I heard P-BO on the radio telling the nation that we should wait until all the facts are in before we determine what motivated the 2/3 peaceful Muslims to get all loaded up in their "Tommy Tactical" gear and go on a shooting rampage. I guess we're fortunate the bombs didn't explode as well.
To be honest, I agree, we should wait until all of the facts are available before we render a judgement.
Unfortunately, this is one more area where the left tends toward hypocrisy.
A few examples.
1. The rush to put forward ANY alternate theory that suggests that the motivation of the S.B shooters was ANYTHING but terrorism.
2. The lack of ANYONE in the media or the P-BO administration making any sort of similar statements about the CO shooter.
3. The rush to label anyone who engages in a "mass" shooting as a white conservative.
4. The "Don't blame all Muslim's for the actions of a few." Contrasted with the willingness to apply exactly the opposite standard when it comes to gun owners.
5. The protests (complete with Molotov cocktails) in Minneapolis demanding "justice" before the investigations even start.
I could go on, but that seems sufficient. So please, you all on the left. Heed P-BO's words. Show a little maturity and patience. Let's all wait for people to do their jobs before we jump to any conclusions.
Or, if you must jump to conclusions, at least keep them to yourself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
"The "Don't blame all Muslim's for the actions of a few." Contrasted with the willingness to apply exactly the opposite standard when it comes to gun owners."
Or Christians or pro-lifers or ...
Bingo
You DO realize why there is an emphasis on "Hey, let's not blame all Muslims for the actions of a few...," don't you? It's exactly because many - especially in the conservative wing - have done exactly that.
Now that you feel like the shoe is on the other foot, it appears your side is asking for tolerance - and rightly so. Of course we shouldn't blame all for the actions of a few, that's a given in progressive circles (outside of some ranters). Would that conservatives would have embraced that same grace that they now want for themselves.
Delete on, good man.
Oh, and should you need data to support my suggestion that many conservative types have seemed to blame all Muslims for the actions of a few, just look at the recent widespread calls to keep Muslim Syrian refugees out of our country, largely by conservatives. When someone brings up "Well, what about Christians that are trying to escape violence," Republicans have by and large been willing to make that exception, but not for Muslim Syrian refugees. And why? Well, it would seem precisely because they are blaming all Muslims for the actions of a few.
Delete on.
Dan,
The simple concept that your commenting privileges will be limited by your refusal to make a simple unqualified blame free apology for your misrepresentation doesn't quite seem to sink in for you and I can't understand why.
Having said that there are a number of aspects of your comments here which are worth leaving until I have the opportunity to fully respond.
So, for now, I will extend you grace and leave your comments. However don't expect much more opportunity without you showing a tiny bit of the humility you so often lecture others about.
Dan,
The simple concept that your commenting privileges will be limited by your refusal to make a simple unqualified blame free apology for your misrepresentation doesn't quite seem to sink in for you and I can't understand why.
Having said that there are a number of aspects of your comments here which are worth leaving until I have the opportunity to fully respond.
So, for now, I will extend you grace and leave your comments. However don't expect much more opportunity without you showing a tiny bit of the humility you so often lecture others about.
Thank you for demonstrating that there is a whopping one person (or a relatively small group ), that you feel comfortable in using to broad brush with. Thank you for making my point that you are wiling to take anything no matter how small and use it to further the narrative you choose. Thank you for your apparent total lack of either the ability or desire to read orher people's comments.
Before you whine, I deleted your comment because you've exhausted my limited supply of grace, and are unwilling to demonstrate humility.
Yes, I never claimed to be God. I also don't have the problem with being humble and apologizing for my mistakes.
Are you suggesting that P-BO has a conservative as the head of the FBI?
After weeks of dodging an unqualified apology now you come up with some unsupported excuse that you think allows you to continue to dodge.
I bring up the FBI director because he is on record saying that it is impossible to properly background check the Syrian immigrants.
One time offer, if you can demonstrate one instance where a actually lied about your I will apologize to showith you how it's done.
It has to be an actual lie, in context, and with a linked source.
If your claim is true then you should have virtually zero problem providING proof.
Dan,
I'm sorry it took so long to respond, but work and guitar repair were a little more important.
Now, let's look at your comments.
"You DO realize why there is an emphasis on "Hey, let's not blame all Muslims for the actions of a few...," don't you?"
Yes, I do. Of course you're demonstrating exactly the kind of hypocrisy that my post was designed to highlight. While I'm sure that there are folks who are being less precise, the majority of the "right wing" media and elected officials tend to be very specific in referring to "radical Islam" or "Islamic terrorists" instead of blanket referrals to "Muslims". Again, in much the same way that virtually everyone back in the 70's referred to the "Arab/Israel" conflict, I'm sure that there are folks who use the term "Muslim" or "Islam" as a shorthand in referring to Muslim Terrorists/Extremists. It's not technically 100% correct, but it's not necessarily negative either.
"Of course we shouldn't blame all for the actions of a few, that's a given in progressive circles (outside of some ranters). Would that conservatives would have embraced that same grace that they now want for themselves."
Do you actually listen to what the left says publicly?
"What do we want, dead cops! When do we want them,now!"
"Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon"
Just for a couple of recent examples. There is clearly a significant public voice on the left (who you have supported) who are calling for violence against the police in general. We continue to see hordes of "peaceful" folks on the left engaging in riot, arson, mayhem, and violence because they have chosen to accept lies rather than to do what I (and P-BO) are calling for which is to wait for the facts.
You have personally advocated imposing additional restrictions on law abiding gun owners based on the actions of a tiny minority of people who posses guns. Which seems to make you exactly what you decry.
"Oh, and should you need data to support my suggestion that many conservative types have seemed to blame all Muslims for the actions of a few, just look at the recent widespread calls to keep Muslim Syrian refugees out of our country, largely by conservatives."
There is so much wrong with this statement.
1. There are very few people who are actually advocating that all Muslim Syrian "refugees" be permanently kept out of the US.
2. There is a process that is usually followed to determine if people are legitimately refugees, to use the term "refugee" to describe people who have not been through the process is disingenuous and an attempt to use an loaded term to generate an emotional response rather than a rational response.
3. The vast majority of "conservatives" don't object to accepting "refugees", they object to accepting people who have not been through a proper screening process and in unlimited numbers.
4. What you have done here, is to set up a straw man, then use to in an attempt to broad brush "conservatives" based on said straw man. Which is pretty much what you just claimed that you all on the left don't do. Which was also pretty much the point of my post.
"When someone brings up "Well, what about Christians that are trying to escape violence," Republicans have by and large been willing to make that exception, but not for Muslim Syrian refugees."
Well, it is unfortunate that there are groups of Muslims (ISIS/L for one) who have a bad habit of doing unpleasant things (like beheading) to those who have the temerity to adhere to another religion. Hell they even do stuff to other Muslims who they don't agree with. So, while you seem to be attempting to make it sounds like this is some sort of excuse it is actually a real thing. Not only that US immigration law has always taken religious persecution as a reason to grant refugee status to people. It seems you are objecting to people suggesting that we follow existing US law as it pertains to refugees. Beyond that, there are multiple majority Muslim countries near Syria where these people could be relocated, but which would not be as accepting to Christians. (I'm not even going to go into the absolutely hideous record of Muslim countries in terms of dealing with Muslim refugees post 1948). It seems that your complaint is that some people object to moving persecuted Christians from one country where they are persecuted to another country where they will likely be persecuted. That's just bizarre. Further, the US has already accepted thousands of Muslim immigrants and does and will continue to do so. All most conservatives want is to not just throw open the doors and let everyone who claims to be a "refugee" in without some sort of process. While this may be redundant, I have not seen anyone who is claiming specifically that Muslim Syrian immigrants should not be allowed to immigrate simply and solely because that are either Muslim of Syrian. Even if there is/are some on the fringe who are advocating that, it's irresponsible to suggest that they in any way represent a majority.
"Well, it would seem precisely because they are blaming all Muslims for the actions of a few."
This is exactly the kind of thing that my post is about. You are willing to put forward a hunch based on your own biases and suggest that it be accepted as reasonable. When it is simply not supported by any evidence and is one more attempt to do what you claim that it's a "given in progressive circles" not to blame a group for the actions of a few, yet that is exactly what you are doing here.
One time offer, if you can demonstrate one instance where a actually lied about your I will apologize to showith you how it's done.
I will note that I generally give you the benefit of the doubt and use the word "misrepresentation" or "false claim," rather than lie, so "lie" is your word, not mine. But to answer...
Two easy examples (the first two I came across in jumping back, there are, no doubt, more). You said (in comments in your "Why?" post on 11/15)...
1. I must admit that your derisive use of "God said it", intregue's me. Most Christian believers would consider God said it as something to be treasured not put in scare quotes.
As I explained to you, I don't put it in scare quotes because I believe God said it. I do so because it is some human's opinion of what God says. I'm pointing out that HUMAN opinion is not equal to divine opinion. So, there is nothing derisive (your false claim) in doing so. It is specifically and literally a way to HONOR God's Word, not to be derisive of it.
No apology was forthcoming for that, even after correcting you. My source for it is myself: these are MY words you're talking about and I'm an expert on the meaning of what I have said, of my intent.
No big deal, just an example of you reading something into what I've said that is the opposite of my stated intent. In other words, a literal misrepresentation.
2. As stated before, my research leads me to the conclusion that the SS construct is a viable, rational, Biblically supported conclusion. You are free to disagree if you like, but any for any serious student of scripture to dismiss the formulation out of hand is just short sighted.
If you are applying this to me, it is a false claim. I do not dismiss the SS "formulation" "out of hand." I believed it for many years. Rather, In striving to take the Bible and Jesus' teachings seriously, I have questions that have been raised and gone unanswered by anyone that I have seen address the topic. These questions point to serious rational and biblical holes in the SS theory. So, in order to be true to Jesus' teachings as I understand them and the Bible as I understand it and reason, as I understand it, I have to dismiss the SS theory NOT out of hand, but out of a sincere and well-educated (if not perfectly educated) desire to be true to God, Jesus' teachings, the Bible and to reason.
Again, my source for my intent is myself, as I know my intent and it is not what you claim it to be.
Again, no big deal, mistakes happen and you've made one here, if you're speaking of me dismissing SS out of hand, as it appears you are. Just pointing to another factual error/misrepresentation. for which there has been no acknowledgement, much less an apology.
Oh and your "proof" is that one guy said something to a relatively small group of people that you feel comfortable in extrapolating out to broad brush all conservatives.
I guess that you haven't gotten the memo about how "progressives circles" don't do this sort of thing.
I also think that you somehow believe that anyone named Falwell somehow has some sort of automatic magical credibility to all conservatives.
Now, as to his actual comments.
1. There is ample data to support his opinion that places with higher levels of concealed carry have lower crime rates.
2. The converse (that 95% plus of the "mass shootings" that get all the media coverage take place in either "gun free zones" or areas with more gun restrictions) is also reasonably supported by the data.
3. If one looks at his actual words one can come to two conclusions.
a. That he was advocating that people just randomly shoot any Muslims they come across (the conclusion you chose to come to).
b. That he was suggesting that it is possible that having armed citizens would (at least potentially) limit the scope and severity of these kinds of attacks.
The problem with a is that it requires reading into his actual remarks something that is not explicit or implicit in his actual words. I suspect that the willingness to do so is influenced to some degree by bias against Falwell, Liberty U or conservatives in general. It also ignores the fact that he clarified what he meant at a later date. If one accepts the "shoot all Muslims" narrative after he clarified what he said he actually meant, then one is making an attack on Falwell's character.
4. We live in the United States where it is not illegal for people to express their opinions publicly.
So, now that you have tried to broad brush the entire conservative movement (hyperbole) by taking one person's statement of opinion somewhat out of context. I guess we're done with that.
Obviously I have asked you some questions in my preceding comments, as well as providing you an opportunity to prove a claim you have made.
It would (also) obviously be wrong of me to ask you questions and to give you this opportunity without allowing you to respond.
So, in a spirit of grace, I will allow comments on this thread that either directly answer specific questions or prove your claim to remain.
I will delete or edit any comments to fit these exceptions.
Again, I await your decision to offer a humble, unqualified, blame free apology that would allow me to stop deleting your comments and engage in broader conversation.
Finally, it seems as if you agree with my basic premise. That being that we shouldn't jump to conclusions before we have all the facts.
Two things surprise me about that.
1. The fact that you have (nor are you here) been critical of those on the left who do this. In fact you've suggested that the rioters in Ferguson were justified even though the entire narrative that prompted the riots was proven false.
2. Even though you appear to agree with me, you choose to comment in such a way as to create division and argument where there need be no division and argument.
The Obama administration is having trouble detecting fraud in asylum requests from immigrants seeking to stay in the United States for their protection, according to a government study released Wednesday.
The Government Accountability Office looked at asylum requests from immigrants who have already made it to the United States and are asking to stay to escape persecution. The report doesn’t address the refugee application process, which also is overseen by the Homeland Security Department but involves people not currently in the United States. The refugee process has become an issue in debate over Syrian refugees.
The 96-page report concluded that neither U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Services nor the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Justice Department agency that oversees immigration courts, conduct regular fraud risk assessments. The GAO recommended that both do so.
At USCIS, a paper filing system that doesn’t capture key fraud-detection information electronically also is a problem, the study says.
The GAO review found that more than 4,500 people were awarded asylum in 2014 despite being associated with lawyers or document preparers arrested that same year in an immigration fraud investigation in New York.
[…]”This new GAO report adds to mounting evidence that the Obama administration refuses to take the steps necessary to crack down on asylum fraud and protect the integrity of our immigration system,” said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Virginia Republican who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/12/02/study-finds-problems-in-detecting-fraud-among-asylum-seekers
GAO investigators found problems at nearly every step of the way: USCIS officers aren’t properly trained to spot fraud; the agency’s fraud-detection unit doesn’t pre-screen applications to weed out potentially bogus ones beforehand; and neither USCIS, which is part of Homeland Security, nor EOIR, which is part of the Justice Department, have a sense for how big a risk fraud is anyway.
More troubling still, the government rarely prosecutes those who commit fraud, so there’s little downside to making an attempt, other than risking being sent back home.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/2/homeland-security-limited-ability-detect-asylum-fr/
Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) want President Obama to release the immigration records of the San Bernardino shooters, arguing they should play a key role in the coming debate over funding the Syrian refugee resettlement& program.
Their request comes as CBS reports that one of the shooting suspects passed the Department of Homeland Security’s “counterterrorism screening as part of her vetting” for a visa. Federal officials maintain that they have a rigorous and effective screening process in place for people from countries such as Syria that have significant jihadist movements, making the immigration records of the San Bernardino shooters a potentially significant piece of the debate over refugee policy.
“We are dealing with an enemy that has shown it is not only capable of bypassing U.S. screening, but of recruiting and radicalizing Muslim migrants after their entry to the United States,” Cruz and Sessions wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
The letter reiterates the lawmakers’ longstanding request for the immigration records of twelve other terror suspects, which the Obama administration has failed to release even as the debate over the Syrian refugee crisis has heated up.
“Congress is days away from consideration of an omnibus year-end funding bill that would set the U.S. on an autopilot path to approve green cards, asylum, and refugee status to approximately 170,000 migrants from Muslim countries during the next year,” Cruz and Sessions wrote. “The security task involved is immense, and Congress must have the requested information if lawmakers are to act as responsible stewards of American immigration policy.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/427990/print
"Oh, and should you need data to support my suggestion that many conservative types have seemed to blame all Muslims for the actions of a few, just look at the recent widespread calls to keep Muslim Syrian refugees out of our country, largely by conservatives."
If you look at the news articles cited above, you might be surprised to learn that there might actually be good and valid reasons for taking our time in determining what is the best course of action for the Syrian "refugees". You seem quite willing to blame this on some conservative straw man, yet actual facts demonstrate that it's a bit more than a simplistic knee jerk "it's the mean racist "conservatives" fault.
RE your example #1.
If you read my actual words I actually made no specific claim about you or what you may or may not have meant.
RE your example #2
"If you are applying this to me, it is a false claim."
As you obviously noted, I was not specifically referring to you.
So, your two "examples' are both instances where I did not actually make a false claim about you. It could be argued that your use of such faulty examples is in itself an example of you making a false claim.
Once again, if you have real actual examples, bring them with context and links. If not stop the charade, just admit your were wrong an apologize.
It's actually kind of funny. Had you actually just made an unqualified and non blaming others apology weeks ago, you wouldn't be in the position of trying to justify yourself now. Hell, you could have just apologized and not even meant it and you wouldn't be here now.
I guess that might mean that you have some deep seated fear or aversion to showing humility or admitting that you've done something wrong or made a mistake no matter how clearly your mistake is documented.
Again, how about you practice some of that grace and humility you demand of others?
"Just pointing to another factual error/misrepresentation."
Except there wasn't actually a "factual misrepresentation" (a fact which you acknowledge is possible).
So, you now expect me to apologize for your mistake in how you chose to interpret what I wrote.
Given the level of just plain bizarreness in your self justifying comment, I'm not going to delete it just because it's so amusing.
I'm going to address and (for now) leave your deeply flawed "assumption".
1. There is no way in which it is possible to make a reasonable parallel between US citizens moving from one US state to another and people wishing to immigrate from one country to another. It's not apples/oranges, it's apples/rocks.
2. As I pointed out, it is not a matter of being "open" to these immigrants, it's a matter of following existing US law and making sure that a proper effective screening process exists to separate out the people who are dangerous.
3. The fact that you "say" something doesn't make it true.
4. You are falsely allowing your biases to lead you into a presupposition that asking for an orderly and effective screening process is the same thing as " denying assistance to those in need.".
5. If providing "assistance to those in need" is the goal, then why is the only option on the table allowing unrestricted immigration that only option on the table? Why are we going to limit our "assistance to those in need"? Even those on the left are suggesting that we limit our "assistance to those in need", to a small percentage of the total, why are some of "those in need" more deserving than others?
"Could we agree on this?"
Given the spectacular and obvious flaws with your assumption, the answer must be no.
I have to ask, what is it about the concept of staying within the parameters I've laid out that is so confusing to you?
Or is it just that you are determined to force these conversations to go the way you want without regard for anyone else?
Or are you just being a petulant pain in the ass?
Or we could just deal with reality and not assumptions. I think that's the root of your problem is that you assume too much and provide facts to support too little.
Your two "examples" are a great demonstration of how you choose to offer assumptions instead of facts.
Up until the last line of your last comment, I was prepared to treat it as a reasonable request. But after the "I'll wait" crap I decided not to. That is just one more example of your inability to understand that you can't just come to someones blog, ignore the host and dictate how things work.
Look, you took two shots at proving your point and whiffed on both. You even acknowledged in your comment that you didn't actually know if I was making claims about you.
I have no way of knowing how much respect you pay scripture, and honestly don't really care. But to clarify your misunderstanding I was speaking of the derision you regularly aim at those who look at scripture differently from the way you do. So my comment, clearly, was related to your derision aimed at others, not at your view of God's word.
Look, why not just display some humility, man up and apologize rather than go through these silly contortions to try to justify your lack of humility and grace toward others.
One last time. If you can't prove your claim (and if you can't that would make your claim false, wouldn't it?), quit trying to blame me for your failure. As noted, one of the problems with your earlier attempt at apology was the fact that you insisted on blaming Stan for your mistakes, now you decide that it will divert attention of you blame me for you being unwilling to own up to your misrepresentation.
It's sad and pathetic that you feel the need to go to such lengths to try absolve yourself of any wrongdoing, why not just admit that you're human, made a mistake, and move on. Surely that would be more worthwhile that simply trying to justify your failures and blame others for them, wouldn't it?
OK you're done.
I specifically did NOT delete your two bad "examples", but left them there as an example of how far you had to stretch to come up with some sort of self justifying crap.
So, I demonstrate that you exhibit A & B of me lying about your are wrong, and your response is to double down and lie some more.
Honestly, I've given you tons of grace and latitude and all you've done is abuse it. You can either step up to the plate, stop blaming others, and apologize or not I really don't care that much any more.
But there is no reason why I should have to keep putting up with this constant barrage of blaming everyone but yourself and twisting my words to try to dig yourself out of a hole.
Your choice. You can show some grace and humility and treat me like the "brother" you always claim I am or you can stop the crap.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/suspected-american-isis-recruiter-turns/story?id=35633352
Back to your ridiculous made up false equivalency. Let's imagine that a Somalian refugee immigrates to the US, finds a home, opportunity, education, a thriving Somali community, and a city that has welcomed the most east African "refugees" of any other city in the US.
Oh, then reality sets in and he moves back to Somalia, joins Boco Haram (you know the ones who kidnapped little girls for sex slaves) then becomes a social media recruiter for ISIS.
Yup, we need to let some more "refugees" like him in. You know, welcome them with open arms.
I know that's difficult for you, but it is reality.
To hell with your fucking lies, Craig. And I don't mean that crudely, I mean it quite literally. I have never advocated child abuse and you damn well know it. You are acting like a coward and a moron. Stop it. Now, I'm done here. Delete, make up shit, poop your pants in fear and tell lies about those who are just trying to do the right thing. That's all on you.
I still believe you are a better man than the way you are currently behaving. I hope one day you live up to my faith in you.
Embrace grace and abandon this excrement. It only hurts you and your side, making you appear to be too afraid to be honest or rational. It makes you appear impotent and entirely unable to articulate reasonable ideals. If that's how you want to present yourself, go for it, but I rather doubt that you do.
May God grant you peace and forgiveness.
I will point to one more bit of data about your side lumping all Muslims into one group: Donald Trump...
Donald Trump called Monday for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States"
http://news.yahoo.com/trump-calls-complete-shutdown-muslims-entering-us-213048596--election.html
That is YOUR side's front runner, the guy that is WAY out in front of all the other candidates. Like it or not, he is the most prominent spokesperson for your side right now. On the other hand, you have no one that prominent on our side who is making that sort of lumping mischaracterization.
If your side's leaders act like jackasses, you can't blame others who start to think the jackasses represent your side.
Now, I'm out of here.
My mistake, it was AL Shabab not Boco Haram.
What kind of drugs are you on, I've never suggested you advocate child abuse. Never, but I guess one more lie about me isn't important to you.
I have shown you plenty of grace only to have you take advantage of it.
FYI I agree Trump is a moron and does not represent the majority of the Republican party. It is my hope that his idiocy will finally catch up with him and let us move on.
Of course none of that tree reality matters to you since it's just one more opportunity for you to broad brush those who don't agree with you.
So if you want to take your petulant,expletive laden, whiny, rants away then just stop commenting. I know humility is hard for you, and your tendency to fling expletives around when you run out of anything else is certainly an indication of your grace filled humility.
But seriously, if you're just going to make up lie's out of thin air and then blame me for it, you've obviously left rational thought far behind.
While I still think that Trump is a buffoon and that his candidacy virtually guarantees a Hilary presidency, after doing some research due to Dan's vitriol I found a couple of interesting facts.
1. Dan (and others) are leaving out one critical part of Trump's comments. They have conveniently omitted that "Until we figure this out" part. So, in essence Trump is proposing a TEMPORARY halt to Muslim immigration. In other words he thinks we should take a break, figure out a plan going forward, then implement the plan. When you get the more complete picture it doesn't sound quite so horrible.
2. This sort of thing does have precedent, which is FDR's immigration policy during WW2. So, when FDR a good liberal democrat institutes restrictions the left yawns, but when Trump brings up the possibility we see hysteria.
Again, no fan of Trump, but it does seem that what the media/left say about him is often not reported accurately.
I'm not saying I agree with Trump, I'm just pointing out is that the reaction to what he said is based on ignoring part of what he actually said.
I'm not saying I agree with Trump, I'm just pointing out is that the reaction to what he said is based on ignoring part of what he actually said.
Obviously you've been back to this blog despite your indications otherwise. I suspect you've even checked this thread. I have to say that I'm disappointed that after your expletive laden insistence that I had accused you of condoning child abuse or whatever, and my response, that you will not even acknowledge that you made another mistake and jumped to a wrong conclusion. Instead, you just comment elsewhere and pretend that your childish outburst didn't happen.
It's pretty disappointing.
Post a Comment