Howard Baker passes

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Come on! Go to any one of these progressive sites and see how they bash christians. They're not tame about it. Most of them don't even attempt to hide their disdain for christians and republicans.

Once again, you try to shift the onus on me of proving your own claim. Nope. It's your responsibility to find these "progressive" sites and specific articles bashing Christians for being Christian (bashing a Christian for shouting Bible verses at a captive audience or assassinating a doctor as he leaves his church don't count, as those are clearly criticisms of actions, not faith). Go ahead, I'll wait. I suggest you read the whole article though, not just the headline.

But I think some of those stereotypes are fairly common amongst non-conservatives too. For example, if you are travelling and there is a group of 5 Muslim men on your plane, would you get a little bit nervous?

No. Because I'm not prejudiced against Muslims, and don't hold an entire faith responsible for what a small minority of its members do. You know, like how a small minority of Christians terrorize women outside abortion clinics and paint swastikas on synagogues (when they aren't setting fire to them), and blow up government buildings, including day care centers filled with little kids. I don't hold all Christians responsible and suspect to suspicion because the Christian Identity movement exists.

I read much of the Duck Dynasty interview. I have a different take from you. I don't think the guy has any hate in his heart for gays or minorities. If you think he does I disagree with you.

"Much." Not all. Right.

Show me where I said the man had "hate in his heart," please.

Going back to your other question about the conservative movement, I think people often times make incorrect assumptions about a person based on that person's stance on a policy. This seem to happen more in partisan politics than other things. For example, do you remember the disabled golfer Casey Martin? Because of his disability, he couldn't walk the golf course. He needed to ride in a golf cart. But golf carts are not allowed on the PGA Tour. So there was a controversy. Casey Martin sued claiming that the no-cart policy was discriminatory against disabled people. Anyway, there were plenty of people on his side and plenty of people against him. They weren't against him because they didn't like disabled people. They were against him because they don't think anybody should be be allowed to ride in a cart because they think walking is part of the game. If this was partisan politics, these people would probably be accused of being anti-disabled people. In the case of Casey Martin, I never heard that accusation.

To quote from the Right's patron saint, "There you go again," with the "probably"s. Probably ain't fact. Back it up with proof or you're just making stuff up.

It's too bad that politics aren't the same way. If a person thinks we need to secure our borders, that certainly doesn't mean that the person doesn't like Latino people. But the person will be accused of this all day by some on the left. In many cases, I don't think it's just an accusation thrown out there for effect. I think they really believe it.

And there you go again with "think." Back it up with proof.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Once again, you try to shift the onus on me of proving your own claim. Nope. It's your responsibility to find these "progressive" sites and specific articles bashing Christians for being Christian (bashing a Christian for shouting Bible verses at a captive audience or assassinating a doctor as he leaves his church don't count, as those are clearly criticisms of actions, not faith). Go ahead, I'll wait. I suggest you read the whole article though, not just the headline.



No. Because I'm not prejudiced against Muslims, and don't hold an entire faith responsible for what a small minority of its members do. You know, like how a small minority of Christians terrorize women outside abortion clinics and paint swastikas on synagogues (when they aren't setting fire to them), and blow up government buildings, including day care centers filled with little kids. I don't hold all Christians responsible and suspect to suspicion because the Christian Identity movement exists.




"Much." Not all. Right.

Show me where I said the man had "hate in his heart," please.



To quote from the Right's patron saint, "There you go again," with the "probably"s. Probably ain't fact. Back it up with proof or you're just making stuff up.



And there you go again with "think." Back it up with proof.

I can't believe you are asking me to provide liberal articles that claim christians and/or conservatives are racist. That would be like me asking you to provide proof that conservatives don't like Obama. Here are a couple of article that claims many christians and/ or conservatives are racist. There are thousands of these types of articles out there.

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/24/evan...stian_racists/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...ves-and-Racism

Your comments comparing Christians to Muslims when it comes to terrorism are absurd. Comments like that are the reason that "political correctness" is so ridiculous. For the PC person such as yourself, we should throw out all rational thinking and all reason. Terrorism is a big problem in the world right now and one group is responsible for practically all of it. That is a fact. In addition, a large percentage of that particular religion supports it. The name Osama was one of the most popular baby names in Muslim countries after 9/11.

Our government spends a huge amount of resources all over the world fighting terrorism. What group do you think their focus is on? Since our government's anti-terrorism focus around the world is on Muslims, does that mean our government is prejudice?

With regards to the Duck Dynasty guy, you said you thought he was racist and homophobic. Racism means different things to different people. Depending what your definition is, I guess a person could be a racist without disliking the group he is accused of being racist against. I assumed you meant that he has a strong dislike of blacks and gays, but I wasn't sure. That was why I said, "If" you think he has hate in his heart, I disagree with you. I wasn't sure what your definition was.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I can't believe you are asking me to provide liberal articles that claim christians and/or conservatives are racist. That would be like me asking you to provide proof that conservatives don't like Obama. Here are a couple of article that claims many christians and/ or conservatives are racist. There are thousands of these types of articles out there.

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/24/evan...stian_racists/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...ves-and-Racism

But neither of those articles are criticizing Christianity (the first one was written by an Evangelist, for chrissakes); they're criticizing racism. Are you saying you think racism is a good thing, then? (Reminder: your whole thing was that "progressive sites" were chock full of writers denigrating Christians and Christianity)

Your comments comparing Christians to Muslims when it comes to terrorism are absurd. Comments like that are the reason that "political correctness" is so ridiculous. For the PC person such as yourself, we should throw out all rational thinking and all reason. Terrorism is a big problem in the world right now and one group is responsible for practically all of it. That is a fact. In addition, a large percentage of that particular religion supports it. The name Osama was one of the most popular baby names in Muslim countries after 9/11.

No. Global climate change is a big problem in the world right now. Limited resources is a big problem. Overpopulation is a big problem. Terrorism, by comparison, is a small problem. You're more likely in this country to be killed by a football than killed in a terrorist attack.

Our government spends a huge amount of resources all over the world fighting terrorism. What group do you think their focus is on? Since our government's anti-terrorism focus around the world is on Muslims, does that mean our government is prejudice?

Our anti-terrorism spending is a huge boondoggle giveaway to people with government connections. http://waronirrationalfear.com/facts

With regards to the Duck Dynasty guy, you said you thought he was racist and homophobic. Racism means different things to different people. Depending what your definition is, I guess a person could be a racist without disliking the group he is accused of being racist against. I assumed you meant that he has a strong dislike of blacks and gays, but I wasn't sure. That was why I said, "If" you think he has hate in his heart, I disagree with you. I wasn't sure what your definition was.

He compared homosexuality to bestiality. How do you interpret that, Rupe? He thinks blacks were happier during Jim Crow. How do you interpret that?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

But neither of those articles are criticizing Christianity (the first one was written by an Evangelist, for chrissakes); they're criticizing racism. Are you saying you think racism is a good thing, then? (Reminder: your whole thing was that "progressive sites" were chock full of writers denigrating Christians and Christianity)



No. Global climate change is a big problem in the world right now. Limited resources is a big problem. Overpopulation is a big problem. Terrorism, by comparison, is a small problem. You're more likely in this country to be killed by a football than killed in a terrorist attack.



Our anti-terrorism spending is a huge boondoggle giveaway to people with government connections. http://waronirrationalfear.com/facts



He compared homosexuality to bestiality. How do you interpret that, Rupe? He thinks blacks were happier during Jim Crow. How do you interpret that?

I think the opinions of those authors is very clear. They are accusing christians of being racists. To answer your question, no, I don't think racism is a good thing.

With regards to the discussion about terrorism, if you don't think it's a major problem in the world, I don't know what to tell you. Do you have any idea how many terrorist attacks around the world are thwarted? You may want to research that. There would probably be 100x more attacks if governments weren't so active in counter-terrorism.

The Duck Dynasty guy was asked to give some examples of sin. I wouldn't define his answer as meaning that he is comparing those sins to each other. If you ask me to name some sins and I mention both stealing and murder, that doesn't mean I'm comparing stealing to murder.

With regard to Robertson's comments about blacks being happier during Jim Crow, I don't think it was a very smart thing to say. But that was just his opinion based on what he has seen. That doesn't mean he dislikes blacks. I think I understand what he was saying. Sometimes people are happier when their lives are simpler. How many people have we heard about that hit the lottery and then their lives got worse? They were happier when they had no money and their life was simple. That may be what Robertson was saying. Either way, it was a stupid thing to say.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

With regards to the discussion about terrorism, if you don't think it's a major problem in the world, I don't know what to tell you. Do you have any idea how many terrorist attacks around the world are thwarted? You may want to research that. There would probably be 100x more attacks if governments weren't so active in counter-terrorism.

Actually, we do have an idea. From the link I posted:

"When terrorism cases result in arrests it becomes part of the public record. Therefore, thwarted terrorist attacks that involve arrests cannot legally be kept secret when the activity is in the United States. So we can get a rough picture of what the threat of terrorism in the U.S. looks like by surveying these cases.

Professor John Mueller of Ohio State University has compiled a report that includes all known cases of Islamic extremism10 which have occurred within, or have been targeted against the United States since 9/11. Out of a total of 52 cases:

3 involved situations where no plot had yet been hatched, but authorities worried one might arise.
27 were “essentially created or facilitated in a major way by the authorities.” In other words, a would-be jihadist, often mentally ill, would be provided the coaxing and resources necessary to carry out an attack, and then arrested upon proving that they were willing participants.
There are no known plots disrupted that involved weapons of mass destruction.
All but two cases involved nothing more than a plan to set off conventional explosives.
Of the two cases which included something more dangerous than conventional explosives, one involved a ludicrous scheme to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a simple blowtorch, which the plotters abandoned before they were even arrested. The other was a plan by a group of Lebanese men to flood railway tunnels under the Hudson River in which the plotters never acquired bombs, nor did they ever make it to the United States.

Additionally, in the vast majority of cases, terrorists within the United States have proven inept, as written about by Bruce Schneier. In only one of the four cases in which terrorists attempted to set off a bomb since 9/11 did they succeed in even igniting it."

Meanwhile, 45,000 people die in the US every year from lack of adequate health care, and we currently have 60,000 children coming into the United States because the War on Drugs has destroyed Mexico and Central America. And you think terrorism is the bigger threat?

The War on Terror is as big a boondoggle as the War on Drugs.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Actually, we do have an idea. From the link I posted:

"When terrorism cases result in arrests it becomes part of the public record. Therefore, thwarted terrorist attacks that involve arrests cannot legally be kept secret when the activity is in the United States. So we can get a rough picture of what the threat of terrorism in the U.S. looks like by surveying these cases.

Professor John Mueller of Ohio State University has compiled a report that includes all known cases of Islamic extremism10 which have occurred within, or have been targeted against the United States since 9/11. Out of a total of 52 cases:

3 involved situations where no plot had yet been hatched, but authorities worried one might arise.
27 were “essentially created or facilitated in a major way by the authorities.” In other words, a would-be jihadist, often mentally ill, would be provided the coaxing and resources necessary to carry out an attack, and then arrested upon proving that they were willing participants.
There are no known plots disrupted that involved weapons of mass destruction.
All but two cases involved nothing more than a plan to set off conventional explosives.
Of the two cases which included something more dangerous than conventional explosives, one involved a ludicrous scheme to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a simple blowtorch, which the plotters abandoned before they were even arrested. The other was a plan by a group of Lebanese men to flood railway tunnels under the Hudson River in which the plotters never acquired bombs, nor did they ever make it to the United States.

Additionally, in the vast majority of cases, terrorists within the United States have proven inept, as written about by Bruce Schneier. In only one of the four cases in which terrorists attempted to set off a bomb since 9/11 did they succeed in even igniting it."

Meanwhile, 45,000 people die in the US every year from lack of adequate health care, and we currently have 60,000 children coming into the United States because the War on Drugs has destroyed Mexico and Central America. And you think terrorism is the bigger threat?

The War on Terror is as big a boondoggle as the War on Drugs.

How has the war on drugs destroyed Mexico?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Actually, we do have an idea. From the link I posted:

"When terrorism cases result in arrests it becomes part of the public record. Therefore, thwarted terrorist attacks that involve arrests cannot legally be kept secret when the activity is in the United States. So we can get a rough picture of what the threat of terrorism in the U.S. looks like by surveying these cases.

Professor John Mueller of Ohio State University has compiled a report that includes all known cases of Islamic extremism10 which have occurred within, or have been targeted against the United States since 9/11. Out of a total of 52 cases:

3 involved situations where no plot had yet been hatched, but authorities worried one might arise.
27 were “essentially created or facilitated in a major way by the authorities.” In other words, a would-be jihadist, often mentally ill, would be provided the coaxing and resources necessary to carry out an attack, and then arrested upon proving that they were willing participants.
There are no known plots disrupted that involved weapons of mass destruction.
All but two cases involved nothing more than a plan to set off conventional explosives.
Of the two cases which included something more dangerous than conventional explosives, one involved a ludicrous scheme to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a simple blowtorch, which the plotters abandoned before they were even arrested. The other was a plan by a group of Lebanese men to flood railway tunnels under the Hudson River in which the plotters never acquired bombs, nor did they ever make it to the United States.

Additionally, in the vast majority of cases, terrorists within the United States have proven inept, as written about by Bruce Schneier. In only one of the four cases in which terrorists attempted to set off a bomb since 9/11 did they succeed in even igniting it."

Meanwhile, 45,000 people die in the US every year from lack of adequate health care, and we currently have 60,000 children coming into the United States because the War on Drugs has destroyed Mexico and Central America. And you think terrorism is the bigger threat?

The War on Terror is as big a boondoggle as the War on Drugs.

I was talking about worldwide terrorism. In a place like England, they have a huge problem with Islamic extremists, yet there aren't that many attacks because the government has an extremely aggressive counter-terrorism task force.

With regard to what is a bigger threat between terrorism vs other problems in our country, I don't think I can answer that one. That would be a little bit too difficult too quantify. I would assume the government could spend our money in a more efficient way than they do but it doesn't seem like either side (republicans or democrats) has a great solution. If they could cut defense spending without risking our safety, that would be a good thing. But I don't if it could be done. I'm sure most of the experts (or so-called experts) at the Pentagon would probably say we can't afford to come back on military spending.

These things are extremely hard to quantify. For example, let's say you have a large house and you spend thousands of dollars on security. You have the best alarm system, a high fence, and a 24 hour guard. You never have any problems. Was all the security a waste of money? I would say probably not. All the security may have been the main reason that you never had any problems.