cowardly germans cave to fear- Page 2

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 12:03am

there is a difference between an ugly speech that demeans americans and seeks to divide us and a clear call for killing and if you can't see it, i feel sorry for you.

[DG]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 12:22am

On that point, we agree, papa.

I think where I'm coming from is one of historical perspective. Just a few centuries ago, we heard these same type of histerical rantings from one group toward the other - which led to the Crusades. I think we know where that got us. I just don't see the point in following the same footsteps.

Benedict, in his ham-handed fashion, at least seems to want to attempt a dialogue that can at least lead to everyone going to their corner for awhile.

And BTW, again from a historical perspective, there's been plenty of blood shed 'in the name of Christ' - but I wouldn't be going after a full-scale assault on Christians because of that, either.

[lildogs]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 10:09am

There is a difference, papa, you're right. But WE live in a much different country, or so we like to think. So it's relative, I think. Yes, Patty Patty Buke Buke isn't calling for heads (heh heh) but he helps set a tone in which it becomes more acceptable to harm (in this case) gay people.

He says it's a "war," because he feels threatened for some reason.

The Muslim extremists also believe they are in a war, they no doubt feel threatened as well. They see us help other countries develop and ignore their people. I would imagine they think, "Why doesn't the US send us aid and technology?" And I suppose the reason they come up with is "Islam," however wrong they may be.

The powers that be think it's in the US oil interests to keep the Middle Eastern people as backward as possible and as poor as possible and therefore have more control over the oil.

Extremism is the only tool they have when they have nothing to lose.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 10:18am

i understand that, lil, it just gets to me sometimes that it often seems that whenever something happens in the world that shows the brutality with which certain adherents of islam practice their religion that instead of a discussion of that there is a rush for the "but, but, christians" defense.

[lildogs]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 10:22am

True, but we have to apply a different standard to ourselves, and too many people in this country don't value diversity and freedom and that is what America is supposed to be about.

As a non-Christian, it's also disturbing to hear self-proclaimed Christians blatantly violating the principles of Jesus Christ, much like the Muslim extremists distort the words of The Koran. So I think that's the parallel that many of us see.

The "sin" is the same, even if the methods of expressing those sentiments are vastly different.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 10:27am

and i understand that too. i just see a fundamental difference between preaching that some folks are going to hell and preaching that it's your duty as adherents of this religion to send them there.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 10:30am

Not from me, papa. You're a Jihadi enabler compared to my LGF views on Islamist extremism.

I just bristle at your blindspot when it comes to what the hatred of fundamentalist Christians really means to the lives of your friends. It's almost as ridiculous as your blindspot when it comes to the destructive policies of George Bush.

If you don't recognize that Buchanan speech--and all the other "Keep America a Christian nation" speeches we've been hearing for the past 15 years--as the rallying cry for an ugly, un-American Christian fundamentalist theocracy, then I feel sorry for your5 powers of observation.

[lildogs]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 10:34am

There IS a difference papa, but WE live in a modern country and should hold ourselves to a higher example-simple as that.

It is not the place of anyone to declare that a group of people is going to hell, or destroying the country by existing.

Yes, hate speech is different than hate action, but the US should conduct itself in such a way that even THAT comparison should never be made.

Somewhere between PJ and papa lies the truth, or maybe just some skinny hustler. I don't know.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 10:53am

i've never supported pat buchanan and i think the only times that his writings are referenced on this board they were done so by either pj or one of the rapturettes.

i agree that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. however, our freedom of speech means that we must endure hate speech sometimes as ugly and detrimental as it is to our evolution as a people and a nation. we must depend on the wisdom of the american people to see it for what it is and reject it. pat buchanan never was a serious candidate for president was he? why? because the american people saw his hatred for what it was and rejected him.

as far as the other issue, look at this issue simplistically. one person says, you're an ass and i don't like you. you and everyone like you should be banned from the board and it's the duty of every poster to write to the moderators until that happens. another says, you're an ass and i don't like you. you and everyone like you should be killed and it's the duty of every poster to try to kill you if they have the chance. while it's a person's right to try to advocate for change on the board, it's unconscionable to call for people's deaths.

Updated On: 9/27/06 at 10:53 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 11:14am

"pat buchanan never was a serious candidate for president was he?"

Yet Buchanan was trotted out by the Republicans again in 1996. Why? To fan the flames of hatred. After he left the Republican party in 1999, Karl Rove took over his ugly work of scapegoating gays and lesbians toi frighten the masses into submission.

That Republican scapegoating of your gay and lesbian friends is something you have NEVER decried. Would it be so difficult for you to say "My party does that to win votes and I think it is reprehensible"?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 11:38am

on the gop's raising of the gay marriage spector to scapegoat my gay and lesbian friends:

"once more for the cheap seats: do i agree with the way this is being done? no.

is it craven? yes. but will it help the gop? yes."

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?thread=899342&boardname=off

"cruel and demoralizing"

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?boardname=off&thread=232269#233916

"no i do not support the constitutional amendment. there are things that this administration supports with which i do not agree. i've made clear in many threads that i advocate a solution which removes the word marriage from all lawbooks and institutes civil unions as the law of the land. leave marriage to the churches."

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?page=2&thread=176372&startthread=176624&boardname=off

once again you're proven to be a liar.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 11:46am

Not a liar--I just don't read your posts. You know that.

I stopped reading them when they became laden with insults and namecalling. So how would I know what your lowercased ravings say?

But thanks for the clarification.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 11:54am

no. you're a liar and you use those lies to demean people when they don't subscribe to your agenda and when caught in a lie you shrug it off just like when someone points out facts inconvenient to your argumants.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 12:15pm

I'm nothing if not resilient!

[lildogs]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 12:32pm

Girls--you both have big pretty hats--enough!


papa, I think you downplay the rhetoric and PJ takes it too far. Pat B railing against homos or whatever group isn't really the same as calling someone an ass on BWW and wanting them removed. Pat is far more influential than a BWW moderator and as a political figure who has held positions of power in the past has the ability to enact social change, unlike BWW.


Nor is he a jihadi-enabler.

Protecting hate speech is one thing, protecting hate speech at the Republican National Convention and declaring a culture war against the opposition isn't the same thing.

Of course, he has the right to say whatever he wants, but he must also bear the responsibility for the actions his words inspire.

[DG]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 1:03pm

I agree that the world community has a right to react when the rhetoric (or action, as in 9/11) is threatening to outside communities. The question is, how to respond. The current American approach seems to be directed at guiding social development in the region (despite the fact that the powers that be seemed to have felt that no one was going to understand that thought process well enough to support it.) Having followed that path, we now have to look at the current state of the attempt and evaluate its success or failure.

There is mounting evidence, now coming from both sides of the ideological debate that it’s not coming to fruition. It certainly raises the sociological argument of whether societies can have progress forced upon them from the outside, or if it has to grow organically. There are those who have likened this threat to Hitler’s regime, but that was a contained and centralized entity, where removal of the head caused collapse of the organism.

There is considerable consensus that that is not the case in this scenario – and it can be legitimately argued that approaching it as such is doing more harm than good. I still believe the answer lies in economics. If the world establishes that certain ground rules must be in place to participate in the world economy, then there is a real bargaining chip that has meaning to the populace.

Even though there are those who feel it is punishing the people we’re supposedly trying to help, at some point lines must be drawn. I firmly believe that if they want to thrive, they will find a way – but it must be developed internally, and with real objectives of loss or gain at stake.

Of course, that would depend on the outside communities being willing to sacrifice their own material desires in or from the region to work toward that goal – and that seems something most are unwilling to do.

[DG]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 8:17am

Opera will possibly procede.
Update.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 8:44am

An odd article. It features no new quotes from any Muslim leaders.

[KelRel]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 9:13am

I think that America should be a "Christian Nation", but only in the sense that we should behave as Christ taught(Not as in religion should be mandated or promoted by the government. Religion, or lack thereof, is a personal choice. I am using the term "Christian Nation" loosely as it seems to be a big buzz word for everybody and their brother lately)- love (respect) thy neighbor, judge not lest yet be judged, etc... (Budda, Muhammed, etc... also taught love and respect for others so I am not limiting this to my Christian point of view)

If everyone learned to respect each other and embrace our differences the country and the world would be a better place. Sadly this won't happen. No one really has it "right" in mainstream media. No Bible thumping, hate spreading, or damnation speeches are going to make any changes in this country. We need to learn to respect each other. Respect that there are different opinions out there and realize that just because some forms of art don't match with your system of beliefs, some people live lifestyles that aren't your personal cup of tea, or someone wants to practice a different religion than you that the world will not end and that it is ok. We are all different and if we weren't the world would be a horribly boring place.

Updated On: 9/28/06 at 09:13 AM