Skip to main content

It appears that Romney, via the boy wonder Ryan, are tripling down on their despicable political attacks after Americans were murdered in Libya, ostensibly by Al Qaeda according to news reports.  

When you read Ryan's statements below, the first thing that comes to mind is:  is Ryan saying that it's never too early for the United States to defend the values of religion-bating bigots?  Are the values of the nasty preacher from Florida who once again has incited violence around the world the values Ryan and Romney are defending here?  The values they're "not apologizing" for?  

Yeah this is their "Lehman moment."  That smirk will quickly be wiped off Romney's face in the coming days.

“The administration sent mixed signals to those who attacked our embassy in Egypt, and mixed signals to the world. I want to be clear: It is never too early for the United States to condemn attacks on Americans, on our properties and to defend our values,” Ryan told the crowd in the battleground state of Ohio. “That’s what leadership is all about.”
These fucks are again trying the nazi technique here by trying to make the claim enough times that maybe their lie will stick.  Fact:  the American embassy in Egypt condemned the bigots who made the video BEFORE the (possibly Al Qaeda) attack happened in Libya.

Now all Republicans have to answer for this shit.  They're fucked.

Then this little shit goes on to disparage Obama for trying sanctions in Iran before starting yet another catastrophic war in the middle east with the below assertion.  The neo-cons have no shame.  How many dead in Iraq?  A million people because of little neo-con shits like Cheney, Romney and Ryan?

Undercutting allies like Israel, outreach to enemies like Iran, national security leaks and devastating defense cuts.
Link

Undercutting Israel?  No Israel is run by a rabid right winger warmonger.  Obama is giving sanctions a chance and waiting for evidence of a nuclear weapons program before setting off another catastrophic war.  Don't forget Russia is saber rattling about US attacks on Iran and Syria.  But do the neo-cons give a fuck?  No they welcome anything that could bring about their cherished End Times.

Devastating defense cuts?  This little shit and his House repub fanatics made that happen when they held America's credit hostage during their pouty, self-imposed "debt crisis"!?!

Meanwhile the US military is asking the the piece of shit Florida preacher (and by extension Ryan) to withdraw support for the fucks who made the video.  

"The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, spoke by phone this morning with Pastor Terry Jones. In the brief call, Gen. Dempsey expressed his concerns over the nature of the film, the tensions it will inflame and the violence it will cause. He asked Mr. Jones to consider withdrawing his support for the film."
Link

Romney and Ryan stand with the religious extremists.  

The US military stands with President Obama by asking for condemnation of the religion-bating extremists.  

So maybe the press will ask these dipshits:  Is the general "apologizing" for America by condemning the video?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  P.R. = P.O.S. (nt) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jakewaters
  •  Its never too early to condemn attacks before they (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Musial, concernedamerican

    happen?  Its almost like they knew it was going down.

    I'm not a conspiracy theory nut but damn, there is something just not right here.

    "I'll press your flesh, you dimwitted sumbitch! " -Pappy O'Daniel

    by jakewaters on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 08:20:45 PM PDT

    •  I'm trying to figure out if you're being snarky (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jakewaters

      No one condemned attacks before they happened. The lack of condemnation is what incited the outrage from the conservative echo chamber, when at the time they were accusing the embassy of sympathizing/apologizing with the people who had breached the wall of the compound. The statement was trying to cool down tensions to avoid potential problems, as the Egyptian media was in full-on enflame the street mode.  

      "Mitt Romney isn't a vulture capitalist: vultures only eat things that are dead." -S. Colbert

      by newinfluence on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 08:40:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That was Ryan's quote, about it never being too (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        concernedamerican

        early.  Mitten's first yap came in reaction to the protests going down in Egypt and the Egyptian consulate's message.  

        My understanding was that the situation was unclear in Libya at the time and that the news had not broken that our 4 diplomats were dead.

        I wasn't being snarky, just incredulous that Ryan was being such a dripping douchebag.

        I think our professional diplomats were doing their job and doing it damned well.

        "I'll press your flesh, you dimwitted sumbitch! " -Pappy O'Daniel

        by jakewaters on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 08:53:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I knew that Ryan and every R/R surrogate... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jakewaters

          ...has said that. But the rest of your comment made it seem like you were saying that the embassy commented on the attacks before they happened, and that something is fishy.

          "Mitt Romney isn't a vulture capitalist: vultures only eat things that are dead." -S. Colbert

          by newinfluence on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 09:02:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, the fishiness is in the timing of Willard's (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            concernedamerican, gnostradamus

            idiotic remarks and the concatenation of weirdness that produced the film and fanned the fires of reaction on the Egyptian and Libyan Street.

            Like somebody wanted to provoke the reaction.

            Like they knew it was going to happen but couldn't control it after they let the genie of hate out of the bottle.

            They, being those who translated the film into the local dialect so quick and the boobs who seem to be promoting the hateful sentiments.

            Am I clear now?

            "I'll press your flesh, you dimwitted sumbitch! " -Pappy O'Daniel

            by jakewaters on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 09:39:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Perfectly clear with your first comment, to me. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jakewaters

              Romney "condemns attacks" in response to the Cairo embassy's release of a statement.  But the embassy's statement was in response to unrest in Egypt over that film.  There had been no attacks in Egypt at the time that Romney's team was crafting the statement--- a full five or so hours before the attacks in Libya.  When Romney stepped to the podium and gave his remarks about the embassy's statement, he conflated the Libya attacks, information about which he had just received, with the embassy's response to the unrest.  A stupid, obtuse yet willful conflation.    

              That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

              by concernedamerican on Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 02:31:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Ahhh, the Triple Down theory (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jakewaters

    Sounds like Triple Down Syndrome to me.

  •  Negotiating with terrorists? (8+ / 0-)
    The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, spoke by phone this morning with Pastor Terry Jones
    This "film" is causing us a lot of trouble. Do you suppose Pastor Jones took the call and deeply considered whether to denounce the "film", or just jerked himself off for being recognized as such a Very Important Person?
    •  I don't get this either... (3+ / 0-)

      ... WTF is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs doing LOWERING himself to talk to a POS like Terry Jones?  My take is that Jones sees himself as a profit-center first, an evangelical Christian second, and an American third (and that's being generous).  This situation is only getting weirder with each passing hour.

      I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

      by Hey338Too on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 09:08:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it won't be the first time. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hey338Too, Hastur, TKO333

        Jones did something like this during the Bush Admin, and one of the saner bigwigs in the Bush Admin called him to ask him to please not do it.  

        But he did it anyway.

        I think he has a bug up his arse about goading bigwigs into calling him so he can tell them to piss off.  

        IMHO he deserves to be drafted, just to send him over there so he can observe first hand and learn a few things about the culture first-hand.

        "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 09:34:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Would you really want to do that to the troops? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          G2geek, Hastur, TKO333

          I say, send him on a one man fact finding mission in Libya or Afghanistan.  Just him and his Bible, if/when he comes back he can tell us what he's learned.

          I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

          by Hey338Too on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 09:42:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  yep he has a bug about bigwigs kowtowing to him (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Musial, G2geek, Hastur, Orlaine, Nespolo

          My opinion is that the FBI needs to dust off the Sedition Laws or somesuch to curtail his freedom of speech. (I know I usually am a complete advocate of the First Amendment but this would seem to be the iconic shouting fire in a crowded theater)

          •  i'm with you on this one. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Hastur, entlord

            To which I would add: the Brandenburg standard is obsolete in an era when any person's words can reach a global audience at the speed of electrons, there are well known groups and individuals who hold grudges for years, and violent acts can occur internationally at the speed of hijacked jet airliners.

            The standard needs to be:  "clearly foreseeable with a reasonable-person test."

            What I would do about implementing it:

            The defendant would have two trials in series before a conviction could be obtained, as follows:  

            The first trial would rule solely on the question of whether a reasonable person could have foreseen that the speech in question would lead to a violent action.  The outcome of this trial would be a decision on whether or not the speech in question did or did not have 1st A protection.

            If the first trial ruled that the speech did have 1st A protection, the defendant would go free and not face a second trial.  Case closed.

            If the first trial ruled that the speech did not have 1st A protection, then and only then would the defendant face the second trial below.  

            The second trial would take the ruling from the first trial and determine if the speech in question did or did not result in the violent act in question.  The outcome of this trial would be a ruling on guilt or innocence under the statute.  

            Thus, a defendant would have a separate jury for each purpose, and a favorable ruling by either court would result in a "not guilty" outcome for which the defendant would go free.  It would take an adverse finding from both courts in order to convict.  This is not double jeopardy since each court is ruling on a separate and distinct question, and a favorable ruling from the first court would be the end of the case.

            Only the most egregious cases would result in a conviction.  

            But the point would also be established that these egregious cases were culpable.  

            And here's another specific case in point: Glenn Beck, the only major media personality with a string of "lone nut" murders to his credit, and the defining case of stochastic terrorism.   Once is a tragedy, twice is a horrible coincidence, three times is enemy action or at least criminal behavior.

            Beck was implicated in a number of politically motivated murders, but even after the pattern started to show, he continued making the same kinds of inflammatory statements, and he continued doing it despite the pattern continuing.

            Among other victims were five Pittsburgh PA police officers (three killed, two wounded), and two CHP officers (wounded), and an "almost" massacre in California as the guy who shot the two CHP officers was on his way to shoot up the Tides Foundation.

            As for the issue of "chilling effect":

            Since the line would be drawn so far back into the territory of egregiousness, there would be no chilling effect on speech that steered clear of that territory.   You could go pretty far into the gray zone before crossing the line: far enough that the likelihood of getting there by mere blunder or misunderstood innocent expression was zero.

            As in:  If we don't prosecute 19-year-olds for having sex with 17-year-olds, but we do prosecute 40-year-olds for having sex with 12-year-olds, that doesn't have a chilling effect on naturally-occurring romances within peer groups.  The only thing it chills are the kinds of "relationships" that are way way the hell over the line.  

            "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

            by G2geek on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 11:25:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  small question about recent legislation (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              G2geek

              We have the example of Jose Padillo, who now in retrospect, appears to be a poor schmuck caught up in the frenzy following 9/11 and it was never clear what his crime exactly was though he was certainly convicted:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              It seems to me that fanatic verbal bomb throwers like Rev Jones are as much a threat to the safety of this country as people like Padillo ever was, so when can we expect a crackdown on those attempting to incite violence?

              I note many churches in the Bible Belt are fed a weekly diet of the horrors of living in a Muslim country, the most recent meme being a Christian minister in Iran who is supposedly to be executed solely for being a Christian.

              •  Padilla was major prosecutorial overreach. (0+ / 0-)

                First of all, Bush's thing about trying American citizens as "enemy combatants" in military tribunals, and subjecting them to the Gitmo treatment along the way, is itself egregiously wrong.  

                If the Obama administration has let those procedures stand or appeared to support them in any way, we have to raise a major stink about it after the election, so we can get action on this without risking a Romney.  

                My take on that is:

                It's highly likely that the whole "foreign combatants & military tribunals" thing originally arose out of a "sources & methods" issue: the desire to protect certain highly secret means of intelligence collection.

                I'm pretty ferocious about protecting sources & methods because certain methods of intelligence collection are highly vulnerable to being thwarted if they are widely known (for example people don't have to use Facebook if they don't want to!).  

                However, it's way over the line to go from that to a procedure that spits in the face of every principle of constitutional law.  The whole set of rights pertaining to criminal charges, open courts, 5th A protections, etc., is the dividing line between a republic and a dictatorship that can disappear its adversaries without a trace.

                What's needed to deal with the legitimate sources & methods issue, is to create a transition point between what cannot be brought into open court, and what can be.

                And the way to do that is to do essentially what the FBI has been doing at least since Obama took office, and possibly also for the last couple of years of the Bush regime:

                They may start out by using highly classified means to detect suspicious individuals.   But very quickly they find ways to introduce undercover agents into the social circles of persons-of-interest (POIs) to see if there's any "there" there.

                Most of those investigations turn up nothing, and we never hear anything more of them, and at most the POI ends up with an FBI file which by itself is harmless.  

                But when they find someone who is actively planning a violent act, for example the guy who wanted to plant a car bomb adjacent to a synagogue in New York, they put the full set of conventional investigative methods into play.  Typically this involves getting another undercover agent into the picture as soon as the POI starts asking where he can obtain explosives.

                From there, the whole case runs like any conventional criminal investigation.  Undercover agents wearing recording devices, and the POI turning into a formal criminal suspect, and so on.  When the suspect takes possession of the (fake) explosives and attempts to detonate them at their intended target, that's the point where they are arrested and charged.

                And significantly, they are given every chance to back up and stop, right up to the point where they dial the detonate code on the cellphone they are typically given for the purpose.  When they ask for explosives, "are you sure you want to do this? you could be killing innocent people."  When they first take possession of the "explosives," same thing.  When they get handed the cellphone detonator, same thing.  

                The point of that exercise is to give the suspect every chance of deciding to not commit the terrorist act, and thereby avoiding prosecution.   The cases that reach the stage of prosecution are the ones where the suspect dials the detonate code on the cellphone, and usually does it a second time ("darn, I don't hear an explosion, what went wrong?").  In all probability those moments are being recorded so there is no doubt about what goes on.  

                OK, so from there we have a regular criminal case, and the whole thing can be handled via the normal means of criminal justice.   The suspect is arrested, read his Miranda rights, booked, and scheduled for trial.  For some of these, federal public defenders are appointed since they can't afford lawyers.  

                The way the FBI conducts these cases, they are "slam dunk" for conviction: every safeguard is followed, every procedure is correct, and so the outcome is usually that the suspect is convicted and sentenced to a long prison term.  

                We can be thankful for the fact that these would-be bombers are being put away, and also thankful for the fact that it's all done according to normal constitutional procedures of criminal justice.

                And, notice that there is no need to bring into court the original sources & methods used to detect these cases.

                Nowhere do you read, "broad-spectrum intercept of keywords on such-and-such means of communication led to a targeted three-day emergency intercept order, which led to a report to FBI..."    

                We might complain about broad-spectrum interception of domestic communications: we might protest that policy vociferously.  But that's not a "2nd A threshold" issue because it can be solved peacefully and nobody is going to get the Gitmo treatment for attending or speaking at those protests.

                And in any case, as long as there's a clear crossover point at which initially-gathered evidence using classified means, is only used to trigger a new and wholly conventional investigation, and not used as "secret evidence" at trial, then the evidence coming from the wholly conventional investigation is perfectly viable for government to bring into open court.  

                Now on to your other point...

                "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                by G2geek on Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 02:08:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  if memory serves me, with GWB, there were (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  G2geek

                  some 500 individuals who were arrested originally as potential "terrorists" but in the end, none were convicted but instead faced deportation because of violation of everyday laws.  This stuck in my mind because one guy was deported for fishing for salmon out of season though he was originally arrested as a mastermind for Islamic terrorism in the US.

                  I would say that the current definitions of "providing assistance to terrorists" remains overbroad so that providing funds for healthcare and general welfare of the general population can be seen as providing assistance because, the argument runs,  "terrorist organizations" (specifically Hamas) then have additional funds to buy arms with instead of using the money for the general welfare of their people.  It is a bit convoluted and I am a bit weary, so please forgive me if this is confusing.

                  however, 501c3s have run afoul of this logic in providing information on such mundane things as agriculture to organizations with connections to identified terrorist organizations.

                  •  in the end, if there really was... (0+ / 0-)

                    ... conclusive but classified evidence that some of these people really were terrorists, it's better to deport them over petty charges of one kind or another, than to disappear them to dungeons.

                    Yes your points were clear, and I understand your arguement about providing any money to XYZ organizations enables them to use their other funds to kill people and blow up stuff.   This is the problem with "money" arguements of any kind: they can be used to link anything to anything else, and entail all manner of depredations against life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, through control of participation in mundane commerce or even the absence of such participation.

                    Providing information on agriculture etc. is "interesting," in that the information itself is protected speech and the 501c3s are presumably American organizations.  This brings up a risk that the statute could be used to censor otherwise-protected speech and interfere with lawful association.

                    Alternately, if an administration wants to hold that any association with such people is unlawful, all I can say is "bring on the test cases!"

                    "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                    by G2geek on Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 04:02:30 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Jones and his ilk. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                entlord, Nespolo

                Yes, they are as much a threat as the people who pull triggers and click detonators.

                I would argue they're more of a threat because their effect and arguably their intention, is to provoke an unknown quantity of random "zombies" who will actually carry out the act.  

                Hypothetical:  If some hate-spewer got on TV and urged his followers to go out and kill Democratic campaign canvassers, there would be a heightened risk to all D canvassers, and a chilling effect on the entire conduct of the election.  So the very fact of making the threat causes real damage.

                And of course if some borderline-crazies out there got tipped over the edge and actually shot D canvassers who came to their door, or went out "hunting" for them in the neighborhood, that would be much worse.  

                But what makes it worse than a single terrorist cell is that it can pop up anywhere, it's random, it's impossible to predict.  That's the definition of "stochastic."  And for this reason it's not possible to clearly attribute culpability to the hate-spewers under present law: they can smugly say they had no idea it was going to happen.

                And strictly speaking, they're right: Glenn Beck had no idea that a person by the name of Byron Williams even existed.  Much less that Williams would hear thirty solid days of Beck's rants against the Tides Foundation, and decide to go shoot up the place, and shoot two CHP officers along the way.  

                It's like setting up a shotgun on a street corner with a remote control attached to your thermostat.  When your air conditioning clicks on, the gun fires, and someone gets killed.  But you can claim you never pulled the trigger and you never intended to kill those people, and strictly speaking you're right (though you'll still get convicted of premeditated murder because you set up the whole mechanism).  

                When the mechanism is "speech," it falls under 1st A protection (and Beck et. al. no doubt follow their lawyers' advice very closely to stay just a hair's width away from the Brandenburg line).   And as Americans we are loathe to do anything to interfere with any kind of speech whatsoever.

                But now we know where the Brandenburg line gets us, and that's not an acceptable outcome.  Thus the need to change the standard to "clearly foreseeable with a reasonable person test" and provide the added protection of the defendant by having two entirely separate trials before they can be convicted.  

                "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                by G2geek on Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 02:21:13 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I believe you have discussed this in detail (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  G2geek

                  elsewhere but you are absolutely correct.  The New Terrorism is not the old idea of a cell of dedicated terrorists but rather sowing ideas among the general populace with the idea that you will set off a certain percentage of crazies out there.  you may only reach .0001% of your audience and move them to violence but even such a low level of success has the chance for a large impact, as recent mass murders have proven.  A single nut with a gun can kill a dozen people.  A dozen nuts can kill a dozen dozen.  So Beck or Jones or whoever, can wreak havoc without ever having to have a large audience or following

                  •  exactly; though it's not about spreading "ideas".. (0+ / 0-)

                    ... it's about spreading emotions and emotional narratives.

                    The method is to stew up hatred against a particular target.  All that's needed is to incite the hatred and name the target, and someone in the audience will do the rest.

                    This is where hate speech legislation becomes relevant.  And the existence of such laws in Canada, Germany, and elsewhere, has in no way diminished public discourse or cultural expression, any more than public health laws declaring that smearing one's feces on the wall does not constitute art.

                    As a practical matter, what needs to happen is for Obama to use the bully pulpit to shame and ostracize the people who engage in hate speech.  This he could do most effectively without naming names or mentioning ideologies.  Even a line such as "hatred is beneath us as Americans" could propagate as a meme and indirectly result in lower listening audiences for hate-talkers.

                    If Obama manages to reduce the audience for one of the big shock jocks who isn't identified as an ideological star, the radio stations who carried that one will drop him and find something else to run on the air.  Fairly quickly one of them will hit on a format or type of programming that picks up major audience share and appears to be "the wave of the future."  

                    This will get other stations onboard in an increasing cascade or snowball effect.  And that in turn will diminish the market for all hate-talkers, including Limbaugh, until they start losing money and get taken off the air for that reason.

                    Though also, it's up to all of us to do what we can to diminish the audiences for hate spew.  For that we need to spread other emotions and other emotional narratives, that are equally contagious and more psychologically rewarding than hate spew.   Trying to do it by "reasoning and explaining" is a losing proposition: one has to fight emotions with emotions.  

                    "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                    by G2geek on Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 04:10:36 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Rev Terry is eating this up (0+ / 0-)

      The happiest day in his life was when SPLC named him a hate group.  He had just surpassed Westboro Baptist in taking a very small group and making it international news

  •  Good to know that "our values" are a narrowly (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jakewaters, Gooserock

    defined set of standards that only virtually set fire to the Constitution of the United States because these clowns can't get their hands on the real thing...

    ...what the Republicans have as the bearers of their party standard in this election are two guys who are either too stupid to understand what the words of the Constitution mean in American civics or are too dishonestly puerile to be capable of engaging in anything looking like an honest conversation about these pressing issues...

    "In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile..." - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

    by Jack K on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 08:39:01 PM PDT

  •  If they win this election... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gnostradamus

    There is proof that:

    A: there is a God.
    B: He Is on the side of the WORST of his followers.

    Because after this, there ain't NO other way they're winning this one honestly.

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 08:47:56 PM PDT

  •  I Think They're Playing to an Audience of 1. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hey338Too, G2geek, entlord

    One giga donor obsessed with that part of the globe.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 08:54:42 PM PDT

  •  Just when did religious bigotry (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    become an American value?

    It seems to me Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are standing shoulder to shoulder with Terry Jones. Is that really the company they want to keep?

    Terry Jones is running for president, too, by the way. And if anyone bothers to ask him, I'm pretty sure he'd have the same things to say about Mormons as he says about Muslims.

    •  religious intolerance is a hallmark of American (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Musial

      culture; however its failure in our culture at large is another hallmark.  The religious bigots are always among us and they may gain the upper hand from time to time but sooner or later they go too far and are reined in.  Right now I am waiting for SCOTUS to do something to endanger Griswold, in which case there should be some sort of backlash  

  •  Ryan and Romney ARE religious extremists (0+ / 0-)

    Have we not learned that from their voting records,their policy positions, and the GOP platform?

  •  The Flunky Speaketh..... (0+ / 0-)

    What a little idiot.  Romney obviously isn't the only one NOT ready for prime time.

    Neither appears to have any common sense, any respect for our fallen Libyan Ambassador, any dignity or any chance of winning on November 6th.

    Good riddance, little Bozo the clown!

  •  Terry Jones is delighted with the attention (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    concernedamerican, Nespolo

    He rose from obscurity with his Islam-baiting and delights in anything that brings Armageddon closer (yep he  is a Tribulationist who is yearning for a devastating war in the Middle East which will kill all Muslim and half the Jews; the other Jews will convert to Christianity in his fever dreams)

    For those who have forgotten he is the FL minister who created a firestorm by threatening to burn the Q'ran; who was a presidential candidate; who claims the Youtube video that started this firestorm is really not anti-Muslim;
    here are a few links:
    http://www.nydailynews.com/...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/...
    Yep, he has 50 members at his church and yet he gets worldwide attention with his perverted worldview
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/...

  •  OMG now I know (0+ / 0-)

    why Romney chose Ryan.


    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 10:57:13 PM PDT

  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

    Assumes facts not in evidence:

    Romney and Ryan stand with the religious extremists.
    The US military [asks] for condemnation of the religion-bating extremists.
    No, no, and no
    is Ryan saying that it's never too early for the United States to defend the values of religion-bating bigots?  Are the values of the nasty preacher from Florida who once again has incited violence around the world the values Ryan and Romney are defending here?  The values they're "not apologizing" for?
    •  Actually, yes. Romney said that he condemned (0+ / 0-)

      the Cairo embassy's condemnation of the film-- because one of our "values" is freedom of speech.  What was he referring to?  To the "freedom of speech" of those who made the film.

      That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

      by concernedamerican on Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 02:34:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There's some profane (0+ / 0-)

    ranting in here of the type it's best to get out of your system before you hit that post button. Believe me, I can turn the air vibrant blue with anger and frustration over what some people are trying to accomplish in this country (and around the world). But it's not productive beyond venting steam so I don't explode. And it's not effective when it's put on the page. Maybe anything goes in a private diary but here, where any and everyone can read it,  a bit of editing would have helped. I started skimming and cringing after awhile.

    Don't ask me nothin' about nothin'. I just might tell ya the truth -- B. Dylan

    by ponderer on Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 09:13:39 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site