Expert: U.S. democracy at risk

To quote a famous man, "I'm shocked, SHOCKED!" that so many Americans are turned off by the preening pea-brained peacocks who run for office.

"...voters who are turned off by both major parties are leaving them in a significant exodus.

Meanwhile, many other citizens just aren't voting at all..."

And that's because:

"...they find little to choose from between Republicans and Democrats and see the entire exercise as one in futility."

Fie upon the Republicrats.

We need new parties, kids.

Democracy is only at risk if we allow it to happen. If the congress is allowed to stagnate and Bush is not challenged for his wrong-doing, democracy is most certainly at risk. The third party in Congress must be voted out; the party of corruption. We the people must take back our government before it's too late. The weak sheep that follow because it is easier than leading have got to go! Bush and his dictatorial regime style leadership need a new direction. Democrats must do what the dictator is asking his followers to do - get out the vote - then get out and vote! 95% Democrat turn out this election! I miss America - don't you?

I find the tile of this thread pretty ironic. I mean, hasn't our democracy been in peril ever since W literally "took" the office? And with the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, we said goodbye to habeas corpus and hello to classified evidence. Goodbye right to counsel, hello indefinite detention. We now have, legally, less of a democracy than many countries who followed our example.

I suppose that our democracy being at risk because of voter apathy is a different story altogether, and that could cause a major problem no matter who is in office.

But one also has to conclude W's polarization and buffoon-ness has contributed to the "rising tide" that seems to be drowning what's left of our democracy from within via fear from without.

If the dems take office, the best thing they can do is to figure out Iraq while simultaneously impeaching Bush, Cheney, and the entire cabinet for high crimes and misdemeanors, like lying to get us to war, which no one can deny that they did. It's true. They lied, and our soldiers died.

That would communicate to the world, and especially certain terrorists, that America is done screwing around, that we realize, as a people, that our leaders erred in our name and against our will, and that now we will try to clean things up and make it right.

In all of the time that I've been posting here, the theme that I return to again and again is that our democracy is in serious trouble, that we effectively live in a one party state.

That thesis has disturbed a few posters who desperately want to preserve and defend the moldy status quo. They sputter hysterically, spew small minded insults and make pathetic attempts at humor -- but never, ever refute.

Given that, if they had so much as a single rational atom in their being they would stop and think that maybe it's possible that I'm right.

Does the voting public realize the importance of this election? I do, and I hope the other voters in this country understand that this a an election that may very well define the survival of our democracy. Every vote cast that gives the Bush regime control, will be a vote against liberty, freedom, and the American way of life. This administration has past laws that are against the Constitutional authority of our democracy, they have installed supreme power to the DOD that is headed by Rumsfeld, consolidated absolute powers to the executive branch headed by Cheney, and kept any dissenting views from reaching the floor of Congress headed by Hastert. If the Republican Party maintains control of Congress, they now have the authority to declare martial law and completely take over the country, and eliminate citizens rights to vote them out of power.

If the dems take office, the best thing they can do is to figure out Iraq while simultaneously impeaching Bush, Cheney, and the entire cabinet for high crimes and misdemeanors, like lying to get us to war, which no one can deny that they did. It's true. They lied, and our soldiers died.
Posted by: Rob Norris | Nov 3, 2006 10:05:47 AM

H J RES 114 (2002) authorized the Presidient to use force against Iraq. It was signed by a lot of Democrats and specifically mentions AlQaieda in Iraq and WMD. Try reading it.

Then you can impeach the Dems that voted for it before they voted against it

Donald R,

I agree but the bottom line is: How do you get Democrats out to vote who dont already?
The Repubs have church rosters and Uncle Rove's mighty database of sheep, but how does the average Dem get other Dems to vote who may not have, either uninformed or just plain lazy.

Repubs who arent paying attention get told what to do at church. Even though there are Dems at churches as well, its a Republican playhouse- GAYS!GAYS!Sanctity of Marriage!GAYS!TERROR!

So what to do as a Dem? I want more turnout but what to do?

It was signed by a lot of Democrats and specifically mentions AlQaieda in Iraq and WMD. Try reading it.

But Stan....you forgot one "main" ingredient..
The "spin" on the intelligence presented by Bush and Cheney.

erick,

Unfortunately, apathy wins elections, a lot.

We're not a Democracy, never have been and probably never will be. We're a Republic. Did nobody stay awake in civic class?
We're a "representative" government, one person represents us, by, districts, state, whatever.

That's why we have politicians that spend more time trying to make themseleves look good and little time actually doing the business of governing our country.

Our "representatives" appear to being a pretty good job of representing us. Name me one politican, now in office, that anyone would be consider a great thinker?

The reason they're childish, protectorate finger pointers is because that's what the electorate, led by blogger and talking heads, have become.

We don't need new "parties" we need an informed, rational, and involved electorate that knows how to hold our "representatives" responsible for their actions and in-actions.

Never to late to take a civic class.

Stan,

Before you start your petty talking points parade, why don't you respond to my last post in the Kerry gives dems a halloween trick thread?

You definitely cut and ran from that one, proving that you most likely are a troll whose only purpose for being in this forum is to try and draw someone into an argument with you so you can feel like you're in control. You seem like the kind of person who, as a child, probably rode around on your bike and yelled at the bigger kids, antagonizing them until they chased you, but you had your bike to get away on. Must have made you feel powerful, just like your anatagonistic, completely thoughtless comments in this forum that allows you to hide in safe anonymity, without fear of even being chased, let alone caught and wedgied.

Do you and John D have like, troll practice together, or is trolling more of a universal and all trolls are basically the same?

And again you display your selective comprehension. Yes, many democrats voted for the war, because at the time, there was evidence the administration was pushing that was accepted as credible. It turned out that not only was the evidence not credible, it took a huge coordinated effort on the part of the administration to make it appear credible while suppressing and attacking criticism of it. See the example of Joe Wilson.

So Stan, is your argument that Iraq is as much a fault of the dems as it is the repubs? If it is, you could only have arrived at that conclusion by ignoring everything since "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" landed on the aircraft carrier, codpiece and all.

The problem with the war is that since then, it has been about as bad as a nation-building enterprise can be. Or wait, is it a freedom-spreading enterprise? WMD search? Regime change? Crusade? And all that failure lies squarely on the heads of the Republican controlled congress that did not provide oversight but instead rubber-stamped everything that came their way, depending on what Bush wanted (we should actually be saying "what Cheney wanted"), not the democrats who were lied to about the justification for the war, or attacked for opposing it to begin with.

It's time we all called the fiasco in Iraq what it is: A campaign to secure the strategic oil reserves in US hands. If we wanted Iraq to be a democracy and that was priority 1, the country wouldn't be about to collapse completely.

Hey Juanito, we need NO parties, not new ones.

There are such things as "objective facts" that are not subject to the opinions and biases of certain people. The things that are actual issues that Americans care about are largely defined by objective facts, but the two party system seems designed to obfuscate the objectivity of any given issue, while the right throws in a little religion just to make everything a little more chaotic.

How it should be:

There should be no more parties. Keep everything else the same, just eliminate the parties, and eliminate ALL lobbies. Eliminate campaign contributions. Eliminate "National Committees." They all just make things worse. Everyone gets the same amount of money to run their campaign. Campaigns will be decided on who is the best interpreter of the objective facts of the issues, and each voter will be asked to vote not for who they like based on their smile or their hair or those pearly whites, but who they think, objectively, has won the debates. Anyone running negative ads should be fined. Anyone who is found to have lied during a campaign (or otherwise, for that matter) should be fined or kicked off the ticket.

As long as the two party system persists, we're never going to get out of this hole we're in, unless the Greens can somehow become a bonafide and electorially viable party. Any takers?

As far as more turnout for the Dems, Erick, the only way to accomplish that would be to get as dirty as the republicans, but that would probably just backfire.

You're right about churches though. The repubs have been using them for decades as political propaganda outles, with mass each sunday, for some priests and preachers, being like rallies for the RNC. That influence is almost impossible to combat. That influence needs to be removed too.

The lines between church and state need to be drastically redrawn, less we have another civil war on our hands in the next decade. Anyone else see that coming? If there's any issue that can cause it, its religion.

Frito,
You are wrong again,and your guy Ralph Nader will never be the President.

Erick, I think Bush and his pals are doing wonders for Democratic voter turnout. I won't be surprised if we have a record turnout for an off year election. I know most of my family and friends are more involved and motivated this year than they have been in the past.

I'm sure your local candidate would welcome your help with their Get-Out-The-Vote effort if you have time and want to help out.

stan, Don't you ever post facts like that on the swamp,how dare you! Do you want these nuts to get a brain cramp by finding out the truth!
And that dastardly President Bush forcing North Korea back to the six party talks with sanctions,instead of sending Jimmy Carter!
Wow!!!.....start impeaching!
Paulo

One would hope, in our democracy (what's left of it), that everyone who want's to vote will be able to on Tuesday. But we all know that likely Dem voters will have to overcome the "sixth man", the Repulican vote suppression machine:rigged data bases, understaffing minority polling districts, extraordinary I.D. requirements, the list goes on. It won't be enough. The greedy, corrupt, GOP (grand old pediphiles) are going down!, and the lame duck Bush won't have anywhere to hide.

I think we should stop looking at the contest between Repubs and Dems as a football game. We should be looking at the individual candidates, what they stand for, what they'll do in office, etc. Their party affiliation shouldn't automatically make them partisans, like "either you're with us or against us". That's silly and moronic. Differences in political parties are over ideas about what's best for society, not about winning a prize and walking away with it.

Oversight of Iraq reconstruction projects is about to come to an end.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6114132.stm

This is great news for people that want the U.S government to vaporize another twenty billion or so of taxpayer dollars on Iraq "reconstruction" projects.
Now, who might those people be?
Hmmm.

This being a Frank James article, the usual laughers are present.

Error of context--if Mr. James did 5 minutes internet research, he'd find that Mr. Gans has been writing on this theme for many years. This report and the opinions expressed therein are nothing new. Mr. Gans often uses apocalyptic imagery in his reports, probably because such doom-and-gloom is what mediocre newspaper writers are looking for.

Second, all this talk about "Democracy being threatened" because of people not voting runs absolutely counter to the actual results of the 2004 election, in which total voter turnout was at an all time high, and considerably above the 2000 levels.

Mr. Gans poses two contradictory "polities"--voter interest increasing, voter interest decreasing-- convenient in that no matter which way the election turns, he can claim it matched his "polity". Its sorta like predicting that this Sunday the Bears will either win--or lose. Intellectually, it's worthless, and it is thus a fit and proper candidate to be publicized in "The Swamp".

stan,

Yes some dems voted for the war based on evidence at the time that was put forth and "confirmed" as credible. Al Qaida in Iraq? Yeah, they weren't there. WMD? Didn't find any. The evidence? False. People who tried to point that out when it was happening? Attacked and discredited. See the example of Joe Wilson, whose wife was illegally outed as a CIA agent by members of the administration.

So they were for the war when it seemed legitimate that Iraq posed a nuclear threat, as anyone would be, but against it when it was discovered that the threat did not exist. It was clear that the war was wrong to begin with at that point, that we invaded a sovereign nation that posed no real threat to us, and now we're still there and it hasn't gotten better, only worse.

So is your argument, Stan, that the mess in Iraq is as much the dems fault as it is the republicans? If so, in order for you to reach that conclusion, you would have to ignore everything that was allowed to happened by the Republican controlled congress since we invaded. Like Iraq being a bloody mess, for example. You would also have to ignore the fact that the "intelligence" were lies. Throw in record setting indictment numbers for GOP congress and the picture becomes clear.

The GOP is more corrupt than ever, and they're allowing W unilateral executive power, for the first time in our country's history. Doesn't that bother you? It really drills down to this: If your values are in line with the Constitution and restoring it's power and the checks on executive power, you will vote democratic. If you like the fact that Bush can detain anyone he wants with secret evidence for any length of time, including you, then vote GOP. All the other issues, gay marriage, flag burning, Foleygate, the MJ Fox flap, even immigration, are not as important as those two conflicting eventualities of which party has control of congress after the election. But make no mistake, supporting Bush is by definition un-American, because he stands for things that are opposed to the Constitution of the United States.

p.s. why did you cut and run from responding to me in the Kerry thread?

Another "blow" to the GOP's claims to fame that it's the party of "family values," "respect for the military" and the advocation of sodomy laws!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/11/rnc_accepts_mon.html

I can't even believe this actually happened. The irony is thicker than Hastert's wrist fat.

Way to go RNC!!! At this rate, the Republican party will be dissolved in disgrace by 2008! Here's hoping...

WAKE UP AMERICA!!! If you vote REPUBLICAN then you are voting for a desecration, dismantling, and destruction of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, Separation of Powers, and our Democracy. The REPUBLICANS have had unfettered, unaccountable, and unprecedented power for 5 years and have systematically de-frauded the Congress, the United States of America and its citizens, and the Whole World while simultaneously & secretly re-writing the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and Separation of Powers. Without those 4 sacred legal documents that were created by the founding fathers to establish & protect individual liberty and our democracy you have "NO INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM" and we have "NO DEMOCRACY". I can assure you if you vote 100% NEO-CON REPUBLICAN your individual liberties & democracy will continue to be secretly stolen from, you will never know "THE TRUTH", and one morning you will wake up with NO CONSTITUTION, NO BILL OF RIGHTS, NO DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, AND NO SEPARATION OF POWERS. Do you really think a bunch of bandits in the desert are so much of a threat you should give up your freedoms & our democracy??? IF YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR FREEDOMS AND OUR DEMOCRACY THEN YOU MUST VOTE 100% DEMOCRATIC TO REVERSE THE "SECRET HIDDEN NEO-CON AGENDA" AND SHINE THE LIGHT OF TRUTH ON THEIR DARK DECEPTIONS. GOOD LUCK AND MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA ONCE AGAIN!!!

John E,

What a sad little creature you are. Is there so much as ONE original thought rattling around in your skull? You can't even come up with an original nickname -- "Frito" is the Loon's latest attempt at wit.

"Hey Juanito, we need NO parties, not new ones."

That's unlikely to ever happen, Rob Norris. People will always coalesce into groups to promote a social common agenda. And even if that were a bad idea, how can we possibly prevent the formation of parties? To enforce your idea you would need a strong autoritrian government which would require a single... oops!... political party.

I am mystified at the polls saying some races are a dead heat. Apparently there are a still a significant number of Americans wanting to vote for more Americans to be killed in Iraq. That's what voting Republican means to me.

Before you start your petty talking points parade, why don't you respond to my last post in the Kerry gives dems a halloween trick thread?

You definitely cut and ran from that one, proving that you most likely are a troll
Posted by: Rob Norris

I responded 36 hours ago Rob, check it out. Actually I encourage everyone to check it out. I found your reference material. A white supremacist website that had a news story that was a copy of your original post almost word for word. Check out my response and try to explain your sources. Like I said before, you and your kind are a shining example of the Democratic party.

Here is part of my response to you:

Rob, or should I say Der Führer,
I’ll respond to your rantings in order.

1. Actually I found a news source that sounds a lot like your original post. It’s a news story entitled “US Army to Recruit Mental Defectives”. It’s on a White Supremacist web site called NATIONAL VANGUARD. Google the title and tell me what other “news” organizations pop up. Explain that Adolf.

It was signed by a lot of Democrats and specifically mentions AlQaieda in Iraq and WMD. Try reading it.

But Stan....you forgot one "main" ingredient..
The "spin" on the intelligence presented by Bush and Cheney.
Posted by: bill r. | Nov 3, 2006 11:44:20 AM

The CIA, NSA, DIA, .... All presented the same intelligence for the President and members of congress. If a Democratic congressman read the intel reports, came to the conclusion that there were no WMD in Iraq, why would they sign a resolution authorizing force that mentioned WMD?

Are you saying they didn't understand what they were reading and the President had to explain it to them?

The President that you libs think is such an idiot fooled all those smart Democrats?

...You seem like the kind of person who, as a child, probably rode around on your bike and yelled at the bigger kids, antagonizing them until they chased you, but you had your bike to get away on. Must have made you feel powerful, just like your anatagonistic, completely thoughtless comments in this forum that allows you to hide in safe anonymity, without fear of even being chased, let alone caught and wedgied.
Posted by: Rob Norris

I guess I hit a nerve. My power doesn't come from my bike (even though it is a big shiney one), it comes from knowing and spreading the truth about someone like you who has to quote a neo-nazi website to make your point. I'm not trying to antagonize you, I'm trying to show everyone what kind of person you are. I put out a post and you, through your own words, do the rest.

The REPUBLICANS have had unfettered, unaccountable, and unprecedented power for 5 years and have systematically de-frauded the Congress, the United States of America and its citizens, and the Whole World while simultaneously & secretly re-writing the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and Separation of Powers.
Posted by: Todd Restelli

It must not be a very good secret if you know about it.

When the rewritten documents are finished, can you send me a copy?

stan, run your sorry but back to the kerry thread and take your medicine. As for the trash you post here, what can I say?

You found the white supremacist site, not me. I used the term mentally defective only to refer to people who can't tell right from wrong. Under the new standards for recruitment, people are being let in with criminal records. Some of these people can't really tell "right" from "wrong." that's why you have recruits, like the ones on trial now, who go into a house in Iraq, rape a girl, murder her and her family, and then try to burn the house down to cover up their crime. That's the example i'm referring to. But you put words in my mouth and say i'm a nazi who hates our troops.

So now you've moved from "troll" down to "agitator for the neo-nazi movement." Congratulations.

And your responses about the WMD intelligence are nothing short of complete idiocy. Keep it up, soon everyone here will know how much of a worthless waste of time it is to read your posts.

juanito-

How do you come to the conclusion that the no party system would necessitate a single party? Clearly, the idea of a no party system would need people to ABANDON ALL PARTY AFFILIATION and focus on what is good for the country, a singular PURPOSE, not a singular PARTY. It would require people abandon their religious superstitions, at least with respect to how the figure into government. It would require putting special interests secondary to the national purpose. All people in government would be debating not based on party affiliation, but based on what is demonstrably true or not true.

HUGE DIFFERENCE.

My idea wouldn't need to be "enforced," as you feebly claim. It would simply require that people take a leap forward in their understanding of human coexistence, one that should be based on reason, not religion and fear. On cooperation instead of petty partisanship.

But, I guess as long as there's people like stan around, that's unlikely to ever happen. You're in that respect.

Rob,

Sounds good, I guess... but HOW do you make that happen without enforcing it? Just because you claim that my question is "feeble" doesn't make it so.

What is feeble, though, is your trying to skirt my question.

"You found the white supremacist site, not me."

You original post was almost word for word from the neo-nazi website. If you didn’t get your information from the National Vanguard, then I apologize. You didn’t plagiarize a white supremacist website; you just came to the exact same conclusion and used the same exact words they did. Great minds think alike I guess. Thanks for clearing that up.

"So now you've moved from "troll" down to "agitator for the neo-nazi movement." Congratulations."

Don't thank me, it's my pleasure to spread your word, mein Furhur.

"And your responses about the WMD intelligence are nothing short of complete idiocy."

What's idiotic is for people to sign a resolution based on intelligence data they don't 'believe' or understand.

The intel was there. It was wrong, President Bush didn't collect the intelligence, analyze the intelligence, or disseminate the intelligence. But it was the basis for a House resolution authorizing force.

And as for you being a military midshipman hero, check out my response to that on the other thread.

But, I guess as long as there's people like stan around, that's unlikely to ever happen....
Posted by: Rob Norris | Nov 4, 2006 12:15:44 PM

That's me, the bane of civilized society

"What's idiotic is for people to sign a resolution based on intelligence data they don't 'believe' or understand."

Simpleton stan strikes AGAIN!!!! AMAZING!!!

See stan, the reason why I know you're an idiot is because you're in denial of the fact that the intelligence was fabricated. There never were any nukes in Iraq. Saddam just had the gas we knew he had since the 80's (hell, Rumsfeld sold it to him back then while Cheney was pulling for more executive power), and we knew darn well that there was no way Saddam could have used that gas against American soil.

And Juanito, if people could come to accept the truth of that process, it wouldn't need to be enforced. And how did I skirt your question? I think I addressed it directly. You said it would require a "ONE" party system. You clearly don't understand what "party" means if that's your contention.

And you defend Bush, so why should anyone pay attention to your feeble criticisms anyway? That would be like taking advice about living from your executioner. Wouldn't make sense.

Anyway, you obviously missed the part in my post that said :

"It would require people abandon their religious superstitions, at least with respect to how they figure into government. It would require putting special interests secondary to the national purpose. All people in government would be debating not based on party affiliation, but based on what is demonstrably true or not true."

If people are against that, then they would have the opportunity to voice their opposition. Their claim would be subject to a reasonable debate. If their claim stands up to reason, it would be included. If not, it would be excluded.

The only enforcement you would need for this system is reason itself.

And stan, you give yourself to much credit. You're not the bane of civilized society. You're just a brainless, petty partisan hack, more like the gum stuck on civilized society's shoe than the bane of its existence. It's clear for your posts that you're here to vent your hate, not to discuss what is or is not true or what is or is not good for America.

Simply put, you are a hater, and its in the "National Interest" to ignore you.

Stan, Juanito, and any other Bush supporter, the twisted, cenobyte controlled reality you exist in is about to come down like a house of cards. Read it, and weep, torture lovers:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061120/brechersmith

You will be allowed one chance to apologize.

stan, this one's for you, ya thoughtless hawk!

note: stan, paulo, and jaunito- you'll need a spoonful of sugar to make this one go down.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612

stan, john d, juanito and paulo, please don't hurt yourselves. Especially you stan, since it speaks to precisely what I was talking about with you.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/print?id=2626032

Rob,

“See stan, the reason why I know you're an idiot is because you're in denial of the fact that the intelligence was fabricated.”

Who fabricated the intel Rob. Did President Bush fabricate the intel when President Clinton said there were WMD in Iraq (Before Bush was even in the White House)

President Clinton said this on Dec 16 1998 when he ordered a strike on Iraq:

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.-- Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years-- He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.-- So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people—

“and we knew darn well that there was no way Saddam could have used that gas against American soil.”

President Clinton said Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world. Rob, American soil is in/on the world. Get a map, check it out.

Look what President Clinton said in the last line I quoted. President Clinton wanted to pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

“And stan, you give yourself to much credit. You're not the bane of civilized society. You're just a brainless, petty partisan hack, more like the gum stuck on civilized society's shoe than the bane of its existence. It's clear for your posts that you're here to vent your hate, not to discuss what is or is not true or what is or is not good for America.
Simply put, you are a hater, and its in the "National Interest" to ignore you.”

Then ignore me Rob. Ignore the facts. Be ignorant.

hey stan-

I've never seen a Bush defender quote Clinton in support of an argument. That is a first, I think, in the history of the world. Too bad you made history sounding like a jacka$$.

uhh, stan? 1998 does not = 2003. Clinton called out Saddam and had the UN on top of him. His strategy was being implemented, Saddam was contained. Ask your idol Richard Perle. When we invaded, Bush lied and said that the inspectors weren't given access.

Fact is, Saddam did not have the WMDs when we invaded. An invasion was not necessary, but the neo-cons had Bush's ear, and regime change and cha-ching oil reserves were priority. Read the news. Now all the neo-cons are running from Bush like a kid from an m-80 he just lit, streaking for cover. They're blaming the administration for complete and unprecedented incompetence. Your FURHER Richard Perle said if it were up to him, HE WOULDN"T HAVE INVADED!!!!!! Their whole ship is going down and, my look how the rats do run.

The "yellowcake" intelligence was a sham. it was fabricated by the administration and used as a cudgel to beat democrats into authorizing use of force.

You're wrong, just admit it. Or don't admit it, just wallow in your wrongness and make the mud thicker by continuing to defend yourself.

You see, it's like you're in quicksand. The harder you struggle, the deeper you sink, and in the bottom of the pit you're in is the inevitability of your wrong-ness.

Anything you say from this point on is like spitting into the wind. You don't have a leg to stand on, like the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail.

What are you going to do, bleed on me?

Rob Norris,

Yours is an utterly unreasonable proposition. People are going to coalesce into groups to promote their agendas whether you think doing so is good idea or not. You simply can't mount a reasoned argument in favor of an utterly unreasonable idea, and so of course you haven't.

So top skirting the question: Since your position is unreasonable and antidemocratic significant numbers of people can never be convinced it is right, therefore HOW ELSE do you eliminate political parties if not by force?

And here's another question: even if it were actually true that I defend Bush, how would doing so preclude anybody from from paying attention to reasonable critique? Arguments stand or fall on their own merits (By the way, in case you haven't figured it out, yours fell.)

Third question: since you can't respond coherently to something as simple and straightforward as the first question, aren't you the feeble minded one one?

You will be allowed one chance to apologize.

Posted by: Rob Norris | Nov 4, 2006 6:12:23 PM

Rob,

One chance? So now you are regulating my freedom of speech? Are you sure you're not a Republican?

I don't need your permission to respond as many times as I want.

Rob,
“I've never seen a Bush defender quote Clinton in support of an argument. That is a first, I think, in the history of the world. Too bad you made history sounding like a jacka$$.”

Believe it or not, I’m a Republican that likes President Clinton. I didn’t agree with everything he said and did. I don’t agree with President Bush on everything he says or does either. If quoting the facts makes me a jacka$$...... (BTW I agreed with President Clinton when he struck Iraq because the UN was getting nowhere. And he had the balls to go into Kosovo and stop the slaughter when the polls were against it.)

"uhh, stan? 1998 does not = 2003. Clinton called out Saddam and had the UN on top of him. His strategy was being implemented, Saddam was contained. Ask your idol Richard Perle. When we invaded, Bush lied and said that the inspectors weren't given access."

If the UN had been on top of Saddam in 1998, President Clinton wouldn't have bombed Iraq over WMD. The UN was too busy lining the pockets of it ‘Iraq watchers’ during the oil-for-food scandal. Saddam wasn’t allowing the inspectors to do their job as was spelled out in a cease fire the Iraqis signed after the 1st Gulf War. People in the Clinton administration (not the neo-cons, because they weren’t in power yet) believed Saddam was trying to hide something. The UN said the inspectors were being hampered by Saddam -- not then Gov Bush.

“The "yellowcake" intelligence was a sham. it was fabricated by the administration and used as a cudgel to beat democrats into authorizing use of force.”

--Now turn to the front page of the June 28 Financial Times for a report from the paper's national security correspondent--He describes a strong consensus among European intelligence services that between 1999 and 2001 Niger was engaged in illicit negotiations over the export of its "yellow cake" uranium ore with North Korea, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and China. The British intelligence report on this matter, once cited by President Bush, has never been disowned or withdrawn by its authors.—

President Bush, as far I know, cited the intel. He didn’t produce (fabricate) it. President Bush wasn’t in one of the European intelligence services fabricating false intelligence to fool the Democrats. The time period cited in the report included dates when Mr Bush was still Governor of TX.

Maybe Governor Bush was really a British secret agent like James Bond, That would explain everything.

President Bush, or anyone else, would have wrong to ignore the intel at the time. The European intel services reported (and may still believe) Niger was trying to sell nuclear material. Those are the facts.

And now for the rest of your post:

“You're wrong, just admit it. Or don't admit it, just wallow in your wrongness and make the mud thicker by continuing to defend yourself.
You see, it's like you're in quicksand. The harder you struggle, the deeper you sink, and in the bottom of the pit you're in is the inevitability of your wrong-ness.
Anything you say from this point on is like spitting into the wind. You don't have a leg to stand on, like the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail.
What are you going to do, bleed on me?”

Very intelligent come back, you are quite the witty one Rob.

"Yours is an utterly unreasonable proposition. People are going to coalesce into groups to promote their agendas whether you think doing so is good idea or not. You simply can't mount a reasoned argument in favor of an utterly unreasonable idea, and so of course you haven't."

"sounds good Rob..." -juanito

I don't know, you seemed to like it at first...

"People are going to coalesce into groups to promote their agendas..."

Is that your own empirical observation? Can you demonstrate that people will "coalesce" into groups even if they're offered an alternative to "groupthink?" And what in that premise dictates that people forming groups need to be at odds with each other? I'm just concerned about politicial PARTIES, juanito, not "groups."

Your criticism is shallow. Put some more thought into it next time. You pat yourself on the back because you claim to dismiss my argument with a hackish rhetorical "proof" that only proves you don't understand the argument to begin with. And using words like "utterly" in that context just make you sound like you're desperate.

The idea itself is not "unreasonable" because of your unfounded claim that people will form groups no matter what. Sure, people can form groups, but they don't necessarily need to oppose each other. I think you'll find that, if you think about it, most conflict has its source in those things I mentioned earlier that people would need to move on from.

You're just not comprehending the idea, juanito. I think you need some philosophy to really understand the nuances of it. It's not a black-and-white concept, like you seem to think.

And Rob, your denial is the deepest I've seen yet in these forums. You and John D should start a "neo-con supporters anonymous" chapter, it'll really help you get through these tough times ahead. But back to denial. If you think the "yellowcake" was legitimate from the word go, then you just aren't fully informed. You probably have heard the criticisms of the yellowcake intel, but you can dismiss them because you have faith in Bush, and you don't think that shady things happen at that level of politics, or something. You definitely have some kind of block in your brain that prevents you from seeing what's right in front of your face, and that block is most likely sourced by faith. That is, "belief without reason," and you have no reason to trust BushCo in anything they do. They have proven that.

ANd Juanito, yes, arguments stand and fall on their own merits. That's the basis for my idea of no-party government. But you do defend Bush, you do it all the time. And one who defends Bush is objectively wrong, because Bush is indefensible. That is not a matter of opinion. If you're fully informed, it's an objective fact. So I question the capacity of a person to actually be reasonable when they spend their time in these forums defending Bush. So really, you aren't "qualified" to judge what is or isn't reasonable.

I suggest both you and Stan go get some more information, for your own edification.

And Stan,

Very intelligent come back, you are quite the witty one Rob.

Posted by: Stan | Nov 5, 2006 8:25:54 AM

What I wrote with the Monty Python wasn't a "comeback," it was the original jab. So that above from you is the comeback, and what a pitiful one it is.

And Stan,

Very intelligent come back, you are quite the witty one Rob.

Posted by: Stan | Nov 5, 2006 8:25:54 AM

What I wrote with the Monty Python wasn't a "comeback," it was the original jab. So that above from you is the comeback, and what a pitiful one it is.

Posted by: Rob Norris

OUCH! An 'original' jab. You are too smart for me.

Try to stick to the facts and answer the questions. Quit trying to be cute by quoting old movies.

Your knowledge of Monty Python is impeccable. Your knowledge of the issues I raised is lacking.

Rob,

For all of your sputtering, you have still not answered the very simple straighforward question.

I just don't know what else to say. I guess I'm just not the subtle, philosophical type like you and Mussolini.

PS: You, of all people, sound extremely foolish calling somebody else "desperate"!

Rob,

Oh, by the way, faith is not "belief without reason" as you put it in your last babbling screed. It is rather belief in that which can not be proven. That's not the same thing at all. Faith can be -- and more to the point should be -- based upon reason.

Einstein intuited Relativity without proof. Would you call him unreasonable?

If you hope to try to impress people that you're a deep and subtle thinker (and frankly I think you should give up on that) you should try to get some of these basics nailed down first.

Now that I'm thinking about it, yeah you probably do call Einstein unreasonable.

Ciao, Benito.

"I think you'll find that, if you think about it, most conflict has its source in those things I mentioned earlier that people would need to move on from."

"It would require people abandon their religious superstitions"

"If people are against that, then they would have the opportunity to voice their opposition. Their claim would be subject to a reasonable debate. If their claim stands up to reason, it would be included. If not, it would be excluded."
Posted by: Rob Norris | Nov 5, 2006 10:42:43 AM

We could ban religion and allow only those who agree with Rob to speak and be heard.

That is a brilliant defense of the constiution Rob.

The communists already tried this and it worked out so well for them.

Stan,

It worked real great for the Nazis too!

Rob,

Please, PLEASE give me one chance to apologize, though!

Again, stan with the selective comprehension. Did I say ban all religion? No. I'm just advocating removing religion from politics completely, as in, re-enforcing the separation of church and state. I'm not sure stan, but I think that's already in the constitution. Maybe you can let us know since you're the constitutional scholar.

What's sad is that, based on your comments (stan and juanito) you don't have a clue what I'm talking about and are just attacking. You've managed to somehow call communism a "reason based" system of government by likening it with the idea I propose. Nice logical gymnastics.

Hey stan, can you put your premises behind your head, or are you not that flexible?

"Oh, by the way, faith is not "belief without reason" as you put it in your last babbling screed. It is rather belief in that which can not be proven. That's not the same thing at all. Faith can be -- and more to the point should be --based upon reason."

"Einstein intuited Relativity without proof. Would you call him unreasonable?"

-juanito

The idea that Einstein's intuiting of relativity has anything to do with faith is ridiculous. Is your argument that since he intuited relativity and then he was proven right, that your intuition of God will also be proven right? Or that the intuition of God is somehow the same as his intuition of relativity?

You're pathetically trying to co-opt the scientific credibility of Einstein's theory by likening it to the intuiting of the existence of God. Einstein had concrete, observable reasons for his suspicions about the nature of time and space. There are absolutely no concrete, observable reasons that would lead one to suspect that God exists just as it says he does in the religious texts, whichever ones you choose.

Further, believing in something that cannot be proven is by definition UNREASONABLE. You can't squirm your way out of conceding that faith is irrational by definition, whether you phrase it as "belief without reason" or "belief in that which cannot be proven." The only reason to believe a premise is if it holds up to critical analysis, ie IT CAN BE PROVEN.

Wow, juanito. Now we know that you have no basis for judging what is or is not reasonable. You think faith is somehow a reasonable pursuit.

Hey, i'm intuiting that the world is actually carried around space on the back of a gigantic invisible tortoise. You can't disprove it, so I guess it's about as true as the God idea.

But anyway, why don't you give me just one example where it is reasonable to believe the truth of a premise that is impossible to prove. And don't take the "well, nothing's REALLY provable for sure" road. That's a copout. To the extent that things are provable, give one example where it is reasonable to believe the truth of a premise that cannot be proven.

I can't wait for this one.

"HOW ELSE do you eliminate political parties if not by force?"

I take it that was your simple, straightforward question, juanito? The one you claim I haven't answered?

I answered it immediately, but somehow it escaped you. Maybe it's because you're just reading my posts looking for something to attack and missed it? Here it is again, clearly marked so that you'll be sure to see it this time:

Is that your own empirical observation? Can you demonstrate that people will "coalesce" into groups even if they're offered an alternative to "groupthink?" And what in that premise dictates that people forming groups need to be at odds with each other? I'm just concerned about politicial PARTIES, juanito, not "groups."

The key that you're not understanding is that there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between a POLITICAL PARTY and a SOCIAL GROUP. Got it?

I've answered all of your questions multiple times. You apparently have selective reading comprehension as well, juanito, and its actually you that is doint the "skirting." Another sad Bush supporter, projecting his inadequacies onto a perceived liberal nazi-terrorist.

You guys are hilarious.

And why didn't you respond to any of the real news items I posted? Neo-cons on the run from Bush, calling his administration incompetent? Rumsfeld charged with war crimes? Recruiters lying to kids, allowing anyone with a pulse into our military?

You guys don't care about that stuff. You just want to wave your flag, cheerlead for the Decider in Chief and feel like you're on the winning team. The contortions of reason that you go through to justify the feeling of your being "correct" is amazing because you don't even realize you're doing it.

Here's another take on heckuva job BuchCo, straight from the horse's mouth. Stan, Juanito, Paulo, John D, Bruce, all of you Bush supporters, can you just finally admit you were wrong? All of the people you used to parrot are running for the hills! They know they were wrong, why don't you?

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_20/feature.html

Still waiting for an answer.

"allowing anyone with a pulse into our military?"
Posted by: Rob Norris

Like I said before, the standards were good enough to keep you.

"There are absolutely no concrete, observable reasons that would lead one to suspect that God exists just as it says he does in the religious texts, whichever ones you choose."

People believe in God because of "Faith". They don't need you're approval to believe in God.

You ridicule people people that believe in God even though the constitution guarantees freedom of religion.

Political parties are fine, politics is fine, ridiculing people that don't believe the way you do is pathetic.

"What's sad is that, based on your comments (stan and juanito) you don't have a clue what I'm talking about and are just attacking. You've managed to somehow call communism a "reason based" system of government by likening it with the idea I propose. Nice logical gymnastics"
Posted by Rob Norris,

You can't even explain what you're talking about.

"If people are against that, then they would have the opportunity to voice their opposition. Their claim would be subject to a reasonable debate. If their claim stands up to reason, it would be included. If not, it would be excluded."
Posted by: Rob Norris | Nov 5, 2006 10:42:43 AM

I never called communism a reason based government. I used your own words about religion and how you think some people don't deserve to be heard. YOUR OWN WORDS.

Explain to me who would be excluded in your utopian, religion-free society.

"You guys don't care about that stuff. You just want to wave your flag,"
Posted by Rob Norris,

Your choice of words here says it all. You could have said 'the' flag but you didn't.

It's your flag too, right Rob?

"allowing anyone with a pulse into our military?"
Posted by: Rob Norris

Like I said before, the standards were good enough to keep you"
Posted by me.

I got so excitied I left a word out. The word I left out was out. Out should have been after you.

Sorry I'm just to explain things the same coherant way Rob does.

Stan has gotten so desperate that he has had to resort to outright lying, straw-men attacks, and assaults against my patriotism. This is on top of already being swiftboated about my ROTC service. Incidentally, all of those techniques are covered in the GOP Political Playbook: How to "Win" an Argument, by Karl Rove with a forward from Paul Wolfowitz and an afterword by Dick Cheney.

"I never called communism a reason based government. I used your own words about religion and how you think some people don't deserve to be heard. YOUR OWN WORDS." -stan

How can you presume to put words into my mouth when everything I've said is right there, spelled out for all to see!

Thanks for proving that the degree to which you can comprehend the written word falls short of the degree needed to understand what I am talking about.

Stan uses a quote from me that essentially says that anyone with opposition will be afforded the right to state their claim. If it stands up to reason, than it is accepted. If not, then it doesn't qualify AS AN ISSUE THAT SHOULD INFORM POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.

How do you interpret that to be me saying that they "don't deserve to be heard?" I specifically say that anyone will be heard and their claims subject to reason. So stan proves with this assertion that he does not properly understand the meaning of certain words, or that he is a twisted liar.

"Like I said before, the standards were good enough to keep you" - stan

I thought your whole claim against me was that I was "never in" the military? Now I was because it allows you to work in a jab? FLIP FLOP

"People believe in God because of "Faith". They don't need you're approval to believe in God." -stan

I know they don't need my approval. But faith is not a reason to believe in anything, it is the ACT of believing a premise without reason or evidence. So people don't believe in god "because" of faith, faith is the act of believing in God. You clearly don't understand what faith is, either.

And about the flag. Are you in the process of attacking my patriotism, stan? I said "your flag" because while the flags we both are holding look exactly the same, the one you're waving MEANS something far different than the one I've got. You support Bush, and he is an anti-constitution authoritarian executive whose goal is unilateral executive power. That is about as anti-America as you can get, if you take the Constitution to be the document that defines America. The flag I'm holding represents the constitution and the ideas of liberty and justice and freedom, you know, the ACTUAL American values.

And in my "utopia," which I never called it nor do I think it would be, no one would be "excluded" unless they wanted to be. What would be excluded are the irrational concepts from the process of decision making relative to legislation and policy, not people who want to go to church. They could still do that, but they could not expect to have any laws designed to appeal to them, as this current occupant routinely does to the voters who got him there to begin with. I wonder if they know now that he was lying to them too, placating them, appeasing them for political gain, just like he managed to do to you.

Probably not.

"Political parties are fine, politics is fine, ridiculing people that don't believe the way you do is pathetic." - stan

Do you realize that the major religions of the world have ridicule of the non-believers built in? Each religion has its exclusive claim to truth, and all of the non-believers of this claim will end up in hell (excluding certain eastern religions). Believers ridicule non-believers just by the act of believing, because believing entails the assumption that non-believers are wrong, hellbound, and worst of all, morally inconsequential, and that the believers are correct, trutful, and superior as a result. Religious arrogance, one of the worst kinds.

An evangelist on the sidewalk, after you've said you're not interested, he looks at you with ridicule as he walks away, secure in the belief that his knowledge is what is TRUE. The whole purpose of religion is to get all the non-believers to be believers, otherwise they go to hell!!!

The point is, in case you didn't get it, is that religion mocks non-believers and ridicules them inherently. Your claim that I am guilty of ridiculing those who "don't believe what I do" is in fact another classic example of projection, because all you do in these forums is ridicule those who don't agree with you rather than arguing the points.

Further, religion itself inherently ridicules non-believers for the mere fact that they are non-believers. So it is not I who ridicule those who don't share my beliefs, it is rather the religious who ridicule those that do not share their belief. Let's just be glad non-believers are no longer tortured until they confess to being a witch, now's it's just passive ridicule. It is an article of their faith to do so.

"Stan has gotten so desperate that he has had to resort to outright lying, straw-men attacks, and assaults against my patriotism. This is on top of already being swiftboated about my ROTC service."

Let's be clear. I never said you weren't in ROTC (but I am starting to doubt it), I said you weren't in the military like you keep saying.

Anyone can check the other thread. You aren't being swift-boated, you're being called a liar.

Every thing I've said is true.

I spoke to Col Ed Spencer, commander of the AFROTC unit here at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. ROTC students that accept scholarships are not in the military **until** they graduate and are commisioned or become enlisted members because they can't complete the program.

Rob, did you complete ROTC? Did you serve as a Navy enlisted member? If the answer in no, then you weren't in the Navy

John Kerry was in the Navy, he got swift-boated. You're just a pathethic military wanna-be.

"Further, religion itself inherently ridicules non-believers for the mere fact that they are non-believers. So it is not I who ridicule those who don't share my beliefs, it is rather the religious who ridicule those that do not share their belief."
Posted by Rob Norris,

Pick a religion (any religion) and show me how they ridicule other religions. Be specific. Is it documented anywhere?

These are your words Rob:

"Further, believing in something that cannot be proven is by definition UNREASONABLE. You can't squirm your way out of conceding that faith is irrational by definition, whether you phrase it as "belief without reason" or "belief in that which cannot be proven." The only reason to believe a premise is if it holds up to critical analysis, ie IT CAN BE PROVEN."

If you think calling religious people unreasonable and irrational is not ridiculing them, you don't know the meaning of the word.

Am I supposed to be offended at being called a military "wanna-be?"

I did want to be in the military. I was prevented from acheiving that goal due to circumstances beyond my control. Should I be made to feel bad because I wanted to serve my country but couldn't? Does that make one worthy of ridicule?

You're right. What you're doing to me regarding my time in ROTC is not "swiftboating," it's a textbook example of ridicule. You called me a wanna-be to "deride" me.

GOOD JOB, STAN!! YOU DO KNOW WHAT RIDICULE MEANS!!! You even used it in an EXAMPLE! I think you're ready to learn how to tie your shoes now.

Don't worry, I know you still fear change, and moving on from velcro to laces will be a big challenge for you, but you can do it. You can ridicule someone trying honestly to serve their country in uniform, you're capable of anything.

" know they don't need my approval. But faith is not a reason to believe in anything, it is the ACT of believing a premise without reason or evidence. So people don't believe in god "because" of faith, faith is the act of believing in God. You clearly don't understand what faith is, either."
Posted by Rob Norris, Human Dictionary

Here is the definition of faith, it's straight from an online English dictionary. Check out #2.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

faith (fath) n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

But this is nothing new for you. You throw words and phrases out there and then say people are too stupid to understand what you mean. You can't argue the facts.

What is your definition of faith since I din't unstand what faith is?

"Don't worry, I know you still fear change, and moving on from velcro to laces will be a big challenge for you, but you can do it."
Posted by Rob Norris, shoe salesman.

There was no velvro on my combat boots

This was posted on the other thread 25 hours ago. Since you seemed to have missed it or are too much of a coward to answer it there, I'll post it here to.

I was in ROTC. It's pretty simple. Are midshipman in ROTC or at the Academy "not in the military?"

If not, what are they? Pretending to be in the military? Do they not answer to their CO and other superior commissioned officers who run the unit? Do they not get billets? Is there not PT? Is there not muster every day? Do they not go on summer cruises on the Roosevelt or train with the Marines in CA? Do they not need to maintain their uniforms?
Posted by: Rob Norris

My son is 15 and in JROTC. He answers to his CO and other superiors that run the unit, He has to perform PT and muster once a week. He wears a uniform.

So, I guess he is in the military too. If he goes to college and takes ROTC there, he'll be a 5-star general when he gets out. Cool.

He hasn't had any summer cruises on the Roosevelt yet, but he did go on an Alaskan cruise with his grandmother a couple of years ago. What kind of 'military' credit does he get for that?

Posted by: Stan | Nov 5, 2006 6:14:39 PM

You cowardly dodged the question of providing an example as to when it is reasonable to believe a premise that you have no evidence or proof for, but did you really post that definition of faith and act like it proved your point? Wow.

Ok. Many words have different meanings. Faith is one of them. When words have different meanings, they are contextually defined, meaning that the word is defined in relation to whatever context it is in.

In the case of our back and forth, the following definitions can be applied to "faith"

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

3...The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

A couple other definitions can be applied as well, more or less. Anyway, the reason why none of that MATTERS is because you are still missing the point of definition #2. It is exactly what I defined it as in my posts. "Belief without reason." The only possible "REASONS" you could have for believing something are logical proof and/or material evidence.

Faith, in the religious context, literally means "to believe without REASON(S)." Essentially there's no difference between "faith" and "Blind faith." Faith is always blind, by definition, because in order for it to be "faith," there cannot be any reason or logic to support it.

RATIONAL= the character of an idea or thing that is defined by logic, reason, and verifiable evidence.

IRRATIONAL=see above, now think opposite

Ergo, faith is, by definition, IRRATIONAL.

And that's just using the definitions of the words themselves. Once you explore the things and ideas that faith leads you to, ie RELIGION, you will find probably the most irrational ideas ever conceived by man.

Many people think that faith is good because it brings people together, promotes charity and the like. But it is not necessary to be faithful to acheive those things. There are plenty of good reasons for charity and togetherness that have nothing to do with god. In other words, "God" is not responsible for those ideas, or any of the other "good" things about religion. Humans are.

And you reposted that one about your kid? I would be embarassed by that one. You do realize you're making fun of a person who wanted to serve their country, had signed up for it and was being trained to be a Naval officer, but couldn't do so because of an accident? And that's all you keep talking about. You have no other points. You're seriously un-informed and apparently afflicted with a comprehension problem.

So how bout that example I asked for earlier. If you give a good one I'll at least know that this back-and-forth is worth continuing.

They have combat boots in the chAir Force? I thought they just had slippers and flight socks.

"They have combat boots in the chAir Force? I thought they just had slippers and flight socks."
Posted by Rob Norris,

Nice. Very witty.

I'll have to tell that one to the AF men and women I work with that have spent almost half of the past three years on 90-day rotations to the dessert away from their families.

I'll tell them you said to pack their slippers with their survival gear and phtos of their kids.

"So how bout that example I asked for earlier. If you give a good one I'll at least know that this back-and-forth is worth continuing."
Posted by: Rob Norris | Nov 6, 2006 8:30:21 PM

If you think you are too smart to continue this conversation you can stop at any time Rob.

"Ok. Many words have different meanings. Faith is one of them. When words have different meanings, they are contextually defined, meaning that the word is defined in relation to whatever context it is in."

In the context of religion faith IS belief. If people believe in religion and if they believe God exists, it is true. If they belive what they read in the Bible, Quran, or Torah that is perfectly acceptable. Maybe it isn't acceptable to you, but is was to the framers of the constitution.

I know you don't believe this. It doesn't matter. People won't stop going to church because you think there is no God.

Get over it. If people want to believe in God, leave them alone.

"And you reposted that one about your kid? I would be embarassed by that one. You do realize you're making fun of a person who wanted to serve their country, had signed up for it and was being trained to be a Naval officer, but couldn't do so because of an accident? And that's all you keep talking about. You have no other points. You're seriously un-informed and apparently afflicted with a comprehension problem."
Posted by Rob Norris,

I've talked about a lot of things. Most you haven't responded to. You've gone on-and-on about how I and others are too dumb to understand your superior intellect.

But so far you haven't been intelligent enough to be able to respond to the fact your 'proof' of military service is a list of things my son does in JROTC.

The only thing that embarasses me is your claim you were in the military when you couldn't even get past 'trying' to be in the military.

And as for reposting things that you haven't responded to, how's this:

You say you couldn't complete ROTC because you got injured. That must have been one hell of a big boo-boo considering there are soldiers that have been returned to active duty after having limbs blown off. Just between us 'military' guys, was the injury that kept you out of the Navy a brain injury?

I have other points, but right now I'd like you to respond to these. Keep it simple and we'll both try and get past 'my' comprehension problem.

You're misinterpreting me again, stan. I'm not saying i''m against people having the right to believe in whatever they want- only insofar as it does not encroach on the rest of us. I'm talking about religion in politics, not religion in one's private life. I'm providing reasons as to why it should be completely excluded from the realm of public discourse as far as legislation and policy is concerned. Religion is a problem when it starts to dictate people's behavior, and then that behavior becomes law, and we have occupants like W in the White House, trying to legislate morality. It's absurd.

At the same time, religious belief essentially dictates to the believer that he force his beliefs on others. It's hard to be both an evangelical christian and at the same time private about your faith, preventing it from encroaching on others. If you're christian and you haven't sold your possessions and followed Jesus' every word then, well, you're not REALLY a Christian, insofar as the letter of scripture is concerned, are you?

Regardless of that point, religion is a problem when it causes irrational and dangerous or counter-productive policies to be implemented by governments, like Bush's stem cell veto. That is a perfect example of religion invading government literally at the expense of the public health. That is un-American.

People should be free to believe whatever they want, as long as it does not infringe on another's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Religion in this country largely runs counter to the three of those principles, despite what the "pro-lifers" like to believe about themselves.

So, in response to me pointing out that you keep harping on the semantic difference of description regarding my military experience while ignoring my responses to your "critiques", you continue to point out the semantic difference of description regarding my military experience?

Back on the offensive, stan the thin skinned. It's creepy how you've molded yourself in the model of your corrupt idols in the GOP. All you do is attack and sidetrack any argument we get on, focusing only on the non-issue that I was in the ROTC program and I dared to say that I was "in the military."

Are you going to respond to our faith argument or just continue to attack the non-issue that I was in the ROTC program and referred to it as "being in the military?"

Personally, I'm interested in your responses to the problem of faith in government, because that is the issue we've come to. I'm also interested in how you justify your support of Bush.

And also, I'd like to know if you agree with the premise that the constitution is the document that defines what is or is not "American."

“You're misinterpreting me again, stan. I'm not saying i''m against people having the right to believe in whatever they want- only insofar as it does not encroach on the rest of us. I'm talking about religion in politics, not religion in one's private life. I'm providing reasons as to why it should be completely excluded from the realm of public discourse as far as legislation and policy is concerned. Religion is a problem when it starts to dictate people's behavior, and then that behavior becomes law, and we have occupants like W in the White House, trying to legislate morality. It's absurd.”

What’s absurd is you telling people what they can and can not talk about it, and when they can and can’t talk about it. That is unconstitutional. People will base their decisions on what they believe is morally correct. That includes political decisions. If you don’t like how someone will legislate or lead based on their morals or what they think is right and wrong…don’t vote for them. That’s the way our system was set up.

Like it or not, a person’s morals, a big part of it, come from their religious beliefs. The three branches of government have checks and balances on each other to keep one person, or a group of people, from forcing ‘their’ values (even religious values) on anyone else.

By the way, congress passes the laws:

leg•is•late (lĕj'ĭ-slāt')
v., -lat•ed, -lat•ing, -lates. v.intr.
to create or pass laws.
v.tr.

To create or bring about by or as if by legislation.

The President signs or vetoes laws passed by congress. Again, try reading a civics book.

“At the same time, religious belief essentially dictates to the believer that he force his beliefs on others. It's hard to be both an evangelical christian and at the same time private about your faith, preventing it from encroaching on others. If you're christian and you haven't sold your possessions and followed Jesus' every word then, well, you're not REALLY a Christian, insofar as the letter of scripture is concerned, are you? “

Wrong. You can be religious and be tolerant of other religions. As far as not being a Christian because I haven’t sold all possessions, that’s BS. I’m Catholic and have never been told that….never…not once. The Pope owns a lot of nice crap; I don’t think he’ll be having a garage sale anytime soon because you, who doesn’t believe in God, has started to dictate how all Christians should behave.

“Regardless of that point, religion is a problem when it causes irrational and dangerous or counter-productive policies to be implemented by governments, like Bush's stem cell veto. That is a perfect example of religion invading government literally at the expense of the public health. That is un-American.”

Some people, based on religion, and some others, based on SCIENCE, believe life begins at conception. They don’t want to destroy human life. They believe, also based on SCIENCE, adult stem cells, and cord blood cells have the same or better SCIENTIFIC value. But I guess now you know more than those scientists too.

“People should be free to believe whatever they want, as long as it does not infringe on another's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Religion in this country largely runs counter to the three of those principles, despite what the "pro-lifers" like to believe about themselves.”

Most Americans like the system the way it is. There aren’t a lot of people clamoring to change the Constitution; they seem to be very happy, free, and alive. Most of these Americans believe in one religion or another too. That must burn you up.

“So, in response to me pointing out that you keep harping on the semantic difference of description regarding my military experience while ignoring my responses to your "critiques", you continue to point out the semantic difference of description regarding my military experience?”

se•man•tic (sĭ-măn'tĭk) also se•man•ti•cal (-tĭ-kəl)adj.

1. Of or relating to meaning, especially meaning in language.
2. Of, relating to, or according to the science of semantics.

So Rob, if you didn’t mean to say you were in the military, what did you mean to say?

“Back on the offensive, stan the thin skinned. It's creepy how you've molded yourself in the model of your corrupt idols in the GOP. All you do is attack and sidetrack any argument we get on, focusing only on the non-issue that I was in the ROTC program and I dared to say that I was "in the military."”

It’s not a non-issue. You called yourself a Navy guy when it wasn’t true. You used your ‘military experience’ to validate your attacks on the intelligence of military people – especially enlisted personnel. You lied and you got caught. A non-military wanna-be calling the AF a Chair Force was stupid and demeaning. It was a pathetic attempt to insult me; you ended up insulting a lot of people, military people that you so desperately wanted to be associated with.

“Are you going to respond to our faith argument or just continue to attack the non-issue that I was in the ROTC program and referred to it as "being in the military?"”

I responded about faith above. But I am going to keep attacking you about lying about you ‘military’ service. I responded directly to your list of items that you say ‘proved’ you were in the military. The same list of things my 15 year son does in JROTC. Instead of responding to those items specifically, you ran away like a petulant child and have even stopped responding on the other thread. You want to change the subject because you can’t respond after being caught in a lie.

“Personally, I'm interested in your responses to the problem of faith in government, because that is the issue we've come to. I'm also interested in how you justify your support of Bush.”

I don’t believe there is a problem with faith in government. I have faith in my government, the constitution, and the American people. I believe they (the people) can decide for themselves what is best. The people elected President Bush, I support him and the members of ccongress. Republicans and Democrats.

“And also, I'd like to know if you agree with the premise that the constitution is the document that defines what is or is not "American””

No, I think the constitution lists the laws and principles, functions, and limits of our government. What do you think the constitution is?

"With National Veterans Awareness Week under way and the national Veterans Day observance on Nov. 11, the Veterans Affairs secretary is urging all veterans to show their pride by wearing their military medals."

Rob, I'll wear mine if you wear yours.

And this just in from the Offutt AFB Chaplain's office:

"Squadrons,

Please pass on this information to anyone interested. If there are any questions, please call Chaplain Nupson at 294-8591.

You are invited to join Chaplain Nupson for a Bible Study 1100-1200 each Thurs in the OSS conference room. A brand new study, “Thriving in Stressful Times” will begin on Thursday, 9 November 06. You may bring a lunch and come and go as your schedule dictates."

Alert Rob, there seems to be a violation of his narrow idea of the separation of church and state. Federal employees doing something religious during duty hours. I guess no one told them of Rob's 'scientific' evidence God does not exist.

I've been really busy, so not posting much these days, but I've been checking in here from time to time to read this exchange. I'm not sure if Robbie is a funny or a sad case. A little of both I guess.

Robbie, there are a lot of ideas you simply have not grasped, kid. I don't have the time or inclination to educate you, but I will give you this, free of charge:
The best thing for you to do is to start building at the foundation. Before you tackle all of the big questions you must learn and understand this concept: reason.

Now back to work I go.

Stan, you're a hopeless, thoughtless human being and you still don't know what you're talking about.

"So Rob, if you didn’t mean to say you were in the military, what did you mean to say?"

I meant to say that I WAS IN THE MILITARY INSOFAR AS I WAS IN ROTC AND I SIGNED MY LIFE AWAY, YOU DUMBA$$.

You haven't caught me in any lies. I said I was in the military insofar as I was in ROTC. To me, I thought being in ROTC, being issued an Armed Forces ID card, and signing my life away on a piece of paper qualified me as "being in the military." Also, there's a huge difference between JROTC and ROTC. Does your son have a billet and a job in his JROTC unit? Did he go with his classmates aboard a nuclear aircraft carrier, a sub, or an Aegis boat for half the summer? Do they go out on FTX's? Did he sign his life away? Does he have an armed forces ID? When he's done with JROTC, will he be offered a commission?

You stan, are worse than a liar. You think you're attacking me because I lied and claimed to be in the military, even though I was up front from the start saying I was in the ROTC as soon as I talked about being in the military.

And you keep claiming I insulted our troops, when all I've done is point out the FACT that our recruiting standards are lower, recruiters are having to lie about the war to get people in, and that our military is worse off because of it, and it's BushCo's fault. If it continues, it will clearly degrade the effectiveness of our military. You don't care about that though, you just want to throw rocks like a thoughtless ape. It's you who's insulting our future troops by denigrating the ROTC program. You should be ashamed.

"What’s absurd is you telling people what they can and can not talk about it, and when they can and can’t talk about it. That is unconstitutional. People will base their decisions on what they believe is morally correct. That includes political decisions. If you don’t like how someone will legislate or lead based on their morals or what they think is right and wrong…don’t vote for them. That’s the way our system was set up."

Please copy and paste where I've actually dictated to people what they can and cannot "talk about." You're completely clueless.

And people will base their decisions on what they believe is "morally correct." But you fail to understand this premise right off the bat, because you don't get that what is "morally correct" and what is "actually correct," as in TRUE, are not the same thing. What if my morals are Muslim? Does that make martyrdom "right?" No, it doesn't. And just not voting for some religious nut isn't good enough. They should be kept off the ballots completely because they and their ideology are dangerous, like you.

And Stan, you don't have the slightest clue what it actually means to be Christian or Catholic.

"You can be religious and be tolerant of other religions."

No, you can't. You have no idea what it means. If you're claiming to be "religious" and tolerant of other religions at the same time, you're not religious to begin with. Why don't you go to the source, the bible or the quran or the torah, and see for yourself? You'll find that tolerance is not part of religous belief, but rather explicitly forbidden. You think the crusades happened because everyone was bored? No, it was glory for god, kill the unbelievers and the infidels, retake the holy lands. Sounds familiary, doesn't it?

"I’m Catholic and have never been told that….never…not once. The Pope owns a lot of nice crap; I don’t think he’ll be having a garage sale anytime soon"

So, since you're ignorant and the chances of the Pope having a garage sale are really small, that makes me wrong about what it means to be a Christian? You're a real piece of work.

And you're not a catholic unless you observe all of the rules of the religion. ALL of them. Don;t you see? THe dogma of religion dictates that in order to believe, you must accept x, y, and z premises. You must accept all of them in theory and practice to actually be a believer. You're a fence sitter if you don't, and by your own dogma, you're going to hell too if you don't. What a great belief system! I wish all of our laws made just as much sense.

"Some people, based on religion, and some others, based on SCIENCE, believe life begins at conception."

There you go, co-opting science again. Tell me one SCIENTIST who would argue that human life begins at the moment a sperm penetrates an egg that isn't a writer for the Christian science monitor. Also, tell me where you found the idea that embryonic stem cell research is less promising than umbilical cord stem cells or adult stem cells. Was it on the whitehouse.gov website or Bill O'Reilly's website?

Are YOU a culture warrior, stan? Is billo your favorite guy on TV? You're just like him, your idols who are in the GOP or shill for them. A liar, a bully, ignorant, and certain of your own "moral superiority."

Anyway,

"I don’t believe there is a problem with faith in government. (Because you don't understand what faith is and what its consequences really are) I have faith in my government, the constitution, and the American people. (you're talking about a different kind of faith here) I believe they (the people) can decide for themselves what is best. ( I agree, to the extent that they're FULLY INFORMED. You are clearly almost not informed at all) The people elected President Bush, (actually they elected Gore, the Supreme Court elected Bush. You have amnesia or is that just ignorance again?) I support him and the members of ccongress. (blindly, because I have "Faith.") Republicans and Democrats."

Good for you stan. And you summed up your ignorance and stupidity in one paragraph. But you top if by saying that the constitution is NOT the document that defines what is and isn't American, it's just the thing that lists the rules, functions, and limits of government. So tell me, stan, how do you define "America" without the constitution? America began as an idea, and that idea was the constitution. Without it, there is no America. In terms of law and government rule, things are said to be American or un-American based on how they hold up to the parameters of the constitution. What's america to you, stan? Hot dogs? Monday Night Football? War and victory? Torture? Corruption? War-profiteering?

Oh, and if you understood any of what I was talking about, you would know that people in their own bible study group don't bother me. Those are military people, not legislators in congress making rules that we all have to live by. Bible study in chambers of congress, the supreme court, or the white house? Different story. If you understood what I was saying, you would know that.

I think more work is need on your comprehension problem.

Juanito,

I knew you'd pop your head in here to throw your two cents in. You conincidentally got "really busy" when the talk turned to religion.

You tell me I need to learn what reason is? If you had time for the post to tell me that, you have time to define it.

Not that it matters, I already know what you're about anyway. This from you:

"Our democracy is in trouble... I've been saying it since I've been posting here...Given that, if they had so much as a single rational atom in their being they would stop and think that maybe it's possible that I'm right."

You've got DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR!! You think you're the only one who's been worried about the state of our democracy? You're the one who saw it coming before anyone else in these forums?? Are you kidding me? You've been a Bush supporter since I first saw your name in these forums!!! You're a sad little liar and apparently a lunatic as well.

"They sputter hysterically, spew small minded insults and make pathetic attempts at humor -- but never, ever refute."

That describes you to a T. Your most recent post proves it. Pathetic attempts at humor, check. Small minded insults, check. Refutation conspiuously absent? Check.

How's your hat taste juanito?

And since stan couldn't provide me with an example of when it is reasonable to believe a premise for which there is no evidence or proof, and you're back claiming to be the master, you at least have a second to give me just ONE example.

Should be interesting.

Juanito-

Your last post would make sense if you replace the word "robbie" with the word "stan."

But you won't. You probably are "stan," ya cut and run from reality Bush supporter.

Jeez, Robbie! You have delusions of adequacy, son.

Ok, you're so confident that you know both my political and religious beliefs, back it up: cite the posts in which I support Bush and claim to be religious.

One more helpful hint (and this is the last one you get) lengthy posts are only effective when you actually have something intelligent to say and when you can organize your thoughts.

Oh, and some of us do have to work for a living, and we actually do get busy. Go figure.

Ciao, Benito

“Stan, you're a hopeless, thoughtless human being and you still don't know what you're talking about.”

At least I know when I am not a member of an organization or not. (Like the military) So I can’t be that dumb.

“I meant to say that I WAS IN THE MILITARY INSOFAR AS I WAS IN ROTC AND I SIGNED MY LIFE AWAY, YOU DUMBA$$.”

Insofar…So you were kind of in the military?

“You haven't caught me in any lies. I said I was in the military insofar as I was in ROTC. To me, I thought being in ROTC, being issued an Armed Forces ID card, and signing my life away on a piece of paper qualified me as "being in the military." Also, there's a huge difference between JROTC and ROTC. Does your son have a billet and a job in his JROTC unit? Did he go with his classmates aboard a nuclear aircraft carrier, a sub, or an Aegis boat for half the summer? Do they go out on FTX's? Did he sign his life away? Does he have an armed forces ID? When he's done with JROTC, will he be offered a commission?”

Oh, so you ‘thought’ you were in the military when you really weren’t. I get it.

There are differences in JROTC and ROTC. But one thing that’s the same is you still aren’t in the military in either. My son does have a job in his JROTC unit and he does have a military ID card.

At least you said ‘classmates’. That part was true, CLASSMATES, not fellow military members.

And you are still a lying piece of sh!t for saying you were in the military.

“And really, do you think a ((Navy guy)) is gonna take any crap from someone from the Chair Force?”

Was that the US Navy Rob or the ROTC Navy?

“A midshipman is a ((service member)) who is in the Naval ROTC. I was a midshipman, scheduled to graduate as a commissioned Ensign in the US Navy. I had to resign my commission due to an injury I sustained before graduation that disqualified me from military service. So while true I did not get the chance for active duty, ((I was in the military)).”

Your words, your lie.

“You stan, are worse than a liar. You think you're attacking me because I lied and claimed to be in the military, even though I was up front from the start saying I was in the ROTC as soon as I talked about being in the military.”

You said more than just you were in more than just NROTC, you said you were “in the military”.

Your words, your lie.

“And you keep claiming I insulted our troops, when all I've done is point out the FACT that our recruiting standards are lower, recruiters are having to lie about the war to get people in, and that our military is worse off because of it, and it's BushCo's fault. If it continues, it will clearly degrade the effectiveness of our military. You don't care about that though, you just want to throw rocks like a thoughtless ape. It's you who's insulting our future troops by denigrating the ROTC program. You should be ashamed.”

You could have said recruiting standards were lower and left it at that. But here’s what you said in your own words:

“To be enlisted, especially under Rumsfelds watered down requirements to pump up the recruiting numbers (which suck), you basically just need to be alive and not retarded. You can even be a gang member, a felon, or a fricking neo-nazi skinhead.”

Who’s the thoughtless ape now?

“Please copy and paste where I've actually dictated to people what they can and cannot "talk about." You're completely clueless.”
Here you go:

“You're right about churches though. The repubs have been using them for decades as political propaganda outles, with mass each sunday, for some priests and preachers, being like rallies for the RNC. That influence is almost impossible to combat. That influence needs to be removed too”

re•move (rĭ-mūv') v., -moved, -mov•ing, -moves. v.tr.
1. To move from a place or position occupied: .
2. To transfer or convey from one place to another:
3. To take off:
4. To take away; withdraw:
5. To do away with; eliminate:
6. To dismiss from an office or position.

I guess you meant to say churches should be 'eliminated'. My mistake.

“And people will base their decisions on what they believe is "morally correct." But you fail to understand this premise right off the bat, because you don't get that what is "morally correct" and what is "actually correct," as in TRUE, are not the same thing. What if my morals are Muslim? Does that make martyrdom "right?" No, it doesn't. And just not voting for some religious nut isn't good enough. ((They should be kept off the ballots completely because they and their ideology are dangerous, like you.))”

What do you think martyrdom means?

And now you are telling everybody that certain people (that you’ve determined have ‘dangerous ideology’) shouldn’t be allowed to run for office. I guess the American people voting-for-who-they-want thing doesn’t work for you.
“And Stan, you don't have the slightest clue what it actually means to be Christian or Catholic.”

You can be religious and be tolerant of other religions.

“No, you can't. You have no idea what it means. If you're claiming to be "religious" and tolerant of other religions at the same time, you're not religious to begin with. Why don't you go to the source, the bible or the quran or the torah, and see for yourself? You'll find that tolerance is not part of religous belief, but rather explicitly forbidden. You think the crusades happened because everyone was bored? No, it was glory for god, kill the unbelievers and the infidels, retake the holy lands. Sounds familiary, doesn't it?”

Yes you can, this is what the Quran says about Jews and Christians:

Chapter 2 verse 4: “Who believe in what has been revealed to you and what has been revealed to those before you, and are certain of the hereafter.

The Quran here is talking about the Bible and Torah that was revealed by God before the Quran.

Chapter 3 verse 3: “He has verily reveled to you this Book, in truth and confirmation of the Books revealed before, as indeed He had reveled the Torah and Gospel.

Chapter 5 verses 43 -44 talk about how God sent the Torah and gave instructions to the Jews, rabbis, and priests to be the custodians of the holy book.

Muslims believe God sent the Torah to Moses, and Jesus received the Gospels from God. Muslims believe these holy books were corrupted by man and the Quran corrects these deficiencies.

Chapter 3 verse 64 talks about how Muslims, Jews, and Christians worship no one but the one true God.

*** Most importantly Chapter 2 verse 256 states: “There is no compulsion in the matter of faith....” That means according to Islam you can chose not to be a Muslim. ***

You can find many examples of people claiming to be Muslims who violate one of more of the things I’ve written today. I guess they are sinners or not true Muslims.

I’ve read the Quran in English and Arabic. Have you read it at all, I guess not or you would have know what I wrote above.

“So, since you're ignorant and the chances of the Pope having a garage sale are really small, that makes me wrong about what it means to be a Christian? You're a real piece of work.”

Yes you are wrong. You said anyone that wanted to be a Christian would have to sell their worldly possessions. My point was the Pope is rich, he’s a Christian. You don’t get to interpret religious doctrine or tell people how to believe.

Your words and they were wrong again.

“And you're not a catholic unless you observe all of the rules of the religion. ALL of them. Don;t you see? THe dogma of religion dictates that in order to believe, you must accept x, y, and z premises. You must accept all of them in theory and practice to actually be a believer. You're a fence sitter if you don't, and by your own dogma, you're going to hell too if you don't. What a great belief system! I wish all of our laws made just as much sense.”

What Catholic rules have I violated Rob?

“There you go, co-opting science again. Tell me one SCIENTIST who would argue that human life begins at the moment a sperm penetrates an egg that isn't a writer for the Christian science monitor. Also, tell me where you found the idea that embryonic stem cell research is less promising than umbilical cord stem cells or adult stem cells. Was it on the whitehouse.gov website or Bill O'Reilly's website? “

How does a human embryo grow if it’s not alive?

I’m not a doctor/scientist, but these guys are:

Federal Stem Cell Research: Kelly Hollowell, J.D., Ph.D., Philip H. Coelho, The Honorable David Weldon, M.D., and Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D.

--- Today’s medical technology enables us to affirm what we have known for decades: that life does begin at conception. From conception, we are biologically alive. We are genetically human…

The scientific data on embryonic stem cell research simply do not support the continued investment in research. Many researchers have failed. Even private investors are not backing this, and that is a strong indication of the lack of success. ---

I guess that makes you the Dumba$$, huh Rob?

“”Are YOU a culture warrior, stan? Is billo your favorite guy on TV? You're just like him, your idols who are in the GOP or shill for them. A liar, a bully, ignorant, and certain of your own "moral superiority."”

I’m not a culture warrior. I think the American culture is fine. You don’t.

Anyway,
"I don’t believe there is a problem with faith in government. (Because you don't understand what faith is and what its consequences really are) I have faith in my government, the constitution, and the American people. (you're talking about a different kind of faith here) I believe they (the people) can decide for themselves what is best. ( I agree, to the extent that they're FULLY INFORMED. You are clearly almost not informed at all) The people elected President Bush, (actually they elected Gore, the Supreme Court elected Bush. You have amnesia or is that just ignorance again?) I support him and the members of ccongress. (blindly, because I have "Faith.") Republicans and Democrats."

And it’s your job to make sure only ‘fully informed people’ get the right to participate in our Democracy. Good for you Rob. Where does it say in the Constitution only fully informed people get to be heard, vote, or run for office.

“Good for you stan. And you summed up your ignorance and stupidity in one paragraph. But you top if by saying that the constitution is NOT the document that defines what is and isn't American, it's just the thing that lists the rules, functions, and limits of government. So tell me, stan, how do you define "America" without the constitution? America began as an idea, and that idea was the constitution. Without it, there is no America. In terms of law and government rule, things are said to be American or un-American based on how they hold up to the parameters of the constitution. What's america to you, stan? Hot dogs? Monday Night Football? War and victory? Torture? Corruption? War-profiteering? “

Wrong again.

The ‘Idea’ was the Declaration of Independence.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Constitution is concerned with the allocation of powers - what the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary may or may not do. A constitution is established to restrict the possibility of abuse of power by those exercising governmental functions. The Constitution establishes the power of the people over the government. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land (Article 6).

I don’t define America without the Constitution, but at least I know what the Constitution is.

Stan, there's a few simple things you're not understanding.

1. I said, from the very first sentence I typed about my military experience, that I was never active duty and that I was in ROTC. I conceded long ago that you are technically correct in your interpretation. According to you, I was never "in the military" because I was not an enlisted member or an officer. That's fine. I can accept that definition. If those are the qualifications of being "in the military," those are pretty strict. The ROTC is a military program, run by the military, just like the Academies. Hence, it is still PART of the military. From the get go I said I was never active duty, meaning I was never enlisted or commissioned, that I was an ROTC student, part of the military, and exposed on a daily basis to actual officers and enlisted men and women; taught and trained by them and accountable to them. The military paid for my education, and paid me a stipend. Essentially, I was AN EMPLOYEE OF THE MILITARY. The fact that you can't make that distinction is why you're throwing rocks like an ape, it's also why you're a liar, because all this time, I haven't been pretending. I've been up front and clear about my experience in the Naval ROTC. You're attacking a strawman, and you've been doing it for an embarassing amount of time. A more apt metaphor for that would be that you're throwing feces instead of rocks.

2. Your scripture illustrates the widely known fact that Islam, Judaism and Christianty are compatible in that they all acknowledge that they worship "the same one God." However, that is where the similarities end. Nothing in the passages you quoted proves anything beyond the acknowledgment that they share the same God. Here are some more decisive passages:

"The unbelievers of the people of the Book (Christians and Jews), and the pagans, resent that any blessing should have been sent down to you from your Lord.: (2:105) They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter." (2:114) "We shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the Fire. Evil shall be their fate." (2:126) "But the infidels who die unbelievers shall incur the curse of God, the angels, and all men. Under it they shall remain for ever; their punishment shall not be lightened, nor shall they be reprieved." (2:162) "The unbelievers are like beasts which, call out to them as one may, can hear nothing but a shout and a cry. Deaf, dumb, and blind, they understand nothing." (2:172)

"Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you." (2:190)

The idea that you read the Quran in both English and Arabic is the most absurd thing you've claimed yet. If you had read them, how could you be ignorant of those incredibly clear instructions to the followers of Islam? You understand only the surface. "All three of these religions have the same god, right? So they all get along, obviously." That's essentially how you see it. But again, that's just the surface. Tolerance is not taught in religion. What's taught is to convert as many people as possible to whatever faith you happen to subscribe to. They're all mutually exclusive and inherently irrational and destructive. They have no place in politics, policy, or law. Things would be better if they were left to the private world, to people's own private lives where they are free to worship whatever they want. Any rational human knows this.

3. Congrats. You can cut and paste the quote from a political operative doctor. Maybe you have an actual peer reviewed study to point to? If you're so righteous about life, what about the millions of people who are already alive and suffering from diseases that scientific research of embryonic stem cells that already exist in freezers and are going to be thrown out anyway could help alleviate if Christian morality wasn't in the way? What about current suffering vs. the potential for life? Answer me which one should take precedent, if you and your faith are so morally superior.

4. It's not my job to make sure ONLY the fully informed people vote. It's the people's job to make sure they're fully informed, and also their job to inform those among them that haven't done their due diligence to be informed. That is what I'm trying to accomplish here. But you're throwing feces.

4. America did not start with the Declaration of Independence. The first congress wasn't formed until years later, and when America was finally made official, it was defined BY THE CONSTITUTION. What is America but its unique form of government? That is what differentiated America from the world at that time. A place where ideas could flourish, where people enjoyed freedom OF Religion and freedom FROM religion as STIPULATED in the CONSTITUTION. A place where things were allowed to grow and progress, until now.

The worst part is you think you're a patriot, but you're the exact opposite and you can't even see it.

Stan, there's a few simple things you're not understanding.

“1. I said, from the very first sentence I typed about my military experience, that I was never active duty and that I was in ROTC. I conceded long ago that you are technically correct in your interpretation. According to you, I was never "in the military" because I was not an enlisted member or an officer. That's fine. I can accept that definition. If those are the qualifications of being "in the military," those are pretty strict. The ROTC is a military program, run by the military, just like the Academies. Hence, it is still PART of the military. From the get go I said I was never active duty, meaning I was never enlisted or commissioned, that I was an ROTC student, part of the military, and exposed on a daily basis to actual officers and enlisted men and women; taught and trained by them and accountable to them. The military paid for my education, and paid me a stipend. Essentially, I was AN EMPLOYEE OF THE MILITARY. The fact that you can't make that distinction is why you're throwing rocks like an ape, it's also why you're a liar, because all this time, I haven't been pretending. I've been up front and clear about my experience in the Naval ROTC. You're attacking a strawman, and you've been doing it for an embarassing amount of time. A more apt metaphor for that would be that you're throwing feces instead of rocks.”

Civilians that work on military bases (like a commander’s secretary) are called GS employees. They are exposed on a daily basis to actual officers and enlisted men and women. They are EMPLOYEES OF THE MILITARY.

And I wasn’t ‘technically’ correct, I was factually correct.

“A midshipman is a ((service member))…((I was in the military)).”

What about the field trips, military ID card, billets, and the other BS you provided as PROOF of military service.

You can’t run away from this one.

“That's fine. I can accept that definition. If those are the qualifications of being "in the military," those are pretty strict.”

PRETTY STRICT – No A$$hole, very strict.

“2. Your scripture illustrates the widely known fact that Islam, Judaism and Christianty are compatible in that they all acknowledge that they worship "the same one God." However, that is where the similarities end. Nothing in the passages you quoted proves anything beyond the acknowledgment that they share the same God. Here are some more decisive passages:”

"The unbelievers of the people of the Book (Christians and Jews), and the pagans, resent that any blessing should have been sent down to you from your Lord.: (2:105) They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter." (2:114) "We shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the Fire. Evil shall be their fate." (2:126) "But the infidels who die unbelievers shall incur the curse of God, the angels, and all men. Under it they shall remain for ever; their punishment shall not be lightened, nor shall they be reprieved." (2:162) "The unbelievers are like beasts which, call out to them as one may, can hear nothing but a shout and a cry. Deaf, dumb, and blind, they understand nothing." (2:172)
"Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you." (2:190)”

Reading an entire chapter in the Quran gives the reader a historical context for all the verses in that chapter and also gives contextual meaning the previous verses. I think that’s important for understanding the meaning of the written words. (ie, you screwed up again)

Chapter 2 was written when Mohammad was spreading Islam in Arabia in the early days of the religion and there weren’t just Jews, Christians, and Muslims in the country. The Quran talks about idolaters (pagans).

Christians and Jews aren’t pagans according to the Quran.

‘Unbelievers’ are not Christians or Jews because they don’t believe in the book. Christians and Jews that believe in the book aren’t ‘infidels’, and are not to be harmed. The word ‘infidel’ isn’t an Arabic word and isn’t in the Quran. The proper word is KAFR. KAFR is a soul that rejects faith (all faith).

Chapter 2 Verse 190: There is nothing wrong with self-defense.

Again, you show your ignorance.

“The idea that you read the Quran in both English and Arabic is the most absurd thing you've claimed yet. If you had read them, how could you be ignorant of those incredibly clear instructions to the followers of Islam? You understand only the surface. "All three of these religions have the same god, right? So they all get along, obviously." That's essentially how you see it. But again, that's just the surface. Tolerance is not taught in religion. What's taught is to convert as many people as possible to whatever faith you happen to subscribe to. They're all mutually exclusive and inherently irrational and destructive. They have no place in politics, policy, or law. Things would be better if they were left to the private world, to people's own private lives where they are free to worship whatever they want. Any rational human knows this.”

Yes I did read the Quran. See my response above. You don’t know what you are talking about as usual.

“3. Congrats. You can cut and paste the quote from a political operative doctor. Maybe you have an actual peer reviewed study to point to? If you're so righteous about life, what about the millions of people who are already alive and suffering from diseases that scientific research of embryonic stem cells that already exist in freezers and are going to be thrown out anyway could help alleviate if Christian morality wasn't in the way? What about current suffering vs. the potential for life? Answer me which one should take precedent, if you and your faith are so morally superior.”

You said pick any “ONE” scientist (not from the Christian Science Monitor) that believes life starts at conception. I found four. Next time just list all the people I can quote from that are acceptable to you.

“4. It's not my job to make sure ONLY the fully informed people vote. It's the people's job to make sure they're fully informed, and also their job to inform those among them that haven't done their due diligence to be informed. That is what I'm trying to accomplish here. But you're throwing feces.”

That’s what I’m doing here. Informing you. It’s a tiring job because you’re such a lying dumba$$.

“4. America did not start with the Declaration of Independence. The first congress wasn't formed until years later, and when America was finally made official, it was defined BY THE CONSTITUTION. What is America but its unique form of government? That is what differentiated America from the world at that time. A place where ideas could flourish, where people enjoyed freedom OF Religion and freedom FROM religion as STIPULATED in the CONSTITUTION. A place where things were allowed to grow and progress, until now. “

The ‘Idea’ of America did start before the Constitution was written. I guess George Washington had no ‘idea’ what he was fighting for in the American Revolution.

“… That is what differentiated America from the world at that time.”

It still does.

“The worst part is you think you're a patriot, but you're the exact opposite and you can't even see it.”

But I have you all figured out. You’re a whiney, pathetic, military wanna-be that believes he is smarter than everyone else. A military expert, political expert, an expert on religion, and the more I point out your ignorance, the more shrill and whiney you become.

But let’s get back to the original subject, shall we, Rob?

This all started out with you defending a dumb statement by John Kerry. It rapidly escalated with you dumping on military people, especially the enlisted force. Then you decided to try and intimidate me with your ‘military’ credentials.
When I didn’t fall for that you tried to shame my service by stating I must have counted rivets on F-16s. Since I posted my credentials and proved you weren’t in the military you ran away like the pu$$y you are.

And don’t deny what you said, I can repost every single word if you can’t remember.

I printed this thread yesterday so my son could take to his JROTC class today. The kids hadn’t had a laugh like that in a long time. Their instructor, a retired SGT MAJOR, told them he’d personally kick their little a$$es if they ever did or said anything like that.

He also told them he’d take them on a field trip to Freedom Park so they could walk around on the ships and sub they have there. That way they could tell everyone they were in the military. The kids thought that was funny.

The SGT MAJOR asked my son to find out how being ‘billeted’ made you a military member. You had a room, so what? He wanted to know if the other students at your college lived on the streets? He was in the military longer than me. I guess he doesn’t ‘understand’ your ‘service’ either.

So, I asked a LtCol (Commander, to real Navy guys) I work with everyday about your claims. He actually completed ROTC and received his commission. He had one word for you, A$$CLOWN.

You lied about being in the military. I caught you. The thing that pi$$es me off is that people like you will do it again. If someone like me isn’t around, you’ll puff out your chest and tell everyone within earshot what a fu*king hero you are. It must burn you a$$ an ex-enlisted guy caught you in your lie and put it out there for every person in the world with a computer to see.

Stan, there's a few things you're not understanding.

1. I said I was in the military. I said I was in ROTC. Both of those statments are true. You claim that by "in the military" you mean a commissioned officer or an enlisted member. Clearly, those aren't the only people that make up the military. By your definition, the people in boot camp aren't "in the military" either. Your position is entirely moronic, and it is nowhere near "FACTUALLY CORRECT." See if you can understand the below definition:

The Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) is a training program of the United States ARMED FORCES present on college campuses to recruit and educate commissioned officers. It is designed as a college elective, and studies focus on leadership development, problem solving, strategic planning, and professional ethics.

ROTC produces 60 percent of all officers in the U.S. armed forces, and 75 percent of U.S. Army officers.

In the United States Navy a Midshipman is for all intents and purposes an officer cadet, although the RANK OF MIDSHIPMAN IS STILL AN APPOINTED LINE OFFICER RANK IN THE NAVY, similar to the Royal Navy.

So, you see stan, you're wrong, and a liar. If you're in ROTC, you're part of the military. That's all I ever said.

You twisted the meaning of my words to make it appear that I claimed I was active duty. Clearly, I didn't. I said ROTC and I said ROTC is part of the military. It is. You're wrong, and pathetic for whining about it for so long, when anyone reading our exchange could clearly see that it was your incapacity to make a distinction that was making you look like such a fool. And you continue to put your foot in your mouth.

"PRETTY STRICT – No A$$hole, very strict." -stan

And also absolutely incorrect. Sorry. Whatever your CO over at AFROTC in Omaha said was incomplete. "Midshipman" is a rank. Get over it. The U.S. Navy is made up of Officers, Enlisted, and MIDSHIPMEN. You're more wrong than you could have ever feared. Why am I not surprised.

2. "Chapter 2 was written when Mohammad was spreading Islam in Arabia in the early days of the religion and there weren’t just Jews, Christians, and Muslims in the country. The Quran talks about idolaters (pagans).

"Christians and Jews aren’t pagans according to the Quran." - stan

Um, yes they are. Although it is acknowledged that the same god is shared, Islam, just like Judaism and Christianity, claim that it is their prophet that is the ONLY CORRECT one, as in, the other prophets do not have "God's TRUTH." Islam says that Mohammed is the one true path to god, and that the Quran enunciated the word of god PERFECTLY. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION, ACCORDING TO THE BOOK ITSELF. INTERPRETATION IS ANTITHETICAL TO ISLAM. Anyone who does not believe Mohammed and the Quran, according to Islam, is an unbeliever, just like the Christian dogma that anyone who does not acknowledge Jesus as the son of god will go to hell. You didn't know that?

You are just plain, flat out wrong in your claim that I quoted above. Christians and Jews are of course not PAGANS, that is obvious. But they are unbelievers, because they deny Mohammed and they deny the Quran. Who's dictating that interpretation to you, anyway? Your priest? You clearly haven't used your own brain to come to those conclusions.

"Chapter 2 Verse 190: There is nothing wrong with self-defense.

Again, you show your ignorance." - stan

Actually, it says never to be the aggressor, and defense from unbelievers is always righteous. The problem is that any aggressive attack can be justified after the fact as being "in defense of the faith."

It is you that is ignorant, and anyone reading this knows that.

"Reading an entire chapter in the Quran gives the reader a historical context for all the verses in that chapter and also gives contextual meaning the previous verses. I think that’s important for understanding the meaning of the written words."

So now the Quran is just a historical text? It's not the unerrant word of God as it claims to be? The passages of Divine Law are subject to "historical, contextual interpretation?" It's by defintion infallible directives are now subject to interpretation? If you read the book, you would know that that is not the case, that the belief is the Quran is the PERFECT word of God, unless you have your head buried so far up the A$$ of irrationality, which you've already proven.

3. Congrats. You found a political operative doctor. I asked you for a peer-reviewed study that supports that claim, not just the opinion of some right-wing doctors, whose OPINION is based on FAITH, not SCIENCE.

Your idiocy increases.

4. "That’s what I’m doing here. Informing you. It’s a tiring job because you’re such a lying dumba$$."

I haven't lied about anything. You keep saying I lied about being in the military, but I never did. You're lying when you say ROTC students aren't part of the military. You're lying when you say that the US Military is made up of Officers and Enlisted only. You're lying and disrespectful when you say that the people in boot camp aren't part of the military. They're part of the military, same with ROTC students.

Your lying is so transparent that you can't even see it. But everyone else can.

And you're informing me? The only information you've given me is partisan hackery. I've already heard all of the information you have offered, and your information is incomplete. That makes you un-informed, and boy, do you show it.

Now, for the coup de gras of your idiocy:

"The ‘Idea’ of America did start before the Constitution was written. I guess George Washington had no ‘idea’ what he was fighting for in the American Revolution."

I asked you how you define America. You said that you do not define America by the constitution. The "Idea" of America could be traced back thousands of years, if you want to wade in the murky waters of what that "IDEA" actually was. But at the very least, what made America unique was its form of government, and that form of government is DEFINED BY THE CONSTITUTION. HENCE, AMERICA IS LITERALLY DEFINED BY THE CONSTITUTION. Laws, actions, and policies are said to be "American" or "Un-American" depending on how they hold up to the constitution. Washington was fighting for freedom for the newly formed United States of America, named so in the Declaration of Independence. But clearly, that is not what defines America. America was not defined until the Constitution was ratified twelve years later in 1787.

Your inability to accept this fact fits perfectly in line with all of the other facts that you're incapable of accepting.

Basically, you're a rusty brained, hate filled, thoughtless human being, who is coincidentally a Republican, and your mind has rusted so completely shut from disuse over time that you are incapable of absorbing and judging any information that conflicts with the things you already hold as "true," evidence and material proof be damned. It's really pretty sad. You're essentially just proving the old saying that "you can't teach an old dog new tricks," because in your case, it's as though you just forgot how to learn.

"You’re a whiney, pathetic, military wanna-be that believes he is smarter than everyone else. A military expert, political expert, an expert on religion, and the more I point out your ignorance, the more shrill and whiney you become."

I wanted to be an officer but was prevented from doing so. However, I was in the military stan. Get used to it. ROTC is part of the military. Your definition that "only officers and enlisted" make up the military is completely idiotic, not factually correct as you so arrogantly and ignorantly claim. I don't think I'm smarter than everyone else, I just know I'm smarter than you, but that's not the point. If that's all I wanted out of this exchange I would have ignored you days ago. I haven't been posing as the "expert" in these forums, you have. I've just made some basic claims, and you've taken issue with them. I'm defending them, and criticizing your claims with evidence and logic, but you just attack the fact that I was in ROTC. Just face it. You hate me because you've convinced yourself I'm a liar, when in fact I haven't lied about anything. YOU HAVE. You hate lies, yet you are a liar. You're looking more and more like a classic, hate-filled self-loather, projecting your own inadequacies onto me.

Look in the mirror, you sad man, and ask yourself "Who am I crapping?"

Stan,

Just curious, how is it that you happened to have read the Quran?

"You lied about being in the military. I caught you. The thing that pi$$es me off is that people like you will do it again. If someone like me isn’t around, you’ll puff out your chest and tell everyone within earshot what a fu*king hero you are. It must burn you a$$ an ex-enlisted guy caught you in your lie and put it out there for every person in the world with a computer to see."

Thank you for proving me right, Stan, for anyone in the world with a computer to see. Your rage and hate is palpable. It's so very clear that you have an inadeqaucy problem, and its caused you to mis-interpret just about everything I've said. You see through a lens of insecure hate, and you attack anything that you perceive to be an attack at you. The problem is, you're so insecure that you think just about everything is an attack on you.

You see yourself as the "Defender of..." something. Actually, it's clear that you are the one who goes around puffing your chest out and telling everyone what a fu*king hero you are. That's what you've been doing here. Posting your "credentials," saving people from Rob Norris who dared say he was in the military as an ROTC student!!! Whatever. You're a complete dumba$$.

"This all started out with you defending a dumb statement by John Kerry. It rapidly escalated with you dumping on military people, especially the enlisted force. Then you decided to try and intimidate me with your ‘military’ credentials.
When I didn’t fall for that you tried to shame my service by stating I must have counted rivets on F-16s. Since I posted my credentials and proved you weren’t in the military you ran away like the pu$$y you are.

And don’t deny what you said, I can repost every single word if you can’t remember." -stan

1. The statement by Kerry was about Bush, not the troops. That you failed to understand that is your first perpetration of idiocy and clear early evidence of your insecurity problem. As a former enlisted man, you took it personally and were riled up before I even posted a single word.

2. Please post how I "dumped on the enlisted people." I posted that recruiting standards were lower, and that they were lying to let people in. People who had criminal records or didn't have a GED and should not have been let in. They lowered the standards, and that's Bush's fault. That was my point. You're a hate-filled idiot because, as a former enlisted military member, you took it personally, even though I wasn't actually attacking the enlisted people who were accepted under the normal standards. You read something into what I wrote that wasn't there. You've been making an idiot of yourself the whole time.

3. The only reason I ever brought up being in the ROTC was so that I could defend myself from your insane allegations that I was a nazi-loving, America hating, troop disparager, not so that I could "intimidate" anyone. Cuz yeah, ROTC service is real intimidating. It might not be intimidating, but it's still military service. I said that I was in ROTC, part of the military, and I was trained by officers and enlisted alike, and that because of that, I was able to say that I know many of them, was trained by them, and as PART of the military, I can say unequivically that they all have my respect. You took it as me trying to "intimidate" you because you're an insecure idiot, and you thought I was attacking the troops, or siding with Kerry who attacked the troops, even though he didn't actually do that, he attacked Bush.

4. I make one comment about counting rivets (something my uncle said he did a lot of in his early Air Force days) and you get all huffy, like I was "shaming" your service. You've been shaming my service and the service of all other ROTC students this whole time. You're an obvious hypocrite.

5. Apparently you have friends that agree with you. That's to be expected. However, since you don't understand and have purposely twisted and mis-interpreted and mis-represented what I'm saying, how can I trust that what you're communicating to them is what I'm actually communicating in this forum, if they even exist?

6. YOU PRINTED THIS THREAD AND GAVE IT TO YOUR SON to BRING TO SCHOOL??? You're a liar or you're insane. You expect me to believe that a JROTC instructor is going to waste time going through a prinout from one of his students father's message board arguments? Like he doesn't have better things to do? They all got a GOOD LAUGH???? Yeah, he made a "lesson" out of your defense of military sanctity and warned the kids that if they ever claim to be in the military when they're in ROTC, he would kick their a$$. What total BS. You're so obviously lying, it's ridiculous. If you're not, and you actually did that, that's even more pathetic than I thought you could have ever become. And ask your "co-worker" friend the Lt. Col. this: If a midshipman is not part of the military, aka "in the military," where and what are they?

Regardless, I already posted the clear definition of what a midshipman is. A midshipman is part of the military. You're wrong, and a hopelessly pathetic liar with insecurity issues. You claimed I attacked the troops. LIE. You say ROTC is not part of the military. LIE.

You make me think of some lyrics from a good song...

"Lies! Lies! That's all I ever get from you..."

http://www.21stcenturypaladin.com/extras/insignias/

This is a chart listing all the military ranks of the US military. Cadet is not on the chart because it is not a military rank.

People in boot camp/basic training are in the military. I had to enlist (join the AF) BEFORE I went to basic training.

People in basic training have rank, DUMBA$$.

The Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) is a training program of the United States ARMED FORCES present on college campuses to recruit and educate commissioned officers. It is designed as a college elective, and studies focus on leadership development, problem solving, strategic planning, and professional ethics.

"ROTC produces 60 percent of all officers in the U.S. armed forces, and 75 percent of U.S. Army officers."

So, they aren't officers until they are commissioned. You don't get commissioned until you complete the program.

"In the United States Navy a Midshipman is for all intents and purposes an officer cadet, although the RANK OF MIDSHIPMAN IS STILL AN APPOINTED LINE OFFICER RANK IN THE NAVY, similar to the Royal Navy."

Appointed by whom, congress?

The noun line officer has one meaning:

Meaning #1: a commissioned officer with combat units (not a staff officer or a supply officer)

com·mis·sioned officer (kə-mĭsh'ənd)n.

An officer who holds a commission and ranks as a second lieutenant or above in the U.S. Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps, or as an ensign or above in the U.S. Navy or Coast Guard.

"So, you see stan, you're wrong, and a liar. If you're in ROTC, you're part of the military. That's all I ever said."

And as you can see by the above definitions and the rank chart referenced before. You are wrong, and still an idiot for claining to be in the military.

***According to your definition Midshipmen are officer cadets assigned to combat units.***

Je$u$ Chri$t, you are a fu*king IDIOT.

"And ask your "co-worker" friend the Lt. Col. this: If a midshipman is not part of the military, aka "in the military," where and what are they?"

I bet he says they are NOT assigned to combat units.

"YOU PRINTED THIS THREAD AND GAVE IT TO YOUR SON to BRING TO SCHOOL??? You're a liar or you're insane. You expect me to believe that a JROTC instructor is going to waste time going through a prinout from one of his students father's message board arguments? Like he doesn't have better things to do? They all got a GOOD LAUGH???? Yeah, he made a "lesson" out of your defense of military sanctity and warned the kids that if they ever claim to be in the military when they're in ROTC, he would kick their a$$. What total BS. You're so obviously lying, it's ridiculous. If you're not, and you actually did that, that's even more pathetic than I thought you could have ever become. And ask your "co-worker" friend the Lt. Col. this: If a midshipman is not part of the military, aka "in the military," where and what are they?"

My son has been following this thread. This has been the MAIN subject of his ROTC class for the last couple of days.

They had a lesson earlier in the year (the school year is only a couple of months old) about guys who go around saying they are combat veterans and wearing medals they didn't earn. Your BS claim of military service fit right in. You are a joke to actual service members and high school students

"Chapter 2 Verse 190: There is nothing wrong with self-defense.

Again, you show your ignorance." - stan

Actually, it says never to be the aggressor, and defense from unbelievers is always righteous. The problem is that any aggressive attack can be justified after the fact as being "in defense of the faith."

Chapter 2 Verse 190 says in the copy of the Quran I am holding, the one I got from the Ministry of Religious Affairs in Riyadh, states:

Fight those in the way of God that fight you, but do not be aggressive, God does not like aggressors.

That's all it says.

That means you can fight those that attack you first, that's self defence, jacka$$.

This quote is a lie: "and defense from unbelievers is always righteous."

"The statement by Kerry was about Bush, not the troops. That you failed to understand that is your first perpetration of idiocy and clear early evidence of your insecurity problem."

No sh!t retard, that's what I told you six days ago.

"I'm not attacking Senator Kerry. I believe his quote was taken out of context. I think it's funny and naïve that you think it is unfair for politicians (right before an election) to take advantage of him when he says something stupid."
Posted by: Stan | Nov 1, 2006 9:46:39 PM"

"Stan,

Just curious, how is it that you happened to have read the Quran?"

Posted by: Juanito | Nov 8, 2006 11:59:39 AM

I was a Arabic linguist in the AF for 20 years. I lived in Saudi Arabia three years. I worked at the HQ Royal Saudi AF for a couple of years as a training manager after I retired from the service.

"Regardless, I already posted the clear definition of what a midshipman is. A midshipman is part of the military. You're wrong, and a hopelessly pathetic liar with insecurity issues. You claimed I attacked the troops. LIE. You say ROTC is not part of the military. LIE."

Since you say you were a 'Line Officer'in the Navy, what combatant command were you assigned to? Let's hear it.

See the references above to see the (actual)definition of a 'Line Officer.'

"I said, from the very first sentence I typed about my military experience, that I was never active duty and that I was in ROTC. I conceded long ago that you are technically correct in your interpretation. According to you, I was never "in the military" because I was not an enlisted member or an officer. That's fine. I can accept that definition. Posted by: Rob Norris | Nov 7, 2006 8:02:49 PM"

You go from saying this yesterday to this today:

"In the United States Navy a Midshipman is for all intents and purposes an officer cadet, although the RANK OF MIDSHIPMAN IS STILL AN APPOINTED LINE OFFICER RANK IN THE NAVY, similar to the Royal Navy.
So, you see stan, you're wrong, and a liar. If you're in ROTC, you're part of the military."
Posted by: Rob Norris | Nov 8, 2006 11:57:07 AM"

Which one is it? First I was technically correct, now I'm a liar.

You go from NOT being in the Navy one day to being assigned to a combat command the following day.

You are brilliant.

Christians and Jews aren’t pagans according to the Quran. - stan

"Um, yes they are. Although it is acknowledged that the same god is shared, Islam, just like Judaism and Christianity, claim that it is their prophet that is the ONLY CORRECT one, as in, the other prophets do not have "God's TRUTH." Islam says that Mohammed is the one true path to god, and that the Quran enunciated the word of god PERFECTLY. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION, ACCORDING TO THE BOOK ITSELF.

This is true.

"Anyone who does not believe Mohammed and the Quran, according to Islam, is an unbeliever,"

This is not.

"You are just plain, flat out wrong in your claim that I quoted above. Christians and Jews are of course not PAGANS, that is obvious. But they are unbelievers, because they deny Mohammed and they deny the Quran. Who's dictating that interpretation to you, anyway? Your priest? You clearly haven't used your own brain to come to those conclusions."

I had to transliterate Arabic characters to type them on a computer when I was in the AF. That's why they are written two different ways below

The Arabic word for Christian is ALMSIH, المسيحيّ
Jew is ALI?WDI, اليهوديّ
One with no faith is ALKAFR, الكافر

If the Quran truely stated Christians and Jews were unbelievers it would say ALMSIH and ALI?WDI
were unbelievers. It does not. It says ALKAFR are the ones that are unbelievers. Unbelievers, Christians and Jews are not the same in the Quran.

That's also why entire chapters have to be read to get the context. People like Rob see the word 'infidel' or 'unbeliever' in English and have no idea what it means.

Reading an entire chapter in the Quran gives the reader a historical context for all the verses in that chapter and also gives contextual meaning the previous ((following))verses. I think that’s important for understanding the meaning of the written words.

I added ((following)) above I screwed up my first post.

"So now the Quran is just a historical text? It's not the unerrant word of God as it claims to be? The passages of Divine Law are subject to "historical, contextual interpretation?" It's by defintion infallible directives are now subject to interpretation? If you read the book, you would know that that is not the case, that the belief is the Quran is the PERFECT word of God, unless you have your head buried so far up the A$$ of irrationality, which you've already proven"

No, but the chapters do have historical context.

My point is that during the 20 or so years Mohammad was receiving “the word of Allah/God” many things were going on and the history of those times influenced what was written. I don’t think the chapters are in chronological order either. I think that can explain some of the inconsistencies/contradictions. Reading an entire chapter in the Quran gives the reader a historical context for all the verses in that chapter. That’s important for understanding the meaning of the written words.

God wasn't going to give Mohhammad 20 year-old information. That, like you, would be stupid.

"The statement by Kerry was about Bush, not the troops. That you failed to understand that is your first perpetration of idiocy and clear early evidence of your insecurity problem."

No sh!t retard, that's what I told you six days ago.

"I'm not attacking Senator Kerry. I believe his quote was taken out of context. I think it's funny and naïve that you think it is unfair for politicians (right before an election) to take advantage of him when he says something stupid."
Posted by: Stan | Nov 1, 2006 9:46:39 PM"

Yeah, yet you can't comprehend that since he was talking about Bush, what he said was not "stupid." Just wanted to reiterate that as another point you can't comprehend.

Anyhow,

Stan, you're still not getting a simple point. STILL.

I said I was in ROTC. I said ROTC is part of the military. According to the definitions I have found, "midshipman" can be defined as a "rank." If that's incorrect, then you should go to wikipedia and change the article.

No *%$^ midshipman don't have combat commands. You don't have to have a combat command, or serve under one, to be considered IN THE MILITARY.

Here it is so we can end this ridiculous back and forth perpetuated by your own inability to make a literal distinction and subsequent venom and idiocy:

http://www.state.nj.us/military/veterans/journal/fall2003/veterans_status.htm

Look at this. It says that a midshipman is "in the military for training purposes." A midshipman cannot be granted "veteran" status. I never claimed I was a veteran. However, they are still IN THE MILITARY FOR TRAINING PURPOSES.

Further, you still don't understand that the only reason I mentioned my ROTC experience, which, no matter if you define me during my ROTC time as "in the military" or not, I lived, trained, worked, was taught by and studied under ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL.

For that reason, I can legitimately say in my defense of your ludicrous, insecure, hatefilled and irrational attack that I "dumped on our troops," and that I was a nazi as well, that in my experience with the military, I have great respect for the people I served with.

That's all I ever said about my ROTC experience. You immediately jumped on it because you're on the look-out for frauds, which is fine. Call out all the military frauds who lie about their medals and wear false uniforms you want. However, I am not one of those people, so your attacks against me are completely unfounded.

Print that out and give it to your son so he can bring it in to class and show everyone what a waste of time their last few days on this subject have been.

AGAIN:

I am not claiming, nor have I ever claimed, that I :

1. Am a veteran
2. Earned any medals
3. Received a commission

You're still attacking a strawman. The ROTC is part of the military. That is clearly what I've been saying. I never said I had medals. I specifically said I was never commissioned because I was injured in an accident.

How could you possibly have interpreted me as someone going around chest beating, claiming to have served in the military but lying about it? For what purpose would I be doing that?

I never once posted anywhere that my military experience gave me any credibility to make any kind of judgement other than the one I made about the people I served with, which was that they all have my respect.

It's been clear from the start why I brought up my ROTC experience, and that was to just say, in my own defense that in my military experience, the people I served with were exceptional people. Driven, bright, honorable and loyal. All of them.

You interpret that through your idiot lens that somehow I was insulting our troops and that I was lying about my military experience for some nefarious purpose, or maybe you thought I was just trying to sound tough and knowledgeable by lying about the military. Your hate prevented you from realizing that I was not one of the posers that you hate you so much, even though it was clear for all to see.

This whole time you've just been attacking, and your son's JROTC class has been wasting their time honing their skills at catching military wanna-bes because I am not one of those people who goes around lying and saying that I'm a veteran or that I had any medals.

And I did say a long time ago that you had mistaken me for someone else:

"I think you have me confused with some liberal that stole your girlfriend, because you obviously are harboring a lot of hate."
Posted by: Rob Norris | Nov 4, 2006 5:42:50 PM

I was wrong, you didn't have me confused with the liberal that stole your girlfriend. You had me confused with someone else you hate, and that is someone who lies about being in the military.

The ROTC is part of the military. Get over it. Not only that, but I only brought it up to defend myself from your unfounded attacks that I'm a "liberal elite nazi" that hates our troops.

So you were wrong to begin with that Kerry's comment was aimed at our troops, which is what you originally were saying. You were wrong that I was a person that was lying about being in the military. You were wrong in thinking that I was saying I was in the military to puff my chest out and intimidate people. Consequently, you've been wrong this whole time, and you can't even begin to understand why.

That makes you the blindest mope to ever post in these forums, not just the dumbest.

Christians and Jews aren’t pagans according to the Quran. - stan

"Um, yes they are."

I said this was true. I was in error, this is not true. The rest of the paragraph I quoted is true.

Sorry for the mixup

"Yeah, yet you can't comprehend that since he was talking about Bush, what he said was not "stupid." Just wanted to reiterate that as another point you can't comprehend."

What you can't comprehend is I said he fu*cked up his own joke, that was stupid. Check the facts. Do I need to repost that also?

"I said I was in ROTC. I said ROTC is part of the military. According to the definitions I have found, "midshipman" can be defined as a "rank." If that's incorrect, then you should go to wikipedia and change the article."

WIKIPEDIA, my source is the US NAVY. Anyone can write anything they want in wikipedia.

I am going to send this with my son to school tomorrow. His JROTC class can discuss how regulations don't mean sh!t in the military, it's governed by wikipedia.

"Here it is so we can end this ridiculous back and forth perpetuated by your own inability to make a literal distinction and subsequent venom and idiocy:

http://www.state.nj.us/military/veterans/journal/fall2003/veterans_status.htm

Look at this. It says that a midshipman is "in the military for training purposes." A midshipman cannot be granted "veteran" status. I never claimed I was a veteran. However, they are still IN THE MILITARY FOR TRAINING PURPOSES."

No sh!thead, this is what is says:

Military service for training purposes. Also, Courses of Education and Training under the Army Specialized Training Program or the Navy College Training Program where the courses were a continuation of the individual’s civilian courses; as a cadet or midshipman ((at one of the ***service academies***))

So now I gues you are going to tell me and everyone else you were a Line Officer, taking NROTC, while you were enrolled at Annapolis.

"Further, you still don't understand that the only reason I mentioned my ROTC experience, which, no matter if you define me during my ROTC time as "in the military" or not, I lived, trained, worked, was taught by and studied under ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL."

And you missed my point. So has my 15 year old son. He's not a Line Officer in the Navy either. How fu*king stupid are you?

"It's been clear from the start why I brought up my ROTC experience, and that was to just say, in my own defense that in my military experience, the people I served with were exceptional people. Driven, bright, honorable and loyal. All of them."

You brought up your ROTC experience days ago, this is the first time you've said this. Clearly your lying and trying to cover you a$$.

"I am not claiming, nor have I ever claimed, that I :

1. Am a veteran
2. Earned any medals
3. Received a commission"

But you did claim you held:

"AN APPOINTED LINE OFFICER RANK IN THE NAVY"

Which we now know is BS, except according to wikipedia.

"I was wrong, you didn't have me confused with the liberal that stole your girlfriend. You had me confused with someone else you hate, and that is someone who lies about being in the military."

I'm not confused at all. Look up 'lying sack of sh!t' in wikipedia.

"So you were wrong to begin with that Kerry's comment was aimed at our troops, which is what you originally were saying. You were wrong that I was a person that was lying about being in the military. You were wrong in thinking that I was saying I was in the military to puff my chest out and intimidate people. Consequently, you've been wrong this whole time, and you can't even begin to understand why."

I was wrong because I don't get my info from wikipedia like you do.

"My point is that during the 20 or so years Mohammad was receiving “the word of Allah/God” many things were going on and the history of those times influenced what was written. I don’t think the chapters are in chronological order either. I think that can explain some of the inconsistencies/contradictions. Reading an entire chapter in the Quran gives the reader a historical context for all the verses in that chapter. That’s important for understanding the meaning of the written words." -stan

You are incapable of reason. here's why:

If somehow the period of time during which the prophet "received the perfect word of God" affected what the prophet wrote, then what he wrote is not the unerrant word of God.

The fact that things don't happen "chronologically" in the Quran does not explain the contradictions and inconsistencies. If two directives are given as the word of God, and they contradict, the time does not matter. Two premises that contradict each other now will still contradict eachother in 20 years. Also, it's supposed to be perfect. That means no contradictions.

"God wasn't going to give Mohhammad 20 year-old information. That, like you, would be stupid." -stan

What? Is that supposed to mean anything? That statement is a nice encapsulation of your complete lack of comprehension in this matter. Time is irrelevant when you're supposedly getting the timeless secrets of the universe and his rules for living in it, straight from the creator himself.

You just aren't comprehending. Despite your experience and knowledge, you just can't face the real questions about faith and the real problems it causes. Faith has rusted your mind shut, and the more rust that builds up the less capacity you have for reason.

Lastly, the real problem you can't grasp is the most obvious one. Three religions, all claiming to have the same universal truth, yet all are different. All claim that they are the one correct truth. To accept one is to reject all others.

Plainly put, you have no REASON to believe the way you do, religiously speaking. Because you have no reasons and evidence to believe the way you do, you arrived at your beliefs irrationally. Someone arriving at belief in religion will always do so irrationality, because there are no REASONS or EVIDENCE for any religious belief. Faith is essentially a perverted kind of trust, since the stakes are so high.

You have no REASON to believe that the Pope is infallible. If you don't accept that premise, however, then you are not a Catholic.

Do you accept that the Pope is infallible?

Also,

"The Arabic word for Christian is ALMSIH, المسيحيّ
Jew is ALI?WDI, اليهوديّ
One with no faith is ALKAFR, الكافر

If the Quran truely stated Christians and Jews were unbelievers it would say ALMSIH and ALI?WDI
were unbelievers. It does not. It says ALKAFR are the ones that are unbelievers. Unbelievers, Christians and Jews are not the same in the Quran."

This is an abomination of reason. The Quran having three different words for "jew" "christian" and "unbeliever" does not mean that "jews" and "christians" are NOT unbelievers also. ALKAFR can mean pagan, as in no faith in any god or religion whatsoever, while Jews are ALI?WDI, or "unbelievers of the Jewish variety" and Christians are ALMSIH, or "unbelievers of the Christian variety."

Your argument is invalid.

And, to a Muslim, anyone who does not believe that Islam constitutes the only viable path to God and that the Quran enunciates it perfectly is an "unbeliever."

That, Stan, means everyone but Muslims, including Christians and Jews.

Stan,

To Muslims, Jews are tolerable, but not exactly treated as "equals." Your definition was that they are essentially the same, at least in terms of tolerance.

You might find the following information instructive.

For Jews in Muslim states, apartheid has been the norm. Jews have been forbidden to bear arms, to give evidence in court, and to ride horses. They have been forced to wear distinctive clothing (the yellow badge originated in Baghdad, not in nazi Germany) and to avoid certain streets and buildings. They have been obliged, under penalty of violence and even death, to pass Muslims only their left (impure) side while keeping their eyes lowered. In parts of the Arab world it has been a local custom for Muslim children to throw stones at Jews and spit upon them. These and other indignities have been regularly punctuated by organized massacres and pogroms. In Morocco (1728,1790,1875,1884,1890,1903,1912, 1948,1952 and '55), in Algeria (1805 and 1934), in Tunisia (1864, 1869, 1932, 1967), in Persia (1839,1867,1910), in Iraq (1828, 1936,1937,1941,1946,1948,1967,1969) in Libya ((1785,1860,1897,1945,1948,1967) in Palestine (1929 and 1936), in Syria (1840,1945, 47-49, and 1967) in Yemen (1947), etc."

The quoted paragraph is from Sam Harris, The End of Faith. And the list of pogroms is abridged from what it is in the book.

Care to adjust your earlier contention?

"It's been clear from the start why I brought up my ROTC experience, and that was to just say, in my own defense that in my military experience, the people I served with were exceptional people. Driven, bright, honorable and loyal. All of them."
-Rob

You brought up your ROTC experience days ago, this is the first time you've said this. Clearly your lying and trying to cover you a$$.
-stan

If you could see through your irrational, knee jerk hate, you would have grasped from my first ROTC post that I only brought it up in relation to defending myself from your lunatic attacks that I hated out troops. Here it is since you missed it the first time, jacka$$.

"I have great respect for our military as a whole and the people who make it run. I have respect for the boots on the ground and the enlisted men. I'm a former midshipman myself, I know what the military is about. That's why I'm so angered by Bush's dismantling of the military, sending them to the wrong country to invade without the right equipment and the right plan, for saying their sacrifice in Iraq will be just a comma in history while at the same time garnering votes for his sycophantic republican rubber stamp congressman by using the war to scare people. He doesn't care about our troops. If he did, he would have at least had a plan."
Posted by: Rob Norris | Nov 2, 2006 4:44:29 PM

Stan. Remove foot from from mouth and insert in your a$$.

"Care to adjust your earlier contention?"

No

"This is an abomination of reason. The Quran having three different words for "jew" "christian" and "unbeliever" does not mean that "jews" and "christians" are NOT unbelievers also. ALKAFR can mean pagan, as in no faith in any god or religion whatsoever, while Jews are ALI?WDI, or "unbelievers of the Jewish variety" and Christians are ALMSIH, or "unbelievers of the Christian variety."""

That makes no sense in English or Arabic. There is only one word for Christian, one for Jew, and another for pagan. They are separate words with separate meanings. They are not interchangeable in the Quran. Learn Arabic, move to Saudi, talk to Muslims. Then tell me all you know about the Quran. Is wikipedia your source on Islam too?

"does not mean that "jews" and "christians" are NOT unbelievers also."

Yes it does. One billion Muslims don't know what the Quran says because YOU say so. What an a$$.

"If somehow the period of time during which the prophet "received the perfect word of God" affected what the prophet wrote, then what he wrote is not the unerrant word of God."

And I guess God said the same thing over and over in the Bible. Time stood still and nothing changed?

God did and said things based on what was happening. The flood, Noah's ark. How did God decide when that would happen?

Look it up in wikipedia.

I'm waiting hear how when there are hundreds of military regulations, official AF, Army, DOD, and Navy websites,...

You pick wikipedia as you source for the military rank structure?

Let's hear the one again where you were a 'Line Officer' in the Navy. Or are you now choosing to ignore that?

Feel free to chime in any time, Juanito.

Robbie,

There are two concepts you simply haven't grasped:

Faith and reason.

Every human being takes hundreds of steps of faith every day of their lives, even a supreme human being, like you Robbie, does so. It would be impossible to live otherwise.

Religions are leaps -- rather than steps -- of faith. Your religion, Atheism is a far larger leap of faith than Stan's Roman Catholocism.

Here's another question for which you may post another 300 word nonanswer, Robbie: What about Sam Harris being a Buddhist?

Oh, I was a Boyscout, so am I a military man?

And shouldn't you get a job? Or SOMETHING to fill your time more productively than pounding out this lame attempt at itellectualism all day?

Juanito, don't post anything that isn't sourced to wikipedia.

Juanito-

"Religions are leaps -- rather than steps -- of faith. Your religion, Atheism is a far larger leap of faith than Stan's Roman Catholocism."

And you presume to lecture me on the meaning of faith and reason? You clearly cannot even interpret the simplest definition of the two words if the above quote is your contention. There is obviously nothing "faith-based" about being an atheist. I'm not going to reiterate the definitions of the two words again. "If you had one rational atom in your whole body" you would understand that your position is ridiculously wrong.

You are a clueless pseudo-intellectual wannabe who comes in these forums and posts your barbs that take you hours to write so you can pick just the right words to make it appear to the people here that you know what you're talking about, or at least that you have some kind of knowledge no one else has. And reffering to people as "kids" and using the diminuitive form of someone's name is the most transparent characteristic of your psychosis that leads you to these forums to begin with.

And the idea that Sam Harris "is a buddhist" is a lie. This is from an interview with Harris.

Q:You write passionately in your book about the spirituality of Buddhism. How do you describe yourself in terms of your spirituality?

A:I don’t call myself a Buddhist. I recently wrote an article in the Shambhala Sun, which is one of the more widely read Buddhist magazines, entitled “Killing the Buddha.” I essentially argued that that the wisdom of the Buddha is trapped in the religion of Buddhism. The teachings of the Buddha, taken as a whole, probably represent the richest source of contemplative wisdom that we have, but anyone who values these teachings should get out of the religion business. It’s the wrong message. And, in any case, 99 percent of Buddhists practice Buddhism as a religion, and therefore are part of the same egregious discourse."

Continue chewing your hat, juanito. And you managed to work in a barb about my ROTC service. Very mature. If you didn't have the same selective comprehension problem as Stan, you would know that that line of arguing has been exhausted. Stan was wrong, he was filled with hate, he thought I was claiming to be a veteran and telling everyone I was a hero when I only said I was a midshipman so that I could defend myself from his idiotic attacks that I hate our service members.

Here's a perfect example of desperation:

""does not mean that "jews" and "christians" are NOT unbelievers also."

Yes it does. One billion Muslims don't know what the Quran says because YOU say so. What an a$$.
-stan

Look at this. He's pathetically clinging to his "point" that Jews and Christians are considered, by Muslims, to be just as much of "believers" as Muslims themselves. In doing so, he ignores the information from Harris regarding pogroms which did actually occur and which completely demolish his idea that Muslims consider Jews as anything near equals. You tried to discredit that information by claiming Harris is a buddhist, which is a lie.

I think it's safe to say you two have worked yourself into a corner, and you've been exposed as petty hacks who can't argue and just attack.

Ironic that you do it so transparently, Juanito. You called people out for doing just that, yet you do it yourself.

Stan,

It's very simple. Jews and Christians are not Muslims. You seem to think they are. They may not be unbelievers in the pagan sense, but they are unbelievers in the Muslim sense. A Christian is not a Muslim, neither is a Jew.

So, to a Muslim, he will not be seeing any Jews or Christians in paradise, and therefore, they are not "believers."

You're again failing to make a literal distinction. Selective comprehension, anyone?

I do sincerely respect your military service and appreciate that you chose to devote your adult life to the service of America, but the fact you lived in the middle east does not give you the right to claim your own limited experience can trump reality.

"There is obviously nothing "faith-based" about being an atheist."

REALLY? So prove that a God does not exist little Robbie.

That self evidently absurd statement demonstrates yet again (as if that were necessary) that you don't know the meanings of either "faith" or "reason". (Or "god" or "Unbeliever" or "Pagan" for that matter.)

So I AM a military man because I was a Boyscout? COOL!

Robbie,

"pseudo-intellectual wannabe" is redundant. And what does "chewing on your hat" mean? I guess writing isn't your strong suit either, but no surprise there... if you're a addled thinker you can never be much of a writer.

That aside, I never got an answer from days ago about your proposed Fascist utopia, The People's Republic of Robland.

How can you possibly eliminate political parties? Even if we grant the nutty premise that you could convince 95% of the population that yours is a great idea, the remaining 5% would ruin it.

The only other option would be by force, requiring a strong authoritarian state which -- at the scale we're talking about -- could only function with a single political party. HMMM...

WOW! It only took 2 hours to compose this E-mail!

"Continue chewing your hat, juanito. And you managed to work in a barb about my ROTC service. Very mature. If you didn't have the same selective comprehension problem as Stan, you would know that that line of arguing has been exhausted. Stan was wrong, he was filled with hate, he thought I was claiming to be a veteran and telling everyone I was a hero when I only said I was a midshipman so that I could defend myself from his idiotic attacks that I hate our service members."

It hasn't been exhausted. How can it be exhausted when JUST YESTERDAY you say wikipedia is YOUR source for that fact you were a 'line Officer' in the US Navy.

Every time you open your mouth about your 'military service' you say something more stupid than the time before.

I'm waiting for the next dumba$$ statement that out does wikipedia.

"It's very simple. Jews and Christians are not Muslims. You seem to think they are. They may not be unbelievers in the pagan sense, but they are unbelievers in the Muslim sense. A Christian is not a Muslim, neither is a Jew"

No kidding. You're brilliant.

I never said Muslims, Jews, and Christians were the same. I said Christians and Jews, in the context of the 2nd chapter of the Quran, are NOT the unbelievers (ALKAFR) discussed in that chapter.

"I do sincerely respect your military service and appreciate that you chose to devote your adult life to the service of America, but the fact you lived in the middle east does not give you the right to claim your own limited experience can trump reality."

Thank you for the compliment about my service.

But...during my experience in Saudi Arabia, I did study Islam a lot ** I'm not an Islamic expert **. There was a lot I didn't understand. I had Muslim friends answer questions, and when they couldn't answer something (or I was too dense to understand) we went together to the Ministry Of Religious Affairs.

My main questions were about Jihad, killing innocents in the name of Allah/God, and what the Quran said about Jews and Christians.

Everything I've quoted is directedly from those sources and directly out of the Quran.

I chacked out wikipedia for the first time today. Under US Navy there is a section about Rob:

People Claiming to be in the US Navy
Rob Norris, NRTOC, booted out, his claims are misguided

I take back what I said before. Wikipedia is a good source.

"There is obviously nothing "faith-based" about being an atheist."

REALLY? So prove that a God does not exist little Robbie.
-juanito

And now we can add "atheism" to the list of words that juanito thinks he can define, but can't.

First, atheism is not a "religion" as you claim. So you're wrong from the start. It is merely a refusal to deny the obvious. Calling atheism a religion is like a sparrow an arthropod. Your ignorance is even greater than it seemed it would be.

You follow it by claiming that the only way to prove atheism is not based on faith is by proving that a god does not exist. This is the dumbest "argument" you could have made.

Juanito, one can't prove that the world isn't carried around space on the back of a gigantic invisible tortoise. That does not mean that the invisible tortoise exists. You assert that since God cannot be disproven, he exists.

If that is your contention, the fact that you claim to be able to define "reason" and "faith" is the most laughable assertion I've ever encountered. You are completely backwards.

But better yet, there is the problem of evil. If God is omnipotent and benevolent, as dogma claims, then he is either responsible for all of the suffering in the world by causing it, making him evil (that's the opposite of benevolent, juanito), or he can't do anything about it, making him not omnipotent. Either way, the omnipotent and benevolent God doesn't exist because evil exists.

Sane people should realize this. I don't think you're insane, but it's clear that you're ignorant. You're literally pretending you know what you're talking about, and it couldn't be clearer.

""pseudo-intellectual wannabe" is redundant. And what does "chewing on your hat" mean? I guess writing isn't your strong suit either, but no surprise there... if you're a addled thinker you can never be much of a writer."

"pseudo-intellectual wannabe" is NOT redundant. You "wannabe" a "pseudo-intellecutal." You definitely don't wannabe an actual intellectual, because your writing is too childish to support that pursuit. "Chewing your hat" is a continuation of "eat your hat," as in you eat your hat when something you held up as true and 100 percent correct turns out to be false and 0 percent correct, which you have been from the start.

Your criticism of my writing, coming from you, is really entertaining. Thanks.

From now on, just put "in my opinion" in front of every claim you make, and you won't keep getting put back into your place by someone who can actually define what "reason" and "faith" are. Although at this point its evident you think your "place" is as a troll in this thread, and I doubt you'll give that role up.

Stan -- I must say, I admire your tenacity.

I clicked over here by mistake. (Sometimes I'm guilty of rapid-fire mouse-clicking.) I was astonished to see the last half of these posts. I can't believe that you're STILL going 'round and 'round with Rob. I appreciate that you have good intentions in trying to correct his logistical errors, but with some people it's just not possible.

Atheists are famous for this because they simply can't (or won't) acknowledge that they can't prove their position with facts. Agnostics, of course, are a different kettle of proverbial fish since they don't make the same error in logic. Atheists also typically don't know much about real religions. For instance, it is common for people who know nothing of Roman Catholicism to say, "Catholics believe the Pope is infallible." This is NOT a position held by the Roman church, or by the Pope for that matter, as you probably know. But atheists seem happier making that simple statement, so what can you do?

Anyway, I just wanted to ask you a much simpler question, if you don't mind. I read an English translation of the Koran some years ago. I can't remember whose it was, but I think it was the 19th century English colonial dude, one of the infamous "orientalists". Recently I read that you really should be careful about English translations, that many of them are so inaccurate as to be considered heretical by some Muslims. Do you know anything about this? Could you recommend a good translation?

Robbie,

If you hold any belief without proof, that belief is "faith", ergo Atheism is a faith.

"You assert that since God cannot be disproven, he exists." says Little Robbie.

No, I NEVER said that. Theism is also a faith.

As for the red herrings about evil and benevolence, I never brought those up. How are they relevant to the fundamental question?

All of this frantic typing over the course of days... jeez your keyboard must be smokin'! -- and yet you have not successfully defended even one position.

OK, so you can not prove there is no God and thus demonstrate that your belief is faith. Fine. What about your dumba$$ proposition of a few days ago vis-a-vis political parties?

Oh, and hit the dictionary about "psuedo". And apparently "eat your hat" is some witicism of your own invention. It makes no sense to we here on Planet Normal.

Elizabeth,

Could you please tell me how atheism is illogical? Inherent in that assertion is the claim that religious beliefs are at least more logical than atheism. Please explain, since you claim to know so much more about the topic than I do.

And agnostics simply claim there is not enough evidence to decide either way. They're just non-committal. At least they rely on evidence, even if they do ignore the overwhelming evidence that goes against a benevolent creator who communicated the truths of existence to prophets thousands of years ago.

Please respond to the following as well, since you are the one who called me out:

According to Catholic doctrine, the Pope is infallible in matters of doctrine, faith and morals.

"In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a supernatural sense of faith the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living magisterium, unfailingly adheres to this faith." Pg. 235, #889

The Catechism restates the same belief this way:

"The Roman Pontiff... enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith - he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals... This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself." Pg. 235, #891

It would appear, from the above quotes from the Roman Catholic Catechism, that you don't know what you're talking about.

You also claim that I make "logistical" errors. I know you meant to say that I made errors in my logic, however I can't take criticism of my logic too seriously from someone who does not even know her vocabulary. It's kind of like you going up to a mechanic fixing an engine and, after taking a quick look under the hood, you politely inform him that the "intersplifferator" is busted while pointing at a perfecly functional sparkplug.

Imagine how he would look at you. That's my facial expression right now.

No, Rob, I can't tell you anything.

Robbie, Robbie... Now you're jumping on TYPOS?! Talk about desperation!

Juanito-

"If you hold any belief without proof, that belief is "faith", ergo Atheism is a faith."

That is a woefully incomplete definition of faith. It should read "if you hold any belief without proof or any EVIDENCE whatsoever, that belief is "faith."

You must concede that there is far more evidence against the existence of God than for it. In actuality, there is no evidence whatsoever that supports the existence of God.

And you still don't understand the difference between a POLITICAL PARTY and SOCIAL GROUPS. I clearly described that difference days ago when you first raised you assinine objection that it would require an authoritarian government to enforce my idea.

Keep going, you prove your trolliness with each post.

Have you no shame?

"You assert that since God cannot be disproven, he exists." says Little Robbie.

No, I NEVER said that. Theism is also a faith.
-juanito

Wow. Never mind comprehending what I'm talking about, you don't even know what you're talking about. Are you sayin that atheism is a faith because theism is a faith? Don't you realize that the two concepts are opposite? Meaning that, in order to subscribe to theism, you at least have to believe that some kind of god exist, and you would be doing so without evidence or proof, and that is an act of religious faith. To subscribe to atheism, you do not make the leap of faith because you are using EVIDENCE to support the contention that no god exists. Theism requires faith. Atheism clearly does not. You simply cannot comprehend what's being discussed here.

But back to your original objection:

"There is obviously nothing "faith-based" about being an atheist." - Rob

REALLY? So prove that a God does not exist little Robbie. -juanito

AGAIN, for juanito who can't read what's right in front of his face:

You follow it by claiming that the only way to prove atheism is not based on faith is by proving that a god does not exist. This is the dumbest "argument" you could have made.
-Rob

You see, by saying that in response to me saying there is nothing faith based about atheism, what logically follows is that you are saying that if God were to be disproven, then atheism would not be faith-based. So, since God cannot be disproven, atheism is faith based, and God exists.
Atheism is faith based if God cannot be disproven, and if he exists. Therefore, if God cannot be disproven he exists and thus atheism is faith based.

You have just put forth a completely circular argument. You don't have a clue how to discuss things rationally. Go take some philosophy courses you hack.

"As for the red herrings about evil and benevolence, I never brought those up. How are they relevant to the fundamental question?"

You didn't bring those up because you're either ignorant of them or you know they would destroy your argument. The "fundamental question," it seems, is regarding the irrationality of faith. You would realize that the problems of reconciling a supposedly benevolent and omnipotent God with the existence of evil are not red herrings regarding this question if you weren't philosophically retarded.

Sorry juanito, but you clearly can't hang with this conversation. Why don't you go do what you do best and pedantically attack some liberals in another thread?

Duce,
I'm still waiting for you to address the now days-old issue, by the way. Remember, how can you possibly eliminate political parties?

"Could you please tell me how atheism is illogical? Inherent in that assertion is the claim that religious beliefs are at least more logical than atheism."

WRONG AGAIN! There is nothing more to the statement "atheism is illogical" than atheism is illogical. How can you say otherwise? Oh, I know, because you can't reason!

"And agnostics simply claim there is not enough evidence to decide either way. They're just non-committal."

AND ONCE AGAIN ROBBIE IS WRONG! Agnostics hold that "God" is that which is beyond human comprehension and experience. In other words, God is unknowable (from the Greek "a"="not" and "gnosis"="knowledge") Its existance is a given, it's nature is unknown.

I'm really getting tired of trying to educate you, especially since you're so ungrateful resistant to learning.

Stan,

Ms Bennet raises a good question: where can we get a good English version of the Quran?

"Anyway, I just wanted to ask you a much simpler question, if you don't mind. I read an English translation of the Koran some years ago. I can't remember whose it was, but I think it was the 19th century English colonial dude, one of the infamous "orientalists". Recently I read that you really should be careful about English translations, that many of them are so inaccurate as to be considered heretical by some Muslims. Do you know anything about this? Could you recommend a good translation?"

Posted by: Elizabeth Bennet | Nov 9, 2006 1:50:06 PM

The Koran I use came from Saudi Arabia, the Ministry Of Religious Affairs.

I asked him the same question about translating the Koran from Arabic into any other language, his answer surprised me.

He told me that even though Arabic is the true language of Islam, because it was the language of the prophet Mohhammad, it would be 'stupid' (his word) not to translate the true word of God/Allah for all to read, since only one in eight Muslims is an Arab.

He showed copies of the Koran printed by the ministry to be sent all over the world. I don't know how many different languages there were. These were paid for and distributed by the Saudi government.

The official gave me two copies of the Koran, one in Arabic and another in English and Arabic.

I think if you went to Barnes and Noble or Borders you'd get a good tranlation (non-heretical). You could go online and check out some of the Muslim/Islamic websites, or go and ask someone at a mosque in your town if there is one.

"Stan,

Ms Bennet raises a good question: where can we get a good English version of the Quran?"

Posted by: Juanito | Nov 9, 2006 4:49:14 PM

See my answer posted about two minutes ago!

Still waiting for the answer to the days old question. That half baked twaddle about "POLITICAL PARTY and SOCIAL GROUPS" is saying nothing. How do you eliminate political parties?

"To subscribe to atheism, you do not make the leap of faith because you are using EVIDENCE to support the contention that no god exists."

OK Little Robbie, so share the evidence with us. Disprove God. Prove that your belief is not a matter of faith.

And by the way, I will grant you your ammendment of the definition, to wit: "if you hold any belief without proof or any EVIDENCE whatsoever, that belief is "faith." Fine. So prove away, kiddo!

By the way, you also stated confidently that you knew very precisely what my religious and political beliefs are. I challenged you to cite the posts where I have spelled those out. Still waiting for that too. Or do you just know that because you're clairvoyant?

One more thing: If you're actually thinking about rising to the bait and attempting to disprove god, don't babble about contradiction of benevolence and evil coexisting, or make references to the Bible Talmud or Quran or to father figures or giant turtles or heaven or hell or Vahalla or Olympia or any mythologies past or present... None of that is relevant to the fundamental issue.

Disprove God on the most basic terms. That is as the embodiment of universal absolutes and the source of existance.

Oh, and if you haven't already figured it out I admit that I can't prove the existance of God, so don't bother mentioning that to me again. It's also irrelevant.

Thanks, Stan. I'll see what I can find at my friendly neighborhood bookseller.

Juanito

The evidence against the existence of God is that there is no evidence for it. If something doesn't exist, there can be no evidence "against" it other than a lack of evidence for it. If there is no evidence FOR it, then there is no REASON or EVIDENCE to believe it.

It's not a hard concept.

But you can't change the subject of the argument in the middle of it. We've been talking about the rationality of faith in the context of the big three religions. Faith is always irrational, but disproving the God of the big three is different than disproving

"God on the most basic terms. That is as the embodiment of universal absolutes and the source of existance."

So by changing the argument mid-stream you are conceding that the God of the big three can be disproven. The problem of evil disproves that God definitively, unless you want to take a stab at defending it.

Also, agnostics do not say that the existence is "given." Agnostic, like you said, means "without knowledge." Meaning, they don't KNOW either way. Existence of "God" is not a given with agnostics. You might get an agnostic to acknowledge that there is some ultimate organizing "force," but not that there is a "God" in the Christian/Jewish/Muslim sense, which is what we've been talking about until you decided to give up and change the topic.

And I never claimed to know your religious and political beliefs. Please post where I said that. All I said is that you've been a Bush supporter in these forums for a long time.

Rob,

You have not disproven God and I have never changed the subject. I simply narrowed the focus. You're saying that something can not be proven does not disprove it. I can't prove the existance of electrons, are you going to tell me that they don't exist?

Faith is not always irrational because every concious functioning human being makes hundreds of reasonable steps of faith every day. For example, when you stand at a sign that reads "Bus Stop" you CAN'T KNOW that a bus will show up. Different things could preclude that happening, a driver's strike, an accident up the line diverting traffic etc. -- but it's a very small, reasonable step of faith to wait there for the bus.

"God" can never be proven or disproven. So stating a belief or disbelief can only be a matter of faith. And to admit that you believe something on faith is to admit that you are a normal, concious functioning human being because the fact is that's how people live.

Part of our problem here is the semantic cultural baggage attached to the word "God", I admit that. Atheists react to a model that is 2000 years old or more (which many believers still accept as literal truth) however MANY a modern Theist rejects that model also. Or more accurately, they take it as a metaphor.

And the word "Agnostic" covers a range of belief, that overlaps both Ateism and Theism. I admit that I was using the term too narrowly. Gordon Stein wrote in his essay "The Meaning of Atheism and Agnosticism":

"...atheism has made an impossibility out of the common usage of agnosticism to mean "neither affirming nor denying a belief in God." Actually, this is no great loss, because the dictionary definition of agnostic is still again different from Huxley's definition. The literal meaning of agnostic is one who holds that some aspect of reality is unknowable. Therefore, an agnostic is not simply someone who suspends judgment on an issue, but rather one who suspends judgment because he feels that the subject is unknowable and therefore no judgment can be made. It is possible, therefore, for someone not to believe in a God (as Huxley did not) and yet still suspend judgment (ie, be an agnostic) about whether it is possible to obtain knowledge of a God. Such a person would be an atheistic agnostic. It is also possible to believe in the existence of a force behind the universe, but to hold (as did Herbert Spencer) that any knowledge of that force was unobtainable. Such a person would be a theistic agnostic."

And I have never supported Bush. I love ripping into the Democrats because they're flabby and I want there to be a viable opposition to the Republicans. That does not add up to supporting Bush.

"Juanito,
I knew you'd pop your head in here to throw your two cents in. You conincidentally got 'really busy' when the talk turned to religion."

Posted by: Rob Norris | Nov 7, 2006 1:14:02 PM

Juanito-

"You have not disproven God and I have never changed the subject. I simply narrowed the focus."

I disagree. We were talking about the existence of a single deity in the tradition of the big three religions. A very specific, defined God. Narrowing the focus would be focusing on only the Jewish concept of this deity. What you did was change the subject by asking me to disprove "God on the most basic terms. That is as the embodiment of universal absolutes and the source of existance." That is not narrowing the focus of our earlier discussion, since the concept of that "God" is much different.

That same argument does not apply to the concept of "God" that you described because that "God" does not have those characteristics. So, essentially, you changed the subject from the God of the big three to a purely theistic argument.

The problem of evil actually does disprove the existence of the God of the big three, but only because of the specific characteristics of that God. He is supposedly both omnipotent and benevolent. If this were true, evil would not exist because evil is inconsistent with an omnipotent AND benevolent deity. I don't think there is any way around this one, despite the myriad objections that have been raised to it over the years, such as "you can't judge God by man's standards of morality." You can see right away why that one doesn't get off the ground.

"Your saying that something cannot be proven does not disprove it."

I didn't say that because you can't prove it that is the same as disproving it. I said

"The evidence against the existence of God is that there is no evidence for it. If something doesn't exist, there can be no evidence "against" it other than a lack of evidence for it. If there is no evidence FOR it, then there is no REASON or EVIDENCE to believe it."

Therefore, belief in such a thing would be irrational. I did not claim to disprove the existence of any God with this, just that belief in any God is irrational, which was my point to begin with.

This argument, which I am enjoying (not because I think I'm "winning" but because we're actually being civil with each other), started with me claiming faith is irrational and you saying exactly the opposite, that faith is always based on reason.

"I can't prove the existence of electrons, are you going to tell me they don't exist?"

Doesn't the electron microscope prove the existence of electrons? I mean, it uses electrons to sense the features of very small things. I think it's not a matter of question that electrons exist. Now, as to where any given electron IS at any given point in time? That is a different question, but far beyond the question of do they exist or not.

You use the example of waiting at a bus stop and call it faith to wait for one since you don't KNOW whether one will show up. This example is invalid because one standing at a bus stop has a lot of evidence to believe the premise that a bus will come, meaning it is not an act of faith to wait at a bus stop for a bus. It would be an act of faith to wait for a bus in the middle of the forest, since there is no reason or evidence to believe that a bus will ever show up.

One doesn't "know" a bus will show up at a bus stop, but that's a causality and inference argument and not relevant to faith at all.

Beliefs and disbeliefs are only matters of "faith" when one has no evidence or reason to believe them, not when one is in the condition of not "knowing" for sure.

About the old model of God. With respect to the big three religions, that model of God should not have changed one iota over time. I mean, if the sacred books are based on the word of God himself, and that God is absolute and timeless, then the way to please that God then is the way to please that God now, especially when you have in each sacred text of the big three the directive to not add or take anything away. Because of this I don't think you can say that the "semantic cultural baggage" is what the problem is. The problem is people changing what's required to have faith, literally adding or taking away against the specific command of the God they're supposed to be worshipping, since to take away or add literally invalidates the entire religion.

And about Bush, you sure seemed like one to me. I don't have time now but I might kill some later by going through old posts to see if you actually were pro-Bush or just kind of instigating. I can think of one off the top of my head though, when the other day in the Kerry thread you posted "And people call BUSH dumb!" That to me sounds like a defense of Bush, but it could've just been you "ripping into the dems" i suppose.