…And for those of you who think you have it sooooo bad as a gay person here in the United States.
Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, founder of the IslamOnline web site and head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, is a very influential Islamic cleric often described as a “moderate.”
From our pals at Al Jazeera, broadcast on June 5, 2005, here’s the moderate sheikh on the subject of gay marriage.
Actually, he never reaches the marriage part, because al-Qaradawi gets stuck at the issue of whether to throw gays off buildings or burn them alive.
Here’s a partial transcript of the interview.
Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: Kerry, who ran against Bush, was supported by homosexuals and nudists. But it was Bush who won [the elections], because he is Christian, right-wing, tenacious, and unyielding. In other words, the religious overcame the perverted. So we cannot blame all Americans and Westerners.
But unfortunately, because the Westerners – Americans and others – want to flatter these people on account of the elections, a disaster occurs. In order to succeed and win the elections, he flatters these people, rather than saying to them: No, you are sinning against yourselves, against society, and against humanity. This is forbidden. Instead of leveling with them, people flatter them to win their votes. This is the disaster that has befallen humanity.
Interviewer: How should a homosexual or a lesbian be punished? We mentioned the story of the people of Sodom and how Allah punished them, but how should someone who commits this abomination be punished today?
Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: The same punishment as any sexual pervert – the same as the fornicator.
The schools of thought disagree about the punishment. Some say they should be punished like fornicators, and then we distinguish between married and unmarried men, and between married and unmarried women. Some say both should be punished the same way. Some say we should throw them from a high place, like God did with the people of Sodom. Some say we should burn them, and so on. There is disagreement.
The important thing is to treat this act as a crime.
Now some of you have been convinced by The Advocate and the HRC for all of your lives that there are gay concentration camps with your name on them in Idaho. But it is sad if you can’t see the stark truth of how good we have it here in the United States. I’d rather not have the “right” to marry and be free to debate that issue in public, than live in a Islamic country that debates on how to kill gays and lesbians.
Which side are YOU on in the War On Terror?
[Related Story – Self-Loathing and the Denial of Terrorism] (A must read for many of our moonbat commenters)
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
The words of this Islamo-fascist are sufficient to alert/remind us of the nature of the enemy; your argument is vitiated by the denigration of your fellow gays who happen to disagree with you on Republican policies.
Agape.
People who have a problem with gay life in America are looking at Sweden and the Netherlands, not the Arab world. Throwing up issues in Iran and Arabia can only help in that it allows them to understand they are not mass victims here. I wouldn’t want to live like a Swede or the Dutch in that my government tells me what I can name my children and directs almost every aspect of my life. To live in America you just have to be tougher and stand up for yourself.
I imagine that many radicals think being gay in the South is like being gay in Iran but that is just an outgrowth of their general bigotry against their fellow Americans and southerners in particular.
Bruce, I think you go too far when you suggest gay liberals support this type of thing. Yes, there is a war on terror. It’s dispicable to suggest that all muslims support this sort of thing. It’s like suggesting the fananatics who murder abortion doctors, and burn down abortion clinics and gay bars represent all christians.
I saw that on LGF. But where did this nutball get nudists? Nudists? Or was he referring to the SF idiots in the bicycle protest?
Sweden and the Netherlands, where gays are being assaulted on the streets by immigrants, that Sweden and the Netherlands?
What a strange comment, Gene.
Bruce hasn’t denigrated gays who “disagree with him on Republican policies” (some of which Bruce himself has publicly disagreed with).
Bruce has denigrated those who have raised extreme lunatic charges of Bush building secret gay death camps, or who have acted as apologists for Islamo-fascists.
I obviously can’t speak for you but it would APPEAR, from your comment, that you don’t see a difference between the 2 categories. Now THAT denigrates gays, such as myself, who disagree with Republican policies.
#3 – Eva – If it’s “dispicable to suggest that all Muslims support” terrorism and/or anti-gay bigotry – which #0 does not do, by the way, meaning that you and I are now discussing a point off-topic – then why aren’t there more Muslims who stand up to the terrorists and anti-gay bigots in their midst?
You brought up extreme Christian abortion bombers. Last time I checked, the other Christians were busy condemning them and passing laws against them and (as individual police officers, etc.) throwing them in jail and prosecuting them.
The irony is that, ten to twelve years ago, the Wall Street Journal’s Republican-oriented idiotorial page was lambasting Germany for its stringent naturalization (“Einbuergerung”) requirements, which made it virtually impossible for the guest workers or their descendants to become German citizens. Most of the guest workers were Muslims from Turkey. And, since they weren’t citizens, they could not vote in German elections.
Largely as a result of the WSJ’s lambasting, in 1999-2000 or so–definitely before 9/11–the German government loosened the naturalization requirements a bit, and since then more than a few Auslaender became naturalized. Not a large number, but a little over 100K. Not enough to swing a federal election, but they might be able to swing an election in several locales in big cities, particularly Berlin. And it will probably only become worse as they tend to reproduce at a higher rate than ethnic Germans.
Thank you, WSJ idiotorial page.
2 NBs: (i) Apparently, it is virtually impossible for the German government to deport them.
And (ii) there have been recent reports of so-called “honor killings” among Muslims in Germany. The German government would prosecute the “honor killings” if they can get sufficient evidence. I guess that is one advantage over Muslim countries.
Unfortunately, we’re not prosecuting women who have murdered their babies to make their own lives more convenient.
Eva, I live in San Francisco, in the Castro, a black hole of leftist liberalism, and have for 15 years. I hear and overhear contempt, ridicule and rage directed at GWB, Republicans, Christians, etc. on a regular basis. I never…and I mean not one time…have heard ANY anger directed against Muslim homophobia…which, by the way, makes ordinary all-American homophobia look like a love fest. So if massive and continual silence about this does not indicate something, why is it so…massive and continual? In the home of the freedom-loving, gay-pride-professing, liberal, enlightened, evolved and socially conscious?
And I’d be willing to bet money that none of the denizens of my neighborhood would find it “despicable” to criticize Christians or, as regularly happens here, blaspheme Christ, but they would instantly join you in hectoring school-marm high dudgeon outrage if poor, Third-World, Othered, victimized Muslims…practitioners of the Religion of Peace…were insensitively spoken of, portrayed or…worst of all, offended.
Give me an effing break, Eva. It’s all just too obvious.
I can’t imagine ever considering someone who is “head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research” a moderate. Fatwa is a ruling on a point of Islamic law. Islamic law . . . the same law that allows women who cheat on their husbands to be stoned to death, requires women to wear those hot-as-hell outfits, requires men to grow beards and, yes, thinks it appropriate to throw gays off buildings or burn them alive.
Title of Post: ” Reality Check For Gay Islamo-Apologists”
Then I read the entire post and guess what: there is not one “Gay Islamo-Apologist” mentioned. C’mon Bruce, if it’s important enough to be in the title of your post, you ought to be able to identify these “Gay Islamo-Apologists” by name. So who are they?
#13 – If I were making a list, I’d include anyone who has claimed Bush to be a greater threat than Islamo-fascism.
Not that Bush isn’t wrong on a great many things; I am talking about a question of prioritization here.
Ian, I’m curious about your priorities. Are you one who thinks Bush is a greater threat than Islamo-fascism?
If the answer is no, then a follow-up: what positive steps would you like to see the U.S. take against the Islamo-fascists?
There is a real problem with the term “moderate” Islamist.
No Muslim can find any support in either the Quran, or the hadith for even a miniscule tolerance of gays or for anything except murderous intent toward all non-Muslims. The very early Quranic verses teaching tolerance have no weight since they are abolished by the doctrine of pre-emption which states all later verses abrogate all earlier ones. I think many of our friends simply don’t know Islam at all. That is the only reason I can imagine why our SF friends don’t get it.
I lived in San Francisco for many years and until I studied the writings and history of Islam, I didn’t get it either.
I’ve never seen a more vivid illustration of the stockholm syndrome most gay republican extremists suffer from. “At least we’re not being strung up by our testicles like they do in Iran!!!”. Would you listen to yourself? Jesus. Set the bar low enough and anything can be considered a success.
LOL….Dan, if the gay community cared one whit about equality, it wouldn’t have given tens of millions of dollars to and endorsed as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” people who vociferously supported stripping gays of rights.
GP nailed it; the only people around here with “Stockholm syndrome” are gay Democrats who insist that the US is like Iran, that concentration camps are operating, and that all Republicans and Christians want to kill gays; therefore, they have to support homophobic Democrats.
Let see…. I’ve read just about every issue of the Advocate since about 1983. The closest I’ve ever seen it to having a story about gay concentration camps was when it reported on such a camp that had been set up to segregate AIDS patients (regardless of sexual orientation) from society. And that was in…… Cuba.
