Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #330042 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-31 22:00 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-11-02 13:37 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 160 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-31 22:00 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 06:21 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 09:09 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 17:03 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 10:12 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 17:32 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 10:36 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 17:42 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 10:57 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 18:05 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 11:27 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 18:48 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:12 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 19:20 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:24 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:54 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:54 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:38 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:26 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:36 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 19:42 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:29 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:37 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:55 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:30 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:42 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:06 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:36 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:24 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:42 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:08 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:31 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:22 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 19:39 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:40 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:43 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:09 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:38 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:57 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 14:09 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 07:15 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 10:40 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 08:09 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 12:27 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 10:31 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 12:49 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 11:22 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 11:30 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 10:52 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-02 19:02 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 12:06 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 11:16 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 14:50 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 13:44 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:41 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-02 17:43 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 18:39 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 07:51 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:15 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 10:48 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 10:50 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:54 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-02 23:10 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 00:17 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 18:44 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:30 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:57 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 20:47 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 21:50 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:44 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:55 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:41 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 14:46 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 13:49 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:56 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 13:27 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 13:06 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-03 07:42 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 06:55 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-04 23:28 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 15:53 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 19:55 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 09:19 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 12:20 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:38 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 10:56 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:42 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 15:51 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:12 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 00:31 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 19:37 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:46 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 18:50 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:36 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 00:55 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 01:08 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 01:45 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:09 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:30 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:45 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 03:07 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 03:54 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 05:24 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-03 04:30 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 07:45 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:01 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 17:52 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 19:31 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:51 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 09:02 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:25 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:55 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 20:49 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 21:54 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 03:03 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 03:35 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 04:42 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 17:46 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 19:26 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:29 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:35 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:48 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-03 12:03 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 15:21 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 15:53 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:14 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 17:28 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 18:34 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 18:53 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-03 13:02 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:08 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-03 13:41 -0600
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:36 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 08:49 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:20 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:17 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 09:24 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 12:30 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:36 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 19:36 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:49 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:09 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 16:24 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 19:55 -0600
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-03 07:13 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-03 13:02 -0600
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-02 19:53 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-11-02 15:21 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 13:40 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:46 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:51 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:38 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:59 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 10:27 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-02 18:31 +0100
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 12:48 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 11:18 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 13:38 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 11:13 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 13:37 -0500
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 13:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1aukp$mls$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330630 |
