DescentBB

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/opini ... at.html?hp

what can I say? I thought of you while reading this one.

Mawhahahhahahahah you funny. Maybe you aught look into this mouth piece of George Soros and the Muslim Brotherhood.

What leftists don't seem to understand is that their sympathy for islamists isn't returned in kind. Last time I looked, leftists are still infidels and are targets for subjugation or extermination like the rest of us.

[ Post made via Android ]

I noticed the liberals go out of their way to be PC toward Muslims. Let one of them screw up and say the wrong thing and then gets wacked, I suspect you may either see a huge amount of Muslim ass kissing or they will wake up and smell the camel dung in the coffee

Heretic wrote:Mawhahahhahahahah you funny. Maybe you aught look into this mouth piece of George Soros and the Muslim Brotherhood.

out of three dumb, predictable knee-jerk responses(not one of whom seems to have actually read the piece), this is the best.
Hysterical paranoia and xenophobia tied up in a neat, little smallminded bundle. Sweet!

Islamist parties will, however, become more moderate if they are included in government.

Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan. all such Moderates

callmeslick wrote:

Heretic wrote:Mawhahahhahahahah you funny. Maybe you aught look into this mouth piece of George Soros and the Muslim Brotherhood.

out of three dumb, predicatable knee-jerk responses(not one of whom seems to have actually read the piece), this is the best.
Hysterical paranoia and xenophobia tied up in a neat, little smallminded bundle. Sweet!

First you call me a lair. by saying I didn't read it. I had to read it I have never read anything by the guy before. That's when I start looking into him and found the Soros and Muslim brotherhood connections. Suggest you do more digging other then spew out your leftest attacks.

Well are you really trying to troll me. need do a better job. Second Paranoia lmfao at you, in your total use of the lefts mantra point and call names. Xenophobia I'm an anchor baby left behind you dumb ass When INS took my parents back in the 60s.

For a highly educated man you sure do lower yourself to name calling a lot lately. Me thinks you aren't what you say you are.

Cuda why did you invite a troll?

CUDA wrote:

Islamist parties will, however, become more moderate if they are included in government.

Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan. all such Moderates

of those ,only Afghanistan(Taliban) could be used as an example. The article was also referring to systems of elective governance, of which only Lebanon applies, and there, one can see a considerable moderation of Islamist parties. Just because Hezbollah still hates and attacks Israel, one cannot overlook the fact that they do NOT practice any sort of harsh Islamic policies domestically. Syria and Iran are hardly democratic, and Iraq is so formative as to give no clue as to direction.

Heretic wrote:First you call me a lair. by saying I didn't read it.

um, no.....I merely suggested that from your words, which didn't address the points in the piece, one could infer that you didn't bother to read it. Oh, and I am assuming you meant to type 'liar'. At any rate, you chose, instead to go into some sort of loony attack on George Soros, et al, which doesn't dignify your intellect, nor deserve a response.

Well are you really trying to troll me. need do a better job. Second Paranoia lmfao at you, in your total use of the lefts mantra point and call names. Xenophobia I'm an anchor baby left behind you dumb ass When INS took my parents back in the 60s.

For a highly educated man you sure do lower yourself to name calling a lot lately. Me thinks you aren't what you say you are.

Cuda why did you invite a troll?

touchy, aren't we? Say what you will, but I don't get too impressed by folks who can do little but accuse others of being 'leftist', and citing goofy conspiracies involving George Soros or other predictable boogey-men. Funny, you seem more than able to call folks, movements and prominent intellectuals names, and dismiss their character. Doesn't feel so good coming in the other direction, apparently, does it? And what, prey tell, does the fact that INS took your parents bring to bear on anything? If you're attempting to deflect my words with self-pity, that's a lame tactic, to say the least. Citing a 40-plus years ago personal tragedy doesn't excuse what you think and say now.. Sorry, but your rant was narrow-minded, and one-sided. I called you on it. That isn't trolling, it's my opinion, and every bit as valid as anything you put up in this thread..

Hysterical paranoia and xenophobia tied up in a neat, little smallminded bundle. Sweet!

Blanket statement- generalization and name calling- everything you accuse everyone else of doing.

soros and muslim brotherhood connections.

lol.


piece of advice for you. just because he's associated with those two doesn't necessarily mean he reflects their opinions. Your little bit of 'logic' (for lack of a better word) is equivalent to believing there's a connection between vaccines and autism.


Really TB? I haven't seen him accuse anyone of being xenophobic. You need to learn the difference between calling an opinion xenophobic and calling someONE xenophobic.

Heretic wrote:For a highly educated man you sure do lower yourself to name calling a lot lately.

I'd have to agree with you. I'd prefer we debate facts and topics. but more often than not it turns into a denigration fest. ON BOTH SIDES

Cuda why did you invite a troll?

because this place was getting boring all we ever had from the left was TC calling people racist and being sexist while blaming GW for all the worlds problems. Now look!!! we have liberals coming out of the closet
I've found "WHEN" slick sticks to a debate instead of turning hardcore left in his statements and going with the "if you don't agree with me your an Idiot" tactic, he's actually a good debater. I've had several good 1-1 debates with him in the past. the thing I don't like about his debating of when he posts opinion stories instead is sticking to the factual evidence. and going with the your an idiot stance. but I find that a failing in many on the left. they Ignore the facts because it doesn't fit their ideology.

Ideology and communication more often than not run into each other rather than complement each other. Principle and communication work together. Ideology and communication often work apart.

I feel ya Brah

Ferno wrote:soros and muslim brotherhood connections.

lol.

Probably got it from one of those Conservative mirrors to the Huffington Post.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-geor ... otherhood/

CUDA wrote:because this place was getting boring all we ever had from the left was TC calling people racist and being sexist while blaming GW for all the worlds problems. Now look!!! we have liberals coming out of the closet
I've found "WHEN" slick sticks to a debate instead of turning hardcore left in his statements and going with the "if you don't agree with me your an Idiot" tactic, he's actually a good debater. I've had several good 1-1 debates with him in the past. the thing I don't like about his debating of when he posts opinion stories instead is sticking to the factual evidence. and going with the your an idiot stance. but I find that a failing in many on the left. they Ignore the facts because it doesn't fit their ideology.

CUDA, "proving" that an emotional trait like "racism" is part of someone's psyche with cold hard facts is just about impossible. Most people would never openly admit they were racist in this day and age, so they couch their xenophobia in more subtle forms. It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things, like portraying Obama as an African witch doctor on some protest sign. You may not agree, so that's your prerogative. It's what other people see in someone's meaning that counts. I see the tea party as racist, you don't. However, I'm not the only one that has that observation, so don't single ME out.

As for GW, he was the devil incarnate, and he did not clean up his mess before he left the house. In fact, he trashed it. He left such a mess that NO ONE could clean it up any time soon. There was another thread here about Solyndra. Well, that little deal wasn't started on Obama's watch either. It spanned both administrations. He was just stupid enough to try and complete something Bush started. Obama even tried to further protect the taxpayers from Bush's original deal. But to listen to all those breathless conservatives, it was ALL Obama's fault. Quit kissing Bushie butt CUDA. He effed everything up he touched.

cleantechnica.com wrote:To set the record straight, Climate Progress is publishing this timeline — verified by Department of Energy officials — that shows how the loan guarantee came together under both administrations. In fact, rather than rushing the loan for Solyndra through, the Obama Administration restructured the original Bush-era deal to further protect the taxpayers’ investment:

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/09/15/sol ... -timeline/

And CUDA, I'm admit I'm not a great debater and I'm not as eloquent as others here. When I post my disagreements, it's the best I can put forth with the little time I have to form a response. I don't have the computer on all the time and I don't spend a lot of time on the net. I barely have time to get stuff done around the house because I feel like crap all the time. So, you'll have to live with whatever I come up with.

woodchip wrote:I noticed the liberals go out of their way to be PC toward Muslims. Let one of them screw up and say the wrong thing and then gets wacked, I suspect you may either see a huge amount of Muslim ass kissing or they will wake up and smell the camel dung in the coffee

By the way, I don't harbor any love for Islam, so don't go labeling ALL liberals as being PC towards Muslims. I don't deny Muslims their right to live their lives as they see fit, just as I don't want to deny Christians their way of life. However, some of us who are secular and liberal, ARE into self-preservation to prevent takeovers of our lives by repressive religions and theocracies, so I have to draw a line. As such, I'm equal opportunity. All religions are repressive to those who are non-believers. I don't want a Christian Theocracy here either. Americans SHOULD be worrying about Republicans, Wall Street and their crazy religious partners in crime becoming the new oppressors.

tunnelcat wrote:CUDA, "proving" that an emotional trait like "racism" is part of someone's psyche with cold hard facts is just about impossible. Most people would never openly admit they were racist in this day and age, so they couch their xenophobia in more subtle forms. It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things, like portraying Obama as an African witch doctor on some protest sign. You may not agree, so that's your prerogative. It's what other people see in someone's meaning that counts. I see the tea party as racist, you don't. However, I'm not the only one that has that observation, so don't single ME out.

As for GW, he was the devil incarnate, and he did not clean up his mess before he left the house. In fact, he trashed it. He left such a mess that NO ONE could clean it up any time soon. There was another thread here about Solyndra. Well, that little deal wasn't started on Obama's watch either. It spanned both administrations. He was just stupid enough to try and complete something Bush started. Obama even tried to further protect the taxpayers from Bush's original deal. But to listen to all those breathless conservatives, it was ALL Obama's fault. Quit kissing Bushie butt CUDA. He effed everything up he touched.

Missed the didn't you. but thanks for validating my point

All religions are repressive to those who are non-believers.

nah. it's just your lack of knowledge and understanding of Christ's teachings, cause you to repress yourself.
and the idiots at the Westboro Baptist Church's wrong teachings that are repressive and offensive to others

ThunderBunny wrote:Hysterical paranoia and xenophobia tied up in a neat, little smallminded bundle. Sweet!

Blanket statement- generalization and name calling- everything you accuse everyone else of doing.

once again, a misread. I never chastised anyone, and in fact noted that others had sunk to name calling. I merely noted that folks don't seem to like it when on the receiving end after dishing it out.

tunnelcat wrote:

Ferno wrote:soros and muslim brotherhood connections.

lol.

Probably got it from one of those Conservative mirrors to the Huffington Post.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-geor ... otherhood/

oh god. brain hurts.

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:I noticed the liberals go out of their way to be PC toward Muslims. Let one of them screw up and say the wrong thing and then gets wacked, I suspect you may either see a huge amount of Muslim ass kissing or they will wake up and smell the camel dung in the coffee

By the way, I don't harbor any love for Islam, so don't go labeling ALL liberals as being PC towards Muslims. I don't deny Muslims their right to live their lives as they see fit, just as I don't want to deny Christians their way of life. However, some of us who are secular and liberal, ARE into self-preservation to prevent takeovers of our lives by repressive religions and theocracies, so I have to draw a line. As such, I'm equal opportunity. All religions are repressive to those who are non-believers. I don't want a Christian Theocracy here either. Americans SHOULD be worrying about Republicans, Wall Street and their crazy religious partners in crime becoming the new oppressors.

Ummm, I used a generic term, not one preceded by "all"

CUDA wrote:nah. it's just your lack of knowledge and understanding of Christ's teachings, cause you to repress yourself.
and the idiots at the Westboro Baptist Church's wrong teachings that are repressive and offensive to others

Don't get me wrong CUDA. It's not Christ I'm against, it's what his modern followers do and claim in His name that bothers me.

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:nah. it's just your lack of knowledge and understanding of Christ's teachings, cause you to repress yourself.
and the idiots at the Westboro Baptist Church's wrong teachings that are repressive and offensive to others

Don't get me wrong CUDA. It's not Christ I'm against, it's what his modern followers do and claim in His name that bothers me.

I agree. but don't mistake the followers doing repressive things with Christ's teachings as being repressive.

Care to elaborate on that?

tunnelcat wrote:Care to elaborate on that?

tunnelcat wrote:All religions are repressive to those who are non-believers.

Christianity as taught by Christ is not repressive. in fact it's quite the opposite.

To name some things, Christian politicians saying marriage is sacred and sacrosanct in public, yet soil the institution by being adulterers in their own private lives, the denigration of anything to do with homosexuality or even human sexuality, the attacks on a woman's right to choose birth control and abortion in this country, attacks on the sciences when they don't agree with scripture, and the recent attacks on the aged, poor and unemployed in this country as "lazy and not hard working" by supposedly religious persons and politicians. None of this is very Christ-like, to name a few examples. Here's a perfect example of religious repression going on in Mississippi today:

http://www.personhoodusa.com/category/s ... ississippi

If this passes, certain forms of birth control will be outlawed as well, because it might kill a fully formed embryo. All the rights women won in the 1960's are slowly being eroded by Christians meddling in politics today.

I agree with most of this guy's list, none of which apply to Christ himself, but do apply to the modern institution as a whole:

http://www.seesharppress.com/20reasons.html