'Islamization' of Paris a Warning to the West

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/August/Islamization-of-Paris-a-Warning-to-the-West/ 'Islamization' of Paris a Warning to the West PARIS - Friday in Paris. A hidden camera shows streets blocked by huge crowds of Muslim worshippers and enforced by a private security force.

This is all illegal in France: the public worship, the blocked streets, and the private security. But the police have been ordered not to intervene.

It shows that even though some in the French government want to get tough with Muslims and ban the burqa, other parts of the French government continue to give Islam a privileged status.

An ordinary French citizen who has been watching the Islamization of Paris decided that the world needed to see what was happening to his city. He used a hidden camera to start posting videos on YouTube. His life has been threatened and so he uses the alias of "Maxime Lepante. "

Lepante's View

His camera shows that Muslims "are blocking the streets with barriers. They are praying on the ground. And the inhabitants of this district cannot leave their homes, nor go into their homes during those prayers."

"The Muslims taking over those streets do not have any authorization. They do not go to the police headquarters, so it's completely illegal," he says.

The Muslims in the street have been granted unofficial rights that no Christian group is likely to get under France's Laicite', or secularism law.

"It says people have the right to share any belief they want, any religion," Lepante explained. "But they have to practice at home or in the mosque, synagogues, churches and so on."

Some say Muslims must pray in the street because they need a larger mosque. But Lepante has observed cars coming from other parts of Paris, and he believes it is a weekly display of growing Muslim power.

"They are coming there to show that they can take over some French streets to show that they can conquer a part of the French territory," he said.

France's Islamic Future?

If France faces an Islamic future, a Russian author has already written about it. The novel is called "The Mosque of Notre Dame, 2048," a bestseller in Russia, not in France.

French publisher Jean Robin said the French media ignored the book because it was politically incorrect.

"Islam is seen as the religion of the poor people, so you can't say to the poor people, 'You're wrong,' otherwise, you're a fascist," Robin explained.

The book lays out a dark future when France has become a Muslim nation, and the famous cathedral has been turned into a mosque.

Whether that plot is farfetched depends on whom you ask. Muslims are said to be no more than 10 percent of the French population, although no one knows for sure because French law prohibits population counts by religion.

But the Muslim birthrate is significantly higher than for the native French. Some Muslim men practice polygamy, with each extra wife having children and collecting a welfare check.

"The problem of Islam is more than a problem of numbers," said French philosopher Radu Stoenescu, an Islamic expert who debates Muslim leaders on French TV. "The problem is one of principles. It's an open question. Is Islam an ideology or just a creed?"

"It doesn't matter how many there are," he aded. "The problem is the people who follow Islam; they're somehow in a political party, which has a political agenda, which means basically implementing Sharia and building an Islamic state."

In Denial or Fed Up

From the 1980s until recently, criticizing or opposing Islam was considered a social taboo, and so the government and media effectively helped Islam spread throughout France. If they do not treat this as a dire and eminent threat they will perish and /or be enslaved. If they do not immediately start deporting them and stop all immigration they will all be either murdered or enslaved! Watch the video in the link!!!! This is what will happen here!! Americans , this may be the most important video you ever watch if it finally wakes you up!! -Tyr

[jafar00]

If they do not treat this as a dire and eminent threat they will perish and /or be enslaved. If they do not immediately start deporting them and stop all immigration they will all be either murdered or enslaved! Watch the video in the link!!!! This is what will happen here!! Americans , this may be the most important video you ever watch if it finally wakes you up!! -Tyr

How can people praying be a threat? The Mosques are too small/not enough of them.

This whole story is pure hatred and propaganda. I wouldn't expect anything less from a loon like Pat Robertson.

[tailfins]

How can people praying be a threat? The Mosques are too small/not enough of them.

This whole story is pure hatred and propaganda. I wouldn't expect anything less from a loon like Pat Robertson.

The threat is people considering themselves above the law. Huge US megachurches have exiting worshipers leave in alternating small groups with traffic. They don't take over.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

How can people praying be a threat? The Mosques are too small/not enough of them.

This whole story is pure hatred and propaganda. I wouldn't expect anything less from a loon like Pat Robertson. That's a load of bull Jafar. The man plainly said they drive to that location in cars to then go out into the street to pray. What's the matter cant Allah see them pray at home? This public worship x-number of times a day is to instill in them the threat of if not seen praying they will be punished. Just more forcing of blind and total obedience. Yet they do it in the damn street to disrupt everybody else's progress and way!! F-THAT HERE , RUN OVER THEM WITH A CAR. And the GD cops there being told to just let them break the law!! A total disregard of duty to all other citizens to placate the desires of this minority! F-that too. Yet Islam demands that ! Let it demand that of me here and I'll teach them a lesson they never forget!
No one man or no one group is going to deny me my damn rights. I know how to be just as savage as they do, fight fire with fire. Only the target would never be innocent women and children with me as it so often is deliberately with those GD SAVAGES! ffing bullies that gather in a group to push their GD WAY! ALWAYS THEY GATHER WHEN DOING THIS NEVER STAND ONE ON ONE TO DO IT! WHY NEVER MAN TO MAN JAFAR(?), ANSWER THAT. I'll tell you why , they are the majority bullies and I've never met a bully yet that wasn't a graven coward at heart! And I had job where I dealt with hundreds of them.. --Tyr

[jafar00]

The threat is people considering themselves above the law. Huge US megachurches have exiting worshipers leave in alternating small groups with traffic. They don't take over.

I've prayed on the streets of Paris too. It takes only a few minutes and usually it is only twice a year it happens on the two Eids. In Sydney we do it in a public park because we have a lot of them here unlike Paris. It's not like they are taking over. Last time I was there in Eid a policeman was nice enough to hold traffic for the 5 minutes it took us to pray.


That's a load of bull Jafar. The man plainly said they drive to that location in cars to then go out into the street to pray. What's the matter cant Allah see them pray at home? This public worship x-number of times a day is to instill in them the threat of if not seen praying they will be punished. Just more forcing of blind and total obedience. Yet they do it in the damn street to disrupt everybody else's progress and way!! F-THAT HERE , RUN OVER THEM WITH A CAR. And the GD cops there being told to just let them break the law!! A total disregard of duty to all other citizens to placate the desires of this minority! F-that too. Yet Islam demands that ! Let it demand that of me here and I'll teach them a lesson they never forget!
No one man or no one group is going to deny me my damn rights. I know how to be just as savage as they do, fight fire with fire. Only the target would never be innocent women and children with me as it so often is deliberately with those GD SAVAGES! ffing bullies that gather in a group to push their GD WAY! ALWAYS THEY GATHER WHEN DOING THIS NEVER STAND ONE ON ONE TO DO IT! WHY NEVER MAN TO MAN JAFAR(?), ANSWER THAT. I'll tell you why , they are the majority bullies and I've never met a bully yet that wasn't a graven coward at heart! And I had job where I dealt with hundreds of them.. --Tyr

Speaking of bullies, maybe you need to calm down a bit. Perhaps a nice, warm chamomile tea? I'll use my best china :)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I've prayed on the streets of Paris too. It takes only a few minutes and usually it is only twice a year it happens on the two Eids. In Sydney we do it in a public park because we have a lot of them here unlike Paris. It's not like they are taking over. Last time I was there in Eid a policeman was nice enough to hold traffic for the 5 minutes it took us to pray.



Speaking of bullies, maybe you need to calm down a bit. Perhaps a nice, warm chamomile tea? I'll use my best china :) That's right Jafar, accuse me of bullying merely because I dare to stand up for my rights. Tell me what right do they have to pray in the streets and stop traffic! To pray blocking the sidewalks and thus stop others from going about their business? Don't they have over a thousand mosques in Paris? Why can't they gather in groups at other member's homes ? That is what Christians do.. when not gathering at churches. No, Islam puts on parade its religion and does so to intimidate non-believers. By such actions it betrays what it is... Trust me on this, here in the South they will not get away with that crap. We down here aren't as appeasement minded as are other parts of this nation.. If cops didn't arrest them for such violations here we men would put a stop to it and let the consequences be damned! I know how to push when it is time to push and I damn sure am not the only one that does here in the South. This attitude is why the other parts of the nation so dislike us, because we are quicker to defend ourselves and our rights(its in our blood). --Tyr

[Drummond]

I've prayed on the streets of Paris too. It takes only a few minutes and usually it is only twice a year it happens on the two Eids

Tailfins made an excellent point, Jafar, when he posted:


The threat is people considering themselves above the law.
And that's exactly right.

Jafar, how many times have you posted negatively about Anjem Choudary ? YET ... we now get your admission that you defied French law, and put your religion above it.

Choudary has fought, long and hard, to push the message that Muslims should ignore man-made law and place Islam above it. This, Jafar, is a cornerstone of all that drives him, and all he preaches. But for all your scathing comments about him, NOW, we see YOU willing to do the same !!!!

Islam, as people such as Tyr and myself have said, is an arrogant religion, wanting conquest and dominion over humanity as a whole. This religion, as Choudary preaches, wants to overcome systems, laws, practices, incompatible with it, and see to it that Islam's adherents conduct themselves accordingly.

THIS - YOU - DO !!

Since we now know that you'll defy the law of the land when it suits your worship of your religion, perhaps you'd care to tell us, honestly, what else you'll defy, if your religion requires it of you ? Care to make a list ?

[jafar00]

Tailfins made an excellent point, Jafar, when he posted:


And that's exactly right.

Jafar, how many times have you posted negatively about Anjem Choudary ? YET ... we now get your admission that you defied French law, and put your religion above it.

Choudary has fought, long and hard, to push the message that Muslims should ignore man-made law and place Islam above it. This, Jafar, is a cornerstone of all that drives him, and all he preaches. But for all your scathing comments about him, NOW, we see YOU willing to do the same !!!!

Islam, as people such as Tyr and myself have said, is an arrogant religion, wanting conquest and dominion over humanity as a whole. This religion, as Choudary preaches, wants to overcome systems, laws, practices, incompatible with it, and see to it that Islam's adherents conduct themselves accordingly.

THIS - YOU - DO !!

Since we now know that you'll defy the law of the land when it suits your worship of your religion, perhaps you'd care to tell us, honestly, what else you'll defy, if your religion requires it of you ? Care to make a list ?

I've also prayed in the streets near overflowing Mosques in Egypt too. If you don't want us praying in the streets, don't protest when we want to build Mosques to accommodate worshippers.

[Drummond]

I've also prayed in the streets near overflowing Mosques in Egypt too. If you don't want us praying in the streets, don't protest when we want to build Mosques to accommodate worshippers.

Your reply evades the point of my previous post.

Is the law the same in Egypt as in France ? Somehow I don't believe so !!! France isn't, as a country with its own culture, required to be committed to Islam as would naturally be far more expected of a country such as Egypt.

WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR THIS THREAD, JAFAR ?

But then ... since you actually demand that we DON'T protest about Mosque building, perhaps what you're really saying is that, by hook or by crook, SOMEHOW you're going to INSIST that Islam has, and purposely maintains, a strong and demanding presence wherever it chooses to root itself ?

If that breaks the law of the country in question ... it certainly seems that you're OK with that.

As is Anjem Choudary.

QED.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Your reply evades the point of my previous post.

Is the law the same in Egypt as in France ? Somehow I don't believe so !!! France isn't, as a country with its own culture, required to be committed to Islam as would naturally be far more expected of a country such as Egypt.

WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR THIS THREAD, JAFAR ?

But then ... since you actually demand that we DON'T protest about Mosque building, perhaps what you're really saying is that, by hook or by crook, SOMEHOW you're going to INSIST that Islam has, and purposely maintains, a strong and demanding presence wherever it chooses to root itself ?

If that breaks the law of the country in question ... it certainly seems that you're OK with that.

As is Anjem Choudary.

QED. Remember that in Jafar's case man's law means nothing. The muslims are taught that only Allah is to be obeyed. When worship is afoot only Islam, Allah, the Quran and Mohammad matter! That was conveniently overlooked when this "engineered worldwide inviting in" and giving special treatment to muslim immigrants was being carried out for decades by the damn libs/leftists and other assorted worthless vermin! Now ever nation they infested has already or is soon to find its massive mistake. Much like inviting in a child molester to babysit your children while you fly away on a month long vacation in another country! Yes, that type of insanity was engaged in and still is here because muslims are on a fast track to immigrate here still!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Tyr

[jimnyc]

How can people praying be a threat? The Mosques are too small/not enough of them.

Is it legal to block the streets? Is it legal to block other citizens? CAN they get a permit or similar to allow them to do this outside in a designated area? Is it mandatory that these people pray in a mosque and/or outside in the streets? I've seen Muslims praying in their bedrooms, living rooms, storage room at work, mechanics garage down the road, behind the soda coolers, in the store after locking the door... Point is, they don't HAVE to do this in a manner in which it disrupts so many others, they CHOOSE to do it in this manner, when they have many alternatives.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Here is what China does to them. Perhaps one of the few things China does right IMHO. --Tyr
http://www.unpo.org/article/16502 East Turkestan: Five More Killed In Ongoing Shootings Against Uyghurs

Five Uyghurs have been killed by the Chinese security forces in the third consecutive week of shootings in East Turkestan. The Uyghurs are increasingly subject to violence and denounce discrimination and religious controls under Beijing’s rule.

Below is an article published by Radio Free Asia.

Chinese security forces shot dead five ethnic minority Muslim Uyghurs in the third consecutive week of fatal shootings in a restive county in the northwestern region of Xinjiang, an exile Uyghur group said Monday [14 October 2013], accusing the authorities of a "cover-up".

The latest killing in Yingwusitang township in Yarkand (in Chinese, Shache) county, which is administered by the Silk Road city of Kashgar, occurred on Friday [11 October 2013] when police surrounded a house and gunned down five occupants who had not been suspects of any crime, according to the Munich-based World Uyghur Congress.

Dilxat Raxit, the Sweden-based spokesman for the group, accused the authorities of using excessive force in the incident, saying it was unfortunate that the killings came ahead of the Eid al-Adha, the Muslim festival of Sacrifice, to be observed on Tuesday [15 October 2013].

“Ahead of the festival, Chinese armed personnel surrounded a Uyghur house in Yarkand. They opened fire and caused the death of five Uyghurs. They used excessive force," he told RFA's Cantonese Service.
"The authorities have tried to cover up the news. They thought some suspects were inside [the house],” he said, suggesting that the five had done nothing wrong.

A staff of the police station at Yingwusitang, when contacted, said he did not know about the shooting incident.
A local motel staff said the shooting occurred after "some disruptive people escaped and they [the police] could not arrest them."

Increasing violence

In the previous two weeks, seven Uyghurs had been shot dead by police in separate clashes in Yarkand county, underlining a trend of increasing violence in Xinjiang, where the minority Muslim Uyghurs complain of discrimination and religious controls under Beijing’s rule.

Four died after police opened fire on a group of Uyghurs in a private residence in Abu Dona Village No. 16 on Oct. 3 [2013] after suspecting them of "illegal assembly," the World Uyghur Congress said last week.
On Sept. 26 [2013], police had opened fire and killed two Uyghur residents in the same village, and two days later police fired on suspects at the Yarkand railway station, killing one Uyghur.

He said nine Uyghurs were also detained after they marched to the Yarkand county government offices on the Oct. 1 National Day holiday to protest the earlier killings.

Chinese authorities usually blame outbreaks of violence in Xinjiang on "terrorists" among Uyghurs, but rights groups and experts say Beijing exaggerates the terrorism threat to take the heat off domestic policies that cause unrest or to justify the authorities' use of force against Uyghurs.
- See more at: http://www.unpo.org/article/16502#sthash.5TtEEJXr.dpuf

[aboutime]

Is it legal to block the streets? Is it legal to block other citizens? CAN they get a permit or similar to allow them to do this outside in a designated area? Is it mandatory that these people pray in a mosque and/or outside in the streets? I've seen Muslims praying in their bedrooms, living rooms, storage room at work, mechanics garage down the road, behind the soda coolers, in the store after locking the door... Point is, they don't HAVE to do this in a manner in which it disrupts so many others, they CHOOSE to do it in this manner, when they have many alternatives.


jafar. NOT TOO SMALL to hide the AK-47's, or BOMB VESTS behind the Quran though. Is it?

[fj1200]

Here is what China does to them. Perhaps one of the few things China does right IMHO. --Tyr

East Turkestan: Five More Killed In Ongoing Shootings Against Uyghurs

Five Uyghurs have been killed by the Chinese security forces in the third consecutive week of shootings in East Turkestan. The Uyghurs are increasingly subject to violence and denounce discrimination and religious controls under Beijing’s rule.

Below is an article published by Radio Free Asia.

Chinese security forces shot dead five ethnic minority Muslim Uyghurs in the third consecutive week of fatal shootings in a restive county in the northwestern region of Xinjiang, an exile Uyghur group said Monday [14 October 2013], accusing the authorities of a "cover-up".

The latest killing in Yingwusitang township in Yarkand (in Chinese, Shache) county, which is administered by the Silk Road city of Kashgar, occurred on Friday [11 October 2013] when police surrounded a house and gunned down five occupants who had not been suspects of any crime, according to the Munich-based World Uyghur Congress.

- See more at: http://www.unpo.org/article/16502#sthash.5TtEEJXr.dpuf

Religious oppression is doing things right? If same had happened to Christians you'd be screaming bloody murder.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Religious oppression is doing things right? If same had happened to Christians you'd be screaming bloody murder.

Religious oppression is doing things right? Really?? How would you know that its religious oppression when the article did not cite why the Chinese forces where raiding the homes or why they shot the muslims? A very big assumption you just took there . Why? Is every government raid wrong or what?? Or just Chinese ones that are out to stop muslim terrorists?? :poke:

[aboutime]

Religious oppression is doing things right? If same had happened to Christians you'd be screaming bloody murder.


Why would YOU even care about it fj?

[fj1200]

Really?? How would you know that its religious oppression when the article did not cite why the Chinese forces where raiding the homes or why they shot the muslims? A very big assumption you just took there . Why? Is every government raid wrong or what?? Or just Chinese ones that are out to stop muslim terrorists?? :poke:

Surely you can't be serious. There was very little, anything?, that suggested otherwise in your article.

And of course, China has a sterling record on human rights and religious accommodation. /sarcasm

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Surely you can't be serious. There was very little, anything?, that suggested otherwise in your article.

And of course, China has a sterling record on human rights and religious accommodation. /sarcasm So with that statement can I take it --YOU- ruled out any possibility of muslim terrorists acting? If so , then please give your source of the knowledge just how that has been zeroed out as a possibility.--Tyr

[fj1200]

So with that statement can I take it --YOU- ruled out any possibility of muslim terrorists acting? If so , then please give your source of the knowledge just how that has been zeroed out as a possibility.--Tyr

Oh I base it almost entirely on the article that YOU posted. Sprinkle in a bit about the historical fact of religious, and otherwise, oppression of China and its security forces and I don't see the conclusion that you reached. But please, tell me more about the article and the justification that China should "rightly" do to the Uyghurs with apparent little provocation.


Here is what China does to them. Perhaps one of the few things China does right IMHO. --Tyr

East Turkestan: Five More Killed In Ongoing Shootings Against Uyghurs

Five Uyghurs have been killed by the Chinese security forces...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Oh I base it almost entirely on the article that YOU posted. Sprinkle in a bit about the historical fact of religious, and otherwise, oppression of China and its security forces and I don't see the conclusion that you reached. But please, tell me more about the article and the justification that China should "rightly" do to the Uyghurs with apparent little provocation.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_w-hz2OGbk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP8wgsxIF6Y
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3633/china-muslim-world Perhaps you should use the links listed above to educate yourself what the muslims in China are doing.. I mean your utter dismissal of reality in that area seems to be ever so greatly lacking. Just sayin'. :poke:-Tyr

[aboutime]

Perhaps you should use the links listed above to educate yourself what the muslims in China are doing.. I mean your utter dismissal of reality in that area seems to be ever so greatly lacking. Just sayin'. :poke:-Tyr


Tyr. You are just wasting your time with fj. His only purpose here is to incite arguments to please his miserable, lonely non-life of ignorance, and stupidity. WHICH HE EXCELS AT.

[fj1200]

Perhaps you should use the links listed above to educate yourself what the muslims in China are doing.. I mean your utter dismissal of reality in that area seems to be ever so greatly lacking. Just sayin'. :poke:-Tyr

I haven't dismissed anything, I made a comment based on what you posted. Perhaps you should provide links that would at least add a little more substance to what you intend. Just sayin'. :slap:

[fj1200]

And FWIW, I'm not entirely sure you didn't just google, "Muslims" and "China," and then pick three. :poke:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I haven't dismissed anything, I made a comment based on what you posted. Perhaps you should provide links that would at least add a little more substance to what you intend. Just sayin'. :slap: Sure thing amigo, right after I see all those links you post when presenting your views. :slap: Can I not wait for the reply to offer more evidence or is it forbidden/ ;)--Tyr

[fj1200]

Sure thing amigo, right after I see all those links you post when presenting your views. :slap: Can I not wait for the reply to offer more evidence or is it forbidden/ ;)--Tyr

A. My view is that religious oppression is bad, I'm surprised you disagree. B And my standard is only reasonable doubt. :poke: Nevertheless:

RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION AND INTOLERANCE IN CHINA (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_china.htm#)
The Chinese government has relentlessly suppressed religious groups since achieving power in 1949. The rest of the world is most familiar with its oppression of non-registered Christian groups. However, the government has also persecuted many types of new religious and spiritual groups, including the Falun Gong (http://www.religioustolerance.org/falungong.htm). In fact, its suppression extends beyond such groups to include organizations that teach only simple meditation and gymnastic techniques. The government appears to fear any national group that is capable of organizing its followers into direct action.

Religious Persecution In China (http://www.loyola.edu/amnesty/chinapers.htm)

The Chinese Communist Party does not tolerate religion. Due to its Marxist sympathies the Party simply eradicates those religious institutions that do not support its Communist agenda. Only those religious groups that support the Chinese Communist Party are allowed to exist. These institutions are made up of “puppet” religious leaders that promote the Communist Party. Religious leaders who do not follow the Chinese Communist Party are imprisoned or sent to labor camps. Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims are all persecuted. The US State Department has studied the issue and stated the following in their 1998 human rights report on the People’s Republic of China:

You wouldn't be supporting the lefties here would you?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

A. My view is that religious oppression is bad, I'm surprised you disagree. B And my standard is only reasonable doubt. :poke: Nevertheless:

RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION AND INTOLERANCE IN CHINA (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_china.htm#)

Religious Persecution In China (http://www.loyola.edu/amnesty/chinapers.htm)


You wouldn't be supporting the lefties here would you?
You wouldn't be supporting the lefties here would you ^^^^^^^^^^^^ You wouldn't be supporting the Uyghur Terrorists would you?-:poke: And what's with the lefty accusation, are you picking up "bad habits"?- ;)--Tyr

[fj1200]

^^^^^^^^^^^^ You wouldn't be supporting the Uyghur Terrorists would you?-:poke: And what's with the lefty accusation, are you picking up "bad habits"?- ;)--Tyr

Well you haven't proven "terrorist" yet but at this point I've only been against religious oppression by the Chinese government. And am I picking up the same bad habits of certain unnamed posters you share an affinity with? No. You seem to be supporting the Chinese against the Muslims via there storied religious oppression which is alleged to be "due to its Marxist sympathies." I'm just following the dots whereas others make up their own dots. :poke:

[Drummond]

Well you haven't proven "terrorist" yet but at this point I've only been against religious oppression by the Chinese government. And am I picking up the same bad habits of certain unnamed posters you share an affinity with? No. You seem to be supporting the Chinese against the Muslims via there storied religious oppression which is alleged to be "due to its Marxist sympathies." I'm just following the dots whereas others make up their own dots. :poke:

Consistency isn't your strong point, at times, FJ. Attention span problems, or agenda adherence problems, or something more fundamental ?

Choose between:


A. My view is that religious oppression is bad, I'm surprised you disagree.

.. and the altogether LESS generalised ..


but at this point I've only been against religious oppression by the Chinese government.:laugh:

By the way, just days ago, you were standing with Lady Thatcher (.. after having posted a piece rudely just calling her 'Thatcher', a day or 2 previously). Now, you're only APPARENTLY Thatcherite ?

Perhaps your Leftie scriptwriters could clear that one up for you, FJ.

[fj1200]

Consistency isn't your strong point, at times, FJ. Attention span problems, or agenda adherence problems, or something more fundamental ?

Choose between:

.. and the altogether LESS generalised ..

:laugh:

So your complain centers around my level of generality on two posts? :laugh: indeed. The first quote was fairly general while the second was specific to a particular post. Oh yeah, what was my agenda again? Prove you to be a non-conservative thinker? That agenda was completed some time ago.


By the way, just days ago, you were standing with Lady Thatcher (.. after having posted a piece rudely just calling her 'Thatcher', a day or 2 previously). Now, you're only APPARENTLY Thatcherite ?

Perhaps your Leftie scriptwriters could clear that one up for you, FJ.

Well I figured the board needed one actual Thatcherite on the board and since you seem to be failing to live up to the moniker I thought I would take up the handle.

Now, if you have an actual argument as opposed to obfuscating your ignorance then that would something new. :)

[Drummond]

So your complain centers around my level of generality on two posts? :laugh: indeed. The first quote was fairly general while the second was specific to a particular post. Oh yeah, what was my agenda again? Prove you to be a non-conservative thinker? That agenda was completed some time ago.

Your agenda is to oppose the Conservatives here, as befits the bog-standard agenda of a Leftie. In my case, you try disinformation, for example, saying I'm a 'non -Conservative' thinker, and that you supposedly 'proved' it. Which is nonsense, of course.


Well I figured the board needed one actual Thatcherite on the board and since you seem to be failing to live up to the moniker I thought I would take up the handle.

... and another example ! Quite.

Going from a Leftie who argues for terrorist 'human rights', to derisorily calling Lady Thatcher just 'Thatcher' (a bit of abuse our LEFTIES invariably get up to), to changing your monicker to claim you 'stand with Lady Thatcher', to then insert one casting doubt on that (!!!!) isn't really all that convincing !!!!:laugh::laugh:


Now, if you have an actual argument as opposed to obfuscating your ignorance then that would something new. :)

... and end on an insult - because, of course, you at heart, 'are Conservative-friendly' ... :laugh2:

[NightTrain]

I've prayed on the streets of Paris too. It takes only a few minutes and usually it is only twice a year it happens on the two Eids. In Sydney we do it in a public park because we have a lot of them here unlike Paris. It's not like they are taking over. Last time I was there in Eid a policeman was nice enough to hold traffic for the 5 minutes it took us to pray.


Why in the hell would you choose to block traffic and pray in the streets?

And don't give me some weak bullshit that there wasn't any room anywhere else.

[fj1200]

Your agenda is to oppose the Conservatives here, as befits the bog-standard agenda of a Leftie. In my case, you try disinformation, for example, saying I'm a 'non -Conservative' thinker, and that you supposedly 'proved' it. Which is nonsense, of course.

That's not my agenda, that's your imagination. Point out where I have posted against conservatism. Besides, I've proven long ago you're not really a conservative based on your desire for gross expansion of the State over the individual.


... and another example ! Quite.

Going from a Leftie who argues for terrorist 'human rights', to derisorily calling Lady Thatcher just 'Thatcher' (a bit of abuse our LEFTIES invariably get up to), to changing your monicker to claim you 'stand with Lady Thatcher', to then insert one casting doubt on that (!!!!) isn't really all that convincing !!!!:laugh::laugh:

:confused: Both of my titles were and remain true but there's only room for one. One of us should carry on with the fundamental beliefs of your former prime minister and it doesn't appear to be you. And I suppose I refer to her as Thatcher like I, and plenty of other fine conservatives over here, refer to our 40th President as Reagan. Your perceived slights are of your own making. The "apparently" is because while I had not claimed, nor thought myself, to be a Thatcherite; recent evidence has come to light that I am in fact a Thatcherite.


... and end on an insult - because, of course, you at heart, 'are Conservative-friendly' ... :laugh2:

No, a conservative would be able to hold an actual conversation further proving the lie that you are one. You do not have the capacity to discuss a topic with me without attempting to make the topic about me. That is what truly shows your weakness.

[aboutime]

That's not my agenda, that's your imagination. Point out where I have posted against conservatism. Besides, I've proven long ago you're not really a conservative based on your desire for gross expansion of the State over the individual.



:confused: Both of my titles were and remain true but there's only room for one. One of us should carry on with the fundamental beliefs of your former prime minister and it doesn't appear to be you. And I suppose I refer to her as Thatcher like I, and plenty of other fine conservatives over here, refer to our 40th President as Reagan. Your perceived slights are of your own making. The "apparently" is because while I had not claimed, nor thought myself, to be a Thatcherite; recent evidence has come to light that I am in fact a Thatcherite.



No, a conservative would be able to hold an actual conversation further proving the lie that you are one. You do not have the capacity to discuss a topic with me without attempting to make the topic about me. That is what truly shows your weakness.




Sir Drummond. It appears fj is lost in 5688 .

[Drummond]

That's not my agenda, that's your imagination. Point out where I have posted against conservatism. Besides, I've proven long ago you're not really a conservative based on your desire for gross expansion of the State over the individual.

On that last point, I'll do what I have done time and again. I shall issue a challenge which you will then find you must duck rather than prove to be true.

"... on your desire for gross expansion of the State over the individual."

You state that a so-called 'gross expansion' is 'my desire'. PROVE THAT I DESIRE THIS.

I also note that you're playing with words. I did not, in my previous post, specifically state you posted against conservatisM. I said: "Your agenda is to oppose the Conservatives here". Obviously, if you want to sell yourself as a Conservative, it doesn't help your goal to too obviously post against ConservatisM, now does it ? Nonetheless, being a Leftie, YOU DO OPPOSE THE CONSERVATIVES HERE, AND YOU DO SO ESPECIALLY STRONGLY.


:confused: Both of my titles were and remain true but there's only room for one. One of us should carry on with the fundamental beliefs of your former prime minister and it doesn't appear to be you. And I suppose I refer to her as Thatcher like I, and plenty of other fine conservatives over here, refer to our 40th President as Reagan. Your perceived slights are of your own making. The "apparently" is because while I had not claimed, nor thought myself, to be a Thatcherite; recent evidence has come to light that I am in fact a Thatcherite.

The arrogance of your reinvention is staggering. Fact is that our LEFTIES refer to 'Thatcher' as 'Thatcher', because they wish to insult her memory.

And this discovery of yours of Lady Thatcher's greatness as a Conservative Leader is only very recent. When I first appeared here and argued for her, WHERE WERE YOU ? Where was your stated support ?

So here's another challenge, LEFTIE. SHOW ME WHERE - AT THAT TIME - YOU POSTED ANYTHING SUPPORTIVE OF LADY THATCHER.


No, a conservative would be able to hold an actual conversation further proving the lie that you are one. You do not have the capacity to discuss a topic with me without attempting to make the topic about me. That is what truly shows your weakness.

It worries you when I discuss you ?

Why ? Because the spotlight of truth, when trained on you, shows THE TRUTH ?

[jafar00]

Why in the hell would you choose to block traffic and pray in the streets?

And don't give me some weak bullshit that there wasn't any room anywhere else.

It's the truth. There was no other space left to pray. Prayer is very important to us. I've prayed in streets, stairwells, in a door frame, even on the mid level of the Eiffel Tower. Who are you to deny us the right?

[aboutime]

It's the truth. There was no other space left to pray. Prayer is very important to us. I've prayed in streets, stairwells, in a door frame, even on the mid level of the Eiffel Tower. Who are you to deny us the right?


YOU DO NOT HAVE THE "RIGHT" TO OBSTRUCT TRAFFIC, BLOCK TRAFFIC, or OTHERWISE IMPOSE YOUR PHONY RELIGIOUS DEMANDS ON ANYONE ELSE.

PERIOD.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE "RIGHT" TO OBSTRUCT TRAFFIC, BLOCK TRAFFIC, or OTHERWISE IMPOSE YOUR PHONY RELIGIOUS DEMANDS ON ANYONE ELSE.

PERIOD. Was a lie he just told! The muslims come out of the buildings to block the street to pray. If they simply prayed inside the buildings where they were they couldn't exert their influence and contempt over the infidels. They come out to say to us ffkk you infidels! We will force our damn religion on you and force you to witness it! Imagine what would have already happened had Christians been doing this! Government would have forcibly put a stop to it but since it is Obama's religion they do not. Obama must be impeached for if he is not this nation will fall. A fact , even if it takes another clone of him to do it (Hellory?) When we as a nation refuse to address the Islamist threat we give permission for it to conquer us and that's exactly what it will do! The muslims have bought key politicians and we see the inevitable march to the execution block they are herding us to. A fact.. Coddle a mad dog, protect it from harm and it will bite everybody it comes in contact with. That is the treachery and insanity we see going on now! -Tyr

[fj1200]

On that last point, I'll do what I have done time and again. I shall issue a challenge which you will then find you must duck rather than prove to be true.

"... on your desire for gross expansion of the State over the individual."

You state that a so-called 'gross expansion' is 'my desire'. PROVE THAT I DESIRE THIS.

I also note that you're playing with words. I did not, in my previous post, specifically state you posted against conservatisM. I said: "Your agenda is to oppose the Conservatives here". Obviously, if you want to sell yourself as a Conservative, it doesn't help your goal to too obviously post against ConservatisM, now does it ? Nonetheless, being a Leftie, YOU DO OPPOSE THE CONSERVATIVES HERE, AND YOU DO SO ESPECIALLY STRONGLY.

Prove it? Do you mean prove it again? Prove that you don't grant the State power over the individual when it comes to torture and indefinite detainment without due process rights when one can in the slightest be deemed a terrorist. Bloody hell you even propose stripping away Constitutional rights from citizens without due process. And you say prove it; it's been proven over and over by your own words.

I'm not playing with words, it's pure logic. If I'm posting "against conservatives" then I am apparently posting "against conservatism." Your abject failure to prove the latter shows your abject failure in proving the former. But more of your comical assertions that posting "against you" is posting "against a conservative" when you show little tendency in that direction. When I post "against you" I'm posting against doltism, not against conservatism.


The arrogance of your reinvention is staggering. Fact is that our LEFTIES refer to 'Thatcher' as 'Thatcher', because they wish to insult her memory.

And this discovery of yours of Lady Thatcher's greatness as a Conservative Leader is only very recent. When I first appeared here and argued for her, WHERE WERE YOU ? Where was your stated support ?

So here's another challenge, LEFTIE. SHOW ME WHERE - AT THAT TIME - YOU POSTED ANYTHING SUPPORTIVE OF LADY THATCHER.

I assume you're referring to that farcical Thatcher/Churchill debate that I could barely endure. I'm pretty sure my onset of diabetes can be tied to having to have read that one. But why don't you go ahead and try to prove your posit that I have posted anything negative about Mags. Give it a try, own up to another of your miserable failures.

:laugh: Reinvention? No, I didn't just discover her greatness as a conservative leader, I just didn't consider trying to glom onto her positions as do you but knowing that she was opposed to torture I feel that I should carry her mantle forward since you are only a poser when it comes to her ideals.


It worries you when I discuss you ?

Why ? Because the spotlight of truth, when trained on you, shows THE TRUTH ?

It doesn't worry me so much as it exposes your ignorance and inabilities to have an actual discussion. Where again you avoid your failings and attempt to make it about me. As Rush would say, "I'm living rent free in your brain." :laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

. I assume you're referring to that farcical Thatcher/Churchill debate that I could barely endure. I'm pretty sure my onset of diabetes can be tied to having to have read that one. But why don't you go ahead and try to prove your posit that I have posted anything negative about Mags. Give it a try, own up to another of your miserable failures. OK Hoss, care to cite what was farcical about it? Go ahead elaborate if you please. Since I was the other part of that debate take your best shot. --Tyr

[fj1200]

OK Hoss, care to cite what was farcical about it? Go ahead elaborate if you please. Since I was the other part of that debate take your best shot. --Tyr

That it gave me diabetes. It's like debating who was better; Peter or Paul? :poke:

[NightTrain]

It's the truth. There was no other space left to pray. Prayer is very important to us. I've prayed in streets, stairwells, in a door frame, even on the mid level of the Eiffel Tower. Who are you to deny us the right?

Since your times for prayer are static and you know in advance when you're going to drop everything and start praying, a little courteous planning on your part would find you in a suitable spot to unroll your mat and get busy praying.

Blocking traffic in a busy city to indulge your irresponsible praying habits is inexcusable.

What happens when you're driving down the highway at 70 MPH and suddenly it's time to pray? Do you let go of the wheel and begin the bob-n-chant hoping that Allah will continue to steer?

I'm sure you won a bunch of points with every motorist in the area. A little consideration for the infidels around you would go a long way.

[aboutime]

Prove it? Do you mean prove it again? Prove that you don't grant the State power over the individual when it comes to torture and indefinite detainment without due process rights when one can in the slightest be deemed a terrorist. Bloody hell you even propose stripping away Constitutional rights from citizens without due process. And you say prove it; it's been proven over and over by your own words.

I'm not playing with words, it's pure logic. If I'm posting "against conservatives" then I am apparently posting "against conservatism." Your abject failure to prove the latter shows your abject failure in proving the former. But more of your comical assertions that posting "against you" is posting "against a conservative" when you show little tendency in that direction. When I post "against you" I'm posting against doltism, not against conservatism.



I assume you're referring to that farcical Thatcher/Churchill debate that I could barely endure. I'm pretty sure my onset of diabetes can be tied to having to have read that one. But why don't you go ahead and try to prove your posit that I have posted anything negative about Mags. Give it a try, own up to another of your miserable failures.

:laugh: Reinvention? No, I didn't just discover her greatness as a conservative leader, I just didn't consider trying to glom onto her positions as do you but knowing that she was opposed to torture I feel that I should carry her mantle forward since you are only a poser when it comes to her ideals.



It doesn't worry me so much as it exposes your ignorance and inabilities to have an actual discussion. Where again you avoid your failings and attempt to make it about me. As Rush would say, "I'm living rent free in your brain." :laugh:



fj. Were you really born Insane, or did you study how to get there?

[Drummond]

Prove it? Do you mean prove it again? Prove that you don't grant the State power over the individual when it comes to torture and indefinite detainment without due process rights when one can in the slightest be deemed a terrorist.

There you go AGAIN ... defending terrorists to the hilt !! And you claim to be ANY sort of Conservative ???!!?

-- Laughable !! Yours is a bog standard LEFTIE argument.


Bloody hell you even propose stripping away Constitutional rights from citizens without due process. And you say prove it; it's been proven over and over by your own words.

NOPE.

Citizenship applies to HUMAN BEINGS .. but terrorists don't qualify. We've discussed this before, FJ, so you already know that your argument doesn't wash.

Even if I did 'concede' the 'human' status of a terrorist (WHICH I DO NOT), there'd still be the issue of how a traitor, an enemy of the country granting citizenship, could possibly be worthy of such a status.

If this is the best you can do, FJ, then I've evidently won the point. Your case remains unproven. Try again !


I'm not playing with words, it's pure logic. If I'm posting "against conservatives" then I am apparently posting "against conservatism." Your abject failure to prove the latter shows your abject failure in proving the former.

Refuted, for a reason already given. You're professing, by saying you're any sort of supporter of Lady Thatcher, to be a Conservative. Support her, and you support her brand of Conservatism. Nonetheless, none of this (even were I to accept that you WERE a supporter of hers, which is absurd) alters the fact that you strongly oppose Conservatives. Such as myself. Such as Tyr. Such as Aboutime. You SHOULD see us as allies. Instead, you attack, disagree, deride, at every opportunity.


But more of your comical assertions that posting "against you" is posting "against a conservative" when you show little tendency in that direction. When I post "against you" I'm posting against doltism, not against conservatism.

.. a case in point. Precisely.


I assume you're referring to that farcical Thatcher/Churchill debate that I could barely endure.

Tyr and myself would both like you to explain that in detail. What was your problem with it ? And surely, as a so-called 'Conservative', you'd have been reading about things you identify with ?? Yet .. your reaction seems more akin to that of Dracula encountering garlic !!


I'm pretty sure my onset of diabetes can be tied to having to have read that one.

So tell me, is witnessing political debate a known catalyst for the onset of diabetes ??????

When you dream up rot like this, you cannot expect to be taken seriously in ANYTHING you assert. I'd enjoy seeing you try to find a single case, anywhere, anywhen, of a single human being (terrorists don't qualify) being proven to be a diabetes sufferer BECAUSE they experienced an adverse reaction to a political debate !!!!


But why don't you go ahead and try to prove your posit that I have posted anything negative about Mags. Give it a try, own up to another of your miserable failures.

Laughable. You can't even REFER TO HER in respectful terms !!!!


:laugh: Reinvention? No, I didn't just discover her greatness as a conservative leader, I just didn't consider trying to glom onto her positions as do you but knowing that she was opposed to torture I feel that I should carry her mantle forward since you are only a poser when it comes to her ideals.

Thank you. So, you admit to knowing her qualities, but, ONLY NOW, to professing an outright appreciation of her and her politics. Why ? BECAUSE IT SUITS YOUR AGENDA TO DO SO, WHERE BEFORE, DOING SO WAS IRRELEVANT TO IT.


It doesn't worry me so much as it exposes your ignorance and inabilities to have an actual discussion. Where again you avoid your failings and attempt to make it about me. As Rush would say, "I'm living rent free in your brain." :laugh:

Tut tut. Such opposition to someone who, according to your reinvention, SHOULD be a natural ally of yours.

But of course, instead, I get the level of vitriol from you that I'd expect from the more hardbitten Lefties I encounter in my part of the world.

No more needs to be said. This is all one big joke.

[Drummond]

That it gave me diabetes. It's like debating who was better; Peter or Paul? :poke:

Completely ridiculous, as I've already said. Clearly you cannot be taken seriously, if you're going to allege rot like this.

[Drummond]

It's the truth. There was no other space left to pray. Prayer is very important to us. I've prayed in streets, stairwells, in a door frame, even on the mid level of the Eiffel Tower. Who are you to deny us the right?

What 'right' do you justly claim TO DEFY THE LAW ?

Street praying in France is against the law. You do it ANYWAY.

.. Anjem Choudary would approve, however, wouldn't he ?? ....

You seem to think you've every 'right' to shove your religion down the throats of people around you, to the extent that you'll obstruct them wherever and whenever you want to. THIS is the arrogance of Islam !!

Respect the laws of the country you find yourself in, not ride roughshod over them.

[aboutime]

What 'right' do you justly claim TO DEFY THE LAW ?

Street praying in France is against the law. You do it ANYWAY.

.. Anjem Choudary would approve, however, wouldn't he ?? ....

You seem to think you've every 'right' to shove your religion down the throats of people around you, to the extent that you'll obstruct them wherever and whenever you want to. THIS is the arrogance of Islam !!

Respect the laws of the country you find yourself in, not ride roughshod over them.



JAFAR. You and your fellow prayer buddies should move here to the Washington DC area, and find your important prayer spots to assemble in the middle of what we call "THE BELTWAY" around DC. Which is several branches of Interstate 95.
If you are looking for POPULATION CONTROL techniques.
The BELTWAY would be the perfect answer to anyone who THINKS they have a right to block, or interfere with TRAFFIC.

[fj1200]

There you go AGAIN ... defending terrorists to the hilt !! And you claim to be ANY sort of Conservative ???!!?

-- Laughable !! Yours is a bog standard LEFTIE argument.


NOPE.

Citizenship applies to HUMAN BEINGS .. but terrorists don't qualify. We've discussed this before, FJ, so you already know that your argument doesn't wash.

Even if I did 'concede' the 'human' status of a terrorist (WHICH I DO NOT), there'd still be the issue of how a traitor, an enemy of the country granting citizenship, could possibly be worthy of such a status.

If this is the best you can do, FJ, then I've evidently won the point. Your case remains unproven. Try again !

That's defending terrorists to the hilt? :laugh: Proving you a hypocritical failure is not defending terrorists. :laugh: You're so far off the deep end that you can't do anything more than go to your leftie crutch. It's laughable how much you insist on denying your own words.


Refuted, for a reason already given. You're professing, by saying you're any sort of supporter of Lady Thatcher, to be a Conservative. Support her, and you support her brand of Conservatism. Nonetheless, none of this (even were I to accept that you WERE a supporter of hers, which is absurd) alters the fact that you strongly oppose Conservatives. Such as myself. Such as Tyr. Such as Aboutime. You SHOULD see us as allies. Instead, you attack, disagree, deride, at every opportunity.

I don't oppose conservatives, I oppose sycophantic morons who can't/won't make a rational argument; You and 'at' are the top of the list by far. I just have disagreements with (most) everyone else. And your positions are about as disgusting as I can think so I'm far from considering you an ally no matter your other positions. Considering that you barely have any thought outside of how the evil "Muzzys" are out to get you I barely have any basis to judge whether you're a conservative or not. So all I can do is judge your obvious desire to expand the State's power over the individual that you express with such glee.


.. a case in point. Precisely.

That you own your doltism? OK.


Tyr and myself would both like you to explain that in detail. What was your problem with it ? And surely, as a so-called 'Conservative', you'd have been reading about things you identify with ?? Yet .. your reaction seems more akin to that of Dracula encountering garlic !! So tell me, is witnessing political debate a known catalyst for the onset of diabetes ??????

When you dream up rot like this, you cannot expect to be taken seriously in ANYTHING you assert. I'd enjoy seeing you try to find a single case, anywhere, anywhen, of a single human being (terrorists don't qualify) being proven to be a diabetes sufferer BECAUSE they experienced an adverse reaction to a political debate !!!!

Perhaps you're confused, I don't recall that being much of a debate. And as noted before, you have no sense of humor. ;)


Laughable. You can't even REFER TO HER in respectful terms !!!!

Sure I can, and have. I have posted previously as to how Mags is awesome. It's a shame that you can't abide by her ideals.


Thank you. So, you admit to knowing her qualities, but, ONLY NOW, to professing an outright appreciation of her and her politics. Why ? BECAUSE IT SUITS YOUR AGENDA TO DO SO, WHERE BEFORE, DOING SO WAS IRRELEVANT TO IT.

:laugh: Your imagination is betraying you again. I've always expressed an appreciation. But go on about that agenda stuff. :laugh:


Tut tut. Such opposition to someone who, according to your reinvention, SHOULD be a natural ally of yours.

But of course, instead, I get the level of vitriol from you that I'd expect from the more hardbitten Lefties I encounter in my part of the world.

No more needs to be said. This is all one big joke.

I see "reinvention" is your new meme. Anything to cover your failures I suppose. My "natural allies" are those who can engage in honest debate based on truth and reason with a true desire for limited government; None of that describes you.

[aboutime]

Completely ridiculous, as I've already said. Clearly you cannot be taken seriously, if you're going to allege rot like this.

Sir Drummond. I am convinced that fj is nothing more than a future high school dropout who probably believes his powers are unbeatable since his experience is limited to being a failed member of a Debate Club...instructed, or coached by another wannabe Liberal, future college professor who relishes his position as a Closet Pedofile.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. I am convinced that fj is nothing more than a future high school dropout who probably believes his powers are unbeatable since his experience is limited to being a failed member of a Debate Club...instructed, or coached by another wannabe Liberal, future college professor who relishes his position as a Closet Pedofile.

There can be no doubting the Leftie influence involved, that's for sure. For someone to claim to be a Conservative, whilst remaining loyal to, and consistent with, arguments which the Left would be proud to identify with (!) .. is absurd in the extreme !

[aboutime]

There can be no doubting the Leftie influence involved, that's for sure. For someone to claim to be a Conservative, whilst remaining loyal to, and consistent with, arguments which the Left would be proud to identify with (!) .. is absurd in the extreme !



Now, all we need to do is wait. Wait for the typical, expected 'fj' excuses, or lies in defense. And, of course. We should also expect the typical liberal name calling, and accusations to appear as well.

[Drummond]

That's defending terrorists to the hilt? :laugh: Proving you a hypocritical failure is not defending terrorists. :laugh: You're so far off the deep end that you can't do anything more than go to your leftie crutch. It's laughable how much you insist on denying your own words.

YES - you're defending terrorists. You never waver from wanting their 'human rights' respected. You never waver from positions which favour them.

And this you have in common with the Left wing, no matter how much you keep going on about that being a 'crutch'.


I don't oppose conservatives

Really ? Then, why are Conservatives motivated to oppose YOU ?


I oppose sycophantic morons who can't/won't make a rational argument; You and 'at' are the top of the list by far.

Because I give you a run for your money ? Oh dear ....

You can't get around the fact that those, IF you were genuinely a Conservative, are the very people you should think of as natural allies. Yet, you DO NOT treat them as such, NOR THEY YOU.


I just have disagreements with (most) everyone else.

Despite the number of recognisably Conservative thinkers here ? How come ?

You see, you're just not credible.


And your positions are about as disgusting as I can think so I'm far from considering you an ally no matter your other positions.

A LEFTIE WOULD HAPPILY THINK SO. Lefties are all about political 'correctness', and they consider it politically correct to be 'progressive' in their regard for, and treatment of, terrorists ..

... AS DO YOU. You never tire of trying to get people to view them in a favourable light.


Considering that you barely have any thought outside of how the evil "Muzzys" are out to get you I barely have any basis to judge whether you're a conservative or not.

Don't I ?

And note what you're concentrating on. Once AGAIN, derision aimed at a brand of thinking which a LEFTIE would disapprove of.


So all I can do is judge your obvious desire to expand the State's power over the individual that you express with such glee.

One does what one MUST, when it's strictly NECESSARY .. which is a far cry from the 'glee' you're ridiculously claiming. State powers which protect populations from harm against terrorist savages ? Are you so pro-terrorist that you want to give your country's enemies all the breaks they could ever wish for ?

The War on Terror put America on a war footing against terrorists. Wartime is not peacetime .. the two can't be compared and for it to be said that nothing must change. But you, just like a Leftie would, bleat on about your enemy's 'rights' to the exclusion of other realities. When you get opposition, you try to demonise that opposition ....


That you own your doltism? OK.

... and denigrate it, too. So much better than offering an argument containing substance. And, so very Leftie.


I have posted previously as to how Mags is awesome.

Find me the earliest post of yours where you praised Lady Thatcher.

Or, duck THIS challenge, too ....


It's a shame that you can't abide by her ideals.

-- Ahem. The mark of a 'true Conservative', this ... ATTACKING OTHER CONSERVATIVES, TRYING TO DISCREDIT THEM ...


I see "reinvention" is your new meme. Anything to cover your failures I suppose. My "natural allies" are those who can engage in honest debate based on truth and reason with a true desire for limited government; None of that describes you.

I don't want Government to intrude in peoples' lives any more than it must.

However, I also don't want Government to be denied power to deal effectively and properly with an enemy. And as a patriot, neither should you.

BUT ... you, as a LEFTIE, well .... !!! ....

[Drummond]

Now, all we need to do is wait. Wait for the typical, expected 'fj' excuses, or lies in defense. And, of course. We should also expect the typical liberal name calling, and accusations to appear as well.

Oh, I get those all the time. As you can see, I almost never have to wait very long for all of that to come my way ..

Just goes to show that I must be doing something right .....

[aboutime]

Oh, I get those all the time. As you can see, I almost never have to wait very long for all of that to come my way ..

Just goes to show that I must be doing something right .....

Sir Drummond. We happen to have the truth on our side. Something not even those who make up their own versions of truth can ever change. Repeating their lies so long. It's no wonder they finally admit they must believe them. That's how they play their games, and have confidence they will always be convinced...their version is, and must, always be true.
Until of course. They get caught in another lie, and they forget what the first lie was. Much like Compound Interest. It never stops building.

[fj1200]

Oh, I get those all the time. As you can see, I almost never have to wait very long for all of that to come my way ..

Just goes to show that I must be doing something right .....

Considering your inabilities to engage in civil conversation you reap what you sow. :shrug:

Besides, pointing out your hypocrisy is AWESOME good fun!


Sir Drummond. I am convinced that fj is nothing more than a future high school dropout who probably believes his powers are unbeatable since his experience is limited to being a failed member of a Debate Club...instructed, or coached by another wannabe Liberal, future college professor who relishes his position as a Closet Pedofile.

[fj1200]

YES - you're defending terrorists. You never waver from wanting their 'human rights' respected. You never waver from positions which favour them.

And this you have in common with the Left wing, no matter how much you keep going on about that being a 'crutch'.

So Maggie and I are/were defending terrorists? I don't defend them I merely state a known fact.


Really ? Then, why are Conservatives motivated to oppose YOU ?

Which one? You? You're not conservative; Fact.


Because I give you a run for your money ? Oh dear ....

You can't get around the fact that those, IF you were genuinely a Conservative, are the very people you should think of as natural allies. Yet, you DO NOT treat them as such, NOR THEY YOU.

:laugh: This whole "natural allies" shtick is ridiculous. My natural allies appear to be Reagan and Thatcher while yours are Hitler, Goebbels and various Middle Eastern dictators who used/use their tools of oppression to keep their populace in fear; tell me again how your crew is conservative? :confused:


Despite the number of recognisably Conservative thinkers here ? How come ?

You see, you're just not credible.

Because, shocker, :eek: conservatives can disagree while still remaining conservative.


A LEFTIE WOULD HAPPILY THINK SO. Lefties are all about political 'correctness', and they consider it politically correct to be 'progressive' in their regard for, and treatment of, terrorists ..

... AS DO YOU. You never tire of trying to get people to view them in a favourable light.

I'm not sure what lefties would think but any rational thinker would deem some of your positions as despicable.


Don't I ?

And note what you're concentrating on. Once AGAIN, derision aimed at a brand of thinking which a LEFTIE would disapprove of.

What am I concentrating on? I'll post on many subjects whereas you're a one-hit wonder and it's a schlock hit at that.


One does what one MUST, when it's strictly NECESSARY .. which is a far cry from the 'glee' you're ridiculously claiming. State powers which protect populations from harm against terrorist savages ? Are you so pro-terrorist that you want to give your country's enemies all the breaks they could ever wish for ?

The War on Terror put America on a war footing against terrorists. Wartime is not peacetime .. the two can't be compared and for it to be said that nothing must change. But you, just like a Leftie would, bleat on about your enemy's 'rights' to the exclusion of other realities. When you get opposition, you try to demonise that opposition ....

So you're finally owning up to your big-govey leanings. Congratulations. Even Thatcher understood the limitations of torture whereas you gleefully ignore its limitations and then absurdly state that torture is somehow some sort of justice. Besides, you don't even know my stance on most issues because once we start to debate a subject you blather off into leftie land proceeding to debate your imagination... and then you even lose at that.


... and denigrate it, too. So much better than offering an argument containing substance. And, so very Leftie.

I denigrate doltism? I should hope so lest someone think that any rational thought can come from it.


Find me the earliest post of yours where you praised Lady Thatcher.

Or, duck THIS challenge, too ....

Is your search function broken?


-- Ahem. The mark of a 'true Conservative', this ... ATTACKING OTHER CONSERVATIVES, TRYING TO DISCREDIT THEM ...

What conservative did I attack?


I don't want Government to intrude in peoples' lives any more than it must.

However, I also don't want Government to be denied power to deal effectively and properly with an enemy. And as a patriot, neither should you.

BUT ... you, as a LEFTIE, well .... !!! ....

Please point out where I suggest that government be denied the power to deal effectively and properly with an enemy. Or duck this challenge too just like you duck all the other challenges where you fail at defending your assertion.

[aboutime]

Considering your inabilities to engage in civil conversation you reap what you sow. :shrug:

Besides, pointing out your hypocrisy is AWESOME good fun!



Feel better fj? We all take note. YOU DID NOT DENY ANYTHING I SAID ABOUT YOU.

[Drummond]

Considering your inabilities to engage in civil conversation you reap what you sow. :shrug:

Besides, pointing out your hypocrisy is AWESOME good fun!

Coming from YOU, that's rich !!!!!!!!:laugh2:

[aboutime]

Coming from YOU, that's rich !!!!!!!!:laugh2:


Sir Drummond. And we still haven't seen anything that looks like a denial about anything I asked fj. Like Gabby. Must need extra time to THINK UP excuses to defend the UN-defendable.

[Drummond]

So Maggie and I are/were defending terrorists? I don't defend them I merely state a known fact.

We've debated the issue of terrorists - what they are, what they deserve - in thread after thread. You've consistently defended terrorists when I've described the truth about them.

Never mind that you have no way of proving them to be human ! No, you do what Lefties always do, and try to argue for their 'humanity' and their 'human rights'. Indeed, you're so motivated towards this piece of Leftie political correctness that you call my view 'disgusting', EVEN THOUGH I TELL THE TRUTH.


Which one? You? You're not conservative; Fact.

One ??

Attention span problems again, there, FJ ?


:laugh: This whole "natural allies" shtick is ridiculous. My natural allies appear to be Reagan and Thatcher while yours are Hitler, Goebbels and various Middle Eastern dictators who used/use their tools of oppression to keep their populace in fear; tell me again how your crew is conservative? :confused:

An especially :lame2: attempt to demonise me, FJ.

Neither Mr Reagan, nor Lady Thatcher, were Left wingers.

My 'crew' isn't one you recognise to be Conservative (I take it you refer to friends who post on this forum ?) .. ? Maybe that's because you're so far removed from being a Conservative yourself, that you can't do a good job in recognising one ?

OK ... try this.

A good Conservative cares about the individual. A good Conservative wants that individual to prosper. A good Conservative is a patriot, stands up for decency, does NOT kowtow to enemies, does NOT make excuses for them, instead, he or she stands up for their VICTIMS.

Compare all the posts you've ever posted, trying to sanitise the 'human worth' of a terrorist, insisting that their 'human rights' be respected ... and look at your LACK of caring, or consideration, for these savages' VICTIMS.

It was George W Bush who wanted to respond to 9/11 with a War on Terror. It was Bush who wanted Gitmo to exist and to be there to incarcerate terrorist vermin. BUT, IT'S BEEN JIMMY CARTER WHO'S FOUGHT FOR TERRORIST HUMAN RIGHTS, AND IT'S BEEN BARACK OBAMA WHO INTENDED TO CLOSE GITMO DOWN.

I fully support GW Bush's War on Terror. I fully support Gitmo, in fact, I wish there were more of them.

But all you do is bleat on about the 'human rights' of terrorists, how they must receive recognition of them.


Because, shocker, :eek: conservatives can disagree while still remaining conservative.

How many Conservatives do you disagree with ? How many are you prepared to denigrate at the drop of a hat ?

Can you say that you've more of a basis for agreeing with the Conservatives here than DISAGREEING ? Or, is it the other way around ?


I'm not sure what lefties would think but any rational thinker would deem some of your positions as despicable.

Said like a true Leftie ... exactly !


What am I concentrating on? I'll post on many subjects whereas you're a one-hit wonder and it's a schlock hit at that.

There will be certain American debating points I will lack sufficient expertise to usefully discuss. But, a 'one-hit wonder' ?

-- Hah. I take this to mean that you'd rather I left alone the subject that, yes, I've the greatest interest in debating. Why ? Because you keep losing those debates we have on that subject !!


So you're finally owning up to your big-govey leanings. Congratulations. Even Thatcher understood the limitations of torture whereas you gleefully ignore its limitations and then absurdly state that torture is somehow some sort of justice. Besides, you don't even know my stance on most issues because once we start to debate a subject you blather off into leftie land proceeding to debate your imagination... and then you even lose at that.

I know, from this text of yours, that you're pushing an excuse to say that if torture has 'limitations', there's grounds for dispensing with it. In other words, YOU'RE DEFENDING TERRORISTS ONCE MORE.

Lefties do an awful lot of that. But here's the thing ... Lady Thatcher was NOT one to 'defend' terrorists (it's no surprise that she was an intended victim of the Brighton bombing, after all .. terrorists did NOT think kindly towards her !!!!). Whereas, you are such a defender. Right there, FJ, is one big difference between you and Lady Thatcher.


Please point out where I suggest that government be denied the power to deal effectively and properly with an enemy. Or duck this challenge too just like you duck all the other challenges where you fail at defending your assertion.

Easy. You want their torture, which after all, has the power to break their morale, done away with. You attack Government powers assumed in order to deal effectively and properly with their enemies, and you do this every chance you get ... claiming that anyone in favour of any powers being assumed by Government must of necessity be a fan of 'big Government', something you profess to despise !!

So far from wanting any Government to deal effectively with terrorist enemies, you want them cossetted. Just as any Leftie would.

In other words, you argue just like a Leftie.

[fj1200]

We've debated the issue of terrorists - what they are, what they deserve - in thread after thread. You've consistently defended terrorists when I've described the truth about them.

Never mind that you have no way of proving them to be human ! No, you do what Lefties always do, and try to argue for their 'humanity' and their 'human rights'. Indeed, you're so motivated towards this piece of Leftie political correctness that you call my view 'disgusting', EVEN THOUGH I TELL THE TRUTH.

That's your problem, torture should not be about what they "deserve" or of "justice." If you're going to torture then it should be about gaining useful intelligence. The problem is that torture is not the most reliable in gaining useful information.

And no I haven't defended terrorists other than stated fact. Your "truth" is disgusting. Nevertheless you are unable to prove them to be untermensch, own it.


One ??

Attention span problems again, there, FJ ?

It would only take one. Besides, I'm a conservative and I oppose you.


An especially :lame2: attempt to demonise me, FJ.

Neither Mr Reagan, nor Lady Thatcher, were Left wingers.

My 'crew' isn't one you recognise to be Conservative (I take it you refer to friends who post on this forum ?) .. ? Maybe that's because you're so far removed from being a Conservative yourself, that you can't do a good job in recognising one ?

OK ... try this.

A good Conservative cares about the individual. A good Conservative wants that individual to prosper. A good Conservative is a patriot, stands up for decency, does NOT kowtow to enemies, does NOT make excuses for them, instead, he or she stands up for their VICTIMS.

Compare all the posts you've ever posted, trying to sanitise the 'human worth' of a terrorist, insisting that their 'human rights' be respected ... and look at your LACK of caring, or consideration, for these savages' VICTIMS.

It was George W Bush who wanted to respond to 9/11 with a War on Terror. It was Bush who wanted Gitmo to exist and to be there to incarcerate terrorist vermin. BUT, IT'S BEEN JIMMY CARTER WHO'S FOUGHT FOR TERRORIST HUMAN RIGHTS, AND IT'S BEEN BARACK OBAMA WHO INTENDED TO CLOSE GITMO DOWN.

I fully support GW Bush's War on Terror. I fully support Gitmo, in fact, I wish there were more of them.

But all you do is bleat on about the 'human rights' of terrorists, how they must receive recognition of them.

I tell the truth and you call it a lame attempt to demonize? Truth is a defense and that's exactly what I told. That you are only a "Thatcherite" like you are a "conservative" is not my fault. It's also not my fault that you share the same language as Hitler and Goebbels. BTW, your "crew" is Hitler, Goebbels and various middle eastern dictators.

I'm not really concerned what Jimmy argues and I don't agree that Gitmo should be closed so you throwing BO into the mix reinforces your blind ignorance. But if you could find a post where I do argue for anything other than conservative ideals then that would actually be support for your position which thus far has been an abject failure.


How many Conservatives do you disagree with ? How many are you prepared to denigrate at the drop of a hat ?

Can you say that you've more of a basis for agreeing with the Conservatives here than DISAGREEING ? Or, is it the other way around ?

I don't denigrate conservatives. I denigrate "conservatives." ;) I have disagreements with many people here but in the main we agree on conservative principles. Because practically everyone here, that posts consistently anyway, is conservative then the disagreements are going to center on the more minor details. Your problem is that you're unable to converse with anyone who has even mild disagreement without going all "leftie" on 'em. Quite sad for someone who claims to be conservative.


Said like a true Leftie ... exactly !

Spoken like anyone who can think rationally.


There will be certain American debating points I will lack sufficient expertise to usefully discuss. But, a 'one-hit wonder' ?

-- Hah. I take this to mean that you'd rather I left alone the subject that, yes, I've the greatest interest in debating. Why ? Because you keep losing those debates we have on that subject !!

:laugh: If you want me to make you look the fool on other subjects as well I'm more than happy to entertain.


I know, from this text of yours, that you're pushing an excuse to say that if torture has 'limitations', there's grounds for dispensing with it. In other words, YOU'RE DEFENDING TERRORISTS ONCE MORE.

Lefties do an awful lot of that. But here's the thing ... Lady Thatcher was NOT one to 'defend' terrorists (it's no surprise that she was an intended victim of the Brighton bombing, after all .. terrorists did NOT think kindly towards her !!!!). Whereas, you are such a defender. Right there, FJ, is one big difference between you and Lady Thatcher.

WTF are you even talking about? Who is defending terrorists? I've argued what Thatcher is reported to have said; that torture has limitations and it goes against the ideals of Britain, or the US in my case. That you are so willing to throw those ideals away is on you.


Easy. You want their torture, which after all, has the power to break their morale, done away with. You attack Government powers assumed in order to deal effectively and properly with their enemies, and you do this every chance you get ... claiming that anyone in favour of any powers being assumed by Government must of necessity be a fan of 'big Government', something you profess to despise !!

So far from wanting any Government to deal effectively with terrorist enemies, you want them cossetted. Just as any Leftie would.

In other words, you argue just like a Leftie.

Fact, logic, and reason are not leftie. It's quite sad and pathetic of you to think that it is. Since when is "breaking morale" the point of torture. There is plenty of evidence that says that torture is not effective and it has harmful effects on the image of our country and also takes a toll on those who do it. So, you have again failed at a challenge; I fully grant government the tools it needs to deal effectively with terrorists.

I await the day where you are able to discuss something based on what I say not based on your own imagination... though I'm not holding my breath.

[Drummond]

So tell me, FJ. What's driving your need for all this petty argumentation, anyway ?


That's your problem, torture should not be about what they "deserve" or of "justice." If you're going to torture then it should be about gaining useful intelligence. The problem is that torture is not the most reliable in gaining useful information.

In other words - DON'T DO IT - DESIST ! Well, there y'go. What a surprise .. the conclusion from this is supposed to be that it's preferable to treat terrorists BETTER, rather than WORSE.

... and you're not motivated to defend terrorists ??

I fail to see why terrorists shouldn't be treated as they DESERVE to be treated !! FJ, this is one time when your Leftieism is getting the better of you.

And have you stopped to consider that any terrorist propaganda effort would have a very hard time of it convincing others that opposition to them was weak, lacked resolve, if they knew that there was a desire in those they opposed to exact a measure of justice from those of their comrades that had been incarcerated ?


And no I haven't defended terrorists ...

You KEEP trying to find ways to do so ! I've just now illustrated an example !


Your "truth" is disgusting. Nevertheless you are unable to prove them to be untermensch, own it.

Now you're just being tiresome. You already know my answer to this, because it's been debated before. My answer, as you know it to be, is that the 'untermensch' tag was made by Hitler and his Reich buddies against Jews, PEOPLE WHO IN NO WAY DESERVED ANY SUCH INSULT.

However, terrorists PROVE the appropriateness of such a designation by their total lack of humanity, their barbarism, proved by their actions on a daily basis.

Is my truth 'disgusting' ? YES, IT IS .. BECAUSE IT'S A TRUTH NOT OF MY MAKING, BUT CREATED BY THE TERRORIST SCUM IT ADDRESSES.


Besides, I'm a conservative and I oppose you.

You oppose OTHER Conservatives, too, and on a regular basis. But then, what Leftie wouldn't ?


I tell the truth and you call it a lame attempt to demonize?

Tiresome again. Already covered .. why should I rehash what I've said ?


That you are only a "Thatcherite" like you are a "conservative" is not my fault.

Since I'm both, and since you had no part to play in either being true, we have agreement here.

You may hate that. But then, that's your problem.


It's also not my fault that you share the same language as Hitler and Goebbels.

If a reference to 'untermensch', YOU brought that word up initially, not I. And has already been explained, your having done so is spurious.


BTW, your "crew" is Hitler, Goebbels and various middle eastern dictators.

A vile libel, FJ.

Not that you care .. being a Leftie.


I'm not really concerned what Jimmy argues

On first name terms with him ?

Are you a fan of his ?


.. and I don't agree that Gitmo should be closed

.. but you ALSO object to what can happen there. So, why DON'T you want it closed ?

Do I understand from this that you don't mind that its inmates haven't been given a trial ? Are you beginning to renege from your determination to fight for their 'human rights', by any chance ?

If so .. WELL DONE. Perhaps you're just beginning to see terrorist scum for what they ARE, and not how the Left insists we should see them.


..so you throwing BO into the mix reinforces your blind ignorance.

You have BO ? I'm sorry to hear it.

However ... Obama is a Leftie, and he initially was all in favour of closing Gitmo. He hasn't done so, however .. and for why ? BECAUSE EVEN HE SEES THAT IT HAS TO CONTINUE.

... as, apparently, do you.


But if you could find a post where I do argue for anything other than conservative ideals then that would actually be support for your position which thus far has been an abject failure.

No Conservative would so doggedly fight for terrorists as you have done. So I've already met your challenge by pointing this out.


I don't denigrate conservatives. I denigrate "conservatives." ;) I have disagreements with many people here but in the main we agree on conservative principles. Because practically everyone here, that posts consistently anyway, is conservative then the disagreements are going to center on the more minor details. Your problem is that you're unable to converse with anyone who has even mild disagreement without going all "leftie" on 'em. Quite sad for someone who claims to be conservative.

You know what ? This isn't even worth debating. Others here already know how virulently you've argued with them. Your track record speaks for itself.


:laugh: If you want me to make you look the fool on other subjects as well I'm more than happy to entertain.

You just can't help yourself, can you ?

As I say - your track record speaks for you already. As does your continuing attitude.

Tiresome in the extreme.


WTF are you even talking about? Who is defending terrorists?

YOU ARE.

You want their 'human rights' respected (even though they're not recognisably human !). You argue against their ever experiencing torture. You openly say that the treatment they get shouldn't be centred on what they deserve !!!!!! You call 'disgusting' assessments of terrorists which reflect what they ARE and what they DO.


I've argued what Thatcher is reported to have said; that torture has limitations and it goes against the ideals of Britain, or the US in my case. That you are so willing to throw those ideals away is on you.

So answer me this: (.. oh, and you've slipped back into calling her 'Thatcher' again, haven't you .. what happened to referring to LADY Thatcher in a respectful way ??) ... did LADY Thatcher refer to Islamic terrorists, did she refer to the events of 9/11 and other acts of Islamic subhumanity .. OR .. were her judgments based upon the activities of the IRA, whose approach to terrorism was never so savage (e.g they didn't go in for beheadings) ?

I don't think Lady Thatcher had - at the time she judged such things - any real concept of the depths Islamic terrorists can sink to.


Since when is "breaking morale" the point of torture.

Granted, it needn't be. However, this could easily be one goal of it, since the effects of torture MUST be to act against the morale of the one being tortured.


There is plenty of evidence that says that torture is not effective and it has harmful effects on the image of our country and also takes a toll on those who do it. So, you have again failed at a challenge; I fully grant government the tools it needs to deal effectively with terrorists.

Steady on !!!! Now, if our positions were reversed at this point, you'd be castigating me as a fan of 'big Government' to ever have wanted to grant Government any 'tools' it needed to deal with terrorists ....

By the way, what's your opinion of Homeland Security, and enactments of the Patriot Act ? Consult your Leftie scriptwriter for the required answer .....

But still, there you go again ... looking for ways to argue against the use of torture. You NEVER stop, do you ? Always with the 'let's be kind to terrorists' arguments ....


I await the day where you are able to discuss something based on what I say not based on your own imagination... though I'm not holding my breath.

.. BUT I JUST DID !!!! ......

Look, FJ. This is pointless. We both know what your track record is on this forum. I'm not the only Conservative here you'll very happily argue into the ground, and then stoop to trying to denigrate if that doesn't work. Your claim to be a 'Conservative', in the face of that, is simply laughable.

These 'arguments' (in truth, 'sniping sessions' would probably be more like it) don't serve to defend you, rather, they just illustrate the depth of your hostility towards those motivated to argue from any sense of a Right-wing motivation. You claim not to defend terrorists, whilst simultaneously dreaming up arguments designed to persuade people that they should get better treatment !!!!!!

... Ludicrous ...

You waste my time.

[fj1200]

So tell me, FJ. What's driving your need for all this petty argumentation, anyway ?

Says the guy who parses posts 20 ways from Sunday. I would suggest you overcompensate for the lack of an intelligible argument. A brick wall takes information better.

[Drummond]

Says the guy who parses posts 20 ways from Sunday. I would suggest you overcompensate for the lack of an intelligible argument. A brick wall takes information better.

As I said: you waste my time.

By the way, regarding your repeated references to Lady Thatcher simply as 'Thatcher' .. I just came across this, posted to another thread (the link it came from is posted there). It's a picture that was intended as an attack against Lady Thatcher, JUST AFTER HER DEATH, and one that would've been published by a British Left-wing rag .. had they not belatedly found the decency to NOT run with it ....

http://gordonsrepublic.brandrepublic.com/files/Mirror-Thatcher-ad-008.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

As I said: you waste my time.

By the way, regarding your repeated references to Lady Thatcher simply as 'Thatcher' .. I just came across this, posted to another thread (the link it came from is posted there). It's a picture that was intended as an attack against Lady Thatcher, JUST AFTER HER DEATH, and one that would've been published by a British Left-wing rag .. had they not belatedly found the decency to NOT run with it ....


http://gordonsrepublic.brandrepublic.com/files/Mirror-Thatcher-ad-008.jpg


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100215249/united-states-congress-pays-tribute-to-margaret-thatcher-a-great-friend-of-the-united-states/ United States Congress pays tribute to Margaret Thatcher, a great friend of the United States At a moving ceremony at The Heritage Foundation yesterday (where I direct the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom), leaders of the United States Senate and House of Representatives honoured the life and legacy of Lady Thatcher. Mitch McConnell, the Republican Leader in the Senate, and Eric Cantor, Majority Leader in the House, presented Congressional resolutions honouring the achievements of Britain’s Iron Lady, and her steadfast support for the United States and the Anglo-American Special Relationship. Tennessee Congressman Marsha Blackburn also spoke at the event, together with Steve Forbes, chairman and editor-in-chief of Forbes Media. Blackburn led the Congressional delegation that attended Baroness Thatcher’s funeral last month at St. Paul’s Cathedral.

A recording of the event can be watched here. The Senate and House resolutions are included below. Both resolutions were passed unanimously, though it should be noted that some Democrats in the Senate, led by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, failed in a disgraceful attempt to remove the resolution’s references to the Falklands War and IRA terrorism, holding up the resolution for several days.

Senator McConnell, who demonstrated outstanding leadership on the issue, fittingly declared just after the resolution was passed on April 16th:


Let me just say that Margaret was one of the most influential and revolutionary figures of the 20th century, and failing to name her achievements would do her memory and her legacy a great disservice. It would be unheard of to commemorate Churchill for example and ignore his heroic role in steering his countrymen through the Battle of Britain, nor would we think of honoring Lincoln without mentioning the Civil War. Because doing the right thing when it is not easy or popular, that's what defines leadership and it defined Margaret Thatcher. So it is fitting that the Senate has honored her legacy just a few moments ago.

Margaret Thatcher didn't just change a country or give a people hope; she helped alter the course of history. It's true she did not just go along to get along, but had she done so, I’m sure we would have long since forgotten her. So let's honor her for all she did. Let's acknowledge the enormity of what she accomplished. Let's mention her achievements by name and the resolution does that because we owe her a tribute equal to her legacy. Not another leader HER CALIBER exists today in Western civilization IMHO. SHE WAS INDEED A FEMALE VERSION OF WINSTON CHURCHILL which was the greatest political leader Britain ever produced! In fact , every bit his equal... -TYR

[fj1200]

As I said: you waste my time.

:laugh: Which is why you try to bolster the failure of your argument by parsing every word I type. You fail at living up to Mags ideal... and identifying "lefties." ;) Own it.

I look forward to thrashing your imagination in the future.

Oh, and FWIW, when a conservative espouses a non-conservative position... it's up to other conservatives to point out errors... or should be.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:laugh: Which is why you try to bolster the failure of your argument by parsing every word I type. You fail at living up to Mags ideal... and identifying "lefties." ;) Own it.

I look forward to thrashing your imagination in the future.

Oh, and FWIW, when a conservative espouses a non-conservative position... it's up to other conservatives to point out errors... or should be. I'll not join this fray about you in particular but will say that Drummond is dead on target about the leftists/socialists and their policies/deeds. Also add he is by no means a big government guy and is a conservative. His views on terrorists and terrorism are definitely rightwing views and actually more conservative than many other members here that are not accused of being anti-conservative IMHO. Rather than continue to drag this thread further off topic perhaps you or big D should start a thread debating the true qualities of conservatism and what it all means to debate. Never mind, I'll start the thread and you both can feel free to chime in there. How's that for being helpful?--;)--Tyr

[fj1200]

I'll not join this fray about you in particular but will say that Drummond is dead on target about the leftists/socialists and their policies/deeds. Also add he is by no means a big government guy and is a conservative. His views on terrorists and terrorism are definitely rightwing views and actually more conservative than many other members here that are not accused of being anti-conservative IMHO. Rather than continue to drag this thread further off topic perhaps you or big D should start a thread debating the true qualities of conservatism and what it all means to debate. Never mind, I'll start the thread and you both can feel free to chime in there. How's that for being helpful?--;)--Tyr

I appreciate your opinion but he's firing blind about who he thinks falls into certain categories. I also disagree, shocker I know, that his views on terrorists/terrorism is anywhere close to conservative. At least not a conservative position that I want to sign on to.

[Drummond]

[QUOTE] Not another leader HER CALIBER exists today in Western civilization IMHO. SHE WAS INDEED A FEMALE VERSION OF WINSTON CHURCHILL which was the greatest political leader Britain ever produced! In fact , every bit his equal... -TYR:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Well said !!!

[Drummond]

Oh, and FWIW, when a conservative espouses a non-conservative position... it's up to other conservatives to point out errors... or should be.

Since you claim to be a Conservative, and you definitely reflect a Left-wing position in being so pro-terrorist ... then, I have to accept your statement as you've made it. I have INDEED been pointing out your, ahem, 'error'.

So, you should be pleased that I did .... :dance:

[aboutime]

I appreciate your opinion but he's firing blind about who he thinks falls into certain categories. I also disagree, shocker I know, that his views on terrorists/terrorism is anywhere close to conservative. At least not a conservative position that I want to sign on to.


So. Because you insist, and say it's so. You expect the rest of us to just fall into your LOCKSTEP, without being able to do our own thinking, or offering our own opinions...you must always disagree with?
Hypocrisy at it's finest, works well for you fj.

[Drummond]

I'll not join this fray about you in particular but will say that Drummond is dead on target about the leftists/socialists and their policies/deeds. Also add he is by no means a big government guy and is a conservative. His views on terrorists and terrorism are definitely rightwing views and actually more conservative than many other members here that are not accused of being anti-conservative IMHO. Rather than continue to drag this thread further off topic perhaps you or big D should start a thread debating the true qualities of conservatism and what it all means to debate. Never mind, I'll start the thread and you both can feel free to chime in there. How's that for being helpful?--;)--Tyr

Tyr, thanks very much for this !!

As for your other thread, I've just taken a look ... I think you have a great idea there. I'll certainly go to that thread and make my mark there.

Good one ! Many thanks.

[Drummond]

I appreciate your opinion but he's firing blind about who he thinks falls into certain categories. I also disagree, shocker I know, that his views on terrorists/terrorism is anywhere close to conservative. At least not a conservative position that I want to sign on to.

But YOURS are Left wing.

I'll expand on this in the other thread. Go to it, if you've any interest in seeing where this goes.

[fj1200]

Since you claim to be a Conservative, and you definitely reflect a Left-wing position in being so pro-terrorist ... then, I have to accept your statement as you've made it. I have INDEED been pointing out your, ahem, 'error'.

:facepalm99:


But YOURS are Left wing.

I'll expand on this in the other thread. Go to it, if you've any interest in seeing where this goes.

:facepalm99:

I imagine this will go exactly where your imagination leads. I'll honestly be shocked if you can have a rational conversation without bellowing on while leaning heavily on your leftie crutch.

[red states rule]

[QUOTE=Tyr-Ziu Saxnot;670924]:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Well said !!!

She was Churchill

While FU is Neville Chamberlin

No wonder FU is so angry - being outclassed day after day is starting to get to him

[red states rule]

Since you claim to be a Conservative, and you definitely reflect a Left-wing position in being so pro-terrorist ... then, I have to accept your statement as you've made it. I have INDEED been pointing out your, ahem, 'error'.

So, you should be pleased that I did .... :dance:

http://www.sitnews.us/Cagle/051005_fairrington.gif

[fj1200]

... being outclassed day after day is starting to get to him

Posting like a passive-aggressive troll and running away like a little girl is class? I guess you have a different definition than I.

[red states rule]

But YOURS are Left wing.

I'll expand on this in the other thread. Go to it, if you've any interest in seeing where this goes.




https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTSV26RSen610SWvhyaP4wWAph04B9L8 US58c3cgBMEdGgr94nDAg

[aboutime]

Posting like a passive-aggressive troll and running away like a little girl is class? I guess you have a different definition than I.


fj. No need to defend yourself here. Most of us can tell, and even see. YOU HAVE NO CLASS.

[red states rule]

fj. No need to defend yourself here. Most of us can tell, and even see. YOU HAVE NO CLASS.

While describing FU - you were only off by two letters AT :laugh2:

[aboutime]

While describing FU - you were only off by two letters AT :laugh2:


Yeah! No need to remind anyone. Just wondering WHY anyone would want to be using those two letters, and not expect to get them MIXED with others?
Fun stuff either way.
And he deserves it too!

[red states rule]

Yeah! No need to remind anyone. Just wondering WHY anyone would want to be using those two letters, and not expect to get them MIXED with others?
Fun stuff either way.
And he deserves it too!


When it comes to FU one thing too keep in mind a all times


http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/4/18/129161232010219605.jpg