why should i waste my time when i never said you agreed with dictator col gene

just becouse your both liberals doesn't mean you have to agree with each other

so if my point and question do not apply to you why are you so worked up

dan, the main difference between klink an gid. Is that gene is a flaming hard closet leftist while gid is just a plain liberal. You really shouldn't even use their names in the same sentence.

True. Now multiply that by the kind of Islamophobia we see here. I see some nit pundit on national TV saying the same thing the people here at JU say so often that it is almost unavoidable. I know you are not excusing this kid's treatment, but you're also not taking into account that he's not just hearing this from other kids at school.

I was picked on mercilessly when I was young, until I started bludgeoning the other kids with whatever I could pick up at the time. If he did that, it would be news. When I went home, too, I didn't hear it from people on TV. Had I had the Internet, I wouldn't have had to deal with reading bloggers like ShadowWar.

You and I wouldn't have been afraid to go to airports. You and I wouldn't have had to listen to people who are outraged because some Senator wanted to swear on the Koran instead of the Bible. Did you read the rest of the article? Someone openly in the newspaper saying "get the torches" to stop an Arab studies school?

Get the torches? Imagine how this kids abuse is multiplied by the overall mood of the nation.



Heh, I beg to differ. When you find otherwise normal people warning that the fat people are going to kill us or take over the nation and make it a Fat People Caliphate, etc., maybe then I'll see your point. Fat people face abuse, no doubt, but come on. All you have to do is look at blogs like this one.

The fact of the matter is that if this kid had been a Jew, the kids would have been mercilessly punished and the teachers that took part would have been fired. That, if anything else, shows the bias. No one is going to say "get the torches" if someone tries to open a Jewish studies school.

No doubt someone will reply to this and say that Jews aren't killing people. Neither was this kid. Find me another segment of the American population that faces this kind of thing just because of their religion. Other kids become school shooters, kill themselves, etc., but how much less open hostility from American culture do they face?

The fact that more Muslims aren't snapping and killing people is a testament to how wrong people like ShadowWar are about the threat of Islam. The saddest part is when they finally do, people like ShadowWar won't see the irony of harrowing people who would otherwise have done them no harm. He'll just try to use it as proof that he was right.

Go look at Brads "namist" argument in light of this kid's case. He listed a handful of violent incidents (ina nation with 15,000+ murders a year) and attached the stigma of ideology to the names "Mohammad", etc. Making fun of people's names takes on a whole other dimension with attitudes like that being so common that people don't hesitate to make such characterizations.

liberal? Not according to the DNC....lol!

Rightwinger posted this on another blog recently:



Find me somewhere that people say that about fat people, Whip.

i don't think that i did but maybe i did

between gid, sean, and dictator col gene at least dictator col gene admits he is a liberal the other two don't

Let's see...I want to end all government welfare and I'm a liberal?

I want to severely cut funding to almost every government program and I'm a liberal?

See, danielost, the problem is that in your myopic field of view only two possibilities exist: one is like you and therefore a conservative, or unlike you and therefore a liberal. The truth is far different.

The liberals won't have me because I'm staunchly prolife, and pro second amendment, as well as targeting their pet programs with the budgetary axe.

The word is "Libertarian", danielost, and while SOME of my platform positions are liberal, I am not by and large a liberal. And your labelling me as such only serves to further prove your inability to grasp an abstract thought.

It's a pity, though. If you'd actually try to LEARN, you might discover a whole new world.

Maybe danielost has been confused by someone from the rest of the world. Libertarianism is the radical wing of liberalism after all, so factually speaking you are a liberal, and a particularly radical one at that. It's only in the US that socialism is called liberalism.

gid you defend everything liberal as far as i have seen

and

a liberal when they can't attack the message they attack the messenger

so keep telling me i am a bigot or what ever you want to think

but in reality i may hate a group but i don't hate the person unless said person has done me personal wrong.

such as someone who disagrees with me keeps calling me a bigot when the real bigot is usually the one calling others bigots. such as Jessie Jackson

Don't worry, Danny, you're not a bigot. You're not literate enough to be a bigot; with your fourth grade literacy I'm sure no one would think to call you anything other than ignorant, or possibly retarded if they were feeling mildly cruel.

He does? I have not read him in so long, that I could not say that. However, when he first started posting, he claimed to be a Reagan republican. Very vociferously too. If he is claiming to be an unabashed liberal now, at least he seems to be getting more honest.

This is where labels do not span borders, as in many countries this would be correct. However, here, Libertarianism is more conservative (I would not say radical as that implies some sort of extremism - which for the most part Libertarians are not) than Conservatives.

Libertarianism spans different parts of our society; social, economic, etc. Libertarians are very conservative economically. They are also very, very liberal socially. They may not hold to those social values in their personal life, like Gid, but they don't believe the government has the right to mandate such.

That, frankly, is why they'll never win an election. Their platform is simply too divisive. You'll have to drive a ways to find a person who is pro-choice, pro-drug legalization, and then also anti-social programs, anti-affirmative action, anti-gun control, etc.

Normally not a big deal; I differ with the Republicans on some issues. But, the ones for the Libertarian party are biggies. Most social conservatives that I know simply would never vote for a party that would fight against pro-life legislation. Most fiscal liberals I know would never vote for a party that opposes gun control or government programs like welfare.

Most people don't define themselves based upon their attitudes toward government handling of issues. They define themselves based upon the issues individually. The problem with people like daniel is they never bother to see what the political philosophy is, they just see that they are pro-drug legalization and lump them in with liberals.

Because you can't read in context, daniel.

Speaking against virulent misguided attacks on an entire religion based on the actions of its most extremist elements isn't liberalism, danielost, not by a long shot.

I hate to break it to you, but the Republican Party is NOT conservative. They have all but abandoned everything conservatives believe.

Every once in awhile I could actually tolerate some of the stuff you write, danielost. The reason I don't? Because you've proven your complete and utter inability to admit when you are wrong, as you have been proven to be numerous times. If you want to be an effective communicator, you gain more traction when you're willing to admit you are wrong. This entire conflict between you and me keyed off over an issue where I was PROVABLY right, and provided proof...in SPADES. Yet instead of acknowledging that, you stuck by your misguided story. And began calling me a "liberal", because in your mind that is the one nasty thing you can think of.

Danielost, if Muslims were wholly committed to our conversion or our extermination, we would have many more deaths than we do. Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would have already been slaughtered en masse, rather than the rather small percentage of troops (about 3,500, last I checked, as compared to 150,000 depployed) that have been killed since the conflict began.

plenty of conservatives attack the messenger as well.

I would attack the message, Danielost...but you deny my response even when I PROVE it...so what's the point. Go back to our discussion on the 2nd amendment. I provided you with link after link to prove my assertions. You did not check the links, you did not offer links to prove your own point (but insisted that the US does not allow its citizens to see the REAL Constitution, except for a copy in the basement of the SF public library). Absurdity at its finest. I began by addressing the message; you won't debate the message.

So don't accuse me of attacking the messenger when YOU left me little recourse.