[QUOTE=danbar]
Not one of you dealt directly w what I said, one! If he did, he did so obliquely and indirectly, by attacking ad-hominem and unwarranted the truths in my posts.
So let’s start from the beginning, again, for the weak ones:
Political Correctness - BAD=HYPOCRISY
Law Enforcement as Profiling - BAD=ANARCHY,
Same-Sex Marriage - BAD=SOCIETY DESTRUCTION and PUBLIC DEPRAVITY,
Leaving Iraq Now - VERY BAD=COWARD and STUPID,
English Not First Language - BAD=WHOLESALE OF OWN CULTURE FOR THAT OF THE OTHER,
Not Denouncing Islamo Fascism - BAD=COLLABORATION W THE ENEMY,
Anti-Zionism - STUPID=ANTI-NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENTS
and so on and so forth, till the whole list of stupid, blind, digging-own-grave liberal notions is exausted. Feel free to add, Foie Gras, don’t be shy.
And don’t complain, now, it’s the Pit here, so there.
[/QUOTE]
Political Correctness is simply a phrase used by troglodytes to complain when they are told to stop being rude in public. (There have actually been a very few instances where there have been legitimate complaints against various forms of “PC,” (typically on college campuses), but the majority of whines against PC are nothing more than crude people whining that they are not sufficiently free to be rude.)
Law Enforcement as Profiling does not even make sense. Profiling as a tool of law enforcement can be effective if it is sufficiently developed and sufficiently rigorously implemented. This would mean that it would include psychological profiles of the potential suspects that are matched against behavior. When it is simply a matter of harrassing people based on skin color (which is, by far, its most prevalent implementation), it is worse than useless as it does not prevent crime while it does impinge of the rights of persons and causes certain communities to withdraw from supporting the police, correctly perceiving the police as the “enemy.”
Same Sex Marriage is no threat to society. No one who has ever made the opposite claim has provided any argument beyond “it’s icky and I don’t like it.”
Leaving Iraq now may or may not be a good idea. Depending on how it is implemented, it may reesult in good or bad events. It is too important a decision to be decided by the bumper sticker rhetoric that you enjoy and it is not, regardless, “cowardly.”
“English Not First Language” is another meaningless phrase. Are you saying that we should deport a huge number of citizens of New Mexico for speaking the language that they have grown up with for the 96 years that they have lived in a U.S. state with a constitution that recognizes two official languages? Are you saying that we should have turned Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi, Igor Sikorsky, Alexander Kartvelli, Tsung-Dao Lee, Chien-Shiung Wu, Vladimir Nabokov, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, and others away at the borders because their “original language” was not English? Bumper sticker phrases are a stupid way to debate and bumper sticker phrases that do not even make sense indicate the intelligence of the author pretty clearly.
Not Denouncing Islamo Fascism. I denounce the word Islamo-Fascism, although I doubt that that is what you intended. It is a made-up meaningless word that attempts to link a word with evil associations (Fascism) to Islam. None of the actual Wahabbists or other Fundamentalist Islamic advocates of terror actually embrace a philosophy that resembles Fascism in any way, so the phrase is inherently stupid. (Of course, I note that you also like to pretend that Fascism, itself, if a “leftist” ideology, and that sort of nonsense simply displays your beliefs as simplistic bi-polar cant.)
Anti-Zionism - STUPID=ANTI-NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENTS. This is a debatable point. Certainly, Zionism from its origins to the middle of the 20th century would be best characterized as a nationalist liberation movement. (That would not absolve it from every criticism, but it would be a fair depiction.) Since the middle of the 20th century, however, (and particularly beginning in 1967), it has taken on other elements that are not nearly so noble and it is open to criticism (not necessarily outright condemnation), on a number of levels.
= = =
Now, I have directly dealt with your simplistic nonsense, demonstrating that you embrace stupid phrases rather than actual thought to present your beliefs–beliefs you appear to have accepted without actually understanding what they mean (or realizing that they have no meaning). I have even taken thje time to note that there are nuances in your positions that may have merit (although you have not demonstrated that you are capable of understanding them). Satisfied? I think you can go home to your bridge, now.