DNC Expels Chairman Candidate From Race for ‘Disgusting’ Criticism of Islam

[txradioguy]

All I'm going to say is that this statement displays a remarkable lack of self-awareness.  I don't think you were trying to start a fight necessarily - you just don't get it.

I think you're on to something here.

I have no idea why what I said brought down the house.   I never defended Ellison,  nor Islam.   I just said Ellison, like you, me or anyone else,  deserves to be judged on his own words and actions,  not on the basis of the faith he subscribes to.   The individual not the group as the locus of identity, rights and responsibilities. 

 

What's offensive about Tolliver's comment is that he assumed Ellison is not qualified to serve because of his religion, not because of Ellison's personal views or positions with respect to gay rights.   

Sorta like proclaiming that Kennedy wasn't qualified for President because he was Catholic and would take orders from the Pope.

   

Tolliver was right.  What "brought the house down" was your appearant stunning level of ignorance about the Islamic faith and what the Koran says and instructs.

Here let me show you.

“The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.“  (Sura 2:282)

Violation of the 19th Amendment.

“Allah likes not the uttering of unseemly speech in public, except on the part of one who is being wronged…” (4:49)

Violation of the 1st Amendment.  Oh and lets not forget that Islam forbdis Muslims from practicing any other religion.

“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.” (8:12)

Go read the Preamble of the Constitution if you're confused about what that verse violates in America.

“O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee.”  (33:50)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure the 13th Amendment outlawed slavery.

  “slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush.” (9:5)

In case you missed it the first time...there's that second violation of the 1st Amendment I mentioned above.

See what we have here is something actually kinda remarkable...a Democrat Congressman...Vincent Tolliver...who actually read the Koran or at the very least consulted with experts on the Koran and understands it...to the point at least that it doesn't agree with the party platform.

How can someone represent a political party...and do it honestly...if the religion he practices flies in the face of the party he wants to lead when it comes to issues of sexuality...women's rights and slavery?


They kicked Tolliver our for speaking the truth.


You obviously missed the same things your friends in the DNC did as well when they expelled Tolliver from the race for Chairman.  You just made the mistake of voicing your ignorance to a group of people that actually have spent some time studying Islam because of the threat it poses to our country.

[mountaineer]

Just curious, has the DNC or any member of Congress - not just Ellison, and not just Democrats - ever criticized this practice?
If so, good for them. It's a start.

[Jazzhead]

Actually, it is quite lovely and calls to mind - I believe it was Napoleon who said that when an enemy is destroying himself, let him.

No argument there.   There's nothing that will help Republicans more in two years than having Ellison as head of the DNC.   He's way, way out of the mainstream.   

Brazile's rejection of Tolliver's a good thing,  and certainly consistent with the Dems' obsession with identity politics.   Tolliver's equally obsessed with identity politics -  but he's wrong to label someone as anti-gay merely because of his faith.  Ellison's wrong for the DNC (or deliciously right, depending on your perspective) on the merits,  whether or not he's a Muslim.   

[Norm Lenhart]

You're paranoid.   I'm just a guy from Philly who's posted on conservative message boards for well over a decade.   No talking points, just the perspective of someone who tends to be more libertarian on social issues than most of the folks here.   If you want my credentials, just PM me.   I am who I am.     

No, I'm accurate. You engaged in all the above on both this and the abortion thread last week. I am also far from the only person that pointed out your liberalism or whose points you ignored outright ot answered with repeating of liberal dogma/talking points. It's all there for anyone to read plainly. In fact most of the replies to your posts were calling you on it. So If I'm paranoid, I'm not alone. And it's not hard to see why people believe you are either a plant or just a typical disruptor/troll on a right wing site.

[Bigun]

No, I'm accurate. You engaged in all the above on both this and the abortion thread last week. I am also far from the only person that pointed out your liberalism or whose points you ignored outright ot answered with repeating of liberal dogma/talking points. It's all there for anyone to read plainly. In fact most of the replies to your posts were calling you on it. So If I'm paranoid, I'm not alone. And it's not hard to see why people believe you are either a plant or just a typical disruptor/troll on a right wing site.

When the election was over I cleaned out my ignore list and it has remained empty until today. Sick of circular arguments from that guy.

[don-o]

Curious. Has anyone heard this story getting into the news cycle? I have not.

[mountaineer]

Also reported at Washington Times.

[Fishrrman]

Bigun wrote:
"When the election was over I cleaned out my ignore list and it has remained empty until today."

Speakin' of "ignore lists", whatever happened to sinkspur?
Did he leave of his own volition, or was some "persuasion" required?

[txradioguy]

Curious. Has anyone heard this story getting into the news cycle? I have not.

Last mention in the MSM of his name had to do with him tossing his hat in the ring for Chairman and blaming Hilliary for the loss in November...it was a WashTimes piece.

But seriously...do you think the Libs want someone who points out the truth about Islam...especially when it involves someone like Keith Elllison getting any ink?

It would cause the drones to start asking questions and we can't have that!

[Jazzhead]

No, I'm accurate. You engaged in all the above on both this and the abortion thread last week. I am also far from the only person that pointed out your liberalism or whose points you ignored outright ot answered with repeating of liberal dogma/talking points. It's all there for anyone to read plainly. In fact most of the replies to your posts were calling you on it. So If I'm paranoid, I'm not alone. And it's not hard to see why people believe you are either a plant or just a typical disruptor/troll on a right wing site.

 Whether you're alone or not, you're still paranoid.  We likely agree on most issues, but it's the social issues where I differ from many here.  If that bothers you, use the ignore function.  I'm not going away.   

[Mod2]

Enough of this.

STAY ON TOPIC, please, and stop sniping at one another.
Reminder: the topic is Keith Ellison and the DNC chairmanship.
You're welcome.

[DiogenesLamp]

Because Nazism is a religion?

WTF?

You don't want to address my point,  so you try to deflect it with the "Nazism isn't a religion?"  assertion.   Let's say it is.   There is plenty enough proof that Nazism is a religion,   so how about you just address the point?   


Often times members of a group can accurately be counted on to do what members of that group advocate.   


It is not irrational to pre-judge what members of a group are likely to do,  because in adhering to a group,   you are identifying yourself with it's methods and goals.   


Refusing to consider the probabilities of what members of a group will do  is willful blindness. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Christianity does call for the execution of Wiccans.

I believe the old testament has a scripture along the lines of "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live",  and with a lot of creative poetic license on the meaning of "Christianity"  and "Wiccan"  you can twist it into an approximation of what you mean,  but isn't that a deceitful methodology of arguing? 


I know of no such scripture in the "New Testament",  you know,  the one that primarily identifies it's adherents as "Christian",   so it's rather lame to point to the Old Testament to prove something about "Christians"  when it is pretty much overturned by the principles set forth in the New Testament.    That,  and misidentifying "Wiccans"  as the equivalent of the Old Testament Witches,  (people in league with the Devil and dark spirits.)   is definitely an unreasonable stretch. 

And since the criteria is to judge a person by the tenets of their faith, then Christians must be bloodthirsty murderers, yes?

Sure.  Ipso facto,  you proved it,  therefore it must be true. 


We should all be on the lookout for Christians executing Wiccans.   I'm sure they pose as big a threat to society as Muslims jihading Infidels (a much larger category I would assume)  to death.

[Fishrrman]

Couple of images pertinent to criticsim of islam?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I believe this is the start of an encouraging change for some in Congress towards the GOP.

Too many of the Dems are over-the-top on sensibility.

Still thinking Manchin might make the move in the Senate.  There are others who cannot stand the pilgrimage towards the Mecca like Ellison.  Congressional women especially.

[Norm Lenhart]

I believe this is the start of an encouraging change for some in Congress towards the GOP.

Too many of the Dems are over-the-top on sensibility.

Still thinking Manchin might make the move in the Senate.  There are others who cannot stand the pilgrimage towards the Mecca like Ellison.  Congressional women especially.

He should stay in the party he CHOSE TO EMPOWER all these years and fix it instead of pulling a Brave Sir Robin to save his paycheck. And his presence there and votes for them under the Obama fiasco helped break it to begin with. That is exactly the kind of person 'crossing over' that helped turn the GOP liberal. Who would trust him? Who in their right mind KNOWING FULL WELL that he's only worried about his re-election and not the people that elected him?

Then again, the people that elect Democrats deserve to be crapped on by those they elected.

[sneakypete]

@Jazzhead

So what?   Plenty of folks here self-identify as Christian

.

How many Christians have you heard of in the last 200 years declare that anyone that doesn't follow their religious dictates should be enslaved or killed?

 

Does that mean it is fair to conclude, without more,  that they're bigoted against gays because we all know the Bible condemns homosexuality?

   

Ok,right here I have to admit to confusion. We all know they hate homosexuals and think they should all be killed,yet it's ok to hump young boys because somehow THAT's not a homosexual act because their CMMFIC,Mohamed loved to hump little boys.

Then again,once you start demanding logic from religions or religious people,be prepared to beat your head against the wall daily because they operate off of faith,not logic.

Christians have been at the forefront of the gay rights movement.

SOME Christians,certainly not the majority.

Plenty of other Christians simply have a live and let live attitude. 

If they do,and they should,they are in the minority. Still,even the Christians that are vocal about being anti-homosexual don't want to see them murdered or put in prison merely because they are homosexual. At most they seem to want them barred from jobs working with children,and similar things.

I'll criticize Ellison for what he says and does,  but I won't assume that his faith brands him with the Dark Mark.

And right there is where your train leaves the tracks.

[sneakypete]

Just curious, has the DNC or any member of Congress - not just Ellison, and not just Democrats - ever criticized this practice?
If so, good for them. It's a start.

@mountaineer

EXCELLENT question,and please add me to the list of those curious about the answer. I know that if they have,I've never heard it.

BTW,for those of you who don't know,that is a photo of Muslims throwing a homosexual off a roof.

[sneakypete]

Curious. Has anyone heard this story getting into the news cycle? I have not.

@don-o

I haven't,but I don't subscribe to or read any newspapers. For me,it didn't happen unless I happen to catch it on the teebee or the web thingy. Plenty of talk about it on the web,but so far I haven't heard much on teebee.

[Jazzhead]

SP,  I understand the reality that while not all Muslims (or even a small minority) are terrorists,  just about every terrorist these days is Muslim.  (I tend to use the term Islamofascists; both to distinguish the terrorists from peaceable Muslims and to make clear that, contrary to Obama's view,  such terrorism derives directly from their crackpot interpretation of the Koran.   

The bottom line is that we must win the war against Islamofascism,  and IMO it will be impossible to do so if we brand all Muslims with the Dark Mark.   There may be 100,000 Islamofascists, but there are 1.5 billion Muslims.  The Islamofascists recruit by claiming the West is at war with Islam.   We need to short-circuit that appeal by making clear that our beef is the terrorists and the terrorists alone.   We need to recruit as many Muslims as possible to oppose the Islamofascists (Muslims, let's not forget, are the Islamofascists' primary victims); and one way to help us do that is to not fall into the trap of easy bigotry towards the third great Abrahamic religion. 

 

[Restored]

BTW,for those of you who don't know,that is a photo of Muslims throwing a homosexual off a roof.

They didn't want to throw him off. He insisted on it.

[Norm Lenhart]

SP,  I understand the reality that while not all Muslims (or even a small minority) are terrorists,  just about every terrorist these days is Muslim.  (I tend to use the term Islamofascists; both to distinguish the terrorists from peaceable Muslims and to make clear that, contrary to Obama's view,  such terrorism derives directly from their crackpot interpretation of the Koran.   

The bottom line is that we must win the war against Islamofascism,  and IMO it will be impossible to do so if we brand all Muslims with the Dark Mark.   There may be 100,000 Islamofascists, but there are 1.5 billion Muslims.  The Islamofascists recruit by claiming the West is at war with Islam.   We need to short-circuit that appeal by making clear that our beef is the terrorists and the terrorists alone.   We need to recruit as many Muslims as possible to oppose the Islamofascists (Muslims, let's not forget, are the Islamofascists' primary victims); and one way to help us do that is to not fall into the trap of easy bigotry towards the third great Abrahamic religion.

Well you better hurry to this thread and start screaming about bigotry and 'The Dark Mark" because another country just pulled a Trump and banned a lot of Muslims from coming in. You know. Even application of your standards and all.

And guess which?

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,247310.0.html

[don-o]

 

The bottom line is that we must win the war against Islamofascism,  and IMO it will be impossible to do so if we brand all Muslims with the Dark Mark.   There may be 100,000 Islamofascists, but there are 1.5 billion Muslims.   

Yeah. That Million Muslim March was really something, wasn't it? Those folks drew a clear line, didn't they?

Wait. What?  ***jimney

[Sanguine]

SP,  I understand the reality that while not all Muslims (or even a small minority) are terrorists,  just about every terrorist these days is Muslim.  (I tend to use the term Islamofascists; both to distinguish the terrorists from peaceable Muslims and to make clear that, contrary to Obama's view,  such terrorism derives directly from their crackpot interpretation of the Koran.   

The bottom line is that we must win the war against Islamofascism,  and IMO it will be impossible to do so if we brand all Muslims with the Dark Mark.   There may be 100,000 Islamofascists, but there are 1.5 billion Muslims.  The Islamofascists recruit by claiming the West is at war with Islam.   We need to short-circuit that appeal by making clear that our beef is the terrorists and the terrorists alone.   We need to recruit as many Muslims as possible to oppose the Islamofascists (Muslims, let's not forget, are the Islamofascists' primary victims); and one way to help us do that is to not fall into the trap of easy bigotry towards the third great Abrahamic religion.

So, cutting to the chase, it really doesn't matter what anyone else says, how many reasoned arguments are presented, and how many facts that counter what you say, it just doesn't matter to you.  You're going to believe what you want to believe in spite of all the evidence and testimony presented.  That's fine - as long as I know that, I know there's absolutely no reason to respond to your posts except to clarify issues and correct misstatements for others or for the record.   

[Wingnut]

So, cutting to the chase, it really doesn't matter what anyone else says, how many reasoned arguments are presented, and how many facts that counter what you say, it just doesn't matter to you.  You're going to believe what you want to believe in spite of all the evidence and testimony presented.  That's fine - as long as I know that, I know there's absolutely no reason to respond to your posts except to clarify issues and correct misstatements for others or for the record.

In other words   Just Ignore him like a petulant child?