Constantinople was never Roman in any meaningful sense of the term. It was ethnically Greek.
That's even more bullshit than your previously false posts. Constantinople was culturally *Roman* since its founding over Byzantium. I think it is *you* who needs to read the history of Byzantium, such as Judith Herrin's book "Byzantium" (which I have sitting besides me right now). The inhabitants considered themselves *Roman*, and called themselves Romaioi. Hell, even if you didn't do proper research (which it seems you don't) even a trivial wikipedia search would show you labour under yet another falsehood, eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Greeks
The Egyptians are another problematic one for you. Did you know that the entire reason Egypt was conquered by the Muslims was that the Greek Christians who ran the place refused to stop feeding Egyptian Christians to the Lions? This pissed the Egyptian Christians off, so they stabbed the Greeks in the back. Early on it was actually illegal to convert from one religion to the other, but eventually more fundamentalist Islamic forces took over and 250 or so years after the original conquest Egypt was majority Islamic. So you basically just proved that Islam can live in perfect harmony with Christianity.
Yeah, in *exactly* the same way that the mafia lives "in perfect harmony" with productive businesses. Islam is a vampire that requires productive hosts to carry out economic activity (as in, Christians to pay jizya). That's because Muslims cannot manage an economy - look at how the riches of Egypt have been squandered and the World is already giving it billions to feed off starvation. But of course, an Islamist like yourself don't even know the economic situation in Egypt. That's the real problem with people like you, ideology trumps looking at facts. Your analysis only goes half way, and as a result you draw false conclusions compared to if you looked at the real statistics.
By bringing it up you're actually making the argument that Islam is better for freedom of religion then secular democracy.
False (again!). There is no freedom of religion under Islam. If you don't convert you become a second class "dhimmi" and are discriminated against. You may not repair your existing houses of worship and certainly not construct news ones. You live under the "mafia" system of Islam, if you do anything to anger the Muslims (eg. look at them the wrong way) they have the right to kill you without punishment. If you are mistaken and convert to Islam you cannot later leave Islam. If you do you are an apostate and it becomes the *duty* of every other Muslim to kill you or they become apostates too. What part of this is "freedom of religion"? I cannot fathom why you would ignore this evil system and try defend it - oh, unless you are convert. That would explain your statements *completely*.
So you basically just proved that Islam can live in perfect harmony with Christianity.
What a crock of shit. Islam cannot live as equals with anyone - it is in their scriptures that they cannot tolerate being under the dominion of a non-Muslim leader, except for a temporary time. This sentence is so anti-historical it has *utterly* discredited your argument. I wish Islam was a religion of peace that it is possible to coexist with on equal terms - but *reality* shows that this is not possible - because Islamic doctrine prevents it.
You'd have been best-off going with the Persians Zoroastorian religion, which went from major world religion to minority religion believed by a couple thousand Parsis in Gujarat when they lost a war. But if you'd done that I just would have brought the many, many civilizations destroyed by Christians over the years. The Spanish alone probably destroyed more religions then all of Islam in the century or two after Columbus. We'll never kn
I'm afraid you are missing some information. Please allow me to correct you. I also hope that you won't take my statements at face value, but will go an double-check them yourself. That way not only will you confirm what I say is accurate, you'll also clear any more misunderstandings you have yourself. Hopefully you will also learn a bit about the nature of Islam (it is far far worse than appears at the surface - once you start getting into the deeper doctrines).
Before I start, please let me say I agree with you completely that fundamentalist Christian doctrine is an obstacle to progress. Denying evolution and the Big Bang is terrible. This should be fought, and I'm pleased you are against them. However, most Christians do go along with established science. It is not anti-thetical to modern Christianity to accept science (although they still still to many other superstitions and other nonsense: defying death, virgin births, vicarious redemption etc). So I hope we can agree that Christianity needs to be challenged. However, it is not an existential threat to Enlightenment Civilization in the same way the Islam is.
The reason I'm not addressing your point that more Muslims want to force conversions is that it's fantasy.
False. Please read Sura 9:29 and 9:5 of the Qur'an. All Muslims work to spread Islam in the World. They can do it through dawa (proselytization) or jihad (violent and non-violent direct action). All non-Muslims will be give the choice: convert, those of Abrahamic faiths may live as a second-class dhimmi under the Islamic politicial order (since Islam is primarily a totalitarian *political* system), or be killed (non-Abrahamic faiths and atheists like you and me). The historical example is in countries where Muslims became dominant this is exactly what happened. For example: in Egypt there are around 8 million discriminated-against Coptic Christians that the Muslims attack regularly - although mainstream news ignores this as it doesn't follow their leftist "narrative" that Muslims are always the victims; in Syria and Lebanon the Christians and also persecuted; in Iraq the Assyrians are facing extinction thanks to Muslim attacks. Think about the history, Turkey was Byzantine Roman for over a thousand years and almost nothing of the culture remains. Syria, Lebanon and Egypt all had Christian civilizations for hundreds of years and remnants of older civilizations still present until Islam came. However the advent of Islam obliterates other cultures. Once Islam is strong enough in a culture it will first dominate and then erase other cultures until no trace remains. This is the nature of the beast. That's why starting to give concessions starts a very dangerous path. Giving concession does not result in quid-pro-quo respect, all it does is create demands for more and more concessions.
Nobody has ever made a Sharia law code apply to people they agreed were not Islamic.
*Completely false*. It is surprising you have even made this claim. Islam imposed Sharia historically in many countries. The countries where it has happened most of the previous civilizations have vanished (which is why you don't seem to know about them). Please do more research.
Nobody, including Bin Laden, has ever said he wants to convert Norway to Islam with the sword. Anti-Islam activists make this shit up, say it really confidently in Youtube videos, and then you assume it's true.
False. Read Qur'an Sura 9:29 and 9:5 and all the other violent Suras in the Qur'an (there are around 109 of them). All Muslims are *commanded* to bring Islam to the entire world. They can lie about their aim (using any of the Islamic-sanctioned lying methodologies called 'taqiyya' ' kitman' 'muruna' or 'tawriya'). In short, whatever a Muslim says to a non-Muslim cannot be trusted at face-value. Now Al Qaeda believe in bringing Islam by the sword, whereas the Muslim Brotherhood believes that violence is not necessary and they can a
By your standard the entirety of the ACLU is pro-Nazi because they defended the rights of the Nazi marchers in Skokie.
Nazis were convicted as war criminals. The case is closed on them. ACLU should not protect Nazis. However I believe Skokie were "neo-Nazis". The ACLU should defend these under grounds of Free Speech. I personally *hate* neo-Nazis, but they have free speech rights and can exercise them. They as soon as they break another law (eg. violence) they should be arrested without hesitation. However, the ACLU is morally bankrupt because it protects neo-Nazis and Hamas terrorist supporting Islamists, but then fights against people like Pamela Geller who wants to protected young women from "honor killing" murders and argues to retain traditional US Constitutional liberties against the advocates of Sharia (in all its subtle forms, such as Hiliary Clinton's co-sponsoring of UN HRC 16/18; and the imposition segregation times between men and women at places like the Harvard gym etc; of the 23 legal cases where Sharia has trumped the US Constitution).
Moreover you're applying a double-standard again. Jews and Christians are also incredibly sexist.
You keep missing the point. I'll spell it out again so might finally grok it. Christians and Jews have their weird laws, but assert those laws only apply to believers. Muslims assert that their laws must apply to everyone and they are working for that end (well, surveys put around 77% of them believe this should be their goal). Furthermore, the latest survey shows 25% of Muslims (around 400 million people) support violent jihad against unbelievers. How many Christians and Jews today believe in a Crusade solely based on the will to convert others? pretty much zero, right? You are attempting to paint a 'moral equivalence' which is simply false. Stop doing that please, you are supporting the aims of the evil Islamists whenever you promote this fallacy.
I don't have to know who Sowell is to see that you aren't referencing him well.
Sorry David but your statement is rubbish. I posted a link to Sowell's article. Too bad you didn't read it (it is not that long). It is a failure in your analysis to not even read what I linked to and then claim I "aren't referencing him well". That's just silly, dude.
I don't need my own statistics to comment on the implausibility of yours (particularly since you insist that the true statistics aren't readily available, and since you make absolute claims).
Another failure in your analysis. I did not "insist" that the "true statistics aren't readily available". You are just making strawmen up in your own mind. Then you make another ridiculous statement that "you don't need statistics". Of course you do! it is the crux of my argument and if you want to defeat my argument you need to use statistics. Aside from the statistics in Sowell's article regarding the number of crimes prevented by an armed citizenry outweighing the deaths by a colossal factor of ten, when you look for cases of NRA members committing gun crimes you don't find any. Given the delight the media would have if an NRA member was convicted doesn't the absence of cases say something to you? My hypothesis is that NRA members do not form a significant fraction (as in, close to zero) of gun crime. The counter "Null" hypothesis is that that a measurable amount of gun crime is caused by NRA members. Now use Google and see how many NRA members have committed gun crimes. Given the delight which the media would erupt in if an NRA member did use their guns for crime the fact we don't get results is itself a statistic - and this rejects the Null Hypothesis (which is your hypothesis). Hence, within the bounds of statistics we can say your position is wrong. Be careful when debating scientists dude:)
Here's something you could consider reading (but I know you won't, it seems you are too academically lazy to follow references even if they are concise and handed to you on a platter): "Ten myths about gun control" http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm
Wake up man, the "Gun Control" debate is not about guns or crime, it is about "control" (by the Government of the People). It is this aspect that the NRA (for all its flaws) has correctly identified as being the problem with the proposed legislation.
Also, lose the ranting on left-wing media. In general, conventional journalists are left-wing, mainstream media owners are right-wing, and bloggers are all over this and several other spectra. You're not going to convince anybody to the left of Fox that the mainstream media is all leftist, and again you're tempting the categorization as "right-wing nut".
Another failure of analysis on your part. The media owners are right wing (because they generally are older and have accumulated more facts in their time on Earth) and *influence* the tone of the paper, but they don't usually affect the day-to-day articles. The journalists are younger, more idealistic (rather than fact based) and are indeed left-wing. Your two big failures are: 1) assuming that these two effects cancel out (a typical 'equivalence' argument that Leftists tend to make), and 2) your failure to understand that the most significant factor in the slant of any media reporting are the views of the *editors*. The editors are generally even more left-wing than the journalists. Hence, the media is left-leaning as I said in my original statements.
Your use of labels, eg "right wing nut", also marks a failure of analysis. It allows you to justify to yourself your preference for not listen to opposition who may have facts you don't yet know. To listen to and look for facts that counter your current position is essential to The Scientific Method. This is how I came from being pro-Obama, pro-Gun control, an
An Islamic woman and her husband come before your court asking for a divorce.
Lol. You do understand that in Sharia does a women ask for divorce without the consent of her husband? There are exceptions made in some cases, but it has to be extreme beatings etc and even then it is no guarantee. A husband merely states he is divorcing his wife and it is done. Does that sound like equality between the sexes to you? this is only the tip of the iceberg of the desert barbarity called Sharia. Do you really want to be defending this evil system at all?
Do the research dude. At the moment it sounds like you don't know much about Sharia at all, and how misogynistic and against Enlightenment values it really is.
Now that you have outlined your position we are in reasonable agreement about many things. Thanks for elaborating.
I'm sorry that you disagree with me. Calling me a "closet racist" seems a bit much just for holding geopolitical views that are not the same as yours. But then that is the quality of debate that you get when you discuss Middle Eastern politics on the internet...
All I was pointing out was your statement indicated that if a video was made in Jerusalem then it couldn't contain any facts that would make it worth looking at. This is 'soft racism' and I wanted to bring your attention to it. I made the same mistake too in the past. I hope you have a think about it. Furthermore, I really really hope you take a couple of minutes to actually watch the video (please:)). I also highly recommend the following short (5 mins) video for moral people like yourself [produced in America]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63hTOaRu7h4
With regard to "extremists". The latest Pew survey that was released a few days ago show that 75% of Muslims do not believe in violent jihad. Great. Now what about the other 25% of the 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the World that do believe in violent jihad. I don't know how good your mathematics is but statistically 25% is not "extreme" in any way. It is fairly normal. Therefore, calling jihadis "extreme" is a falsehood. They represent a substantial fraction (1/4) of the Muslims in the World. If you whip out your calculator you will see that at least 400 MILLION people want to kill you or subjugate you to the Islamic political just because you are non-Muslim. See what I'm getting at here? it is a *huge* problem that the statistics make plain as day but the media and politicians don't want to address. *We* may not want to pick a fight but those 400 million jihadis (plus the non-violent financial supports from the rest of the Muslims) do. If we don't start seeing and talking about Islam as the totalitarian, theocratic, supremacist political *ideology* we are doomed. And it will be bye-bye to our tolerance and sexual equality and free speech and freedom of conscience etc etc Do you really want your country to be turned into another Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Iran? because the stated goal of Islam is *global domination* ("it is the will of Allah", after all). So please stop trying to equate Christianity and Judaism with Islam - they differ in a very fundamental way (the latter is politically active and extremely violent *today*). I get what you were trying to do in comparing them, but the reality trying to claim 'moral equivalence' between them merely diffuses the scrutiny and criticism that Islam should be put under by all moral people.
I give an F (must try harder) for your reply. if you want to reply you have to do this:
* Google who Thomas Sowell is, perhaps even read a little of his work. Then you won't be arguing from a position of ignorance.
* Find the statistics which show that rate of NRA members relative to 'non crazy' citizens. Then you will be able to debunk my assertion, if you can.
* Don't worry about me pissing off Obama supporters. There are currently whistleblower hearings on Benghazi and Obama's and Clinton's criminal negligence in the death of the Ambassador and SEALs (so far it appears only the President could have called off the 'in-extremis' special combat rescue team that was on their way to save them - and would have got there in time). There is a good chance Obama will be impeached for this (although the mainstream media are putting out all sorts of stories to deflect attention, just as they did the day after Benghazi to help the Administration out; just as even now they are trying to confuse the motivations of the Boston bombers rather than admit it was jihad in America, again [because somehow facing reality will make it more likely? wtf?]).
Thanks for your unasked for advice and the score card. Perhaps you could have researched my points (Sowell is a genius, if you've ever heard him talk about a topic) before replying (which is what I hope people would do in their anger - because they really wanted to nail me, so went and looked stuff up, and guess what? I'm not as wrong as they supposed based on their previous ignorance).
What should be the reaction to mass murdering jihadis on your soil? dialogue? paying reparations? (seen as jizya, that makes things worse not better), or perhaps Obama's strategy of apologizing for America promoting freedom then toppling friendly or neutral regimes and installing the Muslim Brotherhood in their place?
Dude, it doesn't matter what the ignorant masses under the influence of Cultural Marxism think (look for a documentary on YouTube about this before you start denying from your position of ignorance). The US won in Iraq but rather than do what it did in Germany (which created a strong ally), Obama instead pulled out without a status of forces agreement. The same will happen in Afghanistan. Obama has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and wasted the efforts of the last ten years.
Remember, in your previous post you weren't even aware of Obama's marxist party membership. Perhaps you ought to do more research - I'm trying to show you the facts the media are not telling you (because they agree with Obama's agenda).
You are aware that Obama was a "card carrying" member of the "Democratic Socialists of America" (Google it for yourself). Which is a *Marxist* organization. Of course, the President disclosed this during his candidacy, as well as his education, travel and birth records, right? of course, the mainstream media is unbiased as a "free press" and reported this fact because they
If I were you I would start thinking that lots of things are being kept from yourself by this administration (the Marxist and Muslim Brotherhood influence in the White House, the programme to neuter the Constitution through NDAA etc, the denial of jihad as a motivation of terrorism against the US, the purging of the US military officers who discuss the jihad threat, the general overspending to wreck the economy [each illegal immigrant household given amnesty will apparently cost you over half a million dollars in your tax money, are you happy to pay that?], the criminal incompetence of Obama and Clinton in the Benghazi attack that left four Americans to die when they could have been saved [and the drone circling overhead did *nothing*]).
I suggest you start listening to what Obama's opponents have to say. Some of their talk is bollox for sure, but a surprising fraction is true and you won't hear the same truths from the left-leaning mainstream press. When Obama is impeached for Benghazi based on the testimonies of those there it will be a surprise to you - the the conservatives have been piecing together the truth despite the media trying to deflect attention away from the actions of Obama and Clinton that directly lead to the deaths of the Ambassador and Seals (and the ridiculous policy of getting Muslim militias to guard the Ambassador, that is simply willful denial of reality on the Administration's part).
What is it you have against the American way of life that you would like it overthrown in bloody revolution and replaced with something else?
Well... you know... I'm sure you'd be first against the wall - although I'm sure there is a long queue to be the one to do the deed. Surely that is as good a justification as any?
Go read the part of The Constitution where they limit funding of the military to a short period of time before it has to come up again.
You mean like an annual defense budget that the Congress controls and would shut down the military in very short order if approval was held up? That seems to be an effective balance between civilian control, the needs of modern forces (that require at least a decade to train effective leaders on combat aircraft and warships) and the horses-and-bayonets 'minutemen' ideals of the age of the Founding Fathers.
Yeah right, modern day Scandinavia is an impoverished hell hole, has been for decades.
Scandinavia is an interesting case. It used to be awesome but now, not so much if you follow the events happening there? for example, rape used to be virtually unknown there and has now shot up by 500% in ten years. There are parts of Sweden (eg. Malmo) and Denmark that you can no longer go safely. The reason is the same there as in the parts of France you can't go to. Free speech is suppressed, both for cartoonists and writers and for those that speak out against the *socialist* orthodox narrative. The immigration wave that promotes immigrant rights over the rights of the natives is the same in Scandinavia as in the UK (where the Britons are getting fed up, and starting to vote for parties like UKIP). This immigration wave is pushed by socialists and vociferous left-leaning academics - and once pleasant countries are being dragged down into the morass of the violent cultures of the (Muslim) immigrants came from. I'm all for ethnic diversity, I think it is great., But the socialist policy of multiculturalism (which allows non-integration) is a failure - Angela Merkel and others have admitted this. The Socialist economic policies are also utter failures - they rely on the productive (as in, capitalist) sectors of society to generate wealth for the socialists to spend. As Lady Margaret Thatcher famously put it, "Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money to spend".
I wish socialism worked, but I've been forced to conclude it doesn't work in the real world. Regulated capitalism with some socialistic aspects seems to be a far better model - and is much much better at producing innovation and progression as well as preserving individual liberties too.
Sorry, but in no way does requiring background checks equate to disarming citizens. That we don't have universal background checks is a travesty.
In my country we do have checks. Guess what, insane people still go on rampages. Criminals still use illegal weapons on defenceless citizens and the police collect the bodies afterwards. It is rare, but it does happen. The gun-free utopia people dream about doesn't happen even in my country were it is quite rare for anyone other than farmers to own small arms.
Look at the Second Amendment. Think about what its purpose is. For those that believe in the purpose of the Second Amendment would have to be crazy to hand over their details to a Federal body. Handing such details over to States is reasonable though (provided they are insulated from a Federal level search without going through the State first).
Enough with the delusions of persecution already.
Where in my post did I mention persecution? the Second Amendment is about possible Government tyranny and the Founding Fathers saw this far more clearly than you do. Your subtle but nevertheless totalitarianesque attempt to shut down those who disagree with you is ugly. Do you have a problem with the First Amendment too?
Thanks for replying Nic in a calm manner with interesting points.
1) Never under-estimate the distrust in the free market a people has when their first experience of said market was watching their relatives stripped naked and sold to a brothel because that was the only way poor Marse Johnnie could pay off his gambling debt.
Fair enough, but surely that was a century ago. Is it sensible to vote for policies that keep you fellow citizens dependent (pro-handout rather than pro-growth) because of memories of one hundred years ago? (all the while, choosing to ignore the slavery aspect of the Democratic Party from nearly the same timespan?).
I never said anything about a "rash" of terrorist incidents from the KKK/Skinheads/etc. I said there incidents.
Cool. I don't think anyone takes seriously the threat of the Far Right with regard to a global threat - they are simply too discredited these days. It is worth noting that the right (far, moderate and center) in general does seem to be having increasing support these days as Free Peoples slowly learn about the true nature of Islam, and learn that the political Left is embracing Muslims as a 'protected species' rather than standing up for Enlightenment values (which Islam is doctrinally opposed to). If the Left instead stood up for Enlightenment values they would neuter the support for the political right - but I cannot see this happening. Hence, the Left's current trajectory is leading to the erosion of liberty.
3) For an atheist you're remarkably ignorant about non-Islamic faiths.
I will confess I'm not an expert in these as I am about Islam. The reason for that is, aside from a few loons (who are not listened to by the mainstream), Judaic and Ecclesiastical Law simply have very little significance in the modern world. Futhermore, their aim is not world domination and they don't claim political supremacy over all non-believers too and other law and forms of government. Sharia does - and that is what makes it so dangerous. I urge you to watch some of Stephen Coughlin's excellent videos on YouTube (which I have linked to earlier in this thread).
4) Polls are incredibly tricky to use.
Yes, all polls contain uncertainty and caveats. However the recent global polls show a vast majority of Muslims in many different countries support the imposition of Sharia, including to non-Muslims. The results are statistically significant, consistent with previous polls and completely consistent with core Islamic doctrine. There are 57 OIC countries and a large majority of 1.5 billion people who believe that it is Allah's will that you submit to Sharia sooner-or-later, and by force if necessary. This is what the data tells us (eg, the latest Pew survey). If you have better data then I'm completely open to it (I was a research scientist, I *must* look for contradictory data as well as supporting data). Until you get better data then perhaps you'll accept that the majority of Muslims want Sharia to be 'the law of the land'.
The problem with Sharia polls specifically is they don't generally say which version of Sharia they want to implement. Sharia Family Law, for example, is so unobjectionable that it in many cases it is Unconstitutional for US Courts to not enforce it in families were everyone wants Sharia law to be used.
That is equivalent to saying, 'nerve gas is not bad for you in tiny doses' (eg. fly spray). Your statement is false for several reasons. Firstly, you already have a national law and it should apply to *everyone* and apply *equally*. Yes? With regard to the constitutionaly of Sharia in the US, well several states disagree with you. There is the ALAC (American Law for American Courts) movement which seeks to make explicit the primacy of the US Constitution. You see, activist judges in US courts have been pitting Sharia against the US Constitution and in at least 23 cases the
Yes, the Republicans were anti-slavery and would be shot for their views by Democrats. Somehow modern mythology has the parties trading places. The Republicans have very many flaws, but they do generally believe either in individualism, or the right of each State to decide what it wants to do on a state-by-state basis (which unfortunately, means some states pass less liberal laws, but the important thing is each state gets to decide - not the central government).
So.... spend your effort on stopping 'bad' guys and stop chasing the lawful guys (eg. NRA). The current Administration is attacking law abiding citizens hoping it will end up stopping the bad guys. That's just ridiculous. Instead of chasing the NRA, stop making excuses for the bad guys ("Oh, he came from an underprivileged background surviving on handouts paid for by the taxes of the people he'd later rob; but it was really their fault for working harder and getting ahead and being born with pale skin so it was fair they got robbed"). Bah!
I will say this again until you start to understand. The Government is not removing firearms from law-abiding citizens because it cares about crime. It is removing them so the population cannot threaten the Government. The 2nd Amendment foresaw this. That is why the NRA is correct in their stance. The US was founded so that the Government serves the people, not the other way around. If the people want firearms, or tobacco, or big-serve softdrinks, or ice hockey, or fast cars then the Government can pass laws as long as the people consent. Clearly the people have not consented to the removal of legally purchased firearms from law-abiding citizens. The Government has *no right* to remove the firearms, and they know it too - despite the propaganda the Government puts forth. Remember, the media was stating that "90%" of people agreed with stricter gun control yet Obama could not get his bills through his *Democrat controlled* Senate. It shows how big the lies were, and how strongly even the Democrat leadership were against Obama's power grab (because that is what it was).
The guns that are a danger to the citizenry are those illegal weapons held by unlicensed criminals. How come many police officers/sheriffs have spoken *on public record* to say they would not enforce such an anti-Constitutional law even if it did pass. Law enforcement agree with personal self defense, how come?
In my country, New Zealand, your mates would tell you to go take a big glass of "Harden the Fuck Up", followed by a dozen pints of beer.
"Existential Challenge" seems to amplified as a "First World Problem". If you are busy fending for your life you have two choices - get one with it (no matter how big a bitch Mother Nature is), or lay down an die. When our ancestors lamented existence it was because their lives were "nasty, brutal and short". Now, no matter how poor you are relative to your neighbour, we *all* live in luxury that far exceeds the great emperors of old. We all have far greater health care than even recent ancestors. We have great pain relief. We get bored with hundreds of channels of entertainment, income that is actually disposable on more than sustenance-level items, and the entire accumulated knowledge of all of humanity accessible through your laptop or your phone. We are granted nearly everything by our society and parents, but the one thing we have to obtain for ourselves is the correct mental attitude to appreciate it all (the accumulated achievements and struggles of our ancestors that bequeathed us such splendors of knowledge and possessions).
In some cases drugs will help chemical abnormalities that can cause depression. In a large number of cases you don't need drugs, you need a change of perspective (like the Buddhists teach themselves to do).
I'm not from the US. I don't care about who is worse, Bush or Obama. What I do care about is the US Constitution and its significance in the rest of the World. Based on this scorecard Obama is doing *very* much worse than Bush. Of course, much of the US news sources are so beholden to the political New Left point of view (this is not a crime, but one must identify and understand bias where it occurs, yes?) that most US citizens cannot see the huge damage Obama is doing to the entire global system and promotion of Enlightenment values around the World. I was pro-Obama for a long time, until I actually got past the propaganda of what he was saying and started looking at what he was *actually doing*. Obama is a far far worse President than even the fatally weak Jimmy Carter. I guess many in the US can't see it now. Hindsight will help one day.
Ah, typical liberal. You guys are all the same. If the first sentences are not sufficiently synchophantic to your uptopia then you simply switch off and reject any evidence that might actually be more truthful than your current world view.
So, apart from your opinion, can you please give me your references to show that being an NRA member increases their likelihood of committing gun-armed crime? or how about statistics that it is NRA members who make up the majority of gun-armed crimes (or even a significant minority of such crimes). You can't, can you? why is that? because the majority of gun crimes are conducted by those who use illegal weapons and do not hold a license. NRA members have legal weapons and hold licenses. Now while I live in a non-US country that has fairly restrictive gun control compared to the US we still have a lot of legal firearms held by farmers and such, I still see your argument as totally bogus and false. You are unthinkingly parroting the talking points made by those who seek to deny individuals the right to firearms, and even more importantly, the right to self-defense. I hope you instead take the time to read Thomas Sowell's cost-benefit analysis of personal firearms and think a little harder than you are doing right now.
Lol. That's one of the craziest counter-factual statements I've seen in a while. You do know that Hitler was the leader of the National *Socialist* German Workers Party. Right? You do know that Stalin was the leader of the Union of Soviet *Socialist* Republics. Right? You do know that Pol Pot and Mao were leaders of socialist governments. Right?
Now, you may argue that because they were dictators they were not "true" socialists but some definition of socialism that suits a utopian view of it. However, it can be argued that these people and their regimes were the embodiment of "true" socialism. You see, socialism is a system that seeks the collective good. Often that collective good is to the detriment of the smallest minority there is, the individual. When socialism has no other constraints it naturally turns totalitarian, because the collective is considered far more important than the individual. Socialism is not so bad for the queen of the colony, but it really really sucks to be an ordinary worker ant. Socialism is a nice idea, but human nature being what it is, it never works - and has *always* ended up worse than a competing system where individual liberty is primary (although, those individualist systems are rapidly being destroyed as power shifts from the people to their governing elites across the World - and *especially* in the US).
The second problem is the willingness of the US to lock up it's own citizens, it has the highest incarceration rate in the world, higher than China and 7X that of the EU. A very strong indication that the US is not listening to what their own research has been telling them for 40yrs.
Some of this can be attributed to socialist policies. You see, the socialists mean well but it turns out that they have the opposite of the Midas Touch. Instead of turning everything to gold their meddling turns everything to shit. Some socialism is bad, but once it starts taking over then we see the madness of 'collective good' arguments destroying individual choice and individual *responsibility*. For many decades now the socialists and their allies have been abrogating individual responsibility and replacing it with taxpayer-funded government programmes. This has engendered a dependency culture and lead to increased crime. Even now, after the horrors of Boston the socialists of the political left are still trying to find any way they can to put the blame on the US ("oh, poor Muslims, if only all the Bostonians had done then they wouldn;t have been forced by US society to perform terrorism; and other such baloney") rather than accept the reality that *mainstream* Islam teaches jihad for *all Muslim males* to wage against *all non-Muslims* and that the bombing was an act of jihad. Socialists simply cannot accept this reality - despite the bombers themselves stating that this was their aim. The same mindset leads the same socialists to excuse bad behaviour for troublemakers when they are young, which eventually leads them into incarceration. The solution is not to throw more money at the problem - it is to 'nip it in the bud'. Do the crime, do the time - no plea bargins or shennanigans. Same deal for everyone.
Yawn. Always the same boring thing with you. Insults and stating something is wrong, but never actually pointing out what you considered was wrong. Hence, I have no chance at rebutting your assertion (not that you ever provided references or anything - it is always you own opinions that must be taken at face value, without any supporting evidence).
In case the trouble was your reading comprehension I will spell out my argument for you - just to make sure we're on the same page. My statement was that the US 2nd Amendment is designed so that the citizens will have the means to resist tyrannical government. My statement pointed out that this is one of the primary motivators for the NRA. Could you please explain where you object to these statements - and a citation would be nice too, so we can see it is not just your opinion that you are trotting out.
Oops, typo, " I was once like that, but got trained as a scientist to not only not exclude counter-evidence to my existing view, but to actively seek it out."
should instead read
"I was once like that, but got trained as a scientist to not only not *include* counter-evidence to my existing view, but to actively seek it out."
As you probably know, scientists get trained to look for counter evidence. The good scientists are better at doing this (vs. a few unethical scientists that go against their training).
I glanced at your video- but seeing as it was an anti-UN video by a group called "The Jerusalem Institute of Justice", I'm going to guess that there's a rather hefty dose of bias in that video
It is a shame you flat-out refuse to look at the other point of view. I promise it is not hate speech. Yes, it is made by a group located in a particular city - although I didn't know that was a crime these days. The problem is, much of the mainstream media has pretty much aligned itself with Cultural Marxism, so will not show the whole story from the other point of view. That video I linked has historical information compacted into a brief time. So I ask that as a rational atheist (like me) you hold your nose long enough to watch it (it's short), as I believe you might learn something as to why the UN is the way it is. The video explains how a mixture of Cold War politics initiated by Cuba and OIC countries joined forces to use 'mob rule' to defeat the agenda of pro-liberty countries like the UK and US in the UN.
OIC might be, as you claim, a powerful voting block. But unless you're claiming that it includes every nation in the world bar two, then you're still barking up the wrong conspiracy theory.
I understand fully what you are saying. However it is the 'Red/Green' Alliance (leftist politicians and media) with Islamic supremacists who are currently dictating global discourse. This control means the discussion rarely considers alternate points of view.
Your earlier statement is a prime example - you are already conditioned to exclude any evidence that may be counter to your view. I was once like that, but got trained as a scientist to not only not exclude counter-evidence to my existing view, but to actively seek it out. Hence, I follow the arguments made by Islam very very closely (which is why I can see how the Islamicists are exploiting Western tolerance and slowly, slowly changing the West to fit their intended goal).
Many people are completely oblivious to the OIC. You see, the current narrative in the 'War on Terror' is that the Islamicist enemy of all Free People is Al Qaeda. It turns out Al Qaeda are a distraction. The real enemy is the OIC and their plans to slowly change the laws in the West. They have already attacked Free Speech through UN Resolution 16/18 (which Hiliary Clinton co-sponsored being the stupid and incompetant Secretary of State she was). When you first read it the resolution doesn't sound so bad, but when you think about the implications you can see that no-one who supports Free Speech and Freedom of Conscience can support it.
Anyway, Stephen Coughlin and Frank Gaffney have made many excellent videos available on YouTube for you to see. The closest racist in you will be pleased to note that Stephen Coughlin is not from Jerusalem, and in fact was a Major delivering briefings to the Pentagon (before the Muslim Brotherhood supporters in the White House had him turfed out for telling the truth about Islam). Here's a video for you to start with that explains what the OIC is doing (if you love liberty and Enlightenment values this video should be of interest): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkAZUvQAzkc
He has many other excellent videos, showing how Islamic terrorism is not caused by "extremists" (the lie our media and politicians constantly try and fool us with), but is in fact mandated by Islamic Law. His videos are excellent because they bypass the filters and spin that Western commentators project onto Islamic thinking and talk *exclusively* from what Islamic doctrine intends for Muslims to understand (note the taqiyya, kitman, muruna and tawriya lies that are given to Westerners).
I don't understand your comment about Sharia courts in the UK.
Well, under Sharia is it not true that a women is worth half a man with regard to evidence? is it not true that men can get more than an equal share of inheritan
Slashdot Mirror
Constantinople was never Roman in any meaningful sense of the term. It was ethnically Greek.
That's even more bullshit than your previously false posts. Constantinople was culturally *Roman* since its founding over Byzantium. I think it is *you* who needs to read the history of Byzantium, such as Judith Herrin's book "Byzantium" (which I have sitting besides me right now). The inhabitants considered themselves *Roman*, and called themselves Romaioi. Hell, even if you didn't do proper research (which it seems you don't) even a trivial wikipedia search would show you labour under yet another falsehood, eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Greeks
The Egyptians are another problematic one for you. Did you know that the entire reason Egypt was conquered by the Muslims was that the Greek Christians who ran the place refused to stop feeding Egyptian Christians to the Lions? This pissed the Egyptian Christians off, so they stabbed the Greeks in the back. Early on it was actually illegal to convert from one religion to the other, but eventually more fundamentalist Islamic forces took over and 250 or so years after the original conquest Egypt was majority Islamic. So you basically just proved that Islam can live in perfect harmony with Christianity.
Yeah, in *exactly* the same way that the mafia lives "in perfect harmony" with productive businesses. Islam is a vampire that requires productive hosts to carry out economic activity (as in, Christians to pay jizya). That's because Muslims cannot manage an economy - look at how the riches of Egypt have been squandered and the World is already giving it billions to feed off starvation. But of course, an Islamist like yourself don't even know the economic situation in Egypt. That's the real problem with people like you, ideology trumps looking at facts. Your analysis only goes half way, and as a result you draw false conclusions compared to if you looked at the real statistics.
By bringing it up you're actually making the argument that Islam is better for freedom of religion then secular democracy.
False (again!). There is no freedom of religion under Islam. If you don't convert you become a second class "dhimmi" and are discriminated against. You may not repair your existing houses of worship and certainly not construct news ones. You live under the "mafia" system of Islam, if you do anything to anger the Muslims (eg. look at them the wrong way) they have the right to kill you without punishment. If you are mistaken and convert to Islam you cannot later leave Islam. If you do you are an apostate and it becomes the *duty* of every other Muslim to kill you or they become apostates too. What part of this is "freedom of religion"? I cannot fathom why you would ignore this evil system and try defend it - oh, unless you are convert. That would explain your statements *completely*.
So you basically just proved that Islam can live in perfect harmony with Christianity.
What a crock of shit. Islam cannot live as equals with anyone - it is in their scriptures that they cannot tolerate being under the dominion of a non-Muslim leader, except for a temporary time. This sentence is so anti-historical it has *utterly* discredited your argument. I wish Islam was a religion of peace that it is possible to coexist with on equal terms - but *reality* shows that this is not possible - because Islamic doctrine prevents it.
You'd have been best-off going with the Persians Zoroastorian religion, which went from major world religion to minority religion believed by a couple thousand Parsis in Gujarat when they lost a war. But if you'd done that I just would have brought the many, many civilizations destroyed by Christians over the years. The Spanish alone probably destroyed more religions then all of Islam in the century or two after Columbus. We'll never kn
I'm afraid you are missing some information. Please allow me to correct you. I also hope that you won't take my statements at face value, but will go an double-check them yourself. That way not only will you confirm what I say is accurate, you'll also clear any more misunderstandings you have yourself. Hopefully you will also learn a bit about the nature of Islam (it is far far worse than appears at the surface - once you start getting into the deeper doctrines).
Before I start, please let me say I agree with you completely that fundamentalist Christian doctrine is an obstacle to progress. Denying evolution and the Big Bang is terrible. This should be fought, and I'm pleased you are against them. However, most Christians do go along with established science. It is not anti-thetical to modern Christianity to accept science (although they still still to many other superstitions and other nonsense: defying death, virgin births, vicarious redemption etc). So I hope we can agree that Christianity needs to be challenged. However, it is not an existential threat to Enlightenment Civilization in the same way the Islam is.
The reason I'm not addressing your point that more Muslims want to force conversions is that it's fantasy.
False. Please read Sura 9:29 and 9:5 of the Qur'an. All Muslims work to spread Islam in the World. They can do it through dawa (proselytization) or jihad (violent and non-violent direct action). All non-Muslims will be give the choice: convert, those of Abrahamic faiths may live as a second-class dhimmi under the Islamic politicial order (since Islam is primarily a totalitarian *political* system), or be killed (non-Abrahamic faiths and atheists like you and me). The historical example is in countries where Muslims became dominant this is exactly what happened. For example: in Egypt there are around 8 million discriminated-against Coptic Christians that the Muslims attack regularly - although mainstream news ignores this as it doesn't follow their leftist "narrative" that Muslims are always the victims; in Syria and Lebanon the Christians and also persecuted; in Iraq the Assyrians are facing extinction thanks to Muslim attacks. Think about the history, Turkey was Byzantine Roman for over a thousand years and almost nothing of the culture remains. Syria, Lebanon and Egypt all had Christian civilizations for hundreds of years and remnants of older civilizations still present until Islam came. However the advent of Islam obliterates other cultures. Once Islam is strong enough in a culture it will first dominate and then erase other cultures until no trace remains. This is the nature of the beast. That's why starting to give concessions starts a very dangerous path. Giving concession does not result in quid-pro-quo respect, all it does is create demands for more and more concessions.
Nobody has ever made a Sharia law code apply to people they agreed were not Islamic.
*Completely false*. It is surprising you have even made this claim. Islam imposed Sharia historically in many countries. The countries where it has happened most of the previous civilizations have vanished (which is why you don't seem to know about them). Please do more research.
Nobody, including Bin Laden, has ever said he wants to convert Norway to Islam with the sword. Anti-Islam activists make this shit up, say it really confidently in Youtube videos, and then you assume it's true.
False. Read Qur'an Sura 9:29 and 9:5 and all the other violent Suras in the Qur'an (there are around 109 of them). All Muslims are *commanded* to bring Islam to the entire world. They can lie about their aim (using any of the Islamic-sanctioned lying methodologies called 'taqiyya' ' kitman' 'muruna' or 'tawriya'). In short, whatever a Muslim says to a non-Muslim cannot be trusted at face-value. Now Al Qaeda believe in bringing Islam by the sword, whereas the Muslim Brotherhood believes that violence is not necessary and they can a
By your standard the entirety of the ACLU is pro-Nazi because they defended the rights of the Nazi marchers in Skokie.
Nazis were convicted as war criminals. The case is closed on them. ACLU should not protect Nazis. However I believe Skokie were "neo-Nazis". The ACLU should defend these under grounds of Free Speech. I personally *hate* neo-Nazis, but they have free speech rights and can exercise them. They as soon as they break another law (eg. violence) they should be arrested without hesitation. However, the ACLU is morally bankrupt because it protects neo-Nazis and Hamas terrorist supporting Islamists, but then fights against people like Pamela Geller who wants to protected young women from "honor killing" murders and argues to retain traditional US Constitutional liberties against the advocates of Sharia (in all its subtle forms, such as Hiliary Clinton's co-sponsoring of UN HRC 16/18; and the imposition segregation times between men and women at places like the Harvard gym etc; of the 23 legal cases where Sharia has trumped the US Constitution).
Moreover you're applying a double-standard again. Jews and Christians are also incredibly sexist.
You keep missing the point. I'll spell it out again so might finally grok it. Christians and Jews have their weird laws, but assert those laws only apply to believers. Muslims assert that their laws must apply to everyone and they are working for that end (well, surveys put around 77% of them believe this should be their goal). Furthermore, the latest survey shows 25% of Muslims (around 400 million people) support violent jihad against unbelievers. How many Christians and Jews today believe in a Crusade solely based on the will to convert others? pretty much zero, right? You are attempting to paint a 'moral equivalence' which is simply false. Stop doing that please, you are supporting the aims of the evil Islamists whenever you promote this fallacy.
I don't have to know who Sowell is to see that you aren't referencing him well.
Sorry David but your statement is rubbish. I posted a link to Sowell's article. Too bad you didn't read it (it is not that long). It is a failure in your analysis to not even read what I linked to and then claim I "aren't referencing him well". That's just silly, dude.
I don't need my own statistics to comment on the implausibility of yours (particularly since you insist that the true statistics aren't readily available, and since you make absolute claims).
