Originally posted by ivanhoeOf course, I have scarcely an inkling what your definition of a "liberal" is. No one in the upper echelons of U.S. politics who claims to be a liberal is a liberal in my book. The classical liberals of the 18th and 19th centuries are to me the ideal to strive for. They can roughly be categorized as libertarian socialists. (The word "libertarian" has been grossly perverted in modern American political discourse as well, to speak nothing of "socialism".)
It seems to me that liberals look upon Jihadists as allies in their struggle against imperialist and capitalist America.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThese libs don't know themselves ... that's what it is, SVW ..... they simply don't know themselves ....
Joe,
I am amused at the responses to your question. It seems that opposing gays, sticking up for the unborn and believing in god make Christians as bad as Islamo-facists. LOL
Funny. I seem to have missed all the Christians blowing themselves up killing school children while screaming "Allah Akbar!". Maybe one of the genius equators can point out t ...[text shortened]... c for equating christians and the islamic nutsos.
I may be an atheist, but I'm a fair one.
1 edit
Originally posted by SoothfastSo, we need a "Who's Who and What in Libland".
Of course, I have scarcely an inkling what your definition of a "liberal" is. No one in the upper echelons of U.S. politics who claims to be a liberal is a liberal in my book. The classical liberals of the 18th and 19th centuries are to me the ideal to strive for. They can roughly be categorized as libertarian socialists. (The word "libertarian" has been ...[text shortened]... erverted in modern American political discourse as well, to speak nothing of "socialism".)
Originally posted by ivanhoeWell, that's to me one aspect of political debates that I find frustrating. Casting around labels like "liberal" and "conservative" is like throwing balloons into the wind, because both labels are poorly defined and even mendaciously distorted beyond all hope of redemption. Traditionally a conservative is someone who advocates small government and fiscal discipline; but now those who call themselves "conservative" tend to be for interventionist state policies (banning abortion, banning flag burning, banning pornography, etc.) and aggrandizing the military-industrial complex and augmenting police powers.
So, we need a "Who's Who and What in Libland".
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou're just a couple of centuries late. It's not like Christianity hasn't "washed the world clean" with blood. For example, Charlemagne slaughtering 10,000 who wouldn't convert.
Joe,
I am amused at the responses to your question. It seems that opposing gays, sticking up for the unborn and believing in god make Christians as bad as Islamo-facists. LOL
Funny. I seem to have missed all the Christians blowing themselves up killing school children while screaming "Allah Akbar!". Maybe one of the genius equators can point out t ...[text shortened]... c for equating christians and the islamic nutsos.
I may be an atheist, but I'm a fair one.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWell yeah, but different strokes for different folks...
Funny. I seem to have missed all the Christians blowing themselves up killing school children while screaming "Allah Akbar!". Maybe one of the genius equators can point out the logic for equating christians and the islamic nutsos.
I may be an atheist, but I'm a fair one.
The Christians prefer a hands-off approach - ie carpet-bombing civilian areas from 20,000 feet.
Originally posted by ivanhoeJerry Falwell would have agreed wholeheartedly with the statement.
From the Hamas Charter, article six:
"Those who wish to live their life without religion
Have made annihilation the equivalent of life."
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html
These secular liberals do not understand that the Islamist Jihad is mainly aimed at them .... they are blind and even support their enemies ..... maybe in the idle hope that they will be spared .....
Every Christian Fundamentalist would stand up and shout "Amen!"
Your point is what again...?
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI thought those bombs and planes were invented and made by scientists. Doesn't that mean that good old fashioned science is to blame for this ? .... I never read anything about carpetbombing in the Cathechismus for instance or priests telling us to carpetbomb .... or is it more like "bombs don't kill, but people do" ? .... science doesn't kill but religion does.
Well yeah, but different strokes for different folks...
The Christians prefer a hands-off approach - ie carpet-bombing civilian areas from 20,000 feet.
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou and bdn need to think about cultural imperatives and cultural norms. In another thread he was ranting about how we americans did such terrible things to the native americans and killed them and stole their land.
You're just a couple of centuries late. It's not like Christianity hasn't "washed the world clean" with blood. For example, Charlemagne slaughtering 10,000 who wouldn't convert.
I asked when we could then forgive the Italians for the deeds performed in the Colloseum; public executions, blood sport drawing and quartering slaves with horses to prove the stronger horses etc.
He, in a typically brain dead fashion, thought that I used a poor "example". It wasn't an example. I was pointing out to him -- and it should have been obvious -- that there is a cultural norm that develops in each era of human history. What was fashionable and acceptable in the Colloseum was not acceptable in the 18th century.
The cultural norm changed. It is changing as we speak.
I then asked the snow-nosed one to answer the question "Was north America outside of the cultural norm between 1500 and 1900 AD"?
He never did answer because he knows that the Europeans who controled north america were INDEED EUROPEANS in every sense of the world and the cultural norm that Europe developed was to "tame the savage" at all costs in every part of the globe. That was the current cultural norm.
To deliberately use the cultural norm of the past to judge anyone by is a logical error. You can't compare apples to oranges.
Your argument against christianity fails. To quote the famous philosopher Forest Gump, "POO POO HAPPENS". Change also happens. Change is usually good. Christians today are some of the kindest and most patient people. This has not always been the case.
I marvel at the unhinged hatred that the left has for Christians. It isn't rational.
If you want to hate religions, hate those who use Mickey Mouse knock-offs to brain-wash children into becoming walking bombs. Those are alive and well TODAY in our current culture.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWestern leaders Blair & Bush are devout Christians - yes or no?
I thought those bombs and planes were invented and made by scientists. Doesn't that mean that good old fashioned science is to blame for this ? .... I never read anything about carpetbombing in the Cathechismus for instance or priests telling us to carpetbomb .... or is it more like "bombs don't kill, but people do" ? .... science doesn't kill but religion does.
Originally posted by StarValleyWySee, that's basically a meaningless statement. I mean, what is your definition of "the left"? You probably have some picture in your head of an archetypal "leftie" that comes shrinkwrapped with a fixed package of beliefs and attitudes, with one of those attitudes being "unhinged hatred for Christians". Then your statement translates as: "I marvel at the unhinged hatred for Christians that those with an unhinged hatred for Christians have. It isn't rational."
I marvel at the unhinged hatred that the left has for Christians. It isn't rational.
And it isn't interesting, and it leads to no new ideas or insights.