RackJR

So rather than ask a question, you label me a pacifist. You still haven't asked anything, you just continue to label. You replied with anger to a simple statement that the US shares responsibility for the current situation we find ourselves in. You generalize about Arabs. You don't respond to direct questions, and you twist the statements of others so that you can dismiss what is actually said. I ignore nothing that I've said. The US does share responsibility for our current state of middle east affairs, including this misguided war. I never said it was possible to wage any war without innocents being killed, and even added that any war fought in the US would claim the lives of innocent people who do not share the same ideals as those in power. The 9/11 attacks are a perfect example of that scenario. When I asked you to provide the quote where I did state that, you quoted yourself. You failed to reply to anything about your feelings about US responsibility. Your anger toward my original post seems extremist, as I feel only an extremist would claim any situation is black and white. This was my statement of how you were presenting yourself. How have you twisted this to be what I feel? Again, you ignore answering anything about what responsibility you feel the US has. So, again I will say the same thing: I can only assume that you feel the US is 100% in the right, the "Arabs" are 100% in the wrong. That's extremist. Exactly the same as them, just in a different religious package. Only extremists view the world in such simple terms. I guess compared to you, most people are pacifists, huh? If I don't advocate wiping out the same people you want to wipe out, then I must be a pacifist. It's how you can dismiss every single thing that anyone says who disagrees with you. I have no problem with the statement that radical elements within Islam are a threat to the free world, and the US in particular. I think that radical elements within any religious group are a threat to the free world, including Jews. However, since we're talking about Islam: It is an issue we must deal with. Laying down all our arms and defenses would be silly. About as silly as thinking that invading their country, and risking killing innocent people, isn't going to make the problem bigger. Our long term peace will not be accomplished at gunpoint. It will begin with an acceptance of past mistakes, and a sincere effort to avoid them in the future. It will continue with trying to rebuild our standing with those people. We will not win back all of them. Extremists on both sides are probably a lost cause. Maybe we can stick all of you in the same place, and see what happens. Maybe your idea of fighting the enemy would change if the US military wasn't doing the fighting, and you had to do it yourself? It's interesting to me that you went on such a tirade to point out how much the Jews want peace, and all you can talk about is wiping these people out. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Absolutely not. I like being alive. I think if people in the US could just read some history from that region, from a few different sources/perspectives, it might make the process from here forward more palatable for the nation. I doubt that's going to happen. I am encouraged by our CIC, who seems to be approaching the situation with sensibility. Or at least a lot more sensibility than the last 8 years. We cannot mend those relationships quickly or easily. Do you think our long term safety is better served with a gun, or diplomacy? Right now I think we need a healthy dose of both. In the long term, I'd like to feel safe because we've tried to mend relationships, and stopped shitting on those who possess the things we want. The guns, clearly, cannot cover all the gaps. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

I really don't know the answer to this question but.... jcalor are you the kind of person who would like to amend the 2nd amendment because the founding fathers weren't talking about assault rifles? Would you favor changing that amendment in the direction of greater control over the right to bear ams because we have lots of problems in the US with gun crime? I know it's a drift, but hopefully not far. If you would indulge me and explain your answer a little that would be great, especially if your answer is no. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

And don't forget to label me a pacifist.... for the 4th time. At least that will make you consistent. Maybe if you keep saying it, people will believe it. Seems to be your MO. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

yawn. Can't put what I say in quotes, because it won't fit your argument? So you just keep twisting it up? Please quote from one of my posts where I said this. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

We share responsibility for a lot of reasons, none of which I have outlined, at all. If you're going to assert that I said something, put it in quotes, and STOP TWISTING WHAT I SAY. When I was talking about innocents being killed because of their proximity to the perps of 9/11, it was in response to you saying that Arabs were not innocent victims. Jesus is this really how you carry on a conversation? Twist what other people say to fit it into whatever passes for your paradigm? Use your own words, stop twisting mine. I can't believe you're going this crazy over the implication that the US shares responsibility for our current situation. I guess you don't want to answer any of the other questions? Nope, I sure don't. But after talking with you, you sound like the same kind of problem in a different package. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Do you want to be held accountable for every single thing that the US government does, because you were born there? I didn't vote for GW, I think he's an idiot, and I'm glad that people don't hold me accountable for some of the insane choices he made. All I'm saying is that I'm thankful the people I've met here have shown themselves to be a lot more open minded then you are showing yourself to be. What I wonder is how you take me saying that the US shares responsibility and twist it into me blaming America. You clearly have no problem continuing to do it. I can only guess then that you feel the US has absolutely no responsibility for anything that's going on. We are actually the victims in all this. Every one of our bullets finds the proper target. Every bomb finds Al Qaeda. Every action we have taken in the middle east has been completely laudable and good. We have done absolutely no wrong. Is this the position you defend? Don't twist any more of my words. Use your own. Nope. Really hard for you to say SOME Arabs, huh? I imagine that the Arabs who advocate genocide of the US employ a very similar, if not identical speech. Remind me again, what separates you from them? You should understand that I and others recognize zealots for what they really are, no matter which side they're on. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

So if I say that the US shares responsibility, you will change my intent to it being that I've blamed America? That isn't what I said, although you seem very willing to change what is said to fit what you think. You did it in the last response as well. Is this the method you employ, to marginalize (in your mind) those who disagree with your viewpoints? The US shares responsibility for the situation we currently find ourselves in. A lot of innocent people have been killed, a lot of people suffering, because they are living in proximity to the extremists who carried out 9/11. The same way that any war fought on US soil will claim the lives of people who do not fully agree with what some portion of the country has chosen to do. It is a cycle of violence which we share responsibility for. It has to stop. You seem to want to lay all the responsibility on them. To me that seems like a very narrow viewpoint. Which explains the emotion. Boy, you really like to twist the words of others, huh? Could you use a quote from anything that I have written anywhere where I called the Arabs victims? Are you really that fired up about me saying the US shares responsibility? However, since I don't discuss politics with people here, unless they bring it up, they wouldn't really know, would they? They're still pretty friendly. Perhaps because they are open minded enough that they don't pretend I am to blame for everything the leaders of my country have done. Maybe they know better than to claim that Americans advocate genocide, because a few within the US advocate genocide. Clearly what you want people to recognize. I think it's great that you say Arab Leadership in one sentence, then go on to say that Arabs advocate genocide. Hopefully you'll take this as a lesson learned, that I'm living among Arabs every day, and I'm still breathing. Clearly, in spite of what you'd like people to recognize, Arabs do not advocate genocide. Some Americans advocate genocide of (take your pick, Asians, Blacks, Browns, Jews, Catholics, etc.) Some Arabs advocate genocide of (Americans, Jews, other Arabs who don't agree with them, etc.). My first post on this thread was about someone, in the good ole USA, advocated rounding up those people in one place, to wipe them out. Sounds like you're all for it. Remind me again, what separates you from them? Lemme guess.... you're right and your fight is the good fight? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

It's interesting that the mere mention of the fact that the US shares responsibility for the current state of affairs in the middle east will get this kind of response. Do you only read conservative news, or watch conservative news shows, for your idea of what's gone on in the world? Maybe because it's still going on? It's not the past for them. It's happening now. Can we make the discussion a little wider? This is an entirely different topic. The past has not shown Jews living in peace with their neighbors, nor does it currently, if you are talking about Isreal. Start another thread if you want to continue this one. I live in the middle east. What's your perspective? How many Arabs do you talk to? I live and work with Arabs every day. They don't hate me, or us, or the US. It's irresponsible to make those kinds of generalizations. I didn't say anything about the US needing to feel guilty. I said we should acknowledge that we share responsibility for the current situation. I suggested that it is a mindset that will help us move forward in a way that doesn't include genocide. Clearly, that got an emotional response from you. Are you suggesting that genocide is, in fact, the answer? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

How many laws were written legitimately, only to be used in the real world in less than legitimate fashion? We don't live in a utopia where every LEO upholds the letter and spirit of every law written. To assume that this law will be upheld that way is naive. davjohns, please take this as a sincere question, that I honestly do not know the answer to. If an illegal immigrant is stopped for no other reason that that he/she is brown, and found to be illegal, what is the process like? How will this person find the courts? Will they be given a public defender? Will their case go before a judge? Will there be an inquiry into the possibility the law was abused, BEFORE they are deported? What would be done with this person, even if the officer was found to have acted outside the parameters of this law? I live overseas, most of what I know about this law I've read on this forum. I have not seen answers to these questions. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

What if the end of that is "the fact that we want the black shit that's under the ground where they are, we want it cheap, and we want it on our terms." ? Do they have the right to kill us, to end the spread of our taint? Do we threaten their peaceful existence? Or a more realistic question, have we been threatening their peaceful existence for a long time? I just don't think it's as simple as it's being painted here. These people didn't always hate us. We've earned their enmity. Does that make their actions right? I don't think so. But our plan has to include acknowledging that we've put ourselves into this mess, and more killing is probably not going to help. I think your simple plan only works if you look at things on a very short timeline. Extend it further, and it gets very complex (at least using the example of the middle east). If someone has done you wrong, don't they share in the burden of rebuilding? If you find an example that is as simple as your first statement, I would agree with you. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Not that simple. Is it all our fault? No. Do we share responsibility for how those people feel about us? Absolutely. Any research you do into our influence/actions in the middle east from circa 1904 on will lead you to the inevitable conclusion that we do not hold the moral high ground. Do we deserve what we get? No more or less than they do. All he can do is try to set us on the road to recovering from our mistakes of the past. No one can attempt to hold him responsible for a century-worth of ill will, and I hope your comment is at least partly tongue-in-cheek. At some point, if we are ever to find a real solution that doesn't include genocide, someone is going to have to change our direction. Or would you venture that we are better served by never ending war? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

So, would your position be that you (or our government) feel(s) exactly the same as the MSA student, albeit about a different set of folks? Except that the MSA student apparently has the balls to state it publicly? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

John, Could you also start a poll regarding the feeling of those who have served, about those who have not? Are the people who have not served somehow less patriotic than those who do? Do those of the service despise or respect those who have not served? would the answers be any different? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

You don't see the irony here? Is wal-mart breaking the law somehow? Or, are they using the system to their advantage? Did you break the law, or use the system to your advantage? You condemn them for the exact same moral flexibility that you employ here. How do you see them as an evil corporation, but yourself as an honest and moral individual? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Isn't it always? Maybe it's just my bed that squeaks??? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Certainly, the church has tried long and hard to dictate what is acceptable. Who are you to say? Or the church? Or anyone other than the people directly involved? If they are not hurting others, why do christians seem to care so much? If your god is omnipotent and omniscient, why do you spend so much time on this earth bleating about something that you believe he will take care of anyway? I can only say what is acceptable for me. Homosexual behavior is something I'm not interested in, it's just not how I'm wired. If that's how you're wired (general "you"), great. Be happy. Don't hurt others, but otherwise, enjoy life. Ron wants to keep calling it a choice, so he can continue to see them as different from him, and then easy to marginalize. Since I have little else to do while at work, I'll take every opportunity to point out the simple failings of his logic. In this case, calling it a choice is ridiculous. He didn't choose to be straight, but contends that homosexuals are choosing their sexuality, and in that choice, choosing to sin. They aren't choosing any more than he is, he just needs an excuse to keep spewing this bile. If you want to evolve that use of the word "choice" into "acceptable behavior", that's fine. You define what's acceptable, and I'll do my best to tell you why it's bullshit. Unless your idea of acceptable christian behavior stops with "love others", in which case, BRAVO... Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Excellent. So, if Rekers had sex with his wife, that act made their marriage "intimately secure"? Thanks for once again avoiding direct questions. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Right you are, Ron. He chose to be a hypocrite. He chose to condemn others for what they are naturally, in spite of the fact that he was just like them, naturally. He chose to live his life as a lie, attempting to repress the way he was born. And he chose it all because he was brainwashed with your book. Because of that brainwashing, seems like he made a bunch of bad choices. Perhaps now that his private life is no longer private, he'll be able to live with himself the way he really is, and maybe find some real happiness. Perhaps he'll choose to accept himself just as he is. You really believe that if he had the ability to choose who he was attracted to, he would choose men? Especially considering how many people are just like you, people who label his attraction as a "choice", so they can condemn and expel him? Tell us again, when you "chose" to be attracted to women? The date, or year, or period of your life when you made that "choice"? Hey, at least you didn't scream out "they don't deserve special treatment". Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Where are the bible thumpers in this thread, condemning that dog to eternal suffering? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

I just watched "Religulous" yesterday. There's a segment that touches on this. Does god hate homosexuals Ron? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

-billvon -maadmax Your statement (maadmax) makes absolutely no sense to me. Can you expand it a little bit please? How is Bill saying science has failed? What is the construct, and how is he saying he has placed his trust about salvation in it? Wouldn't his post need to include something about science failing, and trusting a construct to provide for his salvation, for you to represent his post as saying that? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

No problem there. You have only to read a few of his posts, or even the one he started with in this thread, to get his context. While claiming that he uses the term because he's not willing to be PC, that is completely disingenuous. His usage is derogatory. Read a few of his posts. Seething with intolerance and hatred. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

I guess you didn't feel like addressing the rest. So we'll talk about your current post. I shudder to think of any homosexual unlucky enough to have you as their counselor. Since you don't really elaborate what you think their problem is, I'll take a guess. Their sexual orientation causes problems within their family, and those relationships suffer. You want to label that as their problem. If their families are not willing to accept them as they are, much like you, then the relationship will suffer. Does the black family cast out it's son for being black? Did your family cast you out for being the color you are? You see Ron, even though you don't say it, you're still implying that they are choosing this life. They aren't abusing a substance. They're gay. That's just the way they are. If their family will not accept them, and the relationship suffers, what are they to do? They can't stop being gay. I would argue that if their parents/siblings cannot accept them, that is their problem, and not the gay person. Jeez, you mean, things change? Wow that's a mind blowing idea. We're not still living in the 70's? Or the 50's? Is slavery still ok? Is prohibition still going on? You're stuck, huh? Can't seem to come to grips with the fact that homosexuality is not a condition? Doctors took it out of their reference book, but you just can't seem to agree. You know better than the doctors, thanks to a book written by goat herders. Your adherence to that ancient text means that you have to keep calling it a condition. I mean, if it wasn't a condition, that would mean that god actually created these people this way intentionally. Your kind of thinking seems common, a cliche. You've become the old guy who can't get new ideas through his head, and get stuck in the past. You think because something was acceptable in the 70's, you'll just go right on using it no matter what goes on around you. Inflexible and righteous. What a frightening combination. Ahhh, the 2000 year old book, and your honest reminder of the source of your intolerance. That jack-in-the-box analogy was pretty spot on, huh? You just have a couple different quotes you can blurt out. Back on the "choice" for the end of this post huh? If you call it a choice you can call it sin. Tell me again how a homosexuals sexuality is so much different than yours, given your admission that you had nothing to do with choosing it? And if you're going to just regurgitate the same argument, could you at least answer the questions already posed? Men wrote the bible. They included those passages about homosexuality because homosexuals were around back then too. They made it a sin punishable by death, in an attempt to make it go away. It didn't work. People your age tried all kinds of things to make them go away. Violence, threats, jail, intimidation, counseling, treatment, discrimination. It hasn't worked. At some time in your life, you obviously accepted that you were no longer going to change. You've thought enough about it, no one can force you to keep an open mind, and now you'll just cling to your dogma and pretend the world has not moved forward without you. I'm guessing your knee jerk reaction is going to include saying that god wrote the bible. Maybe after that, you can address the end of my last post? Your mental gymnastics required to see the order by god to burn a child in offering as metaphorical. While you're at it, maybe go back and address some of the other issues that you skipped, so it doesn't look like you're avoiding the things you don't have an answer for. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

How noble. But seriously, that's it? Well then, let me spend some time on your post, wonderful in its' brevity. I assume nothing. Your original post in this thread included your typical use of the word "queer". You and I have already had this talk, but just to refresh your memory, I'll remind you that the dictionary definition of queer, as it refers to homosexuals, notes that it's usage is disparaging and offensive. The fact that you continue to use it, knowing it is offensive and disparaging, sounds hateful. Is it ok to use the word "nigger" to describe black people? No. It is disparaging and offensive, and I think most black people would call that hateful. How about calling Mexicans "spics"? Calling Jews "kikes"? Do you use all these words too? You went on to describe their "choice" as ridiculous and stupid. Yep. Sounds like you're just brimming with christian love. You didn't use the word queer here. Maybe it was too much hypocrisy for even you, to deny hating them while simultaneously calling them queer. Of this I have no doubt. Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. -Coretta Scott King On the advice of your sig line, I checked out "My Utmost for His Highest". Interestingly, today the quotation is about abraham taking his son up the mount and burning him as an offering to god. Takes some serious mental gymnastics to see this in a metaphorical way, doesn't it? Too bad you can't employ the same gymnastics in your interpretation of all the crap about homosexuals. Lucky for you, you guys get to be really flexible with your decisions on when the bible is the literal word of god, and when it's open to interpretation. But you don't hate them, right? Say what you mean. Do what you say.