Galactic Civilizations: Inter-Empire Political Discussion Thread

Create account

Downloads

NewsGroup

Community

Purchase

Galactic Forum

Strategies

Mods

Empires

Do you still think GalCiv 1 is fun even with GalCiv II out?

758 votes

1- Yes

2- No

Inter-Empire Political Discussion Thread

Search:

Sort by:

Go to Bottom

#250 by Citizen Magnumaniac - 4/19/2004 12:03:42 PM

The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God.

Just as well that I do my reasoning with my head then.

#251 by Citizen Exar Kuun - 4/19/2004 12:06:12 PM

We're thinking of having a Brits get together you up for it?

#252 by Veteran Samurai Ben - 4/19/2004 2:21:51 PM

You all have been taught, but you don't want to listen. Your blood is no longer in my hands, but in yours.

Renegade:

A few pages back, I observed that a few of the comments against your viewpoint had turned personal. Time to return the favor. I don't know what the intention of this quote was, but publicly proclaiming another person's damnation crosses the line. I can tell you're passionate about this subject matter, and even agree with a FEW of your views, but this comment is way, way out of place in a public forum and does your arguments little credit.

From the NewfyScotian:

Wow, I came over to this thread for a political discussion and got religion. Maybe I should go over to the religous thread for the politcal discussion. Can't we all just get along?

Apparently not, but the discussion is definitely turning away from religion as a sidelight to politics. It's instead focusing almost exclusively on religion. I enjoyed this thread because the overwhelming majority of posters are treating the political issues with an open mind; for some contrast, check out politicalmachine.com, where the "arguments" are just that. Kudos again to this community.

So, to REALLY stir things up and pull politics back into the discussion...

The 9/11 hearings are still getting a lot of press. Seems to me that Bush & Co. are being attacked for NOT acting to prevent the 9/11 terror attacks, while at the same time are being castigated for attacking Iraq, for which they had better overall intel. And by the same people. Short of using the "neutral" line of "we need better intelligence assets" (which is obvious by now), any comments?

#253 by Citizen KEmperor - 4/19/2004 2:51:38 PM

Direct message from God (the true and only one)The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God.

Hmm, god left me a direct message yesterday, and he said that that all thinking is done in the brain now...

#254 by Citizen KEmperor - 4/19/2004 2:56:33 PM

Well I was not using Bible quotes but you and KEmperor were so disrespectful by accusing me of being smoking weed, that I opted for quotes from the Bible, maybe you would show a little bit of respect.

And you were disrespectful by calling atheists fools first. Don't start pointing fingers here.

#255 by Citizen Magnumaniac - 4/19/2004 3:05:54 PM

We're thinking of having a Brits get together you up for it?

Would depend where and when, but certainly up for suggestions.

#256 by Veteran Disciple777 - 4/19/2004 4:51:02 PM

Ok KEmperor this is a quote from the Bible, that book that you hate so much.

Rom 14:11 For it is written, [As] I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

#257 by Citizen Bam_Bam - 4/19/2004 5:10:16 PM

That section of the New Testament is from a letter written by St. Paul to the Romans. Perhaps the word of God comes from a Saint's lips. Sorry, man, quoting of scripture does not pass for a debate here. Now if you were to quote a line and discuss its meaning and context and how it pertains to the debate, that would be more useful, and likely to be of greater evangelical service that your current tactics.

Renegade. You would do yourself a service to re-read some of the quotes you keep posting. In many cases the spirit of the verse may apply to your reactions to people on this thread.

I am sure that your evangelical efforts are hindered by condemnation and attack on those who do not share your beliefs. If you truly wish to show them that yours is the one true path--then let's just say your methods leave a bit to be desired, ok?

Point of logic. If you posit that someone hates the Bible, then of what value do you think a quote from it will be in his mind? In this case, you might be better served talking to a wall, instead of returning to your folly, eh?

#258 by Citizen KEmperor - 4/19/2004 5:15:22 PM

Excellent point Bam Bam.

#259 by Citizen Lothmorg the Black - 4/19/2004 11:04:40 PM

Always a pleasure to read something from Bam Bam, Samurai Ben, Captain Jack, and all the others that present coherent comments and viewpoints.

Thank you.

[back to lurking.

]

#260 by Veteran Grand_Admiral_Thrawn - 4/19/2004 11:18:27 PM

Always a pleasure to read something from Bam Bam, Samurai Ben, Captain Jack, and all the others that present coherent comments and viewpoints.

Indeed.

I've decided to stay out of here, because I tend to think debates should focus in a grey area. We know of the black and white. And it seems to me that a lot of this is debating the existance of the black and white.

#261 by Citizen Exar Kuun - 4/19/2004 11:57:21 PM

Would depend where and when, but certainly up for suggestions.

Not sure on either yet. We know it cant be for at least a month or two. As to where? Hmmmmmm. But we'll come up with something.

#262 by Diplomat Peace Phoenix - 4/20/2004 3:09:26 AM

For everyone here, have you seen the forums at the political machine web site

http://www.politicalmachine.com/forums.asp

Link ?
Look like a nice place for political debates

#263 by Citizen Kazzryl - 4/20/2004 8:38:34 AM

~~Professional lurker approaches the podium hesitatingly~~

Mr. Renegade, I agree what others are saying about the Bible quotes. Perhaps, if you read the quotes themeselves and then paraphrase them to an athiests mindset, they would be more useful. Spouting out bible quotes is just offputting. Take the quotes and apply them to what someone would understand. Try to justify them, explain what it means.

Personally, the quotes immediatly make me feel like someone is pointing a finger in my face and saying if you don't get what it means you will be damned, not a good feeling. So I go into ignore mode, and I'm sure that is not your intent. Explain the quotes and why they will help another, not how if you don't get it then you are in big trouble.

For the record, I believe something bigger is out there, be it aliens, be it God, be it something no one can explain.

I have a problem with the arguement that if science can't justify it, it must not be. Perhaps, we just haven't achieve a level science yet that would explain some of the ideas of a higher power. Science grows everyday, who to say one day more will be explained.

The 9/11 hearings are still getting a lot of press. Seems to me that Bush & Co. are being attacked for NOT acting to prevent the 9/11 terror attacks,

Interesting topic. Unfortunately, I'm not too well versed on the subject. However, from what I have listened to, it would seem (mind you I'm not a Bush supporter, that people are trying to point fingers, to put blame on something that, I believe, could not be prevented. The August memo suggesting a possiblity of hi-jacks was too soon for anyone to do anything about it. As Rice suggested, it would be impossible to secure every plane in a matter of a month. The blame lies with the hi-jackers and their group, not on any American.

~~Kazzryl goes back into lurker mode~~

#264 by Citizen Genghis Hank - 4/20/2004 9:18:38 AM

The 9/11 hearings are still getting a lot of press. Seems to me that Bush & Co. are being attacked for NOT acting to prevent the 9/11 terror attacks, while at the same time are being castigated for attacking Iraq, for which they had better overall intel. And by the same people. Short of using the "neutral" line of "we need better intelligence assets" (which is obvious by now), any comments?

Random rants...

Both the Republican and Democratic parties have now discovered that there are at least 3 major news networks that are so hungry for content, that they will air anything that has the air of controversy to it. Add to that election year politics, and what should have been a commitee mandated to see what we could learn from 9/11 so it doesn't get repeated gets hijacked into Bush bashing (and Clinton counter-bashing), complete with authors trying to sell books. *sigh* If you EVER thought someone would intentionally fly a plane into a building BEFORE 9/11, raise your hand...

Oh, and Department of Homeland Security? What kind of name is that? Sounds like something out of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union to me!

#265 by Citizen Magnumaniac - 4/20/2004 9:25:50 AM

If you EVER thought someone would intentionally fly a plane into a building BEFORE 9/11, raise your hand...

Excellent point GH, but one that has been lost by the majority in the clarity of hindsight!

The sad fact is, that any fanatic willing to end his or her own life in the engagement of a terrorist attack will be able to find a way. It is impossible to defend against every possible attack.

#266 by Citizen Kazzryl - 4/20/2004 9:25:52 AM

If you EVER thought someone would intentionally fly a plane into a building BEFORE 9/11, raise your hand...

Actually people have been flying planes into buildings, esp embassies for decades, but, more to the point, I think know one ever thought anyone would fly a plane into an American building like the Trade Center and the Pentagon.
[Message Edited]

#267 by Veteran Grand_Admiral_Thrawn - 4/20/2004 9:26:22 AM

Oh, and Department of Homeland Security? What kind of name is that? Sounds like something out of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union to me!

The Brits had Homefront Security during WWII.

And the Soviet Union often referred to its lands as the "Motherland"
[Message Edited]

#268 by Veteran Grand_Admiral_Thrawn - 4/20/2004 9:27:49 AM

Actually people have been flying planes into building for decades, but, more to the point, I think know one ever thought anyone would fly a plane into the Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Actually, the towers were designed to withstand being hit by a plane. The only problem was that the plane was a 707, and it would have to have been empty.

#269 by Citizen Magnumaniac - 4/20/2004 9:35:34 AM

The Brits had Homefront Security during WWII

That was actually called the "Home Guard", and was made up of all those unable to be drafted into the regular forces for medical or age reasons etc. Their purpose was as a last line of defence should Hitler have ever launched an invasion, but they also provided invaluable support to civilian services when needed.

#270 by Citizen Genghis Hank - 4/20/2004 9:40:34 AM

Actually, the towers were designed to withstand being hit by a plane. The only problem was that the plane was a 707, and it would have to have been empty.

It still might have made it if it wasn't fully loaded with fuel. They say the heat was what finally did it.

#271 by Veteran Grand_Admiral_Thrawn - 4/20/2004 9:47:20 AM

Ah, well at least I was close. I knew a Brit would come up and correct me at some point. That and self-loathing are your national sports, right?

#272 by Citizen Genghis Hank - 4/20/2004 9:48:54 AM

Wow! Have we actually managed to hijack the political discussion thread to talk about politics?

#273 by Citizen Bam_Bam - 4/20/2004 10:06:15 AM

It still might have made it if it wasn't fully loaded with fuel. They say the heat was what finally did it.

Absolutely correct.

As far as the hearings--they are necessary. Unfortunately, as with most affairs inside the beltway these days, people are more interested in posturing and pointing fingers rather than articulating the facts and the lessons to be learned.

Richard Clarke--the administration's chief accuser lately (and chief bookseller too)--even stated that had the Bush administration implemented all of his recommendations, it still would not likely have prevented the attack.

To its fault, the Bush administration has not taken what I see as a more appropriate response that takes responsibility for what their focus was. Something like--"yes, our focus was not on homeland terrorist attacks. We had not correctly guaged the threat, and obviously have taken and are taking actions to correct that focus." Of course, that kind of clarity is not found too often around here (I work in DC).

#274 by Citizen Kazzryl - 4/20/2004 11:51:09 AM

To its fault, the Bush administration has not taken what I see as a more appropriate response that takes responsibility for what their focus was. Something like--"yes, our focus was not on homeland terrorist attacks. We had not correctly guaged the threat, and obviously have taken and are taking actions to correct that focus." Of course, that kind of clarity is not found too often around here (I work in DC).

Politicians to take responsibility, not likely to happen. They don't seem to understand the more defensive you are about your suspected actions, or lack of, the more suspicious you look. Not very good. Now Powell is trying to defend himself and co with the release of Woodward's book. I'd love to get my hands on a copy of it this weekend.

<<	<- 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (11) 12 13 ->	>>
Page 11 of 13

Go to Top

Go Back to Message Board

Go to Top

To be able to post something you have to become a member
Click here!