RE: Politics of Boston Bombing Thread

DontWasteYourTime wrote:

Now that he has been caught...."LET THE EXCUSE MAKING BEGIN!!...."

There's a difference between looking for excuses and looking for reasons.

Anyone with a rational mindset would consider their actions inexcusable.

Say wha? wrote:

Rah Righty wrote:

So why do Muslims vote 90% Democrat?

Link?

From the link .... "Obama enjoyed 89% of Muslim vote in 2008 but passion of Muslims for him has definitely subsided this time round."

Shadonna Shingle wrote:

Rah Righty wrote:

So why do Muslims vote 90% Democrat?

Wow, you wingnuts have a special fondness of pulling things out of your unwiped bungholes. You lie even when you know it's obvious to everyone.

"Obama enjoyed 89% of Muslim vote in 2008 but passion of Muslims for him has definitely subsided this time round."

Link:

Now, if you have contrary information, please either bring it here, or stick your uninformed pinhead back into your unwiped butt/substitute-vagina.

Also, how would you rectify the claim made by Obama that 90% support stricter gun control when the latest Gallup poll showed only 4% think gun control is a serious issue?

89% for one office in one election is hardly proof of your claim. And that article suggests Obama would have had a slight edge over "Matt" Romney in 2012. Great source.

Rah Righty wrote:

Also, how would you rectify the claim made by Obama that 90% support stricter gun control when the latest Gallup poll showed only 4% think gun control is a serious issue?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-only-4-americans-think-gun-control-important-problem

Gallup has 91% of those surveyed supporting criminal background checks for all gun sales

Rah Righty wrote:

From the link .... "Obama enjoyed 89% of Muslim vote in 2008 but passion of Muslims for him has definitely subsided this time round."

George W. Bush received 72% of the American Muslim vote in 2000. Another 19% voted for Nader.

Muslims were a reliable voting bloc for the GOP through 2000. After Muslims as a whole became a routine target by GOP candidates, their support of the GOP plummeted, with Bush just receiving 4% of the vote in 2004. Practicing Muslims, with generally conservative social values and an emphasis on self-reliance, should and did fit well with the GOP platform, but the Republican Party's engagement of Islamophobia has pushed away the vast majority of Muslim voters.

Does anyone else get the impression that the police were under great pressure to bring this second suspect in alive and that killing him in the firefight would have brought repercussions professionally?

It seems to me that the media, the mayor and much of the crowd was excited he is alive and want to bring him to trial. There is no death penalty in MA so he has nothing to gain or lose by not cooperating.

I predict that he will lawyer up soon and what will happen is a defense similar to junior DC sniper Lee Malvo a decade or so ago. His attorney will blame the older brother for everything and portray his client as a patsy. There will be pressure on victims to "reconcile" with him, going to prison to shake his hand. Media outlets will run this story into perpetuity - in a decade or so, he will be a guest (via telephone) on the various cable news infotainment programs, much like Malvo was on William Shatners show a few years ago.

It seems to me that the liberal media is trying to have it both ways. They want to agree with Kermit Gosnell on abortion (this guy needs to be executed), they want to agree with Floyd Lee Corkins III on gay marriage (he shot a security guard at the Family Research Council HQ) and they want to agree with Hugo Chavez on economics (plenty of libtards here on LRC sang his praises).

Then they want to believe that pro-family, pro-life, pro-child, free market capitalists are all radical terrorists. Sorry mainstream media, but you are the nutters. You are the crazies. You are the radicals.

This whole thread is dumb. I was talking to a conservative friend of mine on Thursday and he asked if I thought they were "home grown" or "Islamic" and I said it appeared there was evidence that hinted in both directions. He said he thought they were "home grown". We weren't hoping either direction, but we were speculating. Just because someone speculates on something doesn't mean they wish it were true. It's your best guess based on the evidence at the time. I think every American, conservative or liberal, was hoping the terrorists were caught or killed. And I don't think any of us would have been surprised if it had been someone that resembled Tim McVeigh or someone that resembled Nadal Hassan.

Extremist or radical are the key adjectives. And almost every group has extremists and radicals that believe their cause is so important that murdering innocents is justified.

Disgusted he is alive wrote:

There is no death penalty in MA so he has nothing to gain or lose by not cooperating.

This is going to be tried in federal court.

Racism Police wrote:

6) People call Islamic fundamentalism for what it is, an evil cult, and liberals get upset.

Thanks for clearing up you are a racist. A racist is one who automatically makes an assumption about a large group of people [Muslims], in your case, more than one billion.

Oh, UR TROLL score is -2/10

UR A RACIST wrote:

Racism Police wrote:

6) People call Islamic fundamentalism for what it is, an evil cult, and liberals get upset.

Thanks for clearing up you are a racist. A racist is one who automatically makes an assumption about a large group of people [Muslims], in your case, more than one billion.

Islamic Fundamentalists are Muslims who believe that The Qur'an should be used as a guide to take over the world in the name of Islam. This is all based around The Qur'an or Sharia Law. It is truly a disgusting system that in today's society has many women raped and killed. Islamic Fundamentalists are Muslims who want one thing. World Power. World Dominance and everything that comes with it. These terrorists tend come from this group/sympathize with this group.

Disgusted he is alive wrote:

Does anyone else get the impression that the police were under great pressure to bring this second suspect in alive and that killing him in the firefight would have brought repercussions professionally?

Nope.

Black was killed by his brother. If he wasn't run over he likely would have survived.

The FBI was in charge, not the police, although the police were a critical part of the operation to catch the perps.

You always want to bring in the suspect alive. You need to establish a motive to determine if only these two were involved, or if they are part of a larger group than may plan future terrorist events.

Dats da fact, Jack wrote: Islamic Fundamentalists are Muslims who believe that The Qur'an should be used as a guide to take over the world in the name of Islam.

UR TROLL score: -3/10

Onward Christian Soldiers!

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

Disgusted he is alive wrote:

There is no death penalty in MA so he has nothing to gain or lose by not cooperating.

This is going to be tried in federal court.

He will get a plea deal. Just like Ted Kazcynski did.

The reason I get upset when people label Islamic Fundamentalism and evil cult is that those people are usually Christian Fundamentalists. I can't stand hypocrisy.

[quote]Racism Police wrote:

Here is the difference.

1) You are lumping Christians with non-religious people. That is a ridiculous lump. We may as well say "Muslim / Buddhists" and throw two groups with completely different beliefs together. You simply cannot do that. Christians and non-religious people do not have the same religious views, just like Muslims and Buddhists do not have the same religious views. Tim McVeigh was an agnostic. If we group people of different religious viewpoints in based on the color of their skin, that is completely dumb and unfounded.

2) How many Christians who commit violence are currently specifically do so in the name of Christianity? Did the Jonestown or Columbine or pick a massacre do it in the name of Jesus Christ? Did they? Compare that to the Islamic radicalists. There IS a difference.

[quote]awesomeblossom wrote:

Yes, I know that Christians and non-religious people aren't the same. My point is that when a member of a minority group or a group that is somehow different does something, their behavior is pathologized and seen as representative of the entire group.

So you're saying that Christians have never committed violence in the name of Christianity? Ever heard of the Crusades? Based on your logic, Christianity should be considered inherently violent, barbaric, radical, fundamentalist, blah, blah, blah. People take what they want out of religion and you can't say it's the entire religion of Islam's fault when an extremely large percentage of Muslims aren't engaging in terrorism.

Oh Barry wrote:

Then they want to believe that pro-family, pro-life, pro-child, free market capitalists are all radical terrorists. Sorry mainstream media, but you are the nutters. You are the crazies. You are the radicals.

Find me an example of the mainstream media "believing" what you allege about radial terrorists. Otherwise I'm forced to conclude that you are one of "the crazies".