Food for thought.

   Though many American liberals continue to regard Europe as a model of sophistication and humanism, and thus a great potential check on rampant U.S. "cowboyism," Europe actually is a bit of a fever swamp. There's nothing new about this -- think of pre-World War II Europe. The re-emergence of European anti-semitism, though under-reported, is no secret either. In truth, though, Europe was essentially racist even during the golden age of the former Western Europe. And I'm talking about anti-black racism, not just anti-Semitism. In fact, the appointment of Condi Rice to replace Colin Powell made me recall a remark that a friend of mine who lived in Europe made more than 30 years ago. He said that it would be decades before the U.S. could appoint a black Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense because the Europeans wouldn't take one seriously. Come to think of it, where is England's Rice or France's Powell?

Anyone who follows European soccer knows about European racism. By the mid-1960s viciously racist crowd behavior was basically a thing of the past in the U.S sporting scene. But it was just getting started in Europe. Black players were routinely abused by English fans for at least two more decades. Unfortunately, Everton fans were considered among the worst, although at least they could be won over by good play. In the famous 1966 World Cup match between North Korea and a Portuguese team full of African players, the Everton crowd cheered the players off the field.

Overt racism finally has mostly been vanquished from the English game. However, blacks on the English national team often are the targets of terrible abuse when England plays on the continent. Yesterday, England played in Spain, a nation that surely is in the upper echelon of Euro-taste and sophistication. The blacks who played for England -- Ashley Cole, Shaun Wright-Phillips, and sub Jermaine Jenas -- faced a torrent of abuse throughout the match from the Madrid crowd, including chants of "monkey" and imitation monkey noises The same thing happened the day before when the England under 21 team played in Spain. One victim, Carlton Cole, complained that even little kids were joining in. Previously, the Spanish coach had made a racial slur about Thierry Henry, the French super-star who plays in England. And speaking of France, fans of the club St. Etienne physcially attacked opponent Bastia's black players after a match this weekend. Accounts of these disgraceful events can be found.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=316774&cc=5901 - http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=316774&cc=5 901

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=316723&cc=5901 - http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=316723&cc=5 901

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=316777&cc=5901 - http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=316777&cc=5 901

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=316758&cc=5901 - http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=316758&cc=5 901

Multi-Colored J wrote: We are in Jesusland. Jesusland has nothing to do with racism. Please, go away.

Did you actually read it.

Multi-Colored J wrote: new002 wrote: Multi-Colored J wrote: We are in Jesusland. Jesusland has nothing to do with racism. Please, go away. <SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">Did you actually read it.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN> Was that a statement or a question? I think it was a question, so I shall dignify it with a response. What the hell do soccer and anti-semitism have to do with Jesusland?

Hey, glad you asked.  It really is geared toward Clark Kent. I just was wondering his opinion since it is part of his sig.

http://www.lundhome.net/images/neworder2.jpg">

Also, hey J,  read this part and check the links, man that is a pisser. Europe is not the open liberal society we all think it is.  I guess being a Canadian I don't see this kind of stuff up here so it shocks me a bit.

 However, blacks on the English national team often are the targets of terrible abuse when England plays on the continent. Yesterday, England played in Spain, a nation that surely is in the upper echelon of Euro-taste and sophistication. The blacks who played for England -- Ashley Cole, Shaun Wright-Phillips, and sub Jermaine Jenas -- faced a torrent of abuse throughout the match from the Madrid crowd, including chants of "monkey" and imitation monkey noises The same thing happened the day before when the England under 21 team played in Spain. One victim, Carlton Cole, complained that even little kids were joining in. Previously, the Spanish coach had made a racial slur about Thierry Henry, the French super-star who plays in England. And speaking of France, fans of the club St. Etienne physcially attacked opponent Bastia's black players after a match this weekend. Accounts of these disgraceful events can be found.

Well, I didn't read it because the font gave me a headache.

If you have a question for me, please state it and I may answer.

Clark Kent wrote: Well, I didn't read it because the font gave me a headache. If you have a question for me, please state it and I may answer.

All what a lame excuse., your better then that CK.

new002 wrote: Clark Kent wrote: Well, I didn't read it because the font gave me a headache. If you have a question for me, please state it and I may answer. All what a lame excuse., your better then that CK.

OK Clark, this is a larger font just for you. Although I don't see why you don't use copy and paste.  Hey you choose that picture for a reason, so lets hear it.

   Though many American liberals continue to regard Europe as a model of sophistication and humanism, and thus a great potential check on rampant U.S. "cowboyism," Europe actually is a bit of a fever swamp. There's nothing new about this -- think of pre-World War II Europe. The re-emergence of European anti-semitism, though under-reported, is no secret either. In truth, though, Europe was essentially racist even during the golden age of the former Western Europe. And I'm talking about anti-black racism, not just anti-Semitism. In fact, the appointment of Condi Rice to replace Colin Powell made me recall a remark that a friend of mine who lived in Europe made more than 30 years ago. He said that it would be decades before the U.S. could appoint a black Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense because the Europeans wouldn't take one seriously. Come to think of it, where is England's Rice or France's Powell?

Anyone who follows European soccer knows about European racism. By the mid-1960s viciously racist crowd behavior was basically a thing of the past in the U.S sporting scene. But it was just getting started in Europe. Black players were routinely abused by English fans for at least two more decades. Unfortunately, Everton fans were considered among the worst, although at least they could be won over by good play. In the famous 1966 World Cup match between North Korea and a Portuguese team full of African players, the Everton crowd cheered the players off the field.

Overt racism finally has mostly been vanquished from the English game. However, blacks on the English national team often are the targets of terrible abuse when England plays on the continent. Yesterday, England played in Spain, a nation that surely is in the upper echelon of Euro-taste and sophistication. The blacks who played for England -- Ashley Cole, Shaun Wright-Phillips, and sub Jermaine Jenas -- faced a torrent of abuse throughout the match from the Madrid crowd, including chants of "monkey" and imitation monkey noises The same thing happened the day before when the England under 21 team played in Spain. One victim, Carlton Cole, complained that even little kids were joining in. Previously, the Spanish coach had made a racial slur about Thierry Henry, the French super-star who plays in England. And speaking of France, fans of the club St. Etienne physcially attacked opponent Bastia's black players after a match this weekend. Accounts of these disgraceful events can be found.

Ok, I read it.  Boring, and old news.

Your implied question about the picture in my sig:  I have that picture in my sig because it makes me laugh, and I like to share.

Was there anything else you wanted to know?

Why does that make us not be Jesusland?  Did we not just make marriage safe from homosexuals in the name of Jesus?  Did we not just "vote our values" in the last election?  Did we not just unleash the most backward non-progressive bunch of evangelical apes since the dark ages upon ourselves?  By the way, those moral red states have a much higher rate of divorce that those evil blue one's do.  Bunch of hypocrites... 

CK, I thnk your sig is funny and true. That's what we're becoming. And it's all because JFK, a democrat, fooled around with blacks rights and made the old confederacy angry. Now, since pretty much the entire south votes with them, they control the presidential office. The only way for a democrat to win is for them to be from a southern state. Check out the last few democratic presidents. Sothernors are mostly religious people along with most republicans. Welcome to Jesus land.

Hades wrote: /me jealous of CK mostly for his handsomely charming good looks.

Aw, how sweet.  You're gonna make Dave (and David Hasselhoff) jealous.

Clark Kent wrote: Hades wrote: /me jealous of CK mostly for his handsomely charming good looks. Aw, how sweet.  You're gonna make Dave (and David Hasselhoff) jealous.

Be careful, I heard Hasselhoff has a mean jealous side.

Anyways, it was too difficult to read one of new's rants without a microscope. Well, from the looks of it, it wasn't anything new anywas. Just more complaining about us liberals.

Dune wrote: Clark Kent wrote: Hades wrote: /me jealous of CK mostly for his handsomely charming good looks. Aw, how sweet.  You're gonna make Dave (and David Hasselhoff) jealous.   Be careful, I heard Hasselhoff has a mean jealous side. Anyways, it was too difficult to read one of new's rants without a microscope. Well, from the looks of it, it wasn't anything new anywas. Just more complaining about us liberals.

Progressive-thinking liberal scum.  Yor idears ain'twelcome here.

Multi-Colored J wrote: We are in Jesusland. Jesusland has nothing to do with racism. Please, go away.

Clark Kent wrote: Ok, I read it.  Boring, and old news. Your implied question about the picture in my sig:  I have that picture in my sig because it makes me laugh, and I like to share. Was there anything else you wanted to know?

