Well, I’m honestly sorry that’s the case, Moho — really, I mean that.

But will you tell us more? Why do these issues mean more to you? Seriously — telling us will help broaden our perspectives to help see yours, much more than any of your repeated insults ever will.

You are an angry person, and perhaps with very good reason. And I guess nothing anyone here can say will change what affected you so terribly. But I really do think most people want to be decent (yes, that includes Muslims), and if you reveal something of a serious nature to them, they will treat you with respect — and it seems a given that they will understand you better afterward.

It’s not treasonous to call for the impeachment of your idiot, little boy president.

You just argued the opposite of this:

I have mixed feelings, and frankly I often go back and forth in thinking one or the other or both of these actions is/are more or less worth it/not worth it, a good idea or a bad idea, etc.

I don’t need your approval of my “good” faith. These issues mean more to me than you or any of these other dilettante bed-wetting cul-de-sac-bound illiterate cry-babies will ever know for reasons you can’t begin to imagine. Given your set of mutually exclusive opinions, I’d say its you arguing in bad faith, because you don’t actually have any opinions.

Incidentally, there’s another poster on this site, Mr. Independent, who I think largely agrees with your views. But he exchanges with other posters with respect — always. You can tell, it’s a standard he holds himself to, because even when people take a snarky tone with him, or say something patently offensive regarding something he’s written, he never responds with anything but politeness.

He brings a lot to this website.

That’s just it, Moho: I *do* feel like I can prove my case, but I know that you feel like you can prove your case. Further, I know that I can’t prove my case to you, and that you can’t prove your case to me. There is *nothing* either of us could possibly say to the other that would make us change his opinion. Assuming each of us is arguing in good faith (and again, I do not think you are, but assuming such nonetheless), it is pretty clear that each of us has looked at a great many facts, and has assembled a picture from those facts that we are satisfied with.

When two people holding disparate views on a certain subject meet, and each feels he has educated himself very well on the subject, it is highly unlikely that one will convince the other to give up the view he has come, again, via inquiry and research, to hold with great certainty and passion.

That is the difference between us, or rather one of the differences: for the sake of argument, I will grant that I was in error, you are arguing your views in good faith, you are not trying to muddy the waters. I am able to listen to you, that is, to read what you say, and not feel any need to insult you. In fact, it never even occurs to me to do so. Furthermore, I can tell by reading what you say that you (a) are not an idiot but in fact intelligent; (b) can construct logical arguments using fluid, clever prose; and that (c) even if I did feel like answering you in kind, it wouldn’t get me anywhere. I want to read others’ opinions, even if I think they are wrong, and I enjoy going back and forth, even if I am sure I won’t be able to convince them of the rightness of my views.

As for your commenting, “This is by far the most disgusting opinion I’ve seen here. Has it ever occurred to you to do some research and make a stand, you freakin coward? We are talking about life and death here? This isn’t the difference between a McFlurry and a Milkshake, you dumb^^^”, here I must say: please. You think you’re the only one who sees the death and destruction unleashed by war and doesn’t recognize it for what it is? The point is, one may do plenty of research and still decide to endorse a war, and, afterwards, feel torn about what one has endorsed. And this does not make one callous or blithe concerning the matter at hand. Uncertainty and cruel indifference per se have nothing to do with one another.

You speak as if you’re the only one here concerned for our country’s future, and — needless to say — as if anyone who disagrees with you cannot be so concerned. What a convenience for you! What a great means to undermine others’ views. It’s of a piece with your calling them stupid and uneducated: if someone is stupid and uneducated, who needs to hear what they have to say? It’s just going to be uninformed crap anyhow. And if they are part of the group of “bigots” who are “ruining” the country every time they vote as you say, they have even less credibility: bigots are illogical by defnion. And these ruiners, well, clearly they hate the country — or they might as well hate it, given their actions and what they say. So everything they say is garbage, in advance.

In fact, Moho, most people here are greatly concerned about the country — maybe even as concerned as you are. That’s why they come here and post, to discuss things and vent and try to make sense of what they are seeing.

You seem to think your incredible concern for our country gives you unparalleled gravitas — some great power that may, if we will all simply listen to you, somehow save our national bacon. Well, it doesn’t. You don’t have that gravitas or power, because no one does. If the country is going to go down the toilet, if we are to go broke and, as you have remarked, will all have to learn to read the street signs in Chinese, then so it will be. God knows, it’s not unthinkable. Countries and empires have come and gone throughout human history. But you, me, the other people here — it won’t hinge on us. As voters we can maybe be part of a wave that will do something. But here, just talking — no way. Regardless of the high opinion you hold of yourself, you are a poster like any of the other posters here. You are not Winston Churchill or FDR, or, for that matter, Stalin. Thus your “concern”, which you use to justify your rudeness toward all who disagree with what you say, is no real justification at all. The plain truth is, you simply cannot bear to stand as you are, as just a man with his opinion, exchanging with other people with their own opinions.

This is by far the most disgusting opinion I’ve seen here. Has it ever occurred to you to do some research and make a stand, you freakin coward? We are talking about life and death here? This isn’t the difference between a McFlurry and a Milkshake, you dumb^^^

That’s about as probable as the rest of your case. You’re more than welcome to pursue the origins of the evidence I provide here. I give you links. If you can argue against it, feel free. If you have a feeling its wrong, but can’t prove it, then you’ve lost. Sorry, that’s the way this thinking thing goes. There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing, where you people go wrong is that you can’t prove that any of your points have merit. I think its perfectly fine to call the stupid out for being stupid. You have an alternative. Don’t come on this blog anymore if my posts are going to make you cry.

Well Donna at least 14,000 catholic gangbangers have murdered right here in California since 911. Since you supposedly understand math, do you understand the facts prove you have no point?

I love how repubs take a generic, factual post and go ad-hominem. It proves they prefer sticking their chickenhawk heads in the sand. Emotional reactions to pure numbers are proof of ignorance and delusion.

I agree with your assessment of Moho, to a point. That is, I cannot believe he is ignorant of the things you say he is. What I do think he is doing is arguing in bad faith: muddying the waters intentionally, throwing out a barrage of red herrings (e.g., statistics about the number of automotive deaths per year in the U.S., as compared to the deaths per year by Islamist murder) to make the logical seem illogical. Calling people bigots, so suddenly that is what the conversation is about: whether or not one is bigoted to remark upon what is as plain as the nose on one’s face. (I always think of that Groucho Marx joke, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?!”)

Of course, I don’t know Moho, so I can only guess at his motives. I can guarantee you this, however: no one who addresses others with such imperiousness, so dismissively and rudely, is sure of himself and of what he is saying. People who conduct themselves that way don’t want to make an honest case; they want the conversation shut down, and, if they cannot do that, they will settle for infuriating those they disagree with. Sometimes such tactics even “work” — i.e., they distract for a moment, they make people angry. Moho isn’t dumb, and he’s quick and good with words. For what it’s worth, in the battle he is fighting and the way he has chosen to fight it, he is a more than capable soldier.

And…

Rashputin,

Re “The stress that is deliberately created within the Muslim individual has to be relieved one way or another” — that I agree with, more or less. As for the idea of slapping Muslims with a reverse-dhimmi tax, though, I can’t go with you there. (I assume you’re being facetious, anyhow, on that point.)

Regards, right back at ya…

That same description could be applied to Hasan right up until he decided to become an active participant in jihad murders.

It’s caused by Islamic teachings which keep the individual in a constant state of anger and on the verge of an outburst even when there is no mistreatment of any kind for them to focus on in their personal life. Everything that normally happens to anyone is automatically seen as a manifestation of some dark plot against them. It’s deliberately induced and focused paranoia. This way, the individual is primed and ready to explode whenever stress from any source becomes too much for them, and it also insures that they’ll explode in a way the jihadist leaders want them to. It’s an old, old, way of creating semi-insanity within the individual since it is essentially always telling them they can’t do anything right, they never will be able to do anything right, and the only escape from that situation is to attack and kill whoever the leaders focus the frustration on.

Whenever the technique is used, it encompasses a major internal contradiction or two, and Islam is just chock full of them. One of the most basic, is that Christians are theologically wrong because Christ could not have died for their sins since substitutionary atonement is impossible, yet they assure the young that the first drop of blood shed by a Muslim who dies in jihad spares his seventy closest relatives from judgment and allows them go directly to paradise upon their deaths. So, Islam grants substitutionary sacrifice to those dying in jihad even though they declare the concept of substitutionary sacrifice to be something only a pagan would believe. It’s just one of the many subtle admissions within Islam that give away its roots as a pagan moon good cult.

The stress that is deliberately created within the Muslim individual has to be relieved one way or another, which is why I say make them pay the dimi tax and so forth the same way Christians are forced to in Islamic societies. In that situation they’d be able to focus on real oppression and would for the most part react to a real situation by leaving rather than staying here being made ever more paranoid and disturbed by constant manipulation over fabricated injustices and slights.

Regards