i want to comment on this thread later but i'm too busy, hence the post to follow it.

That's not in dispute here.

Are you a spokesperson for "The Militia"? Are you aware that some militia members are likely to be racist and view their cause as resisting oppression? Nothing is a strong word, and in this case, I think it's false.

This is really vague. What does "destructive to our freedom" really mean? Anyway, that's not really being disputed either.
Yes, a democratic presidential system, right? Yeah, I'm a bit familiar with it. What about it?
Are there Christians or KKK members within militias?
What slander? Whose point?
Source? Point?

* * * * *

In other news, there's this fascinating tidbit from Fox News:

Is Fox Regular Michael Scheuer Arguing That Armed Revolution May Be Necessary In The U.S.? | Media Matters for America

this is Constitutional Republic
why did CNN try to cover up the fact it was a black Tea party Member Armed with a AR-15 at a obama campaign stop??????

Armed Revolution is a right of the American People!!!!!!

Armed Revolution is how the us gained our freedom from the king of England dictatorship.

Why is Joe Biden the author of clintions failed racist gun ban in charge of obamas gun policy.

why wont obama/democrats be clear what they want???????

why is harry reid called for Americans to silance their dissent of islam/oppression

why is democrats attacking Allen West and Herman Cain?????

Are those rhetorical questions?

And are these issues why American conservatives gearing up for an armed revolution?

no they are very important questions. why wont you answer them???

I don't know the answers. I'm a Canadian.

You would have a better idea than I would, which is why I asked.

Are these issues why American conservatives gearing up for an armed revolution?

for this^

i wish i could buy you the most expensive. hooker. ever... and i dont just say those things lightly.

i'm quite pleased with the crowd that i run with in the sense that they're all rational conservatives. we still get in discussions sometimes about politics but not to the extreme that we're willing to shed blood over it. i wish more rational conservatives would smack the tea partygoers and tell them that real conservatives offer discussion, not tirade. alternate solution, not bigotry. a different form of government, not anarchy.

bipartisanship FTW!

Actually Conservative leaders would like to avoid such a outcome. but if it becomes necessary to keep our freedoms we would consider that an option.do not pay attention the way the left in this country demonize Conservative Leaders. they have decided to appease our enemies. such as Harry Reid who wants to try to blame the way muslim fascist behave on Americans expressing our free speech. they blame the actions of crinimals on inanimate objects and they try to divide us based on race and gender

what the hell is going on here...

Well, I suppose it's only right to fight against oppression, but I don't see that as an issue at this time.

Can you provide me with a link to a news story or article about this? I don't know what you're talking about exactly.

But other than this, is there anything else? Because it's my understanding that criticisms of conservative leaders is more about a reaction to their social policies. So you get people countering conservative comments/bills, etc., regarding abortion, immigration, or gay rights. That's not demonization. If anything, it's conservatives who demonize the liberals by calling their ideas or policies a slide into socialism/communism, which is false.

The difference is that the conservative threat is real, whereas the liberal threat is hyperbole and therefore propaganda.

However, I'm more than welcome to see examples to the contrary.

---------- Post added at 09:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ----------

I get the feeling that Canada is home to a much higher proportion of rational conservatives than in the U.S. This is why I'm so interested in American politics. Americans tend to swing way more extreme than we do, both politically and emotionally.

Hence the overwhelming temptation to to move to the great white north once my service to the United States is up. I love this place with all my heart and I'd gladly be willing to swap the rest of my heartbeats for everyone else to live happily, but it doesn't seem like my method of service is curing anything.

Ironically enough, i thought that the Air Force Academy would be dripping with Tea Partakers but i severely underestimated the power of rational thought in the youth here.

Are Links to other sites allowed to be posted in this forum?????
the Tea Party is the Conservative Party.
Lindsey Graham/McCain are RINOS
the Policies of Conservatives is to keep America free from such thing as honor killings
the US has had at least 10 honor killings one was a Muslim Husband who beheaded his wife for asking for a divorce and another was when a muslim dad ran down his daughter for her clothes being too western. but the most amusing is when the Liberal commentator Juan williams was fired for speaking out against the way muslims went out of their way to mimic the 9/11 attackers. And the way he was fire well if it wold be anybody out Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been on the news 24/7 demanding blood

yes, i believe links to other sites are allowed here.

as for the Tea Party being synonymous with the Conservative Party, allow me to point out that the "Conservative Party", if it exists isn't an actual political party, much like the Tea Party. Someone please correct me (besides longliveusa with whom i am debating), but i was under the impression that the only parties nominating candidates for positions in offices of public service are the Republican, Democratic, Independent, and Green; while the Tea Party is a group within the Republican Party that agree with their policies in a borderline zealous fashion.

can someone please edify myself and mr. longliveusa?

well the Tea Party is not the republican party for one thing the republicans are infected with rinos like McCain and Graham Which brings great shame to SC for Backing Harry Reid idea of ending Civil rights/freedoms to Appease Blood thirsty Muslims who think if they kill non muslims they will get 72 virgin women to be their slaves. their is not such thing as Over Zealous defense of freedom. I wonder what would happen if Rosa Parks would have said no to a muslim male if one commanded her to go to the back of the bus.

[Links are allowed, but you need to have a minimum number of posts on the forum first. This is to dissuade spammers. You should be able to post links after 10 posts, just be sure to follow the rules (no spamming, advertising). PM me if you have any problems with posting links after 10 posts. You're currently sitting at 6.]

Okay, for starters, honour killings will never be legal in the U.S., so that's not really worthy of discussion.

Second, if people like McCain aren't "real" Republicans, can you tell me what the base requirements are from being one?

Third, how are these people appeasing "bloodthirsty Muslims" exactly?

Are you talking about this?

Reid: 'We'll look into' Quran burning - POLITICO Live - POLITICO.com

And this?

Lindsey Graham On Koran Burning: “Freedom Of Speech Is A Great Idea But We’re In A War.”

Are your comments about how to respond to the Quran burning? Or whether to respond at all?

Sarah Palin is not a republican she is a Conservative Wikipedia is not a reliable source since it can be Modified without even signing up or logging in. Harry Reid and the RINO Traitor Graham are Appeasing Islam by making excuses for blood thirsty Islam. Terry Jones did not cause anybody to be beheaded by exercising his free speech. Honor Killings are happening weather legal or not that's the point the fact they are happening and no out rage by the media is the point. McCain backs gun control/Anti Free speech Laws. Again i ask what do you think would happen to Rosa Parks if she disobeyed a muslim who demanded her to go to the back of the bus in a muslim country?

Well, since Sarah Palin calls HERSELF a Republican, I think you probably need to rethink some things:

That's an official statement from Mrs. Palin.

Whether or not Terry Jones cause the beheadings in Afganistan is certainly debateable. I've had several conversations with folks who believe that he could be held legally liable for those deaths if the folks injured could find standing to sue in the US (they won't so it becomes an academic debate).

I'm still wondering what slander you see in this thread. Either you don't understand what that word means or you don't believe that it happened, IMO. Either way, it detracts from your argument.

Who cares about what a muslim would do to Rosa Parks? That question presumes a uniformity in Islam that doesn't exist. Have you ever met a muslim? If not, then you should meet a few before you go spouting off about how they'd have treated Rosa Parks.

As far as I know, Sarah Palin is a registered Republican, and has worked within the party for a number of years. Is there any indication that she has declared her breaking from the Republican party? I thought she supported it.

I haven't read anything to suggest that Reid and Graham condone the actions of "bloodthirsty" Muslims. And, no, Terry Jones didn't cause anybody to die or anything, but I would say that the burning of the Quran in the current geopolitical environment is both un-Christian and un-American. As a pastor, Terry Jones is a hypocrite and the "Dove World Outreach Center" is a mis-fucking-nomer. What Terry Jones and his supporters represent is a cesspool of hatred and ignorance as an undercurrent within American culture, and I sincerely hope that people within and without government don't simply sit idly by and suggest that it's merely a matter of free speech, because it's not.

But rather than call this book burning as an act of which it is not, let's call it for what it is: fascism. Americans should be appalled by such and action instead of suggesting it's merely a matter of free speech. It's not. Neither is Holocaust denial and other contenders of classy topics that could fall under free speech (at least in America...I think).

This is a nonsense "what if" question. Kind of like, if America's geographic and demographic situation were like France's during WWII, how long would it have been before America surrendered to the Nazis?

How about just talk about the issue. What does the current topic of gun control and free speech have to do with Rosa Parks. Very little.

What does McCain support/oppose exactly, and what about it do you disagree with?

lets assume there is such a thing as the Conservative Party in the United States, and that it is synonymous with the Tea Party.
(for the record, the Conservative Party is a party in the UK which is similar to the Republican Party here in the States)

National (US) Poll * March 24, 2010 * Tea Party Could Hurt GOP In Co - Quinnipiac University – Hamden, Connecticut

hmm so polls conducted by a university seem to think that the tea party is mostly republicans


so she's british?

thats why you need citations to edit entries. click on the little blue numbers after virtually every sentence in an article, it'll bring you to where the research was found.
i really hope you aren't calling all muslims bloodthristy. it gives tolerant and open-minded Americans a bad name when people hear that kind of name calling.
See what the Constitution says about fighting words and hateful speech. i think you'll be interested to find what is Constitutional (and therefore American).
what this^ says to me

is this: http://www.dula.tv/blog/wp-content/u...watermelon.jpg

There is also the Conservative Party of Canada. Maybe Palin is more Canadian than British, given that Alaska is pretty much a third Canadian territory. Alaska is like Canada's hat...but set at a jaunty angle.

Anyway, there are such thing at capital-C conservative parties. Not sure about the status of one in the U.S. Canada's, on the other hand, is pretty much like the love child of the rightest of Democrats and the leftest of Republicans.

You're thinking of Betsy Ross. Rosa Parks was the first woman to fly across the Atlantic.

Sounds like another of your thinly-veiled threats to annex Alaska. You know who else was a fan of "Lebensraum"?

False. Alaska is like the black lion that forms Voltron's head. That's why Alaska remains America's repository of great minds and true patriots.

Are you fucking kidding me? If Canada ever needed territory to expand the Canuck population, the last place we'd look is fucking Alaska. Even then, we're still sitting comfortably at nearly 68 acres for every Canadian.

Well, if that's the case, it's even more of a boon to Canada, considering our top item in the national defense strategy is, "Stay on good terms with the United State of America." Item number two is, "Become indispensable to the United States of America by being a key supplier of oil, lumber, grain, steel, uranium, and other natural resources."

It's kind of a no-brainer, really.

Invert the "m" in "me" and suddenly it's "we". As in collective. As in socialism. Once this god-fearing American saw that, your seemingly innocuous statement becomes a little more clear..er.

[W]e need to expand th si ear y for every Canadian....We need to expand this year for every Canadian. It's right there in black and white.

No, Alaska is a boon to Canadia because of its location and its people. Patriotic Americans like former-potential-Vice-President-Elect-of-the-Conservative-Party, Mrs. Sarah Palin and the multiethnic, reasonable and tolerant Militias are what's keeping the Soviets from invading via the land bridge while also opposing the elitist use of punctuation and capitalization.

Yeah, you know who else wanted to "supply" the United States with uranium? Saddam Hussein. Who tried to purchase it from Kenya. Where our Muslim Usurper-In-Chief (Barack HUSSEIN ObaMAO) was born and trained in the ways of Shari'a Law. Which he is now forcing down American throats to pave the way for honor killings. It's all there. You just have to be brave enough to connect the dots.

Oh lookie here! It's an (over)educated American! *claps sarcastically* Well done!

And now Lieutenant Yankee makes a weak attempt to reinforce the position of his nation. How cute. Patriotism at its best: when it tries in vain to uphold the rotting virtues of a failed and unethical economic system (read: kaptialism). Spoiler: PROPERTY IS THEFT!

You may be one of the few who have seen the game we're playing up here in Soviet Canuckistan; however, there is little you can do to stop it. That's the major weakness of free market governance: it's not really governance. It's letting the herd run amok and then following it blindly.

Like lambs to the slaughter.

Пролетарии всех стран, соединяйтесь!

Listen up: I'm not going to let some bourgeoisie francophile badmouth the United States of America. Wait a minute. "Francophile" sounds an awful lot like "pedophile". Is there some kind of connection? I'm not saying there is. I'm just asking questions.

Running amok and blindly following the herd are the very ideals that our Founding Fathers fought for. It's in the Constitution; somewhere in the back. While this fire may have died down thanks to the combined efforts of LIEbruls and George Soros, the embers still burn hot within the Republoconservative Movement.

i feel the urge to get drunk with you guys... maybe not the francophile haha jk. we should organize a TFP drinking league

What's your major malfunction? Don't you realize that you're shoulder-deep in the league ALREADY? Jesus H. Christ, I'm breaking my own rules even MENTIONING IT! Chug 2 beers NOW, EH!

First off Terry Jones did not cause anybody to be killed Period end of story and no he cant be held Liable for Blood thirsty Islam beheading defenseless people. By the way if the democrats think banning burning qurans will stop Americans from exercising our rights then you are living in a dream world.
And one more thing on this topic if it becomes necessary the 2nd Amendment will be employed to defend freedom of speech.

Geert Wilders is back on trial for the mere crime of questioning islam

Why does is the Harvard Gym Allowed to practice gender segregation just to please Muslims i though all segregation was Illegal in the us it guess its all right non muslim students to pay the same price for using the facilities but not having equal access.

Why is Muslim cabbies allowed to ban blind peoples seeing eye guide dogs is this not violet the Americans with Disabilities act.

Lets not forget Former muslims who became Christians and now live under the danger of being killed for doing so leaving Islam is a Capital Crime under islam punishable by death.

Peaceful Islam you say

Islamic cleric says it is permissible to spill blood of Iraqi Christians, and a duty to wage jihad against them

Jihadists "declare war" on France for veil ban

Arkansas jihad murderer confesses to killing Nashville man in a "jihad operation"

Gaza: Jihadi accidentally blows himself up without murdering any Infidels

Democracy on the march: Christians begin to flee Egypt

NY State Senator who held terror hearings gets threatening package: "Instead of bashing the intellectually superior Muslims, shouldn't a handsome, cannibalized crazy, Christian cracker like yourself be in church chomping on Jew-god corpse"

Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

Qur'an:8:12 "I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle."

Ishaq:250 "The bestial transformation occurred when Allah turned Jews into apes, despised."
Qur'an 59:14 "The Jews are devoid of sense. There is a grievous punishment awaiting them. Satan tells them not to believe so they will end up in Hell."
Ishaq:254
Qur'an 2:96 "We will not remove a Jew from the punishment. They know the shameful thing that awaits them."
Qur'an 4:55 "Sufficient for the Jew is the Flaming Fire!"

What Terry Jones did is called "criminally negligent homicide". That's the term when someone disregards the safety of others for their own purposes. It's a misdemeanor. He was aware that Muslims would have this reaction and he did it anyway. Because it happened to people outside of the US, he gets away with it.

Beyond that, your post reads like someone who's never met a Muslim and only knows the bullet points of the Qu'ran that have been fed to them at the local hate group/militia/DAR meeting.

Even the Bible in the hands of Terry Jones has such scripture. Maybe that's what informs his hatred.

Evil Bible Quotes


Anyone who uses religion as an excuse to carry out actions based on ignorance and hate is deserving of censure—at the very least—Terry Jones included.

And for the record, my Muslim friends, neighbours, colleagues, and clients aren't bloodthirsty.

There are over 170,000 Muslims in my city (which, by the way, is virtually on the border with the U.S., in case you're interested). That's a population about the size of Jackson, Mississippi.

---------- Post added at 07:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:27 PM ----------

I'm only partially Francophone. It's you guys who are Francophiles. I know, I know....it's such a sexy language.

What terry Jones did was exercise his right to free speech he did not behead anybody he did not kill anybody and he can not be touched by any foreign power. Well unless you want to fight Americans Armed Americans. you know if you or any liberal would to try to attack terry Jones the 2nd Amendment would come into play. the 2nd Amendment is the Teeth of the other Amendments.

I hate nobody i love freedom and will defend my freedom to dissent by any and all means available.

So you Back Thought Crime Laws

you have no clue About militias accept the CNN/Hollywood Liberals tell you

I'd phile all up on James Franco. Wait.


Oh yeah, in response to Senior USA, I'd just like to point out that Chewbacca is, in fact, a wookie. Therefore, BOOM!

And the second amendment to the Star Wars constitution clearly states that blasters may only be used to kill nonessential personnel.

Free speech isn't an absolute right. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there are limits to it. How about Brandenberg v. Ohio? Pretty much said that you can't threaten to kill people. Which is kinda what you're doing to me, Mr. America, with that handy little 2nd Amendment referrence. Don't think that I didn't catch it.

I can attack Jones all I want. He's a fucking cult leader that's more interested in generating headlines and profits for his church than free speech, human decency or Christianity. I hope he dies in a fire. It will prepare him for what's coming next for him.

How's that for free speech? Don't like it? Oh well. Free speech.

[/free speech]

the USSC Just ruled that the so called baptist church had a right to protest at the funerals of dead soldiers.
tell many how many people have died from mocking Christians or burning the bible. How many Embassies/stores burned down/fatwa's placed on cartoonist for cartoons mocking Christians
I am not threatening anybody just saying that the 2nd Amendment is the teeth of the 1st Amendment. And that Americans will use all tools to defend their right to burn the racist sexist fascist quran. Which says if muslims kill the Infiadal they get 72 virgins.

If you want to talk about threats then what about Muslim protest signs which say behead those who insult islam.

Get this through your Head Americans will do what we want and you will not stop us. the king of england tried to stop Americans from becoming free well you know how that turned out.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin

"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush if that is a true verifiable statement then he is WRONG

I'm fully aware of the WBC case. It was a predictable outcome, honestly. But SCOTUS has always - ALWAYS - erred on the side of protecting human life when it comes to free speech. That's why Holmes had that silly "shouting fire in a crowded theater" doctrine that lasted for 50 years. Which is exactly what Jones did. Oops.

If the 2nd is the teeth of the 1st, then what's the 4th? The asshole? The feet? Obviously the 19th was a liverectomy and the 21st was a brand-new drinkin' liver.

Exactly which protest signs - in the US - are Muslims holding calling for beheadings? Let's see examples. The 1st Amendment doesn't apply outside of US borders, so anything anywhere that's not the US or a territory (Guam, USVI, etc.) doesn't count.

Let's say you find that needle in a haystack. Guess what? They get to say that. They've got a 1st Amendment right to do so. Until it can be shown that another Muslim acted on that speech to perform a beheading, it's allowable. Jones, on the otherhand, willfully ignored warnings that burning the Qu'ran would result in violence. If Americans had been injured, he might be up on charges. He'd certainly be open to civil action.

How many people have died from mocking Christians? Let's consult the Church of Latter Day Saints, shall we? They consider themselves Christian. How'd their time in Illinois work out for them? Oh, that's right, they were masacred by the gooder, better Christians.

There are limits to freedom. There are millions of gays and lesbians who can't get married in the U.S. right at this moment.

They'd have to come to Canada, where it's a little bit freer.

Agreed. Freedom's not an absolute thing. Like my dad always taught me "the freedom to swing your fist ends at the other guy's nose." Seems kind of appropriate here.

and what will muslim Americans do to protect their qurans?

I'm equally amused by the people who've never touched violence who freak out about guns and the Republican stereotype on steroids.

LOL you had to search for that i bet. Gooder is not a WORD.

---------- Post added at 06:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:11 AM ----------

no such thing as that you are either American or not an American
Muslims need be American Firsts before being Muslim the quran.

Americans have the right to burn the quran Period you have no right to stop them. Just like some Americans have the right to make cross/Jesus themed vibrators or Liberal Hollywood movies have the right to mock Jesus and nothing is said and if something is said then the person is considered a evil right wing moralist
people burn the bible all the time and nobody is beheaded and no liberal cartoonist or comedians are killed for mocking christians

in the end if you want to ban burning the quran your banning DISSENT of a oppressive racist sexist book of lies

The Mormons were capable of killing other non-gooder Christians too. The Mountain Meadows massacre in 1857 took nearly 160 lives.

Who's freaking out?

There is no such thing as Christian Americans then? And there is no law requiring Muslims to be Americans first and Muslims second, so fuck that idea. I thought America was a free country. Are you suggesting that the First and Fourteenth Amendments don't apply because they're Muslim? I don't think so. Freedom is freedom. What you're suggesting is nationalistic bullshit. If they want to consider themselves Muslims first, then they have the right to do so, and there is nothing you can do or say to stop them, and all the power to them. They should be proud of who they are, and not live in fear of those who would oppress them and their faith.

Their rights end where they hit the law of the land. Period. They can be stopped from performing any action that is in violation of the law. No one is above the law. It's called the rule of law. America is governed by laws, not people.

False equivalence. Muslims look at the Quran and the image of Mohammed in a different light than Christians do the Bible and Christian imagery. So, no, it's not "just like".... Americans may have the right to do these things (so long as no law is broken), but it's not the same thing.

Well, I want the Bible banned from public education. I don't think public money should be spent on religious texts used for religious purposes. Separation of church and state. The only exception would be the Bible (and other religious texts) made available to teach the Christian myth and the mythological value of Christ from a cultural perspective.

As for banning the burning of the Quran, it's a difficult issue. Such an action causes measurable distress in a potentially global manner. The burning of the Quran isn't a reasoned criticism of what's written in it. It's a destructive act and a political message with the potential to incite people to violence. Knowing that fact makes this more than dissent. It's an invitation to violence and an intent to cause distress, and it's intentional. You'd have to be pretty ignorant to not understand how Muslims view the word of their god. And this isn't merely a question of freedom, as there are other bans that are in place for other reasons. For example, there is a ban on public drinking and nudity, etc. Would you consider drunken public nudity a matter of dissent?

And out of curiosity: Have you read the Quran? Have you read the Bible?

Look it up? Nope. You obviously haven't bothered to read any of my other drivel here. That's pretty much off the top of my head.

As for "gooder", well, look up. See that think zooming along, way, way up there? That's the point, moving at Mach 3 at 60,000 feet above your head.

You don't have the right to burn the American flag if it's going to cause a riot. If it won't you do. Pretty simple. Even you should be able to understand that.

Look at you, talking all faggy when your shit's all retarded. Supportin your bullshit arguments with your complete sentences and grammar. More like "gay-more".

Forget it, Donny, you're out of your element!

you still have not shown any time Christians have beheaded people for mocking Jesus and the bible. Mormans are not Christian they worship Idols not Jesus. Exercising free speech does not cause riots. that is just some lame attempt to stifle dissent. Americans have every right to burn the quran and if you do not like it then go where women are buried up to their necks and stoned to death. this idea that if Americans give up our freedoms islam will just leave us along is the dumbest idea i have every heard. i would burn a quran in your face and you could not do a damn thing about.

You might research the Crusades and the Inquisition. You might find out Christians were not such nice people after all.

So you think Mormons or "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" doesn't believe in Jesus Christ?

What's the point of posting a quote of someone's post? If you have something to add then do so, if you don't then there's little point of making such a post.

You might research the Crusades and the Inquisition. You might find out Christians were not such nice people after all.

the crusades were in response to the aggression of Islam.

Mormons believe in John Smith not Jesus Christ

No. LDS do in fact believe and worship Jesus. The fact that they believe in the teachings of John Smith or anyone else does not prove they do not believe in Christ. That's like saying Catholic don't believe in Jesus because they believe in the Pope.

You really hate being wrong, don't you. Hate, hate, hate it. Almost as much as you hate anyone who doesn't believe what you believe.

How's that working out for you?

Anywho, beheading: how's about, oh, the Reformation. You know, when Catholics would behead entire cities of Protestants? Or vice versa? Or just save themselves the trouble and heard them all in a church and set it on fire?

Or we could talk about how Russian pogroms, but I'm sure that Orthodox Christians just aren't the right kind of Christians for your way of thinking. Exactly who's acceptable in this debate? Apparently since the Mormons aren't (even though they think they are), you're going to have to let me know who's in and who's out.

Exercising free speech occassionally does, in fact, cause riots. That's why you can't tell a mob of folks "Let's go kill all the Jews/Frankensteins/liberals/newbie idiots on message boards!" The state has a responsibility to keep you from causing harm to other citizens. It's a balancing act, one that you're apparently unfamiliar with.

Americans have the right to burn the Qu'ran up to the point that it's going to cause someone else harm. Sorry if you can't figure that out. I know! I'm going to burn a stack of Bibles! Bibles wrapped in American flags! And stacked on top of copies The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence! And I'll do it while dressed as Benedict Arnold! What do you think about that?

If that's going to cause a riot, I can't do it. Pretty simple. You should be able to understand that, right?

You're right about one thing - I wouldn't give a damn if you burned a Qu'ran in my face. I'd think you were being a complete idiot, and possibly a firebug, but I wouldn't really care. But that's not the point now, is it?

"But mom he started it!"

