Jump to content

Anybodyhome

Member Since 07 Jul 2010
Last Active Today, 08:10 AM
-----

#3224482 The Nominee of the GOP

Posted by Anybodyhome on Yesterday, 08:26 PM

First ever African American President followed by the first ever American Indian President who is also a woman. Perfect headline.

 

I give you Phoenix Knight, American Indian porn star....

gal4df15cc99be47.jpg

 




#3224460 My daughter is having a Feb. 12th "friendship day" celebration at school

Posted by Anybodyhome on Yesterday, 07:34 PM

Probably an attempt to keep kids who would not get any valentine's day cards from getting their feelings hurt.

Gotta protect their wittle feewings.

 

...and in a few years when she starts playing soccer, there will be no wins and losses and everyone will get the same trophy...
 




#3222214 let's talk about chris kyle

Posted by Anybodyhome on 28 January 2015 - 07:41 AM

Ah... The fallback, but wut bout the crusades!!!

Crusades were a response to religious and ethnic invasion, but still pales in comparison to systematic purges by communists.

 

Some people believe this to be true while others believe the Crusades were an attempt to expand Christendom. I tend to believe the latter. 




#3221341 let's talk about chris kyle

Posted by Anybodyhome on 27 January 2015 - 11:26 AM

Its a myth that the bloodiest wars are religion based.  Religion in and of itself is neither moral nor immoral.  The people behind it are what determine whether it is moral or immoral.  Religion is simply a tool that can be used for good or bad.  Remove religion from the equation, and those that want war will find anouther reason.

 

War is generally violent and bloody regardless of the reason. If you look at wars in the 20th century, religious beliefs played a minor role at best, and Wars still happened and they were generally the most violent and bloody in history.  The most bloody and violent conflict in world history was World War II, and that war had little to do with religion. It had a lot to do with politics, racism and belief in racial superiority.   World War I was about empire building, with the Muslim Ottoman's on the same side as Christian Germany, while Othodox Russia, Catholic France, and Protestant England were on the other side. 

 

Religion must be defined by the person referring to it as an entity in order to be conjured as a "myth." I will disagree simply because the term "war" is not defined, the interpretation of religious versus ethnic is not defined and, of course, the vast majority of people will associate "wars" with the Civil, WW1, WW2, Korea and maybe 1812 and the Frech-Indian War thrown in, only because they involved this country.

 

For example, I consider the nationalist movement associated with Germany in WW2 as a kind of modern religion. It contains a sort of spiritual aspect that lend to its most extreme manifestation a desire to "purify" the nation of "alien" groups.

 

Bosnia is yet another case where the word "ethnic" cleansing was used, but just as easily could have been "religious" cleansing as there were, again, spiritual aspects used as the basis.

 

http://www.foreignaf...thnic-cleansing

Once these ancient empires had rent the organic links among ethnicity, belief and political citizenship, religion became the primary basis of collective identity. In the Middle Ages cleansing was thus applied primarily to religious, as opposed to ethnic, minorities, as medieval Christianity attempted to impose orthodoxy on nonbelievers. Despite prior episodes of religious suppression, such as early Christians in Rome or the persecution of non-Zoroastrians in Persia in the fourth century, it was only during the Middle Ages that persecution of religious minorities became fully institutionalized for substantial periods.

Massacre and expulsion were the most common methods of religious cleansing, which tended to target Jews, the only sizable minority in most countries. Jews were thus expelled from England (1290), France (1306), Hungary (1349-1360), Provence (1394 and 1490), Austria (1421), Lithuania (1445), Cracow (1494), Portugal (1497) and numerous German principalities at various times. Spain was unique among European countries because of its sizable Muslim population. Having "tried" massacre in 1391, Spain expelled its Jews in 1492, then its Muslims in 1502, forcibly Christianizing the remaining Muslims in 1526 and finally expelling all Moriscos (converted Muslims) in 1609-14.

 

In 1530 the Confession of Augsburg had explicitly laid down the principle of religious homogeneity as the basis of political order. Cuius regio, eius religio meant in effect that medieval states had begun to shape an orthodox citizenry. Thus by revoking the Edict of Nantes in 1685, France indeed initiated a process of "self-cleansing," as thousands of Protestant Huguenots fled once denied freedom of worship. In this way, the Confession can be considered the ideological cornerstone of modern cleansing, a process only possible in centralized, absolutist states capable of enforcing "purity."

 

The earliest example was cleansing carried out by Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727 bc), the first Assyrian ruler to make forced resettlement a state policy. Under his reign about half the population of a conquered land would be carried off, and its place taken by settlers from another region. Tiglath's heirs continued this policy and, over the centuries, so too did the Babylonians, Greeks and Romans, although not always on the same scale and often for the prevailing economic reason of slavery.

Once these ancient empires had rent the organic links among ethnicity, belief and political citizenship, religion became the primary basis of collective identity. In the Middle Ages cleansing was thus applied primarily to religious, as opposed to ethnic, minorities, as medieval Christianity attempted to impose orthodoxy on nonbelievers. Despite prior episodes of religious suppression, such as early Christians in Rome or the persecution of non-Zoroastrians in Persia in the fourth century, it was only during the Middle Ages that persecution of religious minorities became fully institutionalized for substantial periods.

Massacre and expulsion were the most common methods of religious cleansing, which tended to target Jews, the only sizable minority in most countries. Jews were thus expelled from England (1290), France (1306), Hungary (1349-1360), Provence (1394 and 1490), Austria (1421), Lithuania (1445), Cracow (1494), Portugal (1497) and numerous German principalities at various times. Spain was unique among European countries because of its sizable Muslim population. Having "tried" massacre in 1391, Spain expelled its Jews in 1492, then its Muslims in 1502, forcibly Christianizing the remaining Muslims in 1526 and finally expelling all Moriscos (converted Muslims) in 1609-14.

 

In 1530 the Confession of Augsburg had explicitly laid down the principle of religious homogeneity as the basis of political order. Cuius regio, eius religio meant in effect that medieval states had begun to shape an orthodox citizenry. Thus by revoking the Edict of Nantes in 1685, France indeed initiated a process of "self-cleansing," as thousands of Protestant Huguenots fled once denied freedom of worship. In this way, the Confession can be considered the ideological cornerstone of modern cleansing, a process only possible in centralized, absolutist states capable of enforcing "purity."

 

Although still couched in religious terms, the first cleansings based primarily on ethnic discrimination were carried out by England. In the 1640s and 1650s, when war and plague swept away half the Irish population, England seized the opportunity to expel most of the remaining Irish Catholics from Ulster until, by 1688, 80 percent of their land was owned by English and Scottish Protestants. London's motivation was primarily strategic: to prevent Catholic Ireland from offering Catholic Spain or France a base of operations. Displacement of the Irish population thus completed a kind of historical cycle, as cleansing returned to patterns formerly established by the Assyrians and Romans.




#3221154 let's talk about chris kyle

Posted by Anybodyhome on 27 January 2015 - 07:19 AM

I think there is something to this but doesn't war lead people to questionable morality if not full blown immorality?

 

And considering the bloodiest and most violent of conflicts have been in defense of or advancing the notion of one religious belief over another, one could then surmise that religion in general is immoral.

 

But, I would suggest that war may lead people to behave in immoral ways, but that behavior does not necessarily forever brand an individual as immoral. The emotional turmoil, the PTSD, the internal wrestling that tears apart some individuals is a manifestation of what I think you're construing as immoral behavior by an otherwise moral individual.

 

It's the ones who cross over into the lunatic fringe and never return who are the victims of this immorality. Those who unable to resolve what they participated in during war are those who deserve all the help they can get. Then there are those who choose not to resolve it, but revel in it and live a life where the lines between right and wrong no longer exist... those are the dangerous folks.
 




#3218162 let's talk about chris kyle

Posted by Anybodyhome on 23 January 2015 - 02:05 PM

I particularly enjoy reading the comments of those who never spent 5 minutes in the presence of someone who served, let alone serve themselves.

 

It's kinda like posting your expertise about professional athlete contract negotiations on some message board.... oh, wait.....




#3217502 I need a favor...

Posted by Anybodyhome on 22 January 2015 - 07:58 PM

Done & confirmed




#3216952 Obama invites British PM to lobby against Iranian sanctions, Congress invites...

Posted by Anybodyhome on 22 January 2015 - 12:18 PM

Who's talking about war and invading...

 

strawman

 

Give John McCain no more than 24 hours. I guarantee he broaches the subject at least 2-3 times a day.

 

Your homework assignment: define the term "strawman" as it applies to message board threads and posts.




#3216722 Obama invites British PM to lobby against Iranian sanctions, Congress invites...

Posted by Anybodyhome on 22 January 2015 - 07:07 AM

Sounds to me like the Republicans are already looking for their next ground war in the Middle East.

 

Gee, fellas, can't we just take a couple decades off from the whole, "Welp, it's time we go invade someone or pick a fight somewhere we don't belong" scenario? After all, the country never figured out how to take care of all the returning vets from the last debacle and you want to put a few million more in the same situation?




#3213536 The Suck Bowl: Patriots vs Seahawks

Posted by Anybodyhome on 19 January 2015 - 04:34 PM

The games qbs now would dance around qbs of yesterday year old man. Defense has grown to be way more advanced and so has the offense.

 

You're right, because now you can't touch a QB without a flag. The QBs today are pussies next to even Marino, Montana and Elway.

 

At least, that's what I think your post is implying, although most of your sentence structure is lost on me. Maybe that's the way they teach English in schools nowadays, you young whippersnapper.




#3213372 The Suck Bowl: Patriots vs Seahawks

Posted by Anybodyhome on 19 January 2015 - 02:35 PM

Brady truly is the greatest QB of all time and is going to destroys the Seahawks.

 

Probably true for those of you under 40 who never got a chance to see truly great QBs.
 




#3213156 An attack by Bane isn't an option: Are you pulling for Seattle or New Eng...

Posted by Anybodyhome on 19 January 2015 - 12:25 PM

This will likely be the first Super Bowl I've been able to watch but will choose not to. Aside from a few times during my Navy career when I was deployed and couldn't see the game, I have absolutely no interest in this one. There is nothing either team brings to the game that I enjoy or care to watch.

 

Seattle and Wilson is being groomed by the league to succeed Brady and the Patriots, who have shown us time and again cheaters do prosper.

 

Although I didn't see it yesterday so much, the officiating this season was atrocious and the PI/holding/illegal contact rules have taken the enjoyment out of the passing game. Now, QBs just throw the ball up and almost know they'll get a call downfield, although they also knew there was no chance for the receiver to catch the ball. The officiating has had an effect on the outcome of more games this season than I've seen my entire life, the games are closer to 4 hours these days instead of 3 and listening to Troy Aikman not hide his gushing, on-air bj of Russell Wilson for that 4 hours yesterday was nauseating.




#3210377 Remember 1988

Posted by Anybodyhome on 18 January 2015 - 04:25 PM

The Vincennes was engaging more than 3 targets simultaneously as a group of small skiffs began launching RPGs and opened up on the cruiser with small arms fire. At the same time, the airliner entered into international airspace. It was not squawking any IFF and was not responding to voice ID demands and was on a direct course toward the cruiser. The Navy had a 2-year history of being able to call off any Iranian aircraft via radio as the vast majority of Iranian pilots were US trained. So, it was a rare instance this was a commercial airliner with no IFF and no radio response.

 

There is a lot of classified information I'm not at liberty to discuss, but I will say without reservation there are a lot of doubts as to the veracity of the information provided by the Iranian government regarding the "passengers and crew" on the plane.   




#3209074 This should be illegal...

Posted by Anybodyhome on 17 January 2015 - 04:39 PM

 

Here she is before puberty hit.

 

Before puberty and plastic surgery...




#3207613 Explain the Duron Carter hype to me please

Posted by Anybodyhome on 16 January 2015 - 12:54 PM

The short answer:

Because Carolina Panther fans are so desperate for this team to land a huge talent and have that talent show up on the field, they'll find any fact or fiction to further that argument.

 

If Carolina had the last pick in the draft, Mr. Irrelevant, Panther fans would find at least 10 reasons why the guy should be a starter come Week 1.