On 2015-11-03 12:17 PM, Snit wrote: > On 11/3/15, 6:29 AM, in article n1acn4$dti$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> On 2015-11-02 10:03 PM, owl wrote: >>> Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>> On 2015-11-02 9:03 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 11/2/15, 6:49 PM, in article n193ni$a62$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> But, again, even if true you have not shown ANYONE defending what you >>>>>>>>> claimed. Nobody is saying anyone has the right to rape or kill. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Read this <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Skimmed - did not see any such defense. Can you quote it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then this >>>>>>>> <http://sheikyermami.com/2011/04/the-rape-of-infidel-women-is-as-islamic >>>>>>>> -as- >>>>>>>> ko >>>>>>>> ran-sira-hadith/> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Skimmed - did not see any such defense. Can you quote it? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, was the wrong link for the second: >>>>>> <http://pamelageller.com/2011/12/fatwa-permits-muslim-soldiers-to-kidnap-i >>>>>> mpri >>>>>> son-and-rape-infidel-women.html/> >>>>> >>>>> Would love to see a reputable source to back this... but keep in mind US >>>>> soldiers rape their enemies, too. Not defending it in either case. >>>> >>>> Yep, if it disagrees with what your beloved mainstream media says, it's >>>> not reputable. I should have looked for CNN or some other >>>> corporate-owned and controlled news agency to support my statements. God >>>> knows that they're objective. >>>> >>>> As for the American military partaking in unethical activities; those >>>> who do are punished very severely by the people in charge. Nothing in >>>> the religion they follow nor in the policies of the nation they serve >>>> suggests that they have the right to do what they did. Islam, >>>> nevertheless, sees no problem with raping "infidel" females of any age. >>>> >>> >>> Probably more US soldiers killed these days because of strict "rules of >>> engagement" than because of any tactical screwup. Didn't I read recently >>> about some US troops getting reprimanded severely after beating up some >>> Afghan turd who repeatedly raped children after being warned against it. >>> I guess they violated some Jane Goodall rule -- or maybe it was Federation, >>> have to ask Jeb -- he's a Star Track expert. >> >> In the end, what we're seeing is that the world, for whatever reason, is >> sheltering Muslims and treating them like victims no matter whether they >> are or not. They rape in Sweden and either get no punishment or >> community service. They do the same thing in Austria where women are now >> buying rifles (the only weapon available) to defend themselves and we're >> calling them "islamophobic." They have a religion which allows and even >> encourages them to enslave, rape and exploit and the leftist idiots are >> still dumb enough to believe that it is the "religion of peace." They're >> not even worth debating with because the evidence AGAINST their beliefs >> is overwhelming. > > See how you feel when the same reasoning is applied to Christianity: > ----- > In the end, what we're seeing is that the world, for whatever > reason, is pandering to Christians and treating them like victims > no matter whether they are or not. They rape young boys and either > get no punishment or community service. Some priests do, and that is the result of an idiotic rule which dictates that monks must be celibate. Since becoming a monk was once considered an excellent way of escaping military duty, the church changed the rules in the hope of discouraging people from doing so. It's archaic and is not inspired by anything in the scripture. < snip baiting > -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 14:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1b2ur$a0u$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330693 |
On 2015-11-03 2:08 PM, Snit wrote: > On 11/3/15, 11:35 AM, in article n1aukp$mls$3@dont-email.me, "Slimer" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >>>> In the end, what we're seeing is that the world, for whatever reason, is >>>> sheltering Muslims and treating them like victims no matter whether they >>>> are or not. They rape in Sweden and either get no punishment or >>>> community service. They do the same thing in Austria where women are now >>>> buying rifles (the only weapon available) to defend themselves and we're >>>> calling them "islamophobic." They have a religion which allows and even >>>> encourages them to enslave, rape and exploit and the leftist idiots are >>>> still dumb enough to believe that it is the "religion of peace." They're >>>> not even worth debating with because the evidence AGAINST their beliefs >>>> is overwhelming. >>> >>> See how you feel when the same reasoning is applied to Christianity: >>> ----- >>> In the end, what we're seeing is that the world, for whatever >>> reason, is pandering to Christians and treating them like victims >>> no matter whether they are or not. They rape young boys and either >>> get no punishment or community service. >> >> Some priests do, and that is the result of an idiotic rule which >> dictates that monks must be celibate. Since becoming a monk was once >> considered an excellent way of escaping military duty, the church >> changed the rules in the hope of discouraging people from doing so. It's >> archaic and is not inspired by anything in the scripture. > > Always amazed me that the Bible says to be "fruitful and multiply" but then > says its religious leaders CANNOT do so! Yeah, that is absurd in my view but > it is the right of the religion. Of the religion, not of the self-professed leaders of it. The very fact that the Catholic Church decided that such a thing was necessary is disgusting. Allow priests to have a family and much of the sexual abuse disappears. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for these people never to experience sex when the Muslim hordes going to Sweden complain about blue balls if more than a day has passed since they raped an innocent pre-teen. > But whether you agree with it or not the fact is it is how it is. And it is > also unfair to attribute such actions to all Christians or even all > Catholics. But, I bet, in any poll of Catholics there would be a > disturbingly high percentage who want it handled internally and not by law > enforcement. Thank you, Mr. Morality. I'll take it into consideration. -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 12:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fefe830e-e0ec-43f2-976b-a835d7e28f97@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #330723 |
On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 2:48:51 PM UTC-5, Slimer wrote: > On 2015-11-03 2:08 PM, Snit wrote: > > On 11/3/15, 11:35 AM, in article n1aukp$mls$3@dont-email.me, "Slimer" > > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > > >>>> In the end, what we're seeing is that the world, for whatever reason, is > >>>> sheltering Muslims and treating them like victims no matter whether they > >>>> are or not. They rape in Sweden and either get no punishment or > >>>> community service. They do the same thing in Austria where women are now > >>>> buying rifles (the only weapon available) to defend themselves and we're > >>>> calling them "islamophobic." They have a religion which allows and even > >>>> encourages them to enslave, rape and exploit and the leftist idiots are > >>>> still dumb enough to believe that it is the "religion of peace." They're > >>>> not even worth debating with because the evidence AGAINST their beliefs > >>>> is overwhelming. > >>> > >>> See how you feel when the same reasoning is applied to Christianity: > >>> ----- > >>> In the end, what we're seeing is that the world, for whatever > >>> reason, is pandering to Christians and treating them like victims > >>> no matter whether they are or not. They rape young boys and either > >>> get no punishment or community service. > >> > >> Some priests do, and that is the result of an idiotic rule which > >> dictates that monks must be celibate. Since becoming a monk was once > >> considered an excellent way of escaping military duty, the church > >> changed the rules in the hope of discouraging people from doing so. It's > >> archaic and is not inspired by anything in the scripture. > > > > Always amazed me that the Bible says to be "fruitful and multiply" but then > > says its religious leaders CANNOT do so! Yeah, that is absurd in my view but > > it is the right of the religion. > > Of the religion, not of the self-professed leaders of it. The very fact > that the Catholic Church decided that such a thing was necessary is > disgusting. Allow priests to have a family and much of the sexual abuse > disappears. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for these people > never to experience sex when the Muslim hordes going to Sweden complain > about blue balls if more than a day has passed since they raped an > innocent pre-teen. > > > But whether you agree with it or not the fact is it is how it is. And it is > > also unfair to attribute such actions to all Christians or even all > > Catholics. But, I bet, in any poll of Catholics there would be a > > disturbingly high percentage who want it handled internally and not by law > > enforcement. > > Thank you, Mr. Morality. I'll take it into consideration. > "But I am for personal freedoms and choice and life and everything good in the world. The liberal view is all good all the time, which bothers some people. Conservatives are for murdering babies and racism and bigotry. Not all conservatives mind you. But Republicans literally say right on their webpage how they are racist. I don't generalize. Conservatives hate freedom and America." - politics according to Snit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 15:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1b4r7$keb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330730 |
On 2015-11-03 3:03 PM, cc wrote: > On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 2:48:51 PM UTC-5, Slimer wrote: >> On 2015-11-03 2:08 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 11/3/15, 11:35 AM, in article n1aukp$mls$3@dont-email.me, "Slimer" >>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> >>>>>> In the end, what we're seeing is that the world, for whatever reason, is >>>>>> sheltering Muslims and treating them like victims no matter whether they >>>>>> are or not. They rape in Sweden and either get no punishment or >>>>>> community service. They do the same thing in Austria where women are now >>>>>> buying rifles (the only weapon available) to defend themselves and we're >>>>>> calling them "islamophobic." They have a religion which allows and even >>>>>> encourages them to enslave, rape and exploit and the leftist idiots are >>>>>> still dumb enough to believe that it is the "religion of peace." They're >>>>>> not even worth debating with because the evidence AGAINST their beliefs >>>>>> is overwhelming. >>>>> >>>>> See how you feel when the same reasoning is applied to Christianity: >>>>> ----- >>>>> In the end, what we're seeing is that the world, for whatever >>>>> reason, is pandering to Christians and treating them like victims >>>>> no matter whether they are or not. They rape young boys and either >>>>> get no punishment or community service. >>>> >>>> Some priests do, and that is the result of an idiotic rule which >>>> dictates that monks must be celibate. Since becoming a monk was once >>>> considered an excellent way of escaping military duty, the church >>>> changed the rules in the hope of discouraging people from doing so. It's >>>> archaic and is not inspired by anything in the scripture. >>> >>> Always amazed me that the Bible says to be "fruitful and multiply" but then >>> says its religious leaders CANNOT do so! Yeah, that is absurd in my view but >>> it is the right of the religion. >> >> Of the religion, not of the self-professed leaders of it. The very fact >> that the Catholic Church decided that such a thing was necessary is >> disgusting. Allow priests to have a family and much of the sexual abuse >> disappears. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for these people >> never to experience sex when the Muslim hordes going to Sweden complain >> about blue balls if more than a day has passed since they raped an >> innocent pre-teen. >> >>> But whether you agree with it or not the fact is it is how it is. And it is >>> also unfair to attribute such actions to all Christians or even all >>> Catholics. But, I bet, in any poll of Catholics there would be a >>> disturbingly high percentage who want it handled internally and not by law >>> enforcement. >> >> Thank you, Mr. Morality. I'll take it into consideration. >> > > "But I am for personal freedoms and choice and life and everything good > in the world. The liberal view is all good all the time, which bothers > some people. Conservatives are for murdering babies and racism and > bigotry. Not all conservatives mind you. But Republicans literally > say right on their webpage how they are racist. I don't generalize. > Conservatives hate freedom and America." - politics according to Snit. Like I said, liberalism is a mental illness. -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 15:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <14zry5ekfkg3p.14suile75gae6.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #330734 |
On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 15:21:03 -0500, Slimer wrote: > On 2015-11-03 3:03 PM, cc wrote: >> On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 2:48:51 PM UTC-5, Slimer wrote: >>> On 2015-11-03 2:08 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> On 11/3/15, 11:35 AM, in article n1aukp$mls$3@dont-email.me, "Slimer" >>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> In the end, what we're seeing is that the world, for whatever reason, is >>>>>>> sheltering Muslims and treating them like victims no matter whether they >>>>>>> are or not. They rape in Sweden and either get no punishment or >>>>>>> community service. They do the same thing in Austria where women are now >>>>>>> buying rifles (the only weapon available) to defend themselves and we're >>>>>>> calling them "islamophobic." They have a religion which allows and even >>>>>>> encourages them to enslave, rape and exploit and the leftist idiots are >>>>>>> still dumb enough to believe that it is the "religion of peace." They're >>>>>>> not even worth debating with because the evidence AGAINST their beliefs >>>>>>> is overwhelming. >>>>>> >>>>>> See how you feel when the same reasoning is applied to Christianity: >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> In the end, what we're seeing is that the world, for whatever >>>>>> reason, is pandering to Christians and treating them like victims >>>>>> no matter whether they are or not. They rape young boys and either >>>>>> get no punishment or community service. >>>>> >>>>> Some priests do, and that is the result of an idiotic rule which >>>>> dictates that monks must be celibate. Since becoming a monk was once >>>>> considered an excellent way of escaping military duty, the church >>>>> changed the rules in the hope of discouraging people from doing so. It's >>>>> archaic and is not inspired by anything in the scripture. >>>> >>>> Always amazed me that the Bible says to be "fruitful and multiply" but then >>>> says its religious leaders CANNOT do so! Yeah, that is absurd in my view but >>>> it is the right of the religion. >>> >>> Of the religion, not of the self-professed leaders of it. The very fact >>> that the Catholic Church decided that such a thing was necessary is >>> disgusting. Allow priests to have a family and much of the sexual abuse >>> disappears. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for these people >>> never to experience sex when the Muslim hordes going to Sweden complain >>> about blue balls if more than a day has passed since they raped an >>> innocent pre-teen. >>> >>>> But whether you agree with it or not the fact is it is how it is. And it is >>>> also unfair to attribute such actions to all Christians or even all >>>> Catholics. But, I bet, in any poll of Catholics there would be a >>>> disturbingly high percentage who want it handled internally and not by law >>>> enforcement. >>> >>> Thank you, Mr. Morality. I'll take it into consideration. >>> >> >> "But I am for personal freedoms and choice and life and everything good >> in the world. The liberal view is all good all the time, which bothers >> some people. Conservatives are for murdering babies and racism and >> bigotry. Not all conservatives mind you. But Republicans literally >> say right on their webpage how they are racist. I don't generalize. >> Conservatives hate freedom and America." - politics according to Snit. > > Like I said, liberalism is a mental illness. It is and it's liberalism that is destroying this country. Too many parasites like snit who want a free meal ticket from the government. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 17:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1bbfb$e7l$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330736 |
On 2015-11-03 3:53 PM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 15:21:03 -0500, Slimer wrote: > >> On 2015-11-03 3:03 PM, cc wrote: >>> On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 2:48:51 PM UTC-5, Slimer wrote: >>>> On 2015-11-03 2:08 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 11/3/15, 11:35 AM, in article n1aukp$mls$3@dont-email.me, "Slimer" >>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> In the end, what we're seeing is that the world, for whatever reason, is >>>>>>>> sheltering Muslims and treating them like victims no matter whether they >>>>>>>> are or not. They rape in Sweden and either get no punishment or >>>>>>>> community service. They do the same thing in Austria where women are now >>>>>>>> buying rifles (the only weapon available) to defend themselves and we're >>>>>>>> calling them "islamophobic." They have a religion which allows and even >>>>>>>> encourages them to enslave, rape and exploit and the leftist idiots are >>>>>>>> still dumb enough to believe that it is the "religion of peace." They're >>>>>>>> not even worth debating with because the evidence AGAINST their beliefs >>>>>>>> is overwhelming. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> See how you feel when the same reasoning is applied to Christianity: >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> In the end, what we're seeing is that the world, for whatever >>>>>>> reason, is pandering to Christians and treating them like victims >>>>>>> no matter whether they are or not. They rape young boys and either >>>>>>> get no punishment or community service. >>>>>> >>>>>> Some priests do, and that is the result of an idiotic rule which >>>>>> dictates that monks must be celibate. Since becoming a monk was once >>>>>> considered an excellent way of escaping military duty, the church >>>>>> changed the rules in the hope of discouraging people from doing so. It's >>>>>> archaic and is not inspired by anything in the scripture. >>>>> >>>>> Always amazed me that the Bible says to be "fruitful and multiply" but then >>>>> says its religious leaders CANNOT do so! Yeah, that is absurd in my view but >>>>> it is the right of the religion. >>>> >>>> Of the religion, not of the self-professed leaders of it. The very fact >>>> that the Catholic Church decided that such a thing was necessary is >>>> disgusting. Allow priests to have a family and much of the sexual abuse >>>> disappears. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for these people >>>> never to experience sex when the Muslim hordes going to Sweden complain >>>> about blue balls if more than a day has passed since they raped an >>>> innocent pre-teen. >>>> >>>>> But whether you agree with it or not the fact is it is how it is. And it is >>>>> also unfair to attribute such actions to all Christians or even all >>>>> Catholics. But, I bet, in any poll of Catholics there would be a >>>>> disturbingly high percentage who want it handled internally and not by law >>>>> enforcement. >>>> >>>> Thank you, Mr. Morality. I'll take it into consideration. >>>> >>> >>> "But I am for personal freedoms and choice and life and everything good >>> in the world. The liberal view is all good all the time, which bothers >>> some people. Conservatives are for murdering babies and racism and >>> bigotry. Not all conservatives mind you. But Republicans literally >>> say right on their webpage how they are racist. I don't generalize. >>> Conservatives hate freedom and America." - politics according to Snit. >> >> Like I said, liberalism is a mental illness. > > It is and it's liberalism that is destroying this country. > Too many parasites like snit who want a free meal ticket from the > government. To be fair, there needs to be a balance between the left and the right. Too much of the left and your society becomes a politically correct mess where everything is racist and everyone needs to get free shit. Too much of the right and services get cut resulting in longer hospital wait times and a worse education system. The left are like the whiny wives of the very masculine husbands. -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 17:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <850bdqb1obnf.mhkhf0jy2a7j.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #330748 |
On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:14:11 -0500, Slimer wrote: > On 2015-11-03 3:53 PM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 15:21:03 -0500, Slimer wrote: >> >>> On 2015-11-03 3:03 PM, cc wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 2:48:51 PM UTC-5, Slimer wrote: >>>>> On 2015-11-03 2:08 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 11/3/15, 11:35 AM, in article n1aukp$mls$3@dont-email.me, "Slimer" >>>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In the end, what we're seeing is that the world, for whatever reason, is >>>>>>>>> sheltering Muslims and treating them like victims no matter whether they >>>>>>>>> are or not. They rape in Sweden and either get no punishment or >>>>>>>>> community service. They do the same thing in Austria where women are now >>>>>>>>> buying rifles (the only weapon available) to defend themselves and we're >>>>>>>>> calling them "islamophobic." They have a religion which allows and even >>>>>>>>> encourages them to enslave, rape and exploit and the leftist idiots are >>>>>>>>> still dumb enough to believe that it is the "religion of peace." They're >>>>>>>>> not even worth debating with because the evidence AGAINST their beliefs >>>>>>>>> is overwhelming. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> See how you feel when the same reasoning is applied to Christianity: >>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>> In the end, what we're seeing is that the world, for whatever >>>>>>>> reason, is pandering to Christians and treating them like victims >>>>>>>> no matter whether they are or not. They rape young boys and either >>>>>>>> get no punishment or community service. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some priests do, and that is the result of an idiotic rule which >>>>>>> dictates that monks must be celibate. Since becoming a monk was once >>>>>>> considered an excellent way of escaping military duty, the church >>>>>>> changed the rules in the hope of discouraging people from doing so. It's >>>>>>> archaic and is not inspired by anything in the scripture. >>>>>> >>>>>> Always amazed me that the Bible says to be "fruitful and multiply" but then >>>>>> says its religious leaders CANNOT do so! Yeah, that is absurd in my view but >>>>>> it is the right of the religion. >>>>> >>>>> Of the religion, not of the self-professed leaders of it. The very fact >>>>> that the Catholic Church decided that such a thing was necessary is >>>>> disgusting. Allow priests to have a family and much of the sexual abuse >>>>> disappears. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for these people >>>>> never to experience sex when the Muslim hordes going to Sweden complain >>>>> about blue balls if more than a day has passed since they raped an >>>>> innocent pre-teen. >>>>> >>>>>> But whether you agree with it or not the fact is it is how it is. And it is >>>>>> also unfair to attribute such actions to all Christians or even all >>>>>> Catholics. But, I bet, in any poll of Catholics there would be a >>>>>> disturbingly high percentage who want it handled internally and not by law >>>>>> enforcement. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, Mr. Morality. I'll take it into consideration. >>>>> >>>> >>>> "But I am for personal freedoms and choice and life and everything good >>>> in the world. The liberal view is all good all the time, which bothers >>>> some people. Conservatives are for murdering babies and racism and >>>> bigotry. Not all conservatives mind you. But Republicans literally >>>> say right on their webpage how they are racist. I don't generalize. >>>> Conservatives hate freedom and America." - politics according to Snit. >>> >>> Like I said, liberalism is a mental illness. >> >> It is and it's liberalism that is destroying this country. >> Too many parasites like snit who want a free meal ticket from the >> government. > > To be fair, there needs to be a balance between the left and the right. One has nothing to do with the other. Of course there needs to be a balance. > Too much of the left and your society becomes a politically correct mess > where everything is racist and everyone needs to get free shit. Too much > of the right and services get cut resulting in longer hospital wait > times and a worse education system. The left are like the whiny wives of > the very masculine husbands. Cases can be made for both sides cutting services. What needs to be done is encourage companies to return to USA for manufacturing needs and to penalize companies who offshore jobs and set up shop in other countries because the tax structure is more favorable to them there. The only way to encourage this is to have a faovrable economic plan which will make offshoring an unfavorable option. Then the lazy, liberal left wing parasites need to be brought under control. Able bodied people should be trained and put to work. Welfare and public assistance should be reserved for those who have problems, either mental (like snit) or physical and cannot work. Drug testing should be part of public assistance. Voters should be required to present valid ID. The borders should be locked tight. We are not the world's pussy anymore. Well we still are for ~450 days when Obummer finally leaves. Those people here illegally should be required to show how they have contributed over the time they have lived here and it should be measured and documented and if they are a positive contributor, they should be offered a path to citizenship. Screw up and you are dumped at the border. Right now we are like an body that is hemorrhaging internally. It's only a matter of time before we bleed out and become a 3rd world nation. These are tough decisions but they need to be made. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 18:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1bg5r$7u2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330750 |
On 2015-11-03 5:28 PM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: < snip> >> Too much of the left and your society becomes a politically correct mess >> where everything is racist and everyone needs to get free shit. Too much >> of the right and services get cut resulting in longer hospital wait >> times and a worse education system. The left are like the whiny wives of >> the very masculine husbands. > > Cases can be made for both sides cutting services. > What needs to be done is encourage companies to return to USA for > manufacturing needs and to penalize companies who offshore jobs and set up > shop in other countries because the tax structure is more favorable to them > there. > The only way to encourage this is to have a faovrable economic plan which > will make offshoring an unfavorable option. I would set up a labeling plan where consumers who are about to buy a product made by a company which outsourced either a part of the whole of its production away from the United States would know about it. It would be similar to the GMO labeling some states are setting up at the moment but it would seek to lower sales or embarrass the companies who, otherwise, would try to convince the consumer that they're homegrown. > Then the lazy, liberal left wing parasites need to be brought under > control. > Able bodied people should be trained and put to work. > Welfare and public assistance should be reserved for those who have > problems, either mental (like snit) or physical and cannot work. Absolutely agreed. I don't care if these parasites are doing data entry as long as they get compensated for actual work rather than the mere fact that they exist. > Drug testing should be part of public assistance. Absolutely. > Voters should be required to present valid ID. It is here in Canada. The country made a big fuss over the fact that Muslim women sometimes insist on wearing a niqap (face-covering veil) when voting but even in that case, they need to show their faces AND present ID before being allowed to vote. > The borders should be locked tight. We are not the world's pussy anymore. I agree but as Jesse Ventura would say: the walls can keep people out but they can also keep people in if ever something like martial law is declared. > Well we still are for ~450 days when Obummer finally leaves. > Those people here illegally should be required to show how they have > contributed over the time they have lived here and it should be measured > and documented and if they are a positive contributor, they should be > offered a path to citizenship. > Screw up and you are dumped at the border. Agreed entirely. > Right now we are like an body that is hemorrhaging internally. > It's only a matter of time before we bleed out and become a 3rd world > nation. > These are tough decisions but they need to be made. We agree and I am happy to find another person who thinks the way that I do. Let's be friends! -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 18:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1bha4$b9f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330760 |
On 2015-11-03 6:43 PM, Snit wrote: > On 11/3/15, 4:34 PM, in article n1bg5r$7u2$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> On 2015-11-03 5:28 PM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: >> < snip> >> >>>> Too much of the left and your society becomes a politically correct mess >>>> where everything is racist and everyone needs to get free shit. Too much >>>> of the right and services get cut resulting in longer hospital wait >>>> times and a worse education system. The left are like the whiny wives of >>>> the very masculine husbands. >>> >>> Cases can be made for both sides cutting services. >>> What needs to be done is encourage companies to return to USA for >>> manufacturing needs and to penalize companies who offshore jobs and set up >>> shop in other countries because the tax structure is more favorable to them >>> there. >>> The only way to encourage this is to have a faovrable economic plan which >>> will make offshoring an unfavorable option. >> >> I would set up a labeling plan where consumers who are about to buy a >> product made by a company which outsourced either a part of the whole of >> its production away from the United States would know about it. It would >> be similar to the GMO labeling some states are setting up at the moment >> but it would seek to lower sales or embarrass the companies who, >> otherwise, would try to convince the consumer that they're homegrown. > > I can go with that. Somewhat surprised you would... but again you are not a > one note person. Many conservatives are against government regulation and > oversight. I believe in helping companies but I don't believe in their right to exploit the people. I'm not far-right. < snip > -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 13:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cca03084-0f28-43fd-bc24-a8cc29ff8448@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #330734 |
On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 3:43:37 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote: > On 11/3/15, 1:21 PM, in article n1b4r7$keb$2@dont-email.me, "Slimer" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > > On 2015-11-03 3:03 PM, cc wrote: > >> On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 2:48:51 PM UTC-5, Slimer wrote: > >>> On 2015-11-03 2:08 PM, Snit wrote: > >>>> On 11/3/15, 11:35 AM, in article n1aukp$mls$3@dont-email.me, "Slimer" > >>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>> In the end, what we're seeing is that the world, for whatever reason, is > >>>>>>> sheltering Muslims and treating them like victims no matter whether they > >>>>>>> are or not. They rape in Sweden and either get no punishment or > >>>>>>> community service. They do the same thing in Austria where women are now > >>>>>>> buying rifles (the only weapon available) to defend themselves and we're > >>>>>>> calling them "islamophobic." They have a religion which allows and even > >>>>>>> encourages them to enslave, rape and exploit and the leftist idiots are > >>>>>>> still dumb enough to believe that it is the "religion of peace." They're > >>>>>>> not even worth debating with because the evidence AGAINST their beliefs > >>>>>>> is overwhelming. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> See how you feel when the same reasoning is applied to Christianity: > >>>>>> ----- > >>>>>> In the end, what we're seeing is that the world, for whatever > >>>>>> reason, is pandering to Christians and treating them like victims > >>>>>> no matter whether they are or not. They rape young boys and either > >>>>>> get no punishment or community service. > >>>>> > >>>>> Some priests do, and that is the result of an idiotic rule which > >>>>> dictates that monks must be celibate. Since becoming a monk was once > >>>>> considered an excellent way of escaping military duty, the church > >>>>> changed the rules in the hope of discouraging people from doing so. It's > >>>>> archaic and is not inspired by anything in the scripture. > >>>> > >>>> Always amazed me that the Bible says to be "fruitful and multiply" but then > >>>> says its religious leaders CANNOT do so! Yeah, that is absurd in my view > >>>> but > >>>> it is the right of the religion. > >>> > >>> Of the religion, not of the self-professed leaders of it. The very fact > >>> that the Catholic Church decided that such a thing was necessary is > >>> disgusting. Allow priests to have a family and much of the sexual abuse > >>> disappears. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for these people > >>> never to experience sex when the Muslim hordes going to Sweden complain > >>> about blue balls if more than a day has passed since they raped an > >>> innocent pre-teen. > >>> > >>>> But whether you agree with it or not the fact is it is how it is. And it is > >>>> also unfair to attribute such actions to all Christians or even all > >>>> Catholics. But, I bet, in any poll of Catholics there would be a > >>>> disturbingly high percentage who want it handled internally and not by law > >>>> enforcement. > >>> > >>> Thank you, Mr. Morality. I'll take it into consideration. > >>> > >> > >> "But I am for personal freedoms and choice and life and everything good > >> in the world. The liberal view is all good all the time, which bothers > >> some people. Conservatives are for murdering babies and racism and > >> bigotry. Not all conservatives mind you. But Republicans literally > >> say right on their webpage how they are racist. I don't generalize. > >> Conservatives hate freedom and America." - politics according to Snit. > > > > Like I said, liberalism is a mental illness. > > > cc made that up... it is not in any way representative of my views. Considering Slimer has been participating in this thread way more than I have, I'm certain he knows what is representative of your views, hence his reply. You don't have to talk down to him as if he didn't understand my post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 17:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1bb4v$e7l$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330723 |
On 2015-11-03 3:41 PM, Snit wrote: > On 11/3/15, 12:48 PM, in article n1b2ur$a0u$4@dont-email.me, "Slimer" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> On 2015-11-03 2:08 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 11/3/15, 11:35 AM, in article n1aukp$mls$3@dont-email.me, "Slimer" >>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> >>>>>> In the end, what we're seeing is that the world, for whatever reason, is >>>>>> sheltering Muslims and treating them like victims no matter whether they >>>>>> are or not. They rape in Sweden and either get no punishment or >>>>>> community service. They do the same thing in Austria where women are now >>>>>> buying rifles (the only weapon available) to defend themselves and we're >>>>>> calling them "islamophobic." They have a religion which allows and even >>>>>> encourages them to enslave, rape and exploit and the leftist idiots are >>>>>> still dumb enough to believe that it is the "religion of peace." They're >>>>>> not even worth debating with because the evidence AGAINST their beliefs >>>>>> is overwhelming. >>>>> >>>>> See how you feel when the same reasoning is applied to Christianity: >>>>> ----- >>>>> In the end, what we're seeing is that the world, for whatever >>>>> reason, is pandering to Christians and treating them like victims >>>>> no matter whether they are or not. They rape young boys and either >>>>> get no punishment or community service. >>>> >>>> Some priests do, and that is the result of an idiotic rule which >>>> dictates that monks must be celibate. Since becoming a monk was once >>>> considered an excellent way of escaping military duty, the church >>>> changed the rules in the hope of discouraging people from doing so. It's >>>> archaic and is not inspired by anything in the scripture. >>> >>> Always amazed me that the Bible says to be "fruitful and multiply" but then >>> says its religious leaders CANNOT do so! Yeah, that is absurd in my view but >>> it is the right of the religion. >> >> Of the religion, not of the self-professed leaders of it. The very fact >> that the Catholic Church decided that such a thing was necessary is >> disgusting. Allow priests to have a family and much of the sexual abuse >> disappears. > > Perhaps... but the fact is it is there and real. > >> I can't imagine how difficult it must be for these people >> never to experience sex when the Muslim hordes going to Sweden complain >> about blue balls if more than a day has passed since they raped an >> innocent pre-teen. > > And there you are just making things up. <http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=24a_1443902294> >>> But whether you agree with it or not the fact is it is how it is. And it is >>> also unfair to attribute such actions to all Christians or even all >>> Catholics. But, I bet, in any poll of Catholics there would be a >>> disturbingly high percentage who want it handled internally and not by law >>> enforcement. >> >> Thank you, Mr. Morality. I'll take it into consideration. > > You are welcome. You jokingly call me "Mr. Morality", but in college I was > asked to be a guest speaker for an ethics class and was recently asked to > teach an ethics class for a college. Taught one section of it so far and it > was a lot of fun. :) I'm sure that they regretted not letting you in on the fact that they were being sarcastic. -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 13:41 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn3i3f3.ovm.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #330693 |
On 2015-11-03, Slimer <> wrote: > On 2015-11-03 12:17 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 11/3/15, 6:29 AM, in article n1acn4$dti$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> >>> On 2015-11-02 10:03 PM, owl wrote: >>>> Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>> On 2015-11-02 9:03 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 11/2/15, 6:49 PM, in article n193ni$a62$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" [deletia] >> See how you feel when the same reasoning is applied to Christianity: >> ----- >> In the end, what we're seeing is that the world, for whatever >> reason, is pandering to Christians and treating them like victims >> no matter whether they are or not. They rape young boys and either >> get no punishment or community service. > > Some priests do, and that is the result of an idiotic rule which > dictates that monks must be celibate. Since becoming a monk was once > considered an excellent way of escaping military duty, the church > changed the rules in the hope of discouraging people from doing so. It's > archaic and is not inspired by anything in the scripture. In the source tradition, the idea of a celebate cleric is ananthema. The idea of a Jewish preacher being unmarried at the age of 30 leads some to conclude some somewhat unflattering things... '-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 08:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1ad4f$fb1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330587 |