But thats Bruce for ya, never afraid to mix facts with persecution fantasies.
There is the mythology that conservatives, and Republicans are Nazi’s etc., but I don’t think it was generated in the pages of the Advocate.
It wasn’t helped by William F. Buckley’s suggestion (I assume in jest) at the start of the AIDS crisis that all known homosexuals with HIV should be tattooed across their buttocks. I can appreciate his erudite and intellectual-elitist sense of humor, but considering the times in which he made the original remark I have to say it was an extremely stupid and offensive thing for him to say. Or at least to say on the record.
But the symbol of the tattooing brought to mind the tattoos placed on the arms of Jews during the Holocaust. And symbols have power. In much the same way the vision and symbol of Mathew Shepard crucified on a fence like a scarecrow made a deep impression on the national psyche many years later.
And there are about as many lefties out there who think the US is honestly as bad as Iran as there are right-wingers who believe in the whole UN black helicopter conspiracy. Grow up.
#14: “Are you one who thinks Bush is a greater threat than Islamo-fascism?”
No. A few things I would do about Islamo-fascism. First is something I would have started soon after the shock of 9/11 had dissipated i.e. in 2002 but it’s better late than never: a crash program to reduce our dependence on oil to the point where it cannot be used by Islamo-fascists against us and where its profitability to those same Islamo-fascists is dramatically reduced. Without those huge profits, there’ll be a lot less money available to be given to terrorists.
Second, I would set a timetable for withdrawl from Iraq – it’s going to happen anyway because we have not set up the military to be capable of its current level of action for more than a few years so it’s better that it be on our terms. At the same time, I would dramatically increase our presence in Afghanistan and push to finish the job we and our allies (including the French) started in 2001: nail bin Laden and smash the Taliban once and for all. That would be a tremendous psychological blow to al Qaeda and fitting retribution for 9/11. I admit there are arguments for staying in Iraq but we have really accomplished as much as we set out to do: Saddam is gone, there are no WMds, the Iraqis have a Constitution and an elected functional government. It may not be a Jeffersonian democracy but it is what it is and at some point the Iraqis themselves have to take control of their destiny. I have more ideas but no time right now to expound on them.
We’ve got to get beyond this concept of a simple deadline. As a liberal, even I don’t support the concept of setting some arbitrary date and then walking. However, I see no problem with the idea of setting some simple goals. “By (x), we will have trained (y) Iraqi policeman. If the casualty rate subsequently decreases by (z)%, we will send home (q) soldiers.”
This doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, but still most conservatives seem opposed to even this. We need some kind of exit plan, that’s all.
Why do we need an exit plan at all? Whats wrong with staying there for the next 25-50 years? What happens if thats what the Iraq government invites us to do? After all, we stayed in Germany without controlling their government. And we need a base of military operations somewhere in the area besides Qatar.
If you are afraid its going to inflame Muslim opinions of the US, don’t think that leaving is going to win you any points. When we leave, whenever that is, the Jihadist are going to proclaim victory.
We should stay in Iraq, fortify the borders, stay out of the local government, and bring in nuclear asserts to offset those coming up from Iran.
I agree with Gryph. 🙂
Maybe it’s because I’ve been stationed overseas (the Philippines) but I see a lot of benefits to having bases in other countries. There are the military reasons, such as having an infrastructure in place, “just in case”. There are also huge cultural exchange benefits. Maybe it’s silly to say but I’d just love to see bases in Afghanistan and Iraq become accompanied tours: Three years bring the wife and kids.
Yet if we do leave completely from either country having a *plan* is good, but publishing that plan might not be so good. Two reasons… 1) if you decide to change the plan later because of circumstances you get politically reamed at home and 2) it gives the enemy information about just how long they have to wait you out.
I think that there is far more of a *plan* than the opposition lets on. Our military and the administration announces projections on these things all the time. They *are* planning.
Exactly, Patrick. Iraq needs to be the new Germany. We can pull out of that rotting corpse of a country and place our bases closer to where the future lies (Turkey, India, etc). Our presence has a very civilizing effect on regions as post-war Europe and East Asia affirm.
Why are we using the term “Islamo-facists”? I agree with Arctic Fox that Islam is a threat to gay men and women, whether the Muslims are moderates or extremists. (Iran is not the only Islamic country that imprisons or executes gays.)
While there are some religious fundamentalists on the far-right fringe in this country who advocate imprisoning (and even executing) gays, as well as prostitutes and doctors who perform abortions, even most of the religious right ignores them and they aren’t a threat.
(BTW, Bruce, I stopped subscribing to The Advocate after it printed an article in which the author accused Ronald Reagan of murdering gay men because his administration didn’t react immediately to the AIDS crisis in the early 80s, but during the years I did subscribe I can’t recall ever reading anything that suggested the presence of or planning for concentration camps for gay men and women.)
#25 – Trace, you can use the term of your choice. I will use “Islamo-fascist” when I choose, because, well, ummm, they are Islamic and fascist. (In the case of Saddam Hussein and Syria and the Baath Party: quite literally so – they took their inspiration and organization directly from the German Nazi Party, but consciously Islamized it, particularly in the last 15 years. In the cases of Wahabbism / al Qaeda and of Iran: they are not so modelled on the Nazis; but, given their dictatorial hateful vision, they may as well be.)
As for the secret concentration camps being readied for gays: it gets alleged by ranting lefties in this forum, from time to time. Also NDT remembers a gay publication that alleged it in the last couple years – ask him for link.
#20 – I agree we should get ourselves and our allies to be a lot less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.
But first, let’s be clear that the right way to do that is (1) for the short to medium term, greatly increase our own oil production, and (2) for the medium to long term, find complete alternatives to oil.
Second, let’s be clear that, with the way India and China and Europe are going, even a total elimination of our dependence on Middle East oil is not going to make much of a dent in Middle Eastern oil profits.
As for the rest of your program:
(a) Please note that if Iraq withdrawal is going to happen anyway – and believe me, it is – for the reasons you gave, and others as well – then we don’t need to force a timetable. The military will set a logistical timetable eventually, but let them come to it in the next 6 months, as they continue to defeat the terrorists and the insurgents and to make native Iraqi forces more and more capable. We can’t just leave the Iraqi forces / government in their current state, but the good news is, they are well on their way now.
(b) Also note that the Taliban is being smashed. Their “spring offensive” has gone quite badly for them, or smashingly well for the NATO forces. Just as with Iraq, the media has been negative in their coverage to a misleading extreme. Make sure you are getting your info from milblogs, not Daily Kos.
(c) Having said that, please note that the only way to get bin Ladin at this point – which I would be totally happy to see – is to physically conquer terrority of Pakistan’s; not unlike what they had to do in Iraq to draw the net around Zarqawi. I’m only saying it’s a diplomatic and legal problem you’d need to solve along the way. Iraq came with a far stronger legal and diplomatic basis for invasion, including 30 years of the most extreme human rights and WMD abuses imaginable and, consequent to that, 12 years of U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution effectively voiding the sovereignty of Saddam’s government.
Now, taking a step back – you’ve said some interesting things here.
1) You’ve said you do NOT think Bush is a greater threat than Islamo-fascism.
2) You’ve said the way to deal with Islamo-fascism is to:
a. eliminate our dependence on Middle Eastern oil
b. kill bin Ladin
c. others you haven’t expounded
The fact that you’d do so — and admit it in public — says more about you than all of your bed-wetting liberal nonsense.
#27: “I agree we should get ourselves and our allies to be a lot less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.”
I want to make clear that I want us to be independent of conventional oil period. It does us no good to put only ME oil off limits because there is insufficient conventional oil elsewhere middle to long term to do us much good. ANWAR drilling and other touted efforts off the US shore offer no solution whatsoever. We have to get off oil as an energy source period.
We can get pretty fast results with conservation. I fail to understand why the President has not badgered the American people that it is their patriotic duty to conserve energy. Seeing “Support our Troops” magnets on gas guzzling SUVs makes me sick. After 9/11, we should have put more stringent fuel economy measures in place especially for light trucks and SUVs but we must do it now. I also would like to see a revenue neutral gasoline tax imposed to prod us all into saving gasoline. It would have been nice if we had done that when it was $1.50 a gallon but we still can do it now. The tax would be offset by some kind of credit/rebate, the logistics of which would have to be worked out. Bring the estate tax back and reverse some of the tax cuts for the very highest earners and have it earmarked for helping to pay for our escalating military costs. The poor and middle class are sending their kids to fight, the least the Paris Hiltons can do is pony up some money to ensure our soldiers get the best equipment.
We need to patch up our tattered alliances as best we can. I’m not sure we can do that with the present arrogant gang in control but our travails in Iraq have shown the rest of the world that we are not invulnerable. Iraq was a terrible miscalculation that has given NK and Iran the opportunity to become real nuclear threats. Does anyone really doubt that the calculations in Pyongyang and Teheran after the fall of the Taliban – and especially if we had nailed bin Laden – would have been quite different if we had not got tied down in Iraq? So back to treating our allies with respect rather than contempt.
Quite frankly, the events since 2001 have raised serious questions about whether we can fight a protracted “war on terror” (especially if it involves invading and occupying other countries) with a volunteer military. If this truly is WW4 that is going to engaged worldwide for decades, then we really need to consider bringing back the draft. Many here claim the survival of Western Civilization is at stake. If this is true then we really need to be on a full war footing and that includes a draft.
“I fail to understand why the President has not badgered the American people that it is their patriotic duty to conserve energy.”
Then let me fill you in.
First – it isn’t anyone’s patriotic duty to conserve energy. The production, consumption, and price of energy just “are what they are”. As production goes down (due to, say, refinery restrictions that we’ve had in the U.S. for 30 years now) and/or as worldwide consumption goes up (due to Chinese, Indian, and Latin American economic development), the price naturally rises and people conserve (or not) accordingly.
Second, as liberals in general are so fond of noting when it comes to stuff like abortion or sexual abstinence, it isn’t the President’s duty to badger the American people about anything to do with their lifestyles.
Third, if you really feel it is our patriotic duty to conserve energy – then why aren’t the Al Gore, Barbra Streisand and Yearly Kos-attendee types leading the way? Last time I checked, they had absolutely no qualms about flying jets (often private ones) everywhere. If you are part of that political persuasion, you should start by badgering them to set an example.
“ANWAR drilling and other touted efforts off the US shore offer no solution whatsoever.”
Wrong answer. They offer the chance to greatly increase U.S. oil production, and so make us independent of Middle Eastern oil. In the medium term. I agree that in the long term, we need to get other technologies (solar, nuclear, you name it) to the point where they can effectively substitute for nearly all oil consumption.
“I also would like to see a revenue neutral gasoline tax imposed to prod us all into saving gasoline.”
Again, no need: market forces (rising prices due to rising Indian and Chinese consumption) will be forcing us all to do that, slowly but increasingly as time goes by. – But if you really believe in a gas tax – then again, talk to the Kos crowd and see if you can get the Democrats to run on it for this November. P.S. I am grateful you said “revenue neutral”.
“Bring the estate tax back…”
Why on earth??? So the Soros, Rockefeller, Streisand, Gore and Kennedy families of the world can continue to escape it entirely, while successful and productive small (million dollar) business owners are further screwed over? And that’s part of fighting terrorism? No way dude!!! 🙂
“The poor and middle class are sending their kids to fight…”
Voluntarily. No one’s being drafted – thank you, Richard Nixon!! 😉
“We need to patch up our tattered alliances as best we can. I’m not sure we can do that with the present arrogant gang in control…”
That’s another of your great canards – that the Bush Administration has somehow been “unilateralist” or “not maintained our alliances properly”. Fact 1: Every single thing the Bush Administration has done in foreign policy, they have done with allies and multilateral policies. Fact 2: Every single thing Kerry proposed in this area in the 2004 campaign, the Bush Administration was already doing and continues to do – with the sole (and proper) exception of turning control of our fight against terrorism over to the French.
“Does anyone really doubt that the calculations in Pyongyang and Teheran after the fall of the Taliban – and especially if we had nailed bin Laden – would have been quite different if we had not got tied down in Iraq?”
What are you talking about? That’s a ridiculous statement! The factor holding us back with North Korea is China; nothing can be down there unless they want it. And did you happen to notice that Iraq and Afghanistan border Iran, meaning we can pressure them from 2 sides now? If Saddam Hussein were still in power, Iran’s mullahs would be even more secure, evil and reckless.
“Quite frankly, the events since 2001 have raised serious questions about whether we can fight a protracted “war on terror”…”
Because of all the hatefulness and misinformation of the Vietnam-hypnotized Left; I agree.
“…with a volunteer military.”
Nope. The volunteer military is far more professional and effective than any military – read: DRAFT military – in our history, and has been doing just fine.
“If this truly is WW4 that is going to engaged worldwide for decades, then we really need to consider bringing back the draft.”
Notice how this idea always, but always, comes from the Left? (The volunteer military was, again, a Republican creation.)
Again, Ian, if you really believe in the idea of the draft (which I don’t – I find it reprehensible betrayal of fundamental Western values), see if you can talk the Kos / Democratic crowd into running on that idea for November.
(Q: But Calarato… you’re saying that WW2 / Roosevelt were WRONG to fight with a draft?!
A: You got it. And they were also wrong to fight with racially segregated battalions, such as Japanese-only and Black-only. And Lincoln / the Union Army were wrong to conscript, i.e. immediately re-enslave, the ex-slaves. Just because a war is a good cause or a step forward, doesn’t mean they did everything right. Forced conscription is slavery.)
Calarato in comment 26: I’m not disputing your right to use the term “Islamo-Facist”. I’m just saying I disagree with it if it’s intended to describe a specific group of Muslins. That’s because I believe Islam — as practiced by moderates or Islamist fundamentalists — is a threat to gay men and women. (In fact, I think Islam is a threat to Western cultures.)
Rightwing Prof blusters:
Bed-wetting? You have odd fixations. You must into “Water Sports”.
Liberal or Conservative, prior to the internet, national and international level gay and lesbian newsmagazines were essentially non-existent. There have been of course many great and not-so-great local and regional papers.
And there are still standard newspapers in the USA today that refuse cover gay and lesiban issues, unless its to denigrate them as sexual deviants.
So if you wanted to find anything out about whats going on nationally concerning gays and lesibans, your choices are very limited. (much less so now of course).
It’s sort of like TV before the advent of cable. So get a clue you doddering old buzzard.
“Fuel economy measures”… hehe. I just love this idea of improving gas mileage with laws. While we’re at it, let’s make a law that food must appear on everyone’s dinner table each night. World hunger problem solved by liberals overnight! You go girl!
High gas prices are the quickest way to solve our “oil addiction”. Conservation is spurred by ever increasing gas prices. It’s callled motivation. Why aren’t Democrats cheering?
#34: “I just love this idea of improving gas mileage with laws.”
Of course you love it: it works.
Works? I’m not driving less, consolidating my trips in the car, and whatever else I can do because of a government program. I’m doing it because I don’t want to pay for gas I don’t really *need* to pay for. People buying new cars, at least the ones *I* know, are buying ones that get as good gas mileage as possible because they don’t want to pay for gas they don’t *need* to pay for.
As for laws about gas mileage, I’ve read some really good arguments that the whole SUV epidemic is the side effect of early regulations about gas mileage. The laws made station wagons undesirable and created a market demand for a passenger vehicle built on a truck frame, since those had different rules. Yes, I’m iffy on the details, maybe someone can set me straight.
Still, they didn’t used to *have* SUVs and now they do.
#34: “I just love this idea of improving gas mileage with laws.”
Of course you love it: it works.
No, it doesn’t Ian. Or else why do we have all those SUVs today that you denounce in #29? LOL
What works is the market. Like when market forces produce higher gas prices and THEN people (another market force) start wanting higher-mileage cars.
As Dale said: No government bureaucrat’s decree, in all of human history, has ever put food on someone’s table.
God may have created the Universe ex nihilo by decree, and liberals and bureaucrats may in turn believe they are God and can also create things by decree, but that just shows how unbelievably fucked up lhe left-liberals are.
The only time government laws saying “There shall be cars getting 30 mpg” or “There shall be no child labor” and so on, ever work, is WHEN and BECAUSE the REAL PEOPLE and REAL ECONOMIC ACTORS out in the world ALREADY are going in the decreed direction. (Little-known historical fact: government laws against child labor were largely passed AFTER child labor was already 90% eliminated in the economy and on its way to being 100% eliminated.)
In all cases where real economic actors haven’t already gone (or would otherwise refuse to go, if the government wasn’t holding them at gunpoint) in the decreed direction, the government / bureaucratic decree doesn’t work. We know that situation by its name, Socialism.
“[SUVs were first invented because] regulations about gas mileage… made station wagons undesirable and created a market demand for a passenger vehicle built on a truck frame, since those had different rules…”
That sounds about right.
338: “why do we have all those SUVs today”
Well, large SUV sales aren’t doing all that well and the original large Hummer is ending production. CAFE standards worked well. Just because there was a loophole for light trucks and SUV’s doesn’t change the underlying fact.
You conservatives all wax poetically about how we are in a monumental clash of civilizations where the very future of the West is threatened. Yet, aside from clicking away at your keyboards and attaching the odd “Support Our Troops” magnet on your SUV, I don’t see any of you actually wanting to put the country on a real war footing. Bush has stated that Iraq – and presumably Afghanistan – will be something for his successor(s) to deal with. Meanwhile he toys with the idea of attacking Iran. This September, our troops will have been fighting in Iraq for longer than it took us to achieve victory in Europe in WWII. The current military was not designed for these multi-theater protracted wars and it’s beginning to show. Yet you refuse to even consider the mildest proposals such as the President declaring it our patriotic duty to conserve energy or closing the CAFE loopholes for SUVs and light trucks!
This September, our troops will have been fighting in Iraq for longer than it took us to achieve victory in Europe in WWII.
With, one might add, approximately 1/150th the casualties.
The current military was not designed for these multi-theater protracted wars and it’s beginning to show.
If this were Clinton’s military, where a destroyer can be crippled and nearly sunk by two men in a dinghy, you would be right. But over the past five years, the military has received additional funding and support, as well as the freedom to shoot denied it by the Democrats. All of those have made it far more effective.
Furthermore:
Yet you refuse to even consider the mildest proposals such as the President declaring it our patriotic duty to conserve energy or closing the CAFE loopholes for SUVs and light trucks!
Or:
I fail to understand why the President has not badgered the American people that it is their patriotic duty to conserve energy.
The President has both proposed new CAFE rules and harped on conservation. Your point?
Okay, this is my optimism showing again, but Ian… if SUV sales aren’t doing that well, maybe it’s because people are chosing cars with better gas mileage. Market forces, supply and demand.
As for it being a patriotic duty to conserve energy… we don’t have a particular shortage. We have an annoyance. If we had a *problem* we could do all sorts of things to solve it including domestic drilling and nuclear power… but the “problem” isn’t important enough to overcome the resistance to those things… still, it’s important enough to impose coercive laws on your fellow citizens?
We aren’t being asked to go around with our little red wagons asking for iron to make tanks or being asked to go without panty hose to make more parachutes or being told it’s our patriotic duty to grow a victory garden.
Not enough misery for you?
This war, like any, is a learning experience and the only people saying that our troops aren’t able to handle it have been saying that since day one… nothing new, no progression to “beginning to show”, same old BS.
Ian S incredibly writes: “Yet, aside from clicking away at your keyboards and attaching the odd “Support Our Troops” magnet on your SUV, I don’t see any of you actually wanting to put the country on a real war footing….” What a sneering petty baseless thing to write.
I kept waiting for those like Ian S to start a groundswell against all those “Support Our Troops” yellow ribbons by sporting something other than fading Kerry-Edwards bumber stickers… how about “Screw the US and the WOT” or a red (for all the blood of innocents we’ve shed in these false policing actions) ribbon “We’ve killed 1/2 the World; Who’s Next?”.
Come on, Ian S. Drop by the local Democrat Party HdQtrs and encourage them to make a visible protest against American hegemony, colonialism, and rape of the world’s resources… they gotta have a bumper sticker for your moped.
How much money did MoveOn.org raise for the last election? If liberals took the money from trying to force people to live by their code of morality, and instead put it into funding research and investing in alternative energy companies, they could actually make money meeting a demand while saving… oh wait. No, that would just prove that problems can be solved without using government force and make them look foolish for being wrong about everything all this time. It won’t happen.
Bingo, Dale!
Leftist millionaires like John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Teddy Kennedy rant and rave, for instance, about how poor people need healthcare. Let them pay for it themselves, if they think it’s so important.
Rich Democrats like George Soros could fix nine-tenths of the problems that they rant about if they were willing to spend their own money. But instead, they want to tax the working class.
(1) Talk with Iraqi GBT people and they will tell you some important things about how the Islamic fundamentalist have taken over the government, and how the Badr Corp is targeting gay people for death.
(2) The conservative mantra appears to be “do what we say or else, think how we think or else, and live like we live or else.” Or else you will be denounced. This sounds to be like conservatives have become aplogists for Communism.
(3) BTW, I actually grew up as an American in the Muslim Middle East so I know what I am talking about.
I don’t think this will raise the esteem of the Sheikh in your eyes, but here’s a post I wrote analysing his comments on that programme, and disputing MEMRI’s representation:
http://gaymuslims.wordpress.com/2006/06/27/are-gays-perverts/