PDA

View Full Version : War On Terror: The New McCarthyism?



_Big_Unit_
07-26-2005, 05:39 AM
In light of all the terrorism hysteria as of late, I'm beginning to see more and more parallels to the events which transpired in the 1950s in response to communist threats. Am I the only one who sees this? The terms "terrorist" and "terrorism" are being thrown around by the media like a child that's just learnt its first profanity. It's getting to the point where normal citizens are not only kept under a blanket of fear, but suspected of being traitors if they don't support the extreme, irrational measures being taken by the government.

With the new Patriot Act, guilt by association is considered sufficient grounds for a complete violation of constitutional rights, and just about any action taken by the government can be justified by this principle. People are made to feel like heroes for sacrificing in the name of a "greater good," while those hesitant to give up their rights are seen as having something to hide, or in favor of terrorism. Curtailing civil liberties under the guise of national security has been a ploy used by both dictators AND democratic leaders / tyrants (sometimes there isn't much difference between the two) to gain power in the past. While some may laugh and dismiss the notion of facism today, it astounds and scares me at the same time how history can repeat itself so uncannily without anyone noticing.

What are your thoughts on this? Discuss.

Stinker
07-26-2005, 05:51 AM
War on terror is exactly like war on communism- It's a war on a concept, we can't win, nor can we loose it's just a fear slogan.

Ruhanv
07-26-2005, 05:56 AM
In the UK we have a range of new laws that are being implemented where incitement to terrorism becomes a crime as well. One the one hand I can understand it but how long until the likes of Michael Moore end up in prison.

If they voice of dissent is silenced then democracy itself has begun to die out.

There is nothing new under the sun and there are some real valid parallels with McCarthyism.

I would say that terrorism, or rather the Al-Queda ideology is more difficult to defeat than communism as it is not contained in a single country or state. It is not limited to any border or nationality.

_Big_Unit_
07-26-2005, 06:00 AM
In the UK we have a range of new laws that are being implemented where incitement to terrorism becomes a crime as well. One the one hand I can understand it but how long until the likes of Michael Moore end up in prison.

If they voice of dissent is silenced then democracy itself has begun to die out.

There is nothing new under the sun and there are some real valid parallels with McCarthyism.

I would say that terrorism, or rather the Al-Queda ideology is more difficult to defeat than communism as it is not contained in a single country or state. It is not limited to any border or nationality.Good point. Although terrorism is an entirely different animal altogether, the way in which the government and the general public respond to it is not unsimilar to communism. In fact, it's almost eerie.

We now mock, ridicule and satirize the unnecessary hysteria sparked by McCarthyism in the 50s. But it makes me wonder....50 years from now, after the absurdity of all this has been realized, will people look back at us and do the same thing?

LatsMakeTheMan
07-26-2005, 06:05 AM
I'll also agree that the word "terrorist" is the new version of "commie."


However, one thing that's scarier about terrorism is that there's no central "entity" which we can see and negotiate with. Also, during the Cold War, both sides were held in check by the threat of MAD. There's no such thing, now. They won't hesitate to use a nuclear weapon first chance they get.

It's going to be decades before this whole "war on terror" fades away. There's no end in sight from what I can see.

zxcvnm
07-26-2005, 06:16 AM
Terrorism is such a vague concept.

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

dictionary.com

You see a problem with this. Its like declaring war on school bullies, drugs and poverty.

Ruhanv
07-26-2005, 06:18 AM
We now mock, ridicule and satirize the unnecessary hysteria sparked by McCarthyism in the 50s. But it makes me wonder....50 years from now, after the absurdity of all this has been realized, will people look back at us and do the same thing?

Probably but since when have we ever learned from history?

The Experiment
07-26-2005, 06:19 AM
Yes but McCarthy was right about the red scare. Russia in 1995 revealed that they had numerous Communist agents in the United States, one of them was a cabinet member of Roosevelt I believe.

I highly doubt there are full fledged Islamic terrorist cells in the United States. Probably just a lot of keyboard badasses and Muslim fundamentalists that talk the talk but won't walk the walk.

Terrorism is such a broad term that its impossible to stomp or control.

LatsMakeTheMan
07-26-2005, 07:03 AM
Yes but McCarthy was right about the red scare. Russia in 1995 revealed that they had numerous Communist agents in the United States, one of them was a cabinet member of Roosevelt I believe.

I highly doubt there are full fledged Islamic terrorist cells in the United States. Probably just a lot of keyboard badasses and Muslim fundamentalists that talk the talk but won't walk the walk.

Terrorism is such a broad term that its impossible to stomp or control.

These days a "keyboard badass" can do some damage, though.

Purge
07-26-2005, 07:15 AM
This is a good thread.

cowboyathlete
07-26-2005, 07:18 AM
Yes but McCarthy was right about the red scare. Russia in 1995 revealed that they had numerous Communist agents in the United States, one of them was a cabinet member of Roosevelt I believe.

I highly doubt there are full fledged Islamic terrorist cells in the United States. Probably just a lot of keyboard badasses and Muslim fundamentalists that talk the talk but won't walk the walk.

Terrorism is such a broad term that its impossible to stomp or control.
Not only did the McCarthy hearings fail to reveal one single Communist, his right hand man eventually died of AIDS. With all due respect to to the people with HIV or AIDS, it shows the hypocrisy of fear mongering.

wayoutwest
07-26-2005, 09:51 AM
Not only did the McCarthy hearings fail to reveal one single Communist, his right hand man eventually died of AIDS. With all due respect to to the people with HIV or AIDS, it shows the hypocrisy of fear mongering.

i dont get the connection between AIDS and communism ..!?

sticklegs
07-26-2005, 11:45 AM
In the UK we have a range of new laws that are being implemented where incitement to terrorism becomes a crime as well. One the one hand I can understand it but how long until the likes of Michael Moore end up in prison.

If they voice of dissent is silenced then democracy itself has begun to die out.

There is nothing new under the sun and there are some real valid parallels with McCarthyism.

I would say that terrorism, or rather the Al-Queda ideology is more difficult to defeat than communism as it is not contained in a single country or state. It is not limited to any border or nationality.
there is a big differance between voice of dissent and inciting violence.

The Kurgan
07-26-2005, 11:58 AM
I was in America in 2003 (a long time ago, I know) and what surprised me was that at least 40% of the news stories (and all of the headlines) were "news alerts" and "disturbing study" and "danger, danger!"-esque headlines.

Whereas, if you watch the British news (and especially the Scottish news) you'd think all was well, and just gradually drifting into a never ending narcolepsy fit, coupled with quiet corruption and murder. This is despite the fact that, if you are American, your life expectancy is MUCH more than if you are Scottish!

LatsMakeTheMan
07-26-2005, 01:38 PM
I was in America in 2003 (a long time ago, I know) and what surprised me was that at least 40% of the news stories (and all of the headlines) were "news alerts" and "disturbing study" and "danger, danger!"-esque headlines.

heh.....you're right. But......it's been that way since LOOOONG before 9/11:)

honeybbqgrundle
07-26-2005, 02:35 PM
I highly doubt there are full fledged Islamic terrorist cells in the United States.

Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.

Runnin12
07-26-2005, 02:47 PM
In light of all the terrorism hysteria as of late, I'm beginning to see more and more parallels to the events which transpired in the 1950s in response to communist threats. Am I the only one who sees this? The terms "terrorist" and "terrorism" are being thrown around by the media like a child that's just learnt its first profanity. It's getting to the point where normal citizens are not only kept under a blanket of fear, but suspected of being traitors if they don't support the extreme, irrational measures being taken by the government.

With the new Patriot Act, guilt by association is considered sufficient grounds for a complete violation of constitutional rights, and just about any action taken by the government can be justified by this principle. People are made to feel like heroes for sacrificing in the name of a "greater good," while those hesitant to give up their rights are seen as having something to hide, or in favor of terrorism. Curtailing civil liberties under the guise of national security has been a ploy used by both dictators AND democratic leaders / tyrants (sometimes there isn't much difference between the two) to gain power in the past. While some may laugh and dismiss the notion of facism today, it astounds and scares me at the same time how history can repeat itself so uncannily without anyone noticing.

What are your thoughts on this? Discuss.

Sry bro but your post is idiotic. It doesnt have any truth to it whatsoever. I mean comparing McCarthyism to terrorism is just laughable. Plus the patriot act only goes towards terrorists, and not regular citizens. You bitch and moan that your civil liberties are being trampled on which is far from the truth. Just know we have to implement such policies because of people like YOU, its YOUR fault. Its due to the liberal national agenda that you can thank for it.

You liberals dont want to hurt terrorists "feelings" and want to be "fair" because god forbid we do something unfair towards terrorists. So we change our immigration policy so all of these middle eastern people are coming to America. They have masssive families that are terrorists, or their kids become terrorists, and they fund terrorist organizations. Now they are in America, amongst us. If it werent for you commies we wouldnt of needed the patriot act, because terrorists wouldnt be here in the first place. Even if we did have em here 60 years ago we would of just deported almost all the middle eastern people and stopped immigration from those countries. But they cant say **** about it because our President is controlled by you guys and he doesnt care. He comes up with **** like the patriot act. So just know its because of YOU that this happened so dont complain about it.

Oh and another thing, Mcarthy was RIGHT. There were communist in the government he just couldnt prove it. Plus look at where you get all of your info from! Its from the liberal textbooks at your school. Dude just look at the policies of our politicians, many of them are straight up communists they are just undercover as a "democrat". You dont even have to ask you can just see it by what they say. Chuck Scyhmer about a month ago was saying he wanted a communist revolution in fuking congress. Also many fmr gov officials over time such as CIA operatives admitted to being communists and they said they are really well dug in are in every aspect of government.

Purge
07-26-2005, 05:45 PM
Sry bro but your post is idiotic. It doesnt have any truth to it whatsoever. I mean comparing McCarthyism to terrorism is just laughable. Plus the patriot act only goes towards terrorists, and not regular citizens. You bitch and moan that your civil liberties are being trampled on which is far from the truth. Just know we have to implement such policies because of people like YOU, its YOUR fault. Its due to the liberal national agenda that you can thank for it.

You liberals dont want to hurt terrorists "feelings" and want to be "fair" because god forbid we do something unfair towards terrorists. So we change our immigration policy so all of these middle eastern people are coming to America. They have masssive families that are terrorists, or their kids become terrorists, and they fund terrorist organizations. Now they are in America, amongst us. If it werent for you commies we wouldnt of needed the patriot act, because terrorists wouldnt be here in the first place. Even if we did have em here 60 years ago we would of just deported almost all the middle eastern people and stopped immigration from those countries. But they cant say **** about it because our President is controlled by you guys and he doesnt care. He comes up with **** like the patriot act. So just know its because of YOU that this happened so dont complain about it.

