O'Reilly: Dumber Than a 6th Grader?

[suv_guy_19]

The next time you want to comment on one of my posts, try doing some homework first, before you call me a "Typical Liberal Hypocrite". Apparently you can get the Comedy Central feed in Canada according to Edstock and Suv Guy.

 

In Canada, The Comedy Network has the rights to The Daily Show With John Stewart.

[Mark B. Morrow]

In Canada, The Comedy Network has the rights to The Daily Show With John Stewart.

 

 

Thanks to you and Ed for the tip. I hope he looks at the clip. If he thinks I'm wrong at least he will be able to say why he thinks so.

[rn4]

Thanks to you and Ed for the tip. I hope he looks at the clip. If he thinks I'm wrong at least he will be able to say why he thinks so.

 

 

Won't happen.

[grbeck]

At this point, arguing over which side is "worse" or more likely to resort to over-the-top rhetoric is like arguing over whether you'd rather have Ted Bundy or Charles Manson as your next-door neighbor...

[Mark B. Morrow]

At this point, arguing over which side is "worse" or more likely to resort to over-the-top rhetoric is like arguing over whether you'd rather have Ted Bundy or Charles Manson as your next-door neighbor...

 

 

No one suspected Ted Bundy.

[grbeck]

No one suspected Ted Bundy.

 

Until he was arrested, most people didn't suspect Charles Manson, either. He was actually fairly popular among some of the younger Hollywood/music industry set until the news broke in December 1969 that he was being charged with the Tate-LaBianca murders (which had occurred four months before in August).

Edited January 31, 2011 by grbeck

[Cocheese]

Won't happen.

 

Fail.

 

Remember, it's your side who runs and hides when called out. Not mine. Maybe instead of commenting on me, you should be asking your friends parts/Die & Aces why thet always seem to avoid responding.

 

Now I expect, no, I demand an apology from you.

 

I want to be completely fair with you Cocheese in spite of your tagging me as a "Typical liberal Hypocrite". Just so I have this straight, you weighed in on a comment by Jon Stewart I cited as to his take down of Bill O'Reilly that you never saw. You didn't reply to my posting by asking what it was about or reading the Huffington Post Articles that explained the controversy.

 

I didn’t see his comment, but rather read the article on HuffPo. If you weren’t trying to push HuffPo’s message, you would have found another way to show the Stewart clip. But since you didn’t, it was pretty clear the message you wanted to send was that of the HuffPo.

 

What you did was assume that you knew what it was about and that Sewart was automatically in the wrong.

 

You’re right, I did assume it. If that makes me a bad person, then so be it.

 

But when it comes to articles on the HuffPo, their message is the same. Stewart could have easily changed the names in his little skit to Democratic Politicians, and HuffPo wouldn’t have touched it with a 10’ pole. And you wouldn’t have posted it.

 

If you have a problem with what O’Reilly says, fine. But before you jump all over him, make damn sure your side isn’t doing the exact same thing.

 

Since you're from Canada and are having trouble accessing the clips, I will happily bring you up to speed. A few days ago, Jon Stewart ran the clip of Congressman Steve Cohen's (D-TN) speech on the floor of Congress during the debate of the HCR repeal vote. Cohen went through the lies Republicans have told about HCR (i.e. Death Panels, Government Takeover of Health Care, etc.) and said these big lies were comperable to the "Big Lies" about the Jews told by Josef Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister. Stewart chastised Cohen for using the Nazi comparison.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/21/stewart-rips-congressman-_n_812052.html

 

The next day, Megyn Kelly on Fox covered the Cohen story. Kelly had a guest who referenced the use of Nazi comparisons by Fox comentators in response to her criticism of Cohen's speech. Ms. Kelly was outraged at her guest and denied that anyone on Fox used Nazi rhetoric. Stewart ran the Megyn Kelly clip followed by about a dozen clips of Fox commentators calling political rivals Nazis. Several were O'Reilly clips and one was Bernie Goldberg making the comparison directly to Megyn Kelly. He also referenced an interview with Roger Ailes where he was quoted as saying his political opponents were not acting like Nazis they are Nazis.

 

The next night O'Reilly took on Jon Stewart with the reason he used the Nazi comparison to Arianna Huffington claiming that a posting that appeared in the comments on a HuffPost story about Nancy Reagan was "Nazi like" The comment was offensive and certainly in very poor taste, in essence wishing her death.

 

The Stewart clip I referenced, which you didn't see before you commented, was Stewart, playing the O'Reilly clip commenting that First, The original commentary was about Megyn Kelly's denial of the use of Nazi comparisons not about O'Reilly "It's not about you Bill". Stewart then referenced the fact that the outrage O'Reilly was complaining about wasn't written by a Huff Post contributor or Arianna Huffington, but by a poster in the comments section. Then he stated that if O'Reilly wants to hold Ms. Huffington responsible for every douchey thing said by commenters, Bill should look at the comments posted on Fox News' site. Stewart showed a comment from that day by a poster going by the name Obamasucks that made offensive personal comments about Michelle Obama. Obviously offensive comments are not moderated by Fox on its site. If you have any doubt, check the Fox site comments. The one comment Stewart posted was mild compared to most.

 

So to sum up, Stewart didn't condone the use of Nazi comparisons on the left. He called Steve Cohen out on his use of the Goebbels comparison. He was right about the hypocrisy on the part of Megyn Kelly, Fox News and Bill O'Reilly (who by the way Stewart says he actually likes). As for Stewart being a comedian, well he is. There is a long tradition in America of humorists taking on the powerful and politically connected, from Thomas Nast, Mark Twain and Will Rogers. In ancient times, it was the Court Jester who had licence to tell the truth about the King. There is more truth on Stewart's show than in Limbaugh's or most of Fox News. Moreover Stewart backs it up with the tape.

 

I don’t really care what Stewart did. People like Keith Olbermann having been making insensitive comments for years. Far worse than anything that has been said on Fox.

 

But yet Jon Stewart, the HuffPo, or yourself have not said a word about it.

 

The point that you conveniently overlooked is, your side does it just as much as my side. Until places like HuffPo or MM start holding both sides to the same standard, anything they post on their site is irrelevant.

 

Considering I don’t believe there is anybody on this board that has admitted to watching O’Reilly, I fail to see why this thread was started, or why you decided to keep adding to it 3 weeks after it went dormant.

 

Lots of conservative commentors here post articles and clips from right wing sources like WND and Fox.

 

An example if you don’t mind. One where the poster tried passing an opinion off as fact, or one where the poster couldn’t respond to any questions or comments that were made about that link.

 

I read the posts before I comment on them. I recommend you do the same in order to avoid being called out on your ignorance.

 

Again, I did read the article; I just didn’t watch the clip. You should be careful on who you accuse of being misinformed, since you clearly don’t have your facts.

 

The next time you want to comment on one of my posts, try doing some homework first, before you call me a "Typical Liberal Hypocrite".

 

Let’s see here. I’ve read your posts for as long as I can remember. You go out of your way to visit a site like HuffPo. You post links to sites like HuffPo. You have no problem pointing out Nazi references that the Right makes, but are quiet when the Left does the same. You claim there “is more truth on Stewart's show than in Limbaugh's or most of Fox News”.

 

I’m sorry if you don’t like the tag, but when you add everything up, you are exactly what I called you

 

Apparently you can get the Comedy Central feed in Canada according to Edstock and Suv Guy.

 

You probably can get it up here. But the day I start getting political information from a Comedy Channel, is the day I start taking cooking lessons from a Sports Network.

 

Again, I stand by my original statement. Start telling you buddies on this site to stop using Nazi references before you copy a link to a far left wing discredited web site's story about FOx using Nazi references.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Fail.

 

Remember, it's your side who runs and hides when called out. Not mine. Maybe instead of commenting on me, you should be asking your friends parts/Die & Aces why thet always seem to avoid responding.

 

Now I expect, no, I demand an apology from you.

 

 

Not so fast there, you still haven't pointed out where Stewart was wrong in his critique of Fox, Megyn Kelly or O'Reilly. You replied to my post but didn't answer the question. ( I spend a large part of my time doing cross examination, I know when the question has not been answered).

 

I didn’t see his comment, but rather read the article on HuffPo. If you weren’t trying to push HuffPo’s message, you would have found another way to show the Stewart clip. But since you didn’t, it was pretty clear the message you wanted to send was that of the HuffPo.

 

No the message I sent was Stewart's pointing out O'Reilly's hypocrisy. Hence the title to my post . I know what I wrote because I wrote it. Please don't try to misinterpret my words to suit you.

 

 

You’re right, I did assume it. If that makes me a bad person, then so be it.

 

It doesn't make you bad, just wrong in this instance.

 

But when it comes to articles on the HuffPo, their message is the same. Stewart could have easily changed the names in his little skit to Democratic Politicians, and HuffPo wouldn’t have touched it with a 10’ pole. And you wouldn’t have posted it.

 

BS. Huff Post placed Stewart's original criticism of Steve Cohen on the front page. I would guess I spend more time on Fox News' site than you do on Huff Post.

 

If you have a problem with what O’Reilly says, fine. But before you jump all over him, make damn sure your side isn’t doing the exact same thing.

 

BS. O'Reilly holds others to a standard he refused to meet. That makes him a hypocrite, just as Stewart pointed out. I have never seen Stewart accuse anyone of being a Nazi. If you have, please share

 

I don’t really care what Stewart did. People like Keith Olbermann having been making insensitive comments for years. Far worse than anything that has been said on Fox.

 

But yet Jon Stewart, the HuffPo, or yourself have not said a word about it.

 

Again, BS. Stewart, Huff Post and I have called them out on using Nazi imagery. I may disagreewith you Cocheese, but I'm sure you are not a Nazi. Olbermann has gone over the top. I don't defend him when he does and Stewart makes fun of him.

 

The point that you conveniently overlooked is, your side does it just as much as my side. Until places like HuffPo or MM start holding both sides to the same standard, anything they post on their site is irrelevant.

 

So then, until Fox News starts holding its comentators and Roger Ailes to the same standard, anything on their site is irrelevant? I just want to make sure you're consistent.

 

Considering I don’t believe there is anybody on this board that has admitted to watching O’Reilly, I fail to see why this thread was started, or why you decided to keep adding to it 3 weeks after it went dormant.

 

You are free to ignore my posts. I only ask that when you reply, you do so in an informed manner. When you do not I will feel free to call you out.

 

An example if you don’t mind. One where the poster tried passing an opinion off as fact, or one where the poster couldn’t respond to any questions or comments that were made about that link.

 

Where was I passing opinion off as fact? I said Stewart "Owned" O'Reilly. That is my opinion, unless of course, O'Reilly is actually owned by Stewart. That remains to be proven until Stewart produces papers. :shades:

 

Again, I did read the article; I just didn’t watch the clip. You should be careful on who you accuse of being misinformed, since you clearly don’t have your facts.

 

You commented on Stewart's presentation without seeing it. I was not misinformed. You did not know what you were talking about.

 

Let’s see here. I’ve read your posts for as long as I can remember. You go out of your way to visit a site like HuffPo. You post links to sites like HuffPo. You have no problem pointing out Nazi references that the Right makes, but are quiet when the Left does the same. You claim there “is more truth on Stewart's show than in Limbaugh's or most of Fox News”.

 

I stand by my opinion of Stewart vs Limbaugh et. al. Stewart tells the truth and backs it up with the tape every night.

 

I’m sorry if you don’t like the tag, but when you add everything up, you are exactly what I called you.

 

And since you are unable to criticize Right wing commentators who use Nazi references, does that make you a Conservative hypocrite?

 

 

You probably can get it up here. But the day I start getting political information from a Comedy Channel, is the day I start taking cooking lessons from a Sports Network.

 

When you want to comment on cooking lessons from a Sports Network you should watch it first as well.

 

Again, I stand by my original statement. Start telling you buddies on this site to stop using Nazi references before you copy a link to a far left wing discredited web site's story about FOx using Nazi references.

 

I don't see Huff Post as discredited in any way. Certainly less so, than Fox's biased reporting. (Terrorist fist bump, Death Panels, identifying Republicans in scandals as Democrats, etc.)

 

I am not responsible for anyone but myself, just as you are not responsible for the comments by other right wingers here. You may choose to comment or not on the behavior of others. As none of us here are on the level of public figures like O'Reilly, our opinions don't carry much weight. You can feel free to critize any left wingers you choose. When you're right I will have no problem saying so.

 

It would have been much simpler for you to have said "I didn't watch the actual clip before I commented and I was wrong" or to have replied after watching the clip with instances where Stewart was wrong about O'Reilly. You chose to double down and that is a FAIL in my opinion.

 

Good Day Sir.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Mark B. Morrow

[Cocheese]

Not so fast there, you still haven't pointed out where Stewart was wrong in his critique of Fox, Megyn Kelly or O'Reilly.

 

Again, I never said he was wrong. I said he should look at his own side first, and questioned why he hasn’t gone after them

 

You replied to my post but didn't answer the question. ( I spend a large part of my time doing cross examination, I know when the question has not been answered).

 

Yet never feel compelled to ask why the members on this board who share your political beliefs don’t answer questions.

 

I didn’t see his comment, but rather read the article on HuffPo. If you weren’t trying to push HuffPo’s message, you would have found another way to show the Stewart clip. But since you didn’t, it was pretty clear the message you wanted to send was that of the HuffPo.

 

No the message I sent was Stewart's pointing out O'Reilly's hypocrisy. Hence the title to my post . I know what I wrote because I wrote it. Please don't try to misinterpret my words to suit you.

 

You didn’t “write” anything. You copied a link to someone else’s work. So unless your name is Katla McGlynn, you are lying. Please do not take credit for someone else’s work.

 

BS. Huff Post placed Stewart's original criticism of Steve Cohen on the front page. I would guess I spend more time on Fox News' site than you do on Huff Post.

 

You are confused. Go back and re-read what I wrote.

 

BS. O'Reilly holds others to a standard he refused to meet. That makes him a hypocrite, just as Stewart pointed out. I have never seen Stewart accuse anyone of being a Nazi. If you have, please share

 

Your side isn’t limited to one Hollywood Liberal Comedian. Which was the point I made.

 

Again, BS. Stewart, Huff Post and I have called them out on using Nazi imagery.

 

 

Really? Where and when?

 

I will gladly admit if I’m wrong. So please, serve up a plate of crow.

 

So then, until Fox News starts holding its comentators and Roger Ailes to the same standard, anything on their site is irrelevant? I just want to make sure you're consistent.

 

Absolutely.

 

You are free to ignore my posts. I only ask that when you reply, you do so in an informed manner. When you do not I will feel free to call you out.

 

The same back at you councilor

 

Where was I passing opinion off as fact? I said Stewart "Owned" O'Reilly. That is my opinion, unless of course, O'Reilly is actually owned by Stewart. That remains to be proven until Stewart produces papers.

 

You missed the point again. I hope you don’t actually enter the courtroom on serious matters, because your inability to follow the direct of a question is disturbing for what you claim to be.

 

Having said that, I’m sure it’s quite easy for Stewart and his team of writers to “own” O’Reilly, when O’Reilly has no opportunity to defend himself at that moment (nor would he, considering who Jon Stewart is, and how insignificant and biased he truly is).

 

You commented on Stewart's presentation without seeing it. I was not misinformed. You did not know what you were talking about.

 

I commented on HuffPo’s position on Stewart’s skit. Your link was to the article, not the skit.

 

If you have an issue with what O’Reilly did, why couldn’t you make that point using your own words? By posting the link, while adding absolutely nothing of intellectual value of your own, in essence you were echoing what HuffPo wrote.

 

I stand by my opinion of Stewart vs Limbaugh et. al. Stewart tells the truth and backs it up with the tape every night.

 

He tells the side you want to hear; that doesn’t make it the truth.

 

And since you are unable to criticize Right wing commentators who use Nazi references, does that make you a Conservative hypocrite?

 

When have I said the usage by anyone is OK?

 

Again, both sides are wrong for using it. But it seems you are only concerned when the Right does it.

 

When you want to comment on cooking lessons from a Sports Network you should watch it first as well.

 

And why waste my time?

 

Should I listen to my mother, who has no knowledge or experience fixing anything, tell me about fixing my broken snow blower?

 

Should I ask my neighbour, who doesn’t own a Hot Tub, and in all likelihood has never sat in one, what I should do to keep the water clear?

 

Watching a cooking show on a sports network is as useless as watch a comedian try and influence people’s political beliefs.

 

I don't see Huff Post as discredited in any way. Certainly less so, than Fox's biased reporting. (Terrorist fist bump, Death Panels, identifying Republicans in scandals as Democrats, etc.)

 

You have to be joking. Next you are going to tell me MSNBC offers balanced programming and routinely welcomes both sides on for the oppourtunity to speak their mind

 

I am not responsible for anyone but myself, just as you are not responsible for the comments by other right wingers here. You may choose to comment or not on the behavior of others. As none of us here are on the level of public figures like O'Reilly, our opinions don't carry much weight. You can feel free to critize any left wingers you choose. When you're right I will have no problem saying so.

 

Yet you have been silent so far.

 

Am I to assume you haven’t agreed with anything I have said?

 

It would have been much simpler for you to have said "I didn't watch the actual clip before I commented and I was wrong" or to have replied after watching the clip with instances where Stewart was wrong about O'Reilly. You chose to double down and that is a FAIL in my opinion.

 

Again, you seem to fail at the obvious.

 

I don’t care what Stewart said about O’Reilly. If O’Reilly used Nazi references after saying he wouldn’t, or hadn’t, the he was 100% in the wrong.

 

The issue is how quick people like you, Stewart and HuffPo are at pointing this stuff out, but how silent you get when their own side does it.

 

If Fired ignored as many questions as Aces has, I would be all over him telling him to “put up, or shut up”. In other words, start holding your side accountable before you come after my side.

 

Do I need to explain this again to you, or are you finally clueing in?

[suv_guy_19]

The issue is how quick people like you, Stewart and HuffPo are at pointing this stuff out, but how silent you get when their own side does it.

 

 

You don't really watch The Daily Show much, do you?

[Mark B. Morrow]

You don't really watch The Daily Show much, do you?

 

Why should he? His mind is already made up and he does not need to be confused with facts to the contrary.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Mark B. Morrow

[RangerM]

I've stayed out of this one for awhile, but I will say it's important to remember that John Stewart (while being intelligent) is a satirist; not a "fair-ist".

 

Whether or not he makes an important case at a particular point in time, does not mean that he's presented the whole picture. Given that his point (and purpose) is for laughs, I know of no jounalistic integrity he must (or is attempting to) maintain.

 

"Presenting the whole picture" is exactly where (I'd say) most on the left and the right originate their claims of bias. (aimed at Fox, MSNBC, the MSM, etc.)

 

J.S. may have made his point regarding O'Relly in the video (I watched it a few days ago, but don't remember very much of it), but I have to wonder if there are other tidbits not mentioned. (again, being a satirist, he's not bound to).

 

J.S. has called out the left at times for unbecoming behavior in the past (the last two years has provided enough material), but M.B.M. isn't obligated to post those videos either.

Edited February 2, 2011 by RangerM

[grbeck]

I've stayed out of this one for awhile, but I will say it's important to remember that John Stewart (while being intelligent) is a satirist; not a "fair-ist".

 

Whether or not he makes an important case at a particular point in time, does not mean that he's presented the whole picture. Given that his point (and purpose) is for laughs, I know of no jounalistic integrity he must (or is attempting to) maintain.

 

"Presenting the whole picture" is exactly where (I'd say) most on the left and the right originate their claims of bias. (aimed at Fox, MSNBC, the MSM, etc.)

 

J.S. may have made his point regarding O'Relly in the video (I watched it a few days ago, but don't remember very much of it), but I have to wonder if there are other tidbits not mentioned. (again, being a satirist, he's not bound to).

 

J.S. has called out the left at times for unbecoming behavior in the past (the last two years has provided enough material), but M.B.M. isn't obligated to post those videos either.

 

His show has to have some basis in reality...otherwise, it's not effective as satire. The problem comes when viewers accept his attempts at satire as the final word, or when his leftist bias and the associated axes to grind violate the rules of logical reasoning (for example, trying to equate the NRA convention in Denver in the wake of Columbine with the attempt to build a mosque at Ground Zero in New York, when the NRA had nothing to do with Columbine).

Edited February 2, 2011 by grbeck

[Mark B. Morrow]

His show has to have some basis in reality...otherwise, it's not effective as satire. The problem comes when viewers accept his attempts at satire as the final word, or when his leftist bias and the associated axes to grind violate the rules of logical reasoning (for example, trying to equate the NRA convention in Denver in the wake of Columbine with the attempt to build a mosque at Ground Zero in New York, when the NRA had nothing to do with Columbine).

 

 

The people supporting the Park 51 community Center had nothing to do with 9/11. That is the point. The criticism against the building is that it insensitive. The same criticism could be applied to the NRA convention following so closely after Columbine. The critics on both sides are wrong IMO.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Mark B. Morrow

[grbeck]

The people supporting the Park 51 community Center had nothing to do with 9/11. That is the point. The criticism against the building is that it insensitive. The same criticism could be applied to the NRA convention following so closely after Columbine. The critics on both sides are wrong IMO.

 

One of the backers of the community center/mosque has extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and other forms of radical Islam, which was the motivating ideology behind 9/11. I believe that he would do everyone favor - including, most of all, the backers of the project - by simply breaking all contact with it.

Edited February 2, 2011 by grbeck

[Cocheese]

You don't really watch The Daily Show much, do you?

 

I don't watch The View, The Joy Behar Show, Live with Regis & Kelly or Rome is Burning either.

 

Are you able to connect the dots, or will someone have to dumb down that analogy for you and repeat it 7 times before you understand?

[suv_guy_19]

Well how can you criticize something that you don't watch?

[xr7g428]

The people supporting the Park 51 community Center had nothing to do with 9/11. That is the point. The criticism against the building is that it insensitive. The same criticism could be applied to the NRA convention following so closely after Columbine. The critics on both sides are wrong IMO.

 

Mark, the analogy would be a hardware show that included box knives being held so closely after 9/11. Or possibly an air show that included Boeing products. Columbine was not committed in the name of the NRA any more than 9/11 was committed in the name of the Airline Passengers Association. Did the Columbine murderers shout NRA Akbar?

 

Your sympathy for cold blooded murder is repulsive. Of course you don't even comprehend why any one would feel that way. Every one who was murdered on 9/11 was murdered in the name of Islam. No one who died in Columbine was murdered in the name of the NRA.

Edited February 4, 2011 by xr7g428

[30 OTT 6]

Mark, the analogy would be a hardware show that included box knives being held so closely after 9/11. Or possibly an air show that included Boeing products. Columbine was not committed in the name of the NRA any more than 9/11 was committed in the name of the Airline Passengers Association. Did the Columbine murderers shout NRA Akbar?

 

 

Or handing out brochures for pilot training schools in Florida.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Mark, the analogy would be a hardware show that included box knives being held so closely after 9/11. Or possibly an air show that included Boeing products. Columbine was not committed in the name of the NRA any more than 9/11 was committed in the name of the Airline Passengers Association. Did the Columbine murderers shout NRA Akbar?

 

Your sympathy for cold blooded murder is repulsive. Of course you don't even comprehend why any one would feel that way. Every one who was murdered on 9/11 was murdered in the name of Islam. No one who died in Columbine was murdered in the name of the NRA.

 

 

Bullshit Xr7. There were many who complained that the policies of the NRA for no restrictions on guns made Columbine possible. The guns used were purchased by a "strawman". Were the murderers NRA members? No they were not. As I stated, I don't agree with many of the positions of the NRA (opposition to backround checks, limits on types of guns and ammo, etc) but I don't think they are responsible for Columbine. Columbine was the result of two sick, vindictive idiots who made use of guns to commit murder.

 

Those who were offended by the holding of a gun convention so soon after a gun mass murder are entitled to their feelings but not to stop the NRA from holding their convention which was a completely legal expression of their rights.

 

The same goes for 9/11. The attack was the work sick, vindictive idiots who accepted Bin Ladin's perverted view of the muslim faith. That they committed a horrific crime in the name of their views doesn't mean that they speak for all muslims. Those who do choose to lump all muslims together with terrorists are just as wrong as those who lump all gun owners with Harris and Klebold. The people who oppose the building of the Park 51 Community Center, a completely legal expression of their property and religious rights, have the right to their opinion, they do not have the right to stop the center.

 

If you really believe that I have any sympathy for the cold-blooded murderers who committed the terror of 9/11, you know nothing at all about me. I invite you to ignore all of my posts in the future, since you clearly don't understand them.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Mark B. Morrow

[mustang_sallad]

Mark, the analogy would be a hardware show that included box knives being held so closely after 9/11. Or possibly an air show that included Boeing products. Columbine was not committed in the name of the NRA any more than 9/11 was committed in the name of the Airline Passengers Association. Did the Columbine murderers shout NRA Akbar?

 

Your sympathy for cold blooded murder is repulsive. Of course you don't even comprehend why any one would feel that way. Every one who was murdered on 9/11 was murdered in the name of Islam. No one who died in Columbine was murdered in the name of the NRA.

 

 

So let me get this straight... One person in this argument is arguing in favour of people being free to express their religion, and you're arguing in favour of an organization that supports gun ownership, but the one arguing for religious freedom is the one who's sympathetic to cold blooded murder?? Just take a second to think about what you're saying!

 

By your reasoning, all Christian people should be punished for the acts of the Christian racists who commit murder in the name of what they misconstrue to be their religion.

 

Shooting in Tucson - you can't take the actions of one extremist as a reason to regulate regular people... but only if you're white! Otherwise we'll generalize as much as we damn well please!

[grbeck]

So let me get this straight... One person in this argument is arguing in favour of people being free to express their religion, and you're arguing in favour of an organization that supports gun ownership, but the one arguing for religious freedom is the one who's sympathetic to cold blooded murder?? Just take a second to think about what you're saying!

 

Actually, one of the backers of the community center/mosque has supported the Muslim Brotherhood, which is not supportive of religious freedom (even for moderate Muslims, ironically enough), and DOES support what we would define as "cold-blooded murder." They just dress it up and call it "jihad."

[xr7g428]

Mark, you drew the parallel. Your analogy doesn't hold up to any sort of logical test. The NRA did not chose to hold the convention in Colorado because of the events at Columbine. I have a hard time believing that the choice of location for the NYC Mosque was random. If the location was not important wouldn't they have just moved it when they looked up and realized that they were in the shadow of the 9/11 tragedy?

 

Radical Islam is not going to go away because western Christians don't like it. It will only be contained when mainstream Muslims decide that allowing it to exist is no longer acceptable. The same has been true for every religion that develops similar pathologies. I believe that there are few faint glimmers of hope that the mainstream Muslims are beginning to get the message and to clean house. Immediately following 9/11, there was great empathy for the Muslims in America. That feeling has faded dramatically. It is up to the mainstream Muslims to take the actions necessary to reaffirm that they are not an enemy within our borders. In WWII, soldiers of Japanese descent fought heroically, to prove their loyalty to America. They wanted to be certain that their ethnicity did not define their loyalty. Has any such thing occurred following 9/11?

 

The question is not one of freedom of religion, the Muslims, by law should be as free to construct a house of worship as any other group. The question is really one of good judgment. Is building a Mosque in the shadow of 9/11 really a good idea? To believe that it is, you either have to believe that the events of 9/11 were at a minimum excusable, or more likely, deserved in some twisted way.

[Edstock]

Actually, one of the backers of the community center/mosque has supported the Muslim Brotherhood, which is not supportive of religious freedom (even for moderate Muslims, ironically enough), and DOES support what we would define as "cold-blooded murder." They just dress it up and call it "jihad."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood

 

 

However, once Al Qaeda was fully organized, it denounced the Muslim Brotherhood's reform through nonviolence and accused them of "betraying the cause of Islam and abandoning their 'jihad' in favour of forming political parties and supporting modern state institutions".[17][18]

 

 

Interesting article. Check it out.

 

 

[mustang_sallad]

Mark, you drew the parallel. Your analogy doesn't hold up to any sort of logical test. The NRA did not chose to hold the convention in Colorado because of the events at Columbine. I have a hard time believing that the choice of location for the NYC Mosque was random. If the location was not important wouldn't they have just moved it when they looked up and realized that they were in the shadow of the 9/11 tragedy?

 

Radical Islam is not going to go away because western Christians don't like it. It will only be contained when mainstream Muslims decide that allowing it to exist is no longer acceptable. The same has been true for every religion that develops similar pathologies. I believe that there are few faint glimmers of hope that the mainstream Muslims are beginning to get the message and to clean house. Immediately following 9/11, there was great empathy for the Muslims in America. That feeling has faded dramatically. It is up to the mainstream Muslims to take the actions necessary to reaffirm that they are not an enemy within our borders. In WWII, soldiers of Japanese descent fought heroically, to prove their loyalty to America. They wanted to be certain that their ethnicity did not define their loyalty. Has any such thing occurred following 9/11?

so now you're implying that there are no muslim soldiers in the US military?

 

The question is not one of freedom of religion, the Muslims, by law should be as free to construct a house of worship as any other group. The question is really one of good judgment. Is building a Mosque in the shadow of 9/11 really a good idea? To believe that it is, you either have to believe that the events of 9/11 were at a minimum excusable, or more likely, deserved in some twisted way.

 

Dude they're not building it on the site! It's a few blocks away, where do you draw the line and say "Okay, that's far enough away, you can start building".

 

This debate is a disgrace to everything that the US was built on. Your point of view is shamefully hypocritical.