July 02, 2007
Prostitutes Leaving Law
(United Kingdom) Check out the latest in British political correctness. Apparently prostitutes don't like to be called prostitutes so the Justice Ministry has drafted legislation to remove the word from law books. It's said that the label "common prostitute" isn't "really helpful."
Instead, a new bill that the Justice Ministry has drafted refers simply to persons who sell sex persistently -- defined as twice or more in three months.It seems the definition of persistent is quite low. Twice in three months. Nevertheless, those who sell sex less frequently, part-timers (?), would not be subject to arrest since it's no longer a crime.
The new Bill introduces measures to try to get sex workers out of the industry, and in effect decriminalises prostitution for those who are not considered persistent.In summary, prostitutes will now be "persistents" (I'm guessing) and part-time prostitutes will be -- uh -- what? The girl next door? Infrequently friendly for a price?
My question is who in the government is going to track sales of sex? Or better yet, how is the boffing frequency going to be tabulated? Visual count of customers? Electronic penetration meter? Someone must accurately track the sex in order to determine whether the law applies.
And lastly, it surely would be hard to dispute the contention that the prostitutes in Britain seem to be extraordinarily close to decision-makers in the Justice Ministry. If not, why would the Justice Ministry propose this ludicrous legislation?
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
06:00 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.
1
This is some kind of Monthy Python skit......isn't it?
No wonder Al Queda is targeting the Brits. They should replace their flag with one labeled "Pansies"
No wonder Al Queda is targeting the Brits. They should replace their flag with one labeled "Pansies"
Posted by: mrclark at July 02, 2007 08:43 AM (iWTKy)
2
In summary, prostitutes will now be "persistents"
Don't nobody tell me liberalism isn't a mental disorder.
Don't nobody tell me liberalism isn't a mental disorder.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 02, 2007 09:06 AM (yJKSD)
3
This PC is getting out of hand i mean before you know it they will demand they change the name from THE JUNGLE BOOK to THE RAINFOREST BOOK or they quit uing THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRA DAME i mean that animal rights wacko MICHEAL W. FOX wanted to change the name from PET to COMANTION ANIMAL so a PET SHOP would be COMANION ANIMAL SHOP proves that mr fox is out of his mind and stark raving stupid
Posted by: sandpiper at July 02, 2007 10:52 AM (1LUQw)
4
Hey...have you heard the "Companion Animal Shop Boys" latest album?
Yeah....doesn't have the same ring to it as "Pet Shop Boys"....and that was pretty lame to begin with.
Yeah....doesn't have the same ring to it as "Pet Shop Boys"....and that was pretty lame to begin with.
Posted by: mrclark at July 02, 2007 11:28 AM (pEXyx)
5
"Whores" is shorter and easier to say.
Posted by: Otulb the Terrible at July 02, 2007 01:59 PM (q6AiT)
Posted by: soccer dad at July 02, 2007 02:42 PM (OOxfp)
7
It seems the definition of persistent is quite low. Twice in three months.
Apparently all MPs are married.
Apparently all MPs are married.
Posted by: HerrMorgenholz at July 02, 2007 07:05 PM (K/lgF)
8
There is a story about a man chatting up a girl at a party. "Would you have sex with me for a million dollars?" he asks
"For a million?" she says. "Of course, who wouldn't?"
"How about for five dollars?" he asks.
"What sort of girl do you think I am?"
"We have already established that. Now we are haggling over the price."
"For a million?" she says. "Of course, who wouldn't?"
"How about for five dollars?" he asks.
"What sort of girl do you think I am?"
"We have already established that. Now we are haggling over the price."
Posted by: Paul Moore at July 02, 2007 09:07 PM (JROsA)
9
I guess napped headed ho is out of the question.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 02, 2007 10:39 PM (a4Ntm)
June 25, 2007
Video : Danes Make Good on Promise to Burn Mohammed
Much more over at Gates of Vienna, including a translation of the intro text in the video.
Posted by: Ragnar at
10:13 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.
1
We know who has the balls. Danish ham for dinner.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 26, 2007 07:03 AM (KtHtq)
2
I have posted this in another blog on this site about the Danes who BTW are absolutely doing the right thing.
I am insisting because I'd like to get other peoples opinions/insight on US policy concerning muslims in Europe so here it is (repost)
yes, I agree
muslims out of Europe NOW, but please can someone help me understand:
why
is it that the USA (Bush administration) bends over backwards to make
Turkey a part of Europe? (in a time where islamists in Turkey are on
the rise)
and
why did the Clinton administration jumped
in to save Bosnian mulsims at a time when the Serbs were cleaning up
their neighbirhood?
Two different administrations, two different parties same policy
PS1. And here's the paradox, the French do not want Turkey in Europe and Europeans didn't lift a finger to help the Bosnians.
PS2. Bush received a hero's welcome in predominantly muslim Albania
PS3. Go figure
I am insisting because I'd like to get other peoples opinions/insight on US policy concerning muslims in Europe so here it is (repost)
yes, I agree
muslims out of Europe NOW, but please can someone help me understand:
why
is it that the USA (Bush administration) bends over backwards to make
Turkey a part of Europe? (in a time where islamists in Turkey are on
the rise)
and
why did the Clinton administration jumped
in to save Bosnian mulsims at a time when the Serbs were cleaning up
their neighbirhood?
Two different administrations, two different parties same policy
PS1. And here's the paradox, the French do not want Turkey in Europe and Europeans didn't lift a finger to help the Bosnians.
PS2. Bush received a hero's welcome in predominantly muslim Albania
PS3. Go figure
Posted by: nickkick at June 26, 2007 09:08 AM (3ZyL+)
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at June 26, 2007 10:53 AM (j97MF)
4
Hope someone brought some hot dogs
Posted by: sandpiper at June 26, 2007 11:03 AM (Dutrh)
5
im suprised there is no muslim outrage because of this, no mass gatherings of muslims protesting this like when those cartoons first came out, by the way, haha
Posted by: hank at June 26, 2007 01:00 PM (lziXs)
6
nickkick, just my own thoughts but Arabs/Muslims (however you want to lump those groups together) have for the most part been well assimilated into the US and do have some political power to persuade...
Posted by: tbone at June 26, 2007 04:49 PM (HGqHt)
7
nickkick It also works out that Americans like to be inclusive. To most people it doesn't matter if your an Arab, or Turk, or whatever, because your all potential immigrants (I mean the legal kind). Call us snobs but we generally feel bad for a lot of the rest of the world, and wish they had what we did. Sometimes we don't really know what the results of our efforts will be, but we do have good intentions. During the cold war Turkey was important. In a way, it is even more important now. We don't really know if alienating the whole country will push them further to the extremes, or shock them into a reversal. In any case all NATO allies are obliged to each others defense, and it may be better to keep Turkey close, in light of that. Thats my short opinion. 
USA, all the way!
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at June 26, 2007 07:31 PM (2OHpj)
8
nickkick: Because American has been brainwashed into believing anything that is a minority or different should always get preferenial treatment. Our attacking the Serbs was the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. Serb so called crimes weren't any different than muslim crimes thoughout the world. Only difference was that the Serbs were winning, white and Christian. Something the liberals in charge at the time can't handle. If the Brits get balls enough to take their country back I wonder if the U.S. will attack them. Bringing muslims into the fold for any reason is nutsso. Muslims are muslim first and humans second. Just my opinon.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 26, 2007 09:23 PM (xFKOj)
June 23, 2007
Danes Upping the Ante - "Mohammed Burns Tonight"
Original Danish here. Rough English translation here:
Breaking news: Muhammed burnGates of Vienna (via Larwyn) has more on Sankt Hans aften:tonightTonight is ikkeheksen there burn from however him here! Says private section
The editorial office has received a letter from enhemmelig section. Last walk they sent a letter to the editorial office, claimed they that they had set 4000 muhammed- drawings up amid tea Dinner east (evilfestival) to henhv. Copenhagen, Odense, Ã…rhus and Slice. Vi getting after billeddokumentation remittance that certify this.
Today is Midsummer’s Day — Saint Hans’ Day in Denmark — and the traditional Danish midsummer custom is to burn an effigy of a witch in order to banish evil from the country and ensure the good fortune of the people in the coming year. This year there’s going to be a slight variation on the usual ritual.More from Wikipedia:According to SIAD, a previously secret group is planning to burn an effigy of Mohammed instead of a witch, to symbolize the need to rid Western Europe of a new kind of evil. Tomorrow the group will release a video of tonight’s Midsummer bonfire.
It has been celebrated since the times of the Vikings, by visiting healing water wells and making a large bonfire to ward away evil spirits. Today the water well tradition is gone. Bonfires on the beach, speeches, picnics and songs are traditional, although bonfires are built in many other places where beaches may not be close by (i.e. on the shores of lakes and other waterways, parks, etc.). In the 1920s a tradition of putting a witch made of straw and cloth on the bonfire emerged as a remembrance of the church's witchburnings from 1540 to 1693 (but unofficially a witch was lynched as late as 1897). This burning sends the witch to Bloksbjerg, the mountain 'Brocken' in the Harz region of Germany where the great witch gathering was thought to be held on this day.
Posted by: Ragnar at
11:01 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Sounds like fun
Posted by: Rep J at June 24, 2007 12:13 AM (PzQS1)
2
Good!
That's right. Show the mo-slimes in Europe that they cann't intimidate people into giving up their freedom of thought and expression.
That's right. Show the mo-slimes in Europe that they cann't intimidate people into giving up their freedom of thought and expression.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at June 24, 2007 12:22 AM (EdIIN)
3
Looks like some of our Danish friends are going to have some fun tonight. God Bless them for standing by us in fighting the Islamic terrorists that want to do away with our way of life.
Posted by: fmfnavydoc at June 24, 2007 12:32 AM (I6QiV)
4
Sounds great. I'll have a danish with my bacon and eggs tommorow.
Posted by: Rome at June 24, 2007 01:06 AM (/GrlO)
5
But...but...won't that make some Muslims angry?
Posted by: Nigel at June 24, 2007 11:00 AM (4gHqM)
Posted by: Howie at June 24, 2007 12:26 PM (YHZAl)
7
Perhaps it's time to reasess the importation of ALL Middle eastern religion into European lands. Since most Europeans are not middle eastern why should they give up their old God/Gods/Goddesses for foreign middle eastern desert Gods?
"All hail Lord Odin"
"All hail Lord Odin"
Posted by: Bearach at June 24, 2007 01:08 PM (xQq4i)
8
Gotta love the Norsemen. The muslims need to taste Viking deal. Muslims out of Europe now.
Posted by: Jester at June 24, 2007 05:27 PM (iwtIO)
9
I meant Viking steel...doh.
Posted by: Jester at June 24, 2007 05:27 PM (iwtIO)
10
I missed this one. Jester ... with Vikings, 'steel' is the 'deal', so I say your inbounds
Friends of Odin, I congratulate you! It makes me glad that the Norse still remember thier pride! Courage is all!
USA, all the way!
Friends of Odin, I congratulate you! It makes me glad that the Norse still remember thier pride! Courage is all!
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at June 24, 2007 10:28 PM (2OHpj)
11
yes, I agree
muslims out of Europe NOW, but please can someone help me understand:
why is it that the USA (Bush administration) bends over backwards to make Turkey a part of Europe? (in a time where islamists in Turkey are on the rise)
and
why did the Clinton administration jumped in to save Bosnian mulsims at a time when the Serbs were cleaning up their neighbirhood?
Two different administrations, two different parties same policy
PS1. And here's the paradox, the French do not want Turkey in Europe and Europeans didn't lift a finger to help the Bosnians.
PS2. Bush received a hero's welcome in predominantly muslim Albania
PS3. Go figure
muslims out of Europe NOW, but please can someone help me understand:
why is it that the USA (Bush administration) bends over backwards to make Turkey a part of Europe? (in a time where islamists in Turkey are on the rise)
and
why did the Clinton administration jumped in to save Bosnian mulsims at a time when the Serbs were cleaning up their neighbirhood?
Two different administrations, two different parties same policy
PS1. And here's the paradox, the French do not want Turkey in Europe and Europeans didn't lift a finger to help the Bosnians.
PS2. Bush received a hero's welcome in predominantly muslim Albania
PS3. Go figure
Posted by: nickkick at June 25, 2007 08:46 AM (3ZyL+)
12
The Serbs are white and Christian. That makes them legal game to brainwashed America. Only the enemy and minorities can do nothing wrong.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 27, 2007 10:13 PM (wV9Kq)
13
nickkick, our government doesn't do much that we actually want. Oh and... HAIL THOR. Taste the war hammer terrorist pussies.
Posted by: tbone at June 29, 2007 11:21 AM (HGqHt)
May 26, 2007
Wayne Chiang's Facebook Account Suspended
Wayne Chiang, the Virginia Tech student falsely accused of being the Virginia Tech gunman, has had his Facebook account suspended for "posing with guns ... in a non-sporting context."
Wayne's letter to Facebook management is here:
In the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting, it is an easy reaction to remove all firearm related photos from your site in an effort to minimize those that may do things as tragic and senseless as the aforementioned school shooting. However, this is an overreaction and in doing so, you limit the freedoms of the vast majority of those who are law abiding and whom deplore the type of violence that occurred at Virginia Tech. I ask this of you in the utmost respect, to take into consideration the large communities of individuals whose actions are currently being considered “offensive†on Facebook.Cross-posted at The Arsenal.
Posted by: Ragnar at
09:54 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"In the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting, no Asians will be allowed to display firearms, so as not to confuse our politically correct faculty and student body."
Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at May 26, 2007 12:48 PM (CI4Lt)
Posted by: Infidelsalwayswin at May 26, 2007 01:47 PM (ucbQf)
Posted by: dick at May 26, 2007 03:53 PM (XlQVK)
4
Wonder why he wishes to pose with guns?
Posted by: Greyrooster at May 26, 2007 09:35 PM (C0kWU)
5
That's a raw deal, for certain. I have to admire his display of restraint and class in his response. I think many of us would be hard pressed to be that gracious in the face of stupidity.
Posted by: Insomniac at May 27, 2007 01:37 AM (xQq4i)
May 21, 2007
DangedOlEnglishSpeakingCrackers
WTFyareckontheyaretalkingboutmain?
Via David Thompson :“Dr Caprice Hollins, the Director of Equity, Race & Learning Support for Seattle’s public schools, has previously criticised individualism, long-term planning (or ‘future time orientation’) and the speaking of grammatical English as ‘white values.’ The expectation among teachers that all students should be responsible individuals and meet certain linguistic and organisational standards is, according to Ms Hollins, a form of ‘cultural racism’…â€ifnyougotthephoneandthenumberbabyigotnofuturetimeorientations figuredoutyet.
Posted by: Howie at
01:41 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.
1
'The quiet war has begun with silent weapons
And the newest slavery is to keep the people
Poor and stupid, "Novus Ordo Seclorum"'
And the newest slavery is to keep the people
Poor and stupid, "Novus Ordo Seclorum"'
Posted by: Smash'em at May 21, 2007 02:57 PM (Zi2NF)
2
Yes, Yes. Pure racism. Speaking English is nothing but cultural racism. Jes ax dem dat be in de ghetto.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 21, 2007 03:16 PM (dHAkw)
3
Seattle is the same leftist-utopian stomping ground that brought us such academic banalities as 'Rethinking Schools' in which LEGOS were banned, then later re-introduced into a grade school classroom in order "explore power, ownership, and equity
in an early childhood classroom." These are eight year olds, fer crying out loud!
The commies didn't lose the cold war - they simply moved to seattle - along with many of the pointy-headed, academic race pimps. Fo shizzle.
in an early childhood classroom." These are eight year olds, fer crying out loud!
The commies didn't lose the cold war - they simply moved to seattle - along with many of the pointy-headed, academic race pimps. Fo shizzle.
Posted by: locomotivebreath1901 at May 21, 2007 03:26 PM (Cy7OH)
4
Off subject but it appears the Paleos are getting their asses kicked by both the Israelis and Lebanese. Seems like they never learn. Take a little pressure off in the name of humanity and they start the same shit again. It's a friggin lifestyle. Their children will grow up worse. Lets quit worrying about the killers, crybabies, and religious assholes in the middle east. They don't deserve our concern. As a race (or whatever) they have failed. I see no change in these backward subhuman asses. Better to focus on those that will be able to live with others. I no longer care on how this cancer in the middle east is removed. Fuck em. Just don't let them come here.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 21, 2007 03:32 PM (dHAkw)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 21, 2007 05:48 PM (8e/V4)
6
I love the King James. I've read all the new translations as well (No joke: Every last one of them), but the King James is still my all-time favorite.
That means I'm a racist, of course.
That means I'm a racist, of course.
Posted by: Hucbald at May 21, 2007 10:28 PM (XoJMC)
7
Rooster, While you were out. It acually looks to me like Israel stepped in to get Hamas' attention off Fatah. Funny huh. Even funnier is Hamas swallowed it whole, they didn't even chew.
Posted by: Howie at May 21, 2007 10:31 PM (YHZAl)
8
Ha, ha. Paleos are so hyped up to attack anything Israeli they will fall for anything without thinking.
I was thinking about Christians while in the Christian nation of Costa Rica. I prefer the ones who believe in the old testament. At this time in history an eye for an eye will work better than turning the other cheek. Those that believe in turning the other cheek just don't understand the muslim mind.
I was thinking about Christians while in the Christian nation of Costa Rica. I prefer the ones who believe in the old testament. At this time in history an eye for an eye will work better than turning the other cheek. Those that believe in turning the other cheek just don't understand the muslim mind.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 22, 2007 12:40 AM (R62C1)
9
Maybe this is foolish to ask, but how can one criticize individualism and then oppose linguistic and organizational standards? One can't have it both ways...
Posted by: Zelda at May 22, 2007 05:04 PM (vmBfY)
May 14, 2007
Your Tax Dollars at Work...
Your tax dollars at work:
During the last night of the trip, staff members convinced the 69 students that there was a gunman on the loose. They were told to lie on the floor or hide underneath tables and stay quiet. A teacher, disguised in a hooded sweat shirt, even pulled on locked door.More, with commentary, at The Arsenal.
h/t : Michelle.
Posted by: Ragnar at
12:49 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"They were told to lie on the floor or hide underneath tables and stay quiet." That must be very effective against a mad gunman, especially when he walks into a classroom and starts shooting people laying on the floor one by one execution style...
Posted by: Kamchatka Bear at May 14, 2007 01:56 PM (gtZwa)
2
Well so much for gun free school zones STUPID SCREWY LIBERALS
Posted by: sandpiper at May 14, 2007 02:47 PM (mY5+n)
3
Oh yeah. You just KNOW it was libruls doing some shit like this - couldnt've been any one else but damned dirty hippy nutbag democrats.
Posted by: Truther Smurf at May 14, 2007 02:59 PM (HGqHt)
4
Obviously, since Republicans would've been handing out self-defense kung fu manuals and getting all the kids ready to 'rush' the madman!
Posted by: Truther Smurf at May 14, 2007 03:01 PM (HGqHt)
5
smurf... do you have any logical or rational thoughts? really... you are just making yourself look dumb
Posted by: Kamchatka Bear at May 14, 2007 03:44 PM (gtZwa)
6
Nope, just repeating what I heard from a Repub after VT.
Posted by: Truther Smurf at May 14, 2007 03:52 PM (HGqHt)
7
6 Nope, just repeating what I heard from a Repub after VT.
Posted by: Truther Smurf at May 14, 2007 03:52 PM
"would've been handing out self-defense kung fu manuals and getting all the kids ready to 'rush' the madman!" this is a quote? really... the repubs said that kung fu would have stopped the madman with a gun? wow... and we thought it was someone having a gun who could potentially have minimized the death toll by shooting Cho, silly, silly us. don't bring a knife to a gun fight, or your stupidity to a rational arguement.
Posted by: Truther Smurf at May 14, 2007 03:52 PM
"would've been handing out self-defense kung fu manuals and getting all the kids ready to 'rush' the madman!" this is a quote? really... the repubs said that kung fu would have stopped the madman with a gun? wow... and we thought it was someone having a gun who could potentially have minimized the death toll by shooting Cho, silly, silly us. don't bring a knife to a gun fight, or your stupidity to a rational arguement.
Posted by: Kamchatka Bear at May 14, 2007 03:56 PM (gtZwa)
8
Yeah, don't follow your own advice about the stupidity though. All I'm saying is this story is an hour old and you all already are so sure of the political persuassion as if Rep's aren't and haven't demonstrated repeated stupidity. God Bless you politicos. When are you guys going to lobby to be called legally as Republican Americans?
Posted by: Truther Smurf at May 14, 2007 04:28 PM (HGqHt)
9
"Yeah, don't follow your own advice about the stupidity though. All I'm saying is this story is an hour old and you all already are so sure of the political persuassion"
hmm all I said was that laying on the floor is stupid. sandpiper noted that the general LIBERAL mentality of disarment is stupid, because criminals don't obey the law and when one person has the gun and another doesn't.. it's over. This is as far as we went until you brought Dems..."
3 Oh yeah. You just KNOW it was libruls doing some shit like this - couldnt've been any one else but damned dirty hippy nutbag democrats.
Posted by: Truther Smurf at May 14, 2007 02:59 PM "
and Reps"
6 Nope, just repeating what I heard from a Repub after VT.
Posted by: Truther Smurf at May 14, 2007 03:52 PM "
into it. Now who is doing "political persuassion" here? Are you capable of following a discussion?
hmm all I said was that laying on the floor is stupid. sandpiper noted that the general LIBERAL mentality of disarment is stupid, because criminals don't obey the law and when one person has the gun and another doesn't.. it's over. This is as far as we went until you brought Dems..."
3 Oh yeah. You just KNOW it was libruls doing some shit like this - couldnt've been any one else but damned dirty hippy nutbag democrats.
Posted by: Truther Smurf at May 14, 2007 02:59 PM "
and Reps"
6 Nope, just repeating what I heard from a Repub after VT.
Posted by: Truther Smurf at May 14, 2007 03:52 PM "
into it. Now who is doing "political persuassion" here? Are you capable of following a discussion?
Posted by: Kamchatka Bear at May 14, 2007 04:38 PM (gtZwa)
10
P.S.: I do apollogize for calling you stupid in this and the other posts. That was uncalled for. However your ability to make a rational arguement is still in question.
Posted by: Kamchatka Bear at May 14, 2007 04:47 PM (gtZwa)
11
When I was in school we learned to pith frogs in biology, and which end of the scalpel was sharp besides! In shop we learned how to swing a hammer and which end of the scissors was pointy and dangerous! In Chemistry we learned how to handle acids without anyone getting acidentally burned! When the teachers weren't looking, we learned how to throw hard objects into peoples skulls from across the room, and then act innocent. I knocked a student clean out of their desk once that way! My advice is not to lay down. If your teacher is a wimp, tell them to get behind you. Not that any of my teachers were wimps. Thats why you learned to act innocent! USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at May 14, 2007 06:28 PM (2OHpj)
12
Lay down and die is a losing strategy. Anything has to be better than just letting some idiot kill you! USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at May 14, 2007 06:30 PM (2OHpj)
13
This is some hippie commies' fault. I'll put money on it.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold, Arrogant Prick at May 14, 2007 06:32 PM (c/4ax)
14
what ever happened to fighting back. I guess college really teaches people to be little pussies even when their lives are at stake. Personally I would kill the gunman and drink his blood while I pumped every round into him that he brought.
After a year in Iraq you learn you have to be hardcore with some people.
After a year in Iraq you learn you have to be hardcore with some people.
Posted by: Legrand at May 14, 2007 08:28 PM (/etUv)
Posted by: QC at May 14, 2007 08:51 PM (59eDH)
16
What is this strategy based on. Do liberal think that criminals with guns are so primitive they have lizardvision? If you hold real still he can't see you......
Posted by: Howie at May 14, 2007 09:57 PM (YHZAl)
17
Yeah, like if I were going to have to shoot someone. It would be real helpfull if they would hold good and still for me. Sure would make it a lot easier, seeing how I'm such a poor shot and all.
Posted by: Darth Odie at May 14, 2007 10:01 PM (YHZAl)
18
I was carried away with one thought, and looking back, I feel I owe a small apology.. I have to admit one detail ... honesty requires it. I knocked out the wrong student that partcular occassion ... Um ... OOPS! But it still is true! If you are willing and able to use even simple weapons, you have more of a chance than you do if you just surrender. A room full of fighters will have more survivors than a roomfull of quiters. Anyway, USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at May 14, 2007 10:02 PM (2OHpj)
19
"lizardvision? If you hold real still he can't see you" It's not that liberals think the badguy has lizard vision, it's actually because libs have 'lizard brain'. Don't your observations bear this out?
USA, all the way!
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at May 14, 2007 10:05 PM (2OHpj)
20
These children will not take another "emergency" as serious. A diservice has happened to them and it is a crying shame. It was a prank by stupid radicals and they have been dealt with in due course but the real harm lies in "prank". What is so funny about this? Children were terrified and their teachers were "laughing". It is another instance of freaks that don't get the true meaning of terrorism. The teacher/asst. principal are to blame. Our system is broke and this just shows how broke it is. Shame on them for doing this!
Posted by: allahakchew at May 15, 2007 11:47 AM (BrndJ)
21
Don't live in the state, they aren't my wasted tax dollars. These are:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0615/p01s02-usfp.html
Must be run by liberals.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0615/p01s02-usfp.html
Must be run by liberals.
Posted by: Dave at May 16, 2007 11:16 PM (5zxY/)
April 04, 2007
Finally, Some Flag Burners Go To Jail
Of course if the flag had not been still attached to a house, then it would not have been a crime. But I'll take what I can get.
Yale Daily News: Three Yale students, including the son of a former governor of an Afghan province, were arrested early Tuesday morning after burning an American flag attached to a home on Chapel Street.PBS's Jeffrey Brown interviewed Akbar on Feb 8th 2006Hyder Akbar ’07, Nikolaos Angelopoulos ’10 and Farhad Anklesaria ’10 were arrested for charges including first-degree reckless endangerment, third-degree criminal mischief, second-degree arson, breach of peace and conspiracy to commit second-degree arson, the New Haven Register reports today. The two freshmen are both foreign citizens, and Akbar is a United States citizen, though he was born in Pakistan. Akbar worked as an informal translator for U.S. forces during the invasion of Afghanistan and later published a memoir, “Come Back to Afghanistan,†based on his experiences there.
Mr. Akbar, I just want to say.... This nation gave you shelter and kept you safe. We liberated your homeland from the Taliban. We educate you, you get interviews. Now we see your other side. You repay us by burning our flag, which you are free to do provided it does not endanger anyone.
I just wanted to say..., F*ck you too Mr. Akbar!
Posted by: Howie at
12:44 PM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I just wanted to say, F*ck you too Mr Akbar!
I second that. Fuck you Mr Akbar. I have a feeling that we have a new hero of the Dims.
I second that. Fuck you Mr Akbar. I have a feeling that we have a new hero of the Dims.
Posted by: Randman at April 04, 2007 01:51 PM (Sal3J)
2
We have an American flag and a Dixie flag at the boat launch as bait for this kind of garbage. Come try and burn them. Asshole muslims. OUTLAW ISLAM. Doesn't matter how you handle them. Muslims are snakes that will turn and bite sooner or later. Those that don't understand this a stupid. Totally devoid of common sense. Notice that these flag burning assholes are the product of American academia. The other Islam.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 04, 2007 02:04 PM (Ip3la)
3
I'm sure they'll say their civil rights were violated, and they'll be out on the streets before too long to do it again.
Posted by: pivalleygirl at April 04, 2007 02:18 PM (x/ji8)
4
#3 I agree, it won't hold....It only holds if you are trying to uphold the constitution then you are racist.
Posted by: allahakchew at April 04, 2007 02:51 PM (BrndJ)
Posted by: Dick at April 04, 2007 02:56 PM (XlQVK)
6
Deport the two foreigners asap and toss the other U.S. "citizen" in Gitmo where he belongs with all his mooslime brothers.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 04, 2007 03:08 PM (8e/V4)
7
You see, Howie.
Their pseudo-religion is not about teaching any virtues; it's all about political dominance and nothing more. So Mo-slimes learn none of the virtues that you refer to such as gratitude, respect, amity, kindness etc.
And Christ likens a person without virtue to a tree that bears no fruit whose only use it is to be cut down and throw into fire. So, it is with these Mo-slimes.
Their pseudo-religion is not about teaching any virtues; it's all about political dominance and nothing more. So Mo-slimes learn none of the virtues that you refer to such as gratitude, respect, amity, kindness etc.
And Christ likens a person without virtue to a tree that bears no fruit whose only use it is to be cut down and throw into fire. So, it is with these Mo-slimes.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at April 04, 2007 03:30 PM (j97MF)
8
I hope they make them jerks pay for a new flag right out of their own pockets after all if they destroyed it they should pay for a replacment
Posted by: sandpiper at April 04, 2007 03:55 PM (vnSBY)
9
I wonder what happened. Did the university brainwash him into anti-American propaganda? If he helped the US Army earlier something must of changed him. Is the university that anti-American?
Posted by: pka at April 04, 2007 04:20 PM (tBm4s)
10
I have become a xenomorph... er, xenophobe. I wish I was a xenomorph, then I could get all "Alien" on those pukes a$$es.
Face-hugger Akbar!
Face-hugger Akbar!
Posted by: Hucbald at April 04, 2007 04:55 PM (9gkDn)
11
#9 PKA Welcome to acadamia. More and more universities are following suit. Preaching hatrid of America. It is called the enemy from within. I suggest you check out this link as it will give you all the information you need on our American colleges:...http://frontpagemagazine.com/
Posted by: allahakchew at April 04, 2007 04:56 PM (BrndJ)
Posted by: t at April 04, 2007 05:09 PM (iFXpu)
13
My question is why were these students given spots at Yale when
deserving American youths were turned down? More of this
"diversity" stuff?
Seriously, I believe that the whole diversity issue is the Ivy League
school's way of admiting that you really get a better education at
Michigan or Texas.
deserving American youths were turned down? More of this
"diversity" stuff?
Seriously, I believe that the whole diversity issue is the Ivy League
school's way of admiting that you really get a better education at
Michigan or Texas.
Posted by: RicardoVerde at April 04, 2007 06:52 PM (zW/QU)
14
Send Yale to jail and watch 'em wail! USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 04, 2007 07:19 PM (2OHpj)
15
But now how do we know this so called 'Rusty' person, is really who he says he is???
( JOKE ) Anyway!
USA, all the way!
( JOKE ) Anyway!
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 04, 2007 07:20 PM (2OHpj)
16
Fuck you, Asshat Akbar! If I could find a stinking Pakistani flag, I'd stand at the corner of my street and set it on fire (after I piss on it and throw bacon grease on it). These filthy pig fuckers need to leave the U.S. and go back to the goat shacks where they were whelped.
Posted by: Insolent Infidel at April 04, 2007 07:22 PM (uA7FB)
17
Ah! Are people thinking. Perhaps agreeing with the Greyrooster? Poor Rusty. But Rusty. You are wrong. You have been brainwashed by the very institution that is supposed to bring enlightenment. The horrible part is your ideals assist the muslims in their quest to destroy anyone not a part of their gutter religion. Must you be on your death bed before realizing your throught processes are fucked up. Darth Vader re-incarnate. Male mosquitos (moderate muslims) don't bite. But the females kill millions every year. No male mosquitos, no females. The overall good must be followed. Quit thinking about a few muslims who may be nice guys. The future of the west is more important. OUTLAW ISLAM. One minute you complain about them the next you wish to protect them. Pick a side. There is no middle. People are waking up to the harm academia has done to the western world. Academic meatheads have steered America in the wrong direction for the last forty years. Virtually every oddball who disrupts our society is a product of Academia. Young impressionable students are being abused by socialist, muslim, self hating nerds in our universities. And they don't teach shit anymore. Thousands of uneducated students and being graduated every year. All they are good for is government work. Time to re-educate our educational institutions.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 04, 2007 07:50 PM (snHs4)
18
greyrooster, there are SOME college instructors who aren't socialist losers. I WAS making a joke about Rusty. in any case, I'd like to see the master plan that will keep the good ol' USA from hitting an iceberg. I've been corresponding with a 'moderate' and we have been polite, but it is clear to me that even many moderates believe that they should be in charge. I'm still exploring possibilities for honorble co-existence, but I am also gradually becomeing more convinced that you can't penetrate the ideology from outside Islam. In other words, It appears Muslims can only free thier own minds. I am losing faith in dialogue. USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 04, 2007 10:13 PM (2OHpj)
19
Grandpappy told my pappy
Back in my day, son
A man had to answer
For the wicked thing he done
Take all the rope in Texas
Find a tall oak tree
Round up all of them bad boys
And hang 'em high in the street
For all the people to see
And justice is the one thing
You should always find
You gotta saddle up your boys
You gotta draw a hard line
When the gun smoke settles
We'll sing a victory tune
And we'll all meet back
At the local saloon
We'll raises up our glasses
Against evil forces
Singing, "Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses!"
We got too many gangsters
Doing dirty deeds
Too much corruption
And crime in the streets
It's time the long arm of the law
Put a few more in the ground
Send them all to their Maker
And he'll set them on down
You can bet, He'll set 'em down
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834
You know it would be a damn shame if a good old fashioned American lynching were to happen to these assholes..............With regards to these assholes just let me quote Toby Keith and Willy Nelson....
Grandpappy told my pappy
Back in my day, son
A man had to answer
For the wicked thing he done
Take all the rope in Texas
Find a tall oak tree
Round up all of them bad boys
And hang 'em high in the street
For all the people to see
And justice is the one thing
You should always find
You gotta saddle up your boys
You gotta draw a hard line
When the gun smoke settles
We'll sing a victory tune
And we'll all meet back
At the local saloon
We'll raises up our glasses
Against evil forces
Singing, "Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses!"
We got too many gangsters
Doing dirty deeds
Too much corruption
And crime in the streets
It's time the long arm of the law
Put a few more in the ground
Send them all to their Maker
And he'll set them on down
You can bet, He'll set 'em down
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834
Posted by: doriangrey at April 04, 2007 10:25 PM (XvkRd)
20
I love that song! USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 04, 2007 10:49 PM (2OHpj)
21
Michael: I not kidding. Good college professors? Certainly. But they are as rare as the infamous moderate muslim. I will continue to subport Rusty until I drive the academic bullshit from him and get him to open his eyes to the real world.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 04, 2007 11:10 PM (Ofz11)
22
Rusty: Message for academic meatheads. Everybody wants to go to heaven. But no body wants to die. Can't have it both ways. OUTLAW ISLAM.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 04, 2007 11:15 PM (Ofz11)
23
Michael: The reason I don't even attempt to mediate with muslims is this. If they truly believe muslims and others can live in peace and harmony they are turning their backs on their own religion. The reason muslims are assholes is their religion. Not the race, the background, their stupid dress, where they are from, or how ugly they are. Their barbarity comes from one source only. Islam. I say for their own good. OUTLAW ISLAM.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 04, 2007 11:20 PM (Ofz11)
24
"Their barbarity comes from one source only. Islam." Yes. I agree. There are a precious few Muslims who want to lead a reform of the religion, and while it's a longshot, they may succeed.
I'd prefer to outlaw some practices as oppossed to the whole religion. I'm worried we are running out of time. That's where my head is at.
I'm holding to my theory about the USA/civil war as likely. If that happens it will become a matter of raw survival to eliminate any connections between Muslim cells in the USA, and radical Islamic support from overseas, OR they will try to aid whichever side seems to look good to them.
For those not keeping score, it's the left that is seen walking down streets with pro Hezb'Allah/ Hamas banners during so called 'peace' marches. You know who the Jihadist's will side with.
Now ... God willing, I will be soooo wrong about the civil war. I notice even talking about the possibility isn't to popular. I'd say we need take the possibilty seriously, and start trying to prevent it. Ignoring it isn't working so good, what with anarchists getting bolder by the day. Tell me it was a unique occurance when they burned the soldier in effigy. Those chants were a bit creative for such freakin morons to have come up with so spontaneously.
And the educators are pushing young people with deciet, and propaganda in the classroom. So lets suppose a large number of the next generations educated will take the wrong side, and if they lose, we lose along with them. We are watching the fuse burn.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 05, 2007 01:46 AM (2OHpj)
25
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/04/mexification-and-future-of-united.html but it's no big deal right?
USA, all the way!
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 05, 2007 02:47 AM (2OHpj)
26
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=5192&sec_id=5192 Give it a read.
USA, all the way!
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 05, 2007 02:51 AM (2OHpj)
27
ocjr mfoyikg ugasyqtc xgusi cohfkzuld jaircmp gfbiwd
Posted by: bckdhg ojxbdai at May 08, 2007 07:04 PM (84+Eb)
March 12, 2007
Six Flying Imams Planning to Sue
Via LGF:
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 3/12/07) - On Tuesday, March 13, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) will hold a news conference in Washington, D.C., to announce the filing of a discrimination lawsuit against US Airways by six imams, or Islamic religious leaders, removed from a flight in Minneapolis last November. The imams say their removal from the flight was based on racism and religious intolerance.In case you don't know the story of the Six Flying Imams, here's a helpful instructional video:
Posted by: Ragnar at
06:15 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Comrades,
Well, I hope someone sends this video along to the defense team for the airline.
What a bunch of frikkin' maroons. Somebody needs to find out who the lawyer for these dipshits is, so we can get an FBI background check going on him as a terrorist enabler.
Respects,
Well, I hope someone sends this video along to the defense team for the airline.
What a bunch of frikkin' maroons. Somebody needs to find out who the lawyer for these dipshits is, so we can get an FBI background check going on him as a terrorist enabler.
Respects,
Posted by: Gwedd at March 12, 2007 07:57 PM (wlNg1)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 12, 2007 08:25 PM (2OHpj)
3
ISLAMISTS VERSUS DEMOCRACY
Democracy consists of : (1) The people are governed by representatives who are elected by fair and frequent elections, with the President and Prime minister also elected, (2) Written laws which can be changed by elected representatives, (3) A final “Basic Law†(Constitution), on which all other laws are based, and it usually has a “Bill of Rightsâ€, describing the essential rights and freedoms of all citizens, (4) Judges who ensure that the laws are applied fairly, and these judges are appointed or elected, and no politician can fire them, (5) A separation of Religion and Politics, so that neither can interfere with each other. Islamists are against all five.
Democracy consists of : (1) The people are governed by representatives who are elected by fair and frequent elections, with the President and Prime minister also elected, (2) Written laws which can be changed by elected representatives, (3) A final “Basic Law†(Constitution), on which all other laws are based, and it usually has a “Bill of Rightsâ€, describing the essential rights and freedoms of all citizens, (4) Judges who ensure that the laws are applied fairly, and these judges are appointed or elected, and no politician can fire them, (5) A separation of Religion and Politics, so that neither can interfere with each other. Islamists are against all five.
Posted by: DemocracyRules at March 12, 2007 10:31 PM (L/SIz)
4
Next time they get on a plane drop them off over the border.
Just another reason that Greyrooster says OUTLAW ISLAM.
Just another reason that Greyrooster says OUTLAW ISLAM.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 13, 2007 07:15 AM (W7E9s)
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at March 13, 2007 08:59 AM (EdIIN)
6
I'd like to see the airline sue the inmans for acting the ass and charge them for the delays. ( Seat belt extenders are also used as a weapon in many forms of Serak. Silly buggers....)
Posted by: wb at March 14, 2007 05:10 PM (Cxxtv)
7
If American hadn’t been so pussiefied by the fucking liberal left these assholes wouldn’t be alive to sue anyone.
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834
Posted by: doriangrey at March 19, 2007 10:11 PM (F5T2G)
March 11, 2007
The Second Amendment : As Legal Analysts, the WaPo Editors Are Halfway Decent Journalists
In the wake of the D.C. Circuit's recent decision on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, the Washington Post is beside itself, and would presume to explain to the federal judges how they got it wrong:
IN OVERTURNING the District of Columbia's long-standing ban on handguns yesterday, a federal appeals court turned its back on nearly 70 years of Supreme Court precedent to give a new and dangerous meaning to the Second Amendment. If allowed to stand, this radical ruling will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded as keeping guns out of the city becomes harder. Moreover, if the legal principles used in the decision are applied nationally, every gun control law on the books would be imperiled.For those of you who prefer to get your legal analysis from journalism majors, you will likely be disturbed that a federal appeals court has "turned its back" on "nearly 70 years of Supreme Court precedent" to give a "new" meaning to the Second Amendment. Problem is, it hasn't. (More below.) more...
Posted by: Ragnar at
11:42 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 778 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: mrclark at March 11, 2007 12:58 PM (XGu1s)
Posted by: L at March 11, 2007 01:54 PM (iFXpu)
3
Another interesting point about the Miller case. Only the government presented it's side to the court. Miller and his partner had escaped from prison at the time so were not represented before the court. I believe the government tried to get the case dismissed because of this but the court denied that motion and heard the case anyways. Not sure if the court has heard any other case where only one sided presented arguements.
Posted by: Waste at March 11, 2007 04:11 PM (sIGxk)
4
One other thing about the 2nd Amendment being an individual right. Ask those that disagree to look at one of the lefts favorite rulings. Roe v Wade mentions the 2nd as an individual right if I remember correctly.
Posted by: Waste at March 11, 2007 04:15 PM (sIGxk)
5
"doomsday provision" Thats why the Left hates it. The outcome of 'doomsday" will be less certain if the forces of evil face armed and determined patriots. USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 11, 2007 04:24 PM (2OHpj)
6
This makes President Bush' two Supreme Court appointments so valuable. Their constructionist mentality will likely protect the 2nd amendment, and set a precendent in the process.
Posted by: The Gentle Cricket at March 11, 2007 05:14 PM (47W8i)
7
Comrades,
So let me get this straight: The Leftists support the idea of Miller inthat only military-type weapons should be allowed.
How then do they square that interpretation with the "assault-gun" ban that they want passed?
What a bunch of frikkin' marooons.
The 2nd Ammendment was designed for exactly the situation that will occur if the leftards hold Congress AND get the White House. It's the only means that the people will have left to protect themselves from those idiots.
Respects,
So let me get this straight: The Leftists support the idea of Miller inthat only military-type weapons should be allowed.
How then do they square that interpretation with the "assault-gun" ban that they want passed?
What a bunch of frikkin' marooons.
The 2nd Ammendment was designed for exactly the situation that will occur if the leftards hold Congress AND get the White House. It's the only means that the people will have left to protect themselves from those idiots.
Respects,
Posted by: Gwedd at March 11, 2007 10:47 PM (wlNg1)
8
Just like all the rediclous predictions made when BILL CLINONS gun ban expired in 2004 and no increare in crime its kind of like what was predicted when they passed a GUN IN EVERY HOME LAW in KENNISHAW GEORGIA back in 1982 the predictions from the usial blabbering idiot journalists that the murder rate in kennishaw will increase blood will flow down the streets on kennishaw and in the end nothing happened so when the vulture went down to georgia looking for a feats and starved to death instead
Posted by: sandpiper at March 12, 2007 10:27 AM (YIXxO)
9
Ever wonder why the Swiss have never been invaded? You might want to check out what they are REQUIRED to have in each home and demonstrate proficiency with on a yearly basis. Here's great a quote and to the correct answer, I will tell you the score of the next World Series before it even starts...
" We would all fire one shot and go home"
Any takers? Professor...?
" We would all fire one shot and go home"
Any takers? Professor...?
Posted by: wb at March 12, 2007 01:42 PM (T/FqR)
10
"In 1940, a German diplomat asked a Swiss diplomat, "What would Switzerland do if Germany invaded?" The Swiss diplomat answered immediately, "We would all fire one shot and go home."
Someone who is more up to date might correct me, but I believe the weapon kept in Swiss households across thier country is a G-3 rifle, or variant. An assault weapon! USA, all the way!
Someone who is more up to date might correct me, but I believe the weapon kept in Swiss households across thier country is a G-3 rifle, or variant. An assault weapon! USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 12, 2007 03:55 PM (2OHpj)
11
All hail our beloved Professor!
A fully automatic machine gun. A spoon in the right hands could be an assualt weaon. Even a small bit of twine as Grey Rooster once choked a chicken with some. Seems a black rooster was after a white hen...... You have to admire a man who believes so deeply in his cause that he will enforce in the animal kingdom. Some might call it racism, I call it an opportunity to make some gumbo! (Afrikan for okra by the way...)
The score of the next world series before the game starts will be....0 to 0.
A fully automatic machine gun. A spoon in the right hands could be an assualt weaon. Even a small bit of twine as Grey Rooster once choked a chicken with some. Seems a black rooster was after a white hen...... You have to admire a man who believes so deeply in his cause that he will enforce in the animal kingdom. Some might call it racism, I call it an opportunity to make some gumbo! (Afrikan for okra by the way...)
The score of the next world series before the game starts will be....0 to 0.
Posted by: wb at March 12, 2007 04:52 PM (T/FqR)
12
Yea that okra is some slimy shit. Okra, small pox, ebola, aids, Michael Jackson, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, black muslims, rap muslic, all from Africa. Not a very good record. OUTLAW AFRICA! The west is afraid they will take over the world of technology.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 13, 2007 07:37 AM (W7E9s)
March 08, 2007
"Loving the Sin but Hating the Sinner"
Both Bryan and Michelle have put up excellent posts on Marine Corporal Matt Sanchez (winner of CPAC's Jeane Kirkpatrick Award) and his treatment by the left and the right, respectively, since his past has become public. (I wonder what Ann Coulter has to say about Corporal Sanchez?)
From the comments on prior posts, it appears that quite a few of you are under the bizarre impression that the best way to win elections is to alienate as many voters as possible in some sort of valiant, principled stance against what you consider to be "political correctness." Fortunately for the GOP, few of you are in positions to put your novel political strategies into practice. I'm encouraged by the long list of prominent conservatives, including bloggers, who've gone on record denouncing Ann Coulter for her unacceptable, self-serving remarks at CPAC. A partial list is below the fold. more...
Posted by: Ragnar at
12:33 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.
1
it appears that quite a few of you are under the bizarre impression
that the best way to win elections is to alienate as many voters as
possible in some sort of valiant
Ragnar,
if you have any real evidence that Ann Coulter has alienated anybody but Leftards I'd be more than happy to see it (I doubt you can produce it). And by "alienated" I mean people who would otherwise vote Republican who no longer will because of Ann Coulter. "Alienating" Michelle Malkin or Markos Zuniga doesn't count.
that the best way to win elections is to alienate as many voters as
possible in some sort of valiant
Ragnar,
if you have any real evidence that Ann Coulter has alienated anybody but Leftards I'd be more than happy to see it (I doubt you can produce it). And by "alienated" I mean people who would otherwise vote Republican who no longer will because of Ann Coulter. "Alienating" Michelle Malkin or Markos Zuniga doesn't count.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 08, 2007 02:04 PM (8e/V4)
2
It seems you have learned well from our chickenshit congresscritters and have yourself become a chickenshit. Cluck with fear, lest the Left call you bad names. Well, I'm fed up with being labelled whatever the Left decides to call me today.
In context, how is anything Ann said different than calling Edwards "Breck Girl"?
In context, how is anything Ann said different than calling Edwards "Breck Girl"?
Posted by: Fersboo at March 08, 2007 03:20 PM (x0fj6)
3
JC -
Your standard is silly and unreasonable. Rarely does a voter go from being a big party supporter to jumping ship over one incident. So, no, I can't name a particular individual who jumped ship on this and this alone. But the point your trying to make is irrelevant and stupid.
That said, I can identify at least one traditional GOP supporter who would've a whole lot less enthusiastic about the conservative movement if it sat silent on this one.
Your standard is silly and unreasonable. Rarely does a voter go from being a big party supporter to jumping ship over one incident. So, no, I can't name a particular individual who jumped ship on this and this alone. But the point your trying to make is irrelevant and stupid.
That said, I can identify at least one traditional GOP supporter who would've a whole lot less enthusiastic about the conservative movement if it sat silent on this one.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold, Arrogant Prick at March 08, 2007 03:29 PM (c/4ax)
4
Fersboo sez: It seems you have learned well from our chickenshit congresscritters and have yourself become a chickenshit. Cluck with fear, lest the Left call you bad names. Well, I'm fed up with being labelled whatever the Left decides to call me today.
Make ya a deal, assmunch : lay off lecturing me on my personal motivations, and I'll do you the same courtesy.
Considering I'm generally the resident heretic on this blog and piss off the people closest to me on a regular basis, your ignorant "chickenshit" tag doesn't carry much more water than your empty skull does. I barely care what my fellow conservatives talking heads think--and sure as hell couldn't care less what the lefties think. There are a few people whose opinion I value--but you're not on the list.
Ann Coulter is a self-serving bitch that does whatever she needs to to grab a headline--the movement be damned. Just like last year, she went to CPAC intending to shock, and she succeeded. It's too bad so many syncophantic fanboys and Ann Coulter wannabes are too mezmerized to realize that what's good for Ann Coulter ain't necessarily what's good for the rest of the movement.
Make ya a deal, assmunch : lay off lecturing me on my personal motivations, and I'll do you the same courtesy.
Considering I'm generally the resident heretic on this blog and piss off the people closest to me on a regular basis, your ignorant "chickenshit" tag doesn't carry much more water than your empty skull does. I barely care what my fellow conservatives talking heads think--and sure as hell couldn't care less what the lefties think. There are a few people whose opinion I value--but you're not on the list.
Ann Coulter is a self-serving bitch that does whatever she needs to to grab a headline--the movement be damned. Just like last year, she went to CPAC intending to shock, and she succeeded. It's too bad so many syncophantic fanboys and Ann Coulter wannabes are too mezmerized to realize that what's good for Ann Coulter ain't necessarily what's good for the rest of the movement.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold, Arrogant Prick at March 08, 2007 03:45 PM (c/4ax)
5
That said, I can identify at least one traditional GOP supporter who
would've a whole lot less enthusiastic about the conservative movement
if it sat silent on this one.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm fine with conservatives dissavowing those comments for the sake of people like your friend. But for anybody but a Leftard to actually believe she's a bitch for a comment like that (when her point was about political correctness, not being gay)? Seems to me she just proved her case.
would've a whole lot less enthusiastic about the conservative movement
if it sat silent on this one.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm fine with conservatives dissavowing those comments for the sake of people like your friend. But for anybody but a Leftard to actually believe she's a bitch for a comment like that (when her point was about political correctness, not being gay)? Seems to me she just proved her case.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 08, 2007 04:27 PM (8e/V4)
6
Actually, She always ends with some kind of wild comment. Seems to me that fag is most often used my hetrosexuals to insult ofhter hetro sexuals. Most of the gay people I know call each other fags all the time and don't really take too much offense. It's like being black and expecting no one to ever say the n word. Or being me and expecting no one to call you white trash or a white n word. Seems to me the stink just encourages it. If you are gay expect someone to use it. If you are not gay I expect someone will call you that.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faggot
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faggot
Posted by: Darth Odie at March 08, 2007 04:44 PM (YHZAl)
7
Jesusland Carlos : But for anybody but a Leftard to actually believe she's a bitch for a comment like that (when her point was about political correctness, not being gay)? Seems to me she just proved her case.
I don't think Ann Coulter's a bitch just because she said "f*ggot" on one occasion.
She's a bitch because she uses words like "raghead" and "f*g" and "f*ggot" and sees nothing wrong with doing so. She spews out a steady stream of offensive and silly comments that aren't at all helpful to those of us who truly care about advancing conservative ideas and selling them to the broader voting populace. I don't use language like that, and I'd never hire a spokesperson who used words like that in her press conferences. Would you?
Why does she do this? Does she suffer from Tourette's? I don't think so. I'm pretty sure she does it primarily to sell books. I'm pretty sure she goes out of her way to grab headlines just to make a buck, even if that tends to damage the broader conservative movement.
And while that may be OK with you, it ain't OK with me.
I don't think Ann Coulter's a bitch just because she said "f*ggot" on one occasion.
She's a bitch because she uses words like "raghead" and "f*g" and "f*ggot" and sees nothing wrong with doing so. She spews out a steady stream of offensive and silly comments that aren't at all helpful to those of us who truly care about advancing conservative ideas and selling them to the broader voting populace. I don't use language like that, and I'd never hire a spokesperson who used words like that in her press conferences. Would you?
Why does she do this? Does she suffer from Tourette's? I don't think so. I'm pretty sure she does it primarily to sell books. I'm pretty sure she goes out of her way to grab headlines just to make a buck, even if that tends to damage the broader conservative movement.
And while that may be OK with you, it ain't OK with me.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold, Arrogant Prick at March 08, 2007 05:15 PM (c/4ax)
8
Well we can't all be prissy women some of us have to be a bitch and want to be a bitch and find life is quite full that way, GO ANN , Edwards is very faggy or is that metrosexual? Ann's audience is mostly made up of "bitches" who speak what they are thinking without worrying what anyone else thinks and young college students such as my 18 year old son and I don't think she is going to lose anyone's respect for her comments. The stuffed shirts are just going to have to crow about her comment for another year until she something else "horrible" oh my!
Posted by: Rightmom at March 08, 2007 06:42 PM (ElLn4)
9
Dick Morris said about the power of the President, that he has the power to change the topic. Dick was refering to Bush's basic need to control the flow of communication, by leading what people were talking about. By repeating the same lines, he surrendered the opportunity to lead the conversation to areas where the Dems were weak, and the Republicans were strong.
We are letting the left control the agenda.
Ragnar, and his list of friends, as well intentioned as they are, feed the left more red meat by validating thier outrage. This is a recipe for defeat, and disaster. The longer we remain on the defensive, the longer we take damage from this, and the more damage we have to inflict on the left before we break even again.
The knee-jerk response I have is to ask 'what side is Ragnar on?' when he keeps the enemies best weapon in play for so many days?
We should be attacking the left on their flood of hypocrisies, not weeping over the use of a word to make a valid point!
Ragnar, go back to posting dirty pictures.
Does anyone else have something we can change the subject to? We need to go after the left, and stop validating them. Make that your mission, and just boycott the next sixty or so threads that come up about this topic. Dick Morris isn't an idiot. he is right about changing the topic of conversation, and we are online to do that!
If Ragnar wants to keep warming up plates full of apology for our ideological enemies then let him. Stop feeding HIM any red meat. What if Ragnar posted a thread, and nobody came?
Dis on Coulter all you like, I do when it suits me, but don't waste bandwidth doing the work of our enemies on this space.
I have a wonderful idea ... Why not EXPLAIN Coulters point to people who DIDN'T hear the whole thing??? It is a valid arguement. Why is the truth something you have to go to go get treatment for expressing?
Why is it OK to ream Coulter for saying something true? Why isn't OK to remember she was talking about the leftist penchant for mind control and re-education??? WHY RAGNAR!?
BEEN TO TREATMENT LATELY!???
WE NEED TO CHANGE THE BATTLEFIELD!
Boycott these kinds of threads. If nobody leaves the first comment, nobody can leave a second comment! Go to where we can win, and leave the smoke and ashes for those who can only circle around apologizing for trivialities!
IT IS WEAKNESS TO APOLOGIZE FOR TRUTH!!!!
And I'm not asking Ragnar to apologize for his earlier valid point. But if 'fragging' is your big concern, then stop 'fragging' this blog! Coulter *BOOM* Ann said *BOOM* Just freakin stop!
What did Pelosi say recently? Anyone?
What about tub'o'lies Murtha? Anyone?
What about crusty-pants-Kerry? Any good stuff here we COULD BE ATTACKING?
It's hard to shine a light on the real bad guys with our own people holding a magnifying glass over the wrong target.
Bring on the Sluts Ragnar, you do that well.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 08, 2007 06:45 PM (2OHpj)
10
She's a bitch because she uses words like "raghead" and "f*g" and "f*ggot" and sees nothing wrong with doing so.
LOL. Now you're channelling civil behavior.
I'm sorry, but coming from a regular contributor to Jawa that just sounds funny.
LOL. Now you're channelling civil behavior.
I'm sorry, but coming from a regular contributor to Jawa that just sounds funny.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 08, 2007 06:58 PM (8e/V4)
11
Rightmom -
I'm all for standing on principle. I've done it all my life. I don't think standing on true principle makes a woman a bitch or a man an asshole, or whatever.
At the same time, I've never believed in the principle of purposefully hurting people just because you can. I've never believed in bullying and thorwing your weight around just to prove you can do so with impunity. I've never believed in putting forth a vulgar display of obscenity just to prove that you can get away with it.
Perhaps those are the principles you hold dear. If so, you and I have very little in common philosophically.
Ann Coulter can say whatever she wants--but I have every right to say what I think about what she says.
I'm all for standing on principle. I've done it all my life. I don't think standing on true principle makes a woman a bitch or a man an asshole, or whatever.
At the same time, I've never believed in the principle of purposefully hurting people just because you can. I've never believed in bullying and thorwing your weight around just to prove you can do so with impunity. I've never believed in putting forth a vulgar display of obscenity just to prove that you can get away with it.
Perhaps those are the principles you hold dear. If so, you and I have very little in common philosophically.
Ann Coulter can say whatever she wants--but I have every right to say what I think about what she says.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold, Arrogant Prick at March 08, 2007 08:53 PM (c/4ax)
12
"Ann Coulter can say whatever she wants--but I have every right to say what I think about what she says" Yes. You do! Contrary to my last comment might indicate. I support your right to your voice. Can we start beating up the enemy now, please?
USA, all the way!
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 08, 2007 09:23 PM (2OHpj)
13
I do hold the principle of saying what I want without regard to how people are going to take it because this is my life however in that I am not evil and in that I do not go around spouting hateful shit all day either I rarely find myself insulting someone however I will call a spade a spade when necessary and Ann by the way was doing just that and I really wish and hope that all who abhor what she said will at least look at her whole skit and not just what the left has cut out for propaganda purposes. I also agree that this waste of a week of space to deride her for her comments really needs to just go away to the leftist sites from whence it was spawned and let the right get back to calling the bs on the real haters. I would personally like to see a post on Gathering of Eagles as that is going to be the biggest event of the year on March 17th and I for one will present and accounted for along with my 2 sons and my husband and am looking forward to the exorcist like head spinning of the lefttards when they see the actual number of people showing up, it will be HUGE!!!
Posted by: Rightmom at March 08, 2007 10:09 PM (ElLn4)
14
I think we still probably need to let Ragnar know that those of us who have disagreed with him, still appreciate his efforts on the wider issues. Just sayin ... USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 08, 2007 11:10 PM (2OHpj)
15
TO ALL. I have to say, I'm kinda upset with myself. I am normally rather fond of civility. I think it IS fair for Ragnar, or any fellow travellers to caution the rest of us about walking into a PR landmine. Nobody want's to be put in the same catagory with the 'woman' who is 'effing' every other sentence up over on 'thier' side. We can't hold ourselves as having a higher standard if we do the same things. That I have to agree with, now that I'm calmer.
I was reacting to two main points during all of this.
First. Coulter made a point, and it was valid, and our side threw it out with the bath water. This was a mistake. What the left is doing when they censor a persons political behavior through 'therapy' is nothing less than soft brainwashing. It is a kind of evil. Exercising free speech isn't a medical, or psychological condition. Treating it like that is Orwellian evil. Tolerating that treatment is gutless cowardess. Condemning those who try to bring this to our attention, allows it to go uncontested.
Second. We don't own Coulter. She is not our slave. She is not ours to discard as we will. I was deeply angered by calls to put an end to her activities. If she was an employee on my time, I could do that to the point of firing her for using my time to promote her activites. That's it. As it sits, we don't have to buy her books, anymore than we have to buy Dixie Chicks CD's. We can express our opinion about her opinion, but we don't have a right of censorship. There was a lot of talk that took the tone as if we DID have that kind of right, and I reacted to it.
Michelle Malkin, whose reasoning powers I simply adore, was correct to say this sort of language shouldn't be encouraged because of the unintended damage it can cause to our side. MM does have a point. I don't recall ever finding her in error, where she herself, wasn't the first person to correct any mistakes. Lots of people agreed with MM, and let the world know this in a fairly loud voice. This it seems, was necessary, because we are in many ways much to civil already. The left pulverizes us in the game of perception.
So here we are helping them out. Not only do we drown out Coulter's point, but we are kicking one of our own most tireless warriors. She is really one of the precious few who will snatch that little 'moral authority' card from the hands of the left, and rip it up in thier snotty faces. The left hates her just slightly less than President Bush. She draws fire that would probably be aimed at him, if she wasn't there, ticking off the BDS'rs with her 'Coulterisms'.
They hate MM maybe a tiny bit less, but don't think they aren't trying to fnd excuses to tear down her as well. Does Michelle use dirty words? Not so I've noticed. It doesn't matter. If she says terrorists are 'Islamic Fascists' then she gets labelled as a racist, and she is being deadly accurate. You see, it doesn't matter what Michelle, or Coulter, or Ragnar, or I say. It can be accurate, and honest, but if the left doesn't like it, they will twist it. It doesn't matter which of us they are mad at. The treatment will be the same.
Just watch the ever tolerated John Ryan try to switch the topic on any given thread. That seems to be his mission here, and he is welcome to try. It is a free country after all.
But what is important about John Ryans' actions, is that the topic is almost always the first thing he tries to control. Most of us see through that, but in the larger media, the left has this down pat. So if one of us says the word 'faggot' in a loud enough voice, we will get reamed by the left, and thier media. It's a sure thing. They understand what Dick Morris was trying to tell Bush. You have to change the topic. This means when something isn't making you look good, say 'I'm sorry' or whatever, and then get the hell out of there.
Don't spend days tearing at the same target the left is, because they won't stop just because we start. Look at Foley. We rightly condemned him .... day after day after day, and the left loved it. Any extra energy we spent admitting our boy was a 'faggot' and maybe involved with teenagers, was a day we weren't tearing the hell out of someone like McCaskill. A lot of our own ammo spent trying to reduce a liability the left wouldn't let go of. We actually paid a hard price for our misplaced attention.
The left chose the topic. They always do. This needs to stop.
So I'm sorry if I was sharp with Ragnar, but I hope this explanation makes a difference. I wanted to move on from this days ago, without the essay. But since the left already knows how to do the topic thingy, and we don't, I figured it wouldn't hurt to share after all.
I love this blog, and I hate it when we disagree like this. Our enemies are the only ones who benefit.
USA, and Jawas, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 09, 2007 06:19 AM (2OHpj)
16
Here is the comment that started it all:
"I
was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential
candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if
you use the word 'faggot,' so I ... can't really talk about Edwards."
It was NOT a knock against gheys. It's OBVIOUS this was primarily a knock at POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, and only secondarily a knock at Edwards. So give it a rest already. You're only proving her 100% correct. I don't care how offensive she is-- she's right. Which is why so many people love her. I expect this kind of faux outrage from Leftards, and perhaps a word of mild rebuke from conservatives for the sake of appearances, but this is getting ridiculous already. Michael Weaver is right on target. Stop buying into Leftardism.
"I
was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential
candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if
you use the word 'faggot,' so I ... can't really talk about Edwards."
It was NOT a knock against gheys. It's OBVIOUS this was primarily a knock at POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, and only secondarily a knock at Edwards. So give it a rest already. You're only proving her 100% correct. I don't care how offensive she is-- she's right. Which is why so many people love her. I expect this kind of faux outrage from Leftards, and perhaps a word of mild rebuke from conservatives for the sake of appearances, but this is getting ridiculous already. Michael Weaver is right on target. Stop buying into Leftardism.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 09, 2007 10:22 AM (8e/V4)
17
Look, I'm admittedly left-leaning and I honestly don't feel what Ann Coulter does and says should be seen as any reflection on the conservative movement whatsoever. This is truly a tempest in a teapot.
What her comments reflect are the views of the ultra-nationalists and jingoists who have unfortunately aligned themselves with the Republican Party, who have themselves unfortunately aligned themselves with conservative thought in recent years. Do not mistake either one for the other.
Ann always has been about "Brand Coulter," feeding her fans the red meat they expect even as she worked to advance her type of conservative thought.
In this latest incident, it was absolutely about her take on political correctness. Deplorable? Probably, but she's always been deplorable as part of her persona; she just has to up the ante a bit these days as new talent moves in on her old turf. And again, part of Brand Coulter is to be anything but politically correct--much like Bill Maher.
Don't expect her to advance the cause, or harm it, in any other way. In fact, quit depending on her to advance the cause period. She's just a loud-ass selling books that's finding out she has to become even louder to stay relevant.
What her comments reflect are the views of the ultra-nationalists and jingoists who have unfortunately aligned themselves with the Republican Party, who have themselves unfortunately aligned themselves with conservative thought in recent years. Do not mistake either one for the other.
Ann always has been about "Brand Coulter," feeding her fans the red meat they expect even as she worked to advance her type of conservative thought.
In this latest incident, it was absolutely about her take on political correctness. Deplorable? Probably, but she's always been deplorable as part of her persona; she just has to up the ante a bit these days as new talent moves in on her old turf. And again, part of Brand Coulter is to be anything but politically correct--much like Bill Maher.
Don't expect her to advance the cause, or harm it, in any other way. In fact, quit depending on her to advance the cause period. She's just a loud-ass selling books that's finding out she has to become even louder to stay relevant.
Posted by: Gleep! at March 09, 2007 11:47 AM (Zlbra)
18
I'd have to say Gleeps assesment is reasonable, even if I'd quibble over some points. Basically, despite our best intentions, we are at a time when truth will be lost in the shouting. Ann isn't that big a deal. Look at the two destructomouths on "The View" and tell me Ann is a problem. Look at Bill Maher, and tell me Ann is a problem. Anyhoo ... USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 10, 2007 02:37 AM (2OHpj)
Posted by: W.E. Todd at March 10, 2007 02:47 AM (l1oyw)
20
I'm sure Ann Coulter's relieved she doesn't have to walk around on your eggshells anymore.
This petition is more embarrassing to Conservatives than a few poorly chosen words.
I'm sure Ann Coulter's relieved she doesn't have to walk around on your eggshells anymore.
This petition is more embarrassing to Conservatives than a few poorly chosen words.
Posted by: SondraK at March 10, 2007 04:50 AM (/UUFm)
21
Ragnar Danneskjold, Arrogant Prick
Dude please dont get me wrong, I love what you are doing here at JAWA but seriously you need to put the crack pipe down and back slowly away from it.
Homosexuality is a perversion of nature and an abomination before God. It deserves no favoritism or protection and all the ridicule and derision that can be cast upon it.
You are sliding down a greased chute of a slippery slope with your politically correct acceptance of a vile and despicable chosen lifestyle and its practitioners struggle to legitimize their perverted chosen lifestyle.
The homosexual community wants you to affirm that their chosen perverted lifestyle is acceptable natural and good and that is exactly what you are doing fighting their battle for them.
There is no greater evil on the face of this earth then to witness an act of evil and do nothing about it. And the homosexual communities struggle to transform a act of perversion into a legitimate acceptable act is an act of evil that is corrupting many a good person who fails to act when witnessing evil into evil people.
Don’t allow yourself to become the greatest form of evil because you chose not to confront evil.
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834
Posted by: doriangrey at March 10, 2007 12:02 PM (SvEjS)
22
Damn doriangrey: Pretty good.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 11, 2007 01:48 PM (SKtGv)
23
greyrooster,
Even a broke clock is right twice a day; I'm just a poor insignificant musician trying to do what is right without alienating everyone in the process (and good god is that hard). I believe that in most cases there is a very definite and distinct right and wrong. I wish that I were some great prophet capable of shedding light upon the problems of the world, but I’m not I am just a insignificant musician trying to make the world a better place for everyone.
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834
Posted by: doriangrey at March 11, 2007 10:55 PM (SvEjS)
24
xelcbzua vtknrdych lwniegjr xmstj ujktwiv pmny wfpbahd
Posted by: vwucm xeyltsj at May 30, 2007 11:50 AM (lWwEt)
Posted by: lsoqa at June 01, 2007 08:38 AM (xeEXa)
26
vnoglwk qmwginc nfpq wuno kuetyn qrnfbvsg ofkvtj
Posted by: qarceudj ictkeyzhr at June 05, 2007 12:21 AM (sMY/n)
O'Reilly & Miller on Coulter & Maher
Posted by: Ragnar at
09:13 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 7 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 08, 2007 10:46 AM (8e/V4)
2
If you will go back to my previous posts on Ann Coulter you will see that Dennis Miller agrees with me. Ann Coulter is making money and enjoying her trips to the bank. Maggot suits Edwards fine, but faggot maggot suits him better.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 08, 2007 12:20 PM (wTIrf)
3
This Dennis Miller guy looks like Ted Bundy.
Posted by: Jester at March 08, 2007 07:06 PM (iwtIO)
4
Dennis Miller for president.
Posted by: curdogr at March 10, 2007 10:29 AM (SKtGv)
5
Jester: I take it the you don't get Dennis Miller is merry ole England. The guys pure genius and doesn't give a shit about being politically correct.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 13, 2007 06:28 AM (W7E9s)
6
Buick Riviera http://www.volny.cz/buickriviera
Posted by: we at March 31, 2007 02:15 AM (EBlBB)
March 07, 2007
LGF : Avoiding Rehab 101
The Big Johnson:
It turns out, you have to go into rehab if you call this a “target-rich environment...â€
Posted by: Ragnar at
03:49 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Smokey Behr at March 07, 2007 05:43 PM (4sWfr)
2
That'll do pig.... that'll do.
Posted by: wb at March 07, 2007 09:49 PM (hiEju)
3
"You'll have to find it first". The uncensored one. That bar screen where Shane Falco scored was great.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 07, 2007 10:21 PM (wTIrf)
March 06, 2007
Ninth Circuit : All Viewpoints Are Equal, but Some Viewpoints are More Equal than Others
The brilliant Eugene Volokh summarizes and comments:
Tyler Harper wore an anti-homosexuality T-shirt to school, apparently responding to a pro-gay-rights event put on at the school by the Gay-Straight Alliance at the school. On the front, the T-shirt said, "Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned," and on the back, it said "Homosexuality is Shameful." The principal insisted that Harper take off the T-shirt. Harper sued, claiming this violated his First Amendment rights.Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has vacated the Ninth Circuit's opinion, but I fear we'll be seeing more rulings like this. Read the rest of Volokh's commentary here.Harper's speech is constitutionally unprotected, the Ninth Circuit just ruled today, in an opinion written by Judge Reinhardt and joined by Judge Thomas; Judge Kozinski dissented. According to the majority, "derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students' minority status such as race, religion, and sexual orientation" -- which essentially means expressions of viewpoints that are hostile to certain races, religions, and sexual orientations -- are simply unprotected by the First Amendment in K-12 schools. Such speech, Judge Reinhardt said, violates "the rights of other students" by constituting a "verbal assault[] that may destroy the self-esteem of our most vulnerable teenagers and interfere with their educational development."
Posted by: Ragnar at
11:39 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Ragnar do you think that students should have the right to wear whatever clothes they wish in school ?
Would you consider a shirt with an anti Semetic shirt to be acceptable?
The Supreme Court vacated the ruling because the point was moot, the student had already graduated and was no lonmger in school.
MSM is now reporting Scooter Libby as having been convicted of 4 out of the five inditments. do you think Bush will pardon Libby ?
Would you consider a shirt with an anti Semetic shirt to be acceptable?
The Supreme Court vacated the ruling because the point was moot, the student had already graduated and was no lonmger in school.
MSM is now reporting Scooter Libby as having been convicted of 4 out of the five inditments. do you think Bush will pardon Libby ?
Posted by: JOHN RYAN at March 06, 2007 01:03 PM (TcoRJ)
2
Wow John Ryan, way to change the subject!
But here's the thing, John Ryan. It doesn't matter what you or your fascist butt buddies think the law should be. What matters is what the law is. The shirt was constitutionally permissible.
Viewpoint discrimination is an especially abhorrent element of leftist ideology. Thankfully, the Supreme Court is unanimous on the unconstitutionality of viewpoint prohibitions. See, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._A._V._v._City_of_St._Paul
That's a 1992 ruling, but the current court would not vary on this.
But here's the thing, John Ryan. It doesn't matter what you or your fascist butt buddies think the law should be. What matters is what the law is. The shirt was constitutionally permissible.
Viewpoint discrimination is an especially abhorrent element of leftist ideology. Thankfully, the Supreme Court is unanimous on the unconstitutionality of viewpoint prohibitions. See, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._A._V._v._City_of_St._Paul
That's a 1992 ruling, but the current court would not vary on this.
Posted by: wooga at March 06, 2007 02:21 PM (t9sT5)
3
Ragnar do you think that students should have the right to wear whatever clothes they wish in school ?
No, I don't.
Would you consider a shirt with an anti Semetic shirt to be acceptable?
"Acceptable?" What does my personal "acceptance" have to do with anything? The question is not whether a message is "acceptable" to me or anyone else individually. Go read up on the First Amendment and get back to me.
The Supreme Court vacated the ruling because the point was moot, the student had already graduated and was no lonmger in school.
Yes, nothing to see here. The Supreme Court's vacating of the Ninth Circuit opinion has no significance. As you know, the Supreme Court makes it a point of vacating most appellate panel decisions that become moot prior to S.C. review. For example, in the case of Roe v. Wade, the court declined to issue a decision and vacated the Fifth Circuit opinion owing to the fact that the case was moot--baby Roe had, after all, already been born.
No, I don't.
Would you consider a shirt with an anti Semetic shirt to be acceptable?
"Acceptable?" What does my personal "acceptance" have to do with anything? The question is not whether a message is "acceptable" to me or anyone else individually. Go read up on the First Amendment and get back to me.
The Supreme Court vacated the ruling because the point was moot, the student had already graduated and was no lonmger in school.
Yes, nothing to see here. The Supreme Court's vacating of the Ninth Circuit opinion has no significance. As you know, the Supreme Court makes it a point of vacating most appellate panel decisions that become moot prior to S.C. review. For example, in the case of Roe v. Wade, the court declined to issue a decision and vacated the Fifth Circuit opinion owing to the fact that the case was moot--baby Roe had, after all, already been born.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold, Arrogant Prick at March 06, 2007 06:50 PM (c/4ax)
4
The Ninth Circuit is suppossed to oversee the region including Montana. For the record, I do not accept thier suppossed authority. I can't do to much about that, but someday states trapped in the Ninths web, like Montana, may have a court that cares about the genuine Constitution, over the promotion of the leftist agenda. till then, it's good to see the Supreme Court let the air out of some of the Ninth's stupidity. USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 06, 2007 08:09 PM (2OHpj)
5
John Lyin: Don't you ever get tired of being a little commie prick?
Posted by: greyrooster at March 06, 2007 09:32 PM (wTIrf)
6
Now if SCOTUS would just vacate the Ninth Circuit instead of just their opinions, we'd all be better off.
Posted by: memphis761 at March 07, 2007 10:22 AM (YHZAl)
7
Dont you think its time to clean up hat mess called the 9th curcut court?
Posted by: sandpiper at March 07, 2007 11:37 AM (gJhPg)
February 05, 2007
Glenn Reynolds on the Second Amendment
Over at Instapundit, Glenn has posted a collection of his articles on the Second Amendment.
Posted by: Ragnar at
09:28 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Jason, No links to that site allowed here. I have the vid and it's shit. It does show a SA 7 shootdown of a chopper. Lot's of allahu akbar shit. Low quality and no verifyable information. Its just jihadi propaganda and low quality. We've reported these shootdowns and the enemy has some SA 7s in the past. It seems they got a new shipment.
So what do you want me to report. Post the vid? or the link to the original mother of all terrorist websites that resides of blogspot.
So what do you want me to report. Post the vid? or the link to the original mother of all terrorist websites that resides of blogspot.
Posted by: Darth Odie at February 05, 2007 11:39 AM (YHZAl)
2
At least report it. People should know what the bastards did to the two pilots. Sorry, Rusty used to post links to the website.
Posted by: Jason Chance at February 05, 2007 11:53 AM (SYd2E)
Posted by: Jason Chance at February 05, 2007 11:56 AM (SYd2E)
4
And just what (new) information is in the vid about the pilots? None that I saw. Maybe I have an incomplete copy? I try not to spread jihadi propaganda unless I have a point to make or jihadis to make fun of. I've been ask not to post links to that site here, so I don't.
Posted by: Darth Odie at February 05, 2007 12:01 PM (YHZAl)
5
Never mind.
Posted by: Jason Chance at February 05, 2007 12:02 PM (SYd2E)
6
OK never minding.
I've snet the info to Rusty. He's not on at the moment. Maybe he'll post it I dunno.
I've snet the info to Rusty. He's not on at the moment. Maybe he'll post it I dunno.
Posted by: Darth Odie at February 05, 2007 12:17 PM (YHZAl)
7
Thanks, it's important since four helicopters have been shot down in one month. I'm not supporting terrorist propaganda.
Posted by: Jason Chance at February 05, 2007 12:19 PM (SYd2E)
8
No I did not say you were. I agree four is a lot in a month. I indicates to me that they have a new batch of missiles. They had some and then for a while they were gone. Then in December they seemed to start using them again. I did see a story on CNN about it today, I'll try and get to it no promises. Sorry, I don't have much time to blog.
Posted by: Darth Odie at February 05, 2007 12:23 PM (YHZAl)
Posted by: Darth Odie at February 05, 2007 01:24 PM (YHZAl)
10
I think that certain rights can be limited if the country faces an imminent threat of a homegrown Islamist terrorist attack. I'm inclined to believe that the Second Amendment is one of them.
Posted by: NorthernCross at February 05, 2007 02:20 PM (Jwdal)
Posted by: Ragnar the Skankophile at February 05, 2007 04:35 PM (c/4ax)
12
To paraphrase the words of Justice Goldberg, the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact. My point is that I think the Second Amendment can be limited as a matter of national security.
For example, I would favor a lifetime firearms ban on all those convicted of terrorism-related crimes even after they serve out their sentences. I would also consider limitations on the purchases of certain firearms by people known to have vocally supported groups like Hamas and Hezbollah even if they haven't technically broken any laws. Not saying that I would favor such restrictions in the end, only that we should not take them off the discussion table merely because it involves the right to bear arms.
For example, I would favor a lifetime firearms ban on all those convicted of terrorism-related crimes even after they serve out their sentences. I would also consider limitations on the purchases of certain firearms by people known to have vocally supported groups like Hamas and Hezbollah even if they haven't technically broken any laws. Not saying that I would favor such restrictions in the end, only that we should not take them off the discussion table merely because it involves the right to bear arms.
Posted by: Northern Cross at February 05, 2007 05:07 PM (Jwdal)
January 25, 2007
ISLAMOOOOOOOOOOOO
PHOOOOOOOOOBIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RALEIGH, N.C. - Three football players at Guilford College, a school with a Quaker background, face assault and ethnic intimidation charges after an attack on three Palestinian students, authorities said.
Aren't Quakers pacifists? Who cares! They're Christians!
Not only that, blame Fox and 24!!!
Islamophobia? Mmmmmmmm... not so much......
A school statement said the altercation, in a campus courtyard, lasted less than five minutes. The students involved were acquaintances without a history of conflict, and at least some of them were under the influence of alcohol, the school said.
But nothing stands in the way of the Religion of Marching In Lockstep:
"It was the most horrific experience of my life," Awartani told the News & Record. "This was a horrible, unprovoked hate crime."
Wow, that's just what they say when Israel defends itself from terrorist attacks.
I'm not accusing the guy of being a terrorist, mind you, but he certainly knows the playbook. And the media laps it right up. Without bothering to look into just who started the drunken brawl.
Which is all that this is. Most of us have been there. You go out, you're having fun, you imbibe a bit too much, and suddenly your best friend is Satan because you think he's hitting on the chick you had your eye on for the last two hours. You duke it out, get a bloody nose, and ten minutes later you're toasting your friendship.
Unless you're a Palestinian; you get your ass kicked for a fight you started, then you whine that your rights are violated, complain to the UN about human rights abuses, and turn around and look for an easy way into your friend's room so you can slit his throat in the middle of the night.
And then walk away laughing, because you know nobody's going to do a damn thing about it except write strongly worded letters.
Posted by: Vinnie at
12:27 AM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.
1
It's getting to be about time ... USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 25, 2007 01:57 AM (2OHpj)
2
I'm all for kicking ass when provoked but this didn't sound like it.
One of the articles I read mentioned brass knuckles being used. Hello! Someone came to the party with a chip on his shoulder looking for trouble.
IMHO we'll see a lot more of this as JQ Public gets tired of seeing Islamic ass kissed. I don't approve of what these students did but boy can I understand their probable frustration!
One of the articles I read mentioned brass knuckles being used. Hello! Someone came to the party with a chip on his shoulder looking for trouble.
IMHO we'll see a lot more of this as JQ Public gets tired of seeing Islamic ass kissed. I don't approve of what these students did but boy can I understand their probable frustration!
Posted by: Subvet at January 25, 2007 03:12 AM (DNVxw)
3
Maybe they should go back to the Palestinian occupied territory of Israel where they are safe from Americans? Where's CAIR yelling and screaming for their fellow terrorists?
Posted by: bigwhiteinfidel at January 25, 2007 06:53 AM (8VR7D)
4
"It was the most horrific experience of my life," Awartani told the
News & Record. "This was a horrible, unprovoked hate crime."
And when Lebanese immigrants gang rape several girls and beat up an Australian, they are unfair targets of racism. ( http://www.arts.usyd.edu.au/centres/cpacs/research/racism.shtml )
News & Record. "This was a horrible, unprovoked hate crime."
And when Lebanese immigrants gang rape several girls and beat up an Australian, they are unfair targets of racism. ( http://www.arts.usyd.edu.au/centres/cpacs/research/racism.shtml )
Posted by: MidnightSun at January 25, 2007 08:51 AM (6/tHL)
5
Three against three. No wonder the Psuedostinians are crying foul. If it had been three against one and the footbal player got his ass kicked, they would be shouting "allahu akbar" and "death to America" instead of "horrible, unproviked hate crime!"
Maybe the overdue backlash agaist the arrogant cultural imperialism of islamopithecines is finally begining. Personally, Im sick and tired of ignorant savages trying to force their stone aged culture down my throat and telling me I'm a racist bigot because I don't convert to islame fast enough.
Maybe the entire football team should visit the local MEMRI chapter for a little cultural exchange.
Maybe the overdue backlash agaist the arrogant cultural imperialism of islamopithecines is finally begining. Personally, Im sick and tired of ignorant savages trying to force their stone aged culture down my throat and telling me I'm a racist bigot because I don't convert to islame fast enough.
Maybe the entire football team should visit the local MEMRI chapter for a little cultural exchange.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 25, 2007 09:16 AM (Dt3sl)
6
This is a run of the mill barroom brawl until I hear all the facts.
And let's see if the Leftards ability to "understand" islamopethicine terrorists extends to their neighbors here at home. I doubt it though, especially if those neighbors happen to be white/christian/coservative.
And let's see if the Leftards ability to "understand" islamopethicine terrorists extends to their neighbors here at home. I doubt it though, especially if those neighbors happen to be white/christian/coservative.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 25, 2007 09:45 AM (8e/V4)
7
Although founded by Quakers only 10% of the students are Quakers
Brass knuckles ?? The local Fox affiliate is reporting that 2 of the football players used brass knuckles.
http://www.myfoxwghp.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=2163696&version=4&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1
Although founded by Quakers only 10% of the students are Quakers
Brass knuckles ?? The local Fox affiliate is reporting that 2 of the football players used brass knuckles.
http://www.myfoxwghp.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=2163696&version=4&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1
Posted by: John Ryan at January 25, 2007 09:55 AM (TcoRJ)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 25, 2007 10:03 AM (8e/V4)
Posted by: templar knight at January 25, 2007 10:26 AM (qmQtL)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 25, 2007 11:16 AM (8e/V4)
11
I don't approve of what these students did but boy can I understand their probable frustration!
Hey Subvet you sound like an Ken Livingston describing 9/11! Fuck those drunken jock-wearing baboons.
Hey Subvet you sound like an Ken Livingston describing 9/11! Fuck those drunken jock-wearing baboons.
Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at January 25, 2007 11:56 AM (RIPcF)
12
Jimmy the Quisling:
"Fuck those drunken jock-wearing baboons."
You sound like you have a geek complex. Bad memories of wedgies and wet willies from High school?
Right. Football players suck. Our colleges need more Psuedostinian engineering students learning about structural stress points in buildings so they can blow them up more effectively.
"Fuck those drunken jock-wearing baboons."
You sound like you have a geek complex. Bad memories of wedgies and wet willies from High school?
Right. Football players suck. Our colleges need more Psuedostinian engineering students learning about structural stress points in buildings so they can blow them up more effectively.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 25, 2007 12:27 PM (Dt3sl)
13
Awartani told the News & Record. "This was a horrible, unprovoked hate crime."
Cry me a f**king river Awartani! And what about the mass executions of Iranian patriots by you Palestinian thugs acting as executioners for the Mullahs? [I have pictures attesting to this.] I don't suppose that's considered a hate crime?
Cry me a f**king river Awartani! And what about the mass executions of Iranian patriots by you Palestinian thugs acting as executioners for the Mullahs? [I have pictures attesting to this.] I don't suppose that's considered a hate crime?
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at January 25, 2007 02:21 PM (vixLB)
Posted by: wooga at January 25, 2007 02:30 PM (t9sT5)
15
I live about 30 minutes from Greensboro. The college is Quaker, but I doubt most of the students there have a strong Quaker identity. In one blog this morning, one of the suspects, Michael Six, is identified as being a bully all the way back to high school.
I disagree with the charge of "Ethnic Intimidation", which the Greensboro Police Department stated is rarely used. Does a concussion hurt any more because it is "ethnic"?
It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out. We know alcohol was involved, and that one of the three Palestinian students was not a Guilford College student and was visiting from Raleigh. The Duke case should have convinced everyone to take initial Police, University and Press reports with a grain of salt. Greensboro News and Record story and Guilford College press release below:
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070123/NEWSREC0101/70123005
http://www.guilford.edu/about_guilford/news_and_publications/releases/collegeresponse.html
I disagree with the charge of "Ethnic Intimidation", which the Greensboro Police Department stated is rarely used. Does a concussion hurt any more because it is "ethnic"?
It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out. We know alcohol was involved, and that one of the three Palestinian students was not a Guilford College student and was visiting from Raleigh. The Duke case should have convinced everyone to take initial Police, University and Press reports with a grain of salt. Greensboro News and Record story and Guilford College press release below:
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070123/NEWSREC0101/70123005
http://www.guilford.edu/about_guilford/news_and_publications/releases/collegeresponse.html
Posted by: Michael at January 25, 2007 03:16 PM (C6XB8)
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at January 25, 2007 03:28 PM (vixLB)
17
It's bad enough that yankees won't go home, but now we've got
islamopithicenes too. It's time for a new Civil War, and this time,
you're all fucked.
islamopithicenes too. It's time for a new Civil War, and this time,
you're all fucked.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 25, 2007 05:29 PM (eGb9y)
18
More from Greensboro; two more football players arrested, and a statement from the family of one of the players (first link) .... if this is true, I don't think we are even close to the real story yet:
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070126/NEWSREC0101/70126004
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070126/NEWSREC0101/301260008
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070126/NEWSREC0101/70126004
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070126/NEWSREC0101/301260008
Posted by: Michael at January 26, 2007 10:16 AM (C6XB8)
19
These muslim animals should not be going to school in our country anyway. Why the hell educate the enemy. And all muslims are the enemy.
I truth if the 3 muslims had won the fight we wouldn't be hearing a word about it. SOLUTION. Quit bringing them over here and deport any already here who don't like it.
I truth if the 3 muslims had won the fight we wouldn't be hearing a word about it. SOLUTION. Quit bringing them over here and deport any already here who don't like it.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 26, 2007 11:24 AM (w+w6p)
20
Well Howie now 2 more of the football team have been arrested. That makes a total of 5. That along with the brass knuckles seems to indicate something more than a fsair fight. How about an update on it. Also the fact that the FBI is now involved.
Posted by: John Ryan at January 26, 2007 12:12 PM (TcoRJ)
21
Here is a link (I hope) with pictures of the 5 football team charged)
None look like they would need brass knuckles to win a fist fight http://www.wxii12.com/news/10850639/detail.html
So Howie will we see an update on this?
None look like they would need brass knuckles to win a fist fight http://www.wxii12.com/news/10850639/detail.html
So Howie will we see an update on this?
Posted by: John Ryan at January 26, 2007 12:22 PM (TcoRJ)
22
More news on this (a statement from the Greensboro Police Department); the victims have still not spoken to the police:
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070126/NEWSREC0101/70126013
but the victim's lawyer says he will meet with the Police and the FBI next week:
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070126/NEWSREC0101/301260008
I guess they all have to get their stories straight, and maybe find those some student visas ....
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070126/NEWSREC0101/70126013
but the victim's lawyer says he will meet with the Police and the FBI next week:
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070126/NEWSREC0101/301260008
I guess they all have to get their stories straight, and maybe find those some student visas ....
Posted by: Michael at January 26, 2007 04:37 PM (ywAPZ)
23
John Lyin:
We all know how competent University investigations and their local police forces are. Just look at the Duke rape hoax.
We also know what consumate liars and pussies you islamopithecines are.
Sounds like a phony hate crime was reported, and arrests were made. Standard operating procedure for our P.C. universities and corrupt criminal justice system.
We all know how competent University investigations and their local police forces are. Just look at the Duke rape hoax.
We also know what consumate liars and pussies you islamopithecines are.
Sounds like a phony hate crime was reported, and arrests were made. Standard operating procedure for our P.C. universities and corrupt criminal justice system.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 26, 2007 09:21 PM (Dt3sl)
24
Jeff perhaps these nmuslims were attempting a suicide martyrdom by attacking the football team ?
Also if you look at the pictures of the 5 arrested so far you can see that 2 of the 5 are already showing signs of male pattern baldness.
Jeff doesn't mind smearing all police forces that are located near colleges or universities.
At least 2 of the "muslims" had attended a Quaker high school on the West bank.
Probably the brass knuckles were planted by the police.
Did you look at the pictures of the guys arrested ?
Also the number 5 is apt to increase.
Also if you look at the pictures of the 5 arrested so far you can see that 2 of the 5 are already showing signs of male pattern baldness.
Jeff doesn't mind smearing all police forces that are located near colleges or universities.
At least 2 of the "muslims" had attended a Quaker high school on the West bank.
Probably the brass knuckles were planted by the police.
Did you look at the pictures of the guys arrested ?
Also the number 5 is apt to increase.
Posted by: John Ryan at January 27, 2007 12:00 PM (TcoRJ)
25
John Lyin:
Some wogs got their asses kicked and reported it as a hate crime. That's all we know, so don't pretend otherwise. Unsubstantiated reports of the high school the alleged victims attended are meaningless at this point. I notice there is no report of the football players using ethnic insults, male pattern baldness or not.
Wogs and islamopithecines report phony hate crimes as a matter of course. Are you forgetting the flying imams? Virtually all reports turn out to be falsified. There are thousands reported each year. Don't expect anybody rational to believe this case is any different until its concluded.
The Flying imams and the Duke rape case were open and closed cases, until it was quickly discovered that all the so called evidence tuned out to be bullshit. Don't cite evidence put forth by the prosecution--which includes the police department--you mindless imbecile. Not unless you're going to cite evidence put forth by the defense. Especially not "evidence" cited by the AP or any other thoroughly unreliable Establishment Media source.
I don't need to smear ploice departments, because they routinely make arrests when "hate crime" charges are leveled. It may be the law in that state, which makes the practice especially corrupt. Any lying asshole can claim they were the target of a "hate crime," and often do. This is a corrupt practice, and needs no criticism by me to expose it as unjust.
If this turns out the way I think it will, you'll never admit you were wrong, because only men can admit their mistakes. You're wrong every time you post a comment here, and you've never owned up to your lies, distortions and errors.
Just remember--this is what happens every time wogs and islamopithecines go up against Americans without vastly superior numbers on their side. You guys are pussies, and the whole world knows it.
Some wogs got their asses kicked and reported it as a hate crime. That's all we know, so don't pretend otherwise. Unsubstantiated reports of the high school the alleged victims attended are meaningless at this point. I notice there is no report of the football players using ethnic insults, male pattern baldness or not.
Wogs and islamopithecines report phony hate crimes as a matter of course. Are you forgetting the flying imams? Virtually all reports turn out to be falsified. There are thousands reported each year. Don't expect anybody rational to believe this case is any different until its concluded.
The Flying imams and the Duke rape case were open and closed cases, until it was quickly discovered that all the so called evidence tuned out to be bullshit. Don't cite evidence put forth by the prosecution--which includes the police department--you mindless imbecile. Not unless you're going to cite evidence put forth by the defense. Especially not "evidence" cited by the AP or any other thoroughly unreliable Establishment Media source.
I don't need to smear ploice departments, because they routinely make arrests when "hate crime" charges are leveled. It may be the law in that state, which makes the practice especially corrupt. Any lying asshole can claim they were the target of a "hate crime," and often do. This is a corrupt practice, and needs no criticism by me to expose it as unjust.
If this turns out the way I think it will, you'll never admit you were wrong, because only men can admit their mistakes. You're wrong every time you post a comment here, and you've never owned up to your lies, distortions and errors.
Just remember--this is what happens every time wogs and islamopithecines go up against Americans without vastly superior numbers on their side. You guys are pussies, and the whole world knows it.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 28, 2007 01:32 AM (Dt3sl)
26
John Lyin: You are a lying son of a bitch. Those students didn't have brass knuckles. Asshole: They wouldn't even know where to buy them and neither do you. Stupid shit. You think you can buy brass knuckles at the local Wal-mart? Stupid bastard.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 28, 2007 02:08 AM (w+w6p)
27
So John, what were your comments when that raghead tried to murder
several people with his SUV last year? Was that a fair fight you piece
of shit? You need to be killed as the traitor you are.
several people with his SUV last year? Was that a fair fight you piece
of shit? You need to be killed as the traitor you are.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 28, 2007 03:00 PM (eGb9y)
28
3816ff8b298e94d21e4a6f50aa90142b Independent newsletter from our foreign friends points our attention to your web project. We are very proud to communicate and colaborate with such partner. Don't be surprised of being noticed. e851160535cf163ca98e2cabd77393d9
Posted by: Reilly at May 11, 2007 04:14 PM (YC+Id)
29
daf27e62d1775cfeb82743cd34354eaa Independent newsletter from our foreign friends points our attention to your web project. We are very proud to communicate and colaborate with such partner. Don't be surprised of being noticed. d9a31e90dfa815b241581cfa56f7d9b0
Posted by: Koby at May 12, 2007 07:40 AM (e29D8)
January 24, 2007
Is Rachel Ray a Racist?
More fun with those shadowy "unidentified sources." This time, the "unidentified sources" claim to have caught Rachel Ray making racial remarks about Oprah Winfrey:
We're told Ray became "extremely loud and aggressive," and began dissing Oprah. Sources say she told the group about a portrait of Oprah that sits in the lobby of Harpo Productions in Chicago. It's from the movie "Beloved" and shows Winfrey's back, enhanced with scars. She's also wearing a skirt from the slavery era.The story did not note whether these are the same "unidentified sources" that witnessed the six Sunnis being burned alive in Baghdad last November.Back at the table, sources say Ray launched into attack mode: "Why is she wearing slave drag? She obviously has problems being black."
Posted by: Ragnar at
01:45 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: MidnightSun at January 24, 2007 03:50 PM (6/tHL)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 24, 2007 04:30 PM (8e/V4)
3
50 pounds from being Rosie? I think you left off a zero.
Rachel is hot. Talks too damn much. Too perky. But hot.
Rachel is hot. Talks too damn much. Too perky. But hot.
Posted by: slug at January 24, 2007 05:13 PM (y09As)
4
Whey hawt, and I've seen her show, she's repeatedly expressed her gratitude for the people fighting for us.
She may tilt left as far as social causes go, but she ain't no Rosie.
She may tilt left as far as social causes go, but she ain't no Rosie.
Posted by: Vinnie at January 24, 2007 05:21 PM (fdAim)
5
First off, Rachel is smokin' hot. No weight loss needed, at all.
Kelly's not buying into the story.
Secondly, I'm having a hard time believing this crap ranks high enough to make it to Jawa.
Kelly's not buying into the story.
Secondly, I'm having a hard time believing this crap ranks high enough to make it to Jawa.
Posted by: dick at January 24, 2007 09:25 PM (UqcLb)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 24, 2007 09:26 PM (eGb9y)
7
I've read her comments - I've seen her show.
So..... what was the problem again?
(psst - Rachel - call me ;p )
So..... what was the problem again?
(psst - Rachel - call me ;p )
Posted by: thaitied at January 24, 2007 11:22 PM (TfTAE)
8
Comrades,
I concur... Rachel is hottttt. What's the problem again?
Rosie's problem is that she's so damned fat that every time she gets a piercing, gravy flows out.
Respects,
I concur... Rachel is hottttt. What's the problem again?
Rosie's problem is that she's so damned fat that every time she gets a piercing, gravy flows out.
Respects,
Posted by: Gwedd at January 24, 2007 11:59 PM (wlNg1)
9
Ewwwww.....
Posted by: Ragnar the Linkwhore at January 25, 2007 12:14 AM (nlbsw)
10
Rachel Ray is HOT? Only if you're a chubby chaser. Her waist is bigger than her bust. The way she squeezes herself into those tight shirts, she looks like a Pillsbury can ready to pop.
Giada DeLaurentis is hot.
Ray is right about Oprah, though. She's a narcissistic primadonna with a persecution complex. Using a portrait from a movie set in an era that ended about 150 years ago to make a stetement about the alleged suffering of Black billionaires like herself is a sign of her subconscious racism. She's also fatter than Ray most of the time.
Giada DeLaurentis is hot.
Ray is right about Oprah, though. She's a narcissistic primadonna with a persecution complex. Using a portrait from a movie set in an era that ended about 150 years ago to make a stetement about the alleged suffering of Black billionaires like herself is a sign of her subconscious racism. She's also fatter than Ray most of the time.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 25, 2007 10:18 AM (Dt3sl)
11
For the record, I never said Ray wasn't attractive. But you can tell she's going to be a chubster in a few years.
Posted by: MidnightSun at January 25, 2007 10:58 AM (6/tHL)
12
MidnightSun:
Ray is going to be a chubster in a few years? Have you been watching repeats? She's already there, man. If she had a chubby rack she would look a lot better, but that seems to be the only fat-free part of her body.
She's A-cup all the way.
Ray is going to be a chubster in a few years? Have you been watching repeats? She's already there, man. If she had a chubby rack she would look a lot better, but that seems to be the only fat-free part of her body.
She's A-cup all the way.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 25, 2007 12:53 PM (Dt3sl)
Posted by: Gleep! at January 25, 2007 02:02 PM (Zlbra)
14
If those of you who slur Rachel could even get her to let you buy her a drink it's be a miracle even if she lived in a trailer.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 25, 2007 05:34 PM (eGb9y)
15
Jeff, Please.....
Giada has a head on her like a bastard rat. Scary large.
Then again, Rachel does have that Joker smile going on....
Damn it.. Decisions, decisions.
Giada has a head on her like a bastard rat. Scary large.
Then again, Rachel does have that Joker smile going on....
Damn it.. Decisions, decisions.
Posted by: Dick at January 25, 2007 07:45 PM (XlQVK)
16
Improbulus:
My life ended 10 years ago when I got married, but prior to that my one nighters and throw aways looked better than Ray. After I died, most of the chicks I had to turn down looked better too.
Sorry man, hot is hot, Ray is not.
My life ended 10 years ago when I got married, but prior to that my one nighters and throw aways looked better than Ray. After I died, most of the chicks I had to turn down looked better too.
Sorry man, hot is hot, Ray is not.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 26, 2007 04:40 AM (Dt3sl)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2007 06:26 AM (eGb9y)
18
I've always felt she was a bit large in the middle. Of course, we watch for the recipes right?
GLEEP: What would a commie faggot like you know about tits? You pitiful asshole you've never been laid my a woman in your life. If one ever gave any up for you she had to be the ugliest bitch in the brothel. Which may have been your mama. Punk.
GLEEP: What would a commie faggot like you know about tits? You pitiful asshole you've never been laid my a woman in your life. If one ever gave any up for you she had to be the ugliest bitch in the brothel. Which may have been your mama. Punk.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 26, 2007 11:45 AM (w+w6p)
19
Greychicken--Why are you wasting valuable time insulting my love life when you could be tying engine blocks to blacks and throwing them in rivers? Get your pointy head back in your game.
Posted by: Gleep! at January 29, 2007 11:57 AM (Zlbra)
Posted by: Gleep! at January 29, 2007 03:03 PM (Zlbra)
21
wfrx zmcfokdt hpzb rqoti abiqrjc nbfljokiy ojlbiwa
Posted by: bqertcayv frilbp at March 01, 2007 01:21 AM (lT3EQ)
January 20, 2007
Who Shot Who
Via Little Green Footballs.
Via Little Green Footballs.This week an outspoken newpaper editor was murdered in Turkey for speaking out against the mass murer of Armenian during WWI. This had gotten Hrant Dink in a bit of legal trouble for insulting, "Turkishness." Now by Turkishness they mean the Ottomans and by that they mean Sharia and by that they mean Islam OK, Glad we cleared that up. He worked his way out of the legal trouble only to face many threats. Now he has been murdered. Turkish police believe the man and the above right pic did the killing.
who killed him and why? Turkish Nationalists?
Well sure if you just undertand doublespeak. Turkish = Ottoman = Sharia = Islam = Muslim
Nationalist = Ottoman Nation = Caliphate.
A Muslime.
LGF had to dig through seven sources to find out what he said. When he did, it turned out he ran away shouting, "I shot the outspoken reporter. Slash! I shot the Non- Muslim! Slash! I shot the infidel! Slash! I shot Jr Slash! Got is pretty cool some days Slash great!" No really. I shit you not.
Update : I rest my case.
ISTANBUL, Turkey (CNN) -- Police have arrested a suspect in the shooting death of outspoken Turkish journalist Hrant Dink after a 32-hour search, authorities said Sunday.Obviously his dad is a Muslim, not a muslime. more...Police have identified him as Ogun Samast. Turkish media, citing police, reported that Samast is 16 or 17, a high school dropout and a possible drug addict.
Samast was identified by his father after he saw widely publicized pictures from a surveillance video.
Posted by: Howie at
07:31 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Did the first try not work?
As I said before:
They'll never change.. and by "they", I mean muslimes.
As I said before:
They'll never change.. and by "they", I mean muslimes.
Posted by: JeepThang at January 20, 2007 08:48 PM (yZQoS)
2
Turkish = Atatürk = Secular
But.... They are a people who continue to look back and behave as savages.
And the chicks are hot.
But.... They are a people who continue to look back and behave as savages.
And the chicks are hot.
Posted by: Rich at January 20, 2007 10:44 PM (LGU0k)
3
Yeah I think it was bad this guy had legal problems but pretty good that he ws let go still... He was killed. I made up the word Muslime becuase some guy in turkey's translator software did that. He was all nasty on the blog. I use it becuase whe I see a terrorist killing innocents in the name of islam I refuse to call them Muslim. No these are criminals shouting hinding their murders behind bastardized Islamic dogma.
As I recall the Koran says that all the prior scriptures of the bible are valid. So if that's tru and you are bound by all those scriptures and the Koran. You would think that murder and violence would be very rare.
They don't deserve to be called Muslim in my book. They are mu-slime and rightly so.
As I recall the Koran says that all the prior scriptures of the bible are valid. So if that's tru and you are bound by all those scriptures and the Koran. You would think that murder and violence would be very rare.
They don't deserve to be called Muslim in my book. They are mu-slime and rightly so.
Posted by: Darth Odie at January 20, 2007 11:37 PM (2cR/Y)
Posted by: MidnightSun at January 21, 2007 02:36 AM (6/tHL)
Posted by: JeepThang at January 21, 2007 08:47 AM (yZQoS)
6
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/1-1-1&fp=45b3c5898a13ebf4&ei=b26zRf3uIbyWsgGH2Yi7BQ&url=http%3A//www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp%3Faid%3D349251%26sid%3DWOR&cid=1112861273
Posted by: JeepThang at January 21, 2007 08:47 AM (yZQoS)
7
Hrant Dink was also a leftist according to Wikipedia. That alone should be enough grounds for some to consider his murder to be justified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrant_Dink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrant_Dink
Posted by: John Ryan at January 21, 2007 10:24 AM (TcoRJ)
8
No me But John is Right the radicals enjoy killing leftists especially. Wierd since the left advocates for them a lot. You'd think they might show some respect or mercy. Guess not huh?
Posted by: Howie at January 21, 2007 03:08 PM (2cR/Y)
9
John Ryan,
Being on the 'left' doesn't automatically make you stupid, or evil, but a lot of us see leftists in denial! About Islam, and Marxism, and many other things which when combined, become an obvious, anti-American bias. As I recall, Rusty has stood up for you, and I personally try to leave you be. I have a sister who leans left (anarchist) and she is righteously annoying. Someday she may come to her senses.
If you must know, however, I do think there are some on the left who have crossed the line, and aren't just 'wrong' about some things, but treasonous in their behavior. They have gone right on past free speech, and are serving up enemy propaganda. Michael Moore is one who comes to mind. As far as I'm concerned I'd feel bad for whoever shot him, IF THEY GOT CAUGHT. Personally, I'd have to settle for misdemeanor assault (punching his lights out) because I have commitments I ned to stay out of prison to fulfill. But yeah, I would be pretty OK with someone parking a cement mixer on top of Michael Moore.
You I might disagree with, but in the end its more important to get you aimed in the right (anti-jihad, pro-America) direction. We need to do THAT for whoever we can. Michael Moore is a lost cause.
I like Hitchens, who is STILL a lefty, even if I disagree with him a fair bit. I don't hate you, even though I disagree with you a lot. I do hate Michael Moore, because he is a filthy disgusting lying propagandist for our enemies. I hope this makes sense.
I believe many will agree with what I said, even if they don't like you. If you love your republic, and the flag that stands for it, if you would die to save them when the time came to choose, your still in the plus side, and thats my real opinion.
Have a better day tommorrow
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 22, 2007 09:55 PM (2OHpj)
January 18, 2007
Do Conservatives Suffer from a Mental Illness?
There's a study out purporting to prove that conservative political beliefs arise out of mental illness.
Libertarian psychologist "Iron Shrink" has a detailed analysis of the study here.
Posted by: Ragnar at
02:38 PM
| Comments (44)
| Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.
1
From the same people who brought us Ebonics and "Post Slavery Traumatic Stress Disorder" for inner city black kids who were failing class.
Psychology is a joke.
Psychology is a joke.
Posted by: Gabriel at January 18, 2007 04:34 PM (NTVio)
2
I can't agree with Gabriel about psychology being joke. It's like any other kind of tools, or sciences. It can be misused, or abused by those who have an agenda. It's like a car, or a chainsaw, handy/helpful when used correctly, but dangerous if used maliciously and aggressively!
What we see here is more of the left's desire to defame mainstream values, by associating them with activities we know AREN'T mainstream. I did like the Libertarian "Iron Shrink"! He ripped 'The Study' apart pretty easily. I added him to my favorites.
I hate when psychology gets twisted by leftists. I still have my college psychology textbooks, and its interesting to see how much the 'pop-psychology' of the left has changed things since then. It's nice to know they don't have a monopoly though.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 18, 2007 06:27 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 18, 2007 07:33 PM (8e/V4)
4
I don't believe conservatives suffer from mental illness, and I agree that much of the methodology of this study is hopelessly flawed due to an obviously liberal agenda among the authors.
However, that doesn't mean all the authors findings should be completely disregarded. Their psych profile does indeed describe a lot of people in this world. I think their problem is the misuse of the concept of conservatism.
If the focus is Americans, the authors should instead have focused on Bush and his few remaining supporters. Similarily, if the focus were Afghanis, they should have focused on the Taliban and its supporters. Among these groups, one can observe "dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity, needs for order, structure, and
closure and to be lower in openness to experience and integrative
complexity." These are the primary characteristics of Bush supporters and Taliban supporters (and ex-Apartheid supporters and so on), and most of them wear these labels with pride.
The fact is, Bush's supporters are not conservative. Conservatism doesn't demand its leaders hold omnipotent control over his subjects, as Bush has consistently sought to do. Conservatism takes a realistic look at what is true, as opposed to what one would like to be true; we haven't seen any of that in the Bush Administration. Conservatism spends public money frugally and wisely; a quick look at BushCo's balance sheet will show the lack of conservatism there.
Bush and his supporters can be more accurately described as authoritarians, not conservatives. The authors of this study should have made that their focus, and they would have been working with a more solid methodology. Still, I wouldn't suggest that Bush supporters are resistant to change. Bush wants to abolish much of our constitutional protections and revert the republic to an authoritarian dictatorship where the president is all powerful and above the law. This is, arguably, the most radical change that has been proposed in this country in its entire history. And that's one bit of change that I intend to resist to the very end.
However, that doesn't mean all the authors findings should be completely disregarded. Their psych profile does indeed describe a lot of people in this world. I think their problem is the misuse of the concept of conservatism.
If the focus is Americans, the authors should instead have focused on Bush and his few remaining supporters. Similarily, if the focus were Afghanis, they should have focused on the Taliban and its supporters. Among these groups, one can observe "dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity, needs for order, structure, and
closure and to be lower in openness to experience and integrative
complexity." These are the primary characteristics of Bush supporters and Taliban supporters (and ex-Apartheid supporters and so on), and most of them wear these labels with pride.
The fact is, Bush's supporters are not conservative. Conservatism doesn't demand its leaders hold omnipotent control over his subjects, as Bush has consistently sought to do. Conservatism takes a realistic look at what is true, as opposed to what one would like to be true; we haven't seen any of that in the Bush Administration. Conservatism spends public money frugally and wisely; a quick look at BushCo's balance sheet will show the lack of conservatism there.
Bush and his supporters can be more accurately described as authoritarians, not conservatives. The authors of this study should have made that their focus, and they would have been working with a more solid methodology. Still, I wouldn't suggest that Bush supporters are resistant to change. Bush wants to abolish much of our constitutional protections and revert the republic to an authoritarian dictatorship where the president is all powerful and above the law. This is, arguably, the most radical change that has been proposed in this country in its entire history. And that's one bit of change that I intend to resist to the very end.
Posted by: Paul at January 18, 2007 07:36 PM (DCYnK)
5
Bush wants to abolish much of our constitutional protections and revert
the republic to an authoritarian dictatorship where the president is
all powerful and above the law.
Like I said, Liberalism is a mental disorder.
And Paul, buddy, there isn't a more dogmatic type of American than the contemporary "Liberal." The examples are endless. Of course, they aren't really Liberals in the traditional sense of the word, but warmed over Leftists, i.e., stalinists lite, totalitalians without guns. They are collectivists. For since when does Liberalism equal collectivism? It doesn't. Never has. That's what makes you the warmed over Leftists you really are. You're a very vocal, activist minority who seek to impose your ever changing "truths" on the rest of us through the courts and the Leftwing controlled media.
Dogmatism, thy name is "Liberal".
the republic to an authoritarian dictatorship where the president is
all powerful and above the law.
Like I said, Liberalism is a mental disorder.
And Paul, buddy, there isn't a more dogmatic type of American than the contemporary "Liberal." The examples are endless. Of course, they aren't really Liberals in the traditional sense of the word, but warmed over Leftists, i.e., stalinists lite, totalitalians without guns. They are collectivists. For since when does Liberalism equal collectivism? It doesn't. Never has. That's what makes you the warmed over Leftists you really are. You're a very vocal, activist minority who seek to impose your ever changing "truths" on the rest of us through the courts and the Leftwing controlled media.
Dogmatism, thy name is "Liberal".
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 18, 2007 08:10 PM (8e/V4)
6
Paul:
"Bush want ot abolish much of our constitutional protections"
YOU ARE NOT ONLY A COWARD BUT A LIAR.
"Bush want ot abolish much of our constitutional protections"
YOU ARE NOT ONLY A COWARD BUT A LIAR.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 18, 2007 10:35 PM (w+w6p)
7
Conservatives suffer from mental illness? I just heard on the news that Nancy Pelosi, Hillery (the bitch) Clinton and Byrd are against the presidents plan to increase troop numbers in Bagdad.
Now these are the same assholes who were screaming that we needed more troops some months ago.
If any group has a mental illness it has to be the friggin liberals.
Now these are the same assholes who were screaming that we needed more troops some months ago.
If any group has a mental illness it has to be the friggin liberals.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 19, 2007 12:22 AM (w+w6p)
8
Dr Jeff's assessment of subject Pule's mental health. (subject identifies self by schizophrenal psuedonym # 24 as "Paul.")
Subject is a Marxist asshole with sociopathic tendencies. IQ is well below average, and subject probably has issues with his daddy, who he feels didn't love him enough. Subject is most likely a momma's boy and a bed wetter. Subject sucks his thumb in his sleep, and has Freudian dreams about his mommy. Subject indulges in frequent power fantasies resulting from low self esteem. subject needs to feel morally superior to others in a vain attempt to assuage his fragile ego, but his failed attempts usually lead to overeating, chronic masturbation, and bouts of suicidal depression. The constant pain from his ass herpes causes irritability and feelings of persecution. Hermaphroditic sexual organs a cause for confusion over which way to bend over, resulting in multiple physical contusions and emotional pain. Subject's pathological delusion focuses on vast, right-wing conspiracies, and manifests in rabid, irrational BDS.
PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION: Immediate euthenasia. Hopeless case with no friends or family willing to pay for treatment.
Subject is a Marxist asshole with sociopathic tendencies. IQ is well below average, and subject probably has issues with his daddy, who he feels didn't love him enough. Subject is most likely a momma's boy and a bed wetter. Subject sucks his thumb in his sleep, and has Freudian dreams about his mommy. Subject indulges in frequent power fantasies resulting from low self esteem. subject needs to feel morally superior to others in a vain attempt to assuage his fragile ego, but his failed attempts usually lead to overeating, chronic masturbation, and bouts of suicidal depression. The constant pain from his ass herpes causes irritability and feelings of persecution. Hermaphroditic sexual organs a cause for confusion over which way to bend over, resulting in multiple physical contusions and emotional pain. Subject's pathological delusion focuses on vast, right-wing conspiracies, and manifests in rabid, irrational BDS.
PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION: Immediate euthenasia. Hopeless case with no friends or family willing to pay for treatment.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 19, 2007 12:51 AM (abVz3)
9
Search your feelings and tell me if this is true about you.
“a clear tendency for conservatives to score higher on measures of
dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity, needs for order, structure, and
closure and to be lower in openness to experience and integrative
complexity†(Jost, 2006, p. 662).
Sounds like he hit the nail on the head.
“a clear tendency for conservatives to score higher on measures of
dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity, needs for order, structure, and
closure and to be lower in openness to experience and integrative
complexity†(Jost, 2006, p. 662).
Sounds like he hit the nail on the head.
Posted by: Wormpaste at January 19, 2007 04:25 AM (XM56o)
10
“a clear tendency for conservatives to score higher on measures of
dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity, needs for order, structure, and
closure and to be lower in openness to experience and integrative
complexity†(Jost, 2006, p. 662).
Translated: conservatives have strong beliefs (almost as strong as Liberals), they seek clarity, they are organized, responsible, and seek to finish things they start, and don't buy into political correctness and Leftwing social engineering.
dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity, needs for order, structure, and
closure and to be lower in openness to experience and integrative
complexity†(Jost, 2006, p. 662).
Translated: conservatives have strong beliefs (almost as strong as Liberals), they seek clarity, they are organized, responsible, and seek to finish things they start, and don't buy into political correctness and Leftwing social engineering.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2007 09:15 AM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2007 09:20 AM (8e/V4)
12
Carlos, you're not too good at formulating your thoughts into coherent statements, are you? I explain a lot about conservatism versus authoritarianism. You come back with the most hollow piece of claptrap, prattling on about "warmed over liberals" as if the last novel thought to enter your brain squeaked in back in 1955.
If you want to debate issues, then focus on what I wrote and reply. If you want to advertise your lack of maturity, then take Jeff's example and go off the hook. But this in between shit has to go.
If you want to debate issues, then focus on what I wrote and reply. If you want to advertise your lack of maturity, then take Jeff's example and go off the hook. But this in between shit has to go.
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 01:30 PM (jHh4c)
13
I just heard on the news that Nancy Pelosi, Hillery (the bitch) Clinton
and Byrd are against the presidents plan to increase troop numbers in
Bagdad.
Greyrooster, I've got some shocking news for you. In addition to Pelosi, Hillary and Byrd, a large majority of republican lawmakers, military experts, and the American public at large are against the president's plan to increase troop numbers in Baghdad.
For the latest example, here are 3 retired generals (people who you had the utmost of respect for up until this moment) who strongly oppose the plan and have come up with alternatives:
Gen. Barry McCaffrey:
"First, we must commit publicly to provide $10 billion a year in
economic support to the Iraqis over the next five years. In the
military arena, it would be feasible to equip and increase the Iraqi
armed forces on a crash basis over the next 24 months (but not the
police or the Facilities Protection Service). The goal would be 250,000
troops, provided with the material and training necessary to maintain
internal order. Within the first 12 months we should draw down the U.S.
military presence from 15 Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), of 5,000 troops
each, to 10. Within the next 12 months, Centcom forces should further
draw down to seven BCTs and withdraw from urban areas to isolated U.S.
operating bases -- where we could continue to provide oversight and
intervention when required to rescue our embedded U.S. training teams,
protect the population from violence or save the legal government.
Finally, we have to design and empower a regional diplomatic peace
dialogue in which the Iraqis can take the lead, engaging their regional
neighbors as well as their own alienated and fractured internal
population."
I guess you probably think all these generals hate America, right?
and Byrd are against the presidents plan to increase troop numbers in
Bagdad.
Greyrooster, I've got some shocking news for you. In addition to Pelosi, Hillary and Byrd, a large majority of republican lawmakers, military experts, and the American public at large are against the president's plan to increase troop numbers in Baghdad.
For the latest example, here are 3 retired generals (people who you had the utmost of respect for up until this moment) who strongly oppose the plan and have come up with alternatives:
Gen. Barry McCaffrey:
"First, we must commit publicly to provide $10 billion a year in
economic support to the Iraqis over the next five years. In the
military arena, it would be feasible to equip and increase the Iraqi
armed forces on a crash basis over the next 24 months (but not the
police or the Facilities Protection Service). The goal would be 250,000
troops, provided with the material and training necessary to maintain
internal order. Within the first 12 months we should draw down the U.S.
military presence from 15 Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), of 5,000 troops
each, to 10. Within the next 12 months, Centcom forces should further
draw down to seven BCTs and withdraw from urban areas to isolated U.S.
operating bases -- where we could continue to provide oversight and
intervention when required to rescue our embedded U.S. training teams,
protect the population from violence or save the legal government.
Finally, we have to design and empower a regional diplomatic peace
dialogue in which the Iraqis can take the lead, engaging their regional
neighbors as well as their own alienated and fractured internal
population."
Gen. Joseph Hoar:
"I urge this committee to insist that an alternative plan be developed
and briefed to the relevant committees in the Congress. It should
include diplomatic engagement with Syria and Iran. It should also
include a significant role for the Gulf Cooperation Council countries,
plus Egypt and Jordan ... It's time we took our friends in the region
into our confidence. The goal of the plan should be to prevent the
Middle East from falling into chaos should Iraq become a failed state.
Victory in the conventional sense is no longer possible. Our goal today
in Iraq should be to achieve a paradigm shift that will enable
political changes sufficient to give the people of Iraq an assured
degree of stability and justice. "
Lt. Gen. William Odom:
"Several critics of the administration show an appreciation of the
requirement to regain our allies' and others' support, but they do not
recognize that withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq is the sine qua non
for achieving their cooperation. It will be forthcoming once that
withdrawal begins and looks irreversible. They will then realize that
they can no longer sit on the sidelines. The aftermath will be worse
for them than for the United States, and they know that without U.S.
participation and leadership, they alone cannot restore regional
stability. Until we understand this critical point, we cannot design a
strategy that can achieve what we can legitimately call a victory."
I guess you probably think all these generals hate America, right?
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 01:35 PM (jHh4c)
14
I explain a lot about conservatism versus authoritarianism.
LOL.
Yes, you compared "Bush supporters" to the Taliban. Brilliant!
And Paul, buddy, it helps to read. I didn't say you are a warmed over Liberal. I said you're a warmed over LEFTIST. They are two different things. I explained why. It doesn't have to be a "novel" thought, only a logical and true one.
LOL.
Yes, you compared "Bush supporters" to the Taliban. Brilliant!
And Paul, buddy, it helps to read. I didn't say you are a warmed over Liberal. I said you're a warmed over LEFTIST. They are two different things. I explained why. It doesn't have to be a "novel" thought, only a logical and true one.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2007 02:00 PM (8e/V4)
15
Yes, you compared "Bush supporters" to the Taliban. Brilliant!
It is a very apt comparison that has been made in many places. In fact, both the Islamic movement and the neocon movement started at about the same time (late 40s) and addressed the exact same problem (the unintended negative consequences of unbridled individuality made possible through democracy and consumerism). Now, completely disregarding your utterly uninformed but completely standard "won't dignify that with an answer" response, you really ought to look more into this more. Read up on the origins of both. Or if you don't like to read, there's an excellent BBC documentary called The Power of Nightmares that goes into the whole story in a very non-partisan manner.
As for your "warmed-over leftist" comment, I can't take it very seriously as it's wildly inaccurate about me, reflecting your own lack of insight about me. Perhaps, instead of resorting to stereotypes you've been taught to regurgitate, you could instead respond directly to what I have actually written. I know, that's much harder than destroying strawmen, but I hope you can understand, I have no response to arguments directed at other, imaginary people.
It is a very apt comparison that has been made in many places. In fact, both the Islamic movement and the neocon movement started at about the same time (late 40s) and addressed the exact same problem (the unintended negative consequences of unbridled individuality made possible through democracy and consumerism). Now, completely disregarding your utterly uninformed but completely standard "won't dignify that with an answer" response, you really ought to look more into this more. Read up on the origins of both. Or if you don't like to read, there's an excellent BBC documentary called The Power of Nightmares that goes into the whole story in a very non-partisan manner.
As for your "warmed-over leftist" comment, I can't take it very seriously as it's wildly inaccurate about me, reflecting your own lack of insight about me. Perhaps, instead of resorting to stereotypes you've been taught to regurgitate, you could instead respond directly to what I have actually written. I know, that's much harder than destroying strawmen, but I hope you can understand, I have no response to arguments directed at other, imaginary people.
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 02:42 PM (jHh4c)
16
It is a very apt comparison that has been made in many places.
Places like NYU where Leftards are paid tax money to do "studies" on how conservatism is a mental illness. Why, then it must be true! I'm convinced.
Places like NYU where Leftards are paid tax money to do "studies" on how conservatism is a mental illness. Why, then it must be true! I'm convinced.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2007 02:50 PM (8e/V4)
17
Carlos, the comparison has been made at many government agencies and think tanks. To understand the comparison requires a deeper understanding of the origins, philosophies and motivations of both movements, something you clearly lack. Honestly, when you state your conclusions about something you know nothing about, it does tend to prove this conclusion about the study mentioned at the top of this thread:
"dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity, needs for order, structure, and
closure and to be lower in openness to experience and integrative
complexity."
You exhibit these characteristics quite blatantly. I would think that, in a thread dedicated to ridiculing this study, that you could hold off on completely validating its conclusions until you got to a different thread, no? Otherwise, you allow this thread to actually prove the opposite point you've been all been trying to make.
"dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity, needs for order, structure, and
closure and to be lower in openness to experience and integrative
complexity."
You exhibit these characteristics quite blatantly. I would think that, in a thread dedicated to ridiculing this study, that you could hold off on completely validating its conclusions until you got to a different thread, no? Otherwise, you allow this thread to actually prove the opposite point you've been all been trying to make.
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 02:58 PM (jHh4c)
18
many government agencies and think tanks.
Many government agencies are saying Bush followers are like the Taliban? How bout you show me! (this is going to be good).
As far as what "characteristics" I blatantly show, I'm not the one on the opposing team's website insulting the locals.
Many government agencies are saying Bush followers are like the Taliban? How bout you show me! (this is going to be good).
As far as what "characteristics" I blatantly show, I'm not the one on the opposing team's website insulting the locals.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2007 03:02 PM (8e/V4)
19
Many government agencies are saying Bush followers are like the Taliban? How bout you show me! (this is going to be good).
I could spend some time putting together the argument online, but I know you won't read it. Plus, the argument is carried the most clearly in The Power of Nightmares. It's readily available. Here's a synopsis:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/3755686.stm
As far as what "characteristics" I blatantly show, I'm not the one on the opposing team's website insulting the locals.
There, that shows it again. To regard me as "the other team" ignores the fact that I'm American just like you, and I also want to find a good solution to our country's problems. To regard me as your enemy first and foremost, shows how you actually view this conflict.
Moreover, how does my presence here on a right wing site have any relevance whatsoever to your personal characteristics? Isn't that just an incredibly lame attempt at misdirection?
I could spend some time putting together the argument online, but I know you won't read it. Plus, the argument is carried the most clearly in The Power of Nightmares. It's readily available. Here's a synopsis:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/3755686.stm
As far as what "characteristics" I blatantly show, I'm not the one on the opposing team's website insulting the locals.
There, that shows it again. To regard me as "the other team" ignores the fact that I'm American just like you, and I also want to find a good solution to our country's problems. To regard me as your enemy first and foremost, shows how you actually view this conflict.
Moreover, how does my presence here on a right wing site have any relevance whatsoever to your personal characteristics? Isn't that just an incredibly lame attempt at misdirection?
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 03:29 PM (jHh4c)
20
I could spend some time putting together the argument online, but I know you won't read it.
Paul,
of course I'd read it. That's why I asked for it. Very telling, however, that you wouldn't deliver on what I actually asked for because I "won't read it" anyway, but you did find the time to link to a Leftard conspiracy movie called The Power of Nightmares. Oooooooh. Scary stuff!
Paul, buddy. I'm waiting for all those "government agencies" that have compared Bush followers to the Taliban. I'm waiting. Put up, or stfu.
There, that shows it again. To regard me as "the other team" ignores the fact that I'm American just like you,
And then this little bit of hypocrisy, where us "Bush followers" can simultaneously be a Taliban but also Americans "just like you" depending on when it's conveeeenient! You make me feel so warm and cuddly.
Paul,
of course I'd read it. That's why I asked for it. Very telling, however, that you wouldn't deliver on what I actually asked for because I "won't read it" anyway, but you did find the time to link to a Leftard conspiracy movie called The Power of Nightmares. Oooooooh. Scary stuff!
Paul, buddy. I'm waiting for all those "government agencies" that have compared Bush followers to the Taliban. I'm waiting. Put up, or stfu.
There, that shows it again. To regard me as "the other team" ignores the fact that I'm American just like you,
And then this little bit of hypocrisy, where us "Bush followers" can simultaneously be a Taliban but also Americans "just like you" depending on when it's conveeeenient! You make me feel so warm and cuddly.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2007 03:48 PM (8e/V4)
21
a Leftard conspiracy movie called The Power of Nightmares. Oooooooh. Scary stuff!
Again, this comment broadcasts your ignorance. The Power of Nightmares is not a conspiracy movie. Your knee-jerk rejection of it, based on what you perceive the conclusions to be, underscores the derogatory comments the authors had regarding conservatives (inappropriate misapplied in that case, but not in yours).
Again, I could spend time putting together all the resources they access in that film, but it would be time consuming, and sorry, I don't believe you would read it, based on the closed-mindedness you've already exhibited here already. As for the numerous government agencies, they're all in the documentary, which is made up of interviews of all the main neocons, CIA chiefs, foreign policy experts, etc. Watch it and make up your own mind.
And then this little bit of hypocrisy, where us "Bush followers" can
simultaneously be a Taliban but also Americans "just like you"
depending on when it's conveeeenient!
That's just it, Carlos. We're all on the same team: you, me, Bush's followers, the Taliban, all of us. Once you discover the motivations and the founding principles of both neoconservatism and Islamicism (as well as many other philosophies that many people find repugnant), you often discover that you share some of the same concerns that those founders did. For example, with neoconservatism and Islamicism, they were both an answer to the many problems we see in modern society: how to keep society together when the driving force sof consumerism and modern liberal government tends to make society less coherent. This is a contention with which most of can agree to some extent. Except on the tactics used to address this problem, there we all disagree sharply. But if you can draw back to the original issue, and trace the beginning of the disagreement, it really brings into clarity the underlying causes and motivations behind the current conflict.
With that clarity, you can then forcefully oppose what you think is wrong with various approaches and philosophies, and have a clear understanding of why you are opposing it. You clearly lack this understanding, Carlos, which explains why you've been flailing this whole time.
If you have the least bit of curiosity regarding the true nature of this conflict, Wikipedia is a good jumping off point to read more. Read the large sections on Islamic Fundamentalism and Neoconservatism, and then follow the links. It can surely help you look like less of a fool next time.
Again, this comment broadcasts your ignorance. The Power of Nightmares is not a conspiracy movie. Your knee-jerk rejection of it, based on what you perceive the conclusions to be, underscores the derogatory comments the authors had regarding conservatives (inappropriate misapplied in that case, but not in yours).
Again, I could spend time putting together all the resources they access in that film, but it would be time consuming, and sorry, I don't believe you would read it, based on the closed-mindedness you've already exhibited here already. As for the numerous government agencies, they're all in the documentary, which is made up of interviews of all the main neocons, CIA chiefs, foreign policy experts, etc. Watch it and make up your own mind.
And then this little bit of hypocrisy, where us "Bush followers" can
simultaneously be a Taliban but also Americans "just like you"
depending on when it's conveeeenient!
That's just it, Carlos. We're all on the same team: you, me, Bush's followers, the Taliban, all of us. Once you discover the motivations and the founding principles of both neoconservatism and Islamicism (as well as many other philosophies that many people find repugnant), you often discover that you share some of the same concerns that those founders did. For example, with neoconservatism and Islamicism, they were both an answer to the many problems we see in modern society: how to keep society together when the driving force sof consumerism and modern liberal government tends to make society less coherent. This is a contention with which most of can agree to some extent. Except on the tactics used to address this problem, there we all disagree sharply. But if you can draw back to the original issue, and trace the beginning of the disagreement, it really brings into clarity the underlying causes and motivations behind the current conflict.
With that clarity, you can then forcefully oppose what you think is wrong with various approaches and philosophies, and have a clear understanding of why you are opposing it. You clearly lack this understanding, Carlos, which explains why you've been flailing this whole time.
If you have the least bit of curiosity regarding the true nature of this conflict, Wikipedia is a good jumping off point to read more. Read the large sections on Islamic Fundamentalism and Neoconservatism, and then follow the links. It can surely help you look like less of a fool next time.
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 04:02 PM (jHh4c)
22
Dogmatic, resistant to change, willing to criminalize dissenting speech, desire to classify citizens by incidents of birth rather than merit, disdain for the electoral process and in favor of rule by an elite unelected oligarchy....
Sounds like 90% of college professors to me!
Regarding Paul, I at least give him points for recognizing that Bush is not 'conservative' in the sense of 'resistance to change' as Bush most certainly seeks to impose significant radical changes all over the world. We can disagree about the wisdom and merits of Bush's plans, but it's quite telling that the study's authors want to lump together the likes of Bush, Hitler, and Stalin, all as 'conservatives,' despite wildly divergent political goals (republican democracy, fascism, communism) which they sought to spread and radically change the world into a form and with governments never before seen. None sought to return the world to some idealized past.
Sounds like 90% of college professors to me!
Regarding Paul, I at least give him points for recognizing that Bush is not 'conservative' in the sense of 'resistance to change' as Bush most certainly seeks to impose significant radical changes all over the world. We can disagree about the wisdom and merits of Bush's plans, but it's quite telling that the study's authors want to lump together the likes of Bush, Hitler, and Stalin, all as 'conservatives,' despite wildly divergent political goals (republican democracy, fascism, communism) which they sought to spread and radically change the world into a form and with governments never before seen. None sought to return the world to some idealized past.
Posted by: wooga at January 19, 2007 04:21 PM (t9sT5)
23
Paul,
so your answer is "it's all in the movie!". LOL. Then it must be true!
If you look at the record, i.e., what people ACTUALLY say, instead of the hidden motivations of people, you'll find that the rhetoric about America and "Bush" spoken by Leftists and islamic terrorists is remarkably similar. Sometimes when placed side by side you wouldn't even be able to tell the difference. Is that in the movie?
I tried. I really did try having an intelligent exchange with you. But you're far too slippery for that. Take for instance how you'd like to come here and call everybody Taliban, yet feign a tolerant Liberal "offense" when I insinuate we play on different teams. See! You're the good guy! I'm the divider. A dogmatic taliban! You proved it! LOL.
How bout I tell the truth for both of us then. You aren't on anybody's team who is a Taliban (and neither am I), and I'm on nobody's team who calls me Taliban. See, it's not that hard telling the truth. Plus, it's conducive to a semi-coherent conversation.
so your answer is "it's all in the movie!". LOL. Then it must be true!
If you look at the record, i.e., what people ACTUALLY say, instead of the hidden motivations of people, you'll find that the rhetoric about America and "Bush" spoken by Leftists and islamic terrorists is remarkably similar. Sometimes when placed side by side you wouldn't even be able to tell the difference. Is that in the movie?
I tried. I really did try having an intelligent exchange with you. But you're far too slippery for that. Take for instance how you'd like to come here and call everybody Taliban, yet feign a tolerant Liberal "offense" when I insinuate we play on different teams. See! You're the good guy! I'm the divider. A dogmatic taliban! You proved it! LOL.
How bout I tell the truth for both of us then. You aren't on anybody's team who is a Taliban (and neither am I), and I'm on nobody's team who calls me Taliban. See, it's not that hard telling the truth. Plus, it's conducive to a semi-coherent conversation.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2007 04:29 PM (8e/V4)
24
Pule:
You keep trying to control the course of debate with your warmed over left-wing inanities, and you keep failing. Even as a troll, you're a failure.
"Subject's pathological delusion focuses on vast, right-wing conspiracies, and manifests in rabid, irrational BDS."
Seek treatment before it's too late. I see Dr Carlos has started your Therapy, but you have a long way to go on the road to mental health. Your neocon psychosis can be treated once you admit that dem Jooos do not control the world from behind the scenes and that President Bush is neither Jewish nor a neocon.
Your BDS is untreatable. You have a terminal case. You are unable to distinguish fantasy from reality, and will die in an asylum raving that BusHitlerBurton is the source of all evil and suffering in the world.
You can take a pill for the ass herpes.
You keep trying to control the course of debate with your warmed over left-wing inanities, and you keep failing. Even as a troll, you're a failure.
"Subject's pathological delusion focuses on vast, right-wing conspiracies, and manifests in rabid, irrational BDS."
Seek treatment before it's too late. I see Dr Carlos has started your Therapy, but you have a long way to go on the road to mental health. Your neocon psychosis can be treated once you admit that dem Jooos do not control the world from behind the scenes and that President Bush is neither Jewish nor a neocon.
Your BDS is untreatable. You have a terminal case. You are unable to distinguish fantasy from reality, and will die in an asylum raving that BusHitlerBurton is the source of all evil and suffering in the world.
You can take a pill for the ass herpes.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 19, 2007 04:48 PM (abVz3)
25
you'll find that the rhetoric about America and "Bush" spoken by Leftists and islamic terrorists is remarkably similar.
Examples?
I really did try having an intelligent exchange with you.
You did?? Damn, I'd hate to see what it's like if you weren't trying!
But you're far too slippery for that.
You mean, you can't just roll out meaningless statements and expect me to accept that as a compelling argument. True.
Take for instance how you'd like to come here and call everybody Taliban
I didn't call anyone here "the Taliban." Rather, I pointed out that Bush's supporters have things in common with the Taliban's supporters. This was never refuted. If I have to explain to you the difference between calling you something, and saying you have something in common with that something, then it's clear why you've had such a hard time understanding my arguments. You have a problem with language.
yet feign a tolerant Liberal "offense" when I insinuate we play on different teams
No, I wasn't offended at all. There's nothing any of you could say that would offend me. I was simply pointing out how you're misframing the argument.
Examples?
I really did try having an intelligent exchange with you.
You did?? Damn, I'd hate to see what it's like if you weren't trying!
But you're far too slippery for that.
You mean, you can't just roll out meaningless statements and expect me to accept that as a compelling argument. True.
Take for instance how you'd like to come here and call everybody Taliban
I didn't call anyone here "the Taliban." Rather, I pointed out that Bush's supporters have things in common with the Taliban's supporters. This was never refuted. If I have to explain to you the difference between calling you something, and saying you have something in common with that something, then it's clear why you've had such a hard time understanding my arguments. You have a problem with language.
yet feign a tolerant Liberal "offense" when I insinuate we play on different teams
No, I wasn't offended at all. There's nothing any of you could say that would offend me. I was simply pointing out how you're misframing the argument.
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 05:23 PM (jHh4c)
26
You did?? Damn, I'd hate to see what it's like if you weren't trying!
Hmm, that was original. You came up with that all your own? You're not nearly as clever as you are slippery.
I didn't call anyone here "the Taliban." Rather, I pointed out that
Bush's supporters have things in common with the Taliban's supporters.
As for meaningless statements, I declare you the hands down winner.
Examples?
I see how that works. You don't have to give examples, but I do. LOL. OK, fine. Let's play a game. It's called "Who Said It: Bin Laden, or a Liberal College Professor?"1. "Reality testifies that the war against America and its allies has not remained confined to Iraq."
ps. I'm not calling you a terrorist, I'm just saying you sound a hell of a lot like one ;-)
Hmm, that was original. You came up with that all your own? You're not nearly as clever as you are slippery.
I didn't call anyone here "the Taliban." Rather, I pointed out that
Bush's supporters have things in common with the Taliban's supporters.
As for meaningless statements, I declare you the hands down winner.
Examples?
I see how that works. You don't have to give examples, but I do. LOL. OK, fine. Let's play a game. It's called "Who Said It: Bin Laden, or a Liberal College Professor?"1. "Reality testifies that the war against America and its allies has not remained confined to Iraq."
2. "In fact, Iraq has become a point of attraction and recruitment of qualified resources."
3. "There is no defect in this solution other than preventing the
flow of hundreds of billions to the influential people and war
merchants in America, who supported Bush's election campaign with
billions of dollars."
4. "In fact, reports indicate that the defeat and devastating
failure of the ill-omened plan of the four - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld,
and Wolfowitz - and the announcement of this defeat and working it out,
is only a matter of time, which is to some extent linked to the
awareness of the American people of the magnitude of this tragedy."
The answers:
http://aredphishhead.blogspot.com/2006/01/game.htmlps. I'm not calling you a terrorist, I'm just saying you sound a hell of a lot like one ;-)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2007 06:50 PM (8e/V4)
27
As for meaningless statements, I declare you the hands down winner.
Damn, Carlos, you're thicker than I thought.
If I say "I'm sick as a dog," that doesn't mean that I've changed species. If I say you have things in common with the Taliban, it doesn't mean you are the Taliban. Hell, I've got things in common with the Taliban; we all have. Arms, legs, eyes, nose, etc. That doesn't mean we're one and the same, but that we have things in common. And in your case, those commonalities are pretty significant. I hope you can discover the meaning of this. Let me know if you missed it, and I'll dumb it down a bit more.
I see how that works. You don't have to give examples, but I do.
I've given plenty of examples. But the fact is, I can't address your claim until I know exactly what you're talking about. Thanks for indulging me. Now let's look at those quotes:
"Reality testifies that the war against America and its allies has not remained confined to Iraq."
This is a pretty non-controversial fact, and as such could have been said by anyone. Are you contesting the truth of it?
"In fact, Iraq has become a point of attraction and recruitment of qualified resources."
I'm not sure who said those exact words, but this precise point was made in a recent NIE published by our own government.
"There is no defect in this solution other than preventing the
flow of hundreds of billions to the influential people and war
merchants in America, who supported Bush's election campaign with
billions of dollars."
The meaning of this statement is impossible to determine, since I don't know what they mean by "this solution." However, I'd guess this was made by someone in Al Qaeda, since they talk about America in a remote sense.
Okay, I skipped to the end and looked at the answers. I get it. They were all made by bin Laden.
Good. I can provide some quotes by bin Laden too if you like. However, you completely failed to show that liberals make the same points as bin Laden. I mean, sure, there is a commonly recognized truth that most people will agree on. If you ask bin Laden if the sun is hot or cold, I expect his answer would be about the same as yours. Des that make you a terrorist? By your own reasoning, apparently it does.
Damn, Carlos, you're thicker than I thought.
If I say "I'm sick as a dog," that doesn't mean that I've changed species. If I say you have things in common with the Taliban, it doesn't mean you are the Taliban. Hell, I've got things in common with the Taliban; we all have. Arms, legs, eyes, nose, etc. That doesn't mean we're one and the same, but that we have things in common. And in your case, those commonalities are pretty significant. I hope you can discover the meaning of this. Let me know if you missed it, and I'll dumb it down a bit more.
I see how that works. You don't have to give examples, but I do.
I've given plenty of examples. But the fact is, I can't address your claim until I know exactly what you're talking about. Thanks for indulging me. Now let's look at those quotes:
"Reality testifies that the war against America and its allies has not remained confined to Iraq."
This is a pretty non-controversial fact, and as such could have been said by anyone. Are you contesting the truth of it?
"In fact, Iraq has become a point of attraction and recruitment of qualified resources."
I'm not sure who said those exact words, but this precise point was made in a recent NIE published by our own government.
"There is no defect in this solution other than preventing the
flow of hundreds of billions to the influential people and war
merchants in America, who supported Bush's election campaign with
billions of dollars."
The meaning of this statement is impossible to determine, since I don't know what they mean by "this solution." However, I'd guess this was made by someone in Al Qaeda, since they talk about America in a remote sense.
Okay, I skipped to the end and looked at the answers. I get it. They were all made by bin Laden.
Good. I can provide some quotes by bin Laden too if you like. However, you completely failed to show that liberals make the same points as bin Laden. I mean, sure, there is a commonly recognized truth that most people will agree on. If you ask bin Laden if the sun is hot or cold, I expect his answer would be about the same as yours. Des that make you a terrorist? By your own reasoning, apparently it does.
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 07:04 PM (UJWSl)
28
Okay, I skipped to the end and looked at the answers.
That's ok. I couldn't tell the difference either. See? Now we can make a movie too about how much Leftists and Al Qaida terrorists have in common, and we can give it a real scary name too! Then we can quote it as proof you Leftists are scary terrorist types! Sounds like a plan.
That's ok. I couldn't tell the difference either. See? Now we can make a movie too about how much Leftists and Al Qaida terrorists have in common, and we can give it a real scary name too! Then we can quote it as proof you Leftists are scary terrorist types! Sounds like a plan.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2007 07:56 PM (8e/V4)
29
Post slavery traumatic stress disorder. Ha, ha. Now I know what Paul suffers from.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 19, 2007 08:44 PM (w+w6p)
30
Paul: You dork. You liberals asses always miss the point. The point was that these individuals have turned 180 degrees in two months. But being a lefturd with post slavery traumatic stress disorder I understand your inability to focus on anything but your leftist bullshit.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 19, 2007 08:48 PM (w+w6p)
31
That's ok. I couldn't tell the difference either.
Okay, Carlos, since you couldn't understand my earlier comment, I'm going to dumb it waaaay down for you.
Your first 2 quotes were simply statements of fact. It so happens that the speaker in this case was bin Laden. However, it doesn't change the facts that he states. For example, no one would contest the fact the war on terror is not restricted to Iraq. Not you, me, Bush: nobody. Similarly, the first time I heard that Iraq was serving as an effective recruitment tool for Al Qaeda was not from bin Laden but from the US government in its most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Since you cannot contest either of these facts, I assume that means that you also agree with bin Laden. I'm not sure what you were hoping to prove there, but your failure at doing so doesn't seem have slowed you down any.
Are you attempting some sort of "defeat with dignity" thing here? You get your hat handed to you repeatedly and then declare victory? I'm sure that will be fine for the idiots who peruse these pages, but one must assume there are intelligent people here too, to whom you look like a moron. Just sayin'.
Okay, Carlos, since you couldn't understand my earlier comment, I'm going to dumb it waaaay down for you.
Your first 2 quotes were simply statements of fact. It so happens that the speaker in this case was bin Laden. However, it doesn't change the facts that he states. For example, no one would contest the fact the war on terror is not restricted to Iraq. Not you, me, Bush: nobody. Similarly, the first time I heard that Iraq was serving as an effective recruitment tool for Al Qaeda was not from bin Laden but from the US government in its most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Since you cannot contest either of these facts, I assume that means that you also agree with bin Laden. I'm not sure what you were hoping to prove there, but your failure at doing so doesn't seem have slowed you down any.
Are you attempting some sort of "defeat with dignity" thing here? You get your hat handed to you repeatedly and then declare victory? I'm sure that will be fine for the idiots who peruse these pages, but one must assume there are intelligent people here too, to whom you look like a moron. Just sayin'.
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 08:58 PM (UJWSl)
32
Greyrooster, you know in Sanford and Son when Fred would get all het up, and start thrusting his fists up and down and in all directions, while Lamont would try to smooth things over?
Well, you do a hell of an impression.
Well, you do a hell of an impression.
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 09:00 PM (UJWSl)
33
Paul,
let's play some more. Who said this, a Leftist? or an islamic terrorist:
"It never occurred to us that he, the commander in chief of
the country, would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face
those horrors alone, because he thought listening to a child discussing
her goats was more important."
I know, it's hard to tell!!! Or this:
Despite entering the fourth year after
September 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from
you, and therefore the reasons are still there for a repeat of what happened."
and this:
"He [Bush] adopted despotism and the crushing of freedoms from Arab
rulers and called it the Patriot Act under the guise of combating
terrorism. . . ."
Osama? Michael Moore?
"It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the
American forces would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face
those horrors alone at a time when they most needed him because he
thought listening to a child discussing her goat and its ramming was
more important than the planes and their ramming of the skyscrapers.
LOL. The similarities are remarkable!!!
let's play some more. Who said this, a Leftist? or an islamic terrorist:
"It never occurred to us that he, the commander in chief of
the country, would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face
those horrors alone, because he thought listening to a child discussing
her goats was more important."
I know, it's hard to tell!!! Or this:
Despite entering the fourth year after
September 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from
you, and therefore the reasons are still there for a repeat of what happened."
and this:
"He [Bush] adopted despotism and the crushing of freedoms from Arab
rulers and called it the Patriot Act under the guise of combating
terrorism. . . ."
Osama? Michael Moore?
"It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the
American forces would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face
those horrors alone at a time when they most needed him because he
thought listening to a child discussing her goat and its ramming was
more important than the planes and their ramming of the skyscrapers.
LOL. The similarities are remarkable!!!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2007 10:07 PM (8e/V4)
34
Pule:
You continue to post meaningless gibberish without backing up a single asinine claim you've made. Your juvenile attempts at misdirection would be pitiable, if you were a member of the human race deserving of charity.
Thank you for proving to us all that moonbats do indeed suffer fom a mental illness.
Meanwhile, your elected President has sent more troops to Iraq to cunduct door to door terrorist liquidation sweeps. The extermination of terrorists in Iraq is climbing to a new level, and there's not a God damned thing you leftists can do about it.
How do you feel about that, little man?
You can run, but you cant hide. No matter how many times you try to derail an adult converstaion at this blog, I will expose your sophomoric contumacy and empty rhetoric. You hate your country and you're deathly afraid of me. You cant handle the humiliation I make you feel, and you try in vain hide in a corner.
Guess what bitch? I have a flashlight that exposes cockroaches like you. It's called the truth, and vermin like you cant abide it. Your tinfoil hat wont protect you, and I wont allow you to mouth off with impunity. I'm the equivalent of a Coalition bullet in your jihadi loving head. Bang, bang, you're plagiarized ideas are dead.
You continue to post meaningless gibberish without backing up a single asinine claim you've made. Your juvenile attempts at misdirection would be pitiable, if you were a member of the human race deserving of charity.
Thank you for proving to us all that moonbats do indeed suffer fom a mental illness.
Meanwhile, your elected President has sent more troops to Iraq to cunduct door to door terrorist liquidation sweeps. The extermination of terrorists in Iraq is climbing to a new level, and there's not a God damned thing you leftists can do about it.
How do you feel about that, little man?
You can run, but you cant hide. No matter how many times you try to derail an adult converstaion at this blog, I will expose your sophomoric contumacy and empty rhetoric. You hate your country and you're deathly afraid of me. You cant handle the humiliation I make you feel, and you try in vain hide in a corner.
Guess what bitch? I have a flashlight that exposes cockroaches like you. It's called the truth, and vermin like you cant abide it. Your tinfoil hat wont protect you, and I wont allow you to mouth off with impunity. I'm the equivalent of a Coalition bullet in your jihadi loving head. Bang, bang, you're plagiarized ideas are dead.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 19, 2007 11:15 PM (abVz3)
35
Mother fucker.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 19, 2007 11:16 PM (abVz3)
36
I'm sorry I mised this, but life happened, and I neded to deal with it. Still I don't see where I was needed. it still would have ben fun
USA, all the way!
USA, all the way!Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 20, 2007 03:21 AM (2OHpj)
37
I'm sorry I mised this,
I think after he reads post #33 he'll not want to play anymore and pretend he never saw it. Game over.
I think after he reads post #33 he'll not want to play anymore and pretend he never saw it. Game over.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 20, 2007 05:21 PM (8e/V4)
38
It appears that nothing is left of Pule except the skidmark he left in his skivvies when he fled in terror.
Poor little leftist bitch.
Poor little leftist bitch.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 20, 2007 11:08 PM (abVz3)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 21, 2007 03:33 PM (eGb9y)
40
What comments? I'll read them.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 21, 2007 07:58 PM (abVz3)
41
Any sign of political affiliation is a mental disorder. Simply reading the comments of any political webspace will tell you that. Thinking for yourself is what sane people do.
Posted by: tbone at January 24, 2007 12:25 PM (HGqHt)
42
I just popped by to see if any of you had fought to have the last word, fully expecting that you had. But when I read these threads, I had an insight about the Iraq war I'd like to share with you.
The reason why the Americans cannot be victorious over the insurgency in Iraq is because the Iraqi insurgency are at home, whereas the Americans are in a foreign country. Eventually, the Americans will leave (even if it's after 100 years), and the insurgency will remain.
To illustrate this point, let's look at this blog. I'm like the Americans, and you lot are like the Iraqi insurgency. While I have won pretty much all the battles I have engaged in here, adequately defending my own point while dismantling others (as well as doing so with a level of maturity you guys can't even get your heads around), you folks will always have the last word. Because, while you guys reside here (for whatever reason I can only imagine), I don't.
Therefore, regardless of how I dismantle your points with superior arguments, and make some of you like poor Jeff look incredibly immature, in the end, you guys will be standing here beating your chests like Baghdad Bob, claiming the Mother of All Victories in jawdropping defiance of a page full of facts directly above. At that point, just like the Iraqis, you will be left with nothing but your own bad ideas.
You don't believe me? Watch the next few posts. I predict they will be entirely devoid of substance, rely wholly on ad hominems, and communicated in a way that most kids over the age of 14 would find embarrassing.
Compare this to what's likely to happen the day after the last US troops leave Iraq.
The reason why the Americans cannot be victorious over the insurgency in Iraq is because the Iraqi insurgency are at home, whereas the Americans are in a foreign country. Eventually, the Americans will leave (even if it's after 100 years), and the insurgency will remain.
To illustrate this point, let's look at this blog. I'm like the Americans, and you lot are like the Iraqi insurgency. While I have won pretty much all the battles I have engaged in here, adequately defending my own point while dismantling others (as well as doing so with a level of maturity you guys can't even get your heads around), you folks will always have the last word. Because, while you guys reside here (for whatever reason I can only imagine), I don't.
Therefore, regardless of how I dismantle your points with superior arguments, and make some of you like poor Jeff look incredibly immature, in the end, you guys will be standing here beating your chests like Baghdad Bob, claiming the Mother of All Victories in jawdropping defiance of a page full of facts directly above. At that point, just like the Iraqis, you will be left with nothing but your own bad ideas.
You don't believe me? Watch the next few posts. I predict they will be entirely devoid of substance, rely wholly on ad hominems, and communicated in a way that most kids over the age of 14 would find embarrassing.
Compare this to what's likely to happen the day after the last US troops leave Iraq.
Posted by: Paul at January 30, 2007 08:15 PM (GRUFb)
43
xwvi yjrgeocb hayiwek dsyz jylfpbg bxcpgk zoqn
Posted by: kdtoflpb mrtxbhqce at March 02, 2007 06:48 PM (uAlRs)
44
qiysu gnqc cehianbr wtaj namxz xwzbke povjuqh
Posted by: rfqjszot sdmgkz at March 02, 2007 06:54 PM (e0Itl)
January 15, 2007
pw: There is no such thing as race (and its a good thing, too)
Jeff Goldstein is back (I hear full-time) at protein wisdom, and he's posted a thoughtful essay from 2002 exploring why "race," "culture," and "heritage" have become interchangeable terms among race theorists - presumably (IMHO), to enable them to continue blurring the lines between the terms so that the respective categories run together and are easier for them to teach and impart to those who may not know or care about the differences between them. There is also an examination of the dynamics of identity politics. Yummy stuff.
Read it all, and count your lucky stars that protein wisdom is back in business.
Posted by: Good Lt. at
11:25 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Race is only ever an issue if it can be used as a weapon against White people.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 15, 2007 12:47 PM (6zYAC)
2
I agree with IM. And also race must exist for Liberalism to exist. That's why it will never go away as an issue. Sorry, MLK.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 15, 2007 01:48 PM (8e/V4)
3
Happy James Earl Ray day from the boys at the boat launch.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 15, 2007 02:29 PM (w+w6p)
4
Ever wonder why the FBI will not release its file on MLK?
Posted by: greyrooster at January 15, 2007 02:57 PM (w+w6p)
5
Ever wonder why the FBI will not release its file on MLK?
Because he was a stooge of the KGB, perhaps? King's own diary exposes him as a useful idiot of the commies, so there's no need for PC apologists to waste any words. I personally believe the Russians had him killed so as to start a race war into which they could intervene, and I dare anyone to prove me wrong.
Because he was a stooge of the KGB, perhaps? King's own diary exposes him as a useful idiot of the commies, so there's no need for PC apologists to waste any words. I personally believe the Russians had him killed so as to start a race war into which they could intervene, and I dare anyone to prove me wrong.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 15, 2007 07:49 PM (6zYAC)
6
No one can prove you wrong. The files are not made public because if the truth was known the blacks would burn buildings, attack innocent whites and steal all the new plasma TVs at your local Wal-Mart. I mean he's a hero right? A Christian man of peace. Just like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Thats why every city in America must have a MLK boulevard. What a joke. Rewrite history and hide the facts to placate a minority. Next we will have a OBL boulevard to placate the friggin muslims. Oh yea! let's make OBL a federal holiday so the tax payers can again take it in the rear. aaaaaaaah where's the local skin head recruiting office.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 15, 2007 08:49 PM (w+w6p)
7
I keep hearing that Islam is a race. Every time you criticize Islam or a Muslim, the Leftists, Muslims, and their stooges accuse you of being a racist. And here I am trying to figure out how Islam is a race. I live in the past, I suppose.
Posted by: templar knight at January 15, 2007 09:15 PM (qmQtL)
8
I honestly believe it is a racial thing to 99% of muslims who are middle easterners or asian mixed up mess like Indonesians. Same old story. If you are white, someone is jealous. Of course, when you are responsible for every improvement in civilization for the last 500 years others will tend to be jealous. Hewitt Packard applies for more international patents every week than the entire middle east in the last 20 years. How's that for backward. Then you have the Somalis who claim to have invented dirt and nothing since. Most muslims didn't know what toilet paper was until a few years ago. I guess that is why they eat with the right hand and lick the left.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 15, 2007 11:13 PM (w+w6p)
9
There are obvious and undeniable differences between races, but only leftists and other racists assume differences denote inferiority and superiority. That's why leftists try to deny racial differences, and supremacists exaggerate them. Lefties don't want any group (especially the much maligned White male,) to outperform other groups and supremacists point to performance as justification for their bigotry.
Only college professors and other retards believe there is no such thing as race.
Race is real. It's the product of different isolated populations breeding, genetic drift, and physical adaptions to climates--usually hot ones or cold ones. Physical adaptions are passed down through generations.
For instance, many different groups of people living in equatorial areas have similar adaptions to the hot climate. Blacks, Australian Aborigines and Melaneisians all have dark skin and curly to kinky hair. Many Melanesians are physically indistinguishable from African Blacks. (I read a story about a guy from Africa who jumped ship in the Solomon Islands and lived there for years. The authorities determined he was a foreigner by listening to him speak. He looked like a native solomon Islander, and the natives are not Negroes.) The dark skin and kinky hair helps to protect the body from extreme heat.
Eskimos have developed shorter and thicker limbs than most other groups because that trait helps the body retain heat in cold climes. Lighter skin and hair helped Whites during the Ice Age to maximize the low levels of ultraviolet radiation and produce the vitamin E necessary for healthy skin.
Human beings aren't the only members of the animal kingdom subject to different physical adaptions among members of the same species. Grizzly bears are different from kodiak bears, asian lions are different from african lions, etc. Most of the finches on the Galapagos islands evolved from a common ancestor.
Race is a reality, but genetic populations are not static. They change, and the quickest cause of change is the influx of new genes from different populations (races.) For example, my kids are half White and half ethnic Malay, so a great deal of change occurred in a single generation. (And yes, they are the best looking boys in the world. It's one of the few things my wife and I can agree on.)
I agree that racial classifications are usually used destructively, but that isn't always the case. Law enforcement agencies need racial classifications to decribe suspects. Imagine if a criminal couldn't be described by race. Race is usually a readily definable aspect of appearance. It's much more efficient to use terms like White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic than it is to describe skin tone, eye shape, etc. America isn't going to be able to ditch racial terms anytime soon.
There are obvious and undeniable differences between races, but only leftists and other racists assume differences denote inferiority and superiority. That's why leftists try to deny racial differences, and supremacists exaggerate them. Lefties don't want any group (especially the much maligned White male,) to outperform other groups and supremacists point to performance as justification for their bigotry.
Only college professors and other retards believe there is no such thing as race.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 16, 2007 01:12 AM (abVz3)
10
At the genetic level race is not real. Only the "expression" of those genes is evident to the eye (because of environment). But all humans have exactly the same genetic make up. So as far as any real differences between "races", there are none. It's all cosmetic.
But culture IS real-- very real. That's why I'm not a multi-culturalist. There are good cultures, and not so good ones. But even the best could use some improvement as far as I'm concerned.
But culture IS real-- very real. That's why I'm not a multi-culturalist. There are good cultures, and not so good ones. But even the best could use some improvement as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 16, 2007 09:50 AM (8e/V4)
11
It's not nice to mess with mother nature. Muslims did not evolve in the west. In fact they haven't evolved much at all.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 16, 2007 02:21 PM (w+w6p)
12
Carlos:
There isn't a reliable geneticist on the planet who would agree with you. It's the genetic level that determines race, not disproves it. All humans do not have the same genetic makeup. If they did, they would all be identical twins. Allele drift dispersion is a reality. Race is an "expression" of genes.
Population Genetics is not a bunk science like global warming or social science. It is the cutting edge of genetic research.
Remeber, different doesn't mean inferior. Whites are not the same as Blacks, Blacks are not the same as Indians, Indians are not the same as Mongolians, Mongolians are not the same as Khoi, and Khoi are not the same as Negritos. The racial intermingling made more common by modern travel and immigration has resulted in many different mixtures, all of which are very real. Polynesians are not the same as Mestizos, Mestizos are not the same as Malays, Malays are not the same as Australian Aborigines, etc.
It really shouldn't be a big deal.
I agree with you about culture. I don't want American culture swamped by inferior imports--especially islamic "culture." A country can have only one culture, otherwise it becomes a country with de facto mini-countries within its borders. That's what's happening to America right now. if it continues, America will become just another Third wold style failure.
There isn't a reliable geneticist on the planet who would agree with you. It's the genetic level that determines race, not disproves it. All humans do not have the same genetic makeup. If they did, they would all be identical twins. Allele drift dispersion is a reality. Race is an "expression" of genes.
Population Genetics is not a bunk science like global warming or social science. It is the cutting edge of genetic research.
Remeber, different doesn't mean inferior. Whites are not the same as Blacks, Blacks are not the same as Indians, Indians are not the same as Mongolians, Mongolians are not the same as Khoi, and Khoi are not the same as Negritos. The racial intermingling made more common by modern travel and immigration has resulted in many different mixtures, all of which are very real. Polynesians are not the same as Mestizos, Mestizos are not the same as Malays, Malays are not the same as Australian Aborigines, etc.
It really shouldn't be a big deal.
I agree with you about culture. I don't want American culture swamped by inferior imports--especially islamic "culture." A country can have only one culture, otherwise it becomes a country with de facto mini-countries within its borders. That's what's happening to America right now. if it continues, America will become just another Third wold style failure.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 16, 2007 06:19 PM (abVz3)
13
It really shouldn't be a big deal! True. But just who makes it a big deal everytime they want something.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 16, 2007 07:44 PM (w+w6p)
14
The leftists of course--the same tards who claim race is a social construct.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 16, 2007 11:51 PM (abVz3)
15
Well my Anthropolgy instructors would agree with Jeff, or Carlos, depending on the circumstance. At least one of them was a leftist with 'Aztec' movement sympathies. Even he would say there are genetic differences that show up physically to describe what we call 'race', then turn around say modern transportation and other conveniences have produced a single global breeding pool, so we are only one single race in that sense.
Culture politics was a big deal to the leftist. But my favorite instructor treated culture as an opportunity to try new foods, music, and clothes, but never made it political. Culture can become an ugly source of division, or it can be a fun way to try new things. That is what they taught me.
Race/color identification is still tied to culture, and to cultural bigotry. It does seem to disappear when all colors have the very same culture, or when they are at least indifferent to culture.
Maybe useful, maybe not, but when I was into Nordic paganism, the idea was that Odin, and the other Gods couldn't care less if you worshipped them or not. They didn't care what color you were. They didn't care how educated you were. You didn't need to convert people, because why should it matter to Gods anyway? Their already Gods,. It isn't like some collectable card game "Humans, get them all! have a complete set!"
What mattered was if you being your best. Brave, honest, loyal to your friends, and kept your promises. If you had insecure Gods who worried about getting converts, it was your problem, and no offense, but your welcome to them. When Norsemen used to conquer, they didn't make anyone convert. In a way, that's why Christianity won out over Nordic paganism in the old days. Time, and persistant saturation.
I'm not sure now where I was going with this, but I guess I'm saying cultural intolerance is bad, but cultural defensiveness isn't. Racial bias is bad if it is used agressively, but fair if it is used defensively. Differences matter. WW2 showed Hitler, and Japan, use differences to justify attack, and genocide, while the allies used differences to stop potential sabotuers and demilitarize enemies after the victory.
OK, I'm officially to tired to make sense here, but thanks for letting me play
Here is a YouTube I like ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv8Xs3O8HvM&NR
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 17, 2007 04:07 AM (2OHpj)
16
Michael Weaver:
"The dark skin and kinky hair helps protect the body from extreme heat" Are you nuts. The klan disproved that years ago. Ask any black is Mississippi.
"The dark skin and kinky hair helps protect the body from extreme heat" Are you nuts. The klan disproved that years ago. Ask any black is Mississippi.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 21, 2007 10:35 PM (w+w6p)
December 29, 2006
Chuck Norris : The Abolishing Christian Legacy Union
I love Chuck Norris. I'll take Chuck Norris and Ted Nugent in a straght-up fight against any 50 commie liberals. Here's one of his recent columns:
The ACLU is not anti-religion, just anti-Christian. By definition, it's the American Civil Liberties Union. By action, it has become the Abolishing Christian Legacy Union.The ACLU will assure Muslim clerics and imams the right to pray on planes, fight for an atheist's rights to remove a cross, stand beside pro-abortionists, help illegal aliens cross our borders, and establish rights for the sexual deviant by forming the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, but what is it doing for Christians and Christmas censorship?
While allegedly fighting against the tyranny of the majority, the ACLU itself rules religiously by litigation, lobbying, and supporting counter-culture Christian movements.
So who died and appointed the ACLU as America's religious constitutional watchdog?
Membership for the ACLU is only 500,000. America's population is 300 million. I think it's time that we helped them feel their size!
Posted by: Ragnar at
03:52 PM
| Comments (32)
| Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Try and take down HIS Christmas tree!
Can I capture the moment on video? I'd appreciate it.
USA, all the way!
Can I capture the moment on video? I'd appreciate it.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 29, 2006 06:59 PM (2OHpj)
2
Ah, the usual lies about the ACLU not defending Christians.
For actual cases of the ACLU defending Christians, see http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com
I would also like to point out the obvious; the ACLU never decides cases. Current laws and judges decide the outcome.
For actual cases of the ACLU defending Christians, see http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com
I would also like to point out the obvious; the ACLU never decides cases. Current laws and judges decide the outcome.
Posted by: Brian Westley at December 29, 2006 09:14 PM (bfBCO)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 29, 2006 11:03 PM (8e/V4)
4
Normally I find myself in strong agreement with Jesusland Carlos, but this time I'm holding back a bit. Frankly, I think the ACLU tries to throw Christians a few crumbs, so the Marxist element isn't to obvious. Sorry Carlos
I find that the ACLU uses a definition of the 'establishment' concept, which is more oppressive than the one stated so simply in the First Amendment.
If Congress said "We just passed a law saying Americans must be Catholic", they would be in clear violation of the First Amendment. The same would hold true if they said we would change our laws to endorse Sharia law over the Bill Of Rights. That would be 'establishment' of religion.
Letting federal funds go to a faith based organization is not an 'establishment' issue. Not letting a student here, or a teacher there, use religious speech at a public school ceremony had nothing to do with any law passed by the US Congress.
In short, when the ACLU takes issue with any religious expression by a person or group, where no enforcement of specific dogma or practice is required of others in attendance, they are wrong.
If there is not a clear case where the US Congress is imposing, and enforceing by law, a single religious orthodoxy, and dogma which citizens are required to obey, then there is no 'establishment' issue.
That leaves 'free expression'. The ACLU comes down against 'free expression' in a way the US Congress wouldn't dare. Activist judges are sought out to hear these cases, and by clever arguement, a precedent for a law that never existed, finds its way into American legal institutions. Again, if the US Congress isn't making a law to impose, or restrict any form of religious expression over another, there IS NO CASE. Any such suit should be tossed out on its ear!
There is one great danger we DO face. The Islamic faith is also the Islamic state. The Ummah! Promoting Islam, with Sharia, automatically requires obedience to the Ummah! Therefore, when people like Greyrooster say 'Outlaw Islam' there may be a legitimate Constitutional arguement. I'll clarify.
The US Constitution says Congress may not pass a law prohbiting free expression of religion. This means theoretically we could allow child sacrifices to Molloch(I mean besides abortions). This obviously conficts with the inalienable rights of the child to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Clearly, free exercise can't be upheld in the face of obviously criminal, and inhuman behavior.
Speech yes! Ritual head hunting, no!
Islam is a nation, and a religion. This also flies in the face of everyones right to free exercise, and the non-establishement clause. Sharia tells non-Muslims what rights they will be allowed, not the US COnstitution. Sharia makes it clear that replacement of other kinds of government is seen as good, and inevitable.
Islam under Sharia is patently subversive to the US Constitution.
SO! We see there are cases where religious expression can be deemed a crime.
Decorations, and saying what you believe aren't crimes. Even if your doing it on the publics dime. No part of the US Constitution ever said you had to give up free expression of religion, just because your speaking in public, or paid by tax payers. The very idea flies in the face of free speech!
The ACLU pushes the 'Sharia' of radical secularism.
USA, all the way!
I find that the ACLU uses a definition of the 'establishment' concept, which is more oppressive than the one stated so simply in the First Amendment.
If Congress said "We just passed a law saying Americans must be Catholic", they would be in clear violation of the First Amendment. The same would hold true if they said we would change our laws to endorse Sharia law over the Bill Of Rights. That would be 'establishment' of religion.
Letting federal funds go to a faith based organization is not an 'establishment' issue. Not letting a student here, or a teacher there, use religious speech at a public school ceremony had nothing to do with any law passed by the US Congress.
In short, when the ACLU takes issue with any religious expression by a person or group, where no enforcement of specific dogma or practice is required of others in attendance, they are wrong.
If there is not a clear case where the US Congress is imposing, and enforceing by law, a single religious orthodoxy, and dogma which citizens are required to obey, then there is no 'establishment' issue.
That leaves 'free expression'. The ACLU comes down against 'free expression' in a way the US Congress wouldn't dare. Activist judges are sought out to hear these cases, and by clever arguement, a precedent for a law that never existed, finds its way into American legal institutions. Again, if the US Congress isn't making a law to impose, or restrict any form of religious expression over another, there IS NO CASE. Any such suit should be tossed out on its ear!
There is one great danger we DO face. The Islamic faith is also the Islamic state. The Ummah! Promoting Islam, with Sharia, automatically requires obedience to the Ummah! Therefore, when people like Greyrooster say 'Outlaw Islam' there may be a legitimate Constitutional arguement. I'll clarify.
The US Constitution says Congress may not pass a law prohbiting free expression of religion. This means theoretically we could allow child sacrifices to Molloch(I mean besides abortions). This obviously conficts with the inalienable rights of the child to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Clearly, free exercise can't be upheld in the face of obviously criminal, and inhuman behavior.
Speech yes! Ritual head hunting, no!
Islam is a nation, and a religion. This also flies in the face of everyones right to free exercise, and the non-establishement clause. Sharia tells non-Muslims what rights they will be allowed, not the US COnstitution. Sharia makes it clear that replacement of other kinds of government is seen as good, and inevitable.
Islam under Sharia is patently subversive to the US Constitution.
SO! We see there are cases where religious expression can be deemed a crime.
Decorations, and saying what you believe aren't crimes. Even if your doing it on the publics dime. No part of the US Constitution ever said you had to give up free expression of religion, just because your speaking in public, or paid by tax payers. The very idea flies in the face of free speech!
The ACLU pushes the 'Sharia' of radical secularism.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 30, 2006 01:06 AM (2OHpj)
5
Lyin Westley:
Ah, the usual lies about the ACLU defending Christianity.
The American Communist Lawyers Union represents select Christians in cosmetic cases in a calculated effort to appear impartial, all the while waging jihad on the free exercise of Christianity.
I would also like to point out the obvious; the ACLU initiates and argues cases. Current laws are distorted, and leftist judges are chosen to decide the outcomes.
You left-wing cretins never stop lying, do you?
Ah, the usual lies about the ACLU defending Christianity.
The American Communist Lawyers Union represents select Christians in cosmetic cases in a calculated effort to appear impartial, all the while waging jihad on the free exercise of Christianity.
I would also like to point out the obvious; the ACLU initiates and argues cases. Current laws are distorted, and leftist judges are chosen to decide the outcomes.
You left-wing cretins never stop lying, do you?
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 30, 2006 02:10 AM (abVz3)
6
Carlos, don't let that bit of propaganda away you, because that's just
what it is - nothing more, nothing less. The ACLU learned that trick
from their masters in Moscow years ago, and if you look at all the
lefturd movements in the world, you'll see a common thread of such acts
where they do just a little bit to earn credibility, then are free to
perform their real mission, just the same way that the dhimmicraps, who
fought the Civil Rights movement for so long, infiltrated and subverted
it, and are actually using it to keep minorities outside the
mainstream. As went Saddam, so should go every sonofabitch with an ACLU
card.
what it is - nothing more, nothing less. The ACLU learned that trick
from their masters in Moscow years ago, and if you look at all the
lefturd movements in the world, you'll see a common thread of such acts
where they do just a little bit to earn credibility, then are free to
perform their real mission, just the same way that the dhimmicraps, who
fought the Civil Rights movement for so long, infiltrated and subverted
it, and are actually using it to keep minorities outside the
mainstream. As went Saddam, so should go every sonofabitch with an ACLU
card.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 30, 2006 09:24 AM (v3I+x)
7
Doesn't mean I agree with their definition of the Establishment clause. If it wasn't unconstitutional in the past to erect a religious symbol on government land to honor the fallen dead, then it's not unconstitutional that it should remain there today. The ACLU's retroactive interpretation of the Establishment clause that gives them the right to re-write our country's history is radical secularism of the worst kind, and is exactldy what forced me out of the Democrat party. They are no better than the Taliban who destroyed the ancient giant Buddha statues because they didn't conform to the current religious order.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 30, 2006 10:49 AM (8e/V4)
8
And now the usual retort that the ACLU is somehow not really defending Christians by defending Christians, they're just for show. People can't even make up new lies about the ACLU. And some of you are actually resurrecting the hoary old "communist" boogyman!? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
As for what the first amendment means, I suggest you read some of the writings of James Madison, the guy who actually wrote the first amendment.
As for what the first amendment means, I suggest you read some of the writings of James Madison, the guy who actually wrote the first amendment.
Posted by: Brian Westley at December 30, 2006 02:01 PM (bfBCO)
9
Brian:
Read "Origional Intent" by David Barton. Particularly pages 205-206.
Let me help ...
"Although Madison had oppossed a Bill Of Rights, he understood the grim reality that without one, it was unlikely the new Constitution would recieve widespread public acceptance. Consquently, he withdrew his opposition, and in in the federal House of Representatives he introduced his own versions of the amendments offered by his state.
Very little of Madison's proposed religious wording made it into the final version of the First Amendment, and even a cursory examination of the Annals of Congress surrounding the formation of that Amendment quickly reveals the influence of Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, John Vining of Delaware, Daniel Carrol, and Charles Carrol of Maryland, Benjamin Huntington, Roger Sherman, and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, William Paterson of New Jersey, and others on that Amendment.
By utilizing Jefferson and Madison as the principal spokesmen for the First Amendment, the contemporary courts have chosen one who was out of the country at the time of the formation of the First Amendment and another who felt it unnecessary."
Brian, it doesn't matter who was holding the pen! What matters is that what we ended up with was the best that all participants could agree on. We have a right to 'free exercise'. Sorry.
Also, the ACLU is like a lot of the so called 'right' groups. they will call in five trucks to put out your candle, while ignoring the burning forest all around them. And they are hypocrits. They only defend some rights held by the people, not all of them.
Yes the ACLU uses little cases that help Christians for political cover, but the big cases affecting millions are where they show their true anti-Christian biases. If they were so good to Christians, then why will a simple effort on any search engine, find all these cases where the ACLU has oppossed free expression? I hope your not a dupe?
Maybe you are a dupe. Anyone with a working brain knows that Marxism is alive and well in certain elements of American culture. The ACLU has its connections. Denying it only makes you look decietful. I'm hoping your just ill informed.
We can do this all week, and you will end up calling me names. I'm used to it, but it doesn't change much. Why not end this while we are still barely polite?
USA, all the way!
Read "Origional Intent" by David Barton. Particularly pages 205-206.
Let me help ...
"Although Madison had oppossed a Bill Of Rights, he understood the grim reality that without one, it was unlikely the new Constitution would recieve widespread public acceptance. Consquently, he withdrew his opposition, and in in the federal House of Representatives he introduced his own versions of the amendments offered by his state.
Very little of Madison's proposed religious wording made it into the final version of the First Amendment, and even a cursory examination of the Annals of Congress surrounding the formation of that Amendment quickly reveals the influence of Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, John Vining of Delaware, Daniel Carrol, and Charles Carrol of Maryland, Benjamin Huntington, Roger Sherman, and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, William Paterson of New Jersey, and others on that Amendment.
By utilizing Jefferson and Madison as the principal spokesmen for the First Amendment, the contemporary courts have chosen one who was out of the country at the time of the formation of the First Amendment and another who felt it unnecessary."
Brian, it doesn't matter who was holding the pen! What matters is that what we ended up with was the best that all participants could agree on. We have a right to 'free exercise'. Sorry.
Also, the ACLU is like a lot of the so called 'right' groups. they will call in five trucks to put out your candle, while ignoring the burning forest all around them. And they are hypocrits. They only defend some rights held by the people, not all of them.
Yes the ACLU uses little cases that help Christians for political cover, but the big cases affecting millions are where they show their true anti-Christian biases. If they were so good to Christians, then why will a simple effort on any search engine, find all these cases where the ACLU has oppossed free expression? I hope your not a dupe?
Maybe you are a dupe. Anyone with a working brain knows that Marxism is alive and well in certain elements of American culture. The ACLU has its connections. Denying it only makes you look decietful. I'm hoping your just ill informed.
We can do this all week, and you will end up calling me names. I'm used to it, but it doesn't change much. Why not end this while we are still barely polite?
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 30, 2006 04:31 PM (2OHpj)
10
Well yes, we all have free exerise of religion, including imams on airplanes, right? Or do they not have rights?
And you seem to want ME to find cases where the ACLU has opposed free exercise, instead of producing some examples yourself. I'm expected to do the work of refuting myself? Sorry, that's your job.
It's alse very amusing that you would start the namecalling by calling me a "dupe", and then say I'll end up calling YOU names. Look in a mirror lately?
Perhaps some actual examples of what the ACLU has done would help. So far, I see little more than exaggerated rhetoric, with no specifics. Post some real world examples if you want a debate, or you can stick with meaningless slogans if you prefer.
And you seem to want ME to find cases where the ACLU has opposed free exercise, instead of producing some examples yourself. I'm expected to do the work of refuting myself? Sorry, that's your job.
It's alse very amusing that you would start the namecalling by calling me a "dupe", and then say I'll end up calling YOU names. Look in a mirror lately?
Perhaps some actual examples of what the ACLU has done would help. So far, I see little more than exaggerated rhetoric, with no specifics. Post some real world examples if you want a debate, or you can stick with meaningless slogans if you prefer.
Posted by: brian Westley at December 30, 2006 06:06 PM (bfBCO)
11
Lyin Westley:
The ACLU is a Marxist organization that works incessantly to subvert the first amendment, particularly when it comes to Christianity. It tries to distort the freedom of religion into a freedom from religion through litigation--and you know it. It takes tiny cases representing individual Christians' right to be Christian in private, while never losing focus on the larger goal to keep Christianity out of the public sphere.
It is very selective in it's attacks on religious expression in public. Only Christianity is singled out. Public displays of filthy cults like islame are not only excused, they are defended pro bono, like the "right" for mosques to blare phony calls to prayer from loudspeakers, or for schools to indoctrinate students with whitewashed versions of the cult. Oh yeah. And terrorists on a plane.
Not a single case on the ridiculous propaganda site you tried to link to contradicts anything I've written. Ignoring reality is de rigueur for the left, but fortunately for the rest of us, wishing it doesn't make it so.
You actually tried to pass off the stale old canard that the ACLU isn't a Marxist organization? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Tell that to it's founder, shit for brains! You know, the geek who wanted to abolish personal property and disband our military. No doubt it's just a coincidence that every case the socialistas take affecting U.S. policy advances the communist agenda.
You're so fucking stupid, you didn't even read the Chuck Norris story, did you? You actually think you can bamboozle people with your plagiarized lies. Mike Weaver was wrong to call you a dupe. You're a lying sack of shit. You know damn well what the communist lawyers are trying to enforce on the majority, and you are a willing participant.
Weaver already made sure your ignorance about Madison was exposed. Do you fact check any of the propaganda you swallow? Of course not. You're a leftist, so facts don't matter. Only the agenda matters.
The imams were expressing their religion on a plane? Since when is mimicking the actions of the 911 terrorists an exercise of religion? Since little Muhammad made terrorism an integral part of his religion, that's when. Unfortunately for islamopithecines and leftist traitors like you, terrorism is illegal in this country. It is against the law to terrorize passengers by deliberately leading them to believe you are going to hijack the plane.
"And you seem to want ME to find cases where the ACLU has opposed free exercise, instead of producing some examples yourself. I'm expected to do the work of refuting myself? Sorry, that's your job."
Actually, you're the stupid asshole who denied that the ACLU opposes the Constitutional free exercise of Christianity. It's your job to prove your statements are correct. Good luck with that.
Go to stoptheaclu.com or do a fucking Google search for more examples of ACLU perfidy than you can shake a dead fetus at.
As if you didn't know already. I have to hand it to you lefties. You're predictably consitent. You're all too stupid and deceitful to debate properly. Marxism only murdered 300+ million people in the last century, and consigned countless more to untold misery. By all means, let's give it another chance. The world could use more North Koreas and Cubas. Cretin.
The ACLU is a Marxist organization that works incessantly to subvert the first amendment, particularly when it comes to Christianity. It tries to distort the freedom of religion into a freedom from religion through litigation--and you know it. It takes tiny cases representing individual Christians' right to be Christian in private, while never losing focus on the larger goal to keep Christianity out of the public sphere.
It is very selective in it's attacks on religious expression in public. Only Christianity is singled out. Public displays of filthy cults like islame are not only excused, they are defended pro bono, like the "right" for mosques to blare phony calls to prayer from loudspeakers, or for schools to indoctrinate students with whitewashed versions of the cult. Oh yeah. And terrorists on a plane.
Not a single case on the ridiculous propaganda site you tried to link to contradicts anything I've written. Ignoring reality is de rigueur for the left, but fortunately for the rest of us, wishing it doesn't make it so.
You actually tried to pass off the stale old canard that the ACLU isn't a Marxist organization? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Tell that to it's founder, shit for brains! You know, the geek who wanted to abolish personal property and disband our military. No doubt it's just a coincidence that every case the socialistas take affecting U.S. policy advances the communist agenda.
You're so fucking stupid, you didn't even read the Chuck Norris story, did you? You actually think you can bamboozle people with your plagiarized lies. Mike Weaver was wrong to call you a dupe. You're a lying sack of shit. You know damn well what the communist lawyers are trying to enforce on the majority, and you are a willing participant.
Weaver already made sure your ignorance about Madison was exposed. Do you fact check any of the propaganda you swallow? Of course not. You're a leftist, so facts don't matter. Only the agenda matters.
The imams were expressing their religion on a plane? Since when is mimicking the actions of the 911 terrorists an exercise of religion? Since little Muhammad made terrorism an integral part of his religion, that's when. Unfortunately for islamopithecines and leftist traitors like you, terrorism is illegal in this country. It is against the law to terrorize passengers by deliberately leading them to believe you are going to hijack the plane.
"And you seem to want ME to find cases where the ACLU has opposed free exercise, instead of producing some examples yourself. I'm expected to do the work of refuting myself? Sorry, that's your job."
Actually, you're the stupid asshole who denied that the ACLU opposes the Constitutional free exercise of Christianity. It's your job to prove your statements are correct. Good luck with that.
Go to stoptheaclu.com or do a fucking Google search for more examples of ACLU perfidy than you can shake a dead fetus at.
As if you didn't know already. I have to hand it to you lefties. You're predictably consitent. You're all too stupid and deceitful to debate properly. Marxism only murdered 300+ million people in the last century, and consigned countless more to untold misery. By all means, let's give it another chance. The world could use more North Koreas and Cubas. Cretin.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 31, 2006 01:44 AM (abVz3)
12
Brian, I left your 'dupishness' open to the possibility I was misjudgeing you, or didn't you notice. Besides "dupe" is a descriptive term if it is accurate, so it wasn't necessarily personal. I also said we were still barely polite, which of course means we are about to 'not be'.
You show me one site that has the ACLU doing some 'good' deeds for Christians. (precious few, but its still nice to see something) You provide a link. GREAT!
I suggest that you could take a minute maybe, to look up on any search engine, the ACLU's anti-Christian bias, and that's to hard for you. Golly, its only slightly longer than it took you to provide your link, and way less time than it is taking me to respond to you now.
If you want me to type out ALL of the ACLU's hypocracies for you, I'm going to be here till the '08 elections. IF ANY ONE HERE ISN'T TO DAMN LAZY ... TYPE "ACLU" AND "CHRISTIAN" INTO ANY SEARCH ENGINE! That is where all the evidence I will ever need is located. That is my answer to your precious little link, you lazy socialist hypocrite. (Those were descriptive terms. For name calling I offer you this example! "Brian, you DORK! Pull your finger out of your ass, and use it to type 'aclu' and 'Christian' into a search engine!" See the difference?)
Now I know a lot of other people reading this aren't as lazy as Brian, and are willing to take a few minutes to do a little of their own research. Obviously if you DIDN'T want to know anything, you would skip checking out the Jawa Report. You would be watching the mainstream media instead.
What you will find if you do a search, is that while the ACLU has been praised, it has also been condemned. One reason for condemnation, is that the ACLU routinely positions itself in such a way as to restrict Christian free exercise. That is, Christians are stopped from talking about Christ. Lots of places.
Hypocritically, the ACLU will uphold actions which cross the line of individual free exercise if the one exercising happens to be a minority. You could get tossed off a plane for shouting 'Death to America', while pouring shampoo into your mouthwash, and nobody would be upset except you, and the ACLU! They would claim you were punished for mixing personal hygiene products while being Muslim, AND THAT'S WRONG! Oh! Here comes the f*cking cavalry!
In other words, the typical marxist tactic of forming grievance groups is aided, and abetted. The purpose of the grievance groups is to frame the government as the enemy of its suppossedly disenfranchised citizens. I'm disenfranchised because the government won't let me execise my right to punch Brian in the nose. His right not to get punched is interfereing with my freedom of expression, and my freedom of movement. What about my right to get drunk and piss on Brians begonias?
But guess what, we all are disenfranchised, so get over it. It's called compromise. With that compromise comes an opportunity to rise on our own merits, and become less disenfranchised by our own sweat. Its sometimes called the 'Protestant Work Ethic', but if that's to religious for you, just call it the 'Pursuit of Happiness'.
As it works out, I'm not interested in debating such an obvious truth. So obvious that a nine year old could discover it for themselves. Most nine year olds can handle typing 'aclu' and 'Christian' into a search bar. Maybe you went to the wrong school? UCLA? I hear they have a lot of commies over there.
I'm sick of this.
I am interested in more difficult topics like where we should draw the line with so called moderate Muslims? There is some uncertainty there, and a chance to have a discussion with real benefits. I'd like to help save the innocent from persecution, if possible.
Talking about the ACLU, is like talking about food poisoning. You educate people about the danger, and then you move on. There is no real question about whether food poisoning is bad or not. The only question is do you know how to avoid it?
Your link about the ACLU helping Christians makes me think of someone trying to heap sugar on top of a heaping dish of salmonella culture, and trying to call it yogurt. Nice try!
As someone who once believed in the ACLU I will tell you what changed my mind. I did my own research. I wasn't lazy. I looked past the simple minded praise, and saw at that the ACLU was corroding away more genuine freedoms than they were protecting.
In at least one huge example, they endorse the total disenfranchisement of an entire catagory of human beings. The unborn. The Supreme Court flew into the face of traditional American justice, by taking away the benefit of the doubt, for millions of unborn human beings. That is what makes abortion 'legal'. The Supreme Court couldn't say when human life, was legally human life, so they ruled against the unborn.
So Brian, that's like saying your guilty till proven innocent. Your not human till your proven to be, so if I shoot at your shadow in the dark, its not murder, even if I throw a few hand grenades afterwards. Because I don't know if your human, so its OK to kill you. That is what a pro-abortion ruling is about. The ACLU supports abortion. What is the deal?
The claim that it is the woman's body, dismisses as unimportant, the man's genetic property, and parental rights. It dismisses the reality that the unborn, in fact, has a body, that though trapped inside the larger body of another, is no less genuine. It dismisses as unworthy of consideration, the fact that a possible human life contained in that small trapped body, is being executed without benefit of doubt, or due process of law. No person who has an interest in protecting that life, may take any actions to save it if the mother won't let them. The ACLU thinks that is protecting rights, and freedoms.
But the ACLU always protects the underdog, isn't that right Brian? Like Human Rights Watch always has its eye on the worst violators, but ignores the ACLU! Makes perfect sense to me.
So how about it Brian? Want to participate in some old Nordic religious rituals at a peat bog on private land? No Federal funds are involved. Its even a minority religion. Don't worry about bringing anything but yourself. We already have some rope, and some spears. Its nice and secluded, and there will be a moment of silence at the end. Its also good for the enviroment. Don't worry about transportation, we can have you picked up. Unless something about all of this makes you worry? I hope your not accusing us of making jokes while being 'northern European'? Brian, have I called you a 'Dork' yet?
And if it good for Imams, its good for us. The ACLU should be happy to take our case. Especially if it promotes a grievance group.
Happy New Year (to you also Brian, you won't be a dork tommorrow, it will be a new day)
USA, all the way!
You show me one site that has the ACLU doing some 'good' deeds for Christians. (precious few, but its still nice to see something) You provide a link. GREAT!
I suggest that you could take a minute maybe, to look up on any search engine, the ACLU's anti-Christian bias, and that's to hard for you. Golly, its only slightly longer than it took you to provide your link, and way less time than it is taking me to respond to you now.
If you want me to type out ALL of the ACLU's hypocracies for you, I'm going to be here till the '08 elections. IF ANY ONE HERE ISN'T TO DAMN LAZY ... TYPE "ACLU" AND "CHRISTIAN" INTO ANY SEARCH ENGINE! That is where all the evidence I will ever need is located. That is my answer to your precious little link, you lazy socialist hypocrite. (Those were descriptive terms. For name calling I offer you this example! "Brian, you DORK! Pull your finger out of your ass, and use it to type 'aclu' and 'Christian' into a search engine!" See the difference?)
Now I know a lot of other people reading this aren't as lazy as Brian, and are willing to take a few minutes to do a little of their own research. Obviously if you DIDN'T want to know anything, you would skip checking out the Jawa Report. You would be watching the mainstream media instead.
What you will find if you do a search, is that while the ACLU has been praised, it has also been condemned. One reason for condemnation, is that the ACLU routinely positions itself in such a way as to restrict Christian free exercise. That is, Christians are stopped from talking about Christ. Lots of places.
Hypocritically, the ACLU will uphold actions which cross the line of individual free exercise if the one exercising happens to be a minority. You could get tossed off a plane for shouting 'Death to America', while pouring shampoo into your mouthwash, and nobody would be upset except you, and the ACLU! They would claim you were punished for mixing personal hygiene products while being Muslim, AND THAT'S WRONG! Oh! Here comes the f*cking cavalry!
In other words, the typical marxist tactic of forming grievance groups is aided, and abetted. The purpose of the grievance groups is to frame the government as the enemy of its suppossedly disenfranchised citizens. I'm disenfranchised because the government won't let me execise my right to punch Brian in the nose. His right not to get punched is interfereing with my freedom of expression, and my freedom of movement. What about my right to get drunk and piss on Brians begonias?
But guess what, we all are disenfranchised, so get over it. It's called compromise. With that compromise comes an opportunity to rise on our own merits, and become less disenfranchised by our own sweat. Its sometimes called the 'Protestant Work Ethic', but if that's to religious for you, just call it the 'Pursuit of Happiness'.
As it works out, I'm not interested in debating such an obvious truth. So obvious that a nine year old could discover it for themselves. Most nine year olds can handle typing 'aclu' and 'Christian' into a search bar. Maybe you went to the wrong school? UCLA? I hear they have a lot of commies over there.
I'm sick of this.
I am interested in more difficult topics like where we should draw the line with so called moderate Muslims? There is some uncertainty there, and a chance to have a discussion with real benefits. I'd like to help save the innocent from persecution, if possible.
Talking about the ACLU, is like talking about food poisoning. You educate people about the danger, and then you move on. There is no real question about whether food poisoning is bad or not. The only question is do you know how to avoid it?
Your link about the ACLU helping Christians makes me think of someone trying to heap sugar on top of a heaping dish of salmonella culture, and trying to call it yogurt. Nice try!
As someone who once believed in the ACLU I will tell you what changed my mind. I did my own research. I wasn't lazy. I looked past the simple minded praise, and saw at that the ACLU was corroding away more genuine freedoms than they were protecting.
In at least one huge example, they endorse the total disenfranchisement of an entire catagory of human beings. The unborn. The Supreme Court flew into the face of traditional American justice, by taking away the benefit of the doubt, for millions of unborn human beings. That is what makes abortion 'legal'. The Supreme Court couldn't say when human life, was legally human life, so they ruled against the unborn.
So Brian, that's like saying your guilty till proven innocent. Your not human till your proven to be, so if I shoot at your shadow in the dark, its not murder, even if I throw a few hand grenades afterwards. Because I don't know if your human, so its OK to kill you. That is what a pro-abortion ruling is about. The ACLU supports abortion. What is the deal?
The claim that it is the woman's body, dismisses as unimportant, the man's genetic property, and parental rights. It dismisses the reality that the unborn, in fact, has a body, that though trapped inside the larger body of another, is no less genuine. It dismisses as unworthy of consideration, the fact that a possible human life contained in that small trapped body, is being executed without benefit of doubt, or due process of law. No person who has an interest in protecting that life, may take any actions to save it if the mother won't let them. The ACLU thinks that is protecting rights, and freedoms.
But the ACLU always protects the underdog, isn't that right Brian? Like Human Rights Watch always has its eye on the worst violators, but ignores the ACLU! Makes perfect sense to me.
So how about it Brian? Want to participate in some old Nordic religious rituals at a peat bog on private land? No Federal funds are involved. Its even a minority religion. Don't worry about bringing anything but yourself. We already have some rope, and some spears. Its nice and secluded, and there will be a moment of silence at the end. Its also good for the enviroment. Don't worry about transportation, we can have you picked up. Unless something about all of this makes you worry? I hope your not accusing us of making jokes while being 'northern European'? Brian, have I called you a 'Dork' yet?
And if it good for Imams, its good for us. The ACLU should be happy to take our case. Especially if it promotes a grievance group.
Happy New Year (to you also Brian, you won't be a dork tommorrow, it will be a new day)
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 31, 2006 06:13 AM (2OHpj)
13
Michael Weaver:
Great observations. I especially liked the bit about the Protestant work ethic being the pursuit of happiness, and the neglected rights of fathers regarding infanticide (abortion.) Few people consider the rights of fathers--maybe because we don't have any.
It never ceases to irritate me how egregiously Marxists deny their agenda. Sure, the majority of Marxists are subconscious Marxists, spouting commie propaganda unawares, but Lyin Worstley is a bullshit artist. He knows what the American Communist Lawyers Union is all about. That's why he tried to deflect attention from it's mission to subvert the Constitution. The propaganda site he referred to was designed specifically to gull people into believing the ACLU isn't waging jihad on Christianity. Pouring sugar on salmonella indeed.
I don't think America won its battle with the Soviet Union. We won like Hamlet won his last duel. Sure, we killed the villain, but it poisoned us with Marxist ideology. Most lefties spout Multy-culty, class warfare, politically correct claptrap without even being aware that they're promoting communism. They have no idea of the origins of their ideology and tactics.
Even worse, most of the left's mantra is derived from base communist subversion techniques, rather than the core theory itself. (Philosophy, my ass.) Marx's crackpot economic theories were ridiculous, but he probably believed in them. The subversion teqhniques used to foment civil discord and cast the government as the enemy were never more than devious ploys designed to seize power from the government.
I doubt even Lyin Worstly knows how thoroughly indoctrinated he is. Leftists remind me a lot of zombies. Most of them are nothing but living automatons, programmed by voodoo masters long dead. The only diference between them and movie zombies is that they eat their own brains instead of other peoples' brains. Zonbies. They creep me out, man.
Great observations. I especially liked the bit about the Protestant work ethic being the pursuit of happiness, and the neglected rights of fathers regarding infanticide (abortion.) Few people consider the rights of fathers--maybe because we don't have any.
It never ceases to irritate me how egregiously Marxists deny their agenda. Sure, the majority of Marxists are subconscious Marxists, spouting commie propaganda unawares, but Lyin Worstley is a bullshit artist. He knows what the American Communist Lawyers Union is all about. That's why he tried to deflect attention from it's mission to subvert the Constitution. The propaganda site he referred to was designed specifically to gull people into believing the ACLU isn't waging jihad on Christianity. Pouring sugar on salmonella indeed.
I don't think America won its battle with the Soviet Union. We won like Hamlet won his last duel. Sure, we killed the villain, but it poisoned us with Marxist ideology. Most lefties spout Multy-culty, class warfare, politically correct claptrap without even being aware that they're promoting communism. They have no idea of the origins of their ideology and tactics.
Even worse, most of the left's mantra is derived from base communist subversion techniques, rather than the core theory itself. (Philosophy, my ass.) Marx's crackpot economic theories were ridiculous, but he probably believed in them. The subversion teqhniques used to foment civil discord and cast the government as the enemy were never more than devious ploys designed to seize power from the government.
I doubt even Lyin Worstly knows how thoroughly indoctrinated he is. Leftists remind me a lot of zombies. Most of them are nothing but living automatons, programmed by voodoo masters long dead. The only diference between them and movie zombies is that they eat their own brains instead of other peoples' brains. Zonbies. They creep me out, man.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 31, 2006 12:13 PM (abVz3)
14
As I expected, none of you have yet to come up with any specific examples of what the ACLU has done that limits the religious liberty of Christians. All you can come up with is more namecalling. I guess that's why the ACLU wins in court so often - their opponents can't put together a coherent argument.
Posted by: Brian Westley at December 31, 2006 01:44 PM (bfBCO)
15
I'm not doing any more serious typing for you Lazy Leftists like Brian. I struggle to type at all because of dyslexia. I work hard at it, and I hate to waste it on idiots who aren't here to learn anything. Having said that, let the cut and pastes begin! Editied for space and time, people on the right have lives to Brian (You are apparently still a DORK!)
LIFE DIGEST: ACLU endorses bill limiting pregnancy center rights; even some abortion doctors question use of RU 486
Apr 4, 2006
By Tom Strode
Baptist Press
WASHINGTON (BP)--A new congressional effort to police advertising by crisis pregnancy centers is unnecessary, pro-life advocates said, and unconstitutional, free-speech defenders charged.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which has long promoted itself as the leading defender of freedom of speech and civil rights, is right in the middle of the controversy, promoting the new legislation to the surprise of some.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat, introduced March 30 the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act (SDAWS), which calls on the Federal Trade Commission to bar organizations from advertising that they provide abortion services when they do not. Just 12 House of Representatives members have cosponsored Maloney’s bill, but leading abortion rights organizations, including NARAL Pro-choice America and the National Abortion Federation, are behind it.
The ACLU also endorsed it, and that stunned some who have defended the organization’s work in the past.
“[W]hat about the First Amendment?†asked Nat Hentoff, a syndicated columnist and a former ACLU board member, according to The New York Sun. “When you have the state, with its power, deciding what is deceptive on something as thoroughly controversial as this, it goes against the very core, it seems to me, of the First Amendment.â€
Hentoff called the ACLU endorsement “a really extraordinary mistake.†The ACLU advocacy for abortion rights has eclipsed its support for free speech, he told The Sun. “It’s the problem the ACLU has had for years,†Hentoff said.
Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, said some sections of the bill would probably be declared unconstitutional. One problem is the legislation seeks to control speech that might be misleading but not necessarily untrue, he told The Sun.
“The same logic would justify regulating a broad range of political or historical statements,†Volokh said, according to The Sun. “I think that’s a pretty dangerous policy.â€
The proposal is unneeded, representatives of crisis pregnancy centers said.
“This legislation is unnecessary, as it aims to cure an ill that doesn’t exist,†Care Net President Kurt Entsminger said in a written release. Care Net is a nationwide network of about 900 evangelical Christian, pregnancy help centers. “This is nothing more than a routine attack on pregnancy centers by organizations seeking to limit their competition. We find it particularly curious that in her announcement Rep. Maloney did not cite one example of a pregnancy center that is engaging in deceptive advertising.â€
Tom Glessner, president of the National Institute of Family Life Advocates (NIFLA), said in a written statement that crisis pregnancy centers “are providing accurate, truthful and complete information to empower women to choose life. The only fraudulent activity in this area comes from those in the abortion industry who want to withhold truthful information from abortion-vulnerable women.â€
In announcing the introduction of her bill, Maloney said in a written release that some crisis pregnancy centers “should be called ‘Counterfeit Pregnancy Centers.’ They have the right to exist, but they shouldn’t have the right to deceive in order to advance their particular beliefs.â€
Maloney’s bill is H.R. 5052. There is not a companion bill in the Senate.
USA, all the way!
LIFE DIGEST: ACLU endorses bill limiting pregnancy center rights; even some abortion doctors question use of RU 486
Apr 4, 2006
By Tom Strode
Baptist Press
WASHINGTON (BP)--A new congressional effort to police advertising by crisis pregnancy centers is unnecessary, pro-life advocates said, and unconstitutional, free-speech defenders charged.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which has long promoted itself as the leading defender of freedom of speech and civil rights, is right in the middle of the controversy, promoting the new legislation to the surprise of some.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat, introduced March 30 the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act (SDAWS), which calls on the Federal Trade Commission to bar organizations from advertising that they provide abortion services when they do not. Just 12 House of Representatives members have cosponsored Maloney’s bill, but leading abortion rights organizations, including NARAL Pro-choice America and the National Abortion Federation, are behind it.
The ACLU also endorsed it, and that stunned some who have defended the organization’s work in the past.
“[W]hat about the First Amendment?†asked Nat Hentoff, a syndicated columnist and a former ACLU board member, according to The New York Sun. “When you have the state, with its power, deciding what is deceptive on something as thoroughly controversial as this, it goes against the very core, it seems to me, of the First Amendment.â€
Hentoff called the ACLU endorsement “a really extraordinary mistake.†The ACLU advocacy for abortion rights has eclipsed its support for free speech, he told The Sun. “It’s the problem the ACLU has had for years,†Hentoff said.
Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, said some sections of the bill would probably be declared unconstitutional. One problem is the legislation seeks to control speech that might be misleading but not necessarily untrue, he told The Sun.
“The same logic would justify regulating a broad range of political or historical statements,†Volokh said, according to The Sun. “I think that’s a pretty dangerous policy.â€
The proposal is unneeded, representatives of crisis pregnancy centers said.
“This legislation is unnecessary, as it aims to cure an ill that doesn’t exist,†Care Net President Kurt Entsminger said in a written release. Care Net is a nationwide network of about 900 evangelical Christian, pregnancy help centers. “This is nothing more than a routine attack on pregnancy centers by organizations seeking to limit their competition. We find it particularly curious that in her announcement Rep. Maloney did not cite one example of a pregnancy center that is engaging in deceptive advertising.â€
Tom Glessner, president of the National Institute of Family Life Advocates (NIFLA), said in a written statement that crisis pregnancy centers “are providing accurate, truthful and complete information to empower women to choose life. The only fraudulent activity in this area comes from those in the abortion industry who want to withhold truthful information from abortion-vulnerable women.â€
In announcing the introduction of her bill, Maloney said in a written release that some crisis pregnancy centers “should be called ‘Counterfeit Pregnancy Centers.’ They have the right to exist, but they shouldn’t have the right to deceive in order to advance their particular beliefs.â€
Maloney’s bill is H.R. 5052. There is not a companion bill in the Senate.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 31, 2006 03:02 PM (2OHpj)
16
I'll quote the important part of your article:
...
"which calls on the Federal Trade Commission to bar organizations from advertising that they provide abortion services when they do not"
...
So, the ACLU is against organizations defrauding the public by falsely advertising that they provide abortion services when they do not.
Sorry, your cut & paste is not an example of the ACLU limiting the religious rights of Christians. You know, like what you've been whining about, with no real examples -- this bill is not even about religion. Like I said, you seem to have a problem putting together a coherent argument.
...
"which calls on the Federal Trade Commission to bar organizations from advertising that they provide abortion services when they do not"
...
So, the ACLU is against organizations defrauding the public by falsely advertising that they provide abortion services when they do not.
Sorry, your cut & paste is not an example of the ACLU limiting the religious rights of Christians. You know, like what you've been whining about, with no real examples -- this bill is not even about religion. Like I said, you seem to have a problem putting together a coherent argument.
Posted by: Brian Westley at December 31, 2006 03:30 PM (bfBCO)
17
It hurt to edit this one because it had a lot of good stuff, sorry.
This shows how the ACLU aids activism that yndercuts a parents rights to protect their children, and control the enviroments that their children are being placed in. It also shows the ACLU support for placing one value system (GBLT) over another.
And before you say anything, I am a fan of Tammy Bruce, we had a 'Gay' person at the small wedding, and the following reception, when my wife and I were married. I have a 'gay' relative, and some 'bi' friends. F*ck you if you think I'm trying to bash the GBLT community outright. I just disagree with some of the individuals, and their tactics.
((How homosexual school clubs offer sex to students))
By Linda Harvey
The mainstream media is sure to spend time this next week on the subject of homosexuality and youth, precipitated by the observance in hundreds of high schools of the so-called "Day of Silence" on Wednesday, April 26. This is the day that students who are "GLBT" – that's "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered" – pledge to remain silent all day to draw attention to what they believe is discrimination.
On Thursday, April 27, some schools will be blessed with a Christian response, the "Day of Truth," started several years ago by the Alliance Defense Fund. "Day of Truth" participants will explain the reality of homosexuality along with the light of Christ's truth and the hope therein.
The "Day of Silence" in most schools is organized by the homosexual club or "gay-straight alliance" as it is often called. Both GSAs and the Day of Silence are projects of a group called GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. But GSAs are too often disruptive activism – training groups that prop up the homosexual identities of vulnerable kids by fomenting bias against traditional morality, while concealing the grave risks of homosexuality.
Yet many times when a school tries to prevent a "GSA" from starting on campus, the American Civil Liberties Union or a similar legal group steps in. They will claim that students who prefer homosexuality have the right to this "viewpoint." Misapplying the federal "Equal Access Act," they will maintain that if other non-curricular clubs exist, then this type of club should exist, too. This, of course, ignores the prerogative of all schools to ban any activities that are per se harmful to kids and homosexuality is exactly that. But through framing it as a "viewpoint" and not a behavior, the ACLU manages to suppress the health risks – or get the school officials to do so. And in most cases, the schools and their boards will concede and cave.
After all, the ACLU usually contends, these clubs don't discuss or encourage "sex," but only talk about prejudice and "homophobia." Officials who might be tempted to eliminate them based on keeping students safe from HIV and the other fruits of high-risk homosexual behaviors are in a bind, because it's hard to prove these clubs do encourage homosexual activity.
But there's one connection surfacing that schools and communities should watch: the strong link between the school "GSAs" and community-based "GLBT" youth groups. With little accountability except to the adult "gay" community, there's no doubt that these offsite youth groups do offer students opportunities to learn about graphic sex and socialize with peers and adults who are active participants in the homosexual lifestyle. And the target age starts as early as middle school.
At most of these off-campus clubs, your sixth grader would be welcomed by adult homosexual volunteers and staff, and allowed to socialize with high school and college age "queer" or gender variant youth, without your permission or knowledge. All he or she has to do is show up, and many are located conveniently on bus lines to accommodate kids under driving age.
"No parents" plus homosexual approval is the reason these centers call themselves "safe" places. There is a homosexual youth center now in virtually every medium or large city in the United States. Many are funded by private foundations or connected to a local adult center for "GLBT" people. Some are even funded by United Way. And the kids who attend are given graphic "safe-sex" lectures, the option of free HIV testing without parental permission, group "counseling" and other serious, adult-level situations that few schools would allow on site.
Some of these groups target youth by an upper and lower age limit, like 13 to 24. Others have an even lower age limit of 11 or 12. Some simply say they are for youth "age 22 and under." How far under? And who checks? Thirteen-year-olds don't have driver's licenses or usually any form of legal ID.
The activities at these centers range from help with homework, to games, playing pool, cookouts, parties, proms and lots of "hanging out." More training in "gay" activism may be a focus, infusing impressionable youth with hardcore attitudes. The kids also get recruited for local demonstrations, and are often encouraged to attend the citywide "gay" pride parade, as well as accompanying adult social events.
Some of the repeat visitors are likely neglected kids with not much to go home to. However, homosexuality is not the answer for what may be amiss in their lives. And kids at these centers will be exposed to frequent misleading "safer sex" messages and encouragement to use condoms, rather than a realistic and compassionate recommendation to employ the one sure method: abstinence.
Staff and adult volunteers sometimes teach workshops with dangerous enticements. BAGLY, the Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth, features ongoing courses called "Queer College." One of these courses is called "HIV." Conducted by a male staff member and "peer leaders," the course content is described on the BAGLY website as follows:
SEX! Yeah, we know you're doing it. But how safe are you? We could all use info on sexy new ways to use condoms and barriers. We'll have open, honest, judgment-free conversations about sex toys, oral sex, bare-backing, mixing sex and drugs, how to keep it safe and advocate for yourself during group sex, anonymous sex, and sex on the go! We'll have something for everyone.
This course was held early in April at the BAGLY meeting site, which is St. John the Evangelist Church in Boston.
Most of these youth centers extend open arms to area GSAs. The non-school locale provides a venue for activities that might not be allowed at school. Frequently, all area GSA members will be invited to youth center events, where no parents, no school boards, no teachers are there to supervise what might take place.
The Cleveland, Ohio, "GLBT" Center youth program hosts numerous area GSA meetings and conducts "activism training" for high-school GSA's. At Kaleidoscope Youth Center in Columbus, Ohio, a "GSA Summit" was held on April 1. A news release announced it was open to all "LGBTQ youth and their allies, age 20 and under." (LGBTQ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and questioning.) The summit was to "provide assistance to all youth who are working as advocates in their schools, whether they have a formal GSA or not." According to Lindsay, a volunteer I spoke with at the center, the summit had participation by 13 Columbus-area high-school GSAs.
The GSA Network in California is a network of several hundred GSAs and has ongoing interaction with groups such as the San Francisco Bay area LYRIC, Lavender Youth Recreation and Information Center. A LYRIC event for girls was publicized in 2003 by the GSA Network to encourage attendance by school "gay" club members. The event, "Make Your Own Sex Toy Night," encouraged girls to "Let your imagination go wild and create a sex toy you can be proud of!"
Some of the youth centers in more liberal areas of the country have been around a long time. BAGLY was established in 1980, and for years has sponsored the annual Boston Youth "Gay" Pride parade. Many area GSA's marching proudly in the parade have been captured on film by numerous observers.
The Columbus, Ohio, youth center, Kaleidoscope, advertises that it is a center for kids from ages 12 to 20. It's in a rundown storefront across the street from a new shopping center. It's also a few steps from a bus stop, and two blocks from the campus of Ohio State University, which makes it convenient for college-age "gay" youth. The center offers support groups with peer-mentoring and no parental knowledge or permission is needed.
On March 15, representatives from the Ohio AIDS Coalition, the Columbus AIDS Task Force and Planned Parenthood spoke on STDs and HIV and "positive decision-making," to the Kaleidoscope youth in a program called K.I.S.S., Keep It Smart and Safe. Local AIDS groups have ongoing relationships with these youth centers which brings up potentially compromising dilemmas regarding interaction with minors.
For instance, on April 25, the second annual "Hope's Voice" tour is planning a stop at Kaleidoscope in Columbus on its cross-country tour. "Hope's Voice" features HIV-positive young adults who give speeches in what is termed "peer-to-peer education," even though few adults would see a 12- or 14-year-old as the "peer" of a 22-year-old.
The stop is co-sponsored by the Ohio AIDS Coalition and the program includes free confidential HIV testing for youth, using oral swabs which provide a response in around 20 minutes with over 90 percent accuracy.
The misleading, risky messages are subtle, but powerful. The young adults involved in Hope's Voice are articulate and healthy-looking. Some talk openly about being homosexual. How would a naive teen digest the Hope's Voice message? The adolescent takeaway may well be, "These cool older kids look all right and seem OK, so HIV isn't all that big a deal, as long as I use a condom." Few high schools are sponsoring stops by Hope's Voice, but the GSA members are sure to be invited to the presentation and free testing at the local "gay" youth center.
The Cleveland, Ohio, "GLBT " Center program offers ongoing "safe schools" and HIV-prevention education for youth including the GSA members who frequent its gatherings. On the center website, a quote is featured from a "gay" youth:
Most information about HIV isn't written for us. We're afraid to talk to our family doctor – he may tell our parents. So where can you go for help if you're young and gay?
– 16-year-old "gay" male
The Cleveland center website also states, regarding Ohio law:
A minor can consent to – or refuse – an HIV test for AIDS without parental permission.
Well, this may be the law, but it needs to be changed. Is it better to offer anonymous testing for minors – or to encourage better child-parent relationships? Which do we think has the longer-range potential of helping more kids, more of the time? The HIV rates aren't going down and kids are clearly being encouraged, even seduced into having high-risk sex. Something is clearly not working.
What in the world are we doing exposing kids to opportunities to get involved in practices that are spreading an epidemic disease? How can we let kids make such huge health-care decisions, interact with health professionals, receive "counseling" and figure out what all this means, without the guidance of a parent or guardian?
For instance, what if a young teen does get involved in a homosexual relationship, then is tested for HIV, and the test is positive? And his parents have no idea of any of this, but this young person has to evaluate all this, cope with what he will probably think is a death sentence, and have entered this world of corruption in secret, because of incessant, inaccurate propaganda convincing him he was born "gay"?
Even though this consent by minors is becoming very common and is even upheld by law, there's no excuse for putting kids in this position. It's certainly feeding the problem of sexually transmitted diseases and sexual activity among America's youth. Parents are, by and large, not a problem for kids, but the primary people in the world who care most about a kid's welfare, and the ones who can talk him/her out of foolish impulses. Don't we have public service ads now that urge parents to talk with teens about sex, about drugs? Don't we know that this works? But these clubs, and the assumptions they make about all parents, undermine the child's first, best hope. We are offering kids a way to act on misinformation, and opportunities to be exploited, by excluding parental knowledge. This is a recipe for an insane, unstable and disease-ridden culture.
Wait – we've already got that, don't we?
And we haven't even addressed one more big question: the potential for molestation.
What happens if one of these HIV testing sessions uncovers a 12-, 13- or 14-year-old who is having a relationship with a 25- or 30-year-old? Why isn't there required reporting of such relationships? If we are going to empower taxpayer-funded groups to act as health professionals, we have to require that they not corrupt, or aid and abet corruption of children – period. The reality is that adult-teen liaisons are not uncommon in the "gay" community, so some oversight and legal parameters are needed.
We have once thrown kids to the beasts of tolerance and acceptance. Well, few of us want to tolerate and accept increased homosexual activity, as well as limited and shortened lives of our precious children – all because of a 100 percent preventable problem.
Linda Harvey is president of Mission America, a pro-family organization which monitors homosexual activism, the occult and New Age influences on American youth.
USA, all the way!
This shows how the ACLU aids activism that yndercuts a parents rights to protect their children, and control the enviroments that their children are being placed in. It also shows the ACLU support for placing one value system (GBLT) over another.
And before you say anything, I am a fan of Tammy Bruce, we had a 'Gay' person at the small wedding, and the following reception, when my wife and I were married. I have a 'gay' relative, and some 'bi' friends. F*ck you if you think I'm trying to bash the GBLT community outright. I just disagree with some of the individuals, and their tactics.
((How homosexual school clubs offer sex to students))
By Linda Harvey
The mainstream media is sure to spend time this next week on the subject of homosexuality and youth, precipitated by the observance in hundreds of high schools of the so-called "Day of Silence" on Wednesday, April 26. This is the day that students who are "GLBT" – that's "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered" – pledge to remain silent all day to draw attention to what they believe is discrimination.
On Thursday, April 27, some schools will be blessed with a Christian response, the "Day of Truth," started several years ago by the Alliance Defense Fund. "Day of Truth" participants will explain the reality of homosexuality along with the light of Christ's truth and the hope therein.
The "Day of Silence" in most schools is organized by the homosexual club or "gay-straight alliance" as it is often called. Both GSAs and the Day of Silence are projects of a group called GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. But GSAs are too often disruptive activism – training groups that prop up the homosexual identities of vulnerable kids by fomenting bias against traditional morality, while concealing the grave risks of homosexuality.
Yet many times when a school tries to prevent a "GSA" from starting on campus, the American Civil Liberties Union or a similar legal group steps in. They will claim that students who prefer homosexuality have the right to this "viewpoint." Misapplying the federal "Equal Access Act," they will maintain that if other non-curricular clubs exist, then this type of club should exist, too. This, of course, ignores the prerogative of all schools to ban any activities that are per se harmful to kids and homosexuality is exactly that. But through framing it as a "viewpoint" and not a behavior, the ACLU manages to suppress the health risks – or get the school officials to do so. And in most cases, the schools and their boards will concede and cave.
After all, the ACLU usually contends, these clubs don't discuss or encourage "sex," but only talk about prejudice and "homophobia." Officials who might be tempted to eliminate them based on keeping students safe from HIV and the other fruits of high-risk homosexual behaviors are in a bind, because it's hard to prove these clubs do encourage homosexual activity.
But there's one connection surfacing that schools and communities should watch: the strong link between the school "GSAs" and community-based "GLBT" youth groups. With little accountability except to the adult "gay" community, there's no doubt that these offsite youth groups do offer students opportunities to learn about graphic sex and socialize with peers and adults who are active participants in the homosexual lifestyle. And the target age starts as early as middle school.
At most of these off-campus clubs, your sixth grader would be welcomed by adult homosexual volunteers and staff, and allowed to socialize with high school and college age "queer" or gender variant youth, without your permission or knowledge. All he or she has to do is show up, and many are located conveniently on bus lines to accommodate kids under driving age.
"No parents" plus homosexual approval is the reason these centers call themselves "safe" places. There is a homosexual youth center now in virtually every medium or large city in the United States. Many are funded by private foundations or connected to a local adult center for "GLBT" people. Some are even funded by United Way. And the kids who attend are given graphic "safe-sex" lectures, the option of free HIV testing without parental permission, group "counseling" and other serious, adult-level situations that few schools would allow on site.
Some of these groups target youth by an upper and lower age limit, like 13 to 24. Others have an even lower age limit of 11 or 12. Some simply say they are for youth "age 22 and under." How far under? And who checks? Thirteen-year-olds don't have driver's licenses or usually any form of legal ID.
The activities at these centers range from help with homework, to games, playing pool, cookouts, parties, proms and lots of "hanging out." More training in "gay" activism may be a focus, infusing impressionable youth with hardcore attitudes. The kids also get recruited for local demonstrations, and are often encouraged to attend the citywide "gay" pride parade, as well as accompanying adult social events.
Some of the repeat visitors are likely neglected kids with not much to go home to. However, homosexuality is not the answer for what may be amiss in their lives. And kids at these centers will be exposed to frequent misleading "safer sex" messages and encouragement to use condoms, rather than a realistic and compassionate recommendation to employ the one sure method: abstinence.
Staff and adult volunteers sometimes teach workshops with dangerous enticements. BAGLY, the Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth, features ongoing courses called "Queer College." One of these courses is called "HIV." Conducted by a male staff member and "peer leaders," the course content is described on the BAGLY website as follows:
SEX! Yeah, we know you're doing it. But how safe are you? We could all use info on sexy new ways to use condoms and barriers. We'll have open, honest, judgment-free conversations about sex toys, oral sex, bare-backing, mixing sex and drugs, how to keep it safe and advocate for yourself during group sex, anonymous sex, and sex on the go! We'll have something for everyone.
This course was held early in April at the BAGLY meeting site, which is St. John the Evangelist Church in Boston.
Most of these youth centers extend open arms to area GSAs. The non-school locale provides a venue for activities that might not be allowed at school. Frequently, all area GSA members will be invited to youth center events, where no parents, no school boards, no teachers are there to supervise what might take place.
The Cleveland, Ohio, "GLBT" Center youth program hosts numerous area GSA meetings and conducts "activism training" for high-school GSA's. At Kaleidoscope Youth Center in Columbus, Ohio, a "GSA Summit" was held on April 1. A news release announced it was open to all "LGBTQ youth and their allies, age 20 and under." (LGBTQ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and questioning.) The summit was to "provide assistance to all youth who are working as advocates in their schools, whether they have a formal GSA or not." According to Lindsay, a volunteer I spoke with at the center, the summit had participation by 13 Columbus-area high-school GSAs.
The GSA Network in California is a network of several hundred GSAs and has ongoing interaction with groups such as the San Francisco Bay area LYRIC, Lavender Youth Recreation and Information Center. A LYRIC event for girls was publicized in 2003 by the GSA Network to encourage attendance by school "gay" club members. The event, "Make Your Own Sex Toy Night," encouraged girls to "Let your imagination go wild and create a sex toy you can be proud of!"
Some of the youth centers in more liberal areas of the country have been around a long time. BAGLY was established in 1980, and for years has sponsored the annual Boston Youth "Gay" Pride parade. Many area GSA's marching proudly in the parade have been captured on film by numerous observers.
The Columbus, Ohio, youth center, Kaleidoscope, advertises that it is a center for kids from ages 12 to 20. It's in a rundown storefront across the street from a new shopping center. It's also a few steps from a bus stop, and two blocks from the campus of Ohio State University, which makes it convenient for college-age "gay" youth. The center offers support groups with peer-mentoring and no parental knowledge or permission is needed.
On March 15, representatives from the Ohio AIDS Coalition, the Columbus AIDS Task Force and Planned Parenthood spoke on STDs and HIV and "positive decision-making," to the Kaleidoscope youth in a program called K.I.S.S., Keep It Smart and Safe. Local AIDS groups have ongoing relationships with these youth centers which brings up potentially compromising dilemmas regarding interaction with minors.
For instance, on April 25, the second annual "Hope's Voice" tour is planning a stop at Kaleidoscope in Columbus on its cross-country tour. "Hope's Voice" features HIV-positive young adults who give speeches in what is termed "peer-to-peer education," even though few adults would see a 12- or 14-year-old as the "peer" of a 22-year-old.
The stop is co-sponsored by the Ohio AIDS Coalition and the program includes free confidential HIV testing for youth, using oral swabs which provide a response in around 20 minutes with over 90 percent accuracy.
The misleading, risky messages are subtle, but powerful. The young adults involved in Hope's Voice are articulate and healthy-looking. Some talk openly about being homosexual. How would a naive teen digest the Hope's Voice message? The adolescent takeaway may well be, "These cool older kids look all right and seem OK, so HIV isn't all that big a deal, as long as I use a condom." Few high schools are sponsoring stops by Hope's Voice, but the GSA members are sure to be invited to the presentation and free testing at the local "gay" youth center.
The Cleveland, Ohio, "GLBT " Center program offers ongoing "safe schools" and HIV-prevention education for youth including the GSA members who frequent its gatherings. On the center website, a quote is featured from a "gay" youth:
Most information about HIV isn't written for us. We're afraid to talk to our family doctor – he may tell our parents. So where can you go for help if you're young and gay?
– 16-year-old "gay" male
The Cleveland center website also states, regarding Ohio law:
A minor can consent to – or refuse – an HIV test for AIDS without parental permission.
Well, this may be the law, but it needs to be changed. Is it better to offer anonymous testing for minors – or to encourage better child-parent relationships? Which do we think has the longer-range potential of helping more kids, more of the time? The HIV rates aren't going down and kids are clearly being encouraged, even seduced into having high-risk sex. Something is clearly not working.
What in the world are we doing exposing kids to opportunities to get involved in practices that are spreading an epidemic disease? How can we let kids make such huge health-care decisions, interact with health professionals, receive "counseling" and figure out what all this means, without the guidance of a parent or guardian?
For instance, what if a young teen does get involved in a homosexual relationship, then is tested for HIV, and the test is positive? And his parents have no idea of any of this, but this young person has to evaluate all this, cope with what he will probably think is a death sentence, and have entered this world of corruption in secret, because of incessant, inaccurate propaganda convincing him he was born "gay"?
Even though this consent by minors is becoming very common and is even upheld by law, there's no excuse for putting kids in this position. It's certainly feeding the problem of sexually transmitted diseases and sexual activity among America's youth. Parents are, by and large, not a problem for kids, but the primary people in the world who care most about a kid's welfare, and the ones who can talk him/her out of foolish impulses. Don't we have public service ads now that urge parents to talk with teens about sex, about drugs? Don't we know that this works? But these clubs, and the assumptions they make about all parents, undermine the child's first, best hope. We are offering kids a way to act on misinformation, and opportunities to be exploited, by excluding parental knowledge. This is a recipe for an insane, unstable and disease-ridden culture.
Wait – we've already got that, don't we?
And we haven't even addressed one more big question: the potential for molestation.
What happens if one of these HIV testing sessions uncovers a 12-, 13- or 14-year-old who is having a relationship with a 25- or 30-year-old? Why isn't there required reporting of such relationships? If we are going to empower taxpayer-funded groups to act as health professionals, we have to require that they not corrupt, or aid and abet corruption of children – period. The reality is that adult-teen liaisons are not uncommon in the "gay" community, so some oversight and legal parameters are needed.
We have once thrown kids to the beasts of tolerance and acceptance. Well, few of us want to tolerate and accept increased homosexual activity, as well as limited and shortened lives of our precious children – all because of a 100 percent preventable problem.
Linda Harvey is president of Mission America, a pro-family organization which monitors homosexual activism, the occult and New Age influences on American youth.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 31, 2006 03:33 PM (2OHpj)
18
Brian, youtr a DORK!
The anti religious motive concealed by false concern here:
(In announcing the introduction of her bill, Maloney said in a written release that some crisis pregnancy centers “should be called ‘Counterfeit Pregnancy Centers.’ They have the right to exist, but they shouldn’t have the right to deceive in order to advance their particular beliefs.")
The truth aout Maloneys bullsh*t here:
(“This legislation is unnecessary, as it aims to cure an ill that doesn’t exist,†Care Net President Kurt Entsminger said in a written release. Care Net is a nationwide network of about 900 evangelical Christian, pregnancy help centers. “This is nothing more than a routine attack on pregnancy centers by organizations seeking to limit their competition. We find it particularly curious that in her announcement Rep. Maloney did not cite one example of a pregnancy center that is engaging in deceptive advertising.â€)
ACLU 's influence on the broade 'Free Speech issue:
(Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, said some sections of the bill would probably be declared unconstitutional. One problem is the legislation seeks to control speech that might be misleading but not necessarily untrue, he told The Sun.
“The same logic would justify regulating a broad range of political or historical statements,†Volokh said, according to The Sun. “I think that’s a pretty dangerous policy.â€)
NANCY PELOSI ANTI CORRUPTION CLAIMS MISLEADING
Look at her friends in Congress.
"PRO-IMMIGRATION" ACTIVISTS MISLEADING
Apologism for law breaking illegals.
ACLU MISLEADING
You don't support everyone rights equally. I'm thinking 'Class Action Suit' based on such claims might be warranted. I'm sick of you.
ISLAM THE RELIGION OF PEACE MISLEADING
Even if it is possible to show examples where Islam might be a religion of peace, Should we suppress CAIR, or the MAS because they are misleading, and use 'taqiyya'?
Don't cherry pick my posts and pretend you read them DORK!
USA, all the way!
The anti religious motive concealed by false concern here:
(In announcing the introduction of her bill, Maloney said in a written release that some crisis pregnancy centers “should be called ‘Counterfeit Pregnancy Centers.’ They have the right to exist, but they shouldn’t have the right to deceive in order to advance their particular beliefs.")
The truth aout Maloneys bullsh*t here:
(“This legislation is unnecessary, as it aims to cure an ill that doesn’t exist,†Care Net President Kurt Entsminger said in a written release. Care Net is a nationwide network of about 900 evangelical Christian, pregnancy help centers. “This is nothing more than a routine attack on pregnancy centers by organizations seeking to limit their competition. We find it particularly curious that in her announcement Rep. Maloney did not cite one example of a pregnancy center that is engaging in deceptive advertising.â€)
ACLU 's influence on the broade 'Free Speech issue:
(Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, said some sections of the bill would probably be declared unconstitutional. One problem is the legislation seeks to control speech that might be misleading but not necessarily untrue, he told The Sun.
“The same logic would justify regulating a broad range of political or historical statements,†Volokh said, according to The Sun. “I think that’s a pretty dangerous policy.â€)
NANCY PELOSI ANTI CORRUPTION CLAIMS MISLEADING
Look at her friends in Congress.
"PRO-IMMIGRATION" ACTIVISTS MISLEADING
Apologism for law breaking illegals.
ACLU MISLEADING
You don't support everyone rights equally. I'm thinking 'Class Action Suit' based on such claims might be warranted. I'm sick of you.
ISLAM THE RELIGION OF PEACE MISLEADING
Even if it is possible to show examples where Islam might be a religion of peace, Should we suppress CAIR, or the MAS because they are misleading, and use 'taqiyya'?
Don't cherry pick my posts and pretend you read them DORK!
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 31, 2006 03:50 PM (2OHpj)
19
Commentaries on the ACLU
Dennis Ingolfsland edited to keep this thread from exploding.
(First we have suppression of free exercise)
Friday, June 03, 2005
Tyranny and Freedom of Religion continued
It says the Indiana Civil Liberties Union (affiliated, of course, with the ACLU) is suing the Indiana legislature to stop the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer. According to the e-mail, the ICLU says that these prayers violate the "constitutional guarantee of religious freedom for all."
such prayers have been going on since before the first Continental Congress met in 1774. Apparently those who ratified the Constitution and those who later added the bill of rights did not think such prayers violated the Constitution since they never made any effort to stop the practice.
(Next we have religious favoritism)
Thursday, June 09, 2005
ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State
Temple University putting on a play depicting Jesus and his disciples having sex with each other: I could be wrong, but I don’t recall reading anything about the ACLU, People for the American Way or Americans United for the Separation of Church and State complaining about Temple’s violation church/state separation by putting on a play about Jesus. After all, I’m sure Temple U. is a huge recipient of government funds.
Apparently the ACLU et al. are only concerned when the state, or state supported institutions even remotely acknowledge religion--like having a tiny cross on a flag. I guess it must be OK with the ACLU et al. when a state funded institution violates a Christian’s civil rights, suppresses religion or engages in Christo-phobic bigotry and hate speech. Is it really any wonder that many of us think the real agenda of organizations like these is not really the separation of church and state, but the suppression of all positive religious expression and influence.
(MORE religious favoritism)
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
The Qur'an and Guantanamo
Last Saturday, June 19, the United States provided 1,600 copies of the Qur’an as well as prayer rugs and prayer beads for the prisoners at Guantanamo. Can you imagine if the government had provided Bibles? The ACLU, People for the American Way and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State would have gone into convulsions over the use of government funds to promote religion! Are these groups really interested in keeping government and religion separate, or are they just out to suppress Christianity?
(Suppression of free expression, with hypocracy, following cases like the one brought by Michael Newdow)
Friday, October 14, 2005
Pledge of Allegiance and Declaration of Independence
If—as a California court decided—it is unconstitutional for public school students to recite "one nation under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, is it also unconstitutional for students to recite the Declaration of Independence? The Declaration of Independence speaks of "Nature’s God" and says that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…" It concludes by appealing to the "Supreme Judge of the world...."
If reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school is unconstitutional, then surely it must also be unconstitutional to recite the Declaration of Independence in a public school. On the other hand, can you imagine anything more absurd than thinking that the framers of the Constitution--men who founded this country--would think that it should be unconstitutional for children to recite their Declaration of Independence in schools?! It is just as absurd to think that they would have disapproved of Ten Commandments in courthouses, Christmas songs in schools, or nativity scenes in parks. But frankly, I doubt that the ACLU and Freedom from Religion Foundation really care what the founders of this great country wanted or intended.
(Suppression of parental rights, with favoritism shown to one value system over another)
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
The ACLU and cross-dressing
In a California elementary school some time ago, children were required to attend a mandatory assembly by a homosexual theater troupe which included, among other things, a poem read by a young boy (excerpts below):
"In Mommy’s high heals the world is beautiful,
Let the peasants choke way down below.
I’m standing high above the crowds,
My head is breaking through the clouds…."
"When I grow up I’ll have the cash
To go out and buy a bag to match!
So let them say that I’m a girl!
What’s wrong with being like a girl?!
And let them jump and jeer and whirl—
They are swine, I am the pearl!
And let them laugh and let them scream!
They’ll be beheaded when I’m queen!"
When parents heard their children had been exposed to this presentation without their knowledge or consent, they were outraged and filed a lawsuit against the school. After two years, the parents had to give up the fight, being outgunned by the substantial resources of the ACLU! (Quotes from The ACLU vs. America by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, 2005, 55, 56).
Excuse me, but exactly whose civil liberties were the American Civil Liberties Union protecting? Certainly not those of the parents or children! Imagine if the case had been different. Imagine that the school board had, without parent’s consent, forced children to listen to a group that called pro-choice or gay rights advocates "swine" and threatening to behead them." (THIS FOLLOWING IS OPINION, BUT I AGREE) The ACLU is about forcing their ideological social agenda down the throats of unwilling Americans.
(What about a child's right to life?)
Thursday, December 15, 2005
The ACLU and infanticide
"But the ACLU’s anti-life agenda does not stop at abortion. It has progressively moved toward infanticide. Nat Hentoff realized this when he was involved in the infamous ‘Baby Doe’ cases. One of these cases involved a couple in Bloomington, Indiana, who gave birth to a Down’s syndrome infant with a defective digestive system that could have been corrected by routine surgery, but the baby died of starvation on order of the parents."
"In fact, these cases, and the ACLU’s position concerning them led to Hentoff’s splitting from the ACLU. As other similar stories occurred, Hentoff noticed the ACLU repeatedly stood on the side of protecting the ‘privacy’ rights of parents to kill their children."
"Hentoff also shared the following incident: ‘And then I heard the head of the Reproductive Freedom Rights unit of the ACLU saying…at a forum, ‘I don’t know what all this fuss is about. Dealing with these handicapped infants is really an extension of women’s reproductive right to control their own bodies" (Quotes from The ACLU vs. America by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, 2005, 109-110).
(STARVING AN INFANT IS AN EXTENSION OF A WOMANS RIGHT TO "CONTROL HER OWN BODY" ???)
(HYPOCRACY)
So while the ACLU is strongly against the right of a democratically elected government to execute sadistic murderers or even serial killers, it appears that they are willing to protect the privacy "rights" of parents to kill their innocent children?
(MAYBE WE SHOULD READ THIS BOOK TOGETHER???)
Monday, January 23, 2006
The ACLU and religion
In The ACLU vs. America by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, the authors quote "Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute" who "summed up the ACLU’s goals":
"The sweet air of liberty must be replaced must be replaced with an invisible gas that detects, exterminates and suffocates any breath that would expel a religious word in public life. Publicly, religion must be totally repressed, so that soon only atheists will find the public atmosphere comfortable. The accommodation this nation long ago reached between believers and non-believes must be abandoned. Religion shall be banned from all public appearances under government auspices, until it is totally squeezed down into private life, underground. There, harmless, it can survive as long as it may. To save the world from intolerance, the ACLU must be rigorously intolerant. Public life in the United States must be religion-free." (Michael Novak, "The Atheist—Civil Liberty Union?" National Review online, July 12, 2002 as quoted in The ACLU vs. America by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, 2005, 126-127).
(Suppressing free expression)
ACLU fascism strikes again
In their fascist attempts to eliminate all vestiges of religion in public life (reminiscent of the old Soviet Union), the ACLU and Americans United have filed a lawsuit seeking to force the Bridgeport High School in West Virginia to remove a painting of Jesus which has been hanging in the halls for over 30 years. (Chron.com)
The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Can someone explain to me how a picture in a local high school violates this provision of the Constitution? It is absolutely absurd to think that the framers of the Constitution would have regarded this painting in the halls of a public high school as unconstitutional.
(Hypocracy, Corruption, Deciet, Treason)
Thursday, August 24, 2006
ACLU vs. NSA; a conflict of interest
Readers may recall that recently the ACLU brought suit against the National Security Agency for illegal wiretapping. Even some who were sympathetic to the outcome were critical of the judge’s reasoning in the decision. Judicial Watch, a “watchdog†organization in Washington DC has now charged that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor who presided over the case served as the secretary and trustee for a group that recently gave a grant of $45,000 to the ACLU. Some are suspecting that the NSA did not get a fair shake in this decision. This issue will surely come up in appeal (USA Today).
USE A SEARCH ENGINE YOU LAZY DORK!
It's all over the place ...
USA, all the way!
Dennis Ingolfsland edited to keep this thread from exploding.
(First we have suppression of free exercise)
Friday, June 03, 2005
Tyranny and Freedom of Religion continued
It says the Indiana Civil Liberties Union (affiliated, of course, with the ACLU) is suing the Indiana legislature to stop the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer. According to the e-mail, the ICLU says that these prayers violate the "constitutional guarantee of religious freedom for all."
such prayers have been going on since before the first Continental Congress met in 1774. Apparently those who ratified the Constitution and those who later added the bill of rights did not think such prayers violated the Constitution since they never made any effort to stop the practice.
(Next we have religious favoritism)
Thursday, June 09, 2005
ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State
Temple University putting on a play depicting Jesus and his disciples having sex with each other: I could be wrong, but I don’t recall reading anything about the ACLU, People for the American Way or Americans United for the Separation of Church and State complaining about Temple’s violation church/state separation by putting on a play about Jesus. After all, I’m sure Temple U. is a huge recipient of government funds.
Apparently the ACLU et al. are only concerned when the state, or state supported institutions even remotely acknowledge religion--like having a tiny cross on a flag. I guess it must be OK with the ACLU et al. when a state funded institution violates a Christian’s civil rights, suppresses religion or engages in Christo-phobic bigotry and hate speech. Is it really any wonder that many of us think the real agenda of organizations like these is not really the separation of church and state, but the suppression of all positive religious expression and influence.
(MORE religious favoritism)
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
The Qur'an and Guantanamo
Last Saturday, June 19, the United States provided 1,600 copies of the Qur’an as well as prayer rugs and prayer beads for the prisoners at Guantanamo. Can you imagine if the government had provided Bibles? The ACLU, People for the American Way and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State would have gone into convulsions over the use of government funds to promote religion! Are these groups really interested in keeping government and religion separate, or are they just out to suppress Christianity?
(Suppression of free expression, with hypocracy, following cases like the one brought by Michael Newdow)
Friday, October 14, 2005
Pledge of Allegiance and Declaration of Independence
If—as a California court decided—it is unconstitutional for public school students to recite "one nation under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, is it also unconstitutional for students to recite the Declaration of Independence? The Declaration of Independence speaks of "Nature’s God" and says that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…" It concludes by appealing to the "Supreme Judge of the world...."
If reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school is unconstitutional, then surely it must also be unconstitutional to recite the Declaration of Independence in a public school. On the other hand, can you imagine anything more absurd than thinking that the framers of the Constitution--men who founded this country--would think that it should be unconstitutional for children to recite their Declaration of Independence in schools?! It is just as absurd to think that they would have disapproved of Ten Commandments in courthouses, Christmas songs in schools, or nativity scenes in parks. But frankly, I doubt that the ACLU and Freedom from Religion Foundation really care what the founders of this great country wanted or intended.
(Suppression of parental rights, with favoritism shown to one value system over another)
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
The ACLU and cross-dressing
In a California elementary school some time ago, children were required to attend a mandatory assembly by a homosexual theater troupe which included, among other things, a poem read by a young boy (excerpts below):
"In Mommy’s high heals the world is beautiful,
Let the peasants choke way down below.
I’m standing high above the crowds,
My head is breaking through the clouds…."
"When I grow up I’ll have the cash
To go out and buy a bag to match!
So let them say that I’m a girl!
What’s wrong with being like a girl?!
And let them jump and jeer and whirl—
They are swine, I am the pearl!
And let them laugh and let them scream!
They’ll be beheaded when I’m queen!"
When parents heard their children had been exposed to this presentation without their knowledge or consent, they were outraged and filed a lawsuit against the school. After two years, the parents had to give up the fight, being outgunned by the substantial resources of the ACLU! (Quotes from The ACLU vs. America by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, 2005, 55, 56).
Excuse me, but exactly whose civil liberties were the American Civil Liberties Union protecting? Certainly not those of the parents or children! Imagine if the case had been different. Imagine that the school board had, without parent’s consent, forced children to listen to a group that called pro-choice or gay rights advocates "swine" and threatening to behead them." (THIS FOLLOWING IS OPINION, BUT I AGREE) The ACLU is about forcing their ideological social agenda down the throats of unwilling Americans.
(What about a child's right to life?)
Thursday, December 15, 2005
The ACLU and infanticide
"But the ACLU’s anti-life agenda does not stop at abortion. It has progressively moved toward infanticide. Nat Hentoff realized this when he was involved in the infamous ‘Baby Doe’ cases. One of these cases involved a couple in Bloomington, Indiana, who gave birth to a Down’s syndrome infant with a defective digestive system that could have been corrected by routine surgery, but the baby died of starvation on order of the parents."
"In fact, these cases, and the ACLU’s position concerning them led to Hentoff’s splitting from the ACLU. As other similar stories occurred, Hentoff noticed the ACLU repeatedly stood on the side of protecting the ‘privacy’ rights of parents to kill their children."
"Hentoff also shared the following incident: ‘And then I heard the head of the Reproductive Freedom Rights unit of the ACLU saying…at a forum, ‘I don’t know what all this fuss is about. Dealing with these handicapped infants is really an extension of women’s reproductive right to control their own bodies" (Quotes from The ACLU vs. America by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, 2005, 109-110).
(STARVING AN INFANT IS AN EXTENSION OF A WOMANS RIGHT TO "CONTROL HER OWN BODY" ???)
(HYPOCRACY)
So while the ACLU is strongly against the right of a democratically elected government to execute sadistic murderers or even serial killers, it appears that they are willing to protect the privacy "rights" of parents to kill their innocent children?
(MAYBE WE SHOULD READ THIS BOOK TOGETHER???)
Monday, January 23, 2006
The ACLU and religion
In The ACLU vs. America by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, the authors quote "Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute" who "summed up the ACLU’s goals":
"The sweet air of liberty must be replaced must be replaced with an invisible gas that detects, exterminates and suffocates any breath that would expel a religious word in public life. Publicly, religion must be totally repressed, so that soon only atheists will find the public atmosphere comfortable. The accommodation this nation long ago reached between believers and non-believes must be abandoned. Religion shall be banned from all public appearances under government auspices, until it is totally squeezed down into private life, underground. There, harmless, it can survive as long as it may. To save the world from intolerance, the ACLU must be rigorously intolerant. Public life in the United States must be religion-free." (Michael Novak, "The Atheist—Civil Liberty Union?" National Review online, July 12, 2002 as quoted in The ACLU vs. America by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, 2005, 126-127).
(Suppressing free expression)
ACLU fascism strikes again
In their fascist attempts to eliminate all vestiges of religion in public life (reminiscent of the old Soviet Union), the ACLU and Americans United have filed a lawsuit seeking to force the Bridgeport High School in West Virginia to remove a painting of Jesus which has been hanging in the halls for over 30 years. (Chron.com)
The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Can someone explain to me how a picture in a local high school violates this provision of the Constitution? It is absolutely absurd to think that the framers of the Constitution would have regarded this painting in the halls of a public high school as unconstitutional.
(Hypocracy, Corruption, Deciet, Treason)
Thursday, August 24, 2006
ACLU vs. NSA; a conflict of interest
Readers may recall that recently the ACLU brought suit against the National Security Agency for illegal wiretapping. Even some who were sympathetic to the outcome were critical of the judge’s reasoning in the decision. Judicial Watch, a “watchdog†organization in Washington DC has now charged that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor who presided over the case served as the secretary and trustee for a group that recently gave a grant of $45,000 to the ACLU. Some are suspecting that the NSA did not get a fair shake in this decision. This issue will surely come up in appeal (USA Today).
USE A SEARCH ENGINE YOU LAZY DORK!
It's all over the place ...
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 31, 2006 04:51 PM (2OHpj)
20
Whole article intact because it isn't to long.
"""Governor Mark Warner of Virginia has vetoed a bill authorizing the state to issue a "Choose Life" license plate. The apparent reason was because "abortion rights" advocates had "complained about the message." story here.
There is more, and this part is especially troubling for those who value liberty. The so-called American Civil Liberties Union apparently believes only in the freedom of speech that is compatible with their left-wing outlook. In a statement that is disingenuous in the extreme, the ACLU in February 2003 urged Gov. Warner to veto the bill. The rationale was
"This is not about reproductive freedom but about free speech,'' ACLU of Virginia executive director Kent Willis said in a press release. "The legislature cannot issue a license plate advocating one viewpoint on reproductive freedom without giving the other viewpoint the same opportunity".
At this point the alarms should have gone off. Free speech is not about presenting all points of view at every juncture. It is about allowing all the opportunity to speak. The ACLU posture is a perversion of free speech, as it suppresses one group's freedom of speech in the very name of such freedom.
Pro-abortion advocates have the same right to apply, through established procedures, for message license plates. If pro-abortion advocates were forbidden from doing so, that would be a legitimate freedom of speech issue. There is no sign that this is the case.
Among other "special interest" license plates offered by Virginia is one celebrating the Washington Redskins Football team. Well, as a New York Giants fan, I find that offensive. I protest. And if I could find a sufficient number of like-minded Virginians, I would apply to get a New York Giants specialty plate. OK, I don't live in Virginia any more, but the point is universal. As long as I have the same opportunity to publicize my point of view, my freedom of speech is protected. Following the ACLU's anti-freedom of speech logic, the state would have to offer license plates for every single NFL team, or withdraw the Redskins' plate. What? That's not important? Try telling that to some diehard NFL fans.
I get the nagging sense that the ACLU brief, and the governor's veto are exactly about "reproductive freedom." They surely aren't about freedom, unless you agree with the ACLU's pro-death (oops) pro choice agenda. I trust the point is made. For almost every special interest, one may find those who are against that interest and who must be given the same opportunity to express their viewpoint. But freedom of expression, by definition, can not be a rationale to stifle an opposing view. Yet this is precisely what the ACLU in Virginia supports, and what Gov. Warner has shamefully caved on.
Well, another chip at the First Amendment. How many more will it take?
posted by Jack Rich at March 25, 2003 02:54 PM in the Liberty category """
USA, all the way!
"""Governor Mark Warner of Virginia has vetoed a bill authorizing the state to issue a "Choose Life" license plate. The apparent reason was because "abortion rights" advocates had "complained about the message." story here.
There is more, and this part is especially troubling for those who value liberty. The so-called American Civil Liberties Union apparently believes only in the freedom of speech that is compatible with their left-wing outlook. In a statement that is disingenuous in the extreme, the ACLU in February 2003 urged Gov. Warner to veto the bill. The rationale was
"This is not about reproductive freedom but about free speech,'' ACLU of Virginia executive director Kent Willis said in a press release. "The legislature cannot issue a license plate advocating one viewpoint on reproductive freedom without giving the other viewpoint the same opportunity".
At this point the alarms should have gone off. Free speech is not about presenting all points of view at every juncture. It is about allowing all the opportunity to speak. The ACLU posture is a perversion of free speech, as it suppresses one group's freedom of speech in the very name of such freedom.
Pro-abortion advocates have the same right to apply, through established procedures, for message license plates. If pro-abortion advocates were forbidden from doing so, that would be a legitimate freedom of speech issue. There is no sign that this is the case.
Among other "special interest" license plates offered by Virginia is one celebrating the Washington Redskins Football team. Well, as a New York Giants fan, I find that offensive. I protest. And if I could find a sufficient number of like-minded Virginians, I would apply to get a New York Giants specialty plate. OK, I don't live in Virginia any more, but the point is universal. As long as I have the same opportunity to publicize my point of view, my freedom of speech is protected. Following the ACLU's anti-freedom of speech logic, the state would have to offer license plates for every single NFL team, or withdraw the Redskins' plate. What? That's not important? Try telling that to some diehard NFL fans.
I get the nagging sense that the ACLU brief, and the governor's veto are exactly about "reproductive freedom." They surely aren't about freedom, unless you agree with the ACLU's pro-death (oops) pro choice agenda. I trust the point is made. For almost every special interest, one may find those who are against that interest and who must be given the same opportunity to express their viewpoint. But freedom of expression, by definition, can not be a rationale to stifle an opposing view. Yet this is precisely what the ACLU in Virginia supports, and what Gov. Warner has shamefully caved on.
Well, another chip at the First Amendment. How many more will it take?
posted by Jack Rich at March 25, 2003 02:54 PM in the Liberty category """
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 31, 2006 05:02 PM (2OHpj)
21
JUST FOR FUN ... REALLY, JUST A JOKE
ACLU Attacks Christmas
CHICAGO - The American Civil Liberties Union announced today that it was
bringing a lawsuit against Santa Claus for violations of the civil rights
of children.
An ACLU spokesman, Mr. E. Scrooge, stated that, "Mr. Claus has been violating
children's right to privacy and has been putting that information in a vast
database.
The information is then used by the law enforcement arm of Mr. Claus' organization
to determine which children are considered naughty or nice. It is obvious Mr. Claus
has violated the children's rights, as we have alleged in our suit, because of the
memos and other company information we have obtained. In addition, we believe
Mr. Claus has been engaging in mind control experiments designed to prevent the free
expression of beliefs."
Among the documents presented to the courts today was a memo which reads, in part:
You better watch out. You better not cry. You better not pout.
I'm telling you why: Santa Claus is coming to town.
He sees you when you are sleeping -- He knows when you're awake,
He knows when you've been bad or good, So be good for goodness' sake.
Mr. Scrooge claimed the document, was obtained from a worker in the distribution
department of Mr. Claus' organization, "clearly shows a concerted attempt to
restrict the rights of children to free expression and free thought."
In addition, there are concerns about the security of the information.
What would be the result of such a database being made available to other law
enforcement agencies around the world?
Lawyers at the Justice also confirmed today that they were investigating the
possibility that Mr. Claus was at the core of a vast conspiracy against children.
Anonymous sources from inside the Justice Department stated that, "We believe a
large number of parents, ministers, and teachers are involved in this business,
and we expect several of them will testify for the State in return for a lighter
sentence." In addition, the same sources indicated a parallel investigation by the
Department and the FBI on possible charges of smuggling on the part of Mr. Claus,
"our records do not show Mr. Claus, or any one else, paying any import duties or
taxes on any items he has delivered."
Since Mr. Claus has representatives in all of the States of the Union, we believe
he should have to pay state and local taxes on all of the goods he delivers."
Lawyers for Mr. Claus stated, "The charges of the ACLU are absurd. Mr. Claus is a
well-known and highly-respected figure."
His supporters are from around the world and his message of love and respect can,
in no way, be taken as a for of "mind control" or a violation of the "civil rights
of children."
The lawsuit is complicated by the fact that Mr. Claus is not a resident of the United
States or any country with which the United States currently has an extradition treaty.
It is unknown where Mr. Claus is at the moment, but it is believed he is hiding out at
his North Pole estate.
In a brief statement, read by his lawyer, Mr. Claus said, "I find the charges of the
ACLU absurd and am confident they will be rejected by the courts. As for any criminal
charges, I believe the Justice Department will discover they have no basis."
Experts are uncertain what possible effect the suit or possible pending charges might
have on Mr. Claus' Christmas travels this year.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
OK jokes over ...
USA, all the way!
ACLU Attacks Christmas
CHICAGO - The American Civil Liberties Union announced today that it was
bringing a lawsuit against Santa Claus for violations of the civil rights
of children.
An ACLU spokesman, Mr. E. Scrooge, stated that, "Mr. Claus has been violating
children's right to privacy and has been putting that information in a vast
database.
The information is then used by the law enforcement arm of Mr. Claus' organization
to determine which children are considered naughty or nice. It is obvious Mr. Claus
has violated the children's rights, as we have alleged in our suit, because of the
memos and other company information we have obtained. In addition, we believe
Mr. Claus has been engaging in mind control experiments designed to prevent the free
expression of beliefs."
Among the documents presented to the courts today was a memo which reads, in part:
You better watch out. You better not cry. You better not pout.
I'm telling you why: Santa Claus is coming to town.
He sees you when you are sleeping -- He knows when you're awake,
He knows when you've been bad or good, So be good for goodness' sake.
Mr. Scrooge claimed the document, was obtained from a worker in the distribution
department of Mr. Claus' organization, "clearly shows a concerted attempt to
restrict the rights of children to free expression and free thought."
In addition, there are concerns about the security of the information.
What would be the result of such a database being made available to other law
enforcement agencies around the world?
Lawyers at the Justice also confirmed today that they were investigating the
possibility that Mr. Claus was at the core of a vast conspiracy against children.
Anonymous sources from inside the Justice Department stated that, "We believe a
large number of parents, ministers, and teachers are involved in this business,
and we expect several of them will testify for the State in return for a lighter
sentence." In addition, the same sources indicated a parallel investigation by the
Department and the FBI on possible charges of smuggling on the part of Mr. Claus,
"our records do not show Mr. Claus, or any one else, paying any import duties or
taxes on any items he has delivered."
Since Mr. Claus has representatives in all of the States of the Union, we believe
he should have to pay state and local taxes on all of the goods he delivers."
Lawyers for Mr. Claus stated, "The charges of the ACLU are absurd. Mr. Claus is a
well-known and highly-respected figure."
His supporters are from around the world and his message of love and respect can,
in no way, be taken as a for of "mind control" or a violation of the "civil rights
of children."
The lawsuit is complicated by the fact that Mr. Claus is not a resident of the United
States or any country with which the United States currently has an extradition treaty.
It is unknown where Mr. Claus is at the moment, but it is believed he is hiding out at
his North Pole estate.
In a brief statement, read by his lawyer, Mr. Claus said, "I find the charges of the
ACLU absurd and am confident they will be rejected by the courts. As for any criminal
charges, I believe the Justice Department will discover they have no basis."
Experts are uncertain what possible effect the suit or possible pending charges might
have on Mr. Claus' Christmas travels this year.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
OK jokes over ...
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 31, 2006 05:15 PM (2OHpj)
22
That is it for now. I don't want to abuse the bandwidth here.
Usa a search engine, and you will find many anti-ACLU complaints which are fully justified. Argueing about it here is useless. My advice to any honestly interested reader is to do your own research, and find out for yourself.
Everyone should be free to express themselves. the First Amendment already makes that clear. Suppression of speech or expression must only be curtailed under the most severe of emergencies, or in the case of obvious sedition, lies, and slander.
"Loose lips sink ships" is a valid reason to suppress the NYT in wartime.
Promoting "Death to America" on an American street is seditious.
Saying the Bush administration arranged for the WTC to be destrioyed is libelous, and unless the conspiracy theorists want to take it to court, and prove it, they should be charged for that libel.
F*ck the ACLU!
Happy New Year!
USA, all the way!
Usa a search engine, and you will find many anti-ACLU complaints which are fully justified. Argueing about it here is useless. My advice to any honestly interested reader is to do your own research, and find out for yourself.
Everyone should be free to express themselves. the First Amendment already makes that clear. Suppression of speech or expression must only be curtailed under the most severe of emergencies, or in the case of obvious sedition, lies, and slander.
"Loose lips sink ships" is a valid reason to suppress the NYT in wartime.
Promoting "Death to America" on an American street is seditious.
Saying the Bush administration arranged for the WTC to be destrioyed is libelous, and unless the conspiracy theorists want to take it to court, and prove it, they should be charged for that libel.
F*ck the ACLU!
Happy New Year!
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 31, 2006 05:25 PM (2OHpj)
23
I actually have to come back to this one:
"But the ACLU’s anti-life agenda does not stop at abortion. It has progressively moved toward infanticide. Nat Hentoff realized this when he was involved in the infamous ‘Baby Doe’ cases. One of these cases involved a couple in Bloomington, Indiana, who gave birth to a Down’s syndrome infant with a defective digestive system that could have been corrected by routine surgery, but the baby died of starvation on order of the parents."
"In fact, these cases, and the ACLU’s position concerning them led to Hentoff’s splitting from the ACLU. As other similar stories occurred, Hentoff noticed the ACLU repeatedly stood on the side of protecting the ‘privacy’ rights of parents to kill their children."
One of my very best friends was just like that baby once. "Down’s syndrome infant with a defective digestive system". He still has both problems. He is a great Husband to his wife, and an awesome Dad for his little ones, and it makes me crazy to think the ACLU would have endorsed pulling his tubes!
He personally helped me through some tough times. He was there when I needed a good friend because his parents were loving, and decent, and the ACLU was nowhere around.
USA, all the way!
"But the ACLU’s anti-life agenda does not stop at abortion. It has progressively moved toward infanticide. Nat Hentoff realized this when he was involved in the infamous ‘Baby Doe’ cases. One of these cases involved a couple in Bloomington, Indiana, who gave birth to a Down’s syndrome infant with a defective digestive system that could have been corrected by routine surgery, but the baby died of starvation on order of the parents."
"In fact, these cases, and the ACLU’s position concerning them led to Hentoff’s splitting from the ACLU. As other similar stories occurred, Hentoff noticed the ACLU repeatedly stood on the side of protecting the ‘privacy’ rights of parents to kill their children."
One of my very best friends was just like that baby once. "Down’s syndrome infant with a defective digestive system". He still has both problems. He is a great Husband to his wife, and an awesome Dad for his little ones, and it makes me crazy to think the ACLU would have endorsed pulling his tubes!
He personally helped me through some tough times. He was there when I needed a good friend because his parents were loving, and decent, and the ACLU was nowhere around.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 31, 2006 05:39 PM (2OHpj)
24
Lyin Worstley:
"As I expected, none of you have yet to come up with any specific examples of what the ACLU has done that limits the religious liberty of Christians. All you can come up with is more namecalling. I guess that's why the ACLU wins in court so often - their opponents can't put together a coherent argument."
As I expected, you resort to petty evasions and pettifoggery rather than attempt to refute the irrefutable. I guess that's why leftists lose every argument they engage in--they cant put together a coherent argument.
Although Weaver listed more ACLU crimes than a sub-literate cretin like you could address in a lifetime of trying, I'm not going to bother. We both know you aren't interested in the truth. "A lie told often enough becomes the truth," right lowlife? You've been provided with the address of a site that is dedicated to chronicling the ACLU's campaign against the Constitution. Either read it and refute it, or shut the fuck up.
Workers of the world unite! Thought I'd throw that in there to make you feel better about your thrashing.
Stupid shit-licker. You're a lying buffoon, and so beneath debate. You couldn't win an argument with a 4 year old mongoloid.
Fuck you very much.
"As I expected, none of you have yet to come up with any specific examples of what the ACLU has done that limits the religious liberty of Christians. All you can come up with is more namecalling. I guess that's why the ACLU wins in court so often - their opponents can't put together a coherent argument."
As I expected, you resort to petty evasions and pettifoggery rather than attempt to refute the irrefutable. I guess that's why leftists lose every argument they engage in--they cant put together a coherent argument.
Although Weaver listed more ACLU crimes than a sub-literate cretin like you could address in a lifetime of trying, I'm not going to bother. We both know you aren't interested in the truth. "A lie told often enough becomes the truth," right lowlife? You've been provided with the address of a site that is dedicated to chronicling the ACLU's campaign against the Constitution. Either read it and refute it, or shut the fuck up.
Workers of the world unite! Thought I'd throw that in there to make you feel better about your thrashing.
Stupid shit-licker. You're a lying buffoon, and so beneath debate. You couldn't win an argument with a 4 year old mongoloid.
Fuck you very much.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 31, 2006 06:37 PM (abVz3)
25
P.S., Weaver wrote that the ACLU was a hypocritical organization bent on perverting the Constitution (in so many words,) and went on to prove it. You disingenuously and chimpishly demand that he list every ACLU suit against Christianity it has ever pressed.
You are completely unable to prove your ridiculous assertion that the ACLU isn't waging jihad against Christianity.
Typical leftist.Your bark is worse than your bite. stoptheaclu.com, asshole. stoptheaclu.com
You are completely unable to prove your ridiculous assertion that the ACLU isn't waging jihad against Christianity.
Typical leftist.Your bark is worse than your bite. stoptheaclu.com, asshole. stoptheaclu.com
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 31, 2006 06:51 PM (abVz3)
26
Well, it seems at least one of you has finally come up with something approaching what I've been asking for (that is, examples of the ACLU infringing on the religious rights of Christians).
First, Michael Weaver's long article on gays is not an example of the religious rights of Christians being infringed. You have to at least TRY to show what actions of Christians are being limited by your examples. Plus, I'm not "cherry picking" your articles, your articles simply aren't examples of the religious rights of Christians being infringed.
Now, your cribbed notes on the ACLU finally attempts to tie into something to do with religious rights. However, prayers in the Indiana legislature are only an issue of "free exercise" if everyone, of any religious view, is allowed the same exercise. And in your case, it isn't, because it isn't a case of free exercise. The Indiana legislature, being a government body, does not have "rights", it has "powers" (granted to them by the people). Nobody's rights are being infringed because every single member of the Indiana legislature has their rights to free exercise, and they can practice them as they like, just like any other private citizen.
As for Temple University allowing students to put on the Broadway play "Corpus Christi", I can't find anything on the ACLU's position (since this happened about 8 years ago), so unless you can come up with something the ACLU has said about it, it's irrelevant.
Same with the Qur'an and Guantanamo - I can't find any comment by the ACLU about it.
Now, Michael Newdow's cases I know a lot more about, since I'm a volunteer with his www.restorethepledge.com website. This is still irrelevant to the ACLU's position, since Dr. Newdow is doing this, not the ACLU. But you obviously know nothing of the issues involved, since the article you quote says 'If—as a California court decided—it is unconstitutional for public school students to recite "one nation under God," ', which is completely wrong. What the court ruled was that's it's unconstitutional for THE SCHOOL to inculcate religion into its students by having them recite a religious pledge. It could never be unconstitutional for the students to say the pledge, refuse to say the pledge, say it with or without 'under god', etc. That's a simple matter of the student's first amendment rights.
Now, the CA school situation:
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/11874prs20030904.html?s_src=RSS
...
"Teaching tolerance for lesbian and gay students has nothing to do sex education or religious freedom," said Tamara Lange, a staff attorney for the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.
...
Well, I'll give you half credit for this one; parents do have the right to teach their children to hate gays, but public schools still have the authority to teach tolerance.
As to abortion, again you haven't shown how the ACLU's position on abortion limits the religious rights of Christians, unless you think we live in a theocracy where religious teachings take precident over laws. If you want theocracy, try Iran.
Your quoting of a polemic against the ACLU again provides no details of a specific position of the ACLU limiting the religious rights of Christians.
Hanging a picture of Jesus in a public school is not limiting the religious rights of Christians, unless it happens to be a public forum where everyone can hang pictures of religious icons, which is not the case here. A public school does not have the right to promote Christianity (or any other religion) to its students. Public schools don't have rights, they have powers granted to them by the people, as is the case with all government entities.
And your last example, even if it proves true (which I'm not granting), again, is not an example of the ACLU limiting the religious rights of Christians.
Now, it's very amusing how you keep calling me names while you accused me of GOING TO call you names in the future. Apparently, you can't even think up your own arguments, because all of them are cut & paste jobs. You seem incapable of understand the arguments yourself. You should at least be able to tell if the case has SOMETHING to do with the religious rights of Christians, but even that's expecting too much.
Happy new year; I'm sure the coming year will bring a lot of court decisions that you cannot fathom, because you don't have a good grasp of the laws involved. For example, you apparently think that public schools ought to have the power to hang pictures of Jesus (or Mohammad, for that matter) to promote whatever religion the local school authorities want to promote. That's antithetical to the first amendment.
First, Michael Weaver's long article on gays is not an example of the religious rights of Christians being infringed. You have to at least TRY to show what actions of Christians are being limited by your examples. Plus, I'm not "cherry picking" your articles, your articles simply aren't examples of the religious rights of Christians being infringed.
Now, your cribbed notes on the ACLU finally attempts to tie into something to do with religious rights. However, prayers in the Indiana legislature are only an issue of "free exercise" if everyone, of any religious view, is allowed the same exercise. And in your case, it isn't, because it isn't a case of free exercise. The Indiana legislature, being a government body, does not have "rights", it has "powers" (granted to them by the people). Nobody's rights are being infringed because every single member of the Indiana legislature has their rights to free exercise, and they can practice them as they like, just like any other private citizen.
As for Temple University allowing students to put on the Broadway play "Corpus Christi", I can't find anything on the ACLU's position (since this happened about 8 years ago), so unless you can come up with something the ACLU has said about it, it's irrelevant.
Same with the Qur'an and Guantanamo - I can't find any comment by the ACLU about it.
Now, Michael Newdow's cases I know a lot more about, since I'm a volunteer with his www.restorethepledge.com website. This is still irrelevant to the ACLU's position, since Dr. Newdow is doing this, not the ACLU. But you obviously know nothing of the issues involved, since the article you quote says 'If—as a California court decided—it is unconstitutional for public school students to recite "one nation under God," ', which is completely wrong. What the court ruled was that's it's unconstitutional for THE SCHOOL to inculcate religion into its students by having them recite a religious pledge. It could never be unconstitutional for the students to say the pledge, refuse to say the pledge, say it with or without 'under god', etc. That's a simple matter of the student's first amendment rights.
Now, the CA school situation:
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/11874prs20030904.html?s_src=RSS
...
"Teaching tolerance for lesbian and gay students has nothing to do sex education or religious freedom," said Tamara Lange, a staff attorney for the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.
...
Well, I'll give you half credit for this one; parents do have the right to teach their children to hate gays, but public schools still have the authority to teach tolerance.
As to abortion, again you haven't shown how the ACLU's position on abortion limits the religious rights of Christians, unless you think we live in a theocracy where religious teachings take precident over laws. If you want theocracy, try Iran.
Your quoting of a polemic against the ACLU again provides no details of a specific position of the ACLU limiting the religious rights of Christians.
Hanging a picture of Jesus in a public school is not limiting the religious rights of Christians, unless it happens to be a public forum where everyone can hang pictures of religious icons, which is not the case here. A public school does not have the right to promote Christianity (or any other religion) to its students. Public schools don't have rights, they have powers granted to them by the people, as is the case with all government entities.
And your last example, even if it proves true (which I'm not granting), again, is not an example of the ACLU limiting the religious rights of Christians.
Now, it's very amusing how you keep calling me names while you accused me of GOING TO call you names in the future. Apparently, you can't even think up your own arguments, because all of them are cut & paste jobs. You seem incapable of understand the arguments yourself. You should at least be able to tell if the case has SOMETHING to do with the religious rights of Christians, but even that's expecting too much.
Happy new year; I'm sure the coming year will bring a lot of court decisions that you cannot fathom, because you don't have a good grasp of the laws involved. For example, you apparently think that public schools ought to have the power to hang pictures of Jesus (or Mohammad, for that matter) to promote whatever religion the local school authorities want to promote. That's antithetical to the first amendment.
Posted by: Brian Westley at January 01, 2007 12:46 AM (bfBCO)
27
Brian:
"First, Michael Weaver's long article on gays is not an example of the religious rights of Christians being infringed. You have to at least TRY to show what actions of Christians are being limited by your examples."
Infringment of Parental rights regarding the moral upbringing of their children is relevent. You cannot rationally argue otherwise. Promotion of a morally, and physically unsafe enviroment at the expense of the parents religious, and moral obligations to their children is oppression against the associated rights.
"However, prayers in the Indiana legislature are only an issue of "free exercise" if everyone, of any religious view, is allowed the same exercise. And in your case, it isn't, because it isn't a case of free exercise."
Why yes, it is. No one is forced to participate, and those who do, do so freely, and for reasons having to do with faith, and tradition. To say this is not free exercise is simply, and obviously untrue. Besides which, no law was passed by Congress to enforce, or to block this tradition. It is only an issue because the ICLU wants it to be.
"The Indiana legislature, being a government body, does not have "rights", it has "powers" (granted to them by the people)."
The individuals who make it up are the ones who are choosing to pray, or not. No act of Congress is involved with their choice to follow a tradition, and nobody goes to jail if they choose not to participate. This body has not attempted to force compliance. The only infringment of rights here is being brought about by the ICLU.
"Nobody's rights are being infringed"
So when they are prevented from praying by the courts as a result of the ICLU, their rights are not being infringed? That is so obviously a lie it needs no refutation.
"because every single member of the Indiana legislature has their rights to free exercise,"
Yes! But they are being interfered with by your pals the ICLU!
"and they can practice them as they like, just like any other private citizen."
No! Your ICLU fascists are preventing them from doing so. Your basis for suppressing them is based on exclusion, not inclusion. In this case you choose to restrict rights as a default position, because these people are predominantly Christian.
There is no portion of the Constitution that denies them the right to choose when and where they will express their religious belief. If they choose to express this belief from a legislative podium, there is no law against it. None! It is not for the ICLU to decide. It is not for Congress to decide. Any judge favoring the ICLU position, is an 'activist judge' and is abusing his position.
"As for Temple University allowing students to put on the Broadway play "Corpus Christi", I can't find anything on the ACLU's position (since this happened about 8 years ago), so unless you can come up with something the ACLU has said about it, it's irrelevant."
No it isn't. It is because the ACLU targets only POSITIVE expressions of Christianity. Since that is irrelevant to you personally, you miss the hypocracy. This NEGATIVE mentioning of Christ was perfectly alright with the ACLU or else they would jump down the schools throat. They surely would have if the mentioning had been positive.
Further, it was offensive to the beliefs of Christians, yet again, the ACLU jumped down nobodys throat. If they had put on a show offensive to the beliefs of Wiccans, or Muslims, the ACLU would have been all over it. We both know that is the typical pattern of ACLU behavior. You may deny it, but others will read this, and go find out for themselves if I'm right. Simply saying 'it ain't so' will only fool the ones who are already stupid.
"Same with the Qur'an and Guantanamo - I can't find any comment by the ACLU about it."
Because the ACLU has a pattern that shows religious bigotry which only targets positive treatment of Chritian religion. Because it was Qurans, the ACLU did nothing. Your inability to find any 'comment' is because the ACLU could have cared less.
"Now, Michael Newdow's cases I know a lot more about, since I'm a volunteer with his www.restorethepledge.com website."
That shows your indoctrinated into the ACLU style of attacking religious expression. Your concept is that any positive expression of Christian faith in public is wrong, and only negative expressions will be ignored/allowed.
"This is still irrelevant to the ACLU's position, since Dr. Newdow is doing this, not the ACLU."
Actually I said "following cases like the one brought by Michael Newdow". To clarify, 'In a pattern similar to' cases brought by Michael Newdow. The ACLU has involved itself in supressing the pledge being lead by an instructor, this having nothing to do with non-participating students.
In the case where a student was disciplined for not standing for the pledge, the ACLU was walking a fine line. It is within the province of teaching civics to promote appreciation for its obvious value. Civics is part of the cement that holds a nation together, and part of civic behavior is loyalty to the nation. Standing for the pledge is a minimum sign of respect for the republic. I agree that forcing loyalty is improper, but expecting it is not. Especially considering the other countries you have to choose from.
In any case the enviroment in schools across the country is chilled towards free expression of Christian faith because of ACLU and other lawsuits, so there is oppression as a result of the ACLU's actions.
"It could never be unconstitutional for the students to say the pledge, refuse to say the pledge, say it with or without 'under god', etc. That's a simple matter of the student's first amendment rights."
Partly true. The ACLU is still adversly impacting free exercise, seemingly on purpose.
""
"Teaching tolerance for lesbian and gay students has nothing to do sex education or religious freedom," said Tamara Lange, a staff attorney for the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.
...
Well, I'll give you half credit for this one; parents do have the right to teach their children to hate gays, but public schools still have the authority to teach tolerance. ""
I'll claim a full point because your ignoring the anti-hetero hate speech, as well as the arguement made that the ACLU would not tolerate it going the other way! Besides which, morals are a religious, as well as a civic issue. parents should know what is being taught to their children, even absent the hate speech, and ACLU hypocracy.
"As to abortion, again you haven't shown how the ACLU's position on abortion limits the religious rights of Christians, unless you think we live in a theocracy where religious teachings take precident over laws. If you want theocracy, try Iran."
OH CUTE! Iran kills its children nearly as much as we do! If I want a theocracy I'll just let the ACLU turn America into a country governed by Atheism. Which IS a religion! Don't try to pull that kind of stupid sh*t! If taking a helpless human life is a secular evil, abortion surely qualifies. The ACLU seems to have little guilt when denying the most helpless of us, their most critical right, which is to life. As in "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
To a Christian, the child is a child whether unborn, or not. The ACLU represses both the childs rights, and the rights of a male parent. Especially so if the male parent is Christian. Christian defense of the unborn childs rights are scoffed at by the ACLU types. The rights of the child ARE INALIENABLE as expressed by our Founding Fathers and exist even though the Supreme Court ruled against giving the unborn proper recognition.
Disgusting! you soak are flag in the blood of the most helpless among us, and flaunt it! Favoring your Atheism over Chritianity.
"A public school does not have the right to promote Christianity (or any other religion) to its students."
No law exists which denies the school, or any of its staff, or its students free expression religion. Neither is there a law stating how a school may or may not display art. Nor is their any reason to assume the school would reject without good cause, a picture of some other historical, or religious figure. Your claim is biased, and an opinion not supported by honest facts.
"Public schools don't have rights, they have powers granted to them by the people, as is the case with all government entities."
Which you somehow think is important. All it means is that the school system is used in accordance with a public design. Congress didn't make a law saying they had to have one religion, and Congress didn't pass a law saying they couldn't have a certian religion. Congress WAS SILENT! What pictures the school has on the wall are the business of that school, and its providers, not yours or mine or the ACLU's! By coming in to attack the picture of Jesus, the ACLU is showing its anti Chritian bias.
"And your last example, even if it proves true (which I'm not granting), again, is not an example of the ACLU limiting the religious rights of Christians."
Of course it is! Who do you think got permision to put the picture up, if it wasn't a Christian? Who do you think wanted to leave the picture up, if it wasn't Christians? Why would Christians want to put a picture of Jesus up? To inspire them to be better Christians is why! The ACLU just goes in trampling people who have broken no law, and done nothing anyone else couldn't do. These were Christians. Not Muslims or pagans.
"Now, it's very amusing how you keep calling me names while you accused me of GOING TO call you names in the future."
I should have said "probably" and you ARE trying hard not to, but you still have a hostile voice in text, and I anticiptaed lots worse. I described you as possibly being a dupe, which is a reasonable descriptive term, and you should look up the noun in Websters. I was trying to make up my mind about you when I mentioned the possibility. Calling you a 'Dork' was also a choice I followed through on after I had warned you that I considered things to be 'barely polite'. In other words, I was hoping I would just go away feeling sorry for you, but now I pretty much hope you get hit by a train. Sorry, but I don't like the ACLU, and I don't like people who make me spend so much time correcting my own typing when I KNOW THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN REALLY LEARNING ANYTHING! I'm currently only here to encourge people to go search and get their own information.
"Apparently, you can't even think up your own arguments, because all of them are cut & paste jobs."
I told you before I have a hard time typing, and I don't think you are worth the time I've already wasted on you. I spent plenty of time typing my own words before hand, and you didn't care for that. Your just a big hypocrit.
"You should at least be able to tell if the case has SOMETHING to do with the religious rights of Christians, but even that's expecting too much."
Pretty much any morals issue has something in it that affects Christians. If you were one, or had any morals, you might understand. Since your with the ACLU even if only in spirit, that's expecting to much.
Actually I'm willing to show the duplicity of the ACLU in any area they are active, whether it is supressing Christians, or aiding and abetting the murder of babies (after they are already born, or did you forget that part of the article you fascist!? They starved babies after they were born! Your ACLU supported that!!!)
"Happy new year;"
Thanks! I wish you meant it. I meant it earlier.
"you apparently think that public schools ought to have the power to hang pictures of Jesus (or Mohammad, for that matter)"
Actually the people in those schools can do anything they like as long as nobody is unfairly shut out of the process.
"to promote whatever religion the local school authorities want to promote. That's antithetical to the first amendment."
And really, that is a big mistake on your part. The so called 'Establishment clause' only mentions "Congress" specifically. My local city council can pass any religious ordinance they want, if you are going strictly off of the wording used in the First Amendment, which I remind you is the final draft of what our collected Founding Fathers agreed to put into print. So chew that!
If I wanted to ban Christian displays from my town as a matter of law, all I would have to do would be to convince the necessary people locally to vote it into place. Congress again, would have nothing to do with it. Based on the Bill of Rights, in its pure written form. Re-read it. I'm absolutely correct on that point. They can also build a 'Jesus Museum' into the county courhouse, if they like.
To understand 'Free expression' you have to go straight to the heart of the matter, and that is Free Speech itself. The first Amendment was put into place to safeguard free Speech, and the religious wording is actually an enhancement to protect religious speech. Not to restrict it.
HERE:
Amendment I (1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a re dress of grievances.
Amendment IX (1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X (1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
AS WE CAN SEE, the wording is heavily weighted to encourage the people to speak out, and to express everything, even their religion, and there is no mention of a restriction based on location, or time of day, whether on the tax payers time, or on their own, it doesn't make a difference. If the people want to peaceably assemble, it doesn't say where, or when, or which buildings they can use, or what they can say or do when they assemble.
And the Ninth Amendment makes it pretty clear that just cause the Bill Of Rights doesn't say you can do a thing, your right to do it isn't automatically denied. Nor is your right to use religious speech on, or in public spaces automatically denied. Any restriction of Religious Speech is in conflict with the First Amendment AND the Ninth!!! Also the tenth!
The Tenth Amendment comes in to put the frosting on. if the Federal Government wasn't given the authority, and the States werent barred from having the authority, then the states and the people have that authority BY DEFAULT!
The States, and the People can carve the face of Jesus into a mountain on state park land if they decide to, and the ACLU shoudn't be able to stop it by invoking the 'Establishment clause', if we obeyed the law instead of twisting it.
The US Constitution is really a very simple doocument, and it grants far more freedom then neo-marxists, and their frends would like us to know about.
Brian, you might really be a swell guy in first person contact, and maybe we would make more sense to each other in that enviroment. I have a lot of friends who I disagree with about stuff you and I have been argueing about here, but listen, I'm just dyslexic enough to make my typing a real chore. I do it because I want to make the world a better place, and because I feel this country is in deep peril. Right now I pretty much hate your guts because I got home over seven hours ago, and with my fatigue, and dyslexia, it has taken me this long to respond. I've been typing and correcting the whole time, so I'd like to kill you right now. All I asked you to do was go look around on the internet yourself, because it is very easy, and I wouldn't have to kill myself trying to tell you things I suspected you would just ignore. So I hate you for making me do what you wouldn't, and I hate you not seeing what I was talking about and I hate you for giving the apearance of a dupe.
When I get done hating you, I may be willing to do this again, but I expect you to not be a snit. If you would do as I suggest, with an open mind, I promise you will see the anti-Christian bias. I can only make the suggestion, and if you would even spend one hour doing that honestly, I'd take back 92% of what I have called you, and I might even stop hating you
Give me some credit for my opinion. My default used to be that the ACLU was a good thing. Why not ask what would make me feel differenly about it? Why not assume I had a good reason? Why not?
I remember how I used to look to the ACLU decades ago. I really used to believe.
I also trusted Nixon. and Clinton (the first time) I trusted the FBI before Ruby Ridge and Waco. I trusted that Islam was a religion of peace hijacked by extremeists. I trusted my first fiance till her 'friend' almost wrecked my eyes.
If you lose my trust it is hard to get it back.
The ACLU lost my trust.
Have a good one Brian, and consider my suggestion. Or I'll call you some more names. right now I'm to tired for even that, so you get a reprieve. Forgive any typing errors I missed, or I will hunt you down and eat your liver.
Happy new year. For real ... just accept it OK?
USA, all the way!
"First, Michael Weaver's long article on gays is not an example of the religious rights of Christians being infringed. You have to at least TRY to show what actions of Christians are being limited by your examples."
Infringment of Parental rights regarding the moral upbringing of their children is relevent. You cannot rationally argue otherwise. Promotion of a morally, and physically unsafe enviroment at the expense of the parents religious, and moral obligations to their children is oppression against the associated rights.
"However, prayers in the Indiana legislature are only an issue of "free exercise" if everyone, of any religious view, is allowed the same exercise. And in your case, it isn't, because it isn't a case of free exercise."
Why yes, it is. No one is forced to participate, and those who do, do so freely, and for reasons having to do with faith, and tradition. To say this is not free exercise is simply, and obviously untrue. Besides which, no law was passed by Congress to enforce, or to block this tradition. It is only an issue because the ICLU wants it to be.
"The Indiana legislature, being a government body, does not have "rights", it has "powers" (granted to them by the people)."
The individuals who make it up are the ones who are choosing to pray, or not. No act of Congress is involved with their choice to follow a tradition, and nobody goes to jail if they choose not to participate. This body has not attempted to force compliance. The only infringment of rights here is being brought about by the ICLU.
"Nobody's rights are being infringed"
So when they are prevented from praying by the courts as a result of the ICLU, their rights are not being infringed? That is so obviously a lie it needs no refutation.
"because every single member of the Indiana legislature has their rights to free exercise,"
Yes! But they are being interfered with by your pals the ICLU!
"and they can practice them as they like, just like any other private citizen."
No! Your ICLU fascists are preventing them from doing so. Your basis for suppressing them is based on exclusion, not inclusion. In this case you choose to restrict rights as a default position, because these people are predominantly Christian.
There is no portion of the Constitution that denies them the right to choose when and where they will express their religious belief. If they choose to express this belief from a legislative podium, there is no law against it. None! It is not for the ICLU to decide. It is not for Congress to decide. Any judge favoring the ICLU position, is an 'activist judge' and is abusing his position.
"As for Temple University allowing students to put on the Broadway play "Corpus Christi", I can't find anything on the ACLU's position (since this happened about 8 years ago), so unless you can come up with something the ACLU has said about it, it's irrelevant."
No it isn't. It is because the ACLU targets only POSITIVE expressions of Christianity. Since that is irrelevant to you personally, you miss the hypocracy. This NEGATIVE mentioning of Christ was perfectly alright with the ACLU or else they would jump down the schools throat. They surely would have if the mentioning had been positive.
Further, it was offensive to the beliefs of Christians, yet again, the ACLU jumped down nobodys throat. If they had put on a show offensive to the beliefs of Wiccans, or Muslims, the ACLU would have been all over it. We both know that is the typical pattern of ACLU behavior. You may deny it, but others will read this, and go find out for themselves if I'm right. Simply saying 'it ain't so' will only fool the ones who are already stupid.
"Same with the Qur'an and Guantanamo - I can't find any comment by the ACLU about it."
Because the ACLU has a pattern that shows religious bigotry which only targets positive treatment of Chritian religion. Because it was Qurans, the ACLU did nothing. Your inability to find any 'comment' is because the ACLU could have cared less.
"Now, Michael Newdow's cases I know a lot more about, since I'm a volunteer with his www.restorethepledge.com website."
That shows your indoctrinated into the ACLU style of attacking religious expression. Your concept is that any positive expression of Christian faith in public is wrong, and only negative expressions will be ignored/allowed.
"This is still irrelevant to the ACLU's position, since Dr. Newdow is doing this, not the ACLU."
Actually I said "following cases like the one brought by Michael Newdow". To clarify, 'In a pattern similar to' cases brought by Michael Newdow. The ACLU has involved itself in supressing the pledge being lead by an instructor, this having nothing to do with non-participating students.
In the case where a student was disciplined for not standing for the pledge, the ACLU was walking a fine line. It is within the province of teaching civics to promote appreciation for its obvious value. Civics is part of the cement that holds a nation together, and part of civic behavior is loyalty to the nation. Standing for the pledge is a minimum sign of respect for the republic. I agree that forcing loyalty is improper, but expecting it is not. Especially considering the other countries you have to choose from.
In any case the enviroment in schools across the country is chilled towards free expression of Christian faith because of ACLU and other lawsuits, so there is oppression as a result of the ACLU's actions.
"It could never be unconstitutional for the students to say the pledge, refuse to say the pledge, say it with or without 'under god', etc. That's a simple matter of the student's first amendment rights."
Partly true. The ACLU is still adversly impacting free exercise, seemingly on purpose.
""
"Teaching tolerance for lesbian and gay students has nothing to do sex education or religious freedom," said Tamara Lange, a staff attorney for the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.
...
Well, I'll give you half credit for this one; parents do have the right to teach their children to hate gays, but public schools still have the authority to teach tolerance. ""
I'll claim a full point because your ignoring the anti-hetero hate speech, as well as the arguement made that the ACLU would not tolerate it going the other way! Besides which, morals are a religious, as well as a civic issue. parents should know what is being taught to their children, even absent the hate speech, and ACLU hypocracy.
"As to abortion, again you haven't shown how the ACLU's position on abortion limits the religious rights of Christians, unless you think we live in a theocracy where religious teachings take precident over laws. If you want theocracy, try Iran."
OH CUTE! Iran kills its children nearly as much as we do! If I want a theocracy I'll just let the ACLU turn America into a country governed by Atheism. Which IS a religion! Don't try to pull that kind of stupid sh*t! If taking a helpless human life is a secular evil, abortion surely qualifies. The ACLU seems to have little guilt when denying the most helpless of us, their most critical right, which is to life. As in "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
To a Christian, the child is a child whether unborn, or not. The ACLU represses both the childs rights, and the rights of a male parent. Especially so if the male parent is Christian. Christian defense of the unborn childs rights are scoffed at by the ACLU types. The rights of the child ARE INALIENABLE as expressed by our Founding Fathers and exist even though the Supreme Court ruled against giving the unborn proper recognition.
Disgusting! you soak are flag in the blood of the most helpless among us, and flaunt it! Favoring your Atheism over Chritianity.
"A public school does not have the right to promote Christianity (or any other religion) to its students."
No law exists which denies the school, or any of its staff, or its students free expression religion. Neither is there a law stating how a school may or may not display art. Nor is their any reason to assume the school would reject without good cause, a picture of some other historical, or religious figure. Your claim is biased, and an opinion not supported by honest facts.
"Public schools don't have rights, they have powers granted to them by the people, as is the case with all government entities."
Which you somehow think is important. All it means is that the school system is used in accordance with a public design. Congress didn't make a law saying they had to have one religion, and Congress didn't pass a law saying they couldn't have a certian religion. Congress WAS SILENT! What pictures the school has on the wall are the business of that school, and its providers, not yours or mine or the ACLU's! By coming in to attack the picture of Jesus, the ACLU is showing its anti Chritian bias.
"And your last example, even if it proves true (which I'm not granting), again, is not an example of the ACLU limiting the religious rights of Christians."
Of course it is! Who do you think got permision to put the picture up, if it wasn't a Christian? Who do you think wanted to leave the picture up, if it wasn't Christians? Why would Christians want to put a picture of Jesus up? To inspire them to be better Christians is why! The ACLU just goes in trampling people who have broken no law, and done nothing anyone else couldn't do. These were Christians. Not Muslims or pagans.
"Now, it's very amusing how you keep calling me names while you accused me of GOING TO call you names in the future."
I should have said "probably" and you ARE trying hard not to, but you still have a hostile voice in text, and I anticiptaed lots worse. I described you as possibly being a dupe, which is a reasonable descriptive term, and you should look up the noun in Websters. I was trying to make up my mind about you when I mentioned the possibility. Calling you a 'Dork' was also a choice I followed through on after I had warned you that I considered things to be 'barely polite'. In other words, I was hoping I would just go away feeling sorry for you, but now I pretty much hope you get hit by a train. Sorry, but I don't like the ACLU, and I don't like people who make me spend so much time correcting my own typing when I KNOW THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN REALLY LEARNING ANYTHING! I'm currently only here to encourge people to go search and get their own information.
"Apparently, you can't even think up your own arguments, because all of them are cut & paste jobs."
I told you before I have a hard time typing, and I don't think you are worth the time I've already wasted on you. I spent plenty of time typing my own words before hand, and you didn't care for that. Your just a big hypocrit.
"You should at least be able to tell if the case has SOMETHING to do with the religious rights of Christians, but even that's expecting too much."
Pretty much any morals issue has something in it that affects Christians. If you were one, or had any morals, you might understand. Since your with the ACLU even if only in spirit, that's expecting to much.
Actually I'm willing to show the duplicity of the ACLU in any area they are active, whether it is supressing Christians, or aiding and abetting the murder of babies (after they are already born, or did you forget that part of the article you fascist!? They starved babies after they were born! Your ACLU supported that!!!)
"Happy new year;"
Thanks! I wish you meant it. I meant it earlier.
"you apparently think that public schools ought to have the power to hang pictures of Jesus (or Mohammad, for that matter)"
Actually the people in those schools can do anything they like as long as nobody is unfairly shut out of the process.
"to promote whatever religion the local school authorities want to promote. That's antithetical to the first amendment."
And really, that is a big mistake on your part. The so called 'Establishment clause' only mentions "Congress" specifically. My local city council can pass any religious ordinance they want, if you are going strictly off of the wording used in the First Amendment, which I remind you is the final draft of what our collected Founding Fathers agreed to put into print. So chew that!
If I wanted to ban Christian displays from my town as a matter of law, all I would have to do would be to convince the necessary people locally to vote it into place. Congress again, would have nothing to do with it. Based on the Bill of Rights, in its pure written form. Re-read it. I'm absolutely correct on that point. They can also build a 'Jesus Museum' into the county courhouse, if they like.
To understand 'Free expression' you have to go straight to the heart of the matter, and that is Free Speech itself. The first Amendment was put into place to safeguard free Speech, and the religious wording is actually an enhancement to protect religious speech. Not to restrict it.
HERE:
Amendment I (1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a re dress of grievances.
Amendment IX (1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X (1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
AS WE CAN SEE, the wording is heavily weighted to encourage the people to speak out, and to express everything, even their religion, and there is no mention of a restriction based on location, or time of day, whether on the tax payers time, or on their own, it doesn't make a difference. If the people want to peaceably assemble, it doesn't say where, or when, or which buildings they can use, or what they can say or do when they assemble.
And the Ninth Amendment makes it pretty clear that just cause the Bill Of Rights doesn't say you can do a thing, your right to do it isn't automatically denied. Nor is your right to use religious speech on, or in public spaces automatically denied. Any restriction of Religious Speech is in conflict with the First Amendment AND the Ninth!!! Also the tenth!
The Tenth Amendment comes in to put the frosting on. if the Federal Government wasn't given the authority, and the States werent barred from having the authority, then the states and the people have that authority BY DEFAULT!
The States, and the People can carve the face of Jesus into a mountain on state park land if they decide to, and the ACLU shoudn't be able to stop it by invoking the 'Establishment clause', if we obeyed the law instead of twisting it.
The US Constitution is really a very simple doocument, and it grants far more freedom then neo-marxists, and their frends would like us to know about.
Brian, you might really be a swell guy in first person contact, and maybe we would make more sense to each other in that enviroment. I have a lot of friends who I disagree with about stuff you and I have been argueing about here, but listen, I'm just dyslexic enough to make my typing a real chore. I do it because I want to make the world a better place, and because I feel this country is in deep peril. Right now I pretty much hate your guts because I got home over seven hours ago, and with my fatigue, and dyslexia, it has taken me this long to respond. I've been typing and correcting the whole time, so I'd like to kill you right now. All I asked you to do was go look around on the internet yourself, because it is very easy, and I wouldn't have to kill myself trying to tell you things I suspected you would just ignore. So I hate you for making me do what you wouldn't, and I hate you not seeing what I was talking about and I hate you for giving the apearance of a dupe.
When I get done hating you, I may be willing to do this again, but I expect you to not be a snit. If you would do as I suggest, with an open mind, I promise you will see the anti-Christian bias. I can only make the suggestion, and if you would even spend one hour doing that honestly, I'd take back 92% of what I have called you, and I might even stop hating you
Give me some credit for my opinion. My default used to be that the ACLU was a good thing. Why not ask what would make me feel differenly about it? Why not assume I had a good reason? Why not?
I remember how I used to look to the ACLU decades ago. I really used to believe.
I also trusted Nixon. and Clinton (the first time) I trusted the FBI before Ruby Ridge and Waco. I trusted that Islam was a religion of peace hijacked by extremeists. I trusted my first fiance till her 'friend' almost wrecked my eyes.
If you lose my trust it is hard to get it back.
The ACLU lost my trust.
Have a good one Brian, and consider my suggestion. Or I'll call you some more names. right now I'm to tired for even that, so you get a reprieve. Forgive any typing errors I missed, or I will hunt you down and eat your liver.
Happy new year. For real ... just accept it OK?
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 01, 2007 10:57 AM (2OHpj)
28
Sounds like losing your "trust" is no loss at all. You certainly have no grasp of religious freedom, or of what the constitution means, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to teach you.
Posted by: Brian Westley at January 01, 2007 11:29 AM (bfBCO)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 01, 2007 06:22 PM (2OHpj)
30
I would like to see some ACLU lawyer try and take away his christmas tree becuase it offends some ultraliberal eco-freak tree hugging gaia worshipping green nut i would like to see the green nut pick busck-shot out of their backside
Posted by: sandpiper at January 01, 2007 09:36 PM (2cLBb)
31
Clarification:
For those who really do care.
I was trying to say a lot of things here earlier, but I was pretty exhausted. Short and sweet, here is my position.
The First Amendment by itself, says that 'Congress shall make no law' etc. Meaning the the Federal Government via Congress will not establish a federal church, or religious framework, or require obedience to any single faith, or religion. Also, that the Federal Government will take no actions via Congress to prevent anyone from expressing their religion, as it suits them. The reverse of a federal church! No exclusions of religion, or churches, or religious frameworks. They are all free, and equal, and outside Federal CONTROL via Congress.
That the Founders had the European religious wars in mind is a no-brainer. Those were the kind of violent differences, and persecutions they were trying to prevent. Still, the moral substance they brought to US law was based on Christian morality. That is the morality that these men were raised with. Again a no brainer.
The Christian heritage of US morality doesn't change the wording of the First Amendment though. Congress shall make no laws for or against any religion. Clear.
I think anyone who wasn't into obfuscation would agree that.
Now if you want to try to take pro/con religious action at lower levels of Government, the first Amendment wouldn't seem to affect you. Technically that is true. Except ...
The Ninth Amendment says just because you aren't expressly told you have a right, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Get it? You have rights, and freedoms that aren't 'enumerated'! You have them even if they are not explicitly explained.
In a sense I would have to disagree with some things said by Scalia, and I like him so that comes with some pain. He once explained that court cases were being used to promote all of these extra rights, and they don't really exist. He is half right. You have a right to own a pit bull, unless it conflicts with a higher right, such as the right of your neighbor to let his child walk to school in safety. You dog isn't as important as the safety of a child. Or is it?
Making these kinds of distinctions is an important byproduct of the Christian influence on US law, and morality. To some people, the right of the dog owner is simply equal to the right of the endangered child, or her parent. What people vote to allow determines whether the child indeed is to be kept safe from the dog, or if the dog can eat all the children he can catch!
Christians will know the correct stance. The child, how ever old, is a human being. You do not let dogs eat them, and you do not starve them to death. Nor do you assume a right to kill them in the womb for mere convenience.
What an ammoral society would allow through pure, ammoral democratic vote is not in our best interests in AMERICA. Our Founders never showed any indication that they thought simple, ammoral democracy was the highest form of free society.
This above point is used by Muslims against democracy, with some validity. We have allowed ammoral laws to be passed. Abortion laws are just the worst one example.
The Tenth Amendment says if the Federal Government wasn't given the authority, and the States werent barred form having the authority, then the states and the people have the unassigned aurthoirty. The short phrase is 'States Rights'!
Unfortunatly that phrase was abused to justify slavery.
That one selfish choice by Southern Democrats has tarnished the phrase with the misery of minorities that should have had rights, even if not enumerated in the Constitution. After all "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." And men are men whatever their color. We enforced that finally, with much bloodshed. We also added language enumerating a right to "equal protection of the laws" via the Fourteenth Amendment.
Recap, Cold Hard Fact: Congress has no authority to promote or restrict any religion, or restrict any free expression at all pretty much. But you have rights even if they haven't been enumerated. Even weird and silly rights like the right to wear tinfoil on your head. Equal protection of law is one that was enumerated. In the final measure, if authority isn't expressly reserved for the Federal Government, or forbidden to the states, it lies with the states, and YOU AND ME, the people!
You have a right to free expression. Others have a right not to be forced to join you, but that dos not carry over into a right to silence you, if they don't agree with you. When your talking, what you say belongs to you, it is yours, and nobody can rightly take that from you unless your working ill will upon them. For example, making false accusations.
The ACLU does not recognize your unenmuerated rights, unless it likes them. Since it doesn't recognize them, they don't matter. Since they don't matter, they are suppressed whenever it suits the ACLU, or their friends.
The right of Christians to express thir religion was not enumerted in such a way as to make clear that praying in public was not retricted, but that in no way negates that right fotr Christians to do so. the rights of states, or the people, working together, or individually, to place religious decorations, is not clearly enumerated, but it still exists.
Any group that wishes "to petition the government for a re dress of grievances" may, whether they are Christian, or not do so. If they have been denied equal protection, say, being persecuted for having a certain religion, then they can pursue that.
Now even though I have rested enough to do this, I need to go rest some more, and I hope at least someone has gained some insight into why the ACLU loses friends.
I would like to thank Ragnar for the original post, Jeff for sticking by me on this thread, and Jesusland Carlos for using so few words to say so much. I can never do that
To all, Happy New Year.
USA, all the way!
For those who really do care.
I was trying to say a lot of things here earlier, but I was pretty exhausted. Short and sweet, here is my position.
The First Amendment by itself, says that 'Congress shall make no law' etc. Meaning the the Federal Government via Congress will not establish a federal church, or religious framework, or require obedience to any single faith, or religion. Also, that the Federal Government will take no actions via Congress to prevent anyone from expressing their religion, as it suits them. The reverse of a federal church! No exclusions of religion, or churches, or religious frameworks. They are all free, and equal, and outside Federal CONTROL via Congress.
That the Founders had the European religious wars in mind is a no-brainer. Those were the kind of violent differences, and persecutions they were trying to prevent. Still, the moral substance they brought to US law was based on Christian morality. That is the morality that these men were raised with. Again a no brainer.
The Christian heritage of US morality doesn't change the wording of the First Amendment though. Congress shall make no laws for or against any religion. Clear.
I think anyone who wasn't into obfuscation would agree that.
Now if you want to try to take pro/con religious action at lower levels of Government, the first Amendment wouldn't seem to affect you. Technically that is true. Except ...
The Ninth Amendment says just because you aren't expressly told you have a right, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Get it? You have rights, and freedoms that aren't 'enumerated'! You have them even if they are not explicitly explained.
In a sense I would have to disagree with some things said by Scalia, and I like him so that comes with some pain. He once explained that court cases were being used to promote all of these extra rights, and they don't really exist. He is half right. You have a right to own a pit bull, unless it conflicts with a higher right, such as the right of your neighbor to let his child walk to school in safety. You dog isn't as important as the safety of a child. Or is it?
Making these kinds of distinctions is an important byproduct of the Christian influence on US law, and morality. To some people, the right of the dog owner is simply equal to the right of the endangered child, or her parent. What people vote to allow determines whether the child indeed is to be kept safe from the dog, or if the dog can eat all the children he can catch!
Christians will know the correct stance. The child, how ever old, is a human being. You do not let dogs eat them, and you do not starve them to death. Nor do you assume a right to kill them in the womb for mere convenience.
What an ammoral society would allow through pure, ammoral democratic vote is not in our best interests in AMERICA. Our Founders never showed any indication that they thought simple, ammoral democracy was the highest form of free society.
This above point is used by Muslims against democracy, with some validity. We have allowed ammoral laws to be passed. Abortion laws are just the worst one example.
The Tenth Amendment says if the Federal Government wasn't given the authority, and the States werent barred form having the authority, then the states and the people have the unassigned aurthoirty. The short phrase is 'States Rights'!
Unfortunatly that phrase was abused to justify slavery.
That one selfish choice by Southern Democrats has tarnished the phrase with the misery of minorities that should have had rights, even if not enumerated in the Constitution. After all "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." And men are men whatever their color. We enforced that finally, with much bloodshed. We also added language enumerating a right to "equal protection of the laws" via the Fourteenth Amendment.
Recap, Cold Hard Fact: Congress has no authority to promote or restrict any religion, or restrict any free expression at all pretty much. But you have rights even if they haven't been enumerated. Even weird and silly rights like the right to wear tinfoil on your head. Equal protection of law is one that was enumerated. In the final measure, if authority isn't expressly reserved for the Federal Government, or forbidden to the states, it lies with the states, and YOU AND ME, the people!
You have a right to free expression. Others have a right not to be forced to join you, but that dos not carry over into a right to silence you, if they don't agree with you. When your talking, what you say belongs to you, it is yours, and nobody can rightly take that from you unless your working ill will upon them. For example, making false accusations.
The ACLU does not recognize your unenmuerated rights, unless it likes them. Since it doesn't recognize them, they don't matter. Since they don't matter, they are suppressed whenever it suits the ACLU, or their friends.
The right of Christians to express thir religion was not enumerted in such a way as to make clear that praying in public was not retricted, but that in no way negates that right fotr Christians to do so. the rights of states, or the people, working together, or individually, to place religious decorations, is not clearly enumerated, but it still exists.
Any group that wishes "to petition the government for a re dress of grievances" may, whether they are Christian, or not do so. If they have been denied equal protection, say, being persecuted for having a certain religion, then they can pursue that.
Now even though I have rested enough to do this, I need to go rest some more, and I hope at least someone has gained some insight into why the ACLU loses friends.
I would like to thank Ragnar for the original post, Jeff for sticking by me on this thread, and Jesusland Carlos for using so few words to say so much. I can never do that
To all, Happy New Year.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 01, 2007 11:02 PM (2OHpj)
December 22, 2006
Virgil Goode's Letter : An Analysis
Rep. Virgil Goode has been savaged for his frank and uncompromising statements as to the use of the Koran in Rep. Keith Ellison's swearing-in ceremony. Some in the "Sinisphere" have been working hard to link the entire GOP to Rep. Goode's statements. I agree with Charles that while Rep. Goode could certainly have been more judicious in his use of the language and done a better job of making reasonable points more clearly, it seems to me the criticism of Rep. Goode has been overblown. Were his statements tough and politically incorrect? Most certainly. Were his statements "bigoted?" I suppose that depends, to some degree, on your definition of "bigoted." Generally, a "bigot" is someone who holds an opinion about something without a reasonable basis in fact. Saying something true but uncomfortable may be impolite, but it isn't "bigoted." I'll leave it to you to decide for yourself whether Rep. Goode's statements have a rational basis in fact. My own point-by-point follows:MORE BELOW THE FOLD
more...
"When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand."
This is, of course, a statement of fact. if Keith Ellison made the same statement, except replacing the word "Bible" with the word "Koran," would Goode's critics level a bigotry accusation at Ellison? Methinks not."I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way."
This is a statement as to Rep. Goode's opinion, and the meaning is not fully clear. We can assume he means that he doesn't believe the Koran should be used in connection with a swearing-in ceremony. More broadly, it could be interpreted to mean that he doesn't believe the Koran should be used for any purpose. This would be a silly reading of the language. Even those who have no respect for the Koran realize it can be employed for any number of useful purposes. Accordingly, I'm going with the former interpretation.
Posted by: Ragnar at
03:12 PM
| Comments (60)
| Add Comment
Post contains 842 words, total size 6 kb.
1
"As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office."
If there are any Muslims in his district, he's not representing their religious beliefs in his government office (I assume it's his gov't office). If he was merely representing his own religious beliefs, this would just be an inelegant letter (though as a politician, he should be more politically savvy with his words), but he's saying this as a Representative of "the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia".
If his Judeo-Christian display -- and disregard of any other religion -- is only as a Representative of Virginia, then he's wrong.
I'd bet money that the stuff on the wall is up there because he's down with Buddy Christ, and that's fine by me, but his letter is puerile because of its implications that swearing in with the Bible is better than swearing in with the Qu'ran.
"When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand."
As opposed to that OTHER book.
Adding to that the xenophobic undertones of anti-Muslim sentiments on immigration and religious displays in his office, you just have someone who appears to be more of a hick than a thoughtful politician.
Virgil Goode may be a great guy, but he comes off as a blustering simp in his letter.
If there are any Muslims in his district, he's not representing their religious beliefs in his government office (I assume it's his gov't office). If he was merely representing his own religious beliefs, this would just be an inelegant letter (though as a politician, he should be more politically savvy with his words), but he's saying this as a Representative of "the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia".
If his Judeo-Christian display -- and disregard of any other religion -- is only as a Representative of Virginia, then he's wrong.
I'd bet money that the stuff on the wall is up there because he's down with Buddy Christ, and that's fine by me, but his letter is puerile because of its implications that swearing in with the Bible is better than swearing in with the Qu'ran.
"When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand."
As opposed to that OTHER book.
Adding to that the xenophobic undertones of anti-Muslim sentiments on immigration and religious displays in his office, you just have someone who appears to be more of a hick than a thoughtful politician.
Virgil Goode may be a great guy, but he comes off as a blustering simp in his letter.
Posted by: Byron Solomon at December 22, 2006 05:00 PM (Wvojf)
2
Byron - Visited London lately? How about Olso? Importing folks who do not want to assimilate, but would rather impose their view through intimidation and violence.
As to what Rep. Goode has on the wall of his office, I don't think he is obligated to display anything that he finds objectionable. Have you read the koran?
As to what Rep. Goode has on the wall of his office, I don't think he is obligated to display anything that he finds objectionable. Have you read the koran?
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at December 22, 2006 05:35 PM (3nKvy)
3
Makes me yearn for the old days. Every time one of those upppty minorities spoke up, we could have always hung them up in reflection.
Next thing you know we will have a woman or black president, now does that mean we all get the 3/5ths now?
Bet if we dont start weeding out the habits of those folk, we will be the minorities and they will seek to undue all the good that america has done for it's chosen.
Next thing you know we will have a woman or black president, now does that mean we all get the 3/5ths now?
Bet if we dont start weeding out the habits of those folk, we will be the minorities and they will seek to undue all the good that america has done for it's chosen.
Posted by: Custer Duke at December 22, 2006 05:54 PM (MFE9A)
4
In my opinion, Muslims who come to the U.S. seem to assimilate quite well. We have hardly any daily Muslim violence here compared to what many European countries face on a daily basis. I like to think it's the lack of Socialistic programs -- compared to the scale of European Socialism -- that allows people of other cultures to integrate more thoroughly to "America: The Concept".
Rep. Goode did mention a drain on our social services as one of the reasons he'd like to curtail Muslim immigration. Maybe an inability to utilize U.S. social services by anyone who isn't a citizen would allow all immigrants who come here to be of a more desirable stripe. After all, when you have to hustle to put food on the table, and see the success of others in your peer group, you have less time and tolerance for radicals.
This is not to say we don't get radicals, or that more radicals won't come to the U.S., but it seems to me the vast majority of Muslims in this country are not radicals, and assimilation into our American culture is what most of the Muslim immigrants want.
As for Rep. Goode's office wall, I don't really care what he puts on it. However, he gives no explanation why he wouldn't put a Qu'ran on his wall when asked about it by the Muslim student. From the tone of the letter, I interpreted his rejection not to his not being Muslim, but to his seeming general dislike of anything Muslim.
I personally have not read the Qu'ran, but I do read Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch blog every day. I highly recommend it.
Thank you for your questions and comments, MCPO Airdale.
Rep. Goode did mention a drain on our social services as one of the reasons he'd like to curtail Muslim immigration. Maybe an inability to utilize U.S. social services by anyone who isn't a citizen would allow all immigrants who come here to be of a more desirable stripe. After all, when you have to hustle to put food on the table, and see the success of others in your peer group, you have less time and tolerance for radicals.
This is not to say we don't get radicals, or that more radicals won't come to the U.S., but it seems to me the vast majority of Muslims in this country are not radicals, and assimilation into our American culture is what most of the Muslim immigrants want.
As for Rep. Goode's office wall, I don't really care what he puts on it. However, he gives no explanation why he wouldn't put a Qu'ran on his wall when asked about it by the Muslim student. From the tone of the letter, I interpreted his rejection not to his not being Muslim, but to his seeming general dislike of anything Muslim.
I personally have not read the Qu'ran, but I do read Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch blog every day. I highly recommend it.
Thank you for your questions and comments, MCPO Airdale.
Posted by: Byron Solomon at December 22, 2006 06:08 PM (Wvojf)
5
I vote for "he is a bigot". Rep. Goode is responding to letters from constituents who are concerned about incoming Rep. Ellison using a Koran. Mr. Ellison's right to use the Koran is what our military (which includes Muslims) is fighting and dying for in the GWOT. Why would anyone care what book Mr. Ellison used? Substitute another book and see how ridiculous his statements are. Imagine someone getting upset that a congressman was using a New American (Catholic version) Bible instead of a King James. Or a Talmud instead of a Bible. The point is that Rep. Ellison is going to swear an oath on something he believes in and is important to him. Something he believes is bigger than himself. That's the point of holding any book out for someone to swear allegience on. For Rep. Goode to tie this to illegal immigration is silly.
Posted by: Maggie at December 22, 2006 06:23 PM (XiJJE)
6
Bryon: Talk about (pie in the sky). You don't have the slightest Idea what you are talking about. Assimilate my ass. You just haven't been slapped in the face with Islam yet.
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 22, 2006 07:17 PM (4Ek2v)
7
...but his letter is puerile because of its implications that swearing in
with the Bible is better than swearing in with the Qu'ran.
The Bible prohibits lying, and the Koran explicitly advocates lying (Taqiyya). How can someone swear on a book which says it's okay to lie? Doesn't that kind of negate the entire purpose of the oath?
I'm not defending this guy - in fact I think he's dead wrong on diversity visas and is against the Koran swearing purely out of personal animus - but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Oh, and what's with all the moby trolls (duke) around here? Is it a seasonal thing?
with the Bible is better than swearing in with the Qu'ran.
The Bible prohibits lying, and the Koran explicitly advocates lying (Taqiyya). How can someone swear on a book which says it's okay to lie? Doesn't that kind of negate the entire purpose of the oath?
I'm not defending this guy - in fact I think he's dead wrong on diversity visas and is against the Koran swearing purely out of personal animus - but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Oh, and what's with all the moby trolls (duke) around here? Is it a seasonal thing?
Posted by: wooga at December 22, 2006 07:28 PM (t9sT5)
8
Greyrooster: From your comments, I assume you disagree that most Muslims are assimilating well in the U.S.
Please tell me how most Muslims aren't assimilating well in the U.S.
Please tell me how most Muslims aren't assimilating well in the U.S.
Posted by: Byron Solomon at December 22, 2006 07:28 PM (Wvojf)
9
MCPO Airdale:
I agree with you. I'm reading the Quran.
Maggie;
You have good points. I think if he swears on a Quran, thats fine, if that is more sacred to him. Maybe that way he'll keep his word? But Islam with Sharia, is at odds with our US Constitution. The Quran is a symbol for that too.
If he is using a Quran, he is giving a reason for concern regarding Sharia, and I feel no US politician can leave that kind of question hanging. He needs to come down against Sharia. If you don't believe me, I ask you kindly to please find out what Sharia is in more detail.
Byron;
Some run over Jews in SanFrancisco, and gun down Jewish women in Washington. Some try to start terrorist training camps near Portland Oregon. Some shoot everyday Americans from concealment, and train children to follow in their footsteps. Some even rent a big SUV to run down the infidel on college sidewalks. Some learnto fly jets into skyscrapers. Max Power has a reason to laugh.
I think we need some standards!
Custer Duke; Merry 'Effin' Christmas, I hope you wake up less of a bigot on New Years Day morning. I hope the coal in your stocking keeps you warm, I know mine will.
Good post. We need to keep an eye on Ellison, and see if he is worth a damn. Goode is OK, and I think he knows Islam's track record so far.
USA, all the way!
I agree with you. I'm reading the Quran.
Maggie;
You have good points. I think if he swears on a Quran, thats fine, if that is more sacred to him. Maybe that way he'll keep his word? But Islam with Sharia, is at odds with our US Constitution. The Quran is a symbol for that too.
If he is using a Quran, he is giving a reason for concern regarding Sharia, and I feel no US politician can leave that kind of question hanging. He needs to come down against Sharia. If you don't believe me, I ask you kindly to please find out what Sharia is in more detail.
Byron;
Some run over Jews in SanFrancisco, and gun down Jewish women in Washington. Some try to start terrorist training camps near Portland Oregon. Some shoot everyday Americans from concealment, and train children to follow in their footsteps. Some even rent a big SUV to run down the infidel on college sidewalks. Some learnto fly jets into skyscrapers. Max Power has a reason to laugh.
I think we need some standards!
Custer Duke; Merry 'Effin' Christmas, I hope you wake up less of a bigot on New Years Day morning. I hope the coal in your stocking keeps you warm, I know mine will.
Good post. We need to keep an eye on Ellison, and see if he is worth a damn. Goode is OK, and I think he knows Islam's track record so far.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 22, 2006 07:38 PM (2OHpj)
10
"In my opinion, Muslims who come to the U.S. seem to assimilate quite well"
FUNNIEST POST OF THE YEAR MONINEE!!!!!
IT HAS MY VOTE!
FUNNIEST POST OF THE YEAR MONINEE!!!!!
IT HAS MY VOTE!
Posted by: Max Power at December 22, 2006 07:38 PM (PM8kH)
11
wooga: Quite right. However, is lying to the unbeliever considered a relic to non-extremist Muslims? I seem to recall hearing/reading that, but I can't be sure.
We know that there are many passages in the Bible that non-extremist Jews and Christians disregard for more modern concepts, such as killing adulterers and selling slaves, so knowing if Taqiyya is a disregarded concept to modern non-extremist Muslims is an important point.
Thank you for your comments. Your further opinion will be appreciated.
We know that there are many passages in the Bible that non-extremist Jews and Christians disregard for more modern concepts, such as killing adulterers and selling slaves, so knowing if Taqiyya is a disregarded concept to modern non-extremist Muslims is an important point.
Thank you for your comments. Your further opinion will be appreciated.
Posted by: Byron Solomon at December 22, 2006 07:40 PM (Wvojf)
12
"Why would anyone care what book Mr. Ellison used? Substitute another book and see how ridiculous his statements are. Imagine someone getting upset that a congressman was using a New American (Catholic version) Bible instead of a King James"
HOW ABOUT AN ARCHIE COMICS DOUBLE DIGEST MAGGIE. MY KID SWEARS BY THEM!
THAT "R" BEHIND YOU NAME ISN'T FOR REPUBLICAN - RETARD CAME TO MIND FIRST...
HOW ABOUT AN ARCHIE COMICS DOUBLE DIGEST MAGGIE. MY KID SWEARS BY THEM!
THAT "R" BEHIND YOU NAME ISN'T FOR REPUBLICAN - RETARD CAME TO MIND FIRST...
Posted by: Max Power at December 22, 2006 07:44 PM (PM8kH)
13
Michael Weaver: You point out many good examples of extremists actions, and of course each action is horrible, but there are millions(?) of Muslims in the U.S. The actions of those few are warning signs about the possible extremes to which Islam can go -- warning signs that we are finally recognizing -- but do not necessarily reflect the majority of the Muslim community in the U.S. as a whole.
After all, what religion was the guy who shot from the bell tower at that school in Texas in the 60s? What religion was the Oklahoma Federal Building bomber? Anti-abortion clinic bombers and abortion doctor sniper? We can find extremists in any religion, but I think you'd agree that the majority of Christians and Jews are not extremists.
I'd still like to hear any opinions about how our lower level of social programs may promote assimilation of other cultures into our American culture. Bully or Bullsh*t?
Thank you for your comments, Michael Weaver.
After all, what religion was the guy who shot from the bell tower at that school in Texas in the 60s? What religion was the Oklahoma Federal Building bomber? Anti-abortion clinic bombers and abortion doctor sniper? We can find extremists in any religion, but I think you'd agree that the majority of Christians and Jews are not extremists.
I'd still like to hear any opinions about how our lower level of social programs may promote assimilation of other cultures into our American culture. Bully or Bullsh*t?
Thank you for your comments, Michael Weaver.
Posted by: Byron Solomon at December 22, 2006 08:01 PM (Wvojf)
Posted by: eric at December 22, 2006 08:12 PM (bvOS5)
15
Here is a link to the stated Islamist agenda, along with news examples of how the desired steps are being slowly implemented in the US. Judge for yourselves.
http://islamthreat.blogspot.com/2006/12/why-virgil-goode-is-concerned.html#links
http://islamthreat.blogspot.com/2006/12/why-virgil-goode-is-concerned.html#links
Posted by: bordergal at December 22, 2006 09:23 PM (IWdB4)
Posted by: bordergal at December 22, 2006 09:25 PM (IWdB4)
17
muslims and arabs are subhuman filth. they do not assimilate well in the USA or anywhere else.
the sooner we exterminate them and bring peace back to the world the better.
God Bless Virgil Goode and America.
the sooner we exterminate them and bring peace back to the world the better.
God Bless Virgil Goode and America.
Posted by: John Stossel at December 22, 2006 09:59 PM (Nhfns)
18
Deport the Osama venerating Dervishes. The Religion of Peace is a violent political organization that is expediting its own demise. And as for the Mohammedan throatslitters in Iran, Syria and Lebanon, they need to taste some uranium. Rubble does not make trouble.
Posted by: Speaking for the Choir at December 22, 2006 11:11 PM (HSkSw)
19
When you read this, please keep in mind, English citizens of which are 5% Muslims, can get on a plane for the U.S. without a visa, and come here as they wish. Keep in mind the young Muslims in France rioted.
Keep in mind it was those of the 5% of the Muslim residents of England that tried to bomb their own country and ours. They have no desire to assimilate. You will think about this when we start seeing body bombs blowing up in mid-western Wal-Mart in the future. You might laugh now but look around. Rep Goode is right and has the guts to tell the truth.
Islamist threat greater than IRA ever posed, says police chief
Tania Branigan, political correspondent
Saturday December 23, 2006
The Guardian
Britain faces a threat of "unparalleled nature" from Islamist terrorism which is greater than the dangers ever posed by the IRA, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, said yesterday.
There was no specific evidence of any immediate threat, he said, playing down a recent suggestion from the home secretary, John Reid, that an attack was highly likely before Christmas.
But officers and the intelligence services lacked the resources to follow all plots and had yet to penetrate terrorist networks effectively. He also warned that the government needed to establish greater control of its borders.
The level of threat is of an unparalleled nature and growing," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "In terms of civilians - you would have to go back to probably either the second world war or cold war for that threat.
"The IRA, with very few exceptions, did not want to carry out mass atrocities, they didn't want to die, they gave warnings and they were heavily penetrated by the intelligence services. None of those apply with al-Qaida and its affiliates."
Sir Ian suggested the threat raised questions about the need to extend further the detention period for suspects. "With the IRA police were able to get behind an active unit and follow it pretty closely to the point where it was ready to cause an explosion. Here we have to move in so much more quickly - you end up with a lot of people and information," he said.
He was "quite confident" that he will face no charges over the death of Jean-Charles de Menezes, shot dead by police in Stockwell tube station last year, after the Independent Police Complaints Commission reports in the new year.
He also denied that the Forest Gate raid, in which one man was shot and from which no charges resulted, was a mistake. "I call it a cliff edge choice: if you fall one way you knock your head on the wall; fall the other way and you drop 200 ft into the sea."
Responding to claims MI5 had made mistakes in the run up to the 7/7 bombings, he said: "There are people the service knows about and can't have the resources to follow. The security services and police are choosing which plot to follow, because there are many."
Sir Ian believed the government must get greater control of the UK's borders and said he didn't "understand how we can continue" to let veiled women through passport controls, but agreed checks should be carried out in an appropriate manner. His remarks followed claims a suspect in the murder of PC Sharon Beshenivsky fled the country in a niqab.
Sir Ian called for a reduction in the form-filling for small scale offences, saying an officer could carry out only one arrest in an eight-hour shift. "We need to pull all that back so I can have my cops back on the street."
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1978079,00.html
Keep in mind it was those of the 5% of the Muslim residents of England that tried to bomb their own country and ours. They have no desire to assimilate. You will think about this when we start seeing body bombs blowing up in mid-western Wal-Mart in the future. You might laugh now but look around. Rep Goode is right and has the guts to tell the truth.
Islamist threat greater than IRA ever posed, says police chief
Tania Branigan, political correspondent
Saturday December 23, 2006
The Guardian
Britain faces a threat of "unparalleled nature" from Islamist terrorism which is greater than the dangers ever posed by the IRA, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, said yesterday.
There was no specific evidence of any immediate threat, he said, playing down a recent suggestion from the home secretary, John Reid, that an attack was highly likely before Christmas.
But officers and the intelligence services lacked the resources to follow all plots and had yet to penetrate terrorist networks effectively. He also warned that the government needed to establish greater control of its borders.
The level of threat is of an unparalleled nature and growing," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "In terms of civilians - you would have to go back to probably either the second world war or cold war for that threat.
"The IRA, with very few exceptions, did not want to carry out mass atrocities, they didn't want to die, they gave warnings and they were heavily penetrated by the intelligence services. None of those apply with al-Qaida and its affiliates."
Sir Ian suggested the threat raised questions about the need to extend further the detention period for suspects. "With the IRA police were able to get behind an active unit and follow it pretty closely to the point where it was ready to cause an explosion. Here we have to move in so much more quickly - you end up with a lot of people and information," he said.
He was "quite confident" that he will face no charges over the death of Jean-Charles de Menezes, shot dead by police in Stockwell tube station last year, after the Independent Police Complaints Commission reports in the new year.
He also denied that the Forest Gate raid, in which one man was shot and from which no charges resulted, was a mistake. "I call it a cliff edge choice: if you fall one way you knock your head on the wall; fall the other way and you drop 200 ft into the sea."
Responding to claims MI5 had made mistakes in the run up to the 7/7 bombings, he said: "There are people the service knows about and can't have the resources to follow. The security services and police are choosing which plot to follow, because there are many."
Sir Ian believed the government must get greater control of the UK's borders and said he didn't "understand how we can continue" to let veiled women through passport controls, but agreed checks should be carried out in an appropriate manner. His remarks followed claims a suspect in the murder of PC Sharon Beshenivsky fled the country in a niqab.
Sir Ian called for a reduction in the form-filling for small scale offences, saying an officer could carry out only one arrest in an eight-hour shift. "We need to pull all that back so I can have my cops back on the street."
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1978079,00.html
Posted by: Frank Livingston at December 23, 2006 12:05 AM (MmsM2)
20
When you read this, please keep in mind, English citizens of which are 5% Muslims, can get on a plane for the U.S. without a visa, and come here as they wish. Keep in mind the young Muslims in France rioted.
Keep in mind it was those of the 5% of the Muslim residents of England that tried to bomb their own country and ours. They have no desire to assimilate. You will think about this when we start seeing body bombs blowing up in mid-western Wal-Mart in the future. You might laugh now but look around. Rep Goode is right and has the guts to tell the truth.
Islamist threat greater than IRA ever posed, says police chief
Tania Branigan, political correspondent
Saturday December 23, 2006
The Guardian
Britain faces a threat of "unparalleled nature" from Islamist terrorism which is greater than the dangers ever posed by the IRA, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, said yesterday.
There was no specific evidence of any immediate threat, he said, playing down a recent suggestion from the home secretary, John Reid, that an attack was highly likely before Christmas.
But officers and the intelligence services lacked the resources to follow all plots and had yet to penetrate terrorist networks effectively. He also warned that the government needed to establish greater control of its borders.
The level of threat is of an unparalleled nature and growing," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "In terms of civilians - you would have to go back to probably either the second world war or cold war for that threat.
"The IRA, with very few exceptions, did not want to carry out mass atrocities, they didn't want to die, they gave warnings and they were heavily penetrated by the intelligence services. None of those apply with al-Qaida and its affiliates."
Sir Ian suggested the threat raised questions about the need to extend further the detention period for suspects. "With the IRA police were able to get behind an active unit and follow it pretty closely to the point where it was ready to cause an explosion. Here we have to move in so much more quickly - you end up with a lot of people and information," he said.
He was "quite confident" that he will face no charges over the death of Jean-Charles de Menezes, shot dead by police in Stockwell tube station last year, after the Independent Police Complaints Commission reports in the new year.
He also denied that the Forest Gate raid, in which one man was shot and from which no charges resulted, was a mistake. "I call it a cliff edge choice: if you fall one way you knock your head on the wall; fall the other way and you drop 200 ft into the sea."
Responding to claims MI5 had made mistakes in the run up to the 7/7 bombings, he said: "There are people the service knows about and can't have the resources to follow. The security services and police are choosing which plot to follow, because there are many."
Sir Ian believed the government must get greater control of the UK's borders and said he didn't "understand how we can continue" to let veiled women through passport controls, but agreed checks should be carried out in an appropriate manner. His remarks followed claims a suspect in the murder of PC Sharon Beshenivsky fled the country in a niqab.
Sir Ian called for a reduction in the form-filling for small scale offences, saying an officer could carry out only one arrest in an eight-hour shift. "We need to pull all that back so I can have my cops back on the street."
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1978079,00.html
Keep in mind it was those of the 5% of the Muslim residents of England that tried to bomb their own country and ours. They have no desire to assimilate. You will think about this when we start seeing body bombs blowing up in mid-western Wal-Mart in the future. You might laugh now but look around. Rep Goode is right and has the guts to tell the truth.
Islamist threat greater than IRA ever posed, says police chief
Tania Branigan, political correspondent
Saturday December 23, 2006
The Guardian
Britain faces a threat of "unparalleled nature" from Islamist terrorism which is greater than the dangers ever posed by the IRA, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, said yesterday.
There was no specific evidence of any immediate threat, he said, playing down a recent suggestion from the home secretary, John Reid, that an attack was highly likely before Christmas.
But officers and the intelligence services lacked the resources to follow all plots and had yet to penetrate terrorist networks effectively. He also warned that the government needed to establish greater control of its borders.
The level of threat is of an unparalleled nature and growing," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "In terms of civilians - you would have to go back to probably either the second world war or cold war for that threat.
"The IRA, with very few exceptions, did not want to carry out mass atrocities, they didn't want to die, they gave warnings and they were heavily penetrated by the intelligence services. None of those apply with al-Qaida and its affiliates."
Sir Ian suggested the threat raised questions about the need to extend further the detention period for suspects. "With the IRA police were able to get behind an active unit and follow it pretty closely to the point where it was ready to cause an explosion. Here we have to move in so much more quickly - you end up with a lot of people and information," he said.
He was "quite confident" that he will face no charges over the death of Jean-Charles de Menezes, shot dead by police in Stockwell tube station last year, after the Independent Police Complaints Commission reports in the new year.
He also denied that the Forest Gate raid, in which one man was shot and from which no charges resulted, was a mistake. "I call it a cliff edge choice: if you fall one way you knock your head on the wall; fall the other way and you drop 200 ft into the sea."
Responding to claims MI5 had made mistakes in the run up to the 7/7 bombings, he said: "There are people the service knows about and can't have the resources to follow. The security services and police are choosing which plot to follow, because there are many."
Sir Ian believed the government must get greater control of the UK's borders and said he didn't "understand how we can continue" to let veiled women through passport controls, but agreed checks should be carried out in an appropriate manner. His remarks followed claims a suspect in the murder of PC Sharon Beshenivsky fled the country in a niqab.
Sir Ian called for a reduction in the form-filling for small scale offences, saying an officer could carry out only one arrest in an eight-hour shift. "We need to pull all that back so I can have my cops back on the street."
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1978079,00.html
Posted by: Frank Livingston at December 23, 2006 12:05 AM (MmsM2)
21
Uses for the Koran:
bug squasher
door stop
wood stove fuel
booster seat for toddlers
tire block for parking on hills
pressing dried flowers
spitball ammo
emergency hammer
I'm open to suggestions here...
bug squasher
door stop
wood stove fuel
booster seat for toddlers
tire block for parking on hills
pressing dried flowers
spitball ammo
emergency hammer
I'm open to suggestions here...
Posted by: Paul Moore at December 23, 2006 04:35 AM (/Q5By)
22
Bryon Solomon: I can apply the exact subject matter and situtations that you use to any prison population in the United States. They assimulate well after release. THEN. Secondly, why do we need them to come here in the first place. Anyone who says we need more people are nuts. Try a freeway in Los Angeles. If we are going to allow more immigration it would be better to take in those that don't wish to cut our heads off, change or laws or religion. I personally haven't heard any muslims in American show any rage of what muslim terrorists do thoughtout the world. They are more passive which to me is one step before acceptance. My view. OUTLAW ISLAM.
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 23, 2006 09:16 AM (4Ek2v)
23
This is America, which was founded on Christan beliefs and traditions. We wouldn't be America if we adopt all the insane practices of other countries. Why doesn't Elliott go to Iran and swear on the Quran there. He is here and should support the American way or leave. We can see the effects of Islam just by watching the news. Check out the story on Somalia and Iraq. Look at Iran. Those people that want to adopt the practices of other countries and make us in American put up with them, should go to the country that practices what they they want to practice. We aren't a muslin country - we arent' a copy of Mexico or China. We are American where the foundations are already set. Remember that saying, Love it or Leave it. Well, that's my point, if they swear on the Quran, aren't we Americans called infedals and are to be killed. Who's side is he on anyway. You are either for America or against it. There is no middle ground. Love it or leave it.
Posted by: Pauline Rowbottom at December 23, 2006 10:52 AM (QGMLM)
24
Ellison is just another white hateing black muslim. Just another Malcolm X. Hope he gets the same.
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 23, 2006 12:12 PM (4Ek2v)
25
Wow, this is amazing. Maybe it's just me but I feel that if you look for the worst in people, you'll eventually find something. Most times the right thing to do and the hard thing to do are the same.
As for the American Way I thought we believed in freedom of religion? I don't remember the constitution saying freedom of christian religion, it just said freedom of religion.
It seems we're passing into a crossroads on many issues in the US. Everything isn't so black and white now. We have some of the nation that takes what was written in the constitution objectively and some that take it subjectively.
Do I think having a black, white, woman, muslim, jewish president will ruin this country? No, because I believe this country will do what's right. As long as we stand united we will prosper. Peace.
As for the American Way I thought we believed in freedom of religion? I don't remember the constitution saying freedom of christian religion, it just said freedom of religion.
It seems we're passing into a crossroads on many issues in the US. Everything isn't so black and white now. We have some of the nation that takes what was written in the constitution objectively and some that take it subjectively.
Do I think having a black, white, woman, muslim, jewish president will ruin this country? No, because I believe this country will do what's right. As long as we stand united we will prosper. Peace.
Posted by: Chaz W at December 23, 2006 12:22 PM (pFzq0)
26
As for the American Way I thought we believed in freedom of religion? I
don't remember the constitution saying freedom of christian religion,
it just said freedom of religion.
Chaz,
according the the ACLU and the new Liberals, that's freedom FROM religion, remember? Or was it only Christianity that you wish to be from. As far as I'm concerned, the Left doesn't have a leg to stand on when they criticize anti-muslim elements in America. They learned it from the best-- from YOU.
don't remember the constitution saying freedom of christian religion,
it just said freedom of religion.
Chaz,
according the the ACLU and the new Liberals, that's freedom FROM religion, remember? Or was it only Christianity that you wish to be from. As far as I'm concerned, the Left doesn't have a leg to stand on when they criticize anti-muslim elements in America. They learned it from the best-- from YOU.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 23, 2006 04:16 PM (8e/V4)
27
Michael Weaver - I am familiar with Sharia Law and I agree that it is at odds with the Constitution. Should Rep. Ellison advocate Sharia Law, I would have a problem with that. Again, my point is that Rep. Ellison's beliefs are not a problem for me because he has not demonstrated an intent to impose them on me. I know people who's views are secular and they worry about elected officials who haves deeply held Christian beliefs. But that's not a problem until they attempt to legislate those beliefs. If a Christian believes divorce is wrong can he represent you in Congress? Of course. If a Jew believes in keeping a kosher house and you want to let the dairy and the meat products in your fridge come in contact with one another, can he represent you in Congress? Of course.
The bottom line is, don't judge the guy until he does something that requires it.
Posted by: Maggie at December 23, 2006 05:21 PM (XiJJE)
28
bordergal: Thank you for the link. I went to read the article about Daniel Pipes from Harvard Magazine and found it quite interesting.
The list of things Muslims would want is a mixed bag of good and bad, in my opinion. I'd rather not run through the whole list with my opinions, but I will if asked.
I do appreciate the link, though, because I don't recall hearing anything about Daniel Pipes before. Thank you, bordergal.
Greyrooster: Islamism recidivism seems an odd way to put the situation. I could understand some who would seek their "religious roots" and then be wooed into jihad by smooth-talking imams, but I think the percentages are small... small enough to still allow Muslims into the U.S., and small enough for us to still be able to stamp out the extremism.
I would like to see a stronger response from Muslims against jihad acts. They may be caught in a moral dilemma because those who do such acts are using the Qur'an to justify those actions. How do you stay Muslim while eliminating acts based on your holy book? How did Christians and Jews do this?
I do agree with Daniel Pipes when he says:
“It’s a mistake to blame Islam, a religion 14 centuries old, for the evil that should be ascribed to militant Islam, a totalitarian ideology less than a century old. Militant Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution.â€
And just like any gang, a few rough members can cow many people with threats of violence against opponents and their families. U.S. laws may afford some comfort (RKBA and secular court system), but Muslims in general should be encouraged to join with their non-Muslim neighbors before they retreat fully into their own communities and distrust of each other makes the point of assimilation moot.
We need good Qur'an-based solutions for American Muslims to encourage them to speak out against Islamism while we fight the extremists, because if we choose only to talk or only to fight, we will lose the greater cultural war.
Thank you for your comments, Greyrooster.
The list of things Muslims would want is a mixed bag of good and bad, in my opinion. I'd rather not run through the whole list with my opinions, but I will if asked.
I do appreciate the link, though, because I don't recall hearing anything about Daniel Pipes before. Thank you, bordergal.
Greyrooster: Islamism recidivism seems an odd way to put the situation. I could understand some who would seek their "religious roots" and then be wooed into jihad by smooth-talking imams, but I think the percentages are small... small enough to still allow Muslims into the U.S., and small enough for us to still be able to stamp out the extremism.
I would like to see a stronger response from Muslims against jihad acts. They may be caught in a moral dilemma because those who do such acts are using the Qur'an to justify those actions. How do you stay Muslim while eliminating acts based on your holy book? How did Christians and Jews do this?
I do agree with Daniel Pipes when he says:
“It’s a mistake to blame Islam, a religion 14 centuries old, for the evil that should be ascribed to militant Islam, a totalitarian ideology less than a century old. Militant Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution.â€
And just like any gang, a few rough members can cow many people with threats of violence against opponents and their families. U.S. laws may afford some comfort (RKBA and secular court system), but Muslims in general should be encouraged to join with their non-Muslim neighbors before they retreat fully into their own communities and distrust of each other makes the point of assimilation moot.
We need good Qur'an-based solutions for American Muslims to encourage them to speak out against Islamism while we fight the extremists, because if we choose only to talk or only to fight, we will lose the greater cultural war.
Thank you for your comments, Greyrooster.
Posted by: Byron Solomon at December 23, 2006 05:51 PM (Wvojf)
29
I guess muslimes have been raping, pillaging, murdereing, and enslaving everyone they possibly can for the last 1400 years because Americans expect the worst from them. Even though they credit their foul religion for every atrocity they commit, we shouldn't judge them by their peaceful religion.
Scum-sucking dhimmies and muslim infiltrators. Goode is an America last piece of shit, and every lowlife who defends him is even worse.
It's all Whitey's fault, of course. If only Goode's ancestor Yakub hadn't created "White devils" in his laboratory a million years ago--the world wouyld know peace.
Scum-sucking dhimmies and muslim infiltrators. Goode is an America last piece of shit, and every lowlife who defends him is even worse.
It's all Whitey's fault, of course. If only Goode's ancestor Yakub hadn't created "White devils" in his laboratory a million years ago--the world wouyld know peace.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 24, 2006 12:45 AM (abVz3)
30
This is all just too funny. The muslims and lefturds are actually doing
us a favor by illustrating our cultural stupidity through their own
hypocrisy. Do we really need more proof that the concept of an open,
pluralistic society is impractical? We have somehow let ourselves be
convinced that our enemies' ideas and ways are superior to, or at least
as good as our own, and are only beginning to pay the price for such
sheepish idiocy.
Our national foreign policy is to squander our blood and treasure to
save a world intent upon self-destruction, while at the same time
welcoming the refuse from those same failed societies as equals into
our own, without ever stopping to consider the consequences of such an
irresponsible policy. Our childishly simplistic faith in the concept
that anyone can be made into a civilized, productive member of society
is the very cornerstone of our enemies' strategies against us, and
muslims regularly state that they are using our own liberalism against
us; meanwhile, we pretend not to notice.
So what to do? Well, anyone who knows me knows my answer, because it's
the only solution that will work; in a war, the only way to win is to
defeat the enemy, and the best and most final way to do that is to
exterminate them. Such a strategy has proven effective in the past -
here Carthage comes to mind, in the days when Rome was young and
strong, and had the power and will to face and destroy yet another
relentless Semitic invader - but we all know that we as a society have
become far too weak, effeminate, and apathetic to do what is necessary,
much the same as did the Romans, and so very soon, I'm afraid, we shall
join Rome in one final way - our extinction as a society. Frankly, if
we let it happen, then we deserve it.
us a favor by illustrating our cultural stupidity through their own
hypocrisy. Do we really need more proof that the concept of an open,
pluralistic society is impractical? We have somehow let ourselves be
convinced that our enemies' ideas and ways are superior to, or at least
as good as our own, and are only beginning to pay the price for such
sheepish idiocy.
Our national foreign policy is to squander our blood and treasure to
save a world intent upon self-destruction, while at the same time
welcoming the refuse from those same failed societies as equals into
our own, without ever stopping to consider the consequences of such an
irresponsible policy. Our childishly simplistic faith in the concept
that anyone can be made into a civilized, productive member of society
is the very cornerstone of our enemies' strategies against us, and
muslims regularly state that they are using our own liberalism against
us; meanwhile, we pretend not to notice.
So what to do? Well, anyone who knows me knows my answer, because it's
the only solution that will work; in a war, the only way to win is to
defeat the enemy, and the best and most final way to do that is to
exterminate them. Such a strategy has proven effective in the past -
here Carthage comes to mind, in the days when Rome was young and
strong, and had the power and will to face and destroy yet another
relentless Semitic invader - but we all know that we as a society have
become far too weak, effeminate, and apathetic to do what is necessary,
much the same as did the Romans, and so very soon, I'm afraid, we shall
join Rome in one final way - our extinction as a society. Frankly, if
we let it happen, then we deserve it.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 24, 2006 11:34 AM (v3I+x)
31
Mr. Solomon, your obvious attempts at fair mindedness start to ring hollow. At some point you have to make a decision to follow what you know is right and stop thanking the religious bigots for their input. American values are neither Christian nor Islamic. So forget about the "love it or leave it" people. "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" (Thomas Jefferson). This controversy is but a tempest within the much larger hurricane that will define the USA in the 21st century. And inspire yourself with the words of some of the many great Americans who have come before you. Mark Twain comes to mind (among many others), "whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." To you others out there, get a grip. Will you kill me too because I disagree with you (seeing how rubble causes no trouble)?
Posted by: robert miller at December 25, 2006 11:34 AM (v/iQd)
32
Robert Miller:
I once had a good friend with whom I fundamentally disagreed with on matters of ideology named Robert Miller, so I wont insult you.
The Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, were unequivical in citing Christianity as the basis for their uniquely American values--both publicly, and in their private correspondences. The quote you provided does not contradict their faith in God.
America has always been a religious (Christian,) country, and American society was built on Judeo-Christian values more than anything else.
´´...can the liberties of a nation be thought secure,when we’ve removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of people that these liberties are the gifts of God.´´
"Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."
"In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution".
"I have sworn upon the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."-Thomas Jefferson
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future.upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according by the Ten Commandments of God."-James Madison
"The principles of all genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be accessory to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer." -Noah Webster
"We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,"-The Declaration of independence
Christians aren't the bigots--atheists are. Christians do not prevent atheists from practicing their nihilistic faith, but atheists are hard at work denying Christians their right to practice their faith.
The islamopithecines are even worse. They want to murder and enslave all non-koranimals.
You're on the wrong side of the ethical fence. It isn't necessary to be a Christian bashing bigot to be an atheist, but it sure seems to be the norm.
There is no equivalence between Christianity and islame. No Christian will ever try to saw your head off on video, fly a plane into your place of employment, or shoot your children--all in the name of God. You're upset with the wrong people.
I once had a good friend with whom I fundamentally disagreed with on matters of ideology named Robert Miller, so I wont insult you.
The Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, were unequivical in citing Christianity as the basis for their uniquely American values--both publicly, and in their private correspondences. The quote you provided does not contradict their faith in God.
America has always been a religious (Christian,) country, and American society was built on Judeo-Christian values more than anything else.
´´...can the liberties of a nation be thought secure,when we’ve removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of people that these liberties are the gifts of God.´´
"Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."
"In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution".
"I have sworn upon the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."-Thomas Jefferson
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future.upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according by the Ten Commandments of God."-James Madison
"The principles of all genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be accessory to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer." -Noah Webster
"We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,"-The Declaration of independence
Christians aren't the bigots--atheists are. Christians do not prevent atheists from practicing their nihilistic faith, but atheists are hard at work denying Christians their right to practice their faith.
The islamopithecines are even worse. They want to murder and enslave all non-koranimals.
You're on the wrong side of the ethical fence. It isn't necessary to be a Christian bashing bigot to be an atheist, but it sure seems to be the norm.
There is no equivalence between Christianity and islame. No Christian will ever try to saw your head off on video, fly a plane into your place of employment, or shoot your children--all in the name of God. You're upset with the wrong people.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 25, 2006 11:55 PM (abVz3)
33
OOPS! "Unalienable rights."
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 25, 2006 11:57 PM (abVz3)
34
At some point you have to make a decision to follow what you know is
right and stop thanking the religious bigots for their input.
robert,
you just won both houses of Congress. Doesn't the officially put you right square in the majority? Yet instead of "reflecting" as per Mark Twain, what do you do? You go ahead and say something as stupidly absolutist as that. Thank you for illustrating how truly vacuous it is when you Libs quote great men.
right and stop thanking the religious bigots for their input.
robert,
you just won both houses of Congress. Doesn't the officially put you right square in the majority? Yet instead of "reflecting" as per Mark Twain, what do you do? You go ahead and say something as stupidly absolutist as that. Thank you for illustrating how truly vacuous it is when you Libs quote great men.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 26, 2006 12:00 AM (ILns2)
35
Soloman: Because you wish to take the chance with muslims doesn't meant I do. If they promise in writing that in the future they will only attack you and yours and not me and mine, that would be acceptable to me. However, since they lie about everything in the past how could I trust them now? Why do you want them here to begin with? Why take the chance? They bring nothing of notable value with them.
A note for some. Our forefathers meant freedom of religion. Not freedom from religion. What they meant was that citizens had the right to practice religion and that the state had no right to deny them the right of PRACTICE. How libturds cannot understand this is beyond me.
A note for some. Our forefathers meant freedom of religion. Not freedom from religion. What they meant was that citizens had the right to practice religion and that the state had no right to deny them the right of PRACTICE. How libturds cannot understand this is beyond me.
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 26, 2006 09:06 AM (4Ek2v)
36
dude... you're a dick
No one's 'demanding the use of the Koran.' Rep. Ellison is a Muslim. It's a personal choice for him, just like the choice to be a Christian, a Jew, or an Athiest is personal to so many others.
Imagine this:
"I'm Jewish. Is it cool if I use the Torah in a private swearing-in ceremony?"
"No, fucker. You're a Jew. You don't represent what America stands for. We need to close our borders to stop all these Jews from coming in, or soon they'll overtake our political institutions, subvert our moral values, and force us all to sing 'Dreidel Dreidel.'"
Rep. Goode has suggested that a Muslim cannot properly represent the interests of an American constituent, disregarding the fact that he was fairly ELECTED by one...
Furthermore, Rep. Goode purports that this 'unexpected mishap,' the election of a Muslim to office, is the result of lax immigration policy. I, on the other hand, think it's important to note that Rep. Ellison's family came to this country generations and generations ago. He is an AMERICAN by definition and by veneration, and to end where I began, he made a PERSONAL choice to follow Islam, and in this country, we seek to honor and respect such choices.
No one's 'demanding the use of the Koran.' Rep. Ellison is a Muslim. It's a personal choice for him, just like the choice to be a Christian, a Jew, or an Athiest is personal to so many others.
Imagine this:
"I'm Jewish. Is it cool if I use the Torah in a private swearing-in ceremony?"
"No, fucker. You're a Jew. You don't represent what America stands for. We need to close our borders to stop all these Jews from coming in, or soon they'll overtake our political institutions, subvert our moral values, and force us all to sing 'Dreidel Dreidel.'"
Rep. Goode has suggested that a Muslim cannot properly represent the interests of an American constituent, disregarding the fact that he was fairly ELECTED by one...
Furthermore, Rep. Goode purports that this 'unexpected mishap,' the election of a Muslim to office, is the result of lax immigration policy. I, on the other hand, think it's important to note that Rep. Ellison's family came to this country generations and generations ago. He is an AMERICAN by definition and by veneration, and to end where I began, he made a PERSONAL choice to follow Islam, and in this country, we seek to honor and respect such choices.
Posted by: Michael Hotwagner at December 26, 2006 12:30 PM (/A9r6)
37
Chaz: The writers of the constitution didn't say freedom of Christian religion. But you can bet your ass that's what they meant. The weren't talking about muslims because there wasn't any here. When the slave holding members who assisted in writing the Constitution said freedom for all men. Who do you think they were talking about? Black muslims? Things should be put in their true context.
As far as religion was concerned they were talking about the various forms of Christianity. Catholics, Protestants, The Church of England. Not muslims, not buddist, not Hindus. But Christians. When slave owners were screaming freedom do you really think they were talking about their slaves back home picking cotton?
As far as religion was concerned they were talking about the various forms of Christianity. Catholics, Protestants, The Church of England. Not muslims, not buddist, not Hindus. But Christians. When slave owners were screaming freedom do you really think they were talking about their slaves back home picking cotton?
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 26, 2006 03:00 PM (4Ek2v)
38
Solomon
And" thank you for your comments" sounds sissy. Who are you to be so assuming. The reality is, is that you are a newbe. Not the poster. Earn your stripes. Then you can act pompus.
And" thank you for your comments" sounds sissy. Who are you to be so assuming. The reality is, is that you are a newbe. Not the poster. Earn your stripes. Then you can act pompus.
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 26, 2006 03:04 PM (4Ek2v)
39
Rep Ellison. Is a black muslim hater of white people, Jews, etc: Making excuses for him is bullshit. The "dude you're a dick" tells it all. Not back to the ghetto. Prick!
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 26, 2006 03:12 PM (4Ek2v)
40
lots to respond to, but I'm keeping this short anyway.
Using the Quran to swear in a member of Congress. Legal yes. Morally I am inclined to think it is like swearing in on a copy of "Mein Kampf". If there was a religion proclaiming Hitler as its religious/spiritual leader, they could make a similar claim. it would be legal.
Either one is a warning sign, flat out! Anti-American values are contained within each. Yes, there are moderates in Islam, and I have taken a position of offering them hope, and allowing they may have a place in modern society. I'm tolerant, but that doesn't quite render me a complete idiot. If Ellison doesn't loudly and publically, and undisputably proclaim that he is against Sharia law in the USA, he can't be trusted. PERIOD!!!
So now we have handed the prestige, the podium, the power over law, and the security clearances of a Congressman, to a Muslim, while we are at war, within, and without, with anti-American Muslims.
Trusting a Muslim with Congressional power, is like your parents loaning you the keys to their car, when you can't even manage to ride your damn tricycle.
If Ellison had a track record WE COULD SEE, for standing out against the anti -American Islamists, he might deserve that trust. Right now, there is nothing to make me believe he is worthy of the office to which he is elected. Rather, I blame his constituents for being lazy, and the media for obscuring who, and what Ellison is. We don't know him well at all. We can't be giving benefit of the doubt at this late point in the game.
The Christain, vs Atheist, vs Muslim discussion is interesting. It is true that Christian religion is the basis for much of the established national morality, including the freeing of the slaves, and efforts to reach the poor, and underpreviledged. Socialists hate that truth, and so do Muslims. Both tend to think their way is the better one, and neither care much for Christ.
They need to reread the First Amendement, and memeorize it word for word. Then they need to take each of those words, and read the dictionary definitions for them. They also need to read some freakin history from sources that haven't been revised for political reasons.
I have a pretty good collection from before the socialists started to change reality, and before the Islamists managed to blame Christianity for killing everyone who ever died.
Keeping it short, We have feedom of religion, but that doesn't make it a suicide pact. Atheism is not the state religion, and we should prevent Atheism or Islam, from becoming the state religion.
USA, all the way!
Using the Quran to swear in a member of Congress. Legal yes. Morally I am inclined to think it is like swearing in on a copy of "Mein Kampf". If there was a religion proclaiming Hitler as its religious/spiritual leader, they could make a similar claim. it would be legal.
Either one is a warning sign, flat out! Anti-American values are contained within each. Yes, there are moderates in Islam, and I have taken a position of offering them hope, and allowing they may have a place in modern society. I'm tolerant, but that doesn't quite render me a complete idiot. If Ellison doesn't loudly and publically, and undisputably proclaim that he is against Sharia law in the USA, he can't be trusted. PERIOD!!!
So now we have handed the prestige, the podium, the power over law, and the security clearances of a Congressman, to a Muslim, while we are at war, within, and without, with anti-American Muslims.
Trusting a Muslim with Congressional power, is like your parents loaning you the keys to their car, when you can't even manage to ride your damn tricycle.
If Ellison had a track record WE COULD SEE, for standing out against the anti -American Islamists, he might deserve that trust. Right now, there is nothing to make me believe he is worthy of the office to which he is elected. Rather, I blame his constituents for being lazy, and the media for obscuring who, and what Ellison is. We don't know him well at all. We can't be giving benefit of the doubt at this late point in the game.
The Christain, vs Atheist, vs Muslim discussion is interesting. It is true that Christian religion is the basis for much of the established national morality, including the freeing of the slaves, and efforts to reach the poor, and underpreviledged. Socialists hate that truth, and so do Muslims. Both tend to think their way is the better one, and neither care much for Christ.
They need to reread the First Amendement, and memeorize it word for word. Then they need to take each of those words, and read the dictionary definitions for them. They also need to read some freakin history from sources that haven't been revised for political reasons.
I have a pretty good collection from before the socialists started to change reality, and before the Islamists managed to blame Christianity for killing everyone who ever died.
Keeping it short, We have feedom of religion, but that doesn't make it a suicide pact. Atheism is not the state religion, and we should prevent Atheism or Islam, from becoming the state religion.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 26, 2006 05:12 PM (2OHpj)
41
Unfortunately, all the negative things said in this thread about Muslims are unfounded. They are based on streotyping, untenable over-generalizations, hearsay, cheap propaganda, and simple bigotry. For example:
Wooga:
I can quote more than hundred verses prohibiting believers to lie (no matter to whom)! Can you give me ONE single verse that allows to lie?
Most of the 6666 verses in the Qur'an condemn lying in one way or another.
Wooga:
I can quote more than hundred verses prohibiting believers to lie (no matter to whom)! Can you give me ONE single verse that allows to lie?
Most of the 6666 verses in the Qur'an condemn lying in one way or another.
Posted by: yonis at December 26, 2006 09:57 PM (Wr09+)
42
Here is the University of South Carolina link if you want to read it for yourself.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
Here a searchable version
http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/
Here is the University of South Carolina link if you want to read it for yourself.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
Here a searchable version
http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/
Posted by: yonis at December 26, 2006 10:04 PM (Wr09+)
43
Michael Likes Hotwanger:
Dude...you're a dick. The koran contravenes the Constitution of the United States. The Bible and the Torah don't.
Rep. Goode made a PERSONAL choice to follow a paleolithic, hatemongering, cult that wants to overturn the Constitution and institute islamopithecine tribal rules (sharia "law.")
In this country, patriotic Americans seek to defend the Constitution from its leftist and islamopithecine enemies.
Fuck you, and fuck Rep. Goode Jihadi.
Dude...you're a dick. The koran contravenes the Constitution of the United States. The Bible and the Torah don't.
Rep. Goode made a PERSONAL choice to follow a paleolithic, hatemongering, cult that wants to overturn the Constitution and institute islamopithecine tribal rules (sharia "law.")
In this country, patriotic Americans seek to defend the Constitution from its leftist and islamopithecine enemies.
Fuck you, and fuck Rep. Goode Jihadi.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 27, 2006 02:03 AM (abVz3)
44
Yonis:
The unholy koran has no injunctions against lying to "infidels. You are a shit-eating.....liar. In other words, you're a good muslime.
Is "Yonis" the islamopithecine word for "anus?" I have to ask, because everything you write is shit.
The unholy koran has no injunctions against lying to "infidels. You are a shit-eating.....liar. In other words, you're a good muslime.
Is "Yonis" the islamopithecine word for "anus?" I have to ask, because everything you write is shit.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 27, 2006 02:06 AM (abVz3)
45
At least no one called me a dick. And I suspect a battle of quotes from the founders and others would be fun. But my point seems to have gotten lost in the transation. Christian radicals may not saw off heads, they do kill for their beliefs, and not just in the past. Abortion doctor hit lists, or Oklahoma city come to mind. And besides, even if I am a "libturd" (nice)it's not Christians or Mulims or Jews I worry about. It's the extremists in all religions. Exactly the same people you worry about. The reason I don't care if Mr. Ellison uses a Qu'ran in his private ceremony is because it harms no one. That this minor deviation from the normal routine provoked Mr. Goode into a high dudgeon scares me. It's a bait and switch...Mr E is no immigrant, but Mr. G acts as though he is and raises the whole bigotry issue himself. And where's the proof that Mr. E hates "whitey"? All these demons coming out of the closet because Mr. G did not reflect on the true meaning of the document he was sworn to uphold. And by the way Mr. Bargholz, Thanks for the no insult part.
Posted by: robert miller at December 27, 2006 09:03 AM (v/iQd)
46
All of this activity and effort invested in commenting on the Virgil Goode story proves the efficacy of today's predominant political strategy - "Divide the public and whip them into a frenzy of fear over unimportant but highly emotional issues - gay marriage, flag burning, stem cell research, rampant Muslim immigration - and they'll forget about the mess we've made in Iraq and the thousands of young lives we're sacrificing for a cause no one can really articulate, much less justify". Works, doesn't it?
Posted by: Bill Mangham at December 27, 2006 11:46 AM (97FA6)
47
Reply to comment #41: Ha, ha, ha. You friggin idiot. Where have you been all you life. You have to be a friggin raghead. As such you are to be pitied and spit upon.
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 27, 2006 08:15 PM (7ANQo)
48
Reply to comment #45. Mr. E as you call him is a black muslim. Black muslims are anti white and anti American. Black muslims are as much a hate group as the KKK. Please show me where the current leader of the KKK hates blackie. Same bullshit queston. The Klu Klux Klan's purpose is to hate blackie. The Black muslims' purpose is to hate whitey. To deny these facts is pure stupidity. Members of the KKK, American Socialist party, American Nazi party and Black muslims should not be allowed in government office. They are allowed their beliefs by the constitution but they should not be in positions where their beliefs are in direct conflict with the constitution.
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 27, 2006 08:24 PM (7ANQo)
49
To yonis first;
I'm holding the position so far, that Muslims can be 'good', or 'bad', like Germans in WW2 could be 'good', or 'bad'. If I recall US Navy Admiral Nimitz was a 'good' german. He was an American first, and he served his country well. He did not adopt the concept of a German world nationalism tha brought so many other Germans into conflict with western democracies.
I want to create a standard by which we may seperate 'good' Muslims from 'bad' ones. My starting point is easy to identify. If you are a Muslim who wants to replace our US Constitutional law, with Sharia law, I believe you can't be a 'good' Muslim as far as US security is concerned.
Frankly I don't want to stop anyone from deciding what hand they eat with, or what they eat, or any of those things that are ultimately a personal choice. I'm concerned with any movement that wants to replace our individual, and equal freedom of religion, with a system that holds one religion as superior.
Do you, yonis, want to replace the US Constitution with Sharia law? That is the first question. I ask you openly. We need to find a way to prove your answer isn't 'Taqiyya. If we can't see the truth in your answer, we can't trust you. I feel like I'm on thin ice even trying, and a lot of people here think I'm a dope for spending so much time on it. HELP!
To Others
Greyrooster has a point about Black Muslims in America. Malcolm X comes to mind. The Black Panthers come to mind. On the other hand I think the boxer Muhammed Ali, and the actor Wesley Snipes are/were both Muslims and didn't spout the anti-white racism of those others. There is a precedent in any case.
Robert Miller, find and show us the testimony that shows Christianity was McVeigh's motivation for the Oklahoma bombing.
Also, since the left likes to pretend the Founding fathers were 'mostly' non-Christian, I think a battle would be worthwhile. I think the hardest part will be all the typing required to ram the basic truth down the throat of anyone who thinks these were not by a large majority, Godly men. The socialist Left, isn't interested in any discussion that doesn't support their Godless agenda, so there is a lot of resistance to historical facts.
Jesus Christ does not command the faithful to Jihad, Robert. Your attempt to compare one religion with another is weak, and I'm sorry I had to tell you. Christ never had a 'Dhimmi' status for anyone.
Christ said "'You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. (Matthew 5:43)'"
It was not Christ who commanded, "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.(9:29)"
Jesus never told his followers how to divide up plunder. He never told them it was OK to plunder. Find another argument.
Bill Mangham;
Those issues you call 'unimportant' are only unimportant to you. If you get elected 'dictator' you get to decide what is important or not. Till then, I say your only offering your opinion. Just like your assesment of the situation in Iraq. An opinion. A typically leftist, defeatist one. My opinion is you will be happy if we do fail, so your ideological 'comrades' can try to claim they are more enlightened, and should be in charge. I guess that shows the politics that is prevelant on the left!
Happy New Year!
USA, all the way!
I'm holding the position so far, that Muslims can be 'good', or 'bad', like Germans in WW2 could be 'good', or 'bad'. If I recall US Navy Admiral Nimitz was a 'good' german. He was an American first, and he served his country well. He did not adopt the concept of a German world nationalism tha brought so many other Germans into conflict with western democracies.
I want to create a standard by which we may seperate 'good' Muslims from 'bad' ones. My starting point is easy to identify. If you are a Muslim who wants to replace our US Constitutional law, with Sharia law, I believe you can't be a 'good' Muslim as far as US security is concerned.
Frankly I don't want to stop anyone from deciding what hand they eat with, or what they eat, or any of those things that are ultimately a personal choice. I'm concerned with any movement that wants to replace our individual, and equal freedom of religion, with a system that holds one religion as superior.
Do you, yonis, want to replace the US Constitution with Sharia law? That is the first question. I ask you openly. We need to find a way to prove your answer isn't 'Taqiyya. If we can't see the truth in your answer, we can't trust you. I feel like I'm on thin ice even trying, and a lot of people here think I'm a dope for spending so much time on it. HELP!
To Others
Greyrooster has a point about Black Muslims in America. Malcolm X comes to mind. The Black Panthers come to mind. On the other hand I think the boxer Muhammed Ali, and the actor Wesley Snipes are/were both Muslims and didn't spout the anti-white racism of those others. There is a precedent in any case.
Robert Miller, find and show us the testimony that shows Christianity was McVeigh's motivation for the Oklahoma bombing.
Also, since the left likes to pretend the Founding fathers were 'mostly' non-Christian, I think a battle would be worthwhile. I think the hardest part will be all the typing required to ram the basic truth down the throat of anyone who thinks these were not by a large majority, Godly men. The socialist Left, isn't interested in any discussion that doesn't support their Godless agenda, so there is a lot of resistance to historical facts.
Jesus Christ does not command the faithful to Jihad, Robert. Your attempt to compare one religion with another is weak, and I'm sorry I had to tell you. Christ never had a 'Dhimmi' status for anyone.
Christ said "'You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. (Matthew 5:43)'"
It was not Christ who commanded, "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.(9:29)"
Jesus never told his followers how to divide up plunder. He never told them it was OK to plunder. Find another argument.
Bill Mangham;
Those issues you call 'unimportant' are only unimportant to you. If you get elected 'dictator' you get to decide what is important or not. Till then, I say your only offering your opinion. Just like your assesment of the situation in Iraq. An opinion. A typically leftist, defeatist one. My opinion is you will be happy if we do fail, so your ideological 'comrades' can try to claim they are more enlightened, and should be in charge. I guess that shows the politics that is prevelant on the left!
Happy New Year!
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 27, 2006 10:34 PM (2OHpj)
50
OH, and Robert Miller;
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
Where it goes we first read:
". . . Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous narrative."
Since we both like Jefferson.
USA, all the way!
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
Where it goes we first read:
". . . Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous narrative."
Since we both like Jefferson.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 27, 2006 10:51 PM (2OHpj)
51
yonis;
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but you need to understand that that Taqiyyah is a problem.
You asked for even one verse from the Quran allowing for deception by a devout Muslim. Here is one, and thats just at the moment. I know there is at least one more. I'm only trying to get to the bottom of all of this, so I hope you can help.
"Any one who, after accepting Faith in Allah, utters unbelief,
EXCEPT UNDER COMPULSION, his heart remaining firm in faith -- but such as
open their breast to unbelief, -- on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs
will be a dreadful Chastisement [16:106]."
Here is a site going into the basis for Taqiyya;
http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/shia6b.txt
Also, the hadith site I'm using doesn't seem to have all the hadith available on it. Can you offer a reason why hadith sources I find referenced elsewhere, would not be found at
http://www.masmn.org/22.html
I'm using it as a primary research site, and if it is incomplete, I need to find a more complete reference.
USA, all the way!
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but you need to understand that that Taqiyyah is a problem.
You asked for even one verse from the Quran allowing for deception by a devout Muslim. Here is one, and thats just at the moment. I know there is at least one more. I'm only trying to get to the bottom of all of this, so I hope you can help.
"Any one who, after accepting Faith in Allah, utters unbelief,
EXCEPT UNDER COMPULSION, his heart remaining firm in faith -- but such as
open their breast to unbelief, -- on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs
will be a dreadful Chastisement [16:106]."
Here is a site going into the basis for Taqiyya;
http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/shia6b.txt
Also, the hadith site I'm using doesn't seem to have all the hadith available on it. Can you offer a reason why hadith sources I find referenced elsewhere, would not be found at
http://www.masmn.org/22.html
I'm using it as a primary research site, and if it is incomplete, I need to find a more complete reference.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 27, 2006 11:42 PM (2OHpj)
52
yonis;
Here is another that at the very least leaves the door open. If you say you are my friend, and the Quran says this ...
"“Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah.†(Quran 3:2
"
... then what should I think of that? I guess it looks like I'm picking on you, but these are hard questions, and they need an answer. If you don't have an answer we can believe, then who can we turn to?
Also, don't get mad at me, because I'm still open to possibilities. Your lucky to have someone like me even asking. I'm hard core American, but that requires me to give you a chance to respond to accusations made against you (Muslims), while there is time.
The truth is, the time we have left for dialogue is going away fast. When that time is up, it won't matter anymore if we might have been friends. The American Civil War showed us that people who don't have a problem with each other personally, ended up fighting for different sides. Soon we will have to pick our sides. I know where that will put me. I don't know where that will put you.
Where will it put you?
What to you, is a moderate Muslim?
USA, all the way!
Here is another that at the very least leaves the door open. If you say you are my friend, and the Quran says this ...
"“Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah.†(Quran 3:2
"
... then what should I think of that? I guess it looks like I'm picking on you, but these are hard questions, and they need an answer. If you don't have an answer we can believe, then who can we turn to?
Also, don't get mad at me, because I'm still open to possibilities. Your lucky to have someone like me even asking. I'm hard core American, but that requires me to give you a chance to respond to accusations made against you (Muslims), while there is time.
The truth is, the time we have left for dialogue is going away fast. When that time is up, it won't matter anymore if we might have been friends. The American Civil War showed us that people who don't have a problem with each other personally, ended up fighting for different sides. Soon we will have to pick our sides. I know where that will put me. I don't know where that will put you.
Where will it put you?
What to you, is a moderate Muslim?
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 28, 2006 12:08 AM (2OHpj)
53
Robert Miller:
A battle of quotes from the Founders would be fun, but it would also convince you that they were devout Christians--including Jefferson. There are no quotes that contradict this. Even the quote you furnished was Jefferson's attempt to protect different sects of Christian belief, if I remember correctly. I know hi personal writing about "a separation of Church and state" was meant to defend churches from a state religion, not a a defense of secularism like the people who tend to quote it think.
Your characterization of religious extremists is specious. No Christian kills to please God. There is no Christian tradition of jihad. The people who murdered abortion doctors weren't killing in the name of God, they were punishing child murderers. There is no equivalency between Christianity and islame, moral or otherwise. Only islamopithecines are commanded by their faith to murder and enslave non-koranimals (jihad.)
None of the rampant religious violence plaguing the planet is Christian. None of it.
You're wrong about that supremacist hatemonger Goode, too. Allowing a racist turd like him to use a book that demands its followers to destroy the governments of man and institute a stone aged, supremacist theocracy in its place at a swearing in ceremony for service to the United States government is not only ludicrous, it's deeply harmful. He cant swear to uphold the Constitution on a terrorist primer that commands him to abolish it. Not honestly.
The rest of the House needs to slap him down hard. Greyrooster is right. The Nation of Islam is nothing but a depraved "I hate Whitey" club. Read their literature and listen to Louis Fairycoon speak. It's much worse than the KKK, La Raza, or any other separatist or supremacist group. It should be outlawed as a violent political movement bent on seceeding from the union, because that's exactly what it is.
Cheers.
A battle of quotes from the Founders would be fun, but it would also convince you that they were devout Christians--including Jefferson. There are no quotes that contradict this. Even the quote you furnished was Jefferson's attempt to protect different sects of Christian belief, if I remember correctly. I know hi personal writing about "a separation of Church and state" was meant to defend churches from a state religion, not a a defense of secularism like the people who tend to quote it think.
Your characterization of religious extremists is specious. No Christian kills to please God. There is no Christian tradition of jihad. The people who murdered abortion doctors weren't killing in the name of God, they were punishing child murderers. There is no equivalency between Christianity and islame, moral or otherwise. Only islamopithecines are commanded by their faith to murder and enslave non-koranimals (jihad.)
None of the rampant religious violence plaguing the planet is Christian. None of it.
You're wrong about that supremacist hatemonger Goode, too. Allowing a racist turd like him to use a book that demands its followers to destroy the governments of man and institute a stone aged, supremacist theocracy in its place at a swearing in ceremony for service to the United States government is not only ludicrous, it's deeply harmful. He cant swear to uphold the Constitution on a terrorist primer that commands him to abolish it. Not honestly.
The rest of the House needs to slap him down hard. Greyrooster is right. The Nation of Islam is nothing but a depraved "I hate Whitey" club. Read their literature and listen to Louis Fairycoon speak. It's much worse than the KKK, La Raza, or any other separatist or supremacist group. It should be outlawed as a violent political movement bent on seceeding from the union, because that's exactly what it is.
Cheers.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 28, 2006 02:18 AM (abVz3)
54
Bill Mangrab:
Today's predominant political strategy is to lie and smear your political opponents, fail to formulate a plan for any perceived national problem, project all your dishonest and divisive tactics on your opponents, and capitulate to our impacable islamopithecine enemies--all in an effort to gain political power at the expense of the American people you're supposed to represent.
Your beloved Dhimmiecrats just used that strategy to win Congress, and you cant spin your way out of it..
Today's predominant political strategy is to lie and smear your political opponents, fail to formulate a plan for any perceived national problem, project all your dishonest and divisive tactics on your opponents, and capitulate to our impacable islamopithecine enemies--all in an effort to gain political power at the expense of the American people you're supposed to represent.
Your beloved Dhimmiecrats just used that strategy to win Congress, and you cant spin your way out of it..
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 28, 2006 02:24 AM (abVz3)
55
I never said I was an atheist,nor anti-Christian (since I am a Catholic), nor denied that most of the founding fathers were Christian. However, they did try to find a way to limit, as Mr. Weaver points out about the Jefferson bible, the influence of religious dogma. It's hard for me to understand that this is controversial. And for sure I worry about Muslims who have declared war on the West (and of course anyone else who does not share their limited views). These people seem to have declared war on the world and life itself. And their big arguement is that the state and religion are not seperate spheres, that the power of the state should be used, and cannot otherwise legitimately be used, to further the aims of (their) God. Is it the arguement in this string that we should be fighting fire with fire by turning the US into a theocracy also? And, as an aside, Malcolm X repudiated the racial theories of the Nation of Islam after his pilgimage to Mecca because he met blond and blue-eyed Muslims. That is why he was assasinated by the followers of Elijah Muhammed.
Posted by: robert miller at December 28, 2006 08:56 AM (v/iQd)
56
Jeff
Religious extremeism exists, as you know. It is exactly that that is at issue. You skip over much history when you claim that Christians do not engage in religious wars. Perhaps it is only because The Church (as it used to be known) no longer has control of the levers of state power that you can claim that Christians are not responsible for any of the religious violence on the planet today. And that is exactly what I want to avoid. It will have to be our democracy that will confront Islamic extremeism, not American Christianity. And our democracy will have to enlist the help of all good people, of all faiths, to counter the Jihadists. They are a dangerous enemy because they do not value life and would rather die than live. I am all for giving them the martyrdom they so zealously seek. But not all Muslims agree with that interpretation of their religion. And we should not engage Islam as an all or nothing proposition. It would be the same as saying all Christians are alike. Then you pick out the worst Christians and say they are all like that. The world is a subtle place. Just as you oppose being labled an infidel, most Muslims probably object to being labelled Jihadists. And I agree with the calls for the moderate Muslims to start standing up for themselves and condemning the extremists. But you have to admit that it would be hard when to do so gets you labelled as a raghead or sandnigger by your fellow citizens. Oh wait, the 6 million Muslims Americans will be labelled non-citizens, therefore they have no rights. Their Holy Book is a subversive document. You see the dilema. They cannot swear on their bible to be good Americans, according to some of their fellow citizens. While you have been fairly moderate, you have to admit that some of the entries here have been, shall we say, over the top? Would you come out, as a Muslim-American, in this environment?
Cheers to you also
Religious extremeism exists, as you know. It is exactly that that is at issue. You skip over much history when you claim that Christians do not engage in religious wars. Perhaps it is only because The Church (as it used to be known) no longer has control of the levers of state power that you can claim that Christians are not responsible for any of the religious violence on the planet today. And that is exactly what I want to avoid. It will have to be our democracy that will confront Islamic extremeism, not American Christianity. And our democracy will have to enlist the help of all good people, of all faiths, to counter the Jihadists. They are a dangerous enemy because they do not value life and would rather die than live. I am all for giving them the martyrdom they so zealously seek. But not all Muslims agree with that interpretation of their religion. And we should not engage Islam as an all or nothing proposition. It would be the same as saying all Christians are alike. Then you pick out the worst Christians and say they are all like that. The world is a subtle place. Just as you oppose being labled an infidel, most Muslims probably object to being labelled Jihadists. And I agree with the calls for the moderate Muslims to start standing up for themselves and condemning the extremists. But you have to admit that it would be hard when to do so gets you labelled as a raghead or sandnigger by your fellow citizens. Oh wait, the 6 million Muslims Americans will be labelled non-citizens, therefore they have no rights. Their Holy Book is a subversive document. You see the dilema. They cannot swear on their bible to be good Americans, according to some of their fellow citizens. While you have been fairly moderate, you have to admit that some of the entries here have been, shall we say, over the top? Would you come out, as a Muslim-American, in this environment?
Cheers to you also
Posted by: robert miller at December 28, 2006 11:41 AM (v/iQd)
57
Robert:
I don't know if comment #55 was directed at me, but I'll address it anyway.
I never claimed you were an atheist, but I guess I did imply it strongly. You use all the same empty rhetoric about Christianity that atheists do. Fallacies about the Founding Fathers' religious beliefs, moral equivalencies between Christianity and islame, references to past misdeeds attributed to Christianity rather than describing the present, misconceptions about the nature of islame. etc.
The Founding Fathers imposed what you refer to as religious dogma. Most of the original states required Church attendance and tax donations. Our system of government is based on Christianity, as the Constitution and Declaration Of Independence say in clear black and white. Try to realize that Christianity does not deny a person his basic human rights--it affirms them. Jefferson edited his Bible for his own use, and he did not edit out divinity. I strongly suspect that you have no idea which parts he cut out.
Nobody wants to turn America into a theocracy to fight islame. That's a ridiculous assertion. I've had other people say that to me with a straight face, but it has no basis in fact. No Christian group in the country is pushing to legislate their religion.
Plenty of atheists are trying to legislate Christianity out of existence, as you know full well, and the islamopithecines are trying to impose sharia incrementally.
Malcolm X was an asshole till the day he died. Leaving the Nation of Islame for the original death cult of islame proper is nothing to brag about. In his final interview with Alex Haley, he expressed regret over some of his past racism, but reaffirmed other aspects of his racism. In any case, he is not remembered for his softening at the end of his life. He is remembered for his rabidly anti-White activism.
The point you missed is that Michael Weaver used X as an example of the racism of the NOI, not X himself. Malcolm's murder by the NOI confirms that racism, it doesn't dismiss it.
Historical Christianity has nothing to do with the present religious violence in the world. No Church on the planet preaches a doctrine of violence or domination. Islame does. There is no getting around that simple fact. To bring up the Spanish Inquisition, or violent Biblical passages would be specious, but you're insinuating that would be valid. The (Catholic) Church has no evil designs on the rest of humanity. You will never walk into a Church and hear calls for violence and oppression. Never. Walking into any mosque is a different matter entirely.
Christianity is not confronting islame--far from it. It is foolishly embracing that vile cult. Christian leaders are falling all over each other to appease islame--including the last two Popes.
Democracy put the Dhimmiecrats in control of Congress. They don't take control until Januuary, but they've already been traveling to the Middle East to kiss islamopithecine ass--even though this is illegal under U.S. law. They've hindered the Presiden't attempts to curb terrorism at every fucking step since 911, despite the fact that they don't have the authority to do so. So much for the democratic approach.
Jihad is not an interpretation of islame, it is one of the Seven Pillars of the entire religion. It is a commandment set forth in the koran, surahs, and hadiths by little Muhammad. There are no muslime moderates. Any muslime who acts moderately by rejecting genocide is a heretic, and marked for death by real koranimals. You have a lot to learn about islame.
Again, your comments about bad Christians are meaningless, because there is no Christian commandment for jihad.
Your main problem is that you are conflating muslims with islam, and Christians with Christianity. Islam is a deeply evil religion, regardless of who practices it. Christianity is a deeply peaceful religion, regardless of who practices it. Islam is what needs to be expunged, not muslimes willing to reject the cult.
There is no moral equivalency between Christianity and the death cult of islame, just as there is no moral equivalency between Jesus Christ and that degenerate Muhammad--who islamopithecines consider to have been the "perfect man." (He was a genocidal psychopath, a rapist, a thief, a slave raider, a misogynist, a liar, and a pedophile, among other things.)
As I wrote, koranimals cant object to being called jihadists, because their vile religion requires them to be jihadists. You're laboring under severe misconceptions about islame.
The vast majority of koranimals in America are citizens in name only. They put their religion above their country at all times, and want to turn America into an islamopithecine theocracy. Fuck them. They are rag-heads, Dune coons, etc.
The 6 million figure you quoted is absolute bullshit. It is the figure disseminated by CAIR and other jihadi front groups, a figure the left-wing media gleefully report without doing any fact checking. The real figure is 1.5 to 3 million.
The koran is not the muslime Bible. It is a terrorist manual, and when they swear on it, they are swearing to uphold jihad against America. Swearing on a real Bible does not conflict with America's constitution, and it sure as hell doesn't uphold the violent overthrow of its government.
It's not necessary to label islamopithecines as non citizens. It's necessary to outlaw islame as a political system bent on destroying Constitutional law and overthrowing the government. As you noted, islamopithecines consider their cult to be a religion and a form of governance. Any koranimal who refuses to follow American law needs to be deported.
Your last point is also based on a fallacy. The koranimals are not shy about demanding their rights and then some. They sue for special privileges constantly. They are trying to take over this country. That is their oft stated goal. They don't decry terrorism because they support it unreservedly.
You really need to read up on islame. You'll be shocked at what it's really all about.
I don't know if comment #55 was directed at me, but I'll address it anyway.
I never claimed you were an atheist, but I guess I did imply it strongly. You use all the same empty rhetoric about Christianity that atheists do. Fallacies about the Founding Fathers' religious beliefs, moral equivalencies between Christianity and islame, references to past misdeeds attributed to Christianity rather than describing the present, misconceptions about the nature of islame. etc.
The Founding Fathers imposed what you refer to as religious dogma. Most of the original states required Church attendance and tax donations. Our system of government is based on Christianity, as the Constitution and Declaration Of Independence say in clear black and white. Try to realize that Christianity does not deny a person his basic human rights--it affirms them. Jefferson edited his Bible for his own use, and he did not edit out divinity. I strongly suspect that you have no idea which parts he cut out.
Nobody wants to turn America into a theocracy to fight islame. That's a ridiculous assertion. I've had other people say that to me with a straight face, but it has no basis in fact. No Christian group in the country is pushing to legislate their religion.
Plenty of atheists are trying to legislate Christianity out of existence, as you know full well, and the islamopithecines are trying to impose sharia incrementally.
Malcolm X was an asshole till the day he died. Leaving the Nation of Islame for the original death cult of islame proper is nothing to brag about. In his final interview with Alex Haley, he expressed regret over some of his past racism, but reaffirmed other aspects of his racism. In any case, he is not remembered for his softening at the end of his life. He is remembered for his rabidly anti-White activism.
The point you missed is that Michael Weaver used X as an example of the racism of the NOI, not X himself. Malcolm's murder by the NOI confirms that racism, it doesn't dismiss it.
Historical Christianity has nothing to do with the present religious violence in the world. No Church on the planet preaches a doctrine of violence or domination. Islame does. There is no getting around that simple fact. To bring up the Spanish Inquisition, or violent Biblical passages would be specious, but you're insinuating that would be valid. The (Catholic) Church has no evil designs on the rest of humanity. You will never walk into a Church and hear calls for violence and oppression. Never. Walking into any mosque is a different matter entirely.
Christianity is not confronting islame--far from it. It is foolishly embracing that vile cult. Christian leaders are falling all over each other to appease islame--including the last two Popes.
Democracy put the Dhimmiecrats in control of Congress. They don't take control until Januuary, but they've already been traveling to the Middle East to kiss islamopithecine ass--even though this is illegal under U.S. law. They've hindered the Presiden't attempts to curb terrorism at every fucking step since 911, despite the fact that they don't have the authority to do so. So much for the democratic approach.
Jihad is not an interpretation of islame, it is one of the Seven Pillars of the entire religion. It is a commandment set forth in the koran, surahs, and hadiths by little Muhammad. There are no muslime moderates. Any muslime who acts moderately by rejecting genocide is a heretic, and marked for death by real koranimals. You have a lot to learn about islame.
Again, your comments about bad Christians are meaningless, because there is no Christian commandment for jihad.
Your main problem is that you are conflating muslims with islam, and Christians with Christianity. Islam is a deeply evil religion, regardless of who practices it. Christianity is a deeply peaceful religion, regardless of who practices it. Islam is what needs to be expunged, not muslimes willing to reject the cult.
There is no moral equivalency between Christianity and the death cult of islame, just as there is no moral equivalency between Jesus Christ and that degenerate Muhammad--who islamopithecines consider to have been the "perfect man." (He was a genocidal psychopath, a rapist, a thief, a slave raider, a misogynist, a liar, and a pedophile, among other things.)
As I wrote, koranimals cant object to being called jihadists, because their vile religion requires them to be jihadists. You're laboring under severe misconceptions about islame.
The vast majority of koranimals in America are citizens in name only. They put their religion above their country at all times, and want to turn America into an islamopithecine theocracy. Fuck them. They are rag-heads, Dune coons, etc.
The 6 million figure you quoted is absolute bullshit. It is the figure disseminated by CAIR and other jihadi front groups, a figure the left-wing media gleefully report without doing any fact checking. The real figure is 1.5 to 3 million.
The koran is not the muslime Bible. It is a terrorist manual, and when they swear on it, they are swearing to uphold jihad against America. Swearing on a real Bible does not conflict with America's constitution, and it sure as hell doesn't uphold the violent overthrow of its government.
It's not necessary to label islamopithecines as non citizens. It's necessary to outlaw islame as a political system bent on destroying Constitutional law and overthrowing the government. As you noted, islamopithecines consider their cult to be a religion and a form of governance. Any koranimal who refuses to follow American law needs to be deported.
Your last point is also based on a fallacy. The koranimals are not shy about demanding their rights and then some. They sue for special privileges constantly. They are trying to take over this country. That is their oft stated goal. They don't decry terrorism because they support it unreservedly.
You really need to read up on islame. You'll be shocked at what it's really all about.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 29, 2006 05:11 AM (abVz3)
58
jenna jameson
jenna jameson hardcore
jenna jameson nude
jenna jameson porn
jenna jameson movies
jenna jameson
jenna jameson hardcore
jenna jameson nude
jenna jameson porn
jenna jameson movies
jenna jameson
Posted by: jenna jameson at February 04, 2007 05:12 AM (cVN5n)
59
nzpm lwainkrg qcrixdwg rhbvz udpmao paguiow evflm
Posted by: djmbzxhky ordxuv at February 27, 2007 05:09 AM (fODzq)
60
lrmtdaynz uagnbmc hgzsuy edqysumx lzjed yizjgr ctjwl
Posted by: wmhguzci bnwau at May 18, 2007 07:22 PM (x6pzu)
December 18, 2006
YouTube : The Christian Embassy Video
You've heard about it. You've read about it. Here it is:
This guy isn't too happy about it. Allah has a different take.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
Posted by: Ragnar at
10:06 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Howie at December 18, 2006 11:24 AM (YdcZ0)
2
I see no endorsement by the military of Christianity. What I see are a bunch of military personnel who have formed a group to talk about and support each other in their faith.
I'm confused as to why the author in the Salon article seeks to punish these American citizens so severely for exorcising their rights?
...posted at Salon also...
p.s. thanks Jawa for the work you do
I'm confused as to why the author in the Salon article seeks to punish these American citizens so severely for exorcising their rights?
...posted at Salon also...
p.s. thanks Jawa for the work you do
Posted by: MightyWarrior at December 18, 2006 01:06 PM (wYWPx)
3
Yep, I followed the Daily Kos link and it is the typical 'only Atheism' type of arguement. The articles tha Kos links to are good for seeing the leftist media spin on this. More hysteria, than fact. If taken at face value, by someone not used to this type of distortion,you would believe all non-Christians are being prevented from practicing their faith.
For anyone in our military to be afraid to express their faith stuns me, Jew, Christian, or otherwise. Our volunteers are not cowards!
Open and peaceful expression of religion will only increase tolerance of all faiths. Even Atheists would benefit from it, in a fair and honest way.
To any Atheists who may be offfended, I apologize in advance.
I'm sick of the backdoor attempts to proselytize for Atheism, by the left. There is only a seperation of church and state such as outlined by the specific wording of the US Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
SO BACK THE "F" OFF YOU GODLESS MARXIST RELIGIONISTS!!! Let people have their free expression, and lets promote that ideal for everyone. If you Marxism is threatened by merely mentioning a God you say doesn't exist, then Marxism is pretty weak stuff isn't it?
And again, to the honest, tolerant Atheists, I apologize.
Now I'm forbidding myself to respond back here if 'Fishelle' or someone else decides to come back all intolerant. I'll let their comments stand for themselves, and no long drawn out battles from me. I've said what I wanted, and I stand by it. And the ACLU still stinks.
USA, all the way!
For anyone in our military to be afraid to express their faith stuns me, Jew, Christian, or otherwise. Our volunteers are not cowards!
Open and peaceful expression of religion will only increase tolerance of all faiths. Even Atheists would benefit from it, in a fair and honest way.
To any Atheists who may be offfended, I apologize in advance.
I'm sick of the backdoor attempts to proselytize for Atheism, by the left. There is only a seperation of church and state such as outlined by the specific wording of the US Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
SO BACK THE "F" OFF YOU GODLESS MARXIST RELIGIONISTS!!! Let people have their free expression, and lets promote that ideal for everyone. If you Marxism is threatened by merely mentioning a God you say doesn't exist, then Marxism is pretty weak stuff isn't it?
And again, to the honest, tolerant Atheists, I apologize.
Now I'm forbidding myself to respond back here if 'Fishelle' or someone else decides to come back all intolerant. I'll let their comments stand for themselves, and no long drawn out battles from me. I've said what I wanted, and I stand by it. And the ACLU still stinks.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 18, 2006 03:49 PM (2OHpj)
4
Weinstein leads a jihad against Christians in the military, and hypocritically accuses Christians of trying to impose their views on others? His "proof?" They practice their religion openly. Why am I not surprised that this cock-sucker is a lawyer? (I figured he would be.)
The comment page of the Salon story was jam packed with moonbat morons wailing about an imagined Crusade to impose Christianity on the entire country. These idiots actually believe that crap.
They're hard at work oppressing Christians and legislating atheism, but meanwhile, Christians don't reciprocate in kind. Nobody is banning public displays of atheism, or preventing nihilists from practicing their faith.
More than 90% of Americans are Christian. If the atheists don't like it, they can get the fuck out. And no, I'm not going to list all the studies that came up with the 90% figure. Do a Google search, moonbats.
The comment page of the Salon story was jam packed with moonbat morons wailing about an imagined Crusade to impose Christianity on the entire country. These idiots actually believe that crap.
They're hard at work oppressing Christians and legislating atheism, but meanwhile, Christians don't reciprocate in kind. Nobody is banning public displays of atheism, or preventing nihilists from practicing their faith.
More than 90% of Americans are Christian. If the atheists don't like it, they can get the fuck out. And no, I'm not going to list all the studies that came up with the 90% figure. Do a Google search, moonbats.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 18, 2006 08:08 PM (bLPT+)
5
I pray in the name of Jehovah Sabaoth the Lord God of Hosts Jesus the Christ: True God and True Man, perfect God and perfect man, fully God and fully man, the Grand Architect Of The Universe, The Light of The World, the preexisting everlasting eternal creator redeemer and sustainer of the cosmos; that He rebuke the powers of darkness that are interfering with my family and friends and command the evil to depart and go where He wants them to be and send Michael His Arch-Angel to fight Satan. Come quickly Thou Lord Jesus.
With love of the Holy Trinity of the ancient Catholic faith.
Sh'ma Yisrael Adonai Elohaynu Adonai Echad; Yeshua Ha'Mashicha. Isa Al Masih. el-Masseh, Iesous ho Kristos.
With love of the Holy Trinity of the ancient Catholic faith.
Sh'ma Yisrael Adonai Elohaynu Adonai Echad; Yeshua Ha'Mashicha. Isa Al Masih. el-Masseh, Iesous ho Kristos.
Posted by: Edwin Moelder at December 19, 2006 11:42 AM (4Arhz)
September 30, 2006
HIV Called "Gay Disease"
It appears that the dictionary of political correctness may have to be revised.
From SacBee.com:
One of Southern California's most influential gay institutions has launched a controversial ad campaign that describes HIV as a "gay disease."Controversial? I would guess it's inflammatory. Since the onset of HIV infections in the early 1980s, homosexual advocates have adamantly maintained that it's not a gay disease and all segments of society are at equal risk. Statistics, however, indicate otherwise.The L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center's departure from 20 years of countering the idea of AIDS as a gay plague is designed to reach gay men who have grown complacent about the illness.
The message "HIV is a gay disease" and the tag line "Own It. End It" will appear on billboards and in magazines.
In Los Angeles County, about 75 percent of HIV cases are among men who have had sex with other men. But nationwide, gay and bisexual men account for about half of recent HIV transmission, according to the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.Unfortunately, AIDS/HIV has been primarily political in nature and less of a public health issue. It needs to be handled as a public health problem.
I think it's safe to assume that at least some members of the gay community will protest the campaign.
Companion post at Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
02:16 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Liberals telling the truth. Did hell just freeze over? Denying that AIDS is a gay disease has cost the gay community perhaps tens of thousands of lives-- all for the sake of political correctness. Liberalism kills.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at September 30, 2006 02:23 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Darth Vag at September 30, 2006 02:57 PM (HSkSw)
3
I don't think everyone in Africa is Gay who have HIV ARC or AIDS .and as Gay man i don't think the claim is nothing more than a advert to bring attention to the out of control spread of HIV in a certain area of a country. But once gay groups start protesting the clever advert might spread the message of safe sex in the gay community to a new generation of people who may not be as aware as older members of the gay community.if it get's the message out and saves lifes it can be nothing but good. Glen
Posted by: glen at September 30, 2006 03:33 PM (F1nba)
4
Aids is an African desease. Nothing good comes from there. Aids, Ebola, Smallpox, Hurricane Katrina, Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton all originated in Africa.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 01, 2006 07:24 AM (9NcP7)
5
No posts on Tom Foley. Are we so republican that we hide our shame like the democrats applaude theirs?
Suddenly, the democrats are claiming they will capture the house because Tom Foley turns out to be a fag.
Yet the democrats forget about Barney Frank.
The truth finally comes out the Colin Powell was fired by Bush. I expected it the whole time. Good for Bush. The turkey wasn't on board with the war on terror. He rose to prominence for one reason and one reason only. The administation needed an uncle tom. The same as he rose through the ranks of the Army.
The Mexican mayor of Los Angeles is going to plant 3 million tress in Los Angeles. Probably orange trees. Have to keep Manuel picking. Not a bad idea. Fresh orange juice for the illegals so they can be healthy and have more babies to send to the Jewish hospital on Saturdays.
New tape of Al Queda hijackers 6 yrs ago must have GREG in a panic. His theory that Bush did it just went out the window.
New Orleans now over 300 murders in the last year and not one conviction. That has to be a record for imcompetance.
Black mayor, black district attorney, black police chief. I wonder why the black murderers continue to go unpunished?
Suddenly, the democrats are claiming they will capture the house because Tom Foley turns out to be a fag.
Yet the democrats forget about Barney Frank.
The truth finally comes out the Colin Powell was fired by Bush. I expected it the whole time. Good for Bush. The turkey wasn't on board with the war on terror. He rose to prominence for one reason and one reason only. The administation needed an uncle tom. The same as he rose through the ranks of the Army.
The Mexican mayor of Los Angeles is going to plant 3 million tress in Los Angeles. Probably orange trees. Have to keep Manuel picking. Not a bad idea. Fresh orange juice for the illegals so they can be healthy and have more babies to send to the Jewish hospital on Saturdays.
New tape of Al Queda hijackers 6 yrs ago must have GREG in a panic. His theory that Bush did it just went out the window.
New Orleans now over 300 murders in the last year and not one conviction. That has to be a record for imcompetance.
Black mayor, black district attorney, black police chief. I wonder why the black murderers continue to go unpunished?
Posted by: greyrooster at October 01, 2006 07:51 AM (9NcP7)
6
rooster,
what was the point of that? I'm genuinely curious. Is it a rant againt affirmative action? Or is it just a hatred of blacks and hispanics. If the former, then you have my sympathy. If the latter, then no wonder so many people want you banned.
what was the point of that? I'm genuinely curious. Is it a rant againt affirmative action? Or is it just a hatred of blacks and hispanics. If the former, then you have my sympathy. If the latter, then no wonder so many people want you banned.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 01, 2006 09:13 AM (8e/V4)
7
What about Foley, Rooster? He's a lowlife, child-molesting, scumbag
queer who would be found dead in a public park if there were any
justice in the world. Foley is merely a symptom of the liberalization
of the GOP and damn near everyone who claims to be conservative,
including about 90% of the those who post here, but remember, you and I
are the problem.
queer who would be found dead in a public park if there were any
justice in the world. Foley is merely a symptom of the liberalization
of the GOP and damn near everyone who claims to be conservative,
including about 90% of the those who post here, but remember, you and I
are the problem.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 01, 2006 01:16 PM (v3I+x)
8
Jesusland Carlos: The new format placed paragraphs together as if one.
My point was there is subject matter to be discussed. Take a look at the posts following this one and you should understand. As far as the later, yes I am against what I see blacks and hispanics are doing to my country. If it doesn't bother you fine. Take a trip to Los Angeles. You may be surprised by what you see.
My point was there is subject matter to be discussed. Take a look at the posts following this one and you should understand. As far as the later, yes I am against what I see blacks and hispanics are doing to my country. If it doesn't bother you fine. Take a trip to Los Angeles. You may be surprised by what you see.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 01, 2006 06:46 PM (6UrHt)
9
IM: A point well taken. I have been mentioning the liberal behavior of so called conservative posters here for some time. This day and age one cannot be a true conservative and a academic at the same time. To exist, you must be pro minority, pro affirmative action, pro foreigner, pro immigration, anti border protection, all muslims are not terrorists, etc. etc.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 01, 2006 06:53 PM (6UrHt)
10
Jesusland Carlos: I have no hatred for Hispanics. I just believe they should FOLLOW THE FRIGGIN RULES like everyone else. I have better places to put my money than in illegal immigrants. Regardless of what we all say they are draining the economy. Additionally, they have a tendency not to join America even when awarded citizenship. They insist on speaking a foreign language, they wave a foreign flag and celebrate a foreign country's independence day. A person waviing a foreign flag and yelling Viva Mexico is a mexican. Not an American. No matter how long he has been here. Mexicans that claim they are not treated equally should prehaps look at the fucking flag they are waving. Mine is red, white and blue. I know, I know, that belief makes me a Nazi, a KKK, a bigot, blah, blah, blah. What it really means is I'm telling the true. Something liberals and minorities refuse to accept.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 01, 2006 07:03 PM (6UrHt)
11
Greyrooster, you're making generalizations. I think I'm pretty conservative and I'm Hispanic. Maybe you should have said "'some' minorities"....
I agree with most of what you say, but some of it is way out there. Do you hate White people, too? Some of them also have babies out of wed-lock, and they commit crimes, and are on welfare.That doesn't mean they all do that.
Muslims.......that's a different story.
Oh, btw, I don't have a Spanish or Mexican flag anywhere(nor does any of my family), and, ironicly, I didn't know about "Cinco de Mayo" until, I moved out of South Texas.
I agree with most of what you say, but some of it is way out there. Do you hate White people, too? Some of them also have babies out of wed-lock, and they commit crimes, and are on welfare.That doesn't mean they all do that.
Muslims.......that's a different story.
Oh, btw, I don't have a Spanish or Mexican flag anywhere(nor does any of my family), and, ironicly, I didn't know about "Cinco de Mayo" until, I moved out of South Texas.
Posted by: pivalleygirl at October 01, 2006 11:38 PM (G8qYZ)
12
While I am willing to pay for the dumb mistakes Americans make, I am not willing to pay for foreigners. Why do you include yourself in the group that comes here illegally, flys the mexican flag, takes unfair advantage of our social programs and yells viva mexico? The fact that you immediately make excuses for them means what?
I say foreigners, mexican or not, who come here in their fifties and sixties, work as security guards for two years, then draw social security for the rest of their lives is wrong. Dosen't matter if they are Mexican, Pakistani or Indian. It's draining our social resources.
"Making Generalizations" "Some minorites" How about 15 million of them. That is a lot more than some. 15 million of them who break the law the moment they swim the river.
Where do I say I hate anyone. Is telling the truth a sign of hate to a hispanic? Why would you ask if I hate white people too? White illegals are few and far between. They normally follow the law. White people having babies too. (1) White people are not complaining about the Jewish hospital being closed on Saturdays. Blacks are. But 70% of the freebies there are Mexican. So why would one complain about the white people? The white people are the ones supplying the care.
Actually, I like Mexicans. At least the first generation of immigrants. Mexicans who come here and wish to make America like the corrupt bull shit country they come from need to go back.
If you are a Mexican who doesn't wave the Mexican flag, use Spanish as your 1st language, yell viva Mexico and place cinco de mayo ahead of the 4th of July then you have become an American. As an American you need to pick a side and quit MAKING EXCUSES FOR MEXICANS. Americans make excuses for Americans.
I say foreigners, mexican or not, who come here in their fifties and sixties, work as security guards for two years, then draw social security for the rest of their lives is wrong. Dosen't matter if they are Mexican, Pakistani or Indian. It's draining our social resources.
"Making Generalizations" "Some minorites" How about 15 million of them. That is a lot more than some. 15 million of them who break the law the moment they swim the river.
Where do I say I hate anyone. Is telling the truth a sign of hate to a hispanic? Why would you ask if I hate white people too? White illegals are few and far between. They normally follow the law. White people having babies too. (1) White people are not complaining about the Jewish hospital being closed on Saturdays. Blacks are. But 70% of the freebies there are Mexican. So why would one complain about the white people? The white people are the ones supplying the care.
Actually, I like Mexicans. At least the first generation of immigrants. Mexicans who come here and wish to make America like the corrupt bull shit country they come from need to go back.
If you are a Mexican who doesn't wave the Mexican flag, use Spanish as your 1st language, yell viva Mexico and place cinco de mayo ahead of the 4th of July then you have become an American. As an American you need to pick a side and quit MAKING EXCUSES FOR MEXICANS. Americans make excuses for Americans.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 02, 2006 08:32 AM (xJ3Xm)
13
I'm not making excuses for Mexicans. I agree with you that illegals are putting a strain on us. I have seen where illegals come here and get all the privileges that Americans are entitled to. I know, personally, of somebody that never worked(legally) and "got her papers" and is now on SS. That is something that pisses me off! I'm not including myself with Mexicans, I know nothing about Mexico. I have no relatives in Mexico As far as I know, my ancestors came from Spain.You said, "I am against what I see Blacks and Hispanics are doing to my country". That implies all Blacks and all Hispanics. That is what I meant about generalizations. I agree with you about the facts you state, but your opinions are over the top at times.There are a lot of Americans that are putting a strain on our economy also. I realize that some people need help, but people that can help themselves and would rather live off the government, I have a problem with. Okay, I'm tired of this now! I do want to say though that marriage should be between one man and one woman.
Posted by: pivalleygirl at October 03, 2006 12:55 AM (G8qYZ)
14
"There are a lot of Americans that are putting a strain on our economy also". Americans doing it is OUR problem. Foreigners doing it is wrong. They are here merely to take advantage of what real Americans created and protected with their lives. Mexicans should be immigrateing to Germany. That's who they pulled for in WW2.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 03, 2006 08:24 AM (xJ3Xm)
15
HIV is what happens when an opportunistic entity, i.e. a virus, finds a
situation that provides the perfect breeding ground. HIV is a lot like
islam like that; both are aggressive parasites that eventually kill the
host, but not before spreading as far as possible through perverted
acts - one by sex, the other by hate.
situation that provides the perfect breeding ground. HIV is a lot like
islam like that; both are aggressive parasites that eventually kill the
host, but not before spreading as far as possible through perverted
acts - one by sex, the other by hate.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 03, 2006 11:50 AM (v3I+x)
September 29, 2006
HNN: 'French Teacher In Hiding For Criticizing Islam'
A post at the History News Network blog today details the goings-on regarding a French Philosophy teacher whose family went into hiding after recieving death threats. The professor's crime? Saying naughty things about Islam in an op-ed:
Under the heading "In the face of Islamist intimidation, what must the free world do?", Redeker described the Koran as a "book of extraordinary violence" and Islam as "a religion which ... exalts violence and hate".The horror of it all. Doesn't the irony of Islam proving and re-proving these rouge academics (and religious leaders) correct at every turn seem strangely absent from most "mainstream" discussions we see regarding the phenomenon of Islamic violence used to suppress speech?Hundreds protest in Paris over Prophet cartoons Should this post with a picture of the Prophet Mohammed? Likening Islam to Communism, he said that "violence and intimidation are the methods used by an expansionist ideology ... to impose its leaden cloak on the world".
He also argued that Muslim response to Pope Benedict's academic exposition demonstrated that they wish to limit Western freedom of speech.
Posted by: Good Lt. at
09:53 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: SeeMonk at September 29, 2006 10:41 AM (7teJ9)
Posted by: greyrooster at September 29, 2006 02:03 PM (VU1tz)
September 26, 2006
Wolfgang Amadeus Infidel
Oh, that wacky Mozart. Little did he know....
Berlin's Deutsche Oper has removed the provocative staging of a Mozart opera from its schedule for fear of enraging Muslims, the opera house said in a statement.One of three opera houses in the German capital, it cancelled director Hans Neuenfels's production of "Idomeneo", a 1781 drama set in ancient Crete, because authorities warned it could present an "incalculable security risk".
In the staging, which sparked audience protests during its premiere in December 2003, King Idomeneo presents the lopped-off heads of Poseidon, Jesus, Buddha and the Prophet Mohammed and displays them on four chairs.
German critics saw the show at the time as a radical attack on religion and religious wars.
His radical attack on religion and religious wars is now unable to be shown because of, um, a radical religion. Fancy that.
Posted by: Vinnie at
10:47 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Looks like there will be cresent flags flying over the EUROWEENIE UNION and now they will probibly ban the movie AMADAUS? he had that funny luagh in the movie
Posted by: sandpiper at September 26, 2006 10:37 PM (ba9dN)
<< Page 1 >>
462kb generated in CPU 0.0744, elapsed 0.1394 seconds.
56 queries taking 0.0807 seconds, 617 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
56 queries taking 0.0807 seconds, 617 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