Oh and another thing, Mcarthy was RIGHT. There were communist in the government he just couldnt prove it. Plus look at where you get all of your info from! Its from the liberal textbooks at your school. Dude just look at the policies of our politicians, many of them are straight up communists they are just undercover as a "democrat". You dont even have to ask you can just see it by what they say. Chuck Scyhmer about a month ago was saying he wanted a communist revolution in fuking congress. Also many fmr gov officials over time such as CIA operatives admitted to being communists and they said they are really well dug in are in every aspect of government.


Yeah you're right--the Patriot Act doesn't affect "regular citizens".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5072201658.html

More right-wing "blame-it-all-on-the-left" dejecta. I bet the FOX News logo is burned into your TV screen.

majortrepak
07-26-2005, 05:47 PM
Yeah you're right--the Patriot Act doesn't affect "regular citizens".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5072201658.html

More right-wing "blame-it-all-on-the-left" dejecta.
like dosent work
EDIT;LOL
link

Purge
07-26-2005, 05:50 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072201658.html


Try that one. I started a thread about it a few days ago.

majortrepak
07-26-2005, 05:56 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072201658.html


Try that one. I started a thread about it a few days ago.
Didnít see a misuse of the patriot act there. In fact it dosne't mention the patriot act.

sportsshrink
07-26-2005, 06:56 PM
Has anyone ever read the provisions of the Patriot Act? I believe I have read a lot of the provisions and I am actually encouraged that the Act institutes more judicial review for particular investigations--meaning more judges assigned to review court orders for investigations and surveillance. The act does allow more provisions to gather certain kinds of evidence only after a court order is attained. It also spells out more clearly what activities actually are considered illegal etc. I think it is a just act.

Debaser
07-26-2005, 07:46 PM
Sry bro but your post is idiotic. It doesnt have any truth to it whatsoever. I mean comparing McCarthyism to terrorism is just laughable. Plus the patriot act only goes towards terrorists, and not regular citizens. You bitch and moan that your civil liberties are being trampled on which is far from the truth. Just know we have to implement such policies because of people like YOU, its YOUR fault. Its due to the liberal national agenda that you can thank for it.


Doesn't have an affect on "regular people"?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/04/mayfield.lawsuit/index.html

He lives RIGHT by me. He was arrested and detained for two weeks without notice and with not enough evidence to arrest him with. He's taking the FBI (I believe it's the FBI) to court, which he should be doing. The FBI even admits they didn't have enough evidence to arrest him, but they did anyway.

Some of the PA is an abomination. I realize we need to do something about terrorism, but when we go in and unlawfully seize "evidence" in the name of terrorism, then it's crossing the line. Law enforcement agents can't do this for murders or any other crimes, and last I checked there were roughly 15-17,000 homicides in the US, far more than terrorism has ever killed.

These acts were enacted because of "liberal national agenda"? Don't even get me started on how igrnorant you are...

Debaser
07-26-2005, 07:49 PM
"If they voice of dissent is silenced then democracy itself has begun to die out." - Ruhanv


I couldn't agree more. Dissention is a major tenet of democracy. Without it, there is no freedom.

MushMouth
07-26-2005, 08:12 PM
Sry bro but your post is idiotic.

Nice way to start off a discussion. Good to let the other guy know you're going to be insulting and confrontational from the start, I suppose.


It doesnt have any truth to it whatsoever.

Given that his post was largely opinion truth wouldn't really factor into it. Opinions can't be facts, despite what the orthodox would have you believe.


I mean comparing McCarthyism to terrorism is just laughable.

I don't think he did a fantastic job of drawing out the comparison, but I believe one can be made. What he was getting at was that as McCarthysm was an overzealous search for communists that overstepped people's civil liberties, he sees the same potential abuse of civil liberties in pursuing terrorists.


Plus the patriot act only goes towards terrorists, and not regular citizens.

Factually, this is false. The Patriot Act grants the government powers that can be used on anyone. If you want hard examples you can see that provisions in the act have been used in ordinary criminal cases.


You bitch and moan that your civil liberties are being trampled on which is far from the truth.

Granted this is subjective, but I hardly found his post to be bitching and moaning. As to the second point, given your apparent superior understanding of the Patriot Act, could you please explain how it does not entail an erosion of civil liberty?


Just know we have to implement such policies because of people like YOU, its YOUR fault. Its due to the liberal national agenda that you can thank for it.

Please explain. I'd like to know how advising caution regarding the granting of increased gov't surveillance power over its citizens is a reason why such provisions are necessary. Also, what is the liberal national agenda. I've never heard of it before.


You liberals dont want to hurt terrorists "feelings" and want to be "fair" because god forbid we do something unfair towards terrorists.

I may have missed this, but has it been previously established that the poster in question is a liberal? Secondly, where was it established that liberals don't want to hurt terrorists feelings? This is like the strawman argument from hell - the poster never mentioned anything about the terrorists, his concern was for ordinary citizens.


So we change our immigration policy so all of these middle eastern people are coming to America.

So would seem to indicate that this point follows from a previous point, but there are no previous points that this would necessarily follow from, as such, it is a non-sequitar.


They have masssive families that are terrorists, or their kids become terrorists, and they fund terrorist organizations.

I think that bold a statement merits backing up. Source? Figures? Evidence?


Now they are in America, amongst us.

Yes, that's true.


If it werent for you commies we wouldnt of needed the patriot act, because terrorists wouldnt be here in the first place.

Again, perhaps you two have established this through previous discussion, but has it been established that the poster in question is a communist? Next, could you explain to me how it is that communists are the reasons Islamic terrorists threaten the United States. I've heard various lines of reasoning given for Islamic bred fanatacism, but this is new to me.



Even if we did have em here 60 years ago we would of just deported almost all the middle eastern people and stopped immigration from those countries.

60 years ago "they" would have been in internment camps.


But they cant say **** about it because our President is controlled by you guys and he doesnt care.

When you say "you guys" do you mean communists, liberals, or both? Also, how are either controlling the President?


He comes up with **** like the patriot act. So just know its because of YOU that this happened so dont complain about it.

Wait ... you're blaming 9/11 on the original poster?


Oh and another thing, Mcarthy was RIGHT. There were communist in the government he just couldnt prove it.

So that made it ok for innocent citizens to be persecuted?


Plus look at where you get all of your info from! Its from the liberal textbooks at your school.

This is something else I guess the two of you established previously, that he gets all of his info from textbooks (texts that oddly all happen to be "liberal", which incidentally = false.)


Dude just look at the policies of our politicians, many of them are straight up communists they are just undercover as a "democrat". You dont even have to ask you can just see it by what they say. Chuck Scyhmer about a month ago was saying he wanted a communist revolution in fuking congress.

Exact quote, please. I find this to be hard to believe, as a member of Congress calling for a communist revolution would have been front page national news, but I have seen nothing of the sort.


Also many fmr gov officials over time such as CIA operatives admitted to being communists and they said they are really well dug in are in every aspect of government.

How many is "many" and could you give a reference for this supposed entrenched communist infiltration. This is something hard to believe considering that the Cold War is over and communism is largely on the out around the globe.

Purge
07-26-2005, 08:16 PM
Good reply, Mush.

locknid
07-26-2005, 08:57 PM
I have seen news articles(sorry can't produce since they are kinda old) that stated the patriot act has been used on more regular citizens then so called terrorists, even the ones they did say were terrorists turned out only like 33% of them were ever charged with anything, also the secret search funtion of the patriot act has been carried out over 100 times, believe the number was 112 when the article was written maybe a year or so ago.

The patriot act was used upon me for making fraudulent documents, never sold to anyone but white people(not a racist issue, just watched my ass) and kept my **** secure. The only reason I got looked into was because some dumbass was too lazy to erase my email address and name from him computer, that is the only thing they saw and it gave them enough to come search my house because I could have been helping terrorists get into the country. Pure BS.

The war on "terror" is surprising like the war on "communism"

_Big_Unit_
07-26-2005, 11:15 PM
Sry bro but your post is idiotic. It doesnt have any truth to it whatsoever. I mean comparing McCarthyism to terrorism is just laughable. Plus the patriot act only goes towards terrorists, and not regular citizens. You bitch and moan that your civil liberties are being trampled on which is far from the truth. Just know we have to implement such policies because of people like YOU, its YOUR fault. Its due to the liberal national agenda that you can thank for it.

You liberals dont want to hurt terrorists "feelings" and want to be "fair" because god forbid we do something unfair towards terrorists. So we change our immigration policy so all of these middle eastern people are coming to America. They have masssive families that are terrorists, or their kids become terrorists, and they fund terrorist organizations. Now they are in America, amongst us. If it werent for you commies we wouldnt of needed the patriot act, because terrorists wouldnt be here in the first place. Even if we did have em here 60 years ago we would of just deported almost all the middle eastern people and stopped immigration from those countries. But they cant say **** about it because our President is controlled by you guys and he doesnt care. He comes up with **** like the patriot act. So just know its because of YOU that this happened so dont complain about it.

Oh and another thing, Mcarthy was RIGHT. There were communist in the government he just couldnt prove it. Plus look at where you get all of your info from! Its from the liberal textbooks at your school. Dude just look at the policies of our politicians, many of them are straight up communists they are just undercover as a "democrat". You dont even have to ask you can just see it by what they say. Chuck Scyhmer about a month ago was saying he wanted a communist revolution in fuking congress. Also many fmr gov officials over time such as CIA operatives admitted to being communists and they said they are really well dug in are in every aspect of government.First of all, nice job on calling my post idiotic. A great introduction to a compelling and well thought out argument. "Commie," "liberal national agenda"...brilliant. :rolleyes: There are a thousand and one phrases people like you (I'm not even bringing political spectrum into this, because stupidity and ignorance know no political bounds) like to spout off because you heard someone say it in an interview and think that yelling it over and over again will make people think you sound like anything but the two-digit IQ idiot that you are.

All you do is parrot the same anti-liberal phrases repeatedly. You don't debate, you don't listen to the other side, and you don't let anything penetrate that thick wall of concrete you call a skull.

