Today's Seattle Times editorial page:
"Do not slander Islam after Fort Hood"
There is a rush to link Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, with Islamic extremists and generally defame his faith by association ... Religious and political affiliations make for easy, slanderous links that can be pointedly selective ... There is no more justification for Hasan's crimes in Islam than there was in the religious teachings of [Oklahoma City bomber Timothy] McVeigh's Christian faith.Similarly:
"Do not slander Communism after Trotsky's assassination"
"Do not slander Nazism after Kristallnacht"
"Do not slander the Seattle Times editorial page after today's editorial"
(Of course not every Muslim is fairly associated with Nidal Hasan and worse, but it wouldn't hurt the decent Muslims of the world to more vigorously denounce and marginalize the widely adhered-to toxic forms of Islam and their anti-Western pathologies -- jihadism, affinity for terrorism, oppression of women, suppression of free speech, intolerance of "infidels", anti-Semitism, etc.)
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 11, 2009 01:02 PM | Email ThisUnfortunately, with the way the press cheerleads and idolizes Obama, I suspect this is just a move to protect their new "god" from any possible negative PR.
And then 14 people get killed. Was that a hate crime? Not according to liberals. A Muslim who hates America can kill American soldiers, but to a liberal, that can't be a hate crime because the perpetrator is a member in good standing of their favorite victim class.
Posted by: Gary on November 11, 2009 12:51 PMOne of the most horrific things I've seen in the past 40 years is the frightening lack of the ability to judge the difference between right and wrong.
We've let leftists tell us how to think, how to speak, and how to behave.
Are we finally going to to figure out that they are nothing more than a controlling bunch of jerks?
Have you ever seen liberal women speak out against Muslim oppression of women? Not once. The hypocrisy is glaring.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 11, 2009 01:08 PMBashing liberals is never pathetic.
He'd get in trouble with liberals if he did that. It's why they had to change the villains in "The Sum of all Fears" from Muslims to skinheads. Can't offend the Muslims you know.
Political correctness is a cancer that is killing people.
Posted by: Gary on November 11, 2009 01:15 PMAnd I can't wait until somebody tells me I'm being intolerant for pointing out the difference. Bring it.
McVeigh was the poster child for the left every time they attacked Christianity.
Why do these reporters keep writing this drivel. It is like they are conspiring with the people that want to destroy this county.
Posted by: Vince on November 11, 2009 01:25 PM1. It was not a 'tragedy'. It was premeditated, cold-blooded murder.
2. Maybe we wouldn't be 'bashing' progressives if you showed a fraction of the anger at Islamic extremists as you do to conservatives.
But no. You don't. You excuse. You apologize. And some of you actually approve of the terrorist attacks because we 'deserve' it.
This 'war on terror' could've been over some time ago, but no. It will never end as long as you on the left maintain your fifth-column relationship with Islamic extremists.
Don't want to be bashed? Stop siding with the enemy. Problem solved.
Posted by: jimg on November 11, 2009 01:39 PMYour thoughts are being monitored by the PC police, jimg.
Posted by: Gary on November 11, 2009 01:44 PMOlbermann excused Hasan because his car was keyed. And Chris Matthews wants to know what's wrong with calling al Qaeda. Muslims can do no wrong, you see.
Posted by: Gary on November 11, 2009 01:50 PMHaq wasn't called a terrorist either. Just some deranged lunatic who just happened to be Muslim who just happened to hate Jews, who just happened to shoot up a Jewish organization.
Posted by: Palouse on November 11, 2009 01:54 PMI absolutely believe Obama and his entire group of advisors want to turn the country into a socialist state. I grew up with these people. It's what they've always wanted. It never occurs to them that socialism has been a worldwide failure that ends up with people living in misery. It's an amazing sickness that infects big cities. University professors teach this stuff as well as public school teachers. The NEA is simply a part of the left.
I've said this more than once dear readers. Go to University Village or the Metropolitan Market (I won't even talk about PCC). You have never seen so many bitter looking people. Go to nearly anyplace outside of Seattle and people are routinely friendly. In Seattle people are incredibly sullen. I believe it's called "the Seattle chill" It's gotten worse over the years.
These are simply unhappy hacked off people that love living that way. I figured that out living with them long ago. They seem to love feeling oppressed and miserable. And that's not enough for them. They want you to be as miserable as they are. They never show a hint of optimism.
Posted by: bill Cruchon on November 11, 2009 02:12 PMI absolutely believe Obama and his entire group of advisors want to turn the country into a socialist state. I grew up with these people. It's what they've always wanted. It never occurs to them that socialism has been a worldwide failure that ends up with people living in misery. It's an amazing sickness that infects big cities. University professors teach this stuff as well as public school teachers. The NEA is simply a part of the left.
I've said this more than once dear readers. Go to University Village or the Metropolitan Market (I won't even talk about PCC). You have never seen so many bitter looking people. Go to nearly anyplace outside of Seattle and people are routinely friendly. In Seattle people are incredibly sullen. I believe it's called "the Seattle chill" It's gotten worse over the years.
These are simply unhappy hacked off people that love living that way. I figured that out living with them long ago. They seem to love feeling oppressed and miserable. And that's not enough for them. They want you to be as miserable as they are. They never show a hint of optimism.
Posted by: bill Cruchon on November 11, 2009 02:16 PMI absolutely believe Obama and his entire group of advisors want to turn the country into a socialist state. I grew up with these people. It's what they've always wanted. It never occurs to them that socialism has been a worldwide failure that ends up with people living in misery. It's an amazing sickness that infects big cities. University professors teach this stuff as well as public school teachers. The NEA is simply a part of the left.
I've said this more than once dear readers. Go to University Village or the Metropolitan Market (I won't even talk about PCC). You have never seen so many bitter looking people. Go to nearly anyplace outside of Seattle and people are routinely friendly. In Seattle people are incredibly sullen. I believe it's called "the Seattle chill" It's gotten worse over the years.
These are simply unhappy hacked off people that love living that way. I figured that out living with them long ago. They seem to love feeling oppressed and miserable. And that's not enough for them. They want you to be as miserable as they are. They never show a hint of optimism.
Posted by: bill Cruchon on November 11, 2009 02:16 PMGuns. Blaming guns. Mayor Daley in Chicago said so. And the Brady Center too. Too many guns on an army base, I guess. Tanks too.
It's so disheartening to witness such inanity in this country.
And... (edits mine):
Of course not every [Christian] is fairly associated with [Scott Roeder], [John Geoghan], [Cardinal Ratzinger], [Sister Maria Kisito], and worse, but it wouldn't hurt the decent [Christians] of the world to more vigorously denounce and marginalize the widely adhered-to toxic forms of [Christianity] and their anti-[human] pathologies -- [proselytizing], [child-abuse], [complicity in spreading AIDS in Africa], affinity for [genocide], oppression of women, suppression of free speech, intolerance of "infidels", anti-Semitism, etc.
Posted by: demo kid on November 11, 2009 02:24 PMDo even YOU believe the stuff you write?
The Pope? Really?
Then you toss out various felons who have been soundly criticized for their actions who have never been part of a large group of "faithful" who not only praise their actions but continuously call upon others to do the same. There is virtually NO corollary here and I cannot believe you are so stupid as to think there is. You have to draw a much better comparison than to just toss in names of bad people who happen to have a convenient label.
No Christian supports these acts, no Christian has praised or encouraged these acts and every Christian had marginalized these acts. That is NOT true with Muslim acts.
With this post, you have soundly deserved just about every criticism you have received in the past on this board.
*sigh* what a pathetic attempt to build moral equivalency.
This isn't the time for your resentments to be aired. It's time to honor the fallen.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 11, 2009 03:03 PMNow of course the liberal talking point is "but but look at the person that shot the abortion doctor"... but do they ever tell about HALRAN JAMES DRAKE who murdered James Pouillon, 63 for the mere act of expressing his constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech? No they don't because you see, Mr Pouillon was one of those EVIL anti-abortion people who didn't think unborn babies should have their brains sucked out like the humans in Starship Trooper.
Liberals are the allies of the terrorists folks. Let's face it.
Posted by: pbj on November 11, 2009 03:11 PMYou know what? Your sentiment -- while kinda bitter and mean -- is not wrong. If you're against the subjugation of women, you need to be against the subjugation of women in all its forms. Same with gay rights, equal rights, etc. People that cry about gay rights in the United States while ignoring the genocide of gays in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East are not consistent. The crimes on Matthew Sheppard and Brandon Teena are childs' play in comparison to the state-sponsored terrorism against gays in these countries.
And yes, for all this call for "diversity", there is a very real need to keep one's eyes open about what kind of diversity is included.
But then again, when it comes to intolerance, conservatives have no problem reaching out to Islam... like when the US sides with Islamic countries during meetings of the UN Commission on the Status of Women.
Posted by: demo kid on November 11, 2009 03:13 PMLiberals spent the first 8 months of the Obama administration crucifying the CIA and is it any wonder the CIA has been neutered to an ineffective agency? This is what our enemies want and what progressives have delivered.
Even here on SP with liberals masquerading anonymously as "Torture Lawyer" whose greatest concern if for our enemies well-being, NOT that of our soldiers. The Fort Hood massacre is merely a result of progressive policies.
Damn right we are bitter and angry! WE have good reason to be.
Posted by: Progressive America Hater on November 11, 2009 03:19 PMWelcome to 9/10 America, complete with the "walls of separation" and fears of exposing radical muslims for fear of being called a "racist".
For all the talk about how Muslims should condemn hateful actions and hate speech, which conservatives are going to stand up to "Progressive America Hater" and ask him to stop spreading his vile hate speech?
I'll guess: Zero. I consider the murder of these soldiers a tragedy. Some of you consider it an opportunity to air your resentment of liberals and Muslims. And, hell, even hate crimes. Are you capable of any emotion besides resentment?
Posted by: John Jensen on November 11, 2009 03:29 PMWas there evidence that he was specifically targeting Christians? Jews?
@36: Liberal Political Correctness killed those soldier just as surely as if John Jensen himself had pulled the trigger.
Pathetic. Truly pathetic. You're absolute garbage.
So what did they do... promoted him to major. Now lets say his name was Jim Smith, and he had been caught regularly communicating with KKK groups, and had pledged his allegiance to the White Race over that of his country.
You think the army would promote him to major? Do you think he would still be in the army? Of course not, and rightly so. But because the guy's name as Hasan, everybody was afraid to do anything for fear of liberals calling them racists.
Nah... conservatives seem to be unable to do anything but play the victim now.
Posted by: demo kid on November 11, 2009 03:36 PM
There is no evidence political correctness came up at all. Hasan did some research at Walter Reed that the FBI looked into, but apparently it was relevant to his work at the time. The conversations had nothing about terrorism or threats or nothing at all to investigate, according to the FBI. What evidence do you have, Gary, that political correctness came up?
His religion. That's your evidence.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 11, 2009 03:41 PMWe're doomed.
Posted by: Gary on November 11, 2009 03:48 PMDo what you're good at, Gary: Whine and focus on resenting progressives.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 11, 2009 03:54 PMI wonder who would buy that bullshit.
Stupid bullshit is gonna get more people killed.
I cannot believe my eyes. John (why do I bother) do you think during WWII a major could just ring up the Nazis and not get in trouble?
This is so stupid. I *literally* cannot believe this conversation.
When most people think of the word terrorism, they think about an organized group acting together to complete a plan. 9-11 is a perfect example of that. AQ did planning, fund raising, training, had secret communications and meetings, and executed a successful operation.
That's different from some guy going into his basement, grabbing all the guns he can find, screaming Allah Akbar, and shooting up the people around him.
Sure, there are problems with Muslim leaders preaching "kill the infidels", but they aren't specifically working with the psycho killer. They are just providing an environment that makes the behavior politically or theologically acceptable to some. The two kinds of terrorism are very different.
An organized group of terrorists opening fire on groups of civilians in different cities on the same day is organized terrorism.
Not so much for the Ft. Hood whack job.
I think equating the two does a disservice both to Islam and US Homeland security. It is reasonable to expect Homeland Security to stop an organized, coordinated attack. Not much you can do about a lone gunman attacking a soft target.
It is even questionable whether the Ft. Hood attack can even be considered terrorism. Hasan attacked a military target, not a civilian one.
While I agree Muslim leaders should be much more clear and vocal condemning both the attack and the voices who support the attack, I think it is also reasonable for the media to be restrained and clear about the use of the word "terrorism".
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on November 11, 2009 04:04 PMCould Bush 41 call up his dad Prescott and not get in trouble? Dad did profit from business in Nazi Germany, right?
@53: I assume that's the sound of hell freezing over, since I pretty much agree with everything that you've said.
Is that what you mean? Yes... just like Hasan calling al Qaeda. Exactly the same.
Your defense of the muslim terrorist is admirable.
"It's not illegal to have a business card saying you're a 'soldier of allah', you racist!"
I eagerly await that.
Posted by: Gary on November 11, 2009 04:30 PMDK, I appreciate you acknowledging the disconnect in the liberal world where the intolerance of the minor levels of discrimination in this country is intense while it is virtually non-existent where it is really a problem.
However, that said, let me try a thought experiment.
How does this grab you?
Conservatism is the ideology of peace.
Christianity is the religion of peace.
Does that make you feel better? Will that now get you to excuse any act of intolerance by a conservative or a self-proclaimed Christian?
Is it all better now?
Muslems by and large are, in terms of those things you despise, everything that conservative Christians are...time oh...ten!
Look, nearly every where Muslems have a majority they practice beliefs abhorrent to you. When the have a large enough minorty, they begin to press for rules and laws abhorrent to you. And when they do violence based on their beliefs, you excuse it as just a few individuals acting on their own, refusing to see that it is a systemic issue with them almost everywhere you look. Use your heads man and THINK for once. look at the evidence.
Now back to the "religion of peace". Do you know what "peace" means to a Muslem? I bet you don't. It probably does NOT mean what YOU think it means. I don;t know exactly either, but I do know that there are many ways to arrive at "peace". The Jewish word "shalom" means wholeness, and in context it means everything right under the proper understanding of who YHWH is. It does not mean what the west thinks which is "can't we all just get along".
So I porpose taht the idea of Peace for many, and maybe far more than you realize, Muslems is taht peace is contextual and taht peace can only be obtained under Muslem holy law, and anything outside of that is not peace. Muslems say "peace" meaning everyone is under Allah's banner and living Allah's way. That leave no room for you "tolerant - live and let live" types.
In some ways many in the west believe there is no peace without self-rule, with is anathema to the muslem religion as preached by the VAST MAJORITY of the leaders. There is a true clash of culters here and yo are too blind to even see it.
SO, what about all the "peaceful" muslems in America? To that I say individual people are very much wanting to just get along, and you are probably correct in thinking only the best for each person on the street. But that does not mean they would not impose their brand of "peace" on you if they had the numbers to do it. no because of hate but because of belief. They get along here because we allow them to get along and let them practice their beliefs. they do not return the favor in any country where they have a majority. (Except Turkey?)
Try thinking objectively for a chance and not knee-jerk liberalism with all its kumbaya 60's hippy-love stuff. not everyone things like you do, so you can't think they are thyinking just like you do.
And if you spent 1/10th the energy addressing real Muslem atrocities as you do bashing conservatives for stating the obvious maybe we would have some level of respect for your opinions on these matters.
And another note, if a person is incited and encouraged by people he considers leaders to his cause to kill, is that not organized terrorism considering it is the GOAL of al Qaida for people to do exactly what Hassan did at Ft Hood?
Posted by: Eyago on November 11, 2009 04:41 PMI'm so angry that the military---seeing all the signs from this guy---took no action and therefore lost 14 lives. Heaven help those families...and the rest of us, too.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam on November 11, 2009 05:02 PMTimes's main point -- that these shootings were not driven by Hasan's religion or terrorist leanings
Yes, because it was actually driven by a scratch on his car, right? What do YOU think motivated a man to communicate with the group whose purpose is to destroy America and then take up arms against his fellow citizens and soldiers and shout "Allahu Akbar" as he murdered 14 people in cold blood?
A scratch on his car?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 11, 2009 05:19 PMRemember the Mohammad cartoons? Muslims rioted all over the world.
Remember when Newsweek lied about a flushed koran? Muslims rioted and people died.
Now imagine any other religion reacting the same way to the very smallest of perceived slights.
I'm sorry, but Islam needs to be reformed. Excusing it helps nobody.
As for the Times, they didn't print the cartoons even as news for fear of offending the poor little muslims.
Larry David urinated on a picture of Jesus, not Mohammad. He either didn't want to offend them, or he was afraid they'd go ape-shit and issue a fatwa on him. Just like the director of "2012".
Even he was afraid of a fatwa if he depicted the destruction of muslim sites. Is he a bigot for assuming the worst about muslims, or is his fear rational?
-
Oh.
Like I said... some people think that surrender is peace.
"that these shootings were not driven by Hasan's religion or terrorist leanings "
You Bruce are a moron. The first clue his religion had EVERYTHING to do with it was when he shouted "Allahu Akbar".
How about we send Mr Hassan to stay with YOU Bruce? MORON.
Posted by: Moron Bruce on November 11, 2009 06:59 PMSHAME ON YOU!
Posted by: Progressive America Hater on November 11, 2009 07:04 PMAnd most definitely NOT an attack of hate, since we've already determined that religious or political beliefs (often one and the same) cannot be the basis for hate crimes!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 11, 2009 07:23 PMI have sympathies on both sides here. The liberals are legitimately worried about some of the things that happened after 9/11, like Sikhs (did I spell that right?) being murdered at gas stations.
But they sure sound ridiculous when they try to pretend this guy wasn't a free-lance jihadist terrorist, and it makes them look strangely idiotic when they keep asserting the irrelevance of his belief-system to his actions.
But then to say we should get more involved in Afghanistan, that's just a terrible mistake. This evening I went to see a woman called by the BBC, "the bravest woman in Afghanistan" (she's survived four attempts on her life) speak at the Seattle First Baptist church. Malalai Joya. She hates the Taliban, she hated the CIA-creation Hekmatyr and the fundamentalist Mujahadeen, she hated the Soviets and she hates the US NATO occupation forces--i.e. she's a true Afghan patriot.
I got the feeling she doesn't think it will be a picnic there if we leave, but at least it will simplify things--same way it would in Pakistan.
Let's make America America again, by forswearing the practice of going abroad to seek monsters to destroy, (to butcher a John Quincey Adams quote or was it Jame Madison).
And promote a truely conservative America.
Thanks all,
new left conservative
Posted by: new left conservative on November 11, 2009 09:55 PM
1... Times sez:
''There is a rush to link Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, ... , with Islamic extremists ...''
Even though the investigation has just started, already more than enough info has come out to clearly indicate that he WAS linked to and sympathized with Islamic extremists. That has NOTHING TO DO with improperly and incorrectly trying to claim that all Muslims are Islamic extremists; which they are not. But of course the Times is aghast that anyone would actually violate PC by simply stating the objective reality in the Hasan case.
2... Times sez:
''Hasan's professional exposure to the stresses and strains of those who actually served their country in foreign war zones with multiple deployments no doubt took a personal toll''
In a way last above is the most ridiculous and absurd statement in the entire piece; i.e.:
So now the Times is making a case for there being mitigating circumstances for Hasan's murderous Jihadi rampage, due to ''catching'' post-traumatic stress disorder via REMOTE VERBAL ASSOCIATION ?!?!.
This is beyond PC: This is SICKENING.
Next!
There is no more justification for Hasan's crimes in Islam than there was in the religious teachings of McVeigh's Christian faith.
The insanity of this is that the rain falls upwards because we want it too! Hey Seattle Times your are infidel to be enslaved or killed in Allah's name just for starters. No comparison here! I DEMAND THOSE TEACHINGS OF MCVEIGH's FAITH NOW!!!! I DEMAND THE COMPARISON NOW!!! LIST THEM IN A TABLE NOW....SIDE BY SIDE...
At Least Hate Crimes Persecutions are over! Per the Times:
Attempts to impugn others and ascribe politically sensitive motives get in the way of the justice system lawfully holding people accountable for terrible crimes.
The best part...the Times will never respond..looking down their printing press at us new media types as a small problem.
Posted by: Col. Hogan on November 11, 2009 10:47 PMmaybe you should spend 5 minutes looking at the hundreds of organisations working to end oppression of muslim women.
are you really such a flippin idiot? you display shockingly superficial knowledge of the feminist movement - but that's not really a surprise, given the lies you have spewed in the past.
lots of feminist orgs speak out and lobby gov't to act against forced marriage, forced female circumcision, stoning, 'honor' murders, child marriage, etc.
but the more important question is, instead of bashing liberals for actually speaking out against said oppression, what the hell are you doing to prevent it? not a damn thing, i'd venture.
instead of spewing lies and not doing anything to make the world a better place and harassing those who are, why don't you man up and help out some of these organisations doing the work misogynists like you promote:
int'l women's health coalition
feminist majority
v-day
equality now
global fund for women
national organisation of women
MADRE
hell, are you even doing anything to help the women in america beaten every 20 minutes? frankly, i'd doubt that, too.
Posted by: mike on November 11, 2009 10:52 PMWhich is it Times?!!! Who do I call at 911 or do I call 666 or Zero Zero Zero Arrest them!
Posted by: Col. Hogan on November 11, 2009 10:55 PMSorry hoisted on your own Petard... DK, JJ, Headless Lucy, Bruce and all others including Obama. and Sorry you had to put up with the American Flags 8 years ago.
Posted by: Col. Hogan on November 11, 2009 11:06 PMObama cautioned against rushing to judgment. He said the white cops "acted stupidly" in Cambridge.
Anybody else see a pattern here? It seems their job is to defend muslim terrorists and attack white police officers and American soldiers.
What else am I to think? I just listen to them.
Oh, and when I said Hasan killed 14, the liberals will claim only 13. One was in the womb.
Posted by: Gary on November 12, 2009 05:36 AMThree months. Now he is rejecting all of the proposals put forth by his national security team and starting over. I guess none of the proposals included outright surrender, so he didn't like any of 'em. And the new ROE in Afghanistan say our soldiers *cannot* shoot back even if they're being shot at if there is *any* chance a civilian could get hit. This man is a disaster.
Maybe we can put Hasan in Gitmo, since it's going to remain open *long* after Obama's deadline of closing it.
Posted by: Gary on November 12, 2009 06:16 AMThis does not happen in any other religion. There is no Pope in Catholicism calling for the bombing of abortion facilities. But yet it happens daily in Tehran and even in mosques here in the US that are under the same radical spell.
The first step is admitting there is a problem. Until we challenge radical Islam, the terror will continue.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 12, 2009 08:04 AMThe way to deal with such radicalism has to be a much tougher, less warm and fuzzy, and less politically correct and progressive approach.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 12, 2009 08:10 AMHow much you wanna bet I get in trouble for saying that?
What an idiot. First of all, "Islam" consists of a number of different traditions, some of which don't really care for the others. Second, there is no Islamic "pope". "Expunging a faction" in Islam would be akin to asking the Catholics to "expunge" the Westboro Baptists.
@83: But in their rush to institute their PC diversity Nirvana, they often overlook the fact that Islam isn't quite ready for the diversity rainbow.
Are you speaking as an authority after watching a few episodes of 24, then?
Sheesh. You have no goddamn clue what you're talking about.
Posted by: demo kid on November 12, 2009 08:38 AMThere aren't Mormon riots in the streets are there, demo kid?
Can you maybe, just a little, see the difference?
Posted by: Gary on November 12, 2009 09:27 AMThe marxist trolls who pollute SP are the same types who impose political correctness on society via their fellow-travelers in the judiciary, academia, and via their federal, state and local government aparatchiks.
They try to impose non-sensical definitions on society in order to advance their political goals, which are to advance state control of the economy and society. Example: When an individual commits vote fraud, it cannot be called vote fraud because it is not an effort committed by a defined organization of individuals working toward a group goal. Remember the 2004 election and "distributed" vote fraud?
Fast forward to the Ft. Hood terrorist attack and guess what? The same marxists spout that Hasan cannot be a terrorist because he acted alone.
At all costs, the "progressives" want to define away the deadly terrorist attacks in Arkansas and Texas so that they do not reflect negatively on president barry (eight years of Bush with no deadly terrorist attacks in the U.S. versus less than one year of barry and we already have two deadly terrorist attacks in the U.S. from muslim fanatics).
Look soon for tranvestites (state protected) teaching in WA state public schools courtesy of the "progressives".
The reasoning spouted by the marxists/ progressives is counter-intuitive and I welcome it. Bring it on! I want more from JJ, DK ad nauseum in the national debate. Please. NBC, the Seattle Times, the NYT.... please carry-on with the marxist/ progressive narrative. I hope that narrative is chained to president barry's ankle so that he is linked one and the same in the public eye with that noxious world-view.
Btw, when was the last time anybody saw a "progressive" demonstration/ mass street protest (you know, one of those mass freak shows with big street puppets, Kheffiah-wrapped Dems, defaced american flags, bandanna-hidden faces, vandals etc.) showing their collective outrage at islamo-fascism, the Iranian police state and its threats of nuclear genocide, Hamas, Hezbollah, the persecution of non-muslims and women in the muslim world, or against theocracy and dictatorship throughout the muslim world?
Crickets chirping?
Yep. The "progressives" generally don't get too exercised by those issues. Their condemnation is reserved for the U.S. and the western industrialized world.
Apparently so. They just passed protections for gays.
Salt Lake City passes gay-rights law, with Mormon support
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 10:01 AMHey demo kid, why didn't the Seattle Times re-print the Danish cartoons as news so that its customers could see what the muslims were getting so worked up about?
Stone: Do you think it's fair to send people to jail who don't buy health insurance?
Pelosi: ... The legislation is very fair in this respect.
People... if the government can jail you for not buying health insurance, it can jail you for anything. It can make you do anything.
Use your heads, man. Wake up!
I was just in Salt Lake City on business last month and as I stayed over on the weekend I had a chance to tour their headquarters. I saw more people or different races going into a service there than I think I've ever seen anywhere at once anywhere in Seattle.
Yes, like just about every religion, I'm sure that Mormons had their time of intolerance. (Don't know much of their history, but it stands to figure.) But they grew from it and I dare say they are probably a lot more inclusive than just about any group out there these days.
(I am not LDS, but I have to say I found myself very impressed with them during my trip.)
Comparing Salt Lake City with even the most prosperous cities of the middle east, I have no trouble knowing which I would feel safer walking around in at night.
I were a gay person I'm 100% sure I'd rather "come out of the closet" in Salt Lake than in any Moslem country where I would not just be shunned or jailed but actually stoned, whipped, crucified or thrown off a roof. (This kind of thing happens to gays in most of the middle eastern countries.)
Demo Kids attempt to diffuse the issue of this being a hate crime by a moslem by saying "Moslems come in all shapes and sizes" has a bit of merit I guess, but the simple fact is that just about every country involved in major war going on in the world right now has a predominantly Moslem population on either one or both sides. You're also much more likely to find slavery, intolerance, and violence in Moslem countries.
The simple fact is that this maniac bought into the radical moslem philosophy and that he committed a hate crime/terrorist act.
Anyone but me find it amusing that Demo Kid, John Jenson and the rest of the liberal ilk will always argue with more energy and passion for a murderer or foriegn despot much harder than they will for key bedrock values like freedom, self-reliance or true diversity of religious beliefs?
There's just something bred into liberals that makes them want to work hard to find the good points in evil men while loudly denouncing basically good people for every little flaw.
Posted by: johnny on November 12, 2009 10:32 AMDemo Kid wrote "Man, you really are a liar. The government cannot send you to jail for failing to buy health insurance. Period. There is NO part of the healthcare bill that says that"
NO! YOU lie Demo Kid!
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/interview-with-the-president-jail-time-for-those-without-health-care-insurance.html
"Under the House bill those who can afford to buy insurance and don't' pay a fine. If the refuse to pay that fine there's a threat - as with a lot of tax fines - of jail time. The Senate removed that provision in the Senate Finance Committee."
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/66879-pelosi-bill-jail-for-no-insurance
• Section 7203 -- misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 -- felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years." [page 3]
Once again Demo Kid, you have been PROVEN to be a liar!
Dan, Well, at least we know that Slavery Party Failed Abortion, Centrifuge John, Bruce, and the other marxist liberals will now stop using Timothy McVeigh as an example of "terror from the right", right? I mean, it was a solitary guy acting out in attacking the Government, it surely wasn't an act of terror...
McVeigh did not act alone, genius. Ever hear of Terry Nichols? Killing hundreds of civilians is different than killing 13 soldiers. Conspiring to blow up a federal building is different than an un-conspired mass shooting.
My definition of terrorism is killing innocent civilians in an attempt to terrorize a population and change a nation's stance on political issues. I think 9/11 fits that bar. I think the Oklahoma City Bombing also does, while of a significantly smaller scale than 9/11. I don't think Columbine does. I don't think Virginia Tech does.
Apparently that makes me un-American. Whatever, I am not attempting to use this terrible event for my political goals. The right here is plainly using this event to air out their resentments and lecture us how terrible the Muslim religion is. I agree that we shouldn't tolerate intolerance in the name of tolerance, but I don't need a comparative religions lecture from the same people who tried to win an election by focusing on Obama's middle name.
By the way, these same evil Muslims are the ones who inspired the world months ago in Iran. They're the same ones that the Bush administration argued deserved freedom in Iraq.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 12, 2009 10:43 AMYou like the government ordering you to buy things? Can't decide that for yourself?
You didn't see what happened last week?
Of course, and that is despicable, but we can hold America to a much higher standard than "gay people aren't stoned to death." We can improve our country without reflecting on the poor standards in much of the rest of the world.
the simple fact is that just about every country involved in major war going on in the world right now has a predominantly Moslem population on either one or both sides.
I'd say there are two major shooting wars going on right now and both are in countries occupied by American troops. Should people around the world draw the same conclusions from our involvement as you did from Islamic involvement?
Anyone but me find it amusing that Demo Kid, John Jenson and the rest of the liberal ilk will always argue with more energy and passion for a murderer or foriegn despot much harder than they will for key bedrock values like freedom, self-reliance or true diversity of religious beliefs?
Oh, resentment from the right? Who would have thought? More angry resentment instead of focusing on the crimes of the murderer!
This thread is not about "freedom, self-reliance or true diversity of religious beliefs." It's about a murderer. And no one is arguing "for" him, you jackass. I'm just not airing out every single resentment I have against muslims and Obama and liberals, because I think that stuff is irrelevant to this murderer's crimes. Apparently that makes me un-American. By *far* this thread has been focused on resentment of liberals, nor values like "freedom, self-reliance or true diversity of religious beliefs."
Why are so many here so angry at their fellow Americans? Is resentment the only emotion some of you are capable of? Is this angry, resentment the type of optimism that makes America great?
The new American right: Resentment and anger.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 12, 2009 11:02 AMSo my previous statement stands: liar.
Posted by: demo kid on November 12, 2009 11:20 AMThe military does not have a charge for "terrorism" but federal courts do. He is being charged in military courts because investigators do not feel his charges live up to the definition of terrorism. I agree with them.
Has Hasan instilled terror? Not in me. I know how I felt after 9/11 and Oklahoma City, and an isolated nutjob like this does not instill the same emotion.
Look, the point is that the CIA and FBI spend significant resources on preventing real terrorist attacks on our airports and buildings. They've saved lives, to be sure. If they were distracted by trying to prevent nutjob workplace shootings -- like this one -- then they would lose focus on their primary mission.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 12, 2009 11:22 AMAnd what political goal did he have? To tell you the truth, he was no different than the shooters at Columbine: he was pissed off with the world, mentally disturbed, and completely deranged. However, to try to tie him to Al-Qaeda is inaccurate, and dishonest. This was not part of some kind of consistent campaign of terror by a larger group... this was just the expression of a man that was mentally unstable.
Posted by: demo kid on November 12, 2009 11:24 AMAnd when you add penalties such as
SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE
(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--
`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:2:./temp/~c111TjDx9F:e337991:
So yes, it DOES add a tax and a penalty kicks into place if you don't buy something the government orders you to buy. That IS part of the health care bill.
Before the bill existed, no such penalty for not buying health insurance existed. You could not go to jail before this bill. Now after it, you CAN go to jail for not buying health insurance.
Once again, you are proven a liar.
(If you refuse to pay capital gains taxes.)
Posted by: John Jensen on November 12, 2009 11:52 AMDK, The results are he same. The bill does not have to create a new penalty for it to USE a penalty to force people to buy insurance. It is either true or it is not true that the ultimate result of failing to buy insurance could be fines and jail time. Just because the bill does not explicitly connect the dots within its 1990 pages does not invalidate the truthfulness of the punishments at the governments disposal for non-compliance to its rules.
As for Hasan, if he acted alone in his action at the TIME of the action, it does not mean he was alone and not part of the al Qaida terrorist war. He had contact with al Qaida, al Qaida has made it a policy to recruit lone wolfs to do what Hasan did and is suing distributed means (internet, local Imams, etc) to recruit people to do this.
It is still possible that Hasan was just a nut case, but he is the kind of nut case al Qaida is recruiting, so it makes it a terror attack because it was part of al Qaida's known strategy for conducting terrorist acts.
It's amazing how you work so hard to defend the indefensible just so that you can try and pretend you were right all along.
Posted by: Eyago on November 12, 2009 11:54 AMThose sections are the part of the law that kicks in if you fail to buy government health care insurance (see section 59B of the bill). And the ens result can be that in fact you go to jail.
Yes, he did. What's the matter with you?
"To tell you the truth, he was no different than the shooters at Columbine:"
That's all. I just wanted it repeated.
More populist outrage? More whining? More resentment? It's to be expected from you, Gary.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 12, 2009 12:01 PMDo you go to jail for not buying stocks the government say you must buy?
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 12:01 PM"If you ignore the government order to buy health care and refuse to pay the government's mandated fines, then you'll go to jail."
Posted by: John Jensen on November 12, 2009 12:05 PM
And how do you get taxed?
Section 59B imposes the tax for not buy health insurance. It is YOU who are distorting the truth.
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 12:10 PMMore dictatorship, more tyranny, more treason. It's to be expected from you John Jensen,
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 12:12 PMThe DHS gave us a warning about what to be on the lookout for seven months ago:
"After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans--including Timothy McVeigh--joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups."
But being associated with al Qaeda... not so much
of a concern, I guess.
And treason? Which act of treason am I guilty, of pbj? Having a different political thought than you?
You lost an election because your ideas failed under the Bush administration and lead to the worst economic disaster since the great depression and now this is a tyranny? No, it's a democratic republic.
More anger. More resentment.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 12, 2009 12:16 PMWhy didn't you correct me instead of dragging things out with your faux outrage? Wanted to ladle some more resentment on liberals? How brave.
I was under the impression that everyone killed was a member of the military, but I was wrong. One victim was employed by the Army but not a service member. Still, it is apparent to me that he was targeting members of the military or those employed by it. He committed a heinous act, but it was nothing like Mumbai or 9/11 or Oklahoma City.
associated with al Qaeda...
Why even investigate anything? Gary, full of resentment, has it all figured out. "Associated!" Good work, investigator Gary.
Why think, when you can resent?
Posted by: John Jensen on November 12, 2009 12:27 PM"Yes, he did. What's the matter with you?"
See, the "Yes, he did" was a correction.
As for blaming Bush for everything one year later:
"The Federal Deficit in October ($176 Billion) is the largest for any month in American history."
The buck stopped with Bush. Nothing will ever be Obama's fault.
I know! Let's raise taxes!
I'm not sorry about that. He deserves to be convicted. Why are you apologizing? Do you want to see a murderer go free? You're un-American.
He will not be convicted for terrorism. The military will charge him for murder, not terrorism. The military does not have a charge for terrorism.
Why are you apologizing for a murderer?
Posted by: John Jensen on November 12, 2009 12:39 PMThe ultimate result of failing to buy insurance is a tax penalty. In fact, that is QUITE reasonable... at this point, anyone can march into an emergency room and siphon off care as a result of EMTALA, which is NOT sustainable. Surprisingly enough, this healthcare bill represents a MORE fiscally conservative position, where mandated care is actually financed.
As for Hasan, if he acted alone in his action at the TIME of the action, it does not mean he was alone and not part of the al Qaida terrorist war. He had contact with al Qaida, al Qaida has made it a policy to recruit lone wolfs to do what Hasan did and is suing distributed means (internet, local Imams, etc) to recruit people to do this.
There was NO evidence of recruitment or a timetable.
I mean, seriously... speaking in a morbidly frank kinda way, what exactly would the strategic benefit of this kind of shooting be for a terrorist? If you're actually looking to cause maximum damage as a terrorist, shooting random people in the care center that you work at is pointless. He'd be scoping out the largest, most vulnerable gathering he could, or he'd be going after the children or family of service members, or something as seriously evil as that. This was purely out of rage and opportunity, not extensive planning.
It is still possible that Hasan was just a nut case, but he is the kind of nut case al Qaida is recruiting, so it makes it a terror attack because it was part of al Qaida's known strategy for conducting terrorist acts.
What known strategy? He brought a gun to work and started shooting. He's no different than a crazed postal worker or school shooter, except in the political motives the ultra-right-wingers see fit to read into his insanity.
It's amazing how you work so hard to defend the indefensible just so that you can try and pretend you were right all along.
It's amazing how you work so hard to defend your complete lack of critical thinking just so that you can try and pretend you were thinking all along.
@118: The claim was that you would get thrown in prison for not having health insurance. That claim is wrong.
Posted by: demo kid on November 12, 2009 12:44 PMThat is a lie. The final result of failing to buy the government "kind" of health insurance is jail time. Don't buy the insurance, get a fine, don't pay the fine, go to jail.
You KNOW this and lie about it.
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 12:50 PMWhat known strategy? He brought a gun to work and started shooting. He's no different than a crazed postal worker or school shooter, except in the political motives the ultra-right-wingers see fit to read into his insanity.
Are you unable to see the difference between one person shooting up his workplace all on his own verses a person recruited by an organization conducting terrorist activities to shoot up military bases?
If al Qaeda is recruiting people to conduct terrorist activities whether or not YOU agree with the target they chose, or whether YOU happen to be personally terrorized (this probably goes out to John Jensen) still rates as a terrorist activity. If al Qaida directed his actions in any way, it pretty much makes it a terrorist attack.
The ultimate result of failing to buy insurance is a tax penalty.
So, the government can impose a tax penalty for anything they want? It's that easy? All they have to do to make something criminal is to impose a tax penalty and that's ok with you?
The ultimate result is the threat of incarceration to impose their will upon you by making a "tax".
As far as your argument regarding dead beats who use the system without paying, there is plenty of other ways to address that without forcing people to by the health insurance that the government dictates.
Do you really have no problem with this level of government control and coercion?
Posted by: Eyago on November 12, 2009 12:58 PMNon sequitur.
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 01:01 PMThey don't, because they can't take care of themselves and don't want anybody else to either.
To them, the government knows best and can do anything to us that it wants. Obviously. It's hard to believe but some people need tyranny.
"You can go to jail for jaywalking too, right pbj?"
Unbelievable.
Posted by: Gary on November 12, 2009 01:16 PMThis did not happen. According to all available, he was not recruited by a terrorist organization. You are talking about a hypothetical that did not happen.
pbj, Non sequitur.
No. Answer the question: You can go to jail for jaywalking too, right pbj?
Posted by: John Jensen on November 12, 2009 01:18 PMPlenty of benefit. Murdering 13 of the "enemy" plus demoralizing our troops and our populace. After all if even the military isn't safe, then none of us are. That is precisely why they treat people like the killer of Officer Brenton so seriously.
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 01:20 PMOh. Glad you know this.
Posted by: Gary on November 12, 2009 01:21 PMIs that murderer a terrorist, too?
Posted by: John Jensen on November 12, 2009 01:23 PMNot buying health insurance can most definitely result in jail time.
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 01:23 PMNon sequitur
We can do this all night. Is the DNC paying you overtime on this?
You refuse to answer my question. I'll answer it for you: Jaywalking can most definitely result in jail time.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 12, 2009 01:25 PMThe "great" health care reform, which is "right" is something that people are having to be forced into.
But not Congress.
Posted by: Gary on November 12, 2009 01:26 PMHAH! Gotcha! The Seattle Police have called him a terrorist. Now please post where you objected to this term being applied to him you traitorous hypocrite!
Oh but he isn't muslim so that is ok with you eh?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/07/washington.police.shooting/index.html
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 01:27 PMYou're lying. The individual mandate applies to Congress too.
I see you've returned to resentment, though. Resentment and anger. Good work, Gary.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 12, 2009 01:29 PMDon't you know the unborn baby is a military asset? At least to Palestinians it is a future suicide bomber.
Posted by: p on November 12, 2009 01:34 PMNot buying health insurance does not directly result in jail time, just like jaywalking does not directly result in jail time. You are distorting the truth, and instead of responding to my questions you start whining about my "non-sequitur." In a thread about the Fort Hood tragedy.
pbj, HAH! Gotcha! The Seattle Police have called him a terrorist. Now please post where you objected to this term being applied to him you traitorous hypocrite!
No, you didn't "get me," kid.
I asked if you thought he a terrorist. You've yet to answer me.
What other crimes are "terrorism"? Is jaywalking "terrorism" too? What about not buying health care?
Posted by: John Jensen on November 12, 2009 01:35 PMIt is you who are distorting the truth. Not buying health insurance under the Democrat bill will trigger a series of events that can result in jail time. Prior to this bill, there was no series of events that not buying health care mandated by government would result in your being incarcerated.
But why stop at health insurance? People each should have a Lexus too shouldn't they? Shouldn't they all have cell phones and broadband internet connections too? Or do you want only the rich to have those things?
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 01:43 PMStill arguing with Rizzo (John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives)I see.
Rizzo is just as loopy as always.
Have fun.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on November 12, 2009 01:44 PMSays the guy who equates jaywalking with health care.
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 01:45 PMWhat other crimes are "terrorism"? Is jaywalking "terrorism" too? What about not buying health care?
You are being absurd in order to obfuscate your hatred of the nation and desire to see her enemies succeed by doing damage control after they slaughter our people.
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 01:48 PMJaywalking could trigger a series of events that can result in jail time.
But why stop at health insurance?
Because we are a smart population, and we realize that health insurance is simply different from other types of purchases. Everyone uses health care at some point in their lives -- not everyone drives a Lexus at some point -- and studies show that us with health insurance subsidize those who don't purchase health insurance. Doctors and hospitals must accept uninsured patients so we don't have people dying in the streets -- we also don't typically force businesses to accept customers that can't pay. We do it because we're a humane country.
Massachusetts has the same individual mandate requirement and not a single person has gone to jail because of it. Practically, people are going to pay their tax penalty and move on. The government would garnish your wages long before they'd pursue criminal charges to collect some tax dollars. No one is going to get arrested for not having health insurance.
The fact is the vast, vast majority of the people in this country have insurance from their employer. The people affected by this mandate are the same people who get subsidies to buy health insurance. This is hardly an act of "tyranny."
Posted by: John Jensen on November 12, 2009 01:52 PM"Absurd"? You're equating a horrible workplace shooting involving our troops with 9/11. You're exploiting a tragedy for POLITICAL reasons so you can blather on about how much you hate liberals. When I point this out, you say I hate America.
Why isn't he being charged with terrorism, pbj? Does the military -- who is trying him -- also hate America? Are they also doing damage control for this murderer? Why does the military hate America, pbj?
But, wow, more anger and resentment from the right? Who would have thought?!
Posted by: John Jensen on November 12, 2009 02:00 PMI can choose whether or not to jaywalk. I cannot choose whether or not to buy health care insurance. I thought Democrats are always "Pro-Choice".
"Because we are a smart population, and we realize that health insurance is simply different from other types of purchases."
Say's who? You?
" Everyone uses health care at some point in their lives -- not everyone drives a Lexus at some point -- and studies show that us with health insurance subsidize those who don't purchase health insurance."
Every single moment of our lives we will have to transport ourselves from point A to point B whether it be from one end of the room to the other or one end of town to the other.
Studies show? What studies? Cite them link them. You made that up out of your ass. No left wing socialist think tanks either.
"Doctors and hospitals must accept uninsured patients so we don't have people dying in the streets -- we also don't typically force businesses to accept customers that can't pay. We do it because we're a humane country."
Logical fallacy: Appeal to emotion. Bzzzt.
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 02:12 PM
So was 911 just a horrible workplace accident too? You are sick!
"Why isn't he being charged with terrorism, pbj? Does the military -- who is trying him -- also hate America? Are they also doing damage control for this murderer? Why does the military hate America, pbj?"
How do you know he won't be? The investigation is continuing.
"But, wow, more anger and resentment from the right? Who would have thought?!"
Fron one that served in his nation's military, yes, LOTS of anger for domestic enemies like yourself who seek to destroy the nation by propagandizing for the enemy.
A group of six radical Islamist[1] men, allegedly plotting to stage an attack on the Fort Dix military base in New Jersey, United States, were arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on May 8, 2007. They were subsequently convicted of planning an attack against U.S. soldiers. The alleged aim of the six men was said to be to "kill as many soldiers as possible".[2] Their trial began on October 20, 2008 and was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.[3] On 22 December 2008, the plotters were found guilty on charges of conspiracy to harm US military personnel.
How is this different from Hassan? He actually carried it out. And because he was successful, John Jensen and Demo Kid and the rest of the enemy sympathyzers want him freed. Oh they won;'t come right out and say it, but they can hardly conceal there tears at his arrest nor their joy at his success.
Sure. And if you choose to, you get a fine.
I cannot choose whether or not to buy health care insurance.
Sure you can, and if you choose not to, you get a fine.
Those fines only lead to jail time if you blow them off.
Studies show? What studies? Cite them link them. You made that up out of your ass.
"Health Care Premiums Cost $1,100 More" because of the uninsured.
Logical fallacy: Appeal to emotion. Bzzzt.
This isn't a debate class. What is your point, jackass? "Emotions" like compassion -- which is what Jesus taught me -- are perfectly valid reasons to create laws.
The reason we don't let people die on the streets is because we're humane. Would you prefer letting people die on the streets? Would doctors prefer that?
PS Thanks for saying I hate my country, and then saying I'm committing a logical fallacy by appealing to emotions. You're obviously a very calm and deliberate debater... who accuses others of hating America. What can we expect, though? Your entire debate strategy revolves around anger and resentment.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 12, 2009 02:21 PMThe Muslim supremacist bastard spoke against America and in defense of islamafacist terror,
-- espoused sedition against America,
-- argued against the war to our vets,
-- ignored his oath to God to defend and protect America
-- attempted to contact Al quaida
-- and then murdered 13 innocent people after yelling alwaakbar tuna boat or some such characteristically idiotic gibberish.
Hassan . . . a terrorist?
No Rizzo obviously he's a Presbyterian
BTW, genius . . . you and your messiah Hussein Yobama are defending the actions of the arch extreme conservatives of the world, and they love you for it.
Hey rizzo . . the way your boy Hussein Yobama is doing you may soon get the chance to meet up with a Hassan like character up close and personal.
What are you going to do then . . . . . attempt to irritate them out of beheading you with your half-baked liberal schlock?
Hasan murdered 13 innocent people and deserves the harshed punishment, but there are significant differences between his attack and the Fort Dix attempt. Hasan was a member of the military since 1988. He worked at the base and attacked his co-workers. He was born in America. He was one person. He did not conspire with others. He was not charged with terrorism.
Those are substantial differences.
And because he was successful, John Jensen and Demo Kid and the rest of the enemy sympathyzers want him freed.
You are a pathetic, desperate person. Your anger and resentment is disgusting.
"Why isn't he being charged with terrorism, pbj? Does the military -- who is trying him -- also hate America? Are they also doing damage control for this murderer? Why does the military hate America, pbj?"
How do you know he won't be? The investigation is continuing.
Because the military does not have a charge for terrorism, as I've explained very slowly to you. He would have been tried in federal courts if they were perusing terrorism charges. You idiot.
So answer me: Why isn't he being charged with terrorism, pbj? Does the military -- who is trying him -- also hate America? Why does the military hate America, pbj?
Posted by: John Jensen on November 12, 2009 02:35 PM"How do you know he won't be? The investigation is continuing."
John Jensen:
"He was one person. He did not conspire with others."
Sure. And if you choose to, you get a fine.
That is not a choice. It is tyranny. Like the King George saying you can choose not to pay the tea tax - then we will jail you.
"Health Care Premiums Cost $1,100 More" because of the uninsured.
A left wing think tank propaganda piece is not a credible study.
"This isn't a debate class. What is your point, jackass? "Emotions" like compassion -- which is what Jesus taught me -- are perfectly valid reasons to create laws."
I thought liberals always touted themselves as the calm logical thinkers. When I point out your logical fallacy you explode like a muslim eacting to a cartoon. Your entire debate strategy revolves around anger and resentment.
"You're obviously a very calm and deliberate debater... who accuses others of hating America. "
I am simply reporting a fact. Did you ever serve in your nation's military?
Posted by: pbj1 on November 12, 2009 02:39 PMSo because he succeeded in infiltrating our armed forces and murdering them, he is not a terrorist, whereas the Fort Dix Six who did not suceed are terrorists. Are you insane????
Those are substantial differences.
Yeah, the lone terrorist succeeded whereas the group did not.
Do you think Officer Brenton's killer is a terrorist?
Face it, you are defending this terrorist Hassan purely for political reasons so as to not prove the fact that a Democrat President is weak on terrorism.
"So answer me: Why isn't he being charged with terrorism, pbj? "
You answered your OWN question:
"Because the military does not have a charge for terrorism, as I've explained very slowly to you. He would have been tried in federal courts if they were perusing terrorism charges. - John Jensen
He falls under the UCMJ and just because military law hasn't caught up with the times doesn't mean he isn't a terrorist.
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 02:48 PMPlease answer the question:
I am simply reporting a fact. Did you ever serve in your nation's military?
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 02:50 PMOkay, you pathetic piece of crap, I'll say this ONE time: I don't want this guy freed. If he's guilty of the crimes of which he's been accused, I don't even want him to see the light of day ever again. At no point have I said otherwise, and you're a coward and a liar for implying that I would "cheer" this on. It's offensive, it's inaccurate, and apparently the only way you feel that you can win an argument is to be completely dishonorable and misrepresenting the people you're arguing against.
(In other words... a typical conservative.)
However, let's call this what it really is: a workplace shooting. Sure, the guy was Muslim, but he was also crazy. Assuming that he was under orders from terrorists WITH NO PROOF WHATSOEVER is scaremongering at best, despicable racism at worst. It's the xenophobic archconservative far-right-wing whackos at full steam.
You claim to be a "patriotic veteran", but apparently never learned what the principles of this country are. In fact, by your words it seems like you're quite ready to tarnish everything that has made this country great.
Posted by: demo kid on November 12, 2009 02:51 PMSo, you don't think there were *any* warning signs?
So "alluha akbar" had nothing to do with it?
"Okay, you pathetic piece of crap, I'll say this ONE time: I don't want this guy freed. If he's guilty of the crimes of which he's been accused, I don't even want him to see the light of day ever again. At no point have I said otherwise, and you're a coward and a liar for implying that I would "cheer" this on. It's offensive, it's inaccurate, and apparently the only way you feel that you can win an argument is to be completely dishonorable and misrepresenting the people you're arguing against."
Oh there is that calm rational liberal we always read about. Yep, more anger and resentment from our emotional reactionary liberals.
"However, let's call this what it really is: a workplace shooting."
That is not what it is. I guess by your terrorist loving liberal heart, 911 was just a workplace accident eh?
Your typical workplace shooting doesn't involve:
- The shooter yelling "Allahu Akbar" while killing people.
- The shooter attempting to communicate with Al Qaeda leadership, you know the ones responsible for 911 (Your "work place accident").
I suppose little terds like yourself blame the people who had to jump out ot he twin towers because after all, had they not gone to work they wouldn't have had to jump. Kind of like the logic you use to deny that the Democrat bill won't jail you for not buying insurance.
Demo Kid and John Jensen - Never served, terrorist patsies, dishonest liars.
In otherwords, typical liberals.
I put my life on the line for those principles sonny. Can you say the same you little coward ?
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 03:01 PMNidal Hasan, who murdered 13 Americans.
Timothy McVeigh, who murdered 168 Americans.
How many Americans have you murdered, pbj?
Posted by: John Jensen on November 12, 2009 03:04 PMWAKE UP AMERICA!
People like Demo and Jensen NEVER SERVED and
COULD CARE LESS about our troops! Like Obama pal
Bill Ayers who tramples our flag, these liberals
are being paid by the political arm of the DNC to come
here to do damage control. To them the dead troops deserve their fate
for supporting "imperialist" America.
It will be a short transition before terrorists, emboldened
by the Democrat appeasement, begin suicide bombings that will
kill someone you know. Are you willing to live with that?
"Nidal Hasan, who murdered 13 Americans."
"Timothy McVeigh, who murdered 168 Americans."
"How many Americans have you murdered, pbj?"
There you go proving my point, you automatically presume someone who is in the military is a murderer. Your hatred for the very people that give you the freedom to be an idiot is astonishing.
Keep spewing liberal hater- let it all out for America to see.
ANSWER THE QUESTION JOHN JENSEN: How many American have you killed? How many Jihad acts have you cheered?
Why did you celebrate when they sawed off Nick Berg's head? Why do you hate America?
WHEN WILL YOU ATTACK THIS NATION AGAIN?
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 03:15 PMAnd you continue dodge questions about whether you've murdered Americans. Have you murdered Americans, pbj?
Posted by: John Jensen on November 12, 2009 03:21 PMI'm done with this "debate". I don't argue with cowardly, dishonest slanderers that have to misrepresent what other people say to try to get their point across.
And "principles"? Hah. Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word from what you write here.
Posted by: demo kid on November 12, 2009 03:25 PM
ANSWER THE QUESTION JOHN JENSEN: How many American have you killed? How many Jihad acts have you cheered?
I neither seek nor desire your respect. Respect from you is about as desirable as respect from Osama Bin Laden.
You continue to dodge my questions:
Why did you celebrate when they sawed off Nick Berg's head? Why do you hate America?
WHEN WILL YOU ATTACK THIS NATION AGAIN?
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 03:26 PMSo I will take that as NO- you did not serve your country.
Thanks for clearing that up while running away.
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 03:29 PMDo we really want people like this anywhere near in charge of our military?
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 03:31 PMANSWER THE QUESTION: Did you ever serve in the military?
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 03:33 PMNow maybe you can answer my question. I've answered two of yours now.
Rizzo openly advertises that he would like to murder conservatives and yet defends extreme arch-conservative terrorists like Hassan?
Then Rizzo defends anyone that saw Hassan's terrorist actions coming but neglected to do anything to stop it;
What is wrong with this picture?
Is Rizzo's fixation on murdering those he hates a threat of terrorism?
Inquiring minds want to know Rizzo . . . are you a wanna-be terrorist . . . or just a wheedling liberal coward with a big mouth?
What's the story behind that? I've been meaning to ask.
ANSWER THE QUESTION: Did you ever serve in the military?
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 03:52 PMStill no answer from the JJDK (sounds like a secret police acronym) regarding:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/images/MAJ 20Hasan 20Slides.pdf
Also Seattle Times Staffers too busy trying on burkas to reply as well.
Posted by: Col. Hogan on November 12, 2009 03:53 PMLast June in a thread I made a comment about liberals and the outdoors where I said "Given the elements, keep your wits about you and pack heat."
Of course being a liberal twit, who is acutely conscious of the fact that most petty criminals are also liberal twits John Jensen bit and replied
"I want to murder conservatives. Haha, get it guys?"
I asked him what he meant by that, but because he is a self righteous asshole who makes rash assumptions and projects his own peevish outlook of malevolent intent upon everyone he disagrees with, he never answered. As usual he ignored me and changed the subject.
John Jenson's "I want to murder conservatives," fits his personality and purpose in posting superbly, so I favor him with it regularly.
Thanks for asking.
@190: Careful Demo Kid and John Jensen have the perfect alibi- you all have overstressed them. They will claim at trial that you asked them questions they refused to answer and that is not fair.
"Alibi"? "Overstressed"? Nah... I'm just tired of dealing with twits that decide that lying is the best way to win an argument.
Posted by: demo kid on November 12, 2009 04:10 PMI'm pretty sure that was a joke about shooting liberals. Another commenter before me noticed the same thing: "Are you packing heat, because you might have shoot some liberals out on the trails that do not have the same political views as you do? Pretty distasteful joke."
I thought Amused by Liberals made a particular stupid joke, so I pointed it out sarcastically: "I want to murder conservatives. Haha, get it guys?"
And apparently that makes me a "jihadist."
Posted by: John Jensen on November 12, 2009 04:16 PMI didn't bring it up. What's your point? And I thought you said you were leaving?
John, why don't you answer questions? You asked me questions. I answered. I asked back. So...?
And yet, you're back! JJ has done that before too.
Why do you do that?
Weren't these people all about peace, love, and understanding?
No in the end they are all about what the left has been about throughout history. Oppressing people that don't agree with their socialist views and killing them when necessary. Look up Mao, Stalin, Che, and Castro if you don't believe me. The left is simply where really miserable rotten people end up. That comment from "John Jensen" is indicative is it not?
I wouldn't advise Jensen to try killing my conservative family. He'll get a 12 gauge shoved in his face.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 12, 2009 04:33 PMI mean, if you're going to announce that you're done with a debate, why come back?
Bill C, I'll try not to murder you. Thanks for the advice.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 12, 2009 04:39 PM
But yes, you're absolutely right! It's pointless to continue.
Posted by: demo kid on November 12, 2009 04:49 PM"I'm done with this "debate"."
Yet another lie in a long string of lies from this bunch.
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 06:00 PM"since it seems like some people require military service before their opinions are valid"
I guess that answer the question for you cowardly kid ed?
Gary, they do this because they are prima donna wimps. They hope you will go away and they can continue their propaganda unchallenged.
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 06:05 PMANSWER THE QUESTION: Did you serve in the military?
I won't go away and you will get this question after every post on every thread every minute of every day of every second you visit this blog.
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2009 06:06 PMThat is good news ! So, you have stopped clogging up the blog with your jibberish claptrap. You and JJ are neo-com ideologues who makes use of tactics employed in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals". You seldom are able to carry on a substantive debate and work hard to distort the facts. More simply, you are resorting to a third grade tactic; "I know you are but what am I ?"
Posted by: KDS on November 12, 2009 08:01 PMWhat do you think this is, a Fight Club? No one has to answer your questions.
Best to everyone,
new left conservative, who didn't serve
Posted by: new left conservative on November 12, 2009 08:30 PMActually, this has become a verbal fight club. The moderates and right are pissed off at the White House and Congress and the far left is basically emotional and unhinged to begin with. These dynamics have made this and other sites morph into a verbal fight club.
Get used to it, because I don't see things letting up, as long as the Liberal Progressives in congress keep trying to force their one world view and legislation down our throats. We resent it and they will pay for a chunk of this next November. Meanwhile, we'll continue to resist this insurrection !
Posted by: KDS on November 12, 2009 08:51 PMthe few conservative nutjobs whining are the same nutballs that get off gumming up the democratic process, especially when not in power.
Posted by: mike on November 12, 2009 09:15 PMNo, Rizzo, no one believes that you are a secret murderer because someone said so.
Instead they all know for a fact that you are a self-righteous liberal dipshit because you proved it.
Thanks for the laughs.
Posted by: Amused by Rizzo (moron) on November 12, 2009 11:10 PMBut my guess is that you do know, and possibly do care, and it bothers you too, but you just can't admit it. You bought a pig in a poke and now your pride won't allow you to admit it. You wanted leftist rulers and sought out the most extremist ones you could find. Now they are dismantling the America your grandparents and parents knew.
What 0bamination is doing frightens them. It frightens me. It should alarm and even frighten you, too. I bet that it does, but you're afraid to admit it.
..or you can continue to deny the obvious, defend the indefensible, and look like an idiot. Like rizzo, who says, "I want to murder conservatives"...
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on November 13, 2009 05:28 AMMan, what do you guys want? You have *complete* legislative control. We're not stopping you, mike. You say we are only a "few" and you still can't get your act together? President Obama on day #1 said that Gitmo would be closed in exactly one year. Did we "few" "nutjobs" stop him? It's not our fault he's a failure. Are we stopping him from making a decision on Afghanistan, or is Code Pink? Is it our fault he screwed up the Olympic bid? Is it our fault that *his* Stimulus has been such a colossal disaster? We weren't able to stop that turd from falling on us. Now he's gonna have job summit in December. Why? I thought the Stimulus was working "beyond our wildest dreams" (Biden) and that we "saved or created a million jobs" (Obama). The buck stops with Obama. Sorry. Being President is harder than being a Commie Organizer.
#217 "No one has to answer your questions. "
Yes. Of course, John asked me the same question pbj asked him, and I answered. Why can't liberals answer a simple question, especially the same question they ask?
Just agree that Muslims are persecuted and buy 50,000 acres in Afghanistan and house the 'misunderstood' ones from American that are abused by the system that says no you will not impose sharia law.
Pass the hat and create your own entitlement health care system in America or move to Cuba!
Unemployment got you down??!! Have Warren Buffet just foot the bill and DK you could help run it.
JJ call up the temple money changer, Soros, get 1% of his cash flow and give away "free fish for all" at the best health clinics you can build!
No instead it is bash bash bash bash my very life over your fears, angers, lazy mindset, jealousies, class racism, ignorance, forgetting history, ethnic sorting, faith frustrations. Your solutions are disguises to kill-except abortion but even that hides behind 'choice'.
All of you - DK, JJ, Bruce, Long gone Headless Lucy, P.I., Times, P. Murray, Lisa Brown, Gregfraud, Ron Sims, Constantine you literally hate every corner of civilization and all your solutions are disgusting implementations of a mindset that leads to directly to the singularity of misery and early death.
What else is there...look at how you excuse the murders here in this thread!!! OBSCENE!
ANSWER FOR YOURSELVES!!! WE HAVE HAD IT WITH DEATH!!
How are you contributing to an atmosphere of life?!!! You are Not!!
You know what that means? It means that KSM can kill 3,000 Americans and be set free. Because that is what is going to happen.
Posted by: Gary on November 13, 2009 07:00 AMObama says he is demanding justice, and that just confirms that KSM will be freed.
Obama didn't have to bring this enemy to the U.S. and give him full Constitutional rights in NYC of all places. That venue will never stand, and they'll spend two years fighting that out.
Was he Mirandized? Was his admission "coerced" because he got some water on his face?
He will be freed just as Obama wants, and in the meantime all of our intelligence secrets will be revealed to the enemy. It's a win-win for Obama.
"There's not enough troops, not enough resources and not enough urgency. What President Bush and Senator McCain don't understand is that the central front in the War on Terror is not in Iraq and never was. The central front is in Afghanistan and Pakistan where the terrorists who hit us on 9-11 are still plotting attacks seven years later."
Barack Obama now:
"What's the hurry?"
Suckers.
Posted by: Gary on November 13, 2009 09:24 AM"The war on terror is in Afghanistan. The fact that we weakened our commitment to Afghanistan in order to concentrate in Iraq has taken a toll. The vacuum that was created enabled the Taliban to make a comeback.
What was interesting to me in Afghanistan was that the NATO commander there told us that this could be lost. Now, I did not realize that the situation was that dire in Afghanistan. And we need more troops."
Nancy Pelosi in 2008:
"Afghanistan is not settled because the president took his eye off the ball and took the full attention that should have been in Afghanistan, and shifted some of that to Iraq,"
Nancy Pelosi now:
"I don't think there's a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan, in the country or in the Congress,"
Suck.Ers
Posted by: Gary on November 13, 2009 09:33 AMGary, You know what that means? It means that KSM can kill 3,000 Americans and be set free. Because that is what is going to happen.
Just like Timothy McVeigh was set free, right? More resentment, more anger. Big shock.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 13, 2009 09:53 AMIf Obama wants justice (the kind most Americans want anyway), he could get it with the military tribunal.
My God, McVeigh was a citizen. His case is entirely different, John.
So, if he is acquitted, he will be freed. The 911 Commission said he did it. The defense is gonna free him on technicalities that don't exist in the military commissions.
Posted by: Gary on November 13, 2009 10:12 AMCourts in NYC have handled numerous terrorist cases. The WTC bombings in the 90's and the African embassy bombings are just two examples off the top of my head. I don't care where KSM is tried as long as he is convicted and is given the harshest punishment. AG Holder is pursuing the death penalty for KSM.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 13, 2009 10:21 AMShow trial? Terrific.
"By the way, those "technicalities" are called "due process"
But you just said there was *zero* chance of him being acquitted.
If the prosecutor loses the first 1,000, how the hell can succeed on the next 1,000?
Good grief. And he loses on the first 1,000, those families have *no* justice.
Why not?
Senator Jim Webb (D) is very angry about this.
You said some technicality will get KSM off. You are making things up. You cannot name a single example of a terrorist being set free on a "technicality." It won't happen.
It's not a show trial, he will be convicted by a jury. Do you not believe in trial by jury? Military tribunals have a jury as well. Military tribunals have due process requirements just like federal courts.
Why are you against trials? Why are you against our justice system? Do you hate New York City? Do you hate America?
Posted by: John Jensen on November 13, 2009 10:52 AMExplain one reason why a military tribunal is less likely to have KSM walk than a federal trial.
You don't have one. Federal courts have handled numerous terrorism trials. Military tribunals have handled zero. Why is it so important to you that the military runs our justice system? The 9/11 attacks occurred on our soil and our justice system should handle these charges.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 13, 2009 10:58 AMSo, I wouldn't have approved of KSM being tried in a military tribunal.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 13, 2009 11:08 AMOkay.
- the trial will drag on for at least ten years
- America will be put on trial for scaring KSM
- pro-bono liberal attorneys will toil day and
night to free KSM and his friends
Liberals are the ones who hate America. They want to turn the KSM trial into a circus like the OJ Simpson trial.
Posted by: Attila on November 13, 2009 12:15 PM"Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano expressed confidence Friday that Congress would introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill in early 2010 and that debate and passage of the legislation could occur before the mid-term elections later that year."
I can't wait for Congress to push for amnesty. I say, full steam ahead! That is exactly what the country has been begging Congress to do. To hell with jobs! We want illegals to be citizens, damn it!
"- America will be put on trial for scaring KSM"
BINGO! Liberals hate it when you pretend to torture people who kill 3,000 Americans.
So we should just take the government's word that they proved his guilt? That's not how our justice system works. We should prove KSM's guilt in open court -- which we will, beyond a reasonable doubt -- and show to the rest of the world our commitment to the rule of law. Trying him in a secret court would just stand to make him a martyr.
Gary, So the Pentagon doesn't count.
False, the Pentagon is on the homeland. I put the location conditional first for a reason. I was speaking of foreign military installations.
Nice work being petty, though. Exactly the type of distraction I am used to arguing with you. You never want to focus on the issues, just petty rejoiners. I articulated a philosophy, a thought on the subject -- I haven't seen that from you. Have you put any thought into the matter? Of course not. You just know that Obama made the decision, because it must be wrong. Great critical thinking there, Gary.
Still angry about the 2008 election. Still resentful toward American voters. That's the right.
BINGO! Liberals hate it when you pretend to torture people who kill 3,000 Americans.
So did Condi Rice and others in the Bush administration who ceased the practice. Why does Condi Rice hate America?
Posted by: John Jensen on November 13, 2009 12:49 PMWell that's dumb.
Ooookay. Gotcha.
Posted by: Gary on November 13, 2009 12:56 PM249: No.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 13, 2009 01:23 PMWhy? What for? What is the point?
Unless, as Attila says, to put the United States itself on trial.
Posted by: Gary on November 13, 2009 02:15 PM252: More anger, more resentment.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 13, 2009 03:06 PMMcVeigh did not act alone, genius. Ever hear of Terry Nichols? Killing hundreds of civilians is different than killing 13 soldiers. Conspiring to blow up a federal building is different than an un-conspired mass shooting.
Hasan had multiple contacts with Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. You sure there weren't co-conspirators with Hasan the trigger man?
And it was 14 people murdered, not 13...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 13, 2009 03:13 PMAnd so far investigators have found absolutely nothing serious about those contacts. Nothing about conspiring or even working together. They've found nothing.
You sure there weren't co-conspirators with Hasan the trigger man?
According to every available piece of evidence, yes. You are making a massive jump, AFTER changing your argument that Hasan was a lone gunman. Why are you changing your argument? What new evidence did you get in the last 24 hours?
Posted by: John Jensen on November 13, 2009 03:16 PMWhy? Is Islam a mental disease?
#253 "No, you're wrong. You are misrepresenting my position. "
You said:
"I put the location conditional first for a reason. I was speaking of foreign military installations."
So? What's the difference?
"Attorney General Eric Holder has pledged not to allow the release of dangerous detainees in the United States if they are found not guilty in federal court or if their case is thrown out on a technicality."
Gee, I feel better already. I wonder why he released convicted terrorists before.
Only the President can grant clemency. Eric Holder was never President. Why are you lying?
More anger, resentment, and lies. How typical.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 13, 2009 04:24 PMWhy do you have to call me a liar? He pushed for those pardons. You know what I mean, don't you? Do you think I'm lying by somehow suggesting that Holder was President?
I've never called you a liar.
"Why are you lying"... so sick of the middle school crap.
The same President went out of his way to tell us to reserve judgment about Malik Nadal Hasan who had just murdered a lot of Americans.
What else is there?
Good night.
Posted by: Gary on November 13, 2009 05:07 PMyou may have just proven you're dumber than billy bob crouton and daniel in one go with that last one. it's good to see the president having soem faith in the u.s. legal system and not all americans are shakin in their boots that terrorists will be tried in the u.s. - unlike conservative hypocrites that never had the balls to try KSM. or find bin laden. or win any wars effectively.
Yes, just like you know what I mean when I say "ban pre-existing conditions" and just like you knew I was talking about terrorist attacks when you change the subject to an organized military bombing the Pentagon to misrepresent my position. You know what I mean all the time, and go out of your way to misrepresent it. It's frustrating, I'm sure.
so sick of the middle school crap.
Hey, me too. I've never seen a serious effort from you to discuss things, though. Like this:
The President wasted no time saying that Officer James Crowley "acted stupidly" for doing his job and protecting someone's home.
Something he's already apologized for, and you bash away.
The same President went out of his way to tell us to reserve judgment about Malik Nadal Hasan who had just murdered a lot of Americans.
And an unsourced, uncited statement that is probably significantly not true.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 13, 2009 05:26 PMANSWER THE QUESTION: Did you serve in the military?
I won't go away and you will get this question after every post on every thread every minute of every day of every second you visit this blog.
Posted by: pbj on November 13, 2009 07:15 PMBS! Obama NEVER apologized. I defy you to provide a link to his apology.
Posted by: pbj on November 13, 2009 07:19 PMAnd so far investigators have found absolutely nothing serious about those contacts. Nothing about conspiring or even working together. They've found nothing.
And you know that - how? Are you plugged into the internals of the investigation, getting details before they may be leaked to the press?
You certainly seem to want to wish this is so, make your judgment right away, how about you listen to President Obama and don't rush to judgment, hmmm?
Oh, and by the way, it was 14 murders, not 13. Even if the Feds don't want to prosecute for one of the deaths...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 14, 2009 01:04 AMHe doesn't know. He just pulls stuff out of his ass.
Posted by: pbj on November 14, 2009 06:57 AMhttp://www.breitbart.tv/bombshell-uncovered-obama-statement-ksm-will-get-full-military-trial/
Guess not.
He apologized to Officer Crowley? I either missed that or JJ has some exclusive information.
Of not jumping to conclusions about Hasan:
'We don't know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts,'
Yes, we must give the benefit of the doubt to the mass murderer, but not to a (white) police officer doing his job.
I just listen to the man.
Posted by: Gary on November 14, 2009 09:14 AMWe have a justice system where people are presumed innocent until they are proven guilty in the court of law. I understand you'd rather he not be tried at all, because he's Muslim who committed a violent act. To you, the trial is over.
Obama had the legendary beer summit and said he made a mistake in speaking like he did. Did he kiss the officer on the neck? No.
Why does it matter what the officer is white? You are a racist.
Dan: There is no evidence that he contacted any other groups. Period. You've made repeatedly claims that he has. You're wrong. The complete lack of evidence shows you're wrong. The fact that YOU aren't an investigator shows that you have no other information than has been publicly released. It shows that you're wrong.
It was 13 people murdered according to FOX News. Is FOX News lying?
Posted by: John Jensen on November 14, 2009 12:53 PMDan: There is no evidence that he contacted any other groups. Period. You've made repeatedly claims that he has. You're wrong.
The proof is here. You may apologize any time now.
It was 13 people murdered according to FOX News. Is FOX News lying?
Per all news sources, they're all lying. There were 14 people murdered, as Francheska Velez was pregnant, and thus the murder of her unborn child was actually a Federal crime. That the US Government refuses to follow its own laws is no surprise, though...
Oh, and John: did you ever serve in the military?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 14, 2009 03:18 PMWhile investigators are combing intelligence files for any foreign contacts Major Hasan may have had, the only significant connection the authorities have confirmed so far are a dozen or so e-mail messages he sent to a radical cleric now in Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki.
While officials have described the messages as involving questions about Islamic interpretation, they presumably reflected the psychiatrist’s familiarity with Mr. Awlaki’s voluminous sermons and texts on the Web supporting violent jihad. But a counterterrorism analyst who examined the messages shortly after they were sent decided that they were consistent with authorized research Major Hasan was conducting and did not alert his military superiors.
That is significantly different from Hasan had multiple contacts with Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, which you wrote. You were wrong.
Am I comfortable with members of the U.S. Army talking to extremist Imams? Absolutely not. But that does not mean Hasan participated in a conspiracy, received any support in any form from anyone else, or otherwise participating in a terrorist operation. It was a single nutjob who opened fire at work -- anti-terrorist agencies such as the FBI and CIA can do little to prevent that and that shouldn't be their focus.
There is zero evidence that he was part of a conspiracy or received any help at all. You claimed that Hasan had multiple contacts with Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations but that claim is made up. You asked You sure there weren't co-conspirators with Hasan the trigger man? as if you have proven a conspiracy. You have not.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 14, 2009 04:04 PMYou claimed that Hasan had multiple contacts with Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations but that claim is made up.
And I showed links to the additional, non-Al Qaeda contacts (the Al Qaeda links were well established early on). So what I said was 100% correct, your attempts to stamp your feet and whine otherwise notwithstanding.
You can apologize any time, John...
You asked You sure there weren't co-conspirators with Hasan the trigger man? as if you have proven a conspiracy. You have not.
I never said I had proven a conspiracy; on the other hand you have completely dismissed the potential for a conspiracy as the investigation is still on-going, as it if was a fact.
You're jumping to conclusions, I'm not. Yet you want to condemn me of the very act you're committing. How very Alinskyish of you, John!
You can apologize any time.
Oh, and have you ever served in the military? You don't like that question, do you?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 14, 2009 05:03 PMYes, the investigation is still proceeding. My position will change if the facts in the case change. But by and large this thread has been an exercise in prejudice and presuming the man acted as part of a terrorist conspiracy when every single piece of information hints otherwise.
I'm fine with that question. Have you ever served in the military?
Posted by: John Jensen on November 14, 2009 06:19 PMBS. Show me the link. He never apoligized, rather he tried to pretend he had nothing to apologize for.
Traitor John Jensesn wrote: "Why does it matter what the officer is white? You are a racist." Apparently to Obama it mattered. There were several arrest by non0white offices of black suspects before during and after the Gates incident and not a peep about it from Obama. Are you calling Obama a racist?
ANSWER THE QUESTION: Did you serve in the military?
Posted by: pbj on November 14, 2009 10:10 PMNope. It is the opnion of none other than that right wing whacko blog, the Huffington Post:
"Though falling short of a formal apology, Obama's comments on Friday were widely seen as conciliatory. "I want to make clear that in my choice of words I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sergeant Crowley specifically," Obama said, "and I could have calibrated those words differently.""
SOURCE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/27/gop-rep-will-offer-resolu_n_245287.html
He could have calibrated his words differently??? WTF? ANd liear John Jenson wants to convince us that is an apology.
I am calling you out John Jenson, like all liberals you lie and deny.
Posted by: pbj on November 14, 2009 10:25 PMIs this the platform you voted for America???
Posted by: pbj on November 14, 2009 10:28 PMDoes he listen to his economic advisors ? I can't believe that Paul Volcker would have ever proposed this. There is something rotten in Denmark.
Obama Unlikely to Push China Hard on Currency
Sunday, November 15, 2009 1:10 PM
WASHINGTON -- In his visit to Beijing this week, President Barack Obama is expected to tread lightly when pressing China to let its currency rise against the dollar.
Doing so would benefit the U.S. economy by making American-made goods cheaper in China, but Obama is reluctant to upset Beijing.
China is the No. 1 lender to the U.S. at a time when the latest annual budget deficit hit a record $1.42 trillion. That makes for a lot of Treasurys to be sold. China has expressed concerns that the falling dollar threatens the value of its existing U.S. holdings.
The United States also needs China's help in dealing with foreign policy threats. Those include curbing the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran.
There's another reason for a gentler U.S. stance: Analysts believe China already signaled last week that it was preparing to let its currency rise against the dollar. That shift could eventually aid U.S. manufacturers. It might also feed a U.S. economic rebound.
But China is also applying some pressure on the U.S. about its currency.
On Sunday, China's top bank regulator said the weak dollar and low interest rates were distorting global asset prices and posing an "insurmountable risk to the recovery of the world economy," according to a transcript of a speech he made at a financial forum in Beijing.
The regulator, Liu Mingkang, said the declining dollar and low interest rates were encouraging a "massive" U.S. dollar carry trade _ the practice of borrowing money at low rates in one currency to invest in assets in another currency that offer a higher return.
Analysts say China will likely wait months before tweaking the yuan-dollar exchange rate, which now stands at about 6.8 yuan to the dollar. Beijing doesn't want to appear to be bowing to U.S. pressure. Even then, it will take time for the U.S. to benefit.
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, says he expects the Chinese to begin allowing the yuan to rise against the dollar by next spring, at a rate of about 5 percent a year.
At that pace, it would take until around 2015 for the two currencies to be in balance _ a process Zandi said could help narrow the U.S. trade gap with China, which last year hit $268 billion.
U.S. manufacturers won't likely be satisfied. They want the administration to push Beijing to raise the yuan's value further and faster. Their exports have been hurt by China's move last year to peg the yuan to the dollar. They contend the yuan is undervalued by up to 40 percent.
From 2005 to 2008, the Chinese had allowed the yuan to rise about 20 percent against the dollar. It started pegging its currency to the dollar in mid-2008, once the global recession began hurting China's exports.
Normally, a low dollar would make U.S. goods cheaper for hundreds of millions of Chinese consumers. But since the Chinese have kept the yuan tightly linked to the dollar, U.S. exporters haven't been able to capitalize.
"Obama will raise the currency issue (during his visit), but he is in no position to push the Chinese simply because he lacks any levers to make the Chinese do something they do not want to do," said Eswar Prasad, an economist at Cornell University and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
China's central bank made its subtle yet surprising shift in the wording of its exchange-rate policy on Thursday. In the arcane language that governs the $3-trillion-a-day currency markets, many analysts read the shift as a signal that Beijing was getting ready to let the yuan resume rising against the dollar.
The dollar has been sliding in value against many major currencies. U.S. exports to Europe have benefited, because the dollar has fallen about 18 percent against the euro since early March.
And since the Chinese have linked their currency to the dollar, the dollar's fall has benefited them, too. It's made Chinese products cheaper in Europe and elsewhere where currencies have risen against the dollar. If Beijing let the yuan rise, those Chinese goods would become more expensive.
For now, a weak yuan isn't all bad for the U.S. It's meant a break for American consumers and retailers, such as Wal-Mart, that buy goods imported from China.
But many countries have complained about the weaker dollar and China's close link to it. Some, such as Thailand, South Korea and Russia, have sought to stem the dollar's rise against their currencies by buying dollars.
Using the words "weak" and "strong" to talk about currency implies that one is better than the other. To illustrate how this isn't the case, take a look at China itself. They've had a weak currency all along yet have the biggest trade sector in the world, have massive budget surpluses and have more money than they know what to do with. I would urge you to recognize that a "strong" dollar has significant downfalls such as causing an insurmountable trade deficit leading to a loss of manufacturing and technology jobs.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 15, 2009 08:30 PMHow about the world currency using something other than the dollar standard ? If you don't see that hurting our economic status down the road (and I think you do but are afraid to admit it because you are a rank and file Obama liberal progressive), you are either blind or a liar.
Posted by: KDS on November 15, 2009 09:03 PMAs someone who lives predominantly in China, I can tell you the reason China has a budget surplus and massive exports is because Chinese tax policy encourages businesses and exports. VERY low taxation, and even lower taxation if you export what you build.
It's called incentivizing business to succeed. The Chinese Government is fine collecting a smaller chunk of a larger total pie.
Oh, and it does not provide welfare/unemployment, free/reduced housing, free healthcare, free food, all those things you progressives expect.
China's Government focuses on keeping the economy going, and when it does spend stimulus dollars, they are spent immediately on actual, tangible projects. Banks aren't allowed to hold Government stimulus dollars, they have to loan it out or face tax penalties AND have the funds yanked back (double-hit).
In summary, China's economy is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you Slavery Party adherents want. Their economy is growing and expanding. Ours is shrinking and dying. They are increasing economic freedom and reducing Government intrusion and taxation. We are clamping down on businesses, adding ever-more regulations, and increasing taxes.
You think there's a correlation you could figure out?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 15, 2009 10:33 PMThe dollar being "strong" is not why the world has been linked to it (that makes no sense -- it is only "strong" compared to the value of other currencies that are linked to it already!). It is because the dollar has been stable and we are a strong, dependable nation.
This has nothing to do with Keynesian nor neoclassical economics.
Dan, I'm glad you have such great praise for the Communist People's Republic of China. Perhaps one reason it doesn't have unemployment insurance, affordable housing, health care, and ample food is because it is not a democracy. The country is laughably poor. The average person in China does not live on the Eastern coast, but lives in an impoverished village with poor access to infrastructure and food.
You present a laughably simplistic view of Chinese success. If you want to know why China is so successful, you should refer to KDS' article about how they value the yuan. You should note that this valuation probably prevents their country from enjoying a higher standard of living than otherwise. This valuation would probably not occur in a democracy where the suffering masses would have a voice.
I will grant that they have a significantly better stimulus package, though primarily because their standards of construction are a lot lower in terms of safety and environmental concerns. They also don't really have to worry about the property rights of the houses and villages that are destroyed in constructing high-speed rail. (Again, probably not possible in a Democracy.)
It is incredulous, ABSURD even, for you to say that China is "reducing Government intrusion." If I wrote anything approaching that sort of commie propaganda, what would be the response from Sound Politics' readers?
Posted by: John Jensen on November 15, 2009 11:30 PM"President Barack Obama has promised Asia's creditor nations that Washington will not let US borrowing spiral out of control, vowing a major drive to cut the budget deficit and restore global confidence in the US dollar."
Posted by: Gary on November 16, 2009 06:41 AMAnd your rambling statement is based on what facts, what knowledge? Ever been to China? Do you run a business here? Do you know about the laws, regulations, and tax approach?
Ignorance is bliss, isn't it John? Just like your all-knowing about the Hasan case. You know it all, because you want to know it all. Doesn't work that way, John!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 16, 2009 06:47 AMI didn't want to write this in the first post since it's a little harsh, but it's becoming more apparent: You care far too much about money and "business." People are being oppressed in communist China every single day. From acts of torture to the censorship of the Internet. I'm very happy you've found communist China receptive to foreign investors, but "low taxes" and the complete lack of regulations in this case is a feature of a lack of freedom and not a surplus of it. Communist China can be unaccountable to its citizens because they are not free to vote, hear uncensored information, or stand up to their government.
Facts, knowledge? These are facts. This is knowledge. You're the one who's ignorant. And hey, apparently you make quite a bit of money by being ignorant. Kudos. I can tell how important it is to you.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 16, 2009 09:15 AMNOT JAPAN!!!! You know, our long-time allies and trading partners.
Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 16, 2009 09:19 AMIf it was out of respect, I guess I understand why the emperor didn't return the bow.
Posted by: Gary on November 16, 2009 10:28 AM"There isn't anything he can do that you won't criticize."
Should read:
There isn't anything he can do that you *will* criticize."
But of course I have things to criticize Obama about, mostly on substance: DADT should have been repealed months ago. It isn't even a hot-button issue. In August, he nearly bargained away the public option for no GOP votes -- that's not how you bargain. His administration is completely wrong in wanting to ban illegal immigrants from purchasing insurance with their own money on the exchange. The "around $900bn" cap on health care reform seems arbitrary and will prevent the appropriate amount of subsidies from reaching the middle class. His comments on the Cambridge police story were stupid and distracted from an important moment in the health reform debate.
And what will you praise him about, Gary?
Posted by: John Jensen on November 16, 2009 10:54 AMYou simply cannot - and will not - acknowledge the truth. It's the economy, stupid. China's is growing BECAUSE it is using all the free market principles. The US economy is shrinking because it is becoming ever-more State managed.
If you want people out of poverty, then you have to open up the markets and the economy. I see this on a daily basis in China.
But no, that offends your Slavery Party "sensibility" which demands the State controls all, regulates all, and taxes the crap out of all. You just cannot accept the real fact: free markets - capitalism - are the best way to grow an economy.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 16, 2009 12:48 PMI'm glad you make money but you should to recognize that money is not the only thing in the world. The type of free market that communist China has is simply impossible to obtain in America because we do not manipulate our currency (see the article KDS posted) and since we are a democracy the voters prevent government from letting people suffer needlessly.
Freedom is more important than money. Yes, in a communist dictatorship with no freedom the government can arbitrarily and against the will of its population enact nearly any series of policies that benefit or do not benefit businesses. And for all the GDP growth that China has, the vast majority of its population sees none of it. There is literally no point for a nation to amass wealth if its population doesn't benefit massively from it. In China, they do not.
I will never give up my freedom for GDP growth. Never.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 16, 2009 01:20 PMThe vast rural areas are not seeing any of the free market because the money if flowing in the population centers. It takes time for things to work their way to such places, and to rush it can cause huge problems (think Russia.)
Yes the ChiComs are still a socially and politically repressive government. Many of the leaders are very concerned about a revolution, and rightfully so since many are not too far removed from the original one that started in the farmlands. It will take time for the political memory to get fuzzy enough that they feel comfortable in loosening their grip.
It's all well and good to look at democracy from our perspective and think, "hey why can't they just do it our way", but it's not that easy, and I see China making rather amazing progress considering where it stood 20 years ago. I am hopeful of a continued progress there and many more wonderful visits with my family (been there 5 times in 8 years.)
Posted by: Eyago on November 16, 2009 02:09 PMI don't believe our current President thinks that we are in a war.
Dan, I'm ignoring the truth?
Yes, you are. The truth is that tax cuts work, they stimulate the economy. Ask Angela Merkel of Germany.
You have yet to admit that the people in communist China lack freedom.
Politically, they are not as free as in America. Economically, they are considerably more free than in America. Religiously, it's about a push.
You are sandbagging what's obvious. The state in communist China controls all.
False. And in fact, the US Government has many more of the trappings of Communist than the Chinese! The Chinese system is really a fascist oligarchy; the US is now, essentially, a communist democracy.
It is a dictatorship. The people there do not have freedom.
Which freedoms do you speak of? Let's get specific, John.
You are, simply put, ignorant about China. Ever been there? Ever seen the "oppression" and the "control" of the Central Government? Huh?
Here's the secret: for the most part IT DOESN'T EXIST. Economically you are MUCH more free in China than you are in the State of Washington. Personally, you have about the same level of freedoms. Politically, well, you can vote, but the candidates are all from the same party (on second thought, that's kind of like here in the Puget Sound area where the only candidates who stand a chance of winning are all Democrats).
You speak of what you do not know, and that ignorance shines through. As a person who has lived in Belgium (26 months), Chile (29 months), China (36 months so far), and the US, I can tell you that the day-to-day freedoms are about the same in all those places.
When it comes to the freedom to make a living, I'd rank them as China, Chile, Belgium, then the US (top to bottom).
What was that song lyric? Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose... Freedom is great, unless you're restricted from making an honest living to your full abilities, in which case are you really free? When the State can dictate what you must spend your money on, are you personally free?
Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, remember that little phrase? Well, in China they're gaining the right to liberty while in the US we're losing the right to the pursuit of happiness. I'm not sure it's a fair trade; with a successful career I can move somewhere where I can enjoy liberty; with liberty and no economy I end up free on my own dirt lot in a cardboard box. Yeah, free, but miserable.
You simply cannot accept the fact - yes, FACT - that all those economies around the world that are rebounding faster than the US (we're still falling) did so predominantly on loosing the dogs of business. Reducing taxes, lowering Government intrusion and control. It works, but it's counter to what you Slavers want, so you will put in your ear plugs, put on your eye shades; if you only knew where to put the cork!
Eyago wrote:
The vast rural areas are not seeing any of the free market because the money if flowing in the population centers. It takes time for things to work their way to such places, and to rush it can cause huge problems (think Russia.)
Actually, the rural areas are seeing a VERY big influx of money! Most of the factory and shop workers are from the rural areas. They send back 70-90% of their incomes to their families back in the rural areas. Their families use it to buy modern conveniences and to save, so their kids can come back home in 7-10 years, get married, settle down, and expand their family business or start a new one.
Trickle down is working; there is still massive differences between the Jingan district of Shanghai and the outskirts of Shengyang (farm town with mud and brick huts), but 10 years ago those Shengyang areas were lucky to have a dirt road; now they have paved roads, telephones, 24/7 electricity, and even water and basic sewage. Mostly paid for by the farmers themselves.
They have a long ways to go, but the rural areas are getting a lot better, visibly so, in just the last 5 years.
Your analogy to Russia is VERY cogent; the Chinese oligarchs want to avoid that melt-down; they have determined that economic freedom - capitalism - is the only way to go. But they do not want the wholesale giveaways of Russia (because they still want to be in control, and they do not want to destroy China). So rather than simply giving away huge companies and industries, they are letting new, privately held (in China that means close stock or publicly traded stocks - companies owned by individuals) companies spring up and compete. And those who win, will win. The State-run companies are gradually shrinking, and moving workers from the State roles to the private sector.
And they're reaping the rewards of that very approach; a growing GDP, growing economies, stronger currency, better life/health for their people, more financial and personal freedoms, even political freedom (yes, there is dissent and for the most part it is tolerated).
If the two countries - the US and China - stay on their paths, in 20 years China will have the freedoms we enjoyed in the 80s and 90s; the US will have the shackles that China wore in the 50s and 60s.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 16, 2009 03:05 PMYour entire comment was great and substantive. You make some great points that I disagree very little with.
Dan, did China cut taxes as you claim? By the way, cutting taxes to stimulate the economy is a Keynesian principle as well. Obama's stimulus had hundreds of billions of tax cuts.
Currency manipulation, by far, has been the biggest driver of China's wealth. Their massive trade surplus can be credited to it.
Personally, you have about the same level of freedoms. Politically, well, you can vote, but the candidates are all from the same party
Jesus Christ, Dan. Democracy is the most basic human right. You cannot claim that China has the "same level of freedoms" when the Chinese can literally not change their country. The candidates are not just from the same party, they are hand-picked. And at a certain level of national importance, candidates simply don't exist. Free speech doesn't exist. A right to property does not exist -- the government can simply take it away. Due process does not exist.
You need to understand my point, which I'll bold here: The very loose market conditions that exist in China may very well be impossible in a democracy because of the human and environmental tolls.
Yes, they don't need universal health care or unemployment insurance or social security if they don't have a population that can vote for these priorities. But that means the comparison is completely flawed. We are a free nation, and that means we are free to protect ourselves and raise revenues toward that end.
By the way, China never really had a recession (their GDP never stopped growing), but their extreme poverty and population growth means that anything less than 5% growth is like 0% growth for us. We cannot treat these cases like Apples to Apples. What "worked" in China -- massive government spending to build high-speed rail, for example -- were financed by surplus revenues (not deficits) and were done without concern to private property, the environment, or construction worker's health.
If the two countries - the US and China - stay on their paths, in 20 years China will have the freedoms we enjoyed in the 80s and 90s;
I truly hope.
the US will have the shackles that China wore in the 50s and 60s.
Oh,hrow up. Name one proposal Obama has proposed that affects our freedoms?
Look, he wants you to buy health care. And he wants the government to help if you can't afford it. That is NOTHING like removing the Constitutional rights -- ones that China does not have. And what's hilarious is you'll end up blowing this up as a major assault on freedom after being fine with China's lack of democracy and free speech.
Does government plan to nationalize banks or GM? No. The government wants to get rid of their stake in both immediately. Does the government have plans to end private competition in any sector at all? None that I've heard about.
Meanwhile, today in China you can't even read Facebook.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 16, 2009 04:39 PMHaha. The yuan is not strong, Dan. It is very, very, weak.
It is impossible to think the dollar is weak and the yuan is strong. Its price is pegged to the dollar. When we're weak, they are too. That is why it's currency manipulation.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 16, 2009 04:44 PMYou speak of what you do not know. If you want to continue in ignorance so be it...
Oh, and did you ever serve in the military?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 16, 2009 06:11 PMASWER THE QUESTION PUNK: Did you ever server in your country's military?
Posted by: pbj on November 16, 2009 08:31 PMDan: Did you ever server in your country's military?
Posted by: John Jensen on November 17, 2009 11:19 AMDid I ever "server"? What does that mean, pbj?
Don't be dense, John. It's clear he meant did you ever serve in the military.
For the record, I never wore the uniform, but I served along side our soldiers. I developed weapons systems, and was deployed - twice - to hot zones to make sure they functioned as intended.
Did you ever serve, John? Or will you continue to dodge the question because it makes you uncomfortable?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 17, 2009 01:47 PMIn the military, no. With the military, yes.
Your turn - did you ever serve in the military?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 17, 2009 03:44 PM