Active Users:1089 Time:22/11/2024 11:09:56 PM
Yeah, but people shouldn't be paying their elected officials to (literally) subject them to it. - Edit 1

Before modification by Joel at 15/03/2011 08:42:52 PM

you just got your panties in wad because you don't like that he was using people who were going to listen to an open supporter of terrorism give a speech. If don't agree with that is fine but let get real here the rhetoric is nothing new and no worse then we have been hearing about the governor of Wisconsin, from elected officials. Just because a group has religious reasons for their actions does not mean you can not oppose them. He doesn’t believe we should embrace those who support terrorism and he thinks the attitude that we should is destroying America. You don’t have to agree with but that doesn’t make your over the top rhetoric valid and it doesn’t give you the right to define what he meant to suite your personal bias.

THAT'S what's destroying America: People who see every fellow citien who disagrees with them as a threat to be hunted down, elect leaders who want the US Marines to help and then defend those leaders for saying so publicly. Rest assured, you're on their long list of liberals, traitors, non-Christians and commies; they just haven't gotten to you--yet. At least you've managed to admit that the guy verbally attacking the people who pay his salary was "using" his constituents to serve his own disgusting political agenda; now if we can just get you to admit how wrong that is we might start getting somewhere. Sure, you can oppose someone without attacking them solely because of their religion; maybe the GOP should disavow its Radical Republican roots and do that instead of embracing the Tea Party and its violent rhetoric.

Not that I expect it when a senior House member convenes hypocritical hearings because he says 85% of US mosques are run by terrorist sympathizers, while hoping we all forget he said killing civilians is "regrettable" but his beloved IRA isn't "morally responsible" because they're "struggl[ing]" against "imperialism". That's how bin Laden and his ilk rationalize murdering civilians, but instead of grilling Rep. King about his support for terrorism HE'S grilling Muslim Congressmen without even alleged links to terrorism, who've never publicly endorsed it the way King has. I guarantee that if Keith Ellison had family in Al Qaeda (as King had family in the IRA) we'd hear about it--Peter King would make sure. You can't simultaneously support and investigate terrorism without being a colossal hypocrite who cares less about terrorism than about it targeting the "proper" victims. Yet once again, these are the people you're so proud of putting in charge of the US House, the kind of self-serving support for violence at the expense of ones own constituents you defend, even from government leaders--as long as they have an (R) at the end of their name.
"The fact is, the IRA never attacked the United States" so their terrorism is apparently OK. ;)

Return to message