Democrats Showing Open Support For Terrorists
You know how they have yellow ribbons that show support for our troops and the pink ribbons that show support for the eradication of breast cancer? Well, now democrats in Hollywood have an orange ribbon showing their support for Osama bin Laden and all other members of al Qaeda. The purpose for the color orange? It's the color of the jump suits that al Qaeda wears at Gitmo. We all know democrats hate democracy and the United States but it amazes me how homophobic and sexist they are. Democrats fully support the stoning of homosexuals and the slaughter of women who have been raped.
Hat tip: See Dubya
Hat tip: See Dubya
posted by Capitalist Infidel at Wednesday, February 27, 2008
19 Comments:
So I take it the brain insertion procedure didn't go too well?
Are there some facts you'd like to discuss or are ad hominem attacks all you got?
How much lower can Hollywood sink?
The very idea of wearing orange to
support terrorism is beyond disgusting. Why don't they all just go live with the terrorists and dress in all orange colors every day of their miserable lives!
And as for you Les, you are so prejudiced and not too intellectual. Maybe you need to go for a brain insertion!
"And as for you Les, you are so prejudiced and not too intellectual."
Sister, you don't me well enough to make that call. If you DID know me, you'd know CJ and I have been launching mortars at each other for years now, and I couldn't be more thrilled that he's decided to respond to one of my comments yet again.
CJ, CJ, CJ...
I love the tired ol' "ad hominem attacks all you got?" blogosphere comebacker. It's so overused, don't you think? C'mon, Siege - you KNOW I'm always up for discussin' some facts wit ya. Where's your sense of humor? Do you really hate me that much? Sheesh. Relax, my conservative counterpart. Didn't think you'd be so sensitive. What are you - some kind of bed-wettin' liberal?
Anyhoo...
One of the things I love about your blog is the absolute nature in which your posts are editorialized. Seriously - I know (or hope, at least) that deep down inside you don't believe the people sportin' the orange ribbons actually support stoning gays or torturing women. You've morphed their fundamental objections against Gitmo into something they're not for rhetorical effect - apparently quite effectively, considering the usual responses from your readers. But let's be frank - if I recall correctly, you and I had a variation of this argument ourselves some time ago, remember? We were debating the applicability of Geneva's principles in the War on Terror, and you and I obviously have starkly different views on the issue. But from what you know of me, do you genuinely think I support terrorism, stoning gays, torturing women, etc.? I certainly hope not, because if you do - if you REALLY do - then there will never be common ground upon which Americans like yourself and Americans like me can stand. That'd be tragic.
Les, first of all I'm not your sister. Secondly, I do apologize if I offended you. Guess I'm a bit defensive of C.J.'s blog since it's one of the few places that you can find complete honesty.
There is no question many democrats support the terrorists, just peruse democraticundergroun You'll see hundreds of them. Are you proud to have these people in your party?
Maybe they support the terrorists just like they support the troops? "We support the terrorists but not their mission." The intellectual dishonesty on the left is so stunning that it's almost not believable.
Liz,
First of all, lighten up. It's a term of endearment, not an insult. Secondly, it takes quite a bit to offend me, so please feel free to speak your mind without worrying about bruising my ego. Thirdly, a kindred spirit does not equal "complete honesty".
Siege,
Hopefully some day this will stick - I'M NOT A DEMOCRAT, DUDE! Stop calling them "my" party.
But to the issue at hand, I think you're still confusing support for due process with support for terrorism. Trust me - I KNOW we disagree on the applicability of such rights in terms of terror suspects, so let's not waste time going down that road again. However, you gotta recognize the differentiation between what, precisely, the Gitmo objections are is the real issue here. If you don't, then we're just spinnin' our wheels here.
In regard to the hordes of idiots who post at sites like Democratic Underground, DailyKos, etc., I could care less what they have to say. More often than not, they espouse the views of the fringe, so screw 'em. They're entitled to their opinions, and I'm entitled to call 'em idiots for holding said opinions.
The fact you can find solidarity with genocidal mass murderers who are treated better than American citizens in prison is beyond belief.
Something drastic needs to take place concerning the terrorists. For one thing, we could close the southern borders, not only are mexicans runing through in droves, many from other countries are entering illegaly by the southern border. If these people were honest and truly wanted to live here, they would apply for citizenship, get a sponsor and do the right thing. The media has reported quite a bit in the last few days about the failure of the virtual fence. We need a steel fence.
You got that right Les. If you think someone has a purpose to be on a battlefield in the middle of Afghanistan other than being an enemy combatant...well....you're either intellectually dishonest or intellectually challenged and on either count any debate with such a person is pointless.
So it's your position that every single detainee is a terrorist?
Of course, the "detainees" go through 3 separate hearings before they are sent to Gitmo where they then get periodic hearings to see if they're still dangerous/have any more info.
I suppose you think there are innocent people on the battlefield in Afghanistan? Even the terrorists don't think that. It's not like there's traveling salesmen in the mountains.
Read everything Capitalist Infidel said and what Les said. I do believe that Capitalist Infidel won this argument.
"I suppose you think there are innocent people on the battlefield in Afghanistan?"
Nice deflection. That's like asking if I think there were innocent people on WWII battlefields, which there obviously were. While I do, as a matter of fact, think innocent people can be found on ANY battlefield in the world, that's not the issue we're talking about here, CJ. You can't paint all of our enemies with the same broad strokes. There's a difference between militant jihadists and those who fight us simply because they want to kick us out of their homeland. Obviously, not everybody in Gitmo is a terrorist who stones gays and slaughters raped women, as you would have your readers believe, and that's what I'm getting at when I say your criticism of the orange ribbon wearers is way, way over the top. You're generalizing your opponents so your like-minded readers stay angry and have some fresh red meat to chew on. Ironically, one of the main objections against Gitmo is ultimately a testament to the patriotism of the ribbon wearers - namely, a defense of the rule of law and due process in a time of war. Again, we starkly disagree on the applicability of said principles, but you can't summarily discount intent here. They're not wearing the ribbons because they support terror - they're wearing them because they believe there's something fundamentally wrong with the way Gitmo is being run, and they don't feel right about it. You, of course, don't have to agree with them (and you obviously don't), but you can't say they support terrorism because they don't share your views and expect to be taken seriously. See what I'm sayin'?
By the way, Ray, way to chime in there. Good talk.
Les, you honestly can't be that stupid. In WWII the battlefield included cities, tell me who could be innocent on a battlefield in Afghanistan. You do know that there is more oversight for Gitmo than there is in our own court system.
When did you turn into a shill for radical islamists?
Where's my comment? Are you censoring me again?
Never got it, I know you democrats have a hard time accepting responsibility for their own mistakes but try it....you may just learn something :)
LOL. Yer funny.
I don't know, buddy. Once is perfectly understandable, twice is frustrating, but three times? I'm startin' to think you don't like me, Siege!
Ok, you just admitted to screwing up 3 times.....what....not going to forgive yourself? Bwahahahaha!!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home