Actually, the Crusades were in response to anything deemed not the true Christian faith in the eyes of the Holy Roman Empire. This led to campaigns against people other than Muslims as well. It was about reclaiming and securing the Holy Land to stabilize and disseminate the Christian myth.

In a way, it's related to the Islamofascism of today, which is a response to modernity and Western cultural hegemony: anything deemed not to be the true Islamic faith.

Papists are decadent and Proddies are deviants. What's your point? There is no one "authentic" denomination of Christianity, unless you consider the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. All others are imposters and poseurs.

---------- Post added at 02:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:58 PM ----------

I don't get this. How does the lack of murderous Christians in any way make it okay to burn Qurans?

And as Jazz points out, yes, free speech can and does incite violence or cause danger. That's why the right to free speech is no absolute.

And do you know what I think is a dumb idea? Burning Qurans as a means of dissent or criticism of Islam. What does it accomplish other than make right-wing/fundamentalist/extremist Muslims react in anger and violence? It's like pushing a button. It's dumb and unethical. It's un-American and un-Christian. As an atheistic humanist, I find it a deplorable act that ranks up there with Holocaust denial and calls to violence against particular groups. This is because it has a direct impact with very real consequences. If you can't see that, then you are either turning a blind eye or have no concept of cause and effect. You have little capacity for compassion and those who could be hurt either physically or emotionally from such an act.

There is no Christian equivalent. Like I said, burning the "Word of God" to Muslims is a dire thing that Christians don't understand. This is no excuse for violence, but if you know it can set violent people off, then why do it? Would Jesus do it? Buddha wouldn't do it.

Jesus Christ, did you even read the script?

you can burn all the bibles you want you can burn the American flag if you want and nobody will be beheaded. No Christians will fly planes into the muslim twin towers.
I hate nobody and you claiming i does not change that fact burning the quran is about protesting the treatment of Women/Minorities under islam and muslim countries.

Way to change your tune. You're now concerned about women and minorities in Muslim countries?

Let's review the whargarble up to this point:


I'm pretty sure you don't know what makes a facist. Or how facism is different than Marxism. Or what a corporatist is. Which means that you're using words that you don't understand.

Terry Jones is a cult leader. He's got a church set up with a for-profit business housed inside that he owns. All church members work for that business. He doesn't allow them to talk to non-church members. Does he have a right to say what he wants and worship how he wants? Sure. Right up to the point where he causes other folks harm. Which he did.

If Terry Jones is a hero, I'd like to introduce you to a guy named Jim Jones.

You know who was also responsible? The crazy imam in Afganistan that goaded all of his followers into the riot. Is Terry Jones 100% responsible? Of course not. But does he bear some of the blame. Oh hells yeah.

Replace "American" with "Nazi" and "Muslim" with "Jewish" and you got yourself a good old fashioned Holocaust there, son! Woowhee! Just like Grampy did with the rest of the Hitler Youth! Let's round 'em all up and send 'em up the chimbley!

What the fuck does a Dutch politician who's a closet Zionist have to do with anything?

Harvard's a private university. Therefore they can schedule their gym sessions however they wish. Newflash - the University of Michigan does the exact same thing!

Yeah, Muslim cabbies aren't allowed to do that in any city I know of. They aren't in Chicago, New York, Minneapolis or Washington DC. I checked. So try again.

This one's my favorite. Because it's so obviously and clearly wrong that it become pure comedy gold. Mrs. Palin self-identifies as a Republican and consistently speak about Republican issues within the party, specifically with what's become the Tea Party Wing of the party.
I like you longliveusa. You're such a poor example of Conservative America that it's a joy to see what misguided crap you're going to post next.

Try to stay focused. The point isn't whether burning Bibles or American flags will have the same response. I'm sure we could cancel American Idol too, and no tasteless American teenage girls will fly planes into twin American network buildings.

If you think that burning the Quran is going to accomplish anything or advance any progress towards how women or minorities are treated in Muslim countries, you have no idea what you're talking about. If you sincerely cared about women's rights and minorities rights in these nations, instead of supporting the ignorance of a book burning, you would instead support the idea of the liberalization of Islam. Do you know what that entails? Here's a hint: there's no fire involved and it includes actually reading the Quran.

You are more interested in fighting Islam than you are in supporting women and minorities. The fact of the matter is there are millions of women around the world who are proud Muslims and will not give up their faith, nor should they.

So the next time you want to protest for women's rights or the rights of minorities, try doing something relevant instead of attacking the faith of Muslims. Do you support the Muslim women in your community? Do you support the Muslim minorities in your community? Or would you rather burn their Quran?

What the fuck does a Dutch politician who's a closet Zionist have to do with anything?
Geert Widers is a Liberal Democrat. you keep proving my point for me why Americans will continue to burn the quran weather you democrats like it or not.
Here's your peacehful Islam
PAKISTAN Punjab, Muslims attack a Christian village - Asia News
UZBEKISTAN Tashkent, punishes those who lend or gift Bibles to children - Asia News
Illinois girl who ran from arranged marriage could become victim of honour killing | Mail Online
Rebels kill woman candidate in India Kashmir polls - Times LIVE
Russia: Moscow Patriarchate Official Says Muslim Crescents Could Be Put On Coats Of Arms In Muslim Regions Eurasia Review

Really? You must be talking about a complete different Geert Wilders than I am. Because the one I'm talking about is a part of the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands. He considers himself a "right-wing liberal". Liberal Democrat? If you're using American terms, you're using them wrong.

Really, keep going. Because all you're managing to do here is dig yourself a deep hole.

I like how you assume that I'm an American Democrat. Because that assumption is pretty stupid as well as wrong. But go ahead with that and see how it works out for you.

As for your links, do I really have to go dig up accounts of riots in Christian countries. Because I can do that if need be. We can talk about how the kids at Michigan State like to set couches on fire after big wins and bang heads with the cops. They're predominantly Christians. Or we can talk about how Christians rape and imprison their daughters - not too many Muslims getting caught doing that. Hey, how about all those Detroit Christians that used to set their city on fire the night before Halloween?

Using anecdotal evidence to prove your point isn't going to do much for your cause.

Let's not forget the people who are the original subject of this thread: the militias, which, more likely than not, are conservative Christians. The more fringe of these are the ones who would do violence upon their own country via the red-baiting of democratically elected politicians and their policies. They are the ones calling liberal policies "socialist," despite the fact that similar policies are what made America great in the first place.

These people are a much closer threat to America than some Third World Muslim groups seething over American hegemony.

The paranoia of these militant groups in America who think that Islam and liberalism are the devil aren't so steeped in peaceful means either. But I give them credit for at least not acting out---yet, anyway. But this, after all, is the topic of the thread.

Will right-wing militia nutjobs lose their nut if Obama gets re-elected and continues Democratic government? What is the future of liberalism in a nation becoming more hostile to the idea of centrism?

More lies to cover up for Radical Islam and socialism you cant even prove what you say.
As Christians do not rape women. Islam counts women 5th class citizens and in muslim countries it takes the testimony of 2 Males to prove rape. No Christians i know of burn cities before Halloween. Can you tell me why Nadal Hasan the Muslim who shouted allah ak bar and gunned down 14 American troops at fort Hood is still alive and getting Tax payer dollars and why has obama not avenged the death of 2 USAF personal gunned down by a German Muslim who shouted allah akbar after watching a Antiwar movie made by a liberal which slanders us troops like the democrat leader Murtha who said US marines raped girls in Iraq
the Militias are the ones who freed America from England the kkk is not considered a Militia. Rugged Individualist made America great not socialism. the American president is elected by the electoral college. their is no such thing as the right wing that is a racist slanderous term cooked up by Hillary Clinton to silence dissent during bill Clinton term.
America is not a democracy America is a Constitutional Republic. a democracy is 2 wolves fighting over one lamb a republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote

Christians don't rape women? Oh, that's right, Catholic priests only rape little kids. Gotcha.

Oh wait, I don't have an axe to grind against the Catholics. Scratch that - evangelical preachers are just deeply closeted homosexuals that like to get it on with male prostitutes.

Scratch that too - I don't have an axe to grind against homosexuals either. Here we go - evangelical preachers only rape their office assistants who later go on to pose in Playboy.

Google "devil's night detroit" and count the Christians holding matches.

Hasan is obviously mentally ill. If you bothered to read the Army's report (which you clearly haven't), that's what the top brass got flayed over - failing to realize that they had a mentally ill guy on their hands that was becomig radicalized.

And exactly how should Obama "avenge" those deaths? Bomb Germany? We tried that already. You'd just bitch about the Marshall Plan afterwards, though.

The Militias didn't free the US from England. You missed your history classes. It was called the Continental Army and they were a professional fighting force made up of former militiamen.

Must you keep posting facts here? It's much more comical in this thread without them.

I don't know if "statist" is the right term for the antithesis of individualist in this context. I'd be more comfortable with something a bit more general, like collectivist.

Count the number of links that people have been using in their arguments as proof. Also, socialism is an economic, not a political strategy. It has very little to do with legislation.

Ok dude, I'm a Christian too and as much as i hate to say it, and as much as rapists give good Christians a really bad name, it DOES happen, not even counting unordained folk, how many priests have committed rape?
If you want to seem credible, please use proper English. I think the word you were looking for is "personnel".

If you want to sound like a patriotic American (instead of an anarchist which is the picture you're slowly starting to paint for me), please use the proper title when referring to President Obama. You may not like him, but you are an American, and he is your president. If it bothers you too much to follow proper decorum when referring to someone in office (would you call a judge "dude"?) then kindly leave. They are civil servants who are keeping what is best for the country as a whole in mind.

Since we're no longer under imperial rule, we don't need militias anymore. Thankfully, there are people who are willing to put themselves in harm's way for your sake, being led by people much more socially aware and intelligent than you or I. The KKK isn't considered a militia (lowercase "m") because although they do have their marches, they are done peacefully and with the exceptions of a few in the group, they remain nonviolent.
Disregarding BG's imminent heart attack at the sight of this (mis)use of language and punctuation. How did "Rugged Individualist made America great not socialism?" Who do you think makes up the electoral college? Elected representatives. "The right wing" is not a race, and its not slanderous, its a symbol for where one lies on the political spectrum. America is a democratic republic; I think if you crack an American Government textbook or two you'll find that they'll agree.

(if you find political slant in the dictionary, then you are literally too dumb to argue with)
Democracy: Democracy | Define Democracy at Dictionary.com

Republic: Republic | Define Republic at Dictionary.com

Nothing to do with weapons, lions, or lambs (oh my!). Please start making sense. I want to reach the point where i can say "Well longliveusa, I understand and respect your opinion, but i disagree." That way we can both go our separate ways smarter than we were before.

---------- Post added at 04:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:40 PM ----------

Plus fucking one!

Militias Did Free America from the king of England, Obama is not my president i do not have to respect him i my respect is for the office not obama. Hasan was not mentally ill he was a part of a Muslim terrorist command group whos mission was to commit acts of terrorist in the name of Islam. He Shouted Allah Akbar and Mowed down 14 American Patriots who Western Superior Civilization. Hassan Is worshiped as a hero by Islam. the Muslim in Germany killed 2 USAF personal after watching a liberal antiwar film which slandered Us troops. Catholic Priest that molested kids should be in jail they are not Christians. devils night was not committed by any Christians i know. Obama is not respecting the constitution why should respect him??? Obama has backed gun control all of his life. Obama wanted to keep the racist sexist fascist Clinton gun ban in place. Obama and holder back gun registration which is illegal and unconstitutional. Obama surrendered to Russia and give them everything they wanted and rushed the new start arms treaty through during a lame duck session which has never been done before with the Russians not giving anything at all. Also Russia now has a say in how America deploys any anti missile defenses. Obama has betrayed our only real friend in the Mideast aka Israel. America is a Constitutional Republic not a democracy run by mob rule where the government is my servant or that is how its supposed to be. their is no such thing as the right wing. that myth was started during the clintion admin by hillary clintion.
Militias are here to stay and there is not a damn thing you can do to stop them. If you do not back Militias then you do not back the 2nd Amendment which is treason!!!!!

Thanks for pointing this out. I don't know why longliveusa made it sound like democracy isn't a part of the American political system. It's an important feature.

Why? Should I read the script? Did I miss something?

I'm terribly sorry that i can't have an intelligent conversation with you longliveusa. Believe that you have won this argument if you want because I'm not going to argue with an irrational person anymore. I hope one day you look back at this thread and see what everyone else sees.

---------- Post added at 06:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:24 PM ----------

If you cant recite the script to The Movie without any variations what was originally written, you don't deserve to mention The Movie in the presence of TFP! (please please note the sarcasm)

"Big Lebowski" Script

The United States of America has a president and his name is Barack Hussein Obama. Say it with me: His name....is Barack Hussein Obama. His name....is Barack Hussein Obama. You don't have to respect him, but he is your president.

So wait. Christians who do wrong aren't Christians, but Muslims who do wrong are still Muslims? You can't pick and choose who is who. You can't suggest a whole faith is wrong for one thing, but another faith is fine despite another. It's called moral selectivism or favortism, and it doesn't make any sense.

[quote]Obama is not respecting the constitution why should respect him??? Obama has backed gun control all of his life. Obama wanted to keep the racist sexist fascist Clinton gun ban in place. Obama and holder back gun registration which is illegal and unconstitutional.

Um, the treaty with Russia is to ensure that America maintains rights to inspect Russia's nuclear arsenal, while simultaneously participating in a sensible reduction of nuclear arms. That isn't "surrendering"; it's a matter of national security. What are you worried about? The Soviets?

If you're talking about Obama criticizing Israeli settlement plan, then I disagree. While it's easy to see criticism of unethical practices of Israel as a "betrayal" or antisemitic, it's not. News flash: Palestinians are humans too.

Wow. I don't know where to begin. Your constitutional republic has essential and unalienable democratic elements, most prominent being representational and accountable government. Do you vote for representatives of government? Are they responsible to you as a constituent? That's democracy, man. Gotta love it. What the constitutional republic thing does is ensure that America is ruled by laws and not people. It is the people that make things work though.

And there is no such thing as the right wing? What's that supposed to mean? America is filled with socialists and liberals? There's no such thing as conservatives? Give me a break. America is governed by centrists and right-wingers. It's more accurate to say there is no such thing as the left wing, at least no in government. If you want to see left-wing governance, you need to look outside America. American left wingers are kept out of office en masse and are regulated to the fringe. Even those left wingers who are high profile have the disadvantage of not being able to vote for left wing politicians because there aren't any who can win office.

But you need only look north of the border to see social democrats in office in Canada. I vote for social democrats in both provincial and federal elections, and I will continue to do so in the future. Unlike the U.S., Canada has a healthy multiparty system with both a left and a right wing. America flies in circles with two right wings.

No one is taking away your guns, so settle down. And despite what you might thing, militias are just as beholden to the laws of the land as politicians are. No one is above the law. If right-wing militias refuse to accept a democratically elected Democratic government, then they have little recourse inside the law.

Of course, they might use the Constitution as an excuse, which is shameful and abusive, not to mention selective. I find many right wingers enshrine the First and Second but downplay or corrupt other amendments. Which is odd. Either respect the Constitution in its entirety or you don't respect it enough.

---------- Post added at 08:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:43 PM ----------

"Big Lebowski" Script

Sorry, did I mispunctuate?

democracy is mob rule which has no place in a free country. Calling me irrational is just a way of attacking my freedom of speech. you are no conservative you are a liberal democrat. but in the end the Tea Party the real conservatives will defeated the liberal democrats/muslims and socialist. God bless America/Israel/Japan and Superior Western Civilization.

Wow. Just wow. If America had no democracy at all, you know what it would have? Meritocracy, autocracy, or plutocracy, or something in place of everyday Americans going to the polls and selecting their leaders by ballot. Leaders that are beholden to them as representatives in government accountable to them as voters. That's a democratic feature of your government.

And pointing out how you're being irrational isn't attacking your freedom of speech. At all. You're free to be irrational all you want. It's a conservative idea that criticism of what people say is an attack on free speech. Well, you can't defend free speech and in the same breath denounce criticism. Either you support free speech or you don't. You can't pick and choose what one is free to say, this includes criticism of irrational thought. Sometimes it's difficult to accept the truth if it challenges your ideologies. Such is life.

And what the hell is "God bless America/Israel/Japan and Superior Western Civilization"? Superior Western Civilization sounds mighty jingoistic. Are you one of those supporters of the idea of American exceptionalism? Well, here's a news flash: American exceptionalism is a fantasy. In a highly globalized world, such an idea is old and regressive. America can no longer be exceptional when you have the likes of China and the other BRIC nations, in addition to the EU, playing a progressively larger role in the global geopolitical stage. American exceptionalism is a outmoded, 20th century, conservative dream. Get over it. Wake up. By the time you do, China with be the world's largest and most influential economic power. It's not a matter of "if"; it's a matter of "when."

But what if they don't? This is, in part, the issue of this thread. Do you mean "defeat" as in defeat at the polls? What if Obama is re-elected? Will Tea Partiers simply roll with that until the next election? Or do you mean "defeat" in another way? (Because I don't know how Tea Partiers will defeat Muslims or socialists at the polls.)

longliveusa, we have a rule against trolling here. That means that if you posting just to get a rise out of folks, we don't allow it. It wasn't until that last post that it even crept into my mind, but it really looks like you're just trying to get some sort of reaction, because you really aren't putting any thought into your posts (at least in an obvious way), and it now appears that you're simply trying to start a flame war.

When you behave irrationally, we're allowed to point that out. Your posts ignore fact and appear irrational. I've actually got the power (as does Baraka Guru) to remove your freedom of speech from this site with ZERO repercussions to either of us or the site in general. That we haven't pretty much proves that no one has "attacked" your freedom of speech. You're just using that freedom to post what appears to be either nonsense, trolling or spittle-flinging rants.

Actually, I like Baraka's reponse a lot better than this one, but I guess someone's got to point out that there are limits to your freedom of speech here. Start spamming us or flaming folks, and you'll find that no website is beholden to the freedom of speech so long as it isn't a .gov.

:thumbsup:

---------- Post added at 07:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:13 PM ----------

Woah woah woah... slow your roll son (or older version of that phrase). considering china's declining female population, i give it 20 years or so until their population hits a huge roadblock in terms of having enough women to maintain their numbers at which point they'll have Detroit syndrome with enough places to work, but not enough people to fully occupy the potential Economy Death Star

Um...in 20 years, China will likely be the number one economy. Regardless, I sincerely doubt they are going to have a population problem (i.e. growth problem) within that time frame. With respect to population and economics, 20 years is "around the corner," not "down the road."

i'll start my argument in a different thread. i dont want to threadjack this amazing specimen of free speech squashing mixed with facist, racist, marxist, sierra mist treasure trove of intellectual discourse

Guru & Jazz, I appalled your energy, shame it won't do any good in this argument. Some people just have their own world of logic, which they don't care to change :/

Maybe freaking out was the wrong phrase. I was referring to the first few pages of the thread, where a few rounds of firearms misunderstanding were passed around a group, similar to pre-teen boys talking about girls in a middle school locker room.

Although you did seem to be freaking out a little over the gun buying spree after Obama was elected. As a survivor of the 2009 run on guns, I can tell you that there wasn't a rush to stockpile to start a 2nd (or 3rd, depending on your approach to history) US Civil War. The White House website plainly stated that Obama & Holder were going to push for another Assault Weapons Ban, which outlawed certain guns based on cosmetic features. Many new companies sprung up manufacturing AR lowers so that sportsman wouldn't be left with the lame restrictions if such a law passed, and all of them were backordered. It was a rush to get guns and ammo that would be "grandfathered" if the 94 AWB were reinstated. People were getting carry permits for the same reason, for fear that they wouldn't be able to later if they didn't immediately. Much of the fear was fueled by internet rumor, and every gun store clerk loved telling people to "Get it before the ban passes." Empty shelves drove the buying panic even further.

Gun stores were crowded beyond belief, and the people buying were of all different political affiliations, including people who voted for Obama for one reason or another. I talked to people and overheard still more. Most of the guns being sold were small defensive weapons; no one could keep .380 or .32 in stock, even the places that were selling the pocket pistols in troves. Rifle ammo was much easier to find than the little calibers, but ammo was so hard to find overall that I would buy whatever I saw in the store so I could trade it with my buddies for some other caliber that I used.

It wasn't a bunch of middle aged Conservative white dudes buying bullets, crosses and kerosene for their next rally, it was people from all walks of life who were scared that they wouldn't be able to defend themselves and their loved ones during a national financial crisis when the politicians in power were talking about banning guns. I rubbed elbows with black female single parents, elderly retired couples, newlyweds, and all kinds of other people. If you had been there you would have seen it too.

I disagree. I love my country, but I'm not going to kick the shit out of someone for burning the flag. Even if I did, I'm still responsible for my own actions. Religious freedom doesn't mean that every religion is free from being offended by other people's beliefs or behavior. Plus, I'm not close to many Muslims, but in my experience they've all been rational human beings, not emotionally impulsive cartoon characters.

Damn you, citadel, for bringing a calm, rational conservative voice to this thread! I demand more whargarble!

wow.. i only just clocked into this thread..

usually i dont click on threads with american politics..anything with the words, conservatives, republicans and tea party have me steering away from the thread. it wasnt until today that i opened this thread up.

and i'll be damned.

longliveusa, your knowledge of islam is nonsense. you really do need to READ the Quran instead of taking information from televangelists. the least that will do is not make you look like a total ass in here.

just for your information, the 72 virgins that you do refer to and not mentioned in the Quran. Not once. Surprised? im sure a lot of people are. because not many people like yourself bother to read the Quran. id also note that the '72' virgins are not only reserved for 'martyrs', but for everyone. I think you need to do a little bit more reading bud.


a quick search on wiki just to prove my point

i could go on and pull out a heaps of mistakes that longlive has mentioned, but then, whats the use?

im enjoying this read... pass the popcorn please

With all due respect, this is Tilted Paranoia, and I reserve the right to fulfill the expectation of playing up some of my baser emotions on a variety of subjects. But I do appreciate your reasoned response. It's important to keep in mind, however, that as a Canadian, the idea of stockpiling arms is foreign to me. We don't don't have a long history of violence like Americans do. We have no declaration of independence, revolution, or ensuing constitution; we simply have the Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982, during the time of Queens Victoria and Elizabeth, respectively. We had no civil war; only a few rebellions predating the formation of the country and a few problems with a guy named Louis Riel. Distrust of government isn't a national pastime; ridicule of government is. Violence isn't an expectation on all levels of society; it's an aberration.

Despite what you might have been told, Canadians are quite different from Americans, especially when you look at core values. Sociologically, we're quite different as well. And, of course, you get the geographic differences, being both our nations are so large.

Anyway, my point is that when I see news articles south of the border that describe a fevered market activity with regard to stockpiling weapons and ammunition---and in response to the first black president being elected, and in the aftermath of a two-term neocon president, and in a post-9/11 America---I don't see that as a regular part of the news cycle. I understand that owning guns is normalized for Americans, and that all walks of life own them, but I was more concerned about the more extreme and fringe set who were not only stocking up; they were spewing rhetoric that was a bit more of a concern when you value a reasonable and stable society.

This isn't a direct response to what you quoted of me. You're shifting into a comparison to burning the flag and your own response. You're also shifting to what religious freedom means instead of looking at the most important issue of burning Qurans: it's not a reasoned criticism; it's inciting a response. The burning of books is never about criticism; it's an objection, an outright disapproval. The act of burning a book suggests that something isn't worthy of existing and should be destroyed. The act of burning a book symbolizes what should be done to the very ideas contained therein.

If someone wants to criticize Islam, they should read the damn thing, not burn it. It's my belief that any American who chooses to burn the Quran has little value for the idea of freedom of religion, because if they truly believed in the freedom of religion, they wouldn't be burning the holy book of other religions. If Christians have a problem with the most fringe groups of Islam, then deal with the problems: oh, I don't know....work towards liberating and educating their girls and women; work towards finding ways to prevent the alienation and radicalization of young men, etc.

If you have a problem with violent Islamofascism, I think the last thing you should be doing is burning the Quran. The only thing that says to me (and I'm no a Muslim) is, "I hate your religion; I wish to destroy it." That's not a reasoned criticism.

I know, right?! Tilted Paranoia; holy fuck!

I can't tell if you guys know you're being trolled and are just playing along for the fun of it? If so; well done.

-------
SS Edmund Fitzgerald - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good Friday Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or a President. Seriously, what kind of half-assed country doesn't have a President (except for 1939 Germany)? Who do you even turn to to provide beer and act as a mediator for dickish college professors and overzealous cops?

All you need is Tina Turner and Canadia will be a full-on Barter Town.

By not having a President or an elected Upper House, the Canadian Prime Minister, when he or she has a majority government, is the most powerful leader in the Western world within the Canadian border. There is very little reason to think that any Canadian government would change this.

The Right Honourable Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien, PC, OM, CC, QC was the greatest tyrant in the history of North America. He is rivaled only by his spiritual and political predecessor, The Right Honourable Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, CC, CH, PC, QC, FSRC.

Muslims hate overalls and cowboy hats!

I held back at first because of longliveusa's nails on a chalkboard posts. I kinda sorta agree with him on a few basic Constitutional ideals, but...ugh, I don't want to be associated with that. The deep end isn't deep enough for his tastes.

Fair enough.

For whatever it's worth, I don't think most Americans were stockpiling arms in the sense we're discussing. I know a few people who bought dozens of EBR's ("Evil Black Rifles," guns that have been demonized by the media but that are less powerful than the common hunting rifle) because they anticipated a ban coming, and with the lessons learned during the ban in effect from 1994-2004 they knew that they could sell them for a lot more than they paid for them if a ban passed, and because they knew that if there was a chance they wanted something now, they should get it while they still could. When the government and everyone else is talking about a ban, internet rumor and panic hit.

My friends and I bought a whole bunch of ammo at the time because we shoot. The shelves everywhere were empty, stores were setting limits on the number of boxes they'd sell to a customer in a given day, every website was backordered, sold out, or not taking orders. One friend of mine flirted it up with the ammo clerk at a local WalMart and she'd call him to tell him when a shipment was coming in; we'd show up with a bunch of people and buy everything we could. It probably sounds extreme to an outsider, "What do you need all that ammo for!?!" But a typical day at the range for me is firing 200-300 rounds of ammo. If every store is sold out, and when they have stock they're refusing to sell you more than 2-6 boxes of 50 at a time, you have to get creative. Everyone was bartering, I didn't even own a .380 at the time but I bought every box of it that I could because I knew I could trade it for whatever caliber I wanted. .32 and .25 were hard to find as well but not as desirable, I think it's because the market had just been flooded with the Ruger LCP, Diamondback, and the well known KelTec P3AT, which are all pocket sized .380's popular with the concealed carry crowd.

I had to take fewer trips to the range because even if you had ammo, there was a very real concern that you wouldn't be able to get more, whether because of a ban or because everyone else was panic buying. Ammo companies began tripling their output, running 24x7x365 and they still couldn't keep up with the demand. Quality control suffered because of it, they were putting out bad product, and people still bought every single box they made.

Police departments couldn't qualify their officers because they couldn't find ammo, other departments were buying huge numbers of it. Competition shooters who easily shoot 10,000 rounds a month were getting what they could to keep from losing their competitive edge. The wars in the Middle East were obviously creating some ammo demand, plus ammo components like brass and copper were through the roof pricewise (remember all the news stories about copper thefts at the time?). It created a perfect storm in the market, that was compounded by many thousands deciding that they just wanted to get into the sport before they lost their chance.

What's also interesting is that most places saw record numbers of people applying for concealed carry permits, there was a backlog everywhere. If people are looking to start a revolution, turning in firearms related paperwork with your name, address, picture and fingerprints probably isn't the best way to prepare. :paranoid: Unemployment was shooting up, big banks were on the brink, and police departments were laying off cops. There was a greater percieved danger by many of crime or of a loss of their gun rights.

A few loose screws were talking about revolution, but almost everyone I knew and talked to in that timeframe was basically realizing that if they didn't have it in their hands imediately, there was no guarantee that they would be able to have it in the future.

While I agree that America has a problem with violent crime, a lot of what's reported is spin, the result of skewed statistics, especially when it comes to the # of firearms deaths. That's veering off topic, but I think it's worth mentioning.

I didn't vote for Obama, but I don't think for a second McCain-Palin would have been anything more than a few degrees better for the nation's overall well being. I can honestly say his skin color, race, religious beliefs or whatever else are irrelevant to me as a voter; the only thing I want to see is the government abiding by the rules laid out for it in the Constitution (yes, the whole thing, not cherry picked things I like), and nowadays, stopping the snowballing national debt before we collapse financially.

But the American media, which is left wing/centrist to me, did a great job of incorrectly reporting the run on guns and ammo. By the time they got around to reporting it, it was old news. They also mocked most gun owners for thinking that some kind of a ban was coming, because in their 6-8 month delay to report on the situation, the info about it was taken down off of the White House site. They reported some of the NICS numbers (the background check system used when you buy a gun from a store in the US), but they really didn't get the whole picture. They missed other important details, like how long term storage food supply sellers were also sold out, especially after stories hit about the food crisis in Detroit.

I think most of the people were afraid of civil unrest, of the loss of a stable society. People were preparing for the worst while hoping for the best. I traded hard to find ammo with Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, die hard Obama/McCain/Paul fans, and a few grumpy "I don't care about politics" type folks. I bought AR-15 parts from cops and soldiers, stood in line to buy handguns behind bleeding heart liberal college students and overweight housewives. I found it somewhat funny to see so many cars parked in gun store parking lots and at gunshows with bumper stickers for longtime anti-gun politicians. Some of the loudmouths were rightwingnuts, and the news tried hard to paint it as one sided, but it was old news by the time the Wall Street Journal squeaked out a story full of blatant lies and mistruths.

Fear and Greed Have Sales of Guns and Ammo Shooting Up - WSJ.com

The militia movement had it's peak in the early mid 1990's with common law courts and the various standoffs with FBI & ATF. The guys who are a part of them are robbers, rapists, thieves, and murderers, they're not much different from any other violent gang out there. But while I have met a tiny number of racist, anti government gun owners in my time submerged in the gun community (who I veer away from, I might add), I haven't heard anything other than rumors about the kind of militias we'd hear about 15-20 years ago. I think most of the talk is from people on the left trying to villify people on the right as violent extremists who use guns to fight the government, in the same way that folks on the right villify people on the left as socialist/communist extremists who use the governments guns to take their money to run indoctrinating social programs.

I still disagree with you on the part about inciting a response. There is nothing violent about burning a book. It displays ignorance and is a throwback to Guy Montag or that rally with Hitler I saw in an Indiana Jones movie, but there's nothing physically dangerous or threatening about it. No rational human is going to be spurred to violence because of a moron with a lighter, no matter which side of the equation they're on. If I burn a book it says pretty loudly that I'm an asshole, and probably full of some strong bias, prejudice or hate. But it shouldn't say that people who read whichever sacred text is being burned should turn their deep offense into a riot or attack of somekind.

Religious freedom isn't limited to reasoned criticism. Many athiests probably think that monothiests or even polythiests aren't capable of reason when it comes to religious disagreement, and vice versa. From an emotionally detached religious freedom point of view, I see no difference between the WBC anti-homosexual protests, pro-gay marriage rallies, Muslim extremists burning the US flag, or Christian extremists burning the Quran. They are people expressing their religious views (to some extent, I realize there are a few hairs worth splitting here depending on your own religious views) of one kind or another, that other people may find extremely offensive, who would be disturbed to their very core by the behavior. Still, a big part of religious freedom means allowing other people to do things in the name of their whacky religion that might piss you off.

All that changes when there is an immediate, direct threat of some kind, but I don't see that in book burning by itself.

I agree 100%.

Doesn't that just make them the most powerful leader in...Canada? :p

I think you missed the point.

The President of the USA has power but many checks on that power. This is true of most Western leaders. There are few strong checks on the power of a Canadian PM in a majority government. He or she can enact the laws and budgets that he or she wishes to.

This isn't to say the PM can go beyond the law, there is a Supreme Court and a constitution but withing these constraints pretty much anything is possible. The US President doesn't have even close to this sort of power in the US.

I didn't know that about Canada before you posted it, but I think you missed the jocular nature of my observation. :)

Oh, I'm sure it was exaggerated by the media, but I'm not concerned about the average American. This thread was always about that subset of the militia folk who really think that the government is out to get them, that socialism is coming, and the liberals are destroying freedom, etc.

And the subset to that subset I mentioned above is what worry me the most. Those who are "getting ready" for "when the shit hits the fan" and the shit is going to hit the fan, and they're going to be ready. It's this subset of the subset who've "had enough" and "aren't going to take it anymore" and must "fight and die for freedom or freedom itself will die...." Blah, blah, blah. I know this is a minority, but it sounds like an ignorant and readily violent minority. And, hey, this is Tilted Paranoia. Can I not entertain the idea of pockets of people around the country who are ready to band together and do something stupid?

And what would it take to set something bigger off? Play on others' fears and frustrations? Are there powder kegs to these nutjobs' fuses?

You say America "has a problem"; I say it's an epidemic. Just looking at the stats, it's appalling. I don't watch American local news, which is where you'll find the biggest spin and sensationalized responses. There is nothing (or very little anyway) popping up on this Canadian's radar that would suggest spin. The Canadian homicide rate is 1.9 per 100,000 people (2004). The U.S. has something like 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 (2004), which is more than double the average for industrialized nations (2.5 per 100,000), and as you can see, this approaches nearly 3 times the Canadian rate. So if I move down to the U.S., I can expect to nearly triple the likelihood of being murdered, all depending on where I move, as I'm certain it's far worse in certain areas and at least marginally better in others.

Beyond these numbers, though, I admit that I don't know much about how violent the U.S. is. I haven't spent much time there. All I know is if I look at the numbers, there are a lot of murders. I'm not sure how skewed the gun statistics are, but these numbers mean something, don't they?

I think it's in Obama's interests to get the economy and the deficit back on track. I'm not an American voter, so it's a non-issue for me with regard to my political expectations, but I sincerely think that he played an important role in averting economic disaster. It doesn't take foreign economies/investors much to walk away from American interests. As much as the deficit looks alarming, the consequences of not having done enough were far more dire. But it's much easier to see what's there than what "could have happened." It's like a bitter medicine. You complain about how it tastes like shit going down and it might even give you the runs, but, hey, at least you aren't dead from a festering disease. Not yet anyway.

Say what? :) Seriously, it all depends on what outlet you're talking about. Sure, any media outlet or program that has terms like democracy and truth combined with out and now in their titles are going to have liberal slant. But when you're talking about mainstream national network media, you aren't going to find more than a left-like nuance. This is big media. Anything left of centre-right is considered "leftist" or "socialist" in America (which is silly, really). So despite what you hear coming out of MSNBC, CNN, or ABC News, they are hardly left of centre. Left of centre approaches the category of social democracy, which is a strong slant towards workers' rights, fair trade (vs. globalization and free trade), environmentalism, social justice, universal health care, etc. Those are fringe topics in American media. Heck, they are to a large part even in Canada. And the centre left looks at these issues as a matter of course, not some pipe dream.

But is the misreporting because of some liberal or lefty agenda? Or are they doing what news does? If it bleeds it leads. Sensationalization sells. Like I said, I don't really know what the media is like as much as I do here in Canada. But even here, again, most media barely ventures left of centre despite the fact that a large proportion of our federal government seats are filled with out-of-the-closet social democrats. We're talking about guys and gals who would be literally reviled by uncountable Americans.

Maybe a thread on the politicization of guns is in order. I know you gun guys like to keep your Tilted Weapons politics-free, but if a big complaint of yours is media perceptions of guns, then why not talk about it?

I'm not sure I've made a point here, but I guess, generally, it was a bit odd to see the market frenzy regarding guns and ammo when Obama was elected, and I think it had more to do with concern about certain selective bans. Most Americans aren't gun nuts, I get that, but the interest from my perspective is of the gun nuts.

This statement is made with the assumption that burning the Quran is no different than burning any other book. There is a difference. There is a Muslim belief that the physical manifestation of each Quran is sacred, and that defiling or destroying it is an affront to their faith and to Allah. To many Muslims, destroying a Quran would be as devastating as destroying important American landmarks would be to American patriots. There is value in the physical manifestation itself, not just the ideas. You can destroy the Statue of Liberty and say, "Well, at least the idea of liberty is still intact!" Yet, I'm sure you'd have some rather angry and violent Americans ready to exact revenge. At least one, let's say.

Look, I'm not an apologist of violence. I'm not saying a Quran burning is an excuse to riot or murder Americans. What I am saying is that those who burn Qurans are either ignorant or know damn well that this is the kind of response they'll get. Like I said above, if you want to criticize the worst aspects of Islam, there are many ways to do it and still keep my respect. Burning a Quran doesn't do that. It targets the religion in its entirety and it has attached to it very real social consequences. It is folly.

I get that. But my point is that if you value religious freedom, you don't burn Qurans, Bibles, Torahs, Vedas, Sutras, etc.

There are certainly people who think that the American government is being destroyed by leftie swine. There are also people preparing for when the SHTF. But I don't think the two are always connected. For most people, SHTF is riots, environmental disaster, social unrest, etc. Stocking up on guns, ammo, food, water, etc. isn't just because you think the Redcoats are coming. Look at Hurricane Katrina, the LA riots, major snowstorms, race riots, earthquakes, floods, mudslides, or even smaller localized issues like long term power outages. Will your family have food? Will you be able to protect them? Will your car have gas? Simple things that most Americans never dream to prepare for, living paycheck to paycheck, whose lives will devolve into complete chaos if their paycheck isn't direct deposited on time, or if the local grocery store is closed for a few days.

I'm sure there's people who want to revolt, it's being discussed in blogs and other media pretty regularly now. It concerns me too, I don't want to see one. Many seem to forget that the founding fathers fought a brutal house to house set of battles for many years against the Brits before we had our independence. I think even a smallscale rebellion would turn into a SHTF situation, not the shooting at soldiers kind, but the figure out how to feed your family and protect them from predators taking advntage of the situation kind.

Something like half the murders in the US are of convicted felons, even more are males aged 16-25. Looking at flat numbers makes it seem like grandmothers are being lynched in the streets. The huge majority of violent crimes other than murder are committed by repeat offenders, career criminals. There is definitely a problem, the source of it is probably complex as any other societal issue, but who's compiling stats and why plays a role in what you hear.

I think he slapped a bandaid on a gushing wound. The simple fact is that we spend much more than we make. The debt is outrageous. Neither side of the two party system is willing to take an honest look at which purse strings need to be completely severed.

I think it's the latter. News is a business.

I'd love to. That section hasn't seen much action lately anyway.

It's certainly possible that there'd be one person upset with the loss of Lady Liberty. :) The difference is that national monuments aren't privately owned items that can be obtained at a local bookstore. Publicly destroying personal property is not a crime, no matter what it represents to the people who don't own it.

While I agree with you, my point is that religious freedom is a two way street.

It's funny that there wasn't talk of militias and armed insurrection when Bush was in power but I certainly remember these types of groups during Clinton's tenure.

holy thread raising, batman

I realize this it tilted paranoia and all, but besides BS supreme court opinions meant to wither away the inalienable rights that the framers fought for, can someone who is knowledgeable about the constitution show me the text where it tells the government they just created that it has the power to put limits on the rights of the people?

We've been down this road before, dk. If rights were absolute, then prisoners would have firearms in their cells with them and Bradley Manning wouldn't be in a cell at all.

this is not true at all. I'm sure this strawman is just one of several that gets used alot, but the 5th Amendment provides for the suspension of inalienable rights through due process of law, so NO, prisoners would not have firearms in their cell. It's a very stupid argument. At least try to make a valid one.

It's completely true, and the argument is valid. It proves that rights aren't absolute. The suspension of inalienable rights? Say it out loud: "The suspension of inalienable rights."

Suspension: The temporary prevention of something from continuing or being in force or effect. The interruption of, cessation of, stoppage of—the dissolution, disbandment, termination....

Inalienable: Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. Inviolable, absolute, sacrosanct, indefeasible....

The Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(Emphasis mine)

No one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law. The law, therefore, allows for the deprivation of life, liberty, or property. The United States Constitution itself states that rights aren't absolute.

Absolute: not subject to any limitation; unconditional. Unrestricted, unrestrained, unbounded, boundless, infinite, ultimate, total, supreme, unconditional....

Rights are not absolute. The Constitution outlines that quite clearly, and that is my argument. This is why prisoners do not have the right to bear arms. This is why Manning has a weak defense if he claims a right to free speech.

You are right, however, and I agree with you that it's about the law. If a law is deemed just and is passed and enacted, and then subsequently enforced, it has the power to limit rights to those who violate the law.

If someone burns a Quran and it directly is a cause of violence, there are likely laws in place that apply. This is where you get a conflict between a right to free speech/expression and being beholden to the law.

Rights are not absolute, and there is a reason for it.

While freedom of belief is absolute, freedom to practice religion is limited in many ways, including not treating your children with modern medicine. Slander and defamation are limitations on the right of free speech. The freedom to assemble is not absolute in the case when it causes health hazards, such as during an outbreak. Freedom to petition, like speech, can be limited when it includes slander, defamation, and falsehoods, according to McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479. I can go on and on and on and on about how our most important Constitutional rights aren't absolute, but I don't think I need to. It's generally understood by most people.

not seeing the forest for the trees. cling to that then.

I'm sorry, who's clinging?

Prisoners had their ostensibly inalienable rights taken away.

What's the big picture I'm missing?