[floatingslowly]

In all honesty, I can't fault this nervous racism that's being displayed. My hatred toward the GODLESS "white mormons" rivals that of anyone's misgivings over "black muslims".

Bytor, my friend, the God of Islam and the God of Christianity are One in the same, yet when mormon's die, and reach the pinacle of Heaven, they pupate into their own God (ie: they, themselves). Mormonism isn't any more "Christian" than Hinduism is. Don't be decieved!

[Rob Instigator]

Mormonism is as "christian" as Scientology.

fuck em all I say.

YOUR RELIGION DOES NOT APPLY TO ME!

[floatingslowly]

I was going to use that analogy as both are equally kookie. Yet I went with a comparison to a religion with greater percieved validity.

That said, if anyone would like a sunday skool lesson on "How Momonism directly compares to the self-worshipping dogmas of Satanism", I'd happily oblige. Please note that the lesson includes a disclaimer that "at least I appreciate the Satanist's honesty".

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

so drown strikes alone weren't enough, the Obama Administration has a fucked up new strategy, double-tap drown strikes where they mimic the suicide bombers tactic of attacking right after a first attack to harm the folks coming to help. Every day I feel more upset to be an American, and yet, I see such good in our communities that I try to hang in there. Compromising with evil is necessary in any society, however in a compromise we should embrace the good aspects while trying to decrease the bad, but it seems so often that in compromises we seem to do the opposite, and minimalize the good while embracing the bad

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

From what I understand, the Iranian regime are scumbags and detestable, they send arms and funds to all kinds of nasty people, basically they are the CIA nemesis of Asia and North Africa

However, that was not the question, the issue is whether or not such scumbags are militarily and economically capable to hold their own, which they are, and as !@#$%! mentioned, are far more important to the regional powers than several Israels combined.

Israel bombing Iran would be the worst possible thing ever, no doubt about it. Israel, unlike America, actually has people who are critical of Right-Wing Israeli policy, so i dont think this will happen.

I would be ok with Iran being a nuclear state if its people were able to vote on the use of those nuclear arms, but they are not. If the religious leaders in Iran decide nuclear weapons are the way to go, the Iranian people cant appeal to the popular consensus to stop it because votes dont mean anything in a theocracy. Much as i dislike right wing Israeli politics and i dislike the idea of a Jewish state, theyre being threatened with annihilation, its something we've seen in the 20th century, and it worries me.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

Israel bombing Iran would be the worst possible thing ever, no doubt about it. Israel, unlike America, actually has people who are critical of Right-Wing Israeli policy, so i dont think this will happen.

.

Truth Rap!

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

I would be ok with Iran being a nuclear state if its people were able to vote on the use of those nuclear arms, but they are not.

Luckily this isn't a problem because they're not a nuclear state and have no intention of being one. That's why they're signed up to the NPT (and actually are pushing not only to end proliferation but start reducing the number of nuclear weapons) unlike Israel, the only nuclear power in the Middle East; and they have always cooperated with the IAEA, unlike Israel and America who refuse to let them inspect their already existing nuclear weapons. And incidentally I live in a "democracy" but I've never been able to vote on whether we have nuclear weapons and how they'll be used.

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

and If the religious leaders in Iran decide nuclear weapons are the way to go,

"Holding these arms is a sin as well as useless, harmful and dangerous" (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei).

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

Much as i dislike right wing Israeli politics and i dislike the idea of a Jewish state, theyre being threatened with annihilation, its something we've seen in the 20th century, and it worries me.

How are they being threatened with annihilation?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Pookie

Luckily this isn't a problem because they're not a nuclear state and have no intention of being one. That's why they're signed up to the NPT (and actually are pushing not only to end proliferation but start reducing the number of nuclear weapons) unlike Israel, the only nuclear power in the Middle East; and they have always cooperated with the IAEA, unlike Israel and America who refuse to let them inspect their already existing nuclear weapons. And incidentally I live in a "democracy" but I've never been able to vote on whether we have nuclear weapons and how they'll be used."Holding these arms is a sin as well as useless, harmful and dangerous" (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei).
How are they being threatened with annihilation?

not a good morning for discussing politics for me (sleepy, need food, about to start watching football) but you make some very good points about the self-appointed privilege of "do as i say, not as i do" existing nuclear powers.

however, even with that in mind, i don't believe a fucking work that comes out of the mouth of any ayatollah-- just like i don't believe a word that comes out of the mouth of bibi netanyahu either. but bibi can be voted out.

the reason israel is "threatened with annihilation" in a nuclear scenario is because it's a tiny country that is easy to wipe out with nukes.

now you could say "nah, no islamic nation would ever fire such weapons so close to their muslim brothers in palestine", but the poor palestinians have a history of always being pawns in someone else's chess game, be that jordan, lebanon/syria, egypt, or someone else. and with that in mind there's always the possibility for some sort of "glorious martyr cause" that could justify nuking them along with the israelis in the name of some glorious religious bullshit.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

not a good morning for discussing politics for me (sleepy, need food, about to start watching football) but you make some very good points about the self-appointed privilege of "do as i say, not as i do" existing nuclear powers.

however, even with that in mind, i don't believe a fucking work that comes out of the mouth of any ayatollah-- just like i don't believe a word that comes out of the mouth of bibi netanyahu either. but bibi can be voted out.

the reason israel is "threatened with annihilation" in a nuclear scenario is because it's a tiny country that is easy to wipe out with nukes.

now you could say "nah, no islamic nation would ever fire such weapons so close to their muslim brothers in palestine", but the poor palestinians have a history of always being pawns in someone else's chess game, be that jordan, lebanon/syria, egypt, or someone else. and with that in mind there's always the possibility for some sort of "glorious martyr cause" that could justify nuking them along with the israelis in the name of some glorious religious bullshit.

It doesn't take nukes to wipe out Israel, it is essentially an entire country that is smaller in geographic area than LA County, a strategic conventional missile strike could easily do just as much damage. The reality is no body wants to annihilate Israel, that would be stupid, Israel has powerful friends, but Israel is always milking the "you left us to die in the holocaust" card to push peoples' sympathies to support even their more racist and bigoted policies against Arabs (and even Ethiopian Jews who have become the niggers of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv)

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

the reason israel is "threatened with annihilation" in a nuclear scenario is because it's a tiny country that is easy to wipe out with nukes.

Most small countries can be annihilated with nuclear weapons. My point was that nobody IS threatening to annihilate them.

EDIT: Pretty much what Suchfriends has just said in fact!

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

on a related note (to Democrats, not Israeli issues), I just watched a women crying because she is afraid to lose her "right" to an abortion. What a shameful thing to cry about, personally, I cry because so many women are so brainwashed by fear to disregard the most sacred thing in their lives, children. Children are our future, and we as human beings rarely understand our present moment, let alone the future, but the way folks are rallying around abortion is literally disgusting to me. Pap smears and breast exams I can understand, condoms and birth control too, but abortion isn't exactly a polite thing to rally around

all the more why "I am afraid of Americans."

9 out 10 women who had an abortion express regret. Several have suggested that if they had thought about it a bit longer, they would have not got it. The Democrats say, "See this is why we need unabated abortions, because any restriction stops women." Perhaps we NEED women to think twice about such a life changing event and what is in all honesty a dangerous surgical procedure. Think about how many women in the world die giving birth. Why does this happen? Many times it is because of infections which are caused by the dilation of the cervix, and in this regard, abortion has the same potential for harm. Women SHOULD think carefully and perhaps wait a day or too.. Its bad enough we have abortion in this country, but alas we do, at the least couldn't we have it more regulated? You can't even buy an extra large soda pop in Manhattan, but a 14 year old girl can walk in with an assumed name and get an abortion no questions asked. If that SAME girl walked into a hospital and asked for a surgical procedure to have cervical polyps removed (which can cause cancer and severe illness and the surgical procedure is almost identical as abortion) the doctor would NEVER give perform that surgery without parental consent out of fear from lawsuits.

Like Bill Clinton said, "Abortion should be SAFE and legal, but it should be rare." Part of safety should include a 24-48 hour waiting period, and an adults-only policy, teenage girls are not emotionally mature enough to go at it alone, and it is embarrassing how many people assume that they should

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

on a related note (to Democrats, not Israeli issues), I just watched a women crying because she is afraid to lose her "right" to an abortion. What a shameful thing to cry about, personally, I cry because so many women are so brainwashed by fear to disregard the most sacred thing in their lives, children. Children are our future, and we as human beings rarely understand our present moment, let alone the future, but the way folks are rallying around abortion is literally disgusting to me. Pap smears and breast exams I can understand, condoms and birth control too, but abortion isn't exactly a polite thing to rally around

all the more why "I am afraid of Americans."


Like Bill Clinton said, "Abortion should be SAFE and legal, but it should be rare." Part of safety should include a 24-48 hour waiting period, and an adults-only policy, teenage girls are not emotionally mature enough to go at it alone, and it is embarrassing how many people assume that they should

[fugazifan]

Men should only be allowed to talk about abortions once single mothers receive subsadies, get free medical treatment for their pregnancies, safe contraception and safe sex is taught in schools, and safe forms of contraception are provided at little to no cost.

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

on a related note (to Democrats, not Israeli issues), I just watched a women crying because she is afraid to lose her "right" to an abortion. ...etc(

Suchfriends, I agree with you a majority of the time. But when you get it wrong, you get it soooo wrong.

I think you show your ignorance shaped by 1) being a man (Fugazifan said it best) and 2) that dumb religion of your's.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Pookie

Suchfriends, I agree with you a majority of the time. But when you get it wrong, you get it soooo wrong.

I think you show your ignorance shaped by 1) being a man (Fugazifan said it best) and 2) that dumb religion of your's.

Excuse me but when did I exactly say to prohibit all abortion? Be sensible people, I am talking about restrictions on abortion such as age-requirments and waiting periods, reasonable compromises aren't they?

(A) the overwhelming majority of people in my life both growing up and at this exact moment as I type this are women

(b) My religion has nothing to do with it, that is just my gut reaction to something so ugly. Even Democrats traditionally haven't been so vocal about this issue because it is inherently divisive.

You are free to disagree with me, but I feel it is an ugly thing to build a platform around. Again, reproductive health issues are one thing, unabated abortion is another.

I am far from a Republican about this, and if anything, I would criticize them all the more for being open hypocrites and exploiting many people's (bi-partisan across the aisle) feelings about it when they really plan to do nothing.

Further, it is not smart for "Democrats" to demonize or vilify religion, believe it or not, an impressive majority of Americans would be offended at that. America isn't exactly an atheist country yet, so folks should be mutually polite. Again, my feelings about abortion have NOTHING to do with my religion, they are just my gut reaction to the situation.

Originally Posted by fugazifan

Men should only be allowed to talk about abortions once single mothers receive subsadies, get free medical treatment for their pregnancies, safe contraception and safe sex is taught in schools, and safe forms of contraception are provided at little to no cost.

I could agree with this in many regards, and I would feel that abortion aside you are absolutely right about what you have proposed there. Of course I have to say that it is also ugly to pretend this is a men vs women issue when many women aren't exactly unified about it. If anything, that is just another Democrat political ploy to create divides that may not reflect reality but political fiction.

Look how quickly it has managed to get two folks who generally agree and are quite friendly with me to suddenly become crass and negative towards me. See what I mean about being ugly? There are better things to build a platform around, less divisive matters we can rally behind as a community. Abortion is not one of them. Have some of you "feminist" men here actually seen an abortion? Think about this, for those of you who are parents, is that exactly what you would have wanted for your own children?

[fugazifan]

I was not being negative towards you, at least i wasn't trying to be.

regardless of lack of unity it is still a women's issue because women have to go through it and the pregnancy not men. and women will continue to go through it whether it is legal, illegal regulated or not. the question is whether it will be in a hospital or an alley with a coat hanger, the latter sounding a lot uglier than anything that happens in a hospital.

and i am not saying that every unwanted pregnancy should end in a pregnancy, but i think the way to make that happen is, for starters, some of the things that i listed above. if there isn't any kind of support, both community and monetary, for young women going through a pregnancy and afterwards, then how can one even begin to ask them to raise a child?

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by fugazifan

I was not being negative towards you, at least i wasn't trying to be.

regardless of lack of unity it is still a women's issue because women have to go through it and the pregnancy not men. and women will continue to go through it whether it is legal, illegal regulated or not. the question is whether it will be in a hospital or an alley with a coat hanger, the latter sounding a lot uglier than anything that happens in a hospital.

and i am not saying that every unwanted pregnancy should end in a pregnancy, but i think the way to make that happen is, for starters, some of the things that i listed above. if there isn't any kind of support, both community and monetary, for young women going through a pregnancy and afterwards, then how can one even begin to ask them to raise a child?

No,it takes two people to create life, a man and a woman, period. When we divorce men from the process, we actually further alienate and endanger women then we do empowering them. In California we have a lovely legal system where men are held legally and financially responsible for their children, even if a one night stand, all it takes is a DNA match, and these dudes can even go to prison if they don't support their children. Its not a perfect system by a long shot, but it is picking up pace and making a difference, I can't tell you how many single mothers I've know who have directly benefited by the courts' sympathy and protection of their children in this regard. I agree with that we need a stronger public support system, but abortion isn't the best bandaid for the meantime if you ask me .

I miss the days when feminism asserted that abortion was a male-driven conspiracy to destroy minorities. After all, if women are so about abortion, than how come over 90% of abortion doctors are men, well above the relative ratio of men to women doctors

[fugazifan]

oh come on, really? you don't think that there are feminists that complain about how men dominate female areas of medicine. that is one of he reasons that there has been an increase in recent years of women who have become midwives and doulas, including abortion doulas. claiming that women have less interest in abortions because of a lack of female doctors is quite a flawed methodology.

and yes it takes two to make a pregnancy, but that is assuming that there are equal power dynamics between men and women in any aspect of life and especially in heterosexual sex.

that is very good that men have to support the child no matter what (i hope that this law does not apply to rapists...) however that does not make them equal partners in what is going on with the woman's body during her pregnancy, unless she decides so. by saying so is not alienating them from the process, however by stating that they have equal say to what goes on with her body, because they had sex is just a rehash of the typical patriarchal trope of men having control over women's bodies (not that i amn saying that that is what you said).

and again here we are a bunch of men discussing what women should be doing with their bodies and what is best for them.

oh us....

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by fugazifan

oh come on, really? you don't think that there are feminists that complain about how men dominate female areas of medicine. that is one of he reasons that there has been an increase in recent years of women who have become midwives and doulas, including abortion doulas. claiming that women have less interest in abortions because of a lack of female doctors is quite a flawed methodology.

I didn't say dominating medicine, I said abortion doctors. There are plenty of women doctors, there is a noticeable shortage of women abortion doctors. Perhaps us men should think about that for a minute as we perform all those abortions on women.

and yes it takes two to make a pregnancy, but that is assuming that there are equal power dynamics between men and women in any aspect of life and especially in heterosexual sex.

Again, that is simple biology, not politics. It takes 1 sperm and 1 ovum to make a baby, period, end of sentence. So it is not JUST a women's issue, if we were talking about Pap Smears and cancer screenings that would be a women's issue, but children, that is inherently and biologically a man's issue as much as a woman. If men can be held accountable legally to the point of incarceration for NOT taking care of their biological children, how can we suddenly separate them from the equation in regards to abortion?

that is very good that men have to support the child no matter what (i hope that this law does not apply to rapists...) however that does not make them equal partners in what is going on with the woman's body during her pregnancy, unless she decides so.

Yes, it does, or at least it used too for that past 250,000 years of human existence until 1973

Think about this, if women are rallying independently about children's issues, does that encourage or discourage men to get involved in their children's lives?

by saying so is not alienating them from the process, however by stating that they have equal say to what goes on with her body, because they had sex is just a rehash of the typical patriarchal trope of men having control over women's bodies (not that i amn saying that that is what you said).

Brother, you can't have it both ways, we can't expect men to be legally, financially, and emotionally responsible for their children and then suddenly say, no wait, that is a patriarchy. If women wanted sole control of their bodies, they should have masturbated, when they inserted the dick, as we say in drug culture, "buy the ticket, take the ride." If we expect men to be responsible with the consequences of sticking their dicks places which can inherently bring children into this world, shouldn't we equally hold women accountable for having allowed the insertion (again I am not talking about rape, rape is NOT the majority of abortions in this country, that would be a hyperbole)

and again here we are a bunch of men discussing what women should be doing with their bodies and what is best for them.

oh us....

We are discussing children's issue too, and that is a matter of men and women.

Please understand that I am not saying we should entirely rid ourselves of abortion, that ship has long since sailed. Rather, I am talking about better regulating abortion, limiting its access to minors, and also perhaps the time. Should women be able to abort at 6 or 7 months? I was born just under 7 months premature and survived quite fine

PS.. I hope you didn't find my Holocaust comments too offensive, I meant them for those rightwing nutjobs like the Lekud party, not decent Israelis like yourself

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

however, even with that in mind, i don't believe a fucking work that comes out of the mouth of any ayatollah-- just like i don't believe a word that comes out of the mouth of bibi netanyahu either. but bibi can be voted out.

Robert Fisk on Netanyahu's bizarre appearance at the UN this week:

"..."Iran is the centre of terrorism, fundamentalism and subversion and is … more dangerous than Nazism, because Hitler did not possess a nuclear bomb …" Bibi speaking on Thursday? Nope. The ex-Prime Minister of Israel, Shimon Peres, in 1996. And Peres himself said in 1992 that Iran would have a nuclear bomb by 1999! That's 13 years ago. And Ehud Barak – now Bibi's Defence Minister – said in 1996 that Iran would have a nuke by 2004. That's eight years ago. Maybe cartoons are all that's left."

The whole article here.