December 2, 2006

Why are liberals so angry?

Seriously, they won everything what could possibly explain behavior like this?

Tancredo protesters turn violent
By Anne Mulkern

Denver Post Staff Writer

Violence erupted at a Michigan law school Thursday when protestors tried to block a speech by Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo.

Police were called after protestors pulled a fire alarm prior to the speech on immigration policies. There were at least three violent incidents with protestors targeting student backers of the event, Tancredo, R-Littleton, said today.

"One was spit on, one was kicked, and one was punched," Tancredo said in an e-mail. "Tires were also slashed."

Michigan State University College Republicans and Young Americans for Freedom sponsored the event.

Tancredo went to Michigan State University College of Law as part of a visit to the state to talk about immigration. He leads the group that opposes legal status for illegal immigrants.

Protestors interrupted the speech with loud shouting.

College newspaper The State News reported that protesters carried signs reading "Ignorant Racist" outside the room where the speech was held. They were not allowed in with the signs, the paper said. It also reported that about 40 people attended the speech.

Tancredo said in the email that protestors organized on the Internet social networking site Facebook.

"They declared ahead of time on facebook that they would not allow me to speak," Tancredo said in the e-mail.

Tancredo also is meeting with the Republican state party chair, members of the state legislature, and is speaking at a fundraiser for a Republican women's group, Tancredo spokesman Carlos Espinosa said.

I thought liberalism was supposed to be all about tolerance and diversity and stuff. I guess that applies only to skin, but not to thought or ideas.

Why do we continue to see these kinds of stories from campus after campus?

37 comments:

RoseIndigo said...

Because liberals are idologues with very little common sense. So everything is based on emotion. If ya can't stop the opposition from saying what you don't want to hear, you attack them personally or tell them they need psychological help, or disrupt any speeches they may give even while touting "tolerance" out of the other side of your mouth.

It makes for general confusion and keeps 'em busy and feeling important, since they suffer from a great deal of boredom. Obviously they are angry about something, but instead of working towards a better society, they prefer to disrupt it.

I believe it's called "deconstruction". You destroy everything so you can rebuild it in your own image.

RoseIndigo said...

By the way, I think Tom Tancredo is right on the money.

Jay Bullock said...

Self-fulfilling prophecy. When you start calling parts of America a "third world country," you shouldn't be surprised when people start acting like they're in one.

Of all the congresscritters to take seriously, you're picking Tancredo? I'll pull this one out next time you start insulting Gwen Moore.

Scott D. Feldstein said...

If ya can't stop the opposition from saying what you don't want to hear, you attack them personally or tell them they need psychological help

Kind of like how you guys did Gore in 2000?

sandy said...

According to RoseIndigo: "Because liberals are idologues with very little common sense. So everything is based on emotion. If ya can't stop the opposition from saying what you don't want to hear, you attack them personally or tell them they need psychological help"

In the paragraph immediately following this Rose proceeds to psycho-analyze liberals, something she has just accused liberals of doing. And just recently I was attacked personally for posting information on this blog on religious history. Exactly how "tolerant" is that?

Putting that aside, as for this story I think it is completely disgraceful and unacceptable behavior. Don't lump all liberals in the same bowl please.

JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...

Yeah, this kind of garbage pissed me off to no end. Why would anyone want to protest somebody's speech? If you don't like what they say, don't attend. Or write an editorial in the Michigan State student newspaper. I think Tancredo is probably a xenophobic racist (or at best a short-sighted protectionist), but that doesn't mean he doesn't get to talk.

Irony = Rose calling someone else an ideologue.

Dave said...

Jay and Scott:

I've never heard of Republicans invading campaign HQs, disrupting speeches,or slashing tires. If you know of any such incidents, please enlighten us.

realdebate said...

JIJARWM.

Thank you for your comments, that was exactly the proper response.

Sandy, Jay and Scott, you might learn something here.

You should NOT be excusing bad behavior by these people or pointing to something and go WHAT ABOUT THAT?!?

Remember when Ward Churchill came to Whitewater? Yes, some conservative showed up in protest. No damage was done, no one was hit, and when his speech started he was allowed to speak without interruption.

This is the American way.

Liberal anger is misplaced and misguided as is shown by your knee-jerk reactions...

Why defend bad behavior, why not just call it for what it is?

Why not try and get to the root of this continuing problem and try to solve it?

realdebate said...

Scott, one incidence in Milwaukee where people tried to interrupt Gore.

Conservatives roundly came out AGAINST that activity, and it has not been repeated.

If you would like to get out the chalkboard on this fine.

This is a PATTERN by the left, not an isolated occurance like you are pointing to.

And Jay, this is not about Tancredo, and get off you rhigh horse as you have complete contempt for anyone with an (R) after their name, this is about liberals attempting to deny speech.

Search every word I have ever written on Gwen Moore, I do not think you will ever find an instance where I say her words should be shouted down.

Seriously Jay, do you have any idea how unglued you are of late?

Realism said...

Damn that pisses me off.

RoseIndigo said...

Once more I have to challenge Sandy, who seems to needs a deductive logic class and an education in history.

She says: "Rose proceeds to psycho-analyze liberals, something she has just accused liberals of doing."---I guess you have trouble telling "opinion" from "psychoanalysis". Do try your dictionary. I have no degree in psychoanalysis, so what I say is "opinion". However, I admit that I don't like liberals and think they are nuts. Saying that about a group in a general sense is also a whole lot different than attacking a person you disagree with, as I was attacked by JIJARWM in another thread where it became very personal. If I say communists are misguided and ideologues, I'm not making a personal attack. If there is a communist here and I attack that person and insult him/her instead of discussing the ideas he presents, then it's a personal attack. If you don't know the difference, please figure it out before spouting off again.
By the way, I have no problem with ideas being attacked. I do have problems with persons being attacked, even though I get hot under the collar and do it myself sometimes. I even admit it, and I don't mind being reminded when I so do. I admit I've been guilty of attacking Scott especially in a personal way, and I will right here and now apologize to Scott. However, I will not apologize for attacking Scott's ideas.

"And just recently I was attacked personally for posting information on this blog on religious history. Exactly how "tolerant" is that?" ---- I don't have to be tolerant of inaccurate information. If I said the moon was made of green cheese you wouldn't have to be tolerant of it either. Your religious history is definitely wrong (or maybe its just your vocabulary---but it's wrong), and I suggest you take some more lessons on it from a mainline Christian denomination that at least knows whereof it speaks. Maybe some lessons on the meaning of words wouldn't hurt either.

Just out of curiosity, you sound awfully young and to me. If that's the case I shall make allowances, since you have much to learn; but I don't make allowances for inaccurate information and arrogance on top of that.

_________

Regarding JIJARWM's comment of: "Irony = Rose calling someone else an ideologue." --- Actually I don't mind ideologues as long as they have common sense and as long as they don't disrupt other's speeches and they don't speak out of both sides of their mouths the way people like this do. We all believe in something. But I certainly do mind bad manners like this incident shows. I don't even mind people walking away from a speech they don't like. I would walk away from a communist on a soap box, but I wouldn't disrupt his speech unless he was inciding outright murder.

So your point is moot.

RoseIndigo said...

Who is Gwen Moore?????

RoseIndigo said...

By the way, I've read quite a number of "liberal" sites on the internet, and one of their tricks is what is called "reframing".

If they can't convince you of global warming, then the reframe the discussion by saying something like: "Well, are you saying you don't believe in global warming and you don't care what happens to your grandchildren?"

It's a very clever way of making things personal, because now we are no longer talking about the facts or non-facts of global warming, but about my grandchildren and my careless attitude towards them. It's kind of like asking a man "When did you stop beating your wife?" So in a sneaky way it's a personal attack.

It's a method they use, invented by and approved of by many college professors. In fact, one of them out of Berkeley wrote a whole lengthy article on how liberals can "reframe" any subject and turn it into an emotional diatribe. I tore his whole article apart paragraph by paragraph, sent it to him, and never did get a response. I wonder why. Do you think it was because he was found out?

Kate said...

Having been physically attacked by a lefty, I get a tad testy when I read some of the comments, like those up there. :/

I love ideas, I love reading about all sides of an issue. Personal attacks have no place in a reasonable discussion. Because someone doesn't agree with me, I'm not going to try to shout him or her down, call them names, or try to keep him or her from speaking...unless it becomes "personal".

Just had to throw my 2 cents worth in.

Phelony Jones said...

It's because they embody the very trait of which they accuse conservatives.

They're fascists.

Phelony Jones said...

PS Rose, if you don't know who Gwen Moore is, save yourself the stress and irritation.

RoseIndigo said...

Oh yes, and regarding Jay Bullock's comment of: "When you start calling parts of America a "third world country," you shouldn't be surprised when people start acting like they're in one."

So I guess what you are saying is that Americans in a university have a right to act like third-world Neanderthal hooligans?

I guess you've never been in Los Angeles and have never seen the third world in person there, have you? Parts of America have been turned into a third world country, and that is also a fact. I've seen it, been there, tried to conduct business there, felt the prejudice there, etc., etc.

Want examples? I have plenty of them!

Maybe you ought to visit some of those places yourself where there is not an English sign to be seen anywhere or where not an English word is spoken, where three and four families live in garages (illegally), where they kill goats in their back yards and have chickens even when the zoning doesn't allow for it, where a man kicks his wife in the kidneys because that's OK in "his culture" and she refuses to press charges because he would kick her even harder next time, where the coyotes bring illegals over and live 30 to 35 in a 2-bedroom house, where gang warfare is a matter of course, where the police and fire department won't even go in an emergency because it's such chaos, with not even numbers on buildings so they have no idea where the problem is happening, and where white officers are ambushed and shot even while trying to help, and if you walk into one of their stores you are made to feel like an intruder even though it's your country, where a second-grade teacher I know had a class of 40 kids with 17 languages and was expected to teach a curriculum.

And until such time as immigration is controlled, so there is actually a real chance for integration, we will have parts of our cities as third world countries with all the problems of third world countries in mini-mode. If that's what Tom Tancredo said, he merely stated a fact.

Of course, liberals do the "reframing" when they don't like the facts, and attack with words like "prejudiced", "intolerant" and "homophobe". Those are some of their favorites to divert attention from the issue. They put the person they disagree with in a bind: if he defends himself the debate becomes personal; if he doesn't defend himself the assumption is that what they say about him is true.

That's a pretty dirty trick.

RoseIndigo said...

Thanks Phelony. I will happily take your advice. :-)

RoseIndigo said...

The article also states: "Michigan State University College Republicans and Young Americans for Freedom sponsored the event."

Seems to me they have a right to invite any speaker they please without being harrassed.

If I invite someone into my home for dialogue and my neighbors don't like that person, they have no right to attack either me or that person.

If I decide to have an open house to hear this person speak, those who don't like it can stay away; they can listen quietly; they can participate in a question and answer session of there is one; and they can write letters of opinion to their hometown paper. They cannot come in and disrupt the proceedings. PERIOD!

Same goes for an invited speaker at a university. And the administration ought to lay the law down about that clearly and enforce it, unless they want continued chaos on campus.

realdebate said...

Rose, Gwen Moores is a VERY liberal Congressperson representing the central city of Milwaukee.

She has a history of long ranting and raving fillibusters about nothing.

She is Wisconsin's Cynthia McKinney.


Phelony... Feeling better?

Scott D. Feldstein said...

Okay, okay. I neglected to issue the proper disclaimers before pointing out the hypoocrisy. Let me do so now: I don't at all agree with shouting down speakers or with violence or property damage. Really. I don't. And people who do that should be ejected from the venue and/or arrested, should they be found to have broken any laws. And prosecuted.

There. Although I'm sure you don't believe a freakin' word of it.

However, your hypocrisy still, as Garrison Keillor once put it, "shines like cat turds in the moonlight."

Rose calling someone else an ideologue? And then proceeding to put forth the hypothesis that there is some kind of psychopathology going on with them? If there's a stronger word than "ironic," I wish I knew it.

JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
K. Carpenter said...

The only answer I can come up with is that liberals will not be happy until everyone is as miserable as they are.

I am serious when I say this. I have never meet a happy liberal. Never! Someone has always done them wrong.

displaced ched head said...

In defense of Rose, Rose is not an idiot of biblical proportions, nor is she an ideologue, bereft of coherent thought. It's obvious from her posts that she lives in L.A. or somewhere close in CA. and has to deal with open border concerns on a daily basis. We know Rose is German and escaped the oppression of communism at some point in her life.
If I speak out of turn here Rose, I apologize.
When you live the life of the oppressed does that not give you moral authority? As you libs follow Cindy Sheehan and Chavez, Kerry's rantings and Murthas is that not the same as Rose in her life experiences?

For jesus is not alright for him calling Rose a S**thead, that is uncalled for. Actually it emphasizes Rose's point that Libs shout down any idea they disagree with, and attack personally those that rebut them.

Scott, your off handed agreement is offensive.
What would the reaction be if during code pinks march on the Mall last year those marchers had been disrupted and the speakers silenced? What would your reaction have been if police arrested the gay marchers in San Frans Gay Pride march?
Would you be so casual in your condecension?
I think not.
The double standard employed by the left is staggering. You throw pies in the face of Bill Kristoll, while he speaks at a university, you call him a jew bater, even though the man is Jewish and that is his religion. You disparage ARMY recruiters at Berkley, even though those men and women fight daily to protect your right to do such cowardly acts. You protest at Berkley and shut down the assembly Hall Michelle Malkin is scheduled to speak at. This is your exchange of ideas? This is what I sent my two sons into so they could be versed in the world?

Let me be clear here, I do not mean Scott personally, what I speak of is general squallor in academia. If you disagree with what the Prof says, bye bye career. $125,000, in tuition, wasted because your son or daughter did not agree with the Prof.
Scott, you puncuate your post with a quote of an idiot savant, Garrison Keillor, and speak of turds. That is the depth you can muster? Garrison Keillor has been a joke for the last three years, and has not had an original thought for twice as long. Your affinity for him is telling.
A washed up elite who looks down his nose at us trailer trash "regular" Americans. If Garrison Keillor is your idea of intelect you might want to try again. Your quoting of him leaves you in the category of jesusisjustallwrongformebecauseimahypocrite.

Scott H said...

The behavior described in the main post is deplorable.

I think a lot of it has to do with college students being immature, overexcitable, and not yet having learned how to behave like adults instead of children. They need to teach/more strongly emphasize the most basic constitutional rights in high school - just the noncontroversial parts so that we don't run into problems.

I will admit that I hear about this behavior much more in liberals than conservatives. Still, it seems to be mainly the extremists, who tend to be pretty wacko and get very emotionally charged over these issues.

Fred is right to criticize this behavior. I don't think it is a good excuse for dismissing the entire opposing point of view though (not that he did so).

Scott H said...

Oh, and not to step into the fray, but...

"Because liberals are idologues with very little common sense. So everything is based on emotion. If ya can't stop the opposition from saying what you don't want to hear, you attack them personally or tell them they need psychological help, or disrupt any speeches they may give even while touting "tolerance" out of the other side of your mouth.

It makes for general confusion and keeps 'em busy and feeling important, since they suffer from a great deal of boredom. Obviously they are angry about something, but instead of working towards a better society, they prefer to disrupt it.

I believe it's called "deconstruction". You destroy everything so you can rebuild it in your own image. "

--------
Well, this type of smearing overgeneralization fits with your anti-islam racism in the posts below. You don't seem to be a bad person, but you seriously need to learn to stop seeing the groups who disagree with you as being made up of only people of one type. You act like liberals or Muslims are all exactly the same. Like there is no diversity within the millions or so people in those groups. If I were to say conservatives were all self-interested, racist, Christian zealots, I'd be doing exactly what you are doing. If that doesn't make it clear, I'll try this: you're making exactly the same kind of mistake as skinheads who look at the struggles of some in the inner city and say that all blacks are violent and stupid.

realdebate said...

JIJARWM.

I have deleted your last post.

You DO NOT EVER CALL SOMEONE NAMES LIKE THAT HERE.

Dial it back, did it not occur to you that someone else's opinions were at least as valuable as yours?

In this very post I gave you huge props for your first point, don't make me do this again.

realdebate said...

I think a lot of it has to do with college students being immature, overexcitable, and not yet having learned how to behave like adults instead of children.

You may be right Scott H. This is an opportunity to teach our youth... They should hear loudly from adult party leaders that their behavior us not acceptable.

But then again when our Universities put the Kevin Baretts of the world in front of our kids...

sandy said...

Thank you Scott I couldn't agree with your comments more. As for yet another amazing comment from Rose "However, I admit that I don't like liberals and think they are nuts." How does one respond to that? Please don't generalize all liberals as being the same - I do not generalize all conservatives and I'd appreciate the same consideration and respect.

As for the continued criticisms of my posts on the origins of Christmas, I've grown pretty tired of it especially since it is something so easily researched. The current traditions, the yule log, the Christmas tree, the giving of gifts were in fact a merging of the pagan holiday with the Christian celebration. Look it up Rose, getting hostile with me does not change facts or history.

As for liberals all being unhappy, not sure why people feel that way. I am a liberal, and I'm not unhappy. In fact I'm not poor, underprivileged or angry at the world either. In my opinion, the blogger that seems to be the most unhappy here is Rose. Why the need for constant attacks?

It's fine to disagree and debate but how about trying to be a little more respectful? Isn't this exactly what this blog is about, yet it's happening here on this blog?

RoseIndigo said...

Just exactly why would I not generalize that all liberals the same if I don't agree with their basic premises or their plans for our country? Actually, I can only think of ONE DEMOCRAT who has the best interests of his country at heart, and I think of him as a DEMOCRAT, and not a liberal. The rest of the democratic party is a lost cause. So are the liberals on this blog, which is proven to me every day. Sorry you don't like it.

As for Scott h trying to be the peacemaker by saying: "You act like liberals or Muslims are all exactly the same. Like there is no diversity within the millions or so people in those groups."

I just love that word "diversity". What a crock!!! Of course there are degrees of belief among liberals, BUT as a group that has aims they are THE SAME, and as far as I'm concerned they are destroying my country. In politics and what goes on in the world one cannot look at individuals. We'd never get anywhere if we considered everyone as individuals. One has to look at the big picture of groups as a whole and what they do and say and to what sort of impasse they have brought us. That's why it is important to choose sides.

I've chosen MY SIDE---not liberal or conservative. It just happens that at this point in history it's the conservative side that is more in line with what I believe and the liberal/lefty side is waaaaay out there with everything I don't believe. I see it every day when I come here. When the liberals come back to the center and begin to make some sense, I'll change my mind, but not until then.

So glad I riled you liberals up. Once again, you use emotion to get your way, but when it's thrown back at ya you don't like it.

And Scott's use of a Keillor quote was pathetic!!!!! But it does remind me that I read his book about his political beliefs, and it made me sick. I guess you need to quote him because he is one of you. I value his artistry. I DISLIKE his politics and I don't have much respect for his personal life either. So any time you quote him you are only insulting yourself.

I agree with k. carpenter above, that "liberals will not be happy until everyone is as miserable as they are." EXACTLY!

RoseIndigo said...

Not to Chedhead: Yes, I am German, born there as a matter of fact, in 1941 right in the middle of Berlin during WWII.

For those who refuse to believe the bad news about communism and naziism, I have personal experience with both:

My father, a young man at the time, made a remark amongst what he thought were friends when Hitler invaded Polant. My father knew at that point Hitler was crazy and said so. The next day the brown shirts came to his work and arrested him. He spent a month in what they called a "readjustment camp", and when he came out of there he was so broken and intimidated that he never spoke about what happened to him there.

During the nazi era the SS came into our home, with guns, and went through every bookshelf, throwing out every book they disapproved of and intimidating my mother when she tried to protect our family Bible. She lost and the Bible went, even with all the family records in it.

When they held their ugly rallies they also came around to tell my mother SHE HAD TO BE THERE. Since she had two toddlers she refused to go, her name was put on a black list and she was continually watched.

She was there when her Jewish neighbors were arrested, with a warrant, SIGNED BY A JUDGE. It was all legal and properly notarized. They took away the whole family, including the children and there was nothing she could do about it. Such is the power of judges who run amock as they are doing in America today.

My father was also one of the few survivors of Stalingrad.

After the war I recall an incident in which a mentally retarded young man made some lewd gestures at my mother from an attic window. She told me to ignore him when I got angry. When I asked her about why he was up there, she explained that many people had been forced to hide their retarded or disabled children from the nazis because they would have been killed. Those poor kids grew up in those attics and even after the war they were afraid to come back out.

And when the war was over my father wanted to get away from the insanity of Europe. His one hope was America. I'm so glad he is no longer alive to see what has happened to his beloved America---his dream of freedom and opportunity.

After the war I also had family behind the iron curtain. The commies wouldn't even allow my grandmother's children to come to their mother's funeral in the West without holding their families hostage. Every letter we received was censored, either blacked out or things cut out. Every package we sent over there to help them never arrived. When we did get letters from the younger generation they were filled with anti-American hatred and propaganda, none of which was true. And of course, when we sent them the reality of America, the letters never arrived.

After the war the American army was WONDERFUL to us. I can tell dozens of stories about just how wonderful they were to the starving populace, and there is no way I will believe they are any different in Iraq. I was there. I know they were decent human beings even though we had been the enemy.

So yes, I have a real dislike for anyone who veers to the left---from personal experience. I HATE the anti-Americanism that the left spouts. And I will not tolerate anti-religious bigotry or misinformation about religion that waters it down and causes confusion, and turns it into nothing.

I also have an intense dislike for the lefties that label anything they don't agree with as naziism. They don't have a clue what they are talking about. While I'm myself not totally comfortable with the Patriot Act, it is so far from what the nazis did that it isn't even in the same ballpark, while the things the lefties stand for, such as abortion and euthanasia, are right IN the ballpark.

I also know that what I have said here will be used against me by those who are opportunists, in spite of how "kind" and "tolerant" they think they are. I don't care. The TRUTH NEEDS TO BE TOLD, AND THE TRUTH IS THAT AMERICA IS IN GRAVE DANGER, from without and from WITHIN.

Am I passionate about where this country is heading? YOU BET! I've been there on the other side, the lefty side, and know what it's like. I've lived the nightmare.

Realism said...

It appears that some people here have decided to throw away any pretense of critical thinking skills or logic. making generalizations about groups of people is a symptom of a lazy mind.

I am about as liberal as it gets without being communist. I will still stand up for freedom of speech, even if I disagree with what is being said. I think that is true for the other liberals here. If we didn't like hearing views that we don't agree with, none of us would read this blog.

Liberals, by definition, treasure free speech. If a person is attacking someone because of their ideas or refusing to allow someone to express their viewpoint, that person is NOT a liberal, even if they claim to be, just as the racist skinheads in white supremacist groups are not Christian, even if they claim to be.

RoseIndigo said...

realism, your: "Liberals, by definition, treasure free speech. "
may have been true at one time, the intention may have been exactly that, and decent liberals may still hold to that. But the truth is that you have long ago been taken over by a group that does not treasure free speech and has no intention of treasuring it, no matter what they say. So, to protect your turf you had better begin weeding out the weeds that have grown amonst you, and there are plenty of them, especially in the universities.


There is another thing I would like to say, whether you want to hear it or not. The Arabs have taken over where Hitler left off. It may not be called naziism, and they may have a slightly different agenda, but their hatred of the Jews is the same.

I have said this before and will say it again, since I am German they were often caught off guard when we used to entertain them while they worked with my husband. Outwardly decent people, the men were, in fact, drop-dead handsome, but sooner or later their hatred of the Jews appeared in the conversation, and because they knew of my background they assumed they were safe and that I would agree with them. They were always surprised when I didn't, even slightly hurt. After a while I got so tired of it that I refused to invite them to dinner anymore because it always turned out the same.

So even though you have only militant Islam causing trouble, the silent majority of Islam is not harmless. They not only condone what is going on, but cheer internally. The few Muslims who do not have no power, and thus we have to address the whole group in an aggressive way to once more make the world safe for not only the Jews, but for Americans, since their hatred has spilled over onto America.

Like it or not, that's what it comes down to. It was the same in Germany with all the silent Germans that simply didn't want to be bothered with what was happening, or were top scared to protest, or silently went along with the agenda. The one time my father protested he ended up in prison, from which he never quite recovered. The Arabs aren't even that civilized, since they chop heads off.

Once again, it is a matter of "critical numbers" and when a critical number of people gets power, all of them have to be looked at as a threat, because we can't just pick out individuals who may be wolves in sheep's clothing. That goes for the Arab world as well as for liberals.

The few who stand against the tide are very few, and we ought to be deeply grateful to them. I don't see many of those. I see mostly people who go along with the agenda because of "lazy thinking" or not thinking at all, or not realizing where their side is headed even when it's headed over the cliff.

Scott H said...

Roseindigo, if you were a muslim in the Middle East you'd probably be one of those decrying all Jews and Westerners with similar generalizations.

" We'd never get anywhere if we considered everyone as individuals. One has to look at the big picture of groups as a whole and what they do and say and to what sort of impasse they have brought us. That's why it is important to choose sides."

You can choose sides, but you've stated that all muslims are "primitive minds in human bodies" and all liberals are "idologues with very little common sense. So everything is based on emotion." That's not choosing sides. That is declaring everyone on the other side to share some characteristic in an attempt to belittle or smear them. I'm glad you're so enlightened that you can see that all others are not just wrong, but inferior. Yes, many Germans acquiesed back then, but were they all Jew-hating fascists? Heck, by your terms even those who resist are labeled.

Oh and another gem...

"Actually, I can only think of ONE DEMOCRAT who has the best interests of his country at heart,"

Now they're not even misguided, foolish, or ignorant... they're actively trying to undermine the country or other sinister motives.

Roseindigo, before I said that I didn't think you were a bad person, but regardless, people who are like you in this sense make the world a worse place. Seriously. Get a grip.

RoseIndigo said...

Scott h, I was beginning to have some respect for you. Sorry, but it's GONE!!!! Your post is totally idiotic.

I dare you to fight a war against China (which some day we may have to) and consider the Chinese as individuals. You'd lose the war so fast it would make your head spin. And that's exactly why we are getting nowhere in Iraq and tying our armie's hands behind their backs even when they fight terrorists because "they are individuals and MIGHT be innocent".

If you feel honorable about that, well so be it. I think it's idiotic and will eventually lose you your freedom!

sandy said...

I would think Rose's experience with Nazi Germany would have given her some insight as to how dangerous and wrong it is to label entire groups of people.

Rose you do need to take a look at yourself and realize how negative and bitter you sound. Perhaps read up on internet etiquette as well.

Scott H said...

Rose, the thing is, we're not at an all out war with all of Islam. If we're going to succeed in Iraq it isn't going to be by killing all of Iraq. If our goals were that simple it could be done. That doesn't mean I'm for tying our troops hands (perhaps not doing so nearly as much would be better strategy). But it does mean I am for having some insight into the people we are trying to coalese into a government. It also means I'm not for calling some 3rd generation U.S. citizen who is a pediatrician and lives in the Detroit suburbs a "primitive mind".

Also, if you want to convince the Democrats that they are wrong, you stand a better chance if you realize what their concerns are instead of entrenching them in their positions by using insulting rhetoric.