Sad State Of Usa

[Loismustdie 0]

There's war, then there is controlling a hostile population willing to use gorilla tactics to get rid of you.War is the act of destroying the enemies organized military units so that you can occupy. We are VERY good at this.Controlling a hostile population willing to use asymetric warfare against you.. Well, there is only one proven way of doing that, total domination and utter brutality. Real Hitler, Tito, Stalin, Milosovich stuff. We're simply not willing to do it. Therefore, we've already lost. We lost the day we decided to go in with little plan beyond hoping we'd be welcomed with open arms as liberators.

We can do both styles- we have before. Great men made horrible decisions to further this nation. I mean great in terms of what it takes to put that burden on ones shoulders. That sort of leadership is needed again, but it is damn near impossible in this climate when Rosie O' Donnell is one of the loudest voices in the U.S.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Really? You guys are some of the smartest guys I semi-know. It is perfectly o.k. to throw christianity under the bus for various beliefs, but that same concept does not apply to other religions? Why is that? Especially when you don't see christians on the news holding swords to throats demanding conversion.

Well, we only seem to attach Christianity more because it's what exists all around us (in the US). Don't worry, I dislike all fundamentalist interpretations of religion almost equally. Islam is stupid. There, I said it. I guy goes out into the desert and an angel whispers to him a holy book. Sure, because there's no way he couldn't have just gone out there and came up with it himself. And then these people fight for centuries and centuries about who was the rightful heir to Muhammad's position (or something). Are they stupid or something? This happened well over 1,000 years ago. Get over it!! Jeez.

Obviously, the governments that support these factions have other motives, but as a government, as a military, what are we to do? NOT follow where the trail leads? Turn a blind eye to the harboring of/financeing of those that would destroy us?

Clearly not. I would have very much liked the US government to have been stronger on other countries helping us out, specifically Pakistan which shares a large border with Afghanistan. With the help of Pakistan, we very well may have captured Osama when he was hiding out near their borders.But the problem is that the trail doesn't lead to these countries, as you said, it only goes through them. No one country is responsible for Al Quaeda. It is imperative, however, that we work with many countries against the terrorist network since it extend very widely through many different countries and regions.

These factions are small, granted- but, if a group of Baptist should decide to take up the same exact cause with the same exact goals you would have no problem going after Baptist that housed that group or financed them. That is simple warfare.I dare say you would be completely fine with that. Where is the difference?

If a group of terrorists driven by Baptist beliefs started killing American citizens, I wouldn't invade England because it's a Christian nation. I obviously wouldn't end up invading any country. Rather, I would gather intelligence on this group, seek out members of the group individually, capture or kill those members with special forces, and then I would seek out those who financially aided the group and bring them to justice.

As far as insane, you could not be more wrong, and you know I respect you as much as I do anybody on this site. The blatant daily call for surrender that goes over airwaves around the world does nothing but empower the enemy. How could it not? If you don't think so, make a case for why and what you think happens in the mind of a murderer when he smells weakness.

It's not surrender at all. It would actually be the start to the battle. Al Quaeda and the Taliban are thrilled that we're in Iraq. It means that our resources are so focused on one area that we really can't do much to fight the real enemy. This is the reason that the Taliban and Al Quaeda are seeing a resurgence right now.

And, thank God for a thread that I can actually get involved in. Lately, it has been pretty stale.

Tell me about it. Though, I'm not sure why such a political thread has ended up in the Religion forum. It really should be relabeled the "Arguing Forum."

[LongLiveYorke 38]

That sort of leadership is needed again, but it is damn near impossible in this climate when Rosie O' Donnell is one of the loudest voices in the U.S.

Do you mean in terms of how many people she influences, or the fact that her voice is, quite literally, extremely loud and quite annoying?It sucks as a liberal, as I'm sure it sucks as a conservative or a Christian or any group for that matter, to have people who are so stupid represent your people. When conservatives think of liberals, they think of Rosie and when liberals think of conservatives they think of Ann Coulter. Or whoever it is. News flash: they're both idiots.I promise you, not all liberals are hippies or are big, fat, and annoying, or are blind Republican and Bush haters. Some of us think about our positions rationally. Take my word for it.

[Loismustdie 0]

Do you mean in terms of how many people she influences, or the fact that her voice is, quite literally, extremely loud and quite annoying?It sucks as a liberal, as I'm sure it sucks as a conservative or a Christian or any group for that matter, to have people who are so stupid represent your people. When conservatives think of liberals, they think of Rosie and when liberals think of conservatives they think of Ann Coulter. Or whoever it is. News flash: they're both idiots.I promise you, not all liberals are hippies or are big, fat, and annoying, or are blind Republican and Bush haters. Some of us think about our positions rationally. Take my word for it.

I just don't see how it makes sense for any news outlet to pay millions to a person who one day is calling Donald Trump out for a whole lot of nothing, then one day talking about her battles with depression and the constant need to adjust her meds,then one day talking about the government perpetrated 9/11, then one day bullying members of the cast on air- and, it is a cast now. This was supposed to be, and has been in the past, a "news" outlet for middle aged post soccer moms, but now it is turning into some WWE style 3 ring circus, and the fat manly one from A League of there Own is the ringleader? Not that Barbara Walters was even a semi- relevant journalist anymore, but she has to be losing sleep over this behemoth destroying her show like a Beef n cheddar sandwich.

[Jadaki 0]

I just don't see how it makes sense for any news outlet to pay millions to a person who one day is calling Donald Trump out for a whole lot of nothing, then one day talking about her battles with depression and the constant need to adjust her meds,then one day talking about the government perpetrated 9/11, then one day bullying members of the cast on air- and, it is a cast now. This was supposed to be, and has been in the past, a "news" outlet for middle aged post soccer moms, but now it is turning into some WWE style 3 ring circus, and the fat manly one from A League of there Own is the ringleader? Not that Barbara Walters was even a semi- relevant journalist anymore, but she has to be losing sleep over this behemoth destroying her show like a Beef n cheddar sandwich.

This is by far the most humorous post you ever made... well done

[Balloon guy 158]

Name a society where it is okay to steal, lie or disobey the government. None.These "judeo-christian" values that the Bible Thumpers are so proud of are NOT Christian values. They are the basic Golden Rule values that EVERY society has need to long survive.LOL, you quote the Bible to prove that the Bible didn't influence societies.So, the united States is a cess pool of history? LOLThe United States is not a nation founded on Christian principles. Take a law classIt is a nation founded on the principles of the Enlightenment. Thinking for yourself rather than dogmatic devotion to tradition. Rights of man rather than rights of God's self-appointed representatives. We Hold these truths to be self evident, that we have been endowed by our Creator... Most of the founding fatehrs were diests rather than Christians, which is why the country was founded with such a stong wall of separation of church and state.Last time I checked the congress pays a pastor to pray over the opening of congress every year, and has since it's inception. That strong wall apperanently is only 2 feet wideThe point is... Let's say there was a squeeky clean politician that agreed with you on every issue of your stated "platform". Pro-life, anti-gay-rights, pro-this, anti-that. He 100% aligned with EVERYTHING you wanted from government.And, you wouldn't vote for him simply because he is an atheist? When did I say I wouldn't vote for him? Long as he hates the gays...You don't see that as a problem for a nation founded on free thought rather than dogmatic devotion to tradition?

[Balloon guy 158]

they got their fill of that during the crusades apparently.

20X more people died in the last eighty years of communism than all the cruasades combined.Doesn't make it right, but I notice everyone wants to pretend it didn't happen or something. We all hear about the crusades, which had political/personal and religious reasons behind it, not just religious. The muslim extremist is strictly religious.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

The muslim extremist is strictly religious.

Not at all. You don't see them bombing all Christian nations or nations of other religions.They are extremely religious, but they focus their hate at countries which in some way have imposed themselves on the Middle East and in their eyes belittled their culture and insulted their religion. The first gulf war pissed off Osama because it involved American troops marching through holy lands for Muslim people (as an example).

[crowTrobot 2]

hmmm i see those nasty muslim extremists in iran just released the british sailors as an "act of good will"

[LongLiveYorke 38]

hmmm i see those nasty muslim extremists in iran just released the british sailors as an "act of good will"

Does everybody else agree with me that they weren't tortured or brainwashed at all? This, of course, is contrary to what conservative talking heads had been telling me on TV for the past few days. Also, it seems that these same people were wrong in thinking that this incident would be a springboard for all out war with Iran. I guess their eagerness to go to war with another country somewhat limited their objectivity in analyzing the facts.I mean, I'm sure Iran didn't just release them out of the goodness of their hearts but rather received some pressure from the UK, but it is nice to know that things actually can be resolved with diplomacy and that not every Iranian is a crazy Muslim extremist who beheads it's prisoners.

[Balloon guy 158]

Not at all. You don't see them bombing all Christian nations or nations of other religions.They are extremely religious, but they focus their hate at countries which in some way have imposed themselves on the Middle East and in their eyes belittled their culture and insulted their religion. The first gulf war pissed off Osama because it involved American troops marching through holy lands for Muslim people (as an example).

I think you are using generalities to try to absolve the muslim nations of not making a better effort to stop their own from committing evil acts.They can all find their voice when a cartoon in the netherlands mocks allah, but when their version of CNN shows video of beheadings, they suddenly can't seem to find the time to voice a concern.If they don't like non muslim countries from being in their countries, then quit selling oil to the highest bidder. There is no free ride, they want to be part of the global market, then don't whine when the global buyers want to make sure that their supplies are safe guarded.And why did American troops have to march through their holy lands? Because they are too weak to defend themselves, and their troops are too lazy to train. From a purely evolutionist standpoint, they deserve to be thrown out of the middle east and their oil taken.But I suspect that that is not an issue, the truth is they are holding on to their own brand of power, by keeping their youth stupid and by keeping the people focused on the big bad infidels, instead of why they are living on dirt floors while their leaders spend billions on toys.It is not intellectually impressive to try to understand these people, it is euro-chic though to ask what did we do to make a terrorist kill children.Me, I go for the shoot them in the head and go back to work approach. I can always ask forgiveness if I'm wrong.

[BWToth 0]

Me, I go for the shoot them in the head and go back to work approach. I can always ask forgiveness if I'm wrong.

On a more personal note, I think I'm beginning to see why you think Prahlad Friedman is in some way humorous.

[Loismustdie 0]

Does everybody else agree with me that they weren't tortured or brainwashed at all? This, of course, is contrary to what conservative talking heads had been telling me on TV for the past few days. Also, it seems that these same people were wrong in thinking that this incident would be a springboard for all out war with Iran. I guess their eagerness to go to war with another country somewhat limited their objectivity in analyzing the facts.I mean, I'm sure Iran didn't just release them out of the goodness of their hearts but rather received some pressure from the UK, but it is nice to know that things actually can be resolved with diplomacy and that not every Iranian is a crazy Muslim extremist who beheads it's prisoners.

Iran was just posturing. They don't want the full wrath of the U.S. military just yet, but they also can't just look the other way when a blatant violation of territory occurs. It was purely a setting boundaries type thing.

[WrongWay 0]

>> I said: Name a society where it is okay to steal, lie or disobey the government. None.>> These "judeo-christian" values that the Bible Thumpers are so proud of are NOT Christian values. They are the basic Golden>> Rule values that EVERY society has need to long survive.> Baloon Guy said: LOL, you quote the Bible to prove that the Bible didn't influence societies.I say:1) You failed to name the society where it is okay to steal, lie and disobey the governement. Since I've looked and also found none, I'm forced to assume no such society exists.2) The golden rule is not in the Bible. Quite the contrary. The Bible says "Do as God commands". The Golden Rule is based on a rational examiniation on how you reasonably want and expect to be treated, and a self-created moral obligation to then treat others in this way. The Golden Rule is humanism!!!!!>> The United States is not a nation founded on Christian principles. > Take a law classU.S. law is based on British Common Law, true, and British Common Law, true. And Britian was Christian, true.But, the great leap forward for the United States, was representative republic. A concept in direct oposition to the Christian based concept of theocracy and divine right.> Last time I checked the congress pays a pastor to pray over the opening of congress every year, and has since it's inception.> That strong wall apperanently is only 2 feet wideI was talking about the founding fathers, not the current dorks we have in office, or the dorks they are forced to pander to.The founding fathers INTENTIONALLY left "God" out of the Constitution, and INTENTIONALLY created an ammendment that forbid Congress from creating an official religion.The creator Jefferson was talking about intentionally allowed any possible creator. He was a diest, believing in a (lower case) god that set it all up and kicked it off, but rejected that it was possible to know characterists of this creator and rejecting others telling you what God is and what it wants from you.Remember that the founding fathers were working at a time when we didn't really know how old the earth was, didn't understand evolution, and hadn't yet come up with a theory for the origin of species that didn't involve a supreme being. They were forced to assume "god" since they had not yet discovered the answer that the data supports as the "most likely" solution.

[David_Nicoson 1]

2) The golden rule is not in the Bible. Quite the contrary. The Bible says "Do as God commands". The Golden Rule is based on a rational examiniation on how you reasonably want and expect to be treated, and a self-created moral obligation to then treat others in this way. The Golden Rule is humanism!!!!!

I disagree. It's in there.12: So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. (Mat 7:12)

[Flack_attack 0]

Wrong Way,The Golden Rule is not "self-created...humanism", but rather is borne out of evolution by natural selection. Sociobiology, reciproical altruism, etc. Read up.

[Flack_attack 0]

Childishness is one thing--those of us who grew up on this wonderful Edwardian author were always happy to see the grown-ups and governesses discomfited. But puerility in adults is quite another thing, and considerably less charming. "You said there were WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam had friends in al Qaeda. . . . Blah, blah, pants on fire." I have had many opportunities to tire of this mantra. It takes ten seconds to intone the said mantra. It would take me, on my most eloquent C-SPAN day, at the very least five minutes to say that Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center attack in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad; that Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's senior physicist, was able to lead American soldiers to nuclear centrifuge parts and a blueprint for a complete centrifuge (the crown jewel of nuclear physics) buried on the orders of Qusay Hussein; that Saddam's agents were in Damascus as late as February 2003, negotiating to purchase missiles off the shelf from North Korea; or that Rolf Ekeus, the great Swedish socialist who founded the inspection process in Iraq after 1991, has told me for the record that he was offered a $2 million bribe in a face-to-face meeting with Tariq Aziz. And these eye-catching examples would by no means exhaust my repertoire, or empty my quiver. Yes, it must be admitted that Bush and Blair made a hash of a good case, largely because they preferred to scare people rather than enlighten them or reason with them. Still, the only real strategy of deception has come from those who believe, or pretend, that Saddam Hussein was no problem.I have a ready answer to those who accuse me of being an agent and tool of the Bush-Cheney administration (which is the nicest thing that my enemies can find to say). Attempting a little levity, I respond that I could stay at home if the authorities could bother to make their own case, but that I meanwhile am a prisoner of what I actually do know about the permanent hell, and the permanent threat, of the Saddam regime. However, having debated almost all of the spokespeople for the antiwar faction, both the sane and the deranged, I was recently asked a question that I was temporarily unable to answer. "If what you claim is true," the honest citizen at this meeting politely asked me, "how come the White House hasn't told us?"I do in fact know the answer to this question. So deep and bitter is the split within official Washington, most especially between the Defense Department and the CIA, that any claim made by the former has been undermined by leaks from the latter. (The latter being those who maintained, with a combination of dogmatism and cowardice not seen since Lincoln had to fire General McClellan, that Saddam Hussein was both a "secular" actor and--this is the really rich bit--a rational and calculating one.)There's no cure for that illusion, but the resulting bureaucratic chaos and unease has cornered the president into his current fallback upon platitude and hollowness. It has also induced him to give hostages to fortune. The claim that if we fight fundamentalism "over there" we won't have to confront it "over here" is not just a standing invitation for disproof by the next suicide-maniac in London or Chicago, but a coded appeal to provincial and isolationist opinion in the United States. Surely the elementary lesson of the grim anniversary that will shortly be upon us is that American civilians are as near to the front line as American soldiers.It is exactly this point that makes nonsense of the sob-sister tripe pumped out by the Cindy Sheehan circus and its surrogates. But in reply, why bother to call a struggle "global" if you then try to localize it? Just say plainly that we shall fight them everywhere they show themselves, and fight them on principle as well as in practice, and get ready to warn people that Nigeria is very probably the next target of the jihadists. The peaceniks love to ask: When and where will it all end? The answer is easy: It will end with the surrender or defeat of one of the contending parties. Should I add that I am certain which party that ought to be? Defeat is just about imaginable, though the mathematics and the algebra tell heavily against the holy warriors. Surrender to such a foe, after only four years of combat, is not even worthy of consideration.Antaeus was able to draw strength from the earth every time an antagonist wrestled him to the ground. A reverse mythology has been permitted to take hold in the present case, where bad news is deemed to be bad news only for regime-change. Anyone with the smallest knowledge of Iraq knows that its society and infrastructure and institutions have been appallingly maimed and beggared by three decades of war and fascism (and the "divide-and-rule" tactics by which Saddam maintained his own tribal minority of the Sunni minority in power). In logic and morality, one must therefore compare the current state of the country with the likely or probable state of it had Saddam and his sons been allowed to go on ruling.At once, one sees that all the alternatives would have been infinitely worse, and would most likely have led to an implosion--as well as opportunistic invasions from Iran and Turkey and Saudi Arabia, on behalf of their respective interests or confessional clienteles. This would in turn have necessitated a more costly and bloody intervention by some kind of coalition, much too late and on even worse terms and conditions. This is the lesson of Bosnia and Rwanda yesterday, and of Darfur today. When I have made this point in public, I have never had anyone offer an answer to it. A broken Iraq was in our future no matter what, and was a responsibility (somewhat conditioned by our past blunders) that no decent person could shirk. The only unthinkable policy was one of abstention.Two pieces of good fortune still attend those of us who go out on the road for this urgent and worthy cause. The first is contingent: There are an astounding number of plain frauds and charlatans (to phrase it at its highest) in charge of the propaganda of the other side. Just to tell off the names is to frighten children more than Saki ever could: Michael Moore, George Galloway, Jacques Chirac, Tim Robbins, Richard Clarke, Joseph Wilson . . . a roster of gargoyles that would send Ripley himself into early retirement. Some of these characters are flippant, and make heavy jokes about Halliburton, and some disdain to conceal their sympathy for the opposite side. So that's easy enough.The second bit of luck is a certain fiber displayed by a huge number of anonymous Americans. Faced with a constant drizzle of bad news and purposely demoralizing commentary, millions of people stick out their jaws and hang tight. I am no fan of populism, but I surmise that these citizens are clear on the main point: It is out of the question--plainly and absolutely out of the question--that we should surrender the keystone state of the Middle East to a rotten, murderous alliance between Baathists and bin Ladenists. When they hear the fatuous insinuation that this alliance has only been created by the resistance to it, voters know in their intestines that those who say so are soft on crime and soft on fascism. The more temperate anti-warriors, such as Mark Danner and Harold Meyerson, like to employ the term "a war of choice." One should have no problem in accepting this concept. As they cannot and do not deny, there was going to be another round with Saddam Hussein no matter what. To whom, then, should the "choice" of time and place have fallen? The clear implication of the antichoice faction--if I may so dub them--is that this decision should have been left up to Saddam Hussein. As so often before . . . DOES THE PRESIDENT deserve the benefit of the reserve of fortitude that I just mentioned? Only just, if at all. We need not argue about the failures and the mistakes and even the crimes, because these in some ways argue themselves. But a positive accounting could be offered without braggartry, and would include:(1) The overthrow of Talibanism and Baathism, and the exposure of many highly suggestive links between the two elements of this Hitler-Stalin pact. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who moved from Afghanistan to Iraq before the coalition intervention, has even gone to the trouble of naming his organization al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.(2) The subsequent capitulation of Qaddafi's Libya in point of weapons of mass destruction--a capitulation that was offered not to Kofi Annan or the E.U. but to Blair and Bush.(3) The consequent unmasking of the A.Q. Khan network for the illicit transfer of nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea.(4) The agreement by the United Nations that its own reform is necessary and overdue, and the unmasking of a quasi-criminal network within its elite.(5) The craven admission by President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder, when confronted with irrefutable evidence of cheating and concealment, respecting solemn treaties, on the part of Iran, that not even this will alter their commitment to neutralism. (One had already suspected as much in the Iraqi case.)(6) The ability to certify Iraq as actually disarmed, rather than accept the word of a psychopathic autocrat.(7) The immense gains made by the largest stateless minority in the region--the Kurds--and the spread of this example to other states.(8) The related encouragement of democratic and civil society movements in Egypt, Syria, and most notably Lebanon, which has regained a version of its autonomy.(9) The violent and ignominious death of thousands of bin Ladenist infiltrators into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the real prospect of greatly enlarging this number.(10) The training and hardening of many thousands of American servicemen and women in a battle against the forces of nihilism and absolutism, which training and hardening will surely be of great use in future combat.It would be admirable if the president could manage to make such a presentation. It would also be welcome if he and his deputies adopted a clear attitude toward the war within the war: in other words, stated plainly, that the secular and pluralist forces within Afghan and Iraqi society, while they are not our clients, can in no circumstance be allowed to wonder which outcome we favor.Thanks, Chris Hitchens.

[David_Nicoson 1]

Childishness is one thing--those of us who grew up on this wonderful Edwardian author were always happy to see the grown-ups and governesses discomfited. But puerility in adults is quite another thing, and considerably less charming. "You said there were WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam had friends in al Qaeda. . . . Blah, blah, pants on fire." I have had many opportunities to tire of this mantra. It takes ten seconds to intone the said mantra. It would take me, on my most eloquent C-SPAN day, at the very least five minutes to say that Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center attack in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad;

If I understand this right, Yasin was questioned, gave up some information, and then allowed to leave the US after the bombing. He went to Iraq. The US attorneys wanted him back. Hussein was willing to send him back to the US, but he wanted concessions from the US in return.From the Wikipedia article:

On several occasions, Iraq offered to turn Yasin over to the US government in exchange for lifting UN economic sanctions[citation needed]. Tariq Aziz, spokesman of Iraq, claimed that in the 1990's all Iraq wanted in return was a signed statement that Iraq had handed over Yasin. But reportedly the statement presented to the U.S. at the time contained lengthy wording essentially exonerating Iraqi involvement in the 1993 WTC attack. Nevertheless, Kenneth Pollack of the State Department stated that there was no CIA information tying Iraq into the 1993 WTC bombing.

So Hitchens may have something here on the harboring end, but it doesn't appear that the Iraqi government financed or planned the bombing.

[Balloon guy 158]

>> stuff

Sorry dude, you have a twisted view of history. I checked and it is not my week to correct you. Good luck.

[jmkiser 0]

If all the founding fathers were God-loving Christians who believe everything you do, then why isn't this a Christian nation? Why would there be separation of church and state clauses? And regarding infusions of God and the government, most of it happened during the communism scare anyway. People seriously thought communism = atheism... dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life. Lack of belief in God has never had anything to do with government... ever. Lack of belief in God has also never been responsible for the single loss of human life (well, except for those that had no belief in God... plenty of those people have been persecuted and murdered by the church). Either way, God on the money, God in the pledge of allegiance, etc... you name it. It was all added in the last 60 years. It's time for our country to move on.

[Balloon guy 158]

If all the founding fathers were God-loving Christians who believe everything you do, then why isn't this a Christian nation? Why would there be separation of church and state clauses? You mean the Amendment that says Congress shall pass no law to restrict the free expression of religion? Sounds like they were protecting religion from government, not the other way around.And regarding infusions of God and the government, most of it happened during the communism scare anyway. People seriously thought communism = atheism... dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life. Lack of belief in God has never had anything to do with government... ever. Lack of belief in God has also never been responsible for the single loss of human life (well, except for those that had no belief in God... plenty of those people have been persecuted and murdered by the church). Either way, God on the money, God in the pledge of allegiance, etc... you name it. It was all added in the last 60 years. It's time for our country to move on.

The very first meeting of congress was opened with a pastor/priest/minister opening in prayer. Every single session of congress is opened with prayer. Every session of the Supreme Court, God save this honorable court...let's not pretend that the government got religion in 1950 when they added the In God We Trust motto on all our coinage.To pretend that communism isn't athiest isn't communist is just because you guys can't stand the heat of the past. If the communist experiment had worked, your side would be pointing to it and saying see, told you atheism is better than religion.But let's say communiism isn't the purest representation of athiesm, then I guess it would be Nazism, after all the belief that a more advanced evolved group of people, more evolved through blood and breeding should rule the world is pretty darwinian isn't it. ( see what I did there, called you guys nazis....man I got you good)This whole argument started because Crow is trying to say that USA is in bad shape because they wouldn't vote for a person who claims to be an athiest, and all I'm saying is there is no proof that an athiest would, by the nature of being athiest, be a good president.This of course degrades to the Crusades, I point out that communism, which also doesn't believe in God has killed 10x more people than all wars fought because of Christianity for the last 2000 years, which your side tries to ignore, so you bring up the silly seperation of church and state, as if it is a phrase from the constitution and not just a pulled out of context reference in a personal letter written by Jefferson to a church group. So next time let's just make Crow prove that Athiest would make better presidents and I won't have to point out your sides terrible history and you won't have to try to distance yourself as hard as possible.And try to buy up all those copies of Communist Manifesto, it really makes your side look bad what with all it's religion is an opiate of the people, as they slaughter people by the hundreds of millions

[jmkiser 0]

"If the communist experiment had worked, your side would be pointing to it and saying see, told you atheism is better than religion."This is exactly the wrong idea people have about atheists. I don't think that way. Atheism is nothing, but a lack of belief in god. What relation do I have to communism? Communism = government , Atheism = lack of belief in a god ... wow, what a connection there. Religious people have discovered many things in this world and in no way do I (or anyone reasonable) would believe that their faith had anything to do with it. In the same way that Communist leaders being atheist has nothing to do with their actions. And if an American president was an atheist, his governmental decisions would have nothing to do with his lack of belief in a god. On the flip side, though, isn't Bush responsible for something "faith-based"? Aren't there some groups that he supports/created/allowed to exist that had something to do with faith and something to do with government? Ah, I don't know the details, but I'm sure someone who knows better can talk about it."( see what I did there, called you guys nazis....man I got you good)"lulz! ur so funneh! Didn't Hitler go to church? I do recall that he did. And no, I am not relating Hitler's actions to a religious endeavor just as you know you shouldn't relate his actions to atheists (a.k.a. people who lack belief in god). I like the sarcasm, though."This whole argument started because Crow is trying to say that USA is in bad shape because they wouldn't vote for a person who claims to be an athiest, and all I'm saying is there is no proof that an athiest would, by the nature of being athiest, be a good president."And what you're saying isn't relevant to the conversation. The whole point that Crow is trying to make is that it shouldn't matter if a person is an atheist or not. No one is trying to prove whether or not an atheist would be a good president or a bad one. If you are trying to say that it DOES matter, then start up that topic. I would start by asking what about being an atheist would be so detrimental to this country as the president?"This of course degrades to the Crusades, ..."Weren't the crusades all about religious issues, if I recall? And name one instance where someone was killed because someone who didn't believe in God didn't like the fact that they believed in God. If you want to flip that challenge around, there are plenty of people who were killed for not sharing similar religious beliefs to those in power.First off, we don't have a "side". The word "atheist" is just a label put on people who have lack of belief in God (kind of like how the word "purple" describes a shade of color). I am not a part of an organized group in my 'not believing in god'. There is just a label for my 'not believing in god'. And it's called atheist. Yes, there are organized groups of atheists that do exist, but atheism, itself, is only 'no belief in god'. The problem, Balloon Guy, is that you are trying to make people with lack of belief in God something we're not. If you would like to show the problems you have with a certain organization of people, then go ahead. Who knows? I might even agree with you.

[Loismustdie 0]

"If the communist experiment had worked, your side would be pointing to it and saying see, told you atheism is better than religion."This is exactly the wrong idea people have about atheists. I don't think that way. Atheism is nothing, but a lack of belief in god. What relation do I have to communism? Communism = government , Atheism = lack of belief in a god ... wow, what a connection there. Religious people have discovered many things in this world and in no way do I (or anyone reasonable) would believe that their faith had anything to do with it. In the same way that Communist leaders being atheist has nothing to do with their actions. And if an American president was an atheist, his governmental decisions would have nothing to do with his lack of belief in a god. On the flip side, though, isn't Bush responsible for something "faith-based"? Aren't there some groups that he supports/created/allowed to exist that had something to do with faith and something to do with government? Ah, I don't know the details, but I'm sure someone who knows better can talk about it."( see what I did there, called you guys nazis....man I got you good)"lulz! ur so funneh! Didn't Hitler go to church? I do recall that he did. And no, I am not relating Hitler's actions to a religious endeavor just as you know you shouldn't relate his actions to atheists (a.k.a. people who lack belief in god). I like the sarcasm, though."This whole argument started because Crow is trying to say that USA is in bad shape because they wouldn't vote for a person who claims to be an athiest, and all I'm saying is there is no proof that an athiest would, by the nature of being athiest, be a good president."And what you're saying isn't relevant to the conversation. The whole point that Crow is trying to make is that it shouldn't matter if a person is an atheist or not. No one is trying to prove whether or not an atheist would be a good president or a bad one. If you are trying to say that it DOES matter, then start up that topic. I would start by asking what about being an atheist would be so detrimental to this country as the president?"This of course degrades to the Crusades, ..."Weren't the crusades all about religious issues, if I recall? And name one instance where someone was killed because someone who didn't believe in God didn't like the fact that they believed in God. If you want to flip that challenge around, there are plenty of people who were killed for not sharing similar religious beliefs to those in power.First off, we don't have a "side". The word "atheist" is just a label put on people who have lack of belief in God (kind of like how the word "purple" describes a shade of color). I am not a part of an organized group in my 'not believing in god'. There is just a label for my 'not believing in god'. And it's called atheist. Yes, there are organized groups of atheists that do exist, but atheism, itself, is only 'no belief in god'. The problem, Balloon Guy, is that you are trying to make people with lack of belief in God something we're not. If you would like to show the problems you have with a certain organization of people, then go ahead. Who knows? I might even agree with you.

I think you would rather keep this simple definition of atheist, but it isn't that simple. It maintains a belief in human ability as the be all and end all- if WE/I can't prove it through Science then it must not be-and squarely puts the answers to everythinng in the hands of man and his devices, which in the case of any decent atheist is science. This is the code we live by, and the code we die by, to the point where it is just as much as deadly and deceitful as a religion can be. To say you don't have a side is a lie. It's the oppsoite of anything that has God as the answer/reason in front of it. That's alot of stuff to try and pretend that you have no side. Balloon Guy isn't that far off with his comparison to Nazi's- see earlier post, same thread, where Crow said we should eradicate the 2 party system IE eliminate points of view- wouldn't it be great if we were all a collective? Just one thought process, and it starts and ends with me, and this flesh that I worship.

[Balloon guy 158]

"If the communist experiment had worked, your side would be pointing to it and saying see, told you atheism is better than religion."This is exactly the wrong idea people have about atheists. I don't think that way. Atheism is nothing, but a lack of belief in god. What relation do I have to communism? Communism = government , Atheism = lack of belief in a god ... wow, what a connection there. Religious people have discovered many things in this world and in no way do I (or anyone reasonable) would believe that their faith had anything to do with it. In the same way that Communist leaders being atheist has nothing to do with their actions. And if an American president was an atheist, his governmental decisions would have nothing to do with his lack of belief in a god. On the flip side, though, isn't Bush responsible for something "faith-based"? Aren't there some groups that he supports/created/allowed to exist that had something to do with faith and something to do with government? Ah, I don't know the details, but I'm sure someone who knows better can talk about it.

A person that doesn't believe in God is not necessarily an athiest. An atheist is a person who actively believes there is no God. The first is more likely a lazy person that's put no thought into the issue. Not wrong or right, just are.An athiest is a person that has a belief, a belief that there is no God. Actually it's very arrogant because in order to say that there is not a God in the whole universe, you would have to know the whole universe. Science says until it is proven not to be true, it cannot be stated as dogmatically true. (Have fun with this one)I bet most people who claim atheism are really agnostics, at least if they have any rational logic behind their opinion.The atheist church has tax emempt status with the IRS, that makes them a religion. I never hear a concern for a seperation of that church and the state.The anti religious standpoint of the communist party is relevant to their make up, but I will grant you that it is not fair to argue that an agnostic is aligned with communsm or nazism. And my church has many ugly warts on it's history.So back to topic,if a person makes a claim to be an athiest, then are stating things about their character that are relevant to whether or not I vote for them. But I would admit that the honesty to make that claim is often lacking in politicians that wrap themselves up with the Bible and disgrace it from day one after election.I'm actually in a quandry about Mitt Romney because he has so many good qualities, but his faith in mormonism is troubling to me. That would be an interesting study if you want to se what a cult is all about...the morman church. read the God Makers and or the Mormon Murders. Good reads, and it gives you alot of ammunition to hate on mormons.fun to argue without name calling jm..you donkey

[BWToth 0]

An athiest is a person that has a belief, a belief that there is no God. Actually it's very arrogant because in order to say that there is not a God in the whole universe, you would have to know the whole universe. Science says until it is proven not to be true, it cannot be stated as dogmatically true.

But I suppose it's humble of Christians to claim that the God that they believe in truly exists (with no proof) and in addition is the ONLY true god and those who don't believe in it are going to hell.