Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Muslim ban? What Muslim ban? Liberal media caught spreading its own fake news
Topic Started: Jan 30 2017, 12:22 AM (647 Views)
Cymru
Alt-Right
[ *  *  *  * ]
https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/

Should the likes of CNN, NY Times, WSJ, Independent, Bloomberg and Forbes be banned for spreading this fake news and causing mass protests and disruption?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Happy Hornet
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Cymru
Jan 30 2017, 12:22 AM
https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/

Should the likes of CNN, NY Times, WSJ, Independent, Bloomberg and Forbes be banned for spreading this fake news and causing mass protests and disruption?
I think you'll find the phrase is "alternative facts" and you Trump supporters are all cool with that right?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Hells bells... if this article is true, then it is radical.

So Trump was merely extending a program already started by Obama ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Jan 30 2017, 11:59 AM
Hells bells... if this article is true, then it is radical.

So Trump was merely extending a program already started by Obama ?
No, Obama identified the countries but not being a nasty little shit chose not to translate those into a broad brush hate motivated executive order

As someone else pointed out, more Americans are killed by children with guns than muslims yet where does Trump choose to act as a priority?

Where most appeals to his bigot and xenophobe core voter support perchance?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Happy Hornet
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 30 2017, 12:24 PM
RoofGardener
Jan 30 2017, 11:59 AM
Hells bells... if this article is true, then it is radical.

So Trump was merely extending a program already started by Obama ?
No, Obama identified the countries but not being a nasty little shit chose not to translate those into a broad brush hate motivated executive order

As someone else pointed out, more Americans are killed by children with guns than muslims yet where does Trump choose to act as a priority?

Where most appeals to his bigot and xenophobe core voter support perchance?
Perhaps a temporary ban on toddlers leaving their playpens is in order?

Would make about as much sense.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 30 2017, 12:24 PM
RoofGardener
Jan 30 2017, 11:59 AM
Hells bells... if this article is true, then it is radical.

So Trump was merely extending a program already started by Obama ?
No, Obama identified the countries but not being a nasty little shit chose not to translate those into a broad brush hate motivated executive order

So Obama identified those countries as being exporters or sponsors of terror, but did nothing about it ? . What does THAT say about him ?

Well... he DID... sort of. He removed those countries from the Visa Waiver Program. Whoopee.

Quote:
 

As someone else pointed out, more Americans are killed by children with guns than muslims yet where does Trump choose to act as a priority?

Where most appeals to his bigot and xenophobe core voter support perchance?

Or possibly because he isn't allowed by the Constitution to ban guns. (not sure whether he is allowed to ban children.. probably best NOT to suggest that to him ? ).

Edited by RoofGardener, Jan 30 2017, 01:17 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Jan 30 2017, 01:11 PM
Steve K
Jan 30 2017, 12:24 PM
RoofGardener
Jan 30 2017, 11:59 AM
Hells bells... if this article is true, then it is radical.

So Trump was merely extending a program already started by Obama ?
No, Obama identified the countries but not being a nasty little shit chose not to translate those into a broad brush hate motivated executive order

Well... he DID... sort of. He removed those countries from the Visa Waiver Program.
Quote:
 

As someone else pointed out, more Americans are killed by children with guns than muslims yet where does Trump choose to act as a priority?

Where most appeals to his bigot and xenophobe core voter support perchance?

Or possibly because he isn't allowed by the Constitution to ban guns. (not sure whether he is allowed to ban children).

He's allowed to ban assault weapons etc

He is allowed to make parents take the criminal responsibility for firearms acts by children they allow their guns to have access to. And remember he's a death penalty advocate.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Well, perhaps. However, that seems a bit of a distraction from the main topic.

The Mainstream Media is heavily promoting the narrative of "Trumps anti-muslim immigration act", or at the very least hammer home the issue of "seven muslim majority countries. This is a flagrant - and significant - perversion of reality. Never mind "fake news", this is bordering on incitement to public unrest !

Oh.. and a new twist... there has been additional criticism of Trump blocking refugees from Syria.
But when Obama did this in 2011 (regarding Iraq, following the FBI discovering an Al Quada terrorist in Kentucky).... not a whisper of protest.

The two cases are not entirely the same, but nevertheless the difference in reaction is disproportionate, to say the least.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cymru
Alt-Right
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Jan 30 2017, 03:48 PM
Well, perhaps. However, that seems a bit of a distraction from the main topic.

The Mainstream Media is heavily promoting the narrative of "Trumps anti-muslim immigration act", or at the very least hammer home the issue of "seven muslim majority countries. This is a flagrant - and significant - perversion of reality. Never mind "fake news", this is bordering on incitement to public unrest !

Oh.. and a new twist... there has been additional criticism of Trump blocking refugees from Syria.
But when Obama did this in 2011 (regarding Iraq, following the FBI discovering an Al Quada terrorist in Kentucky).... not a whisper of protest.

The two cases are not entirely the same, but nevertheless the difference in reaction is disproportionate, to say the least.
It's textbook Soros strategy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I think some people on this thread are trying to pretend Trumps actions are not racially motivated tactics designed to appeal to right wing knuckle draggers.

Someone had to say it didn't they? :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Curious Cdn
Member Avatar
Frozen Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Cymru
Jan 30 2017, 12:22 AM
https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/

Should the likes of CNN, NY Times, WSJ, Independent, Bloomberg and Forbes be banned for spreading this fake news and causing mass protests and disruption?
Should the press be shut down because they don't agree with your ruler? ... all in the cause of Freedom?

You must be one of those All-American FREEDOM EAGLES who are leading the battle against tyranny and godlessness!

We see a lot of that shyte on the North American forums ... ultra-right wingers who believe that it is Christian democracy in action to muzzle the press.

Goebbels's ghost is laughing at us all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Can we keep this civil please
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Curious Cdn
Member Avatar
Frozen Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 30 2017, 08:53 PM
Can we keep this civil please
sorry.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 30 2017, 08:53 PM
Can we keep this civil please
Certainly ! bignose
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Jan 31 2017, 12:06 PM
Steve K
Jan 30 2017, 08:53 PM
Can we keep this civil please
Certainly ! bignose
 :o

!jk!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Well well well... the 'truth' - and the anti-democratic bankrupt hypocrisy of "the left" - starts to come out.

The appeal against the suspension to the travel ban is at the 4th circuit court of appeals. Incredibly, the issue now is not the constitutionality and legality of the Executive Order, but the perceived intention behind it. ("perceived", that is, in the eyes of the court).

The most flagrant illustration of this came when a judge pressed the lawyer representing the challenge to the travel ban, who was forced to admit that - had Hillary Clinton issued the Ban - then it would have been Constitutional.

Lets take a deep breath, and read that again. In effect, it is ONLY "unconstitutional" if Donald Trump does it. If left-wing politician does it, then it is OK.

Utterly incredible.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/us/politics/travel-ban-federal-judges-trump.html?_r=0
http://ntknetwork.com/aclu-lawyer-says-travel-ban-could-be-constitutional-if-enacted-by-hillary-clinton/

Edited by RoofGardener, May 11 2017, 08:30 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
May 11 2017, 08:28 AM
Well well well... the 'truth' - and the anti-democratic bankrupt hypocrisy of "the left" - starts to come out.

The appeal against the suspension to the travel ban is at the 4th circuit court of appeals. Incredibly, the issue now is not the constitutionality and legality of the Executive Order, but the perceived intention behind it. ("perceived", that is, in the eyes of the court).

The most flagrant illustration of this came when a judge pressed the lawyer representing the challenge to the travel ban, who was forced to admit that - had Hillary Clinton issued the Ban - then it would have been Constitutional.

Lets take a deep breath, and read that again. In effect, it is ONLY "unconstitutional" if Donald Trump does it. If left-wing politician does it, then it is OK.

Utterly incredible.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/us/politics/travel-ban-federal-judges-trump.html?_r=0
http://ntknetwork.com/aclu-lawyer-says-travel-ban-could-be-constitutional-if-enacted-by-hillary-clinton/

Could not 'would'.

It was one individual's opinion, which didn't make any sense.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
My thoughts as well C-too. However, the other links seem to suggest that the "intention" behind the Executive Order (as opposed to the substance of it) are INDEED now a primary consideration of the court !

Madness !
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Depends how you read the first amendment and whether it limits just the law or does it limit the actions of government.

If the latter then the intent is very much relevant
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
May 11 2017, 07:41 PM
Depends how you read the first amendment and whether it limits just the law or does it limit the actions of government.

If the latter then the intent is very much relevant
Are you saying that the first amendment is ambiguous in it's purport?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
May 11 2017, 10:31 PM
Steve K
May 11 2017, 07:41 PM
Depends how you read the first amendment and whether it limits just the law or does it limit the actions of government.

If the latter then the intent is very much relevant
Are you saying that the first amendment is ambiguous in it's purport?
Yes
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
May 11 2017, 10:49 PM
Rich
May 11 2017, 10:31 PM
Steve K
May 11 2017, 07:41 PM
Depends how you read the first amendment and whether it limits just the law or does it limit the actions of government.

If the latter then the intent is very much relevant
Are you saying that the first amendment is ambiguous in it's purport?
Yes
If that IS the case then why?............and surely it should be re constituted so as to make sure that nobody can be unsure of it's precise meaning.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Surely the First Amendment is a Red Herring in this situation ? The constitution is only relevant to the power of government over US citizens. (or... conceivably at the margins... non-US citizens currently on US soil).

The Travel Ban only effects non-US citizens who are NOT already present in the US.

Notwithstanding; the Constitution IS "ambigious", in the sense that it could not anticipate all eventualities (or future technologies). That is why they have a Supreme Court to interpret it !

Finally, the idea that a court can take into account "intentions" - or worse, perceived (by the court) intentions - as a benchmark of whether an Executive Order is constitutional or not is surely an outrageous constitutional over-reach by the Court ?
Edited by RoofGardener, May 12 2017, 08:00 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
May 11 2017, 11:51 PM
Steve K
May 11 2017, 10:49 PM
Rich
May 11 2017, 10:31 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Yes
If that IS the case then why?............and surely it should be re constituted so as to make sure that nobody can be unsure of it's precise meaning.
Ah you've never tried to write an unambiguous definition then. It is utterly impossible.

Anyway changing their constitution is no easy matter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
May 12 2017, 07:56 AM
Surely the First Amendment is a Red Herring in this situation ? The constitution is only relevant to the power of government over US citizens. (or... conceivably at the margins... non-US citizens currently on US soil). . .
Nope. It's ambiguous.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

'the people' is only in the second part of it, the first part applies to all people

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I don't see myself as as a 'right wing knuckle dragger' but I do consider letting in more and more Muslims in (anywhere) is detrimental to wherever they decide to reside!
Their failure to fully integrate into other cultures makes them problematic and as we know from surveys resentful of other cultures, and in many ways anti-West.
Many Muslims migrate that are not oppressed back home and it is wrong to believe they are escaping danger - mostly imo they migrate for economic reasons.
Is a ban the only way to restrict such movements? I think not but to do it properly another way requires another expensive tier of administration that nobody wants to fund.
Edited by Affa, May 12 2017, 04:00 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
May 12 2017, 03:59 PM
I don't see myself as as a 'right wing knuckle dragger' but I do consider letting in more and more Muslims in (anywhere) is detrimental to wherever they decide to reside!
Their failure to fully integrate into other cultures makes them problematic and as we know from surveys resentful of other cultures, and in many ways anti-West.
Many Muslims migrate that are not oppressed back home and it is wrong to believe they are escaping danger - mostly imo they migrate for economic reasons.
Is a ban the only way to restrict such movements? I think not but to do it properly another way requires another expensive tier of administration that nobody wants to fund.
I think there is a very clear threat from Islam. It is the basic understanding of Muslims that everything belongs to Allah, therefore England, Europe, the world already belongs to Allah and Muslims are his chosen people.

In the eyes of Muslims this is not your country. This might not be a problem if Muslims were not expected to self indoctrinate their emotional system every day. Being indoctrinated to the level that Muslims are, gives them no option but to follow their religion like sheep.

IMO the religion carries the worst overtones of cultism. That doesn't mean every or even most Muslims are bad, but it does IMO mean that Islam is a threat to Western civilisation, no matter how long it takes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
May 12 2017, 06:40 PM
Affa
May 12 2017, 03:59 PM
I don't see myself as as a 'right wing knuckle dragger' but I do consider letting in more and more Muslims in (anywhere) is detrimental to wherever they decide to reside!
Their failure to fully integrate into other cultures makes them problematic and as we know from surveys resentful of other cultures, and in many ways anti-West.
Many Muslims migrate that are not oppressed back home and it is wrong to believe they are escaping danger - mostly imo they migrate for economic reasons.
Is a ban the only way to restrict such movements? I think not but to do it properly another way requires another expensive tier of administration that nobody wants to fund.
I think there is a very clear threat from Islam. It is the basic understanding of Muslims that everything belongs to Allah, therefore England, Europe, the world already belongs to Allah and Muslims are his chosen people.

In the eyes of Muslims this is not your country. This might not be a problem if Muslims were not expected to self indoctrinate their emotional system every day. Being indoctrinated to the level that Muslims are, gives them no option but to follow their religion like sheep.

IMO the religion carries the worst overtones of cultism. That doesn't mean every or even most Muslims are bad, but it does IMO mean that Islam is a threat to Western civilisation, no matter how long it takes.
Wild generalisations both of you ^. As ever  ::)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
May 12 2017, 09:39 AM
RoofGardener
May 12 2017, 07:56 AM
Surely the First Amendment is a Red Herring in this situation ? The constitution is only relevant to the power of government over US citizens. (or... conceivably at the margins... non-US citizens currently on US soil). . .
Nope. It's ambiguous.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

'the people' is only in the second part of it, the first part applies to all people

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

No Steve, it really doesn't. It only applies to US citizens on US soil. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the US constitution binds Russians (in Russia), or UK citizens in the UK etcetera etcetera.

Now, go sit in the corner with your nose pressed against the wall until break time !

And then see me in the Headmasters Study ! :whip:
Edited by RoofGardener, May 12 2017, 07:05 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
May 12 2017, 06:49 PM
C-too
May 12 2017, 06:40 PM
Affa
May 12 2017, 03:59 PM
I don't see myself as as a 'right wing knuckle dragger' but I do consider letting in more and more Muslims in (anywhere) is detrimental to wherever they decide to reside!
Their failure to fully integrate into other cultures makes them problematic and as we know from surveys resentful of other cultures, and in many ways anti-West.
Many Muslims migrate that are not oppressed back home and it is wrong to believe they are escaping danger - mostly imo they migrate for economic reasons.
Is a ban the only way to restrict such movements? I think not but to do it properly another way requires another expensive tier of administration that nobody wants to fund.
I think there is a very clear threat from Islam. It is the basic understanding of Muslims that everything belongs to Allah, therefore England, Europe, the world already belongs to Allah and Muslims are his chosen people.

In the eyes of Muslims this is not your country. This might not be a problem if Muslims were not expected to self indoctrinate their emotional system every day. Being indoctrinated to the level that Muslims are, gives them no option but to follow their religion like sheep.

IMO the religion carries the worst overtones of cultism. That doesn't mean every or even most Muslims are bad, but it does IMO mean that Islam is a threat to Western civilisation, no matter how long it takes.
Wild generalisations both of you ^. As ever  ::)
I specifically stated "not all Muslims". Unfortunately the underlying truth of my post is factual and undeniable.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
May 12 2017, 07:04 PM
Steve K
May 12 2017, 06:49 PM
C-too
May 12 2017, 06:40 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepthis is not your country. This might not be a problem if Muslims were not expected to self indoctrinate their emotional system every day. Being indoctrinated to the level that Muslims are, gives them no option but to follow their religion like sheep.

IMO the religion carries the worst overtones of cultism. That doesn't mean every or even most Muslims are bad, but it does IMO mean that Islam is a threat to Western civilisation, no matter how long it takes.
Wild generalisations both of you ^. As ever  ::)
I specifically stated "not all Muslims". Unfortunately the underlying truth of my post is factual and undeniable.

No you didn't. You specifically posted the broad brush "It is the basic understanding of Muslims that everything belongs to Allah" and "Being indoctrinated to the level that Muslims are, gives them no option but to follow their religion like sheep"

You also posted in support of the broad brush "Their failure to fully integrate into other cultures makes them problematic and as we know from surveys resentful of other cultures, and in many ways anti-West."

As I said, wild generalisations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
May 12 2017, 07:11 PM


As I said, wild generalisations.

It is not 'wild' generalisation!
It is an accepted fact that there is a general lack of integration by Muslims here, one recognised by the Muslim Council itself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
May 12 2017, 09:20 PM
Steve K
May 12 2017, 07:11 PM


As I said, wild generalisations.

It is not 'wild' generalisation!
It is an accepted fact that there is a general lack of integration by Muslims here, one recognised by the Muslim Council itself.
A minority are not integrating, that's true and the MCB rightly deplores that.

But you represent that as ALL muslims aren't.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
May 12 2017, 07:11 PM
C-too
May 12 2017, 07:04 PM
Steve K
May 12 2017, 06:49 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepthis is not your country.
I specifically stated "not all Muslims". Unfortunately the underlying truth of my post is factual and undeniable.

No you didn't. You specifically posted the broad brush "It is the basic understanding of Muslims that everything belongs to Allah" and "Being indoctrinated to the level that Muslims are, gives them no option but to follow their religion like sheep"

You also posted in support of the broad brush "Their failure to fully integrate into other cultures makes them problematic and as we know from surveys resentful of other cultures, and in many ways anti-West."

As I said, wild generalisations.
Indoctrinated Muslims do believe Allah created the world along with everything on it and in it, do you dispute that ?

Do you know of any other religion where its adherents are expected to bend into a position of submission and pray 5 times a day ?

Do you understand the power of 'Affirmations' ?

As for your second comment, it has nothing to do with me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dial chart world religions.

Muslim ban, what muslim ban

The power of affirmations.

"What Are Affirmations?
Let's start with explaining what they are.
Affirmations are positive statements that describe a desired situation or goal, and are often repeated, in order to get them impressed on the subconscious mind. Repeating them motivates, inspires, and programs the mind to act according to the repeated words.
This process triggers the subconscious mind to strive and to work on the person's behalf, to make the positive statement come true."

Edited by C-too, May 13 2017, 06:21 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
May 13 2017, 06:10 AM
Steve K
May 12 2017, 07:11 PM
C-too
May 12 2017, 07:04 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepthis is not your country.
No you didn't. You specifically posted the broad brush "It is the basic understanding of Muslims that everything belongs to Allah" and "Being indoctrinated to the level that Muslims are, gives them no option but to follow their religion like sheep"

You also posted in support of the broad brush "Their failure to fully integrate into other cultures makes them problematic and as we know from surveys resentful of other cultures, and in many ways anti-West."

As I said, wild generalisations.
Indoctrinated Muslims do believe Allah created the world along with everything on it and in it, do you dispute that ?

Do you know of any other religion where its adherents are expected to bend into a position of submission and pray 5 times a day ?

Do you understand the power of 'Affirmations' ?

As for your second comment, it has nothing to do with me.
Do you understand that not every muslim follows every idiocy you refer to just like very few Christians follow every idiocy of their religion?

Taken any Midianite girls to use as you wish (after murdering their parents and brothers) have you? It is what Christians could be alleged to believe in it being in the Bible as what should be done.

Or do you just believe in broad brush out of context persecuting all Muslims? Sure seems so.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
May 13 2017, 07:56 PM
C-too
May 13 2017, 06:10 AM
Steve K
May 12 2017, 07:11 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Indoctrinated Muslims do believe Allah created the world along with everything on it and in it, do you dispute that ?

Do you know of any other religion where its adherents are expected to bend into a position of submission and pray 5 times a day ?

Do you understand the power of 'Affirmations' ?

As for your second comment, it has nothing to do with me.
Do you understand that not every muslim follows every idiocy you refer to just like very few Christians follow every idiocy of their religion?

Taken any Midianite girls to use as you wish (after murdering their parents and brothers) have you? It is what Christians could be alleged to believe in it being in the Bible as what should be done.

Or do you just believe in broad brush out of context persecuting all Muslims? Sure seems so.
There was no claim in my post that "every muslim follows every idiocy you refer to".

You appear to have a need to ignore the points I made and to deviate onto a religion that does not require its adherents to take up a submissive position and pray five times a day.

I guess you do that because you have no other way of avoiding the realities contained in my previous post.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
May 14 2017, 09:00 AM
Steve K
May 13 2017, 07:56 PM
C-too
May 13 2017, 06:10 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Do you understand that not every muslim follows every idiocy you refer to just like very few Christians follow every idiocy of their religion?

Taken any Midianite girls to use as you wish (after murdering their parents and brothers) have you? It is what Christians could be alleged to believe in it being in the Bible as what should be done.

Or do you just believe in broad brush out of context persecuting all Muslims? Sure seems so.
There was no claim in my post that "every muslim follows every idiocy you refer to".
Err yes there very much was, I specifically copied and pasted the relevant parts. And please don't try and plead that when you use broad brush all embracing pejorative statements if you don't mean people to take them as referring to all muslims. You know exactly what you are doing,you've done it so many times and been called out for it almost as many.

Quote:
 
You appear to have a need to ignore the points I made and to deviate onto a religion that does not require its adherents to take up a submissive position and pray five times a day.

I guess you do that because you have no other way of avoiding the realities contained in my previous post.

Nope. As YOU FULL WELL KNOW my point is to show up the fallacy of the comments you project

You post that all muslims are bad because some islamic texts are bad and I'll point out that IF that was true then all ostensible Christians are worse because the core Christian texts have even worse material. Since you deny the latter linkage then you know full well the first part (that you extol so often) is equally a pile of horseshit. Malicious horseshit as well.

So instead of posting the malicious hate wishing shite of "It is the basic understanding of Muslims that everything belongs to Allah" and "Being indoctrinated to the level that Muslims are, gives them no option but to follow their religion like sheep" why not try posting the honest

"It is the basic understanding of some Muslims that everything belongs to Allah" and "Being indoctrinated to the level that some Muslims are, gives them no option but to follow their religion like sheep"

Of course that wouldn't support a simplistic broad brush hate platform would it. So if you don't want to be seen as such a nasty advocate you know what to do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
All very well, but seeing as people are diverting off the topic, then I assume you are all ENTIRELY happy that
(a) it is not a muslim ban, and
(b) the US courts can rewrite the constitution if they don't like the political allegiance of the serving president.

All happy with that ? Do we ALL feel comfortable with that ?
Excellent.

You see, once you have turned to the Left-Liberal side, those inconvenient democratic principles just MELT away !
Edited by RoofGardener, May 14 2017, 04:36 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
May 14 2017, 04:33 PM
All very well, but seeing as people are diverting off the topic, then I assume you are all ENTIRELY happy that
(a) it is not a muslim ban, and
(b) the US courts can rewrite the constitution if they don't like the political allegiance of the serving president.

All happy with that ? Do we ALL feel comfortable with that ?
Excellent.

You see, once you have turned to the Left-Liberal side, those inconvenient democratic principles just MELT away !
And today's BAFTA for Misrepresenting What Others are Saying goes to . . . . . .
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · America · Next Topic »
Add Reply