Race to the Whitehouse - USA Presidential Campaign

This forum is for posting meaningful and serious ideas and questions. Can be about interests, observations or serious matters of the world. If it doesn't fit that category, don't post here! Serious posts only.

Re: Race to the Whitehouse - USA Presidential Campaign

Postby coldandtired on Sun Jan 15, 2012 7:26 pm

Mohsin wrote:Neither do I. I don't believe we evolved from apes.

Very clear pointer that you have no idea what evolution is and shouldn't mention it again.
Image
User avatar
coldandtired
UKCS Admin
 
Player: coldandtired
STEAM_0:0:27915503
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:40 pm
Location: 18th Century Europe



Image

Re: Race to the Whitehouse - USA Presidential Campaign

Postby Binerexis on Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:06 pm

coldandtired wrote:
Mohsin wrote:Neither do I. I don't believe we evolved from apes.

Very clear pointer that you have no idea what evolution is and shouldn't mention it again.


I already pointed this out in an earlier post with suggestions on how to rectify this :)
"Everyone just shut up and enjoy your arena."
"...But we don't enjoy aren-"
"SHUT UP AND ENJOY YOUR ARENA!"
Image
Part three of my quest to lose my sanity

"Bin would get my Unusual hatz since he's the coolest, bravest, smartest and toughest admin." - Bruce Willis
User avatar
Binerexis
Old Timer
UKCS iSeries Attendee
 
Player: Extrodisian
STEAM_0:0:19678834
 
Posts: 5282
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:58 pm
Location: The North



Image

Re: Race to the Whitehouse - USA Presidential Campaign

Postby coldandtired on Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:23 pm

I had hoped that someone already did but it needed repeating. :) Evolution is so beautifully simple that there is no way it can be misunderstood by anyone with a complete brain. It has to be willfully corrupted.
Image
User avatar
coldandtired
UKCS Admin
 
Player: coldandtired
STEAM_0:0:27915503
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:40 pm
Location: 18th Century Europe



Image

Re: Race to the Whitehouse - USA Presidential Campaign

Postby UK_sniper on Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:07 pm

coldandtired wrote:I had hoped that someone already did but it needed repeating. :) Evolution is so beautifully simple that there is no way it can be misunderstood by anyone with a complete brain. It has to be willfully corrupted.


I have had this argument with my parents for the last 2/3 weeks. They have now settled on the fact that we cannot prove where the first cells came from as evidence of god (off topic I know, im sorry, shoot me but i gotta get it off my chest)

They threatened to kick me out the house when I said the lack of evidence for one theory is not evidence for another.

drives me bananas being the only one in this house with an obvious sense of logic...
Long Time UKCS Supporter, Retired Mod & Snr Admin
User avatar
UK_sniper
UKCS Life Sponsor
Admin (Retired)
 
Player: UK_Sniper
STEAM_0:0:6007153
 
Posts: 9864
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:24 pm
Location: Witham



Image

Re: Race to the Whitehouse - USA Presidential Campaign

Postby Mohsin on Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:03 pm

Wombat wrote:I think Ron Paul is a delusional and a danger to society. Society, that means people living together. TOGETHER. mr. Paul believes in everyone saving their own ass, living on their own little islands.


you might want to look at his supporters then, because they are from different backgrounds and all walks of life, and Ron Paul has managed to unite them. He even gave a speech about the country being divided, and that the importance of unity to achieve common goals "liberty unites" speech.

You would never get any 'facts' from a website like aboutronpaul.com.


he is known for having a trustworthy character amongst his peers. Can you tell me which facts on there are not factual ? list specifics

Especially not in the US.


all of the US ? kind of an unfair blanket statement there, not everyone is a liar :/


3. I think you're on some fan-rush thing and therefore not seeing straight. I hope in some time you can read this back, because to me it appears a little worrying, to be quite honest

Yes I am a fan boy, but I'm ok with that :P I want to see an honest politician for once, who won't sellout his values or position for influence or corporate lobby money .. [ill get to this part later in response to the bottom two posts], unlike corrupt liars the UK and USA has been stuck with for so long like blair, bush, clinton, obama .. etc.

4. I'd much rather have 2 of the leading Universities of the world in my top 3 donor list than the US army. This kind of shows who the intelligent man is voting for...[/quote]

Agreed, the 2 Universities on his list are impressive, they obviously have enough cash to spare, if they can throw it at Obama

i'll answer the thing about the military at the bottom of the post, because it answers the bottom 2 posts too.

having educated people as an indicator for who to vote for .. normally. But not this time, I would rather look at all the candidates, policies, what they stand for and make my own informed decision rather than follow the crowd and just vote for someone just because the educated votes for them.

being educated doesn't mean you are right. And you would think that these educated people would be smart enough to vote for someone that will put the country back on track, instead of pushing the usa further into debt, instead of making the tough, unpopular decisions needed sometimes and cutting spending, cutting govt departments. Instead Obama is trying to keep everyone happy, but failing to do so.

This kind of shows who the intelligent man is voting for...


and being educated or intelligent doesn't necessarily mean they are voting for the best candidate who will solve a lot problems in the usa that affect everyone positively, not just the educated

being intelligent and educated, doesn't mean you can't be corrupt, or selfish with selfish interests .. so there are other factors to take into account. Which is why I look at the candidates policies and characters

Remember Ron Paul is a qualified Doctor and Healthcare professional, a highly educated man, in one of the hardest careers.

It's not as though I am supporting a total dumbass like Bush .. just listen to his debates and speeches compared with his fellow GOP members, and he is the most logical and intelligent person on stage

oh and even though the educational establishment isn't supporting him, look at the student campuses, because he has a hell of a lot of support from educated students.


I would be extremely sceptical about Ron Paul being against wars when the armed forces are his top three contributors. To be honest, it's something that I find quite worrying and unsettling.




Please note that it's not the US Military itself donating, the donations list can mean corporations, or individual employees who work for them donating individually.

In the case of Ron Paul its individuals mostly donating, mostly corporations donating large amounts to the other candidates, or rich individual millionaire and billionaire associates. Which is why Ron Pauls highest contributions are only $ 23,437 compared with the $ million's and $ 100,000's for Obama and Romney respectively

Candidates also invest a lot of their own money, Dr Ron Paul has invested a lot of his own money [which isnt as much as Romney or Obama - which is why he has to raise money all the time, whereas candidates like Huntsman can take money off his billionaire father, or Romney can from his large wealth]

I would be extremely sceptical about Ron Paul being against wars when the armed forces are his top three contributors. To be honest, it's something that I find quite worrying and unsettling.


Just like active service personnel 'veterans against Iraq War' donated and supported Obama in the same way when he ran on the anti war ticket, promised to close guantanamo, promised end both wars and bring troops back home .. so Military personnel are tired of this war too, and are worried that Obama will launch another war with Iran and send them in. They are angry with Obama for lying to them, and feel the war has gone on too long

there is nothing to be worried about lol ... Ron Paul has a non interventionist policy, and the troops support this, just like the supported Obama when he promised it.

“They’re sick and tired of these wars and they know they’re not working out,” he said.


short interview with a 2 tour veteran why he and many of his fellow soldiers support ron paul - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GURvBJwWjhw

and an article about the previous presidential race before mccain beat ron paul to challenge obama -

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id ... xLp8_n9GXs

Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Ron Paul have little in common politically, except their opposition to the Iraq war.

Both top a new list of presidential candidates receiving campaign contributions from people who work for the four branches of the military and National Guard

Obama, an Illinois senator, brought in more donations from this group than any White House contender from either party. The Democrat announced Wednesday his plan to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2008. Paul, a Texas congressman and the only GOP presidential hopeful who supports an immediate troop withdrawal, comes in second.


Spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Obama is pleased to have the support of those "who have sacrificed so much."
.. no wonder the military are angry at this liar ..

Obama wanted to actually stay in Iraq, and keep US bases there, but the Iraqi Govt rejected this flat out.

7 Sep 2011 – The Obama administration would like to keep about 3000 to 5000 U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the end of this year, U.S. officials said - washington post






you should be more worried if the military personnel were supporting and donating to a warmonger like santorum or obama, or if they were donating to bachmann (before she eventually dropped out)





for 30 years ron paul has been saying the usa should have a non interventionist policy, stop interfering in other countries businesses and launching wars, remove us bases off foreign soil which causes anger to those populations, stop policing the world.





he voted against the iraq war - he has consistently made anti war speeches on the house floor, (you can see some of them uploaded to youtube) .. he is anti war

ron paul on iran -





ron paul on libya - (which Obama launched illegally and unilaterally without the permission of the house, representatives of the people)





ron paul on iraq -





i think this has shown his consistency on his views ..



Ok...maybe they are from military personnel...but what about the 4 aerospace/defence companies in there?

chilling doesn't even come close.


these people are individuals who work for those companies voting for ron paul, even though they know it could be harmful to their own economic safety, job security too. Because they know that he is a good man, and what he stands for is right.

they are putting their country first, and themselves second.



http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1 ... rkers.html


Ron Paul, the presidential candidate who says he’ll shrink government the most, is attracting more campaign cash than any of his Republican rivals from two unlikely sources: U.S. government workers and employees of the biggest federal contractors.

“There is at the bottom of this a truly bizarre set of paradoxes, where many of the people who are attacking government the most are ultimately heavily dependent on it,” said Don Kettl, dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland.

Motivated by Ideology

Ideology rather than practical considerations motivate many contributors to presidential campaigns, especially those who send money more than a year before the election, Kettl said.

“This is much more a vote from the heart than a vote from the head at this point,” he said.

“People might be giving for things completely unrelated to their economic interests, or even counter to their economic interests,” she said in a Nov. 9 phone interview. “Presidential donors are far more ideologically motivated than donors giving to congressional candidates.”




I add that although ron paul is anti interventionist, he is not anti national security, and by cutting the department of defense spending, and money spent in wars abroad and expensive bases abroad, he said he will invest that into national security and significantly increase the spending in that area.

And he wants to cut military aid to Israel and all nations, and spend it at home. And even the head of mossad, and israeli pm benjamin netanyahu agrees with ron paul. They want the usa to leave them alone, and have their own sovereignty to make their own decisions without the permission of the usa, or the usa interfering, and said that they can defend themselves and handle iran on their own. that the usa should stay out of it, but certain groups in the usa keep ignoring this.


A lot of people that attack his foreign policy say that not launching wars abroad, will leave america vulnerable to terrorist attacks. whereas he is of the view that going to war in places like iraq, iran, libya creates blowback and more resentment, helping terrorists to recruit.


the cia agrees with ron paul







Don't think for one second that if the likes of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup et al offered Ron Paul financial contributions, that he wouldn't take it. The corporate investors aren't stupid....they go with whoever is going to win, like they did with Obama. Not to mention Paul's 3 corporate/hedge fund contributors Corriente Advisors, DUNN Capital and Mason Capital Management. And you can't get more corporate than Microsoft and Google


Of course ron paul would accept it lol. And spend it for good, the difference is, he wont be influenced or sacrifice his position by doing so

and this is why they aren't donating to him. Another reason they aren't donating to him, is he wants to audit the federal reserve, and stop those big bail outs to the banks and like the trillion borrowed to bail out the fed.

He is a threat to these big banks, and that's why they fear him and are pumping money into Romney's campaign and hedging their bets with Obama too, as Romney may not win, currently Obama is polling slightly higher.

Fed Up: Ron Paul on America's Rotten Banks -



yes they back who they want to win, and of course they are going to back a businessman and corporate sellout like Romney, their ideal president





Image


microsoft and google - employees not the corp - and look at how much they donate. compare to the others.

Ron Pauls total donations compared to Obamas, and Romneys is not that much .. he is not a corporate sellout, he is spending from his own money and relying on individual public donators.

I saw a news interview with one of these corporation spokesmen, which i wish i could find right now ! but cant :(

but he said something along the lines of "we don't even bother trying to approach or influence him [ron paul], you know what he's like, he sticks to his principles and the constitution all the time" .. something along those lines.




If it were considered OK to murder, you could find yourself with a population problem quite quickly because people would be dead.


like i said, when these laws were written - the context of the time. That have shaped many countries laws and been the basis over time for modern day society. i repeat context. And at that time, when society was less civilized and thing that are considered abhorrent and evil today were committed back then .. the religious laws gave order and protection to people, in a lawless society, where murder and other evils were commonplace ..

The argument of a stable family unit being integral to society ("If the family unit has problems, society has problems") just isn't true.


seems like common sense to me, that if there are more unstable families with problems, then the children are more likely to have problems, and it has an adverse effect on society ..

i was speaking generally. of course there are single parents who can cope and who are good parents. But two parents is better than one in most cases

articles -

Some 12 per cent of children brought up by one parent displayed series behavioural problems by the age of seven, it was disclosed, compared with just six per cent of youngsters raised by both natural parents.

The disclosure is made as part of a major study of around 14,000 children born in Britain between 2000 and 2002.

It found that family make-up, parental qualifications and household income had a major effect on children’s behaviour at a young age, which could have “damaging long-term consequences”.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... haved.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... rimes.html

Children in single-parent families more likely to suffer emotional problems, report finds
Children from broken homes are almost five times more likely to develop emotional problems than those living with both parents, a report has found.


Young people whose mother and father split up are also three times as likely to become aggressive or badly behaved, according to the comprehensive survey carried out by the Office for National Statistics.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... finds.html


i stand by my original statement, even though you dont believe it is true and disagree with this point of view.



i think you are going off the topic by going into religion and attacking it, and only focussing on negatives. Whilst i focus on positives, like in the bible .. but ill try to counter a couple of things i disagree with.

i was simply saying that there are a lot of good things in religion that formed the foundation of our laws and social values, which have shaped society today and that we still live by a lot of these shared values.

when you read all of the laws, you can see that a number of these religious laws are barbaric and would, oddly enough, be illegal in our more civilised society.



remember i mentioned the context of the times, the times these laws were written were barbaric times, and these laws solved many of the social ills that took place. where anything and everything happened, no matter how evil. It was commonplace ok ?

plus you say that we are more civilised today. well we might be more technologically civilised and advanced, but i look around and i see moral degradation, and less 'civilized' society ... i think we have advanced in certain respects, but regressed in other respects.


i can copy and paste a lot of good things the bible has to say, or other religious books .. but i wont, because i know it wont change your mind. Just like you wont change mine. so it's pointless


"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." (Lev. 20:9)



dealing with the lack of respect for parents, and related to lack of respect to the elderly as well

laws are to act as much as a deterrent, as a punishment. And as a warning too ... ie. preventative. And most of these religious laws, have exceptions. Ie. if you sincerely repent and change your ways, you are forgiven.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8366113.stm

Parents are regularly being threatened, abused, even beaten up by their own children, says a UK parental guidance charity. Many have reached the point where they are afraid to be left alone in the house with them.



IPCC condemns Manchester police over David Askew death. Watchdog says force had no effective system in place to deal with persistent harassment of disabled man by youths


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... lying.html

76 year old beaten up by youths

Image


and this is a widespread problem, becoming worse .. where youth's are threatening their parents, swearing at them, using violence, making old people scared to even come outside.


and you think society is better, and morally civilized lol ?


(e.g. My father supports the death penalty "Anyone who believes that the death penalty is just is blind, deluded and not looking at the same facts everyone else is." Ooops, I have to die now).


how is disagreeing with your fathers position disrespecting him ? i think that was kind of silly ... and i don't appreciate the sarcastic, smug tone/ style you have set with comments like this. just make your argument or point without the snide remarks, they are unnecessary, just like your decision to copy pasta lots of quotes from an obvious anti bible website lol .. and turn this into a thread about religion when its about the political race.

"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."


and like i said before people can always repent their sins to God, and change their ways, and not receive capital punishment. Not that these laws are even enacted today anyway, so what point are you trying to get at ?

