From: nobody@nowhere.com   
      
   On 2/22/2026 5:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   > On Feb 22, 2026 at 1:45:49 PM PST, "moviePig"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2/22/2026 3:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   >>>   On Feb 22, 2026 at 12:17:27 PM PST, "moviePig"    
   wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>   On 2/21/2026 5:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2025203772901801984/   
   id/avc1/1920x1080/sWXdkXFSbOs_aaC8.mp4   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>     A promise of a better world!   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   I'm duly impressed at the level of craftsmanship.  But I can't help but   
   >>>>   hear pot calling kettle black.  Although Islam is a particularly   
   >>>>   authoritarian doctrine, it's only following "divine instruction" ...just   
   >>>>   like most all of its competition.   
   >>>   
   >>>   You have to look back to the Crusades to find the kind of 'competition'   
   >>> Islam   
   >>>   is advertising.   
   >>>   
   >>>   When you have to reach back 900 years to find something remotely   
   comparable   
   >>> in   
   >>>   Christianity to modern-day Islam, that oughta be a clue how weak your   
   >>> argument   
   >>>   has become.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   (E.g., I wouldn't be surprised to find an equally vehement video from   
   this   
   >>>>   group targeting pro-lifers.)   
   >>   
   >> The choice is whether to be satisfied with identifying a particular   
   >> manifestation of evil or identifying the evil itself.  Sure, I cringe at   
   >> Islam's treatment of women ...but I don't want to lose sight of its   
   >> pernicious appeal to the supernatural that we accept in principle.   
   >>   
   >> (Texas classrooms are under orders to post the Ten Commandments.  Even   
   >> if punishments remain short of lethal, the pendulum is in place.)   
   >   
   > Normally I'd oppose a requirement to post the Ten Commandments in a school,   
   > but considering the indoctrination we're letting the Muslims get away with,   
   > I'd say doing so is valid self-defense at this point.   
      
   I think those two adversaries "justify" each other in a courtroom.  How   
   could it be otherwise Constitutionally?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)