Multiculturing Interculters Cross Cultures
- Thread starter Annie
- Start date
That certainly didn't occur to me. The comment however was in reference to specifically white people in Louisiana that another member brought up.
Do you think it only applies to white people?
Okay, I know that Shogun is not about to get into the realm of facts, because he knows he'll lose his money.
So, once again, let me repeat the argument:
Foxfyre and I and other conservatives -- but not all conservatives! -- believe that there is ample cause to be uneasy about the growth of the Muslim population in Europe, given the illiberal nature of that religion, and the actual facts about the continuing devotion to that religion of many European Muslims.
We do not go further than that. Unease. As opposed to idiot-optimism, or liberal cultural cringe.
Many other conservatives do go further, by the way, and assume an eternal, automatic, fundamental hostility between Islam and the West. I believe they are wrong, and ahistorical.
Those who are interested can consult the books of [ame=http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/103-9655811-7155832?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Robert+Spencer&Go.x=11&Go.y=10&Go=Go] Robert Spencer[/ame]. If anyone is interested, I have a set of links to debates about Spencer's theis, and critical responses to it by various conservatives.
But this thread is about the no-problem-here foolishness. Before we look at the facts, it might be worthwhile to consider why some (not all!) liberals are burying their heads in the sand. I quote something I wrote elsewhere:
In the 1930s, there was a certain kind of liberal who visited the Soviet Union and came back full of praise for the "socialist experiment".
These people were not Communists, or necessarily even fellow-travellers of the Communist Party. They were genuine liberals, who believed that capitalism at home could be reformed. But they were also deeply naive. Generally good, kind, honest people themselves, they tended to believe that everyone else -- with, perhaps, the exception of conservatives -- was also honest and kind.
They visited the USSR, were shown some Potemkin villages, introduced to some regime stooges, and swallowed the Great Lie hook, line and sinker.
We saw the same phenomenon in the 1960s and 70s and 80s, with each new Communist regime. Even people supposedly committed to "non-violence", like the leaders of the Quaker-backed American Friends Service Committee, became enthusiasts for the new regimes of firing squads and slave labor camps.
An unkind but accurate term for this sort of person was, and is, "useful idiot" (after a phrase supposedly uttered by Lenin, although I doubt the veracity of the attribution).
A similar sort of person exists among liberals today.
Perhaps in reaction to the stupid attempt by some conservatives to paint all Muslims, and Islam itself (a meaningless abstraction) as the Enemy, this person whitewashes the Islamic movement. Since heinous acts of terrorism by thousands of Muslims cannot be denied, the modern-day "useful idiot" assimilates Muslim terrorists to the tiny handful of Christian or atheist terrorists. There are indeed self-professed Christians who shoot doctors who perform abortions, or bomb abortion clinics. There have probably been, and are, several dozen such people, in a nation of 300 million. The useful idiot draws an equals sign between them, and the far larger set of Muslims who carry out, or aid, or actively approve of, indiscriminate bombings of market places, churches, parades, night clubs.
There is nothing to be done to change the mind of such a person. His or her belief is not based on fact, but is a religious committment. No amount of contrary evidence will alter their reflexive attempt to claim moral equivalency between Christian fundamentalists and Muslim fundamentalists -- although they often reveal a strong sympathy for the latter's motivations. Just as Christian terrorists are a tiny minority, abhorred by the overwhelming majority of Christians, so, the Useful Idiot claims, are Muslim terrorists similarly regarded by Muslims. Sadly, the truth is not so nice.
Useful Idiots should stop reading this post now.
As part of its program to commit social and national suicide, the British elite opened their borders some decades ago to mass Third World immigration, including Muslims. Some have completely assimilated to secular British culture. Many have not, including many young Muslims born in the UK. After all, the British chattering classes despise their own country -- why should anyone else respect it?
However, officially, we are all supposed to be tolerant here. So even the fundamentalist Muslims, who hate much of Western culture, have learned to tell the Useful Idiots what they want to hear. But what is preached behind the closed doors of mosques in the West may be very different than the feel-good waffle uttered for the benefit of the terminally naive.
A few months ago, one of our TV channels commissioned an investigative report into what was actually being preached in many mosques. The results were shocking. The Establishment was embarrassed -- the police demanded to see the parts of the film which were not used, ostensibly to see if any of the Islamic firebrands were breaking the law. Then they said that the program had distorted the views of the fundamentalists, which was an outright lie.
The program maker, whose program was vetted by an independent commission for bias, is now threatening to sue the police.
So the police, who should be protecting us from Islamic terror-preachers, are now so much in the grip of Political Correctness that they try to suppress those who tell the truth about it.
All you need to know about the reaction of liberals to this latest threat to our civilization is summed up by a phrase from James Burnham: liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide.
Enough for now.
Coming next: some videos showing how Mosques in Britain which claim to be tolerant are, in fact, centers of hate. The "tolerance" stuff is just for the Useful Idiots -- step forward Shogun and Midcan -- for the Mosque's actual adherants, a quite different message is preached. As we shall see. And then on to some factual data about the effect of this preaching.
So, once again, let me repeat the argument:
Foxfyre and I and other conservatives -- but not all conservatives! -- believe that there is ample cause to be uneasy about the growth of the Muslim population in Europe, given the illiberal nature of that religion, and the actual facts about the continuing devotion to that religion of many European Muslims.
We do not go further than that. Unease. As opposed to idiot-optimism, or liberal cultural cringe.
Many other conservatives do go further, by the way, and assume an eternal, automatic, fundamental hostility between Islam and the West. I believe they are wrong, and ahistorical.
Those who are interested can consult the books of [ame=http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/103-9655811-7155832?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Robert+Spencer&Go.x=11&Go.y=10&Go=Go] Robert Spencer[/ame]. If anyone is interested, I have a set of links to debates about Spencer's theis, and critical responses to it by various conservatives.
But this thread is about the no-problem-here foolishness. Before we look at the facts, it might be worthwhile to consider why some (not all!) liberals are burying their heads in the sand. I quote something I wrote elsewhere:
In the 1930s, there was a certain kind of liberal who visited the Soviet Union and came back full of praise for the "socialist experiment".
These people were not Communists, or necessarily even fellow-travellers of the Communist Party. They were genuine liberals, who believed that capitalism at home could be reformed. But they were also deeply naive. Generally good, kind, honest people themselves, they tended to believe that everyone else -- with, perhaps, the exception of conservatives -- was also honest and kind.
They visited the USSR, were shown some Potemkin villages, introduced to some regime stooges, and swallowed the Great Lie hook, line and sinker.
We saw the same phenomenon in the 1960s and 70s and 80s, with each new Communist regime. Even people supposedly committed to "non-violence", like the leaders of the Quaker-backed American Friends Service Committee, became enthusiasts for the new regimes of firing squads and slave labor camps.
An unkind but accurate term for this sort of person was, and is, "useful idiot" (after a phrase supposedly uttered by Lenin, although I doubt the veracity of the attribution).
A similar sort of person exists among liberals today.
Perhaps in reaction to the stupid attempt by some conservatives to paint all Muslims, and Islam itself (a meaningless abstraction) as the Enemy, this person whitewashes the Islamic movement. Since heinous acts of terrorism by thousands of Muslims cannot be denied, the modern-day "useful idiot" assimilates Muslim terrorists to the tiny handful of Christian or atheist terrorists. There are indeed self-professed Christians who shoot doctors who perform abortions, or bomb abortion clinics. There have probably been, and are, several dozen such people, in a nation of 300 million. The useful idiot draws an equals sign between them, and the far larger set of Muslims who carry out, or aid, or actively approve of, indiscriminate bombings of market places, churches, parades, night clubs.
There is nothing to be done to change the mind of such a person. His or her belief is not based on fact, but is a religious committment. No amount of contrary evidence will alter their reflexive attempt to claim moral equivalency between Christian fundamentalists and Muslim fundamentalists -- although they often reveal a strong sympathy for the latter's motivations. Just as Christian terrorists are a tiny minority, abhorred by the overwhelming majority of Christians, so, the Useful Idiot claims, are Muslim terrorists similarly regarded by Muslims. Sadly, the truth is not so nice.
Useful Idiots should stop reading this post now.
As part of its program to commit social and national suicide, the British elite opened their borders some decades ago to mass Third World immigration, including Muslims. Some have completely assimilated to secular British culture. Many have not, including many young Muslims born in the UK. After all, the British chattering classes despise their own country -- why should anyone else respect it?
However, officially, we are all supposed to be tolerant here. So even the fundamentalist Muslims, who hate much of Western culture, have learned to tell the Useful Idiots what they want to hear. But what is preached behind the closed doors of mosques in the West may be very different than the feel-good waffle uttered for the benefit of the terminally naive.
A few months ago, one of our TV channels commissioned an investigative report into what was actually being preached in many mosques. The results were shocking. The Establishment was embarrassed -- the police demanded to see the parts of the film which were not used, ostensibly to see if any of the Islamic firebrands were breaking the law. Then they said that the program had distorted the views of the fundamentalists, which was an outright lie.
The program maker, whose program was vetted by an independent commission for bias, is now threatening to sue the police.
So the police, who should be protecting us from Islamic terror-preachers, are now so much in the grip of Political Correctness that they try to suppress those who tell the truth about it.
All you need to know about the reaction of liberals to this latest threat to our civilization is summed up by a phrase from James Burnham: liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide.
Enough for now.
Coming next: some videos showing how Mosques in Britain which claim to be tolerant are, in fact, centers of hate. The "tolerance" stuff is just for the Useful Idiots -- step forward Shogun and Midcan -- for the Mosque's actual adherants, a quite different message is preached. As we shall see. And then on to some factual data about the effect of this preaching.
William Joyce
Chemotherapy for PC
This makes no sense. Whites have "evolved" into non-racists... through a process of "unrelenting" condemnation?
This is only half-right. The pressure from anti-whites was indeed unrelenting, and backed up by deadly force, among other things. Whites didn't so much as "accept" diversity as have it shoved down their throats. But natural human feelings on race don't ever go away, they just become very deeply internalized. They spring out with a vengeance when the artificial dams break.
I seriously doubt your coupling of the Jindal/Duke voting patterns. As intense support for Ron Paul shows, white nationalists are not exactly gone from the scene, and could be mounting a stiffer resistance. For what it's worth, Indians have to be the least objectionable non-white race going, including Japanese.
Well, for nearly a century, Southern whites could pretty much do as they pleased with Blacks. And from time to time it pleased them to hang Blacks from trees, burn them alive, cut off bits of their bodies and pass them around as souvenirs to the grinning crowds, which did not feel any shame, much less fear of legal retribution, about being photographed taking part in the fun.
Thus did they demonstrate the superiority of white civilization and the rule of law.
They don't do that any more, and I think that's a very good thing.
I was being a bit ironic about Southern whites being susceptible to liberal opinion. It did indeed take the 82nd Airborne, the threat of loss of Northern investment, and some pretty rough play by the FBI, to begin to force these animals to act like civilized people. (Some of my favorite episodes: the FBI used informers to entrap further informers within the Klan; they found out about an attempt to bomb the home of a Jew in Mississippi and set up an ambush and shot the would-be bombers dead on the spot, no reading them their rights. Breaks my heart. And -- according to one report I read -- they used a genuine gangster they controlled to discover where the bodies of Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner were -- he kidnapped a Klansman, tied him to a chair, and shoved a cocked .38 down his throat, and it worked. And I don't recall the ACLU, or any of the other types who are now so solicitous about the rights of terrorists, weeping over these terrible violations of civil liberties at the time, either.)
And it has worked, pretty much. One of my least fond memories is being chased by drunken racists in a pickup truck down a dark Tennessee road in the summer of 1964, where I was doing voter registration work. And one of my nicest memories is driving through Mississippi a few years ago with my English wife, and seeing little Black and white kids playing soccer together -- she couldn't understand my emotional reaction to that scene, even when I explained, later, that people had died so that that could happen.
