Vicious Muslims and the Americans Who Help Them

[chomerics]

There is no way to read that article and not take away the impression that he is morally equating the current wave of extreme Islamic pan-nationalism with modern Christianity. Which is bunk.

I completely disagree with this statement.

I believe he is equating Islamic nationalism with ancient Christian theology. He is not saying the christians of today are as bad as the Islamic Fundamentalists, but he is saying Christianity had absolutely no place to state Islam is the source of hatred, when they have used the bible to fight countless wars.

Christians have killed (past tense) more people than any other religion by a mile. But that doesn't make the religious leaders of Pakistan anymore right today (present tense). They are loathsome.

[Predicto]

Nope. The liberal solution is to sit back and criticize. The Dems are not going to win EITHER house in these next elections. Mark my words and save them for posterity. The simple reason is that THEY HAVE NO PLAN. And if they do have a plan, but they won't offer it because a Republican is president, then they just flat don't give a damn about the security of this country.

Nah, we'll sit back and watch Hillary call for Rumsfeld's resignation in a poorly constructed attempt at a political show. Let's not forget, she's jumping all over a war SHE voted for.

Does she have a better plan to fight the war? Maybe. Has she shared it? Nope. So it's one of two things. 1) She doesn't have a better plan. OR 2) She's withholding it, and allowing Americans to die, for political gain. That's it. There IS no option three.

Dissent IS the purest form of patriotism. I wholeheartedly agree. But dissent when those words were spoken the first time, included a BETTER PLAN. Without that better plan, you're just a crybaby....a crybaby who's content to let MY troops die.

How about - we will do more or less the same thing that the Repubs are doing in this particular crappy situation they put our country in, but we promise not to do something so rash and ill-planned ourselves when we get in power? The cards are dealt, we have to play them, but I know better than to deal this stupid game again.

Because that is how I feel.

[Zguy28]

I hope you are kidding. Have you never heard about bringing God to the savages? (Irony at it's finest right there) I guess it depends on how narrowly you define "Christians". Early explorers of the Americas did some nasty things in the name of bring souls to Christ.

Not to mention the bigger picture that Christian explorers from Europe came to the Americas and basically slaughtered the native populations into near extinction.

I'm not a history expert, but I also know firebrand preacher men like John Edwards went to the Indians and lived with them and helpded them for quite a while.

[Predicto]

I completely disagree with this statement.

I believe he is equating Islamic nationalism with ancient Christian theology. He is not saying the christians of today are as bad as the Islamic Fundamentalists, but he is saying Christianity had absolutely no place to state Islam is the source of hatred, when they have used the bible to fight countless wars.

People are not going parse tenses when they read something like this, Chom.

Joe American is going to see his religion attacked, and he is going to shut hisr ears from then on - and end up being even more steadfast in his support of this incompetent Administration that deserves no such support from the average guy.

So unless you want to only preach to the choir of liberals that already agree with you, don't do it this way.

[Thiebear]

How about - we will do more or less the same thing that the Repubs are doing in this particular crappy situation they put our country in, but we promise not to do something so rash and ill-planned ourselves when we get in power? The cards are dealt, we have to play them, but I know better than to deal this stupid game again.

Because that is how I feel.

So are you talking abour IRAN/Syria or Tonk?

[Zguy28]

I completely disagree with this statement.

I believe he is equating Islamic nationalism with ancient Christian theology. He is not saying the christians of today are as bad as the Islamic Fundamentalists, but he is saying Christianity had absolutely no place to state Islam is the source of hatred, when they have used the bible to fight countless wars.

I guess the Democratic party can't say Guantanomo is wrong since Roosevelt (Dem) did the same thing too with Japanese-Americans. Or, that since a lot of Dems from the south had ancestors who owned slaves have the right to speak out against slavery or racial hatred. Thanks for that clarification, I'll remember that.

[Destino]

I'm not a history expert, but I also know firebrand preacher men like John Edwards went to the Indians and lived with them and helpded them for quite a while.

I don't really want to get this thread off topic - but what you are talking about here is one of the things that bugs the crap out of me. We equate all things that occur in the middle east as "Muslim" yet refuse to do the same of the actions of Western nations in terms of Christianity. We can argue the people that did these things are not really Christian or that they didn't do it in the name of Christianity or in line with it's laws - but that rings as hollow to others as it does when they make similar claims to us.

[Sarge]

People are not going parse tenses when they read something like this, Chom.

Joe American is going to see his religion attacked, and he is going to shut hisr ears from then on - and end up being even more steadfast in his support of this incompetent Administration that deserves no such support from the average guy.

So unless you want to only preach to the choir of liberals that already agree with you, don't do it this way.

Let him keep going

[Midnight Judges]

I don't really agree with this author and the way he is going about his opinion, but I'm going to offer some counter points to Brewdog's response.

Never mind that democracy is taking hold in Iraq

Parts of Iraq. Some parts are in control of malitias, and some parts appear to be under no control what-so-ever.

which is like Kryptonite to the Islamofascist movement. A democratic Iraq is a dagger in the heart of the entire Islamofascist worldview.

Not exactly. Many of the members of the new Iraqi Parliament are Pro-Iran and they refuse to recognize Israel. This empowers Achmadinejad and their mullahs. Or you could look at the Palestinians who voted to elect radicals. When the majority of the voting citizens are siding with the anti-semetic Islamofascists-they are going to have Islamofascism. Without a bill of rights, there is nothing to stop fascism from infiltrating a Democracy. Democracy unto itself is not the kryptonite, the spirit of '76 is the kryptonite IMO.

Yeah, we're all being terroized here by our own government. Who believes this crap outside of college punks in MoveOn.org t-shirts? Certainly no one is stopping this mental midget from posting his blather

You are not addressing the issue. The issue is that the President is not above the law. If he wants to surveil, congress will give him that power. If they have not given him that power yet, he must propose legislation and get it passed rather than simply ignoring old laws based on a dubious and indefensible legal position that even the bar association has condemned.

Despite what the ACLU might like to think, the Constitution (it's capitalized) has in no way been "shredded."

The supreme court has ruled numerous times that you have a reasonable right to privacy, and you are protected from unreasonable search and seizure. This is a serious issue and cannot be resolved simply by the President saying "Heeeeeeeeeey buddies, trust me ." Checks and balances are our constitutional way. Oversight for wiretapping is necessary as proven beyond a doubt by the Nixon administration.

The writer alludes to Tora Bora, but the conspiracy theorists do not want to recognize the facts. We dropped hundreds of tousands of tons of ordnance. We found tiny pieces of remains. But there's nothing like Monday-morning quarterbacking, is there?

There is no conspiracy here. The Bush administration never denied that it armed, funded, and trusted locals, and then in turn, the locals stabbed us in the back and allowed and even helped Osama Bin Laden escape.

After-action reviews, conducted privately inside and outside the military chain of command, describe the episode as a significant defeat for the United States. A common view among those interviewed outside the U.S. Central Command is that Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the war's operational commander, misjudged the interests of putative Afghan allies and let pass the best chance to capture or kill al Qaeda's leader. Without professing second thoughts about Tora Bora, Franks has changed his approach fundamentally in subsequent battles, using Americans on the ground as first-line combat units.

In the fight for Tora Bora, corrupt local militias did not live up to promises to seal off the mountain redoubt, and some colluded in the escape of fleeing al Qaeda fighters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16

Yeah, I can't wait to have Hillary's finger on the button. Democrats have proved again and again that they are unfit to operate the national security aparatus of the United States.

No, I don't want Hillary in the Whitehouse. I want fresh blood, no Kennedys, no Clintons and for crying out loud no more Bushies (IM TALKIN TO YOU JEB! HANDS OFF! ). But you are painting with awfully broad strokes there brewdog. Many Democrats in congress and Democrat candidates are decorated veterans, and I would trust them with our military before I would trust Bush and his zero combat experience and Cheney with his five deferments. Take Democrat candidate James Webb for example, a decorated Vietnam vet and Ronald Reagan's deputy secretary of the Navy, certainly you can't lump him in with the liberals, or anti-war ignoramuses.

[brewdogmike]

When he invaded Iraq, he justified all the ridiculous sloganeering of the Muslim radicals. They said America hated all Muslims. Then we invaded a Muslim country that had nothing to do with the people that attacked us - and proved Osama bin Laden right!

Note of course that we invaded Afghanistan first, which was and is a Muslim country.

Remember that one? Oh, we can't invade Afghanistan! Remember the Soviets? It's the graveyard of armies! Alexander the Great, the British, the Russians -- we can never win! Quagmire, I tell you! QUAGMIRE! Vietnam all over again!

There were reasoned arguments for and against going to war in Iraq. Worrying about what Osama thought about the situation wasn't one of them.

[Predicto]

So are you talking abour IRAN/Syria or Tonk?

I am certainly talking about Syria. I am not sure about Iran.

The problem is that we actually DID invade Iraq for all the wrong reasons and now we have to deal with the consequences, one of which is that it is much harder to deal with Iran now without utterly destroying our relationship with 1.5 billion Muslims for the next few decades. That is part of the "cards" I was talking about.

Whoever is in charge in the US for the next few years is going to have to deal with cleaning up all the poo left on the bathroom floor by the current Administration. There is no magic cleanser out there. However, I do not think the current Admininstration should be reelected on the "I crapped on the floor so I am the only one with the expertise to clean it up" platform.

ps - What is Tonk?

[brewdogmike]

But you are painting with awfully broad strokes there brewdog.

Before I reply in detail (I'm kind of busy), I'd like to note that I was replying in broad strokes to an article in that was in even more broad strokes. An article that might has well have been written in Crayola.

[Predicto]

Note of course that we invaded Afghanistan first, which was and is a Muslim country.

Remember that one? Oh, we can't invade Afghanistan! Remember the Soviets? It's the graveyard of armies! Alexander the Great, the British, the Russians -- we can never win! Quagmire, I tell you! QUAGMIRE! Vietnam all over again!

I don't think I remember a single person saying that to me, not even here in San Francisco. That is a straw man.

There were reasoned arguments for and against going to war in Iraq. Worrying about what Osama thought about the situation wasn't one of them.

Worrying about whether or not a backlash from invading Iraq would help Osama's recruiting and strengthen the Islamic extremist movement is a matter that definitely SHOULD have gone into the decision making process, but was ignored.

[chomerics]

This is where the left is going wrong. All I feel is rage when you accuse MY president of being a terrorist. If you could approach it from a rational standpoint (i.e. -- Hmm, do you think maybe we've had to give up too much of our freedom to fight this war?) I'd be a lot more inclined to have a rational discussion. When you accuse GWB of being a terrorist, I wish he would make you fend for yourself against the real terrorists.

I did not make the connection of Bush = terrorist in the article, maybe you could point that out. If you think the bit where he states Bush terrorized America, he is not saying that Bush is a terrorist, he is stating that Bush put fear into the public to garner support for a war. That is pretty much what happened, is it not?

The author goes on to say Bush was a gift from God to Bin Laden. More overly-dramatic stupidity. Bush didn't make Muslims hate us. It's not America's fault, idiots. Bush didn't cause the invasion of Kuwait, the slaughter of the Kurds, nor the utter defiance of the LIBERAL'S BABY, the U.N. The difference was, Bush had the sack to do something about it what rogue punk nations violated U.N. mandates. That's a refreshing change from the previous administration, IMO.

What you are ignoring is the exact point he stated, Bush did EXACTLY what the nutjobs prophesied us doing. Bin Laden has always spoken of the American Imperialistic Country, where we want their land. he was NEVER, and I repeat NEVER taken seriously by any mainstream faction of Islam because quite simply, we were not over there doing what he said we were.

Now, after 9-11, we invaded a country that had nothing to do with the attack on us, and we are sitting in the loin of their motherland, which is exactly what Bin Laden said our motives were. We gave credence to his radical teachings, and it made him in to a rock star. Our actions in Iraq have INCREASED the amount of radical Muslims, because Bush played right into the hands of Bin Laden.

As far as not pursuing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, that's bunk. The 10th Mountain Division (the best qualified for that mission IN our armed forces) has spearheaded that effort from the beginning. Lest we forget, Clinton was offered Bin Laden BEFORE 3000 of my fellow Americans were butchered. Convenient we've let that go, no?

All Clinton's fault. . . please try to stay on topic. In Tora Bora, we had bin Laden cornered. It is now known that forces were removed from Afghanistan and placed towards Iraq for the invasion. This has been reported, and it is a matter of public record. If we were REALLY serious about terrorism, we would have destroyed Al Qaeda when we had a chance. We would NOT have set our eyes on Iraq until Al Qaeda was decimated. instead, we took our eye off the ball, and let them go. A colossal blunder. We had 15,000 troops in Afghanistan and over 100,000 in Iraq, that tells you where the focus was.

What is the "buffoon" supposed to do about North Korea. Hmm, UN mandates? Nope, because the liberals have already specified that reacting in anyway to their violation is unacceptable. Build another coalition of the willing? Nope, because Great Britain is one of the few other nations that's not too chicken**** to attack a threat before it occurs. Unilateral action? Oh hell no. The libs would never let the United States defend herself on her own. HOW DARE WE!!!!!

he has done absolutely nothing about N. Korea in 6 years. He has allowed them to test missiles, build nukes and everything else under the sun, and he had done absolutely nothing to stop them. You can't say it is the dems fault, because the dems are not in power, the repubs have had power for 6 years and nothing has been done about Korea. I repeat, nothing has been done. Ignore, deny ignore, that is their policy on North Korea.

Nope. The liberal solution is to sit back and criticize. The Dems are not going to win EITHER house in these next elections. Mark my words and save them for posterity. The simple reason is that THEY HAVE NO PLAN. And if they do have a plan, but they won't offer it because a Republican is president, then they just flat don't give a damn about the security of this country.

The dems have no plan? Really? Who told you that Rush? Kerry had no plan :doh: even though they ridiculed it on SNL "I have a plan" from his character. let me ask you this, what is the Bush plan? Does he have one? Is it working?

Nah, we'll sit back and watch Hillary call for Rumsfeld's resignation in a poorly constructed attempt at a political show. Let's not forget, she's jumping all over a war SHE voted for.

She did not vote for a war, NOBODY voted for a war, lest you forget. There was no vote for war, the vote was to give Bush the authority to use US forces in order to force Saddam to allow the weapons inspectors in. They gave him that power and he invaded the country. It WAS the rights war, a war they asked for, and it has ruined their party.

Does she have a better plan to fight the war? Maybe. Has she shared it? Nope. So it's one of two things. 1) She doesn't have a better plan. OR 2) She's withholding it, and allowing Americans to die, for political gain. That's it. There IS no option three.

Why do you keep saying that? have you read anything out of the dems camps? Do you have any idea what they want to do? Read up on it, you may be surprised at their plans. . .

Dissent IS the purest form of patriotism. I wholeheartedly agree. But dissent when those words were spoken the first time, included a BETTER PLAN. Without that better plan, you're just a crybaby....a crybaby who's content to let MY troops die.

They did and do have a plan, it isn't my fault you listen to the wrong people. Try listening to the leaders themselves, try looking at the bills they try to push through, instead of getting the latest soundbite off right wing radio and TV. Of course you believe they have no plan, you are supposed to believe they have no plan, that is what the right wants you to believe. Don;t you think it is a little bit naive to say they don't have a plan, when you haven't looked for one? Do some searching on some democrat sites, and see what their plan is, I can guarantee you it is not what you think.

BTW, thanks for posting a well though out response. You may be wrong on a few points, but at least you gave it the yeoman's effort

[Teller]

How about - we will do more or less the same thing that the Repubs are doing in this particular crappy situation they put our country in, but we promise not to do something so rash and ill-planned ourselves when we get in power? The cards are dealt, we have to play them, but I know better than to deal this stupid game again.

Because that is how I feel.

They. Forgetting that Bush had Congressional support? And thereby the support of many democrats, including the Golden Girl of the party? I know all the democrats up for re-election have given there teary-eyed apology speeches. (Except, to her credit, Hillary.) But they're the same ones who would've screamed, "Look how tough I am on national defense!" had everything been rosy.

Speaking of Congressional approval, how's that 90-day mission that Clinton sent us on in Bosnia WITHOUT Congressional approval going? Hmm...Ya know, the one he DID get us into without Congressional approval. "Going it alone." Flying solo for real, rather than rhetorically.

We're all frustrated, Predicto. You, me, liberals, conservatives; all of us. We all want Bin Laden. We all want Iraq to be secure and for our troops to come home. We all want the Homeland to be safe. We're all Americans.

I think the legitimate difference is, Bush is working with the military to try to correct a strategy that isn't working. The democrats are sitting back saying, "Ha, ha, you screwed up." Yeah that's great. Now if you give a damn about the country, and a war that YOU voted to go along with, help us fix it; for all of our sakes.

[chomerics]

People are not going parse tenses when they read something like this, Chom.

Joe American is going to see his religion attacked, and he is going to shut hisr ears from then on - and end up being even more steadfast in his support of this incompetent Administration that deserves no such support from the average guy.

So unless you want to only preach to the choir of liberals that already agree with you, don't do it this way.

Fair enough, I was showing you how I read the article, and I did not think he was stating that Present Christianity was line Present Islam. i do see you point that the average person would feel attacked and stop reading the article though. . .

[brewdogmike]

I don't think I remember a single person saying that to me, not even here in San Francisco. That is a straw man.

How soon they forget.

From the liberals' own websites:

Afghanistan: The Next Quagmire?

In Afghanistan, the Bush Administration is caught in a rapidly developing quagmire.

The Afghanistan Quagmire

This is just a sampling. A quick Google. Understandably, this anti-war talking point has fallen out of fashion.

[brewdogmike]

he has done absolutely nothing about N. Korea in 6 years. He has allowed them to test missiles, build nukes and everything else under the sun, and he had done absolutely nothing to stop them. You can't say it is the dems fault, because the dems are not in power, the repubs have had power for 6 years and nothing has been done about Korea. I repeat, nothing has been done. Ignore, deny ignore, that is their policy on North Korea.

We haven't got any economic leverage over North Korea, because we don't trade with them -- because they've got nothing to trade. So by "done nothing," do you mean to say that you're disappointed that we haven't invaded North Korea yet.

Maybe we should sign another treaty with them like the one Bill Clinton did, because that worked so well.

[Predicto]

How soon they forget.

From the liberals' own websites:

Afghanistan: The Next Quagmire?

In Afghanistan, the Bush Administration is caught in a rapidly developing quagmire.

The Afghanistan Quagmire

This is just a sampling. A quick Google. Understandably, this anti-war talking point has fallen out of fashion.

It was out of fashion the day it was made. Basically, the whole country supported the invasion of Afganistan, liberal and conservative alike. A few articles by Quaker-types don't change that reality. In fact, the whole world was pretty much ok with it too, even France. Nice try.

Everything changed when we took our inexplicable right turn into Iraq. Trying to justify the Iraq invasion by falsely asserting that those who think the Iraq war was a mistake have opposed all military actions is patently wrong.

[Predicto]

We're all frustrated, Predicto. You, me, liberals, conservatives; all of us. We all want Bin Laden. We all want Iraq to be secure and for our troops to come home. We all want the Homeland to be safe. We're all Americans.

I think the legitimate difference is, Bush is working with the military to try to correct a strategy that isn't working. The democrats are sitting back saying, "Ha, ha, you screwed up." Yeah that's great. Now if you give a damn about the country, and a war that YOU voted to go along with, help us fix it; for all of our sakes.

Do you really think that the current Adminstration is going to let Democrats "help to fix" the problem this Administration created and that no one really knows how to fix?

Do you really think that the Democrats who voted to authorize military action in Iraq had all the information the Administration had at that time about the reality of the "threat" Iraq posed?

Most importantly, do you think there should be any consequences in a democracy when a ruling party does a lousy job? Should they be reelected?

[Predicto]

We haven't got any economic leverage over North Korea, because we don't trade with them -- because they've got nothing to trade. So by "done nothing," do you mean to say that you're disappointed that we haven't invaded North Korea yet.

Maybe we should sign another treaty with them like the one Bill Clinton did, because that worked so well.

I agree with you on this point. North Korea is a huge problem because they have nothing to trade, they are run by a nutcase, and they are really close to China (and relations with China DO matter).

It was a huge problem for Bush Sr., and for Clinton, and for Bush Jr. alike.

[Teller]

I did not make the connection of Bush = terrorist in the article, maybe you could point that out. If you think the bit where he states Bush terrorized America, he is not saying that Bush is a terrorist, he is stating that Bush put fear into the public to garner support for a war. That is pretty much what happened, is it not?

"Then Bush helped their terror campaign by terrorizing the population here in America with his constant fear mongering for political reasons."

People who commit acts of terror are terrorists. If you say someone essentially aided and abetted known terrorists, which the above statement does, and say someone terrorized the American people, which this statement does, you are calling that person a terrorist. And no, that is unequivocally NOT what happened.

It frustrates me to no end that you always play the semantics game when you have no other point to make. I'll point this theme out again later.

What you are ignoring is the exact point he stated, Bush did EXACTLY what the nutjobs prophesied us doing. Bin Laden has always spoken of the American Imperialistic Country, where we want their land. he was NEVER, and I repeat NEVER taken seriously by any mainstream faction of Islam because quite simply, we were not over there doing what he said we were.

Now, after 9-11, we invaded a country that had nothing to do with the attack on us, and we are sitting in the loin of their motherland, which is exactly what Bin Laden said our motives were. We gave credence to his radical teachings, and it made him in to a rock star. Our actions in Iraq have INCREASED the amount of radical Muslims, because Bush played right into the hands of Bin Laden.

Yep, setting up a sovreign government and returning as much control to them as quickly as possible is REAL imperialistic. If we wanted Iraq, it would be ours right now. Period.

But surprise, when people feel threatened, they're more likely to become defensive. This was a gross underestimation by the administration, I fully admit that. But you and I know that the closer a perceived threat comes to you, the more defensive you get.

That's why the people in Iran are tense right now. Same with Syria. They're thinking, "Hmm...Our governments are a lot like Iraq's. Should we be worried?" If you want to call that the U.S. encouraging Al Qaeda recruitment, fine.

All Clinton's fault. . . please try to stay on topic. In Tora Bora, we had bin Laden cornered. It is now known that forces were removed from Afghanistan and placed towards Iraq for the invasion. This has been reported, and it is a matter of public record. If we were REALLY serious about terrorism, we would have destroyed Al Qaeda when we had a chance. We would NOT have set our eyes on Iraq until Al Qaeda was decimated. instead, we took our eye off the ball, and let them go. A colossal blunder. We had 15,000 troops in Afghanistan and over 100,000 in Iraq, that tells you where the focus was.

Cornered? Cornered? We were OFFERED Bin Laden, who was IN CUSTODY during the Clinton Administration. PRE 9/11!!!! You can't screw that up! But he did! Again, if you want to equate that to "someone is in this 50 mile region of rugged terrain of mountains and caves that he knows and we don't," fine.

he has done absolutely nothing about N. Korea in 6 years. He has allowed them to test missiles, build nukes and everything else under the sun, and he had done absolutely nothing to stop them. You can't say it is the dems fault, because the dems are not in power, the repubs have had power for 6 years and nothing has been done about Korea. I repeat, nothing has been done. Ignore, deny ignore, that is their policy on North Korea.

We would've shot their missile down had it posed a threat and not crashed. Your party has already made it clear that preemption where WMD's are concerned is unacceptable. But you KNOW N. Korea has nukes right? Funny, I didn't see anyone questioning Saddam's WMD's either...from your UN, to the MAJORITY of your dems in Congress.

The dems have no plan? Really? Who told you that Rush? Kerry had no plan :doh: even though they ridiculed it on SNL "I have a plan" from his character. let me ask you this, what is the Bush plan? Does he have one? Is it working?

The joke was "I have a plan" but he never explained it. He referred people to a website, which I visited, and ALSO didn't explain it. When he did come up with a plan, it changed depending on his audience.

I've already admitted Bush has made mistakes. They underestimated the resistance greatly. They're working to correct that. A simple solution would be carpet bombing like we used to in war. But you guys can't hack a single civilian casualty.

There will be increases and decreases in troop level as necessary in Iraq. The President has said this. Troops will also be redeployed more effectively to account for "hot spots" as commanders on the ground see fit. The president has said this. The plan is to "adapt and overcome" in military terms. You're just bitter because it's not "quit and pullout."

For the record, sir, I haven't listened to Rush since his TV show was cancelled about 15 years ago. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm a lemming. That's another of your famous tools. "You disagree with me, so some conservative with a bullhorn is telling you what to think." Argue issues. (IF YOU CAN!)

She did not vote for a war, NOBODY voted for a war, lest you forget. There was no vote for war, the vote was to give Bush the authority to use US forces in order to force Saddam to allow the weapons inspectors in. They gave him that power and he invaded the country. It WAS the rights war, a war they asked for, and it has ruined their party.

If I authorize you to punch me in the face and you do, shame on me. Same deal here.

Why do you keep saying that? have you read anything out of the dems camps? Do you have any idea what they want to do? Read up on it, you may be surprised at their plans. . .

They did and do have a plan, it isn't my fault you listen to the wrong people. Try listening to the leaders themselves, try looking at the bills they try to push through, instead of getting the latest soundbite off right wing radio and TV. Of course you believe they have no plan, you are supposed to believe they have no plan, that is what the right wants you to believe. Don;t you think it is a little bit naive to say they don't have a plan, when you haven't looked for one? Do some searching on some democrat sites, and see what their plan is, I can guarantee you it is not what you think.

It's non-existent. I listen to C-SPAN RADIO for a MINIMUM of 2-hours a day to and from work. Ya know, only broadcasting what the leaders say with NO commentary. Not only do they have no plan and constantly criticize republicans, your answer is "listen to them instead of the pundits" which is what I do EVERYDAY.

I called you on it. You have no answer. I've listened to them. They have no answer. That answers my question.

BTW, thanks for posting a well though out response. You may be wrong on a few points, but at least you gave it the yeoman's effort

I try. But is you, sir, who are wrong.

[DCsportsfan53]

I'm not a history expert, but I also know firebrand preacher men like John Edwards went to the Indians and lived with them and helpded them for quite a while.

definitely the exception, not the rule. Widespread forced conversion to christianity, de-vauling of their lives because they weren't christian, mass slaughter and near extinction, yeah, it's maybe more an American legacy than a Christian one but there's a LOT of christianity tied up in it, too.

Having said that, it's not the religion's fault, it's the people who chose to interpret it the way they did.

[Cdowwe]

I think he nails it. . .

Thoughts?

Poor attempt at attacking Christians, but I wouldnt expect anything less of you Chom. Thoughts? Since when was Hitler a Christian? Christians started WWI?

[Seabee1973]

my bad, it was from one of the Young Turks. . .

link

bunch of garbage