New Riding Buddy (heheh)

[Corvus Corvax]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Corvus Corvax wrote:
> >
> > Well, ok. If your best argument is "we're not as bad as the Taliban",
> > I really don't know what to say.
>
> If I wrote, suggested, implied or meant that, then you'd have a point.

Wait. Then you _are_ as bad as the Taliban?

CC

 

[Ed Pirrero]

Corvus Corvax wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, those "English /Christians/" almost got away with their plot to blow
> > up 20 airplanes yesterday. Scary people, indeed.
>
> That's a difference in tactics, not agendas.

Right. The "civilized" fundementalists want to force their morals on
you with a stroke of a pen. Threaten you with jail or monetary fines
if you don't do it "their way." The "uncivilized" fundementalists want
you to do it "their way" under the barrel of a gun, or threat of mass
destruction.

The one that aactually scares me is the one that's easier to
accomplish. Because both systems are not remotely about religion or
morals, but about CONTROL.

E.P.

 

[MattB]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> G.T. wrote:
>
>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>>G.T. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Corvus Corvax wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If a petite blonde with a website "scares you", what does the
>>>>>>>thought of the radical Islam goal to convert the US to a
>>>>>>>Taliban-like society (or kill us all if that doesn't work out) do
>>>>>>>to you? Just curious...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>When you put it that way, I fail to see much of a difference
>>>>>>between the agendas of Christian fundamentalists and Islamic
>>>>>>fundamentalists, except that they dress different. (The Christians
>>>>>>are way tackier.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah, those "English /Christians/" almost got away with their plot
>>>>>to blow up 20 airplanes yesterday. Scary people, indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It sure ain't atheists bombing family planning clinics and beating
>>>>gays to death.
>>>
>>>
>>>Just had some hate crime assaults here in SD after the Pride Parade.
>>>The punk perps were not religious nuts of any sort; they were
>>>skinhead/nazi types (for lack of a better term).
>>>
>>>While isolated acts of violence and intolerance are abhorrent and
>>>must be severely punished or better yet /stopped/,
>
>
>>Yes, so Christian fundamentalists should be locked up just like
>>Islamic fundamentalists.
>
>
> So someone should lock up some Christians somewhere because some skinheads
> assaulted some gays? Sorry, I just don't get the connection. How about
> locking up violent criminals, period?
>
>
>>>I think that Mark's point about
>>>"overall relative threat" still stands. (Are people being prevented
>>>from having carry-on bags on airplanes today due to...Brandi?!? LOL
>>>) She's just not that scary, fellas. Sorry.
>
>
>>Oh, yes, she is. She's all about oppression and forcing her agenda
>>one people, and that is hugely scary.
>
>
> Is there freeedom of speech here or not? There are all kinds of nutjobs
> espousing all kinds of wacky ****. "Brandi" ain't affecting my travel plans
> this weekend.
>
> Double standards...
>
>
>

I'm pretty sure Greg's point isn't that she shouldn't be able to speak
or run for office. He's saying (and I wholeheartedly agree) that IF she
were elected to office and carried out her agenda, that we would lose
some freedom (like being able to get a book from the library, even if
some people don't like it).
It's a similar agenda to many other religious fundamentalists. She is
just employing different tactics to meet her goal. While her tactics are
relatively benign, especially compared to terrorists, the goal of
controlling what can do based on religious beliefs is the dangerous
thing here.

Matt

 

[Ed Pirrero]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> G.T. wrote:
>
> > Yes, so Christian fundamentalists should be locked up just like
> > Islamic fundamentalists.
>
> So someone should lock up some Christians somewhere because some skinheads
> assaulted some gays? Sorry, I just don't get the connection. How about
> locking up violent criminals, period?

What, now we're back to the law enforcement model? I thought all you
Clinton-haters reviled him for that stance?

> >> I think that Mark's point about
> >> "overall relative threat" still stands. (Are people being prevented
> >> from having carry-on bags on airplanes today due to...Brandi?!? LOL
> >> ) She's just not that scary, fellas. Sorry.
>
> > Oh, yes, she is. She's all about oppression and forcing her agenda
> > one people, and that is hugely scary.
>
> Is there freeedom of speech here or not?

I see a pretty big difference between speaking your mind on a political
issue and forcing (through legislation) everyone to bow to your
opinion. One is enshrined in the USC. The other is contrary to
everything the Founding Fathers stood for.

> There are all kinds of nutjobs
> espousing all kinds of wacky ****. "Brandi" ain't affecting my travel plans
> this weekend.

Neither are the U.K. terrorists because you weren't going anywhere
anyway. And even if you were, you could still travel anywhere you
wanted.

E.P.

 

[Chris Glidden]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> So someone should lock up some Christians somewhere because some skinheads
> assaulted some gays? Sorry, I just don't get the connection. How about
> locking up violent criminals, period?
>
> >> I think that Mark's point about
> >> "overall relative threat" still stands. (Are people being prevented
> >> from having carry-on bags on airplanes today due to...Brandi?!? LOL
> >> ) She's just not that scary, fellas. Sorry.
>
> > Oh, yes, she is. She's all about oppression and forcing her agenda
> > one people, and that is hugely scary.
>
> Is there freeedom of speech here or not? There are all kinds of nutjobs
> espousing all kinds of wacky ****. "Brandi" ain't affecting my travel plans
> this weekend.
>
> Double standards...

True, there are "all kind of nutjobs" out there, BUT it seems like most
of them use religion (Christianity, Islam, etc) as the driving force
behind their cause. This is not ne, it's been going on for centuries:
The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch hunts, 9/11,
bombing of abortion clinics, etc, etc, etc. People interpret specific
religious text (The Bible, Koran, Torah) to suit their personal agenda.
Jesus and Mohamed were brilliant MEN who preached love, forgiveness
and understanding. I missed the parts in these books where it said to
love, forgive and understand your fellow man only if they have the same
beliefs you have. If they don't, bomb the **** out of them. Religion
facinates me, I have spent alot of time studying the main ones out
there. The message is good, it's what people do with that message that
makes religion evil. IMHO, Jesus was no more the son of god than I am.
Like I said before, he was a brilliant man with a brilliant message.

I follow one creed and I sleep very well every night: Do unto others
as you would have done unto you.

CG

 

[Ed Pirrero]

Chris Glidden wrote:
>
> I follow one creed and I sleep very well every night: Do unto others
> as you would have done unto you.

That is a paraphrase of the commandment Jesus gave in the Sermon on the
Mount.

Some folks call it the 11th Commandment. Fundementalist Christians, in
their cafeteria style, overlook that particular teaching because it
conflicts with their control agenda.

E.P.

 

[Bill Sornson]

