450 posts IS a worse crime than wanting to kill us . by AURaptor

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

And including Hero, who by his own admission wants "liberals" tortured and killed.

Guess it's time to round up those "right-wing extremists" like Rappy and Hero, and let the good squad start in on 'em, eh?

Don't worry, guys - while you're being tortured, I WON'T be cheering on the agents of your doom; I'll be fighting against them just like I always have been. See, SOME of us believe that torture is wrong when YOU do it to THEM, and we also believe that it's just as wrong when THEY do it to YOU.

Guess that must mean we hate America and all those screwy ideals of equality, morality, and fairness...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 5:26 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I see the extreme right-wing (is there any other kind left in the repubican party at this point ?) having a serious mental malfunction at this point. Having a black man in the WH is a huge problem for them, but Arlen Specter was just too much to take, I think. Expect all sorts of craziness on all sorts of issues.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 5:48 AM

I don't think you ARE, Rue, but I would like some clarification. Are you calling ALL Republicans or Conservatives "extreme Right-Wing"? I had something written out, but thought I would hold off until I saw your response

Thanks a heap!

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 6:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Maybe hearsay stands up in YOUR court, sir....

Actually there are hearsay exceptions in the Evidence rules.

And I note for the record that in Court I have access to the Discovery process. That's where I say 'gimmie what you got' (a legal term) and they have to give me what they got.

In this case the evidence is in the hands of President Obama. It is not subject to Discovery unless and until a court case comes about. We are forced to rely on President Obama to voluntarily release those memos. Until they are released they are unavailable (and being unavailable they fall within a hearsay exception).

As for hearsay, the rule would not even apply here. "Hearsay literally means information gathered by the first person from a second person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience."

In this case the testimony is direct testimony about the contents of the memo by persons who had first hand knowledge of both the memo (meaning they read it...as opposed to being 'told about it') and the facts it alledges. Such testimony would NOT fall under the hearsay rule. The accuracy of the memo itself is another issue.

It would be subject to cross examination..."Mr. Vice President, you don't actually have these alledged memo's do you?" "No." "And you just expect us to take your word...no don't answer that...no further questions."

Then re-direct..."Sir, why can't you produce the memo?" "Because President Obama refuses to release them."

And then I'd put on the FIVE other CIA directors who have seen the memo. Then I'd call the President of the United States...who I remind you has not denied the memo exists or the truth of the matter asserted.

Believe me...these are trials the Democrats don't want to have. Suddenly the President is the one choosing not to do what he can to make us safe, while covering up the successful efforts of the Bush administration, efforts taken with the full knowledge and approval of bipartisan Congressional oversight.

Imagine the scene, some guy...maybe a Marine Corps Colonel in full dress uniform (worked last time) sitting before congress explaining how he saved countless lives from a "second wave" while the families of the 9/11 victims fill the seats behind him. Lets do it...just in time for mid-terms.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 6:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Anything that keeps you alive is worth it, eh? You have no values you'd treasure, aside from might makes right and enjoying the fantasy of completely erradicating what gives you trouble, like a bullied child?

I'm saying the living feel shame, the dead feel nothing. There are causes I'd sacrifice my life for. This is not a cause I'd sacrifice YOUR life for.

Quote:

I swear, this post of yours sounded like a masturbation fantasy.

I didn't mention Kelly Monaco even once...

Quote:

You Are All Powerful. Very old testament. Very Job.

Thanks...but I was going for Moses.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 6:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Aren't they the same ones who said Saddam had WMD, though? And by your own admission, that was a fraud. How many times do you think we'll let you try to pull the wool over our eyes?

The fraud was committed by Saddam Hussein.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 6:19 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

RIP

"Are you calling ALL Republicans or Conservatives 'extreme Right-Wing'?"

No. But the moderate republicans and conservatives are leaving the party in droves, and leaving it to the (imho) nut-jobs. With Limbaugh as the defacto party leader, and people like Rap, Hero and Geezer as the remaining faithful, the party itself is losing the last of its credibility as anything but a fringe element. And when I look at what ties them all together, it is racism and hate.

But this is probably a better topic for the other thread about the repubican party.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 6:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

How can he use the words "Arab race" and not stop short and just shake himself out of what he's cooking up in his head? How blurry is his picture that he lumps it all together, vast populations of wholy individual people, and put it in a pot labled "evil" and then pat himself on the back because no one performed genocide on them?

After reading your post I decided to go back and read mine. I stand by the point. In fact I was not sure YOU read my post. The I realized that you may not recognize that these postings are actually a dialogue.

Here is the first relevant part from a posting about the difference between us and the terrorists:

Quote:

If we were them...they would cease to exist in the fire of American fury. But we're not them...so instead the get water and mercy. Such is life

"If we were them" is the important qualifier that you missed.

My argument is that if we, the United States, had the same moral approach to the conflict as the terrorists, then they, the terrorists, would cease to exist in "fire" a rhetorical reference to our nuclear arsenal (also implying collateral damage such an attack would have).

That provoked this question by Chrisisall...who respects me:

Quote:
So what are you saying here, that we saved the Human race because of waterboarding...?

I responded:

Quote:

No...I'm saying we chose waterboarding over extinguishing the Arab race in nuclear fire. A choice they would not have made given the means and opportunity.

Again I noted that we, the Americans, chose waterboarding over the complete destruction of the Arab race, correctly drawing the distinction that the terrorists would not hesitate to visit such destruction against all of America.

I note for the record that my comment about choosing waterboarding over nuclear war is a bit extreme as there are many levels of violence between the two...but the point isn't about us...its about them. The terrorist would destroy us if they could...with whatever they had...and dance in the streets if they succeeded. We on the other hand weep, rage, and beg forgiveness for a level of violence much less then they would inflict upon us.

You see, we want to kill the terrorists. Not because they are Muslim, or from an Arab country (or from a non-arab Muslim country, like Pakistan), but rather for the simple reason that they want to kill us, not just American soldiers, not just members of the Bush administration, not just Wall Street execs, not just men, not just women...but all of us because the very nature of American society and culture is considered by them to be an abomination before their God.

Please consider the nature of our discussion and read the entire dialogue. Feel free to disagree and chime in so I can tell you why your wrong or admit that your right (far less likely, but hey...thats what its all about, right?).

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 6:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I also notice how he utterly fails to identify "the Arab race" he keeps referring to. Anyone who doesn't like the U.S. is his version of "Arab", I guess. But he can tell a "Seikh" from a Berber. Whatever a Seikh is...

When I say Arab I mean Arab. When I say Seikh, I mean Seikh (btw, they wear turbans, carry big assed knives, and, like the Indo-Iranians of Pakistan are a ethnic group on the Indian subcontinent, nice folks, we have a fairly large group here in Cleveland area, I'll tell my neighbor Harjot you said hello and think he's an Arab...I don't think he'll kill you on sight, but he could, he's a big guy, makes a mean BBQ sauce).

Apparently you think any Muslim with brown skin living from Morrocco to Pakistan is an Arab.

Do you also have trouble telling an Irishman for an Italian? Do you have difficulty explaining to your Welsh friends why they are English? Perhaps you see all those black folks and say "African" ignoring the fellas from the Outback of Australia or the half-white Hawaiian sitting in the Oval Office.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 7:57 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
RIP

"Are you calling ALL Republicans or Conservatives 'extreme Right-Wing'?"

No. But the moderate republicans and conservatives are leaving the party in droves, and leaving it to the (imho) nut-jobs. With Limbaugh as the defacto party leader, and people like Rap, Hero and Geezer as the remaining faithful, the party itself is losing the last of its credibility as anything but a fringe element. And when I look at what ties them all together, it is racism and hate.

That's a very poor conclusion to arrive at, something akin to what one of the Left's own "nut-jobs" Jeanine Garafolo said last week. It's extremely sanctimonious, absurdly condescending, and offensively biased. Rush Limbaugh is a radio show host, nothing more, nothing less. If anything, his recent rant about the "racist" Obama/Pirate incident has marginalized his views forever. There are serious people in the Republican Party, but there is no effective organization at this point. GW Bush and his Republican-controlled Congress for six years managed to undo everything that attracted me to the Party originally in the 1990's. But that still doesn't give me any reason to switch parties. And...
I can be against Obama's policies and NOT be a racist.
I can be against homosexual marriage and NOT be a homophobe.
I can be against un-checked illegal immigration and NOT be a racist/zenophobe.
I can be against Muslim Jihadism and NOT be a genocidal murderer. etc. etc. etc...
So please give some of us the benefit of the doubt in regards to our opinions and motives. If not, you make the same mistakes that Karl Rove made during his reign of secrecy in the White House. He determined it was not in the best interests of the Admin. to communicate to the country, or even explain what the fuck was going on. He vastly under-estimated the intelligence of the American people, and if you, Rue, and others do the same by marginalizing what others believe, then your current high crest of Liberalism that you're on the verge of attaining may disappear and be dismantled right before your eyes in a very short time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I also notice how he utterly fails to identify "the Arab race" he keeps referring to. Anyone who doesn't like the U.S. is his version of "Arab", I guess. But he can tell a "Seikh" from a Berber. Whatever a Seikh is...

When I say Arab I mean Arab. When I say Seikh, I mean Seikh (btw, they wear turbans, carry big assed knives, and, like the Indo-Iranians of Pakistan are a ethnic group on the Indian subcontinent, nice folks, we have a fairly large group here in Cleveland area, I'll tell my neighbor Harjot you said hello and think he's an Arab...I don't think he'll kill you on sight, but he could, he's a big guy, makes a mean BBQ sauce).

Apparently you think any Muslim with brown skin living from Morrocco to Pakistan is an Arab.

Do you also have trouble telling an Irishman for an Italian? Do you have difficulty explaining to your Welsh friends why they are English? Perhaps you see all those black folks and say "African" ignoring the fellas from the Outback of Australia or the half-white Hawaiian sitting in the Oval Office.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

Are you talking about a "Sikh"? Yeah, those guys are Sikh, not Seikh. As for your neighbor, good for him, tell him I said "Hi". And I'm bigger than he is, by the way, but thanks for trying to threaten me like a child, by saying you'll have your neighbor beat me up.

And I wasn't the one who stated that "the Arab race" wants to wipe us from the face of the Earth in nuclear fire. You say "the Arab race" means Arab. From Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia wants to wipe us off the face of the earth?

YOU are the one who besmirched an entire race of people, not I. And now you've besmirched the country of Saudi Arabia. All *I* did was ask for clarification as to who you were talking about when you made the claim that "the ARAB RACE" wants to wipe us out. You've never made that clear.

I asked who you were accusing of wanting to wipe us off the face of the planet, and you've been backpedaling and sidestepping ever since, and trying to play the faux racist card against me.

Let's go back in recent history a bit. YOU were the one who claimed that "camel jockey" wasn't a racist term. YOU were the one who also claimed that Jap or Chink weren't racist, because they're referring to a person's nationality, not their race. And now you want to try to call me racist for asking who you are referring to when YOU claim that THE ENTIRE "ARAB RACE" AND EVERYONE IN IT WANTS TO KILL EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN AMERICA!

Man, you have got to be the single worst lawyer I've ever spoken with. I guess that's why you're a civil servant - maybe you're right; maybe the government really does hire the worst of the worst. It would explain your career...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Aren't they the same ones who said Saddam had WMD, though? And by your own admission, that was a fraud. How many times do you think we'll let you try to pull the wool over our eyes?

The fraud was committed by Saddam Hussein.

And GWB fell for it hook, line, and invasion.

You're not helping your hero's case by painting him out to be even more of an idiot than we already know him to be.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
RIP

"Are you calling ALL Republicans or Conservatives 'extreme Right-Wing'?"

No. But the moderate republicans and conservatives are leaving the party in droves, and leaving it to the (imho) nut-jobs. With Limbaugh as the defacto party leader, and people like Rap, Hero and Geezer as the remaining faithful, the party itself is losing the last of its credibility as anything but a fringe element. And when I look at what ties them all together, it is racism and hate.

That's a very poor conclusion to arrive at, something akin to what one of the Left's own "nut-jobs" Jeanine Garafolo said last week. It's extremely sanctimonious, absurdly condescending, and offensively biased. Rush Limbaugh is a radio show host, nothing more, nothing less. If anything, his recent rant about the "racist" Obama/Pirate incident has marginalized his views forever. There are serious people in the Republican Party, but there is no effective organization at this point. GW Bush and his Republican-controlled Congress for six years managed to undo everything that attracted me to the Party originally in the 1990's. But that still doesn't give me any reason to switch parties. And...
I can be against Obama's policies and NOT be a racist.
I can be against homosexual marriage and NOT be a homophobe.
I can be against un-checked illegal immigration and NOT be a racist/zenophobe.
I can be against Muslim Jihadism and NOT be a genocidal murderer. etc. etc. etc...
So please give some of us the benefit of the doubt in regards to our opinions and motives. If not, you make the same mistakes that Karl Rove made during his reign of secrecy in the White House. He determined it was not in the best interests of the Admin. to communicate to the country, or even explain what the fuck was going on. He vastly under-estimated the intelligence of the American people, and if you, Rue, and others do the same by marginalizing what others believe, then your current high crest of Liberalism that you're on the verge of attaining may disappear and be dismantled right before your eyes in a very short time.

You know, Jongsy, you ALMOST make is sound like I could be against torture and not be a freedom-hating terrorist-lover.

Or I could oppose the war in Iraq and NOT be a member of a French Al Qaeda sleeper cell.

Or I could be an Arab and NOT be hell-bent on wiping America off the map in a hell of nuclear fire.

I say ALMOST because all of these things and more have been proposed by people of your own Republican party.

Maybe that's where some of us get the idea that they're the party of hate and divisiveness.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:24 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"That's a very poor conclusion to arrive at ..."

I just read an article (now unavailable) where a sizeable group of moderate repubicans left the party - I don't remember what they called themselves - but they considered themselves social moderates and fiscal conservatives - and basically told the party to either dump the religious extremists or they would go. Guess what happened ?

"It's extremely sanctimonious, absurdly condescending, and offensively biased."

But increasingly true.
"Just 21 percent of those surveyed identified themselves as Republicans. That's the lowest since the fall of 1983, when just 19 percent identified themselves as Republicans. ... From a high-water mark of 35 percent in the fall of 2003, Republicans have slid steadily to their present state of affairs."

"If anything, his recent rant about the "racist" Obama/Pirate incident has marginalized his views forever."

If you mean losing support of the more moderate and sane people, I hope so. If you mean no longer the voice of the shrinking repubican party, we'll have to see.

"There are serious people in the Republican Party, but there is no effective organization at this point."

Which is what I'm saying. That leaves Limbaugh and other extremists in the de facto position.

"I can be against Obama's policies and NOT be a racist." But until you can elucidate a rational reason WHY, it gets left to others to speculate their own reasons. And if, like the repubicans in congress, you are opposed to EVERYTHING, such blanket opposition comes across as simply racist. Because you aren't reacting to issues, but to the president.
"I can be against homosexual marriage and NOT be a homophobe." I don't see how, unless you independently are a religious zealot.
"I can be against un-checked illegal immigration and NOT be a racist/xenophobe." But who is FOR un-checked illegal immigration ? Not Obama, not the party, not me. So this position is just so much grandstanding.
"I can be against Muslim Jihadism and NOT be a genocidal murderer. etc. etc. etc..." But until you disavow the statements of people like Rap, that position will be plastered to you. Remember, 'silence is consent'.

"So please give some of us the benefit of the doubt in regards to our opinions and motives."

I need to ask - why should I ?

I don't see you speaking up against Christian religious extremism. I don't see you speaking up against the racist rant of Rush or Rap or others. I don't see you speaking up against the blanket opposition to ANY policy put forth by the black man in office regardless of merit. I don't see you with an unbiased approach to any Obama-related incident or issue at ALL - from the budget to the pirates to the dog.

But to acknowledge this - you DID stand up - and quite eloquently and forcefully - against torture.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:44 AM

I don't think you meant me there, Kwickie, but I'll respond anyway.

I think this just goes to the heart of the matter that what is said by a minority of a group is taken as the stance of the entire group by the opposition. Goes for Democrats and Republicans, Right and Left, Liberal and Conservative. I can be a conservative and NOT be a hate-monger or divisive. It's not in my nature. But I sure as heck don't agree with most of the Liberal ideology. I'm not going to lump every single Liberal into the Looney Moonbat sub-group, though. Every group is made up of a vast cultural and environmental diversity of people. Let's agree on that, huh?

I don't recall hearing what you're saying coming out of the Republican Party. Certainly not those in the leadership roles. I'm not saying it's not there, I'm just saying I haven't heard it and when you do hear it from a member of ANY party or group, it should be taken with a grain of salt and mulled over what the actual beliefs of the majority of that party are. People call Hannity and Beck hate-mongers and vitriolic speakers. As a listener to both of these guys, I can tell you, they have their moments of outrage, but for the most part, they seem to be humble guys trying to get a message across. Beck is a truly funny guy. But if you get him upset over something, he'll tell ya, by golly. I don't think that makes him a hate-monger because one has to take all of his comments in context.

From what I can tell, these guys are NOT haters of everything non-Conservative. In fact, I've heard many conversations between each host and a member of the opposite view whom they consider dear friends. They both laugh and joke, they have an honest discussion and debate and then wish each other the best.

I'll give you an example of something I encountered a few years ago that opened my eyes a little bit. My wife's cousin was considering running for office as a Democrat. They were struggling with this because, yes, GW Bush drove them away from the Republican party. We talked a little while about it and he said that what I thought the Democratic Party stood for (pro-choice, anti-military, etc.) just was not true of the majority of the people he encountered. So I no longer lump all Democrats into the Looney Left bin. But there sure are a lot of outspoken Looney Lefters in the Democratic party that go unchecked. At the same time, I would agree that there are Right-wing nut jobs in the Republican party, but that's not the entire make-up of the party.

So, all I'm sayin' is that implying all that's left of the Republican Party are Right-Wing nutjobs is a broad, sweeping generalization that's not entirely accurate. It would be like me saying the only people left in the Democratic party are the likes of Al Franken, Harry Reid and Nancy Peolosi.

***Edited to add: I talk about Hannity and Beck, not Limbaugh. I don't listen to him very often, so I can't speak effectively to what goes on in regards to his radio program.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:54 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"... what is said by a minority of a group is taken as the stance of the entire group ..."

Until the majority of the party disavows those statements, they can be taken as representative of the party.

What happens is that the repubican party uses the extemists to appeal to a larger audience, to bring them in. It is their silence - and YOUR silence - that attaches you to the positions made in your name.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:56 AM

And the same can be said of Liberals. Right? That's all I'm saying, Rue. That BOTH sides have to claim responsibility for the outspoken "looneys" in their parties. I know the Democrats certainly don't seem to.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:57 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

"There are serious people in the Republican Party, but there is no effective organization at this point."

Which is what I'm saying. That leaves Limbaugh and other extremists in the de facto position.

IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT. YOURS IS A FALSE CONCLUSION DRIVEN BY PARTY DOGMA

Quote:
"I can be against Obama's policies and NOT be a racist." But until you can elucidate a rational reason WHY, it gets left to others to speculate their own reasons. And if, like the repubicans in congress, you are opposed to EVERYTHING, such blanket opposition comes across as simply racist. Because you aren't reacting to issues, but to the president.

RACISM IS YOUR SIDE'S WORD. I JUST CALL IT OPPOSITION TO A LEFT-WING LIBERAL AGENDA. REPUBLICANS OPPOSING THE DEMS ON EVERYTHING IS JUST DEFENDING THEIR CORE BELIEFS AGAINST SOCIALISM AND BIG GOVT.

Quote:
"I can be against homosexual marriage and NOT be a homophobe." I don't see how, unless you independently are a religious zealot.

ONCE AGAIN YOU DEMONSTRATE YOUR INTOLERANCE FOR THOSE WHO DON'T AGREE WITH YOU. HOMOSEXUAL MARIAIGE ISSUE IS AN AFFRONT TO THE MORAL, RELIGIOUS, AND ETHICAL SENSIBILITIES OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.

Quote:
"I can be against un-checked illegal immigration and NOT be a racist/xenophobe." But who is FOR un-checked illegal immigration ? Not Obama, not the party, not me. So this position is just so much grandstanding.

TELL THAT TO THE DOZENS OF LIBERAL DEMOCRAT MAYORS AND GOVERNORS WHO PROVIDE ILLEGALS WITH SANCTUARY PROTECTION. THEIR LAW ENFORCEMENT IS PROHIBITED FROM REPORTING THE ALIEN CRIMINALS TO ICE, A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

Quote:
"I can be against Muslim Jihadism and NOT be a genocidal murderer. etc. etc. etc..." But until you disavow the statements of people like Rap, that position will be plastered to you. Remember, 'silence is consent'.

IT'S NOT MY JOB TO DISAVOW OR REIN IN ALL CONSERVATIVES. THEIR OPINIONS HAVE VALIDITY, EVEN IF I DISAGREE ON SOME POINTS. I COULD SAY THE SAME OF YOU.

Quote:
"So please give some of us the benefit of the doubt in regards to our opinions and motives."

I need to ask - why should I ?
I don't see you speaking up against Christian religious extremism. I don't see you speaking up against the racist rant of Rush or Rap or others. I don't see you speaking up against the blanket opposition to ANY policy put forth by the black man in office regardless of merit. I don't see you with an unbiased approach to any Obama-related incident or issue at ALL - from the budget to the pirates to the dog.

WHY NOT? I'M NO BUSH DIE-HARD, & I'VE BEEN PRETTY FAIR TO OBAMA SO FAR. AGAIN, NOT MY JOB OR DESIRE TO COMMENT ON EVERYONE'S POSTS, YOUR'S NEITHER.

Quote:
But to acknowledge this - you DID stand up - and quite eloquently and forcefully - against torture.

THANKS FOR AT LEAST THAT.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:57 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

For example ... ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:08 AM

One thing that comes to mind is when John Murtha called the Marines in a certain altercation in Iraq (I can not remember the name, so forgive me for the mind-slip) "cold blooded murderers". This was before the trial even took place for these soldiers. When the trial was over and the soldiers were vindicated, Murtha did not apologize for his comments to my knowledge. Do ALL Democrats think soldiers are cold blooded murderers? Of course not, but the majority did not denounce his comments either.

But I'll be completely honest here, Rue. You ask for examples as if you can not think of a single one from the Democratic side and yet you can site example after example from the Repulican side. And YOU KNOW it happens on both sides of the aisle which is all I was looking for agreement on - a bipartisan agreement on what goes on in general on both sides.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:30 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Several generalizations and a few errros of fact which confuse your own argument - (Haditha, btw)

"When the trial was over and the soldiers were vindicated ..."
Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich and Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani still face courts martial, and have not been acquitted.

"When the trial was over ..."

This is what Murtha said:
"There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And that's what the report is going to tell…"
This is what a 'defense official' said:
"A U.S. defense official said on Wednesday, however that evidence indicates Marines deliberately shot to death unarmed civilians."

"Do ALL Democrats think soldiers are cold blooded murderers?"

You make the jump from those at Haditha to ALL soldiers. Murtha did not do that, I did not do that - YOU did that.

If you wish me to address this specific incident involving Murtha, I suggest you make your argument more accurate.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:36 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"You ask for examples as if you can not think of a single one from the Democratic side ..."

Actually - I can't. Not from Reid or Pelosi or Franken. Nothing racist, nothing violent. Sure, I think Pelosi is a skank politician. But that's a different issue for me than being an inflamatory bigot.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:39 AM

You're just trying to argue, which I guess is what makes you happy. YOU are the one wanting an example. I gave you one, granted with a few errors because of the lapse of time since the actual event. But my arguement holds true that he called the Marines cold blooded killers (killing in cold blood is the same thing just worded differently) before the trial and NO Democrat to my knowledge condemned his statements. Going by YOUR statements, that makes HIS comments the defacto statement of the entire party since no one spoke out against what he said.

Seriously. If you can't bring yourself to agree with me on the general fact that BOTH sides are guilty of this, just say so. I won't hold it against you. But then you will, in effect be staying silent on it, which I believe you say is constant. If it goes against everything you stand for to agree with a guy like me, then more power to ya.

I make no claims that Republican/Conservatives have NEVER said controversial or inappropriate things. Everyone does at some point or another. That's what makes us human.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:55 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"But my argument holds true that he called the Marines cold blooded killers (you originally said "cold blooded murderers") before the trial and NO Democrat to my knowledge condemned his statements. Going by YOUR statements, that makes HIS comments the de facto statement of the entire party since no one spoke out against what he said."

I'll nit-pick here just a bit.

Murtha was, and is, VERY careful with his words. He didn't say they were murderers as you claim he did. To be called a murderer, you have to go on trial for murder and be found guilty of murder.

What he said was that the REPORT on the incident would find that marines killed innocent civilians in cold blood. Indeed, that is what the report found. The report was done by Bargewell. (I couldn't find a link.) But the various news stories indicate that is what the report found.

"Three separate groups of U.S. military personnel visited the scene of a shooting that killed 24 apparently innocent Iraqi civilians never reported it up the chain of command, according to an Army general's new report.

A Navy bomb squad, a Marine intelligence team, and a Marine foot patrol failed to properly report the killing of civilians in the Iraqi town of Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005, according to the findings of Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell, which he has submitted to the U.S. commander in Iraq.

In the initial incident, a squad of Marines shot and killed 24 Iraqi civilians, including 11 women and children. Most were shot inside four houses. Five Iraqi males were shot after they got out of a taxi cab."

Did Murtha unfairly malign those men ? Not according to a court of law which dismissed the libel suit one of the men brought against Murtha.

In the end, Murtha made a factual statement that was well-supported at the time about THOSE men and THAT incident and what the REPORT would show. He did not go further than the facts allowed. He did not say all soldiers. He did not say all marines. He did not call them murderers.

Is THAT what you want me to criticize ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 11:11 AM

Quote:

I don't think you meant me there, Kwickie, but I'll respond anyway.

You're right - I didn't. I meant to address that to Jongsy, and screwed it up. My deepest apologies to both of you!

Carry on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 3:38 PM

What I would appreciate, Rue, is a concession that ALL people say regrettable, stupid things from time to time from both sides of the aisle and those people are not always denounced by their own party. That's all. Is that so hard?

Can't you agree to that one little, itty bitty point? You seem to be really struggling with that. You have this incredible urge to nit-pick and that's fine. That's your thing and I won't try and stop you. Maybe I should have brought up the whole Perez Hilton thing (his incredibly crude and vulgar blog about Miss California). I don't know. But you're missing the finer point and you're grasping at straws to avoid answering the basic gist of my question. If you simply can't bring yourself to do so, fine. I won't hold a grudge and hope you don't either.

But you're thereby saying that no Democrat or Liberal has ever, ever said anything derogatory or mean-spirited and that if they did, their party or group quickly stood up and denounced it and chastised them for doing so. And THAT, my friend, is highly unlikely.

I'll add this one little thing. You guys have been good to me for the most part and I appreciate that. But in one particular thread ("Auraptor, I have a question") the instigator of that thread posed the question and then disappeared for two weeks. She then came back 200 posts later after having NO input whatsoever, called him a few names and called an end to the thread. I posted that I thought her behavior was a little silly. I didn't call her names or anything. She responded with a VERY derogatory comment about me. And the response from the rest of you? Silence. So DID I automatically take it that ALL of you thought that way because you didn't denounce her comments? Of course not. I could have, but I didn't because I know you are all basically descent people. But that COULD be a microcosm scenario of something offensive and derogatory said by YOUR side that went unanswered and not condemned by her peers.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 4:02 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"... ALL people say regrettable, stupid things from time to time from both sides of the aisle ... Can't you agree to that one little, itty bitty point?"

Sure --- just not the example you picked - Murtha's comment specifically. Because it wasn't stupid. It was the truth. It may have been a truth you didn't like to hear, it may have been hard, it may have been carefully crafted to use exact words with exact meanings, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

"Maybe I should have brought up the whole Perez Hilton thing (his incredibly crude and vulgar blog about Miss California)."

In this case, I suspect that the silence you were hearing had to do with a big collective yawn of people who realized this was a non-item ! Because who takes him seriously ?

"But you're thereby saying that no Democrat or Liberal has ever, ever said anything derogatory or mean-spirited ..."

You brought up Pelosi, Reid and Franken. Then you brought up Murtha. While I'm sure they've said their share of politically motivated drivel, I honestly can't think of them saying anything equivalent to the hate-filled bile that spewed out of Bush and spews out of Rush and his followers.

I asked you for examples. I was serious. Please come up with a few for me to consider.

"She responded with a VERY derogatory comment about me. And the response from the rest of you? Silence. So DID I automatically take it that ALL of you thought that way because you didn't denounce her comments? Of course not."

Now that's an interesting question.

Speaking as a person who's had my patriotism, my morals, my intelligence and pretty much everything else attacked over the last 8 years - with NO ONE from your side coming to my defense either generally or specifically that I've noticed - and that attack being originated by Bush on down (you're either with us or you're with the terrorists) - I'd have to say I'm not Mother Teresa. But yes, I can pretty much trace it to your party, your president, your spokespeople. I'm not amiss in making that connection. And yes, while it may not be 100% of all repubicans, given the authority from where it comes, the scope and the volume, it does seem to be generally representative of the ever-shrinking group of people who call themselves repubicans.

I have nothing against you, personally - indeed, many good feelings instead - and I hope you have nothing against me. I do look forward to your posts. I truly hope we will continue to have many interesting and fruitful discussions - and perhaps even friendly ones ! That is my hope, anyway.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Until the majority of the party disavows those statements, they can be taken as representative of the party.

You just said all Muslims are terrorists.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You brought up Pelosi, Reid and Franken. Then you brought up Murtha. While I'm sure they've said their share of politically motivated drivel, I honestly can't think of them saying anything equivalent to the hate-filled bile that spewed out of Bush and spews out of Rush and his followers.

Thats because they're saying things that are consistant with your political philosophy.

Its why a Democrat can use the N-word. Its why nobody gets outraged when a popular and effective Republican woman is trashed for her appearance and accused of lacking intellegence...hell there's not one word of support from liberal feminists when said Republican is lampooned in a porn video.

You are correct that Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity rarely say anything that is the equivilant of what many liberals say...they keep their dialogue on a much higher level. Can't say that about Ann Coulter...although she's fun to listen too (kinda scary to look at...like my brain wants her to be hot...but she's just...not).

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:40 AM

Quote:
Posted by "Hero":

Its why a Democrat can use the N-word.

RRRRRREEEEEEAAAALLLLYYYYY...

So Al Franken could call Barack Obama - or Michael Steele, for that matter - an N-word (only actually using the N-word, not calling them "you N-word!"), and nobody would be upset? Really?

And even if that were true (it's not), what would that make you? Jealous?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Until the majority of the party disavows those statements, they can be taken as representative of the party.

You just said all Muslims are terrorists.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

Maybe she meant "the Arab race wants to wipe us all out."

Oh, wait - that was YOU.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:43 AM

CHRISISALL

Hey, COOL! Peeps think I'm a Liberal, so I can say it all the time now!!

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 30, 2009 5:06 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Originally posted by rue:
"Until the majority of the party disavows those statements, they can be taken as representative of the party."

Originally posted by 'hero:
"You just said all Muslims are terrorists."

Except, it HAS been disavowed by the vast majority. They are NOT silent. They are NOT complaisant. Remember how 9/11 was condemned around the world by political leaders and religious leaders everywhere ? Remember how thousands on thousands of Iranians held spontaneous candle-light vigils in mourning for the victims of 9/11 ?

Of course you don't.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 30, 2009 5:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Maybe she meant "the Arab race wants to wipe us all out."

Oh, wait - that was YOU.

I never mentioned the Arab race wants to wipe us out. Thats what you "heard" because you lump every brown skinned Muslim into one pot and call them Arabs...and you include terrorists in there too.

Actually that explains your inability to support the war on terror. To you, all Muslims are Arabs, Arabs (as a people) are NOT terrorists, terrorists are Muslims, which makes them Arabs, which means they can't really be terrorists. If there are no terrorists then America is fighting Arabs for no reason.

I still say that if the terrorists were us...with our power and their enemy was the Arab world...they would still destroy the entire Arab race If the terrorists were the terrorists (which is no stretch), and they had the power we possess, they would destroy the American race. That's what these people do.

My take is that the Arab people are caught in the middle. On one side an enemy that will kill anyone to achieve their goal, on the other an ally forced to fight a war in their midst.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 30, 2009 5:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Originally posted by rue:
"Until the majority of the party disavows those statements, they can be taken as representative of the party."

Originally posted by 'hero:
"You just said all Muslims are terrorists."

Except, it HAS been disavowed by the vast majority. They are NOT silent. They are NOT complaisant. Remember how 9/11 was condemned around the world by political leaders and religious leaders everywhere ?

Actually the majority has yet to be heard from. The women have NO voice...thats half right there, and the majority of those with voices are too scared to speak or are ignored. Some people, some leaders have spoken. Most stay silent and hope they don't get caught up in it...or stoned for trying to learn to read.

I do recall the sympathy, I also recall the cheering.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 30, 2009 5:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
To you, all Muslims are Arabs, Arabs (as a people) are NOT terrorists, terrorists are Muslims, which makes them Arabs, which means they can't really be terrorists. If there are no terrorists then America is fighting Arabs for no reason.

I still say that if the terrorists were us...with our power and their enemy was the Arab world...they would still destroy the entire Arab race If the terrorists were the terrorists (which is no stretch), and they had the power we possess, they would destroy the American race.

Sorry, but I gotta say it . . .

In the words of the mighty Captain Malcom Reynolds . . .

"Tawhabawho?"

That was darn confusing.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 30, 2009 6:11 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"The women have NO voice ..."

"Women now can vote in all Middle Eastern nations where elections are held, except Saudi Arabia." Laura Bush

"Women in the Islamic World have achieved high political status and have produced more than seven head of states including Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, Mame Madior Boye of Senegal, Tansu Çiller of Turkey, Kaqusha Jashari of Kosovo, Megawati Sukarnoputri of Indonesia and Bangladesh was the first country in the world to have a female head-of-state follow one another four times between Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina — each winning two elections each. Other than this women in Islamic countries have also become the vice president as seen with Masoumeh Ebtekar in Iran." Wiki

Are you saying they did not paricipate in those vigils ?

What ARE you saying, Hero ?
***************************************************************

Oh I get it - that the post-9/11 outrage and sympathy of the vast majority of Muslims world-wide doesn't count.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 30, 2009 6:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

I never mentioned the Arab race wants to wipe us out. Thats what you "heard" because you lump every brown skinned Muslim into one pot and call them Arabs...and you include terrorists in there too.

You're flat-out lying.

Here's YOUR claim, YOUR quote, in YOUR words:

Quote:
No...I'm saying we chose waterboarding over extinguishing the Arab race in nuclear fire. A choice they would not have made given the means and opportunity.

Right there you're claiming that "the Arab race", given means and opportunity, would choose to extinguish us in nuclear fire. You say we choose NOT to extinguish them, and then say that is not the choice THEY would make given the means and opportunity. You didn't say "the terrorists"; you didn't say "the Iraqis" or "Al Qaeda" or "Iran" - you SAID "THE ARAB RACE".

To say that you didn't say this is a lie. And to see you trying to weasle out of it now is pathetic. Own it. Man up, tough guy.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 30, 2009 10:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
No...I'm saying we chose waterboarding over extinguishing the Arab race in nuclear fire. A choice they would not have made given the means and opportunity.

Right there you're claiming that "the Arab race", given means and opportunity, would choose to extinguish us in nuclear fire.

You say we choose NOT to extinguish them, and then say that is not the choice THEY would make given the means and opportunity. You didn't say "the terrorists"; you didn't say "the Iraqis" or "Al Qaeda" or "Iran" - you SAID "THE ARAB RACE".

To say that you didn't say this is a lie. And to see you trying to weasle out of it now is pathetic. Own it. Man up, tough guy.

Own up to it or parse the statement...how about both.

In an earlier post I noted that the dialogue was about how we are not as bad as "them", "them" being terrorists...who are mentioned throughout the dialogue long before and after I incorporated the term "Arab race". (I note for the record that terrorists have killed far more Arabs then they have Americans...far more then even Americans have killed in two Iraq wars and the occaisonal bombing of whoever).

But suppose the statement is read your way...without the kneejerk reaction to the word "race" or someone daring to paint with broad strokes in a world of political correctness.

Arab race...would the Arab race given the power we have...that is the power to destroy America without fear of military retaliation...would they do it? Yes, I believe they would, although this topic may be worthy of a seperate dialogue wherin I defend my position and the rest of you try to convince me I'm wrong (which is the point of dialogue).

Make no mistake, most Arabs would not want to destroy America...but they would because their present culture is dominated by extremists who rule with terror and act without conscience. The will of the majority of Arabs is meaningless because they are ruled by a radical and violent minority. In the hands of peace loving, God fearing Arabs we could trust our safety...the problem is finding them before they are murdered and the weapons placed in the hands of those who would use them.

Therefore I stand by my statement...both as part of this dialogue and the alternate reading by those of you who either came late or lack the attention span to engage in the whole discussion.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 30, 2009 12:33 PM

Quote:

Own up to it or parse the statement...how about both.

Well, yeah - I can see that. If I were to "parse" your statement and read it just the way you wrote it, I can see where it might come across as racist.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 1, 2009 2:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Well, yeah - I can see that. If I were to "parse" your statement and read it just the way you wrote it, I can see where it might come across as racist.

Fair enough...although I think crying "racism" is just a cover for an inability to argue the point.

Why don't you just own up to that? Here:

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I lack the ability to argue in a rational manner.

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 1, 2009 4:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Well, yeah - I can see that. If I were to "parse" your statement and read it just the way you wrote it, I can see where it might come across as racist.

Fair enough...although I think crying "racism" is just a cover for an inability to argue the point.

Is THAT why you accused me of racism a bit further up this thread? I wondered why that was. Guess it was because you were beaten - badly - and could no longer argue your case.

Quote:

Why don't you just own up to that? Here:

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I lack the ability to argue in a rational manner.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

Now we're manufacturing evidence, are we? About what I'd expect from a cheap, no-talent civil servant like yourself.

And note the irony of a fabricated "quote" about lacking the ability to argue rationally.

Here's a REAL quote for you:

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with it.

How do ya like them apples?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 1, 2009 5:19 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I think summing up the whole of a people is difficult, especially when talking about 'arabs' who live in multiple countries with multiple slants on philosophy. It would be more akin to saying that all Europeans felt the same way about something, which defies belief unless you're talking about the sky being blue.

However, a good argument could probably be made that, if put to a vote, there are several mid-eastern nations who would vote YES to U.S. eradication.

A good argument could probably also be made that, if put to a vote, there are several U.S. states who would vote YES to various Mid-East country eradications.

Especially if it could be 'magical.' Like, push a button and the undesired nation will just magically disappear without nuclear muss and fuss.

You'll find a lot of groups of people in a lot of places that would like to see a lot of other groups of people just 'go away.'

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 1, 2009 5:38 AM

Quote:

I think summing up the whole of a people is difficult, especially when talking about 'arabs' who live in multiple countries with multiple slants on philosophy. It would be more akin to saying that all Europeans felt the same way about something, which defies belief unless you're talking about the sky being blue.

Yes, but first you'd have to lump them all together even further by claiming that "the European race" is this way or that way.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 2, 2009 7:53 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

I thought one of the main reasons we got into the war in Iraq was because Saddam was such a murderous bastard who happily tortured his many, many enemies. ie What he did was wrong. Well it was okay when he was on our side, then it didn't matter about the Kurds, but when he made the oil thing difficult, then he was a murdering torturing bastard, which is wrong when someone else, ie your enemy is doing it, but okay when you are doing it.

Morality has become such a movable feast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 3, 2009 2:17 AM

Quote:
Morality has become such a movable feast.

Tastes like chicken!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 3, 2009 1:33 PM