Democratic Convention Live Thread

[The Kraken]

Its getting clear to me that Brooks is about to disappear again for 3-4 days

Let things cool down, hope people forgot all the stupid shit he posted, and then sneak back in another thread and begin arguin about something entirwly different

Thats his MO

[TheMoneyShot]

It's hard to convert these Dems to Republicans.

But I got this chick to switch.

Another vote for Trump in Michigan.

[JIBBBY]

^^ Good work Moneyshot!!! You da man!!!

[MoneyLineDawg]

Trump is starting to lose me guys....I don't understand the point to some of these comments lately as they aren't helping swing people on the fence over

The fact that Hillary is still down in many current polls should give you an idea how bad of a candidate she is

Even most Hillary voters don't really like her....just that people dislike Trump more.

[Russian Rocket]

Food for thought...

Debbie Wasserman Schultz was the head co-chair of Hillary's 2008 presidential run, (back when she lost the nomination to Obama).

The same Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who recently got let go for the leaked emails proving the committee was unethically favoring Clinton in this years preliminary race.

So, in order to lock down the nomination for 2016, Hillary would've needed to somehow put Debbie Wasserman Schultz in charge of the entire DNC and manipulate it from within. She knew that she would need the additional help after one failed Presidential run, and a 2-term Democrat President.

In order for this tricky scheme to work, the Clintons would have needed first to, not only get the current DNC chair at the time to step down, but also get them to recommend Debbie Wasserman Schultz for the replacement of this position.

Obviously, this was a big request!

To make this plan actually happen, the Clintons would have likely needed to promise a very powerful favor to that current DNC chair, and something much more prestigious than being head of the entire Democratic party.

So who was that person, the "current head of the Democratic National Committee"... and what could they possibly have offered in return for such a "favor"?

The previous chair of the DNC, and prior to Debbie Wasserman Schultz was...Tim Kaine.

Let that sink in for a moment ...

[packerd_00]

Trump is starting to lose me guys....I don't understand the point to some of these comments lately as they aren't helping swing people on the fence over

The fact that Hillary is still down in many current polls should give you an idea how bad of a candidate she is

Even most Hillary voters don't really like her....just that people dislike Trump more.

She's an old bag mate.

[jtoler]

Trump is starting to lose me guys....I don't understand the point to some of these comments lately as they aren't helping swing people on the fence over

The fact that Hillary is still down in many current polls should give you an idea how bad of a candidate she is

Even most Hillary voters don't really like her....just that people dislike Trump more.

I figured youd be the next turncoat, just a couple more Trump flops and youll be all the way there.

[ACoochy]

Trump is starting to lose me guys....I don't understand the point to some of these comments lately as they aren't helping swing people on the fence over

The fact that Hillary is still down in many current polls should give you an idea how bad of a candidate she is

Even most Hillary voters don't really like her....just that people dislike Trump more.

Welcome to well over 12 months ago Dawg....

Welcome to the side of less evil. Unfortunately given the choice thats about as good as things will get...

[The Giant]

It's hard to convert these Dems to Republicans.

But I got this chick to switch.

Another vote for Trump in Michigan.

Great work here, Money, but I hope the conversion price didn't cost you some form of cunnilingus.

[Dr.Gonzo]

[Dr.Gonzo]

[Dr.Gonzo]

Why does the left suddenly think Khan was a hero for dying in one of Americas imperialist oil wars against the Muslim world?

Is there any other reason than he isn't white?

[Dr.Gonzo]

I think a lot of it stems from Colonizing North Africa,that ended up being a big mistake in hindsight.

Interventionism is always a mistake but this is whig history.

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Two-cheers-for-colonialism-2799327.php

Two cheers for colonialism

Dinesh D'Souza
Published 4:00 am, Sunday, July 7, 2002

Colonialism has gotten a bad name in recent decades. Anti-colonialism was one of the dominant political currents of the 20th century, as dozens of European colonies in Asia and Africa became free. Today we are still living with the aftermath of colonialism.
Apologists for terrorism, including Osama Bin Laden, argue that terrorist acts are an understandable attempt on the part of subjugated non-Western peoples to lash out against their longtime Western oppressors. Activists at the World Conference on Racism, including the Rev. Jesse Jackson, have called for the West to pay reparations for slavery and colonialism to minorities and natives of the Third World.
These justifications of violence, and calls for monetary compensation, rely on a large body of scholarship that has been produced in the Western academy. This scholarship, which goes by the names of "anti-colonial studies," "postcolonial studies," or "subaltern studies," is now an intellectual school in itself, and it exercises a powerful influence on the humanities and social sciences. The leading Western figures include Edward Said, Gayatri Spivak, Walter Rodney and Samir Amin. The arguments of these Western scholars are supported by Third World intellectuals like Wole Soyinka, Chinweizu - who uses only one name, Ashis Nandy and, perhaps most influential of all, Frantz Fanon.
The assault against colonialism and its legacy has many dimensions, but at its core it is a theory of oppression that relies on three premises.
First, colonialism and imperialism are distinctively Western evils that were inflicted on the non-Western world. Second, as a consequence of colonialism, the West became rich and the colonies became impoverished; in short, the West succeeded at the expense of the colonies. Third, the descendants of colonialism are worse off than they would have been had colonialism never occurred.
In a widely used text, "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa," the Marxist scholar Walter Rodney blames European colonialism for "draining African wealth and making it impossible to develop more rapidly the resources of the continent." A similar note is struck by the African writer Chinweizu in his influential book "The West and the Rest of Us." Chinweizu offers the following explanation for African poverty: "White hordes have sallied forth from their Western homelands to assault, loot, occupy, rule and exploit the world. Even now the fury of their expansionist assault upon the rest of us has not abated."
In his classic work "The Wretched of the Earth," Fanon writes, "European opulence has been founded on slavery. The well-being and progress of Europe have been built up with the sweat and the dead bodies of Negroes, Arabs, Indians and the yellow races."
These notions are pervasive and emotionally appealing. By suggesting that the West became dominant because it is oppressive, they provide an explanation for Western global dominance without encouraging white racial arrogance. They relieve the Third World of blame for its wretchedness. Moreover, they imply politically egalitarian policy solutions: The West is in possession of the "stolen goods" of other cultures, and it has a moral and legal obligation to make some form of repayment.
I was raised to believe in such things, and among most Third World intellectuals they are articles of faith. The only problem is that they are not true.
There is nothing uniquely Western about colonialism. My native country of India, for example, was ruled by the British for more than two centuries, and many of my fellow Indians are still smarting about that. What they often forget, however, is that before the British came, the Indians were invaded and conquered by the Persians, by the Mongols, by the Turks, by Alexander the Great, by the Afghans and by the Arabs. Depending on how you count, the British were the eighth or ninth foreign power to invade India since ancient times. Indeed ancient India was itself settled by the Aryan people who came from the north and subjugated the dark-skinned indigenous people.
Those who identify colonialism and empire only with the West either have no sense of history, or they have forgotten about the Egyptian empire, the Persian empire, the Macedonian empire, the Islamic empire, the Mongol empire, the Chinese empire and the Aztec and Inca empires in the Americas. Shouldn't the Arabs be paying reparations for their destruction of the Byzantine and Persian empires? Come to think of it, shouldn't the Byzantine and Persian people also pay reparations to the descendants of the people they subjugated? And while we're at it, shouldn't the Muslims reimburse the Spaniards for their 700-year rule?
As the example of Islamic Spain suggests, the people of the West have participated in the game of conquest not only as the perpetrators, but also as the victims. Ancient Greece, for example, was conquered by Rome, and the Roman Empire itself was destroyed by invasions of Huns, Vandals, Lombards and Visigoths from northern Europe.
America, as we all know, was itself a colony of England before its war of independence; England, before that, was subdued and ruled by the Norman kings from France. Those of us living today are taking on a large project if we are going to settle upon a rule of social justice based upon figuring out whose ancestors did what to whom.
The West did not become rich and powerful through colonial oppression. It makes no sense to claim that the West grew rich and strong by conquering other countries and taking their stuff. How did the West manage to do this?
In the late Middle Ages, say the year 1500, the West was by no means the most affluent or most powerful civilization. Indeed the civilizations of China and of the Arab-Islamic world exceeded the West in wealth, in knowledge, in exploration, in learning and in military power. So how did the West gain so rapidly in economic, political, and military power that, by the 19th century, it was able to conquer virtually all the civilizations in the world? This question demands to be answered, and the oppression theorists have never provided an adequate explanation.
Moreover, the West could not have reached its current stage of wealth and influence by stealing from other cultures for the simple reason that there wasn't very much to take. "Oh yes there was," the retort often comes. "The Europeans stole the raw material to build their civilization. They took rubber from Malaya and cocoa from West Africa and tea from India." But as economic historian P.T. Bauer points out, before British rule, there were no rubber trees in Malaya, nor cocoa trees in West Africa, nor tea in India. The British brought the rubber tree to Malaya from South America. They brought tea to India from China. And they taught the Africans to grow cocoa, a crop the native people had previously never heard of.
None of this is to deny that when the colonialists could exploit native resources, they did. But this larceny cannot possibly account for the enormous gap in economic, political and military power that opened up between the West and the rest of the world.
What, then, is the source of that power? The reason the West became so affluent and dominant in the modern era is that it invented three institutions:
science, democracy and capitalism. All these institutions are based on universal impulses and aspirations, but those aspirations were given a unique expression in Western civilization.
Consider science. It is based on a shared human trait: the desire to know. People in every culture have tried to learn about the world. Thus the Chinese recorded the eclipses, the Mayans developed a calendar, the Hindus discovered the number zero and so on. But science requires experiments, laboratories, induction, verification, and what one scholar has termed "the invention of invention" - the scientific method, this is a Western institution. Similarly, tribal participation is universal, but democracy - involving free elections, peaceful transitions of power, separation of powers - is a Western idea.
Finally, the impulse to trade is universal, and there is nothing Western about the use of money, but capitalism based on property rights, contracts, courts to enforce them, and, ultimately, limited-liability corporations, stock exchanges, patents, insurance, double-entry book keeping - this ensemble of practices was developed in the West.
It is the dynamic interaction between these three Western institutions - science, democracy and capitalism - that has produced the great wealth, strength, and success of Western civilization. An example of this interaction is technology, which arises out of the marriage between science and capitalism.
Science provides the knowledge that leads to invention, and capitalism supplies the mechanism by which the invention is transmitted to the larger society, as well as the economic incentive for inventors to continue to make new things.
Now we can understand better why the West was able, between the 16th and the 19th century, to subdue the rest of the world and bend it to its will. Indian elephants and Zulu spears were no match for British jeeps and rifles. Colonialism and imperialism are not the cause of the West's success; they are the result of that success.
The wealth and power of European nations made them arrogant and stimulated their appetite for global conquest. Colonial possessions added to the prestige,
and to a much lesser degree to the wealth, of Europe. But the primary cause of Western affluence and power is internal - the institutions of science, democracy, and capitalism acting in concert.
Consequently it is simply wrong to maintain that the rest of the world is poor because the West is rich, or that the West grew rich off "stolen goods" from Asia, Africa and Latin America, because the West created its own wealth, and still does.
The descendants of colonialism are better off than they would have been had colonialism never happened. I would like to illustrate this point through a personal example. While I was a young boy growing up in India, I noticed that my grandfather, who had lived under British colonialism, was instinctively and habitually anti-white. He wasn't just against the English, he was generally against the white man. I realized that he had an anti-white animus that I did not share. This puzzled me: Why did he and I feel so differently?
Only years later, after a great deal of reflection and a fair amount of study, did the answer finally hit me. The reason for our difference of perception was that colonialism had been pretty bad for him, but pretty good for me. Another way to put it was that colonialism had injured those who lived under it, but paradoxically it proved beneficial to their descendants.
Much as it chagrins me to admit it - and much as it will outrage many Third World intellectuals for me to say it - my life would have been much worse had the British never ruled India.
How is this possible? Virtually everything that I am, what I do, and my deepest beliefs, all are the product of a world view that was brought to India by colonialism. I am a writer, and I write in English. My ability to do this, and to reach a broad market, is entirely thanks to the British.
My understanding of technology, which allows me, like so many Indians, to function successfully in the modern world, was entirely the product of a Western education that came to India as a result of the British. So also my beliefs in freedom of expression, in self-government, in equality of rights under the law and in the universal principle of human dignity - they are all the product of Western civilization.
I am not suggesting that it was the intention of the colonialists to give all these wonderful gifts to the Indians. Colonialism was not based on philanthropy: It was a form of conquest and rule. The English came to India to govern, and they were not primarily interested in the development of the natives, whom they viewed as picturesque savages. It is impossible to measure, or overlook, the pain and humiliation that was inflicted by the rulers over their long period of occupation. Understandably the Indians chafed under this yoke.
Toward the end of the British reign in India, Mahatma Gandhi was asked, "What do you think of Western civilization?" He replied, "I think it would be a good idea."
Despite their suspect motives and bad behavior, however, the British needed a certain amount of infrastructure in order to effectively govern India. So they built roads, shipping docks, railway tracks, irrigation systems and government buildings. Then the British realized that they needed courts of law to adjudicate disputes that went beyond local systems of dispensing justice. And so the English legal system was introduced, with all its procedural novelties, such as "innocent until proven guilty."
The English also had to educate the Indians, in order to communicate with them and to train them to be civil servants in the empire. Thus Indian children were exposed to Shakespeare, Dickens, Hobbes and Locke. They began to encounter words and ideas not in their ancestral culture: "liberty," "sovereignty," "rights" and so on.
This brings me to the greatest benefit that the British provided to the Indians: They taught them the language of freedom. Once again, it was not the objective of the English to encourage rebellion. But by exposing Indians to the ideas of the West, they did. The Indian leaders were the product of Western civilization. Gandhi studied in England and South Africa, Nehru was a product of Harrow and Cambridge. This exposure was not entirely to the good; Nehru, for example, who became India's first prime minister after independence,
was highly influenced by Fabian socialism through the teachings of Harold Laski. The result was that India had a mismanaged socialist economy for a generation.
But my broader point is that the champions of Indian independence acquired the principles and the language and even the strategies of liberation from the civilization of their oppressors. This was true not just of India but also of other Asian and African countries that broke free of the European yoke. My conclusion is that against their intentions, the colonialists brought things to India that have immeasurably enriched the lives of the descendants of colonialism.
It is doubtful that non-Western countries would have acquired these good things by themselves. It was the British who, applying a universal notion of human rights, in the early 19th century abolished the ancient Indian institution of sati - the custom of tossing widows on the funeral pyre of their dead husbands.
There is no reason to believe that the Indians, who had practiced sati for centuries, would have reached such a conclusion on their own. Imagine an African or Indian king encountering the works of Locke or Madison and saying, "You know, I think those fellows have a good point. I should relinquish my power and let my people decide whether they want me or someone else to rule." Somehow, I don't see this as likely.
Colonialism was the transmission belt that brought to Asia, Africa and South America the blessings of Western civilization. Many of those cultures continue to have serious problems of tyranny, tribal and religious conflict, poverty and underdevelopment, but this is not due to an excess of Western influence but to the fact that those countries are insufficiently Westernized.
Sub-Saharan Africa, which is probably in the worst position, has been described by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan as "a cocktail of disasters." But this is not because colonialism in Africa lasted so long but because it lasted a mere half-century. It was too short to permit Western institutions to take firm root.
Consequently, after their independence most African nations have retreated into a kind of tribal barbarism that can be remedied only with more Western influence, not less. Africa needs more Western capital, more technology, more rule of law and more individual freedom.
None of this is to say that colonialism by itself was a good thing, only that bad institutions sometimes produce good results. Colonialism, I freely acknowledge, was a harsh regime for those who lived under it. My grandfather would have a hard time giving even one cheer for colonialism. As for me, I cannot manage three, but I am quite willing to grant two. So here it is: Two cheers for colonialism! Maybe you will now see why I am not going to be sending an invoice for reparations to Tony Blair.

[Dr.Gonzo]

http://shoebat.com/2016/07/31/what-the-media-is-not-telling-you-about-the-muslim-who-attacked-donald-trump-he-is-a-muslim-brotherhood-agent-who-wants-to-advance-sharia-law-and-bring-muslims-into-the-united-states/

By Ted on July 31, 2016 in Featured, General

By Theodore Shoebat and Walid Shoebat
The Muslim who attacked Donald Trump, Khizr Muazzam Khan, is a Muslim Brotherhood agent, working to bring Muslims into the United States. After reading what we discovered so far, it becomes obvious that Khan wanted to ‘trump’ Trump’s Muslim immigration. But not so fast. Trump we have your back.
Khizr Muazzam Khan graduated in Punjab University Law College, as the New York Times confirms. and he specialized in International Trade Law in Saudi Arabia. An interest lawyer for Islamic oil companies Khan wrote a paper, called In Defense of OPEC to defend the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), an intergovernmental oil company consisting of mainly Islamic countries. Khan is a promoter of Islamic Sharia Law. Khan is also co-founder of the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law (Islamic Sharia).

Khan’s fascination with Islamic Sharia stems from his life in Saudi Arabia. During the eighties Khan wrote a paper titled Juristic Classification of Islamic [Sharia] Law. In it he elucidated on the system of Sharia law expressing his reverence for “The Sunnah [the works of Muhammad] — authentic tradition of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him).” A snapshot of his essay can be seen here:

At the bottom of the page, Khan shows his appreciation for an icon of the Muslim Brotherhood: “The contribution to this article of S. Ramadan’s writing is greatly acknowledged.” S. Ramadan is Said Ramadan, head of the Islamic Center in Geneva and a major icon of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Said Ramadan, Muslim Brotherhood agent

Ramadan was a writer who wrote material for the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia, an organization that has been promoting Islamic revivalism and indoctrination to recruit young people in Malaysia to jihadism. It is actually a Malaysian branch of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Ramadan wrote a book called, Islamic Law: Its Scope and Equity, and a version of it was published for the Malaysian Muslim Youth Movement (a branch of WAMY):

World Association of Muslim Youth (WAMY) was created through the collaboration of the Wahhabist and Muslim Brotherhood led by Said Ramadan who was the son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood including Ahmad Bahefzallah, the boss of Huma Abedin (Hillary Clinton’s aid) and her parents Mahmoud and Saleha Abedin. It was also financed by the wealthy Abdullah Omar Naseef, another boss of the Abedin family.
Said Ramadan, Khan’s source for his writing, was major leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, according to the Islamic scholar, Kemal A. Faruki. We took a snapshot of Faruki’s statement on Ramadan:

Khan wrote the paper in the eighties while he was in Saudi Arabia, the motherland of Wahhabism, which means that Khan clearly had a Wahabist connection. We took a snapshot of the text:

According to a recent report, Khan moved from Pakistan to the United Arab Emirates, a hotbed for the Muslim Brotherhood.
Khan currently runs a law firm in New York City called KM Khan Law Office. According to the website, the the law firm specializes in “immigration services.” Most likely Khan was working to bring Muslims into the country.

To understand the inception of Muslim immigration one must study the Muslim Minority Affairs, a paradigm created by Saudi jurisprudence which sparked during the times Khan lived in Saudi Arabia while collaborating with the Saudi kingdom.
It is likely that Khan is a Muslim plant working with the Hillary Clinton campaign, probably for the interest of Muslim oil companies as well as Muslim immigration into the U.S.
Intelius reveals Khizr M. Khan used to work for Hogan & Hartson and Lovells, which has ties to the Clinton Foundation:

“Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm hired by the Saudis, is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show. Robert Kyle, a lobbyist from the firm, has bundled $50,850 for Clinton’s campaign”
“Many lawyers at Hogan Lovells remember the week in 2004 when U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan lost his life to a suicide bomber. Then-Hogan & Hartson attorneys mourned the death because the soldier’s father, Khizr Khan, a Muslim American immigrant, was among their beloved colleagues”

Saudi interests with using Khan to advance Muslim immigration and advance Muslim Sharia is a lengthy subject. And it has ties to Hillary Clinton’s aid Huma Abedin as well. It will take hours of reading just to cover this topic on how it was The House of Saud’s “Muslim Minority Affairs” and the Abedins (Huma Abedin and family) that played a central role in using Muslim immigration to infiltrate the west with Wahhbi agenda. The House of Saud had used Huma’s father Sayed Zaynul Abedin’s work regarding the Muslim Minority Affairs in the West, published in 1998 as part of 29 works to construct a plan to conquer the U.S. with Islam. It is obvious that Khan is upset, that a Trump victory will eliminate and destroy decades of hard work to bring in Islamic immigration into the United States which was spearheaded by agents in Saudi Arabia like Khan and Huma Abedin’a father (Sayed Z. Abedin).


You can study this here which includes links, evidences, photocopies, history … everything
In regards to his son, many were the ‘Muslim martyrs’ who joined the US military. Ali Abdul Saoud Mohamed, for example, enlisted in the Special Forces of the US Army; he was a double working for the US and Al-Qaeda. There is also the example of Hasan K Akbar, a Muslim American soldier who murdered and injured fifteen soldiers. There was Bowe Bergdahl, an American Muslim soldier who deserted his men to join the Taliban, a desertion which led to six American being ambushed and killed while they were on the search looking for him. And of course the example Nidal Malik Hassan, who murdered fourteen Americans in cold blood in Fort Hood. What about Taha Jaber Al-Alwani, a major Muslim thinker for the Muslim Minority Affairs who called on arming Muslims to fight America? An IMMA (Institute of Muslims Minority Affairs) favorite, Taha Jaber al-Alwani, whom the Abedins say is the source for their doctrine is an ardent anti-Semite who by the way, runs the United States Department of Defense program (out of all places) for training Muslim military chaplains in the U.S. military. We translated some of his quotes on the issue of The Muslim Minority Affairs:

“… it [MMA, Muslim Minority Affairs] is a Jurisprudence for a group confned to its special circumstances which is allowed what others are not. Its exercise needs an understanding of social sciences, especially sociology, economics, political science and international relations… for the fundamentals of success for the Muslim Minority Jurisprudence it must adhere to the collective earth concept.” [link from Arabic here]

Alwani, a man commissioned by our government, even calls for a soon-to-be military conquest and provides an offcial fatwa in preparation for the use of force:

“Commitment to the Quranic concept of Geography: The land belongs to Allah, his religion is Islam, and every country is already in the House of Islam—now in the present time—since they will be in the House of Islam by force in the near future. The whole of humanity is a Muslim Nation: it is either ‘the religion of the nation’ which has embraced this religion [Islam], or a ‘proselyte nation’ we are obliged to conquer.” (Alwani, The Jurisprudence of Muslim Minority Affairs. No. 7, translated from Arabic by Shoebat.com)

What part of “they will be in the House of Islam by force in the near future” don’t these democrats understand? More dead Americans?

[Dr.Gonzo]

Turns out Mr. Khan is reportedly a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Another media hoax - like "clock boy."

[grease lightnin]

They arebringing up one case from 12 years ago because that's the only one who would do the political bait.

Really? The only one, huh? How do you know that?

Look it's like this...of course not all Muslims are terrorists ...trump has said this and I have and many others....we fight and assist Muslims down range...it's about the bad ones...and that's all the common sense has been regarding stopping the refugees for now until it's worked out. Nobody is saying go round up all Muslims in the US and do them as was done to the Japanese....simply this...acknowledge where the threats are from and deal with them.

Wrong. On Dec 7th, Trump said he wanted a ban on all Muslims entering the US.

What you are suggesting is basically what is already in place. The process for refugees to enter the US is a very long and rigorous process and we have had very few problems.

The point is this (Joe Biden said it best in his speech at the DNC): if we alienate the young Muslims in our country, they will become easily radicalized and we will play right into ISIS's hand, and the problem will get worse.

[Dr.Gonzo]

The point is this (Joe Biden said it best in his speech at the DNC): if we alienate the young Muslims in our country, they will become easily radicalized and we will play right into ISIS's hand, and the problem will get worse.

[Dr.Gonzo]

The point is this (Joe Biden said it best in his speech at the DNC): if we alienate the young Muslims in our country, they will become easily radicalized and we will play right into ISIS's hand, and the problem will get worse.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-refugees.html

ISIS plotting Trojan Horse campaign by smuggling militants into western Europe disguised as refugees

[grease lightnin]

Turns out Mr. Khan is reportedly a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Another media hoax - like "clock boy."

What you posted only proved one thing... and that is that Khan, a Muslim lawyer, once lived in Saudi Arabia and wrote an article on Islamic law in the 1980's in which he cited another Muslim lawyer's works on Islamic law. And this lawyer he cited in an article he wrote over 30 yrs ago, was in a Muslim organization in Malaysia that is connected with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Garbage. You are smarter than that.

[grease lightnin]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-refugees.html

ISIS plotting Trojan Horse campaign by smuggling militants into western Europe disguised as refugees

What's your point? That article doesn't even mention the US

[Dr.Gonzo]

What you posted only proved one thing... and that is that Khan, a Muslim lawyer, once lived in Saudi Arabia and wrote an article on Islamic law in the 1980's in which he cited another Muslim lawyer's works on Islamic law. And this lawyer he cited in an article he wrote over 30 yrs ago, was in a Muslim organization in Malaysia that is connected with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Garbage. You are smarter than that.

You're a useful idiot.

[grease lightnin]

I didn't say we shouldn't criticize it.

I said we shouldn't ban ALL Muslims.

Is it really that hard for you to understand?

[grease lightnin]

You're a useful idiot.

Well, I guess I won again.

[Dr.Gonzo]

I didn't say we shouldn't criticize it.

I said we shouldn't ban ALL Muslims.

Is it really that hard for you to understand?

You thought it was a great point to assert that hurting a Muslims feeling causes them to be a terrorist.

No, it was a ridiculous argument. The best thing for American Muslims would be a temporary halt in immigration so radicals can be kept out of the population. Importing Islamist's preaching radicalism will inspire more radicals.

[grease lightnin]

It's funny. All you Trumpers are the same people who were shouting about Constitutionalism a few years ago. Now you're a little scared so you're ready to tear it up.

I bet you even quoted, who was it? Jefferson? ...who said something like, "anyone who gives up their freedom in return for their safety will likely have neither."

Something like that.

[grease lightnin]

You thought it was a great point to assert that hurting a Muslims feeling causes them to be a terrorist.

No, it was a ridiculous argument. The best thing for American Muslims would be a temporary halt in immigration so radicals can be kept out of the population. Importing Islamist's preaching radicalism will inspire more radicals.

Ever heard of the internet? I really thought you were smarter than this. You have flashes now and then, but you are really being a dumbfukk right now.

[Dr.Gonzo]

It's funny. All you Trumpers are the same people who were shouting about Constitutionalism a few years ago. Now you're a little scared so you're ready to tear it up.

I bet you even quoted, who was it? Jefferson? ...who said something like, "anyone who gives up their freedom in return for their safety will likely have neither."

Something like that.

One of the first acts past was a naturalization act restricted to white men.

Don't preach to me about America.

[Dr.Gonzo]

Ever heard of the internet? I really thought you were smarter than this. You have flashes now and then, but you are really being a dumbfukk right now.

You're asserting there is no difference between a personal relationship and browsing the internet, which is nonsense.

[grease lightnin]

One of the first acts past was a naturalization act restricted to white men.

Don't preach to me about America.

Wow. What are you a Nazi or something?

It is widely agreed upon that our treatment of non-whites was contradictory to our Constitution. Lincoln wrote extensively on it.

[ACoochy]

Garbage. You are smarter than that.

No, he really isn't...

Guy is mentally unhinged. Probably on a watch list no doubt due to his extreme views...

Batshit crazy...

[grease lightnin]

You're asserting there is no difference between a personal relationship and browsing the internet, which is nonsense.

Yeah, that is why your boy Trump wants to shut down the internet, because it isn't the main tool ised to radicalize Muslim youth.

[Dr.Gonzo]

http://conservativepost.com/thomas-jeffersons-response-to-muslims-in-1801-is-more-important-today-than-ever/

Thomas Jefferson’s response to Muslims in 1801 is more important today than ever. America’s first war with Islamic terrorists should be remembered.
From Wikipedia:
The First Barbary War (1801–1805) also known as the Tripolitan War or the Barbary Coast War, was the first of two wars fought between the United States and the Northwest African Berber Muslim states known collectively as the Barbary States. These were the Ottoman provinces of Tripoli, Algiers, and Tunis, which were enjoying a large autonomy, as well as the independent Sultanate of Morocco. The war was fought because U.S. President Thomas Jefferson refused to pay the high tributes demanded by the Barbary states and because they were seizing American merchant ships and enslaving the crews for high ransoms. It was the first declared war the United States fought on foreign land and seas.
From Downtrend:
In 1786, Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Great Britain. They asked this ‘diplomat’ by what right his nation attacked American ships and enslaved her citizens and why the Muslims held such hostility toward this new nation, with which neither Tripoli nor any of the other Barbary Coast nations had any previous contact. The answer was quite revealing. Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja (the ambassador) replied that Islam:
“Was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
That is indeed quite revealing. Yet, America continued paying ransoms to these terrorists for the next fifteen years or so. Until Jefferson became President. Then, the Pasha (leader) of Tripoli sent a demand to the new leader for an immediate payment of $225,000 and $25,000 per year on an ongoing basis. Jefferson flatly refused, leading the Pasha to cut down the flagpole of the American consulate and declaring war on the United States. The rest of the terrorist states followed suit.
Jefferson had formerly been against raising a navy, but this soon changed as he was determined to meet force with force. A squadron of vessels was sent to the area and Congress authorized Jefferson to have the US ships seize all vessels and goods that belonged to the Pasha and anything else deemed necessary. As they saw the US was actually committed to the fight, Algiers and Tunis quickly abandoned the war and allegiance to Tripoli. Obviously, the US won the war. In fact, this was the reason why the line “to the shores of Tripoli” was added to the Marine Corps hymn.

[itchypickle]

Really? The only one, huh? How do you know that?




Wrong. On Dec 7th, Trump said he wanted a ban on all Muslims entering the US.

What you are suggesting is basically what is already in place. The process for refugees to enter the US is a very long and rigorous process and we have had very few problems.

The point is this (Joe Biden said it best in his speech at the DNC): if we alienate the young Muslims in our country, they will become easily radicalized and we will play right into ISIS's hand, and the problem will get worse.

You need to get out and meet real people and not political straw men on this topic man...all I can say. Yes Trump three that out at a stump speech much like Hillary and Bernie say we can all have free college and Obama said we'd all have free health care and keep doctors ..but when talking about it more focused he's said the ban on ones coming from the areas of war. And no...the refugee program appearance of the govt knowing all is not as they say. They've admitted as much when asked. This is because of lack of records like we keep in the US and fraudulent papers.

Biden doesn't have a clue obviously then about the tons of young Muslims in America who get radicalized in prison...and the ones who come here already radicalized but blend in and wait. As I said before...of course not all Muslims are bad that's an ignorant statement...but you have to address the ones that are and not appease it.

[Dr.Gonzo]

Yeah, that is why your boy Trump wants to shut down the internet, because it isn't the main tool ised to radicalize Muslim youth.

Trump's wrong when it comes to censorship of the internet but ISIS and terrorist recruiting on social media need to be combated.

They should be shut down immediately by a provocative task force.

[Dr.Gonzo]

Wow. What are you a Nazi or something?

It is widely agreed upon that our treatment of non-whites was contradictory to our Constitution. Lincoln wrote extensively on it.

Lincoln never envisioned blacks assimilating into America, read his thoughts.

America was founded by white, predominantly Christian men, and the constitution was supposed to protect their way of life and shared values.

Any argument that tries to use the founders thoughts as a means to support the increased Islamization of America is fundamentally dishonest, that is why I mentioned it.

Make an honest case, don't appeal to bullshit.