Reply With Quote
He keeps posting the video, getting rebutted, then ignoring the rebuttal and posting the video again a few pages later.
(burp)
He keeps posting the video, getting rebutted, then ignoring the rebuttal and posting the video again a few pages later.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Well jack, you're a liar.
Or you're just very stupid.
"Were we in bed with dictators and abandoned our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems."
The implication here is 9-11 was a problem.
Is Glen Beck building a 100 million dollar mosque at Ground Zero?
By the way, Glen Beck.
So the only difference you can cite is the religion of the speaker.
That is why you are a bigot and an Islamophobe.
Looks like Glenn Beck ed you this time.By the way, Glen Beck.
The statements stand regardless of what window dressing you want to place on them.
Do you not see importance of neoconservatism and Muslim ideaologies merging?
Pat Buchanon probably said the same thing. He's also not building a mega mosque at Ground Zero.
Darrin, care to respond on whether or not you think Buchanan is a terrorist sympathizer? Or, given Chump's quote, whether Glenn Beck is?
What Pat B is doing is still as irrelevant as what Beck or Rauf are doing.
The statements stand alone, Darrin, without needed editorial context placed by someone who is desperately trying to make a weakly wobbling point.
It doesn't mean we were an accessory to 9/11. Not even close.
You need to get out of here. It's rotten your brain.
Take it up with Glenn Beck. That's what he said.
Dane bramage to the max, jack. Rotten your day.
What is your excuse for not being able to understand the stark similarities of those two statements?
I will accept stupidity....
....unless you are lying, which I am admittedly more inclined to believe.
The statements "United States policies were an accessory to..." is exactly the same as "Were we in bed with dictators and abandoned our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems."
Both statements follow the same chain of causation. They are functionally identical. Don't get hung up on nomenclature unless you want WC to come busting into this discussion.
I think the argument is valid that our policies in the M.E. predicated the terror attacks on us. I'm not justifying it in anyway, and neither are Beck or Rauf. The observation stands independent of justification, Jack. Stop trying to link them....that's the insane fallacy that drives much of the lunacy around the debate concerning the Muslim center.
*edit* Stupid brain. Replaced "Blame" with "justification".
Right back at you.
You're trying to hard lately. Take a break.
You make a nice case but sorry it doesn't cut the mus .
Jack, since to you there's an obvious difference, would you care to explain the difference between the two statements?
I didn't have to try hard at all -- just copied and pasted two quotes and exposed you and Darrin as the bigots you are.
It was quite easy.
One said USA was an accessory to 9/11 the other one did not. There is nothing else to explain.
So, if I said that one person was an accessory to a crime, and I said another person was partially responsible for a crime by committing actions that helped lead to the crime, would that be the same thing?
You're complicating it. One said the USA was an accessory to 9/11, the other did not.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
