Slashdot Mirror

What you and others say when challenged versus how it's actually used is a whole 'nother ballgame.

Do you have an example of me using islamophobia in a way that is not consistent with the definition I gave you?

Have you backed up your claims about what the Rebel says regarding "all Muslims"?

Note that I gave an extended explanation of how, without using those specific words, they try to give that impression or consider all Muslims when producing statistics. This article is an example: https://www.therebel.media/mus...

Some of the numbers are just false, such as the bold "66% of France's prison population is Muslim" statistic. Note also how none of their numbers add up, e.g. 102% total of Syrian refugees (who are not all Muslims) and the 110% of violent criminals in The Netherlands. Those numbers are bogus anyway.

You can of course keep asking for more and more citations. You will doubtless want a reference for the 66% figure being wrong, even though you could just google it and the first result would be what you are asking for. I'm not getting into that game.

Did you cite one example of a critic of Islam that wasn't called an "Islamophobe"?

Yes, myself. Of course, it's impossible to prove a negative in any general sense. And as I also said, ignore the idiots who bandy that word around, they can't change what it really means.

This is the same Trudeau that invites Islamic militants into his country? This is the same media that propagates hoax attacks against Muslims to garner sympathy?

No trust in institutions and the media? I wonder why?

This is the same Trudeau that invites Islamic militants into his country? This is the same media that propagates hoax attacks against Muslims to garner sympathy?

No trust in institutions and the media? I wonder why?

http://www.truthrevolt.org/new...

http://mobile.wnd.com/2017/06/...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fp...

http://forums.sherdog.com/thre...

http://www.topix.com/forum/who...

https://pjmedia.com/andrewklav...

https://www.thenewamerican.com...

https://www.therebel.media/top...

EPA changes fracking report after Trump win.

http://www.therebel.media/epa_...

This CAGW scare has been political from the start.

Can we see some of this troubling new evidence before we go to war with Russia please?

I'm not counting out Trump losing for about the next 2 weeks. We have yet to see the following:

1) Wikileaks has said it has evidence that will get Hillary indicted. As yet, the Podesta E-mails haven't done that, so everyone is expecting a big drop sometime soon. Probably on Hillary's birthday, October 26th.

2) We haven't seen the last of the Podesta E-mails. A recent drop shows the democrats creating two organizations to infiltrate the Catholic religion, to create a "Catholic Spring" at some point of their choosing. (Yikes! WTF, Democrats?)

3) It seems that Hillary had a hand in Kim Dotcom's arrest (remember him?). In response, Kim has promised a surprise birthday present for Hillary. (Many people will be quick to point out that Kim is various flavors of asshole, but that's beside the point - he's tech savvy, has lots of contacts, an axe to grind against Hillary, and a ton of money.)

4) Someone over at Reddit/4chan has Clinton's deleted E-mails, and will be releasing them. These are apparently the ones deleted from her server before turning it over to the FBI.

5) One of the recent Podesta dumps included his iPhone account password, and someone hacked his account, post a screencap proving that they were in the account, and sent all the data to Wikieaks. This means that Wikileaks not only has Podesta's E-mails up to whenever, they've got more recent ones up to about 2 days ago.

6) ...and apparently remote-wiped his phone.

7) Hillary is not appearing in person *anywhere*. (Check her rallys and engagements: it's all Bill, Barak, Michelle, and Chelsea. Hillary appears in person once from now to the end of the month.) Conspiracy theorists think that this is because of some hidden illness, but that's probably not the case. The Podesta E-mails reveal that the reason she's not being seen is because she's perceived as untrustworthy in person. Her campaign is being run largely by remote control.

8) A couple of tapes of Clinton have yet to be released.

9) And weirdly, during the last debate a fly landed on Hillary's face. That's not a problem or even especially interesting, but the fact that it landed, walked around and she never flinched or even notices is creeping out a lot of people.

I'm not giving up on Trump just yet, and I've still got lots of popcorn.

It's amazing watching you whip yourself into a frenzy over an image of me entirely of your own manufacture.

Accusations are not evidence. You can project your delusions onto whoever you want but you don't know me and my opinions do not define me no more than the opinions or delusions of strangers define me.

I am of half a mind to meet you in person to see how it is you manage to function on a day to day basis but the language you have used fits the profile of an SJW, and those kind are very dangerous and should be treated like the boils on society that they / you are.

So with that I am going to sign off with some good reading for you to check out.

Toodles.

http://www.nationalreview.com/...
http://www.philadelinquency.co...
http://www.therebel.media/_soc...

This last one is a good example of our conversation in regards to the co-opting behavior of Westen liberal nut-jobs.

http://wizbangblog.com/2015/09...

My guess is I have you spot on and it's probably going to piss you off more. At this point you have abandoned logic and reason and have spun yourself an imagined medical diagnosis of some random guy on the Internet and this conversation is bordering on entertaining for me.

Happy reading!