Can any of these smarmy, opinionated Muslim apologists tell us why President Jefferson ordered up US force and what Tripoli was about?
Without googling it first?
I think he is standing up for a cause which he believes in which is commendable but I don't think he understands the argument from a muslims perspective.
I wouldn't bother trying reasonable debate with yacky, she'd cause trouble in an empty house!!
Why bring 2Q1C into it? Don't bother answering, I know how you operate. Bring someone else on board so you're not alone. You do it all the time.
I don't want to derail urk's thread so unless you mention me again I'm gone.
My apologies to urk.
I thought George Dubya Bush (christian) said that god told him to bomb Iraq? I seem to remember that Tony Blair (christian) did too. Tsk tsk, see what evil things that religion can make people do. Liars too, as there were no WMD's. And then, surprise surprise, many people, mostly Moslem people, who had their countries destroyed and their families murdered got really upset by it.
Who are the evil people here urk, in your opinion? And do you still begrudge their customs of wearing a headscarf, and do you think 'our' customs of bombing countries back to the stone age may cause some resentment amongst those same people?
and your accusations give you away urk. People who say they're neither left nor right usually are on the right. A number of us have given you reasoned answers but the best you can come up with is 'Moslem apologists. Why don't you just admit you're another two bit racist?
I don't want to derail urk but Left and Right are very different. The Right are always on the side of the mighty, the wealthy and powerful. The Right usually use diversionary tactics to divide their numerically mightier opposition, and even win some over with false slogans such as 'national socialism'. However, I'll say no more on this.
Evil is a word usually used by religious people, against other people of different religions strangely enough. It's one of the many reasons I don't like religion. 'How many fairies can be balanced on a pinhead' is the standard of argument between religious people. Can you underdstand why so many of us switch off?
It's not useful to color your opponent as an apologist, racist, or anything else. Better to focus on the ideas. Instead of opponents we should have reasoned dialogues. Maybe people from another country, race, or religion are dangerous? Lets talk about it and then both agree at the end of it.
and your accusations give you away urk. People who say they're neither left nor right usually are on the right. A number of us have given you reasoned answers but the best you can come up with is 'Moslem apologists. Why don't you just admit you're another two bit racist?
Because Muslims aren't a race. That was easy.
And there's a stark difference between Muslims and Islamists, which is something that many people in this thread haven't wrapped their heads around.
I like your style Telestu, but here we have a character whose best response to reasoned discussion is to call us all moslem apologists! I'd say blinded by hatred; bigoted.
yeah, great post urk, you really know how to get us all stirred up...lol....and Telestu, I'm in the middle 10% independent vote (people who think for themselves) that usually decides elections here....the reason I like Trump is because I don't listen to what th media says, they are afraid of him because he goes against establishment agenda and they usually spin all the fake stuff out of context against him.....I listen to what he is actually saying and doing
Most of the articles on Trump try to stir up outrage. If the headline is ridiculous, I usually wont even click it, and when I do, I usually can't read all of it because it's just a bunch of fear mongering with no substance.
Paying attention to what he says and does? Great. Then we should agree he's a pathological liar, thin-skinned narcissist, who is grossly under qualified and under skilled for his position.
Do you really believe he was the best candidate the GOP had to offer?
And it sounds low to hold age against a person, but at 70 you're not the same person you were at 50.
This will probably never happen, but I'd like to have some kind of low bar intelligence test for both public office and for the right to vote. Like an IQ of 80 or higher. That may lead to barring many others from voting, which would be bad, but by itself it seems pretty reasonable.
And maybe not even for every office, maybe just a few -- like president
Yeah, I agree with urk, Trump was the lesser of evils, the Bushes and the Clintons are the same thing basically, extremely corrupt politicians in it for themselves....throw the country under the bus, we had really bad choices all around this time.
wow Telestu, I thought you were a liberal??? and you are talking about voter repression???? do you actually believe that non- citizens should not vote too??? Of course the system is designed for that not to be proven.....non-citizens can get licenses in many states and in many states you can vote with just a license...so draw your own conclusions.
People in my country (and it seems in many part of the world today) are concerned with conservative and liberal ideas.
Ideologies in general are a bit sickening though. Who cares what side wants what. Lets talk about what makes sense instead. You want to kill all people who aren't your race? That's great, lets talk about whether or not it makes sense. You want one world government? That's also great, lets talk about that too.
Instead of discussion I see a lot of divisive cheer leading. This is part of my indignation about how facts and knowledge don't seem to matter to people.