Madness, Thy Name is RedState
By Nathan Nelson Posted in Contra Tyrannum — Comments (86) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Retraction: In light of Mr. Cella's comment, I think it's pretty clear that I've grossly misinterpreted his post. I apologize for that and I hope he and the rest of the RedState community can forgive me. Obviously, I retract this post.
I've been blogging at RedState since I made the decision to become a Republican in February. I've had many good discussions here, many about some very contentious issues. I've found most RedState posters to be extremely reasonable people, contrary to what the folks on the left always told me. That's why it saddens me that I'll not be able to post at RedState anymore. I won't be able to post here because Paul J. Cella (please direct all criticism to Cella's Review) has authored a post in which he essentially recommends the repeal of the First Amendment, and apparently the editors and moderators at RedState agree with him or at least find his views consistent with American conservatism since they have included his post on their main blog.
Read on...
To be clear about what Cella is arguing, he's arguing for a ban on Muslim immigrants. That by itself is enough to make one shudder, but it doesn't end there. In addition, Cella argues that Islam itself should be prohibited by sedition laws. There's no way to summarize the raw hatred behind this argument. To see that, you must see the words themselves:
I have proposed the introduction of specific sedition laws that mention the Islamic religion by name, taking note of the uniquely pressing threat of the Jihad. Again, I think such legislation justified in part because throwing a man in prison for two years on a wrongful sedition conviction is indeed an injustice; but it is a pittance compared to what injustice might await that same man, and his family, when legislation is no longer an option, when anarchy and civil war are upon us. I say "in part" because there are other justifications as well: justifications not premised on speculation of civil war. One is that Jihad, quite aside from its threat to us, is a wicked doctrine and should not receive the protection of our laws. Another is that we can fight totalitarian Islam by prohibiting it, by letting its (sic) stand naked without the shelter of the civil liberties which it seeks to obliterate.
We are living in dangerous times indeed when this kind of rhetoric - which would have made Adolph Hitler stand up and salute the Nazi flag if worded just slightly differently - is not only tolerated, but actually promoted on a major Republican blog to which Republican presidential candidates, senators, congressmen, and other governmental officials from the local to the federal level have contributed. This is not the Republican Party that I signed up for. This is not the Republican Party at all. And conservative? There's nothing conservative, nothing American, nothing even remotely politically acceptable to any normal person about suggesting that people should not be able to come here based on their religious beliefs or, worse yet, that Americans should be imprisoned based on their religious beliefs.
Oh, there are arguments that could be made against Mr. Cella's madness. One could argue, for example, that Islam is not an inherently violent religion. One could even point out that the moderate Islamist government of Turkey is still our ally, has no plans to seek war against us, still wants to join the European Union, is more sympathetic to the Kurds, and has even gone so far as to give the EU Court of Human Rights primacy over Turkish courts - disproving the assertion that all Muslims, even all Islamists, are our enemies. One could argue that the fastest way to turn American Muslims against the government and against society at large is to imprison them on the basis of their religion, thus making them feel as though they have a true reason to fight a jihad against us.
But the best counterargument against an argument such as the one made by Mr. Cella is visceral condemnation and total repudiation of the argument, the one making it, and any who promote it. Such an argument - which appeals to the worst inclinations of the human condition, based on fear, hatred, and irrationality - deserves nothing more. I would add that it also deserves nothing less. The editors and moderators of RedState should be ashamed of themselves for giving Mr. Cella a platform from which to spew this madness which attacks the very foundations of our nation. These are dangerous times for America indeed, and sad ones.
Cross-posted to my blog. Goodbye, RedState.
and don't think I'm not aware of it, is that I'll be banned from this site and my post - perhaps my entire blog - deleted. If anything less than that occurs I'll be surprised, but it won't affect my decision not to post here anymore. At least not until those who argue that people should be imprisoned based upon their religious beliefs are unable to post here anymore, and probably not even after that.
In regard to commenting on Cella's post to clarify his points, I'm not sure what there was to clarify. Did his post seem in any way ambiguous to you? I thought he spelled it out pretty clearly: Muslims bad, Muslims in prison good. As for what others think of what he says, I hope they think it's reprehensible and I hope they say so in the comments to his post. We already know, of course, what the editors and moderators of the site think of it - otherwise it would not be on the main blog.
And finally, let me assure one and all that I had no nefarious purpose in posting this at 4:00 A.M. I often post at this hour. I would still have posted it during the afternoon or evening when two or three moderators would have been tripping over each other to do something about it, but it turns out to be the wee hours of the morning. Such is life.
Again: Goodbye, RedState.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
I read the post a couple times to try to find what you said - as I assumed I missed it.
He clearly says he has proposed certain things. But I do not see him advocating that ALL Muslims are bad or that they should ALL be jailed. It certainly wasn't "spelled out" the way you portrayed it to be.
The post talks about radicalism and jihadism. And it directs itself to undermining and eliminating the latter. It does not equate - unless you choose to make that equation yourself - that all Muslims are included.
And I reiterate my earlier point - apparently you are too squeemish for this site. Your reaction is that of the liberals - that the proper response to a disagreeable policy suggestion is to eliminate the speaker. That's not how we work - the post, in its philosophical points (which is actually virtually the entire, very lengthy post), is reasoned and thought out. The general ideas are not all that controversial. The policy recommendations are "out there" perhaps, but the way to address that is to actually address them and refute them - not to decry the speaker and demand that he be silenced.
I won't speak for the moderators, but they have put all sorts of things on the front page - and I believe that "promotion" can be done by a single one of them. So the idea that what appears on the front page is inherently "endorsed" by the entire RedState staff is ludicrous. Perhaps if you has spent more than 5 months here, you'd know that. But hey, I'm not about to mourn the loss.
To begin with, what was posted did seem that controversial to me because I clearly misinterpreted it. I honestly believed that Mr. Cella was speaking of Islam as a whole. That would indeed have been quite controversial and I think, had I been correct, my post would have been justified. I was not correct, however, and I apologize for misinterpreting the post.
Secondly, the idea that I'm too squeamish for this site is preposterous. I've had personal insults tossed at me like baseballs in the comments to my posts and have barely batted an eyelash. There was nothing squeamish going on here. I thought that I was taking a principled stand against somebody who was calling for a "final solution" against Muslims. I was wrong.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
I thought that I was taking a principled stand against somebody who was calling for a "final solution" against Muslims.
I'm not sure where you what the phrase "final solution" has to do with his post at all. No matter whether you thought he was proposing a ban of all Muslims from practicing, or just Muslim extremists from preaching about the Jihad, there is no call for anything like a "final solution" in his post. Unless I missed the paragraph about the gas chambers and railway cars that would be required.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
And we don't tell Contributors what they can and cannot write.
Just noting that, and my personal disappointment in you for this rather tawdry cop-out of a post, for the record.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
that you're disappointed. I honestly thought that Mr. Cella was speaking of Islam as a whole. I apologize for misinterpreting his post. I should have asked him about it before assuming the worst.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
The inevitable action and don't think I'm not aware of it, is that I'll be banned from this site and my post - perhaps my entire blog - deleted. If anything less than that occurs I'll be surprised ...
After all this time, this is what you think?
This was cowardly, Nate. And I must confess that I'm very disappointed in you. You should have engaged Cella and hashed things out because while his post struck a wrong chord with me, I know enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I don't think he wrote what you say he did.
PS: I am a Muslim.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
Nathan read - or, as I see it, misread - Paul's post and decided that it was beyond the pale. It made this site one with which he did not wish to engage. That's his call. He is under no obligation to post here and choosing not to do so is not cowardice.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
The cowardice comes in when he decides to post an "I'm taking my ball and going home" blog ripping the original blog, instead of actually responding to the author of the blog that offended him. If he wants to leave the site, fine, but then there's no need to post this piece of garbage.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I was really referring to my own opinion that the powers that be would "close and annotate" the post in some way. But hey, I was wrong.
I forgot that Paul is a contributor and thus able to put his own material on the front page without any input from anybody else. I would have mentioned that. I think Nate was as much offended by where the opinion was located (the front page) as he was by his own misinterpretation of what the opinion was.
I think Nate was as much offended by where the opinion was located (the front page) as he was by his own misinterpretation of what the opinion was.
Assuming what I did about the content of the post, I was appalled that it was on the front page. I wasn't aware that Mr. Cella was a contributor, so I assumed that his diary had been promoted to the front page. Lots of assumptions that I shouldn't have made.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
for misinterpreting Mr. Cella's post. It was a mistake, but it was an honest one. I think anyone who has not read any of his posts beforehand would find that post ambiguous and might assume what I assumed. But you're right, I should have asked him about it before assuming the worst, and I'm sorry that I didn't.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
My advice though ... do a little bit more research on the folks here.
Welcome back.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
I think that deletion of your post is extremely unlikely. To date I have only observed the deletion of one post from this site. Incidentally, the deleted post contained nothing but links to XXX sites.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
If Nazi's claimed to be a religion and not a political party, would you be clamoring for their immigration to the U.S. in 1941?
What exactly makes a religion? Simply a belief a God? If that is the case then I declare myself head preist of the Church of Me. I'll let the IRS know about my new found tax exempt status right after this. Do the number of adherents constitute the difference between a religion and a cult? If that is the case then, irony aside, Communist China is giving Christ a run for his money.
I am not a theologian (as, obviously, are you), but I do know what is NOT a religion. And Islam sure as hell fits the bill. So while I wipe away the tears, please make sure the door doesn't hit you.
Oh yeah, and say, "Hi!" to Arianna for me.
Blue and Yellow make Green!
...where the line is wrt discussing other people's religion. You're over it. Don't do it again.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
But I read Paul's post pretty carefully, I didn't find what you found there.
1. On immigration he mentions two options: banning all Muslim immigration or requiring a specific loyalty oath. These do not require the repeal of the First Amendment and don't, in my view, step so far beyond the bounds of what is worth considering as to be off limits for debate in a civilised environment.
2. He advocates a sedition law. Obviously, any sedition law approaches the edges of the First. It is by no means obvious that any sedition law must breach the First, and that has not historically been the view of any branch of government. He suggests this sedition law should mention Islam by name. I am not sure what advantages could be derived from so mentioning it, but I also don't see that it, of necessity, puts the law in breach of the First.
3. He has not suggested that all Muslims be imprisoned.
4. He has not suggested that anyone should be imprisoned solely on the basis of their beliefs, but for breaching an, undefined, sedition law.
5. I did not note any 'hatred' in Paul's article. I do see fear in it. I noted his characteristic gloominess, pessimism and negativity. I don't agree, but I don't find these traits offensive in anyone.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
that I misinterpreted quite a few things. I should have asked for clarification before flying off the handle. Anyway, thank you for defending me and for not assuming that I was a coward.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
Everyone makes mistakes.
Nothing cowardly about admitting them. But, hey, you can probably stop now. :)
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
But I have to say Mr. Cella is on the right track. His idea is to narrow though. Any group that seeks to encourage violent action or takes steps to levy war against the United States needs to be targeted.
Is there anyone reading this forum that thinks the skin heads would have made it past Hoover's FBI ? Ruby Ridge, Waco, the lunatic tax protesters in NH, these people never would have gotten their act started let alone go on for ever. If you want examples look at the weather underground, the SLA, etc.
It used to be you had to be a major nation to have a WMD capability. Even then, they weren't that effective. Then smaller nations were able to acquire the tech. Now its at the point were sub national groups can and may already have marginal WMD. This is a real problem.
Do you recall the Anthrax scare in 2001 ? Whoever made that and distributed it was potentially much deadlier than the highjackers. The only thing that stopped it from being a major catastrophe was that they stopped. We still don't know who they are.
In the 60's we started a move away from common sense law enforcement. During the period post Watergate to 9/11 the trend accelerated and became pernicious. After 9/11 the trend was dealt some damage but its still there. We need to roll it back.
The FBI used to be a very effective internal security apparatus for the country. Now because of a few abuses we don't have internal security. (Sorry DHS bears a sad resemblance to the apple dumpling gang)
We need to be able to take steps to prevent terrorist organizations from forming and acting on our soil. Unfortunately for Islam the religion has picked up a nasty parasite in the form of jihadis.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
with Mr. Cella, but now that I understand our disagreement better I realize: a) that he is not a Nazi; and b) that my post was inappropriate.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
you're a weasel. The "goodbye RS" reminds me of the commercial of the little boy with a backpack over and over saying to his mom, "I'm leaving, I'm going"... a pathletic attempt to get attention or be asked, "no Nate, please stay and blog!"
whatever...good first laugh on a beautiful Friday. What's that saying about the door hitting you......?
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
in nearly every one of your posts, but you rush to defend Muslims?
Good riddance.
You are suffering from the Dixiechicks confusion here. Nathan is free to disagree with the stances taken by some Christian organisations and still argue that Muslims should not be imprisoned.
If he had argued that Christians should be imprisoned for their views but that it was beyond the bounds of acceptability to suggest the same for Muslims you might be onto something. He didn't. You aren't.
And no organisation is entitled to be free of criticism.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
if anyone had proposed the imprisonment of Muslims.
Mr. Nelson objected to Mr. Cella's proposal of a law that would proscribe advocating overthrowing our government.
I welcome Mr. Nelson's departure because I don't think that a conservative and Republican blog is the appropriate forum for criticizing and even insulting and slandering conservative Christians, as was Mr. Nelson's habit.
I never for a moment suggested that anyone had proposed imprisoning all Muslims. I said the reverse. However, that was Nathan's understanding and it was to that that he objected.
If you did not understand that, I expect it is because you didn't read Nathan's blog. That is your right, but please don't be surprised if I consider your opinions on the content of it entirely worthless.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
You are defending what you think Nathan misunderstood?
Your first reply to my first comment contained an insult or two directed at me even though I had not addressed you.
You lack the cognitive ability to understand your own drivel.
I have recently read several of your contributions and I consider them the work of a beef-witted imbecile.
What I am doing is pointing out to you that imprisoning people is different from criticising them. I am surprised that you are struggling with this concept.
You may consider my contributions to be anything that suits you.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
criticize Christians in nearly every one of my posts. I can count the number of posts in which I've criticized Christians on one hand (and challenge you to find more), out of 107 posts since February. Talk about overstating, exaggeration, and misinterpretation.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
jihad is the declaration of war and terror by totalitarian Islam. Regardless of its cloak of religious ambiguity this is how are enemies are using it and no shield of PC/diversity/tolerance will keep us safe. Cella did not call out a religion- he called out our enemy within a religion.
We should not provide safe harbor to our enemies.
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
Three points:
(1) A brief search of the archives of this site will disclose that the sedition law I have proposed, and that I refer to in the quoted passage, concerns the doctrine of Jihad, not the Islamic religion as a whole. If you are prepared to conflate the two, then
(2) You have done far more rhetorical violence to the Islamic religion than I have ever dreamed of, because you have set up a simple identity between Islam and Jihad. This latter is of course the doctrine that aggressive war against in the unbeliever is an act of piety, and that virtually any treachery or brutality may be employed in the service of this piety; in short that it is a religious duty to subjugate the infidel. In your construction, Jihad is Islam. I have never come close to so dramatic and inflammatory a statement, for one reason because I don't believe it to be true. There is much that is noble and admirable in Islam; there is nothing noble or admirable in Jihad.
(3) In American history sedition laws have been used to proscribe: Jacobins, Northern secessionists, Southern Unionists, anarchists, Fascists, Nazis, Communists and many others of lesser prominence. The entire Mormon religion came under suppression, not specifically under sedition law, but under a law even more applicable to the case at hand: Congress outlawed the doctrine of polygamy. At one time half the prison population of the Utah Territory consisted of convicted polygamists. And guess what? Mormonism renounced the doctrine, and now presents us with a formidable candidate for President. Talk about a horror story. But I guess under the careful and sensitive nuance evidenced in your diary, Mormonism simply is polygamy, and can be nothing else.
___________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
He wouldn't engage with you; why should you engage with him?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
the "better man"?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
for misinterpreting your post. I'll admit that I didn't search the archives to read any of your past posts, and from this post alone it appeared that you were talking about Islam as a whole, not just jihadis. In fact, I am still unclear on point #3 of your comment: are you proposing only the prohibition of the jihadi ideology, or are you proposing the prohibition of Islam? And if you are proposing the former rather than the latter, how do you propose that it be enforced?
Regards,
Nate Nelson
the proscription of the doctrine of Jihad -- an amendment to our current sedition law which, taking specific cognizance of the current threat from Islam, prohibits the promotion and advocacy of Jihad. As I indicated above, this is hardly unprecedented in our history; indeed the mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing, back in 1993, was prosecuted and imprisoned for seditious conspiracy. All I want to do is expand this law to make Islamic radicalism more vulnerable to such prosecutions.
But of course the big step here is that Islam is singled-out. Not Islam as such, but an aspect of that religion.
________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
But since, as you point out, prosecutions are already possible, are there people currently slipping through the net? What sort of seditions are currently legal but would, under your proposal, be banned?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
this sort of question is exactly the kind of thing that can be hashed out in the halls of Congress. But I would like every radical imam, preparing to deliver his Friday sermon, to be very keenly aware that ranging into a discussion of the Jihad, as a "collective duty" for the whole ummah, or as an "individual duty" for all "able-bodied" Muslims (in the classical formulations), could land him in prison or subject him to a considerable fine.
Another way to get at the problem would be to prohibit the promotion of shari'a. Since the establishment of shari'a in the United States would mean the overthrow of our republican system, which is guaranteed by the Constitution, the advocacy of shari'a ought to regarded as itself sedition.
__________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
And I have no principled objection to your proposal. But I am always a sceptic about new laws, and would need to be convinced that some people are currently getting away with something for which they ought to be prosecuted and, further, that they are getting away with it because the current law is inadequate and not merely because the authorities have chosen not to prosecute.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Just a note: "jihad" means "struggle" and, while I don't know much about Islam, my understanding is that many Muslims use the term in the sense of being a good person rather than as a call to violence.
Also, would advocating sharia law be seditious? I assume it would violate the First Amendment, but what if they advocated an amendment to the Constitution? And would it necessarily mean the end of our republican system (e.g., our electoral system)? Why? Believe me, I'm the last guy who would want to live under sharia law, but I'm just questioning the sedition aspect.
The lesser and the greater Jihad.
The Lesser Jihad is the one that involves war, and from my own teachings of the religion, this is Islamically acceptable only when it is defensive in nature. There are a huge number of rules attendant to the Islamically permissable way of making war that a Muslim of Muhammad's (PBUH) time would rightly deny outright that Osama and his ilk are Muslims in any way shape or form.
The Greater Jihad, on the other hand, is the one I, as a Muslim, am engaged in right now and everyday, the daily struggle against evil, and the doing of good.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
The matter of a loyalty oath and some sort of proscription of advocating jihad in any violent form has been discussed many times here. I specifically recall a colloquy that Paul, myself, and several others, mostly longtime regulars, had on how a loyalty oath might be structured so as to be Constitutionally inoffensive, and that was some months ago.
So, Nate can take his delicate sensibilities and go wherever he wishes; it will be little noted nor long remembered.
In Vino Veritas
Don't let the front door hit you on the backside, buddy. Hopefully while you are gone, you will run across a history book or two, or at least a book or two by a conservative thinker which will educate you in some things. Not least of which would hopefully be the ability to *read* and *understand* the arguments of others.
I also find a great irony in the fact that your last diary blasted those who voted based on their religious beliefs, and compared them to those who advocate the imposition of shari'a law, and this one hysterically condemns Paul for vigorously opposing those who would impose shari'a law.
Also, as a final point, someone who's been in the fold for no longer than you have should probably not be attempting to educate Paul on what is or is not conservative. I'll give you a hint: you're going to lose this battle.
------------
Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems... True politics is the art of apprehending and applying the Justice which ought to prevail in a community of souls.
-Russell Kirk
that you would be happy to see me go, Leon.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
You've not exactly covered yourself in glory with your last two posts here, have you? As it happens, I took the time to read the follow-up to your previous misadventure at your personal blog, and it pretty much restated the same false and ridiculous charge. So no, I'm not particularly enamored of your continued presence here, in fact. Allow me to be a tad egalitarian here and say that there's hope for reform in everyone, however. There are many commenters here who annoy me in various fashions that I am able to summarily ignore, and let's hope you'll be able to fall into that category, eh?
------------
Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems... True politics is the art of apprehending and applying the Justice which ought to prevail in a community of souls.
-Russell Kirk
Actually, I wouldn't tell you to leave, but I would very strongly recommend that you take a long, long, and perhaps permanent hiatus from the following:
1. Diaries slamming RedState or anyone on it
2. Diaries slamming conservatives, social conservatives, Republicans, Christians, etc.
3. Diaries generalizing in any negative way about people on the Right
I'm not here to argue about what your posts said. And I'm not saying that posts of that nature are always illegitimate or unwelcome at this site, though they are generally met with a skeptical eye. I am saying that you have demonstrated an inability to take on those topics in a constructive way.
There's a lot of things to write about. Take a different direction.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
We are all tempted by a vision of the world in which we never have to cope with ideas that we can't stand, while our own notions are greeted by a continuous stream of adulation. Who wouldn't want, in Tom Wolfe's great phrase in
We will always be co-existing with ideas we don't like. That's life. Whether one is right or left, neocon, theocon or paleocon, even Kossite sociopath, one must deal with it. Anyone who doesn't, tough cookies. Life ain't gonna change.
We all know him to be a proud, disagreeable sort of man. But that's nothing if you really like him. Mr. Bennet in "Pride and Predjudice".
Exactly. I'm not a movement conservative, but have conservative instincts. Now some of the posters on RS may be off-the-wall at times, disagreeable, triumphalistic and addicted to excessive rhetoric. But that's nothing if we really like them!
my problem is not that I disagreed with Mr. Cella (I disagree with people quite often here), but that I misunderstood what exactly I was disagreeing with. I thought that it was something much worse than it was, and I apologize for not clarifying before I went off.
As to your last paragraph, that describes most of my posts in a nutshell. :-D
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
of Paul's blog. This strikes me as insane or simply uninformed:
One could even point out that the moderate Islamist government of Turkey is still our ally, has no plans to seek war against us, still wants to join the European Union, is more sympathetic to the Kurds, and has even gone so far as to give the EU Court of Human Rights primacy over Turkish courts
Please read a bit about such things before you look silly wherever you gravitate.
in 5 seconds...The Gipper
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
This has been a depressing blog both itself and the comments that arose from some folks. Nathan read something here that offended him so much that he doesn't want to come here anymore. I don't think that makes him a coward. I also don't think he needed to write us and let us know why he was offended. Sometimes people take themselves too seriously, and can get offended too easily. Such is life. I disagree with people on this board occasionally, but if I ever do want to stop coming here I do not expect all of you need a blog from me citing all my reasons why I left. It is hard sometimes to understand the thought processes others go through at times. que sera sera.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I also don't think he needed to write us and let us know why he was offended.
Making the recommended list on RS can do that to ya (kinda of a rush - the crack cocaine of writing?). I had a few posts get there for trivial things, but never thought folks would miss me if I left. At least in his case, he had some name recognition before the 'don't let the door hit you' comments arrived, which is a celebrity status of sorts, I guess.
Nathan writes well, if a little hysterical this time. I'm hoping he'll stick around. He gets some topics humming from his...uncommon...perspective that don't normally get much genuine discussion in our overly PC world.
is have the guts to engage Paul in his blog discussion. Bill Bryan posted an entry today that seems to be voicing the same concerns you are, and he did it in a measured, non-insulting, non-confrontational intellectual manner. You could have done the same.
Frankly, when I first read it, my gut reaction was similar to yours, but now that I've seen the interactions here, I'm more inclined to agree with Cella than you. Maybe you are/were just afraid of where the discussion might go?
So, cut and run if you will. Personally, I'm a little tired of the anti-Christian rhetoric also, but I'm willing to let people have their say so long as they don't get insulting or bigoted about it.
I've addressed everything else in your comment in numerous other ones. I apologize for misinterpreting Mr. Cella's post and I should indeed have discussed it with him in the comments to his post.
Now, to this:
So, cut and run if you will. Personally, I'm a little tired of the anti-Christian rhetoric also, but I'm willing to let people have their say so long as they don't get insulting or bigoted about it.
I challenge you, or anyone else here, to find me more than five out of my 107 posts that can be said to contain "anti-Christian rhetoric." You won't find them. Moreover, the five that I'm aware of do not contain anti-Christian rhetoric. They are critical of a very small group of Christians who are certainly not representative of Christians as a whole, and I'll not apologize for criticizing them.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
Who in the world would have ever thought that somebody (and frankly especially Paul) could write a blog that was so offensive that somebody would get his panties in a wad and leave. Supposedly never to post here again.
Oh the injustice of it all. Wow.
Heck, if I'd know Nate was THAT sensitive, I'd have jumped on the bandwagon and worked up a REALLY offensive screed. I can't believe that somebody could possibly think that Paul Cella could in any way, shape or form be more offensive than me. Or even Tbone, for that matter. Wow. I am just so bummed.
Maybe I'll go post something on Nate's blog. Nahhhhh. I'll just have a cup of double expresso and go find a Rombot to torment.
Watch out Moderators! It's 908 on SUPER CAFFEINE!
(Not one of my better pictures, but it was handy...)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
If that post caused Nate to leave I wonder what the video of innocents being beheaded by jihadists caused him to do.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
to get a rhinoceros going in the morning. Looks like he's just starting his morning cup (or is it a she?)
And it's what I look like on heavy duty quantities of caffeine. Of course, there is the "other" Warthog...
I like him too...
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Can't find 'em. They were even cooler than the Spooky clips. Or the 50cal sniper clips.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
a strategy demo for NYT and other esteemed pillars of the establishment. Also for Franz in one of his anti-feline modes.
when it comes to wreaking violence on his enemies. He is a one dog wrecking crew.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
By the way, doesn't the Franz campaign (or campaign to-be) have any action photos of Franz, preferably of the intimidating variety?
a family site. Grrrrrrr. Snarl. Chomp. [muffled screams] [blood everywhere]...
The Directors would be apoplectic.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
LOL. I'm sure the Directors appreciate your discretion. I suggest sending those pics to the rival campaigns, and making sure Franz' own staff sees them, lest any of them get any ideas about unauthorized leaks...or even underperformance. Those pics will be even more "motivating" than that Alec Baldwin character in Glengary Glen Ross.
But the puss and I will be riding high!
Genuine photo of Power Cat during conference call with Morgan Stanley
Power Point, power breakfasts, business plans - we are so drawn to the naked self-promotion potential of a Mitt Win that we could even abandon Rudy! Not to mention putting Franz on the TSA watch list.
Warthogs are pretty cool and can run like a deer. I saw many of them in Botswana.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
I was offended because I thought that Mr. Cella was essentially proposing a "final solution" for American Muslims. I was wrong, but I think anyone should be able to understand my outrage based upon my wrong assumptions.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Given your background ("L") before coming to the conservative side of things, I think we can understand the outrage (feeling based) just not the response (not fact based).
You're not alone, though. I still get plenty of emails from otherwise conservative (read brain -engaged) friends that should have checked things out on Snopes before they hit forward (with emotion). Even I will do a double take now and then (How dare those Martians!! Those poor, innocent sheep!) before I hit the delete key.
I'm patiently training them to think before responding angrily to tripe without doing the research first.
I'm told its the difference between humans and animals.
You once hinted you were older than the average camper.
I had no idea...
I'm in Phoenix right now. You'd fit right in.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
How bout a "Gong" button like the gong show?
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
If so, you're going to replace Kowalski as our resident fly-off-the-handle-whoops-I-took-it-wrong whipping boy :)
Heh.
No disrespect to Paul, but I usually skip his stories. His writing style just isn't for me. That's one of the great things about a community blog, you don't have to read every blog and there is still plenty of content.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
As it is, people have to read down into the comments (by which time they're already annoyed and armed for bear) before they see any of your retractions/apologies. A simple quick line at the top would be plenty sufficient.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
I'll put the whole thing in bold print though so people can see it better. If you're still not seeing it, try refreshing the page.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
Since you posted this at 4 in the morning......how long it will be before the directors see this and take the inevitable action.
I notice you did not offer this concern as a comment to the Cella post mentioned. Perhaps clarifying the points with the author or determining what others at the site thought would have been more productive than cutting yourself off from the site.
But hey, that's your business. If you're going to get your panties in a twist over one post, then perhaps it's for the best.