Ohh, here we go...
r3x29yz4a said:Wonder Boy said:
...demonstrate the same mindset as domestic U.S. Islamic organizations (i.e., enemies within our borders, whose first loyalty is to the enemies who wish to destroy us), in their eagerness to slice up America. As demonstrated in this map from an Islamic website :
you're a racist, this much is obvious. also a bigot. Just because some terrorists are islamic (you like to ignore catholic and christian terrorists I notice) doesn't mean all islam is terrorism.
As usual for you, when you can't make a case for something on the issue itself, you toss up a lot of smoke by accusing the opposition of being "racist" or whatever.
Nice smear job.
Using emotionally charged labels, rather than facts or logic, to misrepresent me, simply because you disagree with what I said.
Congratulations, you've just (once again) demonstrated the factless and uncivil smear tactics of the Angry Left.
Muslim is not a race, it is a belief system. So my distrust of muslims cannot be fairly described as racism.
That's just an angry label you try to slap on me.
It is a statistical fact (as several articles I previously posted to
THIS topic detail) that Muslim cultures have an exceptionally high incidence of sectarian religious violence.
It is a statistical fact that every frontier of the Muslim world (the Phillipines, Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Sudan, Indonesia, China, India, etc) is a center of Islamic violence.
Even in the United States,
the most liberal form of Islam practiced in the world, it is estimated that 85% of the mosques in the U.S. teach Jihadist principles, directly from the Koran.
In the wake of 9-11, a
Washington Post article I posted showed that the number of Muslim students coming to the U.S. and Europe sharply declined in the year following 9-11.
And that 30% to 50% of the populations in the Islamic world started boycotting U.S. businesses and products that year as well.
Again, in pan-Islamic solidarity with the terrorists.
It is a statistical fact, whether in the United States, in Canada, in Europe or elsewhere, that violence against non-Muslims, particularly against Jews, synagogues and Jewish graveyards, follows Muslim immigration wherever it goes in the world.
And a sharp uptick accompanying Muslim immigration, of violence toward women as well.
Is that "racist"? Or just a cold hard look at the facts?
While I meet and interact with many peaceful Muslims, it can be argued that they are only peaceful because they are not strong adherents to Koranic teachings.
Several I've talked to, while peaceful, expressed a vision that they will (in a war of ideas, rather than guns) convert the entire United States population into Muslims. They seemed oblivious to how this could be offensive to me, a Christian, living in a nation that is founded on the Bible and Christian principles.
Violent?
No.
But threatening nonetheless, in their desire not to assimilate, but to abuse their welcome to this country, to assimilate
us into
their culture and beliefs.
I find this offensive. And anti-American. And threatening.
As I've detailed in several past posts, I've dated two Middle Eastern women, one from Morocco (a Sunni Muslim), another an Iranian (an athiest, who has rejected Islam and all religion, based on her experience fleeing Iran in 1979, when the Shah was overthrown, and her family left to escape being slaughtered. She described her nation as an intellectual paradise under the Shah, with great manifestations of education and the arts, that was destroyed by ignorant barbarians after the Islamic Revolution).
If I were a "racist", would I have dated Middle Eastern women?
Once again, r3x:
Islam is not a race.It is a belief system.
Like Soviet Communism.
Like Nazism.
And when the tenets of its belief system are fully indoctrinated and practiced, it is dangerous.
r3x29yz4a said
Dude, lets do the split as the map shows. See how the farmers get by without New York and California. You guys make this assumption that your tiny population spread over large bordered states means shit.
So go for it.
Once again, only you (bitter and divisive liberals, and the Muslims) are talking about carving up America.
r3x29yz4a said
Go for the southern Klans and uneducated small towns where they still ban Tom Sawyer. Take your morals=oppression BS and leave us the fuck alone.
Now you'll probably take offense to that because you were being so nice with your anti-liberal bullshit.
Now
that's stereotyping. All Southerners are Klansmen?
Give me a break.
And it's not
Tom Sawyer that schools ban, r3x.
Have you even
read Tom Sawyer?
There's nothing offensive about it. It's a nostalgic look at childhood and boyish mischief, with a backdrop of the Mississippi region.
I've only heard debate over banning of
Huckleberry Finn, which is a more literary and political sequel to the first novel, in which Twain re-visits his boyhood with an adult disillusionment, which has Huck and Jim (a black slave) boat down the Mississippi, where they witness crowd violence, mistreatment of blacks, and other disturbing things.
Discussion of banning the book (although I've never heard of it actually being banned, only debated) stems from the frequent use of the word "nigger", in its accurate portrayal of the period. Which, despite being a novel clearly critical of slavery and mistreatment of blacks, some high-minded school board thought it would be offensive to blacks, and that students and their parents were too stupid to discern the book's true intent to criticize slavery.
(I actually think that despite your assumptions, r3x, it might actually have been --gasp, choke!--
liberals who pushed to have the book banned.)
r3x29yz4a said W B said:
Interesting also that, compared to the U.S., Canada has a much larger Muslim population --arguably an out-of-control level of Muslim immigration-- that 60 Minutes in one of their news stories called "an Islamic aircraft carrier, within striking distance of the United States".
Domestic Muslims recognize the usefulness of complacent liberal majorities in the Blue States, and envision absorbing them into a like-minded Muslim-laden Canada.
Has Canada had any terrorist attacks? again you are making a biggoted assumption that all muslims are terrorists. muslims are like christians or jews, people of faith who can be swayed but most of them aren't. you're a bigot and only a few lines of reasoning away from saying aborting black babies would lower the crime rate.
You do realize that just a month or so ago a terror-cell was busted up in Canada, who even planned to behead the Canadian prime minister?
Again, while ALL Muslims are not violent, I find it a threatening belief system, that gestates violence in every country where it is practiced, encouraging violence against governments and non-believers alike.
And even against rival Muslim sects (Shia, Sunni, etc.)
Again, that's not bigoted, that's based on the quantifiable information about Muslim cultures worldwide.
r3x29yz4a said W B said:
Liberals in the U.S., with their contempt-filled divisive rhetoric, passively support the goals of those who wish to not just divide us politically, but envision splitting the nation territorially.
Like your post above? Like every post you make? In fact most of the divisivness has come from conservatives. Bush attacked Kerry because he was "liberal," Coulter/Hannity/O'Reilly use the word liberal like it was a swear word. That's divisive.
I think they just outline the flaws that are manifest in liberal rhetoric, and in liberal demonization of conservatives.
r3x29yz4a said
And I don't think that you get that the Jesusland map is a joke, there's no real plan in place to seceed from the union, okay.
A wise man once said:
"Many a truth is said in jest..."Liberals consistently demonstrate such an intolerant contempt for those who don't believe what they believe.
There was
serious talk, both in 2000, and even more so in 2004, by liberals, that when Bush won, they wanted to leave the United States.
Is that "joking" ?
It was serious enough that the Canadian government made a statement that an exodus of liberals into Canada would not be permitted.
And again, it's not patriotic of liberals to, rather than work to improve what they find wrong with the country, to just want to flee to somewhere else. That clearly states a first allegience to something other than the United States.
r3x29yz4a said
And if questioning the actions of the president was destructive to the country then we never would have made it past John Adams. Read your history. Washington was the only truly popular president. Every one since has had detractors.
A healthy debate is good for the country, where the best ideas are tested and utilized.
But what you endorse, and manifest in your own venom-filled posts, is sweeping demonization of Republicans, and embracement of every defective policy and venomous smear campaign the Democrats utilize, to distract from the true facts and issues.
And from a meaningful dialogue of the best ideas.
While I lean Republican, I've stated many times my criticisms of Republican/conservative actions, and I feel this partisan debate is a distraction from the larger issues that threaten the country. While you never disagree with the liberal position, no matter how mean-spirited, divisive and venomous.
I fail to see the point in demonizing Republicans, to exalt the superiority of Democrats who are just as immersed in corporate contributions, federal deficits, and budget pork spending.
