The Regressive Left and Islam -- What is happening here?

[Mac1958]

you people hate having a mirror shoved in your face.

I LOVE a mirror being shoved in my face.

But then again, I have that geriatric savoir faire' sort of thing goin on.

Well, you need to work on becoming a Regressive Leftie!
.

 

[Norman]

Was Hitler wrong to simply condemn Jewry as a whole?

Jews were blowing up people all over the world in order to satisfy a concept in the Talmud that ordered them to spread Judaism until there was nothing else?

Goodness, I never knew!!

So you don't dispute your Islamophobia being analogous to anti-Semitism?

I often have times accepting that people are really as stupid as they appear, but there is nothing remotely similar between antisemitism and rejection of Islam.

A person would have to be nearly retarded to think there was any similarity. I mentioned the most glaring difference, but there are many more.

You seem somewhat confused. Your behavior is not a "rejection of Islam" - it's a rejection of "Muslims" using the same rhetoric and canards that the anti-semites use.


ANTI-SEMITIC and ISLAMOPHOBIC PROPAGANDA

Anti-Semitic propaganda maintained that:

—all Jews were responsible for the act of any Jew
— Judaism was not a religion
— there was an International Jewish conspiracy to influence and then control governments, media, the economy, etc. **
— the Jews hated all non-Jews and they wanted to destroy the Gentiles and dominate the world
— due to inbreeding, Jews had more negative characteristics and passed on these negative characteristics to the next generation. **
— a war against Judaism was a war against the devil **
— by distortions of the Torah and Talmud they claimed that Judaism teaches hatred **
— “The goal of the Jew is to make himself the ruler of humanity. Wherever he comes, he destroys works of culture. He is not a creative spirit, rather a destructive spirit
— “Nearly all major inventions were made by Aryans.” The Jews had no real creativity
— a good Jew could not be a good German
— “Jewish law enjoins or permits Jews to murder non-Jews whenever feasible” **
— “Jews are permitted to lie without moral or religious compunction” **
— “Judaism condones the sexual molestation of young girls
— there was no way to tell the true nature of Jews as they presented a false face. **
— Jews were uniquely violent and untrustworthy compared to all the other peoples of the world. **
— Jews could not serve loyally in the military of Germany, and they were removed. **
— anti-Semitism was a reasonable response to a clear and present danger. ** If Jews raised the issue of anti-Semitism they were doing it for devious reasons.
— there was a “Jewish problem” and that any measures taken against the Jews were reasonable and defensive. **
— Jews are a “disease” infecting any nation they inhabit.


Sound familiar? They should. They've been recycled.

Unless I am mistaken, Islam is the religion of muslims. Duh...

No one is saying that all jews are responsible for the actions of a particular individual. That doesn't mean Judaism or any other religion doesn't have group characteristics. A other regressive that completely flunked the statistics class, but presumably, for sure doesn't forget to blame all white men for slavery or whatever the hip evil thing of the day is.

#NotAllMuslims

 

[Coyote]

.



Now, again:
Getting back to holding religions to different standards - again, where have I held Islam to a different standard than any other religion?

They all should obey the same laws, and they all should enjoy the same rights in this country. Is that a difficult concept for you?

I already said.

This Mus..... oops, "Tibetan Buddhist" of yours was working to create closer ties between Fatah and Hamas, because by working together instead of working apart, they would be able to maximize the body count of dead Jews.

Not only does your attitude reveal no standards, but by elevating Musl..... oops, "Tibetan Buddhist" mass murder of Jews to such status that he qualifies for a Nobel Peace Prize (peace when all the Jews are killed), you are actually elevating Islami oops, Tibetan Buddhist barbarity to the highest possible standard.

Now, again:
Getting back to holding religions to different standards - again, where have I held Islam to a different standard than any other religion?

They all should obey the same laws, and they all should enjoy the same rights in this country. Is that a difficult concept for you?

Try to keep up and use your Stanford "acceptance" for something besides an empty brag.

 

[Mac1958]

It has been defined. I have provided myriad examples. You don't like it because you're a part of it, and you people hate having a mirror shoved in your face.

You never do.

I'll trust this guy over you. But thanks for trying.

Do you agree with him that the US is a regressive nation that allies with the most repressive regime in the world and state sponsor of the most radical ideology on the planet. Will you condemn US foreign policy and give up cheap oil to keep in line with your theory about regressivism? You are an honest liberal, no?

First of all, I'm a left-leaning independent. I have absolutely no interest in being associated with either whacked-out end.

You're doing precisely, perfectly, the type of deflection that is the point of the thread, and I do appreciate that. Of course, there have been so many examples already that I didn't really need any more.

If you want to discuss this topic, start a thread and invite me. I'm never at a loss for an opinion. This thread is about the behaviors of the Regressive Left, which were discussed in the OP.
.

 

[Tehon]

It has been defined. I have provided myriad examples. You don't like it because you're a part of it, and you people hate having a mirror shoved in your face.

You never do.

I'll trust this guy over you. But thanks for trying.

Do you agree with him that the US is a regressive nation that allies with the most repressive regime in the world and state sponsor of the most radical ideology on the planet. Will you condemn US foreign policy and give up cheap oil to keep in line with your theory about regressivism? You are an honest liberal, no?

First of all, I'm a left-leaning independent. I have absolutely no interest in being associated with either whacked-out end.

You're doing precisely, perfectly, the type of deflection that is the point of the thread, and I do appreciate that. Of course, there have been so many examples already that I didn't really need any more.

If you want to discuss this topic, start a thread and invite me. I'm never at a loss for an opinion. This thread is about the behaviors of the Regressive Left, which were discussed in the OP.
.

I am on topic. It is perfectly acceptable to see where lines are drawn as it relates to regressivism. Besides you are the one who chided for someone to discuss Mr. Nawaz. Do you or do you not now want to discuss his thoughts on regressive leftism?

 

[Mac1958]

It has been defined. I have provided myriad examples. You don't like it because you're a part of it, and you people hate having a mirror shoved in your face.

You never do.

I'll trust this guy over you. But thanks for trying.

Do you agree with him that the US is a regressive nation that allies with the most repressive regime in the world and state sponsor of the most radical ideology on the planet. Will you condemn US foreign policy and give up cheap oil to keep in line with your theory about regressivism? You are an honest liberal, no?

First of all, I'm a left-leaning independent. I have absolutely no interest in being associated with either whacked-out end.

You're doing precisely, perfectly, the type of deflection that is the point of the thread, and I do appreciate that. Of course, there have been so many examples already that I didn't really need any more.

If you want to discuss this topic, start a thread and invite me. I'm never at a loss for an opinion. This thread is about the behaviors of the Regressive Left, which were discussed in the OP.
.

I am on topic. It is perfectly acceptable to see where lines are drawn as it relates to regressivism. Besides you are the one who chided for someone to discuss Mr. Nawaz. Do you or do you not now want to discuss his thoughts on regressive leftism?

Thread topic, in a nutshell: Why is the Regressive Left more tolerant of Islam than Christianity?

If the term "Regressive" bothers you, we can use this: Why is the American Left more tolerant of Islam than Christianity?

There are liberals who agree with me that this is the case. If you don't agree, then the question should be moot to you.
.

 

[Tehon]

It has been defined. I have provided myriad examples. You don't like it because you're a part of it, and you people hate having a mirror shoved in your face.

You never do.

I'll trust this guy over you. But thanks for trying.

Do you agree with him that the US is a regressive nation that allies with the most repressive regime in the world and state sponsor of the most radical ideology on the planet. Will you condemn US foreign policy and give up cheap oil to keep in line with your theory about regressivism? You are an honest liberal, no?

First of all, I'm a left-leaning independent. I have absolutely no interest in being associated with either whacked-out end.

You're doing precisely, perfectly, the type of deflection that is the point of the thread, and I do appreciate that. Of course, there have been so many examples already that I didn't really need any more.

If you want to discuss this topic, start a thread and invite me. I'm never at a loss for an opinion. This thread is about the behaviors of the Regressive Left, which were discussed in the OP.
.

I am on topic. It is perfectly acceptable to see where lines are drawn as it relates to regressivism. Besides you are the one who chided for someone to discuss Mr. Nawaz. Do you or do you not now want to discuss his thoughts on regressive leftism?

Thread topic, in a nutshell: Why is the Regressive Left more tolerant of Islam than Christianity?

If the term "Regressive" bothers you, we can use this: Why is the American Left more tolerant of Islam than Christianity?

There are liberals who agree with me that this is the case. If you don't agree, then the question should be moot to you.
.

It is not moot to me because you are attempting to do the same thing that you accuse regressive leftists of doing.... silencing debate.

You brought up Mr. Nawaz and promoted his definition of regressive leftist. I am pointing out that his definition condemns all of America as being regressive. How is this out of bounds.

Do you still believe in his definition of regressive leftist?

 

[flacaltenn]

Reason is what informs liberals.

Emotion is what informs conservatives. Specifically fear.

OK -- You just didn't finish the exercise.. .

***************************************

Rationalization in the pursuit of political power is what informs Leftists..
(Trademark that)

 

[Mac1958]

It has been defined. I have provided myriad examples. You don't like it because you're a part of it, and you people hate having a mirror shoved in your face.

You never do.

I'll trust this guy over you. But thanks for trying.

Do you agree with him that the US is a regressive nation that allies with the most repressive regime in the world and state sponsor of the most radical ideology on the planet. Will you condemn US foreign policy and give up cheap oil to keep in line with your theory about regressivism? You are an honest liberal, no?

First of all, I'm a left-leaning independent. I have absolutely no interest in being associated with either whacked-out end.

You're doing precisely, perfectly, the type of deflection that is the point of the thread, and I do appreciate that. Of course, there have been so many examples already that I didn't really need any more.

If you want to discuss this topic, start a thread and invite me. I'm never at a loss for an opinion. This thread is about the behaviors of the Regressive Left, which were discussed in the OP.
.

I am on topic. It is perfectly acceptable to see where lines are drawn as it relates to regressivism. Besides you are the one who chided for someone to discuss Mr. Nawaz. Do you or do you not now want to discuss his thoughts on regressive leftism?

Thread topic, in a nutshell: Why is the Regressive Left more tolerant of Islam than Christianity?

If the term "Regressive" bothers you, we can use this: Why is the American Left more tolerant of Islam than Christianity?

There are liberals who agree with me that this is the case. If you don't agree, then the question should be moot to you.
.

It is not moot to me because you are attempting to do the same thing that you accuse regressive leftists of doing.... silencing debate.

You brought up Mr. Nawaz and promoted his definition of regressive leftist. I am pointing out that his definition condemns all of America as being regressive. How is this out of bounds.

Do you still believe in his definition of regressive leftist?

"Silencing debate"?

Am I threatening your career? Am I stopping you from posting somehow? Have I started a petition to shut you down? Am I shouting you down? Do you any roadblocks in the highway or protest marches? Have you heard from my lawyer? Am I intimidating you from posting? I even invited you to start a freaking thread and I'd contribute. Maybe you missed that.

"Silencing debate". Good gawd.

I brought up Nawaz for one (1) reason and (1) reason only: Because, as one of their standard tactics, the Regressive Lefties here focused more on the term "Regressive" than on the actual thread topic in a transparent and dishonest attempt to deflect from thread. I was accused of not knowing what the term meant, and I was accused of avoiding providing a definition, all because these people are just this side of genetically incapable of just being honest. In other words, I was rubbing their nose in their own dishonesty. I love doing that to liars.

The thread topic is as I described. Deflections notwithstanding. The term "Regressive" is not the point, and I strongly suspect you know that.
.
.

 

[flacaltenn]

I think this will serve as another excellent answer to the question posed in the OP.

How ironic that an honest liberal provides it.

Even tho I dropped an "agree" on you --- it IS POSSIBLE (and extremely easy) to challenge Amer/Brit foreign policy mistakes AND despise those "regressive cultures" that we arrogantly sought (seek) to change "over there". If we don't understand by now that Arab political institutions REQUIRE regressive, theocratic, fascist brutal regimes -- we ought to have our collective heads examined.

 

[Mac1958]

I think this will serve as another excellent answer to the question posed in the OP.

How ironic that an honest liberal provides it.

Even tho I dropped an "agree" on you --- it IS POSSIBLE (and extremely easy) to challenge Amer/Brit foreign policy mistakes AND despise those "regressive cultures" that we arrogantly sought (seek) to change "over there". If we don't understand by now that Arab political institutions REQUIRE regressive, theocratic, fascist brutal regimes -- we ought to have our collective heads examined.

What he is saying is that the Regressive Left does see that, but has prioritized one over the other.
.

 

[Norman]

I think this will serve as another excellent answer to the question posed in the OP.

How ironic that an honest liberal provides it.

Even tho I dropped an "agree" on you --- it IS POSSIBLE (and extremely easy) to challenge Amer/Brit foreign policy mistakes AND despise those "regressive cultures" that we arrogantly sought (seek) to change "over there". If we don't understand by now that Arab political institutions REQUIRE regressive, theocratic, fascist brutal regimes -- we ought to have our collective heads examined.

What he is saying is that the Regressive Left does see that, but has prioritized one over the other.
.

Given that most of these people are just virtue signaling drones... I am doubtful they understand anything.

 

[Mac1958]

I think this will serve as another excellent answer to the question posed in the OP.

How ironic that an honest liberal provides it.

Even tho I dropped an "agree" on you --- it IS POSSIBLE (and extremely easy) to challenge Amer/Brit foreign policy mistakes AND despise those "regressive cultures" that we arrogantly sought (seek) to change "over there". If we don't understand by now that Arab political institutions REQUIRE regressive, theocratic, fascist brutal regimes -- we ought to have our collective heads examined.

What he is saying is that the Regressive Left does see that, but has prioritized one over the other.
.

Given that most of these people are just virtue signaling drones... I am doubtful they understand anything.

As I always say, adherence to hardcore partisan ideology distorts perceptions. Ideologues, even intelligent ideologues, can talk themselves into almost anything, including the denial of the obvious.
.

 

[flacaltenn]

The only truth you have revealed is that simple-minded people reduce the complexity of the world to binary while reducing politics to nothing more than a game of coyboys and indians. .

Yes...isn't that exactly the truth. Reducing the problems of immigration and assimilation and culture into a simple black and white binary who's only purpose is to lend support to bigotry.

Ah, yes, "Bigotry". I'm waiting for "Racism" and "Islamophobia" so you can hit the trifecta.

Don't you have some peace prize awards to give out, though? I mean, since you say that there should be nothing to prevent those who mass murder Jews from receiving one and all.

Of course, since it is only Jews, that wouldn't be considered "bigotry", now, would it?

Don't you have some dogs to go electrocute, you want to emulate your hero after all don't you?

Ignorance and fear feed bigotry and there is certainly a lot of ignorance on display. How funny that you, who are calling people simple-minded, regressives, hive minded, lock step, and other similar adjectives have trouble recognizing that in yourself

For some reason, immigrants assimilate well here and in Canada but rather than stir from your intellectual sloth (it's easier to regurgitate your talking points from hate sites) and wonder what factors are at play, you just blame it all on religion and label those who look further "regressive".

Sure, we can't ignore the security issues, but how much of American freedoms and rights are you willing to give up for security? Or, is it only the freedoms and rights of others you and your followers are willing to give up?

Polls, research and information can be presented showing the American Muslim community is not substantively different than the American Christian community (this is where independent thinking and maturity come into play) and - it doesn't make any difference because everyone knows that all Muslims must follow Sharia (independent of whether the author has a clue what Sharia is) and there for the vast majority want Sharia to be the law of the land. How is that for regressive reasoning free from evidence? And you talk about "lock step" and "independent thinking" and "hive minds" and "regressive leftists".

I don't electrocute dogs, never had, and never admired anybody for their doing so.

You, on the other hand, are quite clearly on record in regards to your stating that there should be nothing to prevent an Islamist who mass murders Jews from being nominated for a peace prize.

Yo, Lone -- I think as long as they are carefully vetted and are actual refugees instead of young, single male migrants, then they should not be banned.

Germany received an onslaught of young, single men and immediately experienced widespread rape Jihad.

Do you have any sympathy for the victims, or should they just be considered collateral damage and a necessary sacrifice to your politics?

You a politician? The answer to that question requires a "yes" or a "no". I will try to decipher your bullshit and say that you do not agree with Trump and that you are OK with Muslims ( refugees, students, business people, tourists ) entering the US.

Excellent.

Why are you supporting Islam?

See how stupid you seem?

You are incapable of comprehending what I just wrote, and you accuse ME of looking stupid?

Of course I understand what you wrote.

You answered a "yes or no" question, which was not about refugees, with some claptrap about vetting refugees. You have some kind of standard for Muslims that you don't have for others....because a small percentage of Muslims want to blow shit up.

You then brought up Germany....which also is unrelated to the question. In your view, Germany is being overrun by hordes of Muslim extremists who are posing as poor refugees. And, if we don't watch out, we will invite the same. Of course, that theory disregards the fact that we vet refugees from struggling Mulsim nations more vigorously than we vet any other class of immigrants. In other words...we won't have that problem.

Finally...you thought you'd ask the obligatory stupid question regarding whether or not I have sympathy for the victims ( of rape? ). That's you being a disingenuous blowhard asshole....and you just couldn't help yourself.

In the end....you DO NOT wish to ban all Muslims from entering the US. You are OK with innocent Muslims coming to and living in the United States. So..if I hold you to your own ridiculous standard......you are supporting Islam.

Yes?

The situation in Germany and the U.K. is ENTIRELY relevant.

We will just have to disagree, here, as I'm not willing to sacrifice the lives of children in order to be politically correct.

If it floats your boat, though, dude -- go for it.

Doesn't matter about your willingness to be anything. You don't support Trump's proposed ban. A Muslim could enter the nation on a tourist visa and blow up an elementary school. Unless you deny entry to all Muslims, you are supporting Islamic jihad. Right?

Why don't we just start with denying entry to those American Muslims returning from the war zones until they are thoroughly debriefed?? Right now -- we welcome them back and hope the FBI is tracking them.. Tsarnayev brother was REPORTED to have traveled to the "hot zone". We ignored it. The wife of the San Bernadino shooter didn't get the interviews that were required.

Don't have to demogogue the issue. Just be EFFICIENT and as non-obtrusive as possible. And for God's sake, don't claim you're only planning on taking on taking "widows and orphans" from Syria when we KNOW that's not the truth.. Too much playing fast and loose with security.

Who screamed the loudest about what BUSH ignored before 9-11? Why the fuck ain't they screaming now??


Should be an obvious answer there..

 

[flacaltenn]

I think this will serve as another excellent answer to the question posed in the OP.

How ironic that an honest liberal provides it.

Even tho I dropped an "agree" on you --- it IS POSSIBLE (and extremely easy) to challenge Amer/Brit foreign policy mistakes AND despise those "regressive cultures" that we arrogantly sought (seek) to change "over there". If we don't understand by now that Arab political institutions REQUIRE regressive, theocratic, fascist brutal regimes -- we ought to have our collective heads examined.

What he is saying is that the Regressive Left does see that, but has prioritized one over the other.
.

It's more of a tactical strategy. As in the enemy of my enemy. Except that I fear the Left has no sense of self-preservation. I see it over and over again. True Liberals for instance, have an innate distrust of government powers and authorities (see Thoreau).. But all that instinct to survive has been bred right out of the modern day leftist.

 

[Mac1958]

I think this will serve as another excellent answer to the question posed in the OP.

How ironic that an honest liberal provides it.

Even tho I dropped an "agree" on you --- it IS POSSIBLE (and extremely easy) to challenge Amer/Brit foreign policy mistakes AND despise those "regressive cultures" that we arrogantly sought (seek) to change "over there". If we don't understand by now that Arab political institutions REQUIRE regressive, theocratic, fascist brutal regimes -- we ought to have our collective heads examined.

What he is saying is that the Regressive Left does see that, but has prioritized one over the other.
.

It's more of a tactical strategy. As in the enemy of my enemy. Except that I fear the Left has no sense of self-preservation. I see it over and over again. True Liberals for instance, have an innate distrust of government powers and authorities (see Thoreau).. But all that instinct to survive has been bred right out of the modern day leftist.

Agreed, but I do think there is still a very healthy amount of traditional liberals, at least I hope so.

These people are illiberal, a distortion.
.

 

[flacaltenn]

I think this will serve as another excellent answer to the question posed in the OP.

How ironic that an honest liberal provides it.

Even tho I dropped an "agree" on you --- it IS POSSIBLE (and extremely easy) to challenge Amer/Brit foreign policy mistakes AND despise those "regressive cultures" that we arrogantly sought (seek) to change "over there". If we don't understand by now that Arab political institutions REQUIRE regressive, theocratic, fascist brutal regimes -- we ought to have our collective heads examined.

What he is saying is that the Regressive Left does see that, but has prioritized one over the other.
.

It's more of a tactical strategy. As in the enemy of my enemy. Except that I fear the Left has no sense of self-preservation. I see it over and over again. True Liberals for instance, have an innate distrust of government powers and authorities (see Thoreau).. But all that instinct to survive has been bred right out of the modern day leftist.

Agreed, but I do think there is still a very healthy amount of traditional liberals, at least I hope so.

These people are illiberal, a distortion.
.

Any surviving Liberals that I know of are now completely politically homeless or in the Libertarian Party..

 

[Mac1958]

I think this will serve as another excellent answer to the question posed in the OP.

How ironic that an honest liberal provides it.

Even tho I dropped an "agree" on you --- it IS POSSIBLE (and extremely easy) to challenge Amer/Brit foreign policy mistakes AND despise those "regressive cultures" that we arrogantly sought (seek) to change "over there". If we don't understand by now that Arab political institutions REQUIRE regressive, theocratic, fascist brutal regimes -- we ought to have our collective heads examined.

What he is saying is that the Regressive Left does see that, but has prioritized one over the other.
.

It's more of a tactical strategy. As in the enemy of my enemy. Except that I fear the Left has no sense of self-preservation. I see it over and over again. True Liberals for instance, have an innate distrust of government powers and authorities (see Thoreau).. But all that instinct to survive has been bred right out of the modern day leftist.

Agreed, but I do think there is still a very healthy amount of traditional liberals, at least I hope so.

These people are illiberal, a distortion.
.

Any surviving Liberals that I know of are now completely politically homeless or in the Libertarian Party..

"Any surviving liberals"


.

 

[Kondor3]

That's a ridiculous claim backed up by incomplete factoids. If you count the American deaths ABROAD at the hands of Jihadis, airplanes, ships, contractors, diplomatic folk, etc (or even our soldiers battling ISIS right now) -- It's a MOUNTAIN of dead Americans at the hands of Islamic radicals. No comparison.

Sounds like you're going out of your way to IGNORE terrorism here..

we weren't talking about "abroad". we were talking about risk in this country. there is nothing ridiculous in presenting reality. i'm sorry if it doesn't concur with your biases.

reality: in this country.... more deaths have been caused by rightwing christian terrorists.

i say this because when the rightwingnut theocrat shot up planned parenthood, the right shrugged. there was no insane and out of proportion response. but when the pieces of garbage in san bernadine went on their little spree, the wingers and their dear leader, the drfump, thought excluding muslims from this country was the proper response.

see a problem there? with both responses?

i'll also point out that if any democrat had appointed as their liaison to the muslim community, someone who said "death to america", you would have rightfully, been appalled. yet when ted cruz appointed as his liaison to the anti-choice radical theocrats someone who said that doctors performing a legal activity should be murdered, you all didn't even flinch.

Nobody in their right mind would only count American terrorism death and carnage that ONLY occurs within our borders. There were times not too long ago where a SINGLE American death abroad brought swift and SEVERE action..

The carnage is San Bernadino came about because a Muslim RADICAL got a marriage visa without the APPROPRIATE vetting and interviews and GUIDED that attack.. You tend to ignore EXACTLY the pertinent that would allow you to understand why Americans are JUSTLY concerned about accommodating refugees from these war zones.

Ft Hood Allahu Akbar nut? ACCOMODATED by the US Army. Was known to be a bit "polarizing". Incident is STILL officially workplace violence., Your turn --- more Christian terrorists...

my point was the flaccid response from rightwingers to terrorism emanating from their own and the over-reaction to terrorism emanating from muslims.

Yeah, Christian "terrorism."

Got it.


Here they are. Predictable as hell.

"But but but Christians. ......."

They actually attempt to equate the two. They just cannot help themselves.

Get ready for the timmothy McVeigh claim, the "countless abortion clinics being blown up" every day and the crusades in the dark ages.

The left are godless losers. They are hacks. Especially this American hating moron.

what's the matter, nutty boy? you don't like the term Christian terrorism?

what do you call some psychotic loon who kills doctors in order to keep them from performing a lawful procedure?

you like timothy McVeigh and his ilk, little boy?

More faux equivalencies and moral relativism from the Loony Left...

 

[LoneLaugher]

Gee. You guys sure do seem to know a lot about liberals. This is all very helpful.