Guilty: Father and Son Convicted of Murder of Bank Security Guard
Thanks RC!
My bad, they should be in there too.
The usual scumbags are hollering about a civil war again (or yet).
Alex Jones: “The first shots of the second American civil war have already been fired,” and it will be “unstoppable until they’re burning down all the cities.”
Roger Stone: Robert Mueller’s investigation will “spark a civil war in this country.”
Newt Gingrich: “We are in a clear-cut cultural civil war.”
Pat Buchanan: The US is “approaching something of a civil war,” and it’s time for Trump to “burn down the Bastille.”
Michael Savage: “There’s going to be a civil war.”
Meanwhile, Ted Nugent is talking like ‘We Have Got to Be More Respectful of the Other Side’ and ‘I’m Not Going To Engage In Hateful Rhetoric Anymore’
That fucking draft dodging, pants shtting, gun waving, child screwing, shit talking war mongering motherfucker says it’s time to stop being mean. Fuck him and anyone that looks like him. After decades of his shit, he doesn’t get to turn it off just. like. that.
I’m no fan of Ted Nugent, but finally shutting up would be awesome, if true. Yes, he should still be accountable for the previous bullshit, but turning it off just. like. that. is a great start! I wish all of those idiots would.
I’ll start by saying that I still don’t feel like I truly understand this movement’s problem with wrapping their heads around the 1st Amendment. Are they even sincere? Or are they playing dumb in a provocative way as a part of some other aim?
I’m not sure I get it, even after one of them explained it to us in A Ban On Muslims Is An Excellent Security Option. But let’s not make this about me. Can you, dear reader, spot any missing links in the logic?
1
I’m actually with him so far. Now, since Allah=Jehovah=YHWH (for some values of depending who you ask), the Big Three are all about allegiance to one and the same God, and so “theologically” Muslims can get along with other “people of the book” better than you might think if you had never met one. But that doesn’t support the thesis, so let’s just move on.
2
I am not wracked with not-understanding yet. It does seem like the author is suggesting there is no such thing as a secular Muslim, or that perhaps they are all the same (the “good” ones anyway), but never mind.
3
It’s not like there isn’t such a thing. The Iranians, for example, were furious with what the CIA &etc did to their country and the way we treated them, furious for generations, down to a religious level. There are other examples to cite.
OTOH, I think somebody has to be purposefully not paying attention to see that this is not always the case, hence my questioning the sincerity of these people. Take the mayor of London- is he really only friends with other Muslims? Is that whole administration just a conspiracy against the public? The author seems to be departing from strict sense, evidence and reason in favor of prejudice and hate. Just starting to, anyway.
4
Again, what part of the 1st Amendment do these people fail to grasp? Have they even read the Constitution (or the Bible for that matter)?
The Constitution simply is not based on “Biblical principles”. I am willing to be corrected if anyone can offer a coherent argument otherwise.
And, while one can make an argument about what a “good Muslim” believes, this author has also said that they “must submit to the Mullahs.” Is the author a Mullah? No? So how is he an authority on what Muslims believe? Let’s just move on.
5
Good thing America has a 1st Amendment, forbidding Congress to make any law respecting the establishment of religion. America can’t adhere to the Constitution and have a Muslim government. How did we get to the subject of “Muslim Government” anyway? Looks like we are supposed to connect the dots to America = Christian government. A Christian government that has been rather friendly with dictatorships and autocracies when it suits its purposes, but never mind that.
There are very many things I could say here. Again, I wonder if this kind of rhetoric is insincere, if perhaps it is an assault on the notion of reasoning itself, such that a certain kind of audience will be primed to view Constitutional logic as equally corrupt and in need of rejection.
6
There you have it, 6 steps to the global segregation of Muslims. Why? Because the Constitution is based on the Bible, Americans are all Christians or Jews (wait! the “good Americans” are), and we can’t all be friends.
I’m open to being persuaded to the author’s premise, but these points don’t lead there at all AFAICT. As the points become more specious and distant from each other, is the audience’s hatred supposed to fill in the gaps like some kind of mortar, thereby creating some kind of solid whole? I don’t think I get it, but it has to be something like that…
The part that follows:
He is a mind reader who knows their intentions.
Hmm. I have heard of Hmong from Laos who strive for their own separate community. But I am not sure how well they are able to corral the children. In two generations, assimilation seems all but inevitable. This assertion is basically unsupportable.
Have there? Really?
No, this is just nonsense.
The audience is supposed to take him at his word. If you seek unbiased information on some of his key assertions, you find garden-fertilizer and vaporous misinformation that evaporates at a glance. I suggest that, if you want to be open to being persuaded to a position like this, you seek someone who makes less-assailable points.
I won’t believe a fucking word Ted Nugent has to say on that subject until another Democrat is President and we see if his sentiment is genuine, or purely partisan.
He said he did at the time in a couple of interviews, then recanted those confessions later. Either way makes him a liar, so I tend to side with young ted, rather than old ted.
He did in fact get a medical deferment as being unfit for duty.
Of course, at that time, things will be different, and he will have re-thought his position again, realizing that a democrat in office cannot be tolerated.
As far as I am concerned, he will always be Poopants Nugent.
But you’re trying to make sense and use logic. These flag waving cross brandishing assholes aren’t interested in that, they want Dominionism, pure and simple. You can’t reason with them. Don’t even try. I’ve tried, it’s useless. There is no reasoning, there is no compromise. They are the same as the ones they claim to hate so much.
He said he did, and he has been quoted as saying it. he ALSO said he wanted to kill all the “commie hippies” that were in the Army (such as ME).
Why not take his own words at face value?
He did have various deferments… a hgh school deferment, a college deferment (but I am not clear how he would be in college AND be touring/recording/etc), and then came various “medical” deferments until he was finally classified 4F.
So there was definitely something flaky going on. It sure looks to me like he played the system to avoid service.
Therefore, fuck that son of a bitch.
After he dodged the draft, causing someone more honest than himself to go fight in his place, he later realized that that was a less popular position.
So he stopped bragging about how he dodged the draft, and started lying about it instead.
ISTR that in the fringes of the Bundy Ranch thing a couple of nuts went all ISIS on a police officer convention or something of the sort, did I dream that ?
[QUOTE=E-DUB]
The fuck is wrong with these people?
[/QUOTE]
Just about everything, and their sex life.
meh
This is just old anti-papism dressed up in new clothes for the new century. The “arguments” are almost identical to the utter bullshit that was still going strong when it was used against JFK in 1960, (and still going, just not as strongly, in recent years.)
Every claim made in that essay is either a corruption of what the religion teaches or an outright lie. Such people are merely haters who need an “enemy” against whom to rail.
It is amusing, (intellectually, not emotionally), to see the idiots claiming that Muslims (or Catholics) cannot be good neighbors or citizens based on their faith as explained by someone who rejects them as neighbors or fellow citizens based on their faith.
Apparently so.