I guess I should back off of the Romney=Satan stance. It just annoys me to no end when a man says we need more Gitmos and calls a moderate, ex-leader of Iran visiting Harvard an insult to 9-11 victims. That sort of inflammatory rhetoric is exactly what the secret combinations of the day thrive on and Romney is (perhaps unwittingly) feeding right into it.

You might be right about your point, except that I wouldn’t exactly call Mousavi a moderate. After all, he WAS approved by the Mullahs–including the Ayatollah.

THe biggest difference is that Ahmadinejad wants to destroy Israel NOW, in a rain of nuclear explosions, while Mousavi want to destroy Israel piecemeal, so Muslims can occupy the land.

It is not unlike asking how you want to die–either by being fried quickly or by being tranquilised, then poisoned. Either way, you’re dead.

Maybe I’ve become dyslexic in my old age!

I think you have it backward given the content of the article. Cause, they in actuality are being hateful in their lies, degrading and untruths, but act like they actually “love” and care in doing it. Or did I miss something, maybe some subtlety you were making? No time to read it that close to see…. sorry.

“Actually, Thomas, John Adams didn’t run for ANY office in 1804!”

Thomas:

Aw, crud. I meant 1800.

I knew that. I just couldn’t resist teasing!

Aw, crud. I meant 1800.

If any members political views strays to the point that it is like voting for Satan, I would suggest that you follow the advice I offer in this post:
http://www.fairblog.org/2008/07/18/sustaining-evil/

“Sorry, Ace, but spreading untruths about people is NOT a sign of love toward them!”

Thomas Says:

Quite true.

We should be conscientious, however, in how we use the term “untruth.” It’s lately become a staple of political liberals to accuse people of “lying,” when in fact what those people have done is merely to decline to buy into the other side’s “spin.”

When there is a reasonable dispute over the proper interpretation of evidence, one side should not automatically accuse the other side of willful dishonesty.

Indeed, though it is a staple of political extremists of every stripe (and not a few non-extremists, as well!).

Your point is well taken. I should rephrase it to say, “Sorry, Ace, but continuing to spread untruths about people–after being corrected–is NOT a sign of love toward them!”

Oh, and Keller delenda est.

Quite so! And you’ve brought back memories of high school Latin! Many thanks!

Quite true.

We should be conscientious, however, in how we use the term “untruth.” It’s lately become a staple of political liberals to accuse people of “lying,” when in fact what those people have done is merely to decline to buy into the other side’s “spin.”

When there is a reasonable dispute over the proper interpretation of evidence, one side should not automatically accuse the other side of willful dishonesty.

Oh, and Keller delenda est.