As with the Islamists and Muslims today, the majority of Southern whites were not slavering murderers, any more than the majority of Gemans were fanatical Nazis ... they just went along with the ones who were, partly out of social pressure, partly out of fear. When the preponderance of force and fear, as represented by the 82nd Airborne and the FBI, shifted to the side of decency, their decency won out over their depravity, and the mask grew into the face.
Which is pretty much the story of the progress of civilization: we slowly build institutions (whose core is naked violence) which allow our innate decency to win out over our innate depravity. Along the way we have to entice, and coerce and even kill people who resist this. This is how we will make the Muslims into modern men.
Of course, people prefer other people who look and act like them. "The Stranger at My Gate", and all that. And not all ethnic groups are equal when it comes to how much of the desirable human qualities they have, as compared to the less desirable qualities, and it is conceivable that some of this uneven distribution is encoded in the genes.
If I had my druthers, I would druther live in a country inhabited mainly by Chinese Jews -- hard-working and smart (plus a few dozen single women of my own general ethnicity). But in the real world, we have to play the cards we have been dealt. And world capitalism has been forcing the peoples together for the last few hundred years and doesn't look like stopping. We have to accept that and do the best we can with it.
Thus did they demonstrate the superiority of white civilization and the rule of law.
They don't do that any more, and I think that's a very good thing.
I was being a bit ironic about Southern whites being susceptible to liberal opinion. It did indeed take the 82nd Airborne, the threat of loss of Northern investment, and some pretty rough play by the FBI, to begin to force these animals to act like civilized people. (Some of my favorite episodes: the FBI used informers to entrap further informers within the Klan; they found out about an attempt to bomb the home of a Jew in Mississippi and set up an ambush and shot the would-be bombers dead on the spot, no reading them their rights. Breaks my heart. And -- according to one report I read -- they used a genuine gangster they controlled to discover where the bodies of Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner were -- he kidnapped a Klansman, tied him to a chair, and shoved a cocked .38 down his throat, and it worked. And I don't recall the ACLU, or any of the other types who are now so solicitous about the rights of terrorists, weeping over these terrible violations of civil liberties at the time, either.)
And it has worked, pretty much. One of my least fond memories is being chased by drunken racists in a pickup truck down a dark Tennessee road in the summer of 1964, where I was doing voter registration work. And one of my nicest memories is driving through Mississippi a few years ago with my English wife, and seeing little Black and white kids playing soccer together -- she couldn't understand my emotional reaction to that scene, even when I explained, later, that people had died so that that could happen.
As with the Islamists and Muslims today, the majority of Southern whites were not slavering murderers, any more than the majority of Gemans were fanatical Nazis ... they just went along with the ones who were, partly out of social pressure, partly out of fear. When the preponderance of force and fear, as represented by the 82nd Airborne and the FBI, shifted to the side of decency, their decency won out over their depravity, and the mask grew into the face.
Which is pretty much the story of the progress of civilization: we slowly build institutions (whose core is naked violence) which allow our innate decency to win out over our innate depravity. Along the way we have to entice, and coerce and even kill people who resist this. This is how we will make the Muslims into modern men.
Of course, people prefer other people who look and act like them. "The Stranger at My Gate", and all that. And not all ethnic groups are equal when it comes to how much of the desirable human qualities they have, as compared to the less desirable qualities, and it is conceivable that some of this uneven distribution is encoded in the genes.
If I had my druthers, I would druther live in a country inhabited mainly by Chinese Jews -- hard-working and smart (plus a few dozen single women of my own general ethnicity). But in the real world, we have to play the cards we have been dealt. And world capitalism has been forcing the peoples together for the last few hundred years and doesn't look like stopping. We have to accept that and do the best we can with it.
Shogun
Free: Mudholes Stomped
- Jan 8, 2007
- 30,530
- 2,267
- 1,045
not at all. I think it applies to PEOPLE regardless of their ethnicity of homeland as long as they are not disenfranchised from the common culture.
Shogun
Free: Mudholes Stomped
- Jan 8, 2007
- 30,530
- 2,267
- 1,045
And, DOUG....
I promise you that stepping into another one of your lame ass, long-winded town cryer routines on the claim that I don't like FACTS is a joke on yourself since, between the both of us, IM theone willing to post evidence to back up my posts.
You know, like slapping you silly with your own words that seem to make you scared like a quaking little girl with a big tear on her quivering lip every time I ask you to support your lame fucking accusation at liberal. I've been specific in my challenge to you. Please, continue to act like a little bitch though and avoid clarifying your ignorant fucking partisanship. It's probably not clear that you are a giant vaginafish trying real hard to flop off of the hook in your mouth.
and, I tellya, NOTHING SAYS FACT QUITE LIKE PARTISAN PROJECTIONS BASED ON AN IGNORANT INTERPRETATION OF A SINGLE SURVEY.
I promise you that stepping into another one of your lame ass, long-winded town cryer routines on the claim that I don't like FACTS is a joke on yourself since, between the both of us, IM theone willing to post evidence to back up my posts.
You know, like slapping you silly with your own words that seem to make you scared like a quaking little girl with a big tear on her quivering lip every time I ask you to support your lame fucking accusation at liberal. I've been specific in my challenge to you. Please, continue to act like a little bitch though and avoid clarifying your ignorant fucking partisanship. It's probably not clear that you are a giant vaginafish trying real hard to flop off of the hook in your mouth.
and, I tellya, NOTHING SAYS FACT QUITE LIKE PARTISAN PROJECTIONS BASED ON AN IGNORANT INTERPRETATION OF A SINGLE SURVEY.
Re: post #123
Doug, question for you, could those naive liberal communist visitors be anything like the conservatives visiting Iraq or Afghanistan today? You have to have more than one example of naivete to come to a solid conclusion about what is going to happen next. Consider that those Russian visitors were duped? So what. That is life, most people see what they look for not what is there. Did it matter? No. But again I am using your position to argue against your position.
Could unease about Muslim religious influence be similar to the 'head in the sand liberals' here who feel the same about American evangelical religious influence? I don't want the religious here dictating what I can do anymore than the Danes, Brits or French will want it there. You already see reactions from countries to force (encourage) a sort of public knowledge about the values of that country. That is why we need a free press and critical look at all social behaviors that can lead to violence or a loss of rights. Your argument is weak because it is speculative, Yogi said it best, the future isn't what it used to be.
Doug, question for you, could those naive liberal communist visitors be anything like the conservatives visiting Iraq or Afghanistan today? You have to have more than one example of naivete to come to a solid conclusion about what is going to happen next. Consider that those Russian visitors were duped? So what. That is life, most people see what they look for not what is there. Did it matter? No. But again I am using your position to argue against your position.
Could unease about Muslim religious influence be similar to the 'head in the sand liberals' here who feel the same about American evangelical religious influence? I don't want the religious here dictating what I can do anymore than the Danes, Brits or French will want it there. You already see reactions from countries to force (encourage) a sort of public knowledge about the values of that country. That is why we need a free press and critical look at all social behaviors that can lead to violence or a loss of rights. Your argument is weak because it is speculative, Yogi said it best, the future isn't what it used to be.
Shogun: The thing is, when you talk about my supposed claim that "liberals want Sharia law instituted" I don't know what to make of you.
Because ... either you believe what you have written. In which case, you are hopelessly incompetent and stupid. Or you don't. In which case, you are not worth arguing with, because you are dishonest. And I suspect that this is not a conclusion that is unique to me.
For the record ... just in case anyone is reading just the last few posts of this thread ... I have never, ever said, hinted, or implied that I believe liberals "want Sharia law instituted". That claim is just a flat lie.
And by the way, I do happen to know something about surveys and their reliability. Don't talk about things which are outside your range of knowledge.
Anyway, I still hold open my offer: I have made some specific claims about Muslim opinion in the UK. You have not answered them. I have even given you a chance to win some serious money from me. You have not taken it. I assume it's because you sense that I wouldn't make a bet that I was not absolutely sure I could win. And you would be right.
I also see that I have tended to elide you and MidCan together, which is a mistake. Although he is in error, I think he is an honest debater.
So I would like to re-pose my challenge to him.
I claim that a significantly large, worrying minority -- sometimes, on some issues, close to a majority -- of UK Muslims hold deeply illiberal views, stemming from their adherence to Islam, on issues relating to the values and norms of liberal democracy.
I quantified my argument in a previous post.
What do you (MidCan) think about this? (I assume no other liberal is reading this thread, or chooses to be involved in the argument.)
Because ... either you believe what you have written. In which case, you are hopelessly incompetent and stupid. Or you don't. In which case, you are not worth arguing with, because you are dishonest. And I suspect that this is not a conclusion that is unique to me.
For the record ... just in case anyone is reading just the last few posts of this thread ... I have never, ever said, hinted, or implied that I believe liberals "want Sharia law instituted". That claim is just a flat lie.
And by the way, I do happen to know something about surveys and their reliability. Don't talk about things which are outside your range of knowledge.
Anyway, I still hold open my offer: I have made some specific claims about Muslim opinion in the UK. You have not answered them. I have even given you a chance to win some serious money from me. You have not taken it. I assume it's because you sense that I wouldn't make a bet that I was not absolutely sure I could win. And you would be right.
I also see that I have tended to elide you and MidCan together, which is a mistake. Although he is in error, I think he is an honest debater.
So I would like to re-pose my challenge to him.
I claim that a significantly large, worrying minority -- sometimes, on some issues, close to a majority -- of UK Muslims hold deeply illiberal views, stemming from their adherence to Islam, on issues relating to the values and norms of liberal democracy.
I quantified my argument in a previous post.
What do you (MidCan) think about this? (I assume no other liberal is reading this thread, or chooses to be involved in the argument.)
While I don't know that to be true, I would probably agree. It is not outside the realm of the possible even in my rose colored world. Where we disagree is on what that eventually means. My crystal ball says while it may cause trouble, in a tolerant yet critical republic / democracy there are enough institutions and laws to transition the majority of Muslims into the modern world - just like Louisiana.
Shogun
Free: Mudholes Stomped
- Jan 8, 2007
- 30,530
- 2,267
- 1,045
Oh sure.. make this about me instead of providing support for your stupid fucking assumptions about liberals. Say, did you manage to dig up a single example of a liberal applauding the death of theo van gogh? no? Well, in that case youd better sidestep by calling me stupid or something.
Supposed claim my ass. I QUOTED YOUR OWN WORDS. Did I put the keyboard to your fingertips and make you write stupid shit? no? Then spare me your silly half assed diatribe that is meant to put more distance between you and actually providing evidecne for your stupid posts.
For the record ... just in case anyone is reading just the last few posts of this thread ... I have never, ever said, hinted, or implied that I believe liberals "want Sharia law instituted". That claim is just a flat lie.
*sigh* let's take a look at how evidence spoils your sock puppet facade.
post #69
I say liberals are indifferent to the growth of an immigrant population which itself, as a collective entity, is far from unanimously opposed to that law.
Furthermore, liberals -- or rather, the West-hating Politically Correct Thoughtpolicemen among them, who are numerous -- work in tandem with Islamists, by supporting Thoughtcrime prosecutions against people who raise doubts about the reality of multi-culturalism. More importantly, the liberal intelligentsia who run our educational and political systems are committed to multi-culturalism, which means the praise of every culture except the indigenous one.
post #59
Thus liberals try to ignore the growth of Islamic power in Europe, despite its deeply illiberal character, as we have seen in this thread.
post #67
But if we understand that liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide, then we will understand why it is usually futile to try to talk someone who is determined to kill themselves out of it. If only the liberals would offer their own soft white throats to the jihadis, and leave the non-suicidal part of the population to prepare our defense.
one more time
For the record ... just in case anyone is reading just the last few posts of this thread ... I have never, ever said, hinted, or implied that I believe liberals "want Sharia law instituted". That claim is just a flat lie.
yea, Doug.. we are only stupid enough to not be militant when muslims come in and do the exact same thing that every other ethnic population does during it's first and second generations after immigrating, eh? Hell, if a muslim inengland does what an orthodox jew does in New York it's gotta be evil because the popularity of the name mohammed indicates the application of sharia law over constitutional law, right?
Maybe if you were a little less quick to stumble over yourself to throw a punch at liberals then you wouldn't have dance around insinuating that liberals applaud sharia retribution like that of Theo Van Gogh. I sure would hate for you to examine these types of issues without your liberal hating shit goggles on.++
Outside MY range of knowledge? Obviously you don't put that shit to work if your sole piece of support is some lame fucking opinion poll whose validity is at best questionable. Indeed, spare me your little lecture, professor, on the accountability of surveys since IM not the one trying to use what amounts to a daily poll on billoreilly.com to indicate that a population of british muslims want to impose sharia law over common law. But, hey, if you had any other source you'd like to post to add to that single sad ass effort then feel free to do so.
I assure you, what you assume and what is reality are two seperate animals. You didn't ask a single question outside of proposing non-sequiters (post #69), More non-sequiters (post #90) to which I posted answers in post #99 (remember, right before you tried to run away like a scared little girl?), and an attempt to construct a straw man that would make the Wicker people jealous (post #104) not to mention doing the same strawman construction in post #67. Indeed, ask your question, Doug. I'll answer your question as long as it is not some transparent attempt like #67 was.
In return, maybe you can asnwer mine that you seem to be avoiding. Here, let me enumerate them for you.
1. Can you show evidence that liberals are willing to roll over for the application of sharia law any more than they do for christians?
2. Can you show me a single example of a liberal applauding violent retribution by muslims that breaks common law? If so, what common constitutional law was replaced by sharia law and who, exactly, allowed this to happen. Don't give me your standard "liberals did it" bullshit. give me names and specific examples of your accusations.
3. Can you show me the difference between the practice of legal sharia law among euro's muslim population and the practice of legal orthodox law among euro's jewish population.
4. What laws have you ever, personally, been forced to trade in for sharia law? How will a community of mulsims abding by their own LEGAL cultural standards affect you in any way? Further, How is the popularity of MOHAMMED any more or less a correlation with sharia law than the name Chin is with communism in China?
5. What Monty Python satyr-type of expression has been BANNED in the UK? Can you show me how the state forces you to observe and/or respect muslims and sharia law? Is state-driven prohibition of expression REALLY the same thing as a bunch of european pussies wrapping their wet noodle backbone around the scapegoat of ethnicity and culture?
PS, I really don't need your money, dude. I advise you to put it towards your oral hygiene fund... Maybe you can smile real wide when we are all chuckling at your "quantification" using a laughable survey as the sole source of your argument.
Shogun
Free: Mudholes Stomped
- Jan 8, 2007
- 30,530
- 2,267
- 1,045
hey, letting slaves off of the farm caused trouble for the status quo of the time. Thank god we let the constitution reign instead of goofy bastards with a bone to pick, eh? I tellya, those rabble rousing negros with their uppity idea that they shoul dbe allowed into college ina SOUTHER STATE. indeed, talk about trouble.
The fact remains, The constitution is the law. Not sharia law. Not some lame fucking liberal hating diatribe. Liberals will no more roll over for the application of islam than they will for the application of christian dogma. When Dougy suggests stupid shit like this using half assed surveys and non-sequites about monty python sketches he is showing that his weak ass opinion is not constructed from logic but by disdain and contempt for muslims. Hell, he got a nod from WJ. fucking congratulations, Doug!
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Trump Nominates A Witch Doctor To Be Surgeon General
- Started by Highlight
- Replies: 14
