- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 33,522
- Reaction score
- 10,826
- Location
- Between Athens and Jerusalem
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I already did. Watch the video in the link I originally posted. 7%=/=25%. And furthermore, her claim here is based off of the fact that the religion of extremist groups is at all relevant. It's not. When someone murders someone, we don't legislate the punishment based on their intent; we legislate based on what they did, so that sort of policy doesn't differ when someone who is willing to use violence comes from a sort religion. I fail to see how the existence of extremist groups makes Islam as a religion a problem at all.
I was under the impression that I already did.
I think radical Islam is great in that it provides the rest of humanity with the glaring true nature of all religion distilled at purest forum, in all its primitive horribleness.
I dont think radical islam is representative of most of the worlds religions, do you?
Yeah I do.
I don't truly believe your average 9-5 American Christian is any less intellectually lunatic on an intelligence level than the radical Islamists crucifying people in Iraq. Both are stupid in my opinion. Having a strong secular pillar within you is the sign of intelligence. I firmly believe if the average American Christian who goes around wearing a cross was allowed to run the US we'd be in a civil war after 10 years.
All of this suggests you might be a lefty, who is anti religion without recognizing that liberalism is its own religion.
Ugh. Even the idea of having to tear down that post is sorta intellectually revolting but I will nonetheless.
I'm a progressive nationalist. Considering Odin and Peter Pan have about as much legitimacy to me as the Jewish Middle East god Jesus or Allah, yes, I'm anti fantasy worship.
Liberalism? No it isn't a religion. It's very debatable what liberalism even is. I'm extremely far from a liberal, but then I'm also extremely far from an idiot conservative, I'd likely promptly do away with both.
Are you telling me you are precisely in the middle? The epitome of centrist? What are the odds of that?
On some issues I'm left. On others I'm right. At least that is how others perceive my stances. Personally I don't hold my stances as either right or left. I base my stances on the issue itself. Not on whether its a right stance or a left stance. IMO people are too fixated on "right" and "left". Particularly since what is considered "right" and "left" changes depending on the generation that is in power.
You almost certainly have a lean in some way, and yes I mean to others. Asked another way, if you were to self-describe your political lean, would you say its precisely and fully in the middle of the political spectrum? If that answer is no, to which side would would you lean?
Look under my avatar. I'm Independent. Again, I'm neither left, nor right. Some people consider me left of center, others consider me right of center. As such what others think my lean is has no bearing on what I really am because they only base their decisions on how they have seen me talk in specific issues.
I see this as intellectually lazy. Many centrists think they are somehow above the fray, but I disagree.
BTW, Im a registered independent in CA, but am actually conservative with libertarian leanings. Independant does not mean centrist.
But i'm not a centrist either. My lean is Independent for a reason. It is not just about not being a part of the Republican or Democratic platform. For a true Independent it is about not caring about party lines or party affiliations or party titles or groups period. Its about judging issues on their own merit and the right and left and anything else be damned. The only thing that matters is whether the merit of a specific issue is valid or not. You can call that intellectually lazy if you want. But it takes a lot more intellectual exercise to come up with your own individual stance on each particular issue than it does to follow a crowd and just nod your head.
Classical liberals have more in common with modern conservatives than modern liberals. Liberals are good at moving from name to name as they soil each one.
The problem is the classic liberal or the traditional conservative really do not exist anymore. You are correct, individual liberty which was so important to a classic liberal has been replace by group security or at least identifying everything with groups instead of individuals.
You might be right, I see the dichotomy today as more those who are for individualism and self reliance vs those who are for increasing the size of the state-so as to mobilize it to get their way.
Those for big govt vs those who aren't.
Interestingly enough, I see more and more conservatives with libertarian leanings which gets closer to conservatism than the republican party has been for some time.
I personally am non-religious and pro-choice, but recognize that the facts of life are conservative and appreciate that. Im not for more govt control and dont see the role of govt as a means of social change.
Brigitte Gabrielle says that 15-25% of Muslims are radicalised. :lol:
She's nothing more than a crazy, right-wing fear-monger. Her accent doesn't give her any credibility on the Middle East or Muslim affairs.
I think basically we are saying the same thing, but in a different way. The meaning is the same.
15% to 25% of all the world's Muslims are radical jihadist.And Obama is :laughat: supposedly in charge of our national security :lamo (NOT) and wants to issue millions of travel visas and immigrant visas to these Muslims. :screwy
Haven't seen any Christians stepping up to stop radical Christians from furthering persecution of homosexuals in Uganda.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?