Thursday, June 10, 2010

WHAT WORD EXPRESSES MORE THAN "OUTRAGE?"



Is there really no end to how stupid American, specifically New York, politicians can be.

Really?

Well, check this out:

14 comments:

Shaw Kenawe said...

Wow, Joe! You're promoting Pat Condell?


You realize that by posting that video, you expose him and his ideas to people who would never have heard of him.

It's not just Islam he's against--he's against ALL religions, including Christianity.

Mustang said...

I don't think we need to be afraid of ideas, Joe. We need to be concerned about people who demand that we submit to their will, or die. Let us stop pretending that all of us are simply imagining Islam as a threat. Remember that if people really are trying to take away your (fill in the blank), you aren't paranoid.

To answer your question, "seething" outrage.

Joe said...

SK: Promoting? Who's promoting? I am certainly not promoting. Where did you invent the idea that I'm promoting him?

What I am doing, which liberals cannot possibly do, due to their inherent dishonesty, is to present one of the arguments against giving radical Islam the resources they need to promote their cause.

My use of Pat Condell had absolutely nothing to do with his approval or disapproval of Christianity.

Why are liberals so adept at missing the point of posts? Could it be that they are actually LOOKING for something to attack because of their own insecurity in where they stand?

(That was a question, not an accusation...you know the difference, right?)

I have absolutely no problem with people who are against all religions. That is their right. (I may disagree with them, but, unlike liberals, a little disagreement does not bother me at all.)

BTW: Unlike liberals, I do NOT think that if I disagree with part of what someone says I must therefore disagree with EVERYTHING he/she says.

Mustang: The one thing Islam does well is to ignore ideas (except their own) and physically attack those who do not agree with them.

Joe said...

SK: Oh, and by the way: I'd venture to say that few people (in the overall scheme of things) have ever heard of you. Yet I expose them to you.

Does that make you think I wish to promote you?

Shaw Kenawe said...

"What I am doing, which liberals cannot possibly do, due to their inherent dishonesty..."

Well there you go again, Joe! You've just accused every Liberal of being inherently dishonest.

Of course, this must mean you personally know every Liberal on the planet, otherwise how could you make such a, well, dishonest, generalization.

When did you have the time to get to personally KNOW each and every Liberal on this blessed earth, may I ask?

You also made a few other claims about Liberals: they're insecure, they miss points, they're looking to attack.

If I could, I'd send you a new broom. Your old one must be worn out after making all those sweeping generalizations.

Leticia said...

When you get right down to it. The construction of this mosque is a huge dishonor and disrespect of all the innocent lives that were brutally taken on 9/11.

This wrong and anyone that is not against it, supports radical Islam and the terror attacks.

Ground zero is hollow ground now and it should be respected.

Joe said...

SK: "If I could, I'd send you a new broom. Your old one must be worn out after making all those sweeping generalizations."

Well, I could use a new broom. Fax it over to me.

"You've just accused every Liberal of being inherently dishonest."

I can think of no other reason for consistantly projecting that which is not true.

"...they miss points,..." Well, you and Anon did.

Joe said...

Leticia: You and I are on the same page on this one, for sure.

Ginsu said...

Joe, saying clever things to ignorant, bigoted, hateful people is generally a waste of time.

Joe said...

Ginsu: Yeah, but I am temporarily unemployed and I have lots of time to waste.

Dan said...

I love this. The video is about building a mosque practically on the site of 9/11, to be inaugurated on 9/11 no less, and the discussion is about Pat Condell. I wonder where the smoldering remains of Pat's last terrorist attack lye? Does anyone think that the discussions, debates, and caterwauling between Christians and the Pat Condells of the world concerning the existence of God are going to be allowed under Sharia Law? Ask Comedy Central, they know.

Liberals,... ack hmmmm, generally speaking, are ashamed of the kindred hatred of Christianity they share with Muslims so they must distract us, or perhaps themselves, with straw-men like this. Hey, it's not conservative Christian politicians celebrating the opening of this mosque on the site of the slaughter of 3000 innocent people by Islamist in the name of "tolerance". Pat said it best, how pathetic.

Anyway Joe

I was thinking about the probability that most Americans, if asked what the Cordova Initiative is, would not know. On the other hand, I wonder how many people think Scooter Libby was pardoned by Bush for outing Valarie Plame, even though he was never convicted for such. The media could get this out if they wanted to, but my thinking is that they don't because... well, of their secret kindred hatred of Christianity.

Oh, and I've heard of, and watched Pat Condell before this, though not because of the mains stream media.

Oh again, I will sign off with this. I get so weary of hearing the "generalization" yelp.

The Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville, did an excellent job of preemptively dealing with this anticipated whining about generalizations in his book Democracy In America this way:

"God is able to see the differences between all individuals so it follows therefore that God has no need of general ideas, that is to say, He never feels the necessity of giving the same label to a considerable number of analogous objects in order to think about them more conveniently. Not so with man who in our impressive limitations need all the help we can get from such general ideas lest we get lost in the dazzling plethora of details that passes in a hazy hurry before us all. General ideas have excellent quality, that they permit human minds to pass judgment quickly on a great number of things, but the conceptions they convey are always incomplete, and what is gained in extent is always lost in exactitude."

The bold is where the whiners run to hide. This book is a century and a half old, and so, evidently, is the whining.

Joe said...

Dan: Shaw Kenawe is one of the very best point missers I have ever encountered. Either that or she deliberately side-steps the issue(s) because she can't deal with them. There is no other explanation for her comments.

I've seen Condell before, too, and find his to be reasoned on many things, although I disagree with him about Christianity itself.

Liberals cannot take disagreement...period. You either agree with them or you are considered stupid, radical, righty-whitey or whatever other aspersion they decide to cast.

They can't help it. Their brains have been incorrectly rewired.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Liberals cannot take disagreement...period. You either agree with them or you are considered stupid, radical, righty-whitey or whatever other aspersion they decide to cast.--Joe


Joe to an anonymous poster:

'You have either been too stupid to have understood the point of the post, or you have chosen to emphasize the parts that had no bearing on the point of the post.

There are no other alternatives.

That is a TYPICAL liberal tactic. It attempts to negate a truth by negating an unrelated fact or imagined fact.

You people are dishonest in your attempts to "dialog," because you are not interested in dialog, only in projecting your agemda.


Ouch! The sound of your glass house shattering is deafening.

Joe said...

Oh, yeah? Well my dad could have beat your dad.