yuajvzq mzynqhi
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4689 propecia rogaine versus

yuajvzq mzynqhi
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4689 propecia rogaine versus

rudc nzct
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4503 ultram and fibromyalgia

rudc nzct
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4503 ultram and fibromyalgia

hgde hjaiefm lbeod destxr
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4538 drug medication ultram

gvrdjb tofqjx
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4510 drug information ultram

gvrdjb tofqjx
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4510 drug information ultram

koqxpgu jqdx vqmzbhk gmrxbn
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4571 is ultram addictive

koqxpgu jqdx vqmzbhk gmrxbn
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4571 is ultram addictive

fena
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4493 ultram line

fena
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4493 ultram line

yvbswmd
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4560 ultram side effects

iuzm dfcnqup tnjbxd
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4554 cheap generic ultram

camlgvj gvousqja ceaznhru hgiwqzup aciedszx lvkj okcngplv http://www.rozj.zsmtxiabf.com

qidgcpwy zsxi knhpz njekqxgab gfrxsh sjuoxmcd ljeq

What is happening in Alabama is going to happen in other states as well. We are going to see where more than just a few black people will be switching political party affiliation to promote their own political careers. Unfortunately, other minorities will be squeezed out of the political loop. America is going to find out what the meaning of "Black Power" is really going to mean. Thank God presidential terms are only four years long. I think at that end people will be more than ready to say "Enough already" with the whole Obama hoopla, and give power back to the people of America not just to a particular color people. What I have heard some black people say out in the malls , resturants,etc., is scary. I don't care if some say it is just all talk
it is still scary when I hear some black people say "It's payback time"

I saw it in theaters when it first came out - I am getting old. It is a great movie even if somewhat fast and loose with historical events.

I have been watching "The Tudors" on Showtime. Thomas More is portrayed in it as a self-righteous prig and something of a religious fanatic. There is one episode where he tells his daughter how he wants to burn all the Lutherans at the stake.

====================

I hear the Tudors is good.

After reading "Man For All Seasons" in my youth, I was inspired to try life in a monastery...didn't work out but was fascinating for the three months I was there.

From Alabama's official records of the 2006 US House elections:

AL-1: 52,770 Democratic votes; 112,944 GOP ones
AL-2: 54,450 Dem votes; 124,302 GOP ones (Everett)
AL-3: 63,559 Dem votes; 98.257 GOP ones (Rogers)
AL-4: 54,382 Dem votes; 128,484 GOP ones (Aderholt)
AL-5: 143,015 Dem votes (Cramer), no R candidate
AL-6: 163,514 GOP votes, no Dem candidate
AL-7: 133,870 Dem votes (Davis); no R candidate

So it's easy to see none of these races were close; 3 out of 7 weren't even opposed. But there also seem to be a surplus of Democratic votes wasted on AL-5 and AL-7 rather than spread around more evenly to more accurately reflect the voting wishes of Alabamans.

TOTAL ALABAMA VOTES FOR US HOUSE in 2006:
Democratic: 502,046 (44.45%)
Republican: 627,501 (55.55%)
Total: 1,129,547 (excluding write-ins)

55.55% * 7 seats = 3.89 Alabama seats should be Republican
44.45% * 7 seats = 3.11 Alabama seats should be Democratic

In other words, Alabamans in 2006 voted in proportions such that they should've gotten 4 GOP and 3 Democratic congresspeople. But because Alabama's districts are gerrymandered, 44.45% of the votes are represented by only 28.57% of the seats; while 55.55% of the votes enjoy 71.43% of the seats. Republicans have artificially increased their majority here; the state's House delegation is 5R-2D when, according to the wishes of the voters, it should be 4R-3D.

And therein, I think, is some light shed on why so many black voters have such a hard time electing more Democrats to the House from Alabama. (Probably other Southern states too, but I'm not looking through any more data tonight!)

Looks like Macon County is in Rogers' AL-3, which is adjacent to AL-6. Granted, I don't know how many people Macon County has, but it's telling that Kerry's 4th best county in the US is gerrymandered into this GOP stronghold district.

This site has a lot of good data: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

In 2004, Kerry's 4th best county in the nation (out of about 3100 total) was Macon County, Alabama. He beat Bush there 83-17. Yet at the same time, one of Bush's best 5 congressional districts in the country (a warped measure--Bush won congressional districts in much greater proportion than his 51% national popular vote total) was Alabama's 6th, where he got 78% of the vote. The more time I spend looking at various maps of different elections, the more it seems there are Democratic counties across the South--from those centered on the Mississippi River in TN, AR, LA, and MS to the belt laying across MS, AL, GA, and into SC and NC (it's more robust in 2000 than 2004)--that aren't getting their maximum utility. Occasionally there appears to be a majority-minority district where a black congressperson is probably getting elected, but mostly it looks like these voters have been divided and conquered through gerrymandering that keeps them split across multiple districts so they're an insufficient minority in each one. Alabama's 2nd and 3rd districts, (not to mention its 7th) are clear gerrymanders, reaching down to put Montgomery in one district and keep it outside another. The 7th looks something like a starfish. Without gerrymandering--if they used a good government process like Arizona, Iowa, or Washington state to draw their House districts, it seems like these blue/black voters would see results more accurate to their demographics--more black Democrats in the House. Short of that, if Obama brings more blacks to register and vote, and the 50 state strategy contests these foregone red states that we've written off so many cycles, Dems in some of these places may be able to improve their results and more of them win elections. In 1996, Clinton won AR, TN, KY, and LA. Without Bush/Rove and the extreme fearmongering, is it so nuts to think Obama might be able to recapture some of those 1992-96 Clinton states?

I'm curious what the presumed explanation is for this correlation between high black population and strong Republican voting among whites. Does this hold true outside the South? Also, I've found it interesting since 2000 that if you look at a map of the presidential elections by county or House district, there's a clear blue belt across the middles of Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia--presumably where the most black voters live. I don't know how well those populations match House district boundaries, but it seems like that blue belt of Gore and Kerry voters in the South should be yielding some Democratic House seats in the same places.

Jim -- I'm sorry to hear that (your 5:57).

You should read "Rome Sweet Home". Fascinating stuff!

5:54: Afghanistan. Good point. Maybe we need a bigger military. Without a draft, don't know how. More marketing money, or better benefits?

OK, I'm really off.

Jim, thanks a lot for talking to me.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 28, 2008 06:03 PM

Mike, I could never return to the Roman Church and I am very comfortable in the Episcopal Church - even if it has been referred to as Catholic Lite (per Robin Williams).

We do need a bigger military but Rumsfeld strenuously resisted Congressional efforts to increase the size of the militaryin 2004 and 2005. This is just one more count in the indictment against him - which is voluminous.

Speaking of Catholics....fantastic movie on tonight...Man For All Seasons. TMC.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 28, 2008 08:08 PM

I saw it in theaters when it first came out - I am getting old. It is a great movie even if somewhat fast and loose with historical events.

