Hey, Lefties

[Sonny Limatina]

Shit, I wish I could remember the nickname Sonny had for me. Was it Hot Tits? I cannot remember. And he keeps trying to get this thread back on track. Whatev. I bet he hangs to the right.

Left.

 

[Sinny]

Left.

Tersely Left Hobnobber. That's yer new nick.

 

[cjh]

I am strangely fascinated with how you men hang your dangly bits.

I would like to details from everyone on how you hang. Thank you in advance.

a real tailor asks whether you "dress" left or right as he marks your britches for alteration.

befuddled the shit out of me the first time i heard it.

 

[busybody..]

did ANYONE bother posting the VIOLENCE spewing of Obama?

BRING A GUN!

PUNISH YOUR ENEMIES!

GET IN THEIR FACES!

HIT THEM TWICE AS HARD?????

Anyone?

I didnt think so!

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Stop being idiots and trying to hang this shitty shooting on a party or religion.

Crazy is crazy.

That goes for you too, righties.

I was going to ask if it was too late to join your "reasonable response to unreasonable violence" thread, but........yeah, I see I'm already too late.

 

[Sinny]

a real tailor asks whether you "dress" left or right as he marks your britches for alteration.

befuddled the shit out of me the first time i heard it.

This made me lawl. I need to witness this conversation.

 

[busybody..]

I was going to ask if it was too late to join your "reasonable response to unreasonable violence" thread, but........yeah, I see I'm already too late.

YOU are never too late

 

[IrezumiKiss]

This made me lawl. I need to witness this conversation.

See all the fun you get to avoid with not having a dangling vestige between your thighs?

 

[busybody..]

See all the fun you get to avoid with not having a dangling vestige between your thighs?

Hello Mr Kiss

I hope you had a lovely day and have an even better evening

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I may or may not be. I do not see where that is an issue here.



Sarah Palin, the cunt, posts a map with crosshairs on her site that features a member of Congress. That member of Congress ends up close to dead.

Is this a coincidence?

It is an easy question. Yes or no works fine.

Still no answer.

Weak or strong, there is a connection. There is a connection between the shooters crazy actions and the hate filled political arena that is our country. There is a connection to Rush, and Fox, and busybody going off at Lit. All of these things feed the fire.

It is a dangerous path.

YES! It is a coincidence. Is it a coincidence that the other political candidates she put a cross-hairs on are still alive?

How about the vast majority of the thousands of people who have appeared on the internet with cross-hairs over their faces? Based on your keen observations of this phenomena, precisely how much danger would these folks be in? Just limit your wild ass guess to the ones living in the U. S.

More importantly, since you obviously believe there is a connection, what is your reasonable approach to stopping the violence? Ban the guns? Restrict the speech?

By all means, draw a line in he sand, and then defend it in the context of the Constitution and the millions of people who have not killed anyone with their guns or assaulted others on the basis of suggestive language or pictures posted on the internet.

Good luck. No one's been able to do this yet without looking like an idiot.

 

[busybody..]

Sorta kinda funny

How you all had NO PROBLEM

with teh KILL BUSH plays, posters, books, websites

teh Kill Cheney's

the waterboard teh TWINS etc etc

sorta kinda funny, NO?

 

[Sonny Limatina]

YES! It is a coincidence. Is it a coincidence that the other political candidates she put a cross-hairs on are still alive?

How about the vast majority of the thousands of people who have appeared on the internet with cross-hairs over their faces? Based on your keen observations of this phenomena, precisely how much danger would these folks be in? Just limit your wild ass guess to the ones living in the U. S.

More importantly, since you obviously believe there is a connection, what is your reasonable approach to stopping the violence? Ban the guns? Restrict the speech?

By all means, draw a line in he sand, and then defend it in the context of the Constitution and the millions of people who have not killed anyone with their guns or assaulted others on the basis of suggestive language or pictures posted on the internet.

Good luck. No one's been able to do this yet without looking like an idiot.

There is no "violence," as a general epidemic of crosshair responses. There is an insane person continuing a long-standing tradition of insane people taking other people's lives too early. Ft Hood was one. This guy is one. McVeigh was one. 19 people on Sept 11 were ones.

A little girl was killed. 9 years old. Born on September 11, 2001. She was one of the "Faces of Hope," 50 babies, one from each state, meant to signal a bright spot among the tragedy of that day.

It is very hard not to see a blinking metaphor in her death. But metaphor or not, a little girl was killed. Let's stay real.

 

[KingOrfeo]

There is no "violence," as a general epidemic of crosshair responses. There is an insane person continuing a long-standing tradition of insane people taking other people's lives too early. Ft Hood was one. This guy is one. McVeigh was one. 19 people on Sept 11 were ones.

No, it's not the same. This guy is apparently quite simply insane, like John Hinckley, Jr., or Charles J. Guiteau (assassin of President Garfield). McVeigh and the al-Qaeda terrorists were taking genuine political action; their politics were insane.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

No, it's not the same. This guy is apparently quite simply insane, like John Hinckley, Jr., or Charles J. Guiteau (assassin of President Garfield). McVeigh and the al-Qaeda terrorists were taking genuine political action; their politics were insane.

I understand the distinction you're trying to draw, but I think it's a red herring. In both latter cases, their insanity is their politics (or religion, in al Qaeda's case), not the other way around. It's hung on some marginal element of doctrine or scripture. But the insanity comes first.

 

[eyer]

St. Pete:

Hate is always the message...as it always has been.

It's messengers are innumberable...as they always will be.

This specific attack of hate is now done.

But, we keep it that much more alive as much as we hang on to any degree of hate itself...

...let it go, Pete.

 

[eyer]

...their insanity is their politics (or religion, in al Qaeda's case), not the other way around.

Point of fact, please?

In Islam, there is no separation between politics and religion.

Carry on...

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Point of fact, please?

In Islam, there is no separation between politics and religion.

Carry on...

Right, but don't misunderstand that. There simply is no secular life, there is only religious life. So areas that bump up against what we would otherwise call politics are still areas of religion for them--or more accurately, just 'life.'

 

[eyer]

Right, but don't misunderstand that. There simply is no secular life, there is only religious life. So areas that bump up against what we would otherwise call politics are still areas of religion for them--or more accurately, just 'life.'

If there was, truly, "no secular life" in Islam, then there would be no Muslim terrorism...

...unless, of course, murder of others and self is indeed "religion" or "just 'life'" in Islam.

The argument would then usually shift to "maybe, but the great majority of Muslims" this and that...

...but one only has to go to the source - Mohammed - to verify how "religion" and "just 'life'" played-out with him.

I'm sorry: Islam's prophet was secular to his core.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

If there was, truly, "no secular life" in Islam, then there would be no Muslim terrorism...

...unless, of course, murder of others and self is indeed "religion" or "just 'life'" in Islam.

The argument would then usually shift to "maybe, but the great majority of Muslims" this and that...

...but one only has to go to the source - Mohammed - to verify how "religion" and "just 'life'" played-out with him.

I'm sorry: Islam's prophet was secular to his core.

Much of this is misinformed. With your interest in religion, you might find it interesting to study the secular/religious (non-)divide in Islam.

Those acts of terrorism we know about were, to the terrorists, fully within the tenets of Islam. The religion is clear: if (and only if) the religion itself is perceived to be under attack, violence is allowed in its defense.

The terrorists didn't stop living an Islamic life to kill us, they found justification for that killing in the Koran.

The finding of that justification is negligible, but perhaps understandable, given the way the US has stomped around for so many years. The acting on it is murderous insanity.

I'll give you my standard argument, slightly different from the one you're hoping for. There are a billion and a half Muslims in the world. If Islam is truly a violent religion, if what it truly advocates is the ending of the non-secular Western life, I have news for you: we're toast.

And yet, we're not.

 

[eyer]

Sorry, Sonny, when you start off with your exalted, self-feted "misinformed" crap, I know there's probably no point in exchange with you.

But, you go ahead and stick with your subjectively "informed" opinion, that "There simply is no secular life" in a "religion" that designates both a Dar al- Islam and a Dar al-harb, in a "religion" that has murdered countless innocent folks because certain members of its belief find their own justification for "murderous insanity" in a Koran that is evidently very "clear" to both you and them, but not so clear to so many Muslims who totally reject your "understandable" grant of victimhood because of the US.

Tell the folks of Sudan that there's nothing "secular" about Islam...tell the women in almost any Islamic country that it isn't man who leashes their individual liberty...it's God and it's "understandable" from a "clear" reading of the Koran.

As far your "argument" goes...you do realize that there's twice as many that label themselves "Christian" in this world, and many billions more who will stand to stop those who deem all humanity Muslim?

But you actually believe the West is not yet "toast" because Islam simply chooses not to butter us? Wow.

Secular bascially means "of man"...

...yet, you seem determined and insistent to totally detach any connection "of man" to Islam, when a murderous man created and championed Islam from it's very beginning.

If you truly wish to continue in the fantasy that an Islamic country like, say, the frigging birthplace of it all - Saudi Arabia - isn't political, doesn't operate in this "secular" world like every other country, then I truly treasure your opinion that I'm "misinformed"...

Islam is as secular as catholicism and and every other "religion" of man...

...when Martin Luther finally found common vindication for his beliefs, those who followed him called themselves "Lutherans"...he dismissed them for his was not a pursuit of what man thought, but of who God is...

...to this day, of course, Lutherans probably deem their "religion" as non-secular as you do Islam.

Imagine that.

 

[Loring2]

Sigh a little King

What's to defend? I never suggested today's was a political shooting. Obviously it's more of a voices-in-your-head shooting.

It doesn't matter what you or I say King because about 20% of the far right and 20% of the far left see an opportunity to prove whatever miserable point they believe in.

Scary bastards they are too.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Sorry, Sonny, when you start off with your exalted, self-feted "misinformed" crap, I know there's probably no point in exchange with you.

But, you go ahead and stick with your subjectively "informed" opinion, that "There simply is no secular life" in a "religion" that designates both a Dar al- Islam and a Dar al-harb, in a "religion" that has murdered countless innocent folks because certain members of its belief find their own justification for "murderous insanity" in a Koran that is evidently very "clear" to both you and them, but not so clear to so many Muslims who totally reject your "understandable" grant of victimhood because of the US.

Tell the folks of Sudan that there's nothing "secular" about Islam...tell the women in almost any Islamic country that it isn't man who leashes their individual liberty...it's God and it's "understandable" from a "clear" reading of the Koran.

As far your "argument" goes...you do realize that there's twice as many that label themselves "Christian" in this world, and many billions more who will stand to stop those who deem all humanity Muslim?

But you actually believe the West is not yet "toast" because Islam simply chooses not to butter us? Wow.

Secular bascially means "of man"...

...yet, you seem determined and insistent to totally detach any connection "of man" to Islam, when a murderous man created and championed Islam from it's very beginning.

If you truly wish to continue in the fantasy that an Islamic country like, say, the frigging birthplace of it all - Saudi Arabia - isn't political, doesn't operate in this "secular" world like every other country, then I truly treasure your opinion that I'm "misinformed"...

Islam is as secular as catholicism and and every other "religion" of man...

...when Martin Luther finally found common vindication for his beliefs, those who followed him called themselves "Lutherans"...he dismissed them for his was not a pursuit of what man thought, but of who God is...

...to this day, of course, Lutherans probably deem their "religion" as non-secular as you do Islam.

Imagine that.

Eyer, I rarely agree with you, and you're often overtly antagonistic toward me. But I almost always regard your opinions are your own, so I almost always read them. In this case, it bears saying again: you're someone for whom, given your interest in religion, an actual, intellectually curious investigation into Islam would be beneficial.

I'm an a-religious atheist. I am not arguing for the superiority of one religion over another. It's all a relatively monolithic wash of theism for me, especially the Jewish-to-Christian-to-Islam continuum of prophet-based remixes. But you're displaying an uninformed--or at least, ill-informed--affect in this case that is undercutting your arguments.

There are few if any Muslim analogues in Judeo-Christian life. Israel is theoretically a Jewish state, but there are plenty of concessions to secularity there. Within Judaism, there is an incredibly broad range of practices, only the most intense of which can be said to be religious first and secular second. There are no Catholic countries--that is, countries where Catholicism is the only law of the land--short of the Vatican, and no Lutheran countries (same qualification). There are a fair number of Islamic countries.

I suppose the Amish might make the best point of comparison, and it's a flawed comparison.

In the conversation about secularity, we're not talking about individual practitioners' relationship with their religion. We're talking about a religion which, for better or worse (often worse), has no concept of secular life. The religion is the politics, the law, the moral and educational framework.

Muslims have killed in the name of their religion. So have Christians. So have Jews. Each religion has very prominent prohibitions against killing. Each religion has, in its scripture, language that sounds horrifically violent in isolation, that seems to contradict its own prohibitions. None of those three religions, read in informed context, valorizes violence. Whenever you claim that Islam does, you display an unnuanced ignorance that hurts your otherwise well-formed--often informed--point of view.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

Those acts of terrorism we know about were, to the terrorists, fully within the tenets of Islam. The religion is clear: if (and only if) the religion itself is perceived to be under attack, violence is allowed in its defense.

You mean like almost every religion that has come about in human history where those who think differently or speak out against the prominent religious beliefs were slaughtered in the name of said prominent god(s)? Just in case you did not already know, religion is nothing more than a form of social control used by Sheppard’s to herd their flock of SHEEP.

The terrorists didn't stop living an Islamic life to kill us, they found justification for that killing in the Koran.

Because if we can twist scripture written by desert goat herders 2000 years ago to make it look like god says it's ok then it is. The god of Abraham advocates slavery, genocide, rape, incest/inbreeding, thinks women are nothing more than the possessions of men and says the earth is flat……I could go on all day but the point is just because some retard thinks retarded scripture justifies heinous acts dose not make said persons justified in their heinous acts.

There are a billion and a half Muslims in the world. If Islam is truly a violent religion, if what it truly advocates is the ending of the non-secular Western life, I have news for you: we're toast.

I would agree if they would stop fighting each other for just a second and come together to take over the world. But as it stand 99% of them can’t shoot worth a rats ass, and those that do have a clue as to what the fuck they are doing will never amount to anything more than a bunch of poor ass guerilla fighters who’s only real power is that they operate in their own back yard hiding behind women and children which they use as human shields. They will never get enough funding, people or organize enough to do more than random bombings witch 9 out of 10 times they fuck up.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

You mean like almost every religion that has come about in human history where those who think differently or speak out against the prominent religious beliefs were slaughtered in the name of said prominent god(s)? Just in case you did not already know, religion is nothing more than a form of social control used by Sheppard’s to herd their flock of SHEEP.



Because if we can twist scripture written by desert goat herders 2000 years ago to make it look like god says it's ok then it is. The god of Abraham advocates slavery, genocide, rape, incest/inbreeding, thinks women are nothing more than the possessions of men and says the earth is flat……I could go on all day but the point is just because some retard thinks retarded scripture justifies heinous acts dose not make said persons justified in their heinous acts.



I would agree if they would stop fighting each other for just a second and come together to take over the world. But as it stand 99% of them can’t shoot worth a rats ass, and those that do have a clue as to what the fuck they are doing will never amount to anything more than a bunch of poor ass guerilla fighters who’s only real power is that they operate in their own back yard hiding behind women and children which they use as human shields. They will never get enough funding, people or organize enough to do more than random bombings witch 9 out of 10 times they fuck up.

You might want to re-read my post, chum. You're agreeing with me...

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

Muslims have killed in the name of their religion. So have Christians. So have Jews. Each religion has very prominent prohibitions against killing. Each religion has, in its scripture, language that sounds horrifically violent in isolation, that seems to contradict its own prohibitions.

10/10 bravo!!! now if we could just get the rest of the planet to wake up we would be in good shape.