• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Taliban Says It Won't Meddle in West if Troops Are Withdrawn

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Wow, so you are no different than palin.... You have been quite intolerant, you demonstrated predjudice simply because I am a Reverend.
Click to expand...

No I merely pointed out you may have a bias against the seperation of church and state because you are a Reverend. Again you're stretching things.


Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Are you a literalist?
Click to expand...

No. You couldn't be more wrong on that. If anything I don't take the bible literally.


Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Anyway this is "tolerance"? no sir, it is anti-religious bigotry, and hell you have no clue about what actual religion I am, yet you make that "REV" comment. Quite a pathetic bigoted position you have there.
Click to expand...

I think it's obvious who the intolerant one is here. Your panties are also in a wad was over something you think I said, which I did not.



Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Yes, this ought to be rich, in lieu of your church bragging. It will be great to see what separates you from Palin. :lamo
Click to expand...

No church bragging here. You implied I was an anti-religious bigot. I merely pointed out proof that I was not, with my involvement with the church. I'm not even close to what Palin is like. My I.Q. is at least 38 points higher for starters if I assume she has an average intelligence which may be generous. ;)

Seriously do you honestly believe that Palin ranting and raving that we need religion back in our government doesn't believe he she doesn't believe in separation of church and state? Have you actually listened to this lunatic? Furthermore do you think our forefathers that drafted the constitution, that believed in the separation of church and state, after seeing what the lack of it did in England and Europe, are "anti-religous bigots?

Come on Reverend. You know better.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
No I merely pointed out you may have a bias against the seperation of church and state because you are a Reverend. Again you're stretching things.
Click to expand...


May?


EnigmaO01 said:
I'm not saying they are one and the same and the Taliban are far more extreme, but they do have something in common. However I'm not expecting you to see it with the "REV" in your avatar.
Click to expand...




I never made any claims as to separation of church and state, you bigotedly surmized I may be blind because I am a Reverend......


Please at least own up to your words. :shrug:



No. You couldn't be more wrong on that. If anything I don't take the bible literally.
Click to expand...


Uhm I asked you a question, unlike you I didn't assume anything. See how that works, try it sometime.


I think it's obvious who the intolerant one is here. Your panties are also in a wad was over something you think I said, which I did not.
Click to expand...


EnigmaO01 said:
I'm not saying they are one and the same and the Taliban are far more extreme, but they do have something in common. However I'm not expecting you to see it with the "REV" in your avatar.
Click to expand...



You were saying? Cleary the bigotry is all yours.



No church bragging here. You implied I was an anti-religious bigot. I merely pointed out proof that I was not, with my involvement with the church. I'm not even close to what Palin is like. My I.Q. is at least 38 points higher for starters if I assume she has an average intelligence which may be generous. ;)
Click to expand...


Wow, such venom for a person you still have not proved does not believe in separation of church and state.... PDS anyone? :lol:


Seriously do you honestly believe that Palin ranting and raving that we need religion back in our government doesn't believe he she doesn't believe in separation of church and state? Have you actually listened to this lunatic? Furthermore do you think our forefathers that drafted the constitution, that believed in the separation of church and state, after seeing what the lack of it did in England and Europe, are "anti-religous bigots?
Click to expand...


Where did she "Rant and Rave", you promised links, the FAIL once again is all yours. If I was a betting man, I might take the spread on that IQ claim... :2razz:



Come on Reverend. You know better.
Click to expand...



Than you, indeed, but that's just my awesomeness, you'll get used to it. :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
reefedjib said:
Hey, I didn't vote for Obama! He's expanded a stimulus bill that has no effect. He has increased spending to a 1.7 Trillion DEFICIT!! We could afford until he got his paws on it. It seems to me they ought to cut entitlement programs since they aren't legal.



It's not our responsibility they decided to have a civil war. We are the most powerful nation in the world, why can't we tell a country what they should and should not do? The region is stable. We guarantee it. Iran is more powerful but they are weak as well.



What do those quotes have to do with what I said?
Click to expand...


I don't even know where to start with you. Your facts are wrong, you make all kinds of excuses for bad foreign policy not to mention an illegal invasion, and your outlook is so naive. On top of that I point out how naive you are with quotes from someone that had the same naivety that you do, and you don't understand how that's related? Give me a break. :roll:

23474743.jpg
 
EnigmaO01 said:
I don't even know where to start with you. Your facts are wrong, you make all kinds of excuses for bad foreign policy not to mention an illegal invasion, and your outlook is so naive. On top of that I point out how naive you are with quotes from someone that had the same naivety that you do, and you don't understand how that's related? Give me a break. :roll:

23474743.jpg
Click to expand...




:lol: look another "moderate"....



Illegal? :lol: what next, bush is hitler posters?
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Seriously do you honestly believe that Palin ranting and raving that we need religion back in our government doesn't believe he she doesn't believe in separation of church and state? Have you actually listened to this lunatic? Furthermore do you think our forefathers that drafted the constitution, that believed in the separation of church and state, after seeing what the lack of it did in England and Europe, are "anti-religous bigots?
Click to expand...

Once again, the separation of church and state has nothing to do with keeping religion out of the state. It has everything to do with keeping the state out of religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

and so on the first part, [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause:[/ame]

"The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause."

and on the second part, [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause]Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

It has nothing to do with preventing prayer in schools or the election of a religious person to office.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
I don't even know where to start with you. Your facts are wrong, you make all kinds of excuses for bad foreign policy not to mention an illegal invasion, and your outlook is so naive. On top of that I point out how naive you are with quotes from someone that had the same naivety that you do, and you don't understand how that's related? Give me a break. :roll:

23474743.jpg
Click to expand...

The invasion wasn't illegal. Prove it if you feel otherwise.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Now where have I heard that one before?

"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." -- on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005 Dick Cheney

It's right up there with this one in regards to Iraq:

My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." --March 16, 2003 Dick Cheney
Click to expand...

Add to that, "The war might take six weeks, or six months. I doubt it will take six months."

Now, we're promised eighteen more months before we start to withdraw if conditions on the ground warrant it.

In other words, critics of the president can start in now about how he plans to "cut and run", and how he has given the Taliban a strategy for winning. If he does start to withdraw in eighteen months, they can say that we've lost the war due to the "liberal agenda." If he doesn't, then they can say that he flip flopped on his promise. Either way, there is grist for the political partisanship mill.

Meanwhile, the war drags on and on with no strategy for winning, nor even a way to tell when and if it has been won.

What a sorry situation.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
May?
Click to expand...


???

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
May?I never made any claims as to separation of church and state, you bigotedly surmized I may be blind because I am a Reverend......
Click to expand...

I never said blind. Possibly biased. Get it right.


Reverend_Hellh0und said:
May?Please at least own up to your words. :shrug:
Click to expand...

See above.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
May?Uhm I asked you a question, unlike you I didn't assume anything. See how that works, try it sometime.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Is it also fair to not accuse the other of assuming when you are doing so yourself? What's that Christ said about criticizing another for a fault you have yourself?


Reverend_Hellh0und said:
May?You were saying? Cleary the bigotry is all yours.
Click to expand...

You apparently don't know what the words means. There is no "bigotry" here. Perhaps you should look it up in the dictionary. I do note you really like the word and like to use it to respond to any criticism.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Wow, such venom for a person you still have not proved does not believe in separation of church and state.... PDS anyone? :lol:
Click to expand...

No venom here you're the one that is doing the name calling. Do you think Christ would get flustered and lower himself to name calling?

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Where did she "Rant and Rave", you promised links, the FAIL once again is all yours. If I was a betting man, I might take the spread on that IQ claim... :2razz:
Click to expand...

Good God, I can't believe someone would have to seriously ask for links on this. It's about as obvious as a cockroach on a white wedding cake.

Sarah Palin and the Separation Between Church and State

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/01/eveningnews

/main4493077.shtml

Palin's Record On Church-State Separation - CBS News

Cafe Talk | Talking Points Memo | Palin - Separation of Church & State or Not?

BTW I had to limit the links. The site says I have too much and I'm limited.



Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Than you, indeed, but that's just my awesomeness, you'll get used to it. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing anything impressive to get awed about. In fact your debating and comprehension skills could use some help. Perhaps you're one of those self proclaimed ministers vs. the ones with some education? ;)
 
EnigmaO01 said:
???



I never said blind. Possibly biased. Get it right.
Click to expand...


so because I am a reverend I am possibly biased.... I guess you could also say that because I am Irish, I am possibly drunk as well...:shrug:



Fair enough. Is it also fair to not accuse the other of assuming when you are doing so yourself? What's that Christ said about criticizing another for a fault you have yourself?
Click to expand...


I opined that you were showing bigotry....



You apparently don't know what the words means. There is no "bigotry" here. Perhaps you should look it up in the dictionary. I do note you really like the word and like to use it to respond to any criticism.
Click to expand...


Perhaps if I was black, you could say that its possible I like chicken and watermelon.... :shrug:



No venom here you're the one that is doing the name calling. Do you think Christ would get flustered and lower himself to name calling?
Click to expand...


I think he called people swines... And I seem to be throwing pearls. :mrgreen:


Good God, I can't believe someone would have to seriously ask for links on this. It's about as obvious as a cockroach on a white wedding cake.

Sarah Palin and the Separation Between Church and State

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/01/eveningnews

/main4493077.shtml

Palin's Record On Church-State Separation - CBS News

Cafe Talk | Talking Points Memo | Palin - Separation of Church & State or Not?

BTW I had to limit the links. The site says I have too much and I'm limited.
Click to expand...


:lol:


From your link, in her own words...


Katie Couric: Thomas Jefferson wrote about the First Amendment, building a wall of separation between church and state. Why do you think that's so important?

Sarah Palin: His intention in expressing that was so that government did not mandate a religion on people. And Thomas Jefferson also said never underestimate the wisdom of the people. And the wisdom of the people, I think in this issue is that people have the right and the ability and the desire to express their own religious views, be it a very personal level, which is why I choose to express my faith, or in a more public forum.
And the wisdom of the people, thankfully, engrained in the foundation of our country, is so extremely important. And Thomas Jefferson wanted to protect that.

[/quote]


the failure once again my friend is all yours.


I'm not seeing anything impressive to get awed about. In fact your debating and comprehension skills could use some help. Perhaps you're one of those self proclaimed ministers vs. the ones with some education?
Click to expand...



If you can't see it, maybe its that IQ point spread we have been discussing. My greatness is absolute, just ask me. :thumbs:
 
just for fyi, here's what went down on the sunday talks today which were largely (in the case of nbc, entirely) devoted to afghanistan

stephy interviewed hillary and gates, then feingold, then roundtabled with will, katrina vanden heuvel, cfr (council foreign relations prez peter haas) and peggy noonan

cnn's king talked to joe johns, ed henry and jessica somebody

gregory did hillary and gates, mccain, then confabbed with woodward and thomas friedman

here's the general gists and tones:

1. stephy and gregory were incredibly soft on the secretaries

2. they take an extremist down-the-road approach to the region (they're right)

3. feingold on abc was by far the hardest, he wants out

4. cnn was critical, underlines to king's discussions included, "taliban: you have the clocks, we have the time," "afghanistan speech falls flat," "obama administration's mixed message," "confusing language on exit strategy"

5. i believe a consensus is forming that the admin's terminology is shifting---from "exit" to "conditions based" to "transition"

6. the pundits were, like feingold, much harder than the hosts

7. friedman was hot, all 4 of stephy's guests were highly skeptical

8. the admin is "not on the same page"

9. AL QAEDA IS IN PAKISTAN, NOT AFGHANISTAN

10. we've already been largely successful in driving aq OUT of afghanistan

11. the WILL of the pakistanis therefore is now the keystone

12. obama's recently announced strategy really screws pakistan which, unlike afghanistan, has nukes
 
Last edited:
EnigmaO01,


Where did you go? You promised me proof!


I accept your concession. :2razz:
 
The Prof said:
9. AL QAEDA IS IN PAKISTAN, NOT AFGHANISTAN

10. we've already been largely successful in driving aq OUT of afghanistan

11. the WILL of the pakistanis therefore is now the keystone

12. obama's recently announced strategy really screws pakistan which, unlike afghanistan, has nukes
Click to expand...

Just a dabble from me.

The problem that we are facing right now in the status of al-Qa'ida and their intention is two-fold:

1) al-Qa'ida has never been a central paradigm, there has always been two "al-Qa'ida"s. The first being Qa'ida al-Jihad, which is the international terrorist structure that is responsible for 9/11 (among other things). The second being al-Qa'ida in Afghanistan, which can only be described as foreigners, with Qa'ida al-Jihad training, fighting along-side the Taliban. This al-Qa'ida never cared about international terrorism, these were the mujahadeen fighters who, following the fall of the Soviet Union, were wanting to push North out of Afghanistan and into Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan.

2) al-Qa'ida since the 2001 US led invasion has splintered dramatically where the only real resemblance of the al-Qa'ida-Taliban Brigade (055) is the "Shadow Army". al-Qa'ida to the Taliban (both big and little "t') are those who are foreigners (central Asian, west Asian, Arabic, and maybe some slavs thrown in the mix) fighting as allies to certain Taliban tribes.

True, al-Qa'ida is not in Afghanistan, but the al-Qa'ida (notice, not Qa'ida al-Jihad) is going to be within the militaristic motivations of the Taliban (big "t") regime, and wish to re-extend it's power into Afghanistan.

The momentum, at this time, appears to be pushing the Taliban (big "t") into Pakistan, but I think that is because of the Pakistani Army. They really don't need to do much except eliminate the voices of opposition within the Pakistani Army.

An interesting conflict to watch is how the United States is going to work now that Kharzi is firmly willingly to give the Taliban partial control of Afghanistan.

sorry, I diverted a bit.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
So you're big into nation building in the mold of the U.S. in some sheethole half way acroos the world, costing billions even if it meant an illegal invasion that kills thousands of innocent people, and cost the blood of several thousand good decent American soliders? Oh don't forget the invasion was based on terrible intell in the least or possibly even lies. Our invasion created a vacuum that has made Iran the key player in the region with nuclear ambitions. How's that working out for us?

I hate to break this to you but you can't force democracy down the throats of people. They have to earn it themselves like we did in the American Revolution. The so called stability you see in Iraq is very fragile and could come down like a house of cards.
Click to expand...

Blah-blah-blah-blah. How about you stop pretending to be a damned mind-reader and simply address the words I've written?

Where have I said I supported nation-building?

Where have I said I supported invading Iraq?

Oh, I haven't? Then why are you making such stupid assumptions?
 
Councilman said:
Of course not they didn't directly attack us before they just facilitated Al Qaeda's attacks.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda are a bunch of retards or after hearing Obama lay out his cut and run plan they'd have done not one damn thing and pretended they gave up until Obama pulls out the troops. Then could just walk in almost unopposed and take up where they left off, at being the most repressive, murderous, intolerant, radical, fundamental misfits since Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge regime. They made Eddi Amin and Saddam Hussein look like Sunday School teachers.

I was very critical of the dumb ass move of Obama touting his plans the way he did, but I failed to take into account the Mentally challenged nature of the Islamo Fascists.
Click to expand...

Remember Liberals do not care about anyone except Liberals and the criminally insane. Remember Vietnam? They would be happy to see the horror put upon the Afghan people as long as it saves money for their Liberal causes like Entertainment, Welfare and Science. Obama being the figure head of Liberalism, must express this same mentality, it is at the core of his being.
 
PeopleforFreedom said:
Remember Liberals do not care about anyone except Liberals and the criminally insane. Remember Vietnam? They would be happy to see the horror put upon the Afghan people as long as it saves money for their Liberal causes like Entertainment, Welfare and Science. Obama being the figure head of Liberalism, must express this same mentality, it is at the core of his being.
Click to expand...

Yeah and look where Liberalism has landed us! Without it the United States wouldn't exist (btw).

It pure fantasy, absolutely fiction, that a few farmers in a British colony had. What a bunch of crazies.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Yeah and look where Liberalism has landed us! Without it the United States wouldn't exist (btw).

It pure fantasy, absolutely fiction, that a few farmers in a British colony had. What a bunch of crazies.
Click to expand...

Much different version of liberalism you're talking about there. The colonists who joined the patriot cause in the 18th century were, by no means, adherence to an ideology even resembling modern "liberalism."

Sometimes I wish people wouldn't even use the word anymore, it's been made practically meaningless.
 
Last edited:
other said:
Much different version of liberalism you're talking about there. The colonists who joined the patriot cause in the 18th century were, by no means, adherence to an ideology even resembling modern "liberalism."
Click to expand...

Oh, we're talking about different Liberalism aren't we.

I see no relative liberalism. I only see Liberalism in the sense of "following an ideology that has no immediate precedence"

I agree. I think we need to supersede this "Liberal" and "Conservative" paradigm.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Yeah and look where Liberalism has landed us! Without it the United States wouldn't exist (btw).

It pure fantasy, absolutely fiction, that a few farmers in a British colony had. What a bunch of crazies.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I think the founding fathers and their followers were "Progressive Conservatives". They were people of "Logic" and "Good". Modern Liberalism is a movement of "Lies and Hatred". Just look at Liberal responses in this forum, are they not 90% "lies and hatred"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom