StevenSeagal

Maybe you're being cynical for effect, but this is a pretty serious accusation, and one that gets made unnecessarily cheaper when it's thrown about carelessly; in particular, it gets used frequently towards anyone who questions the political actions of the State of Israel. I would argue that there is a significant difference between disagreeing with the politics of Israel, and being a "Jew-hater". However, the prevailing attitude of those who make such accusations seems to want to make Israeli politics off limits to criticism by assigning eternal victim status to Jews and guilting critics into silence. The Jewish people, and everyone else for that matter, deserve better than this. Not to mention, such hysterics stifle meaningful dialogue. Both Israel and Palestine have a "right to exist", however you view the breadth and scope of that term; Israel is not going away, but neither are the native Arabs. In the end, I think that no solution- political or otherwise- is really possible as long as everyone continues to actually think that the land in question is "holy". In other words, this is a war that will likely never cease.

The best response is the one having the most fun with your mom.

It talks? OMG!

He's a nice guy for sure.

Not in my neighborhood they don't: GjewTcfWyEU

Thanks for the link, but we are not yet finished arguing with you over in the McCain thread.

LOCK THIS THREAD NOW!

There's a whole world out there, Peter.

Broaden your search beyond Fox News and rushlimbaugh.com and you might discover some new information.

spare me your sanctimony homey and give concise reasons as to why you disagree, like peter puget did! I sense a "lick sack" forthcoming... Porter, can we get a "teabagger" smiley for KKKKK?

What about Pastor Parsley? No condemnation for advocating the total destruction of Islam and to kill lots of brown people?

Oh, you mean to teach us the lesson that a man can provide spiritual influence that is unconnected to his politics, is that it? So Parsley just reads McCain the Bible and helps him with anger management, yes?

It's different because Rush tells the TRUTH.

more from mccain's spiritual guide: I cannot tell you how important it is that you know the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore. doesn't that make you all blush with the glory of mccain's philosophical and religious associations? mccain: the insane man for the job. Yeah, and Obama's pastor, what a level-headed dude! You're doing exactly what Fox news and Limbaugh did w/r/t Reverend Jeremiah Wright. And now you're doing what sexual chocolate did when he did what rush limbaugh did.

He agreed with him before he disagreed with him.

I've Obama will abolish baseball and hot dogs, and he likes to stomp kittens.

On second thought- class warfare? Are you suggesting there is harmony right now?

That looks a lot like some of my neighbors right now.

Might grant you the first three, but how could Obama possibly increase government spending and make the budget deficit any worse than the Bush admin has? Or do you mean, increase government spending on programs that you personally do not like?

So much so that you registered to tell us?!?

This commercial always cheers me up- turn up your sound to appreciate the music. 9yc2tUg8cnQ

Are Christians allowed to pick which laws of the Old Testament to ignore? If so, under what moral framework should they use to decide? On what basis are they "not bound" by the old law? Why do some Christians still read the Old Testament? Serious question.

This, coming from a guy who makes blanket statements equating Stalin and Mao's moral framework as 'typical' of atheists, and alludes that these are examples of the end result of having no organized religion guiding one's life.

The context of Dawkins' arguments I point out above was not to refute the Bible point by point, but to refute the assertions of the religious that morality has its roots strictly in scripture and that atheists "have no morals". And again, your second sentence merely reinforces his point that everyone interprets the Bible differently according to an evolving sense of morality preestablished- from...where? Culture? I'm not a Bible scholar and at the same time I can't align with his views 100% but I think he makes clear and cogent points. If you wish to take issue with his views and/or are prepared to have your views challenged, then I suggest reading his book, because it is interesting regardless of your inclinations. Dawkins sums up his chapter on the roots of morality thus: "...I and many others hold the belief that we do not need God to be good- or evil". In all my life I have never understood why it need be any more complicated than that.