The observer will note the use of the vague word 'represents'. This saves Flowerbob from the necessity of actually saying anything with substance.<hr></blockquote>
by "represents" i mean that these are things which he thinks are good and which are important parts of his political platform. i will happily provide some substance (actually, i won't. i would be much happier if I couldn't, but, unfortunately, my claims have grounds).
a) "fuzzy math." need i say more? it's an appeal to the ignorance and stupidity of the average american, which translates roughly to "i'm stupid like you so vote for me"
b) are there really questions about this? he's pro-death penalty, anti-gun control and he's currently waging a war.
c) he wants government money for faith-based organizations. wants prayer in school. :blech:
d) he's a business man, a friend of big business, and is opposed to real environmental regulations ("voluntary regulations" are *NOT* regulations).
[quote]If you don't have anything to say, why expend so much effort not doing it?<hr></blockquote>
my apologies. it was poor form.
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
Sound like a opinion to me <hr></blockquote>
yup. one i am ready to explain and defend.
[quote]Originally posted by Mandricard:
Are you then implying that adherents to a particular set of religious beliefs are not free to spread those beliefs? Or is it just that force should not be used when promulgating one's particular religious views? Or are you implying that Islam's rapid spread across the Middle East in the 7th through 9th centuries is somehow a special case?<hr></blockquote>
it's bad enough that there are adherants of particular religious beliefs, without them going around and trying to make more of themselves. and trying to use violence to force somebody to believe in another god is stupid and criminal and evil.
nobody should ever take any action to try to coerce another person's belief system. (and yes I am aware of the inherant hypocrisy of any argument favoring this philosophy)
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
Islam is not about peace and love, except to other Islamic people. Anyone else is the infidel and if they do not convert they should be put to death. It is in their Koran. Look it up.
And before you say Christians are the same way, we are not. Look it up, in context.<hr></blockquote>
Actually, neither religion is "supposed" to be about violence. It just turns out that historically both have been. Because religion is like that. like race, people use it as a channeling of hatred, an excuse to go around killing each other. stupid people make religion stupid.
anyway, the most deaths "over religion" are not at all about religious ideals. neither the Arab invasion of Europe nor the "retaliatory" Crusades were about religion for the people leading them. while for some of the people "on the ground" the idea of going to hevean (or the islamic equivalent) allowed them to get themselves killed, we also see that in very few cases in history has this alone been sufficient to motivate something of the scale of these wars. there is always need for a leading force, and for this force, the wars were about power, conquest, spoils, etc. (hence the looting of the Byzantine empire by the very christians who were supposed to be helping the Byzantines, when they were returning home defeated and without the spoils they expected to win).
[quote]Look at the Taliban and their current laws (based on Strict Islam).<hr></blockquote>
note that there are many countries across the Islamic world with the Koran as their legal constitutions, and they do not have laws like the Taliban's. the Taliban represents [i]an[/]i (extreme) interpretation of the Koran, and not necessarily (as they believe) the "one and only correct" interpretation.
I do think this (crusade argument) should be done in another thread. As it gets far off of the political affiliation Poll and onto religious and ethnic issues instead. I apologise for being off topic.
a) "fuzzy math." need i say more? it's an appeal to the ignorance and stupidity of the average american, which translates roughly to "i'm stupid like you so vote for me"
b) are there really questions about this? he's pro-death penalty, anti-gun control and he's currently waging a war.
c) he wants government money for faith-based organizations. wants prayer in school. :blech:
d) he's a business man, a friend of big business, and is opposed to real environmental regulations ("voluntary regulations" are *NOT* regulations).</strong><hr></blockquote>
A) How is "fuzzy math" saying we're all stupid so vote for me? He was making a point that their math is less based on facts than it is on how they want you to interpret the facts. For instance, calling a reduction in a spending increase a cut of a program even though the spending is still going up.
B)That hardly makes him a warmonger. The war we are in is justified and Al Gore would be in it too if he were president (at least I hope so, if he was not he would be facing an angry public and a bigger terrorist problem than before as they found that the US cowered and did not stand up to them). I am pro guns and pro death penalty as well, so whatever.
C)He wants to be able to help all charities, including those which are faith based. It is more about removing the restrictions to giving to faith based programs than just helping those that are faith based.
D)Al Gore is quite different in this respect. Also a business man (tobacco instead of industrial), environmentalist ("that internal cumbustion engine is the biggest threat to civilization today" now let me get in my limo and go to the airport and fly across the country to speak again and then fly back tonight. ) Hypocritical to say the least. But we would sure get some doozy laws to protect the environment at the expense of the economy, and anything else. There needs to be a balance which no one has found yet.
In short, Bush is doing just fine, Gore would be no better, and I think he would not have done as well.
I'm glad to finaly see someone else talking abouut the initial Muslim expansion through violence that preceded the "crusades"
even so, the Crusades were a particularly vicious form of reclamation... and in one of the crusades, unusually bloody and unnecessarily murderous
But, there are other religions living in peaceful coexistence with Muslims ... even in Iran: there is a Christian population, Jews, even some Zaroastrians and some of the last remaining Gnostics; descendants from the original sects.
So don't go over board mister christian-right-to-lifer.
there are many different kinds of Christianity just as there are Islam: many Christians are fundamentalist idiots and many other kinds of idiots but not all are knee-jerk fundamentalists or idiots... just as in Islam.
<strong>beer, I had the same reaction to "Socialist/Individualist"
Just say the catch-all:
"USA
Know-it-all teenage smart-ass"
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Before I bother gracing you with my laborious keystrokes, I'd just like to say this to you in particular, groverat: **** you.
Anyhoo, I'm an individualist in that I feel the government should, for the most part, stay out of business economics rules, as well as the government staying out of my personal life. However, I like some of the not-so-zealous pieces of ideas that are usually considered "socialist" or "communist" by some--mainly redistribution of wealth, equality, and all of that. It's more achievable than you might think without the government controlling every aspect of our lives, work, and economy.
It just goes to show that YES! you can have unique viewpoints, and NO! you don't have to fit yourself into the stereotypical labelled viewtypes that already exist.
FYI the Crusades were a belated response to the intrusion of Islam on the Christian world. Modern Turkey was once at the heart of the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire was Christian. Instanbul was once called Constantinople after the Roman Emperor Constantine - allegedly the first Christian Roman Emperor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And how, pray tell, do you think Byzantium/Constantinopel/Istanbul became part of the Roman Empire? The Romans asked for it nicely?
Him knowing who the president of Uzbekistan is, is a moot and silly point. He's not the president of the United States after all.
Anyhoo, I'm an individualist in that I feel the government should, for the most part, stay out of business economics rules, as well as the government staying out of my personal life. However, I like some of the not-so-zealous pieces of ideas that are usually considered "socialist" or "communist" by some--mainly redistribution of wealth, equality, and all of that. It's more achievable than you might think without the government controlling every aspect of our lives, work, and economy.
It just goes to show that YES! you can have unique viewpoints, and NO! you don't have to fit yourself into the stereotypical labelled viewtypes that already exist.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can have unique points of view out the yin yang. Whether you can actually reconcile these different ideas into something coherent is another story entirely. This is something you didn't do. You just gave us a few of the ideas you support. You didn't do any of the intellectual spadework.
You can have unique points of view out the yin yang. Whether you can actually reconcile these different ideas into something coherent is another story entirely. This is something you didn't do. You just gave us a few of the ideas you support. You didn't do any of the intellectual spadework.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mm-hmm. I believe this thread was about what political affiliations you fall under, and I was naming those--not explaining my opinions in their entirety. So what's the problem with that again?
And how, pray tell, do you think Byzantium/Constantinopel/Istanbul became part of the Roman Empire? The Romans asked for it nicely?</strong><hr></blockquote>
And? They didn't conquer it in the name of Christianity. What's your point?
[quote]<strong>Him knowing who the president of Uzbekistan is, is a moot and silly point. He's not the president of the United States after all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And it's a silly point to think that the President or a Presidential candidate should know the names of all the heads of state. I'm not the one who brought this subject up.
Mm-hmm. I believe this thread was about what political affiliations you fall under, and I was naming those--not explaining my opinions in their entirety. So what's the problem with that again?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep, but you are the one who wrote: "It just goes to show that YES! you can have unique viewpoints, and NO! you don't have to fit yourself into the stereotypical labelled viewtypes that already exist."
You showed that you have a unique point of view, all right. But so what? I'll be impressed if you can show how you resolve the internal inconsistencies in your beliefs.
And how, pray tell, do you think Byzantium/Constantinopel/Istanbul became part of the Roman Empire? The Romans asked for it nicely?</strong><hr></blockquote>
As a matter of fact, yes. Nicomedes III, the last king of Bithynia (wherein was located the relatively unimportant city of Byzantium), left his kingdom to Rome in 74 B.C., largely in gratitude for Rome's having saved Bithynia from foreign invasion in 82.
<strong>even so, the Crusades were a particularly vicious form of reclamation... and in one of the crusades, unusually bloody and unnecessarily murderous</strong><hr></blockquote>
All of them were, in fact, at least by modern standards.
And so were the initial Arab takeovers of the cities, and the massacres when Islam retook the Crusader cities such as Acre.
The modern idea of the Crusades as these bizarre attempts at ethnic cleansing by greedy Europeans desiring wealth is amusing on a number of levels. I suppose the winners really do write the history books.
Oh, if you actually want to know something about the Crusades, read this:
(hence the looting of the Byzantine empire by the very christians who were supposed to be helping the Byzantines, when they were returning home defeated and without the spoils they expected to win).</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not quite correct - the Fourth Crusade was diverted to Constantinople by the Venetians, who tried to use them to install a pro-Venetian puppet emperor. They never made it to the Holy Land. They only captured some of the Byzantine Empire; mostly the city and some surrounding territory. Various Byzantine successors held on to pieces of the old empire. The sacking of Constantinople is one of history's massive tragedies; it both ensured the end of the Crusader States and of the Byzantine Empire. The last bulwark against the spread of Islam was effectively gone. In the end it was only the sieges of Malta and of Vienna which stopped the tide.
I've seen the tomb of the Venetian doge who managed to pull this off, by the way, in the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul: his name was Dandolo. When the Byzantines eventually got the city back, they opened his tomb and fed his bones to the dogs.
Comments
Just say the catch-all:
"USA
Know-it-all teenage smart-ass"
The observer will note the use of the vague word 'represents'. This saves Flowerbob from the necessity of actually saying anything with substance.<hr></blockquote>
by "represents" i mean that these are things which he thinks are good and which are important parts of his political platform. i will happily provide some substance (actually, i won't. i would be much happier if I couldn't, but, unfortunately, my claims have grounds).
a) "fuzzy math." need i say more? it's an appeal to the ignorance and stupidity of the average american, which translates roughly to "i'm stupid like you so vote for me"
b) are there really questions about this? he's pro-death penalty, anti-gun control and he's currently waging a war.
c) he wants government money for faith-based organizations. wants prayer in school. :blech:
d) he's a business man, a friend of big business, and is opposed to real environmental regulations ("voluntary regulations" are *NOT* regulations).
[quote]If you don't have anything to say, why expend so much effort not doing it?<hr></blockquote>
my apologies. it was poor form.
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
Sound like a opinion to me
yup. one i am ready to explain and defend.
[quote]Originally posted by Mandricard:
Are you then implying that adherents to a particular set of religious beliefs are not free to spread those beliefs? Or is it just that force should not be used when promulgating one's particular religious views? Or are you implying that Islam's rapid spread across the Middle East in the 7th through 9th centuries is somehow a special case?<hr></blockquote>
it's bad enough that there are adherants of particular religious beliefs, without them going around and trying to make more of themselves. and trying to use violence to force somebody to believe in another god is stupid and criminal and evil.
nobody should ever take any action to try to coerce another person's belief system. (and yes I am aware of the inherant hypocrisy of any argument favoring this philosophy)
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
Islam is not about peace and love, except to other Islamic people. Anyone else is the infidel and if they do not convert they should be put to death. It is in their Koran. Look it up.
And before you say Christians are the same way, we are not. Look it up, in context.<hr></blockquote>
Actually, neither religion is "supposed" to be about violence. It just turns out that historically both have been. Because religion is like that. like race, people use it as a channeling of hatred, an excuse to go around killing each other. stupid people make religion stupid.
anyway, the most deaths "over religion" are not at all about religious ideals. neither the Arab invasion of Europe nor the "retaliatory" Crusades were about religion for the people leading them. while for some of the people "on the ground" the idea of going to hevean (or the islamic equivalent) allowed them to get themselves killed, we also see that in very few cases in history has this alone been sufficient to motivate something of the scale of these wars. there is always need for a leading force, and for this force, the wars were about power, conquest, spoils, etc. (hence the looting of the Byzantine empire by the very christians who were supposed to be helping the Byzantines, when they were returning home defeated and without the spoils they expected to win).
[quote]Look at the Taliban and their current laws (based on Strict Islam).<hr></blockquote>
note that there are many countries across the Islamic world with the Koran as their legal constitutions, and they do not have laws like the Taliban's. the Taliban represents [i]an[/]i (extreme) interpretation of the Koran, and not necessarily (as they believe) the "one and only correct" interpretation.
Still a Republican.
<strong>
a) "fuzzy math." need i say more? it's an appeal to the ignorance and stupidity of the average american, which translates roughly to "i'm stupid like you so vote for me"
b) are there really questions about this? he's pro-death penalty, anti-gun control and he's currently waging a war.
c) he wants government money for faith-based organizations. wants prayer in school. :blech:
d) he's a business man, a friend of big business, and is opposed to real environmental regulations ("voluntary regulations" are *NOT* regulations).</strong><hr></blockquote>
A) How is "fuzzy math" saying we're all stupid so vote for me? He was making a point that their math is less based on facts than it is on how they want you to interpret the facts. For instance, calling a reduction in a spending increase a cut of a program even though the spending is still going up.
B)That hardly makes him a warmonger. The war we are in is justified and Al Gore would be in it too if he were president (at least I hope so, if he was not he would be facing an angry public and a bigger terrorist problem than before as they found that the US cowered and did not stand up to them). I am pro guns and pro death penalty as well, so whatever.
C)He wants to be able to help all charities, including those which are faith based. It is more about removing the restrictions to giving to faith based programs than just helping those that are faith based.
D)Al Gore is quite different in this respect. Also a business man (tobacco instead of industrial), environmentalist ("that internal cumbustion engine is the biggest threat to civilization today" now let me get in my limo and go to the airport and fly across the country to speak again and then fly back tonight.
In short, Bush is doing just fine, Gore would be no better, and I think he would not have done as well.
even so, the Crusades were a particularly vicious form of reclamation... and in one of the crusades, unusually bloody and unnecessarily murderous
But, there are other religions living in peaceful coexistence with Muslims ... even in Iran: there is a Christian population, Jews, even some Zaroastrians and some of the last remaining Gnostics; descendants from the original sects.
So don't go over board mister christian-right-to-lifer.
there are many different kinds of Christianity just as there are Islam: many Christians are fundamentalist idiots and many other kinds of idiots but not all are knee-jerk fundamentalists or idiots... just as in Islam.
<strong>beer, I had the same reaction to "Socialist/Individualist"
Just say the catch-all:
"USA
Know-it-all teenage smart-ass"
Before I bother gracing you with my laborious keystrokes, I'd just like to say this to you in particular, groverat: **** you.
Anyhoo, I'm an individualist in that I feel the government should, for the most part, stay out of business economics rules, as well as the government staying out of my personal life. However, I like some of the not-so-zealous pieces of ideas that are usually considered "socialist" or "communist" by some--mainly redistribution of wealth, equality, and all of that. It's more achievable than you might think without the government controlling every aspect of our lives, work, and economy.
It just goes to show that YES! you can have unique viewpoints, and NO! you don't have to fit yourself into the stereotypical labelled viewtypes that already exist.
Think Different. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>
FYI the Crusades were a belated response to the intrusion of Islam on the Christian world. Modern Turkey was once at the heart of the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire was Christian. Instanbul was once called Constantinople after the Roman Emperor Constantine - allegedly the first Christian Roman Emperor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And how, pray tell, do you think Byzantium/Constantinopel/Istanbul became part of the Roman Empire? The Romans asked for it nicely?
Him knowing who the president of Uzbekistan is, is a moot and silly point. He's not the president of the United States after all.
<strong>
Anyhoo, I'm an individualist in that I feel the government should, for the most part, stay out of business economics rules, as well as the government staying out of my personal life. However, I like some of the not-so-zealous pieces of ideas that are usually considered "socialist" or "communist" by some--mainly redistribution of wealth, equality, and all of that. It's more achievable than you might think without the government controlling every aspect of our lives, work, and economy.
It just goes to show that YES! you can have unique viewpoints, and NO! you don't have to fit yourself into the stereotypical labelled viewtypes that already exist.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can have unique points of view out the yin yang. Whether you can actually reconcile these different ideas into something coherent is another story entirely. This is something you didn't do. You just gave us a few of the ideas you support. You didn't do any of the intellectual spadework.
Republican
Anti-Gun Rights
Anti-Abortion (circumstantial)
Anti-Affirmative Action (as we know it)
etc. etc.
I am disgusted by images of protestors attacking carabinieri in the name of "Anti-Globalization"
Or violent anti-war protestors...paradoxical behavior.
<strong>
You can have unique points of view out the yin yang. Whether you can actually reconcile these different ideas into something coherent is another story entirely. This is something you didn't do. You just gave us a few of the ideas you support. You didn't do any of the intellectual spadework.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mm-hmm. I believe this thread was about what political affiliations you fall under, and I was naming those--not explaining my opinions in their entirety. So what's the problem with that again?
<strong>
And how, pray tell, do you think Byzantium/Constantinopel/Istanbul became part of the Roman Empire? The Romans asked for it nicely?</strong><hr></blockquote>
And? They didn't conquer it in the name of Christianity. What's your point?
[quote]<strong>Him knowing who the president of Uzbekistan is, is a moot and silly point. He's not the president of the United States after all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And it's a silly point to think that the President or a Presidential candidate should know the names of all the heads of state. I'm not the one who brought this subject up.
[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
<strong>
Mm-hmm. I believe this thread was about what political affiliations you fall under, and I was naming those--not explaining my opinions in their entirety. So what's the problem with that again?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep, but you are the one who wrote: "It just goes to show that YES! you can have unique viewpoints, and NO! you don't have to fit yourself into the stereotypical labelled viewtypes that already exist."
You showed that you have a unique point of view, all right. But so what? I'll be impressed if you can show how you resolve the internal inconsistencies in your beliefs.
Bull Moose :cool:
[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: grand illusion ]</p>
[quote]...I feel the government should, for the most part, stay out of business economics rules...<hr></blockquote>
And then:
[quote]However, I like ... redistribution of wealth...<hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
So which is it?
You have all the proper ideals down pat but you're forgetting what they actually mean.
You're a socialist capitalist? You're a democratic fascist?
[quote]It's more achievable than you might think without the government controlling every aspect of our lives, work, and economy.<hr></blockquote>
Tell me, how might you go about redistributing wealth without government intervention?
"Equality" is a vague term used by vague minds, be more specific.
<strong>
And how, pray tell, do you think Byzantium/Constantinopel/Istanbul became part of the Roman Empire? The Romans asked for it nicely?</strong><hr></blockquote>
As a matter of fact, yes. Nicomedes III, the last king of Bithynia (wherein was located the relatively unimportant city of Byzantium), left his kingdom to Rome in 74 B.C., largely in gratitude for Rome's having saved Bithynia from foreign invasion in 82.
<strong>even so, the Crusades were a particularly vicious form of reclamation... and in one of the crusades, unusually bloody and unnecessarily murderous</strong><hr></blockquote>
All of them were, in fact, at least by modern standards.
And so were the initial Arab takeovers of the cities, and the massacres when Islam retook the Crusader cities such as Acre.
The modern idea of the Crusades as these bizarre attempts at ethnic cleansing by greedy Europeans desiring wealth is amusing on a number of levels. I suppose the winners really do write the history books.
Oh, if you actually want to know something about the Crusades, read this:
<a href="http://http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire111501.shtml"; target="_blank">an excellent article on the Crusades</a>.
It refutes many of the usual modern myths, such as that any of the Crusaders thought they had much to gain economically.
<strong>
(hence the looting of the Byzantine empire by the very christians who were supposed to be helping the Byzantines, when they were returning home defeated and without the spoils they expected to win).</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not quite correct - the Fourth Crusade was diverted to Constantinople by the Venetians, who tried to use them to install a pro-Venetian puppet emperor. They never made it to the Holy Land. They only captured some of the Byzantine Empire; mostly the city and some surrounding territory. Various Byzantine successors held on to pieces of the old empire. The sacking of Constantinople is one of history's massive tragedies; it both ensured the end of the Crusader States and of the Byzantine Empire. The last bulwark against the spread of Islam was effectively gone. In the end it was only the sieges of Malta and of Vienna which stopped the tide.
I've seen the tomb of the Venetian doge who managed to pull this off, by the way, in the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul: his name was Dandolo. When the Byzantines eventually got the city back, they opened his tomb and fed his bones to the dogs.
The GOP.