Well, if you look at the types of women that reject the leftist types of political policies, they do seem to be women that either have some interest in wealthy men being able to succeed with  little regard for the welfare of the poorer types or women like Palin and Bachmann that essentially want everybody to have to kowtow to the worthless book known as the Bible and its teachings which actually seek to subjugate women and others.  So, it's not as if they don't have some problems.

So, in other words, in your "tolerant" worldview if a woman holds a view that opposes the views of Liberals they must be a gold digging bimbo or a jesus freak? That's not stereotyping at all ...

Of course the failed economy stems directly from Bush's polciies which anyone was going to have a hard time correcting and which the Republican Tea Party types will only exacerbate for everyone other than the rich when they get in office most likely leading this country down the road to a civil war in the not too distant future or at the very least into a time of rampant lawlessness like the 1930s as many of the common people have to turn to crime and an entire generation of new Dillingers and Bonnie and Clydes rises up to express the disaffected resentments of the poor especially after The Republicans if they get back in full control following the 2012 elections manage to cut out food stamps and welfare.

If it is "Bush's policies" that are leading to the failure of the economy, why didn't the Democrats reverse these policies when they had full control of all legislative and executive branches? Why has Obama and the Democrats allowed the US to accelerate the most destructive policies of the Bush era (unsustainable deficit spending and a loose monetary policy to drive growth through consumption? Why were these policies in place long before Bush came to power? Why are Bush and the Republicans on record (many times) calling for a change to lending practices in 2003/2004 to avoid a housing bubble and the Democrats on the record as calling any tightening of mortgage rules "racist"?

The mass of poor and  greatly uneducated white folks  that swell the Tea Parties' numbers and make it look like anything more than just a club of rich people upset that they're going to have to pay more in taxes to help out lower class Americans certainly are against Obama due to his skin color.  Of course the more affluent members of the Conservative party (though they may also share racist tendancies) are primarilly against Obama because they definitely don't want to pay any more money to help ease the lot of the lower classes in this nation and to help them in that cause they enlisted the masses of the poor whites that don't know any better due to the fact that they're blinded by their religion's teachings.

The facts dispute your world view:

Their racism is even apparent in their treatment of Herman Caine whom they're running as a Presidential candidate to deflate the charges of racism, however, you certanly don't see Caine coming anywhere near being the frontrunner of the Conservatives.  No, that's Romney whom is very much emblematic of the old white religious boy's club that the Conservative party happens to be (even with Bachmann and Palin in the mix whose main role is to subjugate women as the book they follow calls for and to stroke the prejudices of the religious folks as I've mentioned before).

Are you this vocal against progressive activists who call for the linching of Clarence Thomas, or are you just one massive partisan hypocrite?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ctO7fdrcc

Well, if you look at the types of women that reject the leftist types of political policies, they do seem to be women that either have some interest in wealthy men being able to succeed with  little regard for the welfare of the poorer types or women like Palin and Bachmann that essentially want everybody to have to kowtow to the worthless book known as the Bible and its teachings which actually seek to subjugate women and others.  So, it's not as if they don't have some problems.

Of course the failed economy stems directly from Bush's polciies which anyone was going to have a hard time correcting and which the Republican Tea Party types will only exacerbate for everyone other than the rich when they get in office most likely leading this country down the road to a civil war in the not too distant future or at the very least into a time of rampant lawlessness like the 1930s as many of the common people have to turn to crime and an entire generation of new Dillingers and Bonnie and Clydes rises up to express the disaffected resentments of the poor especially when The Republicans manage to cut out food stamps and welfare.

The mass of poor and  greatly uneducated white folks  that swell the Tea Parties' numbers and make it look like anything more than just a club of rich people upset that they're going to have to pay more in taxes to help out lower class Americans certainly are against Obama due to his skin color.  Of course the more affluent members of the Conservative party (though they may also share racist tendancies) are primarilly against Obama because they definitely don't want to pay any more money to help ease the lot of the lower classes in this nation and to help them in that cause they enlisted the masses of the poor whites that don't know any more due to the fact that they're blinded by their religion's teachings.

Their racism is even apparent in their treatment of Herman Caine whom they're running as a Presidential candidate to deflate the charges of racism, however, you certianly don't see Caine coming anywhere near being the frontrunner of the Conservatives.  No, that's Romney whom is very much emblematic of the old white religious boy's club that the Conservative party happens to be (even with Bachmann and Palin in the mix whose main role is to subjugate women as the book they follow calls for and to stroke the prejudices of the religious folks as I've mentioned before).

Actually, those figures from USA Today very much support my position and are one of the primary sources that I've used for data to come to my conclusion (79% white, 68% are fairly uneducated  49% employed probably quite a few of those are poor whites that are employed at low rent jobs like the fast food industry and that are very much prejudiced due to being brought up on The Bible).  The only thing USA Today failed to do was list the Religious makeup by percentage of the Tea Party.  Maybe it's hard to peg down due to the fact that they're misleading about it much as they won't express the fact that they don't like Obama due to his skin color.  However, I do consider that to be an essential yet missing piece of information here.   My guess though is that far more than 50% of them are either Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christians.  Have to go now.  Back later. 

Player1X3 said: "There is no proof that my God doesnt exist. Until you show the evidence that says so, your argument '#your God doesnt exist'# is useless. The abrahaic God is different than earlier gods in almost every way."

I said: Can you demonstrate that with some kind of scholarly evidence? Just saying so doesn't make it true and if you go back and look at Genesis, for example, you see that Yahweh was very much behaving in the Flood narrative exactly as Ea and Enki were doing in the earlier Sumerian version except for the fact that in the later work contained in Genesis Yahweh is one God displaying the personality characteristics of the two earlier Sumerian Gods which makes sense if one assumes that religion evolves from polytheism to monotheism due to the fact that Monotheism makes it easier to control the people.

And I already said that the symbolics and some of the stories from pagan religions have been added to Christianity by its early  schoolars to make the conversion easier. But the personality and the characteristics of the abrahamic God IS NOTHING like the ones of pagan gods. Pagan Gods often appear in human forms, they interact with the human world, they ''controll'' it, they NEED HUMAN PRAYERS AND ANIMAL SACRIFACES TO SURVIVE, they often act arrogant, lustful and heroic in some cases. Abrahamic God DOES NOT appear in human form (Jesus Christ was a son of God sent by God himself), he doesnt interact with the human world (only with humans themselfes, trough faith) and the most important thing, GOD DOESNT NEED ANYTHING FROM HUMANS AT ALL. Abrahaic God also isnt always portrayted as arrogant, lustufl and heroic. Like I said before some symbolics and stories are given to abrahamic religions(like Noah's Ark) but the God himself is very different. Any theologist can tell you that.You are telling me that because Islam recognizes Jesus Christ that its irrelevant and wrong, because it has a figure from other religion??? I hope you know, how dumb that sounds

Player1X3 said:
"When the Founders might not have written what has become inflammatory references about God into the Constitution.
Whatever your opinnion on their writings was, the fact remains that the constitituion says the laws come from the God. And what exaclty did chnage about God so that american constitution must be rewritten? And Bible's (Bible is the New testament) authors were people around Jesus, his followers and apostolles, as its already been confirmed, Jesus Christ is a historiclly proven person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible"


I Said: On The Constitution, even if they wrote about God in The Constitution, there's no reason to think they would have if they had been born a couple of hundred years later and gone to the best schools in the land. Matter of fact being Enlightenment era thinkers they probably would not have done so and seeing as how they left rooms for Ammendments to have been made to the Constitution after their time, then they probably wouldn't have minded too much if someone had removed them following the scientific advances of the 19th Century. As a matter of fact if one reads Founding Father Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason" wherein he states that he believes in God but nothing that humans have ever written about him and Jesus as well for that matter; then one would have expected them to have anticipated such a removal of those types of passages.

You didnt answer my question. What has chnaged so much in people's view of God ? God is still worshipped by huge majority of the people on this planet. Sure, our science has advanced enormously fast, but nothing that disproves God in any way has been shown up and it most likely never will. And most of people during the Age of Enlightment were DESITS, as in believed in god, just not in any specific chrch or religion. Aso, some of the greatest thinkers in science were christians themselves

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

Nevertheless The Founding Fathers' writing about God's Laws wouldn't make God any the more when all scientific evidence says he doesn't exist.

And what would this divine evidence might be? Because I sure never heard of it

As for Jesus as a historical person: Most of The New Testament books weren't written until about 30 to 40 years after Jesus died and there's really no way to know if they were historically accurate as to what they had to say about Jesus. A lot of evidence says that some of the Gnostic Gospels that were excluded from The Bible at The Council of Nicea in 315 CE due to Constantine's wanting to co-op the religion as many before him did to create his own system of keeping the people in line that were quite a bit more radical in their thinking than anything contained in The Bible were actually closer in line to what Jesus had to say than were the Synoptic (accepted) Gospels.

Jesus of Nazareth has been prven to exist as a historical figure. Weather or not the deity of Jesus Christ existed is debateable and not proven yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_an_historical_person

Also, take a look at these videos for more information, be sure to wacth all 4 parts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrRQqYGf4O0

As for the council of Nicea look at this here

At any rate no outside authority (other than some disputed passages in Josephus) had much to say about whether or not Jesus was a real historical figure. I think the only hard evidence for Jesus' physical existence is his tomb in the Jerusalem Museum which a lot of authorities want to dispute, however, it is really the only hard evidence for Jesus being an actual person. However, The Jerusalem Crypt is certainly not an empty tomb and as there are ashes and bone chips belonging to Jesus in it, it's pretty apparent if you accept the only real evidence for his existence that Jesus didn't do such a good job of raising from the dead after three days.

As if those links above arent enough, look at this one here as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

"So you, like all other atheists I know, like to focus on small minority of fundamentalists and fanatics and totally ignore all the other reasonable normal people who follow Christianity to benefit your own hateful and ignorant thoughts and beliefs of Christianity, because you hate it so much? Isnt this extremly irrational and biased? How about you star being objective for a while and look at the bigger picture. I am fine with you hating on them, in fact, i dont like them either, they give other people bad name, but when you try and judge the group of 2.2 billion people based on actions of a small miniroty of people, thats what pisses me off. And let me tell you, Christianity is the ost liberal abrahamic religion in the world."

If they exist in those numbers yet they're letting the much smaller group of fanatics etc, still do as they please, then they're still towing the party line which doesn't do much to raise my opinion of them.

Player1X3: "Oh please, the reason Middle Ages was as bloody as it was, was the collapse of roman empire and foundation of lots of less civilized kingdoms and tribes that only used Christiany as a tool to make people go to war for them. And I am not defending the church at all, as I dont follow one, I am defending Christian relligion and its innocence during history. I do NOT wish the church to rule over a country, but I would never ever go forbid a religion in any country, like you would"

Yeah 100,000s of thousands of dead folks due to a religion's main scriptures makes it absolutely innocent. Many people died simply because they choice to follow a different God than Yahweh as forbidden in the very first of the Ten Commandments.

So in other words, you havent got a single clue about Christianity nor the Bible and you only ''Know'' the things about it that your heard from the likes of you? In 10 Commandents, it clearly says DO NOT KILL. And many people died because they were fooled by the churhc into going to war with them. This wasnt the case for Christianity only tho. Islam is no different. Dont mix religious institutions with the religion itself.

Player1X3 said: "(and everyone in Cannaan so the Hebrews can have the land).What? God and Jesus Christ comanded no such thing. Again, learn the difference between Christianity (New testament, teachings of Christ) and Judism( Old testament, Book of Levitcus and others) "

I said: According to the Bible Yahweh very much commanded The Israelites that they could have the Holy Land as their possession as long as they would kill all of the people already living there (which has its echoes in the displacement of the American Indians from their land by the American Colonialists and the destruction of the Meso-American Indians by The Spanish Conquistadores) .

Bible doesnt mention Yahweh, it mentiones God, Yahweh is mentioned in Old Testaent and Torah, Bible also doesnt command anyone to kill anything, you are mixing up jewish national texts with Christian New testament (the Bible) And colonisation of America had nothing to do with religion. Please tell me you are smart enough to know that !

You make it sound as if the left can't be racist, sexist, or homophobic. At least in my country, leftists routinely call any black, gay, Asian, woman, and anyone else they feel belongs to them by rights, every name in the book if they disagree with them politically. Women become sluts and cunts, Asians become gooks, Hispanics become coconuts, blacks become monkeys... all for simply finding left-wing social and economic policies infeasible. And talk about stereotyping... I can't think of anything more racist than to say that all blacks have to be economic illiterates.

So because you don't trust people to hear an irrational argument and not act violently, the government has to act not just against violence, but against speech in the first place? If it's already illegal to incite violence, why isn't that enough? Because political correctness trumps actual correctness every time, hate speech laws invariably end up criminalizing the truth. If someone points out an inconvenient fact, like that every instance of rape in Oslo last year was committed by a Muslim, you might think that's fearmongering and defaming an entire group of people. You may even be correct that those are the intentions of the speaker. But it's also the truth, and truth should be an absolute defense.

Gonna make some comments about your links (also read the original sources):

- "sluts" > he said "talk slut", and mentioned what that meant. He wasn't judging her based on her sexual conduct (which would have been a sexist and misogynistic thing to do);

- "cunts" > the problem with this is? Saying that calling a woman a c**t is sexist is a little overkill, don't you think? It's definately rude, and shows unsophistication, but I don't see why it's sexist;

- "gooks" > this one's valid;

- "coconuts" > He claims he did not know what that this term had that connotation, and he was using it as synonimous to "fruity" or "bananas". Now we'll never know the truth, but it's certainly a valid alternative. This one's questionable;

- "monkeys" > This is just simply taking quotes totally out of context. The article's author was describing how he thinks the black republican candidate is seen by the whites in the same party, and what his role in that party is (considering the ideology, policies etc.). He's criticising the black canditate for degrading himself for the delight of white conservative racists "because it pays so well". I think this is by far the most pathetic example of trying to present liberals as "racists" I've ever seen.

Also, when comparing conservative and liberal ideologies, it's quite clear which one is inherently racist. You're trying to paint liberals as hypocrites, but you'd need to back that up with scientific data, not some random examples (which are quite misleading and quite pathetic attempts by right wing media).

Regarding your second paragraph, I think you're underestimating the variety of speech that can lead to violence. It's enough to say "black people want to rape our women and kill our children" for lynch mobs to pop up. You don't need to add "we must kill them", for the effect to be the same. I do agree that if a particular information is true, it should not be considered hate speech. If all rapes were commited by muslims, then it should be noted (BTW, Norwegian men from Oslo should recieve some sort of medal or something). I think that the news report was very well put together (much more so than it would've been in the US, especially if it were reported by Fox News), and not trying to encourage violence or prejudice. Only people who support PCness and are irrational (or anti-PC activists) would make a big deal about this.

Gonna make some comments about your links (also read the original sources):

- "sluts" > he said "talk slut", and mentioned what that meant. He wasn't judging her based on her sexual conduct (which would have been a sexist and misogynistic thing to do);

- "cunts" > the problem with this is? Saying that calling a woman a c**t is sexist is a little overkill, don't you think? It's definately rude, and shows unsophistication, but I don't see why it's sexist;

- "gooks" > this one's valid;

- "coconuts" > He claims he did not know what that this term had that connotation, and he was using it as synonimous to "fruity" or "bananas". Now we'll never know the truth, but it's certainly a valid alternative. This one's questionable;

- "monkeys" > This is just simply taking quotes totally out of context. The article's author was describing how he thinks the black republican candidate is seen by the whites in the same party, and what his role in that party is (considering the ideology, policies etc.). He's criticising the black canditate for degrading himself for the delight of white conservative racists "because it pays so well". I think this is by far the most pathetic example of trying to present liberals as "racists" I've ever seen.

Also, when comparing conservative and liberal ideologies, it's quite clear which one is inherently racist. You're trying to paint liberals as hypocrites, but you'd need to back that up with scientific data, not some random examples (which are quite misleading and quite pathetic attempts by right wing media).

Regarding your second paragraph, I think you're underestimating the variety of speech that can lead to violence. It's enough to say "black people want to rape our women and kill our children" for lynch mobs to pop up. You don't need to add "we must kill them", for the effect to be the same. I do agree that if a particular information is true, it should not be considered hate speech. If all rapes were commited by muslims, then it should be noted (BTW, Norwegian men from Oslo should recieve some sort of medal or something). I think that the news report was very well put together (much more so than it would've been in the US, especially if it were reported by Fox News), and not trying to encourage violence or prejudice. Only people who support PCness and are irrational (or anti-PC activists) would make a big deal about this.