Author Topic: say ALMOST anything we want about politics  (Read 322365 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Chibachi Nero

  • Catgirl
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #100 on: November 20, 2011, 10:26:21 pm »
That would be THE MOST BEAUTIFUL THING.

Offline Malaria

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 3291
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #101 on: November 20, 2011, 10:31:10 pm »
She should also be a mixed-orientation sexual and alter-abled.
Any SJ categories we haven't hit yet?
Kumoricon 2012:
Who even knows, man

Offline jaqua

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
    • tumblr
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #102 on: November 20, 2011, 11:03:32 pm »
Oh oh oh oh wait how about mixed-orientation romantic, but asexual? I like it. I want it.
Maybe she could have been raised by gay dads, one being a Muslim and the other being a... Hindu or a Buddhist or a Taoist or just Agnostic/Atheist or something. I want lots of alternative religious ideas.
And she was born in the US, but has traveled a lot in her life and lived in other countries so she has better knowledge of the world as a whole.

Offline Malaria

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 3291
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #103 on: November 20, 2011, 11:19:13 pm »
Maybe she was the US AMBASSADOR TO CHINA

(Jon Huntsman for Republican nominee for president 2012)
(Fred Karger to be allowed into Republican candidate debates 2011-2012)
(Fred Karger for president, because if we're all going to be sick, starving and financially unstable, we could at least do it with all our civil rights intact.)
Kumoricon 2012:
Who even knows, man

Offline HalcyonFour

  • Cabbit
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • Ulquihime Fanfic!
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #104 on: November 21, 2011, 01:26:29 am »
My ideal Presidential candidate would be a Black/Hispanic/Arabic lesbian transwoman, who was a secular Atheist, pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, and a registered Independent. Oh man. I would cry if such a woman existed and demand she lead my country.

This. One thing I always wondered about this kind of attitude. Are you a secluar atheist? An atheist preferring an atheist (in my view) is the same thing as a Christian preferring a Christian (or whatever).  Both circumstances are quite understandable, we naturally tend to gravitate towards people like us. Which is why I ask whether you are a secular atheist (though that term is kind of redundant, and if you don't feel comfortable revealing this, I understand). I watched the Thanksgiving Family Forum today with most of the candidates (Romney and the other guy didn't show up) and Gingrich was talking about how he "wouldn't be comfortable with an atheist president." I'm just interested in this phenomenon. Should it matter what religion a person is, so long as they stand for what is right? What if Ron Paul was an atheist? Would his supporters think he was more crazy? Or would he have more supporters? Some of his views would probably change, though.

Just some food for thought. Hope that wasn't offensive or controversial.
"You may live bowing on your knees, but die standing on your feet."

-Tite Kubo

Offline HalcyonFour

  • Cabbit
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • Ulquihime Fanfic!
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #105 on: November 21, 2011, 02:22:32 am »
Mitt Romney is not a marionette for anyone. He was a businessman who understands how the private sector works.


I'm so glad to know you didn't vote for Barry.

As far as not being owned by anyone, well, Mitt Romney has received more money from lobbyists than any of the other candidates combined: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/10/mitt-romney-lobbyists_n_923323.html?ref=fb&src=sp  and he is generously being doused by Wall Street money: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286&cycle=2012   http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php?cycle=2012



But I firmly believe the Ron Paul would use and manipulate our sytem if made president to make himself esstentially president for life/dictator.


Please, enlighten me! I would love to know how a champion of the constitution (libertarian, no less) would engage in this type of behavior. 

There was a lot of other stuff about Romney I was going to post, but I like to encourage people to do their own research. I can PM them to you, if you like, though.
"You may live bowing on your knees, but die standing on your feet."

-Tite Kubo

Offline jaqua

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
    • tumblr
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #106 on: November 21, 2011, 04:52:05 am »
My ideal Presidential candidate would be a Black/Hispanic/Arabic lesbian transwoman, who was a secular Atheist, pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, and a registered Independent. Oh man. I would cry if such a woman existed and demand she lead my country.

This. One thing I always wondered about this kind of attitude. Are you a secluar atheist? An atheist preferring an atheist (in my view) is the same thing as a Christian preferring a Christian (or whatever).  Both circumstances are quite understandable, we naturally tend to gravitate towards people like us. Which is why I ask whether you are a secular atheist (though that term is kind of redundant, and if you don't feel comfortable revealing this, I understand). I watched the Thanksgiving Family Forum today with most of the candidates (Romney and the other guy didn't show up) and Gingrich was talking about how he "wouldn't be comfortable with an atheist president." I'm just interested in this phenomenon. Should it matter what religion a person is, so long as they stand for what is right? What if Ron Paul was an atheist? Would his supporters think he was more crazy? Or would he have more supporters? Some of his views would probably change, though.

Just some food for thought. Hope that wasn't offensive or controversial.

Not offensive or controversial at all! I'm all for discussing my political views.

Yes, I am a secular atheist (and hahaha, yeah, it's a touch redundant). Honestly, no, I don't really care what religious views a person holds, so long as their political views aren't geared toward stripping another person of their rights, or in support of something I don't agree with. Unfortunately, a lot of the time Christian "values" (in politics, at least) include denying same-sex couples the right to marry or adopt children, restriction of birth control and the closure of Planned Parenthood, making abortion illegal, and teaching Christian history in schools (AKA Creationism) when it is a clear violation of the separation of church and state, and these are all things I have very strong opinions against. As someone who was raised by non-religious parents in a liberal city, I don't personally see why allowing same-sex couples to marry is even a concern in a modern and enlightened society like the US is supposed to be; I know that Planned Parenthood does far more than just provide abortions, such as providing birth control and birth control options to women and men who may otherwise not be able to afford it, test for and treat STDs, screen for breast, testicular, and cervical cancers, test for pregnancy and give pregnancy counseling, treat menopause, perform vasectomies, etc; and since I am not at all religious it didn't (and doesn't) sit very well with me that in my sophomore year of high school, my biology teacher (who was not a religious man) was forced to teach Creationism alongside Evolution in class, and even then the whole lesson and overview was kept as brief as possible, as not to offend. As someone who loves science, especially biology, I was intensely frustrated that we couldn't spend more time on it, since evolution is an extremely fascinating area of scientific study and I hated feeling like I was missing out. As for abortion, while it's obviously not going to be said in the bible that abortion is against Christianity (and let's be honest, God himself is not exactly guiltless of infanticide in scripture), it's vilified primarily by the religious right (who are, by a vast majority, Christian). I believe that a woman's body is hers to do with as she pleases, and if for whatever reason she does not want to give birth to the fetus growing inside her, she does not have to, and should not be forced to. Do I think abortions should be used as birth control? Hell no. Do I think they're something that should at all be taken lightly? Hell no. Are they something that should be avoided if it at all possible? Absolutely. However, if a woman does not want to give birth, she will likely find a way to have an abortion-- whether it is legal or not. I would rather it be kept safe and available than put women's lives in danger by making them resort to extremes.

I'm going to clarify and say this: I DO NOT THINK ALL CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THIS OR HOLD THESE OPINIONS. I would absolutely vote for a Christian, so long as they were pro-choice, pro-equality, and secular, because these are things that are important to me, just like I would not vote for an atheist who was against them. Really, the only reason I say my ideal presidential candidate is an atheist is because a) I'm an atheist and I think having an atheist in office would be extremely awesome, b) on paper, every single US president has, so far, been Christian (I say "on paper" because there is significant debate about the real religious leanings of several of the founding fathers, and I am personally of the opinion that many were actually deists), and c) I personally don't think that religion has any place in the US government, which was founded and built upon secularism. That said, I would also be super thrilled about a Muslim president. Or a Jewish president. Or a Buddhist president. Or a Pagan president. Or a Deist president. Really, I'd just like to mix up the religious atmosphere in US politics, which has unfairly been centered around Christianity for far too long for a country that is supposed to be secular and open to all religious views, and non-discriminatory based on those views.

Which segues into my next point, though this is more personal and less political: there is a definite stigma against atheists in the US today. Atheists were polled as the most distrusted minority in America, which to me is both shocking and yet completely expected. As George H.W. Bush was quoted in saying, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." An atheist president would also no doubt help the atheist movement, where so many people are afraid to "come out of the closet" with their beliefs (warning: article contains swearing), and I don't feel I need to mention again that discrimination against another person based on their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) is a violation of their First Amendment rights, and therefore classically un-American. Having a leader who was unapologetically atheist would, in my opinion, be a huge step forward to bettering the general public's attitude toward their fellow citizens whose only difference from them is a different belief system-- a belief that does not (or at least should not) affect anyone other than themselves.

This was... a lot longer than I expected it to be, and I am deeply, deeply sorry if any of this is offensive to anyone, I truly don't mean it to be. But that's my reasoning in a nutshell! Also, I'm definitely sure Ron Paul would have different views were he not a Christian, as many of his views are based in his belief in God. That's actually a really interesting thing to think about, would he have more or fewer followers if he were an atheist? I definitely think that he would have a radically different group of people championing him, and for all I know it may actually be larger than his following now, as non-religious people in the US take up over 16% of the population (taking the place as the second-largest religious group in the country) and are vastly under-represented, and would therefore probably flock to someone who shared their views. On the flip-side, I'm sure there would also be a large portion of the American people who would consider him crazy, amoral and/or unfit to lead, but again, it would a vastly different group from any who may currently hold any of those feelings.

I'm going to stop typing before this becomes unreadable, haha. Sorry for the length.

Offline @random

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 933
    • Google+
    • Cosplay.com account, dreadfully outdated
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #107 on: November 21, 2011, 05:25:48 am »
Thank you for an amazingly well-spoken post. :)
This is my serious voice. Otherwise, I'm just another anime fan, not a moderator.

Offline jaqua

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
    • tumblr
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #108 on: November 21, 2011, 05:56:16 am »
Thank you for an amazingly well-spoken post. :)


Offline Chibachi Nero

  • Catgirl
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #109 on: November 21, 2011, 10:18:32 am »
...I was going to add something, but jaqua you just said everything I would have said, so I'll just leave it at "seconded".

Offline jaqua

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
    • tumblr
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #110 on: November 21, 2011, 04:13:03 pm »
Ahhhhhhhhhh thanks you guys!!!

Offline Malaria

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 3291
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #111 on: November 21, 2011, 06:26:09 pm »
You're all coherent and politically engaged! So awesome. /gold star


I thought this Matt Taibbi article on OWS was really cool. It takes a look at the movement's core complaints from a hardline economic standpoint. It's got facts and stuff! Facts are cool.

Here's a quote from the beginning to entice you into actually reading it.
Quote
"Well, I heard they're trying to decide what bank to put their money in," he said, munching on hors d'oeuvres. "It's just kind of ironic."

Oh, Christ, I thought. He’s saying the protesters are hypocrites because they’re using banks. I sighed.

"Listen," I said, "where else are you going to put three hundred thousand dollars? A shopping bag?"

"Well," he said, "it's just, their protests are all about... You know..."

"Dude," I said. "These people aren't protesting money. They're not protesting banking. They're protesting corruption on Wall Street."

Other things with cool facts that everyone should consume: Miss Representation. It's a documentary which discusses the media's role in shaping the self-image, ambitions and career possibilities of women. It also talks about men, but to a lesser extent. The whole thing was pretty much bang on and made me cry actual tears of sympathetic frustration at some parts. Here's a trailer. It's about 8 minutes long, and has Condoleezza Rice in it. Condi Rice is totally an incentive.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2011, 06:26:39 pm by Malaria »
Kumoricon 2012:
Who even knows, man

Offline Animeman73

  • Catgirl
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #112 on: November 21, 2011, 06:56:59 pm »
Mitt Romney is not a marionette for anyone. He was a businessman who understands how the private sector works.


I'm so glad to know you didn't vote for Barry.

As far as not being owned by anyone, well, Mitt Romney has received more money from lobbyists than any of the other candidates combined: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/10/mitt-romney-lobbyists_n_923323.html?ref=fb&src=sp  and he is generously being doused by Wall Street money: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286&cycle=2012   http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php?cycle=2012



But I firmly believe the Ron Paul would use and manipulate our sytem if made president to make himself esstentially president for life/dictator.


Please, enlighten me! I would love to know how a champion of the constitution (libertarian, no less) would engage in this type of behavior. 

There was a lot of other stuff about Romney I was going to post, but I like to encourage people to do their own research. I can PM them to you, if you like, though.

Okay big problem there lass. Blogs like that have information that is at best...questionable. My experience has taught me this numbers can be doctored. And The Huffington Post in noted for havinag more than a few...fabrications. ANd as for Open Secrets.org it's known to be associated  with CNN and ABC News, and because of that I question the numbers and information they're producing.

The example I gave awhile back dear lady how he believes that the American Dollar should be replaced by gold and the gold standard restored. When in facact the  constitutional amendment CLEARLY states that the states shall simply not prodice their own currnecy. Not to mention the doesn't believe in the seperation of church and state> Now make no mistake I know we're a Christian country...but the other portion of that story is we're a country comprised of differing sects of Christianity all sorts of other beliefs. Think about it, Maryland was founded by Catholics...Mary land as in the Land of the Virgin Mary. The thing is the seperation of chruch and state works two-fold, iit protects not only the state from the church...it protects the church from the state allowing for differing sects of Christianity to be able to worship on main Street U.S.A> Up and above all eklse we don't need a church of the United States of AMerica. ANd unfortunately Ron paul doesn't belive in that necessary seperation. In fact he rationalizes his beliefs by misinterpreting the constitution yet again.  Those are just two examples of how Ron paul would manipulate the constitution and would even go as far as to dissolve the House and Senate via "Constitutional" means and declare himself President for life/Dictator of the U.S.

