Is it immoral to vote for a politician who calls Islam a religion of peace?

[TheGreatGatsby]

If you read and understood any of his work, you would realize he was a liberal. You don't have to be terribly political, or political at all, to be a liberal. He lived his life as a liberal. His books and stories (apparently you've only read one of his books--and not understood it) reflect a completely different viewpoint than that of conservatives. You have very deeply misunderstood the novel The Great Gatsby, and you have either also not understood his other work or have not read it.

Nice blanket counter. Yea, I think you pretend that FSF is ever so liberal to suit your conventions.If FSF were here, he'd say to you that you are "intensely dogmatic" and note that you have created a "mystical religion" for yourself. And he would reject your mundane labels. He rises above such sad nomenclature.

LMAO Oh, he would? You're going to put words in his mouth now? Overall, you are not familiar, obviously, with the bulk of his work and have misread Gatsby. I'm done here. This is too tiresome.

Let's review. You made a haphazard claim that FSF was absolutely liberal and gave no supporting evidence. I spent 30 minutes or so digging into the claim and finding plenty of evidence that your assertion was an over-simplification at best and frankly not at all on the money. Rather, I made a very strong case that FSF was an apolitical plutocrat; and I noted views that he held which are quite conservative even. Yet, I was fair and noted both the competing conservative and liberal principles that he had espoused. So, I do all that; and what do you do? First off, you couldn't even be bothered to quote the post or even read it seemingly. And you come back with a mindless nu uh response and this malarky that TGG is supposed to be some grand liberal fantasy book. You are precisely the type of person that FSF warned his daughter about engaging in argumentation.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

"Is it immoral to vote for a politician who calls Islam a religion of peace?"

It's idiocy to not vote for a politician solely because he calls Islam a religion on peace.

Just as it's idiocy to judge an entire religion by the actions of a tiny minority.

Yea, how dare anyone make a judgement against a murderous culture based upon a murderous book.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Islam can't be called the religion of peace because only 99% of Muslims refrain from terrorism?

lol

This may be the closest you've came to posting a logical statement; so, congrats. Still, a swing and a miss though.

Well then you tell us, what percentage of the followers of a religion have to be peaceful in order for 'religion of peace' to be a fair description of it.

You've rejected 99%. Tell us how far above 99% Islam has to go to qualify.

I was going to ask you the same question. What percent of followers have to be terrorists? I'd say it's foolhearty to put a number on it. But if you're trying to celebrate only 1 in 100 members of a religion being terrorists, then I'd say you have a low bar for what you consider acceptable.

I said 99%+.

There are 2 billion Muslims. How many are terrorists?

Let's go with different more relevant percentages; what percent of terrorists are Muslim? What percent of religionist terrorists are Muslim?

GAME, SET, MATCH.

I accept your surrender.

 

[Esmeralda]

"Is it immoral to vote for a politician who calls Islam a religion of peace?"

It's idiocy to not vote for a politician solely because he calls Islam a religion on peace.

Just as it's idiocy to judge an entire religion by the actions of a tiny minority.

Yea, how dare anyone make a judgement against a murderous culture based upon a murderous book.....

See how ignorant he is? It's just amazing that anyone would make a sweeping generalization about an entire religion--such monumental ignorance. Islam is not one culture. It is many cultures. It exists in as many cultures as Christianity does. It isn't one culture. And your interpretation of the Koran is childish: there is just as much violence, brutality, ignorance, etc., in the Bible as in the Koran. Only extremists and crazy fundamentalists follow the Old Testament or the Koran without question. You're so out of your league it isn't even funny.

 

[Esmeralda]

If you read and understood any of his work, you would realize he was a liberal. You don't have to be terribly political, or political at all, to be a liberal. He lived his life as a liberal. His books and stories (apparently you've only read one of his books--and not understood it) reflect a completely different viewpoint than that of conservatives. You have very deeply misunderstood the novel The Great Gatsby, and you have either also not understood his other work or have not read it.

Nice blanket counter. Yea, I think you pretend that FSF is ever so liberal to suit your conventions.If FSF were here, he'd say to you that you are "intensely dogmatic" and note that you have created a "mystical religion" for yourself. And he would reject your mundane labels. He rises above such sad nomenclature.

LMAO Oh, he would? You're going to put words in his mouth now? Overall, you are not familiar, obviously, with the bulk of his work and have misread Gatsby. I'm done here. This is too tiresome.

Let's review. You made a haphazard claim that FSF was absolutely liberal and gave no supporting evidence. I spent 30 minutes or so digging into the claim and finding plenty of evidence that your assertion was an over-simplification at best and frankly not at all on the money. Rather, I made a very strong case that FSF was an apolitical plutocrat; and I noted views that he held which are quite conservative even. Yet, I was fair and noted both the competing conservative and liberal principles that he had espoused. So, I do all that; and what do you do? First off, you couldn't even be bothered to quote the post or even read it seemingly. And you come back with a mindless nu uh response and this malarky that TGG is supposed to be some grand liberal fantasy book. You are precisely the type of person that FSF warned his daughter about engaging in argumentation.

I'm not here to teach you about F. Scott Fitzgerald the novelist and short story writer. I know all about his work, all of his work. I studied it and his life in university; I taught it as a graduate teaching fellow, as did many of my peers. I know many English teachers around the world who have taught and do teach The Great Gatsby. No one who actually understands his work would think of it in the way you do. You need to go back to school, apparently. You dug up some BS you swallowed whole without question or any depth of thought because you don't know any better: your problem, not mine. You know as much about Fitzgerald and the novel The Great Gatsby as you do about Islam: not very much at all, if anything.

 

[Esmeralda]

If you read and understood any of his work, you would realize he was a liberal. You don't have to be terribly political, or political at all, to be a liberal. He lived his life as a liberal. His books and stories (apparently you've only read one of his books--and not understood it) reflect a completely different viewpoint than that of conservatives. You have very deeply misunderstood the novel The Great Gatsby, and you have either also not understood his other work or have not read it.

Nice blanket counter. Yea, I think you pretend that FSF is ever so liberal to suit your conventions.If FSF were here, he'd say to you that you are "intensely dogmatic" and note that you have created a "mystical religion" for yourself. And he would reject your mundane labels. He rises above such sad nomenclature.

LMAO Oh, he would? You're going to put words in his mouth now? Overall, you are not familiar, obviously, with the bulk of his work and have misread Gatsby. I'm done here. This is too tiresome.

Let's review. You made a haphazard claim that FSF was absolutely liberal and gave no supporting evidence. I spent 30 minutes or so digging into the claim and finding plenty of evidence that your assertion was an over-simplification at best and frankly not at all on the money. Rather, I made a very strong case that FSF was an apolitical plutocrat; and I noted views that he held which are quite conservative even. Yet, I was fair and noted both the competing conservative and liberal principles that he had espoused. So, I do all that; and what do you do? First off, you couldn't even be bothered to quote the post or even read it seemingly. And you come back with a mindless nu uh response and this malarky that TGG is supposed to be some grand liberal fantasy book. You are precisely the type of person that FSF warned his daughter about engaging in argumentation.

You are so wrong it is pathetic.

 

[JoeB131]

Congrats, you found an obscure artwork that probably isn't even from WWII. WWII was not a war for religious supremacy. For you to pretend so is a stretch even for you.

The War on Terror isn't a war for "Religious Supremacy". Most people who are fighting it on the Muslim side just want us the fuck out of their countries.

But in WWII, both sides were willing to invoke the name of the Almighty Sky Pixie BeJesus to motivate their people. Even the Communist USSR did, when Stalin got the Orthodox Church to rally the troops. The Germans went into battle with belt buckles that said, "Gott Mit Uns". (God's With Us!) The only ones who didn't were the Japanese, who were fighting for their God-Emperor.

 

[JoeB131]

So, Osama was a terrorist all along? And he was a terrorist why now?

I don't use the word "Terrorist". One man's terrorist IS another man's freedom fighter. We've called Bin Laden both.

I was all for killing Bin Laden (THANKS, OBAMA) because he killed Americans. you kill Americans, you pay a price. But it was stupid of us to arm him in the first place. It's stupid of us to keep interfering in that part of the world because we want cheap oil and we want Israel to be there so Jesus can come back.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

"Is it immoral to vote for a politician who calls Islam a religion of peace?"

It's idiocy to not vote for a politician solely because he calls Islam a religion on peace.

Just as it's idiocy to judge an entire religion by the actions of a tiny minority.

Yea, how dare anyone make a judgement against a murderous culture based upon a murderous book.....

See how ignorant he is? It's just amazing that anyone would make a sweeping generalization about an entire religion--such monumental ignorance. Islam is not one culture. It is many cultures. It exists in as many cultures as Christianity does. It isn't one culture. And your interpretation of the Koran is childish: there is just as much violence, brutality, ignorance, etc., in the Bible as in the Koran. Only extremists and crazy fundamentalists follow the Old Testament or the Koran without question. You're so out of your league it isn't even funny.

It has sub cultures. But Islam is not a religion. It's a philosophy of dogmatic death. The most faithful execute murders. Most of the rest settle for subjugating women. It's nothing more than glorified gang life. Try to get out and you're dead. You can't defend this shit; you can only cast aspersions.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If you read and understood any of his work, you would realize he was a liberal. You don't have to be terribly political, or political at all, to be a liberal. He lived his life as a liberal. His books and stories (apparently you've only read one of his books--and not understood it) reflect a completely different viewpoint than that of conservatives. You have very deeply misunderstood the novel The Great Gatsby, and you have either also not understood his other work or have not read it.

Nice blanket counter. Yea, I think you pretend that FSF is ever so liberal to suit your conventions.If FSF were here, he'd say to you that you are "intensely dogmatic" and note that you have created a "mystical religion" for yourself. And he would reject your mundane labels. He rises above such sad nomenclature.

LMAO Oh, he would? You're going to put words in his mouth now? Overall, you are not familiar, obviously, with the bulk of his work and have misread Gatsby. I'm done here. This is too tiresome.

Let's review. You made a haphazard claim that FSF was absolutely liberal and gave no supporting evidence. I spent 30 minutes or so digging into the claim and finding plenty of evidence that your assertion was an over-simplification at best and frankly not at all on the money. Rather, I made a very strong case that FSF was an apolitical plutocrat; and I noted views that he held which are quite conservative even. Yet, I was fair and noted both the competing conservative and liberal principles that he had espoused. So, I do all that; and what do you do? First off, you couldn't even be bothered to quote the post or even read it seemingly. And you come back with a mindless nu uh response and this malarky that TGG is supposed to be some grand liberal fantasy book. You are precisely the type of person that FSF warned his daughter about engaging in argumentation.

You are so wrong it is pathetic.

Yes, you are. And the next time you come at me with that weak sauce, I won't bother. Like Fitzgerald says, you ain't worth the time.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If you read and understood any of his work, you would realize he was a liberal. You don't have to be terribly political, or political at all, to be a liberal. He lived his life as a liberal. His books and stories (apparently you've only read one of his books--and not understood it) reflect a completely different viewpoint than that of conservatives. You have very deeply misunderstood the novel The Great Gatsby, and you have either also not understood his other work or have not read it.

Nice blanket counter. Yea, I think you pretend that FSF is ever so liberal to suit your conventions.If FSF were here, he'd say to you that you are "intensely dogmatic" and note that you have created a "mystical religion" for yourself. And he would reject your mundane labels. He rises above such sad nomenclature.

LMAO Oh, he would? You're going to put words in his mouth now? Overall, you are not familiar, obviously, with the bulk of his work and have misread Gatsby. I'm done here. This is too tiresome.

Let's review. You made a haphazard claim that FSF was absolutely liberal and gave no supporting evidence. I spent 30 minutes or so digging into the claim and finding plenty of evidence that your assertion was an over-simplification at best and frankly not at all on the money. Rather, I made a very strong case that FSF was an apolitical plutocrat; and I noted views that he held which are quite conservative even. Yet, I was fair and noted both the competing conservative and liberal principles that he had espoused. So, I do all that; and what do you do? First off, you couldn't even be bothered to quote the post or even read it seemingly. And you come back with a mindless nu uh response and this malarky that TGG is supposed to be some grand liberal fantasy book. You are precisely the type of person that FSF warned his daughter about engaging in argumentation.

I'm not here to teach you about F. Scott Fitzgerald the novelist and short story writer. I know all about his work, all of his work. I studied it and his life in university; I taught it as a graduate teaching fellow, as did many of my peers. I know many English teachers around the world who have taught and do teach The Great Gatsby. No one who actually understands his work would think of it in the way you do. You need to go back to school, apparently. You dug up some BS you swallowed whole without question or any depth of thought because you don't know any better: your problem, not mine. You know as much about Fitzgerald and the novel The Great Gatsby as you do about Islam: not very much at all, if anything.

Nobody's asking you to teach me. And frankly, I've taught you. All's you've done is cast out lame assertions with no proper rigors of logic; which makes me question what kind of university you even allegedly went to.

"No one who actually understands his work would think of it in the way you do." This is the dogma that Fitzgerald spoke of. You're as full of yourself as the terrorist nation you defend. Also, I've engaged Fitzgerald's life and work in a critical manner. You have not done that. And thus, " You need to go back to school, apparently." You come on here talking about "depth of thought" when all's you've done is make one lame blanket statement after another. You've attempted to can a great author's life and works and stamp liberal on the side of the can. Again, this is everything F Scott Fitzgerald was against. So, don't lecture me like you got something, bitch. It's just me and you; and between us both, we know who is coming off as the ignorant fool.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Congrats, you found an obscure artwork that probably isn't even from WWII. WWII was not a war for religious supremacy. For you to pretend so is a stretch even for you.

The War on Terror isn't a war for "Religious Supremacy". Most people who are fighting it on the Muslim side just want us the fuck out of their countries.

But in WWII, both sides were willing to invoke the name of the Almighty Sky Pixie BeJesus to motivate their people. Even the Communist USSR did, when Stalin got the Orthodox Church to rally the troops. The Germans went into battle with belt buckles that said, "Gott Mit Uns". (God's With Us!) The only ones who didn't were the Japanese, who were fighting for their God-Emperor.

A soldier envoking God as a motivational tool and a nation fighting for religious supremacy are two different things, guy.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

So, Osama was a terrorist all along? And he was a terrorist why now?

I don't use the word "Terrorist". One man's terrorist IS another man's freedom fighter. We've called Bin Laden both.

I was all for killing Bin Laden (THANKS, OBAMA) because he killed Americans. you kill Americans, you pay a price. But it was stupid of us to arm him in the first place. It's stupid of us to keep interfering in that part of the world because we want cheap oil and we want Israel to be there so Jesus can come back.

You can talk about arming and interfering all you want. Osama used quran scripture to justify deaths against the infidel. He lived his religion of terror. No aspersion you cast is going to change that reality.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

lsquo Blasphemous rsquo artwork removed from Paris exhibition - Telegraph

Yup, Muslims on the attack against freedom of speech and women's rights as per usual. Yet, hypocritical libtards like joeb and esmerelda still defending them to the hilt. After all, it's only a "fringe." That's all it ever is every time something blows up (figuratively or literally).

 

[JoeB131]

It has sub cultures. But Islam is not a religion. It's a philosophy of dogmatic death.

How is that different from Christianity, then?

 

[JoeB131]

You can talk about arming and interfering all you want. Osama used quran scripture to justify deaths against the infidel. He lived his religion of terror. No aspersion you cast is going to change that reality.

The problem is, he was talking that same smack when he was killing Russians who were trying to teach Afghan Girls how to read. And we armed him anyway.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Congrats, you found an obscure artwork that probably isn't even from WWII. WWII was not a war for religious supremacy. For you to pretend so is a stretch even for you.

The War on Terror isn't a war for "Religious Supremacy". Most people who are fighting it on the Muslim side just want us the fuck out of their countries.

But in WWII, both sides were willing to invoke the name of the Almighty Sky Pixie BeJesus to motivate their people. Even the Communist USSR did, when Stalin got the Orthodox Church to rally the troops. The Germans went into battle with belt buckles that said, "Gott Mit Uns". (God's With Us!) The only ones who didn't were the Japanese, who were fighting for their God-Emperor.

A soldier envoking God as a motivational tool and a nation fighting for religious supremacy are two different things, guy.

In terms of numbers of actual events there have been far more anti-abortion terrorist attacks in the US than Islamic extremist attacks.

And almost every one of the anti-abortion terrorists were Christians.

 

[JoeB131]

A soldier envoking God as a motivational tool and a nation fighting for religious supremacy are two different things, guy.

NOt really. I think you are really splitting hairs here.

Hey, let's go back to the three complaint Bin Laden gave for why he picked on America.

1) We support Israel. That has both secular and religious implications.
2) We are occupying Saudi Arabia and the area around Mecca- More religious, but no one like a foreign army on their land.
3) We engaged in a decade long campaign of starving out Iraq.

These are all secular kinds of complaints, and none of them involve trying to impose "supremacy" on the West.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

It has sub cultures. But Islam is not a religion. It's a philosophy of dogmatic death.

How is that different from Christianity, then?

I scoff at your lame moral equivalence. Do you really pretend they're the same? That's deluded even for you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, Osama was a terrorist all along? And he was a terrorist why now?

I don't use the word "Terrorist". One man's terrorist IS another man's freedom fighter. We've called Bin Laden both.

I was all for killing Bin Laden (THANKS, OBAMA) because he killed Americans. you kill Americans, you pay a price. But it was stupid of us to arm him in the first place. It's stupid of us to keep interfering in that part of the world because we want cheap oil and we want Israel to be there so Jesus can come back.

You can talk about arming and interfering all you want. Osama used quran scripture to justify deaths against the infidel. He lived his religion of terror. No aspersion you cast is going to change that reality.

Out of 2 billion Muslims you're naming ONE guy who used the scriptures to justify terrorist acts.

The other 2 billion who don't use the scriptures to justify committing terrorist acts, he somehow cancels them out?

lol you're fucking goofy.