do you know any leaders/speakers who incite bigotry, hatred, and violence when they are invited and continue to be invited to speak at democratic rallies?
Do we have to go through this again? See my post # 129 in my first D&D thread. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?p=5218877#post5218877
I don't know of any and frankly would be very suprised if there were any-- minorities are a huge part of their base, after all.
You are too full of yourself. The only person's identity you correctly outed was mine, through blind luck. You will. Perceive. My loud revenge.
This is absolutely comical. These folks are just plain nuts. Link More at the link. So, to recap: Obama allows guns in national parks. Crazed whackjobs subsequently congregate with guns in national parks to piss and moan about how democrats in washington are limiting their gun rights. And people want me to respect this (and similar) movements?
He said Kerala earlier which would make sense considering he says he's Christian. There's plenty to pile on him for but mocking him for something like that is silly.
First, let me say that my parents never owned a gun. So, I don't have a gun heritage--as lot of my American friends. What I have learned from them is that growing up and owning guns is part of their culture--one they feel Progressives are trying to take away from them. An analogy I can use is that its similar Indian parents expecting their kids, at least in India, to grow up and get an arranged marriage. It's just part of the culture. American's think this is archaic and “backwards” and don't understand it--however, Indian's swear by it. ANYWAY, HERE IS THE REST OF THE STORY ON THE PROTESTERS: John King actually went to this event and had a very complete report on why these guys were upset and why they were out there. (BTW, John is now my most trusted news guy on TV.) I believe he is a liberal, but is very fair in his reporting. Some key points: --They admit that Obama has not legally limited their 2nd Amendment rights so far--in fact he, although very reluctantly, passed the very law that had a provision that allowed them to bring their guns to the state park they were protesting at. --But they showed up because they felt that their rights, like muscles, need to be exercised once in a while. --They were angry, but it was a peaceful event. --These guys are mainly concerned about two issues and one of them is just a comment by Obama: 1. A statement Obama made in his campaign about the right wing clinging to their “Guns and Religion”--they are nervous about what implications this will have in his future policies. Let’s not forget he could be technically in office for 2 terms and these guys are concerned about what he will do when getting reelected is not a concern--similar to what Bush did in his last couple of years in office by going too liberal. 2. There is currently a proposal in the UN about limiting or banning small arms fire for all UN member nations--I don't know at what stage this is at. Most conservatives think the UN is a joke. And these protesters are concerned how the international decree will effect there 2nd Amendments rights. As farfetched as these sounds, one of their fears is that some day in future, we could have a repeat of Tiananmen Square situation--and the citizens will not have the means to defend themselves. Yes, this sound too farfetched to me also--but I am just repeating a concern they brought up. Anyway, we I believe the US government is doing a better job of separating the rhetoric/core concerns from those who are planning violence from the different protest groups are bringing up--especially after the Oklahoma incident. "We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not -- nor will we ever -- monitor ideology or political beliefs," Napolitano said in the statement. "We take seriously our responsibility to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources." -Janet Napolitano- It’s not much different from Global Warming debate--no matter what side we are on, everyone agrees to the basic principal that we need to do a better job of taking care of our Earth. For example, conservatives should not ignore this issue, just because Gore created a bogus documentary to play into the fears of the liberals--and get mighty rich off his bogus enterprise. Of course, this could NEVER, NEVER, NEVER happen here in America and I realize there is nothing in the history of this world that could support even a remote possibility of this happening, but humor me for a second; if in the 0% chance that the Chinese every invaded this country--you will be very thankful of the fact that this is one seriously armed citizenry. I mean, did you see some of the weapons they were carrying! Final thought, for those of you that are critical of racial profiling of Muslims, you should also understand that profiling of “right wing protester” is just as unfair. Or is this another double standard that’s ok to overlook because it falls under the " liberal exemption clause"?
So the upshot is that their protest is based on paranoia. That's just swell. So freaking out those Americans visiting the park by parading around, chanting slogans, and carrying weapons makes perfect sense... to them. Right. Ruining the day for anyone else there is a side benefit. Bush was "too liberal" during his last two years in office, and you think these people are sane? Hell will freeze over before a Democratic President will support anything of the sort. Paranoia yet again to the extent that one needs to consider their mental stability. Please tell these people to start taking their meds again. I'm concerned about their sanity, and considering that they are going to all this trouble to parade around with their weapons, ruining the day of those attempting to enjoy the park, in order to take an incident that happened on the far side of the world, in a totalitarian state, and apply it to our own country, which couldn't be more different if our best fantasy writers were allowed to dream up various scenarios comparing the two, points yet again to their paranoia and the concerns we should have about their mental stability. Yet you are busy making excuses for them. Thank you for being so concerned about our safety in the event of a Chinese invasion. I'm going out today to get some more gun oil. You'll be safe, I promise you. Just don't drive a car in Houston if you can help it. Profiling? You seriously believe that thinking these people are paranoid idiots, who are fools to parade around with their weapons and busy doing more harm than good to those of us who believe in the right to keep and bear arms is "profiling?" Give me a fooking break.
blahblahblah, we are protesting things that have not occurred but that we think might happen because we're either paranoid nutjobs or blabbering idiots. That's all I got out of that. And most tea party rallies/speeches/persons. Heck - here's your opportunity lil' Fish: List 5 sane and reasonable complaints from the tea party. It can't be that hard, can it?
I'll handle this, BrotherFish. Obama won the election. Obama won the election. Obama won the election. Obama won the election. Obama won the election.
People with such ridiculous concerns get no attention or support from me. In fact, they deserve ridicule.
But don’t you just love this batty, bizarre, cracked, crazed, crazy, cuckoo, daft, demented, derailed, deranged, fatuous, frenzied, idiotic, impractical, irrational, irresponsible, loony, lunatic, mad, maniacal, mental, moonstruck, nuts, nutty, of unsound mind, off one's rocker, out of one's mind, paranoid, preposterous, psychopathic, psychotic, rabid, raging, raving, schizophrenic, screwy, senseless, touched, unhinged, unsettled, way of projecting what they secretly hope will happen to America?
smotherfish, is this the site basso referred you to for your GOP job? Do they provide an informational packet for cutting and pasting? http://www.payperpostforum.com/
I don't think you understand why there is resistance towards profiling Muslims. By definition that is profiling a group of people based on one broad factor, religion, as opposed to profiling on things like behavior. No one is saying that a Muslim who parades around with a gun shouting "Kill the infidels" shouldn't be looked at more closely. What people are complaining about is just pulling aside Muslims only for the sake the of being Muslims without any other evidence. Your argument would make more sense if the FBI just went and profiled white Christian males primarily becuase they were white Christian males. No were is that being done. What profiling is being done is regarding people who show a possible propensity towards violence by brandishing firearms publically and talking about overthrowing the government violently.
Ok. I was not making a 100% apples to apples comparison. Just trying to make you guys look at things from a different angle. The Columbine killers were not at any rallies--it’s the quiet ones that you have to worry about—the Government has to look at everyone--but it's not always practical. Also, are you implying that every Muslim male in American has been visited by the FBI? Look, I look like an Arab to an average American. I have had to go thru extra security in airports--I have NO problem with it. Profile me every day and twice on Sunday. They are just concerned about the safety of Americans passengers. I believe when Muslims are in there own native country, they seem to be just fine with profiling and “unfairness”. For example, I don’t see any ACLU equivalent rising to the rescue of the white couple that was just arrested for allegedly stealing a kiss and now faces jail time on the word of 2 year old that thinks they saw something. The point is that there is very little fairness in any Muslim nation--the only difference is they you know you better keep your mouth shut when you are back "home." How many freedoms have Muslims nations take away from its citizens in the name of religion and national security? All I am saying is that it’s a little disingenuous for Muslims to cry foul in American and then be perfectly fine with the same unfairness in their own native country. Seriously, if Americans declared “Jihad” on Saudi, what would be the national security policy towards Americans? Exactly! Here is a quote from the Bible, I am sure you have one similar in your Holy Book, "First, take the log out of your eyes, so you can see better to take the spec out of mine." All America is trying to do is protect its citizens. No more, no less.
