• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Islam convert shot dead after ax attack on NYPD cops

VanceMack said:
Id say collectively black Americans lead the nation in every category on the misery index, fill prisons and unemployment lines, and it's the same tired pathetic race baiting politics taut have gone on over the last 50 years that causes us to still have these conversations.
Click to expand...

Why won't you answer my questions? Look, the reality is that in the last 50 years, the people who are still 'leading the nation in every category' have also achieved what Republicans didn't provide for 100 years. Is that true or not? Let's go the 1950s shall we? We had a black population which - EVEN AFTER VOTING FOR REPUBLICANS FOR 100 YEARS - had an insignificant purchasing power and even less political force. Fast forward to 2014 and we have literally thousands of black millionaires (that's just the NBA, music and NFL).

Why did that not exist when blacks were voting for Republicans? Why did Republicans not make that possible? You can complain all you want, but the advances are there. More blacks complete university today than in the 100 years they voted Republican. There are more blacks who are in the upper classes than in the 100 years they voted for Republicans. Do you deny this?
 
Last edited:
CanadaJohn said:
Yes, there are lots of mentally unstable people in this world - some of them congregate as Muslim extremists. Identifying and admitting such no more paints all Muslims as murderous extremists than pointing out a black person or a white person is the suspect in a crime paints all black people or white people as criminals. Blindly avoiding the obvious simply paints you as blind.
Click to expand...

I haven't ever seen anyone claim that "all Muslims are murderous extremists." But it is blindly avoiding the obvious to deny that many thousands of Muslim extremists around the world are united by the same intolerant, supremacist religious belief. And that is that the goal of all true Muslims must be to control the world and force everyone to live under the seventh-century social code of shariah; and that all those who resist are to be killed or enslaved. The fact the vast majority of self-described Muslims don't believe anything of the kind is not proof this violent, supremacist code is not rooted in Islam. It may prove nothing more than that this vast majority is not very observant, just like the lion's share of people who claim to be followers of other faiths.

Some people who want to deny the obvious danger from these bastards are just simple or naive. But I think others have been well and truly scared, and desperately want to believe evil people can be appeased. They don't want to admit that the only way to deal with some people is to kill them before they can kill you. The idea of fighting and killing upsets their pleasant visions of the world as one big sunlit meadow, overarched by a rainbow, in which smiling people of all types, with garlands of flowers in their hair, frolic in perfect harmony. The urge to appease that was seen in Britain during the 1930's was understandable--almost a million men had been killed in a war only twenty years before, and the people who remembered them had no taste for more of the same. That urge is less easy to understand today.
 
Roadvirus said:
It's not a terrorist attack.

It's workplace violence
Click to expand...

Since this didn't take place in the attacker's workplace, then no, it wouldn't be.

Don't you guys get sick of spouting off the same stupid lines over, and over, and over, and over again?
 
VanceMack said:
The outrage isn't proportional because any time violent crimes in America are discussed liberals trip over themselves to excuse and justify the perpetrators of the violent criminal acts. Liberals won't address who is committing the vast majority of criminal acts. I'm glad to see you are willing to buck that trend and call it out regardless of the skin tone of those committing the vast majority of those violent crimes. Ready to build more prisons?
Click to expand...

And that's a bunch of horse****. Who on earth is making excuses for this guy?
 
Hatuey said:
Why won't you answer my questions? Look, the reality is that in the last 50 years, the people who are still 'leading the nation in every category' have also achieved what Republicans didn't provide for 100 years. Is that true or not? Let's go the 1920s shall we? We had a black population which - EVEN AFTER VOTING FOR REPUBLICANS FOR 100 YEARS - had an insignificant purchasing power and even less political force. Fast forward to 2014 and we have literally thousands of black millionaires (that's just the NBA, music and NFL).

