.. said Central Committee member and Tea Partier Allan Bartlett about Villa Park Councilwoman, and self described "blended" Tea Partier, Deborah Paul. <iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/20764022" width="400" height="300" frameborder="0"></iframe><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/20764022">Hate Comes to Orange County</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user6234966">cairsocal</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p> Dear bigtexxx, in the same way you are constantly advising the Muslims on the board, please police your own, even the extreme members of your own.
Trying to reason with bigtexxx isn't going to do you any good, but this is a good example of the McCarthy style demonizing and fear mongering that some elements in the Republican party like to use. People like basso and bigtexxx use this kind of tactic to manipulate people. People like ATW, otoh, at some point have absorbed it and become crazed by it.
I would never support anything like what those protestors are doing. I also do not identify with the Tea Party, and I cannot stand Sarah Palin. I don't have a problem with Muslims (the radical militant terrorist ones, yes), but I do believe that the Muslim religion leaves a window open that could be interpreted as legitimizing violence, and I do believe moderates should do more to distance themselves from the radical members of their religion.
That's good to hear. I hope in the future it is enough for you to hear from Muslims "I would never support anything like what those terrorists are doing. I also do not identify with the Extremists, and I cannot stand OBL." I'm interested in this window you referred to. What more could be done other than stating your opinion, and co-operating with authorities? Personally I think Muslims have done enough to distance themselves from extremists - what better way to distance yourself than by stating outright that you do not share the same ideology (i.e. people saying terrorists are not Muslims)? Also whereas with Islam there seems to be a linkage made when it comes to motives (i.e. the guy screamed Allah, so he did it in the name of Islam) but when someone like Deborah Pauly claims to (and in fact is legally recognized to) do things in the name of the Republican party, it seems to get ignored. "She's acting on her own, she's a fringe member, she's just crazy, she does not fall under the principles of Republicanism, etc." Why are these views acceptable for one situation, but not acceptable or adequate when moderate Muslims make them? Don't get me wrong though. I do NOT believe that this woman is representative of Republicans in general. I do believe she is a fringe member, and I do think she is wrong. I do agree with you regarding her behavior. We are on the same page. My confusion stems from why you think this rationale doesn't apply across other belief systems. While recognizing that Deborah Paul has killed no one, you have to ask yourself if she has contributed to the radicalization of moderates or to pushing people from fringe to murderer. One could very well argue that individual members of the republican parties are more representative of their ideology than Muslims are of theirs. Reason being, Muslims think they can not alter the ideology, whereas Republicans are free to alter/adjust their ideology to address fringe members. In short, Republicans are the source/authors of republicanism, whereas in Islam they believe Allah is the source/author of Islam. Anyway, I actually am pleasantly surprised with your response. Not that I'm surprised you disagree with Ms Paul, but I am surprised that you very bluntly stated it.
So you are equating these tea party protester idiots (who are idiots, no doubt) with someone who murdered scores of people and continues to incite people to murder and continues to plan and execute terror attacks? Interesting. Once again, shows your value system - or the lack thereof.
Do you understand the difference between equating and associating? Interesting. Once again, shows your agenda...
It's clearly a double standard that those who call upon all Muslims to condemn every terrorist act and yet excuse Republicans from condemning threats of violence upon Muslims. You just can't have it both ways. I think this reflects very poorly on the Tea Party at they hesitate to distance themselves from these remarks - it implies they are sympathetic to them and to some degree agree. Very disturbing but sadly not surprising. It reinforces the idea that the tea party is or has a significant amount of ultra extremists in it.
This post is funny, as it - unintentionally, in conjunction with this poster's other posts - displays the exact double standard it is attempting to criticize (aside from the fact that this post, as well, calls people who have not acted out on their possibly violent agenda (these tea party idiots referenced in the article) "ultra extremists", whereas the same poster used less drastic words for Islamists who have actually killed people). Applying the bolded part to Islamists and Muslims (replacing the word "Tea Party" with "moderate Muslims" and "these remarks" with "religiously motivated murders", you would get: Sweet Lou 42 thinks this reflects very poorly on the moderate Muslims as they hesitate to distance themselves from these religiously motivated murders - it implies they are sympathetic to them and to some degree agree. I don't even agree with that statement (I don't think moderate Muslims need to make a statement every time some extremist Muslim does something bad (they wouldn't have time for anything else then), but it's funny that it is a statement Sweet Lou would aggressively criticize if adapted to what I changed it to above, whereas he criticizes Republicans (whom exactly, by the way, has anyone here agreed with these remarks? ) for it.
First of all, did you see the word "sarcasm" in his post - secondly, let's say the figures quoted in your post are correct, how does 45 to 80 compare percentage-wise to Muslim population in the US vs. non-Muslim population (let's say 2.5-6 million out of about 300 million)? So 36 % of US domestic terror plots were committed by Muslims while about 1 to 2 % of the population are Muslims? Interesting statistics. I just want to say that I don't think this should be seen as an indictment of all Muslims, most of whom are moderate.
That was my entire point dude. God you are thick. I was showing how if you took republican logic and applied it to this situation you get the conclusion. It's their logic not mine! Get it???
If that was supposed to be your point, you should try to word your posts so that you at least try to make your point understandable. As it stands, it was worded in a way that this is your actual opinion.
You know this kind of willful misunderstanding of comparisons gets my goat every time (apologies to B-Bob). Mathloom is comparing the position of moderate Muslims distancing themselves from extremist Muslim elements to bigtexxx's position as a non-Tea-Party conservative to distance himself from Tea Party protestors. How much violence the eschewed group may engage in is irrelevant to what one must do to disassociate oneself from them. To allege that Mathloom is making some equivocation between those two groups is a terrible logical fallacy and transparently disingenuous.
Why in the world would that be irrelevant? It was a terrible comparison, and your assessment of it is completely wrong. The bolded sentence is so obviously false. How much violence the group engages in is absolutely relevant to what one must do to disassociate oneself from them, not only that, it is the most important thing to look at. Or are you saying that if you are in a group of Rockets fans at an arena and they scream "Death to the Utah Jazz" and that's it (tea party comparison) or if they actually go and cut off Mehmet Okur's head (islamist terrorist comparison), it doesn't make a difference to how much of a need there would be for you to disassociate yourself from them? That is an "interesting" viewpoint, to say the very least. Most sane people would clearly see that the more egregious the act the group you are associated with engages in, the more of a need to disassociate yourself from said group. That should not be very hard to understand. The logical fallacy is absolutely on your side - see above. Mathloom did indeed make an equivocation. There is absolutely nothing disingenuous in pointing that out. In fact, the equivocation was what was disingenuous.
I think it's even more clear that the only bright and tolerant politicians left in this country are Democrats The rest of them should all be packed into a plane headed straight for Siberia Or better yet, Germany, since white supremacists are dominating that country anyway
