home

Bill Clinton Suggests His New Title: "First Laddy"

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:41:00 AM EST
Tags: Bill Clinton (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Bill Clinton spoke at the Aspen Ideas Festival Saturday night, suggesting that if Hillary is elected President, an appropriate title for him would be "First Laddy."

He also spoke of terrorists and made a point that too few acknowledge:

Terrorism highlights the problem of identity, Clinton said. The suspects in the Britain bombing plot did not feel like they belonged in the world they were in, he said.

An appropriate foreign policy to address those issues, he said, includes a security policy and a policy "to make more partners and fewer terrorists." The world's poor and disenfranchised are "just as good as we are and need to be given a chance to feel that life has more meaning," Clinton said.

And yes, Bill Clinton is enough of a celebrity that even those in star-jaded Aspen gawk when he passes by.

< New York Times: It's Time to Come Home | Scooter Libby: They Can't Let the Caged Bird Sing >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bill Clinton Suggests His New Title: "First Laddy" | 118 comments (118 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Doctors and Engineers and... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by desertwind on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 05:13:49 AM EST
    Jeralyn, the Observer has a fascinating piece today:

    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,2121395,00.html

    It focuses on highly-educated, middle-class, fundamentalist Muslims who have been emotionally exploited to move rapidly from "sympathetic" to "operational". That recent major terrorist actions were not planned and carried out by people who are personally disenfranchised, but do feel victimized.

    Why do I get the sense that (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by scribe on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:50:24 AM EST
    calling Bill Clinton the "First Laddy" really means "Ladies, the Clenis is on the loose (again)".

    I mean, didn't anyone bother to test this out before letting him say it?

    Same song second verse (1.00 / 2) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:11:52 AM EST
    Terrorism highlights the problem of identity, Clinton said.

    Clinton didn't understand the problem when he was in office, and still doesn't.

    The Doctors who have done the London and Glasgow attacks were educated and middle class. They were not:

    The world's poor and disenfranchised are

    They acted out of ideology. They acted based on the preachings of jihad and a belief that destroyed what for 99.9999999% of the people in the world would have been a happy and peaceful life.

    Ideology & belief (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by robrecht on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:24:49 AM EST
    jimakaPPJ, I don't understand the last part of your comment about a belief & 99.9%

    Even though many terrorists and revolutionaries may themselves come from privileged backgrounds, they may still see themselves as acting on behalf of poor and disenfranchised, eg, UBL's partial justification based on Palestinians.

    Parent

    robrecht - That's my point (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:46:08 AM EST
    Those involved were doctors. They were well educated, and familar with the western world, and the culture of that world. While they were not rich, they were middle class with a secure future.

    So their actions were based on an ideology that includes jihad.

    They may see themselves as acting on behalf of the poor but what they are actually doing is acting on behalf of a culture/system/nation state/religion that is not seeking to reform itself, but to expand itself while maintaining the status quo in  its culture, politics and religion.

    When Komeini came to power in Iran, did he institute a more liberal regime? No. He did not.

    You speak of OBL, this is what he said in answer to Peter Arnett's question in 1997.

    REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

    BIN LADIN: .... So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

    We can debate the meaning of "aggressive intervention" but I think we are starting to have it defined. These attacks, the Fort Dix attack conspiracy, the JFK attack conspiracy and last summer's bombings in London demonstrate that it is our culture that the radicals fear, and see as "aggressive intervention."

    They are resisting our culture because they see our culture's actual demands... Our criminal justice system instead of Shari... our secular school system...our secular laws. All of these are in opposition to the teachings emphasized by the radicals. They represent change and loss of control and that is not what the radicals want.
    The radicals want to keep the status quo, and to do that they must expand their influence and control.

    So a foreign policy that is based on "Im ok - you're ok" is bound to fail. What is needed is a policy of strict secularism in the US, no accomadation to Shari law of any kind, and containment outside the US. SA should be told that they are in the wrong. So should all the other regimes, groups and splinter groups. England and Europe especially need to be encouraged to become more definitive in what is expected from new immigrants.

    And all of this is very difficult because it flies in the face of what we have come to believe. We believe in diversity. "Do your thing" and "I'll do mine." The problem is, the radical Moslems are teaching that "our thing" is wrong, and must be destroyed. And the only way you can do that is to say, "No. You can't teach violence. No. You can't teach jihad. No. You can't conspire. No. You can't have special rights because of your religion. No. You can't have special commercial/regulatory rights because of your religion."

    Parent

    Again ppj? Still? After how many times? (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:58:29 AM EST
    You know perfectly well what bin Ladin meant by aggressive intervention against Muslims:    
    The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

        I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.

        The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.

        In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

        And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

    And yes, he meant in the whole world. Rather inclusive, I would say. I'm sure you'll agree.

    And yes if the soldiers were not in Iraq, they would not be subject to these attacks in Iraq. I'm sure you'll also agree.

    In fact they and everyone else wouldn't be subject to attacks anywhere if they weren't invited by a broken foreign policy: "Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly Of Intervention

    Now you already know all this, jim - but I know you need something to ignore today, so here you are. I'm sure you'll agree.

    Why do you insist on creating terrorism, ppj?

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:29:33 AM EST
    That may have started it, but by 1997 it had grown to "aggressive intervention" in the whole world.

    BTW - This is what happened:

    By late August the Marines of the MNF were caught up in firefights with armed elements outside their perimeter in the predominantly Shia suburbs of South Beirut. The Marines also received occasional fire from nearby mountain slopes, largely held by Druze fighters, supplied by Syria. On August 28, fighting between the LAF and militia forces in South Beirut spilled over to the Marine positions. On August 29, Marine positions came under mortar, rocket, and small-arms fire. Two Marines were killed and fourteen wounded. The Marines returned fire with artillery, small-arms, and a helicopter gunship. President Reagan informed the Congress that the continued presence of U.S. forces in Lebanon was essential to the objective of helping to restore the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and political independence of Lebanon.[39]

    In the weeks following the attack on Marines at Beirut International Airport, U.S. ships of the Sixth Fleet responded with naval gunfire. Two more Marines were killed on September 6. Druze and Palestinian militia forces engaged in intense fighting against Christian forces over areas in the Shuf mountains evacuated by withdrawing Israeli forces. Shultz had wanted the Israelis to remain in the Shuf so as not to reward Syrian intransigence in refusing to accept the May 17 agreement.[40

    So what he means is that it was the US being there to try and prevent fighting and killing, thus allowing Israel to withdraw that he is concerned about.

    BTW - Is it possible for you to ever make a point without some snarky remark?? It really does detract from whatever point you are trying to make, and proves again that you can not debate without insulting.

    Parent

    aggressive intervention (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:49:53 PM EST
    That may have started it, but by 1997 it had grown to "aggressive intervention" in the whole world.
    cuba, vietnam, iraq, iran, chile, Nicaragua, the congo, cambodia, afghanistan ... to name just a few.

    Parent
    sailor (1.00 / 1) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 06:23:55 PM EST
    I understand that you want to try and make the US the moral equilavent of the Soviets, radical Moslems, etc.. But do you really mean it?

    Do you recognize that North Vitenam invaded South Vietnam? Do you regard that as a breach of treaty and/or an act of hostility by them??

    Do you recognize that the Taliban was a prime sponsor of al-Qaeda and was thus guilty of the 9/11 attacks? Do you regard that as a gurellia attack on the US??

    Can you explain why we should not have bombed the trail running through Cambodia by which North Vietnam was supply the Vietcong, and its regular troops.

    I could continue, but I think that is a good starting place...

    Parent

    I made a mistake ... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 07:22:14 PM EST
    ... I once again allowed ppj to take the thread off topic.

    My apologies to Jeralyn.

    Parent

    In the interest of clarity, (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:53:07 AM EST
    this:

    The radicals want to keep the status quo, and to do that they must expand their influence and control.

    Should be this:

    The radicals want to keep the status quo of their own culture/religion, and to do that they must expand their influence and control.


    Parent
    No. It should be this. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:01:20 AM EST
    The pseudo-christian right wing radical nutjobs want to keep the status quo of their own culture/religion, and to do that they must expand their influence and control.


    Parent
    animated religion proliferation map (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Sumner on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 12:32:34 PM EST
    Keeping more in tune with Nabokov than Santayana, I revisited this map.

    Parent
    Nice visualization. Sumner (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 01:01:00 PM EST


    Parent
    You might enjoy (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 01:02:50 PM EST
    Zeitgeist

    Parent
    stunning (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Sumner on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 04:46:44 PM EST
    I now see that I should have been visiting your blog from early on, Edger. I don't know what took me so long. Thanks.

    Parent
    My pleasure. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 05:02:46 PM EST
    Here's one of the best open secrets on the web: Cyrano's Journal.

    The Moore film SiCKO is in the right sidebar.

    Parent

    Sorry....... fixed link (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 05:04:12 PM EST
    Cyrano's Journal

    Parent
    and again (none / 0) (#39)
    by Sumner on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:05:50 PM EST
    Now I better understand the excitement over Michael Moore's latest creation. Thanks as well for this link.

    Parent
    Welcome... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:14:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Thanks for the map... but (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 10:10:17 AM EST
    I note that it doesn't show the reformation of the church and the various branches that started with Matin Luther.

    That was a most important event as the Catholic Church had become corrupt and was more about power and money to the church leaders than anything else.

    Any understanding of the current Islamic religion and the radicals must include the fact that it has not been reformed.

    BTW - I also note that it shows the founding of Israel as "Jewish Expansion."

    I think the ommission of the Christain reformation and calling Israel "Jewish Expansion" pretty well defines the bias of the website.

    Parent

    Lousy strawman (none / 0) (#55)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 11:28:26 AM EST
    The map show geographic expansions of religion through war, not internal doctrinal changes within religions.

    And not a very bright attempt at mis-definition.

    Interesting how the spreads the map shows coincide with the history of imperialism in the Middle East.

    Hint here ppj: this gives you another free chance to justify radical pseudo-christian nutbar mass murder with another "but they did it too" grasp at straws and equate yourself with terrorists again.

    I have faith that you're up to the task and it'll be a cakewalk for you.

    Parent

    Nice map (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by robrecht on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:47:08 PM EST
    I actually think it would be interesting, but too complicated, to show all of the religious wars, including Christian vs Christian, Muslim vs Muslim, etc.  BTW, in some ways the reformation encouraged state religion and religious violence to flourish more directly than previously.

    Parent
    Nope. (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 12:20:56 PM EST
    I understand what the map shows.

    It is inaccurate because the reformation of the Catholic Church gave civilization a dramatic change to the Christian faith, and actually split the spread into two major groups, catholic and prroestant, which further split into (mostly) North and South America.

    The Catholic expansion was marked by forced conversions, a state religion and a social and cultural order that largely matched Spain and Portugal..

    The protestant expansion was driven by mostly commerical goals. I know of no forced conversions to the Church of England, although the various protestant groups were nasty to each other. Maryland, I think, was the only colony that had a "state religion," although I wouldn't call that accurate.

    So to be accurate the map should show the split because of the differences in the "religion" before and after the reformation.

    But I am not sure that the map is interested in accuracy, especially when they label Israel as "Jewish Expansipn."

    Parent

    Yes it would be wonderful (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 12:28:17 PM EST
    if the pesky map showed what you wished it showed instead of what it shows. It sure would help your baseless argument.

    Parent
    Edger (1.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:35:46 PM EST
    Whether my argument is baseless or not, any map, or person for that matter, who tries to act in a learned manner and ignore the reformation of the Catholic Church, and all the differences between Catholic and Protestant might as well just lump it all under "Jews."

    Parent
    Edger (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:38:41 PM EST
    BTW - My comment on the map's accuracy was very trivial when viewed from the Catholic vs Reformation issue.

    Wasn't it the "Jews Expansion" that you are really trying to defend??

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:16:57 AM EST
    What a learned comment. (sarcasm alert)

    All power groups want to keep the status quo.

    The issue we currently have is that the radical moslems have thoroughly demonstrated that they need to expand and neutralize the effects of the secularism of the West. They have and will use terrorism and other means to do so.

    The religous right does not embrace that philsophy, although their have been several nut cases attacking abortion clinics, etc.

    If the radical Moslem threat is a 10, the "nut case" christiams are a .0000001.

    Parent

    The Christian Zionist (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by jondee on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:41:04 AM EST
    movement, which has had audiences with the Whitehouse, believes fervently that a conflagration, including nuclear exchange needs to occur in the M.E in order to fulfill prophecy and make way for "The Second Coming." In other words, why chop off heads when you can vaporize them all with a few well placed Revelatory nukes? Equally as pernicious and dangerous are their Israeli "settler" cohorts (who no one's allowed to talk about).

    The reason why no one on the hardcore Right has the ethical or intellectual cajones to acknowledge the existence of this unhinged constituency is that they need them -- and need to empower them -- in order to win.

    So much for faux "secularism".

    Parent

    Anyone (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by jondee on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:49:55 AM EST
    who thinks The Temple Mount/ Left Behinders are a ".00000" and no threat to secularism, is either carrying water or slipping into terminal dementia.

    Parent
    Slipping?? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 02:20:17 PM EST


    Parent
    jondee (1.00 / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 08:32:06 AM EST
    I remain curious as to why you and Edger are always so concerned over such groups. They haven't attacked anyone.

    Obviously .0000000000 whatever was for dramatic effect, but given their whatever small numbers and zero weight in the media and/or culture, they sure don't appear to be a threat.

    So why do you always bring them up whenever the issue of the Moslem radicals comes up??

    Do you actually believe that the religious Right and the radical Moslems are equal threats??

    Parent

    the nutcase christains ... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 10:19:03 AM EST
    ... are in charge of armies and do things like invade countries in the ME on baseless lies while calling them a crusade and claiming their god is greater.

    Parent
    Just Good Ol Boys (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 11:00:02 AM EST
    eh ppj?

    Three Burleson men who belong to a "radical Christian activist group" were in the Johnson County Jail on Friday night after a church deacon caught two of them attempting to ignite an explosive device on Independence Day at a church under construction in north Burleson, authorities said Friday.


    link

    and

    max blumenthal offers an in-depth analysis...

    [Mark David] Uhl was an a devout evangelical Christian who advocated religious violence in the name of American nationalism. Uhl's blog, featured on his Myspace page, offers a window into the political underpinnings of his bomb plot. In one post, Uhl implores Christians to die on the battlefield for "Uncle Sam." He justifies his call to arms by quoting several Biblical passages and reminding his readers that the "gift of God" is eternal life.

    link

    Parent

    squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 11:33:55 AM EST
    So, your point is that three nuts who wanted to burn a christian church who belonged to a "claimed" radical christian group about which we know nothing is the same as 10 highly educated Moslem doctors trying to torch of two car bombs and drive a SUV into Glasgow Int'l airport lobbY??

    Have you noticed that they are in jail and we have zero information on the supposed group??

    The same for Uhl. He has been arrested, and again I see no group that he was a member of. Pus, he has been condemned by one and all.

    I again note that I find myself incapable of understanding why you, and others, try and paint an equilavence between these very small numbers of nuts whose actions are not endorsed by any christian religious or governmental agency and the radical moslems being supported by nation states such as Iran, Syria, and Saddam before our invasion.

