What do you think, Liberals?
- Thread starter Granule
- Start date
Auster
New member
Hmmm? Why am I the idiot? Say, have you seen Sweden or Denmark recently?
Denmark, your liberal friends
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/denmark.htm
Sweden
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/muslim_rape_wave_in_sweden/
Do you think these liberals said, "Hey, Sharia, come on in!"? [snort]. Your ignorance is as discerning as your tolerance.
Let's pretend you are right. No dem wants sharia law. Isn't it then your duty, your obligation to get informed?
Have another tolerent link:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...h-americans-for-criticizing-islamic-violence/
What does my ignorance discern? Oh, the same as my tolerance.
Keep your hate and your hate sites, retard. This is an adult forum. And buy a dictionary.
Last edited:
Auster
New member
I find it hard to converse with one whose only posts seem to be one liners, so I'll leave this with you and be on my way. This is a small collection of books I'd deigned to read.pisskopdate=1356802711 said:I claim this here for my booklist, when I get it together.
1) Surrender, Appaising Islam, Sacrificing Freedom
*Before somebody gets all omg u hateful monsterz on me, I figure I'd best get an opposing viewpoint on it, and its supposed to be written by a sensible man. A gay man, which apparently makes him appreciate equality, according to reviews.
I don't even really want to finish this. Not because I deplore it or the views within, but because its tedious. Whatever points he had seem to be awash in a sea of defensive prose and nit-picking. Should I be so lucky as to see it in prose. . .
In summation, the book declares that Islam is using the media and its stance as 'an abused minority' to assert power and influence. The 'American and European liberals' (and to be sure that word, liberal, means different things to an American than to an European) Jump at the chance to defend the Muslims who happily portray themselves as victims to racism and bigotry. while this happens the media underplays and even ignores Muslim acts of violence. Muslims use their elegant tongues to indicate that they are not responsible for their extremist actions and threats.
The books purports that the media scrambles to show 'multiculturalism', a concept wherein any insult to the Koran or Islam as a whole is a dire offense, and that freedom of speech must be tempered and held with other's sensitivities in mind. In short, Islam is using a good ole PR campaign to bring non-Moslem nations into the 'House of Submission'.
Having read the Koran (English Translation, so not the 'real' one in Arabic) I can say that the Koran is hard and fast about appropriate behavior. And, its not something that acknowledges the rights of many individuals. women are somewhat subservient (although they do own property and other things) and gays, adulterers, Jews, and etc. are looked down upon. Reading that book as a non-Muslim, I was left wondering if I was a 'bad guy', for I was an imitator, reading the book and rejecting its teachings; viewed as far worse than he who simply is ignorant of God's word. He has points on those lines. The book makes certain that if you aren't with Islam you're against it, and Jews, gays, adulterers, etc. are lower than Christians who in turn a subservient to Muslims.
This book, however, takes it a step too far. That there are leaders within Islam who plot to enhance their influence is a given (any cause has such), but with only a minor reference to the common man (much more common is a plea for the poor women and gays) he damns the whole religion. He feels our rights are in danger, danger I feel is a little overblown. Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and freedom to comment, criticize, parody, or satirizing Islam is, says he, off limits. He cites several examples where such expression is curtailed by either governments (afraid of Islam's reactions)or by death threats from the Moslem themselves. Above all, he says the absolute freedom of speech is violated, and he and his circle of Islam (phobes is wrong, naysayers? meh. Let's call them weary of Islam) are being shunned and rejected, slandered with perfidy and not given a fair shake. I think while his opinion has some merit (America and Europe, esp, is too 'sensitive for my tastes, esp in more academic and social circles. Not enough pragmatism for my liking.) he ultimately buries amidst a wave of monotony. Will finish, but I've garnered all I feel I can from it.
I do feel he is right about the media whitewashing Islam, though. we are all adults, we need to be responsible for our own actions, and not have them hidden. what happened to un-bias? Also, at least in America, we often fail to take personal responibility. So, I agree there too.
EDIT: I would say to this man, Mr. Bruce Bawer, that because you don't hear the government doesn't mean they arent there. They are indeed watching any threats percieved, and to say that nobdy has percieved Islamisists as a threat is silly when you youraself have. This 'war' is not conducted for the media's sake and therefore the media is not apt to catch wind ofallmost of what happens behind the scene. There is a larger force at work the average civilian knows nothing about.Blah, nothing overly different. On to Dune!
2) Dune
*Never read the original, believe it or not. Figure the whole bloody series is too long, but thw original. . .
The book was good enough, and I see why some may be enamored with it; but as I mentioned before fantasy is not really my gig and I may not reread it. Am happy to have it done, even if I had to force myself to finish the last hundred or so pages. I alsosaw the movie, which I thouoght handled it better than it could have.
Nitpicks include the usual, as well as a noticed tendency to focus upon specifics which are not important (to me) and are in addition isolated from one another [Sometimes controdictory?]. The usual means things like a focus upon a young hero [at least he was trained] the mitigating of negative qualites in allies [although he made a good deal of mention to them in his defense], and the overcoming of incredulous odds to not only survive but thrive. Of course all with the help of supernatural powers.
3) The Portable Plato. . .
* Cuz a more in-depth refresher makes me happy! I enjoy the simplicity of the 'portable' series anywho. I don't suppose somebody has a recommendation for this?
Cross off Plato
3) What Money Can't Buy.
A book about the ethics of the market and America's [the west in general] new fevor for it. Read one chapter already, and it appears to be liberal. Appears he is dissatisfied with the idea that the affluent (never said rich as of yet, been avoiding that word) can simply perchuase what others cannot, amoung other things.
4) Leverage: How Cheap Money Will Destroy The World
A fun little book by Karl Denninger, a.k.a. the 'founder of the Tea Party'. I believe he discusses the issue with our economy and its leveraging system. Did you know we [our top companies] make most of our money off of interest and levies?
What I find interesting, though, is that for all this talk about hate only you have been throwing the names around. Only you simply reject the other's position. Of course, you have provided no formal position, only 'fucks', 'idiots', and 'retards'. Adult indeed.
Myself, I don't hate the common moslem. Most are good people, and many (esp the older ones) are hard working. The youth are entranced by our culture, but the older ones deserve merit. You never even bothered ascerning my opinion, just spat with that foul tongue of yours. I hope that our next encounter will prove more stimulating, but. . .
I find it difficult to converse with one so ignorant as to use terms incorrectly, which is why I advised you to get a dictionary. Apparently I should have said use a dictionary.
Thanks for pointing out the list of books you lowered yourself (deigned) to read.
Of course I simply reject an utterly incorrect position. WTF else would I do with it. This is the reason I called you an idiot, you say unbelievably stupid things, routinely.
The point I was trying to make is that not a lot of morons post here.
In case you didn't get it the first time, there is no Sharia law in the US and never will be. Furthermore, liberals DO NOT support Sharia law and never will.
When confronted with this, you then post racist hate videos from a European country, (not even the correct continent) and claim that liberals (actually they are socialists) want Sharia laws there and your racist hate videos somehow prove this. There are so many errors in your efforts there is nothing to do but dismiss you out of hand.
You even seem to find it odd that most of your professors are liberal.
You patronise hate sites and use their racist videos as "evidence" Then make this retarded claim. You are too ignorant to even know what you are talking about, and again, look up words in a dictionary before using them.
Auster
New member
I almost ignored you, but I suppose in the end I'm as flawed as you.
http://www.freedictionary.org/?Query=deigned
http://www.freedictionary.org/?Query=deigned
From an actual dictionary;
Definition of DEIGN
intransitive verb
: to condescend reluctantly and with a strong sense of the affront to one's superiority that is involved
: stoop <would not even deign to talk to him>
transitive verb
: to condescend to give or offer
See deign defined for English-language learners »See deign defined for kids »
Examples of DEIGN
- <I wouldn't deign to answer that absurd accusation.>
deign
Listen See in ThesaurusSee in a sentence
Deign means to lower one's self to do or say something, and to do so with a high sense of one's own superiority. (verb)An example of deign is to refuse to discuss an issue with friends because one thinks he is too intelligent.
and another;
deign
[deyn] Show IPA
verb (used without object) 1. to think fit or in accordance with one's dignity; condescend: He would not deign to discuss the matter with us.
verb (used with object) 2. to condescend to give or grant: He deigned no reply.
3. Obsolete . to condescend to accept.
Face it, you are an idiot. Even your name tells the your whole story.
When Christiefan showed you how wrong you were in post #77 of this thread, you doubled down on your ignorance and went full retard, intead of looking at how you are wrong and learning something.
NEVER GO FULL RETARD
Last edited:
Auster
New member
if only you put forth this effort in trying to present your own arguement instead of trying to make me feel silly or childish. All that bbcode, oh my!When Christiefan, called it racist I applauded it. I may not particulary agree, but I respect that time was taken to explain a viewpoint. Unlike some people here [you]. This is the first sizable post I've seen you make. And most of it is bbcode and stolen links, nothing orignial. You have not refuted a darn thing, you've proven only what a flamer you are.
But I am finished here. You contribute nothing while only taking away my valuable time. If you have time to troll this you have time to prove just how racist, full of hate, ignorant, w.e. I am, and I feel you've failed to do anything so productive.
---
As an after thought: My definition of the word is perhaps older than the modern and streamlined oline dictionaries, but that hardly makes it wrong. Just want to put that out there. Also like how we are no longer talking about racis, islam, w.e. and instead the meaning of a bloody word.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
There isn't a single word in that hateful Op-Ed piece that backs your claim that the DNC wants to implement Sharia law here in the USA...NOTHING!
Oh sure...it's filled to the brim with your standard Tightie Rightie talking points about HOW Democrats WANT to, but not one single shred of actual evidence to back their claim.
Typical.
Yes retard, when you use a word incorrectly, it is wrong AND your meaning becomes unclear. Deign was hardly the only word you used incorrectly, as I pointed out in a previous post.
You were indeed, proven wrong, repeatedly, again, your stupidity doesn't allow you to see it. Like I said, this is a forum for adults. When you are grown up come back.
Auster
New member
Yes, it is right winged and probably biased. I was trying to make a case where it *[sharia law]* is implied. Because I don't believe anyone would openly endorse Islam with a quote (at this stage) who wasn't muslim doesn't mean I don't think they do support increased muslim presence. As far as sharia law is concerned, I'm certain most liberals don't outright support it, but they would rather let it creep into our lives via smalll gains.
I mention Tolerance, I imply that our over-sensitivity to other cultures coupled with our minimalization of our own is dangereous. I now think of this:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ss-dangerous-hammers-fiscal-irresponsibility/
Well name a list, then. Can't you even do that work yourself? You only have a double-digit daily post count.EDIT: When I say biased I say so with the understanding that most news articles have an opinion they convey.
Last edited:
apple0154
MEOW
Yep, I actually sat through the entire sales presentation. There's money to be made in fearmongering. Get out your credit card and type in those numbers!!
No, the right to roll freely within the relatively peaceful confines of what used to be a strong Christian nation. Now we have to watch our backs within the hostile confines of what's fast becoming an anti-Christian nation.
So? 19th Century Democrats shed blood for their 'right' to own slaves. We all make mistakes, Zappa, even leftists like you.
It's best that you don't talk about Christians at all. What you call 'marginalizing', I call maintaining the rightful belief system of this Country.
No, it isn't. Christianity is so much more, for reasons that I've already pointed out. You people are trying to change that. Forever trying to change shit....
You've already been given proof. That link says it all, without actually saying "Yes, I am a liberal democrat, and I want Sharia Law to replace our Constitution". Stop trying to hide what's coming. Hell, tolerant Europe is already knee-deep in it.
Last edited:
zappasguitar
Well-known member
What's been taken away from Christians in this country?
Other than the right Christians once enjoyed to monopolize the beginning of sporting events with their need to display to a captive audience just how "religious" they are, Christians are just as free to practice their religion today as they were 100 years ago.
You were the one who made the point this nation was founded on Christian principles, I was merely pointing out how Christians once found it acceptable to enslave their fellow man.
Christians aren't infallible.
So you believe it's acceptable for Christians to marginalize practitioners of other religions in order for Christians to maintain the "rightful belief system"? That's not very Christlike if you ask me...
And why do Christians alone get to determine which belief system is the "rightful" system? Why do Christians and not Muslims? Or Buddhists? Or Hinduism?
Our Christian founding fathers made a big noise about "religious freedom" when they wrote the Constitution, spouting a lot of high minded ideals while they were the majority. Now that you don't enjoy the overwhelming majority you did 100 years ago, many of your platitudes fall flat on their face when compared with the actions of actual real world Christians.
No one is trying to change Christianity, merely to remind overly vocal Christians that there are others in this nation who might not appreciate their incessant need to demonstrate to everyone within earshot just how close to GOD they are by loudly proclaiming their religiosity in public all the time.
You gave me nothing...you claimed Liberals are promoting Sharia Law. It is your responsibility to back up that allegation with some proof, or just admit it's a feeling you have and nothing you can prove. That link is to a partisan hackjob website swimming in rumor, innuendo and unfounded, third party hearsay.
You said Liberals promote Sharia Law...so yes, unless you've got some Liberals saying "yes, I want to replace the Constitution with Sharia Law" it was just another lie being spread by fear-mongers out to discredit Liberals.
I said a "godless eunuch" as in a nation of godless politcal correctness drones. As a liberal, you do support that.
I have nothing against working gals. Some have no choice but to work, and I respect that, 100%. The signature line is a response to Darla's idiot signature line.
No, the "Republican system of justice" actually works. It's morally sound, and it helps protect law abiding citizens from the the unlawful. The Democrat system of justice accomplishes the exact opposite.
Wrong. Pro-traditional Marriage. The encouraging of young women to stay off their backs and get into traditional marriages. The utter support for single moms despite the enabling nature of liberal ineptness. Single mom can find good husbands if they themselves become good. This IS doable despite your negative outlook.
Interesting that you used a sexual description of homosexual relationships. It certainly supports the argument that sex comes before love in their circles.
God forbids the partaking of carnal treats, and sincere repentence is the ony way out.
Thank you, apple. Your ignorance, as well as your irreverence, may serve you now, but they won't save you under the knife of Sharia Law.
Tell that to the hundreds of kids raped by Christian priest
Auster
New member
Off Topic
Love: an chemical reaction that strongly encourages you to invest in the interest's of overs; often against your own. It is fine to love something, but I'd perfer you recognize it as an emotion. that is, subjective and often a barrier. Some Libs have used it to justify homosexual love, but as an emotion it is fallible and I consider it an invalid standpoint.
I will. Just point them out and I'll get to tellin'.
More like hundreds of thousands.
You've already been told.
Let's start here: http://www.therightscoop.com/christianity-under-attack-by-obama-administration/
And you're saying that the godless aren't doing the same thing by NOT saying prayer? How stupid and woefully one sided this response is.
I was also the one who had to use a counter balance to your woefully one-sided opinion. As I said before, nobody's perfect.
I never said they were.
No, I believe in maintaining the Christian standards that this country was founded on. Again, I call it maintenance, and you call it marginalization. I believe in God, you believe in man-made government. I support modest dress codes, very soon you will support public nudity. I believe in personal accountability, you believe in finger pointing. That's how it goes between the Right and the Left.
Because we are still a Christian nation. Of course, nothing's forever, as soon, you will be accepting Sharia Law as the ruling system. You probably do already. You're just not quite ready to embrace it fully yet.
Hey, I never said "real world Christians" were the model to follow. I'm fully aware that some religions are caving under pressure from the Left. The point is, your side is twisting this country into something it isn't, and we're not going to just sit back and watch.
Another dumb comment. People are constantly trying to change Christianity. How ignorant do you have to be?
Then disprove the site. Surely you don't think I'm going to accept your own words. Who do you think you are? You can start by linking comments that show Liberals opposing Sharia Law.
No, it isn't. It's catching polished liars testing the waters with round about comments so that they have an out when somebody is alerted to their highly suspicious comments.