so interesting the thought that the one sided media cannot ever explain something that they provoke as real even though they are the ones who create the controversy. If you are going to play tag you're it, at the very least have some idea of what "it" means. They are nothing more than the water in which I bathe my dog in. Grow up Alan and actually research before you report so that your face a.k.a. Obamas vagina can actually spew realistic hate instead of the fake hate you spread.
Religious Jews couldn't care less what Coulter says.
It's the secular Jews like Colmes who are uncomfortable and insecure with their own faith who pounce on Christians to deflect their own religious shortcomings.
To be fair not all liberals are godless. I'm right leaning on most things but am agnostic. I had a liberal roommate who was a christian. How's that for a sitcom
@TylerNull good job man. You are a very smart person and I want to thank you for fighting the good fight against liberalism. You are as important and patriotic as the solders that defend this country with blood & bombs. Keep up the good work brother.
I'm not illiterate, I've read the bible. I just fail to see how anything in it relates to anything actually in history, seeing as how both testaments full of ridiculous claims which go against natural law.
Old testament: Talking snakes? Man made from dirt? Woman made from rib? Talking piece of shrubbery? Parting a sea with magic?.
New testament: Coming back from the dead? Water chemically changed into wine? Food magically duplicated? Walking on water?
You just abandoned your first claim, and replaced it with 9 unrelated questions.
The Old Testament consists of different books written in different genres and with language that no longer exists. Your obvious disinterest in comprehending their meaning is demonstrated rather well. Yours indicates nothing more than the dullness of your own mind; your lack of intellectual curiosity.
There are no notions that "go against natural law" more spectacularly than those of devout Atheists.
My first claim was that the ethnicity of a fictional character is irrelevant. My second post was aimed at people (you) who claim that the bible is historically accurate (and the questions were rhetorical, just a list of ridiculous claims that people like you take on faith alone).
Also, I went to a Catholic primary school, I was "intellectually curious" enough to ask questions, which led to my eventual dismissal of irrational claims.
@leftovers0 The content of your claims were never in question. I merely pointed out their fallacy, and their evidence of your historical illiteracy and intellectual dullness.
As for "burden of proof", that too is a fallacy. There is no more of a burden of proof on one (dis)belief than their is for another. As much as Atheists like to claim otherwise, stating your theological conclusions as a negative assertion doesn't change that.
Burden of proof is not a fallacy, I feel you may have misinterpreted what that word means. Every other aspect of life requires proof, and if you do not have proof, then you do not get to make up your own answer.
I don't know how the world began, but you've given me no reason to think it's a god. Even if you could, you have no reason for it to be your Christian god as opposed to Zeus or Allah.
Being logical is not being closed minded, and faith in absurd claims is not to be admired.
YOUR claim thereunder is the fallacy, as I explained. That is, YOUR notion "requires proof" as much as any other.
"how the world began"
The latest astrophysical theory claims there was a specific event at which all of creation, the physical universe, was created. The current theory replaced the 19th century Atheist's model of an infinite and forever universe. Differing theologies give different names for the creator; for that which created creation.
"That is, YOUR notion "requires proof" as much as any other."
I don't have a notion, I'm rejecting yours. You say that there is a creator for the universe, I say that your claim is baseless.
You don't need proof for a negative. I am not making an assertion when I say that I don't believe in the existence of fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, Hercules, Yahweh or superman, I am doing the opposite. If anyone wants to claim that these mythical characters actually exist, they must prove it
Wrong. Study logic some more. You're merely reciting Atheist dogma. It's false, and stale too.
Anything that can be stated as "a negative" can be restated as "a positive", and vice versa. Again, your notions, and you've posted numerous false ones, are no less mindless than anyone else's, a priori. And until you offer ANY valid reasoning, yours remain mindless.
Why do you keep ignoring my point. It takes no faith to not believe something. Again, I will list the things that, according to you, YOU need to provide proof for not believing in: fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, Hercules or superman.
Of course, I am making an assumption that you don't believe in those things.
Also, there is no atheist dogma, I've never been to any meeting with any collection of atheists. I was raised christian, and had friends of different religions. Logic freed me
Wrong. It takes faith in the specific (dis)belief and all the brain work that goes into either conclusion thereof, assuming there is any. All you did there was reword your original logical fallacy, which I already addressed. There is nothing a priori regarding ANY (dis)belief.
"There is no Atheist dogma." -- your posts disprove that.
"Logic freed me." -- you have yet to utilize logic here. You're just reciting stale Atheist dogma.
I cannot state this emphatically enough. YOU ARE MAKING THE CLAIM! You are saying that there is an almighty super being who created the world and the universe and watches over us. I am saying that that is ridiculous. I do not claim any special knowledge, I am rejecting the fact that you do.
I am an agnostic atheist. Gnosticism means claiming special knowledge, and atheism means no belief in a deity. The default position shouldn't be "there is a god unless proved otherwise". Prove it
What part of this are you not getting? I'm not religious. I don't think there's a god. There's no reason to think so. If you do, tell me why. If not, then we don't have an issue.
Stop ignoring the fact that there are thousands of things that you don't believe in, but you don't require proof for not believing in. You don't believe in unicorns right? Why not?
I've had to deal with people like you my entire life. I refuse to accept a premise without logic. It made catholic school shit
Not only do you accept a premise without logic, but you keep reciting yours over and over, and over again. Yet, when I ask you to explain your reasoning, which you keep referring to as "proof", you simply ignore, deny, and continue to proselytize very stale Atheist dogma.
@TylerNull We fight them off like banshees but we don't talk to each other enough. Whenever you see a conservative brother fighting like hell, let him know that he is not alone. Thank you for serving your country and keeping it safe. Political will is how this war will be won and oh, "we will win".
Everything she says is 100% true. Liberals have tried to destroy America for decades. Democrats are one of the biggest embarassments of America, they're 2-faced and 200 years from now history books will compare liberal democrats to Nazi's. Both hate America and both are hated around the world. Only uneducated liberals would vote for an America hating muslim as president. Hussein Obama 1st two years in office have taken America to the lowest point it has ever been.
@Tampaslice Can you just shut the fuck up and think about what you're saying for a minute? Have the Republicans EVER been on the right side of history? Be it civil world war II, civil rights, vietnam etc. you retards have ALWAYS been on the opposite side of progress. Oh, and it's hilariously ironic to make countless grammatical errors in a post about how uneducated people are. I hope you die in a car accident.
@Tampaslice Thanks for telling it like it is brother!!!!! Look at the post; 61 LIKES 50 DISLIKES. We still have ALOT of work to do to makes these unfortunate IDIOTS understand whats going in this country. BHO is the biggest mistake America has EVER made. Not to mention that he and Eric Holder (and who knows who else within the administration) are BIGOTS. That it; they HATE white people.
I am upset that people believe in God because they think thy have a Truth, and when you have a truth, its hard to let other people live in a Lie, so what happens is you get the religious shoving their God down my throat.
Those who believe there is no God also believe they "have a truth". And their historical record reveals they use of government force, liberally, to shove it down everyone's throat. Atheist governments are the most totalitarian.
@HearingEveryRhyme You are my brother and the creation of God himself and I may correct you but I will show you the love of Christ. I am a sinner saved by grace and my heart has been changed to love those who don't love me. May you come to know Jesus and have the blessing of the lord upon your life. I refuse to offer any retribution to you because arguments accomplish nothing. Nothing is being forced on you. The choice is yours so choose wisely.
@fishguru73 Why would I choose to believe in something with no evidence? If your god gave us logic, then why would he have us defy it? How can your god be moral when he applauds rape and genocide and acts like a child when people don't listen to him.
@HearingEveryRhyme Look, we could go back and forth but I'm going to offer you some logic instead. Nothing, and I mean nothing is possible... you're consciousness and emotion, the intricacy of all life, the mysteries of the cosmos... without God. The fact is, if there is no creator that has always existed then you and I aren't communicating because there is no way we exist. By the way, I want you to cite a book and verse in the Bible where God applauds rape and genocide.
You are assuming that everything needs a creator, yet that your argument is a fallacy. If the god of Abraham is the creator, and everything needs to be created, who created him? Why can't the universe just have always existed. I will not take a stance without evidence, but to make a leap to either conclusion is illogical.
@thejcp1234. I couldn't have said it better myself !! You are great !!!!! That description is just PERFECT !! Besides that Colmes is the biggest moron i have ever seen or heard. he is the typical angry liberal. he foams at the mouth . and he gets a paycheck. i guess it's true the sun shines for every one .
Let's not pick on Colmes' looks. ALL SOCIALISTS are aliens to humanity, as their politics show. Some are simply more appealing to the human eye, unfortunately.
@TylerNull Ummm no, you can be an atheist and not believe you have a truth, most atheists are like that. And the ones that do say they have the truth tend to justify it with the fact that since there are so many man made gods, the chances of them being right and existing are so small, that non existence is more likely.
Hitler was hardly an atheist, he believed in a master race and a utopia dominated by a race that descends from a magical bloodline, that is pretty religious.
"Ummm no", if you don't think you "have a truth", then why post your falsehoods? I have never met an Atheist who does NOT mindlessly recite Atheist dogma as if its holy writ and then bitterly cling to its idiocy even AFTER such is pointed out for them.
Ummm, check the historical record. Pointing to a pagan-socialist fails to absolve atheist-socialists of their totalitarian horrors. Notably, the atheist sort are 10x more common & 10x more murderous than the pagan sort.
@TylerNull Atheist dogma? Atheist is a rejection of belief. A true atheist will not believe without evidence. Those who say there is absolutely 100% no possibility of any deity are not atheists, they are holding a belief with no evidence. Take Stalin or Kim Jong Il for example, they say there are no deities because they turn themselves into supreme deities. They create a belief system and ascribe themselves attributes of gods. They are not atheists, they are prophets of a god who is them.
You're a devout Atheist, and yet I just debunked the Atheist dogma you recited earlier. That makes your latest bit of Atheist dogma as hilarious as it is demonstrably false.
"A true atheist will not believe without evidence."
You just demonstrated the precise opposite. (See above.) Thereby, yours is just more Atheist dogma. YouTube is stuffed full of Atheists like you who post their believes in all kinds of such lunacies "without evidence".
@TylerNull I don't believe there is no god, i don't acknowledge the existence of any god since there is no proof. If a flat-Earther and a round-Earther were debating in Caveman times with no evidence, they would be holding beliefs with no evidence. They would be making an illogical conclusion if they had no proof. I have seen no proof for any god, so I don't acknowledge the existence of one. If someone said "Here is proof" and it was proof, then I'd acknowledge its existence.
You can word it however you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that yours is a conclusion, just as those who conclude differently. There's no less a wad of beliefs, notions and concepts in either case, generally, regardless of how unexamined such may be in your case.
The Atheist model of the universe was debunked in 1927 with what Atheists mocked as the "Big Bang" theory. (The name stuck.) Evidence for the event of creation has steadily grown ever since.
@TylerNull Evidence for creation, hmm I'd like some please, you can send some info to my inbox.
Atheist model of the universe? Personally I don't ascribe to the Big Bang since I don't see enough evidence, but it has more than creation if one is only considering temporal finitism.Creation does not prove any god conceived by man. My conclusion is that I will not believe without proof. Your conclusion is that there is a man in the sky. You state a "fact" of reality, I state that I don't state one.
If you truly did, then your ignorance of the prevailing model in astrophysics, along with its 80 years of accrued evidence, wouldn't have remained so pristine to date.
"does not prove" -- that is the Atheists' bait-and-switch of "evidence" with "prove".
As for "any god concept", here's one that's arguably required by modern astrophysics: the creator is that which caused creation.
"Your conclusion is..." -- no, that's just a derisive Atheist caricature.
@TylerNull Her definition of christian is so narrow, unless I am a Bible thumping Conservative, I could never be a Christian.
For that matter, why would I want to follow Jesus Christ, that wasn't even his name. Jesus is GREEK! There never was a person named Jesus Christ! His first name wasn't Jesus and his last name wasn't Christ.
Would you believe that Jesus’ real name in pre-exilic Hebrew was Yehoshua or in the Second Temple period Yeshua or Joshua?
Coulter didn't define "Christian". She merely explained the Christian tenet that caused your ilk to lapse into a bout of fake outrage. And that tenet is not "hers".
Oddly, you go on to pose as a font of knowledge whilst failing to grasp the concept of your own complaint.
@TylerNull 'fake outrage'? I assure you my outrage is not fake. 'font of knowledge'? Oh I do 'grasp the concept of my own complaint'. Mainstreem Christians consistently fail to follow the basic tenants of the Christian faith. I can tell from your comments that you are one of them. Your messiah threw out the money changers from the temple (Matthew 21:12), people like you and Counter celebrate them.
You don't know me, and you obviously don't know Yeshua. You want to rumble? Bring it on!
The fact that followers of a religion are imperfect is irrelevant to the point that their religion has tenets, so your rant thereof is irrelevant and misses the point entirely.
You're all over the place, and yet you offer not one cogent statement on what so upsets you regarding Coulter''s statements in this video.
I already explained to you where and how you went astray during your first attempt. Now all you have to do is focus your mind and try again.
Jesus said - "You search the scriptures because in them you thin k you have life; but these are they which testify of Me; yet you will not come to Me that you may have life." ~~ and......"I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no one goes to the Father except through Me." ~~ and finally 1 John 5:11-12 says - "This is the verdict: God has given us eternal life, this life is in His Son, those who have the Son have life, those who do not have the Son of God do not have life."
No religion is better than any other in terms of being true because they are all equally wrong. However, some religions such as jainism are superior in terms of their moral implications on the human race and in terms of atrocities committed in their name.
Setting aside your 2 baseless assertions, the dogma regarding atrocities "in their name" is specious. Atheism is the most murderous. Though, much like pedophiles, Atheists hide such deeds rather than publicly boast of them.
Jainism pacifists did nothing when Indians would toss the (living) widows into the funeral pyres of her dead husbands. So much for their morality. It was the Christian (British) threat of force that ended India's widow-roasting, thankfully.
@TylerNull What can be asserted without evidence (religion) can be rejected without evidence. But I suppose you are right, all superstitions lead people astray.
Your Atheist motto is silly, and fails to address any point of my reply.
As for your purposeful misread of my post, Atheists are stuffed full of "superstitions", as you demonstrate, and are the easiest to lead the furthest "astray", the quickest, e.g., Maoist China.
You are cram packed with all the trendy Atheist dogma, but never quite form a cogent thought.
Since you didn't bother to address any point of my last reply, I'll leave it at that.
@TylerNull Sorry what was the point of your previous reply? I will try to address what you said more directly. Atrocities "in the name of" can be specious indeed such as when you equate communism with Atheism. Communism itself is dogmatic and full of fairy tales like the growing of giant tomatoes in Russia that never happened or Kim Jong-il's cult like status in north korea. Atheism itself is simply the lack of a belief in a god(s) - the default position. I am an afairyist as well :).
Hint to a clue: EITHER pose as a moron to claim you can't comprehend my point, OR try to address it. Doing both, as you just did, makes you look like a typical Atheist who can only ape reason.
One needn't "equate" flies with stink to recognize a connection. Atheism is the driving force of communism/socialism, from Lenin to Queer Nation, from Khmer Rouge to Green.
And pointing to your premise to support your premise, as you did, is just circular idiocy.
@TylerNull Regardless, I appreciate your wit and delivery. It is unfortunate but true that believers in Christianity are more aware of the troubles Islam presents than many liberals because many liberals do not know what it means to believe. We both agree that communism and Islam are dangerous dogmatic belief systems. You also believe that Atheism is dogmatic, can you give me an example of that?
As I indicated already, your posts are examples of Atheist dogma. One of which is to deny yours too is rife with beliefs, as you just hinted again when trying to explain the toxicity of Liberalism.
@TylerNull The fact that you take the arguments of "atheism" being responsible for the mass murder of peoples in China, Russia, etc is rather telling of your mentality.
You don't really look at things objectively, but rather with a predisposition to your own ideology that has been most likely instilled in you by an authority; I'm guessing Fox News, your church community, and parents.
But hey, prove me wrong. Tell me how those millions of deaths could be caused by something other than atheism.
@TylerNull Actually, if you got my inference, I did. Given this posting of a Fox News broadcast, I guessed that you take a majority of your information from it, as per an instillation from a source of authority.
Also, I guessed that, likewise, other positions of authority you've been raised to respect unconditionally (your church community and your family, here) have influenced your ideology to such a point that any point outside of it is shrugged off as ignorance or bias.
That's quite the fantasy world you've constructed, and then projected, regarding the mental workings of one who so obviously dissents from your Atheist dogma. That's all you, as they say.
Regardless, none of that has anything to do with my referenced reply to your "prove me wrong", which was in regard to your baseless attempt to absolve Atheism of its own murderous history.
Allan Colmes is an pathetic incompetent. He is so wrong 99% of the time, and doesn't care! He is so clueless. consistently clueless. On the other hand, Ann Coulter is a freakin' genious!
There's also fundamental tenets of Christianity called "The Ten Commandments". One of them reads "Thou shalt not kill". It doesn't say "except if they do something to hurt you" or anything like that, it is really very clear and simple, you don't kill in any circumstances. Coulter however is the biggest warmonger I have ever come across. If she is right about Christianity she'll be going to hell, and if she's wrong she'll cease to exist. Either way I look forward to that.
How's that adoption of sharia law going for you dhimmified British?
Atheist-socialists leaning on their own caricatures of Christianity to aide their Islamic fascist comrades kill their mutual enemy -- Western civilization.
@TylerNull 1st part of your comment; you obviously have no clue about my country: there has been absolutely no adoption of sharia law in the UK, just recently someone was prosecuted for pouring acid on someone's face for a supposed violation of sharia law.
2nd part: my statement was not socialist, and the opposite of atheist. How can you call my reference to laws written in stone by God to be a caricature of religion? It's the most important bit in the bible, the rest being written by humans.
@TylerNull Again, I'm not a socialist. And yes, "sharia courts" exist, but in name only: they are purely voluntary, not legally binding, and any punishment that a sharia court inflicts that is an illegal act in our country would still be punished. You are the one who needs to get inforned.
@rigatony019 See my reply above. Lets take an example: a child of someone you know throws a stone breaking your window. You sit down with their parents and they agree that the boy will work to repay the damage done. The police were not called, it was dealt with internally. That is the exact equivalent of what sharia courts are doing: they are in no way part of the legal system.
Now can the right-wing nutters please stop calling me a liar for having a brain?
Wait Christians accept all of the old testament??? So Christians don't eat shellfish or wear polyester and they stone unruly children. Its in the old testament in the laws and Jesus says to follow the laws. (matt 5: 17-18)
I'm gonna have to borrow that argumentative technique of hers of yelling over my opposition.
One needn't be a Christian scholar to observe that many Christian traditions don't consider your contrived metric of "accept", regarding the Old Testament, to be valid.
Your inability to grasp Christianity or the teachings and traditions thereof isn't evidence of anyone else's wrong.
As for your claim of arguing technique, it is only Liberals who think the person being interviewed should sit mute as the interviewer fills the time slot with accusations, misrepresentations, and derision.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." I'm sorry that you think that that isn't saying that the laws should be kept. You blindly follow a book from the bronze age and when someone points out your hypocrisy in that you don't really follow it you say they can't grasp it.
The only one "blindly following" text here is you.
I'm not suggesting you got it right, even in that visceral context, but clearly that is what you are attempting. Typical of your bigoted ilk, you then project your dull-minded process onto others.
Yes, I posted my general observation that your kind fails to grasp ideas, and your reply verifies that.
When you yell over an opposing view all it does is show how week your arguments are that you have to silence that view for fear that it might make some sense. Liberals DO NOT sit mute, they act respectfully and frankly you conservatives might think that's odd as you seem to lack all respect for people who do not agree. You are better than most conservatives though in that you don't censor your comments and I appreciate that very much.
I'm tired of wasting my time with you. You are too far gone, or to borrow a phrase from your beloved Ann Coulter, you can't be "perfected". If you're going to assert lies and believe them, there is nothing I can do. I'm sorry for you, I really am. I see my self in you in that I used to be conservative and feel the same about many things that you have said so I know where you are coming from and how hard it would be to get through to you.
Evidently, Liberalism is just a severe phobia that reality will seep in and ruin everything.
Oh, and I used to be a Liberal, as most are after suffering through 12+ years of Liberal doctrine proselytized by their teachers labor union in their federalized monopoly. Thankfully, the Liberal mandated college cirricullum spawned a revolt, as it often does in some of the less servile minds. I wish you a speedy recovery as well.
The ancient Christian churches and other holy lands, including those of other religions, e.g., Hindu, from Egypt to Turkey, ALL pre-date Islam, as does Christianity itself. Istambul is built directly on top of Constantanople, the center of the Roman Empire.
Your lack of even a casual knowledge of the world around you isn't evidence of any one else's "confusion".
I know Christianity and Hinduism are older than Islam. Hinduism is the world's oldest religion, dating back 4000 years, Christianity is some 2000 years old and Islam is 1,400 years old.. What is your point? Other holy lands? There is only one Christian holy land and that is in Palestine. Hinduism and other religions have holy sites but don't have holy lands.
I have not revised history, anymore than you have made a point.
My point was clearly stated, that you got who-occupies-who perfectly backwards, and that such is revisionism.
Why the fit of stupor?
As for your latest bit of pro-Islamist mythology, "Palestine" is not a country, not a city, not place, and it never was.
It is, however, an Islamist fantasy marketed by genocidal Lebanese Muslims and their Western socialist brethren, all for the purpose of falsely portraying such Muslim savages as the victim. (Your revisions are purposeful.)
The people living in the Middle East have done so for millennia. So no they are not occupying any country because those countries are theirs.
Palestine is a historic region recognized by historians and geographers the world over.
I am not revising history; you are just ignoring it. Why, I don't know.
Palestine is a historic region. The people of the Middle East have lived there for thousands of years. You can read this in any history book. It is common historic knowledge.
"The people living in the Middle East have done so for millennia", as Jews and Christians.
Then came the filth of Islam and the Islamic crusades, and they have been warring on all of mankind ever since.
As for your "Palestine" mantra, I've already explained it to you. The "geographical region", Israel, for example, isn't "Palestine". Reciting the "Palestine" fantasy isn't a rebuttal.
As difficult as it is for socialists and Muslims to grasp, reality doesn't bend to their fascist whims.
Islamic expansion during the middle ages coincides with empire building everywhere else in the world by many different. The Crusades were based on the desires of European monarchies to rule the holy land, which the Palestinians had lived in since the first century AD. The geographic region of Palestine consists of lands south of Anatolia, north of the Arabian Peninsula and East of Mesopotamia (Iraq).
The Christians, Jews, and all others oppressed & occupied by the plague of Islam in the many nations -- the real ones -- in the areas you fallaciously label "Palestine" are not "Palestinians", then or now.
Just ask them.
Also, contrary to your rewrite, Muslims didn't suddenly appear on vacant land. The Islamic crusades are what brought a brief, failed Christian response, though Muslims & dhimmis only mention the Christian response.
Unlike the Christian sort, Muslim crusades never ended.
Do you have any independent evidence that world history has been revised? Who are the historians revising history and what are their works? The video is so vague it's hard to tell what it is trying to get across, if it is anything at all. How have schools become more liberal? Liberalism is a political philosophy. So these schools have become more political?
Regarding Islam, how is the acceptance of Islam a political issue? It's a religion not a political party.
Five questions in 1 post. Will you pay me tuition?
"any... evidence..." -- yes. Your posts for example.
You portray the 1,400+ yr global plague of Islamic fascism as if they are the victim of occupation, as if their victims are the aggressor, even as Muslims are warring against all of mankind.
You now pose Islam as if it's NOT fascist rule, though Muslim clergy are their government's religious, military, poltical, biz & lifestyle authority.
YOU (yesterday): "... occupied by outside forces not once, but twice ... first British occupiers..."
YOU (today): "I haven't said anything about Muslims being occupied by anyone,..."
(Reality isn't a claim.)
It's insightful to chronicle the bizarre means through which your political ilk aggressively rejects the realities of the world around you. But when you do so regarding your own posts, it's just plain hilarious. Typical, but still funny.
Muslims have not been occupied by anyone because they are not a people. I said Iraq and Afghanistan have been occupied by outside forces. That is, the Iraqi and Afghani peoples.
I suggest you learn to comprehend and read people's posts carefully before commenting.
Muslims are not a people, but the Iraqis and Afghanis are. It is a historic fact that Iraq was occupied by the British after WWI and Afghanistan by the Soviets in 1978. Common historic knowledge.
"It is a historic fact that" those nations, those "holy lands", as Muslims call them, are those of Christians, Jews, and Hindus; occupied now by Muslims (Mufsidun) who oppress all therein. You keep ignoring that fact to pose such Muslims -- each "a people" -- as the victims of Western oppressors.
Tracking your continued attempts to obfuscate the never-ending history of Muslim aggression is amusing, but your word-play sophistry is getting stale.
Muslims don't have any holy lands and the people you talk about have lived in their native lands for millennia, they've just changed their religion, and many times before the introduction of Islam as well. Take Pakistan. The first people there, (Indus valley civilization) were animists. They converted to Hinduism some 2000 years ago and then to Islam in the 8th century. All the while remaining in Pakistan. Islam is not a people, it is a religion.
Palestine is but an Islamist fantasy. They're murderous Lebanese who betrayed their country and destroyed it. Now Muslims & their socialists comrades try to portray them as the victim.
I'll keep pointing to the fact the Muslims are the aggressors, not the victim. Muslims are the ones warring on all of mankind. Muslims are the ones occupying and oppressing.
You keep providing dates to prop up your irrelevancies.
You claimed that Muslims moved into and occupied other people's lands. This is not true, as I have demonstrated that the people who live in these lands have always done so and that they became Muslims while still living in their respective homelands. This is all common knowledge that you refuse to acknowledge.
As I said, with the amount of historical information at your very fingertips, you have no excuse to be this ignorant.
There you go again trying to smear Mohammad's stink on others.
Only Muslim clergy double as military commanders, engage in target selection, & incite murderous temper tantrums anytime anyone so much as mentions their previous murderous temper tantrums.
The world is at relative peace with the lone exception of Islam. Only Muslims are warring on all people of all cultures of all religions in all nations they infest parasitically and/or occupy & oppress.
Europeans are solely responsible for countless historic and present atrocities. Among which are the decimation of Native American populations, two world wars, colonialism, the holocaust, nuclear arms, sweatshop economics, the inquisition and apartheid. Your sense of proportion is so warped as to be just ridiculous.
The only world war ongoing is that of Islam vs. civlized man.
The decimation of indigenous peoples is the signature trait of Islam, from their crusades from Cairo to Constantanople, to their present day genocides throughout Africa.
If it weren't for Western economics, there would be no Islam, as Muslims are stuck in a 1,4000 yr time-warp and lack the capacity to create or manufacture ANYTHING. Even in W. Europe they merely feed parasitically off of their socialist hosts.
hahaha u moron, ever hear of the CRUSADES? What makes u think that christians are any better that anyone else. PRIDE IS ONE OF THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS U MORON.
The Islamic crusades began when Muhammad married a six year old girl and started his bloodthirsty religion, and they have never stopped.
The brief attempt at stopping the Islamic crusades -- the Christian Crusades -- failed. Muslims now occupy all Christian & Jewish holy lands from Cairo to Constantinople, and continue to war against all of mankind.
Wherever Christianity flourishes, so does modern man; contrary to Islam. So, civilizations of the former ARE objectively "better".
Americans 100 years from now will look back at this and laugh wondering how some people were so gullible/mindless to believe that politics defined peoples character and that political partisanship was anything other than primitive tribalism in an apparently modern state. I can imagine a small boy reading about archaic relics like Colms and Coulter whilst being shaded by a marble statue of president Obama in DC.
Americans 100 years after Democrats first committed treason against the USA for their claimed "right" to own and trade human slaves, the Democrat-run teachers unions are rewriting the historical record to blame it all on their opposition.
Interestingly, since Obama's family is African Muslims, their only possible connection to the slave trade was at the business end.
You see, instead of fantasizing a prophesy, perhaps you should merely stop rejecting the lessons of history.
How about that the Christian right and other reggressive thinking sectors of American society once voted for the Democrates consistantly. In fact, it has only been in the last 30 years that they have voted Republican.
What about that Slavery was banned in Kenya in 1926 and that Obama's father was born in 1936.
Before you learn from history, try actually just learning history first!
Prophecies? You believe in a 'second coming'. Enough said.
FYI, I'm not a democrat, I'm not even from the U.S.
Slave trade in Africa continues in countries such as Mauritania, but it is officially outlawed in all of them. In Kenya, the slave trade is non-existent and has been so in east Africa since the 1920s.
African slavery is based on racial discrimination between African ethnic groups, not Islam.
Islam condones slavery, officially, unofficially, and otherwise, It has done so from its inception. It considers blacks to be sub-human, typically castrating the males. Slavery in Muslim countries continues to this day.
Beyond that, were your gibberish true (it isn't), your attempt at a rebuttal would STILL fail. Obama's family heritage didn't spawn from his father. (He too was born from a family.)
But we're not talking about politics. You're ideas/arguments are not political at all. Hating Islam or tolerating it has nothing to do with politics and it is not a political view.
Islam does not condone slavery. The racism of the Arabs is ethnically and not religiously based and it also goes both ways. For example, Idi Amin expelled Arabs from Uganda, as they were non-back (he himself was a Muslim).
"But we're not talking about politics" -- denial is a disease.
Islam is politics; is warfare; is fascist rule. Islamic clergy are military leaders who even select targets for extermination. (They even have names for the various classes of such bloodsport.)
Your endless attempts to absolve Islam of it's 1,400 yr crusade against all of mankind; to portray Muslims as the victims; to portray their victims as the aggressor; is also political.
Islamic rule only occurs in Iran. All other Muslim states are secular republics or monarchies. Islam is not fascism. It is not a political system. It is a religion.
Islamic clergy are not military leaders. They are teachers and community figures but have no governing power, not even in Iran.
Where have I portrayed Muslims as victims and other people have aggressors?
Do you even have the slightest knowledge Islamic culture? What you've said is completely false.
No, Iran is not the only Muslim nation, and there's nothing secular about them, e.g., dhimmi tax & Sharia Law.
As for Islamic fascism, not only do Muslim clergy hold authority over political, military, and all other matters in Muslim nations, they also engage in their fascist bloodsports with such regularity that all of mankind is familiar with the various types of military/religious orders that Muslim clergy decree therefrom, e.g., fatwa.
You are confusing religious society with religious governance. While many Muslim nations have religious societies, their governments are not. Only Iran is a theocracy. The rest are secular, in that their governments claim power of themselves and not from God. Islamic clergy don't have governing power; they are teachers and religious scholars, in the same way that Christian monks, priests and nuns are.
"...confusing religious society with religious ..."
Word sophistry isn't much of a rebuttal, and yours certainly doesn't undo the evidenced Islamic fascism.
"in the same way " -- no. Nuns don't lapse into murderous temper tantrums upon the order of monks to shoot Imams in the back -- only the opposite happens.
And Muslims engage in such bloodsport recurrently to massive Muslim celebrations in the many Muslim nations, all of/by/in state-sponsored clergy, mosques, tv stations, and such.
The only country with a theocratic government based on the Islamic faith is Iran. All other states with Muslim populations have secular governments. This is again common knowledge. You can look it up anywhere. The CIS fact file on other nations even has it.
It has become clear you don't have the slightest idea of what Islam is about. With the kind of information you're surrounded by on a daily basis, there is no excuse for this kind of ignorance.
I am not altering reality. You are ignoring reality. Learned people, liberal and conservative alike, live in reality and accept historic fact. There is no altering of history because there is only one version of history and that is the truthful one. This history can be found anywhere by you. You have no excuse to be this ignorant. You are on the internet for goodness sake! You're surrounded by information about Islamic history and culture yet you refuse to learn anything. Why?
Chronicling your abject denial of reality isn't "ignorant", and needs no "excuse".
Your problem isn't so much a lack of education, per se, but rather that your mind is permeated with a fetid theology, be it that of socialism or Islam, the two are oddly & notably indistinguishable at the distance of a YouTube post.
In either case, you've merely made a depraved CHOICE resulting in your need to publicly debase yourself in its defense. Go make an effort to snap out of it.
You are the one who is clearly in denial. Your lack of even basic knowledge of this culture is most alarming; given the information that surrounds you and its easy access!
The same historical narrative and basic factuality of Islam is shared by thousands of scholars from all political persuasions is what you deny and replace with outlandish claims, masked by pseudo-intellectual rhetoric.
Educate yourself, not for me or anyone else, but for you own sense of intellectual integrity.
how long did u have to stare at a thesaurus to write that post? There is one word u never learned the meaning of: CONTEXT. U cant make a proper judgement about something without looking at all the things that surround it. If that means understanding the values of socialism and islam then so be it, it doesnt mean i have to believe in it. You shouldnt believe what anyone tells u as truth. Thats called idealism And u sir, and an absolute moron if u can't c that ann coulter shouts rhetorical garbage
Afghanistan and Iraq have been occupied by outside forces not once, but twice: Iraq in the 1920s after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after WWI and Afghanistan also in the 1920's.
What happened to the first British occupiers? They were driven out by the same gorilla tactics you see Americans facing today.
So the lesson would be, stay out or be thrown out. A lesson the U.S has not learnt.
In fact, you have it perfectly backwards. Iraq and the rest of West Asia ("Middle East") is Christian holy land which Muslims occupy.
Democrats always manage to side with whoever can best exterminate innocent human life. Here, in the context of Islamic savages vs. civilized man, they recite Muslim propaganda.
I wish Alan Colmes would actually put up a logical argument once in a while. He is slapped down daily by people like Coulter, Ingraham, Morris, Steele, Giuliani and Malkin.
Coulter is very bright and is a great debater. Colmes just needs to open up and listen. He should stop assuming every conservative is racist and and anti-semite. It is getting old.
Absent the ability to articulate their politics, the Liberal instinctively avoids the topic by attacking those who don't, thereby DEMONSTRATING they're merely projecting their inadequacies on the opposition.
Yeah Indian, these are the people that watch Fox and don't know it's right-wing propaganda.
For those who say evolution hasn't been proven, your correct. Because science isn't for proving theories, it's for disproving them, and evolution has yet to be disproven in 150 years. Christians discount the mountain of evidence supporting the veracity of evolution, and entirely discount it because it can't answer every single question. But religion does, because that's how fantasies work , dream on;)
GO ANN COULTER!! i agree with her 100%! I'm glad someone out there actually believes in their Christianity and is honest about what it teaches. When I saw this on TV, I laughed so hard at Alan Colmes. He is so ignorant, and Coulter is so intelligent. YES!
haha i know! he never has any substantial points to play off of. he always tries to go straight for ignorant personal attacks (like calling her antisemitic). i have yet to see him even come close to holding his own in any kind of debate.
If Donny Deutschbag is an orthodox Jew as he claims he is, he'd have understood her point. But noooo, he became the poor wittle victim and "got offended" and jumped on the bandwagon. What a pussy. And that goes for Colmes too. She was pointing out the tenet of Christianity that states Christ came to fulfill the law (Old Testament Mosaic law) and not to abolish it. That was the "perfecting" she was referring to. Ann is infinitely smarter than both of them. But Donny is more effeminate. Ha ha
The NY Democrats are some of the most viciously anti-Christian of all Leftist sects. They are the ones who were forcing US taxpayers to fund their "art" exhibits like that of "Piss Christ" -- a bucket of human urine with the crucifix dunked in it.
The only sect more vicious toward Chrisitians, by my observations, are the Frenetic Crotch Sects of San Fransisco; not to suggest theirs don't overlap with those of NY sects.
Atheism is based on Darwinian Naturalism whose basic premis is: Radom Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design. That assumption has never in the past 150 yrs been scientifically proven, nor will it ever be proven. There is no peer-reviewed, testable, demonstrable, experimentable evidence that points to it. Superintelligence = Design. The code of information contained in the DNA molecule points to that.
so interesting the thought that the one sided media cannot ever explain something that they provoke as real even though they are the ones who create the controversy. If you are going to play tag you're it, at the very least have some idea of what "it" means. They are nothing more than the water in which I bathe my dog in. Grow up Alan and actually research before you report so that your face a.k.a. Obamas vagina can actually spew realistic hate instead of the fake hate you spread.
Coachrob36 9 months ago
We love you ANN!!!
megaead69 11 months ago
Religious Jews couldn't care less what Coulter says.
It's the secular Jews like Colmes who are uncomfortable and insecure with their own faith who pounce on Christians to deflect their own religious shortcomings.
lakeeriejew 1 year ago
To be fair not all liberals are godless. I'm right leaning on most things but am agnostic. I had a liberal roommate who was a christian. How's that for a sitcom
azzh00le 1 year ago
Jesus was a jew, right?
CarissaXo99 1 year ago
@CarissaXo99
According to Leftist Fundies, he was a so-called "palestinian".
That's what they proselytize to everyone's school kids from their federally sponsored labor union monopoly, anyway.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull
His ethnicity is sort of irrelevant, seeing as how there's no evidence that the man actually existed.
leftovers0 11 months ago
@leftovers0
There is evidence that you are historically illiterate.
And if the term is so irrelevant, then why do Leftist Fundies fight to defend it?
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull good job man. You are a very smart person and I want to thank you for fighting the good fight against liberalism. You are as important and patriotic as the solders that defend this country with blood & bombs. Keep up the good work brother.
GeorgeBonez 11 months ago 3
@TylerNull
I'm not illiterate, I've read the bible. I just fail to see how anything in it relates to anything actually in history, seeing as how both testaments full of ridiculous claims which go against natural law.
Old testament: Talking snakes? Man made from dirt? Woman made from rib? Talking piece of shrubbery? Parting a sea with magic?.
New testament: Coming back from the dead? Water chemically changed into wine? Food magically duplicated? Walking on water?
Not history, just bullshit.
leftovers0 11 months ago
@leftovers0
You just abandoned your first claim, and replaced it with 9 unrelated questions.
The Old Testament consists of different books written in different genres and with language that no longer exists. Your obvious disinterest in comprehending their meaning is demonstrated rather well. Yours indicates nothing more than the dullness of your own mind; your lack of intellectual curiosity.
There are no notions that "go against natural law" more spectacularly than those of devout Atheists.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull
My first claim was that the ethnicity of a fictional character is irrelevant. My second post was aimed at people (you) who claim that the bible is historically accurate (and the questions were rhetorical, just a list of ridiculous claims that people like you take on faith alone).
Also, I went to a Catholic primary school, I was "intellectually curious" enough to ask questions, which led to my eventual dismissal of irrational claims.
Why do YOU believe? You have the burden of proof.
leftovers0 11 months ago
@leftovers0 The content of your claims were never in question. I merely pointed out their fallacy, and their evidence of your historical illiteracy and intellectual dullness.
As for "burden of proof", that too is a fallacy. There is no more of a burden of proof on one (dis)belief than their is for another. As much as Atheists like to claim otherwise, stating your theological conclusions as a negative assertion doesn't change that.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull
Burden of proof is not a fallacy, I feel you may have misinterpreted what that word means. Every other aspect of life requires proof, and if you do not have proof, then you do not get to make up your own answer.
I don't know how the world began, but you've given me no reason to think it's a god. Even if you could, you have no reason for it to be your Christian god as opposed to Zeus or Allah.
Being logical is not being closed minded, and faith in absurd claims is not to be admired.
leftovers0 11 months ago
@leftovers0
"... is not a fallacy"
YOUR claim thereunder is the fallacy, as I explained. That is, YOUR notion "requires proof" as much as any other.
"how the world began"
The latest astrophysical theory claims there was a specific event at which all of creation, the physical universe, was created. The current theory replaced the 19th century Atheist's model of an infinite and forever universe. Differing theologies give different names for the creator; for that which created creation.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull
"That is, YOUR notion "requires proof" as much as any other."
I don't have a notion, I'm rejecting yours. You say that there is a creator for the universe, I say that your claim is baseless.
You don't need proof for a negative. I am not making an assertion when I say that I don't believe in the existence of fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, Hercules, Yahweh or superman, I am doing the opposite. If anyone wants to claim that these mythical characters actually exist, they must prove it
leftovers0 11 months ago
@leftovers0
"You don't need proof for a negative."
Wrong. Study logic some more. You're merely reciting Atheist dogma. It's false, and stale too.
Anything that can be stated as "a negative" can be restated as "a positive", and vice versa. Again, your notions, and you've posted numerous false ones, are no less mindless than anyone else's, a priori. And until you offer ANY valid reasoning, yours remain mindless.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull
Why do you keep ignoring my point. It takes no faith to not believe something. Again, I will list the things that, according to you, YOU need to provide proof for not believing in: fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, Hercules or superman.
Of course, I am making an assumption that you don't believe in those things.
Also, there is no atheist dogma, I've never been to any meeting with any collection of atheists. I was raised christian, and had friends of different religions. Logic freed me
leftovers0 11 months ago
@leftovers0
"It takes no faith to not believe something."
Wrong. It takes faith in the specific (dis)belief and all the brain work that goes into either conclusion thereof, assuming there is any. All you did there was reword your original logical fallacy, which I already addressed. There is nothing a priori regarding ANY (dis)belief.
"There is no Atheist dogma." -- your posts disprove that.
"Logic freed me." -- you have yet to utilize logic here. You're just reciting stale Atheist dogma.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull
"It takes faith in the specific (dis)belief and all the brain work that goes into either conclusion thereof, assuming there is any."
That's bullshit. Putting the "dis" in brackets before the word "belief" does not make it the same thing. The prefix "dis" means the opposite term.
To be disinterested is to not be interested. To be dishonest is to not be honest. To disbelieve is to not believe.
I am not stating "there is no god", I am saying there's no reason to believe there is one.
leftovers0 11 months ago
@leftovers0
Congratulations on your grasp of antonyms. However, my point holds, and does so regardless of how you (re)word your disbelief.
One's (dis)belief is merely a conclusion. Absent any reasoning for your conclusion, in ANY case on ANY topic, would be mindless.
Now, your CLAIM is "there's no reason . . .".
So, "prove" your claim. (Those are your rules and your lingo.)
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull
I cannot state this emphatically enough. YOU ARE MAKING THE CLAIM! You are saying that there is an almighty super being who created the world and the universe and watches over us. I am saying that that is ridiculous. I do not claim any special knowledge, I am rejecting the fact that you do.
I am an agnostic atheist. Gnosticism means claiming special knowledge, and atheism means no belief in a deity. The default position shouldn't be "there is a god unless proved otherwise". Prove it
leftovers0 11 months ago
@leftovers0
Claiming that your claims aren't claims is a particularly obnoxious way to avoid your own requirement that one "prove" their claim.
Now, stop making up stuff that I never claimed, and "prove" your claim. That's your lingo and your requirement.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull
What part of this are you not getting? I'm not religious. I don't think there's a god. There's no reason to think so. If you do, tell me why. If not, then we don't have an issue.
Stop ignoring the fact that there are thousands of things that you don't believe in, but you don't require proof for not believing in. You don't believe in unicorns right? Why not?
I've had to deal with people like you my entire life. I refuse to accept a premise without logic. It made catholic school shit
leftovers0 11 months ago
@leftovers0
"I refuse to accept a premise without logic"
Not only do you accept a premise without logic, but you keep reciting yours over and over, and over again. Yet, when I ask you to explain your reasoning, which you keep referring to as "proof", you simply ignore, deny, and continue to proselytize very stale Atheist dogma.
You're a mindless regurgitation machine.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull We fight them off like banshees but we don't talk to each other enough. Whenever you see a conservative brother fighting like hell, let him know that he is not alone. Thank you for serving your country and keeping it safe. Political will is how this war will be won and oh, "we will win".
GeorgeBonez 11 months ago
@CarissaXo99 no he was imaginary.
chertzle 1 year ago
@chertzle and so is perfection...
CarissaXo99 1 year ago
@CarissaXo99
Yes, Jesus was a Jew and if he were resurrected today he would be shocked to find out that an entire religion was named after him.
lakeeriejew 1 year ago
Everything she says is 100% true. Liberals have tried to destroy America for decades. Democrats are one of the biggest embarassments of America, they're 2-faced and 200 years from now history books will compare liberal democrats to Nazi's. Both hate America and both are hated around the world. Only uneducated liberals would vote for an America hating muslim as president. Hussein Obama 1st two years in office have taken America to the lowest point it has ever been.
Tampaslice 1 year ago 4
@Tampaslice Can you just shut the fuck up and think about what you're saying for a minute? Have the Republicans EVER been on the right side of history? Be it civil world war II, civil rights, vietnam etc. you retards have ALWAYS been on the opposite side of progress. Oh, and it's hilariously ironic to make countless grammatical errors in a post about how uneducated people are. I hope you die in a car accident.
GENERICCEREAL67 1 year ago
@Tampaslice Thanks for telling it like it is brother!!!!! Look at the post; 61 LIKES 50 DISLIKES. We still have ALOT of work to do to makes these unfortunate IDIOTS understand whats going in this country. BHO is the biggest mistake America has EVER made. Not to mention that he and Eric Holder (and who knows who else within the administration) are BIGOTS. That it; they HATE white people.
specificgravity 10 months ago
She is smart as fuck, and destroys all liberals. Go Coulter
31guitar 1 year ago
What a smokin hottie....
GgRrYyPpHhOoNn 1 year ago
Uh Allan, read the scripture on adding or taking away from it and find out what your prize is going to be>
Buddymack917 1 year ago
I am upset that people believe in God because they think thy have a Truth, and when you have a truth, its hard to let other people live in a Lie, so what happens is you get the religious shoving their God down my throat.
HearingEveryRhyme 1 year ago
@HearingEveryRhyme
Those who believe there is no God also believe they "have a truth". And their historical record reveals they use of government force, liberally, to shove it down everyone's throat. Atheist governments are the most totalitarian.
The belief vs. non-belief framework is a canard.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@HearingEveryRhyme You are my brother and the creation of God himself and I may correct you but I will show you the love of Christ. I am a sinner saved by grace and my heart has been changed to love those who don't love me. May you come to know Jesus and have the blessing of the lord upon your life. I refuse to offer any retribution to you because arguments accomplish nothing. Nothing is being forced on you. The choice is yours so choose wisely.
fishguru73 1 year ago
@fishguru73 Why would I choose to believe in something with no evidence? If your god gave us logic, then why would he have us defy it? How can your god be moral when he applauds rape and genocide and acts like a child when people don't listen to him.
HearingEveryRhyme 1 year ago
@HearingEveryRhyme Look, we could go back and forth but I'm going to offer you some logic instead. Nothing, and I mean nothing is possible... you're consciousness and emotion, the intricacy of all life, the mysteries of the cosmos... without God. The fact is, if there is no creator that has always existed then you and I aren't communicating because there is no way we exist. By the way, I want you to cite a book and verse in the Bible where God applauds rape and genocide.
fishguru73 1 year ago
@fishguru73 Zechariah 14:1-2, Deuteronomy 21:11-14; 22:23-24 ; Exodus, Chapter 34, verses 11-14
You are assuming that everything needs a creator, yet that your argument is a fallacy. If the god of Abraham is the creator, and everything needs to be created, who created him? Why can't the universe just have always existed. I will not take a stance without evidence, but to make a leap to either conclusion is illogical.
HearingEveryRhyme 1 year ago
@thejcp1234. I couldn't have said it better myself !! You are great !!!!! That description is just PERFECT !! Besides that Colmes is the biggest moron i have ever seen or heard. he is the typical angry liberal. he foams at the mouth . and he gets a paycheck. i guess it's true the sun shines for every one .
jorgeoscar1000 1 year ago
Alan Colmes looks like an alien wearing human skin.
TheJcp1234 1 year ago
@TheJcp1234
Let's not pick on Colmes' looks. ALL SOCIALISTS are aliens to humanity, as their politics show. Some are simply more appealing to the human eye, unfortunately.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull Ummm no, you can be an atheist and not believe you have a truth, most atheists are like that. And the ones that do say they have the truth tend to justify it with the fact that since there are so many man made gods, the chances of them being right and existing are so small, that non existence is more likely.
Hitler was hardly an atheist, he believed in a master race and a utopia dominated by a race that descends from a magical bloodline, that is pretty religious.
HearingEveryRhyme 1 year ago
@HearingEv...
"Ummm no", if you don't think you "have a truth", then why post your falsehoods? I have never met an Atheist who does NOT mindlessly recite Atheist dogma as if its holy writ and then bitterly cling to its idiocy even AFTER such is pointed out for them.
Ummm, check the historical record. Pointing to a pagan-socialist fails to absolve atheist-socialists of their totalitarian horrors. Notably, the atheist sort are 10x more common & 10x more murderous than the pagan sort.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull Atheist dogma? Atheist is a rejection of belief. A true atheist will not believe without evidence. Those who say there is absolutely 100% no possibility of any deity are not atheists, they are holding a belief with no evidence. Take Stalin or Kim Jong Il for example, they say there are no deities because they turn themselves into supreme deities. They create a belief system and ascribe themselves attributes of gods. They are not atheists, they are prophets of a god who is them.
HearingEveryRhyme 1 year ago
@Hear
"Atheist dogma? ... a rejection of belief."
You're a devout Atheist, and yet I just debunked the Atheist dogma you recited earlier. That makes your latest bit of Atheist dogma as hilarious as it is demonstrably false.
"A true atheist will not believe without evidence."
You just demonstrated the precise opposite. (See above.) Thereby, yours is just more Atheist dogma. YouTube is stuffed full of Atheists like you who post their believes in all kinds of such lunacies "without evidence".
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull I don't believe there is no god, i don't acknowledge the existence of any god since there is no proof. If a flat-Earther and a round-Earther were debating in Caveman times with no evidence, they would be holding beliefs with no evidence. They would be making an illogical conclusion if they had no proof. I have seen no proof for any god, so I don't acknowledge the existence of one. If someone said "Here is proof" and it was proof, then I'd acknowledge its existence.
HearingEveryRhyme 1 year ago
@Hear
"...believe ...acknowledge"
You can word it however you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that yours is a conclusion, just as those who conclude differently. There's no less a wad of beliefs, notions and concepts in either case, generally, regardless of how unexamined such may be in your case.
The Atheist model of the universe was debunked in 1927 with what Atheists mocked as the "Big Bang" theory. (The name stuck.) Evidence for the event of creation has steadily grown ever since.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull Evidence for creation, hmm I'd like some please, you can send some info to my inbox.
Atheist model of the universe? Personally I don't ascribe to the Big Bang since I don't see enough evidence, but it has more than creation if one is only considering temporal finitism.Creation does not prove any god conceived by man. My conclusion is that I will not believe without proof. Your conclusion is that there is a man in the sky. You state a "fact" of reality, I state that I don't state one.
HearingEveryRhyme 1 year ago
@HearingEv
"hmm I'd like some please"
If you truly did, then your ignorance of the prevailing model in astrophysics, along with its 80 years of accrued evidence, wouldn't have remained so pristine to date.
"does not prove" -- that is the Atheists' bait-and-switch of "evidence" with "prove".
As for "any god concept", here's one that's arguably required by modern astrophysics: the creator is that which caused creation.
"Your conclusion is..." -- no, that's just a derisive Atheist caricature.
TylerNull 1 year ago
"we know the real enemies are the secularists"
haha i love anne coulter... she is so funny and completely correct.
mattwjohnston 1 year ago
WOW !!! Colmes that comment must've hurt. lol
nockuout1 1 year ago
Then I'm definitely not a Christian, I'm a Godless Liberal and proud of it!
johnleejohnson 1 year ago
@johnleejohnson
You're echoing Coulter's point.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull Her definition of christian is so narrow, unless I am a Bible thumping Conservative, I could never be a Christian.
For that matter, why would I want to follow Jesus Christ, that wasn't even his name. Jesus is GREEK! There never was a person named Jesus Christ! His first name wasn't Jesus and his last name wasn't Christ.
Would you believe that Jesus’ real name in pre-exilic Hebrew was Yehoshua or in the Second Temple period Yeshua or Joshua?
johnleejohnson 1 year ago
@johnleejohnson
"Her definition of ..."
Coulter didn't define "Christian". She merely explained the Christian tenet that caused your ilk to lapse into a bout of fake outrage. And that tenet is not "hers".
Oddly, you go on to pose as a font of knowledge whilst failing to grasp the concept of your own complaint.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull 'fake outrage'? I assure you my outrage is not fake. 'font of knowledge'? Oh I do 'grasp the concept of my own complaint'. Mainstreem Christians consistently fail to follow the basic tenants of the Christian faith. I can tell from your comments that you are one of them. Your messiah threw out the money changers from the temple (Matthew 21:12), people like you and Counter celebrate them.
You don't know me, and you obviously don't know Yeshua. You want to rumble? Bring it on!
johnleejohnson 1 year ago
@johnleejohnson
FOCUS.
The fact that followers of a religion are imperfect is irrelevant to the point that their religion has tenets, so your rant thereof is irrelevant and misses the point entirely.
You're all over the place, and yet you offer not one cogent statement on what so upsets you regarding Coulter''s statements in this video.
I already explained to you where and how you went astray during your first attempt. Now all you have to do is focus your mind and try again.
TylerNull 1 year ago
Alan Colmes is an idiot. Every argument he makes is based on assumptions not facts.
jsnm23 1 year ago
Jesus said - "You search the scriptures because in them you thin k you have life; but these are they which testify of Me; yet you will not come to Me that you may have life." ~~ and......"I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no one goes to the Father except through Me." ~~ and finally 1 John 5:11-12 says - "This is the verdict: God has given us eternal life, this life is in His Son, those who have the Son have life, those who do not have the Son of God do not have life."
GaryLyons 1 year ago
No religion is better than any other in terms of being true because they are all equally wrong. However, some religions such as jainism are superior in terms of their moral implications on the human race and in terms of atrocities committed in their name.
Chibling 1 year ago
@Chibling
Setting aside your 2 baseless assertions, the dogma regarding atrocities "in their name" is specious. Atheism is the most murderous. Though, much like pedophiles, Atheists hide such deeds rather than publicly boast of them.
Jainism pacifists did nothing when Indians would toss the (living) widows into the funeral pyres of her dead husbands. So much for their morality. It was the Christian (British) threat of force that ended India's widow-roasting, thankfully.
Don't equivocate.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull What can be asserted without evidence (religion) can be rejected without evidence. But I suppose you are right, all superstitions lead people astray.
Chibling 1 year ago
@Chibling
Your Atheist motto is silly, and fails to address any point of my reply.
As for your purposeful misread of my post, Atheists are stuffed full of "superstitions", as you demonstrate, and are the easiest to lead the furthest "astray", the quickest, e.g., Maoist China.
You are cram packed with all the trendy Atheist dogma, but never quite form a cogent thought.
Since you didn't bother to address any point of my last reply, I'll leave it at that.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull Sorry what was the point of your previous reply? I will try to address what you said more directly. Atrocities "in the name of" can be specious indeed such as when you equate communism with Atheism. Communism itself is dogmatic and full of fairy tales like the growing of giant tomatoes in Russia that never happened or Kim Jong-il's cult like status in north korea. Atheism itself is simply the lack of a belief in a god(s) - the default position. I am an afairyist as well :).
Chibling 1 year ago
@Chibling
"Sorry what was the point"
Hint to a clue: EITHER pose as a moron to claim you can't comprehend my point, OR try to address it. Doing both, as you just did, makes you look like a typical Atheist who can only ape reason.
One needn't "equate" flies with stink to recognize a connection. Atheism is the driving force of communism/socialism, from Lenin to Queer Nation, from Khmer Rouge to Green.
And pointing to your premise to support your premise, as you did, is just circular idiocy.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull Regardless, I appreciate your wit and delivery. It is unfortunate but true that believers in Christianity are more aware of the troubles Islam presents than many liberals because many liberals do not know what it means to believe. We both agree that communism and Islam are dangerous dogmatic belief systems. You also believe that Atheism is dogmatic, can you give me an example of that?
Chibling 1 year ago
@Chibling
As I indicated already, your posts are examples of Atheist dogma. One of which is to deny yours too is rife with beliefs, as you just hinted again when trying to explain the toxicity of Liberalism.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull The fact that you take the arguments of "atheism" being responsible for the mass murder of peoples in China, Russia, etc is rather telling of your mentality.
You don't really look at things objectively, but rather with a predisposition to your own ideology that has been most likely instilled in you by an authority; I'm guessing Fox News, your church community, and parents.
But hey, prove me wrong. Tell me how those millions of deaths could be caused by something other than atheism.
SenariXarn 1 year ago
@SenariXarn
"prove me wrong"
You posted nothing to support your baseless claim.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull Actually, if you got my inference, I did. Given this posting of a Fox News broadcast, I guessed that you take a majority of your information from it, as per an instillation from a source of authority.
Also, I guessed that, likewise, other positions of authority you've been raised to respect unconditionally (your church community and your family, here) have influenced your ideology to such a point that any point outside of it is shrugged off as ignorance or bias.
That was inference.
SenariXarn 1 year ago
@SenariXarn
That's quite the fantasy world you've constructed, and then projected, regarding the mental workings of one who so obviously dissents from your Atheist dogma. That's all you, as they say.
Regardless, none of that has anything to do with my referenced reply to your "prove me wrong", which was in regard to your baseless attempt to absolve Atheism of its own murderous history.
TylerNull 1 year ago
"read the book", you say? dumkopf, it's how many of us became non-believers
cherrydog9 1 year ago
Allan Colmes is an pathetic incompetent. He is so wrong 99% of the time, and doesn't care! He is so clueless. consistently clueless. On the other hand, Ann Coulter is a freakin' genious!
sammywight1423 1 year ago
There's also fundamental tenets of Christianity called "The Ten Commandments". One of them reads "Thou shalt not kill". It doesn't say "except if they do something to hurt you" or anything like that, it is really very clear and simple, you don't kill in any circumstances. Coulter however is the biggest warmonger I have ever come across. If she is right about Christianity she'll be going to hell, and if she's wrong she'll cease to exist. Either way I look forward to that.
strakha0 1 year ago
@strakha0
How's that adoption of sharia law going for you dhimmified British?
Atheist-socialists leaning on their own caricatures of Christianity to aide their Islamic fascist comrades kill their mutual enemy -- Western civilization.
HILARIOUS.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull 1st part of your comment; you obviously have no clue about my country: there has been absolutely no adoption of sharia law in the UK, just recently someone was prosecuted for pouring acid on someone's face for a supposed violation of sharia law.
2nd part: my statement was not socialist, and the opposite of atheist. How can you call my reference to laws written in stone by God to be a caricature of religion? It's the most important bit in the bible, the rest being written by humans.
strakha0 1 year ago
@strakha0
Stop lying.
"Britain has 85 sharia courts: The astonishing spread of the Islamic justice behind closed doors"
- dailymail . co . uk, June 09
"Revealed: UKs first official sharia courts"
- timesonline . co . uk, Sep 08
You socialist jokers know so much that isn't so.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull Again, I'm not a socialist. And yes, "sharia courts" exist, but in name only: they are purely voluntary, not legally binding, and any punishment that a sharia court inflicts that is an illegal act in our country would still be punished. You are the one who needs to get inforned.
strakha0 1 year ago
@strakha0 no adoption of sharia law in the uk?
either get informed or quit lying
rigatony019 1 year ago 2
@rigatony019 See my reply above. Lets take an example: a child of someone you know throws a stone breaking your window. You sit down with their parents and they agree that the boy will work to repay the damage done. The police were not called, it was dealt with internally. That is the exact equivalent of what sharia courts are doing: they are in no way part of the legal system.
Now can the right-wing nutters please stop calling me a liar for having a brain?
strakha0 1 year ago
@strakha0 now im just wondering what your cute story proves if anything at all
rigatony019 1 year ago 2
Well that is what the bible suggests, dont get mad at her get mad at the bible.
aussieguy2109 1 year ago
I love Ann Coulter
dalkass 2 years ago
i see no reason to stand by the "most fundamental tenet of Christianity" and why it's ignorance is inherently vicious.
"godlessness" is a spook.
fede2 2 years ago
Whether you "stand by" a reality or not, it still exists. The rest of your post is a mix of baseless and unintelligible.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Ann Coulter is brilliant and handed holmes his jew ass!!
megaead69 2 years ago
I love this chick, she's not afraid to tell it how it is.
Orbit915 2 years ago 5
Wait Christians accept all of the old testament??? So Christians don't eat shellfish or wear polyester and they stone unruly children. Its in the old testament in the laws and Jesus says to follow the laws. (matt 5: 17-18)
I'm gonna have to borrow that argumentative technique of hers of yelling over my opposition.
ilovethebeatles7 2 years ago
One needn't be a Christian scholar to observe that many Christian traditions don't consider your contrived metric of "accept", regarding the Old Testament, to be valid.
Your inability to grasp Christianity or the teachings and traditions thereof isn't evidence of anyone else's wrong.
As for your claim of arguing technique, it is only Liberals who think the person being interviewed should sit mute as the interviewer fills the time slot with accusations, misrepresentations, and derision.
TylerNull 2 years ago
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." I'm sorry that you think that that isn't saying that the laws should be kept. You blindly follow a book from the bronze age and when someone points out your hypocrisy in that you don't really follow it you say they can't grasp it.
ilovethebeatles7 2 years ago
The only one "blindly following" text here is you.
I'm not suggesting you got it right, even in that visceral context, but clearly that is what you are attempting. Typical of your bigoted ilk, you then project your dull-minded process onto others.
Yes, I posted my general observation that your kind fails to grasp ideas, and your reply verifies that.
TylerNull 2 years ago
When you yell over an opposing view all it does is show how week your arguments are that you have to silence that view for fear that it might make some sense. Liberals DO NOT sit mute, they act respectfully and frankly you conservatives might think that's odd as you seem to lack all respect for people who do not agree. You are better than most conservatives though in that you don't censor your comments and I appreciate that very much.
ilovethebeatles7 2 years ago
The only reason your latest post isn't entirely divorced from reality is hat it represents a near perfect inversion of it.
As this video evidences, the interviewer (Liberal) does most of the talking.
Liberals routinely shout down Conservative speakers at universities across America.
Liberals routinely intimidate, and have fired, public figures, while absolving themselves of even genocidal statements.
Liberals are 99% of all media -- an effective gag order on their opposition.
TylerNull 2 years ago
I'm tired of wasting my time with you. You are too far gone, or to borrow a phrase from your beloved Ann Coulter, you can't be "perfected". If you're going to assert lies and believe them, there is nothing I can do. I'm sorry for you, I really am. I see my self in you in that I used to be conservative and feel the same about many things that you have said so I know where you are coming from and how hard it would be to get through to you.
ilovethebeatles7 2 years ago
Evidently, Liberalism is just a severe phobia that reality will seep in and ruin everything.
Oh, and I used to be a Liberal, as most are after suffering through 12+ years of Liberal doctrine proselytized by their teachers labor union in their federalized monopoly. Thankfully, the Liberal mandated college cirricullum spawned a revolt, as it often does in some of the less servile minds. I wish you a speedy recovery as well.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Liberals for Jesus
BeigeHolland 2 years ago
Another reason to love Ann Coulter. Smack Down from Ann using Aliens own words.
micmore007a 2 years ago 7
well the hell is your point colmes? you suck, liberals suck. What kind of crap is this to even bring this up
CapitalFreedom 2 years ago 5
The ancient Christian churches and other holy lands, including those of other religions, e.g., Hindu, from Egypt to Turkey, ALL pre-date Islam, as does Christianity itself. Istambul is built directly on top of Constantanople, the center of the Roman Empire.
Your lack of even a casual knowledge of the world around you isn't evidence of any one else's "confusion".
Do learn history before attempting to rewrite it.
TylerNull 3 years ago
I know Christianity and Hinduism are older than Islam. Hinduism is the world's oldest religion, dating back 4000 years, Christianity is some 2000 years old and Islam is 1,400 years old.. What is your point? Other holy lands? There is only one Christian holy land and that is in Palestine. Hinduism and other religions have holy sites but don't have holy lands.
I have not revised history, anymore than you have made a point.
Blackfish100 2 years ago
"...made a point."
My point was clearly stated, that you got who-occupies-who perfectly backwards, and that such is revisionism.
Why the fit of stupor?
As for your latest bit of pro-Islamist mythology, "Palestine" is not a country, not a city, not place, and it never was.
It is, however, an Islamist fantasy marketed by genocidal Lebanese Muslims and their Western socialist brethren, all for the purpose of falsely portraying such Muslim savages as the victim. (Your revisions are purposeful.)
TylerNull 2 years ago
The people living in the Middle East have done so for millennia. So no they are not occupying any country because those countries are theirs.
Palestine is a historic region recognized by historians and geographers the world over.
I am not revising history; you are just ignoring it. Why, I don't know.
Palestine is a historic region. The people of the Middle East have lived there for thousands of years. You can read this in any history book. It is common historic knowledge.
Blackfish100 2 years ago
"The people living in the Middle East have done so for millennia", as Jews and Christians.
Then came the filth of Islam and the Islamic crusades, and they have been warring on all of mankind ever since.
As for your "Palestine" mantra, I've already explained it to you. The "geographical region", Israel, for example, isn't "Palestine". Reciting the "Palestine" fantasy isn't a rebuttal.
As difficult as it is for socialists and Muslims to grasp, reality doesn't bend to their fascist whims.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Islamic expansion during the middle ages coincides with empire building everywhere else in the world by many different. The Crusades were based on the desires of European monarchies to rule the holy land, which the Palestinians had lived in since the first century AD. The geographic region of Palestine consists of lands south of Anatolia, north of the Arabian Peninsula and East of Mesopotamia (Iraq).
Blackfish100 2 years ago
The Christians, Jews, and all others oppressed & occupied by the plague of Islam in the many nations -- the real ones -- in the areas you fallaciously label "Palestine" are not "Palestinians", then or now.
Just ask them.
Also, contrary to your rewrite, Muslims didn't suddenly appear on vacant land. The Islamic crusades are what brought a brief, failed Christian response, though Muslims & dhimmis only mention the Christian response.
Unlike the Christian sort, Muslim crusades never ended.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Do you have any independent evidence that world history has been revised? Who are the historians revising history and what are their works? The video is so vague it's hard to tell what it is trying to get across, if it is anything at all. How have schools become more liberal? Liberalism is a political philosophy. So these schools have become more political?
Regarding Islam, how is the acceptance of Islam a political issue? It's a religion not a political party.
Blackfish100 2 years ago
Five questions in 1 post. Will you pay me tuition?
"any... evidence..." -- yes. Your posts for example.
You portray the 1,400+ yr global plague of Islamic fascism as if they are the victim of occupation, as if their victims are the aggressor, even as Muslims are warring against all of mankind.
You now pose Islam as if it's NOT fascist rule, though Muslim clergy are their government's religious, military, poltical, biz & lifestyle authority.
Yours are willful deceptions or abject ignorance.
TylerNull 2 years ago
I haven't said anything about Muslims being occupied by anyone, or that the victims of Islamic extremists are the aggressor.
Answer my questions.
You decided to make some claims. Now you have the responsibility to back those up with evidence.
Blackfish100 2 years ago
Here's another of my "claims", as you call them:
YOU (yesterday): "... occupied by outside forces not once, but twice ... first British occupiers..."
YOU (today): "I haven't said anything about Muslims being occupied by anyone,..."
(Reality isn't a claim.)
It's insightful to chronicle the bizarre means through which your political ilk aggressively rejects the realities of the world around you. But when you do so regarding your own posts, it's just plain hilarious. Typical, but still funny.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Muslims have not been occupied by anyone because they are not a people. I said Iraq and Afghanistan have been occupied by outside forces. That is, the Iraqi and Afghani peoples.
I suggest you learn to comprehend and read people's posts carefully before commenting.
Muslims are not a people, but the Iraqis and Afghanis are. It is a historic fact that Iraq was occupied by the British after WWI and Afghanistan by the Soviets in 1978. Common historic knowledge.
Blackfish100 2 years ago
"It is a historic fact that" those nations, those "holy lands", as Muslims call them, are those of Christians, Jews, and Hindus; occupied now by Muslims (Mufsidun) who oppress all therein. You keep ignoring that fact to pose such Muslims -- each "a people" -- as the victims of Western oppressors.
Tracking your continued attempts to obfuscate the never-ending history of Muslim aggression is amusing, but your word-play sophistry is getting stale.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Muslims don't have any holy lands and the people you talk about have lived in their native lands for millennia, they've just changed their religion, and many times before the introduction of Islam as well. Take Pakistan. The first people there, (Indus valley civilization) were animists. They converted to Hinduism some 2000 years ago and then to Islam in the 8th century. All the while remaining in Pakistan. Islam is not a people, it is a religion.
Blackfish100 2 years ago
What's your point?
Palestine is but an Islamist fantasy. They're murderous Lebanese who betrayed their country and destroyed it. Now Muslims & their socialists comrades try to portray them as the victim.
I'll keep pointing to the fact the Muslims are the aggressors, not the victim. Muslims are the ones warring on all of mankind. Muslims are the ones occupying and oppressing.
You keep providing dates to prop up your irrelevancies.
TylerNull 2 years ago
You claimed that Muslims moved into and occupied other people's lands. This is not true, as I have demonstrated that the people who live in these lands have always done so and that they became Muslims while still living in their respective homelands. This is all common knowledge that you refuse to acknowledge.
As I said, with the amount of historical information at your very fingertips, you have no excuse to be this ignorant.
Blackfish100 2 years ago
Genius, Christianity is older than Islam.
The "people who lived there" were of many religions, until Muslims put them to the sword and executed or forcibly converted them.
All that you demonstrate is a stubborn idiocy. All too common a trait amongst devout socialists & Muslims.
TylerNull 2 years ago
'until Muslims put them to the sword and executed or forcibly converted them. ' the same way every other civilization has acted.
Blackfish100 2 years ago
There you go again trying to smear Mohammad's stink on others.
Only Muslim clergy double as military commanders, engage in target selection, & incite murderous temper tantrums anytime anyone so much as mentions their previous murderous temper tantrums.
The world is at relative peace with the lone exception of Islam. Only Muslims are warring on all people of all cultures of all religions in all nations they infest parasitically and/or occupy & oppress.
You denials continue to impress.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Europeans are solely responsible for countless historic and present atrocities. Among which are the decimation of Native American populations, two world wars, colonialism, the holocaust, nuclear arms, sweatshop economics, the inquisition and apartheid. Your sense of proportion is so warped as to be just ridiculous.
Blackfish100 2 years ago
The only world war ongoing is that of Islam vs. civlized man.
The decimation of indigenous peoples is the signature trait of Islam, from their crusades from Cairo to Constantanople, to their present day genocides throughout Africa.
If it weren't for Western economics, there would be no Islam, as Muslims are stuck in a 1,4000 yr time-warp and lack the capacity to create or manufacture ANYTHING. Even in W. Europe they merely feed parasitically off of their socialist hosts.
Say thank you.
TylerNull 2 years ago
hahaha u moron, ever hear of the CRUSADES? What makes u think that christians are any better that anyone else. PRIDE IS ONE OF THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS U MORON.
charbroiledmonk1033 2 years ago
Crusades?
The Islamic crusades began when Muhammad married a six year old girl and started his bloodthirsty religion, and they have never stopped.
The brief attempt at stopping the Islamic crusades -- the Christian Crusades -- failed. Muslims now occupy all Christian & Jewish holy lands from Cairo to Constantinople, and continue to war against all of mankind.
Wherever Christianity flourishes, so does modern man; contrary to Islam. So, civilizations of the former ARE objectively "better".
TylerNull 2 years ago
She fucken ROCKS....she ripped him a new asshole!
robbie11121986 3 years ago 3
Americans 100 years from now will look back at this and laugh wondering how some people were so gullible/mindless to believe that politics defined peoples character and that political partisanship was anything other than primitive tribalism in an apparently modern state. I can imagine a small boy reading about archaic relics like Colms and Coulter whilst being shaded by a marble statue of president Obama in DC.
Blackfish100 3 years ago
Americans 100 years after Democrats first committed treason against the USA for their claimed "right" to own and trade human slaves, the Democrat-run teachers unions are rewriting the historical record to blame it all on their opposition.
Interestingly, since Obama's family is African Muslims, their only possible connection to the slave trade was at the business end.
You see, instead of fantasizing a prophesy, perhaps you should merely stop rejecting the lessons of history.
TylerNull 3 years ago
Lessons of history you say?
How about that the Christian right and other reggressive thinking sectors of American society once voted for the Democrates consistantly. In fact, it has only been in the last 30 years that they have voted Republican.
What about that Slavery was banned in Kenya in 1926 and that Obama's father was born in 1936.
Before you learn from history, try actually just learning history first!
Prophecies? You believe in a 'second coming'. Enough said.
Blackfish100 3 years ago
There you go again proselytizing Democrat mythology. Inventing mythology is different from lessons of history.
Do discriminate.
Muslims STILL trade slaves -- ESPECIALLY in Africa.
TylerNull 3 years ago
FYI, I'm not a democrat, I'm not even from the U.S.
Slave trade in Africa continues in countries such as Mauritania, but it is officially outlawed in all of them. In Kenya, the slave trade is non-existent and has been so in east Africa since the 1920s.
African slavery is based on racial discrimination between African ethnic groups, not Islam.
Blackfish100 3 years ago
Islam condones slavery, officially, unofficially, and otherwise, It has done so from its inception. It considers blacks to be sub-human, typically castrating the males. Slavery in Muslim countries continues to this day.
Beyond that, were your gibberish true (it isn't), your attempt at a rebuttal would STILL fail. Obama's family heritage didn't spawn from his father. (He too was born from a family.)
FYI, Your politics are Democrat.
TylerNull 3 years ago
But we're not talking about politics. You're ideas/arguments are not political at all. Hating Islam or tolerating it has nothing to do with politics and it is not a political view.
Islam does not condone slavery. The racism of the Arabs is ethnically and not religiously based and it also goes both ways. For example, Idi Amin expelled Arabs from Uganda, as they were non-back (he himself was a Muslim).
Heritage stems from both parents.
Blackfish100 2 years ago
"But we're not talking about politics" -- denial is a disease.
Islam is politics; is warfare; is fascist rule. Islamic clergy are military leaders who even select targets for extermination. (They even have names for the various classes of such bloodsport.)
Your endless attempts to absolve Islam of it's 1,400 yr crusade against all of mankind; to portray Muslims as the victims; to portray their victims as the aggressor; is also political.
Socialists, Islamists -- 2 FASCISMs, 1 GOAL
TylerNull 2 years ago
Islamic rule only occurs in Iran. All other Muslim states are secular republics or monarchies. Islam is not fascism. It is not a political system. It is a religion.
Islamic clergy are not military leaders. They are teachers and community figures but have no governing power, not even in Iran.
Where have I portrayed Muslims as victims and other people have aggressors?
Do you even have the slightest knowledge Islamic culture? What you've said is completely false.
Blackfish100 2 years ago
No, Iran is not the only Muslim nation, and there's nothing secular about them, e.g., dhimmi tax & Sharia Law.
As for Islamic fascism, not only do Muslim clergy hold authority over political, military, and all other matters in Muslim nations, they also engage in their fascist bloodsports with such regularity that all of mankind is familiar with the various types of military/religious orders that Muslim clergy decree therefrom, e.g., fatwa.
Do snap out of your dementia.
TylerNull 2 years ago
You are confusing religious society with religious governance. While many Muslim nations have religious societies, their governments are not. Only Iran is a theocracy. The rest are secular, in that their governments claim power of themselves and not from God. Islamic clergy don't have governing power; they are teachers and religious scholars, in the same way that Christian monks, priests and nuns are.
Blackfish100 2 years ago
"...confusing religious society with religious ..."
Word sophistry isn't much of a rebuttal, and yours certainly doesn't undo the evidenced Islamic fascism.
"in the same way " -- no. Nuns don't lapse into murderous temper tantrums upon the order of monks to shoot Imams in the back -- only the opposite happens.
And Muslims engage in such bloodsport recurrently to massive Muslim celebrations in the many Muslim nations, all of/by/in state-sponsored clergy, mosques, tv stations, and such.
TylerNull 2 years ago
The only country with a theocratic government based on the Islamic faith is Iran. All other states with Muslim populations have secular governments. This is again common knowledge. You can look it up anywhere. The CIS fact file on other nations even has it.
It has become clear you don't have the slightest idea of what Islam is about. With the kind of information you're surrounded by on a daily basis, there is no excuse for this kind of ignorance.
Blackfish100 2 years ago
It really doesn't matter how many times you recite your irrelevancies, you have no ability to alter reality.
There are many, many Muslim nations. Sadly.
Islam is fascism.
Islam is warfare.
Islam is a 1,400+ year crusade against humanity.
Islam is a fascist plague that is warring on all people, of all nations they occupy or infest.
What is clear are your delusions.
TylerNull 2 years ago
I am not altering reality. You are ignoring reality. Learned people, liberal and conservative alike, live in reality and accept historic fact. There is no altering of history because there is only one version of history and that is the truthful one. This history can be found anywhere by you. You have no excuse to be this ignorant. You are on the internet for goodness sake! You're surrounded by information about Islamic history and culture yet you refuse to learn anything. Why?
Blackfish100 2 years ago
"I am not altering reality."
Saudi Arabia, by your delusion, isn't Muslim.
Sharia Law, by your delusion, is secular.
Israelis, Christian, and Atheists of that region, by your delusion, are "Palestinians".
It's certainly POSSIBLE that you're as brutishly imbecilic as your posts would have the reader conclude, but I'm not so optimistic.
Chronicling your denials of the global Islamic plague that is warring on all of mankind isn't evidence of anyone else's ignorance.
TylerNull 2 years ago
You have no excuse to be this ignorant. Go learn.
Blackfish100 2 years ago
Chronicling your abject denial of reality isn't "ignorant", and needs no "excuse".
Your problem isn't so much a lack of education, per se, but rather that your mind is permeated with a fetid theology, be it that of socialism or Islam, the two are oddly & notably indistinguishable at the distance of a YouTube post.
In either case, you've merely made a depraved CHOICE resulting in your need to publicly debase yourself in its defense. Go make an effort to snap out of it.
TylerNull 2 years ago
You are the one who is clearly in denial. Your lack of even basic knowledge of this culture is most alarming; given the information that surrounds you and its easy access!
The same historical narrative and basic factuality of Islam is shared by thousands of scholars from all political persuasions is what you deny and replace with outlandish claims, masked by pseudo-intellectual rhetoric.
Educate yourself, not for me or anyone else, but for you own sense of intellectual integrity.
Blackfish100 2 years ago
Though you find it "most alarming" that Saudi Arabia is Muslim, or that Sharia Law isn't secular, your daze doesn't evidence anyone else's ignorance.
Reality isn't a claim. Give it a chance.
Seriously, if it turns out to be too much for you, then you can go back to proselytizing your fantasies.
TylerNull 2 years ago
how long did u have to stare at a thesaurus to write that post? There is one word u never learned the meaning of: CONTEXT. U cant make a proper judgement about something without looking at all the things that surround it. If that means understanding the values of socialism and islam then so be it, it doesnt mean i have to believe in it. You shouldnt believe what anyone tells u as truth. Thats called idealism And u sir, and an absolute moron if u can't c that ann coulter shouts rhetorical garbage
charbroiledmonk1033 2 years ago
As for rejecting the lessons of history:
Afghanistan and Iraq have been occupied by outside forces not once, but twice: Iraq in the 1920s after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after WWI and Afghanistan also in the 1920's.
What happened to the first British occupiers? They were driven out by the same gorilla tactics you see Americans facing today.
So the lesson would be, stay out or be thrown out. A lesson the U.S has not learnt.
Blackfish100 3 years ago
In fact, you have it perfectly backwards. Iraq and the rest of West Asia ("Middle East") is Christian holy land which Muslims occupy.
Democrats always manage to side with whoever can best exterminate innocent human life. Here, in the context of Islamic savages vs. civilized man, they recite Muslim propaganda.
TylerNull 3 years ago
I think Anne and Micheal Savage should have a baby it would be the Destroyer of liberals
CommanderNutters 3 years ago
she thinks she is better because of her religion. ahe is wrong. religion don't make you right or wrong. it's what you do that does.
that one of the problems with religion. it devides people for no reason at all.
ddaaggyy 3 years ago
Sigh, Ann Coulter really needs to settle down. Christianity is a good thing, and she doesnt need to ruin it for the rest of us.
AznSensation90 3 years ago
What the hell are talking about?
TylerNull 3 years ago
She's saying that Ann Coulter gives Christians a bad name.
Cheshirecatmeow1 3 years ago
How so?
TylerNull 3 years ago
I wish Alan Colmes would actually put up a logical argument once in a while. He is slapped down daily by people like Coulter, Ingraham, Morris, Steele, Giuliani and Malkin.
Coulter is very bright and is a great debater. Colmes just needs to open up and listen. He should stop assuming every conservative is racist and and anti-semite. It is getting old.
mywayhighway23 3 years ago 4
What a dumb bitch. How can someone be so stupid? how can CONSERVATIVES be so pathetic? in a strange way I almost feel sorry for you people.
steveman556 3 years ago
L@@K,
Absent the ability to articulate their politics, the Liberal instinctively avoids the topic by attacking those who don't, thereby DEMONSTRATING they're merely projecting their inadequacies on the opposition.
Typical Liberal.
TylerNull 3 years ago
That guy is a retarded robot
ultramegaunknown 3 years ago 2
Yeah Indian, these are the people that watch Fox and don't know it's right-wing propaganda.
For those who say evolution hasn't been proven, your correct. Because science isn't for proving theories, it's for disproving them, and evolution has yet to be disproven in 150 years. Christians discount the mountain of evidence supporting the veracity of evolution, and entirely discount it because it can't answer every single question. But religion does, because that's how fantasies work , dream on;)
TheIDGE 3 years ago
GO ANN COULTER!! i agree with her 100%! I'm glad someone out there actually believes in their Christianity and is honest about what it teaches. When I saw this on TV, I laughed so hard at Alan Colmes. He is so ignorant, and Coulter is so intelligent. YES!
fanson411 3 years ago 2
colmes is a blithering idiot...and he shows it over and over again..
mj8838 3 years ago 5
haha i know! he never has any substantial points to play off of. he always tries to go straight for ignorant personal attacks (like calling her antisemitic). i have yet to see him even come close to holding his own in any kind of debate.
fanson411 3 years ago
He is, all he does is stick to the ridiculous left-wing talking points he's been handed.
Colmes is an airhead, and a liberal puppet. Ann Coulter owns him!
KinglyNumbaOne 3 years ago 4
I agree 100%!
KinglyNumbaOne 3 years ago
If Donny Deutschbag is an orthodox Jew as he claims he is, he'd have understood her point. But noooo, he became the poor wittle victim and "got offended" and jumped on the bandwagon. What a pussy. And that goes for Colmes too. She was pointing out the tenet of Christianity that states Christ came to fulfill the law (Old Testament Mosaic law) and not to abolish it. That was the "perfecting" she was referring to. Ann is infinitely smarter than both of them. But Donny is more effeminate. Ha ha
ultrakool 3 years ago 3
Faking outrage is a core tactic of the Democrat.
The NY Democrats are some of the most viciously anti-Christian of all Leftist sects. They are the ones who were forcing US taxpayers to fund their "art" exhibits like that of "Piss Christ" -- a bucket of human urine with the crucifix dunked in it.
The only sect more vicious toward Chrisitians, by my observations, are the Frenetic Crotch Sects of San Fransisco; not to suggest theirs don't overlap with those of NY sects.
TylerNull 3 years ago
Atheism is based on Darwinian Naturalism whose basic premis is: Radom Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design. That assumption has never in the past 150 yrs been scientifically proven, nor will it ever be proven. There is no peer-reviewed, testable, demonstrable, experimentable evidence that points to it. Superintelligence = Design. The code of information contained in the DNA molecule points to that.
ultrakool 3 years ago