Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yet, you are the one that can't do a control F or search an online book for "Abraham".
In the end your attempts to make this about me and your continued avoidance and failure to provide anything of substance to support your claims show that you've got nothing.
Yet, you are the one that can't do a control F or search an online book for "Abraham".
Every Muslim is a threat, those kebabs might well contain anthrax, better watch myself next time I eat one.It would be just as vacuous to beleive that there is an eminant threat by every Muslim.
You have a very different opinion about "normal people" than I do.
PS: If you want to combat radical Islam a law against propagation of violence might do well (the death to the Jews and theocracy in the US crowd will find themselves in prison and in a room with rubber walls along with their radical Imams). Then again the KKK, Black Nationalist groups, and some tea party members might find themselves at a psychologist or in prison. A good result overall.
Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Schenck case
Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious.
There's the nub of it. You think there is an eminant threat inherent against the USA comming from Islam.
It would be pretty vacuous to be ignorant of the threat posed by Islam.
Whereas normal people think there is a threat from the Radical Islamics to pull off another 9-11 but since they don't have the capacity to stop the unknown they are not going to let fear rule their lives.
Yeah, that explains taking shoes off at airports...
Be serious.
9/11 type attacks are the minority - though the Madrid train bombings demonstrate that they aren't a one time event, either. You talk about fear, the capitulation by Spain after a major terror attack shows real fear. More than fear, cowardice.
Outside of 9/11 size attacks though, we have FT. Hood. The Manhattan Car bomber, Shoe Bomber, Underwear Bomber, ad nasium.
Yes, most of these have been thwarted - which is the point. Most of these have been stopped not by idiot TSA agents jacking off to nude scans, but by the diligence of average people aware that there IS a real threat and that it can't be ignored.
What you claim as "normal people" are fools, the morons who hang out at Huffingglue Post and KOS. Thank GOD that real people DON'T ignore the threat from Islam and HAVE been observant enough to thwart the Underwear, Shoe and car bomber. Thank God they DO question the Muslim groups in Detroit and elsewhere who have plotted dozens and dozens of terror attacks - stopped because people DO understand the threat that Islam poses.
While it is true that radical muslims are a definite threat to America's safety, we must not overlook the reason why they hate us so. They are enraged at the fact we Americans are the financiers and main support of the horrors and atrocities the state of Israel has inflicted on them since Palestine was stolen through terrorism, warfare and political chicanery in 1948. The Palestinian people are simply fighting to reclaim their rightful land that was taken from them by the Zionist terrorist thugs Irgun, Haganah, Stern Gang, the UN, and Harry Truman's administration using the same tactics Zionists are still using to get Zionism's way with their neighbors. Zionists are not going to cease taking other peoples' lands until they finally succeed in establishing what they call "Greater Israel" (which see). Also see"Jewish terrorism"
You know they won't, because they can't. They won't even try but that won't stop them from repeating the same false accusations over and over again as if repetition somehow make it become true. LOL
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...threat-from-radical-islam-11.html#post3474577
Hey, it's okay - you lie, it's what you do. The party demands it....
Thanks for further proving your dishonesty as you take that comment out of context and calim it says something it doesn't. LOL
Go read bod's post again. Here I will provide it for you.
Talking about substantive posts.......where on this thread does anyone (leftie or otherwise) support radical Islam or terrorists?
You know they won't, because they can't. They won't even try but that won't stop them from repeating the same false accusations over and over again as if repetition somehow make it become true. LOL
You were asked to show anyone defending RADICAL islam or terrorism and you failed to do that.
Thanks again for further proving your that dishonesty has no limits. LOL
Right here folks. According to Uncensored...his silly little perceptions are all the matter because if anyone tells him he is wrong, he simply chants "you lie, it's what you do. the party demands it...." what ever that is supposed to mean.
Yo, shit fer brains..
No one in this thread defended Islam? You and drshit have been wailing this over and over..
Bode I do defend islam in a islam vs christianity debate, because they're the same to me.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...threat-from-radical-islam-11.html#post3474577
What was that???
Bode I do defend islam
Did I miss something?
Bode I do defend islam
Bod, you are a complete fucking moron...
Seriously.
Every Muslim is a threat, those kebabs might well contain anthrax, better watch myself next time I eat one.It would be just as vacuous to beleive that there is an eminant threat by every Muslim.
You have a very different opinion about "normal people" than I do.
PS: If you want to combat radical Islam a law against propagation of violence might do well (the death to the Jews and theocracy in the US crowd will find themselves in prison and in a room with rubber walls along with their radical Imams). Then again the KKK, Black Nationalist groups, and some tea party members might find themselves at a psychologist or in prison. A good result overall.
So, you're not so keen on the 1st Amendment.
Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/QUOTE]The Schenck case
Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious.
Actually, I was under the impression that you are more in line with the radical Islamic way of thinking yourself.
Pulling your belief system out of thin air and not listening to any logic whatsoever.
It looks like you have more in common with radicals...rude to anyone who disagrees with you...
Every Muslim is a threat, those kebabs might well contain anthrax, better watch myself next time I eat one.
PS: If you want to combat radical Islam a law against propagation of violence might do well (the death to the Jews and theocracy in the US crowd will find themselves in prison and in a room with rubber walls along with their radical Imams). Then again the KKK, Black Nationalist groups, and some tea party members might find themselves at a psychologist or in prison. A good result overall.
So, you're not so keen on the 1st Amendment.Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Schenck case
Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious.
Imminent lawless action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaImminent lawless action" is a term used in the United States Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to define the limits of constitutionally protected speech. The rule overturned the decision of the earlier Schenck v. United States (1917), which had established "clear and present danger" as the constitutional limit for speech. Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973). In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[1] and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement. The doctrine states that speech that will cause, or has as its purpose, "imminent lawless action" (such as a riot) does not have constitutional protection. As of 2009, "imminent lawless action" continues to be the test applied in free speech cases.
Right here folks. According to Uncensored...his silly little perceptions are all the matter because if anyone tells him he is wrong, he simply chants "you lie, it's what you do. the party demands it...." what ever that is supposed to mean.
Yo, shit fer brains..
No one in this thread defended Islam? You and drshit have been wailing this over and over..
Bode I do defend islam in a islam vs christianity debate, because they're the same to me.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...threat-from-radical-islam-11.html#post3474577
What was that???
Bode I do defend islam
Did I miss something?
Bode I do defend islam
Bod, you are a complete fucking moron...
Seriously.
It would be just as vacuous to beleive that there is an eminant threat by every Muslim.
You have a very different opinion about "normal people" than I do.
Then again the KKK, Black Nationalist groups, and some tea party members might find themselves at a psychologist or in prison. A good result overall.
Right here folks. According to Uncensored...his silly little perceptions are all the matter because if anyone tells him he is wrong, he simply chants "you lie, it's what you do. the party demands it...." what ever that is supposed to mean.
Yo, shit fer brains..
No one in this thread defended Islam? You and drshit have been wailing this over and over..
Bode I do defend islam in a islam vs christianity debate, because they're the same to me.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...threat-from-radical-islam-11.html#post3474577
What was that???
Bode I do defend islam
Did I miss something?
Bode I do defend islam
Bod, you are a complete fucking moron...
Seriously.
So, you're not so keen on the 1st Amendment.
Then again the KKK, Black Nationalist groups, and some tea party members might find themselves at a psychologist or in prison. A good result overall.
And pretty much the entire DNC would.
Bodecea wants to defend to the death the rights of Muslims to call for the death of Jews and destruction of Israel...go figure...So, you're not so keen on the 1st Amendment.
Psstttt...
Hey sparky, he's on your side..
LOL
Good to see that you're too stupid to grasp sarcasm, regardless of who posts it.
You were asked to show anyone defending RADICAL islam or terrorism and you failed to do that.
Thanks again for further proving your that dishonesty has no limits. LOL
So, you're not so keen on the 1st Amendment.
Psstttt...
Hey sparky, he's on your side..
LOL
Good to see that you're too stupid to grasp sarcasm, regardless of who posts it.
Wait....wait a minute...
The Jews no more stole Israel from Palestine than we Americans stole America from the Indians. The UN didn't create it. Harry Truman didn't create it. Jews with Guns and the will to do it, did (with a little help from their British friend/enemies) . But that's a whole different story/thread. Israel is a part of why, but not the only one.........
"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly of Intervention | Sheldon L. Richman | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis
