ampdead

A broader thought on my previous post.

Is the reality that a person can only be either pro-Muslim or anti-Muslim without anything inbetween?  Little Green Footballs, this past week, has made various posts about some European groups that may be anti-Islamization, but may also be (and from the evidence presented are) neo-Nazis.  The Yaffer flap only illustrated that more.  But LGF also has a solid record on pointing out and shouting down pro-Islamization groups as well as those people willfully blind to Islamofascism.  In other words, Johnson is certainly no friend of CAIR or Jimmy Carter.  But neither is he a racist.

The us or them mentality is a fundamentally unprincipled stand.  To claim inviting Griffin was due to starting a debate is as absurd as claiming the same for inviting Ahmadinejad.  There is no debate here anymore - it's done, it's been settled.  Both of these men hold views any rational person would dismiss out of hand.  Period.

At some point, the thoughtful person has to realize that some apparent fellow travelers are, in reality, no different from one's enemies.  Trading a Crescent Moon for a Swastika makes no damned sense.  You're not making a trade of ideas; rather, you're merely switching out one symbol for another while retaining the meaning.

Pointing out the actual beliefs of someone who claims to be your friend is not being PC.  It's being honest with yourself.  Moreover, it's standing up for your own beliefs.

An aside:  The ties between Islamism and Nazism need to be, I suppose, continually pointed out.  There's a reason it's called Islamofascism after all.  It's why, for instance, both Storm Front and Hamas are equally our enemies even though they would likely, when we are finished off, go after each other.

Posted by: Jason at 02:22 AM in Conservoluted | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

So I'm watching the latest Republican debate, and I'm wondering why.  Maybe it's the setting.  This sort of 'debate' just doesn't allow an opportunity to be inspiring - even though each of the wannabe Presidents, I'm pretty sure, said something along the lines of, "We have to inspire people (period - stop)."  Then again, maybe it's what each of these men are saying. 

If it weren't for the crazy, Paul says some good things.  But there's that crazy part again.

McCain is running against Bush again.  The uber-maverick rides again.  Yeeaawwwwn.  He's experiencing technical difficulties as well.  Must've turned his hearing aid off.

Thompson quoted Marx.  No, really:  Help to those who need it, help from those who can give it.  Also, I think he missed his embalming appointment and ended up in Dearborn by mistake.

Romney, as people say, has a "command of the issues."  He also seems to lack any capacity to get his ideas across.  My computer has a command of issues too, but I wouldn't vote for it.  Watching a debate between Romney and, say, Hillarity would be worse than watching paint dry with intermittent screeches and hand waving.  I don't know, it's like he's too slick or something.

Giuliani had his animated moments.  He's still the guy I'd vote for over the others, but he also still seems like the candidate who doesn't really want to be there - who had this whole thing dropped unexpectedly into his lap.  I've never bought the fantasy of the unintentional leader.  You have to want to lead, and that's that.  I'm not convinced he does.  Although, his answer to London becoming the financial center of the world was spot-on.  I think I'd like to see Giuliani give a speech or a one-on-one debate.  That's probably my own personal swing issue - who I'd want to hear in an actual debate.

Who were the other candidates?

Update:  Giuliani's quip about Canadians having nowhere to go for health care if the U.S. gets government health insurance was brilliant.  Given the entirety of the debate, that's not saying much.

Posted by: Jason at 05:59 PM in Conservoluted | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.