@Real Deal: I usually don’t sink to their level, but the seriousness with which Ho is addressing something so stupid was too much to resist. It’s out of my system now =)

@Benson: Agreed. That’s what I’m doing. Though it’s kind of sad that someone like Ho has this much time to devote to arguing about the most inane details on the internet and not even the article at hand. Good grief.

What really bothers me is that both London and the US have suffered attacks at the hand of Islamic radicals. And both countries are willingly allowing them to preach their hatred daily and build up Shariah communities. Did you guys see this story about the Denver imam killed in a shootout?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/uscrimeislam

They found a f*cking shooting range inside his mosque. A SHOOTING range inside a holy religious building.

The only reason we haven’t experienced 9/11 #2 is because Homeland Security is on top of their shit after the first one. Not because these monsters aren’t trying.

Never argue with morons on the internet, they’ll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Its better to ignore the sock puppet trolls.

Otherwise, this is a good and badly needed discussion, with a lot of information. That quote from Churchill was trenchant; thanks to Silence Do Good (33). Jus my view: Muslims who believe the Koran/hadith to be inerrant can never make good citizens of a Western nation, and our civilization is literally in danger. Reform is desperately needed, especially in the immigration policies of all Western nations.

Maybe things will have to get a lot worse before someone cleans up the mess. Heaven help us….

Maybe in one of your crack-induced fantasies.

Otherwise, you have churned out another straw man.

Sad.

Next time just read both pages, click the links if you’re genuinely curious *cough* and STFU when you don’t really have anything to say on topic.

Here’s an example of a blogger who wants to be taken seriously, and, more importantly, has readers who only regard seriously people who follow basic rules of reporting [his hyperlinked text is bolded here]:

Judging from the few times I’ve appeared on that program, Ratigan seems to be making a conscious effort to expand the scope of political debates that take typically place on cable news shows — debates which are, with rare exception, painfully constricted and formulaic (see his monologue from a couple of weeks ago on Goldman Sachs as an example of the type of content one does not usually hear on such programs). Having substantive discussions in formats like this is inherently difficult — that, paradoxically, is one of the values of the format, for reasons Noam Chomsky best explained here — but I think, without knowing for certain, that Ratigan is attempting to conduct less constrained and conventional discussions. I don’t want to overstate the case — it’s more just a general and preliminary impression — but I think it’s worth watching for.

Just to show he consistently does this, there’s this:

I’m traveling still today, but I wanted to note an amazing Op-Ed that was referenced in a book I’m reading: the Op-Ed is by Nikolai Lanine, published in The Toronto Globe and Mail in November, 2006.

And the day before that:
Hoh’s resignation is remarkable because it entails the sort of career sacrifice in the name of principle that has been so rare over the last decade, but even more so because of the extraordinary four-page letter (.pdf) he wrote explaining his reasoning.

You can see all of this for yourself on the home page of his blog, I didn’t have to even look for it. The bare minimum for being considered a reporter and not a gossip or rumor monger [see Michael Ledeen] is clearly noting your sources.

Interestingly, Greenwald, the blogger, actually defended the right of free speech of people like Wilders in court. As always Goy, all you have is your flatulent rage, and as I said, I don’t feel sorry for you. I don’t mind coming here everyday to make you people look the hypocritical idiots you are. The ease of it creates quite a stress reliever. I especially thank you for that last part, for no one makes it easier than you.

No, that’s just the pretense you keep using to whine about it.

No one but you seems to have had any problem finding and following the noticeable, linked citation, ‘ho.

Here’s a tip, nimrod: your browser can be configured to highlight hyperlinks. You can even pick the color!! Look it up in the manual, and quit blaming other people for your stupid mistakes. And next time, read BOTH pages of the article before you start your obtuse rants.

Still laughing about it. You people are something else.

This is especially hilarious coming from someone incapable of writing a simple comment without the assistive aid of a straw man or other fallacy.