How does it feel to be a terrorist?

Jump to Last Post 1-25 of 25 discussions (363 posts)

61
JSChamsposted 11 years ago
Here's the story:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/homelan … errorists/

Did you ever imagine as a child reciting the pledge of allegiance that it would be the sort of thing looked down upon? Not to mention being labeled a terrorist?
reply report
1. 0
  Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Nothing would surprise me anymore.
  
  The first thing Romney should do is tell that dude Napolitano over at Homeland Security to pack his crap and go home.
  
  Besides it's not very professional for a guy to wear a dress to the office anyway.
  reply report
  75
  910chrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you so much for that comment Longhunter!! I have been in some pain today, but when I read that it gave me the chuckle I needed to forget about it for a little while!
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Glad to be of some assistance and I hope you get to feeling better.
  reply report
  73
  lone77starposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Wow! I didn't know Janet was a guy!
  
  When she (er, he) was governor of Arizona...
  reply report
2. 0
  Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Why do you support nationalism? Pledging allegiance to the state, no matter what happens? That is gargantuan government. I pledge my allegiance to principles, not people.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What about the flag? That was what I was referring too.
  reply report
3. 56
  tussinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Honestly, theblaze isn't exactly a credible news site. It makes Nancy Gracy look like mellowed out stoner.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Ok enough griping about the Blaze.....won't use them again.
  Like I told the other guy I feel the same way about Daily Kos or Huffington Post.
  reply report
4. 70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting article.
  
  Maybe, just maybe Cagsil will begin to look even better with every action they continue to take which is becoming a detriment to the survival of America.
  
  I guess one can only hope.
  reply report
5. 90
  Dr Billy Kiddposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Terry McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma federal building killing entire families--225 people. If you support that sort of thing, then carry on your complaining.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  And then there are statements like that which makes JS completely right. Thanks for making all liberals look uneducated and stereotypical.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Timothy Doc...Timothy.
  reply report
61
Paul Wingertposted 11 years ago
I clicked on yout The Blaze link and the first thing I saw was a banner saying "Glenn Beck is LIVE". So much for reading this because I know where this is going. Not into bias articles.
reply report
1. 61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh I understand. I feel the same way about links to the Daily Kos and Huffington Post.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Since there is no such thing as genuine, unvarnished objectivity - scientists must constantly check their methodology to weed out things like confrimation bias - information can be gleened from any number of sources. We tend to read the things that reinforce our opinions rather than the things that challenge them. Even in the most offensive sources, like The Daily Kos or Bill Maher, there is valuable information available. It is good to see that those who consider themselves moderate and balanced in their own opinion can openly admit to being something else entirely.
  reply report
  80
  Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed, I research a variety of sources... The Blaze seems to have just suddenly popped up and a lot of people are using that as their only source.
  
  Usually, just because you quote from one source does not mean that is the only one you looked at. Not accepting a source that is reporting on proven (note the emphasis on proven) facts is childish.
  
  And... Americans put way too much emphasis on flags... the bigger flag you have does not make you a better citizen...
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Symbols are important. The American flag has been a symbol of American independence, resistence and liberation throughout our history. It is an aspect of the American national experience. It is doubtful flag size is actually perceived by most Americans as a measure of patriotism or quality of citizenship.
  
  The idea that one opinion source has a lock on truth is a flaw of the human condition. We all want to be affirmed in our beliefs, sources that share our world view are more comfortable to read because we resist the cogniative disonance that challenging and meritorious sources cause.
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What a profound statement. I am certainly guilty of that sometimes.
  
  Thank you.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It is a basic aspect of our condition - "birds of a feather flock together." Old aphorisms tend to be good observations of the human condition. We naturally seek comfort and that, frequently, means intellectual, spiritual, political...comfort.
  reply report
89
Will Apseposted 11 years ago
Maybe you should check out hxxp://www.stormfront.org/forum/.

You might also remember the 1995 bombing of Oklahoma City's federal building.

Leftwing, rightwing, anti-abortion, eco terrorists, religious nut jobs etc etc, it doesn't really matter where the bomb comes from if you are standing next to it.
reply report
1. 61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The "preparedness" board on stormfront should be enough to convince anyone that right wing extremism is a serious threat terrorist wise, just on there, there are thousands and thousands discussing weapons, tactics, sharing tips and discussing how they are preparing for the "inevitable" race war where they will rise up against the n***ers and the n***er loving liberals and wipe them off the face of the country, the other troubling thing is they all have enormous arsenals.
  
  Some of their stated aims: the execution of all race traitors which is anyone on the left basically and anyone who has mixed their race with another. Then the expulsion of any non whites from the country with the execution of any who refuse to leave.
  
  The best thing is they will do it because they are (I quote) "true patriots".
  reply report
  0
  Chris Hughposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Don't throw conservatives in with white nationalists. That's just hate mongering. It's not fair.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  In fact, real conservatism is anti-racial, insisting that race is meaningless as are religion, national origin, sex, etc.... The only criteria that matter are universal ones based on effort, industry, performance, application, etc....
  reply report
  56
  tussinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you! Stormfront is a board for white nationalist lunatics, it has nothing to do with this discussion. Drawing a comparison between the two is weak. Surely a person can make better arguments than that.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  They don't want to draw a comparison. That's the point of this forum.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well I suggest you go ask and find out how many are right wingers, also note that much of their discussion is about killing liberals and leftists as n***er lovers.
  reply report
  82
  Wesman Todd Shawposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Agree. +1
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I like how you managed to jerk people who just believe in the Constitution all the way over to the extreme right.
  That's mot what the main focus of that piece was and you know it.
  But you can't make us all look like monsters if you don't make us ll look like monsters.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I went on a thread and asked if they were left or right wing some months ago I got about thirty replies all but one of which was right wing the other was neither.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Josak,
  
  Your talking about a small minority of people within a segment of the population. There are people that are preparing for several things - economic disaster, natural disaster, societal breakdown, etc. - but a majority of these people are doing so without so much as an inkling of a race component.
  
  Granted, there are some but they're a very small minority. Don't lump all Conservatives into this racist minority simply due to your own biases.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Longhunter,
  Josak's response is exactly why I started this forum.
  Notice how it went right straight there. That's the generalization.
  I am not sure how many know this, but Conservatives actually bear their young live.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  JS, Liberals like to think all Conservatives are doomsday preparedness experts, who are ALWAYS armed, and spoiling for a fight. Funny thing is it'll be the Liberals knocking on the Conservative's door IF society goes to hell on a rocket ship, looking for a handout, as usual.
  
  The Webster definition for a Liberal (noun) is one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways.
  
  This can't be true as most Liberals I know are so uptight they couldn't pass a greased BB if they had to.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Since we're speculating (I assume since you are doing it, it is okay for me to do it, too), I think you could be wrong about who would come knocking on who's door. I live in the rural part of a red state, and I can tell you that maybe conservatives have more guns, but it's also likely that liberals are more prepared to live without the food delivery infrastructure. We are the leaders in the movement to grow our own food, collect our own water, and draw energy from the sun.
  
  And, because we live in a rural area, we know how to shoot varmints.
  
  Just sayin.'
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Liberals also have the largest segment of the population that's dependent on the federal government. What are you going to do with them when society goes to hell in a hand basket?
  
  As for me, personally, I didn't come by the name Longhunter easily. I earned it and I'm just an amateur compared to some of my friends. We grow some of our own food and can hunt, fish, and trap as well as forage.
  
  Here in Tennessee, the patron state of shooting stuff, we know how to use a gun as well.
  reply report
  61
  Living Well Nowposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Conservatives are bigger recipients of government largesse, Longhunter. Red states take more of federal pie than blue states.
  
  The whole "conservatives are being persecuted" meme is laughable.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So we really are terrorists then?
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Some of you. To deny that is crazy. Sorry if it hurts your feelings but maybe you should be your brother's keeper.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You have to go really really really really far out there.
  The original premise of the statement by the individual did not characterize way far right(way far left is just as bad by they way, remember the Discovery channel hostage taker?What about him?), it basically talked about people who "loved liberty".
  You don't love your liberty?
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Ok...
  
  1. "reverent of liberty" IS indeed an indicator listed in the report... and it is an indication of extremist thinking. It is by far not the only indicator listed but it was nice and juicy so it was quoted as the catch line. The full description is...
  
  Extreme Right-Wing: groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercelynationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.
  
  Which is a little different from wanting to say the pledge of allegiance. See what dishonest yellow journalism looks like?
  
  2. For more dishonest yellow journalism please look just at the very next paragraph of the report...
  
  Extreme Left-Wing: groups that want to bring about change through violent revolution rather than through established political processes. This category also includes secular left-wing groups that rely heavily on terrorism to overthrow the capitalist system and either establish “a dictatorship of the proletariat” (Marxist-Leninists)or, much more rarely, a decentralized, non-hierarchical political system (anarchists).
  
  Funny how that isn't mentioned in the article is it? Wow... it would actually seem that homeland security was impartial and considered the nutjobs on BOTH sides of the political fence. So why does the original article only focus on the insult to the right wing? It seems they are quite okay with the left wing being called terrorists... little hypocritical yes no?
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Basically I wasn't looking as much into how someone wrote that article as much as the fact that our government has at least one sector that is trying to make a leap and link regular old go to work go to church go to whatever basketball, football, ballet, whatever to far right wing groups .
  That's the problem. Sorry we don't like who actually brought it to light. I saw the link and saw what the "official" made statement of and that was my concern.
  
  They seek to create fear in people by linking people to a stereotype. Plain and simple. In the future I will deliberately use anything other than the Blaze as a source. All I ask in return is people debating here on the opposing side refrain from left wing sources. Is that possible?
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  There is absolutely no evidence that the government is doing any such thing. The above description does not link "regular old go to work go to church go to whatever basketball, football, ballet, whatever to far right wing groups". The above definition is the official definition in it's entirety of right wing groups. That does not include your average conservative.
  
  The article was dishonest and you were swayed by it. It happens.
  report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Melissa:
  
  If I love liberty and think it's ok to say the pledge at a public vent or such and Mr.Skinhead does also how are people who know no better, and believe it's a daily growing phenomenon, going to be able to differentiate? Because that article basically makes people want to look over their shoulders.
  There is an attempted mental image connection in that. There is no doubt.
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Um... you do realize that the mental image in this case is being perpetuated by a conservative-leaning article rather than any action by a liberal... correct?
  
  I will take the onus for what us libs do but if the conservatives are spreading fear among themselves that's really not on me.
  report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I was about to write something like this, Melissa. Thanks for saving me the time.
  
  But the bit about extreme left-wing groups is mentioned, toward the end.
  
  To be sure, the definition of extreme left-wing terrorists describes the Occupy Wall Street movement almost perfectly:
  Except, it doesn't.
  
  Nobody in the Occupy movement wants to "overthrow" anything. Rather, they want the law to apply to the people at the top just as much as the folks at the bottom, and to get corporate money out of the political process, among other things.
  
  "See what dishonest yellow journalism looks like?"
  Indeed, it looks just like The Blaze.
  report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I wonder if the Cleveland Bridge Bombers would agree? Or the police car poopers? Or the shop window smashers? Rapist, drug dealers, public copulators,etc...there have been a surprising number of property crimes pile up for a group that only wants the "Rich" to obey the law. I guess all those "eat the rich" signs are code for "love thy neighbor."
  report
  0
  Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Does the name Bill Ayers mean anything?
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I have had folks on here say they have no idea who that is. I really almost believe them. They don't want to know.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It's not that they don't want to know, JS. He's Obama's buddy so his past terrorist activity is okay.
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes... he was a nut job but he was our nut job. I'll claim him as a liberal and say I likely would have supported his views but not his methods and certainly not his violence.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Are methods and aims inextricably bound together? Isn't that the knock against small government activists? Aren't they usually compared to Timothy McVey?
  report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes I just made that point thank you!
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Honestly... sort of. Narrow-minded focus on one specific thing is always present in terrorists. Although not all people with narrow-minded focus will become terrorists. It's a warning sign though.
  
  It's kinda like if everyone who got disease A ate food B then it would be logical to assume that food B was a risk factor. Even if not everyone who at food B got disease A.
  
  In the case of beliefs it's offensive as hell for example to say that everyone who has bombed an abortion clinic has been pro-life... especially if you are pro-life. It doesn't make sense however to ignore the fact just because it's offensive.
  report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Ok sorry....
  
  People try to link me to Timothy McVeigh on an almost constant basis in these debates. The Oklahoma City bombing was mentioned in one of these posts in this very forum.
  If I can't peel McVeigh off you certainly can't Ayers when HE has been to the White House! Barack Obama's campaign in 2008 started in Ayers living room!
  I rather think there's a connection there.
  report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Let's not forget the Una Bomber, ALF, ELF, etc....or how about the New Black Panther Party and their voter intimidation and rabid, hate filled youtube videos.
  report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  But Bill Ayers intentionally never harmed or killed anyone so I would not really put him in the same category as McVeigh.
  report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Bill Ayers most certainly did. He murdered someone and got off for it. THEN he became a professor. Isn't that special.
  That's not to mention his bombings. He is the left wing example of what people want to make conservatives out to be.
  report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Who did bill Ayers kill? The only people killed by his organization happened years after he had left it and his bombs were intentionally planted not to harm people.
  
  Isn't the definition of terrorist that they target innocent civilians?
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Dude... he planted explosive devices.
  
  You aren't gonna win this one.
  
  The definition of a terrorist is someone who attempts to achieve his goal through terror. Bombs are pretty good at that.
  report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What I am saying is all he did is property damage and while I don't approve of it it's rather unfair to lump him in with McVeigh who intentionally aimed to kill as many innocents as possible.
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I respectfully disagree. I'm not sure whether there should be a sliding scale when it comes to blowing crap up to make a point.
  report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So targeting civilians and trying to kill as many as possible is exactly the same as blowing something intentionally avoiding hurting people because it's a symbol of what you disagree with?
  report
  73
  Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Try telling that to the family of Sgt. Brian V. McDonnell!
  report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The guy killed in the bombing that was never solved? Sorry I don't convict people on suspicion.
  report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Its okay Billy Ayres continues to make the point that people die in revolutions. So it is okay to murder people if your goal is to establish a liberal paradise, like Cuba.
  report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Or you know the American war of independence? Or any revolution. Also point in fact Cuba is not liberal.
  report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Of course Cuba isn't(wink,wink) and Billy Ayres was and still is a hateful monster whose believes in the moral superiority of his personal definition of reality to the point of seeking the violent over throw of society - sounds alot like Castro rather than George Washington.
  report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Do you understand the differences between Liberal, socialist and communist or is that too much for you?
  
  To put it another way do you know the difference between conservatism and fascism?
  
  Most every leader ever believed their version of reality was better than that of their opponents, from Hitler to Washington to Castro to the people who orchestrate the Arab spring, it does not make them evil or not evil it's simply a prerequisite for political leadership.
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No... it's not exactly the same but honestly there's not a whole lot of degrees of separation.
  
  Blowing s*** up inherently contains some risk of injury or death and Ayers is intelligent enough to know that. He found that risk acceptable. He and McVey both regarded human life as less valuable than proving their point. After that determination is made then it just boils down to numbers.
  report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  By that definition near everyone and everything is terrorist, from the US government/army that decides that collateral is acceptable for the aims to the Buddhists who immolated themselves trying to end the Vietnam war because they considered their lives less valuable than the message.
  report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  besides absolutely everything is relative and on a sliding scale, we don't consider the French or Jewish resistance terrorists do we? even though they blew up people and things and assassinated people.
  
  Bill Ayers did property damage to end the war in Vietnam, not terrorism in my eyes, I think there is a very clear distinction between setting out to make a political message and setting out to kill people to make a political message.
  report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh I forgot the Pentagon aren't innocent.
  report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well I would have thought you would agree with that but no one was hurt in the pentagon bombing something Ayers at least claims was intentional (the bomb was planted to go of when no one was there)
  report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  How would he be certain no one was there?
  I find it fascinating as long as they are a leftist all is forgiven.
  Still can't get anybody from the left to talk about the Discovery Channel hostage taker.
  
  You seem game...care to take a stab?
  report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The eco nut right? What about him? I am not really an environmentalist so I might be the wrong person to talk to. I am not sure he was even a leftist frankly considering half his stuff was about how evil immigrants are.
  report
  0
  Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Proof, Living Well? Links for other than Liberal BS sites?
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That's about like that "centrist" who had a forum the other day about all the name calling against liberals and why weren't there any derogatory terms for conservatives?
  Nearly had a stroke......
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Of the 22 states that went to McCain in 2008, 86 percent received more federal spending than they paid in taxes in 2010. In contrast, 55 percent of the states that went to Obama received more federal spending than they paid in taxes. Republican states, on average, received $1.46 in federal spending for every tax dollar paid; Democratic states, on average, received $1.16.
  
  Source Data:
  
  http://taxfoundation.org/article/federa … -1981-2005
  reply report
  68
  denisemaiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Living Well Now--just curious. What are you basing this statement on? Where is the statistic? I'd like to see it for myself. And I'd like to know how you define being a "recipient of government largesse". You see, I worked in marketing for many years and know how to manipulate statistics to get the result you want so I really prefer to see the raw data to make a truly intelligent decision. (i.e. "We are the number one new comedy!" Which actually means they are the number one new comedy on that specific network amongst 35-44 year old white males who drive suv's. See how that was manipulated?) So, really. What is your source?
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I don't see my picture on your map. Can you post the link, please?
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  right there, top right. Sorry honestly I saved the image ages ago.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Someone else posted this link on this thread a few pages ago though: http://taxfoundation.org/article/federa … -1981-2005
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh btw here's an example of problems Christians face nowadays that would never have occurred 25 years ago:
  
  http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliv … he_ci.html
  report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  people being cited for fire code violations? Really that's the terrifying siege. I had to pay a fine because I had an exposed heating pipe at my business once does that mean shipping is also under siege?
  report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh btw here's an example of problems Christians face nowadays that would never have occurred 25 years ago:
  
  http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliv … he_ci.html
  
  What, 25 years ago, Christians would never have been required to obey the same zoning laws as everyone else?
  
  But of course, you omit to mention that the Bible-studying Christians won in the other three cases the article mentions:
  
  "In 2011, the California city of San Juan Capistrano fined Chuck Fromm, ...the city agreed to reimburse the couple and re-examine its permit rules for religious meetings in residential areas."
  and
  "In April 2009, San Diego county officials issued a warning to David and Mary Jones for hosting a weekly Bible study in their home without a permit for religious assembly; the county rescinded the warning in June of that year."
  and
  "In November of that year, Joe Sutherland of Gilbert, Arizona, was given a cease-and-desist order for church meetings in his home because it violated the city’s zoning code. The city council revised the code the following March to allow the meetings."
  
  Mate, this is proof positive that you're confusing "not getting privileged status, having to follow the same rules as everyone else, and not winning every single argument" with "being persecuted."
  
  Don't feel bad for having made that mistake.
  
  If you insist on continuing to make it, however, you should feel silly.
  report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No.........
  
  It would not have been an issue and he would not have gone to jail.People would have known they were just having bible study and gone back to worrying about something more important than trying to stick the guy on zoning laws.
  report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The neighbors were complaining that he was a fire risk, he had too many people in a building and lot's of candles, the council asked him to fix it he refused, a judge ordered him to fix it he refused so he was sentenced to sixty days for breaking a court order and endangering people's lives, the same would happen to anyone who did it, as I mentioned I have had a fine at my building too, and if i had been an obstinate idiot and refused to fix it the same would have happened to me. It doesn't mean thing.
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I'm gonna be completely honest here... It would piss me off if my downstairs neighbor had a crapload of people downstairs as well. That many people make noise and finding a parking spot is already hard enough. I expect it on certain days of the year and suck it up so as not to be an ass. If it happened every week though I'd call the police too.
  
  I don't care if it was a bible study or a weekly football game.
  report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No.........
  
  It would not have been an issue and he would not have gone to jail.People would have known they were just having bible study and gone back to worrying about something more important than trying to stick the guy on zoning laws.
  
  Further proof that you don't get the difference between "having to follow the rules just like everyone else" and "being persecuted."
  
  A regular gather of 50 or more people (with their cars driving and parking up and down the residential street as well) is a big inconvenience to the other people on the street: it obstructs regular traffic, makes it harder to back out of your driveway, the extra traffic means extra danger for your kids, and all that congestion means that there's a very real danger of emergency vehicles having a harder time reaching any emergency that might occur on that street. That's one of the reasons why areas get zoned residential: so homeowners can reasonably expect that there won't be excessive traffic driving and parking up and down their street all the time.
  
  Just because you're inconveniencing and endangering people in the process of reading and discussing the Bible doesn't give you a pass to continue inconveniencing and endangering people.
  
  The guy went to jail not because he was hosting a Bible study, but because he was breaking the zoning laws and insisted that he shouldn't have to obey them.
  
  If the guy had been hosting a Zen meditation meeting, or a Yoga class, or a pottery workshop, his continued refusal to obey zoning laws and going to jail for it wouldn't even be newsworthy.
  
  But a lot of idiots seem to think that if you're breaking the law in the name of Jesus, you should get a pass.
  
  I have no patience for that kind of thing, and I'm glad that this inconsiderate jerk did time: not because I hate Bible studies, but because I think that anyone who thinks the laws shouldn't apply to him (for whatever reason) ought to be given a real demonstration of how wrong they are.
  
  Having to obey the same rules as everyone else* is so not the same as persecution.
  
  I shudder to think what your reaction will be when Christians and Christianity really do get treated the same as every other religious group....
  
  *and again, you continue to overlook that in three out of four cases mentioned in the article, the Christians did get special treatment: they got the rules changed, just for them, so they could continue hosting their Bible studies. That sure doesn't look like persecution of Christians to me. It looks a lot more like one case of Christians being held to the same rules as everyone else, and three cases of Christians getting privileged status. The Christian siege-mentality is laughable nonsense.
  report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  He must go to jail but the guys putting the flags on the cars are just ok.
  Nope. No persecution there.
  report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  He must go to jail but the guys putting the flags on the cars are just ok.
  What? I just re-read the article, and saw no mention of "guys putting the flags on the cars."
  report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Another forum. Sorry.
  report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Furthermore you know what I am saying is true about it being a non-issue in the past. Well..I don't know. it may depend on what region of the country you are from.
  report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Furthermore you know what I am saying is true about it being a non-issue in the past. Well..I don't know. it may depend on what region of the country you are from.
  
  Oh, I don't dispute that in the past, in many areas of the country, the Bible-study guy would have gotten away with his refusal to obey the law. But that's not the same as it being a non-issue.
  
  It's more of a case of the people being inconvenienced and endangered would have known that all the Bible-study guy had to do was say "I'm having a Bible-study," and the authorities would have said, "Oh, you're breaking the law to do Jesus-y things? What kind of Godless heathens are you neighbor-people? Instead of complaining about the very real danger this guy is posing to your homes and families, you should going to his Bible study, 'cos clearly your souls are in peril. Case dismissed!" so, the folks who had to deal with all the traffic each week probably would have thought, "Why bother?"
  
  That's not quite the same as "It's a non-issue."
  
  And now you're confusing "loss of privileged status" with "persecution."
  
  What will you do when Christian groups really do get treated the same as all other faiths?
  report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  In defense of your point and a counter point simultaneously, doesn't all the high dollar television evangelizing lead to a cynicism regarding the simple work-a-day christian and his ministry? Priest and ministry scandals, as well as, giant rich mega churches have done grievous harm to the guy who just wants to help people find peace and purpose in Jesus.
  
  Christianity has taken a beating from those who shout loudest that they are christian. Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggert, Robert Schuler - wealthy massive churches tend to be hollow.
  report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  doesn't all the high dollar television evangelizing lead to a cynicism regarding the simple work-a-day christian and his ministry?
  
  Well, the sincerity level of the person breaking the law doesn't enter into it, as far as I'm concerned. The Bible-study host in question could be the most sincere, devout follower of Christ in the world, or a charlatan just in it for the collection money. Doesn't matter which, from a legal standpoint. If he's breaking the zoning laws by having a regular, large meeting in an area where you need a permit to have regular large meetings, and not getting the permit, then he gets fined.
  
  If he keeps breaking the law even though he's already been fined, then he gets to go to jail. I don't care if he's hosting a Bible study, a mandolin workshop, a Druidic ritual, or a sign-language class. He should get treated the same way under the law no matter what.
  
  Now, if he said, "Okay, well, I think the law is wrong and I think we should change it," then we could have a debate about that, and maybe he could get the rules changed--but the new rules would have to apply to mandolin workshops and sign-language classes, too. That's what equality means.
  report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  There is a certainty of purpose when one's religion is involved that tends to trump all other facts. I once worked across the street from a Hassidic Synagog - the hundreds of people attending it walked to services. I found it refreshing and inspiring that people would dedicate themselves to their faith so deeply as to walk.
  
  When I was a child we always walked to church. Perhaps parking at the local Walmart and walking ten blocks to a prayer meeting is the way to go. I wonder if that would entail any consequences from the law as long as Walmart didn't object? We do, indeed and rightfully, live in a civil society under the rule of law. It is this society that has protected, for the most part, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, etc....
  report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps parking at the local Walmart and walking ten blocks to a prayer meeting is the way to go. I wonder if that would entail any consequences from the law as long as Walmart didn't object?
  Now that would be a reasonable solution!
  
  I'm surprised that the Minister guy didn't think of it on his own: find a local business that doesn't mind non-customers parking on its lot one night a week. That would solve the neighborhood's traffic problems, and let him keep having his meetings (as long as they didn't get loud and rowdy).
  
  Any of the neighbors who kept complaining would be rightly seen as jerks who were using zoning laws as an excuse to 'get' the host.
  
  Seems fair to me.
  report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  How much stronger the argument becomes when one does act with respect for the law and one's neighbors/neighborhood. It is like the Quaker confronted by the drunken idiot. Turning the other cheek might get you two black eyes but it permanently casts the attacker in the role of villain and lout.
  report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  He probably just needed to have a little face time with the neighbors to keep this from happening. That is if the neighbors were the sort you can deal with.
  report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Give me an example of what you mean.
  report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Give me an example of what you mean.
  
  Here are several.
  
  Christmas and Good Friday are pretty much automatic days off. Hanukkah? No days off for that. It only gets mentioned because it happens around the same time as Christmas. Passover? Same thing, only substitute Easter. Yom Kippur? Forget about it. But Yom Kippur is more of a solemn day, not a festival day, so maybe there's no call for a day off.
  
  What about Beltaine? That's a pretty important festival day for neo-pagans, but sorry, no days off for that. Heck, mention that you're going to a Beltaine party and you might get any reaction from "What the heck is that?" to "AUGH! Spawn of Satan! Baby-eating heathen!!"
  
  Rama Navami? Most people have no idea what that even is, but the schools sure aren't going to close so their Hindu students can celebrate it with their families: they must get special permission to miss school, and it will show up as an absence (excused) on their record. Nobody has an absence on their record (excused or otherwise) for not attending school on Good Friday--the school closes automatically.
  
  And if, say, a high school football coach were to rearrange his practice schedule to accommodate his Muslim players' religious restrictions during Ramadan (since many of his players are Muslim, and cannot eat or drink during the day), idiots write hysterical drivel like this 'article', which stupidly asserts that holding a practice at night, so a Muslim player can stay both healthy and faithful, is the same thing as establishing a religion. Of course, if a coach were to schedule a practice on Easter Sunday--never mind: no coach would ever schedule a practice on Easter Sunday. It just wouldn't be considered. So, accommodating students' faith restrictions during Ramadan counts as state sponsorship of Islam, but the entire freaking government shutting down on Christmas doesn't? Further, according to some different idiots, someone who says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" is somehow trying to stamp out Christmas entirely.
  
  Any time someone correctly points out that a school sponsored prayer (to ANY deity) is a violation of the establishment clause, they get accused of persecuting Christians, when in reality, they're just insisting that Christians follow the same rules as Muslims, Hindus, Druids, Hare-Krishnas, etc.
  
  Of course, the football practice thing is just a case of someone else's religion getting the same consideration as Christianity instead of Christianity being forced to follow the same laws as some other faith, but it still freaks (stupid) people out: how dare the school accommodate someone else's (non-Christian) faith!?
  
  More recently, there was this item: Louisiana State Rep Valarie Hodges voted to allow vouchers to be used to pay for religious schools. I disagree with her vote, but that's the way Democracy works. That might have been the end of the story, but then a Muslim school applied for the voucher program! Hodges said, "I do not support using public funds for teaching Islam anywhere here in Louisiana."
  
  So vouchers can support religious schools, but only Christian ones?
  
  Double. Standard.
  
  It's not really practical to give every religion the same privileges that Christianity gets, 'cos government business would come to a standstill (of course, many conservative Christians probably wouldn't have a problem with that, except that it gives respect to Islam). So the only equitable course is to make Christianity deal with the same stuff as all the other faiths: make them ask for (and use vacation days for) religious holidays away from work and school.
  
  Not very likely, is it?
  
  There's a difference between being persecuted and being made to follow the same rules everyone else follows. The difference is pretty big. Pretending that the difference doesn't exist makes one look pretty silly.
  report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Now.....how is that my responsibility?
  I understand there are no holidays and such for those. I am actually a little surprised someone hasn't worked towards establishing that.
  Now, is it that they are ignored or that no one will get off their butt to talk to their Congressman or that they would rather leave it that way in order to be a victim?
  
  I will let you decide that. It's no one's fault but their own.
  
  Let's not forget that if a group of firemen at a station,,,,who all agree to the idea...still can't put up any sort of Christmas decoration which includes any reference to Jesus or a manger scene or anything. Even if it 's just them....why?
  
  Why because it would offend someone! Of course! You know for what those guys do for all of us I don't care what they put out there as long as it's not porn.
  And yes...that includes symbols of Islam.
  report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Now.....how is that my responsibility?
  I never said that it was your responsibility. It's just how things are.
  
  If you continue to pretend that Christians are persecuted even though Christians are actually getting preferential treatment--well, that is your responsibility.
  
  I understand there are no holidays and such for those. I am actually a little surprised someone hasn't worked towards establishing that.
  Now, is it that they are ignored or that no one will get off their butt to talk to their Congressman or that they would rather leave it that way in order to be a victim?
  
  Except minority religions don't make a big stink about it--they're not acting like victims. Which is pretty interesting, given the fact that so many Christians are pretending to be under siege even though they get preferential treatment over all other faiths.
  
  I will let you decide that. It's no one's fault but their own.
  Yes, it's easier to blame the victim. I can see how that appeals to you.
  
  Let's not forget that if a group of firemen at a station,,,,who all agree to the idea...still can't put up any sort of Christmas decoration which includes any reference to Jesus or a manger scene or anything. Even if it 's just them....why?
  'Cos it's a public building. This isn't rocket science.
  
  Why because it would offend someone! Of course! You know for what those guys do for all of us I don't care what they put out there as long as it's not porn.
  
  Wait, why the exception for porn? I mean, if you don't care if they post something that might offend someone [who isn't you], why isn't porn okay?
  
  Double. Standard.
  
  And yes...that includes symbols of Islam.
  I know you don't consider symbols of Islam to be porn, but it's a bit ambiguously worded.
  report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Why isn't porn ok?
  Because I have morals and so do a few others. That's why you prefer the porn to a manger scene.
  report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Why isn't porn ok?
  Because I have morals and so do a few others. That's why you prefer the porn to a manger scene.
  No, the question was this: Why is something that offends you (porn, in this case) not okay, when something that offends someone else (including Islamic decorations) is perfectly fine?
  
  I never said I approve of porn in the firehouse, nor did I say I prefer it to a manger scene.
  That's a deliberate fabrication, and I'll thank you for an apology both for that insulting statement, and for your implication that I have no morals.
  
  But maybe the firefighters like to look at porn and want it in the firehouse. But you want to stop them from decorating their firehouse with porn, Even if it 's just them....why?
  
  You refuse to recognize that your insistence that the firefighters not be allowed to post porn (which they might like, but which offends you) is exactly the same as someone else's insistence that the the firefighters not be allowed to have religious Christmas decorations (which they might like, but offends 'not-you').
  
  In the same breath you deride the idea that it's okay to forbid a given decoration "because it might offend someone," but advocate the banning of another decoration that you find offensive.
  
  That's the textbook definition of "double-standard."
  report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Decorating it on the outside Jeff....the outside. Where we all see it.
  Just like the Christmas decorations you don't want to look at.
  report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  How is that relevant, how come you get to decide p0rn is inappropriate and offensive but get outraged when people complain about religious icons and symbols?
  
  Frankly I would much rather see the p0rn and having grown up Catholic it's my opinion it would be much better for my kids to see the p0rn too.
  report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I think that's one of the saddest things I have ever read here.
  report
  59
  Cody Hodgeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Even though its true....telling someone that sex/sexuality is wrong just confuses kids.
  report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Ok.........huh?
  I give up. You guys go on out and plaster full frontal nudity on the outer walls of all the fire houses. That's how we will know where they are.
  report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Decorating it on the outside Jeff....the outside. Where we all see it.
  Wait, what? I thought you said [b]Even if it's just them.[b]
  
  Either "It's just them [the firefighters]" who have to see it, or it's on "the outside. Where we all see it."
  
  Stop moving the goalposts around.
  
  We can talk about decorating the inside vs the outside of the firehouse if you want, but you don't get to muddy the waters by claiming that the outside of the firehouse is "just them," but it's also "Where we all see it."
  
  I'm still waiting for that apology, by the way. You insulted me back there, by claiming that I "prefer the porn to a manger scene," and implying that I have no morals.
  
  Were you deliberately making a personal attack?
  report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well if you don't i apologize.
  report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  +100
  report
  68
  denisemaiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I can't see this, Josak. But I saw your other document which was informative but doesn't actually support Living Well's point. I saved the link for future reference. Thanks for sharing!
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?q=tpm+ma … 0,s:0,i:71
  
  found the link
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Hey there... West Virginia is the patron state of shooting stuff. I may not approve of guns but I can easily handle a 60lb pull on a compound bow and have never missed the broad side of the barn. And while it's been quite a few years since I decided to kill a whitetail with anything but my car at 14 I could field dress an 8 point buck and sling it over my shoulders to carry it home.
  
  And I might be a liberal but I promise if you drop me and any one of most conservatives in the middle of the woods I'll likely be the first one to crawl out. If I'm feeling real nice I might go back in and get the conservative... after I've had a good night's sleep.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You wouldn't have to come back for this Conservative, Melissa. I'd just set up a base camp, hunt for the brother of that 8-pointer you mentioned, smoke most of the meat for later use, and cook the rest for dinner.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "Liberals also have the largest segment of the population that's dependent on the federal government."
  
  Not true. See above post.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  One must wonder at the construction of this point. If states that voted for
  McCain actually received more federal dollars than states that went for Obama does that mean that conservative individuals in the McCain states received more federal dollars as individuals?
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No, it doesn't necessarily mean that. One would need a different set of data to know the answer to that. However, the point is that red states are more of a drain on the federal budget. I have my own personal theories, having lived in both blue and red states, but I'll keep them to myself for now, since I don't have any hard evidence to substantiate them.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps it is the liberals in those "red states" that are so dependent on federal dollars because their neighbors refuse to allow the state government to redistribute state tax dollars from the maker class to the taker class.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  LOL! I can almost guarantee that is not the case, but I don't know of any way to prove it.
  reply report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Your talking about a small minority of people within a segment of the population.
  Muslims who blow up buildings and people are also a tiny minority of Muslims worldwide.
  But mention this on an online forum and you'll see gobs of "real 'muricans" ask "Well if they're so peaceful, why don't they stop the lunatics?" or similar "where's the outrage" type sentiments.
  
  Oh, but we can make distinctions when we're talking about American lunatic fringers who give lip-service Conservative Christian values but also promote racial hatred: "We're not all like that!" "You can't judge the whole conservative movement based on the racist nutjobs!"
  
  And they're right: not all conservatives are racists: in fact, probably most aren't. But many of the same folks who are quick to differentiate the lunatic fringe from mainstream conservatism are surprisingly willing to paint all liberals as America-hating communists.
  
  Maybe we should all stop painting each other with that overly-broad brush, huh?
  
  Just a suggestion.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Hey great...you first?
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Granted, Jeff. You're right. But when it comes to racist, skinheads, and the KKK, the difference is Conservatives shout these people down and work with law enforcement to weed them out. We shame and ridicule them when their ignorant, backward ways come to light. Once their mindset is known, we shun them for what they are - uneducated bigots (I cleaned this up for the HP police, least I be banned). We help police our own. I haven't seen that from the Muslim community.
  
  My problem with what Josak said was he was lumping people who simply stock up on water, food, and ammo in with skinheads and racists he's read on some website most Conservatives have never seen.
  
  I have a stock of non-perishable food and water because I live in an area that has been known to be cut off by flood water. I carry a Bug Out Bag in my truck for bad weather. Yes, I have a permit to carry a gun. I'm prepared to take care of my family and myself if the need arises. But I'm not a racist.
  
  I also have a small stock of ammo. I'm also bald but that's due to genetics and giving up and shaving the rest. That doesn't make me a skinhead. All this makes me a man who's prepared for what may come and who just happens to be hair-folliclly challenged.
  
  Now, lets see. I've admitted I stockpile food, water, and ammo. I have a permit to LEGALLY carry a gun. I keep a Bug Out Bag in my truck just in case and I have a buzzed head. Because of that, I'm labeled a terrorist by Homeland Security.
  
  Nope, like so many other AMERICANS, I'm just a guy who can and will take care of my family and myself rather than wait for the government to so because, as we know (Katrina), our government officials couldn't pour piss out of a boot with the instructions on the heel.
  
  I would suggest others do the same. That's just a suggestion.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "My problem with what Josak said was he was lumping people who simply stock up on water, food, and ammo in with skinheads and racists he's read on some website most Conservatives have never seen."
  
  But I never said any of this, firstly the site is about people preparing specifically to fight in the race war they believe is coming, I have my own emergency supplies, nothing wrong with that.
  
  Also plenty of Muslims are working against he extremists so that is patently false.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Really?
  Who and where? First i have heard of it. Most of them fear for their lives.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Really? well just as an easy example the vast majority of the Afghan and Iraqi militaries are Muslim and they are fighting the Muslim extremists.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "our government officials couldn't pour piss out of a boot with the instructions on the heel."
  
  You exaggerate. I know because it would empty into their lap as they sat at their desk and upended it to read the directions.
  reply report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I've admitted I stockpile food, water, and ammo. I have a permit to LEGALLY carry a gun. I keep a Bug Out Bag in my truck just in case and I have a buzzed head. Because of that, I'm labeled a terrorist by Homeland Security.
  
  No. See, in addition to the criteria you mention, you need to also be preparing for "them" (whether "them" is the Feds, or the Jews, or the UN, or some other chimaerical threat) to come and get you, and training to kill them when they do, as they inevitably will, or else getting ready to forcibly overthrow the government.
  
  See, without the paranoia, you're just prepared for a disaster, a power outage, or whatever. With the paranoia (which you haven't got), you become a potential terrorist.
  
  Conversely, someone with the paranoia, but without the guns and other preparation, isn't a terrorist. Just a hatemongering, fearmongering crank.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps you make that distinction Jeff, others don't and certainly there is not always distinction made for them.
  reply report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps you make that distinction Jeff, others don't and certainly there is not always distinction made for them.
  And I make the same distinction between 99% of Muslims and the tiny minority that are violent extremists. But others don't, and certainly there is not always distinction made for them.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think it's paranoia, Jeff, but rather a healthy distrust of our government, the present administration, and Barack Hussein Obama as the powerful bullies. Yes, I tend to distrust government less when my side is in office but the distrust is still there.
  
  Government should be small, keep quiet, and the people elected to serve should understand they work for us, not the other way around.
  
  The exact opposite is going to happen as long as Barack Hussein Obama is president.
  reply report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think it's paranoia, Jeff, but rather a healthy distrust of our government.
  But that's, like, the Paranoid Oath! You raise your right hand, look over your left shoulder, and repeat that!
  
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh so we are wrong? We work for them?
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The founders were themselves "paranoid" of government, given that they enshrined limitations on the power andscope of government in the Constitution. Their distrust of government ran deeply enough that a second set of limitations were required for successful ratification, the Bill of Rights. Suspicion of a national government was so engrained in that founding generation that the Federalist Papers were written to convince the population of the various states as to the necessity of and limitations on the federal government.
  
  A healthy skepticism about the goals, scope and reach of the Federal governemtn is ingrained in America. This is not a bad thing. when a people invest too much trust in their government very, very bad things tend to happen.
  reply report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The founders were themselves "paranoid" of government, given that they enshrined limitations on the power andscope of government in the Constitution. Their distrust of government ran deeply enough that a second set of limitations were required for successful ratification, the Bill of Rights. Suspicion of a national government was so engrained in that founding generation that the Federalist Papers were written to convince the population of the various states as to the necessity of and limitations on the federal government.
  
  Yeah, I know all that. I was making a joke, 'cos it was so nicely set up. Hence, the
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Fair enough - sorry to be too combative. I tend to trace my suspicion of government directly to our Foundation and the Enlightenment(Scottish and French) not some crack pot, survivalist, race war fearing, nut jobs like Timothy McVeigh.
  reply report
  89
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  In some countries 'the government' is 'our government'.
  
  In Nordic countries, participation in political parties is high, influence of special influence groups on legislators is low and the majority of people believe (with justification) the statement 'people like like me can strongly influence government decisions'.
  
  In other words, democracy is in good health.
  
  In the US and increasingly in the UK and other right wing countries the opposite is true. Apathy and a sense of powerlessness among citizens, the power of lobbyists, and weirdness of conspiracy theorists is eating the heart out of genuine democracy.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The most populace nation in Scandanavia is Norway with 9million people and yet they even have their lunatic fringe in the form of Anders Breivik. Britain has a significantly larger population and a much more complex and diverse society.
  report
  68
  denisemaiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with the last part of your statement, Jeff Berndt. Broad brushes are bad. I don't think it's okay for any broad brushing to be done over anyone. For instance, I'm a conservative who doesn't hunt or shoot things so I guess I don't fit in the broad brush stroke. Melissa can have her patron saint of shooting things whatchamacallit. I'm a Christian but not a whacko and most of you would probably be happy to hang around me as I've heard I'm pretty fun. And funny. So, yeah. Enough with the broad brushing. I'll join you in the movement Jeff. I love being first! "Cuz if you ain't first, you're last". Sorry. Random Talladega Nights moment. Sometimes I can't control my fingers.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Melissa was replying to another post with a sense of humour. I am a gun control advocate who wouldn't own one if you tried to give me one... Nor did I call Christians wackos.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You don't realize you're being played as a fool? I'm surprised Melissa.
  
  Edit: What is Gun Control to you?
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I would prefer they didn't exist but the realist in my just wants to make sure that gun owners are forced to go through safety training and background checks every couple years. Owning a gun should be at least on par with getting a driver's licence.
  
  Also if a child dies because you have improperly stored your gun then you get charged with murder. Period.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It's okay hon... it's not a real popular view in my neck of the woods. I've settled for enforcing it in my home only and not taking my children to houses where they have guns.
  
  Of course the people I know who do own guns shouldn't be able to own a pointed stick legally.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Good to know.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Holders of conceal carry permits are involved in very few crimes. One big difference between liberals and conservatives - if a conservative doesn't like guns he simple doesn't own one, if a liberal doesn't like guns he wants no one to own one. Perhaps a little more information would help. "More Guns Less Crime" is a scholarly book written by an economist - evidence supports legal gun ownership. I guess Alan West is right - if government can make you buy insurance because it is good for society than why not a gun?
  
  Perhaps liberals should be forced to purchase fire arms by the next Republican president.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well i am a leftist and I fully support gun ownership and relaxation of gun laws, i also own several, having said that the crime rate falling is simply not true, compare the Us to countries without guns and the crime rate is much higher in the US, furthermore crime rates are higher in conservative states with less gun legislation, despite this freedoms come first as does the right ot self defense, I just wish more people would own guns responsibly.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  For better information try reading "More Guns Less Crime"
  
  Gun ownership in Switzerland is near 100% of households
  Gun ownership in Israel is also very high
  
  Crime in these places is also very low
  
  Vermont has the most relaxed gun laws in the country and is hardly a hot bed of violent crime
  
  It is a matter of society and culture rather than fire arms
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I don't care if you look like Rambo... as long as you are responsible for your actions when owning a gun... and you know what you do with them and are punished if you are irresponsible. Harshly.
  
  I've read all the literature hon and heard every argument you could possibly throw at me. The fact is guns shoot people. I don't like it when that happens. You can spin it any way you like... guns shoot people. Don't give me that crap about people shoot people either because I have yet to see bullets fly from anyone's fingertips.
  
  If you read my post you would see I was a realist and enforce only the sphere that influences my life and especially the lives of my children.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Have you actually read Dr. John Lotts enormous "More Guns, Less Crime"?
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Nope... do you think it's more convincing than a family of police officers? I assume that it follows the standard "if everyone is terrified of everyone else than no one will dare commit crimes" thought process. Seriously... If God himself floated down from heaven on a rainbow and tried to hand me a gun I would tell him to shove it. I didn't mean to start a debate on this topic because I generally try not to argue about topics that there is absolutely no chance that my mind will be changed on. It's not fair to anyone involved. I will admit freely that I am not in the least bit open-minded about this issue. I really don't want to frustrate anyone with my obstinate attitude on the topic.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Good to hear, I thought so. It is good to ignore scholarly works, they just get inconvenient to our preconceived notions of reality. Wasn't this whole thread started with a discussion of challenging one's notions by expanding ones reading? Perhaps I am wrong.
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I have a fairly good notion of reality dear. My opinion is just different than yours. If you can't accept that happens you are likely to be unhappy in life. Go play with your guns all you like... I'm not trying to stop you. Isn't that enough or must I say they are the most wonderful things in the world to make you happy?
  
  For me... however... they actually repulse me. I get nauseous in their presence.
  report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  As you wish. Not speaking from my opinion, in fact my opinion has nothing to do with the contents of Lotts' book. Just as his opinion has little to do with the vast amount of statistics poured through to research it. Not gun advocacy, gun reality. But that is okay, reality is scary.
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  100 percent of people who started smoking before 1897 are dead now.
  
  Statistics are great aren't they?
  
  Oh... my reality includes seeing a 9 year old boy with a bullet hole in his head from his "legal responsible" licensed concealed-carry father's gun.
  
  His father never served a day in jail... tragic accident right?
  report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I am so glad you cut right to the deepest part. I wasn't aware of your background in statistics.
  report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It's ok undermyhat. Some people just don't like guns, and their distaste spreads to knowing the true effect of them regardless of what study after study after study says. It happens with everything political, guns, taxes, regulations, anything that doesn't fit your view is automatically invalid.
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Once again... don't care if they were mandated by God.
  
  Glad you get it.
  
  I don't have to have a reason you approve of to have an opinion contrary to you. Like I said go play with your guns all you like.
  
  I'll pray for your kids.
  report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not saying you have to approve. I'm saying your disapproval doesn't change reality.
  
  You don't have to pray for my kids, but I appreciate it. They are well protected.
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Then why do you and the other one seem to have a problem with me saying that I won't own a gun or let one around my children? It seems you are going out of your way to convince me that I am somehow wrong.
  
  Or is it background checks that I support or penalties for parents whose children die by their irresponsibility?
  report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  And I don't play with guns, they aren't toys.
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Walked down a boy's toy aisle lately? If society teaches them that they are toys at 5 that idea never completely leaves their head.
  report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  As someone who strongly disagrees with limiting gun rights I don't get why you guy's are angry, she does not want to take your rights she just does not like guns, it's a personal choice and she is fully entitled to it.
  report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  She is entitled to live as she chooses, however, if there is a staircase in her home her children are in danger. If she permits them to ride in a car they are in danger. If she has a back yard pool they are in danger. If we want our children to experience life they will be in danger. There are dangers, encountered every day, that are greater than those presented by fire arms.
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So because my kids face dangerous situations each day it is completely logical to put them in additional danger... just cause?
  
  Here Lily play with this gun honey... might as well we have a staircase after all...
  
  How the hell does that make sense?
  report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Statements like that...
  
  You know what? You shouldn't have knives in your house. Here Lily play with the cleaver honey...
  
  See, you can do that with anything. Doesn't mean people have to let kids play with their guns because you call them toys.
  report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  More kids die from accidental poisoning than accidental gun discharges. Here honey, play with this rat poison.
  
  More kids die from accidental blows to the head. Here honey, play with the hard corner of this coffee table.
  
  More kids die from falling. Here honey, play with this ladder.
  
  12 times as many kids die from accidental drownings. Here honey, play in the bathtub.
  
  23 times as many kids die from accidental suffocation. Here honey, play with this Walmart bag.
  
  25 times as many kids die from traffic accidents. Here honey, play with this steering wheel.
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  *rollseyes*
  
  Once again your argument is: If they are around dangerous things then why not let them be around MORE dangerous things.
  
  No matter how much you try to rephrase it that is your argument. Good luck with that.
  report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No, my argument is that guns aren't really that dangerous for children. Sure, if you give a kid a loaded gun, that's dangerous, but it's not the gun's fault. Kitchen knives can be just as dangerous if you just hand them to your little kids.
  
  If guns(responsibly used) were so dangerous, we would have tens of thousands of kids accidentally shooting themselves every year.
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Again... same argument. Again invalid. Have a good day.
  report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  My guns pose no threat to my children. They are not dangerous at all. Stupid parents are a danger to their kids.
  report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Most people I know who have guns and kids have a safe...and a big secure one that stays locked and the kids don't know the combo.
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Having a tiger caged securely in your house is still having a tiger caged in your house.
  
  I'm sorry... and I'm glad your friends are trying to be responsible but you must also admit that not all gun owners are... but FOR ME PERSONALLY I would rather remove the risk completely from the situation. I'm not completely sure why that offends everyone and honestly it seems like everyone else is trying to convince me that I really should own one no matter what my personal views are on it.
  report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  We're not trying to convince you. You are the one saying they are so dangerous, when they really aren't. You make them out to be horrible evil things to the point where you won't go to someone's house if they have a gun(how do you know if they have a gun in a safe in the closet?
  report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  By the way, much better than Lott's works is the study by Kleck and Gertz
  http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm
  
  And the study by the DoJ that found similar conclusions(1.5 to 4.5 million instances of DGU per year), although they backtrack on the results of their survey.
  report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Wrong, wrong, wrong. Most liberals wants guns regulated, not banned. BIG misconception you are spreading there.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Regulating to the point of extinction? The "assault weapons ban" was indeed a ban and not on "assault weapons," since those were already severely regulated under existing firearms laws, but, rather, an attempt to ban semi-automatic rifles. The initial law banned those rifles with frames and calibers similar to military arms. Its expansion to include ALL semi-automatic rifles was sought by liberals in Congress to no avail.
  
  Liberals fail to realize(a shared root word with reality) that criminals disregard law and regulation as a matter of course, hence the monicker - criminal. The law abiding are the only ones disarmed or inconvenienced by over reaching gun restrictions.
  
  Government seeks ever growing amounts of control. To award government the power to regulate a thing is to give it the power to destroy a thing. Government is force and liberals constantly rail against deregulation, seeking instead to increase and expand regulation over more and more aspects of our lives. People don't kill people, sugary sodas over 16 ounces in volume kill people.
  
  As a matter of clarification, one is in greater danger from a hospital stay than from a legally owned and carried firearm. In the state of Indiana, no law enforcement officer has been shot with a legally carried firearm since the issuing of conceal carry permits started in this state in the 1920s. The firearm is cast as villain when it is the criminal who is the actual culprit.
  
  It is, as with most things, not the fault of the choices the individual makes in the liberal's perception but, rather, forces and things outside of his control. Poverty, crime and ignorance are not the product of poor choices by an individual but always the product of external forces. It is just one of many misconceptions about reality that liberals readily embrace.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You make a lot of generalizations with nothing to back them up. The fact remains that no one is trying to take all your guns away from you. Yes, there are probably some liberals who would like to ban some guns, and a few liberals who would like to ban them all, but the vast majority don't want to disarm the populace, for the same reasons you don't want to.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It is doubtful that liberals do not wish to ban firearms for the same reasons that I advocate for their ready availability.
  report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe. I don't know your personal reasons. The reason I personally don't want the populace disarmed is so that citizens could defend themselves against a tyrannical government, should it come to that.
  report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  There may be hope for you. However, a little hard to do when citizens don't have access to handguns or high power rifles, both targets of banning efforts by liberals - as in the unaddressed "Assault Weapons" ban.
  report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  They key word is "efforts."
  
  By the way, it is not just liberals who have supported gun control.
  
  "As governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited the carrying of firearms on your person, in your vehicle, and in any public place or on the street, and he also signed off on a 15-day waiting period for firearm purchases. After leaving the presidency, he supported the passage of the Brady bill that established by federal law a nationwide, uniform standard of a 7-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns to enable background checks on prospective buyers. He urged then President Bush to drop his opposition to the bill."
  
  http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinio … 1722.story
  report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Not very many people think there shouldn't be any gun control. Anything like saying you shouldn't be able to carry is just stupid though. If you think people should be able to have guns to protect themselves, they should also be able to have access to those guns, or they won't serve that purpose.
  report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  We are very close you now. Elect him again and see for yourself.
  report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Such drama.
  report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Murder, really? I think that's a bit extreme. Negligence, perhaps. I could get behind that. If you have a gun, it's your responsibility, and you should take reasonable precautions to keep the gun from being used by someone who isn't you.
  
  When I was house-hunting, some idiot left his revolver on the coffee table and my wife and I found it while we were viewing his house. She, I, or our realtor (or any other prospective buyers and/or their realtors) could have walked out with a handgun. If a couple with a kid had been there, and the kid had picked up the gun, someone could have been killed.
  
  To leave a gun on the table when you know strangers are going to be visiting your house is criminally negligent, imo. But careless doesn't equal malicious, so I can't see charging the fool with murder if someone did get killed because he stupidly left a gun lying around.
  
  Negligent homicide is about as far as it could be taken.
  reply report
  68
  denisemaiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Melissa--I read it. It was funny. I laughed. (But I really did think you were a gun person.) By including you I was referring to your banter on which state got to have the patron saint thing. I gave it to you. Mostly because I wanted the girl to win the manly shooting things contest. I never implied that you called Christians wackos. I was referring to the "broad brush strokes" referenced by Jeff that some people use to paint conservatives and illustrating that I, like many, in no way fit into those generalizations.
  
