You can quote me on that ... chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: You can quote me on that ...

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 110 (view)

You can quote me on that ... Posted: 11/25/2009 10:03:47 AM
^^^^^Yes, all hail to Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Jurgen Habermas--still one more offshoot of the Frankfurt School. I used to have to read that neo-Marxist nonsense in planning school and try to make sense of it. It started in literature and metastasized into fields like architecture and city planning.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 68 (view)

Women and Drama Posted: 11/25/2009 9:42:53 AM
It's WOMEN and Drama I suspect estrogen plays a part in all this somehow, but I don't know that. I also think a lot of girls in America aren't taught very well how to handle conflicts. Disputing things in a forceful, persistent, but understanding way, without getting too emotional or being unreasonable, is a skill. I'm not saying most men are good at it, either, but I think that growing up, boys are more likely than girls to learn not to be afraid of confrontations. Part of the reason people get overly emotional in misunderstandings with their spouses or squeezes is fear and lack of confidence.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 56 (view)

Woman and Drama Posted: 11/24/2009 11:02:56 PM
in the Bible all of the angels are males. Thanks, GG, for pointing that out. It's a truth that's too often overlooked, and I think a very important one.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 53 (view)

Woman and Drama Posted: 11/24/2009 10:18:20 PM
^^^^^See, you prove my point! A truly "evolved" man (i.e. one who can breathe through his nose, and whose knuckles don't spend much time on the ground) would never think of saying "spoken like a true woman!" Why? Because he knows it's sexist, and therefore forbidden to all XY's.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1192 (view)

Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin Posted: 11/24/2009 10:04:54 PM
I was actually hoping that you might discuss what you know about indoctrination and how this might impact perceptions of sin. Don't worry--I'm not all that easy to rub the wrong way. I'm still not sure I understand just what you're wondering about. I just mentioned how, within recent times, secular religions like fascism, nazism, and communism have led true believers to support terrible evils like world war and genocide. And evils like that involve most of the mortal sins. It seems to me that most of the political convictions of statists in this country today are very much like religious beliefs, only in a secular context instead of a theological one. They imagine we can make our own heaven here on earth, in the form of a totalitarian government that knows better what the people in it need, than those people themselves do. No matter how many times that pipe dream ends up in smoking ruins, as we saw it do in the 20th century, someone always wants to try it again.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 51 (view)

Woman and Drama Posted: 11/24/2009 9:32:45 PM
gives me valuable clues about who to avoid on the site Truer words were never spoke. I don't blame you for a moment. Seeing any man show even the slightest hint of sexism makes me wonder what on earth they could have been thinking. I would have thought that by now, everyone knew that only women are allowed to engage in sexism!

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1190 (view)

Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin Posted: 11/24/2009 9:22:45 PM
It is why athiests dislike Christians That may be true of some--or even most--atheists, but there are plenty of them who don't. Several times, I've heard very interesting discussions between theologians and atheists who were friends and had the greatest respect for each other. Atheists are not all the sort of Communist bonehead we hear droning on about "The Planet," animal rights, freeing the poor Gitmo detainees, trying "Shrub" for war crimes, telling herstory, etcetera ad nauseam.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1177 (view)

Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin Posted: 11/24/2009 4:08:50 PM
All I meant was to point out that there have also been very persuasive false prophets of secular religion, too, with Hitler being the most obvious example. Even smart, civilized people like the Germans and Japanese were persuaded by the millions to support the most evil activities imaginable. And the price they paid wasn't just spiritual, but physical destruction. It's hard to think of anything that could be more sinful than causing so much agony to so many innocent people, all to fulfill some thugs' ignorant, half-baked pipe dream about how the world should be.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1174 (view)

Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin Posted: 11/24/2009 1:31:31 PM
What type of sin is indoctrination Whether it's a sin or not, or good or despicable, depends entirely on what you're being indoctrinated in. We've usually considered it good--in both a religious and a social sense--to teach (or "indoctrinate") people to be friendly, honest, brave, considerate, determined, and so on. But what if we instead indoctrinated kids that it was good to indulge whatever impulse they had at the moment, and sinful ever to deny themselves anything? Political correctness is a major doctrine in the secular, "humanist" religion that's infested the western world. On the surface, like candy-coated poison, it seems nice and wholesome. Be broad-minded and respect other cultures, treat every deviant as if they weren't one, don't be judgmental, etc., etc. But the trouble is that it's meant to serve an ultimate goal a lot of us think is horrible, if not sinful--the dismantling of western civilization. If we keep following this doctrine, we may quietly do to ourselves what the Nazis couldn't do through full-scale war. I think the lesson that following false prophets and heresy is sinful holds true not just in the strictly religious sense, but also socially and politically. We can all be led astray onto dangerous ground, and the danger's not just to our souls.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1169 (view)

Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin Posted: 11/24/2009 12:52:57 PM
Why must everything be taken with such a big grain of cynicism these days? Remember that the Marxists who created the "political correctness" doctrine hoped to destroy capitalist societies partly by undermining belief in traditional religions. Enough Americans have been indoctrinated in political correctness by now--through teachers, professors, TV shows, movies, articles, etc.--that hostility toward traditional religion is common. In most cases, I doubt if people even realize they've been indoctrinated, let alone how. But when you read the enemy's playbook, it's not that hard to see how it's done--magic's only magic, when the audience doesn't understand the trick.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1167 (view)

Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin Posted: 11/24/2009 12:36:56 PM
so many poor, uneducated Muslims are now prey to the sin of heresy within the Muslim religion Actually, the worst jihadist murderers are often middle-class and well educated. That's even true of quite a few of the suicide murderers. I think you're right that there are no brakes, but it's partly because there's no central doctrine in Islam. And unlike Christianity, it's never had a Reformation. I suspect more so-called "mainstream" and "peace-loving" Muslims may be sympathetic to this violence than we find it comfortable to believe. That would certainly explain why we hear more Muslims making excuses for it than condemning it. And we're reluctant to point out that a major religion has, at its heart, a violent tendency it has never come to grips with and resolved. Say a major religion had somehow developed whose sacred texts and traditions held that sacrificing the young children of non-believers was a holy duty. Most of its members refused to observe this doctrine, but the more traditional ones took it literally. Would respect for that religion require the rest of us to just sit back and let these followers keep murdering our kids?

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1947 (view)

Our New President Posted: 11/24/2009 12:08:07 PM
That's all too true. Despite Mr. Obama's prejudicial comments about KSM being sentenced to death, he can't guarantee what sentence KSM or the others will get--or even that any of them will be convicted. That's entirely up to the jury and the judge. If KSM chooses to defend himself, which the Court has said the 6th Amendment gives any defendant in a U.S. court an absolute right to do, how will the government keep even the most secret information it has about him out of his hands? Under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the prosecutor must disclose any evidence helpful to the defendant, whether or not the defendant asks for it or even knows about it. Failing to disclose any evidence like that can easily violate the defendant's 5th Am. due process rights and cause a mistrial. KSM should also have the 6th Am. right to confront his accusers, like any other criminal defendant. So much for concealing the identities of the agents who collected the intelligence on him. Oh, but the government must have thought of all these potential problems, and all the other ones besides! Well, if so, why not announce the rules the judge is to follow in conducting the trial? They'll be public knowledge after it starts, in any case. And if so, how is it that Mr. Holder couldn't answer the most obvious questions about these trials? Does the Attorney General of the United States really not know what former military prosecutor Lindsey Graham pointed out--that no enemy combatant has ever in our history been tried in a civilian court? There are very good reasons why we've never been so foolish as to do that, as the whole world will see. Whose side is this President on, anyway?

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1161 (view)

Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin Posted: 11/24/2009 11:07:37 AM
I've been reading about the heretical Christian sects that plagued Europe, from before 1100 until after 1500. This history makes clear just how sinful heresy can be. Here's just one example. In the decades after about 1480, in and around the south German town of Niklaushausen, another sect cropped up. Niklas Storch, a weaver who claimed to perform miracles and to foresee the end times, had come out of a large heretical sect called the Taborites. In time, he joined forces with a younger man, a very learned defrocked monk named Thomas Muntzer. Muntzer was a bloodthirsty, militant, spellbinding preacher. The two drew crowds of tens of thousands of the poorest peasants to hear their violent sermons. They were told the end was near, and that they were a righteous Elect God had chosen to do His work. In the glorious millenium to come, there would be no more "Great Ones" and no more injustice. Everyone would be equal. But first, God wanted them to prepare the ground for this wonderful time, by rising up and ridding the world of the unrighteous. "Christ is your master. So don't let them live any longer, the evil-doers who turn us away from God. For a godless man has no right to live if he hinders the godly. . . . The sword is necessary to exterminate them, and so that it shall be done honestly and properly, our dear fathers the princes must do it, who confess Christ with us. But if they don't do it, the sword shall be taken from them . . . if they resist, let them be slaughtered without mercy. . . . At the harvest-time, one must pluck the weeds out of God's vineyard . . . . For the ungodly have no right to live, save what the Elect choose to allow them . . . . Now, go at them . . . . It is time . . . . Take no notice of the lamentations of the godless! They will beg you . . . don't be moved by pity . . . . At them! At them! While the fire is hot! Don't let your sword get cold! Don't let it go lame! [. . . .] So long as they are alive you will never shake off the fear of men!" Norman Cohn, "The Pursuit of the Millenium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages," Oxford University Press, 1970, pp. 235-250. There were dozens of sects or cults like this in medieval Europe, and they encouraged the killings of many tens of thousands of people. It's interesting that in Islam several centuries later, we see similar violent sects develop, in which the chosen few believe it's their sacred duty to kill all the unrighteous people who are dirtying up God's kingdom.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1936 (view)

Our New President Posted: 11/20/2009 12:54:14 AM
I stand by what I said--but I'm not surprised to see someone who doesn't know what he's talking about fall back on personal insults. I've seen you do it elsewhere, and so have other people here. Think whatever you please about your arguments.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1934 (view)

Our New President Posted: 11/20/2009 12:27:33 AM
the latter is torture. By your reasoning, wrenching someone's arm while interrogating him is not torture, and that is stupid and wrong. You pretend to understand the law, but you have no idea what you're talking about. And neither your snide tone nor your personal insults can hide that fact. Go find some fellow drone to bleat your leftist propaganda at, and don't waste my time with it.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 342 (view)

Health care Posted: 11/19/2009 1:13:25 PM
Why are you okay with certain types of socialism and not others? You are trying to confuse conservatism with anarchy. Almost everyone recognizes the need for public safety organizations. Police and fire departments are mostly formed by local governments. There are also a few specialized state organizations like the CHP. Schools districts are also local--there are hundreds or even thousands of them in a state. As for the military, it is one thing the Constitution specifically gives the U.S. authority over. The tradition of state militias survives in the form of the National Guard. There may be some people who oppose federal control for selfish reasons, I don't know. But charities and churches and volunteer organizations have always been around, and anyone's free to use them to help people who aren't so lucky. Americans still do more of that than people in other countries. The Constitution doesn't give any branch of the U.S. government the power to act as a charity. Since when is it selfish to insist on respecting the Constitution? It's easy to forget that it's the law all other laws have to conform to, and to disrespect it is to disrespect the rule of law. That's exactly what the totalitarian states in Italy, Germany, and the Soviet Union did. As the economist (and fugitive from Nazism) Friedrich Hayek put it, they followed the "rule of man" instead--on any given day, the "law" was whatever a tyrant's whim might make it. Some of us--a lot of us, in fact--don't want to see people here lose their individual freedoms as people did in regimes like those. As a number of people have warned, freedom isn't usually lost all at once, but by eroding around the edges a little at a time.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1928 (view)

Our New President Posted: 11/19/2009 11:23:11 AM
Of course not, but Asano's conviction shows that the Bybee Memo was in conflict with existing American law. It does no such thing. I couldn't care less what some concocted war crimes tribunal in Spain--or any other project of people who don't wish the U.S. well--says about anything. It has no jurisdiction here. I could probably also find any number of prestigious legal scholars who support the memo. Harold Koh is a radical transnational law theorist. No one questions his credentials, or Professor Goldsmith's, but without knowing what their specific objections are, I can't respond to them. Sen. Leahy's and Sen. McCaskill's maunderings about this were political gamesmanship and mean next to nothing. As you say, you aren't the one claiming the memo's illegal. You are really just repeating Daily Kos talking points, without having analyzed the memo and the interrogation techniques yourself. The memo is a very detailed, exhaustive piece of legal analysis. But whether it was an accurate statement of the law or not, the interrogators might not have stayed within its guidelines anyway. The relevant issue is whether anything they did was torture under any applicable U.S. law. The only "existing American law" that applies to torture at all are sections 2340 and 2340A. Specific intent crimes--burglary, for example--are harder to prove that most crimes, which require only a general intent to do wrong. There are probably hundreds of court decisions analyzing the difference, and I'm won't try to get into it any further here. The important point is that the U.S. negotiators for the Convention Against Torture, etc. in 1994 insisted on terms that only went so far. Sections 2340 and 2340A translate those terms into U.S. law. There's a very good reason why it includes the words "specifically intended." (The rest of it's easy enough to find in Title 18 of the U.S. Code--I'm only showing the most relevant language here) Sec. 2340. Definitions As used in this chapter-- (1) ``torture'' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering Anyone who claims the waterboarding the CIA interrogators committed the crime of torture in 2002-2003 by waterboarding three jihadists has the problem of explaining why the U.S. didn't also commit the crime of torture by performing the exact same technique on thousands of its own servicemen. They didn't, for the same reason the interrogators didn't--they did not have the specific intent this crime requires. The intent in one case was to accustom servicemen who might be captured to what they could be in for, and in the other it was to extract information valuable for our national security. It's also worth considering that it was only after he was waterboarded that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed disclosed the huge amount of information about Al Qaeda that he did. This information led to the capture of other high-level terrorists and allowed several large-scale plots to be broken up. This is also detailed in a memo. Just as with his ridiculous and foolish decision to try several of the detainees in federal court, Mr. Obama is doing this purely for political reasons. American presidents have very seldom, if ever, tried to criminalize anything their predecessors did. That's the sort of thing dictators do in banana republics, or what Stalin did with his "show trials."

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1927 (view)

Our New President Posted: 11/19/2009 10:10:21 AM
He's got me sold that he knows more about it than you do... Now that is something which doesn't surprise me in the least.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1925 (view)

Our New President Posted: 11/18/2009 11:22:40 PM
Aaaah, the Bybee Memo. Right--as if it rang a bell. I guarantee you've never read it, and if you tried, you wouldn't understand it. I don't care where you read that "legal scholars" thought this or that. Yoo was a law professor at Berkeley, last I heard, and Bybee was a appellate court judge. Yet you pretend to know more about this than they do. Fine by me, if you can sell anyone on that. Basically, you are so wrong in what you post 90% of the time Yes, I'm sure you're right. Just like you know the fine points of the torture statute, the effect of the specific intent provision in it, where, specifically, the Bybee/Woo memo is mistaken, the other hundreds of cases that describe water torture that's not the least like your single, atypical example, and on and on. You have all the answers. Laugh all you want, and think what you want. You're not the first person on here to try to tell me what the law is about this or that. I don't have time for that nonsense these days.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 135 (view)

Fort Hoodwink? Posted: 11/18/2009 10:07:51 PM
During the Bush Administration, I see. I wouldn't expect you to make an intelligent comment on something you obviously know very little about. And your dismissive little wisecrack is your admission that you don't.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1921 (view)

Our New President Posted: 11/18/2009 10:01:47 PM
^^^^Having spent hours explaining all this to someone else on here months ago, I'm not about to do it again for you. But just so no one is misled by your claims, which couldn't be more false, I'll say a few things here. The document published earlier this year describing the coercive interrogations techniques used by the CIA in 2002-2003 is available online. I've read it carefully. The memo from the Office of Legal Counsel analyzing whether the interrogation techniques complied with applicable laws has also been published and is available online. I've read it several times, and I think it's very well done. The memo, which was sent to the military before the interrogation, concluded that none of the proposed techniques--including waterboarding--violated any applicable law. The records of the Far East Tribunals are also online. I've read through them too. And I've read accounts both by survivors of the Japanese camps, and by some of the Japanese guards who carried out the water torture. If you had read them, you might be ashamed to say that what the Japanese and the CIA did are similar, just because the word "waterboarding" happens to have been used for both. There's not a shred of truth to what you claim. Torture was not recognized as a crime at common law. The U.S. torture statute, which Congress enacted in 1994 pursuant to the Convention Against Torture, etc. it had just ratified, is 18 U.S. Code secs. 2340 & 2340A. It purposely made torture a specific intent crime, which has the effect of making it very hard to prove. No court has construed 2340 so far. Geneva has nothing to do with this, contrary to what you claim. The laws of war, which Congress has defined and codified in the UCMJ (and which correspond to the Geneva and Hague Conventions) do not protect unlawful enemy combatants. See Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942).

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 133 (view)

Fort Hoodwink? Posted: 11/18/2009 8:52:07 PM
An FBI-led joint terrorism task force knew about Hasan's emails to Anwar al-Awlaki in December, 2008. They knew he was a very important Al Qaeda recruiter, too---important enough to have been chosen to take two of the 9/11 hijackers under his wing as soon as they arrived at LAX in January, 2000, fresh from a meeting in Kuala Lumpur where the details of 9/11 and the Cole plot were finalized. He squired them around right up to the time of the attack, first in San Diego, and later in Virginia. No one knows how much influence Awlaki had on Hasan, but it seems reasonable that Hasan didn't go to Awlaki's jihadist website just the times he e-mailed him. There's not much doubt Awlaki was persuasive. He's fluent in English, and his main job for Al Qaeda in Yemen seems to be inciting American Muslims to jihad. Even if the current policy didn't lead directly to Hasan's murders, it threatens to invite other ones. Just days ago, a couple Pakistanis who were using a corner grocery in Chicago as a center for jihad were found out. They are connected with the Lashkar-e-Taiba attack on Mumbai months ago--one of them stayed at the large hotel that was besieged there, apparently scouting for the attack.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1918 (view)

Our New President Posted: 11/18/2009 8:22:29 PM
I'm shocked to hear anyone question Mr. Obama's experience! Why, he had all sorts of experience associating with Communists and other America-haters--more than any other U.S. President, in fact, from Frank Marshall Davis to Rashid Khalidi, to Father Pfleger, to Weathermen ("Ten Most Wanted") Bernadine Dohrn and William ("Pentagon Bomber") Ayres, to Maoist Michael Klonsky, to Rev. Jeremiah (G--D----Amerikkka!) Wright. Who could ever doubt that Mr. Obama has just as deep a devotion to America and its well-being as any of those people?

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 998 (view)

Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin Posted: 11/18/2009 8:06:31 PM
Its a sin to hurt another's feelings, isn't it Could be, depending on who it is. If people want to be free, though, they can't turn themselves into babies and create a nanny state to live in. You can't run around demanding that someone pass a law to protect you every time your feelings get bruised. But that's what political correctness is all about--censoring everyone else's speech so you and your pet whining group can keep saying anything you like, but won't have to hear anything unpleasant. And that's a far worse sin, in my book.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 991 (view)

Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin Posted: 11/18/2009 7:16:38 PM
There is no such thing as "hate speech," except on college campuses, and maybe at your local NOW or PETA meeting. Freedom of speech is something else I've noticed statists detest. Considering their fascist heritage, that shouldn't be any big surprise. It's part of their intolerant, brownshirt nature. Unfortunately for them, their fifth column hasn't quite been able to destroy the Constitution yet. The First Amendment still protects even things like flag burning, fighting words, nude dancing, calling members of grievance groups filthy names, obscene messages on T-shirts, and all sorts of other types of expression a lot of people find objectionable. Too bad about their tender feelings, isn't it?

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 980 (view)

Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin Posted: 11/18/2009 6:09:22 PM
THE LAW says it's hate! If you're talking about "hate crimes," I don't know of one that makes citing biblical verses a crime. Those laws don't make anything a crime that isn't already, although some people would probably like them to make thinking a crime. So, anyone who happens to feel like yelling vile names at a member of some protected group doesn't need to worry about getting arrested for it.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1915 (view)

Our New President Posted: 11/18/2009 5:15:47 PM
"I can't imagine these guys being found innocent, and even if they are they will never get out of prison" I heard him say that, and it still makes no sense. No Miranda warning, if the rule's applied here, means whatever they said after being captured can't come in as evidence. But how can it not apply, in a jury trial in federal court? And what other evidence against them is there? None of them got a speedy trial, either, and after this long the court would usually dismiss the case. Assuming it didn't do that here, how would it justify its decision? How about the defendants' right to represent themselves? If they act as their own lawyers, they have a right to see everything the government has that might be favorable to their cases--and that could include highly classified documents describing methods of acquiring intelligence, who acquired it, when, where, etc. How about facing their accusers? Can't they subpoena U.S. intelligence agents and cross-examine them? What about these agents' safety, once their identities were revealed? And how can Mr. Obama know in advance that the jurors will all vote guilty? He can't--he's assuming it. There is no good reason to do this, and a lot of good reasons not to. The claim that it shows our commitment to the rule of law is nonsense. KSM has already confessed in full--even bragged about--planning the 9/11 attacks. He and the others are aliens who were outside the U.S. The U.S. Constitution doesn't even apply to them. And war criminals don't enjoy the protection of the Constitution anyway, even if they are U.S. citizens. When an alien enemy combatant's charged with war crimes, and there's not the slightest doubt about his guilt, the military commission's job is just to hear the evidence and pronounce the sentence. To give people like this a jury trial, with all its elaborate protections intended to prevent an innocent citizen from being convicted, can't be justified. And if these captives have a right to a jury trial, why don't the others, who are going before a military tribunal? No President has any authority to create legal rights for certain people. That's anything but the rule of law.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1906 (view)

Our New President Posted: 11/18/2009 12:59:06 PM
Our President must be committed to the rule of law. He thinks even the 9/11 terrorists should get a jury trial in our courts, just like regular American citizens. But wait--that's right, only some of them get that--the rest of them get tried by a military tribunal. What? I wonder what rules the judge is going to follow. If they don't change some things, these guys are free already. What about Miranda? They weren't read their rights--how can any of what they said to interrogators come into evidence? The government won't even be able to refer to their statements without risking a mistrial. How can the government rewrite the law just for them? How can it justify giving them some constitutional rights--i.e to a jury trial--but deny them all the others that go with a jury trial? Who gets to decide exactly which rights they have and which they don't, and on what grounds? And what legal authority is there for doing this at all?

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 961 (view)

Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin Posted: 11/18/2009 7:38:57 AM
HATE crimes - simply for referencing passages in the Bible Calling whatever you disagree with "hate," or, as you do here, calling it a "hate crime" (in caps, no less) even to refer to a biblical passage, is an exercise in Newspeak. What you're asserting is baloney, and using sensational terms doesn't make it any less so.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1902 (view)

Our New President Posted: 11/17/2009 10:52:46 PM
The U.S. never tortured anyone. In the first place, the interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in 2002-2003 weren't even done at Guantanamo, but in Afghanistan and possibly Poland. And none of the coercive techniques used, including waterboarding, comes anywhere close to being torture under U.S. law. I wrote several long notes about this a few months ago. There is no crime of torture in common law. The only U.S. law against torture is a 1994 federal statute Congress passed as required by a treaty on torture it ratified that year. No court's decided a case under it yet. The U.S. was careful in negotiating the treaty not to box in our interrogators, and it insisted on making this new crime of "torture" a "specific intent" crime. What that does in practice is makes it much harder to prove. To find someone guilty, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they not only intended to cause extreme discomfort, but that they also intended it to cause permanent physical or mental harm. Well, the waterboarding the CIA guys did was no different from what's been done to thousands of U.S. soldiers as part of their survival training. The purpose of that is to give them some idea of what they might go through if captured. The CIA interrogators waterboarded these people only to get information--not specifically to cause them any permanent harm. They had just as legitimate a purpose, as far as the law's concerned, as the military trainers that waterboard special forces. Nothing that was done even came close to torture under U.S. law. Holder and Obama both know it, too, and they're going after those people for purely political reasons. As far as recruiting value, I've always suspected that was jihadist propaganda. Don't discount the possibility--having all those people captured was humiliating to Al Qaeda and other jihadists, and the only way they could have done anything about it was by trying to get people here to turn against it. They may have be doing all sorts of things within this country to try to get Americans to take it easy on them. The drone attacks in western Pakistan have killed quite a few bigtime jihadists, but there aren't any signs they're making more want to sign up. If anything, the idea of meeting Allah at any moment seems to have scared them. The most recent ones to get it had dug a cellar underground, showing they didn't want to die quite as much as they like to claim. But no one cared what they wanted, anyway.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1898 (view)

Our New President Posted: 11/17/2009 8:12:22 PM
We have never even taken a black candidate serious as a president And after this one, it will be a very long time before many people do again.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 950 (view)

Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin Posted: 11/17/2009 7:49:02 PM
Some of you (you) hate people and use the Bible to promote that hate. It's clear to some of us... even if it isn't to you. I wonder how you know what anyone else thinks. Are you clairvoyant? Calling it "hate" whenever someone disapproves of something you approve of is a cheap rhetorical trick. You discredit them just by labeling their disapproval with some negative, emotionally charged term. It saves you having to make any real arguments. Works like magic--provided, of course, your audience doesn't see the trick.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1897 (view)

Our New President Posted: 11/17/2009 7:11:36 PM
Those who select the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize have the only opinions that matter. Absolutely true. And I'm pleased they awarded it to Mr. Obama. The Norwegians who made the decision have proven there's no substance to the prize, and that its real purpose is to promote people whose political views are similar to their own. A peace prize that also went to Yasser Arafat can't mean much. Anyone who doubts that should read about how many innocent people Arafat killed in terrorist attacks.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1896 (view)

Our New President Posted: 11/17/2009 6:59:36 PM
the rest of the world views it as an evil place where dispicable things happen. Well, it isn't--not in the least. But why should any American care whether anyone else approves of this country's policies? No one's asking for their two cents' worth. I hear a lot about world opinion, as if foreign affairs were a high school popularity contest. I don't give two hoots in he!! what some guy on a bar stool in some other country thinks. Or foreign officials who are on some Islamist's payroll, either. Since when does the United States tailor its military and legal policies to please foreigners?As far as any of us knows, the jihadists themselves are the ones encouraging that whole phony argument. That's exactly the kind of thing the USSR did, and the Islamists are plenty smart enough to copy their propaganda techniques. Think about it--it certainly works to their advantage to have us take it easy on them.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 155 (view)

but they have great healthcare..... Posted: 11/17/2009 2:45:17 PM
The U.S. strategy during the Iran-Iraq war was to weaken both regimes. And why not? One was run by Arab Nazis and the other by jihadist fanatics. If a bunch of hotheaded savages want to slaughter each other instead of us, let them have at it. A lot of poor slobs end up as cannon fodder, just as they've been doing forever in that part of the world. But then the people forget about it, have some more kids to replace the losses, get ants in their pants, and want to fight again. Maybe they'll give a democratic government a chance some day, and get out of their misery. So far, misery seems more attractive to them. The U.S. helped Iraq with recon photos of Iranian troop movements, and as you mention, the Iran-contra affair was about selling Iran light arms and giving the money to the forces fighting the Sandinista Communists in Nicaragua. We didn't favor either Iran or Iraq--as Henry Kissinger once said, "It's only a pity they both can't lose." Which scorpion do you really want to root for? But they both fought the war so poorly that at different points in it, each one almost let the other win just through incompetence. So the U.S. had to adjust what it was doing, to shift its support to one or the other.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 944 (view)

Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin Posted: 11/17/2009 1:08:55 PM
^^^^^You put your finger on a very good reason to oppose this cult of victimhood. People who believe they have a right to feel aggrieved go around angry about it. And they think they're entitled to unload on anyone who's somehow "oppressed" them.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 941 (view)

Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin Posted: 11/17/2009 12:18:35 PM
^^^^^^I liked to a very interesting video on them on another post. It explains quite a lot about what goes on in colleges and universities here, for one thing. Thinking about this idea of secular sin--I always think it's strange how it's changed what's sinful. If you sleep with your sister or your stepdaughter, or if your neighbor's in NAMBLA and has a tent in his back yard where he "camps out" with a variety of boys, hey-- whatever's right for you. As long as you eat sprouts and whole grains, don't have a lawn, don't wear fur or leather, and drive a Prius, or do other comparable things, you're probably OK. I accept those things as certificates of your moral virtue. But woe to the smoker, or the guy who likes steaks, or eats at McDonald's a lot and is overweight, or who drives an SUV. They are irresponsible, bad people! Sinners! No one's more puritanical and intolerant than a statist, however much they pride themselves on being liberated from all such bourgeois notions.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 939 (view)

Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin Posted: 11/17/2009 11:56:22 AM
Hostility toward Christianity is characteristic of statists. The totalitarian state is their atheistic heaven on earth, and so anything that tends to make that less appealing is anathema. Marx and Lenin both considered conventional religion as more or less an irritating obstacle to progress. The neo-Communists of the Frankfurt School developed the doctrine of political correctness to undermine cultural traditions, including religion. In the statist (or fascist) view, the greatest sin is to oppose the progressive schemes of state control over the individual that are to create a wonderful new world. That's why it's common for these people to consider themselves morally superior to people who disagree with them--conservatives and traditionalists are not just mistaken, but bad. Even secular religions have sin--they just change what's sinful.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1887 (view)

Our New President Posted: 11/17/2009 11:28:54 AM
This country had existed for almost 190 years before it got the first President who invited us to doubt its greatness. That was Mr. Carter, who will also be remembered as the man who ushered in the Islamic terrorist regime that still rules Iran today. Now we have a President who goes much farther than Carter did. He doesn't just invite us to doubt the United States--he says flat out he doesn't think we're anything special. And yet he represents this country to the world. He's also sworn to preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution. The repeated apologies for America's supposed arrogance, the bows to foreign leaders, the appeasement of Iran, and the sympathy for captured jihadists all show the same thing. Mr. Obama feels more sympathy for angry radicals in other countries than he does for the United States, as we've always known it. Like his Communist friends, Mr. Obama believes this country's history (as far as he understands it) is as notable for slavery, capitalist exploitation, and imperialist warmongering as for any great achievements. And so, whatever pride we feel in America should be offset by shame for its sins. If this country doesn't actually deserve to be dismantled, we should at least take it down a notch or two. And accordingly, this President's foreign policy is designed to do just that. The U.S. is to be just one more spoke on the wheel, equal to all the others, and rolling along in harmony with them. Or so the pipe dream goes. We've now taught enough Americans to loathe their own country to make a policy like this possible, for the first time in our history. If not an admission of defeat, it's an indication of our decline. The U.S. has always been an exceptional country--the "last, best hope of man on Earth." It's only the fact America had enormous power, and the will to use it if necessary, that prevented a third world war for all those decades after the second one ended in 1945. The world lives by the law of the jungle, and believing that's terribly wrong, or sincerely wishing for world peace, doesn't make it one bit less true. A weaker America that's pulled in its horns won't make the world safer. It will make it far more chaotic and dangerous. When we cause more or less friendly countries to doubt our judgment and our resolve, we are practically inviting them to cut the best deals they can with our adversaries and even with our outright enemies. Or, maybe even worse, to arm themselves. Weakness toward North Korea and Iran makes Japan and South Korea and Saudi Arabia think about having the bomb, too--and they can get it.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 329 (view)

Do you like the USA? Posted: 11/16/2009 6:44:29 PM
And now we know more about the mosque near D.C. that the Fort Hood murderer was a regular at, when he worked at Walter Reed. For about the first year Hasan was back there, the imam was the guy who was personally in charge of three of the 9/11 hijackers from the time they arrived at LAX in January, 2000 until that day. He presided over Hasan's mother's funeral service in 2001. He left for Yemen in 2002, where he works with Al Qaeda and runs a jihadist website. Hasan emailed back and forth with him about 20 times in 2008. An FBI-led joint terrorism task force read the intercepted emails last December and decided they were harmless. "Let's see--quick fact review, old hat, I know, but just to make sure. Anwar al-Awlaki, one of Al Qaeda's best recruiters--personal contact and mentor for several 9/11 hijackers--meets two of them when they arrive from Malaysia, where they'd attended meeting of top Al Qaeda terrorists--meeting was to finalize plans for Cole bombing and for 9/11-- got them their apartment in San Diego when he was at a mosque there--they move back to D.C. area with him in January, 2001 when he gets a job preaching at another mosque there--third hijacker joins them in Northern Virginia--this Army shrink goes to this same mosque--Awlaki conducts the funeral service for the shrink's mother--his three charges meet Allah on 9/11--contact info for D.C. mosque found in "20th hijacker" Ramzi Binalshibh's stuff when he's captured in Pakistan--Awlaki feels the heat in April, 2002--and skips to Yemen to be Al Qaeda recruiter where no one will bother him--fast forward to 2008--the shrink remembers him this year and emails him back and forth, as we've all just read." Well? Whattya think, guys? Anybody got any problems with this? Jim? Charlie? Omar? Bennie? Mitch? Yeah, I don't see anything here, either. Neutral content, appears to be just personal advice. Shrinks gotta talk to somebody, too, right? And this poor sucker must hear it all from the guys coming back. OK. It's almost seven--I am very thirsty, and I seem to remember it's Charlie's turn to buy. Thanks, guys. Shall we?" Love the U.S. now--while we still have it.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 326 (view)

Do you like the USA? Posted: 11/16/2009 4:44:48 PM
^^^^^Too funny. You hit it right on the head. I hear the Ditherer-in-Chief is also personally reviewing the troop requirements for Afghanistan--province by province. All this, after he told us six months ago that after a long review, we'd formulated a new policy. He even picked Gen. McChrystal to be in charge of carrying it out. What a joke. The fact is, they have no policy, and all the top advisers for the region are at odds with the military. I'll bet those guys we've got out there, getting shot at by those funk monkeys every day, just love the fact their Prez is so concerned about winning--and about them.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 919 (view)

Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin Posted: 11/16/2009 3:40:17 PM
stop attacking me for my opinions I haven't attacked you at all. I'll say it again--I don't care in the least what you believe, or don't. And if you think you're free to use whatever language you like in your posts, go right ahead.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 917 (view)

Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin Posted: 11/16/2009 2:45:43 PM
And decided this guy's a little prick. I don't follow jerks like that. If a person told me this kind of stuff, I'd shove the sword up his butt. Once again, I see you're showing everyone your idea of civil discussion. No one said you had to follow him, and what you'd do to someone who told you that kind of thing is your business. There's no reason to insult Christian figures just because you disagree with particular things they said.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 324 (view)

Do you like the USA? Posted: 11/16/2009 2:22:54 PM
President Obama is demonstrating just how much he loves the USA by his decision to try the mastermind of 9/11 an four other Al Qaeda jihadists in federal district court. It's his sop to all the people who live in the U.S. for what they can get from it. These sorry Americans care far more about pursuing President Bush and CIA interrogators for war crimes than about our national security. I'm sure the real sympathies of many of them lie with Muslim jihadists--and more than a few are their willing helpmates. What if Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the others decide to represent themselves? The Supreme Court has held that defendants have an absolute right to do that under the Sixth Amendment. If the court refused to allow this, it would risk being reversed on appeal. But if they do represent themselves, what about all the volumes of material the government has on his case--including the most secret intelligence documents--their lawyers would have a right to under discovery rules? If the court allowed the government to deny KSM and the others any information it has about them, they would have a strong claim on appeal that they'd been denied due process under the Fifth Amendment. This could easily become a circus that drags on for years, giving Al Qaeda a platform to denounce the U.S. to the world. Or, even worse, the man most responsible for the murder of nearly 3,000 Americans on that awful September morning could go free. KSM and the others should have been tried by the military tribunals the U.S. has gone to such pains to establish. That would have avoided all the constitutional issues which are sure to come up in federal court. As enemy aliens who haven't been in the U.S., none of the prisoners has any right whatsoever to the elaborate legal process this administration has chosen to give them. Very good for Al Qaeda, and very bad for the U.S. How bad, we can only guess.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 902 (view)

Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin Posted: 11/16/2009 10:34:41 AM
But you have to understand history correctly in order to not repeat it. I guess any thread on sin has to come around to Hitler at some point. I wanted to mention a book I ran across--"The Occult Roots of Nazism," by Nicholas Goodrich-Clarke. It's taken right from his doctoral thesis at Oxford, so it's not exactly light reading. I've read it in a little at a time. But I don't think anyone ever did such a complete job of exploring all the different streams of thought that eventually fed into Nazism. You're right about the resentment of the Jews--especially the ones in Vienna. Apparently the city boomed in the 1870's and '80's, and the changes caused by war brought in a lot of foreigners. And Jewish businessmen there prospered. The German-speaking people in rural parts of Austria began to resent not being quite as big fish as they had been. Their pride was wounded. "The government's siphoning off all the riches from the country into Vienna, and all those foreigners and Jews are getting richer as we get poorer. Everyone's forgotten about us small-town German folk out here! Pass the Bratwurst, Klaus, bitte. Und I will have a bischen more of Marthe's delicious potato dish, too. Annchen, save some room for strudel, now." People started singing the praises of the German-speaking "Volk." Clubs started up to celebrate "Volkisch" culture and traditions. It was harmless then, but the Volkisch "revival" unfortunately influenced fanatics later on.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 893 (view)

Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin Posted: 11/16/2009 12:41:35 AM
Hey, JD--Don't run off. I don't think that was directed at you. You are a model of tolerance for all of us, and I've seen it many times. I'm more or less open about this stuff--the only people who call themselves religious that I have no time for are the ones who think it's their sacred duty to kill everyone else. As long as no one's trying to force me to believe what they do, I'm fine. I think people in general would do well to make clear that while they're convinced what they believe is true, they understand that there are different faiths. Years ago, there used to be a great radio show on Sunday nights, hosted by Dennis Prager. He'd usually have a mix of a Protestant preacher, a Catholic priest, a Rabbi, and sometimes a Muslim imam, someone Greek Orthodox, etc. They'd take a topic--say what sin consists of and how we should deal with it--and give their church's position on it. There was always a lot of laughing and joking, along with very interesting discussion. Too bad it's gone.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 890 (view)

Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin Posted: 11/16/2009 12:16:03 AM
the New Testament which I choose not to believe in along with others like me Good for you. And having followed this thread from the beginning, I don't see that anyone has done the least thing to question your right to believe whatever you want, 24/7. When you use phrases like "spewing hate," you don't add to your credibility. Nor do you by dismissing other people's religious beliefs as a "bunch of bull," "ignorant prejudice," and "crap." If you want people to tolerate your beliefs--whatever they may be--it's usually advisable to show some tolerance for theirs. Take it, or leave it. It's nothing to me what you or anyone else believes--I just don't like people to be uncivil without any provocation.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 318 (view)

Do you like the USA? Posted: 11/15/2009 11:10:37 PM
That he shares a name with a terrorist is NOT a gripe, its idiotic. As you would see if you read the post you quoted, I was agreeing with your statement. I have no idea what you're talking about, but somehow you seem obsessed with the notion that people are making fun of Mr. Obama's middle name. If I were to want to compare him to Saddam Hussein, I'd do it. Do you really imagine that other people here are obligated to say only what you agree with, or that they have to get your permission? I repeat--and I'm getting tired of you harassing me about this--do not try to attribute statements to me that you know I never made.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 316 (view)

Do you like the USA? Posted: 11/15/2009 10:36:40 PM
Because his middle name is Hussein People can differ about how well Mr. Obama's middle name suits him. But there are plenty of reasons to doubt how concerned he is with the well-being of the USA. To cite just one, this summer he allowed Iraq to release several senior agents in Iran's "Al Qods Force," the branch of its Revolutionary Guard Council responsible for overseas operations against the Tehran regime's perceived enemies. (Among these "enemies" were the dozens of Jews Al Qods operatives murdered in Argentina in 1994, when they bombed a synagogue and a community center. The Argentine government has charged Iran with these murders.) As commanders of Iran's covert operations in Iraq, these agents organized the training and equipping of groups of Iraqi terrorists and coordinated their attacks on U.S. servicemen. One of the weapons they provided these terrorists was an Iranian antitank mine, whose shaped charge can defeat even very heavy armor. Buried in a road or hidden alongside it, these weapons created a blast that went through the skin of lighter U.S. vehicles with ease, often killing or wounding everyone inside. This one weapon alone has probably killed at least 10% of the American servicemen lost in combat in Iraq. That is more than 400 men. Mr. Obama also authorized the release of Qais Qazali, an Iraqi who, with his brother Laith, had once fought with Muqtada al-Sadr's Shiite militias. When they split off, they took several thousand fighters with them and came completely under Iran's control. Qais Qazali had a leading role in an operation in Karbala, Iraq, on Jan. 20, 2007. That day, a group of U.S. soldiers was meeting with some local officials inside a large compound there. A dozen or so armed men in U.S. uniform--most of them Lebanese Hizbollah--drove up to a large compound, got out, and went inside, speaking English as they walked. This group completely surprised the American soldiers, killing one of them as it burst in on the meeting. The saboteurs seized four other soldiers and drove off. East of Karbala, the vehicles turned onto a small back road. They stopped in a remote area, made the soldiers kneel by the road, and shot them to death--while they were still handcuffed together in pairs. Wearing another military's uniform to gain surprise is against the laws of war. So is killing captive soldiers who are not resisting. Sabotage and murder, both grave war crimes. But Mr. Obama let the man who helped plan and organize this attack--thought to have been directly ordered by Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran--go as scot free as his Iranian comrades. It is bad enough--unheard of, really--for a U.S. President to negotiate with Islamic jihadists and their masters. But Mr. Obama made it even worse by getting almost nothing in exchange. The purpose of releasing the Iranian agents ( the so-called "Irbil Five") seems to have been to obtain the release of a British engineer and his four bodyguards. Yet all that was released in Baghdad were the corpses of two of these men, who had been killed a month or more earlier. And--to no one's surprise except the leadership of this administration--the Iranian regime became even less willing to cooperate with Mr. Obama than before.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 880 (view)

Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin Posted: 11/15/2009 8:21:58 PM
Treating someone with kindness and mercy is key, but approval of their beliefs or activities is not. We should always try to do that whenever we can. But I don't believe it's a sin not to treat everyone kindly all the time. What if they're trying to hurt you or someone else? That's why we can put people in prison and even execute them, kill enemies in war, and so on. I'm sure there are some Christians who believe we on earth have no power to judge and act against evil people. But I think that's a pretty extreme position. I don't think the teaching about turning the other cheek means we should never use violence. And of course it causes pain and suffering to the victim--but maybe he deserved it.

Show ALL Forums