On Freedom of Speech

[The Captain]

"The Captain -- Even if half of those links are too old for you to think valid (not like that matters anyway), you've still got to consider that half are true. Either way, he's made his point."

That doesn't make sense to me. When something has outdated information, isn't it time to disgard it?

My point is that the 9/11 Commission disagrees with the belief that there is a link, and no amount of websites can overturn that decision as it was a bipartisan investigation made by the government.

Take care all.

[Sasquatch]

My point is that the 9/11 Commission disagrees with the belief that there is a link, and no amount of websites can overturn that decision as it was a bipartisan investigation made by the government.

I see. And since Operation Iraqi Freedom was voted on in Congress and passed through both Democrats and Republicans, nobody can say that was wrong too, right? Or did absolutely no Democrats vote for that? Or did they all vote for it, before they voted against it?

[The Captain]

What does that have to do with the 9/11 Commission?

Take care all.

[Sasquatch]

Nothing, it has to do with the idea that because the government said it's true, it must be true and nothing else anybody says against it can be true.

You still didn't mention that the 9/11 Commission didn't look into a Saddam/Al-Queda connection. They found no link between Saddam and the September 11 attacks, which nobody was claiming anyway.

[The Captain]

You may want to read the report, as it does state several times that there is no working link between the two, not during 9/11, nor any other time that they could find credible sources for.

"Nothing, it has to do with the idea that because the government said it's true, it must be true and nothing else anybody says against it can be true"

So, in using that logic, why should we believe it when the government says there is a link?

So, you're saying you don't always trust your government either? Good, I'm glad we agree there.

Don't misunderstand me, I respect your beliefs, I try to see and understand your side by looking over the evidence provided. I only ask the very same in return.

Take care all.

[nik0tine]

And I never said that Christians worship Mary. Catholics do (I have a problem with Catholicism).

You do not understand Catholicism. Period.

On to your next post...I never said that liberals can't be Christians. I just said that many liberal stances are non-Christian

Oh please. You need to re read your bible. Welfare is an anti christian idea? I always though Jesus was in favor of helping people.

It seems to me that Republican ideology is anti christian. (aside from the anti abortion stance) Jesus certainly doesn't support the death penalty. Im not sure Jesus would be a big fan of big business either. He's most certainly not a fan of war.

I know Jesus believed in tolerance, compassion, and kindness. Also, what makes you think that "equal rights" are not a christian ideal? You CANNOT apply this logic to anything other than women. It also makes no sense to me why Jesus wouldn't be supportive of more freedom as opposed to limited freedom.

[ShunNakamura]

nik0tine I think where some people get jesus as being for the death penality is the old "eye for an eye" or some such.. or at least I always get refered to the nearest bible when someone mentions that phrase so I am guessing it is in there... I may have read some of the bible.. but that is pretty dull reading.. and I never did finish.. maybe I should re-reread it.

Anyways i probably wouldn't recall anything from it after a few years.. so I don't know if I should bother.. I pick up quite a bit of bible-lore from other sources.

[nik0tine]

If you believe in the bible, jesus most certainly would NOT stand for the eye for an eye philosophy.

[lordblazer]

nik0tine I think where some people get jesus as being for the death penality is the old "eye for an eye" or some such.. or at least I always get refered to the nearest bible when someone mentions that phrase so I am guessing it is in there... I may have read some of the bible.. but that is pretty dull reading.. and I never did finish.. maybe I should re-reread it.

Anyways i probably wouldn't recall anything from it after a few years.. so I don't know if I should bother.. I pick up quite a bit of bible-lore from other sources.

yeah thats an insult jesus would never do htat.Just idiots.Why does jesus oppose the death penalty like most christains should!!!! Because Jesus was an innocent man who felll pray to the death penalty.He died on Friday.Rose today.

The ye for an eye philosophy is none other than Hammurabi's doing.You should read some of his laws they were really really really crazy.

[CloudSquallandZidane]

Since you mentioned the NAACP...I got some news for you. You don't have to be white to be racist. The NAACP is much a bunch of racists as the KKK is--not as extreme, no, but that doesn't mean they're not racist. (Could you imagine there being a KKK scholarship or grant given out only to white high school seniors? That wouldn't fly at all. But a NAACP grant meant only for black seniors, that's not racism, that's "equality", right?) I won't say that the NAACP is more racist than the KKK, or that it was founded upon the same principles, because that'd be wrong. The KKK wasn't founded for the advancement of its own race, it was founded to hinder the advancement of other races. There was a time when the NAACP was needed, and it was much needed. But that time has passed, and the NAACP's usefulness with it. There's a difference in "looking out for your own" to try to get everybody a fair share, and "looking out for your own" because "your people" have been "oppressed" for "thousands of years" by "my people" and I need to pay for it now. Equal rights, I'm all for. Affirmative Action, NAACP, that's racist, and it is no more right than the KKK saying we should keep all blacks down "in their places".

And the government recognizing a marriage doesn't just mean they have to pay higher taxes. It means they can claim each other on their insurance, all their benefits, it means they're considered "family", it means a lot more than just more tax money.

Well its the NAACP's money, why cant they give it to whoever they want??? IF the KKK decides to give away scholarships, its their money let them give it to whoever they want. An who said it was about "equality", National Association for the Advancement of Coloered People, that basically excludes white people, though it includes more races than the NAACP currently represents. That means they are specifically trying to advance black people in todays soiety, bcause they dont feel that we are equal yet. I definately wouldnt put them in the category as the KKK, not even close.

I totally agree on the second part, its about alot more than just money its about being recognized as a family in todays society, both moraly and legally.

(*Change subject*)

The old testiment doesnt say the death penalty is wrong though, Jesus may have disagreed.

And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death and he be put to death and thou hang him from a tree.

(*Change Subject*)
About the ACLU, well theres this clause called "Seperation of Church and State", that doesnt mean sometimes, or most of the time, or occasionally, thats means ALL the time. NO specific religion is to be honored.

[Sasquatch]

The Captain -- "So, in using that logic, why should we believe it when the government says there is a link?"

I was using your logic. I don't agree with it. Did you not catch the sarcasm there?

nik0tine -- "You do not understand Catholicism. Period....Oh please. You need to re read your bible. Welfare is an anti christian idea?...Jesus certainly doesn't support the death penalty....Also, what makes you think that "equal rights" are not a christian ideal?"

First of all, I have read my Bible backwards and forwards, so I would suggest that you would not make an attempt to comment on my supposed "ignorance" of anything in it, especially when you quite often do not know or understand the Bible yourself....That being said, I would not doubt a bit that I understand Catholicism more than you do, seeing as I used to be Catholic. Catholics pray to Mary, and that's not from the Bible, that's from the church. Catholicism does that quite often, which is why I have a problem with it. If you don't understand that, you can look into it, but I know better....The idea of stealing money from one class of citizens to give to another is completely different than charity and "helping people". Nobody mentioned the death penalty, but if it makes you feel any better, the only reason I support it is because our justice system is severely flawed and it keeps those convicts from getting out and killing again, which has happened many, many times. As for "equal" rights...See how I put quotation marks around "equal"? See, that would reflect some type of sarcasm. As in, liberals don't fight for equal rights anymore, they fight for special rights for select groups of minorities while ignoring white males. And nobody that knows what they're talking about can disagree with that--minorities and females have more chances for everything in America than do white males. Equal rights, yes, that wouldn't conflict with Christianity at all, but the "equality" that liberals are fighting for has nothing to do with actual equality.

CloudSquallandZidane -- "Well its the NAACP's money, why cant they give it to whoever they want??? IF the KKK decides to give away scholarships, its their money let them give it to whoever they want....About the ACLU, well theres this clause called "Seperation of Church and State"..."

Because it's not just the NAACP's money, it's taxpayer's money. If the NAACP never got a cent from the government and ran completely off charity, it wouldn't be as much of an issue. Plus, they are an influential part of society, and you know as well as I do that a KKK scholarship would NEVER be given out in a public, government, tax-funded school system, because it's too discriminatory. Discriminate against white people, that's fine, but against blacks, that's evil and racist. Here's something for you--it's the KKK's money, why can't they use it to buy firearms, then register them and give them to white people in highly black communities? Would that not be a little racist? Necessary, maybe, but still...

And about the clause you mentioned...it's called the Establishment Clause. And don't feel bad because you don't understand it or know much about it, you fit right in with most people here. Tell you what--why don't you go to a site with the Constitution on it, look up the Establishment Clause, and then come back and tell me what it really says about separation of church and state? Because it doesn't say church and state should be kept separate at all, it only says that the government cannot establish a state religion.

[The Captain]

That still doesn't answer the point that the 9/11 Commission found no evidence of a link.

Take care all.

[Sasquatch]

Because there was no link between Saddam and 9/11.

Could you post a credible source that says the 9/11 Commission actually researched possible connections between Saddam and Al-Queda, and found none at all? (And if you expect me to believe something from a news source you quote, I would also expect you to believe my source, even if it's from Fox News.)

[The Captain]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

After you click on this link, click on "public report" and then "Complete 9/11 Commission Report" and it should come up. It's a long read, though.

Hope that helps.

Take care all.

[Sasquatch]

This is 585 pages. Could you point to a page, or a section, that mentions the lack of a connection between Saddam and Al-Queda?