Another failure in your analysis. I did not "insist" that the "true statistics aren't readily available". You are just making strawmen up in your own mind. Then you make another ridiculous statement that "you don't need statistics". Of course you do! it is the crux of my argument and if you want to defeat my argument you need to use statistics. Aside from the statistics in Sowell's article regarding the number of crimes prevented by an armed citizenry outweighing the deaths by a colossal factor of ten, when you look for cases of NRA members committing gun crimes you don't find any. Given the delight the media would have if an NRA member was convicted doesn't the absence of cases say something to you? My hypothesis is that NRA members do not form a significant fraction (as in, close to zero) of gun crime. The counter "Null" hypothesis is that that a measurable amount of gun crime is caused by NRA members. Now use Google and see how many NRA members have committed gun crimes. Given the delight which the media would erupt in if an NRA member did use their guns for crime the fact we don't get results is itself a statistic - and this rejects the Null Hypothesis (which is your hypothesis). Hence, within the bounds of statistics we can say your position is wrong. Be careful when debating scientists dude :)
Here's something you could consider reading (but I know you won't, it seems you are too academically lazy to follow references even if they are concise and handed to you on a platter): "Ten myths about gun control"
http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm
Wake up man, the "Gun Control" debate is not about guns or crime, it is about "control" (by the Government of the People). It is this aspect that the NRA (for all its flaws) has correctly identified as being the problem with the proposed legislation.
Also, lose the ranting on left-wing media. In general, conventional journalists are left-wing, mainstream media owners are right-wing, and bloggers are all over this and several other spectra. You're not going to convince anybody to the left of Fox that the mainstream media is all leftist, and again you're tempting the categorization as "right-wing nut".
Another failure of analysis on your part. The media owners are right wing (because they generally are older and have accumulated more facts in their time on Earth) and *influence* the tone of the paper, but they don't usually affect the day-to-day articles. The journalists are younger, more idealistic (rather than fact based) and are indeed left-wing. Your two big failures are: 1) assuming that these two effects cancel out (a typical 'equivalence' argument that Leftists tend to make), and 2) your failure to understand that the most significant factor in the slant of any media reporting are the views of the *editors*. The editors are generally even more left-wing than the journalists. Hence, the media is left-leaning as I said in my original statements.
Your use of labels, eg "right wing nut", also marks a failure of analysis. It allows you to justify to yourself your preference for not listen to opposition who may have facts you don't yet know. To listen to and look for facts that counter your current position is essential to The Scientific Method. This is how I came from being pro-Obama, pro-Gun control, an
An Islamic woman and her husband come before your court asking for a divorce.
Lol. You do understand that in Sharia does a women ask for divorce without the consent of her husband? There are exceptions made in some cases, but it has to be extreme beatings etc and even then it is no guarantee. A husband merely states he is divorcing his wife and it is done. Does that sound like equality between the sexes to you? this is only the tip of the iceberg of the desert barbarity called Sharia. Do you really want to be defending this evil system at all?
Do the research dude. At the moment it sounds like you don't know much about Sharia at all, and how misogynistic and against Enlightenment values it really is.
Now that you have outlined your position we are in reasonable agreement about many things. Thanks for elaborating.
I'm sorry that you disagree with me. Calling me a "closet racist" seems a bit much just for holding geopolitical views that are not the same as yours. But then that is the quality of debate that you get when you discuss Middle Eastern politics on the internet...
All I was pointing out was your statement indicated that if a video was made in Jerusalem then it couldn't contain any facts that would make it worth looking at. This is 'soft racism' and I wanted to bring your attention to it. I made the same mistake too in the past. I hope you have a think about it. Furthermore, I really really hope you take a couple of minutes to actually watch the video (please :)). I also highly recommend the following short (5 mins) video for moral people like yourself [produced in America]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63hTOaRu7h4
With regard to "extremists". The latest Pew survey that was released a few days ago show that 75% of Muslims do not believe in violent jihad. Great. Now what about the other 25% of the 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the World that do believe in violent jihad. I don't know how good your mathematics is but statistically 25% is not "extreme" in any way. It is fairly normal. Therefore, calling jihadis "extreme" is a falsehood. They represent a substantial fraction (1/4) of the Muslims in the World. If you whip out your calculator you will see that at least 400 MILLION people want to kill you or subjugate you to the Islamic political just because you are non-Muslim. See what I'm getting at here? it is a *huge* problem that the statistics make plain as day but the media and politicians don't want to address. *We* may not want to pick a fight but those 400 million jihadis (plus the non-violent financial supports from the rest of the Muslims) do. If we don't start seeing and talking about Islam as the totalitarian, theocratic, supremacist political *ideology* we are doomed. And it will be bye-bye to our tolerance and sexual equality and free speech and freedom of conscience etc etc Do you really want your country to be turned into another Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Iran? because the stated goal of Islam is *global domination* ("it is the will of Allah", after all). So please stop trying to equate Christianity and Judaism with Islam - they differ in a very fundamental way (the latter is politically active and extremely violent *today*). I get what you were trying to do in comparing them, but the reality trying to claim 'moral equivalence' between them merely diffuses the scrutiny and criticism that Islam should be put under by all moral people.
I give an F (must try harder) for your reply. if you want to reply you have to do this:
* Google who Thomas Sowell is, perhaps even read a little of his work. Then you won't be arguing from a position of ignorance.
* Find the statistics which show that rate of NRA members relative to 'non crazy' citizens. Then you will be able to debunk my assertion, if you can.
* Don't worry about me pissing off Obama supporters. There are currently whistleblower hearings on Benghazi and Obama's and Clinton's criminal negligence in the death of the Ambassador and SEALs (so far it appears only the President could have called off the 'in-extremis' special combat rescue team that was on their way to save them - and would have got there in time). There is a good chance Obama will be impeached for this (although the mainstream media are putting out all sorts of stories to deflect attention, just as they did the day after Benghazi to help the Administration out; just as even now they are trying to confuse the motivations of the Boston bombers rather than admit it was jihad in America, again [because somehow facing reality will make it more likely? wtf?]).
Thanks for your unasked for advice and the score card. Perhaps you could have researched my points (Sowell is a genius, if you've ever heard him talk about a topic) before replying (which is what I hope people would do in their anger - because they really wanted to nail me, so went and looked stuff up, and guess what? I'm not as wrong as they supposed based on their previous ignorance).
What should be the reaction to mass murdering jihadis on your soil? dialogue? paying reparations? (seen as jizya, that makes things worse not better), or perhaps Obama's strategy of apologizing for America promoting freedom then toppling friendly or neutral regimes and installing the Muslim Brotherhood in their place?
Dude, it doesn't matter what the ignorant masses under the influence of Cultural Marxism think (look for a documentary on YouTube about this before you start denying from your position of ignorance). The US won in Iraq but rather than do what it did in Germany (which created a strong ally), Obama instead pulled out without a status of forces agreement. The same will happen in Afghanistan. Obama has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and wasted the efforts of the last ten years.
Remember, in your previous post you weren't even aware of Obama's marxist party membership. Perhaps you ought to do more research - I'm trying to show you the facts the media are not telling you (because they agree with Obama's agenda).
You are aware that Obama was a "card carrying" member of the "Democratic Socialists of America" (Google it for yourself). Which is a *Marxist* organization. Of course, the President disclosed this during his candidacy, as well as his education, travel and birth records, right? of course, the mainstream media is unbiased as a "free press" and reported this fact because they
If I were you I would start thinking that lots of things are being kept from yourself by this administration (the Marxist and Muslim Brotherhood influence in the White House, the programme to neuter the Constitution through NDAA etc, the denial of jihad as a motivation of terrorism against the US, the purging of the US military officers who discuss the jihad threat, the general overspending to wreck the economy [each illegal immigrant household given amnesty will apparently cost you over half a million dollars in your tax money, are you happy to pay that?], the criminal incompetence of Obama and Clinton in the Benghazi attack that left four Americans to die when they could have been saved [and the drone circling overhead did *nothing*]).
I suggest you start listening to what Obama's opponents have to say. Some of their talk is bollox for sure, but a surprising fraction is true and you won't hear the same truths from the left-leaning mainstream press. When Obama is impeached for Benghazi based on the testimonies of those there it will be a surprise to you - the the conservatives have been piecing together the truth despite the media trying to deflect attention away from the actions of Obama and Clinton that directly lead to the deaths of the Ambassador and Seals (and the ridiculous policy of getting Muslim militias to guard the Ambassador, that is simply willful denial of reality on the Administration's part).
Thanks. I'll re-read your comment, and the Second Amendment.
What is it you have against the American way of life that you would like it overthrown in bloody revolution and replaced with something else?
Well ... you know ... I'm sure you'd be first against the wall - although I'm sure there is a long queue to be the one to do the deed. Surely that is as good a justification as any?
