Orlando:Nous avons tous assez de force pour supporter les maux d’autri (Page 2 of 4)

It's true the Charles presented a large number of claims without the evidence to support them.  But I've engaged him on other issues.  (You can find the discussions on the forums here.)  His is a formidable and educated intellect, though neither he nor I are used to arguing from the soapbox.  Someone arguing from the soapbox doesn't bring in the whole fabric of issues that he sees related, and that his opponents don't.  Someone arguing from the soapbox focuses on a single, supportable point and rallies people around it.

You may disagree with Charles, but you should understand already, as a matter of public discourse, that everything in that 'rant' has evidence to support it.  You may disagree; you may think the evidence of no account.  You may think the conclusions the result of bigotry.  But others don't, and the 'of course you don't believe that' argument has been used so often that it marks you as someone who prefers to dismiss evidence rather than examining it, and to dismiss people rather than taking them seriously.

The 'of course you don't believe that' approach keeps us talking past each other.  It keeps us from actually examining the evidence the other brings.  It confirms our confirmation bias.  At best, it is an argument from solidarity: "Be one of us, not one of them."  It is inherently polarizing.  Can you complain of polarization, when you reject any attempt to meet the minds of the other side?

Wolfgang Pauli could say, "That's not right.  It's not even wrong," because he was talking about math and the physical sciences, and had an established and shared understanding that was supported by tens of thousands of experimental results.  We don't have that in public policy, and it's near certain that none of us has the skills of a Machiavelli or Metternich that would give us the authority to say, "That's not even wrong."  We have contradictory exemplars and cases, and we need to sort through them to find the truth.

Well, if you've kept up with past threads, you would know that CFB and I too have had pages upon pages of what you might call discussions/arguments. I am well aware that CFB is no child and has a good level of intelligence, but then "A mind is a terrible thing to waste" don't you think. CFB accepts no evidence and gives no quarter; he is like arguing with a sign post and if you continue to argue with a sign post, you should at least be able to read it. His words are nothing more than what he likes to accuse others of, mainly ad hominem or in his case more like ad hockey. My lapse of logic in this thread was to think that just maybe he had come to his senses and actually paid attention to what was said on both sides. Alas, a miracle didn't happen. He, therefore deserves nothing more than what I presented and probably not even that acknowledgement. Perhaps I've learned a lesson, but probably not; sometimes I just need a laugh. Take care. Vern

Disinformation by distraction away from the issue.

Again, I ask, today, not a thousand years ago or even a century ago, who was the savage, the muslim, or the Christians and heathens? And are you really suggesting that muslims are justified in such victimization because they ought to "catch up" in savagery?

Which religion has its canonical law, Sharia, written into official practice in 11 countries such that homosexuals are killed?

By the definition of corporatist socialism/fascism  presented by Mussolini and copied by Hitler, was not FDR and his NRA and panoply of social-controlled economy also not such a corporatist? 

Planned industrial “harmony.” Another keystone of Italian corporatism was the idea that the government’s interventions in the economy should not be conducted on an ad hoc basis, but should be “coordinated” by some kind of central planning board. Government intervention in Italy was “too diverse, varied, contrasting. There has been disorganic . . . intervention, case by case, as the need arises,” Mussolini complained in 1935.[9] Fascism would correct this by directing the economy toward “certain fixed objectives” and would “introduce order in the economic field.”[10] Corporatist planning, according to Mussolini adviser Fausto Pitigliani, would give government intervention in the Italian economy a certain “unity of aim,” as defined by the government planners.  https://fee.org/articles/economic-fascism/

Therefore, what of my "rant" that the enemy cannot be defeated when our head of state and commander-in-chief is sympathetic to the enemy in some important particular ways is demonstrably incorrect?

“The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer”

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 … z4BbJo1HZm

“America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

Excuse me that I gave the benefit of the doubt for some basic understanding of American history during the progressive era. In economic policy there was no difference between FDR and Mussolini except on the nature of their respective capitalist systems (Italy, weak;U.S.A. strong)  As to Islam, what part of the fact that Mohammed, a thief, a murderer, a pedophile, took every bit of primitivism of Judaism, ignored Christianity except to name Jesus as a prophet,  to fashion not a religion but a bellicose territorial expansion strategy -- that every new convert from Khan to the Ottomans knew very well -- have you ever researched?  I can't teach one who knows nothing.

Re: assertion Obama - FDR / How can the enemy be defeated when the head of government and commander in chief is sympathetic to the enemy?/ Your talking points are just robotic justification by distraction to do nothing about coerced global cultural islamification.

Excuse me that I gave the benefit of the doubt for some basic understanding of American history during the progressive era. In economic policy there was no difference between FDR and Mussolini except on the nature of their respective capitalist systems (Italy, weak;U.S.A. strong)  As to Islam, what part of the fact that Mohammed, a thief, a murderer, a pedophile, took every bit of primitivism of Judaism, ignored Christianity except to name Jesus as a prophet,  to fashion not a religion but a bellicose territorial expansion strategy -- that every new convert from Khan to the Ottomans knew very well -- have you ever researched?  I can't teach one who knows nothing.

No. Or you might be splitting hairs.

Yes, exactly.  That was to be the point of federalism and shared dual sovereignty which began to expire as a concept with the entry of Utah into the union so long as Church LDS got the word from God polygamy was no loner acceptable, and prior to that, of course, by the War of the North Against the South.

You inserted a line in your quote of my post that I never wrote, C.F.B.  Doesn't help your bona fides. And I'm outta this ranting mishmash of vitriol disguised as intellectual debate. Yikes! Spend more time writing than posting this drivel, and you'll be better off. But maybe not.

They failed to mention {except Fox, once} that the slaughter the muslim fighter intended (see: nightclub in Paris in which 100 were killed but those muslims intended only to take hostages at the outset)  was stopped when he was met by an armed security guard who forced retreat to the restrooms, not good for the victims-hostages who retreated to there but who were far fewer in number and somewhat protected by barriers.

Jihadist death toll on U.S. soil after 9/11 under Bush: 0; death toll under Obama: 91.

"With all thy getting, get understanding."  ---the KJV by way of Malcom S. Forbes.

In fairness, there are Muslim groups speaking out against the warrior readings of their sacred texts.  The Clarion Project has a page with a list.  Given how firmly tCP and its principal speak out against the aggressors, I think the list is reliable.  There's an interview by tCP with the principal of the Center for Islamic Pluralism which does not go in depth into why he (a Sufi) and others believe that the warrior reading of those texts is wrong.