  But now I'm disappointed. I thought you really were a gun blazing Annie Oakly type that was going to out shoot all of the men. Oh, well. I guess your just like me. Although I'm not really sure about the Cagsil person who says you're being played as a fool. What's that about?
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Cagsil is a rights advocate so we're gonna be on opposite ends of the spectrum on that particular subject
  
  As far as gun toting Annie Oakly... I'm gonna get myself in HUGE trouble here. I grew up in a very large redneck military/police family where I was the only girl out of 19 male cousins (and the baby). They didn't know what to do with me so they took me to do what they were doing. I was very very good at the hunting/fishing/shooting thing. I took ribbons in marksmanship in both bow and guns... mainly bow. I hated every second of it. I was about 16 when I managed to convince everyone beyond a shadow of a doubt that I indeed had an innie instead of an outie and I would like to behave as such.
  
  I know how to do just about anything that "traditional" redneck guys can do... including fixing cars. On principle I won't even change the tire on my car. I will literally stand beside the car looking forlorn until some nice guy in a pickup shows up and fixes it for me.
  
  I am the anti-feminist. If you have a penis please feel free to do whatever heavy lifting- repair work and oiling that you like. I'll stick to birthing babies and fixing dinner (which under no circumstances short of a zombie apocalypse will I shoot or pull out of a lake)
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Denise, Gun Control what is to YOU the person? What does it mean?
  It's about finding out whether or not someone is being played a fool.
  
  If you think for a second the Federal government is interested in protecting the Second Amendment, which is now seen as equally as an individual right and a societal right, then you're obviously blind to other actions taken by government. Ever heard of NDAA and the Patriot Act? Both are rights violations, yet remain in place. One signed by a Republican and re-signed by a Democrat. NDAA was signed by a Democrat. Who is protecting your rights exactly?
  
  By all accounts, the only true Gun Control is the responsibility of the Gun Owner. It shouldn't be the government, especially the Federal Government. I don't mind States enforcing some sort of Gun Control mechanisms to ensure responsible people are owners, not idiots.
  
  The only Gun Control the Federal Government should be doing is hunting down the illegal dealers and the gangs who like to traffic in weapons. The Federal Government should be enforcing State Laws, not creating Federal Laws, which trump State Laws whenever a prosecutor feels like stealing a States case.
  
  The fact that some Laws are Federal Jurisdiction is absurd. There should be common laws Nationally, so people don't have a problem with living or life, anywhere of their choosing.
  
  The States(some) are about to allow voters to legalize cannabis. Giving them the choice, yet Federal Laws will remain in place? Which deems Cannabis illegal, even if States legalize it. It's already happened in California. People voted on medicinal cannabis and it passed. The Federal authorities arrested people who had it or who were complying with the Law passed and dealing in it.
  reply report
  68
  denisemaiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Dude. That's a long reply. I can't figure it out. Are you assuming I'm pro gun control? Where did you gain that info? Because I don't hunt? You are wrong in your assumption and preaching to the choir. I just think hunting is gross and I don't want to and I get a free pass on it because I'm a girl. Sheesh. But, my son and husband enjoy hunting very much and are safe with their gins. My son competes in small bore target shooting. I still don't get the fool comment. But that's ok. I don't really need to.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No. I didn't assume anything.
  I didn't get any info about you, which is why I asked the question as I did.
  I didn't say that. Who is assuming what here?
  No assumption. You're reading more into what I said.
  That's up to you.
  Good.
  Good.
  It's about government's inability to enforce Gun Control laws. My hub on it would show you what I mean, but I'm not allowed to post a link.
  
  Hence...the reason for me asking YOU - What is Gun Control to YOU? Which you haven't really answered in any detail.
  
  Secondly, anybody who believe the government can Control Gun Distribution in America is absurd in their thinking, much less enforce Gun Control Laws.
  reply report
  68
  denisemaiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Why do you want to know about just me? Or maybe you're using the plural, all caps you and I'm incorrectly assuming you've directed it at just me because you put my name at the top.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Because, Gun Control is an issue for the individual. It is to be handled and responsibly done so, at the individual level.
  
  If you have no clue about Gun Control? or what it is? or what it should be?
  
  Then that's not good.
  I am having a conversation with you, which other people are watching happen. I do happen to know that people watch what I say in the forums. I know it happens because I have been told by people that they enjoy watching me talk to other people.
  
  Some find it quite refreshing. Those who know me as a person, know where I am coming from.
  
  I am not singling you out of the group. I would ask the same thing of anybody else, in fact, I did, I asked Melissa.
  reply report
  68
  denisemaiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I doubt there is anyone who has "no clue about gun control". I glanced at your profile. You are obviously very passionate about the thing you have going on there. But I won't be answering any of your questions or statements. I sincerely wish you peace and happiness.
  report
  79
  schoolgirlforrealposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe he's a government spy!
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  St. Gabriel Possenti has been proposed as the Patron Saint of Shooters for his skilled defense of a young woman against bandits about to rape her.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Don't play the rape card with me either... If someone attempts to rape me and we both have guns then I'm still the one who's likely to die... not very many of them approach from the front ya know. If someone attempts to rape me without a gun then I wish them all the good luck in the world and a speedy recovery.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Cool, I am glad you could see the deeper point, wow. Perhaps a little study on what happens when a woman is armed and assaulted would clarifiy
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I did no such thing as lump them all in together just as I would not want to be lumped in with certain communist organizations I was simply pointing out that right wing terrorist from extremist right wing groups is very much a real concern.
  reply report
58
MelissaBarrettposted 11 years ago
IMO any group functioning on a "Because my God said to do it." level should be watched careful... no matter what God it is. These people tend to do things for obscure reasons.

The survivalist nut-jobs... no matter what their faith... should also be monitored as anyone who is stockpiling large amounts of weapons and supplies WHILE gathering into groups is kinda dangerous on it's own. I personally would feel safer living in a bloody mosque than next to a survivalist camp.

Basically... if you have an extremist view and access to weapons and money you are a potential terrorist. That's what they look like... sorry.

Now as far as saying the pledge of allegiance to the flag... nope. I will not allow it to be part of my kid's curriculum unless they... after being sufficiently educated on American History and the history of the flag... choose it to be part of their lives. Indoctrination into blind patriotism is as bad as religious indoctrination.
reply report
1. 89
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  'Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel'. As they still sometimes say in the UK.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  This does not, however, reject patriotism. Love of one's country is a legitimate thing, as love for one's family and friends. If anything, if one truly loves his country, he would want everyone to live as he lives and love his country as he loves his country. This is not imperialism or ethnocentrism, it is love and faith.
  
  I can relate better to a Russian patriot than with an anti-American American.
  reply report
  89
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What on earth is an anti-patriot?
  
  edit: I think someone changed their post. I thought we had discovered a new particle of humanity.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  no edit - no use of anti-patriot
  reply report
  73
  lorlie6posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Patriotism is a synonym for chauvinism-something to think on!
  reply report
2. 61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So you are saying that a mosque is dangerous but less dangerous than a survivalist camp?
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I was referencing the article. It was whining about Muslims not being sufficiently dogged.
  reply report
3. 61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Not sure where all that came from either.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Please try to keep up with the whole conversation... not just your points.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, however it is my forum so I think I am allowed a little leeway. Especially since I have only just come home from work and discovered all the hate mongering.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You discovered hate mongering when you came home? Are the Westborough people outside your house?
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  There is a degree of it being bandied about on these pages.
  reply report
  80
  Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Give us an example.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  See Longhunters reply to Josak and my reply to him.
  reply report
4. 74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  MO any group functioning on a "Because my God said to do it." level should be watched careful... no matter what God it is. These people tend to do things for obscure reasons.
  
  Absolutely: "The company of someone who is seeking the truth is infinitely preferable to that of someone who thinks he's found it." --Terry Pratchett.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I love it when men quote Pratchett at me
  reply report
73
Reality Bytesposted 11 years ago
According to the shadow government of the Council on Foreign Relations, practically every American is a threat of homegrown terrorism.

With the enactment of the Patriot Act in 2001, the legal definition of "terrorism" was expanded to include domestic as well as international terrorism. However, alternative definitions still exist at the FBI, Justice Department, Homeland Security Department, and Defense Department. Some descriptive terms (such as "sub-national," "pre-meditated," "noncombatant," etc.) are present in one definition and absent in others. Furthermore, many law enforcement groups, like the FBI, use the labels of domestic terrorism and violent extremism interchangeably

http://www.cfr.org/terrorist-organizati … ates/p9236

" attacks by individuals ", It is the individual that is the main focus of these warnings!!!

Fear is being used as a control mechanism, it also creates a society in which everybody suspects their neighbors of wrongdoing. The only terror plots foiled by Law Enforcement since 2001 have been those plots initiated by Law Enforcement agencies themselves. All other plots have been disrupted by civilians or mistakes by the potential terrorists themselves!
reply report
61
JSChamsposted 11 years ago
Well all in all I find it sad how many of the liberals(or whatever handle you prefer) on these pages and forums actually agree with that article. We are not talking about skinhead nazis, we are talking about average people in your town and on your block. They are hated.
reply report
1. 74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  We are not talking about skinhead nazis,
  Except we are talking about skinhead nazis, and bomb-throwing anarchists, and other violent fringe groups.
  
  Now, these groups shouldn't be outlawed, because that'd be policing people's opinions, and we shouldn't do that, not ever.
  
  But they bear watching, 'cos anytime you get people who are a) angry (especially about stuff that isn't really happening), b) scared (especially of stuff that isn't even real), and c) armed, it's a bit of a time-bomb.
  
  Nobody's freaking out about your average conservative voter. Nobody's even freaking out about the folks who keep extra food and ammunition "just in case."
  
  The ones who worry us (and darn well ought to worry you, too) are the ones who are stockpiling ammo so they'll be "ready for when the dang {insert hated/feared group here} come for us, 'cos they're gonna: they've got a plan, and that's why I got laid off from the mill last year, and I can't get another job because of quotas."
  
  Regular folks who think Christianity is under siege aren't a problem (other than they're willfully ignoring reality), but they get uncomfortable when we point out that the "gettin' ready for the second Revolution" people say a lot of the same kinds of things.
  
  Maybe they siege-mentality folks should do some self-reflection rather than defending the siege mentality?
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh no....Christianity certainly isn't under siege(he said after hyperventilating on the floor in laughter for fifteen minutes).
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Christianity makes up 70% of the population and you think it's under siege, now that is laughable, as it happens about 80 something percent of our politicians are Christians.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Some of the forums here have some really deplorable things to say.....and that's just here.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Shall i find some examples of what Christians say about Atheism or other religions.
  
  The other day I was told as an Atheist I obviously support murder and a few months back a Christian told me Buddhism was stupid because they worshiped a fat man.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh I am aware and didn't say i supported a statement like that. But telling me Christians don't get slapped around in the media daily????????????????????
  Please Josak I am older than that.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It really depends on what media you are watching, while there are still televangelists I am not down with saying the media is attacking Christianity.
  reply report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You're confusing "not getting your way all the time" with "persecution."
  
  Don't feel bad: many Christians make the same mistake.
  reply report
73
Reality Bytesposted 11 years ago
Americans for Legal Immigration stated, “Police were instructed to look for Americans who were concerned about unemployment, taxes, illegal immigration, gangs, border security, abortion, high costs of living, gun restrictions, FEMA, the IRS, The Federal Reserve, and the North American Union/SPP/North American Community. The ‘Missouri Documents’ also said potential domestic terrorists might like gun shows, short wave radios, combat movies, movies with white male heroes, Tom Clancy novels, and Presidential Candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin!”

The FBI’s Communities Against Terrorism program labels those who purchase food in bulk as possible terrorists, as well as those who use cash to purchase items and show interest in using the Internet in public places.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co … terrorists

"Americans who were concerned about unemployment, taxes, illegal immigration, gangs, border security, abortion, high costs of living"

How many Americans do not care about any of these issues? All Americans are potential homegrown terrorists!

"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Martin Niemöller
reply report
73
Reality Bytesposted 11 years ago
Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief.

Freedom of Association.

If you exercise this right, you may be labelled a potential terrorist?
reply report
0
Longhunterposted 11 years ago
I have a feeling that unless we're ready, willing, and able to pucker up and kiss Barack Hussein Obama's butt, you're probably labeled a terrorist.
reply report
65
maxoxam41posted 11 years ago
Through our taxes we are nourishing the "homeland security" department to irrationally strike us!
reply report
61
JSChamsposted 11 years ago
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/04 … -his-blog/
reply report
61
JSChamsposted 11 years ago
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co … terrorists

Here, different source....non-Glenn Beck.
reply report
61
JSChamsposted 11 years ago
Here: Somebody needs to claim this guy. I'm supposed to claim skinheads.......

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … el-HQ.html
reply report
1. 61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Ecologists need to. There are whole lot of eco anarchists (like the Una bomber) so maybe the bomb throwing anarchists can take this one?
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Crap... I'm a green-lover too. Do I have to take him as well as the bomb-building anti-war protester?
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It's a new game, I call it terrorist hot potato.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh! Oh! I want Mikhail Bakunin! He's was an anarchist... that puts him on the liberal side right?
  
  Of course technically the conservatives have to take Bin Laden... It might have been a different religion but he was still a fundamentalist.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Bakunin was awesome and though he was an anarchist he was a leftist anarchist so yes we get that guy (sort of) and yup they get Osama and all the other religious nuts. Not to be self promotional but I wrote a hub called: "introducing the four way political spectrum" which would probably clear up this discussion quite a bit.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Collective Anarchist (it was on the tip of my tongue) so he is bizarre combination of socialist and anarchist.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  fundamentalism is not conservatism - there are evangelicals who are also liberals - one a relgious concept the other a political/economic one - there are atheist conservatives
  reply report
89
Will Apseposted 11 years ago
How many good citizens shoot evil guys preventing terrible outrages every year? Hardly any.

How many bad guys shoot innocent people every year. Too many.

How many kids end up dead in shooting accidents? Groan...

Hand guns only have one use and it is a pretty unpleasant one.

The sight of armed police stir my contempt, let alone private citizens who imagine they are Clint Eastwood. Without these gun toting fantasists, criminals would be far less inclined to carry guns and a lot of lives would be saved.

Unfortunately, so many countries are so far down the wrong road with their killing toys, there is no way back.

Score up another victory for stupidity and ugliness.
reply report
1. 0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, the good citizens use guns to prevent or stop crimes between 1.5 and 4.5 million times per year. There are a dozen studies supporting this fact, one of which was done by leading criminologists, and another by the Department of Justice.
  
  Compare that to 11,000 firearm homicides. 613 accidental firearm deaths, 112 of which were minors.
  
  There is a lot more good done with guns than bad.
  reply report
  89
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You are quoting from some stuff put out by gun lobby site as far as I can tell.
  
  One stat is that homicide rates fell in Florida after carrying concealed guns was allowed. Were concealed guns a part of that? Who knows? All kinds of gun crime has seen big decreases in the last twenty years.
  
  As to the millions of crimes prevented by gun toters, all but a small percentage involved waving a gun in the air. Waving anything else would probably have had the same effect.
  
  Anyway a few stats from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention:
  
  The firearm homicide rate for children under 15 years of age is 16 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. Among those ages 15 to 24, the U.S. firearm homicide rate is 5times higher than in neighboring Canada and 30times higher than in Japan.
  
  http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html
  
  The thing most likely to reduce crime is high employment and decent life opportunities. Focus on that if you want to feel safer.
  
  As for the poison argument, what on earth does that have to do with guns?
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The millions of crimes prevented by brandishing a fire arm are recorded by the FBI in its uniform crime statistics each year - not necessarily a pro-gun group.
  
  Again, I would recommend reading "More Guns, Less Crime" by Dr.John R. Lott, an economist and statistician. As for gun deaths in other countries, the cultural differences probably account for much of the difference, in that Americans probably die from the misadventures of freedom more often than any one else. Our expectation is freedom not comportment to some social standard. It is more likely a matter of social-psychology than fire arms.
  reply report
  89
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  How much freedom does a murder victim have? Or his family locked into the grief? How many places are simply not safe to walk after dark? Not much freedom if you live in fear of gun crime?
  
  Misadventures of freedom?
  
  Licence to live out death dealing fantasies sounds closer to the mark.
  
  Get to the issues that matter. Make life worth living for everyone and see the fear recede.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So do you advocate total disarmament or just law enforcement only being armed?
  
  That of course would make it law enforcement AND the criminals.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No, I'm telling you about the two best studies that have been conducted. Kleck and Gertz
  http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm
  and the Department of Justice
  http://www.nij.gov/pubs-sum/165476.htm
  
  Both estimate defensive gun usage at a minimum of 1.5 million per year.
  
  The figures I gave for death rates come from the CDC
  
  http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
  
  Yeah, what's really interesting is if you look at individual states when they change their gun laws. About half of the decrease follows the national trend, and half of the influence comes from when the gun laws are changed. So states that took longer to change their laws took longer to start coming down.
  
  Right. I'm sure you can just wave at someone who wants to mug you and he'll run away. Sorry, but that's a horrible argument. Guns work as a deterrant because criminals don't want to get shot.
  
  I was just telling you that we have much worse problems than guns that kill a lot more people.
  
  Comparing the US to other countries doesn't do any good. One major reason is our border with Mexico and the war on drugs. Apples to oranges. You can also look at countries with high gun ownership and low crime rates, but comparing different countries with different problems in different geographical locations does no good.
  
  What does good is to look at states before and after a change in gun laws. When you do, you see a pretty clear picture.
  reply report
2. 0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  There are 30 times as many accidental poisonings as accidental firearm-related deaths every year. 6 times as many accidental drownings. 37 times as many deaths caused by falls. 77 times as many traffic accident deaths.
  
  If you want to pick a cause, there are much more rampant problems.
  reply report
61
JSChamsposted 11 years ago
We have veered onto this gun control thing which makes me wonder if the idea is if you are a Conservative and own a gun you can't be trusted?
reply report
1. 58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't mean to veer into this conversation... I just stated a personal preference in passing a couple pages ago and it got picked up on.
  
  Personally... like I've said before... I don't particularly care what you do. I will vote for those who support background checks mandatory gun safety classes and stiffer punishments for those who are irresponsible with their guns and that results in a death or injury. If you are a responsible gun owner that really shouldn't bother you.
  
  I don't trust guns. I don't care if you are republican democrat buddhist rastafarian.... whatever. I don't want them around my kids or myself. That is MY right to gun control and it seems pretty damn rude to try and convince me that using MY rights is wrong because you don't agree with them.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh I understand. Just trying to see if I can veer it back.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry I jumped a little too hard on you. I really don't like debating this topic... like I said before there is no point in it for me. I am walking away from this one so everyone else can get the last word on the gun thing.
  
  If you can pull the topic back to original I'll be happy to debate. It was a pretty cool topic.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah I wasn't out of sorts about it. That's your view and I respect it.
  Keep an eye on the forum. I just think you tripped Jackson's trigger(no pun intended). It will veer back.
  reply report
60
knolyourselfposted 11 years ago
Must be feeling hot. Is around 100% in DC 'bout now.
reply report
70
Cagsilposted 11 years ago
The ambiguity around "who" is a terrorist is so unrealistic. However, government has taken steps which are too much for it's limited power and that's just wrong.

When government steps outside it's boundaries with regards to citizens rights, then it's only to mean that tyranny is the next step.

It must be stopped.
reply report
1. 61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yep. There are two things and two things only...
  Liberty and tyranny.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Liberty and Tyranny?
  
  You do realize most people have no problem with "50 shades of grey"(pun intended and not actually referring to the book).
  
  Honesty and Dishonesty? People seem to think there are "Grey" areas and they apply that reason to their own subjective moral understanding.
  
  So, it would beg to say- Liberty and Tyranny would be looked upon as some liberty must be given up for the greater good without actually living in a Tyrannical society.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So what do you considr tyraanny as relates to this administration...solely?
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Tyranny has already existed since the inception. It's in a disguise and dressed up as government.
  
  The government in place replaced a tyrannical regime, yet has taken the exact same steps as the previous regime over the entire totality of America's existence.
  
  Why people fail to see it? Is beyond all comprehension, especially in such a conscious world that today has become.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well I don't know why people don't see it.It's accelerating. We will actually have drones in the sky watching us and people just shrug their shoulders.
  reply report
  73
  Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Denial
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I don't get it. Most don't want to get involved. Most don't want to be bothered with politicians because all they do is lie, distortion and feed misinformation, for it's own agenda, powered by the ideology of America's interests and National Security.
  Yes it is. The fact that Obama re-signed the Patriot Act and there was NO outrage on behalf of citizens, shows that citizens are not represented properly. A Republican put the Patriot Act in place and then to have a Democrat re-sign it...proves there's only ONE political agenda.
  
  Not to mention, NDAA was signed and implemented by Obama, to protect what exactly? The status quo- corporate protectionism.
  Most likely.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh yes the NDAA bothered myself and others too. But like I said. Shoulders just shrug.
  
  Hey what's up with Snookie and the gang?
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Good it should.
  Of course, because people don't want to get involved and fail to realize what is happening.
  I don't know who that is?
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That's who they are paying attention to instead of their freedom.
  It's Jersey Shore on MTV.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I see. I don't watch much TV anymore.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Shoulders shrug because so many have been led to believe worrying about that make you a kook and that what the original point of this forum was.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh I know. I can just imagine what Government thinks of me, my page, my posts and I hope they are watching.
  
  They can sit by and watch their plans for the future blow up in smoke.
  reply report
  59
  slcockerhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Of course, once in the place of power, they all seek to protect their grasp on power.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  And that should show you how much character they lack.
  reply report
59
slcockerhamposted 11 years ago
According to recent documents released by DHS, those who believe in limited powers for the government, constitutional rights, support pres. candidates like Ron Paul, believe in Bible prophecies being fulfilled, are against abortion, or have bumper stickers advocating any of these things; you should be watched as a potential terrorist. I'll have to let you know when they openly declare us terrorists for believing any of the things I believe.
reply report
61
JSChamsposted 11 years ago
Unfortunately, the media and statements like those which this forum is about foster THIS sort of image of Conservatives:

reply report
1. 0
  PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Okay, this is too funny. I've seen this image shared on Facebook by conservatives! They seem to be proud of what it says.
  
  Just sayin'.
  
  LOL
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh yeah I got a big laugh. I do think it's funny but it is funny because it is a stereotype I know is BS for the most anyway.
  There are those who think that shot is REAL. They will believe anything you say about Conservatives and that article I started this rant about fosters that however unintentionally.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  To be realistic... there is some grounds for that stereotype. I personally know conservatives who are exactly like that and I do live in West Virginia. I know that not ALL conservatives are like that as I am married to one who isn't. BUT... these people do exist and you do have to claim them.
  
  In addition the article does perpetuate the stereotype and likely not accidentally. No journalist can slant an article that badly on accident. So I guess the question is WHY would they? This is a conservative written article. What would conservatives gain by stirring fear and antagonism within their own ranks?
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  They were informing people about what had been said by a government official.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No... if Jason would have been informing people of what had been said by a government official the he would have listed complete and accurate information. He would have given both sides of the story. He is not a random blogger who was stating an opinion... he is a trained journalist and has been taught ethical responsibilities as well as exactly how to misrepresent a situation. The later was completely explained to him so that he wouldn't do it accidentally.
  
  He knew that by only giving a specific partial quote out of a longer text that the message would be highly inflammatory. He was jerking his readers around on purpose. If he had listed the full definition in the report he knew it wouldn't have made everyone angry. He also knew that if he was to state the FACT that left wing terrorist groups were ALSO included in that original report that it would show that homeland security was being completely impartial.
  
  In short... He was spreading propaganda to further a cause. Now again... why would he do that?
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know. I'm just a terrorist and don't realize it.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No... and I know that. So does everyone else including the author of that article. The point was he was trying to convince you and other conservatives that everyone else... including the government... thinks you are.
  
  Now... again... why would someone within your own party want you thinking that everyone thinks you are a terrorist? I assure you that Mr. Howerton's literacy skills are quite high. He read that report and knew what it REALLY said. So why would he want every conservative thinking that the government thought they were terrorists?
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know. There are lots who aren't spreading propagnada on the right that want you to think we are murderers and did 9-11 ourselves. That was supposed to be us you know.
  Nope. We aren't really blames for anything.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  And for the most part it is conservatives that are ALSO making a big deal out of that. Liberals largely ignore our own nutjobs to focus on the right-wing nutjobs that blame US for everything. Our media wants us to be inflamed about them so that WE feel persecuted.
  
  Because... and listen closely to what the media AND psychologists know... If a group feels persecuted then it builds cohesion and unquestioning loyalty to that group. THAT'S what you see on this forum... two groups of people who each feel under attack by the other group.
  
  Next question... who benefits from that?
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That's a good question.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well... our respective political parties benefit by turning us all into stupid angry sheep that are completely loyal out of fear that we are somehow under attack.
  
  The media benefits because angry viewers/readers are return readers and we usually bring our buddies with us or... as with this thread... provide free advertisement to their show/articles. I think we all know how awesome that would be if we could pull it off...
  
  Meanwhile we get mind-f***ed and spend our lives as angry paranoid idiots that can't have a conversation that would actually FIX the problems or help us reach compromises. Our general lives suck more while those who are mind-f***ing us stay in power and earn money.
  
  Just pointing it out.
  reply report
  59
  Cody Hodgeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You make a lot of good points. I like to think of myself as a moderate if I'm being honest with myself. In short, my political philosophy would be that if you were a homosexual, you would have the right to a gun and a marriage license. In other words, I lean slightly/largely left depending on the social issue while being pretty conservative when it comes to money.
  
  Now, I won't pretend that many of my comments haven't been pro-democrat. However, you have to consider HOW our leaders get elected. At some level, you have to believe that the people who vote for the guy in Texas who wants to tell kids to stop thinking for themselves honestly believe that it's a good idea.
  
  On some level, you have to believe that there is support for the politicians in Louisiana who want to use state funding to teach kids that evolution isn't real because the Loch Ness Monster proves it isn't real. The LOCH NESS MONSTER! It's not even a real creature!
  
  In all honesty, I think Mitt Romney could make a great president in a different political climate. Unfortunately, he can't even stand up for the plan he created because god forbid a democrat wanted to expand on it.
  
  I think John Boehner would compromise with Obama if he could do so without the rabble rousing from the Tea Party. Would they agree on everything? Of course not. However, there is a difference between a healthy opposition party and a party that simply says no to everything.
  
  Think about this for a second...does the media really divide us? I personally feel like the media is a reflection of society if anything. Just something to think about.
  report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  On a side note I have a slight upper hand here as I actually have several contacts in common with the writer of the article. I've been exposed to his crap regularly as his real gig is writing for our local (under 20k) paper. I hate to say this but his target audience here is the uneducated and paranoid. I am from rural WV.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Speaking as a conservative, that made me laugh. A sense of humor about one's self is essential.
  reply report
2. 70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah you know I'm right don't you Cagsil?
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The high possibility is actually too scary to even think about, much less do anything about it.
  
  If that were true, then I would have to seriously increase my plans and I'm not presently ready yet to do that. I'm not of the understanding it has reached that level of stupidity as of yet, but is coming close.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No...
  I meant you know that is a stereotype that is fostered don't you?
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  A mentality that is fostered by either side that would make that true would be a sure sign of the end of America.
  
  Funny and sad at the same time.
  reply report
61
JSChamsposted 11 years ago
The skew this forum took is fully indicative of just exactly how anti-Christian most of the folk on HP are.
Thanks. You help make my case.
reply report
1. 58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Approving of porn vs. not approving of it has nothing to do with Christianity.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well perhaps that's true Melissa, however I doubt I would have received the responses I did had the posters not known I had outed myself as a Christian.
  Like I say...plaster the outside with the stuff. It will make for great public conversation.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I'm pretty sure most of the posters know that I'm a Christian too...
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Frankly Melissa that's not the direction your comments point.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  *Shrugs* I'm not really that upset about whether or not you think I belong to the club or not. I'm pretty comfortable in my faith. You might want to make sure you aren't confusing politics and religion though.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No Melissa I am not and no I don't wonder if you are part of the "club".
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That is a unique perspective, one not often shared by any Christian theology or clergy that I have ever read, met, talked to, heard of, etc....
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So, if the people in the movies(Porn) were married(making the only issue Christian theology would have with the actions of porn stars), then the sex wouldn't be an issue...correct? Last time I checked, no religions addressed making movies.
  
  No wonder why the world is still completely uncivilized.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Why? I know plenty of non-Christians that don't agree with porn. I also know many Christians that watch it.
  
  It's existence-per say- doesn't really bother me. I am not likely to want it displayed in public. I don't really get upset by seeing a naked body but I'd prefer my kids didn't. So my objection... I guess... would not come from my religion but from the fact I am a parent.
  
  Faith doesn't always determine our views... or it shouldn't anyway. I am more than my religion.
  reply report
2. 59
  Cody Hodgeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You enjoy playing the victim don't you?
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  On HP I don't have to "play" anything.
  reply report
3. 74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The skew this forum took is fully indicative of just exactly how anti-Christian most of the folk on HP are.
  No, it had nothing to do with any imagined anti-Christian sentiment.
  Rather, it had to do with a distaste for double-standards and an understanding of what equal treatment really means. (At least in my case.)
  
  I doubt I would have received the responses I did had the posters not known I had outed myself as a Christian.
  
  Waitwait...did you seriously just say that you "outed yourself as a Christian?" Like, you had to hide your faith for fear of being shunned by your friends, disowned by your family, losing your job, getting evicted from your apartment, or losing custody of your kids?
  
  Cos that's the kid of thing that sometimes still happens to gay people who get "outed."
  
  By the way, you don't "out" yourself. You "come out." If you get "outed," that means someone told your secret before you were ready to let people know. If you're going to steal the words of an oppressed minority in a vain attempt to be seen as a victim yourself, at least have the courtesy to do it right.
  
  But back on topic, you got the responses you got not because you're a Christian, but because of--and only because of--the things you posted on this forum, to wit:
  *Your continued insistence that Christians are an oppressed minority even though it's been demonstrated that a) most of the time Christians actually get preferential treatment and b) your 'evidence' of 'persecution' was actually an incident where, unusually, a Christian was required to follow the same laws as everyone else, and punished for breaking them.
  *Your insistence that decorations that offend someone who isn't you should be allowed to stay up, but that decorations that offend you must be taken down, and your inability to see this as a double standard.
  *Your implication that someone who disagrees with you (specifically, me) has no morals.
  
  You help make my case.
  Too funny. So very absurd.
  
  Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You are right Jeff.
  i am an idiot.
  reply report
  59
  slcockerhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Jeff, I thought this was about you being considered a terrorist not gay. Correct? But you seem to be attacking other's beliefs quite liberally. You rerap what you sow.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  And did you happen to bother to read the last 14 pages? You would had noticed that the topic of this thread has changed several dozen times. Just recently, to get the thread back on track, the person who started the thread admitted that the thread had gotten off track and wanted to get back on track. You will notice right after he states it, I then posted to the forum directly to bring it back on track.
  You would be right. The thread isn't about being gay.
  Actually, he isn't attack the beliefs. He is attacking the irrationality of some of the posts most recently posted.
  reply report
  59
  slcockerhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I also thought that Christians, or those that don't trust gorernment are considered possible terrorists. Was that inappropriate regarding the question?
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think the terrorist thing even mentioned Christians.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  People who are anti-government are possible terrorists, and yes some are citizens.
  
  I guess I could be considered one. I'm not anti-government. I'm for a limited government, both State and Federal.
  
  As to whether or not that was inappropriate regarding the question...I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks Cagsil.
  That's what happens when people don't want to talk about what you are talking about.
  It's also a progressive strategy. Freeze the opponent, make him the target(thought I didn't know that stuff did you Jeff), and so on.
  
  The fact remains that I was told I had to accept that some right wing people might be terrorists....however Josak said we were playing terrorist hot potato and denied the Discovery Channel guy who was obviously a left wing loon. Nope nobody was having any of that.
  It's a painful lesson for them when they realize the odor emanating from the bathroom they just left is the one they produced.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Um... yeah. Intelligent debate is most certainly attacking someone else's beliefs.
  
  I'm curious. Would there be a way to you to NOT attack someone else"s beliefs that didn't involve "Yes... you are absolutely correct"?
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  But you seem to be attacking other's beliefs quite liberally.
  
  The only "belief" I've attacked in this thread (and a few others, I admit) is the paranoid delusion that the majority religion in the USA is somehow also an oppressed minority--all evidence points to the opposite.
  
  I haven't attacked the moral or theological beliefs of the majority religion, its members, or any single of its members.
  
  Correcting someone who has made a factual error (in exactly the same way that "Canada is hostile to the United States" is a factual error) is not the same as attacking his beliefs.
  
  Actually, he isn't attack the beliefs. He is attacking the irrationality of some of the posts most recently posted.
  Exactly so.
  
  The fact remains that I was told I had to accept that some right wing people might be terrorists.
  And some (a small minority) certainly do fit the profile.
  Most don't, but there are a few who do, and they use the same words to advance their cause as mainstream conservatives use to advance theirs.
  
  Sure, plenty of stupid people lump all conservatives into the "violent extremist" category in the exact same way that (different) stupid people lump all liberals into the "commie traitor" category, or all Muslims into the "violent extremist" category (a different one). I never denied that, and in fact I agree that people who make that mistake (no matter which group they're lumping) are being very stupid indeed.
  
  If you'll go back and look at the actual stuff that people have been posting, you'll see that once upon a time, I very clearly said that the average conservative voter isn't someone to be scared of, but that the rhetoric of the lunatic fringe makes extensive use of the same siege-mentality language that mainstream conservatives also use, specifically, the idea that Christianity is an oppressed minority in the US, rather than the dominant majority that it actually is.
  
  JS replied with this:
  Christianity certainly isn't under siege(he said after hyperventilating on the floor in laughter for fifteen minutes).
  Which is no less than a willful denial of reality. I thought that we were done after a brief discussion of the differences between "getting the same treatment as everyone else" and "persecution."
  
  But then JS went and posted an article that he thought supported the siege-mentality, but which actually didn't. Of the four incidents mentioned in the article of Christian groups being told that they had to (*gasp*) obey the law, three of them ended with the law being changed to accommodate the Christian groups, and only one resulted in a Christian actually being made to obey the law (and, eventually, imprisoned for continuing to break it in spite of repeated rulings, court orders, and so forth). This is not persecution, it's prosecution. There's a difference, and it's pretty big.
  
  Any discussion of whether Christianity is "under siege" in the US (pro tip: it isn't) continued because JS kept bringing it up.
  
  I don't think the terrorist thing even mentioned Christians.
  It didn't, Josak.
  
  The running discussion of Christianity and how it's not actually under siege grew out of my (correct) observation that the siege-mentality of so many mainstream Christians directly feeds the minds of the lunatic fringe. Every time Bill O'Reilly talks about his made-up "war on Christmas," he's lending legitimacy to the lunatic fringe's ideas about either some shadowy group or else a secret government campaign being "out to get them," and justifying their need to prepare for the "inevitable" day when "they come for us."
  
  But let me make sure I'm being clear:
  Are mainstream conservatives likely to become terrorists? No they are not.
  Do lunatic fringe groups appropriate the trappings of mainstream Christianity? Yes they do.
  Do the lunatic fringe groups think they are under siege? Yes they do.
  Do mainstream Christians also make use of the "under-siege" rhetoric? Yes, sadly, many of them do.
  
  Mainstream Conservatives/Christians and the right-wing lunatic fringe have exactly one thing in common: both promote the false idea that the most powerful mainstream religion in the United States is somehow also a persecuted minority.
  
  Josak said we were playing terrorist hot potato and denied the Discovery Channel guy who was obviously a left wing loon.
  Oh, clearly the Discover Channel guy was a left-wing loon. No question. And he's an anomaly. A minority of one, if you will.
  Which brings us to yet another of the inconsistencies in JS's rhetoric. He repeatedly insists that conservatives have nothing to do with their lunatic fringe, and decries 'liberal' efforts to lump all conservatives into the lunatic fringe pile, but at the same time tries to hold up one guy and lump liberals into that...well, can you have a pile if there's only one of something in it?
  
  I guess the whole thing can be summed up by this: when I suggested that maybe we should stop painting with such broad brushes, and JS said,
  Hey great...you first?
  
  Well, you can lead a horse to water....
  
  From what I have seen here and in other forums your main operating procedure seem to be to try and twist as much of whatever whomever the conservative is says ...
  That's the mantra of everyone who ever lost a debate, ever. Maybe instead of blaming your opponent for using your own words against you, you should try using some better words?
  
  ...and become combative...
  Now your confusing "disagreeing" with "being combative."
  
  ...and get insulted by things...
  When someone says insulting things to me, I tend to feel insulted. Wouldn't you feel insulted if someone told you that you have no morals?
  
  You proved nothing. Ok?
  Well, you did a lot of the work for me, so I suppose I can't take all the credit.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I am curious about the discovery building guy, while he was an eco nut which is generally associated to the left the other half of his manifesto was about how terrible Mexican immigrants were and how they are taking over the country which is generally right wing rhetoric, a newspaper called him an eco fascist and I am inclined to agree, as I see it he isn't really either's nut because he does not fit comfortably into either category.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What you were engaging in was hardly a debate. You basically just call people delusional.
  reply report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You basically just call people delusional.
  No, I said you were mistaken and confused, and further, that it isn't your fault, considering the many prominent people telling you that Christianity is under siege. I called the idea that the largest, most powerful religion in America is also somehow a persecuted minority delusional.
  
  If I had stopped there, then your post above would be 100% correct: if I'd just said you were mistaken and called the idea delusional, all I'd have been doing was saying stuff, and not debating.
  
  But I backed up my claims with facts and logic, which is what it means to engage in debate.
  
  You haven't been able to refute my points (yet--maybe you'll come up with something today or tomorrow, and I won't be able to refute it, and I'll have to change my mind), so now you've taken refuge in attacking not my arguments or my facts, but pretty much everything else (you're trying to pretend that I've been insulting and combative when I haven't, you've implied that I have no morals, and you've tried to blame me for the digression when you were the one who led us down that path).
  
  I didn't tell you that you had no morals Jeff. You imagine that.
  Oh, really? So you mean when you said,
  Why isn't porn ok?
  Because I have morals and so do a few others. That's why you prefer the porn to a manger scene.
  you weren't grouping people into "those with morals" and "those without morals," and implying that I fall into the latter? Really?
  
  Even if you genuinely didn't mean to imply this insult (which I suppose is possible), it's fairly hard to believe that someone who has a good command of the language (as you have: your posts are clear and articulate, plus you're really good at sarcasm) can't see how that post looks as though it's meant to imply that I have no morals.
  
  But given that you can look at four different cases in which Christians have broken the law, three of which resulted in the law being changed or waived in favor of the Christians, and only one of which resulted in the Christian being punished only after continued and flagrant defiance of the law, and still conclude that Christians are a persecuted minority, I suppose it's not surprising that you can read what you wrote and not see how it looks insulting.
  
  Ah, well....everyone's human.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I wouldn't have made that leap had you not given me the impression that was how you feel.
  We are going to get off this hijack topic now. It's not about terrorists.
  reply report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I wouldn't have made that leap had you not given me the impression that was how you feel.
  Oh, so I wasn't "imagining" things?
  You did mean to say that I have no morals?
  
  Leaving the personal insult aside for a moment, I'm curious: which of my statements led you to conclude that I have no morals?
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I get the feeling you feel insulted when you step out of bed.
  We are going to talk about the terrorism issue now I you don;t feel so inclined then don't.
  You have even had others tell you we were going there.
  reply report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I get the feeling you feel insulted when you step out of bed.
  An ad hominem attack to distract from the fact that you have insulted me, denied doing so, and then admitted that you were doing so, and still haven't offered an apology. Is insulting people wrong? If so, why is it okay when you do it? Or is it okay because of who was insulted?
  
  We are going to talk about the terrorism issue now I you don;t feel so inclined then don't.
  So, when you're losing a debate, you distract and change the subject? Isn't that what you accused *liberals* of doing?
  
  Talk you you later.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Hey Jeff i started this forum. You were the one who went ballistic when I started about Christianity so it really seems to me you hijacked the whole forum to get off a topic the left does not like which is getting caught stereotyping people. Do what you will. You will not however continue to veer this forum to your satisfaction.
  reply report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Hey Jeff i started this forum.
  So? Does that give you the right to make personal attacks?
  You were the one who went ballistic when I started about Christianity
  Hardly. There's a difference between pointing out that someone is incorrect (as incorrect as if you'd said that Canada is our enemy) and "going ballistic." The difference is pretty big.
  
  so it really seems to me you hijacked the whole forum to get off a topic the left does not like which is getting caught stereotyping people.
  
  No, not at all. In fact, if you'll recall, I agreed that stereotyping people is bad, and nobody should do it.
  (Some people can't take yes for an answer, I guess.) Where it went goofy was when I pointed out that while conservatives often like to say "But you can't lump us all into that category; they're a tiny minority!" they are often quick to lump other groups in with their most extreme fringers (usually it's Muslims=terrorists and liberals=godless communists) and mentioned that a lot of the siege-mentality rhetoric used by the lunatic fringe is echoed my mainstream Christian conservatives, thus lending an illusion of legitimacy to the siege-mentality of the lunatic fringe.
  
  Further, I demonstrated (using data that you supplied, btw) that the siege-mentality is unsupported by data from reality.
  
  Our differences of opinion exist because you keep ignoring the data from reality and insisting that Christianity--the largest and most powerful religion in America--is somehow also a persecuted minority.
  
  Do what you will. You will not however continue to veer this forum to your satisfaction.
  What do you imagine would be "my satisfaction?"
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Don't worry be happy. We are going back to the topic now.
  report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  If you say so....
  report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't tell you that you had no morals Jeff. You imagine that. i told you that I have morals.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Jeff....and I bow to your obviously highly superior and stupendous intellect....you belive what you want to believe and I will agree to disagree with you. From what I have seen here and in other forums your main operating procedure seem to be to try and twist as much of whatever whomever the conservative is says and become combative and get insulted by things and so forth.
  
  You proved nothing. Ok?
  reply report
79
schoolgirlforrealposted 11 years ago
talking about it doesn't really help, I mean unless people don't already know. Tired of all of this.
reply report
61
JSChamsposted 11 years ago
To add to my possibility of being a terrorist....not bad enough that I am Conservative and a Christian....I was a Cavalry scout team chief who was trained on how to blow up bridges!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Holy moley!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
reply report
1. 70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Are those some of the qualifications?
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Just sayin. That was thirty years ago and I was joking then they were training me to be a terrorist. Never dreamed anyone would be actually sizing me up for the role.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well, first off I was only joking. Secondly, I recently did a political test which the results are posted. I don't fall into a conservative model. And I'm not Christian, plus I don't know how to make bombs or fly a plane. So, I guess I okay.
  30 yrs ago, I was 13 years old. So, I'm not going there. And trust me, you don't want to know what I learned at 13.
  That's okay. Don't feel bad. I'm told I'm nuts more often than not. I'm told I'm an idiot more often than not.
  reply report
89
Will Apseposted 11 years ago
Alienation and weirdness can be found everywhere. It increases dramatically when people feel they have little power or influence.

It is very noticeable that the greatest levels of alienation in advanced democracies are in the US and UK (measured by voter turnout in elections, self-reporting and general levels of contempt for politicians).

People have given up and allowed the special interest groups, especially corporations, to run their country.

There was a recent major study of key elements of democracy in the UK recently, declaring it was in 'terminal decline'. http://democracy-uk-2012.democraticaudi … _is_uk.pdf

The American Economic Association (mainly salt water economists Stanford, Yale etc) maintains a mass of data on the same subject for countries around the world. You can download the (rather detailed) data set here if you are interested http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/data/mar06_data_20031166.zip

Frankly, I loathe anyone having power over me but democratically elected government and the rule of law is preferable to rule by those whose only interest is their self-interest.
reply report
1. 61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It seems to me that a little self interest goes a very long and productive way. Self interest and selfishness are not the same thing.
  reply report
  60
  Brandon Tartposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I would venture to say that they are all fairly terrified themselves and have a need to express what has been instilled, if not beaten into them: fear and terror.
  reply report
59
slcockerhamposted 11 years ago
To those who call Christians being persecuted and viewed as possible terrorists, worldwide in the last 100 years more Christians have been martyrred around the world than the rest of the existence of Christianity. Recently, in Phoenix a Christian pastor was raided by a swat team for having a home Bible study. He's now in jail for 60 days, 3 yrs. probation, and a $12,000 fine for having a home Bible study. Of course, you can throw parties in the neighborhood, have bbq's, or have a tupperware party. But having a Bible study warrants a raid with jail time and a large fine. This would seem to indicate unconstitutional targeting of Christians by government officials. Wouldn't it? Very relevant issue to how it feels to be a terrorist!
reply report
1. 61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  If there are sources for this story it would be valuable to cite them. If this is indeed the case, with no mitigating issues, I would be surprised.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The mitigating circumstance would be that he built a 2,000 square foot building in his backyard and was using it as a church (It has chairs for as many as 40 people. There is a pulpit. There’s a sign out front along with a cross) He lied to public officials to get the permits saying it was for a garage expansion. He violated 67 (yes 67) building code violations. There were "bible studies" three times a week.
  
  This is not a small gathering in his home. He built a bloody church in a residentially zoned area AND in addition failed to meet the code requirements for a church. It was a traffic bottleneck... a fire hazard... and a completely illegal building for the area. The laws apply to everyone... churches don't get to be built wherever you want to plop them down.
  
  http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/to … study.html
  
  http://blog.beliefnet.com/watchwomanont … udies.html
  
  Note that both sources are conservative and wicked slanted but even they couldn't slant the story enough for it appear that Salman was being "persecuted"... and he sure as hell wasn't a martyr.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That sounds so cool, a giant building with couches, a wide screen tv and a giant BEARS banner out front - Sunday at my house.
  
  Oh by the way, Fox News employs Geraldo Revera, Shephard Smith, Greta Van Sutstren and Juan Wiliams ,among others, who are anything but conservative. Fox News is hardly conservative given its connections to Saudi interests.
  reply report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Note that both sources are conservative and wicked slanted but even they couldn't slant the story enough for it appear that Salman was being "persecuted".
  
  Heck, not even the one JS originally posted was able to do that, and they conveniently omitted the fact that the "gazebo" wasn't really a gazebo, and that the guy lied in order to get the building permits for it.
  
  People see what they want to see. If you already think the government is out to get you, you're going to see persecution if you get pulled over for running a red light so you won't be late for church. (Dang cops shouldn't be working on Sunday anyway; all this sabbath-breaking is clearly part of a conspiracy to bring down Christianity and set up the Antichrist as head of a one-world-government.....)
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I get mad every Sunday in Indiana where I cannot by a 6 pack of beer at the grocery.
  reply report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That law exists because the (Protestant) Christian majority put it there, and it's having a heck of a time getting repealed because in spite of their anger about government control, the conservative Christian movement doesn't seem to be interested in defending freedoms they don't want to exercise.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  From your mouth to God's son's ear - that little old wine maker, Jesus.
  reply report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know about the worldwide martyrdom statistics, so I won't comment on them.
  
  What I can tell you is that the case in Phoenix is the case we've already discussed, the one case out of four when the Christian guy who was breaking the law was actually required to obey it, and then when he insisted on continuing to disobey the law, was fined and imprisoned.
  
  Here's the article, again, and here's the relevant quote:
  
  In 2008, the City of Phoenix ordered Michael Salman to comply with code requirements for a church after neighbors complained about his weekly Bible studies, which often drew 50 people to a gazebo in his backyard. Salman refused [to obey the law], claiming the order violated his free exercise rights, and was sentenced to 60 days in jail, fined $12,000, and given three year's probation...
  
  No mention of a "raid" or a "SWAT team" is made in the article, and no mention of any order to stop holding a Bible study. I have to assume that the SWAT team raid got in there during the usual telephone game, and that slockerham only passing on someone else's falsehood rather than making stuff up on his own.
  
  Apparently mistaking prosecution for persecution is a pretty common mistake. I think I'll have to address this in my next grammar hub.
  
  This would seem to indicate unconstitutional targeting of Christians by government officials. Wouldn't it?
  Well, if the guy really had been targeted merely for "holding a Bible study," then yes. But he wasn't. He was cited for zoning violations, and prosecuted for his continued refusal to obey the law, even after multiple warnings.
  
  "Having to obey the same zoning laws as everyone else" isn't "being unconstitutionally targeted by the government."
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So being a polite and good citizen is not expected of Christians - I always thought that was precisely the kind of conduct required of Christians. I say that as an active, Catholic Christian. If that little community feels abused than the only reasonable response is to lodge complaint if any one else in the neighborhood inconveniences his neighbors with the traffic from a weekly cook out, football game, sex toy party, whatever...sauce for the gander.
  reply report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So being a polite and good citizen is not expected of Christians - I always thought that was precisely the kind of conduct required of Christians. I say that as an active, Catholic Christian.
  Well, I kinda thought the same thing, so...
  
  If that little community feels abused than the only reasonable response is to lodge complaint if any one else in the neighborhood inconveniences his neighbors with the traffic from a weekly cook out, football game, sex toy party, whatever...sauce for the gander.
  
  Either that, or work within the system (like the other Bible-study groups did) and try to get the rules changed.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Or both, insist on the law being enforced until it can be changed. It is fine to be critical of a law it is not fine to flaut the law, unless there is a profound moral issue at stake like slavery. But usually, if a profound moral issue is at stake the opposition is usually willing to risk imprisonment or death - like the Chinese pro-life protestor and personal friend of Hillary "I'll see you at the airport" Clinton, Chen Guangcheng.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Good citizen maybe. Nothing in my religion I've ever found anywhere says I have to be polite . I'm kind but I'm not nice ... and I love my neighbors but that doesn't mean I have to like them.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You are required to love them.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  And I DO love them.
  
  However... if love doesn't stop me from telling my hubby and children what I think of them then it's not going to stop me from telling my neighbor.
  
  It's like this... I LOVE a drunk driver enough to be KIND enough to administer first aid when he wrecks his pickup in front of me. I don't LIKE him enough to be NICE enough to not verbally ream him a new ass while I'm doing it.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So for the person who has made poor life choices you have some powerful words. Does this count for the poor, many of whom are so precisely because they have made stupid life choices?
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  If I feel the words are warranted... yep. And I do quite a bit of charity work. Trust me I've had words at times.
  reply report
  59
  slcockerhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The Bill of Rights does give us the freedom of religion without government interference. I think that this would be government interference.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh... so if my religion involved human sacrifice then that would be cool with you?
  reply report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The Bill of Rights does give us the freedom of religion without government interference. I think that this would be government interference.
  Well, I guess it could be construed as government interference, but not government interference in the free exercise of someone's religion.
  
  It's government interference in what kind of building may be built in that neighborhood, and what kind of use it may be put to.
  
  Again, the guy wasn't punished for holding a Bible study. He was punished for breaking zoning ordinances.
  
  Unless you think that the law shouldn't apply to people who happen to be breaking the law to do something religion-y, there's no way that that this counts as persecution.
  
  Of course, if you think someone breaking a law for religious reasons should get an automatic "get-out-of-jail-free" card, then the Rastafarians get to smoke all the ganja they want, and nobody can arrest them on drug charges, 'cos, freedom of religion. Those Mormon fringe groups in the hills of Utah can have all the wives they want, 'cos, freedom of religion. If the local Wiccan coven wants to do a skyclad ritual in the city park on Lughnassa, they can do it, and nobody can stop them, 'cos, freedom of religion. If a Houngan wants to behead a rooster on the local soccer field to help his kid's team to victory, then he can do it, and nobody can stop him, 'cos, freedom of religion.
  
  Or maybe we should make everyone to follow the same rules, no matter what faith they follow?
  
  'Cos if you let the Christians break the rules, then you gotta let everyone else do it too, and you'll end up with this, which I'm pretty sure you don't want at all.
  
  File it under the "be careful what you wish for" heading.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps the question should be - "Does local, state or federal government have the Constitutional authority to zone real estate so that a place of worship cannot be built in that zone?" Most churches are built in residential areas, why is this one different? There must be some reason why this has become an issue beyond the issues polluted with a false religious conflict. What is the church crowd like? After all there are organizations that wrap themselves in religion when they are busy spouting race hatred.
  
  Arizona does not impress me as a rabidly anti-Christian place. I would expect this strict zoning some place like prosperous suburban Los Angeles or even presperous suburban Indianapolis. I thought Arizona was one of those western states where individual rights trump everything else. So it is not like Wyoming?
  
  As a side issue: Imagine what a neighborhood in Houston can be like - there are very few or maybe there are no - zoning rules.
  reply report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Most churches are built in residential areas, why is this one different?
  
  Don't know, but I'd speculate that lot size, street width, the lack of a parking lot, and the need for traffic lights to accommodate the increased traffic all might be contributing factors.
  
  Add to that the facts that the guy told the city that he was going to be building a "gazebo" when he applied for the building permit, but instead built a very different building, and that churches in that community need to have certain features (like fire exits, restrooms, etc.) which this building apparently didn't have.
  
  We can argue about whether it's right or wrong to have these rules, and that would be a valuable discussion, but it has nothing to do with free exercise rights.
  
  After all there are organizations that wrap themselves in religion when they are busy spouting race hatred.
  There are, but I haven't caught even a whiff of hatemongering in connection with this story. I really don't think this church is one of those.
  
  It just seems to me a case of some guy thinking that because he's doing God's work, he gets to break whatever the heck rules he wants to in the process, 'cos, God.
  reply report
  61
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So ultimately it comes down to this guy not being honest and a good citizen. Sounds like the locality has a point.
  
  If being Christian is reason enough to be freed from legal considerations than why did Jim Bakker end up in prison, multiple Catholic priests resign in shame and Jim Jones flee the country?
  
  (it is hard to type wearing work gloves)
  reply report
79
schoolgirlforrealposted 11 years ago
Well, when you ask that question,
are you worried about being arrested? By the new NDDA act?

I'm not. but are you?
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

How does it feel to be a terrorist?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

How does it feel to be a terrorist?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies