Canada / U.S. relations

Palomar · 2006-10-27 06:59:38

Tom, you've gotten the lovely Cindy upset with me. Shame on you!

Lol! Not terribly upset, just trying to sort out your perceived feelings/opinions from my own.

If you believe the propaganda about Canadian immigration being lax, then read the case of Maher Arar. He's an immigrant from Syria who lived in Canada so long he's a citizen. When travelling to the US he was arrested by American officials and deported to Syria. He travelled with a Canadian passport so Canada insisted he be sent to Canada, not Syria; American officials ignored the demand. He was tortured in Syria. He wasn't a criminal, he didn't terrorise anyone. He and others like him are those admitted with Canada's "lax" policies.

Not saying I believe Canada does have lax immigration laws. It is an often-repeated accusation, though. Of course that doesn't make it true.

It seems the overall issue here is Pres. Bush, a rugged individualist, "leading" a nation in that fashion...which appeals to other rugged individualists (which are many here). OTOH Canada and Europe are very socialist -- or seem so. That is a major philosophical difference right there. Probably is the crux of the matter.

Meanwhile the nation continues tearing itself apart over Iraq. That, and many Americans it seems are becoming more stringently politically polarized; disagree with someone and kiss your friendship goodbye. Ironically, American liberals tend to be the most truly intolerant of differing opinions; agree with them or else, lol.

On the bright side, Pres. Bush will be out of office in a few years. I am hoping for a return to a more NORMAL America...the one I knew a mere 7 years ago. Frankly I think too many things are broken to ever be truly fixed again. Particularly as violence within this nation goes. The plethora of school shootings alone is enough to convince me Rome is starting to burn...

Unfortunately.

::shakes head:: The U.S. I knew 20 years ago -- even 10 years ago -- compared to today is just weird. I hardly recognize it, am glad my father did not live to see all these unpleasant changes.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-29 10:54:44

Look at what he's saying cindy, he's calling George Bush a Stalinist! I know for a fact that Joseph Stalin killed 20 million Russians, he is second only to Chairman Mao in Mass-murders, Hitler comes in third, although he specifically targeted Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and Communists. My distrust of people who come from radical Islamic Regimes stems from the fact that I do not know them, and I do not wish to take a chance on them being terrorists. The Islamic world is all messed up, with radicals everywhere trying to blow things up and terrorising the civilians, and they have governments egging them on. I'd like to contain that contageon, just like I would if a mutant Ebola Crisis was running rampant through out the Third World. I wouldn't want my country giving refuge to those people trying to escape the Ebola virus and risk the possibility that they might bring Ebola with them and thus endanger American citizens. I sort of feel that maybe Canadians wouldn't be as concerned about Radical Islamic Fundamentalists getting in their country, because they are targeting Americans and not them. If we are not allowed to stop these people at Canada's borders then we certainly will stop them at our own.

As for the CIA prisons, we had POW camps in World War II, we held German prisoners of War without trial until the end of the War, Canada operated them, Great Britian operated them too. None of those POWs received trials unless they commited war crimes, otherwise they were simply held so that our soldiers would not have to fight them again. RobetDyck has expressed so much concern for the enemy, not the Iraqi civilians so much, but for the enemy combatants that are killing American soldiers and Iraqi civilians alike. What Robert mixes together are allegations and facts. An enemy prisoner of war will allege that he's been tortured by his guards, why shouldn't he? just because a terrorist combattant says he's been tortured, doesn't mean that he has. Just imagine that your one of the Prisoner's guards, and you treat your prisoners fairly and do not torture them. then a reporter comes in and your prisoners tell the reporter how you've tortured them, how you put women's underwear on their heads, sat them on a stool and spun them around while you flushed their Koran down the toilet. You say, no you didn't do that, and the reporter says, "sure, sure, you would deny it. If you'd really done stuff like that I wouldn't expect you to confess." So basically the reporter reports that the Prisoner was tortured and that you the guards deny it, sounds like the governments covering up doesn't it? All this misbehavior is attributed to corruption and the only way to stop it is to shut this facility down. The US government should stop denying that these things happen. etc etc.

But have you considered what if the guards really haven't done anything, and that they aren't denying that they did something and really didn't do something and that the prisoners were making stuff up. It certainly works to demoralize the enemy to make accusations and have the American press run them as if they were facts. The truth is, the News Media is not a fair and unbiased jury. People like RobertDyck want those guards to be guilty of torture, and their are people just like him in the left leaning news media. If some prisoner says he has been tortured, the newsmedia will report that the US is torturing prisoners. And what do I know about the CBC documentary. Other foreign news agencies have reported lies aboput American forces while we fought other wars, why should we trust a news media from a foreign country that has an axe to grind with us about the Iraqi War? The German News Media called our President Franklin Rosenfelt, and said he was a Jew, when we fought them during World War II. I've noted numerous accounts where the News media just makes stuff up just to get the President. In many accounts the Media has been blatantly biased against the Republican party and produces favorable reporting on the Democrats, boosting this Obama character, simply because they think he is more electable against a Republican opponent that would Hillary Clinton. For me, it is just too soon after the 9/11 attack to have a US President that has a name that rhymes with Osama. I don't really want to see any muslim or Arbic folk in our nations high public offices while were fighting Islamic radicals, I've seen what they can do when they get into other countries governments, if that's discrimination, too bad, the stakes are simply too high to trust them with such high public offices.

A frequent saying in the US is "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". The government wants you to forget what that means; it doesn't refer to any exterior threat, it refers to abuse of authority within the government.

The government is the only tool we have to fight the external threat, that is what I don't get about the Liberals, they are always so concerned about everybody else except American citizens, they worry about the Enemy combatants, they worry about foreign civilians when ever they think they might be harmed by American forces, but they don't worry about them if they may be harmed by their own regime. Liberals want to make the World save from the United States government, as if that's they only threat, what they are not concerned about is making the united States safe from threats existing out in the world. They try to weaken the government as much as they can so they can be sure the CIA is not spying on them, and while they do so they rob the government of the tools it needs to protect us from these foreign threats. One tool that Robert object so strongly to is the American border. Putin is the greater threat, he's the one that's really curtailing his citizens freedoms, but since he's not American, he doesn't draw much Liberal fire for what he's doing, everyone is concentrating on George Bush as if he was the greatest threat since Joseph Stalin, and Chairman Mao, to freedom. Robert thinks that if we just look inward, the rest of the world will not bother us and just disappear while we try to solve out domestic problems.

RobertDyck · 2006-10-29 16:14:16

My distrust of people who come from radical Islamic Regimes...
chance on...being terrorists.
Islamic world...I'd like to contain that contageon...Ebola
Canadians wouldn't be as concerned about Radical Islamic Fundamentalists getting in their country, because they are targeting Americans

Try to listen to yourself. Why do you think people of third world countries are against you? My experience travelling America is that most do understand freedom and democracy, but are so self-centered they don't know how to apply that to anyone outside America. Stop and listen to yourself. You're racist. Not every American is, but people like you give America a bad name.

As for the CIA prisons, we had POW camps in World War II, we held German prisoners of War without trial until the end of the War, Canada operated them, Great Britian operated them too. None of those POWs received trials unless they commited war crimes, otherwise they were simply held so that our soldiers would not have to fight them again.

You have two choices and only two choices: they are either prisoners of war, in which case the have to be released as soon as end of hostilities is declared, or they are criminals in which case they're entitled to a fair trial. End of hostilities was years ago, you're claiming they're POWs, that means you must release everyone. No choice. George W. has claimed they're "illegal combatants". There's no such thing, everyone fighting in a war is a combatant; if you don't like the fact your opponent has an effective weapon then TUFF!

However, I still assert they're criminals. That's why they're entitled to being treated as accused in remand until they're trial, then a fair trial. The sheer number of prisoners tells me there are guilty, innocent, and those who committed misdemeanours all mixed together. Sorting them out is what a trial is for.

RobetDyck has expressed so much concern for the enemy, not the Iraqi civilians so much, but for the enemy combatants that are killing American soldiers and Iraqi civilians alike.

You again are mixing up several completely different things. Al Qaeda was a terrorist organization that committed the criminal offence of mass murder. They need to be treated as criminals and punished. Canada doesn't have the death penalty but America does; considering the offence I have no problem with killing them. The catch is they deserve a fair trail first. That isn't to give the guilty some sort of "rights", it's to ensure you don't kill the innocent with the guilty. The guilty deserve to die. Remember I'm the one who said I want to see Osama bin Laden have a long, prolonged, painful trial in which he has to face the families of those he killed; then executed by lethal injection on live television. In statements televised on Al-Jazeera, Osama has already admitted his participation with al Qaeda so I don't see a conflict with these positions.

What you're mixing up is al Qaeda with the Taliban and Iraq. The Taliban said they would had over Osama bin Laden, the just required proof of his guilt. A reasonable request considering they were the legitimate government of Afghanistan at the time. George W. showed the evidence to the Prime Minister of UK, Australia, everyone who didn't matter and never to the one government that did matter. Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, that government was the only one that mattered.

Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the Persian Gulf war in 1991 was authorized by the UN and kicked them out. General Norman Swartacopft was in charge of that operation, when he said it was over and it was time to go home, that meant it was over and time to go home. No further action against Iraq could ever be justified. The "No Fly Zones" were specifically rejected by the UN, just as much a violation as anything Iraq did. The latest invasion of Iraq was an aggressive action that had nothing to do with 9/11 or any threat to the US.

A frequent saying in the US is "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". The government wants you to forget what that means; it doesn't refer to any exterior threat, it refers to abuse of authority within the government.
The government is the only tool we have to fight the external threat

What threat!? Again stop and listen to yourself. The government is taking away democracy and freedom with the mysterious "threat". If it really was a threat then the rational response is to get rid of it quickly, then go back to living safely. This hasn't happened. The continuing boogieman is has now been used to sign a bill violating the separation of powers; the executive branch in the US is not supposed to have any authority over criminal prosecution, the court does. That means the president does not have any authority over how a prisoner is questioned. Furthermore torture is prohibited in the US. This new bill gives the president all that authority, and exempts the president from any responsibility. Do I need to lecture about authority and responsibility going together? Violating responsibility effectively revokes authority. More importantly, this bill violates the sixth amendment to the US constitution; that invalidates it. If you don't want legal jargon, then let me point out the American people are being screwed by the their own government. Any "external threat" is weak and meaningless, the US government is doing much more damage to the America people.

One tool that Robert object so strongly to is the American border.

Stop trying to make Canada the 'scape goat. Canada has a sane immigration policy because we know where the real threat lies. Criminals are not admitted to Canada, blaming some ethnic group on recreates racism, creates a new problem while solving nothing. As a strategy, blaming an ethnic group ensures you force that group to join your enemy, making them stronger. Why do you want to enforce a policy that makes your enemy stronger?

Putin is the greater threat

The cold war is over. Get over it! I know ingrained hatred is hard to abandon, and propaganda during the cold war ingrained a hatred against Russia. Too bad, be a man, take responsibility for your own emotions, GET OVER IT! Putin is an ally to America, but one who won't be a lap-dog. Don't think everyone who refuses to jump at every demand is against you. Putin may be doing things I don't like, but he isn't attempting world expansion. Internal Russian affairs are a Russian matter, not my problem.

Robert thinks that if we just look inward, the rest of the world will not bother us and just disappear while we try to solve out domestic problems.

Actually, that pretty much is the case. During the Cold War third world nations were careful to pit America against the Soviet Union. If one super-power got too controlling, invoke the other. That way they had control over their own country, neither super-power was too powerful. Ironic isn't it? Two super powers and neither was super powerful. Now with only one super-power, the world is a more dangerous place. Third world nations are more likely to take action themselves because they can't invoke the Soviet Union. They must remove foreign control, that means you. As long as you try to rule the world, actions by third world nations will get worse. Concern yourself with internal American matters and wars between countries, stay out of internal affairs in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, or any other country. American should never have targeted the Taliban, the current Canadian government shouldn't either. As for Iraq, just get the hell out now. Iran or North Korea developing a single, small nuclear bomb? Just tell them if they use it on an American ally you'll turn their country into a radioactive hole in the ground (saturation with strategic thermonuclear warheads); then they can never use their bomb. It becomes a waste of money, let them.

Blindly following whatever scare tactics an American politician puts forward is a sure way to destroy freedom within America.

Here's a link to a CBC in-depth report on Abu Ghraib. What I know of Abu Ghraib came from a CBC interview with the prison warden, an American officer. That isn't authority enough?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-31 09:30:36

My distrust of people who come from radical Islamic Regimes...
chance on...being terrorists.
Islamic world...I'd like to contain that contageon...Ebola
Canadians wouldn't be as concerned about Radical Islamic Fundamentalists getting in their country, because they are targeting Americans
Try to listen to yourself. Why do you think people of third world countries are against you? My experience travelling America is that most do understand freedom and democracy, but are so self-centered they don't know how to apply that to anyone outside America. Stop and listen to yourself. You're racist. Not every American is, but people like you give America a bad name.

If it were merely a matter of a person's race or skin color, I wouldn't have a problem with them living in my country, but if certain ethinic groups have societal tendencies toward violence, and rioting, then I don't want them causing problems for Americans already living here. Just because other people's countries aren't perfect doesn't mean that we Americans have to suffer due to immigrants from those other countries bringing their violence here.

The Muslim cartoon controversy: Should we give up our freedom of speech just because some of it offends some immigrant groups that come here? If they get offended by our freedom of speech, then they should not come here.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-31 09:35:58

Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the Persian Gulf war in 1991 was authorized by the UN and kicked them out. General Norman Swartacopft was in charge of that operation, when he said it was over and it was time to go home, that meant it was over and time to go home. No further action against Iraq could ever be justified.

Typical French Naivity that got them in so much trouble during World War II. They kicked the Germans out in World War I, wasn't that good enough? Apparently it wasn't.

The government is the only tool we have to fight the external threat

What threat!? Again stop and listen to yourself. The government is taking away democracy and freedom with the mysterious "threat".[/QUOTE] Wasn't so mysterious on 9/11.

Palomar · 2006-10-31 10:30:22

The Muslim cartoon controversy: Should we give up our freedom of speech just because some of it offends some immigrant groups that come here? If they get offended by our freedom of speech, then they should not come here.

I agree with this. Also, Australia has experienced troubles with Muslim youth deliberately targeting, attacking/raping Australian women because of "their immodest dress" (by Islamic standards). Aussie women (this is occurring in Finland too, last I heard) are being labeled "whores" because they wear short-sleeved shirts, bathing suits, won't wear a jihab, etc. Just last week a prominent Muslim cleric in Australia compared "immodestly dressed" Aussie women to a piece of meat...and who's to blame if the cats come to eat? In other words it's okay for Muslim men to be so wildly beastial they cannot control their urges because she asked for it. That swinish mentality is worthy of the stone age. It's also absurdly hypocritical. Islam forbids sexual contact outside of marriage. Yet punitive forced fornication is okay; she deserved it.

If I were Muslim and didn't like the dress codes of a nation I willingly moved to, I'd leave -- go back home. But no, most (the loudest, most violent of them) won't conform or at least tolerate the difference; nope, their host nation is the one "who should change" to accommodate the immigrants.

Assimilate or go home. My grandparents immigrated to the US in the early 1900s; they adapted, learned English, obeyed the laws, worked hard, etc. If they didn't like it here they could always go back to Czechoslovakia. Universal sentiment applies.

Robert, how do you define the word "racism"? I'm curious because when I think of suicide bombers I think of Muslims...just like when I think of the word "fascist" I think of Italy...or when I hear "kamikaze" I think of Japan.

Some people bring stereotypes onto themselves, just like "redneck" in America has bad connotations. It's not fair [who said life was?] but it's not necessarily racist.

And racism isn't exclusive to whites, either. Not by a long shot. Militant Muslims attacking and raping white Australian women just because they're different are racists.

RobertDyck · 2006-10-31 11:45:30

Typical French Naivity that got them in so much trouble during World War II. They kicked the Germans out in World War I, wasn't that good enough? Apparently it wasn't.

I'm not French. World War II was caused by the Treaty of Versailles. Germany didn't start World War I, they were dragged in by their alliance with Austria. France had on-going wars with Germany over centuries, so they wanted to pick on Germany. War reparations destroyed Germany's economy; they had to end it any way possible. By the way, most economists admit the world economy had been so integrated back then that destroying Germany's economy is what started the Great Depression. World War I was billed at the time as the "War to End All Wars". War reparations mandated by the Treaty of Versailles ensured it didn't end. Notice the reverse after World War II, the Marshall Plan ensured it did end. I'm not for spending much to rebuild an opponent, but don't continue to destroy them.

The Muslim cartoon controversy was obviously wrong. We have freedom of speech here, some people have to just get over it. Anyone upset over a cartoon obviously doesn't belong here. But the Muslim community has pointed out several times that most Muslims are peaceful, only a few radical extremists are violent. There are violent nut-bars in any population. I could give you an example you probably won't like. A few years ago an individual in Canada of German descent wrote that the Holocaust didn't happen, that it's Jewish propaganda. It was a major controversy in Canada, freedom of speech vs. disseminating hate propaganda. In the end he was charged. Does that case make all people of German descent Nazis?

Palomar · 2006-10-31 12:27:09

I wish peace-loving Americans would get more credit.

Pacifist Americans are outspoken. Liberals do protest -- often loudly and openly.

I'd certainly like to see more peace-loving Muslims protesting various behaviors/actions of violent Muslims. Too often it seems the violent Muslims go unchecked or unchallenged whatsoever within their community; the nations-wide lunatic rampages and calls for slaughter after the Danish cartoon controversy was evidence of that. A few Muslim clerics called for peace -- at the prices of their heads. A few of them.

All too often the peace-loving Muslims are far too quiet [and meek, maybe even cowardly?] for my comfort. If they don't START speaking up [particularly in Western nations which protects their rights] then they are enablers and, morally speaking, no better than the nuts.

What are those old sayings: Silence gives assent. All it takes for evil to advance is for good people to do nothing.

It does seem, imo, too often (and unfairly) that Americans are collectively branded very negatively, the peace-loving amongst us (at least 50% of the population if polls are any indication) are ignored/denied...yet Muslims get slathered with near-universal sympathy and benefit of the doubt.

Americans aren't all that bad and Muslims aren't all that wonderful.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-31 13:06:13

It always seemed to me that the burden of peace always rested on America's and by extension Israel's back. If an America starts a war, we get condemned, if Muslims start a war, we get blamed for making them mad.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-01 09:30:45

I hear that the Israelis are in Gaza now, shooting at Palistinians. The Palestinians just don't get it do they. In order to have peace, they have to stop shooting and firing rockets into Israel. Israel gave them their land and after a while the Liberals didn't know what to say about it, took them a little time to think it over and make excuses for the Palestinians continued hostility. It goes something like this, "Palestinians fire there rockets at the Israelis because they feel humiliated, or they are mad, or because the Israelis retaliated to severely after their last attack." Whatever the excuse Liberals will always seek to excuse the Palestinians and condemn the Israelis. I've seen this, and that's why the Democrats turned on Joe Liberman, because he understood that Saddam Hussein was no friend of the Jews, a group of which he claimed membership, and he was not willing to do anything that would help him or his cause out, even if that happened to be the Democratic strategy to take back the House and Senate.

RobertDyck · 2006-11-01 13:45:41

I hear that the Israelis are in Gaza now, shooting at Palistinians. The Palestinians just don't get it do they. In order to have peace, they have to stop shooting and firing rockets into Israel. Israel gave them their land and after a while the Liberals didn't know what to say about it, took them a little time to think it over and make excuses for the Palestinians continued hostility. It goes something like this, "Palestinians fire there rockets at the Israelis because they feel humiliated, or they are mad, or because the Israelis retaliated to severely after their last attack." Whatever the excuse Liberals will always seek to excuse the Palestinians and condemn the Israelis. I've seen this, and that's why the Democrats turned on Joe Liberman, because he understood that Saddam Hussein was no friend of the Jews, a group of which he claimed membership, and he was not willing to do anything that would help him or his cause out, even if that happened to be the Democratic strategy to take back the House and Senate.

You realize I am a member of the Liberal Party of Canada; so when you talk about "those Liberals" it's a personal attack on me. Liberal (with a capital "L") is a party, it's not exactly the American definition of the term liberal. It's ironic that a few people in the Liberal Part of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada claim that when I talk about finance I sound rather Conservative. In fact just last night I talked to the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation (about joining) and the national communications director said I sound rather hawkish. But that's finance. I'm conservative to the point of hawkish when it comes to finance, I sound like someone from the Green Party when I talk about environment, I sound like some from the NDP when I talk about Canadian ownership of business in Canada, and I sound like a Liberal when I talk about foreign affairs. Conservatives makes a big noise about finance, but from 1984 to 1993 they increased the deficit, doubled the debt, and increased taxes. From 1993 to 2006 the Liberal Party delivered: eliminated the deficit, reduced the debt, and reduced taxes. That's why I decided to join the Liberal Party.

So, back to foreign affairs. The Oslo Accord was supposed to resolve the Middle East problems. Israel failed to honour its commitments. There have been a lot of wrongs committed on both sides. There can be no excuse for Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel, but the Israelis have taken land was granted to Palestine by the Oslo Accord, and various other offences. There are no good guys here. I've written at length on this. Let's find the thread where those discussions are rather than duplicating them here. Canada's position before Stephen Harper became Prime Minister was to be impartial, an unbiased mediator. I don't think there's any other country that remained impartial so Canada is the only one able to get the two sides talking. Without talk you have perpetual war.

dicktice · 2006-11-02 09:40:13

Robert, you and Tom are wasting you time attempting to rationalize your respective political positions, using the terms Liberal/liberal and Conservative/conservative interchangeably. Why not use lower case synonyms for the adjectives? Having lived in both countries, I understand where you both are coming from, and I have to admit that Tom's conception of Canadian attributes are limited by ignorance due to lack of exposure to our news sources. Nothing personal, Tom, we'll bring you around to our way of thinking, given time.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-02 12:33:29

Why have a party that is called the Liberal Party, when its not filled with liberals? The same goes for the Conservative party. Shouldn't the party name have something to do with what the Party's about? It gets confusing when its otherwise. that said, I do wish the Democrats im my country would believe in democracy more, and they didn't say things like "things were better when Saddam Hussein was dictator of Iraq." I think a party that calls itself Democratic should be promoting Democracy throughout the World, and would at least give the opposition the benefit of the doubt when they themselves are trying to promote democracy in other parts of the world. Maybe they might disagree with the methods used, but they shouldn't be out trying to under mine the troops and reverse the progress already made by forcing the administration to leave a power vacuum for the terrorists to fill when they cut off funds.

C M Edwards · 2006-11-02 15:34:28

Shouldn't the party name have something to do with what the Party's about?

Sounds like a good idea. The name of any examples in the national government of either nation currently eludes me, though.

dicktice · 2006-11-02 21:58:03

Using capital D for democracy is confusing. The Democrats and Republicans are both democratically elected, so what's the difference? My take is that the present Democrats are more liberal socially than the Republicans who are less liberal, which is to say more conservative socially than the Democrats. Some difference! I'd be more worried about the Religious members of both parties, who have real differences ... and agendas which are in no way democratic, eh?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-02 22:08:46

Using capital D for democracy is confusing. The Democrats and Republicans are both democratically elected, so what's the difference? My take is that the present Democrats are more liberal socially than the Republicans who are less liberal, which is to say more conservative socially than the Democrats. Some difference! I'd be more worried about the Religious members of both parties, who have real differences ... and agendas which are in no way democratic, eh?

Well since the religious members of the Democratic Party tend to be Muslims, need I say more.

Commodore · 2006-11-02 23:10:47

I'd be more worried about the Religious members of both parties, who have real differences ... and agendas which are in no way democratic, eh?

Atheists have no fewer tendancies for theocratic style policies than the religious.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-03 09:49:31

I'd be more worried about the Religious members of both parties, who have real differences ... and agendas which are in no way democratic, eh?
Atheists have no fewer tendancies for theocratic style policies than the religious.

But the part of the democratic party that is the most religious is the Muslims. Democrats by and large tend to be secular except for the Muslims.

The reason for this is simple, because what Muslims want is for the United States not to win the War on terrorism, and the best party they see for not winning the War on Terrorism is the Democratic Party.

C M Edwards · 2006-11-03 16:20:15

The reason for this is simple, because what Muslims want is for the United States not to win the War on terrorism, and the best party they see for not winning the War on Terrorism is the Democratic Party.

And here I'd have thought it would be the Libertarians.

Still, if Muslims are the core constituency of the Democratic Party, that could explain a lot. It puts Hillary Clinton in a whole new light.

dicktice · 2006-11-05 13:53:08

I suppose it can do no harm to introduce, in this rant about the members of political parties who adhere to one or another supernatural belief to the exclusion of any other, that there are quite a few of us who have no such beliefs and for whom the negative appellation "agnostic" or "athiest" is undeserved. "Humanist" is the proper term. Look it up.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-07 13:26:53

I suppose it can do no harm to introduce, in this rant about the members of political parties who adhere to one or another supernatural belief to the exclusion of any other, that there are quite a few of us who have no such beliefs and for whom the negative appellation "agnostic" or "athiest" is undeserved. "Humanist" is the proper term. Look it up.

Your 76 years old and still a humanist?

I expect I'll be getting more religious toward my old age. So far science has not offered much in averting the Inevitable End. The clock is ticking on all of us, when your young and in your 20s Atheism works fine, you just have to be very careful and avoid doing dangerous things. If you are very careful, you get to be old, and no matter how careful you are, you know the end is coming. I have sufficient awareness of self that I really don't want it to end. If you convince yourself that their is an afterlife, that makes dying all the more easier. If you want a good example of that, just look at how Pope John Paul II died, he died calmly and his last acts were in preparing for that death rather than fighting it with every fiber of his being. It does tend to make things run more smoothly if you believe in something after this world.

Grypd · 2006-11-07 14:56:11

I suppose it can do no harm to introduce, in this rant about the members of political parties who adhere to one or another supernatural belief to the exclusion of any other, that there are quite a few of us who have no such beliefs and for whom the negative appellation "agnostic" or "athiest" is undeserved. "Humanist" is the proper term. Look it up.
Your 76 years old and still a humanist?
I expect I'll be getting more religious toward my old age. So far science has not offered much in averting the Inevitable End. The clock is ticking on all of us, when your young and in your 20s Atheism works fine, you just have to be very careful and avoid doing dangerous things. If you are very careful, you get to be old, and no matter how careful you are, you know the end is coming. I have sufficient awareness of self that I really don't want it to end. If you convince yourself that their is an afterlife, that makes dying all the more easier. If you want a good example of that, just look at how Pope John Paul II died, he died calmly and his last acts were in preparing for that death rather than fighting it with every fiber of his being. It does tend to make things run more smoothly if you believe in something after this world.

