Spiffeh
-
Posts
77 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Spiffeh
-
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates
Reason enough to stop the death penalty.
-
Also the "we have to understand what's upsetting them" mentality that most liberals (or media) will take (and not just on Islam). "We can't blame the individual, they were a product of society," blah blah blah.
Why can't we look at the reasons they're angry? Constant US support for Israel while Palestine lives in poverty. If I was someone who felt that land was stolen, I'd be pretty mad about it too. I'd be pretty mad if the US overthrew my democratically elected president in 1953 and installed a shah that better fit their interests. I don't get why understanding why someone is angry is a bad thing.
It's funny, because they'll go on and on about "Islam is the victim", or blame the west for upsetting them, but they'll refuse to call terrorism for what it is. A good example would be the Fort Hood shooting - this happened Nov. 6th last year, and the first time the White House publicly called it an act of terrorism was Jan 15th this year, but the person that did it asked to remain anonymous.
I mean, of course the White House doesn't want to admit terrorism happened under it's watch, hah.
It isn't exclusive to Islam though, its the mainstream media against "right-wing nut jobs." When Scott Roeder murdered George Tiller, members of the media made a frenzy about it and wanted to know if Billy O'Reilly had incited the violence because of a few comments he'd made previously.
When James Lee took the Discovery Channel Headquarters hostage, I don't remember any in the mainstream media asking if Al Gore incited the violence due to his comments about civil unrest.
Do you think Scott Roeder should be considered a terrorist?
And I doubt Fox News passed on the chance to tie Al Gore to James Lee, haha
mentions An Inconvenient Truth. I've never seen the movie, so can't really comment on particular things.
"O'Reilly began his jihad against Tiller back in 2005 and, according to Salon, Tiller's been mentioned on 28 separate occasions on his show. In addition to dubbing him "Tiller the Baby-Killer," O'Reilly has referred to Tiller's clinic as a "death mill" and called his work "Nazi stuff" for which he has "blood on his hands.""
hmm
-
Oh, also the Eiffel tower has been recently evacuated due to a bomb threat. I wonder who called it in? :rolleyes:
I too enjoy jumping to conclusions.
Come out and say it already hahah, you just want everyone to agree with you that muslims are savages, right?
Pretty sure it was a tea-partier that was pissed off about health care.
No, but I do enjoy lefties trying to make up excuses for everything Radical Islam does.
On an *unrelated note*, there was a stat about how many "right wingers" committed terrorist acts in the past year, how many "left wingers", etc. for quite a few categories. Turns out that the person in that last year that was most likely to commit terrorism was the radical left; although I think the number was higher because of Greece.
I have no idea who called in the threat, neither do you, and it would be irresponsible to blame any group or certain type of person with no evidence.
What do "lefties" defend radicals on? I'm honestly interested what you think about this.
Nobody supports radical islamic violence.
Does someone having a different opinion than you on an issue like Israel = defending terrorists?
On an *unrelated note*, there was an article about people thinking Obama is a secret muslim. Turns out that a lot more republicans think he is, and I wouldn't at all be surprised if that's tied into the color of his skin. This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, and I'm not going to cite any sources.
-
Oh, also the Eiffel tower has been recently evacuated due to a bomb threat. I wonder who called it in? :rolleyes:
I too enjoy jumping to conclusions.
Come out and say it already hahah, you just want everyone to agree with you that muslims are savages, right?
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/13/kashmir-protesters-killed-quran-row
Indian forces killed 13 protesters and wounded scores of others today in confrontations across Kashmir fueled in part by a report that a Qur'an was desecrated in the United States, a police official said.
...
Despite a rigid curfew across the region, tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets, throwing rocks, torching government buildings and chanting, "Go India, go back. We want freedom."
http://www.news24.com/World/News/2-dead-in-Afghan-Quran-burning-riot-20100912
Kabul - Two protesters died and four were injured as Afghans protested for a third day on Sunday against a plan by an American pastor to burn copies of the Islamic holy book, despite his decision to call off the action.
