Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Liberal politics = Islamic hate?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Liberal politics = Islamic hate?

    Originally posted by Putnam View Post
    Abortion?
    Gay rights?
    Contraception?

    ^^ There are three issues that offend Islamic and traditional cultures, and that ARE supported by the left.

    As to materialism, D'Souza is saying that materialism is not a serious problem, and that many Islamic and traditional societies want to develop technologies and improve their standard of living. But they want to do it without "Desperate Housewives" or "Fear Factor."




    No. He doesn't embrace that himself. He says that is one of the viewpoints that are "out there,"
    European countries support Gay Rights, Contraception, and Abortion.

    Strange that I don't see any Muslims burning a Swedish flag, holding a sign saying "Swedes go home"

    Which "wing" is it that wants a strong military again?

    I'm in L.A.'s camp on this one, not for the same reasons, but for the following:

    "A house divided against itself, cannot stand"

    It seems conservatives are very keen on attacking liberals, going so far as to call them "the enemy". This guy does it, Mark Levin does it, and I'm assuming those who nod their heads and listen to them are thinking it, if not saying it.

    If things keep going the way they're currently headed, I fear for the future of this country.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Liberal politics = Islamic hate?

      Yes, because conservatives (Regan, Bush) supporting corrupt regimes in the Islamic world (Shah or Saudi Arabia) and the constant support of Israel have nothing to do with America's status in the Middle East.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Liberal politics = Islamic hate?

        Originally posted by Eindar
        European countries support Gay Rights, Contraception, and Abortion.

        Strange that I don't see any Muslims burning a Swedish flag, holding a sign saying "Swedes go home"

        Which "wing" is it that wants a strong military again?

        I'm in L.A.'s camp on this one, not for the same reasons, but for the following:

        "A house divided against itself, cannot stand"

        It seems conservatives are very keen on attacking liberals, going so far as to call them "the enemy". This guy does it, Mark Levin does it, and I'm assuming those who nod their heads and listen to them are thinking it, if not saying it.

        If things keep going the way they're currently headed, I fear for the future of this country.
        You can say that the other way too:

        It seems liberals are very keen on attacking conservatives, going so far as to call them "the enemy".

        Actually... I think liberals are more likely the ones on 'the attack'. They do it with the power of the MSM to back them up. And the day I hear a liberal debate an issue without losing their temper or simply shout down the other side will be a first (OK... I exaggerated a little but overall that's my view).

        -Bball
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Liberal politics = Islamic hate?

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          You can say that the other way too:

          It seems liberals are very keen on attacking conservatives, going so far as to call them "the enemy".

          Actually... I think liberals are more likely the ones on 'the attack'. They do it with the power of the MSM to back them up. And the day I hear a liberal debate an issue without losing their temper or simply shout down the other side will be a first (OK... I exaggerated a little but overall that's my view).

          -Bball
          Name one liberal that can be quoted as referring to conservatives as "the enemy", because I've not heard one.

          Regardless, if true, it's bad for our country.

          I heard a quote from a longtime congressman recently saying, "I remember a time when we could disagree without being disagreeable".

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Liberal politics = Islamic hate?

            Originally posted by Bball View Post
            You can say that the other way too:

            It seems liberals are very keen on attacking conservatives, going so far as to call them "the enemy".

            Actually... I think liberals are more likely the ones on 'the attack'. They do it with the power of the MSM to back them up. And the day I hear a liberal debate an issue without losing their temper or simply shout down the other side will be a first (OK... I exaggerated a little but overall that's my view).

            -Bball
            Conservatives have made the word "liberal" a four letter word in politics. Conservatives have gone as far as saying "a Democratic victory is a victory for the terrorists." I don't believe in bias in the media. Even if their is a "liberal media", I think that there are enough national sources that would balance it out. The media goes with whatever is popular or what's the juiciest story. If the media is liberally biased, scandals in the Clinton administration wouldn't have been as big of a deal.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Liberal politics = Islamic hate?

              Originally posted by eindar
              Name one liberal that can be quoted as referring to conservatives as "the enemy", because I've not heard one.
              Here's one: Senator Robert Byrd. Follow the link above for the quote. It is a long read, but D'Souza gives several examples of liberals calling either the president, his administration or conservatives "the enemy" or word of equal meaning. And if you don't believe D'Souza, the citations are embedded so you can follow them to the original source.
              And I won't be here to see the day
              It all dries up and blows away
              I'd hang around just to see
              But they never had much use for me
              In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Liberal politics = Islamic hate?

                First, I apologize to Putnam. I combined his insistence that D'Souza is a "smart guy" and his desire to start a thread about this book as a unilateral "glorification of the writings. After reading the Madonna thread, it appears that he was just trying to split the thread in question.

                Putnam, I apologize to you.

                Second.

                Yes, it's been part of hte conservative values playbook to "combine" enemies for quite some time - see for yourselves:

                Originally posted by Dinesh D'Souza
                American conservatives are fighting a two-front war. The first is a war against Islamic radicalism and fundamentalism. The second is a political struggle against the left and its pernicious political and moral influence in America and around the globe. My conclusion is that the two wars are intimately connected. In fact, we cannot win the first war without also winning the second war.
                Originally posted by Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, Chapter 2 section 4
                ...[A] number of essentially different enemies must always be regarded as one, in such a way that in the opinion of the mass of one's own adherents the war is being waged against one enemy alone. This strengthens the belief in one's own cause and increases one's bitterness against the attacker...
                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Liberal politics = Islamic hate?

                  It amazes me that anyone can not read this and not get angry, stronger still propogate this any further.

                  If any of you (putnam?) believe for one second that faithfull muslims are thinking as described then you are so far out of contact with reality that it's scary.

                  To name OBL as a "spokesman" for muslims anywhere in the world is an insult to 1/7 billion muslims around the world.

                  To even think that "then enemy is within" is losing touch with history; "Der Feind Hort mit"

                  To mention any democratic stream in the same breath as 9/11 as possibly supportive of is an insult to democracy in general.
                  So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                  If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                  Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Liberal politics = Islamic hate?

                    Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
                    Well, it is true that the right wing in the Middle East shares many of the same values as the right wing in this country. Abortion, women's rights, religious freedom, free speech, etc are frowned on by both American conservatives and the Mullahs.
                    3Ball, as you so often do, you undercut your meaning with rhetorical flourish. You start listing things that conservatives frown on, give two reasonable examples, then you go on to name a third one that is wrong: Conservatives in this country do not frown on religious freedom.


                    Originally posted by 3Ball
                    It seems that your argument is "If we were only like the Islamic extremists they wouldn't hate us so much."
                    No, the argument is that if we strove for more common ground with Islamic moderates they wouldn't hate us so much.

                    Big difference.
                    And I won't be here to see the day
                    It all dries up and blows away
                    I'd hang around just to see
                    But they never had much use for me
                    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Liberal politics = Islamic hate?

                      Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                      When I lived in Kyrgyzstan, I could buy an American movie on VHS (PAL) on the streets of Bishkek three days after it opened in theaters in the US. Russians were stealing/bribing copies of the first-run film, bootlegging videotapes, overnighting them to Moscow, where thousands of cheap copies were run off overnight and sent to all the major cities in the CIS. Warner Brothers wasn't doing this: Russian pirates were.
                      Before major movies hit the theaters here (London UK) or in the USA, the movies are for sale on the street in shopping centres and malls in dvd format.

                      More "warez" servers are hosted in the USA then anywhere else in the world, with the Phillipines a close second.
                      These servers release all these pirated copies of movies, music and software.

                      What has it all got to do with Russia being a few days behind ?


                      Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                      And, as far as the Europeans go, they would like nothing more than to have their music and cultures spread throughout the world. I know this because Europeans have said it to me. But, have you ever seen the Eurovision Song Contest? Europeans are resentful, but nonetheless eager to buy US music and movies. And its no wonder: their movies are all about the circus, and their music features the accordion.
                      To this all I can say; "ignorance is bliss"

                      Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                      And, as far as Europe and its political views, wasn't there a considerable objection from Europe over the execution of Saddam Hussein? that is as bald a case of "trying to force their culture on the middle east" as you could find. Europe just isn't good at it.

                      did I just say ingnorant?
                      Delusional would probably be a better description.

                      Trying to force "our" culture on the Middle East?

                      Yes, that is what we did in the middle-ages and thereafter, and with the exception of the UK up and untill the late 1940's, in the "Colonial Era"

                      Most countries in Europa have long since realized that Imperialism doesn't work in the long run.

                      At this moment in time I can only see one country in this world trying to impose it's doctrine upon the Middle East.
                      So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                      If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                      Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Liberal politics = Islamic hate?

                        Originally posted by able
                        If any of you (putnam?) believe for one second that faithfull muslims are thinking as described then you are so far out of contact with reality that it's scary.
                        I lived among muslims for seven years. That doesn't mean I knew one at work or I took a class with a muslim. That means there was me and my wife and our children... and everyone else for 300 miles in every direction was a muslim. I have drunk 10,000 cups of tea with muslims, sitting crosslegged on their floors. I have sweat and bled on muslim soil. I've got dozens of muslim friends who knew I was a Christian and still liked my and my family because we had a lot in common and because they saw that I was there to serve them and not to take anything away from them. So, yeah, I think I know what faithful muslims think.

                        Do they dislike America flexing its military muscle? Certainly they do. Neither I not D'Souza deny that.

                        But there is something else. Muslims do care about their culture, and they do resent the trash that comes from the West. If you deny this, then let your own words come back at you.

                        The reason muslims blame America and not Sweden or other European country is two-fold. First, the ordinary muslim isn't very sophisticated about geography. I heard someone once describe my Dutch colleague as "an American from Golandia (Holland)." American is the common word they use now to mean what feringi used to mean: foreigner -- which comes from franj or frank which is what they called all westerners during the Crusades.

                        The second reason is that a plurality of the trash does come from the US. I sat in one man's house and when he pointed to his TV and asked why American women paraded topless in front of men, I answered that it was a German fashion show -- not American. But the next thing on the TV was Baywatch, so I had to admit that the thing he disliked happens also in America.
                        And I won't be here to see the day
                        It all dries up and blows away
                        I'd hang around just to see
                        But they never had much use for me
                        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Liberal politics = Islamic hate?

                          Originally posted by displaced Knick
                          Muslims talk about our decadent society but if we didn't have such a military presence in the region and supported Israel for decades they wouldn't care if we opened every public sporting event by having an orgy.
                          How do you know this?
                          And I won't be here to see the day
                          It all dries up and blows away
                          I'd hang around just to see
                          But they never had much use for me
                          In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Liberal politics = Islamic hate?

                            Originally posted by able

                            did I just say ingnorant?
                            Delusional would probably be a better description.

                            Trying to force "our" culture on the Middle East?
                            Golly, able. It seems that you just want to fight. Did not several nations of Europe (England excepted) oppose the use of capital punishment aginst Saddam Hussein, even demanding that his trial take place in the Hague where the death sentence could not occur?

                            I think this question gets a simple 'yes.'

                            And was this not in opposition to what the Iraqis themselves (Baathists excepted) wanted?

                            Again, 'yes'

                            Originally posted by able
                            To name OBL as a "spokesman" for muslims anywhere in the world is an insult to 1/7 billion muslims around the world.

                            Osama bin Ladin is a spokesman for radical Islam, and that is plain fact.


                            Originally posted by able

                            ignorance is bliss.
                            Come and look at my cd collection before you call me ignorant. I'll bet I've got more bouzouki music, more Rai music and more klezmer music than you! Obviously England is the source of a whole lotta great music. But continental Europe's pop music is a different story.
                            And I won't be here to see the day
                            It all dries up and blows away
                            I'd hang around just to see
                            But they never had much use for me
                            In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Liberal politics = Islamic hate?

                              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                              Here's one: Senator Robert Byrd. Follow the link above for the quote. It is a long read, but D'Souza gives several examples of liberals calling either the president, his administration or conservatives "the enemy" or word of equal meaning. And if you don't believe D'Souza, the citations are embedded so you can follow them to the original source.

                              I read most of it, looking for (likely) out-of-context quotes as opposed to dialogue. I didn't see "The Enemy" come up once, with the possible exception of nutjob Cindy Sheehan. One other thing I noticed is the stance taken by the speaker. Liberal speakers seem to take on the role of the victim or the oppressed, which is something I'm not really seeing from conservatives. I'm not sure what that entails, but there's a stark contrast there.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Liberal politics = Islamic hate?

                                Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                                Golly, able. It seems that you just want to fight. Did not several nations of Europe (England excepted) oppose the use of capital punishment aginst Saddam Hussein, even demanding that his trial take place in the Hague where the death sentence could not occur?

                                I think this question gets a simple 'yes.'

                                And was this not in opposition to what the Iraqis themselves (Baathists excepted) wanted?

                                Again, 'yes'




                                Osama bin Ladin is a spokesman for radical Islam, and that is plain fact.
                                With your bending answer on the first part, your denial of seeing what is in front of you in the second part and your outright nonsense in the final part has made you a non-entity in this entire discussion.

                                They are obviously your extremist views and it must be just as obvious I don't sunscribe to them, in fact I see little support for your ideas here.
                                So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                                If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                                Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X