If you 'await a cogent response' from the left, you're in for a long wait...

e're told by some that we're to take him at his word and believe his claim to faith despite the lack of evidence... and if we don't, then we're being judgmental, intolerant and less than civil...

It's more that you are just being someone who is not thinking when you make those claims, rather than intolerant or not civil.. I mean the evidence that president obama is a Christian is the exact same evidence that George Bush is a christian. They both go to church, have for years, both support some faith based initiatives and both claim to be christian. that's it, that's the only evidence you have for either. Unless you can psychically read Bush and Obam's minds, and if so let's go to Vegas because you are Kreskin and we could make some money.

As for why the entire religion of Islam was not mentioned, well for instance we have had home grown terrorist like Mcveigh who weren't Isamic, and frankly because why should we start pissing off 1 billion Muslims when less than 1/10th of 1 percent are in any engaged in anything remotely radical. That leaves a whole shitload of Muslims around the world that might help us if they don't think we are out to get them. It's just bad policy to start trying to radicalize the moderates..

something tells me some of the more hateful right wingers on this site will start flinging insults instead of debating logically.

O Goody, a baby killing Christian who hates the Christian principle of subsidiarity, (whereby individual choices about life are made as the lowest possible level of society)preferring instead the almighty welfare state as his god.

By the way, being judgmental is a term useed y the left intending to shut you up as are all their PC creations. True Christians according to St. Paul, are required to, out of love, discern, correct and admonish wrong, that the sinner might take the opportunity to repent and save his soul.

something tells me some of the more hateful right wingers on this site will start flinging insults instead of debating logically.

Yeah, what's with that?
Everybody knows the hateful flinging of inwsults is only the province of the left wing. As warchild always demonstrates.

O Goody, a baby killing Christian who hates the Christian principle of subsidiarity, (whereby individual choices about life are made as the lowest possible level of society)preferring instead the almighty welfare state as his god.

Only took the first response. Does the tea party have anything to offer but hate?

Does the tea party have anything to offer but hate?

It seems to work for you?

Warchild:

Do YOU have anything to offer but hate? If so, it's hard to tell. Your logic is flawed. First of all, Don L did not align himself with the Tea Party & did not speak in the name of the Tea Party. Second of all, Don L did not say that he hates you, although I can tell by the tone of his comment that he is disgusted with you & people like you. That's very different from hate.

"I await a cogent response."

Good luck with that....

Let's rehash this. He has the name of Jesus covered when he gives a speech at Georgetown. Despite his obsession with healthcare he does not support providing such to babies surviving "botched" abortions. I agree with many that it is personally difficult for him to accept that along with our humanity the Creator has given us basic rights that supercede any authority of the secular state.

In summary, I believe that Obama is simply an amoral human being who feels no need to be governed by basic human understanding of right or wrong over and above his own personnal interpretation of such.

I am sorry he is put off about the uncivil tone of political discourse in this country but have we ever had a presidential administration that so openly treats Americans with condescension and distain?

If you want a cogent response, it would help if you offered a cogent interpretation of that on which you seek comment. Napolitano isn't saying that it's "widely rejected" that terrorists believe themselves to be acting in the name of Islam. She's saying that rational people reject that claim as invalid. In other words, while terrorists may be acting according to their Islamic beliefs, not all who act on their Islamic beliefs commit terrorism.

But you knew that already, didn't you?

Would you feign such ignorance if she said, "McVeigh claimed he acted in the name of Christiantity - a claim that is widely rejected"?

something tells me some of the more hateful right wingers on this site will start flinging insults instead of debating logically.

Yeah, what's with that?
Everybody knows the hateful flinging of inwsults is only the province of the left wing. As warchild always demonstrates.

except of course I flung no insults, only argued why the premise Obama is a Christian is illogical.

Do YOU have anything to offer but hate? If so, it's hard to tell. Your logic is flawed. ... That's very different from hate.

Funny to see a lesson on what constitutes "hate" from someone who equates it with perceived flawed logic.

Does the tea party have anything to offer but hate?

It seems to work for you?

Nothing hateful about arguing something is illogical and not well reasoned. Of course calling someone a baby killing Christian gets right to insulting people doesn't it?

Do YOU have anything to offer but hate? If so, it's hard to tell. Your logic is flawed. First of all, Don L did not align himself with the Tea Party & did not speak in the name of the Tea Party. Second of all, Don L did not say that he hates you, although I can tell by the tone of his comment that he is disgusted with you & people like you. That's very different from hate.

Yes it is truly hateful to A) make a point and B) back that point up with things that support the point you were making.

So I said, The evidence Obama is a Christian is the same as the evidence for Bush (I know I'm sooo hateful for saying that, I mean saying that they both go to church and have for years and both claim to be Christians. Is truly a despicable thing to say.)

Nothing at all like saying "O Goody, a baby killing Christian who hates the Christian principle of subsidiarity, (whereby individual choices about life are made as the lowest possible level of society)preferring instead the almighty welfare state as his god. "

Because that is something you would often say in a civil debate between people. Gosh, how could I have been so wrong.

Hate Muslims/Obama is a Muslim post of the day by Crusader Rick, El Cid de la Cortacésped.

always remember that on the left

disagreement = hate

as for warchild, I think the "child" portion of his/her handle is the operative word ...

always remember that on the left

disagreement = hate

as for warchild, I think the "child" portion of his/her handle is the operative word ...

And now he is calling someone a child for having the audacity to argue that Rick's blog post was illogical. How could I be so hateful, Oh the humanity. Your right and you are loving a kind person for calling someone a child. I'd say that's illogical, but I don't want to add to what you consider hate.

always remember that on the left disagreement = hate

Did you really just post that with a straight face after someone on the right accused him of hate simply because his "logic is flawed"?

Seriously I'm sure this blog must have someone who can make an argument without name calling Clearly not Jeff, but someone right?

Someone help me see where I've got this wrong. Aren't they basically telling us on the one hand not to reject the professed faith of a believer while on the other hand telling us to reject the professed faith of a believer?
Exactly. It's doublespeak at its finest.
The Obama Administration- splitting atoms with their minds

always remember that on the left disagreement = hate

Did you really just post that with a straight face after someone on the right accused him of hate simply because his "logic is flawed"?

I don't think he appreciates the irony. Let's be honest, not all but many here think it is hateful to disagree with their positions. Now notice, I never called Rick hateful, the person I disagreed with. However, I seem to be hateful for pointing out that others are calling me names.

Talk is cheap, someone said.

"You will know them by their fruits," someone else said.

We already know with Barry "YOU LIE" is standard operating procedure. So put 2 and 2 together..

Have any of the Wizbang regulars been missing from comments the last day?

Man in standoff wanted war with Muslims, FBI says

FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS • A man who held federal agents at bay with fake explosives wanted to start a war between Christians and Muslims and kill President Barack Obama, according to charges filed against him Wednesday.

"Have any of the Wizbang regulars been missing from comments the last day?"

No, but Dane left in a hurry after only one comment yesterday.

"No, but Dane left in a hurry after only one comment yesterday."

Unlike you, I have a life.

"Seriously I'm sure this blog must have someone who can make an argument without name calling Clearly not Jeff, but someone right?"

Nope. Wizbang is safe haven for conservatives who can't argue their way out of a tight parking spot.

Great comments warchild.

Hint - read Harry Potter

Danian-

"Nope. Wizbang is safe haven for conservatives who can't argue their way out of a tight parking spot."

How would you know? All you ever do is throw around the nutwing race card.

The operative word is reasoned argument. I have only seen a lefty loon make a reasoned argument here at Wizbang a few times and it wasn't by any of the trolls on this thread.

Obama reminds me of something my pastor said. You can sit in a garage for twenty years but it doesn't make you a car. Well, that is Obama. He sat at the feet of Rev. Hate Wright for 22 years. It had to have rubbed off. Plus "You shall know them by their fruits" also applies. Obama's fruit has been: diviciveness,name calling, disrespect, prideful, and the list goes on. So, before you trolls go on and on, please learn a little about Christianity before you comment. It goes way beyond just saying your a Christian. ww

#31

Hahahaahahahahahh

"Hahahaahahahahahh"

One of his more sensible arguments.

I thought Americans were supposed to be anticolonial or electic on faith. Thomas Jefferson, our leading founding father, absolutely forbade his University of Virginia to have a department of theology. Obama is thoroughly read on the Bible, chapter and verse, far more than any other President since Carter. Sure he probably has doubts, even Jesus had doubts about God "Why have thou forsaken me"?. Have you ever read a novel say by catholic novelists Graham Greene or Evelyn Waugh which doesn't express some doubts by a priest?

Obama is trying to engage the muslim world, rather than confront it at every opportunity as most of you would. There are 57 countries with Muslim majorities, and theree or four communist countries-did you hear his remarks today on North Korea at the UN?

He has far too much confidence in "the savvy businesmen" as he calls them, of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to be marxist. I wish Obama was a little less deferential to rich businessmen and a little more socialist in instinct. Look at all his Washington appointments of hedgefunders, junk bonders who gave themselves millions of dollars in fees, while recklessly losing billions of dollars of employee pension funds, "pretty savvy" alright but corrupt as hell.

#34

If thats a compliment to Barry its sure hard to take.

"You can sit in a garage for twenty years but it doesn't make you a car."

That's brilliant bumkin. Got any more folksy wisdom for us?

Please Rev. willie....please tell all us heathen liberals what true Christianity is. And while you are at it explain to me the evidence to believe any politican's faith. Ronald Regan, the Bush clan, Christine O'Donnell, or any of your political heroes.

Stop it Jeff L, your giving all Jeffs a bad name.

Oh 914...............the pain the pain.....you got me. I'll go cry myself to sleep.

Jeff, I don't make those judgement except to follow the teachings of what I studied and learned over the years. "You shall know them by their fruits" is how Jesus had said you will recognize a believer. Well, GW Bush has stated many times he believes in the Lord Jesus Christ and confessed his sins to Him and therefore he became born again. He actually confessed to the public his conversion. What did he get from the left? A religious fanatic is at the helm, etc. Far from the truth. I will sit under the leadership of someone that has core, unshakeable beliefs before someone that does not know where he stands in this world as a person. Jesus changed Peter's name from Saul, which means a wandering generality to Peter which means rock.

As far as the uneducated troll up above that said Jefferson was the leading founding father. Are you insane? If anyone was ahead of the game leading up to our independence and constitution it was Franklin. Jefferson was an idealistic young man who wrote great prose but had to be pulled back a number of times by Franklin because of Jefferson's overzealousness. ww

ww
So you believe what W says, but you don't believe what Obama says? Or were you there when w became born again?

I am saying I never heard Obama say that he has made Jesus the Lord of his life and confessed his sins and repented of those sins which is the basic tenent of all faiths. I heard GW say this. Have you heard Obama say it? ww

.. we're told by some that we're to take him at his word and believe his claim to faith despite the lack of evidence... and if we don't, then we're being judgmental, intolerant and less than civil... and yet we're told by many of the same people that when jihadists terrorize us in the name of Islam, that proclamation of faith must be rejected.

First of all, I could care less what religion Obama follows (as well as Bush, Clinton, etc). We don't elect presidents to be religious leaders--we elect them to head up the executive branch. The president isn't there to make religious proclamations, so this is a non-issue IMO. Those folks who keep pushing this issue are just giving a red herring more air-time. A pure waste of energy, all things considered.

Second, yes, there are Muslim terrorists. Clearly. No doubt about that. And yes, these terrorists rationalize their actions through religion (Islam). No big shocker there. So what's your point? I certainly do not see anyone denying the fact that AQ and other terrorists groups are Islamic fundamentalists. No news there. But this does not mean that AQ or any other terrorist group should automatically be seen as the "voice of Islam", no matter what the pundit of the week advocates.

Third, just because SOME Muslims are terrorists this does not logically justify any broad statements about Muslims as a whole. As others have already pointed out, there are over one billion Muslims around the world. The vast majority don't have a damn thing to do with AQ or any other terrorist organization. This is such an elementary point it's almost ridiculous. But, for some reason, this seems to be the point where lots of people get their argumentation all FUBAR.

Fourth, if you are going to make a general call for cogent responses, I recommend providing a cogent post to get the ball rolling. Just an idea. Unless, of course, the irony was intentional.

The thread is about when Obama tells us he's a christian. Not whether or not WW can prove W is.

Get it right Jeff L iberal

ryana: "Third, just because SOME Muslims are terrorists this does not logically justify any broad statements about Muslims as a whole."

According to liberal logic, this is an absolutely false statement since liberals today hold every Christian accountable for any and every scurrilous act ccommitted by an actual or nominal Christian throughout history.

Which is why lefties continuously bring up, for purposes of drawing moral equivalencies, the Crusades or Timothy McVeigh (really a Christian? really? How so?) when discussing the almost too numerous to count acts of terror committed by self-proclaimed islamic-supremacist jihadists.

But hey, the islamic radicals or cool or something because they hate Bush and besides, they are just freedom fighters or something (according to lefty in terrific standing Michael Moore) and because they hate Western Civilization too......

WW

You didn't hear it because you didn't want to hear it or read it. Just like the rest of the lunatic fringe.
Here you go. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html?start=2

You've talked about your experience walking down the aisle at Trinity United Church of Christ, and kneeling beneath the cross, having your sins redeemed, and submitting to God's will. Would you describe that as a conversion? Do you consider yourself born again?

I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals."

Here is another link http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/obama-talks-about-his-faith/

WildWillie. I should have said one of the seven key founding fathers: Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.

Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence to which Benjamin Franklin, suffering from gout, made a few changes.

core unshakeable beliefs

Bush certainly had that including the unshakeable belief that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction- that's the problem? Who was it? Yes Lord Melbourne, who said "I wish I was sure of anything, as Macaulay is of everything"

crickmore: "Bush certainly had that including the unshakeable belief that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction- that's the problem? Who was it? Yes Lord Melbourne, who said "I wish I was sure of anything, as Macaulay is of everything"

Hmmm, "core unshakeable beliefs".....hmmmm

Hey crickmore, didn't obambi have a core unshakeable belief that his li'l stimulus payoff to political allies would keep unemployment from ever going above 8%?

Why yes, yes he did.

Hmmmmmmmm

wildwillie, would you vote for agnostic like Jay?

If obama said he had an unshakeable belief that there was life after death or a personal God exists, would you be more likely to respect him?

In your heart of hearts you know you can't be sure of anything, otherwise you would be dying to leave this world.

"Obama is thoroughly read on the Bible, chapter and verse, far more than any other President since Carter."

Means nothing. The devil quoted scripture when he tempted Christ in the wilderness. I am not implying any analogy. I am simply saying being able to cite/quote scripture means nothing in of itself.

The bible doesn't exactly list intelligence as a virtue. If Jesus was doing all these wonderful miracles and bringing multiutudes to his meetings, why is there no historical record of him existing, by contemporary historians at the time? Perhaps Obama has thought this through and has reservations. Where is the verification?

According to liberal logic, this is an absolutely false statement since liberals today hold every Christian accountable for any and every scurrilous act ccommitted by an actual or nominal Christian throughout history.

I love it when people provide completely fake arguments like this as some sort of argument. This is a really, really weak response, Drago.

Anyone who holds ALL CHRISTIANS accountable for everything that some nominal christian did historically is a fool. Got it?

Which is why lefties continuously bring up, for purposes of drawing moral equivalencies, the Crusades or Timothy McVeigh

Bringing up McVeigh is about as relevant as blaming some random Indonesian Muslim for the actions of Al Qaeda. Indeed, irrelevant arguments abound.

But hey, the islamic radicals or cool or something because they hate Bush and besides, they are just freedom fighters or something (according to lefty in terrific standing Michael Moore) and because they hate Western Civilization too...

Drago, do yourself a favor and stop using these stupid responses as stand-ins for the opinions and views that you disagree with. It's pretty much impossible to take you seriously if this is all you can come up with.

If you actually have a point to make, feel free.

This is probably not sufficient for you but Josephus lived from AD 37 to AD 100. In his book Jewish Antiquities he is quoted:

"(63) Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. (64) And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross [2], those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day [3], as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named for him, are not extinct at this day."

I consider at the time of Jesus' ministry that he was a pariah in the eyes of the local Roman- lead government as well as in the eyes of the corrupt Jewish religious hierarchy. After his death his small band of followers worshipped his memory in secret. This fact and the strong oral tradition of the Jewish people I would think it not a terrific time to try to market a best-selling biography on this obscure man.

I guess I am being an apologist for his Jesus' existence but I do not believe my rationale will satisfy you.

ryana: "I love it when people provide completely fake arguments like this as some sort of argument. This is a really, really weak response, Drago."

Tell it to all your liberal pals who have been doing this for a generation.

Don't lecture those against whom these leftist tactics have been used.

ryana: "Anyone who holds ALL CHRISTIANS accountable for everything that some nominal christian did historically is a fool. Got it?"

Yep. Your side, however, does not. Nor does it look like they'll ever learn it. Got it?

ryana: "Drago, do yourself a favor and stop using these stupid responses as stand-ins for the opinions and views that you disagree with."

There not "stand-ins". Mine is a reasonable response to the breathtaking hypocrisy of your pals on the left.

ryana: "It's pretty much impossible to take you seriously if this is all you can come up with."

You aren't fooling anyone ryan. You are not here to engage in dialogue. Leftists never are. Which is why you won't find any conservative posters allowed on the blog sites of your political bosom buddies.

Ever.

the impenetrably dense crickmore: "The bible doesn't exactly list intelligence as a virtue. If Jesus was doing all these wonderful miracles and bringing multiutudes to his meetings, why is there no historical record of him existing, by contemporary historians at the time?"

Sheesh. Crickmore accepts (on faith!) the "truth" of the Lancet "study" regarding deaths in Iraq due to the Iraq war. Crickmore accepts (on faith!) that the long-time liberal lie of the "October Surprise" is "Truth"!!

But then the moron ignores the following concerning contemporary and near-contemporary accounts of the historical FACT of the existence of Jesus:

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious "Christians" (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." One version reads, "At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord's Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus' laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

Steve Crickmore.

The perfect lefty lackey.

"Tell it to all your liberal pals who have been doing this for a generation."

So...why are you using the same tactic? Makes no sense to me.

"Don't lecture those against whom these leftist tactics have been used."

What kind of reply is that? Why would you use the same tactic? Try actually making a point--that might serve you a little better.

"Yep. Your side, however, does not. Nor does it look like they'll ever learn it. Got it?"

You might have an overly simplistic conception of what "my side" thinks, Drago. Keep that in mind when you continue making your assumptions.

"There not "stand-ins". Mine is a reasonable response to the breathtaking hypocrisy of your pals on the left."

Funny. Instead of actually responding to the specific points I made, you called upon hypothetical leftist positions. Next time, try actually sticking to the point instead of drawing upon your assumed understanding of what "the left" really thinks. Translation: respond to what I am actually saying, not your made-up versions of what the left is saying.

"You aren't fooling anyone ryan. You are not here to engage in dialogue. Leftists never are. Which is why you won't find any conservative posters allowed on the blog sites of your political bosom buddies."

Right. I'm not fooling anyone. How do you know what I'm here to do? Clearly, you have no idea what I think, let alone what my intentions or motives are--so just quit while you're way behind. I have no problem listening to opposing points of view. Trust me. You?

Now, when you're ready to stop dodging issues and actually start making some points, feel free.

ryana: "So...why are you using the same tactic? Makes no sense to me."

Of course it makes "no sense to" you. Thats because I never used that tactic. Your side has however.

So, I, in a moment of devilish fun decided to point out the obvious, which is that the left, if they were to be consistent, would have to hold all muslims accountable for the actions of some muslims, just as the left holds all Christians accountable for the actions of other Christians (throughout history)!!

So, again, that's why you are confused. I wasn't using that tactic. I just pointed out that your pals do.

ryana: "What kind of reply is that? Why would you use the same tactic?"

What kind of reply is that? Why, dear little lad, one that shows the hypocrisy of your pals.

Wow, logic much?

ryana: " Try actually making a point--that might serve you a little better."

I did make a point. My point clearly addressed the hypocrisy of the left, like you, who, when they are not busy providing funds to "artists" to drop crucifixes in urine are quite animated in their astonishingly strong defense of the general muslim community against perceived slights.

ryana: "Funny. Instead of actually responding to the specific points I made, you called upon hypothetical leftist positions."

Yes. Of course. "hypothetical"...since lefties don't do what they clearly do everyday in just about every media venue.

Of course, ryana is hypocritical as well on this very blog thread where he lectures me to "stay on topic" just mere posts after his political soul-mate crickmore makes comments expressing doubts of the historical existence of Jesus Christ.

Fab-u-lous.

ryana: "Bringing up McVeigh is about as relevant as blaming some random Indonesian Muslim for the actions of Al Qaeda. Indeed, irrelevant arguments abound."

But again, ryana, it's your side that does this everyday as a means of showing some sort of moral equivalence between today's horrendoous number of islamic-radical inspired violence the world over and the real lefty fear of the "proto-fascist christian right wing" (a term actually used by a liberal on wizbang this very day.)

This very day.

But you probably didn't "notice" that comment ryana. Your side only "see's" fictional attacks on muslims.

Who was it the other day who described the general American reaction to the proposed mosque at Ground Zero as "whole scale rage"?

Seriously.

Hey ryana, save your lectures for your pals.

"So, again, that's why you are confused. I wasn't using that tactic. I just pointed out that your pals do."

First of all, stop making assumptions about who "my pals" are. You clearly have very little understanding of where I stand politically.

"I did make a point. My point clearly addressed the hypocrisy of the left, like you, who, when they are not busy providing funds to "artists" to drop crucifixes in urine are quite animated in their astonishingly strong defense of the general muslim community against perceived slights."

More bullshit, baseless assumptions. Seriously, is this what you call "dialogue"?

"Yes. Of course. "hypothetical"...since lefties don't do what they clearly do everyday in just about every media venue."

You're not getting it. You keep avoiding my responses by arguing against what "the leftists" are saying. It's a weak tactic. You're not actually answering anything that I am saying. You're just conflating issues with political white noise. You can stop anytime now.

"Of course, ryana is hypocritical as well on this very blog thread where he lectures me to "stay on topic" just mere posts after his political soul-mate crickmore makes comments expressing doubts of the historical existence of Jesus Christ."

Exhibit A of you not staying on topic. Crickmore has nothing to do with the points that I am making. Your replies have to be some of the most evasive, nonsensical replies I have seen around here in quite a while.

Question: are you able to listen to opposing points of view without completely losing it? So far, things aren't looking so good.

"But again, ryana, it's your side that does this everyday as a means of showing some sort of moral equivalence..."

More assumptions. Look, if you drop this bullshit that will help a lot. Then some type of communication might actually be possible.

If you knew anything about me, you'd realize that I certainly have no delusions about the shortcomings and BS that comes from the left. However, since I have disagreed with you here it seems that you are unable to see straight long enough to realize that you're not arguing with a stereotype.

If you keep this up, don't expect any more replies. I've given you more than enough chances to stop acting like an ass.

ryan a........you have to realize that the majority of the posters here cannot or will not debate a topic with any sense of logic. When they can't back up their points they revert back to grade school arguments. No, you did, no you did, no you did, my dad can beat up your dad. Talking in absolutes....using words like all and every, lumping all liberals together. No quotes or links to back up anything they say. It's typical.

WW
Where are you buddy? No response? Cat got your keyboard?

ryana: "More assumptions."

Huh?

The examples of lefties attempting to tie any whack job Christian or nominal Christian (in some cases, not even a Christian at all!) to all Christian is legion and occurs everyday. (Especially after some muslim attack occurs somewhere)

ryana: "Look, if you drop this bullshit that will help a lot."

It's not bullhockey. It's what your side does everyday. I did not do it. You accused me of doing it because your reading comprehension is not up to snuff.

So, as soon as you apologize for falsely attributing to me a rhetorical tactic that your side employs everyday, I'll consider "dropping this".

ryana: "However, since I have disagreed with you here it seems that you are unable to see straight long enough to realize that you're not arguing with a stereotype."

Actually, upon review, I don't see where there is a disagreement with between you and I.

I recommend you review the comments in this thread and see if you can identify precisely the nature of our "disagreement". Then, when you're done and you realize that you simply assumed I was disagreeing with you because I simply pointed out the hypocrisy of the left in general (when it comes to applying guilt to entire group for the actions of a few), then we can talk.

ryana: "If you keep this up, don't expect any more replies. I've given you more than enough chances to stop acting like an ass."

Again, all I did was point out that the left, in general, does what you falsely accused me of doing. That's all I said.

Thats all.

Why is that difficult to comprehend?

Even shorter crickmore: "That Tacitus! What a liar. Jesus never existed! Why, Tacitus is just lying because he's a right-wing Christian proto-fascist who hates obambi because he's black!!"

"The examples of lefties attempting to tie any whack job Christian or nominal Christian (in some cases, not even a Christian at all!) to all Christian is legion and occurs everyday. (Especially after some muslim attack occurs somewhere)"

People make all sorts of stupid arguments, left and right. But you keep drawing upon this as if that has something to do with what I am arguing here. It doesn't. You don't see me making any broad claims about what "the right" supposedly says, do you? Why? Because I don't make assumptions about what people think, and only argue against what they actually say. That's called staying on point.

"It's not bullhockey. It's what your side does everyday. I did not do it. You accused me of doing it because your reading comprehension is not up to snuff."

There you go again making assumptions about "my side". You have no idea what my side is, so just stop. Good god, what planet are you living on?

As for an example of you using the same BS tactics that plenty of liberals and other trolls use all the time, read this (your own words):

According to liberal logic, this is an absolutely false statement since liberals today hold every Christian accountable for any and every scurrilous act ccommitted by an actual or nominal Christian throughout history.

That is a perfect example of arguing against a stereotypical version of what you think the other side argues or thinks. Instead of answering my points directly, you reply with crap like this. These are the "tactics" that I referred to. Your assertion is indefensible because there is no way that you can prove that all liberals today hold this view about Christians. In fact, plenty of liberals ARE Christians so this claim makes even less sense. Your assertion is purely based on stereotypical assumptions, and it illustrates your weak debate skills.

"Actually, upon review, I don't see where there is a disagreement with between you and I."

Except where you make a whole series of assumptions about what I think, what my "side" thinks, and then call me "hypocritical" simply because you can't engage in discussion with people who have different perspectives. But ya, beyond your disagreements with my comments we have no disagreement. Fantastic logic, yet again. Remember, YOU disagreed with ME, Drago.

"Then, when you're done and you realize that you simply assumed I was disagreeing with you because I simply pointed out the hypocrisy of the left in general (when it comes to applying guilt to entire group for the actions of a few), then we can talk."

Hey, you're the one who started making broad claims about the left, about my political stances (by assuming who my "pals" are), and calling me a hypocrite. You're the one who disagreed with MY comment, and who took the time to express your disagreement by using shoddy argumentation. Remember? When you disagreed with the third point of my comment to Rick? Did you say something about reading comprehension earlier?

"Again, all I did was point out that the left, in general, does what you falsely accused me of doing. That's all I said."

You're full of shit and you know it. You use the same sorts of tactics that the worst leftist trolls also use all the time. Stereotyping, baseless claims about the other side, etc. You may disagree with the politics of liberal "trolls", but your methods are cut from the same cloth. You made all sorts of assumptions about me, made plenty of sweeping claims about the so-called left, and in truth, you look like a mirror version of the very thing that you're on here complaining about.

Now would be a good time to cut the crap. Anytime you want you can start making clear, honest fair points, drop the assumptions, and I will certainly hear you out.

I'll respond in their absence....
Obama tells us many things.
Many of those things are not true.

"ryan a........you have to realize that the majority of the posters here cannot or will not debate a topic with any sense of logic."

Actually, while I disagree with a lot of people here, there are some pretty smart, thoughtful folks. It's just that, like any site, the reactionaries sometimes can often clog up the conduits of communication with their nonsense.

The increasingly erratic (though quite earnest) ryana: "You're full of shit and you know it. You use the same sorts of tactics that the worst leftist trolls also use all the time."

Then your task will be astonishingly simple.

Simply provide the quote where I cast guilt on all muslims for the actions of a few.

I'll wait........cue music.........prepare to roll credits.............

liberals today hold every Christian accountable for any and every scurrilous act ccommitted by an actual or nominal Christian throughout history.... Tell it to all your liberal pals who have been doing this for a generation.

OK, Drago, let's go with your argument. Name one.

Drago,

"Simply provide the quote where I cast guilt on all muslims for the actions of a few."

You still don't get it. I said you use the same TACTICS, not the same EXACT argument. This isn't as difficult as you're making it. Meaning that you cast guilt on all liberals for what (you think) a few have done (namely, hold all Christians accountable for each and every historical atrocity that some "Christian" has committed). Your argument differs, but your tactics are the same.

I replied a while ago that anyone who blames all Christians for everything that some Christian has done is foolish. And since you place me in the leftist/liberal camp, that erodes your overly simplistic, baseless, stereotypical claim about so-called liberals. And if you were honest, you'd go ahead and admit that.

Along with John, I encourage you to actually provide some proof to support your claim about liberals in this case. Your claim is that liberals on the whole support this view--so it's your imperative to provide proof. And remember, hearsay and second hand references mean very little. Either that, or you can back away from your spurious little argument.

Last question: are you on here to engage in dialogue, or to simply keep posting evasive, polemic nonsense?

ryana: "Along with John, I encourage you to actually provide some proof to support your claim about liberals in this case. Your claim is that liberals on the whole support this view--so it's your imperative to provide proof."

I could sit here and provide example after example of what is clear to anyone paying attention. Note that these are not obscure "on the left" individuals. These are individuals directly in the mainstream of the liberal thought.

Since you are not, here's just a few to get you started:

On May 25, PBS host Tavis Smiley interviewed Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the ex-Muslim Somali writer and activist for human, especially women's, rights in Islamic countries. After mentioning American Muslim terrorists Maj. Nidal Hasan (who murdered 13 and injured 30 fellow soldiers at Fort Hood) and Faisal Shahzad (who attempted to murder hundreds in Times Square), this dialogue ensued:

Ali: "Somehow, the idea got into their (Hasan's and Shahzad's) minds that to kill other people is a great thing to do and that they would be rewarded in the hereafter."

Smiley: "But Christians do that every single day in this country."

Ali: "Do they blow people up?"

Smiley: "Yes. Oh, Christians, every day, people walk into post offices, they walk into schools, that's what Columbine is -- I could do this all day long. There are so many more examples of Christians -- and I happen to be a Christian.

"There are so many more examples, Ayaan, of Christians who do that than you could ever give me examples of Muslims who have done that inside this country, where you live and work."

Then, on Aug. 22, Michel Martin, host of NPR's "Tell Me More," in discussing whether the Islamic Center and mosque planned for near ground zero should be moved, said this on CNN's "Reliable Sources" with Howard Kurtz:

"Should anybody move a Catholic church? Did anybody move a Christian church after Timothy McVeigh, who adhered to a cultic white supremacist cultic version of Christianity, bombed (the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City)?"

And third, on Aug. 26, ABC "20/20" anchor Chris Cuomo tweeted this to his nearly one million followers:

"To all my christian brothers and sisters, especially catholics -- before u condemn muslims for violence, remember the crusades....study them."

Jeez, Drago. I previously thought you just didn't understand that arguments that other people were making. Now it's clear that you don't even understand the arguments that you yourself make.

What a sad thread.
A thesis is posted: "there is a logical contradiction between accepting the faith claims of one group of persons and denying the faith claims of another group of persons."
This thread contains many back-and-forth ad hominem attacks, but very little time addressing the thesis: can one consistently either accept or reject faith claims?
Where is the wide rejection of the faith claims of the Islamic terrorists? Give the WWWWW, please?
Show me in the Koran the indisputable denunciation of the quest for a Universal Islamic State at the point of the sword.
Can't do it, can you?
Name for me the Imam announcing this rejection.
Still waiting.

John L, it is sad when we have discourse that you have to comment about my being on the lunatic fringe. All I said is that I did not hear Obama talk about his conversion. That simply is it. I asked you if you had and you responded that you did and provided links but had to go the extra mile to say "I chose not to hear it". If you look at my original statement about "you can sit in a garage for twenty years and it won't make you a car" basically is saying you can go to church all the time, or not at all and it would have nothing to do with your beliefs. It is all about heart. As the apostle Paul stated, "We are the church". People are the church. Where they meet is a building. Not a church. So, GW believed firmly in his being saved. If Obama confessed and believes, he too is saved. I am not in the redemption business but I would warn anyone about mocking God especially when it comes to the foundation of Christian faith. It was His son after all. ww

WW

"I have only seen a lefty loon make a reasoned argument here at Wizbang a few times and it wasn't by any of the trolls on this thread."

To me you are in the lunatic fringe, just as you see me as a lefty loon. If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it.

He sat at the feet of Rev. Hate Wright for 22 years. It had to have rubbed off. Plus "You shall know them by their fruits" also applies. Obama's fruit has been: diviciveness,name calling, disrespect, prideful, and the list goes on. So, before you trolls go on and on, please learn a little about Christianity before you comment. It goes way beyond just saying your a Christian. ww

Obviously you weren't interested in learning whether Obama had accepted Christ. It took me about a minute to do a google search and find that link. But it is easier to spout garbage and make assumptions.

Oh and by the way....Jesus changed Paul's name to Saul....not Peter's. Saul means "asked for" and Paul means "small". Time to brush up on the Apostles.