Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/10/06 10:53 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 10/10/06 10:37 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Yet I'M the partisan. Pretty funny actually.

Clinton fucked that bitch almost a decade ago. It has no relevance to Foley or Hastert covering Foleys actions up. Yes, you are the partisan one.

No, Fab, I'm not. Just shut up and stop sounding stupid already. I know that's hard for you.
Foley didn't break ANY laws. Clinton did, during the Jones scandal. That, in and of itself, makes him worse, ignoring all else.
Since the point was made that everyone on this board who is condemning Foley now was ok with what Clinton did (which sparked the firestorm), and it is therefore ridiculous to get offended now, everyone on the left on this board got offended. Yourself included.
So stop crying like a little child that your pathetic duplicity has been revealed on Foley and your own ilk.

But, hey, I got off Clinton and onto Jefferson and the Abramoff Democrats, both who ALSO fragrantly broke the law in the not so distant future and were defended by their party. Whereas the Republicans were all forced to resign...gee, I'm seeing a patern.

At 10/10/06 10:57 PM, Truthiness wrote: The new mantra of Republicans: "It was JUST unethical, not illegal."

The new mantra of Republicans:
We get rid of those who do ANYTHING wrong, even if not illegal, while Democrats defend their felons to the death.

But hell if we want to get into the present:
Jimmy Carter and Clinton pay N.K. not to develop nukes, which is then used to develop nukes, and generate our current crisis.
William Jefferson who was found with a freezer full of bribes.
Murtha, who was caught on tape trying to get under the table bribes. (He got off because he turned state's evidence).
The mayor of D.C. who was elected AFTER being a felon.
Nagin and Blanco's absolute refusal to do anything during Katrina, and Blanco's telling Bush via video that the levees had not broken...24 hours after the levees had broken.
Kenneth Lay, DNC and RNC contributer is found guilty.
I could go on.

But the point is simple. Foley is told by his party to leave. Delay is told to leave. When a Republican is accused of corruption, they are told to get the hell out. Occasionally, as Hastert has done, they refuse.
I say again, I may disagree with the Republicans on a lot, but I don't agree with the Democrats on a damn thing.

At 10/2/06 08:49 PM, TheMason wrote: Yep...the Holocaust and the mishandling of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th and 20th Centuries are FAR in our past...

Sorry, chuckles. The holocaust was not a christian endevour. Hitler was a militant darwinist, and the religion of Germany was Nazism. Hence why Christians were sersecuted as well. There's not a single thing Hitler did that was Christian.

A few things, the blind Shiek and bin Ladin (and I guess by Ahmen you mean the President of Iran?) fit the category of Islamic extremists. However the Husseins, the Saudi royal family, and Arafat are not Islamic extemists. In fact bin Laden believed that Saddam should have been overthrown, the difference is he believed that it should be accomplished by a "pure" Muslim army not the American infidels.

Hmm, yes. Bin Ladin DID offer his services to the Saudis to remove Hussein from power, during the fight with Iran. However, in one of his reasons for attacking America, he used the subjugation of Iraq as numbah 2. And Saddam was a hell of a lot more Muslim than Hitler was Christian.

However, you do not disprove my point, there is massive unemployment in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, (shall I go on? I see you didn't attack the issue of the predicament of the Palestinians...)

The prediciment of the Palestinians is due to their support of the PLO and Hamas. By putting their backings behind terrorist organizations, they are doomed to poverty. YET, somehow, the militant and terrorist actions of the Palestinians have not once been condemned by the UN, and many major states, INCLUDING Israel fund them. Boo hoo.
Almost all leaders of terrorism are rich. That they prey on the poor and downtrodded (that they themselves have created) is not beyond my notice.

I'm sorry but with my background (military and academic) I believe I have superior exposure to information on the ground in the ME...

OK then. Give me the real numbers. Otherwise I couldn't care less whether you are in the military or not.

No, not all are fighting for freedom this is true. However, in the case of Palestinians and Israel they are. I suggest you read more about modern history in the ME. In the 1920s and 30s many Muslim intellectuals where coming to the US to learn about our democracy and take our institutions back there. Unfortunately WWII and our support of Israel without care of justification on a cultural basis has destroyed our esteem in the region.

You mean how there WAS no Palestine before Israel? How not a single country in the middle east supported a free and independant Palestine before Israel's OFFICIAL creation. Jews have always been in the middle east, and have almost always controlled Jerusalem. That we give them a tiny strip of land is hardly an indictment against them. Indeed, Israel has made generous concessions, and we still demonize them. And still the arab nations attack them. The PLO's old flag is quite instructive...there is no Israel...only Palestine.

The falsehood is your own. The Qur'an defines strict limits on "Just War" (a doctrine that took Christianity centuries to define), while the Bible does not. There are strict prohibitions on killing innocents (women, children and noncombatants and those unable to fight) especially Christians or Jews. And as you said the taking of one's life is prohibited. But you make a nonexistant connection to support your belief (a falsehood). You betray your ignorance. I suggest you buy a translation of the Qur'an and read it.

I have bought three copies over my lifetime. I seriously considered Islam as a religion for a long time. And until the Mohammid cartoons I was one of those fools, like yourself, sitting there saying "OK, sure every Muslim country is violent, and sure the Qur'an has a COUPLE violent passages, but that doesn't mean anything." And as for innocents, there are plenty of passages that can EASILY be used to justify killing innocents. Sorry bud, but if the reseident Muslim (Iapis) is saying the Qur'an encourages violence (justified or not), your opinion means crap. Especially seeing as how you said it's identical to the New Testiment, which DOESN'T advocate violence.

This is my point you loose credibility when you make definitive statements like the ones above. You betray your immense arrogance, and force me to show some of my own.

AAK

Yea, you say there's no difference between the NT and the Qur'an, which even the resident Muslim says is wrong. I have respect for Military men, but you don't have a credible basis to criticize, well, anyone. And since you made the idiotic statement that the Qur'an (which benign or not) promotes violence), and the New Testiment (which says violence isn't even ok to save your own life) are identical, pardon me if your criticism doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot.

At 10/2/06 05:42 AM, lapis wrote: Right, but what does this have to do with Christians in general? You were giving an example of a "second class status for Christians" and then give a quote legalising violence, retaliatory violence, against who do not "truly" believe in the oneness of God, the Last Day and who do not uphold the core commandments of the Abrahamic faiths. It basically says: you're not forced to show restraint against those who call themselves Christians or Jews while not honestly following their religions.

It calls for the People of the Book...who are Christians and Jews.
Those who ascribe partners to God are truely unclean (9:28-33), which talks about how the People of the Book do NOT follow the word of God.

Part of founding a religious movement is describing why people should follow your movement instead of others. That's why the Qur'an mentions the shortcomings of Christianity at points: Christians equate a man, Jesus, with God, which is a sin. But not a mortal sin, since Christians go to Heaven as pointed out in 2:62. That's why your quote does not refer to Christians in general but only to a certain subgroup of Christians and I'm therefore justified in asking what it has to do with Christians in general, although I considered the last two word redundant. If they weren't, sorry.

It is proceded by the uncleanness of Christians and Jews. Orders the believers to fight those of the Book, then goes back to slamming those other faiths. To me this sounds like a direct command to attack Christians and Jews. Perhaps your translation varies greatly from mine.

Mockery is a reason for God to prohibit a Muslim from making friends with the jester, not for Him to endorse slaying him.

Yea, not buying it. Ignoring the 4 holy months is a break of treaty. Those who break treaty are to be attacked. Similarily, those who mock Islam are breaking treaty.

It is a sin, not a legitimate reason to break a treaty. And 9:36 once backs up the point about retaliatory violence:

Fight those People of the Book who do not truly believe in God, and the last day, and do not forbid what God and his messanger have forbidden.
If they don't recognize the Holy months, they are not recognizing what God and the messanger have forbidden...therefore they must be fought. Until they pay the jiyza and submit.

Therefore they may not enter a mosque. But you may befriend them, otherwise 60:8-9 would make no sense at all. Sura 9:28, full thing (traditional, I'm going to stop linking due to redundancy):

Again with sura 60. The same one that counsils believeres not to befriend those who have rejected the truth and drove you out. The same sura that says to take in the "believing woman reject their previous marriages.

And what God exactly meant by "rejecting" is then elaborated upon in the subsequent verses. Rejecting Muslims as being real believers, fighting them, driving them for their homes.

Jesus was driven out of several places without violence. Being driven out doesn't neccessarily mean violence.

Meh, Haredim and Orthodox Jews also reject intermarriage, strictly following Devarim/Deut. 7:1-3. And this verse applies if the Muslim woman flees to the Muslims while having been married to a disbeliever elsewhere.

But since Muslims are required to teach the truth to those who are ignorant, this verse can EASILY include any who accept the truth, thereby NOT only extending to those who ARE muslim, but those who are willing to convert.

At 10/2/06 02:33 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: lapis, I dont even know why you bother. WolvenBear still think Coulter ever has anything worth saying so you can know how he thinks just from that.

OH MY GOD I READ COULTER! You really have nothing beyong that do you? You certainly never have anything even remotely intelligent to offer when you challenge me to debate something and I accept.

And he claims he has read the Quran. I doubt it. You dont read another faiths holy book just to look for inconsistencies. Thats why there is the internet, so these bigots can justify their hatred and violence by doing the same thing the terrorists do, twisting passages out of context to suit their own purposes and ignoring the totality of Islam and the Quran, which overwhelmingly proves a religion of peace. You cant just read 2 passages that encourage violence and then forget the 10 that dont. That is fucking stupid.

Yawn, I addressed this. I looked into the Muslim faith as a potential faith and until the Mohammid cartoon riots, all of my posts on this very board rabidly defend Islam. After the riots I relooked at it. But hell, you never really like to consider anything that doesn't comply with your world view do you? And since you've never read the Qur'an, shut up about it.

Bin Laden already had money, you retard. If this was some pyramid scheme to make these guys rich, why is Bin Laden living in a cave and why has Saudia Arabia kicked him out of their country?

Hmm, he's hiding in a cave cause he doesn't want to be found, and Saudi Arabia doesn't want our wrath? A thought.

This is all about their perception of reality. If you are to dense to realize that, tough. This has nothing to do with money. It is analogous at best to the Conquistadors and their zeal to spread the Word in the New World.

Did I say it had anything to do with money? NO. But the claim was: these people do this because they're poor. Bin Ladin is rich, therefore, theory falls apart. Are you too stupid to read right? Or do you just read and see what you want?

4000 people chanting some shit you see on TV is representative for a nation of millions.

If 10% of Islam is violent (as apologists claim) that's 160 million.

If you mean since the 80's with years between attacks, yeah, thats a long time.

If I mean the year long holding of our hostages in Iran, the Iranian sponsored PLO bombings, the stupidly Reagan financed kidnapping of MORE hostages to get MORE money (shit, I slammed a conservative...again...which might hurt your perception of me as a partisan...oh wait you only read what you want, so my status is safe), and the dozens of attacks during Clinton then yea, I mean a few spaced over years.

Politics isnt science.

It doesn't have to be. There's still truth and there is falsehood. This isn't first grade. Not everybody's right even if they say 6+6=179.

Yea, sorry I took so long to respond. I wanted time to check and double check my stuff. Sorry for the delay. And due to an error, I deleted my original responses...so this will be much shorter, and to the point.

At 10/2/06 05:36 AM, lapis wrote: I don't think a case of two neighbours killing each other quite compares to the 12,000 Jews in the Rhine Valley who were slain by a Crusader army. The claim that Urban called to fight non-Christians instead of just Muslims comes from the paper I've linked to several times in this thread and this excerpt in particular: "All versions of Urban's speech in Clermont note that the pope urged Christians to fight righteous wars against non-Christians instead of being engaged in iniquitous and fratricidal combats among themselves", where the author in turn cites an article by D. C. Munro, a contibutor of The American Historical Review. Urban didn't specifically call for the "first Holocaust" and I'm sure he regretted the exact wording of his speech later on, but his speech did justified the massacres and numerous monks and abbots, people who spent their lives studying the Bible, fully supported taking revenge on the Jews for "murdering Christ".

Well, while the page you linked to is interesting. It is simply unsupported by the facts.
http://www.fordham.e..ce/urban2-5vers.html

Even the Idiot's Guide to the crusade, which is pretty condescending and mocking towards Christianity, says the painfully obvious: The Pope called for a response to the Persian aggression, and demanded response by the Christians against the Persians, Turks, Sarceans and infidels. The closest he gets to "non-Christians is pagans...which aren't Jews, btw.
And as for the tragic incidence of the Jews being murdered, I would like to point out that some of the Crusaders slaughtered the Byzantine Christians...those they were sent to help. The pope must've slid that one in under the radar too, or the Crusaders must've done what they wanted...and ignored the Pope.

1) The Crusades were more than a simple response to Muslim aggression. Turkish violence and raids against pilgrims helped create the atmosphere needed for justifying the Crusades, but in the end they were used as a pretext for a greater goal: uniting the Christians against common enemies instead of letting them waste their lives fighting each other. ... But I honestly don't believe that Urban would have cared about the Muslims if they couldn't be used for the sake of uniting the Western Christians or spreading influence in the East.

Stop killing each other and fight the enemies of the state...yea, I brought that up last post. You kinda said it was irrelevant and talked about the slaughter of the Jews. And considering some of Urbans flock were also falling victim, he had a vested interest.

2) Even though Christ's message was more peaceful than the message of Muhammad, history shows that it didn't even have that much of a differentiating effect on the behaviour of the followers of the religious movements they founded.

Actually, the histories are quite different. Early Christians were persecuted and killed. Early Muslims persecuted and killed. Many of our "dark spots" are quite simply, the splitting of one from the faith and trying to establish themselves as dominant through the powerful church.

And I never did. I'll be first to admit that the Qur'an supports some violence while Jesus loathed the concept in its entirety, but I believe that the violence endorsed by the Qur'an is mostly justified. Not all violence is bad by default, only unwarranted violence.

I'll agree that not all violence is bad, and if it wasn't for the 9th sura and one or two others, I don't think Islam would be so bad. But when violence is ok in response to attacks, and an attack can be as loosely defined as even insulting Islam...we've got a problem.

If the believer repents, that is (Sura 11:3).

11:2-3 deals with the believer repenting their disbelief and coming back to God. Yet I cannot remember the scripture which I speak of. I cannot prove my case, so I will drop it. Since I cannot prove myself I will retract it.

Again, these "options" only apply to those who have fought Islam. Sura 5:32-33 are widely considered to prohibit the killing of innocents. Here they are, from the traditional translation:
"For this cause have we ordained to the children of Israel that he who slayeth any one, unless it be a person guilty of manslaughter, or of spreading disorders in the land, shall be as though he had slain all mankind; but that he who saveth a life, shall be as though he had saved all mankind alive. Of old our Apostles came to them with the proofs of their mission; then verily after this most of them committed excesses in the land. Only, the recompense of those who war against God and his Apostle, and go about to commit disorders on the earth, shall be that they shall be slain or crucified, or have their alternate hands and feet cut off, or be banished the land: This their disgrace in this world, and in the next a great torment shall be theirs".

In my copy of the Qur'an (translated by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem) it adds "spreading corruption in he land" after manslaughter. And this is a story with a decree to the People of Israel.

First of all: "We [Muslims] do not need to defend every maniacal incident emanating from the Muslim world or the Muslim community, just as other religious groups need not defend their extremists". But if you want to see someone condemn the murder of the Italian nun, go here.

Yea, and under MANY interpretations of Islam, the 9/11 attacks were unwarrented. So the condemnation of the attacks (one of which I'd heard before) are not surprising. The condemnation of the shooting of the nun has no text to it. It says they "condemned it in the strongest terms", but hell I've seen that about Hamas over the bombings in Israel...then when one reads the speech it's anything but condemnation. More like typical politician double speak. And there was even some of that one of the 9/11 condemnations.
I lost count of how many times Falwell and Robertson have been condemned. And they're just buffoons. Violence is committed in the name of Allah...where is the massive outcry? Silence.
And I don't feel the need to defend every "Christian" affront. But at the same time, it's beyond misleading to suggest Pope Pius called for the death of Jews.

At 10/4/06 01:05 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: WolvenBear, you are so partisan. The funny part is when you pretend you arent.

Hooray! You have nothing and aren't even trying to hide it.

And even if I am partisan...Mr. Pot...I do believe you're a bit silly for calling me black.

At 10/4/06 02:56 PM, Truthiness wrote: WolvenBear is doing what most Republican talking-heads are doing: trying to turn this around to 1996, because President Clinton is obviously the most important thing to talk about right now. When Clinton dies, who will the Right have to blame everything on?

Well, we could blame stuff on Nagin, Blanco, the ACLU, Kennedy, Byrd, etc.

And I'm not turning anything around. He did nothing illegal and is being forced out for simply the appearance of impropriety. Which is the way it always should work. If the democrats did it more often, I could start to respect the party.

And you dear sir are doing while all LIBERAL pundits are doing. Refusing to ackowledge your own party's failings and pretending that somehow the entire Republican party is to blame even though they forced him out.
The Clinton thing just shows that everyone here has no problem with any wrong doing by a Democrat and use the appearance of impropriety by ONE man, who is then rejected by the party...to condemn us all.

Yet I'M the partisan. Pretty funny actually.

At 10/4/06 11:52 PM, Truthiness wrote: You act like a consensual blowjob is the same as soliciting sex from a child.

Sorry, 16 isn't "a child". It's legal where the incident happened. Have a nice day!

At 10/5/06 01:53 AM, Nylo wrote: The majority of American could care less if the republicans think they're being treated unfairly compared to their left-wing counterparts. If the republicans' way of establishing some damage control to the Foley scandal is: "why don't people treat us like democrats?" you're in bad shape, fellas.

Oh, be for real. The first thing we did was get rid of Foley. Now, that he's gone and people are still demonizing the party...it's more than a tad appropriate to point out to the people that they're being more than a little hypocritical.

At 10/2/06 06:18 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: Being nit-picky, Foley is not technically a pedophile in the same way men who look at 17-year-old girls are not pedophiles. Pedophilia is defined in psychological terms as sexual interest in prepubescent children. At 16 or 17, this kid was almost certainly nearing sexual maturity. It's still a crime to make sexual advances toward this kid, and Foley should be held accountable. I don't know the man, and I haven't read all of the materials that have come out, so I can't judge whether or not his behavior should be categorized as predatory. It was certainly inappropriate, both because of the boy's age and because of his subordinate position.

Legal age in Florida is 16. So no real crime was committed. However, it was still dead wrong. And we're getting rid of him.

At 10/3/06 03:53 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 10/2/06 08:33 PM, Truthiness wrote: They even went so far as to warn Republican Party Pages, but not Democratic Pages, to stay away from Rep. Foley.

That's because Democratic pages are gay.

Didn't anyone learn a lesson from the Catholic sex scandals? The faithful left in droves when they found out about the whole thing. The molestations were one thing, but the church covering it up was what most people were angry about. It was as if Mother Church was condoning these activities. And the Republicans have basically set themselves up in the same position. I could say that one man does not a party make, but when the higher-ups deliberately turn a blind eye on this sort of thing it certainly gives the impression that they condone Foley's actions.

AMEN. Truer words on this forum have never been spoken.

At 10/3/06 04:33 PM, fli wrote: And yet when one Democrate, it indites against all Democrates... amirite? But the same can NEVER EVER be said true for the Republicans.

NOPE. Because the Dems STILL support Clinton (as yourself) when he's proven guilty. Republicans are accused of something and the right wing calls for their head begin. One person doesn't indict the party, but if the party stands behind them...then the party indicts itself. It's a distinction that even moderately intelligent people make.

I mean, it is Republicans who are against helping the poor and stuff... just like how Demos are out there to molest little kids and stuff...

YAWN. Yea, dems are for the poor. That's why the sweeping reforms of welfare were a success. Such a ridiculous affront.

I guess you could see it both ways-- like a glass full of water.
Just 2 years from being a 14 years old kid...

Or you could look at it as the kid being legal. As he was.

or
Just 2 years away from being an adult.

Or still being legal.

You don't get it...
Both things are bad... but there is something worse going on when a kid is involved and for you it's like you don't see the distinction of HOW bad is one from the other.

I'm sorry, but 16 (legal) is not a kid in the law's eyes. I see how one is bad from the other. But nasty talk is not as bad as rape. Sorry. I'd liken this to the Jones scandal, but there was no perjury, obstruction.....we know the speel.

And then for it's it's like, "OH... You don't disagree with them? YOU'RE EVIL!"
*eye rollie*

Sounds like you and Clinton. How dare anyone accuse him of improper conduct. Hell, you won't even acknowledge that he was accused of rape.

I view that ACLU tries to actively work for rights and equality, and I commend them. Although my criticism is that they don't see some stuff that shouldn't be okay.

Well, hell, then. Foley did some damn good stuff for kids...we should ignore his overtures to barely legal boys. The good is outweighed by the bad...VASTLY, in both cases.

OH MY!
Look at Fli... not disagreeing on ACLU with WolvenBear... so he must enjoy pedophilia! Grrrr... roar...

And again, the fact that you're willing to overlook it because you feel the ACLU does some good proves my point. Which is again, whatI've said over and over. Not that you like pedophilia, but that you're willing to over look any action by your side as long as you agree with them overall. You can try to sarcasm it all you like, but I'm still not hearing even condemnation of the ACLU for doing that. Instead...you defend them, because they do some good. I find it ironic that you prove me "wrong" by proving me right.Victim roll doesn't work with me, chuckles.

Yes, because to lie on an consentual affair is as equally horrible as to lie about wanting to exploit a kid.

My point once more. Any infraction. legal or not, by the Republicans is inescusable, but nothing your side does is wrong.

Now let's discuss how masturbation is equally bad to 1st degree murder.

So, you write a whole post to tell me how I'm wrong about you overlooking bad actions by your party,....by overlooking every bad action of your party.

You're hopeless.

At 10/2/06 03:13 PM, stafffighter wrote: Even in the worst accusations she never said Clinton raped her. That's going as far as beleiving her story which isn't easy to do. And who did Kennedy murder?

Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of rape. He never denied it, and as for finding it "hard to believe the charges against Clinton", he admitted to almost all of them eventually. So it's pretty hard NOT to believe them.
http://www.washingto..broaddrick022599.htm

As for Kennedy...I am of course speaking of Ted, his criminal negligence killing Mary Jo Kopechne.

Yes, after knowing about it for years they fully admit how bad it was

And Dennis Hastert is ALSO being asked to step down, despite his claims that he never saw the worse emails.

Actually what Clinton did there sounds more like saolisitation than big scary dracula letters RAPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And what did he do to make it safer for terrorist? he had comprehensive plans in place that the current administration had months to look at.

Clinton rape thing discussed above. It's sad that no one remembers anyone except for Lewinski (or the rare person remembers Paula Jones. Even in Richard Clarke's version of events Clinton was pretty damn negligent. He also helped create the lovely "wall of seperation" bettween CIA and FBI. As well as selling secrets to the Chinese, and allowing them to commit espionage with no action against it (thanks for letting me know about that JoS).

Which you can't do so you're making it up as you go along

*Grammers comment on arresting I forgot and deleted*

I've now backed up everything I've said.

As do we. And the Republicans are working on it.

After two years of sitting on it.

Yea, you really have nothing here. Because all teh Republicans who "sat on it" for a year, are now also being pushed out the door by the rest of the party. Since Hastert is one guy...your accusation is as useless as it was before. Since the people calling for the resignations had no way of knowing about this before it came out....there's no possible criticism you can have of them.

At 10/2/06 05:32 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Whats better is the Republican parties corruption of recent years makes Democratic impropriety look like Jesus in comparison.

WOW! Or not. You sir, are truely full of shit.

I mean, gimme a fucking break. I think the Democrats have their retards but the Republicans far beat out the Dems in recent years on the scandal scene. WolvenBear, you will lose this debate if you want to start debating ethics and the goodness of parties. The Republicans are so fucking corrupt nowadays it is not even funny.

Tom fucking Delay. What else needs saying.

Actually the fun thing is...I WON'T!

Of course there was the Clinton corruption, which extended FAAARRRR beyond the sexual scandals. Then there was William Jefferson...which was ridiculously bad. Then there was the Democratic involvement in the Abromoff scandals. Sandy Berger stealing federal documents. Barney Frank. Etc.

And let's mention once that nothing that our deal Foley did was actually illegal. 16 is the age of censent in Florida. So the Republican party wants him gone over ethics violations! Wow, it's kinda like the Paula Jones thing....without the perjury, obstruction of justice, etc.

Sorry, Fab, if we wanna get into this, this is ANOTHER subject you won't win on.
And part of it comes in that, Republicans have no problem outting other Republicans.

It comes down to how I always say it. I may not agree with the Republicans on a lot of issues...but I agree with the Democrats on nothng.

At 10/2/06 06:09 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: In a court case which never should have been allowed to happen. Permitting a sitting President to be taken to court in a sexual harassment suit is ridiculous, and was obviously an attempt to corner Clinton into a situation wherein he would perjure himself (or resign to avoid embarrassment, which would have been even more juicy and wonderful).

That's moronic. You are in effect saying that the President shouldn't be held to the rule of law. Quite frankly all he had to do is pay her 20 grand or so (which wouldn't even have come out of his pocket) and she wouldn't have been remembered a week later.

And, frankly, who cares? What does Clinton (or any other sex scandal) have to do with the matter at hand? Oh, dear, the people see a Republican child predator as worse than a Democrat adulterer. Perhaps it's because Foley comes from a party that claims a "moral authority" in this country. He's supposed to be a paragon of virtue.

There are two reasons for this. One he's on a committee to promote child welfare...and that scares people...it should. Two, despite the fact that the boy was legal, Foley used his position to exert pressure on the kid to have sex with him. That is unacceptable from ANY of our political leaders right or left.

As a Republican (perhaps not for long, at this rate) I feel that my party should hold itself to a higher moral standard than everyone else. I don't give a damn what happens to Democrats who engage in lewd acts. That's their party's problem. Let's not go pointing fingers at anyone else in an effort to escape our own guilt.

WE have no guilt. Foley has the guilt. Anyone who's even sneezed in the direction of this nonsense....we're telling them to step down. We have the moral high ground for a reason.

At 9/30/06 12:42 PM, HabeasCrapus wrote: Well, they had sexual affairs with other WOMEN. Not LITTLE CHILDREN.

These guys were players, the other guys -- Republicraps -- are priests and pedophiles.

Just for fun:
http://www.cbn.com/c..4h.aspx?option=print

http://www.aclu.org/..1289prs20000831.html

http://www.aclu.org/..4793leg20020508.html

http://www.aclu.org/..0201leg20030326.html

Yea, it's SOOO confined to the right side.

Clinton- rapist. Kennedy- murderer.
Which party defends their abominations? Oh that's right, Democrats.

At 9/30/06 05:00 PM, Grammer wrote: Nothing personal, in fact I speak in very general terms when I say this, but the Reps in this thread somehow trying to downplay the actions of this Senator truly sicken me.

That's funny Grammer, because I said he was guilty as sin. As did the other Republicans. No one has DOWNPLAYED his guilt.

But ignoring all of Clinton's other sins. Let's just look at two.
Senator- solicited sex from a 16 year old.
Clinton- accused of RAPE (never denied it), had a woman brought to his hotel room and told her to "kiss it".
Actual Rape trumps just solicitation in my eyes. Not to mention that Clinton made our country less safe and contributed to 9/11. And yes, Clinton was worse.

But hey, wait to hear what fits into your prejudice.

I mean, even I'm a conservative, but I am not stupid enough to sit there and change the subject to Clinton, or say how he's worse, and all that BS.

The subject got changed to Clinton because the same people who are ok with ANY kind of democratic misuse of power and/or sex scandal are up in arms over one Republican scandal, and claim it as inditing of the whole party. These are the same people who defend the ACLU. Either it's bad across the board or its not. If you're ok with it for the Dems, then you are a partisan hack.

What Foley did was wrong, period. There is no excuse for what he did, and there is no comparison you can make to a Democratic politician to make what he did somehow seem less bad. That's retarded, don't give me that.

The point is not to make him seem less bad. And you know that. And your use of my statements about Clinton as how "all Republicans on this board try to downplay this" is retarded. So don't give me that.

I hope Foley is arrested and put away for a very, very, long time.

As do we. And the Republicans are working on it.

At 9/30/06 07:12 AM, fli wrote: No... not really--

Yes, fli really. You sound like an imbecile defending him. Both are bad, but there are degrees of bad. For now, this is ONE incident, vs several for Clinton. Not to mention that Clinton weakened national security and contributed greatly to 3000 dead on 9/11, and I've still gotta say Clinton did worse.

And yet... funny that Republicans has the worse track record when everything boils down to it. I mean, what a track record...

PULEEASE. Republicans have it worse on sex scandals? You are surely kidding.
Add to that the fact that when one of ours does something wrong, we condemn him or her. We don't defend them as "the best President ever" or some such tripe.

Mmm--
Oh wells... It's a Republican thang, I guess... The Demos vouche for it, and the Republicans actually do the kid rapping.

You really sound stupid sometimes. One republican does something and it's inditing against all Republicans. A good chunk of the Democratic coffers defend the ACLU on their crusade to erode protections for children against pedophiles and rapists.

Yea, you really can't claim the high ground here.

Oh, and by the way, the kid was 16.

Next up on the Republican agenda: Pedophelia is okay! Pedophelia is not immoral! Clinton is the devil... gerrr... rooooar.

Next on the Republican agenda: demanding the guy step down, getting him out of office, filing charges against him, and moving on. Doesn't change that Clinton was scum. And you're a RAGING hypocrite. Nambla OK, party that ousts someone over a sex scandal bad! Ridiculous.

Because you seem to agree with it.

EXCUSE ME? OK, Fli, quite simply, this is the stupidest thing you have ever said. I have said it was bad, I have said it was stupid, and I pointed out my party condemned it. You're so ridiculously partisan that it would be funny if you weren't a grown man.

*eye rollie*
I won't speak about your ideas as a Republican and pretend to know what you stand for, and you extend the same courtesy to me.

I condemned it. Said it was bad. My stance is pretty easy to stand. Pedophile bad. Rapist bad. As opposed to you: Republican pedo bad, Democrat rapist...ok.

I'm sure you're not amused by the fact that I called you a kid lover, and like wise-- I didn't find it pleasent that you did the same to me. I'm not fond of "tit-for-tat." Let's just move on.

I'll call this Barbara Boxer outrage. "We are not for abortion on demand. That what we are accused of, and nothing could be further from the truth1...OK, back to legalizing abortion on demand." I can't remember hearing you say that a Democrat was bad. You have argued me repeatedly, defending the ACLU even with things like NAMBLA and child porn in their belts, telling me how wonderful they are. Now you're defending a man who abused his office to prey on women and was accused of rape. Saying that everything Clinton did was consentual is ridiculous. But a guy who abuses his office to go after a potential victim and is REPUBLICAN to boot...oh he gets your ire. Sorry, but my criticism stands, if this was a democrat I doubt we'd be hearing a word from you.

Pedophiles are their own category that is neither gay nor straight.
And since your people, Straighty, haven't been stigmatized by people saying gay people are pedophiles (despite the fact that there are statistically more, and I'm gonna use your words, "straight pedophiles,") I can understand why you could toss something serious as this as irrelevent in the most childish type of manner (and stupid to boot.)

I don't know which is statistically more likely, and honestly I don't care. A crime is a crime. And I find it silly that you've gotta come out and shake the pom-poms. No gayness from a dude going after a 16 year old boy. When people make an issue out of something like that...the major thing seems to go away (i.e. the improper conduct). Hell, look at Clinton...he just lied about sex, he just lied about sex....why was Clinton in court? Cause he lied about sex. Oh wait, no, he was being sued for sexual harassment, and to deny this woman her day in court, he committed perjury. What's remembered? He lied about sex. Ridiculous.

Aye--
forgivable...

At 9/30/06 07:02 PM, Begoner wrote: Maybe by American standards. By international standards, however, both parties are center-right.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection

No, actually, in many cases the American left is even FURTHER left than europe. For example: Europe has imigration controls, and many in the left want open borders including open ended amnesty. There are very definite limits in Europe on abortion...American leftists want none, and bitterly fight even the smallest restriction. Etc.

At 10/1/06 02:09 AM, nottoocommon wrote: nonono democrats dont know what to do, and republicans know what to do, but with an extremely negative impact. i mean, clinton wuz actually an awesome presiden, and the most recently elected democrat, but he couldnt keep his dick in his pants, and the republicans were really bitchin about that even though clinton havin an affair doesnt affect the way he does his job. so maybe the liberals do know what to do, but i could be wrong

Clinton was a crap President. And he's lucky to be remembered for his affairs and not his ineffectual Presidency. And yes, his affairs affected his job. It got him sued, and spent over a year defending himself against the allegations. Didn't affect his job? Nonsense!

And if you think the liberals know what to do...you are indeed, in fact, wrong.

At 10/1/06 02:43 AM, stafffighter wrote: He was in his 20's, fully adult and mismanaging businesses by this time.

And Clinton was in his fifties when he got impeached. He was in his forties when he svammed people with WHitewater.

At 10/1/06 02:02 PM, Begoner wrote: Look -- the US is an extremely conservative country. The political center is actually the center right. In Europe, the center is more or less democratic socialism. In the US, you would get called a commie if you were a democratic socialist. I'm sorry, but you are very deluded.

You sir are full of crap, from your head to your toes.

At 9/30/06 07:06 PM, Begoner wrote:

Why would I care about international standards when I'm talking about United States elections?

You shouldn't. However, you should not consider the centrists a "lunatic liberal fringe" either. That's analogous to Bush being considered a radical leftist in 1940s Germany. Just because US politics are incredibly slanted towards the right doesn't make those who do not conform to that slant "lunatics."

Excuse me? Hitler was a leftist bud. He was a vegetarian, eugenist, socialist, abortion loving, race preference having, leftie. No one would look at Bush in Germany 1940s and call him left of the party.

I'm quite frankly not going to let you get by with this bullshit distortion.

At 10/1/06 07:06 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 10/1/06 02:55 PM, Truthiness wrote: I will say this one more time: etc.

Yes, now you said it perfectly. Prior to this post, you claimed that the fringe was a "lunatic" fringe, which was a ridiculous assertion. It would be analogous to claiming that those against Hitler's policies in Germany were a "lunatic" fringe group -- sure, they were a fringe group, but they were perfectly sane. However, everything you posted above is fact: there is a fringe to the Democratic Party which may sometimes serve to pit American moderates against the Democratic Party due to their out-of-the-US-mainstream politics.

And the lunatic fringe runs the Democratic party. On the world stage, there aren't many who are further left than the US democrats.

The point of the First Amendment is to protect religious freedom. Congress shall not only make no law respecting an establishment of religion but it shall make no law PROHIBITING them either. Telling a high school graduate that they can't say thank you Jesus during her graduation speech is unconstitutional. Telling a city they can't allow a cresh set is unconstitutional. So many of the things that the ACLU does are blatantly unconstitutional. Hell, they even support manditory Islamic education (including some religious practices) for grade schoolers.

Congress cannot impose a national religion not can they deny individual practice. Yet that is exactly what our courts do...all the time. The first amendment doesn't say that we can give tax breaks...it just simply says "no national religion, allow people personal religious freedoms".

At 10/1/06 07:16 AM, lapis wrote: What does this have to do with Christians? You must have missed Sura 2:62, although I wasn't expecting an unbiased commentary: "Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve." Christians believe in God, they believe in the Last Day and they don't violate the most grievous crimes that Muhammad had forbidden, so don't fight them - for they are believers. And for the record, I'd like to point out once again that this fighting must be retaliatory under Sura 2:190: "God does not love the Aggressors."

Christians and Jews are the People of the Book. Plain and simple. So to ask what a passage concerning the "People of the Book" has to do with them is silly.

From a muslim friendly site:
http://www.pbs.org/e..lam/faithpeople.html

And if we're going to quote Sura 2:190:
Fight in God's cause against those who fight you. , but do not overstep the limits: God does not love those who overstep the limits. 191 Kill them wherever you encounter them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, for persecution is more serious than killing. Do not fight them at the sacred mosque unless they fight you there. If they do fight you, then kill them-this is what such disbelievers deserve- 192 but if they stop, then God is most forgiving and merciful.193 Fight them until there is no more persecution, and worshi is devoted to God.

Considering that the Qur'an loosely defines "aggression" as to include mockery and slander", this claim is also impossible to keep.

If they refuse to make peace. Here's the passage preceding it:9:4 - If the unbelievers/idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous.

But as it later goes on to say in 9:37 that even denying the four holy months is an act of disobedience, which would, in effect, break the treaty.

As you can read in 5:57, that applies to the ones who mock and ridicule Islam. That's why many modern translations insert the word "certain" instead of the word "the" that appears before "Jews" and "Christians", to avoid people naming one excerpt to avoid the context. If I only mention Matthew 10:34 without the proper context I could even make Jesus look violent.

No, it applies to ALL Christians and Jews.
9:28 Believers who ascrice partners to God are truly unclean;
And in 30-35, it FURTHER confirms why all Jews and Christians are wronged.

You like this passage so much that you mention it twice?

My bad. Really, I'm too lazy to try and hold open my copy, read and type at once, so if I can find it online, I do that. I probably looked for a verse, saw this one under it and re copied and pasted. My apologies.

Oh please, try Sura 60:6-9, from both a modern and a traditional translation:

60:8-9

Ah sura 60. Which instructs (I'm shortening because I'm just too damned lazy two type three pages of stuff, and don't have room to boot) believers to not take as allies those who are Allah's enemies, including (in verse 1) "those who have rejected the truth he has revealed to you". It later goes on to show the believers what to do if "women believers come to you" including a basic nullification of their marriage with their "non-believer husbands.

At 10/1/06 07:15 AM, lapis wrote: stuff about Crusades.

While it is true that there were bad things happening in the communities that provided soldiers for the crusades, it's not realistic for the Pope to call for neighbors to put a stop to each other's actions, especially not in those days. Should he have condemned it? Of course. But on the same token, (on a modern note), lots of nasty stuff happens in the United States every day. Neighbors kill neighbors...child porn, etc. But does the President step in and take care of person verses person disputes? Of course not. He deals more with national and international matters. So too with the Pope.

And the speech by the Pope was NOT a call for violence against non-Christians. It was a call for violence against Muslims. Pure and simple. The Pope outlined a laundry list of "offenses" that the Muslim had committed against the pilgrims, and then called for retalitory actions to protect the pilgrims. And all the calls for violence were against the Muslim. That there was violence against Jews and others is not surprising as they hired mercenaries, who have no loyalty but money.

Yet there are few modern Christians who deplore all violence, even violence used when fighting what they perceive as evil.

Yet there is a huge anti-war movement that at least calls themselves Christian and seems to abhor all retalitory action. Whether or not the call of Jesus is realistic or not is irrelevant. One CANNOT claim that Christ encouraged violence, as he himself submitted to a very painful horrible death, as did later most of his apostles.

That's where the difference comes in, Islam does condone violence, but only against those who fight Islam and certainly not against those who are innocent. A certainty is that they are forbidden by the scriptures to aggress. However, this makes it easier for terrorists to justify acts of war since the word "retaliatory" is hard to define, a radical would say that American involvement in the Middle East is an act of aggression which therefore justifies a holy war while a moderate would say that they're also allied with Islamic peoples and that they fight their enemies for other reasons than religion.

The Qur'an also says that it is unacceptable for any to mock Islam. It says that it is not permitted for outsiders to criticize Islam or the prophet. Yet "Allah overlooks the sins of the believer". Plus, given the call for the "3 options": conversion, jiyza, or death, it's even hard to say with a straight face that there's nothing in the Qur'an, about killing innocents, or if it even makes such a distinction.

You don't look hard enough, then.

Yeah, feel free to show me a Muslim defending the pope on his comments, or condemning the massive violence that followed. It's gonna be a hard look to find even one.

At 10/1/06 05:12 AM, maf10986 wrote: yeah, but the fact still remains torturing people doesnt make them give you information i would rather them just execute PoWs because thats what they do to our PoWs

Yea, it kinda does. Our own military tells soldiers to only give their name and number (mainly in the hopes that the interrogator will get frustrated and give up). But if torture is used thae army knows it's soldiers will crack and give up and information they know. Which is why a POW that has been rescued loses security clearance. It is already assumed that they have been tortured (and have thereby given up anything they know).

Torture broke Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and gave us valued info. It works.

At 9/30/06 05:09 PM, TheMason wrote: So I guess this means the OT that is created and inspired by Satan. Gee that would explain why Israel is so violent and wages terror campaigns of its own, and why we have seen a Christian history smeared with blood. Whereas much of Islam's history has been of tolerance in the region as well as political stability under the Ottomans.

AAK

Gee, Mason, that sounds kinda.....emotional.

At 9/30/06 05:15 PM, TheMason wrote: Funny the main Muslim problem with Christianity is that by declaring Jesus as divine; they are in fact committing a blasphamy against God. That while they respect JC as a great man and prophet, Christians have turned him into a false god AND false prophet (an amazing 2 for 1 deal not even the Muslims can match!) This is why there was revelation to Muhammed, to fix our apostacy. : However, the Qur'an is tolerant/enlightened enough that it can still preach respect for Christians and Jews to practice their beliefs, whereas EUROPEAN Christianity has preached a more convert or die message...

The Quran preaches violence and second class status for Christians:

9: 28:
Believers who ascribe partners to God are truly unclean; do not let them come to the sacred mosque after this year.

29:
Fight those people of the book who do not truly believe in God and in the last day, who do not forbid what God and his Messenger have forbidden, who do not obey the rule of justice until they pay the jiyza and submit.

Other passages:
IV.89: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
IX. 5-6: Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.
IV.76: Those who believe fight in the cause of God.
IV.74: Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God's path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward.
VIII.39-42: Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's.
SURA 4.56: (As for) those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.
5.51: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
4.144: O you who believe! do not take the unbelievers for friends rather than the believers; do you desire that you should give to Allah a manifest proof against yourselves?
9.23: O you who believe! do not take your fathers and your brothers for guardians if they love unbelief more than belief; and whoever of you takes them for a guardian, these it is that are the unjust.
9.5: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Sorry, but there's nothing to say that Islam "respects Christians and Jews". The closest it comes is sura 109:
Say, 'Disbelievers: I do not worship what you worship, you do not worship what I worship, I will never worship what you worship, you will never worship what I worship. You have your religion and I have mine.'

But compared to the hundred of passages encouraging violence against non-believers and specifically against Christians and Jews, yea, no, the Qur'an is far from "tolerant". And you're just saying that becuase you're a relativist.

It takes a big man to admit he's wrong....how big are you?

At 9/30/06 05:01 PM, TheMason wrote: But if you read the Qur'an there is nothing in there that supports the view that suicide bombing is legitimate. I do not know where these analysts got this information.

They got it from the Qur'an. And the Bible says nothing about AIDS victims or helping them. It simply says that one is to "help the sick". Are AIDS people sick? Yes. So we must help them. But does the Bible command us to help AIDS sufferers? No, because AIDS didn't exist. Similarly, Muslims are to kill and be killed for Allah. That it doesn't tell them to strap up with non-existant C4 doesn't dispute the validity of the leap.

Stupid stuff about only one person thinks this way and consensus.

"Consensus" can be wrong. And it's far more than "one person" who thinks that.

Brief overview

For space I deleted your argument. I will simply offer up a few points that negate the entire focus of your history lesson.
1. Doing something contrary to what you are told/taught is not a reflection on the failings of the values you were taught. Christ says to love my neighbor. If I torch his house down instead, does that make his teachings useless because I committed violence (I COULD even use his name) Obviously it doesn't, because I did what I was told not to do. Likewise any "dark spots" on Christianity's history aren't a real stain on Christianity because to commit said attrocities the had to ignore their own dogmas.
2. Most, if not all, periods of Christian attrocity were committed by those who wished to impose their beliefs over the church and position themselves as divine ruler. That they ignored the teachings is a huge factor here, Because they felt they were IRRELEVANT. Look at the Anglican church. The good king wanted to divorce his wife. He was told no by the church. So he left. And it went down hill from there.
3. Even if (for whatever reason), these Periods of bloodshed were supported by the Bible, we rejected them and have moved on. The Muslims have not. They still live in Dark ages mentality.

WolvenBear,

You need to spend some time actually looking at the reality on the ground in the ME. There are many, many factors at work. Education does not mean affluence in every part of the ME. In Iran for example there is only jobs for 50% of each year's college graduates. In fact many go to college in order to get government subsidies to stave off poverty for another four years. In Palestine access to education and basic social services is very limited. Israel has displaced a people and moved them into refugee camps, and now five generations have known no other life than the camps. Thus the Palestinians cannot have much hope for their future.

How sad. That poor bin Ladin guy...oh wait he's rich. Those poor Saudi royals...oh wait they're rich too! Well that poor Ahmen....damn rich again! Saddam? Rich. Eday, Ubay and Ebay? All rich. The blind shiek? Rich. Jeez, I'm starting to see a pattern. The reality is simple. And tragic. Those who would be terrorists profit off the backs of their less fortunate neighbors. Saddam plundered the countryside, murdered his citizens and attacked his neighbors. He became wealthy. And his is the common story.

As for the majority of the ME being pro-terror there are several fallacies to your argument. The first example is even CNN and Fox have reported that about 75% of Iranians want better relations and contact with Americans. Before the 2002 State of the Union address there was cooperation between US and Iranian intelligence on the Afghanistan campaign as well as accepting US assistance following an earthquake in Qur, Iran. After 9/11 about a million Iranians demonstrated IN SOLIDARITY WITH the US. Even Hussein dispatched a letter of sympathy.

The fallacies with your argument are even simpler. 75% of Iranians neither want sanctions or war with the US. There were many countries in the ME that CELEBRATED the 9/11 attacks, including Iraq and Iran.

As for the legitimacy of terrorism; how is a group that perceives it is being oppressed by the technological superiority of US military equipment (either by the US or an ally), supposed to fight the US? You don't fight a superior foe on its terms and against its strengths. You fight on your terms, against their weaknesses. Terrorism is a form of Guerilla warfare.

Yawn. By at least killing enemy soldiers instead of your own civilians. These people aren't fighting for freedom.

OH, and btw, they've been attacking us for a long time.

Also just a little critique on your rhetorical/forensic skill: never tell someone that their argument has no basis in reality or state that the argument is finished just because you have presented an argument that you reinforce with an emotional argument (in this case your faith). What you have shown in your post is only your ignorance of both the faith of the Muslims and your own. (Note: ignorance means one is only lacking knowledge. Stupid means lack of capicity for knowledge. And we are all, every one, ignorant.)

Many arguments have no basis in relaity. For example. If I said that people could breathe underwater with no mechanical help, that argument has no basis in reality. Also, if I said I could drain you of all your blood and you would survive, that argument SIMILARLY has no basis in reality. There is truth and there is falsehood. If you base your arguments on the latter, well, then your arguments have no basis in reality. For example, there is plenty in the Qur'an to support suicide missions. (The taking of one's live is prohibited, dying in battle is glorified).

And a rebuttal. If you're going to make an argument so easy to refute as "Nowhere in the Qur'an does it support suicide missions (bombings)", don't question someone else's "forensic skills".

At 9/30/06 01:09 PM, lapis wrote: Yeah, I'm not trying to smear Christianity but I have to disagree with this. The goal of the first crusade was to unite the Christians by focusing their wars against non-Christians, Muslims in particular.

No the goal of the first crusade was to drive the Muslim out of the holy land. The Pope's speech spoke of the violent campaign against Christians by the Persians, the Turks, The Sarceans, and the infidels. All of those are muslims. It focused Christians against Muslims only and some Christians decided to attack Jews.

Peace stuff

While I'm not sure what that quote comes from, the simple truth is that Islam was spreading by force. Muslims were attacking and murdering Christian pilgrims for the hell of it. And the Pope responded by calling the crusades.

And let's not forget how Christianity spread in South America, namely by purging all that was non-Christian. Archaeologists still mourn the behaviour of the Spaniards who went a little overboard in their quest of forced conversion. All of this doesn't agree with the teachings of Jesus but the fact remains that the Conquistadors called themselves Christians, like al Qaeda calls itself Muslim, and that this violence resulted in almost an entire continent following the teachings of the Catholic church.

Lots of people have called themselves Christian, and have claimed devine inspiration for whatever savage acts they commit. The same can be said of Islam. HOWEVER, this is how the two differ. "Christian terrorists" don't quote the Bible. They can find no justification in the acts they have wrought in Christ's teachings. Muslims have no trouble finding justification in the Qur'an. When Falwell, Phelps or Robertson speaks up (and the worst they ever do is hurt someone's feelings), they are immediately condemned by Christians. Muslims monsters commit violence and one has to search high and low for a single "moderate" to give a non-condemnation condemnation, such as "I wish he hadn't done that, because it makes us look bad." The "Christian extremists" that everyone call so damned dangerous preach such "violence" as the refusal to recognize gay marriage....and the voting that goes with that. Letters and tv spots follow. Muslim clerics call for fatwas and jihads...riots and death follow on large scales.

The two religions aren't even close.

At 9/30/06 01:43 PM, seventy-one wrote: Well, I highly doubt that they're reliable for such news.

Again, because they have formed an opinion doesn't make them less reliable. People who just say "side a said this....side b says this", are unreliable AND useless. And many people claim Islam is peaceful everyday...oh wait, THEY'VE FORMED AN OPINION.

They just happened to get a hold of a Pentagon briefing themselves, and it just happened to be a report that says the Quran is violent. The story is just another propaganda tool for what they believe. So, unless that report actually is true (i.e. it came from a reliable news source), this thread turns into another debate about whether Islam is violent.

The likelihood of that happening is pretty damned good. The Pentagon exists to discover threats to the USA. It has definately studied Islam, and as anyone who's not determined to paint Islam as peaceful despite all the fact, it would say "Islam is violent."

And it should be a debate on whether or not Islam is violent.
Hell, the title of the thread IS "Suicide bombers follow Qur'an." What'd you expect? A discussion what cookies Santa likes best?

At 9/30/06 03:32 PM, fallen-son wrote: not all people who follow the quran are bombers, there are nazi extremists in every religeon. thats like if one white guy shits on an old lady and the whole race is labeled lady shitter oners.

You analogy is irrelevant and without scale. If even TEN percent of a religion fostered violence, we'd look at it as a threat. In almost every country that is Islamic...violence is supported by the vast majority of people. They may not ALL be shitting on old ladies, but the rest aree giving the ones who are the thumbs up while they do it.

At 9/30/06 04:46 PM, Abyss wrote: What I don't get is that a suicide bomber, if Muslim and follows Islam, would go to hell because:
A) Nowhere in the Quran does it say kill people

There are 100s of passages where it says to kill people.

B) Nowhere does it say we don't like Christians, in fact in says respect people like Christians, Jews etc

There is not a single passage that "respects Christianity and Judaism". There are passages telling Muslims not to make friends with them though.

And though I'm too lazy to type it out Sura 9:29-33, talks about how to fight the "people of the book" (the Jews and Christians) who don't truly believe in all of the "correct teachings" and "worship en on the level of God" (Jesus for example).

C) Nowhere does it say you should commit suicide, not even for your religion

But it says in countless places that one should kill and be killed in the service of Allah. If one does a suicide bombing...he kills and is killed in the service of Allah.

They're just extremists who'll do anything to help, even if it won't

You've never read the Qur'an, no more commentary from you.

At 9/30/06 04:49 PM, Abyss wrote: The Quran isn't Satan inspired if you read it, before questioning what it says. It is very much like Judism or Christianity, only difference is that Muslims are more conservative, otherwise.. just look for an English translated Quran online basically the same as any religion, just started in Arabic and is now translated

The "devine intervention" of Garbiel to Mohammid is identical to later passages of djinn (demonic) posession. Mohammid gets the pass on being possessed by demons because hes....well, Mohammid.

At 9/29/06 10:27 AM, UndeadTemplar88 wrote: The US and its citizens must get over with racism, but there will always be conservatives that will want the white man to win over any race.

Democrats have always been, and stil lare the party of racism.

Oh and by the way, Bush appointed Gonzales (Hispanic) Rice (black), Powell (black), and the list goes on....
Democrats use racial slurs against all of them.

Clinton appointed...his wife to the seat of Presidency...hardly counts.

At 9/29/06 05:11 PM, Alexi101 wrote: If the black president cares more about the US of A and less about "Bringing Democracy to the Middle East" Or some other damn region,

I'd vote for him

its just that none of the Political parties will accept a black, there all fat assholes

Short list:
Democrats:
Barack Obama, Cynthia McKinney, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Farrahkan...

Republicans:
Powell, Rice, Elder (All of which get daily racial insults from Liberals)

At 9/29/06 10:50 PM, Cole wrote: We already have had a black president. Well, maybe it was just a nickname, but still. (Clinton was often referred to as the first black president) A black president would be a good idea. It's so strange that we've had pretty much all old white Protestant presidents. I think that Condi would be a good leader.

Yeah, that nickname was invented by white Democrats. And it's completely undeserved.

At 9/29/06 04:19 PM, Begoner wrote: The Democratic Party is center-right. The "lunatic fringe" to which you refer are the centrists.

The democratic party is far left. The Republican party is center right. Seeing as how every day the Republicans move farther left, the center will soon disappear.

At 9/29/06 04:32 PM, Truthiness wrote: The Moral Majority must not extend to e-sex with underage boys.

This is one man. And I have yet to hear anyone in the Republican party defending him. The most I've heard is "wait for all the facts", from www.stoptheaclu.com. Malkin and Bruce have condemned him, among others. Using one man's unsupported actions to condemn an entire nation wide party is assinine.

At 9/29/06 04:50 PM, Truthiness wrote: Clinton was immoral, Foley was illegal.

Clinton committed illegal acts to hide it, and was accused of rape. Last time I checked, rape was still illegal.

At 9/29/06 05:01 PM, fli wrote: Still, it makes me consider something I've always disregarded.
Clinton was one of the better presidents (according to me, bitches... so shut up will you!) And I thought Starr blew the extramarital affair to rediculous epic proportions when there were other things to be concerned about.

Yawn, Clinton was useless. And if he'd just paid off Jones, the whole Starr thing wouldn't have happened. But no, he had to commit perjery...etc...etc.

So I'm rather mixed up.
But I'm sure Republicans are too now that "one of their own" have been in a Clinton-esque type of situtaion (but much worse.)

Not really, there's been quite a bit of condemnation. You're not going to hear the echo chamber bitch that this is a "liberal hit job", or such crap.

At 9/29/06 05:57 PM, fli wrote: "Equally?"
Yeah right...

You're right, Clinton was worse.

The man is a perv who was out for a young boy's innocence.
Things like this doesn't remain where they are. They progress until the envitable rape.

Sounds like an ACLU case involving NAMBLA that had gotten uncritical support from liberals on this board. If this was a Democrat, you'd be fine with it.

Clinton nabbed two fat bitches.

Just the fact that you're saying two...instead of near a dozen shows how much you're ignoring.

All were consentual and legal sexual acts.

Clinton was accused of rape. Jones was not a consentual act. Except for Lewinski there was no consentual on his part.

Even if that guy didn't have sex, it could have esculated into it. And that would be many times worse than the other guys' sexual encounters.

Not quite.

At 9/30/06 03:27 AM, fli wrote:

At 9/29/06 09:49 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: ...gay pedophile...

Babay-- pulease...
Most 13 year old boys look like girls... if the man was gay, he would solicit men.

Irrelevant and stupid to boot.

The man is a just a pedophile--
a fucked up pedophile because pedophilia doesn't care if its male or female as long it's young, illegal, and innocent.

Bull. Going after a girl is straight, going after a guy is gay. You never hear straight people try to blur this. Cause it's irrelevant. Grow up Fli. We have a GAY PEDOPHILE on our hands.

At 9/30/06 04:04 AM, djx2d wrote: i agree clinton was one of the better presidents...its the sex that tarnished his rep... other wise he'd be on the 15 doller bill right now

With everything Clinton did, it's best for him that he's remembered for Lewinski. His real estate scandals, dealings with the Chinese, etc, are much worse.

At 9/30/06 03:30 AM, seventy-one wrote:

At 9/30/06 03:24 AM, troubles1 wrote: NO WONDER THEY ARE VIOLENT...
LINK

"Suicide bombers follow Quran"....says the anti-Islam site. Because basing beliefs about religions from sites like those are the way to go right?

That was sarcasm.

Because since ther're against Islam they MUST logically be wrong...
That was sarcasm.

At 9/30/06 04:21 AM, fli wrote: And Eric Robert Rudolph follows the Bible. No wonder he's so violent.
*eye rollie*

Each religion has its nutters.

No, he doesn't. By his own admission.

And there's nothing in Christian teachings to support his actions. Wow, two sentences...two gross misrepresentations. Way to get the most wrong in the least amount of words.

At 9/30/06 06:04 AM, Denta wrote: Hey, the REAL Quran are AGAINST violence, it's just that the Quran that they follow is edited to fit as propaganda...

Mohammid was violent. Islam was spread by violence. Is it that much of a stretch to say their holy book is violent? No, not really. But hey since not of us read Arabic, we have no way of knowing. Which invalidates your entire argument.

And hey, to understand why they go suicide bombing, think of their situation:

You're experiencing the Americans and the Israel bombing your country to pieces...

Your family is killed by US troops...

You go hungry everyday...

No-one takes care of you...

Everyday is a fight for survival...

etc.

No wonder that they'd go suicide bombing.

Many terrorists are well educated. And the majority of the middle east is pro-terror. There is no reality in your argument.

Have a nice day.

At 9/14/06 11:40 PM, Torso-Zombie wrote: I am a Junior in high school, and I'm currently in a Bio 2 class. I like the teacher, and I think that he's a very intelligant man, but I sometimes wonder weather or not he should be teaching the subject that he teaches. You see, he's EXTREMELY religious. This wouldn't be too much of a problem, except for the fact that about a fourth of our lesson plan is about evolution. At just about every chance he gets, my teacher mentions that he thinks it's a load of shit. What's even weirder, he believes in SOME evolution because science has proven it, but he still doesn't believe that HUMANS evolved, even though he admits that we are animals. So the question is, do you think that a man like this is suited for this kind of job?

There's a lot of dissent on whether or not evolution is real. And I am of the believe that if you don't want the opposition heard...then your case sucks. No one in the world would hesitate to shoot down a "flat-earther". But on evolution....NO DISCUSSION IT IS SETTLED!

And as for him believing in "some evolution", he's probably talking micro-evolution, which is really just minor variations in a species. Almost like two brown haired people produce a blonde baby. It means nothing really, and a lot of it is directed by humans.

At 7/8/06 01:23 AM, Truthiness wrote: However, I'm not a registered Democrat. Why? Because I fear the lunatic liberal fringe of my party like no other, and I know I'm not the only one.

The Democratic party is nothing but lunatic fringe. PETA. ACLU. Soros. Moveon. CCR. Sharpton and Jackson's flocks. La Raza (and other mexican seperationists). Planned Parenthood. The list goes on....

John Kerry was just the beginning of this burgeoning liberal fringe getting back out into the public eye, finding their voice and with it a demand to dominate any discussion on the position of the Democratic Party. Howard Dean did little to help, much less that miserable Markos Moulitsas at DailyKos, or any of the number of interchangeable, pointless liberal blogs that possess some of the most self-obsessed and self-loving people in the world.

John Kerry and Dean were the latest in a long list of "lunatic fringe", going back to before Vietnam.

God damnit, the Democratic Party jumped the tracks somewhere and now it's right fucked.

Welcome to the real world.

At 7/8/06 01:43 AM, Jayemare wrote: Helping the average americans seems to be the official party line for democrats. Social security, welfare, public education, low taxes on the poor, all popular programs that Americans want.

The average American has ALWAYS been opposed to the expansion and continuance of unlimited welfare. (Hence the rise in popularity of the Republicans after teh welfare reforms.) The American people also support vouchers (or at the least public school reform) which the Dems hate. And Republicans lower taxes for everyone as Democrats RAISE them for everyone.

Today most people seem to want a strong defense (without an agressive foreign policy), socially conservative (no gay marriage, restricted aboriton), and economically liberal (scoial security, taxes on the rich, welfare,) policies. They also want an honest government, and dems have avoided taking flak the way republicans have for scandals. If they just embraced moderates they would be able to actually win the white house, and maybe even win it a second time, which never happens.

Dems don't have moderates. And considering Reagan opposed almost all of the positions of "social liberalism" (during campaign) that you say he supported....why did he win?

At 9/28/06 08:38 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: I agree with you here strongly and I credit you with my rise of political feelings.

Basically, I'm niether a republican nor democrat. I like to consider myself an Independent.

But what I would like is for competion in the Senate and House, and if the Democrats ever actually represent thier voters, I will have that.

JHMX, your probally the reason why I'm going to be majoring in Political Science.

I used to be this way too. And even today, there's a lot I disagree with the Republicans on, but nothing I agree with the Democrats on. I may not be a firm Republican, but I know what I don't want...and that's Democrats in Power.

At 9/27/06 09:37 PM, mofomojo wrote: I think so.

If we had a civil rights leader -- Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton -- as our president. Then things would be substantially different and significantly more free and fun.

Al "Kill the Diamon Merchant Jews" Sharpton or Jesse "Thank God it's Not a Black Person Behind me" Jackson? Ridiculous. Life would suck badly.

At 9/27/06 09:57 PM, SamDominion wrote: No, it could happen.
If people got over racism, then yes.

It has nothing to do with racism. A black president would never get the black vote (which would be his first priority) without going for issues like Reparations, Affirmative Action and the like. Nor would white liberals vote for him if he didn't court the "black vote". And no conservative would ever vote for that candidate.

At 9/28/06 06:37 AM, Rockthebestmusic wrote: oprah; the first black president AND the first female president yeah not to likely. Whats mos likely going to happen is that first we'll get a black man or a white women then we'll get the alternate one after that but i highly doubt that it would be a black women based on current mindsets of americans.

Americans aren't racist, except for a small minority. Period.

At 9/28/06 02:50 PM, ViolentAJ wrote: Only Blacks would vote for a Black president. I am Black, and I know forst hand that ALL non-Blacks hate ALL Black people.

Translation: You're a racist who hates everyone who's not like you....so logically everyone else is like that too."

At 9/29/06 12:07 AM, Jose wrote:

At 9/28/06 03:30 PM, ExpRezO wrote: Who cares about a black president, thats old news now, let's see if we can elect an 'ARAB' president, now thats fun.

The first arab to run for senate is from my state.
In the first debate the republican opponent called him a terrorist.

I doubt it. Provide proof or be done.

At 9/28/06 11:41 PM, denster1991 wrote: A black president will happen one day just no time soon as Americas is still a youg country and needs to have a solid goverment before any big changes and a woman president will be much farther away than a black as there is no true reason to vote one in, untill one shows complete reason and capability to be announced in will not have a black or a woman president it certinly will not happen within the current generation of kids

I love how liberals complain about lack of minorities in politics....then when a conservative minority comes around, they throw all kinds of racial epithets. Condi is a black traitor. Michelle Malkin is a "gook whore". Colin Powel is a "chicken eating uncle tom". And the list goes on.

At 8/15/06 02:37 AM, Truthiness wrote: President Bush has not vetoed any bill in six years until now. The Compassionate Conservative himself, having rubber-stamped six years of increasingly arrogant and blind partisan bills, has cast a veto on one bill he cannot stand, one bill he just could not allow to be passed into law, a bill with the potential to save millions of lives and advance scientific progress in a nation that once sat at the forefront but now lags behind other, less prosperous European nations. It seems so ironic that the one bill that President Bush simply could not allow is the one bill that may actually have helped people and allowed for his legacy to be something more than Iraq and Civil Liberties violations.

There is nothing in this bill that a. would help millions of people or b. forces us behind other nations. The majority of major scientific advances still come out of America, and we're certainly not falling behind less prosperous nations. Hooray for spouting pure bull with no fact behind it.

And as for those "blindly partisan bills" he's signed: No Child Left Behind...written by Kennedy (D). He tried to get the American people behind the Democratic party's immigration bill. He signed a bill that allowed the morning after pill to be sold over counters.

Yea, I've made my point.

Private corporations have responded to this attack on our scientific progress and the health of millions of Americans and men and women around the world by rising to the task and privately funding Stem Cell research. It seems so sad that the nation that discovered the cures for once fatal diseases, the nation that discovered nuclear power and changed the course of world history, is now choked by the election-year pandering of one man concerned with appeasing the base.

No one is privately funding Stem Cell Research. Because if they were....well hell, there'd be no debate. The whole debate is "We can't get funding...so we want governmental funding." And most of the organizations behind the bill (such as the American Diabetes Association) stand to profit from federal grants.

It's sad that people are so blindly partisan they can't be bothered to do any research and just rely on the first article they read.

At 9/4/06 07:00 AM, Jelly-Angel wrote: Stem cells are cells that have the potential to turn into any cell in the human body as long as the person or animal is still alive. Theoretically, stem cells can serve as a sort of repair system for the body by dividing without limit to replenish cells that have died.

Adult stem cells have already fulfilled much of the potential that embryonic stem cells have promised. Stem cells have that potential yes (that is how they work)...however, they have no clue how to make them do that. Every attempt for a decade has failed. Theory is just that. However, not only have they failed in generating these cures.....the results have been disasterous.

Pluripotent stem cells can create any type of cell in the body except those that can create a foetus.

Yet we don't know how and the CLOSEST we are to a cure if we fund it to infinity is 3 decades, assuming they figure it out tomorrow.

Potentially, stem cells could be a cure to now incurable diseases. Take Alzheimer’s for example, it is caused by parts of the brain dying killing certain memories and functions. Brain cells cannot regenerate therefore causing the condition to be permanent. Also there would be hope for people who are paralysed due to spinal cord injuries. Stem cells would be implanted where the spinal cord has been damaged and they would replace the damaged cells with new ones.

Spinal cord injuries already have some hope in adult stem cells. And potential means nothing. The stem cell "pros" have admitted that they can't promise anything, but that they "might be able to figure out something".

Now that you know what stem cells are, what do you think stem cell research is?

A waste of my money.

At 9/5/06 12:53 PM, pt9-9 wrote: Embryonic stem cell research will surely advance the progress of ifnding cures, but it is highly unethical.

Actually, there's little chance we'll ever get anything positive out of stem cells. It'll probably be like that ever elusive cure for aids and cancer. "All we need is 500 million more. This is the last time....we swear...."

And why embryonic stem cells? Last time I checked, bushed supported adult stem cell reasearch, umbilical cord stem cells, and not as morally contreversial areas.

Bush actually approved a bill for EMBRYONIC stem cells. The restrictions were embryos already stated for destruction and little governmental funding. Now they want more....(go figure). That NEVER comes out in debates. Bush just doesn't want to fund it.

Do you think Bush doesn't want to witness cure's for hundreds of diseases/disorders with the work of stem cells? I dont.

At 7/30/06 08:47 AM, SamDominion wrote: Recently, there has been a debate about Stem Cell Research. I'm for it, what happens to embryos, they aren't even alive. There could be a cure for cancer made through it.

If by recently, you mean the last decade, then yes....recently.

First the government said yes to it, and I said Hooray for that!
Then these Pro Lifists and Anti Abortionists religious zealots started saying "We're hurt, we hate you, whahahahahahaah."

Well, you took a debate of monumental importance and reduced it to gibberish...good job.

So then, a week later the senate ( i think it was them) said No to Stem cell research, to make up for it.
The cure for cancer is being delayed because some idiots got their feelings hurt?

So because someone promised a cure for cancer, and we said no, cancer won't get cured. That's moronic.
I promise that I will cure cancer with.....jolly ranchers....so give me money. After all, I PROMISED!

That's Bullshit!
How could people be so stupid?
When will they stop mixing religion with law?
Please discuss.
Please, no one saying "YOu suck monkeys nuts" or anything.n

And your lack of knowledge about the topic is sad. Please don't vote. You don't know any of either side's arguments about the case.

At 7/30/06 09:10 AM, stafffighter wrote:

At 7/30/06 08:47 AM, Ranger2 wrote:

When people become wholey rational creatures. Good luck waiting for that

There's quite a bit of stupidity on the pro-stem cell side of the fence....

The key issue in this is the inital abortion rights. The stem cells used are from sources that wouldn't grow into a person anyway. These women were already going to give up the embryos for whatever reason she has anyway, using it to preserve the lives of others is amoung the more noble ways to go.

There's a bit more to it then that. Such as, for over a decade, embryonic stem cells have had ZERO successes in their research. Also is that some don't want to fund something they disagree with. And finally, since the government has a habit of funding failure (and encouraging failure) people don't want MORE research put in the government's hands.

At 7/30/06 09:14 AM, SamDominion wrote: I know, but people are still saying "You're killing something that'll be a human being."
If they care so much about something that's barely as big as the head of a pin, I wonder why people sacrifice animals?

Size is irrelevant to the debate. People who make the point about size know they have nothing else to stand on. And since animals aren't people, they don't have the same standing.

I've always found it stupid when people say it's ok to kill humans but complain about animals.

At 7/30/06 06:08 PM, Kasualty wrote: Bush vetoed it for the US. Ha, his first veto and it's on an issue that almost all liberals support and almost all moderate republicans support, that could cure cancer along with other diseases, what an asshat. And I hate when people are like "That embryo could grow up to be the person that cures cancer without using stem cells." Because it's more likely that the embryo grows up to be a fat teenager named Cody.

Most politicians support whatever their constituents tell them to. It cures nothing. It actually CAUSES cancer (teratomas). And it's most likely that there will be no positive benefit, and we'll perpetually spend money...like public schools, or governmental programs of any stripes.

At 8/13/06 03:15 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: bunch of useless arguments

Well, that's all well and good, but none of it is even remotely relevant. If they want tax payers to pay for it....then the tax payers can object for any reason they want.

The stem cell debate is over ONE thing. Governmental funding. It is a failed useless science, and therefore cannot get money from greedy companies so it wants the government to shell out money.

At 9/25/06 01:54 PM, ManticoreNight wrote: Well, America is full of mindless drones to, look at it's president. Americans are pressured to conform instead of being forced like the communists did, but that doesn't really make it that different.

America is full of hundreds and thousands of different viewpoints, none of which are stifled. On one end you have Tammy Bruce...a pro-choice, lesbian, gun carrying republican, then you have ann coulter, then you have jerry falwell, then you have mel gibson, then bush. And this is just five people on the right side of politics. Anyone who says Americans have one viewpoint hasn't paid attention.

I wouldn't say america outlasted communism, cuba is still communist and will probably stay like that way after america's dollar is beaten by somone. That somone is probably going to be China (who has a long communist history).

Cubans also flee the system in droves. If cuba wasn't getting world support it would've collapsed already. And China is becoming more and more capitalistic. The day China overtakes us...is when China becomes more capitalistic than us. That'll also be the day their citizens have a better standard of life.

At 9/25/06 05:55 PM, Glendale wrote: Then explain why 60% of the country wants his ass out. (Personally, I prefer him to Gore or Kerry)

This comes from someone who doesn't like Bush.
60% of the country wants him out because the media has lied for years about him. HE CAUSED 9/11. IRAQ WAS FOR OIL. Etc. Even disagreeing with him, he's a far better president than Clinton.

At 9/25/06 05:57 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote:

At 9/25/06 05:27 PM, Glendale wrote: New Lanark is currently a protected site in Scotland.

ah-ha!

Thanks for that. I've been to New Lanark a few times, never knew that though.

Although i will say, one example of socialism failing is not outright proof that it will always do so.

But EVERY example of socialism failing is pretty convincing...

At 9/25/06 07:25 PM, TheMason wrote: Do I need to spell it out for you? If you firbomb a 400-600 year structure housing a bunch of nuns or monks you can easily kill more people than a suicide bomber on a bus. The point is my example can be directly correlated and compared to suicide bombing. Wait a second...didn't Eric Rudolf bomb abortion clinics in the name of God?
The problem with Christian terrorists and bombers is that they forget to include the "suicide" part and thus deepen the gene pool.

Way to use hypotheticals. However, in the US, abortion clinic bombings in our entire history don't even account for 10% of what Islamic savages did on 9/11 alone.
Christianity is not violent.
Islam is.
End of story.

You would be surprised, the number of true extremist believers are about the same. The thing is the extremists muslims have more resonance because there are more secular issues at play such as economics, real & perceived oppression and nationalist struggles. Some sick bastards are also drawn to terrorism as a means to express their sociopathic need for violence and mayhem without really caring about the ideology they are expressing.

Yawn. The extremist christian numbers don't come close to the extremist muslim numbers. Show me the number of deaths in the past three years by Christian wackos all over the world, and I'll show you the number in response (so far) to the pope's speech. Islam loses again.
And btw, Christian fanatics like Robertson and Phelps and Falwell only piss of, annoy and hurt people's feelings.

Yeah, I do have something against Christianity overall. I have something against the way they are trying to mandate and legislate their belief structures. Abortion, drinking prohibitions, stem cell/cloning restrictions, creationism as science (as oppossed to teaching it as a philosophy or theology class), and support of a militaristic regime in the ME based on an imagined Judeo-Christian sameness.

If you wish to get into the debate of all those things, you will lose on every one of them. Abortion (on principal) cannot be a slight against the christians. It is simply a matter (on how both sides debate it) of life vs. convenience. Life wins every time. Christians aren't calling for drinking prohibitions, so you're done there (in fact catholics drink at mass). Stem cell issues are easily debated away on non-christian terms (such as me having to pay for it and it being completely non-workable). And anyone who's not a complete idiot looks at the ME and says "You know there's something wrong over there." We're done on this topic.

My point is there are too many voices out there painting Islam with a wide brush in the color of extremists. They lack knowledge about the nature of the threat (a threat that I do acknowledge) and continue to spread their ignorance as if it were fact. So while to a point I have something against Christianity, my main point is to play devil's advocate and paint Christianity with the same brush using christian extremism as my color of choice. Obviously I'm being successful because its touched a nerve with you. So, Timetrials, all I'm trying to do is hold a mirror up to people like you and see how you like have your beliefs misrepresented like you do others.

Which is why your argument is useless. Christianity and Islam do not pose the same threat. Much in the same way that PETA and Hitler aren't on the same level. They WERE both vegetarians....

At 9/25/06 10:15 PM, W31RD0 wrote: I am sure this issue has been festering in him. Then when you take into account the host baiting him, I’m surprised he didn’t just shout "Impeach me now bitch!" and shove his cock into the hosts mouth.

The biggest issue of our day is terrorism. Any PRESIDENT that didn't expect to be questioned on terrorism (especially after having 300 books published on his failings) on a conservative network is an idiot who has proven that he was unfit to govern this country.

I think it is less that Bush is getting angry and more like him thinking:
"Crap! They actully asked me an unscripted question! If I have to keep talking my own words, I’m going to slip up and say turban-head!"

As opposed to Clinton, who never should've expected the obvious question (that was also asked of him on CNN and all other networks he was on btw).

There's also the idea that stupid people like McCain and Hillary Clinton (to name others) are grating on his nerves and his pateince is waning thin.

At 9/25/06 11:59 PM, fli wrote: But Clinton did outline a plan before he left offfice for Bush to follow up on his progress... and Bush decided ignore it altogether.

It wasn't like Bush didn't have the 8 years of work that Clinton already put in before Clinton left.

Hell, even Clarke reputed this. There was an idea. And why did Clarke say it wasn't implemented? Because Clinton didn't want to leave the next guy with a war...nonsense.

At 9/26/06 12:07 AM, AMFYOYO wrote:

At 9/25/06 11:23 PM, TimeTrials wrote: haha, Clinton truely is a jackass.

Your intelligence always amazes me. Luckily he wasn't unfairly attacked on national T.V. or anything...

Yawn, he wasn't.
He was asked the only question that interests people these days.
"But they should've asked him the color socks he was wearing...."
The stupidity of people these days.

At 9/26/06 12:35 AM, fli wrote:

At 9/26/06 12:10 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Yeah, but if Clinton approved several missions, Osama would have been killed off ages ago.

Like the earlier post, both sides are to blame, to tab it to one person is foolish.

Hence... Clinton's lashing...
Everyone wants to pin this on Clinton, yet if one had to choose a lesser of two sins (Bush and Clinton)... It will definely be Clinton.

No, it'd be Bush. However, Carter Bush Sr. and Reagan all had their hands into it.
But to blame Bush more than Clinton is naive and partisan.

It's understandable why he would lash out... FOX wouldn't ask loaded questions to Bush or any other similar Republicans, and yet it's like he's getting the blunt of all blame when clearly, Clinton has been WAY closer at killing Bin Ladin than Bush. Nobody places equal blame.

Clinton never did anything to kill bin Ladin. Ger real.
And I say again, if Clinton was too stupid to anticipate a conservative host asking him about his failures pre-9/11 (hen liberals had asked him before) then he was obviously unfit to lead the country. CNN asks more loaded questions to Reps than Dems...I have yet to hear you condemn that. Moving on...

Instead, what were people doing?
What were people more focused on during the late 90s? Especially FOX?

Cum stains on a blue dress--

Perjury, obstruction of justice. You're done...

Funny how FOX used to say so many years ago that Clinton's attempt to kill Bin Ladin was just a mere attempt to divert people's attention to something else in a Wag-the-Dog-esque type of fashion.

When Clinton attacked years back...the GOP (except for a few nobodies) supported him. Newt Gingrich stood behind him and said it WAS NOT a publicity stunt. Try again.

And now they're like, "Well, you shoulda killed him years ago!"

He should've.

At 9/26/06 02:16 AM, Nylo wrote: First of all, great link!

Second of all, sounds like too many emotions are running high here.

I applaud the Fox News Interviewer. You don't have to like the guy, it's not like you're gonna fuck him. Like you guys defending Clinton wouldn't want hard-hitting questions on George Bush. But that's not the point, it's great that he asked those questions because it gave Clinton a chance to speak his mind in the hot-seat.

Exactly.

I loathed Clinton's demand to censor The Path to 9/11. I thought it was crappy attempt at censorship; people should be allowed to make up their own minds. However after hearing Clinton speak in this interview, doesn't matter if you agree with him or not, I love to see a guy get fired up like that.

That in and of itself speaks volumns about what Clinton failed to do. Even though the documentary was mostly anti-Bush, were there are massive media blockades? No. Just Clinton. Lovely.

At 9/25/06 09:23 PM, Begoner wrote: At least he didn't exponentially increase terrorism, nor did he let 3000 American citizens die on his watch.

Nope, he just fled from Mogadishu, allowed the USS Cole bombing to take place, took no real action against the first WTC bombing, and erected the "wall of seperation between church and state...I mean CIA and FBI. Among other things of course.

Shut up Begoner. Only an idiot would say Clinton isn't partially responsible.
And he's got a good deal of blame to shoulder.

While that doesn't excuse Bush's lack of action pre-9/11, let's put it in context. 8 months of Bush inaction vs 6 years of Clinton.

And let's not forget Bush I, Reagan and Carter's blunders.

At 9/25/06 09:34 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: I think it is kinda gay to ambush Clinton with this shit especially considering the great things he is doing now. Way to go on proving your reputation as a Conservative hack job network.

Yawn.
HOW DARE THEY AMBUSH HIM WITH A QUESTION ABOUT HIS PRESIDENCY (considering he went on to talk about his love of puppies) AND SAY HE DIDN'T CATCH BIN LADIN?

The man's an ex-president. There are two things people are going to ask him about:
1. What he did during his presidency.
2. What he thinks about the current President.

Being that...NO ONE CARES.

To expect anything else is stupid, and to expect them to NOT ask him about his part in a relevant issue of today is equally moronic.

And Clinton's not doing anything of value now...unless you consider the talk show circuit to boost Democrat seats in the Senate to be of value.

At 9/25/06 09:35 PM, AMFYOYO wrote: Oh yeah, and Bush has done a real good job getting Bin Laden; Attacking a completley innocent country that had nothing to do with him is a good way to get him to come out of hiding.

I assume you mean Iraq. Under that assumption I will proceed.

Whether or not Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 is irreleavnt:
1. We are allowed to attack any and all nations that pose a threat to us.
2. Iraq violated UN sanctions and was therefore subject to invasion.
3. Neither OBL nor his al Quida allies or our only threat.

Under those three simple observations, your assertion is pointless.

At 9/25/06 09:44 PM, W31RD0 wrote: And which country would this be? Firing a missle into another country without telling them us grounds for war.

Clinton did it more than once.

One cannot say what Clinton should have done, if you are seeing things in perspective of 9-11. Getting into a serious political battle (perhaps even a war) for a guy that at the time was still a small fish in a big sea, would be idiotic.

People can say what Clinton should have done all they want. Considering that people have written books doing just that (and to the converse, both Bushes and Reagan), this is just "don't bash my guy...he didn't know what he was doing". And long before Clitnon left office, OBL was on the FBI's top ten. This is a MAJOR failing of both him and BUSH Jr. in not getting him.

At 9/25/06 09:51 PM, AMFYOYO wrote: Wow I watched this a second time, and the interviewer thinks he is so fucking superior. He has that little smirk, and as far as I can see, Clinton comes through as a pretty honest guy, who can see right through this blind-side bullshit attack.

The interviewer has the right to feel superior. He's not complicit in thousands of deaths like Mr. Clinton.

And by the way, anyone who thinks an admitted perjurer comes across as honest shouldn't vote.

At 9/25/06 10:08 PM, fli wrote: Thing is...
Clinton very rarely gets angry, and if he's angry... then it's something real. Very serious.

Like being accused of perjury...or sleeping with an intern...

Whereas current President Bush, he frequently looks frustrated, and we take this normal. I really had to listen for a while what Clinton said because... well... it's like Alan Greenspan on Economics.

I can see that. He DID debate the meaning of the word is.

If he speaks something then you better damn well listen what's being said.

And just like the street hustler...you better be on guard, cause you're about to be had.