|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:10 am Post subject: What would it take to alarm you? |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Since Maclean's got into a spot of bother with Canada's "human rights" pseudo-courts, I've been pleasantly surprised by the number of our media confreres who don't think it should be a "crime" for magazines to publish excerpts from books by yours truly. Nevertheless, in defending free speech in general, they usually feel obliged to deplore my exercise of it in particular:
"Maclean's published an alarmist screed by Mr. Steyn . . ." (The Economist)
"While the book may be alarmist . . ." (CFRB)
"Steyn's argument is indeed alarmist . . ." (The Guardian)
And, oh dear, even:
"The fear of 'a Muslim tide' was alarmist . . ." (Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan in Maclean's)
Okay, enough already. I get the picture: alarmist, alarmist, alarmist. My book's thesis � that most of the Western world is on course to become at least semi-Islamic in its political and cultural disposition within a very short time � is "alarmist."
The question then arises: fair enough, guys, what would it take to alarm you? The other day, in a characteristically clotted speech followed by a rather more careless BBC interview, the Archbishop of Canterbury said that it was dangerous to have one law for everyone and that the introduction of sharia � Islamic law � to the United Kingdom was "inevitable." No alarm bells going off yet? Can't say I blame you. After all, de facto creeping sharia is well established in the Western world. Last week, the British and Ontario governments confirmed within days of each other that thousands of polygamous men in their jurisdictions receive welfare payments for each of their wives. Still no alarm bells? I see female Muslim medical students in British hospitals are refusing to comply with hygiene procedures on the grounds that scrubbing requires them to bare their arms, which is un-Islamic. Would it be alarmist to bring that up � say, the day before your operation?
Sharia in Britain? Taxpayer-subsidized polygamy in Toronto? Yawn. Nothing to see here. True, if you'd suggested such things on Sept. 10, 2001, most Britons and Canadians would have said you were nuts. But a few years on and it doesn't seem such a big deal, and nor will the next concession, and the one after that. It's hard to deliver a wake-up call for a civilization so determined to smother the alarm clock in the soft fluffy pillow of multiculturalism and sleep in for another 10 years. The folks who call my book "alarmist" accept that the Western world is growing more Muslim (Canada's Muslim population has doubled in the last 10 years), but they deny that this population trend has any significant societal consequences. Sharia mortgages? Sure. Polygamy? Whatever. Honour killings? Well, okay, but only a few. The assumption that you can hop on the Sharia Express and just ride a couple of stops is one almighty leap of faith. More to the point, who are you relying on to "hold the line"? Influential figures like the Archbishop of Canterbury? The bureaucrats at Ontario Social Services? The Western world is not run by fellows noted for their line-holding: look at what they're conceding now and then try to figure out what they'll be conceding in five years' time.
The other night at dinner, I found myself sitting next to a Middle Eastern Muslim lady of a certain age. And the conversation went as it often does when you're with Muslim women who were at college in the sixties, seventies or eighties. In this case, my dining companion had just been at a conference on "women's issues," of which there are many in the Muslim world, and she was struck by the phrase used by the "moderate Muslim" chair of the meeting: "authentic women" � by which she meant women wearing hijabs. And my friend pointed out that when she and her unveiled pals had been in their 20s they were the "authentic women": the covering routine was for old village biddies, the Islamic equivalent of gnarled Russian babushkas. It would never have occurred to her that the assumptions of her generation would prove to be off by 180 degrees � that in middle age she would see young Muslim women wearing a garb largely alien to their tradition not just in the Middle East but in Brussels and London and Montreal. If you had said to her in 1968 that Westernized Muslim women working in British hospitals in the early 21st century would reject modern hygiene because it required them to bare their arms, she would have scoffed with the certainty of one who assumes that history moves in only one direction.
In another of those non-alarmist nothing-to-see-here stories, a British government minister tentatively raised the matter of severe birth defects among the children of Pakistani Muslims. Some 57 per cent of Pakistani Britons are married to their first cousins, and this places their progeny at increased risk of certain health problems. This is the only way a culturally relativist West can even raise some of these topics: nothing against cousin marriage, old boy, but it places a bit of a strain on the old health care budget. It's not the polygamy, it's the four welfare cheques you're collecting for it.
But this is being penny-wise and pound-blas�. What does it mean when 57 per cent of Pakistani Britons are married to first cousins and 70 per cent are married to relatives? At the very least, it tells you that this community is strongly resistant to traditional immigrant assimilation patterns. Of course, in any society, certain groups are self-segregating: the Amish, the Mennonites and whatnot. But when that group is not merely a curiosity on the fringe of the map but the principal source of population growth in all your major cities, the challenge posed by that self-segregation is of a different order. There are now towns in northern England where cousin marriage is the norm: Pakistanis aren't assimilating with "the host community"; the host community has assimilated with Pakistan. Again, if you had told a Yorkshireman in 1970 that by the early 21st century it would be entirely normal for half the kindergarten class to be the children of first cousins, he would have found it preposterous.
But it happened. By "alarmist," The Economist and Co. really mean "raising the subject." Last year, the British novelist Martin Amis raised the subject of my book with Tony Blair and asked him if, when he got together with his fellow prime ministers, the Continental demographic picture was part of the "European conversation." Mr. Blair replied, with disarming honesty, "It's a subterranean conversation." "We know what that means," wrote Amis. "The ethos of relativism finds the demographic question so saturated in revulsions that it is rendered undiscussable." The "multiculturist ideologue," he added, "cannot engage with the fact that a) the indigenous populations of Spain and Italy are due to halve every 35 years, and b) this entails certain consequences."
Whether or not it's "alarmist" to ponder what those consequences might be, under Canada's "human rights" kangaroo courts it might soon be illegal. All Section 13 cases brought to the federal Human Rights Commission end in defeat for the defendant, so, if Maclean's fails to buck the 100 per cent conviction rate, it would be enjoined from publishing anything that might relate to the "hate speech" in question � in other words, we would be legally prevented from writing about Islam and the West, demographic trends in Canada, and many other topics.
What would we be permitted by the state to write about? How about Nazis? It's been years since I've run into one, but apparently they're everywhere. A British blogger, pooh-poohing my book, said there are more Nazis than Muslims in England. Really? In Canada, meanwhile, defenders of Section 13 of the Human Rights Code � the one that makes "criminals" of Maclean's � warn that if the private member's motion of Keith Martin, MP, proposing its repeal were to succeed, Nazis would be free to peddle their dangerous Nazi ideas to simple-minded Canadians who might lack the fortitude to resist. As evidence of the Nazi tide waiting to engulf the Dominion once Section 13 is repealed, Liberal spin doctor Warren Kinsella posted on his website a photograph he'd taken in a men's room stall showing the words "WHITE POWER" and a swastika scrawled on the wall at knee height. Why Mr. Kinsella is photographing public toilets on his knees I don't know, but every guy needs a hobby. At any rate, Warren sees this loser's graffiti as critical evidence of the imminent Nazi threat to the peaceable kingdom.
I'm something of a phobiaphobe. I don't subscribe to the concepts of "homophobia" and "Islamophobia." They're a lame rhetorical sleight to end the argument by denying it's an argument at all: you don't have a political disagreement with me over gay marriage or sharia, you have a mental illness. But don't worry, we can give you counselling and medication and your "phobia" will eventually go away. Yet "Naziphobia" is the real thing � an irrational fear of non-existent Nazis. And so Canada's leading "human rights" hero is Richard Warman, a man whose Naziphobia is so advanced he hauled the "Canadian Nazi Party" before the "Human Rights" Tribunal even though, as the tribunal was eventually forced to rule, no such party exists.
Our heroes pursue phantoms as the world transforms. Is sharia, polygamy, routine first-cousin marriage in the interests of Canada or Britain or Europe? Oh, dear, even to raise the subject is to tiptoe into all kinds of uncomfortable terrain for the multicultural mindset. It's easier just to look the other way, or go Nazi-hunting in the men's room. Nobody wants to be unpleasant, or judgmental, do they? What was it they said in the Cold War? Better dead than red. We're not like that anymore. Better screwed than rude. |
http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1001/
Steyn is dead right. 7 years ago all this would have seemed absurd, and now it is normal. muslims attack America and Europe decides the best way to deal with this is to appease them. Peace in our time! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Perhaps a credible threat? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
As far as cousin marriage goes, the UK could go some way to solving the alleged problem by actually passing a law against it. As it stands, the UK, along with Canada and several American states, has no law against cousin marriage, which in fact has been practiced by various illustrious figures, among them Charles Darwin and of course the royals.
As for the severity of the problem...
| Quote: |
| Now a study by the National Society of Genetic Counselors says that having a child with your first cousin raises the risk of a significant birth defect from about 3-to-4 percent to about 4-to-7 percent. According to the authors, that difference isn't big enough to justify genetic testing of cousin couples, much less bans on cousin marriage. |
Make of that what you will I guess. Obviously, the problem will become more acute after several generations of cousin marriage.
http://www.slate.com/id/2064227/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Bruce Bawer, a gay American who moved to Europe because he found it more �tolerant� than the US, recounted recently an assault on his partner by two Muslim youths in Oslo. The editor of the gay newspaper The Washington Blade was beaten up in 2005 by a Muslim gang in Amsterdam, once the most �tolerant� city in Europe. Many of Europe�s once gay-friendly cities are approaching majority Muslim status. When that happens, the gay moment in Amsterdam and Oslo will be over.
So in the western world the day after tomorrow there will be more polygamists and fewer gays �oh, and fewer Jews, too. On Holocaust Memorial Day, a ceremony in a formerly Jewish neighborhood of London�s East End was abruptly terminated when the visiting Jews were pelted with stones by (in the current euphemism) �Asian� youths. |
http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1014/
Surely a positive development!
| Quote: |
Recently Turkey�s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, speaking on German soil, told cheering Turkish workers and Germans of Turkish ancestry that assimilation is "a crime against humanity" � in between demands that the European Union admit his increasingly Islamicized Turkey to full membership. The American press passed over Erdogan�s broadside, but it was a revolutionary, nationalist appeal to German residents of Turkish backgrounds, over the head of, and contrary to, the German government itself�eerily like, mutatis mutandis, Hitler�s appeal in the late 1930s to the supposedly oppressed Germans of Czechoslovakia. Meanwhile Norway is about to request 100,000 Turkish guest workers for its cash-rich but labor-poor economy. The French, however, are sighing �been there, done that,� as police sweep public housing projects in the Paris suburbs looking for Muslim immigrants implicated in past riots.
The British press claims that Muslim immigrants committed over 17,000 acts of �honor� violence in Britain last year. Perhaps in response, the Archbishop of Canterbury conceded that imposition of a parallel system of sharia law in the United Kingdom might be �unavoidable.� Iran just warned Denmark to silence its newspapers, which once again are republishing caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.
The more labor that a secular, increasingly sterile European populace imports, the more social problems will accrue from unassimilated Muslim immigrants who like the economy and freedom of the West but are reluctant to relax any of their own religious and cultural views to participate fully in the postmodern society of their hosts. The resulting �can�t live with them, can�t live without them� is not a static situation, but one that will be resolved either in multicultural/appeasement fashion (grant de facto sharia law at home and seek friendly realignment with Middle Eastern dictatorships abroad) or with tough assimilationist and immigration policies, coupled with increasingly explicit distrust of expansionary Islam. |
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDBiODVmMmUwMWE1MGRhNWI0MzMzMzM5NjM1MDMzMDM=
George W. Bush thought that inside of every Iraqi is an American waiting to jump out, and was wrong. In an ironic twist, the European left has made exactly the same assumption (muslims will stop being muslim if they exist in a Western nation) to similar consequence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
As far as cousin marriage goes, the UK could go some way to solving the alleged problem by actually passing a law against it. As it stands, the UK, along with Canada and several American states, has no law against cousin marriage, which in fact has been practiced by various illustrious figures, among them Charles Darwin and of course the royals.
As for the severity of the problem...
| Quote: |
| Now a study by the National Society of Genetic Counselors says that having a child with your first cousin raises the risk of a significant birth defect from about 3-to-4 percent to about 4-to-7 percent. According to the authors, that difference isn't big enough to justify genetic testing of cousin couples, much less bans on cousin marriage. |
Make of that what you will I guess. Obviously, the problem will become more acute after several generations of cousin marriage.
http://www.slate.com/id/2064227/ |
The bigger issue is that 70% marry family members. In Australia, only about 6% of Indians marry people from their own ethnic group and in the UK 70% of Pakistanis marry their cousin. This is evidence that the Pakistanis are not, will not and can not assimilate and therefore further immigration from Pakistan should be immediately halted until the "community" gets their house in order.
| Quote: |
Studies by Monash University's Bob Birrell of the most revealing test of immigrant integration, the marriage rate, showed that by the end of the 1990s less than 10 per cent of second-generation marriages of persons of European descent were to someone from their parents' country. Much the same was true of immigrants from south and east Asia. Only 6 per cent of Indians married within their ethnic group, as did only 16 per cent of Chinese. In short, most immigrants, whatever their race, married Australians of other nationalities.
However, for the Lebanese, of whom most of marriageable age were Muslims, these figures were reversed. No less than 74 per cent of Lebanese married within their own ethnic group. Moreover, this figure was the only one to increase since the early 1990s when it was 72 per cent. This pattern might have fulfilled the community-building objective Lebanese political and religious leaders sought, but it has been a disaster for their constituents' relationship with the rest of Australia. |
http://www.sydneyline.com/Lebanese%20riots.htm
Seems like a pattern. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
It would take a lot more than that frickin' tool Mark Steyn, that's for sure.
"On course to become at least semi-Islamic"? WTF does that mean? He thinks the secular governments of Europe and the US are going to abdicate and cede power to sharia law? Hell, "alarmist" is much too kind a word for Steyn, his critics were being downright charitable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| No less than 74 per cent of Lebanese married within their own ethnic group. |
Is it not possible to see that as evidence that 26% of Lebanese married outside their ethnic group? That is a fairly significant number.
Moreover, since it isn't just ethnicity at play here, but also religion, I think you need to check how many Catholics and Jews marry outside their religions for a fair comparison. In addition, Ian Baruma (Murder in Amsterdam) says many North African women are running away to marry out, but he doesn't give numbers.
I think the problem here is lack of faith in the strength, attraction and resiliency of Western Civilization. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| No less than 74 per cent of Lebanese married within their own ethnic group. |
I think the problem here is lack of faith in the strength, attraction and resiliency of Western Civilization. |
An excellent reason not to bother moving there by choice. Also an excellent reason for immigration worldwide to be controlled by an internationally cooperative centralized system in order to keep out the riff-raff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I think the problem here is lack of faith in the strength, attraction and resiliency of Western Civilization. |
Western civilization, and the norms that underpin it, can only be maintained so long as a majority of the people that live in any given state subscribe to such norms. When you have an ever growing minority that does not subscribe to many of those cultural norms, then yes, it becomes under threat. What we are seeing, in many parts of Europe, is not multicultural integration, but whole scale colonisation of entire cities, which in our lifetimes will look, and feel distinctly more part of the Muslim world, than the West. This is a reality that needs to be addressed, and discussed without fear of bogus 'hate crime' charges, and no amount of 'faith in Western civilization' is going to solve this problem, a 'faith', by the way, that is in no way shared by those thousands of immigrants from Muslim nations. In fact, many of them carry with them a revulsion at our permissive Western values.
A simple question needs to be addressed. Do people want their cities and countries to increasingly take on the character of the Muslim world, and all the wonderful cultural benefits that would bring? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gaddafi, the head of state of secular Libya said:
| Quote: |
Some people believe wrongly that Mohammad is the prophet of the Arabs or Muslims alone. This is a mistake.
Mohamad is the prophet for all people, because he abrogated all previous religions. If Issa were alive when Mohammad was sent, he would�ve followed him.
All people must be Muslims. The Muslims were enraged by the defamation of their prophet. But the people who defamed Mohammad were defaming their own prophet. Because Mohammad is the prophet of the people in Scandinavia, in Europe, America, Asia, and Africa. But since the holy texts that they read in Scandinavia are forged and call for hatred, they believed Mohammad is not their prophet.
We expexct to see a picture of Issa (not Jesus as in the subtitle) with nuclear bombs over his head, because his followers produced nuclear bombs.
They drew Mohammad surrounded by veiled women, because of the veil worn by Muslim women. We expect them to draw Issa surrounded by naked women because Christian women are naked. In Scandinavia women are naked. In any case, the holy texts of the West of Europe and America call for hatred, there is no doubt about it. This text is corrupt and inhumane.
The so-called Old Testament and New Testament, are neither Old Testament nor New Testament, because both testaments were superseded and they are forged. They were written by hand hundreds of years after Issa. In the Bible there are things that are inappropriate for both Jesus and Moses. If we want to mend the state of humanity , and live in a global village, because of the globalization, we must search for the true Bible, because the Bible that exists today is a forgery.
Today�s Bible doesn�t mention Mohammad. Whereas our Allah�s Bible mentions Mohammad repeatedly. We must search for the Gospel of Barnabas, of St. Barnabas, because this is the true gospel. This gospel explicitly mentions that Mohammad would come after Issa.
Today, we are correcting human history from here, in Timbuktu. We have fifty million Muslims in Europe. There are other signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe, without swords, without guns, without military conquests. The fifty million Muslims in Europe, will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades. Allah mobilizes the Muslim nation of Turkey.... |
The video of his talk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNUqLztI4mQ&eurl
I'm sure that that is totally unrelated to this:
| Quote: |
Up to a million migrants have gathered in Libya, from where they will attempt to sail across the Mediterranean for Europe and, ultimately, the UK.
New estimates reveal that there are two million migrants massed in the North African country and that half of them plan to sail to the European mainland and travel on to Britain in the hope of building a new life. |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/13/immigration.world
As is this:
| Quote: |
�One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends.
Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.� |
That lovely statement was made at the United Nations by Houari Boum�dienne, the former president of Algeria.
Anyways, I'm sure this will all end well. Absolutely nothing bad cam come of this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Today, we are correcting human history from here, in Timbuktu. We have fifty million Muslims in Europe. There are other signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe, without swords, without guns, without military conquests. The fifty million Muslims in Europe, will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades. Allah mobilizes the Muslim nation of Turkey.... |
And of course, North Korea claims that they're on the verge of blowing up the Capitol building in DC...
It's always a bit dicey to take the self-aggrandizing rhetoric of dictators at face value. Gadhaffi likely knows that seeming to confirm the paranoid fantasies of the anti-Islamic crowd will have a rallying effect on his intended audience.
SOME MUSLIM DUPE SOMEWHERE: "Ah, the Colonel in Libya says that we are on the verge of conquering the world, and the European newspapers say that that is true!!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
�One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends.
Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.� |
Yeah, you know that Khruschev also said that the Communists would "bury" the west. He meant economically, and even that didn't pan out. But he was probably quite happy to have American right-wingers put the most apocalyptic spin on his prediction, since it made him look like a tough dude who would actually be capable of delivering on the threat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
�One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends.
Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.� |
Yeah, you know that Khruschev also said that the Communists would "bury" the west. He meant economically, and even that didn't pan out. But he was probably quite happy to have American right-wingers put the most apocalyptic spin on his prediction, since it made him look like a tough dude who would actually be capable of delivering on the threat. |
Erm, but the American public didn't understand it to mean economically, which was why the statement was so infamous.
Islamofascism (I've been chastised for using this word, so I've decided to use it more often) only needs to get one small nuclear device into a major American city for the world to be in serious trouble. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Khrushchev also said that the Communists would "bury" the west. He meant economically... |
He meant that the Soviet Union was the way of the future and the Americans and the other capitalists were obsolescent. The Soviets would eventually bury us as we became extinct.
Did he not bang his shoe on the table in the UN during the Congolese Crisis, too? That does not strike you as belligerent, On the other hand?
| BBC Reports wrote: |
1960: Khrushchev anger erupts at UN
The Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev has disrupted a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly with several angry outbursts.
Twice he pounded his desk and twice he shouted interruptions to show his disapproval at the way UN forces have intervened in the recent trouble in former Belgian Congo.
Mr Khrushchev is calling for the UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold to be replaced by a three-man executive representing the western, Soviet and neutral camps.
His interruptions came during a speech by British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, who expressed total confidence in Mr Hammarskjold's "energy, resourcefulness and above all integrity". |
In any case, people should be held accountable for failing to take care about what they say to international audiences. This is Cross-Cultural Sensitivity 101, On the other hand. It applies to people who live outside of the West, too. When Cold War-era, nuclear-armed world leaders speak of "burying" people, for example, they are referencing death to those who hear them.
Why is it that people on your side of the political fence fall all over themselves to defend what govts like the former Soviet Union and modern-day Tehran's say on things such as burying the West or wiping Israel off the map or that Iranian society has no homosexuals, etc., etc.? They did not really mean it as it sounded; they must have been mistranslated; we are the ones at fault for not trying hard enough to find out "what they really meant to say."
Nonsense. People should say what they mean and mean what they say -- or they should simply say something else. This is not "American right-wingers'" fault, On the other hand. This is the fault of those who speak carelessly and/or seek to inflame for political gain.
When do you plan to hold them accountable for the things they say?
Last edited by Gopher on Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:46 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher, there's a difference between defending something and simply not taking it seriously. What do you want us to do about crazy rhetoric? Denounce it? We don't take it seriously enough to bother. The only people that take seriously the crap spewed by the OBLs and Kim Jong Ils of the world are either idiots, or those with a vested political interest in appealing to idiots.
You have no idea how much it amuses me every time a right-winger uses the word "Caliphate". Keep it up, though, I can use the chuckles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
