• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Muslim 'radicalization' hearing a success, say Rep. Peter King, Republicans

These "useful idiots" do keep popping up, don't they?

There are many of them, and they are absolutely NOT liberals. They do not advance liberal ideology, they do not adhere to liberal principles and they do not understand liberalism in the least. Rather than being liberals, they are simply reactionary leftists who are conforming to the rhetoric of other reactionary leftists.

If they were liberals, they would be at the top of the list assailing the least liberal ideology on the face of the Earth, not acting as its chief apologist.
 
Horse****. You did that very thing about 10 posts ago when you stated that anyone that thinks identifying the reality of radicals using Islam to recruit is nothing more than a bigot who hates Muslims. The fact is that the intent of the hearing had nothing to do with condemning Muslims or Islam but rather addressed the very real problem of extremists USING Islam to recruit.

Nah...you dont 'judge' people...

So angry? How come? Are you carrying around some pent up dislike for something? If King's hearing was truly meant to discover how Americans are being recruited to commit terrorism why did he solely focus on Muslims? Why not include the anti-abortion terrorist recruiters who justified the murder of Dr. Tiller in Kansas and are now threatening the doctor there who is attempting to open a new abortion clinic? Why not include all the "militias" that are calling for "2nd Amendment" solutions to American political issues?

King's sole focus was on Muslims. My belief is that one does not discourage anyone from terrorism by singling out one religious group only and making the focus seem like it's THE problem.
 
There are many of them, and they are absolutely NOT liberals. They do not advance liberal ideology, they do not adhere to liberal principles and they do not understand liberalism in the least. Rather than being liberals, they are simply reactionary leftists who are conforming to the rhetoric of other reactionary leftists.

If they were liberals, they would be at the top of the list assailing the least liberal ideology on the face of the Earth, not acting as its chief apologist.

Of course you are right, and at one time a person who called himself a "Liberal" was indeed liberal in the classical sense, and likely genuinely 'progressive' as well.

But the Left has usurped the word and now the 'Left' and 'liberal' have pretty much become interchangeable.

During the Cold War the left was defending Communism while calling themselves 'liberal', referring to Communism as a 'lifestyle' and suggesting that those living under Communism were doing so by choice. Even now, despite the truth being out there for all to see they'll still, like then, defend despots like Fidel Castro.

Charles Krauthammer, following a minor dust-up with a PBS commentator, said recently that Liberals think of Conservatives as Evil and Conservatives think of Liberals, i.e. the Left, as Stupid.

I think there is a lot of truth in that. Note the way they want to identify Conservatives with fascists and how Conservatives can see they not only don't understand debt and budgets, but have no apparent interest in the subjects. They appear to be, at least in the realm of finance and politics, quite stupid.
 
So angry? How come? Are you carrying around some pent up dislike for something? If King's hearing was truly meant to discover how Americans are being recruited to commit terrorism why did he solely focus on Muslims? Why not include the anti-abortion terrorist recruiters who justified the murder of Dr. Tiller in Kansas and are now threatening the doctor there who is attempting to open a new abortion clinic? Why not include all the "militias" that are calling for "2nd Amendment" solutions to American political issues?

King's sole focus was on Muslims. My belief is that one does not discourage anyone from terrorism by singling out one religious group only and making the focus seem like it's THE problem.

All good ideas, Jakiejakester. Perhaps they can hold the hearings on Islamic terrorism, abortion clinics, and Constitutional flaws all at the same time, with Nancy Pelosi presiding.
 
So angry? How come? Are you carrying around some pent up dislike for something? If King's hearing was truly meant to discover how Americans are being recruited to commit terrorism why did he solely focus on Muslims? Why not include the anti-abortion terrorist recruiters who justified the murder of Dr. Tiller in Kansas and are now threatening the doctor there who is attempting to open a new abortion clinic? Why not include all the "militias" that are calling for "2nd Amendment" solutions to American political issues?

King's sole focus was on Muslims. My belief is that one does not discourage anyone from terrorism by singling out one religious group only and making the focus seem like it's THE problem.

Angry? Pathetic ploy dood. Doesnt quite take away the fact that you show yourself to be a total hypocrite...but...you know...nice try! :lamo
 
Of course you are right, and at one time a person who called himself a "Liberal" was indeed liberal in the classical sense, and likely genuinely 'progressive' as well.

But the Left has usurped the word and now the 'Left' and 'liberal' have pretty much become interchangeable.

During the Cold War the left was defending Communism while calling themselves 'liberal', referring to Communism as a 'lifestyle' and suggesting that those living under Communism were doing so by choice. Even now, despite the truth being out there for all to see they'll still, like then, defend despots like Fidel Castro.

Charles Krauthammer, following a minor dust-up with a PBS commentator, said recently that Liberals think of Conservatives as Evil and Conservatives think of Liberals, i.e. the Left, as Stupid.

I think there is a lot of truth in that. Note the way they want to identify Conservatives with fascists and how Conservatives can see they not only don't understand debt and budgets, but have no apparent interest in the subjects. They appear to be, at least in the realm of finance and politics, quite stupid.

I'm not really even talking about classic liberalism, but the useful idiots are not even liberals by the standards of a few decades back. Heck, here you have in Islamism a religio-political ideology predicated upon the establishment of a rigid, regressive mindset that seeks to freeze society at a knuckle dragging, pre-enlightenment state where women are little but brood mares, freedom of speech is nonexistent, and other personal freedoms are so restricted that it truly does represent that "boot stomping on a human face forever" of which Orwell warned, but do any of the illiberal leftist apologists ever talk about that, much less criticize it? No, they seek to distract from it, they try to legitimize the mass murders carried out in the name of the ideology by referring to it as some sort of rational action and they do everything in their power to try to deny the link between ideology and action.

This does not just go against classic liberalism, but flies completely in the face of modern liberalism, too. Sift through the reams of grandstanding rhetoric, double talk and pseudo-intellectual babble, and you will find almost no actual criticism of the totalitarian ideology that drives the Islamists. What you will find is lots and lots of rationalization seeking to justify their actions. That is not liberal by ANY standard.
 
I'm not really even talking about classic liberalism, but the useful idiots are not even liberals by the standards of a few decades back. Heck, here you have in Islamism a religio-political ideology predicated upon the establishment of a rigid, regressive mindset that seeks to freeze society at a knuckle dragging, pre-enlightenment state where women are little but brood mares, freedom of speech is nonexistent, and other personal freedoms are so restricted that it truly does represent that "boot stomping on a human face forever" of which Orwell warned, but do any of the illiberal leftist apologists ever talk about that, much less criticize it? No, they seek to distract from it, they try to legitimize the mass murders carried out in the name of the ideology by referring to it as some sort of rational action and they do everything in their power to try to deny the link between ideology and action.

This does not just go against classic liberalism, but flies completely in the face of modern liberalism, too. Sift through the reams of grandstanding rhetoric, double talk and pseudo-intellectual babble, and you will find almost no actual criticism of the totalitarian ideology that drives the Islamists. What you will find is lots and lots of rationalization seeking to justify their actions. That is not liberal by ANY standard.
translation:
being without the ability to debate the merits of their positions, i will instead demonize those with whom i disagree
 
translation:
being without the ability to debate the merits of their positions, i will instead demonize those with whom i disagree

What merits?
 
I'm not really even talking about classic liberalism, but the useful idiots are not even liberals by the standards of a few decades back. Heck, here you have in Islamism a religio-political ideology predicated upon the establishment of a rigid, regressive mindset that seeks to freeze society at a knuckle dragging, pre-enlightenment state where women are little but brood mares, freedom of speech is nonexistent, and other personal freedoms are so restricted that it truly does represent that "boot stomping on a human face forever" of which Orwell warned, but do any of the illiberal leftist apologists ever talk about that, much less criticize it? No, they seek to distract from it, they try to legitimize the mass murders carried out in the name of the ideology by referring to it as some sort of rational action and they do everything in their power to try to deny the link between ideology and action.

This does not just go against classic liberalism, but flies completely in the face of modern liberalism, too. Sift through the reams of grandstanding rhetoric, double talk and pseudo-intellectual babble, and you will find almost no actual criticism of the totalitarian ideology that drives the Islamists. What you will find is lots and lots of rationalization seeking to justify their actions. That is not liberal by ANY standard.

Again you are right, but what should we expect from them? They did the same thing with Communism, Nazism and Fascism as well.

Jean Paul Revel said it was understood by the Fascist, Nazis and Communist leaders that those people who strongly believed in any of these doctrines could quite easily switch from one to the other with very little further indoctrination whatsoever.

He concluded from this, and the evidence seems to be on his side, that it is just Western culture they hate, and the evidence would seem to be on his side.

Jean-François Revel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Their beliefs are obviously bizarre and based on emotions and feelings rather than any set of civilities we tend to associate with traditional western beliefs or standards of behaviour toward our fellow human beings. They actively deny those things you mention or avoid discussing them altogether, and will rail at anyone who dares raised questions about their support of, more recently, radical Islam..

This is not a new tendency, as Revel documents. It's just more of the same but in a different era with a different group with anti Western tendencies.. They're always with us.
 
Back
Top Bottom