ilovefuzz.com

Chankgeez wrote: "Crooked Hillary Clinton is being protected by the media. She is not a talented person or politician. The dishonest media refuses to expose!"

She's definitely a politician. So, that right there is a false statement.

Chankgeez wrote: Good point. Maybe I'm the idiot? I totally misinterpreted his Tweet. On the other hand, see how easy it is to misunderstand him?

Chankgeez wrote:Trump should only speak in metaphor & simile. That way the dishonest media will have an easier time interpreting what he's sayin'. Just sayin'.

jrfox92 wrote:

Chankgeez wrote: Good point. Maybe I'm the idiot? I totally misinterpreted his Tweet. On the other hand, see how easy it is to misunderstand him?

Chankgeez wrote:Trump should only speak in metaphor & simile. That way the dishonest media will have an easier time interpreting what he's sayin'. Just sayin'.

Chankgeez wrote:
She is not a talented person or politician.

jwar wrote:

Chankgeez wrote:
She is not a talented person or politician.

I only want to point this out because it's funny, but re-read that sentence for just a moment. He's saying she is not a talented person or a talented politician. He's not saying she's not a politician. LOL. On that part I'd agree. She does lack talent, but is a master manipulator, so it makes up for the lack of talent.

Gone Fission wrote:

Faldoe wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:Oh, yeah, I agree with you -- I don't think any of the three major Middle Eastern religions are 'religions of peace (or piece)', and I also agree that there are a lot of people who are willing to conflate Islam (and Christianity) with ethnicity, which is equally appalling, I just think that anything that talks about 'the fundamental nature of Islam' is usually just more fuel for some arbitrary 'clash of civilizations' nonsense when the reality is that people of all stripes and locales are simply attempting to have everyone behave according to some arbitrary social mores from 1200+ years ago. The only difference comes with familiarity, IMO.

The calls for Sharia in the UK as just as laughable as the calls for outlawing abortion in the US, right -- and that's part of the reason why France, which has a notable record of enforced secularity, has become such a target for Islamic fundamentalists in recent years. I think you have to treat all of these assholes like the assholes they are, regardless of which folks they're praying to.

Which means we have to fuck them. We have to fuck those assholes. All of them.

You had me till the bolded portion. There are plenty of Christians that believe being gay is a sin but still live within the boundaries of law and semi-reason despite being an idiot when it comes to being gay. That is not the case for ISIS as well as many in the Muslim world. I do think there are those - perhaps more than people in the west may know - in the middle east that are not as extreme in their views towards gays, women, etc. but that can't speak their true feelings for fear of reprisal. My point being that there is a kind of clash of civilizations going on. I realize and appreciate how people can overly simply that and bring it down to a "America is perfect and the greatest, fuccckkk teeeerrr, everywhere else is shit," which isn't helpful and not what I believe.

I also don't know how we can have a frank discussion about such a divide without it ultimately being perceived as something so simplistic which the clash of civilizations - as a rhetorical tool - is not utilized as such.

I think the banning of head coverings in France is a little foolish but I don't think blaming France's hyper secularism is the answer. Christians and Muslims may both be idiots for believing different and similar myths but their actions in the world - which come from their beliefs - aren't equally the same. Look at Arab Christians in the Middle east. Are they blowing themselves up? No. In many respects they have experienced similar hardships as their Arab Muslim neighbors yet don't act out the same way, and thats because of their core belief/ideological view of the world.

I don't think the anti-Abortion stuff is the same as Sharia. While I'm pro-abortion - or the right to have one - I can see peoples' points to being against it. Also people that oppose abortion fall into various camps - those that want to ban it all together and those that want to ban federal funding going towards it. If I were a Christian or someone that opposed abortion, I could see the point in being against one's money - tax payer dollars - being used to fund an act you found morally reprehensible. While being anti-abortion, such a person still seems to agree with the rest of the bill of rights and freedoms of their fellow citizens - to be religious, or not. That a women can wear shorts and a shirt with some cleavage - if she wants.

Sharia allows for none of that and also includes death for leaving Islam, stoning adulterers, etc. and Sharia is something that is all encompassing to life and society. So while I don't agree with the anti-abortion crowd, comparing them to Sharia advocates isn't even.

Tell it to Matthew Sheppard and George Tiller. Oh, right, you can't. Why is that again? The distinction between Christianists and Islamists is not quite as big as you want it to be.

D.o.S. wrote:

Faldoe wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:Oh, yeah, I agree with you -- I don't think any of the three major Middle Eastern religions are 'religions of peace (or piece)', and I also agree that there are a lot of people who are willing to conflate Islam (and Christianity) with ethnicity, which is equally appalling, I just think that anything that talks about 'the fundamental nature of Islam' is usually just more fuel for some arbitrary 'clash of civilizations' nonsense when the reality is that people of all stripes and locales are simply attempting to have everyone behave according to some arbitrary social mores from 1200+ years ago. The only difference comes with familiarity, IMO.

The calls for Sharia in the UK as just as laughable as the calls for outlawing abortion in the US, right -- and that's part of the reason why France, which has a notable record of enforced secularity, has become such a target for Islamic fundamentalists in recent years. I think you have to treat all of these assholes like the assholes they are, regardless of which folks they're praying to.

Which means we have to fuck them. We have to fuck those assholes. All of them.

You had me till the bolded portion. There are plenty of Christians that believe being gay is a sin but still live within the boundaries of law and semi-reason despite being an idiot when it comes to being gay. That is not the case for ISIS as well as many in the Muslim world. I do think there are those - perhaps more than people in the west may know - in the middle east that are not as extreme in their views towards gays, women, etc. but that can't speak their true feelings for fear of reprisal. My point being that there is a kind of clash of civilizations going on. I realize and appreciate how people can overly simply that and bring it down to a "America is perfect and the greatest, fuccckkk teeeerrr, everywhere else is shit," which isn't helpful and not what I believe.

I also don't know how we can have a frank discussion about such a divide without it ultimately being perceived as something so simplistic which the clash of civilizations - as a rhetorical tool - is not utilized as such.

I think the banning of head coverings in France is a little foolish but I don't think blaming France's hyper secularism is the answer. Christians and Muslims may both be idiots for believing different and similar myths but their actions in the world - which come from their beliefs - aren't equally the same. Look at Arab Christians in the Middle east. Are they blowing themselves up? No. In many respects they have experienced similar hardships as their Arab Muslim neighbors yet don't act out the same way, and thats because of their core belief/ideological view of the world.

I don't think the anti-Abortion stuff is the same as Sharia. While I'm pro-abortion - or the right to have one - I can see peoples' points to being against it. Also people that oppose abortion fall into various camps - those that want to ban it all together and those that want to ban federal funding going towards it. If I were a Christian or someone that opposed abortion, I could see the point in being against one's money - tax payer dollars - being used to fund an act you found morally reprehensible. While being anti-abortion, such a person still seems to agree with the rest of the bill of rights and freedoms of their fellow citizens - to be religious, or not. That a women can wear shorts and a shirt with some cleavage - if she wants.

Sharia allows for none of that and also includes death for leaving Islam, stoning adulterers, etc. and Sharia is something that is all encompassing to life and society. So while I don't agree with the anti-abortion crowd, comparing them to Sharia advocates isn't even.

Speaking of "you had me until the bolded portion" there is literally no proof that the majority of Muslims sympathize with this, the same way there's no proof that the majority of Christians sympathize with their gay hating friends or folks who advocate for the killing of baby killers, if you will.

The fact that you don't see the crazy pro-lifers as an analog to Sharia -- as you say 'something that is all encompassing to life and society -- is silly. It's all social control, the pro-lifers are reading the bible and deciding it's ok to kill people, attack property, and engage in acts of terror for what they believe in. The difference, like I said, is in scale.

But generally, I think we're in agreement here.

Faldoe wrote:It's the same poor attempt to try and equalize everything so as to deny the magnitude of the legitimate concern for those that advocate Sharia law. It's like saying "sure, those people are crazy, but those people over there are crazy too, so I'll just say they're equally crazy and it's not an issue," or that one can't be addressed without the other, or that nothing can or should be done about one if there is not something done about the other.