Muslim filth commit mass rapes in Germany - no surprise there

[Stelakh]

We also have the 1st amendment. Right to freedom of religion and speech.

Both are under assault by liberals. Liberals on college campuses want to ban any "unfriendly" speech.

Libs in Britain want to ban Trump for his speech. Do they not realize these are the same steps taken in Orwell's 1984?

What if the powers that be decide all criticism of Obama is hate speech? And start sending people to jail? Very slippery slope.


Also there is no right to sexual orientation in the constitution. The SCOTUS simply said they can get married. So we are going to force places to serve their weddings and take photos of them if they don't wish to, for religious reasons? That doesn't sound draconian?

You are absolutely right. The 1st Amendment is one of the guarantees of the Constitution.

One can, provided they're not getting into the area of inciting to riot/treason/war/etc. say quite a bit, and I'm personally not in favor of changing that. There is a reason that we have freedom of speech as a protected right.

But that doesn't change the simple fact that our Constitution guarantees freedom from discrimination, persecution and inequality; and that being FOR discrimination, persecution and inequality makes one an unpatriotic hater of America; which one is allowed to be.

As to those in England who want to ban Trump, that's their issue which does, in fact, go up against their own Constitution.

Frankly, I think Trump should be banned for being a sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot, but he has the right to be that sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot, so I couldn't ban him if I wanted to.

The idea that the "powers that be" would decide that criticism of a sitting President is hate speech is patently absurd in that it simply could not happen under the Constitution. It's not even on a slope.

You're right, there's no protection for "sexual orientation" in the Constitution. Which, if you look at what I said again, has nothing to do with the fact that there IS a right to equal protection under the law - which is what the Supreme Court upheld.

That said, there IS an "unalienable human right" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," in the Declaration of Independence. I think sexual orientation would definitely fall into that category.

The Supreme Court's ruling (and we're getting off-topic, here, I realize) doesn't obligate clergy to marry people they don't want to (which allows various churches to remain bigoted institutions while not paying taxes).

Marriage is a civil institution that does not require religious approval. No church or member of the clergy has been forced to perform a same-sex wedding, and none ever will. That's where the Constitution comes into play.

Whether or not someone is forced to engage in business as a photographer, baker or other such issue is a question for the Court, and I'm sure that'll be coming along soon enough.

But the funny thing about the "the court wants to force me to bake a cake for gays" thing (since in this country it's Christians who are so vehemently vocal in their bigotry) is that Jesus would, in fact, have baked the damned cake.

But Christians these days are more interested in only the parts of the bible they like, and not the whole thing.

Which immediately brings into question just how faithful they are. The bible is a done deal. You follow all of it if you truly have religious convictions.

If not, you're just using the bible to be an asshole.

Which (to get back on topic) kind of sounds like ISIS doesn't it? Perverting religious texts so you can justify being complete assholes to others?

Funny how similar some things can be, isn't it? But then, religious zealotry comes in many forms.

 

[Stelakh]

Well Obama claims to be a Christian and liberals like Howeycat get very butt hurt when you suggest otherwise.

Which brings up a very interesting question.

A) liberals in this board have disdain for Christianity
B) Liberals in this board have nothing but love for Islam and defend its adherents to the death
C) liberals hate it when you call Obama a Muslim and insist he is a Christian.

Odd isn't it?

Which brings up an interesting response.

1) In a 2012 study by political analyst Larry Sabato, he found that, "The higher the education level, the more likely they are to vote Democratic."

2) In 2008, 44% of 18,000 respondents of CNN's national election poll identified as college graduates. The amount of Democrats with a college degree were 8 percentage points above Republicans.

3) In a 2014 study by the Pew Research Center, people with post-graduate degrees came in at 57% Democratic, 33% Republican. Those with college degrees came in at 49% Democratic and 42% Republican.

4) According to research, less educated people are more likely to follow a more draconian, intolerant, authoritarian and paranoid mindset.

Odd, isn't it?

Now me, I'm not a liberal, but I have a disdain for all religion (not just the loudmouth bullies of Christianity and Islam).

Perhaps the reason I personally have a disdain for religion is the same reason the liberals get upset when you say that President Obama is a Muslim: There's no more empirical evidence to lead one to believe in religion any more than there is to support the assertion that President Obama is Muslim.

I don't know, maybe the liberals just don't like it when people lie or open their mouths without actually finding the facts first.

 

[Leonthecat]

I am still praying for Air Force One to crash into a mountain with him,Moochelle, his demon spawn and their shitty dog too

Racist loser.

 

[Leonthecat]

He's trying to separate himself from "him"; because the voices in "Bucky's head" were really off base.

Beg your pardon ma'am but that is not correct.

 

[Leonthecat]

Yeah but what other fundamental religion, CURRENTLY, is killing hundreds of thousands of people a day and is on a death march to conquer the world?

Everytime you say, So what all religions are X. You are excusing the bad behavior of the islamists and watering down their actions as if its a norm for religious people.

I excuse none of it. They are insane barbarians and need to be stopped.

 

[Leonthecat]

I was friends with an Iranian in college. He was born in Iran, moved to America and converted to Christianity.

However he kept he extreme anti-western views. Idk why he chooses to live her if he hates US so much.

I'm sure not all practice it, but if you look at places that implement Sharia law, they make women near slaves.

But I was speaking toward ISIS and the lefts silence when it comes to their treatment of women and gays. I hear no outrage like I heard when an indiana restaurant refused pizza to a gay wedding.

Seems very strange.

For the record; I am a liberal and that behavior by any religion has me outraged. They are insane barbarians.
The pizza thing is the same illness on a smaller scale and not as radical. It is also closer to home.

 

[Leonthecat]

We also have the 1st amendment. Right to freedom of religion and speech.

Both are under assault by liberals. Liberals on college campuses want to ban any "unfriendly" speech.

Libs in Britain want to ban Trump for his speech. Do they not realize these are the same steps taken in Orwell's 1984?

What if the powers that be decide all criticism of Obama is hate speech? And start sending people to jail? Very slippery slope.


Also there is no right to sexual orientation in the constitution. The SCOTUS simply said they can get married. So we are going to force places to serve their weddings and take photos of them if they don't wish to, for religious reasons? That doesn't sound draconian?

American yes , draconian no.

 

[Leonthecat]

So Rana's parents are mentally ill and she's also mentally ill, just not as much as they are.
But wait a minute!!
Obama claims to be religious, so does that make him mentally ill also??

Dependence on supernatural beings is a mental illness IMHO. When the actions resulting from these dependencies become extreme and anti humanity, we have the onset of full blown insanity.
When the President does something extreme like start a war, because God told him to, or some scripture in a magic book predicted it, then I would be obliged to call him insane. So far he has remained on the saner pragmatic side of his superstitions as far as I can tell, Ma'am.

 

[Leonthecat]

Well Obama claims to be a Christian and liberals like Howeycat get very butt hurt when you suggest otherwise.

Which brings up a very interesting question.

A) liberals in this board have disdain for Christianity
B) Liberals in this board have nothing but love for Islam and defend its adherents to the death
C) liberals hate it when you call Obama a Muslim and insist he is a Christian.

Odd isn't it?

This liberal has disdain for all sky daddy superstitions including christianity and islam. Sorry if that interrupts your narrative, loser.

 

[Leonthecat]

You need to shut up.
Leo / Bucky thinks you and your parents are mentally ill.

Begging your pardon Ma'am, but you most certainly are.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Which brings up an interesting response.

1) In a 2012 study by political analyst Larry Sabato, he found that, "The higher the education level, the more likely they are to vote Democratic."

2) In 2008, 44% of 18,000 respondents of CNN's national election poll identified as college graduates. The amount of Democrats with a college degree were 8 percentage points above Republicans.

3) In a 2014 study by the Pew Research Center, people with post-graduate degrees came in at 57% Democratic, 33% Republican. Those with college degrees came in at 49% Democratic and 42% Republican.

4) According to research, less educated people are more likely to follow a more draconian, intolerant, authoritarian and paranoid mindset.

Odd, isn't it?

Now me, I'm not a liberal, but I have a disdain for all religion (not just the loudmouth bullies of Christianity and Islam).

Perhaps the reason I personally have a disdain for religion is the same reason the liberals get upset when you say that President Obama is a Muslim: There's no more empirical evidence to lead one to believe in religion any more than there is to support the assertion that President Obama is Muslim.

I don't know, maybe the liberals just don't like it when people lie or open their mouths without actually finding the facts first.

Or you can go fuck yourself. I don't know

 

[canceled.2021.1]

More muslime atrocities for the left wingers to white wash

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...e-was-protecting-young-girl-from-sex-assault/

 

[Darth Omar]

First things first. ISIS is not America. They are not based on our Constitution. I think they are likely outraged that ISIS gets away with their treatment of women and gays, but we're talking about "American" bigotry, here.

If you want the outrage, I could supply it. I'm just trying to be calm today.

You see, I believe in the Constitution of the United States of America. It provides for certain freedoms - one of which is the freedom from discrimination based on race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex and sexual orientation (YES, sexual orientation - because the Supreme Court's ruling didn't legalize "gay marriage," it reaffirmed the 14th Amendment's tenets that Constitutional rights must be granted to citizens equally. I'm not sure why the anti-gay bigots can't understand this). The freedom from discrimination also guarantees us the right of freedom from religious persecution.

When I see someone, regardless of their political party, start painting entire groups of people because of where they're from or what religion they practice, you bet I can supply outrage.

Because the Constitution is what makes us citizens of the United States of America, and when even just one of us launches into religious persecution or bigotry of any kind, it strikes at the very heart of the ideals and principles that make us Americans. And that, in turn, irrevocably damages all of us and makes a mockery of what it means to be an American.

It makes us less American, and is an affront to what we should be.

THAT is where the real outrage should be, Irish.

Outrage should be directed at the masquerade of so many people claiming to be "patriots" and "pro-American" who have lost sight of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and stand proud on the most unpatriotic, anti-American platform imaginable. And what makes it all the more grotesque is that they don't recognize what they're doing.

Your outrage is duley noted. The problem is it's directed at people who have no power. The people in power, the ones who set policy, won't even utter the words radical Islam for fear of offending Muslims. They've gone as far as---and this is really 'grotesque', to scrub counter-terrorism training manuals of anything having to do with Islam.

Obama claims ISIS isn't Islamic, etc and etc. If there are two extremes only one is being implimented while the other is only being talked about in campaign speeches. And the former approach isn't exactly working too well.

What is it with liberals and Islam? At the first mention of Muslims or Islam liberals go to walking on eggshells. I've never seen anything like it.

 

[Stelakh]

Or you can go fuck yourself. I don't know

Or... or, we can let you respond with stupidity and idiocy and thus prove those studies are true.

Oh. You did.

Odd, isn't it?

 

[Stelakh]

Your outrage is duley noted. The problem is it's directed at people who have no power. The people in power, the ones who set policy, won't even utter the words radical Islam for fear of offending Muslims. They've gone as far as---and this is really 'grotesque', to scrub counter-terrorism training manuals of anything having to do with Islam.

Obama claims ISIS isn't Islamic, etc and etc. If there are two extremes only one is being implimented while the other is only being talked about in campaign speeches. And the former approach isn't exactly working too well.

What is it with liberals and Islam? At the first mention of Muslims or Islam liberals go to walking on eggshells. I've never seen anything like it.

Actually, Omar, it's directed at people who have the power to effect change by contacting the peoples they elected.

But more to the point, it's directed at people who are so stupid that they don't understand what they're doing actually pushes their elected officials to respond with equal and/or greater stupidity.

And the elected officials get away with it because the vast majority of people are so stupid that they listen to what they're told, and then never bother to go outside the echo chamber to check anything or see if what they've been told is factual.

As far as liberals and Islam? I don't know and I can't speak for them. As I said earlier, I'm not a liberal, (I'm actually a Constitutional Humanist), and I detest all religions equally. It's simply that our Constitution requires that they be allowed to be practiced without persecution.

And there is, I know you are aware because we've discussed it before, a difference between "Islam" and "Islamist."

 

[Darth Omar]

Actually, Omar, it's directed at people who have the power to effect change by contacting the peoples they elected.

But more to the point, it's directed at people who are so stupid that they don't understand what they're doing actually pushes their elected officials to respond with equal and/or greater stupidity.

And the elected officials get away with it because the vast majority of people are so stupid that they listen to what they're told, and then never bother to go outside the echo chamber to check anything or see if what they've been told is factual.

As far as liberals and Islam? I don't know and I can't speak for them. As I said earlier, I'm not a liberal, (I'm actually a Constitutional Humanist), and I detest all religions equally. It's simply that our Constitution requires that they be allowed to be practiced without persecution.

And there is, I know you are aware because we've discussed it before, a difference between "Islam" and "Islamist."

One is a religion and the other is a political system based on it. I'll leave it to you to convince the Saudis and the Iranians they don't understand their religion properly.

At any rate, I have to assume you're okay with scrubbing Islam from counter terrorism manuals since you don't seem to find that as objectionable as offending Muslims. How are these people supposed to protect innocent Americans if they aren't allowed to learn about jihad?

That rates a WTF?!, by my estimation. And you seem more concerned about---I'm not sure what, exactly. You mentioned religious persecution. I'm not aware of any Muslim persecution---at least on any scale beyond what's to be expected in a country this size.

 

[iolo]

These are my views not the nation's.

You could have fooled me!

 

[cancel2 2022]

You could have fooled me!

Anyone can fool you, Taffy!!

 

[Taft2016]

Which brings up an interesting response.

1) In a 2012 study by political analyst Larry Sabato, he found that, "The higher the education level, the more likely they are to vote Democratic."

True enough. The educated PhD types, the professional students, those totally ignorant of real-world living, do tend to vote Democrat.

But when moving down to college graduates they lean GOP. As do those with "some college."

When we get down to just high school graduates, or high school dropouts, the momentum swings back to the Democrats.

And you know what's even more interesting? Those with only grade school educations are not only the Democrats' consistently strongest education demographic, they're also their strongest demographic entirely.

But you need not take my word for it. Just thumb back through past Gallup exit polling.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/9469/election-polls-vote-groups-20002004.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/112132/Election-Polls-Vote-Groups-2008.aspx

 

[christiefan915]

Your outrage is duley noted. The problem is it's directed at people who have no power. The people in power, the ones who set policy, won't even utter the words radical Islam for fear of offending Muslims.

The silly, distracting debate over whether to use the words ‘radical Islam’

"...before we get consumed with the politics of this argument about word usage, we should ask a simple question: To quote something Clinton herself once said, what difference does it make? Do the words “Islamic terrorism” constitute some kind of magical incantation that once spoken will drive our enemies from the earth? I’m not saying language never matters, but what exactly is this particular language choice supposed to accomplish?

Republicans have been making this criticism of Barack Obama for years, endlessly saying, “How can he defeat radical Islam if he won’t call it by its name?!?” Even for them, this is an uncommonly stupid argument. Let’s say Obama or Clinton came out tomorrow and said, “Hey, you know what? You guys are right. We are at war with radical Islam.” Then what? Would that make anyone any safer?

I’ve yet to hear any conservative give a substantive reason why it would be preferable to have the president say “We’re at war with radical Islam,” other than that doing so would prove that he or she is tough and strong. And as Clinton pointed out, George W. Bush was careful to emphasize that we’re not at war with Islam; I don’t think there are many conservatives who think Bush’s problem when it came to terrorism was that he was weak."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-over-whether-to-use-the-words-radical-islam/