Why did that not exist when blacks were voting for Republicans? Why did Republicans not make that possible? You can complain all you want, but the advances are there. More blacks complete university today than in the 100 years they voted Republican. There are more blacks who are in the upper classes than in the 100 years they voted for Republicans. Do you deny this?
Click to expand...
There are more today which proves they are every bit as capable as every other race and group. Why didn't it happen sooner? Oh...I don't know...perhaps it took a few years to build from ground zero? Perhaps during that first 100 years after the civil war (and who exactly was it that was leading the charge for change for those blacks in that first 100 years? Who was it that fought civil rights laws at every turn?). Its great that some have progressed. Now...why is it with all that progress blacks have made blacks still fill the prisons, commit crimes at a far greater rate than every other race group in the nation, still live in poverty, still fill ghettos, still murder each other like they have graduate degrees in it? Malcolm's words from the 60s are hauntingly appropriate right now, almost 50 years later. You keep throwing out the word cherry picking which is exactly what you are doing in your zeal to show 'progress' and the fruits of mindless blind support of a political party that sees you as nothing more than a voting bloc.

What was the polling numbers during the last election? 97%? And what has that gotten them?
 
VanceMack said:
There are more today which proves they are every bit as capable as every other race and group.
Click to expand...

And yet... without the policies which were put in place, blacks didn't achieve that modicum of progress you seem to love attacking every other or so post.

Why didn't it happen sooner? Oh...I don't know...perhaps it took a few years to build from ground zero?
Click to expand...

Ah, so now it's about time. The way Republicans completely disregarded the black communities in Northern AND Southern states for 100 years can be explained away because they needed 100 years to rebuild from ground zero? Ummm... I'm pretty sure by the 1910s, the East Coast (at this time primarily Republican) had been rebuilt. Why didn't Republicans who ran most of the East Coast for ... oh... 70 years create the infrastructure in their states? Yeah, no your answer is nonsense.

Perhaps during that first 100 years after the civil war (and who exactly was it that was leading the charge for change for those blacks in that first 100 years? Who was it that fought civil rights laws at every turn?). Its great that some have progressed. Now...why is it with all that progress blacks have made blacks still fill the prisons, commit crimes at a far greater rate than every other race group in the nation, still live in poverty, still fill ghettos, still murder each other like they have graduate degrees in it
Click to expand...

What was it you said? Time? Yeah, time. Give us another 40 years. We're rebuilding from ground zero. ;)

Malcolm's words from the 60s are hauntingly appropriate right now, almost 50 years later. You keep throwing out the word cherry picking which is exactly what you are doing in your zeal to show 'progress' and the fruits of mindless blind support of a political party that sees you as nothing more than a voting bloc.

What was the polling numbers during the last election? 97%? And what has that gotten them?
Click to expand...

Hauntingly appropriate? Lol. Malcolm X lived in a time where most blacks couldn't even set foot in the majority of universities, purchasing power was minute and political strength was almost non-existent. Compare that to today? Where you have Republicans and Democrats breaking their backs in states like Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi to get the 'black vote' and you'll find your assessment of what he would feel is patently false.
 
Kreton said:
Ideologies are there to support a lot murder. Or in this case attempted murder. How is this mans ideology worse than a man whos ideals make him believe women are sluts who need to be punished? Or a Nazi/Skinhead whos ideologies cause him to believe jews deserve to be slaughterd? Gang member who believe a rival gang member deserves to be shot? A christian who kills a muslim because they are scared they may be a terrorist?
Click to expand...
So far as I know, this persons ideology (if he has such) is no worse than any other ideology that supports and recommends killing people in any and all ways including suicidal attacks.

The problem in this case is that said ideology has lots of followers and controls an area of land (at least currently) wherein they are enacting any and all of their worst practices - and that this person may have willingly associated himself with them (so far as I know any connection has yet to be proven).

In short, the scope of this ideology is larger than other similar ideologies, thus warranting more resources focused on blocking it.
 
Hatuey said:
And yet... without the policies which were put in place, blacks didn't achieve that modicum of progress you seem to love attacking every other or so post.



Ah, so now it's about time. The way Republicans completely disregarded the black communities in Northern AND Southern states for 100 years can be explained away because they needed 100 years to rebuild from ground zero? Ummm... I'm pretty sure by the 1910s, the East Coast (at this time primarily Republican) had been rebuilt. Why didn't Republicans who ran most of the East Coast for ... oh... 70 years create the infrastructure in their states? Yeah, no your answer is nonsense.



What was it you said? Time? Yeah, time. Give us another 40 years. We're rebuilding from ground zero. ;)



Hauntingly appropriate? Lol. Malcolm X lived in a time where most blacks couldn't even set foot in the majority of universities, purchasing power was minute and political strength was almost non-existent. Compare that to today? Where you have Republicans and Democrats breaking their backs in states like Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi to get the 'black vote' and you'll find your assessment of what he would feel is patently false.
Click to expand...

Democrats sure weren't helping the cause of " equality for all " back in the day.

They filibustered the 1964 Voting rights act.

They were the party behind Jim Crow and segregation and the KKK.
 
Hatuey said:
And yet... without the policies which were put in place, blacks didn't achieve that modicum of progress you seem to love attacking every other or so post.



Ah, so now it's about time. The way Republicans completely disregarded the black communities in Northern AND Southern states for 100 years can be explained away because they needed 100 years to rebuild from ground zero? Ummm... I'm pretty sure by the 1910s, the East Coast (at this time primarily Republican) had been rebuilt. Why didn't Republicans who ran most of the East Coast for ... oh... 70 years create the infrastructure in their states? Yeah, no your answer is nonsense.



What was it you said? Time? Yeah, time. Give us another 40 years. We're rebuilding from ground zero. ;)



Hauntingly appropriate? Lol. Malcolm X lived in a time where most blacks couldn't even set foot in the majority of universities, purchasing power was minute and political strength was almost non-existent. Compare that to today? Where you have Republicans and Democrats breaking their backs in states like Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi to get the 'black vote' and you'll find your assessment of what he would feel is patently false.
Click to expand...
Actually you made it about 'time'. Question asked and answered. Blacks have been duped into blind support. They have been conned into thinking one party actually 'cares' for them. Are things better for some? Sure. They are better for whites too. Are they dismal for many? Yep. Any prospect of getting better for them? Nope. If anything it will get worse.

But you keep buying the sales pitch. And blacks in this country should by all means keep voting enmasse for democrats. It's working so well.

His words were prophetic...then and now.
 
Last edited:
I never knew that the Republican Party was formed in the 1820's. I never knew that the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified way back then, either--forty years before the Civil War. I learn new things every day from the Obama drones on here.
 
Fenton said:
Democrats sure weren't helping the cause of " equality for all " back in the day.

They filibustered the 1964 Voting rights act.
Click to expand...

Good stuff, did you know that without Democrats, the CRA'64 wouldn't have passed?

They were the party behind Jim Crow and segregation and the KKK.
Click to expand...

White southerner voters* were the group behind Jim Crow, segregation and the KKK. Funny how people forget to mention why blacks won't vote for white Southerners though.
 
Kreton said:
Ok lets compare. You post deaths in the United States caused by Muslims and I'll post deaths caused by any other group I have listed. You choose which one I'll do.
Click to expand...
Are you including those who have vowed to murder innocent people throughout the world?
 
Kreton said:
You interested in comparing the number of violent muslim attacks in this country to the number attacks by Christians? Jews? Whites? Blacks? Males? Females? People over 5 ft tall? People with blonde hair? People with tattoos? People who consider themselves independents?

We have enough crime in this country, and a great variety of people commiting those crimes, that you can pick almost any factor you want. Deosn't matter what it is. And you will find people committing crimes, attacks ect who meet that criteria.
Click to expand...
I think the motive for the crime is a significant factor. In this case it was an act of terrorism.
 
Ockham said:
Perhaps there would be more outrage if it were a Catholic or Baptist that did the axing. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Yes, "Catholics On Murderous Rampage, Pope Issues Convert Or Die Edict" would probably create more buzz.
 
Hatuey said:
Lol:

Would you the collective purchasing power of blacks is lower today than the 1940s?
Would you say that educated blacks are at an all time high or all time low?
Would you say poverty in the black population is higher now than the 1940s?

Blacks gave their support for 100 years to Republicans and all they got out of it was conscription, the projects and high crime rates. Again, cherrypick wisely.
Click to expand...
All they got out of Republicans was their freedoms. As for unemployment, check it out. Interview with Walter Williams: Unemployment among African Americans was lower when discrimination was worse - ConservativeHome's Big Ideas blog
 
Grant said:
All they got out of Republicans was their freedoms.
Click to expand...

5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation

5. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t actually free all of the slaves.

Since Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a military measure, it didn’t apply to border slave states like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, all of which had remained loyal to the Union. Lincoln also exempted selected areas of the Confederacy that had already come under Union control in hopes of gaining the loyalty of whites in those states. In practice, then, the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t immediately free a single slave, as the only places it applied were places where the federal government had no control—the Southern states currently fighting against the Union.

Despite its limitations, Lincoln’s proclamation marked a crucial turning point in the evolution of Lincoln’s views of slavery, as well as a turning point in the Civil War itself. By war’s end, some 200,000 black men would serve in the Union Army and Navy, striking a mortal blow against the institution of slavery and paving the way for its eventual abolition by the 13th Amendment.
Click to expand...

History is fun.
 
Hatuey said:
Good stuff, did you know that without Democrats, the CRA'64 wouldn't have passed?
Click to expand...
The majority were Republicans. Although many believe that Black civil rights began in 1964 (and sadly many Blacks believe this) it was President Eisenhower who ordered troops to force the desegregation of Americans schools opposed, of course, by the Democrats. Our Documents - Executive Order 10730: Desegregation of Central High School (1957)
White southerner voters* were the group behind Jim Crow, segregation and the KKK. Funny how people forget to mention why blacks won't vote for white Southerners though.
Click to expand...
The Democrats were the authors of these laws, and still use Black people for their own ends. Lyndon Johnson summed it up best. "I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years".Talk:Lyndon B. Johnson - Wikiquote
 
Grant said:
The majority were Republicans.
Click to expand...

Lmao... are you kidding?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182

The majority of people who voted for CRA'64 were Democrats in both the House & Senate. Don't play this game, Grant. You'll lose.

Although many believe that Black civil rights began in 1964 (and sadly many Blacks believe this) it was President Eisenhower who ordered troops to force the desegregation of Americans schools opposed, of course, by the Democrats.
Click to expand...

Eisenhower enforced a SCOTUS ruling against his own personal feelings. Nothing wrong with that, admirable really.

Domestic Politics . Eisenhower . WGBH American Experience | PBS

Eisenhower made clear that he would put his personal feelings aside to enforce the law. The President declared, "The Supreme Court has spoken and I am sworn to uphold the constitutional processes in this country -- I will obey." Still, Eisenhower hoped to avoid direct federal intervention in the affairs of Arkansas. He summoned Governor Faubus to meet with him and informed him that he could not hope to win in a showdown with the United States government. Eisenhower felt confident that he and Faubus had reached an agreement. He was mistaken. Upon returning to Little Rock, Faubus kept the state National Guard at the high school. When a federal judge ordered him to refrain from interfering with desegregation of the school, Faubus removed the Guard, leaving only the local police to fend off an angry, violent mob. The police were able to safely remove the nine students, but the chaos continued.
Click to expand...

Imagine that, a Republican taking a stand against what was considered a States rights issue. We don't see many of those anymore.

Our Documents - Executive Order 10730: Desegregation of Central High School (1957) The Democrats were the authors of these laws, and still use Black people for their own ends. Lyndon Johnson summed it up best. "I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years".Talk:Lyndon B. Johnson - Wikiquote
Click to expand...

He one upped Lincoln! Good for him.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Good evening Rocket,

Of course it makes it about the religion - to ignore that component is foolish. There are many within the religion using the vulnerable to assist in furthering their aims. Suicide bombers are a prime example. Do you think people become human bombs just because they're mentally unstable? Or is it more likely that many who are mentally unstable succome to the draw of religious martyrdom at the behest of Muslim clerics and others who pervert the religion?

Many on the left, perhaps yourself included, like to claim that gun ownership should be banned or severely restricted because some mentally unstable individuals use weapons to harm or kill humans, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of gun owners in the US are upstanding, honest, law abiding citizens. And yet, they/you claim that the gun is the problem - the root cause. Why are they/you so squeamish about identifying Islamic teachings as a root cause in these such incidents?
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm not one to want to ban or severely restrict guns (depending on your definition of "severe." We all have different lines of severity that we aren't willing to cross).

A majority of Muslims don't do anything like this. Especially in the US and Canada. I wouldn't call on restricting all of a group based on the actions of a few.
 
Ockham said:
Perhaps there would be more outrage if it were a Catholic or Baptist that did the axing. :shrug:
Click to expand...

It would certainly change who's on which side in this thread. Unfortunately, there are many (many of whom are attacking Muslims here) who would defend it if it were.

Don't pretend like they wouldn't, because we both know they would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom