I try not to but I still do. Not individually.. but when I hear the word Muslim I think radical...I think Osama and I think of unruly crowds chanting and burning flags ... hanging burnt bodies from bridges. I wish stories like this one were peppered into the media a little more as a reminder that we aren't fighting with all of them... that reasonable people can coexist and even admire each other.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311933,00.html

Yes, there were quite a few Christians in Iraq prior to the war, and most of them have fled. Overall, I think Iraqis now constitute the world's largest group of refugees.

Yes, American soldiers have tried to protect Christians by guns and bombs, no matter how much that violates the Christian religion.

Yes, the Iraqi Christians had lots of good Muslim neighbors, who did not want them to flee. Perhaps a million good Muslim Iraqis have also become refugees.

Probably the majority of Muslims in Iraq and around the world, like Christians, are generally (mostly) peaceful and non-violent, to a point.

The truth, of Unitarian Universalism, will set you free!

O, universalism, where art thou unitarian truth, for we, Humanist, Agnostic, Earth-Self-centrists, Atheist, Buddhist, Anti-Trinity Christian and Pagans, of universalism, who long to be set free?

To many words, you, think?

That is all!!

I have never been a Unitarian or a Universalist. I was raised Congregational, then have been conservative Southern Baptist and Mennonite. Please get your spectrum right or your spectacles right so you don't make a spectacle of yourself.

Oddly FITS, once again, you unwittingly agree, and thus prove exactly my point entirely.

First, you assume the comment made was of a mystical cogitation and intent about you. Second, you assume the references to Unitarian and Universalism both together, and separately, had anything remotely to do with you and any elitist mystics your profess are the be all in all mysticism per se.

Instead, as proven, in your often-utilized Munchausen's syndrome of feigning ill comprehension in retorts of weave, bob and dodge inept emptiness from the shallow end of humanity that is your usual game plan of piety pontifications about the evils of America and Americans and or anyone else who disagrees with you.

You merely again confirm my original intent and cogitation, by saying clearly your are not one that is likely bound in idiom, persona and intellectual fairness and honesty, who seeks "a free and responsible search for truth and meaning."

Nor, one in touch with the ideals that universalism holds. Which is all persons, creatures and events are related to God and or the divine spirit in his wisdom. And in that, they all, persons, creatures and yes, events, will be reconciled to and by God in his will alone and not in the appearances of man’s will alone, except in Gods wisdom that allows him a choice to affect events but always in consequence of his will and afore wisdom of , to and about events.

You know, that one, not embedded, from your professed pious selective evolution of the few human mystics. The one which, in your own words, in many ways, and many verses here, has shown you assume a human created Theocratic mystical position of god’s selective collectivism for only those pious selective few who have been “GIVEN” his visions and wisdoms. That special one mystics of self annotated piety invested in “ Praise the Lord, do good, for you to feel good, pass the money plate, mystics, of and all about me actions, motivations and discourses. You have such a vision no fits about Gods will and how man should be and not be accord to the word you know is right true and godly, right?



That is all!!

Well, your comment immediately followed mine, and didn't refer to the earlier post, so I thought you were talking to me, rather than to yourself. Please carry on talking with yourself; you won't get quite as much disagreement that way.

Fit’s your propensity for attention deficit and to safe harbor in shallows is astounding.

First you use a Unitarian, not the religion, and universalism, not the religion, a sin a commonality of “most people are peaceful,” in a mode of the absolute, like in that well know fact, similar is a likeness that most living people breath.

I respond using the commonality of non-religious Unitarian and Universalism saying it is not an argument for something being the most affecting. Rather the most wished for affect by man.

You counter in some stupor of oblivion about some variant of Mystical Religions, and you.

I say it not about you or any mystical religion you profess or not. It is instead about the commonality of non-religious Unitarian and Universalism, which is not an argument for something being the most impacting in human endeavors, rather it is the most wished for impact for human endeavors far from those which actually impact those endeavors the most in majority.

All the while I speak of views and questions them, and you well, as usual, you say nothing and ignore every issue laid before you. Now tell me that is, that not shallow attention deficit or what?

Try re-reading the flow, though I know you won’t.

That is all

I took Trader's post as a general comment in response to both posts w/o speaking specifically to either one.

Okay, if trader wasn't talking to me, then let's pretend I'm not responding to his response about me talking to him when he wasn't talking to me. Then we can pretend we never pretended to have this conversation.

You can take the insecure out of the obsessed and you can take the obsessed out of the insecure, yet, in the end, either way, insecure less obsessed and obsessed less insecure, it still FITS.

I'm tired of the hyperbolie about this war, so please tell me how many Christians were in Iraq before the Americans invaded. How were they treated other than allowed to breathe?

How many were murdered during the 30 years of Hussein, and how many since he died? If you really want to get into the minutia, how many african blacks (as opposed to the interlopers), east asians, europeans, south americans and northern americans were in Iraq before the war? How many hindi's? How many atheists? How many pro-abortionists?

What was the standard of living? How many Iraqis owned electrified and plumbed houses (as currently defined by the media), refrigerators, stoves, ovens, telephones, radios, land, cars, businesses, tv's, and computers with access to the world outside Iraq before the war? I'll tell you first hand that most Chinese people don't have access to most on that list, and Iraq was not on my list of "well they have it better than the Chinese". I could be wrong, but I don't think so south, or east of Baghdad which is most of the land mass and more than 1/4 of the population. BUT they have it better now at the expense of their oppressors and I can't imagine a better interim result without reducing the opposition population.

You've exceeded my "point" of being "generally peaceful". I am tired of hearing how horrid my American nature may be as you rationalize the reality of state sponsored beheadings of nonbelievers and pre-teen human bombs in shopping malls. Acting as if a Christian's life in a Muslim country is not perilous at best is not honest, and really is a whopper compared to the "lies" GW Bush supposedly told before the invasion of Iraq. I'm finished quietly listening to terrorist sympathizers compare me to their murderous brothren. I am generally peaceful, but in my quiet, lies and hate for my country have filled the void.

