Spring RTS Engine

Actually it's only fair to give due to the true originators of what is assumed to be a Hitler-first: In Yemen, Christians and Jews were required to wear distinctive hats and clothing in order to be easily identified in the streets.

reminder that jewish ghettos were mandated by law in many christian countries for a long period of time.

On average more straight people have anal sex than gay people. A lot of gay men have never had anal sex and have no intention of ever trying it.

And Gay sex and gay relationships have been going on in the animal kingdom for millions if not hundreds of millions of years. Human sexuality is not a black and white 3 way line of straight bi and gay.

But I'm not going to be pulled in any further by homophobic trolling.

and I'm surprised those people who got into the qur'an/Bible/Torah kill the heathens thing are actually bothering to debate it, or that they even got sucked into it

AF wrote:and I'm surprised those people who got into the qur'an/Bible/Torah kill the heathens thing are actually bothering to debate it, or that they even got sucked into it

fun exercise. something to do.

oh also talking about homphobia listen to "christian and a homo" here
http://www.myspace.com/charliecheckm

AF wrote:and I'm surprised

Don't be. It's the entire reason the xenophobic party is even on the radar in your country. It's a natural reaction to the current state of affairs, thanks to your political elite. There are no representatives here in America from any such fringe parties like reform, green, constitution, libertarian, whatever. It's because the powers here are much more reasonable as a result of more checks and balances.

CarRepairer wrote:Don't be. It's the entire reason the xenophobic party is even on the radar in your country. It's a natural reaction to the current state of affairs, thanks to your political elite. There are no representatives here in America from any such fringe parties like reform, green, constitution, libertarian, whatever. It's because the powers here are much more reasonable as a result of more checks and balances.

i always hope your political posts are an elaborate troll, especially as you're so amusing outside of them

tombom wrote:

CarRepairer wrote:Don't be. It's the entire reason the xenophobic party is even on the radar in your country. It's a natural reaction to the current state of affairs, thanks to your political elite. There are no representatives here in America from any such fringe parties like reform, green, constitution, libertarian, whatever. It's because the powers here are much more reasonable as a result of more checks and balances.

i always hope your political posts are an elaborate troll, especially as you're so amusing outside of them

Instead of the above response, why don't you instead tell me what it is you disagree with in what you quoted.

CarRepairer wrote:Instead of the above response, why don't you instead tell me what it is you disagree with in what you quoted.

you don't think both parties, especially republicans, play on xenophobic fears? you think it's a bad thing to have a two party system where everyone else is kept out the political discourse? both parties contain politicians that share the politics of a "fringe" party, anyway.

i also think it's funny to imply that these "fringe" parties" are somehow all extreme.

It only makes sense that most european countries would be more prawn to xenophobia than the US just from looking at their history and population compositions along the years.
Correct me if im wrong but in the UK,for example, there are more cultural anchors than just the desire to live under a democracy as oppose to the US which is comprised of immigrants and it's goal was to be the center of immigration to live under a democracy not constrained by monarchy and aristocracy.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with limiting immigration.
A country is a defined being that belongs to it's people and those people can decide they don't want to accept immigrants at all or unless they meet certain criteria.

tombom wrote:

CarRepairer wrote:Instead of the above response, why don't you instead tell me what it is you disagree with in what you quoted.

you don't think both parties, especially republicans, play on xenophobic fears? you think it's a bad thing to have a two party system where everyone else is kept out the political discourse? both parties contain politicians that share the politics of a "fringe" party, anyway.

i also think it's funny to imply that these "fringe" parties" are somehow all extreme.

I think he meant that the success of such a party is the result of a mismanagement of some sort which bothers a substantial group of people.

KaiserJ wrote:

Most people make fun of gays and find them either sick, stupid or weird.

no.

Fu gay.

tombom wrote: i was meaning generally historically. note that muslims and jews in most catholic countries would have been treated far worse than just being treated as second-class citizens and taxed higher. the ottoman empire was a fucking model of tolerance compared to every single european country for a very long time.

Until the Young Turk came to power, and the outskirts began to fear the kourbash. But yes, correct... for an exceedingly long time, the Ottoman Empire was positively humanitarian.

As for why there are no other parties, it has nothing to do with reason and everything to do with a lack of foresight in this particular element of the structure. None of the founders desired a two party system, there are no real benefits to a two party system beyond naive periodic stability, and neither party effectively represents most people. They are coalition parties, and in governance function much as any ruling coalition of parties might in a proportionally representative state... through ineffective internal compromise. However, in a multi-party state there can be shifts, parties are not informally bound to one another, there can be political change and meaningful political discourse. See the activities of the semi-recently reconstructed Canadian government, watch the active discussions of British Parliament, or weigh the affiliations of the Maori party in the present NZ government. There is so much more that is done, a more encompassing and nuanced discourse, and better blocks on the expression of partisan power. Here your affiliation locks you into a political funding bind, and breaking ranks puts you at the mercy of a proto-governmental body who defines your party support. We've just added layers of inflexibility and corruption... and for what, so a group of people can rule for a set period of time virtually uncontested? Conflict and adversity breed better policy, why should our representatives not be expected to represent us, why should our government not answer to us?

AF wrote:and I'm surprised those people who got into the qur'an/Bible/Torah kill the heathens thing are actually bothering to debate it, or that they even got sucked into it

Yeah pretty much what tombom said. I doubt anyone here honestly gives a shit. ...[not ok in an international moderated community]...

Yes some "muslims" are highly educated, but being highly educated doesn't mean that you aren't an idiot. Muslims also tend to be hardcore zealots, and the ones that aren't, tend to be the "I say I follow it but don't actually adhere to that much of it" variety (many people that say they perscribe to a religion don't actually follow it to the letter so that isn't particularly surprising. Religious nuts of all kinds tend to throw common sense completely out the window. The difference between a nut and a believe is simple the fact that the nut will not allow for any leeway except what he believes, whereas the believer will happily debate you on a topic.

Christians tend to ahve some rather ingrained ideals, but none of them involve terrorism and out and out murder, therefore, automagically christians are higher on the foodchain of common sense. Every religion has a very bloody past, that's the nature of religion. Also, people will use religion as a way to grab power, also the nature of the beast. That doesn't mean the ideals of a religion are bad. If you are well read on christianity you will find no purer form of living (not saying that because it's "pure" that it is the only thing worth going for), but becasue the bible is what it is, people who have never studied it will tend to make false claims because they know nothing of the background of which they are speaking.

For example, in the bible, the old testament is more of a historical record than anything, because so many of the "laws" got thrown out the window when jesus died on the cross. As an example, you can rip out leveticus (Spelling? translated, it means "Law") and deutoronomy (or however the fuck that shit is spelled) and wipe your ass with them and you won't miss anything. Where the real and modern doctorine of christianity starts is in the new testament (beginning with matthew -- skip over the first chapter unless you like geneologies).

In the days of the old testament, the israelites were bound by very specific laws, including animal sacrifices blood on goats and a number of other really really weird shits. As mentioned before, when jesus died on the cross, he died for the sins of all mankind, therefore salvation is no longer a property that only the jews can possess (which btw, didn't set well with the saducees (spelling?) and pharasees (spelling again), and is one reason why so many of the "real" christians were martyred (Stephen being the first of the lot)).

One of the things mentioned in the bible is that after jesus was crucified, the high priest did the goat thing (ribbion dipped in blood tied around a goats neck HYAHH!, if the goat came back with a white ribbon their sins were forgiven), and the goat came back with a red ribbion, signifying that sacrifice and all the old shit was no longer the way to salvation. As jesus said, the way to salvation is through me, and he meant it quite literally (me being God, the son, holy spirit, etc).

To clarify, in christianity (remember that christianity was not a religion as such until the crucifiction (spelling... of course -- there's an x in there somewhere)) until jesus died for the world's sins, it was not possible for anyone who was not a jew to obtain salvation.

Yes christianity has a very bloody past, but many religions have had horrible acts carried out in it's name, that doesn't mean that that religion is a sponsor of such acts.

Now, relating christianity and the the muslim faith... Last time I checked, the bible has nothing even similar to convert of be killed in it (new testament), which automatically make me step back, raise an eyebrow and say "What in the fuck"? The Quran has some pretty bogus (bogus as in wtf, not bogus as in bullshit (though that is very debateable) shit in it.

Long story short, there isn't much to fear from christianity when compared to islam.

Edit: If you ever get seriously bored, do some studying in christian theology, in many ways it's quite fascinating.

The only thing that interests me about religion is how it effected major world events.

Gota wrote:The only thing that interests me about religion is how it effected major world events.

Oi, that'll be a lot of reading. Pretty much every decade of human development has been hugely affected/effected by religion.

yeah, no thanks. BTW It's worth mentioning that by "Pure" I was speaking from a "Completely Idealistic" standpoint.

penis cocks

I consider muslims to be a subclass of people (based upon common sense and education).

Pardon?

Yes some "muslims" are highly educated, but being highly educated doesn't mean that you aren't an idiot.

Cute.

Yes christianity has a very bloody past, but many religions have had horrible acts carried out in it's name, that doesn't mean that that religion is a sponsor of such acts.

heh

and yes i do understand christian theology to a certain (obviously limited) degree. you realise that jihad doesn't just refer to violence, it simply means a struggle to become a better muslim? you realise that hadiths are not considered the word of god? you realise that they are simply words of muhammed, said, conicidentally enough, during wartime? i mean seriously, i'm still not sure quite what you mean by being a "subclass" of human, but i'm pretty sure you're not just meaning innocuous categorisation.

Great Britain is no longer Great, the whole place is drowning in a sea of politically correct bullshit, it has horrible immigration policies, it's soft as shit on criminals, we can't even supply our own troops in Afghanistan with decent equipment, knife crime and violence increasing everywhere, we try send over 2000 70 - 80 year old gurkahs back to nepal, after they valiantly served our country in the 2nd world war and every conflict since,
I swear if I ever saw Gordon Brown I'd punch him right in the face, whole government is a load of useless wankers,

None of this bullshit would've happened under Maggie or Churchill, I left Britain 2 years ago, and I'm proud to be British, but all I can say now is good riddance, and get out while you still can!

BNP proably couldn't do a worse job that Labour have already done.

Anyway, rant over... yay Canada! :)