Sad conclusion… [Reader Post]

Loading

Gasden Flag

So I had about 325 miles to drive home Friday night, plenty of time to do a little pondering. Here’s what I have come up with… we better get ready for the battle of our lives, for our country. Before you liberals get your panties all in a wad, follow along for a few minutes, and I’ll tell how I have come up with this.

With days to go before Obama got elected in 2008, he made one of the few honest public statements he has ever made when he said he was going to fundamentally change this country. The libs didn’t listen. He also said he wanted a civilian security force as well trained and funded as our military. Again the libs didn’t listen. He won the election and began his mission. He appointed a ton of czars and advisers, making the obvious effort to circumvent the balance of power by ruling through regulation instead of governing by legislation. The libs didn’t notice. Congress didn’t seem to notice either, even though the Executive Branch began gaining weight and tipping the scales.

He nationalized two of the three car companies, then focused on the banks. Then he forced Obamacare upon us, who really knows what’s buried in that bill. The stimulus was next, and continues since our government is still running without a budget. He captured control of the energy industry after an unintentional drilling disaster which he turned, somehow, into a criminal act.

He arbitrarily decided to take us to war in Libya without any approval from anyone (more on that later) in direct contradiction to the Constitution. Nobody called him on that effectively, he basically said “we went ’cause I said so…” He put troops on the ground in North Africa without approval, nobody noticed. His gun control mission started a long time ago, and again he doesn’t answer for Fast & Furious, executive privilege? He passes a message to Putin about how much more “flexibility” he will have after the election. Again he capitalizes on yet another tragedy to push his disarming of America agenda (the Brit’s tried this here too, a couple hundred years ago), he knows an unarmed America cannot resist tyranny.

I don’t need to dive into Obama’s history very far to understand that even if he was born in the USA (I have my doubts), he was not raised as an American, he has made that clear. Neither was his wife, or Jarrett for that matter. So obviously, they don’t put any credence into our traditions and principles. And I know I have left out a lot of “accomplishments” by Obama and company, I have been just hitting the highlights.

And the key to this puzzle might be in Benghazi. Not just the way it ended, with the deaths of four Americans, but with the entire mission there. And what did he threaten 30 survivor/witnesses, and their families and friends with, to assure their anonymity and silence. I can’t think of any other “secrets” so well protected (other than Obama’s ultimate plan). For example, the Bin Laden mission, details leaked from day one; the computer attack on Iran and many other things that would have been kept from the public eye. Yet the entire situation in Benghazi is still a mystery. There lies the keys I believe, and the only reason I can think of for such successful secrecy is the possibility that probable cause exists for arrest on the charge of treason, at the highest level and downward. Has the White House turned into a cover for a Continuing Criminal Enterprise?

I have not applied conjecture or opinion into this conclusion, just looking at facts, indisputable facts. At the facts indicate to me we have a government in place that is directly and intentionally taking us away from the principles our country was formed upon; I understand a little more about how our forefathers felt leading up to the revolution.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
351 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@retire05:

There was a time when families took care of each other, when they were young, and then when they were old. Churches provided old folks homes where the aged were cared for.

The idea, which you’ve advanced many times before, that charity alone is a suitable replacement for government programs and safety nets is madness, and dangerous cornpone hooey to boot. If that were the case, why do I pass homeless people every day in a society that includes both? Churches do amazing and laudable things every day and should be praised to high heavens, but take government out of the picture and one large medical bill for one person could bankrupt a church.

@SkippingDog: My initial understanding was that you were comparing me to defense contractors. If that wasn’t your intent then I misread what you said and apologize.

@another vet:

Likewise.

@SkippingDog:

Look up the percentages of seniors living in poverty before and after the Social Security Act was implemented.

There were seniors living in poverty during the Great Depression? Whoda thunk it. Oh, wait, there were 20 year olds, and 30 year olds and 5 year olds living in poverty during the Great Depression. But Social Security saved them since it was passed in 1935, right Dog?

But history is not on your side. The first check was paid out to Ida May Fuller on January 31, 1940 at a time when jobs were beginning to come back because the U.S. was providing war equipment to the Brits. And how did that work out for Ms. Fuller on her investment into Social Security of $24.75? She lived to be 100 and collected $22,888.92 on her less than $25.00 investment into the program. You would have thought that would be the first clue to Congress that the program was nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.

@Tom:

The idea, which you’ve advanced many times before, that charity alone is a suitable replacement for government programs and safety nets is madness, and dangerous cornpone hooey to boot.

Charities always took care of the poor, Tom. Until FDR passed his socialist program. That relieved the churches of that responsibility and in return, we got mega churches that now resemble super markets. If you think it was not a workable system, then provide me with photos of all the sick and dying aged in the streets (gutter) prior to the enactment of Social Security.

If that were the case, why do I pass homeless people every day in a society that includes both? Churches do amazing and laudable things every day and should be praised to high heavens, but take government out of the picture and one large medical bill for one person could bankrupt a church.

How many orphanages, old folks homes and hospitals do churches run now that are totally charitable? How many even still exist? Because people don’t donate to charities like they used to. Americans have become acclimated to the government being their family to take care of them. Responsibility for others is gone.

For years, the Masonic Lodges of Texas ran an orphanage. Most of the kids that grew up there went on to college, and became productive citizens. It closed a few years ago due to lack of support. It is an old story. The same has happened with the church facilities. We are no longer a nation of givers. We have become a nation of takers, and the fact that we have so many people on welfare shows that to be a fact.

@Richard Wheeler: I store two weeks of food and water for the dogs and I just in case. I also keep lots of ammo around mainly because I do lots of informal target shooting. Two years ago when we were snowed in by a blizzard, I didn’t have to worry about those items. Given how susceptible most of this country is to natural disasters, keeping those items stocked up is smart. Unlike me, you don’t have to worry about tornadoes or blizzards but are you prepared to get by without resupply for a week in case of an earthquake? Something you may want to consider if you haven’t already. Even FEMA puts out guidance about being prepared. Next up for me is a portable generator for the summer months given the power failures we seem to have. If someone farts it goes out and I don’t like warm beer!

@retire05:

Before the Social Security Act was implemented, approximately 50% of the elderly were living in poverty. By 1960, that number had dropped to 35%. After Medicare was implemented, the percentage of elderly living in poverty dropped in a clear declination to approximately 15% by 1970, 10% by the mid-90’s, and 8.9% with the most recent records available in 2009.

From 50% poverty to 8.9% as a direct result of Social Security and Medicare.

@SkippingDog: After re-reading it, I definitely misinterpreted what you said.

@another vet:

It happens. Sorry I responded in kind.

SkippingDog, this is by no means a broad measure to all, but I just wanted to point this out in particular, as it relates to Harry and Bess Truman and their enrollment in Medicare, despite never paying in.

You said:

That sounds suspiciously like the old “It’s their own fault they’re poor” argument. You’re not really trying to sell that nonsense, are you?

In the case of Harry and Bess Truman, that seems to be entirely the case…. per your own account. To reiterate:

Don’t know about the ability of Harry and Bess to get an insurance policy. I do know Truman was one of the rare former Presidents who refused to take advantage of his connections and status, and therefore lived in near poverty until Congress passed the first pension provisions for former presidents.

I’m not sure what strange sense of twisted morality made Truman not take advantage of speaking engagements, books etc… viable and in demand educational skills… and instead opt to have the taxpayers pay for he and Bess’ retirement health insurance and retirement pension. After all, a former POTUS speaking engagements, or books shouldn’t seem to present a moral quandary.

Ergo, I have to accept that, in the case of Harry and Bess, they *did* opt to remain “poor” by choice, and refused to market an in demand skill/product they could offer the public…. none of which would have been illegal, or a morality compromise. In fact, it would be an educational contribution.

And by that bizarre choice, they instead decided to be a drain on taxpayers by their enrollment and enjoyment of benefits they never contributed to.

If anyone found his refusal to exploit his POTUS and political career as admirable, it’s washed out by his decision to live off the tax payers for health insurance, instead of working and contributing to the tax revenues as a private citizen.

@SkippingDog: I would have responded the same way you did. Normally before responding like that to someone I’ll re-read the post to make sure I wasn’t misreading something. Didn’t do it this time.

@MataHarley:

By virtue of being the initial recipients of Medicare benefits, none of the first seniors enrolled would have paid into that system. They were all free riders at that point, so I’m not inclined to second-guess the Truman’s decision to participate. He is widely seen as the last former President who thought it undercut the dignity of the office to personally profit from speeches, books, etc., after he left office, so you and I must part company in our respective judgements about the value of that decision.

SkippingDog, I understand the the initial recipients of both SS and Medicare never paid into benefits. Something that those who do not wish to believe that these systems are funded on a Ponzi/pyramid scheme need to remember. They are as fragile as the population balance, as current generations are starting to figure out.

I don’t need to “second guess” the Trumans’ choice to participate. It’s a matter of fact in history. What is also a matter of history is that the Trumans would never make it with the “means testing”, unless you want to consider a refusal to market their skills legitimate reason not to have means. Therefore his refusal to “profit” from what he could offer in education from speeches and books is totally demolished by being a willful recipient of a welfare program to which he contributed zip, nada, nothing.

@SkippingDog:

Before the Social Security Act was implemented, approximately 50% of the elderly were living in poverty. By 1960, that number had dropped to 35%. After Medicare was implemented, the percentage of elderly living in poverty dropped in a clear declination to approximately 15% by 1970, 10% by the mid-90′s, and 8.9% with the most recent records available in 2009.

January 24, 2011

Washington, D.C. One in six older Americans live below the federal poverty line, according to a new government analysis which almost doubles the number of very poor seniors compared to the standard estimate.

At 16%, the proportion of seniors living in poverty is also higher than the proportion of all Anericans in poverty.

http://www.ncoa.org/press-room/press-release/one-in-six-seniors-lives-in.html

So your success story shows that more seniors were living in poverty in 2011 than were in the ’70’s. Ain’t progress wonderful?

@retire05:
Unfortunately, the Supplemental Poverty Measure Research you rely on from your link is based on different criteria than the historic measures of poverty, so making a direct comparison isn’t possible in any meaningful statistical sense. Nevertheless, I’m not surprised that the financial crash of 2008 would have created enough ongoing impact to push more of the elderly into poverty than the 2009 figures found. Seniors have seen their property values decline, interest rates on their savings fall to near zero, and have received minimal increases in their own Social Security benefits. Added to the increases in some unavoidable taxes, such as excise taxes, sales taxes, etc., and some additional out-of-pocket medical costs, many of those who had been hovering above the poverty level surly slipped into it.

Would you really suggest that a short term marginal increase in elderly poverty, caused by an economic decline that affected all income classes, justifies complete disregard for the previous 75 years of success?

@MataHarley:

Harry Truman was 81 years old when Medicare was implemented. Unlike yourself, I am not ready to conclude that just because an elderly individual may have been able to work for income that he should have been required to do so. That criticism seems misplaced to me.

@MataHarley:

One other point of departure. Medicare is a social insurance program, not an entitlement program or a welfare program. Those are distinctions that really do reflect substantive differences.

Two last observations before I agree to disagree. One can only go so long on this before it becomes redundant, since both of us have made our respective points, yes?

@SkippingDog: Harry Truman was 81 years old when Medicare was implemented. Unlike yourself, I am not ready to conclude that just because an elderly individual may have been able to work for income that he should have been required to do so. That criticism seems misplaced to me.

I believe that if a person chooses to retire, using his own means and not those of lesser financial abilities, that’s quite acceptable. However if he didn’t have the option to live off taxpayer funded pensions and health insurance, Truman would indeed have been “required” to do so to survive, like any other citizen. And in Truman’s case, the ability to earn a good living with minimal work was enhanced by what he could offer with little time devoted to boot. I consider that decision, which is based solely on your “lived in poverty” input, selfish and detrimental to the nation of citizens that elected him to the lofty position of power.

@SkippingDog: Medicare is a social insurance program, not an entitlement program or a welfare program. Those are distinctions that really do reflect substantive differences.

You may choose to label it anything that suits your fancies, should that make you happy. However the way it is funded… i.e. via employer paid matching taxes, and funds paying out current beneficiaries, collected from future beneficiaries… belies the definition to which you cling. This is not the same as me, purchasing a life insurance policy, paying in, and cashing it out later based on the contract agreement and my contributions.

Over an out. Back to my self-imposed exile from all things FA. ta ta

@retire05:

:

I don’t think you’re listening to my point of argument in your desire to get across the point that you’re hung up on.

I’m not “hung up” on anything. You simply dismiss what you don’t agree with.

Wrong. You simply steered and veered the conversation away to talk about your own personal peeves and not address what you were challenged on- namely that there are no hate crimes against Muslims- just normal crimes against those who happen to be Muslim- not because they are Muslim.

Yet, there have been no mosques burned, no Muslims taken out to the woods and hung, no Muslim businesses destroyed by angry vandals.

Do you still stand by this statement?

Perhaps you would like to example mosques that have been burned, as in a truely damaging fire?

Are you seriously trying to parse your language? “Truly damaging”?! You have got to be frakkin’ kidding me!!!

You literally mean, not only “burned” but “truly damaging fire”?! Not graffiti, not vandalism, but your standard is “truly damaging fire”? Unfrikkinbelievable!

Ok, playing by your rules and goal post shifting…

Didn’t I link to this story earlier:

Firefighters and police were called to a blaze at the Islamic Center in Joplin, Missouri – where around 125 members of the local Muslim community pray – at around 3:40am (0840 GMT), according to the FBI’s Kansas City office.

“The building was completely destroyed,” said Sharon Rhine, a spokesman for the local Jasper County Sheriff’s office.

Oh, but of course this can’t count as a hate crime against Muslims because we don’t know the motive of the arsonist.

I suppose we can discount this since it was a mosque construction site:

The center had operated for years out of a small business suite. Planning members said the new building, which was being constructed next to a church, would help accommodate the area’s growing Muslim community.

“We unfortunately did not experience hostilities for the 30 years we’ve been here and have only seen the hostility since approval of the site plan for the new center,” said Sbenaty.

Opponents of a new Islamic center say they believe the mosque will be more than a place of prayer; they are afraid the 15-acre site that was once farmland will be turned into a terrorist training ground for Muslim militants bent on overthrowing the U.S. government.

“They are not a religion. They are a political, militaristic group,” Bob Shelton, a 76-year-old retiree who lives in the area, told The Associated Press.

Shelton was among several hundred demonstrators who recently wore “Vote for Jesus” T-shirts and carried signs that said “No Sharia law for USA!,” referring to the Islamic code of law.

Others took their opposition further, spray painting a sign announcing the “Future site of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro” and tearing it up.

Earlier this summer opponents criticized the planned mosque at hearings held by the Rutherford County Commission, as supporters held prayer vigils.

At one such prayer vigil, WTVF reported opponents speaking out against construction.

“No mosque in Murfreesboro. I don’t want it. I don’t want them here,” Evy Summers said to WTVF. “Go start their own country overseas somewhere. This is a Christian country. It was based on Christianity.”

Yup…no religious bigotry here. I’m sure the arson was just a random act of hate, not specifically aimed at the Muslim community.

I suppose this doesn’t count since it was the playground of a mosque and not the actual mosque (as if the former isn’t part of the latter):

Glaspell admitted that he set fire to playground equipment at the mosque as part of a series of ethnically-motivated acts directed at individuals of Arab or Middle Eastern descent associated with the mosque. Glaspell further admitted that he stole and damaged mosque property, threw used cat litter at the front door of the mosque and shouted racial or ethnic slurs at individuals of Arab or Middle Eastern descent at the mosque on multiple occasions.

Oh, but wait…you moved the goal posts to read “truly damaging fire”…hmm…

On July 23, 2010, vulgar graffiti with derogatory messages were found spray-painted on the parking lot, and on July 25, 2010, there was a suspected arson attack on a children’s playground in the mosque area. When firefighters arrived to the scene, the fire had burned out, but there was extensive damage to the playground equipment.

…I suppose this is on the iffy side, then, huh? Only extensive damage and not “truly damaging” fire to the playground (which can’t even count as part of a mosque, huh? ‘Cause that’s in important, literal distinction!)- about $20,000 worth.

The Islamic Center of Savannah Georgia was “burned to the ground” in 2003, but- pfft- who knows the motive on that one?! Or the one in Stockton California 2 years ago.

Here’s a mosque in Tennessee destroyed by what appears to be arson fire. Not sure if it constitutes an anti-Muslim hate crime…would swastikas qualify it as such?

Investigators found drawings of swastikas and other graffiti at the Islamic Center of Columbia, said Special Agent Eric Kehn of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Daoud Abudiab, president of the center, said authorities told him the fire probably started around 5 a.m. The graffiti included the words “white power” and “we run the world,” Abudiab said.

Naaah…of course not- white supremacists are equal-opportunity haters and this is evidence of their racial hatred in general- not of Muslims, specifically.

Aw man…just a prayer rug. Can’t qualify this since he wasn’t able to do “truly damaging” arson-work to a mosque.

Who knows what the motive? Doesn’t matter ’cause there was no “truly damaging” fire.

Ya got me, Retire05. I got nothing. You win! No mosques were burned in “truly damaging” fire.

Gee? What’s the big deal here:

The only victim in all this was the pig, right? It was just a joke, Muslims! Have a sense of humor!

Or tell he how many Muslims have been taken out to the woods and hung?

I can’t believe you’re actually playing this word game.

This story can’t qualify- it doesn’t specify her as Muslim; nor a victim of a hate crime, let alone taken to the woods and hung. Just beaten to death on the head by a large object in her own home.

Hmm…pushed off a subway platform earlier this year…naaah no woods and no hanging; woman was just crazed so let’s ignore her anti-Muslim rantings.

As to Muslim businesses being destroyed by vandals, I’m sure some have been.

Thanks for modifying your original assertion; and yet, wait for the “but” monkey coming up……:

Just as there have been vandals who destroyed Jewish businesses, businesses owned by Christians, and in the case of the L.A. riots, businesses owned by those who were probably Buddhists.

So to clarify, your whole point in asserting, “Yet, there have been no mosques burned, no Muslims taken out to the woods and hung, no Muslim businesses destroyed by angry vandals” is that Muslims don’t have it any worse than any other special interest group? Is that it?

My argument is, that you want to dismiss, is that the vandel, or the robber, has no particular concern about the religion of the owners of the business he wants to vandalize or rob. When the OWS crowd was vandalizing businesses, do you think they stopped to ask the religion of the owner before they engaged in vandalism?

Of course there are instances of crime that have nothing to do with racial/ethnic/religious hatred as motive; but why on earth did you make the assertion that there aren’t crimes motivated by anti-Muslim bigotry (re: “Yet, there have been no mosques burned, no Muslims taken out to the woods and hung, no Muslim businesses destroyed by angry vandals. “)?

I think bigotry is wrong. Period. End of story. But I also understand fear. And I understand human emotion that shows anger at those that harm us, which often is expressed in what you would call bigotry.

What do you call it when you lash out at the wrong people?

You want to conflate bigotry with the cause of anger. They are not one and the same.

You don’t see it as bigotry and prejudicial ignorance when people can’t distinguish a difference between Muslims in general and those living by jihadism and al Qaeda theology/Qutbism?

You accusations of my using strawman arguments shows only that you use strawman arguments.

I know you are, but what am I? :p

Seriously, go back and start from what you originally wrote:

Yet, there have been no mosques burned, no Muslims taken out to the woods and hung, no Muslim businesses destroyed by angry vandals.

And look at how you’ve steered and veered and set up your strawmen to huff and puff and blow over.

Simply acknowledge that crimes against Muslims in this country have occurred, based upon anti-Islam/anti-Muslim/anti-Middle Eastern sentiments and beliefs. Then move on. No one here was ever denying that there is prejudicial views against other interest groups; nor arguing which group has the greater share of violent attacks against it.

You created those strawmen. It’s what you wanted to talk about.

Do you disagree that some talking heads have no problem slamming Catholics, but will go out of their way to excuse the actions of a Muslim?

Nope.

Do you disagree that hateful, snide remarks are made with regularity about Catholics, but never about Muslims?

Nope.

I noticed you also didn’t adress the fact the women’s groups like NOW never address the horrible human rights conditions that Muslim women live under in ME nations. This is the same group that slams the Catholic Church with regularity.

That’s because like the two blockquotes above this one, you’re creating strawmen goal posts, bringing up side issues that you obviously care about but which aren’t relevant to explaining,

Yet, there have been no mosques burned, no Muslims taken out to the woods and hung, no Muslim businesses destroyed by angry vandals.

The bottom line, Word? Muslims are treated no worse, suffer no more bigotry, than any other group in this nation.

But do you stick by this original assertion:

Yet, there have been no mosques burned, no Muslims taken out to the woods and hung, no Muslim businesses destroyed by angry vandals.

And if you want to be taken literally on “taken out to the woods and hung”, then yeah, I have not heard of any Muslim lynchings taking place. Win for you. Good thing you didn’t talk about being shoved off a subway platform, beatings, shootings, death threats….

@MataHarley: #218
Thanks for the correction. Another proof that you can’t believe everything people tell you.

@Tom: #158
Something hit me as I read some of the negative posts about people stocking up on guns, ammo, food, water, etc. Would ANY of you liberals please tell me how ANY of this is harming you or anybody else? If the government never tries to take our freedoms away from us, what harm has been done? None! Are the preppers going to go on a rampage because nobody tried to take ANY of their rights away? No! Are they going to be angry at spending the money they did and not having a need for what they bought? They will be just as mad as I get each time I buy fire insurance and never get to use it.

The only thing that has and will happen is that the manufacturers of guns, ammo, food storage, water storage, bunker builders, etc., will have made a lot of money. If I remember correctly, the politicians, even the liberal ones, have always said that one way to help the economy is for the citizens to spend more. So, is it safe to say that the preppers are actually HELPING the economy?

Another way to look at it is that the more they spend on prepping, the less they have to donate to their political party. Isn’t this a good thing for you liberals? If I were a liberal, I would be encouraging EVERY conservative to invest in their future and buy all that prepper stuff.

To put it simply, how are preppers hurting anybody?

Sott in Oklahoma
hi, you gave us a very good POST,
what was the thread about? they sway way far from it,
but there is many demand for impeachment
thank you

@ilovebeeswarzone: heh heh… yeah, it did wander a ways didn’t it. Have a good week y’all, I’m going back to work.

Wordsmith
if I may BRING ONE THOUGHT,
about the negative on MOSQUE BUILDING AND THOSE IN IT,
IT’S the eye sore fact that the war is still getting our braves injured and killed,
AND we hear of CROSS BEING DENIED ON THE SITE WHERE THEY ARE BURIED,
BUT ACROSS THE LAND ,YOU WITNESS BIG MONSTROUS STRUCTURE AIM AT THE GLORIFICATION OF THEIR FAITH,
THIS A CONFLICTING REALITY WHICH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE STILL NOW.
THOSE NEW IMMIGRANTS COULD NOT WAIT TO GET OWNERSHIP OF BEST LANDS AND BUILD THEIR
MOSQHE, THEY COULDN’T WAIT TILL AT LEAST AFTER YEARS OF MOURNING FROM FAMILIES AND FRIENDS AND CITIZENS OTHER WHO HAVE NO THINKING PROBLEM CAUSE BY INDOCTRINATION
OF THE MASS BY THIS GOVERNMENT SPREAD ALL AROUND THE AMERICA, ALLOWING WHAT IS UNTHINKEBLE TO BE TOLD AS AN ACCEPTING REALITY STILL THESES DAYS ON GOING
THE MERE FACT SOME ARE BURNING , TRYING TO TAKE THOSE OUT IS A TRUTH OF THE MALAISE OF AMERICANS WHO CANNOT STAND THOSE STRUCTURES AS PART OF AMERICA,
YOU THINK YES THE NEW AMERICA?
NO YOU CAN’T, THE AMERICA IS AND WAS, WILL NOT CHANGE ,
ONLY PEOPLE AT THE TOP CHANGE TO IMPOSE THOSE EYE SORES, THOSE LEADERS WILL LEAVE A TRAIL OF HATE THEY HAVE CREATED, BUT AMERICA WILL SURVIVE AS SHE IS IMMUABLE,
AND THOSE STRUCTURES WILL SOMEDAY NOT BE THERE ANYMORE, AND THE TOLERANT AND PEACEFUL PEOPLE WON’T
BE FORCE TO SEE IT EVER,

another vet
hi,
I think you peceive the arrogance , and you answer accordingly,
YOU HAVE BEEN HERE LONG ENOUGH TO SHOW A PROFILE OF GOOD JUDGEMENT
able to perceive the wrong stick made up to look like a tree, your service has been teaching you all those years,
so you did not need to apologyse,
but just to get his apology
bye

@Wordsmith:

OK, so you’ve shown that a mosque has been burned. I stand corrected. But how does that equate to mass hatred toward Muslims? It simply shows that there are those who will destroy the property of others, and we can’t know their reasons for that, since the arsonists apparently were never caught. Of course the Muslims were going to insist it was a hate crime. Just read the CAIR website and you will understand why.

The truth is that there is no more animosity shown toward Muslims in this nation, in spite of 9-11 and Fort Hood, than other groups. So I am having a hard time understanding what you are trying to acheive with all of this. Do I condone those actions against Muslims? Most certainly not. No more than I condone the actions of those who did this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_East_Texas_Church_Burnings

Warped people do warped things.

Good thing you didn’t talk about being shoved off a subway platform, beatings, shootings, death threats….

Seems shoving people under the subway is a New York thing. Both men killed were foreign born, but not Muslims. The first was killed by a black man, the second by a woman (in later reports) that appears to be Hispanic. Perhaps Bloomberg needs to address that.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Subway-Push-Platform-Suspect-Custody-Police-182158171.html

And then there is this:

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/04/22/st-louis-police-knew-about-knock-out-game-problem/

If there is a trend that LE should concern itself about, it is black on (name the race) crime that seems to be rising. So I don’t know what you are trying to prove here unless it is to indicate that crime against Muslims is on the rise, which I don’t think it is.

RE: “He said he was going to fundamentally change this country. The libs didn’t listen. He also said he wanted a civilian security force as well trained and funded as our military. Again the libs didn’t listen. … He appointed a ton of czars and advisers, making the obvious effort to circumvent the balance of power by ruling through regulation instead of governing by legislation. The libs didn’t notice.”

Who said liberals didn’t notice?

Yes, it is true that President Obama is building a Fascist State controlled by a Dictatorial President. Liberals know this, and they approve. Most liberals that I know believe that if they can re-elect Obama in this economy, they believe that they can elect anyone President. And they may be right. The demographics weigh heavily in their favor. The more people depend on the State to put bread on the table and roof over their heads, the more likely they can get liberals to the polls. But best of all, the MSM can turn the Presidential election into another popularity contest that they believe that they can win hands down. And if they don’t win, the White House press corps and the MSM will spend the next four years convincing the American people that the GOP president who stole the election is a demon from Hell. The name of the game is to turn politics into a cult. If the economy goes south, it’s because of bad luck or those evil republicans. It’s never their fault.

The democrats cannot sell their idiotic ideas to the American people. Their policies failed in the past, and they are failing worse now. But if they can centralize power in the White House, they can push their policies at will.

Kevino
hi,
yes, we will have to upscale the fact that they are the demons,
they are the destruction of AMERICA,
THEY ARE THE LIARS AND DECEIVERS ,
THEY ARE THE DANGEROUS ACTIVIST OF THE FALL OF AMERICA,
WE HAVE TO CONVINCE WITH THE TRUTH,AS MANY TIME IT’S NEEDED,
AND REPEAT IT ON AND ON,
SO TO BREAK THE SPELL THEY CAST FROM HELL TO THE GOOD PEOPLE UNAWARE AND WHO WILL BE THE FIRST TO BE LET DOWN EVEN IF THEY HELP THEIR PLAN TO ADVANCE.
WE WILL SUCCEED BECAUSE GOD IS ON OUR SIDE, AND THE BRAVEST WHO DIED ARE WITH GOD

@ilovebeeswarzone: @Scott in Oklahoma:

Yes, this discussion did wander off topic. But that is to be expected when there are as many posts as this one has garnered. Heck, it even brought Mata and Aye back to contribute a number of postings, as well as Word posting more than I have seen him do in a long time.

johngalt
yes you’re right,
it seem that one was trying to lead the comment out with his 60 plus comments,
it was as if we all where answering more than one post, that SkipplingDog
worked hard on it, he succeeded,
because no one would let him get away with its comments,
and you did a good part of it also,
bye

johngalt
but it was very interesting, to follow ,

@ilovebeeswarzone: Thanks for the response. He didn’t say anything that was an attack on me which is the way I initially interpreted it and why I apologized. Unlike a lot of folks, I’ll admit if I made a mistake. My ego isn’t that big.

Here’s a mosque in Tennessee destroyed by what appears to be arson fire. Not sure if it constitutes an anti-Muslim hate crime…would swastikas qualify it as such?

Investigators found drawings of swastikas and other graffiti at the Islamic Center of Columbia, said Special Agent Eric Kehn of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Daoud Abudiab, president of the center, said authorities told him the fire probably started around 5 a.m. The graffiti included the words “white power” and “we run the world,” Abudiab said.@Wordsmith:

Quick work solved that arson fire.
Three neo-nazi men did it.
Eric Baker, 32, Michael Golden, 28, and Jonathan Stone, 18, are accused in the vandalism and arson of the fire that destroyed the Islamic Center in Maury County.
Feb 10th 2008.
http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=7850890
Just as a murdered of doctors do not represent all Christians, or litterbugs do not represent all Democrats, so, too, a couple of neo-nazis do not represent all whites……

another vet
that guy gave 77 comments,
and many where fill with arrogance,
if you followed his comments you could pick it up
in a bundel, his ego is quite big, he would not take a rebuf,
he challenge everyone
he try to sway the thread, we do it without meaning it,
but he did it deliberately to fill his own taste to be on top of the comments
imposing his mindset of liberal protecting the leader and the party.
bye

Nan G
HI,
I picked up the hint from your comment and made some changes on my comment which had led to show that all AMERICANS WOULD ACT TO BURN THE STRUCKTURES,
which is not what I meant,
it look better now to what I WANTED TO PUT IN,
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
YES OF COURSE THE EXTREMIST DON’T REFLECT ALL THE PEOPLE BY THEIR ACTIONS,
BUT MANY ARE NEGATIVE ABOUT HAVING BEEN IMPOSE THOSE STRUCTURES ,AND THEY FEEL THEY CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT IMPOSE ON THEM.
BYE

@retire05: :

OK, so you’ve shown that a mosque has been burned. I stand corrected. But how does that equate to mass hatred toward Muslims?

I think maybe that’s where we diverged in understanding each other’s point. My head-scratch had to do with you seeming to not acknowledge that there is anti-Muslim hate crimes that are going on in this country. Not that it is “mass hatred”, and that seems to be what you were hearing.

In the past, I myself have been dismissive of claims that there has been a huge upsurge in anti-Muslim bigotry and violence against Muslims. I started rethinking some of that during the whole Ground Zero mosque controversy.

It simply shows that there are those who will destroy the property of others, and we can’t know their reasons for that, since the arsonists apparently were never caught. Of course the Muslims were going to insist it was a hate crime. Just read the CAIR website and you will understand why.

In doing the recent research, I actually found the reasonings mixed. In some instances, authorities AND imams and Muslims were cautioning against being quick to judge the arsons as motivated by bigotry; in other instances- those with an agenda to prove victimization at the hand of racists and bigots- would lump together all arsons against mosques with arsons that might well have been motivated by anti-Muslim bigotry. This includes one where it was a Muslim himself who started a fire, not happy with something or other regarding division within the mosque. That should not have been included on a list of arsons made for the purpose of creating an impression that all these mosques are being set ablaze by those who hate Muslims and Islam.

The truth is that there is no more animosity shown toward Muslims in this nation, in spite of 9-11 and Fort Hood, than other groups.

I don’t believe that’s entirely true. As the FBI stats bear out, since around 2010, there has been around a 50% increase in hate crimes against Muslims. It might not be an epidemic of violence and anti-Muslim sentiments, but it’s certainly not non-existent, either.

So I am having a hard time understanding what you are trying to acheive with all of this.

It goes back to wanting a clarification on your assertion that seemed to suggest that there is no violence and vandalism aimed at Muslims based upon their ethnic and religious identity.

Seems shoving people under the subway is a New York thing. Both men killed were foreign born, but not Muslims. The first was killed by a black man, the second by a woman (in later reports) that appears to be Hispanic.

Yes, but if you read the NYPost article I linked to, you’d read all about her anti-Muslim rantings- she didn’t know the man wasn’t Muslim; just like instances of violence against Sikhs, most likely mistaken for Muslims.

And then there is this:

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/04/22/st-louis-police-knew-about-knock-out-game-problem/

If there is a trend that LE should concern itself about, it is black on (name the race) crime that seems to be rising.

And this is another example of where I feel like you are distracting from the issue and changing the subject.

I suppose in a way, it’s natural to steer the conversation; and threads as long as this one eventually strays from the original topic(s). But I think you did this right from the beginning; or did not understand what I took issue with, originally.

So I don’t know what you are trying to prove here unless it is to indicate that crime against Muslims is on the rise, which I don’t think it is.

It’s to acknowledge that it does exist! And yet for several comments now, you seemed to want to discuss violence and bigotry against other groups, rationalize why there might be violence against Muslims in the first place (9/11 fear vs. bigotry); dismiss reports as CAIR-motivated make-believe bogus claims; dismiss violence and vandalism as common thuggery and not acts of hate crimes.

Wordsmith
the other thought come to mind also,
is visualyze a row of many black people waiting to try to get in on a job market,
after a long period which bring them back on and on on the long row behind
many foreigners they can spot quite eazy, by hearing their tongue and behavior and clothes,
those black would feel unjustly treated same as the white do,
and some would keep in mind they are being outranked by those foreigner
and they would be right also,
and that finding is close to violent actions from the violent ones , to feel justified .

@MataHarley:

Over an out. Back to my self-imposed exile from all things FA. ta ta

Why?

ms bees
: If people here are not accepted because they” have a different tongue, behavior or clothes” you probably shouldn’t be coming South anytime soon.lol

@Wordsmith:

It’s to acknowledge that it does exist!

Did I not acknowledge that crimes against Muslims exist? I even gave you the 2001 FBI stats. But that wasn’t enough for you.

And yet for several comments now, you seemed to want to discuss violence and bigotry against other groups,

Why not? Do you think that hate crimes against other groups are simply not as important as hate crimes against Muslims? Bigotry, and violence, against any group is disgusting.

rationalize why there might be violence against Muslims in the first place (9/11 fear vs. bigotry);

Why is that?

On January 31st of this year, a Muslim “rally” was held on the steps of the Texas Capitol. Around 300 attended, bused in from Houston and Dallas. One of the speakers was Rev. Ronnie C. Lester. Ronnie C. Lester gave a speech that could have been designed for any Martin Luther King, Jr. rally in the ’60’s. He spoke of how awful Texas is (obviously, from the looks of him, he hasn’t seem to have missed any meals) and how Texas was the problem [for Muslims] and how Islam is the solution.
Sorry, I can’t provide you any information on Rev. Lestor, but he obviously doesn’t understand that Islam has, and continues to support slavery.

The rally was put on by CAIR with assistance by the Rev. Louis Farrakhan, although that hater was not there.

Anyway, Mustafaa Carroll, of CAIR Houston and another speaker, went on to say “Following the law of the land is part of shariah. We follow the law of the land, in fact if we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land. The law doesn’t affect us at all.

Carroll went on to say that this is a new civil rights era only the reason for it is different and that this time it is global and has a geo-political impetus. He did not explain how petitioning Texas Congressmen have a “geo-political” purpose, except for the fact that there is a bill in the House to prevent any implementation of sharia law in Texas.

Now, perhaps you think, as I do, that these radicals supported by CAIR have an absolute right to say whatever the hell it is they want to say. But I also accept that when you exercise your First Amendment rights, you must be willing to accept the consequences. Just as with the radical Westburo Baptist Church freaks, they have a right to their voice. And I have a right to think they should all be locked up in some asylum.

When Muslims hold rallies, Word, and promote Islam becoming the predominate religion in the U.S. and the U.S. enacting laws that support sharia, why would you find it unusal that people would become distrustful of these people? Do you not remember the rally in New York City that was so anti-U.S. that a sitting New York politician felt so uncomfortable, and found what was being said so hateful, that he walked off the stage and left the rally?

I’m not trying to excuse the actions of haters, anymore than I would try to excuse the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church, but to Americans who see the harm that Islamists have wrought on this country, and for Muslims to then preach the CAIR radicalism on the steps of our state capitols, it should give anyone pause. The Muslims, themselves, have a responsibility to let the rest of the nation know that they are just as American as anyone else and that they accept their adopted land and its laws. Not say they are above those laws because they are Muslims.

dismiss reports as CAIR-motivated make-believe bogus claims; dismiss violence and vandalism as common thuggery and not acts of hate crimes.

Do I think that CAIR instigates bogus claims of victimization? Most certainly. I think CAIR is one of the most dangerous organizations in our nation.

Richard Wheeler
if I didn’t know you ,
I would think you are an idiot,
but I know you pinpoint words to make a negative sentence
so to hit someone in the back.
reread my point and use what’s left of your brain to think it over,
you can take all the time you need

@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees I see nothing but distain for those who may sound or look or behave differently. Were you assuming these “foreigners” were undocumented? How would one know this? What did you ACTUALLY mean

Richard Wheeler
when I want to show disdain, I won’t hide,
what I said what the blacks as well as the whites waiting in long lines to seek for a job, those out of 23 millions unemployed, are surely pissed of by seeing the foreigners waiting in front of them,
because they, black and white where here before rightfully feel they should be the priority who get the jobs first,
and righfully so.
did you know they are falling behind the foreigners in job

@ilovebeeswarzone: @ilovebeeswarzone: Bees As you know there are many immigrants here legally who are looking for jobs with everybody else. Would you discriminate against them?
BTW You said Blacks and Whites waiting—-Can Latins,Asians,Muslims and others in our truly diverse culture stand with them? I don’t know about Canada but we in the good ol U.S. OF A have always taken pride in our cultural diversity.

Semper Fi my friend.

Richard Wheeler
diversity are okay
as long as they don’t take the jobs of those rooted deep in the soil of AMERICA,
THEY SHOULD HAVE THE PRIORITY OF JOBS

@ilovebeeswarzone: How bout the Indians. Should they have job priority?

Richard Wheeler
be surprise to read, THE INDIANS YES SHOULD HAVE THE PRIORITY,
THEY WHERE HERE FIRST, THEY GAVE AMERICA TO YOU.
it’s the least we can give them

To any of my Marine buddies that want to go out and take a walk, keep an eye on the sky.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20news/US-news-PDFs/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf

Semper fi

@Richard Wheeler:
You mean the people that came across the land bridge from Asia?
The ones that killed off the Indigenous peoples, those “Indians”?

@ilovebeeswarzone: This is fun. Mexicans here before Whites but after Indians. Blacks here after Whites but before Asians—-Bees law for job priority—–1)Indians2)Mexicans3)Whites4)Blacks5)Asians6)OTHERS. Should we prioritize by tribe? Later

Bees How bout a thumbs up do J.G.for 300. Let’s go for 400
Should Descendants of those who came across Berring Straits be moved to the front? A conundrum

J.G. Thought Holder’s response was excellent.Assume you’re glad your basement is “supplied”

@ilovebeeswarzone:
Let me ask you a question.
Lets say that you and I went to a bar for a night out to watch a hockey game and we got got into an argument.
I lost my temper hit you on the nose and you got mad and walked out telling me that you would get even.
Now 20 years later, you’re walking down the street and see my teenage son walking by and you sock him on the nose.
Does that sound reasonable to you?
Why am I being held responsable and or punished for what happened to Indians 75 years before I was born?
Just asking for help with my confusion.