Obama '08?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

In contrast, I find most Republicans or at least conservatives to be independent minded as individuals, and we vote almost entirely based upon political views and perception of leadership ability, as well as character being crucial.

Hahha, right, right.

You are talking about the group who made it their mission to demonize Muslim and Arab people over the last several years.

Uhhh, earth to cyclops, I am not aware of Republicans making it their mission to demonize Muslims or Arabs, unless you might be referring to criticism of Muslim religious groups and leaders not being all that engaged in condemning terrorist groups, or perhaps you are referring to criticism of Muslims oppressing women, etc.? Are you trying to say that Muslims and Arabs are above any criticism whatsoever? And are we supposed to look the other way when terrorist groups are tied to Muslim or Arab organizations? Fact is, George Bush has made it this country's mission to liberate millions of Muslims and Arabs from oppression.

Quote:

The group who has harassed those of other sexualities and religions constantly. The group which has exactly zero representatives or congressmen who are Black and very few who are any form of minority in this country.

uhh, earth to cyclops, who is the secretary of state right now, and who nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, and who opposed him? And which party has been demonizing the so-called "religious right" for the past 20 years or more? I am fully in favor of religious freedom, and it is the politically correct left that is advocating the limitations of religious speech, etc. And who is harassing sexualities, cyclops, that is a new one you are coming up with now?

Quote:

It's the picture of tolerance and independence. You all just independently happen to be doing and thinking the exact same thing at the same time

Cycloptichorn

If we could do and think the same, we could have actually accomplished alot more in Congress when we had the numbers. And how many candidates did we have in the primaries, cyclops, several in case you forgot, and they split the vote among several for quite a while until McCain emerged, and to this day many people do not support McCain even though he claims to be a conservative. You are kidding yourself on alot of stuff and you have simply bought the Democratic line. We are not a ubiquitous group of people, far far from it.

In regard to tolerance, I have no idea what you are talking about, but if you are talking about me placing my stamp of approval on homosexual behavior, no I do not, I don't think the lifestyle is beneficial to anyone, not to society, and not to the people practicing it. If anyone wants to practice it, that is their business and they can do it and it matters not to me, but beyond that, society has no obligation to sanction it as normal no more than it does to sanction alot of other things that are abnormal.

0 Replies

Quote:

Uhhh, earth to cyclops, I am not aware of Republicans making it their mission to demonize Muslims or Arabs

LOL

Where have you been the last several years?

Your media icons have been doing exactly that. As have your representatives in office.

I can't be bothered with the rest of your post, this first line is just too much.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Uhhh, earth to cyclops, I am not aware of Republicans making it their mission to demonize Muslims or Arabs

LOL

Where have you been the last several years?

Your media icons have been doing exactly that. As have your representatives in office.

I can't be bothered with the rest of your post, this first line is just too much.

Cycloptichorn

If you can come up with one credible example, you deserve a medal. Valid criticism is not demonization. If you can cite one example of criticism that is not founded upon reason and evidence, I would like to see it. I doubt very seriously you can. I've never personally seen or read any coming from any important political figures or representatives of the conservative movement, and I read quite a bit.

In terms of demonization, who has been more demonized than George Bush. In fact I heard a caller to a talk show last night say he wished Bush would die of a heart attack because Bush is evil. I ask, who gave that person that mindset, it is the left, by the likes of socialist / communist sympathizer Michael Moore, who was given a prominent seat at the last DNC. It is your party that is in never never land, cyclops, and you know it.

0 Replies

Just goes to show okie has myopia.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/02/01/islamophobia/

http://fitnessfortheoccasion.wordpress.com/2007/12/30/republicans-eliminating-muslims/

http://www.jewcy.com/cabal/muslim_now_available_insult_form

http://www.ilaam.net/Articles/DreamOfAntiIslam.html

http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?mid1=676&&ArticleID=24066&&name=n&&currPage=1

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1199279523205&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout

This proves to me, at least, that okie has myopia when it comes to his own party.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Just goes to show okie has myopia.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/02/01/islamophobia/

http://fitnessfortheoccasion.wordpress.com/2007/12/30/republicans-eliminating-muslims/

http://www.jewcy.com/cabal/muslim_now_available_insult_form

http://www.ilaam.net/Articles/DreamOfAntiIslam.html

http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?mid1=676&&ArticleID=24066&&name=n&&currPage=1

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1199279523205&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout

This proves to me, at least, that okie has myopia when it comes to his own party.

I had a very long explanation written, one paragraph for each site, but lost it all when my connection had timed out, ci. Have you ever had that happen? I tried to back up and copy the post to re-enter after logging in again, but it was lost. Rather than repeating all of that process, suffice it to say I looked at every one of your links, and in my opinion, they have nothing to do with any demonization, but merely are opinions based upon the fact that politicians have recognized and have discussed the problem of terrorism and its connections to a radical form of Islamic fascism.

Surely nobody can deny some kind of connection to the religion, whether it be direct or indirect, which has been debated from every angle. This makes other Muslims uncomfortable, and as it should, just as if a large number of radical Catholics from the Middle East should advocate suicide bombings and the elimination of the U.S., we would also be having a discussion about that group of people that would make other Catholics uneasy. The powers that be in the Catholic Church would probably very forcefully condemn that group of people, and the same should happen in the Islamic religion of today. It is debatable whether that has happened.

In any case, it is not a case of demonization, but a simple case of discussing real problems in the real world. There is no concerted effort to demonize the Islamic religion, beyond trying to figure out how the puzzle all fits together between terrorists and the religion and its cultures and elements in various places. We know that only a very very small percentage of Muslims are violent, but there is another slightly larger but still minority percentage that are not violent but do not openly condemn the violence and may instead support it in subliminal ways, either through the governments in various countries, or in mosques in various places.

In any case, all of the sites were really nothing more than opinions based on what certain people think, and there was no evidence cited in regard to anything said by any Republican that can prove any concerted plan to demonize the Islamic religion. Both Democrats and Republicans have discussed terrorists and radical Islam, so this is not a partisan issue, nor should it be. If I had the time and desire, I am sure I could dig up a multitude of quotes of things said about this by Democrats to argue that they are demonizing Muslims, which would also be senseless.

0 Replies

You're still blind to bigotry; there is no group, none, that are in total dangerous or terrorists.

You're probably still too young to remember history, but during WWII, we were put into US concentration camps with barbed wire fence and watch towers because we "looked" like the enemy. Most of us were American born and citizens of this country.

Your racial bigotry is showing, and I hate all manners of bigots.

0 Replies

Okie ignores the fact that Dominionists and Fundamentalist Christians believe a war with Islaam will bring about the second coming of Christ... just listen to the dreck that Hagee fellow spewed out, and remember that McCain campaigned and fought for his vote...

From CI's first link

Quote:

Giuliani was also hurt when the co-chair of his veterans' campaign in New Hampshire, John Deady praised Giuliani for being able to stop "the rise of the Muslims," an effort necessary to continue, he said, until "we defeat them or chase them back to their caves, or, in other words, get rid of them." When asked if he was really condemning all members of the religion, Deady replied, "I don't subscribe to the principle that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims. They're all Muslims." Deady was forced to resign after a video of his remarks was put on the web by the Guardian. Other Giuliani advisors have had some bigoted things to say about Muslims as well. Rep. Peter King of New York complained that "unfortunately we have too many mosques in this country." Daniel Pipes, a professional Islamophobe advising Giuliani, once said it would be dangerous to let American Muslims vote.

Okie, you say that there is no evidence of a 'concerted plan' to demonize Muslims. That's a ridiculous thing to say. It's not like there's some Republican strategy document sitting around outlining how whipping up anti-muslim sentiment is good for scaring up votes. It's more in the constant comments coming from your section of the isle.

How about when your side complained about Keith Ellison taking his oath of office on the Koran?

How about the fundamentalist Republicans who shouted down the first Hindu to give the opening prayer to Congress?

How about Tom Delay, announcing at a prayer breakfast for the Tsunami casualties a few years back, that those who didn't believe in the JC deserved to have their lives taken?

Why do you and others insist on writing 'Barack Hussein Obama?' Obvious in an attempt to point out his Muslim nature, as if it is somehow lessening, or insulting.

I could go on, but I won't, it doesn't matter anyways; you've blinded yourself to the bigotry in your own party.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

You're still blind to bigotry; there is no group, none, that are in total dangerous or terrorists.

You're probably still too young to remember history, but during WWII, we were put into US concentration camps with barbed wire fence and watch towers because we "looked" like the enemy. Most of us were American born and citizens of this country.

Your racial bigotry is showing, and I hate all manners of bigots.

You are making a serious charge, ci, and one that I think you know better of. I will be waiting for an apology.

I am too young to remember WWII personally, but I have read about, and I have actually visited the site of one camp in Colorado, and I am sure you know that it was a Democratic administration that placed tens of thousands in concentration camps.

I have a question. If a person mentions the term, "radical Muslims" or radical Islamic fascists," is that person a bigot? You have lost your mind, ci, if you think doing so indicates that a person is "demonizing" the Islamic religion, or demonizing all people that worship Mohammed or recognize him as their prophet. You have also lost your mind if you think that all people who do things in the name of a religion are benign and therefore exempt from any criticism whatsoever. You are essentially sticking your head into the sand and ignoring reality. If certain brands of religious people are doing bad things, such as trying to kill you, I don't think it is wise to ignore it or pretend that it has no connection to some kind of religious fanaticism.

To be clear, I happen to think that most evil is conducted by evil people that may use religion to justify their ends. However, inasmuch as socalled religious leaders do not condemn and may actually condone actions by terrorists, we need to address the problem, not ignore it. Evil is evil, and if there is a religious component, then it is reality, and I think it is pretty much a proven fact that there is, example Osama Bin Laden. Whether he is religious or not, I actually doubt it, but he is using it to further his aims, he may think he is doing Allah's bidding, and inasmuch as Islamic leaders do not more forcefully condemn him and his ilk, then this needs to be recognized.

ci, it is my belief that liberals want so strongly to believe that everyone is nice, the world is okay, and evil does not exist, that you tend to gloss over the realities of the world. Nobody has to demonize anything to make it evil, if it is already evil. Reputations are earned.

I have not heard any leaders or important figures in the Republican Party claim that the entire Islamic religion or that all Muslims are trying to perpetrate evil or whatever. I think reasonable people are careful to frame their statements with as much accuracy as they understand, that there is a religious connection to terrorist groups. Again, if you can find any quotes, or if cyclops can find any quotes that prove me wrong, then give it a try. So far, I haven's seen any.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Okie ignores the fact that Dominionists and Fundamentalist Christians believe a war with Islaam will bring about the second coming of Christ... just listen to the dreck that Hagee fellow spewed out, and remember that McCain campaigned and fought for his vote...

From CI's first link

Quote:

Giuliani was also hurt when the co-chair of his veterans' campaign in New Hampshire, John Deady praised Giuliani for being able to stop "the rise of the Muslims," an effort necessary to continue, he said, until "we defeat them or chase them back to their caves, or, in other words, get rid of them." When asked if he was really condemning all members of the religion, Deady replied, "I don't subscribe to the principle that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims. They're all Muslims." Deady was forced to resign after a video of his remarks was put on the web by the Guardian. Other Giuliani advisors have had some bigoted things to say about Muslims as well. Rep. Peter King of New York complained that "unfortunately we have too many mosques in this country." Daniel Pipes, a professional Islamophobe advising Giuliani, once said it would be dangerous to let American Muslims vote.

Okie, you say that there is no evidence of a 'concerted plan' to demonize Muslims. That's a ridiculous thing to say. It's not like there's some Republican strategy document sitting around outlining how whipping up anti-muslim sentiment is good for scaring up votes.

Thanks for admitting you overstated your accusation.

Quote:

It's more in the constant comments coming from your section of the isle.

Constant comments? Hardly, cyclops.

Quote:

How about when your side complained about Keith Ellison taking his oath of office on the Koran?

I am not complaining real loud, but if the percentage became a majority cyclops, I would be worried, given the oppression of women and other elements of countries that are predominantly Islamic.

Quote:

How about the fundamentalist Republicans who shouted down the first Hindu to give the opening prayer to Congress?

I don't know, I don't know how many you are talking about. Perhaps it was out of line, I haven't heard about it.

Quote:

How about Tom Delay, announcing at a prayer breakfast for the Tsunami casualties a few years back, that those who didn't believe in the JC deserved to have their lives taken?

That is an example of a stupid statement, cyclops, I would give you a point on that one, if you are reporting it accurately. I have said this before, that there are religious hustlers out there, and there are many sprinkled in the Christian religion.

Quote:

Why do you and others insist on writing 'Barack Hussein Obama?' Obvious in an attempt to point out his Muslim nature, as if it is somehow lessening, or insulting.

I could go on, but I won't, it doesn't matter anyways; you've blinded yourself to the bigotry in your own party.

Cycloptichorn

I've never written his name that way, but if I did, that is his name, get over it. If it is insulting, I did not create the impression that it is an insult. It is obviously a result of Saddam Hussein, a particular person, not the Middle Eastern origin of the name that is creating it. What if John McCain's middle name was Adolph? Would the insulting impression be in regard to Adolph Hitler or that Adolph was German name? So if John McCain did not wish to be called John Adolph McCain, then he should change his name, and same with Obama. If he likes his name, then keep it, but he shouldn't mind then if someone uses it.

Cyclops, you guys love to throw around bigotry accusations, but you need to step back and take a deep breath of reality.

0 Replies

Okay, let's do that; the reality is that Republicans have on occasion (the frequency is arguable) used anti-muslim words and imagery to either scare voters or to promote their agenda.

You ought to be able to admit that.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Frankly I would like not to be accused of being racist if I use the President's actual name.

0 Replies

Voters are not dumb, cyclops. To be accurate, I would not be enthusiastic about an Islamic majority in the U.S. Would you? I don't think it would bode well for our future. And most Americans would think the same way, especially given our Judeo-Christian heritage. If my neighbor is Muslim and he or she is a good neighbor, I would have no problem whatsoever. I am 100% in favor of religious freedom, but embedded in the Islamic faith is an element of very strict adherence, and part of the belief is that the government should also be governed according to the Islamic religion. I am not in favor of that. Are you?

I am quite interested in retaining the form of government that we currently have, and I am not sure that a predominantly Islamic country would be. I doubt it seriously. If you call that demonization, you are dilusional. It is merely my opinion, which is probably held by the majority of people in this country, Democrat and Republican alike. And I think most people clearly understand that people of the Islamic faith are good law abiding citizens, but voting for a majority of such in government may not be their preference. It would depend upon the individual candidates.

To be clear, it has nothing to do with bigotry, but it has to do with agreement on issues. I hate nobody, but I don't disagree with nobody, far from it. Because I don't want to vote for a Muslim for high office has nothing to do with bigotry, but more because of our political and philosophical views and convictions.

You mentioned Keith Ellison. Ellison may be an okay person, but I doubt I would vote for him, because of his views, which I only know about in a very casual way. He has been tied to anti-Semitic views, and he probably has a very different view of the world than I do. And you would surely admit you may vote for or against lots of people because of their views, which may spring from their religious convictions. I get the impression you don't vote for very religious Christians, I could be wrong? Are you bigoted? I doubt it, I just think you have your opinions, same as anybody.

0 Replies

Quote:

He has been tied to anti-Semitic views, and he probably has a very different view of the world than I do.

Care to expound on this? Seeing as Ellison is a Semite himself, I have a hard time believing that this is true.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
He has been tied to anti-Semitic views, and he probably has a very different view of the world than I do.

Care to expound on this? Seeing as Ellison is a Semite himself, I have a hard time believing that this is true.

Cycloptichorn

I am not familiar with Ellison, cyclops. All I can give you is do a search on his name and anti-semitic, and alot comes up. I am not inclined to argue over it, but suffice it to say he is a controversial congressman, of questionable philosophy, and if I lived in his district, I would have to be convinced more than I am now to vote for him, thats for sure.

This quote from the following site, which sounds like it is expressing reasonable skepticism of his views:

"Indeed, although he has since denied it, Ellison was involved with NOI for ten long years. In that time, he participated in NOI rallies, including the Million Man March hate fest; he defended NOI hate speech; and he used such NOI aliases as Keith Hakim, Keith X Ellison, and Keith Ellison-Muhammad.

Ellison's written denouncement of NOI and its representatives was welcome, but his actions after the message was sent were highly suspicious."

http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=3A78305E-B13D-44A4-B452-A7166532ACC7

0 Replies

Yeah, Front Page Mag is where I turn to for the straight dope on everything.

Rolling Eyes

C'mon, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Attack the messenger, if you can't argue the point. The point being was Ellison involved with Nation of Islam, and did that organization hold controversial views, such as anti-semitic views? If a person belongs to an organization, it usually means something. Maybe you think it means nothing? I have no idea how your mind works. That is why Obama had to finally resign from his church, the church held many controversial views, that he claims now he does not agree with, but ?????? It is our job to make the judgement.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
You're still blind to bigotry; there is no group, none, that are in total dangerous or terrorists.

You're probably still too young to remember history, but during WWII, we were put into US concentration camps with barbed wire fence and watch towers because we "looked" like the enemy. Most of us were American born and citizens of this country.

Your racial bigotry is showing, and I hate all manners of bigots.

You are making a serious charge, ci, and one that I think you know better of. I will be waiting for an apology.

I am too young to remember WWII personally, but I have read about, and I have actually visited the site of one camp in Colorado, and I am sure you know that it was a Democratic administration that placed tens of thousands in concentration camps.

I have a question. If a person mentions the term, "radical Muslims" or radical Islamic fascists," is that person a bigot? You have lost your mind, ci, if you think doing so indicates that a person is "demonizing" the Islamic religion, or demonizing all people that worship Mohammed or recognize him as their prophet. You have also lost your mind if you think that all people who do things in the name of a religion are benign and therefore exempt from any criticism whatsoever. You are essentially sticking your head into the sand and ignoring reality. If certain brands of religious people are doing bad things, such as trying to kill you, I don't think it is wise to ignore it or pretend that it has no connection to some kind of religious fanaticism.

To be clear, I happen to think that most evil is conducted by evil people that may use religion to justify their ends. However, inasmuch as socalled religious leaders do not condemn and may actually condone actions by terrorists, we need to address the problem, not ignore it. Evil is evil, and if there is a religious component, then it is reality, and I think it is pretty much a proven fact that there is, example Osama Bin Laden. Whether he is religious or not, I actually doubt it, but he is using it to further his aims, he may think he is doing Allah's bidding, and inasmuch as Islamic leaders do not more forcefully condemn him and his ilk, then this needs to be recognized.

ci, it is my belief that liberals want so strongly to believe that everyone is nice, the world is okay, and evil does not exist, that you tend to gloss over the realities of the world. Nobody has to demonize anything to make it evil, if it is already evil. Reputations are earned.

I have not heard any leaders or important figures in the Republican Party claim that the entire Islamic religion or that all Muslims are trying to perpetrate evil or whatever. I think reasonable people are careful to frame their statements with as much accuracy as they understand, that there is a religious connection to terrorist groups. Again, if you can find any quotes, or if cyclops can find any quotes that prove me wrong, then give it a try. So far, I haven's seen any.

Using the word "radical" says nothing except to identify a certain group that usually includes the whole; "Radical christians" doesn't speak about all christians, but the repeated use of "radical Muslims" usually has a different meaning to most Americans. That you are incapable of understanding these "niceties" shows your complete ignorance of this issue.

Cyclo has shown this inference from the links he provided; nothing will change your perception except you show your conservative bigotry well.

0 Replies

When the messenger is a known liar, it's perfectly appropriate to question your quotation of them.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

When the messenger is a known liar, it's perfectly appropriate to question your quotation of them.

Cycloptichorn

Thats what I did for the entire Clinton administration, cyclops, and that is why I am becoming a more fierce opponent of Obama. I don't think he is being straight with the voters.

To tell you the truth, I am not even familiar with Front Page, but I have run across it from time to time, and what I have read seems fairly logical and accurate. I can't vouch for it 100% because I have no idea who is running it, but the point is was Ellison involved with the organization it said he was, yes or no. If you can't say it is wrong on this point, then you lose, and I think it is highly probable you have lost.