RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground.

RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Kirata -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 2:17:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Bush SPEAKS like a fucking moron. So he's a fucking moron. Oh, the temptation! K.

dcnovice -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 2:18:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bipolarber Hummm... America has lost the high moral ground... This from a church which willfully ignored the problems of pedophillia in their ranks for the last 25 to 30 years... Who gave tacit approval of the holocaust (turning their heads the other way, even though it's been proven that the Vatican was aware of the "final solution" as it was going on), sending 6,000,000 jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and political dissidents to their deaths. Who was responsible for the Inquisition... a little operation that makes GITMO look like a summer camp for rich kids. Who threatened Galilieo with torture, if he didn't recant the heresy of saying that the Earth was not the center of the universe... (Which they did not retract until Dec. 25, 1968, as Apollo 8 rounded the moon.) Who burned Bruno at the stake for his crime of saying that there may be other worlds than ours out in space... (The current count, as of this writing, of extrasolar planets is about 450.) Religion in general, and Roman Catholosicim in specific, has done more to hold our world back from the truth than any other institution in existence. It's tortured people, burned them at the stake, threatened the families of people who had greater knowledge, and stood aside as one of the greatest evils in living memory was committed, simply becaue it was convienint for them. Yeah, the ABC's words really hurt ME, to be sure... You seem to be assuming that the ABC is a Roman Catholic. He's not.

nagatzhul2 -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 2:26:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle You are aware of Bush's record of Failure in the business world, so I don't know about that. I am aware that Bush, like any other business man, has had successes and failures. While you want to focus on only the failures, I want to deal with the facts. There lies the difference. quote: And given his failure to avoid the quagmire in Iraq, ( What did any Iraqi do to YOU, Buddy? ), I stick by my assessment of "Pretty Fucking Stupid". Don't you mean Clinton's failure? Clinton was the one that left things sitting for two terms after being advised by the UN that there were still live weapons in Iraq. Clinton was the one that hamstrung our intelligence community making it all but impossible to get accurate information on the current state of WMDs in the region. Clinton was the one that allowed terrorists to transport restricted items in and out of Iraq. And Clinton was the one who did nothing when Saddam starting paying rewards to terrorists and their families and bribed the UN officials. Bush took over the office when the problems were already firmly entrenched. That hardly makes him stupid.

CuriousLord -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 2:28:31 PM)
Fair warning: If you continue to engage in this subject, this thread will become another one about Bush, which we've had more than enough of in the past decade.

nagatzhul2 -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 2:31:54 PM)
I am far more concerned with sticking with the facts than how the thread morphs.

popeye1250 -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 2:37:36 PM)
Fargle said he didn't think the U.S. ever had the "high moral ground" in the first place. I agree but not for the reasons you may think. Personally, I just don't think that the U.S. should be in "the moral high ground" business in the first place. And, just who is it who gets to decide just "what" "the moral high ground" is in the first place? I thought morality was a human trait not a "governmental" one.

nagatzhul2 -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 2:46:18 PM)
Morality is a religious trait, not a human one. Our laws are based on the idea that God has given people basic rights. If you are not basing morals and laws on a an unearthly standard then you are practicing moral relativism, not objective morality. If you want objective morality, you need to choose something higher than humanity or else it will be a constantly shifting playing field.

dcnovice -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 2:47:16 PM)
quote: I am far more concerned with sticking with the facts than how the thread morphs. Ah, a noble seeker of truth. So tragically misapprehended as a Bush apologist.

nagatzhul2 -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 2:49:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Ah, a noble seeker of truth. So tragically misapprehended as a Bush apologist. And a spelling nazi, that should be "of" , not "or".

dcnovice -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 2:54:51 PM)
I don't see the word "or" in the text you quoted.

NorthernGent -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 2:55:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Fargle said he didn't think the U.S. ever had the "high moral ground" in the first place. I agree but not for the reasons you may think. Personally, I just don't think that the U.S. should be in "the moral high ground" business in the first place. And, just who is it who gets to decide just "what" "the moral high ground" is in the first place? I thought morality was a human trait not a "governmental" one. I think the Archbishop is referring to sentiment in the aftermath of the New York incident; he believes that the US was entitled to claim moral superiority because 3,000ish people were killed by fundamentalists, or something like that. Nail on the head with the "who decides" comment, Popeye. We claim moral superiority because we don't strap bombs to our waists, but we turn a blind eye to state sponsored and supported attacks with weaponry that can demolish a village in seconds.

nagatzhul2 -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 3:01:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice I don't see the word "or" in the text you quoted. Not surprising, it has been edited after the fact. I still have the original on my screen from when I posted originally.

dcnovice -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 3:05:45 PM)
You're saying I managed to edit YOUR post? That would be quite a feat.

popeye1250 -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 3:11:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nagatzhul2 Morality is a religious trait, not a human one. Our laws are based on the idea that God has given people basic rights. If you are not basing morals and laws on a an unearthly standard then you are practicing moral relativism, not objective morality. If you want objective morality, you need to choose something higher than humanity or else it will be a constantly shifting playing field. Naga, I don't want either. I want my government doing the things it should be doing like securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws. I don't want them getting involved in the internal affairs of foreign countries. There are too many things in the country that need doing like building new infrastructure to be involved in foreign countries.

nagatzhul2 -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 3:16:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice You're saying I managed to edit YOUR post? That would be quite a feat. Not if you are a moderator or have another account as a moderator. The fact is that both your post and my post changed. And I even have a screen shot (at this point) of your original post. “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

dcnovice -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 3:18:22 PM)
No, I'm not a moderator.

camille65 -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 3:19:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice No, I'm not a moderator. But did you sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night? Hehe.

Alumbrado -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 3:21:05 PM)
[sm=biggrin.gif]

nagatzhul2 -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 3:23:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Naga, I don't want either. I want my government doing the things it should be doing like securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws. I don't want them getting involved in the internal affairs of foreign countries. There are too many things in the country that need doing like building new infrastructure to be involved in foreign countries. Fair enough. If you want to decide things on policy and have that policy, I am in agreement with you. I simply feel that it is important to realize the bedrock our government and laws are based on. You may not want it, but it is already here. You sort of have to work with the hand you are dealt, unless you want to start all over again. I, personally, would like to go back to the Constitution and the original Bill of Rights. I think we have added too much crap (the IRS, for example) and we have been managed by those with socialist leanings for too long. And I very much prefer the attitude of the Founding Fathers as concerned foriegn powers. I think it would take care of a lot of current issues, including Iraq.

dcnovice -> RE: Archbishop of Canterbury says U.S. has lost the high moral ground. (11/25/2007 3:23:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: camille65 quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice No, I'm not a moderator. But did you sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night? Hehe. Depends. Was the person I was with attractive?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875