Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on August 07, 2010, 06:57:41 PM
-
Good question.
OPINION
Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
By Andrea Tantaros
Published August 06, 2010 | FoxNews.com
The battle over the proposed mosque and community center near Ground Zero has sparked outrage and fury.
The argument from those who oppose it: it’s an incredibly insensitive move designed to deliberately provoke the nation from a radical Imam who says the U.S. is culpable for the attacks of 9/11. They’re correct.
What’s surprising is the level of outrage from the other side -- mostly those on the left – who argue we must allow the building of the mosque and community center in the name of tolerance of Islam. Where are these shrieking voices in defense when other religions like Christianity and Judaism are under attack?
There has always been a double standard when it comes to understanding and explaining the Muslim religion verses Christianity.
While many Muslim countries ban women from voting, driving a car, and threaten to kill anyone who speaks of Christ within their borders, you rarely hear those on the left invoke sharp criticism or shake their finger in fury.
Instead, they save the attacks and their selective attention span for the random “Christian” who blocks an abortion clinic.
When the radical Islamic Fort Hood shooter claimed the life of twelve soldiers, the media dubbed him “troubled.”
A CNN.com article, along with many others, only identified him an “Army psychologist” and failed to make any reference to his ties to radical jihadism or make initial references to his religion – even after e-mails were found detailing his extremist views.
But when a Michigan-based militia group was indicted in an alleged plot to kill law enforcement officers with improvised explosive devices they were quickly – and inaccurately – labeled as a “Christian militia group” – not just in the body of an ABC News.com article, but in the headline, too.
In his book “Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity," David Limbaugh details the double standard: The media portrays Christians as unreasonable and violent, charging them with violent acts against abortionists, abortion clinics or homosexuals while at the same time both Hollywood and the press downplay injustices and violent acts committed against Christians.
A favorite media tactic is the use of the pejorative term "religious right" to describe Christian conservatives, implying such believers are "intolerant” and “backwoods fanatics.”
It’s no big deal when newspapers dub Christians “The American Taliban.” And it’s okay for Ted Turner to call Catholics with ashes on their head “Jesus freaks.” But God forbid you refer to the guys crashing the planes into building as Allah freaks.
Comedian and commentator Dennis Miller offered an accurate explanation for why the left and the mainstream media seek to appease the Muslim community and have been defending the Ground Zero mosque so ardently on an August 4 episode of "The O’Reilly Factor": “People are afraid to say anything about radical Islam because they get blown up.”
Instead of staying true to our values so that we don’t let the terrorists win, many Americans (the president included) are shackled by fear or a belief that the nicer we are, the less they’ll come after us. They speak out on discrimination and freedom, except when it comes to defending Christianity.
That’s why the fervent defense of the Ground Zero mosque by those on the left was so unsurprising, and so nauseating. We are a nation of all religions, they chanted. We must stay true to our values, they screamed. Both of these statements are accurate. But why not defend Christianity or Judaism with that kind of passion?
If the Muslims who want to build the mosque for “bridge building” and an “interfaith dialogue” truly wanted to practice what they preach then they will move it or make it an actual interfaith center. Until then, the only bridge I see is the one that’s burning.
As Steven Schwarz, executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, wrote in the August 3rd edition of the New York Post, “Traditional, moderate Islam teaches Muslims living in non-Muslim-majority societies to obey the laws and customs of the country in which they reside. They must avoid conflict with their non-Muslim neighbors whenever possible.”
You see, tolerance isn’t a one sided thing. For the extremists that want to blow us up, it doesn’t matter what we say or do. They’ll still plot to destroy us. For the many millions of peaceful Muslims, they’ll respect us more if we equally defend and apply the same standard of tolerance to all religions that we do theirs.
Andrea Tantaros is a conservative commentator and FoxNews.com contributor. Follow her on Twitter @andreatantaros.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/05/andrea-tantaros-ground-zero-mosque-double-standard-religion-liberals/
-
Good question.
OPINION
Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
By Andrea Tantaros
Published August 06, 2010 | FoxNews.com
The battle over the proposed mosque and community center near Ground Zero has sparked outrage and fury.
The argument from those who oppose it: it’s an incredibly insensitive move designed to deliberately provoke the nation from a radical Imam who says the U.S. is culpable for the attacks of 9/11. They’re correct.
What’s surprising is the level of outrage from the other side -- mostly those on the left – who argue we must allow the building of the mosque and community center in the name of tolerance of Islam. Where are these shrieking voices in defense when other religions like Christianity and Judaism are under attack?
There has always been a double standard when it comes to understanding and explaining the Muslim religion verses Christianity.
While many Muslim countries ban women from voting, driving a car, and threaten to kill anyone who speaks of Christ within their borders, you rarely hear those on the left invoke sharp criticism or shake their finger in fury.
Instead, they save the attacks and their selective attention span for the random “Christian” who blocks an abortion clinic.
When the radical Islamic Fort Hood shooter claimed the life of twelve soldiers, the media dubbed him “troubled.”
A CNN.com article, along with many others, only identified him an “Army psychologist” and failed to make any reference to his ties to radical jihadism or make initial references to his religion – even after e-mails were found detailing his extremist views.
But when a Michigan-based militia group was indicted in an alleged plot to kill law enforcement officers with improvised explosive devices they were quickly – and inaccurately – labeled as a “Christian militia group” – not just in the body of an ABC News.com article, but in the headline, too.
In his book “Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity," David Limbaugh details the double standard: The media portrays Christians as unreasonable and violent, charging them with violent acts against abortionists, abortion clinics or homosexuals while at the same time both Hollywood and the press downplay injustices and violent acts committed against Christians.
A favorite media tactic is the use of the pejorative term "religious right" to describe Christian conservatives, implying such believers are "intolerant” and “backwoods fanatics.”
It’s no big deal when newspapers dub Christians “The American Taliban.” And it’s okay for Ted Turner to call Catholics with ashes on their head “Jesus freaks.” But God forbid you refer to the guys crashing the planes into building as Allah freaks.
Comedian and commentator Dennis Miller offered an accurate explanation for why the left and the mainstream media seek to appease the Muslim community and have been defending the Ground Zero mosque so ardently on an August 4 episode of "The O’Reilly Factor": “People are afraid to say anything about radical Islam because they get blown up.”
Instead of staying true to our values so that we don’t let the terrorists win, many Americans (the president included) are shackled by fear or a belief that the nicer we are, the less they’ll come after us. They speak out on discrimination and freedom, except when it comes to defending Christianity.
That’s why the fervent defense of the Ground Zero mosque by those on the left was so unsurprising, and so nauseating. We are a nation of all religions, they chanted. We must stay true to our values, they screamed. Both of these statements are accurate. But why not defend Christianity or Judaism with that kind of passion?
If the Muslims who want to build the mosque for “bridge building” and an “interfaith dialogue” truly wanted to practice what they preach then they will move it or make it an actual interfaith center. Until then, the only bridge I see is the one that’s burning.
As Steven Schwarz, executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, wrote in the August 3rd edition of the New York Post, “Traditional, moderate Islam teaches Muslims living in non-Muslim-majority societies to obey the laws and customs of the country in which they reside. They must avoid conflict with their non-Muslim neighbors whenever possible.”
You see, tolerance isn’t a one sided thing. For the extremists that want to blow us up, it doesn’t matter what we say or do. They’ll still plot to destroy us. For the many millions of peaceful Muslims, they’ll respect us more if we equally defend and apply the same standard of tolerance to all religions that we do theirs.
Andrea Tantaros is a conservative commentator and FoxNews.com contributor. Follow her on Twitter @andreatantaros.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/05/andrea-tantaros-ground-zero-mosque-double-standard-religion-liberals/
where is the left wing outrage and "fervent defense" that they mention in the article
you'd think they list some examples or something so we can at least judge for ourselves if the "outrage" and "fervent defense" actually even exists or if it's just typical propaganda from Faux News
-
I'm not defending Muslims, but the American Christians (Bush People) were 100% behind the war of aggression that's responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent people being killed.
That's extremely christian... ::)
(http://whitehouser.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/gi-and-dying-iraqi-girl-0_22_450_baby.jpg)
I hope people who supported this despicable act are delt with by god when their time comes.
-
I'm not defending Muslims, but the American Christians (Bush People) were 100% behind the war of aggression that's responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent people being killed.
That's extremely christian... ::)
(http://whitehouser.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/gi-and-dying-iraqi-girl-0_22_450_baby.jpg)
Right out of the liberal playbook.
Even assuming what you say is true, what does this have to do with liberal inconsistency when it comes to Muslims and Christians?
-
Right out of the liberal playbook.
Even assuming what you say is true, what does this have to do with liberal inconsistency when it comes to Muslims and Christians?
I'm not a liberal, so I wouldn't know. I'm just against the senseless slaughter of innocent people, is that liberal? I thought that was just part of being a decent human being?
I'd be just as critical of modern Muslims if they were responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of my innocent Christian friends and neighbors.
-
I'm not a liberal, so I wouldn't know. I'm just against the senseless slaughter of innocent people, is that liberal? I thought that was just part of being a decent human being?
I'd be just as critical of modern Muslims if they were responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of my innocent Christian friends and neighbors.
I see. You're not a liberal, you just use liberal talking points . . . which have nothing to do with the thread.
-
I see. You're not a liberal, you just use liberal talking points . . . which have nothing to do with the thread.
I admit this fact to everyone here, if opposing the senseless slaughter of innocent people is a liberal "talking point", than I'm Nancy Pelosi.
:P
-
I admit this fact to everyone here, if opposing the senseless slaughter of innocent people is a liberal "talking point", than I'm Nancy Pelosi.
:P
Yes, you sound like Nancy Pelosi. :)
-
Yes, you sound like Nancy Pelosi. :)
I can't deny it anymore, I'm a liberal whore... ;D
-
I admit this fact to everyone here, if opposing the senseless slaughter of innocent people is a liberal "talking point", than I'm Nancy Pelosi.
:P
Very well said Eyeball! :)
-
I can't deny it anymore, I'm a liberal whore... ;D
Well . . . anytime you have Jag agreeing with you . . . .
-
Very well said Eyeball! :)
Thanks! Believe it or not but before now I wasn't aware that opposing the killing of innocent people was a uniquely liberal viewpoint. :o
-
Right out of the liberal playbook.
Even assuming what you say is true, what does this have to do with liberal inconsistency when it comes to Muslims and Christians?
What liberal inconsistency are you refering to? for the most part, liberals aren't onboard for some holy war, and aren't doing everything in their power to bring about "Armageddon". your article talks about American liberals being opposed to extremist behaviour within it's own borders, but faults them for not being outraged about extremism abroad? Maybe American Liberals like to focus on America? maybe they think interfering in other countries and imposing their will on other countries isn't their place, and maybe they just can't stand blind hypocrisy that hides behind the pulpit.
Why shouldn't Muslims be permitted to build a mosque in the vicinity of Ground Zero?
Do you believe that only Christians died in 911, ...that there were no Muslim casualties on that day?
...or is that you believe Muslims should not be permitted to worship?
-
Thanks! Believe it or not but before now I wasn't aware that opposing the killing of innocent people was a uniquely liberal viewpoint. :o
I never used to think so either, ...but after seeing the stateside discussions for the past 8 yrs... apparently it is. ;D
-
I still haven't seen any examples yet of the so called left wing outrage and "fervent defense" mentioned in the article
I guess if Fox says it happened then it must be true ;)
-
It's simple, really. Our own fundamentalists are actually worse because they've had the benefit of education, modern society and every technology in the world yet still see the bible as God's literal word. :)
Islamic fundamentalists are perceived as less of a threat because we'll eventually get scared enough to nuke them all. :) The killing won't matter much because they aren't real people for political purposes.
There isn't really much difference between either political group beyond what issues they choose to be hypocritical over. That's one of the reasons things are so messed up.
-
What liberal inconsistency are you refering to? for the most part, liberals aren't onboard for some holy war, and aren't doing everything in their power to bring about "Armageddon". your article talks about American liberals being opposed to extremist behaviour within it's own borders, but faults them for not being outraged about extremism abroad? Maybe American Liberals like to focus on America? maybe they think interfering in other countries and imposing their will on other countries isn't their place, and maybe they just can't stand blind hypocrisy that hides behind the pulpit.
Why shouldn't Muslims be permitted to build a mosque in the vicinity of Ground Zero?
Do you believe that only Christians died in 911, ...that there were no Muslim casualties on that day?
...or is that you believe Muslims should not be permitted to worship?
The mosque can be built any number of places, just not at ground zero. As drinking with Bob tried to explain in the clip 33 posted, it's common-freaking-sense. We don't have a Japanese shrine at Pearl Harbor. There is nothing honoring Germans at the Holocaust Museum.
Who said anything about Muslims not being permitted to worship? ::) They don't have the "right" to worship anyplace they choose. They have to right to build a church wherever the city council tells them too.
Hopefully, sanity will prevail and they move the mosque someplace else.
But this still doesn't explain the liberal inconsistency. I watched a portion of Anderson Cooper the other day interviewing someone about this. He was all over the guy. ::)
-
Islamic fundamentalists are perceived as less of a threat because we'll eventually get scared enough to nuke them all. :) The killing won't matter much because they aren't real people for political purposes.
