Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

If you'd been chief of staff to Roosevelt in 39 would you have your secretary of staff tell a rabbi not to burn a swastika flag?

Was Roosevelt hearing from a lot of flag-burning rabbis in those days?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Since we're not at war with the world's 1.57 billion Muslims, wouldn't the better thought experiment involve telling the rabbi not to burn a Russian flag?

1939 was before the Nazis bombed Pearl Harbor, so we weren't at war with the Nazis, either.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Since we're not at war with the world's 1.57 billion Muslims, wouldn't the better thought experiment involve telling the rabbi not to burn a Russian flag?

There are over a billion catholics in the world, most, if not all, of whom I don't think that we are at war with, yet, and yet, making offensive remarks about priests as a whole group and the pope, in the name of both social commentary and comedy is okay; and yet progressives and assorted other left wingers, including but not limited to leading Democrat party regulars in the US want to shut down the speech of people from Q'u'ran burning religious nuts in Florida to Mohammed drawing political cartoonists in Denmark.

Both of those religions are ripe for criticism and jokes, and yet it seems for one we have to worry about offending its adherents and being politically correct and respectful and for the other its a who gives a shite equation. Please explain?

And ftr, I am down with making fun and leveling criticism of both the above religions. Last week I burned a bible and Qu'ra'an. Check my YouTube channel for the video, which I emailed to Bin laden. And the pope. FWIW.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

There are over a billion catholics in the world, most, if not all, of whom I don't think that we are at war with, yet, and yet, making offensive remarks about priests as a whole group and the pope, in the name of both social commentary and comedy is okay; and yet progressives and assorted other left wingers, including but not limited to leading Democrat party regulars in the US want to shut down the speech of people from Q'u'ran burning religious nuts in Florida to Mohammed drawing political cartoonists in Denmark.

I've never met a Catholic who was offended by remarks about priests or the Pope. I'm not saying they don't exist, but they don't seem to be very common.

I don't know who these "progressives" and "left wingers" and "Democrat party regulars in the US" are who you think "want to shut down the speech" of Floridian nuts and Danish cartoonists, and mostly think you are full of shit. If you want to talk about any one such wanna-be speech-shut-downer, let's all condemn him or her together, but of course what you really are up to is a cheap shot at "progressives" and "left wingers" and "Democrat party regulars in the US."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Was Roosevelt hearing from a lot of flag-burning rabbis in those days?

probably not. what with all the ships full of Jews roosevelt was turning away, if I were a rabbi I'd STFU for fear of being deported.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I've never met a Catholic who was offended by remarks about priests or the Pope. I'm not saying they don't exist, but they don't seem to be very common.

I don't know who these "progressives" and "left wingers" and "Democrat party regulars in the US" are who you think "want to shut down the speech" of Floridian nuts and Danish cartoonists, and mostly think you are full of shit. If you want to talk about any one such wanna-be speech-shut-downer, let's all condemn him or her together, but of course what you really are up to is a cheap shot at "progressives" and "left wingers" and "Democrat party regulars in the US."

serious point. i was watching a south park thaT HAD the "league of imaginary entities" or some such thing on it- predictably Jesus was there*. and I was thinking about it, and why this is acceptable- surely there are christians that are offended by this, but maybe most like that lots of americans are offending god, so they stand out more clearly when they reach the pearly gates, or maybe the nuttier chrisitans are already killing abortion docs so they can't riot against the company that broadcasts South park? I mean it is strange, isn't it?


*and given that mohammad Ackowledges Jesus, one would think he'd be even more deserving- are there muslims South Park offends by not putting mohammad in this kind of show?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I've never met a Catholic who was offended by remarks about priests or the Pope. I'm not saying they don't exist, but they don't seem to be very common.

GGG came pretty close.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

1939 was before the Nazis bombed Pearl Harbor, so we weren't at war with the Nazis, either.

Okay, so come up with a 1939 example of "At war with A; allied with B; someone wants to piss on B's sacred symbol; should the Secretary of State have STFU about it?"

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

serious point. i was watching a south park thaT HAD the "league of imaginary entities" or some such thing on it- predictably Jesus was there*. and I was thinking about it, and why this is acceptable- surely there are christians that are offended by this, but maybe most like that lots of americans are offending god, so they stand out more clearly when they reach the pearly gates, or maybe the nuttier chrisitans are already killing abortion docs so they can't riot against the company that broadcasts South park? I mean it is strange, isn't it?

It is true that Islamic theology and political theory has a notion that the group is responsible for allowing a sinner to sin, whereas Western Christendom has evolved instead a notion that the world is imperfectible and everyone is responsible only for the sins they commit, not the ones they passively allow.*

*Exception: Women are responsible for the impure thoughts of the men who see them in both cultures, which is why in both cultures a woman must wear modest dress in public.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Okay, so come up with a 1939 example of "At war with A; allied with B; someone wants to piss on B's sacred symbol; should the Secretary of State have STFU about it?"

I believe we were still--policy-wise--in an isolationist mode then, and not in a war, declared or undeclared, at the time. I'm not aware of another country which was in 1939 (1) in a declared war, (2) had the position of Secretary of State, and (3) enough religious freedom that a rabbi would make a political statement like that without suffering consequences greater than being told "don't do that".

I also believe that Hank knows this.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I've never met a Catholic who was offended by remarks about priests or the Pope. I'm not saying they don't exist, but they don't seem to be very common.

We live mirror lives. I've never met a Muslim who was offended by burning Q'u'rans. I'm not saying they don't exist, but they don't seem to be very common to me.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't know who these "progressives" and "left wingers" and "Democrat party regulars in the US" are who you think "want to shut down the speech" of Floridian nuts and Danish cartoonists, and mostly think you are full of shit. If you want to talk about any one such wanna-be speech-shut-downer, let's all condemn him or her together, but of course what you really are up to is a cheap shot at "progressives" and "left wingers" and "Democrat party regulars in the US."

General Petraeus, Hillary, Bob Gibbs et al.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

It is true that Islamic theology and political theory has a notion that the group is responsible for allowing a sinner to sin, whereas Western Christendom has evolved instead a notion that the world is imperfectible and everyone is responsible only for the sins they commit, not the ones they passively allow.*

*Exception: Women are responsible for the impure thoughts of the men who see them in both cultures, which is why in both cultures a woman must wear modest dress in public.

As a non-muslim, why should I give a rat's shitty arse what their theories or notions are? Also, why shouldn't I seek to mock any groups that attempt to modestize the dress of women? If men can be topless in public, why can't women?.....did the ERA cover that issue?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

We live mirror lives. I've never met a Muslim who was offended by burning Q'u'rans. I'm not saying they don't exist, but they don't seem to be very common to me.

OK. Me neither.

General Petraeus, Hillary, Bob Gibbs et al.

Sweet Jesus. I can't believe that you really believe what you're saying or that I'm bothering to engage you on this.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

As a non-muslim, why should I give a rat's shitty arse what their theories or notions are? Also, why shouldn't I seek to mock any groups that attempt to modestize the dress of women? If men can be topless in public, why can't women?.....did the ERA cover that issue?

Are you looking to take this discussion to a lower level of discourse than "you like Nazis, na-na"?

Keep trying. But for now, I'm scoring it Hank 1, Penske 0.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sweet Jesus. I can't believe that you really believe what you're saying or that I'm bothering to engage you on this.

Apparently, when Penske's wife tells him "that's probably a bad idea," he's been completely SHUT DOWN. And I think I may have just gotten a glimpse into the bottomless well of frustrated rage that gives rise to so many of the kookier PenskePosts around here. Spree: it ain't pretty.