If America is the greatest country on Earth...

[Harvey]

That's only three absurd propositions in one question. 🙄

1. The probability that Christian population will be replaced with Muslims is somewhere between none and less than that, at least within your lifetime.

2. You present no factual basis for your assertion that "the left" (an amorphous, undefined designation) "hates" all Christians (another amorphous, undefined designation).

If you don't think so, please define your terms, and prove whatever point you think you're making with facts.

Whats #3?

The second and third are in the second listed item. I was referring to his use of the undefined terms, "the left" and "Christian population."

 

[Craig234]

And whats all this about "keeping the third world our slaves"? Last I checked we are improving the lives of a shitton of Chinese folk who otherwise would never have had that opportunity and our .mil didn't have a damned thing to do with it.

You know, you're right. But they're not mutually exclusive.

Many have argued that US slavery 'did them a favor'. Without slavery, they'd have been in 'savage' conditions in tribal Africa, not brought over to the far wealthier US, which had some benefits and especially for later generations. You had both enslavement, AND 'doing them a favor'.

I've seen the film of a Chinese factory which takes young girls or women (they work harder with less complaints) and basically enslaves them - they might get a trip home a year to their family and live in the factory 24x7 and have very limited freedoms, building things directly for US consumption and US profit at low wages. They're exploited/enslaved and yet as you say, maybe they'd be starving on a farm, such that they chose this factory instead.

The thing is to look at the larger picture.

Imagine a Latin American country who has an economy with 80% or 90% exports of grown fruit.

Now, there's little argument against the view that this country is pretty much going to have an economy of its citizens working in the fruit export industry.

A difference is, in this example, does the country have an elite class of 200 families who own 99% of the land, much of it unused but controlled to keep the peasants from competing, while most of the people can barely get enough to eat if they work for those owners, and a government led by a dictator who is closely allied with the American Fruit Company who selected him and pays the costs to keep him in power, with a large police machinery that assassinates any labor leaders or anyone who is trying to push for things to be better for the citizens and workers, while the elite class happily goes along to keep their benefit?

Or does it have a much more democratic, egalitarian society, with more 'fairness', less concentration of wealth, a real elected leader, more political freedom, unions etc.?

Perhaps the first system lets the US company pay $.02 a pound, and the second one they have to pay $0.04 a pound, for something they sell for $1.00 a pound.

In both systems, the $0.02 or $0.04 might either be 'better' than the people might have without the rich US customers. But do we really need to support the first system?

Should the global economy structure the rules so that the third world is exploited and kept permanently impoverished - or should the goals include moving up in equality?

We're not saying 'bad US, close down any fruit company and let those people go back to even worse poverty'. We're saying, let's have less exploitation for every last cent.

And by the way, with the inequality in the world, things will tend to either more pull the poor up, or pull the citizens of the rich nations down. Which do you prefer?

The less exploitation approach, the one for the third world workers to better, helps pull them up - and helps protect the standard of living for the rich workers.

On the other hand, pulling the rich workers down reduces labor costs globally, which the rich benefit from, but American workers do not. Helping the poor in this way helps American workers too.

 

[Moonbeam]

moonbeam is a modern day prophet. 3000 years from now they will scour old records of anandtech P&N for his writings 😀

Moonbeam is a nobody. A person can't really live 5 minutes in America, learn about its great ideals of religious tolerance and separation of church and state, and watch what butt heads do with that when they get scared. 😉 But you are kind and I thank you.

 

[shira]

I am an agnostic, so no, I don't. I believe that if you don't stand up for your ideals you might as well not have any.

What, exactly, are your "ideals?" I see damn view ideals preached and a whole lot of hatred.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

Shouldn't America be an example of freedom and tolerance?

Alan Wolfe argued in an article, "Religious Diversity: The American Experiment that Works" that in a sense the US is more free and tolerant than other countries. To give but one example, we face no agonizing debate over banning the burqa unlike France.

 

[xj0hnx]

Lol, Moonie answered xj0hnx before xj0hnx could even open his cowardly yap. :awe:

Just because you've got no spine outside of the internet doesn't mean nobody does.

What, exactly, are your "ideals?" I see damn view ideals preached and a whole lot of hatred.

Ideals on what, there's a wide array of topics out there. All I see in this forums progressives are a bunch of self righteous hypocrites. Tolerance, and equal rights, unless you don't agree and then it's nothing but insults, and accusations. Still waiting on that foaming at the mouth Olbermann wannabe Harvey to post up my bigoted statements.

 

[Wheezer]

it does not matter where your feet hit the soil...people are the same all over and never change.

 

[dawp]

If the christian population of the US was replaced with mulsims do you think the left would embrace them or hate them like they do christians?

there are plenty of christians on the left, so your argument holds no water.

 

[FuzzyBee]

You are the one who posts your hateful bigotry all over P&N. I could post links to plenty of examples, but I don't have to because you've made the point with your posts in this one. 🙄

Pot? or Kettle?

 

[airdata]

... why do we insist on stooping down to third-world levels of hatred to get our points across? Looking through these threads I see comments supporting the Qu'ran burnings, about not allowing mosques to be built until churches are built in Saudi Arabia, "Everyone Draw Muhammad Day," etc. If you feel that you as a Christian American are so much better than these people, why do you support the very same hatred these "lesser people" support? Shouldn't America be an example of freedom and tolerance?

Draw Mohammad day wasn't about hatred... and in many cases was in fact hilarious.

But when you get into politics, any my side is better than your side arguments are just stupid.

 

[werepossum]

... why do we insist on stooping down to third-world levels of hatred to get our points across? Looking through these threads I see comments supporting the Qu'ran burnings, about not allowing mosques to be built until churches are built in Saudi Arabia, "Everyone Draw Muhammad Day," etc. If you feel that you as a Christian American are so much better than these people, why do you support the very same hatred these "lesser people" support? Shouldn't America be an example of freedom and tolerance?

Fail. The "same hatred" would require stoning women, beheading non-coreligionists, banning their holy books completely, and hijacking and flying airliners into buildings full of innocent civilians. We've not even approached the level of hatred demonstrated by Islam, and equating the two is merely a liberal apologist ploy.

 

[nyker96]

... why do we insist on stooping down to third-world levels of hatred to get our points across? Looking through these threads I see comments supporting the Qu'ran burnings, about not allowing mosques to be built until churches are built in Saudi Arabia, "Everyone Draw Muhammad Day," etc. If you feel that you as a Christian American are so much better than these people, why do you support the very same hatred these "lesser people" support? Shouldn't America be an example of freedom and tolerance?

yes I have to say I'm wondering about the same thing, this country was founded because the colonists tried to escape from religious tolerance in England. that's the very reason why the colonists came here in the first place. This is also why they wrote religious tolerance into the constitution.

For US to be religious intolerant is like for Israelis to support genocide. It just baffles me. How can people who were victims of religious intolerance be religiously intolerant? If one knows what it feels like on the receiving end of this, wouldn't that be enough of a lesson not to dish this out to others?

 

[Harvey]

... why do we insist on stooping down to third-world levels of hatred to get our points across? Looking through these threads I see comments supporting the Qu'ran burnings, about not allowing mosques to be built until churches are built in Saudi Arabia, "Everyone Draw Muhammad Day," etc. If you feel that you as a Christian American are so much better than these people, why do you support the very same hatred these "lesser people" support? Shouldn't America be an example of freedom and tolerance?

Fail. The "same hatred" would require stoning women, beheading non-coreligionists, banning their holy books completely, and hijacking and flying airliners into buildings full of innocent civilians. We've not even approached the level of hatred demonstrated by Islam, and equating the two is merely a liberal apologist ploy.

No, it's you who has failed, both in logic and as an American. :thumbsdown:

The "same hatred" arising from religious intolerance would not necessarily be manifest the same way in every society. The bigoted morons who would deny Muslims to exercise the same religious rights as any other American citizen are betraying our own Constitution and values. In doing so, they lay a foundation and set a precedent in a lame attempt to excuse their further acts against the right of whatever minority they choose to attack, next.

 

[werepossum]

No, it's you who has failed, both in logic and as an American. :thumbsdown:

The "same hatred" arising from religious intolerance would not necessarily be manifest the same way in every society. The bigoted morons who would deny Muslims to exercise the same religious rights as any other American citizen are betraying our own Constitution and values. In doing so, they lay a foundation and set a precedent in a lame attempt to excuse their further acts against the right of whatever minority they choose to attack, next.

If it's not manifested in the same way then it's not the same hatred. Morons who proclaim that failure to adopt gay marriage or failure to deliver "free" health care for single mothers is in any way even remotely comparable to burning gay men alive in Allah's glory and stoning unwed mothers to death are killing our nation.

Considering that the Christian church is being kicked off and having its land taken by eminent domain, I'd say you're right, the Muslims are not be treated the same - they are being treated better.

 

[GhettoPeanut]

My ideals on what fruitcake?

i got chuckles from this response.

 

[Harvey]

No, it's you who has failed, both in logic and as an American. :thumbsdown:

The "same hatred" arising from religious intolerance would not necessarily be manifest the same way in every society. The bigoted morons who would deny Muslims to exercise the same religious rights as any other American citizen are betraying our own Constitution and values. In doing so, they lay a foundation and set a precedent in a lame attempt to excuse their further acts against the right of whatever minority they choose to attack, next.

If it's not manifested in the same way then it's not the same hatred. Morons who proclaim that failure to adopt gay marriage or failure to deliver "free" health care for single mothers is in any way even remotely comparable to burning gay men alive in Allah's glory and stoning unwed mothers to death are killing our nation.

Bullshit! I used the term "same hatred" because I was quoting you, but you're drawing a distinction without a difference. Attacking and denying the rights of any group of American citizens it's still hatred, and it's still wrong. That's why we teach our children that Patrick Henry is remembered for saying, "Give me liberty, or give me death."

Considering that the Christian church is being kicked off and having its land taken by eminent domain, I'd say you're right, the Muslims are not be treated the same - they are being treated better.

If you're arguing that "eminent domain," per se, is always unwarranted or wrong, you don't know much about U.S. law. The principle of eminent domain is well established under American law. It refers to the taking of private property for the greater benefit of the jurisdiction (city, state, federal, etc.), and the same principle requires that the agency taking the property must compensate the owner for its fair market value. That is not to say it cannot be, and has not been, abused, but each case must be taken individually and determined on its merits,.

In this case, there is no claim by the city or the state that the property is needed for any alternative societal use or any greater common good. If you think this is the same, please provide clear specific legal grounds and parallel examples to support your argument.

 

[werepossum]

Bullshit! I used the term "same hatred" because I was quoting you, but you're drawing a distinction without a difference. Attacking and denying the rights of any group of American citizens it's still hatred, and it's still wrong. That's why we teach our children that Patrick Henry is remembered for saying, "Give me liberty, or give me death."



If you're arguing that "eminent domain," per se, is always unwarranted or wrong, you don't know much about U.S. law. The principle of eminent domain is well established under American law. It refers to the taking of private property for the greater benefit of the jurisdiction (city, state, federal, etc.), and the same principle requires that the agency taking the property must compensate the owner for its fair market value. That is not to say it can no be, and has not been, abused, but each case must be taken individually and determined on its merits,.

In this case, there is no claim by the city or the state that the property is needed for any alternative societal use or any greater common good. If you think this is the same, please provide clear specific legal grounds and parallel examples to support your argument.

I am saying only that a Muslim mosque would NEVER be taken by eminent domain. As to a "distinction without a difference", I'm saying that there is a huge difference between a terrorist group hijacking airliners, cutting the throats of stewardesses, then flying the planes full of innocents into buildings full of innocents on the one hand, and vocally opposing coreligionists who support other like-minded terrorist groups (Hamas), argue that America is to blame for the 9/11 attack, and support Sharia law for America building a mosque anywhere near the attack on the other hand. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Beyond that I fall back on my original statements, that I hope this mosque is soon surrounded by gay bars, strip clubs, and barbecue joints (mm, smell of roast pork!) so that the Muslims can demonstrate some of that tolerance they are always demanding that we display towards them.

 

[Harvey]

I am saying only that a Muslim mosque would NEVER be taken by eminent domain.

And I'm saying you don't know that, and you can't prove that. An existing Muslim mosque be taken though eminent domain as readily as any other religious site. It could only happen through due process as proscribed by the relevant statutes.

As to a "distinction without a difference", I'm saying that there is a huge difference between a terrorist group hijacking airliners, cutting the throats of stewardesses, then flying the planes full of innocents into buildings full of innocents on the one hand, and vocally opposing coreligionists who support other like-minded terrorist groups (Hamas), argue that America is to blame for the 9/11 attack, and support Sharia law for America building a mosque anywhere near the attack on the other hand.

The difference is only that you're describing a specific kind of physical violence to human beings and property. If we deny Muslims the right to build a religious site in the same place we would allow other religions to do the same thing, the violence and destruction is to Constitutional rights a lot of Americans have died to defend for over 230 years.

If we allow that to happen, they sacrificed their lives in vain for empty promises. :'(

Beyond that I fall back on my original statements, that I hope this mosque is soon surrounded by gay bars, strip clubs, and barbecue joints (mm, smell of roast pork!) so that the Muslims can demonstrate some of that tolerance they are always demanding that we display towards them.

Oh -- So you want them to build their mosque in your neighborhood? 🙄

 

[Orignal Earl]

My ideals on what fruitcake?

i got chuckles from this response.

I guess he saw the hypocrisy in his own post and edited that out.

 

[werepossum]

And I'm saying you don't know that, and you can't prove that. An existing Muslim mosque be taken though eminent domain as readily as any other religious site. It could only happen through due process as proscribed by the relevant statutes.



The difference is only that you're describing a specific kind of physical violence to human beings and property. If we deny Muslims the right to build a religious site in the same place we would allow other religions to do the same thing the violence and destruction is to Constitutional rights a lot of Americans have died to defend for over 230 years.

If we allow that to happen, they sacrificed their lives in vain for empty promises. :'(



Oh -- So you want them to build their mosque in your neighborhood? 🙄

Well, I do have a barbecue joint at the bottom of the hill . . .

I'd much rather have gay bars and strip clubs than a mosque. For one thing there is no call to the horny broadcast five times a day. For another, while I've seen some real flaming homosexuals, none of them have actually exploded. Or cut anyone's throat, with or without decapitation. There are no gay terrorist agencies into which money will be funneled, to fund their efforts to convert me to Gayslam or kill me in the name of Harvey Milk. Strippers are not lobbying for special stripper investment funds at banks, or demanding to substitute stripper law for US law so that they can observe their special stripper religion. So yeah, give me the barbecue joints, gay bars and strip clubs and you can keep the mosques.

 

[Harvey]

Well, I do have a barbecue joint at the bottom of the hill . . .

I'd much rather have gay bars and strip clubs than a mosque.

Great. Now, think about what that says about you. Clue -- It isn't anything you'd want your mother to know. 🙄

 

[CallMeJoe]

I am saying only that a Muslim mosque would NEVER be taken by eminent domain...

How many more times are you going to misrepresent this eminent domain action?

The authority now says that St. Nicholas is free to rebuild the church on its own parcel at 155 Cedar Street, just east of West Street. The authority will, in turn, use eminent domain to get control of the land beneath that parcel so it can move ahead with building foundation walls and a bomb-screening center for trucks, buses and cars entering the area.

They are doing nothing to prevent the church from rebuilding on that site; they are, rather, proceeding with a process to provide a foundation upon which the church may be rebuilt.

 

[xj0hnx]

I guess he saw the hypocrisy in his own post and edited that out.

Nope, live, raw, and uncensored post #24.

 

[JS80]

Shouldn't America be an example of freedom and tolerance?

Are you still free if you restrict intolerance?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Nope, live, raw, and uncensored post #24.

Ah, I see, sorry about that