September 09, 2010
— Gabriel Malor

Brand Democrat™ from Slublog.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
05:33 AM
| Comments (323)
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.
Hypocrite.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 09, 2010 05:36 AM (FkKjr)
Barry says, "I'm doing it for their own good. Don't you see? If we just take all of their money, we won't have to kill them."
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at September 09, 2010 05:37 AM (r1h5M)
Posted by: steevy at September 09, 2010 05:37 AM (Cd+Dw)
Posted by: Mr Pink at September 09, 2010 05:39 AM (vfT/y)
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at September 09, 2010 05:40 AM (r1h5M)
Posted by: Jose at September 09, 2010 05:40 AM (mnYZc)
Posted by: steevy at September 09, 2010 05:41 AM (Cd+Dw)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at September 09, 2010 05:42 AM (9cflz)
//Bambi
Posted by: sven10077 at September 09, 2010 05:43 AM (kq1lG)
Posted by: Y-not is straight but still...
Stunt? Most Likely.
Intolerance? Possibly. Readily apparant, no. Further, that damned word has been poorly used and used entirely too often.
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 09, 2010 05:43 AM (R2fpr)
Posted by: Devon at September 09, 2010 05:43 AM (EdslM)
Posted by: dagny at September 09, 2010 05:44 AM (nNGzi)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at September 09, 2010 05:44 AM (eNxMU)
You guys seen this from last night? Just saw it this morning when I got home...
Related: Study: Fat men are better in bed. Hey, Ace has been telling us that for years.
Posted at 9:27 pm by Glenn Reynolds
Thought that was pretty funny...
Posted by: HH at September 09, 2010 05:45 AM (6oDXl)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at September 09, 2010 05:46 AM (9cflz)
looks like this graph....
everyday I look "the mood" is getting worse
It feels like America is PMSing 24/7 and there are no chocolate bars in the frig...
Posted by: curious at September 09, 2010 05:46 AM (p302b)
Your post: Mister "Ground Zero Mosque even if we don't like it because it's protected by law" called the Koran burning a 'stunt' and example of intolerance.
The construction is different, but the sentiment is roughly the same. "Even if we don't like it" is Obama's namby-pamby way of acknowledging that the mosque is offensive (to some - I concede that I don't think he finds it offensive, but at least he said "we"), just as the Koran burning is offensive. What you failed to acknowledge is that Obama did point out that Pastor Jones has the right to conduct this stunt.
I hate Obama with the intensity of a thousand suns, but I object to your post @2 because you imply, perhaps unintentionally, that Obama did not "defend" Jones' right to conduct this stunt and you gloss over the fact that Obama acknowledged, albeit weakly, that "we" find the Mosque thing offensive.
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 05:47 AM (osFsP)
What you said.
Why can't anyone in the regime understand that these issues -- mosque and Koran-burning -- are exactly the same?
"You can, but you shouldn't" applies equally to Rauf and "pastor" Jones.
Of course it applies to Osama Obama too, in so many ways. I suppose if the treasonous Fuckweasel-in-Chief can't abide by either the law or common decency, expecting good behavior from anyone else is a lost cause.
Screw Rauf. Screw Terry Jones and his 50 inbred "followers." Screw the Mohammedan Mouthpiece.
Posted by: MrScribbler at September 09, 2010 05:47 AM (Ulu3i)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at September 09, 2010 05:48 AM (9cflz)
It is a stunt and an example of intolerance
Hot Air linked to an ABC story about a 170 page manual on how to molest children and not get caught. And according to law enforcement, the book is legal.
Howz about all of the people who played the
book burning = Nazis go defend that piece of literary goodness? If I burn that I'm displaying intolerance toward child molesters?? Really? If so, good.
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 09, 2010 05:48 AM (R2fpr)
Whether it is the Discovery Bomber, an Abortion Bomber, or a RoPMA agent the fact of the matter is in a Constitutional Republic the citizenry has a duty to be offended and not kill or threaten violence over it.
*somehow* we Xians don't murder people for Piss Christ or Dung mary....hell not only do we not kill we still get to be lectured about 'open your fucking mind to an alternate viewpoint asshole" so i am just about tired of hearing about it.
I'll consider asking the pastor to not use his liberty when the Victory Mosk guy decides to reign in his own 'til then look closely I am playing the world's smallest banjo in the worlds' quietest sad song.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 09, 2010 05:48 AM (kq1lG)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at September 09, 2010 05:50 AM (9cflz)
Hey, moron, I stopped reading your post after this patently untrue statement.
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 05:50 AM (osFsP)
Posted by: chai at September 09, 2010 05:50 AM (MV3WN)
Osama Obama did mention (in his own oblique, dismissive way) that people have the right to not want the GZ mosque built.
What they don't have the right to do is act.
No one who disagrees with the Muzzie agenda has any rights these days.
Posted by: MrScribbler at September 09, 2010 05:51 AM (Ulu3i)
Turkey 'not drifting closer to Iran', analysts say
Western fears that NATO-allied Ankara is cementing an 'Islamist alliance' are unfounded, argues the International Crisis Group in a new report.
So the Turks antagonize Israel, help the Iranians circumvent sanctions, and and are controlled by an Islamic Party that seeks to become the head of a new Ottoman Empire, yet these people conclude that Ankara isn't become the foci of a new "Islamic alliance"? Who the hell pays these people?
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at September 09, 2010 05:51 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: beelzebub's burp at September 09, 2010 05:51 AM (I+7Zv)
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 09, 2010 05:51 AM (R2fpr)
you are absolutely correct....
it scares the hell out of me on two levels.....
1) they are eiether too idealistic or too stupid to see that the end result of what they are doing is an increase in violence
or
2) they wholeheartedly see increased violence as just peachy since they can then play "do whatever the fuck we want to do' even more openly since "there is a Constitutional crisis in play"
Posted by: sven10077 at September 09, 2010 05:51 AM (kq1lG)
Posted by: Ugrev at September 09, 2010 05:52 AM (862vz)
Posted by: steevy at September 09, 2010 05:53 AM (Cd+Dw)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at September 09, 2010 05:53 AM (9cflz)
Posted by: Neo at September 09, 2010 05:53 AM (tE8FB)
He was one of the few who voted against the "Born Alive" bill. That he would think so little about human life, as evidenced by that statement, is totally within the realm of thought for Obama.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at September 09, 2010 05:53 AM (9hSKh)
Obama did NOT tell the mosque organizers they shouldn't build their mosque there. In fact, his original speech was seen as a ringing endorsement of it, and he was forced to backpedal when he saw his position was completely toxic. He then pointedly said he wouldn't comment on whether or not the mosque should be built, but it had the right to be built.
Obama DID tell the koran burner he shouldn't do it and that he's an idiot and this is a stunt.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 09, 2010 05:54 AM (FkKjr)
sorry Alex that was in fact asked in the form of a question thanks for fucking playing.....
of course you aren't for any other abridging of freedom of expression....I am not even judging what freedoms you think should be enjoyed because "it is safe" but the fact of the matter is you're carrying the fucking Islamic agenda....
how many of these damned "yes I unlike that zealot over there am totally a moderate, but you know if you do *insert wandering outrage target of the day* I may not be able to resist the temptation to join that guy" events are we going to fucking have before you people open your eyes and start holding them no more accountable than any other group for its members' behavior but also not less responsible for the tocicity of their actions/rhetoric?
Posted by: sven10077 at September 09, 2010 05:55 AM (kq1lG)
Pelois Reid Health Care Reform will hand out abortions to everyone. Tax payers will pick up the tab. We will not have punishment in America. Hardworking Americans deserve better.
Posted by: President Teleprompter at September 09, 2010 05:59 AM (0fzsA)
That's why you opt for teh buttsecks, Barky.
Posted by: Jazz at September 09, 2010 05:59 AM (hnq5i)
Posted by: Sir Golfsalot at September 09, 2010 06:02 AM (554T5)
He said that Jones had the right to do it but shouldn't do it because it puts the troops are at greater risk.
Everyone seems to be focusing on the notion that the greater risk to our troops comes from the already fanatical Islamic enemy and dismissing that risk because they are already fanatical. I don't think that's where the increased risk arises. It comes from those elements of the civilian population and others, including I'm sure some double-agents, who have been cooperating with our troops. How motivated will those people be if they think that the folks they're helping are intentionally doing something that is designed to offend them?
People can say it's only one man and his 30 followers, but I think it's really naive to expect people who come from a much more rigid society to realize that Jones doesn't represent us. Their direct experience is of countries that are not supporters of religious freedom -- it would be natural to assume that the U.S. government, and by extension the troops, are behind or support Jones' activities.
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 06:02 AM (osFsP)
quite correct and though I see fit to skip the national prayer breakfast, and honor Ramadan openly I get Richard Simmons Diet Tips prayers sent to my Blackbarry so of course I am Christian....no seriously I know I have been more vocal in support for the Victory Mosk than in any Church in DC but erm "you can't make a few eggs without scrambling some umlats"
Posted by: Barack T. Ogabe esq. at September 09, 2010 06:03 AM (kq1lG)
O yeah, I don't think so
Posted by: pedestrians at September 09, 2010 06:03 AM (p302b)
http://yhoo.it/aetxko
Once again, I suggest that we are in the position of needing to remove Osama Obama from office before terrorists are simply allowed to take over the country.
We have a President of the United States who despises and wishes to destroy "his" country. That is intolerable.
Posted by: MrScribbler at September 09, 2010 06:04 AM (Ulu3i)
"fore"
Posted by: President Dog E. Paddle at September 09, 2010 06:04 AM (kq1lG)
Luckily it would only be a sound.
If even one of my balls violently landed in the water, better start building an Ark.
Posted by: Pat Caddell at September 09, 2010 06:04 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: Lincolntf at September 09, 2010 06:05 AM (gmZ7Y)
Posted by: Mr Pink at September 09, 2010 06:06 AM (vfT/y)
so will you be buying your wife/girlfriend/daughter/sister/mother a pink or black Burqa?
I mean if we are supposed to alter the freedoms we enjoy lest it piss off some of the most perpetually pissed off people in the world I need fashion tips for when we have to do that in say 2013 after Soetoro gets reelected....
I think my wife likes Royal blue.
Do you think Muslims understand that our non-rigid culture gets pretty fucking offended by unsolicited field expedient urban renewal projects that Muslims launch unannounced?
If they do they're pretty fucking quiet about it no?
Posted by: sven10077 at September 09, 2010 06:07 AM (kq1lG)
No, he does not. Remember the photo of his tight buddyroo Bomber Billy Ayers standing on a flag? I'm thinking the Mohammedan Mouthpiece has a pic like that somewhere in his hidden past.
Posted by: MrScribbler at September 09, 2010 06:08 AM (Ulu3i)
What I appreciate most about Pastor Jones' brave act is how it is putting focus on remembering the victims of September 11th and our brave armed forces overseas.
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 06:08 AM (osFsP)
Is this all a moot point? Hasn't the city denied the burning permit? I think they will arrest him before he has a chance to do anything.
Posted by: IreneFingIrene at September 09, 2010 06:09 AM (JNqU9)
Bury and the Apologists the new Manilow intense rock band have taught me that the proper response to that burning flag is for all like minded Americans to start issuing Fatwas and buying up surplus Russian tech to run our own "private foreign policy"....
I hear beirut was nice real estate before the crazies started up maybe we should topple every building there and buy up the land and build Churches no?
Posted by: sven10077 at September 09, 2010 06:09 AM (kq1lG)
Posted by: Jay in Ames at September 09, 2010 06:09 AM (UEEex)
drudge changed his pic, it gives you a horrible feeling in the pit of your stomach to see that
Posted by: curious at September 09, 2010 06:10 AM (p302b)
Question....
This is driving me nuts....did, or did not, the landing gear of one of the hijacked 9/11 planes hit the Ground Zero mosque building?
The New York Times and Washington Post reported it a while back, but nothing since. AND, I don't see mosque opponents mention it. George Pataki was being challenged by that lump of moss Rick Sanchez yesterday and didn't mention it. This should be a main point.
It's not mentioned as fact anymore. A Google News search finds it in some articles, but usually attributing it to opponents.
Posted by: CJ at September 09, 2010 06:10 AM (9KqcB)
Is this all a moot point? Hasn't the city denied the burning permit? I think they will arrest him before he has a chance to do anything.
I don't think they can arrest him. Just fine him.
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 06:10 AM (osFsP)
The BLS has announced that as a result of the Labor Day weekend, 9 states (among which the biggest one California) did not report initial claims data to the bean counters, so instead the government had to "estimate" what the data would have been: yep, estimate, what the data was in these nine states. From Bloomberg: "For the latest reporting week, nine states didnÂ’t file claims data to the Labor Department in Washington because of the Labor Day holiday earlier this week, a department official told reporters. California and Virginia estimated their figures and the U.S. government estimated the other seven." Official data is now made up on the fly. This US economic data reporting has just entered the twilight zone. Also, when the data is officially made up, it is not that difficult to get data that is "better than expected." The full list of states is: DC, Illinois, Idaho, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Washington. California and Virginia estimated themselves.
Zerohedge
Gack!
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at September 09, 2010 06:10 AM (jBIxz)
So ultimately, the threat of violence works.
These are unreasonable people, and if you give in to unreasonable people the result isn't them suddenly gaining reason. You can expect more unreasonable demands.
The latest line from the Ground Zero Mosque asshole is claiming that if they move the Mosque now, it could put Americans at risk. Do you think the Mosque should go up there now to avert that?
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 09, 2010 06:10 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: Precedent Snoop Dawg at September 09, 2010 06:11 AM (9cflz)
62 - Lincolntf.
Boom. And anyone who places our troops in danger is an a- hole. It's not worth it. We already know the Muslim world will erupt into a frothing rage.
btw - This Jones guy has a web-site and is taking donations. The whole thing is a stunt for money.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at September 09, 2010 06:12 AM (0fzsA)
Hillary's well-timed body blow on our economic stress affecting national security and the MFM's curiously uniform barrage of critique really did a number on the, um, numbers.
The only thing that can save The Precedent is the polite, congenial, lovable, and sublime touch of FLOTUS.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at September 09, 2010 06:12 AM (swuwV)
Posted by: Precedent Snoop Dawg at September 09, 2010 06:12 AM (9cflz)
why you're noticing the pattern...
we have Sir Golfsalot busy doing the supplicant butt thrust to islam daily and when the public finally had the fog lifted now EVERYTHING they want will be "or we'll kill US troops".....
tell you what Y-Not I agree the retarded Farts and Minds RoE is gonna kill more soldiers anyway....bring 'em all home and when the Muzzie Wuzzies do ANYTHING that offends ANY American I don't want to hear a peep about ANY blowback they get okay?
Posted by: sven10077 at September 09, 2010 06:14 AM (kq1lG)
oh wait, we won't because us civilized people are expected to act civilized, and the mohammedans are expected to act like savages.
Posted by: negentropy at September 09, 2010 06:15 AM (27KAF)
Posted by: RevMac DaddyZion at September 09, 2010 06:15 AM (GvYeG)
Posted by: RevMac DaddyZion at September 09, 2010 06:16 AM (GvYeG)
Here 'ya go.
/Hope it works.
Posted by: Pat Caddell at September 09, 2010 06:17 AM (9hSKh)
I am thinking part of the Birth certificate thing is he is really 51-53 years old.....
they used the time machine when they discovered through Skynet that America would be dumb enough to elect Jugears that he would be arguably ineligible and so they went back and announced his virgin birth at the correct date....
//just askin' questions
Posted by: sven10077 at September 09, 2010 06:18 AM (kq1lG)
Posted by: steevy at September 09, 2010 06:18 AM (Cd+Dw)
Obama DID tell the koran burner he shouldn't do it and that he's an idiot and this is a stunt.
He said that Jones had the right to do it but shouldn't do it because it puts the troops are at greater risk
1. If he threatened to burn a pile of Bibles, we wouldn't be rehashing this. Nor would everyone be rushing to be on the record, or invoke Nazism.
2. If he applied for and received an NEA grant, and declared himself an artist, we wouldn't be rehashing this.
Trick question: if two clowns apply for an NEA grant, and one pitched torching Bibles, and another suggested burning the Koran, do you suppose that they'd get the same response?
Answer: We already know. People are falling over themselves to defend the Dome of the Landing Gear, and attack the koran burning. But these same people are not complaining about the one religous structure that was that, and was flattened, and is still not rebuilt. Nor are they whining about stunts, and intolernace regarding Mary ala shit mode.
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 09, 2010 06:18 AM (R2fpr)
They don't have to bear arms against the troops, just stop helping them.
I wish Petreaus had given some indication in his statement about the nature of the risk, but I assume that he didn't because signaling what those might be increases the problems further.
These are unreasonable people,
Sure they are, but if their religion tells them not to help infidels, can you blame them? Look, to my mind as a Catholic, it's a crazy religion that results in unreasonable actions. Any religion that preaches violence against non-believers is crazy. But being a fundamentalist (rigid follower) of any religion or any group, tends to be bad thing.
As several people have pointed out, it's not a useful exercise to expect Christian charity - the turn the other cheek type of charity that keeps (most of) us from resorting to violence where our religious tenets are violated or our icons are defiled - from Muslims. They aren't Christian. Frankly, we're just lucky that a lot of them seem to follow as less wacko version of Islam.
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 06:18 AM (osFsP)
23% SA 47% SD (-24)
41% A 58% D (-17)
The big number is the abyss index (-6).
I think part of this is that Dems, and it seems Obama even moreso, do well over the weekend and the Sunday number dropped off the 3-day average (though the Monday number is still there). It's also possible there was some bad numbers on Wednesday. Remember that 1 out of every 20 polls is a dud (falls outside the margin of error). The three-day rolling average is supposed to mitigate that.
Still, these are awful numbers for a president going into the mid-terms.
Posted by: AmishDude at September 09, 2010 06:18 AM (3wPsb)
Posted by: Frothing Rage at September 09, 2010 06:18 AM (GvYeG)
Look. I'm happy that it's less - right? It just seems like 450k is still a big number:
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at September 09, 2010 09:40 AM (r1h5M)
Imagine that headline if a Republican is President. "Initial Jobless claims still over 450K, Slipping back into Recession" Or something like that.
Posted by: Hedgehog at September 09, 2010 06:19 AM (oQIfB)
Posted by: chicken thief at September 09, 2010 06:19 AM (Q0lfL)
Is it just me, or does that dude who wants to burn the koran look like John Brown?
Posted by: HH at September 09, 2010 06:20 AM (6oDXl)
Job data will always look better when California and Michigan don't make the list.
The stock market believes in Osama Obama. It's up 50 points right now.
Posted by: MrScribbler at September 09, 2010 06:20 AM (Ulu3i)
Posted by: curious at September 09, 2010 06:21 AM (p302b)
Thanks!
Posted by: Jay in Ames at September 09, 2010 06:21 AM (UEEex)
It's an unauthorized outdoor burning. Won't they use fire prevention regs to confiscate the materials? Of course, they would have to use white gloves and abstain from pork, anything fun and science so they could handle the korans.
Posted by: IreneFingIrene at September 09, 2010 06:21 AM (JNqU9)
Imam Rauf sez: nice country you have there. Shame if anything happens to it. (Jihad Watch)
Muslim anger is a force of nature, like gravity. They are not responsible for their actions.
And best of all, everyone important feeds into this denial of responsibility for their actions. From generals or Angelina Jolie to da Popa.
Posted by: Beagle at September 09, 2010 06:21 AM (sOtz/)
that's only going to happen after we "tolerate" our way to an iranian backed terror cell taking a western city off the map.....
I give it 15 years tops.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 09, 2010 06:21 AM (kq1lG)
Posted by: steevy at September 09, 2010 06:23 AM (Cd+Dw)
So will it be "unexpectedly higher" next week?
Posted by: curious at September 09, 2010 06:23 AM (p302b)
Posted by: Teh Skull, needing a vacation at September 09, 2010 06:23 AM (a3Z62)
what you have are mutual funds bargain hunting and maintaining the artificial 10,000 floor through bailout money and the printing press economics....go to the Wall Street Journal and you'll see yesterday was a net outflow of capital.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 09, 2010 06:23 AM (kq1lG)
That boat sailed when the wikileaks founder outed all the informants. I'm sure that action cause a lot more ill will than the koran burning.
As several people have pointed out, it's not a useful exercise to expect Christian charity - the turn the other cheek type of charity that keeps (most of) us from resorting to violence where our religious tenets are violated or our icons are defiled - from Muslims. They aren't Christian. Frankly, we're just lucky that a lot of them seem to follow as less wacko version of Islam.
Ultimately, this means we have to treat them special because they demand special treatment. Sorry, but I don't think we should. This reverend could hold weekly book burnings and it wouldn't rate a comment from his local representative.
Again, should we move the Ground Zero Mosque, or at this point is it too dangerous?
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 09, 2010 06:24 AM (FkKjr)
they're doing a rewrite that has the President understanding the Chinese are in fact justified....
"international markets" and all that....
wish I could be sure that was sarcasm.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 09, 2010 06:24 AM (kq1lG)
Posted by: toby928 at September 09, 2010 10:02 AM (S5YRY)
When it gets to 600, sell. Hell, just give it away.
Posted by: RushBabe at September 09, 2010 06:24 AM (a3Z62)
This is driving me nuts....did, or did not, the landing gear of one of the hijacked 9/11 planes hit the Ground Zero mosque building?
Posted by: CJ
Yes, it was. That's one of the reasons the building was closed.
Only response needed for such crap:
1.True or false: The proposed site is in a building that was closed as a direct result of the 9/11 attacks, and never re-opened.
2. True or false:The site is within the radius in which human remains from the attacks were found?
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 09, 2010 06:24 AM (R2fpr)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at September 09, 2010 06:25 AM (9cflz)
Posted by: Mr Pink at September 09, 2010 06:25 AM (vfT/y)
Posted by: Mrs. Obama at September 09, 2010 06:25 AM (zgZzy)
Posted by: Penfold at September 09, 2010 06:25 AM (1PeEC)
exactly I wish larry had had the balls to say, "so it'll be just like every other day for the last 45 years then?'
Posted by: sven10077 at September 09, 2010 06:25 AM (kq1lG)
Hate to say it, but you're on dangerous ground here.
As citizens of the United States, we have every right to expect Muzzies to act in a civilized way consistent with our laws and customs if they want to live here.
By the same token, we have every right to inflict condign punishment on Muzzies who attack our people anywhere in the world.
Their rights do not trump ours. We are not required to commit suicide to make them happy. Understanding is a two-way street, and you're close to siding with those who simply want to get along, no matter the cost to us.
Extending tolerance to the intolerant is a formula for disaster.
Posted by: MrScribbler at September 09, 2010 06:26 AM (Ulu3i)
yup....guy's a real scum bucket without a boubt....you'll know the game is rigged when the appellate courts throw out his lawsuit but let Jones' stand.....
that means we are in fact a Sharia compliant country now and the rest is just how gradual they come out of the closet about it.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 09, 2010 06:26 AM (kq1lG)
Again, should we move the Ground Zero Mosque, or at this point is it too dangerous?
That's what Rauf is saying now. "I could move it but there will be backlash in the Muslim community." Sounded like a veiled threat of violence to me.
I say move it anyway. Like these bastards need a reason to attack us - again.
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at September 09, 2010 06:27 AM (zgZzy)
What amazes me is the number of people who think we shouldn't say or do anything provocative to the poor fucking Muslims. They kill our people, dance in the streets when misfortune befalls us, hate us for hates sake, have NO TOLERANCE for other cultures and/or religions. Continuously try to impose their 6th century culture on whatever culture they migrate into (or rather infect with their hate filled, misogynist, murderous religion).
I don't fear them, and I sure as hell don't intend to accommodate them on any level, at least until they stop the shit they have been doing for centuries, and the ones already here decide they are Americans first, and Muslims waaaaay second.
Intolerant? Yeah, well, I didn't start out that way, and not when measured with the same stick as the Muslims seem to be measured with.
Posted by: maddogg at September 09, 2010 06:27 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at September 09, 2010 06:28 AM (JeQ5T)
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at September 09, 2010 06:29 AM (r1h5M)
these muslims will feel some kind of injustice no matter what we do....they hate us... they hate our country....they hate our freedoms....
And they especially hate New York, as it is our "city of capitalist decadence." That's why they attacked it twice and that's why they NEED this big "fuck you" at a site that was damaged by the airliners.
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at September 09, 2010 06:30 AM (zgZzy)
Barry says, "Yes, in the same way I, yes me, am a great president... "
I'm not??? You mean Bill Ayers was wrong?
Posted by: B Obumbles at September 09, 2010 06:31 AM (zgZzy)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at September 09, 2010 06:31 AM (9cflz)
NEW YORK – New York's governor says the imam behind the proposed Islamic community center near ground zero has offered an "opening" with his latest comments about the debate.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf said Wednesday that if he'd known "it would cause this kind of pain," he might have chosen a different location.
See? It's all so innocent. He had no idea that building a victory mosque would cause this kind of pain. And the media and libturd policians of course go along with him
Posted by: TheQuietMan at September 09, 2010 06:31 AM (1Jaio)
121 to continue
the bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon
the lockerbie bombing
the attacks in England and Spain
the achille lauro
Posted by: Frothing Rage at September 09, 2010 06:31 AM (GvYeG)
I'm not talking about U.S. citizens or residents. I'm talking about the people in their home countries who are helping our troops.
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 06:32 AM (osFsP)
Posted by: steevy at September 09, 2010 06:32 AM (Cd+Dw)
Whose lawsuit gets thrown out? Jones' on appeal? Possible, free speech is subject to time place and manner restrictions and not endangering the public and the municipality probably has reasonable basis for requiring burn permits.
I get the second part of your post, but I got confused on who you were referring to in the first paragraph.
Posted by: Penfold at September 09, 2010 06:33 AM (1PeEC)
See? It's all so innocent. He had no idea that building a victory mosque would cause this kind of pain. And the media and libturd policians of course go along with him.
In fairness, I am really not a bright guy. I bang goats for fun!
Posted by: Imam Rauf at September 09, 2010 06:33 AM (zgZzy)
Just read everyday of LGF from 9/11 to the time they went batshitcrazy (~2008 election)
Posted by: IreneFingIrene at September 09, 2010 06:33 AM (JNqU9)
WTF is with the garbled English?Who's dick did he have in his mouth when he said that??
Right here, dude!
Posted by: Rahm Emanuel at September 09, 2010 06:34 AM (zgZzy)
Posted by: steevy at September 09, 2010 06:34 AM (Cd+Dw)
*somehow* we Xians don't murder people
There was a time when "Xtians" did. An "interesting thought experiment"? Work out the timeline between then and now, add in whatever significant cultural events caused "Xtians" to behave/believe otherwise...then try to apply that to World Islam. Just a little, you know, history game.
@85 I believe the palestinains have a four year degree plan in the major - "Frothing Rage"
That's Frothing Rage Studies. You've got to get with the terminology around here. Without Studies, there would be math.
Posted by: comatus at September 09, 2010 06:35 AM (hrwMe)
Posted by: Frothing Rage at September 09, 2010 06:35 AM (GvYeG)
yes exactly so here's the plan since the latest excuse for us to do tjhe supplicant butt thrust to islam is 'we are in their countries" why don't we leave and hold the entire region accountable for their "terrorist" misdeeds that they can never "seem to stop"?
I finally find myself coming down on the Coulter side of the matter....
we are obviously not in the game to win any more so every day the troops are over there running the limp-wrist shoot at me three times to make sure you are really hostile playbook is folly anyway.....
strike the circus tents come home and nuke the next Muslim nation that gets out of line with the US.
You've convinced me.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 09, 2010 06:35 AM (kq1lG)
I hear the great Chicago fire was caused by a Koran burning gone wrong.
That cow was anti-Muzzie!
Posted by: Chris Matthews at September 09, 2010 06:36 AM (zgZzy)
Obviously. The enemy is the enemy.
But if you are in a war, you make all sorts of arrangements and concessions to get cooperation of the locals.
I don't care if the enemy gets offended by the Koran burning in Florida -- or, rather, I only care insofar as their offense might motivate them further and if their sense of outrage increases their morale. My concern is for the people over there who are cooperating with our troops and who might be less-inclined to do so if they perceive our government or our soldiers as being "behind" the Koran burning.
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 06:36 AM (osFsP)
So we should excuse Iman Rauf because he is incapable of applying any thought to his actions. Narcissism is not acceptable.
Posted by: Penfold at September 09, 2010 06:36 AM (1PeEC)
This was an average probably 50+ regular American woman whispering into the phone to an American talk show host as though it's just another day but "it's a set up". This was too scary but funny nonetheless.
Posted by: curious at September 09, 2010 06:36 AM (p302b)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at September 09, 2010 06:37 AM (9cflz)
Don't forget Beslan or the Church of the Nativity.
Or the genocidal coordinated bombing of the tiny, peaceful Yazidi (early Christian) population in Iraq.
Posted by: Beagle at September 09, 2010 06:37 AM (sOtz/)
the vocal arguments about the personal nature of faith and divinity were in the open and taking place as long ago as the 1300s.....
there were very vocal congresses to that effect in the Church record.....
show me the Muzzie equivalent or any open desire to defang their faith?
Why is it that when a point is made that somehow the buddhists, Shinto, Pagans, Atheists, and Xians can be offended and not go Jihadi jim we have 700 year old history broken out while being asked to ignore precisely how the Muzzies were acting at the same time....
hint they are the only faith that undid a 25-75 year tech lead through pure faith that is on public record.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 09, 2010 06:38 AM (kq1lG)
Again, should we move the Ground Zero Mosque, or at this point is it too dangerous?
I think they should move it. I don't think "we" - the government - should stop it, not because of the threat of violence, but because I don't see a legal means to intervene.
It was an oversight to not designate that site as a national landmark or come up with a better plan (proactively) to develop it. We blew it. They took advantage.
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 06:38 AM (osFsP)
She essentially said she thought that the reverend was "in kahoots" with the muslims saying that the muslims look good either way cause she saw them on the news making moves towards peace and she said to herself "I get it, this is a set up"
Not a setup, just a way to take coverage away from Saturday's memorials and such. Either way, I win!
Posted by: Rev. Jones at September 09, 2010 06:39 AM (zgZzy)
If those people are so unreasonable that a book being burned half a world a way influences them more than Taliban brutality, and we need their help, then we cannot win and we should amend our strategy to containment.
Because it isn't just the book burning. Anything could set them off, and if we police (even socially, not legally) 300 million citizens to make sure no one gives offense to them, then we aren't winning this war.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 09, 2010 06:39 AM (FkKjr)
Even though the Muslim world might be outraged at this, and it may put our troops in greater danger?
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 09, 2010 06:40 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: Frothing Rage at September 09, 2010 06:40 AM (GvYeG)
Ambassador John Bolton confirms on Varney and Company that he will consider a run for the presidency.
Imagine - An ass kicking candidate instead of the Wussie-in-Chief.
Posted by: Fish at September 09, 2010 06:40 AM (v1gw3)
Posted by: steevy at September 09, 2010 06:40 AM (Cd+Dw)
You've convinced me.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 09, 2010 10:35 AM
I'm down with this idea.
But in fairness -- as Ed "Pillsbury Doughboy" Morrissey loves to say -- let's be sure we extend it to non-Muzzies as well. Wouldn't want the Red Chinese or Norks to feel left out, would we?
Radiation can occupy conquered lands far more cheaply than our troops can.
Posted by: MrScribbler at September 09, 2010 06:40 AM (Ulu3i)
Posted by: Mr Pink at September 09, 2010 06:41 AM (vfT/y)
Posted by: Rob in Katy at September 09, 2010 06:41 AM (gdGJ1)
Posted by: steevy at September 09, 2010 06:42 AM (Cd+Dw)
Hitting the marmot from a mile away.
While Barry's most loyal constituency are still sticking with him, at least 80% are, he hasn't done anything for them since Acorn went underground.
On the anniversary of MLK's "I have a dream" he's saying stuff like "Come on guys we're buying shrimp. Like reminding us of MLK might lessen him and the jive he's pushing.
So why is he for government-paid abortions and infanticide when they fail? To rid us of unwanted Italians, Irish, Germans, Japanese, Capitalists, Gaia-rapists, who?
Posted by: gary gulrud at September 09, 2010 06:42 AM (/g2vP)
Just sayin'...
Posted by: DarkLordOfTheIntarWebs at September 09, 2010 06:42 AM (IkEhE)
Posted by: maddogg at September 09, 2010 06:43 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at September 09, 2010 06:43 AM (9cflz)
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 09, 2010 10:24 AM (R2fpr)
I'm puzzled as to why opponents no longer mention the landing gear. Raises a red flag.
Posted by: CJ at September 09, 2010 06:44 AM (9KqcB)
Posted by: People's Republic of Baltimore at September 09, 2010 06:44 AM (WNgAm)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at September 09, 2010 06:44 AM (L8kaT)
Islam teaches that you should not defile the Koran. Jones' act is a direct provocation.
The latter (moving the mosque) is not addressed in Islam. If the Muslims behind this idea decide to build the mosque somewhere else, where's the provocation?
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 06:45 AM (osFsP)
Posted by: Frothing Rage at September 09, 2010 06:45 AM (GvYeG)
183 Here's the acid test (yes I know) for a "moderate" muslim ... ask them if Israel has the right exist ... no qualifiers
If not, does that mean we have to erase Caddyshack 2?
Posted by: Jackie Mason at September 09, 2010 06:46 AM (zgZzy)
Posted by: chillin the most at September 09, 2010 06:46 AM (6IV8T)
I love Bolton but I doubt he would be electable.Interested to see him start building some groundwork.
Posted by: steevy at September 09, 2010 10:42 AM (Cd+Dw)
Agreed, he's unelectable, but his message contravenes the Sir Edmund Hillary Clinton blather, and also the O'Butthead's one world government message. He as much as admitted that his purpose is to bring points he considers important into the discussion instead of the litany of socialist "we're just like Europe" model so important to the Marxist and Company currently in charge.
Posted by: Fish at September 09, 2010 06:48 AM (v1gw3)
In other words, they don't mix, and don't want to.
And they have always stated that they will use our own laws and our freedom against us to serve their purposes.
Posted by: Intolerant Stooge at September 09, 2010 06:48 AM (zgZzy)
Your children -- required to worship The Teleprompter.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at September 09, 2010 10:26 AM (0fzsA)
Shit, I have to get my kids to the "no Obama" room for the speech again...
Posted by: Hedgehog at September 09, 2010 06:48 AM (oQIfB)
The Koran says lots of stuff about not taking guff from Jews or Christians too, because they are inferior people. Maybe they'd think needed to move the mosque was because of that.
You already conceded these people are unreasonable. We can't know what will or won't set them off.
The Imam building the mosque is claiming this would inflame Muslims. Conceivably being an Imam, he is an expert on the Islamic religion and could tell you why.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 09, 2010 06:49 AM (FkKjr)
the vocal arguments about the personal nature of faith and divinity were in the open and taking place as long ago as the 1300s.....
there were very vocal congresses to that effect in the Church record.....
show me the Muzzie equivalent or any open desire to defang their faith?
Why is it that when a point is made that somehow the buddhists, Shinto, Pagans, Atheists, and Xians can be offended and not go Jihadi jim we have 700 year old history broken out while being asked to ignore precisely how the Muzzies were acting at the same time....
hint they are the only faith that undid a 25-75 year tech lead through pure faith that is on public record.
Posted by: sven10077
Agreed.
Shorter version: By now, everybody expects the Spanish Inquisition. At least, we expect that card to be played. You wanna go back farther and invoke the Crusades? Please remember that Muslims were there, and they weren't in their cribs either. For extra credit, try Constantinople. Or the namesake of the Dome of the Landing Gear (Cordoba House).
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 09, 2010 06:49 AM (R2fpr)
Posted by: steevy at September 09, 2010 06:49 AM (Cd+Dw)
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 10:38 AM
I agree, in theory. But "they" know damn well that "they" don't have to do a damn thing when our society shows its willingness to bow to them.
The time comes when an either-or decision has to be made, and this is the time: do we cave in and allow the Muzzie hordes to subjugate us, or do we take a stand?
If we lose the "co-operation" of locals in Iraq and Afghanistan, kill them. If any Muzzie attacks any American, anywhere, kill them.
If Rauf and his "tolerance"-minded stooges try to build the GZ mosque, tell them three times that they must not. If that fails, take the property by eminent domain and build a park.
Posted by: MrScribbler at September 09, 2010 06:49 AM (Ulu3i)
Posted by: Frothing Rage at September 09, 2010 06:49 AM (GvYeG)
*lol*
Posted by: HeatherRadish at September 09, 2010 06:50 AM (Vz9lf)
Posted by: Frothing Rage at September 09, 2010 06:51 AM (GvYeG)
This Florida pastor who I think is a crass idiot actually has a chance to become a classy Einstein if he comes out and says "we were doing this to prove a point about the intolerance of muzzies, we aren't going to burn them this year, however, if they move forward with the murder mosque in NYC, we will burn them next year".
Leave it like this, and it's a good one.
Makes the point: "See, we have the RIGHT to mock you, but we will do the right thing and NOT do so. Get the idea?"
Posted by: CJ at September 09, 2010 06:51 AM (9KqcB)
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 09, 2010 10:24 AM (R2fpr)
I'm puzzled as to why opponents no longer mention the landing gear. Raises a red flag.
Posted by: CJ
Some do. James Treacher covered this, and cited the sources on the DC Trawler
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 09, 2010 06:51 AM (R2fpr)
Posted by: Mr Pink at September 09, 2010 06:52 AM (vfT/y)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at September 09, 2010 06:52 AM (9cflz)
The time comes when an either-or decision has to be made, and this is the time: do we cave in and allow the Muzzie hordes to subjugate us, or do we take a stand?
This - the Victory Mosque - should be out goal-line stand. If this gets built - on the site of the biggest terror attack in recorded histroy - that's it, we might as well surrender.
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at September 09, 2010 06:52 AM (zgZzy)
We can't mention that. Turkey might get mad. We have to pretend they are civilized.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 09, 2010 06:53 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: SurferDoc at September 09, 2010 06:53 AM (X6a9o)
show me the Muzzie equivalent or any open desire to defang their faith?
Good point. Has there ever been any criticism of that faith? Unlike say, biblical history or other debates about christianity?
Posted by: HH at September 09, 2010 06:53 AM (6oDXl)
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at September 09, 2010 10:26 AM (swuwV)
FIFY
Posted by: RushBabe at September 09, 2010 06:54 AM (a3Z62)
We can't mention that. Turkey might get mad. We have to pretend they are civilized.
*angry* Gobble, gobble!!!
Posted by: Turkey at September 09, 2010 06:54 AM (zgZzy)
I think it would be interpreted as: "See, these infidels fear to burn the Koran because Allah would smite them and they fear us."
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 09, 2010 06:54 AM (FkKjr)
And they especially hate New York, as it is our "city of capitalist decadence."
I feel almost the same about New York (it's not the decadence that's capitalist; it's that capitalism decays there). Somehow I have avoided bombing it. I'm with Goldwater -- cast off the hawsers, and let it drift out to sea.
sven, you're not reading me accurately. Both Gustavus Adolphus and I are, titularly, on your side. Another day, we might have a discussion of your timeline: I don't think you start early enough, or run late enough. But the streetlights of the Alhambra don't cut much ice with me, either.
Posted by: comatus at September 09, 2010 06:54 AM (hrwMe)
I just don't see the Ground Zero Mosque as an example of subjugation. They out-maneuvered us - or rather NYC, who was too stupid to change their zoning laws or develop the site themselves.
Things that worry me more (in terms of following the path Europe has) are push-backs on drivers license photos, recognizing (and supporting) polygamous marriages, female circumcision, and the like.
I am not saying that I think we don't face a problem. I just don't see that the government should intervene on the Ground Zero Mosque thing. I'm open to arguments to the contrary. And, until shown otherwise, I tend to take Gen. P. on his word when he says a particular act, like Jones' moronic stunt, jeopardizes our troops.
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 06:54 AM (osFsP)
Leave it like this, and it's a good one.
Makes the point: "See, we have the RIGHT to mock you, but we will do the right thing and NOT do so. Get the idea?"Nah. I think they should use it for negotiation.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at September 09, 2010 06:55 AM (L8kaT)
Database Dangers..."
Three questions: 1. Thought we had all those privacy laws tht prevent anyone you don't want to have your information from having it? 2. when we go digital with our health records will "certain people" be given access to the database containing those records? 3. NY is changing to an electronic voting system. Several of my friends have said they are concerned that someone could link their vote to them and they are annoyed that this switch was kept very quiet and just announced. A lib/dem was heard to say "why wasn't there anything about this in the media?"
How much will stuff like our health records and votes be compromised?
Posted by: curious at September 09, 2010 06:55 AM (p302b)
Just let me know, pxystick at yahoo
Posted by: Jay in Ames at September 09, 2010 06:55 AM (UEEex)
We can't mention that. Turkey might get mad. We have to pretend they are civilized.
*angry* Gobble, gobble!!!
Posted by: Turkey
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Posted by: cranberry sauce at September 09, 2010 06:56 AM (R2fpr)
Someone here suggested it should be taken and set aside as an historic battleground. An execellent idea, which unfortunately requires an acknowledgement that it was an act of war, which most people aren't willing to realize. Sigh.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at September 09, 2010 06:57 AM (Vz9lf)
Posted by: steevy at September 09, 2010 06:57 AM (Cd+Dw)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at September 09, 2010 06:57 AM (L8kaT)
Posted by: Frothing Rage at September 09, 2010 06:57 AM (GvYeG)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at September 09, 2010 06:57 AM (9cflz)
An execellent idea, which unfortunately requires an acknowledgement that it was an act of war, which most people aren't willing to realize.
It was just "unlicensed renovations."
Posted by: B Obama at September 09, 2010 06:59 AM (zgZzy)
Posted by: steevy at September 09, 2010 06:59 AM (Cd+Dw)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at September 09, 2010 06:59 AM (PLvLS)
The state should also stop anyone who defaces Korans.
Posted by: Typical lib at September 09, 2010 07:00 AM (w9BEi)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at September 09, 2010 07:00 AM (9cflz)
Some of the 'minor' jihad incidents stick in my mind.
Actual snuff films, after decades of rumored. The Indonesian school girls beheaded in their uniforms. The repeated mystery gas attacks on girls' schools in Afghanistan, still going on. The acid-in-face attacks, now being copycatted in the US by (presumably) non-Muslims. And, of course, various honor killings. From the Said sisters to the Buffalo TV network exec. who beheaded his wife after "building bridges" with us and whatnot.
And if I sit here and think about it for ten minutes, I'll come up with a dozen more. Another ten minutes...
Posted by: Beagle at September 09, 2010 07:00 AM (sOtz/)
Posted by: steevy at September 09, 2010 07:00 AM (Cd+Dw)
Posted by: . at September 09, 2010 07:01 AM (p302b)
One wonders how long that would hold up if someone WAS caught and they used the "instructions" in that book.
A good case could be made for "conspiracy". The author made the plans, handed them off to the "other", and he made substantive move to implement those plans. That is all it takes for conspiracy.
Of course the implementer would be charged with something a little more substantial.
Posted by: Vic at September 09, 2010 07:01 AM (/jbAw)
I think it would be interpreted as: "See, these infidels fear to burn the Koran because Allah would smite them and they fear us."
See, I told you the Americans were a paper tiger.
Posted by: Osama bin Laden at September 09, 2010 07:01 AM (a3Z62)
I understand that. They see it as a victory... or I guess subjugation, although that doesn't really fit my definition of it as we are not forced to go to the Mosque or do much of anything except let it exist consistent with the laws already in place there.
To me subjugation is when/if I have to wear a fucking head scarf or stop wearing shorts here in the U.S. because it offends someone.
Look, I'm living in Utah now. I actually now make a conscious decision to dress a certain way (covering my oh-so-hawt body) or not order coffee in particular situations. I don't have to make that choice, but I do it because it seems like a small concession to the Mormons here. Some people would consider that subjugation. I don't. I just consider it respect for their beliefs.
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 07:02 AM (osFsP)
Posted by: steevy at September 09, 2010 07:03 AM (Cd+Dw)
You go after the vicious dog. You don't need to poke with a stick every family pet dog in the neighborhood to do it. Unless you want to eliminate all dogs and by dogs I assume you mean Muslims.
You eliminate all the dogs in the pack. The dogs who aren't joining in and supporting the pack need not be addressed. But what I hear is very close to accommodation for bad behavior, out of fear of the bad dogs, who seem to be legion. Accommodation encourages the dogs, emboldens them. We should make no accommodation. And the Muslims should ask no special accommodation. The constitution should be the standard for how Americans are treated, and I recognize no hyphenated Americans.
All those friendly Muslims? Will you walk unafraid through Muslim neighborhoods, obviously American, or obviously Jewish, anywhere in the world? That is the measure of the problem.
Posted by: maddogg at September 09, 2010 07:03 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Mr. Haney at September 09, 2010 07:03 AM (a3Z62)
The Ground Zero Mosque is unnecessarily provocative, hurtful, and in bad taste.
That fact will never change. 70%+ of nation understand this simple fact.
btw - why is a Mosque necessary in lower Manhattan? so close to the mass grave site? . Lower Manhattan is a business district. It used to be a Burlington coat Factory for crying out loud.
The real bigots are the people pushing for it. Forcing it.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at September 09, 2010 07:04 AM (0fzsA)
Posted by: Fritz at September 09, 2010 07:04 AM (GwPRU)
The real bigots are the people pushing for it. Forcing it.
Can't help it, it gives me a tingle down my leg!
Posted by: Chrissy Matthews at September 09, 2010 07:05 AM (zgZzy)
And we have to pretend that they aren't folding into the Iranian/Syrian Islamist alliance. I hope we have all of our nukes out of there.
Posted by: Pat Caddell at September 09, 2010 07:05 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at September 09, 2010 07:05 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: steevy at September 09, 2010 07:06 AM (Cd+Dw)
Posted by: Jean at September 09, 2010 07:06 AM (Hx1qz)
Rendell: 'Wackos' are taking over Republican Party
Pennsylvania's Democratic governor says that "wackos" are taking over the Republican Party in Congress.
Gov. Ed Rendell made his observation Wednesday as he introduced Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine at an event in Philadelphia to rally Democrats for the November midterm elections.
Rendell says the GOP "is a party that's slowly but surely being taken over by wackos" who are "obsessed" with President Barack Obama's American citizenship and believe the unemployed refuse to work.
He says they also want to do away with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.
--------
From the comments section:
OK, I'm willing to listen. give me some names of intelligent, fair, realistic men/women who are at the helm of this current republican party. todays republican party is NOT the same as the one I grew up with. the days of guys like Tom Ridge is over. the right has gained control. amd they're extreme to the point of lunacy. even moderates like Gov Charlie Crist from Fla. has had to abandon the party. frankly (and unfortunately) most members at the top of the republican ladder are an embarassment.
-------
The GOP is being pulled to the extreme right by the Tea Party, a fake grass roots group started and funded by billionaire libertarians, the Koch brothers.
And Mac, you're right. They make Tom Ridge look like a GREEN PEACE activist from Seattle.
Seriously, if these idiots get any sort of real power they will undoubtedly undo the strong economic recovery that will have taken effect by the beginning of next year.
Remember, the GOP/Tea Party wants NOTHING more than for this economy to continue to falter. ANYTHING to make Obama look bad.
A Dem got us out of the Great Depression and a Dem will surely get us out of the Great Recession.
-----------
Stupid or crazy?
Posted by: Ed Anger at September 09, 2010 07:06 AM (7+pP9)
I think it would be interpreted as: "See, these infidels fear to burn the Koran because Allah would smite them and they fear us."
See, I told you the Americans were a paper tiger.
Posted by: Osama bin Laden
Japanese military leaders were interviewed after World War II. One of the questions asked of those who formulated Japan's decision to attack the US was whether they realized the disparity in industrial output and polulation between the two countries. They said that they were aware of it, and provided proof that they had that knowledge in hand.
When asked why they decided to go to war anyway, one of them cited a picture of the Louisiana National Guard, in 1941 drilling with brooms. They concluded that a nation with such capabilities would not permit this unless they were determined to NOT go to war. They took that piece of evidence as a sign that they could proceed.
Posted by: cranberry sauce at September 09, 2010 07:06 AM (R2fpr)
National GOP sends Miller campaign money
National Republican establishment money is lining up behind Joe Miller, with a $212,000 pledge from the same national campaign committee Miller accused of trying to steal the election for incumbent U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski. The support comes as Murkowski is considering an independent write-in candidacy after losing to Miller in last month's Republican primary.
http://tinyurl.com/33mvhfj
So the NSRC is finally pulling its head out of its ass. And Murk? She's toast.
Posted by: Vic at September 09, 2010 07:06 AM (/jbAw)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at September 09, 2010 07:07 AM (9cflz)
Posted by: steevy at September 09, 2010 07:07 AM (Cd+Dw)
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 10:54 AM
Where do you draw the line? Rauf says there will be a Muzzie "backlash" if the GZ mosque isn't built. Next, there will be a "backlash" when any American Muzzie is denied his right to honor killings. Footbaths in the White House? Probably in time for Osama Obama's Eid-a-palooza.
We're being "backlashed" to death here, Y-not. Time to put the fear of a Western "backlash" in the hearts of Muzzies.
Posted by: MrScribbler at September 09, 2010 07:07 AM (Ulu3i)
Posted by: Dang at September 09, 2010 07:07 AM (Chg7a)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at September 09, 2010 07:08 AM (L8kaT)
Rendell says the GOP "is a party that's slowly but surely being taken over by wackos" who are "obsessed" with President Barack Obama's American citizenship and believe the unemployed refuse to work.
Hey, I'm out of office in a few months. I need to find a real job!
Posted by: Ed Rendell at September 09, 2010 07:08 AM (zgZzy)
Until a true believer gets you alone and beheads you with a rusty scimitar.
Ewwwww! Good thing I'm up to date on my tetanus shot!
Posted by: Dhimmi at September 09, 2010 07:08 AM (a3Z62)
I gather that the Mormon women are a bit harder/more judgmental (at least in social situations) than the men. But I also heard from a church member that there's a list or table somewhere with numbers that the church leaders keep that kind of tallies your transgressions... but I believe that's only on their members.
I went grocery shopping yesterday and had a six-pack of beer at the front of my load on the conveyor belt. It was a lot of groceries, so I was stuck at the back loading up the belt and I noticed that the checker was not ringing it up. I wasn't sure if I had offended her or something. But anyway, it just turned out that I was being carded.
I kind of like Utah, the women here seem to age a little quickly, so by contrast I am apparently much younger-looking than they expect.
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 07:10 AM (osFsP)
I was ballparking but yeah it would be a good "serious" topic for the ONT or something....
I have just about had it with the Muslim apologenzia....all they are going to accomplish is making harder Xians it is what the Crusades were about after all the western response to evangelical islam.
we failed but saved Europe in the trying.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 09, 2010 07:10 AM (kq1lG)
Posted by: Jean at September 09, 2010 07:10 AM (tvzaO)
Hell, you want a building near ground zero? How about a G.E. plant, making light bulbs?
Solves a lot of problems...
Posted by: HH at September 09, 2010 07:10 AM (6oDXl)
Stupid or crazy?
Posted by: Ed Anger
Yes. So Ed Rendell, the lame duck, and supposed big wheel in the national Dem party, is poised to watch that party receive a thrashing in November, on his watch. And he probably won't be able to manage to hand off his office to a fellow Dem. And 2-4 years ago he was touted as a new king maker in the DEM party. Way to go Ed.
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 09, 2010 07:11 AM (R2fpr)
Because they FEAR Islam.
They FEAR their so-called "religion of peace".
Our leaders are useless liars, who can no longer protect us.
We are on our own.
Posted by: pam at September 09, 2010 07:11 AM (h8R9p)
I see it that way too. It is offensive in and of itself, not because of anything which might happen in the future because of it.
It is disgusting that the religion which perpetrated an act of mass murder gets to build a shrine on the site where it happened. Period.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 09, 2010 07:11 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: Jean at September 09, 2010 07:12 AM (n4HiF)
Posted by: steevy at September 09, 2010 07:12 AM (Cd+Dw)
Hot Air linked to an ABC story about a 170 page manual on how to molest children and not get caught. And according to law enforcement, the book is legal. --
so my manual on how to tightly wrap child molesters in chicken wire and leave on the high tide line so the crabs and gulls can slowly kill them over a three day period would be legal as well?
Posted by: Jean
Apply for a grant and get a forward written by Maya Angelou. It'll be required reading in a public school district somewhere.
Bill Ayers might be available to do a review or blurb on the book jacket.
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 09, 2010 07:12 AM (R2fpr)
While "whackos" take over the GOP - Colorado fraud democrats who voted for stimulus and Pelosi's tax payer funded health care disaster - are now moving away from Obama's latest spending proposals.
Of course-- the only reason Betsy Markey(D) and Michael Bennet(D) are moving away from Obama's fiscally irresponsible bad crazyness is becasue they desperately need to hang on to their power. Once back in power, they will shift back to Pelosi supporting drones.
*cough*
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at September 09, 2010 07:13 AM (0fzsA)
When it's a threat that has been verified or pointed out by one of our top military leaders.
I realize people have become disenchanted with Gen. Petraeus -- and someone here also pointed out that he kind of trusts him less because the CiC is Jugears instead of Bush -- but I think he wouldn't have made that remark if he didn't have good reason to think there was a problem.
Obviously, I could be wrong.
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 07:13 AM (osFsP)
Tom Ridge a "Republican leader?" Charlie Crist a "moderate?" Jesus, help me stop laughing.
I'm surprised the commenter didn't go straight to the nut of the thing and yearn for the days of "great Republicans" like Richard Nixon.
Of course anyone who pays attention to anything shit-sucker Ed Rendell says is instantly suspect.
Posted by: MrScribbler at September 09, 2010 07:13 AM (Ulu3i)
Posted by: Hillary RodeHard Clinton at September 09, 2010 07:13 AM (9cflz)
Well, I don't wear makeup very often, but I am good about using sunblock. Plus, I'm a ginger. We age gracefully!
I think it's a couple of things. One is the sun and wind damage. The Utahns are very outdoorsy. I've noticed the men have a lot of fine wrinkles, too. I think the other thing is having lots of kids starting from a young age.
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 07:15 AM (osFsP)
That's not their job. Their job is to protect American liberty, not to say what liberties make their jobs harder or easier.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 09, 2010 07:16 AM (FkKjr)
where was General P when the Donks were undermining the perception of US resolve?
Exactly so either he thinks lib undercutting of his mission is a-ok, he's gone native, or Bush kept his generals from meddling in US domestic issues better than Chicago jesus....you make the call.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 09, 2010 07:17 AM (kq1lG)
Having 5 to 10 kids tends to do that.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at September 09, 2010 07:18 AM (L8kaT)
But the point is that, in Muslim countries, you would not have that choice. You would either dress the way you were told to, or you would be beaten and/or jailed.
Now, which religious group is more tolerant?
Posted by: Drumwaster at September 09, 2010 07:18 AM (dWFSK)
Some States now it is mandatory to card EVERYONE. The last time I bought beer in GA (my old hometown) I was carded. Believe me, ball-headed old man with gray beard and mustache does not look younger than 21.
I asked and they said it was State law.
Posted by: Vic at September 09, 2010 07:20 AM (/jbAw)
OK, I think we just disagree about some fundamental things. Generals assess risks. If he sees something preventable that leads to a greater risk to our troops, I think it is ok for him to speak to that. There was always a chance that this fine American and upstanding Christian, Pastor Jones, would listen to him and cancel the public Koran burning.
Anyway, we've probably exhausted this topic for the time being.
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 07:20 AM (osFsP)
KABUL, Afghanistan – Hundreds of angry Afghans burned an American flag and chanted "Death to the Christians" on Thursday to protest plans by a small American church to torch copies of the Muslim holy book on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Local officials in Mahmud Raqi, the capital of the Kapisa province some 100 kilometers (60 miles) northeast of Kabul, estimated that up to 4,000 people took part in the protest. But NATO spokesman James Judge said the protest numbered between 500 to 700 people.
"The Afghan national police prevented the protest from overwhelming an Afghan military outpost," and dispersed the demonstration, he told The Associated Press.
Judge added that the Quran burning is "precisely the kind of activity the Taliban uses to fuel their propaganda effots to reduce support" for coalition forces.
Posted by: maverick muse at September 09, 2010 07:21 AM (H+LJc)
Now, which religious group is more tolerant?
I know that. I've said that upthread. What I was addressing was the "subjugation" aspect of the Ground Zero Mosque thing that was raised earlier. I'm subjugated if I have to change my behavior at home, not if I choose to travel to a foreign country and therefore have to follow their laws and customs.
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 07:23 AM (osFsP)
When it's a threat that has been verified or pointed out by one of our top military leaders.
I realize people have become disenchanted with Gen. Petraeus -- and someone here also pointed out that he kind of trusts him less because the CiC is Jugears instead of Bush -- but I think he wouldn't have made that remark if he didn't have good reason to think there was a problem.
Obviously, I could be wrong.
Posted by: Y-not
I call bullshit on this. Some of us don't pretend to know what goes on inside the mans' head. We do know that he can be effective, and that he can survive in the murky, dangerous zone where the political and the military spehres interact. And he is quite aware of his limits, and who is dependent upon whom. Remember the memos that came out months ago from Central Commnad assessing Israel? Also remember the general who at Ft Hood who used the mealy mouthed 'tragedy' (code word used by PR flacks and defense attorneys) and went on to list diversity as being his goal.
Has it occurred to you that both he and observers here are right? Perhaps this WILL cause an inflammed response. The question becomes, what in Hell do we do if he reports that the next beauty pagent is going to have the same result (think Niogeria)? Or the pending publication of the next 'Satanic Verses'? Before you answer, remember that Harvard Univ. Press published a book about the Mohammad cartoons, and decided that the one thing that could not be in the book were the cartoons.
This is no different than civil rights types defending Larry Flynnt or the National Enquirer. Yes we may all think that they are scum, but why would be sacrifice rights to a mob?
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 09, 2010 07:23 AM (R2fpr)
Posted by: Lincolntf at September 09, 2010 07:24 AM (gmZ7Y)
So the argument against a citizen burning the Koran is that it will put our troops at risk?
Well, hells bells, there are thousands of things we do that will put our troops at risk. You think allowing homosexual "marriage" has no impact? They kill homosexuals over there. Imagine our troops being viewed as supporting or spreading homosexuality by the common Muslim. Will repealing DADT put our troops at risk too?
What about the massive amounts of pornography that is produced in this country? You think that is overlooked by the common Muslim? Why shouldn't we say that pornographers stop making pornography because it puts our troops at risk?
Posted by: Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz at September 09, 2010 07:24 AM (4JpPD)
Has Pastor Jones been stopped?
What's the problem? Petraeus was asked if Jones' Koran burning was going to affect the troops and he responded (I hope honestly) that it would.
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 07:25 AM (osFsP)
Posted by: theCork at September 09, 2010 07:26 AM (zL5Q1)
Alas, Putin and Turkey have gotten quite chummy over the past few years.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at September 09, 2010 07:26 AM (9hSKh)
I still like the Quran READING idea. If done properly it will force the media to cover/clumsily hide (again) the many violent verses in the Quran which are the real 'root cause' of jihad violence.
Jones could make lemonade out of this mess. But he'll still be up for a hundred fatwas of doom. The kafir must never comment on the Quran except to 'revert' or compliment it for its amazing veracity.
Oh, and always put it on the top shelf after handling it with gloves, naji kufr.
Posted by: Beagle at September 09, 2010 07:26 AM (sOtz/)
Posted by: Pawn at September 09, 2010 07:26 AM (emF0q)
Posted by: steevy at September 09, 2010 07:27 AM (Cd+Dw)
You know another point of irony regarding the koran burning is that the left always whines about proportionality in response to Islamic terror, and how it makes Israel/USA the bigger villian if we act disproportionate to their attempted or actual murders.
In what ways are the feared worldwide riots not disproportionate to a handful of people burning a few Korans (books that are plentiful in America)? And in what way is the widely disproportionate reaction not indicative of a greater pathology in the arab/muslim world?
Posted by: Randy at September 09, 2010 07:27 AM (zQKSr)
I think he'll do it. Now that we've found a connection with those Fred Phelps (?) asshats, I fully expect Jones to carry on. I think there's money that will change hands if he pulls it off.
The only thing that might stop him is a tornado.
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 07:28 AM (osFsP)
Posted by: jewells at September 09, 2010 07:28 AM (l/N7H)
Unless you have made the decision that the goal is to eliminate Islam then any defense of this preacher and his koran burning is beyond wrong headed. I do not have to become like them to win.
Posted by: polynikes
There is no difference between a jerk torching books or a comedian filming a bird crapping on a book or newspaper. The reference to Nazism is akin to the Godwin principle.
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 09, 2010 07:29 AM (R2fpr)
Anyone giving Odds? I'll start off saying 50/50.
70/30 against. Too much publicity, too many cameras and news crews. I'm thinking he'll back off.
Posted by: HH at September 09, 2010 07:30 AM (6oDXl)
It could be simply that the media now regularly monitors Facebook in a way that they didn't a couple of years ago. (Jones posted his plans on Facebook.)
Obviously, it also fits Jugears apologist agenda by demonstrating how intolerant we are.
Smooth move by Jones.
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 07:31 AM (osFsP)
So is it okay for them to criticize a president's policy publicly if they think it puts troops at risk?
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 09, 2010 07:31 AM (FkKjr)
Well, I'm not military, but the POTUS is CiC, so I assume that military code would dictate that he not publicly criticize the president.
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 07:32 AM (osFsP)
Some do. James Treacher covered this, and cited the sources on the DC Trawler
Is it me, or is it odd that it's restricted to bloggers? It's the strongest, quickest point to shut down the pro-mosque folks, as you noted, but I don't see our side use it when debating.
Posted by: CJ at September 09, 2010 07:33 AM (9KqcB)
And in my opinion, one cannot be responsible for the unjust actions of others unless you falsely convince them of situations that make those actions justifiable.
ie., If you tell a man "Your moms a slut" and he shoots you, you are not remotely responsible (though probably unwise). If you tell him you have a gun aimed at his nearby mother in you pocket and so he pulls out his own and shoots you, you are responsible, not him.
In other words, Pastor pyro may be offensive, unhelpful, and unwise but he is not responsible at all for the violence that Muslims may choose to take in response, unless one considers muder just payment for this offense. Their riots or killings are not a "reaction" in a strict causal sense, because human beings have agency.
Posted by: Randy at September 09, 2010 07:34 AM (zQKSr)
So the argument against a citizen burning the Koran is that it will put our troops at risk?
Well, hells bells, there are thousands of things we do that will put our troops at risk. You think allowing homosexual "marriage" has no impact? They kill homosexuals over there. Imagine our troops being viewed as supporting or spreading homosexuality by the common Muslim. Will repealing DADT put our troops at risk too?
What about the massive amounts of pornography that is produced in this country? You think that is overlooked by the common Muslim? Why shouldn't we say that pornographers stop making pornography because it puts our troops at risk?
Posted by: Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz
What's the problem? Petraeus was asked if Jones' Koran burning was going to affect the troops and he responded (I hope honestly) that it would.
Posted by: Y-not
Combine ingredients, mix well, enjoy the resulting hilarity.
Hey General, would killing Prop 8 in California and resultant images of Gay couples lining up for mariage affect out troops?
Hey General, would repealing DADT, a policy which would include troops stationed in the Middle East, affect the troops?
hey General, will Chancellor Merkels' awarding a medal to the publishers of the Mohammad cartoons affect the troops?
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 09, 2010 07:34 AM (R2fpr)
Posted by: Wonder O, building paper bridges 8 ways at September 09, 2010 07:34 AM (uNe7U)
He made the Pastor a story, gave him attention, for what purpose?
To make an example of him.
Gen P reminded the old guy in Fla that even a private citizen in the US is subject to (subjugated) to the laws of the Koran.
He told ALL us citizens that there is only peace.... when all those who live obey..... and only those who obey live.
Posted by: pam at September 09, 2010 07:35 AM (h8R9p)
Posted by: steevy at September 09, 2010 07:35 AM (Cd+Dw)
so the behavior matrix of the guy with the most power and chronological power to do hard to troops by policy gets a pass and the "people" in we the people now have the US military engaging in oversight of the behavior of US citizens....?
Yeah nice benchmark or conversely he could just take a nice cup of "shut the fuck up" on partisan domestic issues concerning personal liberty.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 09, 2010 07:36 AM (kq1lG)
You cut a sentence.
Jones has not been stopped.
Frankly, if those other things adversely affected troop effectiveness and safety, I'd expect him to speak to that. Isn't that what the DADT controversy about?
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 07:36 AM (osFsP)
How is this a partisan issue?
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 07:37 AM (osFsP)
There is no difference between a jerk torching books or a comedian filming a bird crapping on a book or newspaper. The reference to Nazism is akin to the Godwin principle.
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 09, 2010 11:29 AM (R2fpr)
No difference? Maybe in your little theory world. And what reference to Nazism?
Posted by: polynikes
1. Both are cases of vandalism. One involves a match. The other involves a Macaw. Same result.
2. Book burning has been associated in the media (and sometimes here) as being an element of Nazism. You did not make that reference; only I did.
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 09, 2010 07:37 AM (R2fpr)
But do you agree with that, or do you think he should have the right to criticize actions which he believes put our troops at risk?
The way I see it, the people of America are the ultimate bosses of the generals. He has no business criticizing their actions.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 09, 2010 07:38 AM (FkKjr)
http://tinyurl.com/27w6ket
MANAMA, Bahrain — U.S. Marine commandos stormed a pirate-held cargo vessel off the Somalia coast Thursday, reclaiming control of the ship and taking nine prisoners without firing a shot, the U.S. Navy said.
Posted by: Vic at September 09, 2010 07:39 AM (/jbAw)
No, if the military code of conduct tells him to not criticize the CiC in public, I don't think that should change.
We are not the bosses of the generals. We elect someone to fulfill that role.
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 07:40 AM (osFsP)
You cut a sentence.
Jones has not been stopped.
Frankly, if those other things adversely affected troop effectiveness and safety, I'd expect him to speak to that. Isn't that what the DADT controversy about?
Posted by: Y-not
No. Current policy regarding Gays in the miltary is governed by the UCMJ and the Executive order Clinton signed (DADT). Changes to that have been debated as to what effects, if any, might occur to the military (current service and future recruiting). An external reaction to policy changes (Muslims reacting negatively) have not yet been part of that debate.
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 09, 2010 07:41 AM (R2fpr)
well either every reporter on the planet forgot to ask the general what he thought of the peaceniks or he has decided to try to throw the donks a lifeline to sway public opinion on their gaffe on the GZM....
as was asked above do we now go to General P for oversight on prop 8, DADT, whether or not to censure merkel for rewarding the EDMD cartoonist?
Where do we draw the line....I am giving General P the benefit of the doubt but harder people than me are correct in saying General P could be seen as having just inflicted Shariah on America ....not a stretch and not a joke. You can say "nobody is topping him" but as was pointed out the leftoids favorite GOP crazy preacher stalking horse Fred Phelps has already burned it....where was general p then?
he is Ogabe's stalking horse on this fuck him if that is the case./
Posted by: sven10077 at September 09, 2010 07:42 AM (kq1lG)
What I meant by "isn't that what the debate... is about" was that it was a case where personal liberty (being an open practicing homosexual) was trumped by concern for the effectiveness of our military. I didn't mean to imply it had anything to do with Muslims' reactions to gays in the military.
Posted by: Y-not at September 09, 2010 07:43 AM (osFsP)
so the General gets to engage in oversight of us and we are not to question his motives and whether or not he is being jaded by partisan pressures....
kind of makes you wonder why we ever passed the Posse Comitatus law then doesn't it?
Posted by: sven10077 at September 09, 2010 07:43 AM (kq1lG)
Posted by: Vic at September 09, 2010 11:39 AM (/jbAw)
We should never unnecessarily provoke those Muslim Somali Pirates. Retaking that ship might unnecessarily inflame Muslim passions and endanger our troops.
/s
Posted by: maddogg at September 09, 2010 07:44 AM (OlN4e)
301 Listening to Chris Stigall this morning and he said something about the Westboro Baptist Church did the same thing as this fellow down in Florida. About two years ago the Phelps gang burned a bunch of korans and not a whisper about it in the news. Why is this preacher in Florida getting so much ink? Very strange.
Posted by: jewells at September 09, 2010 11:28 AM (l/N7H)
It's true. From TPMMuckraker:Jones and several others joined Westboro at a Gainesville protest in April. The center's members carried signs reading "Mohammad was a false prophet" and stood alongside Westboro's notorious "God hates fags" signs.
[ . . . ]
Westboro, for whatever it's worth, doesn't feel the same way about Jones. Shirley Phelps Roper, a leader of the church, told the Kansas City Star this week that Koran-burning is old hat, something her church did "a long time before this guy." Besides, she said, he won't go through with it.
"They'll browbeat him and he'll back down at the last minute," she said. "He's an apologist. He doesn't serve God."
---------
I think the reason why Phelps' burning of the Koran didn't get any coverage is because, like our media, he hates our troops.
Posted by: Ed Anger at September 09, 2010 07:44 AM (7+pP9)
Generals swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. We are their bosses.
There are chilling implications to allowing generals the right to criticize private citizens, and accepting their recommendations because they are generals.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 09, 2010 07:48 AM (FkKjr)
used to be that using patronage to get the local garrison colonel in your pocket meant you had an even more personal police force than controlling the Chief of Police gave you.....
this shit has serious implications so either Jugsy knows what he is doing or accidentally crossed a line that would have had Kos going insurgent had bush done the same.....
either way it is a bad omen.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 09, 2010 07:52 AM (kq1lG)
What I meant by "isn't that what the debate... is about" was that it was a case where personal liberty (being an open practicing homosexual) was trumped by concern for the effectiveness of our military. I didn't mean to imply it had anything to do with Muslims' reactions to gays in the military.
Posted by: Y-not
Ah, understood, and I agree. Nothing was 'trumped'. Millions of people are deemed ineligible to serve, for a variety of reasons. Currently, homosexuality is one of them. And there is a debate on that.
As to the role of the military in that debate, they hopefully should be consulted, since they are the experts in that area, and have a duty to inform the policy makers. But, for good or ill, civilians are the policy makers, and that is as it should be.
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 09, 2010 07:54 AM (R2fpr)
There are chilling implications to allowing generals the right to criticize private citizens, and accepting their recommendations because they are generals.
I don't mind a military officer speaking his mind. When he speaks of means, he has expertise; when he speaks of ends, he is equal to any other citizen, at least by virtue of his job. I trust Americans can ignore authority figures when they disagree.
Posted by: Randy at September 09, 2010 07:55 AM (zQKSr)
Posted by: pam at September 09, 2010 07:58 AM (h8R9p)
Posted by: chicken thief at September 09, 2010 08:09 AM (Q0lfL)
I think I've seen this movie before.
Posted by: Neo at September 09, 2010 08:11 AM (tE8FB)
Thomas Sowell discusses Muslim sensitivity:
Our betters are telling us that we need to be more "tolerant" and more "sensitive" to the feelings of Muslims. But if we are supposed to be sensitive to Muslims, why are Muslims not supposed to be sensitive to the feelings of millions of Americans, for whom 9/11 was the biggest national trauma since Pearl Harbor?
Posted by: maddogg at September 09, 2010 08:21 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: art insurance directory at September 20, 2010 05:43 AM (H5kcB)
Posted by: lashes grow at September 29, 2010 07:36 AM (YE3if)
Posted by: chi flat iron at February 18, 2011 12:19 AM (P19kz)
Posted by: passion flower side effects at June 28, 2011 11:28 AM (64r0W)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2877 seconds, 451 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: steevy at September 09, 2010 05:36 AM (Cd+Dw)