So, Pastor doesn't burn the Qu'ran, but people rioted anyway (fueled by false reports?) There were probably more articles/riots, but too lazy to look for them (these were top 2 results). I understand the areas in question aren't as stable as other areas in the world, but really?
Not sure if I know of anything in recent memory when Christians rioted over something that offended them (Say, bible burning?)
If you know of anything (or care to look) please let me know.
Soo do you want us all to say "muslims are savages" or something?
-
You're the one who cited ACLU's website as "non-biased proof."
Soo do you think the ACLU is lying on their website?
I mean, there's links with details of each case, do you dismiss those?
Standing up for a "lesser" (fewer members, not as well known) religion (over extremely trivial issues) while impeding on a heavily practiced religion sure is standing up for religious freedom amirite?
The ACLU of Louisiana (2009) argued in favor of the right of Christian preachers..
The ACLU of Louisiana (2009) filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Donald Leger, a devout Catholic and prisoner..
The ACLU of Texas (2009) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of a Christian pastor..
The ACLU of the National Capital Area (2009) brought suit on behalf of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish firefighters..
The ACLU and the ACLU of New Jersey (2008) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a New Jersey prisoner, an ordained Pentecostal minister, seeking to restore his fundamental right to preach to other inmates..
The ACLU of Maryland (2008) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Christian ministry for the homeless..
The ACLU of Louisiana (2008) filed a brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit supporting an individuals right to quote Bible verses on public streets in Zachary, Louisiana..
The ACLU of Florida (2007) argued in favor of the right of Christians to protest against a gay pride event held in the City of St. Petersburg..
christian, christian, christian, did you look at the list?
also, hahahah at "lesser religion"
-
Does it make you a sympathizer of terrorism to point out that America's foreign policy is coming back to bite them in the ass? If so, count me as a terrorist sympathizer, too. As a matter of fact, you might as well count Britain's intelligence agency and the Pentagon terrorist sympathizers, too. It's people who refuse to acknowledge our foreign policy blunders who are too proud and ignorant who want to start a war of cultures, and you're falling right into al Qaeda's hands.
That almost starts to border on oversimplification. Yes, it is the foreign policy coming back to bite us in the ass, but that isn't nearly the only reason, nor does it absolve guilt from any other party involved.
Right, I agree, and that pretty much lines up with Rauf's so called controversial statement, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."
-
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, radical Islam sympathizer
Rauf wrote three books on Islam and its place in contemporary Western society, including What's Right with Islam, which was later printed in paperback with the changed title What's Right with Islam is What's Right with America.
Rauf worked to build bridges between American society, the American Muslim community and the wider Muslim world. In 1997, he founded the American Society for Muslim Advancement (originally named the American Sufi Muslim Association[9]), a civil society organization aimed at promoting positive engagement between American society and American Muslims.
In 2003, Rauf founded the Cordoba Initiative, another registered nonprofit organization with offices in both New York and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. As CEO of Cordoba Initiative, Rauf coordinates projects that emphasize the bonds that connect the Muslim world and the West.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feisal_Abdul_Rauf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/ground-zero-imam-helped-f_n_685071.html
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/ground-zero-imam-starts-us-paid-middle-east-tour/19601656
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/ground_zero_mosque_imam_feisal.html
http://intoxination.net/jamie/imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-was-bush-partner-middle-east-peace
radical, eh?
-
I have. Now you read in between the lines - I was pointing out the strawman you're making.
Dusty never said bigotry was alright. He's just saying if you're going to threaten to murder somebody over your religion, it's acceptable to get angry about it. It isn't the "muslim" aspect that set people off (therefore no racism or bigotry) - it's the fact that they threatened to kill someone. Would it be racist to oppose a black organization that robbed banks?
I see it as he's downplaying the bigotry of the people in the magekillr's video by saying "hey look some muslims are bad too".
I guess it matters who he's talking about that was doing the protesting, I read it as muslims protesting.
which is why to me it seemed like he was saying "oh these people were bigots, well uh look over here, muslims can be bigots too"
and it seems most protests in Denmark related to the cartoon were those by people against the cartoons, not people protesting against those who were threatening the artists.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSsFmISwXDEM&refer=europe
-
So very clever, I guess bigotry is okay in your book then.
I guess killing artists is okay in your book then. :roll:
Read my very next sentence where I say the muslims were bigoted and stupid.
-
Oh, at first I thought that was that protest in Denmark about some cartoon where they threatened to kill the artists. OWAIT.
:grin:
So very clever, I guess bigotry is okay in your book then.
"a group of muslims was bigoted and stupid, this gives others the right to be bigots"
edit: Im probably putting words in your mouth, so sorry for that.
but pointing out bigotry from one group shouldn't downplay it from another.
-
Crazy group of people who perverted a religion destroy buildings.
Guy who is a very moderate muslim, speaks out against anti-american sentiment, says terrorism is un-islamic, and who's stated goal is to improve relations between the west and the muslim world wants to build a community center two blocks away from said ruins.
Imam Rauf has nothing to do with the extremists who did 9/11, all muslims are not responsible for the acts of a few.
-
I think its insensitive there is plenty of real estate why not build it somewhere else? I'm not going to compare this to something else because in all reality if the majority of american's dislike the idea then 9 years hasn't been enough time for 9/11 to be out of peoples minds.
But these people have done nothing wrong. They arent responsible for the actions of 19 people who happen to be the same religion as them.
-
But would anyone complain if a church tried to build over the site of an abortion center Christians blew up
2 blocks away.
There are over 1.5 billion muslims in the world, there were 19 hijackers.
People who are building this community center have absolutely nothing to do with terrorists, and have every right to build it where ever they want.
-
I personally think a community center wouldn't even be a good idea to put there, i think something more fitting to what happened there should be built.
It's two blocks away.
As I understand it they originally wanted to call it the Cordoba House. Cordoba was a(possibly the first?) city conquered by Moorish invaders of Spain. Call it coincidence if you like but i don't believe in coincidences like that.
Imam Rauf, the guy who's building this community center, actually worked during the Bush administration, going to the middle east and speaking out against anti-american sentiment. He's seen as a very moderate muslim. Do you think he has some master plan to conquer the United States or something? also this is just a talking point made up by Newt Gingrich
-
I thought it was just about "teh marriage is sacred!"? The right wing religious zealots reveal their true colors any chance that they get, and soon they won't be able to hide behind the religious refuge anymore:
Hawaii's governor vetoed legislation Tuesday that would have permitted same-sex civil unions, ending weeks of speculation about what she would do with the contentious, emotionally charged issue.Republican Gov. Linda Lingle acted on the last day she had to sign the bill, veto the bill or allow it to become law without her signature. The Legislature had approved it in late April.
"There has not been a bill I have contemplated more or an issue I have thought more deeply about during my eight years as governor than House Bill 444 and the institution of marriage," Lingle said at a news conference. "I have been open and consistent in my opposition to same-sex marriage, and find that House Bill 444 is essentially same-sex marriage by another name."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0707-hawaii-veto-20100707,0,3449228.story
Thats ridiculous. The bill was about civil unions, not even marriage.
A lot of the problem with same sex marriage is calling it marriage,
but I guess Gov. Linda Lingle just doesnt want gay people to have equal rights.
-
You're going round in circles now..
Give me proof that gay parents = more gay children
and proof that this will eventually lead to the extinction of the human race.
Jeeze drop it already!
Skully has already made clear this is a hypothetical POSSIBLITY that cannot be proved.
Equally you cannot disproved it.
We've covered all the current facts and figures that suggest it wouldn't happen, but its not totally impossible or disproven.
It's just boring now.
Hah sorry.
Id just like him to back up his opinions with facts.
He can say "gay parents = more gay children" as an opinion and hypothetical possibility, but cant just run with this idea and act like it justifies all hes saying. Because of this hypothetical possibility, does he reject the idea of gay people being allowed to adopt? Thats where I see it going. if not, then uhh, thanks for the hypothetical possibility that may, but probably wont, raise its head in something like the year 2780.
-
You're going round in circles now..
Give me proof that gay parents = more gay children
and proof that this will eventually lead to the extinction of the human race.
-
Because if it happened so far that gays outpopulated straight people, the human race is [bleep]ed and will slowly decrease. I also already explained this if you care to read. <_<
But you've presented no evidence other than your opinion that that'll happen.
You rationalize that seeing gay affection will cause kids to become gay, but ignore seeing straight affection also "causes" gay children.
a study determined that around 8.8 million people in the united states are homosexual.
if each got in a pair together (wouldnt happen, some people never become partners with others), 4.4 million pairs.
okay, and then each pair adopted two children (wouldnt happen, not everyone adopts, and maybe would only adopt 1)
and 50% of those children become gay. (pure speculation)
4.4 million new gay children. + the 5 million gay children from straight people, 9.4 million new gay people.
meanwhile, straight people continue to have mostly straight children, around 9/10.
lets say theres only 50 million straight people.
and they all make pairs, 25 million straight couples.
and they all have 2 kids, 90% of those kids being straight.
45 million new straight children.
obviously not all straight people have children, and obviously not all gay people adopt.
the gay population is a lot smaller than the straight population, you have no evidence of how gay parents affect the sexuality of their kids, something like 9/10 of all children born are straight.
-
Stop trying to be a smartass, I already explained that i'm not talking about current times, but when gay marriage and adoption becomes mainstream. I don't know who you are or where you randomly popped up from but if you took the time to read the past 2 or 3 pages or so, you'll see i've been making my point the whole way through.
I understand what youre saying, but what is your point.
gay parents having gay kids, why is there a problem with this?
everything youre saying is speculation, and i understand the logic behind it, but Why Does It Matter?
The human population wont die out because of more gay kids.
-
Is this directed at me? Because at this moment in time I don't think it is a choice, I was trying to say that I believed that if or when gay marriage and adoption became big, it would get into a nature vs nurture thing, with more gay kids due to them growing up around gay carers. I think that's kind of hard to say is 'wrong'.
Okay, now I understand your point. :thumbup: That's an opinion I can disagree with, since it's just subjective speculation. But unless you can back it up with strong facts, it must not be the base for legislation, which was the original topic.
Alright then, imagine there are an equal amount of gay families as straight ones. That one gay family decides to adopt a kid, that kid then lives and grows up seeing those two guys affection etc. He grows up thinking it is normal, or the 'right' thing to do, so he follows the path. He never has second thoughts about it even if he sees straight couples, because that is how he grew up so therefore that must be correct.
Kid grows up with straight parents, sees their straight affection, becomes gay, etc..
im sure it works in the opposite direction. i have no idea about the percentages and everything, i dont really care.
Okay, well whats the point youre trying to make?
-
Do you have proof that your opinion of challenging 'bigotted' opinions can lead to a better environment?
Maybe you'll see my point now.
We should let bigotted ideas go unchecked and unchallenged?
Guy : "Gays dont deserve to be treated the same as straight people"
Other guy : "Oh, I respect your opinion, but politely disagree"
Have that on cable news channels, it gets into peoples heads that its okay, perpetuates the problem.
People can have opinions, but when they start oppressing other people because of those opinions, no.
-
How many of you have 100% proven fact behind your arguments then may I ask?
Dont need a study to tell me I shouldnt hate people for what they do in their own private lives. :thumbup:
-
Sure, but gay kids from straight parents are a minority, at least around here anyway.
and gay kids coming from gay parents are a majority?
do you have any proof to back that up?
and does it even matter? no.
Please Lock.
in Off-Topic
Posted
Why would you have a less intensive process when someone's life is on the line? On top of that, taking away any chance of appeal, you're out for blood haha. You seem to assume if someone is on trial for murder, they're automatically guilty. Like I posted on the last page, innocent people can fall victim to the justice system.
Uhm, really? How about if new evidence comes out proving their innocence?