It would be interesting to hear your views on how ( "I have a plan" ? ) Kerry would --
"better secure the world's economic future, political stability, environmental health, and quality of life in general "
These views are all on Kerry's web site if you cared or bothered to look at them.
Ali - you're so close minded & your arguments are so scattered that it's makes having a reasonable discussion with you very challenging. All you choose to do is keep bashing Clinton & things Kerry said that were taken out of context. I mean it's really foolish - you guys have been in power for 4 years & yet all you have to talk about is Clinton?
Why don't you talk about all the great things Bush has gone?
| Quote (MidnightToker @ Nov. 09 2004,12:21) |
|
These views are all on Kerry's web site if you cared or bothered to look at them. |
I did. Though the question was .... " It would be interesting to hear your views on how ... "
Quote -- " It would be interesting to hear your views on how ( "I have a plan" ? ) Kerry would -- better secure the world's economic future, political stability, environmental health, and quality of life in general "
| Quote (MidnightToker @ Nov. 09 2004,12:21) |
|
Ali - you're so close minded |
Yes, we all know this.
I was just wondering if you actually had any ideas or answers ....
( Well, other than bashing the President, that is )
| Quote (MidnightToker @ Nov. 09 2004,12:21) |
|
& your arguments are so scattered that it's makes having a reasonable discussion with you very challenging. |
Scattered ?? Actually I was responding to one of Tom's
posts .... point by point.
Are you saying Tom's arguments are scattered ?
| Quote (TomS @ Nov. 08 2004,07:20) |
I voted for Kerry in order to better secure the world's economic future, political stability, environmental health, and quality of life in general. Not that he could ahve done all that, but his values are in the right place; Bush's are not. I would have voted against Bush even if the alternative were not worth voting for, since most of Bush's success is the result of the backing of several dangerous groups and tendencies: fundamentalist Christians who want to impose their values and religion on me (values that are anti-democratic in the same way that other religious extremists are), and the ultra wealthy - Bush's other self-admitted "base" - who want Bush so they can reap vast enconomic rewards at the expense of the vast majority. These people do not care about the future (in one case because of the inherent apocalypticism in the tradition, in the other b/c long-term well-being conflicts with relatively short-term profit motives). One wonders why the profit seekers at least are not rational enough, or don't love their kids enough, to think about how stupid it is to sacrifice their future. No point in having more than everybody else if the neighborhood is crumbling around you. Totally irrational. As for the religious sector supporting Bush - well, they have fundamentally misunderstood their own tradition, and have become nearly the opposite of what the founder of that religion taught. Again, I cannot fathom how one gets from a message of love to a message of hatred. 
|
Well, we all know how close minded and bigited conservatives are ...
I was just wondering if you had anything to offer (?) I guess not ...
It's no doubt easier to complain about health care, environment,
children, 'the' poor, ect ..... than it is to offer any substantial ideas. Isn't it ?
Ali
Haliburton !
Big Oil !
The Rich !
Right Wing Conspiracy !
Hey, your right Tok .... this is more Fun !!!
-
| Quote (Drummer @ Nov. 09 2004,12:12) |
| It is intrinsically a peaceful religion |
What led you to arrive at this conclusion?
This is what the Kuran encourages for those who would wage war against Allah.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement
And another passage regarding the exclusivity of Islam:
[2.111] And they say: None shall enter the garden (or paradise) except he who is a Jew or a Christian. These are their vain desires. Say: Bring your proof if you are truthful. [2.112] Yes! whoever submits himself entirely to Allah and he is the doer of good (to others) he has his reward from his Lord, and there is no fear for him nor shall he grieve
I don't see a religion of peace here. I get the idea that anyone who does not hold the same beliefs, and causes a stir about it, gets into trouble, which is exactly what's happening in the middle-east today.
Well, 5.33 affirms 2.190-193, that self-defense is OK, but most cultures accept that, and do not characterize that as warlike. You also need to read the whole passage - 5.34 also says that those who repent will be forgiven. In 7th century terms this is highly progressive, and very few Muslims today would read this passage literally. Don't forget that Jews and Christians face similar textual oddities, e.g. Old Testament or Torah commandments having to do with dashing out babies brains on rocks. How many Jews or Christians take those literally? You have to judge the Qur'an by how it is understood, just as we do with the Bible or the Tanak. In any case, it says that self-defense is OK, not aggressive war.
On the exclusivity claim - that is a claim common to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. They are all part of the same monotheistic religious tradition that has a conception of God which includes the idea of a chosen people. In Christianity it is embodied in the "myth of supersession," the idea that God had given up on the Jews and chosen the followers of Jesus instead. Vatican II rejected this, mostly, but the idea is still current in most Christian communities, as it is in most Jewish communities. But this doesn't make Islam or Judaism or Christianity more or less peaceful, so I don't think it proves your point.
2.112 just states a common idea in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition.
No, it is a peaceful religion intrinsically. So is Christianity, although many, many Christians have misunderstood this and erred rather horribly. Some still do.
| Quote (Ali bin Gali @ Nov. 09 2004,12:05) | ||||
Dodge ? Noooo ..... You just voted to respond to my questions, before you voted against it ! ... and only one smiley face ? Now I'm really dissapointed ! Ali |
Ali, you made me chuckle.
:):):):)
So…who’s right and who’s wrong?
Are you guys gonna start warring on each other?
This is better than pay per view boxing!
Which tells a lot about PPW boxing…
So...who's right and who's wrong?
Are you guys gonna start warring on each other?
The people who tell the truth are right.
We've been at war for +20 years & it's getting worse every year.
Are you guys gonna start warring on each other?
The people who tell the truth are right.
We've been at war for +20 years & it's getting worse every year.
| Quote (MidnightToker @ Nov. 10 2004,15:05) |
| The people who tell the truth are right. |
It's a cookbook !!!!!!!
Ali
-
I actually PAID for a Tyson fight several years ago and it only lasted 30 some secs into the first round. I was pissed off. But this fight on here gets better n better every time I read it! Oh, and is masterbation considered pro-choice?
| Quote (MidnightToker @ Nov. 09 2004,12:21) |
| Why don't you talk about all the great things Bush has gone? |
No, he's still here. Freudian slip?
| Quote (MidnightToker @ Nov. 10 2004,15:05) |
| The people who tell the truth are right. |
This is why democrats are wrong, they chose the left.