Thank you, whatitis, for your sentiments. Well said.

Thanks for the questions, iswhatis. I don't have the answers to most of those questions. I understand that, prior to the first Gulf war around 1991, most of Iraq was a comparatively rich country with lots of First World standard of living. I think a good online history of religion in Iraq will tell you that while Christians were at times persecuted (everybody was, including Saddam's own soldiers at times), the Christian churches were allowed to function openly. Speaking of China, one of my missionary students told me yesterday how they had to literally escape out of the window in China to avoid being caught for meeting together in worship. She's only 10 now, and was a baby then.

I guess I should apologize for exceeding your point of being peaceful. I criticize America because I am American, I disagree with its violence, and I'm still free to join internet forums and speak my mind. I DO NOT RATIONALIZE VIOLENCE such as behadings; perhaps you're far more likely to rationalize state-sponsored violence.

Whether the Iraqis have it better now, than they did 15 years ago, is extremely doubtful and unlikely. That's precisely why a million of them have fled their home country, and we should not consider the invading enemy to be their 'savior.' Where have I acted as if a Christian's life in Iraq was not precarious? Of course everybody in Iraq leads a precarious life, as Tom Fox learned by being killed.

I am not a terrorist sympathizer. You're more likely to be one, than I am. But thanks for your opinion, and God bless you.

You're welcome


I know you don't. But you certainly make accusations about the character of American "invasions" without any of that information or any context. That's exactly what my complaint.


Prior to 1991 Iraq was attempting to rape and pillage Iran, in part with American support for the "enemy of our enemy". In 1991 Iraq raped and pillaged an entirely different country. Iraq was not rich, certain Iraqis were rich, most of the country wasn't even electrified for god's sake much to our chagrin having broken and owned the place at this late date.


I defend America because I am American. Where did you acquire the wisdom that tearing down those things you love is the only way to revere them? I bet your wife doesn't appreciate that wisdom either, and I only bring her up because I assume you would never treat someone you love the way you treat my country on this forum.
I am also free to join internet forums and speak my mind, never claimed you weren't able to do the same. Why are you offended that I use that freedom no more or less freely than you?


You support the people and states that sponsor beheadings, child borne bombs and violence with every statement that my support for my country in this war is at best morally equivalent to those actions and in many cases your argument is that what I have supported is worse. You don't have any facts to back up those allegations, it's just your feeling yet you shout it and repeat it as if it were gospel. What you are saying is not only wrong factually it is destructive.


Based on what? What's better? Is Iraq better for the U.S. now than when Saddam was in power? You don't know what Iraq looked like 15 years ago so how do you come to this conclusion?


Have you considered that the Iraqi people made their soup and should be made to fix it? 20 million illegal aliens have invaded our country, more than half are of Mexican origin, yet we didn't invade Mexico to make them want to come here. I propose that most of the million Iraqis didn't flee Iraq's oppression but rather were too lazy to make an honorable and decent society in their homeland.


Your opening statement was that Christians were able to live and worship openly before the Americans kicked the Iraqis out of Kuwait. You didn't say it specifically, but it was clearly your message.


Giggle. Does that mean you love me man? MAN LOVE, not that other stuff. Blush.

You're welcome for the opinion, and God has blessed me. Now turn the other cheek.

I hear Islamists screaming at me, and see them proudly butchering people all of the time on the internet. I see 1,000's, 10,000's and at times 100,000's of Muslims dancing in the streets every time Islamists kill a few of my countrymen, or for that matter any group of souls in the name of Islam.

I can't remember a single demonstration of any Muslims dancing in the streets anywhere after the ouster of the Taliban in Afghanistan. I can't remember a single demonstration of 10's of Muslims anywhere dancing in the street upon the capture of Saddam Hussein outside of Iraq (other than a community in Michigan, USA). It's impossible to conclude anything other than there's a big problem for people outside the muslim community with muslims. Their good will appears to be unidirectional. Where was the American muslim community's voice when the muslim soldier fragged his commanders at the beginning of the Iraq war? Silent!! Still trying to find a voice? Told me right away where their loyalties lie.

I care less what my president tells me about my lying eyes regarding a "religion of peace". I accepted the statement as true, after all it comported with my limited exposure to the religion. But, I don't accept it any more because if any Muslims were peaceful they have certainly not stood up to those that are not. They have not even made an attempt to show their disagreement with the Islamists much less repell them. Rather the Islamists and terrorists seem to predominately grow out of and thrive within muslim culture and communities.

Muslims are ignoring and denying the nose on their faces.

iswhatitis, Fit doesn't have a wife. He's a divorced former practicing hetro, living in Thailand, who likes to feel persecuted because he's a pacifist. He just doesn't get it that it's the way he says things that arouses the animus of others.

iswhatis, SoloNav is a former federal social worker in Texas, married to her second husband after a divorce from her first husband, who spends most of her internet time psychoanalyzing anonymous posters rather than answering the topic at hand. You may have more in common.

Never mind the personal attacks! Never mind the sexual orientation!

True or false: you believe it is divinely righteous (or at least, morally permissible) for Christians to kill human beings if the government tells them to kill. I never do. It is not necessarily true that the critic of your government is the enemy of the killers of the enemy of the killers.

Actually, I was a federal social worker for only part of my 20 year career. I have been a chemical dependency counselor/private practice therapist and psychiatric therapist in psych hospitals for the major part, quite well equipped to do psychoanalysis, diagnosing, et al, for which I paid to do so, thank you. And, quite good at it. I get $115 per hr from Medicare and insurance companies.

SoloNav, among my comments there was a request that we not engage in personal analyses of each others' lives, but respond on topic.

Oh yes, the topic. I may be guilty of grouping Muslims. And grouping other individuals into cubbyholes they don't really fit into. Life in Iraq was hardly perfect prior to the first Gulf War, and Saddam was a terrible tyrant.

Noise, that's all I hear from you is noise. I spend the time to answer your comment in detail, and what I get in return is this? Last shot for you bubba, this is becoming a yawn.

Yes, Christians and all Americans can kill people in self-defense at the direction of their government. It is more natural law than divinity. A direct answer to your question, unlike the answers you provide over and over. You never answer directly, and rather than separate yourself from the Islamists' gruesome and immoral acts you attack the victims of those attacks in support of their efforts which is dispicable.

You are not a pacifist, but rather an antagonist and propagandist spurring on jihad against my compatriots and allies. Conversations like this augment my concern and comport with Mr Right's inception of this thread. I wish there were fewer of you and that the remainder were more peaceful.

Don't remember your request to not engage in personal analysis. In any event, Fit, you just got through doing the same thing to me, and my telling about your history isn't personal analysis. Don't think you even know what that means. I was correcting someone on their statements about your having a wife in their comparison of how to treat others. I believe it fit right into the discussion at the time.

Why so defensive?

And, I agree with iswhatitis..........you aren't a pacifist. Or, at least you don't come across as one, which I've told you before also. You are antagonistic while talking of what you believe and while condemning others to damnation if they don't believe as you, but don't allow others to be the same or they are engaging in "personal attacks." Those who don't know our history don't realize that I gave up trying to talk to you in pages of detail several years ago on your two major subjects because of the very reason listed by iswhatitis as his objections. I just continue to read and reread the same tripe you've put out since 2005 or so and your acting as if it hasn't already been addressed over and over. This is just a new set of people unaware of past history on this board and others. I just tire of your blind hyprocrisy, including your request to stay on topic........ which means you can't bring your pacifism and attacks upon Christians who aren't pacifists into every subject in which you engage, including attacks upon our government and our sitting President for engaging in the WOT.

And, isn't it strange that two people years apart tell you the same thing? Hello.


Is that personal analysis again? Let me clue you in. No, it isn't.

I'll just put you on Ignore as I have Cobra and TQ, if you so choose.

P.S. And, no more insinuations that Trader is senile or has Alzheimer's. His responses are as lucid as yours are. K?

Christians aren't supposed to get their moral imperatives from natural law, but from God. Merry Christmas, peace on earth to men of good will whom God favors.

Yawn.
What you're the super pope? The Catholics raise armies and the Quakers die in response to leathal force. Both are Christian faiths and neither is outside the Bible teaching. In my opinion natural law is not outside the teaching of the Bible. I could be wrong, but I can't even have a conversation with you. Perhaps you'll be willing to have a conversation on some other topic.

Sorry to interrupt your rant.

I ain't no Pope, I'm just expressing my opinion, as are you. I'm flattered that you consider me to be a pretender pope. Of course, lots of "Christian" teaching has nothing to do with the words of Jesus, including the raising of Christian armies by Christians.

What would you rather discuss? I enjoy discussing lots of other topics.

There was an entire text and context to Jesus's life, which is why I referenced the Bible for the text AND the context you seem to miss. There are things Jesus said as memorialized in the Bible, none of which prohibit or encourage the raising of armies or proclaim martyrdom as the pinnacle of Christian faith. There are plenty of instances for which those proclamations would have fit in context, but they aren't there which I take in context as well.

While you're "flattered" to be the 'pretender pope', might I remind you that it was the pope that raised the armies for the Crusades? Still flattered? In the context of this discussion the 11th century pope and the 21st century Islamic leaders and followers seem to have alot in common.

Most people's faith is admirable, uplifting and perfect, but their practice of that faith is not always so. Christian teaching is to make our lives more Christ like, not our deaths. Jesus never made mention that we make our own lives or deaths like his own, is that one of the Christian teachings with which you have a problem? Jesus was killed in his mid-30's which is probably a good reason for neither Jesus nor Christians to advocate the perfect immitation of his life.

I am trying decipher this paradoxical idiom FITS?

So, let me get this straight, in the same sentence you parlay in meaning that Christian’s get their moral Imperatives from God, yet, you counter balance that in the negative by saying in some way God is not a natural source which gives Moral Imperatives. Oddly implying God’s moral imperatives favors certain selective thinking and or types of Christians, not all Christians, and even none of some Christians.

Is that not what countless men over millenniums have said equally and as selectively as you. In the name of God iand n the name of all religions. Have not those countless thieves of all religions said they heard in their head “the moral imperatives of god” known now, in hindsight, as nothing more than acts of the most ungodly things, done in moral imperatives in not his name but in the name of a voice of justifying moral imperatives.

I have no doubt that Billions of humans have heard Gods words and his voice of favor for them. The question is whose voice and whose favor is being heard and most all, to what ends are “god’s Moral Imperatives laid forth to those few yet many who seem to hear voices and act in the name of those voices, sometimes in visions of bettering, often as not, on the other side bettering?

For example, a Jihadist who is cutting off the head of say a Jew, or a Christian or perhaps a Buddhists, more often than not, equally claims to have heard god’s moral imperative voice and, in it, his favor, in doing such a thing. While at that very instant and the same moments in time, those who are about to confirm God’s existence or not at his hands, equally claim or seek to hear god’s moral Imperative voice and his favor in their time of peril.

In that instant two parties in differing circumstances united in the moment and the deed, hear God speaking to them. Alternatively, are they merely listening for what they wish to be said and heard, presumed as a moral imperative, of God’s favor, upon one and or the other as the “chosen and enlightened ones of that moment and deed?”

Mortal Imperative, that leaky unreliable, unproven battery of convenient truth, justification and rationality attempting to explain the unthinkable, the improbable and the selectiveness of God’s wisdom given and denied as someone’s will, always questionably presumed, as a moral imperative of god’s will. A non-confirmed affirmation as often not, as is.

That is all!!!

Whether you interpret the Bible literally, liberally, or allegorically; whether you take the immediate texts or the larger contexts, I believe my conviction has far more support than my opponents have in this debate. First, as to living peacefully with all men, and loving your enemies, etc: the Biblical record is absolutely clear and unequivocal. As for martyrdom, Jesus commanded all his followers to "take up your cross and follow me," which literally in the text and in the context meant to be martyrs for the faith, executed by the pagan government.

I agree that religious leaders of any faith who raise armies deserve contempt and condemnation. The only ways in which the Bible teaches us to be like Jesus, as taught by John Howard Yoder, is "the point of the concrete social meaning of the cross in its relation to enmity and power. Servanthood replaces dominion, forgiveness absorbs hostility. Thus - and only thus - are we bound by the New Testament thought to 'be like Jesus.'"

Actually that's not literally what he said, nor what he meant. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion because everyone would be dead accept Judas.


That's not what I said or agree with, I was simply pointing out your confusion that Christianity was pacifist. Some are and some are not.


Sorry, I'm not familiar with JH Yoder's writings or in what century they were written, but part of "servanthood" would include employment in addition to cheritable work to most of the previous 500 years english writings. The "crosses" we've been given to bare are not death without self-defense.

Of course, that's exactly, literally what Jesus said. Look it up in any concordance, "If any man will come after me, let him take up his cross and follow me." Here are some of the direct references:

1. Matthew 16:24
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Matthew 16:23-25 (in Context) Matthew 16 (Whole Chapter)
2. Mark 8:34
And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Mark 8:33-35 (in Context) Mark 8 (Whole Chapter)
3. Luke 9:23
And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
Luke 9:22-24 (in Context) Luke 9 (Whole Chapter)
He meant what he said; there's no language there that allows an easy interpretation as to it being an allegory. Except for 'daily' in Luke 9, his literal words did not include an adverb of time, such as 'right now' or 'this week,' so the timing was optional, or it was a lifestyle such as daily. Most apostles and disciples were killed by the government or the pagan enemies, or by Jews.

The cross to which Jesus referred, the cross on which Jesus died, was death by the government, by the army soldiers, for breaking the criminal law of the empire, and his death was nonresistant, for he said "My kingdom is not of this world; if it were, then my servants would be fighting, but it is not so." Yoder wrote that around 1971, but it's been true for over 1,900 years.

Also, self-denial is essentially the opposite of self-defense, and Jesus commanded self denial.

I am not confused about pacifism and Christianity; you are. Only 1% or less of the world's "Christians" are pacifist, proving that 99% of the people can be divinely wrong.

If you think you can can prove me wrong, quote the New Testament words of Jesus in any reasonably correct translation into English or Spanish. Otherwise, I'm right!

Ahem! Let me repeat...............This is just a new set of people unaware of past history on this board and others. I just tire of your blind hyprocrisy, including your request to stay on topic........ which means you can't bring your pacifism and attacks upon Christians who aren't pacifists into every subject in which you engage.......

I can see you've returned to your favorite two subjects.....

What are you a politician? You ignore enough of the original to make the rest incomprehensible. Let me demonstrate.



So Fit how'd I do? Eliminates the possibility of conversation or debate in this media doesn't it?

I'm not paranoid. Everyone really is out to get me.

Topic...

Yes...

They are grouped together as a religion. That they can be grouped together as a 'train of thought group' is most likely unfair. Just as Fit is a self-proclaimed Christian I don't think all others that would fit neatly into that group would be placed into the same 'train of thought group'.

I see that there seems to be an overwhelming sympathy among muslims 'for those who would do all evil' because of the religious connection. This tends to create the impression that being muslim is more important than doing the right thing according to Allah.

They're still not living like most people are in the USA; that's for sure. Iraq Charity

You make this too easy son...........................
Ummah Welfare Trust Fraud
Your source also advocates animal sacrifices. How can any entity that still lives in the dark ages be a source for the standard of living for those that do not wipe their @sses with stones?????????????

Tell you what Grizz, since you feel the word of these barbarians carries more truth than the US government why don't you not bath for six months and let your beard grow out as well. Then wrap a well soiled diaper around your head and move the f*ck out of the US to some camel infested wasteland where your physical and mental stench will be appreciated.

Get a F*CKIN clue son...................................................

Well comrade, the idea was not to make them whole but rather free to make of it what they will. Denying that they have had an opportunity to do so for a couple of years and an oppotunity to do so at this moment at very little personal cost is assinine.

If the Iraqi's will not stop the theft of their stuff, well too bad for them. If they will not stop the killing of our soldiers, than kill them all until it stops.

As I have said here before, I have a young son that I hope will not be involved in this conflict 2 decades from now, but that requires vanquishing our enemy now. I assume every Iraqi to be the enemy.

After reading all that you wrote in that quote above my writing, why is it that people like you wishes for our troops to stay in Iraq? I mean you can tell that you pretty much do not care for those people living in Iraq, so why keep our troops there? Is there another reason that you do not wish to reveal?

Do you think that our troops are doing all of this for nothing?

You know as well as I it is all about the oil. The free flow of oil at MARKET prices. Since you and your ilk will not allow oil harvesting in the Caribbean and Alaska we remain dependant on arab oil. Until your kind give up your war against nuclear power and US attempts to make us energy independent the wars we fight to secure the oil we need to drive our economy are of YOUR MAKING.
Oil drives the world. Don't ever forget that that son.............

Is it all the fault of the most liberal 5% in the USA that the population is, in fact as the commander-in-chief has said, addicted to oil? Nah, it is the fault of all of us who turn on a light switch, turn the key in a gas guzzler to drive two blocks away, etc. The Republican, public record of oil consumption condemns itself. I never met a Repub gas saver.

Oddly not surprisingly your usual anti-America deposition, like your leftist and sexual pretences’ and preferences, illogic you’re unsupported opines measured in likeminded Liberal Fascism emits as those festered pubic hair-ism from the NYT and Daily Kosta-Nostra.

What evidence do you have as to either of your usual fallacious and absurd claims that all liberals are NOT equally if not more so abundantly addicted and dependent on oil. Or that others if they oppose, this liberal Brown Shirt vernacular and logic, in the venue of fascism, presumptive assumes, are not liberal. Thus in not being liberal are unquestionably MORE responsible and the CAUSE of all the Brown Shirt nation of liberal fascism see as evil and bad in the world, excluding, oddly and tellingly, the most totalitarian of all Leftists and Islamic radicals, which somehow are never to blame in this leftist entitlement world of excuse and denial mongering?

Oh that is right! How could I have forgotten that you the liberal brown shirts of utopian-nation, do not need evidence, your opine and left slanted view of life and all who may disagree with you, is brown shirt enough evidence, hey.

Do the data support the claim that conservatives are haters, while liberals are incontrovertibly tolerant of others?

A handy way to answer this question is with what political analysts call “feeling thermometers,” in which people are asked on a survey to rate others on a scale of 0-100. A zero is complete hatred, while 100 means adoration. In general, when presented with people or groups about which they have neutral feelings, respondents give temperatures of about 70. Forty is a cold temperature, and 20 is absolutely freezing and less than 10 t0 o is in the purest sense of vile, hate filled sub freezing.

In 2007, the University of Michigan’s American National Election Studies (ANES) survey asked about 5,200 American adults to give their thermometer scores of various groups. People in this survey who called themselves “conservative” or “very conservative” did have a fairly low opinion of liberals — they gave them an average thermometer score of 39. The score that liberals give conservatives: 28. Looking only at people who said they are “extremely conservative” or “extremely liberal,” the extreme right gave the left a score of 27; on the other side the extreme left gives any of the right, not just, its extreme right, an icy 18.

Oops! Obama-nation, so much for the liberal progressive non hate filled tolerance edge.

Some might argue that this is simply a reflection of the current political climate, which is influenced by strong feelings about the current occupants of the White House. And sure enough, those on the extreme left give President Bush an average temperature of 15 and Vice President Cheney a 16.

The majority, 60% in fact, of that 21% of all who self identified themselves as being on the left, of the far left extremist gave both men the absolute lowest score: zero (0)

Hatred is good and alive and well breeding like first cousins in the hinterlands of Liberal Fascism’s Brown Shirt Nation. (LFBSN).

http://www.electionstudies.org/

I forgot about Bearit. Let me pick and choose what to reply to.

'All of us' surely includes the liberals, the conservatives, the Democrats, Republicans, independents, et al. And Al. Maybe even Al Gore! We are almost all addicted to oil, to using fossil fuels at too fast a rate. Offhand, I can think of two families who were the least gas-guzzlers: an atheist, older couple in Austin; and a nearly-Amish family in Ohio who attended the Church of the Brethren. Both families were active pacifists, risking their lives nonviolently to make the world a better place.

I do not hate the USA. I have no brown shirts. Therefore, Trader, the rest of your incoherent rant does not apply to me. Have a nice day.

Hmm! Where to start, Oh yes, at the end would be good. Fits my good friend first of all, welcome back.

Secondly, I have a good day, every day, it is measured in a way of life, not in the platitudes of word smith’s emptiness inherent in the audacity of change, you know, or perhaps you don’t?

Now to the next point, for a bunch of left handed circle jerks, you guys who incessantly lay claim to my incoherence seem remarkably able to hit the mark of my core points always and consistently. Is it perhaps NOT my incoherence that derails you, but my laser burning lucidity that coheres to your sensibilities, rather than your proficiency to not to find lucidity in my remarks.

I know I have made the point evident dozens of times as to my distaste for our unconscious vulnerability that is inherent in our addiction and dependency on mostly nations who wish us harm and use our weakness to draw us into their irresolvable conflicts merely because we need to survive on their oil. I have never argued that every conflict we have been in and or every enemy we have in the Middle East, is not about oil. Of course it is.

If blood stained places like Dalfour or Rwanda, or Somalia or Tibet, or Myanmar had oil, we, not just Americans, the world of addicts, would be there making friends and enemies and dealing with evil that men ply on others in such places.

We may be the largest addict, of that there is no question, but being the world’s 3rd largest producer of oil, producing 25% of our own consumption, we are far from being the world’s most dependent and thus vulnerable to oils economic addiction. Which explains a lot about the rest of the worlds timidity and propensity for impotence when they see no evil in oil rich regions where tyrannical dictators and despots rule in the near exclusive majority in Oil supplier co-dependence where their entire being depends on our addiction to Oil.

For example If oil falls tomorrow to say $20 a barrel totalitarians Oil suppier addicts who are vastly 100% oil dependent exporting states like Venezuela, Russia, Iran and those in the oil rich Middle East, would face extreme and dire desperation in their unpreparedness to have economies not wholly dependent on Oil.

It is old argue about the legalization of illegal drugs, like prohibition of alcohol, when the supplier, whose entire existence is even more tied to the addict and importantly the illegality of the supply and demand equation, once the supplier changes, these most corrupt, often evil in intent suppliers become more than irrelevant, they become extinct as to the power and influence they once welded.

I am happy to see the price of oil go up for a variety of reasons. One, on a personal level, being an old risky ancient investiture, once farsighted, then no sighted, now in the age of fear drive speculation, eagle sighted, Oil & natural Gas Lease Royalty and Gold trust royalties, long dormant and non paying, now filling the coffers more every month increasingly with every speculation.

Two, the higher oil goes the quicker we will go for our independency in a venues that will do great things, make Oil dependent dictators the world over, irrelevant and inconsequential, while fueling the next American and Developed worlds Industrial revolution, of Clean energy and a clean environment technology.

With every Putin and Napoleonic Hugo threat, with every Iran and Iraq disruption, with every Nigerian explosion, with every Saudim speculators and corporate effort that stops oil exploration and or control supply, keep new refineries and Nuclear Energy sources from moving forward, squeezing more money, from less supply of oil. I cheer and pray to god in thanks. For it all means we are one day closer to the oil barons of supply end, and our, we the west’s, continuance in even greater dominance as a force for good in the world.

Your Hyperbolic about conservatives was what burned you fits, as it is consummate of the liberal mind speaks greatest weakness, his holier than thou, not us utopian perfectionist self lust and view of themselves, as if they are somehow immune to oils addiction, corruption, greed, evil, being mistaken, having misjudged and or being Just as flawed in blame and shame as any other form of view they oppose.

I agree Fits on one point you have likely NEVER met a Republican, perhaps, at best, a closeted moderately Conservative Democrat.

Fits, truly you recall that great American who said, you can fool some of the people, some of the time, but not all the people all of the time. Your disingenuousness and or hypocrisy is flashed all over the pit in finger prints of demeaning, derailing, incestuous hubris and hyperbolic of and about the evils of America and Americans you presume are wrong, while solely pontificating, in implication at least, of how right you are. To say this is not so, ignores your many words to that effect here, let along the likely numerous other places you post in this same mantra of hyperbolic views. Your commentary is all well identified in the many fusillades of bracketed down range fire clearly targeted without the slightest regard that ALL you are, as that may be, or not be, is because you had the good fortune to have been bred from the blood earned freedoms fought for in maintaining America's existence and your freedom, in a history of surely imperfection, but imperfection a d a m n site far better than most can claim when looking at their country objectively and fairly in all of its historic imperfections and achievements.

Hate is not any more an emotion as it is intellectually a state of mind and from that a state of being, in that you qualify in your commentaries as having a state of mind and being of, about and for America that you find most disagreeable and vile for the most part. Like most on your side of the ideology of hubris, you pretend violence, like hate, is one dimensional, where from it is presumed in that holiness of rightness and self presumption that only the physical plain of hate and violence exists in reality and relevance, leaving the Psychological and Spirit of the soul side, often the most harmfully insidious and majority of both, unattended.

The negativity of conspiracy and hyperbolic are as much vetted in the abuse of hate and violence than any physical act and in fact are the most common form of inhumanity, that fear monger negativity that attacks the spirit of hope through intimidation and threats and promotion of despair. In that you and your friend’s body of works are well endowed in hates mind speak and spirit of intent.

A true dissenter is not those who can find flaw and fault, as even a Communist and Marxist monkey can do that easy job of inactions observation without the slightest accountable responsibility for seeing that things get done. Nay, a true Dissenter is one who takes the present, in all its imperfection, both true and fabricated, and makes it better in the ideas of action that are not mere platitudes and hope for change but are embedded in the toll of blood, sweat and tears of putting it on the line for change where failure is unquestionably accountable and undeniable.

The true dissenters are those like our founding fathers who by their signatures, in the dissent of action, put the hangman’s noose around their own necks and laid accountable at failures door their action, not words. Dissenters are like those who stormed the Bastille, whose fate in action was failures demise of life and liberty. Dissenters are like the Bosheveicks, whose teetering on live or deaths action, stood at the gates of success and or failure with no room like the others, for empty words.

Perhaps, in the years to come, the Iraqi and Afghani’s both may one day be seen as true dissenter who took the mantle of action and laid life and death at their door for liberty and freedom, to be accountable in history, as the few true dissenters of action not words are.

My good sir, the Americans some describe as so called dissenters today and of the last 40 years, are not true dissenters, they are word smiths of flaw and fault narcissist’s wordy inaction of empty platitudes full of blame, in mongers of inaction, who are well suited to blame and shame, but ill equipped to the actions of accountability and responsibility standing in action at failures door, with back to the wall, in the results of solutions that are not but empty rhetoric of fallacious pseudo-dissent, laid bare unquestionably for all to see in success or failure.

Have no fear, for we are soon to see, if these pseudo-American dissenters, you permit and promotion are made of glee or despair, as they will soon have nowhere to hide as majority solutions providers, accountable in the responsibility of success or failure, mongering now in their majority of voiceless solutions.

That is all!!

Thanks for all your attention, Trader. Almost all the first half of your last post was coherent. Perhaps we agree the USA is addicted to oil, even though the USA produces much of its own oil. I read an interesting commentary today that, according to analysts, oil production in Venezuela is probably dwindling, and Chavez may run low on money soon. Having visited his country in 2002-3 before he further ruined it, I am not the biggest fan of Chavez. It is odd how the USA has made itself dependent on oil-rich dictatorships that hate us.

I met lots of Republicans; in fact, I was raised by them. Last time I checked, my home town was represented by Henry Hyde, whom I asked questions about the Just War Theory in San Antonio, until he said, "A fine Jesuit priest can answer these questions better."

Five years after we were lied to, our country is still in Iraq, with no end in sight, and the Republican nominee for president saying we might be there for another 100 years. Perhaps we agree the USA went there for the oil.

Thanks for all your attention, Trader. Almost all the first half of your last post was coherent.

Fits, at first I was self doubtfully unsteadied by your admitted coherence of my writings, then, you brought the Ying and Yang of the universe, back into balance, when I realized, in the coherent part you agreed with me, and acordingly, in the incoherent part, you did not.

All is well in land of FITS oz now for sure!

Perhaps we agree the USA is addicted to oil, even though the USA produces much of its own oil.

Of dependency on imported oil, I have always maintained it is our most formidable unattended to weakness, equally, yet conversely, at its core, if we ACT and stop talking about acting, our greatest opportunity for both our economic energy self sufficiency and our contribution to a healthier planet.

Though, unlike you, I do not limit the negativity of Oil addiction’s vulnerability neither in degree nor formidable weakness, to the US alone. Many especially in Europe and Asia are far less sufficient and thus are being manipulated and compelled by the dictatorial dominance of just about every Oil producer in the world except perhaps Canada, the US and to a lesser degree Mexico.



I read an interesting commentary today that, according to analysts, oil production in Venezuela is probably dwindling, and Chavez may run low on money soon. Having visited his country in 2002-3 before he further ruined it, I am not the biggest fan of Chavez. It is odd how the USA has made itself dependent on oil-rich dictatorships that hate us.

Extraordinarily true, not only has Chavez, in a time where in those very few free countries, where market driven cpaitalists oil companies exists, they are making records profits. Yet \his nationalized oil Company lost nearly $6 billion last year. Strangely in similar ineptness, like the Chinese Government National Oil company, which, as well, lost nearly $5 billion last year.

Actually it is not odd at all, despite your customary one plane of salacity, this incessant blame game of sole American implicitly in everything, please correct me if I am wrong now.

You incorrectly suppose it is solely our actions that are rooted in their hatred for us, instead of this existing multi-dimension of coequality, that use and try’s to affect our presumed weakness, exploiting it at every opportunity, like all dependent nations, via the intertwine relationships of alliances, policies and self interests of all concerned. All acting, not in one plane of one side blame, like is your usual espousals, but in two sided venues of what is a near total, unquestionably at least, a vast majority of top world oil producers controlled by totalitarian or semi-totalitarian, elitists, depots, a politically powerful few, and or, America ideological opposing regimes.

All of whom, with our self sufficiency and liberation from their efforts of influence, will make us stronger in a quantum measure, and them, perceptibly weaker in quick and rapid decline, for THEY ARE WHOLLY DEPENDENT on us, the addicts for their entire existence and essences?

I met lots of Republicans; in fact, I was raised by them. Last time I checked, my home town was represented by Henry Hyde, whom I asked questions about the Just War Theory in San Antonio, until he said, "A fine Jesuit priest can answer these questions better."

Now, that makes perfect sense, an Illinois carpetbagger transplant to Tejas, kinda of figured that was at the core of it all. Odd you should be speaking of a Republican, US House Representative from the 6th Illinois in Tejas. Oh yes, you did know Hyde was a Democrat who switched parties, so perhaps like I said, you just think you know real Republicans, who may have just been Moderate conservative Democrats purged out of the increasing Marxist Unionist Democratic Party of “special relationship” interest. By the way Republican Peter Roskam is, ince January 2007, your representative from the 6th Illinois.

Five years after we were lied to, our country is still in Iraq, with no end in sight, and the Republican nominee for president saying we might be there for another 100 years. Perhaps we agree the USA went there for the oil.

Really FITs your cousins of moon battery have been ranting this incessantly since the beginning, never remotely proofing it was about OIL Any more than proofing, in venue of legal authority, the war was illegal either, only whinnying it, hoping it was, supposing it was, and mostly propagandizing and fabricating, this salacity conspiracy of negativity, that is the entirety of this culture of doom, which parlays little into in fact, that it was both about oil and illegal as well.

Now 5 years on and the facts DO NOT BEAR any of this ubbe- nanny negativity of urban myths virus spread by the Liberal Fascist Nut Root.
Try this links of facts about IRAQI OIL…It seems, we are not benefiting as much as before, while others not even there are benefiting more than before.


Post #110

http://www.bearpit.net/index.php?s=&sh...st&p=102716


That is all!!

I will comment where you invited me to do so. You wrote, "Actually it is not odd at all, despite your customary one plane of salacity, this incessant blame game of sole American implicitly in everything, please correct me if I am wrong now. You incorrectly suppose it is solely our actions that are rooted in their hatred for us, instead of this existing multi-dimension of coequality, that use and try’s to affect our presumed weakness, exploiting it at every opportunity, like all dependent nations, via the intertwine relationships of alliances, policies and self interests of all concerned."

See, there you go again, accusing me of salacity. I checked a good dictionary; did you mean salaciousness? Sagacity? Sage City? How is one expected to have a discussion when the words are of your own invention, and not even close to something logical. Sagauro trees? Salinity? Saleability? Slime city?

My customary one plane? I have always flown an entire fleet of planes, arguing that real problems are far too complex to be passed off simplistically as left-right or liberal-conservative. Why do they hate us? I don't know. I have often stated my failure to understand such complex people, nations, etc.

I have no moon-bat cousins; perhaps you are the one with bats in your belfry. I am a conservative! Okay, not exactly. I have met a few liberals (did I mention the atheists who knew Madelyn Murray O'Hair personally?), but I have not met as many liberal left-wing moon-bats as you have met right-wing conservative moon-bats. And that makes neither of us the better man.

Well gosh, old Trader, I am tempted to wax eloquently evermore, but I see by the old clock on the wall (as George Goebel used to say) that it is getting late. Au revoir.

I will comment where you invited me to do so. You wrote, "Actually it is not odd at all, despite your customary one plane of salacity, this incessant blame game of sole American implicitly in everything, please correct me if I am wrong now. You incorrectly suppose it is solely our actions that are rooted in their hatred for us, instead of this existing multi-dimension of coequality, that use and try’s to affect our presumed weakness, exploiting it at every opportunity, like all dependent nations, via the intertwine relationships of alliances, policies and self interests of all concerned."

See, there you go again, accusing me of salacity. I checked a good dictionary; did you mean salaciousness? Sagacity? Sage City? How is one expected to have a discussion when the words are of your own invention, and not even close to something logical. Sagauro trees? Salinity? Saleability? Slime city?

FITS, really, you do not know this term “salacity?”

For a self professed erudite, who is scoffing in their piety of pre-eminence, you either limit yourself in not being pre-eminent nor scholarly or, perhaps, in the usual left handedness spin of faux reality, self limiting yourself in the laziness of that usual prophetic dogma of dictates. Where facts, and or the lack thereof, are the true measure of cerebral exploration, that veil of willful trumping of supposition's facts, as if they were the true measure of the quality of today’s academia, that drumming of usual salacity on drums of Indoctrinate U hyperbolic, so ubiquitous and inaccurate today.

For the record Teach…

Definitions of "salacity" on the Web:

• obscenity: the trait of behaving in an obscene manner
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


My customary one plane? I have always flown an entire fleet of planes, arguing that real problems are far too complex to be passed off simplistically as left-right or liberal-conservative. Why do they hate us? I don't know. I have often stated my failure to understand such complex people, nations, etc.

FITs, like the Pelosi Doomocracy, the more you endeavor to invent a reality, by trying to make others appears incoherent, the more you actually prove, you, like she, are looking into the mirror of ineptitude, seeing the finger of self created ridicule pointed back at you.

A Plane, unlike your mind and ideology, is multi-dimensional, both in its contexts and literal meaning. Odd a salacity progenitor of divinity thought speak, in his eagerness of quick triggered atypical Liberal fascism, would be so ill equipped to grasp that fact.

For the record, again Teach…

Definitions of "plane" on the Web:

• airplane: an aircraft that has a fixed wing and is powered by propellers or jets; "the flight was delayed due to trouble with the airplane"
• (mathematics) an unbounded two-dimensional shape; "we will refer to the plane of the graph as the X-Y plane"; "any line joining two points on a plane lies wholly on that plane"

a level of existence or development; "he lived on a worldly plane"


I have no moon-bat cousins; perhaps you are the one with bats in your belfry. I am a conservative! Okay, not exactly. I have met a few liberals (did I mention the atheists who knew Madelyn Murray O'Hair personally?), but I have not met as many liberal left-wing moon-bats as you have met right-wing conservative moon-bats. And that makes neither of us the better man.

Again, in self evidences of this Pelosi Doomocracy’s powerlessness, the more you effort in ridicule, the larger the mirror of inability becomes self evidence of you. FITs, the term has nothing to do with bats nor any belfry or tower.

Perhaps, you are wrong, like Obama, your cousins interrelationships may be more wide spread, like his, from Kenya, to that interwoven being, he can not disowned, like his Blackness, his Preacher of Racists Disaster, his racist white Grandmother, to Dick, the devil, Cheney, and O lordies, even to Jefferson,"God Dame the Union," Jefferson, of the Confederates States of America.

Perhaps this, like him, illudes you in a measure of this Illiinos Carpetbegger's gene pool, lost in the confusion of identy recimination using co eqality excuses and blame, you both seem to share in thought and expressions, so well versed in the traditions of double speak.

For the record teach...

“Moonbat is a term often used currently in U.S. politics as a political epithet, a descriptive word or phrase that has become a fixed formula with various shades of meaning when applied. Like Moonbat which is referring to anyone that is liberal or on the left. Like "Wingnut" (or "right wing nut") is frequently preferred as the analogous epithet aimed at the political right.”

To this point FITS, your efforts have proven piteously pitiful.

Well gosh, old Trader, I am tempted to wax eloquently evermore, but I see by the old clock on the wall (as George Goebel used to say) that it is getting late. Au revoir.

Really fits, again, as usual, tactical retreat, in the smoke and mirrors of self assumed affect, but only, in realty, in deficit and deflect.

QUOTE

“Identity recrimination often edify us in the skills of chimera, at the expense of both our reproach and our character, yielding an inability to differ, indiscriminate illusions, from discriminate reality.” adieu: -Trader

That is all!!

Fits, you are incredulous:



Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
sa·la·cious Pronunciation Key - [suh-ley-shuhs]
–adjective
1. lustful or lecherous.
2. (of writings, pictures, etc.) obscene; grossly indecent.
[Origin: 1635–45; < L salāci- (s. of salāx) lustful (deriv. of salīre to jump, move spasmodically, spurt; see salient, saltation) + -ous]

—Related forms
sa·la·cious·ly, adverb
sa·la·cious·ness, sa·lac·i·ty /səˈlæsɪti/ Pronunciation Key - [suh-las-i-tee] noun

—Synonyms 1. lewd, wanton, lascivious, libidinous. 2. pornographic.
—Antonyms 1. modest.



You need to start eating more Omega 3 oils................it's good for your condition. (Remember what you used to call Trader???)

Tis you, Fits, with whom it is difficult to hold an intelligible conversation. Didn't you used to be a..........teacher of sorts at some time?

BTW, I thought you'd "forgotten" about BearPit?

SoloNav, I am one of many folks here who have complained that Trader's garbled syntax is not worth deciphering. But sometimes I try to have a conversation with him. And for just a while on this thread, we discussed oil dependency or addiction, Venezuela, Chavez, etc. No, salacity is in neither of my dictionaries here. Salaciousness would have done the trick. However, it makes no sense in the sentence, "Actually it is not odd at all, despite your customary one plane of salaciousness." Huh? Arai nah?

Have you noticed that he misspells words and invents words? Or misuses them, since a plane in geometry is two-dimensional, not multi-dimensional.

And you, SoloNav, what are you contributing to this discussion? Just bickering again like a tired old lady?

I forgot Bearpit for a few weeks. Oh, and I suspect you meant that I was incredible, because you are the one who is incredulous of what I say.

And, you don't???

I have merely been kind enough to overlook them and to NOT point these out to you as you have done to countless others in your nit-picking, angry, haughty manner when you disagreed with their idea............you made fun of their spelling and grammar when you couldn't adequately dispel the truths they presented in their writings. You did this quite often here at BearPit and over at Jane.

I contribute as much as you do, Fits, in your bickering manner while continually calling Trader names and questioning his mental facilities. You do it just too much for such the peaceful soul that you try to portray yourself as. And, I gave up trying to have real conversation with you several years ago after endless pages. It's useless. However, I do find myself getting irritated with your manner while you are trying to converse with others.

BTW, I'm not a tired old lady. Believe me. You need to look at the pics posted on Ai-Jane in the Chat session several years back............that is, if you are interested. At least, the world knows what I look like.

Projection, my good sir?


Huh?
American Heritage Dictionary

in·cred·u·lous - Skeptical; disbelieving: incredulous of stories about flying saucers.

Is that not what you were saying, funny man, in your attempt to try to make Trader seem ignorant in his replies to you?