“What Could Go Wrong?”
Talk about looking for trouble.
An armed Christian organization, Right Wing Extreme, will protect a church that is planning to host an “International Burn a Quran Day” on September 11, the church’s pastor said Tuesday.
…Dove World Outreach Center Pastor Terry Jones has accepted the support of Right Wing Extreme, which he said offered to come to the church with between 500 and 2,000 men on September 11. He described the organization as an armed civilian militia group.
…[I]n a statement sent to CNN by the Dove World Outreach Center, Right Wing Extreme founder Shannon Carson said: ”We fully support Dove World Outreach Center and its efforts to put an end to the notion that Islam is a peaceful religion. Islam is a violent cult with the goal of world domination.”
Truly, they are spoiling for a fight. Geez, the one thing George W. Bush did, that I completely agreed with, was keeping a lid on this anti-Muslim crap. Too bad there aren’t any adults left in the GOP. And it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see where this is heading. Somebody – most likely an innocent – is going to get hurt. And when that happens Conservatives will trot out the “lone wolf” defense. They are quite comfortable blaming all Muslims for the acts of a few, but when it comes to the extremists in their midst… why, it’s outrageous to lump them all together.
Check out the video below. The gentlemen representing Islam sounds like the “real” American. Terry Jones sounds like the Taliban. He’s also guilty of doing exactly what he’s accusing Muslims of doing – trying to turn America into a theocracy.
Seriously, the threat to our country isn’t coming from Islam. It’s coming from within.
Tags: Bigotry, Extremists, Religion
Seriously, the threat to our country isn’t coming from Islam. It’s coming from within
got dat right sista!
The rev. can’t think of anything to do about the high unemployment in Gainesville, Fl., so with all this extra time on his hands, what’s else does he have to do except try to influence zoning decisions in lower Manhattan?
Two questions – when does this “church” hold their burn a Torah day and what cereal box did “pastor” Jones get his ordination from?
I hope Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich are proud of what they’ve unleased. A man in NYC stabbed a cab driver after asking him if he was a Muslim.
UI, that story is horrible. Unfortunately, this is the path we are on, and, I fear, it’s only going to get worse.
my god measures 10 inches! 😈
seriously though, i’m getting effing fed up with this ‘whose god kicks more ass’ bs. might as well start a war, killing millions, about who kicks more ass, romulans or klingons.
You guys support the right to burn a flag? If so, how can you be so upset about someone burning a Quran?
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 25 August 2010 at 11:33 am:
I hope Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich are proud of what they’ve unleased. A man in NYC stabbed a cab driver after asking him if he was a Muslim.
Turns out he’s a member of an interfaith group that supports the mosque. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i5OdR6FH4zsmEVanHGR0y-jbOzngD9HQNCJ84
My guess is this guy decided to create a crime to boost his side’s case for the mosque, since those of us opposed were not supplying them with the Holocaust-style acts of violence you supporters of the mosque keep invoking. He is not part of the Tea Party.
By the way, you did hear the guy who torched Russ Carnahan’s office is a Talking Points memo writer who got stiffed for salary by the Carnahan campaign — not a Tea Party supporter.
In other words, what is it with all these violent liberals?
How can you liberals sleep at night with all the hate and threats you have unleashed against your fellow rhetoric by your vile and insulting speech against fellow Americans merely exercising their Constitutional rights? http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/8/25/tea-party-group-hit-with-death-threats.html
Who put crack in Observers Cheerios this morning?
Um, asshat, burning the flag as a protest to GOVERNMENT policy is not the same as burning a Koran to incite hate. Figured you wouldn’t understand. Now go back to watching Leave it to Beaver.
Burning the flag can also be done expressly to incite hate. Nevertheless, destroying icons is Constitutionally protected speech, regardless of how offensive some may find it.
Still, trying to understand what Observer means by “all the hate and threats you have unleashed against your fellow rhetoric” is more than I can bear. It sounds more like meth than crack in his Cheerios.
Concerning the flag – I flew the flag upside down as a sign of protest when the Iraq war began. My partner didn’t like me doing it. He would fly it properly and I would change it back to upside down. I wasn’t trying to incite hatred (although I was pissing off my partner), I was protesting an illegal war. Big difference between protest and acts of hate.
In the end, we decided that in order to keep peace in the house, we wouldn’t fly the flag at all.
Observer is just trying to unleash hate against his “fellow rhetoric.”
So what you are suggesting, MJ, is that one may not express one’s disapproval and rejection of a particular faith (or faith generally) without being guilty of inciting hate. If that’s the case, there are a number of contributors to this site who are major league “thought criminals” for their hate speech against groups of Christian believers, or against theism in general.
By the way, MJ, are you arguing that “inciting hate” is not Constitutionally protected speech?
Observer, Why don’t you ask Hal Turner?
Observer – we had this discussion 2 weeks ago. Here’s a link to that discussion. No need to argue it again, because you will lose just like you and your ilk did 2 weeks ago – http://delawareliberal.net//2010/08/12/thursdays-asshats-of-the-day/.
If you want to argue this again, do it in a corner by yourself, like you do when you wank off.
Spoiler Alert!!!
These are the kind of dick wipes that get put down.
Observe this: when you’re rocking my boat I throw you over
We’re trying to kick start America, and you flock o’ sheep are popping the clutch. In the words of Brand Nubian “Punks Jump Up to Get Beat Down”
I’m tired of you fat lazy bank types or you church going pro-lifers or you small business bigots thinking that blogging is the extent of Democrats in action in Delaware. Ass, gas or grass Dbag. What do you got?
Death threats are not protected.
But burning a Quran is not a death threat.
Urging the burning of a mosque would not be protected speech — but is urging contempt for a religious belief you reject constitutionally protected?
You’re playing semantics. I’ve seen you do better.
I have nothing against the Muslims but I don’t have nothing for ’em.
On the straight hand, if they are American, I’m all about them. I have no fears, no hesitations no running back to momma to get her eye view. If you’re scared just say so! The boogie man is under your bed! I got it. Tomorrow night he’s in your closet! I got it. On Sunday theres Boogy in your breakfast butter! I got that! Thing is, let my bed explode, let some soft minds fly a plane into my closet, let the apocalyptic demons that makes you piss your pants detonate my fridge: I guarantee you’l be having toast on Monday ( just don’t use the demon butter)
Nobody here is saying it should be illegal. Nobody. Personally, I’m fine with it although MJ is not.
Your church used to burn people alive in the Vatican Square, but fortunately they’re no longer allowed to do that.
Sorry MJ. I apologize for my angst.You all contribute to an important website concerning (Delaware) politics. Many are more informed for having been here. You’ve all done wonders for me.
Have you ever thought about hosting a Duck Boat ride? Strictly for the “constitutional” crowd?
You’re correct, A1. No one here has said this should be illegal. But that’s what Observer does. He twists the debate.
Observer twists the debate because he’s lonely and Delusional David and Elaine Benes won’t play with him anymore.
RESPONDING TO:Comment by Observer on 25 August 2010 at 8:59 pm:
By the way, MJ, are you arguing that “inciting hate” is not Constitutionally protected speech?
OK – big boy – lets play…….
“MJ” is correct – “inciting hatred” is NOT constitutionally protected speech
ref: Bradenburg v Ohio 1969 SCOTUS decision
and
Virginia V Black – SCOTUS 2003 (note the 3 prong test)
when you’re done reading and digesting them get back to us on it
Aoine — Brandenburg holds that incitement to hate is constitutionally protected. intentional incitement of imminent lawless violence is not.
And in Virginia v. Black, it was again held that unless there was specific intent to intimidate, incitement to hate is perfectly legal.
After all, it is not illegal to hold contempt for an individual or a group of people. If it were, every single contributor to this blog would be serving hard time for their posts here which advocate and incite hatred of conservatives, Republicans, Mormons and evangelical Christians.
Just close your eyes real hard and keep chanting “Fixed News isnt responsible, Fixed News isnt responsible”
Glenn Beck is the one who declared America dead…. so i guess the Constitution doesnt apply anymore.
“After all, it is not illegal to hold contempt for an individual or a group of people”
NO ITS NOT – BUT TO ACT ON IT IS….
and you neglected to point out the 3 prong test used in Virginia v black which means you read Wikipedia not the actual decision
go back and do so – its in the actual decision that the through process and the real thruth lie. not the distilled Wikipedia version
Actually Observer – let me help you with the 3 prong test – and the doctrine of true threat – after all – tellin a judge you hate them is one thing – tellin a judge you’re “gonna take care of him” will get you in a WHOLE world of hurt – and they aren’t even a protected class under the civil rights act.
virginia v black 2003 HELD:
this below is the 3 prong test:
The first is to ask whether a reasonable hearer of the statement who was not the intended target would interpret the statement as a threat
The second is to ask whether a reasonable speaker should have foreseen that his statement would be interpreted as a threat.
The third is to ask whether a reasonable recipient of the statement would interpret it as a threat.
Doctrine of “true threat” is below
“‘True threats’ encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats protect(s) individuals from the fear of violence and from the disruption that fear engenders, in addition to protecting people from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.”
COME ON OBSERVER – READ THE WHOLE DECISION – that’s is what is wrong with these right wing nuts – they get a little out of context kernel – fed to them – don’t have the brains or desire to actually go look it up and the case law supporting it – then think they know what they’re talking about
the above is right out of the decision and I know its intent is pretty clear
and therefore – when Duane Bass – who posts now as Dwight Mann (Da White Man) how clever – who is Bill Colley’s buddy AND a teabagger AND and truther AND a birther AND part of the Delaware resistance and 9/12er and poster on resistnet posts the below comment…
what is one ot think about the movement?
“Put a $500 bounty on all illegals, dead or alive! We will gladly defend our borders…”
Duane Bass – a coward – who changed his name for months to dwight mann thinking no one could figure out it was the same guy – like I said – not a rocket scientist – he also just posted this:
“He is the first black Potus, and the first Potus to be impeached.”
Obviously this fool never heard about ummm Richard Nixon???
with comments like this we are supposed to believ that o’donnell and other teabaggers are to be taken seriously? maybe mr Bass needs to re-read the TOS on resistnet and the values of the 9/12 group – coz he done violated every single one of thme and Curley’s in bed with him….
Comment by Aoine onhttp://delawareliberal.net//2010/08/25/what-could-go-wrong/#comment-200530:
and therefore – when XXXXXXX – who posts now as Dwight Mann (Da White Man) how clever – who is Bill Colley’s buddy AND a teabagger AND and truther AND a birther AND part of the Delaware resistance and 9/12er and poster on resistnet posts the below comment…
what is one ot think about the movement?
Ok, is there or is there not an outing policy? just askin
The outing policy refers to people who post on this site, but it’s a good question.
Ok which brings up my point that an outing policy is wrong. if somebody hide behind a fake name they should have to make up a new fake name if they are outed or deal. typically they are being outted for slander or just generally being an ahole so why should your blog ( it is yours not mine or anybody elses) protect them. again just askin?
Everyone’s definition of who is being an ahole differs. We can’t have people comment here if they’re worried when they offend someone that their real name is going to be revealed. As far as I’m concerned, one’s words reflect on themselves more than they reflect on the person they’re slandering.
My best advice: ignore aholes. They are trying to cause trouble and get a rise out of people. When you respond you’re making them happy.
All true and its your playground. I have a slightly differant view (not strong enough to go start my own blog:) I use my own name for a number of reasons but the primary one is that I have absolutely nothing to hide at this advanced stage of my checkered career:) Cheers
he posted under his real name – then changed it to a fake name – now he is posting them together I outed nobody
I never mentioned him when I knew his real name and changed it to a fake one – and never outed him either until TODAY!!
but now that he is using both together – fair game
here is the URL:
http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/members/?q=dwight+mann
see for yourself – he outed himself
Duane “Dwight Mann” Bass New Castle, DE, United States
just tellin ya!!
jpconnorjr – sorry dear – you’re wrong – as you can see above – he is posting under his real name now – so i outed no one…
you want to cause trouble – go to
http://www.resistnet.com
Bill Colley posts there under his real name as does Al Deramo – if they didn’t want their words and ideas attributed to them then they would use a nome de plume
so taking your “outing” issue – and shove it
im not a fan of outing. It is the same type of tactic Conservatives use to publish home addresses of congress people, bloggers, or anyone else Glenn Beck wants to send a Lone Wolf Hitsquad after. of course that is not what you meant to do, but let’s keep that nasty Tbag karma away. cheers?
JP: Some of us still have jobs, and mine has been threatened by one of the now-pseudonymous commenters here, so I can’t post under my real name anymore.
2. Outting
This is self explanatory. If you post a comment that reveals personal, private and identifying information concerning any Delaware Liberal contributor or commentator that uses an anonymous or pseudonymous user name or handle, you will be banned instantly with no recourse.
above are the stated rules – if you use your real name – as Mr. Bass did – then your comments are attributed to you, the poster
in question also did not post here, but on resistnet and under his real name
so I do not see any problem…
If I am wrong however – please let me know
i, of course am a commenter, totally powerless on this site (and thats fine) but my ethical understanding is that even if someone outs them self once, it is not kosher for someone else to keep bringing it up.
If someone wanted to find out who i am, based on info ive volunteered in posts, they could. I’ve certainly left enough clues. I would only be concerned about work because i don’t want everyone i work with knowing all of my radical political views.
I just think if the Bags want to be anonymous, let them. There are enough mike protacks who proudly give their name for us to make fun of.
Yes, a commenter can out themselves, if they wish. If they are still posting here under a pseudonym, we respect their anonymity.
a.price – exactly – mike protack posts under his real name – as does Bill Colley, Al Deramo, Robert Cuncic and the dude from the constitution party (I forgot his real name) and many others as well
and posts and comments may be attributed directly to them.
and now that Mr. Bass has joined suit he falls into the same catagory – he is out there all by himself – but OK – what he said and continues to say is out there – attributed to him, by him – along with his affiliations and friends and that is an interesting mix
especially when they say they are not violent or racist
as far as the bagz that are anon and do not out themselves (but really not – its not hard to solve) sure – let them stay that way