View Single Post
Old 03-10-2004, 02:08 PM   #38
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Originally posted by rccar328
And besides that, the man's an egomaniac :
In case you didn't notice, Nato was in its worst crisis ever a few years ago (Kosova, anyone?). I hardly think that an egomaniac would have survived in the upper echelons during such a turmoilous time.

The simple truth is, Hitler's message of hatred appealed to the masses, and that's what got him elected.
Considering the grasp of European history that you have so far demonstrated, I'd advise you against making hard-and-fast statements about complicated issues like this.

If the President hated Islam so much, why not just order all of the troops to go around killing all of the Muslims?
You know the answer to that question. It begins with 'war' and ends with 'crimes'. Besides I didn't say that he hates muslims. In fact I didn't even say that he hates Islam, merely that he is riding on a wave of unthinking anti-islamism. Not that that's my biggest beef with him anyway.

Why even go to the trouble of freeing Iraq?
Oil. Military bases. Turns away focus from a crappy economy. Power gaming. There are lots of reasons.

If you remember, 9/11 happened after Bush was elected.
I know, and I mourn that fact. But I was talking about this election.

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.
But he is still playing upon an anti-islamistic wave. But, frankly, I'm not here to defend Islam. It's no more civilized than Christianity.

Or anyone opposed to his supposed "insane judeo-christian fundamentalist dogma."
That is an entirely seperate issue, involving women's rights, homosexuals' rights, etc.

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.
Yadda, yadda, yadda. Cut the crap. Chritianity is a hateful and totalitarian organisation because the vast majority of Christians who ever lived were religiocentric, racist totalitarians. And every government founded on Christianity throughout history has been totalitarian. Same can be said for every other religion, but that's beside the point.

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.
Touché. But 'open mind' means 'willing to accept what can be proven', not ' willing to accept whatever a stupid, old book says, just because its followers have multiplied enormously over the years'. I don't see any proof in the bible, and no there is sensible way in which one can defend a point that has no proof.

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.
This is a game of words, nothing more. In Marx's theories, socialism was a stepping stone towards Communism. But you aren't telling be that you, as a neo-conservative, are subscribing to Marxist nonsense, are you?

Without morality, our laws have no meaning, and therefore no purpose.
A philosophical debate best left to another time and place. Suffice is to say that I disagree vehemently.

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.
Yadda, yadda, yadda. I've heard that one before. And I've told you why you're wrong before. And I get really tired of having to repeat myself, so those interested can look my points up in one of the mulititudes of threads where I have explained my views already.

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.
Or that the Bible Belt is living in the past. The totalitarian-dark-age-kind-of-past.

The amount of promiscuous sex and teen pregnancies in our nation shows the moral decline of our nation.
Or that the dark numbers have declined.

The prevalence of obscenities in our young peoples's language shows the moral decline of our nation.
Correct. But I hardly see how this is relevant to the breast in the SuperBowl halftime.

If you can't see this, it's because you, like many others, have been desensitized to it.
Or because I am not a follower of puritan, Victorian morals.

But anyone with a clear sense of morality can see that the moral decline is there, and it is undeniable.
I pride myself in having a high moral standard. But I find your idea of morals disgusting.

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.
I'm not going to stand up for American television. From what I've seen of it, it's utter crap.

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.
What I'm saying is that sex is not immoral. And that those who claim that it is, do so with the intent of oppressing others. "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."

As for the top 5-10% being allowed to see it, that is not a description of a marxist system.
Nope, it's a description of a hunter-gatherer system.

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: