The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: billt on September 25, 2012, 02:43:37 PM
-
Can the United States only declare war on countries, or would it be possible for us to declare war on a certain group of people, (i.e. muslims)? Muslims exist throughout the world. But if they posed a significant threat to the United States and it's citizens in general, would it be possible for Congress to declare war on just them, regardless of where they lived?
-
Well, the US gov has declared war on poverty, drugs and terrorism, but declaring war on Muslims would be racist profiling and the striped pants faggots would never stand for that.
It's why TSA is a bad joke.
-
I'm not sure if it's unfortunate or not... but the first amendment protects religion... excuse me,... is supposed to protect religion and the freedom of choice thereof. unless you're a Christian.. then your just racist.. right? isn't that what we have been told?
deep
-
Actually when it was written it was so you could be one of many christain faiths. my $.02 as long as you are not hurting anyone else, you can worshop what every you like. Just don't force your beliefs on me.
-
as long as you are not hurting anyone else, you can worshop what every you like. Just don't force your beliefs on me.
Therein lies the problem, and the reason we've been lighting up so many muslims lately.
-
I'm not sure if it's unfortunate or not... but the first amendment protects religion... excuse me,... is supposed to protect religion and the freedom of choice thereof. unless you're a Christian.. then your just racist.. right? isn't that what we have been told?
deep
The wording promises freedom of religion, not freedomfrom religion. The BoR specifically prohibits the state from establishing a religion and banning others.
That would at least suggest that we can't declare war on mooslums.
However, islam is more than just a religion--it is a form of government, sharia, that is antithetical to democracy. These idiots want to establish a caliphate to rule the world under sharia.
We have, at certain times in our country's history, made war on ideologies that are antithetical to our way of life. The "cold" war could serve as an example.
So, it shouldn't be a big step to declare war on mooslums in general. It will never happen, but it could.
And while I am on my rant here, I am sick to death of all this talk about the difference between extremist mooslums and moderate mooslums. They read from the same book and their faith calls for conversion by the sword. Their holy book requires them to kill Jews and (here's where interpretation comes into play) may or may not call for the killing of Christians.
To me, that means the "moderate" ones may or may not want to kill me and mine.
I'm not interested in having that discussion with any of these b@st@rds.
FWIW
Crusader Rabbit
-
The "War On Drugs" along with the "War On Poverty" were not really "official" declarations of war, in that they were never voted on by Congress. At least not in the way WW II was declared on Japan.
-
The "War On Drugs" along with the "War On Poverty" were not really "official" declarations of war, in that they were never voted on by Congress. At least not in the way WW II was declared on Japan.
Neither were Vietnam or Obama's adventure in Libya.
-
We can't declare war on Muslims because many Americans are Muslim. We can't be killing Americans without due process, right. So, we can't shoot, kill, maim, Hellfire or UAV any Americans to death. That is what our Justice Department stands for, doesn't it? They will arrest and bring to justice any American that kills other Americans without due process, won't they? That's the American way, the fair and balanced way.
And if we let the Muslims kill off all the Jews, who is their next target? Those who "walk beside them" I suppose. Wonder who'd that be? Should we start practicing 5 degrees of separation between Christians and Jews?
I know, our Justice Department could charge Muslims with "hate crimes" and due process them out of existence! Would that be genocide? Only the U.N. knows...and The Hague. Didn't some President say we should stay away from foreign entanglements? Is it too late to start?
Satire should be funny and ironic, but somehow I don't think this situation is either.
-
We can't declare war on Muslims because many Americans are Muslim. We can't be killing Americans without due process, right. So, we can't shoot, kill, maim, Hellfire or UAV any Americans to death. That is what our Justice Department stands for, doesn't it? They will arrest and bring to justice any American that kills other Americans without due process, won't they? That's the American way, the fair and balanced way.
And if we let the Muslims kill off all the Jews, who is their next target? Those who "walk beside them" I suppose. Wonder who'd that be? Should we start practicing 5 degrees of separation between Christians and Jews?
