On Tue, 20 May 2008 16:55:20 -0700, nospamatall wrote
(in article <JxJYj.25519$j7.469529@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
> George Graves wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 03:12:29 -0700, nospamatall wrote
>> (in article <huxYj.25509$j7.469267@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>>
>>> Where are you from George Graves?
>>
>> I'm an American. I grew-up near Wa****ngton DC and I've lived all my
adult
>> life in the San Jose California area about 30-40 miles south of San
>> Francisco
>> - one of the most left-wing Liberal areas of the country, yet all of my
>> friends are ultra-right-wing and so am I (with certain practical
>> exceptions).
>>
>>
>>> And anyway, isn't the USA always going
>>> on about how everyone has equal rights regardless of race or creed?
>>
>> I'm not sure what you're on about since you quoted no thread, but this
>> isn't
>> about race or creed or even ***. This is about politics and left-wing
>> liberalism vs right-wing Conservatism. In Obama's case, its also about
the
>> fact that he has ties to Islam about which I ordinarily could care
less,
>> but
>> some time ago, in case you didn't know, factions of the Muslim world
sort
>> of
>> declared war on Western Culture. And they've decided that USA is the
>> foremost
>> proponent of that culture and they have openly attacked us and
constantly
>> threaten to do it again. I sort of see that as pretty much the same
thing
>> as
>> being asked, in WWII, to vote for a first generation German-American as
>> President. Pardon me if I err on the side of caution, and pass.
>>
>>> Imagine if people were making the same fuss about whether he was a
>>> 'closet jew'? It's called bigotry.
>>
>> Not really. I ordinarily don't care about someone's religion (except to
>> look
>> on all of them with an equally suspicious eye), but in this case, as I
said
>> above. I'd rather not have someone with an Islamic background - no
matter
>> how
>> tenuous - as Commander-in-Chief. I also don't want a President who's
made
>> anti-American comments, whose wife has said publicly and repeatedly
that
>> she's NEVER been proud to be an American, and whose "most im****tant"
life
>> influence has been a preacher who openly hates his own country and
preaches
>> against it continuously. These are the "red flags" about which I speak.
In
>> my
>> opinion Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a good American, would not make an
>> appropriate president, and I don't give a flying **** if he's, black,
red,
>> green or blue!
>>
>>> With the electorate the US has it's a miracle the mess you're in isn't
>>> far worse.
>>
>> The Electorate that the USA has is no different than the Electorate of
any
>> Western Democracy, and from your server suffix, I suspect that you are
from
>> the Irish Republic. If so, your electorate hasn't so sterling a record
that
>> you can afford to throw stones either.
>>
>
> OK sounds like I may have misunderstood what you wrote about Islamic
> people, but I still don't know. It seems to me that it's a bit extreme
> to view one with that kind of suspicion just because there are others
> under the same religion who do bad stuff.
It's no different than any other war situation. Continuing my analogy with
WWII. If I, as an American, had shown-up in Japan during WWII, I would
have
been immediately arrested or worse, in spite of any protestation that I
might
make to the effect that I'm not in sympathy with my country's hostility
toward Japan. We are at war with fundamentalist Islamic terrorists like Al
Queda. Many more Muslims openly sup****t the actions of these terrorists
groups and there is no way to tell which individuals are in full accord
with
these terrorist activities and which individuals are not in accord with
them.
It certainly would not be in our best interest to elect a president that
is a
terrorist sympathizer. While I don't know that Obama is aan Al Queda
sympathizer, I also don't know that he is not - only he would know that.
The
fact that the Palastinian Hamas (a known terrorist organization) has
openly
"endorsed" Obama for US president, doesn't make me feel much more at ease
with the man either.
> Religion has little to do with
> it, except as a tool that can be abused, and that applies to all
> religions. The "Christian" Right in the US seems a far bigger threat to
> long-term stability in the US to me.
The Christian Right in the US is simply silly. While they have a lot of
power
as a voting block, they are pretty much benign compared to Muslim
terrorists
(of course there are individual exceptions such as Timothy McVey, but he
was
not a part of any organized Christian Fundamentalist conspiracy as far as
I
know). I wouldn't worry too much about them. They are more interested in
such
issues as prayer in schools than they are about killing whole societies.
> Now, there is an organized force
> worthy of respect! And they don't need to invade, they are already
there.
Meh, not really a problem.
>
> And I still don't have any idea who was responsible for that huge
> atrocity. All I know is that the official story sounds as dodgy as the
> other conspiracy theories.
I'm not sure that I follow you. What atrocity? Fundamental Christianity?
Its
always been here. The original Puritans and Pilgrims in New England in the
early 17th century were all what today, we would call, Fundamentalist
Christians. Its more of a tradition than it is an actually organized
force.
While all Fundamentalist Christians have similar views wrt church and
state,
they belong to a dozen different religions from Roman Catholics to Eastern
Orthodoxy, to Methodists, Baptists to the "Holy-Roller" religions that
most
people have never heard of.
>
> We are supposedly in an age of far greater global communications than
> humans have ever seen. So the problem must be us humans, because the
> communications can't be blamed.
The predisposition to be fanatic about some silly religion is said to be
genetic, and it seems that genetics trumps reason; even in this day and
age.
|
