NationStates Jolt Archive

Police Say Church Gunman Hated Liberals (http://news.aol.com/article/police-say-church-gunman-hated-liberals/102408?icid=200100397x1206676525x1200339746)

Now, much as in a fair and impartial society this would be treated as an isolated society, were are dealing with a United States that expects certain groups to collectively apologize and loudly denounce terrible acts committed by a sliver of its demographics or otherwise they are considered to have unanimously supported this terrible crime.

But as the commentaries on the page shows, not only do some people not speak on behalf of conservatives and denounce this horrible shooting, but some even implicitly support the crime with such choice comments in the neighborhood of "I don't blame him for hating liberals." Hell, Mann Coulter was recorded as having declared liberals as traitors and let's not kid ourselves. She probably soaked her mangina when this story broke.

So why is it that when a member of one group does something horrible a collective apology is mandated, but when a member of another group does something horrible there's an automatic disavowal and isolation?

Police Say Church Gunman Hated Liberals (http://news.aol.com/article/police-say-church-gunman-hated-liberals/102408?icid=200100397x1206676525x1200339746)



Now, much as in a fair and impartial society this would be treated as an isolated society, were are dealing with a United States that expects certain groups to collectively apologize and loudly denounce terrible acts committed by a sliver of its demographics or otherwise they are considered to have unanimously supported this terrible crime.

But as the commentaries on the page shows, not only do some people not speak on behalf of conservatives and denounce this horrible shooting, but some even implicitly support the crime with such choice comments in the neighborhood of "I don't blame him for hating liberals." Hell, Mann Coulter was recorded as having declared liberals as traitors and let's not kid ourselves. She probably soaked her mangina when this story broke.

So why is it that when a member of one group does something horrible a collective apology is mandated, but when a member of another group does something horrible there's an automatic disavowal and isolation?

psh. Please. It's well known that if you are a member of a particular group, and a fringe member of that group does something wrong, it is obviously the entire groups fault for not reigning them in sooner.
/sarcasm

George Carling predicted this in 1999. May he rest in peace.

psh. Please. It's well known that if you are a member of a particular group, and a fringe member of that group does something wrong, it is obviously the entire groups fault for not reigning them in sooner.
/sarcasm

And even if you were being sarcastic, Post 9-11 seems to take that as fact.

Everyone is denouncing what he did, liberals and conservatives, regardless of whether the conservatives agree with his politics or not

Everyone is denouncing what he did, liberals and conservatives, regardless of whether the conservatives agree with his politics or not

Everyone in the area sure, but what about the nation as a whole? Because I do point out some groups are held up on ridiculously high expectations that will never really be satisfactory met.

Ironically he was pissed at liberals because his food stamps had been recently cut back.

Everyone is denouncing what he did, liberals and conservatives, regardless of whether the conservatives agree with his politics or not

Then why is it still going on? Where are the marches in the street?

(Annoying, isn't it)

Everyone in the area sure, but what about the nation as a whole? Because I do point out some groups are held up on ridiculously high expectations that will never really be satisfactory met.

Well the fact that everyone thinks it's a horrible atrocity is a given, so no nationwide denouncement is needed. However, with Islam (which is obviously what you're getting at) some people argue that it's a little too ambiguous whether the Muslims in many areas of the middle east are really against these attacks rather than apathetic towards them or perhaps harbouring an atmosphere that slightly encourages such attacks, which is why they call for more denouncement to clear up the ambiguity.

Well the fact that everyone thinks it's a horrible atrocity is a given, so no nationwide denouncement is needed. However, with Islam (which is obviously what you're getting at) some people argue that it's a little too ambiguous whether the Muslims in many areas of the middle east are really against these attacks rather than apathetic towards them or perhaps harbouring an atmosphere that slightly encourages such attacks, which is why they call for more denouncement to clear up the ambiguity.

With comments like "I don't blame him for hating liberals," not everyone thinks it's a horrible atrocity. And in contrast any attempts at a wide-reaching call for Moderate Islam are generally ignored by The Liberal Media, as with the case of Queen Rania's YouTube posting.

This is a clear sign of the influence of the liberal bias in the media. If his victims were conservative, nobody would have reported it.

*nods*

This is a clear sign of the influence of the liberal bias in the media. If his victims were conservative, nobody would have reported it.

*nods*

If the victims were conservative, they would have been packing AR-15s and Desert Eagles. The story would have been reported as a Shoot Out.

With comments like "I don't blame him for hating liberals," not everyone thinks it's a horrible atrocity.

Not necessarily. If a friend of mine killed my boss who we all really hated, and I said, "well I don't blame him for hating our boss" that doesn't mean that I think "so what he did is fine", I could still be thinking "but that doesn't excuse what he did".


And in contrast any attempts at a wide-reaching call for Moderate Islam are generally ignored by The Liberal Media, as with the case of Queen Rania's YouTube posting.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Everyone in the area sure, but what about the nation as a whole? Because I do point out some groups are held up on ridiculously high expectations that will never really be satisfactory met.

Because those groups set the expectations artificially high themselves by showing an amazing ability to protest stupid shit at the drop of a hat: like say, hypothetically, cartoons in a Scandinavian newspaper.

If you put on a lot of angry parades, people judge you on that basis. Maybe if these other groups knocked off the angry parades, expectations would be lowered downwards.

what if he was actually just upset about the horrible kids play? or got carried away with all the America and decided to shoot someone? <-Lincoln reference

He added the man also reported having no family or next-of-kin.

thats really rather sad, poor guy :(

If the victims were conservative, they would have been packing AR-15s and Desert Eagles. The story would have been reported as a Shoot Out.

"I was in Church minding my own business when suddenly out of nowhere came 40 commie ninjas dressed only in rainbow cloaks! I had to act quickly for they had already began firing G-rays into the innocent crowd of children, so I calmly pulled my shotgun out of my guitar case and let hell on those Vegan scum who stole mah jab!!!!"

Because those groups set the expectations artificially high themselves by showing an amazing ability to protest stupid shit at the drop of a hat: like say, hypothetically, cartoons in a Scandinavian newspaper.

If you put on a lot of angry parades, people judge you on that basis. Maybe if these other groups knocked off the angry parades, expectations would be lowered downwards.

In other words, as long as the group doesn't make a big raucous fuss in comparatively peaceful protesting it's acceptable if one of their numbers went and killed people?

y'all may not know this, being net newbies and all, but online there are people called "trolls" who post outrageous things just to get other people all wound up.

there are also batshit crazy people who post but you cant tell from the posting that they should be in an institution somewhere.

there are people who post sarcastically and expect you to get that they are joking.

there are people who post hyperbole in hopes of making a certain point.

there are stupid kids who dont know any better.

there are those who post what they think the other side is really thinking.

and there are those who post hateful things that they mean every word of.

its hard to tell them apart.

In other words, as long as the group doesn't make a big raucous fuss in comparatively peaceful protesting it's acceptable if one of their numbers went and killed people?

Yeah, that's about it. (Well not the actual killing of course, that's still bad, but there is less reason to look for a collective response).

Political activism works both ways.

SNIP

there is a sight called AOL news.

there is a sight called AOL news.
i was going to say that but it seemed like kicking a man when he's down.

poor aol used to be king.

i was going to say that but it seemed like kicking a man when he's down.

poor aol used to be king.

King of what? Spam and keeping users on hold?

The best part is the guy lived and is in custody. No suicide by cop for this fucktard.

So this guy was unemployed and blamed liberals for his problems? I'd love to know how his train of thought works.

"Damn liberals! I'll get you for increasing my uneployment benefits!"

So this guy was unemployed and blamed liberals for his problems? I'd love to know how his train of thought works.

"Damn liberals! I'll get you for increasing my uneployment benefits!"

How dare they raise minimum wage! Now a McDonalds check is slightly less impossible to survive on.

I'd love to know how his train of thought works.

he has no friends or family, lost his job recently and then lost his welfare

something tells me he was just really really cheesed off

Police Say Church Gunman Hated Liberals (http://news.aol.com/article/police-say-church-gunman-hated-liberals/102408?icid=200100397x1206676525x1200339746)

Now, much as in a fair and impartial society this would be treated as an isolated society, were are dealing with a United States that expects certain groups to collectively apologize and loudly denounce terrible acts committed by a sliver of its demographics or otherwise they are considered to have unanimously supported this terrible crime.

But as the commentaries on the page shows, not only do some people not speak on behalf of conservatives and denounce this horrible shooting, but some even implicitly support the crime with such choice comments in the neighborhood of "I don't blame him for hating liberals." Hell, Mann Coulter was recorded as having declared liberals as traitors and let's not kid ourselves. She probably soaked her mangina when this story broke.

So why is it that when a member of one group does something horrible a collective apology is mandated, but when a member of another group does something horrible there's an automatic disavowal and isolation?

To what group does this person belong? If you expect a group to denounce his hate-filled, insane actions then I don't believe the hate-filled, insane people are about to speak out against him.

I am an atheist Libertarian so this guy wasn't one of mine but I will freely denounce his actions and demand his own life for taking innocent life. Liberals and leftists deserve pity, not death.

he has no friends or family, lost his job recently and then lost his welfare

something tells me he was just really really cheesed off

More like he blew his last fuse, something seriously snapped in his mind.

RIP Greg McKendry. Trying to do good has a price, it seems. :(

Assuming that this guy is convicted (and considering the number of witnesses, it's hard to imaging him not being convicted), I hope he gets life without parole. He's scum, and doesn't deserve to live among the rest of us.

BTW, I'm not liberal, I'm somewhere between libertarian and conservative.

poor aol used to be king.
In that particular case, I fully supported regicide.

George Carling predicted this in 1999. May he rest in peace.

Yep. George Carlin sure did. 'Disgruntled Worsipper' ftw!

So, someone please explain this to me... the guy hated LIBERALS and he ended up shooting a CHURCH? That's like someone saying they hated conservatives and then shot up a hippy rally or something. @_@

So, someone please explain this to me... the guy hated LIBERALS and he ended up shooting a CHURCH? That's like someone saying they hated conservatives and then shot up a hippy rally or something. @_@

As noted in the article, the church itself tended to work for social causes and was thus considered liberal.

So, someone please explain this to me... the guy hated LIBERALS and he ended up shooting a CHURCH? That's like someone saying they hated conservatives and then shot up a hippy rally or something. @_@

Not all Church-goers are Conservative. *Points at self*

Got it. :)

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (July 28) - An out-of-work truck driver accused of opening fire at a Unitarian church, killing two people, left behind a note suggesting that he targeted the congregation out of hatred for its liberal policies, including its acceptance of gays, authorities said Monday.

Should have read the article first. :P

Ironically he was pissed at liberals because his food stamps had been recently cut back.

Ironic? Are you kidding? My Irony-o-meter 3000 just exploded.:eek:

To what group does this person belong?

presumably he runs in the same circles that have been selling shit like this (http://patriotshop.us/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=584) for years. or, you know, the group that keeps paying ann coulter for her fascist and eliminationist shtick. the entirety of the american right.

Liberals and leftists deserve pity, not death.

Considering your utter and complete inability to make a decent point;
Considering that whenever you spout your unmitigated BULLSHIT in these forums, there am I or someone else to hand you your behind in an argument;
Considering you can't seem to talk without trolling like a fifth-grader;
Considering you expose yourself to ridicule whenever you say any of your inanities here;

I guess I can tell who deserves my pity. Too bad you're not getting any.

So one nut job who allegedly espoused extreme distaste for a group before committing a horrible crime is a representative on the opponents of those he denounced? I'm not sure I follow that logic.

Heikoku, step back a bit. It's the internet. No point in getting riled enough to become a beta-tester for our new infractions system.

On the trolling issue, Fris has already ruled.

So one nut job who allegedly espoused extreme distaste for a group before committing a horrible crime is a representative on the opponents of those he denounced? I'm not sure I follow that logic.

It's a fallacy in both the Muslims' case and the Conservatives' one, and that was the point: The same group that claims the actions of a few Muslims represents the many is now trying to disavow this notion when it happens to THEM.

Heikoku, step back a bit. It's the internet. No point in getting riled enough to become a beta-tester for our new infractions system.

On the trolling issue, Fris has already ruled.

To be sure, he ruled on the other thread. It may be my sleepiness, but I didn't find a ruling on TSF's actions in this one.

So why is it that when a member of one group does something horrible a collective apology is mandated, but when a member of another group does something horrible there's an automatic disavowal and isolation?

Because when it's about one group (Islam), it's not about disavowal or apology or even reality; it's about how best to incriminate, stereotype and hate that group.

No amount of apologies from no amount of Muslims will ever satisfy the demands of the "There's no 'moderate' Islam!" or the "Where is the protest? THEY MUST CONDONE CHILD RAPE AFTER ALL!" crowd.

Because when it's about one group (Islam), it's not about disavowal or apology or even reality; it's about how best to incriminate, stereotype and hate that group.

No amount of apologies from no amount of Muslims will ever satisfy the demands of the "There's no 'moderate' Islam!" or the "Where is the protest? THEY MUST CONDONE CHILD RAPE AFTER ALL!" crowd.

QFT.

On that note, being a Brazilian, I just HAVE to apologize.

Paraguayans, sorry about the war way back in the 1800s.

Indians, sorry about the massacres committed by people I don't know.

Tourists that were robbed, sorry about not speaking up against the muggers. I must clearly endorse their actions, or I'd spend my life disavowing them.

Italy, I'm so sorry we got the 94 World Cup for ourselves. I don't play soccer and I don't know the Brazilian team, but I'm sorry anyways. On that note, you owe Australia and France an apology in the most recent cup, due to the shenanigans on the games.

I'm SO SORRRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!

Forgive meeeeee?

QFT.

On that note, being a Brazilian, I just HAVE to apologize.

Paraguayans, sorry about the war way back in the 1800s.

Indians, sorry about the massacres committed by people I don't know.

Tourists that were robbed, sorry about not speaking up against the muggers. I must clearly endorse their actions, or I'd spend my life disavowing them.

Italy, I'm so sorry we got the 94 World Cup for ourselves. I don't play soccer and I don't know the Brazilian team, but I'm sorry anyways. On that note, you owe Australia and France an apology in the most recent cup, due to the shenanigans on the games.

I'm SO SORRRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!

Forgive meeeeee?

No! *shakes fist at anyone from south of the Rio Grande, North of North Dakota, east of the Atlantic, and West of the Pacific, and the vast majority of the United States as well*

No! *shakes fist at anyone from south of the Rio Grande, North of North Dakota, east of the Atlantic, and West of the Pacific, and the vast majority of the United States as well*

And since we're both humans and I don't protest your actions, I must endorse fish-shaking...

And a related story that suggests the man was influenced heavily by the right:

Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity on accused shooter's reading list
(http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/)

Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.

The shotgun-wielding suspect in Sunday's mass shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church was motivated by a hatred of "the liberal movement," and he planned to shoot until police shot him, Knoxville Police Chief Sterling P. Owen IV said this morning.

Adkisson, 58, of Powell wrote a four-page letter in which he stated his "hatred of the liberal movement," Owen said. "Liberals in general, as well as gays."

So, someone please explain this to me... the guy hated LIBERALS and he ended up shooting a CHURCH? That's like someone saying they hated conservatives and then shot up a hippy rally or something. @_@

As others have pointed out, the church had a history of being socially liberal. That isn't just true of that particular church--Unitarian Universalist churches in general are extremely liberal and open. They are not by definition even "Christian" churches--they have members of all faiths, including agnostics. They're kind of like Congregationalists with less God, very focused on social justice, community activism, promoting peace, etc.

As one of the church members who witnessed the shooting said, he turned the gun on the people most likely to be compassionate, loving and supportive.

Everyone is denouncing what he did, liberals and conservatives, regardless of whether the conservatives agree with his politics or not

In the end what will be remembered is the silence of conservatives, which is far more telling.

And a related story that suggests the man was influenced heavily by the right:

Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity on accused shooter's reading list
(http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/)

Remember everyone, books don't kill people, people kill people - same for video games, I wonder if the O'Reilly's of this world will see any comparison.

Remember everyone, books don't kill people, people kill people - same for video games, I wonder if the O'Reilly's of this world will see any comparison.

That's assuming they don't spin this guy as a mentally ill atheist and/or secretly celebrate this asshole's crime.

Ironically he was pissed at liberals because his food stamps had been recently cut back.This makes SO MUCH of a summary.

That's assuming they don't spin this guy as a mentally ill atheist and/or secretly celebrate this asshole's crime.

$10 says Mann Coulter openly celebrates this asshole's crime.

This makes SO MUCH of a summary.

You gotta wonder about the logic of someone like that.

I HATE WELFARE-STATE LIBERALS

I WANT MORE FOOD STAMPS.

:rolleyes:

$10 says Mann Coulter openly celebrates this asshole's crime.

The odds on that are too damn good. The real jackpot would come if she actually denounced or found the shootings repugnant.

$10 says Mann Coulter openly celebrates this asshole's crime.
http://www.zenpickle.com/images/Coulter.gif
Odd how the terms "libel" "slander" and "treason" are so securely planted in the right's vernacular?

The best part is the guy lived and is in custody. No suicide by cop for this fucktard.

Indeed...although he would be eligible for execution via lethal injection if found guilty.

So, someone please explain this to me... the guy hated LIBERALS and he ended up shooting a CHURCH? That's like someone saying they hated conservatives and then shot up a hippy rally or something. @_@

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalist

If I were to ever start attending religious services (not likely), it would be at the local Unitarian Universalist church.

They are a great example of what organized religion can be when it isn't focused on hatred of those who are different.

In the end what will be remembered is the silence of conservatives, which is far more telling.

For once, I agree wholeheartedly.

In the end what will be remembered is the silence of conservatives, which is far more telling.Complicit in silence?

Complicit in silence?

Hey, the whole "If you don't condemn it you condone it" accusation gets applied liberally to Muslims, why won't it work on Right Wing Conservatives?

Yes it is true he didn't like liberals. It is also true that the Virginia Tech mass murderer hated the rich. It is also true that I found on YouTube a video that claimed all mass murderers were right wing guys and including David Koresh who was claimed to be a mass murder and right wing because he hated Bill Clinton. And that is despite that the Feds were the ones who did the killing.

I'm looking for the vid again just so I can post the link.

Yes it is true he didn't like liberals. It is also true that the Virginia Tech mass murderer hated the rich. It is also true that I found on YouTube a video that claimed all mass murderers were right wing guys and including David Koresh who was claimed to be a mass murder and right wing because he hated Bill Clinton. And that is despite that the Feds were the ones who did the killing.

That's some quality crack you're smoking there. Unless you've got some documented proof that the BATF were the ones who poured gasoline on Mount Carmel and started the fire.

I think that the valid point to make here is that good people promoting tolerance and diversity have been attacked and killed, by a small-minded, intelligence-challenged, jaded man. Tragedies like this highlight further how far we have to go in education and general society before we can truly proclaim to be tolerant accepting people. My heart goes out to the community in Tennessee who have been riven apart by bigotry and hatred.

Complicit in silence?
Not complicity, but at the least secretly approving it.

Hey, the whole "If you don't condemn it you condone it" accusation gets applied liberally to Muslims, why won't it work on Right Wing Conservatives?

In fact, whenever someone dares to try to use it against Muslims here, well, I just found my second Ace of Knaves. Or, to thy better appreciating and my better style, my Joker. Sigging it.

Not complicity, but at the least secretly approving it.

That's "complicity", Andaras. Or an example thereof.

Gauthier, why did you stop responding to my posts? I find it difficult to believe that you found my posts a satisfactory answer with nothing to debate.

this reminded me of a murder that happened in Kerava,a town nearby.some guy killed a 14 year old girl,he then confessed it the next week.and he said that he killed because
of anxiety.i mean what the fuck?if you have anxiety you don't
go and kill people.i've had anxiety and i haven't killed people.
though he had got help and been treated for mental troubles he hadn't eaten the meds precribed to him

Hey, the whole "If you don't condemn it you condone it" accusation gets applied liberally to Muslims, why won't it work on Right Wing Conservatives?

Wake me when you see posters of this nutjob on walls, celebrating his heroic "operations".

The accusation gets applied to Muslims precisely because this is the case: terrorists are viewed as heros. Not for nothing did the name "Osama" become the top choice of name for newborns in some Islamic communities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1741171.stm

You will never see conservative populations laud Adkinson as some kind of hero- a few equally deranged psychos or teenage boys with attention issues, yes, significant sectors of societies, no. (No matter how the far left freak show tries to claim that this is secretly the case) No posters. No rallies. No leaders will praise him. No impassioned speeches exhorting children to take up his mantle. No tenured fraudulent college professors claiming that the people of that church deserved what was coming to them. No activists working to free him prison. No clarification is needed. But, with some Islamic communities, and the terror supporters on the far Left, there is still ambiguity. THAT is the difference.

Wake me when you see posters of this nutjob on walls, celebrating his heroic "operations".

The accusation gets applied to Muslims precisely because this is the case: terrorists are viewed as heros. Not for nothing did the name "Osama" become the top choice of name for newborns in some Islamic communities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1741171.stm

You will never see conservative populations laud Adkinson as some kind of hero- a few equally deranged psychos or teenage boys with attention issues, yes, significant sectors of societies, no. (No matter how the far left freak show tries to claim that this is secretly the case) No posters. No rallies. No leaders will praise him. No impassioned speeches exhorting children to take up his mantle. No tenured fraudulent college professors claiming that the people of that church deserved what was coming to them. No activists working to free him prison. No clarification is needed. But, with some Islamic communities, and the terror supporters on the far Left, there is still ambiguity. THAT is the difference.

1- Read Ann Coulter.

2- Admit you're wrong.

3- ...

4- PROFIT!

Osama, as a name, is like "Joseph" there. The vast majority of the Arab world doesn't like him. Show me the damn posters. Show me them being mainstream anywhere. Go ahead. Or lose this argument as your point crashes and burns. You showed a moron in Africa. There's a guy in the US by the name of Michael Savage that calls all Liberals sexual deviants. He has MILLIONS OF LISTENERS.

So go ahead and try to cover your precious little ears about the facts, because, guess what:

REALITY DOES NOT CARE!

1- Read Ann Coulter.

2- Admit you're wrong.

3- PROFIT!
That's not how that works...

That's not how that works...

I know, but just look at the STYLE of it.

I know, but just look at the STYLE of it.
It's all about the ellipses:

1. Read Ann Coulter
2. ...
3. PROFIT!!

It's all about the ellipses:

1. Read Ann Coulter
2. ...
3. PROFIT!!

Fixed it. Could you fix the quote, please? Thanks.

So I'll be the conservative to disavow this guy because he was unemployed and on food stamps. Therefore, he clearly was opposed to conservative values. Unless he was conservative only on moral issues.

The point I'm getting to is each conservative gets their viewpoints from different sources, and (though liberals would love to disagree with me on this) we do not all listen to and take as truth the words of Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter. There is a very wide range of viewpoints in the conservative community, ranging from borderline fascists to borderline libertarians.

This would be the difference between conservatives and Muslims in certain parts of the Middle East, where viewpoints are often shared due to a shared heritage, shared religion, and shared (spiritual) leaders, not all of whom are opposed to terrorism. This has the potential to result in a much smaller range of viewpoints and can facilitate the spread of terrorism.

So I'll be the conservative to disavow this guy because he was unemployed and on food stamps. Therefore, he clearly was opposed to conservative values. Unless he was conservative only on moral issues.

The point I'm getting to is each conservative gets their viewpoints from different sources, and (though liberals would love to disagree with me on this) we do not all listen to and take as truth the words of Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter. There is a very wide range of viewpoints in the conservative community, ranging from borderline fascists to borderline libertarians.

This would be the difference between conservatives and Muslims in certain parts of the Middle East, where viewpoints are often shared due to a shared heritage, shared religion, and shared (spiritual) leaders, not all of whom are opposed to terrorism. This has the potential to result in a much smaller range of viewpoints and can facilitate the spread of terrorism.

Still doesnt work like that, mainly because Muslims, too, have many leaders, many "sources", and many styles. Muslims, too, have different viewpoints about the world. That you do not know them does not deny them existence; it denies your knowledge of them.

Considering your utter and complete inability to make a decent point;

Your inability to understand a decent point does not qualify as my inability to make one.

Considering that whenever you spout your unmitigated BULLSHIT in these forums, there am I or someone else to hand you your behind in an argument;

Nice claim but, as usual, lacks a factual basis. Perhaps someday we will actually witness your vaunted powers of argument instead of having you just yap about it. Not likely considering your emotional instability.

Considering you can't seem to talk without trolling like a fifth-grader;

I don't troll, I voice my opinion and the facts that back them. The fact that you can't compete does not make me troll. Just look at your response to mine: you are shouting me down instead of tearing apart my statement with your l33t sk1llz. Perhaps a mirror is in order?

Considering you expose yourself to ridicule whenever you say any of your inanities here;

Yes, I should go to an echo-chamber where no one argues with me. This is exactly what you do here and this is exactly why you believe you possess these awesome, and imaginary, powers of debate. The fact that you, and others of your ignorant, emotionally crippled ilk, ridicule me only serves to prove that I am correct in my world view.

I guess I can tell who deserves my pity. Too bad you're not getting any.

Hmmmmm... I am trying to see where I requested your pity. Nope. No pity was asked for. I suppose this is yet another example of how you "hand me my behind" right? Man, that sure stings!

Your inability to understand a decent point does not qualify as my inability to make one.



Nice claim but, as usual, lacks a factual basis. Perhaps someday we will actually witness your vaunted powers of argument instead of having you just yap about it. Not likely considering your emotional instability.



I don't troll, I voice my opinion and the facts that back them. The fact that you can't compete does not make me troll. Just look at your response to mine: you are shouting me down instead of tearing apart my statement with your l33t sk1llz. Perhaps a mirror is in order?



Yes, I should go to an echo-chamber where no one argues with me. This is exactly what you do here and this is exactly why you believe you possess these awesome, and imaginary, powers of debate. The fact that you, and others of your ignorant, emotionally crippled ilk, ridicule me only serves to prove that I am correct in my world view.



Hmmmmm... I am trying to see where I requested your pity. Nope. No pity was asked for. I suppose this is yet another example of how you "hand me my behind" right? Man, that sure stings!

1- Your inability to MAKE one, however, does.

2- I've done it several times in this forums to the likes of you. And nice flame you just did there.

3- You made no argument. You made a claim that liberals are (x). That's not an argument, not that you'd know.

4- So, the fact that people here disagree or agree with you has bearing in the correctness of your worldview now? That's rich, and that's why I argue so much better than you.

5- I said you were deserving. I didn't say you asked for it. But feel free to misinterpret any text you want, while I go ahead and report you for flaming.

Osama, as a name, is like "Joseph" there.
No, "Yusuf" is like Joseph. Osama would be more like, say, "Brent": not unheard-of, but not particularly common, until recently.
The vast majority of the Arab world doesn't like him.
As long as his percentage support remains in double digits, that is too large to ignore. The "majority" of the Arab world doesn't support him, true; but I wouldn't call it a "vast" majority under these circumstances.
Show me the damn posters. Show me them being mainstream anywhere.
Posters, glorifying suicide attacks against Israeli Jews, adorn every Gaza street (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/09/08/MN94429.DTL&type=printable)
Jenin is so plastered with them that they line the main corridor of the government-run hospital (http://www.alternet.org/story/16462/)

4- So, the fact that people here disagree or agree with you has bearing in the correctness of your worldview now? That's rich, and that's why I argue so much better than you.

Though he fails to make a good argument to support his opinion, TSF does make an interesting point that no matter how correct a conservative statement made on NSG may be, it will not be accepted as such, due to the overwhelming bias of members of both this forum and the internet as a whole.

No, "Yusuf" is like Joseph. Osama would be more like, say, "Brent": not unheard-of, but not particularly common, until recently.

As long as his percentage support remains in double digits, that is too large to ignore. The "majority" of the Arab world doesn't support him, true; but I wouldn't call it a "vast" majority under these circumstances.

Posters, glorifying suicide attacks against Israeli Jews, adorn every Gaza street (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/09/08/MN94429.DTL&type=printable)
Jenin is so plastered with them that they line the main corridor of the government-run hospital (http://www.alternet.org/story/16462/)

1- Above 70% = vast majority. And certainly not enough to claim "Muslims don't speak against it, Muslim support it" like some BS-peddlers here insist on doing.

2- Still not evidence that mainstream Muslims support it; No doubt some American cities are have some racist publicity (especially with Obama in the Presidential race), but it doesn't mean the average American espouses those views.

Though he fails to make a good argument to support his opinion, TSF does make an interesting point that no matter how correct a conservative statement made on NSG may be, it will not be accepted as such, due to the overwhelming bias of members of both this forum and the internet as a whole.

The same thing applies to a liberal and Stormfront. He was arguing something else, though.

1- Above 70% = vast majority.
A matter of semantics. You would not find anything near as large as 0.1% support for the church shooter in the US. > 70% is a majority, but hardly as "vast" as > 99.9%
And certainly not enough to claim "Muslims don't speak against it, Muslim support it" like some BS-peddlers here insist on doing.
Muslims speaking against terrorism are rare enough that it is news when it happens, and the statements are generally marred by weasel-wording. And when we say "Muslims support terrorism" we do not mean "ALL Muslims..." but "too large a fraction to ignore".
2- Still not evidence that mainstream Muslims support it
??? You asked for "anywhere" that it is mainstream, and I show you places where it is far beyond mainstream, in fact OMNIPRESENT. What do you want? Evidence that "mainstream" humans have two arms and two legs?
No doubt some American cities are have some racist publicity (especially with Obama in the Presidential race), but it doesn't mean the average American espouses those views.
I have not seen anything of the sort. If there are such posters being put up somewhere, however, they would be quickly destroyed. The government would take them down (if not on the property of the person putting up the poster, and most such people are too cowardly to put their crap up on their own walls). In the cases I showed you, however, the posters are being put up by both major political parties, and some minor parties, who combined for 98% of the vote in the last elections: that is not just "mainstream", that is a VAST majority, no?

Police Say Church Gunman Hated Liberals (http://news.aol.com/article/police-say-church-gunman-hated-liberals/102408?icid=200100397x1206676525x1200339746)

Now, much as in a fair and impartial society this would be treated as an isolated society, were are dealing with a United States that expects certain groups to collectively apologize and loudly denounce terrible acts committed by a sliver of its demographics or otherwise they are considered to have unanimously supported this terrible crime.

But as the commentaries on the page shows, not only do some people not speak on behalf of conservatives and denounce this horrible shooting, but some even implicitly support the crime with such choice comments in the neighborhood of "I don't blame him for hating liberals." Hell, Mann Coulter was recorded as having declared liberals as traitors and let's not kid ourselves. She probably soaked her mangina when this story broke.

So why is it that when a member of one group does something horrible a collective apology is mandated, but when a member of another group does something horrible there's an automatic disavowal and isolation?

Apparently he hated Christians, too.

I really don't care who hates whom. It's not like the hatee is asking the hater to come down and shoot them. I see this as solely the hater's fault for going down there and shooting.

Muslims speaking against terrorism are rare enough that it is news when it happens, and the statements are generally marred by weasel-wording.

You're wrong. That you refuse to see them speaking against it is simply ignorance of reality, and that you actually think they all HAVE to is disingenuous. Are ALL Republican lawmakers speaking up against this guy?

Apparently he hated Christians, too.

Unitarian Universalists...

You're wrong.
Unfortunately, I'm not.
That you refuse to see them speaking against it is simply ignorance of reality
I HAVE seen those statements, when they occur. As I say, I find them weasel-worded. Would you like to supply me with an example of one you consider unambiguous?

Unfortunately, I'm not.

I HAVE seen those statements, when they occur. As I say, I find them weasel-worded. Would you like to supply me with an example of one you consider unambiguous?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7021323.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3713625.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3448735.stm

Unfortunately, I'm not.

I HAVE seen those statements, when they occur. As I say, I find them weasel-worded. Would you like to supply me with an example of one you consider unambiguous?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3059365.stm

If you hate liberals why attack a church? I mean i know that churches have gotten a little more liberal than they used to be but they're still pretty conservative.

If you hate liberals why attack a church? I mean i know that churches have gotten a little more liberal than they used to be but they're still pretty conservative.

Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion.

Unitarian Universalists...

In his letter, he specifically said, "Christians", and had bad things to say previously to a neighbor whose daughter went to a Bible college (Baptist).

Try again.

In his letter, he specifically said, "Christians", and had bad things to say previously to a neighbor whose daughter went to a Bible college (Baptist).

Try again.

But the church the shooting occurred at was a Unitarian Universalist church (and they are accepting of all religions).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7021323.stm
This is good, and I am glad that many (most, I hope) British Muslims wish to dissociate themselves from the bombings. It would be even better of course to hear such sentiments from the Arab world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3713625.stm
I am only too familiar with CAIR, which is often in my local papers (it is centered in Dearborn, near where I live). CAIR does not condemn violence by Muslims so much as condemning people who point out the existence of violence by Muslims, with all sorts of wordings about how "miniscule" the violent Muslims are, etc. leading up to how "absurd" it is to think that many Muslims support it (same kind of crap we see here on this board). When a local "charity" (the "Holy Land Foundation") was shut down for sending money to the families of suicide bombers, and a local restarateur was arrested for funneling money to Hamas (ran the "La Shish" chain, very good food; the chef has been recruited to cook for a new chain re-occupying some of the old sites), CAIR did not condemn Hamas, but rather condemned the FBI.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3448735.stm
The Saudis are condemning bombings against Saudis, urging Muslims to be "united" (and confine their attacks to non-Muslims).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3059365.stm
This sounds very good. It is too bad that this same fellow sings a very different tune when he is speaking in Arabic and thinks the West is not listening:
Sheikh Tantawi shows that he supports Jihad against coalition forces, and supports suicide bombings (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA13003)
Al-Azhar Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the highest-ranking cleric in the Sunni Muslim world, called the Jews "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs." (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sr&ID=SR01102)
[/QUOTE]

I am only too familiar with CAIR, which is often in my local papers (it is centered in Dearborn, near where I live). CAIR does not condemn violence by Muslims so much as condemning people who point out the existence of violence by Muslims, with all sorts of wordings about how "miniscule" the violent Muslims are, etc. leading up to how "absurd" it is to think that many Muslims support it (same kind of crap we see here on this board). When a local "charity" (the "Holy Land Foundation") was shut down for sending money to the families of suicide bombers, and a local restarateur was arrested for funneling money to Hamas (ran the "La Shish" chain, very good food; the chef has been recruited to cook for a new chain re-occupying some of the old sites), CAIR did not condemn Hamas, but rather condemned the FBI.

I'd be interested in seeing a link for this.

I am only too familiar with CAIR, which is often in my local papers (it is centered in Dearborn, near where I live). CAIR does not condemn violence by Muslims so much as condemning people who point out the existence of violence by Muslims, with all sorts of wordings about how "miniscule" the violent Muslims are, etc. leading up to how "absurd" it is to think that many Muslims support it (same kind of crap we see here on this board). When a local "charity" (the "Holy Land Foundation") was shut down for sending money to the families of suicide bombers, and a local restarateur was arrested for funneling money to Hamas (ran the "La Shish" chain, very good food; the chef has been recruited to cook for a new chain re-occupying some of the old sites), CAIR did not condemn Hamas, but rather condemned the FBI.

Do you have any links for that?

The Saudis are condemning bombings against Saudis, urging Muslims to be "united" (and confine their attacks to non-Muslims).
From the article:

"The meanings of the Eid in Islam are many," said the message from King Fahd and Crown Prince Abdullah, which was read out on TV by Information Minister Fuad al-Farsi.

"They include uniting the Muslim nation on the good, away from hatred, extremism and terror which lead to mayhem and destruction which Islam has forbade and warned against."

Seem to be condemning all terrorism to me but I'm sure you can show where in the article the Saudi royal family encouraged attacks on the west.

I'd be interested in seeing a link for this.
CAIR and the "Holy Land" Foundation (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=152579F0-B82B-4746-90A9-C34792AEC15F)
La Shish case (http://cicentre.com/Documents/DOC_Prouty_Case.html)
Dearborn connections in the La Shish case (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/05/desperate_but_n_1.html)

CAIR and the "Holy Land" Foundation (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=152579F0-B82B-4746-90A9-C34792AEC15F)
La Shish case (http://cicentre.com/Documents/DOC_Prouty_Case.html)
Dearborn connections in the La Shish case (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/05/desperate_but_n_1.html)

LOL. Any from a major news organisation?

From the article:
Also from the article:
"The Saudi authorities have been actively pursuing Islamic militants since suicide bombers struck at foreign diplomatic compounds in Riyadh last May. "
There have been many other bombings, which have not been followed by any such statements from the Saudis, because (not coincidentally) the targets were not in Saudi Arabia.
Seem to be condemning all terrorism to me
That's what it's supposed to seem like.
but I'm sure you can show where in the article the Saudi royal family encouraged attacks on the west.
Of course they don't make statements openly encouraging attacks elsewhere: they maintain discreet silence about those. Only attacks on Saudi soil bring any kind of statement from them.
LOL. Any from a major news organisation?
Searching the Detroit Free Press archives costs money. I assure you these events were heavily reported at the time.

Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion.

Really? I am a member of the UUs myself and my children were dedicated in a wonderful ceremony. I am an atheist but my wife is somewhat religious. The UUs are not liberal, they are all-inclusive which means that they accept everyone without judging them. Something that liberals and progressives have completely forgotten.

The UUs have libertarians, conservatives, and even liberals as members and debate (actual debate, not the stupidity you engage in) is lively and engaging and ususally followed by friendly banter afterward.

The organization, as a whole, as stances that I completely disagree with but so do most religions and organizations. I don't mind the UUs because I am allowed to state my opinion without being shouted down in the manner you are accustomed to.

Once again, an example of your ignorance on a topic that you feel free to spout off about.

Also from the article:
"The Saudi authorities have been actively pursuing Islamic militants since suicide bombers struck at foreign diplomatic compounds in Riyadh last May. "
There have been many other bombings, which have not been followed by any such statements from the Saudis, because (not coincidentally) the targets were not in Saudi Arabia.

That's what it's supposed to seem like.

Of course they don't make statements openly encouraging attacks elsewhere: they maintain discreet silence about those. Only attacks on Saudi soil bring any kind of statement from them.

Searching the Detroit Free Press archives costs money. I assure you these events were heavily reported at the time.

Oh I get it. You in the CIA and want to warn us about the plottings of Muslims you've picked up on your secret spy satellites without us knowing who you really are. After all, how else would you know the thoughts of the Saudi royal family?

It's ok, I won't blow you cover.

Really? I am a member of the UUs myself and my children were dedicated in a wonderful ceremony. I am an atheist but my wife is somewhat religious. The UUs are not liberal, they are all-inclusive which means that they accept everyone without judging them. Something that liberals and progressives have completely forgotten.

The UUs have libertarians, conservatives, and even liberals as members and debate (actual debate, not the stupidity you engage in) is lively and engaging and ususally followed by friendly banter afterward.

The organization, as a whole, as stances that I completely disagree with but so do most religions and organizations. I don't mind the UUs because I am allowed to state my opinion without being shouted down in the manner you are accustomed to.

Once again, an example of your ignorance on a topic that you feel free to spout off about.

So, the UU is against gay marriage? Against separation of church and state? And so on? Please. You come here, flame and flamebait, and act like you're actually debating, all the while trying to weasel when the subject matter is FACTS. As far as religions go, UU is a liberal one, PRECISELY because it's tolerant. The Conservatives are the ones that are against gays, against non-Christians, and so on and so forth. Between liberals and conservatives, the group that tends to accept people without judging them are liberals.

Oh I get it. You in the CIA and want to warn us about the plottings of Muslims you've picked up on your secret spy satellites without us knowing who you really are.
There was nothing remotely "secret" about this. Talil Chahine was as prominent in Dearborn society as Mrs. Astor in 1920's New York: he hosted all the big parties where all the major Arab businessmen and their families got together. His indictment and flight to Lebanon, the arrest of many of his relatives and associates, and the collapse of his restaurant empire and other businesses were an ongoing saga in the local papers for a couple years. The affair did not make the global press, sorry, but since I live here and you don't, I know more about it than you do.
After all, how else would you know the thoughts of the Saudi royal family?
We are talking about what does, and does not, provoke overt statements from them. Bombings in Saudi Arabia? A condemnatory statement, urging Muslims to be "united". Bombings elsewhere? Zero, zip, nil, nada, nothing.
It's ok, I won't blow you cover.[/QUOTE]

1- Read Ann Coulter.

Relevance? Has she said anything of importance about the gunman?


2- Admit you're wrong..

Be more specific, please. Are you saying Ann Coulter and her followers actually support this kind of violence? Do you have proof?

The vast majority of the Arab world doesn't like him. ..

Define vast. Then prove the assertion.

Osama is frighteningly popular. Granted, less so now, as we've turned tens of thousands of his most ardent followers into mulch, but he's still a hero. Remember, there are a billion muslims. If only 10% are fundy wackjobs, that's a 100,000,000 human time bombs hidden amongst the population.


http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0506/S00007.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/11/poll.pakistanis/index.html?eref=rss_topstories


Show me the damn posters. Show me them being mainstream anywhere. Go ahead...


well... ok...

http://flickr.com/photos/commonlanguage/213092499/
http://flickr.com/photos/michaelimage/503618350/
http://www.jamd.com/search?assettype=g&assetid=854214&text=osama+poster
http://flickr.com/photos/michaelimage/506845932/

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://farm1.static.flickr.com/79/213092499_6de9135616.jpg%3Fv%3D0&imgrefurl=http://flickr.com/photos/commonlanguage/213092499/&h=500&w=324&sz=74&hl=en&start=41&tbnid=6Z5wYKAgfaZFaM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=84&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dosama%2Bposter%26start%3D40%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

Or lose this argument as your point crashes and burns. ....

But since I did, then I won, right, and YOUR argument crashes and burns? Or do you get to move the goal posts now? Because that's what's coming, right. Your're going to say: "A public space in Peshawar isn't mainstream ENOUGH, I demand to see WE LOVE OSAMA in neon in Lahore or your entire framework has utterly failed!!!", or "But 2 of your examples are Palestinians, and for them, supporting a terrorist is okay because they're oppressed" or something like that, right?

Instead, having easily passed your challenge, I respond with one of my own.

To prove that opposition to Osama, and Fundamentalist Jihadist Violence in general is NOT mainstream, simply accomplish the following:

Demonstrate that Osama and company have twisted the meaning of Islam to a level unacceptable to the mainstream Islamic community, by providing evidence that at least one conservative Muslim nation has tried him for blasphemy, or apostasy, such as the trials reported (for offenses such as suggesting equality for women) in Egypt, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sudan, etc.

Let's drop the pretentious BS here. If an Egyptian is guilty of Blasphemy and sentenced to prison for saying this:

"If religions are for all times and places, why have most societies not adhered to them?" the author asks. "Where is the truth? What is right? What is wrong?"

then, I challenge you: Show me the equivalent trial based on Osama's words, or admit that Osama has not actually twisted, betrayed, or insulted his religion to anywhere near an equal degree.

And if THAT is the case, I maintain that mainstream Islam has NOT done enough to distance themselves.

And your font size is irrelevant.

then, I challenge you: Show me the equivalent trial based on Osama's words, or admit that Osama has not actually twisted, betrayed, or insulted his religion to anywhere near an equal degree.

And if THAT is the case, I maintain that mainstream Islam has NOT done enough to distance themselves.

And your font size is irrelevant.

Osama hasn't been tried in absentia in Brazil for what he said and did, either. Neither was he tried in Japan, in Canada... So, these nations support him?

And yes, Islam has done more than enough. Your belief that it's a hivemind and your unwillingness to ascribe to it anything but its worse members is less relevant than my font size.

Also from the article:
"The Saudi authorities have been actively pursuing Islamic militants since suicide bombers struck at foreign diplomatic compounds in Riyadh last May. "
The article says this.


There have been many other bombings, which have not been followed by any such statements from the Saudis, because (not coincidentally) the targets were not in Saudi Arabia.


The article doesn't say this. That's your opinion.

Be more specific, please. Are you saying Ann Coulter and her followers actually support this kind of violence? Do you have proof?

Here's the most appropriate one from Mann Coulter:

When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors.

- Conservative Political Action Conference February 26, 2002

Between liberals and conservatives, the group that tends to accept people without judging them are liberals.

That's a judgement. You must be a conservative!

But seriously, there is a definition gap between Socially Liberal/Conservative, Economically Liberal/Conservative and foreign policy Hawk/Dove. I am all for gay marriage, saving whales, polar bears and pandas, progressive taxation, freedom of speech, teaching evolution, church-state separation, alternative energy, trans-racial adoptions, and public support of establishment challenging avante-garde arts.

And I support the right to own a gun, or own and run a business with the minimum possible level of government burden.

And I believe that violent threats to our happy liberal world should be dealt with by extreme physical force when necessary.

Socially mostly Liberal, Economic mix, defense Hawk.

Reality is way to complex for single axis classification these days. That is sooooo 20th century.

That's a judgement. You must be a conservative!

But seriously, there is a definition gap between Socially Liberal/Conservative, Economically Liberal/Conservative and foreign policy Hawk/Dove. I am all for gay marriage, saving whales, polar bears and pandas, progressive taxation, freedom of speech, teaching evolution, church-state separation, alternative energy, trans-racial adoptions, and public support of establishment challenging avante-garde arts.

And I support the right to own a gun, or own and run a business with the minimum possible level of government burden.

And I believe that violent threats to our happy liberal world should be dealt with by extreme physical force when necessary.

Socially mostly Liberal, Economic mix, defense Hawk.

Reality is way to complex for single axis classification these days. That is sooooo 20th century.

OMFG.... someone who actually has a brain in their head..

That's a judgement. You must be a conservative!

But seriously, there is a definition gap between Socially Liberal/Conservative, Economically Liberal/Conservative and foreign policy Hawk/Dove. I am all for gay marriage, saving whales, polar bears and pandas, progressive taxation, freedom of speech, teaching evolution, church-state separation, alternative energy, trans-racial adoptions, and public support of establishment challenging avante-garde arts.

And I support the right to own a gun, or own and run a business with the minimum possible level of government burden.

And I believe that violent threats to our happy liberal world should be dealt with by extreme physical force when necessary.

Socially mostly Liberal, Economic mix, defense Hawk.

Reality is way to complex for single axis classification these days. That is sooooo 20th century.

You're a libertarian lite. So, yeah.

[QUOTE=Gauthier;13878073]Here's the most appropriate one from Mann Coulter:

Soooo:

the most appropriate one you can find has her calling for the execution of a member of the Taliban?

And you consider calling for the killing- by the state- of terrorists somehow similar to supporting an attack on a church full of innocent people?

I don't follow. Are you saying that the people in that church, like John Lindh, fought for the Taliban?

Or that they were in some way comparable to the Taliban?

Huh?

OMFG.... someone who actually has a brain in their head..

You do realize that, if you put it this way, you're implying not only that the rest doesn't, but also that you yourself don't?

the most appropriate one you can find has her calling for the execution of a member of the Taliban?

She's implying that liberals are like the Taliban, that they should be killed as well, and so on. She's saying that people like that guy are "liberals" and that they must be "intimidated" lest they become traitors. So, yeah.

Here's the most appropriate one from Mann Coulter:

Soooo:

the most appropriate one you can find has her calling for the execution of a member of the Taliban?

And you consider calling for the killing- by the state- of terrorists somehow similar to supporting an attack on a church full of innocent people?

I don't follow. Are you saying that the people in that church, like John Lindh, fought for the Taliban?

Or that they were in some way comparable to the Taliban?

Huh?

And obviously you're missing the part where she's calling for the execution as a deliberate act of terrorism against "liberals," especially highlighting it as a "You can be killed too" warning. But hey, you don't want to think that God-fearing Bush-worshipping right wingers are capable of bloody violence against unarmed people just liek dem ebil mozlems are huh? Never mind that Adkisson told cops he blamed liberals for his unemployment and benefit cutoffs, hated liberal politics, had O'Reilly, Hannity and Savage Weiner as part of his book collection back home, and specifically targeted the UU church for their liberal social policies.

As Heikoku said, she's also implying liberals are just like the Taliban, deserving only of death.

You're a libertarian lite. So, yeah.

Not nearly. No libertarian would support public arts, or progressive taxation. Not even a "lite" one. In fact, libertarians are notoriously short on environmentalist ideas, somehow they get the idea that if the whole environement was privately owned, people would take better care of it jsut because they'd want to.

Your classifications are obsolete. We are in a new century.

You do realize that, if you put it this way, you're implying not only that the rest doesn't, but also that you yourself don't?

Mayhaps it was meant sarcastically…

Osama hasn't been tried in absentia in Brazil for what he said and did, either. Neither was he tried in Japan, in Canada... So, these nations support him?


CLUE: Do any of those nations have blasphemy trials for ANYONE?

My point: Has any nation which holds blasphemy/apostacy trials at all EVER used it on a Jihadi?

I won.

...In fact, libertarians are notoriously short on environmentalist ideas, somehow they get the idea that if the whole environment was privately owned, people would take better care of it just because they'd want to.

I wouldn't say short on ideas. Check out this link (http://www.ti.org/faqs.html) for anyone misunderstanding free-market environmentalism.

She's implying that liberals are like the Taliban, that they should be killed as well, and so on. She's saying that people like that guy are "liberals" and that they must be "intimidated" lest they become traitors. So, yeah.

You're probably reading through your own bias. I took that sentence literally, kill Lindh to remind them that if they go down that road and become people LIKE LINDH, they can be killed. I am all for killing people "like" Lindh, they are a great danger to innocent, decent people throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Makes more sense if you don't try to read between the lines. If you want to twist and interpret, have fun, but don't blame her for saying what you decide she "really meant".

The article says this.
Correct. Hence the quotation marks.
The article doesn't say this.
Correct. Hence the absence of quotation marks. I did not mean to imply that the BBC piece was written by a time-traveller offering commentatory on events which had not yet occurred, and did not anticipate anyone taking it so.
That's your opinion.
Half-correct: "There have been many other bombings, which have not been followed by any such statements from the Saudis" is a statement of fact; but "because (not coincidentally) the targets were not in Saudi Arabia" was my opinion. If you wish to argue for the opposing opinion, that it is sheer coincidence, then do so.

You're probably reading through your own bias. I took that sentence literally, kill Lindh to remind them that if they go down that road and become people LIKE LINDH, they can be killed. I am all for killing people "like" Lindh, they are a great danger to innocent, decent people throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Makes more sense if you don't try to read between the lines. If you want to twist and interpret, have fun, but don't blame her for saying what you decide she "really meant".

It's Mann Coulter you're defending. Why else would she specifically cite "Liberals" in her screed? In her ideology, Liberals Are Traitors.

I wouldn't say short on ideas. Check out this link (http://www.ti.org/faqs.html) for anyone misunderstanding free-market environmentalism.


Point taken. Consider my sentence clarified to "ideas I consider workable".

Leaving it to corporations and private owners, no. Your own link shows why- they define marketable and non marketable value, but they seem to think the only non-marketable value is scenic beauty. If it's not pretty, screw it? We need tundras, deserts, and swamps, too.

Swamps especially. Destroying them has made flooding worse across many parts of the US.

It's Mann Coulter you're defending. Why else would she specifically cite "Liberals" in her screed? In her ideology, Liberals Are Traitors.


She is a ranting psychopath, but we're trying to link her to "actually promoting a murderer as a hero" and it just ain't there.

In America, you are free to be a ranting psychopath- of any political persuasion.

You're probably reading through your own bias. I took that sentence literally, kill Lindh to remind them that if they go down that road and become people LIKE LINDH, they can be killed. I am all for killing people "like" Lindh, they are a great danger to innocent, decent people throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Makes more sense if you don't try to read between the lines. If you want to twist and interpret, have fun, but don't blame her for saying what you decide she "really meant".

Hang on, you were doing exactly the same thing a minute ago.

Are you a hypocrite?

She is a ranting psychopath, but we're trying to link her to "actually promoting a murderer as a hero" and it just ain't there.

In America, you are free to be a ranting psychopath- of any political persuasion.

That's like trying to prove that an anti-abortion Web hit list is a "deliberate" attempt to incite murder against physicians or that some of the most evil people in the world considered themselves Evil. Short of cartoon villain stupidity, there's always going to be the Plausible Deniability copout included. But you'd have to be incredibly dense to deny that Right Wing Talking points had a siginificant part in influencing Adkisson towards gunning down the people at the church.

The right to be a ranting psychopath ends when your rants encourage people to actual violence.

CLUE: Do any of those nations have blasphemy trials for ANYONE?

My point: Has any nation which holds blasphemy/apostacy trials at all EVER used it on a Jihadi?

I won.

Feel free to account for the law regarding trials in absentia in those countries, as well as trials for crimes committed outside them, and so on.

She is a ranting psychopath, but we're trying to link her to "actually promoting a murderer as a hero" and it just ain't there.

In America, you are free to be a ranting psychopath- of any political persuasion.

Let me take it to the next step for the benefit of Heikoku:

And as I have proved to you, in Islamic nations there ARE people, a significant number, who DO promote murderers as heros.

Bear in mind the law of large numbers. There are 300 million of us. 1 going bonkers every now and then, it's going to happen, deal with it. But Osama polled better than Musharraf in Pakistan, and killing is happening there on a regular basis.

Let me take it to the next step for the benefit of Heikoku:

And as I have proved to you, in Islamic nations there ARE people, a significant number, who DO promote murderers as heros.

*To the tune of "the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round"

You failed to prove the bolded part, bolded part, bolded part...

Feel free to account for the law regarding trials in absentia in those countries.


I have. Some of those nations have captured Jihadis- Egypt, for example, has rounded up quite a few. But they dare not publicly accuse the Jihadis of misrepresenting Islam to the degree that warrants a blasphemy trial.

In other words, the fact is, if you are captured by Egyptian security forces and maintain that Islam should adopt equality for women, you will be accused of blasphemy. It happened. If you are captured and maintain that Islam commands you to kill non-Islamic civilians, then no.

Which do YOU think is the bigger misrepresentation of Islam?

Let me take it to the next step for the benefit of Heikoku:

And as I have proved to you, in Islamic nations there ARE people, a significant number, who DO promote murderers as heros.

Bear in mind the law of large numbers. There are 300 million of us. 1 going bonkers every now and then, it's going to happen, deal with it. But Osama polled better than Musharraf in Pakistan, and killing is happening there on a regular basis.

And you're trying to compare the United States to theocracies and dictatorships in an attempt to both distance Adkisson from the Right Wing and reinforce the Ebil Mozlem Hyvemynd stereotype. Brilliant.

Let me know when this sort of shit happens in Turkey or Indonesia.

I have. Some of those nations have captured Jihadis- Egypt, for example, has rounded up quite a few. But they dare not publicly accuse the Jihadis of misrepresenting Islam to the degree that warrants a blasphemy trial.

In other words, the fact is, if you are captured by Egyptian security forces and maintain that Islam should adopt equality for women, you will be accused of blasphemy. It happened. If you are captured and maintain that Islam commands you to kill non-Islamic civilians, then no.

Which do YOU think is the bigger misrepresentation of Islam?

Which is why there's now a warrant in Egypt for Obama, Clinton and McCain, the three of which made at points in their careers remarks on the true nature of Islam?

*To the tune of "the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round"

You failed to prove the bolded part, bolded part, bolded part...

Don't tempt me. YOU didn't even believe I could find the posters!

The quantity of pro-jihadi propaganda, funding, and short lived volunteers obviously available proves that the resource pool is significant.

The fact that the Taliban can hold off the PAKISTANI ARMY proves that the numbers are significant.

Try this: YOU prove me wrong, for a change. YOU come up with some evidence that support for radical islam is insignificant.

Don't tempt me. YOU didn't even believe I could find the posters!

The quantity of pro-jihadi propaganda, funding, and short lived volunteers obviously available proves that the resource pool is significant.

The fact that the Taliban can hold off the PAKISTANI ARMY proves that the numbers are significant.

Try this: YOU prove me wrong, for a change. YOU come up with some evidence that support for radical islam is insignificant.

I didn't say it's insignificant. I said it's a small minority not unlike the one that supported, for instance, Jerry Falwell's views.

Which is why there's now a warrant in Egypt for Obama, Clinton and McCain, the three of which made at points in their careers remarks on the true nature of Islam?


You're right. I completely agree. Egypt wouldn't DARE accuse them of blasphemy because they know it would anger a significant number of people. And Egypt wouldn't DARE accuse a Moslem Brotherhood member of blasphemy (they'll lock him up for other, more secular reasons!) because... they... would... anger.. a...

come on... say it...

you're almost there...

You know the reality at this point.

I didn't say it's insignificant. .

Not technically.

You challenged me to prove that it was significant.

Now you say, "not insignificant."

Sir, you are a weasel.

Don't tempt me. YOU didn't even believe I could find the posters!

The quantity of pro-jihadi propaganda, funding, and short lived volunteers obviously available proves that the resource pool is significant.

The fact that the Taliban can hold off the PAKISTANI ARMY proves that the numbers are significant.

Try this: YOU prove me wrong, for a change. YOU come up with some evidence that support for radical islam is insignificant.

Prove all you wish Mott, H2 has no capacity to alter his\her thinking when presented with fact. But you will be told how you got your "behind handed to you" a number of times. Remember: H2 is full of win!

You failed to prove the bolded part, bolded part, bolded part...
You are incorrect. He cited polls showing that 46% of the Pakistanis support Osama. That is SIGNIFICANT. It is true that a "majority" do not support Osama, but that is a "bare majority", not a "vast majority". And when you say
it's a small minority
who support terrorism, I'm sorry but: hundreds of millions of people are not a small group by any reasonable usage of the term.

Let me know when this sort of shit happens in Turkey or Indonesia.

Why? The former is blissfully short of religious fanatics, thanks to a more cosmopolitan populace and the efforts of a secular army. The latter, has them, but they are kind enough to make sure most of the news doesn't reach here. But if you are reaching for a "safe" Moslem nation, why not Tunisia? Very few freaks there. Azerbaijan?

Do not try to prop me up as a strawman, when I refer to a Jihadi, radical muslim extremist, etc, that is exactly what I am referring to, not the guy who runs the falafel stand with his wife. But there are a lot of Jihadi radicals, and only one nutjob church shooter.

Ergo, if you are claiming that the supportive rhetoric is the same in each case, you must admit, the right wing conservative rhetoric must be pretty weak. 300 million Americans and it only gets through to one. Lame. Why the concern? Do you actually think that across the country, conservatives are inspired by this and running for their gun racks, ready to storm YMCA's and shoot? If you round up the crazed conservative actions of decade, it won't match what Pakistanis have to endure in a typical month.

Prove all you wish Mott, H2 has no capacity to alter his\her thinking when presented with fact. But you will be told how you got your "behind handed to you" a number of times. Remember: H2 is full of win!

Shush, I'm arguing with a person here that acts respectable, as opposed to your flaming and baiting.

For that matter, what the fuck is your problem with me anyways?

You are incorrect. He cited polls showing that 46% of the Pakistanis support Osama. That is SIGNIFICANT. It is true that a "majority" do not support Osama, but that is a "bare majority", not a "vast majority". And when you say

who support terrorism, I'm sorry but: hundreds of millions of people are not a small group by any reasonable usage of the term.

You see, among a few billions, it is. For the same reason that the millions of listeners Michael Savage, who listen to him claiming that liberals are sexual deviants, are also a minority of an otherwise reasonable American populace.

You see, among a few billions, it is.
No, it isn't.
For the same reason that the millions of listeners Michael Savage, who listen to him claiming that liberals are sexual deviants, are also a minority of an otherwise reasonable American populace.
A minority, yes. A "small" one, NO.

You're right. I completely agree. Egypt wouldn't DARE accuse them of blasphemy because they know it would anger a significant number of people. And Egypt wouldn't DARE accuse a Moslem Brotherhood member of blasphemy (they'll lock him up for other, more secular reasons!) because... they... would... anger.. a...

come on... say it...

you're almost there...

You know the reality at this point.

For much the same reason why politicians won't openly say they respect separation of church and state in America. Shall I proceed with THAT line of thought?

No, it isn't.

A minority, yes. A "small" one, NO.

I THINK we're arguing semantics here.

[QUOTE]So, the UU is against gay marriage?

Some are. Me included.

Stay with me. There is the concept of marriage as a religious institution. As such, government has no right to define it in any way, shape, or form. What they can do is allow two people to draw up a contract for cohabitation which would mingle finances, property, and legal stipulations on resulting offspring. There, no marriage, no need to defend it.

See? That is how thinking people handle things.

Against separation of church and state?

Many Conservatives are for separation of church and state. The way it was meant in the Constitution. See above.

And so on? Please. You come here, flame and flamebait, and act like you're actually debating, all the while trying to weasel when the subject matter is FACTS.

Flamebait = What H2 disagrees with. Yes, we have gone over this before. Now facts are the tools of the weasel!

As far as religions go, UU is a liberal one, PRECISELY because it's tolerant.

If you are an example of liberalism would you classify your attempts to shout others down as tolerant? Are you tolerant of Christians? Of Conservatives? I would say that Libertarians, AKA Classical Liberals (big difference), are far more tolerant than the shouting, fascist hordes that make up the Progressive/Liberal movement of today.

My local UUs have embraced my view of marriage completely. It took a while but it totally fits with the separation of church and state.

The Conservatives are the ones that are against gays, against non-Christians, and so on and so forth.

Are they all? You seem to have no problem demonizing Conservatives. Most Conservatives I know really don't care about what goes on the bedroom of someone else. What they do care about are special rights conferred upon a person for what they do in the bedroom. What they do care about is having that agenda forced upon their children. Those are valid concerns in my book since I believe, as a Classical Liberal, that the parents have supreme rights over their own children.

Sure, there are Conservative haters but there are also a whole army of Liberal haters as well.

Between liberals and conservatives, the group that tends to accept people without judging them are liberals.

Really? Put on a Rush Limbaugh t-shirt and stroll through Berkley and tell me how that goes for you. Once again, you haven't a clue as to what Conservatives, UUs, or Libertarians are about. Liberals are the ones who judge mostly on race, class, and religion and which ones are victims/oppressors. It is all they think about.

Flamebait = What H2 disagrees with. Yes, we have gone over this before. Now facts are the tools of the weasel!

No, flamebait is you trying to infuriate me, which you have been doing for the better part of two days, by calling me mentally unbalanced, by claiming liberals and leftists deserve pity, and so on, and so forth. And you will stop. NOW.

As for "shouting you down", who between us is the one making blanket statements? Who between us is the one calling the other "emotionally unbalanced"? Go ahead and tell me.

Why? The former is blissfully short of religious fanatics, thanks to a more cosmopolitan populace and the efforts of a secular army. The latter, has them, but they are kind enough to make sure most of the news doesn't reach here. But if you are reaching for a "safe" Moslem nation, why not Tunisia? Very few freaks there. Azerbaijan?

So why is that when NSGers talk about Muslim nations they never mention Tunisia or Azerbaijain? Nope, they always talk about the headline grabbers like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Egypt. Where there's anything but true republics and where the jihadis run wild so The Liberal Media can say that's what all Muslims are really like.

And what do you mean by "kind enough to make sure most of the news doesn't reach here?" If you're stating censorship, that's pretty laughable. If a solid dictatorship like Mugabestan can't keep the media clamped down, why would radicals in a more open society have a better shot at it?

Do not try to prop me up as a strawman, when I refer to a Jihadi, radical muslim extremist, etc, that is exactly what I am referring to, not the guy who runs the falafel stand with his wife. But there are a lot of Jihadi radicals, and only one nutjob church shooter.

Ergo, if you are claiming that the supportive rhetoric is the same in each case, you must admit, the right wing conservative rhetoric must be pretty weak. 300 million Americans and it only gets through to one. Lame. Why the concern? Do you actually think that across the country, conservatives are inspired by this and running for their gun racks, ready to storm YMCA's and shoot? If you round up the crazed conservative actions of decade, it won't match what Pakistanis have to endure in a typical month.

The primary reason for the difference in numbers is the economic affluence of the populace. Adkisson is the classic example of the target demographics of demagogues and extremists. Low education, low economic status and desperate. Even with the housing bubble the United States is still a better place to live for the average human being than almost all of the Middle Eastern nationstates where radicalism run rampant. If Adkisson had a decent job and kept himself fed, he wouldn't have had much reason to go shooting up the church despite his reading up on Hannity, O'Reilly and Savage Wiener.

The same goes for the hundreds of Muslim Jim Adkissons over in the Middle East. If they had education and money, they wouldn't be succeptible to radical preachings and be influenced towards violence by them. And you'd have to be smoking some premium crack to think that those theocracies and dictatorships afford a superb life for the average Middle Easterner in the way of the United States.

Money and Education is the best way to prevent hate crimes, but as we've just seen the average American is more than happy to attribute intolerance to Muslims alone and dismiss or downplay any instances of the same types of behavior amongst their own ranks. Usually by playing the Numbers Game.

For much the same reason why politicians won't openly say they respect separation of church and state in America.
Bullshit.
"For my friends on the right, I think it would be helpful to remember the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy but also our religious practice." -- Obama (http://mainstreambaptist.blogspot.com/2007/07/barak-obama-on-separation-of-church-and.html)
"And consider that for more than two centuries Americans have endorsed, and properly so, the separation of church and state." -- Bush I (http://www.adherents.com/people/pb/George_HW_Bush.html)
Even McCain (http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=9504): "I think that the founding fathers believed in the separation of church and state, and they state it unequivocally, but they also continued to emphasize the Christian principle--in God we trust, we are created equal"

All American politicians need to make statements affirming separation (the kind of statements you believe they never make) even if (like McCain) they are actually ambivalent about it, because support for the concept remains strong (63% by latest Pew poll).
I THINK we're arguing semantics here.
I think you are deliberately blurring the semantics, trying to confuse things which are of wildly different orders of magnitudes.

No, flamebait is you trying to infuriate me, which you have been doing for the better part of two days, by calling me mentally unbalanced, by claiming liberals and leftists deserve pity, and so on, and so forth.

Now delusions of persecution! What, in my initial post on this thread, targetted you specifically? Your vanity is not my issue.

And you will stop. NOW.

Ummm... No, I won't? I will continue to speak my mind just as you are free to speak yours. Amazing. Truly you are a showcase of liberal thought. You actually believe you can tell me what I can and cannot do.

As for "shouting you down", who between us is the one making blanket statements? Who between us is the one calling the other "emotionally unbalanced"? Go ahead and tell me.

You make blanket statements all the time about America, Americans, Conservatives, Libertarians, etc. Why am I not allowed to do the same? Unless, of course, it irks you that my blanket statements are backed up by a little thing called "reality"?

Once again, your post is an excellent example of very things I am pointing out.

But I did notice you avoided the UU issue and the evil Conservatives point. I reckon you were attempting to hide those blanket statements?

Most Conservatives I know really don't care about what goes on the bedroom of someone else. What they do care about are special rights conferred upon a person for what they do in the bedroom.
The right to keep my job if I do the work, to stay in my apartment if I pay the rent? The same right to take care of my loved ones as anyone else?

So why is that when NSGers talk about Muslim nations they never mention Tunisia or Azerbaijain? Nope, they always talk about the headline grabbers like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Egypt. Where there's anything but true republics and where the jihadis run wild so The Liberal Media can say that's what all Muslims are really like.


I've been to Tunisia, twice. And I have talked about it on NSG. It's a big smelly toilet; full of corruption and poverty, and it smells like an open sewer.

Also, there is not one decent restaurant in that whole damn place. It's also had its moments of flirtation with extremism and corruption. The only reason why its probably not more notorious is that:1) Habib Bourgiba was our man and ruled w/ a fist of iron, and 2) They keep wanting to have a tourist industry.

Not worth a visit though, even though you can go to Tatooine and Carthage.

Egypt, on the other hand is an absolute must see, and definitely worth a visit by anyone who gets the chance. Some decent-ish resorts too. Shame the monotheists are trying to ruin it.

Now delusions of persecution! What, in my initial post on this thread, targetted you specifically? Your vanity is not my issue.



Ummm... No, I won't? I will continue to speak my mind just as you are free to speak yours. Amazing. Truly you are a showcase of liberal thought. You actually believe you can tell me what I can and cannot do.



You make blanket statements all the time about America, Americans, Conservatives, Libertarians, etc. Why am I not allowed to do the same? Unless, of course, it irks you that my blanket statements are backed up by a little thing called "reality"?

Once again, your post is an excellent example of very things I am pointing out.

But I did notice you avoided the UU issue and the evil Conservatives point. I reckon you were attempting to hide those blanket statements?

1- I answered, and properly, to your blanket statement. Then you started targeting me.

2- I believe I can tell you you can't flamebait in here, yes.

3- Show me when I made blanket statements on conservatives with the same malice as the ones you made about liberals. And prove yours are backed by reality, which will be hard, for they are not.

4- YOU changed the subject of the argument when YOU started attacking ME again.

But you'd have to be incredibly dense to deny that Right Wing Talking points had a siginificant part in influencing Adkisson towards gunning down the people at the church.


But claiming that extreme but popular Islamic rhetoric and talking points had a significant part in influencing terrorism and extremism seems always to get you particularly angry.

Bullshit.
"For my friends on the right, I think it would be helpful to remember the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy but also our religious practice." -- Obama (http://mainstreambaptist.blogspot.com/2007/07/barak-obama-on-separation-of-church-and.html)
"And consider that for more than two centuries Americans have endorsed, and properly so, the separation of church and state." -- Bush I (http://www.adherents.com/people/pb/George_HW_Bush.html)
Even McCain (http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=9504): "I think that the founding fathers believed in the separation of church and state, and they state it unequivocally, but they also continued to emphasize the Christian principle--in God we trust, we are created equal"

All American politicians need to make statements affirming separation (the kind of statements you believe they never make) even if (like McCain) they are actually ambivalent about it, because support for the concept remains strong (63% by latest Pew poll).

I think you are deliberately blurring the semantics, trying to confuse things which are of wildly different orders of magnitudes.

The simple fact is that churches are a business. They accept money to perform a service and as such should be subject to all legislation pertaining to refusal of service based on racial, sexual and sexuality grounds. If churches want to provide all of their services for free then I would say they can escape these laws.

The same goes for the hundreds of Muslim Jim Adkissons over in the Middle East. If they had education and money, they wouldn't be succeptible to radical preachings and be influenced towards violence by them.


It's not the poor in the ME that are the trouble makers. In fact, I'm sure most of the poor would be glad to be rid of those arseholes too. No, the troublemakers are the middle class legacy of the cold war.

But claiming that extreme but popular Islamic rhetoric and talking points had a significant part in influencing terrorism and extremism seems always to get you particularly angry.

Doesn't get me angry, because it's true. Of course the succeptibility to those rhetorics and talking points depend on the individual's financial and mental status. However, saying that it applies to each and every Muslim as a whole because they have a telepathic link to Osama Bin Ladin as plenty of threads on NSG have implicitly or explicitly declared gets very annoying. Especially when those are then used to justify profiling, internment or even outright death or sterilization.

Nobody's called for the right wing to be profiled, interned, executed or sterilized en masse. And in siginifcant numbers unlike the calls for the same against Muslims.

The right to keep my job if I do the work, to stay in my apartment if I pay the rent? The same right to take care of my loved ones as anyone else?

I am sure you will find some whack-job conservative who believes all rights should be stripped from gays but please show me a mainstream Conservative voice calling for gays to be fired or pushed into the street.

The take care of loved ones argument can be solved through legal contracts for couples and abolishing state approval of marriage for everyone. The insurance company I work for already allows same sex couples to claim their partner as a dependent. Amazingly, in such a hate-filled nation, that policy has paid off many times over. People love that policy and we have been rewarded for it. Another example of a private business innovations that promote good behavior.

Doesn't get me angry, because it's true. However, saying that it applies to each and every Muslim as a whole because they have a telepathic link to Osama Bin Ladin as plenty of threads on NSG have implicitly or explicitly declared gets very annoying.

I don't think anyone says this, I think it's just a strawman circulated around NSG so much that people are starting to believe the argument exists. But I'm willing to be proved wrong if you can show me a thread supporting this idea.


Especially when those are then used to justify profiling


Profiling is not based on the idea that every Muslim supports terrorism, but rather on the idea that a Muslim is more likely to support terrorism (not the same) and that a white westerner is very unlikely to support terrorism.


executed or sterilized en masse. And in siginifcant numbers unlike the calls for the same against Muslims.

I've seen literally about two people on NSG (who were most likely trolls) in my whole time being here, ever calling for mass murder on Muslims.

1- I answered, and properly, to your blanket statement. Then you started targeting me.

So you initiated contact. Thank you.

2- I believe I can tell you you can't flamebait in here, yes.

Then ban me if you wish to abuse whatever power you have over me. As you said above, YOU initiated contact and have done so many times in the past. The threat of using your power over me to "win" says so very much about you.

3- Show me when I made blanket statements on conservatives with the same malice as the ones you made about liberals. And prove yours are backed by reality, which will be hard, for they are not.

All conservatives hating gays and non-Christians are blanket statements that are quite hateful. You are arguing that all Conservatives and/or Christians need to apologize for a single hateful individual who was severely unbalanced. You then decided to pick a fight with me and now I am the bad guy.

Malice? The blanket statement that the UUs are all liberal. I am a member of the UUs and know this to not be the case. Sorry if proving you wrong is full of malice. As for criticizing your arguing technique I believe I have hit the nail right on the head and you have proven so with your malice towards my ability to speak here.

4- YOU changed the subject of the argument when YOU started attacking ME again.

Boo-F'ing-Hoo. Declare youself the "winner", as usual. And then ban me to celebrate. It proves a great deal about the intolerance of liberals.

I don't think anyone says this, I think it's just a strawman circulated around NSG so much that people are starting to believe the argument exists. But I'm willing to be proved wrong if you can show me a thread supporting this idea.

The Deep Kimchi threads on Muslims tend to be a highlight of this. While they don't outright declare in a cartoon villain fashion that Muslims are telepathically linked to Bin Ladin, the general gist of them tend to be that they are all religiously intolerant zealots who either quietly condone or outright support violence against "non-believers" of all sorts.

I've seen literally about two people on NSG (who were most likely trolls) in my whole time being here, ever calling for mass murder on Muslims.

You're only taking NSG into account. There's a whole Internet out there and NSG is a bastion of eloquence in comparison to quite a few of the sites with such sentiments.

The Deep Kimchi threads on Muslims tend to be a highlight of this. While they don't outright declare in a cartoon villain fashion that Muslims are telepathically linked to Bin Ladin, the general gist of them tend to be that they are all religiously intolerant zealots who either quietly condone or outright support violence against "non-believers" of all sorts.


Yes, but DK is one of the "two people" I mentioned.


You're only taking NSG into account. There's a whole Internet out there and NSG is a bastion of eloquence in comparison to quite a few of the sites with such sentiments.

Well I think websites like stormfront are in a significant minority.

So you initiated contact. Thank you.



Then ban me if you wish to abuse whatever power you have over me. As you said above, YOU initiated contact and have done so many times in the past. The threat of using your power over me to "win" says so very much about you.



All conservatives hating gays and non-Christians are blanket statements that are quite hateful. You are arguing that all Conservatives and/or Christians need to apologize for a single hateful individual who was severely unbalanced. You then decided to pick a fight with me and now I am the bad guy.

Malice? The blanket statement that the UUs are all liberal. I am a member of the UUs and know this to not be the case. Sorry if proving you wrong is full of malice. As for criticizing your arguing technique I believe I have hit the nail right on the head and you have proven so with your malice towards my ability to speak here.



Boo-F'ing-Hoo. Declare youself the "winner", as usual. And then ban me to celebrate. It proves a great deal about the intolerance of liberals.

1- YOU initiated it when YOU made a post that YOU knew would elicit answers in SELF-DEFENSE. YOU were the one that flamebaited and YOU were the one that looked for a fight.

2- Did I threaten to ban you? No. I did not. And you are not to twist my words.

3- I argued that such a statement has the same logic of claiming Muslims "don't disapprove" of terror - something you'd realize if you had taken time to read the thread decently. Or you're just trying to misrepresent my views. AGAIN.

4- You're calling me mentally unbalanced, and I'm the one with malice?

5- The "intolerance of liberals"? Really? You make blanket statements, I react, then you use my reaction to make another blanket statement about liberals?

What the fuck is your problem?

1- YOU initiated it when YOU made a post that YOU knew would elicit answers in SELF-DEFENSE. YOU were the one that flamebaited and YOU were the one that looked for a fight.

Gee, I thought I was stating my opinion on the internet. Now I am sending subliminal messages to YOU.

2- Did I threaten to ban you? No. I did not. And you are not to twist my words.

You said I had to stop and you said you had the power to tell me to do so. I assumed you had that power. If you don't possess that power then shut the fuck up and quit acting like a baby. How old are you?

3- I argued that such a statement has the same logic of claiming Muslims "don't disapprove" of terror - something you'd realize if you had taken time to read the thread decently. Or you're just trying to misrepresent my views. AGAIN.

A huge minority of Muslims approve of violence in the name Islam. Polls prove this. The same cannot be said of Christians and Conservatives (which you lump together for some reason). Many UUs are Christian and many Christians are liberals.

4- You're calling me mentally unbalanced, and I'm the one with malice?

Read your posts and tell me if mentally unbalanced is too harsh.

5- The "intolerance of liberals"? Really? You make blanket statements, I react, then you use my reaction to make another blanket statement about liberals?

I am sorry if your blanket statements are better than mine. Such is the nature of this particular "argument". Once again, you initiated this argument.

What the fuck is your problem?

Mentally unbalanced assholes like yourself? Really, you have completely blown this out of proportion.

I am taking off for a nice week of vacation. I suggest you take some time off and examine if getting this upset about an argument on the internet is really worth the foaming at the mouth you are most likely doing right now.

Dude, chill. Peace out y'all!

Gee, I thought I was stating my opinion on the internet. Now I am sending subliminal messages to YOU.



You said I had to stop and you said you had the power to tell me to do so. I assumed you had that power. If you don't possess that power then shut the fuck up and quit acting like a baby. How old are you?



A huge minority of Muslims approve of violence in the name Islam. Polls prove this. The same cannot be said of Christians and Conservatives (which you lump together for some reason). Many UUs are Christian and many Christians are liberals.



Read your posts and tell me if mentally unbalanced is too harsh.



I am sorry if your blanket statements are better than mine. Such is the nature of this particular "argument". Once again, you initiated this argument.



Mentally unbalanced assholes like yourself? Really, you have completely blown this out of proportion.

I am taking off for a nice week of vacation. I suggest you take some time off and examine if getting this upset about an argument on the internet is really worth the foaming at the mouth you are most likely doing right now.

Dude, chill. Peace out y'all!

1- Blanket statements like this are flamebaiting.

2- I never said I had the power to make you, I said you would stop. As for my age, not that it's your business, 27.

3- Not the case you were trying to make until now. And no, a huge minority of PAKISTANIS do. Do you have a census for Muslims? No? Figured.

4- YOU made the first blanket statement, and I made a point of saying BOTH blanket statements were invalid. YOU claimed validity to YOURS.

5- Flaming again, and I'm reporting.

Really? I am a member of the UUs myself and my children were dedicated in a wonderful ceremony. I am an atheist but my wife is somewhat religious. The UUs are not liberal, they are all-inclusive which means that they accept everyone without judging them. Something that liberals and progressives have completely forgotten.

The UUs have libertarians, conservatives, and even liberals as members and debate (actual debate, not the stupidity you engage in) is lively and engaging and ususally followed by friendly banter afterward.

The organization, as a whole, as stances that I completely disagree with but so do most religions and organizations. I don't mind the UUs because I am allowed to state my opinion without being shouted down in the manner you are accustomed to.

Once again, an example of your ignorance on a topic that you feel free to spout off about.

The majority of UU's are fairly left-wing, and so the organization tends to be fairly liberal as a result, just defacto. However, that's not to say that all UU's are liberal, just that the institution reflects the slant of most of its members.

The simple fact is that churches are a business. They accept money to perform a service and as such should be subject to all legislation pertaining to refusal of service based on racial, sexual and sexuality grounds. If churches want to provide all of their services for free then I would say they can escape these laws.

No church I know of charges admission. You can go to one even if you're homeless with no money.

No church I know of charges admission. You can go to one even if you're homeless with no money.

How many do you know that provide marrige and funeral services for free?

How many do you know that provide marrige and funeral services for free?

I've never been married, but my father's funeral mass was free.

Just updating, for the sake of those who want to play the same games as Heikoku 2 and The Smiling Frogs: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13879331&postcount=13.

Please resume your seats ...

Just updating, for the sake of those who want to play the same games as Heikoku 2 and The Smiling Frogs: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13879331&postcount=13.

Please resume your seats ...

You mentioned that there was a new judicial system? Is there a thread on it?

It's tacked on the old thread, here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=438203).

And I've cruelly given a link to the thread, rather than the post, to allow all the happy campers to review the other rules at the same time. Nerny-nerny-ner-ner.

I am sure you will find some whack-job conservative who believes all rights should be stripped from gays but please show me a mainstream Conservative voice calling for gays to be fired or pushed into the street.

The take care of loved ones argument can be solved through legal contracts for couples and abolishing state approval of marriage for everyone. The insurance company I work for already allows same sex couples to claim their partner as a dependent. Amazingly, in such a hate-filled nation, that policy has paid off many times over. People love that policy and we have been rewarded for it. Another example of a private business innovations that promote good behavior.
The Supreme Court of the state of Michigan has ruled in favor of employers firing gays, landlords evicting gays, and has forbidden joint insurance policies. You may reserve the word "Conservative" in a "No True Scotsman" way to refer to your particular little libertarian subsect, and to exclude all of the "conservatives" that actually impact my life, but I need to have a word to refer to them, and I use the word "conservative" because that's what they're called around here.