I know, our Justice Department could charge Muslims with "hate crimes" and due process them out of existence! Would that be genocide? Only the U.N. knows...and The Hague. Didn't some President say we should stay away from foreign entanglements? Is it too late to start?
Satire should be funny and ironic, but somehow I don't think this situation is either.
Isaid that a while back after they used a hellfire on an American born Al Queda member and caught hell for it.
Funny part was some of the ones that had no problem with it were among the ones who went bat shit over NDAA.
-
What's NDAA?
-
Somewhere in the Archives Jnevis and I have both posted the exact text of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.I can't find it right now but this will give you an idea.
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=18858.0
-
Just becuase you read the same book does not mean you get the same out of it. look at the bibble, if talks about stoning whore and forcing rape vics to marry thier attackers. most christans would not do those things, but there is a those that do. Should we hate all christains becuase of that? or what avout the jews, thier holy books are basicly the old testament. Should we count those in that same group?
-
Tab, stoning was Jewish law not Christian prescription. Rape victims marry their attackers....what are you talking about dude?
Where did you learn this?
-
Not only that but the raper has to pay 50 ( some word that starts with s) of silver to the father. Its in the OT. search my threads. There is one about a baptist church. ( not the westbro lunnys either) I can't use advanced search from my phone or I would find it for you.( for some reason to long in I have to go to text only view and can't get back to where I have clickable opitions with out logging out.
-
Found the passage duet 22:28-29. ( googling so pinch of salt.)
-
Tab, please don't take this as a slight. That was part of the Old Testament law prior to Christ's birth and crucifixion. There were no Christians until after He was crucified and it's not a part of Christian "law". The Old Testament was only law...it was pre-grace....it was based upon law and not at all on the precept of your sins being forgiven by Christ dying on the cross. Yes they had (and some Jews still practice) blood sacrifices by the priests in the Old Testament but not the salvation by unmerrited favor through the blood of Christ.
The law can only condemn. Without the law we would not know, not have standards of moral conduct, by which we could judge ourselves....we would have some type of twisted moral relativism which is something pervading our culture today. With the law we can judge ourselves and perceive our personal state of being as being lost. Through Christ we have grace and can obtain salvation that we cannot obtain by following law. No one can follow the law without some tresspass, only Christ is able and through that we can accept him have that unmerrited favor, salvation by His shed blood.
Christians don't believe that a rape victim can be absolved by application of some amount of silver from the attacker. In fact, the attacker can be forgiven under Christian teaching if that person is repentant...that's grace not something under the law under the Old Testament. The victim forgiving them is something the victim would have to work out as terrible as that is...but that attacker who is truly sorry and repentant can be forgiven and receive salvation despite the despicable act. Any sin condemns...the "worst sin" will put you at odds with God just like the "best sin"...sin is sin and it's fruit is death whatever it is. We should be careful not to apply the law which we construct to live by here on earth in this adminstration among ourselves with what it takes for a right relationship with God.
From where did your perception of what Chritianity is come from? I'm not being critical, just curious.
-
What I am saying is there are christains out there that still beleave that. So its fair to say there are musliams out there that do not beleave in killing all that won't convert.
-
Just becuase some ones beliefs don't exactly fit yours does not mean they are not what they say they are. Example the westbro crazys. I would not call them chirstain or even babtists, but if thats what they beleave themselfs to be, then thats what they are.
-
Just becuase some ones beliefs don't exactly fit yours does not mean they are not what they say they are. Example the westbro crazys. I would not call them chirstain or even babtists, but if thats what they beleave themselfs to be, then thats what they are.
TAB that is so totally ridiculous it defies belief.
I hallucinate therefore I am a pink and purple Elephant ?
Obviously you have never been to a Karaoke Bar to listen to Drunk Japs who really believe they can sing going to town on "Viva Ras Vegas".
There used to be a lot of inland people who thought the earth was flat, they sincerely believed this.
It did not make it so.
-
Ok tom what would you call a group of people that read and beleave in the bible? chirstian maybe? what if that same group takes the text in conext or literally? Are they still christain or some other group? fwiw most people that claim to be christain ( and all but yell it from the roof tops) generally are not.
-
Ok tom what would you call a group of people that read and beleave in the bible? chirstian maybe? what if that same group takes the text in conext or literally? Are they still christain or some other group? fwiw most people that claim to be christain ( and all but yell it from the roof tops) generally are not.
If they follow the Bible yes they are Christians,
But where you go astray is that like the Constitution there are those who think it is a "living document" and parse it to suit themselves, these are not Christians, they are posers, no different than a person who owns ski's boot's and bindings, and claims to be a skier, but has never actually seen snow.
Another group of phony "christians" are those who oppose the death penalty, the Bible is very clear that some offenses such as poisoning can be punished no other way.
-
TAB that is so totally ridiculous it defies belief.
I hallucinate therefore I am a pink and purple Elephant ?
Obviously you have never been to a Karaoke Bar to listen to Drunk Japs who really believe they can sing going to town on "Viva Ras Vegas".
There used to be a lot of inland people who thought the earth was flat, they sincerely believed this.
It did not make it so.
Oh, man....thanks for the belly-laugh, Tom..... I needed it today. ;D
-
Oh, man....thanks for the belly-laugh, Tom..... I needed it today. ;D
Yes, I thought that logic was pretty irrefutable. ;D
-
[quote author=tombogan03884 link=topic=20641.msg259487#msg259487 date=13488826
Another group of phony "christians" are those who oppose the death penalty, the Bible is very clear that some offenses such as poisoning can be punished no other way.
[/quote]
You mean like Catholics, Quakers and Episcopalians? ???
FQ13
-
[quote author=tombogan03884 link=topic=20641.msg259487#msg259487 date=13488826
Another group of phony "christians" are those who oppose the death penalty, the Bible is very clear that some offenses such as poisoning can be punished no other way.
You mean like Catholics, Quakers and Episcopalians? ???
FQ13
Yes. Also any denomination that does not condemn homosexuality, the Bible is pretty explicit about that as well.
If you don't agree with it that's your business, but don't call your self a Christian because you are not.
(Episcopalians are doubly screwed )
It's just like the Constitution, it is what it is, you don't get to pick and choose.
It's why while I am more or less Christian leaning, I will not call myself a Christian, there is to much I do not agree with. (although one item would be enough )
-
<snip> it is what it is, you don't get to pick and choose.
<snip>
You are exactly right. We don't get to pick and choose.
But we do get to learn.
When is a person is saved he is saved at whatever level of Biblical knowledge and discernment he has at the time. There is no miraculous data dump where a person is all knowing instantly. So in this I say that though a person is saved he then has a lifetime of never ending learning where increasing revelation of Godly knowledge is gained.
Sometimes we don't learn a lesson and are destined to "go around the mountain" time and again until we get it right. It's at that point a person is stuck in their Christian life and learning and just can't really progress from there until we learn what it is we're supposed to learn at that time....about the Word but mostly about ourselves and how that Word illuminates what we do. Sometimes this is at a point where it becomes a fellowship issue with God and we hit a "dry spell" until we get it and get tired of ourselves. It can also be a point where a person falls away from the faith and pursues their own interests and interpretations.
Sometimes we need to exercise breaking fellowship with a brother or sister when they don't get it because we would be supporting wrong things in them to help them learn so they no longer have to "wander in the wilderness" as it were.
Yes you are right that you don't get to pick and choose as if part of the Bible is right and part is wrong. It's either all right....or not right at all.
-
Rastus, I'm not talking about people who have accepted Christ, but don't have all the information yet.
I'm talking about the ones who will lecture for hours on what the Bible says, and then accept an openly gay bishop,
or like myself, have heard about that "turn the other cheek" thing and rejected it as simply a good way to get hit a second time.
-
Rastus, I'm not talking about people who have accepted Christ, but don't have all the information yet.
I'm talking about the ones who will lecture for hours on what the Bible says, and then accept an openly gay bishop,
or like myself, have heard about that "turn the other cheek" thing and rejected it as simply a good way to get hit a second time.
Or guys like me who were raised as Christians and studied the Bible for a time and liken it to a historical novel rather than the actual "word"! My primary theological teacher and Minister in my youth was also a HS Science instructor and chose to let us make our own decisions on the teachings of the book. Since it's been re-written by a number of groups over the centuries with questionable motives, I look at it with a good bit of skepticism.
Sorry, but that's how I see it...
-
The "Old Testament" had to be recreated from memory when the Jews were released from Babylon .
The books that compose the "Bible" were selected by the early Catholic Church, it includes 4 Gospels, or eyewitness accounts, however they were not put to paper until decades after the events described.
The Vatican archives contain more than 80 "gospels" some of those were written within days of the events.
The "New Testament" contains a number of letters written to various churches through out the middle East, they were chosen to serve the purposes of the Church, not necessarily Christianity.
At the time King James paid to have his version of the Bible compiled there were dozens of versions of the Bible containing a varied assortment of books, the currently used version was compiled to serve the Purposes of a Catholic English King, again, not necessarily the purposes of Christianity.
The most reliable information on the life and teachings of Christ are not in the Bible, which is in fact very unreliable, but in the Vatican archives since they have retained original source materials as far back as the writings of Peter.
-
Which further supports my skepticism as the Church over the centuries was well known for corruption and deceit.
-
Rastus, I'm not talking about people who have accepted Christ, but don't have all the information yet.
I'm talking about the ones who will lecture for hours on what the Bible says, and then accept an openly gay bishop,
or like myself, have heard about that "turn the other cheek" thing and rejected it as simply a good way to get hit a second time.
I understood what it was you were saying, no problem there....but it was to address the many people out there who think they know something based upon disinterested or hostile heresay at best; which was my driver for what I wrote and not a retort to you. I also differ in that the Bible is not "in fact" unreliable, but has been found to be reliable as confirmed again and again in both past and recent archaelogical studies.
Timothy the big thing is that God let's you believe or not. Had it not been for more multiple miraculous occurrences in my life the Greek and Darwinian thinking would have overruled me. It's amazing how a recent occurrence, for instance Mt. St. Helen's eruption, has changed settled science geological observations that supposedly covered millions of years to mere decades. In fact the trumpet of slow process and ancient earth in a geological sense is being turned on it's ear time and again with event based observations that provide observable events that are exacting in matching geological records thought 10's or 100's of millions of years old. Solid rock formed in years not millions.
We all have our choice to believe or not. I believe and have a reason to.
I like the Geneva Bible which is what the Founders of these United States of America used...they would not have been caught dead with the King James Bible (which is still a very good translation of the Greek except for differences in English language.).
-
Rastus, my understanding of the Word comes from the faith in the Word and though I may be a flawed Christian and quite skeptical in my nature doesn't say that I don't believe! I myself have searched for the ever evasive truth but I cannot believe that there is this much evil in the world without the good to balance things out. As you say, it's not so much our belief in God but His belief in us! I live my life as best I can and my Christian upbringing is the foundation of that life regardless of my skepticism!
;)
-
Rastus, my understanding of the Word comes from the faith in the Word and though I may be a flawed Christian and quite skeptical in my nature doesn't say that I don't believe! I myself have searched for the ever evasive truth but I cannot believe that there is this much evil in the world without the good to balance things out. As you say, it's not so much our belief in God but His belief in us! I live my life as best I can and my Christian upbringing is the foundation of that life regardless of my skepticism!
;)
Even atheists, though they would never admit it, are CULTURALLY influenced by Judeo-Christian philosophy.
You don't see them beheading people who hate Obama, or working on Dec 25th.
Come to think of it, that might be the way to shut them up about banning crosses and prayers.
Fine, we won't pray, you don't get Christmas bonus's or holidays ;D
-
Even atheists, though they would never admit it, are CULTURALLY influenced by Judeo-Christian philosophy.
You don't see them beheading people who hate Obama, or working on Dec 25th.
Come to think of it, that might be the way to shut them up about banning crosses and prayers.
Fine, we won't pray, you don't get Christmas bonus's or holidays ;D
I only know one atheist (that I know of) and he hates everybody! He plays no favorites... ;D
He also gets x-mas off every year without complaint!
-
I'm talking about the ones who will lecture for hours on what the Bible says, and then accept an openly gay bishop,
or like myself, have heard about that "turn the other cheek" thing and rejected it as simply a good way to get hit a second time.
Reading a parable or a metaphor and taking it literally is a mistake IMHO.
-
Reading a parable or a metaphor and taking it literally is a mistake IMHO.
True enough, but rather than "turn the other cheek" the one I put my faith in is "f*ck me once shame on you, f*ck me twice, shame on me"
Here's 2 related parables for you,
Never look a gift horse in the mouth
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts
FQ will probably get the joke . ;D
-
True enough, but rather than "turn the other cheek" the one I put my faith in is "f*ck me once shame on you, f*ck me twice, shame on me"
Here's 2 related parables for you,
Never look a gift horse in the mouth
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts
FQ will probably get the joke . ;D
He ain't the only one! ;D
-
True enough, but rather than "turn the other cheek" the one I put my faith in is "f*ck me once shame on you, f*ck me twice, shame on me"
I like that one me own self. ;)
Here's 2 related parables for you,
Never look a gift horse in the mouth
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts
FQ will probably get the joke . ;D
;D ;D
-
Tom, important safety tip! Don't turn that other cheek to the Greeks bearing gifts, its a trap! Bastards! ;D
FQ13
-
How do they separate the men from the boys in Greece ?
With a pry bar.
What's the Greek Army anthem ?
I'll never leave my buddies behind.
The really funny part is that those 2 jokes are about 3,000 years old.
They date to the days of the Spartans and their "Sacred bands".
The earlier 2 quotes come from the Trojan war, one from each side, both about the horse.
-
How do they separate the men from the boys in Greece ?
With a pry bar.
What's the Greek Army anthem ?
I'll never leave my buddies behind.
The really funny part is that those 2 jokes are about 3,000 years old.
They date to the days of the Spartans and their "Sacred bands".
The earlier 2 quotes come from the Trojan war, one from each side, both about the horse.
The funnier part is that those who didn't want gays in the military never considered them. The Greeks were flamers and kicked everyone's ass until the Romans came along. And its not like they were straight as a ruler either.
FQ13
-
The funnier part is that those who didn't want gays in the military never considered them. The Greeks were flamers and kicked everyone's ass until the Romans came along. And its not like they were straight as a ruler either.
FQ13
There was actually sound thinking behind the Spartans "Sacred Bands", the idea being that one wouldn't leave his buddies behind, in the lurch. That thinking held the line at Marathon.
You're sort of wrong about the Roman Legions though, while that sort of behavior was a matter of personal taste for the upper classes, it was far less common among the lower classes that comprised the bulk of the Legions and it was never ritualized as with the Spartans..
-
Their was actually sound thinking behind the Spartans "Sacred Bands", the idea being that one wouldn't leave his buddies behind, in the lurch. That thinking held the line at Marathon.
You're sort of wrong about the Roman Legions though, while that sort of behavior was a matter of personal taste for the upper classes, it was far less common among the lower classes that comprised the bulk of the Legions and it was never ritualized as with the Spartans..
The lower classes weren't allowed to join the legions until Marius took over. It was all the upper class until then (something we ought to emulate).
FQ13
-
The lower classes weren't allowed to join the legions until Marius took over. It was all the upper class until then (something we ought to emulate).
FQ13
I disagree, the reforms that Marius instituted took a provincial defense force and turned it into the first true "military machine".
With the landed citizens they defended Rome with varying success.
When Marius trained the lower classes, and applied his theories of uniformity, and mobility he created a force that not only conquered as Alexander did, but held and unified half the known world.
The early Army comprised of the land owners could never have supplied enough manpower.
Even when opened to Gauls and other foreigners it was shortage of man power and speed of communications that actually lead to the fall of the Empire .
-
I disagree, the reforms that Marius instituted took a provincial defense force and turned it into the first true "military machine".
With the landed citizens they defended Rome with varying success.
When Marius trained the lower classes, and applied his theories of uniformity, and mobility he created a force that not only conquered as Alexander did, but held and unified half the known world.
The early Army comprised of the land owners could never have supplied enough manpower.
Even when opened to Gauls and other foreigners it was shortage of man power and speed of communications that actually lead to the fall of the Empire .
I'm not sure where we disagree. Marius was the basis for Heinlien in Starship Troopers (and please, the book not the POS movie). If you want to be a citizen, you serve. We could use a bit more of that now. Hell, I don't like Daniel Inouye at all, but he left a limb on the battlefield which is more than can be said for Cheney. Ditto with BO and McCain (my bad, I must've been drunk. :-[).How many members of Congress or their kids served? Screw 'em. Still, Marius' reforms brought the Empire's (because that was where it was going after his second dictatorship) a huge fighting force. We really should do the same. No conscription, just a choice. Serve, in either the miltary or civilian serice, or don't, but you can't vote.
FQ13
FQ13
-
It was all the upper class until then (something we ought to emulate).
FQ13
That's where I disagreed with you, by restricting membership to the land owners they limited them selves to a part time Army that was to small for anything but defense of the immediate area of Rome leaving their critical sources of supply at the mercy of others.
By opening enlistment to any one who wanted to earn citizenship (ala Heinlein) they built a base of full time professional officers and NCO's that allowed for faster expansion in the event of war or disaster, ( Lake Trassamine , Carrhea, Tuetoburgerwald Spell check is no help on these :( ) and supplied "peacetime" armies to protect Roman interests in places such as Egypt.
-
That wasn't disagreement, just me being unclear. It pisses me off that plumber's kid's serve, and for the most part doctor's kids don't. It should be both. Its why I think Heinlien had a good idea.
FQ13
-
Wow, what a thread. Explains why as an altar boy in Germany, the Colonel's son was chosen for high mass at Christmas and I did all the other masses! And I'm a Roman, too! But I should never get into an argument with Tom about religion and history. That man is too well read for me. So. I'll just be content to sin six days a week and come clean on the seventh and delude myself a Christian while clinging to my bible and guns (I am a Pennsylvanian, too). But I always thought the Bible and the Constitution were written by men and therefore not perfect, but neither to be taken with a grain of wit! Hmmm, wonder where that phrase came from.
-
That wasn't disagreement, just me being unclear. It pisses me off that plumber's kid's serve, and for the most part doctor's kids don't. It should be both. Its why I think Heinlien had a good idea.
FQ13
That's one way of looking at , on the other hand, when large industrialized nations are trying to kill you would you rather be among "sons of privilege", or poor country boys like Alvin York and Audie Murphy ?
-
That's one way of looking at , on the other hand, when large industrialized nations are trying to kill you would you rather be among "sons of privilege", or poor country boys like Alvin York and Audie Murphy ?
OTOH, Patton didn't exactly come from a poor family. Neither did JFK, and they did allright. :) The point is to get the privleged to serve, so they won't be so quick to either go to war, or hamper the military as they'll know what its like.
FQ13
PS I'd want to be as far away from Sgt. York as possible. That guy was just crazy. 100 of them, 2 of us, follow me! Uh....... ;D
-
Patton wasn't exactly what you'd call tightly wrapped either.
JFK ? Pacific roadkill .
Although he really messed up the paint job on that Jap destroyer.
Kind of like McCain and Daddy Bush, they were not hero's they were f*ck ups.
(Although Kennedy's conduct after the wreck was far more commendable than his little bro. )