Sweet Jesus, this moderate arrogance is insufferable.

Here’s the deal on being “moderate.” The position is razor-blade thin.

If the “moderate” accepts a “solution” that is one degree left, he becomes a moderate liberal; one degree right and he is a moderate conservative.

So, the “moderate” is forced to balance between the political forces and call out his own name. Politics is not a perfect bell curve, but if it were the moderate would be balanced on the head of a pin in the centerpoint of the apex.

I prefer to think of the political moderate like that goofy glass bird that keeps dunking his beak in the water. A moderate is almost a perpetual motion machine, but he consumes his output in keeping his balance. Power abhors a vaccuum. Moderates are so consumed with keeping the center that political power just by-passes them completely.

It believes once the pure Islamic state is established under a Caliph , that the new state could then launch an offensive nuclear war to destroy all non muslims who do not submit.

But yeah lets listen to cranks like Paul Krugman and those who lick his balls and dare not associate anything like with fascism

Sweet Jesus, this moderate arrogance is insufferable.

And the Justice that Air Amerika Radio sings the praises of and votes in lock-stop with former ACLU chief Ruth Bader Ginsburg, yeah, is a left-winger.

Ford on his worst day was… far, far better than Reagan on [his] best day[].

Oh my God, who the hell moved the sidelines and the endzone to LaLaLand? Oh, it’s VdaK and ILC… got it.

When Justice Stevens, a responsible, moderate jurist is labeled by people as being Left, well then that says volumes about how far the Court has drifted toward the irrational Right. But then, I guess to that irrational Right, Associate Justice O Connor wasn’t pure enuff, true enuff to the Right.

Next up, the irrational Right will be taking away RonnieReagan’s credentials and revising him to be Left-of-Center… or worse, “moderate”.

Stevens as a Lefty? And, just for good measure, the ultimate smear… an elitist. Quick, get a rope and we can still lynch him!

Stevens told me he was troubled by the fact that Yamamoto, a highly intelligent officer who had lived in the United States and become friends with American officers, was shot down with so little apparent deliberation or humanitarian consideration.

I beg to differ. Yamamoto was shot down with the greatest possible humanitarian consideration. Consideration of the American lives that would be saved by disabling the enemy’s most capable leaders.

Stevens might have more accurately said he was:

…troubled by the fact that Yamamoto, a highly intelligent officer who had lived in the United States and become friends with American officers, was shot down with so little **misplaced** humanitarian consideration.

But that answers itself, doesn’t it?

Just like what Golda Meir said about the “palestinians” – they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

It’s just tit for tat. And we ALL know that when you’re speaking about either tits, tats, or scoring, the GayLeftBorgTypes always have a keen interest.

In way, they’re trying to be patriotic by indirectly denying Iran (the cradle of Islamofacism today) exists as a Nation State. No Nation State, then no opportunity for Bush-Cheney to invade in a preemptive strike. No preemptive strike or Iranian war and the GayLeftBorgTypes can keep their “Peace” yardsigns up through 2008.

The Left is just being patriotic by denying there is anything like Islamo-facism in the world. It’s a clever way to disrespect Ahmadinjad and get some revenge for his earlier denial of the presence of gays in Iran. Everybody wins and, for a single moment, the GayLeft is united as a friend of the GayRight… but we all missed that touching moment in time.

BTW, did any of those great liberals at Columbia ask, when Mahmoud Ahmadinjad made that bold claim no gays existed in Iran, who exactly his countrymen were hanging for sodomy? Hmmm… I think our “natural” allies and friends in the Left missed that opportunity. How special.

It’s called a “useful idiot”. Once he becomes useless to them (and he will, like all Infidels), they will lop his head off – ironically, before they lop off any of our conservative heads. It will be the one moment where I will agree with the all-too-real Islamo-facsists.

While there were semantic and perhaps philosophical differences between Nazism and communism, the end result is always the same: brutal oppression and mass graves. It would be the same if the Islamists had their way. It makes the semantic arguments of whether the word “fascist” is accurately applied rather trivial.

Tano rejects all definitions of “fascism” except his own which he conveniently fails to reveal.

LOL HT, exactly.

I prefer to speak of “radical Islam” because the libs are already well established on record for opposing extremes in some religions.

Good point, and I myself was using “Islam-ism” alot… but now that I know “Islamo-fascism” is a new leftie hot button that makes them flounder, I will bring it up more often.

Let them have [rhetorical] ownership of “fascism”…

Umm, let’s not. It describes something real (as in real bad) and important.

Fascism, as practiced in Italy and Germany, was not a religous ideology, and did not demand the destruction or conversion of non-believers [in Fascism].

Didn’t catch that earlier. Wrong answer again! The Nazis tried to institute a new paganism, and persecuted believers of the other religions – e.g., Judaism and (in different ways) Christianity. Remember?

But let’s be generous, and take the claim at face value. It functionally reduces to:

Fascism, as practiced in Italy and Germany, was not concerned with the religious issues Islamo-fascism is concerned with.

Hey…. Do ya think that could have anything to do with why we call it… *Islamo*-fascism? I mean, carefully *not* just calling it ordinary “fascism”?

#39 – brendan – What a joker you are! I said:

This is why Western fascists, such as Hitler and the Nazis, often [emph added; didn't say always!] found that Communist Party members made their best recruits.

You then tried to say, without providing evidence:

..this statement is just factually wrong

But you also say:

…it is certainly true that some former communists/socialists in Germany ended up supporting Hitler…

Which was my point! Thank you for conceding it, though I wish you could have shown less pomposity in pretending you were issuing some sort of correction on me.