Congratulations to the dems

And the meaning of is, is:

We are not at war with Muslims, even if we were, it would not give license to sneer at the whole Muslim community. To do so makes you prejudice against a people because of their religion or Arabs who wear turbans.

Then who the heck are we fighting?

Right now? We are fighting insurgents of an unprovoked country in Iraq and half way still fighting the unfinished effort in Afghanistan.

My point is that not all Muslims are part of terrorist groups and for the ones who may be part of terrorist groups, it still does not give us permission to sneer at the customs of Islam or Arabs as a whole without being prejudiced against a person for their beliefs or customs of where they come from. Its not that complicated to understand.

shiksa, your post range from the generally inane to the utmost in stupidity but don't stop, we need your entertainment value.

So, next time you fly out of Detroit, you can take great pride in the fact they aren't profiling based on the fact you might be an Islamic terrorist.

Pity more Muslims don't share many of your racist hating views.

Holocaust cartoons

You wouldn't be able to recognize truth if it smacked you in the head. The fact that a freakshow finds my posts "stupid" isn't the least bit surprising.

The fact, that your posts "range from the generally inane to the utmost in stupidity" is well supported by the facts.

Spin, spin, spin. Rewrite history while you're at it JT.

Who? Are you responding to JTT cj? Why would you do such a thing?

What's your point? Because one (or more) person(s) displays prejudice it somehow makes it ok for everybody to do it?

For every Muslim mocking the holocaust or Jews you can find just as many people mocking Muslims or Arabs; its like the new thing for old KKK types because they can make it acceptable to hate by blaming it on 9/11 and the war on terror.

I was extremely pleased when the US was dragged into the Second World War, as I said had that not occurred Britain and Europe would probably be marching to the beat of a different drum today.
"The greatest country in the world!" You got that wrong, your President reintroduced the barbaric practice of torture, he imprisons people without charge and transports others, under a system he calls rendition, to third world countries to be tortured and mistreated … not only that he spies on his own citizens and has usurped American democracy with a system called the "Patriot Act." … The majority of American citizens are decent God fearing souls who want only peace and freedom for the world … They are still around I know they will prevail as was proved by the very recent elections ... It is blatantly obvious that you are not one of them!
God change America!

True, but an awful lot of them also work for Lockheed Martin...

If we have a system for torturing people, why would we need to export any prisoner to any third world nation to be tortured? Surely American torture is far superior simply based on the fact that it is American.

Why is that anton?

Your government, like the cowards they are, don't torture prisoners in the US, they do it in Guantanamo Bay, Egypt and former eastern block countries... they're setting a precedent that gives potential enemies the excuse to torture US military personnel and that is just not on, if I were an American citizen, for that reason alone, I would be condemning my government not trying to defend it.
America was a country to admire and respect before Bush and his neo-conservatives took it on the road to barbarism now it is the most hated national administration on the face of this earth and those of us who once respected the US hope and pray that it will shake off the chains of tyranny and return to the fold of a civilized society.

Remember it is a very fine line between patriotism and terrorism, just be sure you are on the righteous side of that line?

You said "your President reintroduced the barbaric practice of torture," yet we don't actually torture anyone?

Huh. Let me ask you something about sending people to Egypt... What would you suppose would happen if we sent an Egyptian national to Guantanamo Bay? The Egyptian government would probably be mad. So, instead we send them back to Egypt. Now, if you have an issue with Egyptian customs and law, I woudl suggest you take that up with them as Bush has little influence of the laws and customs in Egypt. Maybe you could share some of your scorn with the Egyptians. Start a thread about how evil Mubarak is or something.

Do you know the difference between a prisoner of war and an illegal combatant? One is protected by the rules and regulations of the Geneva Conventions, the other isn't.

I doubt that todays enemies of America really care about the Geneva Conventions and will most likely do as they please with any prisoner they capture. Examine the barbarity going on in Itaq now with the hostage bodies being found on a nearly daily occurance. Not exactly being treated with kid gloves.

The public finally wised up to the faux Republican populists.


^11/13/06: True Blue Populists

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Senator George Allen of Virginia is understandably shocked and despond-
ent. Just a year ago, a National Review cover story declared that his "down-
home persona" made him "quite possibly the next president of the United
States." Instead, his political career seems over.

And it wasn't just macaca, or even the war, that brought him down. Mr.
Allen, a reliable defender of the interests of the economic elite, found
himself facing an opponent who made a point of talking about the problem
of rising inequality. And the tobacco-chewing, football-throwing,
tax-cutting, Social Security-privatizing senator was only one of many
faux populists defeated by real populists last Tuesday.

Ever since movement conservatives took over, the Republican Party has
pushed for policies that benefit a small minority of wealthy Americans
at the expense of the great majority of voters. To hide this reality,
conservatives have relied on wagging the dog and wedge issues, but
they've also relied on a brilliant marketing campaign that portrays
Democrats as elitists and Republicans as representatives of the average
American.

This sleight of hand depends on shifting the focus from policy to
personal style: John Kerry speaks French and windsurfs, so pay no
attention to his plan to roll back tax cuts for the wealthy and use the
proceeds to make health care affordable.

This year, however, the American people wised up.

True to form, some reporters still seem to be falling for the
conservative spin. "If it walks, talks like a conservative, can it be a
Dem?" asked the headline on a CNN.com story featuring a photo of
Senator-elect Jon Tester of Montana. In other words, if a Democrat
doesn't fit the right-wing caricature of a liberal, he must be a
conservative.

But as Robin Toner and Kate Zernike of The New York Times pointed out
yesterday, what actually characterizes the new wave of Democrats is a
"strong streak of economic populism."

Look at Mr. Tester's actual policy positions: yes to an increase in the
minimum wage; no to Social Security privatization; we need to "stand up
to big drug companies" and have Medicare negotiate for lower prices; we
should "stand up to big insurance companies and support a health care
plan that makes health care affordable for all Montanans."

So what, aside from his flattop haircut, makes Mr. Tester a conservative?
O.K., he supports gun rights. But on economic issues he's clearly left of
center, not just compared with the current Senate, but compared with
current Democratic senators. The same can be said of many other victorious
Democrats, including Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, Sheldon Whitehouse
in Rhode Island, and Sherrod Brown in Ohio. All of these candidates ran
on unabashedly populist platforms, and won.

What about Joe Lieberman? Like shipwreck survivors clinging to flotsam,
some have seized on his reelection as proof of Americans' continuing
conservatism. But Mr. Lieberman won only through denial and deception,
for example, by rewriting the history of his once-fervent support for
the Iraq war and Donald Rumsfeld. He got two-thirds of the Republican
vote, but managed to confuse enough Democrats about his positions to get
over the top.

Last week's populist wave, among other things, vindicates the populist
direction that Al Gore took in the closing months of the 2000 campaign.
But will this wave be reflected in the actual direction of the
Democratic Party?

Not necessarily. Quite a few sitting Democrats have shown themselves
nearly as willing as Republicans to bow to corporate interests. Consider
the vote on last year's draconian bankruptcy bill. Mr. Lieberman voted
for cloture, cutting off debate and ensuring the bill's passage; then he
voted against the bill, a meaningless gesture that let him have it both
ways. Thirteen other Democratic senators also voted for cloture,
including Joe Biden, who has just announced his candidacy for president.

The first big test of the new Democratic populism will come over reform
of the 2003 prescription drug law. Democrats have pledged to repeal the
clause in that law preventing Medicare from negotiating lower drug
prices. But the fine print of how they do that is crucial: Medicare
reform could be a mere symbolic gesture, or it could be a real reform
that eliminates the huge implicit subsidies the program currently gives
drug and insurance companies.

Are the newly invigorated Democrats ready to offer a real change in this
country's direction? We'll know in a few months.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

To avoid accountability? We also export them to third world nations where we have our own secret prisons. Just because they are abroad doesn't mean they aren't ours.

Just a thought.

Sometimes, McGentrix you really take the prize in being deliberately simple minded.

The Geneva Convention prohibits torture or degradation, in places like those who we have shipped off to secret prisons they might chop off their heads or hands. Americans might accept waterboarding (which would technically be against the GC) and some Americans accept humiliation of prisoners which is also against the GC, but they would draw the line at out right murder to chopping off someone's hand across the board. (Except for maybe certain folks like those here)

In other words they have tried to legitimize those actions they think they can get away with and the rest have out ported.

They did by saying George Bush or another president (one wonders if you all would be so accepting if it Hillary as commander in chief)gets to interpret the Geneva Convention as he sees fit