Refreshing Honesty
Tweet
Some folks are upset that Roy Moore, the right-wing judge who illegally posted the Ten Commandments in his court, has expressed the opinion that a Muslim should not serve in congress. It’s frankly refreshing.
The right too often cloaks its hatred in legalese and pseudo-intellectual arguments. Like their hatred of hispanics, blacks, gays, etc. the right just needs to embrace their hatred and be upfront about it. Say it loud: you hate brown people. Scream it so we can hear you better.
81 Responses to “Refreshing Honesty”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Perhaps you could point out to me where the Judge said he hated anyone. Then you could point out to me where he said he hated Muslims and / or brown people.
We’ll save the right’s “hatred of hispanics, blacks, gays, etc.” for another day,eh?
Goooood! I can feel your anger. Your hate has made you powerful. Now, fulfill your destiny and
take your father’s
place at my side!!!!
This goes along the lines of why I think it’s GOOD that Barack Obama may potentially run for President.
It will make a CLEAR DIVISION between Americans that are moving towards the future and those that crave the “good ol’ days”. Since “Dubya” set the bar so extremely low, noone in their right mind can say Obama is “unqualified”
I can respect someone’s clear and unhidden racial stances. If you hate non-white people, SAY SO! At least I know where you stand.
If he runs and doesn’t get the Dem nomination, will that demonstrate racism?
What a tool. This is primarily the sort of mentality that I wanted to escape when I left Alabama. This sort of crap is why he needed to be disrobed. How would he give a fair chance to a Muslim in his courtroom since people who follow the Koran(Quaran) share the same philosphy of the terrorists who attacked New York? I am kinda praying for the Rapture so God can smite this piece of trash for besmearching his teachings.
Hatred can be implicitly stated, fd, or in the case of the article, almost explicitly implicit. I could say that blacks or Jews shouldn’t serve in our government–I wouldn’t be SAYING I hate anyone, but hatred would clearly be my reasoning, despite any justification I gave.
And I love how these guys come up with their perverted understanding of Islam. Quoting some Islamic extremist in order to paint a whole religion as adhering to said extremist’s beliefs is easy. That’s why these guys never actually quote the Q’uran.
And Starky, I agree that Obama could possibly make a very good President, but the fact that Bush was unqualified and won doesn’t mean that Obama IS qualified. Without getting into an indepth political discussion, couldn’t it logically make sense that both Bush and Obama are unqualified? I mean if we’ve learned anything from Bush’s catastrophe of a Presidency, it should be that good experience does matter.
Fixed?
Fixed.
Well, I guess this means that us conservatives can take the comments from ANY liberal and say it applies to “the left.”
So the next time some leftist starts spouting some anti-Semitic nonsense (which will be in about 30 seconds), we can say “the left” hates Jews.
And I address the Obama issue and voting for Black candidates here.
Of course, Starky is one of the liberals that I discussed. His view is that if Obama runs for President and loses, it will only be because of racism – on the part of white voters who usually vote Republican.
That of course is nonsense. But that’s the mindset. Democrat Harold Ford Jr. lost. The reason? Had to be racism. Republican Michael Steele lost to a pasty white fossil in Ben Cardin. The reason? Enlightened Democratic voters knew what to do.
JWG brings up an issue I also brought up. If Obama runs and doesn’t get the nomination, will the Democratic party start doing some self examination?
You see, contrary to what people like Starky think, race has nothing to do with how conservatives vote. When JC Watts was in Congress, he represented a district that was 90% white. So did Gary Franks. In Maryland, Michael Steele received 54% of the white male vote, while Cardin only received 45%.
Conservatives care about ideas and ideology, not race when it comes to choosing the people to represent them. As such, if Obama were to get the Democratic nomination and lose in 2008, the notion that it would be because he’s black is absurd.
Here is the link.
race has nothing to do with how conservatives vote
HAHAHAHA, tell me another one!
In all likelihood if Barack Obama gets the nomination (he wouldn’t have a shot in the RNC) he will lose because of the mostly white mostly Republican vote and in all likelihood the Republicans will run numerous racially tinged ads like the one they did vs. Harold Ford, only more so.
Jay, you need to quit pretending like the southern strategy hasn’t been a backbone of the GOP’s vote (ask John McCain about Rove’s “black baby” attack) for a looong time. Republicans have a problem with race and you’re kind of like the wife who won’t admit her husband has a drinking problem. I don’t think you’re a racist at all, but you’re enabling it by ignoring it.
“Conservatives care about ideas
and ideology”
Which brings us back to the subject that the right wing idiots here have been avoiding: A leader of the hard right has come out and said that a Muslim should not be allowed to serve in Congress.
Jay even goes so far as to suggest that Moore doesn’t represent the “right.” Hilarious. I guess was all those progressive lefists following Moore around the country on his Old Testament Palooza tour. What a tool.
hatred would clearly be my reasoning, despite any justification I gave
He didn’t say anything like that, though, did he?
That was my point …
If Republicans don’t vote for someone like Obama, it may be, in the minds of some, because he’s black. In my case, it would be because he’s just another liberal.
I would vote for Condoleezza Rice, and she’s not a “dyed in the wool” conservative — but she’s conservative enough. Just like Giuliani — who wouldn’t be elected President because of liberal prejudice against Italians?
You tell me.
Jay,
Starkyluv never said anything about Obama losing. In fact, the word “lose” never appears in his post. He never even implies that Obama would lose thanks to racist conservatives. He simply clearly advocates a strong, in your face push by the Dems to draw a line between their ideals and those of the GOP. One such line would be on equality, which an Obama candidacy would bring into stark relief.
Obama could lose for any number of reasons, but it is a lock that race would certainly be a strong factor.
In all likelihood if Barack Obama gets the nomination (he wouldn’t have a shot in the RNC) he will lose because of the mostly white mostly Republican vote
No shit Oliver. They would vote for the REPUBLICAN candidate, white or black. That’s where your thought process falls apart. If Obama were a Republican, he’d get white Republican votes. How difficult is that to understand?
Your whole line of thinking falls apart when you look at the breakdown of the Steele/Cardin race.
and in all likelihood the Republicans will run numerous racially tinged ads like the one they did vs. Harold Ford, only more so.
Considering Obama himself said Ford did not lose because of racism, your whining about an ad that you say was ‘racially tinged’ (It had a white woman in it! OMG!) is just more of the same nonsense.
Jay, you need to quit pretending like the southern strategy hasn’t been a backbone of the GOP’s vote (ask John McCain about Rove’s “black baby” attack) for a looong time.
Oliver, you’re off the subject. This is not about electoral strategies regarding opposition candidates. It is about whether or not white Republicans vote for black candidates. They do. if the candidate is a REPUBLICAN.
Republicans have a problem with race
Then explain how Michael Steele garnered 94% of the GOP vote in Maryland. Explain how when guys like Gary Franks and JC Watts were office they represented districts that were 90% or more white. Explain why Republicans were giddy at the idea of Colin Powell running for President at one point.
A leader of the hard right has come out and said that a Muslim should not be allowed to serve in Congress.
Oh GFY. Moore gains notoriety for refusing to take down the 10 Commandments in his courtroom and suddenly it turns him into a ‘leader.’ Yeah and I suppose Mother Sheehan is a ‘leader’ of the hard left.
Jay even goes so far as to suggest that Moore doesn’t represent the “right.”
No moron. That is not what I said at all and quite frankly, I won’t waste my time explaining to such a dunderhead what I meant. People here with a brain understood.
Twit.
Yes, fd, he never said he “hated” Muslims.
He just compares the Koran to Mein Kampf.
…and the Communist Manifesto.
Oh, and he insists that the Islamic faith rejects “our” God (a clear indication that he believes that America is a Christian nation), an inherently moronic statement since every religion that is not Christian can be said to reject “our” God.
However, we need to consider something here that eludes so many on the Right. Context. This is the man who advocated putting the Ten Commandments in his courthouse and who has openly professed to adherence to the Bible up to and including allowing it to influence his rulings. So despite his weak attempt to feign support for separation between church and state, this money quote says it all:
Clearly it’s alright if we ram Christianity down the throats of our people, but Islam is EEEvil. He also goes to some trouble to argue that Islam is a religion of extremism, while conveniently sidestepping the more contentious issues in the Bible (i.e. ownership of slaves, or the right to murder heathens or even your own children).
But no, he never actually comes out and says he “hates” Muslims.
Bill, maybe I was mistaken, but Starky wrote the following:
It will make a CLEAR DIVISION between Americans that are moving towards the future and those that crave the “good ol’ days”.
Seems to me he is suggesting that if Obama loses, we’re still stuck with a bunch of rednecks that are longing for the ‘good ole days.’ I could be wrong though.
Where’s Rheinhard. You gave money to Jefferson’s opponent and expressed frustration that people assume Jefferson reflects something about the Party. Moore writes a column questioning whether Ellsion is suitable to serve in Congress because of his presumed pri,ary commitment to his faith. So OW goes from there to say that Moore says no Muslim can or should serve in Congress and that the right in general hates blacks, gays, etc.
Guess what. OW b*stardized Moore’s column. But I, as conservative as most on my side, don’t agree even with the pre-bastardized column. Presumably some Christians are in the same boat.
So the next time we take something Mikey Moore or his bud Jimmy Carter or Babs says and extrapolate that to the left in general, – just remember this.
I only know that Barbra Streisand’s a liberal because you people keep whining about her. I’ve never actually heard or read any of her opinions.
Oliver wrote that Moore’s opinion was refreshing because it revealed the true feelings of “the right.”
Jay wrote in his first post:
Now, of course, he tells us that
Naturally. Of course, Moore isn’t a
“leader” and he certainly isn’t a leader of the
right, says Jay. Not at all:
Like I said elsewhere, Jay. You are now officially the stupidest person on the planet.
And while you’re being an idiot, Jay, why don’t you tell us whether or not you agree with Moore’s opinion:
“OW b*stardized Moore’s column.”
Ah y*s, Oliv*r extr*polated from Moore’s rel*gious b*gotry t*at the go*d j*dge w*s al*o a r*cist as w*ll. What a str*cth.
Frame, I now know that you must purposely be acting stupid because nobody could be so dumb. This is what you wrote:
Jay even goes so far as to suggest that Moore doesn’t represent the “right.”
I didn’t come close to saying that. What I DID say is that is is absurd to equate the words of Roy Moore to “the right.” His words are not “representative” of the right as MOST conservatives would disagree with him.
No more so than the idiotic crap spewed by Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney or Ted Rall is representative of the all the left.
Is that so freaking hard for you to figure out? Stop being such a petulant ass, looking to argue trivial points just because it allows you to engage in some mental masturbation.
And please. Spare me the Constitution Party and Christian Coalition nonsense. Both organizations have been marginalized and are pretty much irrelevant. Of course, since you’re a RETARD you think Howard Phillips is some kind of legit ‘leader.’ Howard Phillips has been running for President for like 20 years now. The same people vote for him each time.
And no, I don’t agree with Moore’s opinion. I don’t waste my time with such trivial nonsense.
Grow up already.
You forgot to type this bit:
…But since it’s left-wing, it’s still idiotic crap.
“I don’t waste my time with such trivial nonsense.”
Ah yes, you rise above such trivialities, like the difference between “equate” and “represent.”
So let me get this straight. You didn’t suggest that Moore doesn’t “represent” the right, you said his words can’t be “equated” with the right. Oh. Okay. But in attacking me you just wrote:
So my original statement — “Jay even goes so far as to suggest that Moore doesn’t represent the ‘right.’” –is still an accurate “representation” of your
opinion. Right?
What an idiot.
Nimrod, it’s all idiotic crap. Whether it’s from the left or the right. Frankly, I cannot understand why people waste time with it and the problem I have is that people like Frameone are convinced that the overwhelming majority of conservatives think like Roy Moore. So Roy Moore said a Muslim should not serve in Congress. Frameone jumps to the conclusion that all other conservatives feel the same way. It’s just plain DUMB.
To be honest, I find the guy repugnant just like I do Cindy Sheehan. Why? Because it’s all about them. Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, etc. They purposely say and do things so outrageous because they know people are going to talk about it. For them, there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Let me rephrase that:
My original statement is and was an accurate reflection of your feelings about Moore’s opion.
But you don’t waste your time on trivialities. How about this for trivialities.
Moore may not be a leader of the right but he is definitely a leader on the right. I don’t think you can deny this. So tell me what the right-wing that you represent should do about such pernicious religious bigotry within its ranks.
Hey Frame, like I said, grow up. Maybe when you do, you’ll understand the difference between an adjective and a verb.
Moore may not be a leader of the right but he is definitely a leader on the right. I don’t think you can deny this.
Yeah, Moore is such a ‘leader’ that he was defeated in the Republican primary in Alamab earlier this year. That’s some influence!
Ya, Jay, because “Moore represents the right” and “Moore’s words are representative of the right” are statements so wildly different in meaning only a child could confuse the two in this context.
It would, however, take a child to be so weasly as to suggest that there is some vast difference.
Moore is obviously a leader on the right and his words are representative of that section of the right that he represents. You claim he neither represents the right nor “is representative” of the right.
And yet, there he is, with all of his support coming from the right, even if his support isn’t coming from all of the right.
“I find the guy repugnant just like I do Cindy Sheehan. Why? Because it’s all about them.”
And I love this. So Moore isn’t repugnant because he’s a religious bigot or for any of the ideas he advocates. He’s repugnant because he’s self-centered.
Aw, if only he were a humble, religious bigot, Jay might warm to the guy. Awesome.
Ya, Jay, because “Moore represents the right” and “Moore’s words are representative of the right” are statements so wildly different in meaning only a child could confuse the two in this context.
The two statements are completely different Frame. Sorry if that bothers you.
You claim he neither represents the right nor “is representative” of the right.
No, once again, I said the latter. I said nothing about the former. That was your interpretation of things. Don’t blame me because you’re confused.
And I love this. So Moore isn’t repugnant because he’s a religious bigot or for any of the ideas he advocates. He’s repugnant because he’s self-centered.
See what I mean?
You ever watch a debate degrade to the point where it becomes such a farce of an argument that everyone participating in it insults the other for being stupid enough to participate in such a farce of an argument? Where people have to argue semantics used in reference to other semantical arguments? Where people fight about the fact that theyre fighting? Where there is hostility, even in the concession of common ground, just for the sake of keeping the fight going longer than it would ever need to?
Yeah… s’a damn thing, in’nt it?
“No, once again, I said the latter. I said nothing about the former.”
So you think Moore represents the right?
“Yeah… s’a damn thing, in’nt it?”
Why whatever could you be referring to?
Duggster: But I, as conservative as most on my side, don’t agree even with the pre-bastardized column.
Jay: MOST conservatives would disagree with him.
Could one of you guys post a link or two to a conservative who supports our soon-to-be first ever Muslim in Congess?
Thanks.
Now, why would a Republican or conservative support a Democrat.
Think first, move fingers second.
You did, in the Tom Johnson thread. Of course you were lying through your teeth, but you said it.
Could one of you guys post a link or two to a conservative who supports our soon-to-be first ever Muslim in Congess?
Who said they had to support him? If Moore’s views are so prevalent amongst the right as people seem to think, there should be tons of examples for you to provide.
Alas, it appears it is the lone view of a supposed “leader” who couldn’t even win a primary in his own party. That and a few of his friends like Howard Phillips.
Well, someone provide examples, for heaven’s sake, before someone dies.
You man David Duke thinks otherwise.
You do already all the time, which is fine with me because they are thoughtful Americans patriots unlike the vitriolic spew we read from rightists like Newt etal.
The reason Moore is a leader is that he represents mainstream Republican thinking
I didn’t think David Duke was still a member of the GOP, but he is.
You know Moore isn’t the only right wing idiot out there attacking. Dipshit
Dennis PragerDennis Prager started the ball rolling last week.
Check the track backs on that article, my idiot friend.
There are people on the right and left opposed to Prager’s position but let’s not kid ourselves, the people who support it are all on the right.
You man David Duke thinks otherwise.
Yeah, and David Duke is opposed to the war in Iraq. I guess he is representative of the left.
You taking lessons from Frame in the art of idiocy?
I didn’t think David Duke was still a member of the GOP, but he is.
Yes and he has been repeatedly repudiated by the GOP establishment.
There are people on the right and left opposed to Prager’s position but let’s not kid ourselves, the people who support it are all on the right.
Yes and when Cynthia McKinney was in office there were people on the left and the right opposed to her kooky conspiracy theories and her anti-semitism, but let’s not kid ourselves, the people who support it are all on the left.
Congrats Frame. You have a little follower up there. Mike spouts the same inane drivel you do.
Uh, ya Jay. I’ll take Cynthia McKinney’s crazy victimhood against the crazy victimhood of idiots like Moore and Prager any day of the week. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t seem to recall McKinney ever arguing that a whole class of American citizens numbering in the millions should not be allowed to hold elected office because of their religious beliefs. Am I wrong on that?
Oh and you still haven’t answered my question: Yes or no, does Moore represent the right?
Allow me, frameone: The answer is no.
I’ll take Cynthia McKinney’s crazy victimhood against the crazy victimhood of idiots like Moore and Prager any day of the week.
Oh, so you support anti-Semites.
Awesome Frame. Just awesome.
Actually, what he said was:
Or did you just stop reading after the bit you could twist into an accusation of racism?
By the way, I certainly haven’t found anything saying that, and McKinney herself never said anything anti-semitic; she denounced any such dialogue connected with her campaign.
Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t seem to recall McKinney ever arguing that a whole class of American citizens numbering in the millions should not be allowed to hold elected office because of their religious beliefs. Am I wrong on that?
Nor actually did Moore.
Or did you just stop reading after the bit you could twist into an accusation of racism?
No, I was just doing what he does all the time. He takes a statement out of context and reaches an asinine conclusion. I’ve learned my lesson with Frameone. He’s an imbecile. And attempting to reason with an imbecile is an exercise in futility, so I’ll just respond to him the way he does to just about everybody else so that as an imbecile, he’ll understand.
“Oh, so you support anti-Semites.”
Obviusly I don’t Jay. You were attempting to compare McKinney and Moore. They’re both idiots, but show me where McKinney said that Jews don’t have a right to hold elected office and then you have a comparison. But you haven’t so you really don’t.
Of course we have Dugger chiming in to claim that Moore didn’t suggest the Muslims should not be allowed in Congress. That’s nice work, Fugs. Moore wrote:
The only reason Moore gives for prohibiting Ellison from Congress is because Ellison is a Muslim and because the Quran is just like Mein Kampf.
And Jay, coudl you please answer my question: Does Moore represent the right wing? I think he represents a substantial and powerful segment of the right wing. Am I wrong? Does he represent the right?
I can tell you emphatically that Cynthia McKinney does not represent the left. Why can’t you simply state what you believe about Moore?
Let me take a guess. Because you’re a childish idiot who previously wrote this:
Now, to keep from looking like an idiot, you have to dance around the semantic differences between “represent” “equate” and “representative.”
So, please, just tell me: Does Moore represent the right?
Oops, I should have written:
Now, in a futile attempt to keep from looking like an idiot …
Sorry about the confusion.
frame, I still don’t agree with Moore, but I still don’t think you are fairly representing what he is saying. He says it about Ellsion – the individual. You say he says it all about all Muslims. Moore’s contention (a wrong one I believe)is that Ellison the individual is so much a Muslim that he can’t be faithful to the Constitution. Moore may well believe that another Muslim could be sworn in as usual and there would be no problem. I don’t know but I’m not putting words into his mouth. You are.
You write this:
“He says it about Ellsion – the individual. You say he says it all about all Muslims. ”
and in the same post also write this:
“Moore’s contention (a wrong one I believe)is that Ellison the individual is so much a Muslim that he can’t be faithful to the Constitution.”
I’m sorry what? “So much a Muslim”? Can someone be “too much a Jew” to hold elected office? How about “too much a Christian”? Or “too much a Hindu”?
What does “too much a Muslim” mean if it doesn’t mean being a Muslim period? Are only non-observant Muslims allowed to be elected to Congress?
But I digress, because Moore doesn’t say that Ellison is “too much a Muslim.” He says quite directly this:
I’m sorry, what? Our god? I can tell you flat out that my God is not Moore’s god. Should I be banned from holding public office on that score? Just tell, Fugs, who is “our” refering to?
Moore adds:
Ya, guess what, a number of the Ten Commandments are totally unconstitutional but Moore thinks they should be enshrined in every courthouse. For Moore, the christian commandments came from “our” god so that’s cool. But in contrast he is saying that Islam itself, not individual Muslims, rejects our god. I don’t think it’s putting words in his mouth to say that following from this anyone who is a Muslim must, by definition, reject “our” god. But Maybe Moore does believe that some Muslims can interpret Islam differently and so may not reject “our” god.
But Moore doesn’t actually ask Ellison, the individual, what he believes or how he interprets his faith. Not at all. He actually takes the words of other Muslims, extremists at that and puts them in Ellison’s mouth. Moore writes:
Oh. Naturally. If some radical in Somalia says something about Islam, Ellison MUST believe the same thing. Makes sense. But Moore goes on:
Moore asserts that Idris supported Ellison’s campaign and so accordingly Ellison must believe what Idris believes. Wow. Can you say “guilt by association”? Talk about putting words in someone’s mouth …
So there’s a couple things going on here Dugger. Moore is making broad sweeping claims about Islam itself and he is basing those claims on what apparent Islamic extremists have to say about Islam. He is then de facto asserting that Ellison shares those extreme views simply because he is a Muslim.
So you’re wrong on all counts. First, Moore is deliberately turning to extremists to derive his view of Islam.
Second, he also isn’t treating Ellison as an individual because he never once quotes Ellison directly and he obviously never bothered to call the guy.
The only basis he has for making the claim that Ellison should not be allowed to hold public office is that he is a practicing Muslim and as we all know, practicing Muslims cannot be loyal to America.
To suggest that I’m putting words in Ellison’s mouth is ridiculous, especially since the whole piece is predicated on putting words in Ellison’s.
Dugger, it is not even that. Moore only says that Ellison should not serve if he insists on taking the oath of office with his hand on the Quran. Moore argues that the teachings of the Quran are inconsistent with our constitution. Quite frankly, it’s an asinine argument and it’s just wrong. Would Moore say the same thing about an atheist member of Congress who doesn’t place a hand on the Bible? Frankly, I am more concerned how Ellison votes than what he swears his oath on.
Of course, it doesn’t come close to Frame’s contention that Moore said Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to serve in Congress. But Frame is stupid and he is dishonest as he takes a quote that doesn’t have context and claims to ‘prove’ his contention by pasting it.
And Frame, why do you want me to answer a question you already answered yourself? You said:
I think he represents a substantial and powerful segment of the right wing.
Nothing I say is going to change your mind, so why the hell should I bother?
So Jay and Dugger’s response is that Moore is wrong, but geez, let’s not get bent out of shape about it, he’s only arguing for a religious test before anyone can hold public office.
Presumably it hasn’t gotten through either of your thick skulls that if Islam is incompatible with the Constitution and Ellison is “too Muslim” to hold public office, then someone has to decide which Muslims are “too Muslim.”
And Jay, I’m not asking you to change my mind. I’m asking you what’s on your mind. Do you think Moore represents the right?
Why can’t you answer that question?
So Jay and Dugger’s response is that Moore is wrong, but geez, let’s not get bent out of shape about it, he’s only arguing for a religious test before anyone can hold public office.
Yeah, that’s exactly what we said. You’re such an ass.
Do you think Moore represents the right?
No, now go ahead and ask me another fishing expedition question designed so that you can have an “Ah ha!” moment.
Thank you I will.
So whe you wrote this:
you were ignoring your own peronal belief (which I correctly characterized) in order to attack me.
What integrity. What character. What an idiot.
“Yeah, that’s exactly what we said. You’re such an ass.”
Um, Jay, you wrote:
Only? ONLY?
What an idiot.
Moore is a small time unelected Alabama politician, for Chrissakes. I assume he believes that if a Muslim swears on the Bible he can serve in Congress. But I don’t know and don’t really give a rats *ss (thought you would enjoy one more *sterisk). I only go by what he’s reported as saying, not guessing at what he secretly thinks. I don’t defend his argument, his rationale, whatever. Merely pointng out how you and OW have inflated this way beyond what it is.
Only? ONLY?
Only in the sense that he did NOT say what you claimed he did. Not ‘only’ in that it wasn’t so bad.
Gad, you’re such a freaking jackass!
“Moore is a small time unelected Alabama politician, for Chrissakes.”
Do you mean former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore? You mean the same former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore you made national news and has a huge following on the hard core Christian right over his stance on the Ten Commandments in the courts?
And dugger you write this:
“I assume he believes that if a Muslim swears on the Bible he can serve in Congress.”
I hope that’s a typo because Moore wrote this:
“In either event, according to Idris, Ellison cannot swear an oath on the Quran and an allegiance to our Constitution at the same time.”
Which is the basis for his opposition to Ellison entering congress period.
The bottom line, however, is that the reason Moore thinks swearing on the Quran disqualifies Ellison is because he thinks Islam itself is incompatible with American law.
He writes:
you were ignoring your own peronal belief (which I correctly characterized) in order to attack me.
Up until just a comment ago, I hadn’t said anything about it. Now you sound even dumber attempting to say, “Well, I was retroactively right!!”
And Dugger, just forget it. Know what frame is going to do now? This:
Channeling Frameone:
I assume he believes that if a Muslim swears on the Bible he can serve in Congress.
So now Dugger doesn’t think it’s a big deal for a Muslim to be forced to swear his oath on the Bible. That’s great!!
—
Take a rest Frame. I responded how you would.
“Only in the sense that he did NOT say what you claimed he did. Not ‘only’ in that it wasn’t so bad.”
Oh really? I said that Moore was arguing for a religious test before someone can hold office. Now in your mind, that’s not as bad as what I believe Moore is saying. As you wrote:
“Of course, it doesn’t come close to Frame’s contention that Moore said Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to serve in Congress.”
So you are saying that what Moore is suggesting is bad, just not as bad as I say it is. As if the distinction means anything.
That is also if such a distinction actually could be made given that Moore quite clear lays out the grounds on which Islam itself is opposed to the Consitution and that anyone who believes in Islam cannot believe in “our” god and so cannot uphold the Consitution.
Do you want to keep this up Jay? Would you like to make an even bigger ass out of yourself?
“I hadn’t said anything about it.”
Yes, except to say that you didn’t say it and that I was mischaracterizing your position. Which I clearly wasn’t based on your original comment:
I said that Moore was arguing for a religious test before someone can hold office.
No, that’s now what you said. THIS is what you said:
A leader of the hard right has come out and said that a Muslim should not be allowed to serve in Congress.
So you are saying that what Moore is suggesting is bad, just not as bad as I say it is. As if the distinction means anything.
The distinction does mean something because IT IS TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! Good Lord!
Yes, except to say that you didn’t say it and that I was mischaracterizing your position.
Wrong again ass. You claimed I said something which I hadn’t. It was true then and it’s true now. Deal with it.
One of the larger points here is that time and time again, we hear from the idiot right that if only more moderate Muslims need to speak out against Muslim extremists.
But doesn’t that work for everyone?
Jay’s first response was not to attack Moore, but to attack Oliver by denying that Moore represented, was representative, or could be equated with the Right.
And yet what moderate Muslims say that terrorists do not represent, are not representative of or cannot be equated with Islam, the right calls that a cop out.
Jay and Dugger even go so far as to defend Moore by suggesting that his opion, while extreme and bad, is not as extreme and bad as it could be. That’s awesome. Just awesome.
“No, that’s now what you said. THIS is what you said”
Jay, if you accurately quoting me in context you would see that I have said Moore’s religious test extends well beyond swearing on the Quran. He believes that Islam itself is an implicit rejection of the US Constitution and that it’s adherents cannot both be Muslim and accept the Constitution. He doesn’t think that Ellison should be in Congress because of the nature of Islam, not simply because he’s swearing on the Quran.
And Jay, your meaning was clear from your first post: You don’t think Moore represents the right. For some reason you attacked me for stating directly the meaning of your post and your obvious belief. Then you had to play all kinds of semantic games to back it up, even though, all the time, your basic position was then and is now that Moore doesn’t represent the right.
“The distinction does mean something because IT IS TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! Good Lord!”
And Jay, suggesting that some Muslims shouldn’t be allowed in Congress because they won’t swear on a bible and suggesting that no Muslim should be allowed to serve is a distinction without a difference. They are both religious tests of equal abhorrence before the consitution but you seem to think that one is worse than the other.
Of course, you are also attempting to defend Moore as not as bad as he could be, even though it’s clear in his piece that he believes Islam istelf and all Muslims by definition are hostile to the Constitution and cannot be loyal to both the Quran and the Constitution.
Jay’s first response was not to attack Moore, but to attack Oliver by denying that Moore represented, was representative, or could be equated with the Right.
Because instead of just attacking Moore, he attempted to extrapolate it out to everybody on the right hating blacks, gays, etc. It was ridiculous and I said so. If that offended your delicate sensibilities, that’s too frigging bad.
And yet what moderate Muslims say that terrorists do not represent, are not representative of or cannot be equated with Islam, the right calls that a cop out.
Well, when that is all they say in response to people being maimed, killed and bloodied by Islamic terrorists it is a cop-out. But I guess you think Roy Moore and a suicide bomber are one and the same.
Jay and Dugger even go so far as to defend Moore by suggesting that his opion, while extreme and bad, is not as extreme and bad as it could be.
And that is a lie. You’re stupid and you’re a liar. Congratulations. Pointing your inaccuracies is not ‘defending’ Moore. Learn the difference dipshit.
Then you had to play all kinds of semantic games to back it up, even though, all the time, your basic position was then and is now that Moore doesn’t represent the right.
It doesn’t matter Frame. You implicitly claimed I said something that I did not say. Stop making excuses for your dishonesty.
They are both religious tests of equal abhorrence before the consitution but you seem to think that one is worse than the other.
There you go again. I did not say one was worse than the other. Stop lying. I said they were two distinct things and they are. The fact that they are both abhorrent has nothing to do with the fact that they are different. And just because they are different also does not mean one is not as bad as the other. They are just that. DIFFERENT. So you can’t say Moore claimed one thing when he didn’t and then say it doesn’t matter if he said something else because they’re both bad.
Of course, you are also attempting to defend Moore as not as bad as he could be
I’m not defending him. You’re just too stupid to realize that two different things are different. To you, they’re the same because they’re both bad. I guess murder and rape are the same things because they’re both bad. Robbery and child molestation are no different because they’re both abhorrent. That’s how stupid you come off. Congrats ass.
“But I guess you think Roy Moore and a suicide bomber are one and the same.”
No, Jay. I think Moore is worse. Because Moore is attempting to destory the basic principles on which this country is founded. No suicide bomber can do that. Of course to right wing idiots like you the Constitution is utterly dispensable, whether you want the state to torture people or you want to apply religious tests to elected office.
You and Moore may champion different issues — torture, religious tests — but you are birds of the same feather: Let’s chuck the Constitution out the window because the terrorists are scary. What courage. What principles. What idiots.
No, Jay. I think Moore is worse.
I’m sure all the families of the victims of 9/11 are thankful. Roy Moore is a clown spouting off on a right wing website. His influence is practically nil, yet you think he’s worse than people who kill tens, hundreds, or even thousands. That’s just great. With assholes like you in power, you’d have the FBI and CIA re-directing their efforts away from stopping people who want to kill us and focus on Roy Moore and the few dozen people who agree with him. God you are a L-O-S-E-R.
And stop being such a pansy ass with regard to ‘torture.’ Sorry that grabbing somebody’s collar or yelling at somebody or giving them a slap to you is torture, but that’s your problem. You couldn’t win that argument so don’t try and resurrect it.
Good night loser.
Hannity and Colmes: After the Armageddon.
Actually, Frame didn’t say the actions were worse, he said the person was worse. Important distinction.
“I’m sure all the families of the victims of 9/11 are thankful.”
Sure Jay, because the best way to remember the victims of 9-11 is to trash everything we’ve ever held dear as a country in a desperate bid to keep us safe — even though the president tells us we will get hit again.
I’d also like to point out that you just went from condemning Moore to defending him. I take it that a religious test for public office would be okay in your eyes if the victims of 9-11 thought so? Or if, like your magical torture, it somehow would keep us “safer”" That’s just astonishing, Jay. Is there any part of the Constitution you aren’t willing to shit on?
I’ve never seen a group of people so willing to sell out their most profound principles so fast for a false sense of security than right wingers. Cowards one and all.
“You couldn’t win that argument so don’t try and resurrect it.”
please.
naio kxty injw pcrvyaqu qhgtkep rcwq rhvs