Could you explain this a bit. And why it's such a concern to the gov. I've only seen the FalunGong side of the argument, and so far i've been pretty receptive to it.
I don't know if it is a cult or not, but I don know that one of their books teaches that through their practices you can live to be close to 200 years old. I think they claim they have people in their 170's now. It has been a while since I read it. As a govt. that wouldn't cause me concern, but I do think it is a great thing. Let's all join Falun Gong, and have a huge party on my 150th birthday.
One aspect of Falungong is that they feel they have powerful healing abilities that can heal anything from heart disease to cancer just by placing a hand on someone. Thus, many of their followers refuse medical treatment. Also, I think they believe they are aliens or that aliens came down to meet them? Not sure about that. They also believe they can live forever. China sees them as fanatics, and they are.
I would only go along with that if they greatly raised the Social Security retirement age. There's no way I'm going to be paying for someone to collect Social Security for 135 years.
Ever heard any war protester shouting "No blood for democracy!"? I don't intend to make my response long. I think you know full well what this war is really about. Yes, GW Bush and his cronies presented to the American people their case to go to war in Iraq as if we were fighting terrorism (which later on changed to promoting democracy). It was built on piles of lies and deceptions. The administration manipulated the American public, and the corporate-owned mass media never challenged, but offered full complicities. Saddam was a good excuse for advancing neocon's agenda, WMD or not. What did you expect Bush to say, we are after Iraqi's oil, or we want to secure US' influence in the entire Middle East for steady supply of oil to maintain our way of life, or we should indirectly weaken European Union who has no more use in defense again Soviet Union?
This is the biggest mountain out of a mole hill I have ever seen. You libs really support troops - right!
"You libs... " What complete crap. If I didn't promote civility in D&D, I would have a great deal to say to you about that bigoted, ignorant statement. Good night. Keep D&D Civil!!
Yeah just like it was a mountain out of a molehill when 9/11 happened and the attackers claimed it was in the name of Islam. I guess we should all stop making mountains out of molehills. And Deckard is right about the 'You libs' comment. Way to bring the country together in time of war. Supposedly we are supposed to pull together at this time, but instead some are dead set about driving a wedge between the U.S.
Are you really saying that putting a little sign on a tank is the same as 9/11? The first time I saw that picture, I had to maximize my internet window just to see what all the fuss was about. I couldn't even see it. And it's ONE TANK. Please. Have you seen some of the thread titles in this forum lately. And by lately, I mean like around the last 4 or 5 years.
Bring it on. One thread about how you lefties really support the troops is hardly convincing when compared to the multitude of threads like this one. One tank crew puts a politically incorrect slogan on their tank, of the horror.
I think the title of the thread should be "Free World Panics as Marines Display Signs of Irony, Self-Deprecating Humor."
self deprecating???? how??? they gave a Schwarzanegger-esque name to a gun. not self-deprecating at all. self-aggrandizing, perhaps. humor? know your audience. turns out crusade jokes don't play real well in the middle east. "see my big gun that kills people...we named it after a text that calls on its adherents to love their enemies...get it?? get it??!!!" hysterical.
Not exactly the same. But with 9/11 we were attacked by people using religious phrases to justify that attack. In this case we attacked a nation and so when our attacking troops are using religious slogans, and then being set forth as an example by our govt. then it is similar. Yes I have.
The difference is that these threads have all been started as criticism of the president or Congress. If we are to move ahead together rather than fighting each other, the people who decry the "right wing nutjobs" or the "lunatic liberal fringe" need to tone down their rhetoric. Criticising specific actions of the government is one thing, painting half of America with a disparaging brush is an entirely different matter. BTW, I am not accusing you of doing this, there are plenty of people who are able to debate these issues without disparaging remarks, but then again there are plenty of people like O'Liely, Coulter, Moore, and Soros who that just doesn't seem possible for.
I also posted threads showing the troops doing a good job in Iraq. I am specifically referring to one about a prison in Iraq that was run by a woman who turned in soldiers when she saw them abusing a prisoner, She also got Kuwaitis to donate a lot of items, equipment and things that they needed at the prison she ran. You might have missed it. But that doesn't matter. You are blaming people for commenting on actual events. You should be blaiming the people who facilitate and carry out the events that you don't like being commented on. It is like saying that pro-life supporters don't support women, because they don't post about all the great things they do. How can you say you support women and then talk about all the horrors of abortion. That isn't being supportive. How dare they talk about women who feel bad after an abortion. It is silly to claim that anyone who talks about the truth and actual events happening isn't supportive of the troops. It is also silly to say that because people don't start threads about how wonderful everything is going in Iraq that they don't support the troops. Is that really how shallow your own support for the troops run? We have one group who didn't want to risk the soldiers lives fighting an enemy that wasn't a threat at all to them. Somehow this is the group that hates the soldiers. Another group has no problem with the fact that they were lied to, about starting the war and sending these troops off to kill and to die, and they are the ones who not only are the troops real supporters, but are also able to disparage others and judge whether or not the other folks are really supporting the troops. The logic doesn't add up. I'm tired of a shallow 'show everyone' support of the troops, and prefer people who argue in favor of actions that are actually beneficial to the troops.
I don't know, this just doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me, Max. If it was painted on every tank in Iraq, yes, I would have a MAJOR problem with it. But it's just one tank. And you know what? We don't even know the whole story behind this picture. For all we know, the guys just put that sign on a (singular not plural) tank and took a picture, then took it back off. We don't know..
Why would they put the sign on for one picture, or for the whole Iraqi campaign? It may just be one tank, but that is the tank was chosen to be the poster tank and publicized by the Department of Defense. The sign on the tank is stupid, a horrible representation of what I want from my religion etc. But for someone in leadership to hype this tank ans use it as the poster-tank for Iraqi armored units is unexcusable. If someone from another nation invaded my country and was strolling around with a religious slogan on their armored vehicle I might get the idea that they thought it was at least in part a religious war.
