Abraham Lincoln - The Civil War.

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

Under section 899A of this bill, “violent radicalization” is defined as “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change,”

I think it’s pretty ironic that Ann Coulter’s statement that “we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” fits that definition to a tee.

It is, of course, preposterous to imagine that Ann would ever be prosecuted for this statement, inasmuch as the ideologically based violence that she wishes to facilitate is in line with political, religious and social changes that are approved by the current administration.

62

[quote]Dustin wrote:

My world view isn’t simple, by any stretch. Your world view consists of Republicans and liberals. Your world view wants to see people punished for having the audacity to speak out against a fucking politician that lived 140 years ago.

Dustin

[/quote]

LMAO

Sounds like a perfect description of a conserva-troll. Yes, Jeffy is, without question, a troll.

LOL

63

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Here is a summary of the bill.

I’ll let everyone decide whether they think it has merit.

H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

Congressional Research Service Summary
The following summary is provided by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan government entity that serves Congress and is run by the Library of Congress. The summary is taken from the official website THOMAS.

4/19/2007–Introduced.
Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism (terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States).
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: b establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States;[/b] (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

Instead of being a complete head-in-the-sander, like varq, I think it might be a good idea to learn what are the root causes of homegrown terrorism. Further, it certainly seems reasonable to learn their methodologies.

IT EVEN PROTECTS CIVIL LIBERTIES-----GASP!!!

THE HORROR!!!

JeffR
[/quote]

The bolded part of the bill is the part that I have trouble accepting. They need to be a lot more specific about that part.

How is it determined that a belief system is used for “facilitating ideologically-based violence”?

Who makes this decision?

What happens next, should it be determined that the belief system is at fault for violence?

The legislature needs to tread very carefully here, and take the time to fully consider their answers. Given the landslide passage of the bill in the House, I suspect they are not giving it the thought I think they should.

64

If you kill people to spread freedom and democracy in the ME is that ideologically-based violence?

Me thinks it is.

65

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice… but it may someday be a felony.

66

UPDATE: Law Professor David Bernstein previously noted that Canada’s hate speech laws have had unintended consequences, as such laws inevitably do:

Moreover, left-wing academics are beginning to learn firsthand what it's like to have their own censorship vehicles used against them. For example, University of British Columbia Prof. Sunera Thobani, a native of Tanzania, faced a hate-crimes investigation after she launched into a vicious diatribe against American foreign policy. Thobani, a Marxist feminist and multiculturalism activist, had remarked that Americans are "bloodthirsty, vengeful and calling for blood." The Canadian hate-crimes law was created to protect minority groups from hate speech. But in this case, it was invoked to protect Americans.

Just like Bush followers who bizarrely think that the limitless presidential powers they’re cheering on will only be wielded by political leaders they like, many hate speech law proponents convince themselves that such laws will only be used to punish speech they dislike. That is never how tyrannical government power works.

67

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Make up your mind, Jeff. Am I a head-in-the-sander, a sideline-sitter, or a jackass?

Anyway, I thought you’d be flattered by my saying that your worldview might become law. Can’t please nobody these days.[/quote]

varq,

All three, of course.

Forgive me for assuming that your “worldview” comment was another attempt at an insult.

It’s your style, and all.

Now, I’ll accept that my worldview encompasses understanding our enemy, combatting our enemy, and doing our best to protect civil liberties.

JeffR

68

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Here is a summary of the bill.

I’ll let everyone decide whether they think it has merit.

H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

Congressional Research Service Summary
The following summary is provided by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan government entity that serves Congress and is run by the Library of Congress. The summary is taken from the official website THOMAS.

4/19/2007–Introduced.
Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism (terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States).
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: b establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States;[/b] (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

Instead of being a complete head-in-the-sander, like varq, I think it might be a good idea to learn what are the root causes of homegrown terrorism. Further, it certainly seems reasonable to learn their methodologies.

IT EVEN PROTECTS CIVIL LIBERTIES-----GASP!!!

THE HORROR!!!

JeffR

The bolded part of the bill is the part that I have trouble accepting. They need to be a lot more specific about that part.

