• 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!

Many Dead in New Zealand Mosque Shooting

Truth hurts.

Keep defending the white supremacists...because, of course you do.

Guess who was an experienced world traveler beef? Brenden Tarrant :lamo There goes your goofy theory from last month. Now, I'm off to Turks and Caicos. Forward your reply to my secretary, if you will.
 
Slick since when is Muslim a race? Last I checked it was a religious belief...and last I checked our constitution forbids restriction on religion...so if a Native American(and there are) becomes Muslim then they should be removed from the US, because it doesn't suit your WASP idea of what an American is?

I hate to rain on your parade but when & where was I supposed to have posted that Muslim is a race? It's interesting that the funding fathers who ratified the founding documents were Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%, Presbyterian 30 18.6%, Congregationalist 27 16.8%, Quaker 7 4.3%,
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%, Lutheran 5 3.1% with 14 Catholicss, Huguenots, Unitarians, Methodists & Calvinists combining
for 7%. Muslim's 0%. A rudimentary application of common sense suggests that fewer than 2 or 3 of the founders ever met a Muslim. The intent
of forbiding restriction on religion was to end the squabble between opposing christians Maryland was set up as a haven for Catholics &
Williams if I recall was expelled by Massachusetts because of dangerous religious idea s and founded Rhode Island & the Baptist Church.
All the 13 states had to ratify the documents & concessions were made to insure all states were satisfied. The idea that non Christian
Muslims were on the minds of the signers is ridiculous.

And what's this nonsense about Native Americans. Look at my Avatar. A rendering of William Weatherford, (the Red Eagle)
one of the 4 Americans I most admire! Son of a Creek princess and a Scots trader who amassed
a fortune in land & money. Weatherford renounced his fathers wealth to seek his future with his mother's
people, and as Creek warchief lead them to astonishing victories against the government of the United States;
The most stunning indian success after Washington became the 1st president was the Weatherford led
Creek victory at Fort Mims. Even Andrew Jackson showered him with praise. The American Indians were
the first here part of our history & culture from the beginning true Americans in miming!

The Hon. N. H. Claiborne, in his Notes on the War written
while feelings of animosities were still fresh
against "Red Eagle, gives the following glowing, though by no
means partial sketch of his character: "Fortune bestowed on
Weatherford, genius, eloquence, and courage. The first of
these qualities enabled him to conceive great designs; the
last to execute them; while eloquence, bold, impressive, and figurative,
furnished him with a passport to the favor of his countrymen and followers.

If your post was meant as a contradiction to my post I'm surprised at your flawed & frail attempt.
Everything about the post you replied to was factual to the core. I don't see why anyone would ever expect me to back off from the truth.
 
Last edited:
Just curious, concerning some of the things you have said. So, what do you think of them?

If he thinks ill of them he can just post his lean as liberal and it would be all good. It works for Democrats.
 
I don't ever post insincerely and wouldn't post what I don't believe.

Don't try to compare what one young woman did, and she absolutely did goad her very vulnerable friend, with someone who commits mass murder.

My apologies then. And what about ISIS? Responsible for the terror attacks they inspire, or not responsible?
 
No, we cannot assume that the average Muslim cleric, at least in the US, spreads such ideas among their crowd without opening the can with the worms (see end of post)!

There's nothing to assume. The Quran is filled with barbaric calls to violence and hate of anyone who doesn't submit to Islam. Every Muslim is taught these things - I grew up in a Muslim country and have many Muslim friends, I'd know.

Before you issue the obligatory "but Christians too!" response, note that the violence described in the Old Testament in the Bible is almost never used as scripture within the faith. Christians aren't taught that they can't wear clothing from 2 different animals or that they should take up their brother's wife should he pass away. Christianity is based mostly on the New Testament which heavily denounces and supersedes the violence before it.

Mutilation of genitals is common in Africa and transcends religions. Women rights is more related to problems of modernity than religion. Go to India and see how Hindus treat their women.

Err no, the lack of women's rights among Muslim groups comes straight from the Quran. It's all in there. It's not a cultural or social thing - it's part of their faith.

The fact that white nationalists do not have temples does not mean that they do not organize meetings and use places to spread their ideas.

Well duh. Again, that's not what I meant. Yes white supremacists do meet up and hold rallies. But these meetings are not necessarily promoted as the beautiful pillars of diversity or multiculturalism. They take place mostly in secret and are rarely done by officially registered organizations. That's what makes it hard to track who attends, when it occurs, how much money they make, the tax they pay etc. We already know most of these things in regards to Islam, which means tackling Islamic terrorism is a very feasible thing for us. Tackling white-supremacy is a little more tricky and will take more time to figure out.

I'm a devoutly religious person but I think the only fair and safe way to move forward and ensure radicalization doesn't occur within any group is to keep a closer eye on religious congregations - churches, synagogues, mosques etc. Make them disclose a summary of what is being taught (particularly to children) and why. Have randomly appointed inspectors attend to ensure no hateful rhetoric or extremist views are being spread. And so on. There should be nothing to hide and having non-believers randomly sit in during sermons does not go against any religion's teachings.
 
There's nothing to assume. The Quran is filled with barbaric calls to violence and hate of anyone who doesn't submit to Islam. Every Muslim is taught these things - I grew up in a Muslim country and have many Muslim friends, I'd know.

Before you issue the obligatory "but Christians too!" response, note that the violence described in the Old Testament in the Bible is almost never used as scripture within the faith. Christians aren't taught that they can't wear clothing from 2 different animals or that they should take up their brother's wife should he pass away. Christianity is based mostly on the New Testament which heavily denounces and supersedes the violence before it.



Err no, the lack of women's rights among Muslim groups comes straight from the Quran. It's all in there. It's not a cultural or social thing - it's part of their faith.



Well duh. Again, that's not what I meant. Yes white supremacists do meet up and hold rallies. But these meetings are not necessarily promoted as the beautiful pillars of diversity or multiculturalism. They take place mostly in secret and are rarely done by officially registered organizations. That's what makes it hard to track who attends, when it occurs, how much money they make, the tax they pay etc. We already know most of these things in regards to Islam, which means tackling Islamic terrorism is a very feasible thing for us. Tackling white-supremacy is a little more tricky and will take more time to figure out.

I'm a devoutly religious person but I think the only fair and safe way to move forward and ensure radicalization doesn't occur within any group is to keep a closer eye on religious congregations - churches, synagogues, mosques etc. Make them disclose a summary of what is being taught (particularly to children) and why. Have randomly appointed inspectors attend to ensure no hateful rhetoric or extremist views are being spread. And so on. There should be nothing to hide and having non-believers randomly sit in during sermons does not go against any religion's teachings.

Responding more or less to each of your paragraphs...


I grew up in a country fighting Muslims for centuries (Greece) way before it became trendy in the US to bash them. If your friends are the way you say, then you have bad friends which can be explained by the fact of your toxic personality. Personally, I think that you are BS us about your Muslim friends. You do not sound like the type of person who is actually interested in meeting people outside of your bubble.

I told you before that the issue in some Muslim countries is not a religious one. It is an issue of modernity. Muslims in Afghanistan treat their women different from Muslims in Turkey. And the violence of the Old Testament has been used consistently to violate the rights of people in the "promised land" with the blessing of the Evangelicals who interpreter the Old Testament literally.

And you should actually open the new Testament and read what Paul says about the treatment of women by their husbands in his Epistles. You can also read what he says to the slave Christians when he tells them to obey their masters like they obey God. Faith is ALWAYS an issue of interpretation.

The idea that white supremacists have meetings in secret is a joke. You can find in internet what they do and you can even see their speeches in youtube!


So, you are about a big government spying on everybody. I prefer more freedom and have surveillance only on targets where there're specific indications and not simply because they are mosques or paramilitary groups or groups of civil war battle recreation just because one expects to find some nuts there!
 
Last edited:
LOL the comments here from the outraged liberals are hilarious. Never have I seen a bigger abandonment of past attitudes than now. Two days ago liberals would've told you terrorism is no big deal, just part of the odd price of living in a major city, multiculturalism is a complete success, and those who wage war on innocent white lives in the West have nothing to do with the ideology they claim to follow.

Suddenly the tables turn and they're completely outraged that things like this are happening haha. Seriously - suggesting we should require police verification to live stream on Facebook? I spat my coffee out in laughter when reading that.

Then again at least left wingers are finally committed to the cause Conservatives have been committed to for decades...stopping violence at every cost instead of sweeping it under the rug. To do that, everything negative that has been said about white culture needs to be said about Islam as well. Criticizng bad ideas is the gateway to improvement. Of course Dems will continue to censor anything negative about Muslims in the wake of the next Islamic terror attack.
What an inaccurate and stupid post.
 
There's nothing to assume. The Quran is filled with barbaric calls to violence and hate of anyone who doesn't submit to Islam. Every Muslim is taught these things - I grew up in a Muslim country and have many Muslim friends, I'd know.

Before you issue the obligatory "but Christians too!" response, note that the violence described in the Old Testament in the Bible is almost never used as scripture within the faith. Christians aren't taught that they can't wear clothing from 2 different animals or that they should take up their brother's wife should he pass away. Christianity is based mostly on the New Testament which heavily denounces and supersedes the violence before it.



Err no, the lack of women's rights among Muslim groups comes straight from the Quran. It's all in there. It's not a cultural or social thing - it's part of their faith.



Well duh. Again, that's not what I meant. Yes white supremacists do meet up and hold rallies. But these meetings are not necessarily promoted as the beautiful pillars of diversity or multiculturalism. They take place mostly in secret and are rarely done by officially registered organizations. That's what makes it hard to track who attends, when it occurs, how much money they make, the tax they pay etc. We already know most of these things in regards to Islam, which means tackling Islamic terrorism is a very feasible thing for us. Tackling white-supremacy is a little more tricky and will take more time to figure out.

I'm a devoutly religious person but I think the only fair and safe way to move forward and ensure radicalization doesn't occur within any group is to keep a closer eye on religious congregations - churches, synagogues, mosques etc. Make them disclose a summary of what is being taught (particularly to children) and why. Have randomly appointed inspectors attend to ensure no hateful rhetoric or extremist views are being spread. And so on. There should be nothing to hide and having non-believers randomly sit in during sermons does not go against any religion's teachings.
Double down on posting stupidity.
 
Responding more or less to each of your paragraphs...

...I told you before that the issue in some Muslim countries is not a religious one. It is an issue of modernity. Muslims in Afghanistan treat their women different from Muslims in Turkey. And the violence of the Old Testament has been used consistently to violate the rights of people in the "promised land" with the blessing of the Evangelicals who interpreter the Old Testament literally.

None the less, one cannot ignore that among all the world's major religions, Muslims as a violent religious movement are at war with everyone else. Buddhists, Hindis, Christians, Jews, and largely secular societies have all been targets of Islamic religious fanaticism and terrorism. Be it the Philippines, China, Russia, Israel, or much of Europe where Muslims flourish, violence against non-Muslims is inevitable.

Moreover, you can't blame it on the "lack of modernity" because being pre-modern is not a cause but the EFFECT Islam. Islam has been a counter-vailing force to secular and democratic development, and has largely failed to develop a democratic and secular government anywhere. Turkey, a European country, has struggled for more than a century with trying to prove it can be modern and, as we have seen most recently, is still a proto-Islamo authoritarian state under a President that has openly declared that he is working against Democracy.

In any event, only Islam retains its medieval and barbaric Jihadist culture (which in many expressions more barbaric than ever), and as a religious ideology is both primitive and dangerous.

It's bad enough to blaring "calls to prayers" and Pavlov like trained humans throwing down prayer rugs and genuflecting six times a day to a mythical Allah, but its worse when they take their fundi view of a duty to kill infidels seriously.

The religion is an existential danger to humanity, and the sooner it is crushed the better it will be for everyone else.
 
Shapiro's only claim to fame is that he's the first neocon public figure to pay lip service to domestic societal issues. He has 3 or 4 domestic issues, all low-wattage noncontroversial stuff, that he constantly harps on in order to bring in business from the low-level domestic conservatives. He doesn't care if half the country ends up replaced by automation and illegal immigrants, and winds up hooked on big pharma's OxyContin from the resulting depression of unemployment. He's a fraud, much like that rabbi who used to panhandle on Fox for handouts from evangelicals.

I’m not going to defend Shapiro because he is a POS. But he is a far smarter POS than Tucker Carlson.
 
My apologies then. And what about ISIS? Responsible for the terror attacks they inspire, or not responsible?

What I am saying is that whatever the impetus or motivation, each individual chooses his or her own actions. What kind of person could decapitate a baby? As you know, this is not a fanciful example; it has happened. Did ISIS do this, or was it the action of the individual swinging the sword? Did he have a choice? I say he did, the choice of not taking that life. (Might that choice prove fatal for him? Yes. It's a "Sophie's choice.")
 
Do you understand modern business Hatuey? If so, what is the preeminent trend were seeing amongst big, brand name national businesses?
Who have the Igers betrayed?

You're stalling.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
What I am saying is that whatever the impetus or motivation, each individual chooses his or her own actions. What kind of person could decapitate a baby? As you know, this is not a fanciful example; it has happened. Did ISIS do this, or was it the action of the individual swinging the sword? Did he have a choice? I say he did, the choice of not taking that life. (Might that choice prove fatal for him? Yes. It's a "Sophie's choice.")

Absolutely. No one forced him. He is 100% responsible for his actions. And ISIS is 100% responsible for spreading the hateful rhetoric which served to inspire him. They didn't commit the act, but the act would not have been committed without an irresponsibly crafted narrative built around hate of non-Muslims that they and the terrorist buy into and spread. I blame the terrorist for the act, and those who inspire him for their direct contribution to it.
 
It's as reprehensible as the comments I read from people on this board that Bernie Sanders was responsible for the shooting of Steve Scalise. Yet people did say that.

Agree.
That's just craziness! :screwy
 
Yo, Mama. True that.

Crazies are everywhere. Everyone is crazy except you and me. And some days I'm not convinced about thee.:mrgreen:

Hey, today's my birthday, Get off my lawn!


Happy St. Patrick's Day, you old nag.

28d92c02e758f3b44219cbd93dda213d--saint-patricks-st-patricks-day.jpg
 
Trixie is jealous because my cartoon St. Paddy's nag in my avatar is handsome. :mrgreen:

I love that picture she posted. I'm using it for my avatar next year!

Well, I mean of course the jealousy is obvious :mrgreen: But ya, the pic she put up was a pretty good answer!
 
Well, I mean of course the jealousy is obvious :mrgreen: But ya, the pic she put up was a pretty good answer!

It was indeed.

This thread needed some levity (as much as can happen given the horrific nature of what we're discussing). Trixie delivered with that picture.

I was watching the news this morning as more info is unfolding in this story. Just so horrific. 50 people. :(
 
It was indeed.

This thread needed some levity (as much as can happen given the horrific nature of what we're discussing). Trixie delivered with that picture.

I was watching the news this morning as more info is unfolding in this story. Just so horrific. 50 people. :(

Couldn't agree more and Trix is one of my favorites on here.

This story is downright overwhelming. It's also a hot point on here. Another poster had a meltdown on me earlier today and last night, it was a little uncomfortable to watch.

I feel so awful for those people and I assume that is what is leading many of the folks to get so upset. A little levity certainly helps.
 
Guess who was an experienced world traveler beef? Brenden Tarrant :lamo There goes your goofy theory from last month. Now, I'm off to Turks and Caicos. Forward your reply to my secretary, if you will.

Still standing up for racists I see.

What a lame thing for you to say.
 
Back
Top Bottom