[rob666]

Originally Posted by The Last Nephilim ↗

Yes I do believe I have a better grasp on this situation than you do. I have studied the history and I have read the Koran and I have seen Muslims obeying (killing eachother, beating women, killing in general, sexually assaulting children, et cetera) their book.

So again, yes I do seem to have a better understanding of Islam than you do.

uhh.....Bullshit.

Unrestrained Christian groups in America would kill you just as fast as Muslims for your orientation.
In fact, Christians in America are the biggest roadblock to YOUR equality, and have been all along.
The Methodist Church supported slavery, and 100+ years later not much has changed.

[johnleeknoefler]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

The avatar was chosen for me by one of the mods because after being here for quite a while I still didn't use one.
I'm not a big fan of any religion, because in my opinion they can be used to incite hate, Christian, Muslim or Jew.
You are a good case study.

Oh ya. I hate muslims cause they chop off heads, fingers, hands, tongues and put out peoples eyes. All in the name of Allah. Isn't that aweful to hate people for doing such trivial things? Oh well.

[johnleeknoefler]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

uhh.....Bullshit.

Unrestrained Christian groups in America would kill you just as fast as Muslims for your orientation.
In fact, Christians in America are the biggest roadblock to YOUR equality, and have been all along.
The Methodist Church supported slavery, and 100+ years later not much has changed.

"Uh, Bullshit!"
Once again Rob you lie to support your delusional fantasies.

"John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, was appalled by American slavery. When the Methodist Episcopal Church (MEC) was founded in the United States in 1784, the denomination officially opposed slavery."

"In the early nineteenth century, the MEC stance on slavery was weakened by wealthy Southerners."
In the south the wealthy were almost without exception DEMOCRATS who owned slaves. It was the democrat party that was pro slavery.


" Clergy in the north were expected not to own slaves and to help emancipate them, while in the south slaves were legal. Conflict arose in 1840 when the Rev. James Osgood Andrew of Oxford, Georgia, a bishop, acquired a slave. Fearing that she would end up with an inhumane owner if sold, Andrew kept her but let her come and go. The 1840 MEC General Conference considered the matter, but did not expel Andrew. Four years later, Andrew married a woman who owned a slave inherited from her mother, making the bishop the owner of two slaves, yet with duties both in the north and south."

So we can see how slavery crept into the early Methodist congregation.

"The 1844 General Conference voted to suspend Bishop Andrew from exercising his episcopal office until he no longer owned slaves."
Seems the church hated slavery enough that they took action. Doesn't sound like the church was pro slavery.

"The decision raised questions (particularly among Southern delegates(Democrats) to the conference) about the authority of a General Conference to discipline bishops. Of course, the cultural differences that had divided the nation during the mid-19th century had also been dividing the Methodist Episcopal Church. The 1844 dispute led Methodists in the south to break off and form a separate denomination, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South (MEC-S)."
So the democrats didn't see a conflict with going to church and owning slaves.

However the political turmoil of that time led to a new political party called:
"The new Republican Party became a home to the alienated abolitionists. Although they totaled less than 3% of the population at large, they formulated the Republican platform to include the abolition of slavery as a plank. The party then nominated Abraham Lincoln for president. Few gave him any chance of success, but 3 other candidates split the popular vote and Lincoln won. Convinced that Lincoln would ruin the South economically, possibly by freeing the slaves, the heartland of the South withdrew from the Union. Shortly thereafter the upper south joined them."

Rob is such a liar. Too bad.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by johnleeknoefler ↗

"Uh, Bullshit!"
Once again Rob you lie to support your delusional fantasies.

"John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, was appalled by American slavery. When the Methodist Episcopal Church (MEC) was founded in the United States in 1784, the denomination officially opposed slavery."

"In the early nineteenth century, the MEC stance on slavery was weakened by wealthy Southerners."
In the south the wealthy were almost without exception DEMOCRATS who owned slaves. It was the democrat party that was pro slavery.


" Clergy in the north were expected not to own slaves and to help emancipate them, while in the south slaves were legal. Conflict arose in 1840 when the Rev. James Osgood Andrew of Oxford, Georgia, a bishop, acquired a slave. Fearing that she would end up with an inhumane owner if sold, Andrew kept her but let her come and go. The 1840 MEC General Conference considered the matter, but did not expel Andrew. Four years later, Andrew married a woman who owned a slave inherited from her mother, making the bishop the owner of two slaves, yet with duties both in the north and south."

So we can see how slavery crept into the early Methodist congregation.

"The 1844 General Conference voted to suspend Bishop Andrew from exercising his episcopal office until he no longer owned slaves."
Seems the church hated slavery enough that they took action. Doesn't sound like the church was pro slavery.

"The decision raised questions (particularly among Southern delegates(Democrats) to the conference) about the authority of a General Conference to discipline bishops. Of course, the cultural differences that had divided the nation during the mid-19th century had also been dividing the Methodist Episcopal Church. The 1844 dispute led Methodists in the south to break off and form a separate denomination, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South (MEC-S)."
So the democrats didn't see a conflict with going to church and owning slaves.

However the political turmoil of that time led to a new political party called:
"The new Republican Party became a home to the alienated abolitionists. Although they totaled less than 3% of the population at large, they formulated the Republican platform to include the abolition of slavery as a plank. The party then nominated Abraham Lincoln for president. Few gave him any chance of success, but 3 other candidates split the popular vote and Lincoln won. Convinced that Lincoln would ruin the South economically, possibly by freeing the slaves, the heartland of the South withdrew from the Union. Shortly thereafter the upper south joined them."

Rob is such a liar. Too bad.

So what part of that did I lie about?
The Methodist Church split along a North/South border over the slavery issue, and the Southern Methodist Church continued to back slavery because they thought it was god's will for blacks to be slaves to southern whites. Interesting enough, both sides in the Civil War though God was on their side..........

Even though I don't give 2 shits about Democrats or Republicans, don't even try to equate what each party stood for 100 years ago to where they stand today.
Ideology wise, they have each come full circle.
What has not changed is the south and north still hold the same belief systems, have for the last 200 years.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by johnleeknoefler ↗

Oh ya. I hate muslims cause they chop off heads, fingers, hands, tongues and put out peoples eyes. All in the name of Allah. Isn't that aweful to hate people for doing such trivial things? Oh well.

I could just as easily say I hate Jews because they are illegally occupying land, don't respect international laws and are the biggest welfare state on earth.
I don't consider being in violation of over 60 UN resolutions trivial, or using aparthied tactics.

But I don't. You know why?
Because sometimes the actions of the extreme few get more attention than the quiet vast majority.
I don't agree with all Israeli policy, just like I don't like you inciting hate, but I don't judge all Jewish people based on your rhetoric either.

Think about that.

[niknik]

But you lie about Israel being a welfare state, you lie and say there illegally occupying land. There not doing anything that America, Russia, China, Japan, England, and over history many others have done when being attacked. If you can't see how Islamic assholes are fucking up the world today than your a closed minded person. You accuse of hate but it is Islamic leaders everywhere preaching hate against all, even other Muslims. But you choose to blame America for there evil, as if they are not responsible for there own plight. There a product of centuries old structures and laws that hinder them in today's world. A big reason for all the uprising in Arab countries now, they are seeing the world pass them by because of there isolation and oppressive culture. Israel is the only democracy and true friend America has in the region, a free country that allows Muslims Jews and Christians to openly worship. You won't find churches in Palistine or jews period walking through Pakistan, they would be killed by Muslims because of hate. And you defend that? The Islamic religion in there eyes makes their killings of innocent people justified and honorable, they will kill more Americans in the name of there god. And by doing so they will continue to suffer at home until they take control of there radical cults and westernize there governments to represent the people not Allah's will. You can't run countries by a centuries old book written by men to control and enslave and expect the people to prosper.

[johnleeknoefler]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

So what part of that did I lie about?
The Methodist Church split along a North/South border over the slavery issue, and the Southern Methodist Church continued to back slavery because they thought it was god's will for blacks to be slaves to southern whites. Interesting enough, both sides in the Civil War though God was on their side..........

Even though I don't give 2 shits about Democrats or Republicans, don't even try to equate what each party stood for 100 years ago to where they stand today.
Ideology wise, they have each come full circle.
What has not changed is the south and north still hold the same belief systems, have for the last 200 years.

You pile lies on lies and call it the truth. A half truth will serve as a lie anytime. You did not mention that the Methodist church split over the slavery issue. I mentioned that. You presented the Methodist church as supporting slavery:
"The Methodist Church supported slavery, and 100+ years later not much has changed."

The democrat party is still very racist. http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/ope...02/racism.html
"Republican Party has a far better record than the Democrats on race."
"The Democratic position represents racism of the most offensive sort—a patronizing racism that denigrates Blacks every bit as badly as the old racism of Jim Crow and segregation. "
And please read the whole article before you go cherry picking the republican foibles. But to be honest Republicans have moved so far left that Kennedy would be shocked and forced to register as a TEA party patriot.
"We should remember that the Republican Party was created in response to a crisis arising from the fact that American public opinion on the issue of slavery had drifted away from the principles of the Founding. While the Founders had tolerated slavery out of necessity, many Americans, especially within the Democratic Party, had come to accept the idea that slavery was a "positive good." While Thomas Jefferson, the founder of what evolved into the Democratic Party, had argued that slavery was bad not only for the slave but also for the slave owner, John C. Calhoun, had turned this principle on its head: slavery was good not only for the slave holder, but also for the slave.

Calhoun’s fundamental enterprise was to defend the institution of slavery. To do so, he first had to overturn the principles of the American Founding. He started with the Declaration of Independence, arguing that "[the proposition ’all men are created equal’] as now understood, has become the most false and dangerous of all political errors....We now begin to experience the danger of admitting so great an error to have a place in the declaration of independence." Thus Calhoun transformed the Democratic Party of Jefferson into the Party of Slavery."

"The Democratic Party’s war against African-Americans continued after the Civil War (which many Democrats in fact opposed, often working actively to undercut the Union war effort). Democrats, both north and south fought the attempt to implement the equality for African-Americans gained at such a high cost. This opposition was often violent. Indeed, the Ku Klux Klan operated as the de facto terrorist arm of the national Democratic Party during Reconstruction."

Notice that the KKK is an arm of the Democrat party and the creation of the southern Democrats.


"In the 1920s, the Republican Party platform routinely called for anti-lynching legislation. The Democrats rejected such calls in their own platforms. When FDR forged the New Deal, he was able to pry Blacks away from their traditional attachment to the Party of Lincoln. But they remained in their dependent status, Democrats by virtue of political expediency, not principle. "

"As the incomparable Ann Coulter has observed, when Strom Thurmond, the praise of whom landed Sen. Lott in hot water, ran a segregationist campaign in 1948, he ran as a Dixie-CRAT, not a Dixie-CAN. When he lost, he went back to being a Democrat. He only repudiated his segregationist views when he later became a Republican"

""Affirmative action" has become the touchstone of Democratic racial politics. Democrats portray anyone who opposes affirmative action as racist. But affirmative action, as currently practiced, is racist to the core. It is based on the assumption that African-Americans are incapable of competing with whites. It represents the kind of paternalistic racism that would have done honor to Calhoun. For the modern liberal Democratic racist as for the old-fashioned one, blacks are simply incapable of freedom. They will always need Ol’ Massa’s help. And woe be to any African-American who wanders off of the Democratic plantation. Ask Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, or Ward Connerly. Although they echo the call for a "color-blind society" that once characterized the vision of Martin Luther King Jr., they are pilloried as "Uncle Toms" of "Oreos" by such enforcers of the Democratic plantation system as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton."

Your racist democrats are still racist. Nothing has changed except the rhetoric.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by johnleeknoefler ↗

You pile lies on lies and call it the truth. A half truth will serve as a lie anytime. You did not mention that the Methodist church split over the slavery issue. I mentioned that. You presented the Methodist church as supporting slavery:
"The Methodist Church supported slavery, and 100+ years later not much has changed."

The democrat party is still very racist. http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/ope...02/racism.html
"Republican Party has a far better record than the Democrats on race."
"The Democratic position represents racism of the most offensive sort—a patronizing racism that denigrates Blacks every bit as badly as the old racism of Jim Crow and segregation. "
And please read the whole article before you go cherry picking the republican foibles. But to be honest Republicans have moved so far left that Kennedy would be shocked and forced to register as a TEA party patriot.
"We should remember that the Republican Party was created in response to a crisis arising from the fact that American public opinion on the issue of slavery had drifted away from the principles of the Founding. While the Founders had tolerated slavery out of necessity, many Americans, especially within the Democratic Party, had come to accept the idea that slavery was a "positive good." While Thomas Jefferson, the founder of what evolved into the Democratic Party, had argued that slavery was bad not only for the slave but also for the slave owner, John C. Calhoun, had turned this principle on its head: slavery was good not only for the slave holder, but also for the slave.

Calhoun’s fundamental enterprise was to defend the institution of slavery. To do so, he first had to overturn the principles of the American Founding. He started with the Declaration of Independence, arguing that "[the proposition ’all men are created equal’] as now understood, has become the most false and dangerous of all political errors....We now begin to experience the danger of admitting so great an error to have a place in the declaration of independence." Thus Calhoun transformed the Democratic Party of Jefferson into the Party of Slavery."

"The Democratic Party’s war against African-Americans continued after the Civil War (which many Democrats in fact opposed, often working actively to undercut the Union war effort). Democrats, both north and south fought the attempt to implement the equality for African-Americans gained at such a high cost. This opposition was often violent. Indeed, the Ku Klux Klan operated as the de facto terrorist arm of the national Democratic Party during Reconstruction."

Notice that the KKK is an arm of the Democrat party and the creation of the southern Democrats.


"In the 1920s, the Republican Party platform routinely called for anti-lynching legislation. The Democrats rejected such calls in their own platforms. When FDR forged the New Deal, he was able to pry Blacks away from their traditional attachment to the Party of Lincoln. But they remained in their dependent status, Democrats by virtue of political expediency, not principle. "

"As the incomparable Ann Coulter has observed, when Strom Thurmond, the praise of whom landed Sen. Lott in hot water, ran a segregationist campaign in 1948, he ran as a Dixie-CRAT, not a Dixie-CAN. When he lost, he went back to being a Democrat. He only repudiated his segregationist views when he later became a Republican"

""Affirmative action" has become the touchstone of Democratic racial politics. Democrats portray anyone who opposes affirmative action as racist. But affirmative action, as currently practiced, is racist to the core. It is based on the assumption that African-Americans are incapable of competing with whites. It represents the kind of paternalistic racism that would have done honor to Calhoun. For the modern liberal Democratic racist as for the old-fashioned one, blacks are simply incapable of freedom. They will always need Ol’ Massa’s help. And woe be to any African-American who wanders off of the Democratic plantation. Ask Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, or Ward Connerly. Although they echo the call for a "color-blind society" that once characterized the vision of Martin Luther King Jr., they are pilloried as "Uncle Toms" of "Oreos" by such enforcers of the Democratic plantation system as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton."

Your racist democrats are still racist. Nothing has changed except the rhetoric.

Your delusional.
The Republicans are far left?
Ideology wise they have not shifted in the last 50 years?
You got problems man.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

But you lie about Israel being a welfare state, you lie and say there illegally occupying land. There not doing anything that America, Russia, China, Japan, England, and over history many others have done when being attacked. If you can't see how Islamic assholes are fucking up the world today than your a closed minded person. You accuse of hate but it is Islamic leaders everywhere preaching hate against all, even other Muslims. But you choose to blame America for there evil, as if they are not responsible for there own plight. There a product of centuries old structures and laws that hinder them in today's world. A big reason for all the uprising in Arab countries now, they are seeing the world pass them by because of there isolation and oppressive culture. Israel is the only democracy and true friend America has in the region, a free country that allows Muslims Jews and Christians to openly worship. You won't find churches in Palistine or jews period walking through Pakistan, they would be killed by Muslims because of hate. And you defend that? The Islamic religion in there eyes makes their killings of innocent people justified and honorable, they will kill more Americans in the name of there god. And by doing so they will continue to suffer at home until they take control of there radical cults and westernize there governments to represent the people not Allah's will. You can't run countries by a centuries old book written by men to control and enslave and expect the people to prosper.

Listen man, devout Muslims are fucked up nobodys questioning that.

I don't know how israel isn't a welfare state though if it gets more aid than South America and Africa combined, for a country of what 15 million?
What is Israels GDP compared to its aid?

[niknik]

Most of there aid is military aid, which helps stabilize the region. The only reason I agree with it is because Muslims would go in and slaughter every man women and child without it.