Dish of baby food. My response to your stupid questions. (Nationwide.)
You said "Looking back at what you wrote I accept responsibility for misreading and understanding your statement while making a unsourced remark but Nati, take a chill pill because nobody likes some who purposely acts like an arse and whether you want to be liked or not you turn people off from reading what your think is right which is the point of your post or do you just like typing?"
No. I don't like typing. In fact, I'm laying on my couch next to a fan supporting my ten year old laptop with my left hand (save it everyone, don't be so predictable) and typing with my right. It's not comfortable or enjoyable by any stretch of the imagination. Still, it must be done.
You said "After virtually each xxxx xxxxxxxx Obama, Pelosi and Reid to name just a few noteworthy liberals make statements about xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxx, Obama even tried to get legislation passed but failed. Please explain how you missed their statements which were reported by every news media outlet or the ones on tho board demanding the same?"
I didn't miss anything. In fact, I was hard at work all over the web and talk radio trying to prevent the die-hard partisan xxx freak morons of America from misinterpreting all of it, running wild with their outrageous 'fear the government, 'comming to xxx xxx xxxx', 'xxxxxx America' CRAP, and inspiring more politically motivated xxxxxxxxx in the process. Your assumption that I missed any of it is the result of your failure to comprehend plain English. This, because of your refusal to remove those red tinted reading glasses.
You said "Moving right along and I'm not outright disagreeing with you only asking where you get your statistical evidence since you assert yourself to be the "die-hard free thinker" about " the vast overwhelming majority, easily 99% of those who live in the developed world are peaceful and moderate. They have no belief whatsoever in that 'dozen virgins' crap and no desire to kill the rest of us for our own beliefs" as it pertains to Muslims? Did you yourself go to them taking a survey, do you know of one where I can read the evidence supporting your conclusion?"
It's simple math and common sense. There are 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide. Most of whom live in the Third World. Their violent acts, planned in accordance with religion or otherwise, like those of people in general, have been inspired primarily by real world events and circumstances. For example, living in desert poverty and being left with no choice but to retrieve the blown up remains of their loved ones because of dumb wars fought primarily over oil.
There are several million Muslims living in America. Their Korans, like the Bibles read by Christians did not evaporate as they were carried into Western Society. Still, you are hundreds or thousands of times more likely to be assaulted by a fellow shopper over a parking space at Wal-Mart than you are to be harmed by a Muslim living in America. A similar rule applies in Europe though to a lesser degree.
I've known around a dozen Muslims personally. They have been about as friendly, peaceful, and respectful as anyone I've ever known. I'm not aware of any formal study. However, it is crystal clear to me that the vast overwhelming majority of Muslims living in America have no desire to kill in the name of Allah. The percentage is an educated guess based on their growing numbers and the fact that very few of them have been reported to commit any acts of violence.
You said "It's a great way to eliminate the Middle Class by taking more of what they have to support the needy and the Middle Class has been the ones historically who have the most compassion for the poor so it's a masterful plan to gain their acquiescence while shrinking their numbers down don't you think?"
No. It's an absurd theory. Politicians are corrupted almost exclusively by a desire to get rich. Not by a desire to control the masses. The same rule applies to both major political parties. It's done primarily by using their political influence to enact legislation designed to raise profits and stock values. In other words, by helping others to concentrate more wealth. Not by distributing wealth more evenly. After all, no 'Socialist' ever took a bribe from a Wall Street CEO in exchange for a vote to outlaw the very concept of private property. Like I said, it's an absurd theory.
It doesn't surprise me that you chose two of the least consequential political issues to go neutral on hoping to masquerade as a free thinker. In fact, I almost predicted that you would come out in support of gay marriage yesterday. But in order to convince me, it will be necessary to cite one entry made in which you agreed more with Democrats and less with Republicans BEFORE I issued the challenge.
Can you?
By the way, I was on OccupyWallSt.org two weeks ago defending Republicans against the allegations made by Democrats that they, in general, are racist. My comments defending Republicans on that issue were responded to by another user who disagreed. I stood my ground with no regard whatsoever for popularity. This proves your allegation regarding Democrat/Liberal loyalty on my part to be false.
https://occupywallst.org/forum/cant-just-the-republican-party-is-not-qualified-to/
My entries are 3/4 of the way down.
Can you cite a similar example proving non-partisanship?
No comments:
Post a Comment