Meet the American ISIS

[Staidhup]

So we have another bait and trash thread directed toward those the believe in God. FYI the Constitution prohibits the establishment of government religion, however, there are those on the left that have always proposed trashing the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which under those circumstances would open the door to what ever may be. The founders and pioneers that built and died for this country believed in God, but hell, screw them, like what the F did they ever do, right?
I believe every liberal should practice birth control and when careless abort.

 

[Dana7360]

Poll: 57% Of GOPers Support Making Christianity The National Religion


Scary shit.

A majority of Republicans nationally support establishing Christianity as the national religion, according to a new Public Policy Polling survey released Tuesday.

The poll by the Democratic-leaning firm found that 57 percent of Republicans "support establishing Christianity as the national religion" while 30 percent are opposed. Another 13 percent said they were not sure.

It almost goes without saying that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution prohibits establishing of a national religion.

The poll was conducted among 316 Republicans from Feb. 20-22. The margin of error was plus or minus 5.5 percentage points.

I think it's more than scary.

For a political party that says they love America, our constitution and what we stand for, they sure don't follow our constitution much. They seem to want to ignore parts and change others.

 

[PratchettFan]

Poll: 57% Of GOPers Support Making Christianity The National Religion


Scary shit.

A majority of Republicans nationally support establishing Christianity as the national religion, according to a new Public Policy Polling survey released Tuesday.

The poll by the Democratic-leaning firm found that 57 percent of Republicans "support establishing Christianity as the national religion" while 30 percent are opposed. Another 13 percent said they were not sure.

It almost goes without saying that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution prohibits establishing of a national religion.

The poll was conducted among 316 Republicans from Feb. 20-22. The margin of error was plus or minus 5.5 percentage points.

That's not the party platform. It's just a poll.




I think it's more than scary.

For a political party that says they love America, our constitution and what we stand for, they sure don't follow our constitution much. They seem to want to ignore parts and change others.

 

[Dana7360]

for the record-----I do believe that having a "national religion" does not
necessarily render the government "theocratic"

Then, in your opinion, what would it take?

It would take LAWS allowing the political leaders to impose
religion. We have laws that disallow the imposition of religion.
Putting a cross on the flag of Great Britain (and a few other
countries) does not render them theocracies. Does putting a
crescent on a flag render a country a theocracy? Is every country
with a crescent on its flag a theocracy. It is true that most have
a bit of ISLAMIC UBER-ALLES element------cannot be defined
as theocracies. -----it's a 'spectrum' The USA was founded by
Christians-------and has a Christian majority----it is, de facto----a kinda
Christian country-------the concept does not frighten me. What does
frighten me is the AQUIESCENCE of the WORLD to the TRIUMPHALISM
OF ISLAM. -------------I assure you-----I know from first hand information---
it is a dangerous trend------""psychologically"". It is a JIHADIST
TRIUMPH

Do you trust the fundamentalist Christians to not be just as ruthless if they were running a theocracy?

If history is an indication yes fundamentalist christians will be just as ruthless.

The pilgrims came to America and established a theocratic monarchy. With the king being in Britain.

These are the same people who burned people, mostly women, at the stake for being a witch. They put people in stocks in the public square for days.

Many people were burned alive. Lives were ruined.

So if history is any indication of what fundamentalist christians would do, they will be just as ruthless if not more.

 

[irosie91]

for the record-----I do believe that having a "national religion" does not
necessarily render the government "theocratic"

a knowledge of HISTORY is vital------history reveals that Christians MOVED AHEAD------Christians (well----the more intelligent amongst them----not the islamo Nazi dogs) have acknowledged the errors of their past.


Then, in your opinion, what would it take?

It would take LAWS allowing the political leaders to impose
religion. We have laws that disallow the imposition of religion.
Putting a cross on the flag of Great Britain (and a few other
countries) does not render them theocracies. Does putting a
crescent on a flag render a country a theocracy? Is every country
with a crescent on its flag a theocracy. It is true that most have
a bit of ISLAMIC UBER-ALLES element------cannot be defined
as theocracies. -----it's a 'spectrum' The USA was founded by
Christians-------and has a Christian majority----it is, de facto----a kinda
Christian country-------the concept does not frighten me. What does
frighten me is the AQUIESCENCE of the WORLD to the TRIUMPHALISM
OF ISLAM. -------------I assure you-----I know from first hand information---
it is a dangerous trend------""psychologically"". It is a JIHADIST
TRIUMPH

Do you trust the fundamentalist Christians to not be just as ruthless if they were running a theocracy?

If history is an indication yes fundamentalist christians will be just as ruthless.

The pilgrims came to America and established a theocratic monarchy. With the king being in Britain.

These are the same people who burned people, mostly women, at the stake for being a witch. They put people in stocks in the public square for days.

Many people were burned alive. Lives were ruined.

So if history is any indication of what fundamentalist christians would do, they will be just as ruthless if not more.

 

[Esmeralda]

So we have another bait and trash thread directed toward those the believe in God. FYI the Constitution prohibits the establishment of government religion, however, there are those on the left that have always proposed trashing the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which under those circumstances would open the door to what ever may be. The founders and pioneers that built and died for this country believed in God, but hell, screw them, like what the F did they ever do, right?
I believe every liberal should practice birth control and when careless abort.

What a ridiculous post. No clear thinking at all about anything.

 

[irosie91]

So we have another bait and trash thread directed toward those the believe in God. FYI the Constitution prohibits the establishment of government religion, however, there are those on the left that have always proposed trashing the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which under those circumstances would open the door to what ever may be. The founders and pioneers that built and died for this country believed in God, but hell, screw them, like what the F did they ever do, right?
I believe every liberal should practice birth control and when careless abort.

What a ridiculous post. No clear thinking at all about anything.

his post was cogent-----your response, Esmeralda, is characteristically vulgar----
can you not, simply, respond with "I disagree" and provide your "logic"
for so responding?

 

[Derideo_Te]

So we have another bait and trash thread directed toward those the believe in God. FYI the Constitution prohibits the establishment of government religion, however, there are those on the left that have always proposed trashing the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which under those circumstances would open the door to what ever may be. The founders and pioneers that built and died for this country believed in God, but hell, screw them, like what the F did they ever do, right?
I believe every liberal should practice birth control and when careless abort.

What a ridiculous post. No clear thinking at all about anything.

his post was cogent-----your response, Esmeralda, is characteristically vulgar----
can you not, simply, respond with "I disagree" and provide your "logic"
for so responding?

Esmeralda didn't use a single vulgarity. Instead she just made an accurate observation.

 

[Clementine]

A poll by a Democratic leaning firm. Okay, it's bullshit from the start. This is nothing more than a desperate attempt to get attention away from the radical Muslims and try to paint Christians as evil. Pandering to the radicals here in America by inciting hatred towards non-Muslims.

While some Christians would no doubt like the country to be considered a Christian country, there is no indication that they desire to stomp out other religions. They would vote to support their beliefs, not behead non-Christians. Comparing them to ISIS shows a gross lack of intelligence on your part.

If you support ISIS's murderous ways, join them. But spare us your radical bullshit.

This thread is a huge fail and reeks of desperation. It belongs in conspiracy theories.

 

[irosie91]

So we have another bait and trash thread directed toward those the believe in God. FYI the Constitution prohibits the establishment of government religion, however, there are those on the left that have always proposed trashing the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which under those circumstances would open the door to what ever may be. The founders and pioneers that built and died for this country believed in God, but hell, screw them, like what the F did they ever do, right?
I believe every liberal should practice birth control and when careless abort.

What a ridiculous post. No clear thinking at all about anything.

his post was cogent-----your response, Esmeralda, is characteristically vulgar----
can you not, simply, respond with "I disagree" and provide your "logic"
for so responding?

Esmeralda didn't use a single vulgarity. Instead she just made an accurate observation.

a person does not have to use NAUGHTY WORDS----to be vulgar...
Some of the MOST SNOTTY NASTY BITCHES in the world
manage to be endlessly vulgar with elegant vocabulary. "no clear
thinking" is not an "observation"------it is a snort.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So we have another bait and trash thread directed toward those the believe in God. FYI the Constitution prohibits the establishment of government religion, however, there are those on the left that have always proposed trashing the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which under those circumstances would open the door to what ever may be. The founders and pioneers that built and died for this country believed in God, but hell, screw them, like what the F did they ever do, right?
I believe every liberal should practice birth control and when careless abort.

What a ridiculous post. No clear thinking at all about anything.

his post was cogent-----your response, Esmeralda, is characteristically vulgar----
can you not, simply, respond with "I disagree" and provide your "logic"
for so responding?

Esmeralda didn't use a single vulgarity. Instead she just made an accurate observation.

a person does not have to use NAUGHTY WORDS----to be vulgar...
Some of the MOST SNOTTY NASTY BITCHES in the world
manage to be endlessly vulgar with elegant vocabulary. "no clear
thinking" is not an "observation"------it is a snort.

Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the term vulgar.

vul·gar
ˈvəlɡər/
adjective
lacking sophistication or good taste; unrefined.
"the vulgar trappings of wealth"
synonyms: tasteless, crass, tawdry, ostentatious, flamboyant, overdone, showy,gaudy, garish, brassy, kitsch, kitschy, tinselly, loud; More
making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions; coarse and rude.
"a vulgar joke"
synonyms: rude, indecent, indelicate, offensive, distasteful, coarse, crude, ribald,risqué, naughty, suggestive, racy, earthy, off-color, bawdy, obscene,profane, lewd, salacious, smutty, dirty, filthy, pornographic, X-rated;More​

What Esmeralda posted does not even remotely fit that definition.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

So we have another bait and trash thread directed toward those the believe in God. FYI the Constitution prohibits the establishment of government religion, however, there are those on the left that have always proposed trashing the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which under those circumstances would open the door to what ever may be. The founders and pioneers that built and died for this country believed in God, but hell, screw them, like what the F did they ever do, right?
I believe every liberal should practice birth control and when careless abort.

What a ridiculous post. No clear thinking at all about anything.

his post was cogent-----your response, Esmeralda, is characteristically vulgar----
can you not, simply, respond with "I disagree" and provide your "logic"
for so responding?

Esmeralda didn't use a single vulgarity. Instead she just made an accurate observation.

Vulgar does not necessarily mean using curse words, Derideo. Vulgar is VULGAR as in a way of being..............VULGAR! (Without class, common, brash, without taste, without decency or a sense of morals, bold and gaudy and without any taste in style or thought put into the way one would present themselves...........).

 

[Derideo_Te]

So we have another bait and trash thread directed toward those the believe in God. FYI the Constitution prohibits the establishment of government religion, however, there are those on the left that have always proposed trashing the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which under those circumstances would open the door to what ever may be. The founders and pioneers that built and died for this country believed in God, but hell, screw them, like what the F did they ever do, right?
I believe every liberal should practice birth control and when careless abort.

What a ridiculous post. No clear thinking at all about anything.

his post was cogent-----your response, Esmeralda, is characteristically vulgar----
can you not, simply, respond with "I disagree" and provide your "logic"
for so responding?

Esmeralda didn't use a single vulgarity. Instead she just made an accurate observation.

Vulgar does not necessarily mean using curse words, Derideo. Vulgar is VULGAR as in a way of being..............VULGAR! (Without class, common, brash, without taste, without decency or a sense of morals, bold and gaudy and without any taste in style or thought put into the way one would present themselves...........).

Agreed! Which is why I posted the definition to that effect.

Nothing in what Esmeralda posted fits that definition. In fact the way Irosie described it she is thinking of something else entirely but I didn't want to presume on what she was thinking.

 

[irosie91]

So we have another bait and trash thread directed toward those the believe in God. FYI the Constitution prohibits the establishment of government religion, however, there are those on the left that have always proposed trashing the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which under those circumstances would open the door to what ever may be. The founders and pioneers that built and died for this country believed in God, but hell, screw them, like what the F did they ever do, right?
I believe every liberal should practice birth control and when careless abort.

What a ridiculous post. No clear thinking at all about anything.

his post was cogent-----your response, Esmeralda, is characteristically vulgar----
can you not, simply, respond with "I disagree" and provide your "logic"
for so responding?

Esmeralda didn't use a single vulgarity. Instead she just made an accurate observation.

Vulgar does not necessarily mean using curse words, Derideo. Vulgar is VULGAR as in a way of being..............VULGAR! (Without class, common, brash, without taste, without decency or a sense of morals, bold and gaudy and without any taste in style or thought put into the way one would present themselves...........).

Agreed! Which is why I posted the definition to that effect.

Nothing in what Esmeralda posted fits that definition. In fact the way Irosie described it she is thinking of something else entirely but I didn't want to presume on what she was thinking.

I will help you, Esmeralda did not critique the post----she just
evaluated it with a snide comment. ----"no clear thinking......"----
sorta like "you have stinky feet"--------a meaningless taunt

 

[Derideo_Te]

What a ridiculous post. No clear thinking at all about anything.

his post was cogent-----your response, Esmeralda, is characteristically vulgar----
can you not, simply, respond with "I disagree" and provide your "logic"
for so responding?

Esmeralda didn't use a single vulgarity. Instead she just made an accurate observation.

Vulgar does not necessarily mean using curse words, Derideo. Vulgar is VULGAR as in a way of being..............VULGAR! (Without class, common, brash, without taste, without decency or a sense of morals, bold and gaudy and without any taste in style or thought put into the way one would present themselves...........).

Agreed! Which is why I posted the definition to that effect.

Nothing in what Esmeralda posted fits that definition. In fact the way Irosie described it she is thinking of something else entirely but I didn't want to presume on what she was thinking.

I will help you, Esmeralda did not critique the post----she just
evaluated it with a snide comment. ----"no clear thinking......"----
sorta like "you have stinky feet"--------a meaningless taunt

Actually she did critique the post quite succinctly and yes, she did follow that with a snide observation but it was not a vulgarity.

There is no USMB rule that I am aware of that requires that all responses must contain a detailed criticism with annotated reasons for each point.

If that USMB rule exists then I am in deep trouble because many of mine are a single word.

 

[irosie91]

his post was cogent-----your response, Esmeralda, is characteristically vulgar----
can you not, simply, respond with "I disagree" and provide your "logic"
for so responding?

Esmeralda didn't use a single vulgarity. Instead she just made an accurate observation.

Vulgar does not necessarily mean using curse words, Derideo. Vulgar is VULGAR as in a way of being..............VULGAR! (Without class, common, brash, without taste, without decency or a sense of morals, bold and gaudy and without any taste in style or thought put into the way one would present themselves...........).

Agreed! Which is why I posted the definition to that effect.

Nothing in what Esmeralda posted fits that definition. In fact the way Irosie described it she is thinking of something else entirely but I didn't want to presume on what she was thinking.

I will help you, Esmeralda did not critique the post----she just
evaluated it with a snide comment. ----"no clear thinking......"----
sorta like "you have stinky feet"--------a meaningless taunt

Actually she did critique the post quite succinctly and yes, she did follow that with a snide observation but it was not a vulgarity.

There is no USMB rule that I am aware of that requires that all responses must contain a detailed criticism with annotated reasons for each point.

If that USMB rule exists then I am in deep trouble because many of mine are a single word.

quote from Esmeralda---
"What a ridiculous post. No clear thinking at all about anything."

above is the ENTIRE response that you assert is a 'succinct critique'
I am not endorsing Staid's post-----or claiming that it was well
written or even clearly written------but Esmeralda's response is
meaningless and nasty,,,, and nothing more. As to the post
to which she responded------I think staid simply had a little trouble
making his point clear----so Esmeralda decided to SPIT

 

[Derideo_Te]

Esmeralda didn't use a single vulgarity. Instead she just made an accurate observation.

Vulgar does not necessarily mean using curse words, Derideo. Vulgar is VULGAR as in a way of being..............VULGAR! (Without class, common, brash, without taste, without decency or a sense of morals, bold and gaudy and without any taste in style or thought put into the way one would present themselves...........).

Agreed! Which is why I posted the definition to that effect.

Nothing in what Esmeralda posted fits that definition. In fact the way Irosie described it she is thinking of something else entirely but I didn't want to presume on what she was thinking.

I will help you, Esmeralda did not critique the post----she just
evaluated it with a snide comment. ----"no clear thinking......"----
sorta like "you have stinky feet"--------a meaningless taunt

Actually she did critique the post quite succinctly and yes, she did follow that with a snide observation but it was not a vulgarity.

There is no USMB rule that I am aware of that requires that all responses must contain a detailed criticism with annotated reasons for each point.

If that USMB rule exists then I am in deep trouble because many of mine are a single word.

quote from Esmeralda---
"What a ridiculous post. No clear thinking at all about anything."

above is the ENTIRE response that you assert is a 'succinct critique'
I am not endorsing Staid's post-----or claiming that it was well
written or even clearly written------but Esmeralda's response is
meaningless and nasty,,,, and nothing more. As to the post
to which she responded------I think staid simply had a little trouble
making his point clear----so Esmeralda decided to SPIT

Are you denying that "What a ridiculous post" is a succinct critique? If it isn't then can you provide a more apt one given the ridiculous content of the post in question?

As far as the subsequent observation goes it was pretty mild going by USMB standards. I would have made some reference to how home schooling and partisanship doesn't produce the most coherent thinkers but that is in hindsight. At the time I just considered the post in question to be so puerile as to be unworthy of any response at all. I most certainly wasn't about to engage someone who is patently incapable of defending his own drivel.

 

[Clementine]

quote from Esmeralda---
"What a ridiculous post. No clear thinking at all about anything."

above is the ENTIRE response that you assert is a 'succinct critique'
I am not endorsing Staid's post-----or claiming that it was well
written or even clearly written------but Esmeralda's response is
meaningless and nasty,,,, and nothing more. As to the post
to which she responded------I think staid simply had a little trouble
making his point clear----so Esmeralda decided to SPIT

It's a typical leftie tactic where instead of explaining or defending one's views, they merely insult those who disagree. Anyone familiar with past radicals and their blueprints for pushing far left ideology understands these tactics all too well. They've been used by virtually every dictator in the past. Sadly, they work well on people who are in the complacency stage of a country collapsing into socialism.