Tom in the early 1930s the life expectancy of a male was 58 years and in some countries it was a lot lower. Science has improved that by 23 years.

So before Dicktice answers you should know he will blow your arquement out of the water there

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-08 02:52:57

There is no harm in beliving in something while you are dying, you end up just as dead either way, why not make the dying person comfortable and let him believe what he wants. If you are an atheist, then you believe that his existance will end soon, the least you can do for him is try to make the end of his existance as comfortable as possible since you believe that he has nothing else after that. If he goes on thinking he's headed for paradise and then his brain stops, what's the harm in that? His brain is going to stop if he believes that Death is the End, just as surely as if he believed he had an immortal soul. the problem of human existance is the finite lifespan. It would be nice if Death only came by accident, because then you would not have much time to think about it, rather than facing the slow deteriation of your mind and body that ends in death. One idea is that maybe you can freeze yourself and then one day maybe nanotechnology will get advanced enough to unfreeze you and reanimate your bdoy and mind. Some people think nanotechnology as envisioned by Eric Drexeler will never happen. Of course if you were building nanotechnology, you may want your compadators to think nanotech was impossible or impractical so he wouldn't try. One can be optimistic wghile one dies, or one can fret, in the end it may make no difference anyway.

C M Edwards · 2006-11-08 12:47:26

Your 76 years old and still a humanist?

Seems logical enough to me. I'm not a humanist myself, but I see nothing incompatible between being a humanist and being 76 at the same time. There's also nothing incompatible between being a humanist and being a religious person (although a few with more exacting theologies will insist you couldn't be their religion).

I fully understand that people revise their beliefs as they age, but neither of those eventualities necessarily causes the other.

dicktice · 2006-11-10 11:27:40

Tom, you'll excuse me if I think of you as a crazy, mixed-up kid. You don't make it possible to pin you down to anything that can be argued logically. Is that your idea? If so, you're a waste of time. Age brings knowledge, and that leads to less dependence upon Faith and religious dogma to explain one's existence. I bet if I lived to be 200, I'd come up with a new Theory of Everything, just using my own rather average amount of brain power--having peaked a 150, rather than 26 as in the case of Einstein, eh?. The more you use your mind, granted good geneology, the better your reasoning becomes. More humanistic, in other words. You should try it ... because, as it is, you're bloody attitude towards the disparate factions of the World will only lead your becoming another Dubja, sadly in my opinion. Education on the part of everyone is what's required, and that can't take place at gunpoint, eh? Religion is at the heart of today's "holy terrorism" both theirs and ours. Get rid of the gods of war, for cripes sake!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2006-10-27 06:59:38

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#52 2006-10-29 10:54:44

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#53 2006-10-29 16:14:16

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#54 2006-10-31 09:30:36

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#55 2006-10-31 09:35:58

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#56 2006-10-31 10:30:22

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#57 2006-10-31 11:45:30

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#58 2006-10-31 12:27:09

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#59 2006-10-31 13:06:13

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#60 2006-11-01 09:30:45

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#61 2006-11-01 13:45:41

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#62 2006-11-02 09:40:13

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#63 2006-11-02 12:33:29

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#64 2006-11-02 15:34:28

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#65 2006-11-02 21:58:03

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#66 2006-11-02 22:08:46

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#67 2006-11-02 23:10:47

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#68 2006-11-03 09:49:31

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#69 2006-11-03 16:20:15

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#70 2006-11-05 13:53:08

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#71 2006-11-07 13:26:53

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#72 2006-11-07 14:56:11

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#73 2006-11-08 02:52:57

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#74 2006-11-08 12:47:26

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#75 2006-11-10 11:27:40

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

Board footer