Media Bias? CNN ANCHOR VIGOROUSLY PRAISES EGYPT’S MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

146 replies [Last post]
Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010

Remember as you watch the clip that the CNN anchor is interviewing a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. So it’s not as though the anchor is trying to give some “fair and balanced” counterargument in some adversarial interview. Not that that would excuse this even then:

I’m asking about the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization that has tirelessly, and in many cases quite courageously, campaigned in elections, it has campaigned against the government, it has campaigned on behalf of the poor in Egypt. It has a long, long history in that country. What role should it have now?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoDAPZmXOmQ&feature=player_embedded

"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."�Muslim Brotherhood

A little about the Brotherhood:
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/135.pdf

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Alrighty, oofu, I'll play!

You would appear to have issues with Fox News' boogeyman du jour, the dastardly Muslim Brotherhood.

Now, honestly, I didn't know these bozos existed prior to a week or so ago, and I'd make a hefty wager you didn't either.

I skimmed over the link you posted (bias factor: 6 on a scale of 1 to Kawfi)...it would appear that the whole raison d'etre for this party is to install Sharia courts in countries, such as the current form of government in Saudi Arabia.

Now, from what I understand, the Muslim Brotherhood is a very very large organization, and is very popular amongst very uneducated and very religious types....sorta like the Republican party here. They have some fringe extremist branches in this organization, again not unlike Republicans here.

My question to you, then, is this: should the Egyptian government fall, and with each passing day this seems more likely, should the Americans step in and dictate the proper form of Egyptian government we will recognize? Or is this something the Egyptians should decide for themselves. They already know....or should know....that 1.3 billion American Simoleeans that America pays Egypt to make nice-nice with the extremist Zionist government of Israel hangs in the balance. My feeling is that, come what may, the Egyptian military is loathe to give up Uncle Sugar's gravy train, and this will have a moderatin' influence on the next government.

Egypt might yet wind up with "Sharia law", but I suspect it would be more like the wink-nudge Sharia of the UAE and/or Jordan rather than the Saudi fundamentalism.

Egypt has a very cosmopolitan middle class, I seriously doubt they'd cede much poltical power to uneducated religious bigots. They enjoy western goods too much.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Well bacon not surprisingly you would be wrong

I have followed the Middle East for years and the Muslim Brotherhood has been on the radar for some time.

This same group spun off Hamas, Hezbollah and other well known terrorist.

But you are missing the larger picture. This uprising is not by accident. Chaos and revolution in the middle east is being orchestrated by these very same groups for the very reason we are speaking of. You think that the moderate Egyptians will calm the radical extremist amongst them.

One question. What gives you that idea? Where has that ever happened?

As soon as the secularist take control a crack down on freedoms and a move to sharia law is always imposed. Do you really believe that the Muslim Brotherhood will allow these supposed moderate Egyptians to maintain any sort of individualism or not bow to the clerics?

They are pushing for a Caliphate. This has been their main goal and focus for decades. They will not stop until the twelvers rule.

Don't know what a Caliphate is look it up. After you do, you tell me how much influence moderate Egyptians will have on these groups.

As for your question. No we should not interfere. The time has long past for us to have had any influence in the events.

We supported a dictator and the people there will remember it well.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Caliph

OOU
Caliphates can not function as a government any more!

What can function and may be what is in for all these riots is the Iran example.

The government leaders run the country and deal with the world but...when they stray the Ayatollah says no!
If they don't listen, they are overturned.

Unless they attack England or France we need to stay away. And I mean by "attack" to start large riots without end.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Roundabout don't confuse the morays and morals of the US

to anything in the Middle East. You cannot possibly begin to understand the mindset of the twelvers and Caliphates.

These groups PLAN on the World running in blood. Their agenda is Global Revolution and chaos so that an new Islamic empire can institute Islamic Law upon us all.

This is not some fringe group. 92% of Egyptians in a recent poll considered Israel an enemy according to their media.

So there are a ready group of people that would welcome a new Islamic empire.

Like I told Jeff below, look up Islamic Socialism.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
OOU

Hezbollah was not spun off from the Muslim Brotherhood. They are a Shia based terrorist organization formed in Lebanon with Syrian and Iranian backing after the 1982 invasion of Lebanon by Israel. Members of the Muslim Brotherhood founded the Sunni based Hamas with the blessing and probable funding of the Israeli intelligence service Shin Bet and the Reagan administration in the early 80s in order to factionalize the PLO and particularly to counter Fatah.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Jeff there is some overlap there

it is somewhat unclear, however you are correct that Hezbollah is a Shia based group. It is rumored that Tariq Ramadan the grandson of the creator of the Brotherhood also assisted in the creation of Hezbollah.

An interesting side note. Tariq Ramadan is an Oxford professor that had his visa revoked in 2004 for activities supporting Hamas and yet President Obama and Hillary Clinton re-issued that visa last year. Go figure?

Google or Bing Islamic Socialism both Hamas and Hezbollah as well as the Brotherhood is working with Groups in the US such as Code Pink to end Capitalism, Israel and promote Social Justice.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Observer: Jeff

I wonder after reading all this information about all of the different religious groups in Islam, and which are terrorists and which aren't, that maybe the more educated ones in Muslim counties sit around and discuss Christianity like we do Islam?

For instance would they discuss the Crusades about Christians who wanted to convert the world to Christianity and went about slaughtering as many Muslims, Indians in America, etc., as was possible who wouldn't convert or dig out gold?

What do they thing of the Holiness sect of American Christianity---the fundamentalist ones? How about the Baptists, organized and independent, about 100 different rules of order?

I suppose they would really hate the Episcopalians and all their branches due to the closeness to the Anglicans--who were close to the Crusaders!

How about the Vatican's aid of the Nazis in WW2?

The Mormons would provide great topics for discussions for the Islamic round tables---similar to the Muslim thinking about heroes going to heaven with the virgins. (you know the spirits in the sky that are waiting to be replaced or to re-unite with their first wife only---such as that!)

Then we have the Televangelists who seemingly are just "Christians" and belong to no group except TV organizations and satellite owners.
These dudes along with the Baptists send Holy people to all over the earth to compete with the Muslims---they must not appreciate that!

I have no objection to any of these folks but I can see why so many wars with them!

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Looks as if the Military is first up

The 30 year illegal President, Mubarak, was forced by the inaction of the military against the rioters to give in to the military.
Now the Supreme Council of Military Leaders (or something like that) have taken charge of the Egyptian government which currently does not exist since all resigned or were resigned.
I suppose they are making decisions by committee and maybe it will happen and maybe it won't.

So the military is in charge but they are now supposed to arrange for Presidential elections, after they have appointed all of the government officials, and then the new President will take over from the Super military council! The military goes back to their barracks and awaits orders! Right!

Of course by that time all of the money in the country that Mubarak and the military haven't already stolen will also be stolen.

Iran meanwhile likes what they see as of today in Egypt---no organization, the military in charge, and the Muslims wanting jobs and a leader.
What do you suppose they think will happen next?

The Pentagon will continue to "advise" the Supreme Directing General of Egypt as to how to run things. The military aid will be increased by the USA from 1.3 billion dollars to more to rebuild the country.

Next we will station fighters and bombers in Cairo at the airport and assist the military in honoring the peace treaty with Israel that President Carter negotiated.

Next, rumblings from Iran about the mistreated Muslims in Egypt......Oh, I quit there!

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Let's not fall off the edge of the world OOU

Tariq Ramadan gave $900 to a Swiss charity which two years later the US claimed was giving money to Hamas. His visa was denied based on that and was issued after a US District Court in New York ordered it. I only know of him because he was been banned from entering Syria and Lebanon, and then later Saudi Arabia.

Some Code Pink people got assurances that they would not be attacked by Hamas if they entered Gaza. I wouldn't classify that as working with them. Everybody who visits Gaza does that, else they're incredibly stupid.(Okay, they are Code Pink but still they're not that stupid).

Besides, look on the bright side. With the Arab world teetering, the US is fortunate to have Obama as President. Who better to deal with them than a Kenyan born Muslim?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Jeff let's be honest here

Tariq Ramadan is much more than that.

https://docs.google.com/View?docid=ah6sxjndq9qq_315dwk7qn

btw-on Code Pink

Did A Liberal US Women's Anti-War Group Join The Protesters In Cairo?

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/did-a-liberal-us-womens-anti-war-group-jo...

http://www.businessinsider.com/did-a-liberal-us-womens-anti-war-group-jo...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/25-activists-arrested-after-protesting-c...

Code Pink is throwing in with Islamic extremist to unite in a common cause.
1. The Elimination of Israel.
2. The Elimination of Capitalism.
3. The establishment of Socialism under the banner of Social Justice and Islamic Socialism

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Are all Egyptian people "Islamic Extremists"?

Observerofu seems to think so.

The Code Pink folks marched in a parade with Egyptian protesters.

They held up a sign saying "solidarity with the Egyptian people".

Naturally, Observerofu translates that to "Code Pink is throwing in with Islamic Extremists".

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
I'll provide evidence you continue to provide rhetoric

"Obama fundraiser group Code Pink issued an emergency appeal on Thursday for thousands of dollars to help the group overthrow the Egyptian government of Hosni Mubarak.

Code Pink, which has a history of working with enemies of the Egyptian government Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, said in the appeal it wanted to raise $5,000 to fund "the next big uprising" against the Egyptian government on Friday.

As we reported previously, Code Pink has been on the ground in Cairo since the beginning of the uprising. The group has made nine trips to Egypt in the past two years as part of a campaign to undermine the Egyptian government and the blockade against Hamas-controlled Gaza."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2668652/posts

"Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamic organization whose goal is to wage “a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” In other words, it wants to create a worldwide Islamic state. Code Pink has also teamed up with this extremist organization, placing ads on its website asking them to “join us in cleansing our country.”"

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/21/code-pink%E2%80%99s-support-of-the-en...

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
You'll provide "evidence"? *snicker*

Your "evidence" is the tin-foil frothing at the mouth of one Kirstenn Taylor, who is best known as bigot-in-residence at one of the premier sewers of the internet, freerethuglic.com.

Her distortion skills are first rate, almost Beckian level: Code Pink puts out an appeal to buy "flowers and meals" for Egyptian demonstrators, and the hate-filled Taylor distorts that into support for Islamic terrorists, knowing that gullible dupes such as yourself will pass along her vitriol as gospel.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Your blindness only exceeds your ignorance but only just

I guess your ardent defense and obvious admiration for Code Pink speaks, at least to me, volumes and explains your attacks on Israel and defense of Iran.

Pull those gulag clothes tighter. It's really cold in Siberia.

btw- I still didn't see the links to back up your assertion that Code Pink is just a bunch of peaceful women that just want to share the love to the World.

btw #2- I also noticed you completely ignored the 2nd link.

I guess if you can't argue with facts, Smears will do just fine.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Muslim Brotherhood bows out...

The Muslim Brotherhood announced today that it would NOT field a presidential candidate if/when Hosni Mubarek steps down. LINK

They're gonna take over the world, but they won't even try to win a wide open election?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
NPR not biased. Riggghhht

"Muslim Brotherhood holds first talks with Egyptian government as protesters defiantly wait for Mubarak to step down"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354151/Egypt-protests-Muslim-Br...

"The Muslim Brotherhood held talks with Vice President Omar Suleiman to press 'legitimate and just demands' as the government attempted to end 12 days of protests.

Senior Brotherhood leader Mohammed Mursi said the group was sticking to the protesters' main condition that President Mubarak stand down."

Does that sound like they are bowing out to you?

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
NPR and stuff

It never ceases to amaze me the double standard you apply posting here. I post links to sites such as NPR and you immediately go into "shoot the messenger" mode, usually because you don't have Glen Beck feeding you canned responses.

On the other hand, we're supposed to take the looney tunes tinfoil hat sites you dredge up at face value.

In any event, I simply noted that the Egyptian equivalent of the Tea Party, the Muslim Brotherhood, went on record as saying they would not field a presidential candidate. Perhaps they are taking a lesson from their intolerant American cousins the Teahadists and remain content to whine and complain about the way things ought to be from the relative safety of the legislature. So yeah, that's bowing out.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Bacon - I am

I am sure you realize that the legislature is where it really happens.

Give me super majority in the Congress and you can keep Mr. Obama, how's that?

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
The problem, Petey C

Well Petey, you have one significant problem with your theory: Religious zealots, whether the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or the Christian Taliban in America, never seem to garner much more than 30% of the popular vote.

That's a sizeable bloc of votes....but nowhere near the number to establish any sort of majority.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
CPB - Time

Time will tell Crisp, time will tell.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Is 84% a majority?

Poll shows Egyptians in favor of democracy and stoning for adultery

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/02/poll-shows-egyptians-in-favor-of-democ...

82%: Believe adulterers should be stoned

84%: Believe apostates from Islam should face the death penalty

Don't seem to be many moderates does it?

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Parroting the Islamic party line

Pfft...I'm not here to defend the Islamic faith. Tenets of Islam call for stoning adulterers, cutting the hands off of thiefs, etc. It's a brutal religion.

But hey, if that's the way they want to run their country (and I will point out that Saudi Arabia has done this for well over a half century), who am I to pass judgment on them?

You seem to be very worked up about this...were you planning on moving to Egypt?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Just informing those that are receptive

to reason and logic.

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
Polls

Scoff at PTC polls (no gas carts) but believe in stoning poll.
Isn't democracy the will of the majority?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
bladderq in short-yes

"These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see."

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

We were a Republic, slipped into a Democracy now we are a fallen Democracy.

To quote myself:

Observerofu wrote:

Check this chart out:

http://anaverageamericanpatriot.blogspot.com/2010/11/2010-most-corrupt-n...

The problem Gort is money. Now I know that is very simplistic, but boiled down that is all there is left. Although we have the power of the vote and supposedly we can choose our rulers, I mean leaders, they don't see themselves after awhile as being beholden to the people.

Lobbyist, special interest and political elitist (lifers) corrupt the system.

In a Republic, which we were supposed to be, the Government acknowledges the power of the people and individualism. It also acknowledges the power of the States and their sovereignty and bows to the wish of same.

In a Democracy fallen into corruption, the ruling elite cares not for the power of the people, because their really is none. The Government becomes the Sovereign entity and the Government becomes the sole arbitror of Rights and individualism is discouraged.

We are a failed Republic and a fallen democracy. Our ruling elite has ceased to listen to the people and elections hardly mean anything any more.

Can we recover? Certainly we can, but the people must engage the Government process and make sure the power is returned to the people and the States.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Duplicate

...

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
*

*

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Hmm wrong again I see
chris p. bacon wrote:

The Muslim Brotherhood announced today that it would NOT field a presidential candidate if/when Hosni Mubarek steps down. LINK

They're gonna take over the world, but they won't even try to win a wide open election?

Celebration in Egypt as Morsi declared winner
Muslim Brotherhood candidate and president-elect in victory speech vows to unite the country and stand up for democracy.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
oou
Quote:

I'll provide evidence you continue to provide rhetoric

No - you provide the opinions/analysis of others.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Oh ok

Thank you for the information

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Yawn on Code Pink OOU

Do you know how many feminists it takes to change a light bulb?

Answer: It doesn't matter how many there are, they still can't change anything.

(See, as a liberal, I can say stuff like that. If you said it, it would be hate speech.)

My interest in Tariq is piqued, though.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Jeff

Men can't have babies however! With enough frozen, soon they won't need us!

Also, just how many "Generals" do you think will have to be sent to Paris or killed in Egypt before any kind of half-decent elections and a succession procedure can be implemented?
Fared Zacharia said today that Mubarak canned all of his cabinet except 5-6 Generals!

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Ok Jeff since you started it.

How many Liberals does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Just ONE.

They just stand still.

They think the world revolves around them. 8-)

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Nope OOU, I shouldn't have started it

How many Republicans does it take to screw in a light bulb?

None.

They only screw the poor.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
How many anti-abortion zealots

How many anti-abortion zealots does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Two, one to screw in the light bulb and one to insist that the bulb was lit the moment the screwing commenced.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
I am not actually resonding to this dope

I am merely posting under his light bulb "joke" in order to illustrate why the Republican Party needs to get off the anti-abortion obsession. Reason being is that it makes it too easy for obvious morons like this guy to make fun of their position.

After all, if a dope like this can score cheap points why should the Republicans cling to an anti-abortion agenda?

The far right is not worth the struggle. Throw them under the bus and let's get some serious middle ground support from the independents. Can you say President Guiliani?

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Morgan

Now, you can't throw them under the bus---that is murder!

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
So is abortion

but I was just using a figure of speech. Vote them off the island - is that better?

cogitoergofay
cogitoergofay's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/11/2006
Mr. Morgan--- you are what is wrong

Mr. Morgan--- you are what is wrong with the Republican Party and why many people (myself included) refuse to label themselves "Republicans" any more.
Your battle cry "Let's get some serious middle ground" is nothing other than a wholesale compromise of principle. It rejects principle on a far wider range of issues such as fiscal responsibility. What did you "Republicans" do, with President Bush, when Wall Street started to implode---- you showered the criminals with multimillion dollar bonuses. There has become little difference between the two parties.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
You misunderstood. Middle ground and compromise is for losers

No compromise on principles is being suggested. Dropping the religous right's influence to select only anti-abortion candidates when the law of the land is clearly pro-abortion (against my personal beliefs, but so what). That's just common sense. If they do that, many who have shunned the party and are now independents would either identify with the party or simply vote for their candidate. Lot's of people who vote are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. What's wrong with catering to that type of voter?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Mr. Morgan I disagree as well.

It may be the "Law" of the land but clearly there is a divide in the Country on this issue.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx

A majority of Americans class themselves as "Pro-life". So to chuck the "Baby" out with the embryonic fluid is to marginalize a large segment of America.

Your "solution" is what has made the "RINO" in Republican so prevalent.

The "Middle Ground" as you see it is a compromise of Principles.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Oou

This to me is like the alcohol on Sunday thing here in Georgia, only in reverse, you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. No one requires you to have one, while on the other hand the overly religious (like good old Sonny) have denied me the right to do what I want, just because they wouldn't do it themselves, I'm forced to go without if I'm not able to buy it in advance. If you don't believe in something, well Hell, don't do it, but when you put your morals on me, and deny me because it's against your beliefs, then it's wrong.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Hutch I agree

I simply do not believe Government has a role in this. This should be a States issue.
Just like your Alcohol sales issues if the people in the State want an act and it is legal and does not violate the Social bonds we all share then I believe the State and therefore the people should decide.

If the act is illegal i.e. Alcohol sales on Sunday then you work to overturn the law, not marginalize those that do not want you to be able to buy Alcohol on Sunday.

Mr. Morgan's solution is to ignore and marginalize those that hold this view as well as those that feel that abortion is murder.

A Solomon (edited: mix metaphors) solution is not the answer here.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Need some consistent thought here

Very simply, if government should have no role in the abortion debate then why should the Republican Party keep the subject alive by using an anti-abortion view as a litmus test for qualified candidates?

And even if it is to be a States issue, that would be decided by a referendum and there is simply no need for either party to stake out opposing positions.

That doesn't marginalize people, it simply allows them to have whatever belief they want in the area of personal responsiblity or religion or whatever and focus them on legitimate government (and Party) issues like tax cuts, deficits, health care reform, etc. when choosing candidates. After all, what can a President or Governor or a Congressman do about abortion anyway? If they can't actually do anything, then why are their personal beliefs on the subject relevant?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
RWM- Not much the party as the media

but why should the party choose a pro-abortion candidate?

When you attempt to ostracize one side over the other neither wins.
Personally I think it should be a none issue as well. The trouble is the media will make it one.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Oou

How is anyone "marginalized?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
RWM said this hutch
Robert W. Morgan wrote:

The far right is not worth the struggle. Throw them under the bus and let's get some serious middle ground support from the independents. Can you say President Guiliani?

Since Christianity makes up the largest segment in our society AND Abortion is a major issue AND most Christians tend to vote.

Then this is self-explanatory.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Oou

OK, I've got it now, unless the party bows down to one strident section and gives them their way, then they're marginalized. Got it. Using this logic then, all people who don't get their way are marginalized.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
"Self explanatory"?
Observerofu wrote:

Since Christianity makes up the largest segment in our society AND Abortion is a major issue AND most Christians tend to vote.

Then this is self-explanatory.

Let's see here:
I am a christian,
I tend to vote,
and I believe abortion is a major issue.

how am *I* being marginalized?
Oh yeah, that's right, we're not talking about abortion here, we're talking about legislating morality so that everyone must adhere to some fringe right wing interpretation of morality.

Self-explanatory, indeed...

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Another View

I am a Christian and believe abortion is murder, however I also believe it is not my place to judge and all will be judged by God. I do vote and feel strongly government funds should not be used for abortion. -GP

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
The Vindication of RINO W. Morgan

RINO W. Morgan struck a nerve when he suggested Republicans abandon their principles to defeat President Barack Obama in 2012.

It turns out he's not alone....

A new poll indicates that a whopping 68% of all Republicans would abandon their principles in order to defeat President Obama's reelection. LINK

The concept of "Unprincipled Republicans" should come as no surprise whatsoever to regular readers of the Citizen Online.

They really hate that n-word president, don't they?

darrylwd
darrylwd's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/06/2006
You failed to do your homework my friend

... or better yet, just read a book by Liberal journalist and author Arthur Brooks, "Who Really Cares, the Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism", if you dare too.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
JeffC - analysis

What do all these various groups have in common?

1. They hate the United States and want to destroy it.
2. They hate Israel and want to destroy it.

Not necessarily in that order.

While I respect your father for his humanitarian work, at least work that is not at taxpayer expense, I do not believe that he is a giant in the arena of international relations. It is good natured and naive people like President Carter that create “Agreements” like the Munich Agreement of 1938. We will all suffer because of leaders that compromise with people that want to kill us including our current stable of leaders.

All of this analysis of these groups reminds me of a quote from C.S. Lewis:

“There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.” from The Screwtape Letters

They will kill us, given a chance, end of analysis.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
I don't care PTCO

Naive? I read stuff like this all the time. Let us know what you concluded after all of the analysis. It's easy to complain about diplomacy. Exactly what is it that you would do about these various groups? What do you have instead of wishes? See, that's the problem. Israel has had 30 years with no serious war after having had four wars in six years. How did that happen?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
No Wars yes but I wouldn't necessarily say they had peace

for those 30 years.

Suicide and Other Bombing Attacks in Israel Since the Declaration of Principles (Sept 1993)

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terro...

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
JeffC - Yes Naive

Yes Jeff naive.

What I would do would not please people like you, lucky for you that I am not Commander and Chief.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
So PTCO

Why not share it?

Usually when people answer that, their plan is to start a war with the Islamic countries: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, Turkey, and Yemen.

Am I close?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
JeffC

Not close at all, but violent, something that in the end will be unavoidable because of our emboldened enemies. And it is all academic as I am not Commander and Chief.

It just depends on how many people you want to lose now vs. a greater number later. It is the same lesson taught us by Neville Chamberlain in the Munich Betrayal, but forgotten today. Because we have appeasers in power in these United States we will relearn this lesson too late.

Here's the analysis, they will kill us if they get a chance and we with our naive leadership, will give them that chance. They will kill all non-believers. You can take that to the bank Jeff.

Envision this Jeff, a solitary solider on the battlefield approaching a man, his enemy, that will kill him if he is given the chance, and that solitary solider stopping to try and talk his enemy out of it. More than a little impractical don't you think? Well that’s where we are Jeff; let’s hope not too many of us will have to die to show the folly of diplomacy with lunatics.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
So again PTCO

So you are keeping your plan a secret?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
JeffC - why

Why do you care? I have no answers that you would like to hear.

You would not like my solution and neither would our enemies.

carbonunit52
carbonunit52's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2008
PTCO, it does not have to be a popular solution

or even a good solution if what you have is the only solution. I too am curious to hear about it.

I personally feel that Jimmy Carter is a giant among men for his work in conflict resolution and his humanitarian initiatives. It seems to me that he follows the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazarath better than any leader we have ever had.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Because PTCO

Since you asked.

You wrote, "It is good natured and naive people like President Carter that create “Agreements” like the Munich Agreement of 1938." That and other statements led me to infer a dismissal of diplomacy on your part when dealing with these people. Not only a dismissal, but IMHO maybe you went a step further to actively condemn diplomatic efforts. And "naive" is the usual expression meaning, roughly, that whoever is being referred to may or may not be intelligent, but in spite of how smart or accomplished or well-meaning they are, they simply don't understand the real world.

But from my point of view, there's a problem with that point of view. Having abandoned diplomacy and designated it generally as appeasement, there are two different ways left to influence non-allied foreign governments and power structures; buy them off or war. If you can buy them, that's cheaper than war so go for it. Now we're down to hostiles that cannot be bought off.

Since your position is unknown, let me take the liberty of generalizing the past responses I have encountered about this disagreement with the understanding that I am not attributing any of them to you.

Overwhelmingly, the bottom line response after we threaten and bluster and they tell us to shove it is to advocate war against them. Take them out now or suffer the inevitable consequences. My analysis of that position is that it is so far from actual reality as to compromise my perception of the adherent as hopelessly naive.

We've spent $1.121 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan, now it's been nine years and counting in Afghanistan and we seem to be no closer to our goal. Our military forces are already stretched thin.

They've got a plan that they cannot pay for that calls for a war that we do not have the man power to fight using military supplies and equipment that we do not have. Their war will take place on the borders of Russia and China which they assume will sit idly by. Their war will probably last at least a decade or more at a minimum and would most certainly result in the cut off of the supply of oil to the US and Europe causing the collapse of the Western economies. And I am the one who is naive?

So back to the diplomacy option; as you say, between us it is an academic exercise. However, the position against diplomacy as appeasement, a harsh charge usually associated with this argument, is a matter of what I consider to be the stupidest government policies imaginable concerning foreign policy; limiting diplomatic relations or contact with certain governments and banning contact with organizations. Incredibly and fantastically stupid.

I believe that I can point to a long list of incidents where this lack of contact and limited diplomatic interactions have deprived the United States of critical intelligence and contacts for information leading to miscalculations. I have a long list including Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Hamas, etc. and I am very interested in the subject. What is gained by this policy as opposed to the damage it demonstrably causes? A particular perception of mine is that when dealing with a Venezuela or North Korea, the other side assumes that diplomats cannot perceive that they are being lied to and therefore cannot integrate that fact into their strategies.

When the real world actual resulting intelligence failures of this current policy are recognized and interlocutors are used to establish contacts and request and pass information, they are then accused of being appeasers, naive, friends of tyrants, etc.

Then you respond to one of my blogs and not only challenge me but you cite the Munich Agreement of 1938. You lament that Neville Chamberlain is forgotten. Well, I know who he was. You seemed informed, had a diametrically opposing viewpoint that I'm interested in, and you seemed to have specific accusations. To be frank, I have very little contact with someone who advocates your seeming position and who can come anywhere close to upholding it in a discussion taking into account what I consider real world scenarios. The first step was to find out if you were going to start world War III; in which case I would have written you off as the hopelessly naive party. But you implied that was not your position; very unusual.

But to finally and at long last answer your question, I was curious as to where the discussion would go if you had serious proposal; something new or interesting, if you will excuse my bluntness.

I had too much time on my hands this weekend, as surely evidenced by this way overly long reply. I research and analyze this stuff for a living, I type very fast so writing this didn't take that long, and was just curious.

Perhaps a new forum at some time in the future would open this vast discussion more appropriately so that it does not seem that we are debating each other specifically.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
JeffC - I am

I am under no misperception that diplomacy will be attempted, all I am saying is it will fail. In this fight, the more we attempt diplomacy the more contempt our enemy will have for us. They view it as weakness. Hilter said after meeting Chamberlain that if he ever saw him again he would kick him down a flight of stairs and jump on his belly in front of reporters. He had total contempt for him. Hilter has a lot in common with our current enemy.

It appears that you believe we are somehow trying to negotiate with a nation. While nations are involved in this struggle, it is ideas that we are fighting. Western civilization’s idea is that individuals should be free. Our opponents' idea is that individuals should be slaves to a religion and those that are non-believers should be enslaved or killed. We are fighting against ideas, not nations. These ideas are held scared by tens of millions of people, individuals not nations.

I read a very good book last year that you may be interested in reading: “Honor: A History” by James Bowman. There Mr. Bowman illustrates with great precision why diplomacy will not work and why our enemy is likely to win against us. It has been a long road in denying the cruelty of the real world. The world has not changed, we have. Eventually we will find out how cruel the world can be and we will not be saved by our current crop of leadership.

When our way of life is nearly destroyed and we no longer live in our comfortable world of illusions and political correctness, only then will things change. At that time my solutions to this problem may be acceptable. In today’s world they would not be looked upon as “civilized”. So, don’t seek some novel approach to the problem with me, my ideas would not float well in your world.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
PTCO and Jeff

Chamberlain may have really known that he had not stopped completely the German Juggernaut by allowing them to keep what they had conquered.
In my opinion though, whether he signed the agreement or not it would have made little difference!
England needed time and he may have thought that the appeasement gave them that. Obviously he didn't know just how far they had already gone towards their goal of becoming such a power that they could not be challenged for a thousand years.
When we think about it there was no reason for Hitler not to sign or say anything he wanted---at that time he wasn't even challenged.

We have had such groups in our short history in the USA who would wish to do the same thing as Hitler, but fortunately it rarely is successful due to the organization of our government.

We might have slipped some in recent years when we jumped in with both feet and wasted our time and lives.

The Jews weren't even threatening Hitler and he tried to dispose of a whole race just as a personal thought.
We now have some who would attempt the same thing with another religion--or race if you like.

I think we have people in charge who know when we are threatened sufficiently so as to lose our government and freedom, to tell the American people what is to be necessary to survive.
Radical groups within our country need not be listened to. They just want in office.
The kind of freedom they want is their definition, not mine.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
The Battle of Ideologies

It is naive to think that somehow peace talks or appeasement will change the violent totalitariarn mindset of radical islamist's. The cancer of radical islam is metastasizing while we sit on the psychiatrist's couch. The world is at war with radical islam whether the world knows it or not and if one side is at war there can be no peace for the embattled. It is really quite simple, defend or perish. -GP

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
GP - One

One small clarification to an otherwise well put paragraph.

"The world is at war with radical Islam whether the world knows it or not..."

Should read IMHO

"Radical Islam is at war with Western Civilization and there will be no peace for the West until Radical Islam is crushed."

The first objective in winning a war is to identify your enemy.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
PTC OB

Agreed. BTW, I envy your patience and willingness to debate with the left about what should be obvious. To me, much of what is stated by the left today is just to obfusgate and confuse the truth or to somehow control the narrative, it is just too frustrating for me to spend much time on. -GP

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
GP - Patience

is a virtue. The socialist posters on this board are no different than millions of others, they just happen to be our little window into their world and they into mine.

They will be the first to be screaming like little children when they are in need of people like us.

During the Vietnam war I remember that in the beginning around 1966, a person in uniform was highly regarded, by the end, 1973, when the socialists were winning I remember seeing this sign in a barber shop window, "No Dogs or Marines Allowed". We have come a long way from those days.

And so it goes. God bless America, we'll need it.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
We got socialists here?

The horror...the horror...

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Walks like a Duck

Talks like a Duck, but wait...no, nothing but moderates here, along with a few right wing extremists. Bacon, you know what Ducks eat for snacks? .....Quackers. -GP

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
Socialist in the US of A

Can I get a card? Other than my social security. I've given up hope that ordinary people will quit buying into the conservative notion that they can attain the same level of wealth that the top 25% have in holding 87% of $. I actually believe the figure is more skewered & is obviously moving in the wrong direction. The sheep buy into the notion that trickle down means giving millionaires tax breaks worth hundreds of thousands, so they can be given hundreds. There is the myth that this country has the "Best" Healthcare in the world. Saying it doesn't make it so. I wonder why such a socialist/welfare country as Denmark has such high marks for income equality & Forbes ranks best for business climate w/ a company tax rate of 25%. Free education thru college. Why are they: From 2006 to 2008, surveys[9] ranked Denmark as "the happiest place in the world", based on standards of health, welfare and education ? Go figure.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
bladderq

Careful, your wealth envy is showing.

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
& the Answer Is?

So you have no answer to how a small country w/ limited natural resources can provide for all its citizens? Wonder how many billionaires in Denmark? By the way, I have plenty.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
3

Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller - $5.1 billion
Jørgen Mads Clausen - $3.5 billion
Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen - $2.5 billion

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
BQ Define

"provide for all its citizens". That is probably where our differences begin. -GP

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
CPB

LOL, yes indeed. We have about half a country of socialists.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
PTC-O & CINC

I know it may be trivial but some of us with a military background do like to see "Commander In Chief (CINC)" used appropriately--and yes I know you mean well.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
AHG - You're

You're correct of course, my mistake.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Duplicate

deleted by poster.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
GYM

Well, let's make a regulation that those words can not be used by ignorant people!
How about Sergeant Bilko?
How about all of the names Patton and MacArthur were called?
How about President Obama, current CINC, and ...........

You can't convince civilians nor many soldiers of the importance of such trivia, when they know that some CINC title holders aren't due respect for such a title. Just remember that had we not made the President of the United States the CINC, we would have been a banana republic long ago---run by Colonels!
What do Colonels need to become Generals?

Anyway "appropriate" is difficult to describe...just like porn.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
"pushin' for a caliphate"

Conservative icon Bill Kristol addresses the tin-foil hat lunacy of "The Caliphate is comin'! The Caliphate is comin'! DERP!" in the Weekly Standard.

Hysteria is not a sign of health. When Glenn Beck rants about the caliphate taking over the Middle East from Morocco to the Philippines, and lists (invents?) the connections between caliphate-promoters and the American left, he brings to mind no one so much as Robert Welch and the John Birch Society. He’s marginalizing himself, just as his predecessors did back in the early 1960s

We live in troubled times when Bill Kristol is the voice of reason.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
CPB - Glenn Beck

I have listened to Glenn Beck only once, he is a complete mental case.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
The radio show sucks, watch the TV show 3 times in a row

Then see if you can find one thing he is making up or just plain wrong about. I thought he was a buffoon at first, but his history lessons are extremely interesting,

At first he was trying to be another Hannity and that didn't work - not even working for Hannity anymore, IMHO, but Beck or his people decided on the historical approach, especially on TV and I think that is effective. The liberals are certainly jacked up about him and they can't refute anything he says - just wild attacks.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Refuting Beck?

Why even bother and where to start? He simply looked at exactly what Neil Boortz did in going "libertarian" and copied it to a "T." Then he made loads of money and generated lots of attention. Yippie.

If Beck even believes half of what he says, that would amaze me.

Serious political debate and discussion isn't about radio/TV ratings, book sales and loudmouth entertainers.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Beck TV

Hmmm....

OK, but I have my doubts. Popular TV is not interesting or insightful.

I'll report back on my experience, but can I just listen twice?

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Morgan

The man is a buffoon!
Saw him in a cape and carrying a long stick yesterday saying the Arabs were going to kill us all.
I can not possibly watch more than 4-5 minutes of his "show."

Limbaugh and Gingrich aren't far behind his idiocy! What is the matter with these people? Is fluffing the feathers of hordes of idiots for money a principled thing to do?

Hannity also a few days ago pulled some old Arab onto his show and wouldn't let him say but few words and proceeded to call him a SOB and every other terrible thing I Have ever heard! Is that helpful to the country?

This abuse of TV will cause us all to lose full freedom on the media.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Very well thought out and reasoned response,

bonkers

The way to learn is to watch, meaning the entire show for 3 days. If only you watch 4-5 minutes you don't learn anything at all.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Beck complete mental case

Completely crazy, kinda like that crazy guy back in the 1700's riding around on a horse screaming, think his name was Revere something. Like Beck says, question EVERYTHING and do your own research. BTW, did you watch last nites show? -GP

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
patriot

No, I think the 1700s guy was the windmill fighter--was it Cervantes? No It was Quixotie wasn't it.

I guess it is time for another CRUSADES, don't you.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Modern Revere

might just type links on the keyboard like this: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=207415 No bite on crusades rndbut. -GP