Daily Kos

How the Islamic crazies are like the Right

by kos

Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 11:47:07 PM PDT

Funny how the wingers try to claim American liberals are in league with crazy fundamentalist Muslims.

Reality is, we hate everything Islamic fundamentalism stands for. On the other hand, the Dobson's of the Republican Party -- you know, the people running the show -- have far more in common with the enemy than they'd ever like to admit.

Religion in government

Al Qaida/Taliban: One and the same
American Taliban: One and the same
Liberals: Separation of church and state

Schools

Al Qaida/Taliban: Religious indoctrination. Run by clergy.
American Taliban: School prayer. Religious indoctrination (creationism and "intelligent design"). Private religious school system.
Liberals: Leave religious teachings to parents and sunday school.

Women

Al Qaida/Taliban: No school, must cover entire body, no rights
American Taliban: Government control over reproductive freedoms, hostility to Title IX, hostility to working women
Liberals: Equality of the sexes

Religious freedom

Al Qaida/Taliban: 'Think like us, or we'll whiip you and/or chop off your head'
American Taliban: 'Think like us, or we'll condemn you to hell'
Liberals: To each her own

Homosexuality

Al Qaida/Taliban: Eradicate them from society
American Taliban: Eradicate them from society
Liberals: Equality under the law

You guys can take it from here.

Update (from the comments):

Torture

Al Qaida/Taliban: Torture them or chop off their heads
American Taliban: Torture them or homosexually rape them.
Liberals: No torture

Medicine and Science

Al Qaida/Taliban: Faith-based world view
American Taliban: Faith-based world view
Liberals: Reality-based community

Man, lots of good stuff in the comments. Too many to keep up tonight. But I'll do a second post compiling the best comparisons tomorrow.

  • ::

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 254 comments

  •  I love it when on the news they say... (4.00 / 8)

    ..."fundamentalists did some crazy shit" and then you have to figure out if they meant Christian fundamentalists or Islamic fundamentalists.

    We should use the word "fundamentalist" more to blur the two together--emphasis on the "MENTAL..."

    "It's just like the 60's, only with less hope." -Justin Bond in the film "Shortbus" (-6.38/ -4.21)

    by wonkydonkey on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 11:47:26 PM PDT

    •  fundamentalists (none / 0)

      And we need to come up with a good contrasting term that encompasses those fighting the fundamentalists both here and abroad. 'Secularists' sounds too anti-religious... What else is there?

      by Abou Ben Adhem on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 11:51:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i've heard a number of phrases... (none / 0)

        too sleepy to remember any, though.

        by MountOlympus on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 11:57:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I have just the term you want: (4.00 / 3)

        'Secularists' sounds too anti-religious... What else is there?

        LIBERALS.

        JOHN McCAIN = George W. Bush's 3rd term.

        by chumley on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 12:06:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Terms (none / 1)

          Secularists is OK, not all of us would classify ourselves as "Liberals."

          If the zealots are "Belivers" maybe we should be called "Realists." There are a lot of us and we need to be visible to counter the aggressive creeps. I proudly wear my Secular Citizen T-shirt around town and get plenty of encouranging and appreciative looks as well as the other kind and I live here in the bible belt.

          by Partisanpoet on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 03:20:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree (4.00 / 2)

            We are members of the Reality-Based Community®, yes?

            Then "Realist" would be most apropos.

            NFTT Progressively supporting the troops

            by Timroff on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 04:45:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, but (4.00 / 6)

            What about rational Christians?  I am not a Christian myself, but I recognise the fact that many Christians, even many evangelical Christians, are not part of the Dobson Falwell Robertson cabal. If you use the term "secularists" you exclude or marginilize those Christians who are on our side, and we really need these people.

            "There are no happy endings in the Bush Administration". - Randall L. Tobias

            by MadRuth on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 05:20:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are exactly right. (4.00 / 8)

              I am a Christian and a pretty devout Catholic to boot and I hate it when the topic comes up. My liberal friend can't understand how I can be a lefty and a Catholic and other seriously devout folks don't understand it either. I am actually embarrassed to call myself a Christian because the nutters have hijacked Jesus from us.

              I believe Jesus was the son of God and he came to save us. I love the Sermon on the Mount and I do love that Jesus embraced us all. He worked with the sinners, the prostitutes and all of the dregs of society. Yet, these fuckwits have distorted His message into something that is so twisted and evil and hypocritical. If Jesus was around today, He'd be out there marching for gay and women's rights, against poverty and against all social ills. He'd be for fair trade, free medicine, Kyoto and saving the environment and for free education. He'd be against big business and corporation. In other words, Jesus would be a liberal. The fundies would lock him up for being a trouble making Jew.

              I am a liberal and a Christian. I don't go for all that shit that comes out of the Vatican no more than I believe in the Tooth Fairy. I say to all Christian Liberals: Let's go on a mission to reclaim Jesus. Sorry to go on, but the fundies really get my panties in a knot.

              If we were made in His image then call us by our names. Most intellects do not believe in God, but the fear is just the same. --Erykah Badu

              by conturnedred on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 07:15:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oddly enough (none / 1)

                I know how you feel.  Even though I left the church some time ago, I oftem find myself passionately defending what I consider to be real Christianity from these controlling hate mongers. I see them as modern day Pharisees.  If Jesus were alive today, these are the ones he would drive from the Temple.

                "There are no happy endings in the Bush Administration". - Randall L. Tobias

                by MadRuth on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 07:31:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Superb parallel (4.00 / 3)

                  That's the word that came to me a while ago and I forgot.  Pharisees!  I think it's the best label to stick on these fundies because it:

                  1. Is sufficiently derogatory (accurate) to discredit them, provoke them and conjure up the image of rigid persecutors.

                  2. Is free of the messy rhetorical baggage that always obfuscates the issues.  This is why using Nazis and Stalin (or even Pol Pot) doesn't work, no matter how actually apt the comparison.

                  3. Sheds light on the right's hypocracy in invoking the Bible all the time.

                  Imagine some right-wing blowhard whining that "You're comparing Republicans to Pharisees!  That's so over-the-top!"  Doesn't have the same ring to it.  They cannot scoff at the absurdity of this one; they'd have to actually address the charge.  They're not very good at that.

                  Seek first and final principles at The Mean Free Path.

                  by Cream Puff on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 09:06:58 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Amen to that! (none / 0)

                  I don't know exactly what a Pharisee is, but I wrote to the local paper comparing the ruling neocons with "false prophets."  It was fortuitous that the same Matthew Chapter 7 that says you can spot 'em by the fruit they produce, talks about hypocrisy and not serving two masters: God & money (business).
                  The Bible is a good source to quote when trying to win the hearts and minds of Christians. They believe they believe it.
                  If anyone's interested, start reading after "Speaking of contradictions..."
                  http://www.napanews.com/templates/index.cfm?template=story_full&id=601F68E2-8D4F-4866-9182-B3161 F039CF0

                  BTW, The title I suggested was "Hypocrisy Yields Bad Fruit"

                  Peace: Whose crazy idea was that?

                  by GoMommyGo on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:01:26 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Islamic and Christian fundamentlists (4.00 / 2)

                Yes, I think Christian fundamentalists have more in common with their Islamic counterparts than they'd ever admit. I grew up in a Christian faith and am also appalled at how those who truly are adherents to the teachings of Christ have allowed the right wing to hijack their religion. The classic question, "What Would Jesus Do?", leaves them at a loss. They seem to have no idea.

                by miznicky on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 09:20:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  If you can, listen to this song (none / 1)

                  There is a song called "What Would Jesus Do?" by a Celtic folk singer called Rory McLeod. It is on a cd called Mouth to Mouth that was released in 2000. It is a fantastic song and should be blasted around America. It would scare the shit out of the fundies and reaffirm what liberal Christians believe.

                  If we were made in His image then call us by our names. Most intellects do not believe in God, but the fear is just the same. --Erykah Badu

                  by conturnedred on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 09:32:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Actually ... (none / 1)

                it is hard for me to see how one can be seriously thoughtful about their faith and be in the "fundamentalist right".  Strip their rhethoric and it does not comport with religious teachings at their core ...

                And, this is so within the Catholic Church with the exception of issues surrounding birth control, sexuality (including marriage definition), etc ... These are not 'minor' exceptions, but it still leaves the vast majority of 'policy' most reasonably in the liberal camp ...

                •  Social justice (taking care of the poor) ...

                •  Stewardship of the land (taking care of God's creation) ...

                •  Ethical business practices ...

                And, so on ...

                It is part of the crime of Frank Luntz / etc that they have defined religiousity in such a bastardized way in American society and the American polity ...

                The clock keeps ticking ... Osama bin Forgotten

                by besieged by bush on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 02:14:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  how about (none / 0)

          Anti-Fundamentalists

          by Zero The Hero on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 11:19:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Hmm.. (none / 1)

        Jeffersonians?

        Something else?

        "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

        by RBH on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:23:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How about Federalists? (none / 1)

          If you go back and read the Federalist papers they were very involved with protecting the rights of the individual, limiting power of the executive branch, putting checks and balances on each branch of the government... all in an attempt to create a democratic republic that preserved the "will of the people."

          Some conservatives have tried to claim to that word for themselves and attempt to justify a rigid top down monolithic form of government.

          They have forgotten that one of the models for our  Constituion was the Iroqouis Confederation's "Great Law of Peace", which was designed to let decisions of great import be an expression of the will of the people and not an individual chief and a few of his cornies. It is the idea that governence derives from consent of the governed.  

          by Flint on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 05:54:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I was thinking more along the lines of something (none / 1)

          that would work internationally... that would apply, e.g., to dissidents in Iran...

          by Abou Ben Adhem on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 07:06:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  hmm... (none / 0)

        Humanists?  Or is that too reminiscent of the "secular" moniker, as in "secular humanists"?  

        While we respect the right of individuals to express their own points of view, they are not entitled to their own facts.-- NAMI

        by Kalopsia on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 04:56:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  There once was a secular humanist (none / 1)

        There once was a secular humanist
        High on the fundies' hate list
        His opponents brayed
        That he never prayed
        Like a hell-bound hindu, muslim, buddhist, ...

        by jimvijay on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 06:12:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Christian jihad? Shiite Christians? (none / 0)

        by coffee cup on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 06:53:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  How about (none / 0)

        Commonsenseists?

        Halley Seven, United States Nil - You see, it can be done!

        by ian1973uk on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 07:11:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "Secularist" is a legitimate word... (none / 0)

        A "secularist" is (or was, i guess) someone, essentially, who adheres to a philosophy of non-religious government. In other words, the majority of America's repreesntatives over the course of history and probably the vast majority of the founders.

        Consider the implications of that in light of its use today. Remember also how Conservatives try to re-write the dictionary (Helloooooo Orwell!) to steal words that could be used to discuss their agenda rationally.

        Reclaiming "secularist" (or at least: "secular", the "ist" got added on because it makes words "sound worse" to the general public--i'm surprised we don't hear about "abortionists" or "liberalists" too... i'm sure the only reason it's not "homosexualists" is because that has too many syllables) might be a good idea.

        "I believe in secular governance--not Catholic governance, not Lutheran governance, not Islamic governance, not Baptist governances. We today have a government by, for, and of the people; not of the churches." (The specific Christian sects--as opposed to "Christian"--are important. You want to point out that a Baptist would not want to live in a Catholic state, and vice versa, implicitly.)

        That's the way to combat it.

        The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

        by Shapeshifter on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 04:05:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Superb post. But... (4.00 / 2)

    Al Qaida/Taliban: 'Think like us, or we'll whip you and/or chop off your head'

    American Taliban: 'Think like us, or we'll condemn you to hell'

    ...I actually think you let the American Taliban off a little easy in this comparison.  

    The American Taliban believes deeply in bodily torture to their enemies.  And outright murder is pretty much OK with them too.

    They'll condemn you to hell, sure, but they like to SEND you there too.

    JOHN McCAIN = George W. Bush's 3rd term.

    by chumley on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 11:48:08 PM PDT

  •  How to deal with POW's (4.00 / 4)

    Al Qaida/Taliban: Torture them or chop off their heads

    American Taliban: Torture them or homosexually rape them.

    Liberals: NO TORTURE!!!!! Smart policy is to give Geneve Convention Rights ala Wes Clark.

    "...an admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

    King Lear

    by Norwell on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 11:48:48 PM PDT

    •  good one.... (4.00 / 9)

      what about:

      Foreign Policy

      Al Qaida/Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack

      American Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack

      Liberals: Peace and international cooperation

      by MountOlympus on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 12:03:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Likewise good and to the point <eom> (none / 0)

        "...an admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

        King Lear

        by Norwell on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 12:45:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  have you ever... (4.00 / 3)

        read bin laden's 2004 speech?

        Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.
        If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.
        No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.
        No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.
        But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.

        and you've fallen for the distortion and deception, hook, line and sinker.

        every judgment teeters on the brink of error; claiming absolute knowledge is monstrous.

        by cafihapa on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 02:02:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  cheap black propaganda (none / 1)

          speaking of falling for the distortion and deception, you would think that OBL has heard this piece of news, or else he's been hidden in one deep cave all these years:
          BBC: Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
          9.23.01
          http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

          despite what seems like a very non-partisan message in his speech, statements like 'those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them' expose the tape as nothing but scare tactics. bin laden's timely appearance alone was enough to scare some swing voters back to the bush in november.

          by Dreaded Lysergic on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 05:06:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  sqdkjl (none / 0)

            where exactly do you address anything that i said? i only had one point, that - al qaeda has no dreams of world domination. its very clear from bin laden's speech what their objectives are.

            btw, a news article from 12 days after 9/11 doesnt rebut the 9/11 commission reports, even if the article actually had any relevance.

            i do like your handle though... big fan of the lsd myself.

            every judgment teeters on the brink of error; claiming absolute knowledge is monstrous.

            by cafihapa on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 10:59:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent! (4.00 / 4)

    A little cerebral power to give them a doseof their own medicine.

    The fucking goosestepping McCarthyite thievin pawns of Dobson.  

    Everybody dies alone.

    by Armando on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 11:51:38 PM PDT

  •  Crazy Like The Right (4.00 / 6)

    Medical and Scientific Education

    Al Qaida/Taliban:  Faith-based world view
    American Taliban:  Faith-based world view
    Liberals:          Reality-based community

    "You can't keep the Democrats out of the White House forever!" - Sideshow Bob

    "You can't keep the Democrats out of the White House forever!" - Sideshow Bob

    by chachabowl on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 11:53:11 PM PDT

    •  Except... (4.00 / 2)

      Except, that should read, when THYE are the ones that need the medical care...then, Science Good.

      Until they are fixed, then back to, Science Bad.

      by jibsail on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 02:10:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Here's two (4.00 / 2)

      Diversity

      Al Qaeda Taliban: You're Different and Must Die

      American Taliban: You're Different and That's Bad

      Liberals: What's So Funny 'Bout Peace, Love, and Understanding?

      ==

      by Torta on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 02:38:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  oops, here is the 2nd (3.66 / 3)

        Spirituality

        Al Qaeda/Taliban: Serve Allah with zeal, obedience, and righteousness.  Prepare for heaven.  Praise Allah!

        American Taliban: Serve God with zeal, obedience, and righteousness.  Prepare for heaven.  Oh and in the meantime, God Wants You To Be Rich!  Praise God!

        Liberals: And we were stretching, feeling the spine lengthen, and the heart open, and I felt so connected to the wonder of life and to everyone around me... I almost welled up with tears for some reason. I love my yoga class. I love being alive!

        by Torta on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 02:53:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'd rewrite this one: (none / 1)

          Al Qaeda/Taliban: Be utterly convinced that you have the truth, and that part of having the truth is to make sure everyone else either agrees or goes away. Given that this end is all important, any means to achieve it is justified.

          American Taliban: same as above. Plus, read Jesus through the eyes of Paul, that is, interpret Jesus as the beginning of an institutional faith concerned about propriety, social order, and having the right ideas lodged in your head. Equate emotion and faith.

          Liberals: If you're Christian: read Paul through the eyes of Jesus, that is, recognize that the early formation of the church is all about the central issue Jesus cared about - love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and your neighbour as yourself. Doesn't matter who the neighbour is. Whether you're Christian or not: recognize that being spiritual and being human are the same thing. Respect difference.

          I pray to God to be rid of God. - Meister Eckhart

          by mitumba on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 05:04:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  faith based (none / 1)

      vs Reality based i find to be a stupid and misleading dichotomy. just because some (vocal) fundies don't believe in evolution doesn't mean there aren't plenty of us Christians who have a faith-based foundation but still believe in science and evolution and believe that science can be an extension of faith (many of the prominent scientists of the last few centuries believed in God and saw no conflict with science and their faith).

      by ihlin on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 07:29:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Science is not .. (none / 0)

        ..an "extension of faith."  Science is a rigorous mode of research and evaluation -- a fact-based system that arrives at conclusions based on evidence, and then re-evaluates those conclusions in the event of new evidence.  This is wholly different from faith -- which starts with its pre-conceieved notions and then proceeds from that basis alone.  

        So the fact that some scientists embraced a god-belief without evidence does not make science an extension of faith -- it merely means some people are able to harbor two very different approaches side by side.  If I stand next to a locomotive, the train is not an extension of me -- it merely happens to exist alongside me.  

        by KathleenM1 on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 06:46:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Don't forget (3.70 / 10)

    Al Qaida/Taliban : Posing with AK-47s
    American Taliban : Posing with M-16s
    Liberals : No civilian needs a weapon of war.

    Al Qaida/Taliban : Executing Minors OK
    American Taliban : Executing Minors OK
    Liberals : Find this to be a barbaric and embarrassing practice.

    "Why does man kill? He kills for food. And not only food: frequently there must be a beverage." - Woody Allen

    by Seattle Slough on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 11:55:43 PM PDT

    •  I'm a liberal and I fully support gun rights. (4.00 / 2)

      I used to be pro-gun control, but after the last 5 years of creeping fascism I've changed my mind.

      Look at how well the Iraqis are doing with just AK-47's and RPG's. I'd like to see Americans just as well armed. We're gonna need it when the troops turn on us.

      We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution. - Bill Hicks

      by rjo on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 09:38:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (none / 1)

        Although I've never been against gun rights.

        If I were you, I wouldn't worry about all the troops turning on you.

        OEF/OIF vet
        I've been called a left-wing extremist because I absolutely oppose torture. I can live with that.

        by jabbausaf on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 10:59:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yup.. me too (none / 1)

        I own three guns, and I am a proud progressive.

        Dodd '08!

        by Irrelevant Prolixity on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 11:09:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And you are wrong (none / 1)

        Modern history shows, the unarmed revolution is far more successful than the armed one.  Militaries are much less likely to quell a non-violent crowd.  The Velvet Revolution.  The Lebanese demonstration we just witnessed.  The fall of the Berlin wall.  These simple movements by the people were far more successful than what would have happened had the citizenry taken up arms.

        I seriously doubt our troops would turn on unarmed civilians.  They refused to in the U.S.S.R.  In East Germany.  In Romania.  And there is no reason to think it would happen here.  

        How could anyone be against gun control?  Obviously some control is necessary.  The question is not yes or no.  It is how much.  

        I propose gun regulation similar to car regulation.  In my state you must do the following to own and drive a car.

        1.  take a test proving the following:
               a.  you can drive a car safely.
               b.  you can see.
               c.  you can read.
               d.  you understand the laws related to driving.
        2.  you have to renew this license every five years.
        3.  your car must be registered yearly
               a.  your car must have a unique and indelible number.
               b.  your car has a unique license plate that is assigned to this number.
        4.  your car must be "street legal"
        5.  your car must be inspected bi-annually
        6.  you must notify the state if you buy or sell a car
        7.  you must have insurance
        8.  you must be 18 years old to drive alone
        9.  you must wear a seat belt
        10.  if you allow your car to be used by a minor, you are liable

        All these restrictions, and yet, every single person I know manages to somehow drive a car.  In order that we make it as difficult as possible for people we don't want driving to drive, we all put up with a few rules.  Same should go for guns.  

        And there is no reason for a civilian to need a military grade weapon.  Just like my friends and I cannot drive a Stryker or Abrahms M1, why should you own a M-50 or AR15?  And you better not say "because they are fun to shoot at paper targets."  I hear heroin is fun to shoot as well.  Doesn't mean that is a rational reason to allow it.  

        You feel the need to own a gun.  Fine.  Make sure you keep it away from your children and don't leave it somewhere where someone can steal it.  But if you don't trust society to fairly regulate them, why should society trust you to own one?

        "Why does man kill? He kills for food. And not only food: frequently there must be a beverage." - Woody Allen

        by Seattle Slough on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 03:43:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you're wrong. (none / 0)

          Modern history shows, the unarmed revolution is far more successful than the armed one.  Militaries are much less likely to quell a non-violent crowd.  The Velvet Revolution.  The Lebanese demonstration we just witnessed.  The fall of the Berlin wall.

          Nothing you have written suggests or supports your thesis statement, which is that unarmed revolution is more successful than the armed one.  Unless you cite some cases where unarmed revolution has succeeded where armed revolution has failed, then your statement is unsupportable.

          These simple movements by the people were far more successful than what would have happened had the citizenry taken up arms.

          And you know this how, exactly ?

          I seriously doubt our troops would turn on unarmed civilians.  They refused to in the U.S.S.R.  In East Germany.  In Romania.  And there is no reason to think it would happen here.

          On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that our "troops" (and lets be fair and equate the police with the "troops"), are more than willing to turn on unarmed civilians.  I suggest you do some reading on the 2003 Miami FTAA riots/police brutality.  And lets not forget that the National Guard DID open fire on unarmed students in Kent state.

          How could anyone be against gun control?  Obviously some control is necessary.  The question is not yes or no.  It is how much.

          You fail to provide a reason why gun control should exist.  Yes, guns can be used to kill people.  So can knives, cars, bows and arrows, buses, baseball bats, pots, pans, ninja stars, the bare hands of experts and any of a million other improvised weapons.   Our history has shown that human beings were very very good at finding ways to kill each other long before guns came along, and getting rid of guns will accomplish absolutely nothing.

          I propose gun regulation similar to car regulation.

          Why should guns be treated any differently than any other object which is capable of causing death ?  To paraphrase Marissa Tomei, if I'm dead, I don't care if I got killed by a bullet or a brick, the result is the same.  And incidentally, if my house was being broken into I'd rather get shot by the burglar than bludgeoned into unconsciousness by a baseball bat or hacked to pieces with a sword or large knife any day of the week.  Tell you what - why don't you ask a doctor which would he prefer?  The answer might surprise you.

          I hear heroin is fun to shoot as well.  Doesn't mean that is a rational reason to allow it.

          Yes it is fun to shoot, and there are many, many, many rational reasons to allow it, not least among them being the elimination of a completely and utterly failed and racist drug policy which has needlessly squandered almost a trillion dollars of taxpayer funds, has facilitated the spread of disease such as AIDS and Hepatitis, has destroyed countless lives needlessly, has created vast and well funded international criminal empires, continues to provide funds to terrorist networks, and has become one of the prime contributors to the continual erosion of our civil rights and liberties.

          And if you believe for one nanosecond that our government regulates drugs for the health of its citizens, then I have a bridge to sell you.  The only reason that heroin and its cronies are illegal is because they a) aren't under patent protection by Bristol Myers Squib, Pfizer, Bayer, or some other pharmaceutical company with large amounts of lobbying dollars, or b) come from countries where brown people live.  Or both.  

          According to the 2004 United Nations World Drug report, illegal drugs caused 200,000 deaths in 2004.  Tobacco caused 4.9 MILLION.  Yet there is no war on Tobacco, and I leave it to you to figure out why.

          Look don't get me wrong, I'd like to see all violence go away, and I'm pretty sure that I'm more liberal than you, but this ridiculous "if we get rid of guns the world will be a better place" delusion is just that.  Humans have thousands of years of bloody and barbaric history that debunks this ridiculous idea completely.

          Liberals would be well advised to drop this particular issue if we want to beat the American Taliban.  Almost all NRA members are environmentalists (you can't hunt if all the animals are dead and all the national parks have been bulldozed) but this ridiculous wedge issue which is brilliantly exploited by the Republicans keeps them from coming to our side.

          by zeique on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 08:43:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Kent State (none / 0)

            It could be argued that Kent State was an utter victory.  The National Guard lost.  Big time.  There were a total of four deaths.  I think thirteen casualties, all on the side of the students.

            It was the turning point in the peace movement.  The pro-war side never recovered.

            Imagine the bloodshed had the students been armed.  
            Imagine the Civil Rights movement with guns.  
            Imagine Ghandi with an AK-47.
            Seriously.  Where would this country be had MLK taken up arms?

            Did having lots of guns protect Randy Weaver or David Koresh?
            Would their families be alive today if they did not have guns?

            And guns are not simply tools.  
            No kid ever accidentally slit his own throat (or at least it is freakishly rare).
            Sure, you can kill with any solid object.  That is a fool's argument.  Guns allow anyone to kill just about anyone with little or no effort.  With some guns, you can kill an entire room full of people.  Could Harris and Klebold have taken an entire school hostage with knives?  (I already know what you are going to say about boxcutters and airplanes but that was a error in protocol as well as security)  Just look at the murder rates around the developed world.  

            Of course guns are different.  And of course we regulate them.  No one suggests that citizens should be allowed to have Stinger Missile Launchers.  No one suggests we should be allowed to carry sawed-off shotguns.  Or Ceramic guns that evade metal detectors.  

            Again, I am not saying we should not have them.  Never have.  Never will.  I am saying reasonable steps to regulate them such that we can ensure that it is as difficult as possible for illegal aliens, and felons, and minors to get them.  Why is that so hard to understand?

            What really gets to me is how gun-obsessed some people are.  You feel you need a gun?  OK.  I feel sorry for you, but if you need one to sleep at night, more power to you.  But the obsession with collecting, shooting, trading, buying, polishing, sucking these tools is unbelievable.  It is perverse.  

            Me personally, the day I feel like I need a gun to protect myself from my neighbors and/or government is the day I move out of that neighborhood or leave the country.  There are lots of countries where residents need guns to survive.  I sure wouldn't want to live in any of 'em.

            As I said in my previous post.  If we can regulate cars without taking them from us, can't we do the same with guns.  If you won't trust us to regulate them responsibly, why should we trust you to own them responsibly.

            Don't get me started on heroin.  I live in a big heroin town.  It comes down from Vancouver Island (places like Nanaimo) and ruins people's lives.  I'm all for pulling back the drug war, and certainly no jail time for users.  But legalizing heroin would be a disaster.

            p.s.  I am sure you are "more liberal than me."  Whatever that means.

            "Why does man kill? He kills for food. And not only food: frequently there must be a beverage." - Woody Allen

            by Seattle Slough on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 10:36:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  still don't see it. (none / 0)

              It could be argued that Kent State was an utter victory.  The National Guard lost.  Big time.  There were a total of four deaths.  I think thirteen casualties, all on the side of the students.

              I'm not disputing that.  However, your original statement was "I seriously doubt our troops would turn on unarmed civilians.  They refused to in the U.S.S.R.  In East Germany.  In Romania.  And there is no reason to think it would happen here.".  I was simply showing you that it did happen here.

              Imagine the bloodshed had the students been armed.

              You're right - the students were unarmed.  And guess what - there was no gun control back then.  I'm not sure how exactly the lack of bloodshed at Kent supports your arguments for gun control.

              (your other "imagine" points I ignored because they were all conjecture)

              And guns are not simply tools.  No kid ever accidentally slit his own throat (or at least it is freakishly rare).

              Yes, you are right, some children accidentally shoot themselves.  And some also drown in pools because their parents fell asleep in the hammock when they should have been watching them, some die because they get hit by cars, some die while driving drunk, or any number of other things.  All these deaths are squarely attributable to "poor parenting", blaming guns is just shifting the blame.

              Could Harris and Klebold have taken an entire school hostage with knives?

              Absolutely.

              Or Ceramic guns that evade metal detectors.  

              This is an urban legend.

              Again, I am not saying we should not have them.  Never have.  Never will.  I am saying reasonable steps to regulate them such that we can ensure that it is as difficult as possible for illegal aliens, and felons, and minors to get them.  Why is that so hard to understand?

              Its not hard to understand at all.  The point I am making is not that guns are good, simply that gun laws are pointless.

              You feel you need a gun?  OK.  I feel sorry for you, but if you need one to sleep at night, more power to you.

              Actually I don't.  To be honest, To be honest, I'd be quite happy if every gun on the planet disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow. I just think gun control is pointless.  And just to clarify, keeping people from buying stinger missiles and tanks isn't "gun control".

              But the obsession with collecting, shooting, trading, buying, polishing, sucking these tools is unbelievable.  It is perverse.

              Please tell me how exactly is this different from similar obsessions with stamps, coins, knives, cabbage patch kids, baseball cards, 1960's vinyl, comics, money, diamonds, power or a million other worthless material objects that people seem to like having?  

              Short answer - not at all.  The truth is that people collect crap, and collecting crap entails playing with said crap.  The only difference is that you don't hate postage stamps.

              p.s.  I am sure you are "more liberal than me."  Whatever that means.

              I assumed that you would label me some sort of right wing gun freak and not bother to give a reasoned response to any of my comments.

              But legalizing heroin would be a disaster.

              Maybe.  No way to tell unless you try it, but the bottom line is that you can't legislate stupidity away.  

              I want government out of my bedroom, my house and my life.  If this also involves the deaths of people stupid enough to put poison into their own bodies, then to be completely honest, that's their problem and I don't care. (see my previous comments about personal responsibility and poor parenting).  

              All I know is that I'd be a lot less likely to get killed in a dark alley by a junkie if heroin/cocaine/weed/whatever was a couple of bucks at the 7-11 like cigarettes.  Not to mention the fact that turf wars would disappear completely.

              by zeique on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 12:59:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  final try (none / 0)

                I personally hate the point by point rebuttal because it becomes as cumbersome that this has become so quickly.  Nevertheless, I will respond to a few points, though I will refrain from the quote response method.  This will also be my last post on this topic.  We are clearly butting heads and no one is getting anywhere.  So here it goes:

                As for your comparing stamps and cabbage patch kids with guns, I think you must be kidding yourself.  Those things don't kill.  A few years ago in Seattle, some mixed up kid went a bit nuts and ended up being chased into a North Seattle home.  No one was there.  But the kid found Dad's collection of guns.  So what was a few cops and an unarmed kid becomes a deadly stand off.  The kid was killed by SWAT but not before the kid used one of Dad's guns to take a few shots at the cops.  A bullet bounced off an armored car and hit a cop in the face.  I don't think this could have happened with a stamp collection.  

                These harmless collections are really arsenals of deadly weapons.  If we passed laws that made gun ownership a strict liability exercise (like owning a pet tiger or blasting a mine) people would be a bit more careful about how they stored their weapons and ammunition.  Why did this moron have loaded guns in an unlocked closet?  He should have been liable.  He wasn't.  That kind of 'gun control' works.  If your handgun ends up killing my kid, you are responsible regardless of how it happened.  People talk about guns being in the hands of criminals.  I agree.  However, 99% of the guns that have ever been used in a crime in this country entered the stream of commerce legitimately.  

                I didn't use your example of Kent State to show it as a victory for gun control.  It was used as a victory for non-violent resistance.  They are two separate issues.  You are the one that linked guns with resistance.  I said they weren't necessary in our society.  As we have learned in Iraq, guns don't win wars, ideas do.  Whether gun control will or won't work is a separate issue.  

                You keep saying it won't work.  The rest of the developed world says it does.  Sure you can't put the cat back in the bag in one day.  It will take years.  But slowly, we can start to reign in this unhealthy obsession.

                As for your dismissal of my 'imagine' points, I don't get it.  Your argument is based around your imagining of our own military taking up arms against the our (ostensibly) unarmed citizenry.  Who is asking who to imagine?  

                Do you really think armed resistance to government intrusion is more effective than unarmed?  Has it ever worked in America?  Has it worked anywhere in the developed world recently?

                "Why does man kill? He kills for food. And not only food: frequently there must be a beverage." - Woody Allen

                by Seattle Slough on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 02:35:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  the end, I guess (none / 0)

                  I personally hate the point by point rebuttal because it becomes as cumbersome that this has become so quickly.  Nevertheless, I will respond to a few points, though I will refrain from the quote response method.  This will also be my last post on this topic.  We are clearly butting heads and no one is getting anywhere.  So here it goes:

                  If I sound argumentative, I apologize, but I live in a extremly red state, and I have years of debating with my ignorant neighbours.  I am quite proud of the fact that I have changed quite a few hard-core southern conservatives into liberals by showing them the truth.  The only way to do this is sound rational debate based on facts and hard data, which are anaethema to the right wing.

                  The fundamental reason we are butting heads and not getting anywhere is because you refuse to answer any of the questions I propose to you, and appear to be unable to cite any source or foundation for any of your arguments, which frankly indicates that your position is unsupportable.  I have done nothing but propose facts and point out flaws in your arguments, and you have done nothing but respond with anecdotes, hyperbole, unsupported conjecture, and complete and utter fabrication.

                  If you want to cop out and take the moral high ground and say that you are tired of this discussion and that it will be your last post, then that is your right, but all I have to say is that come next elections, this approach is not going to persuade any voters to our cause.

                  Take a moment and re-read my points and you will find that what I am actually saying and what you think I am saying are two vastly different things.  I'll leave you the most glaring example of what I am talking about.

                  Do you really think armed resistance to government intrusion is more effective than unarmed?

                  No, I do not. In fact, I never, said anything even remotely along the lines of "we need to have guns to protect us against the military", or "we need guns for when we revolt", or "armed resistance is best", all of which you apparently believe I am an advocate of.

                  All I did was respond to one innacurate statement, way back in your very first post, which was "I seriously doubt out troops would turn on unarmed civilians [...] there is no reason to think it would happen here". by citing at least two examples of our troops turning on unarmed civilians.  From this, you wrongly extrapolated my point of view.

                  Take a moment and read back - and remember that we are on the same side.

                  by zeique on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 04:16:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  so as not to "cop out" (none / 0)

                    The main reason why I hate the point by point rebuttal, besides it being lazy and splintering the argument, is that you don't get an actual argument from the person on the other side.  You get an anti-argument.  

                    You told me to re-read your posts to see what you were actually suggesting.  I did.  You didn't suggest anything.  You merely said gun control doesn't work.  You attacked my arguments but only offered glib rebuttals.  You have the gall to say we don't know what legalization of heroin will do and then turn around and say that better gun control laws won't work.  Really?  They work all over Europe.  

                    The confusion is partly my fault.  I didn't pay attention and failed to notice that the person who responded to me was not the person I had responded to.  When we were talking about the U.S. military turning on us, I was referring to what the original poster said, which was that we need to arm ourselves so we can do like the Iraqi insurgents.  

                    I told him he was wrong.  Then you entered and told me I was wrong.  I don't think I was.  But I assumed that when we were talking about a military turning on us, that we were talking about large scale oppression.  Either way though, arming ourselves against our own government is counter productive.  And has deadly consequences.

                    You think gun control can't work.  I get it.  I am not sure why you claim this, but again, I haven't really seen an argument out of you.  Just an anti-argument.  I suggested a plan of increased liability for gun owners.  You ignored it.  I alluded to a simple registration system where all registered guns are given an indelible number and have to be registered with the state.  

                    The argument that we (democrats) should drop gun control because we would gain more moderates is a hollow one.  I hear it for abortion as well.  It completely ignores that we might have a valid reason for wanting gun control (or legal abortion).  I live in a medium sized city.  Guns are a problem here.  

                    I still can't get over the argument that says guns are like any other object.  Or that knives are just as deadly.  Four presidents have been assassinated.  All by gun.  Nine other presidents had serious attempts on their lives.  Seven of those were by gun.  Another, involved an man with a gun trying to steal a plane to crash into Nixon, and the last one, recently, involved a hand grenade.  Clearly guns are more dangerous than knives and arrows.  

                    I don't want to ban guns.  I just think the average sportsman can put up with a little bit of a hassle to ensure that felons, terrorists, children, and the mentally ill have a tougher time getting them.  And there are clearly some types of guns that have no place in the American residential neighborhood.   We already ban full auto and sawed off weapons.  We had an assault weapons ban that was considered by many to be a success.  It isn't the end of the world.

                    If so-called moderates can't accept that, I don't know what to say to them.  

                    "Why does man kill? He kills for food. And not only food: frequently there must be a beverage." - Woody Allen

                    by Seattle Slough on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 12:06:44 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  U.S. Pop Culture (4.00 / 6)

    Al Qaeda/Taliban: Hate it... kill it.

    American Taliban: Hate it... ban it.

    Liberals: Laugh at it... boycott it.

    "...an admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

    King Lear

    by Norwell on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 11:55:49 PM PDT

  •  um, a side point, nonetheless (4.00 / 3)

    Considering what is happening at the Air Force Academy, apparently both groups enjoy flying air planes too.

    "There are many truths of which the full meaning cannot be realized until personal experience has brought it home." John Stuart Mill

    by kuvasz on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 11:55:52 PM PDT

  •  Broader (4.00 / 8)

    Self-Image

    Al Qaida/Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
    American Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
    Liberals: Willingness to consider other viewpoints

    "The concentration [of the legislative, executive and judicial powers] in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government." - Jefferson

    by El Payo on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 11:56:41 PM PDT

    •  True, but... (4.00 / 2)

      This is the cudgel the right keeps using, that the left is tolerant of everyone but them, tolerant of everyone but those who hold faith, for instance. It's the old question, how do you be tolerant of the intolerant?

      I pray to God to be rid of God. - Meister Eckhart

      by mitumba on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 05:08:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is just another case (4.00 / 4)

        of what Eric Alterman calls "working the refs".  Just as there is no Liberal Media bias in this country, there is no intolerance  of Christians.  The Talibangelists, like the Republican polititians that represent them, somehow manage to have their cake and eat it too.  They control all the branches of government, yet they scream persecution if anyone makes the tiniest objection to their tyranny.

        "There are no happy endings in the Bush Administration". - Randall L. Tobias

        by MadRuth on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 05:28:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes there is (none / 1)

          if you read the NYTimes or watch ABC News, evangelicals are always treated as "others" or foreign objects to be dissected, or equated all the time with Jerry Falwell. this is a hugely diverse community that rightly objects to the sneering derisive tone they get from the NYTimes or the other elite media.

          the media is culturally liberal and urban-attuned. they are also in bed with corporate interests and subservient to Bush and co, but that doesn't mean people don't have a point when they talk about the "liberal media" and its hostililty to faith matters.

          by ihlin on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 07:33:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Examples, please (4.00 / 2)

            Is that okay? Is it okay to ask you to provide examples of this intolerance, so we know what you are talking about? Please? Is that okay?

            America: It's a good IDEA for a country ...

            by Tony Seybert on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 08:40:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  look at their columnists (none / 1)

              Dowd, Frank Rich, two of the more prominent ones, have a definite bias that religious folks are just right wing yahoos. Even Kristof, who is Episcopalian, admitted in a column that the news media has no understanding of evangelicals, and thus is out of touch and divorced from the lives of a good portion of America. When The Passion came out, i knew the media would cover it mostly from an "is it anti-semitic" perspective and also equating all Passion viewers as BUsh-loving toadies, in contrast to Michael Moore lefties. hey, my whole family and friends watched BOTH the Passion and Fahrenheit 9/11 and found both equally substantive and good. go read therevealer, one of the best blogs on religion, and their take on mainstream media coverage.

              by ihlin on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 09:33:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I'm Sorry (4.00 / 2)

            This is just not the case.  You may find s few isolated examples, but in general Evangelicals are treated with much more respect than secular humanists, agnostics, or atheists. In addition, they are often allowed to present themselves as the only REAL Christians without any challenge from reporters.  A good example of this was Barbara Bradley Haggerty's reporting on NPR during the 2004 election.  Bush was always presented as being strong in his faith while Kerry (whose life story certainly demonstrates more of a lifelong commitment to his religion than W's) was always described as "uncomfortable" with religious discussions.  I even heard one evangelical person say that Kerry's works were "as nothing" because he had not been born again.  

            "There are no happy endings in the Bush Administration". - Randall L. Tobias

            by MadRuth on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 09:29:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  there you go (2.66 / 3)

              the media assumes everyone religious is a bush-loving fundie. this is simply not true. the people most pissed about evangelical stereotyping are the religious left, who 1. get shat on by liberal "secular humanist" activists who think we're stupid for buying into religion 2. get ignored by the mainstream media who believes religious people are also stupid yahoos who luv Bush and the GOP.

              Kerry's works language was a big boo boo. anyone with basic theology knows that evangelicals believe we are saved through GRACE and NOT WORKS. by using the "faith without deeds" meme, Kerry was basically insulting all protestants. Bush "gets" the language in ways secular liberals fail to understand, and his language resonates among catholics, protestants, and esp. with people of color who are religious, who don't get the heebie jeebies when God is mentioned and many of whom are also born-again. even if he doesn't believe it or follow it, he understands the cultural nuances, and esp. the GOP in general just understands religion 1000 times better than Democrats, who try to avoid the subject like the plague because of their obsession with church/state separation, but they don't realize that electorally, this is what is costing them.

              by ihlin on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 09:39:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It Seems (4.00 / 2)

                That you have done a better job of Illustrating my point than yours.  You are denigrating Kerry for his beliefs.  It is not the beliefs of Evangelicals that make Liberals uneasy, but their intolerance of the beliefs of others.

                "There are no happy endings in the Bush Administration". - Randall L. Tobias

                by MadRuth on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 10:00:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Contrast this with... (none / 0)

            The representation of GLBT people (evil, sinful, modern-day leppers), Muslims (scary, likely terrorists, occassionally confused examinations wondering how in the world all the Muslims got equated with terrorists), immigrants from Mexico (they hurt Americans, they're lazy, they're criminal, they're all illegal, etc), and Liberals (especially see Al Gore, circa 1999-2000 John Kerry, circa 2003-2004; Howard Dean, 2003-present).

            And, so far as i'm aware, the news doesn't really ever equate freakshow Fundamentalism and general Christianity, it's problem is that it looks at the scary stuff from the perspective of politics rather than from a Christian perspective (the Christian perspective makes sense if you're examining how the fundies are trying to take over Christianity--but they're trying to take over everything else, too).

            It also doesn't help that a sizable number of people actually seem to believe this stuff. Those who deny that a significant percent of Christians (and the general population) hold beliefs that are totally off-the-charts give them covering fire. It's, again, working the refs.

            The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

            by Shapeshifter on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 05:43:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Freedom of Speech (4.00 / 5)

    Al Qaida/Taliban:  Nope.  Cut their tongues out.

    American Taliban:  Nope.  Audit them.

    Liberals:  Sure!  Pipe up!

    by Patricia Taylor on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 11:58:19 PM PDT

  •  Can't Tell (none / 1)

    me dancin', and prayin' while you shake rattlesnakes is not crazier than 76 virgins.

    Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

    by dpc on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 11:59:18 PM PDT

  •  Revenge Killing of Civilians (4.00 / 4)

    Al Qaeda/Taliban: Love it

    American Taliban: "We really regret it.... (psst, Love It!)"

    Liberals: Not on our watch you filthy animals!!!!

    "...an admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

    King Lear

    by Norwell on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 12:01:16 AM PDT

  •  On JC (none / 1)

    Jesus Christ

    Al Qaida/Taliban: Messenger of God
    American Taliban: Son of God
    Liberals: Early Philosopher/Son of God/Messenger of God/All-Around Mellow Dude

    "The concentration [of the legislative, executive and judicial powers] in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government." - Jefferson

    by El Payo on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 12:01:34 AM PDT

    •  I also think of Jesus as (none / 0)

      Early activist.

      I wonder often how much of what Jesus said was edited by the Council of Nicene.

      OEF/OIF vet
      I've been called a left-wing extremist because I absolutely oppose torture. I can live with that.

      by jabbausaf on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 11:02:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Quick suggestion (none / 1)

    This might have more impact if you call them "Conservatives" rather than "American Taliban." It turns it into name-calling, or at least I think that's how some would see it.

    Also, I initially thought you were referring to that John Walker Lyndh guy.

    by sarcaustic on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 12:02:28 AM PDT

  •  Jews (none / 1)

    Al Qaeda: Hate em!

    American Taleban: Hate em!

    Liberals: Don't give a flying hooey.

    "...an admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

    King Lear

    by Norwell on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 12:07:26 AM PDT

  •  As someone above noted (none / 1)

    Some of the theocons freaked out about not being able to execute minors after Roper v. Simmons was decided.

    Internet, n., A series of tubes invented by Al Gore; not a truck. "I mailed an Internet to my friend."

    by Viktor on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 12:08:21 AM PDT

  •  More comparisons (3.72 / 11)

    God
    Al Qaida/Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
    American Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
    Liberals: God may or may not exist and will not help us kill anyone

    Stem Cell Research
    Al Qaida/Taliban: No Stem cell research
    American Taliban: No stem cell research
    Liberals: Stem cell research

    Leaders
    Al Qaida/Taliban: God choose Osama Bin Laden to defeat the Great Satan
    American Taliban: God choose George W. Bush to lead us
    Liberals: God didn't choose anyone

    Gun Control
    Al Qaida/Taliban: Everyone should own a gun
    American Taliban: Everyone should own a gun
    Liberals: Limit guns

    by Disgusted on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 12:09:00 AM PDT

  •  Use of Force (4.00 / 5)

    Al-Qaida - As a means of propagating a world view
    Conservatives - As a means of propagating a world view
    Liberals - As a last resort

    Campaignation: A Strategic Look Ahead to 2006 and 2008

    by malkori on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 12:11:04 AM PDT

  •  GWB's Braindead War Strategy (4.00 / 8)

    Al Qaeda: Love it!

    American Taliban: Love it!

    Liberals: Shitty... just plain shitty....

    "...an admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

    King Lear

    by Norwell on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 12:12:30 AM PDT

  •  How the Islamic Crazies are like the Right (4.00 / 6)

    The American Taliban

    What is amazing to me is the way the right wing rubs their anti-Americanism in our faces.  Erhlich's pro-corporate anti-worker celebration, Cornyn's anti-independent judiciary veiled threats, and twenty-two, (three of them democrats in name only,) refuse to join in an apology for the lynchings, (nearly 5,000 of them,) that occurred and went unpunished due to racism in our country.  

    Japan apologized to the Koreans, Switzerland apologized to the Jews, Germany apologized to everybody, and yet our so-called representatives do not have the common human decency to recognize a terrible wrong done in our past?  It is incredible.  It is despicable.

    What is going on in our country?  I am literally ashamed.  The open corruption, the utter contempt for humankind, the legislation that does not create fairness, but instead chooses to increase advantage for the advantaged, the hubris, the deceptive faith-based initiatives, all of it makes me wonder; who the hell are these people and where did they come from?

    As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities. - Voltaire

    by elephty on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 12:14:00 AM PDT

  •  Press (4.00 / 10)

    Al Qaida/Taliban: Control of the Press
    American Taliban: Manipulation of the Press
    Liberals/Humanists: Freedom of the Press

    by mlcsmith on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 12:15:51 AM PDT

  •  Expressing your Sexuality (4.00 / 5)

    Al Qaeda: Fuhgedaboudit... Hate it!

    American Taliban: Noooo Way!!!! Hate it!

    Liberals: Check out these calves baby....

    "...an admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

    King Lear

    by Norwell on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 12:17:19 AM PDT

  •  I LOVE THIS DIARY!!! (none / 1)

    I am totally emailing this to everyone I know...and in light of Armando's "The Latest in New McCarthyism"...I think this is the PERFECT response to those jerks.

    Obama, or McCain

    by Elise on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 12:18:45 AM PDT

  •  Star Wars (4.00 / 2)

    Al Qaida/Taliban: We invented astronomy.
    American Taliban: Reagan is a genius.
    Liberals: Loved Episodes IV, V & VI.

    (might as well have some fun, speaking of which...)

    Humor

    Al Qaida/Taliban: Blasphemy!
    American Taliban: Blasphemy!
    Liberals: Thank God.

    "The concentration [of the legislative, executive and judicial powers] in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government." - Jefferson

    by El Payo on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 12:19:36 AM PDT

  •  Dating (4.00 / 4)

    Al Qaeda: At best.. tossing notes between passing SUV's on the strip.

    American Taliban: Dating? Not until you're married!!

    Liberals: Just gas up the car on your way home for crissake!

    "...an admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

    King Lear

    by Norwell on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 12:20:42 AM PDT