DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on October 21, 2010, 03:57:43 PM
-
Obama Administration's Priority Is Public Relations
Vote for Endicott Peabody. He's better than you are. That bumper sticker slogan appeared, mischievously, in South Boston decades ago. Endicott Peabody, grandson of the founder of the elite Groton school, was then the liberal governor of Massachusetts. Some of those Irish-American wags, "Southies," had had it with Peabody's insufferable moralizing. They put out that gag bumper sticker, and it had its intended effect. Peabody was dumped unceremoniously in a Democratic primary. His political career never recovered. His prep school nickname, "Chub," spoke to his aristocratic pedigree. It's not something you should flaunt in our democratic republic.
Barack Obama is the latest Harvard liberal to give us the "Chub" treatment. His comments about the American people ("they") show how out-of-touch he is. During the `08 campaign, he dismissed the folks who live in what liberals call "flyover country" by saying they cling to their guns and religion and fear people who are not like themselves.
This is an administration that allowed a known jihadist to roam freely through a major army base in Texas. Nidal Hasan openly defied higher authority. He even gave PowerPoint presentations on why our enemies were right to use violence against us!
When this walking time bomb finally exploded, killing fourteen at Fort Hood, the Obama administration promised us an "investigation." What they delivered is nothing more than a whitewash of years of bureaucratic coddling of terrorism and winking at treason. It didn't even mention Islamism or jihad. The murderer had a business card calling himself a "Soldier of Allah." He cried out "Allahu Akbar" as he murdered his fellow soldiers.
Federal investigators had known about Hasan and his family going back to 2001. The FBI, we learn, was aware that Nidal Hasan had been exchanging emails with Anwar al-Awlaki, the al Qaeda leader holed up in Yemen. But the feds determined that because Nidal Hasan was said to be an Army psychiatrist and because he was asking Awlaki about the mental stresses on Muslims in our army, his emails were okay.
What?
Imagine it's World War II, and we have a German-American soldier whose parents were members of the pro-Nazi Bund in the 1930s. And we learn that our soldier has been exchanging letters with top Nazi brass. Do we think for a minute that the FBI in 1943 would have given him a pass?
What's the difference?
Our top leaders then, from President Roosevelt down to the lowliest private, were determined to win World War II. The Obama administration, as we learned from Bob Woodward's book, is primarily concerned about public relations. They don't actually want our enemies to win, but they're determined not to call the struggle a "war." It's an "overseas contingency." And they want to give enemy combatants all the protections and privileges of domestic criminal defendants. It's how the ACLU goes to war.
As Woodward makes clear, this administration is deathly afraid of offending its left wing base. They'd prefer not to mention Afghanistan or Guantanamo Bay if they can avoid it.
Here's the best proof that politics, not principle, is guiding the actions of the Obama administration: Nidal Hasan's arraignment has been held over for three weeks at Fort Hood, until after the midterm elections.
Why does this matter? Because he is being charged with thirteen deaths, not fourteen. One of Hasan's victims was pregnant. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA) applies wherever the federal government has primary jurisdiction, from the District of Columbia, to national parks, to military installations. It applies to our bases in Afghanistan and to our units and planes operating there. It applies to Fort Hood.
The law is called the Lacy and Conner Peterson Act, even though it would not have applied in the case of that young mother and her unborn son. Their murder was a state criminal matter for California.
The UVVA is also a part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). So why isn't Nidal Hasan being charged with the death of an unborn child, too?
Might it be because the Obama administration chooses not to raise this issue in the critical weeks leading up to midterm elections? Could it be because it does not want to further antagonize its liberal base?
Now, remind us, Mr. President: Exactly who is it who behaves irrationally when he is afraid? I think it's not the American people. Sadly, I think it's our current leadership.
Stand by for Obama and his party to get a Chubbing next month.
Not Evil......just wrong, disconnected, and dangerous (http://townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2010/10/21/obama_administrations_priority_is_public_relations)
-
If we knew Hasan was a risk all the way back to 2001 why wasn't he shot for being Muslim under the Bush administration?
-
If we knew Hasan was a risk all the way back to 2001 why wasn't he shot for being Muslim under the Bush administration?
14 people would still be alive so that is a very good question.
Or better yet maybe we should just ban guns & knives.
-
If we knew Hasan was a risk all the way back to 2001 why wasn't he shot for being Muslim under the Bush administration?
Ummm, because he didn't shoot anyone under the Bush administration?? And being shot for being a Muslim?? What the frell??
-
Ummm, because he didn't shoot anyone under the Bush administration
So you are saying the Bush Administration was powerless to do anything until Hasan actually shot people?
Why wouldn't the same apply to the Obama Administration?
-
A) The Bush administration should have been looking more closely at Hassan's ACTIONs (vs the asanine inference of him simply being a Muslim)
B) Because he murdered 14 folks, when the warning signs were starting to blare under the Obama Administration
-
A) The Bush administration should have been looking more closely at Hassan's ACTIONs (vs the asanine inference of him simply being a Muslim)
B) Because he murdered 14 folks, when the warning signs were starting to blare under the Obama Administration
So your position is that Hasan should have his rights abrogated simply because he exhibited potential to cause mayhem?
-
As his business cards and power point demonstration demonstrated....we're looking at far more than mere potential.
-
He even gave PowerPoint presentations on why our enemies were right to use violence against us!
Do you not agree that if our enemies strike us, we have the right to retaliate?
Why would it be different for other peoples?
-
Are our enemys held to response in purportion?
If it is right to strike randomly chosen members of the opposition group for them what is wrong about us doing so , to the very limit of our ability?
-
If we knew Hasan was a risk all the way back to 2001 why wasn't he shot for being Muslim under the Bush administration?
Bush did as much as he could have to defuse the potential for danger for American Muslims , he was almost worse than Obama.
-
Bush did as much as he could have to defuse the potential for danger for American Muslims , he was almost worse than Obama.
Was Bush wrong (defusing danger to American Muslims) in what he did?
-
Bush did as much as he could have to defuse the potential for danger for American Muslims , he was almost worse than Obama.
Was Bush wrong (defusing danger to American Muslims) in what he did?
Well , yes and no.
Preventing riot and lynching is always good , Bush did well to water the fire.
Closeing the eye to mad dogs , even (especially?)in uniform turns out to be pretty bad.
-
Closeing the eye to mad dogs , even (especially?)in uniform turns out to be pretty bad.
Were the eyes closed or was there not enough to take action upon.
Are you allowed to be a truther, root causer or other type of non mainstream voice without fear of government repression?
Was Hasan's Powerpoint anything other than an exercise in free speech?
-
Closeing the eye to mad dogs , even (especially?)in uniform turns out to be pretty bad.
Were the eyes closed or was there not enough to take action upon.
Are you allowed to be a truther, root causer or other type of non mainstream voice without fear of government repression?
Was Hasan's Powerpoint anything other than an exercise in free speech?
In uniform free speech is highly modified , becomeing a comisioned officer is volenteering to a high level of scrutiny and a rediculous level of responsibility. If this guys slant had been an "ism" with less popularity he would have been out on his can right quick.
Army officers can expect to be fired for expressing sympathy for the KKK which has not killed a member of the Army in several decades , or communism which is almost doremant now for two decades, how are we allowing someone inside the wire who expresses extreme sympathy for organisations that were killing Army personell currently?
-
So the proper response in hindsight would have been to relieve Hasan of his commission and lien his future earnings to pay back the cost of his medical schooling.
This is an administration that allowed a known jihadist to roam freely through a major army base in Texas. Nidal Hasan openly defied higher authority. He even gave PowerPoint presentations on why our enemies were right to use violence against us!
Methinks the administration that dropped the ball was Bush's. The Obama Administration was simply responsible for deploying Hasan's Unit which apparently was the breaking point for Hasan.
-
He even gave PowerPoint presentations on why our enemies were right to use violence against us!
Do you not agree that if our enemies strike us, we have the right to retaliate? Why would it be different for other peoples?
Someone seems to be forgetting who did the murdering here
-
Hasan was an American of Palestinian descent. Do you think he might have some legitimate grievances? Would they be equal to those grievances of the Jews? Do you understand his conflicting emotions?
Do you recognize that understanding does not equal condoning?
Your author squarely put Hasan on Obama's shoulders.
I called bullshit.
One of the things that set off Hasan were the confessions of US soldiers seeing him for therapy. He actually asked that some of his patients be brought up on charges. Do you think it impossible that US Soldiers might have killed innocents in the fog of war?
-
So the proper response in hindsight would have been to relieve Hasan of his commission and lien his future earnings to pay back the cost of his medical schooling.
[...........
Methinks the administration that dropped the ball was Bush's. .
I could go along with this , but the Presidents responsibility is less direct than the Officers who were writing fitness reports . Were the signs so odvious and blatant that it would have been easy to make a case for dismissal?
And...
If so ...
Was his being a Muslim a sheild against his case being prosicuted?
Then I might say that the president bears some responsibility for promoteing an affermative action plan for Muslims that encouraged papering over problems.
But....
I like that President Bush recognised the potential for backlash , riot or even lynching in the Nation and worked against it. Could President Bush have worked for civil harmony without makeing this error?
-
I could go along with this , but the Presidents responsibility is less direct than the Officers who were writing fitness reports . Were the signs so odvious and blatant that it would have been easy to make a case for dismissal?
Precisely. Blame doesn't belong with the inhabitant of the WH it lays with the entrenched bureaucracies.
This isn't the first time this has happened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kreutzer,_Jr.) in the military.
By the time Military Police arrived on the scene, Kreutzer was insisting that he had given plenty of warnings that he was going to snap one day and start killing, but that they had ignored him, and said that it was "God's way".
I guess that is equivalent to Allah Akbar
-
Hasan was an American of Palestinian descent. Do you think he might have some legitimate grievances? Would they be equal to those grievances of the Jews? Do you understand his conflicting emotions? Do you recognize that understanding does not equal condoning?
Do you recognize justification of evil is justification of evil. Again, his statements were not made in this vacuum you seem to pull out so frequently. Added to the totality of everything else Hasan, provides a stark potential that could and should have easily been avoided
Your author squarely put Hasan on Obama's shoulders.
It merely happened on his watch, manifested by the totality of everything else Obama, which the author conveniently added. Sorry, you're going to have to leave your vacuum at home. It has no place in a saloon.
One of the things that set off Hasan were.....
So, at least we have the concession of the ticking time bomb, referred to as Hasan. That is at least a step in the right direction
-
Do you recognize justification of evil is justification of evil.
Who is justifying evil?
What exactly did you expect Obama or Bush to do? As Plane rightly pointed out, where the decisions and precautions needed to take place were many layers down the chain. And the culture that ignored the signs were in place long before Obama decided to run.
Your author continues to harp on the Obama Administration for not charging Hasan with 14 deaths, yet it wasn't a week ago that you were arguing that the prosecutors could pick and choose what to charge someone with and the judge should just shut the hell up and accept it. Now apparently you have spun 180 degrees in your assessment of prosecutorial duties. .
Your author also seems to take issue with Hasans business cards. Apparently being a soldier of allah is far worse than being a Knight of Columbus or a Major in the Salvation Army. Must be because it is a Muslim thing.
What does being a soldier of allah mean to you? Does it bring on night shivers?
-
Do you recognize justification of evil is justification of evil.
Who is justifying evil?
Hasan, and his power point presentation. Explaining his version of "why" it doesn't change that
What exactly did you expect Obama or Bush to do?
His position of authority could have been recinded. Possible (and in hind sight, needed) counseling could have been implimented. Pooch, likely has far more intimate knowledge of specific military intervetions that may have been brought to bear, if the warning signs were dealt with vs merely observed. Point being, there were signs, and this bomb finally went off. It's entirely plausible it could have been prevented, given the acts Hasan was demonstrating. However, our PC dominated battlefield found yet another pothole to hide common sense in
Your author continues to harp on the Obama Administration for not charging Hasan with 14 deaths, yet it wasn't a week ago that you were arguing that the prosecutors could pick and choose what to charge someone with and the judge should just shut the hell up and accept it. Now apparently you have spun 180 degrees in your assessment of prosecutorial duties.
What the frell??
Your author also seems to take issue with Hasans business cards. Apparently being a soldier of allah is far worse than being a Knight of Columbus or a Major in the Salvation Army. Must be because it is a Muslim thing.
Ahhh....that's what its about. Because we see Salvation army terrorists all the time, don't we. You still can't get past the idiotic notion that it's completely plasuible that someone can find it completely offensive at the location of an Islamic mosque, near an American landmark, were thousands were murdered by Islamic terrorists, and yet not be an anti-Muslim bigot. So, actually, its a Muslim terrorist thing
What does being a soldier of allah mean to you? Does it bring on night shivers?
Doesn't even warrant a response. Sad even, considering the source. I think we're done with this
-
His position of authority could have been recinded. Possible (and in hind sight, needed) counseling could have been implimented. Pooch, likely has far more intimate knowledge of specific military intervetions that may have been brought to bear, if the warning signs were dealt with vs merely observed. Point being, there were signs, and this bomb finally went off. It's entirely plausible it could have been prevented, given the acts Hasan was demonstrating. However, or PC dominated battlefield found yet another pothole to hide common sense in
And this was to be done by a Bush or Obama executive order?
Hasan, and his power point presentation. Explaining his version of "why" it doesn't change that
You've seen this presentation?
I think we're done with this
You always seem to run away when i ask the hard questions.
-
Yea, because asking me if I have nightshivers at the meaning of a soldier of allah is such a "hard question". You dragged it down to that level. I mearly wiped my shoe clean of it
-
Do you believe the government can protect you from a terrorist attack?
How about a home invasion?
-
Do you believe the government can protect you from a terrorist attack?
How about a home invasion?
Excelent question!
Yes , anywhere that the government has forbidden that I be armed , the government must garuntee my safety at least as well as I would have.
I propose that it be made national law that in any place that any authority forbids US citizens to carry firearms , that this same authority becomes responsible to ensure that a responsible person who is carrying a firearm be present .
This even applys to private establisments where the government does not enforce my second admendment right , they must assume responsibility for my security in leu of my own security that they have allowed to be removed.
Once we have accomplished this , whacko gunmen will have much fewer zones of enforced helplessness in which to go hunting.
-
Obama: 'Just' wrong, not evil
Posted: October 21, 2010
Is President Obama evil or "just" wrong? A Rasputin or a Chamberlain?
Here's a letter I recently received:
"Tuesday morning I happened upon your show. You were so good and I had never heard you before. But alas, you began to extol Obama's recognition that there are certain things he knows he should have done differently. It was a nice hour or so while it lasted.
"Obama deserves no credit for anything. The man is a liar, a manipulator, a narcissist, a psychopath, a control freak, a Marxist, has no depth of knowledge about anything, etc., etc. But there you were, giving him the benefit of the doubt. 'Aw, shucks, he's not so bad after all.' He spewed this garbage right before the election and yet you believed him?! Obama has to have a change of heart, not a change of mind."
Point of clarification: I said and wrote that he would be the most radical, left-wing president in the history of this country ? and that the guilt-ridden post-racialists who put him there would rue the day. Unfortunately, Obama has lived down to my expectations.
But calling the president a Hitler without the mustache is an unserious position and one that does nothing to dissuade Obama supporters, many of whom now suffer nearly terminal buyer's remorse. It's as obtuse as saying "Bush Lied, People Died," or that George W. Bush ran for president so he could fabricate the intel to unjustifiably take the country to war to avenge his father and enrich his military contractor friends. And Obama doesn't act alone. Every Democratic senator voted for the "stimulus" and for Obamacare. Obama's leftism is mainstream to his party. If Obama is evil, what does this make those who support his agenda?
It's more than enough to say that Obama is an inexperienced, naive, wrongheaded ideologue who, even now, doesn't recognize the harm he is doing to the country.
But with crucial elections looming, Obama has already retreated on his promise to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" and now says it's Congress' responsibility to change the law. Meanwhile, his Justice Department defends DADT in court.
He hasn't even raised the issue of another bank bailout or a government-forced cessation of foreclosures ? despite the banks' recent admissions of negligence in processing home foreclosures. The Obama of two years ago would have used this as a pretext to intrude, if not take over the banks. What happened to his outgoing chief of staff's admonition to "never allow a crisis to go to waste"?
Obama no longer uses the word "stimulus."
He has exempted a number of businesses and organizations from some Obamacare regulations.
He no longer talks about cap-and-trade or union card check.
When was the last time we heard about shutting down Gitmo?
When was the last time we heard about a New York trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
Outreach failed. Islamofascists are still determined to kill us. The Arab and Muslim world has an even lower opinion of America than during the Bush administration. Obama's foolish attack on Israel for building "settlements" in east Jerusalem has made the Palestinians even more intransigent about the "peace process."
To paraphrase Joe Biden, no more "big f---ing deals." It's now small ball. But left-wing small ball is still left-wing.
But come November, things will change.
The next two ? or, after he is dragged reluctantly to the center, even six ? years of the Obama presidency will be spent trying to keep Obamacare from unraveling, as opposed to the march toward a Canadian-style single-payer socialized health-care system that he truly wants.
The president is an arrogant man with a racial chip on his shoulder. He is a wealth redistributionist who thinks of America as an imperialist power that needs to apologize to the world for its past sins.
But Obama is not evil. He's simply wrong, which in many ways makes him harder to deal with ? and even more dangerous. Obama has already made America a weaker nation ? both domestically and as a foreign power. That he's not out to intentionally destroy America makes him a larger menace. Good intentions make it difficult to persuade people to fight against his policies, and to focus not on intentions but rather on consequences and results.
Here's what C.S. Lewis said about people like Obama:
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Over the next two years, Obama's inevitable retreat toward the middle will be a tactical one, not reflective of a change of heart. It doesn't matter. He will either check himself or be checked.
America, however, will bear the scars for decades. (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=217733)
-
Yes , anywhere that the government has forbidden that I be armed , the government must garuntee my safety at least as well as I would have.
How would the availability of firearms protected you at the Murrah Building or at the WTC?
-
How would the availability of firearms protected you at the Murrah Building or at the WTC?
======================================================
You might have been able to shoot one a them Ay-rabs right betwixt the eyes and he woulda crashed somewhar else!
You mighta shot McVeigh afore he had a chanct to park his van with the bomb in it.
Mighta, coulda, shoulda.
-
Yes , anywhere that the government has forbidden that I be armed , the government must garuntee my safety at least as well as I would have.
How would the availability of firearms protected you at the Murrah Building or at the WTC?
Think about it .
If the government is responsible to make me as safe as I would make myself with firearms(when they remove mine) , this doesn't apply to any situation in which I couldn't help myself with a firearm.
On aircraft they ensure that we are disarmed and do not have nearly enough air marshalls to replace the safety we could have produced ourselves. Archie Bunker came up with the solution years ago, issue all passengers a gun. Make it a single shot with a low velocity prefraged slug. A hijacker would perhaps use it to shoot once , but he would then be a target for sixty .
Pilots who are not willing to pack heat should be fired.
Also one member of the crew should be a canine.
-
Is it the governments responsibility to make you personally safe? Is that a realistic expectation?
I have no problem with pilots being armed. I don't know if they should be fired if they choose not to arm.
-
Is it the governments responsibility to make you personally safe? Is that a realistic expectation?
I have no problem with pilots being armed. I don't know if they should be fired if they choose not to arm.
If the government enforces a handicap on me , they pick up at least as much responsibility for my safety as they removed from me.
Pilots are quite a lot responsible for passenger safety and can be required to train on any safety related equipment installed on the aircraft, whjy can't there be a combat requirement?
Arn't you going to comment on the cockpit gard dog idea?
-
Pilots are quite a lot responsible for passenger safety and can be required to train on any safety related equipment installed on the aircraft, whjy can't there be a combat requirement?
There could be i suppose. But wouldn't that decision be best left to the commercial carriers instead of another government mandate.
Not sure how practical a guard dog in the cockpit idea would be.
-
If the aircraft has 700 or more passengers there is room and reason to have a security staff as a part of the crew.
JAL could hire Sumo wrestlers and Karate instructors , Alaska airlines could have dog teams.
-
Yea, because asking me if I have nightshivers at the meaning of a soldier of allah is such a "hard question". You dragged it down to that level. I mearly wiped my shoe clean of it
Does the term soldier of allah scare you?
How about soldier of Jesus Christ. (2 Timothy 2:3-4 NLT) ? If i printed that on my business cards would i be under "their" suspicion? Would the ink on the paper cause me to empty loads into innocent civilians or would it take a whole lot more that?
This is the thing. Being a Muslim does not make you a terrorist, any more than being a Catholic Priest makes you a pedophile. And it is really lazy prejudicial rant by rote thinking to claim otherwise.
Perhaps while you are cleaning your shoes you can examine the evidence of the path you have been walking down.
-
Ahhh....that's what its about. Because we see Salvation army terrorists all the time, don't we. You still can't get past the idiotic notion that it's completely plasuible that someone can find it completely offensive at the location of an Islamic mosque, near an American landmark, were thousands were murdered by Islamic terrorists, and yet not be an anti-Muslim bigot. So, actually, its a Muslim terrorist thing
Perhaps we have made a breakthrough. Now where is the proof that those building the mosque have committed terrorist acts?
-
There is a difference between rational thought , logic and the way that people really think most of the time.
If someone commits a heinous act , shouts "I am blue" and commits another heinous act then states that he is doing it for the sake of his blueness lot of witnesses will associate blueness with the heinous acts. This will get reinforced every time that the same thing reoccurs.
There need be no proof that all of the blue are heinous act comitters The blue guys that are committing the acts want the association to be made and they are up front and public, there might be a grand majority of the blue nation that is simply quietly unwilling to do heinous acts , it won't matter if the heinous blue are energetic enough to outshout the peacefull blue.
Blue and heinous will be associated because they show up together a lot.\
This is a general principal not specific to the blue , think about your feelings of the KKK or communists or godless atheists or Guatemalans(reverse this if you are a member of one of these groups , it will work reversed) Did anyone ever have to prove to you that every single one of the group was equally heinous before you developed a negative impression of the group?
So next time the elevator door opens and you see that you are going to be in a tiny room alone with a bright blue guy , don't hesitate , go on in , the odds are greatly on your side , logically.
-
Yea, because asking me if I have nightshivers at the meaning of a soldier of allah is such a "hard question". You dragged it down to that level. I mearly wiped my shoe clean of it
This is the thing. Being a Muslim does not make you a terrorist, any more than being a Catholic Priest makes you a pedophile.
Never said it did. In fact, have made strenuous efforts to emphasize precisely that. You seem to be the one constantly trying to bring that up, as if it is, thus your problem, with the predisposed prejudice you're applying to anyone who doesn't agree with you
And perhaps the reason you started dragging this thread down into gutter territrory
-
Never said it did. In fact, have made strenuous efforts to emphasize precisely that. You seem to be the one constantly trying to bring that up, as if it is, thus your problem, with the predisposed prejudice you're applying to anyone who doesn't agree with you
Then perhaps you can explain your objections to the park51 mosque. You certainly haven't established that the builders are muslim terrorists, just that they are muslim. You go to great lengths to show your open mindedness by "allowing" them to build elsewhere, but it seems to me that to give in to others prejudices, as exhibited by Pamela Geller (she of the Mosque and Campbell Soups (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/for-pete%27s-sake/) protests) shows at least some agreement with their rationale.
-
There is a difference between rational thought , logic and the way that people really think most of the time.
If someone commits a heinous act , shouts "I am blue" and commits another heinous act then states that he is doing it for the sake of his blueness lot of witnesses will associate blueness with the heinous acts. This will get reinforced every time that the same thing reoccurs.
There need be no proof that all of the blue are heinous act comitters The blue guys that are committing the acts want the association to be made and they are up front and public, there might be a grand majority of the blue nation that is simply quietly unwilling to do heinous acts , it won't matter if the heinous blue are energetic enough to outshout the peacefull blue.
Blue and heinous will be associated because they show up together a lot.\
This is a general principal not specific to the blue , think about your feelings of the KKK or communists or godless atheists or Guatemalans(reverse this if you are a member of one of these groups , it will work reversed) Did anyone ever have to prove to you that every single one of the group was equally heinous before you developed a negative impression of the group?
So next time the elevator door opens and you see that you are going to be in a tiny room alone with a bright blue guy , don't hesitate , go on in , the odds are greatly on your side , logically.
So Mikey was right. Southerners are racist.
-
Never said it did. In fact, have made strenuous efforts to emphasize precisely that. You seem to be the one constantly trying to bring that up, as if it is, thus your problem, with the predisposed prejudice you're applying to anyone who doesn't agree with you
Then perhaps you can explain your objections to the park51 mosque.
Been there done that....adnauseum You simply keep removing the reasons provided, and keep repeating the nonsense that the implication is that all Muslims must be terrorists, ergo, anyone not agreeing with you is a religious bigot. No need to return to that death spiral. My conscience is clean
-
There is a difference between rational thought , logic and the way that people really think most of the time.
If someone commits a heinous act , shouts "I am blue" and commits another heinous act then states that he is doing it for the sake of his blueness lot of witnesses will associate blueness with the heinous acts. This will get reinforced every time that the same thing reoccurs.
There need be no proof that all of the blue are heinous act comitters The blue guys that are committing the acts want the association to be made and they are up front and public, there might be a grand majority of the blue nation that is simply quietly unwilling to do heinous acts , it won't matter if the heinous blue are energetic enough to outshout the peacefull blue.
Blue and heinous will be associated because they show up together a lot.\
This is a general principal not specific to the blue , think about your feelings of the KKK or communists or godless atheists or Guatemalans(reverse this if you are a member of one of these groups , it will work reversed) Did anyone ever have to prove to you that every single one of the group was equally heinous before you developed a negative impression of the group?
So next time the elevator door opens and you see that you are going to be in a tiny room alone with a bright blue guy , don't hesitate , go on in , the odds are greatly on your side , logically.
So Mikey was right. Southerners are racist.
In absense of logic , yes.
Basicly a false syllogism.
Bob is a racist
Bob is from Virginia.
Virginians are racist.
-
If someone commits a heinous act , shouts "I am blue" and commits another heinous act then states that he is doing it for the sake of his blueness lot of witnesses will associate blueness with the heinous acts. This will get reinforced every time that the same thing reoccurs.
There need be no proof that all of the blue are heinous act comitters The blue guys that are committing the acts want the association to be made and they are up front and public, there might be a grand majority of the blue nation that is simply quietly unwilling to do heinous acts , it won't matter if the heinous blue are energetic enough to outshout the peacefull blue.
===============================================================
I am thinking that it might be unwise to make so many anti-Smurf, anti-BlueMen, anti-Andorian comments.
Or are you just against Dan Ackroyd and John Belushi, the "Blues Brothers". who despite the name, wore black suits.
-
Basicly a false syllogism.
Do we endorse false syllogisms or are we simply acknowledging that the false syllogisms exist?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68ugkg9RePc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68ugkg9RePc)
-
Basicly a false syllogism.
Do we endorse false syllogisms or are we simply acknowledging that the false syllogisms exist?
Acknoledge the false part, this begs the question about what is true.
-
Acknoledge the false part, this begs the question about what is true.
In the case of objections to the park51 mosque, what is true?
-
The Smurfs had a much better song than these baba dee ba ba dee guys.
Someone needs to spread the word that rap is not actually music.
-
Acknoledge the false part, this begs the question about what is true.
In the case of objections to the park51 mosque, what is true?
No one is willing to argue that they havent got the right to build the mosque, even Twice as big and half as far from GZ they would have the right.
That is true.
The perception that they are callous to the feelings of Americans in general and New Yorkers in particular , that is true too.
Are they really callous ? Not necessacerily , they might instead be merely stupid.
-
Are they really callous ? Not necessacerily , they might instead be merely stupid.
Lots of stupid people in this world. And lots of people in this world to look down their noses at them.
Perhaps these Muslims just don't feel like validating the slur that all Muslims are radical Muslims.
And until I am shown that these Muslims are in fact radical Muslims, then i applaud their courage.
It takes courage to stand alone in the center ring. It takes courage to fight against the tide. And it takes certitude that your actions are within your rights, and if that is callousness so be it.
-
Are they really callous ? Not necessacerily , they might instead be merely stupid.
Lots of stupid people in this world. And lots of people in this world to look down their noses at them.
Perhaps these Muslims just don't feel like validating the slur that all Muslims are radical Muslims.
And there's the bogus assessment rearing its ugly head, yet again.........sad. It's precisely as Plane has opined. It's precisely what Krauthammer and many other a pundit opined. It's precisely what I've opined. And NONE of us have ever claimed, implied, or even hinted the notion that "all Muslims are radical Muslims". So why this knee jerk reaction to completely toss aside precisely the accurate position that Plane has provided, and instead insert precisely what he hasn't??
And until I am shown that these Muslims are in fact radical Muslims, then i applaud their courage.
Hard to be shown that which has never been presented
It takes courage to stand alone in the center ring.
I'd opine it takes more courage to admit when one is wrong
-
Radical Muslims are all Sunnis, at least that is what Muslims claim.
The origins of radical Islam in recent times began in Egypt in the 1950's,and then was bolstered when former Saudi religious police were sent to Afghanistan to combat the Russians. Saudi Arabian are Sunnis and Wahhabbis and the Saudi government sends a lot of missionaries to both Muslim and non-Muslim countries to proselytize. There are the Saudi government- supported Wahhabbi converts as well as Talibanis who are mostly Pashtuns converted to Wahhabbism in the 1970's and 1980's
Shias do not do this: they do not send missionaries, though they do send money to Hezbollah in Lebanon to piss off the Israelis.It is pretty certain that if they were really as badass as the Israelis claimed, they would be sending materials to make much more accurate rockets.
Americans include Iranian mullahs as radical, because they are anti-Israel.
The people who want to build the Community Center in NYC at Park 51 are Sunnis of the Sufi sect. The Sufis are the mystics of Islam and have never been violent.
-
Hard to be shown that which has never been presented
My point exactly.
I'd opine it takes more courage to admit when one is wrong
Who is wrong?
You ?
The Park51 Muslims?
Pam Geller and Company?
Me?
-
Are they really callous ? Not necessacerily , they might instead be merely stupid.
Lots of stupid people in this world. And lots of people in this world to look down their noses at them.
Perhaps these Muslims just don't feel like validating the slur that all Muslims are radical Muslims.
And until I am shown that these Muslims are in fact radical Muslims, then i applaud their courage.
It takes courage to stand alone in the center ring. It takes courage to fight against the tide. And it takes certitude that your actions are within your rights, and if that is callousness so be it.
What is radical?
I think these guys only want to spit in the eye of New York.
Is that ?
-
I think these guys only want to spit in the eye of New York.
And here I thought all they wanted to do was build a community center and mosque. If they aren't terrorists, and it hasn't been shown that they are, how is that spitting in the eye of New York. So no that isn't radical.
-
I think these guys only want to spit in the eye of New York.
And here I thought all they wanted to do was build a community center and mosque. If they aren't terrorists, and it hasn't been shown that they are, how is that spitting in the eye of New York. So no that isn't radical.
Finally, concensus, they aren't radical or terrorists. What they are is grossly insensitive and intolerant to America and those thousands of families who lost loved ones, at the hands of radicals/terrorists that murdered them in the name of their religion. If all they wanted to do was to simply "build a community center & mosque", they could've have done that anywhere else. Their choice not to demonstrates the above insensitivity and intolerance
-
What they are is grossly insensitive and intolerant to America and those thousands of families who lost loved ones, at the hands of radicals/terrorists that murdered them in the name of their religion.
And that should apply to non radical Muslims because?
-
If you can't answer that, when it's already been answered adnauseum for you, can't help you Bt. Suffice to say, it isn't about religious intolerance aimed at Muslims, nor trying to replace the above issue of American intolerance by muslims behind the building of this mosque with "all muslims are radicals" BS
-
If you can't answer that, when it's already been answered adnauseum for you, can't help you Bt. Suffice to say, it isn't about religious intolerance aimed at Muslims, nor trying to replace the above issue of American intolerance by muslims behind the building of this mosque with "all muslims are radicals" BS
Actually that is exactly what it is.
This whole nonsense about insensitivity on the part of the Park51 Muslims is nonsense, why should they be sensitive to folks who lump them in with a sub group of Islam that they have no link with.
I mean that's like saying you should sign up for the sexual offenders list because someone in your demographic is a sex offender, and by god you damn well ought to be sensitive to those who demand you sign up, no matter how illogical they are being or else you are obviously being insensitive to the victims.
BTW are you a big fan of reparations?
-
If you can't answer that, when it's already been answered adnauseum for you, can't help you Bt. Suffice to say, it isn't about religious intolerance aimed at Muslims, nor trying to replace the above issue of American intolerance by muslims behind the building of this mosque with "all muslims are radicals" BS
Actually that is exactly what it is.
Actually it's not....which is why you keep being debunked when you try to insert that which it is not
IF it were about religious intolerance about muslims or some implied all Muslims are radicals BS, then the rhetoric would be along the lines of
- Muslims should not be allowed to practice their religion here in the U.S.
- Muslims should be required to go thru some form of legislative loophole in order to build a mosque, anywhere they wish, within the borders of this country
- Muslims should be made to indentify themselves as Muslims (I mean if they have nothing to hide, why shouldn't they, right?)
- All Mosques should be placed under "protective" surveillance, by law enforcement
And other garbage like that...IF this were about such non-presented BS of religious intolerance aimed at Muslims
This whole nonsense about insensitivity on the part of the Park51 Muslims is nonsense
Actually that is exactly what it is
why should they be sensitive to folks who lump them in with a sub group of Islam that they have no link with.
Asked and answered already. Having the right to build does not equate to being the right thing to build it in the shadow of where thousands were murdered in the name of their religion...link or no link.
-
So because some reparations fool says you as a white man owe him money, you had best pay up because it's his perception that counts and not the reality of the situation.
Gotcha.
-
Nice try. That's referred to as apples and orangutans, as no one I'm aware of is demanding that Muslims owe anything to anyone, which is what the deflection on reparations would be all about. You're not trying to put a monetary amount on "sensitivity and tolerance" are you?? That would indeed be quite ridiculous...on far too many levels I could respond to.
I'll look forward to when you can actually provide some rhetoric that backs up your continuned non-existant conclusion
-
You are the one who is arguing that the perception of the opposition to Park51 trumps the reality of whether complicity exists amongst the builders of Park51 to the 9-11 attack.
I simply asked whether perception trumping reality was a universal truism. Money need not change hands.
-
LOL...you're the one trying to argue that demanding that people pay into some general African American fund equates to not supporting the notion of an Islamic Mosque being built so near where thousands of Americans were murdered in the name of Islam. Do you see how ridiculous that is??
You're also the one that has yet to present anything remotely resembling rhetoric or actions that could even possibly be construed as being intolerant to Islam or Muslims in general. And as such, we don't even meander into the all muslims are radicals nonsense
-
You are the one who is arguing that the perception of the opposition to Park51 trumps the reality of whether complicity exists amongst the builders of Park51 to the 9-11 attack.
I simply asked whether perception trumping reality was a universal truism.
Please answer whether that is your position.
A simple yes or no will do.
-
I'm asking for a demonstration of where this supposed rhetorical and/or actionable muslim intolerance is, that you claim is "exactly what it is", and have yet to see such. Get back to me when you have some, then we can entertain some of your hypotheticals.
A simple example (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/the-chub-n-chief/msg112390/#msg112390) will do
-
What they are is grossly insensitive and intolerant to America and those thousands of families who lost loved ones, at the hands of radicals/terrorists that murdered them in the name of their religion. (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/the-chub-n-chief/msg112381/#msg112381)
-
You understand who the "they" is right? Lemme give you a hint, it's NOT all Muslims, or even "most Muslims". It is specific to those muslims AND non-muslims who demand that this Mosque be built right where the proposed sight is, and the rest of America can go pound sand
Next "example" to be shot down, please
-
You don't get it, do you.
Why should anyone bow down to FALSE associations? Why should anyone cave in to any group that has an axe to grind. Especially an American of any religion.
-
And you don't get it...no one's asking anyone to bow down. Merely asking for a little tolerance to what happened to America, and move the mosque just a tad further away, given the events of 911. Nothing more, and no reference what-so-ever to "all muslims are radicals", or even most. Is that too hard to ask? Or is it your position that most, if not all Muslims want this Mosque built right there at the proposed site, and everyone else can go pound sand?
Is asking for a little sensitivity to those thousands murdered in the name of their religion, and their families still living with the grief & sorrow, and moving the mosque a mere few more blocks away, just too damn radical a concept??
Figuring out yet how this has nothing to do with intolerance aimed at Muslims, yet?? Quite the contrary, ironically, as it's far more intolerance aimed at Americans. Oh sure, they have the right to such intolerance. Doesn't make it right though
-
And you don't get it...no one's asking anyone to bow down. Merely asking for a little tolerance to what happened to America, and move the mosque just a tad further away, given the events of 911. Nothing more, and no reference what-so-ever to "all muslims are radicals", or even most. Is that too hard to ask? Or is it your position that most, if not all Muslims want this Mosque built right there at the proposed site, and everyone else can go pound sand?
Sure they are. The opposition to the center are in effect saying that because followers of Islam flew into the buildings that the mere sight of followers of Islam within walking distance of Ground Zero is just too painful a reminder of their loss. And any Muslim with an ounce of sensitivity should respect that.
-
You don't get it, do you.
Why should anyone bow down to FALSE associations? Why should anyone cave in to any group that has an axe to grind. Especially an American of any religion.
I think that people who beleive reparations are appropriate have a right to say so.
People who beleive reparations are a bad idea have a right to say so.
From your position which of these sets of people should be shutting up?
Should shutting them up have the force of law?
I think we have repeated often enough (that you should have noticed) that the folks who want to build the GZ mosque have a right to do so.
Much as we have a right to point out that this is perceived as crass , insinsitive and counterproductive and self defeating to any good purpose.
Now if radical Islamists like actual members of Al Queida were wanting to build any sort of gathering place in New York , they would have no right to do so. Anything that the Al Quieda owns in US territory ought to be confiscated , if not burnt down along with occupants.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Supertangent !
http://www.thekingcenter.org/ (http://www.thekingcenter.org/)
http://www.nps.gov/malu/index.htm (http://www.nps.gov/malu/index.htm)
Atlanta has a lovely park dedicated to the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Hypotheticly , the Sons of the Confederacy has the right to build on the next block a large showy tribute to the valorous Confederate Navy, life size replicas of the CSS Alabama , the Hunley, CSS Virginia and exibits of intrest concerning the Confederacy and its Navy.
Hey , we have the right to build it , and we ourselves are not guilty of anything at all , we ought to go on an build it because perception counts for nothing.
-
touche', Plane
-
Hypotheticly , the Sons of the Confederacy has the right to build on the next block a large showy tribute to the valorous Confederate Navy, life size replicas of the CSS Alabama , the Hunley, CSS Virginia and exibits of intrest concerning the Confederacy and its Navy.
Hey , we have the right to build it , and we ourselves are not guilty of anything at all , we ought to go on an build it because perception counts for nothing.
=========================================
Yes, of course, by all means build it.
The problem would be getting someone to pay for it. I agree that it is entirely legal. And hardly anything deserves more adulation and respect for a job well done than the Confederate Navy.
When can we get funding for a Mormon War Monument in Salt Lake City?
-
When can we get funding for a Mormon War Monument in Salt Lake City?
Mocking mormons again? Odd, coming from somebody who claimed they had so many Mormon friends.
-
I think that people who beleive reparations are appropriate have a right to say so.
People who beleive reparations are a bad idea have a right to say so.
From your position which of these sets of people should be shutting up?
Should shutting them up have the force of law?
Neither and no. But why is an in depth examination of each position so hard to accomplish?
I think we have repeated often enough (that you should have noticed) that the folks who want to build the GZ mosque have a right to do so.
They certainly do, having passed all legal hurdles to do so.
Much as we have a right to point out that this is perceived as crass , insinsitive and counterproductive and self defeating to any good purpose.
The focus of my examination.
Quote
You are the one who is arguing that the perception of the opposition to Park51 trumps the reality of whether complicity exists amongst the builders of Park51 to the 9-11 attack.
I simply asked whether perception trumping reality was a universal truism.
That question still hasn't been answered.
Now if radical Islamists like actual members of Al Queida were wanting to build any sort of gathering place in New York , they would have no right to do so. Anything that the Al Quieda owns in US territory ought to be confiscated , if not burnt down along with occupants.
Is this a straw man? Is anyone claiming that the Park51 folks are Al Queda?
Atlanta has a lovely park dedicated to the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Within walking distance of that center are numerous Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist churches. The primary religions of the Confederacy.
-
Hypotheticly , the Sons of the Confederacy has the right to build on the next block a large showy tribute to the valorous Confederate Navy, life size replicas of the CSS Alabama , the Hunley, CSS Virginia and exibits of intrest concerning the Confederacy and its Navy.
Hey , we have the right to build it , and we ourselves are not guilty of anything at all , we ought to go on an build it because perception counts for nothing.
=========================================
Yes, of course, by all means build it.
The problem would be getting someone to pay for it. I agree that it is entirely legal. And hardly anything deserves more adulation and respect for a job well done than the Confederate Navy.
When can we get funding for a Mormon War Monument in Salt Lake City?
North Charlston South Carolina is where this Museum will actually be built.
Probly will eventualy include the actual Hunley itself.
After it is opened it should be a big tourist draw.
Would it be tasteless to build it on MLKJr Street?
Southern Heritage is like this , we are the battlefeild of important ideas and still are , if we reject the heritage of every flawed person or group , we are left with nothing.
-
I think that people who beleive reparations are appropriate have a right to say so.
People who beleive reparations are a bad idea have a right to say so.
From your position which of these sets of people should be shutting up?
Should shutting them up have the force of law?
Neither and no. But why is an in depth examination of each position so hard to accomplish?
I think we have repeated often enough (that you should have noticed) that the folks who want to build the GZ mosque have a right to do so.
They certainly do, having passed all legal hurdles to do so.
Much as we have a right to point out that this is perceived as crass , insinsitive and counterproductive and self defeating to any good purpose.
The focus of my examination.
Quote
You are the one who is arguing that the perception of the opposition to Park51 trumps the reality of whether complicity exists amongst the builders of Park51 to the 9-11 attack.
I simply asked whether perception trumping reality was a universal truism.
That question still hasn't been answered.
Now if radical Islamists like actual members of Al Queida were wanting to build any sort of gathering place in New York , they would have no right to do so. Anything that the Al Quieda owns in US territory ought to be confiscated , if not burnt down along with occupants.
Is this a straw man? Is anyone claiming that the Park51 folks are Al Queda?
Atlanta has a lovely park dedicated to the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Within walking distance of that center are numerous Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist churches. The primary religions of the Confederacy.
//////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
You are mixing me and Sirs.
The rift between the Yankies and Rebels and the injurys and scars left by the institution of slavery are beggining to show some sign of healing. I like to think that haveing Christianity in common has helped.