Most countries follow the non violent aspects of the bible - thou shalt not murder .. etc. So what is the problem ? its not like Ron Paul wants to enact these laws, so why bring religion and these old testament quotes into this ?

he even voted against capital punishment as part of his pro life stance, he relies more on the new testament teachings of Jesus rather than the Old Testament /Torah laws that you have mentioned

After all, Jesus said "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" I know i wouldn't cast the first stone or harm someone and neither would ron paul ...

it's God's law, and even if you dont believe in God, I do and I believe in his laws, and although im far from the perfect believer, i would be happier if my society had higher and better moral values that at least go along the lines of such laws, (ie. respect for elders, parents .. etc)

Adultery is a bad thing, and it is harmful to society. Sexual promiscuity too, and not just for moral or religious reasons, but for health reasons too .. the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, adultery can result in divorce, affecting the children too.

agreeably to her own soul; but you must by no means sell her for money. You must not deal tyrannically with her after you have humiliated her."

context of the time - slavery and treating women badly, like property was common during those times. The bible gave more protection to women during that time. And it had to be agreeable to her soul, she had to accept marriage before the consummation . it was not rape as you so claimed, the woman would agree to marriage and then have all the respect and rights, and protection as a wife ... instead of actually being raped by the polytheistic and pagan barbaric armies and then murdered or tortured .. which was worse for that time.

do you think it would have worked if God said in the bible everything all at once "freedom to vote, equal rights, rights to property, rights to work " no of course not, the people would have rejected or laughed at the laws of today, because it would have been too much of a big change all at once

instead, the laws were passed incrementally to raise up the status of women, and others steadily, so the people could slowly become better and more morally right, and willing to accept issues like women being equal, not just to shock them all at once

like i said, the context of the time is the most important thing, and that the process to make things better was gradual so that the people would accept and follow it


"And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them." (Lev. 20:12) I like to quote this one as this is the only thing CLOSE to reprimanding sexual activity with a minor. There isn't anything in the laws of the bible that says you can't do this with another man's daughter so long as you're married, of course. Link this in with the enslavement of other tribes above and you have a very uncivilised society. So far, the more I read this book the more I think that the ancient Greeks were far more civilised but they had a much more relaxed religion, go figure.


well of course its not a good thing if your son marries a woman, and then you commit adultery and sleep with his wife ..

There isn't anything in the laws of the bible that says you can't do this with another man's daughter so long as you're married, of course.


what are you on ?

you have to get married to some guys daughter first. ie, no sex outside of marriage. just because the bible doesn't mention it, doesn't mean the law didnt exist

it is in the laws, that you cant just go around sleeping with other mens daughters ..

ah i think i get your point
I like to quote this one as this is the only thing CLOSE to reprimanding sexual activity with a minor.


if you are talking about the age of brides, i dont know about the Torah or Old Testament, but in my religion it is probably similar, as we believe most of the old testament and new testament


the criterion for the age or marriage is specific -

only once a girl has reached intellectual maturity, if she rejects the marriage proposal she can reject it

and only once she has reached physical maturity - concerns the reaching of sexual maturity which becomes manifest by the menses

The age related to these two concepts can, but need not necessarily, coincide - Only after or intellectual maturity to handle one's own property, is reached can a girl receive her bridewealth and get married


so if she is both mentally mature and physically mature - and these criterion are fulfilled, then she can get married, if she so wishes to.


girls mature faster than boys too

boys can get married once they reach intellectual maturity, physical maturity and can "afford" to get married and provide for their wives ie. take care of them


and this is more dependent on the consummation aspect. boys and girls can get married in 'name' only but no physical relations, just to get to know each other, until they are intellectually and physically mature too

In Arab and Altiac societies arranged marriages were and are common. Children are often married to create a period for the spouses to know each other before consummating marriage. Feelings of closeness and loyalty were encouraged during these early years or months.



but i will make a mention that western royal families had young brides during the medieval ages, and fairly recently too, i remember reading that such marriages to young brides were common even during the victorian and imperial era's, and was in america during the pioneering age. Ill have to get back to you with sources because that is from memory, but i am certain of it

The aristocracy of some cultures, as in the European feudal era tended to use child marriage as a method to secure political ties



and other cultures did too, like the aristocracy of arabs used marriage to cement political ties such as the tribes of Quraysh and the marriage of the Prophet Muhammad [pbuh] to Aisha [mAbpwh], but the marriage was not consummated until she was actually much older, 14 or 15 years old at the time of her nikah - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Islam] and 19 years old at the time of the consummation of her marriage and some of the Old Testament Jewish Prophets, similarly had young brides.

Context of the time. Also in those times, daughters were unwanted, and there was high levels of female infanticide - abortion, as it was shameful to have daughters, so marriage also acted as protection to girls who otherwise would have been in danger in an irreligious pagan society, that attacked and raped unmarried women. They received protection, respect, equality, rights, status, dowry, property.



So far, the more I read this book the more I think that the ancient Greeks were far more civilised but they had a much more relaxed religion, go figure


implying the greeks didn't have slavery. implying the ancient greeks let women vote. relaxed religion ? and the new testament of Jesus isnt relaxed ?




"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Lev. 20:13) This is quoted religiously (pardon the pun there) by Christians who are against homosexuality or same-sex marriage. This fact alone brings up very interesting talking points with Christians for reasons I won't get into now. Either way, putting them to death seems extreme and unnecessary.

"And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast." (Lev. 20:15) Sorry, not brilliantly relevant, I just love that the beast gets punished as well for something that was likely non-consensual.



homosexuality is as sinful and bad as beastiality in my book, it is deviancy. people are not born homosexual, they choose to be,

why else do you think the numbers of homosexuals are rising so fast ? in fact its being encouraged in society and taught in schools that its ok to be homosexual, and in the media its everywhere

and ive heard militant atheists use the argument that homosexuality is natural and they support it with the argument that there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom, so its normal

well monkeys throw crap at each other and pigs eat their placenta and faeces .. animals do a lot of things, it doesn't mean we should do it too

we aren't beasts, and we shouldn't debase ourselves and stoop so low, that we are at that level.

also, we have souls, animals dont.

i know you dont agree with this, but this is what i believe, as it states in all christianity islam and judaism that homosexuality is a grave sin


good luck finding someone who's still a virgin when they marry.


exactly. because society has become so immoral and degraded,

its harder to find pure and clean people to marry these days when temptation, be it materialism or sexual immorality is constantly pushed into these peoples faces, encouraging them to sin


Those are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head and where the punishment is death. I can't remember the verse exactly but another law is that anyone who works on the sabbath will be put to death. I'd love to see that law upheld, it'd make the weekend shopping a bit more interesting. There's also the law where if a wife isn't a virgin when she's married, she'll be put to death too. Not only is this incredibly hard to verify but good luck finding someone who's still a virgin when they marry. Anyway, those are the reasons why I don't really see the Old Testament laws as something which a civilised society should be based on. Right, onto the politics


sadly many jews work on the sabbath, even though it is the God's day meant for reflection and prayer. Christians are lucky, they get sunday to pray on the weekend holiday, so they dont really have an excuse not to go to Church, Friday for Muslims, so its a work day which is difficult to get time off work for many people to go to the mosque, and many also choose to ignore friday prayer which is important for them


as for virgins being killed, well i mentioned about all these laws they are a deterrent and preventative and warning moreso than being a punishment. and like you said its hard to prove,

so in my religion, you have to get a certain number of witnesses to the act of 2 people commiting adultery if you accuse them of that, and if you cant get these witnesses that saw the act, you are punished instead, and the islamic court is not to believe your testimony after that or trust your word

so the requirements to convict someone of breaking religious law, is very hard and strict - which is good because it is such a serious accusation

this prevents people from making accusations left right and centre falsely and just killing people for it - there is a legal process involved, and so people arent accused in the first place, and if they do happen to be falsely accused, they pardoned without charge and the accuser is punished (like with lashes)

but if the person confesses to the crime, they receive a lesser punishment (like lashes), in public so it is a lesson to the community that it is a sin or if they repent sincerely to God, and declare they wont commit it again, they can be forgiven with no punishment.

But if they do it again, then they are punished. Because they broke their word.

in the case of crimes like murder, there is capital punishment , or there are alternative remedies if the family of the murdered accepts it, its up to them

so lets say they are a poor family and the murderer is rich, the murderer can pay blood money of a sum that is acceptable to the family in that form of justice .. so its up to them and there are different methods for justice in religious law


Right, onto the politics.


about time ... :roll:


1 - it defends all religious groups, not just christians

2 - Americans are patriotic about their country and love it. I admire and respect this quality in them. the flag represents it, and what they and their constitution stands for.


what people do with their own property in regards to destroying it is up to them
.

erm, so you are making the same point he did ?

let me the repeat the quote he made, and try quick reading his speech on it below -

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul99.html

This is all so unnecessary. There are already laws against vandalism. There are state laws that say they cannot do it and they can be prosecuted. So this is overkill.


he was criticizing it, exactly because the amendment was overkill and unnecessary as there were already vandalism laws in place which contain the provisions to deal with it, and that it should not be an issue. Leave it to the states to deal with, instead of making it such a big issue was his point

and he expressed that he didnt see flags being burned in the streets of the usa as being common, so it was pointless and to leave it to existing laws, instead of amending and passing this one.

As for my viewpoint, I see the amendment as very unnecessary and very dangerous.


and if you had read the speech i posted, you would understand all the reasons he expresses.

It involves more vandalism, teenagers taking flags and desecrating the flag and maybe burning it, and there are local laws against that.


Some claim that this is not an issue of private property rights because the flag belongs to the country. The flag belongs to everybody. But if you say that, you are a collectivist. That means you believe everybody owns everything. So why do American citizens have to spend money to obtain, and maintain, a flag if the flag is community owned? If your neighbor, or the Federal Government, owns a flag, even without this amendment you do not have the right to go and burn that flag. If you are causing civil disturbances, you are liable for your conduct under state and local laws. But this whole idea that there could be a collective ownership of the flag is erroneous.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that by using the word "desecration," which is traditionally reserved for religious symbols, the authors of this amendment are placing the symbol of the state on the same plane as the symbol of the church. The practical effect of this is to either lower religious symbols to the level of the secular state, or raise the state symbol to the status of a holy icon. Perhaps this amendment harkens back to the time when the state was seen as interchangeable with the church. In any case, those who believe we have "No king but Christ" should be troubled by this amendment.


so he agrees with you on a number of the points you made, and you agree with him. in terms of private property.


3. The constitutional amendment which talks about keeping weapons never specifies what weapons should be available to the people and was written so that the people could lead an armed revolution against their government should the time come when that was necessary. In theory, the people should have weapons on par with the government. Does this mean that people should be allowed to own missiles? Tanks? Nuclear devices? I don't see why there's a train of thought in America where you need a weapon in order to defend yourself. The wild west doesn't exist any more. Also, why the hell would a civilian need an assault weapon? Someone breaks into their house and they think an M16 is an appropriate tool to defend property? Give me a break. It offers no greater benefit than what is already available (you can already purchase semi-automatic weapons in the US) and I can't help but think it gives the potential for yet another nut to walk into a populated area and start shooting which happens surprisingly less in other countries with legal firearms than it does in the US.


yes it was written so that the people could defend themselves and their property, and protect themselves from a corrupt govt, and overthrow it if those circumstances happened.

well "arms" is specific so rifles and hand guns come under this term - handheld weapons. clearly they didnt have tanks, missiles and nuclear devices during the time of the founders, even though the mental image of them with a nuke under the arm made me lol :P but some sort of protection is better than no protection.

it doesn't matter what gun they use, who care if an m16 isnt appropriate, If someone breaks into your house, its a threat. to you, your family most importantly and they should be shot. As for property, the point is, you dont know the mind of the criminal, what weapon they have, what their intention is. As soon as they enter your property, they know what risk they have taken, and they should face the full consequences of their action

instead of you stopping to get your m16 and asking the guy first, are you here to steal my property only ? or are you here to shoot me, and then rape my wife and daughter first and then steal my property .. best to use M16 first, then worry if it was "proportionate" afterwards.

I can't help but think it gives the potential for yet another nut to walk into a populated area and start shooting which happens surprisingly less in other countries with legal firearms than it does in the US.


i agree with you completely here. weapons are too easy to get a hold of, like by teenagers that were involved in the columbine high school shooting

needs to be regulated tighter. but responsible people should be granted licenses only. and those who dont have a license, should be prosecuted with heavy prison terms and fines.

the problem is, who regulates it ? if its the govt choosing who can and who cant have guns .. then we have a problem with the original amendment that gives citizens the right to bear arms. not everyone has the right, criminals and kids dont have the right.

i remember in michael moore's film bowling for columbine that they sold guns and ammunition in a wallmart .. that's just messed up, when it is so easily accessible. Or even illegally anyone can get a gun, like gang crime.

seems like the NRA isnt doing a good enough job in who they give licenses too [mostly white people, and not black people so much], neither are parents who dont make those guns secure, where kids can get a hold of it

i read a news article where a kid found his parents gun and shot his sister .. so yeah i totally agree with you on that specific point.

but its starting to happen in Europe more frequently too, like Anders Breivik's massacre in Norway ? .. I don't know too much about him or Norway's gun laws, and how he got a hold on those weapons though, maybe you could provide some more info

4. yeah i agree with you, i do hope that its improved though. A lot of legal cases against employers can in cases take years, a long time, and legal costs which the employer can afford, but the victim cant .. i know in certain countries, the richest corporations can win because they can drag a case out so long that the other party can no longer afford legal costs. a legal war of attrition so to speak. Maybe there will be a better way in dealing with sexual harassment cases, faster and cheaper

5. Marriage stopped being just a religious thing quite a while ago. It's entirely possible to get married without religious intervention and even if you do it as a religious thing, there are legal implications and things to sign. For example, your spouse is regarded next of kin when you become legally married which means that (in my case) it would be my wife who would make the big decisions about my health should I become compromised and she would get first claim on my estate (outside of certain stipulations in my will) should I die. If we assume that I was married in San Fransisco and then moved to Dallas where my marriage wasn't recognised, my wife would be absolutely powerless to influence something. She wouldn't even be counted as a family member but rather just my girlfriend. If I were in a coma and my next of kin wasn't my wife but rather a relative who didn't really have my best interest at heart and made the decision to pull me off life support, can you even begin to imagine the horrible torment that would put my wife through? It's unfair and immoral. If a law like that were to pass then all it would serve to do is to push homosexual couples to move to a state where they are considered acceptable which just comes off as foul.



you can do that through your lawyer, exactly the point that ron paul is making, govt shouldn't interfere in marriages, or contract, and property laws .. it should be left to those individuals to decide

so those legal implications and things to sign would have nothing to do with the govt, and for you. seeing as you are straight and have a wife, there is no problem for you.

as i expressed my religious views earlier, you probably surmised that i believe marriage is only between a man and a woman, civil partnership - even if it isnt religious

you can make someone your next of kin, and give them power of attorney through your lawyer, in the event that anything happened.

Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. This act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize legal marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction.


so they will usually recognize your marriage ok ?

so your not gay, so there is no problem for you really

i dont think homosexuals should have special benefits and rights, for getting married. Just be treated the same as every other individual with their rights. Same rights for individuals

So Dr Pauls views of non interference in this issue and leaving it to states to decide. I am personally fine with.


why do homosexuals have to get married anyway ? they can have a 'meaningful' union and relationship with each other, they can also get married in certain states in churches or civil unions, no one is stopping them

so i fail to understand what exactly is the problem.

is it because they dont receive the same rights and privileges as a straight married couple ? well i dont believe they should.

6. no problem

7.
I am for abortion
im not 'for' it as enthusiastically as you are

im for it, like ron paul in the circumstance of rape, incest, child abuse or if it threatens the life or health of the mother to give birth and if she so chooses


so -

In an Oct. 27, 1999 speech to Congress, Ron Paul said:

“I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.”


“As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there’s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there’s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.”

At the GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida, on Nov 28, 2007, Ron Paul was asked what a woman would be charged with if abortion becomes illegal and she obtains an abortion anyway:

“The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.”



Personally, I don't believe his story for a second as there are no specifics given which can be checked


i support his views, and as you aren't someone who has never performed an abortion, whereas dr ron paul has experienced and witnessed it, i am more convinced by him. he is more qualified to speak on this issue as someone who's profession is in this field.

When a foetus is developing inside the mother, it's a parasite within the body which will often strip the mother of resources in order to sustain itself.

Being pregnant is fairly life threatening and childbirth is certainly life threatening. Abortion is not an option that should be taken away from anyone at any time.


neither should it be taken so lightly and casually either .. young teenagers shouldn't be having sex or getting pregnant in the first place, but that leads to a whole other issue ..


you could argue that many things are 'parasitic' in nature - humans parasitic on the earth and natural resources .. etc

but i dont choose to use the term "parasite" or parasitic for an unborn baby, which i believe has a soul.

i agree with your point that safe, clean, private abortion should not be taken away, to protect against back street unsafe abortions that used to happen used as a desperate resort

even though i dont agree with abortion in general .. and i think that those who perform backstreet abortions need to be locked up, effectively they have committed murder. But then in the last part of ron pauls statement i agree with too, that doctors need to be punished, it should be a crime to murder- abortion is murder.

so its the responsibility of a lot of people, the doctors, and the parents of a young teenager to make sure she doesn't get pregnant in the first place and have an abortion, or the responsibility of the woman herself not to get pregnant.


pregnancy is life threatening ? ok so we shouldn't have children then .. :roll: its been happening since the beginning of time, and we are still here. the human species survived, so im ok with pregnancy.

The picture you posted of a girl glad to get an abortion gives me no feelings or no thoughts either way at all. I know that it's something meant to shock but it simply doesn't do that with me.


not my intention to shock, just used it to illustrate how casually abortion is done these days, when it should be an important decision taken seriously.

so if people think its 'fashionable' or funny to have an abortion ... im not for that.


Condoms can break, birth control can fail and, if you're unlucky, it can be too late to do anything about it. To take away the option of abortion in that situation is punishing someone for something they had no control over.


birth control isnt flawless and oerfect, but people can choose if and when they have sex .. i support sex after marriage, and i support having children, and not ending their lives.

if they choose to have sex, they know the consequences of what could happen the moment they initiate sex, and accept responsibility if it should result in an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy, and deal with it

instead of taking the easy way out and aborting the child. There are alternatives, they could give the child to an adoption charity and find a loving family who are unable to have kids.

for all we know, we could be aborting a potential genius, or someone who could have fulfilled their potential and achieved great things .. they will never get that chance to live that life, and fulfil that potential.

and i know you could make the same argument, that the next mass murderer or dictator could have been aborted ,. but still, i like to think about it in a positive sense.


At worst, getting rid of the option of abortion can throw us back a hundred years


Ron paul isnt getting rid of the option, he just believes there should be consequences for the action. Not the woman, but for the doctor performing it.

where women would be forced to get a backstreet abortion or at worst take their own lives from fear of what other people may do or think.


well suicide is a sin too, so they wont be helping themselves .. the point is, they shouldn't have sex and get pregnant in the first place outside marriage. And too many kids are having sex today at a young age and its wrong, the parents have the most responsibility, but also schools .. like sex education classes, or handing out condoms at school, which i feel encourages sex.



8. As I stated earlier, it doesn't make much sense that Ron Paul wants to remove the US from the UN. The UN isn't an organisation where you give money towards it and it looks out for your specific interests, it's about the interests of the world. If he were to remove himself from such an organisation then it would do a lot of damage to America's public image which is the last thing America needs right now.


it's about the interests of the world.




The League of Nations failed to prevent World War II (1939–1945). Because of the widespread recognition that humankind could not afford a third world war, the United Nations was established to replace the flawed League of Nations in 1945 in order to maintain international peace and promote cooperation in solving international economic, social and humanitarian problems.



yes because the UN has done a great job so far. how about the United Nations war in Korea ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_War

I wouldn't exactly call it a 'peacekeeping' mission .. the UN went to war.

where were the UN when there was ethnic cleansing in africa ? like sudan for example ? why did they just sit by and let it happen ?

if they could go to war in korea, isnt this a more deserving cause to go to war ? or where were the un peacekeepers during the gaza 'war' where so many women and children were killed ?

its a load of bullshit frankly.


or the spread of cholera in haiti ? .. i could go research and find you a long list of things the UN has done wrong, but I want to move on to the next point, and this is taking so long :|

i disagree that it would do a lot of damage to America's public image. He will improve Americas image by his non interventionist foreign policy, encouraging free open trade with everyone (including iran, north korea), removing military bases from around the world, bringing troops home, no more aggressive wars , giving guantanamo prisoners due process in civilian courts, not military courts, cutting military aid to all other countries, like israel ... and many other things.

So his policies will definitely improve Americas image and relations with other countries, especially powerhouses like russia and china, and middle eastern states.

The UN isn't an organisation where you give money towards it and it looks out for your specific interests


i never said its meant to look out for specific interests, but ron paul wants to spend the money that they give to the un on his own country and people. And has talked about how the UN mismanages the donations, and wastes alot of money.

he is doing what is best for his country. and indirectly, it will be better for every other country too.

But we are leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq
[/quote]

Scumbag Obama in his speech about the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, when another bomb went off killing many people, and in the news everyday im reading that the sectarian attacks are increasing, looks like Iraq is heading deeper into civil war

Last edited by Mohsin on Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Mohsin
Regular Member
 
Player: zzz
STEAM_0:0:8082407
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:37 pm
Location: London



Image

Re: Race to the Whitehouse - USA Presidential Campaign

Postby Mohsin on Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:04 pm

14 January 2012

Iraq suicide bomb kills 50 in Basra pilgrims attack


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16560042


So I would have Ron Paul, over Obama or Romney (who wants to attack Iran) any day !



9. I don't see why an airline should be responsible for a terrorist hijacking a plane and leading an attack with the exception that it's a good way of shifting blame should such an attack happen. In terms of having guns in the cockpit, have you ever been in the cockpit of a plane? They're rather small with not a lot of room to manoeuvre and a wayward bullet would cause havoc. You're surrounded by electrical equipment which is important for keeping you up in the air, you could shoot into the passenger area and injure someone else and if one of the windows blows out in the cockpit then you are in for a hell of a lot of trouble where the survivability is extremely low. In order for a terrorist to take control with a gun, all they'd need to do is barge into the cockpit and catch the pilots by surprise and/or kill them quickly. A terrorist wanting to kill innocents won't care if a bystander gets shot or if the plane becomes inoperable (if they're a suicidal terrorist) because people go down with them anyway. Besides, there's still one option where shooting the terrorist would be an extremely bad idea: They barge into the cockpit with a load of explosives strapped to them whist holding a pressure sensitive trigger which, if they let go of, will trigger the explosive. If the terrorist is shot or knocked unconscious, things go boom. It wouldn't even be that difficult to do. Smuggling explosives onto a plane is something that people who are determined about a cause have proven themselves adept at doing and if you remove the security measures in place and put the responsibility on the airline to handle security, I get the feeling that someone is going to make a mistake somewhere which will cost lives




9 - if the airline isnt responsible for the safety and security of passengers in the plane while they are in the air. Tell me who is please ? this is why laws should be passed that allow pilots, or maybe trained airline security personnel to be on board, to protect themselves, and the lives of other passengers

I don't see why an airline should be responsible for a terrorist hijacking a plane and leading an attack with the exception that it's a good way of shifting blame should such an attack happen.


a lot of people were responsible for the failings on 9/11 .. airlines have experienced terrorist attacks before, and should be prepared, give the airlines the legal protection to do this

In terms of having guns in the cockpit, have you ever been in the cockpit of a plane? They're rather small with not a lot of room to man oeuvre and a wayward bullet would cause havoc. You're surrounded by electrical equipment which is important for keeping you up in the air, you could shoot into the passenger area and injure someone else and if one of the windows blows out in the cockpit then you are in for a hell of a lot of trouble where the survivability is extremely low


ok maybe not guns, but how about other alternative weapons - tazer, pepper spray, then handcuff them .. something along those lines im thinking ? i mean the terrorist hijackers took over the plane with cutlery, they didnt have explosives.

so while your in the air, it is the airlines responsibility for your well being.

besides, there's still one option where shooting the terrorist would be an extremely bad idea: They barge into the cockpit with a load of explosives strapped to them whist holding a pressure sensitive trigger which, if they let go of, will trigger the explosive.


you think a terrorist can even get on a plane in the first place and pass body scanners and security with "a load of explosives, you're kidding me here right ? you watch too many hollywood action movies i think :lol:

my point is that terrorist attacks on planes and hijackings have happened before, and that 9/11 could and should have been prevented. we should have been prepared, they were warned about it happening,[- see defense memos + condoleeza rice.]
and that it was being planned, and they did nothing.


Airlines, airport security and other parties are to blame and responsible and complicit. its happened before 911, and they didnt introduce measures for security on planes. Only since 911 have they done so. such as you cant get into the cockpit now, seperate section .. i believe.


Smuggling explosives onto a plane is something that people who are determined about a cause have proven themselves adept at doing and if you remove the security measures in place and put the responsibility on the airline to handle security, I get the feeling that someone is going to make a mistake somewhere which will cost lives.



put the responsibility on both ! dont remove security measures, but dont go to extremes either ..


“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” - Benjamin Franklin



and if you remove the security measures in place ...



like the TSA groping little kids in texas airports "enhanced patdown" .. its just a disgrace

invasive body procedure

TSA Breast Milk Screening Harassment






State official "punished" for opting out of the TSA scanner






TSA pat-down leaves traveler covered in urine

'I was absolutely humiliated,' said bladder cancer survivor



full article here - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns ... xNEL_n9GXs


tsa grope kids -






you dont think all this is over the top ?


Elderly woman asked to remove adult diaper during TSA search

A woman has filed a complaint with federal authorities over how her elderly mother was treated at Northwest Florida Regional Airport last weekend.

Jean Weber of Destin filed a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security after her 95-year-old mother was detained and extensively searched last Saturday while trying to board a plane to fly to Michigan to be with family members during the final stages of her battle with leukemia.

Her mother, who was in a wheelchair, was asked to remove an adult diaper in order to complete a pat-down search.

“It’s something I couldn’t imagine happening on American soil,” Weber said Friday. “Here is my mother, 95 years old, 105 pounds, barely able to stand, and then this.”

Sari Koshetz, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration in Miami, said she could not comment on specific cases to protect the privacy of those involved.

“The TSA works with passengers to resolve any security alarms in a respectful and sensitive manner,” she said.

Weber’s mother entered the airport’s security checkpoint in a wheelchair because she was not stable enough to walk through, Weber said.

Wheelchairs trigger certain protocols, including pat-downs and possible swabbing for explosives, Koshetz said.

“During any part of the process, if there is an alarm, then we have to resolve that alarm,” she said.

Weber said she did not know whether her mother had triggered an alarm during the 45 minutes they were detained.

She said her mother was first pulled aside into a glass-partitioned area and patted down. Then she was taken to another room to protect her privacy during a more extensive search, Weber said.

Weber said she sat outside the room during the search.

She said security personnel then came out and told her they would need for her mother to remove her Depends diaper because it was soiled and was impeding their search.

Weber wheeled her mother into a bathroom, removed her diaper and returned. Her mother did not have another clean diaper with her, Weber said.

Weber said she wished there were less invasive search methods for an elderly person who is unable to walk through security gates.

“I don’t understand why they have to put them through that kind of procedure,” she said.

Koshetz said the procedures are the same for everyone to ensure national security.

“TSA cannot exempt any group from screening because we know from intelligence that there are terrorists out there that would then exploit that vulnerability,” she said.

Weber filed a complaint through Northwest Florida Regional’s website. She said she received a response from a Homeland Security representative at the airport on Tuesday and spoke to that person on the phone Wednesday.

The representative told her that personnel had followed procedures during the search, Weber said.

“Then I thought, if you’re just following rules and regulations, then the rules and regulations need to be changed,” she said.

Weber said she plans to file additional complaints next week.

“I’m not one to make waves, but dadgummit, this is wrong. People need to know. Next time it could be you.”


Rape Survivor Devastated by TSA Enhanced Pat Down

http://pncminnesota.wordpress.com/2010/ ... -pat-down/





feel safer now binerexis ? i hope this is all worth it, to make you feel safe .. even though its unnecessary and doesn't actually make people safer.



and if you remove the security measures in place


well some 'security' measures should and need to be removed. Ones that dont actually provide security, but instead humiliate and degrade passengers ...


or the health concerns from the full body scanners


report exposing the concerns, by experts, of critical health risks and health concerns with the new whole body TSA body scanners in airports everywhere. Here is the actual PDF file of the letter sent to the Obama administration regarding the serious concerns about the health risks of whole body scatter X-ray airport security scanners.

The Letter of Concern was sent to Dr John P Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, on April 6, 2010 by medical doctors and professors at the University of California San Fransisco (John Sedat, PhD, Marc Shuman, MD, David Agard, PhD, Robert Stroud, PhD).


The European Union on Monday banned the machines, also known as backscatters, at European airports over concerns that they might be linked to cancer. The investigative news organization Pro Publica reported earlier this month that research shows radiation emitted by the machines could lead to a small number of cancer cases, findings it says the TSA "glossed over" in assessing the safety of the machines.




Despite EU Ban, UK Makes Radiation-Firing Body Scanners Compulsory

Backscatter machines remain in use. No “opt out” option. ‘No scan, no fly’ policy intact


In spite of the European Commission formally adopting new limits on airport body scanners and outright banning backscatter x-ray scanners pending further studies, the UK will not allow passengers to “opt out” if they are selected to go through the machines, which will remain in use.

Citing a non specific “security threat” to Britain, The transport secretary, Justine Greening, announced in a Commons statement that there would be no pat down option available to fliers, despite an EU mandate for the provision to be introduced.

“I have considered this carefully. However, I have decided against it, on security, operational and privacy grounds. I do not believe that a ‘pat down’ search is equivalent in security terms to a security scan.” Greening states.

“Those passengers selected for scanning will therefore not be able to fly if they are not willing to be scanned,” Greening writes, adding that the ruling would be imposed through powers under the Aviation Security Act. [/Quote]


doesn't make me feel better about travelling, especially as i'm a brown person and often get racially profiled, stopped, patted down, scanned, made to wait, taken aside, made to feel as though i have done something wrong, or am a criminal, interrogated [questioned / grilled in a threatening manner] .. etc when i travel, even though my record is clean, i have a full CRB check, and i used to be a police constable .. go figure :roll:

so add cancer to that .. i think i wont be traveling abroad as much :/ so much for freedom of movement and travel then. :|



before at least you had an option of being groped instead of getting cancer, now they are removing the grope 'opt out', so you have to get scanned ! :x








I don't know who the alternatives are and I'm not entirely interested. I don't live in the US and I have no desire to move there soon


ok sorry, i dont know why i got it into my head but i thought you were american for some reason lol, i think your flash banner reminded me of this american guy i used to know : o


please keep the posts relevant to the original post and not go off topic please Binerexis, :roll: it was time consuming responding to all the religious stuff, which y u made me feel i needed to ... maybe start a separate "the bible is barbaric" post for yourself if you want :|

Last edited by Mohsin on Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mohsin
Regular Member
 
Player: zzz
STEAM_0:0:8082407
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:37 pm
Location: London



Image

Re: Race to the Whitehouse - USA Presidential Campaign

Postby Mohsin on Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:17 pm

coldandtired wrote:
Mohsin wrote:Neither do I. I don't believe we evolved from apes.

Very clear pointer that you have no idea what evolution is and shouldn't mention it again.



I already pointed this out in an earlier post with suggestions on how to rectify this :)

I had hoped that someone already did but it needed repeating. :) Evolution is so beautifully simple that there is no way it can be misunderstood by anyone with a complete brain. It has to be willfully corrupted.




ok let me make it clear.

Human evolution refers to the evolutionary history of the genus Homo, including the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species and as a unique category of hominids ("great apes")


I don't believe we are related to Hominids 'great apes' in any way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominid

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Hominidae.PNG

Oh and if you had actually read my comments, instead of taking it out of context, you would see the part where i said that i dont reject evolution, and that i have no problem with it, neither does my faith.

it only has a problem with human evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life.

Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation. Theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who reject the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict


i subscribe to this view.


instead of just making a snide, sarcastic patronizing comments as if you are so intellectually superior and know everything about everything and have all the answers, how about being a bit fairer .. instead of being immature and sarcastic ..

you could just explain your positions fairly, rationally saying "look mohsin i think your wrong, because of ... and this is where i disagree with you on evolution .. " ..

in that style, instead of mocking me like a bunch of twats
Evolution is so beautifully simple that there is no way it can be misunderstood by anyone with a complete brain. It has to be willfully corrupted.
... i would have more respect for your views and you as people, if you had done that.


User avatar
Mohsin
Regular Member
 
Player: zzz
STEAM_0:0:8082407
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:37 pm
Location: London



Image

Re: Race to the Whitehouse - USA Presidential Campaign

Postby Wombat on Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:04 pm

Moshin, I think that has been done a number of times in this topic already. You just don't seem to be absorbing any of it though.

I've got to hand it to you, you're persistent, your walls of text are impressive (this has got to break the 1page topic length record). Unfortunately, in my opinion you are also misguided. Apparently, this guy has gotten to you so deep that you are not really listening to reason anymore but are just spamming more Ron Paul propaganda (yes, its propaganda, meaning manufactured information meant to screw with your mind. And it's apparently working on you).

For the moment, I do not think that anything we say would alter that just a bit. I just hope that given time, you'll learn to understand things a little bit better. Until then, I think this debate is going nowhere.

Wombat

p.s.: I think Obama is doing a great job, considering the mess he was left with.

edit: typo :S
Last edited by Wombat on Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you smile at life, life will smile back!
User avatar
Wombat
UKCS Life Sponsor
 
Player: [RS]Wombat
STEAM_0:0:516408
 
Posts: 2895
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 12:11 pm
Location: The point, where else...



Image

Re: Race to the Whitehouse - USA Presidential Campaign

Postby coldandtired on Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:41 pm

Mohsin wrote:Oh and if you had actually read my comments, instead of taking it out of context, you would see the part where i said that i dont reject evolution, and that i have no problem with it, neither does my faith.

it only has a problem with human evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life.

Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation. Theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who reject the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict


i subscribe to this view.


instead of just making a snide, sarcastic patronizing comments as if you are so intellectually superior and know everything about everything and have all the answers, how about being a bit fairer .. instead of being immature and sarcastic ..

you could just explain your positions fairly, rationally saying "look mohsin i think your wrong, because of ... and this is where i disagree with you on evolution .. " ..

in that style, instead of mocking me like a bunch of twats
Evolution is so beautifully simple that there is no way it can be misunderstood by anyone with a complete brain. It has to be willfully corrupted.
... i would have more respect for your views and you as people, if you had done that.

So, you come here and peddle your ignorance. You link to a page with a picture of a man and woman and the caption "Humans, as depicted on a Pioneer plaque, are one of the four extant hominid genera." to support your view that humans aren't hominids. People who understand evolution don't have 'views' about it. It's not a philosophy but solid science. There is no such thing as 'human evolution' distinct from normal evolution. Theistic evolution? Another expression for denying any facts you find uncomfortable. In your own quote is written that it isn't a scientific theory but you think it should be taken as seriously as a theory with 150 years of evidence behind it?

For the record, I would stake the lives of my whole family on being intellectually superior to anyone who has ever asked why do we still have monkeys, or what use is half an eye, or any of the other ridiculous 'arguments' that people use to pitifully avoid knowledge.

Theories do not get equal weight just because they disagree.
Image
User avatar
coldandtired
UKCS Admin
 
Player: coldandtired
STEAM_0:0:27915503
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:40 pm
Location: 18th Century Europe



Image

Re: Race to the Whitehouse - USA Presidential Campaign

Postby Binerexis on Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:29 am

Awesome to see that you replied again and I did read around half of it but I'm not posting a rebuttal this time. Your posts are so haphazardly formatted that it becomes difficult to read and separate any kind of rebuttal you have and random facts about Ron Paul strewn with videos and quotes from biased websites (if a website is cited at all). Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with you citing your sources but I think the videos you have posted add up to around an hour in length now. I'm not watching an hours worth of footage which could be presented thus:

At the 00:24 second mark of this video, The Amazing Atheist says "Wooo fuck religion".

Of course, the above example is a quotation out of context (it was one of the first videos in my suggestion list on YouTube. You can watch it if you like but I don't think it'll tickle your fancy) but it's just a quick and dirty example of showing how you can cite a source, make it easily available for someone to check and provide a direct quote which is relevant to what you're talking about. If at any point you reformat your rebuttal post to me in a more organised way then I will happily continue this discussion (who knows, I may change my mind later but I may not). Anyway, onto a few things mentioned in this topic since I was here last:



C&T said: "Evolution is so beautifully simple that there is no way it can be misunderstood by anyone with a complete brain."

There is an element of simplicity to it but there are a few things that can seem confusing. One thing that gets people hung up is 'Hey wait, if we evolved from apes then why are there still apes?!' which is a question I asked when I was still in (a Catholic) school and got no answer. An analogy I heard which understands it nicely is "Englishmen migrated to America and changed their nationality to Americans. If Americans came from Englishmen then why are there still Englishmen?!".


Sniper said: "They have now settled on the fact that we cannot prove where the first cells came from as evidence of god"

Yeah, there still isn't that much known about abiogenesis but then again, no one is saying that they know exactly how it happened. Well, no published biologist is anyway...


Moshin said: "he is known for having a trustworthy character amongst his peers."

Yep, my friends say that I'm a pretty cool guy too but there's a slight problem there. They're biased.


Moshin said: "i was speaking generally. of course there are single parents who can cope and who are good parents. But two parents is better than one in most cases"

Citation from a published research paper would be nice here.


Moshin said: "i can copy and paste a lot of good things the bible has to say, or other religious books .. but i wont, because i know it wont change your mind. Just like you wont change mine. so it's pointless"

I was raised through Catholic schools and have read the bible in its entirety many times so I know of the 'good' things said within that holy book quite well but what it boils down to, disregarding the Old Testament as there isn't so much 'good' there than there is 'do what I say or I'll kill you' and taking out the threat of going to eternal punishment if you don't love god, is "Hey guys, don't be dicks to other people" a.k.a The Golden Rule which has been mentioned in many religions and by a few philosophers for a few millennia. Seeing as we've shifted to religion again for a minute (Oh, by the way, I didn't start wantonly attacking religion in my other post, you brought up the religious ideas and I merely replied, just thought I'd throw that out there) I just want to say that some of the philosophy in some religions don't seem to be too bad but the execution of it by practitioners of the religion seem to fail miserably as coming across as decent people.


Moshin said: "laws are to act as much as a deterrent, as a punishment. And as a warning too"

Capital Punishment is used in America and has been said that its continued use is due to the deterrent effect. An effect that was refuted by Albert Pierrpoint (from his autobiography: "I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people...The trouble with the death penalty has always been that nobody wanted it for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off.") and can be seen to have no effect as the US has one of the highest murder rates in the world. Slightly off topic again but people who kill aren't in a rational state of mind to think about the consequences.


Moshin said: "how is disagreeing with your fathers position disrespecting him ? i think that was kind of silly ... and i don't appreciate the sarcastic, smug tone/ style you have set with comments like this. just make your argument or point without the snide remarks, they are unnecessary, just like your decision to copy pasta lots of quotes from an obvious anti bible website lol .. and turn this into a thread about religion when its about the political race."

When you read the example I gave, the 'son' makes a generalisation about those who disagree with the death penalty. It's not just that he disagreed with his father but that he also insulted him. In regards to my tone, this is how I talk. If we're talking about unnecessary additions to posts then I could always bring up the many YouTube links you've dotted in this thread but I've already said that. I didn't find those quotes from an anti-bible website, I got them from a KJV bible which can be found easily as an online resource which also offers many other versions of the bible. I chose KJV as that was the version I've been most familiar with and I only used it to check the Leviticus quotes which, in actuality, I have memorised. If you think that I picked them from an "obviously anti bible website" then I think you should reconsider what exactly makes your religion so loving and open. Again, you were the one who said that Ron Paul was the kind of man who follows Christian values and use them as a force of good through politics, not me.


Moshin said: "Not that these laws are even enacted today anyway, so what point are you trying to get at ?"

If the laws laid down in a holy book aren't enacted then it doesn't say much about those who think that the holy book in question is the infallible word of god and that it should be followed. If people like so many of the Republican candidates say that they believe ALL of the bible then they should follow ALL of the bible. You can't pick out a few Leviticus quotes as a justification to say that homosexuality is a sin and they should not have the right to marry and then when you see something you don't agree with say "Oh no, you're not seeing that in the context of the time. We don't believe that now, we follow the hugs and kisses approach where no one goes to hell".


Moshin said (noticing a pattern now?): "it's God's law, and even if you dont believe in God, I do and I believe in his laws"

Not all of them, evidently.


Moshin: "implying the greeks didn't have slavery. implying the ancient greeks let women vote. relaxed religion ? and the new testament of Jesus isnt relaxed ?"

I knew full well that they had slaves and didn't let women vote. They did, however, have a democratic society and had a lot of free-thinkers, philosophers and scientists who weren't huge proponents of their religion. The New Testament certainly seems relaxed until you get to the points where it says "Oh, by the way, if you give away all your possessions and be the best person in the world but don't love me, you're still going to burn in hell for all eternity".


Moshin: "homosexuality is as sinful and bad as beastiality in my book, it is deviancy. people are not born homosexual, they choose to be"

The more I read, the more I think you're actually trying to get me to dislike you. I mean, I thought that this was going to be some kind of reasoned discussion with a few dashes of logic thrown in. It isn't. I guess Christians are guilty of choosing when to listen to Leviticus and when to remember that Jesus said to love all your neighbours as thyself and that Jesus shared a bed with a young man (mentioned in Luke IIRC). Either that or you really don't think too well of yourself and I don't mean in the normal masochistic followings of Christianity way. Again, I'd like to remind you that it was you who brought religion into this.


Moshin: "pigs eat their placenta and faeces"

SPOILER ALERT: So do humans. You picked an extremely poor example. Flinging of faeces is something humans do too but they're usually already classed as insane by them. If you want the real things that separate us from animals it's that we have a sense of our own mortality and have ways of recording information which will help future generations.


Moshin: "its harder to find pure and clean people to marry these days when temptation, be it materialism or sexual immorality is constantly pushed into these peoples faces, encouraging them to sin"

Yep, good for you and your morally righteous ilk. Keep it out of damn politics.


Moshin: "as for virgins being killed, well i mentioned about all these laws they are a deterrent and preventative and warning moreso than being a punishment."

Then if it's not an actual punishment, why mention it? Shitty way to run a society and also a shitty way to raise kids (tangent). See above for why the deterrent argument is stupid.


To be honest, this is as far as I got before I got sick and tired of combing through your poorly written and formatted reply. I skimmed over your responses (very briefly) and didn't take much time to read any of it because the formatting of, well everything to be honest, makes it difficult to make heads or tails of what you're saying. I have neither the time nor the patience to waste on words that seem to have been vomited on-screen haphazardly. If you think you can format a reply in a decent enough way then I will happily respond. In fact, you'll get a reply with as much substance in an equal proportion to how easy to read and understand your post is (you'll earn bonus points for citing things in an easy to read way and lose bonus points for every embedded YouTube video).
"Everyone just shut up and enjoy your arena."
"...But we don't enjoy aren-"
"SHUT UP AND ENJOY YOUR ARENA!"
Image
Part three of my quest to lose my sanity

"Bin would get my Unusual hatz since he's the coolest, bravest, smartest and toughest admin." - Bruce Willis
User avatar
Binerexis
Old Timer
UKCS iSeries Attendee
 
Player: Extrodisian
STEAM_0:0:19678834
 
Posts: 5282
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:58 pm
Location: The North



Image

Re: Race to the Whitehouse - USA Presidential Campaign

Postby BelovedKiller on Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:38 am

Can someone do me a favour and write a quick TL;DR please?
Image
User avatar
BelovedKiller
UKCS Life Sponsor
 
Player: 제트별 - 冻住,不许走!
STEAM_0:0:22867374
 
Posts: 1057
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:26 pm



Image

Re: Race to the Whitehouse - USA Presidential Campaign

Postby Binerexis on Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:08 am

BelovedKiller wrote:Can someone do me a favour and write a quick TL;DR please?



Moshin: I think Ron Paul is so awesome because of these policies and the fact that he can lead a good example due to the fact that his friends and website say he's a pretty cool dude AND he's Christian!

Binerexis: I disagree with those policies for the following reasons. Also, the sources you supply are unreliable and biased and religion should have no place at all in politics.
"Everyone just shut up and enjoy your arena."
"...But we don't enjoy aren-"
"SHUT UP AND ENJOY YOUR ARENA!"
Image
Part three of my quest to lose my sanity

"Bin would get my Unusual hatz since he's the coolest, bravest, smartest and toughest admin." - Bruce Willis
User avatar
Binerexis
Old Timer
UKCS iSeries Attendee
 
Player: Extrodisian
STEAM_0:0:19678834
 
Posts: 5282
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:58 pm
Location: The North



Image

Re: Race to the Whitehouse - USA Presidential Campaign

Postby Aceo on Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:23 am

Just on the subject of why the homosexuals and marriage is important. As has already been mentioned this marks them as your next of kin, for hospital cases/death, highly important situations. Also, there are many financial benefits (Tax credits). If anything, I would say that religion has no place in marriage. Denying homosexuals equal rights also goes against the very idea of libertarianism that this "Ron Paul" apparently represents, "You can be free to do everything, apart from what you want" is how he now reads to me. (As an aside, I find your whole view on homosexuality offensive, especially when you say that because said person was not gay "Why is it your problem?" We care for others...)

Now, the whole x-ray thing has been covered in other threads in this forum I believe when they were first introduced. There is the same risk of radiation as you get from a body scan in the hospital. Do you know how many of these you would need to reliably induce cancer? Hundreds if I remember correctly. This is a faster security measure than anything else.

The story of the elderly woman and the diaper... I don't know what to say, she should have been made to remove the diaper not only for security reasons but for HYGIENE. Someone sitting on a plane, with recycled air and enclosed space, with a soiled diaper. This is not healthy at all - it is not security's fault that spares were not brought.

I could write so much more but I fear much of it would go ignored sadly.


Aceo
UKCS Sponsor
UKCS iSeries Attendee
 
Player: Aceo
STEAM_0:1:8775008
 
Posts: 716
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:16 pm
Location: England, Hull



Image

Re: Race to the Whitehouse - USA Presidential Campaign

Postby Shuriken on Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:40 am

Mohsin wrote:i know it wont change your mind. Just like you wont change mine. so it's pointless


I think this makes a better TL;DR
This is my sandvich. There are many others like it, but this one is mine. My sandvich is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me, my sandvich is useless. Without my sandvich, I am useless. I must eat my sandvich true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy, who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will. Before lunch I swear this creed: my sandvich and myself are defenders of my country, we are the masters of our enemy, we are the saviors of my life. So be it, until there is no enemy, but sandvich. Om nom.

Image
Image
User avatar
Shuriken
Old Timer
 
Player: `_´ HaemoGobliN `_´
STEAM_0:1:5456922
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:43 am
Location: I'm on a boat



Image

Re: Race to the Whitehouse - USA Presidential Campaign

Postby coldandtired on Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:42 am

Binerexis wrote:C&T said: "Evolution is so beautifully simple that there is no way it can be misunderstood by anyone with a complete brain."

There is an element of simplicity to it but there are a few things that can seem confusing. One thing that gets people hung up is 'Hey wait, if we evolved from apes then why are there still apes?!' which is a question I asked when I was still in (a Catholic) school and got no answer. An analogy I heard which understands it nicely is "Englishmen migrated to America and changed their nationality to Americans. If Americans came from Englishmen then why are there still Englishmen?!".

Well, I didn't mean that everyone instinctively knows how it works, only that the answers to questions like you mentioned are one-line answers, with no complicated maths or biology involved at all. That analogy isn't quite right but it's close enough.

Once someone has had these simple rules explained to them, though, it's willfully ignorant to go on parroting the same childish rubbish that the religious right do.
Image
User avatar
coldandtired
UKCS Admin
 
Player: coldandtired
STEAM_0:0:27915503
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:40 pm
Location: 18th Century Europe



Image

Re: Race to the Whitehouse - USA Presidential Campaign

Postby MakeNine on Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:23 pm

Mohsin wrote:I don't believe we are related to Hominids 'great apes' in any way


If we're not related to apes in any way, how come we share so much of our behaviour and basic biology and that we have 99% genetic similarity to chimpanzee's? How come there is a long line of ancient fossils showing how we descended from ape-like creatures several million years ago?

All life on Earth is related no matter how different it is, for example humans share a percentage of genes with fruit flies or even plants.

I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul because he's a libertarian but the fact that he rejects basic science shows that he is delusional and a potential threat to scientific research and education if elected.


User avatar
MakeNine
Home Member
 
Player: [IG] MKNine
STEAM_0:0:5987970
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:34 pm
Location: Ireland



Image

Re: Race to the Whitehouse - USA Presidential Campaign

Postby Canaletto on Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:24 pm

Don't believe the hype, it's a sequel


Canaletto
Home Member
 
Player: MannyTheManny
STEAM_0:1:4318485
 
Posts: 459
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:52 pm

Re: Race to the Whitehouse - USA Presidential Campaign

Postby Canaletto on Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:28 pm

The US constitution specifically bans religion from impacting in politics or even be part of politics.

To say that people should be exempt from laws or moral duties because they believe in a book written in the Bronze age? Come on.

It is truly scary that we do have and have had, world leaders who believe in Santa Claus.


Canaletto
Home Member
 
Player: MannyTheManny
STEAM_0:1:4318485
 
Posts: 459
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:52 pm

Previous

Return to Thinkers Topics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests