How Do You Feel About The War???

godless_musician · 04-25-2007, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FutureNavyMan08

That said, I'm not eniterly sure where anyone could get the idea that the ACLU, or American Civil Liberties Union, does not support censorship. This is the group thats been attempting to get the bible banned from schools and various religous objects banned from public places! That is censorship to the letter!

From *public* places, not from private owned places like a newspaper, television station, etc. It's not censorship, it's just honoring the establishment clause.

If people were banned from publishing books expounding religion, that would be censorship. However banning public Christmas functions is simply honoring the separation of Church and State. This is not a "Christian nation", and whatever our contrived pledge may say it is not "one nation under God."

I fully support the ACLU in their efforts to ensure that the government does not favor one religion over another, or religion to nonreligion.

Capt Sasha · 04-25-2007, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by godless_musician

Would you back that up?

Check his understanding of the Iraq war and West Asian politics and military on this very same topic.

And his snivelling attempts to offend me by using an American symbol.

Capt Sasha · 04-25-2007, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FutureNavyMan08

I will say this: just because someone it on the opposite side of a debate from you does not mean they're an idiot. Thank goodness for the "ignore" command, I must say. I swear by it sometimes, I'll admit.

Bit rich coming from someone who resorts to personal attacks and insults when his opinion is logically and intellectually challenged. That is the sign of an idiot, and one does not need Ph.D to understand it.

And spreading factually incorrect and inaccurate opinions masqueraded as truth is not a sign of high mental prowness either. Trying to convince members to be victims of illogical faith instead of reasoning clearly takes the cake. Three demerits.

godless_musician · 04-25-2007, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo

And his snivelling attempts to offend me by using an American symbol.

Why do you assume his avatar is intended to offend you?

Quote:

And spreading factually incorrect and inaccurate opinions masqueraded as truth is not a sign of high mental prowness either. Trying to convince members to be victims of illogical faith instead of reasoning clearly takes the cake. Three demerits.

Nor is it a sign of stupidity; it is dishonesty, if anything. And since when are you the one who gets to dole out demerits?

Capt Sasha · 04-25-2007, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by godless_musician

Why do you assume his avatar is intended to offend you?

He said something sometime back regarding his avatar. He probably assumed I am an American and would find it offensive to he put it to counterattack my swastika.

Quote:

Originally Posted by godless_musician

Nor is it a sign of stupidity; it is dishonesty, if anything. And since when are you the one who gets to dole out demerits?

He actually believes what he says which does not make him dishonest but makes him stupid. And that gives him the demerits.

godless_musician · 04-26-2007, 05:53 AM

Quote:

He actually believes what he says which does not make him dishonest but makes him stupid. And that gives him the demerits.

The worst kind of dishonesty is self-deceit but it still does not indicate stupidity, to my mind. I have deceived myself before (although I try not to) and it has always been in times of weakness, not of stupidity or even ignorance.

From the way FutureNavyMan08 writes, whether or not his posts are factually true (as I said, I don't know), he seems intelligent.

Anyway, this is all off topic; you either believe he's stupid or you don't. I doubt he cares what you think and I hardly care, so I'll stop wasting my time attacking your comment.

AffairesRisque · 04-26-2007, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Floating.In.Sand.

im not saying what was said in the article was wrong or wasnt cited. I agree with you and all completely i just was saying that anyone can edit the article at any time even if it is a cited article. I mean that article was probably right and cited, i was just making point that the site isnt 100percent reliable. Any way you are right and i do apologize if what i said came out as an insult.

Quite alright. You're right, there are probably a lot of douchebags that get on there and screw with things. But, if I use articles from there, I try and make sure that they have cited sources.

I usually will go to other places before I resort to Wikipedia anyways.

meggy · 04-26-2007, 11:01 AM

depends!!!!

its gay and only for faggots

unless we are like threatened like then we go and beat the bad guys up
ha.

AffairesRisque · 04-26-2007, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meggypoo

depends!!!!

its gay and only for faggots

unless we are like threatened like then we go and beat the bad guys up
ha.

*sarcasm* Wow. Your reply isn't derogatory or anything.

Capt Sasha · 04-26-2007, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by godless_musician

From the way FutureNavyMan08 writes, whether or not his posts are factually true (as I said, I don't know), he seems intelligent.

Even an IQ 60 person has intelligence, that is Intelligence Quotient 60. If that is what you mean than fine, no problem. He seems intelligent to you but he is stupid and I know that. Or else he is a 10 year old kid. All it takes is to read his posts which are candidates for Stupidity World Cup.

Floating.In.Sand. · 04-27-2007, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedAlert

Quite alright. You're right, there are probably a lot of douchebags that get on there and screw with things. But, if I use articles from there, I try and make sure that they have cited sources.

I usually will go to other places before I resort to Wikipedia anyways.

yea that makes since

jnifw3nloi · 04-27-2007, 09:01 AM

You have lost sight of the main point. This war is an affront to mankind.

Capt Sasha · 04-29-2007, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jnifw3nloi

You have lost sight of the main point. This war is an affront to mankind.

It is. The war just shows what an agressor could do to destabilise the world. Glad our country went nuclear in 1964, today we have the deterrance to prevent us from becoming genetically modified blobs.

FutureNavyMan08 · 04-29-2007, 08:05 PM

Neo, my avatar is not designed to offend you. You're reminding me of Richard Nixon. (Nixon was a highly suspicous president, in that he was afraid that everyone was out to get him.) Don't think I'm out to get you. In all honesty I don't give a crap about you. Take your petty insults to were someone actually cares.

In any case, godless, taking something out of a public place just because its religous is censorship defined. Private clubs based on religons are, in some areas, no longer able to meet in public places, escpecially school. This is censorship. The whole idea intrudes on civil rights. Religous Freedom in the US includes the right to practice our religons. The ACLU, as always, is quick to assault this civil right. Sorry, but theres no valid excuse for taking religous symbols out of public places. Once a town displayed a nativity scene and menora(sp?) in a public place and was sued. Of course, those filing suit were specifically after the nativity scene(true fact, look it up if you wish. I remember this from my Law Ed. textbook). I reserve my right to practice my religon, and I refuse to obey anyone who says I can't.

Bottem line: the purpose of the constitution is not to allow goverment to put down religon. Rather, it allows for the free and open practice of religon. The ACLU and other organizations consistantly push to deny this right.

Strawberry_Wine · 04-29-2007, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by godless_musician

I would like my civil rights protected along with my ass.

Also my right to live under a secular government... I think there's plenty of material of this type with which to "diss" the president. I don't know whether the war in Iraq is justified--I don't know enough about it to have an informed opinion--but I do know that George Bush's black-and-white God's-on-our-side attitude majorly pisses me off. "You're either with us, or with the terrorists."
I would like a president whose primary concern is the freedom and well-being of the American citizens--not somebody like Bush who believes himself to be "smiting" various countries and groups at the command of a deity.

WHOA.

I never said I support the presidents opinions. Because believe me. I don't. I think he has a horrible speaking ability, and lack of intelligence and he does bring religion in on political things which is wrong. I'm not here to defend the president. I'm saying that we did have a right to be over there in the war because of the attack. We are still there because we are helping them become a better country. Because we are "nice" like that I suppose, or because the president is an ass-kisser. Either way I support the troops, and having the right to have faught the war, not the president.