The Regressive Left and Islam -- What is happening here?

[Mac1958]

There's no such thing as a Regressive Left and the proof of that is that the OP can't name anyone here IN the so-called regressive left.

You.

Looks like you're wrong, again.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And yes, part of this equation has to include your notion of defending Islam at all costs. They constantly try to equate modern-day Islam with modern-day Christianity, but what is happening all over the world right now exposes that for the absurdity it is..

See? Once again you blame the whole religion, including the innocent, while you lie and claim you never do it.

A perfect example of my point, again, right on cue.

The Regressive Left literally can't help itself.
.

Notice how Mac never goes after the people who DO blame all of Islam, including the many in this thread.

To Mac:

Defending innocent Muslims - Bad

Blaming all of Islam for the actions of some Muslims - Good.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And yes, part of this equation has to include your notion of defending Islam at all costs. They constantly try to equate modern-day Islam with modern-day Christianity, but what is happening all over the world right now exposes that for the absurdity it is..

See? Once again you blame the whole religion, including the innocent, while you lie and claim you never do it.

A perfect example of my point, again, right on cue.

The Regressive Left literally can't help itself.
.

You can deny it all you want but it's right there in black and white.

I love how defensive you've been in this thread, I really do.
.

I love how PoliticalChic you've been in this thread. Bit of irony there, eh?

 

[Mac1958]

There's no such thing as a Regressive Left....

Oh, and...
.
.

 

[Mac1958]

And again, from my clairvoyant OP:

And directly to the Regressive Leftists here: I certainly don't, nor do I ever, expect a straight, clear and honest answer from you on this. What I expect from you is the standard deflection, derision, personal insults and name-calling. I know that's what we'll get, it's an easy prediction. This thread is specifically about your behaviors, not about Islam. I'm just curious about this, and perhaps some other responses will shed some light or provide some clues.
.

 

[Ravi]

And yes, part of this equation has to include your notion of defending Islam at all costs. They constantly try to equate modern-day Islam with modern-day Christianity, but what is happening all over the world right now exposes that for the absurdity it is..

See? Once again you blame the whole religion, including the innocent, while you lie and claim you never do it.

A perfect example of my point, again, right on cue.

The Regressive Left literally can't help itself.
.

Notice how Mac never goes after the people who DO blame all of Islam, including the many in this thread.

To Mac:

Defending innocent Muslims - Bad

Blaming all of Islam for the actions of some Muslims - Good.

He has a Ph.D. In being passive aggressive. Funny and pathetic all at once.

 

[Tehon]

Members of one specific religion - a religion with a current record of extreme violence, intimidation and terror - are telling us precisely what they're going to do, and they're doing it. It's expansion is clear and rapid and undeniable. We're watching it happen in real time, particularly across Europe. This isn't a partisan or religious opinion, it is a clear fact, based on observation.


.

I can't speak for everyone on the regressive left but predicting the rise of Islamic extremism was an easy call to make when the War on Terror was first commenced. I'm pretty sure that there were more than a few regressive leftists who made that call.

That the right would try to expand the war is equally predictable.

 

[Mac1958]

Members of one specific religion - a religion with a current record of extreme violence, intimidation and terror - are telling us precisely what they're going to do, and they're doing it. It's expansion is clear and rapid and undeniable. We're watching it happen in real time, particularly across Europe. This isn't a partisan or religious opinion, it is a clear fact, based on observation.


.

I can't speak for everyone on the regressive left but predicting the rise of Islamic extremism was an easy call to make when the War on Terror was first commenced. I'm pretty sure that there were more than a few regressive leftists who made that call.

That the right would try to expand the war is equally predictable.

For those of us who were against the war, "sticking our dick in a hornet's nest" was definitely a term used more than once, yeah.
.

 

[Tehon]

Meanwhile, a group of people - the Regressive Left (as honest liberal Bill Maher refers to them), a group all too happy to attack the misdeeds of another religion (Christianity, obviously) in absolutely every possible way, at absolutely every opportunity, are bending over backwards to be defensive and so very tolerant of the first religion. A religion, by the way, that treats women and gays as lesser objects, among other behaviors that the Regressive Leftists loathe.
.

The term regressive left is being used by people, much like Bill Maher and Sam Harris, who show disdain for all religion. They use the term to attack those on the left who are more tolerant of people's religious beliefs. Apparently to the delight of some on the right.

 

[Mac1958]

I agree. Yet the group of people to whom I refer (a term taken from honest liberals Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins) won't do what you say.

They'll attack Christians all day long, as viciously as they can, but when the next jihadist slaughter occurs, you'll see them being very, very, VERY tolerant of Islam, AND you'll see them deflect/change the subject immediately from the jihadist slaughter directly to misdeeds of Christianity. Like clockwork, guaranteed.

It is precisely that blatant hypocrisy that I question in this particular thread, and the motivations behind it.
.

I would use the term "actual" liberals to describe them, myself, as they operate according to liberal principles whereas all the apologists wouldn't know liberal political theory if it smacked them along side their idiotic little heads.

As to the inevitability of the comparisons to Christianity, it works like this:

Useful Idiot in question predetermines they absolutely must defend Islam at all costs. In order to defend and support Islam, they shift the attack to Christianty, instead, in order to distract away from Islam as well as to create intentionally false equivalences. These false equivalences offered by the Islamist defenders rely on three basic ruses.

The first of these ruses involves degree of support. If large percentages of Muslims hold certain objectionable beliefs, they compare to Christianity, even if very small percentages of Christians hold similar.

The second ruse involves heinousness of action or belief. If Muslims support killing apostates, they might point to Christians shunning them (which is also less prevalent) or if Muslims support killing gay people, they will point to Christians objecting to gay marriage.

The third ruse involves time. If Islamic actions are committed in the here and now, they point to Christian actions from the distant past, as if two world somehow existed on two completely different time frames.

Now, when people do this, they really aren't thinking up these ruses on their own, as they are too stupid for this sort of deviousness. They are simply imitating the specious arguments of the other sheep they see doing the same thing. It doesn't make any difference how their idiotic comparisons fail on any conceivable level, as the fact they are all making them creates the impression they are actually valid.

It is so utterly predictable and vapid, and has become a regular part of the arsenal of these profoundly illiberal morons.

Holy crap, I bet you'll like this - another honest liberal named Sam Harris just eviscerating the Regressive Left:

 

[Mac1958]

Meanwhile, a group of people - the Regressive Left (as honest liberal Bill Maher refers to them), a group all too happy to attack the misdeeds of another religion (Christianity, obviously) in absolutely every possible way, at absolutely every opportunity, are bending over backwards to be defensive and so very tolerant of the first religion. A religion, by the way, that treats women and gays as lesser objects, among other behaviors that the Regressive Leftists loathe.
.

The term regressive left is being used by people, much like Bill Maher and Sam Harris, who show disdain for all religion. They use the term to attack those on the left who are more tolerant of people's religious beliefs. Apparently to the delight of some on the right.

Timing! I just posted about him!

There are also independents and honest liberals who agree with them.
.

 

[Papageorgio]

This is so fascinating to watch, and election of London's new mayor is shedding even more light on it.

Members of one specific religion - a religion with a current record of extreme violence, intimidation and terror - are telling us precisely what they're going to do, and they're doing it. It's expansion is clear and rapid and undeniable. We're watching it happen in real time, particularly across Europe. This isn't a partisan or religious opinion, it is a clear fact, based on observation.

Meanwhile, a group of people - the Regressive Left (as honest liberal Bill Maher refers to them), a group all too happy to attack the misdeeds of another religion (Christianity, obviously) in absolutely every possible way, at absolutely every opportunity, are bending over backwards to be defensive and so very tolerant of the first religion. A religion, by the way, that treats women and gays as lesser objects, among other behaviors that the Regressive Leftists loathe.

Exactly what is happening here?

Is this just a petulant, knee-jerk reaction against Christianity and conservatives, is it that simple? Are they willing to be so very tolerant of one specific religion just to be contrarian against certain other people they hate?

Or could it be more? Is this behavior related to the payback tactics that we're seeing with race and wealth? Or perhaps do they harbor certain affinities for the religion to which they won't openly admit?

And directly to the Regressive Leftists here: I'm certainly not, nor do I ever, expect a straight, clear and honest answer from you on this. What I expect from you is the standard deflection, derision, personal insults and name-calling. I know that's what we'll get, it's an easy prediction. This thread is specifically about your behaviors, not about Islam. I'm just curious about this, and perhaps some other responses will shed some light or provide some clues.
.

When your OP is constructed in such a call out fashion - ie labeling folks "regressive leftists" and adding a bunch of other inflammatory terms, it's difficult to respond in the thoughtful manner you are demanding particularly since you are lobbing the same insults and name-calling you accuse them of doing. But I'll try.

I object to the singling out of Islam, as somehow not deserving of the same rights and protections in this country as other religions have. Whether it's the extreme right trying to claim it isn't a real religion but a "socio-political" ideology, trying to strip Muslims of their rights as American citizens, or claiming that "reasonable accommodation" applies only to non-Muslim religions and if it's a Muslim it's "creeping Sharia".

Treat them the same as any other religion in America. What's so hard about that?

I agree. Yet the group of people to whom I refer (a term taken from honest liberals Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins) won't do what you say.

They'll attack Christians all day long, as viciously as they can, but when the next jihadist slaughter occurs, you'll see them being very, very, VERY tolerant of Islam, AND you'll see them deflect/change the subject immediately from the jihadist slaughter directly to misdeeds of Christianity. Like clockwork, guaranteed.

It is precisely that blatant hypocrisy that I question in this particular thread, and the motivations behind it.
.

And what about those that automatically put the blame on Muslims whenever there is a shooting? Who attack American Muslims all day long as vicously as they can?

Maybe you should start a thread on that. This thread is asking about the liberals that dismiss Muslim violence, yet are all to ready to hang a white Christian.

 

[Papageorgio]

This is so fascinating to watch, and election of London's new mayor is shedding even more light on it.

Members of one specific religion - a religion with a current record of extreme violence, intimidation and terror - are telling us precisely what they're going to do, and they're doing it. It's expansion is clear and rapid and undeniable. We're watching it happen in real time, particularly across Europe. This isn't a partisan or religious opinion, it is a clear fact, based on observation.

Meanwhile, a group of people - the Regressive Left (as honest liberal Bill Maher refers to them), a group all too happy to attack the misdeeds of another religion (Christianity, obviously) in absolutely every possible way, at absolutely every opportunity, are bending over backwards to be defensive and so very tolerant of the first religion. A religion, by the way, that treats women and gays as lesser objects, among other behaviors that the Regressive Leftists loathe.

Exactly what is happening here?

Is this just a petulant, knee-jerk reaction against Christianity and conservatives, is it that simple? Are they willing to be so very tolerant of one specific religion just to be contrarian against certain other people they hate?

Or could it be more? Is this behavior related to the payback tactics that we're seeing with race and wealth? Or perhaps do they harbor certain affinities for the religion to which they won't openly admit?

And directly to the Regressive Leftists here: I'm certainly not, nor do I ever, expect a straight, clear and honest answer from you on this. What I expect from you is the standard deflection, derision, personal insults and name-calling. I know that's what we'll get, it's an easy prediction. This thread is specifically about your behaviors, not about Islam. I'm just curious about this, and perhaps some other responses will shed some light or provide some clues.
.

When your OP is constructed in such a call out fashion - ie labeling folks "regressive leftists" and adding a bunch of other inflammatory terms, it's difficult to respond in the thoughtful manner you are demanding particularly since you are lobbing the same insults and name-calling you accuse them of doing. But I'll try.

I object to the singling out of Islam, as somehow not deserving of the same rights and protections in this country as other religions have. Whether it's the extreme right trying to claim it isn't a real religion but a "socio-political" ideology, trying to strip Muslims of their rights as American citizens, or claiming that "reasonable accommodation" applies only to non-Muslim religions and if it's a Muslim it's "creeping Sharia".

Treat them the same as any other religion in America. What's so hard about that?

I agree. Yet the group of people to whom I refer (a term taken from honest liberals Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins) won't do what you say.

They'll attack Christians all day long, as viciously as they can, but when the next jihadist slaughter occurs, you'll see them being very, very, VERY tolerant of Islam, AND you'll see them deflect/change the subject immediately from the jihadist slaughter directly to misdeeds of Christianity. Like clockwork, guaranteed.

It is precisely that blatant hypocrisy that I question in this particular thread, and the motivations behind it.
.

I agree, they are ready to pounce if a white Christian is a gun man. His faith is a key point, however like the Ft. Hood shooter, it was workplace violence, it had nothing to do with terrorism and his Muslim faith. Crazy how the left thinks.

When a white religious nut is violent, faith is not the first thing brought up. When it's a possible Muslim - it's all about faith. White Christian can be a nut - and it's accepted. Even if the Muslim is a nut - it's denied and faith is blamed. Would this be the Regressive Right then?

Sorry, on this board, the left is quick to strike. My opinion is that they are all nuts however many of the liberals make it about the Christian faith.

 

[Tehon]

Meanwhile, a group of people - the Regressive Left (as honest liberal Bill Maher refers to them), a group all too happy to attack the misdeeds of another religion (Christianity, obviously) in absolutely every possible way, at absolutely every opportunity, are bending over backwards to be defensive and so very tolerant of the first religion. A religion, by the way, that treats women and gays as lesser objects, among other behaviors that the Regressive Leftists loathe.
.

The term regressive left is being used by people, much like Bill Maher and Sam Harris, who show disdain for all religion. They use the term to attack those on the left who are more tolerant of people's religious beliefs. Apparently to the delight of some on the right.

Timing! I just posted about him!

There are also independents and honest liberals who agree with them.
.

I imagine anyone that hates religion would agree with them. And anyone that hates religion that is not their own.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I agree. Yet the group of people to whom I refer (a term taken from honest liberals Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins) won't do what you say.

They'll attack Christians all day long, as viciously as they can, but when the next jihadist slaughter occurs, you'll see them being very, very, VERY tolerant of Islam, AND you'll see them deflect/change the subject immediately from the jihadist slaughter directly to misdeeds of Christianity. Like clockwork, guaranteed.

It is precisely that blatant hypocrisy that I question in this particular thread, and the motivations behind it.
.

I would use the term "actual" liberals to describe them, myself, as they operate according to liberal principles whereas all the apologists wouldn't know liberal political theory if it smacked them along side their idiotic little heads.

As to the inevitability of the comparisons to Christianity, it works like this:

Useful Idiot in question predetermines they absolutely must defend Islam at all costs. In order to defend and support Islam, they shift the attack to Christianty, instead, in order to distract away from Islam as well as to create intentionally false equivalences. These false equivalences offered by the Islamist defenders rely on three basic ruses.

The first of these ruses involves degree of support. If large percentages of Muslims hold certain objectionable beliefs, they compare to Christianity, even if very small percentages of Christians hold similar.

The second ruse involves heinousness of action or belief. If Muslims support killing apostates, they might point to Christians shunning them (which is also less prevalent) or if Muslims support killing gay people, they will point to Christians objecting to gay marriage.

The third ruse involves time. If Islamic actions are committed in the here and now, they point to Christian actions from the distant past, as if two world somehow existed on two completely different time frames.

Now, when people do this, they really aren't thinking up these ruses on their own, as they are too stupid for this sort of deviousness. They are simply imitating the specious arguments of the other sheep they see doing the same thing. It doesn't make any difference how their idiotic comparisons fail on any conceivable level, as the fact they are all making them creates the impression they are actually valid.

It is so utterly predictable and vapid, and has become a regular part of the arsenal of these profoundly illiberal morons.

Holy crap, I bet you'll like this - another honest liberal named Sam Harris just eviscerating the Regressive Left:

I love Sam Harris!

If you get a chance, you should view the segment of Bill Maher when he and Sam Harris were making mincemeat out of Ben Afflek.

 

[Norman]

This is so fascinating to watch, and election of London's new mayor is shedding even more light on it.

Members of one specific religion - a religion with a current record of extreme violence, intimidation and terror - are telling us precisely what they're going to do, and they're doing it. It's expansion is clear and rapid and undeniable. We're watching it happen in real time, particularly across Europe. This isn't a partisan or religious opinion, it is a clear fact, based on observation.

Meanwhile, a group of people - the Regressive Left (as honest liberal Bill Maher refers to them), a group all too happy to attack the misdeeds of another religion (Christianity, obviously) in absolutely every possible way, at absolutely every opportunity, are bending over backwards to be defensive and so very tolerant of the first religion. A religion, by the way, that treats women and gays as lesser objects, among other behaviors that the Regressive Leftists loathe.

Exactly what is happening here?

Is this just a petulant, knee-jerk reaction against Christianity and conservatives, is it that simple? Are they willing to be so very tolerant of one specific religion just to be contrarian against certain other people they hate?

Or could it be more? Is this behavior related to the payback tactics that we're seeing with race and wealth? Or perhaps do they harbor certain affinities for the religion to which they won't openly admit?

And directly to the Regressive Leftists here: I'm certainly not, nor do I ever, expect a straight, clear and honest answer from you on this. What I expect from you is the standard deflection, derision, personal insults and name-calling. I know that's what we'll get, it's an easy prediction. This thread is specifically about your behaviors, not about Islam. I'm just curious about this, and perhaps some other responses will shed some light or provide some clues.
.

When your OP is constructed in such a call out fashion - ie labeling folks "regressive leftists" and adding a bunch of other inflammatory terms, it's difficult to respond in the thoughtful manner you are demanding particularly since you are lobbing the same insults and name-calling you accuse them of doing. But I'll try.

I object to the singling out of Islam, as somehow not deserving of the same rights and protections in this country as other religions have. Whether it's the extreme right trying to claim it isn't a real religion but a "socio-political" ideology, trying to strip Muslims of their rights as American citizens, or claiming that "reasonable accommodation" applies only to non-Muslim religions and if it's a Muslim it's "creeping Sharia".

Treat them the same as any other religion in America. What's so hard about that?

I agree. Yet the group of people to whom I refer (a term taken from honest liberals Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins) won't do what you say.

They'll attack Christians all day long, as viciously as they can, but when the next jihadist slaughter occurs, you'll see them being very, very, VERY tolerant of Islam, AND you'll see them deflect/change the subject immediately from the jihadist slaughter directly to misdeeds of Christianity. Like clockwork, guaranteed.

It is precisely that blatant hypocrisy that I question in this particular thread, and the motivations behind it.
.

And what about those that automatically put the blame on Muslims whenever there is a shooting? Who attack American Muslims all day long as vicously as they can?

There's no such thing as a Regressive Left....

Oh, and...
.
.

 

[Papageorgio]

This is so fascinating to watch, and election of London's new mayor is shedding even more light on it.

Members of one specific religion - a religion with a current record of extreme violence, intimidation and terror - are telling us precisely what they're going to do, and they're doing it. It's expansion is clear and rapid and undeniable. We're watching it happen in real time, particularly across Europe. This isn't a partisan or religious opinion, it is a clear fact, based on observation.

Meanwhile, a group of people - the Regressive Left (as honest liberal Bill Maher refers to them), a group all too happy to attack the misdeeds of another religion (Christianity, obviously) in absolutely every possible way, at absolutely every opportunity, are bending over backwards to be defensive and so very tolerant of the first religion. A religion, by the way, that treats women and gays as lesser objects, among other behaviors that the Regressive Leftists loathe.

Exactly what is happening here?

Is this just a petulant, knee-jerk reaction against Christianity and conservatives, is it that simple? Are they willing to be so very tolerant of one specific religion just to be contrarian against certain other people they hate?

Or could it be more? Is this behavior related to the payback tactics that we're seeing with race and wealth? Or perhaps do they harbor certain affinities for the religion to which they won't openly admit?

And directly to the Regressive Leftists here: I'm certainly not, nor do I ever, expect a straight, clear and honest answer from you on this. What I expect from you is the standard deflection, derision, personal insults and name-calling. I know that's what we'll get, it's an easy prediction. This thread is specifically about your behaviors, not about Islam. I'm just curious about this, and perhaps some other responses will shed some light or provide some clues.
.

When your OP is constructed in such a call out fashion - ie labeling folks "regressive leftists" and adding a bunch of other inflammatory terms, it's difficult to respond in the thoughtful manner you are demanding particularly since you are lobbing the same insults and name-calling you accuse them of doing. But I'll try.

I object to the singling out of Islam, as somehow not deserving of the same rights and protections in this country as other religions have. Whether it's the extreme right trying to claim it isn't a real religion but a "socio-political" ideology, trying to strip Muslims of their rights as American citizens, or claiming that "reasonable accommodation" applies only to non-Muslim religions and if it's a Muslim it's "creeping Sharia".

Treat them the same as any other religion in America. What's so hard about that?

I agree. Yet the group of people to whom I refer (a term taken from honest liberals Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins) won't do what you say.

They'll attack Christians all day long, as viciously as they can, but when the next jihadist slaughter occurs, you'll see them being very, very, VERY tolerant of Islam, AND you'll see them deflect/change the subject immediately from the jihadist slaughter directly to misdeeds of Christianity. Like clockwork, guaranteed.

It is precisely that blatant hypocrisy that I question in this particular thread, and the motivations behind it.
.

I agree, they are ready to pounce if a white Christian is a gun man. His faith is a key point, however like the Ft. Hood shooter, it was workplace violence, it had nothing to do with terrorism and his Muslim faith. Crazy how the left thinks.

Just like the OP your argument is fallacious. The Fort Hood shooting wasn't designated workplace violence by the left, it was designated so by the DoD.

The DOD that has Obama as the Commander and Chief? Lol! Now you are being silly.

 

[Tehon]

This is so fascinating to watch, and election of London's new mayor is shedding even more light on it.

Members of one specific religion - a religion with a current record of extreme violence, intimidation and terror - are telling us precisely what they're going to do, and they're doing it. It's expansion is clear and rapid and undeniable. We're watching it happen in real time, particularly across Europe. This isn't a partisan or religious opinion, it is a clear fact, based on observation.

Meanwhile, a group of people - the Regressive Left (as honest liberal Bill Maher refers to them), a group all too happy to attack the misdeeds of another religion (Christianity, obviously) in absolutely every possible way, at absolutely every opportunity, are bending over backwards to be defensive and so very tolerant of the first religion. A religion, by the way, that treats women and gays as lesser objects, among other behaviors that the Regressive Leftists loathe.

Exactly what is happening here?

Is this just a petulant, knee-jerk reaction against Christianity and conservatives, is it that simple? Are they willing to be so very tolerant of one specific religion just to be contrarian against certain other people they hate?

Or could it be more? Is this behavior related to the payback tactics that we're seeing with race and wealth? Or perhaps do they harbor certain affinities for the religion to which they won't openly admit?

And directly to the Regressive Leftists here: I'm certainly not, nor do I ever, expect a straight, clear and honest answer from you on this. What I expect from you is the standard deflection, derision, personal insults and name-calling. I know that's what we'll get, it's an easy prediction. This thread is specifically about your behaviors, not about Islam. I'm just curious about this, and perhaps some other responses will shed some light or provide some clues.
.

When your OP is constructed in such a call out fashion - ie labeling folks "regressive leftists" and adding a bunch of other inflammatory terms, it's difficult to respond in the thoughtful manner you are demanding particularly since you are lobbing the same insults and name-calling you accuse them of doing. But I'll try.

I object to the singling out of Islam, as somehow not deserving of the same rights and protections in this country as other religions have. Whether it's the extreme right trying to claim it isn't a real religion but a "socio-political" ideology, trying to strip Muslims of their rights as American citizens, or claiming that "reasonable accommodation" applies only to non-Muslim religions and if it's a Muslim it's "creeping Sharia".

Treat them the same as any other religion in America. What's so hard about that?

I agree. Yet the group of people to whom I refer (a term taken from honest liberals Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins) won't do what you say.

They'll attack Christians all day long, as viciously as they can, but when the next jihadist slaughter occurs, you'll see them being very, very, VERY tolerant of Islam, AND you'll see them deflect/change the subject immediately from the jihadist slaughter directly to misdeeds of Christianity. Like clockwork, guaranteed.

It is precisely that blatant hypocrisy that I question in this particular thread, and the motivations behind it.
.

I agree, they are ready to pounce if a white Christian is a gun man. His faith is a key point, however like the Ft. Hood shooter, it was workplace violence, it had nothing to do with terrorism and his Muslim faith. Crazy how the left thinks.

Just like the OP your argument is fallacious. The Fort Hood shooting wasn't designated workplace violence by the left, it was designated so by the DoD.

The DOD that has Obama as the Commander and Chief? Lol! Now you are being silly.

Good point but there is a reasonable explanation for why it was done that had to do with Military codes unrelated to Obama.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[This thread is asking about the liberals that dismiss Muslim violence, yet are all to ready to hang a white Christian.

And no liberals have been identified who do so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And again, from my clairvoyant OP:

And directly to the Regressive Leftists here: I certainly don't, nor do I ever, expect a straight, clear and honest answer from you on this. What I expect from you is the standard deflection, derision, personal insults and name-calling. I know that's what we'll get, it's an easy prediction. This thread is specifically about your behaviors, not about Islam. I'm just curious about this, and perhaps some other responses will shed some light or provide some clues.
.

No one is doing that. You won't debate your topic. We're debating without you.