« Tucker Carlson Gets Lowest Score On "Dancing" Debut | Main | A fitting tribute »

Unbelievable, Even For Rosie

Newsbusters and Mary Katharine Ham have the story of Rosie O'Donell's incredible statements on The View yesterday. She not only does not see much difference between the threats posed by radical Christianity and radical Islam, but also does not realize that those in Afghanistan and Iraq have threatened the U.S. in the past

I did not see the show, but am not surprised. That program should always have been called "The Liberal View." They added Elisabeth Hasselbeck a while back as the token conservative, but she rarely shows any evidence that she follows the political issues they discuss well enough to make any kind of convincing argument. Occasionally she does argue a pro-life position well, but the few times I have seen the show over the past few years, she has been vastly outnumbered and overpowered. Here is an excerpt from Newsbusters' account of Rosie's comments. Follow the links above for the rest, along with video.

O'Donnell saved her harshest comments for the war on terror. After Hasselbeck had the temerity to mention the threat of extreme Islam, Rosie responded with her slap at Christianity:

O'Donnell: "And just one second, radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America."

This proved too much for even Behar. She replied, in a somewhat bewildered manner:

Behar: "But, but Christians are not threatening to kill us. There's that difference. This group is threatening to kill us."

Hasselbeck also appeared surprised by O'Donnell's comment. She maintained, "We are not bombing ourselves here in the country." The comedienne had a clever retort for this:

O'Donnell: "No, but we are bombing innocent people in other countries. True or false?"

I wonder if ABC has gotten much reaction from viewers.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Unbelievable, Even For Rosie:

» Webloggin linked with Lesbian Sheik

» American Conservative Daily Blog linked with Rosie O'Donnell's Blissful Ignorance

Comments (63)

"O’Donnell: "No, but we are... (Below threshold)

"O’Donnell: "No, but we are bombing innocent people in other countries. True or false?"

False. We are bombing the guys that are trying to kill us, sometimes killing people who are trying to keep them safe, there by. . . not innocent.

Rosie is right. Christian f... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Rosie is right. Christian fundamentalism IS incompatible with democracy.

http://tinyurl.com/z7ya3

I've always wondered why an... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

I've always wondered why anyone, anywhere, any time cared in any way about anything she has to say about, well, anything at all. And I'm a liberal!!

"They added Elisabeth Ha... (Below threshold)
DDT:

"They added Elisabeth Hasselbeck a while back as the token conservative, but she rarely shows any evidence that she follows the political issues they discuss well enough to make any kind of convincing argument.

Then she is definitely ready for FOX News!

Rosie is right. Christia... (Below threshold)
Doug:

Rosie is right. Christian fundamentalism IS incompatible with democracy. (picture follows)

No. Her argument (and yours) is incompatible with reality. It's the same old moral equivalence argument. Christian fundamentalism does NOT equal Islamic fundamentalism.

Or, to put it another way, muirgeo: You linked to one photo (of violence by a Christian fundamentalist); others here could link to DOZENS of pictures (and much more recent ones) of Islamic fundamentalism.

Bible thumpers won't cut off your head if you don't convert to their faith; Islamic radicals will and have done so. Who's the greater threat to democracy?

I'd laugh at these insipid arguments from the left if it weren't for the fact that thinking this way could get us all killed.

A minor correction to my pr... (Below threshold)
Doug:

A minor correction to my previous post:
--------
Or, to put it another way, muirgeo: You linked to one photo (of violence by a Christian fundamentalist); others here could link to DOZENS of pictures (and much more recent ones) of violence by Islamic fundamentalists.

This is the same Rosie who ... (Below threshold)

This is the same Rosie who has armed bodyguards while she works to end the right to keep and bear arms. The woman is a vitriolic hypocrite with no attachment to reality. I wouldn't be surprised by anything she says.

You give her a modicum of decency and lucidity of thought that she has not only not earned, but worked tirelessly to disabuse anyone of the notion that she's capable of them.

Hey, don't dis the Angry Be... (Below threshold)
Matt:

Hey, don't dis the Angry Beavers, they were great! ;o) It was a much more interesting show than the view.

Rosie defends "radical" and... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

Rosie defends "radical" and "extreme" Islam even though mainstream Islam would behead her for being gay and, at a minimum, keep her covered from head to toe in public. Stupid Rosie doesn't understand the meaning of freedom.

...at a minimum, keep... (Below threshold)
Sputnik:

...at a minimum, keep her covered from head to toe in public.

Not necessarily a bad thing.

I'm shocked. I actually agr... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

I'm shocked. I actually agree with Hugh.

O'donnell the blowhard is o... (Below threshold)
914:

O'donnell the blowhard is obviously suffering from militant Islamist infatuitis..

What's really scary is when... (Below threshold)
Jo:

What's really scary is when Rosie said this, many in the audience clapped.

Who is Rosie and is ABC sti... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Who is Rosie and is ABC still on the air? Why?

Maybe someone can help me. ... (Below threshold)

Maybe someone can help me. Is there a name for focusing on equivalencies or comparisons? I've noticed a definate pattern from the left (maybe everyone does it and I haven't noticed) that everything *must* be compared to something else.

Seriously, is it *relevant* to compare radical Christianity in the US to radical Islam? I don't expect gays and feminists to host a love fest for Pat Robertson, it's just that I find it insane that they don't seem able to condemn a culture that stones rape victims and hangs gays. In fact, if they *do* they get re-categorized as neo-cons.

(And it's not *radical* Islam that stones rape victims and hangs gays, it's the nationwide judicial system in Iran. It's not some radical fundamentalist preacher saying how homosexuality is a ticket to hell or that rape victims deserved it, it's the police and the courts.)

So is there a name for an argument that is constructed as "this isn't any worse than that" or "this isn't any better than that?"

Does Rosie lose the ability to rag on about Christianity if she admits that killing people is worse than not killing people? Like saying the truth that Iran has hung gay men to death, not extra-judicial lynch mobs, the *courts* have hung gay men to death, is going to take away her moral authority to bash Christianity unless she can insist that radical Christianity is *just as bad*?

My guess is that at the rat... (Below threshold)
Nahanni:

My guess is that at the rate Rosie is going she will be gone from The View before New Years Day. Just remember that with all media entities money talks.

One would think that the execs at ABC would know better then to put a LLL like her on any of their programs that are not scripted. But, I am sure that Barbara Walters pushed to have her on the show and both her and the network execs agree with Rosie's politics.They both see nothing wrong with what she says, and won't until the sponsors threaten to drop the show because of the negative feedback from customers.

First of all, Rosie O'Donne... (Below threshold)
Nihilistic_Disintegration:

First of all, Rosie O'Donnell is an idiot, regardless what she said on the View.

Second, she is wrong. Radical Christianity is not JUST AS THREATENING as Radical Islam to America. Radical Christianity is WAY WAY WAY MORE threatening to America.

Radical Islam cannot take away our Fourth Amendment rights against unwarranted search and seizure, our Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, our First Amendment rights of free speech and free religion. Radical Islam cannot take away our Miranda rights, our Habeas Corpus rights, our rights to attorney-client privilege, a speedy trial, and so on. Only the Radical Christians like Bush, Delay, Reed and on down the line can do that.

Really, the only way that radical Islam can destroy our country is by blowing up enough shit that our Radical Christian leaders are able to scare us all into giving up our rights. The way to defeat radical Islam is to stand up to the leaders of this great country and tell them that we are not going to let them piss all over our Constitution.

Live Free Or Die.

I knew when I heard Rosie w... (Below threshold)
T.G. Scott:

I knew when I heard Rosie was joining The View that it would be a failed experiment. I predict the whole show will be in the toilet by Christmas, if not before. If they couldn't deal with Star Jones, they surely cannot deal with Rosie O'Donnell. I personally can't stand The View. The very few times I've had the chance (like during vacation or on a sick day) to watch it I found it disgusting and turned it off in favor of a book. And that was the pre-Rosie days. Rosie, bless her heart, is afflicted with what we here in the South call diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the mind.

Doug,muirgeo is a ... (Below threshold)
Nahanni:

Doug,

muirgeo is a clueless little troll who, like the masochistic attention whore that he is, only sticks around because people "pay attention" to him by using him for Clue Bat(TM) practice. And he is very poor Clue Bat(TM) practice at that. He is more like a T-Ball stand then a pitching machine.

Ignore him and eventually he will go away to seek the attention he so craves.

Second, she is wrong. Ra... (Below threshold)
Doug:

Second, she is wrong. Radical Christianity is not JUST AS THREATENING as Radical Islam to America. Radical Christianity is WAY WAY WAY MORE threatening to America.

You're kidding, right? When did all of those rights get vaporized? I must have missed that story on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric. She'd be the first to tell me this, wouldn't she?

My gosh, you think the threat is BIGGER from people whose rhetoric you disagree with; while others who ACTUALLY WANT TO KILL YOU are.... what? Simply a nuisance?

Well, I guess you and the terrorists have at least one thing in common: you both think that Bush is The Great Satan.

Is it just me or does this ... (Below threshold)
John:

Is it just me or does this same post appear twice on the home page?

Nahanni:Thanks for... (Below threshold)
Doug:

Nahanni:

Thanks for the clarification.

You know, I wouldn't mind all the trolling--if only we could engage in logical arguments here. But the trolls seem to visit here, check out the topics, then barf up their bile. No real exchange of ideas; no attempt to persuade others with cogent thoughts.

I am going to sound like an old fart (and I'm only 49), but I worry about the future of our country. Can we survive the threats from outside our borders and these terrible divisions from within? Will things ultimately improve here at home, or is BDS now a permanent element in political discourse (no matter who the Republican leader is)?

Why not do what I did? I s... (Below threshold)

Why not do what I did? I sent a detailed e-mail to Ms. O'Donnell telling her several areas is which she had displayed her ignorance. And then reminded her that her precious right to be a lesbian would get her killed posthaste, should her buddies the Islamofascists ever take charge. While it seldome does any good, I am determined to keep on meeting ignorance with basic intelligence.

Since the merge of the two ... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

Since the merge of the two blogs, my original post was deleted.

Does anyone remember the cartoon show "Angry Beavers"? well, they updated it, used 4 women and called it "The View".

Fox should hire Hasselback with 3 other women and start a show called "The Opposing View".

Doug,You've heard ... (Below threshold)
Nihilistic_Disintegration:

Doug,

You've heard of the Patriot Act, right? You remember when the Bush administration (via John Ashcroft) was fighting to overturn the Miranda decision, right? Maybe if you'd turn away from Fox News once in a while, you'd see some of the things that our government officials are doing.

I never said that I am more threatened personally by Christian zealots than by Islamofascists. I wasn't talking about people, I was talking about AMERICA. No matter how many people get blown up by Islamic radicals, only the people in charge can destroy our country. (Just for the record, though, I have been personally threatened by a number of so-called Christians over the years, but so far not a single Muslim.)

Also, I don't think Bush is the great Satan. I don't believe in Satan. That's from your playbook, not mine. Bush is more like the Wizard of Oz. He's a pathetic little man hiding behind a screen of tough rhetoric, hoping that if he scares you enough you'll do what he says and not look behind the curtain.

Where's Toto when we need him?

ND (nice moniker, BTW):... (Below threshold)
Doug:

ND (nice moniker, BTW):

At the risk of wasting more of my time.....you said:

No matter how many people get blown up by Islamic radicals, only the people in charge can destroy our country.

I'm sure if you were to ask the nearly 3,000 people who died on 9/11/01 who the greater threat is, they'd ALL agree with you--it's Bush, not the Islamofascists! (sarcasm off)

Not only is your argument repugnant; you dishonor their memory by asserting it.

Nihilist, what's a specific... (Below threshold)
moon6:

Nihilist, what's a specific instance of a right we've lost? I'm really curious.

Rosie O'Donell for intellig... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

Rosie O'Donell for intelligent commentary, on anything?

Bwa ha ha ha!

She is a MORON. I recall a few years back she was on some celebrity game show. They asked her a very basic question about American Geography. She was completely clueless, couldn't even answer the question.

Maybe if she had spent a little more time reading books then watching TV she would be such a MORON.

What is scary is she doesn't realize how stupid she is and she has a pulpit to speak from. Now that is scary.

Anything that issues forth from her mouth, especially if it is not from a cue card or a written speech she is actively looking at, is useless drivel not worth the air passing over her shrill vocal cords.

Folks like Rosie O'Donell c... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Folks like Rosie O'Donell complain about legislation like the Patriot act because it infringes on some of their favorite constitutional rights. Yet these same people work for an applaud legislation like the Assault weapons ban that for years dramatically infringed on constitutional rights. I figure they are only reaping what they sowed.

I wonder how long before sh... (Below threshold)
Carl:

I wonder how long before she's asked to leave the show (which she'll spin as "I left on my terms"). It's obvious she won't shut up and won't tone down her vitriolic schtick. She has a major mean streak against conservatives and also Christians that has been long documented.

"You know, I wouldn't mind ... (Below threshold)

"You know, I wouldn't mind all the trolling--if only we could engage in logical arguments here. But the trolls seem to visit here, check out the topics, then barf up their bile. No real exchange of ideas; no attempt to persuade others with cogent thoughts."

Doug, this is a serious question: PLease tell me what good it would do to try and persuade the church of frat boy members on this site?

I mean honestly, do you really thing anyone posting here could be convinced to take a position contrary to this administration?

As for the future of our country, don't worry Doug, our country has survived greater terrorism and divisions before ;)

f-n:"I mean honestly, do yo... (Below threshold)
circular illogic?:

f-n:"I mean honestly, do you really thing anyone posting here could be convinced to take a position contrary to this administration? "

..and yet YOU are posting here. How does that work?

ci?, Stay with me on this, ... (Below threshold)

ci?, Stay with me on this, I promise it won't be too hard to figure out. Doug was referring to trolls posting, a category, I am assuming in which I fit. I therefore made mention of the regulars who post here, and their consistent, lock step positions with the current administration. Get it?

Think a little before you try to be cute next time. Hey, just because you have a computer keyboard in fron of you, does not mean you have to use it and make a fool of yourself.

Well, moon6, it would seem ... (Below threshold)
nihilistic_disintegration:

Well, moon6, it would seem that we have lost the right to criticize our government without being called a terrorist sympathizer (or worse).

More to the point, we have lost the ability to not have our phone tapped by the government without a warrant.

Was that too obvious? How about the right to habeas-corpus? If the Bush administration decides that someone is an Enemy Combatant or whatever, they can hold that person in prison without charges, without seeing an attorney, without the right to confront their accusors for as long as they see fit. American citizens held indefinitely without charges.

How about the right to actually elect our government? Remember back when votes were counted and the person who won actually got to take office?

Hmmm... Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Hope that helps.

Muirgeo and Rosie need to s... (Below threshold)

Muirgeo and Rosie need to show us the people Christians are torturing to get them to convert. Being hostile to gay adoption is hardly in the same class as what radical Islamists are doing. Maybe she should try gay marriage/adoption in a Moslem country just to see the difference. I'll never watch her.

NdRosie could not ... (Below threshold)
914:

Nd

Rosie could not have spewed Your queries any more elaborately.

Wow, Doug. I thought maybe... (Below threshold)
nihilistic_disintegration:

Wow, Doug. I thought maybe you would offer some sort of reasoned counter-point to my argument, but I see you'd prefer to simply ratchet up the rhetoric.

Okay. Here's me responding in kind:

Doug, it repulses me to read your sycophantic drivel. The enthusiasm with which you would fall to your knees and renounce your liberties makes me want to puke. The disregard that you show for the Constitution dishonors every person who has died defending this great country of ours. Not only that, but you do a disservice to all of the current members of our military and our veterans, as well. They wear (or wore) the uniform of these United States and risk their lives to protect and defend the Constitution. Yet here you are, ready to give up whatever parts of it your Leader says is necessary to keep us safe. Is that what our soldiers are fighting for? So you can give away that most precious thing that they are defending?

I believe in one thing above all, Doug, the United States of America. I believe that our nation is stronger than a bunch of radical Islamic nut-jobs and that we MUST stand tall and hold our liberty dear no matter the threat. You, on the other hand, are ready to sell it out to the nearest schoolyard bully who promises to keep the other bullies from beating you up for your lunch money. Hope that works out for you.

--End of screed.--

Okay, I can see why you guys prefer rhetoric over reason. That was kind of fun.

Seriously, Doug, (or anyone else) if you can explain how radical Islam is going to ruin our country, I'm all ears... um, eyes.

Nihilist,1. I cri... (Below threshold)
moon6:

Nihilist,

1. I criticize my government all the time and no one calls me a terrorist sympathizer. To my knowledge, no one is calling you a terrorist sympathizer. Thus your first assertion is simply not true.

2. Re your second assertion, that you can have your phone tapped without a warrant: the 4th Amendment prohibits only "unreasonable" searches, and it is established law that when you come here from overseas, your body and goods are subject to search without a warrant. The Administration is monitoring phone calls that originate from overseas terrorsits and are to persons in the U.S. Who cares? There is no 4th Amendment right here, you can't lose a right you don't have.

3. Re your third assertion, habeas corpus, the only persons being held as enemy combatants are, in fact, enemy combatants. They should have been shot, I have no idea why we are holding them and I hereby criticize my government. I don't follow you at all here, I'm sorry. Do you mean that shoe guy who was an American citizen? He ended up in the court system.

4. Your fourth assertion regarding the "right to elect our government"...we still have that, Nihilist. Sadly one of the major parties attempts to discourage any requirement that voters have ID, so there are too many illegal aliens voting and duplicate voters and dead voters...but still, our votes do get counted, and the winner takes office. Show me otherwise.

moon,1: to wit, Do... (Below threshold)
nihilistic_disintegration:

moon,

1: to wit, Doug's comment further up, "Well, I guess you and the terrorists have at least one thing in common..." Also, see several comments on the Bankrupt Air America thread to the effect of, the hosts can go get jobs with Al-Jazeera. Just because you don't see it, that doesn't mean it's not true.

2: The Fourth Amendment: " The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Also, see this thing on Fox News:

FOX NEWS

3: So your assertion is that anyone that is arrested and declared an Enemy Combatant should be summarily executed? You don't care if they actually committed a crime? What's the criteria for Enemy Combatant status? How is that better than the Islamofascists?

4: See Brad Blog

Also, refer to... um... Florida 2000. (Again, too obvious?)

Rosie defends "radical" ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Rosie defends "radical" and "extreme" Islam even though mainstream Islam would behead her for being gay and, at a minimum, keep her covered from head to toe in public. Stupid Rosie doesn't understand the meaning of freedom.

You're confusing "Mainstream Islam" with old Arabic tradition/fashion resurrected by the radicals. Contrary to popular belief, Islam doesn't actually preach covering the body.

And out of the three monotheistic beliefs, Islam is the only one accepting of homosexuality.

And REAL Islam doesn't preach violence at all. I see you've learned much since 9/11...I think you should drop FOX NEWS. They really have corrupted you.

Nihilist,1. I wen... (Below threshold)
moon6:

Nihilist,

1. I went up and read the context of Doug's comment...that you and the terrorists both think Bush is the Great Satan...and that certainly looks true to me based on your first comment. Doesn't mean you are a terrorist sympathizer, just that you agree about one thing.

2. Great. I already knew the 4th Amendment, thanks. Check out that key word "unreasonable". That's the key. Cops don't always need a warrant.

3. An enemy combatant is, wait for it...someone caught engaging in combat with the U.S. military. If they are out of uniform, yes, I support executing them summarily.

4. Florida 2000...we're done, Nihilist. I can respect everything you said except that. Bush won the vote count, he won the first recount, he won the second recount, and the only reason this went to court was because the Democrats were desperately trying to scrape together some permutation of recounting this county and not recounting that county (and not counting military absentees) that would let them squeak by. Give me a break. The winner won.

Brian, please explain if Is... (Below threshold)

Brian, please explain if Islam accepts homosexuality why the nation of Iran hangs gay men.

The reality of the Islamic world is that gays are hanged and headcoverings, though not universally required, are *often* required... certainly more often than not, and that sometimes burkas or those incredible tents they wear in Morroco are required so that a woman isn't even suggestively person shaped any longer. In some areas female genital mutilation is the cultural norm and honor killings matter of fact.

It doesn't matter where these things came from because the fact is that a peaceful, homosexuality accepting Islam not only isn't "mainstream" it doesn't exist. The brutality of Islam is not some make believe thing created by FOX news.

When you, Brian, can visit Saudi and trek to mecca wearing a gay pride T-shirt... then you can honestly say what you said. Until then your little fantasy of the love and acceptance of Islam is about as real as canals with boats full of little green men on Mars.

Neither are impossible... but neither exist *today*.

(The relative difficulty of... (Below threshold)

(The relative difficulty of settling Mars, building canals and creating green clockwork gondoleers, compared to the difficulty of reforming Islam into Brians "True" Islam, is an exercise for the reader.)

moon:1: Whatever. ... (Below threshold)
Nihilistic_Disintegration:

moon:

1: Whatever. You apparently missed my response to Doug where I explained that I think Bush is a pathetic little twerp, not some great evil mythic creature.

2: I know cops don't always need a warrant. You're saying that it's not unreasonable for Cheney to want to intecept domestic phone calls and emails without a warrant? What happened to the "they're only spying on calls from outside the US, so it's OK" argument?

3: The thing about the enemy combatant is that sometimes people get scooped up in the big net when they haven't actually participated in any combat against America. I'm all for executing people who take up arms against this country. If we're simply rolling along killing anyone that someone somewhere says is an enemy combatant, we're no better than...

4: I gotta tell you, I wasn't sure about including Florida in my last post. That's a discussion too large for this thread. Anyway, my main question is this: why are Republicans so opposed to electronic voting machines having a voter-verifiable paper receipt? Why are Republicans so opposed to a transparant voting process? Why are Republicans willing to sign over our right to elect our leaders to undocumented, proprietary, easily-compromised software? Shouldn't ALL Americans, regardless of party affiliation, want to ensure that the votes are counted accurately and completely?

I love it when ignorant lib... (Below threshold)
jerseychris:

I love it when ignorant liberals show us who they really are.

Muhammad, founder of islam ... (Below threshold)
Muhamhead:

Muhammad, founder of islam had his followers murder his political enemies, stole their lands, sold their widows and children off into slavery, had is followers steal and he child raped his 6 year old bride when he was 54.

Did Christ do any of these things? No. Isn't history a bitch you twisted liberals?

jerseychris: "I love it whe... (Below threshold)
Nihilistic_Disintegration:

jerseychris: "I love it when ignorant liberals show us who they really are."

Me, too. Who are you talking about?

Wow. I leave for about 12 h... (Below threshold)
Doug:

Wow. I leave for about 12 hours and it looks like I missed out on a lot of back-and-forth here.

Let's try this again, ND, shall we? You said:

Radical Islam cannot take away our Fourth Amendment rights against unwarranted search and seizure, our Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, our First Amendment rights of free speech and free religion. Radical Islam cannot take away our Miranda rights, our Habeas Corpus rights, our rights to attorney-client privilege, a speedy trial, and so on. Only the Radical Christians like Bush, Delay, Reed and on down the line can do that.

Please give us THE SPECIFICS of how this Administration has taken away all of these rights. I'm waiting.... If these rights have been taken away from American citizens, then why hasn't the Congress (or the Supreme Court, for that matter) stepped in and asserted their Constitutional authority vs. the Executive branch?

Based on your comments, ND, I guess I should conclude that you believe the greater threat to this nation comes from the Bush Administration, not Islamofascism. Is that correct?

Your hatred of Bush has blinded you to the big picture, sir. The President takes seriously his Constitutional duty to protect the citizens of this country. The threat is real; there were 3,000 dead citizens--not soldiers--at the start of this conflict. And the terrorists tell us that they are just getting started.

You seem to be overly concerned about imagined usurpations of Constitutional rights. Most of us here are more worried about the future of our country, given that there are thousands of terrorists who are ready and willing to die for their cause--destroying Western civilization in the name of Allah. If they are successful, our Constitution will be as valuable as piece of used Kleenex--our First/Fourth/Fifth--hell, all of 'em--Amendment rights won't mean diddly-squat then.

I guess we each think that the other lives in a Bizarro universe. Time will tell which version of reality is "really real." Keep in mind: In January '09, we will have a new President; Bush will no longer be the "threat" you think he is. But something tells me that America will still be seriously threatened by Islamofascism.

I think that we're in far m... (Below threshold)

I think that we're in far more danger of having our constitutional rights worn away during times of peace no matter which party has the majority, than in time of war, because *now* people are watching closely, they're paying attention.

This is an issue that takes dilligence and during peacetime few people are dilligent. It's the nature of government and the nature of our law makers to chip at the edges. It's just that most of the time it's unrepresented portions of the population that get screwed.

Proof? The various things that Bush has been criticized for *existed and were used by previous administrations*. It's just that no one was paying attention. Now they are.

Do I think Bush should get a pass? No. But I wish that people would understand two things, first that we are at war and we *need* to adapt our intelligence gathering to the realities of technology and modern life. Second, that we don't have any realistic expectation of privacy and haven't for a long time. If someone wasn't previously aware of that it's hard to believe that they actually care about privacy rather than just care about demonizing the present administration.

Maybe a third point too... compared to past wars, this president has an excessively light hand. Complaining that it's wrong to keep people at home from realizing that we are *at* war and then complaining about the horrific impact on our civil rights isn't logical.

Muhammad, founder of isl... (Below threshold)
shwade:

Muhammad, founder of islam had his followers murder his political enemies, stole their lands, sold their widows and children off into slavery, had is followers steal and he child raped his 6 year old bride when he was 54.

Did Christ do any of these things? No. Isn't history a bitch you twisted liberals?

What's your source?

To shwade: Obviously that p... (Below threshold)
Brian:

To shwade: Obviously that person is beyond repair. Now that is a fine example of radical Christianity.

To Synova: Whether or not a violent act is practiced in the Middle East has nothing to do with Islam really. Those people are OBVIOUSLY corrupt. They live in war torn areas that feed the hungry lies instead of food. Do you actually think all Muslims are like that? If so, that's a complete shame.

Islam doesn't preach any of these violent and/or unfair acts. Much of this is based entirely on cultural traditions and, again, has NOTHING to do with Islam.

A "mainstream" Islam does exist. The only reason why you haven't noticed it is because it's not radical. Simple as that.

Ladies and gentlemen, we ha... (Below threshold)
nihilistic_disintegration:

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!

The John F. Kerry award for flip-flopping goes to...

Drumroll, please...

Doug!

Congratulations, Doug! I knew you had it in you. You managed to NEGATE YOUR OWN ARGUMENT!

How did you do that? Let me explain.

Doug Argument #1: "Please give us THE SPECIFICS of how this Administration has taken away all of these rights."

The argument being that threats to our country shouldn't be a concern until they have actually materialized. It should not be our concern that people like Cheney want to expand the government's powers to spy on people to include domestic phone calls and emails, because they haven't done it yet.

Doug Argument #2: "There are thousands of terrorists who are ready and willing..." and "If they are successful, our Constitution will be as valuable..." (emphasis mine)

The argument being that threats to our country should be a concern NOW, before they materialize.

So, to summarize, we should be concerned about threats, but not be concerned about them because nothing's been done yet, but it could be and then it's too late, but wait until it happens and stop complaining.

I'll tell you what, Doug, why don't you fix a nice glass of warm milk and sit in your den for a while thinking about which side of the argument you want to be on. Get back to me with your decision.

Thanks.

Synova,Exactly whi... (Below threshold)
nihilistic_disintegration:

Synova,

Exactly which rights are you willing to give up in order to be "safer"?

Seriously, Freedom of Speech? Speaking out could aid the enemy. Freedom of Religion? You might be a crazy Muslim. Right to Bear Arms? You could shoot someone. Fourth Amendment? Fifth?

Which parts of The Constitution are superfluous? How about the right for women to vote? Do we really need that?

Which parts of our country are you willing to flush town the toilet just to assuage your own fears?

One more question, for the ... (Below threshold)
nihilistic_disintegration:

One more question, for the general populace:

My argument here has been that there is a threat to our country (specifically, our liberties) posed by the Christians in power. I even gave a few examples of how those people are (in my opinion) a real threat, more real than radical Islam.

So to all those who are pissing on themselves over the imminent demise of Western Civilization at the hands of Islamofascists, I ask this: How, exactly, would they destroy our country? Can anyone here, especially the few that seem to think I'm a fanatical Lib'rul wack-job, give a scenario in which Radical Islam would be able to destroy the US, and make "our Constitution ... as valuable as piece of used Kleenex"? (Doug's words)


Well...they could start hav... (Below threshold)

Well...they could start having more children than we are, and converting more minorities in the prison systems. Not to mention the race mixing, and influencing of our younger children. -some of those Middle Eastern chicks are hot- and before you know it; we have muslim elected officials, because they just have the numbers to out vote us! And what do you think will come next? I will tell you what; BAM! No more constitution as we know it. It will be just a bunch of muslim men who probably owend slaves somewhere....wait, we had that already. But you know what I mean nihilistic, it would be just bad for every body.

I just can't imagine a country where I can't drink a Red Stripe now and then, drive a nice gas guzzler and chase big booty women. If radical Islam allows me to do those things, well then bring em on!!

ND said:So to a... (Below threshold)
Doug:

ND said:

So to all those who are pissing on themselves over the imminent demise of Western Civilization at the hands of Islamofascists, I ask this: How, exactly, would they destroy our country? Can anyone here, especially the few that seem to think I'm a fanatical Lib'rul wack-job, give a scenario in which Radical Islam would be able to destroy the US, and make "our Constitution ... as valuable as piece of used Kleenex"? (Doug's words)

Me: Have you read Bruce Bawer's While Europe Slept? Check out brucebawer.com and get back to me. He seems to think that Europe is in deep doo-doo already.

What? Don't believe him? Wait a minute.... He's not one of us (right-wing wack job)--he's [gasp] a liberal! And... [double gasp] he's actually lived in and reported from Europe! And... [oh no] he's gay!!
[mega-sarcasm off]

So if you won't listen to what he has to say, ND, then I guess you're right--there's nothing (and no one) to worry about (except--in your eyes--our current President and his evil minions).

PS: I'll respond to your earlier post once I've returned from the RDF that that post generated....

Brian said:A "m... (Below threshold)
Doug:

Brian said:

A "mainstream" Islam does exist. The only reason why you haven't noticed it is because it's not radical. Simple as that.

Hi Brian! I thought I might find you over here! (I left another post at that other topic--you know where.)

Anyway: I'd like you to give me your thoughts on the above: Is the "mainstream" of Islam the majority? (I assume so.) Do you think they approve or disapprove of the violence/jihad of the radicals? If they disapprove, why don't we hear from them?

(I think there are many in the West who fear that most Muslims silently agree with the radicals--and that's why they remain silent.)

Anyway, as I said, I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Doug,I'm going to ... (Below threshold)
Nihilistic_Disintegration:

Doug,

I'm going to check out that guy's book. The reviews at Amazon make it sound like Europe has some problems.

If your main argument is that we are threatened by the same thing as Europe from the Muslims, then what I'm hearing is that the real threat is not from Islamofascists blowing up buildings or trains, but from "mainstream" Muslims gaining enough numbers to affect the outcome of our elections, to put Muslims into office and from there to impose their religious law over the laws of the US, thus making our Constitution worthless.

Is that right? Do I get what you're saying? Because if that's what your argument is, then we (and by we, I mean the right and the left) should be fighting the same fight. We should be working together to make sure that our system of government and the Constitution that guides it are as rock-solid as possible, so they can withstand an onslought from ANY religious group.

Today, I am concerned about Christian radicals destroying our liberties and imposing their warped views on our laws. In ten or twenty years, maybe that concern will shift itself to Muslims. It doesn't make a difference. IT"S THE SAME FIGHT. The separation of church and state is paramount to our system of government. We, as a nation, need to be absolutely 100% sure that there is no way that a religious group can take power and then erode our rights and liberties in the name of their god.

That's why I'm against the Bush administration. I don't give two sh*ts about GW as a person, all I care about is that he and his cronies are trying to wreck our country. Period. They're using fear to push their radical agenda. Who's to say that in ten or twenty years, some group of Muslims won't do the same thing?

Fighting the current enemy of our country (Radical Christians) will strengthen us against future enemies (Muslims? Hillary?)

Join me in the fight, won't you, Doug?

Hi ND:Thanks for y... (Below threshold)
Doug:

Hi ND:

Thanks for your most recent post. Man, I didn't think I'd end up saying this, but I agree with at least 75% of what you wrote! Maybe there's hope for us after all. :-) (And I mean that sincerely, for both the left and the right.)

If I could, I'd like to reply to a couple of things you've said:

If your main argument is that we are threatened by the same thing as Europe from the Muslims, then what I'm hearing is that the real threat is not from Islamofascists blowing up buildings or trains, but from "mainstream" Muslims gaining enough numbers to affect the outcome of our elections, to put Muslims into office and from there to impose their religious law over the laws of the US, thus making our Constitution worthless.

Is that right? Do I get what you're saying? Because if that's what your argument is, then we (and by we, I mean the right and the left) should be fighting the same fight. We should be working together to make sure that our system of government and the Constitution that guides it are as rock-solid as possible, so they can withstand an onslought from ANY religious group.

Me: I think the threat from Muslims is two-fold. 1. The threat that Europe faces (largely non-violent, though not entirely [see London's subway bombings, bombings in Madrid, the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, etc.]) through cultural non-assimilation. As you said, this will affect elections, laws, and public perceptions. It's a gradual takeover through sheer numbers. (BTW, I can't remember who wrote about it, but someone recently published European population stats which indicated that the Muslim birthrate is several times higher in almost every European nation than the white birthrate.)

2. The threat that the US faces (by and large) is the more aggressive one--violence and terrorism. For whatever reasons (being the lone superpower, our support of Israel, or JUST BEING INFIDELS) we are definitely the big target, and I don't think that these guys are going to give up their plans anytime soon.

So, to paint with a very broad brush, I think the threats look like this:
Europe: the danger is "passive"--mass immigration and non-assimilation of Muslims into these countries, with occasional terrorist acts thrown into the mix.
US: the danger is "active"--attacks on our people and institutions, both abroad and now here at home. (This may not be entirely germaine to the discussion, but I also believe that Political Correctness at times provides an unintentional but additional threat. For example: we can't profile people in airports. Why the hell not? We can be almost certain that young blacks, pregnant Hispanics, and old Jewish grandmothers are not terrorists planning to blow up airplanes. If people are offended by being profiled, so be it. We can't go through life expecting to never be offended by what others say and do.)

Well, enough on this (at least for now).

You also said:

Today, I am concerned about Christian radicals destroying our liberties and imposing their warped views on our laws. In ten or twenty years, maybe that concern will shift itself to Muslims. It doesn't make a difference. IT'S THE SAME FIGHT.

With all due respect, ND, I must strongly disagree here. Christian radicals and Muslim radicals are not the same. (Hey! We're back on the topic of this thread! Imagine that! LOL. No sarcasm intended here.)

Even if I agreed with your premise (Christian radicals are stomping out our liberties, imposing their religious views on everyone else)--which I don't, not to the extent you do, anyway--there is a huge difference between the two groups. As has been mentioned in several other posts in this thread, Christians aren't going to kill us if we don't convert! When was the last time we've seen Christians behead someone who they viewed as an infidel/pagan? (We might have to go back to the Crusades, I think.)

Again, you said:

IT'S THE SAME FIGHT.

Again, I would say: No, it's not. The threat emphasis from Christians (according to you) = loss of rights and liberties. The threat emphasis from Muslims = loss of life.

So for Rosie (or for you, if I'm reading you correctly) to proclaim a moral equivalence between radical Christians and radical Muslims is, I think, overstating the threat from Christians and understating the threat from Muslims. But on this point we'll probably continue to disagree--hopefully in a more civil way than has been the case lately.

Finally:

Is that right? Do I get what you're saying? Because if that's what your argument is, then we (and by we, I mean the right and the left) should be fighting the same fight. We should be working together to make sure that our system of government and the Constitution that guides it are as rock-solid as possible, so they can withstand an onslought from ANY religious group.

Me one more time: Amen to that (no irony/sarcasm meant here at all). Preach it, brother!

The question is: can we begin to find that common ground? Or is it going to take something worse happening before we get there?

I look forward to reading your next post.


Drat! I didn't check the fo... (Below threshold)
Doug:

Drat! I didn't check the formatting closely enough!

The 4th paragraph in the above post should be in italics--it's still a part of your quote.

Doug,After reading... (Below threshold)
nihilistic_disintegration:

Doug,

After reading your response a few posts back, I thought that maybe we aren't as far apart on this issue as I originally thought. Damn, I guess I'll have to take you off my Mortal Enemies List, at least for the time being.

You say that the threat from Muslims is two-fold, active and passive. Europe is facing the passive threat, the US is facing the active. I haven't read the background material on Europe's problem yet, so I'll concede that point for now.

You then say that Christian radicals and Muslim radicals are not the same, because Christian radicals don't murder people who refuse to convert, whereas Muslims do.

Okay, so here's my thing: Americans today are threatened by radical muslim terrorists. They want to blow up our stuff and kill our people. Sure, I get that. However, my point is that no matter how much of our stuff gets blown up, no matter how many of our people they can kill, our country will not break. Maybe I'm a little naive, but IMHO, if the terrorists are trying to topple this country by flying planes into buildings or strapping C-4 to their vest, they are wasting their time.

To sum up: the "active" threat from muslim terrorists is to Americans, not to America.

The "passive" threat from Muslims: again, I haven't read the materials on this, but I can see how it could be a problem.

--slight relevant digression--

One of the things that really bugs me about the current Conservative movement is its striking lack of foresight. Picture, if you will, Tom Delay. Not too long ago he was gloating about the "permanent Republican majority," certain to ride the gravy train until his retirement. Where is he now? Out of a job and awaiting trial. Plus, his inaction screwed the Republicans out of the seat in his district.

But enough about Tom Delay. Let's look at the voting machines. (One of the main reasons for Delay's arrogance about a permanent majority.) The machines use proprietary, closed software that is easily hacked and leaves (in most instances) no paper trail. This is not a concern to conservatives because their people run the companies that run the machines, so their candidates always win. Okay, but let's say that a group of hackers organizes themselves in the minimmal amount that would be required to hack the machines. On election day 2008 or 2010, once-safe Republican districts suddenly start sending Green Party candidates to Congress. Just enough for the Democrats to take over the House. Then what? There's no paper trail, so a recount is a click on the screen and surprise, surprise, the recount is exactly the same number as the original count.

This sort of scenario doesn't seem to occur to conservatives.

The Bush administration has been actively (and openly) working to expand the powers of the Executive branch, while reducing the power of the other two branches. The "Unitary Executive," I think it's called. Conservatives don't mind because they trust Bush to do what they want him to. He's their boy, right? Who cares if we're supposed to have three separate but equal branches, providing checks and balances? Their guy is in charge.

But what happens if by some miracle/curse Hillary wins in 2008? Then what? Would you want Hillary to be in charge of the White House with the expanded powers? The other branches too weak to reign her in? How about the expanded domestic surveilance that Cheney wants? Would you want the Democrat-run Justice Department to have that power? Would you trust them to not use it to spy on and harrass their political enemies? I sure wouldn't.

Conservatives don't seem to think about things like that.

--Back to my original point--

The "passive" threat to our country, right now, today, is not from Muslims. It is from Christians. One such example is the Faith-Based initiative. We are now giving tax dollars to religious groups who are allowed to discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs. I'm sure you're thinking, Christians don't care what faith you are, but these organizations are allowed to not hire people who don't belong to their faith. And we're giving them tax dollars.

The wall between church and state is there for a reason. You and others are concerned about the threat of Muslims flooding our country and taking over enough elected offices to essentially create a theocracy. I'm concerned about the same thing. Today. From Christians. Whether that threat is real or not, weakening the wall between church and state now weakens it later as well. Of course, conservatives aren't worrying because the radical Christians are Christians, after all, just like them. And maybe it's OK to have a little more God in our government.

But if you make room for a little more God now, it only serves to weaken the resistance to a little more Allah further down the road.

Conservatives don't think about things like that.

To sum up my argument: Muslims cannot destroy our country by bombing us. Christians can destroy it by weakining the division between church and state. (not to mention torching our other Constitutional rights). Muslims cannot do this because they are not in power. Christians are. That is why I say that Christians are the greater threat to our country.

If the choice is between A) having radical Christians destroy America and force me to live in a police state, or B) having radical Muslims destroy America and force me to live in a police state as a Muslim or die, I would say that is not a choice at all. They are both the same.

Live free or die.

You're all wrong- All relig... (Below threshold)
Wendy:

You're all wrong- All religion is plain and simple
Witchcraft and Sorcery; in other word Make Believe!

I suppose Rosy forgets abou... (Below threshold)
Paula:

I suppose Rosy forgets about all the innocent people that were killed in our country.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy