Deliver us from Evil

[Danoz]

Deliver us from Evil

Okay, well I’m going to gather here some of my favorite quotes from this book—and I hope you enjoy them. Feel free to comment on them. This is from Sean Hannity’s book “Deliver us From Evil: Defeating terrorism, despotism and liberalism.”

“To [liberals] people like Saddam and Osama Bin Laden are not morally depraved murderers, but men driven to their bad acts by the injustices of Western society.”

“The primary evil we face today is terrorism. But we will never triumph over the terrorists until we realize that groups like Al Qaeda are not working alone. Without the deep pockets of terrorist-friendly dictatorships like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to support them, the loose networks of Islamic terrorism would pose only a fraction of the danger to civilization they currently do. And those dictatorships, we must realize, are the same brutal regimes that have oppressed their own people for generations.”

“American’s left-wing party is ideologically inclined towards appeasement, toward dismissing or understanding the terrorist threat, and toward continuing, rather than confronting, the despotic regimes that aid and abet the terrorists.”

“The lessons of history are clear: You cannot negotiate with evil. You can’t sweet-talk it. You can’t compromise with it. You can’t give ground to it. You can only defeat it, or it will defeat you.”

“Conservatives see things much differently. We believe that America is a superior society not because Americans are superior human beings, but because our culture was founded on a recognition of our God-given natural rights—the “unalienable rights” referred to in the Declaration of Independence. From that awareness flows a basic, shared respect for humanity, individual liberty, limited government, and the rule of law.”

“Was it ‘warmongering” when the Greatest Generation defeated the Axis powers of Hilter’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and Tojo’s Japan, and liberated untold millions in World War two? When Reagan’s courageous stand against communism—and renewed commitment to military strength—let to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of Soviet repression?”

“The day a president cannot invoke God as his guiding light, and the source from whom he and our nation derive strength and direction, it is the day America ceases to be great.”

“The terrorists and their dishonorable sponsors have no intention of peaceful coexistence with America. They are defined only by their violent goals. And when confronted with such aggressors, we have limited choices. We can either ignore them, inviting further attack as we bury our heads in the sand, or we can resist them—with force.”

“There’s been a prevailing attitude in the culture that the United States doesn’t deserve it’s prosperity, that we’re unfairly exploiting a disproportionate share of the world’s resources. How, then, can we rightly condemn any foreign nation, regardless of its record of crimes against it’s own people The left wing elites in this country have pushed their obsessive anti-Americanism so far that they’ve lost all perspective on the real evils being perpetrated around the world.”

“…looking for some psychological explanation for [Hitler’s] campaign to decimate the Jewish population of Europe is a dangerous distraction. The behavior of a cold and vicious mass murderer like Adolf Hitler—or Saddam Hussein—is the result of a conscious choice.”

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

[IceWolf20]

> Okay, well I’m going to gather here some of my favorite
> quotes from this book—and I hope you enjoy them. Feel free
> to comment on them.

No problem.

> “To [liberals] people like Saddam and Osama Bin Laden are
> not morally depraved murderers, but men driven to their bad
> acts by the injustices of Western society.”

Yes....and what's so wrong with taking that attitude that they harbor their feelings and actions as a result of our feelings and actions? Yes they are "evil and murderous" but is it so far fetched to not to just play the vicitm here? I'm all for putting blame on them for waht they did....but there's also the argument of "can you blame them". All I'm saying is that it is NOT okay to ONLY put blame on them....we (the US gov't foreign policy...current and past) deserve SOME of the blame as well.

> “The primary evil we face today is terrorism. But we will
> never triumph over the terrorists until we realize that
> groups like Al Qaeda are not working alone. Without the deep
> pockets of terrorist-friendly dictatorships like Saddam
> Hussein’s Iraq to support them,

Oh please....the 9/11 Commission disprooved this.

> “American’s left-wing party is ideologically inclined
> towards appeasement, toward dismissing or understanding the
> terrorist threat, and toward continuing, rather than
> confronting, the despotic regimes that aid and abet the
> terrorists.”

Again....9/11 Commission disproved that there were any ties between Al-Quaeda and Iraq. Also, if it is our duty to "confront despotic regimes" then why the hell is Iran, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, etc etc etc still allowed to operate unconfronted?

> “The lessons of history are clear: You cannot negotiate with
> evil. You can’t sweet-talk it. You can’t compromise with it.
> You can’t give ground to it. You can only defeat it, or it
> will defeat you.”

True....but defining what exactly "evil" is, is a difficult and harrowing task....there is no black and white....especially when I consider certain persons in OUR gov't to be "evil".

> “Conservatives see things much differently. We believe that
> America is a superior society not because Americans are
> superior human beings, but because our culture was founded
> on a recognition of our God-given natural rights—the
> “unalienable rights” referred to in the Declaration of
> Independence.

OK, I'll buy that....but try to avoid the religious implications of a "superior society". Then again....who's to say we are superior? This needs to be like the true hacker manifesto....you aren't a "hacker" unless that title is bestowed upon you by your peers.....we can't be "superior" unless we are deemed to be so by someone other than ourselves.

> From that awareness flows a basic, shared
> respect for humanity, individual liberty, limited
> government, and the rule of law.”

I'm sorry....but that's laughable. In THEORY this is a true statement about what we as Americans SHOULD embolize, but in practice...we fall QUITE short of that statement.

> “Was it ‘warmongering” when the Greatest Generation defeated
> the Axis powers of Hilter’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and
> Tojo’s Japan, and liberated untold millions in World War
> two? When Reagan’s courageous stand against communism—and
> renewed commitment to military strength—let to the fall of
> the Berlin Wall and the end of Soviet repression?”

No, because there was a defined enemy hell bent on ruling the world. Terrorism is differnt...its not about getting control, its about disrupting control. Since there isn't a rogue state blowing up our battleships, or pointing thousands of nuclear warheads at us, it loses focus, and therefore cannot have a focus, and the need to follow the white house's plan on anti-terrorism, a broad reach is needed, which is seen as "warmongering" b/c is it is quite reckless in a manner of speaking.

> “The day a president cannot invoke God as his guiding light,
> and the source from whom he and our nation derive strength
> and direction, it is the day America ceases to be great.”

Bullshit.....saying that "God favors America over all" is bullshit. Yes, our laws and customs are based on a primarily Christian fundamentalist base, but we cannot invoke the name of God as an ally in our (bad) foreign policy.

> “The terrorists and their dishonorable sponsors have no intention of peaceful coexistence with America. They are
> defined only by their violent goals. And when confronted with such aggressors, we have limited choices. We can either ignore
> them, inviting further attack as we bury our heads in the sand, or we can resist them—with force.”

Or we can try to figure out why they want to kill us and give them the opportunity to back off. In every other confrontation, there's usually been a compromise and/or negotiation to bring the end of the confilict. However, now it seems as the only possible solution to the problem is annahilation....when did negotiation go out the window? Just b/c the Japaense inflicted a massive sneak attack on us, and we responded with great force, leveling two major cities, did we not negotiate with them and finish off the rest of the Japanese population....NO....we made them realise they're seriously going to be fucked up and things were worked out....I know, there's a different mentality that "getting fucked up" isn't a big deal....its what the live/die for, so maybe we need to think of a better deterrent than death....mmmmkay?

> “There’s been a prevailing attitude in the culture that the
> United States doesn’t deserve it’s prosperity, that we’re
> unfairly exploiting a disproportionate share of the world’s
> resources.

Well, we are....I'm not saying we need not prosper, but what's wrong with putting real money into research for alternate fuel sources so we dont consume 45% of the natural resources of the planet and are held by the balls by OPEC?

> How, then, can we rightly condemn any foreign
> nation, regardless of its record of crimes against it’s own
> people The left wing elites in this country have pushed
> their obsessive anti-Americanism so far that they’ve lost
> all perspective on the real evils being perpetrated around the world.”

Since when is ANYONE living in America anti-American (that doesn't explicitly state themselves to be...ie anarchists)....yes, we can disagree with policy....it is our DUTY AS AMERICANS TO QUESTION AUTHORITY. We need to get a perspective on the real evils being perpetrated HERE AT HOME before we can rightly condemn others. This is a HUGE case of the pot and the kettle here folks.

> “…looking for some psychological explanation for [Hitler’s]
> campaign to decimate the Jewish population of Europe is a
> dangerous distraction. The behavior of a cold and vicious
> mass murderer like Adolf Hitler—or Saddam Hussein—is the
> result of a conscious choice.”

Well, DUH! Too bad Saddam wasn't trying to take over the world....then maybe I could buy the comparision.

<P ID="signature"><div align="center">http://stuorgs.lvc.edu/acm/_private/ZMD.gif
...the way to be!</div></P>

[Lillymon]

> “To [liberals] people like Saddam and Osama Bin Laden are
> not morally depraved murderers, but men driven to their bad
> acts by the injustices of Western society.”

I stopped reading here. I consider myself a pretty strong liberal (socialist) and those guys are fucking evil. I'm just reluctant to throw soldiers at the situation knowing full well that hundreds of them are going out to die.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[Mr. Saturn]

<a href=http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance16.html>Deliver us from Sean Hannity.</a>

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=right scrollamount=14><img src=http://gifs.bestgraph.com/jeux-video/sonic/sonic-02.gif></marquee></P>

[thegodofhellfire]

I'm still looking forward to the day you have an original thought or argument. Just one, it's all I ask. Anyway, why should I bother countering anything in your posts when you don't have the decency to respond to a valid argument (http://www.zophar.net/wwwthreads/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=backroom&Number=237698&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0) someone else has gone to the effort of typing?

<P ID="signature"></P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by thegodofhellfire on 09/01/04 08:14 PM.</FONT></P>

[Danoz]

I respond to everybody's posts when I get the chance. Usually I'm reading posts on the run before class. It's arrogant of you to think you're reply was so incredible that I avoided it (being the cowardly conservative that you think I am). Actually, at the moment I'm working on IceWolf20's thoughtful reply. And remember, of all the arguments in the world we're not looking for an original thought-- we're looking for the right one. Even to that mesh you just said, I've posted thousands of my own words, so it's nice to find people who agree with us. Now, I'll reply to your post since you just threw a fit.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

You now have a government that is more secretive, more intrusive and more insular than any you've had in living memory.

<hr></blockquote>
First of all, I'm only 20 years old. My living memory isn't a wince in the face of any relevant history. Remember, there also wasn't an extensive terrorist attack before 9/11 in my living memory. And, more secretive/insular? How? Look at how the war on Iraq has been reported. If anything we saw too much of the strategy and details of Iraqi Freedom while the actual mission took place. Intrusive? I'm assuming you mean the Patriot Act. Of course it's more "intrusive". Better watch over suspicious behavior, and a few extra hours at the airport, is a small price to pay for some protection.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

You have a political climate in which an abstract and perpetual war is waged and invoked to shift focus from the domestic agenda and stifle debate (ie claims of "unpatriotic" dissenters).

<hr></blockquote>
What on Earth are you saying here? Are you saying that Bush concocted a war to shift the attention from things like the economy and even more frivolous subjects like debate? That he sent thousands of young men into a terror-filled despotic regime, not for the freedom of a people, not for WMD that other countries and previous administrations also believed he had, not for our protection-- but for his own interest and reelection? Listen to yourself. President Bush didn't go into Iraq to help make things easier here at home and it's absurd to say so. This statement is purely verbal and I would expect more from you.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Let's not forget either the thousands of people held and, by almost all accounts, tortured in the legal black holes of Guantanamo Bay and its bastard brethern. Oceania it ain't, but you're not as far away as you seem to think, Danoz.

<hr></blockquote>
What accounts have people been tortured? If you think these detainees are in a North Korean internment camp, you're quite mistaken. In fact, they are fed well and are even given religious doctrine and appropriate religious meals (where necessary). Other than it's job in a post 9/11 world, the base carries supplies for the US Navy and Coast Guard.

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

[Danoz]

> Deliver us from Sean Hannity.

Yea, read the article. It's unfortunate that you'll read only the article, however, and will never even touch the book. Fairly close-minded, don't you think? The article lies about people he claims to be evil and takes several sentances out of context like an ignorant "skeptic" picking verses out of the Bible without understanding them. Lastly, his personal insults have no base.

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I stopped reading here. I consider myself a pretty strong liberal (socialist) and those guys are fucking evil. I'm just reluctant to throw soldiers at the situation knowing full well that hundreds of them are going out to die.

<hr></blockquote>

I can't imagine having to make that decision, either-- and yes, they are evil. I agree with you.

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

[UncleOral]

> Deliver us from Sean Hannity.

Good read.

Quite effectively countered that the whole book seems to be written on the false premises that there's good and evil and nothing in between.
Heh...'evil'? You'd think in this day and age people would be more enlightened, but people seem to be slipping back into the past, pretty soon we'll be burning immigrants (terrorists!) on the stake now that we're all out of witches.

Warmongering will be our inevitable end, a Turok II cheat code comes to mind (a cookie for those that get that referance).

<P ID="signature"><center><img src=http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Trucido/MegaVin.png>
Coming to cinemas near you! </center></P>

[Kuikorosu]

<img src=smilies/sleep.gif>

<P ID="signature"><hr>
Name: Kuik
Level: 40BLM/21RDM/29RNG/15THF/15NIN/8WHM
Nation: Windurst
Server: Fenrir
Linkshell: CursorSolaris</P>

[Mr. Saturn]

> Yea, read the article. It's unfortunate that you'll read
> only the article, however, and will never even touch the
> book. Fairly close-minded, don't you think?

The article is free, the book is not. I don't have enough money to toss around buying political commentary-it's the same reason I don't read Al Franken or Michael Moore. They're a waste of money. It'll either anger me, or reaffirm what I already know. I'd rather spend my money on Dostoevsky or Vonnegut.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=right scrollamount=14><img src=http://gifs.bestgraph.com/jeux-video/sonic/sonic-02.gif></marquee></P>

[icenine0]

> “The day a president cannot invoke God as his guiding light, and the
> source from whom he and our nation derive strength and direction, is
> the day America ceases to be great.”

ARGH!!! <img src=smilies/banghead.gif> This is as big a load of trash as I've ever read.

Where in the http://wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_AmericaConsti tution</A> is God mentioned?

Answer: <u>NOWHERE</u>, because the geniuses who made this country realized that a SECULAR government is the only one that will permit true freedom. They weren't http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/ffnc/Christians</A>, they weren't Hindus, they weren't Muslims, they weren't Jews, and they could've easily and permanently quashed all these religions in our founding documents. But guess what? They had the tolerance, foresight, and integrity to keep their religious beliefs out of running this great nation. I can't say the same for our current leaders and much of the Republican party. Whee, let's try to sneak in "Faith Based Initiatives" (seeing as 76% of the country is Christian, I wonder who'll benefit the most), fund "Abstinence-Only Programs", and illegalize abortion because these things fall in line with our own ideology. We can't trust individual people to make personal moral decisions on these issues, no sir!

A lot of United States citizens draw their strength from many Gods, or no Gods, or their ancestors, or themselves, or whatever. To say this nation is "directed and guided" by monotheism (and without a doubt, in the President's mind, Christianity) is a grave sin against our principles.

<P ID="signature">The more often you fail, the sweeter the taste of success!</P>

[Lenophis]

I'm going to try very hard to be objective here... I'll say this once, read all of what I have to say first, then comment. Don't single little snippits out. Danoz, for the most part, this thread is directed back at you.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Bullshit.....saying that "God favors America over all" is bullshit. Yes, our laws and customs are based on a primarily Christian fundamentalist base, but we cannot invoke the name of God as an ally in our (bad) foreign policy.

<hr></blockquote>
Danoz, may I direct you to a movie called "Head of State." It's more of a low budget film, stars Chris Rock and Bernie Mac. Anyway, the movie has Chris Rock running for President. He's being scammed to run from a back stabbing politican to gain ground for his eventual bid to the office. Now, Chris's opponent, a big time war hero, avid Republican, and his moto is "God bless America, and no place else." It's a pretty funny/good movie, but it's only a one-time watch. (AKA "popcorn" movie.) Your quote and then IceWolf's comments reminded me of this.

What I'm getting at, is what you have basically said "America is the only country worth anything. Our President says Christianity is the only religion worth anything. We are better than all of you, you guys are wrong, we are right, just because." Now...work with me here. What I did was called an "assessment," that's a conclusion I came up with based on what evidence I had. Am I right? I say yes, because that's all I have to work with. Now, the $64 dollar issue. Iraq... Before, during, and after the Gulf War, Iraq and Saddam never had links to terrorism. I have no doubts in my mind he wanted myself and everyone else in this country dead. But, he can whine and bitch all he wants. He didn't even really try either. He can scheme and make blueprints all he wants, he needs the goods. He didn't have the goods.
9/20/01 "Iraq is a significant threat" - Donald Rumsfeld (not 100% on that date)
4/xx/04 "Iraq wasn't a significant threat" - Donald Rumsfeld (no clue on the date, but it was this year. And yes, he DID say that.
Tell me, who's a flip flopper?

Now, I want you to answer me this. True or false, America has a "shoot first, ask questions later" policy. Because that's that happened with Iraq. No ties with terrorism, no WMD, nothing. If Bush wants to fight "evil," then he can watch "Van Helsing" or any of the Dracula movies. America does not fight holy wars. The terrorist's are, but apparently Danoz thinks we need to keep stooping to their level. If you guys wanna try and tell me I'm wrong, go ahead, I'll prove you wrong. We went to Iraq based on circumstancial evidence, nothing more. For those who have little knowledge about the judicial system, time for some education. Prosecutor's cannot make a case based on circumstancial evidence, those get thrown out. No questions asked, but Bush decided to be, judge, jury, and executioner in this matter. He said "Iraq is a threat, they have WMD's, and need to be dealt with." Well guess what, bucko, you said that, gave no warning, went in blindly, had no evidence, and no support from anybody really, except the UK. Of course they would've backed off had we not gone in...

During Abu Grav, (sp?) you have avidly said, that what we did to the prisoners is ok. I think the reasoning was that is what they would do to us if we were their prisoners. Sounds good on paper.....but, the world isn't run on paper. You said it's ok for us, the United States, upholder and creator of the (defunct) LoN, now the UN, to go against human rights and stoop to their level. That's ok? No, we are better than that, and by all accounts, should be smarter than that.

But now I want to bring to light another so called "touchy" subject, Kerry saying we need to be more sensitive on the war on terror. Danoz, you singled out that one word, and tried to bash Kerry for that alone. Well now I'm finally gonna get my 2 cents in on this issue. Personally, I think Kerry should've said "careful approach" but that's me. But those who are against what he said all singled out that one word. "Sensitive." Seems to me, you are upset more about the word itself, just because of the word. Follow me... Tell me, who would you say would have a better chance of using this one word, males, or females? Simple question, deserves an answer, unless you aren't man enough to answer...

Now, since Kerry has said "sensitive," you and ever other Republican have jumped down his throat just because of the word. Here's what I think: (Feel free to jump in at any time. But, if you quote one, you must quote all, otherwise you'll just be avoiding the subject.)

You think that Kerry will go "soft" on the war, and try and be all "lovely dovey," right? Want to know why I think that? "Sensitive" Since I already asked this question above, I'll only look at it again. (The shoot first one...) Tell me, had Kerry said "carefull" and not "sensitive," would you even had thrown a fit? I'll bet you say "no."

Bottom line, this book doesn't sound too thrilling. Anyone who thinks this book is good should go meet the end and leave this world for the realistic people.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy. Jade (http://disch.zophar.net)</P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I'm going to try very hard to be objective here... I'll say this once, read all of what I have to say first, then comment. Don't single little snippits out. Danoz, for the most part, this thread is directed back at you.

<hr></blockquote>

Another misguided criticism of the way I answer posts. Please point out a time where I’ve selected little “snippits” and ignored relevant points in a post.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Danoz, may I direct you to a movie called "Head of State." It's more of a low budget film, stars Chris Rock and Bernie Mac. Anyway, the movie has Chris Rock running for President. He's being scammed to run from a back stabbing politican to gain ground for his eventual bid to the office. Now, Chris's opponent, a big time war hero, avid Republican, and his moto is "God bless America, and no place else." It's a pretty funny/good movie, but it's only a one-time watch. (AKA "popcorn" movie.) Your quote and then IceWolf's comments reminded me of this. What I'm getting at, is what you have basically said "America is the only country worth anything. Our President says Christianity is the only religion worth anything. We are better than all of you, you guys are wrong, we are right, just because." Now...work with me here. What I did was called an "assessment," that's a conclusion I came up with based on what evidence I had. Am I right? I say yes, because that's all I have to work with.

<hr></blockquote>

Save your ridiculous strawman attacks for somebody else. What I said, was that America is a superior nation, not full of superior people or religion, but of superior foundation. That men are “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Our President says that he is a Christian, and he invokes the Lord as a guiding light while he leads this country. Does he not have this right? Winston Churchill once said that “democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried.” I agree with this. Let’s be intellectually honest for a second, Lenophis. You may be able to site statistics that America is worse than Canada is one respect, than Germany in other, Japan and even China and others still—but are you really in a position to conclude that some other government of a large country works better? Absolutely not. I’ll quote from “The American Democracy” by Morris P. Fiorina and Paul E. Paterson; “Citizens of the United States have had a government that has a better record than most at protecting them against foreign aggression while usually avoiding unwise involvement in foreign conflicts. On average, citizens of the United States are wealthier than citizens of any other comparably large country. They are better housed, better fed, and better clothed. Compared with residents of most other countries, they enjoy better communications, a superior transportation system, better medical services and safer working conditions. Their physical environment is more protected against degradation… …Despite the dissatisfaction of many Americans with their government, they would be hard pressed to find a superior alternative.” You and I can practice any religious we please free from persecution because we have that freedom to do so. Now, don’t you think that people should have the right to elect somebody who governs the nation on similar values? Of course he does. It’s not about him being better, it’s about representation of the majority with a great respect to others in their pursuit of happiness, that INCLUDES our differing religious practices.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Now, the $64 dollar issue. Iraq... Before, during, and after the Gulf War, Iraq and Saddam never had links to terrorism. I have no doubts in my mind he wanted myself and everyone else in this country dead. But, he can whine and bitch all he wants. He didn't even really try either. He can scheme and make blueprints all he wants, he needs the goods. He didn't have the goods.
9/20/01 "Iraq is a significant threat" - Donald Rumsfeld (not 100% on that date)
4/xx/04 "Iraq wasn't a significant threat" - Donald Rumsfeld (no clue on the date, but it was this year. And yes, he DID say that.
Tell me, who's a flip flopper?

<hr></blockquote>

If he made those contradictions I’d like to see documentation in the proper context. And the claim that Saddam didn’t “really try” to build a weapons program is ludacris. In fact, he used those very weapons on his own people. In the end it’s obvious that underestimating people like Saddam is a grave error. We knew North Korea was well on it’s way to getting nuclear weapons… how unfortunate that our delayed response may cost millions of lives someday. Our president won’t make this kind of mistake around the world, letting Hilters and Stalins fester and grow under empty resolutions and nonaction.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Now, I want you to answer me this. True or false, America has a "shoot first, ask questions later" policy. Because that's that happened with Iraq. No ties with terrorism, no WMD, nothing. If Bush wants to fight "evil," then he can watch "Van Helsing" or any of the Dracula movies. America does not fight holy wars.

<hr></blockquote>

To your question, false. America reluctantly goes into war after dozens of failed resolutions and human rights violations.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

The terrorist's are, but apparently Danoz thinks we need to keep stooping to their level.

<hr></blockquote>

America doesn’t commit terrorist attacks against other nations. Defending our country with necessary force is hardly “stooping to their level”.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

We went to Iraq based on circumstancial evidence, nothing more. For those who have little knowledge about the judicial system, time for some education. Prosecutor's cannot make a case based on circumstancial evidence, those get thrown out. No questions asked, but Bush decided to be, judge, jury, and executioner in this matter.

<hr></blockquote>

Totally untrue. Bush was the judge and the questions were asked. Intelligence played the jury under both this, and previous administrations, as well as (but not limited to) the intelligence of our allies and many reports. The executioner in this situation was the United States army who carried out the “judges” command. Bush was given evidence on which he made a decision.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

He said "Iraq is a threat, they have WMD's, and need to be dealt with." Well guess what, bucko, you said that, gave no warning, went in blindly, had no evidence, and no support from anybody really, except the UK. Of course they would've backed off had we not gone in...

<hr></blockquote>

Actually, I’m reading “American Soldier” by General Tommy Franks—and they hardly went in blindly. This is a lack of proper education on your part and a total replay of the stereotypical Bush-hate that describes him as a “warmonger”.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

During Abu Grav, (sp?) you have avidly said, that what we did to the prisoners is ok. I think the reasoning was that is what they would do to us if we were their prisoners. Sounds good on paper.....but, the world isn't run on paper. You said it's ok for us, the United States, upholder and creator of the (defunct) LoN, now the UN, to go against human rights and stoop to their level. That's ok? No, we are better than that, and by all accounts, should be smarter than that.

<hr></blockquote>

Another poorly built strawman that you quickly knock down to prove an irrelevant point. I never even hinted at treated them they way they would treat us. In fact, when captured, their prisoners are tortured and beheaded. I also was referring to Guantanamo Bay, and not the select indiscretions of a few poorly behaved soldiers in Iraq.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

But now I want to bring to light another so called "touchy" subject, Kerry saying we need to be more sensitive on the war on terror. Danoz, you singled out that one word, and tried to bash Kerry for that alone. Well now I'm finally gonna get my 2 cents in on this issue. Personally, I think Kerry should've said "careful approach" but that's me. But those who are against what he said all singled out that one word. "Sensitive." Seems to me, you are upset more about the word itself, just because of the word. Follow me... Tell me, who would you say would have a better chance of using this one word, males, or females? Simple question, deserves an answer, unless you aren't man enough to answer...

<hr></blockquote>

Another strawman! You must have a collection! In fact, I was distinctively referring to the words following “sensitive”, where he talks about appealing to international support—in fact, being more “sensitive” when we look for allies. I saw this just as he said it, he wants to fight a more “sensitive” war on terror where America seeks a permission slip from the questionably corrupt United Nations before taking further action. I attacked exactly what he said, not just the word.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Now, since Kerry has said "sensitive," you and ever other Republican have jumped down his throat just because of the word. Here's what I think: (Feel free to jump in at any time. But, if you quote one, you must quote all, otherwise you'll just be avoiding the subject.)

<hr></blockquote>

Technically I should have avoided a fair number of your posts when they were built on pure falsehoods about things I have said and believe. And yes, Dick Cheney did jump down his throat for it… but rightfully so, in my opinion. I most certainly attacked the sentences surrounding the word, but I’m also condoning an equally harsh attack of the word itself.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

You think that Kerry will go "soft" on the war, and try and be all "lovely dovey," right? Want to know why I think that? "Sensitive" Since I already asked this question above, I'll only look at it again. (The shoot first one...) Tell me, had Kerry said "carefull" and not "sensitive," would you even had thrown a fit? I'll bet you say "no."

<hr></blockquote>

Careful is a totally different meaning in the context he was making. Being “careful” in finding international support is not the same as being “sensitive” about it.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Bottom line, this book doesn't sound too thrilling. Anyone who thinks this book is good should go meet the end and leave this world for the realistic people.

<hr></blockquote>

People who think it’s a good book should die? Good way to end your post if you were actually trying to make a legitimate point.


<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

[Lillymon]

> That men are “endowed by their creator with certain
> unalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the
> pursuit of Happiness.” Our President says that he is a
> Christian, and he invokes the Lord as a guiding light while
> he leads this country. Does he not have this right?

Hmm... does the president of the most religiously diverse country in the world have the right to invoke the Christian God (and, by extension, the religion he divinely created) as his 'guiding light' to lead people of all religions and no religions in his country.

How about a big, fucking NO?

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[maq112k2]

> Yea, read the article. It's unfortunate that you'll read
> only the article, however, and will never even touch the
> book.

Because the book is such a biased, comparatively unresearched, flame bait piece of 'literature' that even my dog is ashamed to shit on it. If I wanted to see 4 hours of people sucking Bush's dick, I'd actually watch Fox News.

<P ID="signature"></P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

How about a big, fucking NO?

<hr></blockquote>

Well, that's the wonderful thing about a Democracy. A majority of us seem to think he can and should be able to invoke God as a guiding light while he leads the country. Guess what, how about a big YES. That's why we vote for him, and you have the right to vote for somebody else.

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

[maq112k2]

> Well, that's the wonderful thing about a Democracy. A
> majority of us seem to think he can and should be able to
> invoke God as a guiding light while he leads the country.
> Guess what, how about a big YES. That's why we vote for him,
> and you have the right to vote for somebody else.

OMG I WANT THAT IN DOCUMENTATION PROOF AND YOUR SOUL SIGNED TO ME AND GEORGE BUSH BEFORE I'LL BELIEVE IT!!1!!``

<P ID="signature"></P>

[Fla Flash]

Invoke God as a guiding light while he leads this country?!?
God guides him to send our young men and women to fight a war we or I should say he invoked with bad information and a desire to fulfill some twisted destiny his father couldn't finish?
That sounds like someone I was following (in a car) about 18 years ago back in Connecticut. I used to deliver computer data part time to a big plant in New York.
The person that was ahead of me, on these smalltown, outskirt streets, was cutting in front of me, no turn signal, braking suddenly, and driving altogether erratically.
She had a bumper sticker on her car.
God is my Co-Pilot.
I pulled up beside her at a red light, where fortunately, I had to turn. I rolled my window down and motioned to her. She opened her passenger window.
"God is your co-pilot, huh?"
She smiled. "Oh, yes."
"I've some advice then. Let him drive for a while."
Leave it at that.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/mean.png>
Symbiosis..just when you thought the woods were safe... (http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/)</P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Yes....and what's so wrong with taking that attitude that they harbor their feelings and actions as a result of our feelings and actions? Yes they are "evil and murderous" but is it so far fetched to not to just play the vicitm here? I'm all for putting blame on them for waht they did....but there's also the argument of "can you blame them". All I'm saying is that it is NOT okay to ONLY put blame on them....we (the US gov't foreign policy...current and past) deserve SOME of the blame as well.

<hr></blockquote>

America deserves the blame for being America? They hate our religious freedom, women’s rights—we’re certainly in no position to apologize or take guilt for being a nation that takes pride in its freedom. They committed evil acts against us because of who we are, in the same way Hitler targeted the Jews for being Jewish. I don’t suppose you’d want the Jewish population to take “partial blame” for the holocaust?

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Oh please....the 9/11 Commission disprooved this.

<hr></blockquote>

The 9/11 Commission did not disprove this. The commission decided that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to say that a connection existed. Is a connection possible or even probable? Of course. And also watch the wording, we’re talking about the deep pockets of dictatorships like Saddam’s regime.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Again....9/11 Commission disproved that there were any ties between Al-Quaeda and Iraq. Also, if it is our duty to "confront despotic regimes" then why the hell is Iran, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, etc etc etc still allowed to operate unconfronted?

<hr></blockquote>

This is a weak, overused argument. You can’t expect the US government to respond to every despotic regime at the same time. The places you’ve mentioned have certainly been condemned in the same way Iraq was before we sent troops there. In fact, two of them actually make up the “Axis of Evil”.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

True....but defining what exactly "evil" is, is a difficult and harrowing task....there is no black and white....especially when I consider certain persons in OUR gov't to be "evil".

<hr></blockquote>

Evil men are described by their evil acts. Who in our government would you paint with such a title?

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

OK, I'll buy that....but try to avoid the religious implications of a "superior society". Then again....who's to say we are superior? This needs to be like the true hacker manifesto....you aren't a "hacker" unless that title is bestowed upon you by your peers.....we can't be "superior" unless we are deemed to be so by someone other than ourselves.

<hr></blockquote>

We’ve been deemed superior by thousands other than ourselves. Guess what, those people became citizens of this country.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I'm sorry....but that's laughable. In THEORY this is a true statement about what we as Americans SHOULD embolize, but in practice...we fall QUITE short of that statement.

<hr></blockquote>

If you’re looking for some utopian perfection then you’ll never be happy with the United States. Greatness was never perfect, and it’s described by the fact that we’re closer to that statement that anybody else.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

No, because there was a defined enemy hell bent on ruling the world. Terrorism is differnt...its not about getting control, its about disrupting control. Since there isn't a rogue state blowing up our battleships, or pointing thousands of nuclear warheads at us, it loses focus, and therefore cannot have a focus, and the need to follow the white house's plan on anti-terrorism, a broad reach is needed, which is seen as "warmongering" b/c is it is quite reckless in a manner of speaking.

<hr></blockquote>

Every evil is different, but history shows us that the response to its forces must always be the same. The terrorists and their sponsors won’t comply with anything but force. They’ve sold their humanity to a cult of hatred and have become enemies that cannot be anything but destroyed.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Bullshit.....saying that "God favors America over all" is bullshit. Yes, our laws and customs are based on a primarily Christian fundamentalist base, but we cannot invoke the name of God as an ally in our (bad) foreign policy.

<hr></blockquote>

I’ll quote my reply to Lilymon; “Well, that's the wonderful thing about a Democracy. A majority of us seem to think he can and should be able to invoke God as a guiding light while he leads the country. Guess what, how about a big YES. That's why we vote for him, and you have the right to vote for somebody else.”

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Or we can try to figure out why they want to kill us and give them the opportunity to back off. In every other confrontation, there's usually been a compromise and/or negotiation to bring the end of the confilict. However, now it seems as the only possible solution to the problem is annahilation....when did negotiation go out the window?

<hr></blockquote>

When we realized the nature of our enemy.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Just b/c the Japaense inflicted a massive sneak attack on us, and we responded with great force, leveling two major cities, did we not negotiate with them and finish off the rest of the Japanese population....NO....we made them realise they're seriously going to be fucked up and things were worked out....I know, there's a different mentality that "getting fucked up" isn't a big deal....its what the live/die for, so maybe we need to think of a better deterrent than death....mmmmkay?

<hr></blockquote>

You’re going to call the dealings with the Japanese negotiations? We left them in ruins and they had nothing left to fight for. They were forcibly made to realize the evil in the government that attacked us and allied with the Axis powers. The ideaology that fueled the Japanese died.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Well, we are....I'm not saying we need not prosper, but what's wrong with putting real money into research for alternate fuel sources so we dont consume 45% of the natural resources of the planet and are held by the balls by OPEC?

<hr></blockquote>

Define “real money”. And, honestly, on this and other environmental issues I agree with you very much.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Since when is ANYONE living in America anti-American (that doesn't explicitly state themselves to be...ie anarchists)....yes, we can disagree with policy....it is our DUTY AS AMERICANS TO QUESTION AUTHORITY.

<hr></blockquote>

Michael Moore and those like him hate what America is. Questioning and hating are two different things.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

We need to get a perspective on the real evils being perpetrated HERE AT HOME before we can rightly condemn others. This is a HUGE case of the pot and the kettle here folks.

<hr></blockquote>

And we’ll we’re trying to eliminate all crime our country will be left unprotected. Crime exists in a country with millions of people.
<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

[icenine0]

> That's why we vote for him, and you have the right to vote for somebody else.

Uhh... wow. I'd think history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria#Destruction_of_the_pagan_tem ples_by_Theophilus) would (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades#The_major_crusades) have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition) taught (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials) us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre) a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bombing) few (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_Massacre) things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland) about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion) people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War) claiming to do God's will.

Furthermore, many constitutional scholars consider the First Amendment prohibitive of government favoritism regarding religion in any circumstance. Of course, with recent legislation traipsing all over our basic tenets, who's gonna notice?

<P ID="signature">The more often you fail, the sweeter the taste of success!</P>

[Fla Flash]

You, my friend, rock.<img src=smilies/thumb.gif>

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/mean.png>
Symbiosis..just when you thought the woods were safe... (http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/)</P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Uhh... wow. I'd think history would have taught us a few things about people claiming to do God's will.

<hr></blockquote>

He's hardly saying God's told him to fight a war. He's saying that he's a man of faith, and it was often good, Christian men that defeated the evil in the links you provided. Men like Churchhill, Reagan and Bush.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Furthermore, many constitutional scholars consider the First Amendment prohibitive of government favoritism regarding religion in any circumstance. Of course, with recent legislation traipsing all over our basic tenets, who's gonna notice?

<hr></blockquote>

What favoritism? People can practice whatever religion they wish with full respect. This is a man with a belief. He's not saying that everybody should become a Christian, but he most certainly has the right to be a Christian and to govern like one!

You elect a puppet of secular views, I'll elect a strong Christian with moral clarity.

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

[maq112k2]

> and it was often good, Christian men that defeated the evil in
> the links you provided.

So the linchers during the Salem Witch Trials were good Christian men who defeated evil? No. They just blindly 'followed faith' and only listened to the leader, no matter if he was good or bad. Sounds alot like a certain poster on this board **cough**DANOZ**cough**...

<P ID="signature"></P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

So the linchers during the Salem Witch Trials were good Christian men who defeated evil? No.

<hr></blockquote>

Never said that. And this is the third completely idiotic post that you've provided to this thread. The last one (http://www.zophar.net/wwwthreads/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=backroom&Number=237887&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0), for instance, was so moronic I thought you mentally challenged and actually felt pity.

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

[icenine0]

> He's hardly saying God's told him to fight a war.

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job."
-- President Bush, quoted in the Lancaster New Era, during a private meeting with an Amish group.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/07/16/quote_of_the_day.htmlLink</A>

> He's
> saying that he's a man of faith, and it was often good,
> Christian men that defeated the evil in the links you
> provided. Men like Churchhill, Reagan and Bush.

In some circumstances, sure. By and large, however, the conflicts referenced were of two warring factions using God as an excuse to murder until exhaustion. There wasn't any clear-cut "evil" there, save for both sides seeing each other as such.

Our founding fathers mentioned this:

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." — James Madison.

> What favoritism? People can practice whatever religion they
> wish with full respect. This is a man with a belief. He's
> not saying that everybody should become a Christian, but he
> most certainly has the right to be a Christian and to govern
> like one!

He is the diplomatic embodiment of our nation as a whole. If he presents himself as favoring Christianity, other people (like the Middle East, for example) are, well, going to get the impression that the United States favors Christianity. Bringing his belief system into politics is irresponsible and not in concordance with our doctrines of equality and liberty.

> You elect a puppet of secular views, I'll elect a strong
> Christian with moral clarity.

Given that mainstream Christianity has revised its basic viewpoints dozens of times over the past few centuries (consistently in a more liberal direction), I can't see it as a rock solid moral foundation. And, given God's track record as a source for 'inspired' politics, I think I'd prefer a more mundane focus.

<P ID="signature">The more often you fail, the sweeter the taste of success!</P>

[MooglyGuy]

I'm certainly not going to be so brash as to lob accusations that a religious president is invariably bad. People arguing for secular-only presidents seem to be forgetting that the writers of the constitution probably weren't referring to their mothers when people were "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights," nor were they referring to extraterrestrials, the Illuminati, the Bat Boy, or what have you. The inescapable fact is that yes, religion does play some role in the government, whether you like it or not.

Having said that, I'm certainly not going to hold it against Bush that he's religious, believes in God, and looks to God for inspiration. Do I think that it would be a bad thing if he gave his faith in God as the only reason for his decisions? Yes. However, in fairness to the man, pretty much all of the "God talks to me" or "God guides me" quotes have been blown completely out of context. God doesn't necessarily suddenly cause a pen to lift up and write commands for you onto a piece of paper, but if you're receptive to him, you can almost feel his presence.

To those of you who are going to bitch about me being religious yet still liberal: <img src=smilies/flipa.gif>

[Gokuh]

>“To [liberals] people like Saddam and Osama Bin Laden are not morally depraved murderers, but men driven to their bad acts by the injustices of Western society.”

Bullshit! This is such obvious deceit. To a liberal, Saddam and Osama ARE depraved murders. But, unlike some conservatives running your country, liberals don’t just stop there. They want to look into the reasons why their communities support these people. That is the difference. Liberals are not happy to call someone evil and be done with it. They question. One of the reasons liberals do find is that the groups that support people like Osama perceive Western injustice.
Also, it is worth noting that a lot of the weapons sold to these despots come from the US. Iraqi chemical weapons that Saddam used on his own people were supplied to him by the US.

>“The primary evil we face today is terrorism.

No, this is a false premise. The primary evil we face today is within ourselves. It has always been that way and always will stay that way.

>But we will never triumph over the terrorists until we realize that groups like Al Qaeda are not working alone.

We cannot triumph over terrorism. Terrorism has been withus throughout human civilization. We can only minimize it. Liberals realize this. They also realize that terrorists do not work alone too.
Without the deep pockets of terrorist-friendly dictatorships like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to support them, the loose networks of Islamic terrorism would pose only a fraction of the danger to civilization they currently do.
Saddam never funded Al Queada. He funded the Palestinian terrorist groups. With that said, groups like Al Queada and other terrorist factions are more likely to get their money from the rich in countries like Saudia Arabia and Pakistan. Countries supported by America. They also get their money from crime such as drugs and fraud.

> And those dictatorships, we must realize, are the same brutal regimes that have oppressed their own people for generations.”

Actually, it is my understanding that the major oppression did not start until colonialization. The fall of the colonies was when these despots seized power. To be truthful, I could be full of shit. I just remember seeing that somewhere.

>“American’s left-wing party is ideologically inclined towards appeasement,
Kosovo? The 2nd bombing of Iraq? Does not sound like appeasement to me.

> toward dismissing or understanding the terrorist threat,

Um calling the terrorist threat evil is dismissing any understanding of the terrorist threat.

> and toward continuing, rather than confronting, the despotic regimes that aid and abet the terrorists.”

Um, Liberals want the terrorist threat to end. As far as confronting, remember that Reagan supported Iraq. The one “terrorist” regime your talking about. Also, most Liberals supported invading Afghanistan.

>“The lessons of history are clear: You cannot negotiate with evil. You can’t sweet-talk it. You can’t compromise with it. You can’t give ground to it. You can only defeat it, or it will defeat you.”

Hyperbole. History is clear. Evil is within ones self. Evil will always be in the world.

>“Conservatives see things much differently. We believe that America is a superior

*cough* Hitler *cough*

> society not because Americans are superior human beings society,

um okay. Still does not negate the scary Nazi overtones.

> but because our culture was founded on a recognition of our God-given natural rights—the “unalienable rights” referred to in the Declaration of Independence.

It was founded on recognition yes – but recognition only. Looks great on paper but practice has been sketchy.
From that awareness flows a basic, shared respect for humanity, individual liberty, limited government, and the rule of law.”
Your history doesn’t jive with this. Remember, people who were black were 3/5ths of a person. Also remember, civil rights is a recent phenomenon. Remember the KKK? Japanese internship? Treatment of native Americans? You forget your own sordid history pretty easily. And now ofcourse, you have Al Ghirab and Guantemmo Bay.

>“Was it ‘warmongering” when the Greatest Generation defeated the Axis powers of Hilter’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and Tojo’s Japan, and liberated untold millions in World War two?

The Allies defeated them. Not the US. Canada, America, Britain and god knows who else. More than just Americans died in the fight against the Axis. Don’t forget that. More non American blood died on those fields than American.

> When Reagan’s courageous stand against communism—and renewed commitment to military strength—let to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of Soviet repression?”

Russia died because it was unsustainable. Reagan helped the unstabilization along.

>“The day a president cannot invoke God as his guiding light, and the source from whom he and our nation derive strength and direction, it is the day America ceases to be great.”

Umm, okay. I think the problem is the worst atrocities occur in the name of god. After all, 9/11 was in the name of god.


>“The terrorists and their dishonorable sponsors have no intention of peaceful coexistence with America.

Well duh.

>They are defined only by their violent goals. And when confronted with such aggressors, we have limited choices. We can either ignore them, inviting further attack as we bury our heads in the sand, or we can resist them—with force.”

Or with intelligence. You need to be strategic when applying force. Not brutal. Also they are defined by their warped view of their own religion and their mullahs

>“There’s been a prevailing attitude in the culture that the United States doesn’t deserve it’s prosperity, that we’re unfairly exploiting a disproportionate share of the world’s resources.

You are. Why do you think Americans and Canadians are fat? Ofcourse, that just makes us rich. Not evil

>How, then, can we rightly condemn any foreign nation, regardless of its record of crimes against it’s own people

No, I think the question is, how can you codemn a nation for those reasons when you previously supported for them. The condemnation comes out hallow Mr. Danoz.

>The left wing elites in this country have pushed their obsessive anti-Americanism so far that they’ve lost all perspective on the real evils being perpetrated around the world.”

Id have to say the liberals of your country are the true Americans. Antiamerican is the people like Shawn Hannity and Ann Coultier who want the left silenced. Who want the questioning of authority silenced.
Besides, the liberals are trying to gain perspective. Not paint everything as evil and anti-American.


>“…looking for some psychological explanation for [Hitler’s] campaign to decimate the Jewish population of Europe is a dangerous distraction.

Um, no it is not. It is only dangerous if you are scared to look within yourself.

>The behavior of a cold and vicious mass murderer like Adolf Hitler—or Saddam Hussein—is the result of a conscious choice.”

Ofcourse. But what are the factors that caused Hitler to initiate this choice>



<P ID="signature">ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ</P>

[Lillymon]

> That's why we vote for him, and you have the right to vote for
> somebody else.

No I don't. I'm not a US resident, remember?

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[Lillymon]

> America deserves the blame for being America? They hate our
> religious freedom, women’s rights—we’re certainly in no
> position to apologize or take guilt for being a nation that
> takes pride in its freedom.

They hate Christians. The Islamic fundamentalists think you're a bunch of heathens and the Christian fundamentalists think they're a bunch of heathens. Since America is predominantly Christian country (though that is changing) it would make sense that they attack.

I feel sad since at the core, this is yet another religiously driven war. You say atheists don't have the 'moral foundations' of Christians? I prefer to look at the number of wars fought over Christianity and atheism.

> They committed evil acts against us because of who we are, in
> the same way Hitler targeted the Jews for being Jewish. I don’t
> suppose you’d want the Jewish population to take “partial blame”
> for the holocaust?

I'd blame Hitler for a mindblowing display of religious intolerance, the people who followed him for actually commiting the atrocities, and the Jewish religion as a whole for still existing after all that time.

> The 9/11 Commission did not disprove this. The commission
> decided that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to say that a
> connection existed. Is a connection possible or even probable?
> Of course.

Possible? Yes. Probable? Not if you believe what the commision actually said.

This argument reminds me of the creationists constantly trying to argue that since creationism is possible, that it somehow automatically become true.

> This is a weak, overused argument. You can’t expect the US
> government to respond to every despotic regime at the same
> time.

Maybe some other army could deal with them. Did the British Army really need to go to Iraq?

> The places you’ve mentioned have certainly been condemned in
> the same way Iraq was before we sent troops there. In fact, two of
> them actually make up the “Axis of Evil”.

Ooh, Bush called them the "Axis of EVIL"! That really has him looking like a logical, thoughtful man who can seperate his religion from his work when needed. "Axis of EVIL", really catchy.

> Evil men are described by their evil acts. Who in our
> government would you paint with such a title?

No one. I'd quite happily call George W. Bush an idiot though. To his face.

> Every evil is different, but history shows us that the
> response to its forces must always be the same. The
> terrorists and their sponsors won’t comply with anything but
> force. They’ve sold their humanity to a cult of hatred and
> have become enemies that cannot be anything but destroyed.

True enough. Evil people don't respond to words, they need to be killed to be stopped.

But hang on a second, who is 'evil' exactly? I've heard that word to describe various people and groups. All the way from the obvious of Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden, to the slightly less obvious of liberal Christians and the whole of Europe.

I'd like an answer from Danoz, how do we sort good from evil in these life or death situations? For God I suppose it'd be easy, but for humans?

> I’ll quote my reply to Lilymon; “Well, that's the wonderful
> thing about a Democracy. A majority of us seem to think he
> can and should be able to invoke God as a guiding light
> while he leads the country. Guess what, how about a big YES.
> That's why we vote for him, and you have the right to vote
> for somebody else.”

Yeah! Rights for the majority! The minorties who didn't win the election can go fuck themselves! It's the American way!

I suppose if the majority decided to abolish the first amendment and implement a strict fundamentalist Christian theocracy, you'd be perfectly happy knowing the majority was in power?

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[Lillymon]

> You elect a puppet of secular views, I'll elect a strong
> Christian with moral clarity.

Is the truth coming out? I think the clear implication here is that only Christians have strong moral values.

I think the big difference between Christian and atheist morals is how we go about getting them. The Christian turns to the Bible, the atheist looks within and without. The latter method can actually create and even stronger and more solid moral foundation than the former. My own moral values have undergone many revisions and will probably undergo several more.

I think another difference is that while a conservative Christian's moral values are rigid and unchanging, an atheist's or liberal Christian's morals can have a degree of flexibilty and change with the times.

I guess we'll find out who was right after we die. But I've gone where the evidence had lead me, and to go down any other path would be lie to myself.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[Lillymon]

> Never said that.

The point still stands that they thought they were good people doing what God wanted them to do. Just like Osama Bin Laden and George W. Bush.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[icenine0]

> I'm certainly not going to be so brash as to lob accusations
> that a religious president is invariably bad. People
> arguing for secular-only presidents seem to be forgetting
> that the writers of the constitution probably weren't
> referring to their mothers when people were "endowed by
> their creator with certain unalienable rights,"

Yes, it's intensely curious that US separatists should mention God when challenging the divine right of kings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings) in the Declaration of Independence, and yet expunge any mention of His name (aside from the traditional 'year of our lord') from our Constitution. Hmm... consider that for a moment.

> The inescapable fact is that yes,
> religion does play some role in the government, whether you
> like it or not.

True. However, this is akin to saying "some robberies will occur no matter what."

Government officials can be religious, they can be men of faith, and they can have firm moral principles, but they should keep their personal views at bay in matters of politics, respecting equality, individual liberty, and the Constitution foremost. Is that going to happen? No. Is it a goal we should strive for, instead of the alternative? Yes.

> Yes. However, in fairness to the man, pretty
> much all of the "God talks to me" or "God guides me" quotes
> have been blown completely out of context.

I'm not so sure of that, considering most conservative legislation falls squarely in line with Christian dogma. Using that as a reference point to judge all people is decisively unconstitutional.

> God doesn't
> necessarily suddenly cause a pen to lift up and write
> commands for you onto a piece of paper, but if you're
> receptive to him, you can almost feel his presence.

I believe this myself.

<P ID="signature">The more often you fail, the sweeter the taste of success!</P>

[Lenophis]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Another misguided criticism of the way I answer posts. Please point out a time where I’ve selected little “snippits” and ignored relevant points in a post.

<hr></blockquote>
How about my first response. You did avoid a few things I pointed out.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Save your ridiculous strawman attacks for somebody else.

<hr></blockquote>
OK, ummm......what? How about you start talking sense before I jump on the bandwagon and mash you for "empty rhetoric?"

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

What I said, was that America is a superior nation, not full of superior people or religion, but of superior foundation.

<hr></blockquote>
I'd say the foundation was very shakey at first. First to defeat Britain for independance, and then our cival war. Then there's the various "spats" with Mexico and etc before the "modern" era began.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

That men are “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

<hr></blockquote>
This is of course assuming that the entity of "God" played such a role. It's speculation either way, no such thing of one side being automatically correct. Otherwise, no argument here. Ummm, why are "Life," "Liberty," and "Happiness" capatalized when English tells me that they shouldn't be? But if you ask me, anybody's "creator" would be their parents. <img src=smilies/flipa.gif>

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Our President says that he is a Christian, and he invokes the Lord as a guiding light while he leads this country. Does he not have this right?

<hr></blockquote>
As long as he doesn't try to pass laws (http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/Faith_Based_Initiatives.htm) based on that belief, yes he has that right. Abortion? Bad because the Bible says so.
Same-sex union? Bad because the Bible says so. No matter how it goes, it always comes back to the Bible.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Winston Churchill once said that “democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried.” I agree with this.

<hr></blockquote>
Then please explain what he said, as I really can't decipher what he means.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Let’s be intellectually honest for a second, Lenophis. You may be able to site statistics that America is worse than Canada is one respect, than Germany in other, Japan and even China and others still—but are you really in a position to conclude that some other government of a large country works better? Absolutely not.

<hr></blockquote>
Well I am not entirely sure what that means. But if you are talking about democracy vs something else, then that entirely depends on the situation. Every country in the middle east is majority Muslim. Their governments revolve around their religion, and it works for them. (I don't remember if any are democracies, except for India.) Are you going to sit here and tell them that they have to change how they run their country because you think our system works better than theirs? Well, you told me. That's a start. Now tell them.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I’ll quote from “The American Democracy” by Morris P. Fiorina and Paul E. Paterson; “Citizens of the United States have had a government that has a better record than most at protecting them against foreign aggression while usually avoiding unwise involvement in foreign conflicts. On average, citizens of the United States are wealthier than citizens of any other comparably large country. They are better housed, better fed, and better clothed. Compared with residents of most other countries, they enjoy better communications, a superior transportation system, better medical services and safer working conditions. Their physical environment is more protected against degradation… …Despite the dissatisfaction of many Americans with their government, they would be hard pressed to find a superior alternative.”

<hr></blockquote>
For the most part true. However, this country does not guarantee three things: food, shelter, clothing. While it's true that those that have all three (80% not homeless) are living "better" than people of other countries, you are never assured these three things. Countries like England and Canada, however, do. Actually, not sure on Canada, but it is fact that England does. Why do you think tax rates there are so high?

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

You and I can practice any religious we please free from persecution because we have that freedom to do so.

<hr></blockquote>
<img src=smilies/werd.gif> And I hope that continues for the rest of this country's life.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Now, don’t you think that people should have the right to elect somebody who governs the nation on similar values?

<hr></blockquote>
You just stated the very reason half this country doesn't vote. They think that vaules must match 100% or they don't like either candidate. But I do agree with your statement.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Of course he does. It’s not about him being better, it’s about representation of the majority with a great respect to others in their pursuit of happiness, that INCLUDES our differing religious practices.

<hr></blockquote>
The only problem is "separation of church and state." Religious values cannot be directly involved with the government. I have no problem with a Buddhist being President, a Muslim being Governer, or an Amish being Vice President. (You can mix n match any of these if you wish, all the same to me.) If any were to happen, I'd be happy. But they cannot make decisions based on religion, or pass laws for one religion over another. Why do you think people want the Ten Commandments removed from court house grounds? Because that says "Our country was formed on Christian beliefs (which is false) and only our laws mean anything." That is not equal for everyone. Not everyone is Christian. Everyone's rights must be respected equally in all matters.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

If he made those contradictions I’d like to see documentation in the proper context.

<hr></blockquote>
OK (http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/). I made a mistake in the quote though, he said "immediate" not "significant." My apologies.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

And the claim that Saddam didn’t “really try” to build a weapons program is ludacris. In fact, he used those very weapons on his own people.

<hr></blockquote>
Ahh yes, but as you yourself have said, we are not them. And like I said, he may have wanted to get us, but he had nothing to get us with. Cold? Very. But true. Instead he'd rather hide behind his own people, and use them as a shield. However, at the time, he was sitting by idle laughing at us (most likely). The 9/11 commision ruled out links of terrorism. And I have news for you, anything and I mean anything is possible. However, until there is evidence to suggest, it's circumstancial!

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

In the end it’s obvious that underestimating people like Saddam is a grave error.

<hr></blockquote>
In all honesty, any strategist would never underestimate one's opponent. However, Saddam has had his ass kicked every time he's been confronted by any real force.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

We knew North Korea was well on it’s way to getting nuclear weapons… how unfortunate that our delayed response may cost millions of lives someday. Our president won’t make this kind of mistake around the world, letting Hilters and Stalins fester and grow under empty resolutions and nonaction.

<hr></blockquote>
Nonaction, no the League of Nations was nonaction. The United Nations, however, are not nonaction. Empty resolutions? Yeah ok, but at least they try. I can assure you, the UN will not let another Hitler or Stalin arise, no matter how much you think otherwise. It's a collection of nations for a reason. This world isn't one country or nation to toy with. That's how world wars get started.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

To your question, false. America reluctantly goes into war after dozens of failed resolutions and human rights violations.

<hr></blockquote>
I like how you avoided my holy war reference there... <img src=smilies/flipa.gif>

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

America doesn’t commit terrorist attacks against other nations. Defending our country with necessary force is hardly “stooping to their level”.

<hr></blockquote>
Forcing prisoners to mastuerbate, humiluating them, and utter torture isn't terrorising them? You yoursaid said that terrorism isn't limited to bombs, planes, and civilians.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Totally untrue. Bush was the judge and the questions were asked. Intelligence played the jury under both this, and previous administrations, as well as (but not limited to) the intelligence of our allies and many reports. The executioner in this situation was the United States army who carried out the “judges” command. Bush was given evidence on which he made a decision.

<hr></blockquote>
Hmm, Intelligence... That same intelligence that failed and 9/11 as a result happened.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Actually, I’m reading “American Soldier” by General Tommy Franks—and they hardly went in blindly. This is a lack of proper education on your part and a total replay of the stereotypical Bush-hate that describes him as a “warmonger”.

<hr></blockquote>
And yet you failed to deliver anything to counter what I said. You: "Oh, well you don't like Bush." You know what, I think I will jump on that bandwagon, since you countered with empty rhetoric. Next time you want to dismiss or even argue with what I bring up, at least try to defend yourself. Don't just give x excuse and dismiss it without another word.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Another poorly built strawman that you quickly knock down to prove an irrelevant point. I never even hinted at treated them they way they would treat us. In fact, when captured, their prisoners are tortured and beheaded. I also was referring to Guantanamo Bay, and not the select indiscretions of a few poorly behaved soldiers in Iraq.

<hr></blockquote>
Well in that little prisoner thread about Iraq that is what you said. If the thread still existed (or maybe I'm not looking hard enough) and I don't remember you ever hinting towards Guantonamo Bay.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Another strawman! You must have a collection! In fact, I was distinctively referring to the words following “sensitive”, where he talks about appealing to international support—in fact, being more “sensitive” when we look for allies. I saw this just as he said it, he wants to fight a more “sensitive” war on terror where America seeks a permission slip from the questionably corrupt United Nations before taking further action. I attacked exactly what he said, not just the word.

<hr></blockquote>
Sorry, I have no hay in my household, I don't even live on a farm. But as for the response... However, international support is needed, otherwise it becomes "you vs the world." I'll be frank, I am very surprised the world has not tried to take us down for what we did. Think about this for a second. If we were to do what we do on a monthly basis (liberate countries that we feel need liberating) then it's gonna be world war II all over again. Notice how I said "we" as in th US, and nobody else.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Technically I should have avoided a fair number of your posts when they were built on pure falsehoods about things I have said and believe.

<hr></blockquote>
Well that's no fair, I always as least read your posts, but not always stake my two cents in them. But should you choose to outright avoid what I have to say, that is your right. I, however, try to read everything I can, no matter who says it, types it, or spells it.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

And yes, Dick Cheney did jump down his throat for it… but rightfully so, in my opinion. I most certainly attacked the sentences surrounding the word, but I’m also condoning an equally harsh attack of the word itself.

<hr></blockquote>
And now the point I wanted to bring up last night, but my brain was too fried to think it up. And, btw, you avoided another question. This isn't looking good for you... I believe you feel Kerry being "sensitive" is a way of thinking that means he's too "feminine." Now I don't know you personally, I can kind of guess on how you think, but I can never be 100% sure. But I'm gonna hypothosize here... Maybe consciencely, maybe sub-consciencely, you can't stand the thought of a man being anything but macho in certain ascepts. "Girly men" [/Arnold] I'm most likely wrong in this matter, it could be that Kerry's approach is outright horrible (which btw I don't even know his approach). And my sincerest apologies if I am wrong.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Careful is a totally different meaning in the context he was making. Being “careful” in finding international support is not the same as being “sensitive” about it.

<hr></blockquote>
Then please explain the difference.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

People who think it’s a good book should die? Good way to end your post if you were actually trying to make a legitimate point.

<hr></blockquote>
Well let's see here. Some people in this country are expressing radical views to eliminate what they feel is evil in the world. Sound familiar? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy. Jade (http://disch.zophar.net)</p>

[Gokuh]

Being “careful” in finding
> international support is not the same as being “sensitive”
about it.

> Then please explain the difference.

This whole sensitive campaigning is ironic. I remember watching an episode of the Daily show where G. W. Bush called for a more sensitive war on terror! They put this side by side with Dick Cheney blasting Kerry for saying the word sensitve.

Jon Stewart ofcourse responded by saying" What are you going to Mr. President, the VP is calling you a pussy!"

It is worth nothing that the whole sensitive comment for Kerry is completely lifted out of context. I dont have the quote, but missing is somthing like "a tougher, a more strategic, a more thoughtful....more sensitive war on terror."

I dont have the exact quote so..dont take my words as gospel

<P ID="signature">ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ</P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

They hate Christians. The Islamic fundamentalists think you're a bunch of heathens and the Christian fundamentalists think they're a bunch of heathens. Since America is predominantly Christian country (though that is changing) it would make sense that they attack.

<hr></blockquote>

There were more than just Christians in the World Trade Center, and you should remember that. Funny that they’ve had no problem murdering their own people, too—and many other cultures abroad. You’re right, they do hate Christians. But they also hate America, and non-Muslims. If you don’t think they hate you, you’re very mistaken. They’d just as easily behead you and your family as they would any Christian on the face of the Earth.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I feel sad since at the core, this is yet another religiously driven war. You say atheists don't have the 'moral foundations' of Christians? I prefer to look at the number of wars fought over Christianity and atheism.

<hr></blockquote>

Well, the word I generally use is “moral clarity”—and that is the ability to recognize the evil in the world. For instance, Reagan was a leader of superb moral clarity. Even in the face of heavy criticism he didn’t stop for a second to name the “evil empire” for what it was. He proceeded to eliminate it.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I'd blame Hitler for a mindblowing display of religious intolerance, the people who followed him for actually commiting the atrocities, and the Jewish religion as a whole for still existing after all that time.

<hr></blockquote>

For a person who claims to be an advocate of tolerance, you’re hatred of all religion ironically makes you more intolerant than most people I know. You’re including the Jewish Religion in the same blame net as you would Hilter and his followers. I hope some other people on this board agree with how morally twisted that is.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

This argument reminds me of the creationists constantly trying to argue that since creationism is possible, that it somehow automatically become true.

<hr></blockquote>

It’s perfectly logical to believe the world was created by an unmoved and unchanged force—of which we call God.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Maybe some other army could deal with them. Did the British Army really need to go to Iraq?

<hr></blockquote>

Absolutely. That’s why we formed a coalition of countries to liberate Iraq—this wasn’t only America acting alone.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Ooh, Bush called them the "Axis of EVIL"! That really has him looking like a logical, thoughtful man who can seperate his religion from his work when needed. "Axis of EVIL", really catchy.

<hr></blockquote>
It was bound to stir controversy, but it was needed—especially here. If we’re going to face these powers we need to describe them as what they really are. You should read up on North Korea… how the people are indoctrinated to put their leader in God-like status, unquestioned while he starves and murders millions in internment camps. How America and President Bush is taught to young children that we’re the cause of any conflict in their country while they gain and perfect the powers of nuclear weapons. This country is as (if not more) dangerous than Hitler and the Nazi party.


<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

True enough. Evil people don't respond to words, they need to be killed to be stopped. But hang on a second, who is 'evil' exactly? I've heard that word to describe various people and groups. All the way from the obvious of Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden, to the slightly less obvious of liberal Christians and the whole of Europe. I'd like an answer from Danoz, how do we sort good from evil in these life or death situations? For God I suppose it'd be easy, but for humans?

<hr></blockquote>

Is it really so hard to distinguish? These men are defined only by their violent goals to destroy peace and freedom, to eliminate what is good. Everybody can distinguish right and wrong, some people just choose not to.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Yeah! Rights for the majority! The minorties who didn't win the election can go fuck themselves! It's the American way! I suppose if the majority decided to abolish the first amendment and implement a strict fundamentalist Christian theocracy, you'd be perfectly happy knowing the majority was in power?

<hr></blockquote>

You’ve totally and completely missed the point, again. Let me say it in bold letters for everybody on this forum.

This “separation” often spoken about is not the divorce the secularists in this country wish it was. There calls to be a distinction between search and state in which people are not forced to practice (or forced not to practice) the religion of their choice. IT WAS NEVER SET UP TO MONITOR THE FAITH OF ELECTED OFFICIALS.

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

OK, ummm......what? How about you start talking sense before I jump on the bandwagon and mash you for "empty rhetoric?"

<hr></blockquote>
A strawman (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html) attack. This is caricaturizing a position in order to make it much easier to attack. You lie or exaggerate things I say, and then talk about how ridiculous they are throughout the entire post.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I'd say the foundation was very shakey at first. First to defeat Britain for independance, and then our cival war. Then there's the various "spats" with Mexico and etc before the "modern" era began.

<hr></blockquote>
Overcoming these conflicts is what made us as strong as we are today.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

This is of course assuming that the entity of "God" played such a role. It's speculation either way, no such thing of one side being automatically correct. Otherwise, no argument here. Ummm, why are "Life," "Liberty," and "Happiness" capatalized when English tells me that they shouldn't be? But if you ask me, anybody's "creator" would be their parents.

<hr></blockquote>
They’re capitalized because they were capitalized, and they state significance (the way we, today, might italicize something.) And they weren’t talking about “parents”. That has to be the most ridiculous interpretation of the Declaration that I have ever heard.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

As long as he doesn't try to pass laws based on that belief, yes he has that right. Abortion? Bad because the Bible says so.

<hr></blockquote>
Well this is bull. The Bible doesn’t talk about abortion, it’s just that most Christians tend to take the view that abortion is ethically wrong. It’s a personal belief about the value of life, and everybody has the right to have it—Christian or not.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Same-sex union? Bad because the Bible says so. No matter how it goes, it always comes back to the Bible.

<hr></blockquote>
Nope. Actually the disagreement isn’t with a “same-sex union” but a “homosexual marriage”. I’m all for civil partnerships of equal benefits, as long as activist judges aren’t the one playing the part of the legislature. If you watched Bush’s speech at the convention, he actually shares similar views to this that stand to protect marriage, not to eliminate unions.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Then please explain what he said, as I really can't decipher what he means.

<hr></blockquote>
Government will always have problems. Democracy is the best thing we’ve got.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Well I am not entirely sure what that means. But if you are talking about democracy vs something else, then that entirely depends on the situation.

<hr></blockquote>
Of course it does. And the bottom line is that overall America stands to be the greatest nation in the world.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Every country in the middle east is majority Muslim. Their governments revolve around their religion, and it works for them. (I don't remember if any are democracies, except for India.) Are you going to sit here and tell them that they have to change how they run their country because you think our system works better than theirs? Well, you told me. That's a start. Now tell them.

<hr></blockquote>
We already have, and I’d think the number of people in Iraq coming out to vote is a strong endorsement of Democracy and a freedom of the people. People, regardless of religion, should be and want to be free.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

For the most part true. However, this country does not guarantee three things: food, shelter, clothing. While it's true that those that have all three (80% not homeless) are living "better" than people of other countries, you are never assured these three things. Countries like England and Canada, however, do. Actually, not sure on Canada, but it is fact that England does. Why do you think tax rates there are so high?

<hr></blockquote>
Because England is socialist and they guarantee things by redistributing wealth. Do you think this would be better in America? Because I’d have to disagree very strongly with that.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

And I hope that continues for the rest of this country's life.

<hr></blockquote>
Sure, so how has President Bush infringed on anybody’s right to free worship? He hasn’t. Bottom line.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

You just stated the very reason half this country doesn't vote. They think that vaules must match 100% or they don't like either candidate. But I do agree with your statement.

<hr></blockquote>
Well, half the country doesn’t vote because of ignorance and apathy—but I’m sure a percentange of people fall into the line your speaking of.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

The only problem is "separation of church and state." Religious values cannot be directly involved with the government. I have no problem with a Buddhist being President, a Muslim being Governer, or an Amish being Vice President. (You can mix n match any of these if you wish, all the same to me.) If any were to happen, I'd be happy. But they cannot make decisions based on religion, or pass laws for one religion over another. Why do you think people want the Ten Commandments removed from court house grounds? Because that says "Our country was formed on Christian beliefs (which is false) and only our laws mean anything." That is not equal for everyone. Not everyone is Christian. Everyone's rights must be respected equally in all matters.

<hr></blockquote>
But everybody’s rights ARE respected. The’s a distinction made between church and state so that people are not forced to (or forced not to) practice the religion of their choice. Not to monitor the faith of elected officials.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

OK. I made a mistake in the quote though, he said "immediate" not "significant."

<hr></blockquote>
Well, yea—they weren’t going to blow us up tomorrow, thank God they hadn’t reached that level yet before we intervened.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Ahh yes, but as you yourself have said, we are not them. And like I said, he may have wanted to get us, but he had nothing to get us with. Cold? Very. But true. Instead he'd rather hide behind his own people, and use them as a shield. However, at the time, he was sitting by idle laughing at us (most likely). The 9/11 commision ruled out links of terrorism. And I have news for you, anything and I mean anything is possible. However, until there is evidence to suggest, it's circumstancial!

<hr></blockquote>
It still wouldn’t effect our resolve in Iraq. President Bush stated clearly at the beginning that we were entering to rid Saddam of WMD, to protect our people and to liberate the country of Iraq.
Hey, I’ve got to go to class and here in the library I have nowhere to save this. So I’ll return to the other half of you post later today. Feel free to respond to this first part.

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

[Mr. Saturn]

> This argument reminds me of the creationists constantly
> trying to argue that since creationism is possible, that it
> somehow automatically become true.

<img src=http://www.bitemelivebait.com/jpg/worms2.jpg>

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=right scrollamount=14><img src=http://gifs.bestgraph.com/jeux-video/sonic/sonic-02.gif></marquee></P>

[Fla Flash]

HAW.....perfect.
Nice job, Mr. Saturn.<img src=smilies/thumb.gif>

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/mean.png>
Symbiosis..just when you thought the woods were safe... (http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/)</P>

[maq112k2]

> Never said that. And this is the third completely idiotic
> post that you've provided to this thread. The last one, for
> instance, was so moronic I thought you mentally challenged
> and actually felt pity.

That was the point. And no, this point wasn't completely idiotic.
Check out Icenine0's post again. Check out the word 'taught'. Yeah. A link to the Salem Witch Trials under Wikipedia. Now, read your post, "...Christian men that defeated the evil in the links you provided.". So, in a quick snip, you're saying that the Salem witch trials were good because the good Christian men removed evil.

The post in all caps was to point out that anytime someone says something that has merit to you, you immediately drop it off and ask for proof, even if it's something unprovable, even if it's common knowledge, etc, etc.
<P ID="signature"></P>

[Fla Flash]

Knock it off.
You've no right to call him or anyone else mentally challenged. Are you that absorbded in your own sea of righteousness that no one else can have an opinion except you?
Name calling is what people do when they can't prove what they say or feel stupid.
Which one are you?

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/mean.png>
Symbiosis..just when you thought the woods were safe... (http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/)</P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Knock it off. You've no right to call him or anyone else mentally challenged. Are you that absorbded in your own sea of righteousness that no one else can have an opinion except you? Name calling is what people do when they can't prove what they say or feel stupid. Which one are you?

<hr></blockquote>

I'm sorry, because this (http://www.zophar.net/wwwthreads/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=backroom&Number=237887&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0) is an "opinion". You've obviously failed to read his threads; he said his own idiocy was the point. You being a moderator, you should be well aware of people spamming the boards with that kind of nonsense.

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

[Reaper man]

> And this is the third completely idiotic post that you've provided to this thread.

as opposed to the twelve idiotics posts you've provided to this thread? <img src=smilies/upeyes.gif>

<P ID="signature"><center>
sig not found...</center></P>

[mrfreeze]

> as opposed to the twelve idiotics posts you've provided to
> this thread?
>
You know, I find it completely hilarious how almost all of your contributations to this forum are posts attacking Danoz when you very rarely (if at all) contribute anything yourself. I would like to ask that you either post an intelligent rebuttal, or shut up. Even Lillymon throws in some decent points in between flames.

<P ID="signature"><image src=http://imageshack.us/files/donsig2.gif></P>

[Lenophis]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

A strawman attack. This is caricaturizing a position in order to make it much easier to attack. You lie or exaggerate things I say, and then talk about how ridiculous they are throughout the entire post.

<hr></blockquote>
<img src=http://www.fallacyfiles.org/Strawman.gif> Not complete without the original himself. <img src=smilies/laff.gif>

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Overcoming these conflicts is what made us as strong as we are today.

<hr></blockquote>
Strength can be interpreted many ways. Military force, cilivian backup, technological advances, economics, and some others. Just depends on all the factors, and yet we still stand the strongest, despite the internal conflict. (More like disputes, but still, a conflict is a conflict.)

