This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Pre 9/11 mentality Returns

This is very disturbing. The Wall Street Journal reports the FBI did not tell the Pentagon about Hasan's contacts with known radical Imam Anwar al-Awlaki. There is more to learn but it seems to me this has to mean that the Obama administration has proactively changed the Bush administration's policy. Did they rebuild Gorelick's wall? If so, what else has Obama done to sabotage our security? This is unacceptable. It's very hard not to jump to conclusions.

122 comments:

Anonymous said...

Those who wish to avoid standard flatearther revisionist rants and misplaced blame games may appreciate a review of Hasan's PowerPoint presentation on suicide bombers. It was presented to senior Army doctors in June 2007.

Refresh my memory, please. Who was the President at that time?

Anonymous said...

Sorry. Forgot to give the link...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2009/11/10/GA2009111000920.html

Honest Debate said...

Geez Nonny (if that's your real name),

First, as previously stated, I for one will not cut Bush one iota of slack if he is culpable for this tragedy. I know honest debate is a hard concept for you to wrap your head around. Perhaps if you pulled it out of your butt it would be easier.

"Was it Bush's FBI that ignored the intel? If so, I won't cut him slack. November 11, 2009 9:07 AM 'Weed Patch' thread."

Secondly, it's one thing if Army doctors didn't pass on their suspicion in the name of political correctness, it's quite another if the FBI didn't share the information with the Pentagon.

BTW, also from the "Weed Patch" thread:

"Last night I posted a new thread about the blessed day that 'Shyster' left. Yesterday was the one year anniversary. The dude wasn't worth his own thread and I came to my senses this morning and removed it."
November 11, 2009 8:10 AM

And:

"The discussions about ad hominem attacks that we have been having is what reminds me of Shyster. I'll give him this much, he and Rich were eloquent with their hate. They were also educated. In the end the dishonest nature of the debate made it fairly easy to defeat their arguments every time but you did have to think a little bit.

Shyster is still here. He's just embarrassed now and post as Nonny (if that's his real name)."

November 11, 2009 8:53 AM

There is a certain smart acid ness, anass wholidity if you will that's unmistakable.

guy faulkes said...

Nonny, I agree with you. Bush was not nearly aggressive enough in his policies concerning the war on terror. However, Bush is not the President. Hasan's terrorist act took place on Obama's watch. Obama does not even have the intestinal fortitude to proclaim it a terrorist act. Hopefully we will find out if political correctness is the means that allowed this terrorist to function. We have to stop the idiocy of someone not bringing danger signs to the attention of his superiors because he would be in more trouble for political incorrectness than the person that originally made threatening statements would be for making the threats.

Honest Debate said...

Guy,

If Obama reversed Bush's policy and resurrected the walls between the FBI, CIA and Pentagon then he must be impeached.

Yes, I know I may very well be jumping the gun.

Sarkazein said...

A'mous- was that link supposed to back your stance on the actions on the Islamic terrorist major?

I say it shows his sympathy for the enemy and his spiritual connection to them. He's a muslim extremist terrorist. Have you heard any of the people that sat through his PP presentation?

It all boils down to Muslim terrorist mind-set and political correctness.

Honest Debate said...

"Bush was not nearly aggressive enough in his policies concerning the war on terror." -Guy Faulkes

Guy may be right on that but Bush did do enough to keep us safe for 8 years. Obama didn't make it one. I hope my confidence is not misplaced but I do think we will find out how this was allowed to happen.

The way I see it, and my logic might be flawed, either Obama reversed policy or Bush didn't enforce his own policies.

Again, this may be flawed logic but I don't for a minute believe integrity would prevent Obama (via surrogates) from blaming Bush if he could. He might anyway. I wonder why he hasn't.

This situation bothers me deeply. I am letting it fly without the deliberation I usually try to exercise before posting. I haven't heard anyone anywhere reference the "wall" but how else to explain it? I am very much willing to change my mind if evidence warrants or someone shows me the light. Political correctness definitely played a huge part but I just have a very hard time believing with the FBI dereliction that the problem doesn't go deeper.

Sarkazein said...

H.D.-

I don't think it had to do with reversed policies, just the cancer of PC mentality growing in all parts of society. All to the detriment of our country, and those that PC is supposed to help. It denies realities and stifles communication. It is not just the head of the country, except for his reactions to events, it is a malignancy through out our entire society.

Sarkazein said...

A comment made here on this site by a liberal, further displays the problem.

not an exact quote, but something to the effect...
More people die in auto accidents per year than were killed on 9/11.

guy faulkes said...

HD brings up an excellent point, as usual. Where does the Department of Homeland Security figure into this terrorist attack? Was not this kind of information supposed to be shared between agencies? If the break down is because the perpetrator was a member of the Armed Forces, should not the Armed Forces been requested to arrest or at least question him?

Anonymous said...