How is it determined that a belief system is used for “facilitating ideologically-based violence”?

Who makes this decision?

What happens next, should it be determined that the belief system is at fault for violence?

The legislature needs to tread very carefully here, and take the time to fully consider their answers. Given the landslide passage of the bill in the House, I suspect they are not giving it the thought I think they should.[/quote]

TG,

Doesn’t the Congress carefully thing through all ramifications and make 100% educated decisions?

No. Well damn.

Just kidding. I agree, they’ll have to have well-defined checks and balances in place.

I also agree that many bills start out with the best intentions. However, they rarely anticipate the ramifications.

I’m all for understanding our enemy. They’ll have to tighten up the language.

JeffR

69

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice… but it may someday be a felony.[/quote]

Here we go varq.

I’ll bet you were having orgasms in Philosophy class. Spin and spin, just to spin. All the while, Blue Danube was playing in your head.

What is liberty? Is it doing or saying whatever you want?

Maybe American Islamic radicals feel their liberty threatened when we take away violence.

Would you object to that.

What is extremism?

I have my own definition of both. However, so does everyone else.

JeffR

70

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Here we go varq.

What is liberty? Is it doing or saying whatever you want?

(Of course it is, it’s supposed to have been a LEARNING process. That IS where you got stuck, isn’t it, Jeffy?)

Maybe American Islamic radicals feel their liberty threatened when we take away violence.

(Maybe American neocon-hijacked Republicans feel their liberty threateneed when we take away violence? See, you ARE a troll?!)

Lordy, lordy.

71

[quote]Limbic wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Here we go varq.

What is liberty? Is it doing or saying whatever you want?

(Of course it is, it’s supposed to have been a LEARNING process. That IS where you got stuck, isn’t it, Jeffy?)

Maybe American Islamic radicals feel their liberty threatened when we take away violence.

(Maybe American neocon-hijacked Republicans feel their liberty threateneed when we take away violence? See, you ARE a troll?!)

Lordy, lordy.[/quote]

I nominate this for the worst post of the New Year.

Let’s look into what makes it so “great.” First, the author couldn’t figure out the quote function.

Second, the punctuation errors jump out of the page. Look at how the two sentences of the responses are surrounded by brackets. As most of us know, you only use the brackets when setting text apart within the context of other text.

There isn’t any text outside of his brackets.

Third, the “message.” Let’s examine it in detail. When I asked: [quote]What is liberty? Is it doing whatever you want?[/quote] The response was vomited out: [quote] (Of course it is, it’s supposed to have been a LEARNING process. That IS where you got stuck, isn’t it, Jeffy?)[/quote]

There are several problematic aspects to this response. The most glaring, is that the author doesn’t understand that when one is making a point, it must be clear and concise. Further this fails the logic sniff-test.

What are we to take from the association between liberty and a learning process? Does this mean that we should be learning liberty from someone else? Some people would say having their liberty defined by someone else is denying liberty. Or, are we to assume that only learned individuals understand liberty? Who defines learned.

It’s just too messy with too many loopholes to view it as anything more than verbal manure.

Finally, it infers that I am unable to learn. It is a verbal haymaker that misses completely. Especially viewed in light of the shortcomings noted above. One can’t take the intellectual high ground while simultaneously making basic errors in punctuation and logic.

The second statement is scarcely better.

Let’s review: [quote](Maybe American neocon-hijacked Republicans feel their liberty threateneed when we take away violence? See, you ARE a troll?!)[/quote]

Let’s try to wade through this one. Does this mean that everyone in the Department of Homeland Security is a neocon? What exactly is a neocon? Is violence a necessary component of being a neocon? Is the author trying to say that this bill only affects neocons? Are neocons the only groups guilty of violence against Americans? How does the author define violence? Does the Department of Homeland Securities actions, since it’s inception, constitute violence?

I’d be curious to see what everyone thinks. This is my submission as the worst post of 2008.

JeffR

72

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Limbic wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Here we go varq.

What is liberty? Is it doing or saying whatever you want?

(Of course it is, it’s supposed to have been a LEARNING process. That IS where you got stuck, isn’t it, Jeffy?)

Maybe American Islamic radicals feel their liberty threatened when we take away violence.

(Maybe American neocon-hijacked Republicans feel their liberty threateneed when we take away violence? See, you ARE a troll?!)

Lordy, lordy.

I nominate this for the worst post of the New Year.

Let’s look into what makes it so “great.” First, the author couldn’t figure out the quote function.

Second, the punctuation errors jump out of the page. Look at how the two sentences of the responses are surrounded by brackets. As most of us know, you only use the brackets when setting text apart within the context of other text.

There isn’t any text outside of his brackets.

Third, the “message.” Let’s examine it in detail. When I asked: What is liberty? Is it doing whatever you want? The response was vomited out: (Of course it is, it’s supposed to have been a LEARNING process. That IS where you got stuck, isn’t it, Jeffy?)

There are several problematic aspects to this response. The most glaring, is that the author doesn’t understand that when one is making a point, it must be clear and concise. Further this fails the logic sniff-test.

What are we to take from the association between liberty and a learning process? Does this mean that we should be learning liberty from someone else? Some people would say having their liberty defined by someone else is denying liberty. Or, are we to assume that only learned individuals understand liberty? Who defines learned.

It’s just too messy with too many loopholes to view it as anything more than verbal manure.

Finally, it infers that I am unable to learn. It is a verbal haymaker that misses completely. Especially viewed in light of the shortcomings noted above. One can’t take the intellectual high ground while simultaneously making basic errors in punctuation and logic.

The second statement is scarcely better.

Let’s review: (Maybe American neocon-hijacked Republicans feel their liberty threateneed when we take away violence? See, you ARE a troll?!)

Let’s try to wade through this one. Does this mean that everyone in the Department of Homeland Security is a neocon? What exactly is a neocon? Is violence a necessary component of being a neocon? Is the author trying to say that this bill only affects neocons? Are neocons the only groups guilty of violence against Americans? How does the author define violence? Does the Department of Homeland Securities actions, since it’s inception, constitute violence?

I’d be curious to see what everyone thinks. This is my submission as the worst post of 2008.

JeffR

[/quote]

Jeffy, you sound like a babbling old man.

The role you and your fellow defenders of the present administration play on this forum is exactly analogous to that of al-Qaida’s in Pakistan. To disrupt the lives of good Pakistanis (Americans) with impossible violence to their future. Trolls. Closet elitests intent only on ill-gotten personal gain.

You do, after all, believe you are working “for” Dick Cheney?

73

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Limbic wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Here we go varq.

What is liberty? Is it doing or saying whatever you want?

(Of course it is, it’s supposed to have been a LEARNING process. That IS where you got stuck, isn’t it, Jeffy?)

Maybe American Islamic radicals feel their liberty threatened when we take away violence.

(Maybe American neocon-hijacked Republicans feel their liberty threateneed when we take away violence? See, you ARE a troll?!)

Lordy, lordy.

I nominate this for the worst post of the New Year.

Let’s look into what makes it so “great.” First, the author couldn’t figure out the quote function.

Second, the punctuation errors jump out of the page. Look at how the two sentences of the responses are surrounded by brackets. As most of us know, you only use the brackets when setting text apart within the context of other text.

There isn’t any text outside of his brackets.

Third, the “message.” Let’s examine it in detail. When I asked: What is liberty? Is it doing whatever you want? The response was vomited out: (Of course it is, it’s supposed to have been a LEARNING process. That IS where you got stuck, isn’t it, Jeffy?)

There are several problematic aspects to this response. The most glaring, is that the author doesn’t understand that when one is making a point, it must be clear and concise. Further this fails the logic sniff-test.

What are we to take from the association between liberty and a learning process? Does this mean that we should be learning liberty from someone else? Some people would say having their liberty defined by someone else is denying liberty. Or, are we to assume that only learned individuals understand liberty? Who defines learned.

It’s just too messy with too many loopholes to view it as anything more than verbal manure.

Finally, it infers that I am unable to learn. It is a verbal haymaker that misses completely. Especially viewed in light of the shortcomings noted above. One can’t take the intellectual high ground while simultaneously making basic errors in punctuation and logic.

The second statement is scarcely better.

Let’s review: (Maybe American neocon-hijacked Republicans feel their liberty threateneed when we take away violence? See, you ARE a troll?!)

Let’s try to wade through this one. Does this mean that everyone in the Department of Homeland Security is a neocon? What exactly is a neocon? Is violence a necessary component of being a neocon? Is the author trying to say that this bill only affects neocons? Are neocons the only groups guilty of violence against Americans? How does the author define violence? Does the Department of Homeland Securities actions, since it’s inception, constitute violence?

I’d be curious to see what everyone thinks. This is my submission as the worst post of 2008.

JeffR

[/quote]

Jeffy, I’ve decided for you to enroll in Urgent Remedial Patriotism 101, mostly 'cause the odium venue you espouse is so deviant.
You are hereby directed to read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Against-All-Enemies-Inside-Americas/dp/3455094783/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200623579&sr=8-2
Yup, Clinton’s man.

74

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Make up your mind, Jeff. Am I a head-in-the-sander, a sideline-sitter, or a jackass?

Anyway, I thought you’d be flattered by my saying that your worldview might become law. Can’t please nobody these days.

varq,

All three, of course.[/quote]

Well, okay, then. As long as we’re clear on that.[quote]

Forgive me for assuming that your “worldview” comment was another attempt at an insult.

It’s your style, and all.[/quote]

Apology accepted.

You know, it should be noted for the record, Jeff, that with the exception of that one time where I compared you unfavorably to Lixy, I have never leveled an ad hominem insult at you, regardless of what I thought of your position. Take that for what it’s worth.[quote]

Now, I’ll accept that my worldview encompasses understanding our enemy, combatting our enemy, and doing our best to protect civil liberties.
[/quote]

I’ll believe the protecting civil liberties part when I see it. As for the rest, I would be very disappointed if this bill, should it become law, accomplishes nothing more than squashing political dissent in the United States, by giving the government a tool to accuse their political enemies of “promoting an extremist ideology”. Time will tell.

75

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice… but it may someday be a felony.

Here we go varq.

I’ll bet you were having orgasms in Philosophy class. Spin and spin, just to spin. All the while, Blue Danube was playing in your head.[/quote]

Actually, the only classes I ever took in the Philosophy department were Logic, and I received an A in all of them.[quote]

What is liberty? Is it doing or saying whatever you want? [/quote]

I like the definition of liberty as the absence of coercion. If I am free to do what I want, and say what I want, without infringing the liberty of my neighbor, then I myself have liberty. All human interaction inevitably involves coercion to some degree, so pure liberty is impossible, but we take what we can get.

Practically speaking, however, a person cannot detonate a bomb in shopping mall, or yell “fire” in a crowded theater, without violating the liberty, and indeed the lives, of other people, so obviously he is not at liberty to do these things.[quote]

Maybe American Islamic radicals feel their liberty threatened when we take away violence.

Would you object to that.[/quote]

I would not object to preventing Islamic radicals from actually perpetrating violence. If I thought this bill would be effective in accomplishing that goal, then I might support it. As I mentioned previously, though, I do not believe its use will be confined to monitoring the activities of Islamic radicals, but rather used as an all-purpose blunt instrument to quell political dissent, by branding dissenters as “dangerous extremists” and “radicals”.[quote]

What is extremism?

I have my own definition of both. However, so does everyone else.[/quote]

Precisely. And the problem is, should this bill become law, the government’s definition will be the only approved one. This may not bother you if Rudy Giuliani is elected, but if the good guys lose (and they still may) do you really want Hillary Clinton and her ilk deciding who is an extremist?

76

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Make up your mind, Jeff. Am I a head-in-the-sander, a sideline-sitter, or a jackass?

Anyway, I thought you’d be flattered by my saying that your worldview might become law. Can’t please nobody these days.

varq,

All three, of course.

Well, okay, then. As long as we’re clear on that.

Forgive me for assuming that your “worldview” comment was another attempt at an insult.

It’s your style, and all.

Apology accepted.

You know, it should be noted for the record, Jeff, that with the exception of that one time where I compared you unfavorably to Lixy, I have never leveled an ad hominem insult at you, regardless of what I thought of your position. Take that for what it’s worth.[/quote]

varq,

You and I both know that comparing me to lixy is about the worst insult you could have leveled. Think about it, I spend a considerable amount of time thinking about and planning for attacks from his friends. Terrorism is never far from my mind.

Therefore, I could insult you once a day for two years and I’d still be the wronged party.

All in all, I’ve been kind to you.

[quote]Now, I’ll accept that my worldview encompasses understanding our enemy, combatting our enemy, and doing our best to protect civil liberties.

I’ll believe the protecting civil liberties part when I see it. As for the rest, I would be very disappointed if this bill, should it become law, accomplishes nothing more than squashing political dissent in the United States, by giving the government a tool to accuse their political enemies of “promoting an extremist ideology”. Time will tell.[/quote]

It may surprise you to hear me say that I agree with this. However, I have more faith in our system than you apparently do. I believe we need to understand our enemy.

JeffR

77

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Think about it, I spend a considerable amount of time thinking about and planning for attacks from his friends. Terrorism is never far from my mind.
…

Now, I’ll accept that my worldview encompasses understanding our enemy, combatting our enemy, and doing our best to protect civil liberties.
…

It may surprise you to hear me say that I agree with this. However, I have more faith in our system than you apparently do. I believe we need to understand our enemy.

JeffR

[/quote]

So, are you law enforcement? Do you work for Homeland Security? I hate to be mean, but you seem paranoid and overly concerned about terrorism. You’re probably more likely to be killed by a carjacker.

78

This is wonderful!!!

This guys’ posts are a treasure trove. I, for one, am thrilled that he keeps posting.

I urge everyone to evaluate these posts in detail.

As you read, I suggest everyone grab a DSM-IV and try to uncover this author’s mental illness.

Let’s get started!!!

[quote]limbic wrote:
Jeffy, you sound like a babbling old man.[/quote]

Notice how the author makes generalizations and guesses incorrectly at the same time. Further, the author seems to misunderstand what “babbling” refers to. “babbling” usually denotes incoherence or speaking without purpose. Everyone can plainly see that “babbling” does not accurately describe my previous post.

[quote]The role you and your fellow defenders of the present administration play on this forum is exactly analogous to that of al-Qaida’s in Pakistan.
To disrupt the lives of good Pakistanis (Americans) with impossible violence to their future.[/quote]

It’s hard to contain my glee when I read something like this. It’s so wrong, that it’s hard to know where to begin. First, of all the author’s comparison between al-qaida and Administration supporters is completely baffling. When you throw in the incomprehensible comment, “impossible violence to their future,” you
wonder what the author is trying to assert. One can’t help wondering if “babbling” is a more apt description of this particular author.

What a thing of beauty. I think the author is intent upon throwing in little catch phrases that have stuck in his brain.

I wonder if the author realizes that the Administration’s support comes from a diverse socioeconomic strata. In fact, I’ve heard hillbilly bandied around as often as elitist when discussing Republican voters.

Not to mention that the author couldn’t or hasn’t bothered to learn how to spell the word elitist properly.

Further, the author is going to have to produce some evidence that the majority of the 60,000,000+ 2004 Republican voters have received a dime from supporting the Administration.

In fact, I think it’s fair to say that most of them, in some way or another, will eventually have to pay more due to their support. Deficit reduction will have to be undertaken by all.

I guessed right! After the “elitist” tag-line comes “Dick Cheney.” I’ll bet “Halliburton”, “Bush Lied Everyone Died”, or “Bush stole the election” is right around the corner.

I want to thank the author for this enlightening experience. I truly look forward to your next post.
It isn’t often that mental derangement is so clearly and purely demonstrated. I think we can all learn from your illness. If nothing else, this should allow people to spot the signs with more accuracy.

Finally, I’d be interested in figuring what mental illness or illnesses this author has.

JeffR

79

So the reason for the War Between the States was slavery? Well, sort of.

First off, slavery was not a unique American institution, contrary to widespread popular belief. It has been around for forever and the US has the distinction of being the only country to fight a war with the professed aim of ending it. Yes your quotes are right, that is what most people believed at the time.

Now, I have a better question for you all:

Why is it that people after millenia of slavery decided that it was such a bad thing? This happened in very short order. In particular, the rejection of slavery is a decidedly Western phenomenon – it still persists in many locations throughout the world. (Sharia has a large and complete set of slave laws. A Chinese friend of mine was raised with slaves in her household and they were only technically freed in the 1960’s.)

I’ll tell you why and you won’t like it. Technology. Machines don’t run away, don’t have to be fed and clothed and are tireless. Much money was tied up in slavery in the antebellum South. A slave was roughly akin in wealth to owning a car, in that s/he was the second largest investment after a home. If you have 10 slaves you were very rich indeed. But their value declined steeply starting in the 1830’s (Arrival of railroads and steam power). By the 1850’s the South was in an almost relentless economic Depression. A great deal of money was tied up in slaves who were rapidly becoming economic liabilities.

The North could take the moral high ground precisely because they had no slaves. The South could not get rid of them without almost complete economic collapse. Lincoln wisely saw that the fate of the Union was in unity (I’m a Southerner and yes, the man was right). The South fought the war to stop modernity, this is why they could make what seem like bizarre statements (to us) about preserving their way of life and such.

One final thought: Slavery was vanquished by machinery. What if all those gadgets go away? Given the long and ubiquitous history of the institution, I posit that it would return. Traditionally selling oneself or one’s children into slavery is a way to settle debts.**

Look at the rise of the feudal system in Europe. At the end of the Roman Empire the citizens had land, but also a lack of central government (=safety from barbarians) as well as grinding poverty meant that more and more of them turned over their land to local strongmen. The strongmen became the nobility, the citizens ended up as serfs on what had been their own property. This is just one example of a case where giving up one’s freedom becomes much more attractive than retaining it. If history is any guide, a collapse of society would have slavery and serfdom not far behind.

Cheers,

– jj

** ok, one final comment. What makes us all cringe about American slavery is that it was exclusively Black. Other cultures enslave each other more or less equally. So the question arises about how with all those professed Rights of Man did Blacks get the shaft so bad? Isn’t that proof of the hypocrisy of the whole system? Well, no. You see this was before Darwin (Origin of Species published in 1859) and the thinking was that there were multiple acts of creation attested to in the Bible (“on the first day He created…”) Therefore, Blacks were created separately (no the Bible is mum on this, I’m just recounting the historical thinking) and were not human, ergo, Human Rights did not apply. So the question was “who’s human.” Darwin’s book shattered that. Not to be outdone, Racists got busily to work in the 1880’s and tried to erect a more scientific version of it. Popular myth has it that Darwinism proves Blacks, Asians and anyone you don’t like are inferior, but it was actually multiple Creationism that was the justification for denying Blacks their due.

Weirdly enough a lot of Native Americans are clamoring that their Creation stories be taught on an equal footing with Evolution. They are getting support from a lot of right wing Creationists and radical feminists (who want to preach that everything was a Matriarchy once). If only they knew…

80

[quote]JeffR wrote:
varq,

You and I both know that comparing me to lixy is about the worst insult you could have leveled. Think about it, I spend a considerable amount of time thinking about and planning for attacks from his friends. Terrorism is never far from my mind.

Therefore, I could insult you once a day for two years and I’d still be the wronged party.

All in all, I’ve been kind to you.[/quote]

Jeff, if you ever have a spare minute or two, you should re-read that old “Fear Wins” thread. I had almost forgotten what a classic thread that was, on so many levels. Anyway, it turns out that I wasn’t the one who compared you to Lixy, and in fact I protested that you and he are diametrical opposites.

Granted, my statement was not intended to be a compliment to you, but as far as comparing you to Lixy, my hands are clean.

Doesn’t surprise me in the least. You are a reasonable fellow, after all.[quote]

However, I have more faith in our system than you apparently do. I believe we need to understand our enemy. [/quote]

Oh, absolutely. I studied Russian throughout the 80s so that I could better understand the people who were, at the time, our enemies. My only worry is that we may soon enough come to learn the truth of Walt Kelly’s words: “we have met the enemy, and he is us.”