jefferiah

Well then.....no disagreement with that. I didn't even bother to do any research on the incident. Good work, AM. I think it would have been nice to give him a fair warning at first (though for all I know they may have), even though they are not required to. But even at that I do not know if I'd support putting him on trial over the matter. That's quite a step further, isn't it? I'd still need more details. But that seems like a waste to me.

I agree here. Particularly if it is someone's own personal choice to feed them. I have been a pedestrian for most of my life, so I know all about bums, and I've talked to several. Some of them are pretty out there, some of them are rude, but alot of them I have found are pretty agreeable. If someone wants to give em a meal I see nothing wrong with that. But I have met some pretty loud and uncouth sorts as well. Particularly once when I was hitch-hiking years ago. This fellow picked me up and a few miles down the road he picked up another hiker....in his 50s or 60s with a bottle of rum in his back pocket. The guy got in the back seat and started mumble singing "I hear the train a-comin, its rollin round the bend......" Then the driver let us out on a rural highway together and the guy kept hassling me and yelling at me for some money. Anyways. long story, but it was not fun for me. I remembered his name, and about a year later I saw in a local newspaper he was in court for hassling an old lady who had picked him up in a drunken state. He yelled profanities at the judge as well. So yeah , there are some bad cases, but still I don't see why it should be illegal to give someone some food.

OK so you can call me little Jeffie the ______________ (ghost person), if you can figure out how to spell it. Or you can call me an Indian if you like. Or an Albanian if it suits you. Or even "shit-for-brains", which was my big sister's name for me when I was small.

I seriously doubt it. I don't think it demotes the value of awards though as some have said. Who has ever established that they had any to begin with? Britney Spears has won awards. Michael Jackson has won awards. I don't think they are incredibly talented. Awards are a nice way for like minded individuals to congratulate themselves. People who do not concern themselves over being popular are not concerned about other people's popularity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink "On September 21, 2006, Code Pink staged a peace march which blocked traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge. Code Pink received permits allowing them to march after the morning commute hours at 10:00am. Instead, the group illegally began walking toward the center of the span as early as 7:30am. They left by 10:00am with no injuries or accidents reported.[7]" "On March 22, 2007 several Code Pink protestors were arrested outside the office of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi after announcing their intent to take over the office. Code Pink was protesting that the majority Democratic party had not stopped war funding.[10]" Holding up traffic on a bridge and attempting to take over an office...... Well, that may be reason enough. "Code Pink has been the subject of criticism for the protests it has held at military hospitals, most notably at the Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, DC." That's pretty tasteless.

I agree with your logic about Harper-haters or BDS, but I think people should be allowed to say them, poor debate tactic or not.

Hmmmm.... It seems that their entry to Canada has been banned over very little. Any more information on what the civil disobedience was?

I don't always agree with the tactic of calling someone a racist or a bigot because they disagree on certain matters. I know on Rabble you can be called a bigot for disagreeing with anything, and then promptly banned. But personally I support the right to be able to call someone a bigot or a racist, if that is a person's assessment(whether I consider their assessment reasonable or not). Not my forum though, but I think people should be allowed to scream "bigot" and "racist" with or without reason, and then in turn the so-called bigots and racists ought to be able to reason with them. This just sounds to me like more Political Correctness....albeit a new variety, and from a different angle perhaps, but as my grandfather used to say----"the same difference". Sticks and stones, folks. Playground words to live by. There are people who will call you a racist or a bigot for not agreeing with the position of a minority on an issue. Seriously. I have argued with such people. And it seems that if this is their opinion, then it is basically the same as saying a minority can never be wrong, and the only possible reason anyone would ever disagree with them on any issue is because they are racists. Now while I disagree with this logic, I would like to be able to hear them call me a racist in such a situation, if that is indeed what they think. This at least gives me the opportunity to address an opinion that they have about me or my position. And explain why I feel it is not racist to disagree with them.