You think liberals view Muslims as less of a threat than who? The Westboro nuts? Not much of a comparison between "radical Islam" and "radical Christianity."
-
Unless there are some actual examples of the left wing outrage and "fervent defense" I'm assuming the entire premise of the article is simply another Faux News Fabrication
-
The mosque can be built any number of places, just not at ground zero. As drinking with Bob tried to explain in the clip 33 posted, it's common-freaking-sense. We don't have a Japanese shrine at Pearl Harbor. There is nothing honoring Germans at the Holocaust Museum.
Who said anything about Muslims not being permitted to worship? ::) They don't have the "right" to worship anyplace they choose. They have to right to build a church wherever the city council tells them too.
Hopefully, sanity will prevail and they move the mosque someplace else.
But this still doesn't explain the liberal inconsistency. I watched a portion of Anderson Cooper the other day interviewing someone about this. He was all over the guy. ::)
Why not at ground zero? ??? It's not common sense to me, so why don't you explain it?
I'll forego watching the Drinking with Bob clip thankyouverymuch.
I prefer 2 way conversations with those a bit more rational, and far less psychotic empassioned
-
Why not at ground zero? ??? It's not common sense to me, so why don't you explain it?
I'll forego watching the Drinking with Bob clip thankyouverymuch.
I prefer 2 way conversations with those a bit more rational, and far less psychotic empassioned
I can't really help you with common sense part. You either have it, or you don't.
Islamic extremists were responsible for the destruction of the WTC. There are serious questions about the funding sources for this particular mosque. The guy (inman or whatever you call him) leading the effort essentially blamed the U.S. for the 911 attacks. The 911 victims families don't want it there. It's "common-freaking-sense." And I don't even need the bold, large font. ::)
In addition to common sense, you need to have that sensitivity gene to appreciate this.
-
I can't really help you with common sense part. You either have it, or you don't.
Islamic extremists were responsible for the destruction of the WTC.
Questionable, but for the sake of argument, I will not dispute this, but will accept it at face value
There are serious questions about the funding sources for this particular mosque. The guy (inman or whatever you call him) leading the effort essentially blamed the U.S. for the 911 attacks.
As do many muslims, christians, jews etc., both in and outside of the USA.
The 911 victims families don't want it there.
Understandable, reactionary, ...but not sufficient cause to prevent it from taking place.
I now understand the reasoning. but despite understanding it, i do not agree with it.
Just as Army Vets or gays do not have the right to prevent Westboro baptist church from erecting a church in or near the vicinity of Arlington national cememtary, neither do some of the family members of those who died in 911 have the right to say we don't want to see a mosque near where our relatives died because those who perpetrated the crime were muslim. What of the muslim families who lost members in the 911 attack?
Christians don't get to say we don't want to see any government building erected in Waco TX because a government agency was responsible for the deaths of our loved ones at the Koresh compound. And they shouldn't have the right to say ground zero should be a muslim-free mosque-free zone.
It's "common-freaking-sense." And I don't even need the bold, large font. ::)
cute.
In addition to common sense, you need to have that sensitivity gene to appreciate this.
I'd be a liar if I didn't at least admit that last little jab made me giggle.
In a perfect world, we would all be sensitive to the "sensitivities" (for want of a better word) of others,
...however, it does not justify infringing on the rights of others. Many atheists do not want to see churches erected in their neighbourhoods, and to them I say "Suck it up and deal with it". Public sentiment, no matter how sympathetic or empathetic should be considered sufficient justification for the infringement on the rights of others. You are living in America, not Saudi Arabia.
-
You think liberals view Muslims as less of a threat than who? The Westboro nuts? Not much of a comparison between "radical Islam" and "radical Christianity."
Less of a threat to our way of life due to the system of checks and balances America has in place.
Another issue is our Middle East policy has definitely caused some of this mess. People need to find enough character, honesty, balls, or whatever it takes so better policies can be made in the future. It's too late for fixing the mess over there but we can at least avoid the same mistakes.
Lastly, a mosque at ground zero sends the wrong message and will only cause more death. Anyone who can't understand that simple fact is either too fvcking stupid to debate with or deliberately being obtuse to get an emotional response.
-
Very simple. Most leftists are cowards and moral jelly fish and will go after people they know wont fight back.
Liberals are not scared of attacking priests or nuns because they know there will be no ramifications. This is why most liberals are silent on muslims. Muslims would not tolerate their garbage and they know it.
-
maybe they think interfering in other countries and imposing their will on other countries isn't their place...
Why shouldn't Muslims be permitted to build a mosque in the vicinity of Ground Zero?
It's truly amazing that you can't see your own hypocritical stupidity. Just amazing.
-
It's truly amazing that you can't see your own hypocritical stupidity. Just amazing.
It's not the same skip. I offer opinion to individuals who like to discuss politics and politic issues.
I don't invade the USA with B52 bombers and depleted uranium armaments in order effect regime change or policy decisions. If I did, I can assure you Bush would not have taken office let alone lasted for 8 years... and same sex marriage would have been the law of the land years ago... marijuana would have been decriminalized, and Universal health care would have been in place decades ago.
-
Why not at ground zero? ??? It's not common sense to me, so why don't you explain it?
I'll forego watching the Drinking with Bob clip thankyouverymuch.
I prefer 2 way conversations with those a bit more rational, and far less psychotic empassioned
Should anti-abortion zealots be allowed to erect churches of their faith where clinics have been bombed or doctors killed?
Should the KKK be allowed to erect their churches on the ashes of burned black churches?
Should fat people wear skinny jeans?
A mosque on ground zero will only lead to more death, not improved tolerance and understanding. Its construction can only be seen as spreading Islam by the sword to more radical practitioners. It's a victory for fundamentalism that will cause more attacks and increased Arab deaths when we retaliate to protect the status quo.
Only persons hell bent on seeing more American/Arab deaths or conditioned to ignore the humanity of brown people would be an advocate of this nonsense.
-
still not one example of the so called "left wing outrage" and "fervent defense"
just more bullshit from Fox News
-
still not one example of the so called "left wing outrage" and "fervent defense"
just more bullshit from Fox News
LMAO do some freaking research you turd...blacken posted a video with one of your liberal brothers having a coniption about conservatives and this...
-
Very simple. Most leftists are cowards and moral jelly fish and will go after people they know wont fight back.
Liberals are not scared of attacking priests or nuns because they know there will be no ramifications. This is why most liberals are silent on muslims. Muslims would not tolerate their garbage and they know it.
There it is!!!
-
LMAO do some freaking research you turd...blacken posted a video with one of your liberal brothers having a coniption about conservatives and this...
I haven't seen it and one person having a "coniption" does not = left wing outrage and fervent defense
show me some large numbers or some actual Democratic leaders doing so
it's all bullshit made up by Fox which they know their dumbounded viewers will gobble up without even asking if it's true or not
-
I haven't seen it and one person having a "coniption" does not = left wing outrage and fervent defense
show me some large numbers or some actual Democratic leaders doing so
it's all bullshit made up by Fox which they know their dumbounded viewers will gobble up without even asking if it's true or not
LOL goodness gracious a number of liberal NY politicians have come out in defense of this as well as their constituents...
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Liberals-Cheer-Bloombergs-Speech-Defending-NYC-Mosque-4589
-
LOL goodness gracious a number of liberal NY politicians have come out in defense of this as well as their constituents...
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Liberals-Cheer-Bloombergs-Speech-Defending-NYC-Mosque-4589
good - someone has finally provided some examples of fervent defense (or at least defense) but I still don't see any left wing outrage. The only examples of outrage I see is on the right.
I don't know NYC and I don't know how close this mosque is to "ground zero" but I can certainly understand the symbolism it would have to people in that city and to the country at large. The conflict we have is that our country stands for (or used to among other things) freedom from religous persecution. Isn't that what christians are constantly bitching about whenever they try to insert another bit of their religious beliefs or practices into our secular society. This mosque will probably be nothing but a problem and controversy
-
good - someone has finally provided some examples of fervent defense (or at least defense) but I still don't see any left wing outrage. The only examples of outrage I see is on the right.
I don't know NYC and I don't know how close this mosque is to "ground zero" but I can certainly understand the symbolism it would have to people in that city and to the country at large. The conflict we have is that our country stands for (or used to among other things) freedom from religous persecution. Isn't that what christians are constantly bitching about whenever they try to insert another bit of their religious beliefs or practices into our secular society. This mosque will probably be nothing but a problem and controversy
USE THE GOOGLE!!!!!!!!!!!
-
USE THE GOOGLE!!!!!!!!!!!
I can't believe you haven't broken the exclamation point key yet
look at my original post on this thread
Fox publishes an article without one friggin example of the supposed fervent support or outrage
I see there was outrage from the right (seems like that's the only emotion they have) and then support from the left
From the little I've read I can't figure out who actually owns this land (seems like Con Edison) might own some of it.
I thought right wingers and Tea Party types were also outraged about so called infringement of property rights.
Don't the owners of this property have the right to do with it what they want provided it's legal?
-
Threads like these always make me laugh. Chock full of morons and uneducated trash spouting off on a topic that they know dick about.
We've got Jag, the lazy-eyed moron who self-owns herself with 2 successive posts (nice owning Skip) and RPF, the community college student who thinks Islamic terrorism is a product of the Iraq war (Hint: Muslims have been waging jihad in some form for 1400+ years now).
Oh, how naive and uninformed the stupid and brainless are.
Carry on with your defense of people who would love nothing more than to either subjugate or murder you.
-
and RPF, the community college student who thinks Islamic terrorism is a product of the Iraq war (Hint: Muslims have been waging jihad in some form for 1400+ years now).
haha ;D
Which terrorists that attacked us came from Iraq, I can't remember? ???
-
Ground Zero Mosque Flap Reveals Left's Hypocrisy on Religion
Friday, 20 Aug 2010
By: David Limbaugh
Does anyone find it ironic that the very people who protest so loudly over supposed affronts to Islamic religious expression are often so hostile to the slightest Christian religious expressions — even incidental expressions?
The left is going bonkers over opposition to the ground zero mosque in the name of religious freedom, but the left's assault on Christian liberties proceeds unabated.
One very recent example is the ruling by a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that memorial crosses erected and displayed along Utah public roads to honor fallen state highway troopers must be removed as unconstitutional.
In case you are wondering how highway crosses could remotely be considered to have violated any constitutional provision, the court tells us: "We hold that these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion."
So here we go again. Our politically correct-intoxicated culture is so allergic to expressions and symbols of Christianity that our courts leap to absurd conclusions to cordon off the chief allergen: Christianity.
To fully appreciate the outrageousness of the court's decision, you must understand that the memorial crosses were placed along Utah public roads by a private — not public — organization, the Utah Highway Patrol Association, which also maintains the crosses.
The egregious constitutional infraction here is not that the government put up the signs, which it didn't, but that the memorials were placed along public roads. Thus, "reasonable" passing motorists — as opposed, I guess, to those afflicted with anti-Christian road rage — might well assume that the government is endorsing the Christian religion. Horror of horrors. My gosh, what would the largely Christian Founders think?
Since the court is invoking the reasonable-man standard, let me just challenge its fundamental assertion right off the bat. I don't think it's a reasonable inference at all that the government is making a religious statement by permitting the placement of these memorials along the public highway.
On the other hand, I think the government would be (and is) making a statement against Christianity by denying this group access because of its paranoia about going into Christian-spawned anaphylactic shock.
Let's go through the constitutional analysis briefly again. The First Amendment includes two religion clauses: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (the establishment clause), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (the free exercise clause)."
These so-called church-state separation cases usually involve the establishment clause, which has been so expanded by the courts over the years as to be nearly unrecognizable in some cases.
According to many courts, the state doesn't have to establish a national church to run afoul of the establishment clause. It only has to be deemed to have endorsed (or even slightly favored) a particular religion — as you can see from the court's language above. This is absurd, but it's nevertheless the position many courts are purporting to edict.
Our judiciary has become so obsessed with preventing any hint of a nod toward Christianity (it doesn't exhibit similar concerns about favoritism toward other religions or faith-based secular themes) that it has thwarted the driving purpose of the establishment clause.
You see, the ultimate purpose of the establishment clause, just as it was with the free exercise clause, was to promote religious liberty. The framers knew that if there were a national church, there would be substantially less religious liberty. But under the ludicrously expansive interpretations of this clause, the courts are diminishing religious liberty in the name of protecting it.
If, for example, a high-school administration forbids a valedictorian from referring to her faith in Christ during her valedictory address under the convoluted reasoning that a single student's voluntarily expressing her faith somehow constitutes an endorsement by the school administration — and thus the state — it is prohibiting her freedom of religious expression and her free exercise rights. But given the dominance of secular forces in our culture, such concerns don't even occur to the courts.
It would be ridiculous enough for a court to hold that a permissive display on a public road of a cross erected and maintained by a private group with the express purpose of proselytizing constituted an impermissible state endorsement of the Christian religion. But it's insultingly offensive for this court to hold that such a permissive display of a cross whose primary purpose is to honor the fallen — not to endorse Christianity — is unconstitutional.
And don't tell me the court is erring on the side of caution here. No, its ruling is affirmatively hurting people and violating their real rights in the name of rights that don't exist, and it's shameful and unacceptable.
http://www.newsmax.com/Limbaugh/ground--zero--mosque--religion--Islam--Christianity--Utah--First--Amendment/2010/08/20/id/367999
-
Ground Zero Mosque Flap Reveals Left's Hypocrisy on Religion
Friday, 20 Aug 2010
By: David Limbaugh
http://www.newsmax.com/Limbaugh/ground--zero--mosque--religion--Islam--Christianity--Utah--First--Amendment/2010/08/20/id/367999
Newsmax?
David Limbaugh?
do you really expect anyone to take that seriously?
-
<Sigh>
1) The Iraqi invasion was not green lighted in the name of Christianity.
2) The reasons, purposes and justifications for the Iraqi invasion had absolutely nothing to do with religion.
3) Saddam, The United Nations, Bill Clinton, Syria, Iran, Osama Bin Laden and about 100 other seperate people and entities of varying religious backgrounds are just as complicit in the Iraqi invasion as "Christian" GW Bush.
4) The overwhelming majority of Iraqis killed during the invasion were killed by fellow Muslims
Conclusion: Your argument concerning Islamic extremism and the Iraq war is complete and utter nonsense.
Im surprised at you Ball. You usually have more wisdom and intelligence than this.
-
<Sigh>
1) The Iraqi invasion was not green lighted in the name of Christianity.
2) The reasons, purposes and justifications for the Iraqi invasion had absolutely nothing to do with religion.
3) Saddam, The United Nations, Bill Clinton, Syria, Iran, Osama Bin Laden and about 100 other seperate people and entities of varying religious backgrounds are just as complicit in the Iraqi invasion as "Christian" GW Bush.
4) The overwhelming majority of Iraqis killed during the invasion were killed by fellow Muslims
Conclusion: Your argument concerning Islamic extremism and the Iraq war is complete and utter nonsense.
Im surprised at you Ball. You usually have more wisdom and intelligence than this.
George you are the man. (No homo)
-
straight up
-
Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
Because liberals are also the enemy.
You, the conservatives, are the only TRUE Americans. Only YOU know the truth. Only YOU know what is good for the country.
I fucking hate fascism with a passion!
(http://www.kraproom.com/pacman/aod/gallery/d/4829-1/jerkoff.gif)
-
Because liberals are also the enemy.
You, the conservatives, are the only TRUE Americans. Only YOU know the truth. Only YOU know what is good for the country.
I fucking hate fascism with a passion!
(http://www.kraproom.com/pacman/aod/gallery/d/4829-1/jerkoff.gif)
my favorite new poster on this board! ;D
-
Because liberals are also the enemy.
You, the conservatives, are the only TRUE Americans. Only YOU know the truth. Only YOU know what is good for the country.
I fucking hate fascism with a passion!
(http://www.kraproom.com/pacman/aod/gallery/d/4829-1/jerkoff.gif)
Liberal Fascism
http://www.nationalreview.com/liberal-fascism
August 25, 2009 1:54 PM By Jonah Goldberg
________________________ ___________________
Well, it was a nice run. But I think it’s time to turn out the lights on the Liberal Fascism blog. Alas, turning out the lights on liberal fascism might take a bit longer.
As only the most loyal readers may have noticed, I haven’t been updating the blog much this summer. I fell out of the habit while I was on the NR Cruise and never got back into it. One reason for that might be that if you wanted to read about the themes of my book, all you had to do was open a newspaper.
Let’s see. Off the top of my head, in the first six months of Obama’s presidency we’ve seen corporatism and “state capitalism” run amok, in the government takeover of two car companies and numerous banks. Labor unions have become increasingly indistinguishable from the government and the party that controls it. Herbert Croly and the Progressives have once again been rehabilitated as founding fathers of the New Age. The entire liberal intellectual class is convinced that this the time for a new New Deal. Critics of statism are vilified by liberal elites as racists and fascists. (And those who refuse to get with the Gorian program are guilty of “treason against the planet“). When out of power, liberals lionized free speech and celebrated dissent as the highest form of patriotism. Now, they label dissent “un-American” and the president insists he doesn’t want to hear a lot of talking from anyone who disagrees with him. While the stench of eugenics and euthanasia do not quite sting the nostrils yet, the odor is detectable and the liberal impulse for controlling the lives of others has been re-exposed.
Indeed, our own messianic president, who insists that we can create a Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, also apparently believes that “we are God’s partners in matters of life and death” and that religious organizations that are true to their calling should rally behind a united front to expand the scope and role of government. When the head of state says such things, it is hard not to be reminded of the Progressive concept of the God State, a major theme of Liberal Fascism. The “State is the actually existing, realized moral life . . . The divine idea as it exists on earth,” Hegel declared in The Philosophy of History. The State, according to Hegel, was the “march of God on earth.” The progressives agreed. Richard Ely, the founding father of progressive economics, proclaimed “God works through the State in carrying out His purposes more universally than through any other institution.”
It’s revealing, to me at least, that I wrote the book with Hillary Clinton as the stand-in for the fascistic ideas lurking inside contemporary liberalism. Here’s how I put it in the new afterword for the paperback edition:
….And then something funny happened. A self-proclaimed “transformative” leader formed a self-declared “movement,” powered in large measure by a sense of historical destiny (“This is the moment!”), yearning for national restoration (“We will make this nation great!”), demanding national unity at all costs, and glorifying itself for its own youthful energy. At times his most conspicuous followers were blindly devoted to a cult of personality with deeply racial undertones and often explicit appeals to messianic fervor. This new leader of men—who earned his credibility from his work as a street organizer and disciple of Saul Alinsky—vowed to restore the promise of American life in a vast new collaborative effort between business, government, churches, and labor. His platform included mandatory youth service, a new civilian security force, and spreading the wealth around.
In short, Hillary Clinton, the indicted co-conspirator of this book’s original subtitle (“The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning”), was defeated by Barack Obama precisely because he was better able than any of his opponents to personify many of the themes discussed in this book.
Needless to say, I could go on. And I will, mostly over at the Corner. I haven’t given up my argument. I just don’t think the argument is best served by this stand-alone blog, particularly since NR has techno-changes coming down the pike. The blog will continue to exist in the archives and if you bookmark it now, you can revisit it and poke around as much and for as long as you like.
Summing Up
The book’s success in every respect was more than I could have hoped. Long time followers of this project will recall that the book was attacked years before it even came out. The dismaying thing is that most of the attacks on the book from the left weren’t all that much more impressive or substantial even after the attackers had the opportunity to read it (many of whom did not avail themselves of that opportunity). In case you missed it in the print edition of National Review, I did write a brief response to some of the critics who did read the book. It will be familiar to many who’ve seen me talk about the book or who paid close attention to this blog. Regardless, I’ve pulled it from behind the firewall for those interested.
Also, in the current issue of NR I have a short item on the recent spate of “Obama as Hitler” epithets being thrown around by a few people on the Right (and a lot of idiot Larouchies). A link is unavailable but here’s the relevant passage:
The simple truth is that I do not think it is in the cards for America to go down a Nazi path. I never said otherwise in Liberal Fascism, either….
….Indeed, while I don’t think it is remotely right or fair to call Obama Enhanced Coverage Linking Obama a crypto-Nazi (if by that you mean to say he’s a would-be Hitler), the real problem with all of this loose Nazi talk is that it slanders the American people. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen may have overstated his case in Hitler’s Willing Executioners, but he was certainly right that the German people were Hitler’s willing enablers. The overwhelming majority of the American people — in their history, culture, bones, hearts, souls, DNA, and carbon molecules — are not like that. That goes for American liberals and leftists too. The extent and depth of liberalism’s obtuseness on the subject of fascism (and much else) stews my bowels, but American liberals are still Americans, and Americans will not goose-step behind a Hitler, period.
As I make clear in Liberal Fascism, the obvious and pressing threat is not from a Hitlerite-Orwellian dictatorship but from a Huxleyan namby-pamby mommy state. That sort of system could seduce Americans into becoming chestless subjects of the State in exchange for bottomless self-gratification and liberation from the necessity of adult decision-making. Yes, there’s a danger that such a society could then be susceptible to some darker vision that lionizes the lost manhood of a half-forgotten past. But, by that point, this would be America in name only, if even that (“U.N. District 12″ has a nice ring to it).
I should note that I am not quite agreeing with David Frum’s recent broadside against conservatives who find relevance in fascism and Nazism. David writes “can we get a grip here” and I certainly agree that if people think Obama will become a Hitler, or even a Mussolini, they need to do some more thinking. But I think this bit from David is a sort of sleight-of-hand I’ve encountered many times before. He writes:
Contra Rush Limbaugh, history’s actual fascists were not primarily known for their anti-smoking policies or generous social welfare programs. Fascism celebrated violence, anti-rationalism and hysterical devotion to an authoritarian leader.
That’s all true, but misses an important point. What the fascists were or are primarily known for is not necessarily dispositive to the question of what they actually were. Speaking for myself, the relevance of the generous social welfare programs and anti-smoking programs is to point out that the Nazis weren’t exactly what we’ve been told they were. Sure, they were violent and hysterically devoted to an authoritarian leader, but they were also more than that and their popularity with the German people cannot be easily chalked up to those features either.
The Nazis did not rise to power on the promise of bringing war and violence. They just didn’t. They rose to power by promising national restoration, peace, pride, dignity, unity and generous social welfare programs among other things including, of course, scapegoating Jews. People forget how Hitler successfully fashioned himself a champion of peace for quite a while. Limbaugh’s counter-attack on liberals, specifically Pelosi, is exactly that, a counter-attack. He was saying that if liberals are going to call conservatives Nazis for opposing nationalized healthcare maybe they should at least account for the fact that Nazis agreed with them on the issue, not conservatives. If liberals want to have a fight over who is closer to fascism, I see no reason why conservatives should cower from that argument, particularly since the facts are on our side. But I reject entirely the idea that liberals today are literally Nazi-like, particularly if we are going to define Nazism by what “they were known for.” Liberals don’t want to invade Poland or round up Jews. As I’ve said many times, one naive hope I had for my book was that it would remove the word “fascist” from popular discourse, not expand its franchise. Alas, on that score the book is a complete failure.
The Scoreboard
But by other measures, it’s done far better than I hoped. When the book came out, its critics assured the faithful that it didn’t matter, wasn’t important and would be an embarrassment. That is still the party line for many, but the party line is increasingly disconnected from reality. The book has been translated into numerous languages, the latest being Romanian. Reviews keep coming out on blogs and in scholarly journals. The Independent Review’s critique was only recently put online [PDF ] and I’m told that the journal Interpretation has a review in the latest issue. I’ve spoken to college and graduate seminars and the book or chapters from it have been included on numerous syllabi. I’m still receiving invitations to speak at college campuses about the book. Predictions that it wouldn’t sell as well major liberal books have proven unfounded. In both the US and UK it went into numerous printings. Aside from reaching #1 on the NYT and Amazon bestseller lists and being named the #1 history book by Amazon readers for 2008, it has sold (according to Bookscan) more than 135,000 copies in hardcover and, so far, over 35,000 in paperback. The paperback continues to sell at a rate of over 1,000 per week two months after its release. (FWIW, bookscan allegedly only captures about 70% of sales). It’s no Tom Clancy novel, but as far as intellectual histories go, that ain’t too shabby. I don’t know if it’s one of the most important books of the last quarter century, but I am confident it will have a lasting impact and my thesis will gain respect, even if I don’t always get credit.
My thanks to everyone at NR, Random House, and most of all to my editor Adam Bellow for their support and help.
But, lastly, let me say how grateful I am to all of you who’ve supported the book, touted the book, used it in book clubs and sent it to relatives. Your encouragement has meant more than I can convey. Please keep sending me tidbits, insights and links to stories of the day that relate to Liberal Fascism (and if you have a time machine, please go back and send me some of that stuff when I was still working on the book!). Thanks so much for defending me and LF in the comments sections at blogs and elsewhere. Such efforts are not only appreciated but vital for the book’s long term success.
Oh, wait, sorry. If you made it this far I should let you know that I’m going to be starting an email newsletter in the Fall, at the Suits’ insistence. Expect book updates and arguments to appear there from time to time. Be on the lookout for announcements in September.
So that’s it. Thanks so much for everything and look for me in the Corner where the conversation will continue, amidst all the other conversations.
-
333 - you should spend more time speaking for yourself rather pasting the words of someone else
no one reads this shit
-
Does it not work in Americas favor to have the mosque built where they want it if it is proven later that it is being used to perpetuate fanatical anti American sentiment?
Then the people can say, "See, we were tolerant and let them build a mosque here and they used it for ill intentions so fuck you all, we're taking a wrecking ball to it and now the world can see that there was an ulterior motive for having it here." If that was really the case it would solidify the belief most anti Muslim groups have with others around the world that may not intially share that belief about the followers of Islam.
-
333 - you should spend more time speaking for yourself rather pasting the words of someone else
no one reads this shit
Fine - the left wing acts like the very fascists they claim to despise.
Is that easy enough for you?
-
333 - you should spend more time speaking for yourself rather pasting the words of someone else
no one reads this shit
Seriously! They do not do any thinking of their own.
-
Seriously! They do not do any thinking of their own.
::) ::)
Please you leftists claim you hate fascists and fascim yet applaud policies that are almost a tee fascist in nature.
-
::) ::)
Please you leftists claim you hate fascists and fascim yet applaud policies that are almost a tee fascist in nature.
Oh dear!
::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Seriously! They do not do any thinking of their own.
LOL yea I bet you think the stimulus is working and that the health care bill is going to save us money dont you?
all b/c obammers said so...
-
LOL yea I bet you think the stimulus is working and that the health care bill is going to save us money dont you?
all b/c obammers said so...
If you think I think that then it must be true.
Whether I do, or do not is irrelevant.
-
If you think I think that then it must be true.
Whether I do, or do not is irrelevant.
I think you are probably as pissed off as the rest of us right now, just for a few different reasons. Rightfully so too IMHO.
-
If you think I think that then it must be true.
Whether I do, or do not is irrelevant.
Seriously! They do not do any thinking of their own.
ohhh the irony...
-
Because liberals are also the enemy.
You, the conservatives, are the only TRUE Americans. Only YOU know the truth. Only YOU know what is good for the country.
I fucking hate fascism with a passion!
(http://www.kraproom.com/pacman/aod/gallery/d/4829-1/jerkoff.gif)
::)
-
Funny how no leftists in this thread have even bothered refuting the belief that the left doesn't defend Christianity as much as it defends Islam (probably because they know it's true).
-
Funny how no leftists in this thread have even bothered refuting the belief that the left doesn't defend Christianity as much as it defends Islam (probably because they know it's true).
True. And it's not so much defending Christians as it is defending the First Amendment.
-
Funny how no leftists in this thread have even bothered refuting the belief that the left doesn't defend Christianity as much as it defends Islam (probably because they know it's true).
It's actually very simple, true leftists can't defend it because it would go against their own core beliefs. The core beliefs of "Leftism" are founded largely upon social justice, which is contrary to biblical scripture, "Leftism" is also largely based on "what feels good" rather than what is good. Now some leftists call themselves Christians, that's between them and God but the core beliefs of a leftists still clash with the core beliefs of Christianity and for a leftists their "Leftism" takes precedent over their own religion every single time.
-
Look at the left and the progressive mindset over the past few years in this country--
1) Minorities should be give special treatment as well as preferences in academia and at the workplace. Affirmative action/ racial quotas will undo the negative effects of past discrimination. The result will eventually be a level playing field for everybody and less minorities will gravitate toward illegal activity . = FAIL
2) If we apologize to the rest of the world and soften Americas position of power, the rest of the world will like us a lot more and other countries will be more willing to do what we ask of them. In the end, this will level the playfield on the international stage and make the world safer. = FAIL
3) By being tough on Israel and giving the Palestinian authority more respect and latitude, the peace process will move forward and substantial gains toward peace will be made. Also, if the Palestinians are given the option to democratically elect their leaders, they will move away from terrorism. FAIL
4) If America avoids divisive language and agrees to talk with Iran, Iran will eventually compromise and end it's nuclear program.= FAIL
5) More government spending, more government regulation, higher taxes, more government entitlement programs, as well as taxing luxury items and the wealthy will stimulate the economy and create jobs= FAIL
6- 25 ( feel free to keep adding to this list)
-
Look at the left and the progressive mindset over the past few years in this country--
1) Minorities should be give special treatment as well as preferences in academia and at the workplace. Affirmative action/ racial quotas will undo the negative effects of past discrimination. The result will eventually be a level playing field for everybody and less minorities will gravitate toward illegal activity . = FAIL
2) If we apologize to the rest of the world and soften Americas position of power, the rest of the world will like us a lot more and other countries will be more willing to do what we ask of them. In the end, this will level the playfield on the international stage and make the world safer. = FAIL
3) By being tough on Israel and giving the Palestinian authority more respect and latitude, the peace process will move forward and substantial gains toward peace will be made. Also, if the Palestinians are given the option to democratically elect their leaders, they will move away from terrorism. FAIL
4) If America avoids divisive language and agrees to talk with Iran, Iran will eventually compromise and end it's nuclear program.= FAIL
5) More government spending, more government regulation, higher taxes, more government entitlement programs, as well as taxing luxury items and the wealthy will stimulate the economy and create jobs= FAIL
6- 25 ( feel free to keep adding to this list)
Progressive = Socialist
-
Beach,
The left is a tool of Satan. :)
-
I can see and empathize with both sides of this argument. What bothers me worse than if the mosque/cultural center ever gets built or not is this penchant for people to pigeon hole other people into nice neat catogories like Left wing Liberal, or Right wing Radical thinking that alone wins their argument. I'm neither liberal nor conservative on all issues. It's an insult that based on any one single position that someone would label me either of those things in an attempt to somehow discount my opinion as being less valuable as theirs.
As I've said before, I believe it is detrimental to us as U.S. citizens that we get so caught up in the us against them ferver of Republicans and Democrats. liverals vereses Conservatives, that we lose sight of the fact that BOTH parties have members in power that are figuratively raping us while they talk about they, once in power, will save us all.
Bottom line is, on this particular issue I disagree with some of you. That doesn't mean you are an idiot, radical, uninformed, less intelligent etc etc. It just means we don't agree on the issue. Hell, I could be wrong, and if shown to be wrong, I would change my opinion. But until then, why do some feel the need to resort to name calling and insults in a discussion? Just wondering..
-
What say you oh tolerant ones?
________________________ ________________________ ____
Giant Cross Stirs Controversy in Vermont
WPTZ ^ | 8-23-10 | Jackie Bender
LYNDON, Vt. -- Richard Downing and his wife Joan used to light up their 24-foot cross outside of their chapel during holy seasons. The town's development review board has already limited the number of days it can be lit up, and now officials want the cross taken down entirely.
"They felt that because of aesthetics it did not meet the character of the neighborhood, and so therefore, should not be there at all," said Municipal Manager Dan Hill of the Act 250 decision.
The Downings are appealing both rulings. They told Newschannel 5 that they are trying to appease neighbors by offering to plant trees around the cross, investing in dimmer lights and blocking out the light on certain sides of the cross. They want the cross to stay standing, and to be lit during Advent, Lent, and Mary's birthday.
"If it was a commercial thing and just any old sign, that would be fine," said Richard Downing, "But this is a cross. It's an integral part of any Catholic church. I've never seen a Catholic church that didn't have a cross on it."
Neighbors and town officials said the objection is not religious, and mostly concerns the lighting. But the Downings said the rulings have become an obstacle to their religious practices.
"We just think that they're infringing on our rights to practice our religion, and I think that they've gone a little too far in this case," Downing said.
A court ruling on the cross is expected in November.
-
I can see and empathize with both sides of this argument. What bothers me worse than if the mosque/cultural center ever gets built or not is this penchant for people to pigeon hole other people into nice neat catogories like Left wing Liberal, or Right wing Radical thinking that alone wins their argument. I'm neither liberal nor conservative on all issues. It's an insult that based on any one single position that someone would label me either of those things in an attempt to somehow discount my opinion as being less valuable as theirs.
As I've said before, I believe it is detrimental to us as U.S. citizens that we get so caught up in the us against them ferver of Republicans and Democrats. liverals vereses Conservatives, that we lose sight of the fact that BOTH parties have members in power that are figuratively raping us while they talk about they, once in power, will save us all.
Bottom line is, on this particular issue I disagree with some of you. That doesn't mean you are an idiot, radical, uninformed, less intelligent etc etc. It just means we don't agree on the issue. Hell, I could be wrong, and if shown to be wrong, I would change my opinion. But until then, why do some feel the need to resort to name calling and insults in a discussion? Just wondering..
-
I can see and empathize with both sides of this argument. What bothers me worse than if the mosque/cultural center ever gets built or not is this penchant for people to pigeon hole other people into nice neat catogories like Left wing Liberal, or Right wing Radical thinking that alone wins their argument. I'm neither liberal nor conservative on all issues. It's an insult that based on any one single position that someone would label me either of those things in an attempt to somehow discount my opinion as being less valuable as theirs.
As I've said before, I believe it is detrimental to us as U.S. citizens that we get so caught up in the us against them ferver of Republicans and Democrats. liverals vereses Conservatives, that we lose sight of the fact that BOTH parties have members in power that are figuratively raping us while they talk about they, once in power, will save us all.
Bottom line is, on this particular issue I disagree with some of you. That doesn't mean you are an idiot, radical, uninformed, less intelligent etc etc. It just means we don't agree on the issue. Hell, I could be wrong, and if shown to be wrong, I would change my opinion. But until then, why do some feel the need to resort to name calling and insults in a discussion? Just wondering..
In a sane world, the Imam, who claims to want to build bridges and is a man of the cloth, would have moved this thing without the need for all of this crappola based on decency and sensisitivies of the fact that the area is a burial ground of 3,000 dead NY'ers at the hands of Islam inspired terrorists who were funded by SA and other sources very likely to be funding this thing.
-
I'm not defending Muslims, but the American Christians (Bush People) were 100% behind the war of aggression that's responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent people being killed.
That's extremely christian... ::)
(http://whitehouser.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/gi-and-dying-iraqi-girl-0_22_450_baby.jpg)
I hope people who supported this despicable act are delt with by god when their time comes.
i know it won't do any good because you don't want to hear the truth but it wasn't Bush people who voted to use the American armed forces against Iraq. The leaders of the present democratic party voted in favor of deposing Sadaam Hussein too. It just chaps my ass that all of you simply refuse to accept the truth.
-
i know it won't do any good because you don't want to hear the truth but it wasn't Bush people who voted to use the American armed forces against Iraq. The leaders of the present democratic party voted in favor of deposing Sadaam Hussein too. It just chaps my ass that all of you simply refuse to accept the truth.
I think you may be right. I don't recall a lot of opposition to the plan to invade Iraq. The White House didn't consult me about it either or I could have saved them a lot of lives and money. Was the presentation both parties received prior to giving approval as mistaken as the one Powell gave us?
-
Look at the left and the progressive mindset over the past few years in this country--
1) Minorities should be give special treatment as well as preferences in academia and at the workplace. Affirmative action/ racial quotas will undo the negative effects of past discrimination. The result will eventually be a level playing field for everybody and less minorities will gravitate toward illegal activity . = FAIL
2) If we apologize to the rest of the world and soften Americas position of power, the rest of the world will like us a lot more and other countries will be more willing to do what we ask of them. In the end, this will level the playfield on the international stage and make the world safer. = FAIL
3) By being tough on Israel and giving the Palestinian authority more respect and latitude, the peace process will move forward and substantial gains toward peace will be made. Also, if the Palestinians are given the option to democratically elect their leaders, they will move away from terrorism. FAIL
4) If America avoids divisive language and agrees to talk with Iran, Iran will eventually compromise and end it's nuclear program.= FAIL
5) More government spending, more government regulation, higher taxes, more government entitlement programs, as well as taxing luxury items and the wealthy will stimulate the economy and create jobs= FAIL
6- 25 ( feel free to keep adding to this list)
Great Post... Here's another one for the list.
6. Let's allow illegal aliens to flood states like Arizona...and if the state actually attempts to protect it's border and actually enforce already existing federal immigration laws...Let's sue them! That way, when we give amnesty to several million illegals, we've just expanded the democrat voting base. Never mind that they will bankrupt the state with the social costs, increase the crime rate, send their money earned back to Mexico and eventually turn America into a 3rd world shithole- FAIL
-
I can see and empathize with both sides of this argument. What bothers me worse than if the mosque/cultural center ever gets built or not is this penchant for people to pigeon hole other people into nice neat catogories like Left wing Liberal, or Right wing Radical thinking that alone wins their argument. I'm neither liberal nor conservative on all issues. It's an insult that based on any one single position that someone would label me either of those things in an attempt to somehow discount my opinion as being less valuable as theirs.
As I've said before, I believe it is detrimental to us as U.S. citizens that we get so caught up in the us against them ferver of Republicans and Democrats. liverals vereses Conservatives, that we lose sight of the fact that BOTH parties have members in power that are figuratively raping us while they talk about they, once in power, will save us all.
Bottom line is, on this particular issue I disagree with some of you. That doesn't mean you are an idiot, radical, uninformed, less intelligent etc etc. It just means we don't agree on the issue. Hell, I could be wrong, and if shown to be wrong, I would change my opinion. But until then, why do some feel the need to resort to name calling and insults in a discussion? Just wondering..
I agree with some of this. Trying to label someone based on their position on an issue or two isn't always accurate.
I don't, however, believe calling someone a "liberal" or "conservative" is an insult or "name calling."
There are a number of people who are incapable of having discussions without insulting people. It's not unique to the board. Just a fact of life.
-
i know it won't do any good because you don't want to hear the truth but it wasn't Bush people who voted to use the American armed forces against Iraq. The leaders of the present democratic party voted in favor of deposing Sadaam Hussein too. It just chaps my ass that all of you simply refuse to accept the truth.
Correct.
-
Beach,
The left is a tool of Satan. :)
lol. The left is da debil. :D