benhon3:

And YOU sound like someone who cannot follow a thread. I have to back up my position because its posters like you who can't comprehend a position I have taken on an issue. I want you to read this complete thread. I have NOT ONCE argued that the original post was a fabrication. I have NOT ONCE argued against the poster who told me that this was not an original speech.

I have taken the position on the context and content of the message. It is you who has backed himself in a corner after this blatantly plain explanation that I have given. And still, you don't get it. Why don't you go and have a doughnut. Maybe you can understand that.

And now you sound like a whining ass braying for its hay or a spoiled child whose logic has been overrun by the simplest argument because you didn't understand the "big words" but just kept on foolishly braying.

Both of you are arguing to hear yourself argue, and have become quite laughable. You've both run into a wall because I got an idea off of a post - which admittedly was fabricated - that would make a good basis for addressing fanatical groups.

I think both of you should think about the religous intolerance and the consequences it has and can have in this country. I'm talking about the religous right, the Islamic extremists, and whatever other groups are out there that threaten death and destruction to those who don't believe in the same god as they. As it so happens, the Islamic extremists seem to be footing this bill quite heavily as of late.

There is no misunderstanding on my part about this. My message to such people who think this way and want to decimate others in the name of their god is they aren't welcome here. If you want freedom, you must give freedom; religous zealots are counter to that.

benhon3:

Both of you are arguing to hear yourself argue, and have become quite laughable. You've both run into a wall because I got an idea off of a post - which admittedly was fabricated - that would make a good basis for addressing fanatical groups.

I think both of you should think about the religous intolerance and the consequences it has and can have in this country. I'm talking about the religous right, the Islamic extremists, and whatever other groups are out there that threaten death and destruction to those who don't believe in the same god as they. As it so happens, the Islamic extremists seem to be footing this bill quite heavily as of late.

There is no misunderstanding on my part about this. My message to such people who think this way and want to decimate others in the name of their god is they aren't welcome here. If you want freedom, you must give freedom; religous zealots are counter to that.

I'm an atheist so I am well away of the danger Christianity poses to this country as does Judaism and Islam. The perverted concept that a certain people are 'chosen' or are the 'peacemakers' or are the 'faithful' and fully accept that they believe it is their unholy gods to entitle them with the honor of killing thousands of innocent lives because they are infidels sends me back to a time of unbridled barbarism that is nearly inconcievable in it brutality...and it continues in the middle east as we speak. And they accuse us of the same in addition to supporting Israel. Funny how Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have their roots in what is called the Old Testament as children of Abraham. And they call the middle east "The Holy Land". I nearly vomit with disgust every time I think of them and their bullshit gods.

I will not be satisfied until war is declared and waged on Saudi Arabia for the horrific crimes on 9-11-2001. I won't hold my breath.

Agreed. I am a firm believer of seperation of church and state, and am quite upset how democracy has been sacrificed at the behest of institutionalized religion. Many argue that the re-election of Bush had nothing to do with galvanizing the christian right. I disagree with that. I can hear Rove right now, several years ago : 'We cannot win on merit so we better hang a strawman....'

And I wouldn't hold my breath on Saudi Arabia, either. As long as Big Oil holds the reins on middle east policy and American economic policy Americans will be fed red herrings.

I am not arguing. I am stating a fact. It is manipulative and dishonest to pass off a ficticious article as truth. It it intellectually lazy to use made up words to support your position. Try getting away with that anywhere but by email and on blogs and you would be fired.

The fact that you persist in defending your indefensible action tells me alot about the sub-culture of mostly conservatives who keep passing his crap around.

Manipulative. Dishonest. Lazy.

Another thing. My belief in God is personal, and between me and Him. I have no patience or reverance for someone who wears a cloth and thumps a bible and tells me I'm going to hell for being a sinner, or for someone who calls me an infidel and that they are going to some paradise and be awarded 32 virgins if they smite me.

Round and round we go. I have no intention of passing the original article off as truth, and I have not argued that it is not a fabrication since that was pointed out. I have capitulated on this, but you either refuse to see that or won't.

I don't even need one shread of the article to defend my stance. Give me a venue, and I'll shout it out on a loudspeaker that murdering in the name of a god is not godly but self-rationalized homicide.

Religous fanaticism of any stripe is rooted in the wars and destruction this civilization has seen since the beginning, and I will not be afraid to tell that to any mullah or priest; they have no more right than I do to exist on this planet.

My position is firm, and I will fight to the death on it if needed. I rest my case.

benhon3:

Another thing. My belief in God is personal, and between me and Him. I have no patience or reverance for someone who wears a cloth and thumps a bible and tells me I'm going to hell for being a sinner, or for someone who calls me an infidel and that they are going to some paradise and be awarded 32 virgins if they smite me.

32? I thought it was 72? Gotta account for divine inflation I guess with all these gullible idiots blowing themselves up over there; heaven must be running low on virgins. I wonder where those idiots ever came up with that number? Shit, when I was 16 through 21 I would have dispatched all of their cherries within 72 hours! "Time in heaven is not of the same time of this earth, my son!" [in a George Carlin voice] And what do you do after you've popped them all? Hang around? Eat cous-cous? What?

...pass this fabrication off as factual, Benhon. This is from your original post:

The following was forwarded to me this AM, hence the font. The subject is Australian Prime Minister John Howard's domestic policy view of radical Islam as it pertains to that country:

These are your own words. No where do you say the article is false or even suspect. The problem is, it's not John Howard's policy. Therefore it's a falsehood. Why in the world would you need to support your views with lies? Are your views that difficult to support?

Apparently you do need the article otherwise you would have investigated it and not used it. You were snookered by whoever sent it to you and your laziness and duplicity caused you to pass it on.

When you begin your dialog with a falsehood it diminishes your position and makes others believe you are dishonest. That is why most people don't do it. Not to mention it makes you look like a sucker.