View Single Post
Old 02-08-2004, 11:25 PM   #35
rccar328's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
I like Wesley Clark. At least he had the brains and fingerspitzgefühl to suvive in NATO.
And yet, when Michael Moore stands up next to him and lies about George W. Bush's military record, he doesn't have the brains or the guts to disagree. And besides that, the man's an egomaniac :

No one can accuse me of being soft on defense, and no one can accuse me of not knowing about what the armed forces are about. And when I say, “It’s OK,” then it’s OK, period.
If he says it's OK, then it's OK? Period? Gee, that's pretty darn reassuring (and if you couldn't hear the sarcasm, it was there).

If the Commies and Social Democrats had worked together, then the Nazis could perhaps have been kept from power.
Yeah...but they didn't. Also, if England had listened to Churchill long before WWII, they probably could've stopped him. But they didn't. The simple truth is, Hitler's message of hatred appealed to the masses, and that's what got him elected.

Dubya does. Agains Islam. And against anyone who is opposed to his insane judeo-christian fundamentalist dogma.
Now, this is just pure, unthinking, ignorant Bush-bashing.
If the President hated Islam so much, why not just order all of the troops to go around killing all of the Muslims? Why even go to the trouble of freeing Iraq? If the President hated Islam as much as you say, wouldn't it have been more to his liking to leave Hussein in power to torture, rape and murder the Muslims in Iraq? If he hated Islam so much, you'd think he'd be supporting Hussein and giving his regime funding to build more rape rooms to torture more Muslims. Maybe he'd fly down on weekends and torture & rape a couple himself. What's more, the President isn't running (and hasn't run) on a platform of hatred. If you remember, 9/11 happened after Bush was elected. Just because we're fighting and killing fundamentalist Islamic terrorists (that want to kill us) and we deposed the tyrannical leader of an Islamic nation doesn't mean that the President hates Islam. Or anyone opposed to his supposed "insane judeo-christian fundamentalist dogma." What's more, Bush didn't cite hatred as a reason to go to war. He cited many reasons, including national defense and compassion for oppressed people, but not hatred.

And another thing - so many people these days are so willing to buy into the myth that Christianity is a religion of hatred because we believe that there is a moral standard, and if you don't meet that standard and believe in Jesus, you're going to Hell. Well, we don't decide what's true, we just try to live by it. And if you don't agree with me, maybe you should try reading the Bible with an open mind and finding out just what Christianity is all about before you spout your insane liberal-athiest fundamentalist nonsense.

The lie that Christianity is a religion of hatred is perpetrated by those people who look at the fringes of Christians and assume that all Christians are like that (it's also spread by those people who say they are Christians in order to look like good, moral people, but don't actually practice the religion). Well, you can't appropriately judge an entire faith based on a small group of extremists.

Really, it's just like buying into the lie that Islam is a violent, hateful faith based on the fact that there are fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. Real Islam isn't like that at all, but a few extremists who have perverted the religion into what they want it to be have soiled Islam's reputation.

The truth is, both of these religions are religions of peace and love, but the few extremists out there get all of the press and give the rest of us a bad name.

And now, I know that somebody is going to say, "If Christianity is based on peace and love, why is Bush (a Christian) going to war?" Well, the Bible says, "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Matt. 19:19), and it also says, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you." (Luke 6:27). But is also says, "To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven...a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace." (Ecclesiastes 3:1 & 8).

The extreme left of US politics may come close to the middle of the European political spectrum. Which is still a far cry from Communism.
True. But it's an undeniable fact that the extreme left (which includes each and every democratic presidential candidate) is moving closer and closer to socialism. And according to the dictionary definition of socialism (if you even cared to check out the link), it is a step toward communism.

Are you quoting the 'Fathers here, or is this more of your neo propaganda?
Well, I would provide a direct quote, but I left my copy of the Federalist at home. When I find quotes, though, I'll be sure to give them to you.

Really, all it takes is a little thought, though, to see how moral anarchy leads to governmental anarchy. Especially when so many of our basic laws are based on a basic moral code (murder, rape, assault, lying under oath, etc.). Without morality, our laws have no meaning, and therefore no purpose.

Not true. The American Constitution is based on the doctrines of French intelectuals who fled persecution at the hands of the French monarchy. Before said monarchy... lost its head, so to say.
True...but the American Constitution isn't based on any one source. The idea of democracy came from Greece, and the American system is a modification of that (and also includes elements from France).

Second, we must be educated. Educated. Period. One cannot make an informed decision, if one's 'education' extends no further back than the last election.
Agreed - which is why we have schools (even though we do have problems in our educational system). However, the point I was making is that if we are not educated on current issues (and, yes, past issues), we cannot intelligently vote on those issues.

A very... decorative addition. But if you want to see moral decline, look at dubya's circumventing the Security Counsil. Or stashing suspects on a remote military base and leaving them there to rot. Showing a breast during SuperBowl is not moral decline. Getting all worked up about it really is just... silly.
Well...first of all, "dubya's" circumventing the Security Counsil is a diplomatic matter more than a moral one. If anything, the President made the correct moral choice, choosing both to eliminate a threat to America and liberate an oppressed people, despite the pathetic whinings of the UN's ever-impotent Security Council.

Showing a breast on network television in front of millions of people may not seem like moral decline to you, but your reaction in and of itself shows that our morals are declining. Going back 50 years, there would be no question as to whether the Superbowl halftime show was immoral - and the debate wouldn't have started over a breast, it would've been about the whole show - it was basically as much of a sex-fest as they could get away with without being totally shut down by the FCC. The fact that the moral outrage is just about a breast and not about the lyrics to the songs & the dancers shows the moral decline of our nation. The amount of promiscuous sex and teen pregnancies in our nation shows the moral decline of our nation. The prevalence of obscenities in our young peoples's language shows the moral decline of our nation. If you can't see this, it's because you, like many others, have been desensitized to it. And it's not just the Superbowl half-time show, that's only a blatent example of the moral degrigation that runs rampant throughout modern television and music across America. What was once black-and-white morality has been justified over time into a gigantic grey-area by a society that wants to say, "anything goes." But anyone with a clear sense of morality can see that the moral decline is there, and it is undeniable.

Yeah, we aren't outraged (for the most part) by things like murder on TV or sex scenes in movies or trashy shows like the Osbournes. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be. These things don't outrage us anymore because we are so surrounded by them that we become desensitized to them until we move the line of what we are repulsed by a little farther away. Then, the entertainment industry turns it up a little, and we're outraged for a little while, but we become desensitized again and quiet down. After a while, the moral depravity that we see on television and hear in modern music gets us so desensitized that people have no problem committing or defending in real life the things that they see on television or hear in music. It's not a change in morals, it's an erasure of morals from our society.

And I'm not saying by any stretch of the imagination that kids in the 50s didn't think about sex. I'm saying that back then the majority of people didn't have such a gigantic grey area between right and wrong because they weren't surrounded by the immorality that is so prevalent in today's society.

Last edited by rccar328; 02-09-2004 at 04:48 AM.
rccar328 is offline   you may: