Disqus - Latest Comments for Proxywar

Re: Property Rights and Native Americans

Proxywar — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:07:16 -0000

They choose to go on strike it wasn't compulsory. That was her point. Rand supported non-complusory unions. Her followers being called "The collective" was an inside joke. She never praised a serialkiller nor was john galt based on him. There is a youtube video explaining all of this. Moreover, This collective you refer to is nothing more than a group of individuals freely working together for mutual benefit. She was against forced collectivism, moron. Lastly, rand is taken seriously in philosophy circles. Stop lying.

Re: The Marijuana and Conservatism Debate – by FrontPagemag.com

Proxywar — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:56:20 -0000

forcing it on them? bitch it is their choice. anit noone talking about forcing weed on anyone. It will simplely be there for those who want to legally smoke it. Not to mention, it will decease the prison population. PLEASE!!!!

Re: Fort Hood Denial – by Jamie Glazov

Proxywar — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:23:48 -0000

"Again, the Bush Administration bent over backwards to appease Muslims. The hiring of people like Nidal Hasan happened UNDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S hug-a-Muzzie 'diversity' policies."

Yet Obama doesn't deserve blame for being just as ignorant? Or should I say being just as Edward-Said-tized? The left pretty much made sure Bush became a dhimmi as well.

"As far as PC dhimmitude goes, the Democrats certainly talk the talk, but the Republicans walked the walk."

At least Bush took it to the muslim enemy. When democrats were doing nothing but trying to via de-facto aid and abet the enemy with their comforting complete dhimmitude lies. Republicans are only partial dhimmies in this regard.

Re: Fort Hood Denial – by Jamie Glazov

Proxywar — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:13:34 -0000

"the Carter Administration started liason work with the Mujaheddin, Ronnie 'poop pants' Reagan's administration dramatically ramped up support for the ragheaded MUSLIM nutjobs"

The Muslims Carter and Reagan funded via ISI were not the ones who attacked us on 9/11.

"Claiming ignorance is as lame an excuse as lefties saying that they never knew the Russian and Chinese commies starved millions of people to death. Like the left, in the case of the Ukranian and Chinese famines, Ronnie lovers have to accept the fact that their dementia-addled hero helped create the political infrastructure that lead to the murder of 3,000 people on American soil."

Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush 1 and 2 are not responsible for 3,000 deaths. The only thing responsible for those 3,000 deaths is the literalist interpretation of Islam. The only ones responsible for those 3,000 deaths are Muhammad, Bakar, Ali, Omar, Uthman, Sayyid Qutb, Osama bin laden, and the rest of Al-qaeda. You come off sounding like a masochist. The presidents were not theologians in islam. They did not study the quran, hadith, sirat, islamic sociology, or history. Their goal was to stop the red menance. For fuck sake, Bush thought Islam meant PEACE. Why not blame the 3,000 deaths on the USSR for awaking the already politically active jihadist movement? No, I don't have to admit to what you want me to admit to because the Muslims who attacked us on 9/11 were not funded or supplied via Ronnie or Carter. As you said before... "The Muslim Brotherhood in the Arabia, the wretched pederastic, misogynistic culture of Islam in Afghanistan--these were ALL there. The Qur'an--and Qur'an thumpers--existed before the Bolshevik Revolution, with their dirty works a matter of historical record." The only real thing that created it was the literalist interpretation of ISLAM. You contradicted yourself here.

"there are plenty of other despots (the Burmese Junta, the PRC) that Bush I-II pussy-footed around."

Did Bush have a cease-fire treaty with them? If so, did these despots break this cease fire treaty? Because that is what Saddam did. Which is why he was the most logical choice.

"Dubya made a biiig stink about how Clinton-style things like halting the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo (a GOOD thing, BTW) wasn't really the U.S.'s business."

I seriously doubt he did this. However, if he did (so what?) people are allowed to change their minds. Not to mention, he probably would of said it before 9/11. Once agian that hindsight fallacy is the death of your arguments.

"Then, his administration faked--that's right, FAKED--'WMDs', to justify deposing a SECULAR government (which included Christians and athiests), leaving a massive vaccum for Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq AND give the Iranian Islamic Republic one less thing to worry about."

This is just yet another lie produced by the left. Bush did not fake the WMD. Independent studies have proven other wise. Not to mention, Saddam wanted everyone to think he still had WMD including exspecially Iran. If Bush faked WMD then every other intelligence agency in the world did also. Your claim is ludacris. Nothing more than Bush derangment syndrome. He disposes of a secular government by implamenting christians and "atheists" into his new one? That's a nonsensical theory with a counterintuitive proposition, if you ask me. Lastly, stop trying to play nostradamus with Iraq's future because you just might end up as wrong about everything as he was. The rational thing to say would be we just don't really know at this point and time. Especially when articles like this disagree with your concerns: http://www.globalsecurity.o... It's important to remember the literalist interpretation of ISLAM is the root to all of this evil, but that doesn't mean every muslim is a nutjob. Learn to compartmentalize pal.

"there never were WMDs in Iraq."

I must invoke the hindsight fallacy on your argument once again. While this is true, we did not know this back then. Everyone thought they actually did have them.

"there're still boy-raping, woman-hating Qur'an-thumpers in Saudi Arabia, funneling oil money to terrorists in Waziristan and post-Ba'athist Iraq."

So let me get this straight we're suppose to correct centuries of this learned behavior in a matter of 8 years? I wish the world was that simple and perfect. However, the reality is it is not. It will take time. Going green is one thing America is trying to do to stop the flow of petro-dollars. Again, these things take time, I know the reality of this situation is kryptonite to your self gratification close minded world view but at least try to comprehend what i'm spitting out your noodle.

"Rather than invade Iraq, the Bush Administration should have deposed the Saudi royal family and their Wahhabi clerics--the REAL masterminds behind 9/11."

First off, there is zero evidence the Sadui Royal family had anything to do with 9/11. No where in the 9/11 comission will you find any evidence for your factless world view. Not to mention, unlike with Saudi Arabia America actually had more cause to enter Iraq because under saddam's tutelage he broke the 90's cease-fire agreement. A Despot gone is a despot gone. Iraq's geology also made access to logistics much easier. Moreover, we knew the Iraqi terrain was easier terrain to fight in compared to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. Thus, we drew all of the Jihadist into a terrain we knew we would have the best chance of defeating them in. If the Ummah were pissed about Iraq they would of really been pissed off about Saudi Arabia. In which case, more Muslims might of raised up and joined Al-qaeda's Muhammadian revolution.

"Bushes went one better, by getting rid of that scary, secularist bogeyman Saddam on the Saudis' and Kuwaitis' doorstep."

Bush actually made the right choice because the Saudi Royal Family and the Kuwaiti government have problems with the Jihadists. They are a threat to them just as much as they are to us. The Jihadist see them as hypocrites. ie. apostates. (FYI: Sadam after the Iran/Iraq war claimed to be the new Saladin. He even had a quran written in his own blood. He also tried to prove his lineage stretched all the way back to Muhammad.)

Re: The Marijuana and Conservatism Debate – by FrontPagemag.com

Proxywar — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:49:50 -0000

"Part of the absolutism is the refusal to acknowledge any of the dangers associated with marijuana or the concessions I made about the dangers of alcohol. In my column I compared smoking marijuana to drinking alcohol, which I think is apt, depending on the strain of marijuana. Both are used socially, both are relaxants, and both can be addictive. The debate centers on legality."

Lady are you shitting me? Alcohol is worse than marijuana. http://www.physorg.com/news... You going to bring back prohibition? David is correct on this matter it's about the real freedom to choose. You really need to get out of the way and let the libertarians run things for a while. We've had enough of your type telling us what is and isn't correct for us. Your idea of "FREE TO CHOOSE" is selective and hypocritical.

"In fact, a better analogy might the one of growing poppies to produce opium."

Not even in the same ball park. That's like comparing apples to oranges.
You've obviously never done opium or smoked some weed. If you had
you know how off base that comparison is.

"I revert back to an argument based on tradition and specifically our Judeo-Christian heritage. I openly—and non-relativistically—assert that it is a heritage that is superior to all others. I base my arguments on this premise."

An there in lies the problem. Alot of people do not want your Juedo-christian morals forced on them. Juedo-christian morals are not superior. Sorry. that is complete bullcrap. Infact, Juedo-christian morals have unintended consequences which make
things worse for society than it would be without them. Prohibition is just one great example of how your so-called superior morals make things much worse on society.

"I believe I was pointing beyond the isolated use of marijuana to the foundations."

The founders used Hemp as a cash crop, which went toward making rope and especially toward the heavy lines naval and merchant ships used. You really think the founders didn't smoke pot? They were all about trying new things. Washington was a farmer. Washington not only grew it but he smoked it because of his dental problems.
http://www.academickids.com... Nice try lady.

You are entitled to your Juedo-christian morals but you are not entitled to force them upon me. Just as I am not trying to force my morals upon you. It's merely a matter of being free to choose or not choose. In theory given the legal choice between smoking weed and not smoking weed should showcase how strong your Juedo-christian morals really are. However, lets try to remember we are individuals and as such we think differently. You really want to prove your case about your morals? legalize pot.

Re: Fort Hood Denial – by Jamie Glazov

Proxywar — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:06:50 -0000

"As for your nonesense about the Reagan and Bush I-II Administrations' policies helped lay the groundwork for our current Muslim terrorist problem. "

Sir, the mujahideen existed before Carter, Reagan, and Bush I-II. Why don't you blame ISLAM? Why don't you blame the USSR? Instead you attack your own country when our involvement in the Afghan/USSR war was of only funding and suppling weapons via the ISI to the native Afghans mujahideen who were being genocided by the USSR's scorched earth tactics. I agree in hindsight we probably should of stayed out of it (we knew nothing of Islams true nature back then just like back during ww2 we knew nothing about the true nature of the Communist USSR yet we worked with them as well to defeat the nazis.) becuase we know now people who follow islam can't really be trusted, but then you would of made crys about Afghan back then like you do today about Darfur. Besides, we primarily worked with the northern alliance during the 80's war and in the 2001 war. They're leader Massoud did not attack us on 9/11. Infact, he warned us that Al-qaeda was planning something big for us (Side note: back druing the 80's war we had nothing to due with Osama who would go on to create Al-qaeda. http://www.911myths.com/htm... however not enough details were given to stop it from happening but he did warn us nonetheless. He also supported the idea of democracy in Afghanistan. It was his dream and Al-qaeda killed him because they knew after they attacked us Massoud would try to make his dream into a reality.

"And supporters of the War on Ba'athism have to come clean with the fact that removing Saddam Hussein did nothing but make the Middle East a safer place for Islamic fundamentalism."

Sir, this is completely untrue.

http://www.amazon.com/Sadda...

You need to read this book and brush up on the actual truth of the matter.

Re: The Communists Behind Obama’s Health Care Goals – by John Perazzo

Proxywar — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 01:31:27 -0000

Bubba just because it isn't Marxism as we knew it doesn't mean it's not more socialism. Without question it is fabian socialism. ie. incremental takeover.

"After WWII most of our allies created healthcare systems backed and regulated by the government....some single payer, some public option (or some variation with strong regulation)....except us."

Which in reality all suck compared to the American healthcare system. The only problem with the American system is the cost. Others would argue pre existing conditions as well. Fine I give you that. However, they could of fixed those problems without a thousand page bill. It is from your point of view that America exploits other nations
I wounder why they wrote those government runned healthcare systems into other nations constitutions if not to keep them in a state of inadequacy. However, that was old democrat guard the new democrat guard wants to bring these terrible ideas back home to roost.

Re: Getting to the Root of Understanding Islam – by David Swindle

Proxywar — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 01:05:23 -0000

Even if he was who cares.

The most honest people who break religion down are either atheist or from different religions. Thus, they all break each other down, disproving all religion. The atheist knows this and loves every bit of it. Especially when it's happening to Islam because Islam use to be an untouchable faith.

Re: Getting to the Root of Understanding Islam – by David Swindle

Proxywar — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 01:04:23 -0000

Why not? It's a learning experience. Your job is what can you prove. What we can prove is the older sources than what they can prove thus your sources are sound and that is the true face of Islam as proscribed by muhammad regardless if they accept it or not. The evidence speaks for itself historically and theologically. Don't mentally given up that is exactly what they want. Continue learning about Islam, because they know everything about you.

Re: Common Sense in Egypt and Saudi Arabia – by Daniel Pipes

Proxywar — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:53:56 -0000

The word on the street is someone is going to make a move after Jan.15th.

Re: Fort Hood Denial – by Jamie Glazov

Proxywar — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:41:55 -0000

When the left does it's not "taqqiya" it is simplely "lying".
ie. The means justify the ends.

I agree we should stop trying to convince them because like you said they get it, but they just don't want to get it. We are the same way only there's rational merit and facts to back up what we think. One thing the left has to learn about conservatives is we are a group of varied individuals with different thought processes that deviate from Bush, et als. Some of us might even agree (say like on same-sex marriage) when they happen to be correct. As I always say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

One thing you got 100% correct is social justice. The problem with morals is they differ. It seems liberals forget all about morals differing when someone even mentions the word CONSERVATIVE, RIGHTWINGER, REPUBLICAN. However, they quickly remember morals differ when it comes to Islam, et al, cultures practice of FGM. Then like moral-crack-heads, they look for their moral relativist fix, inject it and allow the world to deteriorate into primitive barbarism which us realists then have to clean up. We are forever the adults cleaning up after the adult-children.

We try to tell them how to fix the economy (by not acting like bush) and like teenagers they call us old and tell us we don't know anything. Oh, the Irony is bitter sweet here indeed.

http://newsrealblog.com/200...

We try to explain our morals, rationale, and our plans behind the healthcare debate but we are just old fascists who want people do die quickly. Once again the Teenager is not listening to the adult because the adult is to never be listen too.
They are taught everything the adult says to them is a lie. Bill Ayers: Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's at. Of course, I take this methoprically today though without question he was being literal when he said it.
ie. What he is saying is kill every moral and rationale that does not agree with the revolution. Without thought just kill it were it stands because it's not apart of the revolution. Thus, skepticism simplely does not exist for a majorty of progressive-liberals, but without question their megalomania and hypocrisy does.

Re: Getting to the Root of Understanding Islam – by David Swindle

Proxywar — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:39:05 -0000

Yes I am a member of ActforAmerica. I'm also a member of http://www.tenthamendmentce...

Sir, you will not find a more proactive and knowledgeble person on this site than myself (outside the authors and few other die hards) when it comes to the bill of rights, the constitution, the founding fathers beliefs, our countries actual origins, conspiracy theories, and Islam.

For christmas I suggest you ask St.Nicholas for:

1.) Reading Orientalism: Said and the Unsaid.
2.) The faiths of the founding fathers.

Two great books.

I also have been helping others put up pictures of claire mccaskill as Obama's Joker all over the St.louis area. Just apart of my physiological plan (outside of my lobbying and petitioning) to turn their world upside down on them and make it rain hell. Anthropomorphically speaking of course.

Re: The Communists Behind Obama’s Health Care Goals – by John Perazzo

Proxywar — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:45:08 -0000

When it comes a single-payer healthcare system there is always a "BUT" with obama.

eg.

I am for a single-payer healthcare system, BUT....
I would like to see a single-payer healthcare system, BUT...
If I was starting from scratch I would create a single-payer healthcare system, BUT...

He speaks in ambiguity thus so he can never be called a lair or wrong until it is to late. The man truely is a genius in this regard.

Re: Getting to the Root of Understanding Islam – by David Swindle

Proxywar — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:16:45 -0000

I own, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran, alot of the info in his book can be found on spencer's web-site. But if you don't want to search for it then just buy his book. Personally I like books better than I do reading material on the internet because I get headaches from looking at the screen too long. Not to mention, Spencer has compiled all this info into a coherent thesis in the book. It was a light-hearted yet quite informative analysis of Islam. It was actually quite fair to Islam compared to what Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Ali Sina, and Oriana Fallaci have written about Islam.

If you don't have the money to buy it you should at least check it out at the library.
It's a simple yet fantastic guide with a few witty inside jokes on the side. I will read Bart Ehrman's book next sounds very interesting. I enjoy a agnostics POV. Agnostics are at least fair minded.

Re: Common Sense in Egypt and Saudi Arabia – by Daniel Pipes

Proxywar — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:58:39 -0000

Instead of American and Israel attacking Iran I think Egypt and Saudi Arabia should do it.They need to pull their weight in this conflict or at the very least show us they are slightly on our side. Having said that, I think attacking Iran would be the dumbest move right now. As for these Muslims who you say like us and wouldn't mind us attacking Iran we must never forget the practice of taqqiya.

Re: Collaborators in England in the War Against the Jews – by Jamie Glazov

Proxywar — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:32:01 -0000

http://www.amazon.com/Poiso...

Great book that explains the anti-semitic feel of today.

Re: Review: Godless: The Church of Liberalism

Proxywar — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 03:49:00 -0000

I believe, John Wyane helped sell war-bonds though, but you are correct he never went to war. The excuse I heard was he put off signing up so long that by the time of Pearl Harbor he was much too old to enlist. I believe, the real reason he didn't want to enlist was because he wanted to further his movie career. At least he was anti-communist. The problem I have with John wyane is he's over-rated, wasn't really the duke, thus he would never hang on my wall. I never knew that about James Stewart. Very interesting indeed. That man was a Hero who belongs on my wall.

Re: Review: Godless: The Church of Liberalism

Proxywar — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:53:47 -0000

Though I disagree with Jay-Z's liberal-politics the man has some good music. For example: Empire State of mind is right up there with Frank Sinatra's new york, new york. Those evangelical right-wingers would never admit Jay-Z is gifted.
Their problem is they can't compartmentalize. Thus, You hit the nail on the head when it comes "Jesus-prasin' country music" and "a giant poster of John Wayne" no offense to country music but johnny cash and willie nelson are about the only country artists I could ever really tolerate. John Wayne is overrated as hell.
I'm more of a steve mcqueen and edward norton fanboy myself. Hannity has some of the worst taste in music as well.

You're also correct the only freedoms they do seem to care about is their so-called right to worship God and praise Jesus in public schools and to hang moses 10 commandments in Court Rooms as if any of that affects their life for the better in anyway, shape, or form. It's a bullshit argument based on pseudo-victimology. As you pointed out "the Fathers weren't exactly a united lot on matters of religion" I'm actually reading a great book on this very topic it's called, "The faiths of the founding fathers", without question the founding fathers who mattered were deists and they hated how England's monarchy didn't seperate chruch from state.

What the Religious-right and religious-left don't seem to understand about themselves is they are both Tyrants with different agendas, but religious dogmatic tyrants nonetheless. I'm sorry you had to live around them. It must of been a anthropomorphic hell on earth.

Re: Christianity: an indictment

Proxywar — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:13:36 -0000

One of you mentioned a book called "metapolitics" whom was that written by?

Re: Christianity: an indictment

Proxywar — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:44:16 -0000

To be fair we should look at the Aramaic version....

Mark 15:34

And at the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, "Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, my God, for what have you forsaken me?"

This changes the meaning entirely.

Jesus also advocated self-defense in Luke 22:36: "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Jesus in this verse advocates the use of a sword for self-defense purposes. Of course, Christians point of view on this verse is split.

1.) Christian pacifists believe it is always wrong to injure other humans, no matter what the circumstances. And the same principles supporting pacifism carry over to nonresistance--the belief that any form of self-defense is wrong. This view is usually based on the exemplary life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

2.) However, many scholars do not believe pacifism (or nonresistance) is the essential point of His teaching in this passage. These scholars do not believe Jesus was teaching to "turn the other cheek" in virtually all circumstances. Even Christ did not literally turn the other cheek when smitten by a member of the Sanhedrin (see John 18:22-23).

Striking someone in the face was a big no-no to Jews it would be like white trash spitting in each others faces today.

Re: A Godless constitution

Proxywar — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 07:58:10 -0000

"no banning any kind of prayer"

I disagree.

The Constitution does not specifically mention "separation of powers" or "the right to a fair trial" either, but who would deny the Constitutional status of those concepts? "Church-state separation" is a metaphor for what certainly was and is the spirit of the First Amendment's religion clauses - government is to be neutral toward religion to the end of ensuring religious liberty.

Moreover, Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Connecticut Baptist Association. An reading of the entire letter belies any suggestion that Thomas Jefferson thought it was "one directional." There is absolutely nothing in the letter even to hint that that is the case. Indeed, to the degree that Jefferson's notion was one-directional, most scholars would argue that he was more concerned with the church harming the state than vice versa. Christian Right Extremists also ignore Roger William's reference 150 years earlier to the "hedge or wall of separation between the garden of church and the wilderness of the world." It is clear that Williams, a Baptist pioneer, saw the advantage to the church of a clear boundary erected between itself and the state. More than that, he thought this wall was mandated by the very principles of Christianity. To that end, he wrote:

"All civil states with officers of justice, in their respective constitutions and administrations, are... essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders of Spiritual, or Christian, State and worship ... An enforced uniformity of religion throughout a nation or civil state confounds the civil and religious, denies the principles of Christianity and civility, and that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh."

Thus, Williams and Jefferson understood the benefits to both the church and state of keeping those two entities separate and distinct.

Re: A Godless constitution

Proxywar — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 07:47:06 -0000

I do not deny that there were Christian men among the Founders. For instance, Congress removed Thomas Jefferson's words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording was: "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." However, we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence, it's an historical document, not a constitutional one.

If the Christian Right Extremists wish to return this country to its beginnings, so be it... because it was a climate of Freethought. The Founders were students of the European Enlightenment. Half a century after the establishment of the United States, clergymen complained that no president up to that date had been a Christian. In a sermon that was reported in newspapers, Episcopal minister Bird Wilson of Albany, New York, protested in October 1831: "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." The attitude of the age was one of enlightened reason, tolerance, and free thought. The Founding Fathers would turn in their graves if the Christian Extremists had their way with this country. Consider this: If indeed the members of the First Continental Congress were all bible-believing, "God-fearing" men, would there ever have been a revolution at all?

"For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft." 1 Samuel, 15:23

Would they have initiated a rebellion if indeed they thought it was equal to witchcraft (a crime punishable by death)? But that's only the tip of the iceberg. The New Testament gives clear instructions to Christians on how to behave when ruled under a monarchy, as were the Founders.

1 Peter 2:13: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."

Paul wrote in Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

The Founders clearly did not heed what was written in the bible. If they were in fact "good" Christians, there would never have been an American Revolution. Compare the above passages with the Declaration of Independence:

"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations... evinces a design to reduce (the people) under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."

Anyone who can think for themselves can see that the Founders were not Christians.

Re: Sayyid Qutb and the Virginia Five – by Robert Spencer

Proxywar — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:08:20 -0000

Muslims are not a race, so it's totally not the same thing. Moreover, a racist wouldn't make distinctions between muslims and Islam like Mr.Spencer does. What spencer does is no different than what an atheist does to christianity and judaism. Spencer doesn't twist anything he uses their sources and words against them inorder to expose the truth about ISLAM. If you don't personally like Mr.Spencer fine with me then go read M.A. Khan, Ali Sina, or Andrew G. Bostom. Whom none of your pals seem to want to fuck with.

I OWN THE QURAN.
I OWN THE HADITH.
I OWN THE SIRAT.

http://www.amazon.com/Abrid...
http://www.amazon.com/Polit...
http://www.amazon.com/Moham...

I own all three of these books not to mention Pickthall's quran, Bukhari Hadith, and Ishaq's Sirat. Just to double check the books
I read above. They are all accurate. I also speak a little Arabic.

You are acting like Islam is something to be taken seriously. It's nothing more than a religion which must be exposed for the lie that it is. Sooner you figure that out you'll be one step closer to understanding religion is used for mind control. Look at yourself, Islam has you saying anyone who disagrees with it is a racists.

WOW!!!!

Mr. Spencer even encourages people to go read the quran, hadith, and Sirat. PLEASE!!!!! To be extra Muslim-like
I even read the Quran backwards.

Re: Sayyid Qutb and the Virginia Five – by Robert Spencer

Proxywar — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 07:04:15 -0000

Crazy like foxes we are.

However, you're still a bitch with no argument.

Re: Sayyid Qutb and the Virginia Five – by Robert Spencer

Proxywar — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 06:25:05 -0000

Stop trying to smear Mr.Spencer. People like myself (i'm an atheist by the way) who follow him have read his rebuttals to everyone of these links. You're pissing in the wind and ad hom attacking because you can't prove him wrong. You should read his rebuttals to the Nazi nonsense they claim about him. An his rebuttals to when they put words in his mouth and take him out of context. It's all bullshit. Spencer is a good source of infromation when it comes to Islam. His work is highly respected in Atheist circles.

Loonwatch should be watched.