    A LEADING imam in the mosque where the July 7 bombers worshipped has hailed their terrorist attack on London as a "good" act in a secretly taped conversation with an undercover reporter.

    Hamid Ali, spiritual leader of the mosque in West Yorkshire, said it had forced people to take notice when peaceful meetings and conferences had no impact.

    He also praised the bombers as the "children" of Abdullah al-Faisal, a firebrand Muslim cleric, who was convicted of inciting murder and racial hatred in 2003.

    Ali revealed that the leader of the London suicide bombers had attended sermons in Yorkshire by al-Faisal and tapes of al-Faisal's teachings were still circulating within his mosque.

    Link

    Squeaky. There is no equilavence. Why do you believe there is?? Why do you believe?

    Parent

    No. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 11:41:04 AM EST
    There is no equivalence, ppj.

    White supremacist nutbars have barely grown feet from their flippers and crawled out of the primordial slime pits. They are eons behind anyone they try to demonize.

    There will probably never be equivalence.

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 11:51:59 AM EST
    So you don't claim equilavence between the christians radicals, small though they may be in numbers, and the radical Moslems, your claim is that they are much worse than the radical Moslems?

    Parent
    See. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 11:55:28 AM EST
    You not as intellectually compromised as you've been pretending to be all along.

    I don't know why you can't come right out and say so.

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 12:03:00 PM EST
    Just to be sure I understand..

    You say that the radical christian right, is much worse than the radical Moslems.

    Parent

    Well... heh. (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 12:08:44 PM EST
    Maybe you are.

    Parent
    No.. no.. no.. no.. no....... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 11:15:43 AM EST
    Noooooo...

    They can't be jes' Good Ol Boys. The "gift of God" is eternal life is too close to the Good Ol Boys mis-definition of Jihad.

    Parent

    Lower and Higher Humans (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 11:25:19 AM EST
    I remain curious as to why you and Edger are always so concerned over such groups. They haven't attacked anyone.
    Anyone that matters. As ppj has said some people are, er..., higer up on the evolutionary ladder.

    Parent
    grunt. grunt. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 11:30:18 AM EST


    Parent
    "Zero weight" (none / 0) (#68)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:09:56 PM EST
    means you're either completely out to lunch, or so occupied recieving "links" that you havnt heard or noticed that the bulwark of pressure and support from organized "Christians" for regime-change and The Greater Israel comes from groups that embrace the very dangerous, crack-brained, theological vision I described.

    Parent
    Yeah, in the long view, (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:15:08 PM EST
    I believe they're equal threats.

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:20:48 PM EST
    it should be emphasized that in a supposed struggle against irrationalism, you dont -- if you want to maintain credibility -- court the support of the most irrational.

    But, there goes 2/3 of the wingnut base.

    Parent

    jondee (1.00 / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:47:46 PM EST
    Well, at least we have you on the record.

    And that is an interesting position. It is hard for me to understand, but to each his own...

    BTW - If you believe they will become equal, do you believe that the Moslem states will become a liberal democracy like the US

    or do you believe the US will become a radical theocracy like SA, Iran, etc..

    And if do, what will make the Moslems become liberal and the US a theocracy

    Given that only the US has a government that is representative of people..

    Or do you also reject that??

    Parent

    What I said was, (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 05:21:50 PM EST
    that I believe that faction (codddled by your side) that believes in the absolute necessity of Apocalypse in the Holy Land and networks with Messianists in Israel, is as much of a threat to stability and peace as the most irrational Islamists.

    One question though: are you really that ignorant of the faction in the U.S and Israel that I've been refering to, or are you, like so many on the Right, deathly afraid of offending a vital part of your base?

    Parent

    jondee (1.00 / 1) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 06:30:14 PM EST
    So you are claiming a conspiracy exists between Israel, the US government and certain "elements that are coddled (?) within the US??

    Is that how Bush and Rudy knew the operational details of 9/11 in advance? (Isn't that one of the claims???)

    Parent

    They acted out of ideology. (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:00:47 AM EST
    Exactly. The acted based on the preachings of jihad* out of a sense of solidarity and support for the poor and and disenfranchised within their own culture, rather than out of a self-interest that would have given them the illusion of a happy and peaceful life if only they had been able to separate themselves psychologically from their culture, go into denial, and adopt an "I got mine - to hell with everyone else" ideology.

    *Submission and Jihad

    Parent

    Edger (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:48:52 AM EST
    See my comment to robrecht

    Parent
    I saw it. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:02:44 AM EST
    I've seen it before. Hundreds of times. It's still delusion.

    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 08:56:39 AM EST
    Nope. It's a fact. No country in the ME, Israel excepted, is a liberal democracy. No country in the ME, again Israel accepted, does squat for its citizens.

    The radicals aren't pushing for reforms to help the poor. They are pushing for the status quo to be maintained, and for rigid adherance to Shari law. Because they are under population pressure, and because they fear the globalization of the western culture, they have become aggressive, teaching an ideology that all is the fault of the west.

    If the doctors in question had been interested in reform, they would have went back to their native lands and worked with the poor and for government reform.

    Parent

    Nope. (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 11:33:26 AM EST
    It's delusion. It's hard to see that while deluding, I know. But you'll get it someday.

    Even though no one expects you to.

    Or won't you?

    Parent

    Since (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 12:51:04 PM EST
    when is one of the definitions of "a liberal democracy" that it discriminates based on who your parents were?

    Of course, Jim probobly thought/thinks Mississippi in the fifties and sixties was a "liberal" democracy, too.

    Parent

    jondee - What a straight man you are.. (1.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:29:46 PM EST
    A one and a two....

    It was a state in a liberal democracy... And because of that it changed, under pressure, but still it changed, and changed dramatically.

    Can you imagine civil rights demonstrators in Iran?? SA........??

    Parent

    Hahahaha (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:54:42 PM EST
    Your idiot talking point falls short here. Had we worked with Iran after 9/11, in other words took them up on their compassionate offer to help track down the terrorists responsibe for 9/11,  and not instead labeled them the nexux of evil, the liberal government of President Akbar Hashmi Rafsanjani would have maintained control and, yes he tolerated street protests.

    Parent
    Hey. Look. (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 02:01:14 PM EST
    How do expect anyone to remain in denial and keep their blinders from falling off if you're going to keep saying things like that, anyway?

    Jeeze...

    Parent

    squwaky (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 02:55:50 PM EST
    Oh, really?? My "idoit" talking point? Are you incapable of making a comment without such langyage? Don't you know that most people agree that name calling indicates desperation and a weak argument??

    What proof do you have of your claim??

    Parent

    Re: "idoit" talking point (none / 0) (#84)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:23:54 PM EST
    Don't you know that most people agree that name calling indicates desperation and a weak argument?

    That's why squeaky went after your comment and called it an "idoit" talking point, instead of calling you an idiot.

    Don't you know that trying to misrepresent what people say is a form of lying and indicates desperation weakness?

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 06:37:22 PM EST
    Well, despite my poor typing I think my points have been more rational and better supported than anything I have seen from Squeaky, Jondee or you.

    I mean so far on this thread we have discovered that:

    Edger thinks christians are worse than radical moslems.

    Jondee thinks that in the long run the radical moslems and christians are equal. In the meantime he has a nice conspiracy theory you might want to buy into.

    And squeaky continues to make claims, but never has any links...

    All in all, a productive day.

    Parent

    And PPJ Lies (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 06:46:32 PM EST
    No matter who responds. Our wind up troll, always on automatic.

    Parent
    Does anyone have ... (none / 0) (#13)
    by robrecht on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:25:30 AM EST
    ... a transcript of Powell's remarks in Aspen?

    I don't know how to properly post a link here without skewing the site, but there's an interesting article in the London Times.

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by robrecht on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 12:17:35 PM EST
    Link to article on Powell's speech in Aspen.  Some people are focusing merely on the blame game aspect of his comments but it seems he may also be pointing toward a more accurate perspective on what's going on in Iraq than what we're hearing from the administration and the MSM.

    Parent
    robrecht (1.00 / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 09:16:12 AM EST
    "It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States." All the military could do, Powell suggested, was put "a heavier lid on this pot of boiling sectarian stew".

    I like Powell, and am not surprised that he tried to talk Bush out of going to war. My disappointment is that he didn't resign, then. I am also disappointed that Bush didn't demand his resignation, then. I don't see how a President could take a country to war if the SecS was not on board.

    But I do see a flaw in his argument, and it is obvious. I don't think anyone thought we, by ourselves, could stop a civil war. I thought the strategy was to get a civil government going, and then support it with military help. The issue has been how much military help, and how much  interference we will tolerate from Iran, Syria, etc. I would have shut that down three years ao.

    Parent

    Well, duh! (none / 0) (#95)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 06:12:35 PM EST
    I don't see how a President could take a country to war if the SecS was not on board.
    Well, duh! Nor was the UN, nor was the IAEA, nor was the rest of the world!

    I don't think anyone thought we, by ourselves, could stop a civil war.
    Ahh, the famous 'bush excuse.'
    No one could have anticipated civil war, no one could have anticipated Bin Laden attacking in the US (even tho the briefing bush ignored said 'BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK IN THE US'), no one could have anticipated he would use PLANES AS WEAPONS, even tho the security reports prior to the G8 meeting before 9/11 caused their security to anticipate that exact scenario.

    No one could anticipate Katrina ... even tho that was the EXACT scenario that was predicted by NOAA and the ACE.

    NO ONE in BUSHCO COULD POSSIBLY CONCEIVE IRAQ WOULD DESCEND INTO CIVIL WAR, except all the advisors that bush et al refused to listen to.


    Parent

    Sailor (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 07:20:06 PM EST
    The statement was made in the context that Powell should have resigned, or been forced to resign, if he could not support the war.

    Parent
    To make a hyperlink (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:58:43 AM EST
    Type a word e.g. Talkleft

    Highlight the word, click the link button (the little chain thingy above the comment box) and type or paste in the url and click OK. Use preview to make sure it works.

    You'll end up with Talkleft

    Parent

    Jihadists aren't Marxists (none / 0) (#18)
    by jarober on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 12:05:19 PM EST
    Edger says:

    "Exactly. The acted based on the preachings of jihad* out of a sense of solidarity and support for the poor and and disenfranchised within their own culture, rather than out of a self-interest that would have given them the illusion of a happy and peaceful life if only they had been able to separate themselves psychologically from their culture, go into denial, and adopt an "I got mine - to hell with everyone else" ideology."

    Whatever else the Jihadists are, they aren't marxists.  They don't give a fig for the poor and downtrodden; so long as they (the well educated elite) are on top, and they can use their totalitarian ideology to keep everyone else in line, then they're happy.

    There are other ideologies in the world beyond capitalism and marxism, Edger - you would do well to understand that.  

    They dont give a fig for the poor (none / 0) (#20)
    by jondee on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 12:24:19 PM EST
    or the downtrodden, so unlike those that carry water for Bush. lol

    I guess "the haves" of "the haves and have mores" must've been a reference to the poor and downtrodden. I missed that the first time.

    Parent

    Thats right (none / 0) (#23)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 12:42:06 PM EST
    Bush would give a fig for the poor if he would have thought to go to a Hedge fund to study poverty.

    Parent
    Yes, for Jim that's subtle.. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:00:58 PM EST
    In other words, if you need money to talk about or study poverty, somehow that makes you a hypocrite.

    Subtext: No one gives a flying rats as* about the suffering of others -- Rethug projection 101 -- unless they can exploit it for "funding". This from the defenders of Christianity. Somehow, I think your glorious, and endlessly exploitable, Savior (Thank Ya, Jeeeez-us!), would say "Go away from me, I never knew you."

    Parent

    jondee (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 02:01:10 PM EST
    I never pay attention to anyone who wants to tell me what Jesus would say to any given question. We have ample information that we can draw our own conclusions.

    Link

    Parent

    You seem (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:27:21 PM EST
    to have thrown your lot in with the side that cant go five minutes without telling us what Jesus would say or do, ppj. Suddenly that tack bothers you.

    Awaiting your link that proves Bush is any improvement over Robertson's description of the Imams vis a vis the poor.

    Parent

    I jus' (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:35:45 PM EST
    know mah he-ro Ole Dubya's gonna do somthin' about that predatory lendin' and 42% foreclosure increase, aint he, Jim?

    Give us a link.

    Parent

    jondee (1.00 / 1) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 06:50:07 PM EST
    Uh, I am an Independent Social Liberal who has never told anyone what Jesus would say.

    Do you get some type of self-gratification from these weird claims??

    Thankfully your second demand is easy to do. Does your elderly friends have Medicare RX???

    Parent

    Fuuny, I thought (none / 0) (#117)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:12:50 PM EST
    you were a Co-Dependent, hired, right wing, shill and Anti-Social Conservative.

    How could I have been so wrong?

    Parent

    Wile (1.00 / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 10:12:46 AM EST
    That's a good'un..

    But probably too subtle for 99% of the audience..??

    Parent

    I do not feel alone (none / 0) (#51)
    by Peaches on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 10:31:58 AM EST
    as part of the 99%.

    Parent
    Don't give a fig for the poor? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 12:30:40 PM EST
    Projecting again this morning, jarober?

    Well... you are good at it. You've had lots of practice.

    Parent

    Radical "religion"... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Slado on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 01:26:56 PM EST
    Poeple turn to religoin for several reasons, personal loss, need of community, needing to feel that there is something more to life then their life etc...   In our country there is a culture war between the secularists and the religious and namely devout.   There always has been and there always will be.   For the most party the US has been able to deal with this because we permit and respect all religiouns, we maintain basic religious and christian tenants in our culture and way of life and both sides use the courts, government and society to play out this "war" peacefully.  

    For Jihadists and this new fringe of Muslim society they have no interest in respecting the other side and namely the West.   They live amoung us but they loathe us.   These former moderates and sometime even secularists are dissatisfied with the way our culture them and feel disgust for our values and way of life.    They turn to the more radical form of Islam because it tells them everything they want to hear and allows them to take out their frustrations on an unnamed enemy that they have convinced themselves is at war with their ideal way of life.

    How could a doctor who's sworn to protect the lives of anyone they can help then strap a bomb to his chest or detonate a car bomb?   Only religous fervor or some other extreme form of dogma can turn someone so radically against society.

    I worry that we are too afraid to discuss what the real problem is.   Until Islam and the 98% of moderate Muslims start to clean house and disenfranchise these radicals nothing is going to stop them.   They can't stand Western society and will never listen to us.   All the love, understanding in the world isn't going to convince these radicals that thier cuase is meaningless and unacheivable.   Only their fellow Muslims can convince them that they have taken the wrong path.  

    Replace (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 01:54:59 PM EST
    the words "Jihadists", "Muslim", "Islam", "Western", and "Muslims" in your comment with the words "Crusaders", "Christian", "Chritianity", "Islamic", and "Christians".

    And read it again.

    Parent

    Crusades? (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jarober on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 04:18:50 PM EST
    Edger,

    The last active Crusade ended 515 years ago, when the Spanish retook Iberia.  The Christian wars of religion ended in 1648, with the peace of Westphalia.  Since 1648, Western wars have had to do with Empire, power, and secular ideology.  The Islamic world hasn't had any such secular turn.  In fact, reading Bernard Lewis, it looks like any "reformation" they've had has gone the other way - the West swung to secularism, and the Islamic world stayed religious.

    You can spout nonsense about the dangers of Christians all day, but the dangerous nutters in Christianity are few, and they are roundly condemned by the rest of Christianity (and Jews and Hindus have the same dynamic).  Islam?  It's a very different story.  In the Islamic world, the moderates keep their heads down and their mouths shut, just as most citizens of the USSR and Nazi Germany did.  Did you see any Muslims in Britain marching to denounce the Doctor plot?  Compare and contrast that to the Muslim reaction in Britain to the "Mohammad cartoons".  

    Parent

    wrong as always (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Sailor on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:12:03 PM EST
    The last active Crusade ended 515 years ago
    The last active crusade is currently going on according to bush and general boykin.

    Parent
    sailor (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 09:32:29 AM EST
    The problem is in a capital.

    "crusade" vs "Crusdae."

    It is not difficult to understand the Left's attachment to the statements in question. Anything that can be used to attack Bush and the war will be used. The radical Moslems also do the same, and some Moslems who may not be radicals, but are not reform-minded will use such issues as this to preach maintaining the status quo.

    Parent

    If you want to conduct (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:53:29 PM EST
    rational, far-sighted, CREDIBLE, foreign policy, dont give high profile positions of responsibility to nutcases.

    What part of that is too tough for you, Jim?

    Parent

    roundly condemned by the rest of Christianity? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:15:43 PM EST
    I don't know if you call yourself christian, but I've never seen you roundly or in any other way condemn George W. Bush or any other dangerous christian nutters.

    Parent
    And I very much doubt that (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:20:28 PM EST
    I or anyone else will ever see you condemn yourself or any christian or other kind of nutters.

    You may surprise me one day, but I don't have much faith in you.

    Parent

    Dangerous? (1.00 / 0) (#45)
    by jarober on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 09:37:48 AM EST
    Edger,

    I'm notionally Christian at best - I'm no evangelical, and I rarely attend church.  To Sailor, I don't see any priests with the US military in Iraq trying to convert, so calling it a "crusade" in the 13th century sense is just stupid.  Try reading the history of the era and of the wars of religion - if you want a view you won't see normally, read "The Crusades through Arab Eyes", which mainly draws from Arab chroniclers of the era.

    Try again - the Christian Crusades ended 515 years ago. The wars of religion in the West ended in 1648.  Islam is the only major world religion that is actively trying to spread itself through violence.

    Parent

    When all else fails (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 09:52:42 AM EST
    simple repetition and denial works wonders, right James.

    And above all else never remove your blinders.

    Parent

    Slado (1.00 / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 09:50:16 AM EST
    The fact that a person is a doctor is actually rather meaningless. Che was a doctor, and then we have the ones in Germany during WWII, and I'll throw in a few of our own who gave blacks syphilis so they  could study the disease, etc...

    The important part is how the person views the oath in he context of religion and morals.

    Here is the Islamic oath of a physican.

    It is obvious that the Doctor Terrorists in Great Britian didn't pay any attention to it.

    Parent

    Wrong as always (none / 0) (#35)
    by Sailor on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:00:40 PM EST
    In our country there is a culture war between the secularists and the religious and namely devout.
    Not really. Our country was founded on freedom of and from religion. The 'culture war' is an invention of religious extremists to divide the country.

    Since your original premise is wrong the rest of your arguments can be dismissed.

    Tho I would like to mention your latter argument is also specious. I don't see mainstream christians being 'compelled' to disavow the radical rantings of anal roberts and falwell and robertson.

    Parent

    What a ridiculous remark... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:36:10 PM EST
    The culture war is between traditional values...largely religious...and counter culture values...largely non religous...but not exclusively so.

    There are extreme's in both diretions but my point is that the debate over who's right is conducted peacefully in this country and that to believe that it can be done so with radical muslims is naive at best.

    From the comments on this thread it is obvious that the leftward liberals of this country don't even understand radical Islam or choose not to so the American people will never trust them to deal with them.

    Parent

    those are all just repetitions ... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:54:28 PM EST
    ... of religous extremists' talking points, and serve as a perfect example of my point.

    Parent
    Sailor (none / 0) (#107)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 07:28:25 PM EST
    When you presume to assume why someone says something you make youself out to be silly.

    I am no more a religious zelot then Jeralyn is.

    If you don't want to argue then don't post a response.  

    Parent

    didn't say you were a zealot ... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Sailor on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:44:45 PM EST
    ... you just repeat their talking points.

    Parent
    Bogus, warmed-over (none / 0) (#90)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:15:53 PM EST
    distinction that never survives close scrutiny. Many of the "counter cultural values" are just as traditional as the so called traditional values.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#76)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:41:39 PM EST
    Our country was founded on freedom of and from religion.
    I hadn't heard that.

    Parent
    You can't have one without the other (none / 0) (#87)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:59:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Really? Freedom of (none / 0) (#93)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:45:10 PM EST
    and from religion is something our country was founded on?

    We have many freedoms in this country, are we also then accorded freedom from them - by which I assume you mean freedom from the practice of these freedoms - as well?

    Boy, I'd really love to see this one fleshed out a little more...

    Parent

    CUJUS IMPERIO, EJUS RELIGIO (none / 0) (#96)
    by Sumner on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 06:15:57 PM EST
     (L.) - Whose the Empire, his the religion; the Sovereign determines the religion of his dominion.

     Religo, (L.) - to tie up; to bind.

    The courts used to pretend to have a special cognizance with which to examine parties to a case where the party declared that they were following the obligations their religion.

    In that sense, "to tie up; to bind" might suggest that a person chooses death or imprisonment over abjuring one's religion, and instead, must become a martyr.

    The courts used to respect that and defer to such commitment to religion. Anymore the courts seem to subscribe to determining their own approved orthodoxies as in the first sense, ie. that the courts now  determine the orthodoxies one's religion.

    Parent

    It's all latin to me Sumner. (none / 0) (#99)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 06:30:30 PM EST
    I have no idea how what you write could be a response to my question:

    "We have many freedoms in this country, are we also then accorded freedom from them - by which I assume you mean freedom from the practice of these freedoms - as well?"

    Parent

    it's heady stuff (1.00 / 0) (#103)
    by Sumner on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 07:09:23 PM EST
    Justice Thomas once used a line, "go along to get along", although I forgot the context.

    Freedom from Mormon magic underwear? Or Blue Laws? Or Louisiana Judicial Jesus iconography? Bright lines, anyone?

    In one example of people having to follow their religion, the courts struggled with Native American Indian use of Peyote.

    The courts early on tried to lay down bright lines and cleave the baby.

    Similar arguments can be made for use of cannabis or court's attempt to hit a trifecta, as with "Bong Hits 4 Jesus".

    The court seems to believe that religion should be content to merely "obey". In the case of marijuana used as medicine, the court seems to believe that people should be content to obey and die, rather than to defy the court's orthodoxies.

    My area of expertise is in the sex, porn and nudity realm, where I have gathered much information that laws are passed by fraud.

     cf. the war in Iraq, the war on drugs, yada, yada, yada.

    If you have got to make a stand, no matter what the consequences, you might arguably call that religion.

    Parent

    iow (none / 0) (#106)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 07:23:15 PM EST
    If one thinks that freedom of religion also means that one should expect, if they so chose, to be afforded a life in which they would not be exposed to nor affected in any way by religion (freedom from religion), well, one had better think again...

    Parent
    deliberately didn't say that (none / 0) (#111)
    by Sailor on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:21:54 PM EST
    If one thinks that freedom of religion also means that one should expect, if they so chose, to be afforded a life in which they would not be exposed to nor affected in any way by religion
    I don't want to be put in jail, but I don't object to their existence, nor expect not to see them.

    More here, and here.

    Parent

    So, don't keep us in the dark, (none / 0) (#112)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:30:36 PM EST
    what did you deliberately say, or mean, when you wrote "freedom from religion?"

    While the phrase seems like simple english to me, perhaps you could expaian your meaning better?

    Parent

    I gave an example and ... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Sailor on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:46:11 PM EST
    ... linked to 2 articles.

    Parent
    Speak for yourself, (none / 0) (#116)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:53:59 PM EST
    just say what you mean. What did you deliberately say, or mean, when you wrote "freedom from religion?"

    I'm not having a convo with someone elses's articles, I'm having a convo with you.

    I think...

    Parent

    I did say exactly what I meant (none / 0) (#118)
    by Sailor on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 06:43:24 PM EST
    and I linked to 2 other articles of folks who are more articulate, (and have more patience), than me.

    And we've gotten so far off topic it would be an insult to TL to respond in this thread.

    The topic is Clinton, not our differences.

    Parent

    Freedom from religion (none / 0) (#88)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:08:01 PM EST
    in the sense of freedom from the impsition of relgion.

    Parent
    imposition (none / 0) (#89)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:11:50 PM EST
    as in, imposition of the xenophobic, racist, hyper-nationalistic, version of "traditional Christian values".

    Parent
    Jondee (1.00 / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 07:50:18 PM EST
    Have you ever been made to go to church??

    Say a prayer?

    Read the bible??

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#109)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:26:28 PM EST
    Next question.

    Parent
    The trouble with (none / 0) (#110)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:41:10 PM EST
    (eastern derived) so called "Western Religion" is the tendency of these Way, The Truth and The Light Christian soldiers to get militant and organize themselves into a petitioning, lobbying, force -- for our own good -- that is perpetually attempting to batter down the theoretical wall seperating Church and State; for our own good, and we know how stalwart our elected officials are when it comes to resisting powerful lobbies and standing on their principals.

    Parent
    One Muslem who agrees with you (none / 0) (#113)
    by Peaches on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:35:08 PM EST
    is a representative in congress.

    Kieth Ellison said,

    You'll always find this Muslim standing up for your right to be atheists,"

    Before an Atheist group he spoke before last week.

    There's one true American in Congress, at least.

    Parent

    Said better then me... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Slado on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 01:33:21 PM EST
    NY Post

    You're already (none / 0) (#30)
    by jondee on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 03:20:38 PM EST
    in trouble when The Post can say it better than you.

    Parent
    Comment? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:36:56 PM EST
    Or just snide remarks?

    Did you bother to read the link?

    Parent

    Bill Clinton Suggests His New Title: "First Laddy" | 118 comments (118 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment