Who Said This: Falwell, Robertson, or bin Laden?

[st.cronin]

My final thought on this subject:

I might possibly be interested in studying/taking seriously bin Laden's "ideas" or "complaints about the west" or comparing his ideology to other fruitcakes AFTER his dead body has completely decomposed and the last of his soldiers/supporters has gone from the Earth. I am not a Republican or a right-winger; I am a political centrist who spent 6 years working enlisted working with the Jsoc, deploying to actual hot spots on a regular basis, who lost many close friends (including a brother and a business partner) on 9/11. I think it is beyond horrific that people want to use bin Laden to score cheap political points. It literally makes me nauseated.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

If you can't see the difference between "are you willing to serve" and a "what unit were you in while you were in Iraq", then there's really no point in continuing the conversation. One in a hypothetical that could make some conservatives (including myself) a bit uncomfortable in answering, the other is a snarky way of stating that if you haven't worn the uniform, you have no business supporting the war.

Taken in isolation, maybe. That's the problem I have with you, Cam, you never take context into account. In context, Anxiety had been making statements about "glad we went in, could have gone in sooner" and "go down the list of dictators, taking them out" (I'm paraphrasing). Given the strength of his convictions, it's reasonable to ask if he's already put actions to words, or if he would in the future. A single snarky sentence can, contrary to your belief, carry multiple meanings.

But perhaps in your world we all need to be extra extra careful about the exact words we choose, eh?

I'm starting to realize that with you, it's always blame someone else for your inability to carry on a meaningful conversation. And when in doubt, just make shit up. If I ever stop responding to your increasingly bizarre statements, you can just triumphantly say you got the last word and therefore "won" the argument.

You've been in talk radio too long. It is you who has an inability to carry on a meaningful conversation. It's abundantly clear that if things aren't broken down into simple black-and-white platitudes, there's not a lot of intellectual cut-and-thrust in which you can participate.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I've stated my reasons in the past, and have neither the need nor the desire to go over the same ground again and again and again.

If that is going to be your attitude, it really doesn't add anything of value to a thread to make posts like you did. If you want to stay out, stay out, but it's rather lame to post one word mocking posts then run away when someone challenges you on it.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by duckman

Only after the fact. It's only a "bad idea" now that people are dying. Just like SkyDog said, just because people think it's a bad doesn't actually make it a bad. There was once a vast majority that interracial marriage was a sin. Now, it's becoming more widely accepted. I realize that it's a smaller scale than a war, but I think you'll get the idea.

You'll notice that interracial dating is a bad idea, and slavery is a bad idea, and as time goes on, the number of people that approve of both goes down. That's a general trend for bad ideas, except for some blips here and there (torture). Support for Iraq is going down. Hence, good statistical support that Iraq was a bad idea.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

...who lost many close friends (including a brother and a business partner) on 9/11. I think it is beyond horrific that people want to use bin Laden to score cheap political points. It literally makes me nauseated.

Your problem (probably a bad choice of words, but I'm too tired to think of anything better) is that you are incapable of looking at it like an impassioned observer. For example, what penalty do I think a rapist should get? Probably 30-40 years. What should someone who rapes my daughter get? He deserves to be strangled with my bare hands. OBL is a bad guy, but he isn't the worst guy in American history, he isn't the gravest threat to our country.

Furthermore, there are no cheap political points being scored. You admitted yourself that they share the same ideology. The quiz and 'intellectually bankrupt liberal' are pointing out what you in fact know to be true. That's not cheap political points, nobody here is doing it to win an election, it's identifying a pernicious element in our culture.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You'll notice that interracial dating is a bad idea, and slavery is a bad idea, and as time goes on, the number of people that approve of both goes down.

Boy, you're getting more and more impressive by the minute.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

If that is going to be your attitude, it really doesn't add anything of value to a thread to make posts like you did. If you want to stay out, stay out, but it's rather lame to post one word mocking posts then run away when someone challenges you on it.

As evidenced by your most recent ridiculous statement (that the number of people who approve of interracial dating is going down over time), your posts richly deserve to be mocked.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Your problem (probably a bad choice of words, but I'm too tired to think of anything better) is that you are incapable of looking at it like somebody who doesn't really give a fuck. Try pretending like you haven't stepped more than 10 feet away from your computer screen in your entire life--like me--and then come to your own conclusions based on what the AFP and Reuters and moveon.org tells you--like me.

Fixed it.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Dutch brings out Conservative Gameplan #2: When you can't attack the message, attack the person bringing the message.

BTW Skydog, I'm pretty sure Biggles had a grammar boo-boo there and meant disapproval of interracial marriage and approval of slavery both went down, much like approval of the Iraq War is.

[Dutch]

Dutch brings out Conservative Gameplan #2: When you can't attack the message, attack the person bringing the message.

Fine. Conservative Gameplan #2 now in effect.

Jessie, you're an idiot.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Jessie, you're an idiot. a political troll who contributes very little to this board.

Fixed.

[MrBigglesworth]

Skydog, if anyone is trolling here it is you and Dutch. Like Jesse said I obviously had a grammar mistake in saying that support for interracial dating is going down. Dutch was obviously just going for ad hominem attacks. You were going for ad hominem attacks as well. I've explained my points repeatedly. In this thread alone I've been called a traitor, on the side of Saddam, intellectually bankrupt, accused of just not giving a shit, and someone deserving to be mocked for a grammar mistake. I have patiently explained my positions and attacked the arguments of others that I disagree with. From what I remember, Jesse has done the same.

Those that live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Skydog, if anyone is trolling here it is you and Dutch. Like Jesse said I obviously had a grammar mistake in saying that support for interracial dating is going down.

First off, it wasn't a grammar mistake. A grammar mistake is subject-verb agreement, a dangling participle, a sentence fragment, or something of that ilk. It was a factual error. Second, given the information I have gleaned from reading your posts in this thread about how outlandishly wrong you're capable of being, it was perfectly reasonable to expect that you were merely wrong again. As for the other stuff, when you call the tune...

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

First off, it wasn't a grammar mistake. A grammar mistake is subject-verb agreement, a dangling participle, a sentence fragment, or something of that ilk. It was a factual error. Second, given the information I have gleaned from reading your posts in this thread about how outlandishly wrong you're capable of being, it was perfectly reasonable to expect that you were merely wrong again. As for the other stuff, when you call the tune...

It wasn't a factual error, it was obviously a forum version of misspeaking. But fine, point out where I was factually wrong in the rest of the thread, outlandishly wrong even. Because right now all you are being is SkyTroll or DutchDog.

[Dutch]

In this thread alone I've been called a traitor, on the side of Saddam, intellectually bankrupt

You're wrong, I don't think you're a traitor at all.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You're wrong, I don't think you're a traitor at all.

Thanks, that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Thanks, that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me

I know.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Fixed.

In the wise words of someone I forget, I've been called worse by better. Also, as Biggles noted, I haven't trolled. Yes, when Dutch decided to quit debating the points and simply started to attack the person, I called him on it. I have no doubts I'm one of the two or three most liberal people on this board, so I've got no problems when I get dogpiled. I expect it. But at least have the creativity to attack the idea, and not the person.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

point out where I was factually wrong in the rest of the thread

You asked for it, so here it is.

if you switched the birth places of OBL and Robertson/Falwell, they would now occupy each other's roles.

Zero chance of that, but I'll give you a pass on incorrect theology.

If Robertson/Falwell were in the same position as OBL, they very well could be acting the same, because they share similar beliefs

Wrong again. OBL is not remotely evangelical. His solution for non-Muslims is to kill them. Robertson and Falwell are both aggressively evangelical. They're too political, but they're definitely evangelical.

Dismissing OBL as a murderous sociopath is a major mistake.

He IS a murderous sociopath.

it's not a cut and dry issue

Actually, it is.

Because you declare war and use soldiers to kill people does not automatically trump sneak attacks by civilians.

It does in my book.

The highest score here posted was an 11, one more than would be expected just by flipping a coin. That underscores the point that they have the same rhetoric

No, that underscores the point that the quiz is woefully flawed.

However, what would you say is the difference between Islamic fascism and American theocracy? They are actually very, very similar, holding most of the same views if you substitute God/Allah around

They are all in favor of theocratic fascism

I'm fairly certain you're dead wrong here. The economic principles of fascism seem to be soundly rejected by both.

If you suspect your neighbor of killing your kids, you would not go over there with a shotgun, shoot him, and take over his house and custody of his kids until they reached the age where they could take care of themselves. You would call the police, who would arrest him if they had probably cause. The DA would then prosecute the case and his fate would be determined by a judge and jury of his peers.

I've already pointed out the ridiculous nature of this one.

...and then there's that silliness of just because people think it is a bad idea, that it is a bad idea.

There's probably more, but those jumped out at me.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

You asked for it, so here it is.

Zero chance of that, but I'll give you a pass on incorrect theology.
Wrong again. OBL is not remotely evangelical. His solution for non-Muslims is to kill them. Robertson and Falwell are both aggressively evangelical. They're too political, but they're definitely evangelical.
He IS a murderous sociopath.
Actually, it is.
It does in my book.
No, that underscores the point that the quiz is woefully flawed.
I'm fairly certain you're dead wrong here. The economic principles of fascism seem to be soundly rejected by both.
I've already pointed out the ridiculous nature of this one.

...and then there's that silliness of just because people think it is a bad idea, that it is a bad idea.

There's probably more, but those jumped out at me.

Soooo...you disagree with my opinions, which makes me factually inaccurate?

[Dutch]

But Bin Laden is a murderous sociopath.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

But Bin Laden is a murderous sociopath.

Originally Posted by wikipedia on sociopaths

Research has shown that individuals with antisocial personality disorder are indifferent to the possibility of physical pain or many punishments, and show no indications that they experience fear when so threatened; this may explain their apparent disregard for the consequences of their actions, and their lack of empathy to the suffering of others.

Central to understanding individuals diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder is that they do not appear to experience true human emotions, or at least, they do not appear to experience a full range of human emotions. This can explain the lack of empathy for the suffering of others, since they cannot experience emotion associated with either empathy or suffering...

I don't see how any of that describes bin Laden. I've seen him emotional, I've seen him sympathetic to the struggles of Muslims, and I see no evidence to say that he is without fear.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I don't see how any of that describes bin Laden. I've seen him emotional, I've seen him sympathetic to the struggles of Muslims, and I see no evidence to say that he is without fear.

Being a sociopath doesn't mean you are without fear, it is, according to Psycholoy Today is: A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others and inability or unwillingness to conform to what are considered to be the norms of society. It makes no mention of a lack of fear.

Wikipedia is, BIG SURPRISE, incorrect.

On a side note, I find the comparison of Bin Laden to Christian conservatives disgusting. Robertson and Falwell never spearheaded the death of thousands of innocent Americans.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I don't see how any of that describes bin Laden. I've seen him emotional.

Those emotional strip-club pole dances were actually SNL skits.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Being a sociopath doesn't mean you are without fear, it is, according to Psycholoy Today is: A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others and inability or unwillingness to conform to what are considered to be the norms of society. It makes no mention of a lack of fear.

I find it odd that Psychology Today would describe it like that, since it is officially Antisocial Personality Disorder. According to Abnormal Psychology, third edition, by Ronaly J. Comer, people with APD are "reckless and egocentric, they have little regard for their own safety or that of others." Or, in other words, don't fear for their safety.

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

On a side note, I find the comparison of Bin Laden to Christian conservatives disgusting. Robertson and Falwell never spearheaded the death of thousands of innocent Americans.

Big surprise, this has already been dealt with. As one poster said, Charlie Chaplin and Hitler still both have moustaches, that one killed millions of people doesn't change that.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I find it odd that Psychology Today would describe it like that, since it is officially Antisocial Personality Disorder. According to Abnormal Psychology, third edition, by Ronaly J. Comer, people with APD are "reckless and egocentric, they have little regard for their own safety or that of others." Or, in other words, don't fear for their safety.

Well, it specially mentions both the words "Sociopath" and refers it to the correct term of Antisocial Personality Disorder. But thanks for splitting hairs.

Big surprise, this has already been dealt with. As one poster said, Charlie Chaplin and Hitler still both have moustaches, that one killed millions of people doesn't change that.

Wow. One of the most inane and ridicuous analogies I've seen in awhile. Thanks for the laugh.

[st.cronin]

I bet Mr. B gets a lot of dates explaining why bin Laden isn't as bad as we all make him out to be.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I bet Mr. B gets a lot of dates explaining why bin Laden isn't as bad as we all make him out to be.

What a douchebag comment.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

What a douchebag comment.

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Big surprise, this has already been dealt with. As one poster said, Charlie Chaplin and Hitler still both have moustaches, that one killed millions of people doesn't change that.

Wow. Funny thing -- I thought the same thing when I read your analogy.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Wow. One of the most inane and ridicuous analogies I've seen in awhile. Thanks for the laugh.

The point, of course, is that just because one person's organization has killed more people over the past couple of years doesn't mean that it is impossible to compare them in other ways. Understand now?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Wow. Funny thing -- I thought the same thing when I read your analogy.

You need to take a logic and/or debate course.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The point, of course, is that just because one person's organization has killed more people over the past couple of years doesn't mean that it is impossible to compare them in other ways. Understand now?

And the counter point is that it is, in fact, NOT possible to do so without looking like a lunatic/jackass/idiot. You don't understand that - because you don't understand what it means that bin Laden would cheerfully kill you to make a point, and then brag about it to your friends, who would say, "well, he's got a point...".

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The point, of course, is that just because one person's organization has killed more people over the past couple of years doesn't mean that it is impossible to compare them in other ways. Understand now?

Of course. Then again, you're making a comparison of someone who is a Christian Conservative in this country, and someone, to my knowlege, has never spearheaded nor personally KILLED ANYONE (Robertson and Fallwell) to someone who spearheaded the biggest terrorist attack in the United States, which lead to the death of over 3,000 people, destroyed American families and changes the very fabric of our nation.

Nothing that people here would remotely consider insulting. In addition to being clueless, you and your ilk are remarkably classless as well.

This little thread was created to do nothing less than to tear down Christianity and those the believe in it. Bully for you.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You need to take a logic and/or debate course.

Yeah, because "What a doucebag comment" is taught as a valid comeback in a debate. Might want to take your own suggestion.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

And the counter point is that it is, in fact, NOT possible to do so without looking like a lunatic/jackass/idiot. You don't understand that - because you don't understand what it means that bin Laden would cheerfully kill you to make a point, and then brag about it to your friends, who would say, "well, he's got a point...".

st.cronin, have you regressed in age 20 years in the past week? You sound so infantile calling names about arguments you disagree with. It's a pathetic attempt to win an argument, and your only argument is based off emotion and not logic or reason. In fact, everything that you just wrote after the "-" is completely incoherent.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Yeah, because "What a doucebag comment" is taught as a valid comeback in a debate. Might want to take your own suggestion.

You're right, that comment by st.cronin deserved a detailed response

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

st.cronin, have you regressed in age 20 years in the past week? You sound so infantile calling names about arguments you disagree with. It's a pathetic attempt to win an argument, and your only argument is based off emotion and not logic or reason. In fact, everything that you just wrote after the "-" is completely incoherent.

Well, I knew you wouldn't understand it - in fact, I *said* you wouldn't understand it. So I don't think I was calling names. I think it's clear I had come to the right conclusion. On that note, I'm out.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Of course. Then again, you're making a comparison of someone who is a Christian Conservative in this country, and someone, to my knowlege, has never spearheaded nor personally KILLED ANYONE (Robertson and Fallwell) to someone who spearheaded the biggest terrorist attack in the United States, which lead to the death of over 3,000 people, destroyed American families and changes the very fabric of our nation.

Nothing that people here would remotely consider insulting. In addition to being clueless, you and your ilk are remarkably classless as well.

This little thread was created to do nothing less than to tear down Christianity and those the believe in it. Bully for you.

You and your ilk have been a paradigm of class so far. All you have is ad hominem attacks. You have not made a single decent point since you joined the thread. Everything you have said is completely devoid of logic, and when I call you on it you just spout some other illogical nonsense to take the focus off your previous inanity. In fact, everyone is dumber for having read your comments. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Well, I knew you wouldn't understand it - in fact, I *said* you wouldn't understand it. So I don't think I was calling names. I think it's clear I had come to the right conclusion. On that note, I'm out.

By all means, clear it up. I would like to understand it, it just doesn't make much sense. I'm not attacking the logic, I can't follow the logic because the grammar is messed up.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st. cronin

in fact, NOT possible to do so without looking like a lunatic/jackass/idiot

Of course it is. Just because the wacko right wing (yourself and WVUFAN, among others) can't see it doesn't make it somehow insulting to all. And besides Falwell and Robertson have more impact on my life than bin Laden does, as well as wanting to take away my Constitutionally guarenteed rights.

Hell, Falwell has compared homosexuality to smoking crack and bestiality:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200411080004

So comparing him to OBL is something beyond the pale? Please.

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

This little thread was created to do nothing less than to tear down Christianity and those the believe in it.

WOW... Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson = Christianity to you? I'm sorry. Then I'll admit, it was to tear down what you consider to be Christianity. For those rational Christians, who have no time of day for Falwell and Robertson, it did no such thing.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You're right, that comment by st.cronin deserved a detailed response

I thought he was right on the money. That's just me, of course.

Getting back to the topic: you want to claim to speak logically, yet you someone spout your pseudo-intellectual nonsense and defend a comparison of Christian Conservatives to Osama Bil Laden, using a horrible "mustache" comparison of Chaplin and Hitler. This...you honestly think any part of your argument contains a semblance of either logic or truth?

Seriously? I mean, I know your a liberal, but c'mon now. I'm not trying to be insulting, nor is this an attempt at sarcasm. I cannot, in any part of me, understand how someone can make that sort of comparison. I ... I seriously struggle to grasp how much someone has to hate a group of people such as conservative christians and/or Robertson and Falwell to even stoop to a comparison like then, then get indignant when someone calls them on it.

Sigh.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I thought he was right on the money. That's just me, of course.

Getting back to the topic: you want to claim to speak logically, yet you someone spout your pseudo-intellectual nonsense and defend a comparison of Christian Conservatives to Osama Bil Laden, using a horrible "mustache" comparison of Chaplin and Hitler. This...you honestly think any part of your argument contains a semblance of either logic or truth?

Seriously? I mean, I know your a liberal, but c'mon now. I'm not trying to be insulting, nor is this an attempt at sarcasm. I cannot, in any part of me, understand how someone can make that sort of comparison. I ... I seriously struggle to grasp how much someone has to hate a group of people such as conservative christians and/or Robertson and Falwell to even stoop to a comparison like then, then get indignant when someone calls them on it.

Sigh.

I guess since you're basically attacking my original quote that was later paraphrased I will respond. First here is what I said.

Originally Posted by me

The rhetoric is the same. Basically it'd be like if I said that Charlie Chaplin and Hitler had similar mustaches, and then someone tried to shoot down that theory because Hitler killed more people than Chaplin. I think it's valid to point out the similarities, while recognizing there are differences.

Let me expand: You cannot tell the quotes in the quiz apart. These guys use similar rhetoric. There are certainly differences, though. For example: Osama Bin Laden has a beard.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Of course it is. Just because the wacko right wing (yourself and WVUFAN, among others) can't see it doesn't make it somehow insulting to all. And besides Falwell and Robertson have more impact on my life than bin Laden does, as well as wanting to take away my Constitutionally guarenteed rights.

Hell, Falwell has compared homosexuality to smoking crack and bestiality:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200411080004

So comparing him to OBL is something beyond the pale? Please.

Well, the link was to Mediamatters.org, a liberal website, and it further links to his DENYING EVER SAYING IT. But, obviously since you want to condemn him and people who believe like him, he's the target.

Exactly what Constitutionally Guaranteed right is Falwell and Robertson trying to take away from you again?

WOW... Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson = Christianity to you? I'm sorry. Then I'll admit, it was to tear down what you consider to be Christianity. For those rational Christians, who have no time of day for Falwell and Robertson, it did no such thing.

No, but you are comparing two well-known Christians to a murdering terrorist.

Also, describe to me what you call a "rational" Christian?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

Let me expand: You cannot tell the quotes in the quiz apart. These guys use similar rhetoric. There are certainly differences, though. For example: Osama Bin Laden has a beard.

As has already been discussed, the quotes have been altered. I can take any two quotes, alter them and try to do some sort of comparison. The poster of the quiz also took (and picked out purposefully) quotes that could be altered to sound similar. Again, I can take quotes from Clinton and Bush and put in a quiz to make them sound similar as well -- doesn't make it true. There are certainly differences, though. For example: Clinton committed a felony while in office.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, the link was to Mediamatters.org, a liberal website, and it further links to his DENYING EVER SAYING IT. But, obviously since you want to condemn him and people who believe like him, he's the target.

He denies and then they point to times where he ACTUALLY SAID IT! Push the dogma side and learn to read. It had references to shows he went on (including Wolf Blitzer Reports, Hardline, Frontline, etc) and compared them.

Exactly what Constitutionally Guaranteed right is Falwell and Robertson trying to take away from you again?

Free Speech is a big (and obvious) one. Falwall and Robertson are trying to ban pornography and deprive me of my rights to purchase and read certain kinds of publications. My right to privacy would affected by those two wackjobs as well. I'm sure gay people could tell you of how their plans would deny their rights to privacy in their bedrooms.

No, but you are comparing two well-known Christians to a murdering terrorist.

Two well-known wackjobs... see how many Christians on this thread say how nuts they are.

Btw, I wonder where the right wing is when people compare Clinton to Hitler:

http://kosovo99.tripod.com/comparis.htm

Oh wait... not their side!

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I thought he was right on the money. That's just me, of course.

Well you have a tiny penis.

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Getting back to the topic: you want to claim to speak logically, yet you someone spout your pseudo-intellectual nonsense and defend a comparison of Christian Conservatives to Osama Bil Laden, using a horrible "mustache" comparison of Chaplin and Hitler. This...you honestly think any part of your argument contains a semblance of either logic or truth?

Seriously? I mean, I know your a liberal, but c'mon now. I'm not trying to be insulting, nor is this an attempt at sarcasm. I cannot, in any part of me, understand how someone can make that sort of comparison. I ... I seriously struggle to grasp how much someone has to hate a group of people such as conservative christians and/or Robertson and Falwell to even stoop to a comparison like then, then get indignant when someone calls them on it.

Sigh.

Since you seem to sincerely ask, I will explain it slowly. Consider A with two properties, X and Y. Also with two properties is B, those properties being Y and Z. No matter what X and Z are, it doesn't change the fact that they both have Y.

Now, consider Charlie Chaplin with two properties, a moustache and an actor. Hitler also has two properties, a moustache and a murderer. The fact that both has moustaches does not change because Hitler was a murderer and Chaplin was an actor. It is not insane/ignorant/outlandish/intellectually bankrupt to point out that they both had moustaches.

Now, consider Falwell/Robertson with two properties, religious fascism and conservative Christian. OBL has two properties, religious fascism and organizer of terrorist attacks. The fact that both are religious fascists does not change because one is a terrorist and the other is a leader of a conservative Christian sect. It is not insane/ignorant/outlandish/intellectually bankrupt to point out that they both are religious fascists.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

It is not insane/ignorant/outlandish/intellectually bankrupt to point out that they both are religious fascists.

I think you are wasting your breath. These are people who consider Falwell and Robertson to be merely "Christians". You'll never get through their skulls with things like logic and reason.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think you are wasting your breath. These are people who consider Falwell and Robertson to be merely "Christians". You'll never get through their skulls with things like logic and reason.

It doesn't matter what I consider Falwell and Robertson - they could be circus clowns, or orthodontists, it doesn't matter. Comparing non-murderous lunatics with bin Laden for political purposes is, at the very least, deeply offensive to me personally. I think it makes you look incredibly cynical and foolish as well.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Well you have a tiny penis.

Wait .. HOW DID YOU FIND OUT? I haven't told ANYONE that. Keep it quiet.

Since you seem to sincerely ask, I will explain it slowly. Consider A with two properties, X and Y. Also with two properties is B, those properties being Y and Z. No matter what X and Z are, it doesn't change the fact that they both have Y.

Now, consider Charlie Chaplin with two properties, a moustache and an actor. Hitler also has two properties, a moustache and a murderer. The fact that both has moustaches does not change because Hitler was a murderer and Chaplin was an actor. It is not insane/ignorant/outlandish/intellectually bankrupt to point out that they both had moustaches.

Sure it is. Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa are both human. It's outlandish to compare the two. Chaplin and Hitler had moutaches. Still outlandish to compare. A person can take two things from any two people on the earth, past or present, and use them to compare -- that doesn't make the comparison's logical or valid in any respect. Clinton and a neatherthal both had hair on their heads. Ridiculous to compare, although I had thought about it from time to time.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It doesn't matter what I consider Falwell and Robertson - they could be circus clowns, or orthodontists, it doesn't matter. Comparing non-murderous lunatics with bin Laden for political purposes is, at the very least, deeply offensive to me personally. I think it makes you look incredibly cynical and foolish as well.

ISiddiqui, you may be right, but let me just say this: st.cronin, why are you assuming this is to score cheap political points? You yourself have admitted that it is correct to say that both are religious fascists, yet for some reason you say that pointing it out is deeply offensive. I at least am pointing it out because I am afraid of what Robertson/Falwell have done/are doing to the country. If that is a cheap political reason to you, then I don't know what to say.