ScottSA

I'm too busy challenging yours.

Yes, Momo is right, but I'm never as succinct as he is, so let's reverse the logic. If it is cowardice to support the war yet not serve in it, it is doubly cowardly to not support the war so as to ensure that one doesn't serve in it. Such logic as you're using, and in this case retreating to, has an antithetical logic as well. But let's examine this a little closer. You no doubt support police officers, who put themselves in danger everyday, protecting you from the depredations of evil warmongers and werthugs like me, but I assume you're not a cop. Does that make you a coward? Do you support daycare workers? And are you one? If not, are you a hypocrit because you're not? You support socialism, but I daresay you're not a politician. See where this is going? See how flawed your attempt at logic is?

Well, I guess it is possible to so misunderstand plain English that when regurgiutated back it bears no similarity to what was said in the first place. Have you sought professional help yet?

If I posted a link claiming that Indians ate Christian babies, would that convince you that Indians eat Christian babies? Here's a clue...you need one...just because someone writes something and gets it published doesn't mean it's true.

Actually, you're only wrong in one of your observations. Unfortunately for you, it's the one without which your entirely argument crumbles. But whether one goes to war or not has no bearing whatsoever on their right, in a democracy, to have an opinion on that war. All you're doing is pulling out a putrid anti-democratic cheapshot aimed at anyone not actively engaged in hostilities. By your own reasoning, you ought not have an opinion on the war either, so I await your silence with bated breath. You wouldn't want to be a hypocrit, would you?

50,000 is a foolish made up number. What nonsense. What egregious overstatement it is to imply that preist's and nuns made free use of the sexual attributes of Indian kids on anything like a widespread basis. And the premise of any immersion program is to make one speak a different language. If you want a real boo hoo to cry about, cry aboot the saasanachs taking away me right ta wear a kilt! Posit, it doesn't matter what overstatement and outright lies you make up about residential schools; the fact is that they were an attempt to do the right thing by Indians....sort of like paying bucketloads of cash to indians to "compensate" them being dragged out of the stoneage and given houses, cars, and free medicare.

What's wrong with disrespect? If respect simply means to admire on the basis of admirable qualities, and I believe that is a sufficient definition, then why must one admire regardless of admirable qualities or the lack of them, or, for that matter, be expected to admire qualities one perceives to be unadmirable? For example, I don't necessarly "respect" a woman's right to choose, in view of the fact that there is no proviso for her to respect the father's right to choose (to be a father or not). Or in view of numerous other facts that may or may not apply to the specific situation (eg using abortion as birth control). Nor do I respect victim mindsets, socialistic pap, multicultural hogswoggle, or homosexuals demanding "rights." I have my reasons for disrespecting them, but perhaps the most important observation is that I really don't need a justification for disrespecting them, because I am not under any moral obligation to respect them. The fact that I don't throw rocks at socialists and homosexuals has nothing to do with respect, unless it is a respect for the idea that they have a right, in our society, to voice their opinions. But that is a different thing completely, right?

I love this victim terminology. Actually, no, it makes me gag. I'm a survivor of Mrs. Demellow's 1st grade, where she had the practice of whacking our knuckles with rulers and sending us to the bathroom when we were bad. Have you ever had to stand in an un-airconditioned bathroom in New Delhi for an hour when the temp is 120 in the shade? I'm guessing not, but if you had, you'd know that Indians in Canada had a walk in the park in comparison. Oh yeah, and we couldn't drink from the tap, so it was either get dehydrated or die of leprosy, typhoid, cholera or [insert dread desease]. I'm still waiting for compensation from the Indian govt, but all I've got so far is a letter saying: "Surely you must be joking kindly Sir, yes, no?" Anyway, then I went on to become a survivor of parental discipline, elementary school, and finally la de da private school, where I learned that smoking dope is more fun than going to class. I'm still waiting for compensation for turning me into an adolescent druggy, but the school hasn't even sent me a letter yet, much less cash. After all that I was subjected to the abuse of having to earn a living, and then to add insult to injury, had to survive many years of university. It's a crime. Society owes me. Whitey owes me. I need cash!

Right. Thank you for pointing out that race is not the same as religion. Therefore you'll have no qualms if a Caucasian-only school opens up in your neighbourhood. It's fun watcjing you lefties get all tangled up in your various opposing hypocrisies.

Maybe they made soylent green?

Hint to the initiator of this thread: "Superiour" is spelled without the "u." Just because one is a Canadian doesn't mean that "u"s have to be appended to every word out there. One can hardly claim superiority if one can't spell the thing. Second hint: There are several words bandied about hereabouts that mean different things. One can believe that multiracial immigration is a very bad thing when it is practised in the floodgate immigration-for-the-sake-of-immigration manner practised today in Canada. That in no way suggests that one thinks caucasians are "superior; just that Caucasians ought not become minorities in one's own country. I am one of those. There are also those who believe that western civilization and all its attributes are superior to 6th century dark age pathologies, caste based mythologies, and stone age tribalism. I'm one of those too, but that involves a belief in cultural superiority, not racial superiority. The only folks who believe in white superiority are those who are not white, and that is a belief that extends from southern Africa through northern Japan. Whitening one's bloodline is a millenia old practice all over the globe, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a bunch of asses in bedsheets commiting idiocy in the night. Nor, contrary to current mythology, does it have anything to do with "colonialism." But lets back up and work on spelling issues before we get into the complicated stuff.

Wait a second...are you suggesting that there is something wrong with stone axes and spears? Are you suggesting that Indian traditions are valueless? Or, alternatively, that they are "jokes"? Because Momo's claim about tradition is factual...Europeans settled differences with muskets and cannon, and Indians settled differences with stone axes and spears. You do know that pre-Columbian Indians were stone-age, don't you? Why would you consider that a "joke"?

Are your kids the reason for your growing up and leaning conservative too? At this rate you'll be a "racist" just like me in no time!

I only have this in text form, so I'll have to post it in its entirety. It's in an open email, with an appeal by Ben to pass it on, so there are no copyright issues: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary. My confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees. It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a church, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away. I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat. Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to. In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking. Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?" In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK. Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK. Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW." Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace. Are you laughing? Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it. Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us. Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in. My Best Regards. Honestly and respectfully, Ben Stein

They just don't care for unions. Perhaps because unions suck so much money out of Medicare that we have to ship patients to the US?

I see your depth of understanding of religion is rivalled only by your understanding of conservatism.

Atheism is hardly new. I daresay you're as short on history as you are on the intellectual capacity needed to look beyond comic book caricatures of religion. Why not read up a bit on exactly what the thought behind Deism is, instead of just making up strawmen so you can chuckle to yourself while burning them? Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the volume and depth of thought embedded in religion just shakes their head at the shallow twaddle you're putting out. If you insist on making of God an enemy, then you ought at least to know what you're talking about.

Your premise is completely ridiculous. The traditional family is of course the norm. Even the feminists weren't able to destroy it as a touchstone against which every other contortion is measured (and found wanting, as this thread illustrates). Thew homosexual lobby won't be able to destroy it either, anymore than your wishful thinking will. The best and only solution is to bring back the traditional family. Not through law, but through a cultural realization that it is the preferred and only workable solution. Yes, our generation screwed up. We forgot the kids in favor of our own selfish wants, which we couch in the terminology of 'rights.' Instead of defending our poor choices, we ought to admit we were wrong and rectify it.

You're using the specific to prove the general; an impossibility. It shows about the same level of understanding of this debate as your understanding of the religious debate. Traditional families work better economically, emotionally, and socially. Everyone knows it, the studies show it, and it's not even debatable. The fact that there are exceptions to the rule doesn't negate the rule.

Case in point. Do you think Augustine or thomas Merton or any of the countless numbers of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and Hindu thinkers and philosophers simply sat around in "blind faith?" That's what I mean...in your simplistic view, you need to believe that Deists are fools or emotional cripples unable to deal with the world without the crutch of some imaginary being. But that's a measure of your own lack of understanding, knowledge, and dare I say intelligence; it's not a reflection on God or people who believe in God. I might add that it's the atheists who seem to spend all their time on this board proselytizing for atheism, and one can only wonder why?

And bury your head in the sand. Don't forget that final methodology.

So, August, talking about the forest instead of the trees for a moment, would you argue that the traditional family is NOT better for kids?

The lack of depth of atheistic "thought" never ceases to amaze me. Sometimes I think it's just strawmanism, but there just doesn't seem to be much more than that to be found, no matter how hard one looks for more behind the trite mockery.

Who, except for you, is talking about Christianity?

Yes, but I don't think you understand what he said. At least judging by your previous bubble gum chewing pronouncements.