Archive for August, 2007

Popular Mechanics and History Channel debunking 911 myths

Recent History Channel showing of 911 conspiracy debunking video is a huge milestone. Insane, crudely ignorant, unscientific and politically-motivated perversions of the greatest tragedy to happen on US soil in many years should not be left unchecked. I urge everyone to read this Popular Mechanics article debunking all 911 myths. Please, confront politically-drive ignoramuses who try to use 911 as a tool against America! Please, educate yourself in order to do so! Whatever your political viewpoints are, please read the article! You might not agree with Bush on war and/or other issues, but you have to agree — Osama did 911, not Bush.

Advertisements

Leave a Comment

Guess who is most dangerous: Muslim, Jewish, or Christian religious extremists? (by 2008Voter)

This is an original article written by 2008Voter, please visit his blog here.

Here it is:

CNN and the spin on God’s Warriors

CNN Presents God’s Warriors . Despite the all spin that CNN did put into the program the idea to compare Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious radicals is very productive. If we will go beyond what CNN is omitting in its program and we will compare side by side the Jewish, Christian and Muslims “ God warriors” few things will be obvious from that comparison :

  1. “ Muslim warriors” are only religious warriors who are supported by state ( Iran is an example)
  2. “ Muslim warriors” are only religious warriors who operate globally and have a goal of imposing its religion as religion on others
  3. “ Muslim warriors” are only religious warriors who operate in the countries and territories which are out of the historical borders of its religion ( Muslims terrorism in USA and Europe)
  4. “ Muslim warriors” are only religious warriors who are practicing strategy of intentional mass deliberate killing of civilians
  5. “ Muslim warriors” are only religious warriors who have own armies with rockets and artillery : Hezbollah
  6. “ Muslim warriors” are only religious warriors who control entire countries ( Afghanistan, Somalia until recently and Iran today )
  7. “ Muslim warriors” are only religious warriors who are attacking sovereign countries ( Hezbollah attacked Israel)
  8. “ Muslim warriors” are only religious warriors who have under military control entire territories (Gaza , Somalia)

So the whole idea to equalize Jewish, Christian and Muslims is disingenuous .

Comments (38)

Ahmadinejad officially declares Global Jihad!

read full text (English) on the Islamic Republic News Agency website:

“There is no truth on earth but monotheism and following tenets of Islam and there is no way for salvation of mankind but rule of Islam over mankind,” said Ahmadinejad in a meeting with Afghan Sunni and Shiite ulama at Iranian Embassy in Kabul. … The president said Islam belongs to all generations and Muslims should get ready for global mission of Islam.”

Leave a Comment

Would JFK be proud of Daily Kos?

Read my previous posting below, please, for detailed explanation, and please let me know!

THE ORIGINAL POSTING:

I bet JFK is real “proud” of how modern-day Democrats characterize their Conservative political opponents (not enemies like Al-Qaeda, but opponents, I remind you). I bet he is rolling in his grave!

Here is the quote from Daily Kos, read for yourself:

“LMFAO–listen, douchebag, do us all a favor and go say that on national TV. We can always use another screencap of a wild-eyed half-literate nutcase spouting discredited bullsh*t.

Do us another favor and put that f*cking crap on your car….has it dawned on you imbeciles that the country is sick of the F.U.D. yet? Has it occured to you f*cking sycophantic lickspittle wannabe-fascists that the country has heard no shortage of “support terrorism, vote Democrat [sic]” over the last six years and despite that still voted in the Democrats in November?”

I and this guy disagree on issues — I am fine with that. I am ready to disagree with any Liberal as an opponent who respects him or her, not a personal enemy. But it was this guy’s choice to make political debate into personal, hateful, and intolerant name calling. And the scariest part — nobody disagreed with him, and everyone in Liberal side seems to be OK with that!

Let me be honest — there are crazy nuts, insane hateful people on both sides of the political divide. That is no great discovery for anyone. But I am yet to see when a comment that uses same language and word choice above does NOT get deleted from Michelle Malkin or LGF. Sure, sometimes people use risque words and comparisons, but never do they descend into the cesspool of “you f**kin imbecile spouting bullsh*t”. You can accuse Republicans and Conservatives of not understanding, disagreeing — whatever — but never can you accuse them of policy of insulting Liberals with slurs and getting away with it.

When Conservative (like Ann Coulter) says a stupid thing about a Liberal (like Edwards), he or she is a racist, bigoted demagogue (and I agree!)

When a Liberal says a stupid thing about a Conservative, it is free speech and it is OK? IS THAT IT?

Does one hateful right-winger like Coulter, who gets axed for saying one stupid thing on TV, justify hundreds of hateful people on Daily Kos every day, who get away with it?

Someone told me on this issue that “People can only speak for themselves.“ He meant that website is not responsible for comments posted on it. Yes, same thing is claimed by KKK website! “It is not the website, it is just opinions of individuals!”

let’s boil this down to something useful:

1. there are nuts on both sides, who are nasty (nobody is “snow white”)
2. freedom of speech only protects what YOU PERSONALLY say
3. speech on a website is a speech BY THAT WEBSITE, even if someone else wrote it.

here is a hypothetical story:

1. Let us imagine a world in which a KKK bigot can go to a CNN.com and make an article insulting blacks. Let us imagine that CNN.com refuses to remove that article, claiming that it is “free speech”. Would you agree with that?

2. Let us also imagine, that CNN.com does, in fact, remove article. By removing that article, CNN.com does not violate bigot’s right to free speech – he can say whatever to whomever he wants. He can talk his lungs out, for what we care. But CNN.com makes it clear that it DOES NOT AGREE with what he says. Would you not agree that is a right thing to do?

Well, Daily Kos is CNN.com , and the people who say “Repukes are fu*kin imbecile dumba$$es” are the bigot in my story. And that is what became of Democratic party today. Truman and JFK are rolling in their graves, I am sure.

P.S.: I repeat yet again, for those who will twist my words : if a Conbservative say something like “Liberals must die” he should be banned from blog. That is insulting, hateful, personal language that does not contribute to debate. It happens, and people get banned. But, bottom line is: there is no Conservative “Daily Kos”, creating culture of Liberal-hate amongst conservatives.

P.P.S.: if you are interested, please read here a previous posting and very lengthy discussion I had about this subject.

Comments (8)

Who is modern-day KKK of USA? (not who you think it is!)

Only it uses the name Daily Kos. I bet JFK is real “proud” of how modern-day Democrats characterize their Conservative political opponents (not enemies like Al-Qaeda, but opponents, I remind you). I bet he is rolling in his grave!

Here is the quote from Daily Kos, read for yourself:

“LMFAO–listen, douchebag, do us all a favor and go say that on national TV. We can always use another screencap of a wild-eyed half-literate nutcase spouting discredited bullsh*t.

Do us another favor and put that f*cking crap on your car….has it dawned on you imbeciles that the country is sick of the F.U.D. yet? Has it occured to you f*cking sycophantic lickspittle wannabe-fascists that the country has heard no shortage of “support terrorism, vote Democrat [sic]” over the last six years and despite that still voted in the Democrats in November?”

I and this guy disagree on issues — I am fine with that. I am ready to disagree with any Liberal as an opponent who respects him or her, not a personal enemy. But it was this guy’s choice to make political debate into personal, hateful, and intolerant name calling. And the scariest part — nobody disagreed with him, and everyone in Liberal side seems to be OK with that!

Let me be honest — there are crazy nuts, insane hateful people on both sides of the political divide. That is no great discovery for anyone. But I am yet to see when a comment that uses same language and word choice above does NOT get deleted from Michelle Malkin or LGF. Sure, sometimes people use risque words and comparisons, but never do they descend into the cesspool of “you f**kin imbecile spouting bullsh*t”. You can accuse Republicans and Conservatives of not understanding, disagreeing — whatever — but never can you accuse them of policy of insulting Liberals with slurs and getting away with it.

When Conservative (like Ann Coulter) says a stupid thing about a Liberal (like Edwards), he or she is a racist, bigoted demagogue (and I agree!)

When a Liberal says a stupid thing about a Conservative, it is free speech and it is OK? IS THAT IT?

Does one hateful right-winger like Coulter, who gets axed for saying one stupid thing on TV, justify hundreds of hateful people on Daily Kos every day, who get away with it?

Someone told me on this issue that “People can only speak for themselves.“ He meant that website is not responsible for comments posted on it. Yes, same thing is claimed by KKK website! “It is not the website, it is just opinions of individuals!”

let’s boil this down to something useful:

1. there are nuts on both sides, who are nasty (nobody is “snow white”)
2. freedom of speech only protects what YOU PERSONALLY say
3. speech on a website is a speech BY THAT WEBSITE, even if someone else wrote it.

here is a hypothetical story:

1. Let us imagine a world in which a KKK bigot can go to a CNN.com and make an article insulting blacks. Let us imagine that CNN.com refuses to remove that article, claiming that it is “free speech”. Would you agree with that?

2. Let us also imagine, that CNN.com does, in fact, remove article. By removing that article, CNN.com does not violate bigot’s right to free speech – he can say whatever to whomever he wants. He can talk his lungs out, for what we care. But CNN.com makes it clear that it DOES NOT AGREE with what he says. Would you not agree that is a right thing to do?

Well, Daily Kos is CNN.com , and the people who say “Repukes are fu*kin imbecile dumba$$es” are the bigot in my story. And that is what became of Democratic party today. Truman and JFK are rolling in their graves, I am sure.

P.S.: I repeat yet again, for those who will twist my words : if a Conbservative say something like “Liberals must die” he should be banned from blog. That is insulting, hateful, personal language that does not contribute to debate. It happens, and people get banned. But, bottom line is: there is no Conservative “Daily Kos”, creating culture of Liberal-hate amongst conservatives.

P.P.S.: if you are interested, please read here a previous posting and very lengthy discussion I had about this subject.

Comments (5)

Interesting things one finds when reading the Constitution of Iran : The Purpose of Army

judge for yourself:

“An Ideological Army
In the formation and equipping of the country’s defence forces, due attention must be paid to faith and ideology as the basic criteria. Accordingly, the Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps are to be organized in conformity with this goal, and they will be responsible not only for guarding and preserving the frontiers of the country, but also for fulfilling the ideological mission of jihad in God’s way; that is, extending the sovereignty of God’s law throughout the world (this is in accordance with the Koranic verse “Prepare against them whatever force you are able to muster, and strings of horses, striking fear into the enemy of God and your enemy, and others besides them” [8:60]).”

So much for misunderstanding Iran’s intentions. Just like Soviet Union in 1920s with its Comintern organization:

“The Comintern (Communist International, also known as the Third International) was an international Communist organization founded in Moscow in March 1919. The International intended to fight “by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State.”[1]

Leave a Comment

Why We Fight.

As nicely said by Newt Gingrich in interview to FOX News:

What I would say to any Democrat who wants America to leave is quite simple. Millions of Iraqis have sided with the United States. They are known in their neighborhoods. They are known in their cities. If we abandon them, they are going to be massacred.How can you, in good conscience, walk away from these decent people and leave them behind to a fate which we’ve seen, for example, in Afghanistan, where the Taliban recently was machine-gunning girls as they walked to school because the Taliban is determined to stop women from getting educated?

We are faced with evil opponents. Those opponents need to be defeated. And if General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker come back in September and say, “We actually can win this thing,” I want to understand the rationale that says, “No, we don’t want to let America win. Let’s legislate defeat for the United States.”

 

Comments (2)

Older Posts »