If Obama and the left have a hard time with "Islamic Radical" or "radical Muslim"

how come they don't with "white supremicists"?

I mean if I try hard I can understand their reasoning. Not all muslims are radical jihadist. Not all who follow the teaching of the islamic faith want to kill the infidels. So if the left are concerned that sticking the label of Radical Muslim Terrorist or any combination would taint the nonradical peace loving one, I can live with that. It might make sense. But if we take it at that, at face value, then why is it that they don't have an issue with "white supremacy" or "white supremicists"? I'm white but I don't kill minorities or even hate them. Nor do I get my panties in wad when the term white supremicist is used. But isn't it just a tad hypocritical so refuse to label a group of people who murder in the name of their religion by their religion because you don't want to broad brush then yet have no problem do the exact same thing with a race of people?

Just food for thought..... and to see how the few liberals will justify it.

PS-please don't try to suggest he hasn't used that teminology. A simple google search will debunk that. I'll assume you know how to "google" something.

Don't white supremicists actually take pride in the designation? If white people all of a sudden and made a stance that the term is offensive, disrespectful or anything else, you can bet there would be a liberal movement to remove it from the lexicon.

Not only do I feel that supremicists are proud of the term, I feel like it has become socially accepted as a differentiating term. I can proudly say that white's aren't supreme and want to make sure that I'm separated as much as possible.

Maybe one day, radical islam may be accepted in the same way, on both sides, but it's not. I think a better parallel to make are derogatory native american terms being used as sports nicknames.

And you don't think the a-holes who strap bombs on their bodies and blow themselves up while yelling Allah Akbar aren't proud that they are Islamic Extremists? You think OBL didn't relish in the fact he hated America and Americans? That he wanted to kill everyone of them? Members of ISIS/ISIL, Al Queda, Boko Haram are all PROUD of their affiliation with those groups. Or do you mean that white people in general are proud of white supremacist? I know as a white person, I'm not. I'm embarrassed every time I see a Klansman. I don't want anybody to think I'm one and most reasonable people don't assume I'm one simply because I'm white. Its a false premise that the left present that if you identify a segment of the islamic population who want to kill Christians and Jews as "radical" then ALL Muslims will be seen as such. I says that ideas is BS and no different than if you identify White Supremicist racist (which they are), it means that ALL caucasians are racists. By the lefts reasoning, that is exactly what happens. Of course thats because they believe people in general are too stupid to be able to differentiate. But then what do you expect from people who need to be cared for from cradle to grave.

Of course it seems the difference is by far the vast majority of whites will speak out against the actions of the KKK, and do the same same concerning these hate groups. Muslims for the most part don't seem too interested in voicing their disgust with the actions of their fellow muslims who kills or carry out acts of violence and terrorism. And then of course Washington will pass laws to prevent their actions hate groups. Do that to a radical muslim faction and it seems to be considered "profiling".

Doc, you have described it well as usual.

Same way the left/Obama likes to describe those white supremecist as radical Christians. Well as a white Christian I hate what those people are doing, they don't represent Christianity and no where have I found that the Bible in the New Testament says kill any that dont' accept Jesus or those that are of a different nationality. But the quran does say kill those that do not accept Islam and are infidels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

And you don't think the a-holes who strap bombs on their bodies and blow themselves up while yelling Allah Akbar aren't proud that they are Islamic Extremists? You think OBL didn't relish in the fact he hated America and Americans? That he wanted to kill everyone of them? Members of ISIS/ISIL, Al Queda, Boko Haram are all PROUD of their affiliation with those groups. Or do you mean that white people in general are proud of white supremacist? I know as a white person, I'm not. I'm embarrassed every time I see a Klansman. I don't want anybody to think I'm one and most reasonable people don't assume I'm one simply because I'm white. Its a false premise that the left present that if you identify a segment of the islamic population who want to kill Christians and Jews as "radical" then ALL Muslims will be seen as such. I says that ideas is BS and no different than if you identify White Supremicist racist (which they are), it means that ALL caucasians are racists. By the lefts reasoning, that is exactly what happens. Of course thats because they believe people in general are too stupid to be able to differentiate. But then what do you expect from people who need to be cared for from cradle to grave.

Of course it seems the difference is by far the vast majority of whites will speak out against the actions of the KKK, and do the same same concerning these hate groups. Muslims for the most part don't seem too interested in voicing their disgust with the actions of their fellow muslims who kills or carry out acts of violence and terrorism. And then of course Washington will pass laws to prevent their actions hate groups. Do that to a radical muslim faction and it seems to be considered "profiling".

---

How many Muslims do you hear from? I know plenty that voice their disgust. Are you looking for the moderate Muslims in these countries to voice their disgust? Well, if they do, they're murdered or at the least, thrown in jail. Who are you looking at to provide this voice of disgust?

On your first thought, though, you're missing what I'm saying. I'm not saying that white people are proud of supremicists, I'm saying that white people are accepting of the phrase and do not find it offensive, I don't, do you? If they do, then make some noise, create a movement and the left will make sure it's removed. Are you starting a movement to get people to stop using the term white supremicists? What's the better alternative, and I'll help you.

I've always been in the position that it's not about offending a religion, which I feel that people are making this about. I feel that using the term, or a similar, actually emboldens the radicals, and gives them ammunition to recruit. If the enemy is recruiting and they need to convince a prospect that we see this as a war on Islam, how else better to do that than use our own words? I can tell you for certain that moderate Muslims take offense to anything that empowers evil.

I just don't see a parallel at all between the two terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jazyd

Doc, you have described it well as usual.

Same way the left/Obama likes to describe those white supremecist as radical Christians. Well as a white Christian I hate what those people are doing, they don't represent Christianity and no where have I found that the Bible in the New Testament says kill any that dont' accept Jesus or those that are of a different nationality. But the quran does say kill those that do not accept Islam and are infidels.

---

Do you have any examples of Obama using the term radical Christians? Do you have any examples of any rational person using the term radical Christians? I know that it's thrown around in what if's, but I watch a lot of all the news channels and I've never heard anybody use that term, in a manner such as people are freely throwing around Radical Islam. I suspect that you're just making things up, or at least, reciting some words from the extreme left fringe.

I'm always curious, though, why are those people who take offense at people NOT using Radical Islam don't use the term Radical Christians? I've asked that before and I'll ask it again.

Most importantly, I want to know why does anybody care that people don't want to use the term Radical Islam? Does the use of this word flex our muscle? Why does this have the right-wing so upset?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2

I'm not saying that white people are proud of supremicists, I'm saying that white people are accepting of the phrase and do not find it offensive, I don't, do you? If they do, then make some noise, create a movement and the left will make sure it's removed.

---

Do you really believe a movement to stop the term "white supremacists" would result in the removal of its usage by the liberals? That's not going to happen, especially its usage by Obama. The man has done everything possible to set race relations back decades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2

Don't white supremicists actually take pride in the designation? If white people all of a sudden and made a stance that the term is offensive, disrespectful or anything else, you can bet there would be a liberal movement to remove it from the lexicon.

---

I'll take that bet. I"m all in, everything I own. Numerous liberal groups use "white" in a derogatory manner all the time, grouping everyone together, and when questioned on it most respond that all whites are born with more privilege so they deserve it.

Like Doc said, radial Islamists are quite proud of being called Islamist, and polls suggest a decent minority of non-radical Muslims support the cause. You've got a non starter with that argument.

I appreciate the mental gymnastics. Rationalization is always fun to watch. Let's recap

1) White racist are proud to be acknowledged as such. And if they didn't want to be called such all they need do is ask, I'll assume that's because liberals don't want to hurt their feelings. Check

2) White people accept the term. I was unaware we had the choice. For me, I dislike all racist organizations whether it be the KKK, the Nation of Islam or the Black Panthers. Of course only one of those doesn't get invites to the white house or have access to the President. Check

3) I don't know any Muslims hence my view of their level of disgust is skewed. And those overseas who object are murdered. Well a whole lot of them dance around burning American flags in Muslim countries, or hide terrorists, etc. When was the last time you saw a celebration erupt in the streets following a Aryian Nation killing?

4) Its the term. Hey, we agree here. Just a term. Nothing offensive about it, really. It says a segment of a religion is radical and wants to destroy anything non-Islamic. Not much different than say a segment of the white race that wants to destroy anything non-white

5) All we need to do is say we find a term offensive and the left will remove it from their lexicon. You're not serious, are you? This is ridiculous, so much so it made me smile. I do appreciate that. A little levity in life is good, especially when talking politics.

6) For the years the left has made political hay by being divisive. Supposedly Muslims fear the broad brush of the actions of a small segment will taint the larger group (I tried to ask the Muslim I know but turns out the guy is Hindu. Who would have thought that?!!!!! Man, was I embarrassed) yet in other areas they ENCOURAGE divisive and "group think" behavior. I could use any of several groups as examples but I'll go with the police officers of this nation as an example because I have a personal interest in their safety. The left has no problem depicting the police enforcement of the nation as evil based on the actions of a small segment. This divisive tactic has been so extreme that LEO officers are murdered for no reason yet the the rhetoric from the left continues. Note, this is but one example. There are others that could have been used as well. When the left doesn't speak out against such atrocities against citizens of this county doing their job, instead opting to join in protests against the law enforcing agencies of this country thereby encouraging the exact thing they claim using radical Islamist or Islamic terrorist term does. No, they're more worried some guy named Mohammad in some I-dont-give-a-crapastan is going to be offend. What's he going to do, strap on a vest and blow something up? Newsflash, he was going to do that anyway.

As I've said before, it doesn't matter to me if Obama or anybody else actually says Islamic terrorist. To me it is just a term. I know who they are and why they do what they do. I just find it hypocritical and offensive that the President and his minions feel the need to lecture me and others on relations between groups. We live in a nation that is strife with racial unrest in large part due to his actions and his rhetoric. The last person I want advice from on how to get along with others is him

Good job, Doc

I normally don't offer a rebuttal to my own post but just couldn't help myself.

One thing Obama has that I don't? A Nobel Peace Prize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

I appreciate the mental gymnastics. Rationalization is always fun to watch. Let's recap

1) White racist are proud to be acknowledged as such. And if they didn't want to be called such all they need do is ask, I'll assume that's because liberals don't want to hurt their feelings. Check

2) White people accept the term. I was unaware we had the choice. For me, I dislike all racist organizations whether it be the KKK, the Nation of Islam or the Black Panthers. Of course only one of those doesn't get invites to the white house or have access to the President. Check

3) I don't know any Muslims hence my view of their level of disgust is skewed. And those overseas who object are murdered. Well a whole lot of them dance around burning American flags in Muslim countries, or hide terrorists, etc. When was the last time you saw a celebration erupt in the streets following a Aryian Nation killing?

4) Its the term. Hey, we agree here. Just a term. Nothing offensive about it, really. It says a segment of a religion is radical and wants to destroy anything non-Islamic. Not much different than say a segment of the white race that wants to destroy anything non-white

5) All we need to do is say we find a term offensive and the left will remove it from their lexicon. You're not serious, are you? This is ridiculous, so much so it made me smile. I do appreciate that. A little levity in life is good, especially when talking politics.

6) For the years the left has made political hay by being divisive. Supposedly Muslims fear the broad brush of the actions of a small segment will taint the larger group (I tried to ask the Muslim I know but turns out the guy is Hindu. Who would have thought that?!!!!! Man, was I embarrassed) yet in other areas they ENCOURAGE divisive and "group think" behavior. I could use any of several groups as examples but I'll go with the police officers of this nation as an example because I have a personal interest in their safety. The left has no problem depicting the police enforcement of the nation as evil based on the actions of a small segment. This divisive tactic has been so extreme that LEO officers are murdered for no reason yet the the rhetoric from the left continues. Note, this is but one example. There are others that could have been used as well. When the left doesn't speak out against such atrocities against citizens of this county doing their job, instead opting to join in protests against the law enforcing agencies of this country thereby encouraging the exact thing they claim using radical Islamist or Islamic terrorist term does. No, they're more worried some guy named Mohammad in some I-dont-give-a-crapastan is going to be offend. What's he going to do, strap on a vest and blow something up? Newsflash, he was going to do that anyway.

As I've said before, it doesn't matter to me if Obama or anybody else actually says Islamic terrorist. To me it is just a term. I know who they are and why they do what they do. I just find it hypocritical and offensive that the President and his minions feel the need to lecture me and others on relations between groups. We live in a nation that is strife with racial unrest in large part due to his actions and his rhetoric. The last person I want advice from on how to get along with others is him

---

#1. Not what I said. I did say that white SUPREMICISTS(not racists, and I do see a difference. My father-in-law is racist, he's not a supremicist) are proud to be called such. Am I wrong there? Second, I didn't say the racists just need to ask not to be called that, I said if there is a feeling among white people that it is a derogatory term, then those people should step up and demand that people quit using it. Problem is, I don't really see that call from white people. I offered to help if that is a movement that anybody here wants to start. Change takes a while, but it can happen. So for point #1, you completely missed what I was saying.

#2. You always have a choice. Don't like the term? DO something about it. Do you have proof of the radical Nation of Islam members or the Black Panthers having an "invite" to the White House. Sure, I'll admit that there have been members of both of those groups that have been to the White House, but you're trying to tell me that members of the KKK have never been in the White House? Totally ridiculous. It's really hard to know who they are, though, to see if they've been in the White House, since they live in the closet(quite ironic, if you ask me) and they cover themselves in sheets.

#3. Completely not what I said. I'm not really sure what you're implying. At a minimum, I was referring to moderate Muslims, not extremists(I don't know any, thankfully). It's not the moderates that are celebrating and flag burning. Am I to assume that you feel that is a standard practice for ALL Muslims? I will say, though, if someone doesn't know any Muslims, than how can that person accurately assess how they feel about what is happening?

#5. You show me an instance where it hasn't happened? There may be some out there, not saying there aren't, but everything is so politically correct these days, it doesn't take much to change the lexicon. The reason why you should laugh is that there is absolutely no demand out there to do so. You show me that it's a problem and I'll personally help you solve it.

#6. The left is not trying to depict police as evil, as a whole. There are certainly left wing radicals that do so, but to paint all those left of center as condemning police as evil is just flat out wrong. You claim that the left is doing this as a result of a few, but that's exactly what YOU'RE doing here, making the assumption that the action of some radical people on the left represents all of them. It's flat out false. As a victim of police brutality myself, and my father-in-law being a retired Chicago police officer, i have a lot of perspective of what has always goes on and what happens today. Large city police is way different than small-town cops. There is an underlying, minority culture that needs to be addressed. Just last night, I watched a massive protest from my living room window of a horrific action by a Chicago cop, that I'm sure you are aware of. Are we just supposed to keep looking the other way because a very small minority of people go to the opposite extremes? We support law enforcement, but we want accountability were there is injustice. We condemn the acts of a few that are violent, unnecessary or divisive. We also condemn being broad stroked with these radicals.

To say that the left doesn't speak out is nonsense. The problems, and it exists on the right side too, is that the mainstream media sources only report sensationalism. There is very little voice for the rational. I have to ask, are you listening to sources where the left listen(and I don't mean an occasional watching of MSNBC, because most of that station, and all 24 hour news networks are garbage)? I can't think that you are. If you're ears are closed, it doesn't mean it wasn't said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

Do you really believe a movement to stop the term "white supremacists" would result in the removal of its usage by the liberals? That's not going to happen, especially its usage by Obama. The man has done everything possible to set race relations back decades.

---

Of course I believe that, what I don't believe is that there are people who WANT a movement to stop the term "white supremicists". Find me a case where a term has been deemed politically incorrect and there hasn't been a new term to replace it.

Do you really believe that the term is a problem to a majority of people that it should be changed? I find the term(not the actions of the individuals) to be generally socially acceptable(and that is not an endorsement one way or another on my part of its use or its usage's effect).

To me, this is a problem that doesn't exist. I think it's up to each of you to prove that it is a real problem. If you can, I'll support YOUR movement to have it removed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jazyd

Doc, you have described it well as usual.

Same way the left/Obama likes to describe those white supremecist as radical Christians. Well as a white Christian I hate what those people are doing, they don't represent Christianity and no where have I found that the Bible in the New Testament says kill any that dont' accept Jesus or those that are of a different nationality. But the quran does say kill those that do not accept Islam and are infidels.

---

This slipped past me.

I haven't read the Quran, but I'm pretty sure that this isn't the case. I must assume that you have read it since you make such an emphatic statement, so I would appreciate it if you pointed out the part that says those that do not accpet Islam are infidels and must be killed.

I'm going to assume that you have not read it, so I'm pretty sure that is a very loose interpretation at best, or one sentence plucked out of context to be construed a certain way. I'm going to admit that I'm ignorant of the teachings of the Quran, but when the topic has come up in discussions with my Muslim friends, it has been my takeaway that the Quran preaches to fight against aggressors and suppressors, but NOT against those who do not fight against you.

So, it really comes down to interpretation. We have radicals that interpret it for their means, but it appears to me that we have people here at home(who have never read it) that are interpreting it for their beliefs too. Just as any religious text does, the Bible not excluded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

I'll take that bet. I"m all in, everything I own. Numerous liberal groups use "white" in a derogatory manner all the time, grouping everyone together, and when questioned on it most respond that all whites are born with more privilege so they deserve it.

Like Doc said, radial Islamists are quite proud of being called Islamist, and polls suggest a decent minority of non-radical Muslims support the cause. You've got a non starter with that argument.

---

Care to share any examples?

I'm not implying that you're wrong here, as I'm sure there are SOME instances, but we're still talking minority here and it seems like you(or others) want to paint a majority with the actions of the minority.

On the opposite side, there are non-Radical Christians that support the causes that result in violence too. From my POV, those don't represent the good people. Am I to assume that non-Radical Muslims who may support the cause represent the majority view? If not, then why bring it up in isolation?

Lets go another route. Every Southerner who waves the Confederate flag is labelled a racist or bigot. The left has successfully had that symbol of the south removed from National parks and monuments over the objections of many white who don't see it as a racist symbol. They see it as a symbol of their heritage. So if enough white folk object to the vilification of the stars and bars, you're going to support the movement to get that back? I doubt it because that would offend the African Americans, and we don't want that.

How do you know how many Muslim friends and acquaintances I have? You've implied I don't know any Muslims. What gave you this impression?

The thing is apparently I have the unique ability to not see all people of one group as the same. Even if our current administration acknowledged that the people who are strapping dynamite to their bodies and blowing themselves up after killing people were 1) Muslim, 2) radical and 3) terrorists, I wouldn't believe EVERY Muslim was a radical terrorist. I don't automatically believe every person of Muslim descent is a murdering piece of crap. Last month I was in the middle east (Qatar) and I didn't believe every throbe in Doho was covering a bomb. Not every hijab wearing woman at Disney is a suicide bomber. Personally I'm able to understand that not ALL Muslims are Jihadist. In my opinion when the President can't see that, is unable to illustrate the point, or has so little faith in the people of this nation that they are unable to fathom that concept, instead opting to refuse to acknowledge the obvious for fear of offending somebody, we are sort of in a pretty poor place. See I believe he is wrong, 100% wrong. See none of my Muslim friends seem upset when the term radical Muslim is used. I guess that's because they don't include themselves in the group, sort of in the same way I don't include myself in the white supremacist group even though I'm white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2

Of course I believe that, what I don't believe is that there are people who WANT a movement to stop the term "white supremicists". Find me a case where a term has been deemed politically incorrect and there hasn't been a new term to replace it.

Do you really believe that the term is a problem to a majority of people that it should be changed? I find the term(not the actions of the individuals) to be generally socially acceptable(and that is not an endorsement one way or another on my part of its use or its usage's effect).

To me, this is a problem that doesn't exist. I think it's up to each of you to prove that it is a real problem. If you can, I'll support YOUR movement to have it removed.

---

Nice tap dance around my post, but if there were such a movement it would be dismissed out of hand by Obama. Many Muslims refer to Isis as radical Islamists, there was no movement to have the term changed. Obama changed the term to extremists at the same time the administration was putting out literature that included conservatives with firearms as extremists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

Lets go another route. Every Southerner who waves the Confederate flag is labelled a racist or bigot. The left has successfully had that symbol of the south removed from National parks and monuments over the objections of many white who don't see it as a racist symbol. They see it as a symbol of their heritage. So if enough white folk object to the vilification of the stars and bars, you're going to support the movement to get that back? I doubt it because that would offend the African Americans, and we don't want that.

How do you know how many Muslim friends and acquaintances I have? You've implied I don't know any Muslims. What gave you this impression?

The thing is apparently I have the unique ability to not see all people of one group as the same. Even if our current administration acknowledged that the people who are strapping dynamite to their bodies and blowing themselves up after killing people were 1) Muslim, 2) radical and 3) terrorists, I wouldn't believe EVERY Muslim was a radical terrorist. I don't automatically believe every person of Muslim descent is a murdering piece of crap. Last month I was in the middle east (Qatar) and I didn't believe every throbe in Doho was covering a bomb. Not every hijab wearing woman at Disney is a suicide bomber. Personally I'm able to understand that not ALL Muslims are Jihadist. In my opinion when the President can't see that, is unable to illustrate the point, or has so little faith in the people of this nation that they are unable to fathom that concept, instead opting to refuse to acknowledge the obvious for fear of offending somebody, we are sort of in a pretty poor place. See I believe he is wrong, 100% wrong. See none of my Muslim friends seem upset when the term radical Muslim is used. I guess that's because they don't include themselves in the group, sort of in the same way I don't include myself in the white supremacist group even though I'm white.

---

It's news to me that every person that waves a Confederate flag is labeled a racist or bigot. I don't believe that to be true.

You say that the left had it removed from national parks and monuments over objections, but that simply is a false statement. The left, and left of centers have been demanding the removal of the flags basically most of my lifetime that I can remember. It wasn't actually removed until those on the RIGHT started asking for it's removal. When I first met my wife, she was appalled when she saw pictures of me in college with a confederate flag in my apartment and was equally so when we went to a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert at the Taste of Chicago to see them waving and tried to explain to her the heritage explanation. However, intended or unintended, it became a symbol of much more than that, but a reminder to those of the ill-ways our country once followed. I completely support those that want to wave it anyway they want to, but our country has evolved to a point where it's a reminder of other things and it should be taken down in public places.

You ask if I would support getting back the stars and bars? Well, if the majority of people supported bringing it back and it wasn't offensive to a large group of people, then sure why not, but that will never happen.

As I mentioned earlier, the better debate is sports mascots and nicknames and the American Indians, to which I lie somewhere in the middle, but I would simply throw out some food for thought, what if one of the casinos that are run by Native Americans was called Cracker Casino or Honkey House and the sign out front was a fat American shooting a gun? Would that be offensive? How about in the inside all the native american cocktail waitresses were dressed in daisy dukes with tramp stamps? To top it off, all the patrons were Blacks, Asians and Native Americans. That would be the equivalent of sports mascots(doing dances, tomahawk chops, wearing headresses etc) and nicknames are for Native Americans. Are you cool with that?

I didn't get an impression one way or another about how many Muslims you may know, however, until you tell me one way or another, I'm going to assume that they're not part of your day to day circle, at least from a standpoint of how they feel about their faith, this war and the other issues we discuss, because I feel like you would make that part of the debate. If you do have friends, colleagues etc that are Muslim and have such discussions, I'd love to hear about them. All that I have are my personal experiences for which to draw.

You lost me on the 'when the President can't see that', are you saying that the President can't see that people are able to discern the difference between radical Muslim and moderates? If that's the case, I couldn't disagree more.

Your last point, though, to me it's not an issue of offending Muslims by not using the term radical Islam or radical Muslim. It never has been and I don't believe that to be the primary point of people choosing how to parse language. That's your debate so I'm not going to do that. To me, and I believe is the standard view of Democrats, it's an err on the side of caution to not give extremists an ability to recruit. It is my view, and many others, that the easiest way for the influencers of evil to convince a prospective person to join their cause is to use the language that we define as acts of aggression and war. Having said that, though, practically anything we say will be used in that manner, so it's really why it's a non-issue for me. I do agree, however, that there are those on the far left that refuse to use it because of it being offensive, but IMO, that's a small factor, not the larger group. I think I'm much more in tune to make that proclamation, just as you are more equipped to have a better sense of how many people in the right wing think certain ways.

It really appears to me that the lack of will for people to use these terms is really bothersome for those on the right. It really makes me feel that if this is what it is that riles people up, then the administration is really doing a pretty good job, since there's really nothing of substance to debate, which is also why we see Republican candidates focusing on Starbucks cups, whether or not to kill baby-Hitler and whether or not Ben Carson lied about his failed attempt to kill somebody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

Nice tap dance around my post, but if there were such a movement it would be dismissed out of hand by Obama. Many Muslims refer to Isis as radical Islamists, there was no movement to have the term changed. Obama changed the term to extremists at the same time the administration was putting out literature that included conservatives with firearms as extremists.

---

At about the same time that he said that some conservatives and Southerners stop "clinging to their guns and their religion". You know, I find it somewhat disingenuous that he couldn't ask his Muslim friends to do the same. So conservatives & Southerners are extremists, but Muslims who murder people with guns and other devices in the name of Allah are not?
My feelings are hurt!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2

Care to share any examples?

I'm not implying that you're wrong here, as I'm sure there are SOME instances, but we're still talking minority here and it seems like you(or others) want to paint a majority with the actions of the minority.

---

You need to get out more, or at least listen to something besides NPR. ;)

If I get some time over the holiday for kicks I'll google up a few dozen links if I can narrow the search right.

As for the support question, my point is that overall a non-trivial percentage of Muslims are as proud of being called "radical Islamists" as any percentage of whites OK with "white supremicist", and I'd bet it's actually a much higher percentage.

Not that it matters to me. that was your point, that somehow if these radicals are OK with the term then the term is OK. personally I think it only hurts your case b/c I think it's beyond crystal clear these terrorists are doing what they are doing in the name of Islam and they are very proud of that fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

Nice tap dance around my post, but if there were such a movement it would be dismissed out of hand by Obama. Many Muslims refer to Isis as radical Islamists, there was no movement to have the term changed. Obama changed the term to extremists at the same time the administration was putting out literature that included conservatives with firearms as extremists.

---

Why are we debating something that has no sense of reality? We can only speculate based on our own perceptions.

I didn't tap dance around your post, I directly answered the question you asked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

You need to get out more, or at least listen to something besides NPR. ;)

If I get some time over the holiday for kicks I'll google up a few dozen links if I can narrow the search right.

As for the support question, my point is that overall a non-trivial percentage of Muslims are as proud of being called "radical Islamists" as any percentage of whites OK with "white supremicist", and I'd bet it's actually a much higher percentage.

Not that it matters to me. that was your point, that somehow if these radicals are OK with the term then the term is OK. personally I think it only hurts your case b/c I think it's beyond crystal clear these terrorists are doing what they are doing in the name of Islam and they are very proud of that fact.

---

That's only half of what I said. That's OK, though, at least for the immediate time, this conversation has grown old. On to the next topic...

Oh, and by the way, I listen to NPR about 2 hours per year, and that's probably the cumulative time that I'm listening to it in cabs.

Bottom line is I wish Obama spent as much time and energy not offending 50% of the people he supposedly represents (republicans) as he does trying to not offend Muslims. Offending the right seems to be a goal of his, meanwhile he takes every measure possible not to irritate people who live on the other side of the planet and as a general rule despise us. Seems a bit odd to me, and a bit misplaced. But that's my take. Not anything I'm overly upset or obsessed about, just find it interesting is all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

Bottom line is I wish Obama spent as much time and energy not offending 50% of the people he supposedly represents (republicans) as he does try to not offend Muslims. Offending the right seems to be a goal of his, meanwhile he takes every measure possible not to irritate people who live on the other side of the planet and as a general rule despise us. Seems a bit odd to me, and a bit misplaced. But that's my take. Not anything I'm overly upset or obsessed about, just find it interesting is all

---

It isn't surprising given his background.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

Good job, Doc

---

Oh, yeah. :sHa_clap2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2

That's only half of what I said. That's OK, though, at least for the immediate time, this conversation has grown old. On to the next topic...

Oh, and by the way, I listen to NPR about 2 hours per year, and that's probably the cumulative time that I'm listening to it in cabs.

---

Lol. Doc and Citizen bring out the big guns and swords and as usual the left runs, it was so predictable. As so is as either doc or citizen takes a challenge, it's time to get the lawn chairs out, fix some southern sweet tea, pop sone popcorn and relax and watch the show

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jazyd

Lol. Doc and Citizen bring out the big guns and swords and as usual the left runs, it was so predictable. As so is as either doc or citizen takes a challenge, it's time to get the lawn chairs out, fix some southern sweet tea, pop sone popcorn and relax and watch the show

---

Not a case of winning or losing an argument. I'm just wondering how the mind of some works. I see many issues and hypocrisy on the GOP side as well. Personally I tend to think on my own and develop my own opinions which is why I seek others opinions. Occasionally they will change how I think or see things

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

Not a case of winning or losing an argument. I'm just wondering how the mind of some works. I see many issues and hypocrisy on the GOP side as well. Personally I tend to think on my own and develop my own opinions which is why I seek others opinions. Occasionally they will change how I think or see things

---

its what I like about your debates. For some things for me, its like bringing a knife to a gun fight on some issues with you :) But you always look at the other side,never say your way or the hwy...such as gun issues...and like you I sometimes change my opinion based on something the other side will say.
And also like you I have my issues with the GOP. But what I don't like is when someone, either side, claims to know everything and you better side with them.
Thanks always for your insights. but it was funny to me seeing you and Citizen take the challenge.