The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Not Afraid]

I guess I'm just not as paranoid. I realize the threat that ALL radicals have on my life and those I love, but I just can't make a blanket statement about one race or belief system because of a few radicals. Nor can I justify being reactionary just for the purpose of attempting control or something we have little control over.

I also think it is important to look at our own actions and take responsability for them and , perhaps, change our ways a bit. The old, point one finger and there's three pointing back at you phrase applies here.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

I find it sad that when there is a group out there who want us converted or dead- who kill gay men for the act of simply being gay- who want to impose their religion on those who claim to want freedom from such things- who want to subjugate women-the response is "we don't need the military, we're the bad guys, and we need to just stop defending ourselves"

Sad......and blind

Islamic radicals are not my friends.

Neither are Christian radicals who bomb abortion clinics, who want us converted or dead, who kill gay men for the act of simply being gay- who want to impose their religion on those who claim to want freedom from such things- who want to subjugate women.

Yup Nephy, I can take your entire statement and apply it to Christian radicals as well. Can we use our military against them too? Pretty please with sugar on top? Heck, they're already in our country, it will be cheaper then going overseas.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Scaeagles, I am surprised at your restraint regarding the slamming of prior admins- is this some new policy?

I got tired of being told that history didn't matter, and that everything in the world that has gone wrong or could go wrong is as a direct result of this administration.

So yeah....perhaps it is a new policy, but not because I don't think it still applies.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Yup Nephy, I can take your entire statement and apply it to Christian radicals as well. Can we use our military against them too?

Repeat after me....."posse comitatus".

I realize your comment is tongue in cheek, but just for the record, someone who bombs abortion clinics is no Christian.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

I find it sad that when there is a group out there who want us converted or dead- who kill gay men for the act of simply being gay- who want to impose their religion on those who claim to want freedom from such things- who want to subjugate women-the response is "we don't need the military, we're the bad guys, and we need to just stop defending ourselves"

Sad......and blind

You do understand that the rights of religious freedom and the rights of women in Iraq is decreasing post-invasion, rather than increasing, right? Iraq was a secular nation. Now, it's new constitution clearly states that Islam will be the official language. If you think that bodes well for women, gays, religious freedom, or the US, I fear you are mistaken.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Repeat after me....."posse comitatus".

I realize your comment is tongue in cheek, but just for the record, someone who bombs abortion clinics is no Christian.

But someone who bombs a restaurant in Baghdad is a Muslim?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

But someone who bombs a restaurant in Baghdad is a Muslim?

You bring up an interesting point.

I believe that Islam is moving more and more in the direction of violence in order to achieve their goals. I do not believe this is the case with Christianity today. Today, "radical Chirstians" are those who would try to use the political process to achieve their goals. There are idiots like you Fred Phelps crowd, but I am not aware of daily violence (or even monthly violence) as a method of acquiring power.

Radical Islam most certainly does. And you don't find many Muslim leaders - whether Imams or whomever - condemning violence against Jews and Israel.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Well, I don't don't about how this helps us (stateside) over all, but I do know that the guy who got the Pentagon contract for body armor (David Brooks) gave his daughter a $10,000,000 bat mitzvah and provided employment for such illustrious groups as Aerosmith, Don Henley, 50 Cent and the like. Of course, this was before his defective armor was recalled and he got in trouble with the SEC and investors started filing lawsuits......

I'm just sure that's gonna trickle some direction to us. Really.

See this just proves my point. 10 million dollars on a bat mitzvah that may of not have happened had the pentagon not spent that money. I am sure that most of those working the mitzvah were middle to lower class. Some of that money would make its way back to the feds thru taxes......all I am saying is that what looks like an incredible amount of money is not just being flushed down the toilet.......

[scaeagles]

I gotta disagree with you on that one, sleepy. While not "flushed", whenever the government spends money that is wasteful or unnecessary, it takes money out of the private sector, and I see nothing good about it.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I would think that each soldier that didn't receive their body armor as a result of the money going to Aerosmith, might not look as favorably on the situation as you do.