Like i said question the information and question the people giving out that information.
One cannot truly live life without having a sense of honor.

Offline Malaria

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 3291
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #113 on: November 21, 2011, 07:23:05 pm »
If you find ABC and CNN skewed and untrustworthy, who do you get your information from?
Kumoricon 2012:
Who even knows, man

Offline jaqua

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
    • tumblr
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #114 on: November 21, 2011, 08:03:03 pm »
Quote from: Animeman73
Now make no mistake I know we're a Christian country...

Uhhhhh, except

« Last Edit: November 21, 2011, 08:04:32 pm by jaqua »

Offline jaqua

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
    • tumblr
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #115 on: November 21, 2011, 08:11:19 pm »
You're all coherent and politically engaged! So awesome. /gold star


I thought this Matt Taibbi article on OWS was really cool. It takes a look at the movement's core complaints from a hardline economic standpoint. It's got facts and stuff! Facts are cool.

Here's a quote from the beginning to entice you into actually reading it.
Quote
"Well, I heard they're trying to decide what bank to put their money in," he said, munching on hors d'oeuvres. "It's just kind of ironic."

Oh, Christ, I thought. He’s saying the protesters are hypocrites because they’re using banks. I sighed.

"Listen," I said, "where else are you going to put three hundred thousand dollars? A shopping bag?"

"Well," he said, "it's just, their protests are all about... You know..."

"Dude," I said. "These people aren't protesting money. They're not protesting banking. They're protesting corruption on Wall Street."

Other things with cool facts that everyone should consume: Miss Representation. It's a documentary which discusses the media's role in shaping the self-image, ambitions and career possibilities of women. It also talks about men, but to a lesser extent. The whole thing was pretty much bang on and made me cry actual tears of sympathetic frustration at some parts. Here's a trailer. It's about 8 minutes long, and has Condoleezza Rice in it. Condi Rice is totally an incentive.

I have my rare moments of eloquence! I've learned to save them for when they're necessary because I'm a bumbling idiot most of the time.

THANK YOU FOR THAT ARTICLE AHHHHH I was having a discussion with my mom about the OWS movement and her biggest gripe was that there weren't any clear aims, so she couldn't take it seriously. NOW I CAN MAKE HER READ THIS.

Miss Representation is so gooooooood. Ugh I love feminist documentaries almost as much as atheist ones (which is really saying something).

Offline Animeman73

  • Catgirl
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #116 on: November 21, 2011, 08:29:59 pm »
Ahh grnted we have a seperation of church and state to ensure that there's no one ruling church  jaqua, but let's be honest we are a nation that was founded by differring sects of Christianity. But we were founded with the idea that people should be free to believe what they will so long as those belief do not involve bringing harm to others. Those are actually based on Christian ideals. I'm not a chruch goer but I believe in the goodness of Christianity itself. Just because we're a Christian nation doesn't mean that we have to think one way or another. that's another beauty we have in this country...freedom of thought.

On the Same Sex marriage thing i have a revolutionary idea, LET THE INDIVIDUAL CONGREGATIONS DECIDE. Don't have in federal Government oreven the states decide. SInce this country believes in freedom of religion...then let's let then individual congregations deccide their own fate. That's the great thing about this country no matter who we are we have the right to decide our own fate, make our own choices, and live with the consequences.
One cannot truly live life without having a sense of honor.

Offline Malaria

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 3291
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #117 on: November 21, 2011, 08:56:52 pm »
Ahh grnted we have a seperation of church and state to ensure that there's no one ruling church  jaqua, but let's be honest we are a nation that was founded by differring sects of Christianity. But we were founded with the idea that people should be free to believe what they will so long as those belief do not involve bringing harm to others. Those are actually based on Christian ideals. I'm not a chruch goer but I believe in the goodness of Christianity itself. Just because we're a Christian nation doesn't mean that we have to think one way or another. that's another beauty we have in this country...freedom of thought.
It's really narrow to say that pluralism is explicitly Christian, especially since it's a principle that is only practiced by some Christians and really really not practiced by many others. American pluralism owes a lot to political philosophers like John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. And while there may have been a lot of different Christian sects on the continent at the time, none of the framing legal documents of the United States include Christian references.

The only possibly-related document which presupposes a god (and not even an explicitly Judeo-Christian god) is the Declaration of Independence, which is not legally binding in any way and plays no part in the legislative, executive or judicial institutions of the nation.

Quote
On the Same Sex marriage thing i have a revolutionary idea, LET THE INDIVIDUAL CONGREGATIONS DECIDE. Don't have in federal Government oreven the states decide. SInce this country believes in freedom of religion...then let's let then individual congregations deccide their own fate. That's the great thing about this country no matter who we are we have the right to decide our own fate, make our own choices, and live with the consequences.
I fully agree that congregations should be able to determine who they will marry under their roof, but that's ignoring all the legal privileges associated with marriage. A legally married couple is next of kin, power of attorney, has hospital visitation rights, can more easily share bank accounts and mortgages and debts. These are matters of state government, and the church should not be the gatekeeper for access to these government services.

The churches can't be allowed to be the sole arbiters of marriage because not everyone has a religious marriage, either. Jaqua and I obviously wouldn't be interested in a church marriage since we're both atheists (and church ceremonies give me hives). Assuming we still wanted the symbolic value of an official wedding, we would need someone to officiate our marriage who is not a member of any clergy. (edit: accidentally implying Jaqua and I are getting married? OR ON PURPOSE IMPLYING?)

And if for no other reason, marriage should not be entrusted wholly to Christian congregations because it has never been an exclusively Christian institution. It's been around since Christianity was a twinkle in Constantine's shamelessly-revising eye. (Totally non-accidental implication that Christianity has a really problematic theological history.)
« Last Edit: November 21, 2011, 09:02:10 pm by Malaria »
Kumoricon 2012:
Who even knows, man

Offline jaqua

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
    • tumblr
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #118 on: November 21, 2011, 09:57:17 pm »
Ahh grnted we have a seperation of church and state to ensure that there's no one ruling church  jaqua, but let's be honest we are a nation that was founded by differring sects of Christianity. But we were founded with the idea that people should be free to believe what they will so long as those belief do not involve bringing harm to others. Those are actually based on Christian ideals. I'm not a chruch goer but I believe in the goodness of Christianity itself. Just because we're a Christian nation doesn't mean that we have to think one way or another. that's another beauty we have in this country...freedom of thought.
It's really narrow to say that pluralism is explicitly Christian, especially since it's a principle that is only practiced by some Christians and really really not practiced by many others. American pluralism owes a lot to political philosophers like John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. And while there may have been a lot of different Christian sects on the continent at the time, none of the framing legal documents of the United States include Christian references.

The only possibly-related document which presupposes a god (and not even an explicitly Judeo-Christian god) is the Declaration of Independence, which is not legally binding in any way and plays no part in the legislative, executive or judicial institutions of the nation.

This. Just because a nation was built BY people who held specific beliefs, does not mean it was made FOR those beliefs explicitly. The United States was created to be completely secular. The fact that the common people apparently no longer understand this shows how far it's strayed from this original ideal.

Also, to say that people are free what they want to believe and that this is a Christian idea is kind of denying every other religion who hold those claims, many of which I'm certain are also practiced in this country. Are they considered "lesser than" just because they have fewer followers? Also, to say that even though "we are a Christian nation doesn't mean we have to think one way or another" may be what you believe, but I'm sure there are lots and lots of very Christian Americans who would use your idea of a Christian nation to justify the vilification of anyone who doesn't share their faith, since obviously if you don't hold the same beliefs as the majority of your fellow citizens you don't belong there. It's similar to the "If you don't speak English, get out of my country!" argument, even though historically America has always been a nation for immigrants, by immigrants, and has never declared itself to have an official language... Just like it has no national religion.

Quote
On the Same Sex marriage thing i have a revolutionary idea, LET THE INDIVIDUAL CONGREGATIONS DECIDE. Don't have in federal Government oreven the states decide. SInce this country believes in freedom of religion...then let's let then individual congregations deccide their own fate. That's the great thing about this country no matter who we are we have the right to decide our own fate, make our own choices, and live with the consequences.
I fully agree that congregations should be able to determine who they will marry under their roof, but that's ignoring all the legal privileges associated with marriage. A legally married couple is next of kin, power of attorney, has hospital visitation rights, can more easily share bank accounts and mortgages and debts. These are matters of state government, and the church should not be the gatekeeper for access to these government services.

The churches can't be allowed to be the sole arbiters of marriage because not everyone has a religious marriage, either. Jaqua and I obviously wouldn't be interested in a church marriage since we're both atheists (and church ceremonies give me hives). Assuming we still wanted the symbolic value of an official wedding, we would need someone to officiate our marriage who is not a member of any clergy. (edit: accidentally implying Jaqua and I are getting married? OR ON PURPOSE IMPLYING?)

And if for no other reason, marriage should not be entrusted wholly to Christian congregations because it has never been an exclusively Christian institution. It's been around since Christianity was a twinkle in Constantine's shamelessly-revising eye. (Totally non-accidental implication that Christianity has a really problematic theological history.)

Also agreeing with a congregation's right to choose, and also agreeing that the church should not dictate marriage as a whole. A church would be a literal last resort for a location if ever I were to marry, because to me (feelings about religion aside) marriage isn't about being united in the eyes of a god, it's about trusting another person with half of your life. Not to mention the Christianity (and in fairness, other religions as well) of the past meant that marriage made your wife and her belongings your property, not your equal, and as a feminist that doesn't give me happy feelings. Obviously these practices and beliefs are outdated and no longer applicable to (most of) modern society, but it doesn't help me shake the knowledge of it.

Marriage, to me, should be between two consenting adults, regardless of gender, gender identity, or sexual preference. (like me and malaria wait what)

Offline HalcyonFour

  • Cabbit
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • Ulquihime Fanfic!
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #119 on: November 22, 2011, 08:16:29 am »

But I firmly believe the Ron Paul would use and manipulate our sytem if made president to make himself esstentially president for life/dictator.


I'm afraid I still have not seen you explain this, or provide links to anything Ron Paul has written/said/supports that would suggest this.


Not to mention the doesn't believe in the seperation of church and state


Or this.


In fact he rationalizes his beliefs by misinterpreting the constitution yet again.


Or this.

Additionally,

Quote from: Animeman73 link=topic=15
how he believes that the American Dollar should be replaced by gold and the gold standard restored. When in facact the  constitutional amendment CLEARLY states that the states shall simply not prodice their own currnecy.


The statements you are making here are contradicting each other. The Constitution also says that that states are not allowed to use anything as legal tender unless it's backed by silver and gold. http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec10.html  So, really, going back to the gold standard would be following the Constitution. Yes, you've stated your objections to this, but you have failed to provide satisfactory explanations.

Thus far, all I have seen from you are statements of opinion and not any links that would help me understand how exactly Ron Paul would mistinterpret the constitution and "declare himself a dictator". Statements like "Not to mention the doesn't believe in the seperation of church and state" without any links or evidence to back up your claims do not really help me to understand your point at all.

Furthermore,


ANd as for Open Secrets.org it's known to be associated  with CNN and ABC News, and because of that I question the numbers and information they're producing.


Can you provide proof of this? A link? An article you read? Something! I'm starting to feel like a broken record.

OpenSecrets.org is a nonprofit organization that seeks to keep politicians accountable. While you are right that sometimes blogs can be shady, they can also be highly accurate and provide the public with information that otherwise would not be made available through mainstream media.

Thus far, I feel as though you have failed to back up your claims using anything other than your own opinion.
"You may live bowing on your knees, but die standing on your feet."

-Tite Kubo

Offline Chibachi Nero

  • Catgirl
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #120 on: November 22, 2011, 11:45:02 am »
Quote
On the Same Sex marriage thing i have a revolutionary idea, LET THE INDIVIDUAL CONGREGATIONS DECIDE. Don't have in federal Government oreven the states decide. SInce this country believes in freedom of religion...then let's let then individual congregations deccide their own fate. That's the great thing about this country no matter who we are we have the right to decide our own fate, make our own choices, and live with the consequences.
I fully agree that congregations should be able to determine who they will marry under their roof, but that's ignoring all the legal privileges associated with marriage. A legally married couple is next of kin, power of attorney, has hospital visitation rights, can more easily share bank accounts and mortgages and debts. These are matters of state government, and the church should not be the gatekeeper for access to these government services.

The churches can't be allowed to be the sole arbiters of marriage because not everyone has a religious marriage, either. Jaqua and I obviously wouldn't be interested in a church marriage since we're both atheists (and church ceremonies give me hives). Assuming we still wanted the symbolic value of an official wedding, we would need someone to officiate our marriage who is not a member of any clergy. (edit: accidentally implying Jaqua and I are getting married? OR ON PURPOSE IMPLYING?)

And if for no other reason, marriage should not be entrusted wholly to Christian congregations because it has never been an exclusively Christian institution. It's been around since Christianity was a twinkle in Constantine's shamelessly-revising eye. (Totally non-accidental implication that Christianity has a really problematic theological history.)

Also agreeing with a congregation's right to choose, and also agreeing that the church should not dictate marriage as a whole. A church would be a literal last resort for a location if ever I were to marry, because to me (feelings about religion aside) marriage isn't about being united in the eyes of a god, it's about trusting another person with half of your life. Not to mention the Christianity (and in fairness, other religions as well) of the past meant that marriage made your wife and her belongings your property, not your equal, and as a feminist that doesn't give me happy feelings. Obviously these practices and beliefs are outdated and no longer applicable to (most of) modern society, but it doesn't help me shake the knowledge of it.

Marriage, to me, should be between two consenting adults, regardless of gender, gender identity, or sexual preference. (like me and malaria wait what)

If anyone here has read the comic book Ex Machina (and if you haven't you should, it's great) the main character has the best idea I've ever heard when it comes to marriage: stop having the government give out "marriage licenses". We need to separate legal marriage and religious marriage. Have the government give out civil unions to any pair (or more, but I doubt that'll happen anytime soon) of consenting adults who want them. These unions would provide all the legal rights and obligations of marriage licenses to whoever has one. And then those people are free to get married as a religious ceremony at whatever congregation will have them. This gets rid of the religiously charged term "marriage" and focuses the debate where it should be, on the rights of individuals.

I sincerely doubt it will happen in my lifetime, but it always made sense to me.

Offline Animeman73

  • Catgirl
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #121 on: November 22, 2011, 07:35:47 pm »
HalcyonFour: Oh but it is. And actually I've been quite clear and this is where this Moderate Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians tend to differ and not be able to communicate with one another. But he short of it is i can tell you for a fact Ron Paul will not now, nor will he EVER be president of the United States. His ideas are too far out there andd those ideas pay too little attention to the consequences of what happens if they're put in place to ever be used. And here's another point where Ron Paul and i disagree. he thinks we should get rid of the Patriot ACt I happen to think it's necessary. Consider this since we created the Patriot Act since 9/11 we have not had a single terrorist attack on our Home soil....not one.

As to where i get my information I take a little from Fox and little bit from MSNBC and search for the truth between the lines. AS I've so often said an arguement is a three edged sword there's your side, his side, and then there's the truth.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2011, 10:01:33 pm by Animeman73 »
One cannot truly live life without having a sense of honor.

Offline HalcyonFour

  • Cabbit
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • Ulquihime Fanfic!
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #122 on: November 22, 2011, 09:20:00 pm »
HalcyonFour: Oh but it is.

What is?

And actually I've been quite clear

No, you have not. You have failed to provide any links backing up your claims for your beliefs about Ron Paul. I am still waiting for them.

But he short of it is i can tell you for a fact Ron paul will not now, nor will he EVER be president of the United States.

When he wins Iowa, then let's have a talk.

His ideas are too far out there

I'm sorry. I didn't know that obeying the constitution, and defending my rights and civil liberties constituted being "too far out there"!




As to where i get my information I take a little from Fox and little bit from MSNBC and search for the truth between the lines. AS I've so often said an arguement is a three edged sword there's your side, his side, and then there's the truth.

So in other words, you have limited yourself to the mainstream media without doing any relevant digging.

Best of luck. I seriously tried.

"You may live bowing on your knees, but die standing on your feet."

-Tite Kubo

Offline HalcyonFour

  • Cabbit
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • Ulquihime Fanfic!
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #123 on: November 22, 2011, 09:39:07 pm »
Also, maybe someone can answer this (completely unrelated to politics):

How the heck do you get photos and things on your signature?! I tried, but I guess my coding was really off. Do you use Photobucket or something?
"You may live bowing on your knees, but die standing on your feet."

-Tite Kubo

Offline jaqua

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
    • tumblr
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #124 on: November 22, 2011, 09:45:34 pm »
Quote
On the Same Sex marriage thing i have a revolutionary idea, LET THE INDIVIDUAL CONGREGATIONS DECIDE. Don't have in federal Government oreven the states decide. SInce this country believes in freedom of religion...then let's let then individual congregations deccide their own fate. That's the great thing about this country no matter who we are we have the right to decide our own fate, make our own choices, and live with the consequences.
I fully agree that congregations should be able to determine who they will marry under their roof, but that's ignoring all the legal privileges associated with marriage. A legally married couple is next of kin, power of attorney, has hospital visitation rights, can more easily share bank accounts and mortgages and debts. These are matters of state government, and the church should not be the gatekeeper for access to these government services.

The churches can't be allowed to be the sole arbiters of marriage because not everyone has a religious marriage, either. Jaqua and I obviously wouldn't be interested in a church marriage since we're both atheists (and church ceremonies give me hives). Assuming we still wanted the symbolic value of an official wedding, we would need someone to officiate our marriage who is not a member of any clergy. (edit: accidentally implying Jaqua and I are getting married? OR ON PURPOSE IMPLYING?)

And if for no other reason, marriage should not be entrusted wholly to Christian congregations because it has never been an exclusively Christian institution. It's been around since Christianity was a twinkle in Constantine's shamelessly-revising eye. (Totally non-accidental implication that Christianity has a really problematic theological history.)

Also agreeing with a congregation's right to choose, and also agreeing that the church should not dictate marriage as a whole. A church would be a literal last resort for a location if ever I were to marry, because to me (feelings about religion aside) marriage isn't about being united in the eyes of a god, it's about trusting another person with half of your life. Not to mention the Christianity (and in fairness, other religions as well) of the past meant that marriage made your wife and her belongings your property, not your equal, and as a feminist that doesn't give me happy feelings. Obviously these practices and beliefs are outdated and no longer applicable to (most of) modern society, but it doesn't help me shake the knowledge of it.

Marriage, to me, should be between two consenting adults, regardless of gender, gender identity, or sexual preference. (like me and malaria wait what)

If anyone here has read the comic book Ex Machina (and if you haven't you should, it's great) the main character has the best idea I've ever heard when it comes to marriage: stop having the government give out "marriage licenses". We need to separate legal marriage and religious marriage. Have the government give out civil unions to any pair (or more, but I doubt that'll happen anytime soon) of consenting adults who want them. These unions would provide all the legal rights and obligations of marriage licenses to whoever has one. And then those people are free to get married as a religious ceremony at whatever congregation will have them. This gets rid of the religiously charged term "marriage" and focuses the debate where it should be, on the rights of individuals.

I sincerely doubt it will happen in my lifetime, but it always made sense to me.

Holy snap that would be awesome. That's exactly the system I'd like best.

Offline jaqua

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
    • tumblr
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #125 on: November 22, 2011, 09:47:58 pm »
Also, maybe someone can answer this (completely unrelated to politics):

How the heck do you get photos and things on your signature?! I tried, but I guess my coding was really off. Do you use Photobucket or something?

Photobucket is an option! Just put the direct web address to the image you want between [ img ] [ /img ] brackets (though obviously without the spaces).

Offline jaqua

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
    • tumblr
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #126 on: November 22, 2011, 09:56:00 pm »
he thinks we should get rid of the Patriot ACt I happen to think it's necessary. Consider this since we created the Patriot ACt since 9/11 we have not had a single terrorist attack on our Home soil....not one.

Yes we have.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2011, 09:58:56 pm by jaqua »

Offline Animeman73

  • Catgirl
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #127 on: November 22, 2011, 10:02:57 pm »
Jaqua, the Democratic Underground is painfully biased.  And as I said numbers and even so-called facts can be doctoreed.
One cannot truly live life without having a sense of honor.

Offline Malaria

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 3291
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #128 on: November 22, 2011, 10:19:48 pm »
You clearly have a different philosophical view of truth than the rest of us. Bias doesn't mean everything is lies. It means it cares about specific information, and will gather and orient itself around that information. Feminist blogs have a feminist bias; that doesn't mean they will always consciously lie to support their own political point of view. It means they will be interested in stories and information that has to do with feminist issues. A blog about the effects of generational poverty is going to care about poverty statistics. No one is ever totally unbiased. Objectivity is a joke.

Did you even look at the sources on Jaqua's links? DU is clearly acting as in information gathering and organizing service, rather than a provider of raw data. The sources are all NYT and Reuters. The New York Times is the paper of record in the United States. If you can't rust the paper of record, there really is nothing left for you but personal experiential data.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2011, 10:20:38 pm by Malaria »
Kumoricon 2012:
Who even knows, man

Offline jaqua

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
    • tumblr
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #129 on: November 22, 2011, 10:21:57 pm »
... Except I remember when the "Underwear Bomber" was national news, are you telling me that you don't? Because that speaks more to you being out-of-touch with the news rather than me "fabricating" it. Besides, you said earlier you watch Fox News, which-- since you obviously don't know-- is EXTREMELY BIASED. It's gotten tons of flack for its outright and blatant fabrication of the very real sort.

If you're going to disregard my information as false, you should also be discarding Fox as false. Just saying. (and I don't know why I'm even bothering to do your research for you, since you're obviously not bothering to read these links.)

Offline HalcyonFour

  • Cabbit
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • Ulquihime Fanfic!
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #130 on: November 22, 2011, 10:41:51 pm »
Also, maybe someone can answer this (completely unrelated to politics):

How the heck do you get photos and things on your signature?! I tried, but I guess my coding was really off. Do you use Photobucket or something?

Photobucket is an option! Just put the direct web address to the image you want between [ img ] [ /img ] brackets (though obviously without the spaces).

Is that what you do?
"You may live bowing on your knees, but die standing on your feet."

-Tite Kubo

Offline HalcyonFour

  • Cabbit
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • Ulquihime Fanfic!
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #131 on: November 22, 2011, 10:45:29 pm »
... Except I remember when the "Underwear Bomber" was national news, are you telling me that you don't? Because that speaks more to you being out-of-touch with the news rather than me "fabricating" it. Besides, you said earlier you watch Fox News, which-- since you obviously don't know-- is EXTREMELY BIASED. It's gotten tons of flack for its outright and blatant fabrication of the very real sort.

If you're going to disregard my information as false, you should also be discarding Fox as false. Just saying. (and I don't know why I'm even bothering to do your research for you, since you're obviously not bothering to read these links.)

OMG thank you so much! It takes me so much time to find links to back up what I'm saying...and I never get a single one.

Animeman73, I really wish you would reconsider what you're saying. You state:

Jaqua, the Democratic Underground is painfully biased.  And as I said numbers and even so-called facts can be doctoreed.

Yet you refuse to acknowledge that your news sources are biased...do you honestly believe that Fox and CNN and the like are not biased at all?
"You may live bowing on your knees, but die standing on your feet."

-Tite Kubo

Offline HalcyonFour

  • Cabbit
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • Ulquihime Fanfic!
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #132 on: November 22, 2011, 10:47:46 pm »
Objectivity is a joke.


I second that.
"You may live bowing on your knees, but die standing on your feet."

-Tite Kubo

Offline HalcyonFour

  • Cabbit
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • Ulquihime Fanfic!
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #133 on: November 22, 2011, 10:53:48 pm »
fabrication


HOLY WOW, DUDE! I did NOT know about LMGTFY.  Thank you SO much for this!
"You may live bowing on your knees, but die standing on your feet."

-Tite Kubo

Offline jaqua

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
    • tumblr
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #134 on: November 22, 2011, 11:10:11 pm »
Also, maybe someone can answer this (completely unrelated to politics):

How the heck do you get photos and things on your signature?! I tried, but I guess my coding was really off. Do you use Photobucket or something?

Photobucket is an option! Just put the direct web address to the image you want between [ img ] [ /img ] brackets (though obviously without the spaces).

Is that what you do?

Yeah! You take your link, in this example http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/8411/Foxlive_20090727.jpg, and put it between brackets like this, [ img ] http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/8411/Foxlive_20090727.jpg [ /img ], and then you get this!



(I feel this image keeps it relevant to the thread-- what's wrong with it, can anyone tell?)

Offline jaqua

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
    • tumblr
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #135 on: November 22, 2011, 11:11:25 pm »
fabrication


HOLY WOW, DUDE! I did NOT know about LMGTFY.  Thank you SO much for this!

i love lmgtfy so much *-*

Offline Malaria

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 3291
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #136 on: November 22, 2011, 11:16:39 pm »


(I feel this image keeps it relevant to the thread-- what's wrong with it, can anyone tell?)
Egypt decided to switch places with Iraq for some reason?
Kumoricon 2012:
Who even knows, man

Offline jaqua

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
    • tumblr
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #137 on: November 22, 2011, 11:27:56 pm »


(I feel this image keeps it relevant to the thread-- what's wrong with it, can anyone tell?)
Egypt decided to switch places with Iraq for some reason?


Yep! This was an image shown on Fox News. The fact that no one caught it is a little telling of the general population working at the "news" station. Though actually, since this was shown during the Egyptian rebellion, this may have been on purpose to try and discredit their movement (since obviously everyone in the middle east is an extremist Muslim and terrorist and America shouldn't help in any way).

Offline HalcyonFour

  • Cabbit
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • Ulquihime Fanfic!
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #138 on: November 23, 2011, 12:11:20 am »
I seriously tried that with the images and it did not work. I guess I'll try again.

And yeah, shame on Fox for the Egypt thing. I wonder if they did it on purpose, to see how many people would catch it.
"You may live bowing on your knees, but die standing on your feet."

-Tite Kubo

Offline jaqua

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
    • tumblr
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #139 on: November 24, 2011, 07:48:03 pm »
It didn't? Oh no! Are you using a direct to image link? I think on Photobucket there's a direct [ img ] link you can use, in the little popup to links under the picture.

I ran across this in my tumblr feed today, and I thought I would post it because it's relevant to recent discussions.

Offline HalcyonFour

  • Cabbit
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • Ulquihime Fanfic!
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #140 on: November 25, 2011, 01:59:03 am »
It didn't? Oh no! Are you using a direct to image link? I think on Photobucket there's a direct [ img ] link you can use, in the little popup to links under the picture.

I ran across this in my tumblr feed today, and I thought I would post it because it's relevant to recent discussions.

BAHAHAHAHA!

I totally was going to post this, too! But I decided not to, lol.
"You may live bowing on your knees, but die standing on your feet."

-Tite Kubo

Offline HalcyonFour

  • Cabbit
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • Ulquihime Fanfic!
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #141 on: November 25, 2011, 02:17:23 am »
Yeah! You take your link, in this example http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/8411/Foxlive_20090727.jpg, and put it between brackets like this, [ img ] http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/8411/Foxlive_20090727.jpg [ /img ], and then you get this!




Thank you, good sir.

I finally realized the problem; my code WAS working, but the pictures just don't show up on the profile settings page. However, they do show up on the actual signature. In any event, thanks. Now I can sport my fancy Ron Paul banner.
"You may live bowing on your knees, but die standing on your feet."

-Tite Kubo

Offline Animeman73

  • Catgirl
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #142 on: November 25, 2011, 03:50:48 pm »
You're welcome to your opinions everyone but the fact still remains Ron Paul will NOT win the Republican primary norr will he EVER be president. The man has ideals that are not only too extereme but the guy is totally disinegenuous. I've read a lot of history na di knopw that tyrants and wannabe tyrants can be very appealing but when their agenda is closely scrutinized it comes out still the same. Rom paul definitely fits a lot of those categories.

And here's another reason Ron Paul won't win. His attitude concerning th Patriot act and Iran are very naive to the point of dangerous. Iran has Islamist Mullahs who are running it and AChmedinijad 9Sp) has all the makings for the next Adolph Hitler. Now if they get their hands on a nuclear device than bad things will happen I guarentee it. Islamists are not the sort of people you can sit by a fiore with a sing "Kumbaya". No Iran's people should be encouraged to ruise up against the fanatics in power that much is very true. But we also need to take a firm stance against the Iranian government. Not by negotiation but with a subtle military force amd working with Isreal. And thanks to the Patriot act as I said how many attack have there been against this country from terrorisyts since 9/11, none, nada, zip, zilch, zero. Any attem[pts made against us have been as the old cowboy expression goes "Headed off at the pass". I've heard it said often that the Patriotyt ACt is oppresive and they make mention of that one poor fellow who was nowhere near Spain at the time of the bomb attack. Granted the Patriot ACt isn't perfect, but hey that's the beauty about it, like this country the patriot act always has room for improvement.

Another oproblem I have with Ronn Paul I can sum up in one name, Isreal. Isreal is one of the U,.S.'s closest allies in that region. We should be working closely with them not condeming them.  fifor defending themselves. If he turn our backs on Isreal that will be considered by the rest of the world probably the biggest ever schmuck move we could make. We need to maintain our close ties with Isreal up and above all else.

That's just the way i see things you don't like well...the U.s. contarary to what a lot of folks think is STILL a free-thinking country.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2011, 03:56:58 pm by Animeman73 »
One cannot truly live life without having a sense of honor.

Offline Chibachi Nero

  • Catgirl
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #143 on: November 25, 2011, 06:40:20 pm »
Another oproblem I have with Ronn Paul I can sum up in one name, Isreal. Isreal is one of the U,.S.'s closest allies in that region. We should be working closely with them not condeming them.  fifor defending themselves. If he turn our backs on Isreal that will be considered by the rest of the world probably the biggest ever schmuck move we could make. We need to maintain our close ties with Isreal up and above all else.

That's just the way i see things you don't like well...the U.s. contarary to what a lot of folks think is STILL a free-thinking country.

I'm sorry, but...I can't agree with you regarding Israel. The way the Israeli government is treating Palestine is wrong. Palestine is not free from blame, but neither is Israel. Israel has been persecuted, but that doesn't give them a right to persecute others. Both groups need to be willing to compromise a bit, and they need to figure out how to make a two-state solution work, because it's the only proposal being floated that doesn't leave someone oppressed. And the US government needs to be clear on this; that we will not stand for opression, and if it continues Israel risks losing its ties to the US.

Offline HalcyonFour

  • Cabbit
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • Ulquihime Fanfic!
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #144 on: November 25, 2011, 09:20:13 pm »
You're welcome to your opinions everyone but the fact still remains Ron Paul will NOT win the Republican primary norr will he EVER be president. The man has ideals that are not only too extereme but the guy is totally disinegenuous. I've read a lot of history na di knopw that tyrants and wannabe tyrants can be very appealing but when their agenda is closely scrutinized it comes out still the same. Rom paul definitely fits a lot of those categories.

Once again, please provide links and real arguments about these "categories" you are speaking about.

And here's another reason Ron Paul won't win. His attitude concerning th Patriot act and Iran are very naive to the point of dangerous. Iran has Islamist Mullahs who are running it and AChmedinijad 9Sp) has all the makings for the next Adolph Hitler. Now if they get their hands on a nuclear device than bad things will happen I guarentee it. Islamists are not the sort of people you can sit by a fiore with a sing "Kumbaya". No Iran's people should be encouraged to ruise up against the fanatics in power that much is very true. But we also need to take a firm stance against the Iranian government. Not by negotiation but with a subtle military force amd working with Isreal. And thanks to the Patriot act as I said how many attack have there been against this country from terrorisyts since 9/11, none, nada, zip, zilch, zero. Any attem[pts made against us have been as the old cowboy expression goes "Headed off at the pass". I've heard it said often that the Patriotyt ACt is oppresive and they make mention of that one poor fellow who was nowhere near Spain at the time of the bomb attack. Granted the Patriot ACt isn't perfect, but hey that's the beauty about it, like this country the patriot act always has room for improvement.

Propaganda. You obviously didn't read Jaqua's post, because he provided some examples about how we HAVE been attacked by terrorists since 9/11.

Another oproblem I have with Ronn Paul I can sum up in one name, Isreal. Isreal is one of the U,.S.'s closest allies in that region. We should be working closely with them not condeming them.  fifor defending themselves. If he turn our backs on Isreal that will be considered by the rest of the world probably the biggest ever schmuck move we could make. We need to maintain our close ties with Isreal up and above all else.



No. Just...no. The United States gives more aid to Egypt than it does Israel. Israel has nuclear weapons, they can take care of themselves. There is absolutely no proof that Iran has or is building nuclear weapons. Remember what happened with Iraq and the WMDs? We just HAD to go over there to start a war, didn't we? And it turned out that Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al-Qaeda. It was all LIES, all WAR PROPAGANDA, and now it's the same story with Iran. History repeats itself. We NEED to go to war, NEED to get involved before they blow us up...

The Israelis are the ones promoting war in the Middle East, by the way, by threatening to bomb Iran by the end of the year and increasing their illegal settlements. My Palestinian grandparents were ousted from their own homes in 1948. My grandmother had to spend her Easter homeless and in a cave because the Israelis threatened to kill them all if they didn't leave the land (google Deir Yassin massacres). And the Israelis continue building their settlements and propagating their segregation. Did you know that they literally have "Arab roads" and "Jewish roads" in Israel? This is akin to the black-white segregation the United States had in the South. Life is horrible for the Palestinians, and it won't get better because both sides have been burnt by the other.

How much do you even read about Middle Eastern politics, dude? I'm sorry, but I'm not buying into the war propaganda. All of this, "Israel is our ally, we should help them"? PLEASE. The Arabs can't even SNEEZE without the United States' approval. The United States has had a very heavy presence in the Middle East, and their alliance with Israel does nothing but exacerbate their relationship with the Arabs. In any event, you are correct in that there is tension in the Middle East: the Arabs are getting sick of our foreign policy, and I don't blame them. So if you believe that Ron Paul's views on foreign policy are "naive", that is your opinion, but I can assure you that he certainly understands Middle-Eastern politics better than the average American.
"You may live bowing on your knees, but die standing on your feet."

-Tite Kubo

Offline jaqua

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
    • tumblr
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #145 on: November 26, 2011, 03:04:11 pm »
Quote from: Animeman73
Islamists are not the sort of people you can sit by a fiore with a sing "Kumbaya".

Look out, your Fox News-induced Islamophobia is showing.

Do you honestly believe that everyone identifying as Muslim holds the same extremist religious views as Al Qaeda, that such extremism is actually just the tenets of their faith? If you do, I'm sorry, you desperately need to educate yourself at a source that doesn't include Islam-bashing in its repertoire.

If anyone has beliefs about the Patriot Act and Iran that "are very naive to the point of dangerous", it is you. I posted links for your convenience to see that yes, we have been experiencing terrorist attacks since 9/11. Just because a majority were stopped doesn't mean they weren't happening. Do you think we never stopped a terrorist attack BEFORE 9/11? Is that what you're implying? That the Patriot Act is the only thing stopping every terrorist plot from coming to fruition? If you do actually believe that, maybe you should actually research your claims before parading them around blindly. I doubt you will because it isn't something you've been doing until now, but I can dream.

I'm not going to comment on anything else because after Halcyon and Nero it'll just be redundant, so...

Quote from: Animeman73
That's just the way i see things you don't like well...the U.s. contarary to what a lot of folks think is STILL a free-thinking country.

I don't think anyone here is saying you're not allowed to hold your own opinions. That's why I love my country, we're all allowed and encouraged to have different beliefs. All we're saying is that we don't think you're researching things as well as you should be, and that honestly the person you'd be doing a favor for in that regard is yourself. At the end of the day it doesn't affect me if you think Muslims are as likely to strap suicide bombs to their chests as they are to shake your hand, it's just making you a less educated person, and lowering the opinions of those around you (unless they are similarly uneducated).

Offline Chibachi Nero

  • Catgirl
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #146 on: November 26, 2011, 06:27:39 pm »
^ Just a comment on your first point, jaqua, Islamist and Muslim are two very different terms. An Islamist is someone who believes that Islam is both a religion and a political system. Generally, (although the term is somewhat contentious) Islamists emphasize the enforcement of sharia and the elimination of non-Islamic influences (and sometimes people). It's often equated with militants and activists for Islam.

Although I would whole-heartedly agree that Fox News is anti-Islam, extremely biased, and a terrible source for information, I don't think Muslims in general were who Animeman meant here, and (assuming he's aware of the difference in the two terms) he has a somewhat valid point in this particular area.

Offline HalcyonFour

  • Cabbit
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • Ulquihime Fanfic!
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #147 on: November 26, 2011, 10:56:54 pm »
^ Just a comment on your first point, jaqua, Islamist and Muslim are two very different terms. An Islamist is someone who believes that Islam is both a religion and a political system. Generally, (although the term is somewhat contentious) Islamists emphasize the enforcement of sharia and the elimination of non-Islamic influences (and sometimes people). It's often equated with militants and activists for Islam.

Although I would whole-heartedly agree that Fox News is anti-Islam, extremely biased, and a terrible source for information, I don't think Muslims in general were who Animeman meant here, and (assuming he's aware of the difference in the two terms) he has a somewhat valid point in this particular area.

Yes, you are right Chibachi.

I've had long talks with my uncle on Middle-Eastern politics--he spends a lot of time reading about this stuff. There is definitely an Islamist movement going on right now in the sense that you are talking about, but one thing people do not realize is that most of this is not rooted in religion. Though Islam has certainly played a growing role, it started because of threats to national sovereignty, their rights, and general foreign policy from countries like the United States. For example, the Arab-Israeli conflict is often thought to be about religion, but it is not. It is about LAND, resources, and ancestry. If you watch Fox, you'll never be able to glean any of this type of information, so I second what Jaqua said about that, Animeman.
"You may live bowing on your knees, but die standing on your feet."

-Tite Kubo

Offline jaqua

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
    • tumblr
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #148 on: November 27, 2011, 01:37:23 am »
^ Just a comment on your first point, jaqua, Islamist and Muslim are two very different terms. An Islamist is someone who believes that Islam is both a religion and a political system. Generally, (although the term is somewhat contentious) Islamists emphasize the enforcement of sharia and the elimination of non-Islamic influences (and sometimes people). It's often equated with militants and activists for Islam.

Although I would whole-heartedly agree that Fox News is anti-Islam, extremely biased, and a terrible source for information, I don't think Muslims in general were who Animeman meant here, and (assuming he's aware of the difference in the two terms) he has a somewhat valid point in this particular area.

My bad! For some reason Islamist = Islam in my brain up there, so I came to totally the wrong conclusion. Oops. Thank you both so much for correcting me!

Offline Chibachi Nero

  • Catgirl
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
« Reply #149 on: November 27, 2011, 01:52:39 am »
^ No problem! It's a fairly common mistake, since Islamist is a less-common term (radical or militant are perhaps the most common) and it's so similar to Islam. I know I've mixed the two up before.