Darn it, Stu.........just when it looks like you're finally going to get it right, then you suddenly veer left again! Darn it all!
Darn it, Stu.........just when it looks like you're finally going to get it right, then you suddenly veer left again! Darn it all!
MOLON LABE!
There's a huge difference between veering right and common sense. I'm a centrist, outside of the bubble. Not libertarian(I do believe that government has a purpose), or not liberal(or at least as defined by those on the right). I debate the other side with my liberal friends and family all of the time.Originally Posted by suncat05
On social issues, however, I'm extreme to the left, but that's where that ends. Economically, I'm more center, some may say a little right of center. I can find common ground with people like Rubio, Paul and a couple of other people in the Republican party, but I just can't support someone who caters to a fringe that I'm completely 100% opposed to. I can see the difference in needing their support to get elected and pushing their agenda, which is why if that person would be elected, I would get them the respect and support until they don't deserve it, which is a rarity for people in both parties these days.
I never want to be party labeled or affiliated, and I want to always choose the best person that shares my views. Unfortunately, there aren't a whole lot of them, so I have to find the best fit, flaws and all.
I hope you know I was making a joke, even if it was a poor attempt.
MOLON LABE!
I don't like to miss an opportunity to try to explain that I'm not as crazy as I appear of some may think.
Not at all when the AG threatens people with federal charges if the say anything about Muslims.
Makes one really wonder about this administration and where their true loyalty lies
no they can't and Keith pointed that out. The AG will retaliate against them and has said so. They would also risk retaliation from those they accused to the point of killing them, and this couple would have done just that.
Isn't that what Trump really wants, tougher background checks on foreign Muslims until we know for sure who and what they are? Right now we have no control over them coming into this country, zero and Trump knows it.
Citizen, we know for a fact that two of the terrorists in France came in as refugees. We know for a fact ISIS has said they are/will plant operatives/terrorists into the refugee system, we know for a fact that Somalia refugees in Detroit have returned to the middle east to fight for ISIS and AQ, we know for a fact this female in San Bernadino was never questioned, interviewed and she was a radical and possible plant before she came here, we know for a fact that two men from the middle east who made IED's there came to Bowling Green Ky and resumed making IED's here and thankfully were arrested before they could do anything. We know for a fact that 70% of the so called Syrian refugees are male..which is odd when you think about it...throw in the FBI is watching about 1000 Islamics iphere tied to terrorism
We know that the president of the USA is sworn to protect his citizens against all enemies of the country.
So are you willing to bet your families lives by allowing unknown muslim refugees into this country knowing that our process of so called vetting them is a farce? I am not willing to allow that to my family
Last edited by jazyd; 12-12-2015 at 11:19 AM.
That's not a reality. How does a call to your local law enforcement lead to violence? Can you cite an example where this has occurred?
I stand by my statement that if anybody is in fear of retaliation by making a simple phone call, it's irrational, fear based, unrealistic and idiotic.
Then WHY did she say that, and if that's not what she meant, then why has she not sought to clarify her meaning? She meant exactly what she said. After all, she only answers directly to the POTUS, and he clearly stated in his book, if he has to choose between America or the Muslims he will choose to side with the Muslims, every time.
The meaning is crystal clear to me. It's a direct threat against Americans who do not care for this Muslim ideology and the threat it poses to our national security.
America & Americans are the enemy of this administration. They say it to us every day. Many of us here have that much figured out. Others here........not so much.
MOLON LABE!
We are way too Muslim friendly in much the same way Ashcroft et al were focused on covering the breasts of statues while muslims learned to fly airliners. Time to quit fiddlin while Rome burns
Feds need a big enema followed by priority based belt tightening
What did she say, exactly, for you to make such an inference?
Please point out where Obama said this in his book?
You realize that there are many Muslim Americans that deserve all the same rights that you and I do?
You may disagree with Obama's approach towards fighting ISIS(although, it's very similar to many of the Republican proposals minus a tweak or two), but to insinuate that he sides with the enemy more than America is flat out insane. It's warped. There's just no evidence to validate it. It's a fear mentality.
Trump's rhetoric is way more comforting to ISIS than anything that Obama has done. At least Obama's approach is killing terrorists, while Trump is doing whatever he can to help them recruit.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that a good portion(not a majority) of this nation wants an all-out religious war, where it's not a fight against extremism. When you see polls that say that people are accepting of American on American crime and gun violence, but want to ban all Muslims, it's hard not to come with that belief.
I'd like for people to start telling me that is NOT the case.
Last edited by StuBleedsBlue2; 12-14-2015 at 03:21 PM.
Stu, I don't know if it will help (and I have to say re Obama he's the first President I really think does have a split loyalty b/c he is an apologist for America and doesn't see it as that shining beacon on the hill), but the issue of American on American crime versus terrorism isn't about racism, it's about basic psychology.
People need to feel safe, and they will tend to rationalize and evaluate threats based on their own sense of personal safety. So when they see a report of crime what they want most is to feel that it doesn't impact them or pose a threat to themselves or their family.
So if it's some shooting in some bad neighborhood but they don't live there they say it's not a threat to them b/c they don't live there, or if it's a gang shooting they say it's OK b/c they aren't in a gang. Those crimes aren't a threat to them.
What scares people aren't the everyday crimes, b/c those crimes have a reason, a connection, and if they aren't in those groups they feel unaffected. What scares people is RANDOM crime, where they feel they have no control and it could happen to them at any time no matter what neighborhood they live in or what activities they avoid. So random shootings, terrorism, drunk drivers, those things scare people a lot more than a report of a gang war in some area they don't intend to visit.
Statistically far more people died from everyday crime in that same day than the 14 killed in San Bernadino, but those others don't scare people like some lunatic out to just kill anyone.
It's not personal, or racism, it's simply the need for people to mentally distance themselves from threats. They can't distance themselves from terrorism the way they can some shooting over a drug deal gone bad.
Which of course is what "terrorism" is all about, and why it is effective far beyond its actual physical impact. It doesn't work by killing enough people, it works by scaring enough people into thinking they may be killed.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
1)The current AG of the USA, Loretta Lynch who said that she would prosecute anyone for hate speech towards Muslims. Strange though, she didn't say that about Jews, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Hindus, or any other religious denominations.......just that she intends to protect Muslims. Sorry, but if I as a Roman Catholic can't get any protection from religious persecution, then the Muslims shouldn't either. At this point, my rights as an American under the Constitution are being violated.......by the very person who is in charge of protecting MY RIGHT as an American citizen.
2)In his book, "Dreams of My Father". Don't remember which chapter it was. I'm sure your copy will be more readily available than mine.
MOLON LABE!
That's not what she said and it's not what he said.
I didn't think you had any proof.
Here is her quote on the subject, "We always have a concern when we see the rhetoric rising against any group in America, that it might inspire others to violent action, and that violent action is what we have to deal with". That was a clarification of the "edge of violence" comment that I believe that you and others are trying to relate to the topic at hand, that if you are to call the police to you're at risk to prosecution. That's about as far as a stretch that you can make. She also went on to say, ""Of course, we prosecute deeds and not words". My source for all of these quotes is Newsmax.
I believe the "any group in America" is inclusive to Jews, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Hindus and so on as you pointed out of her failing not to mention, again proving that you are incorrect. Might I add to, that her original comments were made at a Muslim Advocates(we have to remember that Muslims are Americans too) where of course she's going to make a comment directly towards them, and leave it to the right wing to isolate these comments to create a fictional depiction. Then, once she clarifies them, it's too late, you're going to believe what you want.
Facts are optional.
Please feel free to set me straight if these aren't the comments to which you're referring to.
As far as the Obama myth. I have to think that you're relying on the many lies and distortions that have been debunked ad nauseum. I'm pretty sure that you didn't read any of Obama's books, so you must be relying on the filth that people want to make up, and you just keep eating it up, like so many others that fall for it hook, line and sinker.
I don't care when people disagree with politicians, but it's really a shame when people just blindly believe what they read and see. I know it happens on both sides and it's wrong any time it does happen. It's so easy to fact check these days. That's why I asked for your examples. I was able to fact check and come to the conclusion that your conclusions are a lot of BS.
I don't disagree with everything your saying, but I again question the rationality of it. I think everybody needs to question what makes them fearful of something and take personal responsibility for accountability of those fears. Very few people want to do so
The first thing that I set in bold, I feel a little differently. I feel that people prioritize their fears based on their personal values. They are scared of the unknown. They are scared of people that are not like them. The anti-Muslim rhetoric has spiked since San Bernadino, but it didn't with the Planned Parenthood killings, the Oregon shootings, Charleston, Newtown, Sandy Hook, and on and on, and you have to ask why?
All of these killers were "radicalized", at least in my view, but it's the Muslim killers that have "everybody" scared.
It IS personal, racism and bigotry(among other emotions) that are factoring in how people are mentally distancing themselves from threats. What else can it be? If people can't rationally assess risk of threats to their safety it's coming from some other emotion. As I've said several times, there are WAY more things that pose a risk to our safety than radical Islam. If we're talking about radical religion, "radical" Christianity is just a greater threat domestically. To me, though, it should never be a religious conversation.
It may not be known to each person individually, but they are acting in racist, bigoted ways. It's reminds me of sitting around with my sister-in-law, who isn't racist, but made a statement about a girl in her class feeling very down about herself that she wasn't pretty like all of the other girls, and as she's telling us the story, she tells us that the girls was "pretty for a black girl". She's made statements like that quite a bit over the years, but once she realized that it's actual hurtful to people and is racist, she's changed her ways.
Of course it's not rational. In the 1970s polls indicated people thought New York had ten times the crime rate it actually had due to all the crime dramas based in New York showing crime.
No doubt part of being threatened by any group that can be readily identified by some criteria will lead to issues with that group, but it's not inherently racism. In this case it's not race anyway, it's religious discrimination by and large since we're talking about multiple ethnic groups (though I know most Americans don't know there are multiple ethnicities in the Middle East) across the Muslim world. In WWII slurs like "kraut" were used despite Germans having been fully integrated into the US for a century.
But that's not the cause, it's the symptom. The cause is feeling threatened, and people feel threatened b/c terrorism is random and is focused on bringing the threat to random innocent people going about their lives, and that's exactly why it works.
No it's not rational, but it works. The chances of being killed by a terrorist are nearly nil compared with all the ways to die in a given day, but people perceive it to be a threat that needs to be addressed. We are at war, people expect us to take that level of action.
But that's not inherently racist. It's a simple truth that the highest risk group for terrorism are Muslims and it's not close, so they bear the most scrutiny.
The emotion it comes from is fear. Fear creates racism, not the other way around.
As for "radical Christianity" being a greater threat, that's a joke and a half. In 20 years in this country organized Christian religion will be in tatters thanks to the increasingly agnostic social mores of the country and the onslaught of reverse discrimination that is driving traditional faith out of every aspect of our daily lives unless you go out of your way to find it.
And btw I don't consider myself to be particularly religious. I am however particularly observant and particularly good at spotting double standards.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Stu, try watching some national news. The video clip showed Lynch saying if people said anything about the Muslims they would be prosecuted.
Then if a great amount of what is said in Obama's book has been 'debunked', then those things are lies. Are they not?
And so, if he said that, but doesn't mean it, then it's a lie too. Isn't it?
So what is his truth then?
MOLON LABE!
It's not what Obama said in his books, it's what people have said he has said that has been debunked. Much like what you have said that has been proven over and over again not to be true.
That was exactly the same article from which I was quoting from that absolutely says nothing about prosecuting people for saying anything about Muslims. It certainly doesn't say anything to the effect of the point that I was making that if you see something you can call the police without retribution. That is a point that people are in complete error on. As I've pointed out several times, nobody can show an instance where this has happened, so it's just another irrational fear.
If Lynch were going to prosecute anybody for speaking a negative word on Muslims, Trump would currently be up for multiple lifetime sentences, possibly treason charges for what he's done. He's free to discriminate, incite violence without impunity.
I just can't understand how people can't see the difference in taking a stance against those who want to incite violence against any group and what is allowance for free speech or even something as simple as notification of your local law enforcement.
I know where people are going to head next, but I'm going to let that organically evolve instead of putting in my two cents worth right now.
Wrong. I don't need to watch national news. The internet works just fine. I've laid out the timeline, the audience and the quotes and NEVER has she said that if anybody says ANYTHING about Muslims, they face prosecution.
I'm more in line with you than you think, but you're being too cute parsing words here, or you're just wrong.
Lynch was criticized by free speech advocates after saying to a Muslim Advocates Dinner in Arlington, Va. on Thursday, "Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric or, as we saw after 9/11, violence against individuals… when we see that, we will take action."
She was stupid. But she said what they are saying she said. It's one sentence, and taking the action first, she said, "we will take action ....for "anti-Muslim rhetoric"....or violence.
Are you arguing that "take action" doesn't mean prosecute?
Are you arguing that "anti-Muslim rhetoric" doesn't mean speech?
Your best argument is that a) it IS ridiculous, but she said it, and b) she was clumsy by including anti-Muslim rhetoric in with the violence (along with a reference to "free speech, but..." which clearly reinforced the idea that she intended speech to be part of her attention.)
Stu, all you can see is what blinds you to the truth right in front of you. I hope you see the light some day, my friend.
MOLON LABE!
It's close to what I'm saying. First of all, what I'm saying is that it's irrational, or even idiotic, for someone not to make a call to local law enforcement if they see something and use the excuse that they're afraid of targeted prosecution.
I'll start off by saying, what leaders have not made a clumsy, irrelevant statement or even erroneous statement at some time? Have we forgotten the Bush administration? I can list hundreds of statement he or his people have said, taken out of context that had no meaning to the actual message. It doesn't mean it's factual. Is this not an example of holding people accountable of a different level? There's a term for that.
My argument was that she made a mistake speaking to a Muslim group without realizing the trickle down effect of specifically referring to that one group, even though that was the intended audience. However, she had the opportunity to clarify her remarks and I believe did so clearly enough. At a minimum, I can't fathom the link that some in the group here are making.
"Take action" doesn't totally equate to prosecution. It can be the end result, but not only result of action. The responsibilities of the AG go way beyond prosecution.
You can call her stupid all you want, and that's not an argument that I'm making, but in my view, it's stupid to take one sentence that somebody said and create a whole new context around that when she has since clarified her position when pressed further. She obviously made a mistake but the strategy is clear.
I'm debating statements like(paraphrased), like people that notify law enforcement will be prosecuted, that she hasn't ever mentioned other groups, isolating Muslims, that's a debate that I clearly win.
We should be thankful that they're trying to take a proactive approach with Islamophobia. It spread to an innocent plumber. Islamophobia and actions towards innocent Muslims is getting out of control. It's spreading rampant throughout my city, and I'm sure it is all over the country is well. I guess that I'm in the minority that feels if there is a targeted group, who are law abiding American citizens, at the top of the risk list that they deserve extra attention. It doesn't mean that they are the only primary focus, as some here are alluding to.
Back to my original point that started this all, that I will expand upon, if you see something and don't call out of a fear of something that has never happened, that simply makes you an idiotic coward.
When you show me truth, I'll see it, but all you've shown me is recycled bunk.
Okay Stu. If you say so.
MOLON LABE!
A) We ARE at war, but not with a religion, but an ideology.
B) That statement is what's wrong with the term terrorism. I consider ALL mass killings acts of terrorism. Those are not predominantly Muslim attacks. We are selectively calling acts terrorism.
C) I couldn't disagree more with your statement that fear creates racism. There's no way to declare either of us correct, but I'm a firm believer that racism creates fear, but not all fears. It takes that one match to light the fire, but once it's roaring, it causes people to react in irrational ways, and some of those ways are extremely harmful.
D) I don't even know how 'radical Christianity' should be defined, but I know it when I see it, and I've seen a lot of it. I know it's convenient for people to sweep it under the rug, especially in the wake of San Bernadino, but those that have killed in the US in the past and will in the future have not been 'radical Muslims' with few exceptions. Since 9/11, there have been two high profile radical 'Islamic' attacks. I can go on and on with what I view to be 'Radical Christianity' to be the motives. I know many people like to simplify it as a mental issue, which brings me to my final point,
E) I am also particularly observant and particularly good at spotting double standards.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks