Bush is a hero

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#81939 Aug 8, 2010
Ds Higgins1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats quite irrelevant, since the primary mover for this mosque was an immam who said the USA was also responsible for 9-11. He also advocated for the US becoming "Sharia compliant"...
I didn't know that, but I'm not surprised.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#81940 Aug 8, 2010
WildWeirdWillie wrote:

...What he said on 60 Minutes two weeks after the 9/11 attacks was "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that you could find that view at any Tea Party rally.
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think so.
I don't think so either.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#81941 Aug 8, 2010
The religion of Islam is not a motivation for the actions of terrorists any more than the KKK's religion was a motivation for their actions. Religion is a sanctimonious cover and unifying tool for socio-political aims. In spite of the incoherent ramblings of a few disparate Allah-sputtering mullahs who find a camera, neither Al Qaeda, nor bin Laden, has stated that their goal is to conquer and convert America. They have been explicit in their "grievances", which have nothing to do with religion - despite crassly and cravenly couching it in religious terms - and everything to do with resources, ancient territorial squabbles, and what >they< perceive as historical meddling by the West.

I am not a Christian, but Christianity is the religion of my people and my heritage. Even tho' I have no "dog in the fight" per se, it is still an offense to me when cretins act out in ugly ways, and claim that they do so due to their Christianity. I know, and you know, that they are NOT acting as followers of Jesus, the Christ.

I can't understand why we can't extend the same consideration to Muslims whose religion is besmirched on the world stage by pathological cretins in their midst.

It is said that they are not doing enough to stop these people. At the top levels, this, I think, is an excellent point, BUT some of the strictest practitioners of the more fundamentalist edge of Islam are our "best" allies in the region. It is an inconvenient truth that Hussein was one of the more secular regimes in the region, so spreading Islam was obviously not one of his twisted motivations. If Islam itself is inherently evil and an imminent security danger, we sure got our dance card filed with a bunch of them.

As for opposing the extremists at the local level, is this a realistic expectation? First, far more Muslims than Westerners are being killed by extremists in their midst, so obviously they are bearing much of the "load", in lives and loss of property. Second, they have no resources to do so. It is an ugly situation all round, and I have no problem with America continuing to lead in seeking them out and daisy-cutting the bastards to glory, but to do so with conventional troops and armament, and then applying so-called "Rules of Engagement", is the very definition of military quagmire.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#81942 Aug 8, 2010
Roberta G wrote:
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
...What he said on 60 Minutes two weeks after the 9/11 attacks was "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."
I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that you could find that view at any Tea Party rally.
<quoted text>I don't think so either.
The Second Annual Boston Tea Party and Conference for 9/11 Truth!- Scientists & Citizens Speak Out!

http://boston911truth.org/teaparty/

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#81943 Aug 8, 2010
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Of course it wouldn't but somehow you managed to slip that in. my support of nuclear energy does not include a desire to see things polluted with nuclear waste, or not caring if there is a nuclear accident or two. People usually support things for what good it can do along with understanding that there is always a down side, but a belief that the down side can be alleviated with some work.
There are two reasons I thought it would get ugly.

The second was this attempt to portray advocating the use of a subterranean undersea nuclear explosion as 'support of nuclear energy.'

“What the hay”

Since: Mar 08

Florida

#81944 Aug 8, 2010
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>The fly in your ointment is that al Qaida is not building a mosque or civic center or your hyperventilating victory-tower.
You and al Qaida would have us believe that Islam was responsible for the 9/11 attack.
I'm sure there were black militants (Garvey, duBois) who held white people responsible for Rosewood the way you do Muslims for 9/11. The Nation of Islam and the New Black Panthers might do it today - maybe Rev. Wright too.
You've got a whole litany of crimes by Muslims against Christians (and Jews, if you need them). They've got a whole litany of crimes by whites against blacks - and they can throw in other people of color if needed.
That's my objection to what Roberta said, and it's only 'absurd' if one agrees with you and al Qaeda - that this is a religious war.
I hate being this person but liberals just get my dander up. You said “That's my objection to what Roberta said, and it's only 'absurd' if one agrees with you and al Qaeda - that this is a religious war”.
What is it that makes you think it’s not a religious war? And if it’s not a religious war than it must be an oil war. I realize we were attacked twice in New York but just why do you believe that is?

I could care less about the East. I would like to visit as a loving heart felt vacationer interested in their culture. However, I believe our bases and air craft carriers make them moody and dig in as anti West.

I know that all of you disagree. Sorry but that’s my mind.

This issue of the mosque is a no brainier… as in go to hell rag head…. Do it in your land not ours. We’re done with tolerance.

How’s that Willie? Expect less of me?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#81945 Aug 8, 2010
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>There are two reasons I thought it would get ugly.
The second was this attempt to portray advocating the use of a subterranean undersea nuclear explosion as 'support of nuclear energy.'
I questioned that, I did not advocate it. I was exploring what people knew, such as the Russians. Did a little research. What I did advocate for and I 'thought' Obama was briefly advocating for was the inclusion of nuclear energy in our energy policy. Willie what is wrong? I've not known you to misconstrue, purposely or otherwise, what people say and try to drag it out as evidence.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#81946 Aug 8, 2010
Willie wrote:
Funny.

I read it once and wanted to retch...
Willie wrote:
"The list is crap."
okBoston wrote:
Interestingly enough, you failed to answer my point. Secondly, belief in a "super" Godlike being has little to do with one's political views...your response; an unnecessary, inaccurate attack on the left without answering the question posed; certainly puts you down as a Republican or TEA Party member and not a conservative.
okBoston wrote:
"...That we God-believers on the left allow idiots who believe as she states to peacefully co-exist in our party?"
It seems I've provoked a rather strong response, and apparently I came pretty close to the bull's-eye :) Well, as I said a couple days ago, sticking pins into over-inflated balloons is one of my favorite pastimes. KEWL!

Now, having said that, may I point out that what I said was that these viewpoints are typically FOUND on the far-left. I never said that ONLY far-left people hold them, or that anyone here on this thread was on the far-left.
okBoston wrote:
Before we start once again correcting your misperceptions...
Thanks for reminding me, Boston. On my list of typical far-left viewpoints I should have included the seemingly inexhaustible appeal that "correcting" or "enlightening" lesser mortals has for the far-left. Apparently their fragile egos need the rush, and need it often, like any other addicts.

And once again, Boston, it is not for YOU or for anyone else here to "CORRECT" me on ANYTHING. There is NO attitude which will put my back up faster or more thoroughly than that kind of patronizing arrogance, and especially when it comes to things Christian, you are definitely not qualified to do anything of the kind.

By the way, Boston, I'm not going to be wasting any time answering your Post #81858, let alone #81865. If & when you can ever find an actual command to Christians to subjugate and/or kill people who won't convert to Christianity, we can discuss it then. But I'll save you some time by giving you some advice: the Old Testament contains NO COMMANDS for > CHRISTIANS < WHATSOEVER, so don't bother looking there.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#81947 Aug 8, 2010
Roberta G wrote:
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
...What he said on 60 Minutes two weeks after the 9/11 attacks was "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."
I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that you could find that view at any Tea Party rally.
<quoted text>I don't think so either.
The Tea Party is made up of more than social conservatives with ties to the Republican Party.

A number of libertarians are among the ranks of the Tea Party movement.

Many of them would describe themselves as non-interventionists and would argue (as Ron Paul has in public, as Peter has in this thread) that U.S. foreign policy has a role in the cause of the attacks.

I think that's pretty common knowledge.

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#81948 Aug 8, 2010
Ds Higgins1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Could you be any more clueless about the relationship between Christianity and groups like the Klan?
While the Klan aligned itself against many groups which included Christians, such as Catholics and Blacks, nonetheless, they identified themselves as fundamentalist Christians, were almost universally white, Christian, and middle class, mostly small business owners, and attended Christian churches every Sunday. They were against anyone whom they thought posed a 'threat to Christian culture and Heritage.' How can you claim there was no 'relationship' between the KKK and Christianity?

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#81949 Aug 8, 2010
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, having said that, may I point out that what I said was that these viewpoints are typically FOUND on the far-left. I never said that ONLY far-left people hold them, or that anyone here on this thread was on the far-left.
What I was wondering is, is there a near-left? Listening to conservatives, esp. in the media, all one ever hears is "far-left". Ask for a "far-left" list, and one appears easily. Who would be an example of "just-left"?

“What the hay”

Since: Mar 08

Florida

#81950 Aug 8, 2010
shovelhead72 wrote:
<quoted text>While the Klan aligned itself against many groups which included Christians, such as Catholics and Blacks, nonetheless, they identified themselves as fundamentalist Christians, were almost universally white, Christian, and middle class, mostly small business owners, and attended Christian churches every Sunday. They were against anyone whom they thought posed a 'threat to Christian culture and Heritage.' How can you claim there was no 'relationship' between the KKK and Christianity?
Once again interesting to me how the conversation turned from Moslem to the KKK which is a dead origination in modern terms verses the Moslem networks which thrives. The American sociological mind set is on of guilt and fatalism.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#81951 Aug 8, 2010
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
<sorry if dup>
Apparently the judge was appointed by George the Elder, and is Libertarian.
At any rate, traditional marriage has always been between 1 man and 1 woman. So my only objection is since it's not a traditional wedding, let's officially call it a "civil union", with all the same rights as traditional couples.

Traditional marriage then remains unchanged, gays get equal rights, and can call it whatever they wish, afterward.
IIRC, their main complaint at first was that they only wanted the same rights as traditional married couples. But later, "civil union" wasn't good enough. Nope. They want to be "officially married" same as in a traditional wedding.

So if the SC rules in their favor, traditional married couples will then have to SHARE the "raised platform" with "non-traditional" couples, triples, or whatever the number shakes out to. I just think gays should be satisfied with the giant strides they've made, and leave traditional marriage alone, where it belongs (IMO).
Hear, hear :)

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#81952 Aug 8, 2010
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>It seems I've provoked a rather strong response, and apparently I came pretty close to the bull's-eye :)
I stand by what I said to DS - your list is as close to the bull's eye as one compiled about the right by Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell, Janeane Garafalo, and Joy Behar would be.

I don't think one needs to be a psychic or a mind reader to have a reasonable idea what the reaction to such a list by those individuals about conservatives might be.

My reaction was to the notion of a list in the first place, not some alarm that you were coming close to an ugly truth I don't want revealed.

Believe it or don't - and obviously, at least one poster cannot.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#81953 Aug 8, 2010
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>What I was wondering is, is there a near-left? Listening to conservatives, esp. in the media, all one ever hears is "far-left". Ask for a "far-left" list, and one appears easily. Who would be an example of "just-left"?
You and Willie :)

Juan Williams, for another. He's definitely a liberal, but he's no loon.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#81954 Aug 8, 2010
Poggy Bill wrote:
<quoted text>Once again interesting to me how the conversation turned from Moslem to the KKK which is a dead origination in modern terms verses the Moslem networks which thrives. The American sociological mind set is on of guilt and fatalism.
Are you sure of that, Poggy? Seems to me the klan still exists but has gone underground more. And it is a terrorist group, at least imo.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#81955 Aug 8, 2010
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I stand by what I said to DS - your list is as close to the bull's eye as one compiled about the right by Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell, Janeane Garafalo, and Joy Behar would be.
I don't think one needs to be a psychic or a mind reader to have a reasonable idea what the reaction to such a list by those individuals about conservatives might be.
My reaction was to the notion of a list in the first place, not some alarm that you were coming close to an ugly truth I don't want revealed.
Believe it or don't - and obviously, at least one poster cannot.
As I told Boston, he asked for examples of what far-left viewpoints seem to be. I provided them. Get over it.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#81956 Aug 8, 2010
Poggy Bill wrote:
<quoted text>Once again interesting to me how the conversation turned from Moslem to the KKK which is a dead origination in modern terms verses the Moslem networks which thrives. The American sociological mind set is on of guilt and fatalism.
The conversation didn't take the turn you think it did.

Roberta compared the building of the mosque/Islamic community center near ground zero to a theoretical Klan memorial on the site of the Rosewood, Florida (1922) race riot.

Further comparison was made between al Qaeda's claim to represent/defend Islam and the Klan's claim to represent white people and/or Christianity.

There was no guilt involved, as the reference on all sides was historical.

It can happen, you know.

:)

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#81957 Aug 8, 2010
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Are you sure of that, Poggy? Seems to me the klan still exists but has gone underground more. And it is a terrorist group, at least imo.
If you limit the discussion to the brand name, he's correct.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#81958 Aug 8, 2010
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>You and Willie :)
Juan Williams, for another. He's definitely a liberal, but he's no loon.
Not me.

I'm not only a far left liberal, I'm a socialist, potential communist, and suspected anti-Semite too.

I didn't know that until I started posting here.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 10 min PELE78 864,653
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 15 min disciple 599,644
The Christian Atheist debate 59 min Rosa_Winkel 2,002
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr RiccardoFire 6,463
gay bottom in gurgaon (May '14) 1 hr Raje 449
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr GREAT DAY OF ARMA... 40,874
News Vermont towns vote to arrest Bush and Cheney (Mar '08) 1 hr Alex - Infowars d... 1,165
More from around the web