Posted on 12/11/2001 4:29:09 PM PST by MoJo2001
One email has really got me thinking. The best point of those who disagree with my earlier post on Walker/Spann is that Walker wasn't/isn't really a lefty. He's actually a right-wing religious zealot. Here's the case: "Maybe I missed something, but I am not sure how a religious fundamentalist and zealot like John Walker is an embodiment of the American Hating Left. He is a right wing religious nut just like the guy arrested here in Cincinnati last week for sending fake anthrax to abortion clinics. While you may be correct that his permissive parents and his multicultural context may have produced him (sounds like something some right wing nut case would say about homosexuality, right Andrew?), what it produced was a right wing Islamic religious nut who hates the West and America for its decadence (which he enjoyed and benefited from) and sin, just like his brothers on the right wing Christian extreme (like maybe Tim McVeigh, who was a Catholic to boot?). Let's at least be honest that Walker represents some of the worst of American permissiveness and multiculturalism, while being the embodiment of right wing religious fanaticism. I think we all get caught on this one." This strikes me as pretty smart. What it misses, though, is that Walker actually rebelled against Catholicism for being too strict when he was younger. I think he was attracted to Islam as much by its exoticism as by its strictures. I think we have a classic case of being brought up with really permissive parents in a really permissive culture. You want to rebel, but your authority figures approve of 'rebellion' so you have to find some sort of anti-liberal rebellion. Islam fits the bill perfectly. Hip-hop was a mite too predictable and you can imagine his parents almost approving. The extremism with which he pursued his rebellion is probably inexplicable out of psychoanalysis. But the link between his chosen lifestyle and the culture in which he was born is still valid, I think. - 12/11/2001 07:25:31 PM
What a devastating, meticulously reasoned comeback. Kudos to you, and kudos again! Clearly I am no match for your debating skills. [ /sarcasm ]
I think what this really indicates is that I overestimated you in crafting my response, which is why the above sarcasm has become the more appropriate way of dealing with you. Sorry I wasted my time. (By this I mean that I feel sorrow for having wasted my time. It is not an apology to you, or anything.)
The Washington Times credible???
You offer nothing but repetition. This is called "buffoonery". Put up some evidence that the Washington Times lacks credibility or forever be known as a durak.
I would have guessed The Professional or C.H.U.D., but you went and told us. :o)
Eldar Pompous
Ireeka, KS
So, by failing to come up with any actual citations, you admit you have no direct evidence that the Washington Times is anything but a credible -- in fact, a premier -- newspaper.
Like any liberal, I'm sure you FEEEEEEEEeeeeelll that it is not credible, and that is enough for you. You are an annoying little liberal who I expect will be shown the door soon.
Nice try with using Russian albeit in an inappropriate manner.
What inappropriate? I called you a durak, and that means fool, and you are certainly that.
I cannot show you the door. That is up to the moderators. However, this is a CONSERVATIVE political forum, and if you are here, it is by Jim Robinson's tolerance only. If he becomes annoyed by you, buh bye.
That is typical of the behavior here. Not once have I resorted to profanity, personal attacks, etc.
Yep. Just being a liberal is enough 'round these parts. Of course, if you are a liberal with a cogent argument, you can survive. One 'ferret' did for many years, for example. Good guy.
If the Washington Times had credibility it would be indexed and offered full-text in any of the many subscription databases now available.
THIS is your criteria?!?! Oh my everloving bell-ringing electric teflon Jesus.
- Not the accuracy of the articles -- you cannot come up with any inaccuracies.
- Not the breaking nature of their news -- Brent Bozell documents numerous times that the Washington Times led the pack.
- Not the quality of the reporters -- the internationally recognized Bill Gertz, John McCaslin (who was an award-winning UPI reporter before coming aboard the Times), award-winning investigative journalists Jerry Seper and Donald Lambro (who have also written several books fairly recently)
- But instead you point to some database you don't even give me a reference as to the location of?!?!
You are pathetic. Your intelligence is nonexistent. Your research is nonexistent. You have no citations. Your arguments are entirely without merit.
I must move along now to other posts where the dialog is a little more enlightened and less driven by name calling. Good day.
ENLIGHTENED!!!! ENLIGHTENED!!!!! YOU!?!? BBWWWWWWWWAAAA AHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHH AHAHHAHAHAHHHAHA HAHAHAHHHHAH !!!!!!!
You have no citations. You do no research. You offer nothing but platitudes and baseless comments.
And you accuse US of being without 'bite'?!
You're taking a play right out of the Clinton Playbook: Accuse your opponent of exactly what you are hip-deep in doing.
Any opportunity to slam Christianity, deserved or not. Although I believe McVeigh, after refusing to see a priest all through his confinement finally did have the last rights of the Church performed shortly before his execution. He likely did it at only to mollify his family, not out of any belief. Anyone who could call the children he killed in that building collateral damage is in no way a Christian or a God fearing believer of any faith.
The people who make these relativist arguments are the same people who will say that Hitler was a Christian when he was not. While he was born a Catholic there is no evidence that he ever practiced the faith as an adult. He was a professed atheist who dabbled in some pagan mysticism. He disdained all mainstream religions and considered Christianity a religion of losers as Ted Turner would say. He was also a vegetarian and an early version of an animal rights activist. Like many sadists, he hated people, but had an unusual attachment to animals. Hitlers views on religion would have blended right in with the narcissistic culture of places like Marin County that produced this littlest Talaban.
American Brainwashing
"There is a sad irony to the claim of John Walker's mother that he 'must have been brainwashed.' Before departing for the madrassas of Pakistan, Mr. Walker doubtlessly passed through an American education establishment that routinely denigrates the Founding Fathers as racists, reduces literature to grievance manifestoes and belittles traditional values in the name of 'diversity.' Why, then, must we question why a disillusioned young man, taught to despise his own culture, journeyed to Afghanistan to find an identity? Mr. Walker was indeed brainwashed, but not by the Taliban. It happened here in America."
- Eric Sundell, Baltimore Sun, 12/11/01
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.