Why do Democrats Trivialize The Threat From Radical Islam

[drsmith1072]

Senate to Hold Hearings on “Anti-Muslim Bigotry

On a day when Islamic jihadists exploded a bomb in Jerusalem that murdered at least one woman and wounded thirty, and when Islamic jihadists opened fire on and killed two Christians outside a church in Pakistan, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) announced that he was going to hold hearings on the rise in “anti-Muslim bigotry.”

Durbin, of course, was retaliating for the hearings recently conducted by Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who himself bowed to politically correct pressure and dropped several witnesses that he had originally announced his intention to call, including ex-Muslim human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali and terror analyst Walid Phares.

Not only was the timing of Durbin’s announcement ironic, but also the fact that his retaliatory hearings were unnecessary in the first place. King, after all, gave a prime platform at his hearings to the weepy Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), whose pilgrimage to Mecca was paid for with $13,350 from the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Brotherhood ‘s chief operating arm in the U.S.

Ellison used the bully pulpit King gave him to paint a lurid picture of Muslim victimhood, all the while saying nothing (of course) about the sharp increase in jihad terror plots in this country over the last two years. How can Durbin top that?

Senate to Hold Hearings on

If the Muslim world had intruded into the internal affairs of the West, to the degree that the West has intruded into the internal affairs of the Muslim world, we would have responded with our own version of "Christian" jihadists!

Yeah, that's not trivializing the threat ATALL!

Really?? How does it trivilize the threat of radical islam?? Specifics please.

 

[AllieBaba]

I like macaroni!!!!

 

[AllieBaba]

Not at all, stupid fuck.

Your inability to comprehend simple language does not equate to a "lie" on my part.

I stand by what I said to Boo.

I'd like to remind you that your claim to me was: "You have defended Islam in general and the specific acts of Islam at every turn."

Prove it.

He won't because he can't and he knows it which is why when i called him out on it he tried to change the subject to how he took drock's comments out of context. LOL

It has been proven to the satisfaction of everybody, except the lying parties.

 

[drsmith1072]

She already did, Smith, and she didn't prove a single lie.

She did prove she's a liar, though.

Is this supposed to be a response to this,

I could find the posts if you would like but you have demanded that those on the left prove their own arguments even as you defended logical for not providing anything of substance to back up his.

How is that for a dose of hypocrisy and flip flopping??

Nope.

The accusation was that I lied and flip flopped.

So you don't consider the fact that you defended logical for not providing substance even as you demanded that other prove their arguments an example of dishoenst flip flopping hypocrisy?? Really??

Not that I was a hypocrite and didn't provide substance after asking for it from others. Which is of course a lie.

Care to take the time and learn to READ?? That is not what I said, so YES you trying to claim that is what I said is a LIE on your part.
Now how about you address what i actually said about how you defended logical for not providing substance even as you asked others to provide substance??

So go ahead and round up those lies. I'm sure they're all over the place, lol.

And show where I flip-flopped, i.e., reversed directions on a topic.

You have just shown how you will spin and lie in a desperate attempt to CYA so why should anyone waste their time providing even MORE proof of your lies when you will just spin and pretend it doesn't exist just like you did above??

I have to ask because you missed a few questions. I am sure that you didn't avoid them intentionally but if you could actually respond to what was written that would be great.

 

[drsmith1072]

Really?

I thought it was about you fucknut leftists trivializing the threat of radical Islam...

Of course, should we do a thread about what is in drsmith and your head it will be zero pages in length....

Actually bod is correct in that the core of your argument is to claim that all of islam is radical with your wet water analogy, which is a delusion that only exists in your own minds and has NOTHING to do with reality.

Lew aclindor and cassius clay, how radical are they??

draft dogers are pretty radical

So are you actually trying to equate those two muslims to the radical muslims who behead and murder people??

Really?? Is that the argument that you want to hang your argument on?? WOW!

 

[Wicked Jester]

Gonna give Bodey credit, she finally ran away from this thread going mach 5 with her hair on fire. Smart thing to do when you repeatedly step on your dick.

Dr, on the other hand, can't seem to figure how to put on his track shoes and, is forced to stick around and be thoroughly pawned.

 

[AllieBaba]

I didn't miss those questions. I actually referenced them and dismissed them. Re-read the thread. Carefully.

 

[AllieBaba]

Gonna give Bodey credit, she finally ran away from this thread going mach 5 with her hair on fire. Smart thing to do when you repeatedly step on your dick.

Dr, on the other hand, can't seem to figure how to put on his track shoes and, is forced to stick around and be thoroughly pawned.

Oh she'll come back when it dies down and she'll start in with the exact same shit as she did before. Exact. She won't change the script one little bit.

It's a troll thing.

 

[drsmith1072]

Not at all, stupid fuck.

Your inability to comprehend simple language does not equate to a "lie" on my part.

I stand by what I said to Boo.

Funny how you omit the parts in which you make false claims about blindboo which you claim to have never made.

LOL and yet



Oops Looks like you stuck your foot in your mouth AGAIN.

I guess if you ignore the facts then I am sure it's easy for you to pretend that you weren't lying but then reality shows that you were.

Fact: you claimed that blindboo defended islam AT EVERY TURN

Fact: blindboo says that he denies the existence of islam's supernatural being so how can you claim that he defends them.

Fact: that means that you LIED about blindboo.

Fact: that means that your claim that you have not made "false claims" about blindboo or anyone is a LIE.

FACT: Omitting the facts won't make them go away.

Exactly!

Thanks for agreeing with me that u2008 lied about blindboo. However what does the following spin have to do with what I said??

Which is why denying there's a threat from Islam ("trivializing") will not make it go away.

BTW repeating that lie will not make it true.

Other than that, your post makes absolutely no fucking sense whatever.

So what are you confused by little girl?? Let me know what i need me to spell out so you can follow and I will do my best to help you understand. Just try to be specific and explain what does not make sense and why it doesn't make sense.

Of course if this is just your usual avoidance tactic of claiming that posts do not make sense or are irrelevent so you can avoid facts that counter your spin then please stop running away and try addressing what was actually said.

Your avoidance will not change the FACTS that I have stated.

 

[AllieBaba]

Funny how you omit the parts in which you make false claims about blindboo which you claim to have never made.




I guess if you ignore the facts then I am sure it's easy for you to pretend that you weren't lying but then reality shows that you were.

Fact: you claimed that blindboo defended islam AT EVERY TURN

Fact: blindboo says that he denies the existence of islam's supernatural being so how can you claim that he defends them.

Fact: that means that you LIED about blindboo.

Fact: that means that your claim that you have not made "false claims" about blindboo or anyone is a LIE.

FACT: Omitting the facts won't make them go away.

Exactly!

Thanks for agreeing with me that u2008 lied about blindboo. However what does the following spin have to do with what I said??

Which is why denying there's a threat from Islam ("trivializing") will not make it go away.

BTW repeating that lie will not make it true.

Other than that, your post makes absolutely no fucking sense whatever.

So what are you confused by little girl?? Let me know what i need me to spell out so you can follow and I will do my best to help you understand. Just try to be specific and explain what does not make sense and why it doesn't make sense.

Of course if this is just your usual avoidance tactic of claiming that posts do not make sense or are irrelevent so you can avoid facts that counter your spin then please stop running away and try addressing what was actually said.

Your avoidance will not change the FACTS that I have stated.

I drive a Ford!!! But I really like Buicks, too..

 

[drsmith1072]

Funny how you omit the parts in which you make false claims about blindboo which you claim to have never made.




I guess if you ignore the facts then I am sure it's easy for you to pretend that you weren't lying but then reality shows that you were.

Fact: you claimed that blindboo defended islam AT EVERY TURN

Fact: blindboo says that he denies the existence of islam's supernatural being so how can you claim that he defends them.

Fact: that means that you LIED about blindboo.

Fact: that means that your claim that you have not made "false claims" about blindboo or anyone is a LIE.

FACT: Omitting the facts won't make them go away.

Exactly!
Which is why denying there's a threat from Islam ("trivializing") will not make it go away.

Other than that, your post makes absolutely no fucking sense whatever.

Ah...I like how you try to twist the OP....The Title says "Why do Democrats Trivialize the Threat from Radical Islam"....and you move the goal posts to "Denying there's a threat from Islam"....we all see what you are trying to pull there. More indication of your inherent dishonesty.

That kind of dishonesty is all allie and the rest of them are left with. Notice how they called for backup as the troll brigade arrives, avoids the content of the posts and can only lash out and attack even as the primary hacks (allie, u2008, and jester) spew the same unproven claims pretending that they are facts.

LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

Funny how you omit the parts in which you make false claims about blindboo which you claim to have never made.




I guess if you ignore the facts then I am sure it's easy for you to pretend that you weren't lying but then reality shows that you were.

Fact: you claimed that blindboo defended islam AT EVERY TURN

Fact: blindboo says that he denies the existence of islam's supernatural being so how can you claim that he defends them.

Fact: that means that you LIED about blindboo.

Fact: that means that your claim that you have not made "false claims" about blindboo or anyone is a LIE.

FACT: Omitting the facts won't make them go away.

Exactly!
Which is why denying there's a threat from Islam ("trivializing") will not make it go away.

Other than that, your post makes absolutely no fucking sense whatever.

Who is denying that there is a direct threat to Americans from the Radical Islamics?

Good luck getting a REAL response to that question. LOL

 

[Wicked Jester]

Exactly!
Which is why denying there's a threat from Islam ("trivializing") will not make it go away.

Other than that, your post makes absolutely no fucking sense whatever.

Ah...I like how you try to twist the OP....The Title says "Why do Democrats Trivialize the Threat from Radical Islam"....and you move the goal posts to "Denying there's a threat from Islam"....we all see what you are trying to pull there. More indication of your inherent dishonesty.

That kind of dishonesty is all allie and the rest of them are left with. Notice how they called for backup as the troll brigade arrives, avoids the content of the posts and can only lash out and attack even as the primary hacks (allie, u2008, and jester) spew the same unproven claims pretending that they are facts.

LOL

Care to provide that concrete evidence of an Allie lie?

So far, you and Bodey have miserably failed.

You and Bodey are being abjectly dishonest in claiming lies with zero proof, and then twisting words in a desperate attempt to yet again cover your failures.

In other words, you've been pawned.

Put up the evidence, or simply STFU, lil' man.

We're waiting!

"Notice how they called for back up".......Got proof of that LIE too, Dr?

Oh wait, must be that "VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY, I TELLS YA!", that you loony liberal idiots are so paranoid of.

You're such a fuckin' tool!

 

[drsmith1072]

Since when does a QUESTION qualify as a LIE, you nincompoop???

You people really don't know what a lie is, do you? That explains a lot.

Your LIE begins when you make unfounded assertions about bod as part of your so called question.

What is the factual basis for your assertion that bod isn't familiar with the bible?

What is the factual basis for your assertiong that bod is criticizing the bible as she answered a question about the bible??

Without those two assertions your so-called "question" is pretty much nonexistent.

So, do you have anything real to support the core assertions of your "question" as you try to use your so-called "question" to personally attack bod and call her names or is it the usual dishonesty as you make shite up and dishonestly attribute it to someone so you can attack them for something that didn't say?

So care to explain?

LOL!

So...I'm a liar because my question lead you to think that Bod is a liar...but you think that's a lie, so my question is obviously a lie?

WOW! That is no where near to what I actaully said so either you lack the ability to comprehend what you read or you can understand just fine and would rather LIE about what someone said so you can attack them for something that you made up? So which is it??

No matter how much you blather around it, my QUESTION made absolutely NO assertion.

Actually it made TWO. One that bod is not familiar with the bible, even as she answers questions about the bible, and the other is that bod was criticizing the bible. Those two assertions are the core of your "question."

It was a QUESTION (which I don't think was ever answered).

How do you honestly expect a poster to answer a question that is based on made up assertions meant to attack the credibility of that poster when they never made any such claims??

All the rest is obfuscation on your part. I asked a question. A question isn't a lie. Where is the lie in asking someone a question (that they don't answer)? What assertion is made? Where is the deception?

A "question" based on false assertions that were intentionally and falsely attributed to the person being questioned for the purpose of insulting and attacking them IS dishonest.
Now unless you can show that bod actually made those assertions that you attribute to her it's pretty obvious that you made them up.

So again I ask,

"What is the factual basis for your assertion that bod isn't familiar with the bible?

What is the factual basis for your assertiong that bod is criticizing the bible as she answered a question about the bible??

Without those two assertions your so-called "question" is pretty much nonexistent.

So, do you have anything real to support the core assertions of your "question" as you try to use your so-called "question" to personally attack bod and call her names or is it the usual dishonesty as you make shite up and dishonestly attribute it to someone so you can attack them for something that didn't say?"

So care to answer the questions or are you going to run away and pretend this never happened, AGAIN??

 

[AllieBaba]

Smith, really, you should stop.

 

[drsmith1072]

My source, the article I linked, clearly shows that they have not been cleared, X-ray boy.

No detainees have been "cleared"....Damn you would think that two stupid liberal idiots like Maran and Maio would have made sure they were actually CLEARED before making invites and putting the invites up for a vote.

Oh well, Liberals are fucking idiots so, it should come as no surprise.

Actually YOUR original source, the video clip of hannity, shows that hannity himself states that they were cleared and I am basing my statement that they were cleared on YOUR own source. Go watch the clip hannity says it in the first few seconds.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnOwsmZZhiw]YouTube - Sean Hannity Fox News Berkeley Code Pink Wacko Wants Guantanamo Detainees Dating Her Cousin[/ame]


So if you have a problem with your own source then you should retract your claims that you make based on it.

Furthermore, the invites were dependent on the resolution and due to the fact that the resolution failed the invites did not exist. Why do you continue to run away from questions concerning your claims?? Where is your PROOF that those TWO gitmo detainees were invited even though the resolution failed to pass??

Do you have anything REAL or do you actually believe that repeating an unsubstantiated claim makes it true??

You're such a fuckin' Jackwagon.

I could give a damn what Hannity said about being cleared. I provided a source after you FALSELY claimed those two were cleared, that clearly showed they were NOT cleared. You just can't stand the fact that your lie about them being cleared was just that, a fucking lie.

And yes, Lib's in Berkeley DID invite those two goat herders to come live with them, and then put it for vote.....There is no way of getting around that fact......That stupid liberal in the Hannity video was out inviting like the liberal idiot she is, long before she was interviewed on Hannity.

Fact is, when one claims a desire to invite, and then puts out said invite, that is a fucking invite.....You just don't want to admit it that it was done by your fellow loony liberal idiots!

Can't say I blame you. I'd be embarrasses too. After all, it's your fellow liberals who continually engage in crazy shit like that.

LMAO!

LOL So I quoted your original source, the hannity clip, and you are trying to attack me for using your source that you are now dismissing even as you stand behind the original claims that you made based on that source??

OMG that is just hilarious.

BTW I see you still can't prove your claim that those two gitmo detainees were still invited even after the resolution to invite them failed to pass so why is it that you appear to believe that repeating the same BS over and over again makes it true??

Where is your substance to back up your claims?? You are going after bod to provide absolute proof that allie lied and yet you refuse to hold yourself to that same standard. Why is that??

 

[Wicked Jester]

Your LIE begins when you make unfounded assertions about bod as part of your so called question.

What is the factual basis for your assertion that bod isn't familiar with the bible?

What is the factual basis for your assertiong that bod is criticizing the bible as she answered a question about the bible??

Without those two assertions your so-called "question" is pretty much nonexistent.

So, do you have anything real to support the core assertions of your "question" as you try to use your so-called "question" to personally attack bod and call her names or is it the usual dishonesty as you make shite up and dishonestly attribute it to someone so you can attack them for something that didn't say?

So care to explain?

LOL!

So...I'm a liar because my question lead you to think that Bod is a liar...but you think that's a lie, so my question is obviously a lie?

WOW! That is no where near to what I actaully said so either you lack the ability to comprehend what you read or you can understand just fine and would rather LIE about what someone said so you can attack them for something that you made up? So which is it??



Actually it made TWO. One that bod is not familiar with the bible, even as she answers questions about the bible, and the other is that bod was criticizing the bible. Those two assertions are the core of your "question."

It was a QUESTION (which I don't think was ever answered).

How do you honestly expect a poster to answer a question that is based on made up assertions meant to attack the credibility of that poster when they never made any such claims??

All the rest is obfuscation on your part. I asked a question. A question isn't a lie. Where is the lie in asking someone a question (that they don't answer)? What assertion is made? Where is the deception?

A "question" based on false assertions that were intentionally and falsely attributed to the person being questioned for the purpose of insulting and attacking them IS dishonest.
Now unless you can show that bod actually made those assertions that you attribute to her it's pretty obvious that you made them up.

So again I ask,

"What is the factual basis for your assertion that bod isn't familiar with the bible?

What is the factual basis for your assertiong that bod is criticizing the bible as she answered a question about the bible??

Without those two assertions your so-called "question" is pretty much nonexistent.

So, do you have anything real to support the core assertions of your "question" as you try to use your so-called "question" to personally attack bod and call her names or is it the usual dishonesty as you make shite up and dishonestly attribute it to someone so you can attack them for something that didn't say?"

So care to answer the questions or are you going to run away and pretend this never happened, AGAIN??

"or is it the usual dishonesty as you make shit (shite) up and dishonestly attribute it to someone so you can attack them for something they (that) didn't say?"

(above quote edited for lousy spelling that was noted)

Isn't that exactly what Bodey did to Allie in her ridiculous #2011?

Why yes it is.



Damn, you just keep stepping on that lil' needledick oof yours, over and over again.

Hypocrisy is a funny thing, indeed!

 

[drsmith1072]

No, indication that you don't understand the English language.

Despite the fact that I provided the definition of trivialization.

Denything that there's a threat IS trivializing it, nitwit.

And......who is denying a threat from Radical Islam, Allie?

You deny the threat from ISLAM all the time, Bod.

Saying it doesn'tmake it so.

BTW, it's dishonest to add that "radical" in there. I never said anybody denied there was a threat from RADICAL Islam. I said you trivialize the threat from Islam (per the OP) when you deny the threat exists.

Are you saying now you acknowledge the threat of Islam?

Did you happen to miss the title of this thread??

Why do Democrats Trivialize The Threat From Radical Islam

So did you miss the word "radical" or is this just another example of your selective omission of facts that counter your spin??

 

[Wicked Jester]

Actually YOUR original source, the video clip of hannity, shows that hannity himself states that they were cleared and I am basing my statement that they were cleared on YOUR own source. Go watch the clip hannity says it in the first few seconds.


YouTube - Sean Hannity Fox News Berkeley Code Pink Wacko Wants Guantanamo Detainees Dating Her Cousin


So if you have a problem with your own source then you should retract your claims that you make based on it.

Furthermore, the invites were dependent on the resolution and due to the fact that the resolution failed the invites did not exist. Why do you continue to run away from questions concerning your claims?? Where is your PROOF that those TWO gitmo detainees were invited even though the resolution failed to pass??

Do you have anything REAL or do you actually believe that repeating an unsubstantiated claim makes it true??

You're such a fuckin' Jackwagon.

I could give a damn what Hannity said about being cleared. I provided a source after you FALSELY claimed those two were cleared, that clearly showed they were NOT cleared. You just can't stand the fact that your lie about them being cleared was just that, a fucking lie.

And yes, Lib's in Berkeley DID invite those two goat herders to come live with them, and then put it for vote.....There is no way of getting around that fact......That stupid liberal in the Hannity video was out inviting like the liberal idiot she is, long before she was interviewed on Hannity.

Fact is, when one claims a desire to invite, and then puts out said invite, that is a fucking invite.....You just don't want to admit it that it was done by your fellow loony liberal idiots!

Can't say I blame you. I'd be embarrasses too. After all, it's your fellow liberals who continually engage in crazy shit like that.

LMAO!

LOL So I quoted your original source, the hannity clip, and you are trying to attack me for using your source that you are now dismissing even as you stand behind the original claims that you made based on that source??

OMG that is just hilarious.

BTW I see you still can't prove your claim that those two gitmo detainees were still invited even after the resolution to invite them failed to pass so why is it that you appear to believe that repeating the same BS over and over again makes it true??

Where is your substance to back up your claims?? You are going after bod to provide absolute proof that allie lied and yet you refuse to hold yourself to that same standard. Why is that??

Show me where i'm lying, dufus........That stupid lib put out an invite during the interview. That stupid lib helped put an invite up for vote......Meaning, your fellow liberal idiots in Berkeley did put out an invite to gitmo detainees.........You can't refute that. It's absolutely true!

Are you going to say that your fellow liberal idiot in that video isn't liberal?

LMAO!

Now, where's your proof of an Allie lie.

So far, the only lies we are seeing, are coming from you and Bodey. You two have lied in claiming that Allie lied. Not one shred of evidence has been presented, meaning you two are lying!

We're still waiting!

 

[drsmith1072]

Just went through Bodey's entire list of links in # 2011

She resorted to blatant twisting and lying. For example, in Allies #921, Bodey tries to insinuate that Allie thinks we haven't been attacked enough. That is a blatant lie. that is not even close to what Allie said.

On Allies #872, Bodey tries to insinuate that it was to ''Harass" muslims......Another twist on Allie's words, and nothing but a lie.

Bodey, you seriously need to just abort. You are failing miserably. Just cease with your lies.

LOL It's funny how you can only address two and even then you fail to provide any exact quotes or real specifics. Why is that?

Christ, you're fuckin' stupid......I fully provided Allies quotes, and Bodecea's false claims of the context of those posts.

Allie never claimed that we "seem to have not been attacked enough", as Bodecea dishonestly tried to twist it.......

And bod never attributed what you quote to allie so thanks for exposing your continued dishonesty. However allie's own words are,

yeah, we need to be more like them. We don't have enough railway/subway/cafe bombings, riots or Jews attacked in the streets!

Seems pretty close to me when you consider what bod actually said

(seems to think we do not have enough attacks)

Allie starts off with "we don't have enough"

bod starts of with "we do not have enough"

Allie ends with "railway/subway/cafe bombings, riots or Jews attacked in the streets"

bod ends with "attacks"

So how is bod wrong?? Please explain.

Nor did Allie say she "wants to harrass muslims", as Bodecea dishonestly tried to twist it.

Really?? what would you call this,

And it's psychological. We can't outlaw the religion, but we can sure as shit bring pressure to bear when it comes to the practice of it.

Private empoyers can also put into place policies that tightens screws. No skull caps, no prayer.

Little things like that. It is exactly how the south and Mormons were brought to heel. So I guess the analogy of the South was apt to a degree.

That seems to be a pretty cut and dry form of harassment. She is talking about making their religious expression uncomfortable and putting road blocks in the way preventing them from practicing their religion because "we can't outlaw the religion, but." So care to explain how that is NOT harassment??

Once again, Dr, you fail!

Seeing as how you are the one that just did a faceplant I really don't see that as the case. But thanks for your delusions of "winning." I am sure charlie sheen would be proud of you. LOL

On that note thanks for the laughs I will be back tomorrow to laugh at you some more. LOL