« AtPac Lawsuit – still seeking closure | Main | Obama’s off and running (updated) »

06 September 2011

Comments

Todd Juvinall

Here Paul, one more time.

http://costofwar.com/en/

dkeachie

To illustrate the point about too broad a brush, try this////////

"well, I see that the members of the Jones Klan are still mixing up the Koolaid for their fellow citizens."

Kathy Jones

Well Doug,

Just think of all the tax dollars that are not used by those kids in affluent homes, which support public education! Seems like the affluent parents are doing those "from the ghetto" a big favor by letting them have their kids unused resources.

Actually, many people make a choice to have a one income family so the other parent can stay home and be their children's teachers. It is not just the affluent that find the time and energy to love their kids enough to want them to have a quality education. Many are cash poor but love rich!

PS If kids in schools saw how the tax dollars for their education IS being used, they'd be hopping mad about the schools they are in.

dkeachie

I suppose you didn't get that.

Jim Jones and Kathy Jones are both members of the Jones family. They are related by blood, much closer than just adopting a religion. If one Jones mixes Koolaid for their fellow citizens, then, using the logic where all ragheads are terrorists, because a few are, all Jones family members mix Koolaid for their fellow citizens.

It's a stupid argument, but if George refuses to express what percentage of members of what they call the Muslim church are not terrorists (I've asked politely several times), then we have to assume he believes ALL MUSLIMS are TERRORISTS. 1.1 billion Muslims served, how many are terrorists?

Paul Emery

Todd

I have no interest in playing tit for tat with you. The WP and CRS numbers are consistent since both take in the long term costs of war not just the direct combat costs.

Paul Emery

Kathy

S/o it seems you are in favor of some kind of welfare system for unemployables funneled through government military contractors.

Mike Thornton

It may shock you, but I think honesty about foreign policy would be a great thing!
I think you'd find that we'd be a lot less dependent on foreign oil, due to a major investment in new energy sources and production and our domestic manufacturing base would be rebuilt PDQ.
Ahhh George Friedman (STRATFOR) is a fellow "Cold Warrior", I see why you like him now!

dkeachie

Well Kathy, 30% of the population never finishes high school. Are those folks going to be parent teachers you think are appropriate for their children?

Since those parents who home school vote pretty solidly against public school funding, there are no savings for the kids left in public school. Besides, by abandoning the public schools to the less educated, the college parents are not there for parents night and other activities at the schools where their help is sorely needed, home schoolers are a net LOSS for the public schools.

Paul Emery

Kathy

I am a HUGE supporter of home schooling, charter schools and some form of school vouchers. State sponsored education gives me the creeps in general even though it's a noble concept. One of the reasons I am a supporting of Caring Economics is that it allows a parent to be at home to nurture their children's education through family involvement.

Todd Juvinall

No tit for tat PaulE, you don't care that another view exists which conflicts with yours and as usual you just blow it off. Too bad you could learn something. Since you seem obsessed wit the WashPost story let me ask you what the point is putting into the total a dollar amount projected by a couple of liberals who don't like the war anyway? What was the long term cost to America for their defeating the Nazi's? Maybe destroing them save the world and allowed you to be born. What is that cost? Amazing that your logic is so partisan you lose all your credibility.

Paul Emery

Did you read the CRS report? I gave you two sources. If not we have nothing to talk about.

Todd, you are a supporter of the Iraq war and believe it was a worthwhile use of American treasure and blood. You don't have to say more. I won't try to convince you otherwise and you certainly won't change my opinion based on what you have offered so far. All is good. No problem.

dkeachie

Here Todd, from the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

Thanks to Bob Wenzel and his smart and spunky (and thoroughly Austrian) EconomicPolicyJournal for sharing an excerpt from Joseph Stiglitz’s recent commentary updating his and Linda Bilmes’ research on the full costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Stiglitz writes:

Indeed, when Linda Bilmes and I calculated America’s war costs three years ago, the conservative tally was $3-5 trillion. Since then, the costs have mounted further. With almost 50% of returning troops eligible to receive some level of disability payment, and more than 600,000 treated so far in veterans’ medical facilities, we now estimate that future disability payments and health-care costs will total $600-900 billion. But the social costs, reflected in veteran suicides (which have topped 18 per day in recent years) and family breakups, are incalculable.

I would add that in my reading Stiglitz on this issue, he believes that the wars would have been somewhat more acceptable if only Bush was a slightly more effective redistributionist. So he writes:

Even if Bush could be forgiven for taking America, and much of the rest of the world, to war on false pretenses, and for misrepresenting the cost of the venture, there is no excuse for how he chose to finance it. His was the first war in history paid for entirely on credit. As America went into battle, with deficits already soaring from his 2001 tax cut, Bush decided to plunge ahead with yet another round of tax “relief” for the wealthy.

To be sure, wars would be much less likely, to say nothing of military-industrial complexes, if they had to be funded out of current savings by current generations. The political support for the last decade’s wars would have been much reduced if voters saw capital that would otherwise have been mixed with labor to produce jobs at home instead sent to wreak havoc in faraway places such as Fallujah, Basra, Kandahar, and Jalalabad. It’s not clear if that’s Stiglitz’ point.

Nonetheless, Stiglitz on war is well worth reading. His entire commentary is here. If Stiglitz was consistent, he’d note that arguments for expansion of the welfare state are at least as duplicitous as those for expanding the warfare state. I blogged on the Bilmes-Stiglitz research here. Bob Wenzel’s full post is here.

Kathy Jones

To Doug,
I am not/nor have I ever been related to any Jim (James) Jones, and if you are trying to be cute about the horrors of Guyana and Jim Jones that's not very clever, but just acting evil. Is there really an inner need for you to attack me? I really dislike spiting contest.

About education: Education is for learning not for providing jobs or benefits for teachers. I would never judge the ability of a parent to teach a child based on finishing high school.


To Paul
I am not for any welfare for able bodied people. The point I am making is that our government military has provided for lots of RD and fed many families by people actually getting up and going to work. I would not call them unemployable, just that government has chased too many jobs overseas, and America has a HUGE unemployment problem. I must say military employment has been a better use of money for the citizens than Obama's stimulus money.

Caring Economics? Is this another buzz word/idea for subsidizing at home parents? Heaven help us!

Paul Emery

Yeah Kathy I'm sure you'd hate it.
I do however appreciate the respectful conversation.

dkeachie

Problem with military as a jobs program, the age limits:

Army - 35 (must ship to basic training prior to 35th birthday. The Army experimented with raising the age limit to age 42 for a brief period of time, but effective April 1st, 2011, the Army has reverted to the lower age limit.
Air Force - 27
Navy - 34
Marines - 28
Coast Guard - Age 27. Note: up to age 32 for those selected to attend A-school directly upon enlistment (this is mostly for prior service).

Reserve Non-Prior Service

Army Reserves - 35 (must ship to basic training prior to 35th birthday)
Army National Guard - 35 (changed from 42 in 2009)
Air Force Reserve - 34
Air National Guard - 40 (Changed from 34 in Aug 2009)
Naval Reserves - 39

Kathy, if you think that virtually all parents will make wonderful teachers, more power to you. I would have my doubts. Among others I'd have my doubts about would be parents who would teach their children that the 250,000 or teachers in the state of California only took the job because they saw it as a meal ticket. Those parents that would teach their kids that doctors and lawyers and contractors all take up their professions to be helping totally altruistic hands for their fellow citizens, and only charge money, BECAUSE THAT'S the WAY IT IS, probably do not make very good teachers of reality either. Are you one of those parents?

Here's a paradox for you, what about a public school teacher who manages to tele-supervise and home school their own kids? Good or bad?

I of course do not believe for a second that anyone of the greatly extended and successful Jones Family is going to behave exactly or even remotely like any other member of the Jones Family. Likewise I do not believe that all people who consider themselves Muslim will behave exactly like all other people who consider themselves Muslim. Just because a few Muslims of the Whhabbi branch go whacko, does not mean that all Muslims are whackos.

And then of course we have the Christians, where there are large numbers of them who swear that others who claim to be Christians are not in fact Christians. The "problem" Huntsman and Romney have is that they belong to one such group, where a batch of "discerning" Fundy Evangelical Born-again Christians (take your pick, never know which theses flavors of Christians prefer) reject them, because they are Mormons.

dkeachie

The other problem with the military is the total number of troops in all branches.

Currently we have roughly 3,050,000 folks in the military.

In the Sept 2011 release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we have 14,000,000 unemployed. You have to expand the military four fold to get everyone employed:

"Household Survey Data
The number of unemployed persons, at 14.0 million, was essentially unchanged in August, and the
unemployment rate held at 9.1 percent. The rate has shown little change since April. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (8.9 percent), adult women
(8.0 percent), teenagers (25.4 percent), whites (8.0 percent), blacks (16.7 percent), and Hispanics (11.3
percent) showed little or no change in August. The jobless rate for Asians was 7.1 percent, not
seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)"

Kathy Jones

Sept 1 there were 409,000 new claims for unemployment.

This week the new claims are UP to 414,000.

Not a good direction.

Doug, I NEVER said "virtually all parents will make wonderful teachers", but many who dislike the home school concept, of parents teaching, seem to have a disparaging opinion about the abilities of parents. I did say I would not judge a parent's ability to teach just because they, themselves, didn't finish high school. Jaycee Dugard showed the public this was possible when she taught her little girls while in captivity.

You asked about a public school teacher to tele-supervises and home schools their own kids. I have NO problem with that parent if that system is being successful. The test would be how well the public and home schooled children learned. Remember education is about learning!

I just don't get your Jones type story, so I am going to let that drop from my discussion. I will just say we are in a free country where each can find his/her own life path.

Douglas Keachie

One other fun factoid for Kathy, who thinks not finishing high school is no indicator of suitability for being a home school teacher:

50% of our prison population never finished high school.

If not finishing high school was of little or no consequence for predicting success in life, then you would expect the rates for prisoners would be identical to the rate for the general population.

George Rebane

KathyJ - caring economics was covered extensively on RR after PaulE introduced us to the concept. Here is a good place to start -
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2011/05/true-value-of-work-and-caring-economics.html

DougK - I presume you are also 'dkeachie' who comments on these pages. Please resolve that for us.

Douglas Keachie

Kathy, I realize it is hard to remember the original topic when the commenting threads go off on so many tangents. In this case the original topic was George's defense of his use of the the term, "raghead." If was using your name as an example of how silly it was of him to stereotype all Muslims as terrorists, just because a few were. Did not mean to be offensive, as much as to be ludicrious.

George Rebane

To the independent reader - DougK's 831am is a perfect example of how a progressive habitually misrepresents facts in any argument. In this case, I have never stereotyped all Muslims as terrorists, and there is no evidence in these pages to support this naked and oft repeated claim. It is just another application of the Stalin/Alinsky principle that if you state anything frequently enough, it becomes an accepted truth.

And DougK's misapprehension that "the original topic was George's defense of his use of the the term, 'raghead.'" is only an indication of his reading comprehension (which often contributes to the confusion in these discussions). The clear purpose of my piece was to introduce, explicate, and welcome MikeT's use of 'regressive' to these debates. Such misunderstandings may also explain some of the considerable problems the country has with the government's teaching profession.

Kathy Jones

Doug,
I never said not finishing high school was of no consequence. I simply stated I would not judge a parent who hadn't finished high school who makes the choice to home school.

Thanks George, I will take a look at what Paul wrote.

Douglas Keachie

George, if you can't figure out that dkeachie, Keachie, Keach, Douglas Keachie, Doug Keachie etc are all one and the same, then I would say it is you who has a comprehension problem. dkeachie probably crept in from a just prior Yahoo login, that your blog recognized with no difficulty. If Stacy Keach was a regular here, I could understand the confusion. He's not.

Douglas Keachie

So George, what percentage of the Muslim population, on a worldwide, and on a USA only basis, do you think are actively planning terrorist attacks, and what percentages to you perceive as not active participants, but passive approvers of terrorist activities, again on both scopes, USA vs world. What percentage of Muslims, USA/World, would you say strongly condemn any and all such activities?

If they are not all terrorists, then how many are not terrorists?

Bonus round, explain how you came to those conclusions.

George Rebane

DougK - I believe you are asking the wrong questions for what you are trying to prove. But you can get various estimates on the numbers by just googling 'percentage muslims are terrorists'.

And why this conversation with progressives will not go anywhere is because they believe the world has not been changed by the constant atrocities of Muslim terrorists, the Quran and Hadith are just kidding, and that Islam's self-declared geo-strategy does not exist. The progressives truly believe, according to their own writings, that the guilty west is engaged in a 'war on terror' per se that is carried out by some kind of vanilla terrorists who have no cohesive ideology or purpose.

Mikey McD

Obama has a lot of explaining to do: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/bankrupt-obama-stimulus-darling-raided-feds


"After breaking the story of Solyndra's shady taxpayer funded practices (which were not enough to stave off bankruptcy, and yet another confirmation that government stimulus in the form of subsidies is virtually always an epic failure).......why it is that an Obama-favored person will get his money out first while US taxpayers will likely suffer a total wash."

Paul Emery

Mikey

How about government subsidies in the form of useless wars as excuses for taxpayer giveaways to defense contractors. Or easier yet just borrow money and add to the national debt. This is never a topic of conversation on this blog. Military spending is way out of control despite cutbacks in troop levels.

Mikey

Are you a Ron Paul military cut back supporter?

WASHINGTON — Amid growing calls for government spending cuts, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates unveiled Thursday a proposed five-year budget plan that would cut tens of thousands of troops from the Army and Marine Corps, eliminate two key weapons systems, and raise the cost of health insurance for some military retirees.

The proposal still foresees military spending growing by three percent next year, to $553 billion, not including spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/06/106312/gates-budget-plan-would-shrink.html#ixzz1XNr4XtvN

Paul Emery

George

Your support of this countries role as the world's hegemon enforced with what seems to be a make a hole military club certainly raises moral questions. Are you willing to take on that discussion?

Douglas Keachie

MickeyMcD,

In hitech there is always the chance that your business plan will fail due to unforeseen breakthroughs, in this case, much cheaper silicon to make old style panels showed up. No shady dealings (after all, these are sunshine panels), just bad luck. On the plus side, the cost of solar continues to go down, as the invisible hand of the market saw dollars, and invented accordingly. Too bad the costs of oil and coal and safe nuke continue to go up, as a matter of their inherent realities. Fusion in a magnetic bottle, or laser triggered, could knock them all out, someday.

George, I did not ask what the latest rumors were on the net. I asked what you thought the numbers were. You still refuse to take a stand of your own, ANAICT. (as near as I can tell).

Douglas Keachie

Here's a possible prize for you science/math tech contest folks:

http://www.snorgtees.com/pi-be-rational

Mike Thornton

George:

Can you give us a number of how many hardcore Islamic Jihadists actually exist in the world and what percent of all Muslims activly support a war to force Islam and the Caliphate upon the rest of the planet and it's people?

I'd like to know because I'm going to the Mosque tonight and I want to challenge the Imam with your figures.

Thanks!

George Rebane

PaulE 1051am - absolutely.

George Rebane

MikeT 1227jpm - here's dated (2006) analysis by an Indian academic that could serve as a stake in the ground. Given that the progressive prognosis of America's actions in the interval is true. The stated numbers would have to be increased.
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/65537

In that piece is a paragraph that echoes some of my sentiments on what radicalized fraction of a population can dominate the rest.

Before you get a warm and cozy feeling, thinking that only 60% of Muslims are sufficiently indoctrinated in fundamentalist Islam to be a terrorist should the opportunity arrise, and that only 25% of those Muslims are the appropriate age and sex to actually engage in jihad, let's consider some recent historical events. In 1917, less than 3% of Russians were Communists. Yet since that 3% was sufficiently corrupted by an immoral and ruthless religion (Socialist Secular Humanism), they quickly came to oppress the entire nation - murdering 30 million Russians in the process. In 1924, less than 3% of Germans were Nazis. And yet since that 3% was sufficiently corrupted by Hitler's "People's Religion" as it was immorally and ruthlessly laid out in Mein Kampf, that 3% came to oppress the entire nation and led the world into a war that killed 50 million people.

Mike Thornton

C'mon George, you citing Daniel Pipes to me is like me using the New Black Panthers as a source. We both know that they're biased and ridiculous

Mikey McD

Paul, I am a peace advocate. I am not one of those guys that thought the war was bad under Bush and is good under Obama (peace prize). As I have stated countless times on this blog I am a Ron Paul supporter (yes his foreign policy too).

Douglas Keachie

MikeT,

You may have just described George's beliefs perfectly. I'm sure that if the whole USA, of which probably 15% or more are hard corp FEB's (Fundy/Evangelical/Born-Agains) converted to FEB, George would not raise his voice at all. And if they can't convert the rest of us (God knows they've tried and go right on trying), who the heck thinks the 1% USA Muslim population is going to get anywhere?

George Rebane

MikeT - I cited Sharma not Pipes.

Douglas Keachie

For those unaware of what biases an Indian academic might have, please review the history of India (Hindu/Sikh for the most part) and Pakistan (largely Muslim)

When they divided in 1948, the two sides managed to kill 20,000,000, sending trainloads of dead bodies across the border to the other side, over and over again. They get along real well, NOT!

George Rebane

DougK 248pm - the 1% Muslims, having grown to >1%, may use different tactics from the ineffective Christians.

BTW, what source did the 20M dead come from?

Todd Juvinall

George, you are one teanatious man. Knowing no matter what facts you bring with connecting links and cites, you take the slings and arrows of the leftwing fools who still never believe you. I just smack them back but that doesn't even work. The only way these nuts from the left will ever get it is when they become a "human shield" to protect Sadaam and Gaddafi. Oh, they did that. Sorry.

Douglas Keachie

I took Berreman's course in 1965.

http://anthropology.berkeley.edu/people/person_detail.php?person=46

At that time we read a book, title long since forgotten, in which that number was used. I remember it clearly, becasue it stuck me as crazy, that 3 times the German Holocaust could happen, and the world barely takes note. I notice in looking up today's information that the number should be 1/20th that:

The Partition of India (Hindi: भारत का विभाजन Bhārat ka vibhajan), (Urdu: ھندستان کی تقسیم Hindustān ki Taqseem), (Punjabi: ਭਾਰਤ ਦਾ ਬਟਵਾਰਾ Bhārat dā ban̐ṭvārā), (Bengali: ভারত বিভাজন Bhārot bibhajon) was the partition of British India on the basis of religious demographics that led to the creation on 15 August 1947 of the sovereign states of the Dominion of Pakistan (later the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the People's Republic of Bangladesh) and the Union of India (later Republic of India).

The partition was promulgated in the Indian Independence Act 1947 and resulted in the dissolution of the British Indian Empire. The struggle between the new dominions of India and Pakistan which resulted from the partition displaced up to 12.5 million people in the former British Indian Empire, with estimates of loss of life varying from several hundred thousand to a million.[1] The violent nature of the partition created an atmosphere of mutual hostility and suspicion between India and Pakistan that plagues their relationship to this day.

Please note that the Indian's and Pakistanis are still not the best of friends, and that was the point I was making.

Douglas Keachie

Another current source at York University puts it twice as high:

http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/refuge/article/viewFile/21344/20014

Larry Wirth

I'm not sure how "ragheads" gets to be racist. Or all the leftwingnuts here unaware that Berbers, Arabs, Iranians, Turks and Muslims of Central Asia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are all basically caucasion?

Maybe I just don't know what the word means?

Douglas Keachie

I see the party has moved.

Douglas Keachie

Dear Larry,

Please go to your local Mosque, walk up to the biggest dude you can find, and ask him, politely, if he will guide you to the local leader of the ragheads.

You will get an education that will be priceless.

Larry Wirth

How is "raghead" racist? If the leftwingnuts here don't remember, Berbers, Arabs, Iranians, Turks and Muslims of Central Asia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are all "caucasions," more or less. Or, maybe I just don't understand the meaning of the word.

George Rebane

LarryW - there is little comprehensible logic in a liberal argument (see 'The Liberal Mind' section on RR where some of this phenomenon is discussed). My own special meaning for 'raghead' is given here.
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/02/of-ragheads-and-racism.html

My best take is, that since they don't have a precise definition of racism (mine is here http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/07/who-is-a-racist.html ), they use racist as a blanket pejorative to describe anyone who doesn't like someone of a different ideology, attitude, nationality, ethnicity, culture, ... . Perhaps it's also a symptom of a limited vocabulary wherein one word has to cover a lot of the waterfront.

In any event 'racist' is applied broadly and spontaneously to most conservatives and conservative viewpoints, thereby serving the added purpose of immediately elevating the declarer to the class of discerning social critics who themselves definitely are not racists.

Mike Thornton

Listening to the young Muslim woman singing the National Anthem at the Mosque was pretty moving. Hearing Christian and Jewish leaders talk about the role that local Muslims have played in creating a harmonious community, while decrying terrorism was powerful. Listening to the testimony of the FBI and the Attorney General's representatives about how Muslims leaders have reached out to them and worked with them as well as the County Sheriff created an atmosphere cooperation. Then on top of that the overall message from Muslim leaders was "we pledge to live by the laws of this country" and at the same time want to be free to practice our religion, to be treated fairly and with respect.
Frankly, when you listen to the religious message of the Muslims, one would be hard pressed to understand how Evangelical Christians would be so upset. Unless it's about the identification of Jesus as being God himself and not simply a great prophet equal to Muhammad.
Nevertheless, I know that the "haters" have to hate.
Allah knows that if you guys didn't have an "enemy" you wouldn't know what to do with yourselves.
I really suggest, that instead of letting Daniel Pipes, Glen beck and yes, George Rebane tell you what to think, that you should actually go and talk to some Muslims about your fears and concerns and hear about theirs as well. I think you'll find you have a lot more in common, then you think you do.
And I'd like to think that some of you would be ashamed of yourselves for some of the things you've done and said.

Mike Thornton

And Larry, playing "stupid" doesn't fool anybody or help the situation!

Douglas Keachie

@Larry and George,

Did I call anyone here a "racist?"

No, I merely suggested a course of action for Larry (or George) to take, to clarify his understanding of the term "raghead" when used in the presence of USA citizen Muslims.

It would be much akin, I suspect, to Chris Rock walking into a biker bar in northern Idaho and addressing the assembled crowd as, "hey nigger brohs, do you know where your ho's are at?"

Well, maybe not that bad, but close...

Paul Emery

Mike produced a piece that will air on tonight's KVMR news about last nights event at the Salam Center in Sacramento.

http://salamcenter.org/

It will air around 6:08 and will also be available later on the web later at:

http://www.kvmr.org/news/index.html

go to latest news

Paul Emery

George chooses to use the word "raghead" because he feels it's important and is a unique discripto that is necessary to fulfill his message. It is a filter of sorts that is designed to elicit responses that he will then categorize accordingly. Kind of like injecting a chemical in a test tube to see what happens. Apparently using "radical Islamic terrorist" does not have the same meaning or elicit the desired response.

Todd Juvinall

Paul, when blacks were attacking white people coming out of the fair in Wisconsin a couple of weeks ago I didn't see you say a word about that. Why?

Mike Thornton

OMG, now it's the poor white people under attack by "blacks"!

Paul Emery

What does that have to do with anything here?

Todd

To maintain civility I think that for now it's best we don't converse.

Mike Thornton

Paul:
It's just like Russ throwing in the thing about Diaz being a "PC Diversity, Hire"
They just can't help themselves!

Steve Enos

"radical Islamic terrorist" is a factual discriptive... "Raghead" is a pejorative, racist term.

George Rebane

Re SteveE's 550pm - indeed 'raghead' is an intended pejorative term. Since I have declared that from the outset, it is remarkable that SteveE is again climbing aboard with that realization. However, it is not racist by any claim SteveE can make since he has given the readers no indication that he knows how to use the term racist in any other than its broad mis-application. Would he define racist for us, his use of it might be understood in the same context that we now understand how MikeT uses the pejorative 'regressive' to apply to me and other conservatives.

Mike Thornton

As explained before "Regressive" is a description of a political philosophy and world view.
Anyone regardless of race, religion or ethnic affiliation can be a "regressive"
On the other hand "Raghead" is a well known term used to demean a specific ethno-religious group.
That is why it is different!

George Rebane

MikeT - actually you continue to err. As you can use 'regressive' for your target audience, so I can use 'raghead'. With 'raghead' I intend to demean zealous, dedicated murderers of the Muslim faith who suppress their own, and who ruthlessly and wantonly kill anyone, other Muslims included, who opposes their geo-political intentions, interpretation of the Quran, or just for the purpose of showing that they are still a viable terrorist force.

People of other ethno-religious groups who seek to become mass murderers of equal scope will have to await the assignation of their own pejorative labels. I can only do so much.

Todd Juvinall

George, these libs are simply hypocrites nothing more nothing less. PaulE and MikeT and the Steve's dish out their attacks on Christians relentlessly then cry like babies when they don't like your term for the terrorists. This is actually funny. Liberals are dinosaurs. I am fascinated though by their self hatred. Liberals have a missing DNA link I think. As we all see, they never answer our questions. Paul is afraid to answer my question of why he won't discuss or condemn the attacks on whites because they were white by blacks in Wisconsin at the fair. And we see that MikeT somehow in his mind turns that fact into a racist condemnation for asking the question. Amazing

Mike Thornton

Look, guys, everyone knows that you're going to continue to defend your use of racist language. So don't waste your time.

Todd Juvinall

Liberals are the racists and the name callers.

George Rebane

Perhaps we've concluded this comment stream.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad