Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 100

Thread: Congresswoman allows terrorist group in her office

  1. #76 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    36,401
    Thanks
    159
    Thanked 4,468 Times in 4,057 Posts
    Groans
    12
    Groaned 379 Times in 368 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    When the insults begin you always know the person has nothing substantive left to say and can only make up stuff and attack them. When someone could easily prove their claims by listing the post # but will not do so, you always know they are lying. A blatant racist who is calling somebody else stupid tells us something.
    When you started making excuses, you proved you were a lazy bastard. I've posted it. If you're too lazy to find it, that's on you.

  2. #77 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    36,348
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krudzu View Post
    CAIR isn't a terrorist group.
    You are incorrect.

    CAIR named terrorist organization

    https://tinyurl.com/y3qypcfv

    You have zero credibility.

  3. #78 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    36,348
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by katzgutz View Post
    People like you should be banned from posting
    Will you rise up, grandpa?

  4. #79 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    36,348
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatFowlWoman View Post
    Do these fat chicks also cook, clean house, do laundry, run errands, clean bird cages? If so, where might I find one? lol
    I promised Christiecrite I'd quit with the fat jokes. But she has Fridays free.

  5. #80 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    36,348
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasist View Post
    What nonsense, generalizations are generally incorrect
    Do you apply that principle consistently?

  6. #81 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    36,348
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor View Post
    No. You see Katzgar wears the pants in his family. They are right there under his apron.
    And over his adult diaper, Cap'n?

  7. #82 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    17,433
    Thanks
    3,322
    Thanked 9,383 Times in 6,697 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 263 Times in 255 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    And over his adult diaper, Cap'n?
    HA! Aye.
    Consider the Oyster.

    C-4 is just angry playdoh.

  8. #83 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    36,348
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Sorry if I was wrong. Please interpret the following constitutional provision to correct my error: "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
    The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is a clause within Article VI, Clause 3. By its plain terms, no federal officeholder or employee can be required to adhere to or accept any particular religion or doctrine as a prerequisite to holding a federal office or a federal government job.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause

    Nobody has advocated that Muslims adhere to or accept any particular religion or doctrine, have they?

  9. #84 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    5,143
    Thanks
    164
    Thanked 1,223 Times in 1,015 Posts
    Groans
    26
    Groaned 46 Times in 46 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is a clause within Article VI, Clause 3. By its plain terms, no federal officeholder or employee can be required to adhere to or accept any particular religion or doctrine as a prerequisite to holding a federal office or a federal government job.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause

    Nobody has advocated that Muslims adhere to or accept any particular religion or doctrine, have they?
    That is exactly the explanation I gave for that provision--it is very simple and there is no real disagreement about its meaning (except by CFM who is keeping the "real" meaning secret).

    I never suggested anyone advocated that Muslims adhere to any particular religious doctrine. However, I Love America said it "Doesn’t mean you can’t ban muslimes" and "Muslimes should be barred from serving in elected office"

    Banning someone from holding public office because they are Muslim obviously violates the religious test doctrine.

  10. #85 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    59,569
    Thanks
    6,932
    Thanked 8,589 Times in 5,977 Posts
    Groans
    5,316
    Groaned 1,366 Times in 1,289 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by I Love America View Post
    I'm sure the Christchurch shooter would've "liked" this post ILA, you're just like him.
    Last edited by I <3 Hezbollah; 03-15-2019 at 05:01 PM.
    "Do not think that I came to bring peace... I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34

  11. #86 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    36,348
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Banning someone from holding public office because they are Muslim obviously violates the religious test doctrine.
    I'm not sure that's correct.

  12. #87 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    59,569
    Thanks
    6,932
    Thanked 8,589 Times in 5,977 Posts
    Groans
    5,316
    Groaned 1,366 Times in 1,289 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    In the wake of widespread global pogroms and acts of hatred against Muslims, it is only natural that there would be a group in the United States dedicated to the defense of Muslims from the hateful, violent, evil ideology of nationalist rightism. It is only natural that the adherents of the ideology of the Christchurch shooter, such as ILA, would be angered that they do not sit defenselessly, like the little girl who played dead that the Christchurch shooter went back to double tap so he could be sure she was dead.
    "Do not think that I came to bring peace... I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34

  13. #88 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    36,348
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watermark View Post
    I'm sure the Churchill shooter would've "liked" this post ILA, you're just like him.
    Somebody shot Churchill? First time I've heard that. Was it a Muslim?

  14. #89 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    59,569
    Thanks
    6,932
    Thanked 8,589 Times in 5,977 Posts
    Groans
    5,316
    Groaned 1,366 Times in 1,289 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by I Love America View Post
    You are wrong. Muslimes are less than human and should be exterminated like cockroaches
    You post shit like this all the time and you're so "shocked" and "appalled" that someone actually goes out and does what you fucking call for every fucking day you fucking monster. You killed that little girl. Blow your worthless brain out you mindless savage.
    "Do not think that I came to bring peace... I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34

  15. #90 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    36,348
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watermark View Post
    In the wake of widespread global pogroms and acts of hatred against Muslims, it is only natural that there would be a group in the United States dedicated to the defense of Muslims from the hateful, violent, evil ideology of nationalist rightism.
    It's odd that you don't evince that same protective zeal toward other religions.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-01-2019, 10:53 AM
  2. Democrat party terrorist group ANTIFA cheers McCain's death
    By Teflon Don in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-27-2018, 04:51 PM
  3. Deranged fascist terrorist group to launch attack on 24 million Americans
    By I <3 Hezbollah in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-13-2017, 05:58 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-09-2017, 04:34 AM
  5. APP - when is a terrorist group not a terrorist group
    By Don Quixote in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-03-2011, 10:25 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •