Does a "small town" American have it right?

[exiledgator]

Originally Posted by llm85

No, you are wrong. The report says: "Table 6 shows the concentration of single issue terrorism for the four decades spanned by the data. Recall, single issue events include such attacks as anti-abortion, anti-Catholic, or anti-nuclear."

I am not going to be drawn into an pro-life discussion with you. I am sticking with the OP which says that the Obama Administration has labeled pro-lifers as terrorists. I have give you two examples. Why can't a liberal ever say something like "wow, it looks like I was wrong, the Obama administrattion has in fact done/admitted/called XYZ."?

This is example of why an intelligent conversation cannot be held with a liberal. They ask for proof. It is provided. Then they will refuse to admit when they are wrong and when faced with such facts, they try to change this discussion.

Pfft. I'm done with this thread.

With this logic, anyone named Ted or Timothy are deemed terrorists by the US Government.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by llm85

No, you are wrong. The report says: "Table 6 shows the concentration of single issue terrorism for the four decades spanned by the data. Recall, single issue events include such attacks as anti-abortion, anti-Catholic, or anti-nuclear."

I am not going to be drawn into an pro-life discussion with you. I am sticking with the OP which says that the Obama Administration has labeled pro-lifers as terrorists. I have give you two examples. Why can't a liberal ever say something like "wow, it looks like I was wrong, the Obama administrattion has in fact done/admitted/called XYZ."?

This is example of why an intelligent conversation cannot be held with a liberal. They ask for proof. It is provided. Then they will refuse to admit when they are wrong and when faced with such facts, they try to change this discussion.

Pfft. I'm done with this thread.

I think the main point is that just because a few extreme abortion opponents have committed acts of violence, it doesn't mean that the Obama administration or anyone else reasonable is trying to put that label on all abortion opponents.
Otherwise, you apparently don't believe that terrorism in the name of abortion opposition is terrorism. We disagree on that.

[Swampmaster]

this is not a real letter---it's a bunch of stuff copied and pasted at a zillion sites.

[Gatorrick22]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

How about you explain what's true there, because pretty much everything is either just false, a strawman or weird equivalency (like how watching porn on TV in private is somehow comparable to a nativty scene in public?).

One is acceptable and the other is considered un-Constitutional by the leftists. That's the connection that you're not able to decipher.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by Gatorrick22

One is acceptable and the other is considered un-Constitutional by the leftists. That's the connection that you're not able to decipher.

the fact that one is private and the other is on public property is a pretty big distinction. you should be able to decipher that.

[AzCatFan]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

It must be uncomfortable to be in such a tiny minority in your own state.

http://www.pewstates.org/projects/st...on-85899390295

Minority, yes. Tiny? Not so much. Romney won Arizona by less than 10 points, and that was after the Obama campaign strategically decided not to put up a fight in Arizona, but rather concentrate resources on other swing states such as Florida and Ohio. Strategy worked, of course.

Also, being a "political minority" must be a very different experience than being a racial minority, because on the surface, nobody can tell my political leanings. I'm not one for bumper stickers and political t-shirts, so I'd imagine the majority of acquaintances I run into on a daily basis (neighbors, parents at school, etc.) have no idea I'm the atheist next door! In fact, the only time I ever get interesting looks about my political leanings is when I go to vote. I live in a heavy LDS neighborhood that leans politically similar to Utah (where Romney won 75% of the vote). I am one of a few D's in my district, and I usually vote early in the morning, dressed for work, with my daughter before I drop her off for school. And as my brother puts it, the election workers are looking for where I hide the horns and goat legs since I look so normal, but am voting for evil.

Last but not least, the businesses in Arizona are slowly stepping up to the plate when it comes to immigration issues, and not surprisingly, they agree with my point of view. A recent Forbes article highlights many of the economic problems that arise when states pass laws like Arizona SB 1070. It's a similar story in Alabama and Georgia as well. And eventually, the businesses will step up and put money behind candidates they see as more business friendly (read more immigrant friendly). It's already happening in Arizona, as Russell Pearce, the State Senator that sponsored SB 1070, lost a recall election in 2011, and then lost the subsequent primary in 2012 by 8 points. The reasons? His competition were surprisingly well funded. Throw in a rising Hispanic vote, and even in one of the more conservative districts in Arizona (I live in a neighboring district), the most staunch, anti-immigration politician is disgraced.

Back to the OP and the simpleton message included. Again I ask, why should we compare our Mexican border with the border between S. and N. Korea? Other than being an internationally recognized border, what other similarities are there? And if there aren't any, shouldn't our respective border policies also reflect that?

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Gatorrick22

One is acceptable and the other is considered un-Constitutional by the leftists. That's the connection that you're not able to decipher.

Actually, you can watch porn in private and have a nativity scene on private property. I could get plowed in the a#$ by 10 truckers, or faithfully reenact the passion play in private too. So, I really don't see the connection. Meanwhile I can't watch porn or display a nativity scene on public property. So, KABOOM to this argument.

[Gatorrick22]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Actually, you can watch porn in private and have a nativity scene on private property. I could get plowed in the a#$ by 10 truckers, or faithfully reenact the passion play in private too. So, I really don't see the connection. Meanwhile I can't watch porn or display a nativity scene on public property. So, KABOOM to this argument.

[CalSFGator]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Actually, you can watch porn in private and have a nativity scene on private property. I could get plowed in the a#$ by 10 truckers, or faithfully reenact the passion play in private too. So, I really don't see the connection. Meanwhile I can't watch porn or display a nativity scene on public property. So, KABOOM to this argument.

Ouch, the classic heterosexual atheist dilemma. What is more painful to suffer through?