Obama endorses the Ground Zero mosque

[sjw]

You just called him a coward and in a cowardly way.

I think the movie as a whole would give him a good perspective on all this, I did not have in mind cowardice, there is a lot more going on in that movie. I guess everything else in it went over your head?

[sjw]

Two more Lew Rockwell pieces on this. I haven't read them yet:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/raimondo/raimondo95.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/combs2.1.1.html

[Brant Gaede]

You just called him a coward and in a cowardly way.

I think the movie as a whole would give him a good perspective on all this, I did not have in mind cowardice, there is a lot more going on in that movie. I guess everything else in it went over your head?

I stated a fact and you reply with a jejune insult. If you didn't have cowardice in mind you needed a better formulation for your thoughts. The "decent" townsfolk cowing in church when the bad guys come to town to be dealt with by the courageous, duty-bound lawman is the literal leitmotif of the allegory.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Two more Lew Rockwell pieces on this. I haven't read them yet:

http://www.lewrockwe...raimondo95.html

http://www.lewrockwe...combs2.1.1.html

Pretty good rants of this type. JR is a ranter supremo.

--Brant

[sjw]

I stated a fact and you reply with a jejune insult.

You don't have direct access to my motives, it's no "fact" that I cowardly accused him of being a coward.

Speaking of motives, what is yours? Since you speculate on mine let me guess on yours: You disagree with my comments in this thread, but you know that if you face any of my arguments directly you will not be able to deal with them, so you cowardly toss in an ad hominem instead, like a little kid throwing rocks and then running behind his mommy's skirt.

[sjw]

Pretty good rants of this type. JR is a ranter supremo.

Calling something a rant neither calls it wrong nor provides arguments against it.

[sjw]

Robert Tracinski, editor of TIA, has this to say about it (latest TIA daily):

"Which is part of the reason why I wish all politicians, on both sides, would please shut up about it. The other reason I wish they would shut up is because the issue is not really important."

Amen.

Edited August 20, 2010 by sjw

[Brant Gaede]

I stated a fact and you reply with a jejune insult.

You don't have direct access to my motives, it's no "fact" that I cowardly accused him of being a coward.

Speaking of motives, what is yours? Since you speculate on mine let me guess on yours: You disagree with my comments in this thread, but you know that if you face any of my arguments directly you will not be able to deal with them, so you cowardly toss in an ad hominem instead, like a little kid throwing rocks and then running behind his mommy's skirt.

"In a cowardly way" refers not to your motives but to the fact you called him a coward but covered it up with a veneer. For all I know that might have beeen motivated by a courageous impulse. If you didn't mean to call him a coward you did a poor job of it. As for the rest of it I agree with a lot of your comments on this thread, but the discussion doesn't especially interest me for lack of time. I was against the Iraq War from before it happened; don't let me get started on that thing on going in Afghanistan.

--Brant

Edited August 20, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[sjw]

If you didn't mean to call him a coward you did a poor job of it.

Well of all the things to criticize me (or him) for, you sure know how to pick the most important one. (That is sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell).

At least Darrell is courageous enough to lay it all out on the table. He has the courage of his (wrong) convictions. I have no doubts about what he believes. With you all I know is that you don't like something I said but who knows what, so you snipe at me when you think you see an opportunity. Just like with those links I posted. You snipe at them but don't offer any criticism of substance.

[Brant Gaede]

If you didn't mean to call him a coward you did a poor job of it.

Well of all the things to criticize me (or him) for, you sure know how to pick the most important one. (That is sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell).

At least Darrell is courageous enough to lay it all out on the table. He has the courage of his (wrong) convictions. I have no doubts about what he believes. With you all I know is that you don't like something I said but who knows what, so you snipe at me when you think you see an opportunity. Just like with those links I posted. You snipe at them but don't offer any criticism of substance.

There's nothing wrong with rants per se. I'm not up to or interested in writing a longish article explaining how I agree and disagree with JR. As for things generally, they are getting more and more difficult and insane thanks to our stupid, power-mongering government. A lot of the people who voted the Democrats into power in 2008 are now going to replace them with Republicans. They got what they deserved with the former and will get what they deserve with the latter.

--Brant

[kiaer.ts]

"When I say that this is not a war against Islam, I don't mean that the Islamic creed bears no responsibility for the attacks of September 11 or for the murder and oppression committed in its name. Islam is the world's worst religion, the only major creed founded by a brigand and a tyrant, a religion created by and for criminals. But only a minority of Muslims allow themselves to fully understand, embrace, and act upon the vicious basis of their creed. And only a minority of that minority do so in a way that is a threat to the United States. (The rest pick victims closer to home, like their wives and daughters.)" -Robert Tracinski

[sjw]

"When I say that this is not a war against Islam, I don't mean that the Islamic creed bears no responsibility for the attacks of September 11 or for the murder and oppression committed in its name. Islam is the world's worst religion, the only major creed founded by a brigand and a tyrant, a religion created by and for criminals. But only a minority of Muslims allow themselves to fully understand, embrace, and act upon the vicious basis of their creed. And only a minority of that minority do so in a way that is a threat to the United States. (The rest pick victims closer to home, like their wives and daughters.)"

When people ignore murder and mayhem right in their own backyard while they decry it half way around the world it makes me suspicious.

Shayne

[Darrell Hougen]

Well until you face your problems you're stuck with them. And the rest of the world is probably stuck -- abject unapologetic hypocrites don't have the credibility required to be a force for positive change.

I see that I was right. If you honestly think this country is as bad as every two-bit dictatorship, you need to provide some evidence. Otherwise, this conversation is going nowhere and, quite frankly, I'm a little tired of your insults. You may just have to continue your ramblings without me.

Darrell

Imagine if you applied your philosophy to your personal life. Your neighbor is a mass-murderer, but you're only a thief. You're way better than he is. So you can be all puffed up with your false pride and refuse to reform yourself. That is *exactly* how you treat the US. The fact is, the ARE thieves. They take over half of your earnings, they regulate us into oblivion, they are murdering people for doing pot, the list goes on and on. And you're all puffed up in pride because we don't fly airplanes into buildings.

You need to grow up and get a dose of reality. That's not an insult. That's a fact.

Shayne

Shayne,

The problem with discussing things with you is that you argue dishonestly. Did I ever say that I was completely happy with our government? No. Did I ever say that it was ok to ignore our problems? No. Did I ever say that we didn't have any problems? No.

I implied that we live in the freest country in the world. Would you dispute that? The fact that this government is headed in the wrong direction and has been for a long time, through multiple presidencies does not imply that we have yet slipped behind other countries. Does that mean that I am happy with our government or the direction it is going? Absolutely not. Quit trying to erect a straw man in place of what I actually said just so you can defeat it. We should basically be on the same side and should be having a much more nuanced discussion about the differences in our views. Instead, you treat me as if I were some sort of Communist or something.

To answer your specific question, I would treat a murderer differently than a thief. I would put both in jail, but I would put the thief there for a period of time dependent upon the amount that he stole. I would put a murderer there for life.

I agree that it is hard to be self-righteous when there are so many things wrong with us --- with our country. But, I still draw a sharp distinction between a country in which individual rights have been protected well enough to generate an ever improving standard of living and a country that would have nothing if it were not for oil. Aside from Saudi Arabia and a handful of small states, most of the people in Middle Eastern countries live in poverty, don't have freedom of speech and can be stoned on suspicion of having an affair. That's because those countries are basically theocratic dictatorships. Do you really want to allow those dictators total freedom to export their theocratic ideology to this country? Is there something wrong with trying to stop them?

Darrell

[sjw]

The problem with discussing things with you is that you argue dishonestly.

You're the one being dishonest -- with that very statement. I am making a certain inference in good faith. You on the other hand are being emotionalist because I express what I infer from your statements and you don't like it. If you were being honest, you'd ask how I made the inference, not leap to the conclusion that I'm dishonest. Note the similarity to the other pattern, your "trick" I referenced above. It comes from precisely the same mental dishonesty on your part. And note that you failed to answer me.

I know you *say* you adhere to reason. Follow through please.

I implied that we live in the freest country in the world. Would you dispute that?

I think the assessment of whether we are the freest or not is more complicated than you think it is. I personally find it preferable to live among domesticated farm animals than among those who are unsuccessfully rebelling and being slaughtered for it. But you confuse the fact that we are domesticated with actual civility. To wit, I point to the vile violence inherent in the US, if we do not do as we are told we will be murdered, our bodies riddled with bullets and burned, and you dismiss it as if it is unimportant. You are domesticated and do not know it.

The fact that this government is headed in the wrong direction and has been for a long time, through multiple presidencies does not imply that we have yet slipped behind other countries. Does that mean that I am happy with our government or the direction it is going? Absolutely not. Quit trying to erect a straw man in place of what I actually said just so you can defeat it. We should basically be on the same side and should be having a much more nuanced discussion about the differences in our views. Instead, you treat me as if I were some sort of Communist or something.

No, you are a domesticated farm animal, and so am I, the only difference is that know what I am. I try to behave myself, to bow down and pay my taxes and follow the laws, and exercise the one right left that is (hopefully) relatively safe to exercise: free speech. But I agree with Ayn Rand on that point.

I agree that it is hard to be self-righteous when there are so many things wrong with us

Another difference between us is that you are a collectivist, and that is why you find it hard to be self righteous. You are a good little citizen and identify yourself with the State. I on the other hand only see individuals. I see my values and principles, and I see what others do, and I condemn that part which is evil. You see nation versions nation. You are a nationalist. You are a collectivist. Not on purpose, not as a conscious principle -- explicitly you hate collectivism -- but by default. You haven't learned to be an individualist yet. I encourage you to learn.

--- with our country. But, I still draw a sharp distinction between a country in which individual rights have been protected well enough to generate an ever improving standard of living and a country that would have nothing if it were not for oil.

I think the topic of the Middle East is far more complicated and sinister than you imagine and it is too complicated for me to want to bother with here.

Shayne

[sjw]

Yaron Brook on this issue: http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=113&load=4051

[Brant Gaede]

Yaron Brook on this issue: http://www.pjtv.com/...d=113&load=4051

Statist premises lead to statist results (wars); all in the name of Ayn Rand. That's Brook. That's not, however, why the Bushes did their oil wars (Rand). Afghanistan has been so stupid--except perhaps for the first few months nearly nine years ago--one can't explain the sheer irrationality of it except a combination of inertia and a kind of perpetual motion: the worse "we" make things there (and in Pakistan) the more reason "we" seem to think there is for more of the same. Nation building? Gimme a break; there is no nation to build. It can't be done. Mosque Wars!? Just silly. It's not going to get built regardless because they need a lot of money (possibly doable) and workers (not available). It sure is hurting the Dems, though, and completely ruined what little was left of the Obama Presidency.

--Brant

[sjw]

Jon Stewart: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/extremist-makeover---homeland-edition

[sjw]

Ron Paul: http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100820005843&newsLang=en

[BaalChatzaf]

Ron Paul: http://www.businessw...843&newsLang=en

Ron Paul said this is all about hate and Islam-phobia. I agree. And there is much to hate & fear in Islam. Of all the major monotheistic religions, al Islam is the least purged or cleansed of anti-human attitudes and impulses. Christianity and Judaism for historical reasons have been purge of much that is dangerous and hateful. Judaism was cleaned up by Jews having their enemies kick the living shit out of them. Think of it as a form of tenderizing. Christianity was worn down by the development of nationalism and industrialism. As science and industry rose, the power of churches has diminished. Now mainline Christians can reconcile their religion to living in a secular order. This latter is yet to occur in the Islamic domains of the East. The Bahai and Suffi cults are the main evidences of possible taming of the nasty parts of Islam. There is hope. Much the same kind of hope that the Amish give us in proving that quiet peace loving non-violent Christians can live with their secular neighbors.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited August 21, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[sjw]

The Amish get very special treatment. They have the least reasons among all religions or groups to object or fight.

But agree that the more secularized all religions become, the better. Just don't confuse secularization with domestication.

In the case of Islam, if we can't get full secularization (i.e. -- stop taking religion seriously at all) it certainly should be purged of its more vile elements, such as its views on women. Is that what "moderate Islam" is trying to do? I don't know.

[sjw]

Declassified: Massive Israeli manipulation of US media exposed:

[Greybird]

To insist that Eric Margolis, of all rational and perceptive commentators on Central Asia, is a "bigot" constitutes so much raging, flaming, absurd nonsense on stilts that ... that ... well, I was left "speechless" for two days.

And I don't have the stomach to fully dissect what has been falsely flung around here about him. (Apart from noting the relevance of Godwin's Law. There's a reason why it's valid.) Margolis's lucid writing and anti-imperialist perspectives speak eloquently for themselves, anyway.

I'd just wonder if some of Margolis's critics will try to throw the same pious absurdities in Ron Paul's direction, and insist that he is a "bigot" as well, for making functionally the same statements. (In added boldface below, from Paul's recent statement, which was released for the purpose of being quoted in full.)

... What am I saying? The neocons at this site have already done worse than this to Paul. I'm being quixotic, as usual. There's no real point. Yet I had to put the prickling of my conscience, for letting this go unremarked, to sleep.

Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property-rights position, while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill-conceived preventive wars. To select quotes from soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us, but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam — the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support are irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society — protecting liberty.

The outcry over the building of the mosque near ground zero implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservatives’ aggressive wars.

The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque — a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law — in order to look tough against Islam.

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.

[sjw]

To insist that Eric Margolis, of all rational and perceptive commentators on Central Asia, is a "bigot" constitutes so much raging, flaming, absurd nonsense on stilts that ... that ... well, I was left "speechless" for two days.

...

Indeed -- but in Objectivist circles you have to be used this kind of thing by now.

[BaalChatzaf]

In the case of Islam, if we can't get full secularization (i.e. -- stop taking religion seriously at all) it certainly should be purged of its more vile elements, such as its views on women. Is that what "moderate Islam" is trying to do? I don't know.

There is not much indication in the popular media. But then, the popular media is hardly known for its accuracy and insight. I think the Million American Muslim March Against Wahabite Extremism which never took place would have gone a long way to sweeten mainstream American attitudes towards Islam. As long as American born and raised Muslims are being inducted into the various extreme groups suspicion will remain.

If a splinter faction of Jews did a horrible act that cost innocent lives in the U.S., I will bet five years of my life that there would be a Million Jew March Against Nasty Behavior That Is Not Only Wrong, But Embarrasses The Rest of Us. One thing Jews cannot bear well is something that Embarrasses the Rest of Us. That is why whenever Bernie Maddof's name is mentioned in Jewish company it is often accompanied by "fooey!", "feh!" etc.. Sort of like mentioning Haman's name at a Purim Festival.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident