The Islam Thread

[UnAmericanYOU]

It's a language, I tell you!

Well, you joined the board after us, but we joined at the same time.

Establishing senority...

We are friends in real life.

Why don't you tell them a little more about that?

She knows I can speak for her any time, and vice versa.

Odd, none of my "real life" friends can't, and wouldn't presume to do so.

If you have a problem with that, tough.

This tandem posting only comes off as insecure and weak. Tough. [/quote]

For a start, I'm not a liberal. No matter many times you say it, it doesn't make it so.

For a start, I'm not a neo-con. No matter how many times you and you say it, it doesn't make it so, even with your perjorative redeinition of the term.

Putting on my red shoes..."They're liberals...*clicks heels*...they're liberals...*clicks heels*...they're liberals...*clicks heels*... you lose.

The source is important to me and it should be to you. A lot of sources are biased and openly show their bias.

We call it "the mainstream media".

I do listen to some sources and do believe. But the one thing that really cracks me up big time is you saying I use blogs. I NEVER use blogs.

Nah, you just defend your real life friend when she does.

In fact the only person I can think of on these boards that uses blogs a lot, is a conservative poster. Jillian rarely uses them as far as I can recall.

Try to remember, and if you remember.....

Enough about your favorite subject. Islamofascism is NOT just another montheistic religion, and you'll never be able to use them to get rid of those mean Christians. Want a Koran quote?:

I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.(Koran 8:12).

Zaraqwi, Nick Berg's head.

 

[Dr Grump]

It's a language, I tell you!
Establishing senority..

Yeah, that's what I was trying to do...:funnyface

Why don't you tell them a little more about that?

Why is it of interest? Are you a voyeur of sorts? :alco:

Odd, none of my "real life" friends can't, and wouldn't presume to do so.

And....?

This tandem posting only comes off as insecure and weak. Tough.

[/QUOTE]

We very rarely do it, however the number of times the conservatives do it on this board is quite alarming... As for being insecure and weak, sure it does...

For a start, I'm not a neo-con. No matter how many times you and you say it, it doesn't make it so, even with your perjorative redeinition of the term.

Now you're starting to get it.

Nah, you just defend your real life friend when she does.

Does she?

Enough about your favorite subject.

And yours it seems...

Islamofascism is NOT just another montheistic religion, and you'll never be able to use them to get rid of those mean Christians. Want a Koran quote?:

I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.(Koran 8:12).

Zaraqwi, Nick Berg's head.

I'd get rid of the Muslims before the Christians....

 

[glockmail]

Now, now, Glock. Jillian didn't say that.

Some of the liberal rhetoric is definately over the top but they've never actually come and said conservatives want to kill anybody. They just accuse them of killing people all the time. Like Katrina and black people. But they say things like that when they're upset so you have to cut them some slack sometimes.

No slack will be cut by me.

You are right, that's not what they actually say, but that's what they want people to here. Same for environmental issues.

 

[jillian]

Yet another tried and tired argument by the liberals: 'CONSERVATIVES WANT TO KILL THE POOR'! What a whack job!

Dude... your comprehension skills are really weak. Is it your position that conservatives don't say that each person should be responsible for themselves and the rest is just a welfare state?

Your overreaction to things is really quite strange. Do you get some sort of charge by pontificating about things that aren't there. Or do you just look for the opportunity to rant, whether it's been given to you or not?

 

[jillian]

Not necessarily. We are to "call people out" on their sins, if you will to keep them from sin:
"Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." (Galatians 6:1-2)

But is restoring him the same as judging. Seems to me it means something else... more like feeding the soul.

 

[nt250]

Is it your position that conservatives don't say that each person should be responsible for themselves and the rest is just a welfare state?

That is pretty much what conservatives believe. They also believe in religion and charity. You liberals, on the other hand, think that it's up to government to provide that "safety net".

So that's why we have 5 generations of welfare mothers.

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

Yeah, that's what I was trying to do...:funnyface

Why else would you go all that trouble to point the fact out otherwise?

Oh, and the emo's don't really distract the attention away. emo-boi.

Why is it of interest? Are you a voyeur of sorts? :alco:

Because it's weird? Kind of like voyeurs...bonus points for using a French word!

How could you be one over the internet in any case? I've told you before, it's all photo-chopped.


Even identical twins can't speak for each other. Think groupthink. Breather groupthink. Live groupthink:

We very rarely do it, however the number of times the conservatives do it on this board is quite alarming... As for being insecure and weak, sure it does...

Trying your patience, eh? Name me two that joined the same date, and are on IM to each other all the fricking time.

You needed the help, can't stand on your own, even to roll your eyes.

In all fairness, you can use your emos independently! Way to go!

Now you're starting to get it.

Well, I got it back in second grade. You think the other side has distorted the term "liberal", and it's an insult when it's hurled at you. More unwanted advice: stop calling yourself one, then.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but you two make one liberal, does that work better for you?

Again, a "neo-con" is a term to describe a social liberal who adopts an aggessive Cold War policy, but that doesn't matter, it's got that kewl "neo" prefix just like in "Nazi".

There should a "smear" emo just for you.

Does she?

She does and you do.

And yours it seems...

Of course, you, not her.

I'd get rid of the Muslims before the Christians....

Well, the Muslims would get rid of you before me, "tinfoil".

Your reading comprehension seems to be fine, read this, you both admittedly share the same mind...you have to...double-foil:

Dude... your comprehension skills are really weak. Is it your position that conservatives don't say that each person should be responsible for themselves and the rest is just a welfare state?

Your overreaction to things is really quite strange. Do you get some sort of charge by pontificating about things that aren't there. Or do you just look for the opportunity to rant, whether it's been given to you or not

See, that's not a counterattack, that's a personal attack. Self-important, self-absorbed, condescending. Emoticon that.

 

[Dr Grump]

Why else would you go all that trouble to point the fact out otherwise?

Wasn't that much trouble at all! I pointed out the fact just so she knew we are in fact, joined at the hip. She might not have known that. Now she does. The seniority thang is your gig, not mine...:O) (sorry emo police, I'll stop using them. Main reason I am using them, so you don't get the impression that our convo - from my POV anyhow - is anything but serious. You conservatives seem to wear getting under someone's skin as some sort of badge of honour. The number of times I've posted something and the person seems to think they've gleefully peed me off are numerable, when in fact, that is far from true)...anyway, back to the fun...

Because it's weird? Kind of like voyeurs...bonus points for using a French word! How could you be one over the internet in any case? I've told you before, it's all photo-chopped.

Why is it weird? And to whom? You? Cool, do I get a kewpie doll for using a French word? Do I get anything for German or Russian? How about Mongolian - they'd be worth two kewpie dolls, no?

Even identical twins can't speak for each other. Think groupthink. Breather groupthink. Live groupthink.

Oh, no! My life is over. I'm not an individual! It means everything to me to be an individual! Oh, god, shoot me now! I'm part of a collective. Maybe I'm a closet Borgophile! Halp!

Trying your patience, eh? Name me two that joined the same date, and are on IM to each other all the fricking time.

No, not trying my patience one iota. Find it strange you would think so. Don't use the IM function, only the PM...but even if we do PM each other, is that a crime? You want in? I'll cc ya if you're keen? And what makes you think we PM each other all the time?

You needed the help, can't stand on your own, even to roll your eyes.

hhhmmm..dunno what makes you think that. She's posted more than 1000 more times than me and we are not on the same boards a lot of the time. You are showing an unusual interest in us. Dillo??

Well, I got it back in second grade. You think the other side has distorted the term "liberal", and it's an insult when it's hurled at you. More unwanted advice: stop calling yourself one, then.

If you got it then why are you mentioning it? No, I'm not a liberal. There is no distortion. The term is being used correctly but being applied to the wrong person. You may read my posts and think I am one. I can't help what you think...

Two wrongs don't make a right, but you two make one liberal, does that work better for you? Again, a "neo-con" is a term to describe a social liberal who adopts an aggessive Cold War policy, but that doesn't matter, it's got that kewl "neo" prefix just like in "Nazi".

Jill is unabashedly liberal. If I was, I'd say so. Ah the old neocon explanation. Had to happen some time. Thanks for explaning it. Every messageboard I go, the conservative who takes the most umbrage with the term brings up their definition. Thanks for being so consistent and you obviously passed Conservatism 101. Well done! :hail:

She does and you do.

No she doesn't. If you can find two or three of her posts that do, go for it. Even if she did it would hardly prove your assertion that she does so often Me? Iv'e never quoted a blog.....ever. Go figure...

Of course, you, not her.

But of course...I believe ya... Sorry about the emo, old habits and all...

Well, the Muslims would get rid of you before me, "tinfoil".

Why? Are you a Muslim? My money's on the Christians..Day got da power!

See, that's not a counterattack, that's a personal attack. Self-important, self-absorbed, condescending. Emoticon that.

Unlike most of your post to me, right?
As an aside, are you and Glock joined at the hip because your'e doing exactly what you are accusing Jill and I of?? Just wondering...

 

[jillian]

That is pretty much what conservatives believe. They also believe in religion and charity. You liberals, on the other hand, think that it's up to government to provide that "safety net".

So that's why we have 5 generations of welfare mothers.

Actually, liberals believe in religion and charity as well. They just don't want their religion mixed with their government... you know, the way the Founding Fathers intended.

As for 5 generations of welfare mothers, if you wouldn't make assumptions about what I believe, you'd hear that I support programs which get people off of welfare and make them productive. I think the welfare mentality is demeaning and destructive. I'm one of those left-leaners who agreed with Welfare Reform. My only issue is that we need to make sure that single mothers, who form the largest group on welfare, get support systems in the form of education, job training and child care so they can go out and work rather than have them stay home and collect checks because they are unskilled, untrained and have no one to watch the kids.

 

[Gunny]

Actually, liberals believe in religion and charity as well. They just don't want their religion mixed with their government... you know, the way the Founding Fathers intended.

Which is exactly what most conservatives believe. Where the argument begins is when you define the Constitution as saying religion cannot be in government; which, it does not. Not even close.

As for 5 generations of welfare mothers, if you wouldn't make assumptions about what I believe, you'd hear that I support programs which get people off of welfare and make them productive. I think the welfare mentality is demeaning and destructive. I'm one of those left-leaaners who agreed with Welfare Reform. My only issue is that we need to make sure that single mothers, who form the largest group on welfare, get support systems in the form of education, job training and child care so they can go out and work rather than have them stay home and collect checks because they are unskilled, untrained and have no one to watch the kids.

As opposed to some single white males who need to just go out and get a job, no excuses, right?

 

[Abbey Normal]

Actually, liberals believe in religion and charity as well. They just don't want their religion mixed with their government... you know, the way the Founding Fathers intended.

As for 5 generations of welfare mothers, if you wouldn't make assumptions about what I believe, you'd hear that I support programs which get people off of welfare and make them productive. I think the welfare mentality is demeaning and destructive. I'm one of those left-leaners who agreed with Welfare Reform. My only issue is that we need to make sure that single mothers, who form the largest group on welfare, get support systems in the form of education, job training and child care so they can go out and work rather than have them stay home and collect checks because they are unskilled, untrained and have no one to watch the kids.

Shouldn't the baby-daddys pay for their child's needs, including childcare? Why must the taxpayers pony up to make up for the incredible lack of responsibility shown by people who have children knowing they have no means of self-support, and no real expectation of a responsible father in the picture?

 

[jillian]

Shouldn't the baby-daddys pay for their child's needs, including childcare? Why must the taxpayers pony up to make up for the incredible lack of responsibility shown by people who have children knowing they have no means of self-support, and no real expectation of a responsible father in the picture?

Ideally they would. But daddy's child support is based on his income. So if daddy splits or doesn't make much money, then his contribution is nominal or nonexistent. Plus, if mom is on welfare, any child support goes back to the State to reimburse them for payments and mom gets nada. And then, if she wants to get off welfare and tries to get a minimum wage job, again, she has to repay the state, leaving her with less money and benefits than being on welfare. Kind of a skewed system with no incentive for ending the cycle.

And the reason we pay for it is because we don't allow children to starve in one of the richest countries in the world... .not to mention the fact that the cost is negligible compared to what we spend on other things.

That said, ideally there'd be no need for welfare. But poverty exists and to break the cycle of poverty takes more than just cutting off someone's welfare checks.

We need things like head start, child care and job training. It might not be something you're comfortable with, but what's the alternative? Telling people the checks are cut off? Then what?

As for the "personal responsibility" thing... I understand and for people with middle class values, that's certainly relevant. But those values don't just arise spontaneously, they need to be taught and where there's a gap, it's not any skin off our noses to help.

IMO, the same people who have issues with job training and daycare also have issues with teaching sex education and reproductive choice. These things need to be coordinated with the types of programs I mentioned. That's not a welfare state, it's a realization that not everyone starts out with parents who even know where to begin to create a normal life. As a society, we can't really ignore that fact.

 

[jillian]

As opposed to some single white males who need to just go out and get a job, no excuses, right?

Actually the largest group on welfare is single white mothers. It's not the same problem for single males. But I digress. I think that someone single, male or female, or of any color should get a job. But I also think that we need, in cases, to make job training available.

I don't think there's a job that's beneath anyone.... and yes, a healthy single person should get their butt out and work.

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

Wasn't that much trouble at all! I pointed out the fact just so she knew we are in fact, joined at the hip. She might not have known that. Now she does. The seniority thang is your gig, not mine...:O)

Oh, I think everyone knows that. Can't have one without the other...

It's all about you.

(sorry emo police, I'll stop using them. Main reason I am using them, so you don't get the impression that our convo - from my POV anyhow - is anything but serious. You conservatives seem to wear getting under someone's skin as some sort of badge of honour. The number of times I've posted something and the person seems to think they've gleefully peed me off are numerable, when in fact, that is far from true)...anyway, back to the fun...

It's STILL all about you. I was not trying to get under your skin, only that if you live by one identity but are really two, you'll die by two. Kind of like a jihad by the identity.

Why is it weird? And to whom? You? Cool, do I get a kewpie doll for using a French word? Do I get anything for German or Russian? How about Mongolian - they'd be worth two kewpie dolls, no?

It's all relative, what's weird to me may be just weird to jillian and you. That even just sounded weird.

Oh, no! My life is over. I'm not an individual! It means everything to me to be an individual! Oh, god, shoot me now! I'm part of a collective. Maybe I'm a closet Borgophile! Halp!

Yes you are an individual, you're just trying to have it both ways. The power of one....meditate....

No, not trying my patience one iota. Find it strange you would think so. Don't use the IM function, only the PM...but even if we do PM each other, is that a crime? You want in? I'll cc ya if you're keen? And what makes you think we PM each other all the time?

You may not know this, but it is a crime now under the Patriot Act.

hhhmmm..dunno what makes you think that. She's posted more than 1000 more times than me and we are not on the same boards a lot of the time. You are showing an unusual interest in us. Dillo??

Part uno, if she's so liberal and you're not, how can she speak for you and vice-versa?

Another alt, another time.

If you got it then why are you mentioning it? No, I'm not a liberal. There is no distortion. The term is being used correctly but being applied to the wrong person. You may read my posts and think I am one. I can't help what you think...

Better here, true, you can't help what I think. Now.....?

Take it to the next level.

Jill is unabashedly liberal. If I was, I'd say so.

Unless you were ashamed of it or you didn't think it applied, as in "neo-con".

Ah the old neocon explanation. Had to happen some time. Thanks for explaning it. Every messageboard I go, the conservative who takes the most umbrage with the term brings up their definition. Thanks for being so consistent and you obviously passed Conservatism 101. Well done! :hail:

Then you didn't learn, did you?

I'll try again, it could be MY poor communication skills instead of your poor reading comprehension problem, just sayin':

ITT, you threw that word around. You know what it meant, and you know what it means. Still, you do it because you can.

No she doesn't. If you can find two or three of her posts that do, go for it. Even if she did it would hardly prove your assertion that she does so often Me? Iv'e never quoted a blog.....ever. Go figure...

Truthout.

Yes, she does, yes, you do. Your switch is stuck.

Why? Are you a Muslim? My money's on the Christians..Day got da power!

There's degrees of infidels.

Unlike most of your post to me, right?

There again, schoolyard tactics.

Dude... your comprehension skills are really weak. Is it your position that conservatives don't say that each person should be responsible for themselves and the rest is just a welfare state?

Your overreaction to things is really quite strange. Do you get some sort of charge by pontificating about things that aren't there. Or do you just look for the opportunity to rant, whether it's been given to you or not

Weak, overreaction, "things that aren't there", "opportunity to rant", all condescending terms.

Speak for that.

As an aside, are you and Glock joined at the hip because your'e doing exactly what you are accusing Jill and I of?? Just wondering...

Has Glock given me permission to answer for him? Don't think so.

Predictable attack, not so exact afterall.

 

[jillian]

You may not know this, but it is a crime now under the Patriot Act.

It is?!?!?!?

Part uno, if she's so liberal and you're not, how can she speak for you and vice-versa?

We don't do it real often. But there are issues where we see eye to eye and we know each other well enough to accurately represent the other's pov, in the main. For example, He's opposed to Estate Taxes. I'm ok with them, though I also have no problem with the exemption being raised to $5 million. See...... Same as he knows I'm to the right of him on the Israel/Palestinian issue...

Yes, she does, yes, you do. Your switch is stuck.

I can assure you I don't reference blogs. I think they're very poor source material, being nothing more than offering a like-minded opinion as opposed to a source which offers factual statements.

Weak, overreaction, "things that aren't there", "opportunity to rant", all condescending terms.

Speak for that.

I think I will since it was my post. Simply put, I give as good as I get. Go back and read the tone of Glock's posts to me. I think you'll find them to be far angrier than anything I posted, far more condescending and far ruder. I try not to post in that type of tone, but I'm not going to leave that type of behavior unresponded to.

Has Glock given me permission to answer for him? Don't think so.

Yet you felt HER so wronged that you just HAD to intervene to protect her. Tres gallant.

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

It is?!?!?!?

I was trying to play to liberal paranoia, your friend said the word "crime" in the first place as if I'd accused him of something heinous.

Deflection is for sunscreen lotion.

We don't do it real often. But there are issues where we see eye to eye and we know each other well enough to accurately represent the other's pov, in the main. For example, He's opposed to Estate Taxes. I'm ok with them, though I also have no problem with the exemption being raised to $5 million. See...... Same as he knows I'm to the right of him on the Israel/Palestinian issue...

I understand exactly what you are saying, still, if it's NOT a shared viewpoint, it's not sincere.

I can assure you I don't reference blogs. I think they're very poor source material, being nothing more than offering a like-minded opinion as opposed to a source which offers factual statements.

Well, I have a different take - any blog can be a source of accurate information, it just should be kept in mind that the internet is unregulated and should be kept that way. That's pushing it...

I think I will since it was my post. Simply put, I give as good as I get. Go back and read the tone of Glock's posts to me. I think you'll find them to be far angrier than anything I posted, far more condescending and far ruder. I try not to post in that type of tone, but I'm not going to leave that type of behavior unresponded to.:

My point was that it was between Glock and you, and he intervened...good cop, bad cop.

Yet you felt HER so wronged that you just HAD to intervene to protect her. Tres gallant.

Not really. You often accuse others as not being an expert on some subject, as if you were. This thread was beyond derailed.

Saying that, Muslims aren't American's problem, yet, Israel and Europe are first. Glock may see it differently, but you said beer.

 

[Dr Grump]

It's all about you.

But it's not about you, right?

It's STILL all about you. I was not trying to get under your skin, only that if you live by one identity but are really two, you'll die by two. Kind of like a jihad by the identity.

Is that a bad thing? Is that a good thing?

Yes you are an individual, you're just trying to have it both ways. The power of one....meditate..

I am trying to have it both way? hmmmm...maybe, maybe not. I am not the arbiter of such things, you are it seems...

You may not know this, but it is a crime now under the Patriot Act.

Well, you being a patriot and all, you'll be fine!

Part uno, if she's so liberal and you're not, how can she speak for you and vice-versa?

Why does her being a liberal have anything to do with whether I can speak for her or not? It's almost a non-sequitor..

Better here, true, you can't help what I think. Now.....?Take it to the next level.

Go for it.

Unless you were ashamed of it or you didn't think it applied, as in "neo-con".

No, not ashamed at all! If I was a liberal I would happily admit to being such. Why should I admit to something just to satiate the will of those who would label me something I'm not..

ITT, you threw that word around. You know what it meant, and you know what it means. Still, you do it because you can.

And yet NT calls me a liberal, and because that conforms to your opinion of me, even though it is not true, you give her a free pass. Go figure.

Yes, she does, yes, you do. Your switch is stuck.

Not really. It's quite easy to prove unless our posts have been deleted. There should be plenty of posts with us linking to blogs. Go for it.

There's degrees of infidels.

There are? Where'd you get that piece of gen? "Infidals,the good the bad and the ugly?"

There again, schoolyard tactics.

Or calling 'em as I see 'em

Weak, overreaction, "things that aren't there", "opportunity to rant", all condescending terms.

And yet you taking issue with Jillian and I speaking for each other, your "groupthink" comments, "It's about you" etc, etc are not condescending? Are they from the Rodney King "why can't we all get along" school?

Has Glock given me permission to answer for him? Don't think so.

And yet, here you are doing so...

Predictable attack, not so exact afterall.

Ditto...

 

[Dr Grump]

My point was that it was between Glock and you, and he intervened...good cop, bad cop.

And yet it became between Glock and me and you intervened. Two wrongs don't make a right, right?

 

[nt250]

And yet it became between Glock and me and you intervened. Two wrongs don't make a right, right?

I take back the blog comment when it comes to you and Jillian. I was pretty much using an editorial you to describe what I see as the classic liberal poster, so if you and Jillian don't use blogs, then I apologize for lumping you in with the rest of what I consider classic liberal arguments.

But I have seen it, and I've seen it many times. It's really infuriating to see some holier-than-thou liberal go off the deep end whenever someone posts an article from News Max or Ann Coulter or anything that a liberal can object to simply because of it's source, and then see that same poster post a link to the most left wing nutjob Tin Foil Hat Brigade bullshit on the internet.

But I apologize to you and Jillian for saying you rely on blogs or other peoples opinions to back up your own opinions. I haven't been here long enough to be able to claim either of you do anything on a regular basis.

But you are a liberal. :funnyface Just kidding.:nine:

 

[nt250]

Shouldn't the baby-daddys pay for their child's needs, including childcare? Why must the taxpayers pony up to make up for the incredible lack of responsibility shown by people who have children knowing they have no means of self-support, and no real expectation of a responsible father in the picture?

This entire subject shows the total hypocricy of both sides when it comes to abortion, personal responsibility, and the role of the government in social situations. It's bizarre. Conservatives are against abortion in any circumstance (the life of the mother bullshit is just mandatory detail they have to give lip service to. Most conservative wouldn't give a shit if every pregnant woman died in childbirth as long as the baby lives.) But they also hate welfare.

Liberals believe in the right to choose, and welfare. That's just as bizarre because with abortion being legal, although harder and harder to get, any woman who chooses to have a baby should be expected to support it on her own.

Forget about the father. Our society is male dominated. While some states require an unwed mother to name the father in order to collect welfare, which is a good thing, many others have laws that protect unwed fathers. My kid has no legal father. Since we weren't married, I was not legally able to name him on her birth certificate without him signing a form agreeing to it. He broke up with me the day I told him I was pregnant, so I had had no contact with him for months. I knew he wouldn't sign the form, so I didn't bother trying to get him to sign it. He was a criminal defense attorney and I decided to have the baby on my own so I saw no reason to go to the expense of hiring a lawyer to fight him on it. I didn't need his child support payments so I didn't pursue it.

But even though I was not applying for welfare, or any kind of state benefits at all, the state would not let me name him as the father. I guess the rule makes sense because any nut can name anybody, so there is probably no solution for that.