Democrats & Liberals Archives

A Mosque as a Mask for Intolerance

Americans are in the midst of a contentious debate about a “Ground Zero Mosque.” Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf submitted plans for an Islamic Cultural Center to be built 2 blocks north of Ground Zero. A few loud-mouths, looking for a way to stir people up, started the controversy. The Mosque became a mask for intolerance.

One of the worst culprits is Newt Gingrich, who compared Muslims to Nazis:

"Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the holocaust museum in Washington," Gingrich insisted, speaking of the museum where just a year ago a guard was killed by a white supremacist trying to enter the building with a gun. Gingrich then went on to claim that "we would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor."

Outrageous! But unfortunately he is not alone. Beck, Palin, Limbaugh and the rest of the far-right chorus joined in. To my dismay, Senator Harry Reid and other Democrats succumbed as well. A bipartisan display of intolerance! These leaders are supposed to call for tolerance and understanding among people of different faiths. Instead they unleashed a blow to America's primary principle of freedom of religion.

President Obama decided to speak out, and said:

As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.

The reaction was simple. All the naysayers said, Of course, we believe in the freedom of religion, but building a mosque would be "insensitive" to those who have lost loved ones in the 9/11 attack. First, I'd like to know how far away the Park51 structure should be so that it would not be "insensitive" - 3 blocks, 5 miles, outside New York City, outside U.S.? Second, do you believe there would be as much "insensitivity" if a church or synagogue were built 2 blocks from Ground Zero?

President Obama was asked again the next day about Park51. This is what he said:

I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have, that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about.

Several pundits consider this to be backtracking. It's nothing of the sort. The president is saying that Muslims have the same right as anyone else to build a community center. When he says he will not comment "on the wisdom" he is saying that he, as a member of government, should not tell anyone what to do with reference to religion since we must have complete separation between church and state.

President Obama is clear and exactly right. And what he says should be bipartisan because President George W. Bush said the same thing:

In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character - on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before - ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Let's close the debate. Let's not use a mosque as a mask for intolerance. Let's allow - no, not allow, but encourage - Imam Rauf to build his community center. Let's show the world that America still believes in freedom of religion.

Posted by Paul Siegel at August 17, 2010 7:52 PM
Comments
Comment #306130

Paul

President Obama’s clarification brought him almost exactly to my position. They have a legal right to build on private property, but it is a good idea to take into account local feelings.

I saw on O’Reilly Factor a minute ago that Bill O’Reilly has a very similar opinion too.

We all agree that Islam is nothing special. As far as our separate Church and State is concerned it has no special truth, compared to Christianity, Wicca, Voodoo etc, nor should anybody discriminate for or against it.

Posted by: C&J at August 17, 2010 8:36 PM
Comment #306131

Paul

BTW - we also have no reason to encourage the Imam to build a mosque, anymore than we would encourage a Church, temple or Christian Science reading room. That is what freedom of religion means too.

And if anybody in the world doesn’t know that America has freedom of religion, he is not paying attention. We have proved it a thousand times over since 9/11, as you quote in the words of two presidents.

Posted by: C&J at August 17, 2010 8:39 PM
Comment #306150

>President Obama’s clarification brought him almost exactly to my position. Posted by: C&J at August 17, 2010 08:36 PM

The President of the United States makes a statement that you feel to be correct, and suddenly he has come around to your position…not, well, I’ve found something to agree with the President about…or, I suddenly realize the President and I see this thing eye to eye…no, it has to be, I sent out a wavelength of ESP, and the President now sees things my way…wow! I wish I was as good, and smart, and as talented.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 17, 2010 10:23 PM
Comment #306153

Marysdude

Yeah, I don’t know what took him so long.

Actually, it isn’t only me. He evidently came around to the nuanced position held by a majority of the American people, that is something he is doing less often these days.

Posted by: C&J at August 17, 2010 10:31 PM
Comment #306157

Paul,
Why I do believe the Far Right has an Issue, I do believe the Right Media missed the talking point. For why it is easy to blame the other religion for your problems, the fact a Christian Church has failed to get a permit for their site at Ground Zero. And why I Could easily say that No Religion belongs at or near Ground Zero, the Truth is IMHO that all American Religions need to come together at Ground Zero to show the World why the Bill of Rights provides Religious Freedom and Freedom of Speech.

For how the same problems of the Late 60’s and Early 70’s have lead to the Great Divided of Personal Beliefs of Today. I do believe as Americans of the 21st Century “We the People” can work together in order to build the bridges that will allow ordinary citizens see the Natural Gap of Human Knowledge and Wisdom since no Human can handle hearing the Truth about the Reality they are forced to live in.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 17, 2010 11:51 PM
Comment #306170

http://www.peacefultomorrows.org/article.php?id=977

Posted by: gergle at August 18, 2010 6:55 AM
Comment #306172

C&J said: “President Obama’s clarification brought him almost exactly to my position. They have a legal right to build on private property, but it is a good idea to take into account local feelings.”

President Obama did not say anything of the sort. He said that Muslims have a right to build the facility and that he has not and would not comment on the wisdom of that decision. How his statements could be construed as supporting the position that the exercise of a fundamental right should be qualified by public opinion, is a mystery to me. He said nothing of the sort. If there is any backtracking in his clarifications, it was to reinforce the point that his personal opinion is irrelevant to the issue.

Posted by: Rich at August 18, 2010 7:24 AM
Comment #306175

MD said:

“The President of the United States makes a statement that you feel to be correct, and suddenly he has come around to your position…not, well, I’ve found something to agree with the President about…or, I suddenly realize the President and I see this thing eye to eye…no, it has to be, I sent out a wavelength of ESP, and the President now sees things my way…wow! I wish I was as good, and smart, and as talented.”

Kind of like the left quoting Republicans when it fits their agenda, such as Paul Siegel quoting President Bush:

“President Obama is clear and exactly right. And what he says should be bipartisan because President George W. Bush said the same thing:”

As for Paul Siegel’s post being entitled “A Mosque as a Mask for Intolerance”; it is assuming the protests are the result of intolerance. The premise is false and the usual liberal BS. There are many reasons why Americans don’t want a Muslim Mosque built near the 911 site and intolerance is not one of them. The division is between the Democratic Party, some want to support Muslims for political correctness sake and others are between a rock and a hard place, so they stand against the Mosque for the sake of the majority of Americans. It has to do with votes. Do you really think Harry Reid cares about the Mosque in NYC? Or, do you think he cares about an election he is loosing in NV? It’s convenient for a politician to side with his constituents when he is loosing.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 18, 2010 8:32 AM
Comment #306183

Tolerance? Just WHERE in the Arab / Muslim world are ANY religions other than islam “tolerated”? In this country, self hating bleeding heart Lefties are so eager to cater to every whim of the “minority” and the perceived underdog - even when said minority stands in fundamental opposition to EVERYTHING the lefties believe and hold dear.

What about places where Christians are the minority & underdog? Are you going to INSIST that Muslims in the middle east tolerate Christians? No? Why not? Afraid of getting your head cut off? Hypocritical - but smart thinking, for if you tried, that is indeed what would happen.

Cowardly lefties have a LONG history of protesting against that which can be SAFELY protested - even if it is undeserved. During the “Cold War” with the former USSR, it was easy (and safe) to protest against the US military. Even though TWO nations were involved, ONLY the US received any grief and harassment from the anti-war protesters. The USSR was immune - not because they were the “good guys” that did no wrong (FAR from it), but simply because the lefties were AFRAID to take them on.

Everyone knew what wold happen…

The same situation applies here. After 9/11 - the lefties went silent. They did not show anger or resolve. They were confused, and afraid - not only of the ENEMY that murdered their fellow citizens, but they were also afraid OF their fellow citizens, who were awakened, and demanded retribution and justice.

Islam is a barbaric cancer on our nation. In time, they will murder enough of our citizen that we’ll finally wake up and take action against them. Unfortunately the “moderate” ones will be swept up in the wave, but that is the price they will have to pay, for not standing up and purging their radicals.

Meanwhile, I’ll be happy to “tolerate” them, WHEN I SEE EVIDENCE that they are willing to reciprocate. Hell - I’d be happy to see them just join the civilized world and abandon the tactic of murdering innocent civilians - as a means of furthering their political interests.

Icebergs will thrive in hell, first…

Posted by: Steven Andros at August 18, 2010 10:35 AM
Comment #306189

“The USSR was immune - not because they were the “good guys” that did no wrong (FAR from it), but simply because the lefties were AFRAID to take them on.”

Lets see. The Berlin Blockade, Korean War, Vietnam, Carter covert CIA funding of Mujahadeen in Afghanistan after invasion by Soviets. Just some of the lefties efforts at stopping Soviet expansion. I am sure there are excellent examples of conservative efforts at stopping Soviet expansion.

Posted by: Rich at August 18, 2010 11:27 AM
Comment #306199

Strange that some on the right comdemn ‘lefties’ because they are ‘socialist’, then Andros condemns ‘lefties’ because they ‘fear’ ‘socialists’. Does Andros have any idea what he just said?

Posted by: Marysdude at August 18, 2010 1:08 PM
Comment #306200

Rich, the Cuban Missile Crisis…don’t forget that one.

Oh, yeah, and on the other side of the aisle, there was Grenada. I can understand why the right feels superior to the left in defense against The Red Tide. Grenada was just THAT important.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 18, 2010 1:11 PM
Comment #306201

C&J,

Still blowing smoke about how the President changed his direction in favor of yours I see. You have no idea just how ridiculous that sounds to someone who observed this thing unfolding…er, perhaps you do know, and just don’t care?!?

Posted by: Marysdude at August 18, 2010 1:16 PM
Comment #306203

“Let’s close the debate.”

Posted by Paul Siegel at August 17, 2010

AMEN to that. The only thing happening now is to watch the rubble bounce.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 18, 2010 2:01 PM
Comment #306213

“Islam is a barbaric cancer on our nation. In time, they will murder enough of our citizen that we’ll finally wake up and take action against them. Unfortunately the “moderate” ones will be swept up in the wave, but that is the price they will have to pay, for not standing up and purging their radicals.”

Posted by Stephen Andros

Yikes!!!!!

I want you to think about the Oklahoma bombing and the doctors murdered by Anti-Abortion radicals and read the following.

“Christianity is a barbaric cancer on our nation. In time, they will murder enough of our citizen that we’ll finally wake up and take action against them. Unfortunately the “moderate” ones will be swept up in the wave, but that is the price they will have to pay, for not standing up and purging their radicals.”

Have a nice day.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at August 18, 2010 3:54 PM
Comment #306214


The one tolerance that both the Democrats and the Republicans have in common is a tolerance for bad government.

The right isn’t intolerant, they are sensitive. Ha, ha, ha.

Question, should Islam be excluded from participation in the Faith Based Initiatives? The third leg of the triad of control.

Posted by: jlw at August 18, 2010 4:04 PM
Comment #306216

I really am quite busy today Rich, and I was going to let your rather lame rebuttal slide, since it is such a COLOSSAL display of ignorance, but there is simply too much low hanging fruit to ignore.


Let the slap down begin!

First, Is that ALL you have? Are you not up to responding with even an cursory argument against the main body of my thesis - or are you going to concede that I am correct? You might want to actually READ what I write - BEFORE you engage in comment.

In summary, my main point was: islam is our defacto enemy. If you don’t see that (and I’m quite certain that you don’t) then you are a naive fool. You WILL one day be convinced, but more of your countrymen must be murdered by these primitive barbarians - first.

In keeping with their tradition, the left is outwardly sympathetic towards the islamic “argument” in that - we - are to blame for the atrocities THEY commit, and my secondary argument (clearly supporting the primary argument) was that the left has a LONG history of siding with or at least holding sympathies with our enemies.

Since you clearly didn’t read what I wrote, let me spell it out for you: I was NOT referring to dem PRESIDENTS. That’s another argument for another day. My focus was clearly on LEFTIE ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS & semi-professional “activists” - and their habit of EXCLUSIVELY protesting against the American Military, while consistently ignoring or at least remaining unresponsive to the far worse actions of our enemies.


NEVER - did they protest the USSRs Nuclear arms build up - ONLY the corresponding US build up. Never did they protest and demand that North Viet Nam cease its ruthless, soviet and Chinese backed quest towards conquering South Viet Nam - by military force. Ditto North Korea. All the lefties could do, was protest OUR efforts to PREVENT the commies from overrunning a sovereign nation - that only wanted to be free and self governing.

I CLEARLY ACCUSE THEM OF COWARDICE AND HYPOCRISY. You do not possess the means to truthfully refute this accusation.

60’s vintage lefties like to indulge in the fantasy that ‘THEY’ ended the war. They were instrumental in breaking our nations morale, and of course, they had some help. The DEM CONTROLLED CONGRESS was quite useful by shackling the evil military with those oh so useful “rules Of engagement” (a.k.a. “handcuffs). This prolonged the war considerably, by preventing us from taking the effective measures that would have ended the war expediently. These rules gave the enemy a way to SURVIVE against our superior forces, because it’s simply “unfair” - if WE win.

The R.O.E. served it’s desired purpose and greatly contributed towards the demoralization of our troops, and our country. While it did contribute towards our eventual failure, our real defeat came when DEM CONTROLLED CONGRESS de-funded the war (much like WE will do to obamacare in 2011), and quite literally handed victory to our enemies (read some history - the NVA was DAYS away from suing for peace!).

Yeah - lefties were very helpful with Viet Nam. Helpful to our enemies…

The “BERLIN BLOCKADE? WTF are you talking about? Oh - I’ll bet you mean the sweet, wonderful USSR’s military blockade of Berlin that we responded to with the “Berlin Airlift”. Hmmm - I don’t know for sure, but I’m pretty certain the leftie bed wetting protesters were not doing much - one way or another in that event. That was a little before their time after all…

Now please! You cannot possibly believe that Truman was a “leftie”! I mean come on - even YOU gotta agree that ONLY an EVIL RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVE has the STONES to NUKE not just one, but TWO inhabited cities! No way a lib would do such a thing!

It is always a fascinating - if not frustrating mental exercise to try to comprehend the twisted, tortured logic of left wing politics. More confusing yet is trying to understand why they hold certain people in great esteem.

By today’s standards, Truman and especially the superhero of the left - JFK - were STAUNCH pro military, pro business, ANTI-TAX, anti communist, pro American right wing conservatives! If they were alive today, they surely would be Republicans! Go figure!

While it’s not exactly common knowledge, there was a time when even democrats were pro American, anti communists - but that WAS a long LONG time ago. Most of them have died off by now - thank goodness!

As far a the right wings efforts towards stopping the soviets: well theirs was the ONLY effort made. It was REAGAN’S military build up efforts (that the lefties so fervently protested against) that ultimately broke the back of the Soviet Union - in spite of the congressional dems best effort to stop him!

In the last third of the 20th century (and continuing today) the dems primary interest is to grow government and the welfare state - with the hope that all of the “gimmies” and entitlements will result in votes that keep them in power. That’s it - nothing else matters.

Back then they were more financially pragmatic than they are today - they wanted to actually PAY for said entitlements, and did so - naturally - by gutting the military’s budget at every opportunity, and of course, raising taxes.

Some things never change, except now they don’t care if it’s paid for - or not…

Carter giving support to the Afghanistan rebels: OK Carter indeed was (and is) a bona fide commie sympathizing leftie, and UNARGUABLY the WORST, most ineffective president of the 20th century, perhaps in the ENTIRE history of our nation (BHO is making a strong effort to win that title, so it will be a few more years before we have a final answer!).

While I will cede the point that his allowing the sale of Stinger missiles to the Afghans was a good thing - really - HE did little more than NOT stop it. What little more could be said here is completely overshadowed and negated by a staggering array of incompetence throughout the balance of his tenure - the likes of which we have largely been spared - at least up until 1/20/09.

Then again, clinton had several moments of epic incompetence and dereliction of duty that clearly paved the way to 9/11. Yes - bush screwed up plenty. At least he wasn’t corrupt. You guys seems to have that market cornered on corrupt presidents!

It will be quite interesting to see what is found when the republican run house gets it’s laundry list of investigations fired up next year!

Whoohoo! - I can’t wait!!!

Posted by: Steven andros at August 18, 2010 4:31 PM
Comment #306222

Stephen Andros,

You complex mixture of twisted history and tough-guy macho rhetoric are not going to be enough to win a debate here. You can pick and choose Presidents to call pussies based on your flawed recollections of history all you want, it’s meaningless unless your spouting it at the like minded, uninformed bar crowd.

I guess we have to all be in favor of attacking people instead of reasonable dialog in order to have “stones.”

I guess you missed the lesson in Kindergarten when they taught the other kids how to play nice.

Your post was entertaining in its simplicity and pointlessness.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at August 18, 2010 5:06 PM
Comment #306237

Eapecially the pointlessness…but, not very entertaining.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 18, 2010 6:27 PM
Comment #306241

Steven Andros,

I wouldn’t know where to begin. The idea that Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman, who desegregated the Armed Forces and fought for universal health care, were not liberals by today’s standards is nonsensical. The following are some quotes from a speech given by Harry Truman in 1948 at a dinner honoring Jefferson and Jackson. In that speech he outlined the historical differences between progressive liberalism and conservatism. Interestingly, he did so in a more forceful and direct manner than would be expected today.

“The people will again decide whether they want the forces of positive, progressive liberalism to continue in office, or whether, in these challenging times, they want to entrust their government to those forces of conservatism which believe in the benefit of the few at the expense of the many.

This is the choice that Americans have had to make since the earliest years of the Republic: a choice between a parcel labeled progressive liberalism and a parcel labeled reactionary conservatism.

The party of progressive liberalism—the Democratic Party—believes today, as it has always believed, that it is the duty of popular government to protect and promote the interests, not of just the privileged few, but of all the groups and individuals in our Nation.

The Democratic Party believes today, as it has always believed, that vigilance and action are needed not only to protect the people from concentrations of wealth and power, but to keep concentrated wealth and power from destroying itself, and the Nation with it.”

Posted by: Rich at August 18, 2010 6:53 PM
Comment #306245

Marysdude

I don’t believe that my note influenced Obama. I am just glad that he sees things the way I do, which means he is more likely to be right.

I don’t understand your problem with that. Do you believe presidents are infallible?

Jane

Okay. They murdered two people by stoning them to death. I think is … worse. There is no justification for it. I think it is even more savage that their neighbors carry out the sentence. Can you imagine what a savage you must be to kill a 19-year old girl – someone you know - with stones? This is just totally horrible. I wouldn’t do it and I am quite sure that God hates such actions. Those who believe in that are just wrong and will go to hell if there is such a place and if there is a just God. I am not much given to rage, but when I read this story I despair for humanity.

If we had this kind of law in the U.S., there wouldn’t be many politicians left alive. But despite that, I am still against stoning in all its forms. If it is bigoted to be against stoning a 19-year old girl to death for falling in love, then you can call me that.

Rich

How much clearer can it be. It is a matter of being sensitive. There are lots of things you CAN do that you might not want to do if it hurts other people’s feelings too much. I understand this is a slippery slope. That is why it takes wisdom and judgment to come out right.

I am also a little chagrined at the hypocritical defense of religion by the left. Many of the same people who openly joke about pedophile priests or give Mormons a hard time for their pro-family stances suddenly stand up on their hind legs and call anybody a bigot who doesn’t give in to every whim of Muslims. Ironically, on this very blog and in this very thread, many of the tolerant people attack religion (i.e. Christianity). Go figure.

I understand that the 9/11 highjackers were false Muslims and that Osama bin Laden is a false Muslim. I understand that those people who stoned the woman in Afghanistan are really non-believers and cannot be included as Muslim. I know that the Taliban is not made up of true Muslims and than anybody who kills in the name of God is not a true Muslim. Now if we can get more Muslims to say this, our problems will be solved.

Posted by: C&J at August 18, 2010 7:19 PM
Comment #306246

Marysdude

BTW - I hear that Howard Dean has also now come around.

Posted by: C&J at August 18, 2010 7:20 PM
Comment #306248

C&J wrote; “I understand that those people who stoned the woman in Afghanistan are really non-believers and cannot be included as Muslim.”

When I read the article it stated that 350 muslim scholars and the government approved and sanctioned the stoning. Are these scholars not true muslims?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 18, 2010 7:29 PM
Comment #306249

C&J said: “I understand this is a slippery slope. That is why it takes wisdom and judgment to come out right.”

That is why we have a bright line rule. The founding fathers rightfully didn’t trust the majority to always exercise wisdom and judgment. In fact, they feared the tyranny of the majority.

Posted by: Rich at August 18, 2010 7:29 PM
Comment #306253

Talk about intolerance! Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Leader, interjects herself into the fray after it looks like Obama uneccesarily stepped in ‘doo-doo.’

It is intoleranct to imply that those who are against the Mosque must be funded by some nefarious group. Really??? Let’s get this straight. A diverse group of people, politicians, businesspersons and media folk all got together and conspired to undermine their own viceral feelings in the name of Right-Wing funding.

All humans have opinions on all sorts of issues…does that mean their thoughts aren’t their own? Obviously, the Dems, all things being equal, are being negatively affected, politically, by this back-and-forth bantering.

Every 9th grader in the US knows constitutionally that a Mosque can be built anywhere, as long as it abides by all local zoning codes. Obama told us what we already knew. It is the question of Wisdom that matters.

Sadly, however, no matter which way this debate goes, we will all look back on this issue 10, 20 years later and see how petty it was. The Imam and others clearly have the right to proceed. In the name of Islam (The Quaran holds in the highest regard the importance of brotherhood and fairness), comfort thy neighbor. The Prophet Muhammad, in all of his writings, preached diversity of religion. Even Muslims, themselves, are torn between both sides. This argument is not unlike the abortion argument - pro-lifers will never agree with pro-choicers.

Posted by: kevin l lagola at August 18, 2010 7:56 PM
Comment #306260

Kevin Lagore wrote: “It is the question of Wisdom that matters.”

The wisdom in this issue is to recognize that this issue has no place in public discourse.

Posted by: Rich at August 18, 2010 8:34 PM
Comment #306267

C&J:

I absolutely hate to disagree with you, but I can’t accept your definition of believer and non-believer Muslims.

It all boils down to the interpretation of the Koran. There are some who interpret the Koran as peaceful and tolerant and there are others who interpret it to be intolerant and violent. All we have to go on is how Muslim countries operate. I once read, about the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages, that “when Rome was in the minority, it was as meek as a lamb, but when in the majority, it was a raging lion”.

If we look at nations in which Islam is a dominant religion, we find very little tolerance and much violence. Good examples are not only Middle-East countries, but also countries like the Philippines and Indonesia. I have friends who are Christian Missionaries in the Philippines, and they are in constant danger from Muslim terrorists. Again we see the absolute intolerance of Islam toward Christianity in so-called democratic countries like Saudi Arabia. Where it is a prison sentence to get caught preaching Christianity of even owning a bible.

The religious leaders are the ones who interpret the Koran and the lay people simply do what they are told. You try to determine who is and who is not a believer, simply by their actions. If a Muslim man would kill his daughters in America simply because they would not obey him, what would they do in countries where Islam is the state religion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=favzluXtznM

Here’s another murder in Canada:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9vzUQwMJ1I

Here’s another in Egypt:

http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-236795.0.html

The point is, how do you determine which of the men were really believing Muslims? Are you basing it upon your interpretation of the Koran? The Catholic Church was responsible for killing 50 million Catholics and non-Catholics during the dark ages. [Foxes Book of Martyrs] by John Foxe. The perpetrators of these murders called themselves Christians, who are we to say they weren’t? They based their murders upon Catholic teachings, just as Muslims base their murders and acts of violence upon the teachings of the Koran.

My personal belief is that Islam is a very violent religion, just as there was a time when Catholicism was a violent religion. How often do you see Muslim clerics actually speaking out against the violence in this country, and how often in Muslim nations?

If we were to take the Muslim religion as a whole, what percentage would be violent and intolerant against other religions? I would say there are more Muslims who are violent than there are who are tolerant.


Posted by: Beretta9 at August 18, 2010 9:43 PM
Comment #306268

I was looking for entertaining dialog. Instead, I get this:

“Stephen Andros,

“You complex mixture of twisted history and tough-guy macho rhetoric are not going to be enough to win a debate here.”

Debate? What debate? Neither you - nor anyone else “here” has yet to address - let alone refute a single point I have made. Diversionary arguments requiring me to defend something I did not say - do not count! (But I’ll probably indulge you none the less.)

As for my “tough guy macho rhetoric”. Understand this: I have “a pair”, an unyielding spine, an immense love of country, a clear sense of reality, and the intellect to accurately express myself.

If my “style” offends you - piss off.

“You can pick and choose Presidents to call pussies based on your flawed recollections of history all you want, it’s meaningless unless your spouting it at the like minded, uninformed bar crowd.”

Pussy? Bloody fool - please quote the exact line (in a past post) where I even mentioned the word! I have not called ANYONE a pussy - not even you. Incompetent yes, corrupt yes, Pussies - NO! (even if the label is richly deserved) As for my “flawed recollection of history”. Well once again, I invite you to take your best shot and TRY to illustrate just where my argument is incorrect - and PLEASE! Try your best to do so without falsely accusing me of saying something I did not say!

Furthermore, spare me the tired old tactic of falsely accusing me of some “straw man point” that I did not make, but you none the less expect me to defend.

I won’t play nice. No - not at all.

And since I don’t go to bars, the only “like minded uninformed people” I’ve come in contact with lately, seem to be the responders to my posts here. Thus far, all challengers have found it easier to simply RE-DIRECT the argument, by accusing me of saying something I did NOT say, in the feeble attempt to avoid having to address and refute - ANYTHING - I did say.

That is the quintessential tactic of the liberal coward.
Keep it up, and I’ll expose you - every time.

“I guess we have to all be in favor of attacking people instead of reasonable dialog in order to have “stones.””

Once again, you are making an accusation of something I did not say or advocate. I have no interest in attacking anyone, figuratively or literally. As for this “forum”, I will be happy to engage in “reasonable dialog”, but only if the same respect is granted to me. The tone of my conduct will accurately mirror, yours.

My argument so far has been quite simple: The American public is NOT infinitely tolerant of barbarians who murder their countrymen. At some point, there will be a backlash. I am not advocating said backlash, I merely predict it will happen if the current trajectory is maintained.

Please, I BEG of you! Explain in clear “nice” sentences why I’m wrong!

Or - honorably alter your opinion if you cannot. I promise to do the same, If ever you can make an honest, convincing case, refuting my premise.

“I guess you missed the lesson in Kindergarten when they taught the other kids how to play nice.”

I think I’ve played quite nice thus far, but like any reasonable person, I will respond and defend myself from unwarranted and unfair attacks and accusations. I’ve come to the “enemy’s camp” (yes - that’s how I see you - oh put away the false outrage - that’s how you see me too) to first engage in conversation - if YOU are civil enough to “play nice”, but I’ll also be quite happy to engage in battle, if YOU insist.

Your call mate! I’m quite prepared - either way.

“Your post was entertaining in its simplicity and pointlessness.”

Glad you at least found it entertaining. I hope I don’t drive too many of you off. I plan on providing much more “entertainment” in the future.

Call your fiends - let’s play.

Cheers!

BTW - Should I use “Steven” as my byline, or do you prefer the more effeminate version - “Stephen”? I mean it’s not my real name anyway so what does it matter?

On second thought - I kinda like Stephen! Yes - it’s growing on me!

Stephen it is!

Posted by: Stephen Andros at August 18, 2010 9:46 PM
Comment #306269

C&J,

“…suddenly stand up on their hind legs and call anybody a bigot who doesn’t give in to every whim of Muslims.”

Think about what you said. An exercise of a Constitutional right is hardly a whim. Impeding the exercise of a Constitutional right is certainly not whimsical.

Posted by: Rich at August 18, 2010 9:47 PM
Comment #306275

Barrett9 said: “… in so-called democratic countries like Saudi Arabia.”

I don’t know anybody who calls Saudi Arabia a democratic country. It is a monarchy. It is a very authoritarian monarchy.

Posted by: Rich at August 18, 2010 10:13 PM
Comment #306281

Rich

Read this slowly, as I have written it dozens of times already. They have the RIGHT to build. This is NOT about the Constitution. I am just asking that they show a little tolerance and understanding, as we have so many times ourselves.

Beretta

I am reading into Islam simply what the advocates say. I understand that in practice Islamic places tend to be among the most benighted in the world. I hope they grow out of that, as we did.

I don’t want our country to become more like theirs and shariah law is a disaster wherever it is taken too seriously. But I think we can handle that in the U.S. In our country shariah law has no power over anybody who doesn’t allow it. We defend the absolute right of any American Muslim to be an apostate to his faith. Anybody who stones people is a murderer and we will put him in jail.

I may have mentioned before the case of Charles Napier, the British general in India. This was not Muslims, but it is a good example of how properly to be PC.

Some of the locals in India had the bad custom of burning widows along with their dead husbands. The Brits thought this barbaric, but the locals said it was their custom and should be respected.

Napier said something like this. “I will respect your customs and you must respect mine. Your custom is to burn widows with their dead husbands. I respect that. My custom is to hang anybody who does that and you will respect my custom.” The practice ended, at least when Napier’s men were anywhere nearby.

American law always and everywhere is superior to shariah law in the U.S. As long as we keep that in mind, we will be okay in the long run.

Posted by: C&J at August 18, 2010 11:11 PM
Comment #306287

Rich,

Thank you for sharing the excerpt from Truman’s J & J speech.

No doubt you find it compelling towards your argument.

For the sake of expediency, lets just agree that his comments were heart felt and sincere, and not just a red meat speech for the benefit of the party faithful, at a political dinner…

Yes he did desegregate the military, but you proceed from a false assumption if you mean to suggest that desegregation and civil rights were championed exclusively by liberals. In the interest of brevity, I’ll forgo the laundry list of Republican achievements in the civil rights arena, as well as the similarly sized lists of Democrats who worked in fierce opposition to the same. I know it’s “hip” to say “Republican - racist thug; Democrat - enlightened benefactor”. We both know, it’s just not that simple - let alone historically accurate.

The point being - one speech does not an argument make.

You neglected to address any of my comments from my last post, and I was particularly interested in your reaction to my take regarding JFK.

By today’s standard of the definition, do you consider him a liberal?

Getting back to Truman - How do you square his conduct of the war - with modern day liberalism? From what I can see, today’s liberalism = pacifism, and clearly, neither Truman nor FDR before him, were pacifists.

A compelling case can be made that the opposite might be true.

Much of Europe and Japan was leveled, and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were killed as a result - of FDR & Truman’s orders. Don’t kid yourself - this was not collateral damage - it was truly done by design, in order to break not only the enemies war machine, but also the will of the people who opposed us. What we did was horrible, but it worked. Stop! I am not advocating or defending their decision making process. I am making a statement of fact - nothing more.

Some more questions:

Assuming you subscribe to the anti war flavor of liberalism, are you going to overlook these facts because he had his “mind right” on other issues that are dear to your heart?

Does mid 20th century liberalism share share any practical semblance with the version that exists today? (I think not.)

Please name one left wing leader, who would agree with the war decisions made by Truman, and would if - in his shoes, make the same decisions - for the same reasons. The carpet bombing, the internments, the nuking of two cities. I cannot imagine Bill or Hillary or Gore or Kerry or BHO - having the first clue of what to do, let alone the balls - strike that, let’s call it “audacity” - to do the same.

Truman was unique in comparison. He had a military background, and more importantly had great respect for the military. The above named democrats have nothing in common with him in this respect, and are in fact his complete opposite in this regard. Common sense dictates that the chances are high that they would behave quite differently.

As I have clearly illustrated in previous posts - the modern left has little experience in the realm of national security - with the exception to consistently being in complete opposition to the issue - if not overtly, then covertly.

I see no choice but to draw the conclusion that the left has indeed become modern day pacifists and in this dangerous world, that disqualifies them from leadership (in my mind anyway). Dem congresses rarely see a military budget that cannot be gutted. I guess they just don’t see how threatening the world is.

And that brings me back to the topic of the day - the “ground zero mosque.”

In reading the posts, it is clear that many of you do see the threat from militant islam, but many more who seem to refuse the logic and evidence that is plainly before them. It was to you that I addressed the following statement from my last post: “In time, they will murder enough of our citizen that we’ll finally wake up and take action against them.”.

It will take the murder of more of your countrymen, before many of you are finally forced to acknowledge what the rest of us have known all along. What will you do then? Try to find a way to reconcile this new, horrible reality with your long held belief system? Find some nuanced way to conclude that it was all actually our fault, and we some how are guilty, and therefore deserved it?

Think I’m over the top? Think I’m exaggerating?

Think Iran won’t use their nuke - WHEN they get one?
What if Israel is their first target? Is that OK with you - so long as it’s not us?
What if it IS us? Are our lives somehow more valuable?
What should our response be? Should we cry out “We’re sorry! Please don’t hurt us anymore!” - or should we transform their mountainous landscape into plate glass?
Have you ever, or do you now - advocate that we take military action to PREVENT the Iranian acquisition of such a weapon, or do STILL believe that “sanctions” and negotiations still have a chance of success? (Hell - even BHO doesn’t even believe THAT anymore!)

Do you believe that since we have nukes, what right do we have to deny the same to them?

Is Iran, a stable, sane, reasonable, responsible country (like we are)?

Is this a reality you’ve helped to create - as a result of a lifelong opposition to all things military and intelligence related?

So many questions. Ever consider any of them before?

Ignorance has a cost. The ground zero Mosque sympathizers are delusional if they do not understand that this will CLEARLY be interpreted as a HUGE islamic victory - if it is allowed to be built. I understand the constitutional issues - and frankly, I’m QUITE sympathetic to that argument - in a purely theoretical sense…

From a more practical perspective, these bastards have really pissed me off, and I’m not feeling in any way charitable towards them right now. F*ck them.

Another question, If you were asked if it was OK to build the same Mosque on September 12, 2001, what would your answer be?

Is it different now, and if so - why?

Looking forward to a useful response. Can I get one this time?
Please?

Stephen

Posted by: Stephen Andros at August 19, 2010 12:10 AM
Comment #306297

It’s not a human garbage disposal, it’s a human garbage disperser.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 19, 2010 8:01 AM
Comment #306298

I said: ““Islam is a barbaric cancer on our nation. In time, they will murder enough of our citizen that we’ll finally wake up and take action against them.”

You said:

“Yikes!!!!!

I want you to think about the Oklahoma bombing and the doctors murdered by Anti-Abortion radicals and read the following.

“Christianity is a barbaric cancer on our nation. In time, they will murder enough of our citizen that we’ll finally wake up and take action against them. Unfortunately the “moderate” ones will be swept up in the wave, but that is the price they will have to pay, for not standing up and purging their radicals.”

Have a nice day.”


First off, Who the hell says “Yikes!!!” any more?

You failed to address MY statement, and instead you tried to connect the OKC bombing - with my argument. Please, TRY TO STAY FOCUSED!!! Please tell me why MY argument is wrong! Please explain to me WHY you believe that the American People have infinite tolerance , and the islamist can murder as many of us as they like - with IMPUNITY, and we will NOT - at some point - rise up and respond with anger and vengeance!

Oh - I get it. You ASSumed I was ADVOCATING such an action!!! It was a statement - not of advocacy - but a prediction of what is VERY likely to come.

The OKC bombing was driven by a political (ant-government) ideology. Unlike islamic terror - religion was never a component towards their motivation, therefore that part of your argument is crap. Christians do not openly advocate murdering those who disagree with them. Islam does, and that is a point you seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge - let alone contradict. If you are unaware of this simple reality, you are simply ignorant of the facts.

And if you MUST bring abortion into this sad little discussion, then all I have to say is one can make a very solid argument that the abortionist is him or herself, a murder. Some no doubt find their actions QUITE offensive and yes - even Christians have their lunatics who will kill in the name of god. I have not (and will not )state my opinion on that particular matter. It is irrelevant to this discussion.

I have not advocated murder by anyone - for any reason.

“The religion of peace” - does, and clearly, you are their “useful idiot” defender. Wise up.

As far as your lame attempt at linguistic Ju-Jitsu, If you want to believe that Christianity is a violent religion that openly advocates the enslavement or murder of those will not “submit”, then you once again expose yourself as a fool. I happen to be an agnostic, and have no love for ANY organized religion. If you cannot see the distinct difference between these two philosophies, you are blind, or mad.

You have not addressed a single point I have made - let lone illustrated where I am incorrect. You’ve only attempted to re-direct the argument towards issues I have never mentioned, in a lame attempt to get me to defend the indefensible. It is the pathetic futile tactic of someone who clearly knows they are wrong.

Posted by: Stephen Andros at August 19, 2010 8:04 AM
Comment #306305

“Getting back to Truman - How do you square his conduct of the war - with modern day liberalism? From what I can see, today’s liberalism = pacifism, and clearly, neither Truman nor FDR before him, were pacifists.”

It would be hard to square since modern day liberalism is not pacifist. It never has been. Now, militarism is another matter. Liberals certainly are less enthralled by military solutions to every problem in the world. They always have been. It was liberals that have promoted peaceful mechanisms for solutions to international problems, i.e., League of Nations, United Nations, etc. That does not mean that liberals are cowards or reluctant to use military force when thought necessary. The evidence of that point should be apparent, i.e., WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. On a personal level, the majority of veterans serving in Congress in recent years have been Democrats.

In discussing this issue, it should be remembered that our national history is one of skepticism regarding the military. The founding fathers initially were so concerned about the abuses that could derive from military power that they prohibited a standing army. Until very recently, the US has historically demilitarized itself upon the cessation of conflicts. Post WWII, none other than a conservative president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, warned the US about the dangers of the developing military-industrial complex. He echoed the very concerns of our founding fathers about undue influence on our national domestic and foreign policies.

Posted by: Rich at August 19, 2010 9:30 AM
Comment #306323

Somebody is asking reasonable people to unreasonably prove up on negativity. What time this morning did you stop beating your wife? Did your dog ever stop biting the mailman? Since all Democratic Presidents have been panty-wasists, what does that make Santa Claus?

Posted by: Marysdude at August 19, 2010 12:06 PM
Comment #306325

Hello Rich,

I’m sure you know by now that I am new to this group, and I freely admit that I may not be aware of the unwritten rules and protocols that may exist here, therefore I am left to I proceed from a perspective of common sense - that dictates that when one party makes a statement - it is responded to, discussed and debated. My experience thus far suggests that this not the case - here. This leaves me quite puzzled. How is anyone who participates in or monitors these posts - ever going to determine which idea set has superior merit - if the matters are not fully addressed, examined, and tested?

Thank you for responding - to at least one facet of my last post.

My turn.

“It would be hard to square since modern day liberalism is not pacifist.”

Please cite one example in the last 40 years where liberals TRUTHFULLY advocated the use of military action against an enemy. The “Iraq has WMDs and must be stopped” rantings of Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy etc, do not count, because “everyone” knew it was bluster and political posturing. No one really believed they would actually take action. Further, Clinton’s destruction of the “Baby milk factory” with cruise missiles hardly counts because that was a clearly a diversionary tactic in a feeble attempt to refocus the media - away from his many scandals.

“Liberals certainly are less enthralled by military solutions to every problem in the world.”

OK - JUST FOR FUN, I’ll concede that conservative are blood thirsty war mongers - that are indeed “enthralled by military solutions to EVERY problem in the world.”

“It was liberals that have promoted peaceful mechanisms for solutions to international problems, i.e., League of Nations, United Nations, etc.”

One can site nearly endless examples where liberals advocated “negotiations” and Sanctions, and UN resolutions.
Less common - nearly unheard of, are actual positive RESULTS from said negotiations and sanctions and UN resolutions. The UN has consistently proven itself to be a toothless, ineffective, anti-American debating society.

They are the physical embodiment of the terms “useless” and “pointless”.

I’m sure they “MEAN WELL” but that’s simply not enough - especially given what they cost US, in wasted time and treasure.

I ask again - WHEN (in modern times) have liberals honestly been ready to say that ALL other options have been exhausted, other than military conflict - and actually meant it?

“That does not mean that liberals are cowards or reluctant to use military force when thought necessary”

I will not comment further about cowardice. Reluctant to use military force? Again - cite some examples. Then, square that against the simple reality that 99.99999% of the lefts beloved anti-war protesters and “Activists” (god I LOVE that term!) are liberals?

“On a personal level, the majority of veterans serving in Congress in recent years have been Democrats.”

Interesting claim. Are YOU a M.O.C.? (you did say “on a PERSONAL level”). With regards to the claim about the political affiliation of congressional veterans, I’m not in a position to comment one way or another because I don’t have the data at hand right at the moment, but my initial gut reaction is “BULL SH*T”, but none the less stand ready to be proven wrong.

Got anything to back that up?

“In discussing this issue, it should be remembered that our national history is one of skepticism regarding the military. The founding fathers initially were so concerned about the abuses that could derive from military power that they prohibited a standing army. Until very recently, the US has historically demilitarized itself upon the cessation of conflicts. Post WWII,”

That part is pretty much consistent with what I know to be true. You clearly have some knowledge of history, but I doubt we’ll read it quite the same way - every time.

Yes, the US has historically “downsized” the military after a major war related build up, but I completely disagree with the motivation that you’ve assigned to this fact. Downsizing occurred simply because a large military force was no longer necessary, or economically sustainable without just cause. Why pay for something you didn’t need?

It was certainly NOT the result of any “fear” of an over-sized, overpowering military, who somehow might be tempted to take control of the country, or even exert undue political power.

The hated “military industrial complex” is a needed tool. It is the production line that builds the machines of war.

I will decline to elaborate on the fact that it is also a source of technical innovation, employment for highly educated and skilled people, and a considerable economic engine and a source of tax revenue for local, state and federal governments.

It is not the force of evil the left has so often tried to portray. Like any other commercial entity of similar size, it should be monitored and regulated. Reasonable check and balances will prevent most problems from evolving too far.

The M.I.C. is a capitalist enterprise, and I know lefties often have a BIG problem with capitalism. Too bad. Change our economic strategy - honestly, at the ballot box - and then you can have your way. Wait! didn’t we JUST try that about 20 months ago? Not working out so well, so far…

While I’m sure you are versed in the basic rules of capitalism, let me spell out one salient reality. When demand for something goes up, the company that can supply said demand, makes more money. It’s quite a simple concept.

That’s why, when our government engages in warfare, it naturally uses the products intended for that purpose. Companies who make these “products”, get to make more of them, and the “customer” in need, buys them.

Therefore, the company makes more money (a.k.a. gets rich).

This is NOT a bad thing!

The military industrial complex is NOT an evil enterprise, it is simply a capitalist entity who is meeting a demand for the product they make. Find a way to achieve the liberal dream of a war free world, and they will go simply out of business, or pursue another source of customers.

Meanwhile, accept them as a necessary reality in a dangerous world. And it is indeed, quite dangerous. The danger can be heavily multiplied, if one is foolish enough to show “weakness” to certain, unreasonable “groups”. The M.I.C. coupled with a robust military, has proven to be an effective deterrent that dissuades the bad guys from taking action that would provoke our military response. Without them, our enemies would be emboldened, and the world would be more f*cked up than it already is…

Recent history is ripe with examples of this phenomena. While I don’t have the time right now, I can make a pretty strong case that Clinton’s perceived weakness, precipitated many attacks, and even paved the way for 9/11.

I’ll be happy to amuse you with my thesis, on your request.

Until next time - peace!

Stephen Andros

Posted by: Stephen Andros at August 19, 2010 12:30 PM
Comment #306330

“Somebody is asking reasonable people to unreasonably prove up on negativity. What time this morning did you stop beating your wife? Did your dog ever stop biting the mailman? Since all Democratic Presidents have been panty-wasists, what does that make Santa Claus?”

Hello Marysdude!

I’m going to go out on a limb, and guess that your comment was posted for MY benefit - even though you declined to mention me by name. This leaves me disappointed so please - no more hit and run. If you feel the need to take a shot - go for it! Just man up and address me directly…

Meanwhile, won’t you take a moment, and actually read my posts, and indulge us all with your comments that directly address what I have written. Go out on a limb, and take a shot at dissecting my analysis, and make an honest effort at explaining to us - just why I’m wrong.

I’ll gladly reciprocate, and we’ll let the chips fall where they may.

I’ve made several posts, and have stated a LOT of opinions that I’m SURE you’ll find provocative. It’s only natural - We do come from opposite sides of the political fence after all.

Deconstructing your last:

“Somebody is asking reasonable people to unreasonably prove up on negativity.”

Reasonable people engage in conversation and debate. I see little of that here. I’ve only asked those who have commented, to substantiate their position, and respond to my comments. Rich has made a cursory effort, and it’s much appreciated. I hope his future responses to my posts will cover more than one of the points I have made, since I always make several.

By now you surly have come to understand that I possess the horsepower required to effectively articulate and DEFEND my perspective. I’m hoping to find that others here, who have similar skills, and are willing engage me in a 3 dimensional debate and conversation.


If you disagree with my take on the liberal mindset, I invite you to try to correct my misperception. All I require is that you demonstrate the ability to back up your position, with supportable logic and facts. You’ll get no less from me.

Shall we begin again? I really do want a dialog with this group. I can get snarky, snide, irrelevant comments, anytime - by simply turning on MSNBC.

Cheers!

Stephen Andros

Posted by: Stephen Andros at August 19, 2010 1:28 PM
Comment #306333

This is EXACTLY what we need in this country! Bring on the ground zero mosque!

“CAIRO – A Saudi judge has asked several hospitals in the country whether they could damage a man’s spinal cord as punishment after he was convicted of attacking another man with a cleaver and paralyzing him, local newspapers reported on Thursday.

Saudi Arabia enforces strict Islamic law and occasionally metes out punishments based on the ancient legal code of an eye-for-an-eye. However, Saudi King Abdullah has been trying to clamp down on extremist ideology.

The reports said Abdul-Aziz al-Mutairi, 22, was left paralyzed after a fight more than two years ago and asked a judge to impose an equivalent punishment on his attacker under Islamic law.”
________________________________________________________
Read it all at the link below.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100819/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_saudi_justice

Posted by: Stephen Andros at August 19, 2010 2:08 PM
Comment #306334

I must say, Stephen A, that horse*power* wasn’t what first came to mind when reading some of your comments, but to each his own.
And it’s quite obvious that snark, snide and irrelevant are not beneath your commenting ability.
Some of us have been here since before Bush was handed the Presidency, gift wrapped. Some of the same ones have had our “timeouts” under the wrath of David….when the site rules are challenged. We manage to keep going with a modicum of decency and respect for other posters, no matter how skewed their beliefs and opinions are, to us.

Posted by: jane doe at August 19, 2010 2:09 PM
Comment #306339

“I must say, Stephen A, that horse*power* wasn’t what first came to mind when reading some of your comments, but to each his own.
And it’s quite obvious that snark, snide and irrelevant are not beneath your commenting ability.
Some of us have been here since before Bush was handed the Presidency, gift wrapped. Some of the same ones have had our “timeouts” under the wrath of David….when the site rules are challenged. We manage to keep going with a modicum of decency and respect for other posters, no matter how skewed their beliefs and opinions are, to us.”

Hello Jane,

Nice to meet you too! Thanks for your charming, warm greeting, and for allowing me to join you in your safe and tidy liberal enclave. I hope you’ll come to enjoy my right wing perspective, but I gather from the “tone” of your post that it might take a while.

I’ve got time.

“And it’s quite obvious that snark, snide and irrelevant are not beneath your commenting ability.”

Agreed! Is that all you have for me today?

Ah Bush - don’t you just MISS him? I sure do! You have to admit, liberal hate was in FULL bloom back then. Heady days indeed! Gosh, I do miss them, but the tables have indeed turned, and - my - side now gets to enjoy the unmitigated rage and anger that was once reserved exclusively for the left. I suspect we’ll do better with it, than your side did…

I fully concur with the concepts of decency and respect that you mention, (but have yet to display yourself), and as I have stated before - I’ll be happy to reciprocate that which is extended to me. Think of me as a mirror.

I freely admit I am here to discuss, debate, and yes - to challenge your fundamental beliefs - though no one so far seems up to defending them, and god knows I’ve offered many opportunities. Yes - I’ve tried to “stir the pudding” a bit, and maybe learn what make liberals tick, but again - no luck. I can’t seem to get much more than rudeness and sarcasm (and that’s fun too): certainly NO responses of substance.

Not even from you.

I do hope you’ll consider commenting again. I promise, I’ll be as civil as you choose to be!

Take care!

Stephen

Posted by: Stephen Andros at August 19, 2010 3:08 PM
Comment #306346

Stephen,

1) Not a Mosque but an Islamic community center.
2) There are already several Mosques in the area prior to September 11.
3) The religious center will be built blocks away from the towers where once stood retail stores.(hallowed ground?)
4) Your definition of Islam and you misinformed bigotry of its practitioners are not worth arguing with you about.
5) It’s further proof that the GOP and the party apologists are enraged by those who are different. ex. Mexicans, black President, Gays and Muslims.

I know the hyper macho nonsensical way you deliver your opinions is your style, it just does not impress.

It’s hard to debate with someone who thinks his opinion is all that matters and all who disagree are “stoneless” “lefties.”

Some of your quotes.

“islam is our defacto enemy”

Only in your world.

“Just WHERE in the Arab / Muslim world are ANY religions other than islam “tolerated”? In this country, self hating bleeding heart Lefties are so eager to cater to every whim of the “minority” and the perceived underdog - even when said minority stands in fundamental opposition to EVERYTHING the lefties believe and hold dear.”

I thought that maybe the United States was held to a higher standard than the “barbarions” of the Muslim world.
Why do we have to be “self hating bleeding heart lefties?”
Oh that’s right because we disagree with your overblown rhetoric.

“I CLEARLY ACCUSE THEM OF COWARDICE AND HYPOCRISY. You do not possess the means to truthfully refute this accusation”

How can I refute your opinion? It’s your opinion and where I come from a coward is sometimes referred to as a pussy.
I apologize for using the wrong word.
You act as though the stuff your shouting at us (see Caps in your statements) is the truth because you say it is.
You try to simplify historic events according to your recollections and want us to debate these events from your prospective.

You are entertaining though

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at August 19, 2010 4:20 PM
Comment #306348


Anti-Islam sentiments have always been strong among Christians and 911 just provided the means for it to go public.

No doubt the Republicans will try to use it to their advantage. This is nothing new in politics. The Nazis used Martin Luther’s antisemitic remarks to gain protestant election support and as inspiration for their final solution.

Martin Luther said:
“we want to practice Christian love towards them and prey that they convert,” but also that they are, “our public enemies…and if they could kill us all, they would gladly do so. And so often they do.”

There is not a lot of difference between that attitude towards the Jews and the current attitude towards Islam.

When people say Islam does this or that, Islamic countries do this and that, what is their point, do they think we should act like them? Should America become as religiously zealous as some in the Islamic world? Should we have a final solution for Muslims?

This argument may be about a particular Mosque, but the sentiment is wide spread and a small faction is apply this argument to most, if not all Mosques.

Onward we march towards fascism.

Posted by: jlw at August 19, 2010 4:28 PM
Comment #306350

I don’t address bloviators nor debate bloviation. I don’t have to address my remarks to an individual who does the things I’ve noted here. As for being a man and standing up to a chicken hawk, consider it a done deal. Your rants are so convaluted that most here should only consider going after one at a time, and then would get nothing of substance in return.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 19, 2010 4:39 PM
Comment #306351

CNN: Federal appeals court proclaims memorial crosses on highways unconstitutional

“A federal appeals court has ruled that crosses set up alongside public roads in Utah to honor fallen state troopers are unconstitutional.”

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/19/cnn-federal-appeals-court-proclaims-memorial-crosses-on-highway/?icid=main|main|dl5|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.autoblog.com%2F2010%2F08%2F19%2Fcnn-federal-appeals-court-proclaims-memorial-crosses-on-highway%2F

I wonder if any of the muslim-mosque-NYC defenders would care to denounce this ruling. OH, NO, of course not. Why, those crosses are on public land and that is an outrage to atheitsts and some liberals.

Separation of church and state as understood and practised by some is merely evidence of hypocracy.

I am getting my feathers gathered and tar heated for the day the courts rule that religious symbols in our national cemetaries is found unconstitutional. Better book a room early as the crowd in DC will be in the millions.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 19, 2010 4:44 PM
Comment #306352

Flush, before you need to be resuscitated, you might want to rethink what you just wrote.
Your article indicates this effort is backed by a TEXAS based group, and who would have ever put those two together?!
And then again, the state of Utah is pretty much owned by the LDS Church…..go figure.
Where does one put the bullseye first?

Posted by: jane doe at August 19, 2010 4:55 PM
Comment #306353

P.S. Perhaps this will be the next obama make-work program…removing the religious symbols in those cemetaries. There would be the actual workers with their sledge hammers, foremen, supervisors, and enough armed guards to fight a small war.

I can just see the obama-goons now, pulling grieving family members from the gravesites of our brave heros so they can destroy those nasty insulting symbols and make us safe from any state sponosored religion.

Sure do hope the atheists are ready to enlist in droves as no religious person will serve a nation who despises them because of their religion.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 19, 2010 4:55 PM
Comment #306354


Cowardly lefties and I’m so scared I peed my pants righties.

Posted by: jlw at August 19, 2010 4:59 PM
Comment #306355

Let’s see, from Jane’s comments I will put her name in the column that believes roadside crosses honoring fallen Utah troopers is offensive.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 19, 2010 5:01 PM
Comment #306357

Let’s see, from jlw’s comments I will just assume he needs a doctor’s care and a big box of depends.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 19, 2010 5:06 PM
Comment #306359

How unnerving it must be, Flush, to wake up each and every day with such erratic fears. Too bad there isn’t a subject out there where all that could make a positive difference.

Posted by: jane doe at August 19, 2010 5:07 PM
Comment #306360

Jane…perhaps you could share your fear-based experiences since I have none.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 19, 2010 5:10 PM
Comment #306361

I can suggest a better place for you to put it Flush….and I’ll do my own thinking as far as honoring law enforcement and peace-keepers of any ilk!!
Too bad you missed what that comment said, too.

Posted by: jane doe at August 19, 2010 5:12 PM
Comment #306363

Jane, is a fear of crosses the same for liberals as it is for vampires?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 19, 2010 5:14 PM
Comment #306366

Go ahead flush, and play alone now. Your idiotic statements need to have room to grow up.

Posted by: jane doe at August 19, 2010 5:18 PM
Comment #306367

Wise Jane…can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 19, 2010 5:20 PM
Comment #306376

The feds erect plane stone markers in national cemeteries. If Utah, the state wished to honor their fallen along the roadside, they could have done the same. It seems to be more difficult to explain the ‘separation clause’ to an American Christian, than to an American Muslim. What is it about Christians that make them so much more hardheaded than most others?

If you are part of the government, are dealing with government property, or are using government funds, don’t favor one religion over another. Just how hard is that to understand and comply with?

Posted by: Marysdude at August 19, 2010 5:47 PM
Comment #306377

Oops! that is, plain, not plane…darned spell checker anyway…

Posted by: Marysdude at August 19, 2010 5:49 PM
Comment #306378


“Sure do hope the atheists are ready to enlist in droves as no religious person will serve a nation who despises them because of their religion.”

Pathetic. Do Christians enlist in droves? No, they don’t.

People of all religions and even atheists have and do serve in our armed forces. About one percent of citizens do this. That means that since 80+ percent of the people claim to be Christian, the vast majority of those who claim to be Christian do not serve their country. They would rather depend on religious people, atheists and even homosexuals to defend them. That’s right, atheists, homosexuals, Jews, Muslims and even Pagans have died in battle defending Christians; just as Christians have died defending others.

Christians are so persecuted.

It is so much easier to give unto God and Caesar when they are one and the same.

Posted by: jlw at August 19, 2010 5:58 PM
Comment #306380

dude, you need to get out more or learn to use google. Take a look at Arlington National Cemetary, it’s filled with crosses and smybols of other major religions.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 19, 2010 6:23 PM
Comment #306381

dude asks…”What is it about Christians that make them so much more hardheaded than most others?”

Great question dude. Answer, God gave us brains, what did atheists get, sawdust?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 19, 2010 6:26 PM
Comment #306383

What seperation clause are you referring to Dude? If it is about religion there is NONE. There is however an establishment clause that refers to religion. The seperation of church and state is NOT in the Constitution. But if you are referring to the Letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Church, yes he did say seperation of church and state but if you read the letter he didn’t want to be accused of showing favoritism over one group.

Posted by: MAG at August 19, 2010 6:30 PM
Comment #306384

Ha, Ha, Ha…I just had an entertaining thought. Picture this if you will. In an effort to redistribute income, in the future all wealthy persons shall be buried with an ATM located on their grave so they can keep on giving.

And, all dems and libs will be buried with a ballot box on their graves so they can keep on voting.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 19, 2010 6:35 PM
Comment #306394

Stephen Andros:

I am glad to meet you. Just call me Berreta9, because that is my personal weapon of choice. There are not many of us conservatives on this site, but we are growing in number. We have to deal with a group of elite pseudo-scholars on her, but we DO enjoy a little macho humor. We often refer to liberals as “Girly Men”, but that is personal preference. You will notice the use of cursing by some liberals, they curse, either to emphasize their point or to prove they are not girly men; I’m not sure which. Anyway, welcome aboard.

Jlw:

“No doubt the Republicans will try to use it to their advantage.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, as I am sure you will, but isn’t it the democrats who are deeply divided over the Mosque issue?

Jane doe said:

“Go ahead flush, and play alone now. Your idiotic statements need to have room to grow up.”

RF is not alone, I am laughing my butt off. Of course, I may need to grow up too.

Jlw said:

“People of all religions and even atheists have and do serve in our armed forces.”

Evidently, you have no military service, or you would know, “there are no atheist in foxholes”…


Good one RF, hahaha

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 19, 2010 8:09 PM
Comment #306397

jlw:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100819/ap_on_re_us/us_mosque_divided_democrats

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 19, 2010 8:20 PM
Comment #306405

I’m not going to touch this with a ten foot long pole.

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 19, 2010 9:08 PM
Comment #306411

Good afternoon Mr. Hernandez!

First, let me congratulate and thank you for your strong effort responding to my comments! I also want to compliment you on your writing style! Your format will make my response easier to generate, and will greatly simplify the flow of our conversation.

Lets begin.

“1) Not a Mosque but an Islamic community center.”

I’ve heard conflicting reports with regards to this issue. Regardless, I have a question that remains unanswered: WHY are they hell bent, in the face of SUCH great opposition and public disapproval, DETERMINED to build - whatever this turns out to be - THERE? Are you REALLY uninterested in what motivates them? Do you not care about WHO is paying for it -OR - why the names of the financiers are such a closely guarded secret? I smell a poorly hidden agenda, and it reeks. If you are NOT suspicious by now, you need to pay better attention…

“2) There are already several Mosques in the area prior to September 11.”

Great. No problem - I REALLY don’t care. I am not against mosques - I AM against WAR TROPHIES, and it’s getting harder to make the case that this ISN’T going to be one, with every passing day. The fact that there are so many mosques nearby, undermines the argument that ANOTHER ONE is needed - HERE. Again - I smell deception and a hidden agenda. As time goes on, more evidence comes to light that supports this suspicion. Ignore it if you choose. I choose to develop my opinions through the acquisition and analysis of all available facts. I see a growing body of evidence that the players in this scene are up to no good. I see little - if ANY exculpating evidence.

If you have such evidence - present it.

“3) The religious center will be built blocks away from the towers where once stood retail stores.(hallowed ground?)”

Again - you write as if you have data that contradicts what I understand to be true. Notice I did - not - use the word “know”. This situation is quite fluid for the moment. I’ll speak with certainty - when events warrant that level of confidence. Meanwhile, if you have a link to a news source that supports your position, please provide it so we can all have a look.

As best I can, I am paying attention to this situation, and I remain unconvinced that it’s TRUE purpose is what it has thus far been purported to be.

“4) Your definition of Islam and you misinformed bigotry of its practitioners are not worth arguing with you about.”

I have yet to “define” islam. I have commented on the murderous actions and hate filled statements of many who practice the religion, but I am simply unqualified to “define” what islam is - or isn’t, and frankly it is of absolutely no interest to me. I am an agnostic - I simply choose NOT to choose, because choice requires understanding and knowlege of the facts, and NO one has yet been able to provide said facts - to MY satisfaction - for ANY RELIGION.

The only honest perspective in my mind, is to simply and honestly say “I don’t KNOW” and move on with life as best I can. Having said that, I will not support - or oppose - ANY religion, unless they prove to be a threat to me or my country.

You may choose to slander me and falsely call me a “misinformed bigot”, but you only expose your ignorance of my true position. It is quite reasonable and logical to distinguish between religions that advocate violence (E.G. islam) and those who do not. If making that simple distinction somehow make me a biggot in your mind - so be it.

It makes you something quite worse - in mine.

If Islam as a whole were to somehow renounce violence, I’d gladly adopt a friendlier attitude.

I’m not holding my breath.

Perhaps accusing me of bigotry was a bit “premature” - wouldn’t you agree?

“5) It’s further proof that the GOP and the party apologists are enraged by those who are different. ex. Mexicans, black President, Gays and Muslims.”

Aw man - now you’ve and gone and disappointed me. You dropped your initial civility and took your cheap shot with those TIRED old left wing BS accusations! I thought you were going to give me an interesting exercise - something we could actually hash over in the spirit of fair play, but I guess the mud was just too easy for you to grab. And really - is that the best you’ve got? I mean you might as well call me a “Racist”. Those accusations are SO overused, they are equally meaningless.

Man you sure make a lot of ASSumptions! You ASSume, I’m GOP (or at least a “party apologist”)and I’m QUITE sure you ASSume I’m white (your OWN bigotry makes that clear!); And I’m sure you ASSume that I’m NOT gay, mexican, black, or Muslim, because those folks - by definition MUST be a liberal - isn’t that right?

Liberal logic - what an oxymoron!

I do not represent the GOP or anyone else - nor do I believe that the GOP represents that which you so readily accuse them of, but frankly I don’t give a crap what YOU BELIEVE they stand for, because I don’t think you are paying attention to anyone outside of the liberal echo chamber where you confine your rather narrow mind.

As for the rest of it, you’ll just have to guess, and you’ll probably be wrong.

Hey - don’t complain. I was happy to engage you politely ! YOU started this!

Come on man - stretch yourself a bit - if you really try, I know you can come up with a more biting insult!

“I know the hyper macho nonsensical way you deliver your opinions is your style, it just does not impress.”

Yes the initial civility was indeed short lived. Ok - I’ll play by your rules. But I won’t waste much time responding to THAT comment. If my “masculine” writing style offends you, then perhaps that speaks more about YOUR insecurities and shortcomings.

“It’s hard to debate with someone who thinks his opinion is all that matters and all who disagree are “stoneless” “lefties.””

Yes - it is hard to debate with someone who is confident of his opinion - especially when your argument is short on facts, and your problem is made only worse if you logic is flawed (or non-existent) or you don’t have the intellect to refute those opinions.

You’re batting a zero tonight mate.


“Some of your quotes.

“islam is our defacto enemy”

Only in your world.”

Your world too - once they murder you, or someone you love or “X” number of your countrymen.

YOU define “X”.


“Just WHERE in the Arab / Muslim world are ANY religions other than islam “tolerated”? In this country, self hating bleeding heart Lefties are so eager to cater to every whim of the “minority” and the perceived underdog - even when said minority stands in fundamental opposition to EVERYTHING the lefties believe and hold dear.”

“I thought that maybe the United States was held to a higher standard than the “barbarions” of the Muslim world.
Why do we have to be “self hating bleeding heart lefties?”
Oh that’s right because we disagree with your overblown rhetoric.”

First: you failed to address the question: “Just WHERE in the Arab / Muslim world are ANY religions other than islam “tolerated”. Of course you didn’t - because you CAN’T.

I see - you are OK with abandoning the concept of “fairness” - where EVERY country plays by the same rules, and you’ll gladly accept a world wide double standard that allows much of the rest of the world to behave despicably, and THEN hide behind the argument WE should be held to a “Higher standard” because after all WE are somehow better than THEM - RIGHT? Why else should we be held to a higher standard? And after all this, you are still delusional enough to somehow expect that I WON’T call you a “bleeding heart leftie” - not to mention a COMPLETE fool.

I have to ask - WHY would you advocate giving a pass to to a religion that would NEVER give you the same courtesy? Just WHY do you feel compelled to give them a break - one that I seriously doubt you would EVER offer to Christianity…

Those who murder ESPECIALLY in the name of God or Allah or what ever your deity’s name might be - ARE in fact - barbarians. There are nutcases in every religion that will find a way to justify the murder of innocents. Islam openly justifies it. You are a fool to defend them, but I’m sure they thank you for your services on their behalf.

“I CLEARLY ACCUSE THEM OF COWARDICE AND HYPOCRISY. You do not possess the means to truthfully refute this accusation”

“How can I refute your opinion?”

So far, you’ve proven to my satisfaction - that you can’t.

“It’s your opinion and where I come from a coward is sometimes referred to as a pussy.”

Good for you! Whatever works for you man.

“I apologize for using the wrong word.”

Fine. Apology accepted.

“You act as though the stuff your shouting at us (see Caps in your statements) is the truth because you say it is.”

Sorry man - you see - I’m OLD and all, and I’m not up to speed on the nuances of chat room protocol. I have - and will continue to emphasize my points through he use of capitals - typing the code for bold, italics and underlining is too time consuming. I don’t care if you disagree.

As for the “truthfulness” of my statements: They are true - to the best of my knowledge - until the facts prove otherwise. You - have not made a compelling case or even come close to illustrating where I am wrong on a single issue. Yes, you’ve whined, complained and accused quite a bit, but that hardly counts as a “point”. No doubt, there will be others reading this who will disagree with my assessment - so at least you have that.

“You try to simplify historic events according to your recollections and want us to debate these events from your prospective.”

WTF!!! OK, from NOW ON, I’ll be sure to state MY opinions from YOUR perspective. Happy now?

That’s the trouble with you liberals - you INTENTIONALLY make the world far more complicated than it really is. You call it “nuanced” - I call it crap. The world is a pretty simple place, and by and large, people are pretty simple too. In most cases their TRUE motivations are not too hard to figure out - once they “expose” themselves a bit.

As for my “simplification of horrific historic events - according to MY recollections” I’ll have to guess that you are referring to 9/11 - since I cannot think of ANYTHING more horrific at the moment.

Well yes - I do see it simply. Let me give you the cliff notes, and then we’ll see if you agree with my analysis:

Muslums hijacked two planes full of innocent civilians, and kamikazed said planes into two buildings - also full of innocent civilians, AND into the pentagon - full of “evil” military folks who were just doing their job, but clearly deserved to die (SARCASM), and would have taken out the White House and it’s new - but none the less Evil VP (SARCASM) - had it not been for some fine American bad ass (who I’m SURE was a liberal!) who took heroic action like a man, kicked ass, and forced the last load of bad guys to settle for a mere crater in a PA field, and another plane load of dead Americans. I’m sure the bastards were QUITE disappointed.

Yes sir! THAT is my simplification of the horrific historical event” as seen from MY simple, limited perspective.

I’ll bet YOURS is a little more nuanced, and takes into deep consideration the subtle feelings and concerns of those who committed the mass murder of your countrymen.

Please, enlighten me with your profound wisdom on this matter.

And finally….

“You are entertaining though”.

Then this has been a successful exercise. Thank you for the compliment.

Please, feel free to try again.

Best regards and good night.

Stephen Andros

Posted by: Stephen Andros at August 19, 2010 9:30 PM
Comment #306438

Stephen states: What about places where Christians are the minority & underdog? Are you going to INSIST that Muslims in the middle east tolerate Christians? No? Why not? Afraid of getting your head cut off? Hypocritical - but smart thinking, for if you tried, that is indeed what would happen.

Stephen, have you ever been to the Middle East?

Posted by: Tom at August 20, 2010 8:20 AM
Comment #306443

Chris Wallace said, the best thing all the democrat politicians could do is just shut up about the Mosque. Obama (for mosque or against), Reid (against), Howard Dean (against), and Pelosi (for Mosque). That would be the smart thing, but their involvement is much more fun.

Why did the democrat politicians get involved in the first place? Could it be for political reasons? I guess we have reached that point in a political year when some politicians will do anything to change the subject. But have you noticed, everything the democrats try to do, turns to crap?

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 20, 2010 8:46 AM
Comment #306445

Beretta states: ..”But have you noticed, everything the democrats try to do, turns to crap?” Yeah Beretta EVERYTHING they try to do, oh wait a minute:

General Motors is said to have secured a $5 billion credit facility and plans to file a registration for its initial public offering tomorrow, a stunning turnaround for the top U.S. automaker a year after it emerged from bankruptcy.

See full article from WalletPop: http://srph.it/c5Rl6W

From the Christian Science Monitor:
The healthcare reform bill signed into law Tuesday by President Obama will end this situation by outlawing denial of insurance coverage to those with preexisting conditions. It is one of the most popular individual provisions in the entire 2,000-plus-page legislation.

And..
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 is an Act of Congress enacted by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on January 29, 2009.

The bill amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stating that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new discriminatory paycheck. The law was a direct answer to the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), a U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that the statute of limitations for presenting an equal-pay lawsuit begins at the date the pay was agreed upon, not at the date of the most recent paycheck, as a lower court had ruled.

A first bill to amend the statutory limitations period and supersede the Ledbetter decision was introduced in the 110th United States Congress but was never enacted, as after having been passed by the House it failed to survive a cloture vote in the Senate due to the opposition of most of the Republican Senators.

During the campaign for the 2008 elections, the Democrats criticized Republicans for defeating the 2007 version of the bill, citing Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s opposition. Then-candidate Barack Obama supported the bill.[1]

A new version of the bill was eventually re-introduced in the first session of the 111th United States Congress, obtaining this time the necessary support to pass cloture. The bill was then brought to the attention of the President and became the first act of congress signed by the new President Obama since his assumption of office on January 20.

Posted by: Tom at August 20, 2010 9:23 AM
Comment #306447

Hello Tom,

Yes - I spent quite a bit of time there - in Cypress (mostly in Larnaca), Turkey (both were nice by and large), but mostly in Beirut. I was there back in the early 80’s when the Iranian backed (Muslim terrorist) Kamikazed his truck full of high explosives into the barracks full of sleeping “Peace Keeper” Marines - killing 241 fine American young men. Perhaps you recall, we were there to intervene in their religious civil war where various factions of Muslims were determined to kill each other, and did so with great efficiency, in spite of our best efforts.

That experience ranks as the low point in my life thus far.
I have NO desire to return - even as a tourist, but I’m glad for the experience non the less. It has profoundly crystalized my perspective.

How about you Tom? Have you ever had the “pleasure”? I think more Americans should go, and get a first hand look at that corner of the world, and get a better understanding of the people who live there.

Perhaps their attitudes and opinions might then be based on something other than emotion, or the false notion that assumes that just because THEY are reasonable, peaceful people, the rest of the world is too.

My experience there taught me that MOST of people in the Muslim world are indeed just like you and me - in that they want to be left alone to raise their families and enjoy life in peace. Those are the people I have absolutely no quarrel with. My “beef” is with the 1% (and I think that number is quite charitable - it’s probably much higher) of the 1.6 billion Muslims, who insist on either evangelizing by force, or killing me if I don’t comply, or killing because I disagree, or simply killing for killings sake. Yes - it’s ONLY 1% of the 1.6 BILLION muslims. Do the math - that’s a WHOLE lot of people - that desperately want you and me - dead.

I am pissed at the remaining 99% simply because they won’t take action - or even speak out - against the 1%. Whether it is due to cowardice, or because they actually sympathize with their position, matters not to me. They aren’t helping, so WE are forced to deal with the problem they should stop - but won’t.

I hope I’ve answered your question to your satisfaction. Feel free to ask more if you like.

Best regards to you and your family!

Stephen Andros

Posted by: Stephen Andros at August 20, 2010 9:48 AM
Comment #306449

Reading to catch up here. I see that there is at least one patriot on this Democrat blog. My hat is off to you Stephen Andros.

Let’s all understand something, the first Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

And please read the words of the 13th Amendment:
“1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

Finally for this argument of mine, read:
“Article III - The Judicial Branch (U.S. Constitution)
Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish……”

And that folks is the real crux of the issue here. Is Islaam a religion or is it a means of government? If you read the Quran/Koran as I have, you’ll see that it is the latter. The entire “religion” is the supposedly theological backing for Sharia law. Simple as that. Vastly different from the “In God we Trust” statement found on our money and other references to theological considerations throughout our entire system of government. Islaam does not wish to merely hold religious services; rather, it is a worldwide movement that historically and currently has and is engaged in a conversion by force take-over of every living human being. As it always has been since its founding by a child-molesting prophet named Muhammad. It relies on a sun-baked distortion of God/Allah to support the most heinous of crimes, the most rigid of laws in support of gender-inequality, to support the acceptance of slavery and more -

In short - within the Koran are many allusions to the support of polygamy and the subjugation of women; as well as slavery, the so-called “holy book of peace” is littered with many. Note especially that property gained by marriage to a woman is taken by the man as his right. Women own no property in other words. As they have no rights. Slaves and women - basically considered to be the same - are not fully human and deserving of human rights. This folks is in direct contrast to our system of laws. In case you forget, women are afforded equal rights in this country, and slavery is illegal.

Islaam does not now or has it ever accorded any tolerance for Christianity or Judaism - or for that matter, any other religion. It cannot by its own construction - as it is not merely a religion or mechanism of theological belief. It is a government. To allow a mosque to built anywhere in the United States is tantamount to granting a foreign power to build an embassy on American soil. And this is the purpose of the mosque proposed to be built. Community Center some call it. What community would that be? Certainly not the community that makes up the majority of the United States populace. No more than I as a man of Christian background and belief can enter Mecca and take a spin around the Kaaba would I be allowed to visit this community center and partake of its swimming pool or enjoy a Ball Park frank on a lunch break in the proposed foyer. A marked difference than say a Muslim wishing to tour the Vatican or a synagogue within Jerusalem. Why again? Because a mosque is not a center for worship only. It is a center of government and subject to the same security afforded to any building that is in existence in any foreign nation for the purpose of representing that nation. Think of the common phrase, “the Nation of Islaam”. That wording is exact, no chance slip of the tongue. Islaam has no borders - it considers the entire planet to be within its boundaries. The Nation of Islaam is the globe.

So, before anyone supports any such insanity as allowing this mosque to be built - think, read, study and accept the truth in front of you. Islaam is not peaceful. It is engaged in a war that has lasted for close to 1370 years. It is a social and political movement that will never stop unless by force. It uses a misguided theology as its ultimate foundation for all of its actions. It has a system of laws - day-to-day, real world laws that the ‘believers’ must follow, support and enforce.

Posted by: silas marner at August 20, 2010 10:50 AM
Comment #306450

Hello Tom,

Yes, GM is planning a IPO. Its WAY too soon to count that - or GM’s survival in general - a success. Since they’re now run by the unions and a democrat government - I’M not betting a DIME on them. Ford on the other hand…

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009: OK - score one for the dems. I don’t know how much difference it makes in the grand scheme of things, but I’m all about fairness, and on the surface anyway - this seems to apply. Having said that - I am not much of a policy wonk, so I’m really unqualified to state if this is a good thing or not. It could be loaded with crap for all I know, but for the moment - I concede the point that it certainly looks like a dem win.

Not that I think it will do much to bolser public opinion…

You wrote five paragraphs responding the last line of Barettas post - ignoring the balance of what he wrote.

While he needs no help form me, let me offer a few things that add to his point:

Health care. Nancy P said we’ll love it once we read the bill, and of cours we can’t read it until it’s passed. Well, they rammed it down our throats and got it passed. Hurray! Now - it’s being read. I don’t have the exact figures, but WELL over 50% of us don’t seems to like it much. Expect that number to grow over time. as the plan unfolds and the pain and chaos begins. Too soon to call it a win or a loss, but you can guess what I think.

Iraq: Celebrate the return of our troops. I certainly am because I know EXACTLY what it’s like to return to this country from someplace unpleasant. A profound experience indeed. Success? We’ll see. Better hope so, but I’ll put money on the bad guys stirring up some sh*t - now that our numbers are reduced.

If that happens, it won’t look too good for the dems. Even worse if we have to send back some more troops in order to regain something resembling peace.

Afghanistan: Not going well. The word quagmire comes to mind. Nothing good in sight. The best that can be said is the dems have finally learned the lesson that the generals should run the war - not the politicians. Still - since it’s going poorly, the dems take the blame.

The economy. Bad. Getting worse. The trillion dollar stimulus was a complete waste, and now is a HUGE burden for our grandchildren. Endless poor decision making from a president with ZERO experience running - anything - has only made things worse. Business does not trust the administration - and for a lot of very good reasons. The ONLY hope in sight is next year, when the republicans take over the House - and the purse strings - and effectively neuter obama.

Meanwhile - it’s anything BUT a dem win…

Illegal immigrants: Tolerated and even encouraged by the dems because it is assumed that they will one day be dem voters - and will make it that much easier for the dems to maintain their power. Beyond the fact that the ignorance of federal law by federal officials in order to make political gains with a certain ethnic group - is simply WRONG (imagine if a Republican did this) people living in boarder states are suffering with the crime, trash, environmental damage, drug crime and violence, and incarceration and welfare expenses - and the dems not only don’t seem to give a f*ck, but actually SUED Arizona - who in frustration of federal inaction, made a fair and just law that mimics the federal one, in order to try to get some relief.

Not a dem win.

Sorry - I gotta get back to business. I could go on for quite a bit more, but I don’t have the time.

Let me close by saying that the dems are going to get their asses handed to them in November. They have had COMPLETE controll over 2 branches government for the last 4 years, and over ALL branches of government for the last 2, and have managed to make a HUGE mess of - just about - everything they’ve touched. Lilly Ledbetter act not withstanding…

They rightly deserve to loose power, and will. A lot of people have finally wised up.

Chow Bella.

S

Posted by: Stephen andros at August 20, 2010 10:58 AM
Comment #306451

Let’s say in string theory that two years in the future a consobot bagger got a wild hair and decided to look for where all of the churches, mosques and jewish mini temples are. (Can’t spell synagog.) He finds a community center two blocks from ground zero. THE THOUGHT WOULD NEVER CROSS HIS MIND and we know it because on that string the right-wing media and the haters forgot to make it an issue.

Posted by: Stephen Hines at August 20, 2010 11:12 AM
Comment #306458

silas marner:

Good response; But why do liberals, who have no use for religion and especially Christianity, defend Islam, which is a religion that violates everything liberals supposedly stand for? Do you think their defense of Islam is nothing more than a platform from which they can continue to attack Christianity.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 20, 2010 12:44 PM
Comment #306460

Rush Limbaugh has been having some great shows this week. Today is equally great, he is showing the history of Obama’s ties to Islam. Did anyone know that the Rev. Wright, Obama’s pastor for 20 years and mentor, was once a Muslim. Who’s best friend was Malcom X. I thank God that we are not still dependent upon the failing MSM for our information.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 20, 2010 12:52 PM
Comment #306461

Baretta9,

First, thank you for you warm welcome. I was starting to think I was alone in this wilderness, but now I find there are a few more who see things like I do.

I have a theory.

First - read this part carefully dear liberals - I am NOT making a blanket statement about ALL liberals or ALL black Americans. I am intentionally speaking in generalities, please extinguish your false outrage!

MANY Liberals defend islam for the same reason many black Americans do.

Hate.

Hatred of their own country.
Hatred of this country’s predominant religions.
In some cases, hatred of white people.

The simple islamic concept of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, seems to fit quite well here.

I cannot think of a LOGICAL reason why liberals would support - or at least give a pass to - islam, when they would NEVER dream of doing likewise for Christianity.

I for one - ever the analyst of twisted liberal political thought, would be interested in hearing a liberal give a clear, honest answer to this question.

Most - being driven by emotion, are not likely to answer, but perhaps I’m wrong?

Any takers?

Happy Friday!

S

Posted by: Stephen Andros at August 20, 2010 1:10 PM
Comment #306466


SA:

I believe your theory is correct. Imam Obama has spent 2 years apologizing to the rest of the world for the sins of America. I believe it was Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s Sec. of State, who said it was not fair that America be the world’s only superpower. There is a hatred for our success, our economics, and our use of the world’s resources. “It’s not fair” and I say back to liberals, you want to live in a mud hut, move to where Imam Obama’s brother lives.

To all:

“They won’t build it! Hardhats vow not to work on controversial mosque near Ground Zero”

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/20/2010-08-20_we_wont_build_it_hardhats_say_no_way_they_will_work_on_wtc_mosque.html#ixzz0xAUnHHXd

Should Pelosi call for an investigation into this threat by union construction workers to refuse to build the Mosque?

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 20, 2010 1:48 PM
Comment #306479

Silas Marner,

Hello sir and thank you for your kind comment. You clearly have an interesting perspective, and I look forward to your future participation.

I would be interested to see what you have to write concerning the First Amendments “separation clause” and how it applies to the State Department sponsored, taxpayer funded Ground Zero Mosque construction funding tour.

Do any liberals here have any heartburn with the fact that YOUR tax dollars are being pissed away in order to shuttle Imam FEISAL ABDUL RAUF around the Middle east - ostensibly to do “outreach” (insert retching & puking sounds - here) but in reality - to gather ca$h in order to build their Ground Zero War Trophy mosque.

Whatever their reason or agenda - Y’all OK with us lowly taxpayers - PAYING for it?

Since I’ve asked Mr. Marner to to comment on this matter, let me ask the liberal inhabitants too.

Can YOU make a compelling argument that this situation does indeed comply with the letter - if NOT the spirit of the separation clause?

Hmmmmmm?

S

Posted by: Stephen Andros at August 20, 2010 3:59 PM
Comment #306484

Mr. Andros I enjoy reading your post. They are refreshing compared to the liberal rants.

Posted by: MAG at August 20, 2010 4:08 PM
Comment #306490

Baretta9 said: “…I thank God that we are not still dependent upon the failing MSM for our information.”

AMEN to that my brother!!!

The dinosaur MSM is in the final stages of it’s death spasms! Their monopoly as a news source has been revoked by the dreaded Fox news, talk radio and most importantly - the internet.

Oddly enough, I support the liberals beloved “fairness doctern” - but - I take it a little bit further than THEY had in mind - all in the interest of FAIRNESS, ya know!

The libs would apply the fairness doctern EXCLUSIVELY to AM talk radio, and maybe to Fox news - since they are so huge and popular. Ok - I’ll agree to that, but let’s not stop THERE! Lets INCLUDE: ABC, CBS, NBC CNN MSNBC NPR the NY Times, for that mater, ALL major papers whose names end in “Times” “Post” Tribune” or have the word “Union” or “Democrat” in their name.

Even the Libs gotta support this idea, because - come on! It’s all about FAIRNESS - RIGHT?

It CERTAINLY ISN’T about silencing right wing arguments that they don’t have the facts and ammunition to credibly counter - now is it?

Yes! let’s be FAIR!

Posted by: Stephen Andros at August 20, 2010 4:52 PM
Comment #306492

Stephen Ambros,

“Do any liberals here have any heartburn with the fact that YOUR tax dollars are being pissed away in order to shuttle Imam FEISAL ABDUL RAUF around the Middle east - ostensibly to do “outreach” (insert retching & puking sounds - here) but in reality - to gather ca$h in order to build their Ground Zero War Trophy mosque.”

Since you cite no factual reference to this claim we can all agree that the “fund raising” part of your statement is merely an assumption on your part.
Oh, and since you bring up the “taxpayer expense” part in your statement, we can all understand that you were OK with Rauf when he did pretty much the same thing for the Bush State Department.

BTW, do you have an issue with the non-denominational Chapel built after Sept. 11th in the Pentagon (also at taxpayer expense), in the area where the plane crashed into it, being used occasionally by Muslims for their prayer services?
Muslims have been using this Chapel since 2002, and I have yet to hear any outrage from the right about this issue.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 20, 2010 5:12 PM
Comment #306495

RM:

Read the whole article; State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley will have no control over whether Rauf raises funds or not.

“Abdul Rauf said funds for the center will come from Muslims and members of his congregation.

But a London-based Arabic-language newspaper that interviewed Abdul Rauf reported that he says he also will collect money from Muslim and Arab nations around the world — raising the possibility his goodwill mission could help him build contacts in oil-rich states.”

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/feds_funding_zero_imam_mideast_trip_OTq9dmoHpxbaKvJbB4VLGM?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=#ixzz0xBXFYKkJ

I, personally had a problem with Rauf and the Bush state department.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 20, 2010 5:47 PM
Comment #306497

Rocky You sure don’t read or watch any news programs do you or did you just miss that one?

Posted by: MAG at August 20, 2010 5:54 PM
Comment #306500

MAG,

While it is possible I missed it, I also don’t assume anything. I have been on the road for the last few weeks and am just catching up with the news.

I will state that in the article linked by Beretta;

“We know he has a fund-raising association with Saudi Arabia,” Burlingame said, noting that the Saudis have contributed money to underwrite programs by the American Society for Muslim Advancement, a not-for-profit that Abdul Rauf runs with his wife and that is one of the sponsors of the Ground Zero mosque. “He’s going to the well, and how can they say they do or don’t know what he’s doing?”

By making this statement Burlingame is making her assumption based solely on the fact he has a previously established monetary relationship with the Saudis. How can she say or know what he is doing either?

However despite what anyone has said;

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/19/2010-08-19_no_fundraising_on_us_dime_imam_told.html

“We’ve told him he will not do any personal business,” a senior State Department official said of the two-week tour through wealthy gulf oil states by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. The official business is promoting religious freedom and tolerance.”

The above article is from yesterday. The link Beretta supplied is 10 days old.

Like I said, I will assume nothing. I have read extensively about Rauf, and so far I have read nothing other than opinion that conflicts with who he says he is. I have also seen nothing to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he the “radical” you guys claim he is.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 20, 2010 6:40 PM
Comment #306504

Rocky Marks,

To begin - the name is Andros , Stephen Andros - not Ambros. Perhaps your glasses need cleaning…

Thank you for your response! Lets get to my reply:

“Since you cite no factual reference to this claim we can all agree that the “fund raising” part of your statement is merely an assumption on your part.”

Yes sir, you are quite correct - we can all agree that I did NOT cite a single reference to support my SUSPICION that the TRUE purpose of this jaunt around the middle east was for fund raising for the Ground Zero War Trophy Mosque. While said evidence may actually exist, I have not, nor do not claim to be in possession of it.

I will take a look on your behalf, as time permits, but frankly I doubt it is something that will be widely advertised, therefore it remains - at least for the moment, JUST a suspicion (but certainly NOT an assumption!)

Oh, and since you bring up the “taxpayer expense” part in your statement, we can all understand that you were OK with Rauf when he did pretty much the same thing for the Bush State Department.

Lets review what I ACTUALLY SAID, shall we?

“Do any liberals here have any heartburn with the fact that YOUR tax dollars are being pissed away in order to shuttle Imam FEISAL ABDUL RAUF around the Middle east - ostensibly to do “outreach” (insert retching & puking sounds - here) but in reality - to gather ca$h in order to build their Ground Zero War Trophy mosque.”

Since clearly this escapes you, let me spell it out.

1. I was asking a question!
2. It was directed at you - the liberals reading this, but as always, no lib will answer. Not even you.
3. I, in no way shape of form, EVER attempted to inject or intimate my opinion - one way or another.

I was poking a stick at the liberal’s hypersensitive separation of church and state - sore spot, and attempted to get you rialed up over the fact that you have a REAL conflict on your hands here, and further illustrate that you are paralyzed by your hypocritical double standard that treats Christians and Muslims - QUITE differently.

We get not a peep out of you ‘cause he’s a muslim. I suspect you’d be up in arms, red faced with unquenchable outrage, if this involved a Christian, but then again, that kind of left wing outrage goes on vacation when a dem holds the presidency!

Hey! Where’s Cindy Sheehan??? See what I mean?

YOU simply have NO idea WHAT I believe, you only have YOUR assumptions! But you did ask, so unlike you, I’ll be nice and actually answer YOUR question! Do me a favor - NEXT time, extend the same courtesy - to me.

No, I was NOT happy when bush sucked up to the muslum clerics and imams, and flew them around for various BS dog and pony shows. It was a profound display of weakness, and foolishness, and - I - was red faced with unquenchable outrage that our new president would be so f*cking foolish. He made an ass of himself - trying to calm the populace and convince us that “there were good muslims too”. They must have been out of their minds with hysterical laughter in Damascus and Tehran. Eventually, he wised up and moved onto “more important” business.

Maybe he was fearful of a serious backlash against our muslim population, and his intel guys may have given him good reasons to believe there was a domestic threat - I don’t know. I do know it was the wrong call.

A quiet conversation with our muslim “friends” explaining JUST how pissed off we all were, and an offer of free, one way tickets BACK to the middle eastern country of their choice, would have been MY preference, followed by a very solid slamming of our immigration gate for a couple of decades.

Are the veins in your neck throbbing yet? I’ll try to do better!

As for the separation clause, the chapel thing - what ever; By and large I don’t much care - at least most of the time. Baby Jesus in the manger, Christmas trees in front of city hall etc - do not get me at all, excited. Lots of Christians here - no harm being respectful, and that’s completely different thing than ADVOCACY. Ditto with regards to observing Jewish, Muslim, or whatever religions holidays.

Hauling (insert name of religous leader - here) around in a government plane - for just about ANY reason, crosses the line. THIS situation EASILY crosses the threshold of respect, and steps quite firmly into the realm of ADVOCACY, but I guess YOU don’t agree. Then again - I don’t know that. Like the rest of your left wing fellows, answering questions seems to be a bit uncomfortable for you. Accusations and innuendo - that’s more your style…

I don’t see a room in the Pentagon used for prayer by whoever, any kind of threat or conflict of the separation clause. Using it is completely optional - NOT government mandated, and for all practical purposes, costs the taxpayer nothing.

Muslim - IN - the Pentagon, now THAT’S a different issue!

Another time perhaps…

In case you missed it in a previous post - I’m pretty much an agnostic. I’m respectful that others have beliefs - I may - or may not, agree with components of said beliefs, but at the end of the day, this sort of thing is off of my radar, unless I can find a way into turning it into something that will expose, embarrass and piss off you liberals!!!

Mr. Marks, I think that about covers it. Let’s review:

1 question / accusation, I answered in concurrence.
1 inference / snarky remark about bush - answered.
Question about the Pentagon chapel - answered.

I strive to be thorough, but please let me know if elaboration of any subject is required.

As always dear liberals, this venture has been quite a pleasure - for me anyway. No really - I mean it! I am having -SUCH - a wonderful time here! It REALLY IS quite therapeutic for me, but I do wish you would engage me a bit more. Here’s a tip: dissect my comments and questions, one at a time, and actually ADDRESS them! Come on! It WILL be fun - I promise you!

Have a great weekend all! I’ll try to check in later.

Posted by: Stephen Andros at August 20, 2010 7:32 PM
Comment #306506

Stephen Andros,

Frankly, I don’t care what sky pilot you believe in. I don’t begrudge anyone their religious beliefs, except when I feel they are being hypocritical, and I hate being proselytized to, even politically.

As far as what I believe in or what my political affiliations are, you don’t have a clue, and you make vast assumptions based on half-vast facts.

I wouldn’t call myself a liberal, but it wouldn’t take a liberal to recognize a crock of s*it when I read it.

No, it doesn’t matter to me if the State Department sends Rauf off to the Middle East for a confab. There have been trips of this sort with religious leaders of all stripes, the fact he is a Muslim doesn’t matter.
I believe that when people are talking to each other they aren’t killing each other, and talk is definitely cheaper than carpet bombing.
Surely not wanting to kill people unnecessarily doesn’t make me a liberal.
Oh, BTW the cost of this trip is less than 1/20th the cost of one Tomahawk missile.
If you doubt that fact, you can find the information here;

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1300&ct=2

I think Raytheon Systems will survive, at least until Rauf returns.

As far as the rest of the drivel posted, sooner or later I hope we can dispense with the hyperbole, which the these posts are extremely long on, and get to actual facts, which seem to escape the posts I have read so far.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 20, 2010 8:16 PM
Comment #306507

I think that this clip looks at this whole issue in a new perspective;

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/jon-stewart-is-fox-news-a-terrorist-command-center-video.php

Conservatives beware, your hair may catch on fire while watching this.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 20, 2010 8:38 PM
Comment #306508

I enjoy Stephen Andros’ replies. He is simply asking liberals to answer his questions. WB liberals take their cue from liberal politicians; they answer a question with a question. They completely change the subject, and liberals on WB have a bad habit of picking one little insignificant sentence out of a post and making it a major point. Example: I could write an SD essay on a subject and finish with a sentence about the nice weather we are having; the response would be about the weather, with nothing said about the subject of the essay. SA is not letting the left get by with it. Keep up the good work Stephen, you can tell by their responses when you are getting under their skin.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 20, 2010 9:04 PM
Comment #306512

You’ve got a long way to go, B9, to be able to understand much about anything we say or do. If you should last here for 7 or 8 years, you just might catch on. Unless and until that happens, you don’t have a clue what it takes to get under our skin.

Posted by: jane doe at August 20, 2010 9:15 PM
Comment #306513

Baretta9 totally agree about Stephen Andros replies

Posted by: MAG at August 20, 2010 9:17 PM
Comment #306515

Your right Jane NOBOBY will ever understand a liberals thinking. I don’t think you liberals even understand it.

Posted by: MAG at August 20, 2010 9:21 PM
Comment #306518

I think we’re already under your skin Jane with your senceless comments.

Posted by: MAG at August 20, 2010 9:26 PM
Comment #306520

Jane, I have been posting on WB for about 8 or 9 years. I didn’t say anything about “understanding” the left. But I have been here long enough to know the left will never answer a straight up question.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 20, 2010 9:33 PM
Comment #306521

Mr. Marks,

Thanks for your entertaining response. Not particularly illuminating, nor responsive to ANY of the many questions I’ve asked of you liberals thus far, but great fun none the less!

Lets get started with my response.

“Stephen Andros,

Frankly, I don’t care what sky pilot you believe in. I don’t begrudge anyone their religious beliefs, except when I feel they are being hypocritical, and I hate being proselytized to, even politically.”

OK!

“As far as what I believe in or what my political affiliations are, you don’t have a clue, and you make vast assumptions based on half-vast facts.

I wouldn’t call myself a liberal, but it wouldn’t take a liberal to recognize a crock of s*it when I read it.”

Well I will admit that since I don’t know you, there does exists the small possibility my assessment of you is incorrect - on a minor detail or two, but I doubt it for the following reasons:

1. Like your fellow travelers here, you seem humorless and angry - dare I say it hate filled (at least towards my conservative perspective). It is charming however, and though I probably shouldn’t divulge this, It pleases me profoundly!

2. Like your fellow travelers here, you seem unable or at least unwilling to answer the questions that I pose - regarding subject that I am interested in learning what your opinion is. I freely state my thoughts for all, and happily respond to your questions.

3. The mere fact that you deny that you are a liberal is very indicative in and of itself. It’s been my experience that conservatives freely state their political leanings without hesitation - it’s easy for us - our convictions are easy to defend; on the other hand, liberals seem reluctant to state their political stance, because they don’t embrace an argument that is easy to defend.

4. You ARE posting in the Democrats and Liberals blog (or room or whatever you want to call it), and since I see no evidence in what you’ve written to even HINT that you might be a conservative, well…

1+2+3+4 still equals 10 - even in here.

Come on out of the closet Rocky! It’s OK to call yourself a liberal - really!

Moving on…

“No, it doesn’t matter to me if the State Department sends Rauf off to the Middle East for a confab. There have been trips of this sort with religious leaders of all stripes, the fact he is a Muslim doesn’t matter.”

OK Rocky - good for you. Don’t forget this freewheeling “liberal” attitude the next time a republican president shuttles a Jerry Falwell type to a Promise keepers convention on Air Force 1. I’m sure you’ll think it’s just fine…

“I believe that when people are talking to each other they aren’t killing each other, and talk is definitely cheaper than carpet bombing.”

Let me see if I understand you. You think that the muslim terrorists are going to go on holiday when the state dept. files imam what’s his name over for a pow wow? What planet are you from man? Do you REALLY believe than ANYTHING PRODUCTIVE will result from this trip?

Turn on your brain…

“Surely not wanting to kill people unnecessarily doesn’t make me a liberal.”

Agreed - wholeheartedly. Surely my being a Conservative does not mean I want to kill people unnecessarily. Something tells me you’re probably not going to agree with me here - but hey - that’s OK.

“Oh, BTW the cost of this trip is less than 1/20th the cost of one Tomahawk missile.
If you doubt that fact, you can find the information here;

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1300&ct=2

I think Raytheon Systems will survive, at least until Rauf returns.”

Yeah man! My former employer does NOT give those babies away! I got to see one of the prototypes back in the late 70’s. YeeHaw! They are something else I tell ya!

Remarkably effective too!

As for the cost of this trip - it shouldn’t cost a dime - to the US taxpayers. The same “Hidden” money men who will pay for the Ground Zero War Trophy mosque, could CERTAINLY send over a gulfstream to pick him up - or he could even - Allah forbid - fly commercial!

Now ya gotta agree, that WOULD be a better option!

So then, please, explain to me just WHY the State Dept. is involved here? Perhaps you have their itinerary and find their schedule completely reasonable and justifiable, and in no other way accomplishable except through the use of a taxpayer funded aircraft. If so please share!

“As far as the rest of the drivel posted, sooner or later I hope we can dispense with the hyperbole, which the these posts are extremely long on, and get to actual facts, which seem to escape the posts I have read so far.”

Please good sir, enlighten and entertain us with your profound wisdom and command of the “actual facts”. How about starting with the dozens of unanswered questions I’ve presented in my many posts?

Perhaps these matters are beneath your dignity.

It’s been lots of fun Sir Rocky, and I GREATLY look forward to our next encounter, but for now, I must depart so that I might relax, enjoy the loving company of my woman, and perhaps a bit of Scotch.

Until next time - Salute!


S

Posted by: Stephen Andros at August 20, 2010 9:49 PM
Comment #306523

“and perhaps a bit of Scotch.”

My preference is a 15 year old Dalwhinnie.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 20, 2010 9:54 PM
Comment #306527

Stephen Andros, (gee I got it right twice)

“Like your fellow travelers here, you seem humorless and angry - dare I say it hate filled (at least towards my conservative perspective).”

Fellow travelers, oh, you mean communists? Wow, good one… I’ve never heard that one before…
Actually, I think I have a pretty good sense of humour as demonstrated by the clip I posted, no hate there.
I don’t hate anybody, but if anybody seems to be humourless and hate filled it would seem to be the conservatives, as witnessed by the attempts at humour that were old in the second grade, and the fact that they seem to feel diplomacy is better served by the owie end of a gun.

BTW, what exactly are you conservatives trying to conserve?

“Don’t forget this freewheeling “liberal” attitude the next time a republican president shuttles a Jerry Falwell type to a Promise keepers convention on Air Force 1.”

And this will help forward the cause for peace how?

“So then, please, explain to me just WHY the State Dept. is involved here?”

Gee, let me think… Maybe it is more important to not have to blow s*it up all the time, and while I may be way out in right field here, Rauf could be on a diplomatic mission, and call me crazy, but I think that diplomacy is best handled by the State Department, not Raytheon Systems.

“You ARE posting in the Democrats and Liberals blog (or room or whatever you want to call it), and since I see no evidence in what you’ve written to even HINT that you might be a conservative, well…”

I hate to bring this up, but you are also posting in the Democrats and Liberals blog, or didn’t you notice (perhaps your glasses were dirty?).
Do I need to be a conservative to not be a liberal? Perhaps when you think like a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

RE: Illegal immigrants: Tolerated and even encouraged by the conservatives because it is assumed that they will work for damn near nothing.

“Yeah man! My former employer does NOT give those babies away! I got to see one of the prototypes back in the late 70’s. YeeHaw! They are something else I tell ya!”

And of course you know the only folks that benefit from world strife are your former employer, and the other companies like them.
I am not against weapons systems per se, however having a defence budget twice the size of the rest of the world combined is enough to give me pause.

Besides, weapons systems don’t win wars, boots on the ground, and the people that are in them win wars.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 20, 2010 10:56 PM
Comment #306530

Those boots on the ground and the people that are in them need those weapon systems otherwise thats all they are, are boots on the ground and people in them Rocky.

Posted by: MAG at August 20, 2010 11:50 PM
Comment #306531

MAG,

“Those boots on the ground and the people that are in them need those weapon systems otherwise thats all they are, are boots on the ground and people in them…”

How is it possible we won WW2?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 20, 2010 11:59 PM
Comment #306533

MAG,

When the weapons systems become more important than the boots on the ground…

Well…

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 21, 2010 12:04 AM
Comment #306532

MAG,

When the weapons systems become more important than the boots on the ground…

Well…

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 21, 2010 12:04 AM
Comment #306535

Didn’t they have Tanks, Mortors, Hand Grenades, Ships, Planes, Ground Artillery and the like, O yes and even the M1 rifle, 45 cal pistol, 30 cal machine gun, all those are weapons systems Rocky. Without them those boots on the ground are just targets for the enemy that has those weapon systems.

Posted by: MAG at August 21, 2010 12:17 AM
Comment #306536

By the way Rocky if you want a complete list of all the military weapon systems you can google globalsecurity.org.

Posted by: MAG at August 21, 2010 12:42 AM
Comment #306537

MAG,

YOU’RE MISSING THE POINT.

Human beings with their brains are far superior to computers.
Computers are great for statistics and probabilities but are useless for strategy.

Tanks have to be fueled, Mortars have to be loaded, hand grenades have to be thrown, ships, and planes have to be guided, and so on.
Without the human to do these things, all of these groovy hi-tech weapons systems are just really expensive door stops.

The humans that we trained to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan had squat for weapons systems.
Yeah they had a few Stingers here and there, but for the most part they had very few of the things you mention, yet they defeated the second most powerful military machine on the planet.
Humans don’t need roads, humans don’t break down when they get dirty, humans can fight regardless of the weather, and with whatever they can get their hands around.

Yeah, expensive weapons systems are cool but they will never replace the boots on the ground.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 21, 2010 12:53 AM
Comment #306539

Rocky, YOU HAVE MISSED THE POINT so bad you couldn’t hit a bull in the a— with a base fiddle. Those weapon systems be it FIST, SPIT, ROCK or KNIFE or TREE BRANCH or the high tech systems are still NEEDED by those boots on the ground otherwise they are TARGETS for the enemy that has them.

Posted by: MAG at August 21, 2010 1:15 AM
Comment #306540

MAG,

Do you so disrespect anyone not a conservative so much that you consider them complete fools?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 21, 2010 1:23 AM
Comment #306551

Rocky, When you consider that ground troops need nothing to win wars but themselves and need no weapon system to aid them is a complete fool. With the comming of high tech weapons systems have made it somewhat safer for those ground troops you refer to as boots on the ground. Even in the landings at Normandy during WW2 first Naval ships were there to sofen the beachs so those ground troops could land. If it wasn’t for those WEAPON SYSTEMS the loss of life would have been worse then it was, in fact the landing would have FAILED. So without those weapon systems and the trained personnel who operate those systems our ground troops with their hand held weapon systems would be in far worse shape.

Posted by: MAG at August 21, 2010 11:54 AM
Comment #306553

Rocky, the lights are on and nobody’s home…..

Posted by: jane doe at August 21, 2010 12:09 PM
Comment #306554

Stephen A. writes both of these statements within the same thread:

“I know it’s “hip” to say “Republican - racist thug; Democrat - enlightened benefactor”. We both know, it’s just not that simple”

“That’s the trouble with you liberals - you INTENTIONALLY make the world far more complicated than it really is. You call it “nuanced” - I call it crap. The world is a pretty simple place, and by and large, people are pretty simple too.”

Sitcom here we come!

Posted by: Jill at August 21, 2010 12:15 PM
Comment #306555

Jane,

“Rocky, the lights are on and nobody’s home…..”

I couldn’t agree with you more.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 21, 2010 12:39 PM
Comment #306556

You got that one right jane you liberals are off to fantacy land.

Posted by: MAG at August 21, 2010 12:42 PM
Comment #306558

Hello again Mr. Marks,


First, Let me offer my hearty congratulations and profound thanks for your FINE effort, responding to my comments and questions, and offering your own in response. Fellow participants, please make note the excellent give and take, back and forth where we are actually engaging in a debate over ideas and political concepts of substance, with only a modicum of snark, sarcasm or mudslinging. The latter is welcome in the interest of keeping things spiced up and interesting, but does become tiresome if that’s ALL that is exchanged.

Man cannot exist on desert alone - he MUST have some MEAT too!

Let’s get to it, shall we?


“Like your fellow travelers here, you seem humorless and angry - dare I say it hate filled (at least towards my conservative perspective).”

Fellow travelers, oh, you mean communists? Wow, good one… I’ve never heard that one before…

I’m sorry - did I touch a nerve? - I - certainly did not intend to suggest that you were a communist, though your politics do seem to come from that end of the spectrum - but perhaps not SO far as to actually qualify as a full fledged communist.

While the term “fellow traveler” does have a connection in some circles to communists, I can say with GREAT sincerity and complete honesty that I was in no way trying to confer the idea that you are, have been or will be - a communist.

Perhaps I should have been more careful and used the term, “fellow lefties”, or “fellow libs” so as to not risk an unintended insult, or generate excessive sensitivity. I often forget how sensitive liberals are to certain words. The “N word” comes to mind right away as a classic example. While it’s fine and hardly never inappropriate for a black person to say it, better get your track shoes on if you happen to be white and say it regardless of the context (just ask Dr. laura!).

Love those left wing double standards - don’t you?

Here’s an interesting thought: What happens if a Hispanic or Asian person utters the word? What ARE the rules as it applies, to them? Sorry - it really IS quite hard to keep up.

Anyway, I have the added advantage of being pretty much immune to any such trivialities. You may freely insult me or call me ANY name you such as: “Cracker”, the charming derivative - “F*ck *ss cracker” (one of my personal favorites actually!) or even Honkey, - I just don’t care.

Then again, perhaps that because I am not white!?!?!?

Or…

Sorry, I digress.

Regardless “The Rocky doth protest too much, methinks.”

“Actually, I think I have a pretty good sense of humour as demonstrated by the clip I posted, no hate there.”

Well I have to agree, the tone of your last post seems to have improved greatly over your first communication directed towards me, and for that I am appreciative. Since you don’t know me, perhaps you were initially taken aback somewhat by my “style”. I hope by now you are starting to see that the only threat I pose, is to your belief system - nothing more.

As for the clip, I have not yet seen it, but plan to find the time - soon.

I don’t hate anybody, but if anybody seems to be humourless and hate filled it would seem to be the conservatives, as witnessed by the attempts at humour that were old in the second grade, and the fact that they seem to feel diplomacy is better served by the owie end of a gun.

Aww ca-mon Rocky!!! Second grade was quite some time ago for me, (though I’m skeptical you can claim the same!) Surely even YOU must admit that I (a PROUD conservative) have been the source of at least an occasional smile - maybe a giggle or two (I’m sure my fellow conservatives will agree with me on this)! And while I’ll bet you lunch that you probably don’t listen to the “Grand Pu-bah” of right wing talk radio, if you did, you’d hear LOTS of humor there (mind you at the liberals expense - of course). And yes - I freely admit there is a great deal of anger there too, but I honestly would NOT characterize it as HATE! Hate implies illegitimacy, and that simply does not apply here. Your side HAS created a bountiful, target rich environment, making it all too easy for conservatives to shoot at! And we do - with GREAT effectiveness!

A fact I have amply proven - many times this week.

BTW, what exactly are you conservatives trying to conserve?

A fine question, and I’m very glad you asked. My problem will be the attempt to answer, succinctly. I’m not sure that’s possible, but I will try. Please understand, expediency demands that I speak in generalities. If you demand a discussion regarding the particulars of some detail, I will be happy to indulge you, later.

It is my position, and arguably the position of American patriots of all political stripes, that this country - The United states of America is THE FINEST example of a society, in all the history of human existence.

STOP! I did NOT say “perfect”. I will be happy to discuss our many flaws - later.

I submit, that never before in human history, has a country evolved so rapidly, and accomplished so much, and along the way freed so many, saved so many, defended so many, and contributed so much.

As a CONSERVATIVE, I hold enormous respect for those who built this country, and brought us SO far. We have been so successful, because we are a nation of RULES and LAWS, that for the most part are JUST AND FAIR. Our nation was built with the respect of private property, the understanding of the importance limited government, and the freedom to change out government - peacefully - through the ballot box, and most importantly, the FREEDOM to pursue happiness - meaning, the government gets out of your way, and allows you to do whatever you can (legally) do, to better your lot in life.

This last concept has been the key to our nations success. In contrast, the mirror image of our socio-economic philosophy - Communism - essentially states “work hard, or not at all - the pay is the same”. Gee - what are people gonna do under THAT system? The natural thing of course - take the path of least resistance. Why not?

Communism fails simply because if fails to allow for the human desire to better one lot in life. The state - deciding what my “Needs” are, simply does not work for me - or you either I’ll bet.

Sorry to get into the weeds with a Poly Sci philosophy discussion, but I felt the need to provide some contrast to better illustrate my point.

I LOVE our country! Our political heritage is one of a representative republic (NOT a democracy!!!) coupled with a reasonable free market capitalist economy. With it, our nation has achieved magnificent things, and given the world so very much. Perfect? HELL F*CKING NO - far from it - NO human enterprise IS. None the less, our system IS INDEED the finest example of human endeavor, thus far, bar none!

Look how many people have risked their very LIVES in order to come her, and JOIN us. The sincerest form of flattery, wouldn’t you agree?

I intend to “conserve” this system, and improve it where I can. Those who would do otherwise, or decide we need to “obamachange” it, will find me, and many others like me, in fierce opposition.

Finally, let me apologize. I promised that I would try to be succinct. While I did give it my best effort, it seems I have failed…


“Don’t forget this freewheeling “liberal” attitude the next time a republican president shuttles a Jerry Falwell type to a Promise keepers convention on Air Force 1.”

And this will help forward the cause for peace how?”

And this trip to the middle east will forward the cause of peace HOW? CAREFUL, your naivete is showing!!!

At BEST, this taxpayer funded dog and pony show is a waste of time and money and will accomplish - N O T H I N G. Yes, I’m quite sure you disagree, so I’ll have to ask you just WHEN has ANY middle east peace talk ever accomplished anything even resembling it’s stated goal? Please sir Rocky! Cite an example, that illustrates the glorious successes resulting from middle east diplomatic meetings! Given the fact that it is THE most violent, hostile region on the planet, (with the possible exception of the Mexican - Arizona boarder), I’m confident that I have won this part of our discussion, already…

Besides, your very premise - that this is a PEACE mission is a festering cauldron of CRAP! This imam whatshisname is going to raise CA$H for the Ground Zero War Trophy mosque! I don’t care if the “news reports” NOW SAY OTHERWISE, the reporter gets that info from a government talking head - who is under orders to disseminate his talking points. Do you REALLY believe that once the doors are closed that there will be any way to tell what is actually happening? When did you liberals start trusting the government all of the sudden?

SURELY the O’Blame-a administration would NEVER lie! No sir! THEY hold the HIGHEST ethical standards! Yeah man! I mean - after all, they are from CHICAGO!

“So then, please, explain to me just WHY the State Dept. is involved here?”

Gee, let me think… Maybe it is more important to not have to blow s*it up all the time, and while I may be way out in right field here, Rauf could be on a diplomatic mission, and call me crazy, but I think that diplomacy is best handled by the State Department, not Raytheon Systems.

Aww Rocky - what happened? did you run out of material? Really, was that your BEST effort?

So lemme get this straight: The options (as you apparently see them) are: 1) Send Imam Rauf over to the M.E. on a taxpayer funded “diplomatic mission” (whatever!), OR; 2) BLOW SH*T UP.

Is that it? Those are my choices? NO! there WAS a 3rd choice.

Yes - I WILL call you crazy.

For the record, Raytheon is in NO way worried about their job security. There are MORE than enough lunatics and bad guys in this world that need to receive the “business end” of their products. No doubt, business will be - BOOMING - for some time to come.

Perhaps you feel the world would be a better place with out them? I’m SURE you’d prefer that we DIDN’T have DEFENSIVE systems like the Patriot missile system, that will protect innocent people - maybe one day it might be - YOU - from an incoming ballistic missile?

Raytheon makes a LOT of stuff, including (as you seem to be aware) OFFENSIVE systems - ones that might take out said missile BEFORE they launch. HOW a system is used, is - in the final analysis up to the GOVERNMENT - NOT Raytheon. It’s a classic - “Don’t blame the gun - blame the guy PULLING IT’S TRIGGER” scenario. But I’ll bet you don’t like guns either so that argument is likely to soar past you as well.

Clearly, your hostility towards Raytheon is misdirected. Perhaps you would do well to read my earlier post where I lecture extensively on the MERITS of the Military Industrial Complex. Perhaps then, you’ll wise up.

We can only hope…

“You ARE posting in the Democrats and Liberals blog (or room or whatever you want to call it), and since I see no evidence in what you’ve written to even HINT that you might be a conservative, well…”

I hate to bring this up, but you are also posting in the Democrats and Liberals blog, or didn’t you notice (perhaps your glasses were dirty?).

Remarkable how you refuse to offer me even the slightest credit! I could have EASILY spouted my opinions at the repub side of the house, and sing with the choir, but what kind of fun would THAT be? That would be nothing more than mental masturbation. I’d MUCH rather F*CK with YOU, over here!!!

I THOUGHT I was entering the lions den when I came here, but so far, it seems to be a mere snake pit. I was about to give up in boredom and frustration you know, and try to find some worthy opponents over a the “Daily Krap” I think it’s called, but since this is my first foray into the world of online political “discussions”, I thought I’d warm up here - first. Please keep me entertained, or I will be forced to go away!

Fortunately for me, there seem to be a few of you, who are brave enough (or foolish enough!) to come out to play.

Do I need to be a conservative to not be a liberal? Perhaps when you think like a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

No - to be a conservative, you must embrace conservative ideals, and from the nature of our conversation, I see no evidence to support the notion that you do. I suppose you may be one of the so called moderates. Yes - I guess that’s possible. I am a moderate, and even a liberal on a few non defining issues. We all choose sides: In my case - the conservative side, because it is the best embodiment of the ideal set I believe to be - by an large - logical.

The other “choice” I deem to be fundamentally unacceptable.

I do not agree with EVERYTHING the conservatives profess, but by and large their political philosophy is honorable, and it simply makes sense. I’m sure you’ll disagree with that statement, because your writing indicates that your mind is clouded and biased against conservatives - if the stereotypical liberal propaganda you’ve espoused is any indication. For example, the intimation that conservatives are bigoted, racists, homophobes, and war mongers.

I, nor anyone in my political sphere, embrace or have any sympathies for any of those notions - never have never will, and frankly don’t know anyone who does. Yet those are the BS complaints and twisted reasoning we are forced to deal with, whenever we interface with lefties. It completely spoils any effort towards REAL dialog and understanding, But if patience is exercised, given time, the propaganda CAN be defeated.

I have thoroughly demonstrated that fact to be true - right here.

“RE: Illegal immigrants: Tolerated and even encouraged by the conservatives because it is assumed that they will work for damn near nothing.

First, I completely agree with your take - with one exception. Your statement shows that you ASSume that ALL businessmen who hire legal immigrants - are conservatives. Please cite your data, or concede that SOME of these businessmen just MIGHT be liberals.

Regardless, I am against Illegal immigrants for a long list of very legitimate reasons that include: Not obeying our laws - from the git-go, and often well beyond their initial illegal entry. Not paying taxes, Social security etc. Demanding social services they are NOT rightfully entitled to. Driving down wages. Generally speaking, they have NO vested interest in this country - their national loyalties are elsewhere, therefore the don’t give a f*uck about this country, our environment, or our laws - (as evidenced by the large illegal alien populations in our prisons).

They are just here for the money.

Their poor - and I get their motivation. It does not give them license or even a pass to circumvent our laws - You know - those pesky laws that YOU and I have to obey - every day.

Just because they’re poor, does not entitle them to a double standard. That’s just not fair - for the rest of us, nor for those who are coming here legally and playing by the rules

Liberals usually try to first dismiss, then jujitsu Conservative arguments by ignoring our reasonable, logical complaints, and then writing us off as racists. It’s a despicable cowardly tactic utilized by honor-less weasels - determined to win at all costs.

“Yeah man! My former employer does NOT give those babies away! I got to see one of the prototypes back in the late 70’s. YeeHaw! They are something else I tell ya!”

And of course you know the only folks that benefit from world strife are your former employer, and the other companies like them.

Hmmm seems I’ve had this conversation before. Find a way to achieve the liberal dream of war free world, and Raytheon will either make another product to sell, or go out of business.

Neither Raytheon nor the rest of the M.I.C. - CREATED “world strife”. That a job for the bad guys - not us, certainly not Raytheon. Our government makes the decision to engage in matters where “World Strife” is a component, and in so doing, require the necessary “tools” to effectively get the job done. Raytheon is merely the tool store that SUPPLIES said tools. They are no more evil than Walmart (how do ya like THAT ANALOGY!) I have no problem with their legal, capitalist enterprise, makes a profit, but I gather you do.

I suppose you’d prefer they become a NPO and sell their goods at cost?

I am not against weapons systems per se, however having a defence budget twice the size of the rest of the world combined is enough to give me pause.

Better check your facts mate, I’m pretty sure those sweet “Fellow Travelers” - the Chinese are spending a LOT more than us these days - building up their tool shed - for…what? Russia is getting back to business as well. Iraq and Afghanistan are quite expensive. Iran will soon cost us - HUGE sums of $$$$. 50/50 odds the Korean peninsula returns to war in the next 10 years. That’s all I can think of - for now.

Raytheon need not worry about future profits….

It’s a dangerous world. Defense cost money - lot of it.

Perhaps you could go over to China or Russia or North Korea and stage some anti-war protests with your “Activist” pals!
Naw - that too much trouble, and WAY too far to go. Why not just protest US - right here!

“WE”RE the bad guys after all…

Besides, weapons systems don’t win wars, boots on the ground, and the people that are in them win wars.

While the later part of your argument MAY still be true, I’m quite confident the “professionals” would disagree that “Weapons Systems” are NOT a HUGE component to said victory.

Allowing a anti-war protester to define your national security strategy, is like allowing someone from PETA to grill your steak. Both - are simply unqualified!

Therefor, for the sake of your own safety, in this very dangerous world, vote REPUBLICAN!!!!

Once again - thank you sir for your effort. Lets do this again - soon!

Cheers!

S

Posted by: Stephen Andros at August 21, 2010 1:07 PM
Comment #306561

Jill writes:

“Stephen A. writes both of these statements within the same thread:

“That’s the trouble with you liberals - you INTENTIONALLY make the world far more complicated than it really is. You call it “nuanced” - I call it crap. The world is a pretty simple place, and by and large, people are pretty simple too.”

Sitcom here we come!”


Hi Jill!

Since you obviously are having trouble with the concept of “context”, let me help you out.

Lets examine the ENTIRE paragraph - shall we?


“Yes he did desegregate the military, but you proceed from a false assumption if you mean to suggest that desegregation and civil rights were championed exclusively by liberals. In the interest of brevity, I’ll forgo the laundry list of Republican achievements in the civil rights arena, as well as the similarly sized lists of Democrats who worked in fierce opposition to the same. I know it’s “hip” to say “Republican - racist thug; Democrat - enlightened benefactor”. We both know, it’s just not that simple - let alone historically accurate.

Jill Dear - the SUBJECT of civil rights is pretty simple - to me anyway, but perhaps you struggle with it. Doing it justice - in a FREAKIN PARAGRAPH - is not! That was NOT the subject I was going to focus on with that thread. I DID think it deserved at least a cursory statement from me to illustrate my overall point that liberals are not the SOLE champions of the civil right movement - in spite of their fantasies to the contrary.

Clearly that is the very point that you (INTENTIONALLY) missed.

Your only REAL interest: Finding a way to punch holes in my argument - by WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY - certainly NOT to engage me in a honest conversation, or a discussion of ideas.

How charming. I’m sure your mother is proud of you…

My statement that “The world is a pretty simple place, and by and large, people are pretty simple too.” - stands.

Your tactic of trying to embarrass me through the use of incorrect contextual associations - not only failed, but works quite well towards exposing YOUR simplicity.

Thank you for the attempt though! It was quite fun! Please try again!


Cheers!

S

Posted by: Stephen Andros at August 21, 2010 1:51 PM
Comment #306564

Stephen,

You state:

Your tactic of trying to embarrass me through the use of incorrect contextual associations - not only failed, but works quite well towards exposing YOUR simplicity.

I do not need to embarrass you. Keep on making contradictory comments and people will call you on it.

Seeing that you are such a tough guy in earlier posts I would not expect for you to get so upset when someone calls you out. Where are those stones you brag about?

As you like to say: Thanks you for the attempt. It was quite fun! Please try again!

Cheers!

J

Posted by: Jill at August 21, 2010 2:25 PM
Comment #306565

Ah Steven,
there’s one word that comes to mind when reading your posts, and I have to give dude the credit for reminding me of it again…….bloviate.
It’s fine, have your fun. Bullies like their time in the spotlight, but they often find that fall from there isn’t so bad…but the landing that is a killer.

Posted by: jane doe at August 21, 2010 2:33 PM
Comment #306592


Stephen Andros said:

” Islam is a barbaric cancer on our nation. In time, they will murder enough of our citizen that we will finally wake up and take action against them. Unfortunately the “moderate” ones will be swept up in the wave”,

Does “moderate”= no such thing.

Take action? Do you mean “The Final Solution”? I think I have heard that one before. Goebbels could not have said it better.

Should the same standard have been applied to those good white Southern Baptists who supported and encouraged Jim Crow and the terrorism and murder of black Americans, rather than purge them from their pews and pulpits.

Conservatives have more than one use for crosses.

Rich said:

“The Democratic Party believes today as it has always believed”.

You are in need of history lessons as well. The Democratic Party sanctioned the Civil War and it was probably a Democrat that fired the first shot.

Most of those good white Southern Baptists that supported Jim Crow were Democrats.

But, more significant is the fact that they were conservatives.

It was progressive, liberal and moderate Democrats and Republicans that came together to end it.

Posted by: jlw at August 21, 2010 7:41 PM
Comment #306601

Jlw:

I am having a hard time following your logic. You are saying it was white Southern Baptist, who were democrats, who supported Jim Crow laws, and fired the first shot during the Civil War. Was this the same Democratic Party who voted against the civil rights laws of the 60’s? And you also say these Southern Baptist democrats were actually conservatives. Then you say, the democratic party of the 60’s is not the same democratic party of today, correct? So what you are saying, is that the democratic party of today is the opposite of conservative, or in other words, the democratic party of today is liberal?

If the Democratic Party of the 60’s and earlier was conservative, what was the Republican Party? As far back as I can read, the Republican Party has always been conservative and never liberal. Why were there two parties, if both were conservative?

Sen. Robert Byrd is a good example of a white Southern Baptist democrat; was he a conservative? You speak of conservatives having more than one use for cross. Are you speaking of the Clan, you do realize that Byrd was a member of the Clan, don’t you?

You try to make it sound like there was a great moral change in the Democratic Party, at some point after the passing of the civil rights laws (the 1960’s). In other words, the democrats voted against civil rights and republicans voted for civil rights, but after the vote, the democrats became the champions of civil rights. Is it my imagination, or is there something fishy about your logic?

You have managed to lodge some racist remarks against the Southern Baptist, based on illogical assumptions. I am not a Southern Baptist, but if I were, I would find it highly offensive and I would believe you are a typical liberal who has hatred toward Christians. Your comments are a good example of how liberals really feel, yet you would probably be the first to say, “I don’t hate Christians”.

Are you aware that the Southern Baptist Churches, in 1995, did an about-face, and issued a public apology for their history of bigotry and vowing to “eradicate racism in all its forms” from its ranks. Are you also aware that Rev. Eric Redmond, a black Southern Baptist minister, “is the highest-ranking African American in the 16 million-member denomination and a representative of the changing times confronting Southern Baptists and other mostly white Protestant denominations.”

And are you also aware, “These days, the faith that was once proudly white now touts the fact that almost 20 percent of its congregations are predominantly black, Latino or Asian. Hundreds of minorities serve in leadership posts in its state conventions, seminaries and other organizations.
The SBC Mission Board estimates that the number of black members has doubled to about 1 million since the 1995 apology.”

This change did not take place over night. In a matter of 30 years, this “racist denomination”, which was a tool of the Democratic Party and the clan, became a staunch supporter of conservatives and of the black community. Let me say one more thing, of which I do know, Southern Baptist Churches are fiercely independent. The Southern Baptist Convention does not dictate to the individual churches how they are to operate. The churches that are part of the Southern Baptist Convention are, by their own choosing, in complete support of the 1995 apology. I might suggest, this apology was in the works for many years, and came to fruition in 1995.

You see, it’s easy to make wild, stupid, racist statements when you don’t have any idea what you are talking about. But what you really show is your intolerance, racism, and your real feelings about a denomination, of which you no nothing… I find your statements offensive to all Christians.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 21, 2010 9:53 PM
Comment #306610

Beretta9, what I am saying is that the Democratic Party politicians of the 60’s is much like the Democratic Party of today, in that it is composed of progressives, liberals and conservatives. Today, just as then, the southern and some western Democrats are more conservative that other Democrats.

There are exceptions. Lieberman is one. He was reelected by Republicans. If I remember correctly, the Republican candidate got 8% of the vote.

What I said about the Southern Baptist is pretty accurate. They also opposed the 19th amendment. I was not delivering hate, but reacting to the hate mongering of your new good buddy that you have been trading compliments with.

As I said to him, Goebbels could not have said it better.

Ask yourself this question: Did Strom Thurmond switch from being a bleeding heart liberal to a stanch conservative when he switched parties from Democrat to Republican in 1964?

Do you honestly believe that George Wallace, a Democrat was a liberal.

Because of the civil rights issue, the South went from conservative/moderate Democrat to conservative/moderate Republican. Do you think the South just magically went from Blue to red?

Today, the conservative/neoconservative Republicans with the help of the tea party are trying to expel the moderates from the party.

It was a nice but necessary apology and it was nice that they opened their doors to people of color in 1980.

What brought this about, the conservatives finally admitted they were wrong about desegregation, But still hold out the caveat that the Civil Rights Act went to far.

By that measure, the Muslims still have 21 years to apologize.

I will say this in defence of the Southern Baptists, many of them supported desegregation. It led to a split between the moderates and the conservatives in the church. Care to guess which faction supported desegregation and which one did not?

Some of my comments about Southern Baptists comes from Conservapedia.

Civil Rights act of 1964: Congressional voting record.

Senate: for-D 46, R 27 against-D 21, R6

House: for-D 153, R 136 against-D 91, R35

By Region:

South: for-D 1, R 0 against-D 20, R 1

North: for-D 45, R 27 against-D 1, R 5

Posted by: jlw at August 22, 2010 12:30 AM
Comment #306616

jiw stated that: “Rich said: “The Democratic Party believes today as it has always believed”.”

I never said that. It was a quote from a speech by Harry Truman in 1948 outlining what he perceived as his party’s historical roots in progressive liberalism. It was presented in counter-argument to Mr. Andro’s contention that Harry Truman was not a liberal. The fact that Truman endorsed and ran on a fractious liberal platform in 1948 is further proof of Truman’s liberal credentials. In the 1948 Convention, the Democrats embraced civil rights and rejected their southern wing’s segregation policies.

Posted by: Rich at August 22, 2010 9:45 AM
Comment #306639


Rich, sorry about the mix up, I apologize for my mistake. Harry was wrong.

Beretta9, yes, it is your imagination.

I am fully aware of Byrd being a member of the clan. I am also aware that conservatives love to point that out. What conservatives love to ignore is Byrd’s voting record after he realized the errors of his ways.

Compare Robert Byrd to Strom Thurmond. Conservatives don’t want to do that because Thurmond has been an icon among conservatives for many years. Thurmond holds the record for the longest one man filibuster in the history of the Senate. He did it in an effort to prevent the 1957 Civil Rights Act from passing. That bill passed and was vetoed by Eisenhower.

The revisionist historian, Glen Beck has gone from calling Eisenhower Ike the kike to proclaiming him the father of desegregation. Eisenhower was sympathetic to desegregation and he desegregated portions of the government, but he also believed that it was impossible to pass laws against hate and that the Southern states would have to realize the wrongness of their ways on their own.

Beck is also claiming that Republicans passed Civil Rights. Another false history. It was Republicans and Democrats WORKING together. Another fact not mentioned by Beck is that many if not all of those moderate Republicans would be purged from the party by the ultra conservatives if they were trying to get elected as Republicans today.

Your 1995 date is very telling, it suggests that it is the conservatives who are the Johnny come latelies to civil rights and the conservatives are still depending on most of the racist elements for voting support.

It is conservative elements who are pushing the birther issue, the Obama is a Muslim issue, the Mosque issue.

If those who are planning the Mosque back down because Americans are to sensitive, conservatives and evangelicals will use that defence in neighborhoods all across America.

Fox News has a daily prime time viewership of 2.3 million people. The average Fox News viewer is white and 65 years old. The News Hour on PBS has a prime time viewership of 2.7 million people.

I am thankful that Mr. Ultraconservative mentioned the Internet. Fox News is dead last as a source for news on the Internet. It is the young who are most likely to get their news from the Internet. An overwhelming majority of them have no use for the Fox message served up to scared old upper middle class white conservatives who want their taxes cut.

Posted by: jlw at August 22, 2010 4:07 PM
Comment #306688

Stephen Andros,

You claim to want a civil debate yet you’re doing the name calling “lefty”, “bleeding heart”, “coward”, “barbarions” etc.

You claim to want to argue fact yet you have only discussed may-haves and maybes.

You use your hyper- macho tone with those who disagree and yet you are the one who is clearly afraid.

I am not a fan of any organized religion. That’s my opinion. I do believe that any and all religions have a right to worship.

For you to call Muslims barbarions is discriminitory and ignorant.

You can try to belittle my opinions in favor of yours. It’s not the first time someone’s done that.

The local, state and federal government have no legal right to deny the Mosque from opening. Fact

Those who oppose the Mosque being buit at “ground zero” should know that it’s being built blocks away from the site of the towers in an old retail store. Unless all of Manhattan is “ground zero” than it not so much about hallowed ground. Fact
Also if it’s a hallowed ground issue why the protests in Tennessee, Wisconsin and California over the opening of Mosques? Fact

Please show me where there are ties to terrorist organizations and Imam Rauf. Save the speculation. Facts only.

Try to remember that Muslims, Christians and other religions are responsible for many crimes against humanity. For you to single out Muslims demonstrates either your lack of tolerance for a particular group or a lack of knowledge about world history.

Cheers.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at August 23, 2010 2:25 PM
Comment #306693

Andre, you might notice that S.A. came in and poked sharp sticks at people for a couple of days, then disappeared. He isn’t the first to do that, and I’m pretty sure he won’t be the last.

Posted by: jane doe at August 23, 2010 3:41 PM
Comment #306720

News Corp’s number-two shareholder funded ‘terror mosque’ planner

Posted by: womanmarine at August 24, 2010 6:28 AM
Comment #306724

Sorry to disappoint you Jane, but apparently - unlike you - I - have a rather 3 dimensional life to enjoy, AND a business to run. While I do take GREAT pleasure in coming into the enemy’s’ camp and thoroughly kicking their ass, I do have other responsibilities and interests to attend to.

Fear not - I have not gone away, in spite of the fact that many of you are excruciatingly boring. E.G. - Ms. Doe.

I will try to grace you with my virtual presence and provide some MORE - First Rate Right Wing antagonization - soon. I’m SURE you will wait with breathless anticipation!

As for you Mr. Hernandez, I am debating whether to treat you to a verbose or succinct retaliatory reply. I’m leaning towards the succinct version. I find that my arguments are wasted on most of you - since you’re immune to the effects of logic. It would be a pointless exercise - if it were not SO much fun! Needless to say - either choice will be something “special” - but NOT just for you.

You can expect to hear from me as soon as I can spare some time from my other obligations. In spite of comrade o’blamea’s efforts, MY business is doing pretty well!

No - YOU cant have a job. I discriminate against liberals - at EVERY opportunity…

BTW - it is primary election day in many parts of the country. For those who can participate, please remember - it is you civic duty to cast your vote. While doing so, take great confidence in knowing that whoever you choose - is SURE TO LOOSE come November!

Have a NICE day!

S

Posted by: Stephen Andros at August 24, 2010 8:40 AM
Comment #306730


Hate claims victory. We got the message Andros. Your fears have overwhelmed you.

Posted by: jlw at August 24, 2010 12:31 PM
Comment #306740

And your verbose arrogance has defined you.

Posted by: jane doe at August 24, 2010 3:34 PM
Comment #306742

Stephen Andros,

I’ve met other over inflated, obnoxious blow-hards in my day but none as delusional as you.

“While I do take GREAT pleasure in coming into the enemy’s’ camp and thoroughly kicking their ass”

When did this happen?

Oh, that’s right, because you say you did. You told us you’re right and we’re wrong based on your interpretation of reality and your fears and paranoid fantasies, without any scrap of fact.

“I find that my arguments are wasted on most of you - since you’re immune to the effects of logic.”

We’re not worthy. Thanks for taking time out for those of us who are obviously beneath you.

What are you compensating for?


Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at August 24, 2010 3:57 PM
Comment #306795

Stephen Andros-
Welcome to Watchblog.

As for my “tough guy macho rhetoric”. Understand this: I have “a pair”, an unyielding spine, an immense love of country, a clear sense of reality, and the intellect to accurately express myself.

Really? Good for you.

Let me skip ahead to your next factual argument.

Sorry, this will take a while.

Well, let’s go to your next post.

Historically, Democrats were the party of segregation. There’s not much use in denying that. The question is, where did the parties go during the sixties, and afterwards? We have plenty of evidence of Republicans in the Fifties and Sixties taking up pro-segregation positions, as the conservative movement gained steam. We also saw them take up the infamous Southern Strategy, taking up racially charged issues, and subtly taking the side of folks who felt disaffected by the Democrat’s switchover to pushing a Civil Rights agenda.

The result, increasingly, is Republicans taking on an increasingly more regional cast. Other parts of the country are nowhere near as stalwart, and you have Lincoln spinning in his grave as his party talks “States Rights”, “Tenth Amendment Nullification”, even “Secession”.

Cut out the party labels, and the Republicans of the 2010s sound startlingly like the Democrats of the 1850s, and their regional dominance is strongest in former Confederate States.

Isn’t that just a perverse state of affairs?

On the subject of JFK, with the tax rates and regulatory structure he supported, you would be calling him a ****ing socialist, I bet. He was pushing the programs, like Medicare, that your people now take every opportunity to propose an end to.

He might not have been as socially liberal as some folks today, but then he was of a different time, so the definitions of what was permitted and not permitted was different.

As for Strategic Bombing? True, it was a deliberate policy. It’s still an open question as to whether it was an effective one, in comparison to going after targets that were strictly war-related. I think it’s fair to say that the Nukes worked, but it’s also fair to say that they worked too well. Now, as they proliferated in the world, they posed as much of a danger to us as it would to everybody else.

Assuming you subscribe to the anti war flavor of liberalism, are you going to overlook these facts because he had his “mind right” on other issues that are dear to your heart?

(Does best Don LaFontaine voice) IMAGINE A WORLD…
WHERE LIBERALS ACTUALLY CONFORM TO REPUBLICAN STEREOTYPES…

Keep imagining, seriously, because most Liberals, especially myself are not so stereotypically pacifist. We understand war. We also understand, though, that if you don’t run a war right, the costs can be considerable, both in lives and economic costs.

Does mid 20th century liberalism share share any practical semblance with the version that exists today? (I think not.)

Are you trying to prejudice the reader? Hmmmmm?

Seriously, if there’s a difference, it’s that too many liberal politicians let the Right Wing nuts intimidate them. If you really want to have the old school Democrats back, be my guest, ask for them back.

What you’ll get are Democrats who are unafraid to push social programs, who hit back when Republicans throw punches at them, who don’t fold like a cheap suit on regulation or taxes!

So, what about the Muslim Community Center, two blocks away from Ground Zero?

The threat for militant Islam gets worse, not better when twits like the Republicans out there vilify a guy who’s not only a Muslim Cleric, but one who is a Sufi, a man who did outreach on behalf of the Bush Administration for Muslims, who attended Daniel Pearl’s Funeral, and made a speech there saying that in essence that as well as being a Muslim, he was a Christian, and a jew. He was speaking figuratively of course, relating the creeds and customs of each religion, but still, do you think a Wahhabi Islamist would have dared to make such a speech, much less attend a Jewish Journalists funeral and condemn the folks that killed him?

Oh, that’s right, he could be lying. Well you can accuse any person saying anything of lying, but still, he’s literally putting his neck on the line by making such comments.

Now, you can follow up your comments with all kinds of tough-guy rhetoric on war, on Iran and everything, but you know something? Tough rhetoric is still just a blast of gas. People like you squandered our military strength against a nonexistent threat in Iraq, not only strengthening Iran’s position in that region, but also strengthening the Hardliners who used our presence to scare their citizens into supporting nuclear stupidity.

And what do you think happens when you militarily intervene, you just flex your muscles and they just clap and hand you the Nuclear weapons?

You failed to address MY statement, and instead you tried to connect the OKC bombing - with my argument. Please, TRY TO STAY FOCUSED!!! Please tell me why MY argument is wrong! Please explain to me WHY you believe that the American People have infinite tolerance , and the islamist can murder as many of us as they like - with IMPUNITY, and we will NOT - at some point - rise up and respond with anger and vengeance!

FREEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOMMM! (James Horner music plays triumphantly in the background)

;-) Sorry, I hadn’t used enough capitals.

We have tolerance, because we’ve found we can take it. Because mysteriously enough when you throw enough people into a country, and let them think for themselves, most folks will remain peaceful and law abiding, even if you let them be as radical as they want to be.

I think we have to define religion as a faith practiced in a culture. Because we separate church from state, church matters and doctrines figure less prominently in state affairs. The culture wars have been an utter failure, in no small part because there is a ceiling to which the religious organizations behind the religious right can appeal to the Governments aid in forcing their faiths on others.

It’s easier for folks like the Terrorists to get radicalized in these other countries where holding the wrong variety of Islam can make you an official target, where governments have to balance the demands of modernity and the arcanities of religious doctrine to maintain their power. Here? The primary driver might be the policies that some folks work out, trying to push back against a perceived threat from a religion.

The more easygoing we are about religion, the more we prove our worse critics in the Middle East are full of ****. Seeing them full of the doo-doo, folks will be more inclined to reach out to us, and we’ll be better able to cast defensive decisions in the light of non-religions matters.

As for the Military Industrial Complex? Well, none other than Eisenhower brought that little gem up, and what he meant was the influence, warranted and unwarranted of military manufacturers on policy. Today, we have by far the best funded military in the modern world, with the best toys and the snazziest vehicles. Is that always doing good for us in winning the wars out there?

Not necessarily. I mean, you look at the Stryker vehicle, or the M1A1 tank, and those are worth their weight, especially the Stryker. But getting all kinds of snazzy new jets and a replacement for the Jeep hasn’t really done too much good for our military. Humvees proved lethally ineffective as combat vehicles. One of the earliest problems I wrote about was the fact our soldiers were having to salvage scrap metal and put sandbags in the door to create hillbilly armor. To me, that was just a pathetic thing for a military like ours to be doing. As is typical, the tough talking Bush Adminstration, confronted with the problem, whined about the media setting them up.

Sigh.

It’s rather tough to correct willful stubborn disconnections from reality, where people not only don’t acknowledge things like a lack of armor is killing our soldiers when they get hit by IEDs, but try to beat down folks when they bring it up, and question their loyalty. To my mind, it just seems like bluff and bluster, because those folks aren’t focusing on the nuts and bolts of what turns tough talk into effective action. Republicans can always fall back on their tough talk and hawkish reputation, instead of dealing with the issue. Democrats have to actually get things done right, and so far, Democrats have done a good job of dealing with the wars. nose-to-the-grindstone hardwork beats wishful-thinking bluff and bluster any day of the week.

On that spinal cord thing? Let be blunt. The Separation of Church and State makes it unlikely that we’ll ever see the kind of Sharia Law you speak of implemented as civil law. That is, unless some well meaning folks on the right succeed in establishing that religious rules can be imposed on others by the government.

See, our First Amendment rights here have the benefit of making the following of such laws a private affair, unless and until they break the civil law, in which case their religion isn’t necessarily a defense.

But you know what? That just doesn’t scare and panic people enough, so Republicans scream “SHARIA LAW!” and try to claim that tolerance for it will lead to some kind of takeover.

SIGH. We have real problems in the real world, and those fools have to get inventive and add new ones.

Sit back and relax. Republicans were relieved of command for a reason, and you’re going to remind people of why, if you don’t watch out.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 25, 2010 12:53 PM
Comment #306810

I think this pretty much says it all;

http://www.credoaction.com/comics/2010/08/ground-zero-outrage-on-parallel-earth/

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 25, 2010 3:51 PM
Comment #306816

The beretta9 is such a girly gun. As in unabashed liberal I carry something a little more manly .45 ACP.

Posted by: Jeff at August 25, 2010 6:23 PM
Comment #306855

Rocky,

What a hoot!

Jeff,

Damn…wish I’d thought of that!

Posted by: Marysdude at August 26, 2010 8:45 AM
Comment #310388

It is a challenge that the president — if he actually had an “unshakable” commitment to religious freedom — could help the reformers try to surmount. No one credibly questions the legal right of Muslim landowners to use their property in any lawful fashion. Legality is an irrelevant issue, even if the back-tracking Obama now wants to pretend it is the only one he was really talking about on Friday night. The question here is propriety.

This president, uniquely, could have framed that question in the right way. He could have called on Muslims who claim to be moderate to reject Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda explicitly, by name and without equivocation. He could have called for them to support freedom of conscience, to support the right of Muslims to leave the faith. He could have called for Muslims to reject the second-class citizenship to which sharia condemns women and non-Muslims. He could have demanded that they accept the right of homosexuals to live without fear of persecution. He could have called for a declaration that sharia is a matter of private contemplation that has no place in the formation of public policy.

If the Ground Zero mosque were understood as standing for those values, it would be a monument worth having: A testament to the rise of a uniquely American Islam that stands foursquare against the hate-filled ideology we’re fighting, an Islam for which Americans would be proud to fight. But that’s not in the cards for a president whose idea of a symbolic gesture is a bow to the Saudi king and an open door to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The president may not have noticed, but the commitment of the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood to religious intolerance is utterly unshakable.

Posted by: Brian at October 15, 2010 8:11 AM
Comment #310389

Amazingly, their new-found love affair is with Islam. Can you believe it? The Liberal Commentariat is now actually supporting and demonstrating in the streets on behalf Islam. Liberals have always despised America’s Christians (too pro-life). Liberals just hate the Catholic Church (no women priests) and castigate Mormons (no African-American priests) whenever they can. The only Mormon liberals tolerate is Senator Harry Reid (D-AZ) and only because they have him under heel. The ACLU receives millions of dollars from liberals so it can file lawsuits against Christians who dare to display the Nativity Scene during the Christmas Holidays (horrible). Just try praying in a public school run by liberals and see what happens; the ACLU will haul you into court so fast you’ll get a bad case of windburn. Mentioning religion to most liberals is like flashing a Cross in a vampire’s face at high noon.

Why do liberal female media types now support a religion that subjugates women and makes them wear veils or burkas while the men dress any which way? The fractured liberal mind now defends a religion that: endorses Honor Killings of women who get involved with infidel men; practices clitorectomies (female genital mutilation) in some parts of the world; enforces stoning of women deemed guilty of adultery. Women can’t even drive a car or leave the house in Saudi Arabia without a male escort. There are no fashion shows in Pakistan for the latest line of mini-skirts or sleek spring dresses. Remember the Muslim riots that forced the cancellation of the 2002 Miss World Pageant in Nigeria?

Liberal gay rights groups fail to acknowledge that Islam encourages the stoning and/or execution of homosexuals. There are no Gay Pride Parades in Egypt, I promise you. Try making films like “Salt” or “True Lies” or “Broke Back Mountain” in Iran. Even some liberal Jewish people now support “Park51” despite the fact that many Muslims dismiss the Holocaust as myth. In spite of these obvious social contradictions, simple-minded liberal Hollywood types still support having a Mosque at Ground Zero so that Muslims can practice their religion (See above).

Liberals completely fail to grasp this obvious reality: If Muslims were allowed to practice their religion according to Sharia Law in America, liberals would be the VERY FIRST people to get erased from society.

Posted by: Brian at October 15, 2010 8:29 AM
Post a comment