The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

72, and it could be grapes instead of virgins. Nobody knows for sure.

I quote the Bible - Deuteronomy 13:6:

[I]If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. <SNIP>

I know that Muslims aren't the only religion who has done this.. There's a fairly recent post I made around here that stated that all major religions except the Mormons (who haven't been around long enough yet) have employed aggressive recruiting techniques at some point in their history.

[Falcon Horus]

You see the linguistic gymnastics you're engaging in here? In this context, the words "gender" and "sex" are interchangable.

Not engaging in any linguistic gymnastics: gender and sex don't mean the same thing. Gender is social, sex is biological. Sex can be changed on the DNA-level (though legallity is questionable), gender can be changed at any given age (the earlier, the better -- hormone blockers before possible transition).

It really isn't that hard to grasp, you know.
It isn't necessary to jump through too many hoops, and for you it's even easier. You are a cis-gendered male person (sex: male | gender: male).

I said that people have the right to delude themselves if they wish. And I use the term "delude" because that is exactly what someone who claims to have changed themselves to a gender other than that which they were born as is doing. Again, by your own admission, we can't yet do an actual change, so if someone has convinced themselves that they have, they are deluding themselves by your own definition of the word.

They are not deluding themselves. They are male/female, or male and female, or somewhere in between.

You are deluding yourself into believing there are only two genders.

No one mention the Crusades or Spanish Inquisition

Too late.

Hallowed are the Ori.........

Worship us or we will blow up your planet.

Well at least none of our Earth based religions are that bad yet.

Are you really that sure?
Plenty of veiled and not so veiled attempts by plenty religions who are used to oppress.

Do you think he will get the message?

Doubtful.

Macron though -- our new European hero.

And how long ago were those? 500 years? 1000 years??

I disctinctly remember the poor word choice by a President Bush after 9/11, something about a crusade...

That was what -- 16 or so years ago.

Since they have public restrooms in that target allowed to be used by people who are not just customers.

As I understand it, public restrooms are restrooms in public places.
A restroom in a store is on private grounds of the store, and are usually not so much public. They are also not bound by city laws as to who can visit, but it's the store who sets the rules.

I've never heard/seen/read a report of those sorts of perversions happening in a Target store's changing rooms/toilets, TILL THE whole Transgender bathrooms, and Target making their choice to allow anyone to use either restroom.. So how can it NOT have any relation to the transgender debate?

And that doesn't strike you as odd?

No cause that's your name.. BUT if you feel instead of being "Falcon Horus", today you are "Lippenzaggy", that is 'off'.

Do I want to know where that's from?

In reality I go by a few different names. Two are my actual name, and the third is male (and also happens to be the name of my cat -- I used it first though).

BUT when you get towns blown up, concerts blown up, churches blown up etc, there's imo 1 clear one that's close to it.

Let's see:
* ETA and IRA: check on carbombs, check on other bombs
* Tim McVeigh: check on carbomb
* Dylann Roof: check on shooting up a church
* KKK: check on burning down churches and houses
* Canadian Trump fan: check on shooting up a mosque
* ...

Damn, those Catholics really know how to party.

And what bad behaviour by the Prez pushing his way to the front for that photo op.

How rude?

PM of Montenegro never stood a chance.
And that after the US didn't outright commit to Article 5 -- for a country which just joined, that's really not something to be looking forward to when Russia comes knocking.

Plus we seem to have this mentality that we must not show graphic images on TV or in newspapers for fear of upsetting the poor snowflakes who are incapable of deciding for themselves what to and what not to look at, as I've said before perhaps if these images were shown, the Joe Public might be more inclined to report stuff instead of assuming someone else will.

How would you feel if someone you knew was in that wide shot, or close up?

Or, like how drivers slow down to film an accident and put the images online -- which over here gets you pretty decent fine when caught. Everything is about sensation these days -- the more blood, gore and whatnot, the better. Don't show the small body underneath the tarp, just the teddy bear lying next to it. Let's tug those heartstrings some more cause oh noes, a child died.

Are the same people who are sending prayers for Manchester, sending prayers for children in Syria? Or the 100 civilians the US killed in their March airstrike on a mosque?

It's all about the framing of the story these days, so I prefer they keep their bloodstained images out of the news, and have at least a bit of respect for the victims.

And if you really want the gory details, I'll gladly recount the telling of what a friend of mine saw after the bombings at Brussels Airport. There's something you'll only see in horror-films which come with a rating for a reason.

Besides that, over here there are rules about what you can show at what time on TV. Social media is harder to control but before 8 graphic images of any kind are forbidden. Same with adverts, and whatnot.

I wonder if it has something to do with TV news networks not wanting to lose viewers. How many completely sheltered "snowflakes" might turn the channel if over the top footage of a live bombing site or war zone including the gory details appeared on their screens?

How about showing some respect to the victims?

[Annoyed]

Not engaging in any linguistic gymnastics: gender and sex don't mean the same thing. Gender is social, sex is biological. Sex can be changed on the DNA-level (though legallity is questionable), gender can be changed at any given age (the earlier, the better -- hormone blockers before possible transition).

Can you show me even one medical facility on this planet where a XX or XY can go in the front door and come out the back as XY or XX?

I thought not. We just don't have the technology to do it yet. How can you continue to maintain that it is possible for a person to change their physical sex? When it comes to your body, you are what you were born as. Maybe in 500 or a thousand years, that might change. But not now.

[aretood2]

When you are born in the wrong body, perhaps.

Birthcertificate says female. Parents raise a girl, but the boy born in the wrong body is still a boy, no matter the outside.

Or birthcertificate says male. Parents raise a boy, but the girl born in the wrong body is still a girl, no matter the outside.

Or birthcertificate says male or female. Parents raise a boy or girl, but the person in the body does not feel like they fit in either category, no matter the outside.



Female hormones make female attributes -- hence the hormone blockers given to transkids, or the hormone-treatments transwomen/men have to take to up their testosterone/estrogen levels.

I reckon, someone who opts to transition, does exactly that -- reject the body parts which do not match their gender.

You don't seem to understand what I am saying here. Gender is a social construct, that is we are not born with any social contract. When we are born, that's a Tabula Rasa birth. We are not born boy nor girl. We don't know anything about boy or girl. Those distinctions are artificial, not natural (so the argument goes).

If we are born as Tabula Rasa, then how can we be born the wrong gender if gender has not been learned? That's like having a favorite football team before even knowing that there is such a thing in the first place.

72, and it could be grapes instead of virgins. Nobody knows for sure.

I quote the Bible - Deuteronomy 13:6:

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely,a both its people and its livestock. You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, and none of the condemned things are to be found in your hands. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors — because you obey the Lord your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes.

2 Chronicles 15:13

All who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.

So err, you were saying...

Just to be clear, in those versus those who were to be killed were other hebrews, not gentiles and not to mention that one would be ignoring the separate commandments mandating the use of courts and other rules. However, failure to read this within its proper context can most certainly be used to justify killing in God's name, which I suspect is the case with Islam...although I have heard that Quran's statements aren't as well guarded against such "misinterpretations" but I am rather ignorant on the matter.

[Gatefan1976]

Just to be clear, in those versus those who were to be killed were other hebrews, not gentiles and not to mention that one would be ignoring the separate commandments mandating the use of courts and other rules. However, failure to read this within its proper context can most certainly be used to justify killing in God's name, which I suspect is the case with Islam...although I have heard that Quran's statements aren't as well guarded against such "misinterpretations" but I am rather ignorant on the matter.

Cut and paste job here, but bolding mine:
Why would the decision of the Amorites be so serious to God that He would have all their people wiped out? The answer is simple. God tells the Israelites why the people were destroyed. It was because of the wickedness of the Amorite people.


Deuteronomy 9:5, It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

God has declared that the Amorite people deserved to die because of their sins. They remained unrepentant (unlike Nineveh), and the righteous wrath of God fell upon them via the Israelites. Since all are sinners, all deserve to die. They were no exception. Nevertheless, God is merciful by allowing them to live. In the case of the Amorites, God was gracious to them by letting them live and enjoy life with its generic blessings from God (provision of rain, sun, water, etc.,) while He encouraged them to repent of their sins. They refused to turn from their immorality and were finally wiped out.
Also, the death of a child might be a very merciful thing because had the child grown up in the sin of the Amorite culture, it would surely have suffered the eternal wrath of God. If the "age of accountability" notion is correct, then God delivered them into His hands; and it is possible that by this they were spared eternal damnation.
The final and most important reason for their destruction is that God needed to keep the messianic line pure so that Jesus could be born and thereby redeem His people so that believers could go to heaven. Without Jesus' sacrifice, all would be damned. If the Amorites were allowed to live, surely they would have influenced the Jewish nation in a harmful way thereby threatening the arrival of the Messiah. Therefore, God in His righteous judgment executed judgment upon them.

[aretood2]

Cut and paste job here, but bolding mine:
Why would the decision of the Amorites be so serious to God that He would have all their people wiped out? The answer is simple. God tells the Israelites why the people were destroyed. It was because of the wickedness of the Amorite people.


Deuteronomy 9:5, It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

God has declared that the Amorite people deserved to die because of their sins. They remained unrepentant (unlike Nineveh), and the righteous wrath of God fell upon them via the Israelites. Since all are sinners, all deserve to die. They were no exception. Nevertheless, God is merciful by allowing them to live. In the case of the Amorites, God was gracious to them by letting them live and enjoy life with its generic blessings from God (provision of rain, sun, water, etc.,) while He encouraged them to repent of their sins. They refused to turn from their immorality and were finally wiped out.
Also, the death of a child might be a very merciful thing because had the child grown up in the sin of the Amorite culture, it would surely have suffered the eternal wrath of God. If the "age of accountability" notion is correct, then God delivered them into His hands; and it is possible that by this they were spared eternal damnation.
The final and most important reason for their destruction is that God needed to keep the messianic line pure so that Jesus could be born and thereby redeem His people so that believers could go to heaven. Without Jesus' sacrifice, all would be damned. If the Amorites were allowed to live, surely they would have influenced the Jewish nation in a harmful way thereby threatening the arrival of the Messiah. Therefore, God in His righteous judgment executed judgment upon them.

My response would be basically the same as the one to FH. What's your point?

[Gatefan1976]

My response would be basically the same as the one to FH. What's your point?

You dodged FH's point by correctly pointing out that the passage she quoted was to Hebrew Vs Hebrew, Not Hebrew Vs Gentile. I merely extended it to Hebrew Vs Unbeliever and sinner. The Bible (yes, mostly the OT) is just as clear on crime and punishment for -unbelievers- as the Quran is. Point being, one is not "fuzzy" and the other clear, both are pretty clear, the sinners -deserve- to die, by either the hand of the righteous, or the wrath of god.

[Gatefan1976]

Back to politics:
http://www.freep.com/story/news/colu...ope/345785001/

[Gatefan1976]

...........And just for "fun"......
http://www.salon.com/2017/05/27/paul...d-him_partner/

[Gatefan1976]

You dodged FH's point by correctly pointing out that the passage she quoted was to Hebrew Vs Hebrew, Not Hebrew Vs Gentile. I merely extended it to Hebrew Vs Unbeliever and sinner. The Bible (yes, mostly the OT) is just as clear on crime and punishment for -unbelievers- as the Quran is. Point being, one is not "fuzzy" and the other clear, both are pretty clear, the sinners -deserve- to die, by either the hand of the righteous, or the wrath of god.

Additional, not an edit.
Of course, I will assume that there are those here who would classify this as GF going of on one of his well documented "anti-Christian" screeds, however that is not the case. At the root of every one of those rants is not so much the belief in a God (singular) is inherently bad, but that the Monotheistic system, no matter the God or interpretation in question is the easiest method to create the "Us Vs Them" mentality. Monotheism by it's very nature creates a binary choice, you are either right, or you are wrong. Some can let that stand and see past to the common denominators that affect us all, some, unfortunately, cannot. It is those that cannot that attract my distain, I know good Christians, I know good Jews, I know good Muslims, all of which have no desire to let their -personal- faith affect anyone but themselves.
It is this "ease" of creating the other, an ease documented, -and forgiven- in all 3 books that I loathe.

[SGalisa]

The article is real -- there really was an article published, not long after the Pulse shooting, in one of the Dabiq issues, the official Daesh magazine.

However, the problem starts with your link. I went looking for the original article (which I didn't read, nor clicked on). However, the first link google gave me (top to bottom) wasn't the Dabiq issue # in which the article appeared, it was the Clarion Project who copied the article and added their opinion to it.

Now here's where it gets interesting. I ignored the article altogether (I know how Daesh rejoiced over the Pulse shooting -- heck, a few Christians rejoiced along with them) and followed the Clarion Project instead as that name rang a distant bell.

I think we've talked about them before. I think you've used them before and here comes my problem:

The Southern Poverty Law Center described the organization as an anti-Muslim group, and the Muslim advocacy group Council on American–Islamic Relations said the group promotes Islamophobia in America.

I assume, the person who provided the translation is Walid Phares, who is a Lebanese-born American scholar and right-wing political pundit. He worked for the Republican presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney in 2012 and Donald Trump in 2016. He has also served as a commentator on terrorism and the Middle East for Fox News since 2007, and for NBC from 2003 to 2006. A Maronite Christian, Phares has drawn controversy over his association with extremist Lebanese Christian militant groups in the 1980s during the Lebanese Civil War, and over his anti-Islam views.
. . .

Figured if anyone tackled the link, it'd be FH.
(I think you, FH got the correct article connection there, as I also saw the Clarion Project in another website link. But heavy.com also had it noted. I remember seeing the cover in a snipped screen pix thingy that got posted from the PDF version.)

I found out from another forum, different from where I saw it originally, that the quoted portions were part of a bigger article called "Break the Cross" or something like that. last year, I read about that showing up, but the blurb popped up again this month for a different reason this time.

I did a search on the actual wordpress link. It goes to some jihadology site. Lovely..not.
The search came up with a bunch of "Inspire" magazines, which is another one of the I.S. propaganda items.

The date listed is probably relating to something else, such as the Pulse massacre incident itself.
However, when I searched with the date, the link came up with the whole link I broke apart and stated in the
search that it went to Dabiq (before? or at? Issue 15) – The Islamic State. Oh (sorry!), I noticed that part of the end link got chopped off. Letters in the last portion of the link looked similar, but there was more on the end that goes to the actual PDF file. Anywho, you can bing it without the stuff at the end, and the correct link will show up. Still not going there to look..

Fortunately, the person who posted the link (who is an expert in Islam) has other ways of tracking down and translating those things (well versed in Arabic). Probably had visits from the proverbial "Men in Black" too..! Which is why the rest of the folks reading the blurbs s/he posts are grateful for not having to go there themselves..

I also doubt if the translator to that particular Dabiq article blurb was Walid Phares. Whoever it was, the English translation was shared around the globe. The point isn't who translated it, but instead it's this -- if you insist on down-grading or soft-peddling the seriousness of this stuff, go right ahead... Historical data doesn't mean much to some folks.. just the urgency of the slaughtering, kidnapping, etc., type of situations happening around the world do, and putting many of those folks trapped in the path of danger and creeping Sharia hoisted upon them, they didn't expect to grow up getting stuck in--is *exactly* what they (and some of the rest of us) would prefer to avoid.

[aretood2]

You dodged FH's point by correctly pointing out that the passage she quoted was to Hebrew Vs Hebrew, Not Hebrew Vs Gentile. I merely extended it to Hebrew Vs Unbeliever and sinner. The Bible (yes, mostly the OT) is just as clear on crime and punishment for -unbelievers- as the Quran is. Point being, one is not "fuzzy" and the other clear, both are pretty clear, the sinners -deserve- to die, by either the hand of the righteous, or the wrath of god.

Did I?

Just to be clear, in those versus those who were to be killed were other hebrews, not gentiles and not to mention that one would be ignoring the separate commandments mandating the use of courts and other rules. However, failure to read this within its proper context can most certainly be used to justify killing in God's name, which I suspect is the case with Islam...although I have heard that Quran's statements aren't as well guarded against such "misinterpretations" but I am rather ignorant on the matter.

[Gatefan1976]

Did I?

Yes, you did. You put forward the notion that the Quran is somehow "less guarded" than the Bible, and that is not true, both are quite clear, and both have been used in such a way.

[Gatefan1976]

Make America an Autocratic state!!
http://www.salon.com/2017/05/28/trum...rship_partner/

[jelgate]

The thing that really gets me is how he guts some programs but doesn't touch the ones that help the elderly