Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2017 4:38 AM
397 online now:
frako, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, vimesey (4 members, 393 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,103 Year: 16,709/21,208 Month: 2,598/3,593 Week: 65/646 Day: 5/60 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
4445
46
4748
...
66NextFF
Author Topic:   Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6098
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 676 of 990 (799513)
02-10-2017 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 662 by Faith
02-10-2017 4:08 PM


Faith writes:

quote:
Actually I just need to get the conservative point of view to counter the effect of the wall of liberal/leftist opinion at EvC. I don't know yet exactly where my own opinion will end up.

So you admit that you have literally no idea what you're talking about yet you are certain that the information you are finding here is wrong because "liberals" are providing it.

Textbook political correctness.

The irony is strong in you.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 662 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 4:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6098
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 677 of 990 (799514)
02-10-2017 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 629 by Faith
02-10-2017 11:37 AM


Re: Conservative opinion
Faith writes:

quote:
What I mean about seeing conservative opinion on the subject is opinion that comes from political websites and blogs and talk shows.

You mean those sources that you know are lying to you? That have been demonstrated to be lying to you? That you know should be avoided because they lie?

How many times do you need to be shown that they are not to be trusted before you learn the lesson?

Textbook political correctness.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 629 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 11:37 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6098
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 678 of 990 (799515)
02-10-2017 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 639 by Faith
02-10-2017 12:23 PM


Re: Conservative opinion
Faith writes:

quote:
I said nothing about sabotage of any specific action.

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you?

Did you or did you not write the following in Message 636:

And sabotage is definitely not checks and balances; it's sabotage.

Did you or did you not write the following in Message 629:

there are unfortunately quite a few Republicans who are sabotaging Trump in various ways already.

Please, let us not play dumb, Faith. You're the one who brought up "sabotage." You don't then to feign ignorance about your own argument. If you didn't mean to bring up sabotage, why did that word come out of your post?

If you didn't mean to bring up sabotage in regard to the specific topic of conversation that is taking place right here and now, then why did that word escape your keyboard not just once but twice?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 639 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 12:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 679 of 990 (799516)
02-10-2017 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 666 by bluegenes
02-10-2017 4:42 PM


Re: Let's have apostate immigration
They could just ban all religions if it can be reasonably demonstrated that more than 25% of adherents believe in the killing of apostates.

It'd be safer to ban all social and political groups that do this, rather than 'religions'. But sure - this could be *tried*.

Effectively singling out Islam without doing so technically.

The courts are aware of de facto vs de jure. They often rule that 'de facto' illegal discrimination is still discrimination. Antonin Scalia famously declared, for instance:

quote:
"A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews." Ante, at 5. The yarmulke tax would not become less of a tax on Jews if the taxing authorities really did wish to burden the wearing of yarmulkes. And the fact that many Jews do not wear yarmulkes--like the fact that many women do not seek abortions--would not prevent a finding that the tax--like petitioners' blockade--targeted a particular class.

As Faith might point out, Mohammed was a religious terrorist in his later life. So what does that make the followers?

Mohammad's actions aren't really relevant for three reasons:

1. Modern day Muslims are not members of Mohammad's supposed terrorist organisation.

2. One has to be aware that the organisation one belongs to is a terrorist organisation. ("unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;")

3. Islam has not been declared a terrorist organisation.

Many of the Islamic attacks have been committed by people who are not members of "terrorist organisations", unless following Mohammed counts.

So what?

Almost all Muslims are not covered in section h of US Code 1182.

If the US wants to change the law, they can go right ahead and do that. But until Islam is declared either a terrorist organisation or a social group that promotes terrorism - my point stands.

You'd never ban any group on that basis, unless it was very small. Most neo Nazis aren't murderers. What percentage of the modern KKK have actually lynched someone?

Neo Nazis and the KKK are permitted entry into the US, as far as I'm aware.

The thing is, about the threat to life angle, how many lives does that mean?

It's not quantified, any given argument is judged on its merits.

You could probably find interesting prison stats from here in the U.K.

I'm sure you could.

About 50% of them are Christian. (all these numbers are self-declared)
About 15% are Muslim.

About 60% of the UK are Christian.
5% are Muslim.

But what does that tell us? That Muslims are more likely to commit crime because of their religious views? Or that Muslims are more likely to be socio-economically deprived? That they get stopped and searched more regularly than non-Muslims? That first and second immigrants of any group have disproportionate offenders amongst them for a variety of reasons not related to their religion?

Not a right wing source

But that, surely, is discrimination "because of the religion alone". If certain types of killing are amongst the tenets and historical practices of a specific religion, they are part of it.

No, since the actions are not the religion. If you were discriminating based on actions, it is not on the basis of religion alone. Religion is just beliefs. Actions are actions.

If the specific religion espoused terrorist actions, it would be the espousing of terrorist actions that justifies the discrimination.

Mohammed would be on the banned list, if he was still around. But not those, apparently, who are members of his organisation.

If we're going to play this game, I'll simply retort that like Jesus - I doubt Mohammed would recognize many people today as actually following the religion as he understood it. If he was here today, and acted in the way you think is problematic - then only people that were in his actual organisation would be banned. It would be absurd to include Abdolkarim Soroush in this ban, unless he completely reversed all of his views and joined this hypothetical Mohammed's modern day organisation of terrorism.

Of course, present INA laws aside - Mohammed, being from modern day Saudi Arabia, would not be covered by Trump's Executive Order

No. More like "have killed" and "are killing", as a group.

Well shit, as an atheist and a Briton - I'm guilty of lots of questionable acts of killing too. Good old guilt by association, eh?

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 666 by bluegenes, posted 02-10-2017 4:42 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6098
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 680 of 990 (799517)
02-10-2017 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 642 by Faith
02-10-2017 12:28 PM


Re: Ninth District "Most Reversed" Court
Faith writes:

quote:
As of a few years ago, the Ninth District Court has the distinction of being "the most reversed."

Yep.

How does that make them wrong? Do you not understand how our court system works? There is another court above them...a court that has/had Scalia and Thomas on it. The presence of those two ensure that the decisions of the Supreme Court cannot be trusted because they, specifically, are piss-poor jurists.

Scalia, for example, was the most activist judge on that court, voting to overturn more laws duly passed by Congress and signed by the President than any other justice.

Scalia would routinely contradict his own arguments from other cases. Take the Obergefell decision. Scalia directly wrote in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas that if L v. T were precedent, then there was no possible way to deny the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.

So when a case regarding the constitutionality of same-sex marriage came before the court, did Scalia follow his own legal reasoning? After all, Lawrence v. Texas was the binding precedent. Thus, by Scalia's own argument, he would have no choice to but to rule in favor of equality, just like the Loving v. Virginia decision.

But he didn't. He contradicted his own argument.

This is hardly an isolated incident. He does it over and over again. When Arizona tried to circumvent US immigration policy, they were denied by the Supreme Court. Scalia dissented...but had to do so by denying his own rulings on executive power: In Morrison v. Olson, Scalia specifically wrote:

the Presidentís constitutionally assigned duties include complete control over investigation and prosecution of violations of the law.

Thus, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which gives the federal government full control over immigration trumps any attempt by an individual state to circumvent those federal policies. Note that in that case, it was about the appointment of special prosecutors, against the directive of the President, to investigate the executive branch. Specifically, the law allowed for the appointment of special prosecutors to investigate the executive branch without the consent of the President. Scalia disapproved of this saying that the executive branch is the only one who can investigate and prosecute violations of the law.

Unless, of course, Scalia thinks that it should be prosecuted and the executive doesn't. Then it's perfectly fine for the executive to be usurped.

And this wasn't a one-off. In Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, he wrote:

This broad discretion rests largely on the recognition that the decision to prosecute is particularly ill-suited to judicial review. Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecutionís general deterrence value, the Governmentís enforcement priorities, and the caseís relationship to the Governmentís overall enforcement plan are not readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake.

So it's clear that Scalia believes that only the executive can engage in prosecution (and note that this was an immigration case). For Arizona to deny the President's policy and usurp his powers would most certainly run afoul of Scalia's stated philosophy, right?

Wrong. Scalia simply ignored his previous opinions in order to get the outcome he wanted.

For more evidence, see here: https://newrepublic.com/...ading-the-law-textual-originalism

So for someone to whine that the 9th Circuit is the "most reversed court" is not a sign that the 9th Circuit is somehow bad.

It simply means that it isn't the final court of review. The Supreme Court gets that job and if it is staffed with incompetent jurists such as Scalia and Thomas, then the fact that the 9th is the "most reversed" is actually a sign that they're more likely to be in the right.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 642 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 12:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6098
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 681 of 990 (799518)
02-10-2017 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 646 by Faith
02-10-2017 1:32 PM


Re: One Conservative Opinion
Faith writes:

quote:
Infowars commentator says the court simply usurped the role of the President; the law is crystal clear that the power is the President's.

Infowars...by which you should read, "Alex Jones"...is not a source. They are lying to you.

You know this because you've been shown how Alex Jones is a liar and is not to be trusted.

So why are you giving him credit?

Oh, that's right...political correctness. You must deny any opinion that seems "liberal" lest you be considered "liberal." It would be politically incorrect to have a stance that seems "liberal," and thus, you avoid such in order to be politically correct.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 646 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 1:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6098
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 682 of 990 (799519)
02-10-2017 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 652 by Faith
02-10-2017 3:22 PM


Re: Another Conservative Opinion
Faith writes:

quote:
Another commentator at Infowars is saying the Constitution itself defines the jurisdiction of the President as covering immigration and national security, another fact that puts the court in the wrong.

Infowars...by which you should read, "Alex Jones"...is not a source. They are lying to you.

You know this because you've been shown how Alex Jones is a liar and is not to be trusted.

So why are you giving him credit?

Oh, that's right...political correctness. You must deny any opinion that seems "liberal" lest you be considered "liberal." It would be politically incorrect to have a stance that seems "liberal," and thus, you avoid such in order to be politically correct.

quote:
Otherwise I haven't had time to listen/read other conservative opinions.

So you admit that you haven't done your homework?

And worse yet, you don't know what your opinion is until a "conservative" other tells you what it should be?

Textbook political correctness. You don't have your own opinion. You are simply a parrot for the "correct" opinion that you are spoonfed by someone else.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 652 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 3:22 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6098
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 683 of 990 (799520)
02-10-2017 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 653 by Faith
02-10-2017 3:24 PM


Re: Extreme Vetting
Faith writes:

quote:
I do confess to being Terrorismphobic.

Then you would be outraged that Trump has told the law enforcement agencies to stop investigating right-wing, conservative, Christian groups.

They are the ones that engage in most terrorism in the US.

If you are truly "terrorismphobic," then any denial of the largest source of terrorism would be anathema to you. Any exaggeration of the threat from the most uncommon source of terrorism would be an outrage since it would be making us less safe.

quote:
Can we add that to the PC arsenal?

Yep. Because of your political correctness, you want to make us less safe. You want to ignore the actual threat in order to declare a false threat. Why? Because to actually pay attention to the largest threat, to pay attention to the real threat goes against your politics.

Textbook political correctness.

Hint: "Political correctness" was coined to describe the right, Faith, not the left.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 653 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 3:24 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 688 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2017 7:26 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6098
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 684 of 990 (799521)
02-10-2017 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 654 by Faith
02-10-2017 3:38 PM


Faith writes:

quote:
I've got Infowars talking away in the background as I type and just realized this report by David Knight is chock full of interesting historical facts that I'm only getting bits and pieces of.

Infowars...by which you should read, "Alex Jones"...is not a source. They are lying to you.

You know this because you've been shown how Alex Jones is a liar and is not to be trusted.

So why are you giving him credit?

Oh, that's right...political correctness. You must deny any opinion that seems "liberal" lest you be considered "liberal." It would be politically incorrect to have a stance that seems "liberal," and thus, you avoid such in order to be politically correct.

You are not being told "historical facts." You are being lied to. You know you are being lied to. You've been shown how they lie to you. And yet, you still think you can trust them.

Indeed, Lincoln had some issues regarding habeas corpus during the Civil War. But here's a question, Faith: Why didn't you know this? Shouldn't you have done your homework first? And now that you know that there were issues regarding Lincoln's presidency, are you going to trust a known liar like Alex Jones and Infowars regarding it?

quote:
It's so frustrating to get such important information in an audio format.

You do realize that the history of the Civil War is not an audiobook or radio program, yes? That you can go to the library and look it up? The staff there will be very helpful in finding out the legal battles fought during the Civil War.

Do you even know what the court battle was about? Does the name "Merryman" mean anything to you?

And the Merryman case is especially important in the current context. Do you know why?

If not, what makes you think you're in a position to have anything of use to say on the subject? Especially if you are getting your information from a known liar such as Infowars?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 654 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 3:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9651
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 685 of 990 (799522)
02-10-2017 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 642 by Faith
02-10-2017 12:28 PM


Re: Ninth District "Most Reversed" Court
As of a few years ago, the Ninth District Court has the distinction of being "the most reversed.

That is what Hannity claimed but that stat is incorrect. The Sixth circuit is the most often reversed with about 87 reversal rate. (Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, Tennesse circuit. Probably not the most liberal...) But note that the Supreme Court probably would not vote to take on a case simply to affirm. In a working, efficient system, most Federal Circuit cases would be either ignored by the Supreme Court or overruled unless there was a conflict between circuits.

quote:
The 9th Circuit is by far the largest circuit. In the 12 months leading up to March 31, 2015, just under 12,000 cases were filed in the 9th Circuit ó more than 4,000 more than the next-largest circuit, the 5th Circuit. Despite that gigantic docket, the Supreme Court heard just 11 cases from the 9th Circuit in 2015, reversing eight.

This means the Supreme Court generally reverses far less than 1 percent of all the cases the 9th Circuit (and other circuits) decide.

http://www.politifact.com/...-most-overturned-court-country-


The Ninth Circuit is actually third highest.

In this case, there is an equally divided Supreme Court rather than a court with a five to four political split. That 5-4 split alone is enough to explain recent differences in confirmation/overturning rates. Trump probably feels that there is no reason to press this issue until he can get his nominee appointed.

Faith writes:

Conservative sources frequently refer to this court as the "Circus Court

Apparently, conservatives spend more time name calling than they do actual analysis.

Edited by NoNukes, : Add stats


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 642 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 12:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6098
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 686 of 990 (799525)
02-10-2017 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 667 by Faith
02-10-2017 5:28 PM


Re: Another Conservative Source Weighs In
Faith writes:

[quote]So here's Frontpagemag on the subject[//quote]

Front Page Magazine...and by that you should read, "David Horowitz" who has ties to Breitbart...is not a source. They are lying to you. Your own quote cites Tucker Carlson, another known liar.

So why are you giving him credit?

Oh, that's right...political correctness. You must deny any opinion that seems "liberal" lest you be considered "liberal." It would be politically incorrect to have a stance that seems "liberal," and thus, you avoid such in order to be politically correct.

quote:
I am of course very pleased to find out that my own rough judgments of the ruling are confirmed by many of the opinions I'm discovering.

You are pleased to be lied to?

Oh, that's right...political correctness. You must deny any opinion that seems "liberal" lest you be considered "liberal." It would be politically incorrect to have a stance that seems "liberal," and thus, you avoid such in order to be politically correct.

quote:
Shows I really do think like a conservative -- meaning, of course, that I'm tuned into the Constitution and to Truth.

Lying for Jesus isn't a sin?

Are you truly claiming that lies, so long as they conform to your opinions, are no longer lies?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 667 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 5:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6098
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 687 of 990 (799526)
02-10-2017 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 671 by Faith
02-10-2017 5:58 PM


Re: Extreme Vetting
Faith writes:

quote:
Islam itself is ideologically terrorist. Period.

The last time a conservative blowhard said, "Period," after their emphatic statement, it was an obvious and blatant lie.

Are you sure you want to join him, Faith?

Because what you said is a lie.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 671 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 5:58 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 689 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 7:51 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 688 of 990 (799527)
02-10-2017 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 683 by Rrhain
02-10-2017 7:02 PM


PC
Hint: "Political correctness" was coined to describe the right, Faith, not the left.

Pretty sure it was coined against the Communists.

quote:
I first heard the phrase "politically correct" in the late 1940s and early 1950s in reference to the political debates between Socialists and members of the United States Communist Party (CP). These debates were an everyday occurrence in my neighborhood in the Bronx until the McCarthy committee and HUAC silenced political talk on the streets. Members of the CP talked about current party doctrine as the "correct" line for the moment. During World War II, the Hitler-Stalin pact caused many CP members considerable pain and often disgrace on my block, which was all Jewish and mostly Socialist. The "correct" position on Stalin's alliance with Hitler was considered to be ridiculous, a betrayal of European Jewry as well as Socialist ideas. The term "politically correct" was used disparagingly to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in equalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance.

--Herbert Kohl


source

Perhaps you are aware of an earlier use?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 683 by Rrhain, posted 02-10-2017 7:02 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 692 by Rrhain, posted 02-10-2017 8:53 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25311
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 689 of 990 (799530)
02-10-2017 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 687 by Rrhain
02-10-2017 7:21 PM


Re: Extreme Vetting
Not a lie.

109 verses in the Koran calling for fighting and killing for Allah -- and something I just read said it's really 123 -- plus the example of Mohammed's murdering methods of "converting" people to Islam, is proof enough, iif jihadist actions all over the world today don't convince you.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 687 by Rrhain, posted 02-10-2017 7:21 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 694 by Rrhain, posted 02-10-2017 9:12 PM Faith has responded

    
Riggamortis
Member
Posts: 115
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


(1)
Message 690 of 990 (799531)
02-10-2017 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 671 by Faith
02-10-2017 5:58 PM


Re: Extreme Vetting
Islam itself is ideologically terrorist. Period.

Western imperialism is worse. Period.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 671 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 5:58 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 691 by jar, posted 02-10-2017 8:25 PM Riggamortis has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
4445
46
4748
...
66NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017