Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Thats pretty much it.Trump created Khan in respect of this issue.He is an ANTAGONIST. So are either of us. What are we arguing about?I'm not running away. I'm right here. And you are pretending to be outraged as well as ignored. I answered your question, apparently that isn't well enough. What else can I do? Jump through a fiery hoop over a pit of alligators? Sorry.Actually, I did. Muslims extremist killed his son, not this phony hysteria on xenophobia. Muslims killed 3000 people on 9/11 on one fell swoop. Muslims aren't a new untouchable class because it offends some of you. They do bad things in real time to non muslims. Get real. Kahn's son died for a lost cause because Bush mislead a bunch of sheep to invade and destabilize Iraq. That doesn't make any of the rest of us any safer from real terrorist. Sorry, but's that's reality.
All of that is true, or most, but it still doesn't address my point, which was pointed directly at your post, which said, and I quote:
-- and you continue to run away from that once I called you on it. Just admit that that's what you're doing.
"Hiding behind his goldstar family status and Muslim religion to manipulate popular opinion."
You presented Khan as the antagonist. It's right there in your words. I pointed out that he was reacting in defense, and that Rump went first.
You can't admit that. You know it's true but can't admit you were wrong.
That's the end of it.
He's using his gold star and religious status to support Hillary Clinton. call me a little cynical, but Mr. Kahn isn't immune to scrutiny ( He is a bigtime Clinton supporter). I don't support nor will I ever vote for Trump.When I read about Clinton critics dying under mysterious circumstances,it makes me wonder WHO is the worse candidate here.
I don't actually give a flying shit who you think is the worse candidate. We're not even talking about that. Nor are we talking about whether Khan is a "bigtime Clinton supporter". Not my business and I don't care. We're not talking about who anybody votes for or who anybody should vote for.
What you're doing is ignoring the context that plainly spells out that Khan spoke IN REACTION TO already-established bigoted blanket rhetoric spewed repeatedly by Donald Rump, and you tried to sell this bullshit story that Khan started it.
Well he didn't, and I called you on it. And if you do it again -- so will I. Because it's dishonest.
Thats pretty much it.Trump created Khan in respect of this issue.He is an ANTAGONIST. So are either of us. What are we arguing about?I'm not running away. I'm right here. And you are pretending to be outraged as well as ignored. I answered your question, apparently that isn't well enough. What else can I do? Jump through a fiery hoop over a pit of alligators? Sorry.All of that is true, or most, but it still doesn't address my point, which was pointed directly at your post, which said, and I quote:
-- and you continue to run away from that once I called you on it. Just admit that that's what you're doing.
"Hiding behind his goldstar family status and Muslim religion to manipulate popular opinion."
You presented Khan as the antagonist. It's right there in your words. I pointed out that he was reacting in defense, and that Rump went first.
You can't admit that. You know it's true but can't admit you were wrong.
That's the end of it.
He's using his gold star and religious status to support Hillary Clinton. call me a little cynical, but Mr. Kahn isn't immune to scrutiny ( He is a bigtime Clinton supporter). I don't support nor will I ever vote for Trump.When I read about Clinton critics dying under mysterious circumstances,it makes me wonder WHO is the worse candidate here.
I don't actually give a flying shit who you think is the worse candidate. We're not even talking about that. Nor are we talking about whether Khan is a "bigtime Clinton supporter". Not my business and I don't care. We're not talking about who anybody votes for or who anybody should vote for.
What you're doing is ignoring the context that plainly spells out that Khan spoke IN REACTION TO already-established bigoted blanket rhetoric spewed repeatedly by Donald Rump, and you tried to sell this bullshit story that Khan started it.
Well he didn't, and I called you on it. And if you do it again -- so will I. Because it's dishonest.
What has happened here is that Trump has now given the knuckle draggers another bogey man. Meanwhile the rest of civilisation looks on and shakes their head.
Thats pretty much it.Trump created Khan in respect of this issue.He is an ANTAGONIST. So are either of us. What are we arguing about?I'm not running away. I'm right here. And you are pretending to be outraged as well as ignored. I answered your question, apparently that isn't well enough. What else can I do? Jump through a fiery hoop over a pit of alligators? Sorry.All of that is true, or most, but it still doesn't address my point, which was pointed directly at your post, which said, and I quote:
-- and you continue to run away from that once I called you on it. Just admit that that's what you're doing.
"Hiding behind his goldstar family status and Muslim religion to manipulate popular opinion."
You presented Khan as the antagonist. It's right there in your words. I pointed out that he was reacting in defense, and that Rump went first.
You can't admit that. You know it's true but can't admit you were wrong.
That's the end of it.
He's using his gold star and religious status to support Hillary Clinton. call me a little cynical, but Mr. Kahn isn't immune to scrutiny ( He is a bigtime Clinton supporter). I don't support nor will I ever vote for Trump.When I read about Clinton critics dying under mysterious circumstances,it makes me wonder WHO is the worse candidate here.
I don't actually give a flying shit who you think is the worse candidate. We're not even talking about that. Nor are we talking about whether Khan is a "bigtime Clinton supporter". Not my business and I don't care. We're not talking about who anybody votes for or who anybody should vote for.
What you're doing is ignoring the context that plainly spells out that Khan spoke IN REACTION TO already-established bigoted blanket rhetoric spewed repeatedly by Donald Rump, and you tried to sell this bullshit story that Khan started it.
Well he didn't, and I called you on it. And if you do it again -- so will I. Because it's dishonest.
What has happened here is that Trump has now given the knuckle draggers another bogey man. Meanwhile the rest of civilisation looks on and shakes their head.
Are any educated people backing trump ?Thats pretty much it.Trump created Khan in respect of this issue.He is an ANTAGONIST. So are either of us. What are we arguing about?I'm not running away. I'm right here. And you are pretending to be outraged as well as ignored. I answered your question, apparently that isn't well enough. What else can I do? Jump through a fiery hoop over a pit of alligators? Sorry.
You presented Khan as the antagonist. It's right there in your words. I pointed out that he was reacting in defense, and that Rump went first.
You can't admit that. You know it's true but can't admit you were wrong.
That's the end of it.
He's using his gold star and religious status to support Hillary Clinton. call me a little cynical, but Mr. Kahn isn't immune to scrutiny ( He is a bigtime Clinton supporter). I don't support nor will I ever vote for Trump.When I read about Clinton critics dying under mysterious circumstances,it makes me wonder WHO is the worse candidate here.
I don't actually give a flying shit who you think is the worse candidate. We're not even talking about that. Nor are we talking about whether Khan is a "bigtime Clinton supporter". Not my business and I don't care. We're not talking about who anybody votes for or who anybody should vote for.
What you're doing is ignoring the context that plainly spells out that Khan spoke IN REACTION TO already-established bigoted blanket rhetoric spewed repeatedly by Donald Rump, and you tried to sell this bullshit story that Khan started it.
Well he didn't, and I called you on it. And if you do it again -- so will I. Because it's dishonest.
What has happened here is that Trump has now given the knuckle draggers another bogey man. Meanwhile the rest of civilisation looks on and shakes their head.
Rump fortunately carries his own suicide genes. All you have to do is mention his name in anything but the worship terms he expects, and he'll proceed to stay up all night on Twitter burying himself. He's a cat toy that way.
I have to agree, Tipsycatlover, the Democrats are a pro-Islamic party. Obama has brought in tens of thousands of Islamists and Clinton will expand that significantly. While bringing in a sworn enemy by the hundreds of thousands, the Clinton administration will be actively trying to disarm legal firearms owners who have never been a threat to anyone. The bottom line is that Obama and Clinton are acting in a treasonous manner by deliberately bringing in vast numbers of Islamists who have made it clear that this nation should be ruled by Sharia Law and thus the party if comprised of traitors to the United States.Democrats are the allah party. Is anyone surprised?
Obama has brought in tens of thousands of Islamists
sworn enemy
will be actively trying to disarm legal firearms owners
acting in a treasonous manner by deliberately bringing in vast numbers of Islamists
I actually DID address you, and directly. We are reading the context differently. There isn't any point arguing with a closed minded control freak like you. You are a real charmer, kiddo.He is an ANTAGONIST. So are either of us. What are we arguing about?I'm not running away. I'm right here. And you are pretending to be outraged as well as ignored. I answered your question, apparently that isn't well enough. What else can I do? Jump through a fiery hoop over a pit of alligators? Sorry.Actually, I did. Muslims extremist killed his son, not this phony hysteria on xenophobia. Muslims killed 3000 people on 9/11 on one fell swoop. Muslims aren't a new untouchable class because it offends some of you. They do bad things in real time to non muslims. Get real. Kahn's son died for a lost cause because Bush mislead a bunch of sheep to invade and destabilize Iraq. That doesn't make any of the rest of us any safer from real terrorist. Sorry, but's that's reality.
All of that is true, or most, but it still doesn't address my point, which was pointed directly at your post, which said, and I quote:
-- and you continue to run away from that once I called you on it. Just admit that that's what you're doing.
"Hiding behind his goldstar family status and Muslim religion to manipulate popular opinion."
You presented Khan as the antagonist. It's right there in your words. I pointed out that he was reacting in defense, and that Rump went first.
You can't admit that. You know it's true but can't admit you were wrong.
That's the end of it.
He's using his gold star and religious status to support Hillary Clinton. call me a little cynical, but Mr. Kahn isn't immune to scrutiny ( He is a bigtime Clinton supporter). I don't support nor will I ever vote for Trump.When I read about Clinton critics dying under mysterious circumstances,it makes me wonder WHO is the worse candidate here.
I don't actually give a flying shit who you think is the worse candidate. We're not even talking about that. Nor are we talking about whether Khan is a "bigtime Clinton supporter". Not my business and I don't care. We're not talking about who anybody votes for or who anybody should vote for.
What you're doing is ignoring the context that plainly spells out that Khan spoke IN REACTION TO already-established bigoted blanket rhetoric spewed repeatedly by Donald Rump, and you tried to sell this bullshit story that Khan started it.
Well he didn't, and I called you on it. And if you do it again -- so will I. Because it's dishonest.
I actually DID address you, and directly. We are reading the context differently. There isn't any point arguing with a closed minded control freak like you. You are a real charmer, kiddo.He is an ANTAGONIST. So are either of us. What are we arguing about?I'm not running away. I'm right here. And you are pretending to be outraged as well as ignored. I answered your question, apparently that isn't well enough. What else can I do? Jump through a fiery hoop over a pit of alligators? Sorry.All of that is true, or most, but it still doesn't address my point, which was pointed directly at your post, which said, and I quote:
-- and you continue to run away from that once I called you on it. Just admit that that's what you're doing.
"Hiding behind his goldstar family status and Muslim religion to manipulate popular opinion."
You presented Khan as the antagonist. It's right there in your words. I pointed out that he was reacting in defense, and that Rump went first.
You can't admit that. You know it's true but can't admit you were wrong.
That's the end of it.
He's using his gold star and religious status to support Hillary Clinton. call me a little cynical, but Mr. Kahn isn't immune to scrutiny ( He is a bigtime Clinton supporter). I don't support nor will I ever vote for Trump.When I read about Clinton critics dying under mysterious circumstances,it makes me wonder WHO is the worse candidate here.
I don't actually give a flying shit who you think is the worse candidate. We're not even talking about that. Nor are we talking about whether Khan is a "bigtime Clinton supporter". Not my business and I don't care. We're not talking about who anybody votes for or who anybody should vote for.
What you're doing is ignoring the context that plainly spells out that Khan spoke IN REACTION TO already-established bigoted blanket rhetoric spewed repeatedly by Donald Rump, and you tried to sell this bullshit story that Khan started it.
Well he didn't, and I called you on it. And if you do it again -- so will I. Because it's dishonest.
To quote the wise old sage (you) "I don't give a shit".I actually DID address you, and directly. We are reading the context differently. There isn't any point arguing with a closed minded control freak like you. You are a real charmer, kiddo.He is an ANTAGONIST. So are either of us. What are we arguing about?I'm not running away. I'm right here. And you are pretending to be outraged as well as ignored. I answered your question, apparently that isn't well enough. What else can I do? Jump through a fiery hoop over a pit of alligators? Sorry.
You presented Khan as the antagonist. It's right there in your words. I pointed out that he was reacting in defense, and that Rump went first.
You can't admit that. You know it's true but can't admit you were wrong.
That's the end of it.
He's using his gold star and religious status to support Hillary Clinton. call me a little cynical, but Mr. Kahn isn't immune to scrutiny ( He is a bigtime Clinton supporter). I don't support nor will I ever vote for Trump.When I read about Clinton critics dying under mysterious circumstances,it makes me wonder WHO is the worse candidate here.
I don't actually give a flying shit who you think is the worse candidate. We're not even talking about that. Nor are we talking about whether Khan is a "bigtime Clinton supporter". Not my business and I don't care. We're not talking about who anybody votes for or who anybody should vote for.
What you're doing is ignoring the context that plainly spells out that Khan spoke IN REACTION TO already-established bigoted blanket rhetoric spewed repeatedly by Donald Rump, and you tried to sell this bullshit story that Khan started it.
Well he didn't, and I called you on it. And if you do it again -- so will I. Because it's dishonest.
I insist on honesty. If you find that uncharming -- oh well.
Huh? " Stop ingesting the, "You're just going to love this Muslim Springy thing we're doing worldwide." " Where are you getting this from?See, I see things quite differently. I understand that MOST of the Muslims desirous of immigrating to the US are NOT terrorists. I also understand that there is an element within that group that ARE terrorists (or potential terrorists). Therefore, I support placing a ban of immigrants from ANY area of the globe where we cannot properly vet said immigrants.Wow, just wow. I cannot believe you said that, oh wait, I can. To understand my disbelief, replace "Muslim" with the derogatory word of your choosing.Now, we need a non-Muslim lover in office
If you haven't made the Muslim connection between Obama and radical Islam, then...wow, just wow. You are the stupid they rely on. The very stupid that misunderstood that overthrowing our ally in Egypt, and putting a terrorist organization in it's place (that Egypt banned from office because they are terrorists) to throw that country into a civil war was a good idea.
1 million Muslims a year flooding our country for the next ten years is the goal. We'll be Egypt on steroids if we don't stop this. 550% is Hitlery's goal.
So, while you are convinced of their desire to melt into the pot, I see the only pots they are interested in are pressure cookers laden with projectiles.
And, no our "actions" in Egypt where not mis-understood by me. I, however, believe that interfering with foreign governments is ALWAYS a bad idea. The purpose is irrelevant.
Had we not intervened to defeat Germany, we would be Germany. And there would be no Jew alive. Then gypsies, then non-Lutherans..
You sight may be a little myopic. The more Muslims the more aggressive. It is not the rouge that dictates policy toward a host, it is the congregation. The more Muslim a country turns, the more violent it becomes. There is actually a breakdown of %'s that coincides with violence, that I believe was compiled by our government.
Google it and you'll find that the opposite of what you think is the case. Stop ingesting the, "You're just going to love this Muslim Springy thing we're doing worldwide." Look at the effects it is having instead. We don't have to guess whether this is a good idea or not. We have examples all over the world.