Go read the part of The Constitution where they limit funding of the military to a short period of time before it has to come up again.
You mean like an annual defense budget that the Congress controls and would shut down the military in very short order if approval was held up? That seems to be an effective balance between civilian control, the needs of modern forces (that require at least a decade to train effective leaders on combat aircraft and warships) and the horses-and-bayonets 'minutemen' ideals of the age of the Founding Fathers.
Yeah right, modern day Scandinavia is an impoverished hell hole, has been for decades.
Scandinavia is an interesting case. It used to be awesome but now, not so much if you follow the events happening there? for example, rape used to be virtually unknown there and has now shot up by 500% in ten years. There are parts of Sweden (eg. Malmo) and Denmark that you can no longer go safely. The reason is the same there as in the parts of France you can't go to. Free speech is suppressed, both for cartoonists and writers and for those that speak out against the *socialist* orthodox narrative. The immigration wave that promotes immigrant rights over the rights of the natives is the same in Scandinavia as in the UK (where the Britons are getting fed up, and starting to vote for parties like UKIP). This immigration wave is pushed by socialists and vociferous left-leaning academics - and once pleasant countries are being dragged down into the morass of the violent cultures of the (Muslim) immigrants came from. I'm all for ethnic diversity, I think it is great., But the socialist policy of multiculturalism (which allows non-integration) is a failure - Angela Merkel and others have admitted this. The Socialist economic policies are also utter failures - they rely on the productive (as in, capitalist) sectors of society to generate wealth for the socialists to spend. As Lady Margaret Thatcher famously put it, "Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money to spend".
I wish socialism worked, but I've been forced to conclude it doesn't work in the real world. Regulated capitalism with some socialistic aspects seems to be a far better model - and is much much better at producing innovation and progression as well as preserving individual liberties too.
Sorry, but in no way does requiring background checks equate to disarming citizens. That we don't have universal background checks is a travesty.
In my country we do have checks. Guess what, insane people still go on rampages. Criminals still use illegal weapons on defenceless citizens and the police collect the bodies afterwards. It is rare, but it does happen. The gun-free utopia people dream about doesn't happen even in my country were it is quite rare for anyone other than farmers to own small arms.
Look at the Second Amendment. Think about what its purpose is. For those that believe in the purpose of the Second Amendment would have to be crazy to hand over their details to a Federal body. Handing such details over to States is reasonable though (provided they are insulated from a Federal level search without going through the State first).
Enough with the delusions of persecution already.
Where in my post did I mention persecution? the Second Amendment is about possible Government tyranny and the Founding Fathers saw this far more clearly than you do. Your subtle but nevertheless totalitarianesque attempt to shut down those who disagree with you is ugly. Do you have a problem with the First Amendment too?
Thanks for replying Nic in a calm manner with interesting points.
1) Never under-estimate the distrust in the free market a people has when their first experience of said market was watching their relatives stripped naked and sold to a brothel because that was the only way poor Marse Johnnie could pay off his gambling debt.
Fair enough, but surely that was a century ago. Is it sensible to vote for policies that keep you fellow citizens dependent (pro-handout rather than pro-growth) because of memories of one hundred years ago? (all the while, choosing to ignore the slavery aspect of the Democratic Party from nearly the same timespan?).
I never said anything about a "rash" of terrorist incidents from the KKK/Skinheads/etc. I said there incidents.
Cool. I don't think anyone takes seriously the threat of the Far Right with regard to a global threat - they are simply too discredited these days. It is worth noting that the right (far, moderate and center) in general does seem to be having increasing support these days as Free Peoples slowly learn about the true nature of Islam, and learn that the political Left is embracing Muslims as a 'protected species' rather than standing up for Enlightenment values (which Islam is doctrinally opposed to). If the Left instead stood up for Enlightenment values they would neuter the support for the political right - but I cannot see this happening. Hence, the Left's current trajectory is leading to the erosion of liberty.
3) For an atheist you're remarkably ignorant about non-Islamic faiths.
I will confess I'm not an expert in these as I am about Islam. The reason for that is, aside from a few loons (who are not listened to by the mainstream), Judaic and Ecclesiastical Law simply have very little significance in the modern world. Futhermore, their aim is not world domination and they don't claim political supremacy over all non-believers too and other law and forms of government. Sharia does - and that is what makes it so dangerous. I urge you to watch some of Stephen Coughlin's excellent videos on YouTube (which I have linked to earlier in this thread).
4) Polls are incredibly tricky to use.
Yes, all polls contain uncertainty and caveats. However the recent global polls show a vast majority of Muslims in many different countries support the imposition of Sharia, including to non-Muslims. The results are statistically significant, consistent with previous polls and completely consistent with core Islamic doctrine. There are 57 OIC countries and a large majority of 1.5 billion people who believe that it is Allah's will that you submit to Sharia sooner-or-later, and by force if necessary. This is what the data tells us (eg, the latest Pew survey). If you have better data then I'm completely open to it (I was a research scientist, I *must* look for contradictory data as well as supporting data). Until you get better data then perhaps you'll accept that the majority of Muslims want Sharia to be 'the law of the land'.
The problem with Sharia polls specifically is they don't generally say which version of Sharia they want to implement. Sharia Family Law, for example, is so unobjectionable that it in many cases it is Unconstitutional for US Courts to not enforce it in families were everyone wants Sharia law to be used.
That is equivalent to saying, 'nerve gas is not bad for you in tiny doses' (eg. fly spray). Your statement is false for several reasons. Firstly, you already have a national law and it should apply to *everyone* and apply *equally*. Yes? With regard to the constitutionaly of Sharia in the US, well several states disagree with you. There is the ALAC (American Law for American Courts) movement which seeks to make explicit the primacy of the US Constitution. You see, activist judges in US courts have been pitting Sharia against the US Constitution and in at least 23 cases the
So, you won't answer my very simple question then?
Yes, the Republicans were anti-slavery and would be shot for their views by Democrats. Somehow modern mythology has the parties trading places. The Republicans have very many flaws, but they do generally believe either in individualism, or the right of each State to decide what it wants to do on a state-by-state basis (which unfortunately, means some states pass less liberal laws, but the important thing is each state gets to decide - not the central government).
So .... spend your effort on stopping 'bad' guys and stop chasing the lawful guys (eg. NRA). The current Administration is attacking law abiding citizens hoping it will end up stopping the bad guys. That's just ridiculous. Instead of chasing the NRA, stop making excuses for the bad guys ("Oh, he came from an underprivileged background surviving on handouts paid for by the taxes of the people he'd later rob; but it was really their fault for working harder and getting ahead and being born with pale skin so it was fair they got robbed"). Bah!
I will say this again until you start to understand. The Government is not removing firearms from law-abiding citizens because it cares about crime. It is removing them so the population cannot threaten the Government. The 2nd Amendment foresaw this. That is why the NRA is correct in their stance. The US was founded so that the Government serves the people, not the other way around. If the people want firearms, or tobacco, or big-serve softdrinks, or ice hockey, or fast cars then the Government can pass laws as long as the people consent. Clearly the people have not consented to the removal of legally purchased firearms from law-abiding citizens. The Government has *no right* to remove the firearms, and they know it too - despite the propaganda the Government puts forth. Remember, the media was stating that "90%" of people agreed with stricter gun control yet Obama could not get his bills through his *Democrat controlled* Senate. It shows how big the lies were, and how strongly even the Democrat leadership were against Obama's power grab (because that is what it was).
The guns that are a danger to the citizenry are those illegal weapons held by unlicensed criminals. How come many police officers/sheriffs have spoken *on public record* to say they would not enforce such an anti-Constitutional law even if it did pass. Law enforcement agree with personal self defense, how come?
In my country, New Zealand, your mates would tell you to go take a big glass of "Harden the Fuck Up", followed by a dozen pints of beer.
"Existential Challenge" seems to amplified as a "First World Problem". If you are busy fending for your life you have two choices - get one with it (no matter how big a bitch Mother Nature is), or lay down an die. When our ancestors lamented existence it was because their lives were "nasty, brutal and short". Now, no matter how poor you are relative to your neighbour, we *all* live in luxury that far exceeds the great emperors of old. We all have far greater health care than even recent ancestors. We have great pain relief. We get bored with hundreds of channels of entertainment, income that is actually disposable on more than sustenance-level items, and the entire accumulated knowledge of all of humanity accessible through your laptop or your phone. We are granted nearly everything by our society and parents, but the one thing we have to obtain for ourselves is the correct mental attitude to appreciate it all (the accumulated achievements and struggles of our ancestors that bequeathed us such splendors of knowledge and possessions).
In some cases drugs will help chemical abnormalities that can cause depression. In a large number of cases you don't need drugs, you need a change of perspective (like the Buddhists teach themselves to do).
I'm not from the US. I don't care about who is worse, Bush or Obama. What I do care about is the US Constitution and its significance in the rest of the World. Based on this scorecard Obama is doing *very* much worse than Bush. Of course, much of the US news sources are so beholden to the political New Left point of view (this is not a crime, but one must identify and understand bias where it occurs, yes?) that most US citizens cannot see the huge damage Obama is doing to the entire global system and promotion of Enlightenment values around the World. I was pro-Obama for a long time, until I actually got past the propaganda of what he was saying and started looking at what he was *actually doing*. Obama is a far far worse President than even the fatally weak Jimmy Carter. I guess many in the US can't see it now. Hindsight will help one day.
Ah, typical liberal. You guys are all the same. If the first sentences are not sufficiently synchophantic to your uptopia then you simply switch off and reject any evidence that might actually be more truthful than your current world view.
So, apart from your opinion, can you please give me your references to show that being an NRA member increases their likelihood of committing gun-armed crime? or how about statistics that it is NRA members who make up the majority of gun-armed crimes (or even a significant minority of such crimes). You can't, can you? why is that? because the majority of gun crimes are conducted by those who use illegal weapons and do not hold a license. NRA members have legal weapons and hold licenses. Now while I live in a non-US country that has fairly restrictive gun control compared to the US we still have a lot of legal firearms held by farmers and such, I still see your argument as totally bogus and false. You are unthinkingly parroting the talking points made by those who seek to deny individuals the right to firearms, and even more importantly, the right to self-defense. I hope you instead take the time to read Thomas Sowell's cost-benefit analysis of personal firearms and think a little harder than you are doing right now.
Neither Hitler nor Stalin were socialists
Lol. That's one of the craziest counter-factual statements I've seen in a while. You do know that Hitler was the leader of the National *Socialist* German Workers Party. Right? You do know that Stalin was the leader of the Union of Soviet *Socialist* Republics. Right? You do know that Pol Pot and Mao were leaders of socialist governments. Right?
Now, you may argue that because they were dictators they were not "true" socialists but some definition of socialism that suits a utopian view of it. However, it can be argued that these people and their regimes were the embodiment of "true" socialism. You see, socialism is a system that seeks the collective good. Often that collective good is to the detriment of the smallest minority there is, the individual. When socialism has no other constraints it naturally turns totalitarian, because the collective is considered far more important than the individual. Socialism is not so bad for the queen of the colony, but it really really sucks to be an ordinary worker ant. Socialism is a nice idea, but human nature being what it is, it never works - and has *always* ended up worse than a competing system where individual liberty is primary (although, those individualist systems are rapidly being destroyed as power shifts from the people to their governing elites across the World - and *especially* in the US).
The second problem is the willingness of the US to lock up it's own citizens, it has the highest incarceration rate in the world, higher than China and 7X that of the EU. A very strong indication that the US is not listening to what their own research has been telling them for 40yrs.
Some of this can be attributed to socialist policies. You see, the socialists mean well but it turns out that they have the opposite of the Midas Touch. Instead of turning everything to gold their meddling turns everything to shit. Some socialism is bad, but once it starts taking over then we see the madness of 'collective good' arguments destroying individual choice and individual *responsibility*. For many decades now the socialists and their allies have been abrogating individual responsibility and replacing it with taxpayer-funded government programmes. This has engendered a dependency culture and lead to increased crime. Even now, after the horrors of Boston the socialists of the political left are still trying to find any way they can to put the blame on the US ("oh, poor Muslims, if only all the Bostonians had done then they wouldn;t have been forced by US society to perform terrorism; and other such baloney") rather than accept the reality that *mainstream* Islam teaches jihad for *all Muslim males* to wage against *all non-Muslims* and that the bombing was an act of jihad. Socialists simply cannot accept this reality - despite the bombers themselves stating that this was their aim. The same mindset leads the same socialists to excuse bad behaviour for troublemakers when they are young, which eventually leads them into incarceration. The solution is not to throw more money at the problem - it is to 'nip it in the bud'. Do the crime, do the time - no plea bargins or shennanigans. Same deal for everyone.
Yawn. Always the same boring thing with you. Insults and stating something is wrong, but never actually pointing out what you considered was wrong. Hence, I have no chance at rebutting your assertion (not that you ever provided references or anything - it is always you own opinions that must be taken at face value, without any supporting evidence).
In case the trouble was your reading comprehension I will spell out my argument for you - just to make sure we're on the same page. My statement was that the US 2nd Amendment is designed so that the citizens will have the means to resist tyrannical government. My statement pointed out that this is one of the primary motivators for the NRA. Could you please explain where you object to these statements - and a citation would be nice too, so we can see it is not just your opinion that you are trotting out.
Oops, typo, " I was once like that, but got trained as a scientist to not only not exclude counter-evidence to my existing view, but to actively seek it out."
should instead read
"I was once like that, but got trained as a scientist to not only not *include* counter-evidence to my existing view, but to actively seek it out."
As you probably know, scientists get trained to look for counter evidence. The good scientists are better at doing this (vs. a few unethical scientists that go against their training).
I glanced at your video- but seeing as it was an anti-UN video by a group called "The Jerusalem Institute of Justice", I'm going to guess that there's a rather hefty dose of bias in that video
It is a shame you flat-out refuse to look at the other point of view. I promise it is not hate speech. Yes, it is made by a group located in a particular city - although I didn't know that was a crime these days. The problem is, much of the mainstream media has pretty much aligned itself with Cultural Marxism, so will not show the whole story from the other point of view. That video I linked has historical information compacted into a brief time. So I ask that as a rational atheist (like me) you hold your nose long enough to watch it (it's short), as I believe you might learn something as to why the UN is the way it is. The video explains how a mixture of Cold War politics initiated by Cuba and OIC countries joined forces to use 'mob rule' to defeat the agenda of pro-liberty countries like the UK and US in the UN.
OIC might be, as you claim, a powerful voting block. But unless you're claiming that it includes every nation in the world bar two, then you're still barking up the wrong conspiracy theory.
I understand fully what you are saying. However it is the 'Red/Green' Alliance (leftist politicians and media) with Islamic supremacists who are currently dictating global discourse. This control means the discussion rarely considers alternate points of view. Your earlier statement is a prime example - you are already conditioned to exclude any evidence that may be counter to your view. I was once like that, but got trained as a scientist to not only not exclude counter-evidence to my existing view, but to actively seek it out. Hence, I follow the arguments made by Islam very very closely (which is why I can see how the Islamicists are exploiting Western tolerance and slowly, slowly changing the West to fit their intended goal).
Many people are completely oblivious to the OIC. You see, the current narrative in the 'War on Terror' is that the Islamicist enemy of all Free People is Al Qaeda. It turns out Al Qaeda are a distraction. The real enemy is the OIC and their plans to slowly change the laws in the West. They have already attacked Free Speech through UN Resolution 16/18 (which Hiliary Clinton co-sponsored being the stupid and incompetant Secretary of State she was). When you first read it the resolution doesn't sound so bad, but when you think about the implications you can see that no-one who supports Free Speech and Freedom of Conscience can support it.
Anyway, Stephen Coughlin and Frank Gaffney have made many excellent videos available on YouTube for you to see. The closest racist in you will be pleased to note that Stephen Coughlin is not from Jerusalem, and in fact was a Major delivering briefings to the Pentagon (before the Muslim Brotherhood supporters in the White House had him turfed out for telling the truth about Islam). Here's a video for you to start with that explains what the OIC is doing (if you love liberty and Enlightenment values this video should be of interest):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkAZUvQAzkc
He has many other excellent videos, showing how Islamic terrorism is not caused by "extremists" (the lie our media and politicians constantly try and fool us with), but is in fact mandated by Islamic Law. His videos are excellent because they bypass the filters and spin that Western commentators project onto Islamic thinking and talk *exclusively* from what Islamic doctrine intends for Muslims to understand (note the taqiyya, kitman, muruna and tawriya lies that are given to Westerners).
I don't understand your comment about Sharia courts in the UK.
Well, under Sharia is it not true that a women is worth half a man with regard to evidence? is it not true that men can get more than an equal share of inheritan