The Left's Unlikely Alliance with Islam

I have always wondered why the liberals were so opposed to fighting people that were opposed to everything they believed in. I am not sure that the proposition proposed is accurate but I would like to hear why so many liberals are so quick to defend the Muslim religion when it is so clearly opposed to a lot of what they believe in. Originally Posted by Laz

Churchill said "An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last"

The left are cowards; they want to be friends with monsters because they're are afraid to call evil by its name. It's like Neville Chamberlin negotiating a peace treaty with Hitler; It's deja vu all over again.

Churchill said "An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last"

. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Churchill was eaten by his own people after the war....go figure


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_1945

You have a great point Laz.....Muslims are much more closely aliened with Conservatives in this country.

I have always thought we should ship all our Muslims brothers and sisters along with our Religious Right family back over to the Middle East! They should get along just fine. Originally Posted by WTF

Historically the christian religion has a lot to answer for but to equate the Muslim faith to mainstream modern day christianity is nuts. Any radical christian group that acted like these idiot muslims would never find support or shelter among the christians. There will always be the occaisional nutcase among the christians but they are not supported by other christians.

Of course christians try to push their faith which I will agree can be annoying but it falls within the law. They don't go around killing people that disagree with them.

Try to be intellectually honest in your arguments.

Churchill was eaten by his own people after the war....go figure Originally Posted by WTF

I've always been amazed by the way Churchill was turned on by England after all his contributions. Except for Churchill, England would have been destroyed. When he first warned about Hitler being a serious threat, he was renounced as a crackpot.

Historically the christian religion has a lot to answer for but to equate the Muslim faith to mainstream modern day christianity is nuts. Any radical christian group that acted like these idiot muslims would never find support or shelter among the christians. There will always be the occaisional nutcase among the christians but they are not supported by other christians.

Of course christians try to push their faith which I will agree can be annoying but it falls within the law. They don't go around killing people that disagree with them.

Try to be intellectually honest in your arguments. Originally Posted by Laz

There are nuts on both sides that the majority do not agree with in tactics but they do in principal. That is a fact.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Save_America

The most prominent anti-abortion groups have used less vitriolic tactics but their impact is no less powerful. Operation Save America issued "wanted posters" for David Gunn, a Florida abortion doctor, in the summer of 1992. A year later he was shot dead - the first of a string of murders unlikely to end with Tiller.

I've always been amazed by the way Churchill was turned on by England after all his contributions. Except for Churchill, England would have been destroyed. When he first warned about Hitler being a serious threat, he was renounced as a crackpot. Originally Posted by joe bloe

You only get to drive the bus as long as people think you know where you are going. After the war, they no longer needed a war driver, they needed a peace driver. Pretty simple, you can not bask in the past.

Elections are about the future not the past. Bush would have never been elected a second time if it was about the past. Time will tell if folks have confidence in Obama again. Newt seems to think he can drive again...

You only get to drive the bus as long as people think you know where you are going. After the war, they no longer needed a war driver, they needed a peace driver. Pretty simple, you can not bask in the past.

Elections are about the future not the past. Bush would have never been elected a second time if it was about the past. Time will tell if folks have confidence in Obama again. Newt seems to think he can drive again... Originally Posted by WTF

I think part of Churchill's problem was that he wanted to contintue England's policy of colonialism. He tried to enlist FDR's support in his effort keep English colonies under their control but failed.

The English people were very sympathetic towards Ghandi and India's nonviolent revolution. I guess maybe Churchill was passed over by the tide of history.

Part of Obama's animosity towards the UK has to do with the fact that Kenya (his father's birthplace and possibly his own) was a colony of the United Kingdom until 1963. Obama was a dual citizen at birth, United States and United Kingdom and Colonies.