The Liberals who actually have open minds instead of agendas

[hepatocyte]

Pffft. The only way a liberal will have an open mind is if you scalp them....

Is this appropriate for a Christian forum?

[senerhu]

thanks for this post - the ring of truth i hear in it will certainly help fortify me against the negative news reports that i frequently hear.

that is exactly what media bias is doing to us also...YOu never hear the positive things...

[Giaour]

Pffft. The only way a liberal will have an open mind is if you scalp them....

Is this appropriate for a Christian forum?

If one has a sense of humor.

[hepatocyte]

Pffft. The only way a liberal will have an open mind is if you scalp them....

Is this appropriate for a Christian forum?

If one has a sense of humor.

I see...so making someone's head bloody is humorous...

We're advised not to engage in coarse talk. What if a passerbyer hears this on the street and you're carrying a Bible or wearing a cross?

[hepatocyte]

Pffft. The only way a liberal will have an open mind is if you scalp them....

Is this appropriate for a Christian forum?

If one has a sense of humor.

I see...so making someone's head bloody is humorous...

We're advised not to engage in coarse talk. What if a passerbyer hears this on the street and you're carrying a Bible or wearing a cross?

To me, this was an obvious attempt at humor, and nobody would take it seriously. It is merely stating that in the person's opinion that wrote it, a liberal is extremely close minded, and they gave a pretty good word picture to show just how close minded they believe liberals are.

Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. - Ephesians 5:4

"they gave a pretty good word picture to show just how close minded they believe liberals are."

- And they chose to use the imagery of someone cutting open another person's scalp to convey their "humor"?

This type of humor does not belong among believers.

[hepatocyte]

Pffft. The only way a liberal will have an open mind is if you scalp them....

Is this appropriate for a Christian forum?

If one has a sense of humor.

I see...so making someone's head bloody is humorous...

We're advised not to engage in coarse talk. What if a passerbyer hears this on the street and you're carrying a Bible or wearing a cross?

To me, this was an obvious attempt at humor, and nobody would take it seriously. It is merely stating that in the person's opinion that wrote it, a liberal is extremely close minded, and they gave a pretty good word picture to show just how close minded they believe liberals are.

Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. - Ephesians 5:4

"they gave a pretty good word picture to show just how close minded they believe liberals are."

- And they chose to use the imagery of someone cutting open another person's scalp to convey their "humor"?

This type of humor does not belong among believers.

I didn't see anything wrong with the joke, but you are entitled to your opinion. By the way, be sure and check out Another Political Survey in the general discussion section and post the results. I am curious as to where you will come out. It is pretty short, and I found it gave a very accurate assessment about my political views under the category of enterpriser.

I've taken surveys like that before. I'm conservative on some issues and liberals on others, so I always come out moderate. Doesn't tell me much.

What does my political affiliation have anything to do with anything?

[KeilanS]

I think it can be considered a joke seeing as you can just as easily say:

The only way a republican will have an open mind is if you scalp them....

(Not saying I'm agreeing with the statement, just saying you can argue both ways)

[hepatocyte]

I think it can be considered a joke seeing as you can just as easily say:

The only way a republican will have an open mind is if you scalp them....

(Not saying I'm agreeing with the statement, just saying you can argue both ways)

That wasn't the point...

The point was our speech should be guarded.

[Sconzy]

heaven forbid that that scenario could possibly happen. What will the libs do if we do win????

In an important and surprising New York Times op-ed piece, Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, both from the liberal Brookings Institution, describe a visit to Iraq, where they find that things are not as bad as--well, as New York Times readers have been led to believe. The piece is titled "A War We Just Might Win":

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated--many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

O'Hanlon and Pollack report that Sunni sheikhs in Anbar province "are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies," that "the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate" in the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul, and that "the American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners."

They say the situation "remains grave," especially on the "political front," but they counsel against a quick retreat, as many Democrats on Capitol Hill have been advocating:

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

In a way, though, what is most telling about this piece is the introduction:

Viewed from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration's critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

For the sake of argument, let us suppose that the authors are right when they claim the Bush administration has "lost essentially all credibility." Does this excuse the administration's critics for being "unaware of the significant changes taking place"--especially when some of those critics have, for reasons of partisanship, ideology or just plain animus, actively campaigned to destroy the administration's credibility?

In the critics' defense, one may say that they have not, by and large, been in positions of responsibility; that if things have gone wrong in Iraq, the administration deserves the lion's share of the blame.

On the other hand, those critics now include the leaders of both houses of Congress, as well as several politicians who would like to become president. For them, at least, it is a serious failure of leadership if they base their views on Iraq on their own disdain for President Bush, or the hope of exploiting voters' disdain for him, rather than on reality.

Take Me to the River

A reader wrote to the New York Times to inquire as to why the paper refers to Iraq as "Mesopotamia" when describing the al Qaeda affiliate in that country. He received the following reply from the Public Editor's Office:

Thank you for writing. I raised your question with an editor on the Foreign Desk who said that the issue is one of translation. The purest translation of the name the group gives itself is "Al Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers," the rivers being the Tigris and the Euphrates. While there are different translations and The Times acknowledges that the U.S. military and State Department uses "Al Qaeda in Iraq," the paper goes with the translation it does because the group drew on the more poetic usage for its name.

I hope this helps.

Does this mean the Times now calls it "al Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers"? Apparently not. Which we suppose is just as well. After all, "the Land of the Two Rivers" could easily mean New York.

http://opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010402