DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on January 14, 2011, 11:11:35 PM
-
Massacre, followed by libel
By Charles Krauthammer
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The charge: The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the "climate of hate" created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Obamacare opponents and sundry other liberal betes noires.
The verdict: Rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous and so unsupported by evidence.
As killers go, Jared Loughner is not reticent. Yet among all his writings, postings, videos and other ravings - and in all the testimony from all the people who knew him - there is not a single reference to any of these supposed accessories to murder.
Not only is there no evidence that Loughner was impelled to violence by any of those upon whom Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, the New York Times, the Tucson sheriff and other rabid partisans are fixated. There is no evidence that he was responding to anything, political or otherwise, outside of his own head.
A climate of hate? This man lived within his very own private climate. "His thoughts were unrelated to anything in our world," said the teacher of Loughner's philosophy class at Pima Community College. "He was very disconnected from reality," said classmate Lydian Ali. "You know how it is when you talk to someone who's mentally ill and they're just not there?" said neighbor Jason Johnson. "It was like he was in his own world."
His ravings, said one high school classmate, were interspersed with "unnerving, long stupors of silence" during which he would "stare fixedly at his buddies," reported the Wall Street Journal. His own writings are confused, incoherent, punctuated with private numerology and inscrutable taxonomy. He warns of government brainwashing and thought control through "grammar." He was obsessed with "conscious dreaming," a fairly good synonym for hallucinations.
This is not political behavior. These are the signs of a clinical thought disorder - ideas disconnected from each other, incoherent, delusional, detached from reality.
These are all the hallmarks of a paranoid schizophrenic. And a dangerous one. A classmate found him so terrifyingly mentally disturbed that, she e-mailed friends and family, she expected to find his picture on TV after his perpetrating a mass murder. This was no idle speculation: In class "I sit by the door with my purse handy" so that she could get out fast when the shooting began.
Furthermore, the available evidence dates Loughner's fixation on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to at least 2007, when he attended a town hall of hers and felt slighted by her response. In 2007, no one had heard of Sarah Palin. Glenn Beck was still toiling on Headline News. There was no Tea Party or health-care reform. The only climate of hate was the pervasive post-Iraq campaign of vilification of George W. Bush, nicely captured by a New Republic editor who had begun an article thus: "I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it."
Finally, the charge that the metaphors used by Palin and others were inciting violence is ridiculous. Everyone uses warlike metaphors in describing politics. When Barack Obama said at a 2008 fundraiser in Philadelphia, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," he was hardly inciting violence.
Why? Because fighting and warfare are the most routine of political metaphors. And for obvious reasons. Historically speaking, all democratic politics is a sublimation of the ancient route to power - military conquest. That's why the language persists. That's why we say without any self-consciousness such things as "battleground states" or "targeting" opponents. Indeed, the very word for an electoral contest - "campaign" - is an appropriation from warfare.
When profiles of Obama's first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, noted that he once sent a dead fish to a pollster who displeased him, a characteristically subtle statement carrying more than a whiff of malice and murder, it was considered a charming example of excessive - and creative - political enthusiasm.
When Senate candidate Joe Manchin dispensed with metaphor and simply fired a bullet through the cap-and-trade bill - while intoning, "I'll take dead aim at [it]" - he was hardly assailed with complaints about violations of civil discourse or invitations to murder.
Did Manchin push Loughner over the top? Did Emanuel's little Mafia imitation create a climate for political violence? The very questions are absurd - unless you're the New York Times and you substitute the name Sarah Palin.
The origins of Loughner's delusions are clear: mental illness. What are the origins of Krugman's?
Commentary (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011106068.html)
-
oh to be a liberal
-
great article that i had missed...thanks SIRS!
-
You're welcome
Which provides me another tangent, in taking us back to Obama's speech. How we're being told it was an appropriate speech, and had very little, if any political opportunities. The t-shirts were bad enough. For those who actually saw and/or heard it, you saw & heard how Obama was introduced, by the head of the University. You saw and heard how the audience reacted...at a memorial. If one closed their eyes, and wiped out what the "event" was, you would have sworn it was a kick off to the 2012 Presidential campaign. And at no time did the President ever put his hand up to get the audience to remember where they were, and what this "event" was all about
The charges by the left, as wreckless as they were, were enabled by this President. the "heated rhetoric" that fueled all the vitriol following the AZ tragedy was nearly universally coming from the left. Obama had an opportunity to put them in their place. He had an opportunity to have his own Sister Souljah moment. He didn't have to condemn the left, but he could have encouraged them to ratchet it down. It's like when you ask a Palestinian supporter if they'd denounce and condemn suicide bombers, who target and kill innocent children, the universal answer is "We condemn all terrorist activities, especially those by the Israelis, yada, blah, etc." Meaning he didn't, or couldn't, or wouldn't. Instead, he makes this plea for everyone to ratchet it down.....as if it was the right calling for folks to bring a gun to a knife fight. No mention or even inference of where the current wreckless vitriol is coming from
Yea, he "said the right things", he pushed a centrist message, and he advocated that we all should get along better. Words. That all they were. He's good at that. It's one of the reasons he became president. One of the reasons he's likely to be a 1 term president is his piss poor judgement. He had an opportunity to mend alot of fences, and make this a rather apolitical event. Apparently, that was too much to ask
-
When is a Mosque not a Mosque? When sirs calls it one.
When is political opportunism not political opportunism? When sirs says it is.
Why is this true? Because from where sirs head is at you can't see anything but darkness.
bsb
-
Boy it sure is hard to remain civil with crap like that, B. Then again, perhaps you have no intention of being civil. Perhaps incapable
-
"The t-shirts were bad enough."
Sirs, wasn't it shown that the Tee shirts were the University's choice, not the White House's? Yet you go right back to it like that never happened and you did the same thing with the Islamic Center. I point out that it isn't a Mosque, you agree, but say you're going to keep calling it a Mosque. What is anybody suppose to think that reads your posts? It looks like you're the one who has no intention of being civil, let alone accurate.
bsb
-
You're really off your rocker there, B. Then again, I think we already referenced the why part, at least as it relates to "the mosque". You simply weren't here, when the original debate came up, and the reference to the mosque was clear, in that it was simply a part of the planned cultural center. and the T-shirts remain completely inappropriate for a memorial service, despite who placed them there. I noticed how you completely ignore the point of having seen/heard the "memorial service", and want to fixate on the t-shirts
I have consistently tried to remain civil. I'm not degrading or demeaning anybody's post....until someone starts it, with mine. Then all bets are off. So, if you want to make a point or debate an issue I've brought up, by all means. If you want to act like a 12year old twit, with no intention of being civil, then by all means......continue as you've been
-
Referring to the center as a Mosque is as disingenuous as referring to someone's home as a latrine because it has a bathroom in it. You use Mosque because it fits your agenda. Same with the t-shirts. The words prior to your mentioning of the t-shirts this time are "political opportunities" as it applies to Obama and the White House.
Keep acting like your head is up your ass and I'll keep calling you on it.
bsb
-
so...lemme see if I have this straight...you think of a Mosque as ...... a bathroom?? a toilet??
wow
And again, the opporotunitism I referenced was transparently clear, especially in how the audience responded at 'the memorial". If you didn't hear or see that either, much like "the mosque" issue, I suppose we can give you pass on that as well
And if you wish to continue to act like that 12yr old twit, the floor is yours
-
Apparently the location of your head is a permanent affliction so I'll be referencing it early and often. BTW, I hope your mother is paying BT well for babysitting you.
bsb
-
Apparently you've decided to revel in being a 12 year old, vs engaging in civil debate. By all means, continue. You're on a roll
-
SIRS....it's semantic games......mosque/prayer center/prayer space...what the hell.....look at their own website:
"Located at 49-51 Park Place, PrayerSpace is a separate non-for-profit, independent of Park51.
Upon completion, it will have the capacity to accommodate approximately 2,000 people.
It will offer a range of services and religious programming, including Qur'an classes,
Qur'anic recitation [tajwid], Islamic sciences, Arabic, and others.
Currently, PrayerSpace is open for daily prayers, and well as Jummah Friday prayers.
Operation hours: 12:45-6:45 PM"
http://www.prayerspacenyc.org/ (http://www.prayerspacenyc.org/)
-
Referring to the center as a Mosque is as disingenuous as referring to someone's home as a latrine because it has a bathroom in it. You use Mosque because it fits your agenda. Same with the t-shirts. The words prior to your mentioning of the t-shirts this time are "political opportunities" as it applies to Obama and the White House.
Keep acting like your head is up your ass and I'll keep calling you on it.
bsb
What is disingenuous about saying that a Mosque will be built on the spot ?
Do you mean that the Mosque being enclosed in something elese makes it less a Mosque?
-
Do you mean that the Mosque being enclosed in something elese makes it less a Mosque?
A mosque within something else is of course, no less a mosque.
But what is being protested by the ratbag right is not a mosque, it is ANY Moslem structure of any kind near the former WTC. There appears to be a lot of spiritual baggage involved that the righties cannot express, such as the idea that there is a mystical aura of Christian holiness emitted by the martyrdom of the Christians and other capitalists surrounding the "Ground Zero" location, that must not be diminished by the Muslim holiness of the prayers sent to Allah that would be emitted by the mosque.
There is also the insistence that allowing a mosque to be built at Park 51 would be like flipping a huge Muslim bird at American Christians, a giant "Islam's Numbah One!" foam finger, waving in defiance at the center of capitalist neocolonialism.
Neither is a rational argument, and this is because there is no rational argument possible, only emotional ones from both the Christians and the Muslims.
One imaginary sky being, "God" vs. the same imaginary sky being in a turban "Allah", vying for the hearts and minds of the simplistic over a chunk of real estate.
As an agnostic, I must say that while I admit to the possibility of a Demiurge, He could not logically take the form of the imagined Jehovah or the imagined Allah.
BTW, the word is "reckless", without the w.
-
There is also the insistence that allowing a mosque to be built at Park 51 would be like flipping a huge Muslim bird at American Christians, a giant "Islam's Numbah One!" foam finger, waving in defiance at the center of capitalist neocolonialism.
Neither is a rational argument, and this is because there is no rational argument possible, only emotional ones from both the Christians and the Muslims.
BTW, the word is "reckless", without the w.
I think XO understands the point in principal , but he is still a spelling naitzi.
-
Naitzi? Moi?
principal/ principle do not have the the same meanings. If one does not learn this now, when, then?
-
There is also the insistence that allowing a mosque to be built at Park 51 would be like flipping a huge Muslim bird at American Christians, a giant "Islam's Numbah One!" foam finger, waving in defiance at the center of capitalist neocolonialism.
Neither is a rational argument, and this is because there is no rational argument possible, only emotional ones from both the Christians and the Muslims.
BTW, the word is "reckless", without the w.
I think XO understands the point in principal , but he is still a spelling naitzi.
Unfortunately, this has precious little to do with Christianity (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/a-tragic-prediction/msg116821/#msg116821), or flipping it the bird. Who's supposedly making this "insistence" that it is??
-
Christianity is a religion that insists that it is the ONE AND ONLY ONE TRUE religion. If you are not washed in the blood of the lamb, you are doomed.
Islam is another religion which is every bit as dogmatic and exclusivist.
Other than that, I did not say that Christianity was the main focus of the discussion. I find it rather peripheral, actually.
THEY cannot build THEIR mosque because OUR people were martyred in a place too close by. They are evil for doing this, mocking us and such with their very presence.
-
Every religion "insists" that they are. Now, who's "insisting" that the building of a Mosque is a big middle finger to Christianity?? Last time I looked there are Mosques all across this country. I haven't seen any outrage at those
-
Every religion "insists" that they are. Now, who's "insisting" that the building of a Mosque is a big middle finger to Christianity?? Last time I looked there are Mosques all across this country. I haven't seen any outrage at those
Mosque-building protested elsewhere
Published: Aug. 20, 2010 at 11:20 AM
NEW YORK, Aug. 20 (UPI) -- Plans to build mosques have stirred emotions in at least four cities across the United States, not just New York, authorities said.
The battle over the mosque and Islamic center planned two blocks from Ground Zero in New York City has captured national attention, but plans to develop mosques elsewhere also are sparking confrontations, The Christian Science Monitor reported Thursday.
The controversy over the mosque and Islamic center planned two blocks from the World Trade Center site, is expected to grow with protests planned for Sunday, officials said. Families of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attack, neighborhood residents, military veterans and construction workers are expected to participate in the protest, organizers said.
In Temecula, Calif., demonstrators have shown up during afternoon prayers at the temporary Islamic center to protest proposed construction of a 24,000-square foot mosque and Islamic center on some vacant land the Muslim group owns, CSM said.
Protesters, including a pastor of a church that would be the mosque's neighbor, say they're concerned about Islam and carry signs proclaiming "No Allah Law Here."
The mosque's imam, backed by a local interfaith council, said he would like to meet with the concerned pastor and others to explain the teachings of Islam.
In Mufreesboro, Tenn., opponents of a proposed 52,000-square foot mosque and Islamic center raised environmental and traffic concerns, the Monitor reported.
"That thing will be about half the size of a Wal-Mart," Mike Sparks, a former county commissioner now running for state representative, told the Monitor. "It will be a dangerous intersection, it needs a turning lane."
Concerns also have been raised that extremists would be trained there.
Supporters of the right of Muslims to build the mosque said government doesn't have the right to interfere with religious freedom and there is no evidence the mosque, which has been scaled back, was ever used to train terrorists.
Protesters in Florence, Ky., are using a "'Stop the Mosque" Web site to try to halt construction of an Islamic center on 5.5 acres of land its congregation bought.
? 2010 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/08/20/Mosque-building-protested-elsewhere/UPI-79201282317606/print/#ixzz1BERl0wqv (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/08/20/Mosque-building-protested-elsewhere/UPI-79201282317606/print/#ixzz1BERl0wqv)
-
ok...that's 1
-
Yeah. Pooch mentioned these during the original mosque debate.
-
Not surprising you'd would take my comments in a vacuum and assume I meant not 1 aspect of protest, anywhere at anytime, would be about Christianity. Apparently, its a given, at this point
-
Now, who's "insisting" that the building of a Mosque is a big middle finger to Christianity?? Last time I looked there are Mosques all across this country. I haven't seen any outrage at those
I simply pointed out that protests against mosques are not limited by location, nor religion. A lot of those leading the charge against the Park51 Center are Jewish.
-
And my point is that my comments shouldn't be taken in a vacuum of all or nothing
-
Every religion "insists" that they are.
NOT TRUE!
Buddhists, Confuscists, Taoists, Jains and Sikhs, Shintos and Farsis make no such claim. It is largely just the "sand people" religions (the Abrahamic creeds:Jews, Christians and Muslims) that claim exclusivity.
-
Exclusivity that their religion is largely the one to follow, or has the one true God(s). Though this is all largely irrelevant to the point already made. Perhaps that's why you're trying to focus on it. That and t-shirts
-
Vague
Never mind.
-
Agreed on both accounts, regarding your reponses
-
And my point is that my comments shouldn't be taken in a vacuum of all or nothing
So your comments can not stand on their own?
-
IN CONTEXT, absolutely they can
-
That's good to know, contextually speaking.
-
Finally....concensus
-
Doubtful.
Unless seen in a vacuum.
-
Good thing my comments are located outside of one
-
Vacuous, and yet, mysteriously almost, outside the vacuum.
-
I wouldn't be so hard on your comments. Though acceptance is the 1st step to improving. I'll think good thoughts in your recovery process
-
If a hospital has a chapel in it, is it still a hospital, or has it become a church?
Ah, duh, it's still a hospital, and it's still referred to as a hospital.
If a community center has a Mosque in it, is it still a community center, or has it become a Mosque?
Ah, duh, it's still a community center, and it's still referred to as a community center.
This is so easy even the right should be able to get it.
bsb
-
I'm still stunned you equate a Mosque with a latrine
-
Another moronic statement from sirs.
-
LOL...I'm not the one who equated the 2. That'd be your moronic adventure
-
Jesus christ, sirs doesn't even know what an analogy is.
I'm sorry fellow 3DHS members for my short fuse here, but by god what an idiot this poster is.
bsb
-
If a hospital has a chapel in it, is it still a hospital, or has it become a church?
Ah, duh, it's still a hospital, and it's still referred to as a hospital.
If a community center has a Mosque in it, is it still a community center, or has it become a Mosque?
Ah, duh, it's still a community center, and it's still referred to as a community center.
This is so easy even the right should be able to get it.
bsb
So you are admiting that a mosque will be built within the comunity center, and that the comunity center makes the mosque no less a mosque.
Therefore it is a mistake to call "disingenuous" a statement that a mosque is being built there.
-
Wrong, Plane. What's being built there is a community center that may have a Mosque in it. They aren't constructing a Mosque anymore then the Mass General, which has a chapel in it, built a church. It's their project, you and sirs don't get to define their project, pal, in a way that loads up it's description to your political advantage but is an inaccurate accounting of the total package. Who the hell do you think you are trying to tell them what their community center is? Mind your own business.
bsb
-
I fail to see what difference it makes. The Muslims own the property, and the community center with a mosque inside it, or the mosque with the community center around it, take your pick, is in compliance with all the zoning laws, so let them build it: it is their property and their money.
If sirs does not like it, it is over 3000 miles away from him, big effing deal.
-
Jesus christ, sirs doesn't even know what an analogy is.
Yea I do...you complained that looking at a Mosque within a cultural center, is akin to looking at a latrine within a home. That was your moronic walk over the line. Not mine. But hey, if you prefer idiotic, that works for me as well
-
That's ok. we have it on good authority that a mosque is not symbolic of 9-11, so building it where they want shouldn't have any adverse effect.
-
Except of course in such close proximity to the WTC. But absolutely, anywhere else they want
-
Wrong, Plane. What's being built there is a community center that may have a Mosque in it. They aren't constructing a Mosque anymore then the Mass General, which has a chapel in it, built a church. It's their project, you and sirs don't get to define their project, pal, in a way that loads up it's description to your political advantage but is an inaccurate accounting of the total package. Who the hell do you think you are trying to tell them what their community center is? Mind your own business.
bsb
If Mass general has a church built into it then they did build a church.
Is a Mosque that is a fraction of another building not a Mosque at all?
I think everyone involved has affirmed that there is a first admendmendment protected right for them to build this terribly inappropriate and offensive Mosque.
-
To sirs the bird brain. An analogy is used to show how something works, not to compare two things, get it ?????????????????????????????????????????????? you syphilitic inbred moron you. You wouldn't use an analogy to compare a Mosque and a toilet directly.
(I know, I know, that's way over sirs head)
bsb
BT, this is a loony bin.
-
Plane, if you ever come to Boston, please slip on some ice, or a banana, break a leg, and when the EMT in the ambulance asks you what hospital you want to go to, which they do sometimes, tell him/her you want to go to the church.
bsb
-
So there is no mosque at all if the building is not primary in purpose a mosque?
I would have thought that haveing a Mosque within the facility that was 80% other than Mosque would still count as a Mosque and not disingenuous to say so.
Is a Dojo that is within a Gym less a DoJo?
This is much more a dedication issue than a building style issue.
I don't think the people who want to build this have made it clear what their reasoning was to decide they needed this location.
[][][][][][][][]
Bocks Car is in Dayton Ohio , the day I looked it over I saw some Japaneese tourists looking it over too. They seemed to tolerate it well but if the display were in Nagasaki I think the nature of the display would have had to be diffrent.
-
I see no reason what it makes a bit of difference whether it is a mosque or a community center. Again, it is their property and they can do with it however they bloody like.
-
Imagine comparing Bocks Car to a muslim center? Ha, ha, boy we have some truly ignorant people in this country.
bsb
-
They seemed to tolerate it well but if the display were in Nagasaki I think the nature of the display would have had to be diffrent.
You would surely have Japanese with a different attitude in Nagasaki. I am glad that our government would not do such a stupid thing as display the bomber that killed thousands of Japanese in the city where its bombs killed them.
-
To sirs the bird brain. An analogy is used to show how something works, not to compare two things, get it ?????????????????????????????????????????????? you syphilitic inbred moron you. You wouldn't use an analogy to compare a Mosque and a toilet directly.
(I know, I know, that's way over sirs head)
bsb
BT, this is a loony bin.
Try not to lose the pages to some of those big words, B. They may come in handy, some day
-
Sirs is the 4th dead horse.
bsb
-
Rarely, has there been a charge, so wreckless....revisited
-
Imagine comparing Bocks Car to a muslim center? Ha, ha, boy we have some truly ignorant people in this country.
bsb
Well thank you , why do you think the comparison is not apt?
"Bocks car " is well preserved and is displayed along with a lot of explanation and video displays, this suits its Dayton Ohio location well as it is in a museum of aircraft and weapons.
There is practicly no potential for Bocks Car or Enola Gay to go on display anywhere near the bombed citys of Heroshima or Nagasaki.
So, unless you can enunciate why exacrtly there is a diffrence I will think the comparison apt.
But of course,it would be even more apt if there were some Americans who wanted to enshrine B-29s in Tokio or atomic bombs in Heroshima, which there isn't ......
......of course.
-
Except of course in such close proximity to the WTC. But absolutely, anywhere else they want
Why should location matter? a Mosque is not symbolic of 9-11.
-
Asked and answered already (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/a-tragic-prediction/msg116821/#msg116821)
-
Asked and answered already (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/a-tragic-prediction/msg116821/#msg116821)
A group of Christian zealots, who advocate the killing of abortion doctors, hijack several planes, and take down the WTC. Rev Schuler wants to build a massive Crystal Cathedral #2, at the doorstep of the rubble that once was the WTC. It would be an inappropriate location choice
A group of radical scientologists, determined to wake the world up, and to better appreciate scientology, hijack several planes and take down the WTC. David Miscavige decides he wants to build a brand new Church of Scientology, in the shadow of once was the WTC. It would be an inappropriate location choice
A group of Atheist terrorists, decide the country is becoming too spiritual, and hijack several planes, subsequently taking down the WTC. Frank Zindler feels compelled to build a shrine, in the name of Atheists, with a desire to bring harmony (& Godlessness) to all, at the foot of what was once the WTC. It would be an inappropriate location choice
Do you see yet, why this has nothing to do with the Imam being a Muslim, or anything to do with the Muslim religion, yet??
That has got to be the weakest excuse for religious bigotry i have ever witnessed.
-
Good thing it wasn't anything of the sort, then *whew*
-
Good thing it wasn't anything of the sort, then *whew*
Damning the group for the actions of a few of its members seems to fit the definition.
-
They seemed to tolerate it well but if the display were in Nagasaki I think the nature of the display would have had to be diffrent.
You would surely have Japanese with a different attitude in Nagasaki. I am glad that our government would not do such a stupid thing as display the bomber that killed thousands of Japanese in the city where its bombs killed them.
This is exactly the point!
Thank you XO
-
Good thing it wasn't anything of the sort, then *whew*
Damning the group for the actions of a few of its members seems to fit the definition.
Good thing I wasn't damning anyone, except those few in charge of the location decision
-
Good thing it wasn't anything of the sort, then *whew*
Damning the group for the actions of a few of its members seems to fit the definition.
Good thing I wasn't damning anyone, except those few in charge of the location decision
That is a good point
.
Who other than the planners of this building is being criticised?
-
Since Jared Lee Loughner went on his rampage in Tucson, we've been treated to perfectly ridiculous liberal howling about "violent rhetoric." The reason it's "perfectly ridiculous" is that ?liberals being liberals," they've tackled the whole debate in such a politically correct manner that it makes the debate laughable.
According to liberals, what words supposedly incite violence? Words like "targeting," "locked and loaded," "crossfire," "job killing," "double barrel," etc. In other words, it's not people actually calling for violence; it's commonly used phrases -- that have long been used to describe politics -- that cause bloodshed by lathering up maniacs. Of course, only a complete moron could believe this ? and, yes, if you believe this, I mean you personally are a moron.
Of course, even most liberals aren't this stupid. So, they've latched on to this theory for two reasons.
The first is sheer opportunism. They're going to ignore the countless times their side has used words like "job killing" and "targeted" and they're going to pretend that only conservatives do this. This shows they're hypocritical and have no intellectual honesty. But, that's just par for the course for the professional Left.
However, the other reason is more sinister: Liberals commonly say things that, if they really believe the words that are coming out of their mouths, would lead to political violence. Let's talk about just a few examples.
- BushHitler: Calling George Bush "Hitler" and Republicans "Nazis" became such a regular occurrence that it became jejune during the Bush years. Whether it was
Sandra Bernhard saying, "The real terrorist threats are George W. Bush and his band of brown-shirted thugs" or
Michael Moore,"The Patriot Act is the first step. "Mein Kampf" -- "Mein Kampf" was written long before Hitler came to power. And if the people of Germany had done something early on to stop these early signs, when the right-wing, when the extremists such as yourself, decide that this is the way to go, if people don't speak up against this, you end up with something like they had in Germany. I don't want to get to that point."
If you could go back in time, before Hitler came to power, would it be immoral to kill him? People like Michael Moore, Sandra Bernhard and the rest of the professional Left were hoping someone would say "no" all during the Bush years.
- The population of earth is "unsustainable:" At a minimum, you could go all the way back to Malthus on this argument, but liberals have become much more insistent about this crackpot argument in recent years. Just to name one example, Ted Turner has declared the species can't survive without reducing the population,
"If we?re going to be here [as a species] 5,000 years from now, we?re not going to do it with seven billion people."
So, how do we terminate billions of people to make life on the planet "sustainable?" The left-wing support for abortion and cutting off DDT have certainly eliminated millions, but that doesn't seem to be getting the job done. Is it going to take a Twelve Monkeys style virus? Would you trust one of the environmentalist left-wingers who thinks life on this planet is unsustainable -- with one of the many extremely lethal bioweapons that are out there? Would you trust Ted Turner with one? After all, if life is ?unsustainable? with the current population, billions of people have to die.
- Bush invaded Iraq to get revenge for his daddy / enrich Halliburton / get their oil / lied us into war: It wasn't enough to oppose the war in Iraq. No, liberals had to accuse Bush of causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of U.S. soldiers for the most frivolous reasons imaginable.
Remember what Michael Moore said?
"I want him [Bush] paraded in handcuffs outside a police house as a common criminal because I don't know if there's a greater crime than taking people to war based on a lie. I've never seen anything like Bush and his people. They truly hate our constitution, our rights and liberties. They have no shame in fighting for their corporate sponsors."
"Let the people see what war is like. This isn?t an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush?s folly. That said, I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries. They aren?t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them." --Markos Moulitsas Z?niga on the four Americans who were murdered by terrorists and then had their corpses desecrated in Fallujah, Iraq.
"(George Bush) betrayed this country! He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!" --Al Gore
Very few of these people actually believe what they were saying: the anti-war protests evaporated the moment there was a Democrat in office. But, what were these liberals really hoping to accomplish with their rhetoric? Were they hoping that a father who lost a son in Iraq or a soldier who saw his friends die, would pick up a sniper rifle and kill Bush for sending people to die for nothing? What would you do if a man sent your 18 year old son to die so he could make a few bucks for his friends?
- The only way to save the planet is by decimating the world economy to fight global warming: So, if global warming is going to kill us all, along with the hapless polar bears, unless we do something, then what do we do? Some liberals have already suggested the next step: Criminalizing dissent. Here's
David Roberts from Grisoft, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these b*stards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg."
Here's Greenpeace on their blog this year,
The proper channels have failed. It's time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.
If you're one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let's talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.
If you're one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:
We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
And we be many, but you be few.
So, if you doubt global warming, they want you either jailed or killed as a war criminal -- if they bother to get that far. They may just save time by showing up where you live or work, presumably with a gun, like Jared Lee Loughner.
- George Bush and 9/11: He LIHOP or MIHOP: During the Bush years, we heard prominent liberal after liberal claim that the Bush Administration let 9/11 happen on purpose or made it happen on purpose. This was and still is a mainstream view on the Left. Everyone from Rosie "it's the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel" O'Donnell to Van "(Bush may have) deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen" Jones believes it.
We're hunting and killing Al-Qaeda across the globe because they're responsible for 9/11. So, if the Bush Administration were really responsible for 9/11, what should we be doing to them? Yet, liberals are very comfortable with making this assertion.
What's more likely to really lead to violence? Saying you're targeting someone to be defeated in an election or falsely accusing someone of murdering nearly 3,000 Americans?
Which is really worse? (http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2011/01/18/5_pieces_of_common_liberal_rhetoric_designed_to_incite_violence)
-
No one is proposing that Al Qaeda erect the Al Qaeda Arch of Wahhabbi Muslim Triumph at Ground Zero.
-
*whew*....glad that was never an issue
-
That would be the equivalent of exhibiting Bock's Car in Nagasaki, however.
-
As I said, glad that's never been the issue
-
Good thing it wasn't anything of the sort, then *whew*
Damning the group for the actions of a few of its members seems to fit the definition.
Good thing I wasn't damning anyone, except those few in charge of the location decision
Sure you are. You are claiming they are insensitive to the bigotry of those opposed to the location.
-
Sure I'm not. Only those that have decided that THAT location is the only place said "mosque" can be built. And their being Muslim has nothing to do with it either
-
>>Do you see yet, why this has nothing to do with the Imam being a Muslim, or anything to do with the Muslim religion, yet??<<
This is from a guy who said that the WTC was taken down in the name of Islam and that that was why the Center shouldn't be built a block away and practicaly out of site of ground zero. As Domer would say, this, quote of sirs, belongs on the funny pages.
bsb
-
>>Do you see yet, why this has nothing to do with the Imam being a Muslim, or anything to do with the Muslim religion, yet??<<
This is from a guy who said that the WTC was taken down in the name of Islam
So sayeth the terrorist organization and its leader(s), responsible for takeing them down, not sirs. If it DID have something to do with the Imam being Muslim, than messers Schuler, Miscavige, and Zindler would have had sirs' blessings, if they were hypothetically wanting to build so close to a monument taken down in their respective levels of spirtual/nonspiritual names
-
"So sayeth the terrorist organization and its leader(s), responsible for takeing them down, not sirs."
You most certainly did say it.
bsb
-
Discussing anything with sirs is an utter waste of time.
Better conversations can be had with most cats.