World leader, known for reminding the Islamic world that his middle name is Hussein, hosts nuclear summit, presided over by large Islamic-shaped crescent:
Photo by Ron Sachs.
It is hard to believe that the State Department could do this by accident:
An Islamic crescent is a very distinct and completely unnatural geometric shape, combining a circular outer arc with a non-concentric circular inner arc. The unnaturalness is an Islamic religious requirement. A lunar crescent has an elliptical inner arc. Using such a natural shape as a religious symbol would risk idolatry (the worship of any actual thing besides God). Thus Muslims use as their symbol the explicitly unnatural circle-in-circle crescent shape.
Sometimes the inner circle sits entirely inside the outer circle. This arrangement is typically used to symbolize Islamic world domination, as seen in the MAS logo. More often the inner circle extends beyond the outer circle, as seen on the last last Ottoman flags:
Turkish flag. Crescent covers an unnatural 2/3rds of a circle of arc, give or take (in contrast to a lunar crescent, which always covers a half a circle of arc).
Obama’s circle-in-circle NSS logo uses a thin crescent to combine the world encompassing aspect of the MAS logo with the more familiar Ottoman crescent, covering less than a full circle of arc.
Obama has ordered his underlings not to notice Islamic connections
Given that the unnatural circle-in-circle crescent is the only widely recognized graphic symbol of Islam, it must have been recognized as such by at least a significant percentage of the State Department personnel who saw it prior to the summit. Why didn’t anyone object, forcefully and publicly if necessary?
It would seem to be the Fort Hood phenomenon, where witnesses to Nidal Hasan’s murderous ideology were afraid that making an issue of it would be career suicide, thereby enabling Hasan’s mass murder of American soldiers. Obama has now made the career suicide threat official, ordering all members of the executive branch to be as oblivious to Islam as possible. The more disturbing the Islamic connection, the more it is to be avoided, to the point where Muslim terrorists, whose reading of orthodox Islamic interpretation compels them to slaughter infidels, are no longer to be called “Muslim terrorists” or “Islamic extremists.” Everyone is just supposed to ignore their Islamic motivation.
Hydrogen atoms and Swastikas
Defenders of Obama’s nuclear crescent (trolls in the comments at Gateway) think that so long as the Islamic-shaped crescent can be interpreted in some non-Islamic way, there is nothing wrong with using an Islamic shaped crescent to represent American hospitality:
Oh please, folks, get a grip. It’s modeled after a hydrogen atom, you know, as in hydrogen bombs?
This issue came up when the Missile Defense Agency’s crescent shaped website logo became a news story in February.
MDA website logo, uses the world-encompassing symbolism of a full circle-in-circle crescent favored by several Islamic terror groups:
Left: Islamic Palestine Block insignia. Center: Hamas insignia. Right: PLFP insignia (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine).
MDA spokesman Rich Lehner insists that the world-encompassing circle-in-circle crescent “symbolizes the worldwide protection of our homeland and deployed forces.” But do we get to redefine in this way the only symbol shape that our terror war enemies claim as their own?
By that logic, one could say that the swastika represents a helicopter rotor in motion, making a great logo for our Apache squadrons, but no such interpretation can obviate the established meaning of the symbol shape, and like the swastika, the full circle-in-circle crescent has its own established meaning (a meaning not so different from the swastika). It represents Islamic domination of the planet. For Lehner to protest that this isn’t what the full circle-in-circle crescent means to him is as ludicrous and irrelevant as saying that he sees the swastika as a spinning propeller.
Not that it matters, but the NSS logo fails as hydrogen atom
Most obviously, why the gap in the electron’s orbit? The only purpose of this gap would seem to be to turn the crescent into the familiar Islamic-shaped crescent.
Less obviously, notice that the fattening of the crescent at the lower left indicates visually that the electron is coming closer at that point. That would only be the case if the orbit were being observed somewhat edge-on, but that would make the orbit appear to the observer as an ellipse, not the circle seen in the NSS logo.
By the same token, since the orbit is seen as circular rather than elliptical, that means it is being observed from above (from one of the poles of the axis of rotation), which means the electron is not moving closer to and further from the observer, hence no crescent-like fattening of the arc would be observed.
The only purpose for the unnatural fattening of the circle on one side representation would again seem to be to create the familiar Islamic shaped crescent.
Frank Gaffney was pre-mature in walking back his concerns about the MDA crescent
Kudo’s to Frank Gaffney for forcing our Democrat dominated media to address the crescent shaped MDA logo two months ago. In addition to noting the Islamic shape, Gaffney also noted the likeness to Obama’s permanent campaign logo:
When he discovered that the MDA logo predated the Obama administration, Frank began a walk-back, which he extended to the crescent shape:
It has also been observed that – rather than embracing the symbolic crescent and star, they could be interpreted as the targets of the intercepting swoosh in the MDA’s latest logo. If so, the 2009 design would presumably be offensive to Islamists, rather than evidence of submission to them.
No, the crescent cannot be interpreted as the target of the intercepting missile, because the target of the intercepting missile is explicit. It is shooting down another missile. The missile shot in the logo can be interpreted as defending the crescent, but it cannot be interpreted as attacking the crescent because the crescent is not a missile.
Ignorant coincidence, or stealth jihad?
The unanswered question is whether the Islamic-looking logos are the product of ignorant coincidence or Islamic supremacism. There are stealth jihadists who work in the field of Islamic symbolism, like the Los Angeles architect who designed the giant Mecca-oriented crescent that is now being built atop the Flight 93 crash site. A crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca is called a mihrab, and is the central feature around which every mosque is built. (Some mihrabs are pointed arch shaped, but the archetypical mihrab is crescent shaped.) The planned memorial will be the world’s largest mosque.
Like Gaffney (sorry Frank, but you really wimped out on this one), the defenders of the crescent mosque are willing to embrace untenable excuses for their Islamic symbol shape. Asked how he could abide the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent, Patrick White, Vice President of Families of Flight 93, argued that the almost-exact Mecca-orientation cannot be intended as a tribute to Islam because the in-exactness of it (within 2° of Mecca) would be “disrespectful” to Islam.
After the cartoon jihad, Gaffney and White might be excused for thinking that Muslims will take offense at just about anything, but the fact is, orthodox Islam cares very little about how exactly anyone faces Mecca for prayer. For most of Islam’s 1400 year history, far flung Muslims had no accurate way to determine the direction to Mecca. Thus it developed as a matter of religious principle that what matters is intent to face Mecca (and God).
So where did Patrick White get the idea that orientation on Mecca must be exact? From a Muslim scholar commissioned by the Park Service to answer just this question. His name is Nasser Rabbat, and he told the Park Service a flat out lie. Why? Rabbat is presumably a stealth jihadist, though he could have also been doing a personal favor for ex-classmate Paul Murdoch, the Los Angeles architect who designed the Crescent of Embrace.
This is why these possibly coincidental Islamic symbol shapes need to be properly investigated: because where there is smoke, there is sometimes fire.
Gaffney was also premature in dismissing the Obama-like character of the MDA logo
Just because the Obama-like logo was not a product of the Obama administration does not mean it was not the work of a freelance Obamaton, or even an Obama-connected logo designer.
Obama started using his logo in early 2007, when it made a huge splash in the logo-design community. The contract for the MDA logo was not let until September 2007 and the logo itself did not appear until October 2008. Thus the MDA logo was designed while Obama’s logo was all the rage, and given Obama’s connections in the advertising industry, his people could even have exercised some direct influence over the MDA logo.
The strong Obama likeness makes it almost certain that the MDA logo was created by an Obama partisan as a tribute to Obama. From that strong prior, the likelihood that the Islamic-shaped crescent was also intentional goes up dramatically. Our president does not emphasize the “Hussein” in “Barack Hussein Obama” for nothing.
To join our blogburst-effort to stop the crescent mosque, just send your blog’s url.
I hadn’t noticed this. I am growing weary. I’m tired of Islam. I am tired of excuses. I’m tired of understanding their ways and respecting their religious beliefs. I’m tired of this President and his administration.
Christianity is the religion of 75% or better of those of faith in the USA, no? You’d never know it by media, this administration, or our educational system. It’s farcical what’s going on.
yippie21 you are spot on for me.. I am tired of this bunch.. way beyond it.. I was surprised this issue still came up, I was offended by the MDA logo. Anything from now on is more of the same.. These people are friends of Iran, Valarie was born in Iran, Her family still lives in a community in Iran that houses painters, teachers the elite of the country..
It could be but not all that true that Obama just likes the letter O and a big circle. Just look at his signature
I’m sure a symbol that resembled the cross or a confederate flag would go over like a turd in a punch bowl… 😆
yeah this bending over backwards to appease islam is getting old they are just jumping on the “race card” bandwagon…The MSM should show more how Muslim countries appease Christians.
Obama-commie likes turd world graphics.
Folks, the symbol is a representation of the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom. Some of you need some mental health therapy.
Did rockybutte read the post? Having an alternative explanation for the design in no way alters the fact that geometrically the design is an Islamic-shaped crescent, which carries its own meanings. What does rocky think about the analagous case. Would it be okay to use a swastika as an insignia for our Apache squadrons, on the interpretation that the swastika is a spinning helicopter rotor?
Thank you for stating the obvious.
By the way, that shocking Islamic symbol is featured prominently in the left corner of the flag of the State of North Carolina, along with a tree that looks suspiciously like a date palm. The combination cannot be coincidence. I hope you folks are keeping a close eye on them.
I Google it so you don’t have to. What this dolt is claiming has the shape of an Islamic crescent is the slightly curved image of a banner emblazoned with the date “May 20th 1775.” Hey doofus: Obama’s NSS logo actually IS shaped like an Islamic crescent.
If the goal of a person’s cognition is to see how stupid he can be, he will always be able to excel in pursuit of that objective. Being stupid is easy. The question Greg needs to answer (for himself, don’t bother anyone else with such a low struggle), is “what is the point”? Being as stupid as possible just makes one’s existence have as little value as possible. Is that what you want Greg? To live the least valuable life you can? Being intentionally stupid is the way to do it. You are excelling at your chosen career.
The symbolism is definitely there and the instances of it increasing. At least someone is dialing back on the insipid UN blue.
“By the way, that shocking Islamic symbol is featured prominently in the left corner of the flag of the State of North Carolina, along with a tree that looks suspiciously like a date palm. The combination cannot be coincidence. I hope you folks are keeping a close eye on them.”
It was late when I posted and I was relying on memory. I should know better. Why don’t we try the state flag of South Carolina instead, and see how that works out for us? Here’s a link to an image of South Carolina’s state flag:
Perhaps the brief description I provided of the banner in question might have suggested that an incorrect state had been mentioned, rather than stupidity. Did you see anything remotely resembling a crescent or a date palm? I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. The entire issue here seems to revolve around an enthusiasm for incorrect assumptions.
The crescent has been a part of America long before Obama was born.
*LOL* There’s surely no more traditional an example of real Americana than that.
At first when I read that the crescent was superimposed on a map of the world I was aghast but still felt that if the opening didn’t point to Mecca/Saudi Arabia, there would at least be some deniability that Islam was the message. However the map clearly shows the crescent to cover Africa and the opening of the crescent engulfs Saudi Arabia and Mecca. Clearly Obama has let his mask slip off. Imagine if Joe Lieberman had made a Jewish Star Symbol at a nuke Conference and the center of the star was on Israel?
Sorry Greg. I could not tell that you were trying to point out something that really is quite amazing. That is a 100% Ottoman crescent on the South Carolina flag (unless I am the butt of some monstrously elaborate hoax). It is just hard to believe that such a thing could actually be true.
Of course the fact that there is an Islamic-shaped crescent on the SC flag does not make it anything other than an Ottoman crescent. It is exactly the same as on the Turkish flag, and on most Muslim-nation flags around the world. The question is how such an inappropriate state flag ever came into existence.
Apparently it was designed by one Colonel William Moultrie in 1775. Was Moultrie a stealth jihadist? Did he see the Ottoman crescent in books or in his travels and, not knowing what it was, take it for a crescent moon. That is the explanation he supposedly gave: that the crescent represents a new moon. Geometrically it is no such thing. The sun always lights exactly one half of the moon, so the outer arc of the crescent (less than half full) moon always covers exactly one half a circle of arc, not the 2/3rds of a circle seen on the Turkish and South Carolina flags.
Further, the inner arc of a crescent moon is an ellipse (the result of viewing the circular “terminator” that divides the lit and dark halves of the moon from an oblique angle).
But a lot of people apparently have misconceptions about the shape of the crescent moon. I actually knew a fellow in college who insisted that the crescent moon was the shadow of the earth falling on the moon’s face. I pointed out that the only time the earth’s shadow falls on the moon (an eclipse) is when the moon is full. But a number of people who were there claimed that they too were taught that the crescent moon is the earth’s shadow on the moon. Maybe that is what Moultrie thought too, and instead of being a stealth jihadist, he was just an ignoramus.
If I was a South Carolinian, I would want the flag changed. An Islamic-shaped crescent, however innocently come by, is not an appropriate symbol shape for an American flag. This is a nation of religious tolerance while Islam is a religion of political domination that explicitly rejects religious tolerance. I’m not sure it is really possible to tolerate Islam without committing suicide, but we can certainly tolerate many Muslims (depending on how orthodox they are about slaughtering infidels). But the symbols we choose for our flags are not matters of toleration. They signify approval, and Islam is a very wrong religion (the only religion formed explicitly out of violent hostility to other religions). We should not be flying its symbols on our ship of state.
As a SC native I am, obviously, very familiar with the SC state flag.
What was originally a solid blue field with three crescent shapes in white eventually morphed into a solid blue field with a single white crescent shape in the center.
Moultrie, in 1775, copied the crescent shape from a silver emblem that soldiers from SC wore on their caps. The symbol on the caps was pointed ends up, as were the original crescent only flags.
It is believed that the symbol in question was derived from the design of a piece of armor known as a gorget which looked like this one:
Following secession from the Union in 1860, SC needed a new national flag. The gorget was moved up and over to the left and a Palmetto tree in white was added in the center resulting in the flag design that is still used today. There have been other variations over the years like these for example but the original design had staying power.
As you can see from the pictures, the shape of the crescent symbol itself has morphed and changed over time as well, beginning as more of a true reflection of a crescent moon gradually moving into the more exaggerated, and unrealistic, symbol that is currently used.
The first noted reference to the gorget symbol I could find in relation to SC imagery dates back to 1838.
More info, historical references, and images here.
As a side note, the Palmetto tree has a special historical significance to the state because the forts constructed in the Charleston area were impervious to British cannon fire. This was made possible through the use of Palmetto tree trunks whose wood is very soft and spongy and simply absorbed the impact of the cannon balls.
Thanks Aye. Very interesting history. On this telling, the alternative explanation for the use of a circle-in-circle crescent shape (that it was modeled on a gorget) preceded familiarity in this country with the Ottoman crescent, which had not yet become the basis for Muslim flags around the world. In other words, what is today the established meaning of the circle-in-circle crescent shape was not yet an established meaning, so no one knew to avoid it.
That is not the case today, when Obama certainly knows the symbolic significance of calling a world summit under the auspices of an Islamic shaped crescent.
It probably would have been helpful if I’d been pointing in the right direction. Sorry about that!
Oh god! What’s the Pillsbury Dough Boy up to now?
I can’t believe any of you are actually surprised by stuff like this. I can see the Olympic symbol as 5 crescents at the next Olympics if we don’t get this guy out of office at his next election. Maybe you guys could have a contest for what it will look like.
@yippie21: That’s why we should quit watching and reading what I call the propaganda media. They are failing now because of this. The more we go to them, the longer they will last. I didn’t even listen to Fox until Obama told me not to. Since then it is the ONLY one I watch. I want to get on Obama’s hit list. I could use the money.
I took one look at the logo and said, “hey, that’s the hydrogen atom.” But then again I’m in college and not a crazy person.
I guess my question for all of you is: what’s it like because a crazy person? Is it fun coming up with conspiracy theories?
And for the political record, I am not a democrat. I used to be a republican but became completely apathetic after delusional people, such as everyone who reads this blog, took over the party. You think the problem is Obama being a secret-Muslim socialist? Think again. Its yourself and the way you are eroding the conservative movement by focusing on conspiracy theories and paranoia.
Concern Troll Aisle 22.
@Todd…. gee, I guess I missed the “nucleus” of that Hydrogen Atom… could you point it out for me, or do only crazy people not see what isn’t there? Are you majoring in iconography?
What is ‘unnatural’ about the islamic crescent whereas you consider the lunar crescent to be natural? Depending where the viewer was – and how far the planet or moon was in front of the sun (during an eclipse) – then the islamic crescent is not at all unnatural in the universe. Also at present the distance & size of the moon and the sun from the earth – gives the deceptive appearance they are roughly the same size. However in history this wasn’t always the case – as the moon was further out than present and would not have covered the sun.
I agree that the crescent of rembrance should be changed but on this I think you are ‘barking’ up the wrong tree. For a start – it looks like a very anorexic islamic crescent!;)
@Rockybutte… I saw the pillsbury dough boy the other day… he was bent over and all I could see were donuts!
@Donald Bly: At first I thought you made up the name iconography, but my spell check didn’t show it as a misspelled word, so I looked it up and found out it is an actual word. I learned something new today. I also created a word (iconologist).
Iconography has become a science with more and more iconologists taking up the profession all the time. As I have mentioned in earlier posts, iconologists will probably change the Olympics symbol to five crescents
To concern troll Todd and any others who think the “hydrogen atom” explanation makes the use of an Islamic shaped crescent okay, please answer the question I posed to Rockybutte (7):
A poster (#10) here makes a good point…
You have non muslim crescent in all sorts of logos…and I suspect few people would immediate think these examples are islamic crescents or associated with muslim in anyway. Do you believe all logos should be physically accurate – or have heard about artistic license?
Should we avoid crosses and stars as well in case people think they automatically represent christianity and judism? Context is important here. As for swastika – check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
It’s a symbol that’s been used by Indians and Native Americans and in plenty of other places arounde the world besides – which is not connected to nazism.
Fear of such symbols continue to get ridiculous….
To Gaffa on what is unnatural about the Islamic crescent shape: it is unnatural as a crescent moon, which it is supposed to represent. A crescent moon covers a half circle of arc and has an elliptical inner arc. The Islamic crescent is a circle-in-circle design.
As I noted in the post, the Islamic “crescent moon” is EXPLICITLY unnatural, in obedience to the Islamic requirement not to raise up any thing but God.
On Obama’s NSS crescent being “anorexic,” some Islamic crescents are fatter than others. The fatness is not what defines the shape. Hezbollah uses a maximally anexoric crescent, where a single line traces the typical 2/3rds of a circle of arc (encircling the globe, to indicate world domination, as with the MAS logo).
I’ve found the perfect “crescent moon” image.
This is getting ridiculous:
The point is that, by coming up with an intentionally unnatural crescent shape, the Muslim crescent is peculiar and easily recognizable and at this point highly familiar, appearing on the flag of almost every Muslim nation. There is no avoiding the established meaning of this symbol shape. The idea that offering some alternative interpretation can obviate the established meaning is absurd.
In countries where muslims are the majority – the islamic crescent you describe doesn’t appear on…
Iran (crescents without horns)
United Arab Emirates
So when you say ‘almost every’ I think you mean ‘a small minority’.
GAFFAUK:hi,he could have been more creative,and use a square pattern,for each corner of UNITEDSTATES,surended with blue on each corner:bye 🙄
Yes, I should have said that the crescent appears on MANY Muslim flags, not almost every. But it is certainly not a “small minority,” as Gaffa suggest. His list is padded by many states that are very much divided on religion. Nigeria a Muslim nation? Come on.
For countries that have “Islamic flags,” Wikipedia lists 14 that use crescents and 10 that do not.
More generally, on the question of how widely the Islamic crescent shape is used and understood, Muslim countries that do not have crescents on their flags can still be dotted with Islamic crescents. The government of Indonesia, for instance, has recently become much more assertive about being an Islamic government, but it still flies the flag of Indonesia’s 13th century Majahapit empire (when when Muslims were a small minority in Indonesia).
So Indonesia does not have an Islamic flag, but the country is famous for its crescent topped mosques. Every Indonesian would instantly recognize that Obama’s nuclear summit was conducted under the auspices of an Islamic crescent.
I can’t beleive that the site where the flight 93 crash ;is not kept bare,as it is ,to keep the memory alive of thoses bravest passengers last fights for AMERICA:how can they built an islamic pattern to glorified thoses who are the criminals perpetrators;it is behong my understanding:
Even if you reduce that list of countries down those that have a majority of 60% muslim (Malaysia has 60% muslim population – a flag you included) then you only remove Nigeria, Chad, Kazakhstan, Burkina Faso.
Yet your list of Muslim nation is based on those with islamic flags! Isn’t Afghanistan a muslim nation? Or Egypt? Or Morocco?
And your 14 islamic flags with crescents – half of them don’t conform to your description of an ‘unnatural’ crescent. So that’s 7 flags out of about 43 countries! So less than 20%.
No doubt the same people who think that this company is run by islamists….lol
No, they ALL have unnatural crescents. Some are more exaggeratedly unnatural than others, but they all have circular rather than elliptical inner arcs, and they all cover more than a half a circle of arc. Look closely.
#35: “how can they built an islamic pattern to glorified thoses who are the criminals perpetrators?”
Perhaps because they modified the original design and are building something else. Or, perhaps these ideas are not rational, and are kept alive by wacky ideologues, looking for the 1% connection that eludes the critical thinking that serious people use to avoid really dumb and fake controversies.
There might be dozens or hundreds of possible reasons behind this “controversy”, except not this lame line of “thinking”.
BTW; did you hear that Obama has taken over another business; his plan is to fix the dinner pastries we all love to better match his Destroy America Now plan (not Islamic enough). Yet!
#23 / #28:
So if some presents a different opinion, or even facts, that disagree with the post or related comments, that makes them a troll?
I guess there is a lot of thin-skinned people here that all have golden opinions, who can’t let themselves get confused with other peoples free-speech.
What a nice un-American sentiment.
You totally miss the point… the trolls were free to speak their minds, shallow that they be, and you were free to voice your opinion, and then you have the gall to complain when we exercise our free speech in calling them trolls… interesting, very very interesting! May I suggest a course in “logic”… now STFU. (how’s that for free speech?)
FYA:as a matter of fact;FA;is open to differents opinions, so my opinion is that simple as;a crescent of any colors or elliptic difference ;still remain a”crescent”,nobody is going to bring a measure,when they see it,bye 🙄
No, what made Todd a “Concern Troll” was the fact that he fit the definition perfectly:
View at EasyCaptures.com
Then, you dash in with this:
Hmmmm….your second post here and you’re finding fault with this site and what is written here….
Seems you fit the definition of “Control Troll” too:
View at EasyCaptures.com
So, what was your point again?
IMO, using “troll” as ones response (esp. in #23) is attacking the poster directly, where discussing the merits of a position are often left out. It’s a feeble avoidance technique that attempts to put a poster down. In and of itself, it isn’t a method of disagreement; that would take actual commentary to refute or support a particular position. It is not at all fact based, just simplistic rhetoric.
You freely assert that “trolls” can post, but that, simply by tagging them, they are “shallow.” Nice debating (all style, no substance). I will totally agree your comments are free speech. However, it is obvious my comments were not about calling posters trolls, but why it is done. If you assert that this can be done without any reason or rationale offered, then IMO you are shallow and cowardly. You may have the courage of your convictions, but appear to lack critical thinking skills needed to explain or convince anyone why your opinion is worth anything. How sad.
To paraphrase: “I refuse to have a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent.”
“Open to different opinions” – this is a good thing. However, I’m not clear how “open” things are on FA. Would this mean that posters here actually consider relevant evidence, and how that may affect previously offered comments? Or is it just that other voices can exist, but not really be heard? For the record, I’m in the evidence camp.
So, IYO; the shape is a crescent. OK. I would then ask: what, if anything does that mean?
Is there any explanation (formal / informal) for its shape?
Are their any suggestions or theories for the shape?
Once a set of options are assembled, what evidence is there to reflect on and consider which option(s) is/are more likely as the reason behind the reality (that the shape exists)?
How is a final decision arrived at; logic, consensus, random choice, ideology?
Now, although I would tend to follow this process, it is unknown what others do. How about you? I grant that no one actually needs any process to form an opinion; they have freedom of choice (after all, its’ their opinion). However, lacking a process, I would say it’s a fair conclusion that they have an uninformed opinion.
If you have anything of substance to debate… bring it on buddy… You’ll find out how fast you get your ass handed to you. Speaking of asses…. Opinions are a lot like assholes, everyone has one but some stink! I’m betting your tailpipe isn’t wafting the sweet scent of rosebuds.
Is this your attempt to appear intellectual or did you just finish up a course – Decision Making 101. Go watch Good Will Hunting… and take your pretentiousness with you!
I see, your post is filled with substance. Right. Breaking News: Substance offered in #39.
Apparently, you are unable to understand, or offer any semblance of answers to, the process I described (#42). Because that would be substance.
I guess I missed your #39 post since I jumped in at post #40 in response to your ironic claims concerning free speech by railing about other’s use of free speech in labeling a troll a troll.
When you get to something else I need to discredit, I’ll jump back in. Until then I’ll let others more passionate, debate the topic of the flight 93 memorial’s “red crescent” design.
By the way, did you pass your “Decision Making 101” course? If you ever graduate and you get out into the real world, I’d keep that whole process to yourself if you want people to actually take you seriously in the business world.
FACTYOUALL: i am trying to see,what is in the back of your mind:speak up,instead of asking questions:give your own substance,bye 🙄
Aye, I may not see Todd the same as you do.
I’m at a loss for the part of Todd’s post where he is categorized on both sides of this discussion. If this is meant to refer his party shift, how is that an unreasonable or unbelievable event? If you think he’s pretending, your sense detectors must be a lot better than mine.
All in all, and setting his specific party alignment aside, I see his post as a consistent argument, and generally speaking, logically sound (again, all politics aside). The viewpoint he describes fits a real-world view for individuals. I fail to see any flaws for a person who might fit the category and hold these opinions.
In any case, I think the original troll description for Todd was just too simplistic.
As to me; perhaps “a lot” was too strong. In retrospect I would modify that to “some” (that’s the same “some” that Fox News uses all the time: “Some people say . . .”). I also see confusion with my reference to “here” that led to the “finding fault” reply. My comments were referring only to this thread, not the site.
That said, I do indeed find fault with what is written here; that is why I posted in the first place. My comments speak for themselves, so I won’t go down that rabbit hole here.
As for the question of my (control/concern?) troll nature; let me be clear. IMO, reverting to this characterization due to disagreements over positions (or especially evidence) made by any poster is disingenuous and intended as a simplistic put-down, when it’s not possible to offer a reasonable counterpoint. The example quotes for Concern Troll #3 (which you omitted) sound very different than anything I said.
I also guess my exaggerated attempt at humor might have influenced my trollness ranking. Whatever; you’ve got and explained a reason that supports your opinion of me, and opinions are up to you not me. I only offer my side so you can hopefully understand intent.