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

[Tehon]

Okay, so explain why he was part of your OP. Why did you mention the mayor of London being elected? Are you claiming he was elected only because he's Muslim? What was the point of mentioning him?

I'm not sure why this is so complicated. I said this: This is so fascinating to watch, and election of London's new mayor is shedding even more light on it.

A Regressive Leftist here then took that statement and ran with this:"Hey, while you are vilifying the new Muslim mayor of London with your Islamophobic vitriole and bigotry..."

I wonder what you think of that post. It's a beautiful example of the reason for this thread. Can you see that?

Now, to answer your question, I was merely referring to posts and threads on the mayor's election that got me thinking of the question. Nothing dramatic or direct. That's it.
.

You casually linked the mayor with a subset of a religion that is perpetrating heinous acts across the globe. You were asked to justify it. You have yet to do it. Can't you see that?

 

[Mac1958]

Okay, so explain why he was part of your OP. Why did you mention the mayor of London being elected? Are you claiming he was elected only because he's Muslim? What was the point of mentioning him?

I'm not sure why this is so complicated. I said this: This is so fascinating to watch, and election of London's new mayor is shedding even more light on it.

A Regressive Leftist here then took that statement and ran with this:"Hey, while you are vilifying the new Muslim mayor of London with your Islamophobic vitriole and bigotry..."

I wonder what you think of that post. It's a beautiful example of the reason for this thread. Can you see that?

Now, to answer your question, I was merely referring to posts and threads on the mayor's election that got me thinking of the question. Nothing dramatic or direct. That's it.
.

You casually linked the mayor with a subset of a religion that is perpetrating heinous acts across the globe. You were asked to justify it. You have yet to do it. Can't you see that?

If that's the way you took it, it was not my intent, and I apologize.

Now, perhaps we can get back to the point of the thread.
.

 

[Freewill]

How many think Trump is a hater for suggesting a pause in Islamic immigration to beef up vetting especially since govt has admitted they have no effective means to do it

Depends. Did Trump use the words Islam or Muslim in any way other than in praise there of?

 

[Freewill]

Okay, so explain why he was part of your OP. Why did you mention the mayor of London being elected? Are you claiming he was elected only because he's Muslim? What was the point of mentioning him?

I'm not sure why this is so complicated. I said this: This is so fascinating to watch, and election of London's new mayor is shedding even more light on it.

A Regressive Leftist here then took that statement and ran with this:"Hey, while you are vilifying the new Muslim mayor of London with your Islamophobic vitriole and bigotry..."

I wonder what you think of that post. It's a beautiful example of the reason for this thread. Can you see that?

Now, to answer your question, I was merely referring to posts and threads on the mayor's election that got me thinking of the question. Nothing dramatic or direct. That's it.
.

You casually linked the mayor with a subset of a religion that is perpetrating heinous acts across the globe. You were asked to justify it. You have yet to do it. Can't you see that?

Could you post the actual words where that was done? Or is it just something you naturally developed in your mind?

 

[Mac1958]

Okay, so explain why he was part of your OP. Why did you mention the mayor of London being elected? Are you claiming he was elected only because he's Muslim? What was the point of mentioning him?

I'm not sure why this is so complicated. I said this: This is so fascinating to watch, and election of London's new mayor is shedding even more light on it.

A Regressive Leftist here then took that statement and ran with this:"Hey, while you are vilifying the new Muslim mayor of London with your Islamophobic vitriole and bigotry..."

I wonder what you think of that post. It's a beautiful example of the reason for this thread. Can you see that?

Now, to answer your question, I was merely referring to posts and threads on the mayor's election that got me thinking of the question. Nothing dramatic or direct. That's it.
.

You casually linked the mayor with a subset of a religion that is perpetrating heinous acts across the globe. You were asked to justify it. You have yet to do it. Can't you see that?

Could you post the actual words where that was done? Or is it just something you naturally developed in your mind?

It's just the way they choose to take things.

My posts have been misrepresented all the way through this thread, which both confirms and illustrates my point.
.

 

[Freewill]

Okay, so explain why he was part of your OP. Why did you mention the mayor of London being elected? Are you claiming he was elected only because he's Muslim? What was the point of mentioning him?

