Scroll down for a discussion on Obama Awarded Nobel Prize within the Non-Insurance Related Discussion.
Originally Posted by GreenSky
Bob:
To answer your question, yes, I believe we have no business supporting Japan and other countries with our troops. It's ...
To answer your question, yes, I believe we have no business supporting Japan and other countries with our troops. It's time we stopped policing the world.
By the way, the reason for the 911 attacks were not because they hate our freedom. They hate the fact that we have bases all over the Middle East. I'm not at all saying we deserve the attacks, but our military policy might have helped cause them.
Rick
Rick,
I think you underestimate the world wide agenda of Muslim militants and extremists.
Leaving them alone is not going to result in them leaving us alone.
As Muslims and Islam have spread through Europe, Muslims in those countries have been steadily imposing their ideas of political theocracy on those countries. They immigrate to those nations and demand Sharia law. And that has touched close to us, with similar demands in Canada.
You can debate the wisdom of where and when we will end up fighting militant Islam, but don't think for a minute you will make peace with it. You can create a standoff, but that's the best you can hope for.
As Muslims and Islam have spread through Europe, Muslims in those countries have been steadily imposing their ideas of political theocracy on those countries.
And exactly what do you see as the MISSION of the arch-con's beloved born-again, religious Christian and Mormon right? Do you (they) really believe that if the fundamentalist Christians and Mormons rise to power via a Gov. Huckabee that they won't repeal the 1st. Amendment... and round up every Jew, Muslim, and (probably) Catholic and send them (us) all off to Camp Palin for a shower of Zyklon B?
You can preach all you want AGAINST the so called Muslim extremists in this country, but their numbers are dwarfed by the huge numbers of people who are part of the Republican religious right and who see their mission as establishing a Christian theocracy in this country.
I grew up with hearing the charges and taunts of Zionism. Well that threat is nothing compared to what Gov. Huckabee and Gov. Palin has in store for us religious minorities should they assume power... and I believe that IF... as many of you in this venue say.... this country has as many pea-brained arch-con born-gain religious zealots... well that's why I've always maintained that every Jew, Hindu, and Muslim own a gun... because if the arch-cons with the backing of the Christian/Morman fundamentalists get their way, there WILL be a knock on the door in the middle of the night in every non-Christian/Mormon home in this country.
You can say it won't happen, but I grew up in a time when it did happen. And the only reason it stopped happening is because my generation stood up, toe-to-toe, face-to-face with the arch-conservatives who denied us our rights to go to a Christian owned restaurant or stay in a Christian hotel or even enter a predomently Christian industry. (Um... how many Jewish engineers age 55+ do you know? Why? While banking and law and medicine and education were open to Jews, engineering firms were arch-conservative and simply wouldn't hire Jews... so Jews simply never studied those subjects in college when I attended in the mid 60s.)
The victories of human rights that we won (while some of you grew up in Canada) did not come easy. You grandfathers and grandmothers did not want to give up their positions of privilege. They fought us with dogs and fire hoses, and of course with bombs and murder. But because millions of baby-boomers basically said "f--k this s--t" and fought (voted) for women's rights, civil rights, voting rights, equal housing, equal employment rights... and so on... we are no longer living in Alabama of 1958... which you neo-cons and arch-cons so desperately want to bring us back to.
Not gonna happen so long as I'm alive. In this venue I'm 1 mod/lib against 10,000. neo/arch-cons. Fine. Intellectually, that's about even. Bring it on.
I realize that Muslims are taking over England and much of Europe. There is nothing we can do about it and having bases all over the world will only antagonize people.
I'd much rather have our troops here, our resources here, and have the ability to protect our shores.
Rick
------------------------------------ ILIAA
Training, Community, Support, and Success Independent Life Insurance Agents Assn rick@iliaa.org
Either Planned Parenthood, Muslim-style, or how about somebody invent some sort of water that prevents the ability to procreate.
Let us not forget that it is not the wealthy, educated Muslims who emigrate, it is more typically those who lack, and who are trying to do better somewhere else (sound familiar, John McCain?) Multiculturalism sure doesn't help, either.
And what about that Iraqi man who tried to kill his daughter in Arizona? If it were up to me, he'd be visiting his 72 virgins really soon...or at least he can keep thinking that.
And exactly what do you see as the MISSION of the arch-con's beloved born-again, religious Christian and Mormon right? Do you (they) really believe that if the fundamentalist Christians and Mormons rise to power via a Gov. Huckabee that they won't repeal the 1st. Amendment... and round up every Jew, Muslim, and (probably) Catholic and send them (us) all off to Camp Palin for a shower of Zyklon B?
You can preach all you want AGAINST the so called Muslim extremists in this country, but their numbers are dwarfed by the huge numbers of people who are part of the Republican religious right and who see their mission as establishing a Christian theocracy in this country.
Funny thing, but it was a group of Christian fundamentalist right wing extremists that gave us our Counstitution in the first place. They were otherwise known as the Founding Fathers. Christians helped establish our Constitutional rights, and it is clear that Muslim extremists would take them away, as they have in virtually every country where an Islamic theocracy has been established.
I'm curious, which country can you point to that has a Christian theocracy where the church has subverted democracy and taken away the freedoms and rights of the people?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Originally Posted by GreenSky
Bob:
I realize that Muslims are taking over England and much of Europe. There is nothing we can do about it and having bases all over the world will only antagonize people.
I'd much rather have our troops here, our resources here, and have the ability to protect our shores.
Rick
Rick,
Lest you forget, there is the small matter of missiles and nuclear weapons. And don't count on the MAD doctrine to protect us from Muslim extremists, they are only too eager to blow themselves up for their cause.
Last edited by Robert Barney : 10-26-2009 at 02:17 AM.
Reason: Posts merged
and it is clear that Muslim extremists would take them away,
And you don't believe that Christian extremists would take them away?
What is the most conservative, Christian state in the country? I believe it is Kentucky. So let's take KY. Outside of Lexington, do any of you honestly believe that a small group of Jews or Muslims could move in and build a temple or a mosque and not have it "accidentally" burned to the ground on one dark winter night?
Do you really believe that the vast majority of those in KY (and W.VA and other parts of the so-called "bible belt") are tolerant of those of other faiths?
I've been to KY (quite recently actually) and have had the opportunity to drive through the mountains and visit with store clerks, restaurant workers, hotel people, some factory workers, etc. The people were very nice... until you get them started on religion. Then I find they become not so nice. I didn't meet anyone that I had the courage to say that I didn't believe in Jesus.
Maybe your experience is different... and I hope it is, but the kind of religious zealotry that I saw in that part of the country, if given the option to establish Christianity as the religion-of-state, it would be taken in a New York minute.
About the closest we have in this country to a Christian theocracy is Utah... or more specifically the small towns and cities in that state. I sure would not feel comfortable being the only Jew or Hindu or Muslim in a small town in Utah. SLC is more cosmo, but you get into the southern part down US 15 or 89 and it's not a place where you want to say anything other than "Praise the Lord and the Prophet."
If you journey through the history of the Church in Europe (Spain comes first to mind) you will understand why the framers of the Constitution were so terrified of a theocracy.
Knowing the call to duty and the mission of fundamental Christians (which I include the LDS,) I don't for a minute doubt that their goal would be to establish a Christian state, similar to what extremist Muslims have done in Iran. Call me paranoid if you wish, but I've read my history, and I'm familiar with some of the works on Christian Reconstructionism and dominion theology including those by R.J Rushdoony, Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, David Chilton, Gary DeMar, and Andrew Sandlin.
I think what this comes down to is that conservatives are fine with their "own" extremism, but they are not "too cool" with the extremism of others! They sure would not tolerate a Muslim theocracy (nor would anyone) but my bet is that they would be fine with a Christian state.
I don't lay in bed worrying that much about it... because conservatives have a long history of fighting among themselves and not being able to arrive on a set of central themes that are palatable to the political middle. Reagan came close, but you could hardly call his administration "conservative."
Indeed, the conservative movement has always been seen as the "lunatic fringe" in American politics and I believe that being even more so the case with the assent of Limbaugh, Beck, Fox Noise and their politics of "no."
Perhaps one day they can find a candidate who will meld the Christian right with the apolitical middle and win some state houses and maybe later a presidential election, but I rather doubt it. No one wants to go back to Herbert Hoover of 1928 or Alabama of 1958 and I believe that conservatism as "preached" by the intellectual spokespersons of that fringe... i.e. Limbaugh et. al., simply perpetuates the myth that conservatives are cross-burning, night-riding, "let's kill for Jesus" radicals... not a whole lot different than the Muslim extremists that they vilify.
And you don't believe that Christian extremists would take them away?
And precisely what is a Christian extremist?
Outside of Lexington, do any of you honestly believe that a small group of Jews or Muslims could move in and build a temple or a mosque and not have it "accidentally" burned to the ground on one dark winter night?
So basically you want to denigrate the rural people of Kentucky by suggesting that would burn down mosques and temples, despite the fact that there aren't any to burn down. Any other theoretical crimes that you would like to accuse them of committing?
The people were very nice... until you get them started on religion. Then I find they become not so nice.
Please explain how you "got them started on religion" and why? Is that what you do with strangers, get them "started on their religion"?
I didn't meet anyone that I had the courage to say that I didn't believe in Jesus.
You didn't have the courage? This is you talking, right? Somebody didn't hijack your UserID and password did they?
Do you actually think ANYONE who reads your stuff thinks you lack the courage to tell someone that you don't believe in Jesus. That's not the Al we've all come to know and love.
Maybe your experience is different... and I hope it is, but the kind of religious zealotry that I saw in that part of the country, if given the option to establish Christianity as the religion-of-state, it would be taken in a New York minute.
Define specifically the religous zealotry that you witnessed. What were you doing, handling snakes?
About the closest we have in this country to a Christian theocracy is Utah... or more specifically the small towns and cities in that state. I sure would not feel comfortable being the only Jew or Hindu or Muslim in a small town in Utah.
What are the good folks of Utah doing in their small towns, hunting down Jews? Do they send them to camps somewhere or just string them up on the spot?
If you journey through the history of the Church in Europe (Spain comes first to mind) you will understand why the framers of the Constitution were so terrified of a theocracy.
So we are talking about Spain at the time of the Constitution, is that correct? I believe Spain was Catholic, isn't that right? And so you are talking about Catholics, and not Protestants.
You will agree that the framers, for the most part, were Protestants, correct? You do know there is a difference, right? In those days the Protestants and Catholics were a little at odds with each other, correct? Of course France was quite helpful to the U.S. at the time, but that was really out of their hate of the British more than it was agreement with American protestants.
And you will recall that most Americans at the time were descended from English people (protestants) who left Britain and the persecution of their protestant religion. And it was the government that had persecuted them and told them that their religion was wrong, right? And in escaping that government intolerance, they established freedom of religion where no government could again prohibit them from the free exercise of religion, isn't that correct?
And they created a Constitution that says government cannot stick its nose into religion but the same document does not say that religious people cannot stick their noses into government - you agree don't you?
Knowing the call to duty and the mission of fundamental Christians (which I include the LDS,) I don't for a minute doubt that their goal would be to establish a Christian state, similar to what extremist Muslims have done in Iran.
The entire country, at the time of the Constitution, was FILLED with fundamental Christians. Most of the founders were fundamental Christians. If we were going to create a religous state why wouldn't we have done it then?
Because that's NOT what Christians believe or do. You cannot spread the gospel by political mandate and you cannot compel anyone to accept Jesus into their heart.
But here's the real rub. You say that fundamentalist Christians are no different than extremist Muslims. Tell me, do you believe that fundamentalist Jews are no different that extremist Muslims? (answer this question specifically please)
Frankly your position makes me angry and I would hope it make most people angry. Fundementalist Christians do not commit acts of terror although I am sure you will want to assure everyone that they do.
Call me paranoid if you wish...
OK, you're paranoid but it is much worse than that.
but I've read my history
The operative word being "my". You have swerved into the truth.
I'm familiar with some of the works on Christian Reconstructionism and dominion theology including those by R.J Rushdoony, Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, David Chilton, Gary DeMar, and Andrew Sandlin.
I'm not, who are these people? Why don't you try quoting some chapter and verse from these books and we'll have a look at the horrible things they are saying.
I think what this comes down to is that conservatives are fine with their "own" extremism, but they are not "too cool" with the extremism of others!
Are you saying liberals don't have extremes? They want government run and monopolies on healthcare, schools, retirement funding, banks, auto companies, etc. The list is continually growing.
Liberals have their own wacko religions, like the church of Global Warming. Are you going to try to tell us that liberals are tolerant of people who disagree with global warming?
How about evolution? Are liberals prepared to entertain a debate about Intelligent Design versus Evolution in schools?
Here are some famous, not so tolerant liberals: Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, Chavez, Mao, Pol Pot... I could go on.
Sorry, those folks were not conservatives.
They sure would not tolerate a Muslim theocracy (nor would anyone)...
So what's your point? We all agree, we are not going to tolerate a Muslim theocracy. I think what we disagree on is that you are prepared to tolerate one in every other country of the world.
my bet is that they would be fine with a Christian state.
As I said before, if the Christians were eager to do that, we would have done it in 1776 or thereabouts. We want abortions banned and you scream that we are making you bow your knee to Jesus. Try to get a grip.
I don't lay in bed worrying that much about it...
Yeah but you sure harp on and on and on and on about it here.
because conservatives have a long history of fighting among themselves and not being able to arrive on a set of central themes that are palatable to the political middle.
So conservatives are no threat to anyone and still you demonize them and harp on that they will destroy the country.
Reagan came close, but you could hardly call his administration "conservative."
So you would have no problem with another President like Reagan in the White House?
Indeed, the conservative movement has always been seen as the "lunatic fringe" in American politics and I believe that being even more so the case with the assent of Limbaugh, Beck, Fox Noise and their politics of "no."
You don't mind if I call liberals lunatics do you?
No one wants to go back to Herbert Hoover of 1928 or Alabama of 1958 and I believe that conservatism as "preached" by the intellectual spokespersons of that fringe... i.e. Limbaugh et. al., simply perpetuates the myth that conservatives are cross-burning, night-riding, "let's kill for Jesus" radicals... not a whole lot different than the Muslim extremists that they vilify.
Perpetuates the myth? You're now admitting that all this venom that you dispense routinely is a "myth"?
Why do you yang on and on about "the myth"? If it's a myth, what's your problem? Too much time on your hands?
NOTE to others: I decided to make the effort to dissect one of these long diatribes to demonstrate how absolutely silly they are. There is a routine pattern where a litany of false claims and accusations are strung together, which when taken as a whole, appear to have merit. However, when broken down into their individual components, you can better see how absolutely ridiculous much of this is.
After all, it's not whether or not the accusations are actually true, it is the seriousness of the charges.
Last edited by Robert Barney : 10-26-2009 at 01:27 PM.
Funny thing, but it was a group of Christian fundamentalist right wing extremists that gave us our Counstitution in the first place. They were otherwise known as the Founding Fathers. Christians helped establish our Constitutional rights, and it is clear that Muslim extremists would take them away, as they have in virtually every country where an Islamic theocracy has been established.
.
The founders were of Christian heritage for sure. Nevertheless many were also freethinkers and also feared Christianity run amok. Prior to the Revolution we had state religion (Church of England) in some of the colonies and it was supported through public taxation. That needed to end.
The founders would not hesitate to stamp out anything that looked like the establishment of a state religion today but, havin said that, I dont think they were completely committed to identifying and hunting down and destroying all signs of Christianity as it is commonly interpretted today. Not to forget that "secular humanism" is also a religion and set of beliefs and at a certain point it becomes the "establishment of a state religion" when that is the only allowable point of view or public resources are used to advance it.
It would be nice if muslim countries allowed the practice of christianity and religious freedom. I dont think though that religious freedom would require those countries to act and pretend that islam was never part of their heritage. Same with Christianity in this country.
------------------------------------ Spending Our Way to Prosperity
Armydad, you are still dodging the question. I asked you to indicate, in the light of the evidence that I gave to you, if you still believed Bush lied about WMD to get into Iraq. Rather than answer that you have gone on a tangent, which I am more than happy to discuss but can we deal with one item at a time?
Here is the question, one more time:
Did Bush lie (knowingly deceive) about the existence of WMD in Iraq?
How about Japan, Germany and Korea - get our troops out of there too? You seem much more agitated about Iraq than those countries. It would appear at this juncture that Iraq is under control, why would we leave prematurely and risk it sinking back into a mess? You do realize that Iran is and will continue to work to destabilize Iraq don't you? And if we have to deal with Iran militarily, wouldn't you prefer to have military positions in Iraq?
I agree, the president should not be able to commence any military operations without congressional approval.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
When did Kerry vote to do that?
And finally, given Obama's "dithering", and the likelihood that he is not committed to winning the "right war", I am in favor of Obama declaring retreat in Afghanistan.
Clearly the man has changed his previously stated views on that war:
And our troops should not pay for this man's political posturing.
Will a withdrawal lead to a resurgence of the Taliban, Al Quaeda and terrorist attacks in the world? You bet. But at least we will know who to blame and American voters can put someone in office who will do it right.
Robert, Yes Bush lied about the WMD. Cheney lied about the WMD too.
Well, one thing for certain: Cindy Sheehan took a stand, has not wavered on it, doesn't hide, and takes action. Something someone who truly believes the "Bush lied, people died" crap should aspire to:
The Dems were in charge of the congressional oversight committees for all financial and housing matters. If you want to hang some Republicans out on the national mall or some SEC administrators, I am all for it, as long as I look over and see Dodd and Frank swinging there too.
The financial crisis was precipitated by the dem passed Community Reinvestment Act which required the governent/fannie mae to lend to people who had no job, no income, and no assets and then Barney and company systematically punished any bank (by withholding funds) that could not demonstrate that it was not lending to people who had not creditworthiness whatsoever. And when a bank did not want to squander money, ACORN would picket the bank (all while acorn was receiving federal funds) The rest is history. Did I mention that Barney was porking the head of the program at Fannie Mae?
Perhaps someone still has the video to post but it was ultra-rich when Congress asked the TARP officials for an accounting of where the money has gone and the woman replied basically by saying "we don't know." Deja vu all over again except it gets harder to blame it on Bush.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nothing like competing against a team where both the other team and the umpires work for the same owner. That's a zippy, competitive arrangement, eh? Right out of the socialist playbook.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Huh? You even beat bush up for implementing a liberal, giveaway program in order to get the senior vote and spending money we didnt have as the dems also want us to do. Wouldnt those 40 plus plans be called "competition and choice" which you say the carriers resist. Yep, Part D was/is a confusing mess along with the rest of Medicare but that doesnt mean seniors are saying they are not better off with it. The Canadian pharmacies just across the border used to see thousands of Americans an hour and that all ended when Part D was implemented. I am not speaking for or against Bush's ramming Part D though, I am just saying that is sort of a peculiar example to choose to try to villainize Bush. Gawd, if he cant get points with libs for that he never will, and of course, he never will.
In regard, to all the comments about Bush and the environment, how come your buddies Clinton and Gore signed Kyoto but never presented it to the Senate to be ratified as the constitution requires? Thus they were able to say they signed it but in fact they never presented it for ratification. Nevermind. President Obama is president now. Not bush or clinton.
The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990's under the Clinton administration. Subprime loans performed well during this period. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement, that problems arose.
Maybe with a public plan in place, the insurance companies will treat customers, fairly.
I agree with you, part D is a mess.
On Kyoto, Clinton didnot submit it, because he knew it would not pass.
To those who equate "Christian extremists" to "Muslim extremist", I would encourage you to listen to the views of a Europeon (Dutch member of parliament) who came to the U.S. with a warning:
This is Bush's war. Bill Clinton continued with the "no fly zone" in the south & the north. The U.S. had these in place while G.H. Bush was in office.
Thanks for answering the question - not.
Actually, every fair minded person listening to you dance around the question knows the answer, they are just wondering why you won't admit the obvious.
Re: Obama Awarded Nobel Prize
Linear Mode
