kuzadd

You see the evangelicals are racist, through and through. They believe in the superiority of the Jewish people over the Arab people, that is classic racism. It is the same as whites believing they are superior to blacks. When evangelical repeatedly , promote inequality, which they do, they are demonstrating racism When evangelicals actively support, the actions of a country, wether it is giving money to illegal settlers in the occupied territories, aiding in their construction, and other actions the evangelicals participate in to promote inequality, for the Palestinians, they are being racist. When an evangelical sits on this forum and points there filthy racist fingers at other people, who are attempting, to have a discussion about the problems on both side of the house concerning Israel/Palestine, they are demonstrating their own racism. Their racist hatred, based on distorted biblical teachings. This is absolutley no different then using the bible to justify slavery or a hatred of homosexuals, or the abusive behaviour of blacks, etc., You see Alexandra, since I believe , all people are equal, and even more amazingly, we are all out of Africa, as science teaches us, and the differences between us in skin colour, merely an environmental adaptation. The cultural differences, are that , merely cultural, historically learned, as populations shift, cultural teachings will change also.n As they have for yrs and yrs now. You see, when it is said " we are ALL created in God's image" I take this to mean, we, the human family are all one. That is what science teaches us. We are all one. One big human family. I don't need religion to get that, it is obvious. This is why I don't believe in the racial divide, because there isn't one. Sadly I understand my superior knowledge, will fly right over your head, preferring instead your petty divisive beliefs, that is your choice, IMO, it is people such as yourself, that will hold humanity back, from ever attaining any real peace, real prosperity, and a better life for all of us, on this beautiful planet we all share. heaven on earth , sigh................................

Yes, I am unable to see the Ironies, that you see. I am fully aware that Jews do not constitue a single 'race' in the racial rhetoric game. What binds them as a group is there religion. My reference to the racism was the obvious racism being perpetuated by the citizens of the neighbourhood against the Arab, family, who they knew nothing about, but, were judging them soley on the basis of their ethnicity. Had you read that, you would have understood, clearly you didn't hence your obvious confusion. Norr did I claim anywhere the Evangelical christians were a "race". More confusion on your part. You even quoted me comparing evangelicals to Islam, which is also a religion FYI, since you are very confused! Ironically, you then go on , to say I made racist comments, or dare I say hilariously! After you have finished admonishing me that Jewish people are not a race. BTW: Could you please, quote me on that or retract you assertation?? In other words back up what you write, with something correct and actually realistic, and how about truthful.? Or you are shown to be an obvious liar, user of rhetoric, unable to even read properly, and a poster who has to resort to the scummiest tactic of name-calling /slander, because you are so unable to be rational, or even truthful. I will be waiting.................................

How is it you know, anyone in particular is "leftwing"? What makes you claim that, other then because they have an opinion that differs from yours? Can you discuss a topic without this type of rhetoric? you failed to answer these questions. I don't do 'left-wing', 'right-wing', it's more labelling nonsense.

Not necessarily, the same rules apply as a fist fight. If you know you can't avoid a fight, you are an idiot if you let the other guy get in the first punch. Yes and a fistfight and a war are so relevant to one another (facetious) Then Hitler was OK, in your way of thinking, and what is your problem with 9/11, which can easily be construed as a pre-emptive attack.?

Yup,Israel, had the sweetest, sugar daddies. all willing to aid her, and use her if necessary, inc her people, of course , with the consent of her government, to ensure, a foothold is maintained in the ME, oil rich region.

Do you ever notice, how without failure, someone comes along who ACTUALLY , by choice, associates themselves with the "right" always starts throwing around the term "leftwinger" like it has any relevancy at all , to the discussion, other then as a derogatory term. How is it you know, anyone in particular is "leftwing"? What makes you claim that, other then because they have an opinion that differs from yours? Can you discuss a topic without this type of rhetoric?

I've seen it first-hand myself as well - not all of us rely on MEMRI's translations. Having said that, many things they say are not pleasant (to say the least), but that does not excuse the gross and deliberate miscontruing of the words. "I've seen it first-hand myself as well - not all of us rely on MEMRI's translations." what is so weird, is people so dearly want this to be right and true, so they can justify their extremist opinons. Extremism is alive and well in the west, as in the ME, despite what some may claim. "Having said that, many things they say are not pleasant (to say the least), but that does not excuse the gross and deliberate miscontruing of the words." This much is true, to be sure. I find,as of late, IMO, that a great many people are saying alot of unpleasant things, instead of dealing realistically with far too many awful situations. I am a great believer in cleaning up ones own 'neck of the woods' before we busy ourselves with others, so to speak. Thanks for being a voice of reason.

I don't recall anyone being reprimanded for the children signing the bombs. Why would they? Do you seriously see a similarity between children overjoyed that the roicket attacks would end and programming kids to be suicide bombers..... Yes, there are similarities. One that comes to my mind is..... Both actions are teaching kids, that , problems are resolved by simply killing people. Not a very rational teaching is it? secondly the actions teach both sets of kids, that, "they" are the enemies and not worth their humanity, thereby further dehumanizing on another and guaranteeing future continuity of hatred, therefore, fear, therfore, irrationality, therfore continued warfare. that's just two similarities, and I could give more, but those two are devastating enough. It very symbiotic really, when it comes right down to it.

Very intersting. As you mention, the same thing was done to Iran. I remember not just one, but a couple of instances when they misconstrued the words. Enough said. If one goes over to professor Norman Finklesteins site, he also as issues with memri;s 'translation' skills, as very deceptive and misleading.

well to follow, you convoluted thinking then, how was Hitler's "pre-emptive" attack on Poland a problem??? How then were the alleged 9/11 attacks anything but a pre-emptive attack??? Attacking the US prior to their attack on Afghanistan, alllegedly following along your thinking of what pre-emption is, it was just self-defence, according to you??? pre-emptive warfare is rhetorical BS, you do realize that, it is just an excuse to justify an illegal attack, that can't be justified in any manner other then the manner of baloney, sales pitching. pre-emptive can't be construed as self-defence, since to self-defend, one would have to be , being attacked. Therefore pre-emptive warfare is a propagandic,rhetorical, nonsensical term, used to fool people into excepting an illegal act of war as justifiable. comprende? If you prefer your rhetoric, that's ok, too. http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id644.html

I see no reason nor profit in attempting to rationally discuss an issue with someone who is clearly motivated by hate, and hate alone. There can be no reasoning with such a person. All that is left to is to show contempt for their hateful postings. speaking of yourself, obviously.

didn't see anything about the death penalty, held out for by the Palestian Authority, so it doesn't have any relevance to argus's claim. BTW M Dancer, do you address the US targetting of journalists. also , as terroristic? o

hurray!, hurray! hurray!, clapping and adoration. well said drea, well said! *dusts off the old record* *drops the needle* *crackle* "but christians don't fly airplanes into buildings" nor, does Islam. That is criminal individuals that do that kind of stuff, like , as an example launching illegal preemptive wars.

ANYTHING, and I mean ANYTHING from Memri, should be taken with a grain of salt, if not outright rejected. The fact that CNN, wouldn't show it, and they along with most MSM spew more BS then I can personally keep track of, indicates to me it was so replete with falsities, if they would be shown the clip/video translation, they would have shown themselves to be so OBVIOUSLY incompetent, they decided against it, in order to save themselves some fleeting semblence of credibility.

hurray!, hurray! hurray!, clapping and adoration. well said drea, well said!

anyone hear of Roy Zimmerman? this is his song, about Jerry falwell's God, it's an older song, but hilarious.............. BTW: this guy has some funny songs, political, religious etc., Jerry Falwell's God

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/196/story_19630.html What do Christians believe about the end of the world? Nearly all Christians are taught that Jesus Christ will return in glory and reign eternally. But beliefs differ about how this will happen. Many Catholics, liberal Protestants, and Orthodox Christians in the U.S. do not emphasize the end of the world. Though their denominations have end-times theologies, these Christians would rarely hear preaching on it. These denominations focus on Jesus' words that people cannot "know the day or the hour" (Matthew 25) of the end and tend not to speculate on the details. that's pretty much the Catholic take, with the focus on Jesus's teachings, not on the end. versus............. A majority of evangelical Protestants, however, stress specific ideas about the end of the world. They believe that certain events must happen prior to Jesus' return, and that many of these events are happening now. Drawing from Matthew 24, Paul's epistles, and the Book of Revelation, evangelicals look for signs of the end of the world.

maybe, it would be better if the show was more realistic, and showed the priests, sodomizing the boys, would that be better? anyway, I think it's an interesting juxtaposition of the good and bad behaviour potential inherent in all of us,the folly of youth, and other themes. Altar boys, are still boys, full of raging hormones and sometimes looking for, and getting into trouble, as they test boundaries, societal and parental. I still liked it, thought it was funny, would watch it again, was different, and interesting.

NO, they don't. That's an irrational belief, unique to the Dominionist/Evanglical/Zionist christians. Pick your name? Gee whiz, I thought someone who had, what was it, 7 years of catholic teaching would at least know that the rapture was also a part of the catholic doctrine...... actually 9, and the rapture was not part of that. you post that yourself, catholics believe in Jesus coming back, but, the scenario is diiferent, and it's not called the rapture as you stated in your own post. The rapture doctrine is not in the bible, that's the "left behind" version. You know, the commercially and politically viable doctrine. replete with UN and gay demonization. The catholic version isn't that specific, that politicized. You evangelicals miss the politicization of your rapture version, doncha? how is that? I see you continue to reduce yourself to hairsplitting. Have fun with your irrational beliefs, I gave mine up, the brainwashing, indoctrination, lost it's hold on me. Apparently not on you?

come on, don't you want all women to think your sexually attractive?? Don't you want to be a real he-man, cave man?! Hit her over the head, drag her to the cave and ravage her unresponsive, unconscious body, so you can be a REAL man? lol!!! sorry peterf, I just gotta have my fun. Isn't that a male fantasy? lol.

Your right Betsy, you and I are definitely not on the same page. As I stated you SEEM to think men, should dominate women, because , as stated, they have a male sex organ and are thereby entitled.(that is your implication) I'll tell you my hubby chuckled, when, I read to him, what kind of a gal , you thought I must be. He laughed because, he knows , that is not me at all. I have been married almost 22 yrs, my husband feels no need to dominate me, or our marriage, he says we are equal partners, it's worked pretty good so far, obviously. 20 plus yrs together is tough in any day and age, not just in this one. I'll be honest, if anyone even dared claimed my husband was "emasculated" because he views his marriage as a partnership of equals, or claimed he was emasculated because he views me as is equal as opposed to his subordinate. Well, I pity that fool, if you know what I mean! This garbage you posted written by Nancy levant???? Is just that, it seems long on rhetoric and short on reality. It may suit you, but, it is insulting garbage to me. You seem a nice gal, and I have poked fun at your postings in good humour, I had hoped you would see, how silly this all is, by using humour, unfortunately it didn't work. Defintely you and I are, not only, not one the same page, we aren't even in the same book!

yup, actually you, argus and whitedoor, did, you used namecalling, labelling and smear. Neither of you discussed the articles posted, or how racism runs both ways , between israel/palestine. In fact all either of you did was discuss the posters who actually did discuss the topic. I requote my personal belief okay, so you will know exactly and unquestionably where I stand with regards to racism What are the rules on this forum, again, kids??? http://mason.gmu.edu/~amcdonal/Propaganda%20Techniques.html These seven techniques are called: * Name Calling * Glittering Generalities * Transfer * Testimonial * Plain Folks * Card Stacking * Band Wagon These techniques are designed to fool us because the appeal to our emotions rather than to our reason. Name Calling:this technique to create fear and arouse prejudice by using negative words (bad names) to create an unfavorable opinion or hatred against a group, beliefs, ideas or institutions they would have us denounce. This method calls for a conclusion without examining the evidence. Name Calling is used as a substitute for arguing the merits of an idea, belief, or proposal. shall I go through these posts and recount how many negative words were used , as a substitute for actually discussing the articles posted? How about if you do it and have some fun with your own inabilities to discuss rationally???

I would agree that you have an anti-semetic agenda. Buffycat too. roflmao!!!!!

actually, it would be more accurate, to proclaim that is the way you think,"MEN'S BRAINS RESIDE SOMEWHERE BELOW THEIR NAVEL", since you seem to imply men should dominate women cause they have a male sex organ and thereby, they are entitled. My husband of more then 20yrs is quite comfortable and happy, in our long term committed marriage devoid of male dominance, but based on equality! and no religion involved either!

see smear and namecalling that's all that SC and Argus got, lol! weakness in arguement requires smear and namecalling. Name Calling-giving any idea a bad label-is used to make us reject and condemn the idea without examining the evidence. like I said, weak arguement, no rational arguement, resort to name calling, smear.