Do liberals realize how asinine it is to compare the actual Taliban to the Christian Right?

[Pogo]

Question.....

First, let me say that I fought tooth and nail against Obama not using the term Islamic Terrorists until I had a debate with someone on here...and that poster made me realize something....

So now the question....

If Obama used the term Islamic Terrorists....would it not be appropriate to call someone who bombs an abortion clinic a Christian Terrorist?

After all, most people who are willing to bomb a clinic, are guided by their deep religious belief that abortion is murder, and murder is a serious religious sin.

Jump in!

Of course it is. That would be the dreaded C-word: consistent.

But why melt down over whether somebody uses or doesn't use the adjective you like? Seems kinda petty.
Better we should concern ourselves with actions than semantics.

Just to point something out to you....

That argument is a flawed argument......the part where you said....."Better we should concern ourselves with actions than semantics"

It was a talking point put out by the administration, but it holds no water and you, Pogo, are much to intelligent poster to fall for it....

It is flawed for two reasons....

1) One does not prevent you from doing the other
2) It actually takes more energy to NOT call it something that the rest of the world is calling it....and the truth is, by not calling it what the rest of the world calls it actually gave reason for the "semantics"

1) I proposed a comparison of preferential degree, not a mutually-exclusive juxtaposition;
2) word choice actually takes no energy. Whining about what somebody else's word choice is, though, does. So again --- what's the point?

 

[koshergrl]

No. The only time religion is *dangerous* is when the state interjects itself into matters of faith.

Obviously that's not true; you don't need a State to be dangerous. It may help if your State is complicit in hanging black people or burning women as witches, but it's not actually required. Eric Rudolph didn't need the State to help him blow up abortion clinics and a lesbian bar. Scott Roeder didn't need State assistance to walk into a church and gun down Dr. Tiller. Just as Islamofanatics didn't need the State to burst into Charlie Hebdo. Etc etc etc.

Those were wacked out individuals. They are nothing close to ISIS you Liberals on this thread are behaving like idiots in order to exercize your hatred for Christians. that must be it, because theres no other rational reason I can see. Im not a southerner, maybe you guys are? and have a better feel for what happened in the South , But as I see it that was about racism, and lingering anger over the civil war, Not about Christianity. You can argue that point. But lets look at whats happening today instead of going back to the 1920s or the 1800s,

ISIS is currently waging a war on civilization, Christians send aid workers to other countries and run charitable organizations. I know your hatred runs so deep, none of that matters to you.

Yeah I know, I know, when "they" do it it's all about evil religion, when "we" do it it's "wacked-out individuals". Having it both ways: Priceless. Sorry, this is as old as the hills.

Has nothing to do with "hating" or "supporting" any religion; it has to do with simple logic. Double standard in this case, and self-delusion. You are correct about the motivations in the South; it's a political/cultural background. It's always a political/cultural background. Religion is used as a convenient crutch, first to justify brutality, then to blanket-condemn it.

Religion in itself doesn't do a goddam thing. It's those who use it as a tool -- either way -- who do.
The point here is that if you choose a standard for one, then you apply it to all. This "it's different when we do it" crapola is just...

I take it you are unable to count, or comprehend scale.

Ah, so there's a threshold. A quota, as it were, where each religion gets a specified handicap of allowed barbarism. Stay under the line and you're OK.

I love it. The Affirmative Action of Theology.

I'm sorry you're incapable of engaging in meaningful discussion.

 

[Pogo]

Any religion is potentially dangerous if its believers are sufficiently motivated. They'll do anything in God's name, because God will promise them heavenly paradise.

No. The only time religion is *dangerous* is when the state interjects itself into matters of faith.

Obviously that's not true; you don't need a State to be dangerous. It may help if your State is complicit in hanging black people or burning women as witches, but it's not actually required. Eric Rudolph didn't need the State to help him blow up abortion clinics and a lesbian bar. Scott Roeder didn't need State assistance to walk into a church and gun down Dr. Tiller. Just as Islamofanatics didn't need the State to burst into Charlie Hebdo. Etc etc etc.

Those were wacked out individuals. They are nothing close to ISIS you Liberals on this thread are behaving like idiots in order to exercize your hatred for Christians. that must be it, because theres no other rational reason I can see. Im not a southerner, maybe you guys are? and have a better feel for what happened in the South , But as I see it that was about racism, and lingering anger over the civil war, Not about Christianity. You can argue that point. But lets look at whats happening today instead of going back to the 1920s or the 1800s,

ISIS is currently waging a war on civilization, Christians send aid workers to other countries and run charitable organizations. I know your hatred runs so deep, none of that matters to you.

Yeah I know, I know, when "they" do it it's all about evil religion, when "we" do it it's "wacked-out individuals". Having it both ways: Priceless. Sorry, this is as old as the hills.

Has nothing to do with "hating" or "supporting" any religion; it has to do with simple logic. Double standard in this case, and self-delusion. You are correct about the motivations in the South; it's a political/cultural background. It's always a political/cultural background. Religion is used as a convenient crutch, first to justify brutality, then to blanket-condemn it.

Religion in itself doesn't do a goddam thing. It's those who use it as a tool -- either way -- who do.
The point here is that if you choose a standard for one, then you apply it to all. This "it's different when we do it" crapola is just...

Which ever way you twist words around, comparing Christians to the ISIS or the Taliban is ludicris, If you wanted to compare religion for religion, (Christianity to Islam),
then you have a basis to debate on. Comparing Christians to ISIS is like comparing ISLAM to a specific radical Christian movement.

Yes. It is. Good, stay with that.

Christian groups are building orphanages and Hospitals. ISIS and the Taliban blow them up , or burn them down.

The Taliban and ISIS are not a few wacked out individuals, they are dangerous organized movements of which we have nothing here in the US.

--- and now you're back to cherrypicking.
Oh well. Was a glimmer of hope while it lasted.

 

[koshergrl]

Any religion is potentially dangerous if its believers are sufficiently motivated. They'll do anything in God's name, because God will promise them heavenly paradise.

No. The only time religion is *dangerous* is when the state interjects itself into matters of faith.

Obviously that's not true; you don't need a State to be dangerous. It may help if your State is complicit in hanging black people or burning women as witches, but it's not actually required. Eric Rudolph didn't need the State to help him blow up abortion clinics and a lesbian bar. Scott Roeder didn't need State assistance to walk into a church and gun down Dr. Tiller. Just as Islamofanatics didn't need the State to burst into Charlie Hebdo. Etc etc etc.

Those were wacked out individuals. They are nothing close to ISIS you Liberals on this thread are behaving like idiots in order to exercize your hatred for Christians. that must be it, because theres no other rational reason I can see. Im not a southerner, maybe you guys are? and have a better feel for what happened in the South , But as I see it that was about racism, and lingering anger over the civil war, Not about Christianity. You can argue that point. But lets look at whats happening today instead of going back to the 1920s or the 1800s,

ISIS is currently waging a war on civilization, Christians send aid workers to other countries and run charitable organizations. I know your hatred runs so deep, none of that matters to you.

Yeah I know, I know, when "they" do it it's all about evil religion, when "we" do it it's "wacked-out individuals". Having it both ways: Priceless. Sorry, this is as old as the hills.

Has nothing to do with "hating" or "supporting" any religion; it has to do with simple logic. Double standard in this case, and self-delusion. You are correct about the motivations in the South; it's a political/cultural background. It's always a political/cultural background. Religion is used as a convenient crutch, first to justify brutality, then to blanket-condemn it.

Religion in itself doesn't do a goddam thing. It's those who use it as a tool -- either way -- who do.
The point here is that if you choose a standard for one, then you apply it to all. This "it's different when we do it" crapola is just...

Which ever way you twist words around, comparing Christians to the ISIS or the Taliban is ludicris, If you wanted to compare religion for religion, (Christianity to Islam),
then you have a basis to debate on. Comparing Christians to ISIS is like comparing ISLAM to a specific radical Christian movement. Christian groups are building orphanages and Hospitals. ISIS and the Taliban blow them up , or burn them down.

The Taliban and ISIS are not a few wacked out individuals, they are dangerous organized movements of which we have nothing here in the US.

You can't argue against the statement "Religion only poses a threat to mankind when the state engages in telling people what they may and may not believe/celebrate" by saying "Wait there are allegedly Christian lone dog killers, too!" It's not an argument. It's nonsense. And it's all the left is capable of. A handful of nuts who acted alone and cited God as their commander down through the years is no justification for the state laying down the *law* regarding religion. When the state DOES lay down the law, it makes those sad wackos look like Bozo the clown...

This is where he chirrups "but the CRUSADES!" as if that doesn't prove my point.

 

[Pogo]

Obviously that's not true; you don't need a State to be dangerous. It may help if your State is complicit in hanging black people or burning women as witches, but it's not actually required. Eric Rudolph didn't need the State to help him blow up abortion clinics and a lesbian bar. Scott Roeder didn't need State assistance to walk into a church and gun down Dr. Tiller. Just as Islamofanatics didn't need the State to burst into Charlie Hebdo. Etc etc etc.

Those were wacked out individuals. They are nothing close to ISIS you Liberals on this thread are behaving like idiots in order to exercize your hatred for Christians. that must be it, because theres no other rational reason I can see. Im not a southerner, maybe you guys are? and have a better feel for what happened in the South , But as I see it that was about racism, and lingering anger over the civil war, Not about Christianity. You can argue that point. But lets look at whats happening today instead of going back to the 1920s or the 1800s,

ISIS is currently waging a war on civilization, Christians send aid workers to other countries and run charitable organizations. I know your hatred runs so deep, none of that matters to you.

Yeah I know, I know, when "they" do it it's all about evil religion, when "we" do it it's "wacked-out individuals". Having it both ways: Priceless. Sorry, this is as old as the hills.

Has nothing to do with "hating" or "supporting" any religion; it has to do with simple logic. Double standard in this case, and self-delusion. You are correct about the motivations in the South; it's a political/cultural background. It's always a political/cultural background. Religion is used as a convenient crutch, first to justify brutality, then to blanket-condemn it.

Religion in itself doesn't do a goddam thing. It's those who use it as a tool -- either way -- who do.
The point here is that if you choose a standard for one, then you apply it to all. This "it's different when we do it" crapola is just...

I take it you are unable to count, or comprehend scale.

Ah, so there's a threshold. A quota, as it were, where each religion gets a specified handicap of allowed barbarism. Stay under the line and you're OK.

I love it. The Affirmative Action of Theology.

I'm sorry you're incapable of engaging in meaningful discussion.

I'm sorry I had to mop the floor with yours. Don't make a mess and I won't have to mop.

 

[kaz]

Do liberals realize how asinine it is to compare the actual Taliban to the Christian Right?

No, it is not, because the mentality is exactly the same

I hear you. It's like if you punch your brother that's the same mentality as torturing and killing him. Using a toaster? The same mentality as throwing Jews in gas chambers. Sparklers? Same mentality as burning down a building and killing hundreds of people.

I respect your ability to ignore scale and magnitude in comparing groups of people. Then turning around and saying you're smarter than Republicans because you aren't all black and white like they are...

 

[Jarhead]

Question.....

First, let me say that I fought tooth and nail against Obama not using the term Islamic Terrorists until I had a debate with someone on here...and that poster made me realize something....

So now the question....

If Obama used the term Islamic Terrorists....would it not be appropriate to call someone who bombs an abortion clinic a Christian Terrorist?

After all, most people who are willing to bomb a clinic, are guided by their deep religious belief that abortion is murder, and murder is a serious religious sin.

Jump in!

Of course it is. That would be the dreaded C-word: consistent.

But why melt down over whether somebody uses or doesn't use the adjective you like? Seems kinda petty.
Better we should concern ourselves with actions than semantics.

Just to point something out to you....

That argument is a flawed argument......the part where you said....."Better we should concern ourselves with actions than semantics"

It was a talking point put out by the administration, but it holds no water and you, Pogo, are much to intelligent poster to fall for it....

It is flawed for two reasons....

1) One does not prevent you from doing the other
2) It actually takes more energy to NOT call it something that the rest of the world is calling it....and the truth is, by not calling it what the rest of the world calls it actually gave reason for the "semantics"

1) I proposed a comparison of preferential degree, not a mutually-exclusive juxtaposition;
2) word choice actually takes no energy. Whining about what somebody else's word choice is, though, does. So again --- what's the point?

word choice takes energy AND time when you know your choice of words will be met with requests for explanation.

And you cannot tell me that the administration did not expect a multitude of requests for explanation.

THAT is why it is a flawed premise.

 

[koshergrl]

Those were wacked out individuals. They are nothing close to ISIS you Liberals on this thread are behaving like idiots in order to exercize your hatred for Christians. that must be it, because theres no other rational reason I can see. Im not a southerner, maybe you guys are? and have a better feel for what happened in the South , But as I see it that was about racism, and lingering anger over the civil war, Not about Christianity. You can argue that point. But lets look at whats happening today instead of going back to the 1920s or the 1800s,

ISIS is currently waging a war on civilization, Christians send aid workers to other countries and run charitable organizations. I know your hatred runs so deep, none of that matters to you.

Yeah I know, I know, when "they" do it it's all about evil religion, when "we" do it it's "wacked-out individuals". Having it both ways: Priceless. Sorry, this is as old as the hills.

Has nothing to do with "hating" or "supporting" any religion; it has to do with simple logic. Double standard in this case, and self-delusion. You are correct about the motivations in the South; it's a political/cultural background. It's always a political/cultural background. Religion is used as a convenient crutch, first to justify brutality, then to blanket-condemn it.

Religion in itself doesn't do a goddam thing. It's those who use it as a tool -- either way -- who do.
The point here is that if you choose a standard for one, then you apply it to all. This "it's different when we do it" crapola is just...

I take it you are unable to count, or comprehend scale.

Ah, so there's a threshold. A quota, as it were, where each religion gets a specified handicap of allowed barbarism. Stay under the line and you're OK.

I love it. The Affirmative Action of Theology.

I'm sorry you're incapable of engaging in meaningful discussion.

I'm sorry I had to mop the floor with yours. Don't make a mess and I won't have to mop.

You didn't mop with anything except your own shirt. Give it a break. You aren't up for this discussion. You don't have the ability to understand.

 

[Pogo]

Question.....

First, let me say that I fought tooth and nail against Obama not using the term Islamic Terrorists until I had a debate with someone on here...and that poster made me realize something....

So now the question....

If Obama used the term Islamic Terrorists....would it not be appropriate to call someone who bombs an abortion clinic a Christian Terrorist?

After all, most people who are willing to bomb a clinic, are guided by their deep religious belief that abortion is murder, and murder is a serious religious sin.

Jump in!

Of course it is. That would be the dreaded C-word: consistent.

But why melt down over whether somebody uses or doesn't use the adjective you like? Seems kinda petty.
Better we should concern ourselves with actions than semantics.

Just to point something out to you....

That argument is a flawed argument......the part where you said....."Better we should concern ourselves with actions than semantics"

It was a talking point put out by the administration, but it holds no water and you, Pogo, are much to intelligent poster to fall for it....

It is flawed for two reasons....

1) One does not prevent you from doing the other
2) It actually takes more energy to NOT call it something that the rest of the world is calling it....and the truth is, by not calling it what the rest of the world calls it actually gave reason for the "semantics"

1) I proposed a comparison of preferential degree, not a mutually-exclusive juxtaposition;
2) word choice actually takes no energy. Whining about what somebody else's word choice is, though, does. So again --- what's the point?

word choice takes energy AND time when you know your choice of words will be met with requests for explanation.

And you cannot tell me that the administration did not expect a multitude of requests for explanation.

THAT is why it is a flawed premise.

I'm not even familiar with this word choice "issue" --- because it isn't one. As I said -- petty. As I also said, actions are more important than whether this or that politician uses a phraseology on which I bestow my esteemed imprimatur.

But then I don't try to control other people's speech. Your mileage may vary.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm not defending the CR here in the least. Have at them all you want. I really don't care about that. What I care about is how eager liberals are to belittle the oppression of the Afghan people and compare the group doing it to Westboro Baptist protesting funerals or Pat Robertson saying stupid shit on tv. There is no comparison. The CR makes a habit of alienating rhetoric and introducing unconstitutional legislation. The Taliban makes a habit of planting IEDs by the roads and strapping explosives onto children. The CR makes dumb comments about birth control being a Satanic plot. The Taliban murders midwives for giving women birth control. The CR keeps the death penalty around. The Taliban stone rape victims to death for committing adultery against their future husbands. There really just isn't a comparison here. If you still think the Taliban are harmless crazies no different than our televangelists, then I'd be more than happy to get you a plane ticket to Kabul. You can see for yourself before the brainwashed fifteen year old kid screams "ALLAH AKHBAR" and takes out the fifteen foot radius around you.

So an anti-abortionist blowing up a building is different from Talibani blowing up a building how, exactly?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Do conservatives realize how asinine the Christian right is.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Do conservatives realize how asinine the Christian right is.

The original post of the thread:

I'm not defending the CR here in the least. Have at them all you want. I really don't care about that. What I care about is how eager liberals are to belittle the oppression of the Afghan people and compare the group doing it to Westboro Baptist protesting funerals or Pat Robertson saying stupid shit on tv. There is no comparison. The CR makes a habit of alienating rhetoric and introducing unconstitutional legislation. The Taliban makes a habit of planting IEDs by the roads and strapping explosives onto children. The CR makes dumb comments about birth control being a Satanic plot. The Taliban murders midwives for giving women birth control. The CR keeps the death penalty around. The Taliban stone rape victims to death for committing adultery against their future husbands. There really just isn't a comparison here. If you still think the Taliban are harmless crazies no different than our televangelists, then I'd be more than happy to get you a plane ticket to Kabul. You can see for yourself before the brainwashed fifteen year old kid screams "ALLAH AKHBAR" and takes out the fifteen foot radius around you.

So yes. To answer your rhetorical question, I do. And I have no problem with you complaining how fucked up the CR can be. My problem with you is the inappropriateness of you making light of the Taliban's oppression of the Afghan people to do it. Here you sometimes get a crazy militia in the backwoods that murders a cop for Jesus or something. There you get fathers strapping explosives to their children and telling them to walk up to the ISAF troops and ask for water. Here you get televangelists telling teenagers they'll go to Hell if they have sex before marriage. There they have to put up with mullahs condemning girls to death by stoning for the crime of adultery while single. It just doesn't compare. Trying to make it fit makes you look totally disconnected to what's been going on there and hyperpartisan to boot.

 

[Jarhead]

Question.....

First, let me say that I fought tooth and nail against Obama not using the term Islamic Terrorists until I had a debate with someone on here...and that poster made me realize something....

So now the question....

If Obama used the term Islamic Terrorists....would it not be appropriate to call someone who bombs an abortion clinic a Christian Terrorist?

After all, most people who are willing to bomb a clinic, are guided by their deep religious belief that abortion is murder, and murder is a serious religious sin.

Jump in!

Of course it is. That would be the dreaded C-word: consistent.

But why melt down over whether somebody uses or doesn't use the adjective you like? Seems kinda petty.
Better we should concern ourselves with actions than semantics.

Just to point something out to you....

That argument is a flawed argument......the part where you said....."Better we should concern ourselves with actions than semantics"

It was a talking point put out by the administration, but it holds no water and you, Pogo, are much to intelligent poster to fall for it....

It is flawed for two reasons....

1) One does not prevent you from doing the other
2) It actually takes more energy to NOT call it something that the rest of the world is calling it....and the truth is, by not calling it what the rest of the world calls it actually gave reason for the "semantics"

1) I proposed a comparison of preferential degree, not a mutually-exclusive juxtaposition;
2) word choice actually takes no energy. Whining about what somebody else's word choice is, though, does. So again --- what's the point?

word choice takes energy AND time when you know your choice of words will be met with requests for explanation.

And you cannot tell me that the administration did not expect a multitude of requests for explanation.

THAT is why it is a flawed premise.

I'm not even familiar with this word choice "issue" --- because it isn't one. As I said -- petty. As I also said, actions are more important than whether this or that politician uses a phraseology on which I bestow my esteemed imprimatur.

But then I don't try to control other people's speech. Your mileage may vary.

when attempting to put together a coalition against an enemy, it would make sense to refer to the enemy the same as your allies.

It is an attempt to manufacture a controversy in my eyes....and they counted on folks like you to support their position in the controversy...the controversy that never had to be.

As you said...what difference does word choice make? If it makes none, why choose words that you know would create a controversy?

 

[Jarhead]

Do conservatives realize how asinine the Christian right is.

Asinine? No.

Should they relax their religious beliefs? I believe in time they will find they will need to.

Is it appropriate for us to say they are wrong? No. We have no right to criticize the belief system of another.

 

[Lakhota]

Do liberals realize how asinine it is to compare the actual Taliban to the Christian Right?

Nope! The similarities are becoming more and more apparent.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Do liberals realize how asinine it is to compare the actual Taliban to the Christian Right?

Nope! The similarities are becoming more and more apparent.

I'm not defending the CR here in the least. Have at them all you want. I really don't care about that. What I care about is how eager liberals are to belittle the oppression of the Afghan people and compare the group doing it to Westboro Baptist protesting funerals or Pat Robertson saying stupid shit on tv. There is no comparison. The CR makes a habit of alienating rhetoric and introducing unconstitutional legislation. The Taliban makes a habit of planting IEDs by the roads and strapping explosives onto children. The CR makes dumb comments about birth control being a Satanic plot. The Taliban murders midwives for giving women birth control. The CR keeps the death penalty around. The Taliban stone rape victims to death for committing adultery against their future husbands. There really just isn't a comparison here. If you still think the Taliban are harmless crazies no different than our televangelists, then I'd be more than happy to get you a plane ticket to Kabul. You can see for yourself before the brainwashed fifteen year old kid screams "ALLAH AKHBAR" and takes out the fifteen foot radius around you.

 

[Pogo]

Of course it is. That would be the dreaded C-word: consistent.

But why melt down over whether somebody uses or doesn't use the adjective you like? Seems kinda petty.
Better we should concern ourselves with actions than semantics.

Just to point something out to you....

That argument is a flawed argument......the part where you said....."Better we should concern ourselves with actions than semantics"

It was a talking point put out by the administration, but it holds no water and you, Pogo, are much to intelligent poster to fall for it....

It is flawed for two reasons....

1) One does not prevent you from doing the other
2) It actually takes more energy to NOT call it something that the rest of the world is calling it....and the truth is, by not calling it what the rest of the world calls it actually gave reason for the "semantics"

1) I proposed a comparison of preferential degree, not a mutually-exclusive juxtaposition;
2) word choice actually takes no energy. Whining about what somebody else's word choice is, though, does. So again --- what's the point?

word choice takes energy AND time when you know your choice of words will be met with requests for explanation.

And you cannot tell me that the administration did not expect a multitude of requests for explanation.

THAT is why it is a flawed premise.

I'm not even familiar with this word choice "issue" --- because it isn't one. As I said -- petty. As I also said, actions are more important than whether this or that politician uses a phraseology on which I bestow my esteemed imprimatur.

But then I don't try to control other people's speech. Your mileage may vary.

when attempting to put together a coalition against an enemy, it would make sense to refer to the enemy the same as your allies.

It is an attempt to manufacture a controversy in my eyes....and they counted on folks like you to support their position in the controversy...the controversy that never had to be.

As you said...what difference does word choice make? If it makes none, why choose words that you know would create a controversy?

Whatever. You want to get all hung up on phraseology, that's your problem.

 

[Jarhead]

Just to point something out to you....

That argument is a flawed argument......the part where you said....."Better we should concern ourselves with actions than semantics"

It was a talking point put out by the administration, but it holds no water and you, Pogo, are much to intelligent poster to fall for it....

It is flawed for two reasons....

1) One does not prevent you from doing the other
2) It actually takes more energy to NOT call it something that the rest of the world is calling it....and the truth is, by not calling it what the rest of the world calls it actually gave reason for the "semantics"

1) I proposed a comparison of preferential degree, not a mutually-exclusive juxtaposition;
2) word choice actually takes no energy. Whining about what somebody else's word choice is, though, does. So again --- what's the point?

word choice takes energy AND time when you know your choice of words will be met with requests for explanation.

And you cannot tell me that the administration did not expect a multitude of requests for explanation.

THAT is why it is a flawed premise.

I'm not even familiar with this word choice "issue" --- because it isn't one. As I said -- petty. As I also said, actions are more important than whether this or that politician uses a phraseology on which I bestow my esteemed imprimatur.

But then I don't try to control other people's speech. Your mileage may vary.

when attempting to put together a coalition against an enemy, it would make sense to refer to the enemy the same as your allies.

It is an attempt to manufacture a controversy in my eyes....and they counted on folks like you to support their position in the controversy...the controversy that never had to be.

As you said...what difference does word choice make? If it makes none, why choose words that you know would create a controversy?

Whatever. You want to get all hung up on phraseology, that's your problem.

Actually, it was the administration that got stuck on phraseology and they counted on folks like you to defend it.

But you deflected from my question of..."if it doesn't matter what words were used, then why did the administration opt to use words they knew would create a controversy?

But not to worry. I know why you deflected from the question. If I held your position, I would have done the same.

 

[LeftofLeft]

I'm not defending the CR here in the least. Have at them all you want. I really don't care about that. What I care about is how eager liberals are to belittle the oppression of the Afghan people and compare the group doing it to Westboro Baptist protesting funerals or Pat Robertson saying stupid shit on tv. There is no comparison. The CR makes a habit of alienating rhetoric and introducing unconstitutional legislation. The Taliban makes a habit of planting IEDs by the roads and strapping explosives onto children. The CR makes dumb comments about birth control being a Satanic plot. The Taliban murders midwives for giving women birth control. The CR keeps the death penalty around. The Taliban stone rape victims to death for committing adultery against their future husbands. There really just isn't a comparison here. If you still think the Taliban are harmless crazies no different than our televangelists, then I'd be more than happy to get you a plane ticket to Kabul. You can see for yourself before the brainwashed fifteen year old kid screams "ALLAH AKHBAR" and takes out the fifteen foot radius around you.

Yes... The Left does know how stupid it is. One has to understand that the Left's hate of Christianity runs deeper than its desire to appease Islamo terrorists. How else to explain the Left shitting itself over a baker refusing to do a cake for a gay marriage yet stays silent on a Religion that believes homosexuality is punishable by death.

 

[Pogo]

1) I proposed a comparison of preferential degree, not a mutually-exclusive juxtaposition;
2) word choice actually takes no energy. Whining about what somebody else's word choice is, though, does. So again --- what's the point?

word choice takes energy AND time when you know your choice of words will be met with requests for explanation.

And you cannot tell me that the administration did not expect a multitude of requests for explanation.

THAT is why it is a flawed premise.

I'm not even familiar with this word choice "issue" --- because it isn't one. As I said -- petty. As I also said, actions are more important than whether this or that politician uses a phraseology on which I bestow my esteemed imprimatur.

But then I don't try to control other people's speech. Your mileage may vary.

when attempting to put together a coalition against an enemy, it would make sense to refer to the enemy the same as your allies.

It is an attempt to manufacture a controversy in my eyes....and they counted on folks like you to support their position in the controversy...the controversy that never had to be.

As you said...what difference does word choice make? If it makes none, why choose words that you know would create a controversy?

Whatever. You want to get all hung up on phraseology, that's your problem.

Actually, it was the administration that got stuck on phraseology and they counted on folks like you to defend it.

But you deflected from my question of..."if it doesn't matter what words were used, then why did the administration opt to use words they knew would create a controversy?

But not to worry. I know why you deflected from the question. If I held your position, I would have done the same.

I guess I'll have to repeat until it starts to sink in -- I'm not even familiar with this what-you-think-is-a "controversy". If it passed my desk I turned the page and moved on to something that actually matters.

I mean I love words as much as anybody but running around with one's hair on fire because some politico-clown didn't use a phrase I wanted him to use is just goddamn silly.

To put it bluntly -- no, you can't make me care.