Author Topic: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?  (Read 6346 times)

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24454
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #25 on: August 08, 2010, 07:00:08 AM »

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.
w

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18182
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #26 on: August 08, 2010, 08:55:28 AM »
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.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #27 on: August 08, 2010, 09:11:17 AM »
still not one example of the so called "left wing outrage" and "fervent defense"

just more bullshit from Fox News

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #28 on: August 08, 2010, 09:15:02 AM »
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...

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19338
  • Getbig!
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #29 on: August 08, 2010, 09:17:29 AM »
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!!!


Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #30 on: August 08, 2010, 09:19:46 AM »
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

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #31 on: August 08, 2010, 09:27:10 AM »
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


Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #32 on: August 08, 2010, 09:54:04 AM »
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



tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #33 on: August 08, 2010, 10:24:28 AM »
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!!!!!!!!!!!

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #34 on: August 08, 2010, 10:32:36 AM »
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?

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #35 on: August 08, 2010, 11:46:41 AM »
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.

Eyeball Chambers

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14348
  • Would you hold still? You're making me fuck up...
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #36 on: August 08, 2010, 01:02:05 PM »
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?  ???
S

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66495
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #37 on: August 20, 2010, 11:07:24 PM »
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

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #38 on: August 21, 2010, 10:36:40 AM »
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?

George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7362
  • TND
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #39 on: August 21, 2010, 02:29:44 PM »
<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. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66495
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #40 on: August 21, 2010, 03:37:25 PM »
<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)

tallgerman

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 1389
  • I love myself a lot.
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #41 on: August 21, 2010, 07:27:40 PM »
straight up

Slapper

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4305
  • Vincit qui se vincit
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #42 on: August 22, 2010, 07:04:28 AM »
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!


Danny

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4630
  • The original Superman
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #43 on: August 22, 2010, 10:36:28 AM »
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!




my favorite new poster on this board!  ;D
"What we do in life ECHOES in eternity "

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #44 on: August 22, 2010, 10:42:53 AM »
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!



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.
 

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #45 on: August 22, 2010, 10:56:51 AM »
333 - you should spend more time speaking for yourself rather pasting the words of someone else

no one reads this shit

Bindare_Dundat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12227
  • KILL CENTRAL BANKS, BUY BITCOIN.
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #46 on: August 22, 2010, 10:58:35 AM »
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.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #47 on: August 22, 2010, 11:01:22 AM »
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? 

Slapper

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4305
  • Vincit qui se vincit
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #48 on: August 22, 2010, 11:30:26 AM »
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.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Why Won't the Left Defend Christians As Fiercely As It Defends Muslims?
« Reply #49 on: August 22, 2010, 11:31:37 AM »
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.