red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
You really need to stop believing everything you hear on Shill Olielys show redstates.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200705040008?f=h_top
Ah, more from the Soros funded smear site
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You really need to stop believing everything you hear on Shill Olielys show redstates.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200705040008?f=h_top
Oh, media matters - the site funded by George Soros.
There is much more hate speech coming from the left - that is valid - then from conservatives
That is your opinion. I think that the amount of hate speech coming from the left is practically equal to the amount of hate speech coming from the right.
Originally posted by Shogun
you give me opinons.. which is fine.. as long as you realize that yours is not the only opinion on the matter and, im betting, will fluxuate according to the issue at hand and the position in which you find yourself argueing.
indeed, I would suggest that your idea of CORE VALUES will greatly differ than that of your fellow Americans..
for example,
the US was still a democracy before womens suffrage and civil rights. religion was venerated in school for at least 75% of our American history. indeed, slavery too. You have an opinon based on your understanding of those issues THIS SIDE of their historic relevance that is the direct product of the historic result of each issue.
democracy has many faces.. of which there are many values relevant to the particular culture that it serves... Hell, do you think Indias government would look strange to us in America? and likewise, im sure.. now, what should THEIR opinons matter to us?
Originally posted by Shogun
the US was still a democracy before womens suffrage and civil rights.
José;565652 said:Shogun,
Sorry for the delay. Just like matt, I also have a life outside the net : )
I would like to highlight what I think are two basic errors:
1) Your belief that the core values of a democratic state like the US evolved with the passage of time and are the result of the history of each country varying from place to place.
2) Your belief that the United States is a democratic state since its foundation in 1776.
Let me address the first error:
My understanding of the central values of a democratic state is not derived from the historic result in the US of issues like slavery, universal suffrage, etc, etc
My understanding is based on the general principles of a modern democratic state established by the French social philosophers and John Locke during the Enlightenment in the 18th century.
Dont take my word for it. Just read the works of these thinkers. Its all there, all the basic principles of a democratic state:
1) Democratic process (periodic elections)
2) Separation between church and state.
3) Rule of law
4) Equality of all human beings/citizens before the law
5) Right of property
6) Even the separation of powers was conceived by Montesquieu
The basic principles of a democratic state are not the result of the history of the US, buddy.
They were conceived in France and England before the creation of the US!!
You say the core values of democracy are subjective and vary from individual to individual and from country to country but in reality they are so objective that I even created a list with six items!
There is no American democracy, Indian democracy and Russian democracy.
Societies that respect the items listed above are democratic the ones that do not are dictatorships, autocracies, theocracies, ethnocracies etc
Its as simple as that.
Are there differences between the way the democratic state is organized in America and India?
Of course there are but the items cited above are found in both countries. Therefore they are both democratic states.
So the core values of democracy are objective, universal and were conceived in Europe before the creation of the US, therefore they cannot be considered a product of the american history.
Your information is in error, Shogun.
The values of the Enlightenment were the inspiration of the framers but they did not, by any stretch of the imagination, create a democratic state.
The founders were the first ones to realize the world of difference that separated the political ideals of the Enlightenment and the country they had just created in North America.
Thomas all men are created equal Jefferson always opposed slavery. Washington even freed his negroes.
And not only these two. Most of the founders were haunted by the ghost of slavery till the end of their lives.
They had to create a racist and sexist society in the US and be slave owners themselves due to the historical circunstances of their time (everybody had slaves, you just couldnt live/be a farm owner without them).
But the contradiction between slavery/sexism and the core values of democracy that inspired the american constitution was as flagrant in 1776 as it is today.
As I said above, universal suffrage is an absolute requirement of the democratic political system, shogun.
Thats precisely why, the US untill the 60s just like South Africa under Apartheid were not democratic states, but white ethnocracies or white racial dictatorships as I prefer to call this kind of political system.
I know perfectly well the statement that the US was a racist dictatorship until the 60`s is extremely shocking for most members of the twin communities: US Message Board/Debate Policy Message Board.
I know perfectly well that the american educational system indoctrinate the american youth with the 200 year old democracy ultra nationalist myth in order to reinforce patriotism.
I myself would love to state that the US is a democracy since 1776.
But I cannot prostitute my analysis and distort the real history of the US in order to please my fellow members.
Until 64 the US failed to conform with item number 4 of the list of basic democratic principles: equality of all citizens before the law (specially political rights: the right to vote).
Until 1964 southern states were allowed to circumvent the federal ruling and created legal obstacles to keep blacks from voting.
Calling America a democratic state before 64 is akin to calling SA under Apartheid a democracy.
All I can say to help comfort people who are now outraged by my statement is that in 1776 the founders created a kind of PRE DEMOCRATIC STATE, a kind of PROTOTYPE of what would become the democratic US.
When you look at the US through a historical perspective you see this kind of prototype that would eventually evolve to become a democratic state.
But considered in itself the US of 1776, 1800 and 1900 was indeed a sexist, racial dictatorship.
But this in no way diminishes Americas stature as a poster country for democracy.
Thomas all men are created equal Jefferson always opposed slavery. Washington even freed his negroes.
Sorry to disillusion you, Jose, but Jefferson was a complete fucking hypocrite and so was Washington
In fact Jefferson would even be charged with rape these days for holding a woman against her will for sexual purposes.
That link debunks one of your earlier posts:BTW, Jesus, in ALL his guises, supported slavery too!
What about what Jewsarse said in Luke 19:27, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."?GunnyL said:Does this mean you don't like religion?
I disagree. Sounds to me like your indictment of religion is based on the actions of people from long ago, and the persent day extremists, who might make all the noise, but don't represent the majority of their respective religions.
In regard to Christianity specifically, NOTHING in the New Testament intones anyone to kill others in Christ's name. You may blame the idiot extremists that have done so, but blaming the religion itself is just misplacing blame.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=551917&postcount=163
That link debunks one of your earlier posts:
"In verse 27 the greedy, wicked nobleman tells his slaves, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Instead of condemning such a display of wanton cruelty and intolerance as he should have Jesus simply ignores it and goes on with his money-saving lecture thereby passing up another opportunity to register his condemnation of slavery."- http://www.inu.net/skeptic/slavery.html
Since it was the tax collector who said "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." instead of Jesus, as you wrongly claimed, how can anyone expect that you have enough knowledge or understanding to even debate the bible after making such an obvious error?
No Chips, the preceeding passage in Luke is a parable that hadn't happened but obviously takes place after Jesus returns. The bible is pretty clear that a war takes place after he returns. You didn't expect the final battle between good and evil to follow the Geneva Conventions did you?Get off the grass, McGirt!
Even a Christmas Night Christian, like you, couldn’t interpret Luke 19:27 as meaning anything BUT Jewsarse making up a parable about how his enemies; those that do not believe he is the Messiah, should be paraded before him and murdered.
And that is PRECISELY how it was interpreted by millions of spineless, safety-in-a-mob Christain killers to justify their genocides, Inquistions, and pogroms against “evil” unbelievers for centuries.
Only an hysterically heretical American “Christian,” trying to make his sadomasochistic Messiah out as “Jesus Meek and Mild” could interpret it otherwise.
Again, you take passages out of context. I don't deny the bible is full of contradictions and is open to interpretation. I personally don't believe in the literal translation, but as a whole, I think we're better off with Christianity today than without. If people can conform to society through religion and do some charity because of their beliefs, why do you have such a problem with it?Here, here is a few to go on with. Yell out I you want more, there’s plenty more where these insanely hateful statements from your God come from. The bilious Bible is chock-a-block full of them
And the brother shall deliver up the brother of death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. Matt. 10:21
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father . . . Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and thy daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. Matt. 10:33-36
Behold the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it . . . Everyone that is found shall be thrust through; and everyone that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and wives ravished. Isaiah 13:9,15,16
Thou shall not suffer a witch to live. Exodus 22:18
He that blasphemeth the Lord must be killed. Leviticus 24:16
There are many whose mouths must be stopped. Titus 1:10,11
Whoever does any work on the Sabbath will be killed. Exodus 31:15
Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Woe to the bloody city. I will make the pile for fire great. Heap on wood, kindle the fire, consume the flesh, and spice it well, and let the bones be burned. Ez. 24:9,10
Look, the Lord is coming with thousands of his holy ones. he will bring the people of the world to judgment. He will convict the ungodly of all the evil things they have done in rebellion and of all the insults godless sinners have spoken against him. Jude 14, 15
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Romans 13:4
False prophets are also to be executed - Deuteronomy 13:1-5
Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies. Psalms 139:21-2
Yahweh directed his warriors to take girl children from other villages as their household slaves and concubines, after raping and killing the girls' mothers. Num. 31:17-18; Judges 21:10-12
http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/gracious.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm
http://skeptically.org/newtestament/id12.html
No Chips, the preceeding passage in Luke is a fable that hadn't happened but obviously takes place after Jesus returns. The bible is pretty clear that a war takes place after he returns. You didn't expect the final battle between good and evil to follow the Geneva Conventions did you?
Again, you take passages out of context. I don't deny the bible is full of contradictions and is open to interpretation. I personally don't believe in the literal translation, but as a whole, I think we're better off with Christianity today than without. If people can conform to society through religion and do some charity because of their beliefs, why do you have such a problem with it?
Tell that to Muslims
I have yet to see a Christain behead someone for not converting
Tell that to Muslims
I have yet to see a Christain behead someone for not converting
I don't know if they beheaded people during the Spanish Inquisition, but they sure as hell persecuted the religiously incorrect (i.e., not Roman Catholic), and their tactics were none too gentle.