I'm not sure why this is so complicated. I said this: This is so fascinating to watch, and election of London's new mayor is shedding even more light on it.

A Regressive Leftist here then took that statement and ran with this:"Hey, while you are vilifying the new Muslim mayor of London with your Islamophobic vitriole and bigotry..."

I wonder what you think of that post. It's a beautiful example of the reason for this thread. Can you see that?

Now, to answer your question, I was merely referring to posts and threads on the mayor's election that got me thinking of the question. Nothing dramatic or direct. That's it.
.

You casually linked the mayor with a subset of a religion that is perpetrating heinous acts across the globe. You were asked to justify it. You have yet to do it. Can't you see that?

Could you post the actual words where that was done? Or is it just something you naturally developed in your mind?

It's just the way they choose to take things.

My posts have been misrepresented all the way through this thread, which both confirms and illustrates my point.
.

Surely this one thread would be enough for you to come over to the right side.

 

[Mac1958]

Okay, so explain why he was part of your OP. Why did you mention the mayor of London being elected? Are you claiming he was elected only because he's Muslim? What was the point of mentioning him?

I'm not sure why this is so complicated. I said this: This is so fascinating to watch, and election of London's new mayor is shedding even more light on it.

A Regressive Leftist here then took that statement and ran with this:"Hey, while you are vilifying the new Muslim mayor of London with your Islamophobic vitriole and bigotry..."

I wonder what you think of that post. It's a beautiful example of the reason for this thread. Can you see that?

Now, to answer your question, I was merely referring to posts and threads on the mayor's election that got me thinking of the question. Nothing dramatic or direct. That's it.
.

You casually linked the mayor with a subset of a religion that is perpetrating heinous acts across the globe. You were asked to justify it. You have yet to do it. Can't you see that?

Could you post the actual words where that was done? Or is it just something you naturally developed in your mind?

It's just the way they choose to take things.

My posts have been misrepresented all the way through this thread, which both confirms and illustrates my point.
.

Surely this one thread would be enough for you to come over to the right side.

I'll tell ya, it's not easy sometimes.

The Regressive Leftists aren't liberals, they are distortions, mutations, perversions, caricatures. Illiberal.
.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Okay, so explain why he was part of your OP. Why did you mention the mayor of London being elected? Are you claiming he was elected only because he's Muslim? What was the point of mentioning him?

I'm not sure why this is so complicated. I said this: This is so fascinating to watch, and election of London's new mayor is shedding even more light on it.

A Regressive Leftist here then took that statement and ran with this:"Hey, while you are vilifying the new Muslim mayor of London with your Islamophobic vitriole and bigotry..."

I wonder what you think of that post. It's a beautiful example of the reason for this thread. Can you see that?

Now, to answer your question, I was merely referring to posts and threads on the mayor's election that got me thinking of the question. Nothing dramatic or direct. That's it.
.

You casually linked the mayor with a subset of a religion that is perpetrating heinous acts across the globe. You were asked to justify it. You have yet to do it. Can't you see that?

A subset of 75% in UK who would not inform on a terrorist plot but would let it happen

 

[LoneLaugher]

Okay, so explain why he was part of your OP. Why did you mention the mayor of London being elected? Are you claiming he was elected only because he's Muslim? What was the point of mentioning him?

I'm not sure why this is so complicated. I said this: This is so fascinating to watch, and election of London's new mayor is shedding even more light on it.

A Regressive Leftist here then took that statement and ran with this:"Hey, while you are vilifying the new Muslim mayor of London with your Islamophobic vitriole and bigotry..."

I wonder what you think of that post. It's a beautiful example of the reason for this thread. Can you see that?

Now, to answer your question, I was merely referring to posts and threads on the mayor's election that got me thinking of the question. Nothing dramatic or direct. That's it.
.

Which posts, specifically?

 

[LoneLaugher]

How many think Trump is a hater for suggesting a pause in Islamic immigration to beef up vetting especially since govt has admitted they have no effective means to do it

The government has admitted no such thing. Excluding people from entering this nation based on their religion is unAmerican. Period.

 

[Freewill]

Brussels Bombing Proves That Islam Is Not a Religion of Peace | ZoNation

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Well done, thanks. The behavior is, at once, so blatant and so (seemingly) sincere that its reasons have to be complicated, as you infer.

At some level they have to know, but that level is clearly buried.
.

It is blatant and it is obvious and it is expressed in countless thousands of postings here, yet the members of tribe leftist will swear up and down it isn't happening at all.

These are not intelligent, introspective people who ever examine their own beliefs, here.

Like all fundamentalists, they are simply little worker bees.


The Emperor can be as naked as all get up but they are incapable of seeing it.

What is blatant? Who, exactly, are you referring to? Please...name names.

Any examples of what you are referring to?

As Correll put it so eloquently in another thread.....

The regressives are at it again.

Proof by assertion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam).[2] In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belieffallacies"

 

[LoneLaugher]

Okay, so explain why he was part of your OP. Why did you mention the mayor of London being elected? Are you claiming he was elected only because he's Muslim? What was the point of mentioning him?

I'm not sure why this is so complicated. I said this: This is so fascinating to watch, and election of London's new mayor is shedding even more light on it.

A Regressive Leftist here then took that statement and ran with this:"Hey, while you are vilifying the new Muslim mayor of London with your Islamophobic vitriole and bigotry..."

I wonder what you think of that post. It's a beautiful example of the reason for this thread. Can you see that?

Now, to answer your question, I was merely referring to posts and threads on the mayor's election that got me thinking of the question. Nothing dramatic or direct. That's it.
.

You casually linked the mayor with a subset of a religion that is perpetrating heinous acts across the globe. You were asked to justify it. You have yet to do it. Can't you see that?

If that's the way you took it, it was not my intent, and I apologize.

Now, perhaps we can get back to the point of the thread.
.

Well....that's a step in the right direction.

The point of the thread is for you to claim victory and an accurate prediction.....by saying something that is untrue.....claiming it as a substantiated behavior of some unnamed people....and asking said people to explain the behavior. If they don't....you win. Fucking awesome.

You have yet to support the claim that you made. Where are concrete examples of people opposing and attacking Christian misdeeds while defending Muslim misdeeds?

Without them, you have no thread.

 

[Mac1958]

Well done, thanks. The behavior is, at once, so blatant and so (seemingly) sincere that its reasons have to be complicated, as you infer.

At some level they have to know, but that level is clearly buried.
.

It is blatant and it is obvious and it is expressed in countless thousands of postings here, yet the members of tribe leftist will swear up and down it isn't happening at all.

These are not intelligent, introspective people who ever examine their own beliefs, here.

Like all fundamentalists, they are simply little worker bees.


The Emperor can be as naked as all get up but they are incapable of seeing it.

What is blatant? Who, exactly, are you referring to? Please...name names.

Any examples of what you are referring to?

As Correll put it so eloquently in another thread.....

The regressives are at it again.

Proof by assertion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam).[2] In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belieffallacies"

In other words, they are liars.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay, so explain why he was part of your OP. Why did you mention the mayor of London being elected? Are you claiming he was elected only because he's Muslim? What was the point of mentioning him?

I'm not sure why this is so complicated. I said this: This is so fascinating to watch, and election of London's new mayor is shedding even more light on it.

A Regressive Leftist here then took that statement and ran with this:"Hey, while you are vilifying the new Muslim mayor of London with your Islamophobic vitriole and bigotry..."

It's what you said following your first sentence that vilifies the mayor.

 

[Mac1958]

Well done, thanks. The behavior is, at once, so blatant and so (seemingly) sincere that its reasons have to be complicated, as you infer.

At some level they have to know, but that level is clearly buried.
.

It is blatant and it is obvious and it is expressed in countless thousands of postings here, yet the members of tribe leftist will swear up and down it isn't happening at all.

These are not intelligent, introspective people who ever examine their own beliefs, here.

Like all fundamentalists, they are simply little worker bees.


The Emperor can be as naked as all get up but they are incapable of seeing it.

What is blatant? Who, exactly, are you referring to? Please...name names.

Any examples of what you are referring to?

As Correll put it so eloquently in another thread.....

The regressives are at it again.

Proof by assertion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam).[2] In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belieffallacies"

And by the way, note how they are desperately trying to pooh-pooh the validity of my OP by posting about it, over and over and over and over.

They sure are trying hard, aren't they?


.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Well done, thanks. The behavior is, at once, so blatant and so (seemingly) sincere that its reasons have to be complicated, as you infer.

At some level they have to know, but that level is clearly buried.
.

It is blatant and it is obvious and it is expressed in countless thousands of postings here, yet the members of tribe leftist will swear up and down it isn't happening at all.

These are not intelligent, introspective people who ever examine their own beliefs, here.

Like all fundamentalists, they are simply little worker bees.


The Emperor can be as naked as all get up but they are incapable of seeing it.

What is blatant? Who, exactly, are you referring to? Please...name names.

Any examples of what you are referring to?

As Correll put it so eloquently in another thread.....

The regressives are at it again.

Proof by assertion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam).[2] In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belieffallacies"

And by the way, note how they are desperately trying to pooh-pooh the validity of my OP by posting about it, over and over and over and over.

They sure are trying hard, aren't they?


.

I'm only trying hard to get you to substantiate your claim. Use me as an example. You have called me a "regressive leftist" many times.

Please post an example of me defending a Muslim jihadist or any Muslim misdeed. How about an example of me defending the homophobic and mysoginist practices which are codified in law in some Muslim nations.

I'll even give you another option. Find an example of me attacking all of Christianity for the misdeeds of one or a few Christians.

Thanks. And may you live to see the day that all extremist Muslims are sent to whatever hell they believe in.

Earmuffs, bitch.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Left has always had an 'Unholy Alliance' with Islam. The alliance is based on their shared hatred of Christians and Jews, and the pursuit of the destruction of Israel. They see eye to eye on those issues. Those shared interests have allowed Muslims to quickly sweep across Western Europe and dominate numerous regions.

Keep in mind, it was Europe's Left who dismantled the Immigration Systems. It is pretty sad and ironic, considering Islam is far less tolerant of Leftist beliefs and behaviors than both Christianity and Judaism are. This alliance may prove to be most harmful to them at some point. Stay tuned.

"The Left has always had an 'Unholy Alliance' with Islam. The alliance is based on their shared hatred of Christians and Jews, and the pursuit of the destruction of Israel."

Certainly!

And this....both demand submission.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Well done, thanks. The behavior is, at once, so blatant and so (seemingly) sincere that its reasons have to be complicated, as you infer.

At some level they have to know, but that level is clearly buried.
.

It is blatant and it is obvious and it is expressed in countless thousands of postings here, yet the members of tribe leftist will swear up and down it isn't happening at all.

These are not intelligent, introspective people who ever examine their own beliefs, here.

Like all fundamentalists, they are simply little worker bees.


The Emperor can be as naked as all get up but they are incapable of seeing it.

What is blatant? Who, exactly, are you referring to? Please...name names.

Any examples of what you are referring to?

As Correll put it so eloquently in another thread.....

The regressives are at it again.

Proof by assertion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam).[2] In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belieffallacies"

And by the way, note how they are desperately trying to pooh-pooh the validity of my OP by posting about it, over and over and over and over.

They sure are trying hard, aren't they?


.

Like clockwork....

 

[Mac1958]

Well done, thanks. The behavior is, at once, so blatant and so (seemingly) sincere that its reasons have to be complicated, as you infer.

At some level they have to know, but that level is clearly buried.
.

It is blatant and it is obvious and it is expressed in countless thousands of postings here, yet the members of tribe leftist will swear up and down it isn't happening at all.

These are not intelligent, introspective people who ever examine their own beliefs, here.

Like all fundamentalists, they are simply little worker bees.


The Emperor can be as naked as all get up but they are incapable of seeing it.

What is blatant? Who, exactly, are you referring to? Please...name names.

Any examples of what you are referring to?

As Correll put it so eloquently in another thread.....

The regressives are at it again.

Proof by assertion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam).[2] In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belieffallacies"

And by the way, note how they are desperately trying to pooh-pooh the validity of my OP by posting about it, over and over and over and over.

They sure are trying hard, aren't they?


.

Like clockwork....

They've illustrated my point, over and over and over, and they still don't see it - even when I point it out.

That's the danger of committing to an ideology, it distorts perceptions, it turns thought processes binary.
.