Open threat...er thread.
Oh look, the religion of peace has its own video game.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Who Would You Rather Have as President: Bush or Ahme-Genocide?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
B-HO We Hardly Know Ye
Baghdad Time
We Can Do It
Contributors
VICTORIA TAFT
Links
- Victoria Taft Will Speak Before Your Group! Contact her at victoria@victoriataft.com
- Victoria's Favorite Shoes, Oregon Home Grown Oh!Shoes
- Victoria's Favorite Day Spa: The Waldorf Center
- Victoria's Dentist: Dr. Laura Matin
- Victoria's Jeweler: Judith Arnell
- Victoria's Environmental Air Quality, Air Conditioning and Heating Specialists! Her Guys at AAA Heating and Cooling
- Victoria's Favorite Restaurant Selection Ciao Vito's
- Oregon's Conservative Majority Project
- The Portland Motor Vehicle Alliance!
- CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS HERE
- IRAQ WAR MYTHS
- LEXIS-NEXIS
- Buy Your AWESOME NEW OREGON FLAG Paraphenalia here
- Ted Knew
- Debunking Portland
- Victoria Taft's TransFat Offset Business
- When Will Bill Bradbury Leave? The Watch has Started
- The Oregon Catalyst
- Oregon Watchdog
- Orbusmax
- Junk Science
- Multnomah County Republican Party
- Sound Politics
- Oregonians for Immigration Reform
- Numbers USA
- Daniel is Right
- Allen of Salem
- Northwest Republican
- Rob Kremer
- Rino Watch
- Drudgereport
- Michelle Malkin
- Politico
- Freedom Works Oregon
- Cascade Policy Institute A Free Market Think Tank in Portland
- Evergreen Freedom Foundation of Washington State
- War Footing: Ten Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World
- Michael Tanji
- Thomas Joscelyn
- American Congress for Truth
- US Central Command
- Blogs of War
- AMERICA SUPPORTS TROOPS
- Democracy in Iraq
- Global Terrorism Map
- US Government Spending
- Walter Reed Blog
20 comments:
And..the "Christian" contribution...
Victoria,
You constantly sarcastically include "the religion of peace" when mentioning Islam.
Is it your position, then, that ALL Muslims are violent?
I just want to be clear.
President George W. Bush
What kind of choice is that? You call this a poll? That's like asking if I'd rather get kicked in the nuts or jabbed in the eye with a sharp stick. Okay, I'll bite. George W. would be my choice hands down, but that Iranian feller would probably garner fewer votes than Lyndon LaRouche.
Are you sure that's your final answer? Then why don't you knuckleheads start acting like you belong in the same country? For goodness' sake these people don't like us because we're *us*!
They don't like secularism, pluralism, homosexuality, voting rights, mixed marriages, most everything we allow in this country. Get on board in the war against Islamofascists! You've got a stake in it too.
Crackpot, "that Iranian feller" and those like him would garner ALL the votes. If they acheive power, you will have only one choice to vote for.
I don't care what Jimmuh says, many of these third world elections are pure shams.
iknow:
Every time Muslims as a group get offended over being called violent, they respond with LOTS OF GRATUITOUS VIOLENCE. "Don't call us violent or we'll gun down a nun in the street! Don't remind everyone that our scripture orders us to spread our faith by the sword, or we will behead you!"
On the other hand, slap some elephant shit on a painting of the Virgin Mary, and Christians will shake their fists and picket City Hall, and little else. An angry Christian may TELL you you're going to Hell, but, unlike an angry Muslim, he won't actually send you on your way there.
My informed opinion is that, while individual Muslims may not be butchers, they belong to a faith that sanctions butchery in the name of God, and too many of their fellows take such words literally. Call Muslims violent and they react violently - AT THE URGING OF THEIR RELIGIOUS LEADERS, WHO DAMN WELL OUGHT TO KNOW BETTER! It's a sick joke that I can't laugh at anymore.
To add to Joe's statement:
If Muslim's do not believe in violence then why are they not out on the streets protesting the actions of the "extreme" Muslims?
r=
Have you read the books that this game was based of off. If you have than you would know there is a BIG difference between the two games !
"Have you read the books that this game was based of off. If you have than you would know there is a BIG difference between the two games !"
You're absolutely correct, in strict regards to game play storyline. However in substance, both games incite mock violence against a belief, ideology, or group of people that you would disagree with, be it secular or religious. In one game you kill government leaders, in the other, you kill "non-Christians."
Both irresponsible in my book.
"Get on board in the war against Islamofascists!"
I miss the days of when we were just fighting good ol' terrorists.
Anyone care to dig up why we were "really" attacked?
Which time would you like looked up, 'r,' September 11 or the start of it all back in 1979?
79 is a good starting point.
Okay, if you look back to 1979, when Jimmuh Cahtah was misleading the nation and crying about HUman Rights everywhere, we had just came out of the embarrassment of the Democrats forcing up to retreat from the victory we had going on in Viet Nam.
Add to that the Democrats had successfully gotten back at Nixon over his push for the prosecution and imprisonment of Alger Hiss in 1948, so the country was in a very weak state.
Jimmuh Cahtah then failed to support the Shah of iran, an ally, when Ayatollah Khomeni deposed him and student radicals, blaming America, as always, invaded the soverignty of the country by illegally entering our embassy and holding many Americans hostage for nearly two years.
We sowed the world we were weakened with all of the scandal of the 1970s as well as we flinched when North Viet Nam violated the Paris Peace Accords and we failed to hold up our end of the bargain in supporting Viet Nam as Saigon fell, two years after we pulled our troops out.
As the paper tiger we were, we became the easy target.
Now, the lesson in that lead=up is that America is and has been Israel's strongest and largest ally. Khomeni, like many other Mulims, hate Israel with a passion and want the country gone. As long as we were strong, they could not conquer Israel. With us weak, they decided to make us cower, as they kept trying throughout the 80s and on. If they make us buckle at the knees, Israel is finished.
That, my friend, is the main reason we are hated as well in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, international envoys have found that the torture situation in Iraq is at least as bad and possibly worse than it was during the reign of Saddam Hussein. The notion that we have "liberated" Iraq now seems somewhat disingenuous. Regardless of our ideals, the United States has apparently managed to make a bad situation worse than it was. Given that, what is the difference?
lew, firstly, thanks for your write up.
That said, when reading your (what I consider to be rather slanted) take on the background of the modern terrorist, would you agree with me aside of our relationship with Israel, that opposition to U.S. presence is the overwhelming "tie that binds?"
And please understand, I am in no way trying to justify the actions of such murderous thugs that are better served in the ground than on it. But I think we're due a realistic talk about why we face the dangers we do, beyond this kindergarten view of "they hate us because we're us."
r, the Middle East is a very complicated area. For whatever reason, they feel the land is theirs and theirs alone, making it 'sacred.' That I recall, they would wish no one they consider an "infidel" to set foot on it, but seem to make concessions when they receive money.
So far, I haven't found much reference to any hostility between the Arabs and the US prior to our backing the formation of the state of Israel, which was actually mandated just after WW1 and did to come to fruition until 1948.
Of course, mainstream Mulims don't seem to have this open hostitlity towards us, mostly just the radical hotheads.
The cries of we are impoverishing them by stealing their oil is ridiculous. We have to pay their price. If the money doesn't go to the citizens, doesn't that fall upon their Sheiks and leaders? I think so.
Still, we supply foreign aid to both sides over there, but support Israel when the fighting breaks out.
To me, the major problems are caused by the radical hardline Islamic groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, and such. Hamas now has a chance to become a mainstream non-radical group, but only time will tell if they accept the responsibility.
By and large, I still feel the main source of friction towards the US is our support for Israel, just my "biased" opinion ;)
"To me, the major problems are caused by the radical hardline Islamic groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, and such. Hamas now has a chance to become a mainstream non-radical group, but only time will tell if they accept the responsibility.
By and large, I still feel the main source of friction towards the US is our support for Israel, just my "biased" opinion ;)"
I can't disagree with that, lew. (thumbs up!)
Lew: You didn't mention that Jimmy Carter went to Venezuela a couple of years ago to "validate" Hugo Chavez' election. One has to wonder what Carter got from Chavez for his "assistance" there. Maybe the IRS should look into that.
Food for Thought:
PHOTO ID'S ARE SOLUTION TO PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T EXIST -- (Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.)
Republican leaders have discovered a grave threat to American democracy that most of us apparently had not noticed: Everywhere, in big states and small, red enclaves and blue, bustling metropolises and rural hamlets, impostors are flocking to the polls to vote under false pretenses. Apparently, the nation has been overrun by fake voters.
What else would explain the GOP's insistence on using its power to ram through requirements that voters show government-issued photo IDs at the ballot box? Last week the GOP-dominated House passed a measure requiring voters to show government-issued photo IDs to vote in federal elections by 2008.
"Americans should have their votes counted, and not negated by an illegal alien," said U.S. Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind.
Similarly, Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue and his state Republican colleagues have backed a stringent state requirement for government-issued photo IDs. (Last week, Fulton County Superior Court Judge T. Jackson Bedford struck down Georgia's voter ID law, ruling it violates the state's constitution. The state is expected to appeal.)
Announcing a plan earlier this month to crack down on fraudulent documents, Perdue said, "It's simply unacceptable for people to sneak into the country illegally on Thursday, obtain a government-issued ID on Friday, head for the welfare office on Friday and go to vote on Tuesday."
Now, you can be forgiven if you've never heard of a single case in which an illegal immigrant successfully used a fake ID to vote. Neither Burton nor Perdue presented evidence of any such cases.
"People who look carefully at this thing, there's very little 'there' there -- very little fraud," said Thomas Patterson, an expert on elections at Harvard's Shorenstein Center. "If you are an illegal immigrant, the last thing you want to do is show up at a polling place. ... We have enough trouble getting people to vote when they're eligible. The idea that people are going to stick their necks out and get (a) penalty stretches the imagination."
Patterson notes that the voting and registration rules that apply in much of this country are already more stringent than those in most Western European democracies. In much of Western Europe, for example, the postal service simply notifies voter registration officials when a citizen moves, and his voting precinct is automatically changed. "Here, the onus is on the citizen. You kind of sense that the ballot box belongs to registration officials instead of the citizens," he said.
The 2004 presidential election followed a campaign that centered on the threat of terrorism, following the worst attack on American territory since Pearl Harbor. Even with those high stakes, only 60 percent of eligible voters bothered to cast ballots.
In the presidential election of 2000, 51 percent of eligible citizens voted. In 1996, about 49 percent cast ballots; in 1992, about 55 percent. In Georgia's last gubernatorial election, about half the eligible citizens cast a ballot. In Arizona, an enterprising political activist has proposed placing each voter's name in a draw for a million-dollar lottery, in an effort to boost participation.
Yet, the lack of a problem has made Republicans no less insistent on a solution. It makes you wonder whether they are up to something other than ferreting out voter fraud. Even if there is a legitimate need for a single, government-sponsored identification card in an age of terrorism, it would take years -- and a well-organized, government-funded effort -- to place those IDs in the hands of every elderly and rural American in out-of-the-way hamlets and every American of color in down-at-the-heels urban neighborhoods.
Of course, Republicans know that. They also know that most minority voters tend to cast their ballots for Democrats; so do many low-income elderly voters. Since those voters are less likely to have driver's licenses, it's a safe bet that requiring a photo ID at the polls will shave off a few Democratic voters -- enough to make a difference in close races.
The GOP has given up making its policies broadly appealing. Instead, it works hard at keeping a certain slice of voters from the polls. Their focus on blocking the ballot box seems especially harsh -- and hypocritical -- at the very time that President Bush has claimed that spreading democratic ideals is the centerpiece of American foreign policy. How can we export democracy to Iraq if we are so uncomfortable with it here at home?
------------------------------------
Meanwhile Ms Taft continues to protest that votes are being cast by the same hordes of illegal aliens who haunt Georgia, without proof that the problem exists, or any indication that she is aware of the cost of her propose "solution."
Post a Comment