The Mother of All Hypocrits! [Archive]

Melchiah

16-06-2004, 05:36 AM

What is sad about this topic is that there is no defense. Those who fight for the supposed “extreme tolerance” are the ones here who are so intolerant of others. A strange paradox Liberalism follows.

I'd much rather have an adulterer than a murdering, deranged, corrupt war criminal religious fundamentalist scumbag as head of government.

This statement I truly adored. Not only was it false—but poorly constructed; it is completely grammatically incorrect! If you’re one to insult, then at least you could do it dignified and correctly. Bush is no murderer—Saddam is. I believe we’re all civil and informed men and women here; you must of course have heard the infamous number “400,000.” Some may even have heard the tale of Iraq’s Olympic soccer team—which was tortured for losing. Excitingly enough, this will be their first game in quiet a while (this Summer’s Olympic games.) Some, also, may have heard of the executions of Baath party leaders. You may have been informed, as well, of Saddam’s peculiar fixation with Stalin. One of his several offices, remarked by the head of media propaganda (in Saddam’s regime), was full of books on Stalin, pictures and posters of Stalin, etc. He remarked that “You could even say he slept with the Russian dictator, for there was even a messed up bed shoved in the corner.” To my knowledge, George W. Bush has done none of these things. Deranged—no; there are no reports of insanity for the President. Corrupt war criminal? No, he isn’t. He has had to, however, make selective choices based on what is best for the Iraqi people—taking out Saddam was one of them. A tidbit of information: at latest, to my knowledge, we have captured forty five of the fifty Iraqi regime members. “Religious fundamentalist scumbag”—that was my favorite statement. Virtually all 55 writers and signers of the United States Constitution were members of Christian denominations. 29 were Anglican, 16 to 18 were Calvinists, 2 were Methodists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Roman Catholic, 1 a lapsed Quaker, and 1 open Deist. Benjamin Franklin was he. Yet he attended every kind of Christian worship, called for prayer, and contributed to all denominations. All were very religious. So, you see, by your logic, every one of the 55 signers was a “religious fundamentalist scumbag.” As for “head of the government,” well, I have no problem with that statement. President George Walker Bush is the President of the United States—and such a position demands respect; no matter the man in charge. You may disagree with him, but disagree civilly.

Yes, Bushey is the puppet, i mean who thinks that illiterate woman beater could run a country? He'd look at the documents and get all confused. We can but hope for a change with Mr.Kerry if he gets in...

At least we can all feal safe of him loosing the next election, as long as the rednecks don't all turn out to vote, or he may get in again. The majority of honest, good hard working Americans hate him as well, and when he done away with pollution regulations i think he lost alot of support all round.

I leave you with a little statement from him i like:
'If we cut down all the trees, there would be no forest fires.'
About sums it up, i think...

This one ran a close second. Not to my knowledge has Bush beat any woman—and if he has, then he has felt great remorse for it. This would be seen by his extreme love of the American people… and his love of God. Also, Bush revived the process of meeting with the head of CIA every morning—he reviewed the documents set before him. Not only has he done this, yet he has diligently looked over and reviewed the documents set before him in all areas of government. He is a precise leader who loves his people and wants them safe. If by means of force this must be done, then so be it—the military is to defend. As for John Flip/Flop Kerry, well, he is the true hypocrite. You’d think he had a yeast infection for straddling the Iraqi conflict issue so long! I just love the fact that he claims he committed “terrible war crimes” while in Nam, yet his service is, invariably one of his large campaign props! Also, we must remember the tossing of medals. He claimed they were his, but now he sings a different tune; he claims they’re not! Let’s not also forget his membership in the Vietnam Vets Against the War—who were involved in speculating assassinations of Vietnam War supporters (congressmen, etc.) John Kerry is a confused little man—he’s the one who’s insane and troubled. Also, don’t feel too safe just yet—us “rednecks” are very patriotic—we’ll vote for he who supports our blessed nation. Also, the majority of happy, liberty-loving, hard-working Americans will vote for President Bush. You obviously haven’t researched the kinds of states which voted for him the first time. They were the farming states: the “little fellow states”, as I sometimes call them. There’s a quotation I like, regarding Liberals and the rich; “A Liberal will trample over a thousand poor people to throw a single stone at one rich man.” Let’s not also forget Kerry married into the Heinz Dynasty—very rich, very prestigious living. Now for your quote; once again, a Liberal taking Bush’s quotations out of context; what Bush probably meant by that statement was that clear-cutting forests would be more affective in bringing the lumber industry farther, and decreasing the number of accidents in burning the brush and dried forests. Well, I’m sure all of you will take this writing as long-winded, ignorant and arrogant, as well as harsh… yet verbosely well-written nonetheless.

ShyBoy

16-06-2004, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by Melchiah
This statement I truly adored. Not only was it false—but poorly constructed; it is completely grammatically incorrect! If you’re one to insult, then at least you could do it dignified and correctly. Bush is no murderer—Saddam is. I believe we’re all civil and informed men and women here; you must of course have heard the infamous number “400,000.” Some may even have heard the tale of Iraq’s Olympic soccer team—which was tortured for losing. Excitingly enough, this will be their first game in quiet a while (this Summer’s Olympic games.) Some, also, may have heard of the executions of Baath party leaders. You may have been informed, as well, of Saddam’s peculiar fixation with Stalin. One of his several offices, remarked by the head of media propaganda (in Saddam’s regime), was full of books on Stalin, pictures and posters of Stalin, etc. He remarked that “You could even say he slept with the Russian dictator, for there was even a messed up bed shoved in the corner.” To my knowledge, George W. Bush has done none of these things. Deranged—no; there are no reports of insanity for the President. Corrupt war criminal? No, he isn’t. He has had to, however, make selective choices based on what is best for the Iraqi people—taking out Saddam was one of them. A tidbit of information: at latest, to my knowledge, we have captured forty five of the fifty Iraqi regime members. “Religious fundamentalist scumbag”—that was my favorite statement. Virtually all 55 writers and signers of the United States Constitution were members of Christian denominations. 29 were Anglican, 16 to 18 were Calvinists, 2 were Methodists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Roman Catholic, 1 a lapsed Quaker, and 1 open Deist. Benjamin Franklin was he. Yet he attended every kind of Christian worship, called for prayer, and contributed to all denominations. All were very religious. So, you see, by your logic, every one of the 55 signers was a “religious fundamentalist scumbag.” As for “head of the government,” well, I have no problem with that statement. President George Walker Bush is the President of the United States—and such a position demands respect; no matter the man in charge. You may disagree with him, but disagree civilly.

I see you have gone to a lot of effort, so I'll try to return some of that! Anyway, on the religious fundamentalism; we are in a new Era now where politics are (supposed) to be rational and well thought-out. Bush has said though that "he received a message from god" or something. Interesting link (http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArti cle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031775887192&path=!nationworld&s=1037645509161). He also appointed Dr. W. David Hager to the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee at the Food and Drug Administration. That doesn't sound that back, except when you find he is heavily religious and pro-life. I don't think it's fair to appoint someone who has such strong opinions in charge of millions of people's fertility.

'400,000' - strange (http://www.google.com/search?q=400000+iraq&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) that when you type it into googles all that comes up is anti-war demonstrations. I'm not in any way denying the atrocities and nor do I support Saddam Hussein but he was an old man, and I'm sure most of his political opponents were just biding their time till he died of old age!

He went into Iraq without thinking it through - he didn't even have support from the UN. Deranged? You think if the president was insane they'd report it? This is America we're talking about. (I'm not suggesting he is)

Oh also, just a personal note :) can you try and split your posts into paragraphs because then it's easier to see all your seperate arguments, cheers :thumb:

Aladdin

16-06-2004, 10:44 AM

Man Of Kent

16-06-2004, 11:46 AM

My first thought is "troll" but I'm going to work through this. Once I make sense of it all...

Originally posted by Melchiah
This statement I truly adored. Not only was it false—but poorly constructed; it is completely grammatically incorrect!

possibly relevant to you, but most of us aren't that fussed about grammar when compared to the real argument. Still if you want to argue points of grammar we could pull your little diatribe apart for you.

Personally though I would rather argue the points raised.

Bush is no murderer—Saddam is.

Matter of opinion really. In the UK we consider the death penalty to be state sponsored muder. As GWB has signed numerous death warrants then he can be considered a murderer. Or at least a conspirator.

Many nations in the world also consider the war in Iraq as illegal. This would mean that every resultant death can be considered murder.

You may have been informed, as well, of Saddam’s peculiar fixation with Stalin. One of his several offices, remarked by the head of media propaganda (in Saddam’s regime), was full of books on Stalin, pictures and posters of Stalin, etc.

I'm not sure of the relevance of this piece. So Saddma may have been fixated with Stalin. Why does that mean that GWB isn't a hypocrite?

Deranged—no; there are no reports of insanity for the President.

The man has openly suggested that he hears the voice of God.

Voice in my head. We have mental health wards filled with such people.

Corrupt war criminal? No, he isn’t. He has had to, however, make selective choices based on what is best for the Iraqi people—taking out Saddam was one of them.

"War criminal" doesn't related to the capture of Saddam.

It's more about illegal wars, bombing civillian targets and the use of WMD.

And who is GWB to make decision on behalf of the Iraqi people. I don't remember them voting him into office?

“Religious fundamentalist scumbag”—that was my favorite statement. Virtually all 55 writers and signers of the United States Constitution were members of Christian denominations. 29 were Anglican, 16 to 18 were Calvinists, 2 were Methodists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Roman Catholic, 1 a lapsed Quaker, and 1 open Deist. Benjamin Franklin was he. Yet he attended every kind of Christian worship, called for prayer, and contributed to all denominations. All were very religious. So, you see, by your logic, every one of the 55 signers was a “religious fundamentalist scumbag.”

Being religious and being a religious fundamentalist are different things. It's that kind of thinking which leads to all muslims being labelled as terrorists.

