OP and his followers should check out this book for evidence that terrorism generally is enacted, enabled, and justified by liberals: http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Rage-Cultural-History-Terrorism/dp/0061173851/ref=cm_rdp_product/186-4068839-9970954
Stalin kills millions = Communism is awesome!!
Muslims stone gay people = Religion of Peace!!
Christian clerk refuses gay marriage certificate = Christians are evil bastards!!!
If liberals hate Christians and America so much, why aren’t they fleeing en masse to such wonderful utopias like Cuba or Yemen or Russia??
Instead of my taxes paying for welfare rats I’d much rather it go towards one way tickets out of this country for the people who hate it.
This is little remembered now, but I read in Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America, by Rick Perlstein, how RW political violence in the U.S. in the 1960s was considerably more widespread and worse than LW violence.
. . . Eh? What’s “true” here?
Good point! Shall we see an example of living in a fantasy land?
Bad canned mayhem! Voting for Obama like that!
Thank you! As a recovering Texan, my gratitude is heartfelt.
:rolleyes:
Clothahump, you say things like this all the time, but you seem to think your reasoning, whatever it may be, is self-evident. How about a bit of clarity?
Please tell us, if you will, three ways in which your life has been irreparably harmed by the Obama presidency, so we can better judge whether your opinions hold water.
Incidently, I think the OP is talking bollocks, but that’s a separate issue.
A clearer example of conservative hypocrisy on the subject is the storm of poutrage they ginned up when DHS did a story of potential extremist threats from the far right, eventually forcing the subject to be dropped and obstructing efforts to defuse the potential threat.
Yeah, but libs killed 60 million babies.
Muslim terrorists and fundamentalists tend to be for traditional family values, especially for gender roles. Not too fond of gay people, abortions, or sex outside of marriage. Usually have an anti-intellectual bent - anti-evolution and pro creationism is standard. They hate secular authorities. Hate liberal Western culture. Generally xenophobic and not too fond of outsiders. Too bad they’re the wrong religion, they’d do awesome in the GOP primary.
Dang, almost October and I haven’t come near making this month’s quota. Sorry.
That, right there, is one of the several reasons Canned Mayhem seems a bit…confused.
Confused about what?
In between hating on infidels they’re busy slaughtering each other over different interpretations of their shitty sky wizard book?
Yeah, it’s confusing all right…
Funny how you’ll gladly slam them when they’re compared to republicans…They renew launching missiles into Israeli schools and your ilk tends to defend them to the death…
Hmmmm…
I don’t recall defending terrorists, not even to slight annoyance, much less death.
As I said, you seem more than a bit confused.
Is there ?
I guess that’s accurate, but you have the causality backwards. If it’s the truth, it won’t be bigoted. The fact that what you believe is bigoted is how we can tell it isn’t true.
And it’s still perfectly possible to use perfectly accurate facts but come out with a bigoted conclusion.
And, yes, the OP is stupid. But it concerns me that you are focusing on the wrong part. Why the fuck would there being more Islamic terrorists make it okay to excuse the terrorists on your side? Hell, why the fuck aren’t you denouncing the terrorists on your side?
Wouldn’t “eco-terrorists”, whose main objective is to conserve the environment, be properly regarded as conservatives?
Hey, if righties can call Nazis socialists, we should be able to get away with this one.
This is logically incorrect.
You want to believe that, having established that a proposition is bigotry, it cannot be true. But if it is true that “no statement can be both true, and bigoted”, then establishing that a statement is true also establishes that it is not bigoted. You cannot determine if a statement is bigotry until you establish that it is not true.
Being bigoted doesn’t show that a statement is false. Being true establishes that a statement isn’t bigoted.
Regards,
Shodan
They might if there were such a thing. But it would be preposterous to categorize property-destroying monkeywrenchers as “terrorists.”
Terrorism - the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
How is eco-terrorism not terrorism? It goes far beyond vandalism, and definitely promotes a political position.
Not that I agree with E-DUB. On the contrary, I find his position here ridiculous, as I suspect does he. But eco-terrorists exist, and the fit the definition.