FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Another Lefty Doesn’t Get His Way; Makes Death Threats





jmi256
Another example of the type of people infesting the Left. The Left’s mantra can basically be summed up as “Do what we say…or else!”


Quote:
Philadelphia Man Gets Prison For YouTube Threat Of Lawmaker

PHILADELPHIA (AP) – A Philadelphia man has been sentenced to two years in prison for threatening U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia in a YouTube video.

Federal prosecutors say 38-year-old Norman LeBoon was sentenced Thursday to 24 months in prison followed by three years’ supervised release. He pleaded guilty in November in connection with the YouTube video posted earlier that year.

Prosecutors say LeBoon called the Republican congressman “a liar” and “a Lucifer” in the video and vowed to shoot him.

LeBoon will be required to get mental health treatment. He is also required to have no contact with Cantor or any member of Cantor’s family.

Cantor was voted House majority leader when the Republican-led Congress convened in January.

Source = http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/04/07/philadelphia-man-gets-prison-for-youtube-threat-of-lawmaker/
catscratches
Yeah, totally! Now let's go death threaten doctors who perform abortions! (Hint: This exists on all sides. Proclaiming this is a leftern thing only, or even moreso than a rightern thing, is either stupid or dishonest.)
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
Another example of the type of people infesting the Left. The Left’s mantra can basically be summed up as “Do what we say…or else!”


Quote:
Philadelphia Man Gets Prison For YouTube Threat Of Lawmaker

PHILADELPHIA (AP) – A Philadelphia man has been sentenced to two years in prison for threatening U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia in a YouTube video.
OK, now I am waiting to see how these cases are going to give a new meaning to "threatening" when people are discussing their political "leaders". Very soon no one will be able to say anything about their political "leaders" anymore. Rolling Eyes
Bikerman
Err...even the article states quite explicitly that this chap is mentally ill.
His problem seems to be entirely unrelated to left-wing politics and much more bound up with some biblical interpretation of things.

So now we are taking extreme, possibly mentally unstable, people and portraying them as, if not archetypes, certainly stereotypical of a whole political philosophy.

I think dishonest is the only suitable word...

Let's see...ah yes, here is an absolutely typical republican - for the family, church and community and against lefties, foreigners and all other religions.


Clearly an absolutely typical, common or garden republican.
deanhills
@Bikerman. Isn't your YouTube show a bit misleading however? It would be easy at a quick glance to come to the conclusion that this had to do with LeBoon. Whereas it was completely unrelated. I would take a guess that LeBoon is a loner and suffering from some form of megalomania associated with thinking he is on a mission from God. He also professed to being an Islamist in one of his many YouTube shows.

I liked this comment on the article that jmi quoted:

Quote:
Ratt

Well, everything was fine untl he threatened to kill Cantor.

April 8, 2011 at 11:38 am | Reply | Report comment


LeBoon had made a number of death threats in various YouTube shows against a variety of persons including President Obama, a White Supremacist and others, but it was the threat against Cantor that was acted upon by the FBI. I would have imagined the Obama threat would have been the one they would have acted on? Sounds a bit bizarre, not only on the side of LeBoon.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
@Bikerman. Isn't your YouTube show a bit misleading however? It would be easy at a quick glance to come to the conclusion that this had to do with LeBoon. Whereas it was completely unrelated. I would take a guess that LeBoon is a loner and suffering from some form of megalomania associated with thinking he is on a mission from God. He also professed to being an Islamist in one of his many YouTube shows.
Religiousity isn't unrelated to political stance. I know without checking that I'll find more of the 'deeply religious in the Republican party than the democrats, and I know it with some certainty. The sort of zealot in the video is the sort of zealot who could be found screaming abuse at abortion clinics, and the sort who could never vote for any politician who supported abortion. Most, if not all democrat contenders would be in the 'pro' camp, so that leaves republicans...
The religious fundamentalists are far more allied to the republican side of the 'spectrum' than the democrats - that is obvious, even from 3000 miles away. Bush, Reagan, Bush - all deeply religious and conservative with it - Bush the creationist (like Sarah Palin).
Obama much more pragmatic - obviously doesn't believe much of the bull, but knows he has to be Christian and probably does have some genuine religious views. Unlikely to act on pure religious 'principle'.

I don't know enough about the US to know whether this is a long term thing, or whether it is only relatively recently that the Christian fundamentalists and the Republican party got in bed together. I do now that it has been that way for a long time. You won't hear Billy Graham-type evangelists calling for the sheeple to vote Democrat very often, I would e willing to wager.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Religiousity isn't unrelated to political stance. I know without checking that I'll find more of the 'deeply religious in the Republican party than the democrats, and I know it with some certainty. The sort of zealot in the video is the sort of zealot who could be found screaming abuse at abortion clinics, and the sort who could never vote for any politician who supported abortion. Most, if not all democrat contenders would be in the 'pro' camp, so that leaves republicans...
Not all zealots are the same Bikerman. Although I agree with you in general, you do get zealots like the ones you described but this one is different. He lived in a world where he was fighting everyone on cyber wavelengths and building YouTube shows threatening all of them in cluding YouTube as well in the end. From a religion point of view he proclaimed himself an Islamist. But he was anti-semitic lots of it not making sense, so can't see him as really religious, more like manic. I also can't see him at a public place like the one you described, as that does not match the profile that is available to us. Most of his rantings were online either in e-mails or YouTube shows, or phoning people. He must have been quite intelligent as well, as in 2006 he participated with two lawyers who sued Verizon for 500 USBillion claiming that Verizon was making phone records of its customers available to the NSA for their secret domestic surveillance program. He must have been following politics in greatest of details in an obsessive maniacal way.

Bikerman wrote:
The religious fundamentalists are far more allied to the republican side of the 'spectrum' than the democrats - that is obvious, even from 3000 miles away. Bush, Reagan, Bush - all deeply religious and conservative with it - Bush the creationist (like Sarah Palin).
Obama much more pragmatic - obviously doesn't believe much of the bull, but knows he has to be Christian and probably does have some genuine religious views. Unlikely to act on pure religious 'principle'.
I won't argue with you on this as I don't have any evidence to do so, but then I don't see anything wrong about being religious either. You find your odd fundamentalist in religion and now want to brush everyone else with the same strokes? That sounds a bit like stereotyping to me. One finds crazies everywhere, and not necessarily only in religion either. Politics attract crazies from every spectrum of the political arena.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
I won't argue with you on this as I don't have any evidence to do so, but then I don't see anything wrong about being religious either. You find your odd fundamentalist in religion and now want to brush everyone else with the same strokes? That sounds a bit like stereotyping to me. One finds crazies everywhere, and not necessarily only in religion either. Politics attract crazies from every spectrum of the political arena.

a) I have never 'brushed everyone with the same strokes' - and if you are stating that I have then you had better be prepared to produce the evidence for that claim.
b) The notion that there is the 'odd fundamentalist' in religion - just a scattering here and there - is contradicted by reality. A zealot/fundamentalist can, I think, be reasonably characterised as someone who holds to the truth of a particular viewpoint or position, based solely on scripture, and regardless of solid evidence to the contrary.
A creationist is an obvious and all-too common example of this. Creationists are not the 'odd' Christian. True, they are not the majority amongst Christianity, but there are many many millions of them, if we are to believe what people actually report that they believe.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
a) I have never 'brushed everyone with the same strokes' - and if you are stating that I have then you had better be prepared to produce the evidence for that claim.

OK, here's my evidence:
Bikerman wrote:
Religiousity isn't unrelated to political stance. I know without checking that I'll find more of the 'deeply religious in the Republican party than the democrats, and I know it with some certainty. The sort of zealot in the video is the sort of zealot who could be found screaming abuse at abortion clinics, and the sort who could never vote for any politician who supported abortion. Most, if not all democrat contenders would be in the 'pro' camp, so that leaves republicans...
Stereotyping - Republicans are more (deeper) religious than Democrats. The zealots are mostly to be found among Republicans. That means that those who are screaming at abortion clinics are Republicans?

More stereotyping:
Quote:
The religious fundamentalists are far more allied to the republican side of the 'spectrum' than the democrats - that is obvious, even from 3000 miles away. Bush, Reagan, Bush - all deeply religious and conservative with it - Bush the creationist (like Sarah Palin).
So are Bush, Reagan, Bush and Palin all fundamentalists?
Bikerman wrote:
b) The notion that there is the 'odd fundamentalist' in religion - just a scattering here and there - is contradicted by reality. A zealot/fundamentalist can, I think, be reasonably characterised as someone who holds to the truth of a particular viewpoint or position, based solely on scripture, and regardless of solid evidence to the contrary.
So I guess the above "characterization" would be responsible for a great number of theists being fundamentalists particularly when one reads it with your discussion below?
Bikerman wrote:
A creationist is an obvious and all-too common example of this. Creationists are not the 'odd' Christian. True, they are not the majority amongst Christianity, but there are many many millions of them, if we are to believe what people actually report that they believe.


Bottomline: I don't agree that your YouTube show has any bearing on the topic of this thread. Norman LeBoon was not even a typical religious person, he was a self-proclaimed Islamist and anti-semitic, who was completely on the left side of politics. I would not place him with either the Republicans or the Democrats. He did make a campaign contribution to Obama (when he probably thought Obama was seriously left of the political spectrum), but that lasted as long as the campaign, as very soon after he was making death threats at Obama as well.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
a) I have nev 'brushed everyone with the same strokes' - and if you are stating that I have then you had better be prepared to produce the evidence for that claim.

OK, here's my evidence:
Bikerman wrote:
Religiousity isn't unrelated to political stance. I know without checking that [b]I'll find more of the 'deeply religious in the Republican party than the democrats[/b], and I know it with some certainty. The sort of zealot in the video is the sort of zealot who could be found screaming abuse at abortion clinics, and the sort who could never vote for any politician who supported abortion. Most, if not all democrat contenders would be in the 'pro' camp, so that leaves republicans...
Stereotyping - Republicans are more (deeper) religious than Democrats. The zealots are mostly to be found among Republicans. That means that those who are screaming at abortion clinics are Republicans?
No. What I said was very specific and not a generalisation. In fact I said there would be more zealots in the republican than democrat party. I then went on to say WHY that would be. That is neither a stereotype nor a crass generalisation.

As for the other examples - I notice you don't challenge ANY of them....
a) Sara Palin IS a creationist.
b) Bush stated that the 'controversy' should be taught and has said
Quote:
I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution.
I guess that makes him a 'creationist lite'.
c) Religious fundamentalists ARE more likely to be Republican:
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Religion_and_Political_Party_Preference
d) There ARE millions of Americans who reject evolution because it contradicts their scriptural creation myth - fundamentalists!
e) I never said that Leboon was a republican.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
No. What I said was very specific and not a generalisation. In fact I said there would be more zealots in the republican than democrat party. I then went on to say WHY that would be. That is neither a stereotype nor a crass generalisation.
So this is factual information then? If yes, do you have evidence for it? Twisted Evil

Bikerman wrote:
As for the other examples - I notice you don't challenge ANY of them....
I was not challenging you on any of the politicians you mentioned. I was trying to illustrate "stereotyping". And I tried to point out (perhaps a bit facetiously) that the way you presented Palin, Bush, Bush and Reagen were as though they were religious fundamentalists. Or were you? Shocked
Quote:
The religious fundamentalists are far more allied to the republican side of the 'spectrum' than the democrats - that is obvious, even from 3000 miles away. Bush, Reagan, Bush - all deeply religious and conservative with it - Bush the creationist (like Sarah Palin).


OK, this is a new term, and an interesting one. Perhaps Obama will like it:
Quote:
'creationist lite'.
So if 'creationist lite' is a credible term, would 'atheist lite' also work for you?

Bikerman wrote:
c) Religious fundamentalists ARE more likely to be Republican:
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Religion_and_Political_Party_Preference
I would want to study this, as one would have to define what religious fundamentalism is, whether all people who act fundamentalist, are acting on religious principles, as they may be religious but act out of political convictions. Etc.
Bikerman wrote:
e) I never said that Leboon was a republican.
No, you didn't directly. But with logical deduction when you mention that religious fundamentalists are to be found mostly among Republicans, a person who may have read quickly through your post, may have come to that conclusion. They may also have come to the conclusion that he is a Christian, when you posted your YouTube show, which he was not.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I never said that Leboon was a republican.
No, you didn't directly. But with logical deduction when you mention that religious fundamentalists are to be found mostly among Republicans, a person who may have read quickly through your post, may have come to that conclusion. They may also have come to the conclusion that he is a Christian, when you posted your YouTube show, which he was not.
And here we have the classic example of someone reading through a fog of preconception rather than reading the words.
a) I didn't say 'mostly among Republicans' - I said you would find more in the republican than in the democrats - and I provided the figures to show it, along with an idea of what I mean by the word 'zealot' or 'fundamentalist'.
In case you still don't understand, I suggest the words of an eminent historian (George M. Marsden)
Quote:
[fundamental Christianity]...is militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism."

