Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Lurkio

recedite wrote: »

Nobody is saying that all Muslims are terrorists. Neither is it true to say Muslims are no different to anybody else.
"Profiling" for security purposes according to ethnicity may not be PC, but it is not a "collective punishment" It is a practical use of limited security resources. It helps to protect lives.

Its still talking out both sides of your mouth when you add a pic like that though.

recedite

Don't bomb the messenger. I didn't make the banner in the pic.

Lurkio

recedite wrote: »

Don't bomb the messenger. I didn't make the banner in the pic.

.....course ye didn't. Ye did link it into your post though, the post that says "Nobody is saying that all Muslims are terrorists".

recedite

the photo illustrates the point I was making;"Nobody is saying that all Muslims are terrorists. Neither is it true to say Muslims are no different to anybody else."
I'm not saying the guys in the photo are terrorists. Are you?
I'm saying that their idea of an "ideal society" is different to the expectations of a typical westerner or non-muslim.
There is an incompatibility issue that Trump has the courage to point out, but most politicians prefer to sweep it under the carpet.

JPNelsforearm

recedite wrote: »

the photo illustrates the point I was making;"Nobody is saying that all Muslims are terrorists. Neither is it true to say Muslims are no different to anybody else."
I'm not saying the guys in the photo are terrorists. Are you?
I'm saying that their idea of an "ideal society" is different to the expectations of a typical westerner or non-muslim.
There is an incompatibility issue that Trump has the courage to point out, but most politicians prefer to sweep it under the carpet.

Ah, nonsense, Islam is but a tiny difference, we are all the same, we just need communism to remove the artificial labels and classifications that that the capitalist colonialist white male swine have imposed upon us, once that is done the proletariat shall unite in a marxist utopia where everyone shall unleash their inner George Bellows/Sydney Chapman discarding religion. But the key to doing so, is importing everyone to the first world in vast vast quantities, to think any different is to be a ****ing white male.

The Randy Riverbeast

recedite wrote: »

the photo illustrates the point I was making;"Nobody is saying that all Muslims are terrorists. Neither is it true to say Muslims are no different to anybody else."
I'm not saying the guys in the photo are terrorists. Are you?
I'm saying that their idea of an "ideal society" is different to the expectations of a typical westerner or non-muslim.
There is an incompatibility issue that Trump has the courage to point out, but most politicians prefer to sweep it under the carpet.

They don't sweep it under the carpet. Cruz was all for it.

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Ah, (...............) religion. .

....never do that stuff in the day or near a keyboard.

recedite

I said "most" prefer to sweep it under the carpet. Cruz was one of the few not to. But unlike Trump, Cruz and Rubio were religious nuts. Any anti-Islam rhetoric from such people (whether spoken or unspoken) is likely based on the same foundation as any anti-gay rhetoric, ie an incompatibility with their personal religion. This is a completely different matter to being against Islam because it is incompatible with western democratic and secular values, and for security reasons.

Also Cruz was seen as something of a Machiavellian Prince anyway. Somebody who craved power for its own sake,and for his own personal aggrandisement.

Lurkio

recedite wrote: »

the photo illustrates the point I was making;"Nobody is saying that all Muslims are terrorists. Neither is it true to say Muslims are no different to anybody else."
I'm not saying the guys in the photo are terrorists. Are you?
I'm saying that their idea of an "ideal society" is different to the expectations of a typical westerner or non-muslim.
There is an incompatibility issue that Trump has the courage to point out, but most politicians prefer to sweep it under the carpet.

Again, you're talking out both sides of your gob. You're demonising over a billion people.

Lurkio

recedite wrote: »

I said "most" prefer to sweep it under the carpet. Cruz was one of the few not to. But unlike Trump, Cruz and Rubio were religious nuts. Any anti-Islam rhetoric from such people (whether spoken or unspoken) is likely based on the same foundation as any anti-gay rhetoric, ie an incompatibility with their personal religion. This is a completely different matter to being against Islam because it is incompatible with western democratic and secular values, and for security reasons.

Also Cruz was seen as something of a Machiavellian Prince anyway. Somebody who craved power for its own sake,and for his own personal aggrandisement.

Being an Islamophobe doesn't become "good", not matter what its supposed motivation.

KingBrian2

Lurkio wrote: »

Being an Islamophobe doesn't become "good", not matter what its supposed motivation.

The term Islamophobe is somewhat misleading since it encompasses multiple branches of Islam a lot of whom are anti democratic & illiberal.

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

Being an Islamophobe doesn't become "good", not matter what its supposed motivation.

"Islamophobia"(though I'd quibble at the suffix of "phobia",only in lefty land is a negative view of an intolerant and backward cult viewed as a phobia) is healthy, all religions are poison, merely because this one is exotic does not give it a pass on the bull**** test. I rarely if ever hear the same "phobia" of christianity etc and everybody in opposition to christianity being labelled as a racist/christophobe, get off the stage, "islamophobe", what a bull**** term, created by and for bull**** artists.

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

"Islamophobia"(though I'd quibble at the suffix of "phobia",only in lefty land is a negative view of an intolerant and backward cult viewed as a phobia) is healthy, all religions are poison, merely because this one is exotic does not give it a pass on the bull**** test. I rarely if ever hear the same "phobia" of christianity etc and everybody in opposition to christianity being labelled as a racist/christophobe, get off the stage, "islamophobe", what a bull**** term, created by and for bull**** artists.

A quick peruse of peoples posts would rather underline the view that some have an altogether unhealthy fixation with muslims. Thus, Islamophobia exists.

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

"Islamophobia"(though I'd quibble at the suffix of "phobia",only in lefty land is a negative view of an intolerant and backward cult viewed as a phobia) is healthy, all religions are poison, merely because this one is exotic does not give it a pass on the bull**** test. I rarely if ever hear the same "phobia" of christianity etc and everybody in opposition to christianity being labelled as a racist/christophobe, get off the stage, "islamophobe", what a bull**** term, created by and for bull**** artists.

That's quite a lot of bluster for a post that contradicts itself.

Sure, all religion is poison. But nobody's proposing banning all religious people from entering the US. I wonder why that is?

The Randy Riverbeast

Nobody ever gives out about the term anti-semitism. Which is strange considering how much elements of the right think the Jews are up to something.

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

"Islamophobia"(though I'd quibble at the suffix of "phobia",only in lefty land is a negative view of an intolerant and backward cult viewed as a phobia) is healthy, all religions are poison, merely because this one is exotic does not give it a pass on the bull**** test. I rarely if ever hear the same "phobia" of christianity etc and everybody in opposition to christianity being labelled as a racist/christophobe, get off the stage, "islamophobe", what a bull**** term, created by and for bull**** artists.

Actually that post of Oscarbravos reminds me - I've seen you object to immigration from Africa, but not once do I recall you mentioning the Christian extremely conservative views of Africans. Why is that?

KingBrian2

Either way Europe and America should have the option of prohibiting Islamic hate preachers and Christian hate preachers from entering our countries.

K-9

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's quite a lot of bluster for a post that contradicts itself.

Sure, all religion is poison. But nobody's proposing banning all religious people from entering the US. I wonder why that is?

What's the name for an irrational fear of Catholicism?

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's quite a lot of bluster for a post that contradicts itself.

Sure, all religion is poison. But nobody's proposing banning all religious people from entering the US. I wonder why that is?

Whilst I would contend that all religion is organised against Western interests, Islam is the only one actively mobilised on a war footing and launching physical attacks, or rather, providing the cover/motivation/justification/whatever for physical attacks. Islam is high profile, simple as.

JPNelsforearm

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Either way Europe and America should have the option of prohibiting Islamic hate preachers and Christian hate preachers from entering our countries.

Hate preachers dont exist.

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

Actually that post of Oscarbravos reminds me - I've seen you object to immigration from Africa, but not once do I recall you mentioning the Christian extremely conservative views of Africans. Why is that?

Because crime and unemployment are far bigger, and obvious, points with loads of data backing them up as regards African(christian) immigrants.

Christian terrorism/intolerance in relation to African immigration is not on the same scale(nor given media coverage on the same scale) as Arab/North African Islamic terrorism/intolerance is in a European context.

Absolam

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Either way Europe and America should have the option of prohibiting Islamic hate preachers and Christian hate preachers from entering our countries.

Because the concept of freedom of speech isn't one we feel should set our fantastically egalitarian nations apart from others

Pherekydes

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Hate preachers dont exist.

Incitement to hatred is not a thing?

Good to know...

robindch

K-9 wrote: »

What's the name for an irrational fear of Catholicism?

There's nothing irrational about fear - or indeed, distrust - of catholicism

robindch

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Hate preachers dont exist.

The US court systems disagrees with you on that:

Scott Lively, Due On Trial For “Crimes Against Humanity” Early 2016, Will Be Represented By Kim Davis’s Law Firm

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/barrierbreaker/scott-lively-due-on-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity-early-2016-will-be-represented-by-kim-daviss-law-firm/
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-kaoma-uganda-gays-american-ministers-20140323-story.html

magicbastarder

robindch wrote: »

The US court systems disagrees with you on that:

to be pedantic, they haven't decided yet whether to disagree with that.

JPNelsforearm

Pherekydes wrote: »

Incitement to hatred is not a thing?

Good to know...

Not for anyone who believes in freedom of speech, incitement to hatred is a nonsensical legal doctrine, its thought crime pure and simple. Action is what matters, physical, quantifiable damage, which is covered under existing law, not words. This is North Korea stuff.

K-9

Ah Jaysus JP, not this stuff again!

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Because crime and unemployment are far bigger, and obvious, points with loads of data backing them up as regards African(christian) immigrants. .

But you never, ever, ever mentioned it - not the homophobia, the sexism, the fundamentalism......its like you were just blind to it because of some fixation.....

Lurkio

K-9 wrote: »

Ah Jaysus JP, not this stuff again!

Well we know what way you'd rule.