Dixie, Im interested in your opinion...

Cypress said:
DIXIE: "Paranoia is fear for no reason. There is certainly a justifiable reason to fear potential enemies of the state. ..... This is not because Americans are one big melting pot of bigots! It wasn't because we felt racially superior over Asians or Russians, or because we held racial prejudice in any way, it was because these people could potentially represent an enemy of the state, and it's patently stupid to elect enemies of the sate to office.


Thanks. That's exactly what I thought you would say:

That Americans of japanese, russian, or muslim descent are, or were, rightly considered by you to be potential enemies of the state based on their ethnic background.
Click to expand...


Dixie, while you rant about how it was justified to treat japanese-americans as potential enemies of the state during world war two, may I remind you that Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii - the son of japanese immigrants - is one of the nation's most highly-decorated World War Two veterans, earning the Medal of Honor.

Before you disparage americans of japanese descent as potential enemies of the state (during WWII), please read Senator Inouye's Medal of Honor Citation:


Senator's Inouye's Medal of Honor Citation states in part:

"With complete disregard for his personal safety, Second Lieutenant Inouye crawled up the treacherous slope to within five yards of the nearest machine gun and hurled two grenades, destroying the emplacement. Before the enemy could retaliate, he stood up and neutralized a second machine gun nest. Although wounded by a sniper's bullet, he continued to engage other hostile positions at close range until an exploding grenade shattered his right arm. Despite the intense pain, he refused evacuation and continued to direct his platoon until enemy resistance was broken and his men were again deployed in defensive positions."
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Sean Hannity - one of the most popular guys in cable news and radio - was pushing the Keith Ellison/Koran story on Fox News last night.
Click to expand...
I actually heard him espousing the truth of the matter before, clearly and consicely giving a good account of the fact that they do not take an oath on a book at all. So, Sean Hannity probably isn't your best bet on this one.
 
It's Sean's show. He gave a platform to an anti-muslim bigot.

plus........


Hannity suggested use of Quran in representative's swearing-in same as using "Nazi bible" Mein Kampf

Summary: Echoing columnist Dennis Prager, Sean Hannity claimed that incoming Rep. Keith Ellison's reported intention to use a copy of the Quran apparently during the ceremonial photo op on the day he is sworn in "will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones" and suggested that using the Quran for a swearing-in is comparable to using "Hitler's Mein Kampf, which is the Nazi bible."

transcript:


HANNITY: Malik, I want to ask you a question, as it relates to Dennis' column. Thank you both for being here. And he says, you know, on what grounds will those of you defending this congressman's decision and his right to choose his favorite book, you know, would you have allowed him to choose, you know, Hitler's Mein Kampf, which is the Nazi bible? In other words, where does this stop? Is there any limitations whatsoever? Does anybody get any choice they want, Malik?


http://mediamatters.org/items/200612010010
 
Once again, giving somebody a platform and asking a question is not the same thing as spreading an untruth. He took no official oath on any book. It is foolish to pretend that he did in order to create some issue that doesn't exist. It is foolish for anybody regardless of which lean that they have.

I have heard Hannity clearly explain that no oath is taken on any document whatsoever...

So, I thought I'd go to Fox News and get the story from them:

Fox Story

WASHINGTON — Keith Ellison made history Thursday, becoming the first Muslim member of Congress and punctuating the occasion by taking a ceremonial oath with a Koran once owned by Thomas Jefferson.

(wow, ceremonial oath.... notice how they actually give the truth in the story? Notice how they didn't try to make people believe that it was the actual oath? Or are you going to continue in this vein and push the idea that he took the official oath on a Koran? Can anybody say, "Perpetuating the fabricated issue for perceived political gain and to perpetuate a negative stereotype?")
 
I will continue to use this fabricated issue to inform people of the actual ceremony, sans books, rather than continue to use it to perpetuate ignorance by pretending that the oath was taken with a document.
 
I know what the swearing in ceremony is. I was the first one who posted the truth.

So I agree - this is a non-issue.

The question is, why is the rightwing media making it an issue? Why are we even talking about it? Because it can be exploited as a wedge issue?

Hannity, Savage, Praeger, Townhall, Freerepublic, RCP, etc. are all pushing this story.
 
Cypress said:
I know what the swearing in ceremony is. I was the first one who posted the truth.

So I agree - this is a non-issue.

The question is, why is the rightwing media making it an issue? Why are we even talking about it? Because it can be exploited as a wedge issue?

Hannity, Savage, Praeger, Townhall, Freerepublic, RCP, etc. are all pushing this story.
Click to expand...
Because both sides are doing that? Don't attempt to slip out of the fact that the left is taking and running with this while perpetuating ingorance. How often have I read from lefties how he took his oath with a Koran? Very. How often did he take that official oath with a Koran, zero.

Perpetuating ingorance for political gain is wrong regardless of which side is doing it. In this case it appears that both are.
 
the right wing started this issue damo. Not the left wing.

The leftwing blogs were the first to point out, what the formal swearing in ceremony was.

If the rightwing wants to keep pushing the koran issue, expect the leftwing to call them on their bigotry.

You're on record saying noboby but praeger was pushing this. I just demonstrated to you, that some of the biggest names in the rightwing are pushing it.
 
Cypress said:
the right wing started this issue damo. Not the left wing.

The leftwing blogs were the first to point out, what the formal swearing in ceremony was.

If the rightwing wants to keep pushing the koran issue, expect the leftwing to call them on their bigotry.

You're on record saying noboby but praeger was pushing this. I just demonstrated to you, that some of the biggest names in the rightwing are pushing it.
Click to expand...
I have stated that it isn't all of the right, and have demonstrated how it isn't. They may have issue with his silly photo-op, but stating that they have issue with his "swearing in ceremony" is perpetuating a myth.

My issue from the beginning has been the perpetuation of a myth that he actually took the official oath on a Koran when it is clear that he has not. I have stated from the beginning that I will continue pushing the fact and the truth regardless of this unkown radio guy called "praeger" that you keep mentioning as if he had some value to me.

I have even pointed out how even Fox News is clearly pointing out it was Ceremonial. Hannity even mentioned it was ceremonial... So, only the left seems interested in perpetuating that it was some official ceremony that the right is "up in arms" about.

They may be up in arms, but it is about a ceremonial picture taking event. I think it is inane to be up in arms about.

I have clearly stated about 30 times already, in this very thread, that I will not abide people saying it was his Congressional Oath taken on a Koran, when it was a silly photo-op. I haven't attempted to defend the idiots who think it bad just because he is a muslim, I have simply pushed the truth of the matter and, as I have stated repeatedly, will continue to do so.
 
Thanks. That's exactly what I thought you would say:

That Americans of japanese, russian, or muslim descent are, or were, rightly considered by you to be potential enemies of the state based on their ethnic background.

I'm sorry, but I am not the only one who felt that way, as evidenced by the lack of a list of such candidates. It seems that virtually everyone felt this way, including the Russians and Japanese who didn't seek public office. You can try and make a big deal out of this if you want to, it's just the fact of the matter. I didn't proclaim Russians and Japanese to be bad people, I wasn't even old enough to vote until 1978.

Why would an American citizen of russian descent be any more likely to be an an enemy of the state than any other citizen?

Because we were in a Cold War with Russia, and there was this thing called "espionage" ...spies who worked for Russia, but didn't like to let us know about it. I would say, the odds of a Russian being a Russian spy, were slightly higher than the odds of any other nationality, particularly during the Cold War.

I can't believe I am actually having this argument with pinheads. I can't believe pinheads have decided it's "racist" to be opposed to electing your enemy to public office. It's just a fucking wonder of wonders we haven't been overthrown by now, with this idiotic political correctness. Have you people just completely lost what little mind you had left? It's not racist or bigoted to avoid voting your enemy into power, it's fucking common sense to most people.
 
the right wing started this issue damo. Not the left wing.

This isn't true, at least not here. There are numerous threads about this, and they were ALL started by liberals. The left saw an opportunity to play the "racist" card, and they did! Even going to the extreme of arguing a stupid point about electing the enemies of the state, and how it's racist to not do so. You people are either desperate to make the 'racist' charges stick, or you are the stupidest mofo's on the planet.
 
I can scarcely believe you would publically admit to this kind of bigotry. But, I suppose this is all you need to know about Dixie: He thinks americans of russian decent were the enemy:


-MAINEMAN: "Why would an American citizen of russian descent be any more likely to be an an enemy of the state than any other citizen?"

-DIXIE: "I can't believe I am actually having this argument with pinheads. I can't believe pinheads have decided it's "racist" to be opposed to electing your enemy to public office."
 
exactly Cypress.... it would seem to Dixie that Americans who are descendants of people who once lived in countries that are or were or will be our enemies are considered de facto enemies of the state as long as we are/were/will be at war with the homeland of their ancestors.

and in Ellison's case, as long as a native born American happens to convert to Islam, they are suspect as well because we are at war with radical islamists and - it would seem to Dixie anyway - that all muslims are suspect... which is another way of saying that all ragheads are our enemies.
 
Ohh so there is a time limit then on this descended from an enemy thing ?
Or is it more of a rascist thing ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top