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

[sneakypete]

That's no excuse for bigotry.   An American should be judged on his beliefs and actions, not the religion he practices.   I have no idea what Ellison's views are regarding homosexuals.  But I refuse to infer that he hates gays merely because he's Muslim (or Christian, for that matter).

@Jazzhead

What do the Mullahs say about Mohamed's beliefs and the Koran say on how homosexuals should be treated?

[Sanguine]

@Jazzhead

What do the Mullahs say about Mohamed's beliefs and the Koran say on how homosexuals should be treated?

I pointed out to Jazzhead that islam is the ultimate in bigotry when it comes to gays, but I guess he didn't want to hear it.

[Wingnut]

I pointed out to Jazzhead that islam is the ultimate in bigotry when it comes to gays, but I guess he didn't want to hear it.

He is probably in bed.  Or at evening prayers.

[sneakypete]

Well, on the subject of homosexuality,  Christianity is also "textbook bigotry".  "Abomination" and all that.   But not all Christians, or Muslims, are bigoted against gays.  Some have absolutely no objection to civil rights for gays,  and respect their gay friends and neighbors.   That's certainly how I feel.  If homosexuality is an "abomination", then that's God's concern, not mine.   

You cannot infer that someone hates gays based on whether he is a person of faith.

@Jazzhead

I feel a little dirty having to defend Christianity given it's history as the "Second Place Winner in all of history when it comes to spreading terror",but the truth is even the Muslims of today make the Popes of the Middle Ages look like kindly old uncles by comparison.

One of the basic tenets of Christianity is to "Hate the sin,love the sinner". Granted,it seems to be one of the least popular ones amongst most people who pass themselves off as Christians,but none the less,it IS "Christian Dogma".

Unlike the Muslim dogma,which is "Kill the sinner".

[Applewood]

I think this is funny.  The Democrats are eating their own.

[sneakypete]

Liberals believe that by kissing Allah's @ss it somehow makes them seem understanding and inclusive in the eyes of the radicals.

 

@txradioguy

BullBush! IF they have a God,his name is Marx,not Allah.

They are going with the Muslims instead of the homos because there are probably at least 100 Muslims to every homosexual,and unlike homosexuals,leaders of Muslim countries have access to national treasuries. Votes+ bags of cash is going to beat out the Fire Island crowd every time.

Don't forget,the vast majority of the leaders in the Dim Party are no different than the vast majority of the leaders in the alleged Republican Party. Their first loyalty is to themselves,and they are going to back any group that provides them with bags of under the table cash and hordes of voters on election day.
<P>
NOT saying this applies to Ellison,though. The goober is a human brain-fart that runs mostly on hatred of white people. Which makes him a prime recruit to become a Muslim True Believer.
<P>
I still maintain that the man that represents the greatest danger to the future of America is Tim Kaine. Unlike the self-serving opportunists that populate the Dim leadership,I honest believe he is a true believer that considers a One World Globalist Government ran by people who know what you need and will give it to you. People like him,for instance. Hitler with a smile.

[sneakypete]

MINOS are the infiltration force. They come in and spread the lie that "we are different than THOSE Muslims!" They soften the host country underbelly for the radicals who come beyond. Thats a matter of history. The more there are the more radical they become. Century after century, country after country. And they OPENLY admit it. There are countless examples of Imams preaching it one can find with minimal searches.

 

@Norm Lenhart

BINGO!

[Fishrrman]

Norm wrote:
"Dems now publicly and openly place Muslims above homosexuals in the pecking order? Sounds to me like this is gonna cause a bigger schizm than it has already. And it's a damn shame really. So sad..."

A shame?
I think it's great.
Shows us what many of them really stand for.

I hope they rip each other to pieces.

[sneakypete]

Christianity does call for the execution of Wiccans.

@HonestJohn

Really? Name ONE time in the last 200 years Christians have executed Wiccans.

You DO understand we have a secular country with Freedom of/Freedom FROM religion,right?

[Fishrrman]

Norm wrote:
"He's not qualified to serve because he's a Muslim. Sharia and the Constitution are mutually exclusive."

Also because he's an out-and-out communist.
That ain't great for the Constitution, either.

[Norm Lenhart]

Norm wrote:
"Dems now publicly and openly place Muslims above homosexuals in the pecking order? Sounds to me like this is gonna cause a bigger schizm than it has already. And it's a damn shame really. So sad..."

A shame?
I think it's great.
Shows us what many of them really stand for.

I hope they rip each other to pieces.

As do I. I was being sarcastic.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

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.

Reducing that to writing and sending it to the DNC makes him stupid as well.

[sneakypete]

I said New Testament. The new covenant.

You don't know what you're talking about.

@skeeter

Are you trying to claim you have never heard of the Old Testament,as compared to the New and Improved True Word of Gawd?

BTW,I'd be very interested in hearing your explanation of how the "original word of God" needed to be replaced with the "New and Improved word of God".

[Fishrrman]

Jazzed wrote (in post 23):
"That's no excuse for bigotry..."

I'm "a bigot", and proud to be one.
I'm "bigoted" in favor of The Christian West vs. islam.
I'm "bigoted" in favor of civilization vs. barbarism.
I'm "bigoted" in favor of a culture that respects freedom vs. one that favors submission, particularly of women.

So you're welcome to call me a bigot, a racist, a xenophobe, and islamophobe, or whatever leftist words you wish to use.

I agree with what Pat Condell put up on his homepage:
"I don't respect your beliefs and I don't care if you're offended."

That is all...

[skeeter]

@skeeter

Are you trying to claim you have never heard of the Old Testament,as compared to the New and Improved True Word of Gawd?

BTW,I'd be very interested in hearing your explanation of how the "original word of God" needed to be replaced with the "New and Improved word of God".

Wish I could, but I'm afraid I'm not qualified to explain, even to someone who really was interested in knowing.

[Jazzhead]

Norm wrote:
"Dems now publicly and openly place Muslims above homosexuals in the pecking order? Sounds to me like this is gonna cause a bigger schizm than it has already. And it's a damn shame really. So sad..."

A shame?
I think it's great.
Shows us what many of them really stand for.

I hope they rip each other to pieces.

Heck, I do too.   But the salient observation is that we're ripping ourselves to pieces too.   

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 the hell is so controversial about that? Has conservatism jumped the shark into identity politics?    As well-described by the doc,  there's a litany of reasons to knock Ellison based on his own actions;  but some folks here want his faith to be a scarlet letter,  a mark of the beast.   

That's bigotry, that's lazy thinking, and that's not conservative.     

[sneakypete]

What the hell is so controversial about that? Has conservatism jumped the shark into identity politics? 

@Jazzhead

WTH are you talking about? Ellison self-identified. Are conservatives supposed to just ignore something as obvious as the sun?

How about we just stop criticizing,Nazi,Communists,and other fascists,just because that is participating in identity politics?

[Sanguine]

Heck, I do too.   But the salient observation is that we're ripping ourselves to pieces too.   

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 the hell is so controversial about that? Has conservatism jumped the shark into identity politics?    As well-described by the doc,  there's a litany of reasons to knock Ellison based on his own actions;  but some folks here want his faith to be a scarlet letter,  a mark of the beast.   

That's bigotry, that's lazy thinking, and that's not conservative.     

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.

[Jazzhead]

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.

Obviously,  I don't get it.   There's plenty of reasons to criticize Ellison, to conclude that he's unqualified for a position, based on his own words and actions.   Isn't that the way you want to be judged as well?   Not on the basis of the label of "Muslim" or "Christian" on your forehead.

Group identity is a game the libs have played for years.   And now the right is playing, enthusiastically, along.   Ellison's a Muslim, and that's all one needs to know about him.   He's everything we assume all Muslims to be,  untrustworthy, bigoted, you name it.   

C'mon folks, that's ridiculous.   And I'm not defending Ellison.  I'm just saying it's wrong to label and condemn him without reference to what he says and does as an individual.   

[Sanguine]

Obviously,  I don't get it.   There's plenty of reasons to criticize Ellison, to conclude that he's unqualified for a position, based on his own words and actions.   Isn't that the way you want to be judged as well?   Not on the basis of the label of "Muslim" or "Christian" on your forehead.

Group identity is a game the libs have played for years.   And now the right is playing, enthusiastically, along.   Ellison's a Muslim, and that's all one needs to know about him.   He's everything we assume all Muslims to be,  untrustworthy, bigoted, you name it.   

C'mon folks, that's ridiculous.   And I'm not defending Ellison.  I'm just saying it's wrong to label and condemn him without reference to what he says and does as an individual.

OK, so maybe you are just here to argue.  Which you do fairly well.  It's your basic, fundamental fact base that is a bit lacking.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

WTH are you talking about? Ellison self-identified.

So what?   Plenty of folks here self-identify as Christian.   Does that mean it is fair to conclude, without more,  that they're bigoted against gays because we all know the Bible condemns homosexuality?   No, it's not that simple -  Christians have been at the forefront of the gay rights movement.  Plenty of other Christians simply have a live and let live attitude.  We are not defined by our faith.

 And so it is with Muslims too -  I reject identity politics and will judge their merits, good or bad, as individuals.   

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

[Jazzhead]

OK, so maybe you are just here to argue.  Which you do fairly well.  It's your basic, fundamental fact base that is a bit lacking.

I'm here to discuss politics and policy from my own somewhat nuanced and pragmatic perspective;  if you claim that I'm just here to argue that's not how I see it.   

I fail to see the logic or common sense behind group identity-type prejudice.   Christians are the victims of bigotry just as Muslims are,  so I'd think it would be uncontroversial to suggest folks be judged as individuals.  But obviously that appeal to individuality has pissed folks off.   Maybe that position is simply untenable these days on a political discussion board, since politics has devolved into a team sport.   You choose your side and the other side's the irredeemable, deplorable enemy.     

[Norm Lenhart]

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.

No, He gets it. "It", being over the past few weeks he has learned that he can use liberal talking points we have all heard time and again, the actual language of liberals in defense of liberal positions, and when he is called on it and given multiple examples of where he is doing exactly that, he deflects, ignores, claims the points are beneath him to answer, or claims he voted for Reagan and don't dare question his conservatism.

All of that is pretty much the stuff the Soros groups teach in Trolling conservatives 101. IT destroyed FR. It destroyed other conservative forums. It is SOP for Twitter/Facebook and there is plenty of it here.

He gets it. The problem is many others don't get whats happening in plain sight.

[don-o]

Obviously,  I don't get it.   

Are you getting the thrust of the original story?

Vincent Tolliver, who previously ran an unsuccessful campaign for Congress in Arkansas, told The Hill in an email he didn’t believe his rival Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn) should become chairman because of his Islamic faith, citing the religion’s positions on homosexuality.

“His being a Muslim is precisely why DNC voters should not vote for him. Muslims discriminate against gays. Islamic law is clear on the subject, and being gay is a direct violation of it. In some Muslim countries, being gay is a crime punishable by death,” Tolliver wrote.

Vincent Tolliver has a point of view that he wishes to be considered, on the merits, in the marketplace of ideas. His POV well and truly reflects what should be of concern to homosexual Democrats, consistent with their platform. However Donna Brazile will now not tolerate advocacy for protection of homosexuals, in the name of religious tolerance.

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.

[Jazzhead]

No, He gets it. "It", being over the past few weeks he has learned that he can use liberal talking points we have all heard time and again, the actual language of liberals in defense of liberal positions, and when he is called on it and given multiple examples of where he is doing exactly that, he deflects, ignores, claims the points are beneath him to answer, or claims he voted for Reagan and don't dare question his conservatism.

All of that is pretty much the stuff the Soros groups teach in Trolling conservatives 101. IT destroyed FR. It destroyed other conservative forums. It is SOP for Twitter/Facebook and there is plenty of it here.

He gets it. The problem is many others don't get whats happening in plain sight.

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.