To come up with a chess analogy, Fischer’s comments about the Palestinians “striking back” is the same as player Black complaining that White took his knight because Black took two of White’s pawns. It was revenge by White on Black. In reality, White is going for checkmate and so is Black. Even if Black had done nothing offensive against White, White would still take all of black’s pieces if given a chance.

Even if the West had done nothing to offend or aggravate Arabs and Muslims, Muslims would still seek the destruction of Western civilization, for so long as the West exists, Shariah will not have won.

Fischer should stick to what he knows, which is not politics.

So yes, extremist views are out there, but I don’t think they’re about to take over the mainstream. They’re very fringe in liberal circles as well as conservative, your therapist friend notwithstanding.

Liberalism = More and more *ssh#les telling fewer and fewer taxpayers what they must do in every aspect of their private lives.

Sure we will, dipsticks: a bunch of fanatical Wahhabi terrorists murdered 3,000 innocent people. What else is there to know? It’s impossible not to come away with the impression that what they mean by “what really happened” is some kind of neocon/oil industry/dirty Jew conspiracy.

What’s really weird is how liberals can hold these beliefs even when their idols, like Bill Clinton, forthrightly deny them. (Bill’s strong denunciations of “truther” idiocy since 9/11 has gained him far more respect from me than anything he did in office.)

I’m not just talking about the stoner kids down at the coffeehouse, either. I’m talking about adults in their forties or older, who have real jobs and real lives, yet still can comfortably believe the President of the United States arranged mass murder of the citizens he’s sworn to protect in order to — well, they never really do explain why. Something about oil, maybe. Oil explains everything, apparently.

More and more I become convinced that liberalism should be recognized as a form of mental illness. It genuinely disrupts people’s ability to think coherently, relate to other people, and live a normal life.

Trimegistus, from my perspective many views held by some right-wingers strike me as just as paranoid and absurd as those held by the 9/11 Truthers (this definitely does not include Neo here, but it certainly includes people who believe that the entire news media is a neo-Stalinist conspiracy to undermine conservativism, etc.)

I don’t know what sort of wackos you hang out with, but they’re certainly in the tiny minority. Clinton of course denounces the 9/11 Truthers for the same reason most liberals do: because they’re clearly wack jobs. Seriously, if most of the “liberals” you know are 9/11 Truthers, you really do need to get out more.

Cant say I’ve ever ran into anyone who’ve ever expressed quite that. I have ran into quite a few people who’ve imagined that fanatical followers of very fundamentalist branches of that religion would like to see one or both outcomes come true and are willing to kill thousands of people in one morning for this same religion.

Can you believe that Xan? Actual Americans who believe this could well happen.

Almost as if it were radical Muslims or something that flew those planes into the World Trade Towers and not a Mosad plot done with the full knowledge of George Bush.

“It’s a good thing that sort of thinking doesn’t influence the political debate, especially when it comes to national security matters.”

Amen brother. Soon as you know it, we might want to shove democracy down somebody else’s throat.

January 18th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Crazy conspiracy-theorists indeed. Unbelievably, there is even an entire subset of Americans who believe that all Muslims not only possess the desire, but the actual ability to conquer our country and force us all to convert to Islam. What wackiness! It’s a good thing that sort of thinking doesn’t influence the political debate, especially when it comes to national security matters.

Who are these people who believe this?

I do believe yo’re just makign this up.

I’m one of the more vocal anti-Jihadists and I know certainly well that not EVERY Muslims is any one particular thing.. and those of us who have come to our anti-Jihad view have done so after years of research into this dark religion and we certainly know the distinctions between a religion and the way its followers implement it in the real world.

It’s people like you who show no evidence of actually understanding the first thing about Islam and yet so self-deluded-confidently think you can judge teh veracity of other people’s criticsm of it.

His anti-Semitic lunacies at the end really ruin his legacy.

As for anti-Semites, I’ll borrow a cold phrase from the U.S. Marines—Shoot, Shovel, Forget. (Close enough.)

Finally, to the good soul above who wondered if liberalism is a sign of mental disease….

Look up “Antisocial Personality Disorder” in the DSM for psychiatrists. You’d be absolutely amazed how many of the symptoms match what libs pump up every day.

Here’s the informal Wikipedia version….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_Personality_Disorder#Symptoms

I mean, like, it’s nuts, totally nuts to think that a world religion of over a billion people could ever morph into a threat against Western Society. I know plenty of Muslims and they are very nice people. They blend in so well wherever they are. Look at England or France. There must be something very compelling and welcoming about their religion that we would all benefit from understanding and appreciating - rememberhow readily Christians in the Middle East welcomed them when Mohammad and fellow missionaries began knocking on doors way back when. Heck, most of them even converted. Ask the Greeks. It’s not as if they got so popular by evangelizing the world at the point of a sword or anything. Sheesh! What paranoia!

Sure, their religious book exhorts them to kill, conquer or enslave the infidel, especially Jews, but it’s just a book, for God’s sake! The world has seen plenty of books written by rag-tag truthers in their time that never really amounted to much - you know, Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, the Little Red Book. Are you BushChimpyHitlerBurton neo-cons really against free speech? That’s what it’s really all this about, isn’t it? I’m not a truther, by the way, although I think that they are right to be so afraid of our leaders - the real ones -don’t you? As far as the World Trade Towers are concerned, it was just some psycho goat herders in Afghanistan that got lucky. Never happen again! Nope, nope, nope! Never, never, never.

There, now that I’ve gotten all this off my chest, I will retire back to my little life and maybe listen to some quiet music and take a nap. Maybe I’ll smoke a joint to help me settle down, while I am at it, now that you neo-con paranoids have made me so upset. I refuse to live my life in fear, so let’s not have any more of this scary Voldemort talk, shall we?

Does anyone on this thread want to talk about Global Warmening? Now, that’s serious!

Angry man. Died young.

That was great.. I almost respond with a fury but I thought I should read your post a few more times to make sure I understood you and now I do.. Good job

So quite! “He understood”?

Hah…

Look to all your madness comments and racial view just vomiting stuff.

Do you know that words when it comes from your moth can’t be turned back to your mouth dud?

Sorry Sergy but if you are talking about the French version of the Enlightenment, it is no help since they were predominately an anti-Christian movement whose “reason” was not based on classic values or on empiracle evidence. For folks who wish to idolize those people, there is the small matter of the French revolution with the reign of terror where the “enlightened” ones put their views into practice. I understand that Karl Marx was a great admirer of their movement.

I assume by objective truth you mean empirical evidence. Empiracism separated from God works well with material objects and substances but has totally failed in the moral realm. If I can kill you and take your wife for my sex slave and take over your property with no consequences against me, what empirical evidence can you offer me to prevent me from doing it? Even the great one himself, Charles Darwin, believed that some races are more evolved than others and believed that genocide is a natural and inevitable consequence of the struggle for survival.

I recommend the inexpensive three volume paperback version of these documents that has recently been published by the Center for the Study of Political Islam, (cspipublishing.com) because, they have produced translations that are faithful to the originals but are rearranged, cross-referenced and written in newspaper level English—these documents are a lot easier to understand.

“As for the Israeli lobby playing Congress like a cheap harmonica? When every big name Dem and Repub shows up to the AIPAC convention –when the U.S. gives billions to Israel –when Israel sells information and technology to china and russia — When Israel spies on us — when Cheney threatens Iran from the podium of a foreign lobbying group…well that cheap harmonica is hooked up to quite a wall of amplifiers, cuz us poor citizens can hear it clearly in the cheap seats of “representative” government”

This is not THE most outrageous comment among those even on the same thread, and the blog it appeared to be on is not radically leftist.

The guy who said the problem is apostasy from the Enlightenment is probably wrong. How many average people were sold on scientific thinking in the first place? Probably not many.

Hilarious about the therapist. I’m sure some of them are rational. But arrogant seems like a more general term.

That’s why we have foot baths springing up at airports and universities and federally funded artwork depicting a cross in a jar of urine.

Dont thank a Moslem for that. Thank a liberal.

“I meant Scottish philosophers like Hume, Gobbs and their school. They, of course, understood that in moral realm empirical approach would be too long and costly, so the revealed truth must be respected. The Founders clearly belonged to this school.”

Good answer. Most people seem to think of the French version of the Enlightenment and forget the English and American versions which were much more positive.

I have struggled for years to dig to the depth of the psychologyof the conspiracy theorists since some people I knew used to belong to the John Birch society. Technically conspirasy buffs are not necessarily mentally ill since their theories are usually possible even if they are unlikely. However, people never develop conspiracy theories about people they love, only about those they already hate. Conspiracy theories give the holder the right to hate other people with righteous wrath since through their conspiracy theories they can attribute any level of evil to their enemies. Since conspiracies are always secret, by definition they require no proof so trying to argue facts with the individual is futile.

Holocaust deniers whether they are denying the Jewish Holocaust or the Turkish Holocaust or the one in Sudan happening now have an even more sinister goal. Their hatred is so deep they desire not only to exterminate their living enemies but to even deny the enemy dead a place in memory.

I hesitate to respond to many of the comments above, however, since, unlike Neo’s writing, they are so far over the top as to rival the 9/11 Truther’s level of paranoia. Liberals are not mentally ill, they are not trying to convert the world to Islam, they do not reject reason or critical thinking. The idea that all liberals are somehow allied with our enemies is just as bizarre and crazy an idea as the idea that Bush ordered the attack on the WTC.

Go out and meet and talk to people on the other side, get to know them. You will be surprised to find they’re not as different from you as you think.

How do Liberals (capital “L”) enable? Well, here’s just one example: thanks to the Liberal MSM and Liberal’s inability to make value judgments, I, as a Palestinian or any other international terrorist, would know that the best way to garner the sympathy of American Liberals today would be to mass slaughter (Al Qaeda, Palestinians) or starve women and children (Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-Il) and blame it on the perceived oppression that I have suffered from [fill in the blank - USA or Israel preferred] and I guarantee you that I would instantly have an advocacy group in the MSM and U.S. academia clamoring for my attention and begging the rest of the world to be more understanding. Liberals, in other words, have actively confused perpetrators with victims with a skewed world view that convinces them that we make the world a better place by identifying with the worst aspects of humanity.

Capice, Paisano?

I like in the middle of a blue town in a blue county in a blue state. (Oregon). I do know them Mitsu. The city counsel here has passed two separate resolutions condemning the war in Iraq and demanding troop withdrawal and one resolution opposing the Patriot Act. We have a local hippie bar that has one wall covered in anti-war and Bush=Hitler pin-ups, (I call it the wall of tolerance and enlightenment). The local Guard Armory has had boots representing dead soldiers propped out on its side walk one Veterans Day and Ive actually had people tell me that we should loose more wars so that more people around the world will like us more.

Oh, yes. I know them Mitsu. Just the same as I know you.

PIMF

True, they don’t reject reason or critical thinking, they simply bypass it in a smugly perverse attempt to avoid reality and responsibility. When the innocents of Darfur are history, the liberals will blame Bush for not doing anything of substance about it, while today the manchurian candidate (our now probable next POTUS) has championed the islamist who has agreed to institute sharia in kenya, and the liberal msm conspicuously avoids that topic. That’s how the world works now, and all the while the msm avoids the truth teller John Bolton like the plague. In the coming election blacks will vote for the manchurian candidate because he’s black, the young because he’s young, and the liberals because they are as shallow as the platitudes of “change” and “hope” which most makes them grin like their candidate. It looks more and more like a sucker game every day. You’re right Mitsu, about Bobby Fischer’s “clinical illness”. He probably died young, from a pathological illness called hate, the kind of which is personified in Darfur today, mass murder of innocents in a church burning in Kenya, and the obfuscation of how all of this is related, in significant part, to the liberal agenda by virtue of obfuscation and avoidance of reality. People focus on what they want to…..

As we are doing in Iraq?

I sincerely doubt you know even a single Muslim all that well. And if I’m wrong, I would like you to discuss with them your claim that the Koran exhorts them to kill and convert everyone. After you’ve done that, please let us know what your Muslim “friend” thought of that.

Second (this makes me very sad because I trusted GW and Condi), the liberals would be right about Bush not doing enough for the innocents of Darfur, instead he has chosen to spend his time engaged in a cheap political ploy, as the champion for hamas lite…. Along with Condi’s take on Abbas as a regular Reverend Martin Luther King… yeah right, more like a Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Welcome to the fools game….

No? It seems to be quite a popular perception on the right side of the aisle. For example:

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2100

I would say Daniel Pipes is fairly prominent. (So no Vince, I’m not just “making this up.”)

If you haven’t run into anyone who thinks such (especially if you’re a frequent visitor of this blog) then you seriously are not paying attention. In fact, Y is halfway there:

Even if the West had done nothing to offend or aggravate Arabs and Muslims, Muslims would still seek the destruction of Western civilization, for so long as the West exists, Shariah will not have won.

It’s clearly in the Koran and well documented history…. My definitely last comment of the nite dedicated to the memory of Oriana Fallaci!

Xanthippas Says:

January 19th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
I know plenty of Muslims and they are very nice people.

I sincerely doubt you know even a single Muslim all that well. And if I’m wrong, I would like you to discuss with them your claim that the Koran exhorts them to kill and convert everyone. After you’ve done that, please let us know what your Muslim “friend” thought of that.

Every time I’ve asked somone to do that , I never get a response.

You said the following line which I disputed , perhaps i wasn’t clear about which part of it I disagreed with:

>Crazy conspiracy-theorists indeed. Unbelievably, there is even an entire subset of Americans who believe that all Muslims not only possess the desire, but the actual ability to conquer our country and force us all to convert to Islam.

I dispute your assertion that those who state that Muslims want to established Sharia law here apply that view to ***ALL*** Muslims.

No thinks that EVERY Muslim in the USA is here for that mission.

It was that blanket assertion that there’s a subset of Jihad-watchers who paranoidistically think that every muslim is in on it.

Instead what I see is a subset of Americans who believe that NOT A SINGLE Muslim is working towards that goal and they think that anyone who thinks otherwise is a racist/islamophobe/bigot/paranoid/homophobe.. ops, i was on a roll

I second that betrayal.

And later says that Daniel Pipes is a “prominent” example of that subset. But, for the record, here’s what Pipes actually said:

The Muslim population in this country is not like any other group, for it includes within it a substantial body of people—many times more numerous than the agents of Osama bin Ladin—who share with the suicide hijackers a hatred of the United States and the desire, ultimately, to transform it into a nation living under the strictures of militant Islam.

Which is different enough that it’s unlikely X didn’t know it, and from which, therefore, I think we can safely conclude that X is simply a liar. (Maybe he fancies himself some sort of propagandist — if only he could find anyone who didn’t think he was anything but an obsessive little troll.)

“As we are doing in Iraq?”

Yes Xan. As we are doing in Iraq. This is what you are opposed to. Because to you, democracy is something you shove down peoples throats.

At one time, the existence of injustice and inequality were rallying cries for the American left. In fact, it was cited as the real reason behind the violence in the Middle East. If democracy is to be seen as something shoved down peoples throats, Id love for Xan to identify the superior alternative.

The root of the word ‘rationalize’ is rational for a reason. You can use logic and rational thought to justify quite a range of things that ‘common’ sense might advise against.

“I sincerely doubt you know even a single Muslim all that well. And if I’m wrong, I would like you to discuss with them your claim that the Koran exhorts them to kill and convert everyone. After you’ve done that, please let us know what your Muslim “friend” thought of that.”

Well, Xan- since I’ve actually had that conversation some time ago, I’ll answer you. It’s not that most Muslims think they, personally, should pick up arms and go full jihad on their neighbors- they don’t, generally. They do think that the Koran justifies the actions of the jihadists (at least in many cases, particularly where it involves Israel), and that they have no moral standing to speak against those actions in any absolute sense. Sure, they concede that it’s not nice, that it might be bad for public perception, but wrong in the eyes of Allah? Not so quick to answer that one. So called ‘moderate’ Muslims are, like the leftists mentioned previously, enablers. You’re right in that they are decent enough folk, they just won’t stand up for what you and I think is right any more than they’ll stand up for jihad.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

Unfortunately, all too common.

How many Muslims have you really talked to, Xan?
By the way, before you have that conversation, it’s good to make sure they know you well enough to know where you’re coming from, and that you respect them and their beliefs (at least as they practice them). You don’t want to put them in too uncomfortable a position without knowing what you’re doing. In other words, don’t make it accusatory, just inquiry. Oh, and read between the lines- it’s a cultural thing- they don’t do the full up front and honest American bit so much.

Actually, it’s hard to add much to Douglas’ response, but here goes. I don’t blame individuals for the cultures and religions in which they were born. Most Muslims I know are Muslims “by identity”, rather than theology. Most with whom I have spoken about the Koran don’t know what’s in the Koran other than vaguely. Not all that different that most professed Christians and Jews, wouldn’t you say?

So, I do make those distinctions between those Muslims I consider “good human beings” and those “theological” Muslims that advocate and pursue what I consider to be an abomination.

Here’s an interest challenge for you - I have a “Muslim” friend from Pakistan, who married a South American Catholic, raised his kids in both traditions, and whose daughter married a Jew. I know him as a good man who feels totally blessed by God. Just how would you go about classifying such a person? I call it a wonderfully American story of how our society can actually reconcile the unreconcilable.

So, Xanth, please don’t deny good people of all faiths their essential humanity. However, don’t lose sight of what is right and what is wrong, either.

Oh…and have you seen “Kite Runner?”. It might help cut through a lot of prejudices based upon misconception.

From my point of view, and the point of view of most liberals, conservatives appear to be the ones who are rejecting reason and critical thinking. Note that as I’ve often stated I frequently agree with conservative views, but more often with liberal. I think that we are engaged in a serious struggle with Islamist extremists who want to attack and kill as many of us as possible. However, what those of you who claim to “know” liberals (but apparently don’t seem to actually talk with them, as you clearly don’t know why they think what they do), the majority of them agree with me on this. We all think we’re in a very serious struggle with very dangerous people.

There are leftists (who need to be distinguished from liberals) who tend to explain away everything that Palestinian terrorists do, who remind me of people who used to excuse the USSR for everything it did. But liberals are not leftists, by and large. Liberals were opposed to the USSR and its totalitarian tactics. I do admit they didn’t sufficiently express their opposition, however. I had many friends who protested South African apartheid (which was heinous as well) but didn’t protest the Soviet Afghanistan war (which I felt was also a crime). They said it wasn’t that they thought the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was good, but that it was not our business to protest what the enemy does, but it did more good to protest what we did. It made some sense but still struck me as somewhat one-sided.

But to bring us back to the present: the reason I and most liberals oppose the Iraq war is not because we want the enemy to win: it is because we think the war is a weak response to a serious threat, and it endangers our national security. You’re welcome to believe that we’re wrong about this — but just because I and others think Bush is hurting our national security and you think he is helping it by invading Iraq doesn’t mean that we don’t agree with you that national security is paramount. Only far leftists would disagree that our national security isn’t one of the most important things.

You guys are confusing a disagreement about policy with an advocacy of the enemy.

You do a lot of assuming for us on what we think on any particular issue. You also do a fair amount of whining. A few posts above your last one and your painting all of us conservatives as paranoid and irrational as it concerns the entire Muslim religion. Now you want to complain that we confuse disagreement about policy with an advocacy of the enemy. It seems as though this is the first time you’ve actually talked to conservatives.

No. not all Muslim’s are fundamentalist and there are differing degrees of liberals. Good enough?

Im sure you’ll turn right around now, and visit Daily Kos and admonish those guys for any unfair comments the posters there might level at their “Rethuglican”, “wingnut” comments. Probably not.

As far as the Iraq war goes, you have to be reminded, (and very often), that we are there on the consent of 30 Democrat law makers including H. Clinton and John Edwards. At least until the polling numbers turned.

Whats done is done. We are there now. Hussien is gone. What replaces Hussein? Surely something.

If it isnt going to be a major source of irritation for you, we’d like to shove democracy down the throats of the people of Iraq. We feel accomplishing this goes much farther towards fighting terrorism than lofting the odd cruise missile now and then.

If you disagree and feel we should abandon our efforts, please explain how a withdrawal now helps fight terrorism.

Individual Responsibility… we are all sovereign beings. Leave that area… WMD’s, the given reason, was false. The honorable thing to do is acknowledge our mistakes, and leave. Saving face is foolhardy.

Then, establish an open hand of friendship to the Muslim world by withdrawing our might from their lands. We must respect the just-war cause.

Be not afraid.

—terrorism will always have to be dealt with. Social conditioning, which is what we are attempting to do via democracy, ALWAYS ends bad and NEVER works. See prohibition…

The liberal (democratic party in particular) agenda isn’t about national security, it’s about their political agenda at any given time … to reiterate the “game”: How many high profile, and which democrats, for 10 years prior to 2003 were clearly implicating saddam’s regime in everything from wmd to international terrorism. They also, with full knowledge (which they now dishonestly deny having) provided the votes in congress which provided the ultimate congressional authority for the war. There is a whole body of incontrovertible information and evidence which made that stance a very credible and responsible position. When they discerned a political advantage to changing that position, they didn’t hesitate to undermine the war, regardless of the consequences. The democrats have long had a way of obfuscating their true positions, policies and history, after the fact, from the civil war, to the kkk, to Vietnam, to Iraq today….

That’s because you think disagreement about policy never leads to advocacy for the enemy even indirectly.

It’s too inconsistent with your preconceptions for you to grasp.

the reason I and most liberals oppose the Iraq war is not because we want the enemy to win:

The enemy doesn’t care if you want him to win; the enemy cares about you helping him to win. Nothing else matters. You think such a thing does not matter because you refuse to think it’s a problem you should be trying to solve. That’s tough luck for you, but your problems shouldn’t apply to the rest of us.

but just because I and others think Bush is hurting our national security

Just because your people are leaking national secrets, telling lies, misleading the American people, and conducting side deals with dictators, doesn’t mean you are hurting our national security? Get some of that pragmatism in a bottle you have, Mitsu.

conservatives appear to be the ones who are rejecting reason and critical thinking.

That’s probably because Leftists and fake liberals are on a different wavelength when it comes to “thinking”.

When a person can hold two different contradictory beliefs, at once, in their head, I do believe their thinking occupies a higher frequency and different wavelength than those whose thinking can’t provide that feature.

The fact that it appears like fake liberals are talking about the same things as some conservatives, such as “liberty” and “humanity”, the truth is that fake liberalism is 90 degrees out of phase. This is for the few instances that that fake liberals and classical liberals are trying to communicate.

There are leftists (who need to be distinguished from liberals

Most liberals are fake liberals, when most Leftists are just power hungry, cynical, and cruel.

It is a pyramid of useful idiotry. The Soviets use Leftists as useful idiots and the Left uses fake liberals as useful idiots, like Kos against Democrat candidates. When the Soviets disappear, the Islamic Jihad slots in at the top since there is a vacancy.

You won’t accept this fundamental view of metaphysics, Mitsu. That’s your problem right there, you need not look anywhere else.

Liberals were opposed to the USSR and its totalitarian tactics.

They “were” opposed to the USSR, because now they are people like Neo. They switched sides like Reagan and Zell did. That means all the “liberals” you are talking about now, are really fake liberals and a lot of conservatives are classical liberals.

All the fake liberals were for totalitarianism and they remained this way. The people you were talking about in the Cold War were classical liberals, real liberals, that the Left and the Democrats kicked out like they kicked out Lieberman. Do you still seriously expect your delusion here to sort of work on us?

Only far leftists would disagree that our national security isn’t one of the most important things.

Is that why Global Warming is cropping up everywhere? That’s a national security issue, isn’t it?

wasn’t that they thought the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was good, but that it was not our business to protest what the enemy does, but it did more good to protest what we did. It made some sense but still struck me as somewhat one-sided.

That’s a useful idiot right there. Is he a liberal? No. Is he a fake liberal? Yes. So if you won’t accept this bit of metaphysics, Mitsu, it doesn’t matter what you argue concerning what the motives of “liberals” are. Since your “liberals” are a fantasy construction, overlaid upon the fakes.

In most of the disagreements you have presented, Mitsu, your concerns were not with real human loss and gains but with the argument on what the color red looks like. Most of the argument on your side is based on your preconceptions, nothing else.

So that’s why it all comes down to, in the end, about what you perceive to be the intentions of “liberals” and how this is supposed to make us wrong and you right. It won’t do that, Mitsu, since it is not an objective analysis simply because you believe it is true.

From my point of view, and the point of view of most liberals, conservatives appear to be the ones who are rejecting reason and critical thinking. Note that as I’ve often stated I frequently agree with conservative views, but more often with liberal. I think that we are engaged in a serious struggle with Islamist extremists who want to attack and kill as many of us as possible. However, what those of you who claim to “know” liberals (but apparently don’t seem to actually talk with them, as you clearly don’t know why they think what they do), the majority of them agree with me on this. We all think we’re in a very serious struggle with very dangerous people.

Well considering that Democrats OPPOSE EVERYTHING being done to fight it, I can’t see how it could be said that the Lefts take the war seriously.

1 - They don’t even acknowledge there is one
2 - To the extent they do, they frame in terms of it being American-caused thus the solution is American-based
3 - They offer NOT ONE strategy to fight it
4 - They are objectively assisting the enemy