It's no different than the lefties who ignore the substance of an entire post and merely point out a typo and use it to ridicule the writer. It is a means of impugning opposing views instead of responding with intelligence or thought. It's practiced every day by liberals, whether in small debates or on a larger scale when used by government. The goal is to make fun of those opposing them and threatening anyone who would agree with them. Speak out against the state and be ridiculed or even worse. Enemies of the state cannot expect fair or humane treatment.

The entire premise of this thread is vulgar. The OP makes a vain attempt to paint Christians in the same light as ISIS by claiming that a majority of them (according to a skewed liberal poll) would like this to be a Christian nation. Despite the complete lack of violence or attempt to eliminate other religions, the OP cites this joke of a poll by insinuating that there is no difference between Christians and a murderous terrorist group. There are no parallels. It's not just a matter of people believing different things. Some go to the extreme and literally want to annihilate those who are different than themselves.

Never mind that while Christians merely protest against gay marriage, ISIS beheads all gays they encounter.

Never mind that while Christians fight for their right to hold to their beliefs and be left alone by those who would ridicule their faith, ISIS tortures and beheads those who do not believe as they do. Christians don't want to pay for abortion and, yes, they protest against it. Christians don't want to cater gay weddings, though some gays will seek them out just to make an example of them. Big difference between wanting to be left alone and seeking out those with different beliefs and murdering them in cold blood.

It is safe to openly disagree with Christians. The Christians have been mocked mercilessly and criticized at every turn yet no one has been murdered for insulting them or their God. They turn the other cheek, though still protest and speak their mind. Obama has never come out and asked that people show tolerance for Christians.

It is not safe to openly disagree with Muslims. Offend them and die. We are cautioned not to insult Allah and it's suggested that those who do bring on their own murder. Obama constantly asks people to show tolerance for Muslims.

While this bogus poll claims the majority of Christians want this to be a Christian nation, the left ignores valid polls showing that the majority of Muslims believe we should all abide by sharia law and that insulting their messiah should carry severe penalties. They still believing in stoning women to death for infidelity and other great atrocities.

Only a mind-numbed robot could repeat the garbage in the OP and actually believe what they are saying. One has to ignore reality to embrace the notion that exercising one's freedom of speech could compare to the savagery we've seen from ISIS.

 

[Mac1958]

.

"Meet the American ISIS"

Wow, every time I think I've seen the nastiest possible spin for Jihadism, it just gets lower.

ISIS purposely slaughters innocents in wholesale. They shoot women in the street. They seek out and murder gays. They butcher people on camera as they scream that their god is great. They are true psychopaths on a global scale.

Not in the days of the Crusades. Not hundreds of years ago, or even decades ago. Today. Right now.

And those who spin and deflect for these savages just happen to be the same people who want to "change", "re-make" and "fundamentally transform" America, the country whose Constitution was "written by rich white slave owners". Their words, of course.

And then they scream and whine when their motives and loyalties are questioned.

Sick shit right there.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

.

"Meet the American ISIS"

Wow, every time I think I've seen the nastiest possible spin for Jihadism, it just gets lower.

ISIS purposely slaughters innocents in wholesale. They shoot women in the street. They seek out and murder gays. They butcher people on camera as they scream that their god is great. They are true psychopaths on a global scale.

Not in the days of the Crusades. Not hundreds of years ago, or even decades ago. Today. Right now.

And those who spin and deflect for these savages just happen to be the same people who want to "change", "re-make" and "fundamentally transform" America, the country whose Constitution was "written by rich white slave owners". Their words, of course.

And then they scream and whine when their motives and loyalties are questioned.

Sick shit right there.

.

Let's not kid ourselves. The first settlers here burned people alive as witches based upon religious beliefs. Public hangings were commonplace. In fact the last one took place less than a century ago. Unofficial lynchings continued after that with the last recorded one being in 1981.

And then there is gun violence. Nowhere else in the world comes close to what happens with guns in this nation. Mass shootings are on the rise according to the FBI data.

Is this an excuse for what ISIS is doing?

Nope!

They are barbarian criminals and they will get what it coming to them IMO.

However let's not fool ourselves into believing that we deserve to be on any pedestal above them. Right now, today, we turn a blind eye to the daily slaughter right here in America.