The movement started in the early 20th century in the US. They even got the name 'fundamentalists' from a series of essays published by the Bible institute of Los Angeles, The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth.

This is not controversial - it is well established fact.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
a) I didn't say 'mostly among Republicans' - I said you would find more in the republican than in the democrats - and I provided the figures to show it, along with an idea of what I mean by the word 'zealot' or 'fundamentalist'.
Even if you did not say so, the implication was quite clear that religious fundamentalism was more prevalent among Republicans than Democrats and that there is a large number of religious fundamentalists among the Republicans. Your YouTube show and references to the creationists, etc. collectively showed a picture of a large number of Republicans, including their top leadership, being religious fundamentalists. The stats were only provided later, after I challenged you with regard to "stereo typing". With regard to the stats, it is horribly out of date, hailing from the 2000 election. I don't disagree with you however. There has been a rise in the numbers of the conservative right in the Republican Party. One would have to be careful however how one defines religious fundamentalism as technically all theists could qualify for being religious fundamentalists, especially in the way you have portrayed them in your previous posts. Maybe one could use your "lite" moderator and call them fundamentalist lites? And the crazy ones, like in your YouTube show, and LeBoon mentally imbalanced.
Bikerman wrote:
In case you still don't understand,
Interesting that you should make that point Bikerman. Two nights ago I was reading about tips how to debate acrimonious topics. And one of those was exactly what you are doing below. Quote some or other eminent person or literary works, so as to shame the person into ignorance. Not sure that I would be using the trick myself however.
Quote:
I suggest the words of an eminent historian (George M. Marsden)
Quote:
[fundamental Christianity]...is militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism."

The movement started in the early 20th century in the US. They even got the name 'fundamentalists' from a series of essays published by the Bible institute of Los Angeles, The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth.

This is not controversial - it is well established fact.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
a) I didn't say 'mostly among Republicans' - I said you would find more in the republican than in the democrats - and I provided the figures to show it, along with an idea of what I mean by the word 'zealot' or 'fundamentalist'.
Even if you did not say so, the implication was quite clear that religious fundamentalism was more prevalent among Republicans than Democrats and that there is a large number of religious fundamentalists among the Republicans. Your YouTube show and references to the creationists, etc. collectively showed a picture of a large number of Republicans, including their top leadership, being religious fundamentalists. The stats were only provided later, after I challenged you with regard to "stereo typing". With regard to the stats, it is horribly out of date, hailing from the 2000 election. I don't disagree with you however. There has been a rise in the numbers of the conservative right in the Republican Party. One would have to be careful however how one defines religious fundamentalism as technically all theists could qualify for being religious fundamentalists, especially in the way you have portrayed them in your previous posts. Maybe one could use your "lite" moderator and call them fundamentalist lites? And the crazy ones, like in your YouTube show, and LeBoon mentally imbalanced.
Look, the YouTube posting was IRONIC. I was using the same sloppy generalisations and mis-characterisation that was used in the OP - simply to point how how ridiculous it was. You seem to have completely missed the point and gone off on some weird tangent.
I even made it blatantly obvious that it WAS ironty, by saying, underneath the video :
Quote:
Clearly an absolutely typical, common or garden republican.
Even a slight knowledge of me would lead someone to question whether I would EVER use a phrase like 'absolutely typical, common or garden' about ANY large grouping. The person featured was so atypical of people I know (religious or not) that I was sure that the irony was obvious - apparently not.

Quote:
Interesting that you should make that point Bikerman. Two nights ago I was reading about tips how to debate acrimonious topics. And one of those was exactly what you are doing below. Quote some or other eminent person or literary works, so as to shame the person into ignorance. Not sure that I would be using the trick myself however.
I wasn't trying to shame you, I was trying to educate you. This is hardly some minor debating point, it is absolutely central to my position. If you don't know the history and application of the word 'fundamentalist' then you are likely to make as ass of yourself when debating a particular application of it - as here.

Now that you DO know the origin, you can see that I used it pretty exactly, to refer to the group of people it was always meant to refer to - white protestant evangelicals - ie those who take the bible either completely or mostly literally. Most creationists in the US come from this evangelical 'wing;' of Protestantism and those are EXACTLY the people I was describing/referring to. Another way of describing the evangelical wing is 'the Christian Rightt'. They are overwhelmingly republican by vote and inclination.

This is not new, nor is it even much discussed, because it is so generally known to be the case - it is normally accepted as just a truism and not a point for serious debate.
ocalhoun
Quote:
Another Lefty Doesn’t Get His Way; Makes Death Threats

Got something against left-handed people?

You know -- I think you're quite out of line stereotyping southpaws. It wasn't their choice to be left-handed; don't mock them for it.


^.^ Ya, I know.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Look, the YouTube posting was IRONIC. I was using the same sloppy generalisations and mis-characterisation that was used in the OP - simply to point how how ridiculous it was. You seem to have completely missed the point and gone off on some weird tangent.
Perhaps we both misunderstood one another. The OP mentioned LEFT, and your irony is about RIGHT. I thought you had come to the wrong conclusion that this guy was a Christian fundamentalist. OK, I get it. It was a tit for tat and trying to say there are more RIGHT crazies than LEFT crazies out there?

Bikerman wrote:
Now that you DO know the origin,
I knew it pretty well right from the start Bikerman. I had been intrigued by LeBoon, and had done plenty of research on the Web to find out more about him. Do you remember the guy who was pretty p*d off with the IRS to the extent that he had crashed his plane into an IRS Building in Austin Texas? Joseph Stack. I saw some similarities between the two, except LeBoon was maybe a bit more compulsive obsessive and probably mentally imbalanced, but LeBoon became completely fixated on politicians and hence my interest in researching LeBoon. After the researches, I thought LeBoon's rantings were more politically motivated than religiously, but that he was also completely unbalanced. I would call him neither LEFT nor RIGHT. More obsessive compulsive mentally challenged.

Bikerman wrote:
I wasn't trying to shame you, I was trying to educate you. This is hardly some minor debating point, it is absolutely central to my position. If you don't know the history and application of the word 'fundamentalist' then you are likely to make as ass of yourself when debating a particular application of it - as here.
Apologies then Bikerman. Great we have someone going the extra mile for educating Frihosters. To be truthful however, there is plenty of material available on the Web, and whether you would like to believe me or not, that was one of the very first searches I had done during our first round of discussions. The first question in my head while I was doing the searches on "fundamentalist" was whether "fundamentalist" was religiously motivated only. Wikipedia had said that it was mostly religiously motivated, so of course there are exceptions. I then did some further searches from a political point of view but did not come up with much.

Bikerman wrote:
Now that you DO know the origin, you can see that I used it pretty exactly, to refer to the group of people it was always meant to refer to - white protestant evangelicals - ie those who take the bible either completely or mostly literally. Most creationists in the US come from this evangelical 'wing;' of Protestantism and those are EXACTLY the people I was describing/referring to. Another way of describing the evangelical wing is 'the Christian Rightt'. They are overwhelmingly republican by vote and inclination.
OK, then you have lost me here again. I thought the OP was about a lefty, and you had made a point of irony to enlighten us about rightists being more plentiful than lefties. Are you saying jmi actually meant to refer to protestant evangelicals when he was referring to LeBoon? You probably know that the LeBoon story was being used by the Republicans as he had made campaign contributions to Obama, so the obvious conclusion was that he was a Democrat? Which at the time he was jailed, I'm almost certain he was not. He must have become completely disillusioned with Obama as he had made similar death threats in a YouTube show to Obama as well. Now there is an irony, if ever there was one. He seemed to have got away with a death threat at the President of the United States, but it had to be a death threat against a Republican before he got thrown into jail.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Look, the YouTube posting was IRONIC. I was using the same sloppy generalisations and mis-characterisation that was used in the OP - simply to point how how ridiculous it was. You seem to have completely missed the point and gone off on some weird tangent.
Perhaps we both misunderstood one another. The OP mentioned LEFT, and your irony is about RIGHT. I thought you had come to the wrong conclusion that this guy was a Christian fundamentalist. OK, I get it. It was a tit for tat and trying to say there are more RIGHT crazies than LEFT crazies out there?
Actually not even that. I was simply trying to say that classifying someone newsworthy as left (or right) wing is about as meaningful as classifying them as left or right handed - UNLESS of course the crime or newsworthy event can be shown to result from, or be motivated by, the political view taken. In this case it seemed ridiculous to classify him as 'left wing' simply to make some rather childish attack on that group.
I thought my counter example was also silly and childish - deliberately to make my point,
Quote:
I knew it pretty well right from the start Bikerman. I had been intrigued by LeBoon, and had done plenty of research on the Web to find out more about him. Do you remember the guy who was pretty p*d off with the IRS to the extent that he had crashed his plane into an IRS Building in Austin Texas? Joseph Stack. I saw some similarities between the two, except LeBoon was maybe a bit more compulsive obsessive and probably mentally imbalanced, but LeBoon became completely fixated on politicians and hence my interest in researching LeBoon. After the researches, I thought LeBoon's rantings were more politically motivated than religiously, but that he was also completely unbalanced. I would call him neither LEFT nor RIGHT. More obsessive compulsive mentally challenged.
I agree with pretty much all of that.
Quote:
Apologies then Bikerman. Great we have someone going the extra mile for educating Frihosters. To be truthful however, there is plenty of material available on the Web, and whether you would like to believe me or not, that was one of the very first searches I had done during our first round of discussions. The first question in my head while I was doing the searches on "fundamentalist" was whether "fundamentalist" was religiously motivated only. Wikipedia had said that it was mostly religiously motivated, so of course there are exceptions. I then did some further searches from a political point of view but did not come up with much.
Good, I am pleased. I don't care who does the educating as long as it gets done properly, and self-education is a fine thing which I unreservedly commend.
Quote:
OK, then you have lost me here again. I thought the OP was about a lefty, and you had made a point of irony to enlighten us about rightists being more plentiful than lefties. Are you saying jmi actually meant to refer to protestant evangelicals when he was referring to LeBoon? You probably know that the LeBoon story was being used by the Republicans as he had made campaign contributions to Obama, so the obvious conclusion was that he was a Democrat? Which at the time he was jailed, I'm almost certain he was not. He must have become completely disillusioned with Obama as he had made similar death threats in a YouTube show to Obama as well. Now there is an irony, if ever there was one. He seemed to have got away with a death threat at the President of the United States, but it had to be a death threat against a Republican before he got thrown into jail.
No, I'm not saying anything like that. I'm merely saying that the points I made in relation to fundamentalism, religion and republicanism are historically and statistically valid. I don't actually think it has anything to do with LeBoon since we both seem to agree that his politics were not the important driver.
The wider point is that any attempt, like this, to generalise about a very large population (be it political, ethnic, gender, sexual preference or whatever) based on the actions of a clearly eccentric individual are likely to be misleading, at best.
deanhills
Looks as though we are in perfect agreement. Shocked Thanks Bikerman. Very Happy
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
Looks as though we are in perfect agreement. Shocked Thanks Bikerman. Very Happy


Yet another sign of 2012...


Just kidding Razz
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Looks as though we are in perfect agreement. Shocked Thanks Bikerman. Very Happy


Yet another sign of 2012...


Just kidding Razz
Ha ha! Right! So thought an Argument Clinic could perhaps be helpful untill 2012 .... :

gandalfthegrey
You are an idiot.

1. Right-wing people are far more likely to make threats and 'go loco'

2. Jimmy Carter was a great president. Someone who actually represented Christian values of humility and social justice.

... and Obama is nowhere near as bad as George W. Bush (aka Worst President Ever - a dumb ****** and a lier).

I'm not against the right-wing at all, but the last decent Republican President was George Bush Sr, and the last great one was Eisenhower.
jmi256
gandalfthegrey wrote:
You are an idiot.

1. Right-wing people are far more likely to make threats and 'go loco'

2. Jimmy Carter was a great president. Someone who actually represented Christian values of humility and social justice.

... and Obama is nowhere near as bad as George W. Bush (aka Worst President Ever - a dumb ****** and a lier).

I'm not against the right-wing at all, but the last decent Republican President was George Bush Sr, and the last great one was Eisenhower.

Great president? Are you drunk?? Seriously. Even hardcore Lefties admit Carter was colossal failure. That’s just one of the reasons why Obama’s fanboys object when comparisons are made between Carter and Obama. The rest of your post (real quality post, btw Applause ) can be judged on that one claim alone.
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:

Great president? Are you drunk?? Seriously. Even hardcore Lefties admit Carter was colossal failure. That’s just one of the reasons why Obama’s fanboys object when comparisons are made between Carter and Obama.

Idea
Twisted Evil

So, jmi... Who do you think was the best modern democrat president?
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
Great president? Are you drunk?? Seriously. Even hardcore Lefties admit Carter was colossal failure. That’s just one of the reasons why Obama’s fanboys object when comparisons are made between Carter and Obama. The rest of your post (real quality post, btw Applause ) can be judged on that one claim alone.
I agree with you. I did not think Carter was the best of Presidents. However, once he was no longer President, he really came into his own. That part I would give him five stars for is his tireless efforts with regard to conducting peace negotiations, observe elections, and advance disease prevention and eradication in developing nations. These efforts earned him a Nobel Prize.

The part that made him flunk the test for me when he was President, was his mismanagement of diplomacy with Iran, leading up to and including the Embassy hostage crisis. That created real problems for the United States with Iran and Iraq that have never been resolved.
jmi256
ocalhoun wrote:
jmi256 wrote:

Great president? Are you drunk?? Seriously. Even hardcore Lefties admit Carter was colossal failure. That’s just one of the reasons why Obama’s fanboys object when comparisons are made between Carter and Obama.

Idea
Twisted Evil

So, jmi... Who do you think was the best modern democrat president?


Define modern.



deanhills wrote:
I agree with you. I did not think Carter was the best of Presidents. However, once he was no longer President, he really came into his own. That part I would give him five stars for is his tireless efforts with regard to conducting peace negotiations, observe elections, and advance disease prevention and eradication in developing nations. These efforts earned him a Nobel Prize.

The part that made him flunk the test for me when he was President, was his mismanagement of diplomacy with Iran, leading up to and including the Embassy hostage crisis. That created real problems for the United States with Iran and Iraq that have never been resolved.

The failures of his presidency is what history judges him on, just as the colossal failures of Obama’s presidency is what history will judge Obama on (but realistically he’ll get kid-glove treatment for being the first black president). I actually feel sorry for Carter in a way. In his old age I think he knows how he is/will be evaluated, and has been working hard to reverse that perception. I would guess no one wants to face death with the knowledge that he reached the highest level of his profession, but will still be considered a failure. While some of his post-presidency activities have been commendable (I don’t agree with most of what he does or advocates for), as a president, he will be judged on his time in office and the huge failures that resulted from his policies and programs.
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
The failures of his presidency is what history judges him on,
I'm not so sure that is true for me. Most people can't remember his Presidency as that was much too long ago. They probably would remember him more for all his human rights peace missions as that is more recent and for me identified what he was about. He definitely redeemed himself for me. I would have an understanding if someone would only look at his Presidency and not be interested in anything else as his failure was a HUGE one as President. It created a nightmare for future Presidents in dealings with the Middle East.

jmi256 wrote:
just as the colossal failures of Obama’s presidency is what history will judge Obama on (but realistically he’ll get kid-glove treatment for being the first black president).
Although I don't think Obama was the greatest of Presidents, what would you regard as "colossal" with regard to failures on his part? For me he managed to stay on the narrow road, enough so that he will definitely succeed in getting a second presidency. Must say however I would have preferred his wife to stand for the second Presidency. I still think she is the stronger of the two.
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
jmi256 wrote:

Great president? Are you drunk?? Seriously. Even hardcore Lefties admit Carter was colossal failure. That’s just one of the reasons why Obama’s fanboys object when comparisons are made between Carter and Obama.

Idea
Twisted Evil

So, jmi... Who do you think was the best modern democrat president?


Define modern.


After WWII
Related topics
legalize (soft)drugs
"Why I published those cartoons" [mocking fascism]
Biblical "scientification"
Bible Verses: Do Disbelievers Go To Hell?
USA invaded Iraq for ... ?
Torture : It's a no-brainer
When Jesus was born...
Einstein proves Religion
Megaman Phoenix
Outrageous: Denmark re-publish Mohammud cartoons
Michigan Republicans seek to dis-incorporate city official
Wisconsin Left Winger Finally Charged for Death Threats
Another “Occupier” makes terroristic threats
Is it immoral to write a story where the characters suffer?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.