom 10% if they did that). In a month or so I'll officially start to learn Calculus, even though I know a few of the very basic bits of it already. I have taken and gotten an A in a course in Logic at a well-respected high-school, which culminated with an 11-page paper which logically disected an argument made in an article by an adult. I have taken a course in the history of Islam and Arabia. I have a copy of the Holy Koran in my house. I have heard lecturers speak on many of the relevant issues. I have spoken with people who have been to Israel, and spoken with Israelis and Palestinians alike. Pardon me for "tooting my own horn" for a paragraph here, but you kind of forced my hand. If you will not elevate this discussion, I will attempt to report you, although the mods may deem it harmless what you are doing.

Where did you buy you're PHD from? and check you're own spelling semi-literate would be a good way to discribe it.
This time it's "your", bub.

Edit: Also, it's "PhD", and you're rather rash to assume that it was gotten illegally. Normally I try not to stoop to ad hominem tu quoque (pointing out hypocrisy) but you're not one to complain about others' spelling.

That much is clear. You didn't have to tell me. I'm looking down at that level right now. I may be in high school, but according to standardized testing, i'm in the top 1% of the US for my age, in every category that they measure (they don't measure artistic talent... I'd probably be in the bottom 10% if they did that). In a month or so I'll officially start to learn Calculus, even though I know a few of the very basic bits of it already. I have taken and gotten an A in a course in Logic at a well-respected high-school, which culminated with an 11-page paper which logically disected an argument made in an article by an adult. I have taken a course in the history of Islam and Arabia. I have a copy of the Holy Koran in my house. I have heard lecturers speak on many of the relevant issues. I have spoken with people who have been to Israel, and spoken with Israelis and Palestinians alike. Pardon me for "tooting my own horn" for a paragraph here, but you kind of forced my hand. If you will not elevate this discussion, I will attempt to report you, although the mods may deem it harmless what you are doing.

Good for you, It dos'nt say much for you're school does it?

Where did you buy you're PHD from? and check you're own spelling semi-literate would be a good way to discribe it.

Really? Where are my gratuitous spelling errors? Perhaps you can 'discribe' them to me? I didn't buy my PhD, I studied for it at one of the world's top universities. Now, I grant that possessing a PhD doesn't give me the right to dismiss others' arguments as inferior to my own, but until you know what you're talking about you should refrain from mocking others.

I've already said that if you want to have a serious discussion about Islam/Palestine/Israel/the Middle East then I'm perfectly prepared to have it in an appropriate thread, but you've now posted your drivel on four distinct threads in a clear effort to derail them all. You've succeeded here in hijacking the topic, and in part I'm responsible for actually replying to you. Now that I see you can't form a single coherent argument and just insult me instead, I don't see much point in continuing.

Good for you, It dos'nt say much for you're school does it?

First of all, it's "your" again.

To give you an idea, it's the same high school that Bush graduated (barely) from. And he, unlike myself, had enough money to go wherever he wanted.

If you were trying to insult me, it just backfired.

as henrik ibsen and mark twain have pointed out, the majority is always wrong.

(in response to earlier statements about the democrats not representing "the american people")

Really? Where are my gratuitous spelling errors? Perhaps you can 'discribe' them to me? I didn't buy my PhD, I studied for it at one of the world's top universities. Now, I grant that possessing a PhD doesn't give me the right to dismiss others' arguments as inferior to my own, but until you know what you're talking about you should refrain from mocking others.

I've already said that if you want to have a serious discussion about Islam/Palestine/Israel/the Middle East then I'm perfectly prepared to have it in an appropriate thread, but you've now posted your drivel on four distinct threads in a clear effort to derail them all. You've succeeded here in hijacking the topic, and in part I'm responsible for actually replying to you. Now that I see you can't form a single coherent argument and just insult me instead, I don't see much point in continuing.

Ok I would like to ask you a question, I'm only debating on this thread now, Its hard to fight 4 different arguments. What do you think about the Palestinians and how they are trying to get the land back.

