I'm ok with everything but the Islamophobia part. American ARE Islamophobic, there's no denying that.

 

I disagree 100% with that. After the 9/11 attacks? I might give you that one. However, I think most people have come to realize that not all the Islamic folk are lumped in with the extremists like we witnessed that day. There are plenty of good muslims in this country and in the world and all they are trying to do is make a living for themselves and their family like our families do.

I didn't try to paint them as racist. I'm looking for someone to explain to me the inconsistancies in thier positions. I don't think it's racism, I think it's simple politics and hypocracy.

It would be hypocrisy if C.K. were giving a glowing endorsement to the Reps here. I don't get that from this article. Nor have I gotten it from many of C.K.'s articles. He makes some valid points that cannot simply be brushed away by pointing out how the other guys got some things wrong too.

 

Driving under the influence is wrong, whether the opinion is presented by a lifelong teetotaler or a persistent DUI offender. The introduction of hypocrisy does nothing to diminish the fact that drunk driving is very dangerous.

It would be hypocrisy if C.K. were giving a glowing endorsement to the Reps here. I don't get that from this article. Nor have I gotten it from many of C.K.'s articles. He makes some valid points that cannot simply be brushed away by pointing out how the other guys got some things wrong too.

 

Driving under the influence is wrong, whether the opinion is presented by a lifelong teetotaler or a persistent DUI offender. The introduction of hypocrisy does nothing to diminish the fact that drunk driving is very dangerous.

 

Just as generalizations are to an otherwise valid point. The problem with Krauthammer's Op-Ed is that it's based entirely on generalizations. It's really unfortunate too; Krauthammer's background (Mondale speech writer, Carter administration, etc) should make him particularly situated to bridge the divide on some important issues. Instead, he just takes the wedge issues and hammers (pun kinda intended) them deeper.

The questions I have for Mr. Krauthammer is that if Liberals have it all wrong and all conservatives are just principled people who are against debt, government intrusion and expansion of power, why then do they support government intrusion into marriage? Why were they so supportive of the patriot act and a new branch of government in the office of homeland security? Where were all the people marching in 3 cornered hats when President Bush and a Republican congress turned a budget surplus into a record deficit? If they are truly for less government intervention and protecting the constitution why are they wanting to repeal the 14th amendment and why the heck are they in support of denying people's 1st amendment rights in New York City? Just curious...:confused:

 

I must have missed that. Please point out in the article where he makes that claim.

The questions I have for Mr. Krauthammer is that if Liberals have it all wrong and all conservatives are just principled people who are against debt, government intrusion and expansion of power, why then do they support government intrusion into marriage?:

Gay marriage is a state issue not a federal one. I believe it goes something to the effect of "By the power vested in me by the state of --------." Federal government intrusion is what you just had. The federal government coming in and trying to trump states rights. Which is exactly what conservatives are against.

 

Why were they so supportive of the patriot act:

Defense of the nation is without question one of the things that is specified in the constitution. During times of war, extreme measures are sometimes needed for the defense of the nation. It has always been so. It's just that you didn't know about it before, but in today's instant information age you know.

Patriot Act

Definition

Pa·tri·ot Act

NOUN 1. federal antiterror measure: a set of federal antiterrorism measures that lowers the standards of probable cause for obtaining intelligence warrants against suspected spies, terrorists, and other enemies of the United States

 

and a new branch of government in the office of homeland security?:

I agree with you. I don't and didn't support this. The pressure for this one came from the media saying that the government didn't respond fast enough and we need someone in charge. Unfortunately both parties supported it.

 

Where were all the people marching in 3 cornered hats when President Bush and a Republican congress turned a budget surplus into a record deficit?

I don't have a 3 cornered hat. But I spoke out and so did true conservatives about the spending. But the spending didn't get really out of hand until the last 2 years of his presidency. That was when the dems took over congress. Either way there is no excuse. The government had record high revenues during the Bush years and still out spent it.

 

If they are truly for less government intervention and protecting the constitution why are they wanting to repeal the 14th amendment and why the heck are they in support of denying people's 1st amendment rights in New York City? Just curious...:confused:

No one has denied them their 1st amendment rights. They can build the mosque there by the constitution. People are just against it. Which they have the constitutional right to be against it and voice their opinion. They are simply asking that they build it in another place. There are a little over 100 mosques in New York City. Doesn't sound like a bunch of islamaphobes to me.

Edited September 1, 201016 yr by coldweatherfan

Where were all the people marching in 3 cornered hats when President Bush and a Republican congress turned a budget surplus into a record deficit?Just curious...:confused:

 

I hated that Bush went along with spending more than you take in. I thought he should have been trying to cut the budget.

I disagree 100% with that. After the 9/11 attacks? I might give you that one. However, I think most people have come to realize that not all the Islamic folk are lumped in with the extremists like we witnessed that day. There are plenty of good muslims in this country and in the world and all they are trying to do is make a living for themselves and their family like our families do.

 

I am sincerely glad you feel that way, but I'm afraid if you turn on the news it tells a much less rosy story.

I am sincerely glad you feel that way, but I'm afraid if you turn on the news it tells a much less rosy story.

 

I would hardly call Jon Stewart "News".

I would hardly call Jon Stewart "News".

 

Nor would I.

The questions I have for Mr. Krauthammer is that if Liberals have it all wrong and all conservatives are just principled people who are against debt, government intrusion and expansion of power, why then do they support government intrusion into marriage? Why were they so supportive of the patriot act and a new branch of government in the office of homeland security? Where were all the people marching in 3 cornered hats when President Bush and a Republican congress turned a budget surplus into a record deficit? If they are truly for less government intervention and protecting the constitution why are they wanting to repeal the 14th amendment and why the heck are they in support of denying people's 1st amendment rights in New York City? Just curious...:confused:

 

Bush and the rest of his bunch cannot be labeled as conservatives. I can't think of anyone that has ever called W a conservative.

Bush and the rest of his bunch cannot be labeled as conservatives. I can't think of anyone that has ever called W a conservative.

 

No offense but I call that revisonist history.

Socially conservative, indeed. Fiscally conservative, not so much.

Socially conservative, indeed. Fiscally conservative, not so much.

 

Right on the money (haha, no pun intended), MCP.

Socially conservative, indeed. Fiscally conservative, not so much.

 

A "conservative" is both. Bush was not a conservative.

No offense but I call that revisonist history.

 

No reason for me to take offense. I have never thought of Bush as a conservative.