MattB wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> G.T. wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>
>>>> G.T. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Corvus Corvax wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If a petite blonde with a website "scares you", what does the
>>>>>>>> thought of the radical Islam goal to convert the US to a
>>>>>>>> Taliban-like society (or kill us all if that doesn't work out)
>>>>>>>> do to you? Just curious...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you put it that way, I fail to see much of a difference
>>>>>>> between the agendas of Christian fundamentalists and Islamic
>>>>>>> fundamentalists, except that they dress different. (The
>>>>>>> Christians are way tackier.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, those "English /Christians/" almost got away with their
>>>>>> plot to blow up 20 airplanes yesterday. Scary people, indeed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It sure ain't atheists bombing family planning clinics and beating
>>>>> gays to death.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just had some hate crime assaults here in SD after the Pride
>>>> Parade. The punk perps were not religious nuts of any sort; they
>>>> were skinhead/nazi types (for lack of a better term).
>>>>
>>>> While isolated acts of violence and intolerance are abhorrent and
>>>> must be severely punished or better yet /stopped/,
>>
>>
>>> Yes, so Christian fundamentalists should be locked up just like
>>> Islamic fundamentalists.
>>
>>
>> So someone should lock up some Christians somewhere because some
>> skinheads assaulted some gays? Sorry, I just don't get the
>> connection. How about locking up violent criminals, period?
>>
>>
>>>> I think that Mark's point about
>>>> "overall relative threat" still stands. (Are people being
>>>> prevented from having carry-on bags on airplanes today due
>>>> to...Brandi?!? LOL ) She's just not that scary, fellas. Sorry.
>>
>>
>>> Oh, yes, she is. She's all about oppression and forcing her agenda
>>> one people, and that is hugely scary.
>>
>>
>> Is there freeedom of speech here or not? There are all kinds of
>> nutjobs espousing all kinds of wacky ****. "Brandi" ain't affecting
>> my travel plans this weekend.
>>
>> Double standards...
>>
>>
>>
>
> I'm pretty sure Greg's point isn't that she shouldn't be able to speak
> or run for office. He's saying (and I wholeheartedly agree) that IF
> she were elected to office and carried out her agenda, that we would
> lose some freedom (like being able to get a book from the library,
> even if some people don't like it).
> It's a similar agenda to many other religious fundamentalists. She is
> just employing different tactics to meet her goal. While her tactics
> are relatively benign, especially compared to terrorists, the goal of
> controlling what can do based on religious beliefs is the dangerous
> thing here.

No argument with that at all.

I do wonder where the outrage is at, for example, the recent shootings
outside a Jewish Temple in Seattle. Hate crime pure and simple. Yet
there's barely any coverage of it -- and first thing they DO say is that the
shooter was a "troubled man" and "mentally ill", and had a terrible
childhood.

Double standards...

 

[Corvus Corvax]

Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> The one that aactually scares me is the one that's easier to
> accomplish. Because both systems are not remotely about religion or
> morals, but about CONTROL.

Bingo.

Americans have a laudably high regard for fairness, and (Christian)
fundamentalist demagogues have very cynically exploited this fact to
give themselves a seat at the political table which they do not
deserve. Just listen to all sides of the debate, right? ********. These
people are crazy. When they get power, they are dangerous. They deserve
ridicule and derision, not a polite hearing-out. Free speech does not
entail an obligation on anybody else's part to listen.

CC

 

[Ed Pirrero]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >> G.T. wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yes, so Christian fundamentalists should be locked up just like
> >>> Islamic fundamentalists.
> >>
> >> So someone should lock up some Christians somewhere because some
> >> skinheads assaulted some gays? Sorry, I just don't get the
> >> connection. How about locking up violent criminals, period?
> >
> > What, now we're back to the law enforcement model? I thought all you
> > Clinton-haters reviled him for that stance?
>
> Ed, Ed, Ed. Shirley you know the difference between a criminal act such as
> a hate crime and a terrorist act such as releasing poisonous gas in a subway
> or mixing chemicals on an airplane to blow it up.

Yeah. It's a matter of degree.

At what body count does one become the other?

Somebody was smirking about double standards...who was that, again?

E.P.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:

>>> What, now we're back to the law enforcement model? I thought all
>>> you Clinton-haters reviled him for that stance?

>> Ed, Ed, Ed. Shirley you know the difference between a criminal act
>> such as a hate crime and a terrorist act such as releasing poisonous
>> gas in a subway or mixing chemicals on an airplane to blow it up.
>
> Yeah. It's a matter of degree.
>
> At what body count does one become the other?

Brandi on the corner preaching (not topless) or running for office: free
speech.

Brandi interfering with people entering the library or she steals books from
it: criminal.

Brandi assaulting people who read certain books: hate crime.

Brandi blowing up the library for ideological reasons: terrorism.

Bill "man, that Brandi chick sure keeps busy" S.

 

[cc]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> G.T. wrote:
>
>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>>G.T. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Corvus Corvax wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If a petite blonde with a website "scares you", what does the
>>>>>>>thought of the radical Islam goal to convert the US to a
>>>>>>>Taliban-like society (or kill us all if that doesn't work out) do
>>>>>>>to you? Just curious...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>When you put it that way, I fail to see much of a difference
>>>>>>between the agendas of Christian fundamentalists and Islamic
>>>>>>fundamentalists, except that they dress different. (The Christians
>>>>>>are way tackier.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah, those "English /Christians/" almost got away with their plot
>>>>>to blow up 20 airplanes yesterday. Scary people, indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It sure ain't atheists bombing family planning clinics and beating
>>>>gays to death.
>>>
>>>
>>>Just had some hate crime assaults here in SD after the Pride Parade.
>>>The punk perps were not religious nuts of any sort; they were
>>>skinhead/nazi types (for lack of a better term).
>>>
>>>While isolated acts of violence and intolerance are abhorrent and
>>>must be severely punished or better yet /stopped/,
>
>
>>Yes, so Christian fundamentalists should be locked up just like
>>Islamic fundamentalists.
>
>
> So someone should lock up some Christians somewhere because some skinheads
> assaulted some gays? Sorry, I just don't get the connection. How about
> locking up violent criminals, period?
>

Yes, that sounds about right.
Saying that 'fundamentalists'
should be locked up is totally
contrary to freedom of
religion, and implies judgment
on our part about what is
'okay' to practice or preach.

>
>>>I think that Mark's point about
>>>"overall relative threat" still stands. (Are people being prevented
>>>from having carry-on bags on airplanes today due to...Brandi?!? LOL
>>>) She's just not that scary, fellas. Sorry.
>
>
>>Oh, yes, she is. She's all about oppression and forcing her agenda
>>one people, and that is hugely scary.
>
>
> Is there freeedom of speech here or not? There are all kinds of nutjobs
> espousing all kinds of wacky ****. "Brandi" ain't affecting my travel plans
> this weekend.

There should be. As scary as
her ideas are, she has the
right to express them, in
whatever forum suits her and
with whomever cares to hear
what she has to say.

If she is able to put over
legislation or other policy
that supports inflicting her
values on the remainder of the
population, that is IMO a
problem with those
constituents. It is our duty
as citizens to decide where to
draw that line, but not
before. You can't persecute
her because she /talks/ about
doing something unconstitutional.


>
> Double standards...
>
>
>

 

[cc]

MattB wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> G.T. wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>
>>>> G.T. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Corvus Corvax wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If a petite blonde with a website "scares you", what does the
>>>>>>>> thought of the radical Islam goal to convert the US to a
>>>>>>>> Taliban-like society (or kill us all if that doesn't work out) do
>>>>>>>> to you? Just curious...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you put it that way, I fail to see much of a difference
>>>>>>> between the agendas of Christian fundamentalists and Islamic
>>>>>>> fundamentalists, except that they dress different. (The Christians
>>>>>>> are way tackier.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, those "English /Christians/" almost got away with their plot
>>>>>> to blow up 20 airplanes yesterday. Scary people, indeed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It sure ain't atheists bombing family planning clinics and beating
>>>>> gays to death.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just had some hate crime assaults here in SD after the Pride Parade.
>>>> The punk perps were not religious nuts of any sort; they were
>>>> skinhead/nazi types (for lack of a better term).
>>>>
>>>> While isolated acts of violence and intolerance are abhorrent and
>>>> must be severely punished or better yet /stopped/,
>>
>>
>>
>>> Yes, so Christian fundamentalists should be locked up just like
>>> Islamic fundamentalists.
>>
>>
>>
>> So someone should lock up some Christians somewhere because some
>> skinheads assaulted some gays? Sorry, I just don't get the
>> connection. How about locking up violent criminals, period?
>>
>>
>>>> I think that Mark's point about
>>>> "overall relative threat" still stands. (Are people being prevented
>>>> from having carry-on bags on airplanes today due to...Brandi?!? LOL
>>>> ) She's just not that scary, fellas. Sorry.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Oh, yes, she is. She's all about oppression and forcing her agenda
>>> one people, and that is hugely scary.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there freeedom of speech here or not? There are all kinds of
>> nutjobs espousing all kinds of wacky ****. "Brandi" ain't affecting
>> my travel plans this weekend.
>>
>> Double standards...
>>
>>
>>
>
> I'm pretty sure Greg's point isn't that she shouldn't be able to speak
> or run for office. He's saying (and I wholeheartedly agree) that IF she
> were elected to office and carried out her agenda, that we would lose
> some freedom (like being able to get a book from the library, even if
> some people don't like it).
> It's a similar agenda to many other religious fundamentalists. She is
> just employing different tactics to meet her goal. While her tactics are
> relatively benign, especially compared to terrorists, the goal of
> controlling what can do based on religious beliefs is the dangerous
> thing here.

So hopefully the people
realize that and don't vote
for her. Otherwise you have to
ask yourself who are the
people who constitute our
nation and whether it is our
duty to protect the
constitution from religious
zealots, or change it to
reflect the prevalent
demographic? Now that's a
scary concept . .

 

[cc]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> MattB wrote:
>
>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>>G.T. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>G.T. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Corvus Corvax wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If a petite blonde with a website "scares you", what does the
>>>>>>>>>thought of the radical Islam goal to convert the US to a
>>>>>>>>>Taliban-like society (or kill us all if that doesn't work out)
>>>>>>>>>do to you? Just curious...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>When you put it that way, I fail to see much of a difference
>>>>>>>>between the agendas of Christian fundamentalists and Islamic
>>>>>>>>fundamentalists, except that they dress different. (The
>>>>>>>>Christians are way tackier.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yeah, those "English /Christians/" almost got away with their
>>>>>>>plot to blow up 20 airplanes yesterday. Scary people, indeed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It sure ain't atheists bombing family planning clinics and beating
>>>>>>gays to death.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Just had some hate crime assaults here in SD after the Pride
>>>>>Parade. The punk perps were not religious nuts of any sort; they
>>>>>were skinhead/nazi types (for lack of a better term).
>>>>>
>>>>>While isolated acts of violence and intolerance are abhorrent and
>>>>>must be severely punished or better yet /stopped/,
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes, so Christian fundamentalists should be locked up just like
>>>>Islamic fundamentalists.
>>>
>>>
>>>So someone should lock up some Christians somewhere because some
>>>skinheads assaulted some gays? Sorry, I just don't get the
>>>connection. How about locking up violent criminals, period?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I think that Mark's point about
>>>>>"overall relative threat" still stands. (Are people being
>>>>>prevented from having carry-on bags on airplanes today due
>>>>>to...Brandi?!? LOL ) She's just not that scary, fellas. Sorry.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Oh, yes, she is. She's all about oppression and forcing her agenda
>>>>one people, and that is hugely scary.
>>>
>>>
>>>Is there freeedom of speech here or not? There are all kinds of
>>>nutjobs espousing all kinds of wacky ****. "Brandi" ain't affecting
>>>my travel plans this weekend.
>>>
>>>Double standards...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I'm pretty sure Greg's point isn't that she shouldn't be able to speak
>>or run for office. He's saying (and I wholeheartedly agree) that IF
>>she were elected to office and carried out her agenda, that we would
>>lose some freedom (like being able to get a book from the library,
>>even if some people don't like it).
>>It's a similar agenda to many other religious fundamentalists. She is
>>just employing different tactics to meet her goal. While her tactics
>>are relatively benign, especially compared to terrorists, the goal of
>>controlling what can do based on religious beliefs is the dangerous
>>thing here.
>
>
> No argument with that at all.
>
> I do wonder where the outrage is at, for example, the recent shootings
> outside a Jewish Temple in Seattle. Hate crime pure and simple. Yet
> there's barely any coverage of it -- and first thing they DO say is that the
> shooter was a "troubled man" and "mentally ill", and had a terrible
> childhood.
>

Well, not that it makes it any
better, but is there a
difference between a drunken
alcoholic making unacceptable
anti-semitic remarks while
face-down and one making the
same remarks from a pulpit?

The remarks are just as
shameful and obscene, but I
can't take the former
seriously as evidence of an
undercurrent of prominent
anti-semitism.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >>> What, now we're back to the law enforcement model? I thought all
> >>> you Clinton-haters reviled him for that stance?
>
> >> Ed, Ed, Ed. Shirley you know the difference between a criminal act
> >> such as a hate crime and a terrorist act such as releasing poisonous
> >> gas in a subway or mixing chemicals on an airplane to blow it up.
> >
> > Yeah. It's a matter of degree.
> >
> > At what body count does one become the other?
>
> Brandi on the corner preaching (not topless) or running for office: free
> speech.

Non sequitur. Red herring.

> Brandi interfering with people entering the library or she steals books from
> it: criminal.

Non sequitur. Red herring.

> Brandi assaulting people who read certain books: hate crime.

As an example, OK...

> Brandi blowing up the library for ideological reasons: terrorism.

What if nobody dies? The line you're drawing is artificial. There's
no standard, which means "terrorism" could be whatever *you* say it is.
I find that an unacceptably hazy distinction.

And it becomes quite convenient to categorize anyone you want as a
terrorist by assigning "ideological" reasons to what are otherwise
merely criminal acts. And thus subject them to rules purtaining to
"terrorists", rather than "criminal suspects."

For some folks on the fundementalist right, guys like Eric Rudolph
aren't criminals or terrorists, but heros. And I have yet to hear
anyone actually call the guy a terrorist, even though he follows your
model of blowing stuff up for ideological reasons.

Yeah, there's a double standard alright. Ironically so.

E.P.

 

[cc]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
>
>>>>What, now we're back to the law enforcement model? I thought all
>>>>you Clinton-haters reviled him for that stance?
>
>
>>>Ed, Ed, Ed. Shirley you know the difference between a criminal act
>>>such as a hate crime and a terrorist act such as releasing poisonous
>>>gas in a subway or mixing chemicals on an airplane to blow it up.
>>
>>Yeah. It's a matter of degree.
>>
>>At what body count does one become the other?
>
>
> Brandi on the corner preaching (not topless) or running for office: free
> speech.
>
> Brandi interfering with people entering the library or she steals books from
> it: criminal.
>
> Brandi assaulting people who read certain books: hate crime.
>
> Brandi blowing up the library for ideological reasons: terrorism.
>
> Bill "man, that Brandi chick sure keeps busy" S.
>

Brandi withdrawing funding
from libraries based on book
content: community-sponsored
censorship.

 

[Bill Sornson]

cc wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> MattB wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>
>>>> G.T. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> G.T. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Corvus Corvax wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If a petite blonde with a website "scares you", what does the
>>>>>>>>>> thought of the radical Islam goal to convert the US to a
>>>>>>>>>> Taliban-like society (or kill us all if that doesn't work
>>>>>>>>>> out) do to you? Just curious...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When you put it that way, I fail to see much of a difference
>>>>>>>>> between the agendas of Christian fundamentalists and Islamic
>>>>>>>>> fundamentalists, except that they dress different. (The
>>>>>>>>> Christians are way tackier.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, those "English /Christians/" almost got away with their
>>>>>>>> plot to blow up 20 airplanes yesterday. Scary people, indeed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It sure ain't atheists bombing family planning clinics and
>>>>>>> beating gays to death.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just had some hate crime assaults here in SD after the Pride
>>>>>> Parade. The punk perps were not religious nuts of any sort; they
>>>>>> were skinhead/nazi types (for lack of a better term).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While isolated acts of violence and intolerance are abhorrent and
>>>>>> must be severely punished or better yet /stopped/,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, so Christian fundamentalists should be locked up just like
>>>>> Islamic fundamentalists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So someone should lock up some Christians somewhere because some
>>>> skinheads assaulted some gays? Sorry, I just don't get the
>>>> connection. How about locking up violent criminals, period?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I think that Mark's point about
>>>>>> "overall relative threat" still stands. (Are people being
>>>>>> prevented from having carry-on bags on airplanes today due
>>>>>> to...Brandi?!? LOL ) She's just not that scary, fellas. Sorry.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Oh, yes, she is. She's all about oppression and forcing her
>>>>> agenda one people, and that is hugely scary.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is there freeedom of speech here or not? There are all kinds of
>>>> nutjobs espousing all kinds of wacky ****. "Brandi" ain't
>>>> affecting my travel plans this weekend.
>>>>
>>>> Double standards...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure Greg's point isn't that she shouldn't be able to
>>> speak or run for office. He's saying (and I wholeheartedly agree)
>>> that IF she were elected to office and carried out her agenda, that
>>> we would lose some freedom (like being able to get a book from the
>>> library, even if some people don't like it).
>>> It's a similar agenda to many other religious fundamentalists. She
>>> is just employing different tactics to meet her goal. While her
>>> tactics are relatively benign, especially compared to terrorists,
>>> the goal of controlling what can do based on religious beliefs is
>>> the dangerous thing here.
>>
>>
>> No argument with that at all.
>>
>> I do wonder where the outrage is at, for example, the recent
>> shootings outside a Jewish Temple in Seattle. Hate crime pure and
>> simple. Yet there's barely any coverage of it -- and first thing
>> they DO say is that the shooter was a "troubled man" and "mentally
>> ill", and had a terrible childhood.
>>
>
> Well, not that it makes it any
> better, but is there a
> difference between a drunken
> alcoholic making unacceptable
> anti-semitic remarks while
> face-down and one making the
> same remarks from a pulpit?
>
> The remarks are just as
> shameful and obscene, but I
> can't take the former
> seriously as evidence of an
> undercurrent of prominent
> anti-semitism.

One difference: THE GUN. ONE DEAD. FIVE INJURED.

Nothing major...

 

[Bill Sornson]

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>>>>> What, now we're back to the law enforcement model? I thought all
>>>>> you Clinton-haters reviled him for that stance?
>>
>>>> Ed, Ed, Ed. Shirley you know the difference between a criminal act
>>>> such as a hate crime and a terrorist act such as releasing
>>>> poisonous gas in a subway or mixing chemicals on an airplane to
>>>> blow it up.
>>>
>>> Yeah. It's a matter of degree.
>>>
>>> At what body count does one become the other?
>>
>> Brandi on the corner preaching (not topless) or running for office:
>> free speech.
>
> Non sequitur. Red herring.
>
>> Brandi interfering with people entering the library or she steals
>> books from it: criminal.
>
> Non sequitur. Red herring.
>
>> Brandi assaulting people who read certain books: hate crime.
>
> As an example, OK...
>
>> Brandi blowing up the library for ideological reasons: terrorism.
>
> What if nobody dies? The line you're drawing is artificial. There's
> no standard, which means "terrorism" could be whatever *you* say it
> is. I find that an unacceptably hazy distinction.
>
> And it becomes quite convenient to categorize anyone you want as a
> terrorist by assigning "ideological" reasons to what are otherwise
> merely criminal acts. And thus subject them to rules purtaining to
> "terrorists", rather than "criminal suspects."
>
> For some folks on the fundementalist right, guys like Eric Rudolph
> aren't criminals or terrorists, but heros. And I have yet to hear
> anyone actually call the guy a terrorist, even though he follows your
> model of blowing stuff up for ideological reasons.
>
> Yeah, there's a double standard alright. Ironically so.

The red herring was your "criminality" troll. My bad for taking the hook.

 

[cc]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> cc wrote:
>
>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>>MattB wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>G.T. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>G.T. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Corvus Corvax wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>If a petite blonde with a website "scares you", what does the
>>>>>>>>>>>thought of the radical Islam goal to convert the US to a
>>>>>>>>>>>Taliban-like society (or kill us all if that doesn't work
>>>>>>>>>>>out) do to you? Just curious...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>When you put it that way, I fail to see much of a difference
>>>>>>>>>>between the agendas of Christian fundamentalists and Islamic
>>>>>>>>>>fundamentalists, except that they dress different. (The
>>>>>>>>>>Christians are way tackier.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yeah, those "English /Christians/" almost got away with their
>>>>>>>>>plot to blow up 20 airplanes yesterday. Scary people, indeed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It sure ain't atheists bombing family planning clinics and
>>>>>>>>beating gays to death.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just had some hate crime assaults here in SD after the Pride
>>>>>>>Parade. The punk perps were not religious nuts of any sort; they
>>>>>>>were skinhead/nazi types (for lack of a better term).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>While isolated acts of violence and intolerance are abhorrent and
>>>>>>>must be severely punished or better yet /stopped/,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, so Christian fundamentalists should be locked up just like
>>>>>>Islamic fundamentalists.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>So someone should lock up some Christians somewhere because some
>>>>>skinheads assaulted some gays? Sorry, I just don't get the
>>>>>connection. How about locking up violent criminals, period?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I think that Mark's point about
>>>>>>>"overall relative threat" still stands. (Are people being
>>>>>>>prevented from having carry-on bags on airplanes today due
>>>>>>>to...Brandi?!? LOL ) She's just not that scary, fellas. Sorry.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh, yes, she is. She's all about oppression and forcing her
>>>>>>agenda one people, and that is hugely scary.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Is there freeedom of speech here or not? There are all kinds of
>>>>>nutjobs espousing all kinds of wacky ****. "Brandi" ain't
>>>>>affecting my travel plans this weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>>Double standards...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm pretty sure Greg's point isn't that she shouldn't be able to
>>>>speak or run for office. He's saying (and I wholeheartedly agree)
>>>>that IF she were elected to office and carried out her agenda, that
>>>>we would lose some freedom (like being able to get a book from the
>>>>library, even if some people don't like it).
>>>>It's a similar agenda to many other religious fundamentalists. She
>>>>is just employing different tactics to meet her goal. While her
>>>>tactics are relatively benign, especially compared to terrorists,
>>>>the goal of controlling what can do based on religious beliefs is
>>>>the dangerous thing here.
>>>
>>>
>>>No argument with that at all.
>>>
>>>I do wonder where the outrage is at, for example, the recent
>>>shootings outside a Jewish Temple in Seattle. Hate crime pure and
>>>simple. Yet there's barely any coverage of it -- and first thing
>>>they DO say is that the shooter was a "troubled man" and "mentally
>>>ill", and had a terrible childhood.
>>>
>>
>>Well, not that it makes it any
>>better, but is there a
>>difference between a drunken
>>alcoholic making unacceptable
>>anti-semitic remarks while
>>face-down and one making the
>>same remarks from a pulpit?
>>
>>The remarks are just as
>>shameful and obscene, but I
>>can't take the former
>>seriously as evidence of an
>>undercurrent of prominent
>>anti-semitism.
>
>
> One difference: THE GUN. ONE DEAD. FIVE INJURED.
>
> Nothing major...
>

I wasn't saying the incidents
were similar in impact, but
just how one might
instinctually trivialize the
motives, Bill.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> The red herring was your "criminality" troll. My bad for taking the hook.

Here are your words:

"So someone should lock up some Christians somewhere because some
skinheads assaulted some gays? Sorry, I just don't get the
connection. How about locking up violent criminals, period? "

Bill, pretty much any political conversation that comes along, you bite
on. Pointing the finger at me is pretty funny.

"Doctor, heal thyself."

E.P.

 

[Shawn Curry]

cc wrote:

snip


You can't persecute her because
> she /talks/ about doing something unconstitutional.


You /can/ justifiably call her un-American.

Shawn