An interesting take on Islam.

[Eidolon Faer]

*shrug*

This thread isn't about you, Relbeek, and I've grown tired of attempting to refute your efforts to MAKE it about you.

Another rather interesting parallel between Liberalism and fanatical Islam:

Trent Lott was hounded into resignation by outraged liberals for making polite, nicey-nicey mouth noises about Strom Thurmond at what amounted to the old man's retirement party (it was his 100th b-day, but he'd announced his retirement.)

It's a striking parallel to the story about Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi in the Frum article, don't you think? "...and yet he recoils as if from a libel the suggestion that he might have even been ordinarily civil to a visiting rabbi."

Obviously the political cartoons I pasted up above are acceptable to the Left because they attack "the apostate." Apparently, people with high melanin content of their skin are automatically assumed to be Liberals by dint of genetic inheritance. Any deviation from this pre-ordained genetic destiny is clearly a mark of brainwashing or demonic possession (and not independent thought) and must be punished by whatever means necessary...even calling them "Aunt Jemima" or "Uncle Tom."

[Ddrak]

You're not seriously judging 50% of the US population on the basis of a few political cartoons, especially given (I assume) the common knowledge that political cartoons deliberately go over the top to carry their meaning?

Dd

[Eidolon Faer]

None of the three cartoonists were fired, and John "Sly" Sylvester is still working for the same liberal radio station.

Trent Lott resigned.

Draw your own conclusions, Ddrak.

[Eidolon Faer]

Oh...and did you read John Sylvester's 'apology' for the comment? It was considerably more-interesting than Trent Lott's.

In paraphrase he said "I'll apologize to Aunt Jemima, but not to Dr. Rice."

[Partha]

Strictly speaking, the Old and New Testaments have nothing to do with one another.

Strictly speaking? Strictly speaking, your statement would be cnsidered "talking out of your ass" since the Old and New Testaments are tied in together all over the place.

I see you managed to go a whole week without trying a potshot at me. Are you now going to run and hide behind 'don't talk to me anymore'?

Mark 12:28-34.

[Ddrak]

None of the three cartoonists were fired, and John "Sly" Sylvester is still working for the same liberal radio station.

Trent Lott resigned.

When did Trent Lott become an editorial cartoonist, or is that just an indication of what you expect of GOP senators?

Dd

[Eidolon Faer]

No, it's about the standards of public conduct I'd expect of anyone. If we're to consider racial epithets and race baiting to be unforgivable crimes, I submit that both liberal and conservative citizens need to comport themselves with dignity. Trent Lott's comment has a generous, dignified interpretation if you choose to accept it. I can find none in the other examples I've cited.

More to the point, I find the Democrats' systematic abuse of Bush judicial appointees who also happen to belong to racial minorities to be quite enlightening on the topic of apostasy. What about your standards of conduce for Democrat Senators, Ddrak?

[Ddrak]

Trent Lott held a public office. I find no evidence that the cartoonists held public office, so it appears you are somehow trying to limit the freedom of the press (to make an admitted ass of themselves, but freedom nonetheless). Seriously, I don't see you calling for Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter's summary dismissal when they compared Kerry to an Islamic Terrorist (among other things) so frankly the hypocrisy is really all on your end of the stick.

Editorial cartoonists are frequently over the edge. It's where they are paid to go. People only read the cartoons if they get stirred up by them. Rall is just out there - if anything I'd say he's baiting people and from your reaction, reeling them in.

Pulling the race card on the judicial nominees is retarded. I don't recall any democrat saying that they shouldn't get in because of their race. That was all right wing slander and libel, or perhaps you can run me a quote from a Democratic senator where they defend some sort of explicit racist policy?

My standards of conduct for senators is equal. Apparently your standard for judging them isn't - you claim that Lott had a viable "noble" interpretation and yet claim the Dems are racist. Sir, your hypocrisy is showing.

Dd

[Partha]

Sir, your hypocrisy is showing.

In other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

[Eidolon Faer]

Provide sourcing to those claims regarding Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh calling John Kerry an Islamic Terrorist and I'd be delighted to condemn them soundly. For one thing, Kerry's a Roman Catholic.

I tend to doubt you're accurately characterizing their statements, though.

And yes, Trent Lott can be interpreted as having made a poorly-chosen-but-meaningless "attaboy" statement when speaking at the retirement party of a 100-year-old doddering geezer. I find it fascinating to realize that standing on the soapbox and screaming "die you old racist fuckbag!" would be a more-acceptable mode of public conduct to some members of the Left when at an old man's last birthday party. Especially in light of the fact that Senator Byrd holds elected office.

Being polite to someone, whether you agree with them 100% or not, IS a good thing.

[Ddrak]

I said compared Kerry to an Islamic Terrorist, not called him one. Coulter clearly makes her opinion known in this piece:

In a Nov. 9, 2003, news article, The New York Times raised the prospect that "democracy in the Middle East might empower the very forces that the United States opposes, like Islamic fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and Egypt."

Democracy in the U.S. might have put John Kerry in the White House, too, but you'll notice we didn't abandon the idea.

Not sure what you can call that except saying electing Kerry would be just as bad as electing an Islamic Terrorist (one of the forces the US opposes). Rush says many similar things about Clinton, Kerry and others - just listen to him for, oh, 30 minutes or so.

Now, I don't condemn her for making an ass of herself. That's her job, as it's Rush's job to stir the pot. It's how you get ratings and listeners. Editorial cartoonists are no different and instead of condemning them and calling for resignations, I prefer the libertarian approach of simply not listening or reading that sort of crap. Calling for censorship is far too leftist for me.

Lott endorsed publicly the idea that Thurmond would have been a good President had he won. Thurmond ran on a Dixiecrat platform which was absolutely racist. Lott knew that as he'd been spanked for doing exactly the same thing once before. If you're in public office, you don't make statements endorsing racist platforms if you want to keep said office, even if it is an "attaboy", it's certainly not meaningless.

Not sure where you decided the only alternative was to scream "die you old racist fuckbag" was though. Surely the false dichotomy you're presenting there is clear enough that a toddler could see through it. Have some self respect for pity's sake.

Being polite is a good thing, but some people are paid to be impolite and if you seriously think Rush is polite to liberals then your sense of reality is warped beyond comprehension. Public office is a completely different set of rules for appearances than unelected paid political hack.

Dd

[Eidolon Faer]

Actually, she's calling Kerry a "force that the United States opposes" not an Islamic Fundamentalist. And from a conservative point of view, she's correct.

In that quote she's noting an objection to Democracy in the Middle East, presumably from the left, and countering it with the notion that we don't see libs demanding we abandon Democracy in the United States because they're losing at the polls.

Saying two thing are undesirable does not equate to saying two things are identical. Please drive through.

I'll take your chaff about Rush Limbaugh as ignorable, since I listen to him a fair bit more often than you do, and I've never heard him mention Kerry being Islamic.

But please, continue to rave, I'm still gathering data.

[Ddrak]

Umm, Eidolon,

Perhaps you need reading lessons but I specifically stated in the last post that I never alleged that Kerry was called an Islamic Fundamentalist. I stated he was *compared* to one - which is exactly what Coulter did. The Rush comment as it stood is definitely chaff as I presented it but I'm sure I wouldn't have any problems finding a quote where he compares liberals to any one of a number of America's enemies.

Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter's ... compared Kerry to an Islamic Terrorist

Provide sourcing to those claims regarding Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh calling John Kerry an Islamic Terrorist

I said compared Kerry to an Islamic Terrorist, not called him one.

Actually, she's calling Kerry a "force that the United States opposes" not an Islamic Fundamentalist

Why do you bother making a fool of yourself in such a way? You clearly don't read what I write because you argue different points to the ones I make - in other words you present the classic strawman.

So, rather than me being the one "raving", it appears you are the one following all indications of fitting that description. After all, what else could you call someone who invents positions and then replies to them all by himself? Sounds like the quintissential definition of a raving loon.

Cheers, and I look forward to your next installment of "invent a statement to argue against".

Dd

[Eidolon Faer]

If that's your stipulation then, I'm willing to accede that Ann Coulter has a point. I happen to agree with her that John Kerry having been elected would have been disastrous to America. At least as much so as a democratically elected leader in Iraq who was overtly hostile to the United States would be.

Of course, this is opinion and enlightened people may disagree with her.

I still have not seen which specific comparisons of Rush Limbaugh's you might be referring to, but I'm willing to table that argument for the moment.

Instead, when you say "Ann Coulter ... compared Kerry to an Islamic Terrorist (among other things)" in response to my observation that the Democrats have race hangups themselves, albeit of a more self-delusional nature, I reached the obvious conclusion as to the nature of your vague and then-unsourced allegations.

The Ann Coulter quote is quite simply irrelevant to the discussion of racial hangups within either political party and is instead a wad of chaff aimed at deflecting the topic on to the more-comfortable ground of generic partisan bickering, where the typical moral equivalency argument can safely be raised.

Again, I ask you. How is it that Trent Lott has to resign for saying nice things about a racist at said racist's 100th birthday party, but Robert Byrd gets a pass for BEING A FRICKING MEMBER OF THE KKK.

I ask you, how is it that the Left, sanctimonious paragons of racial equity and social justice, can tolerate their political pundits spewing abhorrent nonsense, such as in the multiple cartoonists and the talk show host I linked above. If they're really about racial sensitivity, such blatant, ugly racism coming from one of their own should nauseate and outrage them. I have seen no signs of this.

And finally, if the Left is all about making up for past discrimination, affirmative action, quotas, setasides, etc...why have they consistently filibustered minority judges nominated by Bush, despite the American Bar Association giving them high ratings for their judicial qualifications? According to the precepts of Affirmative Action, they should have been tripping over themselves to appoint a qualified black or hispanic candidate with all speed.

These little inconsistencies between what liberals say and what liberals do have been building up for a while, and like anyone trained in the Scientific Method, I'm looking for patterns.

If you prefer, I could start drawing parallels between Islamic or Liberal behavior and that of the aliens from the movie Mars Attacks...but somehow I suspect the hypothesis will fail the Slim Whitman test.

[Eidolon Faer]

Oh, and Ddrak, my characterization of the Ann Coulter exchange goes something like this:

We're talking about racial bias and Liberal hypocrisy regarding same.

You toss out some vague "Ann Coulter said blah blah"

From the context I infer that this is some lame attempt at refuting one of my points. I ask you to source it.

You do so.

I examine the citation you provide and conclude that it's not, in fact, relevant to any of the points I was trying to make. I carefully explain what the quote says and note that it's irrelevant.

You crow about my having reversed myself because I now agree with you that the quote is irrelevant.

*takes out his clipboard*

[Ddrak]

Starting with the 2nd post, then working to the first:

I wasn't "crowing about you reversing yourself" at all. Like I said, you really have to pay attention to those words I write rather than the words you want me to write - which is the exact thing I was "crowing" about (if you want to call it that). I used quotes to ensure you noticed the fact you were misrepresenting my statements and now you are simply doing the same thing all over again.

In fact, I took the cue from you when you clearly defined the argument as "it's about the standards of public conduct". Now you want to narrow the argument to racial issues because we find media all over the place dropping to the same gutter standards as the editorial cartoonists you were parading around. Sorry Eid, but shifting the goalposts is also a bad arguing style, and a sure sign of retreat.

Continuing on with the argument that is not solely about race hangups (a cute fiction you attempted to use as an excuse to ignore everything I posted), but with the behavior of public figures - which you defined the argument as.

The fact is Coulter was clearly insinuating that Kerry would be as bad for American as a Islamic Terrorist would be for Iraq. And now apparently, that is acceptable for your standards of conduct because it's merely an opinion. Well, Eidolon, aren't political cartoons "opinions"? Aren't radio DJ's expressing "opinions"? Surely the right's response should be to allow free markets to do their thing and respond accordingly, but instead you seem to be calling for some sort of omnipotent censorship! How socialist of you.

I don't know why Byrd is getting a "free pass" and frankly I don't care. It's not like I even like the Democrats. The question YOU were asking was why Lott had to resign but editorial cartoonists didn't - which is entirely different because there is no "moral equivalency" as much as you'd like to believe there is. Can't say I've heard of Byrd saying or supporting any overtly racist actions since he became senator though - has he (I'd be interested to know)?

I'm impressed by your belief that the left is some cohesive mass though that "tolerates" things in bulk. The fact is the "left" is a vastly disorganized mess. Trying to proscribe actions to "the left" as a whole is simply delusional - which pretty accurately describes your entire posting on this topic so far. There is no vast leftist conspiracy - sorry, just doesn't exist. Frankly though, I do see moral equivalency between those racist cartoons you posted and the right wing pundits who are prescribing racial motives to the Democrats for voting down judges or being opposed to Rice's nomination. That is most definitely racism on the part of the "right" and I've yet to see the mainstream pulling down Coulter or Limbaugh for those racist comments.

If the left doesn't like the actions of a judge and she happens to be black, the right wing loons calling them "racist" is simply a reflection of their own racism - until the Democrats actually step up and say "we don't like nigger judges". Affirmative Action doesn't override that, and your pretense of logic is just more delusion. Grow up.

To make it kindergarten clear for you, the following is racism on the part of person "R".

L: I don't want that person in office.
R: They're black! OMG, you're a nigger-hater!

Eid, you're not looking for patterns. You're looking for patterns that match a predetermined conclusion. That is definitely NOT scientific method and has resulted in several hack-scientists being laughed out of academies.

Enjoy your delusions and I can't wait to see what you think you read from this post.

Dd

[jookkor]

I dont know about you but i consider genesis to be a pretty fucking important part of the bable, and as for the new testament, read up on the cult of mithras. (I am being nice by ONLY mentioning this particular co-option)

[Eidolon Faer]

Ddrak--

First of all, I'm not attempting to attribute specific motives to the left as a whole, merely to identify specific memes and patterns within the behavior of the Left as a population.

For example, Sen. Byrd was a sheet-wearing member of the KKK, Trent Lott was not. Neither of the two have drafted any particularly-racist policies that I am aware of, and yet there was very vocal and visceral outrage (legitimate or feigned) coming from the Left in Lott's case, where none exists regarding Sen. Byrd.

To take up the example of the judicial appointees (or Dr. Rice, for that matter) and your "kindergarten clear" postulates, there is a certain issue of sanity. As of November 2004, Bush was reelected President, wishful-thinking aside. Bush is a conservative and will therefore appoint conservative people to office because they agree with his policies and he can work with them. This is the natural course of events.

Objecting to Dr. Rice or to the array of minority judges nominated by Bush is therefore a case of tilting at windmills or stubborn, unrealistic obstructionism. No matter how long you filibuster, Bush is not going to appoint liberal Secretaries of State or judicial nominees. The best you can hope for are qualified, competent conservative nominees.

Clearly Dr. Rice is an extremely competent person, as are the judicial nominees (at least if the legal professional organizations are to be believed).

Since the objections are therefore not based on the qualifications of the individual appointees, and since objections based on political idealogy are silly, not only for the reasons indicated but because part of the qualification to be a judge is the ability to weigh a case impartially, on its' own merits. And frankly I trust the Bar Association more than I trust you to evaluate that criterion.

Therefore, it is quite apparent that the attacks and harrassment of Dr. Rice and the judicial nominees are not based upon legitimate selection criteria. Obviously there are a host of possible illegitimate ones, but the only one I have found clear evidence to support (at least in the case of Dr. Rice) is racism. Or, rather, a sort of outrage at the apostate for a black woman who denies her destiny as a liberal and turns to the infidel conservative creed.

This is nothing new. Quite a number of Conservative blacks have commented upon the vitriol they face from the Left. Calling Colin Powell an "Uncle Tom" and Condi Rice a "house nigga" are only two particularly virulent examples. Unless one rises to prominence, the Left can usually simply pretend they don't exist and continue with their tidy system of racial stereotyping.

[Partha]

Clearly Dr. Rice is an extremely competent person

Define competent. I don't consider a Soviet expert to be the ideal candidate for dealing with the post-Soviet world of terror groups. Heck, if Bush did, he'd have kept more members of the CIA hierarchy. Indeed, define competent as a result of actions taken by Rice, both as NSA and now - specific examples would be wonderful of how she did her job with any kind of competency, given the events of the last 4+ years.

[Ddrak]

Eid,

Like I said - taking the "Left as a population" is erroneous, especially when you attribute the behavior of individuals to the entire arbitrary selected group. It's no more valid than me finding a few of the more "offensive" cartoons from Cox and Forkum, or selecting some of the more "colorful" quotes from Coulter or Limbaugh and assigning them to everyone from a "red state".

Lott created a strong reaction because he endorsed a racist policy while he not only was in office, but was the leader of the GOP in the senate. Can you point out where Byrd endorsed racist policy since he's been in office - because that's where your burden of proof is to create the moral equivalency you are so desperate for.

Your assumptions on judges present a false dichotomy. Judges are not either "conservative" or "liberal" - their political positions are an entire scale that cannot easily be divided into two neat categories. Aside from the fact that Bush is most definitely *not* a conservative, the assumption that he will tend towards right leaning judges is perfectly valid. However, some judges will lean more right than others and the Democrats are perfectly within their rights to pick and choose based on the individual judges political values which they support and which they don't.

So, the best they can hope for is not "conservative nominees" but "centrist nominees".

Criticism of Dr. Rice from a political point of view were perfectly valid - in Bush's first term she was a longstanding ally of Bush's policy, almost to the point of just being a rubber-stamp check. Dismissing them because *you* feel Rice is "clearly competent" is assinine.

So, what we end up with is a bunch of right wing loons who are ignoring the perfectly valid political reasons for Democrats to object to Presidential nominees and jumping straight to the fact that some (note "some", not all) of the nominees are black. This is clear racism on the part of those nutjobs and an obvious false argument because the bulk of the judicial nominees in question are, in fact, white.

Alleging motives to the left as a whole (or the right from the other side) is nothing new. It's a matter of political idiocy where you take a predetermined conclusion and cherrypick isolated issues to support your case. The simple fact on this "race" issue is it's not the "left" that is being racist - it's their critics that are somehow making a race issue from their own bigotry and projecting it.

Sorry Eid - your entire argument is a delusion based on a false dichotomy. There are valid political reasons for the Dems to filibuster and doesn't require your immediate racist jump to "OMG she's black" to explain anything. Perhaps you should keep those racist tendancies in check in future?

Dd