Sexily-dressed women

[gaffo]

How racist, referring to skin-tone when talking about voting statistics.

How idealistic, excluding an entire subsystem of demographic, for the sake of being extreme right-wing.

By singling out that it's wrong to talk about subgroups like Black Women, you, VT, are suggesting that it is wrong to be Black women.

There is nothing wrong with being a Black woman. The only thing wrong is to ASSUME and to INSINUATE that there is something wrong with being a Black woman.

WHY, oh why is it not a problem for you to talk about male computer programmers, or about female Chef Devouire Chautes, or South Asian actuaries, but it is a problem for you to talk about Black females as a voter demographic? I am actually genuinely curious, it's not a rhetorical question.

I am not picking a fight, I want to know instead what it is that is wrong in your view with skin colour. Or with talking about it.

I hate HATE PC/indetity politics - and why i left the democratic party by the 1990s.

such thinking negates the individual Human Being - and leads to Balkanism.

if/when the dems return to humanity - affirm each person - as sexless/ageless/raceless...................and individuals with minds of their own (not members of a group).

I'll return to that Party.

been waiting 25 yrs now - and so an Independent.

sadly i dont see them moving BACK to thier 70's roots.

as for the Republicans - they either suck Corporate Tits or strive to Authoritarianism and never see any affilation with them (I might have had i lived in the late 19th century - but that Republican Party died with the death of Roosevelt).

I liked and agree with Teddy BTW.

2-cents.

[gaffo]

Could you list the number of times the US has been attacked by Russia?

That's right. The USSR and Russia are some of the most peace-abiding superpowers. They squash counter-revolutions, yes, they do invade the Ukraine, but they don't go to destroy far-away countries and raze them to the ground. Viet-Nam, Nicaragua, Cuba, Iraq, etc. etc. are never mentioned in US papers as "we are hostile to these countries." The USA generally and customarily considers those countries hostile whom they attack.

Russia / USSR was once attacked and attacked badly by a coalition in which the USA was a major player.

History is a arch - "big picture" - I'm Objective! - so not partisan "pro US" though I'm an ameican.

noted your posts so know you are a man with a mind and here to discuss rather than promote your personal agenda.


if your view is stated above, you have much to learn about history. not insulting, just sayin.

refer to my prior post about USSR and their illegal subjugation of 1/2 of Europe from 1948 to 1991.

as for Veitnam - that was a "dumb war" - a civil war that had nothing to with the USSR - just local communist (Hoi che Men(sp) - with popular support) - and a corrupt regime in the South - which we decided to defend out of "red scare" hysteria (assuming "all communists are Russian!) from the prior French ruling the same lands.

so again DUMB WAR - "we" (US - had we brains in the 60s/70s) should have stayed out and let the French colony fall by early 60's to the North.


- not up on Nic/cuba so will not reply to.

Iraq (War for Daddy) - fully illegal invasion/occupation by the US - counter to UN and Rule of Law - an Historical stain that America will be known for for centuries hence.

- if one view full history - USSR/Russia gets an "F". US gets a "C-".

[gaffo]

What's a no heller Baptist? I heard that George Soros changed his religion to that from being an Orthodox Jew from Dobos utca.

no heller baptists are a sect of Baptists (primitive baptists, to be exact) that believe in universal salvation

I like that idea - since I'm an Atheist and have been told that I go to Hell forever for my rejection that Jesus is God.

the bible does say that God wants everyone to be saved

there is no "the bible" - just 40 books - from authors with their own theologies/audience(congrigation).

most affirm your assirtion - but 1/4 do not those authors are into predestination instead (i.e. I"m born to burn (forever - if you leave out Apocalypse of Peter))

there aren't a whole lot of no heller baptists left

probably since Apocalypse of Peter was never canonized and so no-one knows about it now.

said work affirmed universal salvation - after a time served in Hell for transgessions (vs forever! - big difference).

I have an interest and know quite a lot about "western religions" though an Athiest myself.

I prefer the Old Testament (esp "Minor Prophet's" works) and know more about it - but have an interest in the NT and Koran and have read much of them and know quite a lot about them as well.

2-cents here.

carry on............

[gaffo]

I also have in interest in Eastern Religions (Hinduism) - but know much less about it/them. there is not much "out there" to learn about - at least here in America.

to date I've learned of the Rig Vada (know nothing of its theology).

Rammanyana(sp)

Mahabaratta(sp)

Bagivad Gita(sp).

..............I confess utter ignorance in the above works/theologies..............but from what little access i've found via YT/western culture (which ignores Hindism (and Buddaism - which is related)

there is said to have been to date 7 incarnations of God (Vishnu I assume?) in human form since the time the Rig Vada's were written.

of those 7 - so far i only know of two by name:

Ramma

Krishna(the blue guy)

----------essentually "Christ" per the Easterners/Indians (their natures - God in Human form - is identical to what Western Belevier's views of Christ is.


---------------

I went lightyears off topic, i appologize.

[gaffo]

That's right. The USSR and Russia are some of the most peace-abiding superpowers. They squash counter-revolutions, yes, they do invade the Ukraine, but they don't go to destroy far-away countries and raze them to the ground.

most of what i know about Russia comes from my alcoholic Russian high school math teacher - but according to him, Russia unlike the USA, invades almost exclusively its neighbours, and there isn't a single country bordering russia that it did not invade at some point

indeed so.

amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!

in that you are correct in statement, not that it is correct conduct!

added the last for the thick if mind

[vegetariantaxidermy]

FFS. Russia is an ancient country. Europe and the rest of the world has been cut up, reconfigured, conquered, reconquered, christianised, islamised, communised, de-imperialised, Britishised, Frankised etc.etc. multiple times over the centuries. The US is how old? The US has attacked and caused great harm to how many countries since the middle of the last century?

Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-1961
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Iran 1987
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991 (Persian Gulf War)
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1993
Bosnia 1994, 1995
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Yemen 2002
Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis)
Iraq 2003-2015
Afghanistan 2001-2015
Pakistan 2007-2015
Somalia 2007-8, 2011
Yemen 2009, 2011
Libya 2011, 2015
Syria 2014-2015


Countries that have attacked the US:

[gaffo]

no heller baptists are a sect of Baptists (primitive baptists, to be exact) that believe in universal salvation

the bible does say that God wants everyone to be saved, and give that god is omnipotent, it only stands to reason that what god wants, God gets.

there aren't a whole lot of no heller baptists left

Very interesting. Thanks for informing me.

The no heller Baptists simply haven't read important parts of the bible. Namely,Isaiah 45:7. (KJV is the best worded.) God is infinitely good, but he is also infinitely evil. There is just no two ways about that. According to the bible.

again there is no "the bible" just many works and theologies that changed over time. each work is a product of the author's time (he theology and audience).

1. early Judaism is Polytheist (oldest written work is Amos BTW - i like his work myself and agree with his viewpoint in general) - Amos is older than the Torah (4 (i exclude 5th Duteronomy - it is part of Torah by tradition - i.e 5 books of the Torah - personally exlude it though as part of torah due to be written around 580 or so - the other 4 books date to 700 or so................though they are resertations of far older oral tales (1000 BC or so).

I've digressed - point being per above point 1 - YHWH per the Jews understanding of their God - he was all "I'm good yet create evil" (that is a quote in one of the older OT tests) - i.e Jews had no "devil" (Belail/Satan) prior to Babalonian exile of 587, and their religion affirmed other Gods - refer to 10 comandments "thou shalt not worship other God before me" (so there are in implied existance of other gods and its also implied ok to worship them AFTER you worship YhWH (otherwise that commandment would be written as "there are not others gods, worship me" - its not and so others gods exist - even for the Jews of that time.

2. later - post 2nd exile (Ezra/Zachariah) - 500 bc and later - other god's dissapeared as existing. Jews were only to worship him - and none others (that now do not exist).

3. Satan shows up as a being - (probably Ahriman) - a pesian "import" due to the exile culture influnence of the 1/5 upper class jews that were inslaved by the Babylonians and freed by the Perians (70 yrs or so timeline) - 586-450 or so. First Satan shows up in Zach;'s work and serves god. Later (200 yrs or so - Job - which dates to around 250 bc) Satan is less agreeable with YHWH - still under him, but "Tests him" with Job on a bet. a few years later we have a separate Satan/Belial - one that is not ONLY an opposer/tester of man - but YHWH himself!! (quie a change in an understanding of said character).

4. By post Job - 200BC to 100AD we have full bore Judaism that denies Satan as serving YHWH is a tester of man faith in God, instead we have a being that opposes both YHWH and his beleivers (man/jews).

5, By post 100 - we have Jews becoming marginalized by Christians. who re-interpreted a man that claimed himself a a judaic king and killed by the romans for such claim. via many authors - to degrees of divinity - per the author (Mark's Jesus was a man - adopted by god via his conduct as a man - to be his "son"..................then via 15 yr later (this is "myth in evolution/expansion in evidence here BTW) folks though he was not born a man - but born of God (though still God's son) - refer to Matt and Luke........then 15 yr later some thought that that was not good enough - instead Jesus was never "born" he existed since the bigining (and the "word was god") - and was also God (YHWH) himself (Gospel of John) - which has little or nothing in common with Gospel of Mark (the earliest and most accurate account that survives concerning the man Jesus and the beliefs of this followers).

[gaffo]

That's right. The USSR and Russia are some of the most peace-abiding superpowers. They squash counter-revolutions, yes, they do invade the Ukraine, but they don't go to destroy far-away countries and raze them to the ground.

most of what i know about Russia comes from my alcoholic Russian high school math teacher - but according to him, Russia unlike the USA, invades almost exclusively its neighbours, and there isn't a single country bordering russia that it did not invade at some point

Generally, you and the high school teacher are right. So since the USA is not bordering Russia, there is no reason for them to call Russia a hostile nation.

calling bullshit. there is no need to include geography of the nations proclaiming in injust act to be valid. (you claim to "Geographic morality" has gotten my Rankles full up Sir!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Indonesia illegally invaded East Timor in 75............................and that illegal act ain't got nothing to do with America not bordering East Timor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


pissed off!!!! now!!!!!!!!

[gaffo]

That's right. The USSR and Russia are some of the most peace-abiding superpowers. They squash counter-revolutions, yes, they do invade the Ukraine, but they don't go to destroy far-away countries and raze them to the ground.

most of what i know about Russia comes from my alcoholic Russian high school math teacher - but according to him, Russia unlike the USA, invades almost exclusively its neighbours, and there isn't a single country bordering russia that it did not invade at some point

Generally, you and the high school teacher are right. So since the USA is not bordering Russia, there is no reason for them to call Russia a hostile nation.

But some exceptions exist: there are some bordering countries Russia never invaded:
Sweden, Norway (when Finland was part of Russia), China, Canada (when Alaska was a Russian territory until 1867 when the USA bought it from Russia), Roumania. Turkey. Iraq. Iran. These last three countries are not bordering with Russia per se, but they border with countries that Russia has inviaded and made into its own land.

Romania was under the control of the USSR and one of the East Block.

[gaffo]

That's right. The USSR and Russia are some of the most peace-abiding superpowers. They squash counter-revolutions, yes, they do invade the Ukraine, but they don't go to destroy far-away countries and raze them to the ground.

most of what i know about Russia comes from my alcoholic Russian high school math teacher - but according to him, Russia unlike the USA, invades almost exclusively its neighbours, and there isn't a single country bordering russia that it did not invade at some point

Generally, you and the high school teacher are right. So since the USA is not bordering Russia, there is no reason for them to call Russia a hostile nation.

But some exceptions exist: there are some bordering countries Russia never invaded:
Sweden, Norway (when Finland was part of Russia),

until 1919


USSR invented a "war" (Russian shelled their own town - killed too? - on boarder of Finland (Hitler played the same game in his "justification in invading Poland - i.e. Poland attacked us first (never mind that Hilter dressed his men in polish uniforns to make the fiction more credible!). with Finland in 39, then invaded it - then got their arse kicked, and sued for peace (at the price of taking 10 pecent of Finland's national Eastern borders). Finns were over manned, fought the Russians better and over "Won the war" - but being smart (know that Stalin wanted ALL of Finland!!!!!!!!! - only did not expect an undermanned army to out fight his own men, which the finns did indeed so - the finns wisely chose to allow Russia to take 1/10 th ther land for an armistice).

so do not rewrite history Sir! Finland would be Russia had the Finns fought like the French.

instead they fought like Brits/Poles/Americans - against thugs that do not value Rule of Law.

note - i know the Poles got fucked over - but they unlike the French - they fought! - and i commend then for their valer (as most do today - few respect the Vichy French, more do so the Poles).

[gaffo]

Sweden, Norway (when Finland was part of Russia), China, Canada (when Alaska was a Russian territory until 1867 when the USA bought it from Russia), Roumania. Turkey. Iraq. Iran.

didn't USSR invade Romania and annex Moldova, back in the day?

yes of course.

-1 does not know history.

sadly

[gaffo]

Sweden, Norway (when Finland was part of Russia), China, Canada (when Alaska was a Russian territory until 1867 when the USA bought it from Russia), Roumania. Turkey. Iraq. Iran.

didn't USSR invade Romania and annex Moldova, back in the day?

Yes, you are right, with Moldova. But Romania was never invaded by Russia or by the USSR.

so romania was just a "puppet state" of USSR - under threat.

thanks for historical education.


I'll have to look into this matter.

thanks for this tidbit - you may know what you are talking about on this particuiar, and allow me to educate myself on.

[gaffo]

Yes, you are right, with Moldova. But Romania was never invaded by Russia or by the USSR.

wasn't Moldova a province of Romania - so invading Moldova without invading Romania would be an impossibility ?

interesting point.

i guess one would need to learn of history (who owned what and how and why). etc...............

to make a judgment WRT to Rule of Law.

i'm ignorant of Romanian history

............

know a little about Austria's claim to Hungry (and they claimed and took it 100 yrs ago) - as an maybe a parallel to your above.

though i do not even know enough about Austria's claim to Hungry - other then that they claimed it and took it - to determine if said claim is legal under Rule of Law.

it might have been (as per Moldova/rumania) - just not edjucated enough to make a personal ruling on the matter (of Austria - let alone Rumania which i know even less about!).

carry on.

[gaffo]

Yes, you are right, with Moldova. But Romania was never invaded by Russia or by the USSR.

wasn't Moldova a province of Romania - so invading Moldova without invading Romania would be an impossibility ?

I concede to you ... I am not familiar with that part of the world in history.

Well done.

no need to concede yet.

we all need to learn history and comport historical act within modern Rule of Law understanding.

maybe the poster you replied to know less of history or Rule of Law than you - not saying - just positing.

no need to concede so quick.

it values all to learn of historical actions, and to understand the rule of law as understood today - and then look back on historical acts.

then to condemn/affirms the many actions of nation states as either acting legally or illegally per rule of law.

-----------------

as stated I'm an ignoramous on this particular, but only wish to champion learning history and Rule of Law (modern understanding of - per UN/etc) - then applying said to past historical actions.

carry on.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Just another paranoid yank moron with no answers and little education .