Ps I'm sorry to you and the others, but I must defend myself if I feel attacked.

No dice. This thread should be allowed to return to topic - probably will end up being locked though for having strayed so far off. You want a debate, start a thread, but don't post the same cut and paste chunk of text or that'll likely be closed too.

I agree with Vaevictis (does that name mean something? My Latin is rusty, I'm not sure...).
Also, you would do well not to make claims you can't support when you feel attacked. Making false claims about others is not going to increase your standing.

I agree with Vaevictis (does that name mean something? My Latin is rusty, I'm not sure...).
Also, you would do well not to make claims you can't support when you feel attacked. Making false claims about others is not going to increase your standing.

Sorry.

Now lets talk about white Christian parties.

Pacific Northwesteria did you feel offended by Dean's thoughtless? Demeaning remark because it stereotypes both Democrats and Republicans, and excludes white Christians?

So if the Republican Party has become the "white, Christian party," as Dean charges, it's partly so because the Democratic Party has made white Christians feel so uncomfortable in its ranks. The Democrats have bent over backwards to please minority groups — blacks, gays, angry feminists and atheists — at the expense of us old white guys (and gals — yes, we're not afraid to call our wives that) who grew up not feeling guilty about being white or Christian.

I think this paragraph has to be the most telling of the whole article, it betrays a huge lack of understanding. It's essentially saying that being white and christian is incompatible with the idea of supporting the rights of minorities. Nobody asks that whites or christians should feel guilty about being white or christian, they do ask that they acknowledge that other people aren't one or other of those things and expect you to feel guilty if you ARE guilty of persecuting or discriminating against them for being.

(PS Vae Victis means woe to the conquered.)

I think this paragraph has to be the most telling of the whole article, it betrays a huge lack of understanding. It's essentially saying that being white and christian is incompatible with the idea of supporting the rights of minorities. Nobody asks that whites or christians should feel guilty about being white or christian, they do ask that they acknowledge that other people aren't one or other of those things and expect you to feel guilty if you ARE guilty of persecuting or discriminating against them for being.

(PS Vae Victis means woe to the conquered.)

I believe people who feel guilty for being what they can't help being is the problem here. White Lib are always apologizing. The question should be why do they feel the need? What is wrong with being white? Slavery happened over a hundred years ago should we forever feel guilt for that?

I'm from Bristol England a city founded on slaves, should I feel some guilt?

Sorry.

Now lets talk about white Christian parties.

Pacific Northwesteria did you feel offended by Dean's thoughtless? Demeaning remark because it stereotypes both Democrats and Republicans, and excludes white Christians?
I think Dean overstated something that is true. While not all white Christians are Republicans, and not all Republicans are white Christians, the Republican Party seems to currently embody the agenda of the Christian Right. The Republicans are historically anti-Civil Rights, thus the "white" image, and are historically for school prayer, thus the Christian image. I can understand where Dean was coming from, but I think he exaggerated a bit, and said it poorly so that it was unnecessarily provocative and heavy-handed.

I think this paragraph has to be the most telling of the whole article, it betrays a huge lack of understanding. It's essentially saying that being white and christian is incompatible with the idea of supporting the rights of minorities. Nobody asks that whites or christians should feel guilty about being white or christian, they do ask that they acknowledge that other people aren't one or other of those things and expect you to feel guilty if you ARE guilty of persecuting or discriminating against them for being.

(PS Vae Victis means woe to the conquered.)

Right on. That's a good way of thinking about it.
(P.S. Thanks, never thought of breaking it up.)

I believe people who feel guilty for being what they can't help being is the problem here. White Lib are always apologizing. The question should be why do they feel the need? What is wrong with being white? Slavery happened over a hundred years ago should we forever feel guilt for that?

I'm from Bristol England a city founded on slaves, should I feel some guilt?