  Yes, Glad you asked. Run this thru with me if you don't mind.

  What if we stamped out JesusLand and replaced it with IslamoLand...

  Would you still find it funny and want to share it with everyone here?

EDIT - responding to new002's post.

To answer your question:  Yes.  Assuming, of course, that it were vaguely accurate (i.e., we had a large Muslim population instead of a large Christian population).

But more to the point:  Your question is itself the very reason why I love this picture so much.  You appear to be somewhat offended by the "Jesusland" portion of the picture.  In the meantime, others have told me how offended they are by the "US of Canada" portion of the picture.

This picture has a little for everybody.  Anybody who is looking to be offended can find something to be offended by.  You clearly assumed, without foundation, that I intended this to be offensive to "Jesusland" folks.  Others have assumed the opposite.

Well done.

And that's quite irrelevant. Th sountry was set up so everyone can have equal rights and to not be biased towards religions.

Four of our Presidents were Unitarian.  That drives the evangelicals crazy.

Multi-Colored J wrote: Why would we replace it with islamoland? That is not the best argument. Why our country is Jesusland, is because Christians are trying to make the country theirs - making abortion illegal (trying to), making homosexual marriage illegal, having prayer in schools...

 If having prayer in school is trying to take over the US, then every other religion is tyring to take over the good 'ole US of A.  Students of every religion have the right to have organized prayer in school.  And the aithiests (sp?) have the choice not to even watch them.  That could very well be changed though because a very small percentage of people find it offensive (like the prayers at High School football games).  Why do we wish to please the minorities?  If you have two ways to choose from, it is logical to either choose neutral or to go with the majority.  And BTW, the seperation of church and state was to make sure that any one religion was not deprived of their rights, not to take away the rights of the largest religion in the US.

Clark Kent wrote: EDIT - responding to new002's post. To answer your question:  Yes.  Assuming, of course, that it were vaguely accurate (i.e., we had a large Muslim population instead of a large Christian population).

  Exactly. I think you are right. I doubt you have been called racist or predjuiced for the Jesusland picture? Correct?  Yet the hypocracy of some on this forum is that, if you were to post IslamLand on Iraq, you would be unfairly labled Racist or prejustice.

Clark Kent wrote: But more to the point:  Your question is itself the very reason why I love this picture so much.  You appear to be somewhat offended by the "Jesusland" portion of the picture.  In the meantime, others have told me how offended they are by the "US of Canada" portion of the picture.

^^^ my bad, I ment prejudiced

Direct to all those who have called me Racist, in an Anti-Islamic Rage, prejudiced.  

   Since when is it prejudicing to quote the news stories of mostly Islamic people who are hiding to protect their lives? That is people who may be too afraid or dead to tell the stories themselves? 

new002 wrote:   OK, I will spill the beans, "The bottom line is that criticizing Christians is politically Correct, and were as criticizing Islam is not."

Don't worry - we had your beans figured out long ago.

And you are wrong.

As many people have told you many times:  Everybody gets criticized on this forum pretty consistently.  Muslims have been criticized on this forum by many people, much more harshly than what you have come up with.  That's OK.  It was always ok.

What is troubling us about your posts (as has been pointed out already by many people) is your apparent crusade (so to speak) against Islam.  It is one thing to make a criticism - it is something else entirely to launch a coordinated multi-thread attack on Islam (or anything else).  If somebody had started three seperate threads for no other reason than to criticize Christianity, you had better believe people would have been upset.

In fact, I was just criticized last week for making a single thread mocking Southerners, of all things.

I don't know how to spell this out any more for you.  You are wrong, wrong, wrong.  The Christians, agnostics, and atheists are all telling you so.  If our resident Muslim were here, he'd tell you as well.

Clark Kent wrote: new002 wrote:   OK, I will spill the beans, "The bottom line is that criticizing Christians is politically Correct, and were as criticizing Islam is not." Don't worry - we had your beans figured out long ago. And you are wrong. What is troubling us about your posts (as has been pointed out already by many people) is your apparent crusade (so to speak) against Islam.  It is one thing to make a criticism - it is something else entirely to launch a coordinated multi-thread attack on Islam (or anything else).  If somebody had started three seperate threads for no other reason than to criticize Christianity, you had better believe people would have been upset. In fact, I was just criticized last week for making a single thread mocking Southerners, of all things. I don't know how to spell this out any more for you.  You are wrong, wrong, wrong.  The Christians, agnostics, and atheists are all telling you so.  If our resident Muslim were here, he'd tell you as well.

  OK, Clark perhaps you’re right. Perhaps I have gone about this the wrong way. Better to figure this out here and now.

  Could you set me straight on this thought?

  Do you believe that leftist political correctness is inadvertently silencing the voices of Islamic fascist victims?  Be those victims Islamic people themselves or simply critics of Islam.  

   (Just look at what we have here, many pages of disdain against the messenger, and the stories themselves are lost in the noise)

Clark Kent wrote: No.

Fair enough, I can respect that.

  So take those three stories I posted and present them in a way you feel would be correct. 

I promise I will wrap this up shortly, if you do.

Clark Kent wrote: I do not understand the assignment.

Hi Clark.

  Anyhow, like to say thanks for sticking it out. 

  So here we are; listed below are the 3 titles to my (new002) posts that have caused some outrage on this forum.

 Another Islam Critic Goes Into Hiding.

14 years old, 85 lashes

Terrorist Goat violators slay female aid.

new002 wrote:      So tell me, how do I avoid upsetting the left people on this forum,

First, you need to stop referring to "leftists."  That's a good way to start.  I am not a "leftist," and adrenalinejunky is most certainly not a "leftist," as he has pointed out on several occasions.

You are not upsetting "leftists," you are upsetting everybody.  That is part of your problem.  Referring to everybody who doesn't jump on your bandwagon as a "leftist" makes everybody mad, whether they are leftist or not.  It is annoying and rude.

Second, you need to stop the crusade.  There is nothing wrong with the articles you posted.  Heck, I was about to post the 85 lashes story myself.  It is all about presentation.  There are two elements to this:

First, I haven't seen any other threads started by you that I can recall, and then suddenly there are 3 Islam-critical articles in a row.  That's not random.  That speaks of some intent on your part not to post interesting/hair-raising articles, but to specifically inform us of the evils of Islam.  That is annoying and rude.  I don't like when telemarketers interrupts my dinner, and I don't like when people start multi-thread political rants on my internet forum.  It would have been much better if you had started a single thread entitled "Islam is teh sux", and posted all the articles there.  You showed poor netiquette, and that is annoying and rude.  After a while, we had three threads going that were looking increasingly identical.  Definitely annoying and rude.

Second, this was aggravated by your commentary.  In two of the three cases you did not simply post the article, you highlighted sections or added clever headers designed to make your point about "Islam is teh sux."  This is not merely being informative, it is trying to make a point without coming out and saying it.  It took us until page 4 or 5 to get you to explain your actual point, which I was able to answer with a single word.  If you have a point, make it - insinuation by multi-posting is not a good way to make friends.  It is just annoying and rude.  By the time we got to the meat of the discussion you had already made everybody mad by your poor manners.

To bolster my point about how it is your behavior that is the problem, not the substance, I point you to the first responses in each of your threads.  There were several Islam-critical responses.  None of these posters were criticized for the substance of their response.  As junky, EJP, and others have pointed out on multiple occasions, we criticize Islam plenty around here.  Plenty.  That's not the point.  These other posters in your threads were not being annoying and rude.  THAT is the point.

To summarize:  1.  Your categorization of everybody as "leftist" is annoying and rude.  2.  If you were merely trying to point us toward some informative stories, you should simply have done so, without ulterior motives.  Your ulterior motives shone through strong, which made your multi-posting annoying and rude.  3.  If you were trying to make a political point, you should have just made the point, and made it in a single thread.  Your multi-post insinuations were annoying and rude.

To summarize the summary:  Annoying and rude.

Clark Kent wrote: new002 wrote:      So tell me, how do I avoid upsetting the left people on this forum,     First, you need to stop referring to "leftists."  That's a good way to start.  I am not a "leftist," and adrenalinejunky is most certainly not a "leftist," as he has pointed out on several occasions.   You are not upsetting "leftists," you are upsetting everybody.  That is part of your problem.  Referring to everybody who doesn't jump on your bandwagon as a "leftist" makes everybody mad, whether they are leftist or not.  It is annoying and rude.   Second, you need to stop the crusade.  There is nothing wrong with the articles you posted.  Heck, I was about to post the 85 lashes story myself.  It is all about presentation.  There are two elements to this:   First, I haven't seen any other threads started by you that I can recall, and then suddenly there are 3 Islam-critical articles in a row.  That's not random.  That speaks of some intent on your part not to post interesting/hair-raising articles, but to specifically inform us of the evils of Islam.  That is annoying and rude.  I don't like when telemarketers interrupts my dinner, and I don't like when people start multi-thread political rants on my internet forum.  It would have been much better if you had started a single thread entitled "Islam is teh sux", and posted all the articles there.  You showed poor netiquette, and that is annoying and rude.  After a while, we had three threads going that were looking increasingly identical.  Definitely annoying and rude.   Second, this was aggravated by your commentary.  In two of the three cases you did not simply post the article, you highlighted sections or added clever headers designed to make your point about "Islam is teh sux."  This is not merely being informative, it is trying to make a point without coming out and saying it.  It took us until page 4 or 5 to get you to explain your actual point, which I was able to answer with a single word.  If you have a point, make it - insinuation by multi-posting is not a good way to make friends.  It is just annoying and rude.  By the time we got to the meat of the discussion you had already made everybody mad by your poor manners.   To bolster my point about how it is your behavior that is the problem, not the substance, I point you to the first responses in each of your threads.  There were several Islam-critical responses.  None of these posters were criticized for the substance of their response.  As junky, EJP, and others have pointed out on multiple occasions, we criticize Islam plenty around here.  Plenty.  That's not the point.  These other posters in your threads were not being annoying and rude.  THAT is the point.   To summarize:  1.  Your categorization of everybody as "leftist" is annoying and rude.  2.  If you were merely trying to point us toward some informative stories, you should simply have done so, without ulterior motives.  Your ulterior motives shone through strong, which made your multi-posting annoying and rude.  3.  If you were trying to make a political point, you should have just made the point, and made it in a single thread.  Your multi-post insinuations were annoying and rude.   To summarize the summary:  Annoying and rude.

  What this comes down to is your assumptions.  Basically what I keep hearing from you. Is that I posted three separate threads in a close time span.  That makes me anti-islamic. 

http://www.tippmann.com/players/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=118861&KW=new002 - http://www.tippmann.com/players/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp ?TID=118861&KW=new002

There is the fist post.  I copied word for word from the news article. What could possibly be offence?

Dune wrote: Do you purposely not read his posts. He had answered what you have done wrong, read THE FIRST PART too. I think you might skip it so you do not have to admit what you're doing.

First, you need to stop referring to "leftists."  That's a good way to start.  I am not a "leftist," and adrenalinejunky is most certainly not a "leftist," as he has pointed out on several occasions.

That is true Dune; I am difficult to the lefties.  Perhaps even annoying and rude.

The bottom line is Clark asked me about the assignment. I gave it to him. Instead I got a rant.  If he wants to be helpful. Then create a demonstration on what he would have done differently from my posts.  So we can compare word for word.

I give up with you Clark. You told him how to stop, yet he doesn't and just keeps up with his "can't I post this" idea. Which is not what we're arguing about. Nothing more can be done.

Dune wrote: I give up with you Clark. You told him how to stop, yet he doesn't and just keeps up with his "can't I post this" idea. Which is not what we're arguing about. Nothing more can be done.

Clark says, "First, I haven't seen any other threads started by you that I can recall, and then suddenly there are 3 Islam-critical articles in a row. "

  Well that is Clark’s assumption.  He assumes that new002 is someone who has never posted anything about anyone else. While it is quite likely that new002 was created just to discuss sensitive issues.

All I can say Dune, Is Clark should do the project.  So we can quantifiably compare word for word, what he would post differently.  Anything less is a not helpful.

Clark Kent wrote: I give up.

Do the project. 

Then we have a quantifiable word for word comparison. 

My word, Clark, we have had debates in the past that worked out well.  Don't give up now.

[/QUOTE]

Clark says, "First, I haven't seen any other threads started by you that I can recall, and then suddenly there are 3 Islam-critical articles in a row. "

  Well that is Clark’s assumption.  He assumes that new002 is someone who has never posted anything about anyone else. While it is quite likely that new002 was created just to discuss sensitive issues.

[/QUOTE]

Please stop refering to yourself in the third person.