I advocate killing off ISIS and Al Qaida including all their women and children (that they have radicalized), as Trump also says. I do not advocate killing all Muslims.Isn't killing them exactly what you are advocating?
Upvote
0
I advocate killing off ISIS and Al Qaida including all their women and children (that they have radicalized), as Trump also says. I do not advocate killing all Muslims.Isn't killing them exactly what you are advocating?
Muslims have been killing Christians since day one, for about 1500 years.Islam is a 1500 year old religion. Why did they only start killing Americans in the last couple decades?
Hard to say. I don't pretend to know how long the Battle of Ar Mageddon will last.Lock them up for how long, Interpreter?
Would you ever let them out, or would they eventually all die in your camps?
Hard to say. I don't pretend to know how long the Battle of Ar Mageddon will last.
Reading comprehension not your strong suit? Please demonstrate where i have threatened anyone.Anyone who would threaten to murder a fellow American for exercising their rights under the constitution to participate in our form of government would strike me as someone who does not love their country. Do you disagree? Do you feel that threatening to murder people who exercise their right to representative democracy guaranteed in our founding document is a patriotic act?
I advocate killing off ISIS and Al Qaida including all their women and children (that they have radicalized), as Trump also says. I do not advocate killing all Muslims.
Reading comprehension not your strong suit? Please demonstrate where i have threatened anyone.
i fear an even more painful 'lesson' will be given if anyone is foolish enough to attempt to interfere with the rights under the first 10 amendments.
i pray that this 'lesson' does not have to happen so that those responsible for attempting to subjugate the
American Peoples into bondage will not be put against a wall to 'pose for rifle fire' if they're fortunate, or something worse if they're not.
i see.If you are not threatening violence with "being put up against a wall and 'posing for rifle fire'" what exactly are you trying to convey?
i see.
What part of "i pray that this 'lesson' does not have to happen..." did you have trouble comprehending?
Keep on moving those goal posts Belk, perhaps you may even find defensible ground.The part where you think shooting people is an appropriate response for exercising their constitutional rights. I thought I made that clear?
Keep on moving those goal posts Belk, perhaps you may even find defensible ground.
First: You asked me "Why do you hate America?"
i ask you to: ...explain how you reached that conclusion from what you quoted.
Then: you accuse me of threatening to murder people.
Your first fall back: Note that you're still begging the question of whether i hate America.
i then ask you: "Please demonstrate where i have threatened anyone."
To which you reply: "If you are not threatening violence with "being put up against a wall and 'posing for rifle fire'" what exactly are you trying to convey?"
Which of course begs the question of whether or not i have threatened anyone.
Then i directly challenge your assertion: "What part of "i pray that this 'lesson' does not have to happen..." did you have trouble comprehending?"
And now you fall back again to claim that i think shooting people an appropriate response for blah, blah, blah...
So i ask you again, what in the language of that post stated that i thought any such thing?
i take it you'll have your next fall back position already prepared.
Which have failed to make your point.I am not moving any goal posts. I have simply given my responses to each of your questions and my position remains the same. Perhaps the difficulty is you are not understanding my responses?
No need. You would still be in error.Apparently you missed the part in that reply where I explained why I found your stance to be anti American and hence my comment. Would you like me to re-iterate or paraphrase it?
No, what you were in fact doing was trying to enforce your own ideas upon text that would not support it. That you misinterpreted is neither here nor there, the text does not support your contentions.I also asked in that post if you were not attempting to convey a threat of violence then what was it you were attempting to convey? It still looks like a threat of violence to me so perhaps you could enlighten me as to where I am in error?
Seem. That is of course to your own misinterpretation of the text that i wrote.And, again, that would be the part where you claim that those who are attempting to 'subjugate the American people' will get a painful lesson and might be lined up and shot. That you hope this lesson does not need to happen (ie that people do not mess with the first ten amendments) does not change the concept that you seem to view it as an appropriate response.
Consistently incorrect. As for my views you need simply look at the political affiliation that i have. Then go to the website for that party or Wikipedia and read it's statement concerning the use of force. i'll post it here for your convenience:As I said, I have been consistent throughout. But please, feel free to explain how I am wrong on your position. It certainly will not have been the first time I have been mistaken.
The Libertarian Party said:"I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals."
Which have failed to make your point.
No need. You would still be in error.
No, what you were in fact doing was trying to enforce your own ideas upon text that would not support it. That you misinterpreted is neither here nor there, the text does not support your contentions.
Seem. That is of course to your own misinterpretation of the text that i wrote.
Consistently incorrect.
As for my views you need simply look at the political affiliation that i have. Then go to the website for that party or Wikipedia and read it's statement concerning the use of force. i'll post it here for your convenience:
This pledge is a requirement for membership in the party. i strongly hold to this pledge, since as a Christian my yes means YES! and my no means NO!
That i tell you something such as what i posted is likely to happen, i DO NOT say it with any joy, but with the knowledge of how tyranny and tyrants usually end...it isn't pretty.
i'd like to think that such a thing could never happen in this country, but many things that i thought never possible have in fact happened. i simply, unlike those tyrants, don't believe that the American people will tolerate such things for much longer.
So the bottom line is that i meant what i wrote. That you chose to read something else into it is not my problem
and then the attorney general...
The world is getting completely nuts-
It seems that the only people to NOT get persecuted for their thoughts are atheist
I'm happy to see that Rand Paul, like Ted Cruz, is backing Trump in the big schism in the Republican Party. Paul and Cruz have pretty much said the same thing as Trump. Cruz says he will ban Muslim immigrants any nation where ISIS is present. Isn't that pretty much every Muslim nation on earth? Paul says Muslims should be banned from 34 Islamic nations and names them. Again pretty much every Muslim nation on earth. Yet it is only Trump who gets all the media attention.Which have failed to make your point.
No need. You would still be in error.
No, what you were in fact doing was trying to enforce your own ideas upon text that would not support it. That you misinterpreted is neither here nor there, the text does not support your contentions.
Seem. That is of course to your own misinterpretation of the text that i wrote.
Consistently incorrect. As for my views you need simply look at the political affiliation that i have. Then go to the website for that party or Wikipedia and read it's statement concerning the use of force. i'll post it here for your convenience:
This pledge is a requirement for membership in the party. i strongly hold to this pledge, since as a Christian my yes means YES! and my no means NO!
That i tell you something such as what i posted is likely to happen, i DO NOT say it with any joy, but with the knowledge of how tyranny and tyrants usually end...it isn't pretty.
i'd like to think that such a thing could never happen in this country, but many things that i thought never possible have in fact happened. i simply, unlike those tyrants, don't believe that the American people will tolerate such things for much longer.
So the bottom line is that i meant what i wrote. That you chose to read something else into it is not my problem.
I'm assuming she is Muslim, or Liberal. I'm starting to see Liberalism as a religion of it's self. They (most) worship idiocracy