So there WAS a communist threat, they just weren't able to prove it....I'm convinced! :rolleyes:

Explain exactly how the "'liberal agenda" is to blame for all this. The liberals didn't carry out the bombings in London, we didn't fly a plane into the World Trade Center, and we sure as hell aren't proposing an Act intended to strip away people's constitutional rights. No, last I checked it was your beloved right wing leaders who funded terrorists in the first place. Could it be that you're a typical hypocrit republican with a selective memory, or are you just too young to remember?

We oppose the Patriot Act because we don't want to hurt the terrorists' feelings? Put down the crack pipe, sparky. :rolleyes: You are a classic example of the type of people I was talking about. The brainwashed idiots who adopt Bush's policy of "you're either with us or against us."

ANYONE can be accused of being a terrorist. The word "terrorist" by definition is so broad it could be used as an excuse to target just about anyone who disagrees with the government's decisions. Oh, but nothing like that could ever happen here in the land of the free, right? :rolleyes: Wake up, son.

The fact that you think our immigration policy is the cause of terrorist attacks just shows your ignorance. Yeah, let's just kick all Middle Eastern people out of the country, because "they" are to blame for all this. :rolleyes: Brilliant.

Were you born this stupid, or did you eat paint chips when you were a kid?

Diesel66
07-27-2005, 12:03 AM
Doesn't have an affect on "regular people"?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/04/mayfield.lawsuit/index.html

He lives RIGHT by me. He was arrested and detained for two weeks without notice and with not enough evidence to arrest him with. He's taking the FBI (I believe it's the FBI) to court, which he should be doing. The FBI even admits they didn't have enough evidence to arrest him, but they did anyway.
He was released right ? FBI went overboard.



Just remember most of the PATRIOT ACT's provisions are just updates allowing the FBI to use the same tactics against terrorists that they currently use against organized crime

Runnin12
07-27-2005, 11:05 AM
First of all, nice job on calling my post idiotic. A great introduction to a compelling and well thought out argument. "Commie," "liberal national agenda"...brilliant. :rolleyes: There are a thousand and one phrases people like you (I'm not even bringing political spectrum into this, because stupidity and ignorance know no political bounds) like to spout off because you heard someone say it in an interview and think that yelling it over and over again will make people think you sound like anything but the two-digit IQ idiot that you are.

Your argument is just as compelling as mine. You are a hypocrite. You go on and on about me giving you 1-2 put downs but your post outdoes mine by about 20?


All you do is parrot the same anti-liberal phrases repeatedly. You don't debate, you don't listen to the other side, and you don't let anything penetrate that thick wall of concrete you call a skull.

You dont know what your talking about. You say im brainwashed, when your on the bandwagon of a mainstream political party. What are you not bright enough to realize they are all the same?


So there WAS a communist threat, they just weren't able to prove it....I'm convinced! :rolleyes:

I clearly stated that people working for the government have admitted to being communists. Do you have a selective memory? Joseph Stalin himself said he had communist spies in almost every part of our government. Why dont you look up the infamous yalta conference in which Stalin already knew we had a nuclear bomb program.


Explain exactly how the "'liberal agenda" is to blame for all this. The liberals didn't carry out the bombings in London, we didn't fly a plane into the World Trade Center

It was allowed to happen by the liberal policies our government follows. 18-20 of the 911 terrorists were on the terrorist watch list and were able to get student visas legally! The other 2 snuck through the canadian border. What does that tell you about the government and the people that elect them? I am really attacking both parties. I dont think you realize that Bush is just as liberal as everyone else. The massive spending, the big ass government, bueracracy, waste, endless unsuccessful programs, and the list goes on. Our immigration policy sucks, and it was changed by Ted Kennedy whos exact words were "its not fair". The liberal governments agenda is to disentegrate our borders and let terrorists live amongst us. Just about 2 weeks in the news they caught 4 terrorists living in the bay area. 2 of which where in terrorist training camps with Osama Bin laden. How do these guys get in the damn country in the first place!


and we sure as hell aren't proposing an Act intended to strip away people's constitutional rights.

Why dont you educate yourself on the act before you start talking about it? Its applies to TERRORISTS. Its so they can put microphones in mosques, not get a search warrent to nail a known terrorist planning attack. To give a terrorist a trail is just ridiculous. Do I want this enacted? Not really. If it was up to me the terrorists wouldnt be here in the first place and we wouldnt need this act. Just know because you want to be compassionate to radical islamic terrorist countries we allowed terrorist to live amongst us through massive immigration. No now we have to bring up some law like this. So stop complaining you did it to yourself.

Now answer this question. Why dont we stop immigration from terrorist countries and deport familes with ANY terrorist history or backround? I can bet the word "unfair" came into mind. If the terrorist werent here in the first place, there would be no need for the patriot act. Its the liberal agenda which proposed that terrorists come here. (Ted Kennedy Immigration Reform Act 1965) And we have to listen to you bitch and moan about it.


We oppose the Patriot Act because we don't want to hurt the terrorists' feelings? Put down the crack pipe, sparky. :rolleyes: You are a classic example of the type of people I was talking about. The brainwashed idiots who adopt Bush's policy of "you're either with us or against us."

Considering I am against almost everything Bush and the republican party do this doesnt apply to me. And stop pointing the finger at other people why dont you look at yourself to see if YOU are brainwashed.


ANYONE can be accused of being a terrorist. The word "terrorist" by definition is so broad it could be used as an excuse to target just about anyone who disagrees with the government's decisions.

Lets be realistic. The general consensus is that terrorists are middle eastern men, middle aged, radical muslims, with headscarves, that cut peoples throats and preach jihad. Because the FACT of the matter is that the majority of terrorists fit this profile. I never said you were a terrorist but liberals do DEFEND and support terrorists with their policies.


The fact that you think our immigration policy is the cause of terrorist attacks just shows your ignorance. Yeah, let's just kick all Middle Eastern people out of the country, because "they" are to blame for all this. Brilliant.

Its great that you draw your own conclusions to form a point. :rolleyes: We were only discussing ONE aspect of terrorism. If you want to go on we can certainly talk about the false idealogy they follow which is based on hate. I never said nor implied we should kick out all the middle eastern people. But it would fix the problem. How could they attack us if they werent allowed here? They wouldnt to be able to hit us from within like the did in both WTC attacks. Only thing they could do is hit small foriegn targets with bombs. But its "unfair". Just remember that when they set off a nuke in one of our cities.

playa hata
07-27-2005, 11:19 AM
He was released right ? FBI went overboard.

Just remember most of the PATRIOT ACT's provisions are just updates allowing the FBI to use the same tactics against terrorists that they currently use against organized crime

I definitely can relate to the FBI on this one. The guys fingerprint matched detonators in the madrid bombing and he was islamic. They apologized and let him go when they were wrong. This guy is a creep he files a damn lawsuit that he was violated.

This is your typical liberal creep. Instead of being cooperative and helping the FBI do their job to protect Americans from terrorists he sues em for a totally reasonable mistake they made.


Mayfield alleges his right to privacy was violated by the government when news of his arrest and his identity were leaked to the news media.

lol I can bet it was the liberal media which got the story first in so much detail . I remember fox news briefly said "A washington man was detained in connection to the madrid train bombings" and didnt go anywhere near as much detail as cnn did. Also he must of commited a prior crime for them to have his fingerprint on file.

Thats a liberal for you. Just an excuse for him to complain about his rights.

zxcvnm
07-27-2005, 11:47 AM
I definitely can relate to the FBI on this one. The guys fingerprint matched detonators in the madrid bombing and he was islamic. They apologized and let him go when they were wrong. This guy is a creep he files a damn lawsuit that he was violated.

This is your typical liberal creep. Instead of being cooperative and helping the FBI do their job to protect Americans from terrorists he sues em for a totally reasonable mistake they made.

I woulda have probably done the same. I would be pissed off for them wasting my time.

Runnin12
07-27-2005, 03:42 PM
Yeah you're right--the Patriot Act doesn't affect "regular citizens".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5072201658.html

More right-wing "blame-it-all-on-the-left" dejecta. I bet the FOX News logo is burned into your TV screen.

lmfao washington post! You should turn off CNN. Plus your link doesnt work.


Doesn't have an affect on "regular people"?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/04/mayfield.lawsuit/index.html

He lives RIGHT by me. He was arrested and detained for two weeks without notice and with not enough evidence to arrest him with. He's taking the FBI (I believe it's the FBI) to court, which he should be doing. The FBI even admits they didn't have enough evidence to arrest him, but they did anyway.

The guys fingerprints matched fingerprints on the bag used in the madrid train bombings, plus he was muslim. The FBI apologized once they found out they were wrong. It was a reasonable mistake. Look at where your getting your news. Do you see instead of showing the positive aspects of the patriot act they only show the one negative case? Ask yourself this.

How many terrorist attacks were prevented by the FBI due to the patriot act? The other day on the news they prevented some guy from blowing himself up in a sanfrancisco national guard recruiting center. Thats just one case I saw.

And how many people were falsely accused out of thousands? Maybe 1-2?


Some of the PA is an abomination. I realize we need to do something about terrorism, but when we go in and unlawfully seize "evidence" in the name of terrorism, then it's crossing the line. Law enforcement agents can't do this for murders or any other crimes, and last I checked there were roughly 15-17,000 homicides in the US, far more than terrorism has ever killed.

Thats because if they applied the patriot for murders it would be trampling civil liberties.


I couldn't agree more. Dissention is a major tenet of democracy. Without it, there is no freedom.

Did you just steal that from thomas jefferson and change the words around to pass off as your own? :rolleyes:

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans." --Bill Clinton, 1993.

furuno
07-28-2005, 05:09 AM
In the UK we have a range of new laws that are being implemented where incitement to terrorism becomes a crime as well. One the one hand I can understand it but how long until the likes of Michael Moore end up in prison.

If they voice of dissent is silenced then democracy itself has begun to die out.

There is nothing new under the sun and there are some real valid parallels with McCarthyism.

I would say that terrorism, or rather the Al-Queda ideology is more difficult to defeat than communism as it is not contained in a single country or state. It is not limited to any border or nationality.


That's the problem though isn't it? The Middle East hates the West because they take their oil, the West hates the Middle East because they blow themselves up. I don't know if there is an answer to the problem, it's two enitrely different points of view, one primarily Muslim, the other a mix of every religion, majority being Christianity. You would be hard pressed to find two people from these different backgrounds to agree on anything. The only thing that is for sure though is that if either side can't start understanding the other this war will only escalate, carrying on to our children and our grandchildren.

_Big_Unit_
07-28-2005, 05:13 AM
Your argument is just as compelling as mine. You are a hypocrite. You go on and on about me giving you 1-2 put downs but your post outdoes mine by about 20?You cast the first stone by bringing personal attacks into a thread intended for civil and mature debate. You initated the flames, I merely retaliated.


You dont know what your talking about. You say im brainwashed, when your on the bandwagon of a mainstream political party. What are you not bright enough to realize they are all the same?You're preaching to the choir, son. I realize there isn't a **** hair's difference between the two party system, and I don't recall ever aligning myself with any such party, just merely expressed views which had a liberal leaning. 'Twas you who started tossing the term around like an insult.


I clearly stated that people working for the government have admitted to being communists. Do you have a selective memory? Joseph Stalin himself said he had communist spies in almost every part of our government. Why dont you look up the infamous yalta conference in which Stalin already knew we had a nuclear bomb program.Uh, last I checked, people in this country are free to have whatever political views they please. Just because someone has communist beliefs doesn't mean they're conspiring to overthrow the government and start a communist revolution. Do you not think we had our own spies over there, too?


It was allowed to happen by the liberal policies our government follows. 18-20 of the 911 terrorists were on the terrorist watch list and were able to get student visas legally! The other 2 snuck through the canadian border. What does that tell you about the government and the people that elect them? I am really attacking both parties. I dont think you realize that Bush is just as liberal as everyone else. The massive spending, the big ass government, bueracracy, waste, endless unsuccessful programs, and the list goes on. Our immigration policy sucks, and it was changed by Ted Kennedy whos exact words were "its not fair". The liberal governments agenda is to disentegrate our borders and let terrorists live amongst us. Just about 2 weeks in the news they caught 4 terrorists living in the bay area. 2 of which where in terrorist training camps with Osama Bin laden. How do these guys get in the damn country in the first place!More ignorance. People look for something to blame, so they blame immigrants. Nevermind the fact that the majority of immigrants from the Middle East are law abiding, good people with a strong work ethic, who have to put up with people like you stereotyping them because of a radical extremist groups. By that logic, we shouldn't let Irish people into te country because they could have ties with the IRA. :rolleyes:


Why dont you educate yourself on the act before you start talking about it? Its applies to TERRORISTS. Its so they can put microphones in mosques, not get a search warrent to nail a known terrorist planning attack. To give a terrorist a trail is just ridiculous. Do I want this enacted? Not really. If it was up to me the terrorists wouldnt be here in the first place and we wouldnt need this act. Just know because you want to be compassionate to radical islamic terrorist countries we allowed terrorist to live amongst us through massive immigration. No now we have to bring up some law like this. So stop complaining you did it to yourself.Microphones in mosques? That's right, all Islamic people are terrorists, so let's just keep an eye on them by infringing on their rights, and violating their sacred place of worship.

Last I checked, an immense amount of killings has been carried out in the name of Christianity. Do you propose we moniter all churches and figureheads of Western organised religion too? Why can't you just admit your hatred stems from ignorance and racism, and nothing else?


Now answer this question. Why dont we stop immigration from terrorist countries and deport familes with ANY terrorist history or backround? I can bet the word "unfair" came into mind. If the terrorist werent here in the first place, there would be no need for the patriot act. Its the liberal agenda which proposed that terrorists come here. (Ted Kennedy Immigration Reform Act 1965) And we have to listen to you bitch and moan about it.And what would your definition of "terrorist" be?


Considering I am against almost everything Bush and the republican party do this doesnt apply to me. And stop pointing the finger at other people why dont you look at yourself to see if YOU are brainwashed.For someone who is supposedly against Bush, you sure are spewing a lot of his rhetoric.


Lets be realistic. The general consensus is that terrorists are middle eastern men, middle aged, radical muslims, with headscarves, that cut peoples throats and preach jihad. Because the FACT of the matter is that the majority of terrorists fit this profile. I never said you were a terrorist but liberals do DEFEND and support terrorists with their policies.I'm not supporting or defending terrorists, genius. I'm defending the INNOCENT U.S. CITIZENS whose rights will be impinged upon by this act. I mean, if I don't like the idea of having my phone tapped, credit card bills and library books monitered, and the police entering my home without a warrant, I MUST be supporting them terrorists! :rolleyes:


Its great that you draw your own conclusions to form a point. :rolleyes: We were only discussing ONE aspect of terrorism. If you want to go on we can certainly talk about the false idealogy they follow which is based on hate. I never said nor implied we should kick out all the middle eastern people. But it would fix the problem. How could they attack us if they werent allowed here? They wouldnt to be able to hit us from within like the did in both WTC attacks. Only thing they could do is hit small foriegn targets with bombs. But its "unfair". Just remember that when they set off a nuke in one of our cities.Wow. You're actually so blinded by hate you're proposing that all our country's problems would be fixed without the presence of a certain race and culture. :rolleyes: Hitler had that same theory too, you know...

Debaser
07-28-2005, 11:49 AM
I definitely can relate to the FBI on this one. The guys fingerprint matched detonators in the madrid bombing and he was islamic. They apologized and let him go when they were wrong. This guy is a creep he files a damn lawsuit that he was violated.

This is your typical liberal creep. Instead of being cooperative and helping the FBI do their job to protect Americans from terrorists he sues em for a totally reasonable mistake they made.



WOW. SHUT UP. He was detained for two weeks without notice his house was torn apart from the FBI and bugged, etc. His rights were clearly violated. He was arrested with not enough evidence, which the FBI even admits. This was an illegal operation by the FBI, he has every right to procede with his lawsuit.

Debaser
07-28-2005, 11:57 AM
The guys fingerprints matched fingerprints on the bag used in the madrid train bombings, plus he was muslim. The FBI apologized once they found out they were wrong. It was a reasonable mistake. Look at where your getting your news. Do you see instead of showing the positive aspects of the patriot act they only show the one negative case? Ask yourself this.

How many terrorist attacks were prevented by the FBI due to the patriot act? The other day on the news they prevented some guy from blowing himself up in a sanfrancisco national guard recruiting center. Thats just one case I saw.

And how many people were falsely accused out of thousands? Maybe 1-2?

First off, my news source is fine. You have no reason to cry. Do you want a newsmax link instead?

Actually, they didn't match the ones on the bag. It was proved that they didn't. They said they were 100% they were his, but it was later proven they weren't his.

That's the point, it wasn't a reasonable mistake. Enlighten me, does arresting someone when you know you don't have enough evidence sound reasonable to you? No, that's not reasonable, it's abusing your powers.

What does a guy blowing himself up have to do with the PA? There are some things I agree with the PA, but there are definately some abominations within the act.




Thats because if they applied the patriot for murders it would be trampling civil liberties.

Thanks for proving my point. Why should we be changing our legal methods in the name of terrorism hysteria? Murders have and will always kill more than terrorism in the US.



Did you just steal that from thomas jefferson and change the words around to pass off as your own? :rolleyes:

No, are you trying to be an absolute prick? Mission accomplished. I try to be civil in my discussions here on BB.com, but people like you make it difficult. Stop being a jackass.

BIGGER DEAL
07-28-2005, 06:46 PM
More ignorance. People look for something to blame, so they blame immigrants.

I usually dont but in other peoples arguments but this guy was acknowledging the ****ing hijackers which were NOT american citizens.



Last I checked, an immense amount of killings has been carried out in the name of Christianity.

Last you checked? What was this 500 years ago? Last time I checked christianity went through refroms and its in Islam thats still cutting peoples heads as if they were living in the 9th century. I dont see any christian crusades going on today.


Do you propose we moniter all churches and figureheads of Western organised religion too? Why can't you just admit your hatred stems from ignorance and racism, and nothing else?

Why would he do that? Considering Christians dont blow themselves up and crash planes into buildings.

locknid
07-28-2005, 07:00 PM
I usually dont but in other peoples arguments but this guy was acknowledging the ****ing hijackers which were NOT american citizens.

THey were legally here, doesn't matter if they are citizens are not.


Last you checked? What was this 500 years ago? Last time I checked christianity went through refroms and its in Islam thats still cutting peoples heads as if they were living in the 9th century. I dont see any christian crusades going on today.

last time i checked when we went into afganistan we were on a "crusade" directly from bush's mouth, he called the other side evildoers, he said it was a war of good and evil, religion, especially christianity always deals in things according to good and evil, evil given to satan and good given to god. The general Bush appointed to lead the hunt for OBL spoke at evangelist conferences and was quoted many times giving religions ties to the war on afganistan. Also there are many parents and other people who kill loved ones, their kids, abortion doctors, etc in the damn of their religion. It may not be nearly as much as islamic terrorists but it still exists.


Why would he do that? Considering Christians dont blow themselves up and crash planes into buildings.

look in ireland, there is tons of christian terrorism there, they could strike us at any moment.

_Big_Unit_
07-28-2005, 07:12 PM
I usually dont but in other peoples arguments but this guy was acknowledging the ****ing hijackers which were NOT american citizens.And the perpetrators of the Oklahoma bombing were. Your point is?


Last you checked? What was this 500 years ago? Last time I checked christianity went through refroms and its in Islam thats still cutting peoples heads as if they were living in the 9th century. I dont see any christian crusades going on today.Never heard of the KKK or white power groups murdering people in the name of Christ? Or that extremist Christian couple who recently locked their daughter in a basement and poured paint in her eyes to purify her soul? Or how about the war in Iraq right now? Is that not a crusade? After all, our president is going halfway around the world trying to push his Christian values onto another country he has no business being in.

Point being, no religion is perfect. There are extremist wingnuts under every faith. Stereotyping all Islamic people as savages and terrorists is beyond ignorant.


Why would he do that? Considering Christians dont blow themselves up and crash planes into buildings.And all Islamic people do. :rolleyes:

_Big_Unit_
07-28-2005, 07:19 PM
last time i checked when we went into afganistan we were on a "crusade" directly from bush's mouth, he called the other side evildoers, he said it was a war of good and evil, religion, especially christianity always deals in things according to good and evil, evil given to satan and good given to god. The general Bush appointed to lead the hunt for OBL spoke at evangelist conferences and was quoted many times giving religions ties to the war on afganistan. Also there are many parents and other people who kill loved ones, their kids, abortion doctors, etc in the damn of their religion. It may not be nearly as much as islamic terrorists but it still exists.BUMP! Beat me to it. Bush having our troops go over to Iraq and slaughter thousands of innocent civillians in the name of the bible is no less an act of terrorism than Osama carrying out the 9/11 attack in the name of the Koran.

majortrepak
07-28-2005, 07:22 PM
Bush having our troops go over to Iraq in the name of the bible
Quote with a link please. Mainstream media source too pleas.

_Big_Unit_
07-28-2005, 07:26 PM
Quote with a link please. Mainstream media source too pleas.Uh, listen to the axis of evil speech. If you think Bush isn't trying to push his Western Christian values on the countries he's going to war with, you're kidding yourself.

locknid
07-28-2005, 07:29 PM
Quote with a link please. Mainstream media source too pleas.

My comments about the good vs evil stuff is from the book "five warning signs when religion becomes evil" written by a christian with sources.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html there about the crusade part. from a christian source.

here is one talking about the general calling it a holy war http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1016-01.htm
and another
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/17/wboyk17.xml
and another
http://www.msnbc.com/news/980764.asp?cp1=1
and another
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/15/60II/main643650.shtml this talks about an interview he had after this story came out

he clearly states that the christian god is an actual god and the muslim god is basically false. It doesn't matter if he was talking about a warlord or not. He directly insulted that religion to make his look better. He has called this war a holy war. he is a fanatic if you listen to him, even though he claims he is not.

It is clear why the arabs are so mad and hostile, they think they are in a religious war, and bush has elevated OBL to a religious power state which everyone can see giving him more viewers and ultimately more followers.

majortrepak
07-28-2005, 07:57 PM
Uh, listen to the axis of evil speech. If you think Bush isn't trying to push his Western Christian values on the countries he's going to war with, you're kidding yourself.
This isn't about Western Christian values. THe war in Iraq was comparied to the crusades. Does Bush support our warriors of God bringing the birth place of Christ back under Christendom? I read the speech and read nothin like that. If this was a repeat of the crusades we would go for Israel.

majortrepak
07-28-2005, 08:02 PM
My comments about the good vs evil stuff is from the book "five warning signs when religion becomes evil" written by a christian with sources.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html there about the crusade part. from a christian source.

Couldn't find the speech the story was referring to so I could review it. No comment. The story was printed before the axis of evil speech so I know its not that one.


here is one talking about the general calling it a holy war http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1016-01.htm
and another
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/17/wboyk17.xml
and another
http://www.msnbc.com/news/980764.asp?cp1=1
and another
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/15/60II/main643650.shtml this talks about an interview he had after this story came out

he clearly states that the christian god is an actual god and the muslim god is basically false. It doesn't matter if he was talking about a warlord or not. He directly insulted that religion to make his look better. He has called this war a holy war. he is a fanatic if you listen to him, even though he claims he is not.

It is clear why the arabs are so mad and hostile, they think they are in a religious war, and bush has elevated OBL to a religious power state which everyone can see giving him more viewers and ultimately more followers.
The General has no authority to go to war or to make political decisions or make foreign policy. What he said is his personal opinion alone not the foreign policy of the US. All this proves is how one man feels about the war, not Bush not the US ppl.

locknid
07-28-2005, 08:10 PM
Couldn't find the speech the story was referring to so I could review it. No comment. The story was printed before the axis of evil speech so I know its not that one.

I never said anything about the axis of evil speech someone else did. THat article discussed president bush calling it a crusade

"President Bush's reference to a "crusade" against terrorism, which passed almost unnoticed by Americans, rang alarm bells in Europe. It raised fears that the terrorist attacks could spark a 'clash of civilizations' between Christians and Muslims, sowing fresh winds of hatred and mistrust."

"On Sunday, Bush warned Americans that "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile." He and other US officials have said that renegade Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden is the most likely suspect in the attacks.

His use of the word "crusade," said Soheib Bensheikh, Grand Mufti of the mosque in Marseille, France, "was most unfortunate", "It recalled the barbarous and unjust military operations against the Muslim world," by Christian knights, who launched repeated attempts to capture Jerusalem over the course of several hundred years."

those were taken from the article


The General has no authority to go to war or to make political decisions or make foreign policy. What he said is his personal opinion alone not the foreign policy of the US. All this proves is how one man feels about the war, not Bush not the US ppl.

I never said that but he is the top general in afganistan and I think he just got promoted to a major intelligence job. What i am saying is that bush has said many religious comments about this war and so has the general who was APPOINTED BY BUSH. I am not saying it is a religious war myself but by bush's actions and speeches he is making it seem like that to many around the world, including the people we are fighting. THey think so especially.

majortrepak
07-28-2005, 08:28 PM
I never said anything about the axis of evil speech someone else did. THat article discussed president bush calling it a crusade

"President Bush's reference to a "crusade" against terrorism, which passed almost unnoticed by Americans, rang alarm bells in Europe. It raised fears that the terrorist attacks could spark a 'clash of civilizations' between Christians and Muslims, sowing fresh winds of hatred and mistrust."

"On Sunday, Bush warned Americans that "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile." He and other US officials have said that renegade Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden is the most likely suspect in the attacks.

His use of the word "crusade," said Soheib Bensheikh, Grand Mufti of the mosque in Marseille, France, "was most unfortunate", "It recalled the barbarous and unjust military operations against the Muslim world," by Christian knights, who launched repeated attempts to capture Jerusalem over the course of several hundred years."

those were taken from the article

I read the article I just won't speak of what I know not of. It would be stupid for me to comment when I haven't read what Bush said.

As far as the general everyone is inferring that Bush agrees with him. The leaders of the nations that launched the crusades inferred nothing they back the holy war 100%. Its a weak comparison and one must use their predetermined view of Bush and his motivations to fill in the blanks to conclude this is a replay of the crusades.

Debaser
07-28-2005, 09:33 PM
I can't say anything of the war and this being Christian vs. Muslim. But no one can deny Bush's repeated use of "God" , "evildoers", "wicked", etc. and it is a bit scary. He's too fanatacially involved with religion to hold presidency and I feel that too many of his decisions are faith based and not meant to represent the whole nation.

Although, I will say Ashcroft was way worse. That man has got to be wacko.

majortrepak
07-28-2005, 09:36 PM
IHe's too fanatacially involved with religion to hold presidency and I feel that too many of his decisions are faith based and not meant to represent the whole nation.

He ran on those very qualities and he won twice.

Debaser
07-28-2005, 09:42 PM
He ran on those very qualities and he won twice.

Very true, but look at the running mate. He only won the popular vote once, so keep that in mind. Not exactly a quality candidate. And look at Bush's approval ratings at the moment factoring in that 30% of the population is going to love him for anything - even if he ate fetuses for breakfast.

majortrepak
07-28-2005, 09:44 PM
Very true, but look at the running mate. He only won the popular vote once, so keep that in mind. Not exactly a quality candidate. And look at Bush's approval ratings at the moment factoring in that 30% of the population is going to love him for anything - even if he ate fetuses for breakfast.
and that 30%+ would hate him no matter what. More vocal and has more money and power then the 30% that like him.
Gore was a good choice agianst Bush
Kerry was not

Runnin12
07-29-2005, 12:58 PM
WOW. SHUT UP. He was detained for two weeks without notice his house was torn apart from the FBI and bugged, etc. His rights were clearly violated. He was arrested with not enough evidence, which the FBI even admits. This was an illegal operation by the FBI, he has every right to procede with his lawsuit.

Alright, lets just not do anything to protect people from terrorists. Lets just let them plan to blow up buildings and just sit here. :rolleyes:

CrispyBacon
07-29-2005, 01:09 PM
In light of all the terrorism hysteria as of late, I'm beginning to see more and more parallels to the events which transpired in the 1950s in response to communist threats. Am I the only one who sees this? The terms "terrorist" and "terrorism" are being thrown around by the media like a child that's just learnt its first profanity. It's getting to the point where normal citizens are not only kept under a blanket of fear, but suspected of being traitors if they don't support the extreme, irrational measures being taken by the government.

With the new Patriot Act, guilt by association is considered sufficient grounds for a complete violation of constitutional rights, and just about any action taken by the government can be justified by this principle. People are made to feel like heroes for sacrificing in the name of a "greater good," while those hesitant to give up their rights are seen as having something to hide, or in favor of terrorism. Curtailing civil liberties under the guise of national security has been a ploy used by both dictators AND democratic leaders / tyrants (sometimes there isn't much difference between the two) to gain power in the past. While some may laugh and dismiss the notion of facism today, it astounds and scares me at the same time how history can repeat itself so uncannily without anyone noticing.

What are your thoughts on this? Discuss.

McCarthy was right about the communists. I can understand why the internment camps had to be set up too.

[ripsyBacon

Runnin12
07-29-2005, 01:11 PM
I can't say anything of the war and this being Christian vs. Muslim. But no one can deny Bush's repeated use of "God" , "evildoers", "wicked", etc. and it is a bit scary. He's too fanatacially involved with religion to hold presidency and I feel that too many of his decisions are faith based and not meant to represent the whole nation.

Although, I will say Ashcroft was way worse. That man has got to be wacko.

If you believe Bush is a christian you gotta be kidding yourself. Does he read the bible? No. Does he go to church a lot? Not really. Plus most churches dont even do anything important they just talk for an hour. Only a few pastors actually talk about life and help you be better from my expierience. He dodged the draft in nam and the only reason he is president is because of his rich dad. I have little to no respect for him because he did this. I wouldnt be able to sleep at night knowing I dodged the draft when better men where out their fighting for me. He thinks he is a big man declaring war in Iraq when he didnt have the guts to fight for himself. He just does what other people tell him to do. Preferably special interest groups, corporate america, his dad, and his skull and bones friends telling him to push for a new world order.

He was just copying reagen with the evil doers thing and trying to get the backup of the american people. It doesnt mean ****. Your definition of a religous person is extremely blurred and way off mark. I considered a religous person who puts religion FIRST in their life and not 9th or 10th like bush does. This is what you see with fanatical islam. But just look at iraq and whats going on in the middle east. Go watch the beheading videos of militants in Iraq killing gutting american throats. They all are started with statements that say "This is a holy war, we enjoy killing the infidel americans for allah" etc. Osama bin laden himself says all the time that this is a holy war against the world.

I do think this is between good and evil. America will lose. This is not a war we can win. Especially with this political correctness bull****. Our troops are sent to Iraq with their hands tied behind their back. This is kind of a repeat of vietnam, they wont let us use our full power. People like you dont even realize who the enemy is. How could we win if this is the mindset of people?

CrispyBacon
07-29-2005, 01:14 PM
I never said anything about the axis of evil speech someone else did. THat article discussed president bush calling it a crusade

"President Bush's reference to a "crusade" against terrorism, which passed almost unnoticed by Americans, rang alarm bells in Europe. It raised fears that the terrorist attacks could spark a 'clash of civilizations' between Christians and Muslims, sowing fresh winds of hatred and mistrust."

"On Sunday, Bush warned Americans that "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile." He and other US officials have said that renegade Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden is the most likely suspect in the attacks.

His use of the word "crusade," said Soheib Bensheikh, Grand Mufti of the mosque in Marseille, France, "was most unfortunate", "It recalled the barbarous and unjust military operations against the Muslim world," by Christian knights, who launched repeated attempts to capture Jerusalem over the course of several hundred years."

those were taken from the article



I never said that but he is the top general in afganistan and I think he just got promoted to a major intelligence job. What i am saying is that bush has said many religious comments about this war and so has the general who was APPOINTED BY BUSH. I am not saying it is a religious war myself but by bush's actions and speeches he is making it seem like that to many around the world, including the people we are fighting. THey think so especially.

The crusades was europes reaction to the invading Muslims. I can understand why they were brutal with the Muslims, its called war. I wish we were brave enough to have the same attitude today. All in all the Crusades saved europe from Muslim domination. A good thing.

[rispyBacon.

locknid
07-29-2005, 01:18 PM
If you believe Bush is a christian you gotta be kidding yourself. Does he read the bible? No. Does he go to church a lot? Not really.

wow you got somewhere I can read this. I mean myself and the rest of the entire country thinks that he is the most openly christian and religious president in the history of the US. Many people think that a lot of his decisions are based on his faith rather then logic, studies, what other people say, etc

Runnin12
07-29-2005, 01:55 PM
You're preaching to the choir, son. I realize there isn't a **** hair's difference between the two party system, and I don't recall ever aligning myself with any such party, just merely expressed views which had a liberal leaning. 'Twas you who started tossing the term around like an insult.

Its good you realize we basically have a one party system but the left side is far more extreme then then the "right"


Uh, last I checked, people in this country are free to have whatever political views they please. Just because someone has communist beliefs doesn't mean they're conspiring to overthrow the government and start a communist revolution. Do you not think we had our own spies over there, too?

Nice try to cover up saying that there werent any communist in the government.


More ignorance. People look for something to blame, so they blame immigrants. Nevermind the fact that the majority of immigrants from the Middle East are law abiding, good people with a strong work ethic, who have to put up with people like you stereotyping them because of a radical extremist groups. By that logic, we shouldn't let Irish people into te country because they could have ties with the IRA. :rolleyes: [quote]

I acknowledge the fact that almost all of the terrorist acts are being commited from the same groups of people. They are the #1 enemy towards america. What we are facing today is "Do we want security or freedom?" Irish people dont crash planes into buildings and blow up buses with women and children. One thing I do know is the majority of muslim people have major animosity towards the US, even if they are american citizens. They will take the side of Islam on almost any issue. My neighbor is islamic, and he is a pretty nice guy. But when we start talking about politics and religion he goes haywire. Do me a favor, talk to every single muslim you know and get in a deep convo with them about religion and politics and tell me what they say. Also, I never said we should deport all muslims. I did say we should start deporting a lot of them with terorrist ties and stop immigration from Islamic countries. I still think we should immigrat from islamic countries but get heavy backround checks and make the immigration very small. Nothing personal it would protect america. We wouldnt have to listen to terror alerts and be so crazy about protecting our homeland if they werent here among us .

[quote]Microphones in mosques? That's right, all Islamic people are terrorists, so let's just keep an eye on them by infringing on their rights, and violating their sacred place of worship.

Its a FACT that many mosques are terror headquarters where they plan attacks. Law enforcement have found endless terrorist attack blueprints, weapons, terror propaganda, etc in mosques. That is were they preach and encourage people to commit terrorist attacks in the name of Allah. If the mosque is clean and non of that is going on leave em alone. Plus they wouldnt even know if they were listening. The gov scans chat rooms and instant messages, forums etc and they never bothered me.


Last I checked, an immense amount of killings has been carried out in the name of Christianity. Do you propose we moniter all churches and figureheads of Western organised religion too?

Christianity went through a massive reformation and Islam did not. Christians dont hijack airliners and blow up buses with women and children.


Why can't you just admit your hatred stems from ignorance and racism, and nothing else?

I dont hate anyone. If anyone is displaying ignorance its you because you fail to acknowledge the history of terrorism and who commits terrorist acts. You did not read the Quran.


For someone who is supposedly against Bush, you sure are spewing a lot of his rhetoric.

Yea right.


I'm not supporting or defending terrorists, genius. I'm defending the INNOCENT U.S. CITIZENS whose rights will be impinged upon by this act. I mean, if I don't like the idea of having my phone tapped, credit card bills and library books monitered, and the police entering my home without a warrant, I MUST be supporting them terrorists! :rolleyes:

Yea were defending the 9-11 hijackers by saying they were citizens? You are defending them by refusing to educate yourself on their motives, religion, history, finiancial support, etc. If you look at current events you would realize they cause problems where ever they go. They burn synaguages in france, terrorist attacks in england, always push for land and islamic rights. I dont want to be bothered by that ****. They arent really causing problems now because their numbers arent large enough and they risked begin kicked out. They will bring that middle east drama over here, its only a matter of time. It wont be long before you see terrorist bombing buses with women and children in LA and burning churches and synaguages. I am trying to protect us from that.


Wow. You're actually so blinded by hate you're proposing that all our country's problems would be fixed without the presence of a certain race and culture. :rolleyes: Hitler had that same theory too, you know...

Its different the jews were innocent but terrorist are not.

Runnin12
07-29-2005, 02:04 PM
wow you got somewhere I can read this. I mean myself and the rest of the entire country thinks that he is the most openly christian and religious president in the history of the US. Many people think that a lot of his decisions are based on his faith rather then logic, studies, what other people say, etc

The founding fathers were pretty religous and their decisions were faith based. Ronald Reagen was the most religous President in my opinion. I dont really trust studies because you can twist them to say whatever you want them to say. I honestly believe Bush just wears his faith on his sleeve for political gain. I know a lot of religous people that identify themselves as christian and yet they only go to church once a week. Some say remarkably ungodly things such as "I hate susie shes a bitch" They just act like normal people and live by the devil during the week thinking if they go to church once a week they are fine. I have 1-2 christian friends that put religion first in their life who pray and read the bibe daily and it shows. They are religous people to me. I feel that Bush definitely falls in the first catergory.

locknid
07-29-2005, 06:15 PM
The founding fathers were pretty religous and their decisions were faith based. Ronald Reagen was the most religous President in my opinion. I dont really trust studies because you can twist them to say whatever you want them to say. I honestly believe Bush just wears his faith on his sleeve for political gain. I know a lot of religous people that identify themselves as christian and yet they only go to church once a week. Some say remarkably ungodly things such as "I hate susie shes a bitch" They just act like normal people and live by the devil during the week thinking if they go to church once a week they are fine. I have 1-2 christian friends that put religion first in their life who pray and read the bibe daily and it shows. They are religous people to me. I feel that Bush definitely falls in the first catergory.

I never said if he was a true christian or not, I was just stating that even if he is doing it for politics, he still says he is religious, plays to the moral voters, and people say a lot of his decisions are based on his faith. I think that he is using religion to fool some people, but I also think he seriously thinks he is a perfect born again christian so he must put into effect his religion into the public.

The founding fathers were religious but they also knew the importance of freedom of religion. Many of them have been quoted as to saying somewhere along the lines that religion is good but controling it isn't. They came here to escape religious persecution in europe from their own religion when they first came here. Also times have progress and so has the american population.

we are no longer white christian europeans, we have a large population of jews, muslims, hindu, and atheist/agnostic people in this country. They all have different beliefs, traditions, and practices which need to be respected by the government. It is extremely counter-productive to have such an openly christian president, making decisions according to his faith without regard for anyother faith or nonfaith.

xer0xed
07-29-2005, 07:41 PM
I read the title. Never got past it. What a joke of an idea :P

Debaser
07-29-2005, 08:29 PM
Alright, lets just not do anything to protect people from terrorists. Lets just let them plan to blow up buildings and just sit here. :rolleyes:

Arresting someone for not doing anything has nothing to do with protecting people from terrorism. :rolleyes:

Nowhere in my posts have I stated that we shouldn't do anything about terrorism, thanks for putting words in my mouth. If you want to reply to anything I say, at least put an effort forth in dissecting my posts because you lack in all aspects of having a cogent and logical argument.

Thanks for playing.

Debaser
07-29-2005, 08:38 PM
lol I can bet it was the liberal media which got the story first in so much detail . I remember fox news briefly said "A washington man was detained in connection to the madrid train bombings" and didnt go anywhere near as much detail as cnn did. Also he must of commited a prior crime for them to have his fingerprint on file.

Thats a liberal for you. Just an excuse for him to complain about his rights.

It's good that you know what you're talking about. He has his fingerprints on file because to pass the legal bar you need to have a background check, fingerprints, etc. As for his criminal record, I have no knowledge of that and guess what? Neither do you.

Nice detective work, "playa hata". You are such a good sleuth! (Don't get me started on the liberal comment, either).

Runnin12
07-29-2005, 08:44 PM
I never said if he was a true christian or not, I was just stating that even if he is doing[ it for politics, he still says he is religious, plays to the moral voters

Exactly, wearing his faith on his sleeve for political gain. Even Kerry tried to do it saying he was an altar boy and what not. I dont think anyone is buying it. If they did buy it they really need to evaluate their definition of what it is to be truly religous.


people say a lot of his decisions are based on his faith.

People say a lot of stupid ****. You may disagree with me but the majority of people can be wrong. I have to give Bush some credit that he does follow faith in really religous issues such as abortion, stem cell, euthanasia, etc but thats about it. He sure doesnt seem to care about Americans getting their heads chopped off in Iraq or sending boys to their deaths.


I think that he is using religion to fool some people

I can agree with that


but I also think he seriously thinks he is a perfect born again christian so he must put into effect his religion into the public.

I dont think he thinks hes perfect. I dont think he tries to put his religion into the public either. I think he tries to enact the religous view on - some -
moral issues but thats about it.


The founding fathers were religious but they also knew the importance of freedom of religion. Many of them have been quoted as to saying somewhere along the lines that religion is good but controling it isn't.

Well, your collegue BIG UNIT certainly would disagree with you on that. He would love to have the government control religion. Its only in totalitarian regimes that they do that. I agree with you and the Constitution of the United States. This country is great because it was founded on moral values and religous principle (The founders values were religous values) and we have to acknowledge that. If religion is controlled your freedom is being controlled.


They came here to escape religious persecution in europe from their own religion when they first came here. Also times have progress and so has the american population. We are no longer white christian europeans, we have a large population of jews, muslims, hindu, and atheist/agnostic people in this country.

According to a 2002 census America is 81% white, 12.9 percent black etc

Religions are: Roman Catholic 24% , Protestant 52%, and other of jewish, muslim, buddhist , hindu

We are still a white christian nation but its being hijacked to be a non white christian nation. And who says we are no longer a white christian nation? Thats what liberals would like you to think. I am all for immigration and having people from other countries here but not at the expense of losing our white christian heritage. I dont want whites to be the minority in our own country. In 3 decades the white population already went down 30 percent and its not going to get better. Do you honestly think whites shoud be the minority? Give it a few decades you will see it.


They all have different beliefs, traditions, and practices which need to be respected by the government. It is extremely counter-productive to have such an openly christian president, making decisions according to his faith without regard for anyother faith or nonfaith.

Read the bible. It says everyone is equal in the eyes of God and you should love and respect everyone. To have a true christian president would benefit all the people. And who says he doesnt have any regard for any other faith? Everyone has freedom of religion thats enough for me. But to be honest all of the presidents are the same. The last 3-4 presidents have been pushing for the New world order and do not listen to the people. Our government doesnt represent us anyways.

Runnin12
07-29-2005, 08:50 PM
Arresting someone for not doing anything has nothing to do with protecting people from terrorism. :rolleyes:

Nowhere in my posts have I stated that we shouldn't do anything about terrorism, thanks for putting words in my mouth. If you want to reply to anything I say, at least put an effort forth in dissecting my posts because you lack in all aspects of having a cogent and logical argument.

Thanks for playing.

Relax dawg. The FBI was wrong for this guy. But honestly, answer me this. How would you fix the problems associated with terrorism?

Debaser
07-29-2005, 08:55 PM
If you believe Bush is a christian you gotta be kidding yourself. Does he read the bible? No. Does he go to church a lot? Not really. Plus most churches dont even do anything important they just talk for an hour. Only a few pastors actually talk about life and help you be better from my expierience.

What, do you follow around Bush all day and know his prioritization list of what's important to him? Do you know his reading materials? It would be nice if you backed up your claims before you throw around blanket statements. Google is start.

I sure do believe he's a Christian, and so does he. He is stated to read the bible daily and that his most influential person in his life is Christ.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2099698/



I do think this is between good and evil. America will lose. This is not a war we can win. Especially with this political correctness bull****. Our troops are sent to Iraq with their hands tied behind their back. This is kind of a repeat of vietnam, they wont let us use our full power. People like you dont even realize who the enemy is. How could we win if this is the mindset of people?

So should we bomb anything and everything indiscriminantely? "People like you"? Since when have you heard my stances on, well, anything and what I truly believe? You seem to know me pretty well. What's my favorite food?

Debaser
07-29-2005, 09:00 PM
Relax dawg. The FBI was wrong for this guy. But honestly, answer me this. How would you fix the problems associated with terrorism?
It sounds like I am high-strung when I use bold but I only use it because people's attention spans are too low to read through a whopping half page of text and it highlights what I am trying to convey.

That's a tough question. What do I know about fighting terrorism? But when it goes into arresting people for nothing and detaining them without notice and is unjust - then that is absolutely wrong. That I can answer. When we go out of our way and invade people's privacy, we establish a police state. If we can't do this with murderers, then we shouldn't be able to do this with terrorists.

If there is discernible evidence to use phone tapping and all that junk, then yes, I think that is an acceptable means. But when we don't know fully of the person's affiliations, then we shouldn't be able to circumvent normal investigational procedures.

Debaser
07-29-2005, 09:07 PM
Read the bible. It says everyone is equal in the eyes of God and you should love and respect everyone. To have a true christian president would benefit all the people. And who says he doesnt have any regard for any other faith? Everyone has freedom of religion thats enough for me. But to be honest all of the presidents are the same. The last 3-4 presidents have been pushing for the New world order and do not listen to the people. Our government doesnt represent us anyways.

The Bible also says that women should be subservient to men and that slaverly is acceptable.

http://www.twopaths.com/faq_women.htm

(Pssst...That doesn't sound very equal).

The Bible, while I think it has many, many good words and is an eloquently written work of art, has many contradictions. Therfore, what are we to conclude?

Runnin12
07-29-2005, 09:10 PM
What, do you follow around Bush all day and know his prioritization list of what's important to him? Do you know his reading materials? It would be nice if you backed up your claims before you throw around blanket statements. Google is start. I sure do believe he's a Christian, and so does he. He is stated to read the bible daily and that his most influential person in his life is Christ.

RELAX. Dude you need to take a chill pill. What do you follow around Bush all day? Do you watch him read the bible? Yea thats right. The article said "We are told he reads the bible everyday" from a news source, not from Bush himself. Also Hitler also claimed to be a devout catholic, it doesnt mean ****. If you were running for re- election you would say it to. I also know the bible says to be able to tell a true christian "You can tell by his fruit". Bushes fruit is a ****ty mess in Iraq, I hardley believe that God influenced him to get involved in that. Plus I watched an hour documentary on Bush and his faith and know more then you who just read an msn article.

I used to like him after the 9-11 attacks, especially after the story of him hugging the boy that lost his dad in the WTC. But I lost my respect for him after the beheadings in Iraq when he didnt say a word about it and was just chilling in camp david.


So should we bomb anything and everything indiscriminantely? "People like you"? What's my favorite food?

I dont think anyone takes you serously with your "internet bad ass" talk.

Runnin12
07-29-2005, 09:18 PM
That's a tough question. What do I know about fighting terrorism? But when it goes into arresting people for nothing and detaining them without notice and is unjust - then that is absolutely wrong. That I can answer. When we go out of our way and invade people's privacy, we establish a police state.

The government will invade your privacy if they have a reason to with or without the patriot act.


If we can't do this with murderers, then we shouldn't be able to do this with terrorists.

Law shouldnt apply to terrorists unless they are US citizens.


But when we don't know fully of the person's affiliations, then we shouldn't be able to circumvent normal investigational procedures.

If there is probable cause and gov is pretty certain I say go for it. I only agree with the patriot act if it doesnt apply to US citizens. And relax dude, i will talk to you just please drop the bad ass talk.

Paul's Proclamation of equality

Although he accepted that people may have different roles in society, the apostle Paul proclaimed that all believers are equal in God's sight:

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (NIV, Galatians 3:26-29)

Bible says that women are subordinate to men physically, and God designed roles for men and women. Nothing wrong with that. Paul states here that male and female are equal in the eyes of God. Both views can go hand in hand.


The "no" conclusion: Women cannot be ministers or priests

Honestly man I agree that women shouldnt be ministers or priests. I couldnt even tell you why I just have a feeling. About slavery, from what i know he never intended for slaves to be beaten and tortured. The word slavery has such a negative connotation to it which has transformed over the centuries. Didnt God free the jews from the hands of the egyptians due to the barbaric treatment? God did not tolerate that and he still doesnt.

Debaser
07-29-2005, 09:59 PM
The government will invade your privacy if they have a reason to with or without the patriot act.

Soo we should just bend over and take it? The PA can open doors to more invasion of privacy.



Law shouldnt apply to terrorists unless they are US citizens.

Oh, so while we're spreading freedom and democracy in the world we should conveniently look the other way in regards to "suspected terrorists" because we conventionally crossed an arbitrary line? So once we cross the Pacific, or Atlantic, or the Mexican border we can forget about laws, right? Who needs laws!? Horrible logic.



If there is probable cause and gov is pretty certain I say go for it. I only agree with the patriot act if it doesnt apply to US citizens. And relax dude, i will talk to you just please drop the bad ass talk.

So Non-US citizens are not people? But if they're from America they are people? Can you honestly describe to me a non-US terrorist and a US terrorists? What is the difference? I only started the badass talk after you did the sarcastic "What you stole that from Thomas Jeffereson..." **** at the end of one of my posts.



Bible says that women are subordinate to men physically, and God designed roles for men and women. Nothing wrong with that. Paul states here that male and female are equal in the eyes of God. Both views can go hand in hand.

This doesn't sound like the NT is talking about "physical" attributes nor is it talking about a societal "role" (other than the obvious role of shutting the hell up).:

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.


I am aware of Paul's beliefs. As I stated, the Bible has many, many contradictions. What do we believe? Paul or some of wha the NT says? Do we pick and choose what we like about the Bible? That doesn't make sense.



Honestly man I agree that women shouldnt be ministers or priests. I couldnt even tell you why I just have a feeling. About slavery, from what i know he never intended for slaves to be beaten and tortured. The word slavery has such a negative connotation to it which has transformed over the centuries. Didnt God free the jews from the hands of the egyptians due to the barbaric treatment? God did not tolerate that and he still doesnt.
A slave means slave, while you do have a point about the severity of the treatment. So it's okay to have slaves if you treat them nicely? It goes against the very idea of the words freedom. No one, and no one at all should own me, except for God.

Debaser
07-29-2005, 10:07 PM
I dont think anyone takes you serously with your "internet bad ass" talk.
It's good that you edited your post from saying "FU CK OFF" to a more light and moderate tone, while you're telling me to "chill out".

I am assuming you're Christian (although I could be wrong and sorry if I am), and you bashed "fake Christians" for their foul mouths. Well, if you are Christian, you're a super-hypocrite.

Runnin12
07-29-2005, 11:05 PM
Soo we should just bend over and take it? The PA can open doors to more invasion of privacy.

Nah, its good that you fight for what you dont like. If it was up to me the terrorist wouldnt be here in the first place. But the ironic thing is that many of the people the government are trying to nail and spy on with the patriot act are not citizens. If all of them were citizens I say due away with the patriot act it would be trampeling civil liberties. Plus the problem is from the moronic policies of the gov and then they bitch about their own idiot policies and make something like the patriot act to make up for it.


oh, so while we're spreading freedom and democracy in the world we should conveniently look the other way in regards to "suspected terrorists" because we conventionally crossed an arbitrary line? So once we cross the Pacific, or Atlantic, or the Mexican border we can forget about laws, right? Who needs laws!? Horrible logic.

Constituational rights do not apply to terrorists unless they are US citizens. Its pretty pathetic that terrorists were able to unbtain citizenship through our crappy laws. 18-20 of the 9-11 terrorists where here legally! The others snuck through the border. What does that tell you about our government?


[So Non-US citizens are not people? But if they're from America they are people? Can you honestly describe to me a non-US terrorist and a US terrorists? What is the difference?

No difference. Only that US terrorists live with us and are more likely to blow up a bus or some financial target here.


I only started the badass talk after you did the sarcastic "What you stole that from Thomas Jeffereson..." **** at the end of one of my posts.

lol sry i was being an *******. But you have to admit you were saying exactly what he said you just rephrased it.


This doesn't sound like the NT is talking about "physical" attributes nor is it talking about a societal "role" (other than the obvious role of shutting the hell up).:

I was referring to the bible in general. Read the creation of adam and eve where god describes the role of a women.


I am aware of Paul's beliefs. As I stated, the Bible has many, many contradictions. What do we believe? Paul or some of wha the NT says? Do we pick and choose what we like about the Bible? That doesn't make sense.

The bible seems to have many contradictions but from what I know many of them can be explained.


A slave means slave, while you do have a point about the severity of the treatment. So it's okay to have slaves if you treat them nicely? It goes against the very idea of the words freedom. No one, and no one at all should own me, except for God.

Well, in biblical times slavery was normal. Life was difficult then and slaves were provided for. I surely can with assurance that God loves a slave as much as anyone else. One of the reasons I like the bible is because it really emphasizes that everyone is important and equal to God.


It's good that you edited your post from saying "FU CK OFF" to a more light and moderate tone, while you're telling me to "chill out".

lol. Sometimes piss me off and I dont like talking **** from people. I am a really mellow guy I dont get angry a lot. I took the **** you out because that doesnt represent me and there is no need for the animosity.


I am assuming you're Christian (although I could be wrong and sorry if I am), and you bashed "fake Christians" for their foul mouths. Well, if you are Christian, you're a super-hypocrite.

no way i am not a devout christian but i do have a catholic backround but i am in now way religous.

Debaser
07-29-2005, 11:22 PM
Nah, its good that you fight for what you dont like. If it was up to me the terrorist wouldnt be here in the first place. But the ironic thing is that many of the people the government are trying to nail and spy on with the patriot act are not citizens. If all of them were citizens I say due away with the patriot act it would be trampeling civil liberties. Plus the problem is from the moronic policies of the gov and then they bitch about their own idiot policies and make something like the patriot act to make up for it.

Well if it were up to me there would be no crime. Realizing that deviance is natural for some people and a fact of life, we need to think of being realistic and applying this to today's terms.



lol sry i was being an *******. But you have to admit you were saying exactly what he said you just rephrased it.

No I won't admit it because I have never even heard that quote from Thomas Jefferson so I have no friggin' clue what you were even talking about. :-o



I was referring to the bible in general. Read the creation of adam and eve where god describes the role of a women.

Her role to shut her yapper and to ask permission to speak from her husband? Or the one from adam and eve? I am confused.

You see where I am coming from?



The bible seems to have many contradictions but from what I know many of them can be explained.

I'd have a hard time understanding the role of a woman. One passage says one thing, the other passage says something different.



Well, in biblical times slavery was normal. Life was difficult then and slaves were provided for. I surely can with assurance that God loves a slave as much as anyone else. One of the reasons I like the bible is because it really emphasizes that everyone is important and equal to God.

Important unless you're a woman or a slave, I guess. If one passage doesn't apply to today's terms then how do we discern which ones are good for us and which ones are bad for us? Do we pick and choose? I personally don't think that's what the Bible is all about. Either you're for the book or not, there's no grey area.



lol. Sometimes piss me off and I dont like talking **** from people. I am a really mellow guy I dont get angry a lot. I took the **** you out because that doesnt represent me and there is no need for the animosity.

That's fine.

Diesel66
07-30-2005, 03:57 AM
And the perpetrators of the Oklahoma bombing were. Your point is?

Never heard of the KKK or white power groups murdering people in the name of Christ? Or that extremist Christian couple who recently locked their daughter in a basement and poured paint in her eyes to purify her soul? They are not following the message of Christ at all. They are Christians under any view except for their twisted logic.
Or how about the war in Iraq right now? Is that not a crusade? After all, our president is going halfway around the world trying to push his Christian values onto another country he has no business being in.
Now you are just being a complete idiot.

Runnin12
07-30-2005, 02:09 PM
Well if it were up to me there would be no crime. Realizing that deviance is natural for some people and a fact of life, we need to think of being realistic and applying this to today's terms.

How were terrorist able to come here in the first place? Its due to the crappy corrupt government. I would really dramatically almost stop immigration from radical islamic countries. Even if that is unfair, it would really help us fix the problem. We will still allow some of them over here but only eligible after a deep backround check.



Her role to shut her yapper and to ask permission to speak from her husband? Or the one from adam and eve? I am confused.

I dont agree with that either. But i just look that the bible overwhelmingly goes on and on about how much God loves everyone. He loves women just as much. Maybe in church its a respect thing. If you think about it in church does a women just flat out in the middle of a service ask a question? No1 does, not even a man. If they have a question you quietly ask the pastor after the service, which the bible says thats permitted. So i dont see the deal. But you have to keep in mind this was written over 2000 years ago and its very accurate in dealing with life situations despite some cultural changes. Also please go open a bible you have, and read all of adam and eve and God describes why he created man, women, and their roles.


You see where I am coming from?

yea


I'd have a hard time understanding the role of a woman. One passage says one thing, the other passage says something different.

Jesus said in the new testament basically do away with the old testament. That answers a lot.


Important unless you're a woman or a slave, I guess. If one passage doesn't apply to today's terms then how do we discern which ones are good for us and which ones are bad for us? Do we pick and choose? I personally don't think that's what the Bible is all about. Either you're for the book or not, there's no grey area.

I would go to christianity.com forum and ask em. Also John Paul was against "cafeteria catholics" that would pick and choose what they want to follow. You go big or go home. Try to follow everything. I assure you, it makes sense its possible.


They are not following the message of Christ at all. They are Christians under any view except for their twisted logic. Now you are just being a complete idiot.

thank you. Im not trying to be an ass unit but you say some pretty stupid stuff. And comparing mccarthyism to people being called a communist or pro terrorist today is pretty laughable. Its not anywhere near the same level of mccarthyism and thats the truth. If people were just thought to be a communist they would be blacklisted and lose their job. I really feel that you need to educate yourself a whole lot more on the mccarthy era, ww2, the history of communism, and this period of history before you start running some blabber.

Debaser
07-30-2005, 02:21 PM
How were terrorist able to come here in the first place? Its due to the crappy corrupt government. I would really dramatically almost stop immigration from radical islamic countries. Even if that is unfair, it would really help us fix the problem. We will still allow some of them over here but only eligible after a deep backround check.

That could work but it would be expensive and not to popular politically.




I dont agree with that either. But i just look that the bible overwhelmingly goes on and on about how much God loves everyone. He loves women just as much. Maybe in church its a respect thing. If you think about it in church does a women just flat out in the middle of a service ask a question? No1 does, not even a man. If they have a question you quietly ask the pastor after the service, which the bible says thats permitted. So i dont see the deal. But you have to keep in mind this was written over 2000 years ago and its very accurate in dealing with life situations despite some cultural changes. Also please go open a bible you have, and read all of adam and eve and God describes why he created man, women, and their roles.

I am not bashing the Bible nor do I care to open one up. You assume I own one ;) Which I do, of course. I was merely pointing out some of the contradictions in the Biblse, nothing more, nothing less.



thank you. Im not trying to be an ass unit but you say some pretty stupid stuff. And comparing mccarthyism to people being called a communist or pro terrorist today is pretty laughable. Its not anywhere near the same level of mccarthyism and thats the truth. I really feel that you need to educate yourself a whole lot more on the mccarthy era, ww2, the history of communism, and this period of history before you start running some blabber.

I never said anything regarding McCarthyism and today's terrorists! In fact, I've been off-topic this whole time. How do you know about my views on McCarthyism in regards to terorrism or McCarthyism in general if I haven't even spoken a word about such this whole? All I talked about was the Mayfield case and the Patriot Act.

Runnin12
07-30-2005, 02:36 PM
That could work but it would be expensive and not to popular politically.

How would it be expensive? Just re route our immigration policy from non terrorist countries. We have to enforce the our immigration laws and policys on student visas. 9-11 terrorist were able to abtain legal student visas i mean what a fukin joke.


I am not bashing the Bible nor do I care to open one up. You assume I own one ;) Which I do, of course. I was merely pointing out some of the contradictions in the Biblse, nothing more, nothing less.

You care enough to read bible quotes online :) Nah, it serously would take under 5 min. It its like 3 pages max. It would describe what im talking about. I will post it for you later if you dont want to read it.


I never said anything regarding McCarthyism and today's terrorists! In fact, I've been off-topic this whole time. How do you know about my views on McCarthyism in regards to terorrism or McCarthyism in general if I haven't even spoken a word about such this whole? All I talked about was the Mayfield case and the Patriot Act.

Nah, i just said thank you for saying unit was being an idiot. That whole thing I wrote there i was talking to unit.

Debaser
07-30-2005, 03:01 PM
How would it be expensive? Just re route our immigration policy from non terrorist countries. We have to enforce the our immigration laws and policys on student visas. 9-11 terrorist were able to abtain legal student visas i mean what a fukin joke.

We can barely keep our borders safe from drugs and immigrants that come up from the south. We would need quite the army to keep the borders completely safe from "these people". Technology and others means will always allow them to get in somehow, someway.

IMO, this would be expensive, but you may have touched on something here and it definately could work. But then again, we have embassies all over the world so they could just attack those.



You care enough to read bible quotes online :) Nah, it serously would take under 5 min. It its like 3 pages max. It would describe what im talking about. I will post it for you later if you dont want to read it.

I believe you, so I don't see a point in doing that :)

Runnin12
07-30-2005, 05:09 PM
We can barely keep our borders safe from drugs and immigrants that come up from the south. We would need quite the army to keep the borders completely safe from "these people". Technology and others means will always allow them to get in somehow, someway.

I can bet they can cut 90 percent of illegal immigration if they just enforced the current law and cracked down on businesses hiring illegals. We could put up a wall on in the southern border to supplement the solution if that is not enough. The government lies, they do not give a **** about border patrol. I would fire all of the people in charge of border patrol and put people effective in that actually do their job.


I believe you, so I don't see a point in doing that :)

Almost any question in the bible can be answered. If man cant answer your questions I recommend to pray I guess. God can answer anything you want :)