Christians? Or do you mean the GOP? Because there are Christians that vote Democratic too. Talk about lumping an entire religion.
Why do "liberals" support Islam, when it so "Vehemently"...
- Thread starter NoleSoup4U
- Start date
Christians? Or do you mean the GOP? Because there are Christians that vote Democratic too. Talk about lumping an entire religion.
Point proven. Hypocrite who posted in this thread to try and call out hypocrisy. That you evidently can't see it highlights the rhetoric problem we have.
You can't see we have a National Security problem with acts of terrorism being conducted on our soil.
That is an unpopular narrative. That is why you are doing backflips to say there is no difference between domestic crime and international terrorism. It's an anarchists mentality.
The country is less safe, but feelings are being sparred. Liberal policies hard at work.
So YOU can stereotype (Conservatives want to stereotype and be prejudice.....etc) but you can't understand why others can't grasp the concept of not all Muslims and Christians are bad. Hmm. Hello pot, meat kettle.
the problem is Obama and the feds in dc are national security threat. I view both the san Bernardino folks and this guy at the planned parenthood thingy, I view both of them as Obama followers. they thump the barak insane Obama bible or book of how to ruin the west. he is their cia handler.
Nothing you posted counters your hypocrisy, you are simply Donal Trump-big the narrative.
I have never said there is no difference between "domestic crime" and "international terrorism", you are going out of your way to distance the "lunatic" from yourself/other anti-abortion Christians .... While complaining, hypocritically, about people doing that about Islam.
One guy is crazy = no big deal
One is Muslim = de facto Terrorism, get us on high alert
I never said the "entire media" called him a Christian terrorist, although there certainly are plenty of examples of that. I'm talking about posters on this site. Posters like yourself and Ciggy and Joes Place. Guys who blamed the Colorado Springs shootings on anti-abortion rhetoric but refuse to acknowledge radical Islam.
And I'm not saying that somehow it is one-sided. There are hypocrites on both sides. What I'm saying is don't be one of those hypocrites.
heck the news was coming out later that this planned parenthood guy was pro Obama and pro abortion and that he just happened to stumble into an abortion clinic on accident, in a mind controlled daze, maybe zombie drugs-that he really would have done the same had it been a café there on that block
You just keep repeating the invented hyperbole, that one side is willing to "speak the truth" while the other is in denial, spin-mode. THAT is the hypocrisy, you are actively doing exactly what you are trying to complain about.
You keep brining religion into it.
You are saying that enemies of the country, entering our borders, killing our citizens doesn't concern you.
Thanks.
You're so far detached from reality right now that you couldn't even get a direct flight back here. Most media outlets held on to the "workplace violence" angle as long as they could, until the FBI found a veritable bomb factory in their home and the wife's pledge to ISIS on social media. Only then did those news outlets reluctantly acknowledge that they may have been radicalized.
But don't you dare call them radical Muslims!
Holy hell, you're an idiot. I've never seen a poster so reliant on bastardizing other people's words.
I never said one side is "speaking the truth" or that the other side is in denial. People who switch their policy on blaming an entire ideology depending on which ideology is to blame are hypocrites. Some liberals, but not all liberals, are hypocrites. Some conservatives, but not all conservatives, are hypocrites.
You, for example, are a hypocrite.
I should have qualified it with "some" conservatives or "Conservatives that want to limit immigration to certain religions" but alas I thought that was implied.
I'm not stereotyping anyone. I'm speaking only of those that want to restrict entry into this country based upon a religion or limit anything based upon a person's religion for that matter.
A meat kettle does sound really tasty though!
What the f*** are you talking about?
1) This is a thread about "liberals" supporting Islam.
2) You started this exchange. You are the one trying to cry hypocrisy, in essence you are saying:
LIBERALS REFUSE TO CALL IT RADICAL ISLAM! (see, literally, your post above this)
But you then, in the same thread say that the PP shooter was a "lunatic", just a crazy mo-f'er.
You are using the very tactic you were complaining about. How do you not see this? You complain that Side B won't call it for "what it is" while refusing to call it for "what it is" ... and doing so in the same thread.
Well now I see I'm arguing with two separate posters I was conflating as one, but my point still stands. See bolded.
As a "liberal" I support people not religions. If you want to live in this country peacefully I support you. If you want to persecute people I don't support you. To my knowledge none of the major religions have great track records on homosexuality. Look at Christianity in Africa before you climb on that high horse. I don't support that. Doesn't mean I think Christians in America should be attacked on the street. Some Muslims in the middle east are doing terrible things too. Doesn't mean that you should act like a jackass to fellow Americans who are Muslim. It's really pretty simple. In general, the African continent is pretty effed up from north to south at the moment. Blaming entire religions or races or what have you for the shenanigans currently going on there is just stupid.
So, what: You are somehow the bystander calling hypocrisy on everyone?
Feel free to show, specifically, where I was a hypocrite, except you can't.
Don't get emotional. I swear I cannot have an argument with one of you gals without someone screaming.
If a Christian believes that abortion is murder, and believes that he is conducting god's will in being a warrior for those babies by shooting up a PP he is, according to so very many, a whacko lunatic crazy person (because, you know, Christians wouldn't do that).
Is a Muslim believes that the American way of life is sin/whatever and believes he is conducting gods will in being a warror by shooting up a workplace, he is, according to so very many, a radical religious terrorist. (because, you know, that is actually what Muslim's do)
That is the hypocrisy.
If that is not, in fact, what you are saying (22/TJ), I'm happy to retract my allegations of hypocrisy.
Is a Muslim believes that the American way of life is sin/whatever and believes he is conducting gods will in being a warror by shooting up a workplace, he is, according to so very many, a radical religious terrorist. (because, you know, that is actually what Muslim's do)
That is the hypocrisy.
If that is not, in fact, what you are saying (22/TJ), I'm happy to retract my allegations of hypocrisy.
nobody ever proved the planned parenthood guy was anti-abortion and Christian. in fact, it came out later he was a liberal pro-Obama freak
I'm happy to argue, I'm not overly emotional, and frankly it is a bit weird that you are hearing screaming. I'm confused by your allegations that I am bringing religion in to it ... in a thread about religion, after your posts have made clear that you believe that religious-based (Islamic) terrorism is one for concern.
If you believe that the religion is the motive, and that it needs to be addressed, how do you propose taking religion out of the discussion when it addresses Christianity?
They're both religious nuts.
One was foreigner attacking on US soil.( a la Paris)
The other was a home grown nut.
No one wants to talk about the international terrorism. They just want to lump it in with domestic crime and hope it never happens again.
Feel free to peruse my previous posts, this site makes that pretty easy. One of the things you'll see me complain about in this topic is the absurd vagueness of the use of "terrorism".
22 - you seem to want to talk about "international terrorism" as opposed to "domestic", vague distinctions in themselves, pointing only to the foreign wife as the international aspect of this. Why is one act "terrorism" while the other isn't? We put far too much emphasis on simplicity, having one word to cover extremely complex and divergent topics. If, for example, there had been no wife, would you really argue that it wouldn't be "terrorism"?
22 - you seem to want to talk about "international terrorism" as opposed to "domestic", vague distinctions in themselves, pointing only to the foreign wife as the international aspect of this. Why is one act "terrorism" while the other isn't? We put far too much emphasis on simplicity, having one word to cover extremely complex and divergent topics. If, for example, there had been no wife, would you really argue that it wouldn't be "terrorism"?
Sorry, I misjudged you for having deficient emotional intelligence.
How long have you had turrets?
Exactly. If the dipshit in Vegas turns out to be Muslim it will be "terrorism", regardless or her motives. If she's not then it will just be shrugged off as some "crazy chick". America's right is bi-polar on violence.
Except "one was a foreigner" is simply furthering your hypocritical approach to the subject. The guy was an American, he was a "home grown nut", the fact that he had a foreign wife doesn't change that. If he had acted alone you would still call it terrorism, and still have no understanding of how/why it occurred.
EVERYBODY wants to talk about international terrorism, it is all that has been talked about for weeks (two decades) now. To claim otherwise is simply dishonest. Yes, they do hope it never happens again, which is why so many (you, apparently) will just label the PP guy as a "nut", so that you can pretend it won't happen again.
Your hypocrisy is that one is just a "nut" while the other is apparently an evil villain sent by Mohamed himself.
Using swear words, especially f***, are for emphasis, not symptoms of "deficient emotional intelligence", there is nothing improper about their use.
Both sides are ... it is just one side in this thread trying to call out the other without the ability to look within.
Much like anything else: If you are going to call someone out for X, you should be pretty sure you aren't doing X yourself. "Terrorism" has been linked to "Middle East" and "Islam" at least since the 90's, and people appear to have a difficult time separating them. It would be interesting, in an entirely theoretical sense, to see what the response would be to a group of strangely-devout Christians from, say, Florida, who just started hacking people up with machetes at a mall. Think The Following tv show style. Would they call it terrorism? I doubt it.
So why would I want to allow ANOTHER group of killers inside my borders when I have enough to deal with in the first place. Why wouldn't I want to do everything I can to keep MORE killers from coming to my country, no matter if it has a religious motivation to it or not. Who gives a shit? Stop allowing the flow of people to this country without the proper vetting process. I could give a rat's behind who any of them pray to. I want to know if they want to kill myself, my family or millions of other innocent Americans......note the word AMERICANS. No religious connotation. AMERICANS. Can we protect these people first and worry about somebody else's nose being out of joint later? Some will say well the guy is SB was an American.....no he was not. He was a killer. He was designed to come here and kill Americans. We have WAY too many people worried about the treatment of his family!! Crap, they SAW what was going on. If we are not looking into every detail of their lives to make sure they are allowed to STAY in this country then something is really wrong. Again, I could give a crap WHERE the hate comes from because I don't believe with these mad men, and mad women, we are going to change the mindset. Jesh, how tough can this shit be?
yes, and their religion is either climate change or kissing the feet of insane Obama, or both
because they might vote democrat but even if they don't, and they don't vote, but the dems think they do... and they can use the numbers of bodies here, the millions, in voter fraud, and SAY they voted dem. nobody would question it, no way of counting the votes. fraud handed to us on a plate.
Uh...you DO realize that he was BORN in the US right? He wasn't "designed to come here and kill Americans" because he was ALWAYS here. He was just as much an American as any other home grown nut job killer. Deal with it.
Yet another second grade level analysis of America's right. If the dipshit in Vegas had turned out to be a Muslim who had a friggin' bomb factory in her apartment and had pledged allegiance to ISIS on social media then it would have been terrorism. If she was just some random Muslim chick who was high on drugs and had no vendetta against Americans then she would have been shrugged off as some "crazy chick", just as if she was a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant who happened to be batshit crazy.
Why is "pledging allegiance to ISIS" the determination of terrorism?
You seem to be saying that the act doesn't matter, only the motive. Which I understand and makes sense, but how do we then determine which motives = terrorism and which don't?
If a person were to actually succeed in their plan, say the Colorado movie theater shooter had killed all 82 instead of 12, wounding 70, and then law enforcement was killed in the explosion at his apartment he still wouldn't be a "terrorist", right? Those were the things he intended to happen. But if he had pledged to ISIS/AQ/Muslim Brotherhood, or some other ME group, it would be terrorism, right? What if he pledged to Joseph Smith and Mormonism? Or to the memory of Pol Pot?
You throw in "high on drugs" in order to discount the religion, just as you do with "lunatic" on the PP guy. The only thing that would change in your scenario is if she weren't muslim, and goddamnit you know it. If she were high = terrorist. If she were diagnosed schizo = terrorist. The only things that changes the rhetoric from terrorism is a) her religion and b) nationality.
If you disagree with my analysis, give us YOUR definition of "terrorism".
Well at first blush, it seems like you have some good points here...but let's take a closer look...
Scott Roeder, whom you describe as a "Christian anti-abortionist", was apparently a self described Christian, but he held no leadership position in, nor did he represent any Christian organization, that I can detect.
Even if you accept that he personally was a Christian, and let's say that he was...his views and actions are FAR OUTSIDE of the norm of virtually all Christian organizations and his despicable acts were roundly criticized by Christians everywhere. So why do you identify him as a representative of Christianity? He was also apparently diagnosed as a schizophrenic, but I don't see where you think he represents the mentally ill as a group...so why do you associate his actions with Christianity?
Jim David Adkisson - I didn't know anything about him, so I looked him up and after reading about 5 different accounts of his terrible crimes...I could not find any reference to him being a Christian, or representing any Christian organization. While he professed a hatred for liberals, etc, I don't know he applies to what I was talking about. So I am not sure why you identified him in this instance.
Eric Rudolph - it seems clear that he was out to maim/kill those that he disagreed with and thought he was doing so in accordance with his Christian beliefs. However, his acts were in no way supported or lauded by any notable Christian denomination or organization. He was at best a deranged "lone wolf" and certainly not a valid representative of any legitimate organization.
So...you have identified one very indirect example out of a world population of approximately 7 billion people. I would hardly call that a strong counter argument to my questions.
Granted, there are going to be "outliers" regardless of what group(s) a given offender is determined to be a part of. BUT, the behavior of outliers was not my point. I asked....
"Would you be able to share any accounts where Baptists, evangelicals, etc, have beheaded or stoned, etc, a homosexual? Do you realize that there is a pretty big difference in not supporting something v. persecuting folks for it?"
Would you like to try again and share with us the name(s) of any organized Christian based groups that promote or tolerate stoning, beheading, bombing, shooting, etc, of those that they consider to be infidels? I find it interesting that you seem to chide me about "get(ting) the point", when you missed my point entirely in your response to me.
Are you ignoring all of Christian Africa? You can get life in prison in Uganda for being gay and if not for global uproar the punishment would have been execution. People are routinely killed there for being gay. Although I admit usually they aren't stoned but instead burned with tires.
