Could the culture war become civil war?

[Archon]

So ... it follows then that a geneticist IS an intelligent designer.

A geneticist alters life, but does not create it. Anyway, I didn't say anything about intelligent designers except that there is no evidence for them. Specifically, I mean an intelligent designer that created or influenced the creation of life in our universe on a large scale.

On the contrary ... Men have nipples. Where is the inteligence in that?

Further evidence against intelligent design. Either that, or your nipples serve some purpose that you don't understand yet.

 

[outsider]

On the contrary ... Men have nipples. Where is the inteligence in that?

LOL! :rofl: :rofl: Why don't you design a new man with all the necessities? I'd be willing to donate my brain and let the women do the thinking for me... I'm tired! :zzz:

 

[Smurf]

So.. if men have nipples... does that mean that we have routes in asexual organisms?

hmmm, I guess we must have since originally we should have had to have evolved from bacteria.

Still, it's interesting, in what other species to males have nipples (or any gender with any redundant organs)

 

[outsider]

So.. if men have nipples... does that mean that we have routes in asexual organisms?

hmmm, I guess we must have since originally we should have had to have evolved from bacteria.

Still, it's interesting, in what other species to males have nipples (or any gender with any redundant organs)

I've never found nipples on my dog, nor do steer have udders

 

[Skyhunter]

So ... it follows then that a geneticist IS an intelligent designer.

On the contrary ... Men have nipples. Where is the inteligence in that?

On a personal note I would like to say that spreading the erogenous zones to parts of the body other than the sex organs is intelligent design. :tongue2:

 

[The Smoking Man]

I've never found nipples on my dog,

Ummm ... You LOOKED!?

Gocha!

 

[outsider]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Ummm ... You LOOKED!?

Gocha!

Yeah you got me! LOL! He's got no nutsack either FYI... poor kid

 

[SOS2008]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8950293/

Christian groups hold ‘Justice Sunday II’
Latest conservative rally takes aim at judicial activism

...“We’ve seen a conservative president get re-elected, the conservative Congressional base expand. The (Supreme) Court is part of a cultural problem,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, the organization responsible for “Justice Sunday II: God Save the United States and this Honorable Court!”

Time to play what's wrong with this picture. The answer below:

Rita Nakashima Brock, founder of Faith Voices for the Common Good, said at the counter gathering that “Justice Sunday II” called for a theocracy instead of democracy.

 

[Skyhunter]

Here is the latest from Crawford Texas

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/08/17/sheehan1/index.html

Meanwhile, police have filed a criminal charge against the the man who allegedly expressed his displeasure with Sheehan's protest by driving his pickup truck through rows of crosses bearing the names of soldiers killed in Iraq. Larry Northern, a 59-year-old resident of Waco, Texas, was charged with felony criminal mischief. Police say he ran over 500 crosses and 40 American flags to make his point.

What a way to support the troops.

I'll bet he supports and amendment to ban flag burning too.

 

[Amp1]

I agree that's not the way to support the troops. We could do better by providing them with what they were promised when they signed on to serve Bu... oops our country.

 

[TRCSF]

Here is the latest from Crawford Texas

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/08/17/sheehan1/index.html


What a way to support the troops.

I'll bet he supports and amendment to ban flag burning too.

Yuck. Reminds me of when Ron Kovic got spat on during by a delegate at the Republican National Convention.

 

[alexandra]

Here is the latest from Crawford Texas

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/08/17/sheehan1/index.html


What a way to support the troops.

I'll bet he supports and amendment to ban flag burning too.

An interesting development:

Vigils to support Sheehan protest

More than 1,000 anti-war vigils are to take place around the United States in support of a bereaved mother protesting outside President Bush's Texas ranch.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4160032.stm

 

[SOS2008]

Unfortunately the wacko from Waco typifies many Bush supporters. :yuck: They are clueless about what real patriotism is, and what freedom and democracy are. When they say support our troops, we know they are really saying support Bush.

 

[TRCSF]

Unfortunately the wacko from Waco typifies many Bush supporters. :yuck: They are clueless about what real patriotism is, and what freedom and democracy are. When they say support our troops, we know they are really saying support Bush.

Of course. I sure hope that nobody's really surprised this happened. The guy who did this is getting all sorts of support from rightwingers. Rightwing pundits like Limbaugh are jumping up and down on Cindy Sheehan.

 

[SOS2008]

Of course. I sure hope that nobody's really surprised this happened. The guy who did this is getting all sorts of support from rightwingers. Rightwing pundits like Limbaugh are jumping up and down on Cindy Sheehan.

What this shows is that hate rhetoric is linked with right-wing conservatives far more than liberals (per discussions in the thread on Clear Channel), which started with the likes of Limbaugh. That their true colors are being shown for all to see (like those who intervened in the Schiavo incident) is fine with me. I hope they will finally go the way of the KKK and be shunned by all civil Americans.

 

[TRCSF]

I hope they will finally go the way of the KKK and be shunned by all civil Americans.

I sure hope the pendulum keeps swinging that way. It's started to. God knows I'm sick of James Dobson and his hate group getting legitimate air time.

 

[BobG]

I sure hope the pendulum keeps swinging that way. It's started to. God knows I'm sick of James Dobson and his hate group getting legitimate air time.

I really don't care to care to defend James Dobson and his Focus on the Family organization. If they stayed out of politics, I probably wouldn't care one way or the other about them. But your comment does make me curious.

What is the criteria is for being labeled a hate group?

 

[Smurf]

A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility or violence towards one or more groups of people or organizations usually upon spurious grounds and despite a wider consensus that these people are not necessarily better or worse than any others.

 

[BobG]

A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility or violence towards one or more groups of people or organizations usually upon spurious grounds and despite a wider consensus that these people are not necessarily better or worse than any others.

Is Howard Dean leading a anti-Republican hate group? His comments about Republicans is hostile, sometimes even derogatory. Or is there a lack of consensus about whether Republicans are better or worse than any others? Is being Republican a sign of inferior intelligence? (I could have said the same about Mehlman and Democrats - the particular party isn't the point)

I only raise the point because I would normally consider the 'hostility' to mean verbal violence - slurs and suggestions that the world would be better off if a certain group were wiped off the face of the Earth, etc. Basically, a form of violence committed by groups afraid to actually act out the physical violence they'd like to dish out.

It made we wonder what Focus on the Family had done to qualify as a hate group. They're definitely anti-gay - they think homosexuality is a sin and say so quite publicly. They were active in pushing anti-homosexual legislation in several states. And accusing cartoon characters of homosexuality is ... well ... weird. Considering legislative laws can have a bigger effect on a group than isolated incidents of violence, does that qualify them as a hate group?

 

[Smurf]

Well everyone's interpretation is valid, but I would say that yes, yes and yes. There are many hate groups involving themselves in American politics these days.

 

[TRCSF]

I really don't care to care to defend James Dobson and his Focus on the Family organization. If they stayed out of politics, I probably wouldn't care one way or the other about them. But your comment does make me curious.

What is the criteria is for being labeled a hate group?

I assume you're being facetitious when you're labelling the Democratic party as a hate group.

As for criteria of what makes something a hate group, I'll refer you to the Southern Poverty Law Center. If you're unfamiliar with their work, they're quite the authority on hate groups.

http://www.newyorkblade.com/2005/6-10/news/localnews/antigay.cfm

 

[BobG]

I assume you're being facetitious when you're labelling the Democratic party as a hate group.

As for criteria of what makes something a hate group, I'll refer you to the Southern Poverty Law Center. If you're unfamiliar with their work, they're quite the authority on hate groups.

http://www.newyorkblade.com/2005/6-10/news/localnews/antigay.cfm

Political parties are banned in some countries, so it's not entirely facetious, but, obviously, political parties aren't considered hate groups in America, in spite of some biting political rhetoric.

Your 'typical' hate group, like the KKK, is pretty easy to classify, as well. The groups that engage in violence, or advocate violent solutions, are clearly hate groups.

The CCC is pretty clearly associated with the KKK, which makes them easy to classify, in spite of the fact that they never resort to violence or any illegal activities, themselves. Likewise, other hate and terrorist groups have had their own front groups.

The groups that target a specific group of people without violence (physical or verbal) - target them strictly though the courts or legislation - are a little harder to classify without a more precise definition. This is the area where a vague term could wind up being applied to a whole range of groups, from Focus to the Family all the way to political parties that pool together to make sure as many people from party win elections over the other party as possible.

By time you get down to political parties, their actions are designed towards a practical purpose - gaining a majority in legislative bodies so that their own legislation is more likely to be passed. To me, that's clearly politics and not hate actions.

It's not entirely clear when you start talking about social issues. Are anti-abortion groups hate groups? How does someone else getting an abortion affect someone who is opposed to abortion? Are atheists that demand all references to religion be removed from public places hate groups? That could be (and often is) perceived as religious persecution.

I think that if you want to prevent folks from doing what they want, you have to prove that behavior hurts you and others like you in some significant way (which is why I wouldn't want to defend Focus on the Family - their headquarters are here and a popular bumper sticker around town is "Focus on Your Own Damn Family"). But, I'm not sure every group that tries to impose their own beliefs on others can be categorized as a hate group without turning the term into an ordinary political insult.

 

[outsider]

Political parties are banned in some countries, so it's not entirely facetious, but, obviously, political parties aren't considered hate groups in America, in spite of some biting political rhetoric.

Your 'typical' hate group, like the KKK, is pretty easy to classify, as well. The groups that engage in violence, or advocate violent solutions, are clearly hate groups.

The CCC is pretty clearly associated with the KKK, which makes them easy to classify, in spite of the fact that they never resort to violence or any illegal activities, themselves. Likewise, other hate and terrorist groups have had their own front groups.

The groups that target a specific group of people without violence (physical or verbal) - target them strictly though the courts or legislation - are a little harder to classify without a more precise definition. This is the area where a vague term could wind up being applied to a whole range of groups, from Focus to the Family all the way to political parties that pool together to make sure as many people from party win elections over the other party as possible.

By time you get down to political parties, their actions are designed towards a practical purpose - gaining a majority in legislative bodies so that their own legislation is more likely to be passed. To me, that's clearly politics and not hate actions.

It's not entirely clear when you start talking about social issues. Are anti-abortion groups hate groups? How does someone else getting an abortion affect someone who is opposed to abortion? Are atheists that demand all references to religion be removed from public places hate groups? That could be (and often is) perceived as religious persecution.

I think that if you want to prevent folks from doing what they want, you have to prove that behavior hurts you and others like you in some significant way (which is why I wouldn't want to defend Focus on the Family - their headquarters are here and a popular bumper sticker around town is "Focus on Your Own Damn Family"). But, I'm not sure every group that tries to impose their own beliefs on others can be categorized as a hate group without turning the term into an ordinary political insult.

If a group of individuals openly have a common agenda to abolish another group, that would be a hate group.

Whether or not Political parties are hate groups is debatable as one would like to believe that one party wants to defeat the other party completely and decisively, while conspiracy theory says that they are just like brothers passing the buck back and forth.

Hate groups exist in political parties... that is for sure. Which way do most KKK's vote?

 

[The Smoking Man]

If a group of individuals openly have a common agenda to abolish another group, that would be a hate group.

Whether or not Political parties are hate groups is debatable as one would like to believe that one party wants to defeat the other party completely and decisively, while conspiracy theory says that they are just like brothers passing the buck back and forth.

Hate groups exist in political parties... that is for sure. Which way do most KKK's vote?

BNP, Sinne Fein, National Front, (Neocon(USA), LDP(Japan)) Factions within legitimate 'Conservative' parties.

Israel is also rife with political parties that would instigate Holocaust in spite of their own history.

Note, I am referring to multi party states ... hence the absence of the CCP in my observation. (For those of you who will accuse me of Bias.)

 

[outsider]

BNP, Sinne Fein, National Front, (Neocon(USA), LDP(Japan)) Factions within legitimate 'Conservative' parties.

Israel is also rife with political parties that would instigate Holocaust in spite of their own history.

Note, I am referring to multi party states ... hence the absence of the CCP in my observation. (For those of you who will accuse me of Bias.)

Rhetorical question on my part... :tongue: but thanks for the added info... the conservative parties are certainly solid set in ignorance, brotherhood, fear, and conspiracy for sure. Yes, morals too. Morals = Fear.

Tough to break through one's fear and ignorance for sure... but to break the brotherhood can mean death... or worse, the brotherhood conspiring against you and anyone who you befriend.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Rhetorical question on my part... :tongue: but thanks for the added info... the conservative parties are certainly solid set in ignorance, brotherhood, fear, and conspiracy for sure. Yes, morals too. Morals = Fear.

Tough to break through one's fear and ignorance for sure... but to break the brotherhood can mean death... or worse, the brotherhood conspiring against you and anyone who you befriend.

As an example of how messed up this type of politics are ...

Koizumi just made the privatization of the Post Office a Confidence issue.

When he lost, he dissolved parliament and stated that those representatives who voted against him would not be allowed by the party to stand for election come September.

Is this the purpose of an election?

Don't you vote for a person who represents you and not the Party Line?

This is exactly what the 100 flowers movement did in China.

Invite people to contribute and then round up those who went against policy.

Do you really think that this type of 'extremist politics' under a democracy diverges that much from a fascist state?

 

[outsider]

As an example of how messed up this type of politics are ...

Koizumi just made the privatization of the Post Office a Confidence issue.

When he lost, he dissolved parliament and stated that those representatives who voted against him would not be allowed by the party to stand for election come September.

Is this the purpose of an election?

Don't you vote for a person who represents you and not the Party Line?

This is exactly what the 100 flowers movement did in China.

Invite people to contribute and then round up those who went against policy.

Do you really think that this type of 'extremist politics' under a democracy diverges that much from a fascist state?

It's all about reframing. Changing slightly so that it's "different" but the effects are ultimately the same for sure... as those in power eventually become irresponsible... and buttkissers will rub up to get what they want... smart individuals never take power, but do some good buttkissing and win both ways. I think we all knew that. :yuck:

 

[outsider]

Yes. I will be away from pf.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Ben Sargent's take on http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclickcomics/20050823/cx_bs_uc/bs20050823