Gyroscopic Investing

He said that we should get off of our high horse and admit that Christians have committed terrible crimes too. Like the Inquisition. What a leader!

Christians just as bad.  Progressive canned response 101.

Clearly Christians should have let Europe fall to Islam and not fought back with the crusades. Think of how much better the world would be today if instead of backwards Christian values, Europe instead was under the progressive and advanced Islamic form of society.

Yes, but if we killed even one innocent person or, God forbid, a child, aren't we every bit as bad? Did all of our enemies get a fair trial back then? Did any of them have water poured on their faces?

More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years
    http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_peopl ... _Klux_Klan

These are not Islamists. They are just angry, deranged disparate people. Some have righteous causes. Some have workplace issues. Some have a fascination with sharp knives and/or fire. Didn't we all have these issues when we were kids? Please get off of your high horses.

Nobody light a match in here... Lotsa straw men.

The Christian "tribe" has plenty to be ashamed of, if we are going to play the tribe game.  I prefer not to but it appears others love it. They can dance around it all they want by pointing at some of the biggest assholes on earth and claiming to have a reason to feel superior because there's somebody worse out there. As an agnostic, I could do the same thing.  If people want to feel superior, it should because of their personal accomplishments, not because the religion that their parents picked for them had less incidents of rape in 2014.

Let's also not for get he also called ISIS a "brutal, vicious death cult that in the name of religion carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism.”?  It's not like he's not without some perspective on this.

moda0306 wrote: Nobody light a match in here... Lotsa straw men.

The Christian "tribe" has plenty to be ashamed of, if we are going to play the tribe game.  I prefer not to but it appears others love it. They can dance around it all they want by pointing at some of the biggest assholes on earth and claiming to have a reason to feel superior because there's somebody worse out there. As an agnostic, I could do the same thing.  If people want to feel superior, it should because of their personal accomplishments, not because the religion that their parents picked for them had less incidents of rape in 2014.

Let's also not for get he also called ISIS a "brutal, vicious death cult that in the name of religion carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism.”?  It's not like he's not without some perspective on this.

They are the ones that are drawing lines based on religion, not us.  Considering they are largely doing what they're doing based purely for religious reasons, so they can instate an Islamic state of law where they have conquered, I think it's reasonable to draw distinctions between "tribes" when discussing the topic.

Based purely on the current accepted norm for committing violent crimes in the name of religion (or lack thereof), I do feel my religion (Christianity) is superior  to Islam currently from a religious-ethics standpoint.  I don't think this way about Jews, Buddhists  or agnostics.

That doesn't mean that I would not be ashamed of most of the things that Christians did during the Spanish Inquisition, or the Crusades.  In the next 100 years, hopefully Islam can modernize enough to not think it's ok to kill non-Muslims (or Muslims that they don't agree with for that matter) IN THE NAME OF ISLAM.

It looked like a typical "Cue the Outrage" headline on Drudge but I didn't think what he said was so outrageous when I read it. The things he said about Christianity were, in fact, true, were they not?

But I'll have to skip watching any Fox News tonight as I'm sure that's all they'll be talking about.

Actually, I thought it was more offensive for Darrell Waltrip to stand up and tell the Dalai Lama that he was going to hell....

"The president joked that it's a rare event that can bring together the Dalai Lama and NASCAR, after retired driver and commentator Darrell Waltrip gave the keynote address. Waltrip told how he had accepted Jesus Christ as his savoir after a 1993 crash left him wondering what would happen if he died.

"If you've never gotten on your knees and asked him to forgive you of your sins, you're just a pretty good guy or a pretty good gal? You're going to go to hell," Waltrip said."

madbean wrote: It looked like a typical "Cue the Outrage" headline on Drudge but I didn't think what he said was so outrageous when I read it. The things he said about Christianity were, in fact, true, were they not?

But I'll have to skip watching any Fox News tonight as I'm sure that's all they'll be talking about.

Actually, I thought it was more offensive for Darrell Waltrip to stand up and tell the Dalai Lama that he was going to hell....

"The president joked that it's a rare event that can bring together the Dalai Lama and NASCAR, after retired driver and commentator Darrell Waltrip gave the keynote address. Waltrip told how he had accepted Jesus Christ as his savoir after a 1993 crash left him wondering what would happen if he died.

"If you've never gotten on your knees and asked him to forgive you of your sins, you're just a pretty good guy or a pretty good gal? You're going to go to hell," Waltrip said."

Justifying horrific behavior (Islamists around the world in 2015) by using examples of horrific behavior from 500 years ago (Spanish Inquisition) or bad taste (Waltrip in 1993) is an example of moral equivalency that is used by the left 100% of the time that any bad behavior by Islamists are brought up.

Who's "justifying" their behavior?

Liberals wouldn't feel the need to bring up the acts of "bad Christians" if good Christians weren't engaging in tribalist chest-thumping against good Muslims over Islamic extremism.

It's not "justifying" the terrorists actions.  It's putting some perspective around what our reaction should be.

Again... straw men.

clacy wrote: Justifying horrific behavior (Islamists around the world in 2015) by using examples of horrific behavior from 500 years ago (Spanish Inquisition) or bad taste (Waltrip in 1993) is an example of moral equivalency that is used by the left 100% of the time that any bad behavior by Islamists are brought up.

This seems pretty unequivocal to me. Where do you see justification for ISIS?

"We are summoned to push back against those who would distort our religion for their nihilistic ends," Obama said during remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast. He singled out the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, calling the militants a "death cult," as well as those responsible for last month's terror attacks in Paris and deadly assault on a school in Pakistan."

I'm no fan of Obama and anything but a Leftist but some people just seem weirdly bent on looking for Obama statements to get upset about.

moda0306 wrote: Who's "justifying" their behavior?

Liberals wouldn't feel the need to bring up the acts of "bad Christians" if good Christians weren't engaging in tribalist chest-thumping against good Muslims over Islamic extremism.

It's not "justifying" the terrorists actions.  It's putting some perspective around what our reaction should be.

Again... straw men.

You bring up the "straw men" a lot.

I'm just pointing out all of the "moral equivalency" out of those on the other side of the debate.

I really see no tribes in this other than "Islamists" and non-Islamists. I'm totally supportive of agnostics, Jews, other religions, including Muslims who do not support the barbaric Islamists and their violent tactics.

clacy,

You weren't just "pointing out" statements of moral equivalency between horrific acts now and 500 years ago (though I don't have to look back that far for horrors visited on folks by Christians).  You were stating that those were justifications of ISIS' acts by liberals.

Even if there is no moral equivalency between certain actions during the inquisition and the ISIS acts of terror, that is a very different story than saying that the president, or liberals in general, are "justifications" for ISIS acts.

I only point out the straw-men because they're everywhere.  However, your assertion that liberals talking about other extremists besides Muslims is "justifying" the acts of ISIS is completely unfounded unless you're talking about some wacko liberal fringe group.  The reasons liberals make these comparisons is to calm racial tensions, and hopefully keep the neo-cons looking wacky enough so they don't start another full blown war.

This is like when a conservative talks about the dangers of the federal government meddling in local/state criminal law.  It's not that they're JUSTIFYING murder, they just want to halt the reigns of government over-reach... and they might use some "moral equivalence" examples to pull off the task... and as long as their arguments are cogent, TBH, I don't blame them.  Let's just take it for what and why it is... nothing more... nothing less.

clacy wrote:

madbean wrote: It looked like a typical "Cue the Outrage" headline on Drudge but I didn't think what he said was so outrageous when I read it. The things he said about Christianity were, in fact, true, were they not?

But I'll have to skip watching any Fox News tonight as I'm sure that's all they'll be talking about.

Actually, I thought it was more offensive for Darrell Waltrip to stand up and tell the Dalai Lama that he was going to hell....

"The president joked that it's a rare event that can bring together the Dalai Lama and NASCAR, after retired driver and commentator Darrell Waltrip gave the keynote address. Waltrip told how he had accepted Jesus Christ as his savoir after a 1993 crash left him wondering what would happen if he died.

"If you've never gotten on your knees and asked him to forgive you of your sins, you're just a pretty good guy or a pretty good gal? You're going to go to hell," Waltrip said."

Justifying horrific behavior (Islamists around the world in 2015) by using examples of horrific behavior from 500 years ago (Spanish Inquisition) or bad taste (Waltrip in 1993) is an example of moral equivalency that is used by the left 100% of the time that any bad behavior by Islamists are brought up.

clacy,

You get it. You really get it!

moda0306 wrote: clacy,

You weren't just "pointing out" statements of moral equivalency between horrific acts now and 500 years ago (though I don't have to look back that far for horrors visited on folks by Christians).  You were stating that those were justifications of ISIS' acts by liberals.

Even if there is no moral equivalency between certain actions during the inquisition and the ISIS acts of terror, that is a very different story than saying that the president, or liberals in general, are "justifications" for ISIS acts.

I only point out the straw-men because they're everywhere.  However, your assertion that liberals talking about other extremists besides Muslims is "justifying" the acts of ISIS is completely unfounded unless you're talking about some wacko liberal fringe group.  The reasons liberals make these comparisons is to calm racial tensions, and hopefully keep the neo-cons looking wacky enough so they don't start another full blown war.

This is like when a conservative talks about the dangers of the federal government meddling in local/state criminal law.  It's not that they're JUSTIFYING murder, they just want to halt the reigns of government over-reach... and they might use some "moral equivalence" examples to pull off the task... and as long as their arguments are cogent, TBH, I don't blame them.  Let's just take it for what and why it is... nothing more... nothing less.

Look throughout every Islamic terror thread.  They're riddled with posts with moral equivalency.  It's almost as if ANY time someone speaks about Islamic terror in the west, there are people that feel compelled to put a disclaimer that ***Christians have done horrific things in the past as well****

I find that quite interesting.

Look throughout every Islamic terror thread.  They're riddled with posts with moral equivalency.

So true.

Obama used the word "humility" several times in his speech.  Ironic. 

... Mountaineer

TennPaGa wrote: I contend that, upon reading the full text of the remark, most voters (let's say 70-75%) will not see anything insulting or America-blaming or whatever else people are upset about here.  Most of the 70-75% are D- voters, but some are people like madbean.

Thanks for not mistaking me for a D-voter though I must admit I voted for Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford.

Some people are just more outraged by hypocrisy than they are by moral equivalence (the latter of which I think Moda is right and the charge is often a straw man.)

And for the record, I have no problem saying that I think Christianity is a morally superior religion to Islam and that the teachings of Christ are preferable to those of Mohammed who I believe was a terrorist and a murderer. For this reason I think Islam is probably irredeemable as a religion  and the only way the followers are going to change their ways is to reject the religion altogether. I just don't think bombs and boots on the ground are going to have any effect on bringing this about. Probably will delay it even longer.

TennPaGa wrote:
I contend that, upon reading the full text of the remark, most voters (let's say 70-75%) will not see anything insulting or America-blaming or whatever else people are upset about here.  Most of the 70-75% are D- voters, but some are people like madbean.

I choose not to get into specifics as it would divert the thread, but my "take-aways" from reading the text of his speech was:

1. Obama is a hypocrit.

2. Obama is probably not a Christian as he misquoted Scripture and did not understand some Biblical texts as evidenced by his "faulty" understanding of some passages.  If he were a Christian, he would not purposefully lie or mislead, or would at least proofread a speech if prepared by others and being given at a prayer breakfast.

3. Obama does not have an understanding of history and who did what to whom and why they did that.

4. Obama seems, once again, to have rather obvious narcissistic tendencies.

5. All in all, was just more bloviating by Obama with an apparent desire to turn a theme of prayer into political theater.

So, to this sometimes R, sometimes D, sometimes L voter - he sure did nothing to convince me of his character, moral substance, vision for a more peaceful future, or of his love of the United States.  No surprises, just more of the same, and certainly not someone I would want to follow into battle, or for that matter, anywhere else.

... Mountaineer

TennPaGa wrote: I contend that, upon reading the full text of the remark, most voters (let's say 70-75%) will not see anything insulting or America-blaming or whatever else people are upset about here.  Most of the 70-75% are D- voters, but some are people like madbean.

So I wonder if it's Obama doing a rope-a-dope.

The most relevant context to Obama's words for many is this: (Jonah Goldberg*)

"On Tuesday, the so-called Islamic State released a slickly produced video showing a Jordanian pilot being burned alive in a steel cage. On Wednesday, the United Nations issued a report detailing various “mass executions of boys, as well as reports of beheadings, crucifixions of children, and burying children alive”? at the hands of the Islamic State.

And on Thursday, President Obama seized the opportunity of the National Prayer Breakfast to forthrightly criticize the “terrible deeds”? . . . committed “in the name of Christ.”?

Rightly (I agree) or wrongly, I would consider this very reasonable context to view the words.

* I really like Jonah
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 25517.html

That would be a clever move, TennPaGa.  Obama is a smart guy, so it's believable.  Maybe he also realizes that many conservatives find the Dalai Lama irritating, or untrustworthy.  He is a deposed foreign ruler, so embracing him is one way to provoke conservatives, while claiming complete innocence.

clacy wrote:

moda0306 wrote: clacy,

You weren't just "pointing out" statements of moral equivalency between horrific acts now and 500 years ago (though I don't have to look back that far for horrors visited on folks by Christians).  You were stating that those were justifications of ISIS' acts by liberals.

Even if there is no moral equivalency between certain actions during the inquisition and the ISIS acts of terror, that is a very different story than saying that the president, or liberals in general, are "justifications" for ISIS acts.

I only point out the straw-men because they're everywhere.  However, your assertion that liberals talking about other extremists besides Muslims is "justifying" the acts of ISIS is completely unfounded unless you're talking about some wacko liberal fringe group.  The reasons liberals make these comparisons is to calm racial tensions, and hopefully keep the neo-cons looking wacky enough so they don't start another full blown war.

This is like when a conservative talks about the dangers of the federal government meddling in local/state criminal law.  It's not that they're JUSTIFYING murder, they just want to halt the reigns of government over-reach... and they might use some "moral equivalence" examples to pull off the task... and as long as their arguments are cogent, TBH, I don't blame them.  Let's just take it for what and why it is... nothing more... nothing less.

Look throughout every Islamic terror thread.  They're riddled with posts with moral equivalency.  It's almost as if ANY time someone speaks about Islamic terror in the west, there are people that feel compelled to put a disclaimer that ***Christians have done horrific things in the past as well****

I find that quite interesting.

To the degree there is any "moral equivalency" conversation, 1) it is referring to the killing of innocents in vicious ways, and 2) it's not to, as you say, "justify" actions, but to put them in perspective after conservatives try to make this a Christianity/Western-Civ vs Islam conversation.

The need for liberals to talk about other murderous acts would be nil if conservatives wouldn't make it into a grander War of Civilizations.

So no, it's only really "interesting" to the degree that it's pertinenet in the conversation as it gets brought beyond the level of a specific enemy.  It's the natural response to conservatives' agenda to make this a battle of civilizations, and the hawkish, militant implications of that kind of thinking.

madbean wrote:

TennPaGa wrote: I contend that, upon reading the full text of the remark, most voters (let's say 70-75%) will not see anything insulting or America-blaming or whatever else people are upset about here.  Most of the 70-75% are D- voters, but some are people like madbean.

Thanks for not mistaking me for a D-voter though I must admit I voted for Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford.

Some people are just more outraged by hypocrisy than they are by moral equivalence (the latter of which I think Moda is right and the charge is often a straw man.)

And for the record, I have no problem saying that I think Christianity is a morally superior religion to Islam and that the teachings of Christ are preferable to those of Mohammed who I believe was a terrorist and a murderer. For this reason I think Islam is probably irredeemable as a religion  and the only way the followers are going to change their ways is to reject the religion altogether. I just don't think bombs and boots on the ground are going to have any effect on bringing this about. Probably will delay it even longer.

I agree with almost all of this.  There's a couple aspects to this that I like to point out, though.  While I view Christ to be a much more appealing person than Muhammad, it's mainly because he was essentially a raging hippy of his time (a time when being a raging hippy was, IMO, the "morally correct" position to hold), while Muhammad was a brutal, hawkish conservative, in comparison.

However, the problem is, the God of the Old Testament, IMO, was something of a terrorist/murderer himself... and to the degree that Christians believe the entire Bible is the 100% true Word of God (some don't), they are advocating following a book that has much of the same gory brutality as the Koran does.

TennPaGa wrote: Ummm... You guys realize that you're in the ~30% who *are* offended by the remarks, right?

Who cares if I was in the 1%? 

You were saying that given the context, that his comments were not so bad and wondering about "rope a dope" and I pointed out the real context.  You can't argue with the real context, so you point out how popular or unpopular my views are which is irrelevant to my point.

Benko wrote:

TennPaGa wrote: I contend that, upon reading the full text of the remark, most voters (let's say 70-75%) will not see anything insulting or America-blaming or whatever else people are upset about here.  Most of the 70-75% are D- voters, but some are people like madbean.

So I wonder if it's Obama doing a rope-a-dope.

The most relevant context to Obama's words for many is this: (Jonah Goldberg*)

"On Tuesday, the so-called Islamic State released a slickly produced video showing a Jordanian pilot being burned alive in a steel cage. On Wednesday, the United Nations issued a report detailing various “mass executions of boys, as well as reports of beheadings, crucifixions of children, and burying children alive”? at the hands of the Islamic State.

And on Thursday, President Obama seized the opportunity of the National Prayer Breakfast to forthrightly criticize the “terrible deeds”? . . . committed “in the name of Christ.”?

Rightly (I agree) or wrongly, I would consider this very reasonable context to view the words.

* I really like Jonah
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 25517.html

Yes... that one little line in a speech preaching (hypocritically or not) peace, using religion as a healthy connection to God and Morality, and advancing principles of compassion, as well as specifically pointing out the brutality of the Islamic extremists in far harsh language than any mention of Christianity, and also mentioning the classism present in India...

But Obama "seized an opportunity" to ridicule Christians... 

Not even close.