Quote:
Originally Posted by forester814
Perhaps because it appears you don't require any help? You seem to have the topic pretty well covered on every thread I have visited today, whether they are related to the topic or not.
So now, if we don't agree with your views on Islamism, we are against American freedoms?
You sound just as binary as W., the man who famously said, "You are with us or you are with the terrorists."
No, sorry, I take it back. W was more reasonable in his statement.
"Us" is actually a smaller group with you, isn't it?
Could it be possible that there are other ways to support American freedom than lobbying for blindly pushing all Muslims out of America, along with all non-Muslims who don't support such a radical move (which would include W.)?
Now, if you all will excuse me, I have to get back to aiding the overthrow of the country by wasting my afternoon helping my daughter with her homework, even though I know I should be out on the street, ranting at passersby about the coming Islamopocalypse.
|
If you slowed down long enough on your mad dash to be sarcastic we MIGHT have room to achieve accord. But you like that slippery fast slide to absurdity.
Where would AIDS be today if Ronald Reagan had taken the disease and the repercussions of doing nothing, seriously from the very beginning?
You might have seen some terrible decisions being made to quarantine some people for life and you'd no doubt have branded him an anti-Gay ogre, just a half step removed from Hitler. But that might have prevented the tragedy that has transpired instead. And because he did the
LOVING AND REASONABLE thing, he helped allow AIDS and HIV to spread at will until it has now killed 25 million people, so far and cost trillions of dollars.
And now you want to adopt the same kind of
LOVING AND REASONABLE approach to a problem which would affect GAYS even more profoundly that heterosexuals.
You are a perfect example of the sheep vigorously defending the right of the wolf to eat him.
