Published on February 7, 2006 By Island Dog In Politics
Like I have been saying for many months, the islamic revolution is coming. You see the excuses they make for violence around the world, and it won't be long before this happens here in America. It's no secret that liberals in this country oppose almost every measure to fight terror, they take every chance they get to criticize our country, and liberal DNC leader himself has declared he thinks osama should get a fair trial, but Tom Delay is automatically guilty.

When islamists are burning down buildings in America, rioting, and killing Americans, will the democratic politicians who support Cindy Sheehan support her views that "America is not worth fighting for"? Will these liberal protestors be in the streets with signs that say "we support our troops when they shoot their officers"? Where will the liberals stand when the islamic revolution comes to our own streets?

Now I have been following this latest violence and noticed that once again the muslim community is not outraged at these actions. Where are the counter-protests? Where are major islamic leaders condemning these actions? I have watched several news programs that interview so-called islamic institutes in America, and most of them do everything they can to avoid condemning this violence. Almost every one of them go back to the same rhetoric, "don't offend". How many of these "organizations" are part of terror? It might be hard to find out since the liberals don't want us "spying" on them.

Like I have said, the islamic revolution is coming. The real question is, what side will you take?

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Feb 07, 2006
It might be hard to find out since the liberals don't want us "spying" on them.

No, most liberals "don't want us spying on them" without warrants. There is a difference.
on Feb 07, 2006
No, most liberals "don't want us spying on them" without warrants. There is a difference.


Stop nit-picking. You know what he ment. Sad that you would defend such a thing. I guess when it comes to terrorist it's ok for them to use any means necesary to get their point accross but we have to follow the rules and even when we do we are still questioned about it.

So far all I have heard is people (the Left) are concerned if it was legit or not to listen in on these calls but no one, no one at all has been able to prove if it was illegal. All of these geniuses in the US and no one can figure out if Bush did wrong or not. Go figure. How long has it been? Months since the story broke? And no word if it was legal or not, just concerns? These people should be ashamed of themselves for even considering the idea of it being illegal if they are not even sure themselves.

Anyways, that's how the world spins. If you do good you are screwed, if you do good that seems bad, you are screwed, if you do bad you win.
on Feb 07, 2006

No, most liberals "don't want us spying on them" without warrants. There is a difference.

You dont need a warrant to spy on spies.  Better recheck the constitution.

on Feb 07, 2006
So far all I have heard is people (the Left) are concerned if it was legit or not to listen in on these calls but no one, no one at all has been able to prove if it was illegal. All of these geniuses in the US and no one can figure out if Bush did wrong or not. Go figure. How long has it been? Months since the story broke? And no word if it was legal or not, just concerns? These people should be ashamed of themselves for even considering the idea of it being illegal if they are not even sure themselves.


Well, there is proof. The FISA law says it is the only law that goversn electronic surveillance within the United States. But inexplicably, the administration claims that law doesn't apply.
on Feb 07, 2006
You dont need a warrant to spy on spies. Better recheck the constitution.


Who said anything about spying on "spies"?
on Feb 07, 2006

You dont need a warrant to spy on spies. Better recheck the constitution.


Who said anything about spying on "spies"?

Well, Bush and Gonzales to name 2.  Specter for another.

on Feb 07, 2006
The entire congress, that's is both house gave the President broad powers to co0mbat terrorism, that include "spying" on those that would harm America.

If we have some kind of Islamic revolution in America the left would be the first to go, for even Islamic terrorist can see how stupid and out of touch the left is!
on Feb 07, 2006

The entire congress, that's is both house gave the President broad powers to co0mbat terrorism, that include "spying" on those that would harm America.

Congress does not have the power to do that.  Congress cannot usurp the constitution on a whim, no matter the size of the majority.  The founders left explicit instructions on how to amend it, and it takes more than the congress to do so.

on Feb 07, 2006
You dont need a warrant to spy on spies. Better recheck the constitution.


Who said anything about spying on "spies"?

Well, Bush and Gonzales to name 2. Specter for another.


I don't see any quotes in this thread from them. Odd
on Feb 07, 2006

I don't see any quotes in this thread from them. Odd

I dont beleive they have posted to this thread, so why would it be odd?

on Feb 07, 2006
No, most liberals "don't want us spying on them" without warrants. There is a difference.


As it's already been address, there is no proof anything illegal was done.

However, even if warrants were issued liberals would still complain about it.
on Feb 07, 2006
However, even if warrants were issued liberals would still complain about it.


Uh huh...and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a rollerskate.
on Feb 07, 2006
Are you saying liberals would not complain?

I mean really. Is there anything that liberals haven't complained about while we are fighting terrorism?
on Feb 07, 2006

Uh huh...and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a rollerskate.

You do her an injustice.  She would be a Skateboard!

on Feb 07, 2006
Well, there is proof. The FISA law says it is the only law that goversn electronic surveillance within the United States. But inexplicably, the administration claims that law doesn't apply.


And Bush is not in court or impeached yet because?
2 Pages1 2