Posted by Jack
In an effort to help my friend, Chris the liberal, I offer this enlightening video:
-
Recent Posts
Archives
Categories
- Art (88)
- Behavior and Psychology (20)
- Business, Industry and Finance (63)
- Constitution and Law (370)
- Consumer Affairs (4)
- Culture (17)
- Deep State (5)
- Economy (3)
- Education (238)
- Environment (74)
- Fraud Alert (8)
- Global Issues (1)
- Health and Medicine (149)
- History (8)
- Humour (94)
- Military (115)
- Morals and Ethics (149)
- News Media (11)
- Police, Crime, Security (215)
- Politics and Government (144)
- Religion (91)
- Science and Technology (19)
- Veterans' Issues (13)
- World (12)
Recent Comments
- ClayPidgeon on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Michael Davis on Life In Chico and Other Places Infected by Bums
- Patricia Lieder on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Dawn on Thaddeus Kerns Boy Aviator
- scott sproat on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
Recent NorCal Blogs Posts
Thanks, Jack. That woman is my new hero. “You, who frighten people with Hell, have brought them a hell on earth.” I just might use that one.
But I’m not sure what your point is. Do you think I don’t know that Saudi Arabia, like all Muslim theocracies, treats women unequally? Everyone knows that. I am sure spousal abuse is widespread there. That does not back up your claim that 75% of Muslim men beat their wives. You can’t back up that claim, which is why you keep throwing irrelevant stuff like this at me. Are you ready to admit that yet?
I’d also like to point out that this very blog has itself showcased a debate over the rights of women: OneVike’s article on why women should have never received the right to vote got the highest traffic this site has ever received, and led me to this blog in the first place.
None of the conservative commenters here, to my knowledge, condemned the sexism against women in that article.
Not drawing an equivalence. Islamic countries are worse. (If I say it a hundred more times, will you hear it?) Just wondering why it’s OK for you guys to debate which rights women should and should not have, and not OK for others.
OneVike’s article on why women should have never received the right to vote got the highest traffic this site has ever received…
I’m pretty sure a post about the environment has gotten the highest number of comments…not sure that we track “traffic.”
As you well know Chris this is a debate forum. Opinions are expected here. OneVike’s position in that article does not necessarily reflect the opinions of any of our friends or your hosts. It’s absurd for you to insinuate that he represents our position or the views of our contributors.
You need to be reminded that we do not demand that our posters condemn or agree with any position.
As far as I know no one here is debating which rights women “should and should not” have. Jack is simply pointing out how much more committed you are to labeling and marginalizing conservatives than you are a religion with a plethora of practitioners who treat women like cattle. ..and women who think it should be so!
You and your party have been found out. You address fellow Americans who engage in debate much more harshly than you address an ideology that advocates oppression, tyranny, murder, disfigurement, and death to entire groups. You have called us every name in the book and yet cannot bring yourself to make a clear distinction about the religion that has given birth to this ugly war on the West by thing called radical Islamic jihad.
Robert Spencer illustrates this in his article, Orlando jihad massacre explodes widely-touted study claiming “right-wingers” bigger threat than jihadis
Will YOU!
Nice Tina…. lol Very nice.
Tina:
“As you well know Chris this is a debate forum. Opinions are expected here. OneVike’s position in that article does not necessarily reflect the opinions of any of our friends or your hosts. It’s absurd for you to insinuate that he represents our position or the views of our contributors.”
I insinuated no such thing.
What I insinuated is that OneVike’s opinion was not, in your view, extreme enough for you to explicitly reject. You didn’t call it bigoted when he said women shouldn’t have the right to vote–but you call me and other liberals bigoted all the time for far less. Why is that? Is it just because OneVike is your friend? Is it because he is a fellow conservative?
“You need to be reminded that we do not demand that our posters condemn or agree with any position.”
You have absolutely asked me to condemn certain positions. You literally asked me to condemn the New American Foundation report on right wing extremism at the end of this very comment. Pay more attention to what you are saying so you don’t contradict yourself this way.
“As far as I know no one here is debating which rights women “should and should not” have.”
They certainly did in response to the OneVike article. And the entire point of this post, surely, was to show how crazy and misogynist Saudi Arabia is for having a debate on whether women should appear on TV–no, Jack? I am certain you intended it as evidence for your claim that Muslim culture is incredibly sexist. I think it is this fair to point out that one of your own, OneVike, published an article where he criticized women’s right to vote in America, and not one of you objected to it. From the outside, do you know how that looks? It looks like you tolerate sexism and misogyny. Not to the degree of radical Muslims, of course. But certainly to a degree most Americans would be uncomfortable with.
“Jack is simply pointing out how much more committed you are to labeling and marginalizing conservatives than you are a religion with a plethora of practitioners who treat women like cattle. ..and women who think it should be so!”
1) Conservatives have more power in this country than Muslims.
2) Conservatives, unlike radical Muslims, can sometimes be reasoned with.
3) I would not condemn any religion as large as Islam, though I do condemn radical Islam.
4) Everyone already knows radical Islam is evil. There is no debate there. I am uninterested in condemning something that everyone already knows is evil.
For all of the above reasons, spending more time critiquing conservatives than radical Islamists is sensible time management.
I could also turn the same logic around on you. You’ve posted many articles critiquing radical Islam, but you almost certainly have posted more critiquing liberals. Why do you believe liberals are a greater threat than radical Islam, Tina? Do you see why that question doesn’t make sense?
” You have called us every name in the book and yet cannot bring yourself to make a clear distinction about the religion that has given birth to this ugly war on the West by thing called radical Islamic jihad.”
Sorry, care to try that again? This is word salad.
I’ve not read the New American Foundation study but it makes sense that homegrown terrorist ideologies would be more of a threat to everyday Americans than a foreign-born terrorist ideology. It also makes sense to talk about attacks since 9/11, since that was such an extreme outlier. (Besides, don’t conservatives often say Bush “kept us safe,” ignoring 9/11? What’s good for the goose…) I assume the goal was to show what the greatest danger is to everyday Americans, not to the world as a whole. Islamic terror is a bigger worldwide threat, but in the US I have no problem believing that an average American has a higher likelihood of being attacked by a right-wing (or left-wing) extremist than a Muslim terrorist, given our small Muslim population. That is less about downplaying one threat than raising awareness of another one.
“What I insinuated is that OneVike’s opinion was not, in your view, extreme enough for you to explicitly reject.”
Why should we “reject” it? It’s an opinion! People in America are allowed not only to hold an opinion but to express it. Others are free to argue, ignore, debate, object, do cartwheels, cry and any number of other things. If we “reject” anything it’s the control freak message that we must all be in lock step.
Only the thought police and the hall monitors of the left object to free speech and try to manage and control it.
Guess what Chris, freedom of speech does not protect any of us from being offended.
GROW UP…join us in the adult world.
“You didn’t call it bigoted when he said women shouldn’t have the right to vote–but you call me and other liberals bigoted all the time for far less.”
FAR LESS? Horse manure!
I’m not generally fond of tossing labels around but since you consistently use every opportunity to refer to us on PS as racists, bigots, homophobes, etc., I’m willing, nay determined, to hit back….hard. You guys on the left are some of the biggest bullies on the planet. This was one article, one opinion, one time.
“You literally asked me to condemn the New American Foundation report on right wing extremism at the end of this very comment. ”
It was a question. If it seemed like a demand maybe it’s because you have taken to making a lot of stern demands of late. In fact there’s an implied demand in just about everything you have to say…”agree with me or else” could be your tag line!
“I think it is this fair to point out that one of your own, OneVike, published an article where he criticized women’s right to vote in America, and not one of you objected to it.”
Really Chris? What a horrendously unhinged person you are if you can compare that to the the Muslim world and it’s adherence to Sharia which commands that gays be put to death and wives be treated like cattle, in lands where little girls are sold at puberty and mutilated, where women have acid thrown in their faces and schools children are taught to hate Jews and grow up to be human bombs for their god.
And since when do you decide how someone else responds or should respond? (I was personally getting a kick out of OneVikes article because basically I know his wife would kick his @$$ if he ever tried to get that put into practice.) This is the trouble with all of that PC crap…you don’t know any of the people you label so easily. You have a silly rule book and make determinations based on some nonsense check list. You seem to be filled with a lot of generalized, unwarranted resentment which you constantly regurgitate. You have an unhealthy need to be right. It makes every discussion a pissing contest…who can be king of the hill? What’s really galling is that you then pretend to be the one with so much compassion, understanding, and tolerance.
“It looks like you tolerate sexism and misogyny.”
OMG! Tolerating an opinion that may be different from mine. I should be shot, obviously, because thoughts that don’t comply CANNOT BE TOLERATED!!!! We must all think alike whether we actually do or not!
This may be your Brave New World, Chris, but it’s not mine! It’s also not what I want for my progeny.
“1) Conservatives have more power in this country than Muslims. ”
And? If the Muslims in this country aren’t as dedicated to ending this monstrous attack on our freedoms as conservatives I have to ask, “Why not?”
“4) Everyone already knows radical Islam is evil. There is no debate there. I am uninterested in condemning something that everyone already knows is evil. ”
And that makes you part of the problem. You don’t get it. If we are ever going to defeat this evil we must be strongly aligned to condemn it in no uncertain terms with every breath we take. We must not allow ourselves to be distracted by petty agenda items and overkill when it comes to gun regulation. We should absolutely reject any politician who uses these attacks to try to advance a domestic political agenda. The liberals, especially on this day, make me sick, pushing for gun control when this monster was vetted by our government and taken off the list of suspects, had a security clearance, access or potential to weaponry in his job, and a license to carry. . Hillary makes me sick…she changes her talking points via polling data and social media as the political winds blow.
“For all of the above reasons, spending more time critiquing conservatives than radical Islamists is sensible time management. ”
And predictable. The political game, gaining and keeping power, is more important to you than anything including human life and freedom for all. You are a good little brown shirt.
“…it makes sense that homegrown terrorist ideologies would be more of a threat to everyday Americans than a foreign-born terrorist ideology.”
The ideology is the same. The homegrown tactic is part of a larger strategy. Both represent threats.
“Besides, don’t conservatives often say Bush “kept us safe,” ignoring 9/11? ”
Like that idiocy floats! What are you twelve?
“…in the US I have no problem believing that an average American has a higher likelihood of being attacked by a right-wing (or left-wing) extremist than a Muslim terrorist, given our small Muslim population. That is less about downplaying one threat than raising awareness of another one.”
You still do not get it…you never will, I’m convinced.
One is a condition of criminality, the other a condition of war.
There is an organized, and thanks to Obama, widespread Islamist threat to the free world. Their tactics include the spread of their influence, ever increasing power and control through invasion (refugees and immigration, legal and illegal), birth rates, the establishment of local enclaves and sharia law, recruitment on social media and from within mosques, building more mosques, infiltrating local governments and school boards, cell and lone wolf terror attacks, and using our religious and speech rights and tolerance against us. They love it that you find American conservatives more threatening and repulsive than ISIS. It signals they are winning.
While the domestic criminal acts are important, they are not something we don’t deal with like any other types of crime. We have the criminal justice and law enforcement systems in place for that.
The Muslim threat is deadly serious on many fronts and difficult to counter now that it’s exploded. This threat is not just about the sensational horrific slaughter of human life in random terrorist acts. It is, as Hitlers ambitions were, a serious religious force, determined to put the world under its complete authority.
You are a child.You do not take any of this seriously. perhaps because you don’t really get it. All of these diversity games, and they are games, won’t mean a thing if you foolishly end up causing us to buckle under to this this threat. I’d prefer the tipping points remained on our sides favor.
Tina: “Why should we “reject” it? It’s an opinion!”
But Tina, you reject opinions here all the time.
You have strongly critiqued, and even condemned, the following opinions:
–Taxes on the rich should be raised
–Gun control should be increased
–Illegal immigrants should have a path to citizenship
–Global warming is real and caused by humans
…and on and on and on. You have no problem objecting to opinions you disagree with, and you do so with passion and often times wit.
That you felt no need to object to the opinion that women should not have the right to vote was uncharacteristic of you. You never hold back when you disagree with a controversial statement made by a liberal. Oftentimes you get viscerally angry (not a critique, just an observation) over opinions expressed by liberals such as myself. In this very comment you expressed a lot of anger over my opinions.
Yet the opinion that you should not even have the right to vote because of your gender doesn’t fill you with the same kind of righteous anger. Why? That’s strange to me. If I said conservatives should not have the right to vote, or Christians should not have the right to vote, or gun owners should not have the right to vote, you’d undoubtedly call my statement bigoted, and you’d be right. So it is completely valid for me to wonder why you did not object to OneVike’s opinion the same way you object to opinions expressed by liberals. And it is valid to conclude that the reason you didn’t do so is because you have different standards for liberals and conservatives.
No one is saying OneVike doesnt have the right to his opinion. But you seem to believe conservatives have a special right to not be criticized for their opinions. I know you don’t really believe that, but your actions suggest otherwise.
“We should absolutely reject any politician who uses these attacks to try to advance a domestic political agenda.”
Does that mean you will reject Donald Trump, who did just that? Does that mean you will reject the politicians who are saying “If only everyone in that club had a gun, they’d be alive today?” Or did you mean to say we should reject any liberal politician who uses these attacks to try to advance a domestic political agenda?
“And? If the Muslims in this country aren’t as dedicated to ending this monstrous attack on our freedoms as conservatives I have to ask, “Why not?””
They are.
“You do not take any of this seriously.”
Sorry, I can’t take this. You are voting for the most unserious candidate who has ever made it this far, and you are doing so partly because of his unserious policy to ban all Muslim immigration (temporarily!), which no serious person endorses. The serious objections to this policy have been explained to you, and you refuse to rebut them; you won’t take the critiques seriously. So you do not get to tell me I am not serious about the problem when you are supporting a pipe dream and pretending, in defiance of reality, that it is a serious proposal that will keep us safe.
To answer the question more simply:
“Why should we reject [the opinion that women shouldn’t have the right to vote]?”
Because it’s the right thing to do, of course.
Everyone has an ethical obligation to stand up to bigotry when they see it. And yes, saying people shouldn’t have the right to vote because of their gender is bigoted–you can’t disagree with this, can you?
Of course, often times the social costs of standing up to bigotry are quite intimidating. People often let bigoted statements from family slide. You’re stuck with those people, and no one wants an awkward Thanksgiving. But when it’s your friends saying bigoted things? And you see people trying to persuade them to change their mind, to be less bigoted, to no avail? Well, then it’s time to get new friends.
I wouldn’t call anyone a friend who believed I shouldn’t be able to vote because of my gender. That is inherently disrespectful to me as a person; it is a statement that I am less than. I am not friends with people who think I am less than them because of my gender.
Why are you?
Tina, two regaling replies to Chris, however Tina or Jack ,why either of you even try to discuss topics with Chris or the other two is beyond me.
Yes, PS is a open format, in doing so with your counter point post’s you help correct their over the top statements with a honest prospective, and provide readers some interesting information about how you arrive at such. so on one hand that is a positive.
On the other hand, their adnuseium posts do not deserve that attention, which I believe is their only goal, Chris and Libby, like Eeyore the donkey, just seem to have a desire to be noticed, and not so much a attempt to inform in a meaningful way.
Jacks 75% comment is most likely build on his research, be it 100 % correct or off some, it does seem like a realistic number. Especially when those women that escape such trinary speak up. Those women still captive to such barbaric thinking know better to speak about it or else face even more punishment, but that point seems to escape (even avoided) someone who do not have to answers for such actions just criticism. By auguring numbers verse actions of such violence they seem to want to ignore the evidence that treating a spouse in such a manner is a evil action even if the percentage was only 1%
I don’t really give a rip if it is in todays jihadist belief of the Koran, or an archaic passage in Christian scripture, and when their their argument is everyone thought that way,(long ago) they missed the point in my opinion.
Our Christian beliefs today do not support such treatment of women, and the berating women of the Muslim faith should not be sanctioned by any facet of the Muslim faith, which as Jack clearly points out still takes place.
What’s the real purpose of comparing what we are learning today about Isis and their archaic believers of the Muslim faith to a obscure passage of Christian scriptures, if only to prove Chris and Libby can Goggle some meaningless point out of their butt, just to support their argument. Sigh!
Jacks 75% is a result of his study, and if you want, you can question that percentage, without berating words however I do realize Chris is 100% wrong in beating a dead horse to try and win the race, along with Libby carrying a bucket to clean up the BS Chris and is horse left behind.
Harold: “What’s the real purpose of comparing what we are learning today about Isis and their archaic believers of the Muslim faith to a obscure passage of Christian scriptures,”
The purpose–as I made clear–is to show that citing Muslim scripture as proof that Islam is inherently evil doesn’t make sense, since Christian scripture says the same things.
If the argument is that Muslims today are more violent than Christians today, then fine. Talk about their actions today. But then bringing up scripture is irrelevant, and actually hurts your overall argument.
No one here seems to understand how logical arguments work. You think any argument that supports your position is inherently valid just because the overall position is valid. You don’t understand how making weak specific points weakens the entire argument. Then you object to rebuttals to your specific points by arguing that said specific point doesn’t matter–even though you end up using that exact same point the next time we have the same argument. It’s like playing rhetorical whack-a-mole:
“The Quran says ____!”
“So does the Bible.”
“It doesn’t matter! Christians don’t do that anymore!”
“But you just said–”
“Look at what they do, not what they say!”
“I agree, but most Muslims don’t do that.”
“They have to! The Quran says_____!”
“…”
It’s exhausting.
Actual, that is your argument ,not mine. I said it wasn’t a relelivant issue., your the one spinning it.
My comment was: I don’t really give a rip if it is in todays jihadist belief of the Koran, or an archaic passage in Christian scripture, and when their argument is everyone thought that way,(long ago) they missed the point in my opinion.’
Chris puts a spin on it that not relevant:
‘If the argument is that Muslims today are more violent than Christians today, then fine.( good you understand)
Talk about their actions today. ( as I did)
But then bringing up scripture is irrelevant( only in response to a comment by one of the other posters, a liberal mindset I believe said it) ,
and actually hurts your overall argument’. (not even relevant to my comment, just a exhausting spin by you, which as normal.
Here’s a twisted bit of logic for you, given that America has been attached by Isis on other Islamic extremists, technically a act of war against us. In seeing through Obamas taking points on Orlando he is trying to raise the point that the best way to keep us safe is to make it more difficult for you to keep and bear arms.
The Man is a feckless failure, and the only person who completely cheers his position as a President is Jimmy Carter.
Go argue with Tina, I won’t drag this out any further, given your history of adnuseium rhetoric most readers (as I) are as tired of seeing your name time after time with your byline of” I made it clear” or some other self serving by line. You just drag out posting with a dozen od more attempts to prove your right
( much like ol’ Bill Clinton floated trial balloons statements to see if people would buy into them) just to feel superior.
Well, I just discovered the source of yesterday’s hysteria. What are you people, wind up toys? And to allow that Neanderthal to turn your keys; its indecent. He’s even back on the birther thing. Can you be exasperated and amused at the same time? Apparently.
I learned another new thing this morning: Politico, HufPo, Daily Beast, Buzzfeed and now WaPo are forbidden press credentials by the Trump campaign, which gives us a fairly clear idea of the totalitarian state we will occupy if The ELE is elected. But I am no longer even a little bit worried. Nixon messed with the WaPo, and we know what happened to him.
Oh please. Obama refused access to him when he was running by any but the fawning promoter journalists…remember they even had a club so they could all be on the same page in their reporting. Even the left called Obama out when he tried to prevent Fox’s Washington correspondent from attending press briefings. Obama’s IRS targeted republican/conservative groups, preventing them from participating in an election…many of the principals of these groups were targeted by the IRS and other agencies. Obama’s Attorney General blocked investigations and prosecutions.
Your party had exclusive control of the media for decades…you can blame yourselves for the conditions we live in today.
We do know what happened to Nixon. He was driven from office over a crime of the college prank variety and a cover-up. Your candidate for president has done far worse than Nixon ever did as has the current administration!
“a crime of the college prank variety”
You are insane.
“Obama refused access to him when he was running by any but the fawning promoter journalists ….”
I think she may be going, yes. There isn’t a shred of truth in this statement.
And speaking of college pranks, did you read about Pooty hacking the Dem and absconding with their Trump data? Nothing about hacking the Repug though. What do you suppose that’s about?
The real news here is that gay activists are switching to Trump over this. They have learned that their safety is not as important in the liberal hierarchy as the imperative to not offend Muslims.
Its all fun and games until one identity group starts killing the others. I would anticipate that this will cause Hillary to shift to the right on national security, so Libby might want to reserve comment until after we see where Hillary lands.
“The real news here is that gay activists are switching to Trump over this.”
What evidence do you have for this claim? The “gay activists” I know are disgusted with Trump using this tragedy to congratulate himself on being “right” about Muslim terrorists (he’s not; the terrorist was born in the US). They’re disgusted with his bigotry against Muslims. And they’re generally more anti-gun than I am.
Of course, I don’t know all gay activists, but I’d be willing to bet I know more of them than you do. Still: got any numbers to back up this statement?
Good giggle, Steve. I’m sure Fox found one. But community-wide? I will be amazed.
It appears Steve was fooled. Possibly by the original hoaxer, who thought it would be funny to lie about a tragedy to gain Trump supporters. Possibly by Scott Baio, or possibly by Jim Hoft at the Gateway Pundit.
http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/13/lgbt-phoenix-endorsed-trump-after-orlando-shooting/
Never believe anything you read on the Gateway Pundit.
WOW I am sorry but You are wrong
Trump is a Phony bottom Line a Phony and awake people know that
That’s why Trump and 2 other republicans spoke at a rally where the preacher said t kill all gays right?
Hillary is to the right on foreign policy. jeeze she is a war monger you really ought to look at her record more closely
Look at her Logo that is the Goldwater Arrow to the right.. She was a Goldwater girl