I agree with most here who believe PC concerns should be ignored when problems progress to the point where religious extremism places our citizens and/or our servicemen in undue peril.

The actions of Hasan and Scott Roeder make it quite clear that we should trust and arm no one who believes invisible men in the sky tell them what to think and how to act.

guy faulkes said...

Shyster, how have you been? You do not need to pot under Anonymous. If you want to remain anonymous, you should not use your invisible sky guy trademark statement.

Anonymous said...

I really don't know who Shyster is, John. I just figured it was easier to continue to use no fake name instead of registering for a Google Account, whatever that is.

No Fake Name said...

I don't have a google account.

RV said...

Really, we are all anonymous aren't we? Or at least incognito.

But you don't have to have a google account. Just click on Name/URL and write in your nom de plume.

Nonny said...

There. Better?

RV said...

Nonny, are people who don't believe in your "Invisible Sky Guy" more trustworthy than those who do?

I am trying to get to the bottom of what makes a person have a conscience toward their fellow man.

Nonny said...

Who's to say? I'm just hoping that the fine, upstanding citizens of this forum see fit to fairly and objectively apply identical judgment parameters to armed people who believe in Allah AND armed people who believe in Jesus.

RV said...

And people who don't believe in any higher power.

Reader said...

HD, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, was commenting to reporters..."Hasan took a lot of advanced training in shooting." "Why would a psychiatrist need advanced training in shooting unless he believed in murder as therapy?"

Why I'd say he's just a good ole boy from TX, who loves America. Keep believing that libs.

Sarkazein said...

RV-

You are having a conversation with someone, aka nony, who looks up into the sky and sees people.

He is part of the closed minded ZEALOTS that BELIEVE and have FAITH that they are FUNDAMENTALLY all knowing in the RELIGIOUS world.

Nonny said...

Reader: If you're in favor of removing weapons from religious nuts who try to gain additional training, I'm with ya, brother. Just come out and say that's what you want.

Honest Debate said...

Reader,

Nice quote.

Why would someone in a flight school in Florida need to learn how to fly and not be concerned with learning how to land?

Sometimes questions should be asked.

RV said...

I agree. Questions should have been asked.

Sarkazein said...

By BEN FELLER and ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writers – 36 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama won't accept any of the Afghanistan war options before him without changes, administration officials say, amid an argument by his own ambassador in Kabul that a significant U.S. troop increase would only prop up a weak, corruption-tainted government.///

Dither away fool.

RV said...

In other words, do something even if it is wrong?

guy faulkes said...

Here is an example of political correctness run a muck. If a white man had hit a black woman, it would be a hate crime. In my opinion assault is assault no matter what race to which any of the participants, aggressor or victim, happen to belong.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/prof_busted_in_columbia_gal_punch_JmsXQ3NzaAt8uG6uUySGTN?offset=80#comments

Sarkazein said...

RV- He can bring back the troops if he finally decides
what he is going to do. He can surrender, he can sack the General and find a dithering General to replace him, he can send the troops and decide his long range plan when he finally tires of globe trotting, partying, golfing, campaigning, and watching movies about himself. He said in the election, he knew what he was going to do, and he didn't say dither or ignore.

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes-

That is very true about the hate crime thing. Especially since the argument was about the professor's misconception about race. He's a professor at Columbia... privileged to work in a bastion of liberalism. Obama' legacy developes.

Sarkazein said...

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/video /21591711/index.html

Honest Debate said...

Guy,

I agree. I think hate crime legislation is stupid.

If race is taken out of the equation (which is NEVER the case anymore) then the dude's still a hideous person. No man should ever strike any woman for any reason. I guess that belief would make me a sexist to some.

Nonny said...

HD: You believe that hate crime laws are "stupid" because a beating is a beating and a murder is a murder, regardless of whether or not the criminal selects his victim and performs his illegal act in an effort to intimidate or coerce a particular segment of society.

But when that criminal is a Muslim and he kills in the name of his god, you call it a terrorist act, meaning one performed in an effort to intimidate or coerce.

You further espouse that Muslims should be treated differently from other citizens (when you say they warrant closer scrutiny).

Why the gap in your logic between these two matters? Why does someone's "hateful" make-up and indoctrinated intent matter in one case but not the other?

guy faulkes said...

Nonny, you apparently forget that lesser jihad is an organized effort by a portion of a religion to kill those that are not Muslims. This takes terrorist acts such as those committed at Fort Hood out from under the definition of murder and elevates them to a higher plain.

Nonny said...

So if a person commits murder as a result of his religious beliefs, if he actually feels compelled by his god to kill someone else, should that be considered a terrorist act and, as such, deserve punishment beyond that typically applied in normal murder cases?

Sarkazein said...

Nonny-

In law school did you attend the discussions on motive and intention? No?
Well, motive covers the hate crime BS and always has.

Sir, Why did you attack that man?

Because I hate niggers= motive.

Sir, why did you attack that man?

Because he is a homo.= motive.

Sir why did you attack that man?

Because he is a privileged whitey=motive

The hate crime BS makes it more of a crime to attack some people than it does others. Unequal enforcement of the law. So if a Black man attacks another black man, same damage to everyone, it is somehow different.

Nonny said...

I understand every bit of what you said, Sark. But if a murder is a murder, I'm still wondering why Muslim extremists are to be treated differently from other murderers.

Are they not simply striking out and killing non-Muslims, the same way ignorant racists would be killing blacks, or the way backward rednecks would be killing homosexuals? And if non-Muslims deserve special protection, as would be your position if you feel jihadists need to be punished more strictly than do normal murderers, why would other groups not deserve the same type of special protection under hate crime laws?

Liberal POV said...

Nonny

Well done!

Sarkazein said...

Nonny-


This is where you insist on missing any point. PC and Hate crime legislation over protects the FEELINGS of people, not the rights of people, their rights are already protected. This is what places us in danger. A cop or official doesn't have to worry about hurting the FEELINGS of a white man, but can be in serious trouble for hurting the feelings of a protected minority. It is not as you write, "special protection", it is the protection we don't get because of an official in fear of hurting someone's feelings, acts accordingly. Like not being able to stop a larger number of black drivers even if in a black area. Yet no rules exist to cut down the numbers of white drivers being stopped.
We also have to treat self-proclaimed or discovered Muslim extremists as a war enemy. The same as Nazi saboteurs and traitors and collaborators were treated in WW2.
Somehow liberals have decided no one should have their feelings hurt, and that this is more important than our survival as a civilization.
I see the two different groups, the criminals are one group, and Muslim extremists/enemy are another group. Your liberal way of making them the same is the problem. They are two different groups and the President is given the war power to treat them as such.
And should.

Honest Debate said...

Noddy,

A hate crime is a crime. We're at war. I read Hasan is being "charged" with 13 murders so that tells me it's being treated as a crime. So your side prevails. Congratulations. If convicted it won't be for hate. It will be for murder.

When I said Muslims warrant more suspicion. I figured you'd be itchin'. I didn't say charge them with a crime of being suspicious.

I support being suspicious of hate. I don't support legislating emotion.

I support having a military not comprised of the enemy we are at war with. I don't support charging that enemy with crimes.

Honest Debate said...

Noddy,

"Hateful make-up and indoctrinated intent" isn't the issue either. It's not a crime. It's not an act of war. LibPOV actually make a good point about chillin' but it's looking bad. We'll see. If he was actually supporting, financially, known terrorist groups in Pakistan that's not "intent". What if there were 10 Hasans on 10 bases on the same day? Ya' think they might be thinkin'? Just sayin'. By they I mean the groups that Hasan was living in squalor to support.

In the crime realm why differentiate between "intent" and "hateful intent"? Can't conspiracy to commit a crime also be a crime? Now you want conspiracy to commit a crime because I hate the victim, to be a worse crime?

Noddy said...

HD: Seems like that third scotch kicked in a bit early. Try re-wording your last post in the morning and I'm sure we'll have a much clearer exchange of ideas.

RV said...

How does hate crime legislation protect feelings? The crime hurts the victim, no matter what the crime is labeled. Hate crime legislation might make people more aware of their own attitudes and act as a deterrent.

Sarkazein said...

POV's point about "just chill and wait" is obviously what the officials were doing that were looking into Nasan's behavior. The time for chilling has long since passed.

Honest Debate said...

Noddy,

Still looks good to me this morning. Maybe your "third Scotch" made it hard to understand. Drink some coffee, try again and tell me what isn't clear.

Nonny said...

I believe it's the lack of quotation marks and the misplaced comma in the last sentence.

Sarkazein said...

Noddy- What time was your third Scotch supposed to kick in?


"HD: Seems like that third scotch kicked in a bit early."-Noddy aka Nonny and others.

Honest Debate said...

Sark,

Maybe I gave POV too much credit. I'm still coming back to a change of policy. How can PC explain such incredible incompetence? By "chillin" I mean our speculation about what was and wasn't known and who knew it. I hold out hope that there is something we don't know or that some of what we're hearing isn't true. Gotta be.

Honest Debate said...

Noddy,

I did find your beloved "misplaced coma". My deepest apologies for this gross error. Was your colon appropriate? If your going to use one please address me as "Dear Sirs". Anywho, I'm glad the coma was what you are reduced to disagreeing with.

BTW I can't afford fancy Scotch. It must have been that can of wine.

Let's review: An atheist, lawyer speak, 12th grade word using, uber antagonist that is obsessed with grammar. I've seen this movie before.

Nonny said...

More bluster with no beef, Sark. "The time for chilling has long since passed" would look just swell on a picket sign or bumber sticker, but to what end?

How about coming out and saying what it finally IS time for in your mind? Grow a sack and tell us how you think that we should strip search anyone that looks too Muslimy at the airport. Or detail how routine roadblocks should be set up in traditionally Muslim communties so authorities can spot-grill people about their daily activities. Or maybe tell us about how skinhead militia members should volunteer as citizen patriots, donning fake beards and taping prayers in mosques.

Tell us ANYTHING, but for (fill in the possessive form of your chosen diety here) sake, please stop the cowardly use of catty remarks that avoid any degree of constructive value.

What should the country do to prevent a faith-based tragedy like this from happening again?

Keep in mind, of course, that if you limit any suggestions to efforts made by the military, you're suggesting via omission that our streets and schools are safe from the supposed widespread Islamic blight that's caused the tightwing uproar this week.

Honest Debate said...

Nasty,

Please replace my "misplaced coma" with "..." and then transfer it to above post after "BTW".

Thanks.

Nonny said...

Huh?

Honest Debate said...

Do people forget we are at war with radical Islam or do they think the enemy isn't real?

Nonny said...

In the context of my question to Sark, that really doesn't matter. But to give a straight answer, no, I don't remember W ever having declared war on radical Islam.

When did he bring that whole "war against radical Islam" thing before Congress?

Sarkazein said...

"How about coming out and saying what it finally IS time for in your mind? Grow a sack and tell us how you think that we should strip search anyone that looks too Muslimy at the airport."-Noddy


So it was 8:27 am that your third glass of Scotch kicked in.

Nonny said...

More avoidance from Sark, the man with no substance to back his bumperstickers.

Sarkazein said...

Wait 'til the other shysters start picking from the jury pool for the Sheik Mohammed trial. In NYCity? Dismal due to pre-trial publicity? Throw out the confession?
Defence shysters publicly trying the CIA? Dead witnesses for the prosecution and residents of the tribal area of Pokeeston (Obama's pronunciation).
Unbelievable.

Honest Debate said...

Isn't it odd that the left is now after the first terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11 asking questions? We've actually had this debate. We changed our posture from defense to offense with a preemptive strategy. We have stated that nations that harbor terrorist are just as culpable as the terrorist themselves. We've decimated Al Qaeda. Osama's crappin' in a cave. We've thwarted planned attacks. We instilled fear in the enemy...for a time. We allowed agencies to share information. We acknowledged that the rotary phone, letter writing days have passed and updated incredibly obsolete laws that can tap a land line but not a cell phone. We've got us a new cabinet department in Homeland Security.

Something worked or did the terrorist quit on there own for 8 years?

It's been teed up nicely for Obama he needs to keep his eye on the ball and follow through.

Sarkazein said...

Noddy-

Your creations of your interpretations of my comments display your PC mind-set. You have no control over your own thoughts. You have been brain-washed Liberally. I make one comment, and uncontrollably your mind converts it into your inflexible misconceptions.

Nonny said...

More avoidance.

Honest Debate said...

Noddy,

I had a little trouble following Sark's last comment...until you replied. Thanks for the help.

RV said...

Let's quit bickering and figure out how to detect people with dangerous mindsets without trampling all over our own constitution.

guy faulkes said...

A murder is a crime committed by one person against another. The race, religion, sexual preference, or anything else concerning the perpetrator and the victim is irrelevant.

A terrorist act or a act of war is not a crime. It is perpetrated by a faction seeking to control the political / religious actions of another faction or the public at large through the use of violence.

These are not the same thing. Hassan's actions were those of a terrorist. He was in contact with other terrorists, had advocated the policies of lesser jihad, and was under investigation for being a member of a group plotting violence against this country. He was not a individual whose goal was to kill other individuals for monetary or personal reasons. He was making a political statement. Therefore, his punishment should be much greater than that of a mere criminal.

This case is cut and dried. He is both a traitor and a terrorist. He should be tried, convicted, and executed. Action should be taken against those that helped him in this act.

Honest Debate said...

RV,

Is the Constitution being trampled on?

Honest Debate said...

RV,

We did "detect" Hasan. That's the problem.

Sarkazein said...

Noddy-

If you are waiting for my comments to conform to your misconceptions, you've got time to make another liquor store run, 'cause it ain't gona happen.

Nonny said...

Guy- How structured or official need a "faction" be before one of its members can be considered a terrorist?

Would that person need to be a proven cell member? Or could a record of phone communication to a known organizer, or leader, or other member suffice to prove his connection to the "faction?"

I'm not asking because of Hasan. I just feel your definition raises some interesting points that can be applied to alternative prosecution tactics in hate crime situations.

Basically, if a member of a racist skinhead gang beats a black teen to death simply for being black, or if a redneck fundamentalist militia member shoots up an abortion clinic because he's convinced his god wants him to, either criminal could be considered a terrorist.

And if that's the case, I guess we really don't need hate crime legislation. We can just prosecute hate criminals as terrorists.

guy faulkes said...

I think the killing of a black by a member of a white supremacist organization could possibly be a terrorist act if that organization has publicly advocated such killings and if the organization has a history of committing violent acts. The same thing could be said of black gangs that promote killing whites. An even better example would be gangs primarily comprised of illegal aliens. These would certainly be terrorist organizations, although you could not consider them domestic terrorists.

I think it would be more difficult to categorize someone that killed another person over religious convictions as being a terrorist. It would depend on the situation.

Take for instance the man that killed the abortion doctor in church. His defense is that he did it to protect the lives of unborn babies. In my opinion, he would have a valid defense if he had killed the doctor during an abortion. Doing it in any other circumstance is an act of vigilantism, even if we had sane legislation that recognizes abortion as murder. I can understand his reasoning, but cannot support it.

Nonny said...

Great points. But when you say "I think it would be more difficult to categorize someone that killed another person over religious convictions as being a terrorist," aren't you suggesting that Islamic extremists may not be able to be labeled as terrorists?

If not over religious convictions, why do they kill non-Muslims?

Honest Debate said...

Non,

You ask a lot of questions but seriously now, what's your point? I can't tell. Are you pretending the war on terror doesn't exist or do you believe it doesn't exist. Do you think with a few more cops and shyster lawyers we can throw the whole mess to the court system and be fine? Do you think the continuation of nations living in the third century is not a danger to us? What?

Don't refer to Bush, me, Sark, Guy or grammar and tell us what President Nonny proposes.

guy faulkes said...

aren't you suggesting that Islamic extremists may not be able to be labeled as terrorists? - Nonny

No because the situation is not either / or. It can also be and. A religious organization such as those radical Muslims that support lesser jihad are not the same people as the lone perpetrator that commits a crime from his personal religious convictions. The former is a member of terrorist group and is a terrorist. The second is a criminal.

Nonny said...

Got it. So how does one determine whether a criminal act was committed by an individual because he was directed by an organized group (making him a terrorist) or because of his personal religious convictions (making him just a criminal)?

Nonny said...

HD: I say the status quo is just peachy. That's not sarcasm. I do believe that. And, as such, I see no need to suggest any changes in the way we simply allow our citizens, no matter how different they look and no matter who their god is, to lead their normal lives in peace.

If someone commits a crime, prosecute them. If there's reliable evidence pointing toward specific individuals conspiring to commit crimes, investigate them. But when a lone religious kook convinces himself that his god's law trumps ours, and when that lone religious kook is allowed to purchase weapons in this great land of ours, crap like this is going to happen.

Yes, there are bad people in the world. But, no, I don't believe, outside of our official conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, that we are truly "at war" with anyone else.

We can and should remain vigilant. We can and should apply all available resources to gaining quick information retrieval globally. And we should be prepared to deploy forces to engage any enemy who has directly attacked us or can legitimately be shown to be conspiring to attack us.

But I just don't buy into the daily fear-baiting that many choose to engage in. I don't have cookie cutter friends with whom I swap chain emails that warn of the next pending disaster. And I don't need to sustain a Boogeyman to help sell my particular world view.

You ask what I propose? This is all....I propose that we respect our Constitution, we enforce our laws and we honor our judicial system. And if people have a problem with any of those three, I suggest they work to constructively affect change instead of engaging in meaningless acts of self expression.

In "Honest Debate," the status quo is accepted and maintained until and unless a particular aspect (or policy, law, etc.) is proven to be inherently flawed, directly harmful and significantly impactful. If such is established, the status quo is still accepted unless and until a viable plan is presented and shown to solve the inherency, harm and impact issues.

When I ask questions, I'm usually trying to figure out whether or not the person I'm asking would be able to effectively prove the above points.

All that said, HD, if you really want me to answer each of your questions in full, tell me and I will. If you can gather my opinion from all the stuff here, that's cool too.

guy faulkes said...

So how does one determine whether a criminal act was committed by an individual because he was directed by an organized group (making him a terrorist) or because of his personal religious convictions (making him just a criminal)? - Nonny

By investigating what happened.

when that lone religious kook is allowed to purchase weapons in this great land of ours, crap like this is going to happen. - Nonny

This person is not allowed to purchase weapons. It is his right to do so. If he has not lost his rights by having committed a crime that has cost him his civil rights, he has just as much right to keep and bear arms as you do. If you claim the Constitution has to be followed (as do I), you do not get to decide which part of it has to be followed.

What gives you the authority to judge he is a kook? By the way, what is your definition of a kook? Is it illegal to be a kook or is that title merely for someone with a different opinion than your own? Does being a kook cost you your civil rights? If so, why?

Nonny said...

Guy...slow down....we're on the same page on this one.

I completely agree that all citizens are to be treated equally and that the Constitution cannot be cut and pasted to suit the immediate needs of a small group of alarmists who seem poised to hop on any excuse to persecute persons who are not identically like themselves.

As for "kook," that's a bad word that I should stop using. What I should say is "someone who believes so literally in pinpointed portions of very old books that they'll convince themselves that their god feels it's groovy to kill other people."

And, kook or not, no one deserves to have their civil rights taken away.

Honest Debate said...

Man Nonny, take a breath. Quick lunch just passing through.

1st Paragraph: Except for the "peachy" part 100% agreement
2nd: Not what happened.
3rd: "I can't tell. Are you pretending the war on terror doesn't exist or do you believe it doesn't exist." Matters not, impossible question.
4th: Revenge is soooo yesterday. Time to change the world or die. If you do like the revenge thing then put 2 checks by "any enemy who has directly attacked us or can legitimately be shown to be conspiring to attack us."
5th: I'm your "Boogeyman".
6th: Hip hip hooray!!!
7th: See title of thread.
8th: So it's a pop quiz?
9th: No, that'll be fine. I'm good.

Reader said...

"As for "kook," that's a bad word that I should stop using. What I should say is "someone who believes so literally in pinpointed portions of very old books that they'll convince themselves that their god feels it's groovy to kill other people."

I agree with the above statement.

What you don't understand is, Islam's goal is to bring about a "Shari'a State" to the entire world. The Qur'an dictates that the followers "must" seek to make their religion the dominant one in any country they are living, including ours. Until people truly understand that Islam is a political faith, their ignorgance will continue.

There is only one "old" book that I study daily and it's God's truth. I don't tell people what religion to follow, only offer hope of what is ahead. If they don't want to hear it, I dust my feet off and go on. Relying on yourself to get through this life is lonely and if you are misled by not learning about Islam, that my friends will get you killed.

Nonny said...

Reader: Like the Bible, the Qur'an does indeed include passages that can either be misinterpreted or taken out of context to suit any individual's needs.

There are over 1 billion Muslims around the world who elect to eschew deadly violence and world domination. Are they "bad" Muslims who just don't understand, are they secretly lying in wait, or could it be that they and their religious teachers might actually have a more accurate interpretation of the word than does a group of evangelicals who are hellbent on demonizing their faith?

"Not learning about Islam" will get me killed? Thanks for proving my point about your need for a Boogeyman.

Reader said...

Nonny, you prove you know nothing about either religion and that's okay. Maybe one day you'd like to read up on them and see the difference.

I've been reading up on the mindset of liberals again...how interesting and true. Thanks Blogger, you gave me a new subject to study up on.

HD, Sark and Guy, enjoying your comments. Keep them up. Sark, you and HD are a hoot...it's the musician side of you. I like being around happy, fun people.

Nonny said...

Yep. A little cross burning here...a little witch hunting there...happy and fun.

Sarkazein said...

Nonny- Your point is already proven by yourself to yourself. The pains you go through to word a question to get the answer that will be acceptable to your thought process is amusing. The problem with that is, you never learn anything but how to word a question to receive the self-desired results.
It doesn't matter that people interpret the Koran or the Bible differently, it is the results of their interpretations we fight. Some of us. Some are just peachy with the status quo.

Nonny said...

Sark: You claim "it is the results of their interpretations we fight."

How? How do you fight their interpretations?

Liberal POV said...

Sark

This is the best definition of conservative I've heard.


" Some are just peachy with the status quo."

Be that status quo:

Injustice

Human Rights

Corruption

Endless war

Polution

Slavery

Political reform

Medical malpractice

Social Injustice

Lack of Public Transportation

Failing Schools

Kids killing kids

Massive Drug Abuse and addicition

2% of the American Population in prison

Income enequalites
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woIkIph5xcU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvcvdC2d0So&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VHNXTBwj80&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1xAmOSV2d4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBC97SUargU&feature=related

This is just peachy!

Nonny said...

LPOV: Those were MY words that he was using for the humor/irony of it.

Sarkazein said...

The RESULTS of their iterpretations..Nonny, the RESULTS, not the interpretations....like I said (wrote), As in the former War on Terrorism fights the results of their interpretations.

Did your mind interpret my comment to say how do we fight the interpretations? Doesn't fit?

guy faulkes said...

Does anyone other than me think POV got his training in debate from a Massey Ferguson manure spreader?

He speaks of conservatism and lists liberal attributes.

Sarkazein said...

Nonny- I must give credit where credit is due. The registering your screen name identity as "Nonny", after being chastised for using the "anonymous" was pretty damn funny.

Sarkazein said...

Guy faulkes-

POV not only lists liberal attributes, but then follows it up with his exited approval of all the tragedies on his lists having occurred. It must be a liberal trait being happy about social disarray.

This is just peachy! -POV

oatz said...

I believe Nonny, Liberal POV, and BikerBard all have succumb to the Bread and Circus mentality. I seem to recall Heinlein in To Sail Beyond the Sunset"What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes for his own self interest as it...which for the majority translates as 'Bread and Circuses'. is the cancer of democracy , the fatal disease...be he producer or parasite...For when the plebs discovers that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader".

Liberal POV said...

Oatz

Did you just spend some time thinking and not cut and paste from surffing?

Try that more often, I may start reading your post.

We need more 'Bread and Circuses' and fewer wars of choose.

guy faulkes said...

POV, it is amusing to see you taking Oatz to task for referring to references when you try to use propaganda machines to do the same thing. However, if I though you were a little smarter, I could believe some of the insane ideas you propose are original to you. I do not because, as with most liberals, you only parrot what you are told to say by your public masters.

Please explain the origin and meaning of the term bread and circuses. I wager you will have to google it. I will give you a hint. Heinlein did not originate the term. Your comment on bread and circuses being a good ting in any context is an indication you have no idea of its meaning, or that you are an idiot. By the way do you even know who Heinlein was?

Liberal POV said...

GOP

I posted this earlier giving Sark and and Guy an exit from Nonny on a civil liberties debate.
Nonny was arguing everyone deserves to have the same human rights. He had stated the current legal system for dealing with murder is working.
Nonny said:
"I say the status quo is just peachy. That's not sarcasm. I do believe that. And, as such, I see no need to suggest any changes in the way we simply allow our citizens, no matter how different they look and no matter who their god is, to lead their normal lives in peace."

Yes, I do agree with Nonny and regret giving Sark and Guy an escape. This was a very good debate.

When I saw Sark post the following response with sarcasm to Nonny.

Sark " Some are just peachy with the status quo."

It became clear to me at that moment that the conservative movement fights for maintaing the Status Quo.

Be that status quo:

Social Injustice

Human Rights Abuse

Political Corruption

Endless wars

Poluted waterways and air

Millions without health care

Lack of Public Transportation

Failing Schools

Kids killing kids

Massive Drug Abuse and addicition

2% of the American Population in prison

Income enequalites
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woIkIph5xcU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvcvdC2d0So&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VHNXTBwj80&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1xAmOSV2d4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBC97SUargU&feature=related

This is just peachy!

Liberal POV said...

Guy

I notice you run from hard question and go to personal attack mode when you have no answers.

When I responded to Oatz I assumed the Bread and Circuses term goes back to the time of the Roman Empire. This was to keep citizens entertained and fed so as not to cause proplems for the leaders.

When I add links it's to support my comments as I don't believe as you and others here my opinion becomes fact because I post it.

You believe Fox who just this week got caught posting fake footage to current teabagger protest to make the crowd look larger.

Your believe Ann Coulter and Rush who just pull stuff out of their ass to air to feed your hate addiction.

Sarkazein said...

POV-

Google 'Obama moons America while assuming the Monica Lewinsky position for the Emperor of Japan'.

Liberal POV said...

Sark

What kind of sick person does a google search "'Obama moons America while assuming the Monica Lewinsky position for the Emperor of Japan"?

You really have an obsession with Clinton getting a BJ .
Quit fantasizing about it.

Sarkazein said...

POV-

I'd love to quit fantasizing about it, but remember when the Obama sycophants were saying Obama just dropped his keys in front of the Saudi King?
Guess what.

guy faulkes said...

POV, I did not dodge your questions, I ignored your drivel that we have discussed countless times. As I said, you accuse conservatives of the exact things that liberals are guilty of. I get so tired of your misdirection and lies. Sometimes your idiocy is funny, but it can become boring.

Are you going to explain what bread and circuses mean? You should know, it is a liberal tactic used to enslave the poor as per the black conservatives on Glenn Beck's show.

Sarkazein said...

POV-

OBOWMA

Nonnhy said...

Oh, how short the memory of those who can do nothing more than mock.....

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0426/dailyUpdate.html

Sarkazein said...

Nonnhy-

I knew that was the photo you were going to link to, before I opened it. Liberals (those without the ability to discern).

The more able-bodied helping the less able-bodied is somehow the same as bowing in submission to a monarchy. Fool! ish

Sarkazein said...

Nonnhy-

One shows (symbolism) the stronger than, the other shows the weaker than ...yeh, that's the same difference.
Pitiful.

Nonny said...

Hilarious spin, Sark. It was Bush symbolically bowing (if not downright bobbing) to middle eastern tradition. He was NOT the more able helping the weaker individual. They walked for at least 15 paces hand-in-hand as their handlers had agreed they would in rather embarrassing advance negotiations.

Besides, how do you explain away the kiss at the end? Was W trying to give the "weaker" leader mouth-to-mouth, but just hit both cheeks instead?

Video, Sark. It's a bitch when it comes to making attempts at revisionist history.

guy faulkes said...

Who cares about Bush? He was a proponent of big government.

Does anybody think that by the time we get rid of Obama the liberals might realize Bush is no longer President?

Sarkazein said...

Nonnhy, there may be a video out there, but your link was a still image. OBOWMA'S BOW, besides being a weird looking bow, was weird. The hand holding also symbolizes respect, friendship and trust., not subservience. Peasants did not walk up to the thrown and hold hands with King George, they bowed. ONE OF THE REASONS TO BOW, IS TO SHOW SHAME (yelling) (look it up), as Obowma's continuation of the World Apology Tour.

As a typical liberal sheep, when OBOWMA does the indefensible, you go after President Bush. That's weird too, but now SOP.

Nonny said...

Again, it's nothing more than revisionism.

What's the difference now, except that the guy is black?

JUST come out and say it, coward.

Reader said...

Sark, now Nonny is "inventing" something to make a fuss over. It makes them feel good.

Honest Debate said...

Nonny,

I got your "revisionism" right here.

Nonny said...

Actually, the absolute hypocracy proven at the 2:00 mark in this video makes me feel better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x99nt-LbNFM

Honest Debate said...

Nonnhy,

You're a hoot man! Are you serious? Is that the best you've got?

Bush was also in bed with the KKK.

Whats does the kiss mean?

I may just be a pinionated, poop-shoveling, piano player but I will say this: You'd make a great song.

Sarkazein said...

Reader-


Now? He always has.

Nonnhy- I hate the kissing crap. But it still doesn't show shame or subservience to a monarch. The bow was weird, and part of Obowma's Apology Tour.
The only thing proven at 2:00 was your inability to discern, and your ability to distract back to President Bush when Obowma does the indefensible. The peasants didn't swap spit with King George, they bowed. And bowed better than Obowma.

apples oranges.

Sarkazein said...

Nonnhy-

Was the "black" thing just an attempt at humor or the weak minded Left always retreating to racism when they cannot reason why anyone would be against their Messiah?

Nonny said...

Actually, Sark, Bush's agreement to participate in the hand-holding and kissing does indeed reflect subservience to a monarch in so much as he, President Bush, is the one who saw fit to conform to King Abdullah's bizarre customs.

Had Bush and his handlers insisted on ixnaying the touchy stuff, and the King had accepted it, then the King would have been subservient to Bush's customs and requirements.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with either Bush or Obama making some tiny gesture to signal diplomatic empathy and respect. Heck, diplomatically speaking, that kiss may have been Bush's most PC moment ever.

Just wondering......what's the next silly non-issue that Glenn's and Rush's minions are scheduled to latch onto? Surely you guys get an emailed schedule each Monday, right?

Sarkazein said...

Nonnhy-

I guess we would have to get an email, as we usually discuss things before the shows air. It is a conspiracy of the right-wing.

President Bush didn't agree to anything, anymore than he did in HD's link to Byrd and President Bush.



The race baiting was the mark of a coward, by the way.

Nonny said...

Just a realist, buddy.

Both men are American Presidents.
Both men bowed to diplomatic customs.
Both men are tall and wear suits.
Um, what was that only difference again?

Oh, right. It's not race. It's the fact that Obama has yet to exchange bodily fluids with another male head of state.

Sarkazein said...

Nonnhy-

Your race baiting is the sucking sound you make when reaching E for empty at the end of your intelligence. In lightning speed I might add.

Sarkazein said...

RUSH explained why I found Obowma's bow so weird looking (one of the reasons).He's shaking hands at the same time. It just looks weird, because he doesn't even know how to bow.

Sarkazein said...

71: The number of cars in President Barack Obama's motorcade as he travels from the Beijing airport (including Chinese greeting vehicles). ///


For those who are also on E, the reason this is bad is because of his concern for the hoax global warming and the consumption of the evil fossil fuel.

liberal POV said...

Sark

Your pettiness is off set by your silliness.

guy faulkes said...

Sark POV is not capable of understanding any kind of logic that does not agree with his world view. The best thing we can do is pity him without laughing at him more than we can help and to ignore him unless he has something new to say.

Sarkazein said...

POV-

Next time you are at a busy intersection, or on the freeway, count 71 cars in one row.

Next time you are on the freeway, count 18 miles. This is the distance from the Texas shyster that sued the tobacco companies front gate to his front door.
He just died the other day, wrapped his giant SUV around a 6" tree in almost downtown Houston. You libs believe in Karma don't you?

Reader said...

Off subject

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/health/policy/08benefits.html?_r=1

Honest Debate said...

Nonnhy,

The video I provided had 46 examples. What is "diplomatic customs" again?

guy faulkes said...

Interesting post, Reader. While I oppose most of the things listed, I do not have a problem for those such as BB to cover their civil union partners in the same manner as would a married couple, as long as the insurance is in the form we now have. I do not want government run insurance.