I have been watching "The Tudors" on Showtime. Thomas More is portrayed in it as a self-righteous prig and something of a religious fanatic. There is one episode where he tells his daughter how he wants to burn all the Lutherans at the stake.

Speaking of Catholics....fantastic movie on tonight...Man For All Seasons. TMC.

What Alberto Gonzalez failed to be.

Watch it. Not to be missed!

kreuz -- i just meant that's what we keep hearing. And that's what I fear McCain is about--the continuance of the bush policy.

Chris is so dense. Bobby Bright would not have won the republican primary!!! He may (I doubt it) win that seat, but Montgomery is a mess. It is closing schools, it has a high crime rate, etc. Bob Riley is very well regarded in Alabama, and if he campaigns for the republican, the republican will win.

"Parliament in 1776 was in not way a democratic representative body. It was more or less democratic for the ruling class but athoritarian for the masses."

The same could be said for the US pre-Civil War. This is the biggest problems when talking about "democracy." Although we like to claim over 100 democracies worldwide, in reality there's probably no more than a couple dozen real democracies and a number of quasi-democracies that are really oligarchies, kleptocracies, or a variety of other issues.

"5:54: Afghanistan. Good point. Maybe we need a bigger military. Without a draft, don't know how. More marketing money, or better benefits?"

No, soldiers must be motivated by duty, not money. Money must be sufficient to provide a decent standard of living, but when it becomes the primary motivation for service, our military and our nation sufffers. The truth is our military is the best indicator of true support for our foreign wars. If the war was more in our national interest and the support for the war was deeper than answering support/oppose on a poll question, there would be sufficient volunteers to fill the ranks.

"I agree with both these things... but then it all comes down to we can't stay and we can't leave."

This gets us stuck into the old false dichotomy that has epitomozed the Bush years. It's not an either/or choice, there are literally hundreds of options before us. There are numerous ways to withdraw, draw down, or modify our operations to shift the burden to Iraq, and there are other options to include escalation, any one of which might trigger positive results depending on how they are implemented. It's not a choice between quitting tomorrow and staying behind the same strategy forever.

Jim -- I'm sorry to hear that (your 5:57).

You should read "Rome Sweet Home". Fascinating stuff!

5:54: Afghanistan. Good point. Maybe we need a bigger military. Without a draft, don't know how. More marketing money, or better benefits?

OK, I'm really off.

Jim, thanks a lot for talking to me.

I remember going to Latin Mass with my cousin. I liked the ancient magical sound of it, the music, the candles, the windows. Very different from the tiny Pentecostal church I went to.

'Labeling the whole society as our enemy only hurts us'

As does labelling an entire religion.

"We broke it, we bought it, but it's time for a little tough love."

"Although I opposed the invasion, I agree that we cannot withdraw until stability is established but I don't equate stability with a functioning democracy."

I agree with both these things... but then it all comes down to we can't stay and we can't leave.

Mike

BTW, I am old enough to remember when they were all Latin Masses - an altar boy in fact. I am no longer Roman Catholic, was agnostic for many years then became a Methodist and now I am an Episcopalian.

Mike,

On a practical level, I also opposed the invasion of Iraq because of the diversion of troops and resources from Afghanistan.

Mike,

I don't take it as an argument to leave either but I don't support keeping large numbers of troops until Iraq has a functional democracy. As I said, I don't equate democracy with stability.

"wpost4112, I'll try to go to a Latin Mass without blowing something up to get my point across. I'll let you know how that goes."

====================

Vade in pace, mi fili. Missa est.

jimd52 --

I can see your point.

As I said, I can't deny the practical failings.

I think Bush is doing the right thing, in principal.

But you're right, his MBA doesn't make him a good war manager. That's why we have general officers.

I just can't equate that to a reason to leave.

"Britain was a democracy when we fought the revolution"

Not really, Britain was more of an oligarchy with an extremely limited franchise. Parliament in 1776 was in not way a democratic representative body. It was more or less democratic for the ruling class but athoritarian for the masses.

Mike

The thing that really angers me is the way Bush, Rumsfeld, & the whole neo-con clique brushed aside Army Chief of Staff Shineski's evaluation of the force levels needed for occupation. I also cannot forgive them freezing out any Iraqi experts from the planning and staffing the Occupation Authority with numerous political loyalists with no expertise in the areas they were hired to oversee. Had we been smarter, earlier, I am convinced Iraq would now be seen as a success.

"didn't you see the huge McD's arches on the wall right behind the US Embassy in Belgrade/Kosovo that was under seige?"

Yup, but that was a civil war, not an invasion, which is the main thrust of the theory. Granted, it's main proponents also argue that people would find peaceful ways to resolve differences due to the economic costs, but there are certainly always exceptions.

"You've also got to remember Hitler, Tito, and Mussolini all came to power in a semi-democratic system."

Yes, that is true, but they had firmly established their dictatorships long before going to war.

"We broke it, we bought it, but it's time for a little tough love."

"Although I opposed the invasion, I agree that we cannot withdraw until stability is established but I don't equate stability with a functioning democracy."

I think these are both well-reasoned, center/left-of-center positions, which I can respect [although probably not agree... yet].

I do admit, I'm tired of not-great news there. I'd really like to see things going better. But I'm not yet fed up with the whole thing. I mostly agree with it in principal, so it's hard to accept practical failings.

I have very much appreciated the conversations today. I think there is much we can agree on.

I hope the President is hearing voices both like yours and mine (and fear he is not).

All for now, peace be with you.

wpost4112, I'll try to go to a Latin Mass without blowing something up to get my point across. I'll let you know how that goes.

re: "McDonald's diplomcy"

didn't you see the huge McD's arches on the wall right behind the US Embassy in Belgrade/Kosovo that was under seige?

re: poverty/Xtianity:

when I have more time/energy I'll answer.

"vI hope you are not equating our troops with Blackwater cowboys (even if some used to be troops - that kind of behavior is not tolerated in the military)."

===========

Nope.
My concern is with the rogue elements allowed by the State Dept but not under rule of law...the blackwater cowboys, who are as dangerous to our troops as some of the terrorists.

And, I emphasize, there was a large faction of loyalists, who did not want an independent republic. We didn't have the 'perfect' conditions either. I think it was more a function of, what you said, the genius of the Founding Fathers.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 28, 2008 05:25 PM

That is true but they all shared the English tradition of representative government. Many of the colonies had representative institutions. Many of the loyalists essentially agreed with the founders except for breaking with England. There was a substantial group who wanted to end taxation without representation but did not support cuting ties with England.

Although I opposed the invasion, I agree that we cannot withdraw until stability is established but I don't equate stability with a functioning democracy.

wpost4112 -- you're still around.

What is your point?

The only "good" Christian is a "poor" Christian?

