Reply With Quote
Hey as long as they give back, it's ok.
You're so stupid.I guess Stalin never came along and killed 20 million of his own people.
History by cuck blake.
Hey as long as they give back, it's ok.
Sounds like some major failure to act by higher ups tipped off.
Phucking shame.
The apparent allergic repulsion to calling out radical muslims (even for those people that tweeted over 12 hours after the attack when the press had ALREADY officially called out Abu Ubaida Assailani). And the equally deliberate aversion to identifying Christians as the targets.So what are you mad at exactly?
Logical, normal restraint?
Oddly enough, Robert O'Rourke's tweet was the only one among democrat elitists that properly identified Christians as the group that was targeted by the attacks. What's crazy is that some retweets of his tweet called him out for doing so ("hey Beto, not all of the people at the hotels were Christian. Your tweet is incorrect!").
i'm referring to persecution in the US. i have no doubt that a lot of different people are being persecuted around the globe. christians/easter worshippers included
Lol why'd you purposely say "religious" here instead of "Christian"?
Smh so disingenuous
so saying easter worshippers isn't inherently bad unless multiple democrats you dont like say it. got it.
Do you realize how stupid this is, snowflake?
Cuckback.
They're actually is an us.
Cuck too stupid to know how to apply schtick.
They're actually is an us.
No... Again I repeat due to your denseness: THE PHRASE in and of itself is HARMLESS.
The grander issue is that you are unwilling to see how such a response looks politically coordinated. Perhaps you don't want to see it but at least be honest about it instead of deflecting with such torturous excuses and tangential nothings. Such a random phrase (whether or not someone may have used it in the past) suddenly becomes THE phrase. Seriously? You can't see the unlikelihood of such a phrase suddenly and 'simultaneously' springing up among several top democrats as a statistical anomaly?
No. What I find stupid is your pathetic attempt to prove that the language that was used by Obama, Hillary, and others was not deliberate, not politically motivated, and not coordinated (amongst other democrats running in their elitist circles). Statistical analysis alone would suggest that either the word phrase was deliberately chosen and that other leftist representatives/elected officials simply followed suit OR that they all participated in the coordination of that narrative choice. Don't be so naïve.
Do you realize how stupid this is, snowflake?
yup seems like we're on the same page
so lol thats exactly what i said. the phrase isnt bad. its bad because mean democrats used it.
Because Pompeo's State Department is protecting the right to religious expression as part of their initiative platform. This includes protecting Tibetan monks against Chinese state-run oppression (which was part of trade talks with PRC state officials). This included providing North Koreans freedom of religious choice (which they currently don't have). This includes the establishment of legislative clauses that protect any expression of faith for countries that receive U.S. Foreign Aid. The initiative isn't exclusive to Christianity nor does it exclusively promote that faith. You really ought to do your homework before making yourself look like a dunce.
replace "bad" with "contrived coordinated effort" and then we're getting somewhere.
either way. you dont mind people using "Easter Worshippers" unless those people are multiple democrats you don't like.
thats why its manufactured outrage
Unless Muslim.
Look at the thread you're in. Stop being disingenuous about "religious expression".
What's the end purpose of this "coordinated effort"
No it's because of the unwillingness of people like yourself to see the very obvious political posturing taking place here, and how your party leaders have unanimously chosen to defend the wrong team by failing to denounce them.
Democrats understand that denouncing the evils of radical Islam creates political clout for them. It justifies a tougher policy stance on immigration. It justifies more rigorous vetting practices for ensuring our national security. These are policies that the Democrats don't want to endorse.
So after an event where the radical Islamic evil is obvious to even a 5 year old, the semantics and coordinated word choice being used by your party icons is cringe worthy. It softens the blow so that the perpetrators aren't being outright condemned (or more generally - radical Islamic ideology) and so that the targets of their persecution (Christians) aren't granted the protections that such persistent persecution would warrant. It's a strategy that deliberately avoids waking up our own nation's Christian base because they know that such knowledge would end up rallying further support for the aforementioned policies that they vehemently oppose. Democrats have already heavily tipped their hat towards promoting the idea that muslims in this country are another victim class. "Heavens forbid" that Democrats simultaneously acknowledge that Christians world-wide are being persecuted for their faith in Jesus Christ, and for their belief in Biblical principles.
To ensure that people like yourself continue in their ignorance.
Moving goal posts? You asserted that our policy was to promote Christianity. I responded that your understanding of our State policy was wrong. So now you've shifted the emphasis of your initial argument.
Typical intellectual dishonesty on your part.
BTW even your other argument is wrong. The U.S. allows the free expression of Islamic worship on it's soil. Our Cons ution is not so keen, however, on allowing Sharia Law to take precedence over it - and so it must place limits on certain aspects of their societal laws. There is a difference between the two notions but you're too obstinate to acknowledge what that difference is.
you're changing the subject from the use of "Easter Worshippers" to the denunciation of radical islam
Blake sharing his gay bedroom wall posters with the joint.
Short of a recorded conference call indicating otherwise, that's exactly what they're gonna "believe". And even then, if one existed they'd claim it was all editing. They're sperm shields, bruh.
WTF? ISIS took responsibility? I thought they were dead? Trump said so.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/52915231/MacAvoySplit1.0.jpg)