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

[ISiddiqui]

http://www.funnystrange.com/quiz/

I got an 11/20.

[SackAttack]

Funny stuff, but they had to manipulate the quotes to make it work. When you remove things like "Islam" and replace things like "We" with "America," it makes it more nebulous.

Quote manipulation to put those two douchebags on the same level as the Islamic douchebag. If it works for your political ideology, I guess (and I mean "your" in the abstract sense, not you specifically Sidd).

[ISiddiqui]

Well, I do put them on similar levels .

Some of the quote manipulation is needed though, to show that all three are basically saying the same things, if you take out self references or references to the enemy.

[Abe Sargent]

I really dislike Pat and Jerry and they do NOT represent the opinions of even conservative Christians (I could post evidence, but that's not really germaine), but what's wrong with this quote from Pat?

"There is no way that a United Nations, a League of Nations, peace treaties, disarmament treaties, or any other human instrument can bring about peace. Such things mean nothing when one nation desires the land and resources of another. A lasting peace will never be built upon man's efforts, because man is sinful, vicious, and wicked. Until men are changed and Satan's power is removed, there will not be peace on earth."


That's a fine statement by any Christian. That humanity, under our own power, cannot have peace, but that we must first find peace with God. It's a statement about humanity as a whole, not individuals, and therefore simply says that as long as we give ino to our darker natures, it doesn't matter what documents we sign or what we declare. That statment isn't bad.

-Anxiety

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, I do put them on similar levels .

Some of the quote manipulation is needed though, to show that all three are basically saying the same things, if you take out self references or references to the enemy.

/bites tongue

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, I do put them on similar levels .

From an extremist standpoint, I'd agree with you. They're as much Christian nutjobs as bin Laden is an Islamist nutjob.

Some of the quote manipulation is needed though, to show that all three are basically saying the same things, if you take out self references or references to the enemy.

Why manipulate what they're saying, though? Are you saying that their wackiness isn't wacky enough without further manipulation to blur the line? That reasonable, rational people might take them at face value unless you can somehow anonymously compare them to bin Laden?

[Lorena]

11/20

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Why manipulate what they're saying, though? Are you saying that their wackiness isn't wacky enough without further manipulation to blur the line? That reasonable, rational people might take them at face value unless you can somehow anonymously compare them to bin Laden?

The point is that they have the same rhetoric. Making the identifying information murky does nothing to effect the rhetoric or the ideology of the speaker, so your critique doesn't really hold true. I don't know when this was written, but I saw one written to show the absurdity of Chris Matthews saying that OBL's speech sounded like 'an over the top Michael Moore', when Moore is pretty far from a theocratic fascist. In fact, OBL is a conservative Muslim, so he is much closer to the American right in terms of ideology than the American left (though definitely not the same).

[Karlifornia]

8/20

[ShovelMonkey]

Amen to the folks who disagree with the "edited" statements. I lost interest after that.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

I really dislike Pat and Jerry and they do NOT represent the opinions of even conservative Christians (I could post evidence, but that's not really germaine), but what's wrong with this quote from Pat?

"There is no way that a United Nations, a League of Nations, peace treaties, disarmament treaties, or any other human instrument can bring about peace. Such things mean nothing when one nation desires the land and resources of another. A lasting peace will never be built upon man's efforts, because man is sinful, vicious, and wicked. Until men are changed and Satan's power is removed, there will not be peace on earth."

That's a fine statement by any Christian. That humanity, under our own power, cannot have peace, but that we must first find peace with God. It's a statement about humanity as a whole, not individuals, and therefore simply says that as long as we give ino to our darker natures, it doesn't matter what documents we sign or what we declare. That statment isn't bad.

-Anxiety

Depends on how you define Christian. From my viewpoint with a Catholic background, I don't find that statement to be representative of my religious beliefs. But I do think that your point is valid; I think the quiz author's implication is that this sounds like rhetoric that bin Laden might use.

I'm sure this will eventually reach flamewar levels and I certainly don't want to contribute to that. On a certain level, I think it's a poor analogy to compare people to types like Hitler and bin Laden because you're talking about two severe extremisms of people who are so devoid of humanity that they are on a whole other level by themselves. It's a poor comparison to link someone who has never killed someone to someon who has participated in acts of genocide.

That said, I have little use for people who expouse hatred, and I think Falwell and Robertson do that frequently. I certainly don't think they are representative of protestants anymore than I think bin Laden is representative of Islam.

[kcchief19]

Dola, I didn't find the quote manipulation for the intent of the quiz to be unfair. The only things that were really changed were words that clearly gave away the speaker.
I don't believe any of the changes altered the meaning or intent of the quote. The quiz then provided all of the quotes in their context, which I think was an appropriate thing to do so you can judge for yourself what you think of the editing.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

On a certain level, I think it's a poor analogy to compare people to types like Hitler and bin Laden because you're talking about two severe extremisms of people who are so devoid of humanity that they are on a whole other level by themselves. It's a poor comparison to link someone who has never killed someone to someon who has participated in acts of genocide.

Surely I'm not the only one who thinks this 'quiz' is lunacy which proves nothing other than that some people will go to INSANE lengths to make people they disagree with politically look bad.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Surely I'm not the only one who thinks this 'quiz' is lunacy which proves nothing other than that some people will go to INSANE lengths to make people they disagree with politically look bad.

Their politics don't necessarily matter. The point is that they are both religious extremists that use the same kind of rhetoric. So much so that you can't tell them apart.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

Their politics don't necessarily matter. The point is that they are both religious extremists that use the same kind of rhetoric. So much so that you can't tell them apart.

I think it's possible to tell them apart by the number of dead bodies they take credit fo.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think it's possible to tell them apart by the number of dead bodies they take credit fo.

You can't tell the quotes apart.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think it's possible to tell them apart by the number of dead bodies they take credit fo.

OBL: > 3,000

Iraq war, supported and cheered on by both Falwell and Robertson: > 30,000

It's dumb to compare body counts, because while their rhetoric and ideology are very similar, their methods and means of power are extremely different. Robertson especially has not been shy about advocating for the assassination of people around the globe. If you believe that they are honest in their rhetoric, if you switched the birth places of OBL and Robertson/Falwell, they would now occupy each other's roles.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Well, if you want to play hardball about it -

They're vehemently against abortion and resist progressive women's rights. They're anti-stem cell research, pro-creationism, and generally distrustful of science. They believe homosexualiy is a crime against nature and God. Seperation of the church and state is despised by these folks and they insist the nation is founded on the principles of their religion. They hate and deplore strong language, gay characters, and sexual content on the TV. They ignore the Geneva Convention when it suits their needs - including provisons against torture or due process. They're easily whipped into a state of frenzy with ideological manipulation against supposed enemies, foreign and domestic.

Now, was I just descriing the modern religious Right or Wahhabism?

That's the point. For all those on the right like to say liberals support Bin Laden, here's the truth. There are a whole bunch of eerie parallell between Osama bin Laden and/or fundamentalist Islam and the stated goals of the extremist Christian Right currently running the modern GOP. The extreme religious rightwing of the GOP is the closest thing to Islamo-fascism we have in our country, and no one is worried that Al Qaeda will be storming ashore on our beaches en masse, invasion style, anytime soon.

Look, I'm under no illusions that Democrats would never try to feather their own nest if they happened to control all three branches of power and could thus rig the game. But the threat is not coming from the democrats, it's coming from the GOP, infested with the radical religious right, who have somehow convinced a large segment of Christians in the US that cutting benefits and protection for the working class and poor, extending benefits to the wealthy at their expense, engaging in warfare based on lies and deception, and torture, are more central values to Christianity than mercy, civil rights, help for the poor and sick, and the shunning of wealth and power. It's a stunning achievement considering how backasswards that is to the Gospels and the entire New Testament.

George Washington could rise from the grave with Thomas Jefferson at his side, and if they disagreed with the agenda du jour of the WH or Tom DeLay, they'd be painted as cowards and traitors. The Neocons smeared John McCain, Max Cleland, and now John Murtha, and by proxy, the greatest generation. The religious right dutifully swallowed it all and spread it like a virus.

I don't think any member of Congress is in league with Bin Laden, but we liberals didn't start this bullshit.

They did.

So, if the shoe fits ... it's the Neocon, fundie dominated, GOP that is the closest thing to fanatical Wahhabism in our nation today and there's no major political faction anywhere near giving them a run for the money.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by ShovelMonkey

Amen to the folks who disagree with the "edited" statements. I lost interest after that.

I'm afraid you never understood that point from the very beginning. If the questions ask you to identify the speaker of such quotations as, "My name is Jerry Falwell and I think God is awesome", the quiz pretty much just wastes everyone's damn time, doesn't it?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

OBL: > 3,000

Iraq war, supported and cheered on by both Falwell and Robertson: > 30,000

It's dumb to compare body counts, because while their rhetoric and ideology are very similar, their methods and means of power are extremely different. Robertson especially has not been shy about advocating for the assassination of people around the globe. If you believe that they are honest in their rhetoric, if you switched the birth places of OBL and Robertson/Falwell, they would now occupy each other's roles.

So, everybody who supported the war in Iraq is responsible for the deaths that resulted? As responsible as bin Laden is for the murders he planned? Are you drunk? Your powers of critical thinking are either non-existent, or are purposely suppressed in order to smear those whose politics you disagree with.

Look, there are probably one or two things that bin Laden has said that I would agree with. There are things that YOU have said that I agree with, and things that I disagree with. I don't agree with most of what Robertson and Falwell say. I suspect that one or both is perhaps insincere in their faith. There are LOTS of people I disagree with about things political. But I would NEVER stoop to the level of comparing somebody to a murderous sociopath to score a cheap point.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

I don't think any member of Congress is in league with Bin Laden ...

why in the world would anybody think that, or think that you thought that?

It's possible to make your point without sounding crazy, you know.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

So, everybody who supported the war in Iraq is responsible for the deaths that resulted?

Indirectly...yes. Sorry, but it's the truth. You can't support a war, then go - wait, innocent people died? I was never informed of that eventuality

War's a motherfucker. Supporting it means supporting the death of innocents, regardless of how noble that cause is. The question is, are the reasons for the war worth the deaths of innocents? In the case of this war, I don't think it is.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

why in the world would anybody think that, or think that you thought that?

It's possible to make your point without sounding crazy, you know.

Hey, I'm not the member of the party that had ads morphing Senators faces into Saddam and Osama. Ask Max Cleland about that.

EDIT: Or ya' know, claim because you're against a war, you're _for_ Saddam Hussien.

BTW Dutch,

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

OBL: > 3,000

Iraq war, supported and cheered on by both Falwell and Robertson: > 30,000

Let's not forget the guy your political crowd was cheering for.

In 1959, before Hussein was the leader of Iraq (before he had
completed high school, even), he participated in the assignation of
the then-current Iraqi leader. (“Crimes Against Iraq,”
http://www.upforanything.net/archives/000664.html )

In 1968, Hussein, actively engaged in “purifying the government and
society of potential dissidents.” (“Biography of Saddam Hussein of
Tikrit,” Iraq Foundation:
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/research/bio.html )

In 1974, Hussein participated in the killing of five religious
leaders. (“Saddam’s Crimes,”
http://www.sciri.btinternet.co.uk/En...am_crimes.html
) Hundreds of other religious people were arrested and tortured.

In 1977, Hussein was responsible for the arrest of thousand of
religious people, and the killing of hundreds of them.

In 1978, Hussein participated in the assignation of former
Prime-Minister Abdul Razzaq Al naef in London. Between 1978-79,
Hussein helped “eliminate” 7,000 communists in Iraq.

In 1979, Hussein ordered another purge to eliminate political
opponents. Hundreds of top ranking Ba'thists and army officers were
executed.

During the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88), 730,000 Iranians died. You will
recall that Hussein was the aggressor in this war, because he wanted
full control of the Arvand/Shatt al-Arab waterway at the head of the
Persian Gulf. (For more information on the war, see “Iran-Iraq War,”
at Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/i/irani1raq.asp
)

Approximately 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals were killed in the Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait. It’s estimated there were 1,500,000 refugees from
this war, displaced by Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait. 750,000 “endured
brutalities, oppression, and torture.” Although the date for the end
of the war is usually given as 1988, the struggle continued, and
500,000 Iranians were late killed (the Iranians say it was closer to 1
million), 100,000 by Hussein’s chemical weapons. In one day, 5,000
men, women, and children were gassed. (“Sadaam’s Other Crime,” In The
National Interest: http://www.inthenationalinterest.com...e29Askari.html
and “Charges Facing Saddam Hussein,” BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3320293.stm )

Between 1987-1988, 180,000 Kurds “disappeared,” and 4,000 villages
were razed, in an effort at “ethnic cleansing.”

In 1983, Hussein killed of 8,000 members of the Barzani clan. Also in
1983, Hussein arrested 90 members of Al Hakim family and executed 16
of them.

Between 1988 and 1999, Hussein killed 7,000 prisoners in what was
called “prison cleansing.” (“NoBody Count,”
http://www.blogoram.com/000184.php )

We also know that Hussein killed and tortured many other “enemies”
before the Gulf War. For example: Ayatollah Mohamad baqir Al Sadr and
his sister Amina Al Sadr (Bint Al Huda) were arrested, tortured, and
killed in 1980. In 1981, Haj Sahal Al Salman in UAE in 1981, Sami
Mahdi was killed. In 1987, Ni'ma Mohamad in Pakistan was killed. In
1988, Sayed Mahdi Al Hakim in Sudan was killed.
In addition, we know from Iraqi officials that Hussein put to death
“officers who did not agree to execute people in the street,”
religious leaders who didn’t lavish praise of Hussein, and Shiite
Muslims (for their religious views). (See, as an example, “Officer's
tale: Iraq's web of assassination, “ Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0424/p01s04-woiq.html ) Remember, too,
that mass graves were found during the FIRST Gulf War. (“Charges
Against Saddam,” TalkLeft:
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/004668.html )

In the 1990s, Hussein killed 40,000 Shia’s (or Shiite Muslims) for
their religious uprisings; among those who became prisoners,
approximately 2,000 were executed on November 1993 alone. (“Death
Tolls,” http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat5.htm#Iraq For more on
Shia’s, see “Shiites,” http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/shiites.htm ) As
further evidence that the Gulf War did not play a role in Shia deaths,
in 1980, before war with Iran, Hussein hanged two leading Shia
figures. (“Radical Shias Worry Bush as well as Sadaam,” Daily Times:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...-10-2002_pg4_7 )
Since 1974, at least hundreds of Shia leaders have been arrested.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

Indirectly...yes. Sorry, but it's the truth. You can't support a war, then go - wait, innocent people died? I was never informed of that eventuality

War's a motherfucker. Supporting it means supporting the death of innocents, regardless of how noble that cause is. The question is, are the reasons for the war worth the deaths of innocents? In the case of this war, I don't think it is.

I don't disagree with that, but the question was supposed to be, "everybody who supported the war is equally as responsible for the deaths that resulted as bin Laden is for the deaths he planned?"

Because THAT would be an ideological extreme.

Sorry for the poor writing.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

So, everybody who supported the war in Iraq is responsible for the deaths that resulted? As responsible as bin Laden is for the murders he planned? Are you drunk? Your powers of critical thinking are either non-existent, or are purposely suppressed in order to smear those whose politics you disagree with.

Look, there are probably one or two things that bin Laden has said that I would agree with. There are things that YOU have said that I agree with, and things that I disagree with. I don't agree with most of what Robertson and Falwell say. I suspect that one or both is perhaps insincere in their faith. There are LOTS of people I disagree with about things political. But I would NEVER stoop to the level of comparing somebody to a murderous sociopath to score a cheap point.

I said right in my other post that it was dumb to look at body counts because of the differing ways in which they each wield their powers. If Robertson/Falwell were in the same position as OBL, they very well could be acting the same, because they share similar beliefs, and Robertson at least is not afraid of promoting violence. Dismissing OBL as a murderous sociopath is a major mistake. And this whole discussion was brought on because for 5 years now conservativs have been calling liberals traitors and 'on the other side' and talking about how 'Osama sounds like an over the top Michael Moore'. If you want to talk about someone scoring cheap political points by comparing someone to OBL, just look at Bush's recent speech where he accuses those who disagree with him of 'giving comfort to the enemy.'

Furthermore, is the invasion of Iraq and the killing of over 30,000 people for political gain morally better than the killing of 3,000 for political gain? Sure there are circumstances on both sides that effect the morality, but overall it's not a cut and dry issue. I could bring up philosophy that supports both sides of the issue. Because you declare war and use soldiers to kill people does not automatically trump sneak attacks by civilians.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

Hey, I'm not the member of the party that had ads morphing Senators faces into Saddam and Osama. Ask Max Cleland about that.

Which I think is equally vile ... as do most of us here at the center. This is why people are turned off politics. If you want to attract people to the left, attacking the right in vicious and crazy ways will never get it done.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Let's not forget the guy your political crowd was cheering for.

Thank you for making my point Dutch. Look how conservatives make any critique of the President out to be a love affair with the enemy. It's childish.

EDIT: And I'll also add that we were talking about bin Ladean, who is in no way connected to Saddam.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

But it worked, Cronin. Because fear tends to work.

The problem is the right can attack the left all they want to no reprecussions. There's a reason why "liberal" is a dirty word now politically, but "conservative" isn't. Because conservatives fought and used a well-funded multi-billion network (Limbaugh, Fox News, the Limbaugh clone every single major city has now, etc.) to give themselves legitmacy, even the batshit insane ones like Coulter and Malkin.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

If you want to attract people to the left, attacking the right in vicious and crazy ways will never get it done.

Who is doing that, exactly? Read the statements! 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, which makes the claim that they have similar ideologies neither vicious nor crazy, but rather TRUE. On the other hand, when someone says that Moore and bin Laden have the same views, that's just crazy Dutch-like smear talk, because OBL is far from a leftist. At least saying a Dem sounds like Marx has SOME validity to it.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I said right in my other post that it was dumb to look at body counts because of the differing ways in which they each wield their powers. If Robertson/Falwell were in the same position as OBL, they very well could be acting the same ...

It could be said of MANY people that given the right circumstances that they COULD BE acting the same as bin Laden. It could be said of me and you, for example. And it would be incredibly vile.

We KNOW bin Laden is a murderous sociopath. Unless you know that about Falwell or Robertson, it is disgusting and cheap to compare them.

If you want to discuss bin Laden's 'politics' or Robertson's 'politics,' even to the point of suggesting that they are the same, it is entirely possible to do so and not come off like a fool or a loony.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

If you want to attract people to the left, attacking the right in vicious and crazy ways will never get it done.

This is kind of off the subject, but if you look at the 2004 election, Kerry ran something like 25% attack ads and had an almost completely positive convention to the point that Bush's name was barely mentioned. Bush ran something like 75% attack ads and had an angry, attacking convention "armed with what? spitballs?" Bush won, of course.
Not that it necessarily applies to our discussions here, but I think the Republicans have basically taken power by being more aggressive and attacking their opponents early and often.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Who is doing that, exactly? Read the statements! 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, which makes the claim that they have similar ideologies neither vicious nor crazy, but rather TRUE. On the other hand, when someone says that Moore and bin Laden have the same views, that's just crazy Dutch-like smear talk, because OBL is far from a leftist. At least saying a Dem sounds like Marx has SOME validity to it.

No it doesn't, because first of all, I scored a 15, and second, it's 20 statements picked by somebody trying to make a point. Pick 20 statements at random and see what results you get. You could set up a test like this that would make you and JimGa impossible to tell apart. This is not science - it's political vitriol.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

This is kind of off the subject, but if you look at the 2004 election, Kerry ran something like 25% attack ads and had an almost completely positive convention to the point that Bush's name was barely mentioned. Bush ran something like 75% attack ads and had an angry, attacking convention "armed with what? spitballs?" Bush won, of course.
Not that it necessarily applies to our discussions here, but I think the Republicans have basically taken power by being more aggressive and attacking their opponents early and often.

While that may literally be true, there was a real problem with the Democratic convention, which was that they didn't stake out a single position different from the Republicans. Most of my friends are liberal, and they stayed home because they didn't understand why they were being asked to vote at all.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

We KNOW bin Laden is a murderous sociopath.

What's your definition of a murderous sociopath? Because if you are so sure that OBL is one, you'd have to parse it pretty good to not have that same definition apply to Bush. Whatever you think, OBL thinks that he is acting in the best interests of Muslims. Whatever I think, Bush thinks he is acting in the best interests of Americans.

The only moral difference I see is that OBL targets innocent civilians, while Bush just doesn't care if innocent civilians get caught up along the way (see: recent Pakistan bombing, suspension of 4th amendment everywhere, etc). I think both are vile, though. I will admit though that it sounds kooky left wing to say that, so I am willing to listen to anyone that has a case for why Bush is so much more moral than OBL, assuming both believe that they are acting in the best interests of their 'people'. Everyone acts like it is so self-evidant, but looking at it from the POV of an outsider to both sides, I don't see it.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

No it doesn't, because first of all, I scored a 15, and second, it's 20 statements picked by somebody trying to make a point. Pick 20 statements at random and see what results you get. You could set up a test like this that would make you and JimGa impossible to tell apart. This is not science - it's political vitriol.

I will agree that it's not science. 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, a point the authors of this quiz were trying to make.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I will agree that it's not science. 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, a point the authors of this quiz were trying to make.

I would have no problem with this line of thinking if you chose somebody other than bin Laden as your spokesman for Islamist thinking. My problem is NOT with the underlying argument here - my problem is with legitimizing bin Laden as a semi-serious thinker who, if we could only understand his point of view, we could come to some sort of an arrangement. His American analog is not Robertson or Falwell - it's Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I would have no problem with this line of thinking if you chose somebody other than bin Laden as your spokesman for Islamist thinking. My problem is NOT with the underlying argument here - my problem is with legitimizing bin Laden as a semi-serious thinker who, if we could only understand his point of view, we could come to some sort of an arrangement. His American analog is not Robertson or Falwell - it's Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber.

I would disagree. I don't think that bin Laden is a deep philosophical thinker, but I don't think that of Robertson or Falwell either. I think we are different in that I dislike bin Laden a bit less than you do, but dislike Robertson and Falwell a bit more. I actually think that Christian fundamentalism is a greater threat to our nation than Islamic fundamentalism, because any change in this country will be political and not militaristic (i.e., Islam won't conquer us). If the price of being able to watch the movies and TV I want, of not having to worry about being arrested and detained without reason, of being able to have pre-marital sex, etc, is to live with the miniscule risk of being killed in a terrorist attack, then I am willing to pay that price.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

Their politics don't necessarily matter. The point is that they are both religious extremists that use the same kind of rhetoric. So much so that you can't tell them apart.

Bingo. I think people are missing the point entirely (and being very defensive, which I find interesting). This quiz is to showcase the rhetoric used and show how similar it is.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I would have no problem with this line of thinking if you chose somebody other than bin Laden as your spokesman for Islamist thinking. My problem is NOT with the underlying argument here - my problem is with legitimizing bin Laden as a semi-serious thinker who, if we could only understand his point of view, we could come to some sort of an arrangement. His American analog is not Robertson or Falwell - it's Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber.

Wow, in what parallel universe is comparing someone to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson a sign that you think they are a serious thinker?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

You could set up a test like this that would make you and JimGa impossible to tell apart.

a) I wouldn't be totally surprised if that were possible. I think the specific case of me & him would be more difficult than some similar pairings, but not impossible by any stretch of the imagination.

b) I can't think of too many more painful tasks to undertake.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I would disagree. I don't think that bin Laden is a deep philosophical thinker, but I don't think that of Robertson or Falwell either. I think we are different in that I dislike bin Laden a bit less than you do, but dislike Robertson and Falwell a bit more. I actually think that Christian fundamentalism is a greater threat to our nation than Islamic fundamentalism, because any change in this country will be political and not militaristic (i.e., Islam won't conquer us). If the price of being able to watch the movies and TV I want, of not having to worry about being arrested and detained without reason, of being able to have pre-marital sex, etc, is to live with the miniscule risk of being killed in a terrorist attack, then I am willing to pay that price.

Just out of curiosity, do you like bin Laden more than you like Robertson/Falwell? Or I guess to put it another way, do you dislike him less than you dislike the terrible twosome?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This quiz is to showcase the rhetoric used and show how similar it is.

But some people don't care about the point, just performance on the quiz, and I'm not interested in taking a quiz that uses misquotes. Period.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Just out of curiosity, do you like bin Laden more than you like Robertson/Falwell? Or I guess to put it another way, do you dislike him less than you dislike the terrible twosome?

He's already answered your question in the quote you referenced. Your question here serves only to get him to say "I like bin Laden more than Robertson/Falwell" so that you can feel safe to scorn & villify him.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I don't get the complaints about altering the quotes to genericize them, in general. How is it not a legitimate rhetorical device to show that Bin Laden, Robertson, and Falwell say the same kinds of things?


That's not to say that I don't have gripes... I haven't read through all of them yet (and I probably won't), but quote 4 at least was taken out of context.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

I don't get the complaints about altering the quotes to genericize them, in general. How is it not a legitimate rhetorical device to show that Bin Laden, Robertson, and Falwell say the same kinds of things?

For me, because I don't give a rat's butthole about what they say. I'm a competitive SOB who wants to maximize his results on any quiz he takes, and I therefore don't appreciate a doctored quiz one iota.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

For me, because I don't give a rat's butthole about what they say. I'm a competitive SOB who wants to maximize his results on any quiz he takes, and I therefore don't appreciate a doctored quiz one iota.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

For me, because I don't give a rat's butthole about what they say. I'm a competitive SOB who wants to maximize his results on any quiz he takes, and I therefore don't appreciate a doctored quiz one iota.

Yeah, I'm the same way--I read through the Cosmo or whatever I'm stuck reading while waiting for my haircut appointment, and I try to "win" those fake quizzes that they have in there, knowing full well how ridiculous they are. I wonder if it is a guy thing.

As for the bin-Laden/Robertson one, I didn't really have a problem with it--the point being made seemed obvious to me. When they revealed the actual quotes in the "answers" section, many seemed just as repugnant as the masked quotes, if not more...

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

But some people don't care about the point, just performance on the quiz, and I'm not interested in taking a quiz that uses misquotes. Period.

Have I told you lately how strange you are

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Have I told you lately how strange you are

I find anyone who takes anything said by Falwell, Robertson or bin Laden seriously anymore to be quite strange. Therefore, the only point would be to do well on the quiz.