on the iran deal

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

As one Tehran resident quoted by the AP puts it, “There are three groups of people in the world who are against the deal: War-mongering Republicans in the U.S., Netanyahu and hard-liners in Iran.”

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Kind of like how fundamentalist Christians and Muslims attack each other's beliefs, when in fact they have very similar positions on lots of things, like treatment of women and gays.

It is laughable for you to compare fundamentalist Christians to Muslims. Your views are actually similar to hate groups. One of the main reasons that hate groups hate certain groups is because of totally false beliefs that they have about these groups. That is similar to you. You have these completely false beliefs about fundamentalist Christians. I guess it might even make sense for you to hate them if you actually believe these things.

It's blasphemous for you to make such a comparison. In Muslim countries, they imprison and kill people for being gay. In many of these Muslim countries, women have to keep their faces covered. They can't drive. They can't vote. They aren't allowed to travel alone, etc. They get stoned to death for alleged adultery. In some of these countries, women aren't even allowed to work. The persecution may slightly vary from one Muslim country to another, but women and gays are treated horribly. I'm not aware of any fundamentalist Christian that is in favor of any type of persecution of women or gays.

For you to try on any level to compare a Christian's view of women and gays to a Muslim's view is disgraceful and offensive. It is completely out of line. There is no comparison on any level.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by bigrun

That is typical of a liberal. Somebody says something that is completely false and you congratulate them. Wishing that a false statement was true doesn't make it true. You guys never let the truth interfere with your phony narrative.

I predict that there will be close to a 2/3rd majority in Congress against this deal. If I am right. it will show that you guys are totally wrong in trying to pretend that it is only partisan republicans who are against this deal.

[Danzig]

It really doesn't matter who in congress is against it. And I couldn't care less what Saudi Arabia does.
All congress can do is vote to keep u.s. sanctions in place.
As for Israel, the billion and a half extra in aid will bring them some solace I'm sure....and defense contractors as well.


Here's this, regarding congress
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/16/politi...ess-iran-deal/


Also, note, this isn't a tresaty between us and Iran, thus the voting is different. A simple majority vote to say yes or nay. If nay, Obama would veto...and then congress would have to get 2/3rds

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Kind of like how fundamentalist Christians and Muslims attack each other's beliefs, when in fact they have very similar positions on lots of things, like treatment of women and gays.

Too true. I will always remember the daily show where they talked to some alabamana about them passing a law against using any 'foreign law'. When asked why they didn't want any biblical laws, they were shocked at such a suggestion. No, its against sharia!! Er, Jesus wasn't born in america. Oh, hilarity!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

As one Tehran resident quoted by the AP puts it, “There are three groups of people in the world who are against the deal: War-mongering Republicans in the U.S., Netanyahu and hard-liners in Iran.”

A guy on the streets of Tel Aviv was quoted as saying, "There are three groups of people in the world who are in favor of the deal: Left-wing democrats, the Iranian Mullahs, and President Obama and his family."

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It is laughable for you to compare fundamentalist Christians to Muslims. Your views are actually similar to hate groups. One of the main reasons that hate groups hate certain groups is because of totally false beliefs that they have about these groups. That is similar to you. You have these completely false beliefs about fundamentalist Christians. I guess it might even make sense for you to hate them if you actually believe these things.

It's blasphemous for you to make such a comparison. In Muslim countries, they imprison and kill people for being gay. In many of these Muslim countries, women have to keep their faces covered. They can't drive. They can't vote. They aren't allowed to travel alone, etc. They get stoned to death for alleged adultery. In some of these countries, women aren't even allowed to work. The persecution may slightly vary from one Muslim country to another, but women and gays are treated horribly. I'm not aware of any fundamentalist Christian that is in favor of any type of persecution of women or gays.

For you to try on any level to compare a Christian's view of women and gays to a Muslim's view is disgraceful and offensive. It is completely out of line. There is no comparison on any level.

As a secularist, I don't believe in blasphemy.

The reason our nation's government does not permit legal murder of homosexuals and (at least obvious) subjugation of women is because our government is SECULAR. The Founding Fathers wisely structured the young United States to try to keep religious zealots as far away from the seats of power as they could.

In your own home state of CA, a Christian lawyer this spring filed a ballot proposal to make it legal to shoot gay men and women in the head. Here is what this Christian lawyer had to say about homosexuality:

"Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God's just wrath against us for the folly of tolerating-wickedness in our midst, the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method."

And here's another article from 2015 about Christian pastors who support stoning homosexuals to death, because it's in the Bible, after all:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progres...r-homosexuals/

And here's a lovely article about Christians who have murdered children in the name of disciplining them the way they believe the Bible tells them to:

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/a_st...abuse_partner/

And an article by a guy explaining why the Bible says it's okay to "gently" hit your wife:

http://christwire.org/2009/04/is-it-...beat-his-wife/

I should note in this rage-inducing article, he says that were it a few hundred years ago, he would gladly have helped kill a woman who committed adultery.

And the typical response is, "Well, but these people aren't REAL Christians." Yeah, tell that to them. Their response will be that they are the real deal and you're not. And they do believe they're doing a better job of following the Bible than you are.

And I am grateful I live in a nation where religion is not allowed to make the laws. And I pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that his Holy Noodleness continues to keep it that way.

Oh! One more. Reminder of the woman in Ireland who died because doctors refused her an abortion of a dying fetus that would have saved her life:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2128696.html

Highlight from the story:
""Again on Tuesday morning ... the consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country. Savita said: `I am neither Irish nor Catholic' but they said there was nothing they could do," Praveen Halappanavar said."

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

As a secularist, I don't believe in blasphemy.

The reason our nation's government does not permit legal murder of homosexuals and (at least obvious) subjugation of women is because our government is SECULAR. The Founding Fathers wisely structured the young United States to try to keep religious zealots as far away from the seats of power as they could.

In your own home state of CA, a Christian lawyer this spring filed a ballot proposal to make it legal to shoot gay men and women in the head. Here is what this Christian lawyer had to say about homosexuality:

"Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God's just wrath against us for the folly of tolerating-wickedness in our midst, the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method."

And here's another article from 2015 about Christian pastors who support stoning homosexuals to death, because it's in the Bible, after all:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progres...r-homosexuals/

And here's a lovely article about Christians who have murdered children in the name of disciplining them the way they believe the Bible tells them to:

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/a_st...abuse_partner/

And an article by a guy explaining why the Bible says it's okay to "gently" hit your wife:

http://christwire.org/2009/04/is-it-...beat-his-wife/

I should note in this rage-inducing article, he says that were it a few hundred years ago, he would gladly have helped kill a woman who committed adultery.

And the typical response is, "Well, but these people aren't REAL Christians." Yeah, tell that to them. Their response will be that they are the real deal and you're not. And they do believe they're doing a better job of following the Bible than you are.

And I am grateful I live in a nation where religion is not allowed to make the laws. And I pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that his Holy Noodleness continues to keep it that way.

Oh! One more. Reminder of the woman in Ireland who died because doctors refused her an abortion of a dying fetus that would have saved her life:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2128696.html

Highlight from the story:
""Again on Tuesday morning ... the consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country. Savita said: `I am neither Irish nor Catholic' but they said there was nothing they could do," Praveen Halappanavar said."

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

As a secularist, I don't believe in blasphemy.

The reason our nation's government does not permit legal murder of homosexuals and (at least obvious) subjugation of women is because our government is SECULAR. The Founding Fathers wisely structured the young United States to try to keep religious zealots as far away from the seats of power as they could.

In your own home state of CA, a Christian lawyer this spring filed a ballot proposal to make it legal to shoot gay men and women in the head. Here is what this Christian lawyer had to say about homosexuality:

"Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God's just wrath against us for the folly of tolerating-wickedness in our midst, the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method."

And here's another article from 2015 about Christian pastors who support stoning homosexuals to death, because it's in the Bible, after all:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progres...r-homosexuals/

And here's a lovely article about Christians who have murdered children in the name of disciplining them the way they believe the Bible tells them to:

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/a_st...abuse_partner/

And an article by a guy explaining why the Bible says it's okay to "gently" hit your wife:

http://christwire.org/2009/04/is-it-...beat-his-wife/

I should note in this rage-inducing article, he says that were it a few hundred years ago, he would gladly have helped kill a woman who committed adultery.

And the typical response is, "Well, but these people aren't REAL Christians." Yeah, tell that to them. Their response will be that they are the real deal and you're not. And they do believe they're doing a better job of following the Bible than you are.

And I am grateful I live in a nation where religion is not allowed to make the laws. And I pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that his Holy Noodleness continues to keep it that way.

Oh! One more. Reminder of the woman in Ireland who died because doctors refused her an abortion of a dying fetus that would have saved her life:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2128696.html

Highlight from the story:
""Again on Tuesday morning ... the consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country. Savita said: `I am neither Irish nor Catholic' but they said there was nothing they could do," Praveen Halappanavar said."

I don't know if any of those people are real Christians, but what percentage of fundamentalist Christians do you think hold those views? We're not talking about 1%. We are talking about .00001%. How can you condemn a group based on what maybe one person out of 100,000 in that group thinks? That is ridiculous.

Did you see this story? These gay activists who aren't too bright were caught on tape saying they'd like to "kick Judge Kennedy's ass, then string him up, and kick his ass again." They said this before the Supreme Court ruling. As I said, they aren't too bright. They had no idea that Judge Kennedy was going to be the deciding vote in their favor.

http://barbwire.com/2015/06/12/hidde...thony-kennedy/

You claim, "The reason our nation's government does not permit legal murder of homosexuals is because our government is SECULAR." What are you smoking? Our government being secular has nothing to do with the murder of any people being illegal. Where do you come up with this stuff? I think most people are against murder, regardless of whether they are religious. I haven't seen any evidence that Christians are more tolerant of murder than atheists.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't know if any of those people are real Christians, but what percentage of fundamentalist Christians do you think hold those views? We're not talking about 1%. We are talking about .00001%. How can you condemn a group based on what maybe one person out of 100,000 in that group thinks? That is ridiculous.

Did you see this story? These gay activists who aren't too bright were caught on tape saying they'd like to "kick Judge Kennedy's ass, then string him up, and kick his ass again." They said this before the Supreme Court ruling. As I said, they aren't too bright. They had no idea that Judge Kennedy was going to be the deciding vote in their favor.

http://barbwire.com/2015/06/12/hidde...thony-kennedy/

You claim, "The reason our nation's government does not permit legal murder of homosexuals is because our government is SECULAR." What are you smoking? Our government being secular has nothing to do with the murder of any people being illegal. Where do you come up with this stuff? I think most people are against murder, regardless of whether they are religious. I haven't seen any evidence that Christians are more tolerant of murder than atheists.

Just curious. What is your magic number Let's call it the OU perecentage that you use before condeming a group based upon a small minority of them?

[Danzig]

http://www.lifewayresearch.com/2015/...-gay-marriage/


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-...b_2229509.html

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by jms62

Just curious. What is your magic number Let's call it the OU perecentage that you use before condeming a group based upon a small minority of them?

If the person is Muslim, I believe he works from a sample size of one.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You claim, "The reason our nation's government does not permit legal murder of homosexuals is because our government is SECULAR." What are you smoking? Our government being secular has nothing to do with the murder of any people being illegal. Where do you come up with this stuff? I think most people are against murder, regardless of whether they are religious. I haven't seen any evidence that Christians are more tolerant of murder than atheists.

The people hung as witches in Salem would beg to differ, except they're dead. But you know, colonial Massachusetts was run by Christian law back in 1692 and that's how things went then. Were the US gov't run by Christian fundamentalists today, there'd be a heck lot more "crimes" eligible for the death penalty.

And, in the long-ago era of 1994, a man got 18 months for murdering his wife, and the judge was upset he had to give him even that much, because, you know, she cheated on him, therefore her husband killing her was appropriate:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/199...-cheating-wife

This was in that barbaric nation known as the State of Maryland.

[Pants II]

Trophy this thread up, yall.

Nuclear power is brilliant in highly seismic areas.

Thread of the century.

Go Obama.

[Pants II]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

As a secularist, I don't believe in blasphemy.

The reason our nation's government does not permit legal murder of homosexuals and (at least obvious) subjugation of women is because our government is SECULAR. The Founding Fathers wisely structured the young United States to try to keep religious zealots as far away from the seats of power as they could.

In your own home state of CA, a Christian lawyer this spring filed a ballot proposal to make it legal to shoot gay men and women in the head. Here is what this Christian lawyer had to say about homosexuality:

"Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God's just wrath against us for the folly of tolerating-wickedness in our midst, the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method."

And here's another article from 2015 about Christian pastors who support stoning homosexuals to death, because it's in the Bible, after all:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progres...r-homosexuals/

And here's a lovely article about Christians who have murdered children in the name of disciplining them the way they believe the Bible tells them to:

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/a_st...abuse_partner/

And an article by a guy explaining why the Bible says it's okay to "gently" hit your wife:

http://christwire.org/2009/04/is-it-...beat-his-wife/

I should note in this rage-inducing article, he says that were it a few hundred years ago, he would gladly have helped kill a woman who committed adultery.

And the typical response is, "Well, but these people aren't REAL Christians." Yeah, tell that to them. Their response will be that they are the real deal and you're not. And they do believe they're doing a better job of following the Bible than you are.

And I am grateful I live in a nation where religion is not allowed to make the laws. And I pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that his Holy Noodleness continues to keep it that way.

Oh! One more. Reminder of the woman in Ireland who died because doctors refused her an abortion of a dying fetus that would have saved her life:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2128696.html

Highlight from the story:
""Again on Tuesday morning ... the consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country. Savita said: `I am neither Irish nor Catholic' but they said there was nothing they could do," Praveen Halappanavar said."

Those same founding fathers owned slaves and you don't like that at all.

So why use them in support of your lunacy now when it's convenient, you colossal phony?

The Nazis were secular too. Go f.uck yourself, you worthless liberal whore.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Just curious. What is your magic number Let's call it the OU perecentage that you use before condeming a group based upon a small minority of them?

If it was in the 10-20% range, I would say that would definitely qualify. If it's in the one out of 100,000 range, that would not come close to qualifying.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The people hung as witches in Salem would beg to differ, except they're dead. But you know, colonial Massachusetts was run by Christian law back in 1692 and that's how things went then. Were the US gov't run by Christian fundamentalists today, there'd be a heck lot more "crimes" eligible for the death penalty.

And, in the long-ago era of 1994, a man got 18 months for murdering his wife, and the judge was upset he had to give him even that much, because, you know, she cheated on him, therefore her husband killing her was appropriate:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/199...-cheating-wife

This was in that barbaric nation known as the State of Maryland.

I don't see the article saying anything about the Judge in the Maryland case being Christian. If he is Christian, I thought you said that Christians are more likely to give the death penalty. This judge was lenient. He sounds like a liberal to me. I'm surprised he's not your favorite judge.

I have a question for you. If you did a poll right now and asked people what the punishment should be for murdering a cheating spouse, do you think that Christians would be more lenient on the killer than non-Christians? I don't think that would be the case. I think it would actually be the opposite. So I'm not sure what your point was.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

If the person is Muslim, I believe he works from a sample size of one.

Yes, how did you know? Any negative views I have on Islam are based on this one case that I heard about where a Muslim man slapped his wife. That's it. Aside from that, there is nothing to be critical about when it comes to Islam. There is nothing negative aside from that. I can't figure out where the criticism of Islam comes from.

What do you think Muslims throughout the world thought of Osama bin Laden a few years after 9/11? Here is the answer: Osama bin Laden is viewed favorably by large percentages in Pakistan (65%), Jordan (55%) and Morocco (45%).

http://www.people-press.org/2004/03/...fter-iraq-war/

[OldDog]

Well, color me shocked...

Two key documents are missing from the Iran nuclear deal submitted to Congress, and the two leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee want the Obama administration to hand them over, Chairman Bob Corker said Tuesday.

The Tennessee Republican said he and ranking Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland wrote to request the missing documents, which he said deal with an Iranian military facility at Parchin and a side agreement Iran reached with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"We sent a letter today, both of us, asking the administration for the documents," he said.

A Corker spokesperson later told the Washington Examiner:

"Senators Corker and Cardin sent a private letter to Secretary [of State John] Kerry requesting two additional documents associated with the Iran nuclear agreement that were left out of the materials required to be submitted to Congress per the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act that the president signed into law."

[Danzig]

Apparently the huckster is turning to trump-isms to try to move up in the polls. How else can this rank hyperbole be explained?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...50e_story.html