I think this is a problem in a lot of countries. We can all agree that everyone should be entitled to the same rights and privileges as anyone else, I hope?! However, a lot of groups which represent minorities (and here I certainly include the Jewish Times, so I'm not letting "my" minority off the hook) tend to couch their arguments in terms almost of revenge rather than in the more moderate language of addressing wrongs. We're all familiar with the whole "for 300 years of slavery" argument, and sure, that's valid, but it's wrong to blame the people alive today for the crimes of their ancestors. It's more productive to argue that people should be treated equally as a result of inherent qualities they posess as humans than it is to get heated about what your grandad did to my grandad and almost get to the point of making demands that only if the majority suffers can the minority's suffering be erased.

Incidentally, I'm from Glasgow, and I feel no guilt that most of the ships that made the British Empire possible were built here, because I didn't build them. But that raises an interesting point: we don't feel shame at the misdeeds of our ancestors, but we probably do feel pride in their accomplishments. Can we square those philosophically?

I believe people who feel guilty for being what they can't help being is the problem here. White Lib are always apologizing. The question should be why do they feel the need? What is wrong with being white? Slavery happened over a hundred years ago should we forever feel guilt for that?

I'm from Bristol England a city founded on slaves, should I feel some guilt?

Not "guilt", I don't think. Just because you apologize, doesn't mean you feel guilty. If you apologize on behalf of someone else, for example your ancestors or the past actions of your country (similar to growing up in Germany... the Holocaust wasn't your fault, but yet you may want to apologize on behalf of your countrymen for what happened) it shows good faith in fixing that which is still wrong with the world.
As for you? Guilt doesn't help anybody in these cases. I think you should be sorry that that is how it happened, but no personal guilt at all. But what does it matter what I say? You will believe what you want to believe, and be guilty if you want to or not if you don't want to.
I personally am acutely aware that I am white and middle-class, and I am also acutely aware of all of the people who had to suffer to bring the US, and by extension me, to the current high standard of living. It wasn't my fault, but I benefitted from it, and so if I can it is my duty to help fix it.

Umm... I recall earlier people were talking about Jeff Gannon and his "moral leniency." Well apparently this article was written by James P. Gannon, who was an ex-WSJ writer.

Oh and Jabba Huts, aren't you like 11?

... It wasn't my fault, but I benefitted from it, and so if I can it is my duty to help fix it.

Indeed. There's a very strong (and mostly laudable) streak of self-reliance in the American national character. You work hard to get ahead. What sometimes seems to be lacking is a willingness to then make it easier for others to get a leg up, and a tendency to jealously hoard what is yours.

I realise I'm going to be attacked for that generalisation, but I wonder to what extent the general feeling is "if I worked hard and did well, so can someone else", or is there any sense in which "I worked hard and did well, and now I should use my position to make life better for others".

I've actually had arguments with people who would say that it's not the duty of the West to try to help developing countries because our nations had to go through hardship to get to our present state, so they can too. This totally overlooks the fact that we live in a very different world to the one of the middle ages and have far more advantages, I feel we have a duty to try to bring those to others with the minimum of suffering and hardship. others feel that's a patronising white, western attitude. So, like it or not, we are and will be burdened by the events of the past.

Hmm, that's very poorly structured, but I lack the will to go back and fix it.

Parthini']Umm... I recall earlier people were talking about Jeff Gannon and his "moral leniency." Well apparently this article was written by James P. Gannon, who was an ex-WSJ writer.

I wondered about that, but as I'd never heard of Guckert/Gannon, I thought I'd better leave it alone. So it was by someone totally different? That amuses me, for some reason.

Parthini']Umm... I recall earlier people were talking about Jeff Gannon and his "moral leniency." Well apparently this article was written by James P. Gannon, who was an ex-WSJ writer.

Oh and Jabba Huts, aren't you like 11?

I'm 23.

So we need to look at history and learn from the mistakes, I agree, but all to often history repeats itself. Morally we have a duty to always remenber. But at which point do we stop (remenbering) and start blaming it could become a vicious circle?

I think this is a problem in a lot of countries. We can all agree that everyone should be entitled to the same rights and privileges as anyone else, I hope?! However, a lot of groups which represent minorities (and here I certainly include the Jewish Times, so I'm not letting "my" minority off the hook) tend to couch their arguments in terms almost of revenge rather than in the more moderate language of addressing wrongs. We're all familiar with the whole "for 300 years of slavery" argument, and sure, that's valid, but it's wrong to blame the people alive today for the crimes of their ancestors. It's more productive to argue that people should be treated equally as a result of inherent qualities they posess as humans than it is to get heated about what your grandad did to my grandad and almost get to the point of making demands that only if the majority suffers can the minority's suffering be erased.
I am (unfortunately) familiar with that line of reasoning. I personally think that it isn't a reasonable one, and that's part of why I'm against the death penalty. Revenge, no matter how badly you want it, isn't going to bring the dead back, or reverse the carnage. I honestly don't know how I feel about affirmative action. I recognize that blacks are still suffering from the long-term results of slavery and Jim Crow, but still I don't see how I can accept putting a black person ahead of a white person simply because they weren't started on equal footings. Also, there are some black people who have managed to become quite wealthy, despite their ancestors being trod upon... would you give their kids an advantage over working-class whites? Certainly not. I think that on the question of affirmative action, the answer is much more complicated than "yes" or "no".


Incidentally, I'm from Glasgow, and I feel no guilt that most of the ships that made the British Empire possible were built here, because I didn't build them. But that raises an interesting point: we don't feel shame at the misdeeds of our ancestors, but we probably do feel pride in their accomplishments. Can we square those philosophically?
Hmmm, never thought about it that way. Although I do feel some shame that America has done some downright horrible things in the past (Native Americans, Irish and Chinese immigrants, Japanese camps in WWII, slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, lynch mobs, and a myriad of others) I do not so much dwell on it. However, when I think of the American victory in WWII, I feel just as much pride as an Englishman thinking about the RAF (or me thinking about the RAF... the Spitfire is one of my all-time favo[u]rites). Or when I think about the Bill of Rights. I think that to a certain extent we tend to assume that the good qualities of a civilization can be remembered proudly because the tradition can be carried on by future generations, whereas we don't dwell upon the bad qualities because we naïvely assume that we will not repeat the same mistakes, and so that is not an enduring part of our inherited culture.

Indeed. There's a very strong (and mostly laudable) streak of self-reliance in the American national character. You work hard to get ahead. What sometimes seems to be lacking is a willingness to then make it easier for others to get a leg up, and a tendency to jealously hoard what is yours.
That is interesting... being about to (hopefully) get my first job, I can't say for sure how I'd act in the "real world". Probably somewhere in the middle. As in I'd give to charity, but not so much as to actually hurt me, because to some extent I want to enjoy what I earn. However, I understand the importance of things like taxes (I am a liberal, afterall) and know that it's not just about me. An interesting point.

I realise I'm going to be attacked for that generalisation, but I wonder to what extent the general feeling is "if I worked hard and did well, so can someone else", or is there any sense in which "I worked hard and did well, and now I should use my position to make life better for others".
Unfortunately, it is the former position that is the logic behind much of the conservative movement. If you accept that to be true, then you don't need anything but a temporary unemployment insurance for helping the poor, because you think it's their own damn fault that they're poor. The worst part is, it's an ideology, so it's hard if not impossible to disprove.

I've actually had arguments with people who would say that it's not the duty of the West to try to help developing countries because our nations had to go through hardship to get to our present state, so they can too. This totally overlooks the fact that we live in a very different world to the one of the middle ages and have far more advantages, I feel we have a duty to try to bring those to others with the minimum of suffering and hardship. others feel that's a patronising white, western attitude. So, like it or not, we are and will be burdened by the events of the past.

Hmm, that's very poorly structured, but I lack the will to go back and fix it.
Heh I know what you mean, it's getting late where I am. Anyway, it's hard to know what to do about Africa, for example. Africa is mostly controlled by warlords, so if you send money they just buy more guns. If you send food... they sell the food to buy more guns, or use it to feed their soldiers. If you go there, and personally see to it that the aid get to the people, you have way too much overhead to do much of anything and you might get shot. If you depose the dictator, you wind up with Iraq. If you let them stew in their misery, you condemn a generation. I know that's a simplistic treatment of it, but I don't think that any amount of resources and good will can turn around the current situation in the Third World.

I must say I am against (affirmative action) because the end does not justify the means. It has a major drew back in that it turns people against blacks, people will look at it as a kind of reverse racism. Having said that the people at the top always seem to be white. If you were to Imagine a pyramid and that pyramid will represent 100% of the population of the United States. At the very top of this pyramid imagine a tiny area, 1% of the pyramid representing 1% or 1/100th of the population. These people control 48% percent of the wealth of the richest country in the world. And all the people at the top are white. You get one or two break through but they maybe (the token black guys).

I'm 23.

So we need to look at history and learn from the mistakes, I agree, but all to often history repeats itself. Morally we have a duty to always remenber. But at which point do we stop (remenbering) and start blaming it could become a vicious circle?
It is true that history repeats itself. All you can do is try to prevent the worst things from recurring, and try to open peoples' eyes to what's going on and where things are headed. Such vicious cycles as you speak of do exist, in the form of Pakistan and India, Israel and Pakistan, etc. etc. where both sides are guilty and there are cycles of hatred from one generation to the next. The theory that I believe is the only way to stop it is to teach the children that the other side isn't evil, and have them grow up side by side with children of the "enemy". That way, when their friends are of the "enemy", they know not to believe the dangerous rhetoric of their leaders.

I must say I am against (affirmative action) because the end does not justify the means. It has a major drew back in that it turns people against blacks, people will look at it as a kind of reverse racism. Having said that the people at the top always seem to be white. If you were to Imagine a pyramid and that pyramid will represent 100% of the population of the United States. At the very top of this pyramid imagine a tiny area, 1% of the pyramid representing 1% or 1/100th of the population. These people control 48% percent of the wealth of the richest country in the world. And all the people at the top are white. You get one or two break through but they maybe (the token black guys).
Those are some of the reasons that I have "against" it, but there are also many reasons "for" it, and so at this point I don't have a real stance. It's one of the very few political issues on which I don't have one.

It is true that history repeats itself. All you can do is try to prevent the worst things from recurring, and try to open peoples' eyes to what's going on and where things are headed. Such vicious cycles as you speak of do exist, in the form of Pakistan and India, Israel and Pakistan, etc. etc. where both sides are guilty and there are cycles of hatred from one generation to the next. The theory that I believe is the only way to stop it is to teach the children that the other side isn't evil, and have them grow up side by side with children of the "enemy". That way, when their friends are of the "enemy", they know not to believe the dangerous rhetoric of their leaders.

That is something the irish are trying to do now and it is no easy thing to ignore a misdeed committed against you when you have learned for so many years to hate them (well it takes guts) and their are a lot of set backs. How many times can one turn the other cheek so to speek, to stop the violence? And I just can't see it happening in Pakistan and India or Israel and Palistine. their comes a time when hate takes over after the couse has long been lost and to break that is hard. Only when the violence reaches intolerable levels and deaths of many (WW1) occur will people be prepaired to forgive.

That is something the irish are trying to do now and it is no easy thing to ignore a misdeed committed against you when you have learned for so many years to hate them.

It's the best way. Unfortunately it's being hampered, and not just in Northern Ireland. We have a very real sectarian problem in Scotland too, and the Scottish Executive has tried to address it by merging separate Protestant and Catholic primary schools into one. The Catholic Church's response? It's all for it, provided there are separate doors, toilets and staffrooms. Brilliant.

It's the best way. Unfortunately it's being hampered, and not just in Northern Ireland. We have a very real sectarian problem in Scotland too, and the Scottish Executive has tried to address it by merging separate Protestant and Catholic primary schools into one. The Catholic Church's response? It's all for it, provided there are separate doors, toilets and staffrooms. Brilliant.

Pacific Northwesteria and Vaevictis.
So how am I doing? debating for real? Its my first time I think I was scared to voice my own opinions because... Well I don't know why.

I must admit though I have never been to scotland but my opinion of you has changed so much. I used to look at Scotland and think it was more conservative than I am finding out it is. I'm not sure haveing religous schools is the right way to do things. If you go to school with a muslim or a Catholic you can get to them and maybe be friends with them. But if you never met one and you only know about them from what you pick up off tv... Well you seen what happens then.

The Dixiecrats never went away, they just reintegrated with the Democrat party, because it's easier to oppress a people from behind the scenes than it is to oppress them openly.
I'm really getting tired of the conspiracy theory that "welfare is the way the government oppresses black people!" There's no observable proof of it.

Is this supposed hidden reason for welfare only applicable in America, or do governments worldwide use it to oppress their poor people? And if true, why are poor people better off now than they ever were in pre-welfare days?

Whatever about the flaws of welfare, at least working class families no longer have the fourth child dying of hypothermia, starvation, or the poisoned milk sold by some unregulated corporation.

Pacific Northwesteria and Vaevictis.
So how am I doing? debating for real? Its my first time I think I was scared to voice my own opinions because... Well I don't know why.
Well, I no longer think that some paranoid schizophrenic somewhere somehow managed to get hold of a computer, so you could call that an improvement :) even though right now it's more of a discussion than a debate, yes, you're doing well at voicing your opinions. People will always respect you more if you post your own thoughts, not something that you found online.

I must admit though I have never been to scotland but my opinion of you has changed so much. I used to look at Scotland and think it was more conservative than I am finding out it is. I'm not sure haveing religous schools is the right way to do things. If you go to school with a muslim or a Catholic you can get to them and maybe be friends with them. But if you never met one and you only know about them from what you pick up off tv... Well you seen what happens then.
That is part of why I was getting annoyed with your previous "character"... the Jabba Huts from before was making broad, sweeping, misinformed statements about groups of people that he (you) had probably never met. On TV, you tend to only hear about Arabs when they're blowing things up or shooting people. It's easy to understand why someone would think that that's the favorite hobby of every Arab. But that's just not so, and it was frustrating to me to try to get you to understand that.
As for getting the kids together... the point of that I think is to get to them before their parents can. Get them to make friends (on their own, just naturally) with someone who's on the "wrong side" according to their parents, and decide for themselves that there's nothing wrong with them as people. Children understand friendship before they can possibly understand hate, let alone hate for an entire religious or ethnic group. That's what the program is counting on, and eventually, when those kids grow up, and they keep their friendships, over generations and generations, the wounds will heal, the radicals won't have as much power, and both sides will realize that they have no reason to be fighting each other.
On a similar note, if you would be interested in discussing some of the points you made earlier in your new-found civil tone, I would be happy to participate, and I suspect Vaevictis would be as well.

Happy Fathers' Day everyone!

I'm really getting tired of the conspiracy theory that "welfare is the way the government oppresses black people!" There's no observable proof of it.


I don't believe the conspiracy theory - but for the millions of people who have been on welfare for generations, it is a recipe for institutionalized indolence and the permanent expectation of being able to live without working. I've met too many people on welfare in that state - not that some conspiratorial group put them there - but the law of unintended consequences certainly did.

As did the idea of housing projects - concentrating the poor into huge morasses of indolence and crime.

I wish I could leech off the taxpayers instead of paying taxes to support those who actually get to leech :(

I wish I could leech off the taxpayers instead of paying taxes to support those who actually get to leech :(
...go to a public school, get medicare when you get older, etc etc
Everyone pays taxes

LOL, Americans make for great entertainment...

I wish I could leech off the taxpayers instead of paying taxes to support those who actually get to leech :(
Those who "leech", as you say? You would definitely not want to be in their shoes. It's only a little bit of help, and you only really qualify when without it you starve to death. Or you're really old, in which case you would starve to death without it unless you have lots of money saved away in a 401(k) or have kind and rich relatives.