Free Republic

Ah yes, the ad hominem — offical syllogism of Free Republic. ☺

On the contrary, I can think of lots to criticize about Obama. It just seems that Freepers are willing to believe almost anything negative about him. I'm just here to help you guys improve your critical thinking skills. :-)

I don't get it. It is common courtesy to put your phone on mute during conference calls. I do it all the time at work. It cuts down on background noise, etc. It doesn't mean that you can't hear them. It just means they can't hear you.

If Obama was saying something relevant to Pelosi, she ought to have been listening, of course; but Woodward doesn't clarify that. On the other hand, if he was speaking with Harry Reid about something irrelevant to Pelosi, why shouldn't she carry on a side conversation with someone else?

And anyway, what does this have to do with Obama? At worst, it reflects badly on Pelosi, but Obama wouldn't have even known about it.

Did the ambassador request additional security? Did Obama even know about his concerns?

The video (have you seen it?) was a steaming pile of excrement, offensive not just to Muslims but to anybody with an ounce of artistic sensitivity. I doubt that Obama “apologized” for it because that would imply that he had some responsibility for it, but he was certainly right to want to distance himself from it. I wouldn’t want to be in the same area code with it.

But I still don’t see what the connection is between the Obama Administration and the Libyan ambassador’s diary obtained by CNN. How does the latter discredit the former?

Sorry, I’m still not gettin’ it. What did Obama say that is refuted by this?

One would THINK that this FURTHER discredits the Obama Administration as well as that creature who runs its state department.

Maybe I'm dense, but what does this have to do with the Obama Administration?

You remember everyone writing about it at the time. And of course that makes it true, right? Do you remember anybody actually checking the facts at the time? Did YOU check it?

Well, theres no time like the present. Here's the actual legislation. Do you see any reference to Islam? Do you see any clause that would give them preferntial treatment? Do you know of any Muslim organization that would benefit from this exemption?

Snopes is quoting the actual legislation. If you think they're lying, then go find the text yourself -- I'm sure it's available online. Otherwise, you'll have to do better than an unsupported ad hominem, don't you think?

Muslims charities are exempt because they only serve Muslims, they discriminate and that is a good thing to the left.

This claim was already debunked by Mariner in a previous thread. Refer to the Snopes article for details.

"Islam is different story. I have the same interpretation of Islam as the Wahabbis."

Thanks for clarifying. So you are referring only to Wahhabis, not to Muslims as a whole.

"A Muslims religious obligation of subjugating, converting or killing nonbelievers in Allah is made that much easier by Infidels thinking you can coexist in a tolerant world with fundamental Muslims."

There is no such religious obligation in Islam. Where did you get that idea? Do you actually know any Muslims?

"This sounds like something some of the mental patients I work with would say."

Oh really? But if someone had said this:

"The claims of Christianity do not depend on historical origins, but on an inner knowledge of God, the accompaniment and reward of piety. What makes Christianity true is the spiritual life of Christians, not religious history but religious experience."

... would you find it just as crazy?

"The Koran is very chaotic, inconsistent and contradictory compared to the Bible. It was slap dash thrown together. It is written in 'religious Arabic' thus open to even more interpretation."

The Bible has plenty of chaos and contradiction too, depending on how you look at it -- and who does the looking. (See The Dark Bible, for instance.) And even leaving aside such obviously prejudiced and hostile commentators, all religions have various sects with often contradictory interpretations. There are probably more variations within Christianity than within Islam.

But that isn't really the question, is it? The article doesn't discuss internal contradictions within Islam or within the Koran -- it talks about how contemporary Islam differs from the historical record. My point is that Christianity has evolved just as Islam has, and perhaps more so. I just don't see why that matters to anyone other than "true believers".

I guess I'm missing the point of this. Are you implying that Islam is not a valid religion because some of its traditions (allegedly) aren't historically accurate?

Christ wasn't born on Christmas Day either, and many of the principles of Christianity weren't codified until several hundred years after his death. Does this invalidate Christianity?

"Now wait a minute, is the fetus a human or isn't it? This case says it is (and I agree), but RvW says otherwise. I'm confused.

Here's the explanation from Assistant District Attorney Jack Daneri:

Daneri cautioned jurors not to confuse the charges with the issue of abortion. The case was not about "pro-choice" or "pro-life," but it was about Carson's choice, he said. "Sheena Carson's choice was to have a child in this case. Corinne Wilcott took away that choice," he said.

In other words, the law does not concede that the fetus is a human being, but only that the mother intended it to become one. The crime is against the mother, not against the fetus. The term "fetal homicide" is a bit of a misnomer.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I took a couple of days to think about them myself, because there is some truth in what you said.

I too am frustrated by the UN's apparent paralysis. I was scratching my head five years ago at how Saddam continued to ignore his commitments and yet the UN simply piled one resolution on another. I would have been supportive of military action years ago.

But for me, the paramount considerations are the principles of democracy and due process. (As far as I'm concerned, democracy is an axiom -- I'm not interested in debating with those who don't acknowledge it.)

As you say, this has been going on for twelve years now, so another few months more or less isn't going to make much difference, either to the UN's credibility, which is already damaged, or to the threat posed by Saddam, which IMHO was minimal from an American perspective and virtually nil as long as the inspectors were on the scene.

On the other hand, it really hasn't been that long in diplomatic terms since the United States began pressuring for military action. I believe that another few weeks or months could have made the difference. Certainly there were a number of countries who were favourably considering a resolution explicitly authorizing war after a fixed period of time (which was still being negotiated). There might have been a veto or two, but IMHO that wouldn't make much difference. A simple majority in favour would have provided enough moral authority to justify action.

Although I personally believe that war is more than justified in this case, I don't believe that one or two nations should ever arrogate to themselves the decision to invade a foreign country. I see this principle as being far more important in the long run than the small benefits to be gained by unilateral action now. If it has to wait till October, then so be it. (And I don't buy this "coalition" stuff -- everybody knows this is an American war, with the willing assistance of the Brits and a number of smaller countries going along for the ride.)

However, the battle has been joined, for better or for worse. I hope it will be quick and successful, and I hope that the blowback will be minimal -- though I fear that neither will be the case.

"There is no security threat to Canada that the United States would not be ready, willing and able to help with. There would be no debate, there would be no hesitation," Mr. Cellucci said.

Nor would Canada hesitate to help the United States if Iraq posed a credible security threat. But there is no evidence that such is the case.

Interesting... I said that the majority of the world wanted to give Blix a few more weeks. You chided me for not offering evidence of this. Then in your next sentence you yourself cite three major nations (France, Russia, and China) who demanded exactly that.

Then you go on to suggest ulterior motives for those nations -- but you offer absolutely no evidence. Nor do you offer any evidence for your interpretation of "severe consequences".

But never mind all that. There's only one question I'd like you to answer: If you don't believe in democracy, then just how do you think international disputes should be settled?

Clive, Resolution 1441 said nothing about war. If "serious consequences" necessarily implies lethal force, perhaps I should have been more concerned when my bank manager discussed the ramifications of defaulting on my student loan.

Pukka Puck, you're right -- there is no such thing as international democracy. And there never will be as long as the US can ignore the will of the majority with impunity.

Weirdad, you're a scary guy. Perhaps you don't believe in democracy, but at least GWB claims to. The promotion of democracy in Iraq was one of the reasons he gave for the war in the first place.

Catalonia, I'm not assuming anything about the positions of particular foreign governments or their benevolent intentions. Any more than I assume the positions or the intentions of individuals when they vote. Any more than I'm assuming GWB's benvolent intentions toward Iraq, for that matter. Individual nations, like individual voters, may be corrupt or devious. I am assuming only that the majority will act in good conscience. To assume the contrary -- that mankind as a whole is malevolent and untrustworthy -- is to assume a level of nihilism and chaos that IMHO would not be worth enduring.

RJL, in Catalonia's words, "you are assuming that the stated positions of foreign governments are their true positions." The U.S. spent billions of dollars bribing and browbeating the "support" of those 44 countries. Even at that, the list is a bad joke. Have you looked at it? (Turkey is part of their "coalition of the willing"??)

---

And just for the record, I am in favour of the use of force to oust Saddam. I just don't like the way it's being done. A majority of the world wanted to give Hans Bliz at least a few more weeks, and that's what should have happened.

Had Bush been willing to wait, he would eventually have had a true world majority on his side. As it is, he's given every tinpot dictator a justification to invade his neighbor whenever he feels "threatened". Not to mention the boost he's given Bin Laden's recruiting efforts.

It's the difference between a fair trial and a lynch mob. It has nothing to do with the guilt of innocence of the accused, or the appropriateness of the penalty.