On 2015-11-02 10:05 PM, Snit wrote: > On 11/2/15, 7:54 PM, in article n197ge$ds5$5@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> On 2015-11-02 9:03 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, 6:49 PM, in article n193ni$a62$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> But, again, even if true you have not shown ANYONE defending what you >>>>>>> claimed. Nobody is saying anyone has the right to rape or kill. >>>>>> >>>>>> Read this <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape> >>>>> >>>>> Skimmed - did not see any such defense. Can you quote it? >>>>> >>>>>> Then this >>>>>> <http://sheikyermami.com/2011/04/the-rape-of-infidel-women-is-as-islamic-a >>>>>> s- >>>>>> ko >>>>>> ran-sira-hadith/> >>>>> >>>>> Skimmed - did not see any such defense. Can you quote it? >>>> >>>> Sorry, was the wrong link for the second: >>>> <http://pamelageller.com/2011/12/fatwa-permits-muslim-soldiers-to-kidnap-imp >>>> ri >>>> son-and-rape-infidel-women.html/> >>> >>> Would love to see a reputable source to back this... but keep in mind US >>> soldiers rape their enemies, too. Not defending it in either case. >> >> Yep, if it disagrees with what your beloved mainstream media says, it's >> not reputable. I should have looked for CNN or some other >> corporate-owned and controlled news agency to support my statements. God >> knows that they're objective. > > Something with real journalists... not a far right site. > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Geller> > > It would be like me using the Huffington Post and Mother Jones as my > sources. Would you accept those? Rather than look for a source that you would consider reputable, I would rather simply not discuss with you at all. The whole "this is not a credible source" bullshit is used on Facebook ad nauseum as a response to somebody making a good point against a leftist twat. Just last week, I was told that data from the CDC was not reputable. I have no interest in engaging in such idiocy. >> As for the American military partaking in unethical activities; those >> who do are punished very severely by the people in charge. > > So when will Cheney and Bush be punished for their torture policies? As soon as you get off of Usenet and punish them. >> Nothing in the religion they follow nor in the policies of the nation they >> serve suggests that they have the right to do what they did. > > They invoke their religion to defend their actions. Bush even said God told > him to attack Iraq. And we already spoke about this at which point I said that nothing in the scripture and no religious leader had ever given him the right to state such things. He does not represent Christians or Christianity, he simply wished that he did. Besides, the religion is meant to be a personal thing and the very fact that religious leaders exist is a testament to the fact that it is constantly being misinterpreted. >> Islam, nevertheless, sees no problem with raping "infidel" females of any age. > > Some Muslims I can go with, but you are generalizing in a way that is not > true. <http://shoebat.com/2013/11/28/15-muslims-gang-rape-young-girl-turns-insane-murder/> <http://www.religiousfreedomcoalition.org/2013/09/20/muslim-man-rapes-child-bride-until-she-dies/> <http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/sacrificing-our-daughters-the-psychology-of-islamic-rape-gangs/> <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3068/muslim-child-rape-gangs-britain> <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3068/muslim-child-rape-gangs-britain> It's in their fucking religion. Stop defending it just because you know a couple of friendly Muslims. Muslims who don't believe that it is their right to rape infidel women and girls are in the minority OR are waiting until their numbers become significant enough to gain the right to do such things. As long as they remain a minority, they know that they will be punished for doing so but significant enough numbers means that the Sharia law is implemented and it does not believe that it is a crime to force sex on an infidel. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 08:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o7ol5wb9ogda$.1hcebij2depia.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #330631 |
On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 08:36:22 -0500, Charmed Tuna wrote: > On 2015-11-02 10:05 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 11/2/15, 7:54 PM, in article n197ge$ds5$5@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> >>> On 2015-11-02 9:03 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> On 11/2/15, 6:49 PM, in article n193ni$a62$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> But, again, even if true you have not shown ANYONE defending what you >>>>>>>> claimed. Nobody is saying anyone has the right to rape or kill. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Read this <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape> >>>>>> >>>>>> Skimmed - did not see any such defense. Can you quote it? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Then this >>>>>>> <http://sheikyermami.com/2011/04/the-rape-of-infidel-women-is-as-islamic-a >>>>>>> s- >>>>>>> ko >>>>>>> ran-sira-hadith/> >>>>>> >>>>>> Skimmed - did not see any such defense. Can you quote it? >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, was the wrong link for the second: >>>>> <http://pamelageller.com/2011/12/fatwa-permits-muslim-soldiers-to-kidnap-imp >>>>> ri >>>>> son-and-rape-infidel-women.html/> >>>> >>>> Would love to see a reputable source to back this... but keep in mind US >>>> soldiers rape their enemies, too. Not defending it in either case. >>> >>> Yep, if it disagrees with what your beloved mainstream media says, it's >>> not reputable. I should have looked for CNN or some other >>> corporate-owned and controlled news agency to support my statements. God >>> knows that they're objective. >> >> Something with real journalists... not a far right site. >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Geller> >> >> It would be like me using the Huffington Post and Mother Jones as my >> sources. Would you accept those? > > Rather than look for a source that you would consider reputable, I would > rather simply not discuss with you at all. The whole "this is not a > credible source" bullshit is used on Facebook ad nauseum as a response > to somebody making a good point against a leftist twat. Just last week, > I was told that data from the CDC was not reputable. I have no interest > in engaging in such idiocy. > >>> As for the American military partaking in unethical activities; those >>> who do are punished very severely by the people in charge. >> >> So when will Cheney and Bush be punished for their torture policies? > > As soon as you get off of Usenet and punish them. > >>> Nothing in the religion they follow nor in the policies of the nation they >>> serve suggests that they have the right to do what they did. >> >> They invoke their religion to defend their actions. Bush even said God told >> him to attack Iraq. > > And we already spoke about this at which point I said that nothing in > the scripture and no religious leader had ever given him the right to > state such things. He does not represent Christians or Christianity, he > simply wished that he did. Besides, the religion is meant to be a > personal thing and the very fact that religious leaders exist is a > testament to the fact that it is constantly being misinterpreted. > >>> Islam, nevertheless, sees no problem with raping "infidel" females of any age. >> >> Some Muslims I can go with, but you are generalizing in a way that is not >> true. > > <http://shoebat.com/2013/11/28/15-muslims-gang-rape-young-girl-turns-insane-murder/> > > <http://www.religiousfreedomcoalition.org/2013/09/20/muslim-man-rapes-child-bride-until-she-dies/> > > <http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/sacrificing-our-daughters-the-psychology-of-islamic-rape-gangs/> > > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3068/muslim-child-rape-gangs-britain> > > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3068/muslim-child-rape-gangs-britain> > > It's in their fucking religion. Stop defending it just because you know > a couple of friendly Muslims. Muslims who don't believe that it is their > right to rape infidel women and girls are in the minority OR are waiting > until their numbers become significant enough to gain the right to do > such things. As long as they remain a minority, they know that they will > be punished for doing so but significant enough numbers means that the > Sharia law is implemented and it does not believe that it is a crime to > force sex on an infidel. As previously posted, the Muslim population in Prescott AZ is like zero percent. What are the chances of snit having several Muslim friends? About the same as Larry Washington his neighbor who shares Internet connections with him. About the same as Walmart Jeremy. About the same as Onion Knight. See how these friends just seem to come and go when required by snit? I think you are finally beginning to realize what a lying, toxic, mentally ill parasite snit really is. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 09:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1afms$opo$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330634 |
On 2015-11-03 8:49 AM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 08:36:22 -0500, Charmed Tuna wrote: > >> On 2015-11-02 10:05 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, 7:54 PM, in article n197ge$ds5$5@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-11-02 9:03 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 11/2/15, 6:49 PM, in article n193ni$a62$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> But, again, even if true you have not shown ANYONE defending what you >>>>>>>>> claimed. Nobody is saying anyone has the right to rape or kill. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Read this <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Skimmed - did not see any such defense. Can you quote it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then this >>>>>>>> <http://sheikyermami.com/2011/04/the-rape-of-infidel-women-is-as-islamic-a >>>>>>>> s- >>>>>>>> ko >>>>>>>> ran-sira-hadith/> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Skimmed - did not see any such defense. Can you quote it? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, was the wrong link for the second: >>>>>> <http://pamelageller.com/2011/12/fatwa-permits-muslim-soldiers-to-kidnap-imp >>>>>> ri >>>>>> son-and-rape-infidel-women.html/> >>>>> >>>>> Would love to see a reputable source to back this... but keep in mind US >>>>> soldiers rape their enemies, too. Not defending it in either case. >>>> >>>> Yep, if it disagrees with what your beloved mainstream media says, it's >>>> not reputable. I should have looked for CNN or some other >>>> corporate-owned and controlled news agency to support my statements. God >>>> knows that they're objective. >>> >>> Something with real journalists... not a far right site. >>> >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Geller> >>> >>> It would be like me using the Huffington Post and Mother Jones as my >>> sources. Would you accept those? >> >> Rather than look for a source that you would consider reputable, I would >> rather simply not discuss with you at all. The whole "this is not a >> credible source" bullshit is used on Facebook ad nauseum as a response >> to somebody making a good point against a leftist twat. Just last week, >> I was told that data from the CDC was not reputable. I have no interest >> in engaging in such idiocy. >> >>>> As for the American military partaking in unethical activities; those >>>> who do are punished very severely by the people in charge. >>> >>> So when will Cheney and Bush be punished for their torture policies? >> >> As soon as you get off of Usenet and punish them. >> >>>> Nothing in the religion they follow nor in the policies of the nation they >>>> serve suggests that they have the right to do what they did. >>> >>> They invoke their religion to defend their actions. Bush even said God told >>> him to attack Iraq. >> >> And we already spoke about this at which point I said that nothing in >> the scripture and no religious leader had ever given him the right to >> state such things. He does not represent Christians or Christianity, he >> simply wished that he did. Besides, the religion is meant to be a >> personal thing and the very fact that religious leaders exist is a >> testament to the fact that it is constantly being misinterpreted. >> >>>> Islam, nevertheless, sees no problem with raping "infidel" females of any age. >>> >>> Some Muslims I can go with, but you are generalizing in a way that is not >>> true. >> >> <http://shoebat.com/2013/11/28/15-muslims-gang-rape-young-girl-turns-insane-murder/> >> >> <http://www.religiousfreedomcoalition.org/2013/09/20/muslim-man-rapes-child-bride-until-she-dies/> >> >> <http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/sacrificing-our-daughters-the-psychology-of-islamic-rape-gangs/> >> >> <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3068/muslim-child-rape-gangs-britain> >> >> <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3068/muslim-child-rape-gangs-britain> >> >> It's in their fucking religion. Stop defending it just because you know >> a couple of friendly Muslims. Muslims who don't believe that it is their >> right to rape infidel women and girls are in the minority OR are waiting >> until their numbers become significant enough to gain the right to do >> such things. As long as they remain a minority, they know that they will >> be punished for doing so but significant enough numbers means that the >> Sharia law is implemented and it does not believe that it is a crime to >> force sex on an infidel. > > As previously posted, the Muslim population in Prescott AZ is like zero > percent. What are the chances of snit having several Muslim friends? I would also put it at zero. I have a few Muslim friends myself since Quebec in general has a great proportion of them but they very quickly take their distance from me once I show myself to be quite knowledgeable about their religion. The message is always the same: we can be friends, but don't try to fool me into believing that your religion is peaceful and has done no harm whatsoever to the world. > About the same as Larry Washington his neighbor who shares Internet > connections with him. > > About the same as Walmart Jeremy. > > About the same as Onion Knight. > > See how these friends just seem to come and go when required by snit? > > I think you are finally beginning to realize what a lying, toxic, mentally > ill parasite snit really is. I don't dislike him, but I take a strong exception to his ridiculous view of Christianity. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 14:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1b13t$47m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330649 |
On 2015-11-03 1:56 PM, Snit wrote a lot of stuff to someone who really doesn't want to argue. -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 09:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <63603644-b21d-442e-9fea-d32a841ffd0f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #330631 |
On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 10:18:55 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > On 11/3/15, 6:36 AM, in article n1ad4f$fb1$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > > On 2015-11-02 10:05 PM, Snit wrote: > >> On 11/2/15, 7:54 PM, in article n197ge$ds5$5@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > >> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> > >>> On 2015-11-02 9:03 PM, Snit wrote: > >>>> On 11/2/15, 6:49 PM, in article n193ni$a62$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > >>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>>> But, again, even if true you have not shown ANYONE defending what you > >>>>>>>> claimed. Nobody is saying anyone has the right to rape or kill. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Read this <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Skimmed - did not see any such defense. Can you quote it? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Then this > >>>>>>> <http://sheikyermami.com/2011/04/the-rape-of-infidel-women-is-as-islamic > >>>>>>> -a > >>>>>>> s- > >>>>>>> ko > >>>>>>> ran-sira-hadith/> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Skimmed - did not see any such defense. Can you quote it? > >>>>> > >>>>> Sorry, was the wrong link for the second: > >>>>> <http://pamelageller.com/2011/12/fatwa-permits-muslim-soldiers-to-kidnap-i > >>>>> mp > >>>>> ri > >>>>> son-and-rape-infidel-women.html/> > >>>> > >>>> Would love to see a reputable source to back this... but keep in mind US > >>>> soldiers rape their enemies, too. Not defending it in either case. > >>> > >>> Yep, if it disagrees with what your beloved mainstream media says, it's > >>> not reputable. I should have looked for CNN or some other > >>> corporate-owned and controlled news agency to support my statements. God > >>> knows that they're objective. > >> > >> Something with real journalists... not a far right site. > >> > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Geller> > >> > >> It would be like me using the Huffington Post and Mother Jones as my > >> sources. Would you accept those? > > > > Rather than look for a source that you would consider reputable, I would > > rather simply not discuss with you at all. The whole "this is not a > > credible source" bullshit is used on Facebook ad nauseum as a response > > to somebody making a good point against a leftist twat. Just last week, > > I was told that data from the CDC was not reputable. I have no interest > > in engaging in such idiocy. > > > >>> As for the American military partaking in unethical activities; those > >>> who do are punished very severely by the people in charge. > >> > >> So when will Cheney and Bush be punished for their torture policies? > > > > As soon as you get off of Usenet and punish them. > > > >>> Nothing in the religion they follow nor in the policies of the nation they > >>> serve suggests that they have the right to do what they did. > >> > >> They invoke their religion to defend their actions. Bush even said God told > >> him to attack Iraq. > > > > And we already spoke about this at which point I said that nothing in > > the scripture and no religious leader had ever given him the right to > > state such things. He does not represent Christians or Christianity, he > > simply wished that he did. Besides, the religion is meant to be a > > personal thing and the very fact that religious leaders exist is a > > testament to the fact that it is constantly being misinterpreted. > > > >>> Islam, nevertheless, sees no problem with raping "infidel" females of any > >>> age. > >> > >> Some Muslims I can go with, but you are generalizing in a way that is not > >> true. > > > > <http://shoebat.com/2013/11/28/15-muslims-gang-rape-young-girl-turns-insane-mu > > rder/> > > > > <http://www.religiousfreedomcoalition.org/2013/09/20/muslim-man-rapes-child-br > > ide-until-she-dies/> > > > > <http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/sacrificing-our-daughters-the-psychology-of > > -islamic-rape-gangs/> > > > > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3068/muslim-child-rape-gangs-britain> > > > > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3068/muslim-child-rape-gangs-britain> > > > > It's in their fucking religion. Stop defending it just because you know > > a couple of friendly Muslims. Muslims who don't believe that it is their > > right to rape infidel women and girls are in the minority OR are waiting > > until their numbers become significant enough to gain the right to do > > such things. As long as they remain a minority, they know that they will > > be punished for doing so but significant enough numbers means that the > > Sharia law is implemented and it does not believe that it is a crime to > > force sex on an infidel. > > You have already been shown the passages from the Bible which ALSO support > atrocities and immoral behavior. > > The elephant in the room is pretending the two religions are significantly > different. They are not. Today there are very notable differences, as I've proven. You've been given ample opportunity to show otherwise and you've failed. Why is that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 12:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <teplm3fk2dbo.lfxo8lmhik9e$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #330681 |
On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:24:52 -0800 (PST), Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 10:18:55 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote: >> On 11/3/15, 6:36 AM, in article n1ad4f$fb1$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> >>> On 2015-11-02 10:05 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> On 11/2/15, 7:54 PM, in article n197ge$ds5$5@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2015-11-02 9:03 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 11/2/15, 6:49 PM, in article n193ni$a62$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But, again, even if true you have not shown ANYONE defending what you >>>>>>>>>> claimed. Nobody is saying anyone has the right to rape or kill. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Read this <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Skimmed - did not see any such defense. Can you quote it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then this >>>>>>>>> <http://sheikyermami.com/2011/04/the-rape-of-infidel-women-is-as-islamic >>>>>>>>> -a >>>>>>>>> s- >>>>>>>>> ko >>>>>>>>> ran-sira-hadith/> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Skimmed - did not see any such defense. Can you quote it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry, was the wrong link for the second: >>>>>>> <http://pamelageller.com/2011/12/fatwa-permits-muslim-soldiers-to-kidnap-i >>>>>>> mp >>>>>>> ri >>>>>>> son-and-rape-infidel-women.html/> >>>>>> >>>>>> Would love to see a reputable source to back this... but keep in mind US >>>>>> soldiers rape their enemies, too. Not defending it in either case. >>>>> >>>>> Yep, if it disagrees with what your beloved mainstream media says, it's >>>>> not reputable. I should have looked for CNN or some other >>>>> corporate-owned and controlled news agency to support my statements. God >>>>> knows that they're objective. >>>> >>>> Something with real journalists... not a far right site. >>>> >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Geller> >>>> >>>> It would be like me using the Huffington Post and Mother Jones as my >>>> sources. Would you accept those? >>> >>> Rather than look for a source that you would consider reputable, I would >>> rather simply not discuss with you at all. The whole "this is not a >>> credible source" bullshit is used on Facebook ad nauseum as a response >>> to somebody making a good point against a leftist twat. Just last week, >>> I was told that data from the CDC was not reputable. I have no interest >>> in engaging in such idiocy. >>> >>>>> As for the American military partaking in unethical activities; those >>>>> who do are punished very severely by the people in charge. >>>> >>>> So when will Cheney and Bush be punished for their torture policies? >>> >>> As soon as you get off of Usenet and punish them. >>> >>>>> Nothing in the religion they follow nor in the policies of the nation they >>>>> serve suggests that they have the right to do what they did. >>>> >>>> They invoke their religion to defend their actions. Bush even said God told >>>> him to attack Iraq. >>> >>> And we already spoke about this at which point I said that nothing in >>> the scripture and no religious leader had ever given him the right to >>> state such things. He does not represent Christians or Christianity, he >>> simply wished that he did. Besides, the religion is meant to be a >>> personal thing and the very fact that religious leaders exist is a >>> testament to the fact that it is constantly being misinterpreted. >>> >>>>> Islam, nevertheless, sees no problem with raping "infidel" females of any >>>>> age. >>>> >>>> Some Muslims I can go with, but you are generalizing in a way that is not >>>> true. >>> >>> <http://shoebat.com/2013/11/28/15-muslims-gang-rape-young-girl-turns-insane-mu >>> rder/> >>> >>> <http://www.religiousfreedomcoalition.org/2013/09/20/muslim-man-rapes-child-br >>> ide-until-she-dies/> >>> >>> <http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/sacrificing-our-daughters-the-psychology-of >>> -islamic-rape-gangs/> >>> >>> <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3068/muslim-child-rape-gangs-britain> >>> >>> <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3068/muslim-child-rape-gangs-britain> >>> >>> It's in their fucking religion. Stop defending it just because you know >>> a couple of friendly Muslims. Muslims who don't believe that it is their >>> right to rape infidel women and girls are in the minority OR are waiting >>> until their numbers become significant enough to gain the right to do >>> such things. As long as they remain a minority, they know that they will >>> be punished for doing so but significant enough numbers means that the >>> Sharia law is implemented and it does not believe that it is a crime to >>> force sex on an infidel. >> >> You have already been shown the passages from the Bible which ALSO support >> atrocities and immoral behavior. >> >> The elephant in the room is pretending the two religions are significantly >> different. They are not. > > Today there are very notable differences, as I've proven. You've been given ample opportunity to show otherwise and you've failed. Why is that? Here is why snit failed: http://www.mbfg.co.uk/user/products/large/hempel_epoxy_adhesive.jpg -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 13:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1aumc$mls$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330631 |
On 2015-11-03 12:18 PM, Snit wrote: > On 11/3/15, 6:36 AM, in article n1ad4f$fb1$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> On 2015-11-02 10:05 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, 7:54 PM, in article n197ge$ds5$5@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-11-02 9:03 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 11/2/15, 6:49 PM, in article n193ni$a62$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> But, again, even if true you have not shown ANYONE defending what you >>>>>>>>> claimed. Nobody is saying anyone has the right to rape or kill. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Read this <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Skimmed - did not see any such defense. Can you quote it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then this >>>>>>>> <http://sheikyermami.com/2011/04/the-rape-of-infidel-women-is-as-islamic >>>>>>>> -a >>>>>>>> s- >>>>>>>> ko >>>>>>>> ran-sira-hadith/> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Skimmed - did not see any such defense. Can you quote it? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, was the wrong link for the second: >>>>>> <http://pamelageller.com/2011/12/fatwa-permits-muslim-soldiers-to-kidnap-i >>>>>> mp >>>>>> ri >>>>>> son-and-rape-infidel-women.html/> >>>>> >>>>> Would love to see a reputable source to back this... but keep in mind US >>>>> soldiers rape their enemies, too. Not defending it in either case. >>>> >>>> Yep, if it disagrees with what your beloved mainstream media says, it's >>>> not reputable. I should have looked for CNN or some other >>>> corporate-owned and controlled news agency to support my statements. God >>>> knows that they're objective. >>> >>> Something with real journalists... not a far right site. >>> >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Geller> >>> >>> It would be like me using the Huffington Post and Mother Jones as my >>> sources. Would you accept those? >> >> Rather than look for a source that you would consider reputable, I would >> rather simply not discuss with you at all. The whole "this is not a >> credible source" bullshit is used on Facebook ad nauseum as a response >> to somebody making a good point against a leftist twat. Just last week, >> I was told that data from the CDC was not reputable. I have no interest >> in engaging in such idiocy. >> >>>> As for the American military partaking in unethical activities; those >>>> who do are punished very severely by the people in charge. >>> >>> So when will Cheney and Bush be punished for their torture policies? >> >> As soon as you get off of Usenet and punish them. >> >>>> Nothing in the religion they follow nor in the policies of the nation they >>>> serve suggests that they have the right to do what they did. >>> >>> They invoke their religion to defend their actions. Bush even said God told >>> him to attack Iraq. >> >> And we already spoke about this at which point I said that nothing in >> the scripture and no religious leader had ever given him the right to >> state such things. He does not represent Christians or Christianity, he >> simply wished that he did. Besides, the religion is meant to be a >> personal thing and the very fact that religious leaders exist is a >> testament to the fact that it is constantly being misinterpreted. >> >>>> Islam, nevertheless, sees no problem with raping "infidel" females of any >>>> age. >>> >>> Some Muslims I can go with, but you are generalizing in a way that is not >>> true. >> >> <http://shoebat.com/2013/11/28/15-muslims-gang-rape-young-girl-turns-insane-mu >> rder/> >> >> <http://www.religiousfreedomcoalition.org/2013/09/20/muslim-man-rapes-child-br >> ide-until-she-dies/> >> >> <http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/sacrificing-our-daughters-the-psychology-of >> -islamic-rape-gangs/> >> >> <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3068/muslim-child-rape-gangs-britain> >> >> <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3068/muslim-child-rape-gangs-britain> >> >> It's in their fucking religion. Stop defending it just because you know >> a couple of friendly Muslims. Muslims who don't believe that it is their >> right to rape infidel women and girls are in the minority OR are waiting >> until their numbers become significant enough to gain the right to do >> such things. As long as they remain a minority, they know that they will >> be punished for doing so but significant enough numbers means that the >> Sharia law is implemented and it does not believe that it is a crime to >> force sex on an infidel. > > You have already been shown the passages from the Bible which ALSO support > atrocities and immoral behavior. Which all coincidentally come from the passages that have been added by whoever was in charge. I exclusively read the apostles as should everyone else. -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 19:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhdjofaa.f3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #330694 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/3/15, 11:36 AM, in article n1aumc$mls$4@dont-email.me, "Slimer" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >>>> It's in their fucking religion. Stop defending it just because you know >>>> a couple of friendly Muslims. Muslims who don't believe that it is their >>>> right to rape infidel women and girls are in the minority OR are waiting >>>> until their numbers become significant enough to gain the right to do >>>> such things. As long as they remain a minority, they know that they will >>>> be punished for doing so but significant enough numbers means that the >>>> Sharia law is implemented and it does not believe that it is a crime to >>>> force sex on an infidel. >>> >>> You have already been shown the passages from the Bible which ALSO support >>> atrocities and immoral behavior. >> >> Which all coincidentally come from the passages that have been added by >> whoever was in charge. I exclusively read the apostles as should >> everyone else. > > What you think the religion SHOULD be does not change what it is and how > people use it. Many Muslims think those who use their religion to condone > violence are completely wrong. > "Many" being something slightly over 50 percent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web