Should the Pope apologize??

[LuvDuke]

WOW. I was being too charitable with the comparison to an incited that does not explicitly counsel violence whiel setting the tone for it. You go beyond that. Darkness, darkness

If the discussion goes on long enough, these people will eventually out themselves for the darkside fringe element they are. Works every time.

 

[LuvDuke]

i thought paid advertising was not allowed in these forums!!!

Hey, Louie, maybe you can do a little fancy keyboard work, make believe you wrote something worth while, and then give yourself a for a job well done. You know how that works.

 

[Charade]

If the discussion goes on long enough, these people will eventually out themselves for the darkside fringe element they are. Works every time.

 

[LuvDuke]

Whatever, John. Maybe you and Louie, pardon me Kendra, can get together and figure out the best way to blow up Mecca.

Have fun. Tata. Bon voyage. Drop a line when you get there.

 

[MickeysGirl]

I really tried to leave this thread alone...but I have to ask this.

A lot of people on this thread say what they say because "the fundamentalists want all Americans dead." What I don't understand is how you can call yourself different if you think the solution is blowing up the Ka'aba and creating concentration camps or goodness knows what else for American Muslims? I mean, the only difference is that you just think that it is a good idea....you haven't acted on it yet. Is it different because they supposedly acted first? Does that make the revenge ok? If you think that Muslims are such barbarians and savages, why can't you be the ones to do the right thing instead of sinking to their level? It just seems that until someone breaks the cycle of killing, nothing will get any better. Violence will always incite more violence. Why is it that the side that takes that first step must always be the other side? It seems that we try for peace half-heartedly once or twice and then give up and say..."well, I guess it's time for the bombs now".

 

[Fitswimmer]

Well, the first problem is THEY DO want Americans and anyone who does not follow their faith dead-AND they have no problem killing themselves in the process of killing others. It's hard to reason with anyone with that mindset, chiefly because it's so inflexible. It's not about money, it's about power to the leadership, but to the poor people that get convinced to strap bombs to themselves and their children-it's about an eternal reward. We can't give them land, that's not the issue-we can't give them money or goods, because they don't want to live in the 21st Century.
What's left?? I'll vote for the first politician that comes up with an plan-and shares it with us, that will avoid violence. I'm pro-life across the board, so all of the killing from both sides is abhorrant to me.

 

[LuvDuke]

Btw, one of the hallmarks of the Bushies is the inablity to see reality and your latest stunt proves it.

Are you trying to make the point that somehow my opinons and beliefs are on the fringe? Here's the reality, John:

I think the war in Iraq was a mistake. That puts with a majority of the American public.

I'm pro-choice with some restrictions. That puts me with a majority of the American public.

I favor stem-cell research. That puts me with a majority of the American public.

I think Bush is doing a crap job. That puts me with the majority of the American public.

Seems to me, I'm in the mainstream.

People like you, John, are so far out on the fringes, you don't even where the mainstream is. However, thanks for giving me the opportunity to point out just where the mainstream is and how far you are from it. Thanks for the opportunity to slice and dice and expose the Bushie fringe for what it really is.

Btw, when are you, Kendra, Louie, Me-Myself-and-Irene leaving for Mecca? How's the plans coming along to blow it up in the name of "we gotta do that because those people are crazy". Talk about irony!

Bon Voyage! Drop us a line when you get there. TaTA!

 

[Fitswimmer]

Bushie fringe for what it really is.

"Bushie Fringe"?? Ok, how does that advance the discussion? Can't we disagree with each other anymore without getting nasty?

For the record, I don't agree with everything that President Bush has done, nor did I agree with everything Former Presidents Clinton, Bush, Reagan and Carter did either. There is a HUGE difference between disagreeing with someone's actions/decisions and insulting them personally. Whether you voted for them or not, they still hold the office and deserve respect for that reason, and because they are fellow human beings.

We can go on and on about which side started it, but this attitude has GOT to stop or nothing will ever get done.

 

[LuvDuke]

"Bushie Fringe"?? Ok, how does that advance the discussion? Can't we disagree with each other anymore without getting nasty?

For the record, I don't agree with everything that President Bush has done, nor did I agree with everything Former Presidents Clinton, Bush, Reagan and Carter did either. There is a HUGE difference between disagreeing with someone's actions/decisions and insulting them personally. Whether you voted for them or not, they still hold the office and deserve respect for that reason, and because they are fellow human beings.

We can go on and on about which side started it, but this attitude has GOT to stop or nothing will ever get done.

Fitswimmer, my newfound friend, there are too many people peddling themselves as mainstream when they are no such thing. There is a vast difference between agreeing/disagreeing with some of a president's policies and swallowing the whole package, hook, line, and sinker. And on some matters, such as the use of torture, there is no discussion and there is no compromise. And I'll put this front and center: I have no respect for someone who advocates torture. Nor do I have respect for anyone who advocates blowing up Mecca.

And I have no respect for the current occupant of the WH. He's the one who disgraced the office of the presidency by lying to the American public to invade Iraq, authorized torture, walked on the graves of 9/11 victims to divide the country for political gain, and continues to paint those of us who disagree as appeasers, unpatriotic, and working with the terrorists to bring down America.

I never voted for Ronald Reagan, but he was my president. I never felt as if I was the enemy because I disagreed with his policies. Ronald Reagan looked out on America and saw good people who were united in a common vision of what it meant to be an American. George Bush looks out over America and sees how best he can exploit the differences to pit one American against another so he can eek out a .05% victory and call it a mandate. Sorry, Bush gets all the respect from me that he deserves.

 

[Fitswimmer]

The reason people who disagree feel marginalized is exactly what I'm talking about! It's not enough to disagree with each other, they have to demonize the other side. I've heard it from both sides, the left calls the right ignorant rednecks, the right calls the left Volvo driving snobs-and America loses.

 

[cardaway]

I have to agree that Bush deserves what he gets. He is actually a part of this political hate game rather than just a target. Maybe if he was to actually be a leader, and stay above it all, he might get more respect.

Maybe people will give his a pass because it's only got real bad while he was in office because of the internet and increase of political media, but the result is the same. He's one of them, not a innocent victim.

 

[DawnCt1]

I have to agree that Bush deserves what he gets. He is actually a part of this political hate game rather than just a target. Maybe if he was to actually be a leader, and stay above it all, he might get more respect.

Maybe people will give his a pass because it's only got real bad while he was in office because of the internet and increase of political media, but the result is the same. He's one of them, not a innocent victim.

Sounds like you have Hugo Chavez's talking points down pat!

 

[TheDoctor]

OT---I just appreciate this post. A simple and forthright description of a personal opinion on a topic. I normally dont post on these threads because of the tiresome (to me, obviously someone must be enjoying them) college debate team rules. Whoever cites the most convoluted reference wins! An actual independent thought!

Did you debate in college? Convoluted references used to be out of favor in my day. Back then, we just buried the other side with evidence.

 

[Teejay32]

"Bushie Fringe"?? Ok, how does that advance the discussion? Can't we disagree with each other anymore without getting nasty?

I doubt it.

It just seems that until someone breaks the cycle of killing, nothing will get any better. Violence will always incite more violence. Why is it that the side that takes that first step must always be the other side?

Is that asking too much of them, to give up "Death to America"?

 

[crcormier]

Sounds like you have Hugo Chavez's talking points down pat!

...says the Rush parrot.

 

[DawnCt1]

...says the Rush parrot.

Gee, I posted that at 12:04. Rush doesn't come on until 12:06. If he has said that, let me just say, Great minds think alike.

 

[cardaway]

Sounds like you have Hugo Chavez's talking points down pat!

Too bad I have never even heard of him. Nice try!

 

[DawnCt1]

Too bad I have never even heard of him. Nice try!

Have you heard of Venezuela? He's the president.

 

[What the Heck]

Fitswimmer, my newfound friend, there are too many people peddling themselves as mainstream when they are no such thing. There is a vast difference between agreeing/disagreeing with some of a president's policies and swallowing the whole package, hook, line, and sinker. And on some matters, such as the use of torture, there is no discussion and there is no compromise. And I'll put this front and center: I have no respect for someone who advocates torture. Nor do I have respect for anyone who advocates blowing up Mecca.

Yet so often just because someone believes the President is doing one thing right, they get jammed up and called a "Bush Apologist" or whatever the current phrase is rather than debating the point. I don't swallow the policies hook, line and sinker, I agree about the torture, but do we agree on the definition of torture? There are those who think incarceration is torture; that they have been forced to be incarerated so far from their homeland is torture. Others (and I am not one of them) do not belive waterboarding is torture. I don't advocate blowing up Mecca, but why is it ok for Islam to advocate blowing up churches? Not that I think you advocate it, but it is easy to lose site of who the bad guys really are. Some talk about blowing up Mecca, but these guys really are shooting up churches.

And I have no respect for the current occupant of the WH. He's the one who disgraced the office of the presidency by lying to the American public to invade Iraq, authorized torture, walked on the graves of 9/11 victims to divide the country for political gain, and continues to paint those of us who disagree as appeasers, unpatriotic, and working with the terrorists to bring down America.

The walkign on the graves of 9/11 victims goes both ways. It was in either 2002 or 2003 (I'm almost positive it was 2002) that Hillary Clinton was asked what the greatest disappointment was for her since Bush took office. She didn't even think twice before she said "the economy". Hello! What is that but a complete and total rejection of 9/11 even happening. Wall Street was shut down for a month, several huge employers in the US had to be letting employees go because of the consequences of 9/11, companies that on 9/10 were absolutely solid were going bankrupt as a consequence of 9/11, but in the mind of the Senator from New York, it was all because of Bush's economic policies. And she wants to be our president.

I never voted for Ronald Reagan, but he was my president. I never felt as if I was the enemy because I disagreed with his policies. Ronald Reagan looked out on America and saw good people who were united in a common vision of what it meant to be an American. George Bush looks out over America and sees how best he can exploit the differences to pit one American against another so he can eek out a .05% victory and call it a mandate. Sorry, Bush gets all the respect from me that he deserves.

Is he the one exploiting the differences? And the rhetoric that comes from the left has nothing to do with it? Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in New Orleans stating that the reason the city was in the shape it was in was because Bush (and Republicans in general) is a rascist has nothing to do with it? Howard Dean, upon hearing that the threat level was raised, holding a press conference to call it a political front has nothing to do with it?

Bush is definately not going to be the best president we ever had. He has made some major mistakes, especially politically. Honestly, I wish he had lost in 2000, it would have guaranteed a Republican president from 2004 on for the next 30 to 40 years. As it is now, unless Hillary Clinton is nominated for her party, the Republicans will have a tough fight in 2008 (she could never with the moderate vote).

 

[Fitswimmer]

I doubt it.

That's too bad, because I've been enjoying this.

I agree that President Bush has not helped the situation by jumping into the fray, and don't even get me started on Vice President Cheney and the Republican senators and members of congress. However, Howard Dean, Senator Clinton, Senator Kerry and a vast assortment of Democrats have done their fair share of jumping in to the fray as well. Debate is patriotic, insults are juvenile.
I'm waiting for someone, from either party or an independant (maybe Senator Lieberman?) to follow through on the promise to campaign/govern without negativity. They all start out saying that, but it doesn't take long before the name calling begins.