Ah, Blogdrama!
Anyway, we are no longer allowed to sit at the cool kids table in the team anti-jihad ™ lunchroom anymore because we failed a purity test. Who will we go to the Prom with? We are apostate in the world of anti-jihad…we are outcasts…UNCLEAN!
See, here’s what happened. Here at Blogmocracy the following is the rule: “Comments and posts are the responsibility and opinion of their author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the all the people of the blog.” Some people have a very hard time understanding this and dealing with divergent views. The Blogmocracy is an open forum where opposing views are welcome. We do not edit our writers or members. If we squelched all dissenting views on Blogmocracy, there would be no one left to hang out with on the OOT!
Well, it appears that a couple of writers ran afoul of team anti-jihad ™, Pam Geller and Robert Spencer. Blogmocracy ran two articles that disagreed with what was said on Atlas Shrugged. I will not rehash these here. Suffice it to say, the disagreements are over message and delivery, not over the basic goals and tenets of stopping islam and rolling it back.
You may peruse the ‘offending’ articles that got us ‘de-linked’ from Jihad Watch and probably Atlas Shrugged as well, do note that we put up counter arguments as well to be fair to all sides. I will spare everyone the email drama between Blogmocracy and Robert of last night as well.
http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2011/07/04/in-defense-of-the-edl/
http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2011/08/10/the-edl-clarifies-its-position-on-israel-and-the-edl-jewish-division-fallout/
http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2011/08/18/the-rick-perry-pro-sharia-school-curriculum-myth-debunked/
That is two issues that some on our blog have disagreement with Pam and Robert on. Two in 3+ years…and yet there is total agreement on the important stuff and the basic goals and tenets of stopping islam and rolling it back an all sides in this little disagreement.
So lets do some stats (hooray!)
We can break down the agreement/disagreement like this:
Lets assume that Atlas Shrugged and Jihad Watch have a total of 500 combined posts (i dont know the real number so i will low ball it) Blogmocracy runs 2 posts that disagree with method/message, not goals or tenets of these two anti-jihad websites. This is a large N study so the standard deviation will be about 3%. So, the SOME WRITERS on Blogmocracy disagree with team anti-jihad 0.004% of the time and agree with team anti-jihad 99.996% of the time.
Hell, lets be generous and say we ran 20 posts that disagree with team anti-jihad. We would then have writers that disagree 0.04% of the time and agree 99.96% of the time. Given that half of the blog disagrees with our writers, the actual number is much lower. Anyway, we are wayyyyy out on the statistical edge with this.
Does anyone here agree with your spouse or friends 99% of the time? I don’t. Mrs Coldwarrior and I disagree often, Rodan and I are at about 80% agreement. Mike C and I disagree often yet share the same goals. The point of this is that people can disagree once in a while and still be on the same team…except in the world of professional anti-jihad i guess. (How many times has DoD defended Geller? I guess that doesn’t really count here)
From what I understand team anti-jihad had a disagreement with Weasel Zippers as well over this last episode.
So there it is, we have writers that disagreed with Geller twice and now The Blogmocracy are de-linked and no linger “friends” of Pam and Rob. That being said, we will not de-link them as they are the cutting edge of anti-jihad and have great information. I urge everyone to always check their sites to keep up with the struggle and buy their books and support them in every way you can because we need all hands on deck here.
I dont even agree with myself 100% of the time.
Thank you everybody for putting up with me.
@ Prebanned:
the anti-jihad blogworld has been ripping itself apart for months now. its sad to watch.
they are all on the same team
This is a highly skewed version of events. The simple fact is, I don’t run attack pieces on my friends. I let them tell their side of the story. That you would take this public is another indication of your agenda.
@ coldwarrior:
We need to work on our hive skills.
Have you noticed that some really smart and talented people can’t work with anybody?
Some really dumb ones have the same problem.
Robert Spencer wrote:
get this through your skull robert:
those arent attack pieces. they are opinion.
they do not reflect on the blog in its entirety. they reflect the writers opinion
we agree 99% of the time
99%!!!!!!!
“That being said, we will not de-link them as they are the cutting edge of anti-jihad and have great information. I urge everyone to always check their sites to keep up with the struggle and buy their books and support them in every way you can because we need all hands on deck here.”
dies that look like a ‘hit piece’?
does that look like an ‘agenda’?
Just dropping by this one time… Speranza made it very clear he doesn’t think much of Pam. He didn’t have to make it personal. I agree with Robert. It was not just a disagreement but there was a personal attack on both of their credibility.
@ Robert Spencer:
This particular blog lets a number of different people post things that “are the responsibility and opinion of their author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the all the people of the blog.”
You are a respected anti-jihadist and should have a thicker skin.
Although I am not aware of what offended you.
Robert Spencer wrote:
the statement here on TheBlogmocracy combined with this reaction tells the world that we are far more fair and open minded here at TheBlogmocracy. If you want to get nitpicky and petty about it, it was taken public when the link removal occurred elsewhere.
someone explain to me how two people who appear to be quite fierce in their open fight against killer moslems can’t handle a post disagreeing with their opinion. do they realize how like Charles F Johnson that makes them?
While I will still read their sites, their credibility and my respect for them have both been diminished.
Step back and look at the comments. Ya’ll were attacking the messenger more than focusing on the story. Made me sick to my stomach to see people turn on Pam and Robert. And to an outsider of this blog, that is exactly how it looked. Turning on friends. These dangerous times are not the time for that. Also, everyone knows Pam and Robert way more than Perry. Why such a rush to defend a total stranger who by all appearances looks like its possible he’s a phony.
I just want to know which version is accurate.
Perhaps a real time chat would be nice. Clear the air.
@ teacake:
hey teackae!
i saw speranza’s post as a criticism of pam’s technique, not as a personal attack.
imho.
how is this persoanl:
“Irony of ironies – Pam Geller and Robert Spencer relied on left-wing, Republican hating Salon.com for their misinformation on Rick Perry and “sharia law”. Note to the wise – anything that Pamela Geller, Charles Johnson, Aaron Klein (of World Net Daily), or Debbie Schlussel claim, be skeptical and fact check it your self before accepting it as gospel.”
off with my head wrote:
i could publish the emails from last night.
What’s eveybody getting all “wee-wee’d up” about this morning?
@ Prebanned:
@ Kirly:
99% agreement and there is a dust up over 1%
this is pathetic.
no, don’t publish any emails. let it go. if they insist on a purity test, then they will find themselves in the same state of affairs as Johnson the blog killer. lunacy, imo.
@ Robert Spencer:
Robert,
Speranza spoke for himself and not for the Blog. He’s not a fan of Pam, but if you read the thread M and I defended Pam. At the same time that post went up, Over at DOD, I did a thread joking about how Pam is getting a respite from Charles Johnson’s attacks. If we were against you 2, why would 2 admins defend the work you and Pam do on Speranza’s thread and I did a post at DOD giving Pam a shout out?
Delinking us was wrong. This is over disagreement over Presidential politics not some CJ smear attack.
teacake wrote:
My Grandma could solve this real quick, whenever my Sister and I had a bad argument Gramma would make us kiss and make up. BLEEAAACH!
I NEVER argue with my sissy, just not worth it.
It is too easy to end friendships on the internet.
Let us try to be slower to anger and quicker to forgive.
coldwarrior wrote:
i agree with you. i don’t like purity tests and i don’t like or respect or grant credibility to people who think they can bully others into never disagreeing with them pubicly.
Prebanned wrote:
Me too! If I agreed with myself 100% of the time i would have myself committed.
@ coldwarrior:
That’s Speranza’s take and NOT an offical blog position.
Hey CW -- as an outsider from this blog, it did in fact come off like personal attacks. You guys are too close to the situation to see that possibility. My personal opinion is that you guys shelf both of these threads. No doubt the chubby asshole is thrilled to see that friends turned on friends over a total stranger like Perry. All this over a total stranger! Its too dangerous of times for friends to have falling outs.
@ gulfloafer:
LOAFER!
I think this is very unfortunate. We have two real agendas: defeating Obama and defeating World Jihad (if these are, infact, not facets of the same fight).
The post should not have mentioned Pam or Robert by name. That is where the mistake happened. Stick to the topic. The topic was Pam and Robert. Way more than disagreements going on. Ya’ll really need to shelf both threads and put it to rest because this has all the makings of something that is going to go on and on and on.
Kirly wrote:
everyone handles criticism and disagreement differently.
being part owner of this joint has beat me to the poin that i have to have thick skin or i would have ulcers and high blood pressure by now as we thrive on disagreement, different opinions, and the occasional knock down drag out. everyone’s and every blog is different.
Either way I am on vacation for a while.
teacake wrote:
cant shelf them, we dont do that here.
as for it going on and on, it wont. we will forget about it after this thread passes. i just wanted all of our peeps to be up to speed so i dont have to keep explaining this over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over again
@ Prebanned:
Wassup! Little bit of drama going this morning?
teacake wrote:
why are you telling the blogmocracy what to do? you left ages ago for reasons completely unknown to me. are you also telling the other two blogs that they should “shelf” anything they ever wrote disagreeing with something? are you telling them to put the links back up to this blog and others?
teacake wrote:
?
geller is integral to the story sited by speranza by mr stein.
there is no way to avoid it…imho.
Speranza wrote:
barbados?
Speranza wrote:
i hope you mean that you’ll be on an actual vacation and not a vacation from this blog due to this ridiculous situation.
bbiab…
gotta send rodan my share of the $$$ to keep this joint rockin!
gulfloafer wrote:
yeah, a little drama!
bbiab.
coldwarrior wrote:
Jamaica … Queens
The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.
Ronald Reagan
@ coldwarrior:
I’m half way out the door myself. Talk to yinz later.
hahaha people telling Robert to not have thin skin. This blog fucked up big time and too defensive to back down. You all are giving CJ total glee. Yeah kirly, left because of things just like this. Too much pride to admit to fucking up, which happens a lot here.
I checked those links. What Pamela and Robert are doing is BULL-SHIT! Period. End of Story.
@ teacake:
selrahC is that you?
ps kirly, I suggested shelving it because you all should be embarrassed for airing dirty laundry in public. Bad form.
I think we should all be friends. The jihadis get a kick out of this blog fight. As the 10th anniversary of 9/11 nears, we should be more united than ever. I don’t agree 100%; for instance, I think Milosevic was a murderous SOB but that’s me. Please reconsider delinking us, Robert! Also, Coldwarrior, the word is tenets not tenants.
We miss you, Teacake. Come back!
@ coldwarrior:
Sorry about that. I should have said whose version of Perry is accurate. How tolerant of Islam is he?
mtc wrote:
ye gods!!! my bad…how embarrassing.
teacake wrote:
excuse me? who isn’t admitting to publishing something less than proven 100% true about Perry? who has too much pride?
it’s coming back to me now… last time i saw you here you were all pissed off that someone didn’t agree with your opinion of Coast to Coast with George Noory or whatever lunatic is hosting that freak show now.
The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.
Ronald Reagan
that really ought to be the end of it but teacake is too busy gloating and experiencing waves of ecstasy over a blog she flounced from getting delinked. that is beyond petty and pathetic.
Atlas is not the only one covering this story. If you check out the info at BNI there are many others who have covered this story long before this week. You are shooting the messenger and too stubborn to admit it. I’d de-link too.
(thanks MTC , I prefer WZ and BNI)
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/dont-know-if-theres-any-truth-to-the-rumor-that-rick-perrys-daughter-is-married-to-the-muslim-son-of-the-aga-khan/#comments
teacake wrote:
how is this fighting:
“That being said, we will not de-link them as they are the cutting edge of anti-jihad and have great information. I urge everyone to always check their sites to keep up with the struggle and buy their books and support them in every way you can because we need all hands on deck here.”
@ teacake:
Are we not permitted to disagree? Where is your criticism of Pam and Robert publicly attacking the conservative frontrunner fo rthe GOP nomination? I don’t recall anyone saying that they did not have the right to do so, or saying that it was bad form that they do so, or even suggesting that they are effectively shilling for Mitt Romney by doing so.
@ mtc:
He killed Jihadist and he will go down as a hero!
You see we don’t agree on that and I like you and you posting here!
People can disagree and not hate each other!
@ off with my head:
The original article was sourced from Salon.com, IIRC. Not exactly a stalwart of the anti-jihad or, for that matter, what one could call a credible source. Huff-Po would have been better, and that isn’t saying much. I saw the original and blew it off because of the source. They have an agenda, and helping defeat Obama ain’t it. I’d say sowing dissention among those who are trying to defeat Obama is more like it, and they seem to have been somewhatsuccessful at it.
@ teacake:
Weaselzippers is delinked from Jihad Watch.
You’re nuts kirly. I didn’t flounce. Just lost interest and just never returned. Too much ego assholes here is why I lost interest. I think you’re revering to a debate we once had about JFK, nothing to do with George Noory. That was way way before I left.
Yall were wrong to talk dirt about friends. Period. Stick to the story. Pam is hardly the only once who is covering it.
@ coldwarrior:
Not grovelling enough. You must work on your grovelling if you are to make it through the Obamessiah’s Second Term…
off with my head wrote:
he is tolerant of the apostates from islam the ishmaili’s..other than that…we have to ask him.
i would be tolerant of the aga khan and the ishmaili’s myself as the rest of the muslim world wants them dead for being apostate/heretics/and screaming for the modernization of islam to get along with western civ…
Iron Fist wrote:
lemme get out my kneepads.
or am i supposed to do an act of contrition?
Iron Fist
49 | August 19, 2011 10:41 am
@ teacake:
Are we not permitted to disagree? Where is your criticism of Pam and Robert publicly attacking the conservative frontrunner fo rthe GOP nomination?
Your irrationality is off the chart. He is a stranger who needs to be vetted. What was said here was personal attack on Pam’s credibility.
@ coldwarrior:
@ coldwarrior:
Thanks. Have to stop commenting (we all signed employment agreements not to blog while at work).
Soon time for a couple 13 beers!
off with my head wrote:
boooo work!!!!
off with my head wrote:
hooray beer!
Speranza wrote:
we wont do that. geller/spencer are too important for info and anti-jihad leadership.
@ teacake:
And see, disagreeing with you is “irrational”. Because all rational people agree with you, right? Not to put too fine a point on it, but Obama feels the same way.
coldwarrior wrote:
WZ is not on Jihad Watch’s blog roll.
Speranza wrote:
if those two keep it up there wont be anyone left on their blog rolls!
coldwarrior wrote:
c’est la vie -- life goes on!
I was happy to see teacake back but she started getting rather in your face. She should send zip an email and ask him what he thinks of this -- she would be surprised at the response.
@ Speranza:
Although nobody’s asked me, I can tell you what my response to this entire subject is: “When did we go back to 7th grade?”
@ coldwarrior:
That’s the Muslim sect we should be associating with. The Ismaili Muslims renounced violence. Perry was right to meet with them.
lobo91 wrote:
hence the way i opened the post
@ teacake:
Uhm… the story Speranza linked was FROM WZ.
This really sucks a big one!
m wrote:
Oh I forgot about that. I gave WZ the hat tip! Good reminder “m”.
mtc wrote:
the ishamailis arent the problem, and they wrote the texas curricula.
this wasnt some shiite/suni wahhabiist 12th immam jihadee lesson plan.
we asked philip daniels to write up a post about these cats. he has already spoken very highly of them. i cant say that they are even in the same group as the rest of islam.
You all are acting as irrational as people who adore obama. My point is that Pam was attacked personally, no one else. Why no attack WZ then, why just Pam and then say they have thin skin and you’re allowed to disagree. Too incestuous here for most to be rational.
@ teacake:
The only irrational one here is you. First of all, This was Speranza’s thread. We don’t have an offical position. He took issue with Pam and Robert. They have their candidate preferences, Speranza has his. This is about electoral politics.
This was no hit piece.
Anyway who are you to come here and lecture us?
teacake wrote:
Send Zip an email and ask him what he thinks.
Pam was not personally attacked. I and the blog I linked to questioned her reliability as someone who “breaks news stories”. She claimed that the EDL had anti Semitic elements to it and we investigated and found out that the charge was made by an extreme Kahanist named Roberta Moore whom the EDL kicked out becasue they did not want to be associated with Kahanism. When we asked Geller about it she instead of admitting to making a mistake, moved the goal post. The idea that a man who was awarded a Defender of Jerusalem Award supports sharia law in Texas of all places is not logical at all. I would trust Israel’s defense with Perry as a POTUS then I would just about any other politician. Out of curiosity (and you are not obligated to name him/her) -- whom do you support for POTUS?
teacake wrote:
Zip is no fan of their blogs I can assure you.
@ teacake:
I don’t think you understand what I meant. Weasel Zippers is where the article came from that Speranza linked to -- that Pam and Robert did not like. I didn’t necessarily agree with the tone of the intro, but what can ya do?
I would never -- EVER attack Pam personally because I respect and admire her work and will continue to do so. As a matter of fact, even though I was busy at work yesterday (CaRAZY day) I took the time to add my “pro-pam” comment to the thread just to get it on record.
To blame the whole blog for one contributor’s opinion or even two, three, four…. whatever (especially when the disclaimer explains that each person’s opinion is his own) is definately not rational.
We ARE NOT their enemies!
@ teacake:
If you are so damned thin skinned, then take your ball and go home. This blog was built on free thought and all of that. This place is NOT a monolith. I can’t understand why the hell you feel that way.
@ savage:
Spot on!
By the way I gave the hat tip to Weasel Zippers because I saw the Stein blog article that I linked to on his Headlines.
Speranza wrote:
yeah…i’m holding back big time on that one. its best i just keep my trap shut.
mtc wrote:
Well, all well and good, but will they start to out their more violent followers?
Macker wrote:
thats the thing, the ishmailis arent violent, they have renounced it and jihad…they really are a bunch of new agers into yoga and reincarnation, kinda like a mix of hindu and islam.
we need to get philip daniel on this
@ coldwarrior:
If the new goal post is that we cannot nominate any governor from a state with a large Islamic population who has actually met with some Muslims -- then we will be without a candidate.
@ Speranza:
Yet the previous President was hero. Despite the fact he did interfaith meetings, praised Islam and increased Islamic immigration.
@ Rodan:
sssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhh….
Speranza wrote:
true.
the banned get banned!
love it!
Rodan wrote:
I tell you it’s maaaaaaad out there! lol.
I liked teacake when she posted with us (I think she is from Louisiana) and was happy to see her nic this morning but as I read what she wrote I hate to say it but she sounded like one of those “mean girls” in Junior High School (or as it is now called Middle School) that I hear so much about. Anyway I do wish her well.
WrathofG-d wrote:
Some how I think we will survive.
@ Speranza:
She has her own bigotry and revealed her nasty colors to all.
@ WrathofG-d:
Thread Winning Comment!!!
@ teacake:
If Rick Perry’s daughter is married to the son of the Aga Khan, so what? Ismaili muslims are, as a group, the closest thing to the long-sought, seldom seen “moderate muslims.” Ismailis don’t chop your head off, they don’t throw bombs, they don’t dress their women in bags. They blend in well to Western society. If all the muslims in the world were Ismailis, we wouldn’t have a “muslim problem”.
Calo wrote:
He has his own agenda.
Could we attempt to grope for a political principle here?
Surely what is wrong with recognition of Muslims as Muslims (whatever the sect -- and I recall that Sufis were supposed to be good Muslims until Beslan) by politicians is that it is a form of identity politics. It aims to find a Muslim constituency. Given the in-built separatism of Islam, such recognition is dangerous. It is a misguided appeasement. It prefers the religious Muslims to secular Muslims because the religious Muslims are the activists. Secular Muslims are furious that activist Muslims should be chosen as their spokesmen or “leaders” by politicians.
The appointment of a Muslim judge by Chris Christie is not in itself politically unprincipled. If the judge can take his oath without apostasy to Islam that is his business -- until it becomes ours, either because he rules in such a way to show a loyalty to Islam, or because Muslims object to his not doing so. Would it be politically supportable to ban all believing Muslims from state employment? No judges, or soldiers? Should we require that Muslims repudiate any aspect of Islam that conflicts with American law? That would require official recognition that Islam is not a “religion” for First Amendment purposes, but a political ideology. But we allow communists to take public office. Ideology is also protected by the First Amendment. Geert Wilders can seek to have the Koran treated like Mein Kampf because of the (dubious) Dutch laws suppressing dissemination of nazism.
Asking Muslims (of whatever sect) to write state text books is in itself politically unprincipled: anyone with the slightest knowledge of Islam must know that believing Muslims can have no “objective” view of Islam -- either as a religion or as history. Hence -- in some text books -- the proliferation of “PBUHs”. The history of social studies text-books is a perfect example of the relinquishing of assimilationist principles in American politics. (All that nostalgia for Andalusia is a way of saying tolerance and harmony can happen under Islam. “Under” being the operative word. Submit to Islam and Islam will take care of you.)
But the horrors of Islamic studies in the curriculum are part of the general leftist undermining of American patriotism. Muslims have been allowed to be seen as a class needing civil rights protection: like blacks and homosexuals.
For those of us who are afraid of creeping Sharia -- and we are mostly conservative -- it was disheartening to see Bush invite dubious Muslims to the White House in order to parade them as Americans Too. It was cringe-inducing when he sent that woman wearing a head scarf as ambassador to the Muslim world. It was risible when he held hands with the Saudi “King”.
There is no “purity” test for conservative politicians and their dealings with Islam as there is for the progressive left. The progressive left is pro-Islam, and supportive of creeping Sharia. In the absence of stated policy of how to deal with creeping Sharia, condemning or praising a Republican politician for associations with Muslims is very crude political expression. Distinguishing one set of Muslims from another does not refine it. The GOP needs to establish a policy with regard to soft jihad. It should deal with immigration and foreign policy. Text-books and Muslim tokenism will take care of themselves once the political supremacy of the constitution has been re-established.
I doubt, though, that the GOP can come to a coherent policy on Islam. Perry will not rise or fall on text-books or friendship with the Aga Khan.
@ Overlook:
It’s also Hispanophobic. It’s a way to justify the enslavement and near extermination of Spanish at the hands of Arabs.
@ Overlook:
well said, thanks for that.
Rodan wrote:
under or with?
and’with’ i mena by the ishmaili version of islam? who knows.
i do know that islam is an expansionists political system first, are the ishamilis that perry met with evangelical? or do they keep to themselves.
@ 38 teacake: Teacake you are being silly and too judgemental. You left here because your feelings were constantly hurt as people tried to reach the truth of matter. Your analysis today reflects a lot of your old angst. I appreciate your return to defend Robert. But Robert is the one erroring greatly here. He thinks he is being attacked when people are discussing the pros and cons of his ideas. That is something he should welcome instead of getting overly sensitive and start throwing bricks. Robert Spencer is intellectually smart enough to handle dissent. The question being revealed here? Is he wise enough to wield his brainpower beyond his own blog?
the blogmocracy is full of spencer and geller supporters. Why insult them? He is the smarter person. Smarter than any of us except Buzzsawmonkey or Doriangrey maybe. lol. The smarter person has a responsibility to teach others so they can reassemble facts correctly.
I imagine Robert Spencer doesn’t understand this blog. He is a busy guy. And his correlator tool probably just highlighted the negatives to him. But for the future, he should come here and put some facts on the table to dispute content here. Not just call someone a name and leave a link headed outside the blog. Seems gauche.
See i can disagree with Spencer 100 percent here and yet I still have one of his books right in front of me.
I did go read the Geller piece on this, and then the Malkin piece and I thought they both extended the knowledge and take on Perry quite a bit.
We should add peskytruth to our blogroll.
Michelle Malkin provide a new look.
One Blogger’s answer to charges against Rick Perry.
@ 79 coldwarrior: I’m not adverse to Kahanists or Pastor Terry Jones like the EDL is. I think we sometimes let the left define what is racist and unthinkingly just go with it. A lot of the concept of racism on the left has more to do with class struggle than race culture.
There are going to be nut job followers of kahanists, terry jones, and mother jones. the smart person sifts them out. and they become fringe of fringe groups no one can get along with left or right. Westboro church is an example of that.
@ orangecrush:
I’ve met Kahanists, believe me they are bad news.
@ 70 coldwarrior: I think the treatment of sharia concept is the bellwether concept. Gov Chris Christy loved to disparage people concerned about creeping sharia, the media likes to force the concept on us as a form of social justice. My guy feeling is that even most moderate muslims are very comfortable with sharia, with only the apostates rebelling against it. I do not think it would be hard to get one of the local somali cab drivers to exult how great sharia would be for everyone in the us. But he lives here as a moderate…. until this census number get great or enough sudden jihadis make themselves his friend in the name of true islam. Not that fake kind you see in America.
If we get into this with presidential candidates I do want to see it debated like gay rights or abortion rights are. I want to see
@ orangecrush:
You are aware that Malkin wrote a book defending the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II? She also used to have the nativist and racist VDARE.com on her blog roll. They are a bunch of paleocon nativists who would want someone like her of Filipino origin not be allowed into this country.
@ orangecrush:
the EDL has no choice, they must be 1000% clean or they will be crucified.
it is a matter of their very survival.
@ Speranza:
malkin got lit up pretty good on NRO the other day…the commenters tore her a new one
@ 100 Speranza: I’ve read some lit and don’t find it completely disagreeable. And I’ve seen Israelis using the EU definition of racism to label them. So I discount that criticism of them as being unrealistic. Lot of things to read but will try and get more informed on them.
If people like Obama tend to call them racists and I can’t really see it i am more inclined to give them the benefit of doubt. Until they prove me wrong.
honestly, most of you know nothing about nothing. Whaaaaa people don’t like the EDL….whaaaaa Charles and Pam and Robert got their panties in a wad, whaaaa Malkin defending the internment of Japanese during WWII…. whaaaa, whaaaa, whaaaa.
Seriously, what a bunch of cry babies.
Speranza wrote:
Shoot, I’ve met some and they are wonderful people. What is your point?
It’s kinda sad that this thread was necessary, but it is and CW has guts for posting it. I adore Robert, Pam and Malkin, but no mortal is above criticism. I don’t do personality cults.
@ 102 Speranza: Malkin is complex. The Japanese internment during WWII shouldn’t be judged by modern standards but by WWII standards. From the perspective of that time period it seemed like a reasonable thing to do even if it was a bit racist. Malkin is like everyone else wading through political garbage and trying to be more well informed.
I’ve heard her talk many times and while she is much more strident than I like she has her good points. She’s a little like Robert Spencer and Krauthammer. Very smart with a unique perspective but can get critically stuck on what I consider minor issues. Kind of like an OCD in politics. That’s an ivory tower disease to me. more and more I lean towards the Reagan 80/20 rules with a few no go rules.
@ 106 WrathofG-d: overly broad commenting there with the scar tissues of prejudices. lol
we all have them. i have a hard time leaving the big bat in the bag.
@ orangecrush:
Ok, a little overbroad
but honestly, let’s not get our panties in a bunch over what our detractors say. Pussyfooting around doesn’t create success nor victory.
To make omelets you have to break eggs.
@ 104 coldwarrior: Malkin was the Pre plain targert for lefty shit slingers. Some of the things people wrote her are so vile you wouldn’t think a human being could stoop so low. But there are a lot of them out there. Just KKK members wearing SEIU labels.
When I read Malkin a lot, she would get incensed when people would caricature her viciously, but she had no problem constantly caricaturing her opponents back in just as an unseemly way. that was a huge disconnect to me. She obviously was thinking about that process differently than I was. I also wasn’t in her shoes, but I felt it diluted her message to me and was more so directed to her enemies. So I wasn’t really the type of audience she wanted.
orangecrush wrote:
(deleted)
@ 102 Speranza: I do think Malkin is close to paleocon, but she runs up against a wall
WrathofG-d wrote:
Well you are a Kahanist or Kahanist sympathizer right? Some people have met Hamas people and think they are wonderful too (most of the British media)it doesn’t make them so.
@ coldwarrior:
(A) I would never call you a bunch of “anti-semites” for banning me.
(B) Doing so on this thread however, I would call you a hypocrite.
(C) I really don’t know what you are talking about. I was simply-albeit, unsophisticated-ly just saying that we all need to get over our softness and caring what the “other side” is going to think.
(D) I guess I’m not quite banned yet.
orangecrush wrote:
She is not an Anglo Protestant.
WrathofG-d wrote:
You like quoting Stalin?
Speranza wrote:
Here’s an expanded version of that viewpoint: Obama’s worst nightmare
@ orangecrush:
The internment was pure evil no matter how well intentioned it was and I’ll bet Earl Warren who was governor of California at the time regretted it.
huckfunn wrote:
In addition to WZ, I should have hat tipped Boker Tov, Boulder.
@ Speranza:
Well, I wouldn’t quite compare the Kahanists I know to Hamas, but if you point is that one some Kahanists are kooks (most of the followers today probably fit that accusation), I probably agree.
But in the context here, I think that there are going to be those who disagree on some things, even if their larger goals are the same (albeit the EDL, or Blogmocracy/Jihad Watch).
We have enough real problems to worry about, before we beat eachother up and concern ourselves over the whining of CJ, JW, AS, etc., or even those here I or you disagree with.
@ 113 coldwarrior: banned or self deleted? I don’t have any problems with Wrath. I’ve known the nic a long time. His cycle is too evolve his pattern by injecting himself into this blog space until he can’t take it anymore. But he is working on it. Myself I have a very hard time doing that. He gets more personally worked up on this stuff than he lets on. A kahanist should be able to take some criticism and learn how to manage it. Or it’s to go back and study some more or meet new people.
But a lot of years blogging and I realize there are a lot more smarter people out there than me. And that my cursory glance at facts and what I can remember is not always the greatest. I need some lessons repeated often if they are new ones.. At my age. As long as someone is not a flaming troll like spacejesus was I don’t mind what they have to say.
Wrath and Robert Spencer are really having the same issues. One of discrimination and realizing where there are at. The lesson is for both of them and not anyone else. Are they able to hold an idea that might seem discordant in thought and play it out over a period of time? And let themselves also change as the idea evolves.
WrathofG-d wrote:
I guess if she defended the gheottoization of Jews you would go whaaa whaa whaa. What is your purpose?
@ Speranza:
I’m not familiar with Boker Tov. P.S. HT —--> WZ
huckfunn wrote:
One of three people will be sworn in as POTUS in January 2013, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, or Rick Perry. Of the three, Perry is by far the best. There are no perfect candidates.
@ Speranza:
I don’t know how to answer your question, but I will say that if the Jews declared war on the United States in the same manner the Islamists and Japanese have/did (respectively), I would not complain if me and my family were given a second look, or interned for a while.
War is not some gentle politic, it is life and death. I understand that.
huckfunn wrote:
i did HT WZ.
Boker Tov, Boulder (which means good day boulder) is an excellent blog I was pointed to. She is a Perry supporter.
http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/
@ 119 Speranza: more like collateral damage than pure evil. Too much power in FDR’s hands maybe. He was used to doing business that way.
On this note, I will leave here (again) for a while. Let things calm down. t isn’t my intent to upset everyone.
Speranza wrote:
Sorry; you misunderstood. I wasn’t telling you to HT WZ. I was post scripting myself to HT WZ. Cheers!
@ huckfunn:
My mistake.
WrathofG-d wrote:
You are not upsetting anyone. I kinda like having you around to debate.
orangecrush wrote:
He had some authoritarian instincts.
@ WrathofG-d:
The majority of the owners have decided not to take you up on your offer because last time we did this exact same scenario you broke our agreement and bad mouthed us at Table 9. You returned and we had a let bygones be bygones attitude. But it seems he have a grudge against one of the owners (Coldwarior). Now you are insulting the entire blog, again. So we are deleting your account.
We are not going to bad mouth you or talk about you. Just go away in peace, we are not going to do this dance a third time.
coldwarrior wrote:
I seem to remember a previous Agha Khan penned a defense of Zionism against the sanguinary calumnies of that notorious Nazi-aligned bigot Hajj Amin Al-Husseini. Irrespective of this notable anecdote, Ismailis endorse and advance that much-vaunted “two-state solution” of Israel and “Palestine”, which is, ipso facto, destructive to Israel and the West (regardless of whatever misguided “good-natured” intentions the Ismailis may harbor.)
Nevertheless, their seeming lack (as far as I can tell) of theological animosity towards Al-Yahud is certainly divergent from the conception of Al-Yahud shared by Ahl As-Sunna Wa’l-Jama’ah (Sunnis) and Shi’a Athna’ashariyyah (Twelver Shi’ites; Ismailis are “Seveners”, disagreeing with Twelvers on the nature and progression of the Imamat.) Ismailis are viewed as Zanadiqa (heretics), like Ahmadiyyah, Khawarij, and some Sufi sects. Nevertheless, as peaceful as Ismailis and Ahmadiyyah are (this does not include the aforementioned Khawarij, the most homicidally-inclined sect historically, alongside the Hashasheen), as un-Muhammadan as they are, they remain focused on accomplishing Izhaar Al-Deen (Domination of Islam), through Jihad bi’l-Da’wah (Jihad of proselytizing) as opposed to the otherwise mainstream Jihad bi’l-Sayf (Jihad of the sword).
@ Speranza:
FDR is idolized by the Left for this very reason — his totalitarianism, his paternalism, his welfarism and bureaucratism, which seem to “cancel out” FDR’s injustices of Japanese-American internment and segregation of the armed forces (the latter while fighting National Socialists!).
Prebanned wrote:
Love your nic.
gulfloafer wrote:
SNORT! Bam, is that you?
Philip_Daniel wrote:
and his attempt to pack the Supreme Court.
Btw, in WWII we didn’t quite have the capability of “interning” without people knowing like we can today.
/Just saying
coldwarrior wrote:
I think I have it. Can you run it by me one more time?
We are unclean! A Waldensian amongst the unclean. … … Or rather yinz catching up
waldensianspirit wrote:
Are you really a Waldensian (Italian proto-Calvinist)?
sablegsd wrote:
oh STOP!!!
too much drama today!
Speranza wrote:
Filed under the general heading “totalitarianism”.
teacake wrote:
Why such a rust to attack a total stranger?
I saw nothing in any of the recent posts discussing the stranger who happens to be Governor of Texas that attacked either Robert Spencer or Pamela Geller. The left is trying to smear Perry by any and all means necessary, and this makes it necessary to be very critical of the hit pieces, especially when they come from MM and Salon.
Am I a “fan” of Geller’s? Not really, but that doesn’t mean I disagree with her mission. I find she’s tedious to read, and a bit over the top. On the other hand, I am impressed with Robert Spencer, as he presents his views in a more tempered manner.
That Geller and Spencer are willing to dump allies in the fight against jihad because some of us aren’t willing to accept one or two of their allegations at face value seems petty to me. I am both surprised and disappointed.
@ Philip_Daniel:
soooo….are they ok to deal with here in the west or not?
coldwarrior wrote:
As okay as any religious sect which one might dislike yet admit does not constitute any threat to the American republic or the West in general.
That said, I think it’s unwise to have Ismailis write or edit or contribute in any way to a history textbook without also presenting the real non-whitewashed history alongside it…
Note the last clause. Present the Ismaili “rainbows and unicorns” view, but do not fail to present the well-documented history of Islamic Imperialism as well.
Philip_Daniel wrote:
copy that. i will take your word for it…and thanks
Speranza wrote:
Stein’s article, especially in its entirety, was a good one. I skimmed through the comments, and “AA” was very interesting, as he/she is a member of the group in question. “AA” was shouted down.
Bunk X wrote:
I agree with everything you wrote.
@ Speranza:
Exactly.
@ coldwarrior:
Give m and Rodan a call.
@ Philip_Daniel:
From the Swiss and more in their [waldensian] spirit of not settling for organized religion, Biblical translations should be in people’s vernacular and also many of their principles. They weren’t homogeneously Calvinists either. http://www.xenos.org/essays/waldo1.htm
See the 5th chapter which includes church and the state should remain as separate authorities. This is one of the earliest of the way we think of it today.
They changed the west more than the ‘secular enlightenment’. They weren’t anti all things Catholic but wanted change toward what they saw as Biblical
Bunk X wrote:
I am not a fano f Islam but let’s get practical. A politician is a politician and even the best of them need to glad hand people. I understand and accept that.
Waldo was from Lyon; Poor of Lyon
Speranza wrote:
ok…we were power outage for a while
coldwarrior wrote:
By the way I concur with them.
@ Speranza:
watch yer email from rodan…
Just flew the family back from Mallorca and boy are my arms tired.
Did I miss anything this week?
i’m going to close this thread at 2040 est when the prayer for momcat special goes up.
the discussion on these topics ends here. i dont want this to drag on and on and on.
Buckeye Abroad wrote:
two drink minimum, tip the waitresses!
no, not really
how was spain?
coldwarrior wrote:
got it. thanks
@ Speranza:
Malkin’s book about Japanese internment in WWII put it in the context of the time, and German U.S. citizens were interred as well. There was the very real threat of internal sabotage (not imagined either as it happened). Malkin’s credibility is not the issue of this thread, though.
161. coldwarrior
how was spain?
Fantastic. We never left the beach which our hotel ajoined-- lobby to sea was about 150 meters, very child friendly — +90 F every sunny day. And now we’re back in D-land. sigh
Hows the missus? I hear you both are expecting if I’m not mistaken?
@ orangecrush:
Ditto. (I’m still crawling through this thread.)
Bunk X wrote:
I agree but her name came up. Internment was morally wrong.
Speranza wrote:
I don’t look at it as “glad-handing.” An elected official has a duty to serve ALL of his constituents. O
@ Bunk X:
I meant to continue:
…Of course, that’s an ideal, and not necessarily reality.
@ Bunk X:
Just like Allen West believes
@ Speranza:
In retrospect, yes, absolutely.
coldwarrior wrote:
I really do not care for Malkin. She has nothing good to say about anyone. Her applauding internment and her support for VDARE.com was disgraceful.
mtc wrote:
That just shows you’re both gullible and too pigheaded to let any new information into your repertoire once you’ve been fooled by the mainstream media and/or your peer group.
You don’t have any valid information to back up your opinion, other than personal animosity, and your bringing it up now was simply to stir s**t up.
You don’t come around very often except to slam the Serbs. And now you invite Teacake back. If you stayed around here on a regular basis and participated in other discussions, I could understand it.
I figure that you and Teacake are both bossy people with bad dispositions and neither of you are doing a damned thing on behalf of the counterjihad.
@ 1389AD:
I don’t want to lose another commnenter.
Rodan replied to her.
@ 1389AD:
I don’t agree with everything you post either, but so what. That’s what this place is about. Thank God we’re not an echo chamber -- yet.
@ Speranza:
They are both being petty and smallminded. Geller never linked to 1389 Blog at all, even though I stood up for her any number of times, and have put a lot of effort into promoting her activities. I helped Jihad Watch some time ago when they were getting blocked by “censorware” companies. Jihad Watch linked to me for quite some time, but de-linked me after the original brouhaha, probably at Geller’s insistence.
I still link to both of them on 1389 Blog, but I don’t visit either blog all that often any more. While both Spencer and Geller publicize the bad things that Muslims have been up to, neither of them are willing to take as strong a stand against Islamic infiltration as the 1389 Blog team does.
Oh, and by the way, while I don’t reveal my real name and location online, on account of a stalker problem, you’d better believe that I say exactly the same things to people I meet in person, including government officials, as I say on the blog. I’m not a famous person in real life, but I do this on a consistent basis.
If Spencer and Geller continue to behave in such a petty manner, you can expect their blogs and their careers to fade away into insignificance. It’s the relationships that we build with one another that make all of this work, and if people feel they have to “walk on eggs” to work together with them, then they’ll both go the way of CJ. I guarantee you that it won’t take long.
@ 1389AD:
There is something Johnsonian about the whoole situation.
@ 1389AD:
I agree.
@ Speranza:
That was my initial take, too. I actually wondered if this could be a new “Why I Parted From” kinda thing. I doubt it, but for both of them to boot The Blogmocracy, WZ and others is very odd.
WrathofG-d wrote:
So are the people of JDL Canada -- an entirely separate group that has NOT been accused of terrorism by anybody, btw. I support them wholeheartedly.
@ Speranza:
That was my second thought.
My first was remembering what they first wrote about the edl as long winded with accusations without any presented evidence. By the second paragraph they needed to spell out the anti-semitism and who did it. Otherwise I literally don’t have time to read another paragraph.
Bunk X wrote:
You don’t have to agree with everything I post! I like your stuff and find it very entertaining. Plus, you have some areas of specialized knowledge and skills that other people don’t have. You contribute a great deal here.
On another topic…since this seems to be the de facto active thread…I went to the doctor yesterday and he said I have a torn meniscus cartilage in my right knee. Says I have to go around with it in an ace bandage covered by a knee brace at work. It may heal up on its own, otherwise I have to see an orthopedic surgeon.
Does anybody know how long it takes for stuff like that to heal?
I hate wearing an ace bandage.
Speranza wrote:
Yup.
Not good at all.
In my experience, not many people can withstand the strain of blogging the counterjihad, year in and year out, without either quitting, going permanently off topic, or losing their marbles.
I’ve come very close to shutting the whole damn thing down at 1389 Blog at least twice.
@ 182 1389AD: search yahoo and CNN for that condition. There was an article about that today on one of them I forget.
@ 1389AD:
Kissup.
@ 1389AD:
Both this blog and DoD came close. Then the fever subsides.
Just as a side note, since I’m reading the thread now, I don’t think any of us can imagine the kind of pressure Robert Spencer faces on a daily basis. I am sympathetic towards him due to his courageous books and public presence. Same with Pam (but I thought her last book was awful).
@ 1389AD:
Have no idea, but you certainly cannot afford to have that knee swell up since you have to work on your feet. Sorry to hear this about you.
I’m not offended by Geller or Spencer. I still read Jihadwatch daily and atlas maybe weekly. Just to keep up. Polarities in the innerwebs can make people get polarized over words easily and sometimes a little warped in their anonymous responses. It’s always good to take a seaside check or a woodsy walk check and self inventory to make sure ones perspective is ones own and growing with new healthy patterns of thought.
It’s easy for me to say WTH all youse irritating commenters are crap. I could do it everyday everywhere. But it has no real point except for me to let off some steam at the expense of other anonymous nics. And life experience shows that the person that does that all the time isolates themself. So this is probably 1389 AD’s same point.
I find theblogmocracy has very little of that crap. It’s a much freer information space where some actual reasoning and sharing that is productive goes on. Leaving LGF was a breath of fresh air and I actually felt a burden lift off me that I didn’t realize was there til I left.
@ 183 1389AD: My wisdom of the ages advice is the occasional sex kitten thread, or beefcake thread as you will if you have to please NT2U.
Apparently we need Betty White to endorse or comment here. She is the most trusted celebrity in the world.
orangecrush wrote:
LGF is virtually unrecognizable.I have so put it in my rearview mirror.
orangecrush wrote:
I’m a happily married woman, so I just do Caturday threads.
My husband likes cats as much as I do. But he says not to buy a Hello Kitty mouse pad, because we already have two mouse pads for one desktop computer and don’t need another one. He also says not to buy a Hello Kitty keyboard -- same reason, don’t need a keyboard. LOL…
Bunk X wrote:
Iams tarting to think that there are control issues in the Counter Jihad blogosphere. I think the whole CJ-Pam feud was also about control. WZ and blogmoc will survive being delinked.
yenta-fada wrote:
Yep…I HATE ace bandages. They make my skin just BURN. I have very sensitive skin. I usually cut the tags out of my shirt collars because I don’t like anything poking into my skin.
But my husband says, either you learn to put up with ace bandages or you will probably have somebody cutting into your knee.
Compression bandages plus Aleve do help keep it from swelling up. The knee was puffed up only on one spot, but it was noticeable. It was also clicking when I moved it, and hurting all the time. I do notice that it doesn’t hurt much when I’m lying down, after I take the bandage off, so it must be doing some good.
Speranza wrote:
And so will 1389 Blog. We all have other sources of news and of visitors. If you keep putting up all sorts of relevant news articles, then after your blog has been around a year or two, then Google and other search engines will start to give it a good position in their results. You’ll get a decent amount of traffic that way, without having to do anything special other than continuing to post valid content. Search engines credit your blog for longevity even if one or two major blogs decide to de-link you.
coldwarrior wrote:
my damn innerwebz keep going out…these thunderstorems kicked our asses
anyway:
i’m going to close this thread for comments at 2040 est when the prayer for momcat special goes up.
the discussion on these topics ends here. i dont want this to drag on and on and on.
done…
thanks everyone!
at the behest of bunk, the thread is open again.
the momcat prayer special report went very well.
play nice. so far there have been no real problems
WZ asked me to delink him. He also blamed me for the Norway murders. He sounded like Charles Johnson. Just FYI.
I read that and am still at a loss as to how to respond. You know I am not the biggest Rick Perry fan around, but as you also know I work very hard to keep an open mind and be fair and honest.
As you also are very well aware, I am not in need of being handled with special kid gloves. I know that people, especially in an environment where free speech is highly prized, aren’t always excessively nice and polite.
I can dish it out and I can take it with the best of them, and not hold a personal grudge or get offended, a fact pretty much everyone here can attest to.
I must admit that I found Robert’s response more than just a little discomforting. I have more than just a small amount of respect for Roberts knowledge and intellectual prowess.
But have always had more than a small problem with so called, and even actual authorities who wish to sweep inconvenient facts under the carpet or shove them into a darkened closet.
Rick Perry’s willing association with any sect of Islam bothers me. But the idea that any dissent from the so called popular opinion or “consensuses” that such an association must be wrong or somehow a disqualifer for the office of POTUS offends my sense of right and wrong.
That Robert would respond to such dissent strikes me as petulance bordering on a narcissistic self aggrandizement which can only be described as an individual having placed themselves as the authority figure in a classic appeal to authority logic fallacy.
The scientific and academic communities of late seem to be infected with this psychological disorder to such an extent that the general public has and is loosing any capacity to consider their opinions of any greater value than those of the most obvious raving conspiracy laden moonbat.
The scientific and academics communities have transcended themselves into position of religious priesthood, for whom the penalty of questioning their authority is to be branded a heretic.
Sorry Robert, I love and respect you, but as a Christian and an individual academically educated in the hard physicals sciences I still practice what I was taught.
The scientific method with it’s peer review process is not about proving that your theory is correct, it is about placing your theory under a spotlight and daring all comers to disprove your theory.
As I was taught in school, the academic process is suppose to work the exact same way. Your theory, your premiss, your dissertation cannot be considered to have any veracity if it is not challenged and those challenges found to be lacking in merit.
Anyone who dismisses any challenge to their assertion based on the tone of the challenge and not the substance of the challenge has surrendered at that point their own creditability and the veracity of their assertion.
@ 1389AD:
Shut up!
Robert Spencer wrote:
There’s got to be more to it than that. A mere disagreement with opinion on a single topic should not warrant complete dismissal.
I’ve disagreed with Pamela Gellar (even on Atlas Shruggs once) but I’ve also defended her on DoD.
Posted on thread above – WOW! I am stunned!
Discussion is not an attack. I agree with Kirly.
With respect to the political race – stay focused. No matter who we run we will be told they cannot win and there will be all manner of things brought up that are intended to bring them down.
Look – a box of rocks will make a better president than Obama – stay focused on the target, the reality. Obama is destroying this country. The world is on fire as a result of his weakness.
We absolutely cannot have a circular firing squad blowing our candidate(s) to bits and then sending them into the final battle bloodied by friendly fire.
Nor can we afford to turn on each other. Schedule a giant mud wrestling match AFTER 2012, OK? But not now! Dammit all to hell – you do realize what is at stake?
Keep the thread open, imo. It’s important to air things. We came from a place where discussion was tamped down and then squashed out – much better to discuss and come to conclusions that are informed by hearing ALL that there is to say.
LOVE you all – ALL – LOVE PAM and ROBERT TOO -- !!!!!!!
NO fighting! Not til after 2012. Pillow fight, extraordinaire AFTER 2012.
*sigh*
This is so sad.
:-/
@ Robert Spencer:
Robert, I really appreciate all of your hard work and I thank you so much for the information I’ve gotten from your books and your blogs. I’m sorry that any of this happened.
But don’t hate us! The only things we collectively agree on is Obama sucks and so do jihadis.
~:-}
Herding feral cats would be easier, seriously!
@ Rose:
Posted this above, too -- I can’t seem to stay on topic
Look – Despite the current meme – REPUBLICANS have all the excitement – all the fire in the belly – all the new blood – This is not Bob Dole it’s your turn, not this time.
We have two women (probably) – we have two Mormons, we have a gay guy, a business man (who happens to be black) a businessman who happens to be white… we have a guy who quotes rock songs on the floor!
We have the people who are dedicated, committed and morally on course – we don’t have to agree with everything they say – it’s the totality.
We have the ones who LOVE this country – and, for all their faults, the Republicans are the ones who stand between us and becoming Greece.
Stand – or as in Braveheart: “Hold! Hold! Hold!”
After 2012 – have at – but for now – UNITE! (Pet Rock, or Obama? -- ABO!)
@ Rose:
You should do a “was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor”, get it together, let’s win this thing!!!!!! guest post.
I’m fired up now! LOL!
@ m:
XD
Lemme tune it up and I’ll send it over to ya, m.
The Democrats should be so lucky -- they had to fake it to get their guy in to office. He had to pretend to like going to Church, had to pretend to be a moderate, had to pretend he had all kinds of talent lined up to put into the various appointments -- turns out all he had were Clinton retreads, and radical assholes like Van Jones.
The media will never live this down. Even poor Mike is giving up the Campbell Brown act, and seeing the light.
The media gets us down though -- look how they have us all down in the mouth about Bachmann and Palin -- SLAP SLAP! Now LOOK! What do the dems have? Barbara Boxer? Please! Maxine Waters!! What’s her name, Jackson Lee? They put the stupid in stupid. Wasserman’Schulz?
No thanks. Republicans have all the good ones.
(Mike = Mika, at Morning Joe) dang typos.
I read the statement speranza made. He disdainfully lumped Pamela Geller in a sentence with schmuck johnson and impugned her integrity: “Note to the wise – anything that Pamela Geller, Charles Johnson, Aaron Klein (of World Net Daily), or Debbie Schlussel claim, be skeptical and fact check it your self before accepting it as gospel.”
That was the height of rudeness. Fine disagree with her because she isn’t slobbering all over Rick Perry but that was a low blow to compare her to schmuck johnson out of spite. I can easily see how she is offended.
What a shame to lose both Pamela and Robert.
They are real fighters and put their lives on the line daily in our battle against the enemy.
This has been such a disheartening thread, I give a lot to this blog and frankly it is reaching the point with me that it is just not worth it any more. I wish other people would post threads and I can just comment. I have lost friends over threads and whom I support and that just is not good.
@ Speranza:
i guess i’m lucky. i’ve been able to have massive visceral disagreements with some of my friends, yet there is no fallout. we are still friends at he end of the day.
coldwarrior wrote:
It is not working out that way for me. I have even neglected my work that I actually get paid for. I am burned out and really cannot continue. Believe it or not my liberal friends are far more tolerant of dissenting opinions (for the record they are not hard core in-your-face leftists but run of the mill liberals) then a lot of the conservatives I have met on the blogosphere. However I will never be liberal. Some of my fiends that I have met here do not even answer my emails any more. And for what??? I don;t know,maybe growing up in NYC where I was forced to know liberals has taught me that they are not all “evil” and some are actually quite good people. Learning that they are not all evil has in a way made me a good debater because I do not start from the premise that they are all morons.
Speranza wrote:
I have everything good to say about you and your contributions. I try to make a point of it to be on your ‘rush hour’ threads because I work from home. People everywhere are under extraordinary stress. They respond by sometimes lashing out whomever is convenient, imo. Hey, I don’t get no respect either! lol
@ yenta-fada:
I always said if you want love and respect get a dog!
@ Speranza:
My family and many close friends are liberal. I’m not going to harm myself by making enemies over politics. I can entertain a fair amount of cognitive dissonance. Life is about much more than politics. I care more about my near and dear than I do about being ‘right’. Even if I am right, there’s no prize in it at the end of the day. I need you to stay.
Speranza wrote:
That is still true! lol
yenta-fada wrote:
I agree with everything you wrote. Unless someone is an in-your-face obnoxious person I give thema a chance. A man(or woman) is a man -= if he is a good man I would like to get to meet or know him. If he is not, then I prefer to keep my distance. It is that simple.
Speranza wrote:
And if we all agreed 100% of the time it would be an echo chamber or a ‘Potemkin Village’ so to speak.
Who the hell wants that?
Been out of the loop for the last week, but I’m damn sure I missed this kerfuffle.
John Difool wrote:
I always seem to be involved in all kerfuffles.
@ Speranza:
Some of us used to BE liberals. I wasn’t anymore mentally deranged then than I am now.
My point of view has shifted over the past decade. I didn’t wake up one morning and say that I was enlightened. As long as I live, I continue to learn and sometimes, change a bit.
I believe that, within two years, we will find ourselves in different circumstances. I’d prefer to remain as grounded and content as I can with the good things life has to offer. Too much negativity is bad for the spirit.
Speranza wrote:
Isn’t there something about being over the target if you are taking flack?
@ John Difool:
The very thought of this blog being 100% in agreement over anything except that jerk, Ozero, is pretty entertaining.
@ yenta-fada:
Only a fool fails to either change or moderate his positions over the years. In social issues I am now a social libertarian.
Speranza wrote:
The kinder gentler me likes to stay away from inter-blog drama these days, however that wasn’t always the case, I tend to get passionate and all knee-jerky by nature so if my better angels are present I look for the exit door until the fire has passed.
Also imho it wasn’t all that dramatic to begin with, perhaps just a few folks pimping it that way and blowing it all out of proportion.We’ve all been through a lot these past few years and the malaise and depression of what we have had to endure can get the best of us.
For the most part, although disagreements abound, this was a pretty respectful thread that dissected the events in an informative manner.
John Difool wrote:
I thought so too. However the days of me posting 5 -10 threads a week are over.
yenta-fada wrote:
it is!
@ Speranza:
Don’t leave Speranza! We love you!
@ mtc:
I am not leaving, just not posting threads much. I don;t have the stomach for the back and forth nastiness that I have been witnessing. Thanks!
Robert Spencer wrote:
Interesting. Sometimes I’m too far out of the loop to get a clear picture. Personally other than admin stuff I would prefer if all blogging was done right on the page instead of individual emails
teacake wrote:
Since when did you become Irish Rose?