[quote]Professor X wrote:
Who said I was a liberal? Because I don’t like Ann Coulter?
All of these conservatives running around judging everyone based on what political affiliation they think they are kinda makes you wonder eh…?[/quote]
I would never call you a liberal, Professor.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Well, I think the bitch has a few screws loose. I personally would specifically slap grandmothers who buy her books because they could be doing more productive things like…baking cookies and keeping their grand-daughters from growing up to be like Ann.
Another violent person! Now, back to Islam…a religion of peace, btw.
All these peace loving liberals using violence to assert their viewpoint, kinda makes you wonder eh…
Who said I was a liberal? Because I don’t like Ann Coulter?
All of these conservatives running around judging everyone based on what political affiliation they think they are kinda makes you wonder eh…?[/quote]
In the political forum every one of your arguments leans to the left, HEAVILY.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
In the political forum every one of your arguments leans to the left, HEAVILY.[/quote]
Maybe in those particular arguments I was leaning towards the “right”.
[quote]AbunaiE wrote:
I recommend you read The trouble with Islam today and then look at religions throughout the context of history. You can ask many questions about Christianity, Judiasm, Hinduism, Buddhism, and any other ism you would like to add and see that all of them are perveyors and perpetraitors of the same things we label inhumanities today.[/quote]
-Christianity and Islam to be sure. I’m not familiar enough with the Hindu religion to dispute this. I do, however, challenge you to identify a war fought in the name of Buddhism, or any other atrocities for that matter.
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
-Christianity and Islam to be sure. I’m not familiar enough with the Hindu religion to dispute this. I do, however, challenge you to identify a war fought in the name of Buddhism, or any other atrocities for that matter.
[/quote]
The Democratic Karen Buddhist Association in Thailand is one example. They have certainly committed some atrocities in the past few years.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
One problem is that if you denounce a terrorist, and live in a Middle Eastern country, you may be killed as an infidel or supporter of infidels, by the local wack-job. Living there is akin to living in Nazi Germany – speak out and pay the price.
How brave would any of us be in pre-2003 Iraq, against Saddam? Would we have spoken out?[/quote]
This is changing. The more these terrorists attack other muslims the more backlash there is against radical Islam.
This is another benefit of us forcing the war in Iraq. I don’t know if it was intended or not, but essentially we are forcing the middle east to pick sides. Although many in the middle east hate us and always have and always will, they are starting to hate the terrorists more.
[quote]optprime wrote:
AZMojo wrote:
-Christianity and Islam to be sure. I’m not familiar enough with the Hindu religion to dispute this. I do, however, challenge you to identify a war fought in the name of Buddhism, or any other atrocities for that matter.
The Democratic Karen Buddhist Association in Thailand is one example. They have certainly committed some atrocities in the past few years.
http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=3583
[/quote]
-Kudos on your research, but really, the DKBA? They are nothing more than a branch of the ruling Burmese military, used to fight the insurgents they seperated from. It says so in your link. Just because they have Buddhist in the name doesn’t mean that’s what they’re fighting for. My challenge asked for evidence of atrocities committed in the name of Buddhism, not the local warlord.
I suspect you’ll have to look a bit deeper than just searching for Buddhist in the TKB.
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
-Kudos on your research, but really, the DKBA? They are nothing more than a branch of the ruling Burmese military, used to fight the insurgents they seperated from. It says so in your link. Just because they have Buddhist in the name doesn’t mean that’s what they’re fighting for. My challenge asked for evidence of atrocities committed in the name of Buddhism, not the local warlord.
I suspect you’ll have to look a bit deeper than just searching for Buddhist in the TKB.
[/quote]
Well, if nothing else they are trying to establish a Buddhist state. Here’s a description from another website.
“Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA) - A violent and criminal religious based group wishing for a Buddhist cleric government, known for activities at the border between Thailand and Burma, including extortion, smuggling and illegal logging. On April 15, 2002, five were killed in Thailand, when a grenade was tossed from a rickshaw. On January 31, 1997, 7000 men and women were left homeless from raids on refugee camps in Huay Kalok, Thailand.”
I don’t have an axe to grind with Buddhism, I just remember reading about some of this in the Economist, which is why I brought it up. All in all Buddhism is obviously way down the list when it comes to violence committed in its name.
Why do humans take religion and turn it into some farcical reason to establish dictatorships, blow up daycare centers, saw off someone’s head? I tell you, we are FUBAR-ed unless we change!
When Jesus said,“Render unto Caesar…” he meant to seperate the two realms. Wish we would listen to the Teacher.
Luke 6:46 And why do you call Me Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say? *Jesus Christ
Paragraphs like those make me wonder why I dont like you.
Classic.
Amir
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I’m not arguing in favor of Ann Coulter (though I do like her wit). I was having a little fun with Harris, when he said that ANYONE who likes Ann’s work should be punched in the throat. By implication, this means that he wants to punch a little old grandmother in the throat, if she happened to like Ann’s work. I was also trying to find out how he came to his conclusions about the validity of her work.
This thread IS way off the original topic!
Well, I think the bitch has a few screws loose. I personally would specifically slap grandmothers who buy her books because they could be doing more productive things like…baking cookies and keeping their grand-daughters from growing up to be like Ann.[/quote]
Psst. When people speak of tolerance it generally means tolerance of differences, not tolerance of oppression, crime or whatever other indignities you wish to mention.
However, perhaps using your original argument, we could argue that all religions are fairly intolerant in some respects, so they should ALL be rejected entirely?
My two cents, as a former muslim.(Never really practiced, but did study because I have an Iranian mother and she tried to raise me a muslim; she too, by the way, is now questioning the religion as well, thank goodness)
Islam doesnt even allow you to think. Mere concepts which challenge the basic framework are the highest of sin.
Its a shameful religion which promotes killing. I cant beleive how Bush mentions Islam to be a religion of peace when it is clearly written in the Quran to behead infidels/non-beleivers/everyone not wearing a rag etc etc.
I can honestly say, from my experience with Islam, that it truly is a vile, evil and damning force destined to destroy all that is good.
Bill Maher said it best,the real axis of evil is Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
Amir
[quote]Professor X wrote:
snipeout wrote:
In the political forum every one of your arguments leans to the left, HEAVILY.
Maybe in those particular arguments I was leaning towards the “right”.[/quote]
Awwwwww, look he’s ashamed to call him self a left wing liberal. He has to mask it with off topic humor.
You are excused. Bad protein shake? 
Many would argue that as this ideal of tolerance of differences has progressed so has tolerance of indignities overall (especially from a conservative viewpoint) and in many cases depending on the difference it can be tricky to seperate the two and decide where to draw the line.
So you need to have some conditions on what you will tolerate and what not WITHIN that difference you are being tolerant of.
Well I advocate a seperation of church and state. People can practise whatever religion they want as long as they abide by the nations laws.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
Professor X wrote:
snipeout wrote:
In the political forum every one of your arguments leans to the left, HEAVILY.
Maybe in those particular arguments I was leaning towards the “right”.
Awwwwww, look he’s ashamed to call him self a left wing liberal. He has to mask it with off topic humor.[/quote]
That wasn’t humor at all. The fact still stands that simple minds don’t discuss or even debate actual topics anymore. Rather, they fuss about what political affiliation someone is as they close their minds to any further discussion or even the point that anyone is making. I am not a “liberal” or a “conservative”. I am a man who looks at topics and makes a decision. You running to be part of a group and “follow the leader” doesn’t make you look like the more logical or more intelligent individual.
I could care less, as far as any topic we have discussed, what anyone else from either party believes about the subject unless it falls in context. The same doesn’t appear to be said about you. You tote your party line as if it is some fraternity pin. I personally don’t think of “strong, intelligent, or capable of seeing both sides” when I see such a thing.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Professor X wrote:
snipeout wrote:
In the political forum every one of your arguments leans to the left, HEAVILY.
Maybe in those particular arguments I was leaning towards the “right”.
Awwwwww, look he’s ashamed to call him self a left wing liberal. He has to mask it with off topic humor.
That wasn’t humor at all. The fact still stands that simple minds don’t discuss or even debate actual topics anymore. Rather, they fuss about what political affiliation someone is as they close their minds to any further discussion or even the point that anyone is making. I am not a “liberal” or a “conservative”. I am a man who looks at topics and makes a decision. You running to be part of a group and “follow the leader” doesn’t make you look like the more logical or more intelligent individual.
I could care less, as far as any topic we have discussed, what anyone else from either party believes about the subject unless it falls in context. The same doesn’t appear to be said about you. You tote your party line as if it is some fraternity pin. I personally don’t think of “strong, intelligent, or capable of seeing both sides” when I see such a thing.[/quote]
What I was saying is that everyone of your beliefs is in line with a left leaning liberal. Therefore your beliefs fall in context with the democratic party. If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck…
[quote]snipeout wrote:
What I was saying is that everyone of your beliefs is in line with a left leaning liberal. Therefore your beliefs fall in context with the democratic party. If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck…[/quote]
See, now you are just plain lying. You showed how much you didn’t know about how I think when you accused me of being against gun ownership. This, of course, was false, especially considering my military association. You simply show again and again that the only way you can think…is to throw people in neat little boxes. Once you can’t, it confuses you. If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it must be yet another close minded groupie who thinks their political affiliation makes them superior. If you only knew how you were really viewed by others that don’t follow “group think”.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
snipeout wrote:
What I was saying is that everyone of your beliefs is in line with a left leaning liberal. Therefore your beliefs fall in context with the democratic party. If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck…
See, now you are just plain lying. You showed how much you didn’t know about how I think when you accused me of being against gun ownership. This, of course, was false, especially considering my military association. You simply show again and again that the only way you can think…is to throw people in neat little boxes. Once you can’t, it confuses you. If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it must be yet another close minded groupie who thinks their political affiliation makes them superior. If you only knew how you were really viewed by others that don’t follow “group think”.[/quote]
All you do is dance around what is originally stated in a post. You stated that you would pop any little old lady in the throat for listening to Ann Coulter. You have a liberal outlook on everything. You act like an elitist.
As for your gun control stance, all you really said is that “some people” should be allowed to have them. I guess those would be your elitist budddies. Since you can’t ever really pick a stance on an arugment, I’m going to do what you do to everyone. What are you some kind of retard, you would honestly make a statement that you would pop an old lady in the throat over her political beliefs. You are an ass, a monster of society with an extremely low level of intelligence. Oh I almost forgot to play the race card, wait there is nowhere to do it here so I will just make an obscure reference to needs of a metal detector in “that” neighborhood.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
All you do is dance around what is originally stated in a post. You stated that you would pop any little old lady in the throat for listening to Ann Coulter. You have a liberal outlook on everything. You act like an elitist. [/quote]
First, at least quote me directly because that isn’t what was stated. Second, I just proved you wrong in your comment that all of my opinions are leftists. They aren’t. 'Nuff said. It was PROVEN to you in the thread on carrying guns. You still overlook this and try to stereotype how I think. Elitist? Because your views seem juvenile to me? So be it.
[quote]
As for your gun control stance, all you really said is that “some people” should be allowed to have them. I guess those would be your elitist budddies. Since you can’t ever really pick a stance on an arugment, I’m going to do what you do to everyone. What are you some kind of retard, you would honestly make a statement that you would pop an old lady in the throat over her political beliefs. You are an ass, a monster of society with an extremely low level of intelligence. Oh I almost forgot to play the race card, wait there is nowhere to do it here so I will just make an obscure reference to needs of a metal detector in “that” neighborhood.[/quote]
Uh, you really don’t have it all, do you? Some people? So you think ALL PEOPLE should have guns? Does this include criminals or potential threats to society? How about dumbasses who don’t even know how to handle a weapon who just bought one because in your world, they are free without restriction? I pointed out the latest school shooting for a reason, because there is a problem with guns in our society…and it isn’t just those who stand out as stereotypical criminals. They are also kids who grew up in nice homes in suburban areas. That implies that something needs to be done and reducing all restrictions may not be that thing. You seem to only be able to see in all black or all white. Your sight is limited. Of course you would think this is elitist. You can’t think beyond “liberal” and “conservative”. Apparently, common sense has nothing to do with your views.