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

They’re capitalized because they were capitalized, and they state significance (the way we, today, might italicize something.) And they weren’t talking about “parents”. That has to be the most ridiculous interpretation of the Declaration that I have ever heard.

<hr></blockquote>
Declaration of what? Independance?

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Nope. Actually the disagreement isn’t with a “same-sex union” but a “homosexual marriage”. I’m all for civil partnerships of equal benefits, as long as activist judges aren’t the one playing the part of the legislature. If you watched Bush’s speech at the convention, he actually shares similar views to this that stand to protect marriage, not to
eliminate unions.

<hr></blockquote>
I find this kind of odd now. Bush changed his stance of "banning same sex marriage" to just "protecting marriage." Saw this as a result of the news during I think the first day of the RNC. I have a curiousity about this, but I'll save that for another thread. (Unless you want to PM and I can give you the details that way.) Oh, and I never said anything about these two topics starting with the Bible, I said they always come back to the Bible. Staring point is not the finishing point.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Government will always have problems. Democracy is the best thing we’ve got.

<hr></blockquote>
"We" as in the United States, or "we" as in the world? Tell that to the Russians, who are probably the poorest as a result of the "change." Don't be so quick to think that what you think or may believe will solve everybody's problems. What works for one area may not always work in another.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

We already have, and I’d think the number of people in Iraq coming out to vote is a strong endorsement of Democracy and a freedom of the people. People, regardless of religion, should be and want to be free.

<hr></blockquote>
The only problem with your response is that I didn't single out Iraq. I was talking about ALL of them.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Because England is socialist and they guarantee things by redistributing wealth. Do you think this would be better in America? Because I’d have to disagree very strongly with that.

<hr></blockquote>
Well after a few major corporate "foul-ups" (and that's putting it lightly) I wouldn't mind some of their corrupt jack-ass dollars to be redistributed among those that were screwed as a result. Please tell me I don't need to remind you of Enron, Tyco, and Adelphia. Though, that's a situation, not a living situation. Making money never hurts. Although I don't like non-guarantee's, but nothing I can do about that.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Sure, so how has President Bush infringed on anybody’s right to free worship? He hasn’t. Bottom line.

<hr></blockquote>
Well I think you mean freely, but the wording is the same. He hasn't infringed, but he's giving special attention to one, which is wrong.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Well, half the country doesn’t vote because of ignorance and apathy—but I’m sure a percentange of people fall into the line your speaking of.

<hr></blockquote>
I hate how all the people of this country do is whine and bitch and not try to do anything about it. GET OFF YOUR LAZY ASSES AND VOTE! <img src=smilies/angryfire.gif> You want something to change? You'll never get it done if all you are thinking of "let someone else do it."

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

But everybody’s rights ARE respected. The’s a distinction made between church and state so that people are not forced to (or forced not to) practice the religion of their choice. Not to monitor the faith of elected officials.

<hr></blockquote>
Never said anything about monitoring anybody. You must not have read what I said. Court house grounds != elected officials. Passing laws and making decisions to aid said religion IS what I said though.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

It still wouldn’t effect our resolve in Iraq. President Bush stated clearly at the beginning that we were entering to rid Saddam of WMD, to protect our people and to liberate the country of Iraq.

<hr></blockquote>
The mission is, was, and always will be to win. No matter the scenario, the situation, or crisis. That should be obvious to everyone. I never believed for a second there were terrorist ties, and I had doubts about the WMD. The liberating I buy, that did need to happen, but Iraq shouldn't have been priority number 1. Some skinny fucktard with a turban and a greying beard named Osama should've been priority number 1. It kind of goes like this, when you want to kill a weed, you can't just keep ripping the weed out. You need to dig out the roots, and nail the real problem.

And, I wish to clarify one thing before this turns into something it's not. The war on terror I support. Labelling that war as a "fight vs evil" is not something I support. It would then turn into a holy war, because the religious of this country would label the terrorist "evil" based on that Bible.

YES, they do "evil" things, but do NOT call them "evil." This isn't a fight to show off "God's handywork," or "to rid/cleanse the world of evil," (that's genocide btw), it must be kept in perspective. That's my position.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy. Jade (http://disch.zophar.net)</P>

[mrfreeze]

Some skinny fucktard
> with a turban and a greying beard named Osama should've been
priority number 1. It kind of goes like this, when you want
> to kill a weed, you can't just keep ripping the weed out.
> You need to dig out the roots, and nail the real problem.
>
But tearing out the roots won't always work either. It reminds me of the movie (based on a real battle) where it shows the French army capturing or killing all of the enemy leaders, but then 3 months later still having to pull out of the country in defeat. (Sorry, I really don't remember either the movie or the conflict, just that scene <img src=smilies/banghead.gif>) Although I definitely wish we had spent a little more time after Osama and a little less time on Saddam.

<P ID="signature"><image src=http://imageshack.us/files/donsig2.gif></P>

[thegodofhellfire]

First of all, I don't think you deserved that reply of mine. While I stand by the general sentiment, the tone probably had more to do with my shitty mood on the night than righteous indignation. My apologies. Now, on with the show.

> I respond to everybody's posts when I get the chance.
> Usually I'm reading posts on the run before class. It's
> arrogant of you to think you're reply was so incredible that
> I avoided it (being the cowardly conservative that you think
> I am).

I didn't say that my argument was incredible, or even superior (though I think that much is implied in anyone's argument, otherwise they wouldn't say it). I only said it was valid. What I'm getting at is that if anyone puts forward a valid argument in respect to something you've said, it's poor form not to respond to it, either with a counterargument or a concession of some shape. You'd moved on to an entirely different thread without so much as an acknowledgement, so I suspect time wasn't really an issue! Anyway, you've done it plenty of times before. If you'd invested any significant amount of your time putting together a post, I think you'd expect some sort of feedback.

> And remember, of all the arguments in the world we're not
> looking for an original thought-- we're looking for the right one.

That much is true, I accept that, but it's also highly disturbing to hear someone who's logical processes and argumentative style, right down to semantic nuance, is identical to what we see and hear from Fox News and your current administration. It suggests that a real lack of honest evaluation of one's sources is going on and that, whether you even know it or not, your knowledge and understanding of the world are fed to you rather than sought out. It's important, especially in your line of work, to vary your sources far more (rather than simply paying lip-service to such a practice). Giving a wide berth to polemic like Deliver Us From Evil would be a very good start.

> First of all, I'm only 20 years old. My living memory isn't
> a wince in the face of any relevant history.

"Living memory" is taken by most to be directed at society generally, rather than the reader. The term suggests, certainly in the context I was using it, a time period of anything up to, say, 80 years or so.

> Remember, there also wasn't an extensive terrorist attack before
> 9/11 in my living memory. And, more secretive/insular? How?
> Look at how the war on Iraq has been reported. If anything we
> saw too much of the strategy and details of Iraqi Freedom while
\ the actual mission took place. Intrusive? I'm assuming you mean
> the Patriot Act. Of course it's more "intrusive". Better watch over
> suspicious behavior, and a few extra hours at the airport, is a
> small price to pay for some protection.

The "secretive" reference was in respect to the fact that a significantly higher amount of documents have been classified under the current administration as compared to its predecessors. (Though to be honest, I'll be damned if I can track down my sources for that. I've read it a number of times in print publications, and I can't remember for the life of me which ones. I'll put sources up when I find them again). You're right with respect to my reference by "intrusive" to the hilariously-named Patriot Act. With it, you've set up a legislative infrastructure for data harvesting and sharing which has a massive potential for misuse. It's entirely one thing to facilitate the capture of terrorists and the reduction of terrorist activity, but at the same time, all people of all civilised countries must have a right to privacy, whether or not they "have something to hide", to use the popular argument. You should go back and read icenine0's very helpful link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin_True_Patriot_Act).

> What on Earth are you saying here? Are you saying that Bush
> concocted a war to shift the attention from things like the
> economy and even more frivolous subjects like debate? That
> he sent thousands of young men into a terror-filled despotic
\ regime, not for the freedom of a people, not for WMD that
> other countries and previous administrations also believed
> he had, not for our protection-- but for his own interest
> and reelection?

No, read more carefully. The War On Terror isn't waged as a diversionary tactic. It is, however, invoked as such. Bush's reelection prospects certainly rely in on his image as commander-in-chief more than any other more unsuccessful facet of his presidency, such as the economy or environment, and he quite understandably plays to this. And our ongoing adventure in Iraq has precisely piss-all to do with terrorism (before we went there, at least). We all do our intelligence a horrible disservice when we suggest otherwise.

> This statement is purely verbal and I would expect more from you.

Haha, "purely verbal"? As opposed to "with diagrams"?

> What accounts have people been tortured? If you think these
> detainees are in a North Korean internment camp, you're
> quite mistaken. In fact, they are fed well and are even
> given religious doctrine and appropriate religious meals
> (where necessary).

Quite apart from first-hand accounts of those released from there, our attention in all such matters should first be directed towards Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org/), which, amongst many other documents, have published:

Memorandum to the US Government on the rights of people in US custody in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510532002)
An open letter to President George W. Bush on the question of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510782004)

On the "legal black hole" issue, the Red Cross (http://www.icrc.org/) has a couple of very interesting pages:

US detention related to the events of 11 September 2001 and its aftermath - the role of the ICRC (http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList74/D8B5101EE13FCDD6C1256EDD004C580F)
International humanitarian law and terrorism: questions and answers (http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5YNLEV)

<P ID="signature"></p><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by thegodofhellfire on 09/04/04 07:50 PM.</FONT></P>

[Fla Flash]

I read it. And for your sake, don't question my personage as far as being christian or fair.
If you can't read sarcasm, you don't need to be posting here.
And you can PM Swamp or Paladyn if you've a bitch about the way I moderate.
Quit taking everything so personal, dude.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/mean.png>
Symbiosis..just when you thought the woods were safe... (http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/)</P>

[Danoz]

There was no sarcasm there, only stupidity. Also remember that you're the one who responded so harshly to my reply to him. I'm not offended and I didn't take anything personally, I just responded to his less-than-intelligent replies that started to annoy me.

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

[Fla Flash]

Wrong, Zippy.
First off, it was pure sarcasm. I don't think you know the difference (which you would have had you read his follow-up posts), secondly, name calling is beneath you Dan. You're supposed to be bigger than that.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/mean.png>
Symbiosis..just when you thought the woods were safe... (http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/)</P>

[Prower]

Haven't you already been temporarily banned for being obnoxious and trying to start arguments with people? If you really do insist on it, that can be made more permanent. :>

Yes, it was an immature thing to say, but to follow it with more immaturity is unnecessary and non-constructive.

<P ID="signature"></P>