Have you ever heard about the concept of "arrogance" and "fanaticism"? That's what you are made of, as it seems from your posts in this particular thread. In the others you make sense, but here you seem to come from a country far more totalitarian than mine, as you justify murder of innocent people by soldiers, and I don't.
Calling a "naive child" everybody who doesn't agree with you is a clear sign of arrogance and fanaticism (which is the same as "patriotism").
Anyway, I would prefer to be a naive child than somebody who justifies murder for the good of the country.

Everybody can vomit arrogance and insults, what about EXPLAINING your point of view?

Because here in the civilized world I'm considered pretty liberal about most things.

Civilized world? Oh, well... I at least don't use stereotypes to judge whole countries. By the way, what "part of the world" are you referring to: Italy or Russia?

And what do you think about what those guys did to the Bolivian president who was suspected to have Snowden on board? Decades ago doing such a thing to a foreign president would be equal to declaring war.

But we're never going to see eye to eye on this, so I'll agree to disagree with you.

By the way, Russia isn't like the USSR now anymore. Now it's more like the USA in the XIX century.

We both know what the military of any country does in the countries they invade. To me, a child shot dead by a sadistic soldier is an argument that outweighs everything that you or anybody else can say in their defense. To make my opinion clearer, I don't care about which country is the attacker and which country is under attack, if it's communism against capitalism, Islam vs Christianity etc. KILLING INNOCENTS IS BAD. PERIOD.

Seems like you have got it down to a mathematical precision what is right and what is wrong. So let me ask you this, when when an enemy is willing to run a couple of commercial airliners into a building and kill thousands of innocent people because the people in the country dont believe in Allah, are they worse than the country who has a soldier who kills one innocent child? Or are they equally bad?

Its good that you think that killing children is bad, so do i. It just so happens that the people we are fighting against happen to use children as shields and then point the finger at us. But you got it down to a science what is good and what is bad. You should be running a country. Its just so simple aint it.

Your such a "deep" thinker. Your like every philosophy major that I met in college. Everybody is else is closed minded but you right?
LOL.

Oh Gosh. YOu gotta be kidding me. One of you guys. Dwalin, I call guys like you Captain Hindsights. You got all the answers in hindsight. The king of telling us what caused the problem to begin with. But when it comes to a solution? Nah, not much to say that could be viably employed. Just stupid comments acting like you have some grasp of history.

Oh Gosh. YOu gotta be kidding me. One of you guys. Dwalin, I call guys like you Captain Hindsights. You got all the answers in hindsight. The king of telling us what caused the problem to begin with. But when it comes to a solution? Nah, not much to say that could be viably employed. Just stupid comments acting like you have some grasp of history.
A guy watches a few michael moorer docs and all of a sudden hes got all hte answers.

Moorer was a solid heavyweight. But the holyfield he beat was having heart problems that night. But Moorer was good. The second time he fought holy he got ko'd in 8.

As far as the hindsight thing, I know too many people who like to talk about what happened in the 80's with Bin Laden as if we were responsible for the towers coming down. It couldent just be that the guy was a rich fanatic who wants to kill non believers and supporters of the Jewish state?

Those commi bastards were are biggest threat diring that time(and for good reason), and the jihadist were the best tool availible to push them outta the country.

Hate to break it to ya but thats not the world we live in and never will be, get real.

Well we certainly know what schools Ivy League did not attend. I cant give you people a detailed history here, but it was permitted in Messopotamia, Assyria, Ancient Greece, Rome (until it was outlawed in 342 AD by Constantine) and Fujian China until the Ming Dynasty, to name a few. It was sanctioned but not formalized elsewhere in the ancient world.

Instead of the tired olf "libs do this and that" why dont you ppeople turn off Fox and do some reading?

In ancient Rome the marriage between two males was never legally allowed, only in odd obscure cases like what Nero did, but he was an emperor and was above the law. I guess there were some people who lived in same sex unions but it was never formally a marriage. Theodosian's Codex was against it, but it was never allowed in the first place. The Roman Empire was a patriarchal society and a gay male Roman citizen would lose all respect. Same sex marriages were never legally allowed in Greece either. Homosexuality of course did exist in both cases, but it was never fully socially acceptable, at least not in the form of marriages. I mean, those two societies more or less had similar views on homosexuality as Tony Soprano lol, at least the Romans. I'm not really familiar about other examples you mentioned, so I won't comment.

It's fascinating how this LGBT rights thing has in the period of the last few decades become so important in political discussions. Before it was never even mentioned in any political context but now it has become some sort of obsession for some people on the left, 'liberals' whatever (and as a reaction it has consequently also become an obsession for the right wing). The important thing to understand is that 'gay community' as imagined by the LBGT propagandists has never existed in history. You had some people practicing homosexuality here and there but they never were part of any clearly defined community asking for their 'rights'. So why the hell would anyone give "them" a right to marry between each other? Same-sex marriage as something legally accepted and formally equal as a marriage between a man and a woman exists today in some countries because the LGBT rights movements has promoted it and provided an ideological background which makes such marriage acceptable for people who adhere to that ideology/'liberal' values (a large part of society in those countries). It can't be compared to anything in history really.

Needless to say, there have been a lot of attempts of historical revisionism on this issue, to suit the current social-ideological trends and somehow legitimize them (even though LGBT rights activists present themselves as progressive, they still look for some affirmation for their ideology in Western history, particularly in the pre-Christian era). There is also a trend to declare certain historical persons as homosexual even though there isn't much proof. Frederick II comes to my mind.

Deputy General Director of the Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, Dmitri Kisilev recently dehumanized gays on a popular, government-run television program broadcast by the state-owned network Rossiya 1.

His translated comments state, "I think that just imposing fines on gays for homosexual propaganda among teenagers is not enough. They should be banned from donating blood, sperm. And their hearts, in case of the automobile accident, should be buried in the ground or burned as unsuitable for the continuation of life."

The audience applauded after Kisilev's comments.

you keep good company, Ivy.



http://www.towleroad.com/2013/08/russian...o.html#comments

Where has Ivy or anyone else for that matter said or agreed with the sort of comment that you've bolded? The only person posting hate columns is you. Is that how it works, could i post an article from a nazi website and say Ronnie agrees with this .

It's what libs like ronnierocket (and certain others posters on this forum) do. They feel if they can paint you as a hate-monger, they've won the argument. Never mind whether it's true or not. It's the typical laziness and dishonesty of the left and their agenda. It's what Prop 8 in California was relabeled as "Prop Hate" or "Prop H8" by the same kind of people.

The two most overused words in the liberal encyclopedia are "hate" and "homophobic."