Mob 'attacks’ police during Islamic veil ID check-Prosecutor cowers [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Mob 'attacks’ police during Islamic veil ID check-Prosecutor cowers


DonGlock26
07-27-2012, 08:02
Mob 'attacks’ police during Islamic veil ID check


http://www.france24.com/en/20120726-fears-after-mob-attacks-police-during-islamic-veil-id-check


The police are attacked while checking identity of burka wearers in Marseille. Eventually, after four officers are injured and reinforcements arrive, four people are arrested only to be released by a cowardly prosecutor. No doubt he was in fear of the Muslims burning Marseille down.

_

snowbird
07-27-2012, 12:17
We're going to have to do an awful lot better than this, muy pronto, if we're going to survive.

kirgi08
07-27-2012, 12:20
France is gone,just wall it and be done with it.'08.

DonGlock26
07-29-2012, 09:50
We're going to have to do an awful lot better than this, muy pronto, if we're going to survive.

France slit its own throat by electing socialists again. Even Greece had the common sense to keep the socialists out of power.

_

kirgi08
07-29-2012, 10:24
Don,it's pandemic.Detroit/Buffalo,"enter" your city here.'08.

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 11:40
Don,it's pandemic.Detroit/Buffalo,"enter" your city here.'08.

Deerborne?

kirgi08
07-29-2012, 12:06
Flip a coin Doc.I was born in buffalo.I'll take tails.Point being,most "northern" locales are screwed by,greed.'08.

DonGlock26
07-29-2012, 12:52
Don,it's pandemic.Detroit/Buffalo,"enter" your city here.'08.

Good point, socialism fails where ever it is tried.




_

High-Gear
07-29-2012, 13:52
Good point, socialism fails where ever it is tried.




_

What is this socialism of which you speak? All we've had is the redistribution of funds up to the top.

Brasso
07-29-2012, 14:02
Great. Another atheist who is also a socialist.

I suppose the two do go hand in hand. How do you feel about being used as a human shield when the muslims attack?

High-Gear
07-29-2012, 14:12
Great. Another atheist who is also a socialist.

I suppose the two do go hand in hand. How do you feel about being used as a human shield when the muslims attack?

You are funny. Human sheild eh? Do you think you are the one to use me for anything?


I'll tell ya what, if that occurs you probably won't be able to see me from the sidelines, I'll be one of the guys on the tip of the spear.

snowbird
07-29-2012, 15:36
I'll be one of the guys on the tip of the spear...

...charging the American lines, and shouting, "Allahu akbar!"?

High-Gear
07-29-2012, 15:51
...charging the American lines, and shouting, "Allahu akbar!"?

You do know I don't believe in Allah either right? Snow you crack me up. I would call you names, but I was raised not to make fun of the mentally challenged.:tongueout:

snowbird
07-29-2012, 16:06
You do know I don't believe in Allah either right? Snow you crack me up. I would call you names, but I was raised not to make fun of the mentally challenged.:tongueout:

So if you were the French prosecutor in this case, what would you do differently?

High-Gear
07-29-2012, 16:30
So if you were the French prosecutor in this case, what would you do differently?

Being one who can actually speak to what it is like to enforce the law, and be assaulted, I can say that is a line which can not be crossed. Prosecution to the fullest, unless it is dismissed as part of a larger plea bargin. (I'll let a bloody nose slide if it keeps a 7 year old rape victim out of court!)

The point is once you start showing leinancy, you open the door to further assaults on officers. He definately sent the wrong message to the muslim community there.

rgregoryb
07-29-2012, 20:18
What is this socialism of which you speak? All we've had is the redistribution of funds up to the top.

you mean as in the folks that actually worked for it, comrade?

High-Gear
07-29-2012, 20:31
you mean as in the folks that actually worked for it, comrade?

They worked for a lower tax rate on general income, a lower tax rate on dividend income, tax abatement in some circumstances, and no taxes period on off shore accounts?

Huh? I wouldn't call that working for anything.


Now please answer my question, where is the Socialism? Unless you mean the bailing out of banks, the auto industry, and other multi million dollar corporations. Oh wait, it seems we privatize profits, but socialize losses in this nation.

snowbird
07-30-2012, 06:15
He definately sent the wrong message to the muslim community there.

Heartily agreed!

Now let's take it to the next step. When some group, for exp., communists or Muslims, inspire or command its adherents to reject the laws of the Western land in which they are dwelling, then that is subversive and dangerous, no?

And if the Left supports these subversives, then that is treasonous. Enough is enough, wouldn't you say so?

High-Gear
07-30-2012, 07:02
Heartily agreed!

Now let's take it to the next step. When some group, for exp., communists or Muslims, inspire or command its adherents to reject the laws of the Western land in which they are dwelling, then that is subversive and dangerous, no?

And if the Left supports these subversives, then that is treasonous. Enough is enough, wouldn't you say so?

Where is your evidence of a communist problem in america in the last 30 years? Where is your evidence that the left in general, and any liberal person specifically supports a communist, or muslim rejection of western laws?

snowbird
07-30-2012, 08:47
Where is your evidence that the left in general, and any liberal person specifically supports a communist, or muslim rejection of western laws?

Well, reread the title and first post of this thread. Muslims attacked the police (rejection of western laws), and the prosecutor (likely a lefty) cowered.

Hillaire Belloc, way back in 1936, prophetically wrote, "Millions of modern people...have forgotten about Islam...it is, as a fact, the most formidable and persistent enemy which our civilization has had..."

The morning of Sept 11, 2001, should have been a hammering-the-steel-garbage-can-lid wake-up call about the meaning of Islam, the world's oldest form of spiritual totalitarianism. But instead, useful idiot/treasonous lefties gave us years of hate-Bush, hate-America lies and non-stop excuses for Islam (just as they did for totalitarian communism all through the Cold War). 'Progressives' are still at it, insisting that Muslim jihad is a figment of our imagination (meanwhile, today's total of deadly Muslim attacks has gone up to 19,322).

NMG26
07-30-2012, 08:59
(meanwhile, today's total of deadly Muslim attacks has gone up to 19,322).

I will probably be sorry for asking.

What list are you going by for such an exact and low amount?

High-Gear
07-30-2012, 09:30
Well, reread the title and first post of this thread. Muslims attacked the police (rejection of western laws), and the prosecutor (likely a lefty) cowered.

Hillaire Belloc, way back in 1936, prophetically wrote, "Millions of modern people...have forgotten about Islam...it is, as a fact, the most formidable and persistent enemy which our civilization has had..."

The morning of Sept 11, 2001, should have been a hammering-the-steel-garbage-can-lid wake-up call about the meaning of Islam, the world's oldest form of spiritual totalitarianism. But instead, useful idiot/treasonous lefties gave us years of hate-Bush, hate-America lies and non-stop excuses for Islam (just as they did for totalitarian communism all through the Cold War). 'Progressives' are still at it, insisting that Muslim jihad is a figment of our imagination (meanwhile, today's total of deadly Muslim attacks has gone up to 19,322).

You continually make the mistake of equating a difference of opinion with being an enemy. You see things in black and white terms, failing to see issues are far more complex, and there are not only shades of grey, but a full spectrum of colors involved.

You have your mind made up, and reject any evidence to the contrary. I guess that is easier than actually thinking about things. There is a psychologic principle called cognitive closure. Most highly religious people, and "right wing" people have a very high need for cognitive closure. They have to have a concrete answer, rather than an ambiguous one. All muslims have to be an enemy, because that is simpler than understanding the social, socio-economic, educational, and religious factors which spawn a terrorist ideology.

You do the same thing with religion, and homosexuals. It is the same mentality which spawns racism. I don't like them cause they are different. Different is bad, so they must be bad.

What I am saying Snowbird, is you do not have some of the higher thinking skills, which the Texas GOP was fighting against schools teaching. I guess their stance supports my point about the conservative mind having a high need for cognitive closure. Just try to see things from other people's perspective, it could be refreshing.

snowbird
07-30-2012, 09:37
What I am saying Snowbird, is ... Just try to see things from other people's perspective.

How would have helped the passengers on Flight 93?

High-Gear
07-30-2012, 09:39
How would have helped the passengers on Flight 93?

You make my point for me.

High-Gear
07-30-2012, 09:54
Snowbird,

Below are the six areas on the need for cognitive closure scale.

Desire for predictability
Preference for order and structure
Discomfort with ambiguity
Decisiveness
Close-mindedness

I bet you would rank yourself very highly in each of the areas.

snowbird
07-30-2012, 12:48
Snowbird,

Below are the six areas on the need for cognitive closure scale.

Desire for predictability
Preference for order and structure
Discomfort with ambiguity
Decisiveness
Close-mindedness

I bet you would rank yourself very highly in each of the areas.

Psychobabble while barbarians are burning the West down:faint:

High-Gear
07-30-2012, 14:02
Psychobabble while barbarians are burning the West down:faint:

Again, you make my point for me. :tongueout:

snowbird
07-31-2012, 06:53
Again, you make my point for me. :tongueout:

And while libs are shilling for sharia and making childish faces, the number of deadly Muslim attacks just since 9/11 has crept up to 19,328.

DonGlock26
07-31-2012, 14:39
What is this socialism of which you speak? All we've had is the redistribution of funds up to the top.

http://youtu.be/luo40WjBKWI

DonGlock26
07-31-2012, 14:41
Great. Another atheist who is also a socialist.

I suppose the two do go hand in hand. How do you feel about being used as a human shield when the muslims attack?

The Left's religion is secular humanist Marxism.

_

High-Gear
07-31-2012, 16:54
The Left's religion is secular humanist Marxism.

_

Can you support this statement with some facts? BTW, neither Secular Humanism, nor Marxism are religions.

High-Gear
07-31-2012, 16:59
http://youtu.be/luo40WjBKWI

Funny Video! :rofl: They are idiots. Yes people take advantage of the system, and there should be reform. However; that is not evidence of socialism, any more than a few ********* Neo-Nazi's making a video means we are moving toward Fascisim.

Nice try however.

DonGlock26
07-31-2012, 18:31
Funny Video! :rofl: They are idiots. Yes people take advantage of the system, and there should be reform. However; that is not evidence of socialism, any more than a few ********* Neo-Nazi's making a video means we are moving toward Fascisim.

Nice try however.

Yeah, the welfare state is evidence of socialism.

_

DonGlock26
07-31-2012, 18:37
Can you support this statement with some facts? BTW, neither Secular Humanism, nor Marxism are religions.

religion:

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion


In the 20th and 21st centuries, members of Humanist organizations have disagreed as to whether Humanism is a religion. They categorize themselves in one of three ways. Religious Humanism, in the tradition of the earliest Humanist organizations in the UK and US, attempts to fulfill the traditional social role of religion.[20] Secular Humanism considers all forms of religion, including religious Humanism, to be superseded.[21] In order to sidestep disagreements between these two factions, recent Humanist proclamations define Humanism as a "life stance"; proponents of this view making up the third faction. All three types of Humanism (and all three of the American Humanist Association's manifestos) reject deference to supernatural beliefs; promoting the practical, methodological naturalism of science, but also going further and supporting the philosophical stance of metaphysical naturalism[22]. The result is an approach to issues in a secular way. Humanism addresses ethics without reference to the supernatural as well, attesting that ethics is a human enterprise (see naturalistic ethics).[1][2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism#Ethics_and_relationship_to_religious_belief

Cavalry Doc
07-31-2012, 18:46
religion:

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion


In the 20th and 21st centuries, members of Humanist organizations have disagreed as to whether Humanism is a religion. They categorize themselves in one of three ways. Religious Humanism, in the tradition of the earliest Humanist organizations in the UK and US, attempts to fulfill the traditional social role of religion.[20] Secular Humanism considers all forms of religion, including religious Humanism, to be superseded.[21] In order to sidestep disagreements between these two factions, recent Humanist proclamations define Humanism as a "life stance"; proponents of this view making up the third faction. All three types of Humanism (and all three of the American Humanist Association's manifestos) reject deference to supernatural beliefs; promoting the practical, methodological naturalism of science, but also going further and supporting the philosophical stance of metaphysical naturalism[22]. The result is an approach to issues in a secular way. Humanism addresses ethics without reference to the supernatural as well, attesting that ethics is a human enterprise (see naturalistic ethics).[1][2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism#Ethics_and_relationship_to_religious_belief

uh oh, now you've done it. Don, you should don the nomex underwear right about now.

High-Gear
07-31-2012, 18:59
religion:

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion


In the 20th and 21st centuries, members of Humanist organizations have disagreed as to whether Humanism is a religion. They categorize themselves in one of three ways. Religious Humanism, in the tradition of the earliest Humanist organizations in the UK and US, attempts to fulfill the traditional social role of religion.[20] Secular Humanism considers all forms of religion, including religious Humanism, to be superseded.[21] In order to sidestep disagreements between these two factions, recent Humanist proclamations define Humanism as a "life stance"; proponents of this view making up the third faction. All three types of Humanism (and all three of the American Humanist Association's manifestos) reject deference to supernatural beliefs; promoting the practical, methodological naturalism of science, but also going further and supporting the philosophical stance of metaphysical naturalism[22]. The result is an approach to issues in a secular way. Humanism addresses ethics without reference to the supernatural as well, attesting that ethics is a human enterprise (see naturalistic ethics).[1][2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism#Ethics_and_relationship_to_religious_belief


You disregarded the beginning of the article defining secular humanism as a philosophy denying the existance of god, and rejecting dogma.

Just because some people as a footnote to history debated if it was a religion, does not make it so.

Besides Marxism is a philosophy as well.

You still have not shown where the "religion of the lefties" is secular humanist marxism.

snowbird
08-01-2012, 07:36
... neither Secular Humanism, nor Marxism are religions.

Just like Islam isn't fascist politics:upeyes:

DonGlock26
08-01-2012, 08:24
uh oh, now you've done it. Don, you should don the nomex underwear right about now.

Most people will accept a dictionary's definition. Most people.


_

DonGlock26
08-01-2012, 08:27
You disregarded the beginning of the article defining secular humanism as a philosophy denying the existance of god, and rejecting dogma.

Just because some people as a footnote to history debated if it was a religion, does not make it so.

Besides Marxism is a philosophy as well.

You still have not shown where the "religion of the lefties" is secular humanist marxism.

You don't need a God to have a religion (see #2). Secular humanist Marxists have buckets full of dogma.

It fits #2.

As is Humanist Marxism. Look it up.


_

The Wizard
08-01-2012, 08:45
Can you support this statement with some facts? BTW, neither Secular Humanism, nor Marxism are religions.

It all depends on how you define religion. From "The Merrian-Webster Dictionary" 4: a cause, principle, or belief held to with faith and ardor.

High-Gear
08-01-2012, 12:13
I'm not going down that road, we have two threads on that topic. I want him to back up his statement that it is the religion of the left.

DonGlock26
08-01-2012, 13:44
I'm not going down that road, we have two threads on that topic. I want him to back up his statement that it is the religion of the left.

New Left:


The New Left was a range of activists, educators, agitators and others in the 1960s and 1970s who focused their attention on marginal identities and, eventually, identity politics.[2]


In Britain, the journal New Left Review was founded in 1960, representing a theoretical synthesis of a revisionist, humanist, and socialist Marxism, departing from orthodox Marxist theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left

_

High-Gear
08-01-2012, 16:33
New Left:


The New Left was a range of activists, educators, agitators and others in the 1960s and 1970s who focused their attention on marginal identities and, eventually, identity politics.[2]


In Britain, the journal New Left Review was founded in 1960, representing a theoretical synthesis of a revisionist, humanist, and socialist Marxism, departing from orthodox Marxist theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left

_
Ok, a group called themselves "The New Left" 50 years ago in Britan.

What does that have to do with left wing people in the USA today? I guess a current group in the usa called "Christian Identity" is racist, so all Christians are racist according to your reasoning.

DonGlock26
08-01-2012, 16:39
Ok, a group called themselves "The New Left" 50 years ago in Britan.

What does that have to do with left wing people in the USA today? I guess a current group in the usa called "Christian Identity" is racist, so all Christians are racist according to your reasoning.

The New Left of the 1960's IS the establishment Left of today.

_

High-Gear
08-01-2012, 16:41
The New Left of the 1960's IS the establishment Left of today.

_

They were a footnote of history, and broke apart in the 1970's.

DonGlock26
08-01-2012, 16:54
They were a footnote of history, and broke apart in the 1970's.

No, they moved into politics, academia, the media, and entertainment industries.

_

High-Gear
08-01-2012, 17:04
No, they moved into politics, academia, the media, and entertainment industries.

_

Can you cite a source? I'll gladly read it.

DonGlock26
08-01-2012, 17:11
Can you cite a source? I'll gladly read it.

You didn't read the wiki article on the New Left?

_

High-Gear
08-01-2012, 17:21
You didn't read the wiki article on the New Left?

_

I read about some extremist left wing groups of the 60's, who were at odds with most liberals and fell apart in the 1970's. I didn't see any references to named people in politics, the media, or the entertainment industry today.

Again some extreme fringe groups does not define the entire political left anymore than extreme right wing groups define all pollitically right wing folks.

DonGlock26
08-01-2012, 17:27
I read about some extremist left wing groups of the 60's, who were at odds with most liberals and fell apart in the 1970's. I didn't see any references to named people in politics, the media, or the entertainment industry today.

Again some extreme fringe groups does not define the entire political left anymore than extreme right wing groups define all pollitically right wing folks.

You didn't read the article. Because if you had, you would have seen the key figures section with people who went on to have careers in Left-wing politics and academia like Barack Obama's mentor Bill Ayers. Your purposeful obtuseness isn't working.

_

High-Gear
08-01-2012, 18:09
You didn't read the article. Because if you had, you would have seen the key figures section with people who went on to have careers in Left-wing politics and academia like Barack Obama's mentor Bill Ayers. Your purposeful obtuseness isn't working.

_

I looked up the Americans in the Key Figuers section and several did go on to be college professors, none that I read had a career in politics. Bill Ayers was Obama's mentor? That is a stretch don't you think?


Again, the point is moot. The fringe does not define the mainstream. If that is the case, all Catholics are kiddy diddlers, and all Christians are white supremacists, and agree with Fred Phelps!

That statement is obviously absured as the minority does not define the majority. That is why your original statement of the "left's religion being Marxism and Secular Humanism" is absurd. Just because a fringe group 50 years ago followed both Marxist, and Secular Humanist Philosophy, does not have a bearing on modern Liberals.

DonGlock26
08-01-2012, 19:00
I looked up the Americans in the Key Figuers section and several did go on to be college professors, none that I read had a career in politics. Bill Ayers was Obama's mentor? That is a stretch don't you think?


Again, the point is moot. The fringe does not define the mainstream. If that is the case, all Catholics are kiddy diddlers, and all Christians are white supremacists, and agree with Fred Phelps!

That statement is obviously absured as the minority does not define the majority. That is why your original statement of the "left's religion being Marxism and Secular Humanism" is absurd. Just because a fringe group 50 years ago followed both Marxist, and Secular Humanist Philosophy, does not have a bearing on modern Liberals.


Several ran for office and remained politically active. Tom Hayden was a California state senator.

No, Obama launched his career in Bill Ayers living room.

The counter-culture became the current liberal establishment. The courts, media, academia, and politicians on the Left were heavily influenced by the New Left.

What majority? What minority? How about you show us something to back that up.

If it's absurd then where does the Left get its current dogma from, if not from the New Left's legacy?

_

High-Gear
08-01-2012, 19:32
.

The counter-culture became the current liberal establishment. The courts, media, academia, and politicians on the Left were heavily influenced by the New Left. _
Do you have something to back this up?

. What majority? What minority? How about you show us something to back that up.

If it's absurd then where does the Left get its current dogma from, if not from the New Left's legacy?

_
Do you think all Christians are defined by the actions of Fred Phelps? Do you thing all Catholics are defined by the actions of the pedophile priests? No, they are the minority. The majority of Christians are not like Phelps, and the majority of Catholics are not kiddy diddlers.

Just as the Majority of Liberals are not like the fringe elements you have referenced.

I don't know what dogma you are talking about. There are all kinds of Liberals. Some believe it or not are gun loving, hunters.

DonGlock26
08-01-2012, 20:46
Do you have something to back this up?


Do you think all Christians are defined by the actions of Fred Phelps? Do you thing all Catholics are defined by the actions of the pedophile priests? No, they are the minority. The majority of Christians are not like Phelps, and the majority of Catholics are not kiddy diddlers.

Just as the Majority of Liberals are not like the fringe elements you have referenced.

I don't know what dogma you are talking about. There are all kinds of Liberals. Some believe it or not are gun loving, hunters.


I have backed it up. You clearly don't want to admit that the New Left matured into the current Left.

Can you show that the majority of today's Left does not hold the values of the New Left with anything but your own opinion?

If you can't even admit that the Left has core beliefs shared by a majority, I don't know how you can say anything about the fate of the New Left's dogma. You clearly know nothing of Left-wing dogma.


_

High-Gear
08-02-2012, 05:06
I have backed it up. You clearly don't want to admit that the New Left matured into the current Left.

Can you show that the majority of today's Left does not hold the values of the New Left with anything but your own opinion?

If you can't even admit that the Left has core beliefs shared by a majority, I don't know how you can say anything about the fate of the New Left's dogma. You clearly know nothing of Left-wing dogma.


_

You have backed up nothing. You made a tacit connection from one person, to Obama. You have not defined the "dogma" of which you speak. All you have posted is your opinion.

DonGlock26
08-02-2012, 08:24
You have backed up nothing. You made a tacit connection from one person, to Obama. You have not defined the "dogma" of which you speak. All you have posted is your opinion.

Actually, I educated you about the New Left and the laundry list of progressive figures that heavily influenced today's Left including Barack Obama.

On the other hand, you refuse to tell us your explanation for the Left's current ideology.


_

snowbird
08-02-2012, 09:24
You have backed up nothing. You made a tacit connection from one person, to Obama. You have not defined the "dogma" of which you speak. All you have posted is your opinion.

Reading your posts reminds me of Pat Condell's phrase, "patronizing, know-it-all pinheads". He's referring to libs. Today's libs include fossilized old lefties who still wear 'Che' t-shirts (do you? C'mon, admit it:)).

Pat Condell may be an atheist, but he is one modern Brit who has his head screwed on right when it comes to politics. Unlike today's dishonest libs, he doesn't romanticize murderous Hamas thugs. He doesn't hate Israel, Christianity, or America. You can see/hear his videos at youtube. The one I'm referring to today is called, "Is Everybody Deaf?"

High-Gear
08-02-2012, 15:38
Actually, I educated you about the New Left and the laundry list of progressive figures that heavily influenced today's Left including Barack Obama.

On the other hand, you refuse to tell us your explanation for the Left's current ideology.


_

You have failed to demonstrate there is a unifying "dogma" of the left, let alone made the connection between the activists of the 60's and anyone today. Well beside one member who happened to be a neighbor of Our President.

You submit the radicals of the 60's have infiltrated the courts, politics, entertainment, and are the leaders of "the left". However you have not identified a single person in the courts, in entertainment, or current politics who was a member of a radical movement in the 60's. You say they influenced Left-Wing Dogma, but have not defined what this "dogma" is. Please left me know because I must have missed that handout.

DonGlock26
08-02-2012, 19:03
You have failed to demonstrate there is a unifying "dogma" of the left, let alone made the connection between the activists of the 60's and anyone today. Well beside one member who happened to be a neighbor of Our President.

You submit the radicals of the 60's have infiltrated the courts, politics, entertainment, and are the leaders of "the left". However you have not identified a single person in the courts, in entertainment, or current politics who was a member of a radical movement in the 60's. You say they influenced Left-Wing Dogma, but have not defined what this "dogma" is. Please left me know because I must have missed that handout.

Haven't you ever heard of the congressional progressive caucus?

The New Left was much broader than the activists. Perhaps, its greatest influence was in academia and their students who went on to become judges, media figures, politicians, ect.

See above.


The dogma is the New Left's legacy in the Left's current dogma.

Now, tell us your explanation for the Left's current ideology.
_

DonGlock26
08-02-2012, 19:05
Reading your posts reminds me of Pat Condell's phrase, "patronizing, know-it-all pinheads". He's referring to libs. Today's libs include fossilized old lefties who still wear 'Che' t-shirts (do you? C'mon, admit it:)).

Pat Condell may be an atheist, but he is one modern Brit who has his head screwed on right when it comes to politics. Unlike today's dishonest libs, he doesn't romanticize murderous Hamas thugs. He doesn't hate Israel, Christianity, or America. You can see/hear his videos at youtube. The one I'm referring to today is called, "Is Everybody Deaf?"

It's a typical contrarian troll purposeful obtuseness routine.

High-Gear
08-02-2012, 19:27
Don,

The "Laundry List" of educators, what was it? 5? Were mostly mathmaticians. You have not given a single example of a direct connection to anyone from the "New Left". You also seem to imply everyone who is not an ultra conservative is following the same radical left wing manifesto. I'm pretty socially liberal, but disagree with many people on the Left. In fact there is no unifying "Dogma" which is why you can not produce one. I can't disprove it, because it does not exist, well not outside of your imagination.

You can call me a troll, apparently anyone who does not agree with you is one. However I still submit you have proven nothing, and only made statements without one shred of fact to back them up.

snowbird
08-03-2012, 07:55
The "Laundry List" of educators, what was it? 5? Were mostly mathmaticians. You have not given a single example ...I'm pretty socially liberal, but disagree with many people on the Left.

Noam Chomsky is an America-hating lefty linguistics prof polluting our Ivy League; there's your non-mathematician single example.

You certainly are a liberal, thanks for your candor in admitting it, but I'm curious; name some "people on the Left" whom you disagree with, or, at least, name some leftist dogmas that you don't agree with.

DonGlock26
08-03-2012, 09:04
Don,

The "Laundry List" of educators, what was it? 5? Were mostly mathmaticians. You have not given a single example of a direct connection to anyone from the "New Left". You also seem to imply everyone who is not an ultra conservative is following the same radical left wing manifesto. I'm pretty socially liberal, but disagree with many people on the Left. In fact there is no unifying "Dogma" which is why you can not produce one. I can't disprove it, because it does not exist, well not outside of your imagination.

You can call me a troll, apparently anyone who does not agree with you is one. However I still submit you have proven nothing, and only made statements without one shred of fact to back them up.

The New Left was much bigger than the main figures listed in the wiki article that I used to bring you up to speed.

The congressional progressive caucus makes the dogma quite clear. Do some research, if you are ill-informed about the Left.

Trolls act purposefully obtuse.


_

DonGlock26
08-03-2012, 09:04
Noam Chomsky is an America-hating lefty linguistics prof polluting our Ivy League; there's your non-mathematician single example.

You certainly are a liberal, thanks for your candor in admitting it, but I'm curious; name some "people on the Left" whom you disagree with, or, at least, name some leftist dogmas that you don't agree with.

Exactly, the radical progressives in academia are legion.


_

High-Gear
08-03-2012, 19:19
Noam Chomsky is an America-hating lefty linguistics prof polluting our Ivy League; there's your non-mathematician single example.

You certainly are a liberal, thanks for your candor in admitting it, but I'm curious; name some "people on the Left" whom you disagree with, or, at least, name some leftist dogmas that you don't agree with.

Like I said, I don't know of any "dogma". I break from a lot of liberals with my support of the second amendment. I also support a strong military, however I don't support a lot of subcontracting of work as I think it is a waste of money. I support the rare use of rendition and torture, not the wholesale use which has been the norm as of late.

I am not a supporter of a welfare state, and would like to see money spent on programs like "welfare to work", teaching skills to those who would like to turn their lives around. Even a program which put people to work building public inrastructure would be nice. I don't share the notion of karma with many people on the right who believe all poor people are either stupid or lazy. I understand socio-economic problems which need to be addressed.

I really think we need to beef up boarder security. At this point I don't think it would be feasible to "round up" illegals, but we need to clamp down on the cross boarder violence, and prevent possible terrorist attacks where we can.

I guess these would be some places I differ with other liberal people.

kirgi08
08-03-2012, 20:20
:popcorn:

Animal Mother
08-03-2012, 22:46
Noam Chomsky is an America-hating lefty linguistics prof polluting our Ivy League; there's your non-mathematician single example. How do you reach the conclusion that Chomsky hates America? He doesn't agree with many government policies, but that hardly sets him apart from anyone else. It appears you simply assign labels to anyone who disagrees with you rather than attempting to understand either their position or thoughts. Chomsky's work on linguistics and cognitive psychology has a lot to say about that.

Just to beat you to the punch, don't take this as either agreement with or endorsement of Chomsky's social and political views, because I don't agree with the vast majority of either and seriously question whether or not he would actually want to see the kind of social structure he regularly advocates implemented given the realities of human behavior.

High-Gear
08-04-2012, 08:02
[QUOTE=Animal Mother;19269143. It appears you simply assign labels to anyone who disagrees with you rather than attempting to understand either their position or thoughts..[/QUOTE]

When one has a high need for cognative closure, they are uncomfortable with ambiguity. Everything HAS to have an answer. Once they make up their mind, sometimes without evidence, they can not or will not change it. Any oher opinion is seen as an attack, therefore the defensive name calling.

snowbird
08-04-2012, 09:38
How do you reach the conclusion that Chomsky hates America?... don't take this as either agreement with or endorsement of Chomsky's social and political views, because I don't agree with the vast majority of either...

Some years ago, when I had never heard of Chomsky, someone gave me a book of his and recommended I read it. I glanced through it and was repelled by his anti-U.S., especially anti-U.S. military, tone. I remember one photo of some American soldiers wearing pretty much the same uniform that I did in the U.S. Army, and it had some disparaging caption under it. I concluded he was a Lenin's Useful Idiot type disgusting Marxist professor and tossed the book.

It's good to hear that you don't agree with the "vast majority" of his views either", but I fear you DO agree with too many of them nonetheless.

snowbird
08-04-2012, 09:53
When one has a high need for cognative closure, they are uncomfortable with ambiguity. Everything HAS to have an answer. Once they make up their mind, sometimes without evidence, they can not or will not change it. Any oher opinion is seen as an attack, therefore the defensive name calling.

Oh, I think I'm starting to get it...you mean like when they say stuff such as, "I would call you names but I was raised not make fun of the mentally challenged"?

Some questions seem more digital than analog, leaving little room for ambiguity, for example,
-perverse "pride" versus patriotism
-lies (especially 'liberal' ones, these days) versus truth
-tyranny (especially sharia these days) versus freedom

And the biggest one of all:
-in which Section will you spend eternity?
Smoking or Non-Smoking?

Animal Mother
08-04-2012, 16:35
Some years ago, when I had never heard of Chomsky, someone gave me a book of his and recommended I read it. I glanced through it and was repelled by his anti-U.S., especially anti-U.S. military, tone. I remember one photo of some American soldiers wearing pretty much the same uniform that I did in the U.S. Army, and it had some disparaging caption under it. How is that substantively different than constantly insulting and denigrating the sitting President of the United States? Does doing that indicate the speaker also "hates America"?
I concluded he was a Lenin's Useful Idiot type disgusting Marxist professor and tossed the book. Undoubtedly, but the evidence shows us that your conclusions seldom have any real connection with reality.

snowbird
08-05-2012, 08:29
How is that substantively different than constantly insulting and denigrating the sitting President of the United States? Does doing that indicate the speaker also "hates America"?
Undoubtedly, but the evidence shows us that your conclusions seldom have any real connection with reality.

Are you referring to the 8 years of nonstop leftist insults, denigration, and even threats, against President Bush?

As for your opinion about my conclusions, well, as a sergeant in Basic way back in the mid sixties told us, "That's an opinion, and opinions are like ********, everybody's got one".