Ah, McDonalds Deploamcy, I am actually much more on board with the underlying notion, but I'm not sure that it will work applied to Iraq, though, we brought it there under artificial conditions. The premise is a McDOnalds is a sign of significant infiltration of Western economics into a society, and once we're part of a common economic system we are less likely to fight one another. I think that broadly holds true, but whether Iraq has truly embraced the Western economy remains to be seen, so McDOnalds here may be a false indicator.

"Hitler's Germany, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, North Korea"

You've also got to remember Hitler, Tito, and Mussolini all came to power in a semi-democratic system.

"As I assume you recognize the impossibility of a stable Iraq after a quick withdrawal, I assume you support some kind of slow draw-down. You break it you bought it though, right?"

True, and I think if you really read into it, nobody is really calling for a rapid withdrawal (Obama has said it would take at least 18 months, and still allows for a residual force for training, etc). The question is how best to proceed. Under Bush, it's pretty much been to give Maliki a blank check, and to keep elevating our forces to prop him up while he continues to go down hill. We broke it, we bought it, but it's time for a little tough love.

ok. that makes sense.
how do you prevent these rogue mercenaries like blackwater employees who are beyond the reach of law?

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 28, 2008 05:19 PM

That is an entirely different question. I hope you are not equating our troops with Blackwater cowboys (even if some used to be troops - that kind of behavior is not tolerated in the military).

Jim:

"I fear that it will take much longer to do this in Iraq than is reasonable for us to be the main guarantor of stability in the country. It will take longer because there is not the kind of social and cultural foundation for a democracy."

How though, do we determine, what is 'reasonable', when we ourselves are the destablizers?

And, I emphasize, there was a large faction of loyalists, who did not want an independent republic. We didn't have the 'perfect' conditions either. I think it was more a function of, what you said, the genius of the Founding Fathers.

kreuz_missile

1. good summary. Agreed, constantly evolving. They don't have to repeat our mistakes, though. We fought the civil war so other democracies don't have to?

2. I'll rephrase. No nation with a McDonalds has ever attacked us. (I don't actually know if that's true). We can at least agree democracies are less often catalysts of global conflict, recently (Hitler's Germany, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, North Korea, ... )

Right or wrong about the imposition of freedom on a people, I agree stability is a necessary and good thing.

As I assume you recognize the impossibility of a stable Iraq after a quick withdrawal, I assume you support some kind of slow draw-down.

You break it you bought it though, right?

"As for the poster recommending a return to the draft and 2 year enlistments. I am a retired naval officer whose service began when most of our forces were draftees. We do not EVER want to go back to that. Secondly, two year enlistments are far too short for today's high tech military. The troops would be barely trained in two years. The disruption due to bi-annual turnover would be disasterous. I saw the transformation of our forces from one dominated by sullen, resentful draftees and enlistees who enlisted one step ahead of the police to a well-motivated, intelligent, and resourceful force"

=============

ok. that makes sense.
how do you prevent these rogue mercenaries like blackwater employees who are beyond the reach of law?

Your first point: Democracy is messy. Look at US history, 1775-1790. I'd say it was worth it, if your horizon is long enough. Many loyalists didn't want it. It doesn't take the entire population to be ready. But, it does take some. I believe there are some in Iraq.

Your second point: Might be true, but it is also true that democracies don't attack eachother. On the contrary, we defend eachother. I doubt we would stand by and watch someone take down a young, functioning democracy in the middle east.

Overall point: It's a risk, one I think we should take. Especially since we have already started, and invested (lost) so much in the process.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 28, 2008 04:51 PM

Mike,

What was established here in 1770 to 1790 was most certainly not a democracy as we know it. It was a republic with many safeguards built in to prevent the masses from assuming power. The franchise was limited, Senators were elected by the state legislatures and presidential electors were supposed to be wise and substantial citizens who would choose a wise and substantial president - which they most certainly did. We didn't really fully realize democracy until we had expanded the franchise, ended slavery, extended the franchise to women and ended Jim Crow. It was a process and it took a long time. I would argue that it wasn't until Jackson's administration that we really began to be a true democracy as opposed to a republic with oligarchical overtones. (I do not say this in a critical way at all, I think the evolution from Washington to Jackson showed the genius of the Founders vindicated.) We had a solid social, philosophical and cultural foundation for representative government. There was a shared vision of the nation - although we fought a Civil War to firmly establish the Union. My point (and I do have one) is that it takes both a firm social and cultural foundation and time to establish a democracy. I fear that it will take much longer to do this in Iraq than is reasonable for us to be the main guarantor of stability in the country. It will take longer because there is not the kind of social and cultural foundation for a democracy.

"Your first point: Democracy is messy. Look at US history, 1775-1790. I'd say it was worth it, if your horizon is long enough. Many loyalists didn't want it. It doesn't take the entire population to be ready. But, it does take some. I believe there are some in Iraq."

Those dates are the time of the American Revolution, but the process of building American Democracy took much longer (and may would argue it remains an ongoing process). We built the US from the ground up when we started the colonies, we imported democraitc ideals from enlightenement philosophers, we grew when the British paid us little attention, and when they tried to crack down and bring us under more direct control, we fought to sever the ties. We then continued to evolve, fight a civil war under our most basic values, underwen painful reconstruction, and internal strife over womens and civil rights. Were it not for our unique beginning and our separation from the rest of the world, it may not have succeeded. But, most importantly, it was an American effort, it was not pushed upon us by a group of foreigners who thought they knew better. Until the Iraqis really step up and become the dominant force of this movement, the parallels are weak. This is why we need to begin to withdraw and force them to stand on their own now, because if the status quo remains much longer, our situation will grow more precarious, and Iraqis may end up more turned off by the prospect of democratization than they would have been otherwise.

"Your second point: Might be true, but it is also true that democracies don't attack eachother. On the contrary, we defend eachother. I doubt we would stand by and watch someone take down a young, functioning democracy in the middle east."

Democratic Peace Theory has been pretty thoroughly debunked. Britain was a democracy when we fought the revolution (King George was largely a boogeyman, most of our grievances were with Parliament)., both sides of the US Civil War were democracies, India and Pakistan were democracies when they were at the height of their tense periods and periods of warfare. Democracies can be a force for stability, but when a mob mentality takes over, they can also be a great source of instability. Democracy is a virtue for a number of reasons, but peace and stability isn't inherently one of them. I also reject that Iraq is functioning. Parties are ill defined, people vote based on factions, and factions dominate the parliament and prevent anthing productive from getting done. Consensus and the ability to sway opponents is the core of democracy, but there is no flexibility in the current system, all it does is legitimize the rule of the most powerful factions, which is the greatest source of instability in Iraq today.

"Overall point: It's a risk, one I think we should take. Especially since we have already started, and invested (lost) so much in the process."

At this point, I don't think the sunk costs mean (to borrow a poker term) that we're pot committed. Even Bush has repeatedly lowered the bar of what we hope for there. We need to push for a stable government first off, then build a framework to work towards a deomcratic future. But, Democracy is a process, not an end, so stability must come first and must be our immediate goal. We can only hope the Iraqis will decide Democracy is in their best interest for the future and take up that mantle as we bein to pull back.

jimd52 --

I agree about the 2 year enlistments.

A lot of these jobs are too high-tech/specialized.

I didn't live through the draft, so I'll take you at your word. (I've heard the same from guys your age.)

jimd52 --

"Free societies cannot be brought into existence by armed force."

Where did ours come from?

I can tell you there are many Iraqis fighting for the same thing we did.

"we need robust intelligence..."

Why do Democrats constantly seem to oppose this?
It really makes them look weak.

Why close Gitmo, give them American courts and lawyers, refuse to spy on them, refuse to question them, and let them go to attack us another day?

Isn't that the recipe for disaster against this post-modern, decentralized enemy?

-----------------------------------------

As the World Turns: See 05:00 PM.

Spare me your posts, unless they aren't insults

(So that means, don't bother addressing me ever again)

"I don't agree with you, I'm a moron."

Nah. You make moronic comments -- lots of them -- you're a moron.

"hense"

Friendly advice for Master Mike: When you try to use fancy words like hence, at least spell them correctly.

So, how can building a free society in Iraq be a bad thing?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 28, 2008 04:36 PM

Free societies cannot be brought into existence by armed force. The problem with Iraq is that there is not really a shared vision of nationhood for Iraq. It is a collection of tribes who mostly hate each other. Their idea of democracy is tyranny of the majority. The Shia dominated government operates mostly as a government of the Shia, by the Shia and for the Shia.

I read the column in question by a former CIA case officer turned psychiatrist. He makes some valid points. I firmly believe we must fight terrorists who want to harm us but we need to do it intelligently. I think we are giving them far too much credit. The notion that Al Qaeda will be able to establish a reactionary, terrorist caliphate in the Middle East if we don't act is absurd. The Army counter-insurgency manual, written by General Petraeus, says (I paraphrase) you do not beat an insurgency by killing all the insurgents, you beat it by persuading the civilian population to stop supporting it. In fact, General Petraeus has significantly changed tactics and has reduced the number of accidental civilian deaths. Mike is right in that there will always be collateral damage and that the US armed forces are more sensitive to this than any other armed force. However, this sensitivity means nothing to the families of the 'collateral damage'. Those unavoidable incidents do help terrorism recruitment. We certainly cannot invade and occupy every Islamic country, we need robust intelligence, vigilant police work and close cooperation with friendly naitons.

As for the poster recommending a return to the draft and 2 year enlistments. I am a retired naval officer whose service began when most of our forces were draftees. We do not EVER want to go back to that. Secondly, two year enlistments are far too short for today's high tech military. The troops would be barely trained in two years. The disruption due to bi-annual turnover would be disasterous. I saw the transformation of our forces from one dominated by sullen, resentful draftees and enlistees who enlisted one step ahead of the police to a well-motivated, intelligent, and resourceful force.

Hence*

I don't agree with you, I'm a moron.

I go to school (and assume you did not) on a subject, still disagree, I'm a moron.

And my school is worthless.

Obviously, both are just opinions. I even presented mine as such (hense the, "I don't think...").

It's like arguing with a monkey.

Did you miss All My Children today, is that it?

wpost4112 - don't bother answering the question.

You don't have to explain your assertions, assumptions, or premises.

You can just point out "examples" of Christian "hypocrisy".

It's like cooking spaggetti and throwing it at the wall.

Let's see what sticks.

"Spectator2 - I'm a moron who doesn't agree with you. Well, that's great.

I don't think the DJIA measures wealth in America. I must be a moron (with a master's degree in finance).

Go back to your soap operas."

Good god, you freaking idiot. How can you not admit that an increase in the DJIA = an increase in wealth? Did I say it was the only measure of wealth in America?

Whatever miserable excuse for a school that gave you a degree in finance should not only be closed, but blown up and then have the rubble dropped at the bottom of the ocean.

And what is it with these soap opera comments? Talk about idiotic, nonsensical, moronic, whatever you choose. They all fit.

Your first point: Democracy is messy. Look at US history, 1775-1790. I'd say it was worth it, if your horizon is long enough. Many loyalists didn't want it. It doesn't take the entire population to be ready. But, it does take some. I believe there are some in Iraq.

Your second point: Might be true, but it is also true that democracies don't attack eachother. On the contrary, we defend eachother. I doubt we would stand by and watch someone take down a young, functioning democracy in the middle east.

Overall point: It's a risk, one I think we should take. Especially since we have already started, and invested (lost) so much in the process.

""Name me one Christian leader, pundit, radio host who is Jesus-poor."
So, in order to be a good Christian, we should be poor?
Is that your thesis?
What exactly is your thesis?
Other than, "I like attacking religion"."

=====================================

Attack religion? Moi? Not so.

Attack those who twist religion to acheive their corrupt human ends. Why, yes!

By their fruits you shall know them!

Simple really. Simple when first said, Simple now.

My background's largely irrelevant to the conversation at hand, but on your last point: "So, how can building a free society in Iraq be a bad thing?"

Because trying to force it when the society isn't ready for it can be counterproductive for the near future, the process is messy, and the realist implications of destabilization become a threat to US security, which should be the top objective of the US government. I'm all for Middle Eastern democracy, but it needs to work from the bottom up, and we need to accept that it may look quite different from what we're accustomed to in the West.

The other big problem is that what I say is true of a stable free society, but an emerging democracy can be extremely unstable, and due to the nature of freedom free socieites are more vulnerable to being destabilized. The neocons believe that democracy is the antedote to terrorism, but the fact is most terrorist attacks occur in democratic societies- dictators are quite effective in putting down any threat to their authority, which is why Hussein effectively kept Islamist terrorists in check within his borders when he was in power. We need to work for stabilization first, then develop a long-term plan for the expansion of democracy through other mechanisms. Some wrongly believed that democracy was ready to take off in Iraq and all it needed was a shot to get it going, and that was a mistake. We need to recognize it and readress the region through the insight we have gained through this experience.

"Name me one Christian leader, pundit, radio host who is Jesus-poor."

So, in order to be a good Christian, we should be poor?

Is that your thesis?

What exactly is your thesis?

Other than, "I like attacking religion".

kreuz_missile -- what is your background?

You said the following 3 things, with which I think we can all (to some degree) agree:

1.)
"but I will say that any group that finds itself oppressed, on the outside of society... can become equally opressive."

2.)
"We live in a great society that allows us to interact and worship as we wish, and allows no one a monopoly to opress others, thus we don't have as serious a problem."

3.)
"Even so, in our society, probelms do occur."

Perhaps we should:

1. Acknowledge the conditions that create evil.

2. Present a viable alternative.

3. Be mindful of its faults and shortcomings.
(and work to minimize them)

So, how can building a free society in Iraq be a bad thing?

""Who was talking about Islam prior to 9/11?""

============

The more important question is why wasn't everyone talking about Islam before 9/11.

Besides, it's not about Islam. It's about oil.

If there were oil in India, instead of oil in Iraq, we'd be all about Hindu terrorists.

It is always about money. Always.

Name me one Christian leader, pundit, radio host who is Jesus-poor.

Not a one.

They'd all be Buddhists if there were money in it.

O'Reilly, Rush, Coulter DREAD a peaceful America. There income would dry up. They NEED hatred to pay their bills. Just as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al need war to fill the coffers of
Halliburton and Blackwater and the American oil companies.

Follow the money. Always.

Then look at who wants to keep everyone ignorant so the money can keep flowing.

USMC Mike - you must have missed the day liberal math was taught. I can summarize it for you:

Everything you know is wrong. up is down, as in raise taxes to make the economy go up, good is bad, as in profit is to be shunned and punished. Markets are inefficient but price and wage controls are brilliant.

you can extend this to sociology and politics too:

losing a war is really winning
Rich people are not succesful

and so on.

"The Latin Mass example was used to talk about those who want to return to a non-rational religiosity somewhere back in the mists of time."

Latin Mass is non-rational (irrational?).

It's a form of extremism we must fight against.

Look, we can all agree extremism in all forms is undesirable.

But let's not pretend that everyone is equally quilty.

I can only conclude that you are a complete moron.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 04:04 PM

In fact, this is the conclusion for all of Loud and dumbs posts. there is probably a thesis here which could study the level of imbecility required to beleive that everyone else is the stupid one.

"Who was talking about Islam prior to 9/11?"

Lots of people were. Lewis first published his essay on Clash of Civilizations in the early 1990s. Arab Nationalists like Nasser, Qadafhi, Saddam Hussein, and others like Ayatollah Khoemeini have been popularly villified for years. Hard core neocons have pushed an agressive anti-Arab position since the 1960s. True, it was only 911 that gave it popular appeal, just as The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the US invasion of Iraq gave modern jihadists a recruiting boon.

I'm not going to go down the road of comapring Christian autorcities over the years to recent takfiri inspired atrocities, but I will say that any group that ifnds itself oppressed, on the outside of society, and out of control, or converseley that comes to dominate society to an extreme can become equally opressive. We live in a great society that allows us to interact and worship as we wish, and allows no one a monopoly to opress others, thus we don't have as serious a problem.

Even so, in our society, probelms do occur. Outside groups such as al Qaeda with there perverse agenda can slip in and attack us, and domestic terrorists from Tim McVeigh to Eric Rudolph are capable of inflicting significant damage as well. The trade of for freedom is the acceptance of risk, and the cost is eternal vigilence. It's not a counterproductive violent crackdown against phantom enemies or the suspension of our values for temporary security.

"You can't compare the needless killing of 3,000 INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS to "wanting a latin mass"."
========================

Good lord. Read what I write.

The Latin Mass example was used to talk about those who want to return to a non-rational religiosity somewhere back in the mists of time.

Are those who attend Latin Mass equivalent to actual terrorists? No.

But it is the non-rational mindset of some of such religious fanatics which can give rise to terrorists.

Did a twisted version of Christianity give rise to Eric Rudolph, the bomber of the Atlantic Olympics and abortion clinics? Yes.

Just as the twisted version of Islam gave rise to the terrorists who flew those planes into the twin towers.

Any escape into the non-rational world of religious superstition leads to terrorism of some sort sooner or later.

History tells the story again and again and again.

PS, I don't have to kill anyonen to go to a latin mass.

There's one every day, just down the street.

"Why do you think there Catholics who want the Latin Mass?"

"we ARE fighting against superstitious religiosity on every front."

Wait a bloody second.

This is the biggest crock of bull sh** I've ever read.

You think Catholics are blowing themselves up, taking innocents with them, to get a latin mass?

No, they aren't.

Are extreme Muslims blowing us up to take us all back to the 7th century? Yes.

Are the two comparable?

Only to you I suppose.

I remember the day we discussed independents, and Obama. I walked away thinking you were rational, that you had an "OK" reason for liking Obama, which wasn't predicated on "he's so dreamy... I believe in hope".

But today you've been off the deep end.

You can't compare the needless killing of 3,000 INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS to "wanting a latin mass".

kreuz_missile

"rather than continuing the divisive path that both extremes have favored for too long"

Both extremes?

Who was talking about Islam prior to 9/11?

"I don't want to live in the 7th century. I doubt you do either."

And nor does most of the Islamic world."

=====================

But there ARE xtians, jews and muslims who DO want to live in a 7th century world.

Why do you think there Catholics who want the Latin Mass?

Or Jews who want to turn Israel into a theocracy?

Or Muslims who want to establish their law in England, home of the Magna Carta??

we ARE fighting against superstitious religiosity on every front.

The terrorist who bombs the olympics in Atlanta ios no different then the terrorists who flew into the twin towers than the terrorists who occupy Palestinian land.

They all eschew the rule of human law. The law upon which democracy rests.

THIS is the fight...against all religious extremism.

A fight for human reason and human law based on inalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

THIS is the fight. Nothing else.

Spectator2 - I'm a moron who doesn't agree with you. Well, that's great.

I don't think the DJIA measures wealth in America. I must be a moron (with a master's degree in finance).

Go back to your soap operas.

"I can assure you it was not intentional, he actually meant the exact opposite. sarcasm is supposed to be really hip in Lib circles. cynicism too. Hate, envy, pity and spite round out their pallette of emotions and methods."

Some people on here apparently do pity you, ace. I just laugh at you.

""DJIA has nothing to do with wealth"

You finally said something true!"

Since sarcasm would make no sense as an explanation for your post, I can only conclude that you are a complete moron.

"I would be fine to agree with you and call it a day, but they seem intent on taking us all down with them.

I don't want to live in the 7th century. I doubt you do either."

And nor does most of the Islamic world. Even the Iranians, who we mislabel "fundamentalist," believe themselves to be the most advanced society on earth and have no desire to resurrect the Caliphate. It is a small, but vocal and dangerous group who wants to resurrect the Caliphate that is responsible, and is playing to a large group that doesn't want to do that, but many find the prospect of knocking us down a peg tempting. That gets back to my earlier post on the triangle model for terrorist organizations and how to properly ocmbat them. Labeling the whole society as our enemy only hurts us. We need to better identify the enemy, take them out, reach out to the remainder of Islamic society, and beter coexist and/or grow together, rather than continuing the divisive path that both extremes have favored for too long.

Funny thing is both the best of the Roman Catholic Church and the best of the Islamic Civilization all rest upon the literature, science and philosophy of ancient Greece.

When religion conforms to reason and science, it shines. When it falls back into superstition and fear, it becomes the source of violence and division.

If you have not read Plato or Aristotle, the Greek tragedians and comic playwrights, the poets and myths, you will never understand the basis of Jewish/Christian/Islamic religion or culture.

What we do not understand, we fear. What we fear, we seek to avoid or destroy.

Progress comes only from knowledge, understanding, tolerance.

"DJIA has nothing to do with wealth"

You finally said something true!

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 28, 2008 03:45 PM

I can assure you it was not intentional, he actually meant the exact opposite. sarcasm is supposed to be really hip in Lib circles. cynicism too. Hate, envy, pity and spite round out their pallette of emotions and methods.

"but since then they have fallen into the same kinds of traps that plagued Europe through the dark ages."

I would be fine to agree with you and call it a day, but they seem intent on taking us all down with them.

I don't want to live in the 7th century. I doubt you do either.

CC I like your column, I am somewhat amused
about Obama, all this wrangling, convinces
me to VOTE for Obama: To unify us or at least try. We have had ( 2 ) Two baby boomer presidents, neither got the job done! As a former Republican, how can they call themselves the party of values, small government, fiscally responsible, when they have mortaged 3 generations at least.

"But, don't bother. It's easier to tell me how unread I am than to read a book you might not agree with."

I never called you unread, bro, you're the only one whose called anyone here ignorant (other than Zouk, but no one takes him seriously anyways). The fact is Woods writes pop catholic history, nothing of real academic merit. His claims misrepresent the facts and skew everything in Catholocism's favor. I read plenty of books I don't agree with, but I recognize the author's purpose and the academic foundations of those books.

I am not an Islamic apologist, but I do recognize that for a good chunk of history there (circa 750 - 1358 AD), they were the ones at the cutting edge of civilization, they built the foundation that allowed the West to rise, but since then they have fallen into the same kinds of traps that plagued Europe through the dark ages.

cut and paste followed by insult

Just another rightwing strawman, kreuz.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 03:42 PM

Please someone, talk to him. I think his girlfriend sprung a leak and needs inflating again.

"DJIA has nothing to do with wealth"

You finally said something true!

What we don't do is present a mug, arrogant moral superiority ot the rest of the world--Only to Republicans

""I'm not enlightened enough to hate my own culture I guess."

I've got to throw out the BS flag on you here once more. No one here has demonstrated they hate their own culture."

Just another rightwing strawman, kreuz.

novamatt, you must have missed it:

claudia -- I'll make you a deal.

I'll agree to cut friendly ties with the Saudis

If you agree to drill for oil here at home, regardless of frogs

And we can both agree to work towards oil independence.

How does that sound?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 28, 2008 02:17 PM

"there is that DJIa thing he likes to use"

right, drooler, that silly DJIA thing whenever you post one of your unsupported laundry lists of GOP talking points that includes some idiocy about record wealth.

How silly of me. DJIA has nothing to do with wealth, we all know that.

kreuz_missile

So quick to defend Islam.

So reluctant to credit the Christians with "like architecture", or whatever.

Obviously a Catholic scholar is going to have a "like," pro-Catholic opinion, "bro".

I wonder if the facts in the book can be verified!

But, don't bother. It's easier to tell me how unread I am than to read a book you might not agree with.

PS, we can all (even claudia) work wikipedia.

"

"That is factually incorrect. The Roman Church did their best to destroy much of the works of Plato, Aristotle, and many of the social and technological advances of the Romans because of their percieved pagan origins."

That's an interesting assertion, considering I just got back from Rome, and saw the Vatican Museum for myself.

There, I saw civilization, preserved.
"

===========

Well, you're both right and wrong.

The Roman Catholic Church did indeed destroy many "pagan" documents...when not destroying them, erasing them and writing over then with sermons.

However, as Rome, Europe and the Church were sinking into uneducated idiocy, a remnant sailed to Ireland, established monasteries, learning and then to England and then to Europe and we have the first renasissance in Charlemagne's court.

It was not until the true Renaissance in Italy in the 14th century that Greek and Roman philosophy/literature/science documents were recovered from the cellars of monasteries.

The secularists brought us back from the brink of religious idiocy to reason again.

The Church was no dummy and it's entire teachings are based on Aristotle and Plato thanks to Thomas of Aquinas. Just as it's law is based on Roman law.

In addition, while Christian Europe was wallowing in illiterateness and mindless Inquisitions, the Islamic civilization was flourishing esp in the sciences and medicine.

The greatest poet of all time, Rumi, an Islamic mystic, surpassing even Shakespeare, was active around the time of Francis of Assisi. He was beloved by Jews, Christians and Muslims.

How sad so few know the riches of our human history.

Repeating again and again the mindless violence because of ignorance of the past and present.

USMC_Mike, it's a little more complicated than you want to make it. Funny how we can type out all these long back-and-forths and never mention the word "oil."

"I'm not enlightened enough to hate my own culture I guess."

I've got to throw out the BS flag on you here once more. No one here has demonstrated they hate their own culture. You are the one trumpeting this "clash of civilizations" nonsense that has rightfully been called by some the most dangerous academic thesis of the modern era. We recognize we've had our highs and lows, and we recognize others have as well. What we don't do is present a mug, arrogant moral superiority ot the rest of the world, the exact same attitude that continues to get us into mess after mess throughout the world today. A little enightenment might be good for you there. We are not the enemy, Islam is not the enemy, al Qaeda is the enemy. Get that through your head.

"Jesus washed feet, according to the Bible. The tradtion goes back a long way. You apparently are ignorant of how closely related Islam, Judaism and Christianity are."

1. I'm surprised you capitalized Jesus and Christianity. You typically don't. Might have looked odd next to your capitalized Islam.

2. We (Christians) don't demand special accomodations in public places.

3. Your ad hominem is hillariously tragic. You are a pathetic drone.

there is only one category of post from Loud and dumb (more than that is beyond his capabilities):
cut and paste followed by insult. Usually in a pavlovian response to anything from zouk. so far no record of any original thinking or substantial content. but there is that DJIa thing he likes to use and the pavlov thing and then the list of four that fills his day. Poor poor loud and dumb.

Can someone please pay attention to him. he craves this in any form. I know this is beyond the call, but with drindl gone, the rest of the jackels are also ignoring him. It is lonely being so stupid.

I have had my fill of babysitting this imbecile and was away for a while and forgot my pledge to ignore moonbats. I will reprimand myself later tonight by eating one less lobster or ordering my prime rib medium.

back to the debate.

"kreuz_missile -- Your ignorance is showing again..."

My ignorance? I have a couple of masters degrees, one in history, so please enlighten me...

"Woods is a convert to the Roman Catholic Church and author of The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy. He is best known for his 2004 bestseller[5] The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History (Regnery Publishing, 2004). He is associate editor of The Latin Mass Magazine, which supports traditional Catholicism, and a contributing editor of The American Conservative."

Interesting...must all be true coming from a nonbiased source like that......

The first recognized University is the The University of Al Karaouine in Fez, Morocco; a Muslim institution....

If you're referring to a higher level of academia, then the University of Constantinople (425 AD might apply, but was by no means part of the Church). Or maybe you mean the Academy of Plato (386 BC).

No, I imagine he refers to the schools run by the church to ordain ministers over the years. True, they did exist under Catholocism for years, but were hardly Universities in the modern sense, the models of which come largely from India and the Islamic world.

Science, seriously? The church that threatened to execute Galileo because he invented an object which clearly contradicted church teachings? The church that until John Paul II was practically at war with evolution (thankfully they're further along than some of their protestant brothers)?

There are some good contributions the church has made, and yes some things were preserved and some like architecture did advance (as they did simultaneously elsewhere in the world), but to credit the faith with them just doesn't hold true.

"I said nothing about abstaining"

I know, I did. You were conspicuously absent.

"To dismiss Islam and its achievements out of hand is just pure ignorance and intellectual laziness."

I gave them the decimal. Ok, joking.

I even had a 2nd post explaining they had done some good stuff (but that we're better). Is that so bad?

I'm not enlightened enough to hate my own culture I guess.

"It's why the perverters of any religion can so easily persuade the uneducated mind. It's the core reason the Middle East is trapped in the Middle Ages."

Agreed. It's tragic. Now we're getting somewhere.

We both think the religion has been hijacked.

So, what do we do about it, if anything?

good point Claudia--as do the PMD-ers novamatt was talking about.

Jesus washed feet, according to the Bible. The tradtion goes back a long way. You apparently are ignorant of how closely related Islam, Judaism and Christianity are.

My G-d,

This strand has gone crazy since last I checked.

Zouk and USMC--Your arguments cannot be respected when they are so irrationally anti-Muslim.

I mean some of the stuff you all have said about Muslims/Islam is insulting and xenophobic if not borderline racist.

All religions have fanatics; and good points. The difference as I see it is that while Christianity has somewhat moved into a new paradigm and modernity recently--Islam in the middle East has largely not. This coupled with the friction always existing between "western" Europe and the Islamic East (since ancient times)has served to escalate.

Part of the issue is we need to get off our high horses and remember our history, even in this country--let alone that of Christianity--has not been as noble and progressive as some of you are arguing.

That doesn't mean western civilization is not the most advanced (in some areas) up to this point--I for one would rather live ANYWHERE in the western world than in the Middle East.
But it also can't mean that we ignore the contributions they have made and their potential to make more. Americans are somewhat blindsided by our relative youth. Iran traces its civilization back to Persia (as I Know you all know); but imagine how that must feel. Look at how we react to the surge of India or China or the resurgence of Russia. Just because Iran has been largely third world in your lifetime; doesn't mean that the people there don't know there own history and know that before our "founding fathers" even set foot on this continent--their civilization had invented many of the discoveries we take for granted today.

Is Islamic extremism wrong--ABSOLUTELY--shoudl the Arab leaders/nations do more to help their people and openly condemn Islamic Extremism--ABSOLUTELY But it is also healthy for us to humble out a bit--put down the flag and cross and realize we are not exactly innocent and also look at how our best intentions might be misunderstood or miscommunicated to the Arab/Islamic audience.

burqua

'Where's your pithy comeback to my quib about your head-covering, 2 steps beside your husband or-else-get-stoned-to-death?'

I thought it was too stupid to pay attention to. But since you insist, these are people following the dictates of the old testament, which I presume you beleive in.

"Your explanation for abstaining from the conversation, namely, that I'm too stupid for you to talk to, is pathetic and boring."
======================

I said nothing about abstaining, even though it is Lent. I said it was difficult to respect your opinions when they are so poorly-informed.

No helpful discussion is ever possible when there is not a basic agreement of premises. To dismiss Islam and its achievements out of hand is just pure ignorance and intellectual laziness.

If you could admit to some of the documented glories of their past, i could more readily accept as reasonable your criticism of the present distortions of Islam in today's arabic cultures.

In human history, there is only one enemy ever: ignorance.

Ignorance.

Ignorance.

It's why the perverters of any religion can so easily persuade the uneducated mind. It's the core reason the Middle East is trapped in the Middle Ages.

And the core reason the USA is mired in civil discord.

Ignorance.

kreuz_missile -- Your ignorance is showing again...

novamatt -- Islamic folks can dress however they want. I won't try to change that, not even with a gun. And, if it's fine by you, they can murder all the women they want. That's OK because morality is relative and if they think it's OK, it must be OK. I just don't like it when they export their violent mania to my back yard. Is it OK with you if I draw the line there? Or do you want me to build a foot-washing station there too?

Sorry, here's the link:

http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/z-Info/MV_Info_NotizieStoriche.html

"That is a very valuable service you provide. It amazes - the technical skill and level of intelligence it must take to accomplish this feat. how do you do it?

I think this demonstrates definitively who the ignorant coward was all along. he can't help but point out any appearance of the dreaded zouk.

but I love the fact that he identifies himself as Loud and dumb voter now.

thank you for your service. we will all be sure to keep on the lookout for classic zouk in all its forms."

There are only four categories of zouk posts, einstein. Try to keep up. You should know, since you're the spewer of this drivel.

The four categories are:

Cut-and-paste jobs from rightwing fishwraps

Unsupported laundry lists of GOP talking points

Insults

Nonsequiturs.

More for you on the Vatican Museum:

"The Vatican Museums originated as a group of sculptures collected by Pope Julius II (1503-1513) and placed in what today is the "Cortile Ottagono" within the museum complex. The popes were among the first sovereigns who opened the art collections of their palaces to the public thus promoting knowledge of art history and culture."

1503 - 1513? Right before the Reformation? What a weird coincidence...

But don't be too quick to credit those pesky Christians with anything.

Let's not forget the decimal.

Or the berka.

USMC_Mike, the other possibility is that drindl and I think you're a swell guy and you'll be sweller if you digest the simple fact that Arabs and Muslims aren't congenitally stoopid civilization-haters, that their long period of stagnation is cultural, and that cultures don't change because outsiders who think they're better and have a lot of guns think it should. There are other, less stoopid, more civilized ways of influencing Arab and Muslim culture in a more decent direction we maybe should check out. That's why.

"There, I saw civilization, preserved."

Just like they preserved the Bible kept it tucked away for no commoners to see, only what the Pope allowed. Until the Pope no longer could control things, that is...

Mike -all the facts and opinions about this aren't listed on the daily Kos today.

therefore - you are a moron and I'm not talking to you.

kreuz_missile - might I suggest a reading for your consideration

How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization By Thomas E. Woods

A History of the Catholic Church's central role in shaping and saving Western Civilization, highlighting its contributions, including:

The University
Science
Art, Architecture
Free Market Economics (500 yrs before Adam Smith)
Charity
Law
Morality

"Loud and dumb, your economy of words and intelligence is impressive."

Insult. Classic zouk.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 03:07 PM

That is a very valuable service you provide. It amazes - the technical skill and level of intelligence it must take to accomplish this feat. how do you do it?

I think this demonstrates definitively who the ignorant coward was all along. he can't help but point out any appearance of the dreaded zouk.

but I love the fact that he identifies himself as Loud and dumb voter now.

thank you for your service. we will all be sure to keep on the lookout for classic zouk in all its forms.

"That is factually incorrect. The Roman Church did their best to destroy much of the works of Plato, Aristotle, and many of the social and technological advances of the Romans because of their percieved pagan origins."

That's an interesting assertion, considering I just got back from Rome, and saw the Vatican Museum for myself.

There, I saw civilization, preserved.

"Your arguments betray the fact that you haven't read a single book about Islamic history."

I've actually been reading up on the history of the "religion", if you can call it that. (it's more a political movement than anything).

Your explanation for abstaining from the conversation, namely, that I'm too stupid for you to talk to, is pathetic and boring.

Not to mention, coffe-sipping better-than-you liberal in tone.

Zouk: I like the berka-her-blog comment. Laugh out loud.

"He just hates gay people."

And, methinks, a leeetle too much.

He does love a good dozen Krispy Kremes though. That self-hatred is hungry monster!

Imagine if he turned all that enregy to good?

"Loud and dumb, your economy of words and intelligence is impressive."

Insult. Classic zouk.

Mike- Islam is not the enemy; Saudi Arabia is not the enemy.

The enemy is an extremist group within Islam who manipulates the religion for personal gain the pray on those who are desperate, decrying us as the root of all thier pain calling for jihad. Cultural sensitivity towards Muslims, etc., is not yielding ANYTHING to al Qaeda or the other terrorist groups they are affiliated with.

"I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church was just as responsible for keeping civilization intact and preserved during the same era. But, since they're Christian, we can't compliment them. Only Muslims."

That is factually incorrect. The Roman Church did their best to destroy much of the works of Plato, Aristotle, and many of the social and technological advances of the Romans because of their percieved pagan origins. That's why the era in Europe is reffered to as a dark age scholarship ground to a haul and key knowledge was lost and society regressed. The Egyptians kept what they could, and the Abassids rediscovered it, built upon it, and helped reintroduce it to Europe during the Reformation/Enightenment. Granted, since then Islam has begun to enter its own dark age as we have then moved ahead and advaaced well beyond them, but that's the nature of societies as a whole, not a sign one is morally superior to the other in and of itself.

"dingbat drindl goes back 6000 years to find some contribution from muslims to the modern era."

Zouk, considering Islam only goes back to 632 AD, that is a pretty impressive feat, wouldn't you say?

Dave, post-millennial dispensationalists left the left (heh) in the 1930's in response to what they thought was FDR's socialism. For a long long time they were politically quiescent. It was the civil rights movement and then the growth of the larger religious right and the nascent culture wars in the '70s that brought them back to the voting booth, and then as full-throated Republicans. They haven't been happy as Republicans (and there has been a strong PMD presence in such outfits as the Constitution Party and among the Roy Moore crowd), but there they are nevertheless, for now.

You're absolutely right that on economic issues the PMD's would fit right in with the protectionist wing of the Democratic Party. And if you ever want to drive a Democrat crazy, point out that the homophobic batpoop-insane Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka was a minor Kansas Democratic party official back in the '70s and actually endorsed Clinton/Gore in '92. But Phelps's theology isn't coherent enough for him to be a PMD. He just hates gay people.

"What is the unholy alliance between pontificating liberals and 7th century Islamic warriors (who are also quite advanced, despite their despise for education, freedom, oh, and Christians)?"
================

If your posts revealed any inkling of a historical understanding of the Muslims, I'd give you some respect. Your arguments betray the fact that you haven't read a single book about Islamic history. Your willful ignorance makes you a clanging gong.

All sound and fury signifying nothing.

Pity. You seem more intelligent than that.

Well, Obama just got some more Independent votes. Rick Santorum just wrote an op-ed piece against him.
Thanks, Rick!

(btw, weren't you just railing against McCain while pitching for Romney?)

Loud and dumb, your economy of words and intelligence is impressive.

"It's called the Daily Kos. it requires no thinking, an important aspect of the liberal existence."

Insult. Classic zouk.

Always the same talking points.

It's like you're both reading the same script.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 28, 2008 02:38 PM

It's called the Daily Kos. it requires no thinking, an important aspect of the liberal existence.

USMC Mike - I know marines don't accept defeat but in this case you must be willing to consider that debate with a bunch of loons is a pointless effort.

they are arguing that Muslims, who devloped a numbers system that allowed for place holdings and digits, contrary to the roman system, are able to rest on that accomplishment to this day. no matter that they don't write books, don't have universities, don't practice science, literature, arts, etc. in other words all the things the liberals are usuall crowing as the sole measure of a successful civilization.

go figure. drindl, for one, would benefit tremendously from wearing a burka. If only we could burka her blogging.

One thing I believe: If someone let's loose with a nuclear bomb, he'll be motivated by religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu,...take your pick.

ALL religions should be put back in the home and the church and kept away from government.

Posted by: novamatt | February 28, 2008 02:34 PM

Posted by: claudialong | February 28, 2008 02:34 PM

It's like clockwork.

I can set my watch to it.

"who then became the Taliban and the very people who want to kill us today"

"Funny how those same Afghanis are now fighting us and would gladly accept arms from Russia, if offered."

No context.

No history.

No appreciation for the juggernaut we faced.

Always the same talking points.

It's like you're both reading the same script.

drindle, if you [can, carefully] read my post:

I never said Muslims contributed NOTHING.

I just said we have contributed MORE.

Like, electricity. And, the automobile. And, your PC that you spew vile ramblings on. And, the airplane.

Or, closer to your feminazi heart, women's rights. Now there's a good one.

Where's your pithy comeback to my quib about your head-covering, 2 steps beside your husband or-else-get-stoned-to-death?

You evidently think that's the way we should go.

Maybe that's the "change" Obama is talking about.

How "Progressive".

'Like arming Afghanistan to beat back the Soviets who were murdering them in droves?'

--who then became the Taliban and the very people who want to kill us today?

Funny how those same Afghanis are now fighting us and would gladly accept arms from Russia, if offered.

What is the unholy alliance between pontificating liberals and 7th century Islamic warriors (who are also quite advanced, despite their despise for education, freedom, oh, and Christians)?

novamatt - "but the crazies on the left don't crave a war to end all wars and the destruction of everyone and everything except for God's few elect. That's exclusively a right-wing crazies thing."

What puts these particular crazies on the right? Because the current administration tends to be pro-Israeli? Simply because they are religious? Maybe they believe in universal healthcare, federal government solutions to many problems, more regulation of business, taxing the high earners and redistributing the wealth to the poor and and the destruction of everyone and everything except for God's few elect. Couldn't they just be called, oh I don't know, crazy? Much the same way I would suggest that Louis Farrikhan's anti-semetic ideas don't represent one iota of what Obama or the Democratic party believe in despite the fact that he supports Obama and from all indications, will be voting for him. I share your concern with crazy people that have a thing for martyrdom at the expense of the rest of us, be they Christians, Muslims, athiests or anyone in between. But that is simply not a plank of the Republican party.

'PS, the gramatical errors in your "citation" make it seem extra schola