IN other words, you assumed he meant what you wanted him to mean?
NO, if you read my postings I referred to the attacks prior to 9/11 that are so often ignored. Two embassies, the Cole, the FIRST WTC attack. All acts of war AFTER the declaration of war by OBL.
And one thing I will be happy to teach you is that trying to win debate points by denying everything is a weak cover for being too lazy, intellectually dishonest or cowardly to actually disprove what I claim is a fact. You can go on the net and SEE him say it. If you think the translation is a lie or the video released to multiple outlets NOT under the thumb of the US is phony and that no one calls it out, you are just being intentionally obtuse.
Sorry. I really don't feel like dumbing it down to accommodate your lack of understanding.
The first part, that Jesus lived has independent, reasonably unbiased confirmation in the writings of Josephus. He was a Jewish historian for Rome and briefly mentions the execution on the cross of Jesus by Pontius Pilate, the stoning of his brother James and imprisonment and execution of John the Baptist, His later writings of Jesus are more extensive and there are questions about how untainted by early Christian doctrine it is but even so he provides historical confirmation, considered generally credible by historians as to the existence of a man named Jesus and referred to as "the Christ" and that he was crucified on the orders of Pontius Pilate.
You cant disprove it any more than he can prove it. I don't really care about the proof. I know several things are facts.
1. More evil has been done in the name of Jesus Christ than in any other cause in history. From the crusades to the Dark Ages to the various land and money grabs masquerading as the inquisitions, blood libel and other outright scams to enrich the Church.
2. Threats of eternal damnation hanging over one's head negates the possibility of "free will". Free Will requires an absence of outside motivation, positive or negative. "Give me your money or I will kill you" is not free will.
3. Any god who is about amassing wealth, charges for using an intermediary to interact with him, is so vain and insecure as to demand worship under penalty of eternal damnation and so uncaring and merciless as to allow crack babies, war, starvation and pestilence despite his being all knowing and all powerful doesn't deserve my worship.
4. When even those who all agree on the nature of Jesus Christ cant interpret the bible the same, it is hardly clear and straight forward what the meaning of its word is or what its message is. This means NO ONE can use its word to prove anything because there is always someone just as devoted and just as holy who has a different take on it. The bible was written by those who had the earliest influence on what the words meant and they created what became the Catholic church and the papacy ALL BASED ON THE BIBLE. So why are they wrong and Martin Luther right? Or Reverend Wright preaching hate and racial division in the name of Jesus Christ? What is the source of your hubris in deciding that YOU are the arbiter of what the bible means when so many Christians all have their own interpretation? When you Christians cant agree whether stoning in the bible means we should support capital punishment or not, when you cant decide if the bible calling homosexuality an abomination means we should kill or regulate or shun them, when those who have all accepted Jesus in their life cant agree on the bible's message on slavery, war, abortion, artificial insemination, cloning, speaking in tongues, handling snakes, tithing, what to eat on Friday, or pretty much anything else . . . don't expect me to accept anything in the book that you guys cant agree on as "proof or evidence"
dint apologize! Your post didn't even hint at any implied benevolence on the part of the bear. The bear was attacked first by the bees who had already declared war on the bear. That is fact. If we also want the bees honey (and I dint know what the honey represents since AQ, Hezbollah and Hamas don't control oil, natural resources or riches), doesn't mean we weren't justified in responding with force to the bees' previous deadly provocation.
Al Quaeda declared war on US in 1996. We ignored them. They bombed the USS Cole, two of our embassies in Africa and executed the first WTC bombing. Our response was to kill a night watchman in a bombing of a pill factory and to prevent our intelligence agencies from sharing information with each other. At some point, I am gonna buy a can of raid and soak that beehive with insecticide. And if we didn't say "No thank you" to Sudan when they offered us the queen bee (bin Laden) on a silver platter, it would have been more difficult to move the hive and rebuild the colony, since that queen bee was the source of all the honey (funding). And all of this, the attacks on US property and sovereignty as well as the lives of US servicemen abd citizens was before we even get to 9/11. IMO there is no question we should declare war on Al Quaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and other terrorists who have either declared war or committed acts of war against us. How those wars should be conducted is open to discussion. Increasingly the use of drones and improved intelligence in the area is minimizing the need for tens of thousands of boots on the ground.
1. white My laptop is painted in the same paint as my car. If you want a white PC, you can have one
2. different than the PC many apple users pay for an interface that mimics windows. different is not better.
3. beautiful (sleek) form over function and relative beauty is debatable
4. Performance ( for my needs) spending equal money results in better performance for the PC almost universally
5. very fast see above
6. etc.. presumably this includes more expensive and less backwards compatibility?
fuck you, I am tired of your silly blathering. I made no statement about whether the people on the video were stupid or not or racist or not. But I can make my own commentary. No one has held me down. Not some black guy, some green guy, some yellow guy or a pink guy. My comment was directed at a comment made in the discussion not at the topic heading. You don't like it? Go fuck yourself. I don't care. I didn't bring racism into the discussion. Whites voting against Obama because he is black is racism just like blacks voting for Obama because he is black is racism. Despite what you and Farrakhan think, it goes both ways. The fucking topic had nothing to do with racism but ignorance, so why are YOU discussing racism? Once the issue is brought into the discussion it is fair game. For you AND for me. So kiss my ass.
I am not sure there is much difference. Technology without humanity and morality or religion without an openness to advancements. Either qualifies for me as a Dark Age.
All I know is that so far we survived the ice age, the Catholic Church and the bomb. I am betting on us surviving global warming, stem cell experimentation/cloning/the religious right/a socialist administration and whatever other bogeymen are hiding around the corner.
actually what I know is that Bush and the right wing Republicans hate McCain because he does not kowtow to them and just vote the party line. He is a lot more independent than Obama is in terms of voting with his party. One candidate in this race has the record of reaching across party lines to put legislating ahead of his career and it sure isn't Obama. McCain has voted with Ted Kennedy of all people. They guy who Obama replaced as most liberal member of the Senate. McCain has bucked his party over and over and just because Obama stares the facts in the face over and over and just denies them doesn't make it true. I don't have to "check out" anything because unlike Obama, the man has a record to run on and not just a bunch of speeches where he flat out lies to the public.
BTW, there is a spell check built in to this system. Doesn't cost anything to use it
I think you get this but i should never assume so and should say it more often . . . . I am not judging you. I do not know you. I am judging, to the extent that my commentary is judging, your words and opinions as stated. Or more accurately, as I read them. Sometimes how I read them, with my own biases and life experiences and opinion, is not true to how you meant them. This is just the limitation of the written word as communication. You don't need to reply if you see no need to do so. I just felt I should say it instead of assuming you realize it.
Why can't he be Biased AND telling the truth? I believe in my posts on the subject. I admit my bias but feel I am being totally truthful and as accurate as I can. I admit my bias up front and do not expect be convinced without checking for themselves. If I am caught in an error, I own it. But I am still biased. FWIW, I was JUST as biased towards the Republican Party when I decided to work for and vote for Joe Biden (before he screwed me by being caught plagiarizing).
As for specifics? He is not totally accurate as neither party lived totally by the scenario he set up in his article. But overall, he is preaching to the choir in terms of my reading his article.
First, I never take offense at someone having a different opinion than I do. That is proper, healthy and what makes the world go around. The way they present it can piss me off to no end, of course, lol.
Second, your proximity to the issue adds to your sensitivity to the subject but doesn't mean your opinion is better or worse.
Third, your post confirms that you are doing exactly what I said you were doing. You state, I believe, that because it is equal morally to the Holocaust, that it is indefensible. Your word, indefensible. Well my defense is that killing millions of defenseless, innocent people is NOT morally equivalent with depriving someone of their right to a religious ceremony which that religion doesn't find them eligible for. In fact I could argue that much MORE equivalent, morally, is abortions depriving millions of potential lives of their right to be lived. The difference is that I would never make such a silly comparison because as the article I cited says, comparisons to the ultimate evil are designed, as you admitted you were doing, to transfer the "indefensible" status to the opinion you are arguing against to shut off further discussion.
Last, you haven't asked, but now I will tell you how I feel on the issue and why. I believe homosexuality is unnatural. Not illegal. Not criminal. Not dangerous. Just unnatural. Doesn't make those who carry out such acts bad people in my opinion. I believe sex is based in procreation and survival of the species. That is the source of our urges and is why it gives pleasure IMO. That is just a strict Darwinian point of view. I believe same sex couples should have every right, conveyed by our nation and its government, that a heterosexual couple should have. Same right to inherit, same insurance rights, same hospital visitation rights, same tax treatments, etc. I also believe that marriage is a religious, not a government institution. As far as I can tell, government involvement in marriage comes from two issues, taxation and the census. The government got involved in the marriage business for revenues and for census taking. So, I believe that there should be a civil union. This should not only be used by same sex couples but by a couple of different religions. I do not believe that a rabbi should marry a Jew and a Baptist. I do not believe that a Priest should marry a Catholic and a Muslim. I believe "marriage" is a religious institution and should be reserved as such. I believe the legal rights, tax treatment etc. should be available to any couple. This gives the government the right to pass its own laws concerning polygamy, arranged/forced marriages, how old a person can be to enter into marriage, etcetera. The religious ceremony is a separate issue in my opinion and should not have anything to do with the legal and tax and other issues, IMO.
I am glad you were touched by your contact with a Holocaust survivor. My moment like that was when my mom found some letters after her mom died which she had translated. The letters were from her aunts, uncles and cousins who stayed in Europe and would not leave when my grandparents left for this hemisphere. The part that touched me most was where they all unanimously directed my grandmother and grandfather NOT to feel guilty for the ones left behind. My grandfather and grandmother between them had 11 siblings each with their only families. None survived the concentration camps. You and I just have a very different view of the moral equivalence of these two issues. Maybe it is because we each are close to and have a sensitivity to the opposite event, but I really don't think so.
I really and sincerely think that it is YOU who needs to see the issue at hand in a new way. There just plain ARE more than one legitimate view on this subject, all of the others besides yours are not just hatred. And btw, I am not talking prop 8 specifically because I haven't studied the specifics of the wording. I am talking about same sex marriage in general in this and the related posts
But YOU are defining the way someone else feels as hate. Why can't you understand that people can hold a different view than yours without it being hate and/or evil. No doubt some of it is rooted in hatred and no doubt the passion of issues like this one build to hate where perhaps there was none before. But how far are your passionate feelings moving you towards hate when you can only see hatred in someone disagreeing with your opinion instead of just legitimate disagreement? The fact that you live in the Bay area affects your passion for the subject, not the right and wrong of your opinion or you neighbors opinion. After all they live there too. And again, I am not saying there isn't hatred here. Just that hatred by some doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate concerns there too. And I am neither calling you a hater or wrong. Just really playing devil's advocate.
Exactly my point! Man did not cause the ice age. Mother Nature did. She CAN take care of herself and that is just the point.
My understanding is that the drilling China contracted with Cuba to do inside Cuban sovereign waters would be as close as 50 miles off Florida's shore but they are just doing seismic work now to decide where or whether to drill. Cuba has also signed a contract with Petrobras of Brazil who is also now searching for drilling sites in the Gulf.
at school board cost and on school time? I would think some would object, yes. The wedding was during school on a Friday. They took a school bus. According to the article one six year old kid wore a "No on Prop 8" button. I think some folks would object to that as well from a six year old who is unable to understand the issues.
Here we go again. Someone above asked a question starting "What valid reasons . . . ". I quite clearly started my post answering that different people might have different reasons for disapproving of same sex marriage and proceeded to list some. Nowhere on this site have I been asked, nor have I offered my own personal opinions on gay marriage. So you don't even know my opinion but please don't let that stop you from being hurt, sad, or ignorant. Just please stop imposing that ignorance on ME. And you might want to read the first law of interacting on the internet. The minute you sink to comparing everything to Hitler and the Nazis, you become null and void, totally irrelevant. See below from Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post:
If the Nazis were being invoked more generally -- in warnings, say, about the unpredictability of totalitarian regimes -- they might be a useful part of a number of discussions. Unfortunately, Nazi analogies nowadays are usually deployed to end arguments, not broaden them. Once you inject Hitler or the Third Reich into a debate, you have evoked the ultimate form of evil, put your opponent in an indefensible position -- "What, you're opposed to a war against Hitler?" -- and for all practical purposes halted the conversation.