Bush uses religion to justify many of his actions, his stance on abortion for example...

As for “head of the government,” well, I have no problem with that statement. President George Walker Bush is the President of the United States—and such a position demands respect; no matter the man in charge. You may disagree with him, but disagree civilly.

The office commands respect. The man has to earn it. Just as in the military.

GWB hasn't earned our respect and will be treated as such.

Not to my knowledge has Bush beat any woman—and if he has, then he has felt great remorse for it.

I'm not aware of this eaither, but should it be true then remorse is irrelevant.

This would be seen by his extreme love of the American people… and his love of God.

love of some American people.

love of God is a little worrying considering you don't believe him to be a fundamentalist.

You obviously haven’t researched the kinds of states which voted for him the first time.

Have you looked at those who went allowed to vote against?

Now for your quote; once again, a Liberal taking Bush’s quotations out of context; what Bush probably meant by that statement was that clear-cutting forests would be more affective in bringing the lumber industry farther, and decreasing the number of accidents in burning the brush and dried forests.

Yes indeed. And sod the fact that forests are the earths lungs eh?

Have to agree with the concept of cutting down forests to prevent fire. Not only wouldn't there be the fuel for the fire anymore, but there wouldn't be the oxygene required either... ;)

day1maggot

16-06-2004, 12:33 PM

"love of God is a little worrying considering you don't believe him to be a fundamentalist."
You did say earlier it was possible for someone to be religious, without being a fundamentalist...

Aladdin

16-06-2004, 12:52 PM

Oh look he's brought a friend...

Anyone who claims God speaks to him (and dictates him to wage wars, invade nations and kill human beings while at it) is not only a religious fundamentalist but a dangerous lunatic as well.

And there is no question about it.

Man Of Kent

16-06-2004, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by day1maggot
"love of God is a little worrying considering you don't believe him to be a fundamentalist."
You did say earlier it was possible for someone to be religious, without being a fundamentalist...

Indeed it is.

Someone who wears his religion on his sleeve and uses it to dictate national policy is not just relgious but a fundamentalist. If he used the Koran instead of the bible then I am sure that you would be up in arms.

Belief in God is religion, love of God goes deeper.

day1maggot

16-06-2004, 02:32 PM

What makes you think I'd be up in arms about the Qu'ran?:eek2:
The Qu'ran is fundamentaly the same as the Bible in both it's purpose and it's teachings

Man Of Kent

16-06-2004, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by day1maggot
What makes you think I'd be up in arms about the Qu'ran?:eek2:
The Qu'ran is fundamentaly the same as the Bible in both it's purpose and it's teachings

Apologies. I assumed (which I know I shouldn't) that you were Christian and therefore using the teachings of another religion as the basis for national policy wouldn't be something you'd feel confirtable with. Especially when it contradicts your own religion's messages...

BlackArab

16-06-2004, 06:00 PM

Yea summer tourists, are you guys from mil.com?

Melchiah

16-06-2004, 11:09 PM

I see you have gone to a lot of effort, so I'll try to return some of that! Anyway, on the religious fundamentalism; we are in a new Era now where politics are (supposed) to be rational and well thought-out. Bush has said though that "he received a message from god" or something. Interesting link. He also appointed Dr. W. David Hager to the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee at the Food and Drug Administration. That doesn't sound that back, except when you find he is heavily religious and pro-life. I don't think it's fair to appoint someone who has such strong opinions in charge of millions of people's fertility.

Actually I haven’t; all information I’ve collected were tidbits through the news, pundits, readings, newspapers—not all at once, mind you. But, anyways, to the topic at hand: You are in this new era with your collective Liberal establishment of extremists. Not only is there a place and time for Christianity in this world, but it’s what it needs.

If it’s not alright to appoint one who has strong feelings and views against abortion, and is heavily Christian; then it must be alright to appoint one who is heavily pro-choice and anti-religion; either that, or one who is neither—in which one would have no decisive views to base their decision on. No, Bush appointed Dr. Hager because he believes his views are right and true. Also, it’s not simply his control—but the abstinence of sex before marriage—or before one is ready. The only good thing Jesse Jackson ever said was “The decision comes the night before, not the morning after.”

'400,000' - strange that when you type it into googles all that comes up is anti-war demonstrations. I'm not in any way denying the atrocities and nor do I support Saddam Hussein but he was an old man, and I'm sure most of his political opponents were just biding their time till he died of old age!

Alright, then I’ll enlighten you. The number “400,000” I speak of… means 400,000 murdered by Saddam—the 400,000 in mass graves.

I will not deny that Saddam was aged; he’s 67. Yet he always kept in top physical condition. Saddam swam, ran, jogged; he used to take walks around cities where his palaces were present, but the threat of danger became too great. Still, Saddam did keep exercising, which, of course, is the best way to live longer.

His political opponents? Nay, his sons Uday and Qusay were loyal supporters of their father; either would take over if Saddam died. Of course, when you’ve murdered just about every political opponent you have… it’s kind of hard for them to take control.

He went into Iraq without thinking it through - he didn't even have support from the UN. Deranged? You think if the president was insane they'd report it? This is America we're talking about. (I'm not suggesting he is)

The UN is a joke; the League of Nations failed, and so has the United Nations. Bush went before the UN 16 times—there were 16 UN resolutions barring him from entry. He asked, they denied, too bad for them. The UN, as I’ve said before, is a joke. Yes, I think they would… this isn’t mid-century old England. (referencing to King George’s insanity.)

Who are ya?

Hm. That’s an interesting question. My name is Aaron; I go by Melchiah, sometimes, because in Hebrew it means “God is my king.”

Matter of opinion really. In the UK we consider the death penalty to be state sponsored muder. As GWB has signed numerous death warrants then he can be considered a murderer. Or at least a conspirator.

Many nations in the world also consider the war in Iraq as illegal. This would mean that every resultant death can be considered murder.

Some from the UK that is. We had an exchange student from the UK stay with one of the church families; she was a wonderful girl. She said she loved it here, in America, and didn’t want to go back. She shared, also, the views of Conservative Christian America—and for that, I respect her even more. To you; yet here, we consider the criminal a murderer. One who kills unlawfully, that is—for wanton greed or the many immoral ideals which have sated this land with poison.

Many nations in the world also consider the war in Iraq important and just. When legality bars the process of justice, then borders must be crossed—laws must, sometimes, be broken.

There’s a quotation I absolutely love from President Theodore Roosevelt. I’ve used it several times in political debate, this time shant be the last:

“My disagreement with the peace-at-any-price men, the ultrapacifists, is not in the least because they favor peace. I object to them, first, because they have proved themselves futile and impotent in working for peace, and second, because they commit what is not merely the capital error but the crime against morality of failing to uphold righteousness as the all-important end toward which we should strive ... I have as little sympathy for them as they have for the men who deify mere brutal force, who insist that power justifies wrongdoing, and who declare that there is no such thing as international morality. But the ultra-pacifists really play into the hands of these men. To condemn equally might which backs right and might which overthrows right is to render positive service to wrong-doers ... To denounce the nation that wages war in self-defense, or from a generous desire to relieve the oppressed, in the same terms in which we denounce war waged in a spirit of greed or wanton folly stands on a par with denouncing equally a murderer and the policeman who, at peril of his life and by force of arms, arrests the murderer. In each case the denunciation denotes not loftiness of soul but weakness both of mind and morals."

I'm not sure of the relevance of this piece. So Saddma may have been fixated with Stalin. Why does that mean that GWB isn't a hypocrite?

It doesn’t. I said this to show, just a little glimpse, of what views Saddam has based some of his “policies” off of.

The man has openly suggested that he hears the voice of God.

Voice in my head. We have mental health wards filled with such people.

You argue with it because you have not a faith in God. In Joshua 5:13-15 we see the Commander of army of God speaking with Joshua by Jericho. And in Joshua 6:2 we have the Lord speaking to Joshua. But is it really audible speech? Certain times I believe God does audibly speak; yet he always speaks to us through our hearts. As if someone were to say “honor speaks through you.” Honor clearly has no literal voice, but in a figurative meaning it does. The voice of love, compassion, hatred, justice, honor, humility etc… Yet God’s voice encompasses all—and so that is when you feel a tug on your heart strings. I believe this is what Bush meant by that statement.

1 Corinthians 2:16
For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

"War criminal" doesn't related to the capture of Saddam.

It's more about illegal wars, bombing civillian targets and the use of WMD.

And who is GWB to make decision on behalf of the Iraqi people. I don't remember them voting him into office?

Oh no? Then you’re grateful we’ve captured him? Which, of course, was only done through this “illegal war.”

Actually, not to my knowledge do we bomb civilian targets willingly—only on grave mistake. No, for WWII, it will stick in my mind for all eternity—terribly and atrocious, but what other option was there? If there was one, then I am terribly sorry. But WWII is not the subject matter, the war in Iraq is. As for the use of WMD; at least we haven’t released toxins/poison gas on the civilians like he did on his. We’ve used missiles to destroy his bases and military factories, that’s true. We do use WMD—yet not on the scale of which is inhumane. What would you have? Do you wish the use of swords and maces, halberds and spears, etc.?

Of course, I don’t remember the Iraqi people given the right to choose their candidate without being tortured and murdered by Saddam, either. Who would you have step in? What would you have us do in this case? Throw down our weapons and beg Saddam to give his people freedom? I’ve got news for you, a little old, but still true: Saddam is evil—he doesn’t adhere to the pleas of liberty-loving people. Remember: Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

Melchiah

16-06-2004, 11:10 PM

Being religious and being a religious fundamentalist are different things. It's that kind of thinking which leads to all muslims being labelled as terrorists.

Bush uses religion to justify many of his actions, his stance on abortion for example...

I enjoyed reading the American Heritage Dictionary’s definition of “fundamentalism” for the fun of it. This is what it means, according to the AH Dictionary:

A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

So, we would have to say that the Christian “fundamentalists”, such as me, are ones who wish to adhere to the old views and values and morals of Christian America founded, of course, by the 55 Christian signers. Therefore, you have the founders of this country to blame—sure, but without them, well, you wouldn’t be complaining right now. I mean this in that we would either be a third world country (for, in most cases, countries freely given their independence end up in terrible states), or even still English colonies. Of course, you could also say that being “deeply religious” is often construed as “extremism.” But, as Barry Goldwater said, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” With some things, extremism is a good thing; not militant, but giving your life wholly to God and second your country.

The office commands respect. The man has to earn it. Just as in the military.

GWB hasn't earned our respect and will be treated as such.

Of course, the same could also be said for Liberals. Liberals, of which I see very few respectable men and women, only three come to mind: Woodrow Wilson, Lieberman, and that old “Christocrat”, as he called himself, Benjamin Rush.

I'm not aware of this eaither, but should it be true then remorse is irrelevant.

Then it’s a wonder why someone would falsely accuse anyone of such a thing.

love of some American people.

love of God is a little worrying considering you don't believe him to be a fundamentalist.

No. As was seen in the Republican Party reform of 1869, I believe it was, the running idea was loyalty to everyone—not simply one’s own party. This I believe to be what Bush believes as well. What he does he sees as the best morally for the American people. For “If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instruction and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.”-Daniel Webster

“Have you looked at those who went allowed to vote against?”

Well, you either must mean, by that garbled sentence, the states that voted against him, or the states that weren’t allowed to vote against him. Well, first off, every state was allowed to vote for whomever it so chooses. And second, the states which voted AGAINST Bush were, for the most part, big business states. While, those states that voted FOR Bush were, for the most part, as I’ve said, the “little guy” states.

Yes indeed. And sod the fact that forests are the earths lungs eh?

Have to agree with the concept of cutting down forests to prevent fire. Not only wouldn't there be the fuel for the fire anymore, but there wouldn't be the oxygene required either...[quote]

There are scientific matters you must be aware of to argue… but you’re not. In forests, dried and dead materials build up (dead dried trees, leaves, twigs, etc.) This acts as kindling for accidental forest fires (or mother nature’s little accidental forest fires caused by extreme heat.) The process of purposely burning the parts of such forests is to rid the forests of the opportunity to truly catch blazes in a fiery inferno (this burning, of course, is supposed to be done under control—but sometimes they get out of hand, as seen on the news. For example: the Colorado forest fires.) Bush meant, by his statement, that if we were to cut these certain areas of such forests down, then we wouldn’t have the problem of letting the purpose burning of forests get out of hand. Also, it would bring the lumber industry up, as I’ve said before. I hope NOW you won’t try to twist my words—yet you never know with a Liberal.

[quote]Oh look he's brought a friend...

Anyone who claims God speaks to him (and dictates him to wage wars, invade nations and kill human beings while at it) is not only a religious fundamentalist but a dangerous lunatic as well.

And there is no question about it.

Oh look, he’s brought his over-inflated ego for show and tell.

Refer to Joshua. Then, of course, according to your knowledge, every single war which contains such words as “blessings of almighty God,”, or a “righteous cause,” would be dangerous, but even more so, it would be lunacy! That’s quite a statement you have there. Then of course, we must go back to the founding fathers discussion.

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. From the day of the Declaration...they [the American people] were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct.”-John Quincy Adams, July 4, 1821

Melchiah

16-06-2004, 11:13 PM

Yes, all of the signers were, of course, dangerous raving lunatics. Let’s look at some of their lives, shall we? These are some of the lives of the signers of the Declaration of Independence:

Five were captured and brutally tortured. At least a dozen had their homes pillaged and burned. Nine fought in the war, and died from wounds too grievous to survive. Two lost sons in the Continental Army. Another two had sons captured.

They were ordinary men: lawyers, jurists, merchants, plantation owners, teachers, musicians, printers, etc. They had education, they had a life to live, yet they signed the Declaration knowing fully all that might end.

The Continental Congress fled to Baltimore on December 12, 1776. President John Hancock’s wife just gave birth to a baby girl, yet due to complications caused by the trip, she lived only a few months.

December 1776, during three days of British occupation of Newport, Rhode Island, William Ellery’s house was burned and all his property was destroyed

A New Jersey State Supreme Court Justice, Richard Stockton, rushed home after his signing, only to find his wife and children hiding as refugees with friends. They were betrayed by a Tory. British troops took him from his home one night, beat him, and placed him in jail; he almost starved to death. When released, he went back home to find his estate looted, his possessions burned, and his horse stolen. He had been so terribly treated in prison that he died before the war’s end. His surviving family lived off charity.

Carl Braxton was a wealthy plantation owner and trader. One by one, though, his ships were captured by the British navy. He gave much of his money to the American cause, but it was never paid back. He sold his plantation and mortgaged his properties to pay debts.

Thomas McKean was forced to move his family constantly, for he was terribly hounded by the British. He served in the Continental Congress without pay, and kept his family hiding.

Clymer, Harrison, Hall, Livingston, and Hopkinson’s properties were looted by vandals or soldiers or both. Seventeen lost everything.

Arthur Middleton, Thomas Heyward, Jr., and Edward Rutledge, all from South Carolina, were captured by the British during the Charleston Campaign, 1780. They were imprisoned in dungeons at St. Augustine prison until exchange the next year.

Thomas Nelson, Jr., at the Battle of Yorktown, noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken his family home for headquarters. He urged General Washington to fire upon his own home; this was done, and the home was destroyed. Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis’s home and properties was also destroyed. The British jailed his wife for two months; that and other hardships so affected her health that she died two years later.

John Hart; “Honest John”, was a New Jersey farmer. He was driven from his wife’s bedside when she was near death. His thirteen children fled, and his fields and grist mill were laid waste. For over a year he escaped capture by hiding in nearby forests, caves, and dried river beds. When he returned home, he found his wife dead, his children gone, and his stock and farm destroyed. Honest John died in 1779 without seeing any of his kin ever again.

These were the stories typical of those who risked all to sign the Declaration of Independence. They sacrificed everything for the Holy cause of liberty. Yet, the God-given right to freedom. God sure spoke to their hearts. They had education and wealth, and a faith in God. They weren’t rabble-rousing raving lunatics. They had security. Yet they felt life without liberty was waste. So, standing proud, unwavering, and strong, they pledged: “For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

Someone who wears his religion on his sleeve and uses it to dictate national policy is not just relgious but a fundamentalist. If he used the Koran instead of the bible then I am sure that you would be up in arms.

Yes, you are right that I would be against him using the Koran to lead the country… for the founding of this great nation was not of such; but of the Christian faith.

Belief in God is religion, love of God goes deeper.

That’s one of the only, and of very few, intelligent thing posted to this topic. That’s true; and it’s great… because Bush does both. He believes in God—and he loves him for sending his son to die on the cross.

The Qu'ran is fundamentaly the same as the Bible in both it's purpose and it's teachings

Actually, it isn’t. Islam isn’t founded by a peaceful man. Muhammad was a violent, torturous man. Jesus was God’s son; he was perfect, blameless, pure, unblemished. He believed in “turning the other check,” but he also showed anger. It was violent for him to become so enraged at the sight of the gamblers and prostitutes and merchants taking over the temple, and rightly so. He went enraged. God has a just anger. Muhammad was a madman. Christianity does not teach members of the faith to murder the unbelieving, like Islam does. This is called “Jihad.” The Koran is not the same, basely, nor complexly, as the Bible.

“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”-Samuel Adams

Signing off, and God speed.
Melchiah, God is my King.

day1maggot

16-06-2004, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by Melchiah
This is called “Jihad.” The Koran is not the same, basely, nor complexly, as the Bible.

I think some Muslim's interpretation of 'Jihad' is not too far away from some Christian's belief that the crusades were justified...

ShyBoy

16-06-2004, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Melchiah
So, we would have to say that the Christian “fundamentalists”, such as me, are ones who wish to adhere to the old views and values and morals of Christian America founded, of course, by the 55 Christian signers. Therefore, you have the founders of this country to blame—sure, but without them, well, you wouldn’t be complaining right now. I mean this in that we would either be a third world country (for, in most cases, countries freely given their independence end up in terrible states), or even still English colonies.

You have made the assumption we are all Americans. I am English, and I *think* Aladdin is Spanish, or Spanish / English, or some variation :eek2:, Clandestine is apparently from Brussels and Man of Kent, I would assume, is from Kent.

If America was still an English colony, I would not be moaning :razz:

Man Of Kent

17-06-2004, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by TheShyBoyInTheCorner
Man of Kent, I would assume, is from Kent.

Just to clarify, that a southern county of England, not part of Alabama...

Aladdin

17-06-2004, 12:08 PM

More 1-post wonders doing a couple of c & p jobs before dissapearing. I sometimes wonder if such posts are generated by a computer... :confused:

Renzo

17-06-2004, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by TheShyBoyInTheCorner
You have made the assumption we are all Americans. I am English, and I *think* Aladdin is Spanish, or Spanish / English, or some variation :eek2:, Clandestine is apparently from Brussels and Man of Kent, I would assume, is from Kent.

If America was still an English colony, I would not be moaning :razz:

Dont forget that I am welsh :p ;)

Man Of Kent

17-06-2004, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Melchiah
If it’s not alright to appoint one who has strong feelings and views against abortion, and is heavily Christian; then it must be alright to appoint one who is heavily pro-choice and anti-religion; either that, or one who is neither—in which one would have no decisive views to base their decision on.

If it lead to a balance then it would be fine, when it leads to imbalance it is wrong. Personally I would go with the person who didn’t hold strong views in either direction. Such a post should be a case of imposing your personal beliefs on others, but on doing what is in the best interests of the nation, even when that goes against what you may believe.

The UN is a joke; the League of Nations failed, and so has the United Nations. Bush went before the UN 16 times—there were 16 UN resolutions barring him from entry. He asked, they denied, too bad for them. The UN, as I’ve said before, is a joke.

Won’t find me disagreeing with you one that one. You might find me supporting you though in previous threads on these boards.

The UN is a talking shop hampered by the permamanet five on the security council. The right of veto has been abused time and time again by all five members, including the USA.

Yes, I think they would… this isn’t mid-century old England. (referencing to King George’s insanity.)

One name – Ronald Reagan – proves the lie of that comment. He had alzheimers when he was in office but nothing was ever said. It would have undermined national security, you see.

She shared, also, the views of Conservative Christian America—and for that, I respect her even more. To you; yet here, we consider the criminal a murderer. One who kills unlawfully, that is—for wanton greed or the many immoral ideals which have sated this land with poison.

Which takes us full circle to the abortion debate, I guess and a comment which can be levelled at each side of the debate. Hypocrisy.

Christian fundamentalist anti-abortionists do not hold with the taking of innocent lives, but are happy to kill “criminals”.

Most pro-choice campaigners would support the death of a foetus but not a criminal.

Many nations in the world also consider the war in Iraq important and just. When legality bars the process of justice, then borders must be crossed—laws must, sometimes, be broken.

I considered it just, but I didn’t consider it legal. The two are not the same.

You argue with it because you have not a faith in God.

You assume that I don’t.

As for the use of WMD; at least we haven’t released toxins/poison gas on the civilians like he did on his.

Do you know the implications of depleted uranium shells. The word “toxin” immediately springs to mind.

We do use WMD—yet not on the scale of which is inhumane.

Radiation poisoning and “Mutation” are humane now then are they. If you think that then I can only argue that you have a pretty fucked up idea of what consistutes “humane”.

Of course, I don’t remember the Iraqi people given the right to choose their candidate without being tortured and murdered by Saddam, either.

And they still haven’t been given that chance. As you say GWB is making decision on their behalf.

Throw down our weapons and beg Saddam to give his people freedom?

I wouldn’t, nor did I, advocate that course of action. That doesn’t mean that I will fall in behind the guard and argue that the Iraqi people have any more choice at the moment than they did under Saddam. The interim Govt was chose by the US, the policies they are currently implementing are almost all at the behest of the US.

Well, first off, every state was allowed to vote for whomever it so chooses.

I think the people of Florida may dispute that.

Oh, hang on, they did.

There are scientific matters you must be aware of to argue… but you’re not.

Basic science seems to have escaped you then. Yes, such a move would help reduce some of the forest fires, and yes it would help the logging industry.

Not cutting down trees would actually be a good way to help the environment, perhaps you missed that lesson in Biology 101.

Perhaps in the US they don’t teach their kids about the environment and how to protect it. I don’t know.

Yes, you are right that I would be against him using the Koran to lead the country…

Which is the point.

GWB has control of the most powerful military force currently on the planet, possibly the most powerful nation in many respects.

He uses his Christian beliefs to dictate his policy.

These beliefs are at odds with the majority of people in the world. Is it not surprising therefore that he is not revered around the globe like he is in the US? As you say, you personally wouldn't like it is the leader of your country used a different relgion to base his policies on...

Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?

day1maggot

17-06-2004, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Aladdin
More 1-post wonders doing a couple of c & p jobs before dissapearing. I sometimes wonder if such posts are generated by a computer... :confused:
I wasn't planning on going anywhere just yet, if I was involved there.
Melchiah however seems to be an arrogant, racist **** who hopefully will just dissapear.

Aladdin

17-06-2004, 12:54 PM

Fair enough. You'd be surprised how at regular intervals people come out of nowhere, post a massive essay (usually a c & p job lifted from elsewhere) and then dissapear without trace.

Welcome aboard.

Man Of Kent

17-06-2004, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Melchiah
So, we would have to say that the Christian “fundamentalists”, such as me, are ones who wish to adhere to the old views and values and morals of Christian America founded, of course, by the 55 Christian signers.

Just an aside, and following something I read elsewhere.

In this Christian United States, where the founding fathers were christian. How many references to God can you find in the declaration of independance and the constitution...?

day1maggot

17-06-2004, 03:21 PM

On a simliar tangent there was also a recent legal case over a little statue with a book on it, with the ten commandments in it, that was found in a Southern court of law.
The judge & jury in this case decided that the statue must be removed in order to ensure that the government and state was in no way related to any religion.
This indicates that the only sections in the constitution dedicated to religion actually prevent the state from becoming involved in any way.

BlackArab

17-06-2004, 04:59 PM

Melchiah

18-06-2004, 01:20 AM

Yes, this seems a wonderful place to start:

Fair enough. You'd be surprised how at regular intervals people come out of nowhere, post a massive essay (usually a c & p job lifted from elsewhere) and then dissapear without trace.

Yes, that must be why each and every one of my arguments follows in accordance with examples from your replies. Quite a coincidence that would be…

I think some Muslim's interpretation of 'Jihad' is not too far away from some Christian's belief that the crusades were justified...

Well, that would depend of which Crusades you’re speaking of. Some were an injustice; that’s definitely true. Yet some were justified and needed. Seeing how there were several Crusades, you might try to mix and mash the moral reasons behind certain ones.

Jihad is a “Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels.” Infidel is someone who “doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.” This is, of course, the AH definition—open to theological speculation.

Yet, as I’ve said, we must keep in our minds the history of that bloody man: Muhammad.

You have made the assumption we are all Americans.

True, and for that I am sorry. Yet we must take into account the events which took place. King James I of England, in signing the New England Charter, concluded the reason for the colonization of the Americas was “to advance the enlargement of the Christian religion, to the glory of God Almighty.” This affected the world so much, as is obvious. The King’s proclaiming reason shook and has shaken the world ever since formation. Imagine a world without America; for some, it would be paradise… but to the logical… it would mean death to a true and righteous moral code of ethics. And of which the very foundation shakes! If the American people should fail… then there will be an even greater chaos than ever seen before.

If it lead to a balance then it would be fine, when it leads to imbalance it is wrong. Personally I would go with the person who didn’t hold strong views in either direction. Such a post should be a case of imposing your personal beliefs on others, but on doing what is in the best interests of the nation, even when that goes against what you may believe.

What I may or may not believe matters not to the survival of the people. The people can only survive properly with a moral code of ethics. Now, if this is to be overturned and changed—then there will be no definition of morality. What is right is right—it matters not how many people disagree.

Won’t find me disagreeing with you one that one. You might find me supporting you though in previous threads on these boards.

The UN is a talking shop hampered by the permamanet five on the security council. The right of veto has been abused time and time again by all five members, including the USA.

I agree.

One name – Ronald Reagan – proves the lie of that comment. He had alzheimers when he was in office but nothing was ever said. It would have undermined national security, you see.

Actually, you see, Ronald Reagan’s Alzheimer’s was not detected until 1993 (more than four years after he had left office. (CBS News Information on Ronald Reagan (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/05/national/main621252.shtml)))

Christian fundamentalist anti-abortionists do not hold with the taking of innocent lives, but are happy to kill “criminals”.

I consider Charles Manson a criminal, and I consider Donald Blom a criminal. For the crime, you must pay the price proportioned to the crime. Of course, it’s men and women like you who would just as soon let a pedophile out of jail—only to molest again and again. There must be sound justice.

I considered it just, but I didn’t consider it legal. The two are not the same.

Of course, then we must take into account who tells us it’s “illegal.” The UN, again, which has failed. Yet who is the real police force of the world? I believe that to be the United States. Are the Russians so quick to ease the suffering of a people? Are the Swiss? The French? The Chinese? No. The U.S. goes out and actively tries to destroy the corruptions of evil dictatorships. I’d take the UN’s word worth less than a grain of salt… living in the flats.

You assume that I don’t.

You said: “The man has openly suggested that he hears the voice of God.

Voice in my head. We have mental health wards filled with such people.”

And for that I would assume not. If you are one so theologically interested in the Bible.. then I’d assume you would know figurative meanings. Heart strings, remember. As John Quincy Adams once said: “Search the scriptures!”

Do you know the implications of depleted uranium shells. The word “toxin” immediately springs to mind.

Yes, I realize that uranium is a dangerous substance. It’s used in the making of nuclear bombs, I know that. Yet I don’t think our government has the evil intent to poison the American people. I don’t think our government says “Aha! Uranium! Let’s murder our citizens!” Unlike Saddam Hussein, who purposely did.

Radiation poisoning and “Mutation” are humane now then are they. If you think that then I can only argue that you have a pretty fucked up idea of what consistutes “humane”.

Refer to the comment above, and the formation of NATO.

And they still haven’t been given that chance. As you say GWB is making decision on their behalf.[quote]

That’s an interesting statement, because, you see, G Dub has said that if the Iraqi interim government wants the U.S. before the set date, we’ll do it. Also, when we are finally out, the Iraqi people will be truly free to elect their own heads of government… much, much more than when Saddam was in power.

[quote] I wouldn’t, nor did I, advocate that course of action. That doesn’t mean that I will fall in behind the guard and argue that the Iraqi people have any more choice at the moment than they did under Saddam. The interim Govt was chose by the US, the policies they are currently implementing are almost all at the behest of the US.

Refer to the above statement.

I think the people of Florida may dispute that.

Oh, hang on, they did.

The United States Electoral College, nor the Supreme Court, had a problem with that. Also, you must blame the Floridians for being so dumb… that they couldn’t punch out a stupid chad! They’re stupid on their own accord (with the exception of certain Floridians, of course.)

Melchiah

18-06-2004, 01:23 AM

Basic science seems to have escaped you then. Yes, such a move would help reduce some of the forest fires, and yes it would help the logging industry.

Not cutting down trees would actually be a good way to help the environment, perhaps you missed that lesson in Biology 101.

Perhaps in the US they don’t teach their kids about the environment and how to protect it. I don’t know.

Four words: Dried brush, and heat.

Which is the point.

GWB has control of the most powerful military force currently on the planet, possibly the most powerful nation in many respects.

He uses his Christian beliefs to dictate his policy.

These beliefs are at odds with the majority of people in the world. Is it not surprising therefore that he is not revered around the globe like he is in the US? As you say, you personally wouldn't like it is the leader of your country used a different relgion to base his policies on...

Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?

First off, the major religion dominating the planet is Christianity. Also, our nation was founded upon the Christian morals and values (Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States.)

Furthermore, there is no literal and legal separation of Church and State to the extent of which Liberalism pushes it. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” That means that Congress cannot create any religion of which it requires, by law, that the American people follow. This was the reason why men and women left Europe.

Let’s look at what Fisher Ames, author of the First Amendment, has to say about Christianity: “Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a schoolbook? Its morals are pure, its examples are captivating and noble... In no Book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant, and by teaching all the same they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith.”

And some were plantation owners you say, what lessons in morals and values can we learn from such men.

Well, that doesn’t tell me much bad about them. I believe the term “indentured servant” is known to you? Well, slavery stayed that way (duration of 7 years) until the South decided to make the duration life-long. THEN it was bad. Also, indentured servants became so by their own choice!

On a simliar tangent there was also a recent legal case over a little statue with a book on it, with the ten commandments in it, that was found in a Southern court of law.
The judge & jury in this case decided that the statue must be removed in order to ensure that the government and state was in no way related to any religion.
This indicates that the only sections in the constitution dedicated to religion actually prevent the state from becoming involved in any way.

There have been many recent “legal” cases occurring in this nation. What you’ve said doesn’t prove “diddley squat”, save that some judges have a bit far-fetched imaginations. This nation was founded upon Christianity (review the quotes later listed.)

Just an aside, and following something I read elsewhere.

In this Christian United States, where the founding fathers were christian. How many references to God can you find in the declaration of independance and the constitution...?

Here, why don’t you read it and tell us: United States Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html)

Also, it’s not simply what’s in the Constitution, but what it took to write the Constitution.

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”-Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

“It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage....Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.”-James Madison (Architect of the U.S. Constitution & Co-Author of the Federalist Papers)

“The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Where, some say, is the king of America? I'll tell you, friend, He reigns above.”-Thomas Paine

“To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian.”-George Washington

“…it would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes…”-George Washington’s Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789

“Finally, let us not forget the religious character of our origin. Our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary.”-Daniel Webster

“The brief exposition of the constitution of the United States, will unfold to young persons the principles of republican government; and it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion.”

and

“The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free Constitutions of Government.”

Both are from Noah Webster’s History of the United States, which he published in 1832

Melchiah however seems to be an arrogant, racist **** who hopefully will just dissapear.

You couldn't be more wrong. I don’t disappear so easily, my very ignorant fool. I’m not that easy to rid yourself of. Now, stop blathering, you churlish fool.

Globe

18-06-2004, 03:39 AM

Originally posted by Melchiah
Now, stop blathering, you churlish fool.

How VERY un-touchie/feelie of you, your attempt to deny him of what he does best... ;)

Globe

18-06-2004, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Man Of Kent

I think the people of Florida may dispute that.

Oh, hang on, they did.

Some poetic justice in the fact that those who were too stupid to use the ballot properly, were all presumed to have voted for... Al Gore. :lol:

You may find it offensive that GWB was elected by the laws of this nation, but... they are the laws we have chosen for ourselves. Get over it. You have John Fakir Kerry to support now, the one who conspired with the Viet Cong, while still an officer in the US Navy. The one who stood between the US and getting back our POW/MIA's from Vietnam, for more than 30 years. The one who based his "Winter Soldier Investigations" on the testimony of posers who had never served in the armed forces. The one whose "combat record" is that of the officer who commanded the Swift, before Kerry. The one who is a self-admitted "war criminal" for his summary execution of a wounded enemy POW, for which he received his "Silver Star", instead of a court martial, and prison. The one who received three bogus Purple Hearts, for which he missed a total of 2 days of duty, when the rest of us who were incountry had to be hospitalized for a MINIMUM of 48 hours to even be considered for a Purple Heart. The one who attended a meeting of his bogus VVAW, where the assassination of US Senators was the topic of discussion, WHILE HE WAS STILL AN OFFICER IN THE US NAVY, and never reported it.

You have a new champion to genuflect before, the lemon jello backed traitor, John Fakir Kerry.

marv

18-06-2004, 03:52 AM

What I may or may not believe matters not to the survival of the people. The people can only survive properly with a moral code of ethics. Now, if this is to be overturned and changed—then there will be no definition of morality. What is right is right—it matters not how many people disagree.

So that comes from the bible right? I don’t follow any religious teachings in fact I am proud to be an atheist. I have chosen my own definition of morality and I don’t need no 2000 year old book or some person to tell me what is right and wrong[

One name – Ronald Reagan – proves the lie of that comment. He had Alzheimer’s when he was in office but nothing was ever said. It would have undermined national security, you see.

Actually, you see, Ronald Reagan’s Alzheimer’s was not detected until 1993 (more than four years after he had left office. (CBS News Information on Ronald Reagan))

But it may have been diagnosed then it does not mean that he was not suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer's when he was President

http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/Facts_about_dementia/How_dementia_progresses/info_progression.htm

consider Charles Manson a criminal, and I consider Donald Blom a criminal. For the crime, you must pay the price proportioned to the crime. Of course, its men and women like you who would just as soon let a paedophile out of jail—only to molest again and again. There must be sound justice.

But they are problems with the death penalty. You would claim it is an eye for an eye but Gandhi makes the point that

"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind."

Also they is a very good arguement to stop using the death penalty

"Capital punishment is cruel and unusual. It is a relic of the earliest days of penology, when slavery, branding, and other corporal punishments were commonplace. Like those other barbaric practices, executions have no place in a civilized society.

Opposition to the death penalty does not arise from misplaced sympathy for convicted murderers. On the contrary, murder demonstrates a lack of respect for human life. For this very reason, murder is abhorrent, and any policy of state-authorized killings is immoral.

Capital punishment denies due process of law. Its imposition is arbitrary and irrevocable. It forever deprives an individual of benefits of new evidence or new law that might warrant the reversal of a conviction or the setting aside of a death sentence.

The death penalty violates the constitutional guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. It is applied randomly at best and discriminatorily at worst. It is imposed disproportionately upon those whose victims are white, on offenders who are people of colour, and on those who are themselves poor and uneducated.

The defects in death-penalty laws, conceded by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s, have not been appreciably altered by the shift from unfettered discretion to "guided discretion." These changes in death sentencing have proved to be largely cosmetic. They merely mask the impermissible arbitrariness of a process that results in an execution.

Executions give society the unmistakable message that human life no longer deserves respect when it is useful to take it and that homicide is legitimate when deemed justified by pragmatic concerns.

Reliance on the death penalty obscures the true causes of crime and distracts attention from the social measures that effectively contribute to its control. Politicians who preach the desirability of executions as a weapon of crime control deceive the public and mask their own failure to support anti-crime measures that will really work.

Capital punishment wastes resources. It squanders the time and energy of courts, prosecuting attorneys, defence counsel, juries, and courtroom and correctional personnel. It unduly burdens the system of criminal justice, and it is therefore counterproductive as an instrument for society's control of violent crime. It epitomizes the tragic inefficacy and brutality of the resort to violence rather than reason for the solution of difficult social problems.

A decent and humane society does not deliberately kill human beings. An execution is a dramatic, public spectacle of official, violent homicide that teaches the permissibility of killing people to solve social problems -- the worst possible example to s et for society. In this century, governments have too often attempted to justify their lethal fury by the benefits such killing would bring to the rest or society. The bloodshed is real and deeply destructive of the common decency of the community; the benefits are illusory. "

This is a very good argument against the death penalty it is long but is worth a read.

http://users.rcn.com/mwood/deathpen.html

Of course, then we must take into account who tells us it’s “illegal.” The UN, again, which has failed. Yet who is the real police force of the world? I believe that to be the United States. Are the Russians so quick to ease the suffering of a people? Are the Swiss? The French? The Chinese? No. The U.S. goes out and actively tries to destroy the corruptions of evil dictatorships. I’d take the UN’s word worth less than a grain of salt… living in the flats.

What a load of crap the US have been quite happy to prop up or install dictators when it suits them.

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/13/CIAtimeline.htm

day1maggot

18-06-2004, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by Melchiah
There have been many recent “legal” cases occurring in this nation. What you’ve said doesn’t prove “diddley squat”, save that some judges have a bit far-fetched imaginations. This nation was founded upon Christianity (review the quotes later listed.)
We no longer live in the time when it was created.
The America society is fundamentaly based on freedom.
One of the major freedoms is the freedom to religion.
How can it possibly be considered correct to force Christian values upon people who have the right to be activly opposed to them?
And I'm pretty sure the high judges in America have a slightly more advanced understanding of the constitution than you, regardless of what you would like to think.
But even if this wasn't the case and America was a 'Christian state' then they have surely brought shame upon themselves and Christianity.
Taking, seemingly unjustified, military action despite the opposition of the pope and of the CoE heirarchy seems to not be the Christian thing to do.

Man Of Kent

18-06-2004, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Globe
You have John Fakir Kerry to support now

You assume that because I don't like GWB I would support Keery.

Wrong.

Some solice to me (and to you I'm sure ;) ) is that I don't vote in US elections because I can't currently decide who the biggest arse is.

Man Of Kent

18-06-2004, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Melchiah
Four words: Dried brush, and heat.

One word: Photosynthesis

First off, the major religion dominating the planet is Christianity.

More people are not Christian...

Also, our nation was founded upon the Christian morals and values (Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States.)

Excellent. Were does the death penalty fit in with that?

Clandestine

18-06-2004, 09:46 AM

More people are not Christian...

Indeed correct MoK, but then the Christian Right in America has never let fact or truth hinder its skewed ideological view of the world.

Worldwide breakdown of religious affiliation (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html)

Aladdin

18-06-2004, 10:46 AM

Well well well, new faces join, old faces are back... and there was me fearing the boards would be a bit boring now that Luke had retired. :)

If I just can comment on something Melchiah has said:

Of course, then we must take into account who tells us it’s “illegal.” The UN, again, which has failed. Yet who is the real police force of the world? I believe that to be the United States. Are the Russians so quick to ease the suffering of a people? Are the Swiss? The French? The Chinese? No. The U.S. goes out and actively tries to destroy the corruptions of evil dictatorships. I don't know what bizarre parallel world you live in, but please send us some invites so we can visit.

If you care to do a bit of research you might discover that the US has supported and assisted to power more evil dictatorships and brutal despots in the last 5 decades than any other country on earth. Go tell the victims of Pinochet's fascist dictatorship or the people boiled alive by President Karimov of Uzbekistan (or countless others throughout the world) what a champion of freedom and democracy the US government is. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Aladdin

18-06-2004, 10:50 AM

Here Melchiah, go and take this test (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3141) and then tell me again what champion of democracy and freedom the US government is...

xicoperez

18-06-2004, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Melchiah
He believed in “turning the other check”

"If one check bounceth, ye must turn the other check" Barclays 14:7

Sole gets banned, Lukesh leaves us... But now we have Melchiah, God is our King, said the Republican...

xicoperez

18-06-2004, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by TheShyBoyInTheCorner
Clandestine is apparently from Brussels

Clandestine is a yanker... :p

xicoperez

18-06-2004, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Melchiah
Imagine a world without America (...) it would mean death to a true and righteous moral code of ethics. And of which the very foundation shakes! If the American people should fail… then there will be an even greater chaos than ever seen before.

:eek2: :crazyeyes :eek: (Ffs)

Man Of Kent

18-06-2004, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Melchiah
Re: Cruscades

Yet some were justified and needed.

Do you include the current one among then?

Yet, as I’ve said, we must keep in our minds the history of that bloody man: Muhammad.

We should also keep in mind the peaceful man that Christ was. Someone who abhored violence, who preached that we should “turn the other cheek”, who disapproved of the church feathering it’s own nest.

Quite what he would make of evangalists, I’ll never know, but I would bet my life on his condemnation of them.

Imagine a world without America; for some, it would be paradise… but to the logical… it would mean death to a true and righteous moral code of ethics.

Over here we have an expression – “bollocks”.

Roughly translated, in this setting, I think it would be “horseshit”.

Yes, the UK and US share certain morals, but remember that these morals have developed over centuries and the US has only been in existence for just over 200 years. To suggest that there would be a sudden decline in morals as a result of the US disappearing is quite frankly ludicrous.

The main moral decline over the past 50 years has actually come about from US culture, rather than anywhere else.

What I may or may not believe matters not to the survival of the people. The people can only survive properly with a moral code of ethics. Now, if this is to be overturned and changed—then there will be no definition of morality. What is right is right—it matters not how many people disagree.

No, what is right to one, may not be “right” to another. It really isn’t that black and white.

In this instance the man in position has a direct influence over the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee and yet he has an extreme view on this subject. Thus his advice is always going to come down to that. He will be unable to give a balanced perspective. That is dangerous in a govt agency.

I consider Charles Manson a criminal, and I consider Donald Blom a criminal. For the crime, you must pay the price proportioned to the crime.

By proportionate punishment, do you mean “eye for an eye”?

You said earlier, if it is right, it is right. The opposite of that argument would therefore be “if it is wrong, it is wrong”. So, if the state holds it wrong for a man to be killed, how can you that state justify killing a man?

Of course, it’s men and women like you who would just as soon let a pedophile out of jail—only to molest again and again. There must be sound justice.

Yes, because we believe that once justice is served, and a remedy has been paid then a man has paid their debt to society.

There is the potential that the person will offend again, just as there is with any crime, and I don’t hold with locking someone up purely to prevent them offending. That is a dangerous road to tread.

Also, as a Christian you would understand that justice will be served by God, ultimately. The punishments which we can offer here are puny in comparison to what that person will face for eternity.

Of course, then we must take into account who tells us it’s “illegal.” The UN, again, which has failed.

The same UN which the US turned to in order to declare Iraqi action “illegal”? The same UN whose resolutions were used as justification for the invasion of Iraq?

You cannot use their name to defend your action, if you aren’t willing to defer to them when they say that you are wrong also. That is just hypocritical.

They cover us all, or they cover none.

Yet who is the real police force of the world? I believe that to be the United States.

When they want to. Not so eager when there is little in the way of natural resources to be found.

Are the Russians so quick to ease the suffering of a people? Are the Swiss?

Wouldn’t argue with you on the issue of the Russian (whose murderous actions in Chechnya are supported by the US naturally) but the Swiss was a really bad example.

They may not carry the military power of the US, but they clean up the mess we all leave behind. Assuming of course that you support the Red Cross.

You said: “The man has openly suggested that he hears the voice of God.

Voice in my head. We have mental health wards filled with such people.”

And for that I would assume not.

Then you should remember what has been said about assuming. Makes a ass of u and me.

Hearing God’s voice and claiming to act in His name are not the actions of a religious man. They are the actions of a fundamentalist.

Acting according to His teachings is religious. Having faith that He will deliver, if religion.

Yes, I realize that uranium is a dangerous substance. It’s used in the making of nuclear bombs, I know that.

No, I was talking about depleted uranium. This is after it has been used for bomb making and when it is used as armour piercing shells casings. You need to look at what effect this has had on the Iraqi people - who we claim to be helping.

Yet I don’t think our government has the evil intent to poison the American people. I don’t think our government says “Aha! Uranium! Let’s murder our citizens!” Unlike Saddam Hussein, who purposely did.

I’m not defending Saddam, or his use of WMD. But the use against his own people was actually related to the Iran/Iraq war, unless I am mistaken.

That is no difference to US usage.

Also, when we are finally out, the Iraqi people will be truly free to elect their own heads of government.

and if they elect a fundamentalist Muslim regime?

The United States Electoral College, nor the Supreme Court, had a problem with that.

What was the political make up of those courts?

Also, you must blame the Floridians for being so dumb… that they couldn’t punch out a stupid chad! They’re stupid on their own accord (with the exception of certain Floridians, of course.)

To an extent and certainly with regards the chad.

I don’t blame them for the votes which were excluded/included for other reasons and that includes the votes of servicemen. I don’t blame them for those who were refuse votes.

The whole situation stank to high heaven a really called into question the whole “democracy” claim of the US.

xicoperez

18-06-2004, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Melchiah
as Barry Goldwater said, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” With some things, extremism is a good thing

I must agree with you on that one, thank you for the quote...

Clandestine

18-06-2004, 11:59 AM

Clandestine is a yanker...

Thanks for showing that you, at least, pay attention! ;)

Man Of Kent

18-06-2004, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Clandestine
Thanks for showing that you, at least, pay attention! ;)

Although he spelt it wrong... :p

Clandestine

18-06-2004, 12:07 PM

Spelled what wrong?

Man Of Kent

18-06-2004, 12:58 PM

Yanker.

Should have started with a "w" not a "y"...

Damn, jokes aren't so funny when you have to explain them, are they?

xicoperez

18-06-2004, 01:06 PM

Clandestine

18-06-2004, 01:17 PM

ah, HA HA! lol. ;)

BlackArab

18-06-2004, 05:34 PM

Malchiah:

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/articles/slavery/index.html

Slave-owners pure and simple.

There are great examples of Americans as there are in every country no doubt but these aren't the ones that i would look to for an example of morality.

Globe: Long time, no see. You sticking around or just vacationing from p/cp?

Melchiah

18-06-2004, 11:10 PM

Here Melchiah, go and take this test and then tell me again what champion of democracy and freedom the US government is...

By God… “Vietnam Veterans Against The War” is your source… Now that is truly sad.

Sole gets banned, Lukesh leaves us... But now we have Melchiah, God is our King, said the Republican...

And here we have the sarcastic nuances of a decrepit-minded Liberal… as most often is the case.

I don't know what bizarre parallel world you live in, but please send us some invites so we can visit.

If you care to do a bit of research you might discover that the US has supported and assisted to power more evil dictatorships and brutal despots in the last 5 decades than any other country on earth. Go tell the victims of Pinochet's fascist dictatorship or the people boiled alive by President Karimov of Uzbekistan (or countless others throughout the world) what a champion of freedom and democracy the US government is.

Supporting one bad dictator to destroy an even worse one; that’s what it is, as was seen most clearly in Nam. Diem was a bad dictator, that’s true, yet Communism is a worse threat. And regarding Karimov and the Uzbekistani Islamic terrorist organization, well, the U.S. has had a rocky relationship with Karimov. It’s very hard to trust him (as seen with the year 2000 elections there.) James Rubin, U.S. Dpt. Spokesman, said the elections had not been “free and fair.” You see, the U.S. isn’t gung-ho with every dictator—we work slowly with them.

So that comes from the bible right? I don’t follow any religious teachings in fact I am proud to be an atheist. I have chosen my own definition of morality and I don’t need no 2000 year old book or some person to tell me what is right and wrong

Actually, not a word of that comes from the Bible, yet the Bible does reflect upon it. And as for you choosing your own “definition of morality,” well, what have you to back it with? What you say is wrong is wrong? Or does it come from a perfect source… which, of course, would have perfect judgment. Humans, as you must know, are not perfect. Yet with the guidance of a perfect being, one must follow the course of perfect justice. It is when men begin to add things, that the corruption of government starts. The Bible may be old, but it’s morals are pure. Furthermore, if you don’t “need someone to yell you what’s right and what’s wrong,” then you must, invariably, be an anarchist too. The government tells you what’s right and what’s wrong, and the laws which built this nation were founded, clearly, upon the Christian values. Now, since you don’t need any 2000 year old book telling you etc., then of course you would hate the government. (assuming you live in the U.S.A.) Either that, or you’re one of the many who wishes to change the government to a Liberal form; which, in the end, would destroy this nation as our founding fathers had foreseen.

“The rights of the colonists as Christians… may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institution of The Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.”-Sam Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772

But it may have been diagnosed then it does not mean that he was not suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer's when he was President

I strongly doubt he was suffering from Alzheimer’s when he was President. You’re link proved nothing, save to be informational on Alzheimer’s, and I thank you for that.

An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind

And a murderer let free makes the whole world blind and crippled.

Capital punishment is cruel and unusual. It is a relic of the earliest days of penology, when slavery, branding, and other corporal punishments were commonplace. Like those other barbaric practices, executions have no place in a civilized society.

That would depend on what forms of execution you’re using. Gibbets, the rack, and drawn and quartering are all illegal—those are cruel and unusual. THOSE were commonplace in ancient civilization. The forms we have now and relatively clean.

Opposition to the death penalty does not arise from misplaced sympathy for convicted murderers. On the contrary, murder demonstrates a lack of respect for human life. For this very reason, murder is abhorrent, and any policy of state-authorized killings is immoral.

Yes it does. And yes, that’s true about murder, yet state-authorized justice is always a good thing. To proportion an execution to brutal torture would be as if I were to claim Al Gore was a Nazi! Alright, let’s fly with the fact that murder is immoral. Murder is the unlawful, and immoral, killing of life. Now, what shall the payment be for such a debt? There used to be even worse payments (refer to the forms of torture listed above.) Now we have lethal injection—which isn’t painful at all, yet expensive. So, if you’re to execute someone cleanly and non-expensively, then you’d better hang them. Murder is abhorrent—justice is sound.

Capital punishment denies due process of law. Its imposition is arbitrary and irrevocable.

Actually, it doesn’t. Due process of law occurs at the moment of apprehension, trial, imprisonment, and execution.

It forever deprives an individual of benefits of new evidence or new law that might warrant the reversal of a conviction or the setting aside of a death sentence.

I don’t give a damn. The murdered victim doesn’t get their life back, now do they? No, they don’t. So the murderer should be put to death. You take a life; you give your life. Yes, let’s sympathize with the murderer: “That’s okay, you raped and murdered that woman, but you’ll get out in ten years because we Liberals are pretty fucked up that we don’t care about her.” The Liberal smiles, caused by the drug-induced toxins in his brain giving him a euphoric high; he responds, “With these new laws, you can murder someone, and get out in say, ten or fifteen years.” He smiles, laughing for no apparent reason, “Of course, the dead woman won’t get her life back…”

“The death penalty violates the constitutional guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. It is applied randomly at best and discriminatorily at worst. It is imposed disproportionately upon those whose victims are white, on offenders who are people of colour, and on those who are themselves poor and uneducated.”

Actually, it doesn’t. The murderer is under protection while apprehended, during trial, etc. (as I’ve said before.) Of course, we must bring race into this… can you Liberals just forget about race and treat people equally?? Race, occasionally, at best, is a minor detail in the minority of executions. And no, execution is not random. If it were, then the police would pick normal people like you (hah) up on the street, say your murdered someone, and execute you… this must be, of course, what you would consider “random.”

Executions give society the unmistakable message that human life no longer deserves respect when it is useful to take it and that homicide is legitimate when deemed justified by pragmatic concerns.

Actually, the murderer gives that message. Execution gives this message “Obey the law… or else.”

Melchiah

18-06-2004, 11:11 PM

Reliance on the death penalty obscures the true causes of crime and distracts attention from the social measures that effectively contribute to its control. Politicians who preach the desirability of executions as a weapon of crime control deceive the public and mask their own failure to support anti-crime measures that will really work.

Oh, now this is just priceless…

The “product of the environment” crap enters in now. Cry me a river. Who makes the final decision? The murderer does. Of course, it’s people like you who tell him “don’t worry… they’re your own set of ‘moral values,’ look at me… I made mine up.” And what would these “anti-crime measures that really work” be?

Capital punishment wastes resources. It squanders the time and energy of courts, prosecuting attorneys, defence counsel, juries, and courtroom and correctional personnel. It unduly burdens the system of criminal justice, and it is therefore counterproductive as an instrument for society's control of violent crime. It epitomizes the tragic inefficacy and brutality of the resort to violence rather than reason for the solution of difficult social problems.

Then hang them. Rope doesn’t cost much, and all you’d have to do is find a tall tree. It’s very cheep and affectively so, quick execution. Of course, so does the trial beforehand to find whether the murderer is “guilty.” Would you like to cut those expenses too? “Reason for the solution of difficult social problems…” now that’s deep. You know, there was a time where, when a man cursed another man’s family name, the cursed would beat the living snot out of the other. Now, the cursed cries and calls “mommy.” This sickens me. Violence, sometimes, is the only way. Be a man

A decent and humane society does not deliberately kill human beings. An execution is a dramatic, public spectacle of official, violent homicide that teaches the permissibility of killing people to solve social problems -- the worst possible example to s et for society. In this century, governments have too often attempted to justify their lethal fury by the benefits such killing would bring to the rest or society. The bloodshed is real and deeply destructive of the common decency of the community; the benefits are illusory.

Yes, with Richard Wagner’s Grosser Festmarsch being played. I can picture this. There would be terribly acted weeping, and then there would be the front-row sitters who keep mumbling “he deserves it. He took my son’s life, now he will burn in the fires of hell for his iniquities!” Liberals way overplay executions. Liberals are the ones who dramatize everything. Actually, execution has been around for centuries, just this century, however, the form of civil executions has been introduced. I know, it’s hard for you to understand… but that’s spelt: c… i… v… i… l.

What a load of crap the US have been quite happy to prop up or install dictators when it suits them.

Read what I said before… wherever the heck it is.

Some solice to me (and to you I'm sure ) is that I don't vote in US elections because I can't currently decide who the biggest arse is.

Of course you can’t. After all, you’re not running.

One word: Photosynthesis

By God, you still don’t get it. Now that is sad.

Photosynthesis is the process in which plants go through to change Co2 into Oxygen. I realize that. But do you realize that dried brush acts as kindling for over-heating? It’s quite a simple thing to understand. I don’t know how someone couldn’t understand it…

More people are not Christian...

Actually, they are. You might try looking at that graph your Liberal friend, Clandestine, posted. (here it is again: World Religions (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html))

Excellent. Were does the death penalty fit in with that?

Dang; you never cease to amaze me… in a bad way. The matter wasn’t dealing with the death penalty… the matter was America’s Christian heritage.

Do you include the current one among then?

The Crusades were, invariably, against the Muslims. Yet this War on Terrorism is against terrorism. Last I heard, the majority of people in Iraq were Muslim… of which we’ve liberated.

We should also keep in mind the peaceful man that Christ was. Someone who abhored violence, who preached that we should “turn the other cheek”, who disapproved of the church feathering it’s own nest.

Maybe the event in the temple never occurred to you… Jesus sure didn’t turn the other cheek there. And no, God’s son, God in the flesh, did not abhor violence… he abhorred violence without reason. Read the Old Testament.

To suggest that there would be a sudden decline in morals as a result of the US disappearing is quite frankly ludicrous.

Over here we also have an expression: Malarkey.

Translated, it means bullshit.

The main moral decline over the past 50 years has actually come about from US culture, rather than anywhere else.

Actually, it’s come from God’s word: the Holy Bible. (You might want to check into it.)

No, what is right to one, may not be “right” to another. It really isn’t that black and white.

Actually, it is. Without the guidance of a set right and wrong, then the world would be a mess… such like it is. We’re not little toddlers; we know there’s a difference between right and wrong… though that would be debatable for you.

Melchiah

18-06-2004, 11:12 PM

In this instance the man in position has a direct influence over the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee and yet he has an extreme view on this subject. Thus his advice is always going to come down to that. He will be unable to give a balanced perspective. That is dangerous in a govt agency.

Of course not, and what we need is not a balanced perspective… but a right one. What’s dangerous to the people is the degradation of morality in this world.

By proportionate punishment, do you mean “eye for an eye”?

Yes.

You said earlier, if it is right, it is right. The opposite of that argument would therefore be “if it is wrong, it is wrong”. So, if the state holds it wrong for a man to be killed, how can you that state justify killing a man?

Killing and Murder are different. Remember, it’s Thou shalt not Murder, not Thou Shalt not Kill.

Yes, because we believe that once justice is served, and a remedy has been paid then a man has paid their debt to society.

No, because you’ve got some sick and twisted sympathy for these lunatics.

A pedophile should be kept under strict surveillance once he’s released. If he molests again, throw him in prison. We need harsher prisons nowadays. We need to “correct” these lunatics.

There is the potential that the person will offend again, just as there is with any crime, and I don’t hold with locking someone up purely to prevent them offending. That is a dangerous road to tread.

True, yet what we need are stricter laws… and more punishment; not less. We need rougher prison guards as well; one’s who will teach prisoners not to disobey again.

Also, as a Christian you would understand that justice will be served by God, ultimately. The punishments which we can offer here are puny in comparison to what that person will face for eternity.

Yet I also know that God calls us to judge righteously the wicked, and to punish those which disobey the law.

They cover us all, or they cover none.

Well, that would depend. In a way, they do; yet in another way, they don’t. They do in that they call themselves the police force of the world… yet they don’t work properly.

The same UN which the US turned to in order to declare Iraqi action “illegal”? The same UN whose resolutions were used as justification for the invasion of Iraq?

The same UN we “disobeyed”.

When they want to. Not so eager when there is little in the way of natural resources to be found.

Ahhh… a tree-hugger. Fun. Alright then, natural resources. Hmmmm. Well, I’d have to disagree with you there. What is it with Liberals? They’re so obsessed with… oil.

They may not carry the military power of the US, but they clean up the mess we all leave behind. Assuming of course that you support the Red Cross.

The Red Cross; yes, of course… yet is Switzerland so eager to relieve the oppressed? No.

Hearing God’s voice and claiming to act in His name are not the actions of a religious man. They are the actions of a fundamentalist.

Read the previous verses I listed.

No, I was talking about depleted uranium. This is after it has been used for bomb making and when it is used as armour piercing shells casings. You need to look at what effect this has had on the Iraqi people - who we claim to be helping.

Well, that would depend on the amount of radiation involved.

I’m not defending Saddam, or his use of WMD. But the use against his own people was actually related to the Iran/Iraq war, unless I am mistaken.[quote]

It partly was. But on a larger scale, it was because he had no real regard for his people.

[quote]That is no difference to US usage.

Actually it is. As I’ve said before, the U.S. doesn’t, with evil, poison civilians.

and if they elect a fundamentalist Muslim regime?

There are certain precautions taken to make sure they don’t act to the extreme… in a bad way.

What was the political make up of those courts?

Well, that would depend. On some issues, half were Liberal, on others, they were Conservative. It was about and even mix.

The whole situation stank to high heaven a really called into question the whole “democracy” claim of the US.

No, it just called into question the ability of Liberals to lose with dignity.

Slave-owners pure and simple.

Actually, not “pure and simple.” The article said over and over again, that he was careful not to say anything regarding the matter, but in private. For this, much of his idea on slavery is unknown.

There are great examples of Americans as there are in every country no doubt but these aren't the ones that i would look to for an example of morality.

I believe these to be the ones precisely to look to as an example of morality. I actually don’t believe much of the “Jefferson fathered children from a slave.” I believe what was done is not what some said, I believe some history is mysterious and unknown. While some may speculate and answer, their answers may be different from what is true. What is true is what is clearly marked down. Washington had slaves—yet he set them free in his will.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.”-George Washington, Personal Prayer Book

-Signing off, Aaron
Melchiah, God is my King.

day1maggot

18-06-2004, 11:22 PM

On the legality of the war, one of the leading government lawyers on Britain, a well documented supporter of the war on terror, has described the war in Iraq as not justified in a legal context.

Globe

19-06-2004, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by BlackArab

Globe: Long time, no see. You sticking around or just vacationing from p/cp?

Don't know... time will tell.

Someone here invited me to return...

Uncle Joe

19-06-2004, 09:34 AM

TROLL IN THE WIRE!! DEPLOY FLAGS OF ALL NATIONS!! :D

Aladdin

19-06-2004, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
TROLL IN THE WIRE!! DEPLOY FLAGS OF ALL NATIONS!! :D :lol: :lol: :lol:

Aladdin

19-06-2004, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Melchiah
By God… “Vietnam Veterans Against The War” is your source… Now that is truly sad. Not nearly as sad as your warped sense of patriotism apparently showing your dislike of American citizens who fought in the name of their country abroad but are considered practically traitors because they dare to criticise the Almighty US government.

Pathetic.

In any case, that list is correct. Please don't insult anyone's intelligence by pretending those campaigns didn't happen. So I'll ask you again: can you tell us how many of those nations ended up with a true democracy as a result of America's bombings?

Supporting one bad dictator to destroy an even worse one; that’s what it is, as was seen most clearly in Nam. Diem was a bad dictator, that’s true, yet Communism is a worse threat. And regarding Karimov and the Uzbekistani Islamic terrorist organization, well, the U.S. has had a rocky relationship with Karimov. It’s very hard to trust him (as seen with the year 2000 elections there.) James Rubin, U.S. Dpt. Spokesman, said the elections had not been “free and fair.” You see, the U.S. isn’t gung-ho with every dictator—we work slowly with them. To quote the favourite word of a buddy of yours, your levels of delusion are simply breath-taking.

For your information, Chile had a democratically elected government (if you don't know what 'democratically' means, check it on a dictionary) when the US decided to assist a barbaric fascist lunatic to stage a coup d'etat, remove democracy and install a repulsive, murdering fascist dictatorship in its place. Many thousands were killed and tens of thousands were the subject of gruesome torture and violations by Pinochet's death squads.

One favourite trick of them was to have female prisoners raped by especially trained dogs. Go back to your God now and try to explain him how you see fit to justify your support for the anti-Christian, murdering and plain evil foreign policies of your beloved US government.

I'm not even going to comment on Uzbekistan, Georgia, Saudi Arabia, the death squads of Central and South America financed and supported by the CIA or the dozens upon dozens of nasty little regimes your god-fearing government has supported over the years. Given the blinkers you appear so willing to wear in order to make your support for your government compatible with your alleged Christian beliefs, what would be the point?

The Matadore

19-06-2004, 11:45 AM

ITS THE GREATER GOOD!!!

Why cant you understand this???

Governments work with the BIG PICTURE!! ALL GOVERNMENTS DO!

But when its the US you get right in there with all the tasteless but necessary things they did.

Communism had to be prevented from spreading, the USSR had to be stopped, but I suppose they were the good guys, right?

Aladdin

19-06-2004, 12:16 PM

WHAT GREATER GOOD???

Chile's wasn't a communist regime. Read some fucking history. It was a democratically elected left wing government, not particularly more left wing than any socialist government in Europe (including Old Labour in here) but Salvador Allende had the temerity of disagreeing with The Master's policies.

I suppose you would advocate the US invading Germany and replacing its democracy with another fascist dictator. At the end of the day, the man in government there is a socialist who openly disagrees with US foreign policy- just like Salvador Allende.

And no, most governments DON'T have the habit of supporting murdering scumbags and looking the other way as their little puppet tortures and kills thousands of his own people, just because it suits their interests to have such monster in power. On that, the good old freedom-loving US government is on a league on its own.

Go on, explain to me again why it was justified for the US to remove a democracy in Chile and install a murdering fascist in its place. :rolleyes:

Get a fucking grip.

The Matadore

19-06-2004, 02:21 PM

It was a democratically elected left wing government, not particularly more left wing than any socialist government in Europe

It had strong sympathy with the USSR, similar to Cuba, and the US policy of containment still applied.

The US had to support some tasteless regimes during the Cold War, but only to stop the spread of the most murderous regime of all - the USSR.

most governments DON'T have the habit of supporting murdering scumbags

Thats because most governments dont have to make that choice.

Get a fucking grip.

You naivete is astouiding.

Globe

19-06-2004, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Aladdin
Not nearly as sad as your warped sense of patriotism apparently showing your dislike of American citizens who fought in the name of their country abroad but are considered practically traitors because they dare to criticise the Almighty US government.

Pathetic.

Naw... "pathetic" would be the preferred ignorance of some WHO POST HERE who refuse to acknowledge that meeting with a representative of the Viet Cong - while still a naval officer - in Paris, IS the act of treason.

The "Vietnam Veterans Against the War" was a collection of assembled by the fakir John Kerry to construct a political base for him to enter politics... his whole reason for entering theNavy.

Opposition to the Vietnam War does not make John Fakir Kerry a traitor... his acts of treason most certainly do.

Aladdin

19-06-2004, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by The Matadore
It had strong sympathy with the USSR, similar to Cuba, and the US policy of containment still applied.

The US had to support some tasteless regimes during the Cold War, but only to stop the spread of the most murderous regime of all - the USSR. So having 'sympathy' towards another regime, even if it is the ohhhh so scaaaary communists, it's enough for you to justify overthrowing a democracy and install a brutal fascist murderer in its place?

Have you totally and completely lost your fucking mind?

Thats because most governments dont have to make that choice. Yep. And do you know why they don't have to make that choice? Because it is not the policy of most governments to think they are the supreme rulers to the planet, superior to all other peoples and cultures, and with an undeniable right to appropriate other people's natural resources and to murder anyone who opposes them.

You naivete is astouiding. It is you I'm afraid who have consistently shown a breathtaking naivety in your unconditional support for absolutely anything your beloved idol the US government does.

Though there are very worrying elements in the bullshit you spout that can hardly be regarded as naive. You have shown a disgusting disregard for the value of human life, sovereignty and property. Please don't ever lecture us again about good old USA stepping in to stop the Balkans war or anywhere else because you have proven not to give a flying fuck about people, lives or respect for others. Not when it stands in the way of your idols.

Such nastiness I have never encountered in someone of your age. I can only hope you're either on a wind up mission or that when you grow up so will your humanity.

The Matadore

19-06-2004, 04:37 PM

And do you know why they don't have to make that choice?

Because they do not have the RESPONSIBILITY as the worlds pre-eminent military and economic power to maintain the peace.

The whole UN based world order is founded on the notion that American power is supreme and can enforce law and justice throughout the world.

Whenever America uses its power you have a go at them for being murderous thugs, whenever they dont its the old 'the US sit back and let it happen.

Be damned if you do, be damned if you dont.

Because it is not the policy of most governments to think they are the supreme rulers to the planet, superior to all other peoples and cultures, and with an undeniable right to appropriate other people's natural resources and to murder anyone who opposes them.

All countries think they are the best, just look at France. When has America ever tried to conquer the planet? Oh, never, that was Germany and the other European imperial powers.

and with an undeniable right to appropriate other people's natural resources and to murder anyone who opposes them

This would be Saddam.

It is you I'm afraid who have consistently shown a breathtaking naivety in your unconditional support for absolutely anything your beloved idol the US government does.

I do not think everything the US government is the correct course of action, but I do understand that it is a real world out there, and that if the US is making a concerted attempt to sort things out - I will support them. Governments must make difficult decisions, sometimes they have to support tasteless and brutal regimes, but it is the responsibiliyty of governments (especially the US) to look at the larger strategic picture.

You have shown a disgusting disregard for the value of human life, sovereignty and property.

No, I havent. I am the one who supported a war to remove a tyrannical thug whose soldiers used rape rooms and mass graves. I am the one who is against an European Union which will reduce national sovereignity of European nations to the point where they cant govern themselves. I have always been for individual property rights and against communism and collectivism which you so treasure.

Please don't ever lecture us again about good old USA stepping in to stop the Balkans war or anywhere else because you have proven not to give a flying fuck about people, lives or respect for others

If the USa doesnt intervene to stop things like that happening who else will?

Im on the Right, I support

The Matadore

19-06-2004, 04:42 PM