“Maher asked “Why is there an outrage? Muslims did attack us on 9/11.”

Duhhh.

Are we supposed give him a cookie now ?

.. And for the love of Allah is there a show/network that Sharpton hasn’t been on this year at least 10 times ?!

Kos is completely disingenuous. O’Reilly never said the First Amendment doesn’t apply. In fact, he said the exact opposite. He affirmatively stated that they have the RIGHT to build it there if they want to. That doesn’t that people can’t disagree with them choosing to do so. In a free society, we have the RIGHT to do many things that the majority disagrees with. The KKK can march down Main Street. Lyndon LaRouche can run for President. Michael Moore can be Michael Moore. The First Amendment doesn’t silence the majority from expressing their disagreement with those heinous things.

And that’s the irony of the position staked out by Kos, Whoopi, Jesse, Joy, and company. On the one hand, they say Muslims have a First Amendment right to build the mosque, and, to quote Jesse Ventura, “it ends there.” Well, they should apply the same principle to their own criticism of Bill O’Reily. O’Reilly has a First Amendment right to speak out against the mosque. If it “ends there,” then Kos, Whoopi, Jesse, and Joy shouldn’t be criticizing him.

That self-contradiction shows the disingenuity of their position. They don’t believe in the First Amendment. In fact, they abhor it. To them, the First Amendment is just another talking point excuse to call a Fox News host a bigot.

Yes but, it took John Legend and Markos to explain to Maher that O’Reilly was conflating the Muslim terrorists from September 11th and saying that since they did this, the Muslims who are building the Community Center didn’t have the right to build. One group of dead terrorists have nothing to do with the people building the Center. Got that? Bill Maher couldn’t seem to understand that. I’m assuming you folks do?

Oh, and the teabagger lady made a fool of herself. She didn’t know what she was talking about and when she was called on it, she just kept changing the subject. I’m sure you folks can also relate to her. Just wait until you see Bill’s New Rules. The bagger women are the stars!

Nope. All Muslims in America are the same. I’m as sure of that as I am that all Americans are individuals.

nobody said they dont have the right

myself, i dont have a problem with it, they are just saying it is in bad taste.

AnonymousFinch said:
Kos is completely disingenuous.

Speaking of that little punk bitch , his book American Taliban equates conservatives to the Taliban , oh the irony!

For research, Bill had his hookers wear burqas.

murf said:
Speaking of that little punk bitch

When I saw your name that’s just what I was thinking.

.. And then you gave me a thumbs down .. I’m devasted T , just devasted .

I got one, too! Well I never!

murf said:
And then you gave me a thumbs down

You RWers sure are obsessed about those thumbs. Is that why some of you keep logging off and back on just to vote. That’s pretty pathetic.

the real john t said:
You RWers sure are obsessed about those thumbs. Is that why some of you keep logging off and back on just to vote. That’s pretty pathetic.

LOL !!

For someone not worried about thumbs , you sure do have some conspiracies about the voting system !

If a sweet person like Royal King, who never has a bad word to say about anyone, gets hundreds of thumbs down, the system must be rigged.

writer said:
If a sweet person like Royal King, who never has a bad word to say about anyone, gets hundreds of thumbs down, the system must be rigged.

What can I say murf. You people are obsessed with those thumbs. Maybe you all should seek mental health care for your obsession.

That’s why you’ll never see me attack the King. Don’t want the left wing posters giving me a thumbs down.

writer said:
If a sweet person like Royal King, who never has a bad word to say about anyone, gets hundreds of thumbs down, the system must be rigged.

crap,
Even when he has not left a comment, Writer is bringing up the Royal King. You guys need to get over your obsession and Rogue Comic needs to stop acting like a fucking hypocrite.

writer said:
If a sweet person like Royal King, who never has a bad word to say about anyone, gets hundreds of thumbs down, the system must be rigged.

psst–log off then back on and hit me up with some ” like ” thumbs…

On another thread, Fox News admits he doesn’t watch Fox News. Yet he knows he hates it.

oooooOOOOOoooooOOOOOoooHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAOoooooooOOOOooo

writer said:
On another thread, Fox News admits he doesn’t watch Fox News. Yet he knows he hates it.

How often do you watch MSNBC? Yet you bitch about it constantly.

Man, I hope they build that fucking mosque right where they want. I have had enough of this bigoted bullshit.

Yeah, real john. I watch Fox and MSNBC. Unlike Fox News, who admits he doesn’t watch Fox, I actually listen to what the other side says before deciding whether or not I agree.

Great article in WSJ by Ken Langone, co-founder of Home Depot. He speaks directly to Obama and tears him a new one. Some excerpts:

If we tried to start Home Depot today, under the kind of onerous regulatory controls that you have advocated, it’s a stone cold certainty that our business would never get off the ground, much less thrive. Rules against providing stock options would have prevented us from incentivizing worthy employees in the start-up phase—never mind the incredibly high cost of regulatory compliance overall and mandatory health insurance. Still worse are the ever-rapacious trial lawyers.

Contrary to what you might assume, I didn’t start with any advantages and neither did most of the successful people I know…My first job was as a day laborer on the construction of the Long Island Expressway more than 50 years ago. The wealth that was created by my investments wasn’t put into a giant swimming pool as so many elected demagogues seem to imagine. Instead it benefitted our employees, their families and our community at large.

My question to you was why, during a time when investment and dynamism are so critical to our country, was it necessary to vilify the very people who deliver that growth? Instead of offering a straight answer, you informed me that I was part of a “reckless” group that had made “bad decisions” and now required your guidance, if only I’d stop “resisting” it…

Of course, one of the chief conceits of centralized economic planning is that the planners know better than everybody else.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704361504575552080488297188.html

And I hope when they build the mosque, Greg Gutfeld builds his gay bar right across the street. What a wonderful opportunity for Muslims to show tolerance of their own.

writer said:
And I hope when they build the mosque, Greg Gutfeld builds his gay bar right across the street. What a wonderful opportunity for Muslims to show tolerance of their own.

Fine with me.

Whew! Now we can all rest easy, then.

Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers said:
Man, I hope they build that fucking mosque right where they want. I have had enough of this bigoted bullshit.

It strikes me as odd that atheists are so vocal and supportive in this debate for an organized religion to build a place of worship . I get the first amendment argument , but you know damn well if this were a church , you might not have a problem , but you wouldn’t be cheerleading for it or care about bigotry .

writer said:
And I hope when they build the mosque, Greg Gutfeld builds his gay bar right across the street. What a wonderful opportunity for Muslims to show tolerance of their own.

There’s already strip clubs around where they plan on building it. They don’t seem to mind. Gutfeld woudn’t be able to afford any property around it.

Bill is notoriously politically incorrect. That doesn’t make him right.

We are not saying you don’t have the right to say it was Muslims who attacked us on 9/11, or even that it is factually incorrect, we are saying it is insensitive to word it that way.

HAHAHA…SEE HOW I USED THE MOSQUE ARGUMENT: “YOU HAVE THE RIGHT BUT THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT RIGHT!!!!lolol

Is it that fucking hard to say Muslim extremists or Islamic terrorists so all the American Muslims who are soldiers and citizens and family members of 9/11 victims don’t feel singled out?

I mean really. Is it that goddamn fucking hard to be considerate?

O’Reilly: EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO ADD EXTREMIST TO MUSLIM?
Guest: A MILLION. OR A BILLION!

I couldn’t agree more.

The left never seems to complain about Islam’s views on gays or its treatment of women. They’ll gladly point out any foibles in any other religion, but for some reason Islam seems to be strictly hands off.

writer said:
The left never seems to complain about Islam’s views on gays or its treatment of women

Holy man Writer,

Islam is as much a crock as Christianity or Judaism. Happy now?

Ecstatic, Fox News. So from now on, if anyone says something critical of Islam, we can expect our left wing posters to agree, without feeling the need to say “Yeah, but what about the Crusades?”

Why doesn’t anyone ever mention that the 9/11 attackers were Saudi Arabians. BinLaden is a Saudi. You know that country that the King was from that walked hand and hand with Bush through his garden down in Crawford.

writer said:
The left never seems to complain about Islam’s views

I am not sticking up for Islam, I am sticking up for good, decent American citizens who I don’t think need to be lumped together with the maniacs who attacked us on 9/11 and we are at war with. Words and labels mean something, let’s use them wisely.

Even Bush knew that.

And the 9/11 hijackers did it in the name of Islam, not of Saudi Arabia.

writer said:
Ecstatic, Fox News. So from now on, if anyone says something critical of Islam, we can expect our left wing posters to agree, without feeling the need to say “Yeah, but what about the Crusades?”

I feel it is my duty to focus my criticisms on Christianity given that evangelicals (including pseudo ones) spend so time reading muslim hate sites like Atlas Shrugs and World Net Daily.

I’ve said on other threads that while I can see the ‘it’s in poor taste’ argument, I believe that if you’ve got the money to buy property, you should be allowed to do with it whatever you want, as long as it doesn’t violate zoning laws. And I don’t stick up for Saudi Arabia. I think the way most Muslim countries treat women is shameful. And that’s done by the ‘mainstream’ Muslims, not just the radicals.

writer said:
And the 9/11 hijackers did it in the name of Islam, not of Saudi Arabia.

Then why did Bush attack Iraq since they had nothing to do with it?

Whoopi and Joy both behaved very immature with inapproprieat actions. Bill was presenting his point of view of which I personally agree with and yes, I did vote for Pres. Obama and yes I feel very strongly he should never have expressed his opinion on the mosque than turn around and basically plead the 5th. It was childish behavior on these “ladies” part and it made them look bad. I also am sick and tired of this pressure that is being made to treat muslims “different” with all this PC bullcrap. Enough, already. And yes, muslims did this atrocious evil to the world trade center!! Call a spade a spade! Kudos to Bill!!
http://healthproductadvice.com/where-to-buy-stimelex-extreme-enhancement

Bush never blamed Iraq for 9/11. We invaded Iraq because most intelligence sources, including ours and the British, going clear back to the Clinton years, believed Iraq had WMDs. Democrats also believed it, and that’s why they voted for the war resolution. Saddam’s constant refusal to let UN inspectors into certain areas reinforced the belief that he had such weapons. Saying Bush attacked Iraq because of 9/11 is a left wing myth.

writer said:
Democrats also believed it, and that’s why they voted for the war resolution.

They voted to go to war as a last resort. As soon as the vote was cast Bush pulled all the inspectors out of Iraq and attacked them.

roxsteady said:
Yes but, it took John Legend and Markos to explain to Maher that O’Reilly was conflating the Muslim terrorists from September 11th and saying that since they did this, the Muslims who are building the Community Center didn’t have the right to build. One group of dead terrorists have nothing to do with the people building the Center. Got that? Bill Maher couldn’t seem to understand that. I’m assuming you folks do?

The problem is that about 90 percent of Muslims don’t sympathize with the 10% that praise jihad and are radicals.

BUT……… the 90% don’t speak out about the 10% because they fear for their lives.

I sympathize with them but it’s their problem to clear up as the west didn’t create it. Until they do they will all be lumped into one group by the majority of the country.

Writer….

Bush removed the inspectors, Cheney made him do it. That’s pretty well known.

Lebanese Arab “LIBERAL” says Imam behind the Ground Zero Mosque IS LYING;

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4677.htm

Notice that he is not a conservative…but a LIBERAL and he says that Imam Rauf is using Taqqiya, and is lying to the U.S.

the real john t said:
Why doesn’t anyone ever mention that the 9/11 attackers were Saudi Arabians. BinLaden is a Saudi. You know that country that the King was from that walked hand and hand with Bush through his garden down in Crawford.

Oh yea, you mean the one that Obama BOWED to?

http://www.think-israel.org/mar09pix/obama-bows-to-saudi-king1.jpg

I should have linked this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd425zfw5Ew

shellys_ghost said:
oooooOOOOOoooooOOOOOoooHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAOoooooooOOOOooo

I’m not sure if I get the whole story behind this, but it cracks me up every time. LOL!

Of course they have the right to build the Mosque at he site so very, very close to
Ground Zero.

Just like the right I have to be so happy this controversity is back in the news!

Polls are 60 to 70% against,
That can only help Republicans on Nov 2.

Call me what you like.

Btw, with the exception of Olberdork and Mr ED, the Talking Horses ASS doing their usual name calling
rants, very few libs are admitting to the obvious ass whuppin’ Sharon Angle put on
Dopey Harry couple nights ago!
Even Tingles begrudgingly hinted at that fact!

Lean Forward (_o_)

writer said:
That’s why you’ll never see me attack the King. Don’t want the left wing posters giving me a thumbs down.

Ya gotta be careful about that stuff. I hate it when I get to many thumbs down, because it’s hard to type through the tears.

So, over the last two days Olby has called O’Reilly a “bigot” and Kilmeade a “bastard”….what an intelligence host MSNBC has, eh?

And now we have Mr. Ed using the “lean forward” MSNBC message to campaign for the democrats, despite Griffin’s insistence that MSNBC is not the water carrier for the DNC.

Too funny.

writer said:
Bush never blamed Iraq for 9/11. We invaded Iraq because most intelligence sources, including ours and the British, going clear back to the Clinton years, believed Iraq had WMDs. Democrats also believed it, and that’s why they voted for the war resolution. Saddam’s constant refusal to let UN inspectors into certain areas reinforced the belief that he had such weapons. Saying Bush attacked Iraq because of 9/11 is a left wing myth.

That’s not exactly true. Richard Clarke said afterward he was asked to create a link between the attacks and Iraq. There definitely was an attempt to link Saddam to terrorists , but in the push to justify the invasion the emphasis shifted several times, from links to the 9.11 attack, to WMDs to being the great liberators in operation Iraqi freedom. The bottom line for me was that the war was a lie and a giant mistake. Iraq was never a threat and as bad as Saddam was his government was actually considered a secular government in the area rather than a theocracy.
First and foremost, you don’t send American’s to die and kill others unless it’s the absolute last resort. For all the years we’ve heard “we fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here” years of violent occupation in the ME has just served as a recruiting tool and fostered more hate and resentment, not only there, but here as well.

the real john t said:
Then why did Bush attack Iraq since they had nothing to do with it?

For the same reason that Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and many, many other prominent liberals voted to give him the legal authority to do it.

the real john t said:
They voted to go to war as a last resort. As soon as the vote was cast Bush pulled all the inspectors out of Iraq and attacked them.

Idiot! Read the damn resolution they voted for! The willingness of brain-dead liberals to accept the ex post facto spin of their masters who do their thinking for them instead of actually reading a public resolution for themselves just sickens me. Pathetic!

Ah yes, Richard Clarke, such a trust worthy source.

Go to the way back machine and read what ABC said about Saddam, terrorists, and WMD when Clinton was President…..if you dare. Back in those days, the storyline was different, and much more honest about the links between Iraq and terrorists. But ABC spiked those stories after Bush was elected, because they had to change their tune once the Republicans took over.

We fought them there so we didn’t have to fight them here. Perhaps someday you will understand, perhaps not. Historians are mostly liberal and plagiarists so it will take years before the facts are documented correctly.

CosmosDan said:
Iraq was never a threat and as bad as Saddam was his government was actually considered a secular government in the area rather than a theocracy.

Iraq was never a threat? How exactly do you define threat? During his reign, Saddam Huessein . . . oops, I mean Saddam H. (its racists to say the “h” word out loud, right?) . . . invaded four different neighboring countries: Iran, Kuwait, Isreal (with Scuds), and Saudi Arabia (with Scuds). So someone who tries to invade and bomb neighboring countries is “not a threat”? Explain that one.

CosmosDan said:
irst and foremost, you don’t send American’s to die and kill others unless it’s the absolute last resort. For all the years we’ve heard “we fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here” years of violent occupation in the ME has just served as a recruiting tool and fostered more hate and resentment, not only there, but here as well.

So, by that logic, you also disagree with the U.S. invasions of North Africa, Italy, and Normandy during WWII, correct?

the real john t said:
They voted to go to war as a last resort. As soon as the vote was cast Bush pulled all the inspectors out of Iraq and attacked them.

They voted for it because they were politically gutless. It was after 9/11 and voting to block the move would be used against them in the next election. Watching the the videos of the votes with poor doddering Robert Bird holding up a copy of the Constitution and pleading with his colleagues not to give the president that power , all the while knowing what was about to happen, I was just as disgusted with the Dems as I was Bush and Cheney.

AnonymousFinch said:
So, by that logic, you also disagree with the U.S. invasions of North Africa, Italy, and Normandy during WWII, correct?

Ask me when you show that you actually understand logic. That’s not it.

CosmosDan said:
Ask me when you show that you actually understand logic. That’s not it.

Well, you said that we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq because “Americans shouldn’t die and kill others unless it’s the absolute last resort.” Germany never invaded us. It was occupied (“contained” in modern liberal parlance) with fighting Europe. It would have had to conquer England and then build a very, very large amphibious navy before it could have invaded the United States. War with Germany was not “the last resort.” NO? Am I wrong? Did Hitler invade the shores of Long Island in 1941 and I missed it?

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
Bill is notoriously politically incorrect. That doesn’t make him right. We are not saying you don’t have the right to say it was Muslims who attacked us on 9/11, or even that it is factually incorrect, we are saying it is insensitive to word it that way. HAHAHA…SEE HOW I USED THE MOSQUE ARGUMENT: “YOU HAVE THE RIGHT BUT THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT RIGHT!!!!lolol Is it that fucking hard to say Muslim extremists or Islamic terrorists so all the American Muslims who are soldiers and citizens and family members of 9/11 victims don’t feel singled out? I mean really. Is it that goddamn fucking hard to be considerate? O’Reilly: EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO ADD EXTREMIST TO MUSLIM?Guest: A MILLION. OR A BILLION! I couldn’t agree more.

So what you are saying is that the American people are too stupid to understand Bill’s comment.

I know that appplies to people like the real johnt but not to the vast majority od Americans.

the real john t said:
Why doesn’t anyone ever mention that the 9/11 attackers were Saudi Arabians. BinLaden is a Saudi. You know that country that the King was from that walked hand and hand with Bush through his garden down in Crawford.

By your twisted logic Timothy McVeigh was an American so they would be as responsible for his actions as he was. YOU’RE AN IDIOT!!

AnonymousFinch said:
Iraq was never a threat? How exactly do you define threat? During his reign, Saddam Huessein . . . oops, I mean Saddam H. (its racists to say the “h” word out loud, right?) . . . invaded four different neighboring countries: Iran, Kuwait, Isreal (with Scuds), and Saudi Arabia (with Scuds). So someone who tries to invade and bomb neighboring countries is “not a threat”? Explain that one.

A threat to US. We helped both Iran and Iraq during their long war. We never complained about his use of gas until it became common knowledge and we had to denounce it to try and save face. That’s why the joke was “we know he has WMD because we still have the receipts”

Saddam invaded Kuwait, which used to be part of Iraq, for financial reasons. He got in touch with the elder Bush before he invaded and asked what the US response would be. He wsa told it was none of our business, but after the invasion the Saudi’s started making a lot of noise we then it became our business since we were in business with them.

Saddam was a murderous dictator in his own part of the world but he knew where he was militarily compared to US. We destroyed his army in a matter of days. He was never ever a threat to us , and by being a more secular government he was actually a barrier to radical Islam.
He went to war with Iran after our puppet dictator was thrown out. and fundamental Islam took over. He was concerned Iraq would be next.
Seems to me that a smart strategy for the ME was to let them beat the crap out of each other with no threat or expense to us, but that would frustrate our economic interests so American soldiers had to die.
It never had anything to do with liberty or freedom or any of the bullshit they feed the public.

Dave Richards said:
By your twisted logic Timothy McVeigh was an American so they would be as responsible for his actions as he was. YOU’RE AN IDIOT!!

Or, by that logic, because President Obama is leading the war in Afghanistan right now, the Taliban should blame Kenya for it!

(Kidding!!!)

CosmosDan said:
Saddam invaded Kuwait, which used to be part of Iraq, for financial reasons. He got in touch with the elder Bush before he invaded and asked what the US response would be. He wsa told it was none of our business, but after the invasion the Saudi’s started making a lot of noise we then it became our business since we were in business with them.

For the youngsters in the crowd, this is the 1991 version of Trutherism. It is complete and total conspiratorial horseshit.

And, by the way, what relevance is it that Kuwait “used to be part of Iraq”? By that logic, would it be justified for Mexico to invade California today?

“I’m not a career politician,” Angle said in her opening remarks. “I live in a middle class neighborhood in Reno; Senator Reid lives in the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, DC.”

Reid has been in the Senate since 1986. His salary before taxes is $193,400. Rooms at the Ritz-Carlton start at $399.00 per night. That comes to roughly $145,000 per year. Even if you throw in a senior discount, that’s still a lot of dough. So Harry Reid, just how DID you become so wealthy?

The combined FOX line up had a HUMONGOUS RATINGS NIGHTE, O’Reilly having the lion share.

Unknowingly Joy and Whoopi just gave O’Reilly his biggest ratings in one night that did not have a special news story, sending millions more to watch his show.

Dave Richards said:
So what you are saying is that the American people are too stupid to understand Bill’s comment.

When did you Righty’s actually become dumber than George Bush?
What day did that happen?
All I’m saying is I agree with him we are not at war with Islam or Muslims and we should be careful our language reflects that.

Ask yourselves before going casting your vote on 11-02-10, “Who do you trust to run this country?”

Do you want people with world views like Joy Behar or Bill O’Reilly?

11-02-10! —– PUSHBACK against 50 Years of Liberal Lies, Misrepresentations and Dysfunctional Reasoning!!

Azarkhan said:
“I’m not a career politician,” Angle said in her opening remarks. “I live in a middle class neighborhood in Reno; Senator Reid lives in the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, DC.”

Reid has been in the Senate since 1986. His salary before taxes is $193,400. Rooms at the Ritz-Carlton start at $399.00 per night. That comes to roughly $145,000 per year. Even if you throw in a senior discount, that’s still a lot of dough. So Harry Reid, just how DID you become so wealthy?

This is politics at it’s worst. I can’t believe the Right thinks Angle won the debate with dumbass questions like that.
I anyone has evidence of wrongdoing on Reid’s part then present it or stfu.

What to know what it takes to be a REAL Nobel Peace Prize winner?

Liu Xiaobo is a human rights activist who is little-known inside China. His writing is considered subversive, and his name is censored. He has called for democratic elections, advocated values of freedom, supported separation of powers and urged the governments to be accountable for its wrongdoings. From 1989 until now, he has been sentenced to prison and labor education camp four times for his peaceful political activities, beginning with his participation in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. When he was not in prison, he was constantly the subject of government monitoring and being put under house arrest…

That’s why he is making all those bad decisions–it’s the pressure!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/10/15/biden_obama_has_brain_bigger_than_his_skull.html

AnonymousFinch said:
Well, you said that we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq because “Americans shouldn’t die and kill others unless it’s the absolute last resort.” Germany never invaded us. It was occupied (“contained” in modern liberal parlance) with fighting Europe. It would have had to conquer England and then build a very, very large amphibious navy before it could have invaded the United States. War with Germany was not “the last resort.” NO? Am I wrong? Did Hitler invade the shores of Long Island in 1941 and I missed it?

Honest….I’ll be glad to discuss this in a reasonable manner but I have no interest in in wasting my time for snark and name calling. here’s my limited understanding
Last Resort, can mean that we see a war as inevitable. Before we entered WWII FDR was convinced that Hitler would not stop and if we didn’t get in to help stop him while we still had allies, we would eventually be fighting him alone The US was still hurt from WWI and the general public didn’t want us involved in a European war. FDR actually campaigned for re-election promising not to enter the war , all the while believing we should. He found a slightly illegal work around to send arms to Great Britain and then purposely sent American ships into harms way knowing that the sinking of American ships could turn American opinion. When American ships were sunk by German subs, and after Pearl Harbor, we declared war on both Germany and Japan. FDR got us into the war because he believed we would inevitably have to fight Hitler alone if we didn’t enter while GB was still able to help.

No snark intended, When Bush started talking about Iraq I realized how very ignorant I was about our history in the ME and did quite a bit of research and reading. Saddam was never a threat to the US. A brutal dictator , yes, but never any threat to us. The war was a lie from day one.

I believe that the intelligence was that he might have WMD which Bush turned exaggerated into “does have” but even at that Saddam would never have attacked us knowing what that would bring down on him. Especially after Desert Storm had decimated his army.

This topic is always so ridiculous. What we need are actual followers of the Islamic faith, being invited to give their genuine views, instead of pretentious brain-dead bleeding hearts, like Behar, making an ass of herself. Also, America and Europe are going down a dangerous path, when, out of fear, exceptions are made to Muslims, which are not extended to other religions. Taxpayers are having to pay for special accommodations, in order for Muslims to pray, when they are away from home, yet, no other religions are afforded this special treatment. In the USA, we are not supposed to make special exceptions for people, because we fear they may kill us. In the USA, our laws are to be followed by all, not Sharia law. In other words, accept our laws, or take your asses to some other country, where Sharia law is welcomed. Bill O’Reilly is spot-on with all the idiotic political correctness, when it comes to Islam. No Western government, of course, will be honest and acknowledge, that people of Islamic faith, being given American/other citizenship, pose more of a threat to its citizens, than it’s worth. Americans and Europeans need to start speaking out against their respective governments and their pandering to Muslims, for no reason, other than fear. Again, anyone whom refuses to follow our laws, needs to go. Find a country where that backwards religion of Islam, is acceptable. Finally, Muslims must stop being a nuisance to each and every nation, which allows them citizenship. No matter what an elected official in Washington says or does, Americans will win in the end, not fanatical nuisances.

roxsteady said:
Yes but, it took John Legend and Markos to explain to Maher that O’Reilly was conflating the Muslim terrorists from September 11th and saying that since they did this, the Muslims who are building the Community Center didn’t have the right to build.

This is a 100% false statement. O’reilly said more than once on the View that they had the right to build.

CosmosDan said:
Last Resort, can mean that we see a war as inevitable.

So, in other words, “last resort” doesn’t actually mean “last resort.” It means “I think a show-down is coming.”

CosmosDan said:
Saddam was never a threat to the US. A brutal dictator , yes, but never any threat to us.

If Sadaam had invaded Saudi Arabia and taken over the world’s largest proven oil reserve, would that have been a “threat” to us, in your view?

CosmosDan said:
I believe that the intelligence was that he might have WMD which Bush turned exaggerated into “does have” but even at that Saddam would never have attacked us knowing what that would bring down on him.

This is a significant and intellectually honest concession. I also admit that Bush et al. exaggerated the level of certainty. All intelligence is, by definition, uncertain. If you know something with certainty, then its not intelligence. Bush should have made the case for war more even handed. Sadaam’s past belligerence, human rights abuses, and defiance of the 1991 cease fire agreements were compelling justifications and should not have taken such a back seat to threat of WMD in justifying military action.

That having been said, if Sadaam reconstituted his WMD program, maybe he wouldn’t have had the guts to attack US interests directly. But do you think he would have been willing to quietly pass them WMD off to groups like al Qaeda who were willing to do so?

Its so ironic thats these are the same liberals who tar all tea party people as racist or extremists, then they turn around and wag their finger at the rest of us about separating Muslims terrorists from Islam.

I’m an atheist and have no love for christianity or islam. That said I think the atheists here who attack christianity on a daily basis yet defend islam are a bunch of pussies or are simply doing it for political purposes.

If your truly an atheist stand up and speak out against ALL extreme religions. Either that or shut up.

Powerslave said:
This is a 100% false statement. O’reilly said more than once on the View that they had the right to build.

You’re dealing with people who mold reality to fit their insane rantings. If they have to put words in people’s mouths, then so be it.

Powerslave said:
I’m an atheist and have no love for christianity or islam. That said I think the atheists here who attack christianity on a daily basis yet defend islam are a bunch of pussies or are simply doing it for political purposes.

If your truly an atheist stand up and speak out against ALL extreme religions. Either that or shut up.

Its strange isn’t it? The only theory I have is that they see Christians as “white” and thus, “oppressors, so its evil. They see Islam as non-white, thus “oppressed” and so they treat them like victims. It also makes them feel good about themselves to defend brown people against what they see as evil racist white people.

Powerslave said:
I’m an atheist and have no love for christianity or islam. That said I think the atheists here who attack christianity on a daily basis yet defend islam are a bunch of pussies or are simply doing it for political purposes.

If your truly an atheist stand up and speak out against ALL extreme religions. Either that or shut up.

I wish I could give your post 100 thumbs-up. :)

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
This is politics at it’s worst. I can’t believe the Right thinks Angle won the debate with dumbass questions like that.I anyone has evidence of wrongdoing on Reid’s part then present it or stfu.

Yes, unlike the “foreign money” deluge that pours into the Chamber of Commerce to pervert US elections – oh, wait, that was another BALD-FACED LIE by the President!

—————————————————————————————————–
Here’s a couple of more items “free speech” Progressives have prohibited:

“Muslim Terrorists” – even though they are SELF-PROCLAIMED as such.

“Black Conservatives” – they’re SMEARED as Uncle Tom’s because they have the temerity to think and reason differently than the Progressive Establishment COMMANDS them to!

…to be continued!

Dronetek said:
Its strange isn’t it? The only theory I have is that they see Christians as “white” and thus, “oppressors, so its evil. They see Islam as non-white, thus “oppressed” and so they treat them like victims. It also makes them feel good about themselves to defend brown people against what they see as evil racist white people.

…and Islam is not a race. There are Muslims of all different races and the tenets of Islam is extremely MORE conservative than the Pentecostals, and I mean about 10 times more.

…also the majority of Christians around the world ARE NOT WHITE. The majority of Christians are brown/black. There are more Christians in Latin America, Africa and the Philippines than there are white Christians.

AnonymousFinch said:
For the youngsters in the crowd, this is the 1991 version of Trutherism. It is complete and total conspiratorial horseshit.

And, by the way, what relevance is it that Kuwait “used to be part of Iraq”? By that logic, would it be justified for Mexico to invade California today?

This is what I thought. Rather than offer anything in the way of information you just dismiss it as horseshit. Seems to me if anyone really gives a fuck about their country they might want to spend some time learning something about our history.

If people read historical credited information instead of just right wing {or left wing} blogs the information is available. Willful ignorance is exactly what politicians count on when they make bullshit emotional appeals.
I didn’t justify Saddam’s invasion by saying Kuwait used to be part of Iraq. I was pointing out that that’s a reason he used. The more substantial reason was economic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait

Before we invaded Iraq there was an attempt to paint Saddam as some vicious Hitler like dictator bent on domination. It was a purposely distorted picture to justify an unnecessary war.

It’s not that Saddam or perhaps his crazy sons wouldn’t become that if they could. They just couldn’t. They were being financially and militarily controlled by the world at large. They were never a threat to us, and quite the contrary, the presence of a brutal but largely secular government in the ME helped suppress radical and fundamental Islam that was brewing in Iran and being financed by the Saudis in their country.

O’Reilly told Behar, she was a pseudo-liberal.

Definition: The pseudo-liberal is a mutation of the liberal that exists in Britain. The pseudo-liberal is essentially a bigot who parades under the illusion of being a liberal.

CosmosDan said:
This is what I thought. Rather than offer anything in the way of information you just dismiss it as horseshit. Seems to me if anyone really gives a fuck about their country they might want to spend some time learning something about our history.

Sorry, but I am no more going to debate April Glaspie’s (there’s a name from the past!) meeting with Saddam H. in 1990 with you then I am going to debate the attributes of thermadite with a 9/11 truther. Sorry, it’s the same crap.

Why don’t you respond by next telling me that Bush I struck a deal with the Ayatollah in October 1980 to keep the hostages confined until after Reagan was elected. That’s was a fun one, too.

AnonymousFinch said:
So, in other words, “last resort” doesn’t actually mean “last resort.” It means “I think a show-down is coming.”

Maybe it means that your definition of last resort and mine aren’t exactly the same, and that doesn’t make either one of us wrong, or “horseshit” It’s called communication.
IMO it means using every means possible to avoid war, keeping immediate and long term security in mind. FDR had to make a judgment call about US long term security and it looks like he made the right one.
OTOH, there was no good reason for us to invade Iraq. There was no immediate or even long term threat to US security.

AnonymousFinch said:
If Sadaam had invaded Saudi Arabia and taken over the world’s largest proven oil reserve, would that have been a “threat” to us, in your view?

I don’t see that kind of speculation as a justification for war. I believe Saddam had some realistic concept of the consequences if he did that and it just wouldn’t have happened.

AnonymousFinch said:
That having been said, if Sadaam reconstituted his WMD program, maybe he wouldn’t have had the guts to attack US interests directly. But do you think he would have been willing to quietly pass them WMD off to groups like al Qaeda who were willing to do so?

Possibly, but again, you don’t enter a war over what might possibly happen at some undetermined point in the future. The inspectors were back in and although he protested , Saddam would have made a lot of concessions to avoid a full scale invasion.

We can’t ignore the facts of our long term interference in the ME, and the blurred lines between economic interests and security interests. We’re where we are due in part because of our own bad choices.

Latin2 said:
…and Islam is not a race. There are Muslims of all different races and the tenets of Islam is extremely MORE conservative than the Pentecostals, and I mean about 10 times more.

Right, I know that. I’m saying they perceive it to be mostly non-white.

AnonymousFinch said:
Sorry, but I am no more going to debate April Glaspie’s (there’s a name from the past!) meeting with Saddam H. in 1990 with you then I am going to debate the attributes of thermadite with a 9/11 truther. Sorry, it’s the same crap.

Why don’t you respond by next telling me that Bush I struck a deal with the Ayatollah in October 1980 to keep the hostages confined until after Reagan was elected. That’s was a fun one, too.

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. it may be an example of the type of abandonment of reason we see too often in political discussions. Don’t bother with giant irrational leaps that I haven’t implied in any way. Don’t assume what I think about anything. If you ask a question in a decent manner I’ll answer.

CosmosDan said:
Before we invaded Iraq there was an attempt to paint Saddam as some vicious Hitler like dictator bent on domination. It was a purposely distorted picture to justify an unnecessary war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvaDS_nM2dM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QizOKsMZCzk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm

To understand the pseudo-liberal mindset of Behar, one simply needs to listen to a reformed pseudo-liberal. Dennis Miller is the perfect example of an admitted former pseudo-liberal, whom decided to jump ship on that mindset, which he also admits, was necessary for him to have gainful employment, in the entertainment business. This mindset is also rampant in the media business. When Behar plays the part of a pseudo-liberal, by bashing Christians, as well as bashing her own race, she’s basically singing for her supper. From the looks of Behar, she has definitely never missed a supper in her life. Ironically, most of these bleeding heart pseudo-liberals, live in gated neighborhoods, where minorities barely exist, and also send their children to private schools, where, again, minorities barely exist. Behar is as phony as a $3 bill, as are most of her cohorts. Behar is a big fat joke.

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
Bill is notoriously politically incorrect. That doesn’t make him right.

We are not saying you don’t have the right to say it was Muslims who attacked us on 9/11, or even that it is factually incorrect, we are saying it is insensitive to word it that way.

HAHAHA…SEE HOW I USED THE MOSQUE ARGUMENT: “YOU HAVE THE RIGHT BUT THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT RIGHT!!!!lolol

Is it that fucking hard to say Muslim extremists or Islamic terrorists so all the American Muslims who are soldiers and citizens and family members of 9/11 victims don’t feel singled out?

I mean really. Is it that goddamn fucking hard to be considerate?

O’Reilly: EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO ADD EXTREMIST TO MUSLIM?
Guest: A MILLION. OR A BILLION!

I couldn’t agree more.

This is it, and I’m a little surprised Bill Maher doesn’t get it. I think walking out and calling it hate speech is a little over the top but that doesn’t make BillO right either.
It is exactly because of the nature of the world today that we do need to make the separation.
Like I said in the other threads If I said Baptists like to protest the funerals of fallen American soldiers with hateful signs I’d be technically correct, but such a non specific statement would still be unfair and ignorant. just as Orielly’s was. His WWII comparison is apples and oranges just like the lady said. It’s a false comparison and I find it hard to believe someone as intelligent as ORielly doesn’t get it.

Maher is vermin. In fact, I apologize to vermin everywhere for that comparison. I’m not going to thow him a fish just because he agrees with a common sense position for once.

This is the same trash talking punk that said our pilots were cowards and praised the bravery of the terrorists. That dug WAY too deep a hole for him to make up with one nice comment. He should stick to bullying women. It fits him better.

Filth.

sarainitaly said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvaDS_nM2dM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QizOKsMZCzk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein’s_Iraq
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm

If you’ve got some point to make then do it, but I don’t accept homework assignments. Was Saddam an evil bastard to his own people. Yes. He had been for some time, including when our government worked with him. That’s another emotional appeal to justify a war built on lies.

OMG! Libs admit that Muslims did attack us on 9/11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They are soooooooooooooooooo insightful aren’t they. Did ya just figure that out libs?

And poor Markos Moulitsas; O’Reilly said they had a right to build the mosque so your red herring about the Constitution was so, so irrelevant like most of what you say.

What did I read?- “Bill is notoriously incorrect.”

The very name of his breakout show proved to be SATIRE!
He not only towed the politically correct line, he trailblazed portions of it!

Is it that Progressives have no recollection of these things, didn’t see them in the first place, or, truly believe the PC indoctrination?

Muslims aren’t violent, why should a a few million bad apples spoil the bunch?

CosmosDan said:
Before we invaded Iraq there was an attempt to paint Saddam as some vicious Hitler like dictator bent on domination. It was a purposely distorted picture to justify an unnecessary war.
If you’ve got some point to make then do it, but I don’t accept homework assignments.

No one had to paint Saddam as some viscous Hitler like dictator. He did that all on his own. And I think I made that point.

Bill maher needs to take his own advice and get a ball. What billow the clown said was the same as attacking Hitler for being male. All the attackers were male so should we not let anyone build a young
“mens” association so near ground zero? Billow the clown was attacking all muslims for the acts of a few and there in lays the attack on a whole religion. I am Atheist but to attacke all for the acts of a few is bat s h i t crazy and bill was playing along with the tea baggers.

edteachl said:
Bill maher needs to take his own advice and get a ball. What billow the clown said was the same as attacking Hitler for being male. All the attackers were male so should we not let anyone build a young“mens” association so near ground zero? Billow the clown was attacking all muslims for the acts of a few and there in lays the attack on a whole religion. I am Atheist but to attacke all for the acts of a few is bat s h i t crazy and bill was playing along with the tea baggers.

Based upon your analogy are you willing to say that the liberals/progressives here who attack all christians and make derogatory statements about Jesus and all that christians hold sacred are also “bat s h i t crazy”?

I too am an atheist. I have no special feelings towards christians or muslims but I’ll say it again: The atheists here who attack christianity on a daily basis yet defend islam are a bunch of pussies or are simply doing it for political purposes.

The controversy about where the “Community Center of Death’” as Jon Stewart calls it, should be located, was caused by New Yorkers who protested the approval of the project and now has become a “national issue” in the Media.

The U.S. State Department continues to bring thousands-more Middle Easterners to be “resettled” in the U.S. as “Political Asylum” refugees, many of them will end-up living in Brooklyn, New York where there is big population of them already.

If even a small percentage of them have the desire to inflict mass casualties on New Yorkers in a crowded Time Square on a Saturday night they are a disaster waiting to happen:

http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/profiles/blogs/palestinians-have-missle

sarainitaly said:
CosmosDan said:
Before we invaded Iraq there was an attempt to paint Saddam as some vicious Hitler like dictator bent on domination. It was a purposely distorted picture to justify an unnecessary war.
If you’ve got some point to make then do it, but I don’t accept homework assignments.

No one had to paint Saddam as some viscous Hitler like dictator. He did that all on his own. And I think I made that point.

You didn’t. He was vicious and sadistic in maintaining power within his own country. He didn’t have the capability of being a threat to US security as Hitler did. He didn’t have the capability of war that Hitler did.

We cooperated and encouraged his war with Iran because they had ousted the puppet dictator we had placed there. If he was Hitler then we were Hitler’s ally. Is that what you’re saying?

Cosmos, I think you’re right in that Saddam would’ve never directly attacked the U.S. But when he went into Kuwait, he proved he was willing to attack his neighbors. And although the left starts screaming every time the word ‘oil’ is mentioned, if Saddam had started taking over some of those oil-rich countries, it would have made a big difference to us very quickly. The left likes to act like any interest in having oil is somehow evil. But until someone comes up with something better, everyone needs it.

Maher could have chosen three people off the street at random and had a better panel. His panels the past three weeks have sucked HARD.

Maher only debates weak opponents, like the woman on his show last night (who I’d guess has an IQ of 75). If he wants to have an honest debate against a real conservative, he should debate Walter E. Williams, Peter Schiff, or James Bovard.

writer said:
Cosmos, I think you’re right in that Saddam would’ve never directly attacked the U.S. But when he went into Kuwait, he proved he was willing to attack his neighbors. And although the left starts screaming every time the word ‘oil’ is mentioned, if Saddam had started taking over some of those oil-rich countries, it would have made a big difference to us very quickly. The left likes to act like any interest in having oil is somehow evil. But until someone comes up with something better, everyone needs it.

I’m torn on that writer. Part of me says that oil is not a good excuse when we have so many things we can do to cut down on our use. I have a hard time justifying declaring war to keep gas prices cheap and make sure we don’t have to carpool or start making cars with better gas mileage as we should have been doing 20 years ago. In that I’m not blaming any one administration. It’s been an ongoing failure of the US IMO that we make so many decisions , that wind up costing lives, based on economics. Admittedly, that may be naive on my part.

Saddam invaded Kuwait for several reasons. He had just spent years depleting his military and treasury defending himself and by extension, them, from fundamental Islam in Iran. He owed Kuwait billions , and asked them to forgive the debt since he had protected them as well. They refused.
Remember, that we had been covertly helping Iraq in it’s war with Iran. It’s not exactly clear what happened next. Maybe he believed we wouldn’t interfere Maybe Saddam thought we didn’t care who we got our oil from as long as we got it, or maybe he really didn’t know just how superior we were, but back then , he was no threat to us, and certainly years later, after being decimated by our armed forces, he wasn’t. He let the inspectors back in, and agreed to disarm, anything to stay in power. I suspect the neocons thought we could successfully set up a puppet democracy in Iraq with US military bases and control of vast oil reserves. I also think that it was incredibly arrogant to believe something like that. History seemed to indicate that the people of the middle east will never accept an occupying power, and by committing such act we displayed a power grab
that our former allies rejected.

Things change, and you have to roll with what’s going on at the time. Sort of like we were on Stalin’s ‘side’ during WWII. Sure didn’t stay that way.

writer said:
Things change, and you have to roll with what’s going on at the time. Sort of like we were on Stalin’s ’side’ during WWII. Sure didn’t stay that way.

granted. Those who are your allies today may be your enemy tomorrow. I’m not making that suggestion. I’m only talking about dealing with things without resorting to all out warfare.

I’m no diplomat but I have a hard time understanding why, when Saddam was massing his army at the Kuwait border we, along with the UN, didn’t tell him in no uncertain terms that an invasion would be dealt with harshly.

Regardless, There was no reason to see Iraq as a threat to us after 9/11.

redwriteblue said:
The controversy about where the “Community Center of Death’” as Jon Stewart calls it, should be located, was caused by New Yorkers who protested the approval of the project and now has become a “national issue” in the Media.

The U.S. State Department continues to bring thousands-more Middle Easterners to be “resettled” in the U.S. as “Political Asylum” refugees, many of them will end-up living in Brooklyn, New York where there is big population of them already.

If even a small percentage of them have the desire to inflict mass casualties on New Yorkers in a crowded Time Square on a Saturday night they are a disaster waiting to happen:

http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/profiles/blogs/palestinians-have-missle

This is a real risk, but what are we to do? We can’t shut ourselves off from the rest of the world.
Do we stop allowing all Muslims to enter the US? Do we deport all non citizen Muslims?

A handful of Muslim terrorists killed a few of us on 9/11-
and we have been killing Muslims in the Middle East since then.

So far, we have killed about 100 Mid-Eastern folk for every American killed on 9/11.
100 to 1 kill ratio.

Are you satisfied yet?

writer said:
Things change, and you have to roll with what’s going on at the time. Sort of like we were on Stalin’s ’side’ during WWII. Sure didn’t stay that way.

On another note, I’d like to thank you for your humorous and non hateful way of input on these boards. You seem to have found a way to participate with good humor without being dragged into hateful exchanges. I just wanted you to know it’s appreciated.

I’m sometimes annoyed with myself for letting myself get dragged into discussions with posters who obviously don’t want to have any meaningful exchange.

Bad Wolf said:
A handful of Muslim terrorists killed a few of us on 9/11-
and we have been killing Muslims in the Middle East since then.

So far, we have killed about 100 Mid-Eastern folk for every American killed on 9/11.
100 to 1 kill ratio.

Are you satisfied yet?

you sure it’s that little? I’m not. and the sad truth is as the violence continues it will likely breed more and escalating violence, and in the end, more and more average citizens from various countries will pay the price.

AnonymousFinch said:
War with Germany was not “the last resort.” NO? Am I wrong? Did Hitler invade the shores of Long Island in 1941 and I missed it?

Actually, Germany declared war on us after we declared war on Japan for the Pearl Harbor attacks. It annoys me how the ultra-left wing is trying to make Nazis into innocent victims!

Back at ‘cha, Cosmos. Although sometimes when ‘debating’ with the King, Fox News, or Ted, I can be drawn into a little tit for tat. And I feel terrible afterwards.

writer said:
Back at ‘cha, Cosmos. Although sometimes when ‘debating’ with the King, Fox News, or Ted, I can be drawn into a little tit for tat. And I feel terrible afterwards.

I know the feeling, It’s a matter of personal discipline for me and the belief, realistic or not, that maintaining a level of humor and reason, without hatefulness, sets a decent example. Every now and then I fail , and then there’s those times when I’m venting here, without typing it out. Ah well, we do the best we can.

Powerslave said:
The atheists here who attack christianity on a daily basis yet defend islam are a bunch of pussies or are simply doing it for political purposes.

Or they’ll attack Mormonism and defend Black Liberation Theology and social justice churches.

Calvin said:
Or they’ll attack Mormonism and defend Black Liberation Theology and social justice churches.

You should check out all the Mormons that support social justice and happ-en to disagree with Glenn. THat happens in large churches. People have varying opinions.

AnonymousFinch&Austin Reagan–Let us not forget the USS-Reuben James (DD-245)torpedoed and sunk 300 miles South of Iceland by U-562 (Lt capt-Eric Topp)Oct-31,1941

It took 115 men to there deaths,an act of war by Germany.

CosmosDan said:
You should check out all the Mormons that support social justice and happ-en to disagree with Glenn. THat happens in large churches. People have varying opinions.

I don’t doubt that there are, but it’s not part of their doctrine. Nowhere in their scriptures does it say that the government is in charge of charity. It’s not in the bible either.

http://personalfinancebythebook.com/what-does-the-bible-say-about-the-purpose-of-government/

http://www.gotquestions.org/liberation-theology.html

http://www.answers.org/news/article.php?story=20070529160136256

Calvin said:
I don’t doubt that there are, but it’s not part of their doctrine. Nowhere in their scriptures does it say that the government is in charge of charity. It’s not in the bible either.

http://personalfinancebythebook.com/what-does-the-bible-say-about-the-purpose-of-government/

http://www.gotquestions.org/liberation-theology.html

http://www.answers.org/news/article.php?story=20070529160136256

I’m not sure what you and others think this means. It’s irrelevant. Nothing is any doctrine or scripture I’m aware of either supports of prevents social programs to help others. Believers get to have different opinions on that and vote accordingly.

DEFENDER-90 said:
AnonymousFinch&Austin Reagan–Let us not forget the USS-Reuben James (DD-245)torpedoed and sunk 300 miles South of Iceland by U-562 (Lt capt-Eric Topp)Oct-31,1941

It took 115 men to there deaths,an act of war by Germany.

and was a good Kenny Rogers song.

CosmosDan said:
Believers get to have different opinions on that and vote accordingly.

Sure, just don’t say that your scriptures say that the government is in charge of taking the poor, because they don’t. At least the Book of Mormon and the Bible doesn’t say that it is.

Calvin said:
Sure, just don’t say that your scriptures say that the government is in charge of taking the poor, because they don’t. At least the Book of Mormon and the Bible doesn’t say that it is.

I haven’t seen anyone make that claim ever.

Calvin said:
At least the Book of Mormon and the Bible doesn’t say that it is.

“don’t”

CosmosDan said:
I haven’t seen anyone make that claim ever.

Does Jim Wallis ring any bells?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson288.html

http://www.keywiki.org/index.php/Jim_Wallis

Calvin said:
Does Jim Wallis ring any bells?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson288.html

http://www.keywiki.org/index.php/Jim_Wallis

find a reliable somewhat unbiased source and I’ll take a look at it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/13/AR2005121301764.html

another country heard from….

EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ

The following is a copy of an article written by Spanish writer Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez and published in a Spanish newspaper on Jan. 15, 2008. It doesn’t take much imagination to extrapolate the message to the rest of Europe – and possibly to the rest of the world.

REMEMBER AS YOU READ – THIS WAS IN A SPANISH NEWSPAPER

Date: Tue. 15 January 2008 14:30

ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ

By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez

I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth – Europe died in Auschwitz. We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, and talent. We destroyed the Chosen People, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.

The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world.

These are the people we burned.

And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism, and lack of tolerance, crime, and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.

They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime. Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.

And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.

We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.

What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.

Gotta disagree with Bill Maher. O”Reilly was wrong in his statement. He should have said a group of criminals or terrorists attacked us on 9-11 who happened to be or claimed to be of the Muslim faith. If it would have been Catholics, would we ban catholic churches from near Ground Zero? I would assume this so called “Ground Zero Mosque” is for Muslims Americans to worship and not for Al Quada to make the trip over and worship. Let’s not forget Muslim Americans lost their lives that day also and the Muslim Americans who have lost their lives in the military fighting in these wars. I think we dishonor them and their families. This whole issue is nothing more than a political football some politicians are exploiting and some people are falling for it. Shame on us for being so insensitive and ignorant.

CosmosDan said:
find a reliable somewhat unbiased source and I’ll take a look at it.

The keywiki link has citations and the other article deals with Wallis’s “How Christian is Tea Party Libertarianism” article quite neatly. Can you tell me what these articles got wrong or do you want to comment on how subjective you find them?

The way I understood it, I think that Joy and Whoopie were mad because he stated that “Muslims attacked us on 9/11″ as an implied reason that makes it okay to treat Muslim Americans as if they don’t have the same rights as everyone else. In that context, they were right to demonstrate they were mad by walking out. The hatred toward innocent people who happen to be Muslim is getting out of hand in America. It’s a terrible shame. The same people who claim to be “strict constitutionalists” want to put an asterisk where it says “religious freedom” and put a footnote that says “*except Muslims”. It was totally appropriate for Joy and Whoopie to make a point by walking out.

Calvin said:
The keywiki link has citations and the other article deals with Wallis’s “How Christian is Tea Party Libertarianism” article quite neatly. Can you tell me what these articles got wrong or do you want to comment on how subjective you find them?

We’re not having a general discussion of what Wallis thinks. The discussion was one very specific thing.
this;

Sure, just don’t say that your scriptures say that the government is in charge of taking the poor, because they don’t

I would say liberal Christians like Wallis believe that we have a biblical obligation to help the poor and that’s pretty obvious in the scriptures. That;s an obligation for we, as individuals, and as a society. If individuals and private organizations get the job done that’s great, or if government run program use collected taxes to do it, that’s fine as well. The important thing is that it gets done. Liberal Christians may feel that a government like ours that allots tax money to various programs, should make sure that programs for the poor are high on the priority list, but I seriously doubt anyone believes that government programs should replace individual charity and private charitable organizations.
I feel fairly certain that if private charities step up and actually get the job done, liberal Christians won’t feel the need for government programs to continue.

CosmosDan said:
I would say liberal Christians like Wallis believe that we have a biblical obligation to help the poor and that’s pretty obvious in the scriptures. That;s an obligation for we, as individuals, and as a society. If individuals and private organizations get the job done that’s great, or if government run program use collected taxes to do it, that’s fine as well. The important thing is that it gets done. Liberal Christians may feel that a government like ours that allots tax money to various programs, should make sure that programs for the poor are high on the priority list, but I seriously doubt anyone believes that government programs should replace individual charity and private charitable organizations.
I feel fairly certain that if private charities step up and actually get the job done, liberal Christians won’t feel the need for government programs to continue.

If government hadn’t got in to the charity game to begin with, I think that more churches would be giving more charity. The Mormon church does charity very well. http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/facts-and-stats

Private charity is superior to government welfare. I’m pretty sure America is the most charitable nation in the world. If we had the governmnet off our backs we’d be able to give more. Unfortunately, guys like Wallis are so anti-capitalism and anti-wealthy that they belive that people are not entitled to their wealth. They believe that – well, I’ll let Margaret Thatcher explain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

Wallis believes that the government has an obligation to hand out welfare, but it does not. We the people have an obligation to give charity. I know I’ve posted the following story many times, but I believe it illustrates my point quite well.

In vetoing a bill in 1887 that would have appropriated $10,000 in aid for Texas farmers struggling through a drought, Cleveland wrote:

“I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.”

Cleveland went on to point out, “The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune.” Americans proved him right. Those Texas farmers eventually received in private aid more than 10 times what the vetoed bill would have provided.

As a devoted Christian, Cleveland saw the notion of taking from some to give to others as a violation of the Eighth and Tenth Commandments, which warn against theft and envy. He noticed what 20th century welfare statists did not, namely, that there was a period after the word “steal” in the Eighth, with no added qualifications. It does not say, “Thou shalt not steal unless the other guy has more than you do, or unless a government representative does it for you, or unless you can’t find anyone who will give it to you freely, or unless you’re totally convinced you can spend it better than the guy to whom it belongs.”

Cleveland had been faithful to the Founders and to what he believed were God’s commandments, common sense and historical experience. I can’t say the same for certain of his successors who, in more recent times, cast wisdom to the winds and set America on a very different course.

http://www.mackinac.org/7440

If we tax the wealthy so much, how do you think more jobs will be created? Jobs won’t be created, that’s not how it works. Would you rather have a job or welfare? Actually, some people do opt for welfare because they get more from welfare than their job. That’s insane. I saw somebody buying cheetos with food stamps the other day. That’s stupid.

CosmosDan said:
I feel fairly certain that if private charities step up and actually get the job done, liberal Christians won’t feel the need for government programs to continue.

No they won’t.

“But a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration and violation of the proper role of government in protecting its citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice.” -Jim Wallis

Calvin said:
If we tax the wealthy so much, how do you think more jobs will be created? Jobs won’t be created, that’s not how it works. Would you rather have a job or welfare?

I don’t think it’s quite that simple Calvin. We certainly need a balance to encourage business to hire people but taxes don’t always prevent jobs. I tend not to see things all one way or the other. I don’t think we’ll have a perfect system. I’m okay with limited programs to help people out but I also think we need to expect something from people as well. I tend to favor workfare over welfare. IMO, it’s often about balance. It’s good to help people in need but you don’t want to create multi generational welfare which we have done to some extent. When it comes to the government wasting taxpayers money I’m not convinced welfare is the worst problem, but anty program needs to be examined for effectiveness, and cost efficiency.

Calvin said:
“But a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration and violation of the proper role of government in protecting its citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice.” -Jim Wallis

So the problem here is fairness and justice?

CosmosDan said:
I don’t think it’s quite that simple Calvin

True, you also need to cut spending. Cut the spending in half. Also, don’t think that everybody deserves to have a house when they can’t afford it. It’s a nice dream, but that’s all it is, a dream. It’s not going to be a pleasant ride doing these things, but they have to be done. There are some things that should be done won’t get done. The right choice isn’t always the politically expedient choice.

CosmosDan said:
So the problem here is fairness and justice?

The problem here, is that this man is not talking about enforcing laws. He is talking about enforcing social justice through taxes. And the idea that “a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration” is not just wrong, it’s ignorant. Or should I say lying? From the link I posted earlier:

First, and most important, a “power-hungry government” is NOT an aberration. Indeed, all governments are power-hungry, and for Wallis to claim that such governments are rare or are simply “aberrations” is to be telling falsehoods about the nature and history of governments. Now, I have no idea what “smart and effective” government is, given that most governments I have witnessed throughout my lifetime have been large and power-hungry.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson288.html

There’s more in that article to read.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8

roxsteady said:
Yes but, it took John Legend and Markos to explain to Maher that O’Reilly was conflating the Muslim terrorists from September 11th and saying that since they did this, the Muslims who are building the Community Center didn’t have the right to build. One group of dead terrorists have nothing to do with the people building the Center. Got that? Bill Maher couldn’t seem to understand that. I’m assuming you folks do?

Exactly. Well… there is the point made in the prior post… O’Reilly, of whom I’m no fan, didn’t say they had no right… only that it was unwise. He has a right to say that, as pointed out. As do those on the View, in turn, have a right to object to him. And going all the way back, the Muslims have a right to build on the site. Everyone has rights, etc. etc.

Something else O’Reilly got correct though, and I think this is where we could also look more closely, is that the sentiment AGAINST building a mosque there was/is huge. Now, he seemed to think that was reason not to build it. But here’s the question maybe we should be asking… why do so many people feel that way? Or more specifically, why do so many people feel that feeling that way is the right thing to do?

I’d arge this: It’s that we did a VERY poor job of making it clear, from the start, that 70 Muslim families were right there along with the rest of us in losing people in that tragic moment… and that out of 1 billion Muslims, it was a small percentage of extremists.

So… if I can carry this through… it really does come back around to the media’s failings on this (and Washington’s).

Whoopi and Joy walk off not because they DON’T think the terrorists happen to be Muslim, but because they don’t like the extrapolation that all Muslims are terrorists. Fair enough to feel that way. But they should not have walked off. Yes, they had a right to do it. But professionally speaking, and as far as their responsibility to the audience goes, it would have been far better to stay… dial down the conversation… and then make it clear what the media and politicians in 2001 never did.

Likewise, Bill O’Reilly did identify a sentiment correctly, and it happens to be an unpleasant one, so it’s no wonder it was controversial. This was not his failing. His failing was to leave it where he did rather than — as a public figure and opinion leader/trusted informant of a certain faction — clarifying that, look, it may be idiotic to extrapolate but this is what’s now occurred. This is because, much as Maher came to O’Reilly’s defense, Maher defended O’Reilly on a point that he himself misses: No matter how victimized he might play after the incident, O’Reilly clearly does believe that it’s all of Islam that’s out to get us, not just a radical few.

“Bill Maher is nothing if not an iconoclast. During the Clinton-era Politically Incorrect he was considered somewhat right-of-center”

HA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

What a load of dogshit! Look, just because rampant misogynist and overbearing busybody Bill Maher used to delude himself and say that he was a libertarian simply because he likes weed doesn’t magically make him “right-of-center”. That’s not even an accurate inaccurate characterization since libertarianism is far-right, not “right-of-center”.

Maher is definately fustrated.

His I’ll-be-on-the-opposite-side-of-the-president was working OK, until Obama came in.
If you’re opposite of Clinton, you’re right leaning. If you’re opposite of Bush, You’re left leaning.
If you’re opposite of Obama, you’re s racist.

Bill Maher needs to find our who Bill Maher is.

Calvin said:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson288.html

I know this is an old post, but I had no idea that Lew Rockwell was a nut when I posted that link.