Damn but you’re stupid today.
Those are not my posters. It’s not me saying Israel=Nazi or Bush=Hitler. I guess what you want to say is that the liberal idiotic fringe is collapsing into a Mega-Godwin – not that I think it would bother them much.
I am not saying all liberals are fucking idiots who think Israel=Nazi or Bush=Hitler. Only that some liberals think so, wherefore it’s wrong to say no liberals think so.
Thou clouted dizzy-eyed codpiece!
The idiot is you, read again, I never said it was your poster.
I already knew it was the work of those idiot fringe liberals.
You are a piece of shit by trying to make a connection with the makers of that picture to liberals that are in favor of human rights. I don’t forget the context the conversation was then. I love that there is no editing function here, everyone can see what an ass you are here.
Looked in a mirror did ya?
Huh?
Sadly I’d bet you’d garner a lot of support. There are a lot more “glass parking lot” people out there then I’d like to think.
No one is defending this as far as I can see, it’s just that this isn’t a big secret. We know there are some nuts over there that want to kill us. Personally I’d like to try and iron things out diplomatically, and I feel there are steps both sides could undertake to bring a more fruitful environment in which this could be possible. Of course then I’m some nutty lefty who wants to try and “understand” these “terrorists”.
Like I said, try and find out why they want us dead and try and fix it.
Please name a poster defending Iran’s comments.
Please provide a quote of someone suggesting this.
And which is worse? Actually doing it? Or just shouting a bunch of bullshit to look tough? I think Both are complete asshats for a variety of reasons.
So you’re defending their comments now? You have to respect them for being “straight up” right?
Which is a good thing.
Could be both. We’ve been asshats in how we’ve dealt with an asshat.
Didn’t you just say the UN was in a complete tizzy? Hopefully something will be done.
I’m somewhat confused here about your statements.
When did “Israel” and “Jews” become synonymous?
While I agree with everything else contained in your post, I’m afraid I’m going to come awfully close to providing duffer with said quote.
As you yourself note in your following response:
Point being, the Iranian asshat should be – and has been, rather universally, a fact that appears to escape the worthless wingnut shrills in this thread – condemmed for his repugnant use of overblown and hateful rethoric in a region already on the brink of complete chaos.
Note, however, that said chaos didn’t happen in a vaccuum – again, a fact that has already been mentioned numerous times in this thread and appears to zoom right bye the Bush zealots in their righteous indignation…which, BTW, only mirrors their frothing opponent’s. Simply put, Bush’s disastrous implementation (IOW, actually going past the rethoric and launching his war of conquest) of the Neocon’s imperialistic policies bear a large part of the burden for the current nationalistic/fundamentalist swell in Iran. That it should come as any kind of “surprise” to people like the OP and his ilk despite the continued warnings from those of us who opposed this madcap invasion only shows how dettached from reality they really were. Which, in itself, is hardly a surprise to this side of the equation, but rather a dreadful confirmation of what we already knew.
Namely that these people continue to operate under the delusion that they can “create their own reality.” The frightening problem being, that with extremists on both sides of the equation, they probably can! Even if said reality comes wrapped in a mushroom cloud, for it will only comfirm a self-fulfilling prophesy: hatred begets more hatred. Not seeing who the Good Guys here are.
Are we past the point of no return?
:::shudder:::
I see that mhendo has already replied in detail to Starving Artist’s post, and has done a good job, but there is something I want to add.
First, as mhendo said, the left in general does not vilify religion. Sure, if you look at the SDMB, you will see that several people here seem to be rather anti-organized religion in general (and not just leftists, I have noticed this streak in Clothahump), but you will also notice that people who attack religion in general with no reason, or who try to make all Christians responsible for Fred Phelps, for example, are not the most respected posters here. You may find many liberals here (Siege and Polycarp, for example) who are also very religious and who certainly don’t want religion to stay behind closed doors. However, they want it to be kept separate from the government, as mhendo already said.
As for the possible backlash against Muslims, what us liberals would not want to happen is that people start believing that the problems that cause Muslim terrorism are only theological in nature. In essence, we don’t want people to start saying: “well, of course they’d do that, see what it says in their holy book, the Qur’an! Religion of peace indeed! :rolleyes:”. This has already started, and not only is it not useful, since this problem is not primarily a theological one (see tomndebb’s excellent posts in this thread), but also it may lead people to hatred and violence against Muslims who wouldn’t deserve it. In other words, I know that Islam is a scary and foreign religion, but we must know what it is really and realise that even though, yes, the Qur’an and the Shariah (I don’t know exactly how to transliterate those words, but I assume you know what I’m talking about) are more than a millenium old and seem very reactionary today, religions may still evolve if we give them the opportunity to evolve.
As an example of this, I remember another thread where gum was trying to argue with Angua that she can’t be both gay-positive and a Muslim, since the Qur’an contains verses that condemn homosexuality. Well, the Christian Bible also contain verses that are thought to condemn homosexuality, but today most of us will agree that it is entirely possible to be both Christian and gay-positive. And frankly, I think that Angua knows a lot more about what it means to be a Muslim woman than gum ever will, given that she is and the other isn’t. Yes, I do know that she practices an extremely liberal sect of Shi’ism that doesn’t represent mainstream Muslim theology, but this is an illustration of my point: religions may change over time. And I understand that Dutch people like gum, or Danes like Rune, are scared of Muslim terrorism, since it’s starting to reach their shores due to immigration, but above all they should try to avoid any knee-jerk reaction.
This is what the left thinks about possible backlash against Muslims, and this is why we oppose it. As for your comment that “we must not condemn other cultures, since they are only different from us, not better or worse”, I might add something to mhendo’s post when I’ll have the time.
I’m not for a second taking your claims at face value, because I’ve read far too many of your posts to ever make that mistake. But assuming for a minute that you’re not, for a change, completely full of shit, what do you think liberals should do when someone shows up at a rally with an anti-semetic poster? Beat the crap out of them?
Good post, severus. Thoughful, reasonable, persuasive.
However, when I look around and see people trying (and it seems, more often successfully that not, to have Christian images banned from public view because someone might find it offensive if they aren’t a Christian, and when I see a movement taking hold which has more or less already found its way into the culture as a whole where you aren’t supposed to say “Merry Christmas,” you’re supposed to say “Happy Holidays”, I feel this is the result of liberal activism and influence. We have people now trying to have Christian images removed from public view even if on private, non-government property and to take “Christ” out of Christmas.
In almost every case of liberal involvement, there are going to be liberals of a certain ilk involved and others who aren’t. But the fact of the matter is, Bushies and Limbaugh lemmings aren’t the ones who are the driving force behind this kind of thing.
And, I might add, I’m not a particularly religious person, myself. I just become incensed when I see such activism against Christian religion as a whole, and against a holiday I happen to love, by people who denigrate and attempt to minimize it in the public’s mind, but who have no problem at all embracing the rights of Muslims and other religions that aren’t predominant in the U.S. to practice their faith as they see fit.
Yeah, just the way that judge taking the baby away was.
Cite?
Would it matter?
If I were to provide one, will you declare that I was right after all and convert to my way of thinking on the subject?
Or will you merely argue with it and try to find some way to negate it? At which point we’ll be pretty much back to where we are now.
There is no question in my mind as to what your answer would be.
How can I answer until I see the cite? I agree with others that it seems most likely that you are not here to convince or persuade, or to be convinced or be persuaded, but merely to sound off.
No comment on what happened the last time you blamed something on liberalism?
Why don’t you try it for a change, instead of simply donning the hair shirt and using it as an excuse for not backing up a single factual claim with any evidence whatsoever?
Find me an example of liberals “trying to have Christian images removed from public view even if on private, non-government property.” Chances are, if such folks exist, i will stand ready to disagree with them, and to agree with you that they are out of line.
Come on, give it a go. What can it cost you?
Excuse me, but I believe it’s me who said that. And I explained why. As I said then, when I see the type of behavior even the Sam Stones of this board come in for, I see the futility involved in trying to be reasonable and/or civil in these types of discussions. Thus, my philosophy has become pretty much one of my coming in here, saying what I have to say and sometimes explaining why, and letting the chips fall where they may.
I’m never gonna convince you of anything and you’re never gonna convince me of anything, so what’s the point of doing the dance?
You guys just love to pile on the rare conservative voice around here, and endless calls for cites that prove nothing even when offered are one of your weapons of choice. It doesn’t mean you are in right when you do so, it just means your opponent has provided you with further means for their own ugly treatment.
So, make of my words what you will, but you ain’t gonna be getting much in the way of cites from me…unless of course I decide to provide one of my own free will such as I did in the Rosa Parks thread.
Uhh, cause not everybody IS celebrating Christmas? :wally
Buddhists,
Bodhi Day ,Buddha’s Enlightenment December 8, 2006
Wiccans/Neo Pagans,
Yule/Winter Solstice December 21, 2005
Zoroastrians,
Zarathosht Diso (Death of Prophet Zarathushtra) December 26, 2005
Jews,
Hanukkah December 26, 2005-January 2, 2005
Sikhs,
Guru Gobind Singh’s Birthday January 5, 2006
But since they’re NOT Christians, who gives a fuck if they have a happy holiday and a good New Year?
When come back, bring cite!
But don’t you see? That wouldn’t matter.
I spoke in one of these threads about the Dope being a tiny sliver of the country’s population and that proving something to someone here isn’t going to change things in the slightest. (This isn’t to denigrate or negate the many fine discussions that do go on around here among people who enjoy participating in them and whose minds may even be changed as a result.)
When I gripe around here about this or that type of liberal behavior and/or its result, I’m incensed because of what is going on in the country as a whole. Persuading you as an individual isn’t going to change that one iota. (Though I think it’s laudable that you are willing to criticize the behavior I complained about.)
One may wonder then why I post here in the first place. Several reasons. For one, it gives me greater insight into the liberal thought process than I would have otherwise. I occasionally hear something from either a conservative or liberal poster here that gives me a different perspective on things. And sometimes I just get filled up with disgust over something that’s happened somewhere in the country and feel the need to speak up about it.
You may take this sanctimonious treacle, fold it till it’s all sharp corners, and shove it up your ass. Had you offered a cite, I would have read it, and told you whether I agreed or not, and why, or if I thought it specious, why I thought so. You may, of course, continue on your path of higher consciousness without me.
There are some conservative posters here I enjoy reading, even though I disagree with them. There are some conservative posters here who are not intellectually stunted, who are not formed from a base of fear, and who vigorously and honestly challenge their political opponents. You are not one of them.
To show others who is the illogical one here:
http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/000598.php
In other words, the point is to show to others that people like you are just followers of fallacies. A perfect foil to a doper. Although I don’t agree with him Sam Stone also brings evidence to the disscussions.
As I said before I modified my point of view regarding guns thanks to the cites and evidence brought forth by the conservatives here, so once again, as has been your case in this thread, you are a lier.
We call that a google vomit.
But guess what fallacy droid? It stopped me from criticizing your point against Jessie Jackson. And I did agree with what you said on the Rosa Parks thread.
There it is again, that unsupportable claim that conservatives are a rare breed here. While liberal posters may outnumber you conservatives, you guys post with such prodigious frequency that there is unquestionably parity between conservative and liberal posts. Would you like a cite? Or will you accept my claim without support, as you ask us to accept yours?