JLS.........I understand and at a conceptional level pretty much agree with your thoughts, even under your definition calling me a "bigot". I guess you realize you pretty well fit that same definition.
I also would admit I do take "names" relatively lightly the terms that have surfaced to promote the "liberal agenda" are "bad." Terms to demean conservatives are "OK"
Case in point...you mentioned the "N" word. (A word, by the way that got "legs" in the politically correct evolution) it was previously, regularly used in the White House by Lyndon Johnson and was "ok")It is perceived as degoratory, demeaning, insulting and describes a bad person. That sounds like another term that is often used and is not lambasted when it is used.."Redneck". Redneck is not a term of endearment. It describes a white person, so it's "OK".
My agenda began with what is really going on in the world. I believe we are in the early stages (20+ years) of the emergence of a 7 century movement of Muslims. The fundamental basis of the movement is to implement their religion on 100% of the earth and fundamentally there is no option for compromise.
Their fundamental tenants are inconsistent with my values so I feel it is appropriate to resist the inroads as I see them evolving. I have been quite pleased with the fundamental concepts laid forth by the founders of the United States the Judeo-Christian society that is open to co-existance with others . For 200+ years that is what the US has been. It was changed dramatically by the Warren court and in my view, negatively. You may have seen the sheet I submitted of highlighting behavior that is duly accepted in our public schools while anything religious at Christmas, is not. It is that type of (misguided judgment/my opinion) behavior that I believe in a society I would subscribe to, that needs to be more controlled. One way to do that is to follow what the leaders seemed to intend, which is to integrate in a "good way", religion in public places.
I have long felt "political correctness" was shallow and too simplistic So, I would acknowledge that my sensitivity in that area is often less compelling than some others. By the way, I am not "condoning my words", I am merely sharing them. I am quite comfortable with my conclusions but indeed quite open to the reason and logic of others. Over the years my views have matured (I hope) and certainly changed as others have shared their wisdom.
So, under your definition I may be a "bigot" but hopefully a "good bigot".
I should have known better than to use a politially incorrect code word because it tends to distract and totally eliminate any reason or logic in a discussion, its merits notwithstanding.
Your definition of bigot is substantially correct but please don't suggest that in our society it is not most often considered an insult.......it's sure not a glowing complement.
JLS......I think this discussion has been about Muslims/Church/Terrorists/etc. I certainly didn't consider any racial aspect of the conversation so I just don't see how anything could be read into my thoughts. That might be ok for another day but it just didn't rear it's ugly head in this instance. Maybe you "inferred something" and that would be an error....I am plain spoken. I don't "infer" much.
I do not consider "liberal" to be insulting or demeaning. It is merely a convenient "tag" to reflect someone's views. It it doens't fit I made an error in judgment but if you'll re-read, your the one that suggested "hatred".....your the one that raised the "white" dimension...I certainly didn't and I did not for a good reason...that's not my feelings
You called me a bigot.....that is indeed an insulting and demeaning term. And, as I mentioned I think it's every bit as bad as "T H" I don't think you find I called anyone a bad name
I think you just have an overactive imagination. But you really shouldn't call folks bad names when you have nothing to go on, except "intepretation". You won't find anything I've said other than "T H" and I would be the first to admit I realized that would cause some heartburn, but since I didn't consider it so horrible, I just let it fly.
You called me, personally, bad things. You'll find all of my comments are about society as a whole, not specific people. And, to repeat, "liberal" is not an insult it is a reasoned judgment of one's political views, so it's not "bad" , even if it's wrong.
I've never heard the expression before "eating with fingers of yours"......but I'll bet it is intended to be insulting or demeaning or something like , well, T_ _ _ _ H_ _ _. Earlier someone called me a Bigot....that too is every bit as insulting and demeaning as "T H" so I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. Saying one is "hateful" is certainly a reach when you don't even know them. On a good day, it's a nasty thing to say.
Some one called me a racist.....nothing remotely racial has even been in the conversation, so it's name calling pure and simple.
As I understand it liberal, political correct positions are good guys and those who still believe in the United States as it was created and prospered for 200 years are all those bad things. Please don't watch when I salute the flag I'm sure that's an obscene gesture. I have expressed the setiments of our founding fathers and I still believe they had a pretty good take on things. I apologize for all those facts that seem to bother folks.
JLS must be very liberal. AS soon as facts don't hold up it's time for name calling. That half brain you claim to have is hitting on both cylinders.
Ginger....another case for "facts". Those folks were removed by security. Theres no one else in the airport to do it. And, the approval (yours) and enjoyment (yours) of an act of sterotyping doesn't make it less sterotyping. Thats why I tend to think it is a very normal, natural behavior that is practiced by everyone everyday. It's just when there is disagreemenet that someone has heartburn. Again, you disagree.......so you resort to namecalling.
Ginger Are you suggesting we DON'T profile 6' blue-eyed blond males. Well, I don't but an awful lot of young ladies do. In a bar, on the beach, sidewalk, just about anywhere. They are ogled, googled and profiled everywhere they go.
StJoMoe.....you missed the headlines. The President of Merrill Lynch that led them into disaster....was, yep, African American. The two Companies that had by far the most money go south (FNME/FRMA).....yep, African Americans
Probably more white executives by head count but the really big bucks.........headed up by African Americans who for 10 or so years were the bell of the ball for being the first African Americans to be CEOs of such huge money machines.
I think Incendiary has a valid point. History suggests a religious basis for too many wars. I ponder if some of it is Fred Phelps the Topeka "pastor" hijacking religion or if there is something else working here. Nevertheless, it's enough to make an atheist smile.
JLS...sorry about the towel head ..but I'm not politically correct. (Actually, I'm not really sorry) But you lost me on "domestic terrorists" Its pretty clear where the money is being spent and folks are dying.
BUt I won't back off on JudeoChristian principles...the founders left broad sweeping tracks....the have "In God We Trust" on the coin, in stone, over doors and everywhere they could find space. They open the Congress with a prayer and the President is sworn in. Hard to argue they didn't have the integration of their faith in our society.
And, they clearly intended to be "tolerant" as do most Christians and Jews that I know. And it all went pretty well until Earl Warren came along and decided we needed minority rule.
Pops, its human nature. Each brain stores up all kinds of data 24/7. Then when something comes up we react automatically.....it's why we usually don't touch hot stoves. And, it's why we have sterotyping and why sterotyping is usually pretty valid, so for those solid, clean living Muslims, it's unfair. But who ever said life was fair.
It is neither intolerant nor unfair......it is quite accurate. My thinking is based on cold hard facts.
Witness Guetanemno Bay.....the "prisoners" required/demanded the Koran, footbaths, foods prescribed by the Muslim faith, Muslim Chaplins,mats, approprate prayer times, etc. etc. It is quite clear the "terrorists" were indeed Muslims. The taxpayer spent millions accomodating that FACT.
Perhaps you meant to suggest it would be politically correct to say "Terrorist-Muslims". But I don't happen to subscribe to the "politically correct" culture.
I would also observe that you are factually incorrect in suggesting a difference....when in clearly authenticated cases, they are indeed one and the same. The point you may be trying to make is that all Muslims are not terrorists.
I would fully agree and observe that I have known some delightful folks who happen to be Muslims who I have the utmost respect for. I regret that a large number of persons who share that faith are indeed bad people and do some very bad things.
I don't believe this issue is about which religion is "more important". I think it's about whether we will be allowed to practice the religion of our choice, in the future.
Many would like to believe it's all a simple matter of having different opinions and debating the merits and virtues and whether someone is careing and welcoming or is a jerk and a bigot.
In this world there is another group who does not tolerate any debate. Their solution for anyone who doesn't agree is death. That notwithstanding, they are a very patient group. They have been pursuing their goals for 7 centuries, so don't be misled.
Some would say this is a "minority group". Well, this minority group has kept the US military occupied for 8 years and managed to disembowl a sitting US President. Not too insignificant, I'd say.
In St Joseph Mo we are in the early stage of their takeover. In Europe they are more advanced...there they are demanding prayer breaks throughout the workday, for Muslims. They have Mosques at Airports and footbaths at all publicaly funded Universities. Women must have a male relative with them in public and they have banned pork from cafeteries and segregated classes by sex, to accomodate Muslims.
In Palestine, it is in the next phase, they are hurling rockets into Israel. There is no compromise. They have no interest in a "peace treaty". They want all Jews dead.
In Washington DC they want "In God We Trust" purged from anything remotely public
In St Joseph they don't want Christ in Christmas. They don't want Christmas celebrations to include anything Christian.
Adolph Hitler had a similiar approach. He drove the Jews from the Public Square and forced them into their Churchs. He then drove them from their Churchs into their homes and from their homes, he drove them to the camps where he gassed and burned them.
I believe in the notion of a welcoming,inclusive, open society. I don't believe that entails being stupid.
This country was built on Judeo-Christian beliefs and they were integrated in our government in every conceivable manner. Laus Deo stands 555 feet, 5.125 inches high in Washington DC.....the highest point in the District. In God we trust is inscribed in stone, rock and concrete throughout the City. An opening and closing prayer is standard for every governmental activity in the District. Our Congress has Chaplins
For 200 years (until the Warren Court) we respected the dictates of our founders. And, we created the greatest nation and society in the history of man. It worked.
And, now we have those who would be "Politically correct" who would bring us "change".
I am always totally pursuaded that someone's premises and conclusions are most certainly correct when they share the FACT that it is endorsed by a "reasoned people". Whoopie doo. How could anyone challenge such factual reason and logic
Your Letters, Jan. 11, 2008
JLS.........I understand and at a conceptional level pretty much agree with your thoughts, even under your definition calling me a "bigot". I guess you realize you pretty well fit that same definition.
I also would admit I do take "names" relatively lightly the terms that have surfaced to promote the "liberal agenda" are "bad." Terms to demean conservatives are "OK"
Case in point...you mentioned the "N" word. (A word, by the way that got "legs" in the politically correct evolution) it was previously, regularly used in the White House by Lyndon Johnson and was "ok")It is perceived as degoratory, demeaning, insulting and describes a bad person. That sounds like another term that is often used and is not lambasted when it is used.."Redneck". Redneck is not a term of endearment. It describes a white person, so it's "OK".
My agenda began with what is really going on in the world. I believe we are in the early stages (20+ years) of the emergence of a 7 century movement of Muslims. The fundamental basis of the movement is to implement their religion on 100% of the earth and fundamentally there is no option for compromise.
Their fundamental tenants are inconsistent with my values so I feel it is appropriate to resist the inroads as I see them evolving. I have been quite pleased with the fundamental concepts laid forth by the founders of the United States the Judeo-Christian society that is open to co-existance with others . For 200+ years that is what the US has been. It was changed dramatically by the Warren court and in my view, negatively. You may have seen the sheet I submitted of highlighting behavior that is duly accepted in our public schools while anything religious at Christmas, is not. It is that type of (misguided judgment/my opinion) behavior that I believe in a society I would subscribe to, that needs to be more controlled. One way to do that is to follow what the leaders seemed to intend, which is to integrate in a "good way", religion in public places.
I have long felt "political correctness" was shallow and too simplistic So, I would acknowledge that my sensitivity in that area is often less compelling than some others. By the way, I am not "condoning my words", I am merely sharing them. I am quite comfortable with my conclusions but indeed quite open to the reason and logic of others. Over the years my views have matured (I hope) and certainly changed as others have shared their wisdom.
So, under your definition I may be a "bigot" but hopefully a "good bigot".
I should have known better than to use a politially incorrect code word because it tends to distract and totally eliminate any reason or logic in a discussion, its merits notwithstanding.
Your definition of bigot is substantially correct but please don't suggest that in our society it is not most often considered an insult.......it's sure not a glowing complement.
January 15, 2009 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Your Letters, Jan. 11, 2008
JLS......I think this discussion has been about Muslims/Church/Terrorists/etc. I certainly didn't consider any racial aspect of the conversation so I just don't see how anything could be read into my thoughts. That might be ok for another day but it just didn't rear it's ugly head in this instance. Maybe you "inferred something" and that would be an error....I am plain spoken. I don't "infer" much.
I do not consider "liberal" to be insulting or demeaning. It is merely a convenient "tag" to reflect someone's views. It it doens't fit I made an error in judgment but if you'll re-read, your the one that suggested "hatred".....your the one that raised the "white" dimension...I certainly didn't and I did not for a good reason...that's not my feelings
You called me a bigot.....that is indeed an insulting and demeaning term. And, as I mentioned I think it's every bit as bad as "T H" I don't think you find I called anyone a bad name
I think you just have an overactive imagination. But you really shouldn't call folks bad names when you have nothing to go on, except "intepretation". You won't find anything I've said other than "T H" and I would be the first to admit I realized that would cause some heartburn, but since I didn't consider it so horrible, I just let it fly.
You called me, personally, bad things. You'll find all of my comments are about society as a whole, not specific people. And, to repeat, "liberal" is not an insult it is a reasoned judgment of one's political views, so it's not "bad" , even if it's wrong.
January 14, 2009 at 9:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Your Letters, Jan. 11, 2008
I've never heard the expression before "eating with fingers of yours"......but I'll bet it is intended to be insulting or demeaning or something like , well, T_ _ _ _ H_ _ _.
Earlier someone called me a Bigot....that too is every bit as insulting and demeaning as "T H" so I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. Saying one is "hateful" is certainly a reach when you don't even know them. On a good day, it's a nasty thing to say.
Some one called me a racist.....nothing remotely racial has even been in the conversation, so it's name calling pure and simple.
As I understand it liberal, political correct positions are good guys and those who still believe in the United States as it was created and prospered for 200 years are all those bad things. Please don't watch when I salute the flag I'm sure that's an obscene gesture.
I have expressed the setiments of our founding fathers and I still believe they had a pretty good take on things.
I apologize for all those facts that seem to bother folks.
January 14, 2009 at 7:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Your Letters, Jan. 11, 2008
JLS must be very liberal. AS soon as facts don't hold up it's time for name calling. That half brain you claim to have is hitting on both cylinders.
Ginger....another case for "facts". Those folks were removed by security. Theres no one else in the airport to do it. And, the approval (yours) and enjoyment (yours) of an act of sterotyping doesn't make it less sterotyping. Thats why I tend to think it is a very normal, natural behavior that is practiced by everyone everyday. It's just when there is disagreemenet that someone has heartburn. Again, you disagree.......so you resort to namecalling.
January 14, 2009 at 9:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Your Letters, Jan. 11, 2008
Ginger
Are you suggesting we DON'T profile 6' blue-eyed blond males. Well, I don't but an awful lot of young ladies do. In a bar, on the beach, sidewalk, just about anywhere. They are ogled, googled and profiled everywhere they go.
StJoMoe.....you missed the headlines. The President of Merrill Lynch that led them into disaster....was, yep, African American. The two Companies that had by far the most money go south (FNME/FRMA).....yep, African Americans
Probably more white executives by head count but the really big bucks.........headed up by African Americans who for 10 or so years were the bell of the ball for being the first African Americans to be CEOs of such huge money machines.
January 13, 2009 at 9:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Your Letters, Jan. 11, 2008
I think Incendiary has a valid point. History suggests a religious basis for too many wars. I ponder if some of it is Fred Phelps the Topeka "pastor" hijacking religion or if there is something else working here. Nevertheless, it's enough to make an atheist smile.
JLS...sorry about the towel head ..but I'm not politically correct. (Actually, I'm not really sorry) But you lost me on "domestic terrorists" Its pretty clear where the money is being spent and folks are dying.
BUt I won't back off on JudeoChristian principles...the founders left broad sweeping tracks....the have "In God We Trust" on the coin, in stone, over doors and everywhere they could find space. They open the Congress with a prayer and the President is sworn in. Hard to argue they didn't have the integration of their faith in our society.
And, they clearly intended to be "tolerant" as do most Christians and Jews that I know. And it all went pretty well until Earl Warren came along and decided we needed minority rule.
Pops, its human nature. Each brain stores up all kinds of data 24/7. Then when something comes up we react automatically.....it's why we usually don't touch hot stoves. And, it's why we have sterotyping and why sterotyping is usually pretty valid, so for those solid, clean living Muslims, it's unfair. But who ever said life was fair.
January 13, 2009 at 6 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Your Letters, Jan. 11, 2008
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
January 11, 2009 at 6:40 p.m. ( permalink )
Your Letters, Jan. 11, 2008
It is neither intolerant nor unfair......it is quite accurate. My thinking is based on cold hard facts.
Witness Guetanemno Bay.....the "prisoners" required/demanded the Koran, footbaths, foods prescribed by the Muslim faith, Muslim Chaplins,mats, approprate prayer times, etc. etc. It is quite clear the "terrorists" were indeed Muslims. The taxpayer spent millions accomodating that FACT.
Perhaps you meant to suggest it would be politically correct to say "Terrorist-Muslims". But I don't happen to subscribe to the "politically correct" culture.
I would also observe that you are factually incorrect in suggesting a difference....when in clearly authenticated cases, they are indeed one and the same. The point you may be trying to make is that all Muslims are not terrorists.
I would fully agree and observe that I have known some delightful folks who happen to be Muslims who I have the utmost respect for. I regret that a large number of persons who share that faith are indeed bad people and do some very bad things.
January 11, 2009 at 4:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Your Letters, Jan. 11, 2008
I don't believe this issue is about which religion is "more important". I think it's about whether we will be allowed to practice the religion of our choice, in the future.
Many would like to believe it's all a simple matter of having different opinions and debating the merits and virtues and whether someone is careing and welcoming or is a jerk and a bigot.
In this world there is another group who does not tolerate any debate. Their solution for anyone who doesn't agree is death. That notwithstanding, they are a very patient group. They have been pursuing their goals for 7 centuries, so don't be misled.
Some would say this is a "minority group". Well, this minority group has kept the US military occupied for 8 years and managed to disembowl a sitting US President. Not too insignificant, I'd say.
In St Joseph Mo we are in the early stage of their takeover. In Europe they are more advanced...there they are demanding prayer breaks throughout the workday, for Muslims. They have Mosques at Airports and footbaths at all publicaly funded Universities. Women must have a male relative with them in public and they have banned pork from cafeteries and segregated classes by sex, to accomodate Muslims.
In Palestine, it is in the next phase, they are hurling rockets into Israel. There is no compromise. They have no interest in a "peace treaty". They want all Jews dead.
In Washington DC they want "In God We Trust" purged from anything remotely public
In St Joseph they don't want Christ in Christmas. They don't want Christmas celebrations to include anything Christian.
Adolph Hitler had a similiar approach. He drove the Jews from the Public Square and forced them into their Churchs. He then drove them from their Churchs into their homes and from their homes, he drove them to the camps where he gassed and burned them.
I believe in the notion of a welcoming,inclusive, open society. I don't believe that entails being stupid.
This country was built on Judeo-Christian beliefs and they were integrated in our government in every conceivable manner. Laus Deo stands 555 feet, 5.125 inches high in Washington DC.....the highest point in the District. In God we trust is inscribed in stone, rock and concrete throughout the City. An opening and closing prayer is standard for every governmental activity in the District. Our Congress has Chaplins
For 200 years (until the Warren Court) we respected the dictates of our founders. And, we created the greatest nation and society in the history of man. It worked.
And, now we have those who would be "Politically correct" who would bring us "change".
Well, folks, that's not my kind of change.
And,Laus Deo, well that means "Praise be to God"
January 11, 2009 at 1:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Your letters, Jan. 9, 2009
I am always totally pursuaded that someone's premises and conclusions are most certainly correct when they share the FACT that it is endorsed by a "reasoned people". Whoopie doo. How could anyone challenge such factual reason and logic
January 9, 2009 at 9:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )