Islamic Facist getting behind the new direction

I still cannot fathom the comedic accusations of being a left wing lib by our resident miscreant. He doesn't even know my personal voting record, or whom I even voted for.

 

David you have a problem with me removing your post then by all means take it up with Peter, I have been more than fair with you regarding a number of your posts were you have openly attacked me, not many mods that I know of would put up with that.

 

See my post above, referencing where I noticed you removed a post that was questionable and not appropriate in this forum about David. I believe you have demonstrated fairness, even if the main participants would disagree.

 

But David will argue that Clinton was somehow responsible, since the planning for said attack originated during the Clinton administration. I am surprised David hasn't brought up Al Gore being somehow part of the plot to make "Bushie, your doing a heck of a job" look bad early in his presidency.

 

There you go again...defending a couple of libs who haven't even been mentioned yet. You are in denial son.

 

Just basing my decision off your constant defense of Obama.

 

Definition time.

Can anyone give a real definition of the following terms (names) thrown out?
I ask this because this thread has become so silly. Hell, this forum for that matter.

1} Radical left wing lib
2} Conservative
3) Neo Con
4) Socialist
5) Communist

Now obviously we tend to hear these terms pretty much in the order that I have listed them. Not going to say I have the definitions as I don't believe there are to a great extent.

Have at it guys. I may jump back in on this one. Course maybe I won't.

 

You doofwad, if you even read my posts you would see I don't even like the guy enough to have voted for him. There was never any chance I would have voted for him. I just call it like it is. I am not some stand by my dipwad president even when he is the most unpopular president in the history of the United States kind of guy like you are.

 

Most of those particular terms are used by a mere one individual.

 

From reading these forums, this is what I have gathered...

1} Radical left wing lib

Anyone who doesn't blame Obama for all the ills of the world before he takes office.

2} Conservative

An extinct species of Republican politician.

3) Neo Con

A liberal who likes to invade other countries.

4) Socialist

Any Democrat with the exception of Obama.

5) Communist

Obama

 

Stujoe:

Great job of defining David's and others rants herein.

 

The Mumbai islamic terrorists took muhammad's words to heart:

"The Hour not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.' " (Bukhari 52:177)

You just can't make this stuff up...it is in the Koran, their holiest texts and worse of all...their actions (and lack of as so-called "peaceful" muslims turn their backs on "true" muslims and simply dismiss these crimes).

It is time for the world to take a stand against militant Islam...or those that follow Islam as outlined in their Koran and Islam's holiest texts. Let's for once try to examine why 95% of today's current wars and conflicts (too long to list) all have Islam at its core and why we must defend our way of life from a religion that is hell bent on making Islam the only religion on this Earth. I know, I know...it is not politically correct to bring up such matters, but when is the rest of the word going to say "Enough!".

Why is it we don't examine the actions and history of militant Islam. Why is it we allow apologists and appeasers of Islam to constantly tell us that Islam means "peace" when they forget to explain that Islam means "peace" only IF (and this is a huge "if") one submits and surrenders themselves to Islamic Law and doctrine. The writings and passages in Islam's holiest texts are clear. If you don't subscribe to living a life under Islamic Law and rules set forth in the Koran, then these apologists should be honest and say, "I am sorry, all bets are off."

Islamic apologists also contend that suicide is against Islam, but they again fail to tell us that martrydom is the ultimate act to acheive an immediate pass to Islamic paradise. Make no mistake, these terrorists are simply following the hundreds of texts and passages from Islam's most holiest writings, nothing more. Their actions speak louder than any words of people trying to tell us that Islam is about "peace". Why the media doesn't ask these obvious questions is beyond all logic and rational.

These facts can't be dismissed. They should be examined, questioned and understood. You may not like the findings and maybe, just maybe, the rest of the free world will finally standup and say, "Enough is enough!".

 

I don't know about David but the attacks on New York City was directly the fault of Madame Albright. She had Al Quada trapped in Yemen and let them escape for diplomatic purposes. She's a nut case. I wince every time I see her or hear her.

Ruben