Idiots like him are exactly who vultures like Sarah Palin prey on. Red targets on a political page to depict political opponents who need to be knocked down, what kind of perverse imagery is that? Even George Bush would constantly use war analogies in irrelevant situations, whether it was because of a Hurricane approaching or a hunting vacation. This is what republican Americans masturbate to. Yeahh, I'm gonna own a gun and a fort style underground shed and hunker up with my family to protect my freedom. The marketing approach of the party is pathetic, but... they're just doing what works.
Just got back from work. Mission Control has been piping up a feed of CNN so ISS Commander Scott Kelly can stay abreast of the news reports. Giffords is his sister-in-law.
I didn't say the judicial treatment would be different. I just said to visualize how this thread would be different. Oh, it would be different. Even the title would be different. The congresswoman would not even get the respect she deserves. ATW would be posting bigoted pictures and calling adeelsiddiqui gay by page 5 or 6, while qualifying his words with "not that there's anything wrong with that"! Dadakota would immediately get on a thread tangent to say that religion is written by man. Some random poster would chime in with the sarcastic token "religion of peace!" comment, thinking he/she is the first to make that joke. So on and so forth. Me? I don't care about the guy's religion, as long as he gets a fair trial. Mainly because I think that if Islam has been able to render the judicial system inadequate, then there are bigger problems to worry about like states not yet being able to cope with the terrorism of a bunch of desert dwellers. More importantly, I'm glad the congresswoman looks like she's going to pull through. Human life must be cherished, and terrorism shouldn't be glorified > which is exactly why this kind of murderer has to be dealth with in the fairest, most effective, boring way. Attention is what they seek, so don't give it to them.
OK so to qualify the accusations of everyone you named in your post: This guy specifically talked about mind control and brain washing which is a pretty key sign of mental issues. In your scenario would his youtube vids be talking about the mistreatment of Muslims and the "terrorist" agenda of the US government? Or would everything be the same except his name was Aamir?
I have a great idea. Why don't we stick to ACTUAL FACTS rather than to your little made-up world in your head. Here is the thread of the Fort Hood shooting: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=176713&page=1&pp=20&highlight=fort+hood Some facts: ATW did not post bigoted pictures. ATW did not call anyone gay in that thread. DD did not get on a thread tangent. In fact, neither ATW nor DD responded to that thread at all, even though the whole "the poster had a Muslim name" thing was going on. No "random poster made the religion of peace comment". What did happen, though: - The thread evolved into a discussion about Obama. - Some muslim poster (True Beaner) immediately - before facts were out - claimed that religion had nothing to do with the shooting, and received support both from leftist posters and from other presumably muslim posters (vlaurelio, pharaoh king, et al.) - Leftist posters preemptively called people who would call the guy a terrorist "wingnuts". So these are the facts. But don't let facts get into the way of your little islamo-self-victimization fantasies.
Why do there only have to be two scenarios? I get the feeling you've planned out your answer already. lol
lol Seriously? So there's one thread where you didn't say something Islamophobic, and your assessment is that a fact has been born which says you are not Islamophobic? or that you don't overdo the whole posting offensive pictures thing? or that you haven't played the "you're gay" game with adeelsiddiqui? If we were to collect a sample of how you've reacted to every story that has even the slightest Muslim undertone, how do you think your collection of posts would look? More importantly, do you really believe you are fooling anyone? Seriously, anyone at all? If we sat members of this board through a game where we have flashcards that say "ISLAMOPHOBE", "HATES ISLAM" and "ATW" do you realize how frequently they would associate the 3 things? It is your defining characteristic on the D&D for far too many posters, and that's ironic how you've allowed it to consume you. The self-victimization card is getting old as well. Islam is definitely a victim of many things, but that doesn't automatically make the Muslim a victim. Your inability to separate these two things is telling. It's predictable, though I would've thought you'd at least attempt to appear to be able to do so. Islam is a victim of extremists, such as you and Osama Bin Laden. But a Muslim murderer is not a victim because of his/her Islam. Get that through your head. We all know this, you are the only one parading around for re-assurance. My comment was out of place in this thread, I should have recognized there are people like you on the board. Sorry to everyone else about that.
Blah blah blah. You are the third person (after two other muslim posters) to derail this thread into the direction of islamist self-pity, when this has nothing at all to do with the thread. You took it a step further by inventing some hypothetical scenario under which supposedly people would have reacted oh-so-differently if this guy had had a muslim name. Guess what, I did look up a comparable thread (shooting in the US, guy had a muslim name) and none of what you made up in your little masturbational pity fantasy actually happened. As much as you would like to see yourself and your fellow islamists as victims rather than as something else, his thread is not about you or islam. Stop trying to spin it that way. There are plenty of threads about islamist terrorism, and one could start more than I would have the time for, every day. This is not one.
I merely responded to you and the two other muslim posters who did exactly that. Plus, you did not even read the thread before you made your stupid comment for which you later had to apologize, as is evident because someone else made almost the exact same comment as you before already (just less pseudo-dramatic than is your usual style..."visualize it in your head"...blablabla).
I really thought Sarah Palin's America would create a fear to cause moderates to vote against Democrats in 2012, but now I don't know. Obama could seriously be reelected.
And um yeah could you please provide an incident where his rhetoric caused violence? This was an attempted assassination!
cnn just featured a segment about the shooter's "bizarre and strange postings against the US currency". stupid ****ing media sheep.
Link 2010 will be primary season Share251 27 by kos Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:45:23 AM PST As we've seen these past couple of weeks, we've got a problem in our caucus -- while we have been busy stocking up on more Democrats, fact is the good ones are being swamped by the bad ones. Now we're at a disadvantage vis a vis AT&T. We don't have the millions to pump into campaign coffers, nor the lobbyists to twist arms in Capitol Hill. And those Democrats feel safe. Many are in solid (D) districts and have no fear of the opposition. Or they are in tough districts, and think that they are solid given the Republican alternatives. And that was certainly the case when we were in the minority or even with our tighter current majorities. But things have changed. Democrats currently have a 37-seat majority in the House -- larger than any enjoyed by the GOP during its reign of corruption starting in 1994. That means that if we win 32 seats, well within the realm of possibility, we'll have a 101-seat majority in the House. Even if we gain a more realistic 20 or so seats, we're still talking a 77-seat majority. And that'll give us breathing room to begin holding our party accountable. Remember, we don't have the millions to compete with AT&T's lobbyists, and our best-crafted arguments can be easily ignored. All the while, Steny Hoyer buys loyalty by tirelessly campaigning and raising money for his fellow Democrats. So how can we overcome those obstacles? Primaries. So 2010 is going to be the year we pivot from taking control of our government, to holding out accountable. Like Al Wynn this year, the corrupt, the tone-deaf, and the reactionary within Democratic ranks will face the possibility of primary battles. The infrastructure we're building will be available for those courageous enough to take on the entrenched elite. But when we have candidates that inspire, and can develop the alternate funding sources to finance them, the combined might of the Pelosis and Hoyers won't be enough to effect change. Just ask Donna Edwards. So you're angry about the Democratic capitulation? Don't take it out on the party. More House Democrats voted against this abomination than voted for it. The party isn't the problem, it's too many of its elected members that have forgotten who they serve and why. Hint: It's not AT&T lobbyists, it's not Steny Hoyer, and it's not access to their checks. You want to do something? If your local congresscritter is one of the bad apples, start organizing locally. Plug into existing networks or start your own. Begin looking for primary challengers. Do the groundwork. Don't expect help from the local party establishment, they'll close ranks. So tap into alternate infrastructures. Find allies in the progressive movement. If your local ****ty Democrat is anti-union, approach the unions. They'd love to send this kind of message. If the Democrat is anti-choice, work with the women's groups. If the Democrat is anti-environment ... you get the idea. If you have access to professional networks and money, start organizing those. Of course, this takes more than just b****ing about your frustrations on a blog, damning a whole party for the actions of a minority more scared of Mr. 28% than of protecting the Constitution they swore to protect. This takes hard work. But now is the time to start. And while people like me will focus on the task at hand this year, it won't be long after Election Day that we'll start looking at the 2010 map, looking for those great primary challengers. Who to primary? Well, I'd argue that we can narrow the target list by looking at those Democrats who sold out the Constitution last week. I've bolded members of the Blue Dogs for added emphasis. Ackerman, Gary (NY-05) Altmire, Jason (PA-04) Arcuri, Mike (NY-24) Baca, Joe (CA-43) Baird, Brian (WA-03) Barrow, John (GA-12) Bean, Melissa (IL-08) Berkley, Shelley (NV-01) Berman, Howard (CA-28) Berry, Marion (AR-01) Bishop, Sanford (GA-02) Bishop, Timothy (NY-01) Boren, Dan (OK-02) Boswell, Leonard (IA-03) Boucher, Rick (VA-09) Boyd, Allen (FL-02) Boyda, Nancy (KS-02) Brown, Corrine (FL-03) Butterfield, G.K. (NC-01) Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18) Carney, Chris (PA-10) Castor, Kathy (FL-11) Cazayoux, Don (LA-06) Chandler, Ben (KY-06) Childers, Travis (MS-01) Cleaver, Emanuel (MO-05) Clyburn, James (SC-06) Cooper, Jim (TN-05) Costa, Jim (CA-20) Cramer, Bud (AL-05) Crowley, Joe (NY-07) Cuellar, Henry (TX-28) Davis, Artur (AL-07) Davis, Lincoln (TN-04) Dicks, Norman (WA-06) Donnelly, Joe (IN-02) Edwards, Chet (TX-17) Ellsworth, Brad (IN-08) Emanuel, Rahm (IL-05) Engel, Elliot (NY-17) Etheridge, Bob (NC-02) Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ-08) Gillibrand, Kirsten (NY-20) Gordon, Bart (TN-06) Green, AL (TX-09) Green, Gene (TX-29) Gutierrez, Luis (IL-04) Harman, Jane (CA-36) Hastings, Alcee (FL-23) Herseth Sandlin, S. (SD-AL) Higgins, Brian (NY-27) Hinojosa, Ruben (TX-15) Holden, Tim (PA-17) Hoyer, Steny (MD-05) Kanjorski, Paul (PA-11) Kildee, Dale (MI-05) Kind, Ron (WI-03) Klein, Ron (FL-22) Lampson, Nick (TX-22) Langevin, JIm (RI-02) Lipinski, Dan (IL-03) Lowey, Nita (NY-18) Mahoney, Tim (FL-16) Marshall, Jim (GA-08) Matheson, Jim (UT-02) McCarthy, Carolyn (NY-04) McIntyre, Mike (NC-07) McNerney, Jerry (CA-11) Meeks, Gregory (NY-06) Melancon, Charlie (LA-03) Mitchell, Harry (AZ-05) Moore, Dennis (KS-03) Murphy, Patrick (PA-08) Murtha, John (PA-12) Ortiz, Solomon (TX-27) Nancy Pelosi (CA-08) Perlmutter, Ed (CO-07) Peterson, Colin (MN-07) Pomeroy, Earl (ND-AL) Rahall, Nick (WV-03) Reyes, Silvestre (TX-16) Richardson, Laura (CA-37) Rodriguez, Ciro (TX-23) Ross, Mike (AR-04) Ruppesberger, Dutch (MD-02) Salazar, John (CO-03) Schiff, Adam (CA-29) Scott, David (GA-13) Sestak, Joe (PA-07) Sherman, Brad (CA-27) Shuler, Heath (NC-11) Sires, Albio (NJ-13) Skelton, Ike (MO-04) Smith, Adam (WA-09) Snyder, Vic (AR-02) Space, Zach (OH-18) Spratt, John (SC-05) Stupak, Bart (MI-01) Tanner, John (TN-08) Ellen Tauscher (CA-10) Taylor, Gene (MS-04) Thompson, Bennie (MS-02) Udall, Mark (CO-02) Wilson, Charles (OH-06) Yarmuth, John (KY-03 Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district. If we can field enough serious challengers, and if we repeat the Donna Edwards and Joe Lieberman stories a few more times, well then, our elected officials might have no choice but to be more responsive. Because if we show them that their AT&T lobbyist buddies can't save their jobs, they'll pay more attention to those who can. p.s. Four Blue Dogs voted to protect the Constitution -- Baron Hill (IN-09), Mike Michaud (ME-02), Loretta Sanchez (CA-47), and Mike Thompson (CA-01). They apparently realized that being supposed "moderates" didn't necessitate selling out to Constitution for George Bush's imperial presidency. * ::
If you actually had reading comprehension ability, you could see that I never said "leftist wingnut". I said that leftist posters called others wingnuts, I was quoting. Just noticed you seem to have a pattern of making this kind of post: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5118746&postcount=58
"A Republican majority in Congress would mean "hand-to-hand combat" on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy." - Barack Obama
I really love your quotes in large font for emphasis cause a left wing nut took it seriously...no wait Let me add both sides need to cool it.
