The overwhelming theme of the comments have the flavor of 'we must understand the terrorists

I disagree. Understanding your enemy is the key to defeating them, but people like Churchill are more interested in sympathizing with the terrorists and finding a way to blame america for for the attack.

GuinnessDrinker: When the other side stops hating, I'll stop hating them.

dude - this is a recipe for disaster.

Example, Middle East four thousand years ago.

Ishmael and Mohamed are walking to school, and one of them ( it's so long ago that no one really knows for sure, and since it's disputed, there is no point in trying to figure out WHO )

.. anyway, one of them threw a stone at the other,

and now we have this perpetual cycle of violence.

See? Not good.

Think of the children!!!


/besides, how come you are so sure that they started it first?

When the other side stops hating, I'll stop hating them.

Ya, I get the sneaking feeling that they're on the other side saying "when the democrats stop hating me, I'll stop hating them"

I'll say this in a generalized way as it applies to both sides.

There is a difference between saying hateful things about large groups of people who you falsely identify and demonize in an effort to delegitmize anything they say and saying hateful things about the person who does exactly that.

The first makes you an extremist, partisan nutbag. The second makes you someone who doesn't like extremist partisan nutbags. I'd say the first is not acceptable while the second is just fine.

Shut........UP: Understanding your enemy is the key to defeating them

Absolutely! However in the grey area of language, the word understanding can also convey sympathy. It depends on the context I guess. I don't want to "Understand" an enemy unless it gives me an advantage on how to get rid of him. Whether thats by killing him or subdueing him is secondary to removing the threat. Implied or real.

Ya, I get the sneaking feeling that they're on the other side saying "when the democrats stop hating me, I'll stop hating them"

The difference is that Democrats only hate Republicans. Republicans hate Democrats, and also gays, minorities, atheists, the poor, immigrants, feminists, nonconformists, and anyone who isn't Christian.

Seems like a good place to repeat this:

The cover of Time? They still print that piece of shiat?

Well, now they'll sell a few...nutbags on BOTH sides of the spectrum will buy it so they can rave/rant/gloat/praise...whatever it is that Coulter makes a person feel like doing.

"Most common answer given? They want to hear what he'll say next."
"What about the people that hate him?"
"They listen for two and a half hours"
"If they hate him, why do they listen?"
"Most common answer given? They want to hear what he'll say next."

Also known as the "If you don't like Wal-Mart, stop shopping there. If no one shopped there they'd go out of business." rule.

Abagadro: The first makes you an extremist, partisan nutbag. The second makes you someone who doesn't like extremist partisan nutbags.

The only problem with that (which I agree with in principal) is that since each side has extremist, partisan nutbags, anyone can claim that they are simply someone who doesn't like extremist, partisan nutbags and not an extremist, partisan nutbag, themselves.

Abagadro said best what I've been trying to say all along.

go make up more creative statements. That was lame. Re read it. Nothing near that quote exists ... except by you.

Bullshiat.

"Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now.

Homicidal maniacs are the ones cheering and dancing right now. There were such people in Jordan, Syria, Iran and Pakistan, to name a few.

We should invade their countries,

Invade their COUNTRIES. A country is a state. She did not say "infiltrate their terrorist cells/organizations", she said countries.

kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

So, she has recommending killing "the leaders". That is unreferenced, but since SHE JUST SAID 'countries', the most probable reference is the leader of the country.

Yes, I did expand from "any country with pro-911 celebrators" to "anybody we don't like", but I'm not making it that much broader.

Then *you* changed "anybody we don't like" to "Terrorists", saying that is what she really meant. No, she did not say that, you did.

We have established from the analysis of her quote that she is advocating killing the leaders of any country with pro-911 celebrators. You, in turn, label those leaders 'terrorists'.

While you are of course correct in the famous 'exact quote defense', it's not that damn big a leap from "leaders of any country with pro-911 celebrators" to "folks we don't like".
Not nearly the 'creative' flight of fancy you imply.

GuinnessDrinker:

Republicans hate Democrats, and also gays, minorities, atheists, the poor, immigrants, feminists, nonconformists, and anyone who isn't Christian.


Your ignorance, and blind hate, is *ASTOUNDING*.

Your ignorance, and blind hate, is *ASTOUNDING*.

And once again, YOUR hate is just OK.

Weaver95
Hate is wrong. There are no qualifiers or excuses

...unless they're Dutch of course.

Those no good lousy Dutch! I'll teach you to sit on a stoop!!

Hate is hate, whether directed at one OR many.

Hate is wrong. There are no qualifiers or excuses.

This is a rather silly statement. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to hate someone. Individualized hate can be justified or unjustified depending upon the its basis. Difused hate is generally based upon ignorance, prejudice or a calculated attempt to use it for other means.

GuinnessDrinker:

Republicans hate Democrats, and also gays, minorities, atheists, the poor, immigrants, feminists, nonconformists, and anyone who isn't Christian.


... awwww, come ON , Dude!!

How the fark are we ever going to have a dialouge if you say dumbshieat like that?!?!

... alright, okay, yeah - the DUTCH ...

you do have a point, there.

LittlePig: it's not that damn big a leap

But it *is* a leap that came from YOU, not the people you are complaining about.

Semantics? Yes. But you're using words, and semantics count.

*disclaimer: Coulter is a big flappy-mouthed "rhymes with runt"-bag. Do not think I defend her in any way.

GuinnessDrinker: And once again, YOUR hate is just OK.


What hate?

Tell me specifically who *I* hate.

Once again, Abagadro said exactly what I've been trying to say, a bit more succinctly and tactfully.

GuinnessDrinker:

Republicans hate Democrats, and also gays, minorities, atheists, the poor, immigrants, feminists, nonconformists, and anyone who isn't Christian.

As a registered republican I gotta call bullshiat on that one. I can't think of one person, much less a group that you mentioned that I hate "just" for being in one or more of those groups. Someone may be in one of those groups that I don't particularly like, but it's certainly not because they are "gays, minorities, atheists, the poor, immigrants, feminists, nonconformists, and anyone who isn't Christian".

But you just go right on ahead and spread your own version of hate. I'm sorry that you don't see it for what it is.

Yep, that about sums up socialism in a nutshell. Thanks!

I love nonsequitors. Keep 'em coming.

Yep, that about sums up socialism in a nutshell. Thanks!

Yep, that about sums up straw men in a nutshell. Thanks!

Republicans hate Democrats, and also gays, minorities, atheists, the poor, immigrants, feminists, nonconformists, and anyone who isn't Christian.

Wow, you should be proud. not even Ann Coulter or Ted Rall could have said anything so ignorant or hateful of the people who have a different political view than they do.

Out of curiosity, if you were in charge would you round up all the republicans and put them in concentra..errr, I mean re-education camps?

Nevermind, I think I know the answer...

As a registered republican I gotta call bullshiat on that one. I can't think of one person, much less a group that you mentioned that I hate "just" for being in one or more of those groups. Someone may be in one of those groups that I don't particularly like, but it's certainly not because they are "gays, minorities, atheists, the poor, immigrants, feminists, nonconformists, and anyone who isn't Christian".

So if you don't hate those people, why do you choose to identify with a political party whose members unabashedly do? Why don't you denounce hateful Republicans? Oh, it's because they're on your side.

Weaver95: The Dutch.

OK, the Dutch...wholesale slaughter on them. A pox. Perhaps something genetically engineered in my Repulican Lair Of Evil (tm).

I'll just modify my minori-gay-musli-athie-virus.

GuinessDrinker, I'm still waiting. Who specifically do *I* hate?

I'm going to disagree strongly and move on. It really doesn't matter how many times you try to justify hatred, I'll never agree to the idea that it's 'okay' to hate someone or group under select circumstances.

I suppose Osama Bin Laden is on your christmas card list then.

GuinnessDrinker: with a political party whose members unabashedly do?

Because they don't. Hey Littlepig remember the thread earlier today where I said it was PC Spin? Well, here ya go. PC spin on republicans is that they hate *deep breath* gays, minorities, atheists, the poor, immigrants, feminists, nonconformists, and anyone who isn't Christian. *exhale*

GuinnessDrinker
So if you don't hate those people, why do you choose to identify with a political party whose members unabashedly do? Why don't you denounce hateful Republicans? Oh, it's because they're on your side.

Oh for the sweet love of Murgatroyd, stop this lame "Why don't you denounce so-and-so" game!

It's a given that asshats find their way into groups that you might agree with. It should also be a given that the asshats speak only for themselves.

/WTF is Murgatroyd anyway?

Out of curiosity, if you were in charge would you round up all the republicans and put them in concentra..errr, I mean re-education camps?

Nope. I'd just fix society to the point that they wouldn't want to live in it. You know, because everyone would actually get a fair shake, and they aren't happy unless they're screwing someone over. I'd be enjoying the newly restored America as what it was meant to be, and just laugh as they all call me "un-American" and go away to form their own Republican utopia where they can bomb whoever the hell they want to and discriminate against whomever the hell they want to. Meanwhile everyone here would be enjoying their newly legalized weed and COMPLETE freedom of speech.

Philbb: There you go. They perceive the US as an active participant in the killing of "their people". If you understand that, how can you not understand their actions? What would you do if you were in their position?

well, that's the real problem, isn't it.

"which "them" we're talking about" - I'll pick Terrorism in general.

Do we #1 Treat terrorism as a law enforcement matter and arrest suspects, give them a lawyer, set them free if no one read them their rights, all of that ...

or #2 Go after them where they live, hunt them down and kill them. ( that's gonna make more terrorists, right?? )

It sucks, big time.

What "El-BushCo-Chimpy-McFlightsuit" is doing is actually #3. And that is, attempting to drain the swamp that breeds terrorism by removing Saddam, ( trying to ) replace the dictatorship with a representative government, and making Iraq a beacon of democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

/or maybe it's just becasue he likes to kill brown people, increase his stocks and want's Cheney's retirement package a little sweeter.

Oh for the sweet love of Murgatroyd, stop this lame "Why don't you denounce so-and-so" game!

It's a given that asshats find their way into groups that you might agree with. It should also be a given that the asshats speak only for themselves

Hell, I'll even start. I denounce Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. They are all Democrats who I think are asshats. Now you go. Tell me which Republicans you denounce.

If my suspicions are correct, you won't answer me, because you'd rather die than *gasp* denounce a Republican.

GuinnessDrinker: and they aren't happy unless they're screwing someone over.

Liberals aren't happy unless they are handing our sovereignty over to France and the UN!

Hey this is fun...let's do somemore...

GuinessDrinker

You really aren't helping youself. Probably 95% of Republicans don't hate anyone, they just have different policy opinions. There are likely 5% who are prejudiced against all sorts of people, just like there are 5% of Democrats who are prejudiced against all sorts of people. You are actually denoucing something that you yourself are rampantly engaging in.

GuinnessDrinker: COMPLETE freedom of speech.

Like yelling FIRE in a crowded theater?

So, are you going to actually back up your statement about *my* hate being OK or not?

Liberals aren't happy unless they are handing our sovereignty over to France and the UN!

Nice try, but I ain't a "liberal". I'm a DEMOCRAT. Anyone who calls me a "liberal" to my face gets a bloody nose.