NASA (Not About Space Anymore)

[OCinBuffalo]

Yes, you care about what is written and you want to judge people by what was written thousands of years before they were born- something that was neither written by Jesus Christ nor the Prophet Mohammed.

Reading comprehension, for Pete's sake.

 

This is the LAST time I am saying this, and the 4th time in this thread:

 

People should only be judged by their ACTIONS. Get that through your skull.

 

The words we have of these two men is what we have. If they are inaccurate, then I can't help you, go take it up with their apostles and followers.

 

However, given that the post above CLEARLY shows that Mohamed instructs, never mind justifies, over and over and over in many different places in the book, Muslims to kill their neighbors, his meaning can't possibly be in dispute.

 

Given that Jesus specifically says to love your enemies, over and over and over, his meaning can't be in dispute either.

[OCinBuffalo]

Are you absolutely certain that there are no references to killing unfaithful people in the Bible? Seriously?

I am absolutely certain that Jesus never said anything about killing anybody, for any reason, and I am absolutely certain that he didn't proscribe the method of exactly how to kill people. I am absolutely certain that he was the original "turn the other cheek" guy. Because he said it, in the book, if we are to believe his "biographers".

"The Bible" as in, the whole thing, is certainly another story. But, Jesus himself clarified his position with the Golden rule. The last time I checked, Christians value his words above those of everybody else. And, other than Leviticus, I am not sure you can find violent instructions on what to do to people. But I could be wrong. In any case, it still doesn't justify what is written in the Koran, on any level.

From Reagan, 1985, referring to our long term cold war enemy:

"In science and technology, we could launch new joint space ventures and establish joint medical research projects."

 

So was Reagan a bad leader because he advocated that we exchange many more of our citizens from fraternal, religious, educational, and cultural groups. Or when he suggested the exchange of thousands of undergraduates each year, and even younger students who would live with a host family and attend schools or summer camps. That our two countries look to increased scholarship programs, improve language studies, conduct courses in history, culture, and other subjects.

 

Why was he pandering to the communists? Was Reagan really a closet commie? Or was he just a bad leader that had no idea how to defeat our enemy? I think the evidence there is quite conclusive, he was.

Reagan was one of the best leaders we are likely to see in our lifetimes. Why?

 

Because, unlike dopey Obama, he understood what was to be gained by negotiating with our enemies, and what wasn't. He never, ever, stopped attacking their immoral positions, often right in the middle of that negotiation. Obama, from what we have seen, and I think this will change in December/January, doesn't get that there is nothing to be gained by negotiation, since we aren't dealing with serious people here. In fact, treating these psychotics as anything but, LEGITIMIZES them. And by doing so, he is losing before he even starts. Their #1 goal is to have their retarded ideas attain the legitimacy that Communism had. These people have more in common with Dr. Evil than they do with Josef Stalin.

 

Surely someone with your leadership skills can see this.

 

You have missed the nuance here, and, since this is a thread devote to nuance , let me clarify it for you:

 

Reagan was competing in the cold war battle over ideals, and has no bearing on today. Going out and establishing a joint medical/space research project with an established country like Brazil was a good way to stave off Communist interlopers.

 

You are acting like these Muslim extremists are = to Communists, and they aren't. Would you give a space contract to Indiana, because they have a lot of KKK people, and you are trying to partner with the people there who aren't KKK? Or, would you simply go in, round them up an throw them in jail if they did something stupid?

[Dan]

I am absolutely certain that Jesus never said anything about killing anybody, for any reason, and I am absolutely certain that he didn't proscribe the method of exactly how to kill people. I am absolutely certain that he was the original "turn the other cheek" guy. Because he said it, in the book, if we are to believe his "biographers".

 

Reagan was one of the best leaders we are likely to see in our lifetimes. Why?

 

Because, unlike dopey Obama, he understood what was to be gained by negotiating with our enemies, and what wasn't. He never, ever, stopped attacking their immoral positions, often right in the middle of that negotiation. Obama, from what we have seen, and I think this will change in December/January, doesn't get that there is nothing to be gained by negotiation, since we aren't dealing with serious people here. In fact, treating these psychotics as anything but, LEGITIMIZES them. And by doing so, he is losing before he even starts. Their #1 goal is to have their retarded ideas attain the legitimacy that Communism had. These people have more in common with Dr. Evil than they do with Josef Stalin.

 

Surely someone with your leadership skills can see this.

 

You have missed the nuance here, and, since this is a thread devote to nuance , let me clarify it for you:

 

Reagan was competing in the cold war battle over ideals, and has no bearing on today. Going out and establishing a joint medical/space research project with an established country like Brazil was a good way to stave off Communist interlopers.

 

You are acting like these Muslim extremists are = to Communists, and they aren't. Would you give a space contract to Indiana, because they have a lot of KKK people, and you are trying to partner with the people there who aren't KKK? Or, would you simply go in, round them up an throw them in jail if they did something stupid?

Brazil? KKK? ..I .. uh.... Happy Thanksgiving!

 

 

So, ideals and ideology does not play into the war on terrorism? Nice to know that. But, I'm sorry I must have missed the point where we were reaching out to terrorist organizations to partner with. I thought this thread was about NASA reaching out to Muslims. Or are we just saying all Muslims are terrorists?

 

What really sucks is that I just realized that Reagan legitimized communism in the 80's when he started acknowledging and working with Russia. Yeah, it may have eventually helped end the cold war. But, it gave ideas to a young Obama that communism is a good thing. Hence, we have a health care bill today. Oh the irony of it all!

[OCinBuffalo]

Brazil? KKK? ..I .. uh.... Happy Thanksgiving!

 

 

So, ideals and ideology does not play into the war on terrorism? Nice to know that. But, I'm sorry I must have missed the point where we were reaching out to terrorist organizations to partner with. I thought this thread was about NASA reaching out to Muslims. Or are we just saying all Muslims are terrorists?

 

What really sucks is that I just realized that Reagan legitimized communism in the 80's when he started acknowledging and working with Russia. Yeah, it may have eventually helped end the cold war. But, it gave ideas to a young Obama that communism is a good thing. Hence, we have a health care bill today. Oh the irony of it all!

The difference is clear as a bell.

 

You are talking about "Muslims" and then you are talking about "Russia". The former is an undefinable entity, after all there are Muslims in this country. Are we negotiating with them? My friend in the Army who was Muslim would be pretty p.o.ed to find out that you think he needs to be negotiated with, or needs to be made to feel better about himself.

 

The latter is a legitimate state with the presumed will of most of her citizens. Not to mention the fact that Communism, for all its faults, is a political and economic form of government. Government, not religion.

 

Yeah, they are the exact same thing.

 

Once again, you are being ridiculous here. Ideas? Ideology? Should we start negotiating with Charles Manson? After all, he has ideals and ideology. Fundamentally, what we do and how we deal with other COUNTRIES is one thing. Pandering to Muslims is quite something else.

[OCinBuffalo]

Let me make it even more simple for you all:

 

Islamic Fascist : Muslim :: KKK/Bob Jones/David Koresh : Christian

 

You can't tell me that the vast majority of Muslims aren't terrorists, and then tell me, we have to reach out to ALL Muslims. This is illogical. If the first part of that is true, then the vast majority of Muslims don't need to be "reached", and would be offended that they are being lumped in with the bad guys. Please, let's at least apply SOME logic amidst all this sentiment.

 

The fact that the Islamic Fascist has when and how to kill people in his instruction manual is part of the PROBLEM, and it hinders any solution. Talking about what Christians did/do, etc. is an obfuscation that doesn't address the fundamental issue: Islamic Fascists are trying to "take over the world", just like Dr. Evil, negotiating with them is exactly like negotiating with Dr. Evil, legitimizing them is like legitimizing Dr. Evil.

 

Talking about what happened in the 13th and 14th centuries, doesn't change anything about the fact that we are dealing with the Muslim KKK today, who can cite chapter and verse in their book. If anything, it plays into their: "we want to go back to the time before we lost Spain" nonsense. It solves nothing, adds no value, and therefore is a waste of time.

 

Why would we ever treat the KKK as some sort of legitimate entity that we have to negotiate with? Ever? Why are we treating the Muslim KKK differently?

[Dan]

The difference is clear as a bell.

 

You are talking about "Muslims" and then you are talking about "Russia". The former is an undefinable entity, after all there are Muslims in this country. Are we negotiating with them? My friend in the Army who was Muslim would be pretty p.o.ed to find out that you think he needs to be negotiated with, or needs to be made to feel better about himself.

 

The latter is a legitimate state with the presumed will of most of her citizens. Not to mention the fact that Communism, for all its faults, is a political and economic form of government. Government, not religion.

 

Yeah, they are the exact same thing.

 

Once again, you are being ridiculous here. Ideas? Ideology? Should we start negotiating with Charles Manson? After all, he has ideals and ideology. Fundamentally, what we do and how we deal with other COUNTRIES is one thing. Pandering to Muslims is quite something else.

OK... so now you said, "You are acting like these Muslim extremists are = to Communists". No where did I make the leap to Muslim extremists. That was your leap. The initial statement that started this thread was, "he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations". It was you that then began the argument that the Muslim world has made no significant contributions to Math and Science; ultimately landing firmly on the notion that Islam is not a religion of peace. And the great conlusion that, "Because, unlike dopey Obama, he understood what was to be gained by negotiating with our enemies".

 

So are you equating all Muslims to be our enemies or not? Because, as far as I can tell, the head of NASA did not state anything about engaging more with our enemies. He was talking about Muslim nations in general. You've misconstrued that notion in just about every way imaginable.

 

Then you state, "Reagan was competing in the cold war battle over ideals". But, when I assert that the war on terrorism similarly deals with ideals; you claim, "Ideas? Ideology? Should we start negotiating with Charles Manson? After all, he has ideals and ideology." So which is it? Do we confront the ideals of our enemies or not? Or do we just acknowledge the ideologies that we think is appropriate?

 

Similar to before, it's really hard to discuss or debate this with you because you change your tone in almost every post. You rarely state facts, and what few you do are frequently contradicted with your next opinion. I think the confusion is that you think your opinions are indeed facts. That's all I can figure at least. It is enjoyable though.

[Dan]

Let me make it even more simple for you all:

 

Islamic Fascist : Muslim :: KKK/Bob Jones/David Koresh : Christian

 

You can't tell me that the vast majority of Muslims aren't terrorists, and then tell me, we have to reach out to ALL Muslims. This is illogical. If the first part of that is true, then the vast majority of Muslims don't need to be "reached", and would be offended that they are being lumped in with the bad guys. Please, let's at least apply SOME logic amidst all this sentiment.

 

The fact that the Islamic Fascist has when and how to kill people in his instruction manual is part of the PROBLEM, and it hinders any solution. Talking about what Christians did/do, etc. is an obfuscation that doesn't address the fundamental issue: Islamic Fascists are trying to "take over the world", just like Dr. Evil, negotiating with them is exactly like negotiating with Dr. Evil, legitimizing them is like legitimizing Dr. Evil.

 

Talking about what happened in the 13th and 14th centuries, doesn't change anything about the fact that we are dealing with the Muslim KKK today, who can cite chapter and verse in their book. If anything, it plays into their: "we want to go back to the time before we lost Spain" nonsense. It solves nothing, adds no value, and therefore is a waste of time.

 

Why would we ever treat the KKK as some sort of legitimate entity that we have to negotiate with? Ever? Why are we treating the Muslim KKK differently?

Brilliant! On that note, I can go get some work done.

[OCinBuffalo]

OK... so now you said, "You are acting like these Muslim extremists are = to Communists". No where did I make the leap to Muslim extremists. That was your leap. The initial statement that started this thread was, "he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations". It was you that then began the argument that the Muslim world has made no significant contributions to Math and Science; ultimately landing firmly on the notion that Islam is not a religion of peace. And the great conlusion that, "Because, unlike dopey Obama, he understood what was to be gained by negotiating with our enemies".

 

So are you equating all Muslims to be our enemies or not? Because, as far as I can tell, the head of NASA did not state anything about engaging more with our enemies. He was talking about Muslim nations in general. You've misconstrued that notion in just about every way imaginable.

 

Then you state, "Reagan was competing in the cold war battle over ideals". But, when I assert that the war on terrorism similarly deals with ideals; you claim, "Ideas? Ideology? Should we start negotiating with Charles Manson? After all, he has ideals and ideology." So which is it? Do we confront the ideals of our enemies or not? Or do we just acknowledge the ideologies that we think is appropriate?

 

Similar to before, it's really hard to discuss or debate this with you because you change your tone in almost every post. You rarely state facts, and what few you do are frequently contradicted with your next opinion. I think the confusion is that you think your opinions are indeed facts. That's all I can figure at least. It is enjoyable though.

Dude you are acting like the result of intensive political and economic academic and practical study spent over the course of 60 years, which is the Communist theory...before it was ever applied, not to mention after

 

=

 

Kill all the Black people cause we ain't like them! Now get me a beer!

 

Seriously? You honestly think that this extremist Muslim ideology, where all you have to do is replace "Black people"(I will never use that other word) with Jews, and, beer with hash, should be treated the same as Communism?

 

Really? Apparently all ideas and ideologies, regardless of whether they are the result of years of intensive study, or derived while taking a crap are the same, and should be treated equally? Man, I have spent all these years perfecting my designs, when all this time all I had to do was write something out in crayon, and I could have had the same result.

 

By definition, you cannot be a religion of peace, if your religion's holy books are interspersed with instructions on how, when and why to make war. Once again, words mean things. Instructive words, by definition, mean what they say.

 

I made the leap? You are the one that brought up Reagan/Communism? So, WTF are you talking about?

 

WRT math and science: I don't remember learning Achmedean Geometry. I remember learning Euclidean.

 

Right, OK, so if the angle isn't to engage "Muslim nations in general", so that they are less likely to support extremist views, then what is the angle? Randomly spending tax-payer dollars, via NASA, of all things, on "Muslim nations in general's" self esteem? What possible, logical, purpose does that serve?

 

You are acting as if the ideas espoused by our enemies are worthy of considering as anything other than babble. I am saying we don't acknowledge babble, we ignore it, and we certainly don't legitimize these ideas, or these people, by "engaging or confronting" them as though they are somehow worthy of our time. We give them what they deserve: our scorn.

[....lybob]

I remember arguing with some idiots on this board about 2-3 years ago about this very topic. Wish I had this handy link back then. I am looking forward to one more idiot telling me that "Islam is a religion of peace". There is no comparison between the user's manuals of Christianity and Islam, the first is about peace and goodwill towards your fellow man, the next is about power, and subjugation of your fellow man.

 

Let's go liberals: tell us that both are equally as bad. I need a good laugh to start my day.

Not equally bad just equally irrelevant

How many professed Christians actuality follow Yeshua's teachings.

 

Luke 3.11 if anyone has two tunics, he must share with the man who has none, and the one with something to eat must do the same."

 

Matthew 5:39 Turning the other cheek?

 

Matthew 7.1-5 Judge not?

 

Matthew 5.44 Loving those who hate us?

 

Matthew 25:31-46 taking care of the poor, feeding the hungry, providing drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, taking care of the sick, visiting the prisoner- this one has emphasis as doing it is a way to heaven and not doing it is a way to hell.

 

I'd say about 1 in 10000 professed Christians actuality follow any of the teachings so why should professed Muslims be any different in their following of the Koran.

[OCinBuffalo]

Not equally bad just equally irrelevant

How many professed Christians actuality follow Yeshua's teachings.

 

Luke 3.11 if anyone has two tunics, he must share with the man who has none, and the one with something to eat must do the same."

 

Matthew 5:39 Turning the other cheek?

 

Matthew 7.1-5 Judge not?

 

Matthew 5.44 Loving those who hate us?

 

Matthew 25:31-46 taking care of the poor, feeding the hungry, providing drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, taking care of the sick, visiting the prisoner- this one has emphasis as doing it is a way to heaven and not doing it is a way to hell.

 

I'd say about 1 in 10000 professed Christians actuality follow any of the teachings so why should professed Muslims be any different in their following of the Koran.

I thought the liberals were all big fans of nuance. They kept saying that over and over WRT Bush = "he doesn't get the nuances".

 

Ok, what's the difference here? All the things you listed are....virtuous. Ideals. Things we should strive for, but, as we are imperfect, things we can't always attain.

 

Where's your liberal respect for nuance, there George W?

 

The things in the Koran that were posted above are....evil. Things we should abhor, but, because some people can't deal with the fact that their ridiculous countries and civilizations went nowhere for the last 1300 years, while others thrived, instead of focusing on what needs to be done to fix that problem, they think its a good idea to haul these things out instead.

 

Most hope to be more like Jesus, whether we believe in him, or his Dad, or not.

 

Only psychotics believe that they are justified in killing anybody who isn't trying to kill them, especially when the "enemy" lives next door or in their friggin neighborhood.

[....lybob]

I thought the liberals were all big fans of nuance. They kept saying that over and over WRT Bush = "he doesn't get the nuances".

 

Ok, what's the difference here? All the things you listed are....virtuous. Ideals. Things we should strive for, but, as we are imperfect, things we can't always attain.

 

Where's your liberal respect for nuance, there George W?

 

The things in the Koran that were posted above are....evil. Things we should abhor, but, because some people can't deal with the fact that their ridiculous countries and civilizations went nowhere for the last 1300 years, while others thrived, instead of focusing on what needs to be done to fix that problem, they think its a good idea to haul these things out instead.

 

Most hope to be more like Jesus, whether we believe in him, or his Dad, or not.

 

Only psychotics believe that they are justified in killing anybody who isn't trying to kill them, especially when the "enemy" lives next door or in their friggin neighborhood.

Who's worse a man who strives to do evil but fails and does good, or a man who strives to do good and fails and does evil?

 

In the end it comes down to deeds not words- you will know a thing by it's fruits.

 

And I think you are mistaken if you think that any overtures to Muslims are anything other than an attempt to put ourselves in a better position with a resource laden part of the world vis-a-vis China or a attempt to get some funding for the space program realizing we will soon have very little money to spend on anything but defense, social security, and Medicare.

[/dev/null]

Who's worst a man who strives to do evil but fails and does good, or a man who strives to do good and fails and does evil?

 

Or somebody that doesn't when to use worse vice worst

[....lybob]

Or somebody that doesn't when to use worse vice worst

 

Thanks grammar policeman, btw maybe "Or somebody that doesn't Know when to use worse versus worst" is what you were trying to say.

[Alaska Darin]

Which does nothing to detract from my point. Whether you like the New/Old Testament, the Koran, None of the Above, etc. doesn't change the fact that the material is in written form. It's in black and white, and no, Adam, I am not the one who chose to put in black and white, the authors did.

All I got from this was robble, robble, robble.

The words are the words, and words mean things. You want to tell me that the message of Jesus Christ is the same as the message of Mohamed? Go blow that right out your azz.

The Old Testament is very similar to the Koran in the way it addresses many things, not the least of which is the ridiculous number of things for which worshipers/non-worshippers are put to death. The fact you don't recognize that tells me that you're simply regurgitating the same tired right wing bull **** because you've never read either !@#$ing book.

 

Before you respond to this, think very carefully about how big of an ass whipping you want on this subject.

Good thing you only want to play the "nuance" game when it suits you, only when it's a convenient way to concoct yet another single sentence response, "ALL religion is 100% bad, but, there's nuance in science" guy.

I'm completely consistent on pretty much everything having to do with large entities, whether its business, government, or religion. It has nothing to do with "nuance". Religion for the most part is organization for money and power. It has little do do with spirituality and much to do with control. I rarely use absolutes to describe anything, though I'm not surprised that you're trying to attribute something in such a pathetic manner because you got !@#$ing exposed and you've never been able to deal with any real criticism.

And I don't give a flying crap what you "think". See, I can do it too.

Good one, Conner.

History is rife with Communists killing in the name of their God. So what? How does this disprove that one book says "do unto others" and another books says "kill the infidel wherever you find him". It doesn't, and it's a sorry-assed excuse for an argument. Stop arguing against what I am not saying.

Another argument of convenience and stupidity. Surprising.

You mean to tell me you missed the point? After all this you don't even get what I am saying do you? For the last time: I would never dare to hold one religion as "superior" over another, on this board, or anywhere else, even if I became convinced that was the case, which I haven't been, btw.

Right.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Which is why Urban II used many biblical versus to justify the Crusades, right? Or how men of the cloth were totally behind slavery in America.

 

Get over yourself. What's going on with Islam is a tried and true method of those with total religious power. The same thing would be happening if the friggin' Christian zealots got that kind of power back.

 

Wilberforce.

 

And don't compare Protestant Christianity to Catholicism. Protestants don't worship and follow the dictates of a regal Pope. The Christ I've learned about tells people to love their neighbor, but hate the sin...not to mention ripped the pollution of faith by money. Muhammad didn't exactly espouse loving one's neighbor.

[Alaska Darin]

Wilberforce.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that link.

And don't compare Protestant Christianity to Catholicism. Protestants don't worship and follow the dictates of a regal Pope.

Protestants are pure!

 

Sincerely,

John Calvin

The Christ I've learned about tells people to love their neighbor, but hate the sin...not to mention ripped the pollution of faith by money.

Welcome to the New Testament.

Muhammad didn't exactly espouse loving one's neighbor.

You are definitely the epitome of tolerance. I can only imagine what a douche you'd have been back when the Koran was written, you !@#$ing heathen.

[/dev/null]

Thanks grammar policeman, btw maybe "Or somebody that doesn't Know when to use worse versus worst" is what you were trying to say.

 

Got me on forgetting to add know to the sentence. My fault for not proofreading before clicking submit.

 

Vice or versus would both have been acceptable. But some people would see vice and say why did he say that

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that link.

 

The point is that Christians didn't act as the underpinning for the institution of slavery, rather there were some outspoken Christians against it.

 

Protestants are pure!

 

Sincerely,

John Calvin

 

Let's see...Calvin or Innocent III? I'll take Calvin, thanks, and the opening of Scripture to the common man that came with him.

 

Welcome to the New Testament.

 

Exactly. The New Testament IS the foundation of Christianity, after all.

 

You are definitely the epitome of tolerance. I can only imagine what a douche you'd have been back when the Koran was written, you !@#$ing heathen.

 

I don't burn anybody at the stake or stone them or cut off limbs or blow anybody up, do I? No. I may disagree with peoples' views on things, but it doesn't make me intolerant. These people (muslim nutjobs) have no compunction killing kafirs, and have AMPLE backing in Islamic scripture and history to back them up.

[Alaska Darin]

The point is that Christians didn't act as the underpinning for the institution of slavery, rather there were some outspoken Christians against it.

Which is somehow different than the billions of Muslims who don't preach or practice violence, I guess.

Let's see...Calvin or Innocent III? I'll take Calvin, thanks, and the opening of Scripture to the common man that came with him.

I'll take neither.

Exactly. The New Testament IS the foundation of Christianity, after all.

Which, of course, IS the point I've BEEN making. There's a reason that particular religion evolved. Thanks for rolling your eyes, though. Nothing more expected than a superior acting Christian. I'm sure that's biblical, right?

I don't burn anybody at the stake or stone them or cut off limbs or blow anybody up, do I? No. I may disagree with peoples' views on things, but it doesn't make me intolerant. These people (muslim nutjobs) have no compunction killing kafirs, and have AMPLE backing in Islamic scripture and history to back them up.

Who's arguing FOR radicals?

[....lybob]

Got me on forgetting to add know to the sentence. My fault for not proofreading before clicking submit.

 

Vice or versus would both have been acceptable. But some people would see vice and say why did he say that

 

Vice is acceptable but archaic. Are you a language snob or just very old, did you know Mohammad personally?