If you want to use women's issues as an argument against Islamic culture in general or Sharia law, I can understand that. But I still don't think you can choose for a muslim woman what clothes are symbolic of her own oppression, particularly if she chooses to wear them. Is she oppressing herself? If a single, independent muslim woman decided to wear the traditional wear, and you told her she must take it off because you don't want her to be oppressed, that would be kind of strange wouldn't it? Don't you see the irony in that? It is like you are getting offended on her behalf over something which does not offend her. A burqa itself is just a burqa. It has no meaning on its own. If someone were being forced to wear a burqa against their will, then it would be abuse. If a woman chooses to wear it, it isn't. For instance I don't think anyone in our society has a problem with a woman wearing blue jeans and having hair that is not short. And if someone were to say women should wear dresses he probably would not be a very popular fellow. But if an AnaBaptist sort of girl were to choose to wear dresses and keep her long hair in a bun, I wouldn't say she is oppressing herself. And then in turn if you banned the practice because it is symbolic of some kind of oppression, then in cases where a woman wants to wear a dress or have long hair the law would be restricting her freedom to do so. A long haired girl at the prom would be breaking the law. But as I said before, there are certain situations where it is reasonable to expect that people not be completely covered, maybe in most or all public situations. So in this regard I don't think we should accomodate at all. This is the appropriate angle from which to make the argument against burqas, particularly the ones which are basically ninja suits. It's only a woman's issue if it is an issue for the women wearing it.

I have to disagree with this. As far as women wearing these scarves and the accusation of abuse, I think this argument needs to be discarded once and for all. Not that there are not some cases where it certainly does have merit, but there are also cases where it has absolutely no merit. I've seen single women on tv, with moderate muslim parents, who have decided on their own terms to wear the traditional dress. And I am sure there are more. You cannot liberate someone from a law they wish to follow themselves. What you would in fact be doing is taking away their liberty to adhere to a law they agree with. So as far as Muslim women's wear goes, you have to prove in an individual case that the woman is being forced to wear the clothes. If she choses to wear them, it is not abuse, Mike. We all have a right to choose our own limitations, within legal limits. As for a woman arguing her right to wear one of those very concealing burqas in a bank.....she gets no support from me. I don't think it is out of line to expect that in certain situations these burqas should be restricted.

Correction: Sixteen pages of JDobbin getting sweaty........

To anyone with the ability to reason. Indian is not a derogatory term. The term Indian does not mean something either bad or good. It was simply an historical mistake which stuck. Indian does not mean "brown people with no soul" Jennie, so that is a horrible parallel to make. You have just used a direct insult to draw a parallel. I understand that it is incorrect, but it is a name which people for generations have used to refer to the natives. It may be outdated, but if someone uses it once in a while or by mistake, it's harmless, and no one should really be overly upset. People can make such mistakes. I like to watch the sunrise, even though technically the sun doesn't rise. Alot of people might call me "English", when technically I am Canadian. And in the early days of hockey a GM of the New York Rangers referred to players from Montreal as Habs, and this he did mean in a bad way. He was referring to them being Quebec farm boys. (The H in the C has nothing to do with it, by the way. C-H is club de hockey.)

Sure, and why should that be so offensive. For instance some francophones might say of me "He is English." When in fact I am Canadian, and my last name is actually Irish. It's not a big deal Jennie. I usually use native myself, but if someone calls them Indians it's not a big deal. Nor should it be. It is not an insult.

Was Ann Coulter suggesting that he should be converted to Christianity by the sword, or that she believes Christianity is the right faith and that he should be one? I have no problem with the latter, no matter what faith a person comes from. It would only make sense that they believe that their faith is the right one, or else they would not be very faithful to it. It's interesting you should bring her up. I was in a right-wing American chatroom not long ago where the regulars were pretty much criticizing Coulter as well. They were saying that she does things for the attention, and that she is not a mouthpiece for the rest of them. But I don't hate her, and I defended her. She does make some really good points at times, and aside from that she is not a person you always take seriously. Part of her thing is entertainment value and even comedy. She is a character. To me she is more of a comedian than anything else, but she is not an idiot either.

Yes, and I am paid by Stephen Harper to post here.

The Karen Armstrong one does not even say anything to support your argument. It is a lot of opinion about the fundies. And that's it. I am in agreement with you on some of these things Kuzadd, but not to the extent at which you are saying it. You seem to say that people who believe in the rapture want to make it happen. That these multi-millions of people world-wide all support Israel for this one reason. And that they are trying to make it happen. That is plain ridiculous. "Demonstrating the usual right wing...." If you can take an example of Ann Coulter and say oh this is typical right wing thinking, then I suppose Stalin displays typical left-wing behaviour.

Village Voice? Great source there. I suppose now that Weekly World News is no longer with us, we can still get the facts somewhere. M. Dancer just got a bit richer, me thinks.

Also you seem to have misunderstood the general idea of Armageddon as well, or quoted people who do not have a good understanding of the mainstream idea among those who believe in the rapture. You quoted this: "Then a new Jewish Temple must be built on that site, apparently solely for the purpose of being desecrated by the antichrist so it can become the site of the returning Messiah seven years later to fight the battle of Armageddon. At that time, the Jews would lose." This is completely wrong. Actually this has nothing to do with the rapture either, but with prophecy in general. The rapture is simply the belief that people will be seperated before the 7 years of tribulation. This refers to the prophecies of the tribulation itself, not the rapture. And it is completely false. At Armageddon according to the prophecy crowd, the antichrist loses. Though some people do think that before all of this final battle takes place he will gain military control over Israel.

You seem to keep misunderstanding. There are millions of believers within the rapture school, I am sure. I am not disputing that fact. What I am arguing is the idea that millions of them are trying to make the rapture happen. Within this group of people who believe in the rapture there are varying schools of thought. So there is no one rapture culture. The rapture itself refers to the belief that believers will be taken away from the world before the 7 year period of tribulation. I have some very religious people on one side of my family who are into this sort of thing, and so I have been exposed to it and seen their beliefs since I was small. I have seen a wealth of literature on the subject. And when I hear things such as Christians are trying to make Armageddon happen, it is not based on anything I have read in this literature, but rather in the minds of those who are saying it. As for myself, I do not even see the word Rapture once in the Bible. Yet the term itself was coined based on a certain small section of the book of Revelation, and it refers to the belief that at the time of the end somehow the believers will be seperated from the troubles of the rest of the world. I have yet to read a quote by a mainstream Bible prophecy writer wherein he states the things which you have said. Like the quote you cited from Truthroom. There is a general belief that it will not happen until the Temple is rebuilt. But this does not mean that people are going to try to rebuild the Temple in order for the rapture to happen. And this is not why a great many of us support Israel. This is a twist which is emphasized more by those who just plain dislike Christianity. So while Scott points out that this rapture culture is not the mainstream of Christianity, I will point also point out that what you think of as a radical rapture culture is not even the mainstream of believers in the rapture.

Yes, what horrible oppression, Jennie. She was the Principal, not a high school kid. She resigned on her own after the NY Post reported it. I have no problem with the tshirt either or her right to wear it. But the people were not complaining about it being a "Girl Power" shirt. And to me it sounds as if there is a pretty good chance she made this meaning for it up after the fact.

You completely misunderstood what I said. I never said that no one believed in the rapture. I said that just because they believe in it, does not mean they believe that Left Behind is an accurate example of what will happen. It is a work of fiction, and everyone knows that. Personally as far as heresy is concerned, the books themselves may actually qualify, because the book of Revelations ends with a warning about adding to these words of prophecy. The idea of the rapture comes from interpretations of a certain part of revelations. Within the belief in the rapture itself, there are several schools of thought, some of them mainstream and some of them fringe. The statement you have quoted from "truthroom" is obviously from a fringe group. I know plenty of people who read about prophecy and the rapture but not one of them has ever echoed a statement like this. And as for the charge that people are trying to manipulate world events in order to make this rapture happen-----it mainly comes from people who do not like Christianity saying so, not from any actual truth. Part of the backbone of this belief in the rapture is that no one knows the day or the hour in which it will take place, and that it is not up to men but God to decide when such a thing would happen. So I took a look at your Truthroom site and here is another quote for you: "Note: this website is not affiliated with any organized religion or religious organization."

It's on a Best Seller list. So are a lot of books. Doesn't mean people believe in them. "There are a lot of people reading these.and believing it" This statement is not evidence. I am sure a lot of people read it. What you may be referring to is people believing in the rapture. But that is still a seperate thing. Even if they believe in the rapture they are quite aware that Left Behind is sensationalized fiction. How many people read Left Behind and believe it is a true story? Alot you say. Source please, Margrace. And while you are at it, I'd like to see your sources concerning your claims that various specific posters here are paid members of the Conservative party's Forum Posting Squad.

OK so he is a whiner too. Go ahead, call me Jeffie if you please.

No I havent. I dont feel a need to either. I think the books are probably kind of tacky from what I have seen, Margrace, but nonetheless they are not taken seriously "by these people". That's a bit of an overstatement wouldn't you say? Sort of like Kuzadd's statement about most Christians. Just let her say whatever nonsense she wants. Just let her start threads about how horrible Christians are, and don't be baited. Her and Buffy can frequent those threads together commenting on how profound they both are. As for Jazzer, my saying to ignore Kuzadd has no power over you. I am not banning her, nor can I. If anyone reads what I wrote and thinks it is also a good idea, they are free to do so. And if not, they can disregard it. Simple. If you have a problem with what I have said Jazzer, you can use your ignore feature.

Rabble.ca, Mohawk Nation News