The Political Discussion Thread

[mad_gater]

and honestly I could care less what others think of me.....if someone wants to think me an uneducated bumpkin just cuz I might use slightly inaccurate terms to describe certain things every now and then I'm not gonna shed one lousy tear.....I got bigger things to worry about....if I spent my life worrying about what others think of me I'd go insane....or more insane than I already am if you will........and maybe you'd be under less stress if you focused on things that concerned only you instead of making mountains out of the molehill that others don't utilize spoken English as perfectly as you do

[Col.Foley]

people that use the term Islamofascist are ignorant of both Islam and fascism. And probably a whole lot more into the bargain.

THis, of course, makes the assumption that people are equating Islam and fascism. All people who are Islamic and follow Islam, are fascist. THis is making the assumption that everyone who uses the term believes that everyone who is Islamic, or Arabic, or Persian, are all a bunch of fascists. That almost seems as bigoted as what you think people are saying.

Because anyone who uses the term, well as it has been used here anyways is talking about a relatively small relatively minor, radical, minority in the over all population. A minority population that is quite vociferous, and strong though.

And where as an understanding of Islam is rather pointless. It does not matter. All that matters is what the radicals think their religion means and tells them to do in regards to humanity, members of their own faith, the Jews, and all other infidels. And what it tells them to do to many groups of people.

Ranging from adulterers getting stoned, to Homo Sexuals being wiped out, to the persecution of anyone who disagrees with them religiously, apostates, and even their fellow members of Islam. there have been, apparently, radical clerics warning about Muslim Hypocrites.

All of this behavior sounds very fascistic, or at the least Authoritarian.

Especially when one understands the political, and historical underpinings that helped lead to this situation in the first place. So believe what you wish, call it what you wish, but this all seems to be a matter, in the end of Semantics. At the least. At the worse? I will leave it up to our imagination.

so they don't officially call their government fascist....doesn't change the fact that I see very little if any difference between the authoritarian way Hitler ran things and the way islamic radicals run things....perhaps Islamo-authoritarian would be a better term but I'm too lazy to type all that.....perhaps I'll just simply call them radicals but again doesn't change the fact that they hate the Jews just as much if not more so than Hitler....surprised he didn't try to ask for their help back in WW2

actually he did

Yeah they did. Kudos to Reaver...

Nobody's doing that. Overreacting doesn't help your case.


When you get to the 80% - 90% range, I'll rejoice. Keep working at it.


As was said upthread, it feeds into an attempt by a lot of people to do precisely that. So when you use it, you help them to do so, even if that wasn't your intention. That's why it's a good idea to take care with your words, in case you accidentally promote something you don't mean to.



So, again I ask you, why not just say "radical" and "moderate"? Why do you have to use the word "fascist" and throw in "Islamo"? I'm serious, that's a real question, and I'd like an actual answer to it. Why is the word "radical" not good enough?



Sure, if your purpose is to look like a uninformed doofus. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that isn't actually what you're going for here. You don't normally strike me as that kind of person, actually, regardless of how much we may disagree on certain topics. Believe it or not, I'm not arguing against you on everything here. I'm just pointing out that there are better ways to put your argument across. The most rational point of view can still suffer if it is poorly expressed.


And again, that isn't what I'm doing.



Yaddayaddayawn.


Yep. Just like n****r, ***, frog, b*tch, broad, towel-head, ho, etc. They're all so useful in an intelligent discussion...

Would you complain if someone used the term Islamic Radical? that seems to be a good counter to that. And the other counter to that if you want someone to use the term Radical then really what is wrong with Fascist? Isn't Fascism a radical and unpleasent ideology? Is it not just a matter of semantics?

As for weding the two together. It is desgined to be a very specific and very precise term. Mainly the Islamisists and the radical Islamic Politicians, people, and clerics, who are persuing a radical ideology. As MG said, its slang, very accurate slang but slang. Meant to identify a small portion in a very large and diverse society.

Except those terms have a very racial conotation. Using Islamic Fascist is a very specific, very targeted word for a certain group of people. People who see it as their religious duty to convert the world to islam, by any means neccessary. COuld it be used to FEAR THE ARAB!? Sure it could, but as words and even some of those words have been manipulated and sed for evil since the beginning of time.

[s09119]

Again, it all sounds very hypocritical when Christians go off ranting about the dangers of radical Islam. Just like a minority of Muslims want to take away the rights of certain groups, silence secular opposition, and rule by religious text, there are a fair number of Christians who want the exact same thing.

To quote the Book of Origin, "And then did Tyolus say to the people of the low plains, Seek not wickedness in your neighbours, lest it find a purchase in your own house." Perhaps it would be best for each faith to set its own affairs in order before claiming the other is attempting to destroy all of civilization.

[Joachim]

and honestly I could care less what others think of me.....if someone wants to think me an uneducated bumpkin

we are what we are, champ.

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

Wow, I did not mean to open this can of worms .

So would Bin Laden be an Islamo-facist? I just think the term facist carries all sorts of bad connations and will not lead to a productive argument.

[jelgate]

I just use the term radical Muslims. It seems to be mostly accurate with describing those people.

[Col.Foley]

Again, it all sounds very hypocritical when Christians go off ranting about the dangers of radical Islam. Just like a minority of Muslims want to take away the rights of certain groups, silence secular opposition, and rule by religious text, there are a fair number of Christians who want the exact same thing.

To quote the Book of Origin, "And then did Tyolus say to the people of the low plains, Seek not wickedness in your neighbours, lest it find a purchase in your own house." Perhaps it would be best for each faith to set its own affairs in order before claiming the other is attempting to destroy all of civilization.

WHOA! Not the passage from the book of Origin that I would personally chose but there you go, to each their own.

Are there Christians out there who would use their faith and religious ideals to set up their political agendas and use it to enforce their beliefs on others thanks to what they believe the religion teaches? Yes of course there are. Among them are President Obama, the 'Reverend' Jermiah Wright, and Jim Wallis.

Because these people we have been sworn up and down all night long that they are Christians, they have sworn to us that they are Christian, and that they believe in the gospel and religious principles of Jesus and the Bible, and I must take them at their word. Unless I KNOW better and I do not. And in so doing they all have said, numerous times, Obama himself, that their individual (Religious, Jesus kinda thing) depends on the collective salvation anyone...which would make that eye of the needle into heaven a whole lot smaller because I do not think he can save everyone. Which then leads them to make descisions based on their religious principles that effect us all through Health Care, and Redistributive policies.

Where as I know many COnservatives and many Christians who do not want to enforce their own morality on others. Many people that actually practice what they preach in regards to gays, and abortion people, and I know of others who do not. I know and talk to people and even listen to people who actually stand up against anyone who would blow up an abortion clinic, anyone who would kill an abortion doctor, or a gay, and people who even stand up to their own church and the West Borogh Baptists when they do what they consider to be wrong in regards and in the name of their relgion. I know of many Conservatives and Christians who recognize that the main threat is big Government and if we could find a way to get their paws out of our lives and our morality issues like gay marriage would simply melt away. I even know of churches and religious groups that marry gays and allow gay clergy. When mainly, even the churches who are against Gay Marriage, just want to be left alone. To conduct their affairs and their morality in the way they see fit, and if you disagree find a group that does and will marry you.

When many of the Christians that I know and have spoken elequently on this subject, just wants to get us back to a more constitutional, more limited, more liberty oriented, Government that the Framers intended.

I also know of a lot of people, Muslims, who are of the advocacy if you leave the religion you should be killed or severly and physically harmed, that adulterer's are stoned, and that homosexuals are killed, apostates are killed, and you have to live under Islamic Law whether you are a Muslim or not. Or that you might be killed because you are not Muslim, or just because you are Jewish.


Now, to use the Bible, I do believe it, like the BOO, says that "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Meaning basically, do not judge others. No, I try not to judge, but it is a bit of a flaw that I struggle with sometimes.

But no human, group, or religion is perfect in the least. WE all have flaws. Do we not stand up to evil? Do we not address people who may want to kill us and point out the threat they could potentially pose to you me and our very way of life? And do we be silent as attrociies are commited in the name of God? No I am not going to be silent, and I speak as someone who is a very flawed individual, and has a long way to go in a lot of aspects in my life. Because to do so is going to lead to the death of us all, and for these evil monsters to succeed, and I would rather be dead then let that happen.

Especially since many Christians and many people that i know do stand up to the excesses of fellow Christians, do stand up when they think fellow Christians have done wrong, and do stand up against evil no matter what form it takes.

we are what we are, champ.

Joa do me a favor? Could you please post the whole context of something when you quote it so that I can read it when I am curious about it? Thanks.

Wow, I did not mean to open this can of worms .

So would Bin Laden be an Islamo-facist? I just think the term facist carries all sorts of bad connations and will not lead to a productive argument.

Yes he is.

And of course it does. Fascism is a poltical and economic ideology whose proponents have, in the past, used as an excuse and as a basis to start a war that killed millions upon millions of people. This is not a word to concoct images of dancing with cute kitty cats.

But our goal is to try and distance ourselves, if only a little, from our emotions and critically anyalyse the threat that we face. Whether they are radical, fascist, or whatever monicker you use for them.

[mad_gater]

WHOA! Not the passage from the book of Origin that I would personally chose but there you go, to each their own.

Are there Christians out there who would use their faith and religious ideals to set up their political agendas and use it to enforce their beliefs on others thanks to what they believe the religion teaches? Yes of course there are. Among them are President Obama, the 'Reverend' Jermiah Wright, and Jim Wallis.

Because these people we have been sworn up and down all night long that they are Christians, they have sworn to us that they are Christian, and that they believe in the gospel and religious principles of Jesus and the Bible, and I must take them at their word. Unless I KNOW better and I do not. And in so doing they all have said, numerous times, Obama himself, that their individual (Religious, Jesus kinda thing) depends on the collective salvation anyone...which would make that eye of the needle into heaven a whole lot smaller because I do not think he can save everyone. Which then leads them to make descisions based on their religious principles that effect us all through Health Care, and Redistributive policies.

Where as I know many COnservatives and many Christians who do not want to enforce their own morality on others. Many people that actually practice what they preach in regards to gays, and abortion people, and I know of others who do not. I know and talk to people and even listen to people who actually stand up against anyone who would blow up an abortion clinic, anyone who would kill an abortion doctor, or a gay, and people who even stand up to their own church and the West Borogh Baptists when they do what they consider to be wrong in regards and in the name of their relgion. I know of many Conservatives and Christians who recognize that the main threat is big Government and if we could find a way to get their paws out of our lives and our morality issues like gay marriage would simply melt away. I even know of churches and religious groups that marry gays and allow gay clergy. When mainly, even the churches who are against Gay Marriage, just want to be left alone. To conduct their affairs and their morality in the way they see fit, and if you disagree find a group that does and will marry you.

When many of the Christians that I know and have spoken elequently on this subject, just wants to get us back to a more constitutional, more limited, more liberty oriented, Government that the Framers intended.

I also know of a lot of people, Muslims, who are of the advocacy if you leave the religion you should be killed or severly and physically harmed, that adulterer's are stoned, and that homosexuals are killed, apostates are killed, and you have to live under Islamic Law whether you are a Muslim or not. Or that you might be killed because you are not Muslim, or just because you are Jewish.


Now, to use the Bible, I do believe it, like the BOO, says that "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Meaning basically, do not judge others. No, I try not to judge, but it is a bit of a flaw that I struggle with sometimes.

But no human, group, or religion is perfect in the least. WE all have flaws. Do we not stand up to evil? Do we not address people who may want to kill us and point out the threat they could potentially pose to you me and our very way of life? And do we be silent as attrociies are commited in the name of God? No I am not going to be silent, and I speak as someone who is a very flawed individual, and has a long way to go in a lot of aspects in my life. Because to do so is going to lead to the death of us all, and for these evil monsters to succeed, and I would rather be dead then let that happen.

Especially since many Christians and many people that i know do stand up to the excesses of fellow Christians, do stand up when they think fellow Christians have done wrong, and do stand up against evil no matter what form it takes.


Joa do me a favor? Could you please post the whole context of something when you quote it so that I can read it when I am curious about it? Thanks.

Yes he is.

And of course it does. Fascism is a poltical and economic ideology whose proponents have, in the past, used as an excuse and as a basis to start a war that killed millions upon millions of people. This is not a word to concoct images of dancing with cute kitty cats.

But our goal is to try and distance ourselves, if only a little, from our emotions and critically anyalyse the threat that we face. Whether they are radical, fascist, or whatever monicker you use for them.

nevermind the fact that pretty much all of Christendom except for a minority few have teachins that denounce collectivism...I think the theology that so-called "Christians" like Obama use to justify their collectivist policies is an anti-Christian theology called liberation theology.....nicely named but it's a theology that says the gospel was meant to liberate people from earthly poverty and destitution....and while Jesus had concern for the poor and gave them alms (of His own free will mind you He didn't and wouldn't've stood for having it forced out of him through taxation) His primary concern was liberating mankind from sin

so again Jesus' primary concern was the spiritual welfare of the people He'd come to save from sin....not destitution like liberation theology would have you believe.....unfortunately this erroneous theology has found purchase with some Christians

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

nevermind the fact that pretty much all of Christendom except for a minority few have teachins that denounce collectivism...I think the theology that so-called "Christians" like Obama use to justify their collectivist policies is an anti-Christian theology called liberation theology.....nicely named but it's a theology that says the gospel was meant to liberate people from earthly poverty and destitution....and while Jesus had concern for the poor and gave them alms (of His own free will mind you He didn't and wouldn't've stood for having it forced out of him through taxation) His primary concern was liberating mankind from sin

so again Jesus' primary concern was the spiritual welfare of the people He'd come to save from sin....not destitution like liberation theology would have you believe.....unfortunately this erroneous theology has found purchase with some Christians

Are you tring to say Christianity justifies Conservatisim, if you are morally obliged to help people how is that any different from doing it through taxation. Helping people to become healthy regardless of income seems like something Jesus would support to me.

[jmoz]

Spoiler:

You're simplifying the scientific method way too much. It's not a simple A -> B situation. In science, observations are made of a particular phenomenon. A falsifiable hypothesis is created to explain that phenomenon. The hypothesis is then tested. If the hypothesis has not been falsified, then it is used to make predictions about that type of phenomenon in the future. The initial observation does not need a hypothesis.

Science doesn't say that if the theory of gravity is true then there is gravity. It says that since we have made consistent observations of the phenomenon of gravity then we can formulate a theory about gravity through extensive testing which can then explain the phenomenon and make predictions about it in the future.

Again, that's inductive reasoning which has the problem that it makes a generalization based on a finite set. And there's also Hume's argument against induction which is a bit too dense for me to articulate.

Spoiler:

nevermind the fact that pretty much all of Christendom except for a minority few have teachins that denounce collectivism...I think the theology that so-called "Christians" like Obama use to justify their collectivist policies is an anti-Christian theology called liberation theology.....nicely named but it's a theology that says the gospel was meant to liberate people from earthly poverty and destitution....and while Jesus had concern for the poor and gave them alms (of His own free will mind you He didn't and wouldn't've stood for having it forced out of him through taxation) His primary concern was liberating mankind from sin

so again Jesus' primary concern was the spiritual welfare of the people He'd come to save from sin....not destitution like liberation theology would have you believe.....unfortunately this erroneous theology has found purchase with some Christians

I would think the best to liberate mankind from sin would be to either get rid of mankind or get rid of sin. hmmm...

I got another question for omnipotent god-believing libertarians: If god is all powerful, then everything that happens is within his realm of power and happens in his sphere of omnipotence. If everything that happens falls into his sphere of omnipotence, then all of our actions are under his sphere. If all our actions fall under his sphere of omnipotence, how can there be free will?

[Ukko]

I got another question for omnipotent god-believing libertarians: If god is all powerful, then everything that happens is within his realm of power and happens in his sphere of omnipotence. If everything that happens falls into his sphere of omnipotence, then all of our actions are under his sphere. If all our actions fall under his sphere of omnipotence, how can there be free will?

Because i live in the cube

Spoiler:

Couldnt help it. And i will probably do it again when the opportunity presents its self

[jmoz]

Because i live in the cube

Spoiler:

Couldnt help it. And i will probably do it again when the opportunity presents its self

Now that's thinking outside the box, but you live in a box.............

[mad_gater]

Are you tring to say Christianity justifies Conservatisim, if you are morally obliged to help people how is that any different from doing it through taxation. Helping people to become healthy regardless of income seems like something Jesus would support to me.

not once do you see Jesus going to the government and telling them to force charity through taxation....would be a violation of free will....it's my money and I'll do as I please with it....not as the government pleases.....I do use it to help people when I can bbut that's me....everyone's different...charity is an act of freely given love....such acts by their nature cannot be legislated as law

what's so hard to understand about the concept of being free to manage our own monetary affairs as we see fit? I'm more than capable of spending my money on my own....don't need government to do it for me beyond what's necessary to facilitate commerce and provide for public safety and defense....charity is up to the individual....if it's forced through government it's not charity it's robbery

[mad_gater]

Again, that's inductive reasoning which has the problem that it makes a generalization based on a finite set. And there's also Hume's argument against induction which is a bit too dense for me to articulate.



I would think the best to liberate mankind from sin would be to either get rid of mankind or get rid of sin. hmmm...

I got another question for omnipotent god-believing libertarians: If god is all powerful, then everything that happens is within his realm of power and happens in his sphere of omnipotence. If everything that happens falls into his sphere of omnipotence, then all of our actions are under his sphere. If all our actions fall under his sphere of omnipotence, how can there be free will?

because He gave it to us otherwise Adam and Eve wouldn't've been able to eat the forbidden fruit in the first place...He doesn't force you to worship and love Him...yes He could've made everyone dance to His tune but instead He gave us freedom because He loves us so much

[jmoz]

can't have money without the government's establishment of a formal medium of currency, their backing and production of it, and the recognition of that currency from other governments.