You need to explore the word "hate" and know what "hate" is amd how to properly use the word before using it as a judgement on others.

 I am quite aware of the definition of the word hate.  My point is that my posts were to merely show that the majority of Islamics are by far a blood thirsty, crazed people.  I am not Islamic, I am not trying to convert anyone to Islam, I am just trying to show another point of view.  All I am really saying is judge them when you meet them.  But when all the posts are full of flat out denial of this suggestion, well it begins to get me to thinking.  I am not Christian, but it is my understanding that Christianity is meant to spread the word of peace and redemption.  I assumed that redemption also came with understanding.  To call a whole people 'evil' is silly, and shows a lack of understanding.  That kind of close mindedness forms the epitome of hate.  Because it is hate without purpose, it is hate without understanding.
   
   No one can freely assume that a whole people is evil.  I mean comeon, statistically 15-20% of the population of the US has a form of sociopathic tendancies.  Now, since that statistic encompasses the population as a whole, we can also assume that a portion of Christians are included in that.  Thus, by the logic I see posted here, I can assume that all Christians are sociopaths because a percentage of them are.  It is the same in Islam, a percentage (less than 20%) is for radical islam, and a portion of that freely commit violence in name of that cause.  Thus, I assume they are all crazy killers.  Does this make sense?

  Sorry sincereheart, I will clarify.  I can see how some of my statements are a little confusing.

 

Both men could have been drug dealers involved with the mafia, but to each party their candidate would be right in doing so, "It was just a youtful indiscretion" they would cry.

 Again I only meant it to show my point on what I feel is a bias set by both parties.  As for Kerry's continuation of his youthful indiscretions, I am not quite sure what you mean.  But if you could point me to some info on it I would definitely like to read them.

 

Don't we all take 'input' from those we trust?

Well yes, but I tend to also go to outside sources to get extra information on issues.  I mean a small group of people can't be right 100% of the time.  In my opinion it is better to gather facts from all over, rather than letting a select few tell it to me repeatedly.

In a predominately Buddhist country, most likely a Buddhist leader. In a Muslim country, most likely a Muslim leader. In a Christian country, I wouldn't want a Muslim or a Buddhist or a non-Christian leader. Though we do seem to be heading in those directions.  

 I can also see your point, but again these are your convictions.  All I am saying is that I am indifferent to where the morality and decision making skills of a person come from.  If they make what I see our the right choices, and follow a code of morality and honor that I believe are right, well then they get my vote.  To me the source of these qualities does not matter so long as the person has them.

I've never met anyone who DOES like war.  

 Sorry a little out of context there, I do not like war in any shape or form.  I meant to say, I disagree with the war in Iraq.

Bush did all that in how long? He's been in office for 3.5 years and you said 'a few years ago' so it couldn't have been a problem caused by Bush.  

 Again sorry, it is just the way I tend to speak.  I interchange few, and couple, and even just one frequently.  I tend to just use them as general phrases that just mean  "a short while ago".  Of course after reading it I can see how it would be confusing.  Anyways, I worked for the staffing agency about a year and four months ago.  So I think you will agree that that falls right into his term in office.

  Oh and finally, musicllover, I looked up some facts on that article, and John Kerry was indeed there.  There was a little porch side rally held, and there even was an old woman there who had health care problems (something along the lines of having had like 14 surgeries and needing a job at 77 to pay for them).  Anyways, it is partially true, except for the fact about Kerry muscling people out of their land.  The  owners of the land the rally took place on (Dale and Judy Rhome) are shown in photos sitting on the porch behind John Kerry during his speech.  There are also shots of the crowd (with no rope or tape blocking), and of people walking down the street towards the rally and at houses right next door to where this took place.  So the notion that he bullied everyone away and took there land seems a little farfetched.
   As to the legal term referred to, I think it is called 'eminent domain', and is the act by which the government converts private property to public and compensates the owners for it.  Seeing as John Kerry is just a senator, and does not have the authority of the government as a whole (which is needed for this, not to mention that he is not a senator of Pennsylvannia).  Then if the event happened as the email said it had, he would have been trespassing.  And I am sure that any 'sympathetic' police officers would be more than happy to write up a citation or even try to have charges brought up.  Actually multiple counts since he would have had to remove all the Bush-Cheney signs from the yards, also destruction or defacement of property charges, and stifling one's first amendment rights.  The story just doesn't seem to add up (that and it was really really grammatically correct for an email).  Anyways, check out the pics, just do a search for John Kerry and Canonsburg, most major news sites had them, but if they aren't enough then check out the local news for the area of Canonsburg, plenty of information and pics to what happened.

   Wow, I have to agree.  I'm pro-choice, but that is just really tacky and wrong.  I don't even know what person in their right mind would wear a shirt like that for anything less than shock value.  Not to mention that they are just asking to have something like red paint or something thrown at them.  Someone really needs to knock some sense into these people.

  Thank you musicllover, that was an answer I was looking for.  I respect the fact that you make a choice made on your beliefs, which is fine by me.  Yes, I'm not a Christian, I happened to stumble across this board while looking for something else, and being the way I am I decided to post some.  I like to get an understanding of people from all points of view, it ensures I won't be ignorant if I were to speak to someone of that point of view (not meaning I like to argue, I just like to know where people are coming from).  

   Anyways, I vote for people I think will do a good job as well, if they draw their morality from the Bible or from Buddah, or just from themselves, well it doesn't matter to me.  To me I think Bush would have been a better president if he had taken in more input from more than just his small group of friends.  I dislike that,  I dislike the war, and even though Saddam was an evil man, I dislike being told one thing and then presented another, to me it is bad policy.  Not admitting error is also bad policy in my opinion, there is a fine line between steadfast in ones actions and stubborn, I just believe he crossed that line.  I also live in a place that has a lot of government jobs, and a few years ago I worked at a temp agency.  When the deficeit rose and the unemployment rate increased, a lot of jobs were cut in the government sector.  We had an increase of around 250 extra temp employees to send out, and most we didn't have work for, so they sat on the benches we had outback.  Later when I went to apply for a job at the archives as a front desk clerk, I was in competition with over 370 people.  I lost out on the job to a person who had a masters degree in communications, he had worked in the capital building (in my state, not washington), and was now taking a job for $6.50 /hr .  To me, that is bad policy.  I have  a pretty long list, but in short that is why I am voting for Kerry, I just want to see a change in the administration.

  I still don't see what is so preposterous about the idea that we evolve.  Everything evolves constantly, plants, animals, bacteria.  You can watch a virus evolve into different forms within years.  You can see adaptations in animals similar in species from around the world.  Look at your hands and feet, the webbing inbetween the fingers and toes is all but useless, from an age we may have needed to swim more perhaps. In fact having a true big toe (meaning your middle toe is not longer), is an changed trait, because we no longer need the long toes to climb. What about those born with overdeveloped tails, no use in them, and no real harm, they are just a remanent of genetic past, not completely erased yet. There are, I think, about 24 (not exactly sure on this number, somewhere between 20-26) useless organelles and bits within the human body, that over time have been disappearing, why?  I'm not trying to disprove God here, I mean like I said. God is omnipotent, and in that omnipotency I am sure he realized that we would become curious.  So why not create a system that makes sense instead of just having it appear?

 sincereheart, my post isn't stating "all those who disagree with me are blind".  My post is stating that both sides are blind, you and me.  I try not to take sides, but I can readily admit that I don't what exactly it is that Christians want, and I never stated that I did.  I am saying that both sides, of whichI am not stereotyping Christians as being on one side, I am referring to Democrats and Republican. Anyways, both sides need to stop arguing and start talking, surely there can be some sense in that.

  As to your second comment, I am not sure I understand what you are alluding towards.  What I said was just an example to what I feel is a bias both parties have.  But to answer your question, if one did happen to be a drug dealer, and the other was just a former drug dealer, then yes there is a difference.  

    I got my quotes from direct translations of the Qu'ran.  I do not doubt the validity of the quotes you have.  However, I don't know how reliable an opinion you can get from someone who converted to a different religion, and then writes a book on their former one.  Obviously they had a problem with the religion, or with the religious leader, so I don't know if their book would give an unbiased look into its workings.  The same goes with any books of that nature.  I know people who have converted from Christianity to Buddhism, and I will tell you, Christianity is not a favorite subject of theirs (some bad experiences).  And even though I am not a Christian, I know that if they wrote a book on Christianity, it would probably gloss over a lot of the good the religion preaches, and just focus on what they consider is wrong with it.  

  To stay on subject, since science is rolling into this subject:

1) The assumptions made about the Neanderthal man, are pretty much false (dental records, comeon people).  First off, dental records on a human that lived hundreds of years would be invalid.  Because the teeth would either have to show immense decay (which Neanderthals do not, hinting at middle age death), or they would have had to regenerate multiple times throughout life.  If regeneration is the case, then dental records would only show the Neanderthal to be as old as the new set of regenerated teeth.
   2)  in reference to the shape of the skull in relation to age (hehe, I know what books you guys have been reading).  Since bone density and basal skull length are used to measure life. Then yes your right, Neanderthal is very old.  However, if you use the same method to measure the skull of say, a orangutan, then you would show that the animal is well over 700 years old (is this true?!!).  The evidence posed about the Neanderthals skeleton is false, because using the same technique produces different ages on different measurements.  Meaning that the growth patterns of the Neanderthal are different than modern mans.  So the assumption that they are, really, really old, is wrong.  (just as a side note, if it were true then researchers would be clamoring to find the genetic differences that allowed this longevity).
   3) As to the notion that arthritis called the "deformity", well I can just say, research into rickets, or arthiritis.  They cannot produce that severe, and uniform deformity, it is a genetic difference, not a disease.

About Cro-Magnon man:

    This is our descendants.  Very similar in size and shape to us, and not too many differences.  The biggest difference is cranial capacity and frontal lobe developement.  They had it, but not to the extent that we have it.

  But, alas, none of this information can confirm or deny the existence of God.  Even if creatures appeared 200 million years ago, it still can't disprove God.  As an omnipotent being God would easily be capable, and clever enough, to organize a universe that runs off of an extremely complex set of rules.  I also agree, that yes, God is outside of time and space.  So spending 7 days on a planet could be the equivalent to millions of years (which is summed up rather quickly).

 *sigh*... And as Muslims they KNOW that Allah is THE God (and is a god a peace).  Vicious cycle isn't it?  Well I cede in this argument, good luck with the whole hating others thing, it really is a much better method than trying to promote peace among the masses.

  I agree, it should all be even.  We are all humans, and should treat each other that way.

  I'm not going to go into the details behind the fight between the jewish people and the muslims.  I'd probably get the names or story mixed up, I just know that it mainly has to do with a major disagreement between who's prophet did what.

  Concerning your quotes from the Qu'ran , they are being posted way out of context:

Surah 3:157 And if you are slain or die in the way of Allah forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all they could amass.
     -  This is taken out of context, because the clerics who denounce radical Islam say that the suicide bombings are just that, suicide.  And it is not the will of Allah for it to be so.  So to them these men are not being rewarded, especially since they kill innocenets and Muslims alike.  Again you assume that radical Islam, and their twisting of the meanings of the Qu'ran, is the only form of Islam.

Surah 2:193 Fight against them until there is no dissension and the religion is for Allah.
     - This one you merely shortened to suit your needs, here is the actual translations (multiple versions).

Yusuf Ali: (<----- translator)
   And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.

Zohurul Hoque:
   And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is only for Allah. But if    they desist, then let there be no hostilities except against the unjust.

T. J. Irving:
   Fight them until there is no more subversion and [all] religion belongs to God. If    they stop, let there be no [more] hostility except toward wrongdoers.

T.U. Hilali-M. Khan:
   And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others    along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)

M. Pickthall:
   And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they    desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.

M.H. Shakir:
   And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

    - So as you can see, not in the actual context of its meaning.  Christians are not polytheists (thus not pagans), and you are not oppressing them, so you are not an enemy (they just consider you in the wrong on your choice of worship).  Radical Islam, however, is claiming that we are oppressing them, and that our religion is as well, so we are the enemy.  Two big differences here.

    I won't go into all the quotes, since it would make this post take forever.  Needless to say, there is a difference between the radicals and the followers of true Islam.  The followers of true Islam want peace (admitted in numerous interviews), and even accept that they have to stop fighting and live with the Jewish people in peace.  Radicals (on both sides) believe the world will be a better place without the others, so they twist the teachings of the Qu'ran to justify their actions, and are denounced for it.  Unfortunately the young are easily swayed into believing that violence is the only way, and that is the true struggle they are having over there.  To the true followers, just as Christians view it with Jesus, their is no need to fight (as long as no one oppresses them), because they have already won the war.  They believe in Allah, and will be saved by that on judgement day.  The true followers of Islam don't hate others for their beliefs, they feel sorry for them.

   Finally, the reason I pointed you towards the UAE, is because I was proving a point.  Showing that the middle east isn't some cess pool and it just needs to develop and catch up with the 21st century.  The UAE is a for a democratic republic, women have tons of rights that they lack in other middle eastern countries (70% of the internet / computer tech workforce is women there).  They are very acceptant of other people and religions, and still practice their religion to the fullest.  It is the UAE's goal to prove to the world that the middle east can be peaceful and prosperous.  And by doing so they hope to show other middle eastern countries what can be obtained.  They consider America's goals and system of government as a excellent model (1 of only 2 countries in all of the middle east that thinks this; the rest have their views skewed by radicals and propaganda).  In fact, they model a lot of their government and economic organizations to the American model.  Hardly a people out to kill us I would say.

  Sorry, I merely refer to the birth certificate as a contract, because by being born here they take a foot print (signature?), and assign you a social sercurity number.  I am using it in the context of a contract, because it is a sure sign that you are bound to the U.S.  In fact you need your certificate to prove you are bound to the U.S. in order to get things like driver's license's and such.  You don't have to think of it as a contract, but just for arguments sake I am using it that way.

  Ok, to clarify on the whole Jesus issue (is it a command or a suggestion).  I am saying that the way you presented the quote makes me think of it as a suggestion, or better yet a guide line.  But like you said, where do you draw the line?  Where do you decide if something is implicitly commanded, or just implied that it might be a good idea.  To this I just say, context, some things can be unanimously decided on that "quote x" is indeed a command.  Others, however, are much harder to discern, so they may require some discussion into the true meaning. I mean if I stood on a hill and said something like "Always travel up hill towards the light, never down into darkness, for that is the path to damnation". Now of course I mean this as a metaphor, yet if someone printed it, it might sound like I mean that no one should every walk down hill. My argument is that, in the quote you gave, it seems to sound like Jesus is implying a greater meaning rather than commanding it.  The ambiguity of the quote seems to hint that there is a further meaning.  What it is though I can only guess at.

  First off, yes I agree oil is here to stay (for a good while), but how much and who produces it is the issue.  If we can be self sufficient in oil production, by using alternative fuel methods, then we can immediately save money and lose the dependencies.

  Secondly, where in the world do you get your information on Islam?  First off in Islam, yes, they believe in Jesus, he is a prophet, he died (but not by crucifixion according to them) and was raised up by God (Allah). He was without sin because he was a prophet, and his death for atonement was not required, because in Islam they believe that we are born without sin.  And that we gather it through life and must atone for it.  Just as well, they are NOT told to kill Christians on sight (I don't know who made this one up), and beheading of an innocent (meaning a non-combatant) is forbidden.  Also, Islam is about peace and being responsible for one's actions (meaning not killing people, and doing God's work).  It is also strictly forbidden to try and force someone to convert to Islam (the convert must come willingly).  

   The atrocities we see are just that, atrocities.  It is not supported by the bulk of the Islamic community.  You just have to consider the fact that, this is a people who got left behind a long long time ago, they used to be the central hub of the world until the Renaissance hit and moved everything to eastern Europe.  They have been the center of endless fighting for decades.  The people are probably stretched to the limit.  With every side of the world tugging at them, and with radicals (most of which are very young) going off on these tangents of declaring Jihad for retribution.  They just need to be calmed down and set into the modern age.

  Look up the UAE (United Arab Emirates) on google, it's a capitalistic arabic state ,7 actually, very successful and is a major launching place for corporations, it is also the number 1 place suggested to visit in the Middle East, most likely due to its safety for foreigners and its tourist industry
 

  Well actually, the situation isn't nearly so grim.  Our dependency on foreign oil is linked to the fledgling status of our current technology (very fledgling if you know what we are capable of).  If you want to stop such things, then push for support of research in things like fuel cells and hydrogen / organic fuel.  Since hydrogen is cleaner and easily within our grasp, I would suggest pushing for that.  With a total conversion to hydrogen we could halt the need for foreign oil almost immediately, since we actually produce quite a bit ourselves (remember, we used to be the biggest oil exporter in the world).  That would destroy the strangle hold the middle east has on the world economy (and especially ours).

   Just as well, if (for some reason) the U.S. collapsed, the world would not end, in fact there are quite a few fail safes.  You would see poverty, yes. And most likely the mass surplus of stored goods would be sold at pre- WWI prices, thus inflation resets itself.  But I can assure you, the world would not collapse.

  To address the nuclear bomb issue.  I am not sure which bomb in existance could destroy five full states (that is a lot of area).  But I can honestly say that I have never feared of a nuclear attack on the US, especially from middle eastern terrorists.  Sure, I know they are radicals and who knows what they would do.  But they also probably know that the moment a nuclear blast is set off on US soil, then they will lose everything.  The death of say New York (10 million people I think), we assure that all countries in the middle east would become a wasteland, not even a bunker would save them, their war would be a failure.  Remember, even "disarmed", we have enough nuclear ordance ourselves to scorch every scrap of land on the planet twice over.
So I have never feared a reprissal in that way, it's the small attacks (9/11 style) that you have to watch for.  Nuclear weapons are just for threatening people.

  And finally, I just wanted to clarify some things on the Muslim religion.  For one, the radicals are a small (but growing, because of the war) group.  They are lead mostly by young clerics, and are denounced by the actual Muslim leaders and scholars.  In fact beheading innocents is strictly forbidden, because God decreed something along the lines of "Attack no person without a weapon, attack no farmer, or child (I'm paraphrasing here), etc.."   It then goes on to say that prisoners should not be harmed and should be released when it is safe to release them.  In fact a huge controversy over there at the moment is that the beheadings are against the will of God, and that the young radicals are trying to misinterpret the quote by using an old radical translation of it.  As a final note, in case some people thought otherwise , Muslims do believe in Jesus it's just to them his role is somewhat different then it is in Christianity.

 Hehe, my applause to you Marv, but you have to know that it is useless to try and argue in support of Kerry on these boards.  I'm a Kerry supporter, he wasn't my first choice, not even my second really, but hey that is what I got dealt so I run with it.  Anyways, both sides have taken the candidate bashing way too far.  And both sides also seem pretty blind to the facts (and yes, I have read the news, and the files, and the backgrounds, blah, blah, blah, and both candidates could use some sprucing up).  
   
   It's just the way the parties polarization has taken this election that is sad.  Both men could have been drug dealers involved with the mafia, but to each party their candidate would be right in doing so, "It was just a youtful indiscretion" they would cry.  Meanwhile the opponents activity in the same act would be and indication that they are a blight on society. You want to vote for someone?  Then listen to the debates, read the news (both sides), and ask questions.  The plus side of all this spin and mud slinging is that there is a wealth of information out there to justify or destroy both views.  I would suggest reading news that holds a middle ground, and then branching outwards. Any news media with a strong tie to either candidate is not gonna to present anyone with a complete truth.  Well that's my opinion anyways  .