|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 17 2016 06:23 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2016 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I think a lot of people on my fb see "Sanders needs 57 percent" and think that means 50 to 57. No. It means 43 to 57. #theydidthemath In other news, is anyone as disbelieving as I that the Republican "screw Obama" pact has held strong for 7 years?
I was around during the Bush administration and the Carl Rove era, I believe it. First black president elected and the opposing party makes a pact to not work with him, shocking I saw.
The part that shocked me is how I didn’t see it coming a mile off.
|
On March 16 2016 12:33 ticklishmusic wrote:
A lot of the wage gap is due to women choosing jobs that pay less and then you add in non-monetary benefits like maternal leave-- the actual wage gap is 90-something cents per dollar when you adjust for those factors. It's there, but not as large as most people quote.
This. I think there were presidentially commissioned studied under both first term Obama and second term Bush that confirmed this, but I can't for the life of me find them right now.
|
This is a pretty funny (or depressing, or both) article.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-voters-aversion-to-foreign-sounding-names-cost-him-delegates/
Apparently if you want to get delegates in a loophole primary, make sure they have Anglo names.
Also, I have full faith in the ability of the Senate to find a single thing they dislike about Merrick Garland and force it as the defining characteristic of his career instead of admitting they just hate Obama. What baffles me is that they didn't do this all along. Maybe they thought letting Crubio do some chest beating about not affirming an Obama nominee no matter what would keep Trump down somehow?
|
On March 17 2016 06:27 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:33 ticklishmusic wrote:
A lot of the wage gap is due to women choosing jobs that pay less and then you add in non-monetary benefits like maternal leave-- the actual wage gap is 90-something cents per dollar when you adjust for those factors. It's there, but not as large as most people quote. This. I think there were presidentially commissioned studied under both first term Obama and second term Bush that confirmed this, but I can't for the life of me find them right now.
I addressed the issue in this thread earlier this month. A wage gap remains even after controlling for several variables like occupation, hours worked, experience, etc., and the statistical differences in occupations between women and men are themselves the product of gender norms and stereotypes which still need to be addressed.
|
On March 17 2016 04:59 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2016 04:45 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2016 04:27 writer22816 wrote:On March 17 2016 03:54 farvacola wrote:On March 17 2016 03:50 writer22816 wrote:On March 17 2016 03:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
having read some more of the thread now, let me add to my previous post that the idea of anyone justifying their hatred for Islam through Islam's stance towards homosexuality, while planning on voting for a GOP candidate, is a fucking joke. Seriously, how do some of you guys fail to see that all the progressive values you hate Islam for not sharing are also hardly shared by the party you plan on voting for? You do realize that the same logic works both ways, right? GOP candidates aren't "progressive" and yet somehow they are the ones speaking more honestly about Islam. During WWII the allies had to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler. If the regressive left continues to try and shut down constructive conversation and repeat meaningless platitudes, you can hardly be surprised if more reasonable people consider voting Republican and the far-right groups start gaining ground. See Germany for example. The notion that GOP candidates are "speaking more honestly about Islam" is hardly well-established enough to be referenced without a great deal of qualification. In other words, you haven't proven "that the same logic works both ways," you've merely proven that you agree with the rhetoric of the GOP lol. The liberal media has largely tried to address the problem of radical Islam by pretending it doesn't even exist. Thus we see (even in this thread) repeated claims that radicalism is a small minority despite studies indicating otherwise (see the Pew study in 2013), misleading analogies to Christianity despite the fact that fundamentalism in Islam is not the fringe, and accusations of racism and Islamophobia to virtually any criticism of the religion despite the fact that Islam isn't a race. President Obama has made statements like "the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" and "terrorism has no religion". When you have one party trying to ignore the issue completely, that leaves the floor free for the other to say whatever they want. The GOP has been responding to the issue of radical Islam with varying degrees of hyperbole and accuracy, but at least they are trying to address the problem. Nowhere have I said that I agree with all the rhetoric of the GOP. For example, Trump's proposed temporary ban on Muslims is ridiculous for reasons discussed ad infinitum. It is, however, worrying to me when a religious maniac like Ted Cruz can correctly call out Obama for not being even able to say the words "radical Islamic terrorism". It's a funny world we live in. The figures with the biggest reach have a point talking about nuance in Muslim immigration/Syrian immigration. They're also the ones plainly seen denying the danger and distancing the ideology from the acts. Another muslims terrorist story over here, but you know there was that one psycho Christian shooter, and the Crusades, and I'm sure I heard an abortion clinic bomber, an McVeigh wasn't Muslim, was he? The gap in the middle is essentially unoccupied from the direction of the left. Plenty of political candidates or statesmen will say they're the sensible middle, but they likewise have been playing the tune of, "This Week in Nothing to do with Islam" for far too long to be believed. Because like you're saying, it's just stories. The only threat to women's reproductive rights and LGBT rights in political form is coming from Christian conservatives. I'm not seeing an Islamic political platform running. So why should a rational person be concerned with a fringe minority while a huge group of people is de-facto taking their rights away right now?
I couldn't ask for a better example. Where's nuance on immigration from the Middle East if it's just another story and-how-bout-them-transgender-rights? I mean ISIS is a problem just like Christian conservatives! Relevant!
|
On March 17 2016 06:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2016 04:59 Nyxisto wrote:On March 17 2016 04:45 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2016 04:27 writer22816 wrote:On March 17 2016 03:54 farvacola wrote:On March 17 2016 03:50 writer22816 wrote:On March 17 2016 03:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
having read some more of the thread now, let me add to my previous post that the idea of anyone justifying their hatred for Islam through Islam's stance towards homosexuality, while planning on voting for a GOP candidate, is a fucking joke. Seriously, how do some of you guys fail to see that all the progressive values you hate Islam for not sharing are also hardly shared by the party you plan on voting for? You do realize that the same logic works both ways, right? GOP candidates aren't "progressive" and yet somehow they are the ones speaking more honestly about Islam. During WWII the allies had to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler. If the regressive left continues to try and shut down constructive conversation and repeat meaningless platitudes, you can hardly be surprised if more reasonable people consider voting Republican and the far-right groups start gaining ground. See Germany for example. The notion that GOP candidates are "speaking more honestly about Islam" is hardly well-established enough to be referenced without a great deal of qualification. In other words, you haven't proven "that the same logic works both ways," you've merely proven that you agree with the rhetoric of the GOP lol. The liberal media has largely tried to address the problem of radical Islam by pretending it doesn't even exist. Thus we see (even in this thread) repeated claims that radicalism is a small minority despite studies indicating otherwise (see the Pew study in 2013), misleading analogies to Christianity despite the fact that fundamentalism in Islam is not the fringe, and accusations of racism and Islamophobia to virtually any criticism of the religion despite the fact that Islam isn't a race. President Obama has made statements like "the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" and "terrorism has no religion". When you have one party trying to ignore the issue completely, that leaves the floor free for the other to say whatever they want. The GOP has been responding to the issue of radical Islam with varying degrees of hyperbole and accuracy, but at least they are trying to address the problem. Nowhere have I said that I agree with all the rhetoric of the GOP. For example, Trump's proposed temporary ban on Muslims is ridiculous for reasons discussed ad infinitum. It is, however, worrying to me when a religious maniac like Ted Cruz can correctly call out Obama for not being even able to say the words "radical Islamic terrorism". It's a funny world we live in. The figures with the biggest reach have a point talking about nuance in Muslim immigration/Syrian immigration. They're also the ones plainly seen denying the danger and distancing the ideology from the acts. Another muslims terrorist story over here, but you know there was that one psycho Christian shooter, and the Crusades, and I'm sure I heard an abortion clinic bomber, an McVeigh wasn't Muslim, was he? The gap in the middle is essentially unoccupied from the direction of the left. Plenty of political candidates or statesmen will say they're the sensible middle, but they likewise have been playing the tune of, "This Week in Nothing to do with Islam" for far too long to be believed. Because like you're saying, it's just stories. The only threat to women's reproductive rights and LGBT rights in political form is coming from Christian conservatives. I'm not seeing an Islamic political platform running. So why should a rational person be concerned with a fringe minority while a huge group of people is de-facto taking their rights away right now? I couldn't ask for a better example. Where's nuance on immigration from the Middle East if it's just another story and-how-bout-them-transgender-rights? I mean ISIS is a problem just like Christian conservatives! Relevant!
Sure ISIS is relevant, as a security threat. Where is the fucking nuance in categorically barring 1.6 billion people from entering your country. Terrorist prevention belongs to your security apparatus, not immigration policy. With this insane agitation in the US you're driving more extremists into the arms of ISIS than they could ever recruit themselves. You don't even need to be liberal to see it, countless conservatives have pointed out that the fearmongering is absolutely poisonous and threatens American security and stability. What's the point of alienating millions of American Muslims?
|
On March 17 2016 06:43 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2016 06:27 frazzle wrote:On March 16 2016 12:33 ticklishmusic wrote:
A lot of the wage gap is due to women choosing jobs that pay less and then you add in non-monetary benefits like maternal leave-- the actual wage gap is 90-something cents per dollar when you adjust for those factors. It's there, but not as large as most people quote. This. I think there were presidentially commissioned studied under both first term Obama and second term Bush that confirmed this, but I can't for the life of me find them right now. I addressed the issue in this thread earlier this month. A wage gap remains even after controlling for several variables like occupation, hours worked, experience, etc., and the statistical differences in occupations between women and men are themselves the product of gender norms and stereotypes which still need to be addressed.
Or even stuff like that study where they passed around identical resumes except one with a male name and one with a female one. Needless to say the male resume got much better reviews for job considerations/promotions.
|
On March 17 2016 06:43 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2016 06:27 frazzle wrote:On March 16 2016 12:33 ticklishmusic wrote:
A lot of the wage gap is due to women choosing jobs that pay less and then you add in non-monetary benefits like maternal leave-- the actual wage gap is 90-something cents per dollar when you adjust for those factors. It's there, but not as large as most people quote. This. I think there were presidentially commissioned studied under both first term Obama and second term Bush that confirmed this, but I can't for the life of me find them right now. I addressed the issue in this thread earlier this month. A wage gap remains even after controlling for several variables like occupation, hours worked, experience, etc., and the statistical differences in occupations between women and men are themselves the product of gender norms and stereotypes which still need to be addressed.
A 7% to 10% wage gap is still a wage gap, and that is after explaining things away (so there isn't much more rationalizing left to explain the remaining gap besides sexism). So yes, I am not waving off the wage gap. I have just always cringed when politicians and activists quote the 70%-ish number. When they do that and it gets shot down, then people may be inclined to view them as exaggerating and decide the pay gap is a non-issue, when it is in fact a real issue.
|
On March 17 2016 06:27 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:33 ticklishmusic wrote:
A lot of the wage gap is due to women choosing jobs that pay less and then you add in non-monetary benefits like maternal leave-- the actual wage gap is 90-something cents per dollar when you adjust for those factors. It's there, but not as large as most people quote. This. I think there were presidentially commissioned studied under both first term Obama and second term Bush that confirmed this, but I can't for the life of me find them right now.
Yes, I think it's on the order of like 5% when you actually control for most of the variables that it's possible to filter.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
garland is anti gun so there is that
|
The Federal Communications Commission is proposing, for the first time, privacy regulations for Internet service providers. The goal is to let consumers weigh in on what information about them gets collected and how it's used.
As they connect us to the Internet, ISPs have insight into our lives — websites we frequent, apps we download or locations we visit — and may use that data for their own promotions or sell it to data brokers to be used for marketing or other purposes.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler tells NPR's Robert Siegel that ISPs do have to collect a lot of this information simply to run their businesses. "All we're saying in our proposal is that you, the consumer, ought to have a say in whether they can repackage and use information, which is basically your information, not their information," Wheeler says.
Wheeler's plan, expected to be formally proposed on March 31, would let consumers opt out of programs allowing ISPs to use the data to offer you other services themselves, but would require explicit opt-in consent for data to be shared with third parties.
And one interesting question is how this may factor into the prices that ISPs would then charge consumers, given the value of the private information. For instance, AT&T has an ultra-fast high-speed Internet offering that allows subscribers to opt out of Web tracking for an extra fee.
Source
|
On March 17 2016 05:51 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2016 05:45 Naracs_Duc wrote:On March 17 2016 04:59 Nyxisto wrote:On March 17 2016 04:45 Danglars wrote:
Another muslims terrorist story over here, but you know there was that one psycho Christian shooter, and the Crusades, and I'm sure I heard an abortion clinic bomber, an McVeigh wasn't Muslim, was he? The gap in the middle is essentially unoccupied from the direction of the left. Plenty of political candidates or statesmen will say they're the sensible middle, but they likewise have been playing the tune of, "This Week in Nothing to do with Islam" for far too long to be believed. Because like you're saying, it's just stories. The only threat to women's reproductive rights and LGBT rights in political form is coming from Christian conservatives. I'm not seeing an Islamic political platform running. So why should a rational person be concerned with a fringe minority while a huge group of people is de-facto taking their rights away right now? The concern about islam and politics is that they point to what the policies would look like under Iran, IS, etc... rule. That *if* you allow them to get some amount of power, the laws would be genital mutilation instead of just a lower level of pay. Its a stupid worry, but it would be dishonest to forget why that concern exists. The concern should be addressed where it is relevant, which is at the local level where isolated, deeply segregated communities have these issues. On the national scale it is not relevant and it is not a threat to 99% of Americans, in contrast to Christian fundamentalism which seems to be an issue in many states where it creeps into legislation, be it education, lgbt rights or reproductive rights
How it should be managed and why it is being managed this way are two separate (but important) discussions.
|
On March 17 2016 05:58 Plansix wrote:
Man, every country with majority Muslim population must be a violent hell hole if that is true??? So why isn’t that the case? Oh yeah…….
It doesn't help your case that having a predominantly Muslim population is pretty strongly correlated with a country (or even a section of a country) being a violent hell hole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country
Topping the list are some wonderful charming peaceful prosperous nations like Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Or by total Muslims, Indonesia and Pakistan are your best bets. Seems like there's no correlation at all here.
|
On March 17 2016 06:48 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2016 06:45 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2016 04:59 Nyxisto wrote:On March 17 2016 04:45 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2016 04:27 writer22816 wrote:On March 17 2016 03:54 farvacola wrote:On March 17 2016 03:50 writer22816 wrote:On March 17 2016 03:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
having read some more of the thread now, let me add to my previous post that the idea of anyone justifying their hatred for Islam through Islam's stance towards homosexuality, while planning on voting for a GOP candidate, is a fucking joke. Seriously, how do some of you guys fail to see that all the progressive values you hate Islam for not sharing are also hardly shared by the party you plan on voting for? You do realize that the same logic works both ways, right? GOP candidates aren't "progressive" and yet somehow they are the ones speaking more honestly about Islam. During WWII the allies had to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler. If the regressive left continues to try and shut down constructive conversation and repeat meaningless platitudes, you can hardly be surprised if more reasonable people consider voting Republican and the far-right groups start gaining ground. See Germany for example. The notion that GOP candidates are "speaking more honestly about Islam" is hardly well-established enough to be referenced without a great deal of qualification. In other words, you haven't proven "that the same logic works both ways," you've merely proven that you agree with the rhetoric of the GOP lol. The liberal media has largely tried to address the problem of radical Islam by pretending it doesn't even exist. Thus we see (even in this thread) repeated claims that radicalism is a small minority despite studies indicating otherwise (see the Pew study in 2013), misleading analogies to Christianity despite the fact that fundamentalism in Islam is not the fringe, and accusations of racism and Islamophobia to virtually any criticism of the religion despite the fact that Islam isn't a race. President Obama has made statements like "the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" and "terrorism has no religion". When you have one party trying to ignore the issue completely, that leaves the floor free for the other to say whatever they want. The GOP has been responding to the issue of radical Islam with varying degrees of hyperbole and accuracy, but at least they are trying to address the problem. Nowhere have I said that I agree with all the rhetoric of the GOP. For example, Trump's proposed temporary ban on Muslims is ridiculous for reasons discussed ad infinitum. It is, however, worrying to me when a religious maniac like Ted Cruz can correctly call out Obama for not being even able to say the words "radical Islamic terrorism". It's a funny world we live in. The figures with the biggest reach have a point talking about nuance in Muslim immigration/Syrian immigration. They're also the ones plainly seen denying the danger and distancing the ideology from the acts. Another muslims terrorist story over here, but you know there was that one psycho Christian shooter, and the Crusades, and I'm sure I heard an abortion clinic bomber, an McVeigh wasn't Muslim, was he? The gap in the middle is essentially unoccupied from the direction of the left. Plenty of political candidates or statesmen will say they're the sensible middle, but they likewise have been playing the tune of, "This Week in Nothing to do with Islam" for far too long to be believed. Because like you're saying, it's just stories. The only threat to women's reproductive rights and LGBT rights in political form is coming from Christian conservatives. I'm not seeing an Islamic political platform running. So why should a rational person be concerned with a fringe minority while a huge group of people is de-facto taking their rights away right now? I couldn't ask for a better example. Where's nuance on immigration from the Middle East if it's just another story and-how-bout-them-transgender-rights? I mean ISIS is a problem just like Christian conservatives! Relevant! Sure ISIS is relevant, as a security threat. Where is the fucking nuance in categorically barring 1.6 billion people from entering your country. Terrorist prevention belongs to your security apparatus, not immigration policy. With this insane agitation in the US you're driving more extremists into the arms of ISIS than they could ever recruit themselves. You don't even need to be liberal to see it, countless conservatives have pointed out that the fearmongering is absolutely poisonous and threatens American security and stability. What's the point of alienating millions of American Muslims?
You're putting the cart before the horse here.
The issues that people who are worried about terrorism are not abstract concepts--but are very specific and have a precise body of data that the dialectic is targeted towards.
ISIS is real, they see that.
The refugee retreat is real, they see that.
ISIS publicly targeting the first world as the enemy, they see that also.
Those are all facts that both sides can agree on. When conservatives point to ISIS and ask how to protect themselves from the self proclaimed enemy, responding that there are American Muslims that might or might not have a harder time does not address the issue at hand, and taints any possible conversation from being able to move forward.
The treatment of American Muslims is a problem in the US.
The rhetoric against American Muslims is a problem in the US.
The rhetoric against non-whites is problematic in the US.
The response to ISIS is problematic in the US.
These are all separate issues that all need different levels of tact and control to manage properly. Lumping them all into one conversation serves nothing but to prevent solutions and further perpetuate the problem.
|
On March 17 2016 07:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2016 05:58 Plansix wrote:
Man, every country with majority Muslim population must be a violent hell hole if that is true??? So why isn’t that the case? Oh yeah……. It doesn't help your case that having a predominantly Muslim population is pretty strongly correlated with a country (or even a section of a country) being a violent hell hole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_countryTopping the list are some wonderful charming peaceful prosperous nations like Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Or by total Muslims, Indonesia and Pakistan are your best bets. Seems like there's no correlation at all here.
Correlation =/= Causation
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you are really ignoring the core of the issue, which is that the trump thing is not distinguishing between these different issues and instead complicates the problem tremendously in the PR front.
|
On March 17 2016 05:58 Plansix wrote:
Man, every country with majority Muslim population must be a violent hell hole if that is true??? So why isn’t that the case? Oh yeah…….
That's because when female genital mutilation is legal and a cultural norm, you don't have these acts as documented crime. Also, rape is also basically legal, and it is inherent in their culture and religion. Leave it to the liberal to not see anything passed statistics.
I suggest you take a look at this book and other writings by Nawal El Saadawi to get an idea how inherently fucked up this culture is and it's treatment of women.
http://www.amazon.com/Nawal-El-Saadawi-Reader/dp/1856495140/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1458168759&sr=8-9&keywords=Nawal El Saadawi
|
On March 17 2016 07:55 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2016 05:58 Plansix wrote:
Man, every country with majority Muslim population must be a violent hell hole if that is true??? So why isn’t that the case? Oh yeah……. That's because when female genital mutilation is legal and a cultural norm, you don't have these acts as documented crime. Also, rape is also basically legal, and it is inherent in their culture and religion. Leave it to the liberal to not see anything passed statistics. I suggest you take a look at this book and other writings by Nawal El Saadawi to get an idea how inherently fucked up this culture is and it's treatment of women. http://www.amazon.com/Nawal-El-Saadawi-Reader/dp/1856495140/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1458168759&sr=8-9&keywords=Nawal El Saadawi
You do realize that one of her most famous quotes is, "The feminists who are aware of the effects of patriarchy realize that we are all in the same boat from the dangers of patriarchy, and that the oppression of women is universal,"
...right?
Here's another lol: "Women in most countries have not achieved much, because they can't be liberated under the patriarchal, capitalist, imperialist and military system that determines the way we live now, and which is governed by power, not justice, by false democracy, not real freedom."
|
On March 17 2016 08:01 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2016 07:55 SolaR- wrote:On March 17 2016 05:58 Plansix wrote:
Man, every country with majority Muslim population must be a violent hell hole if that is true??? So why isn’t that the case? Oh yeah……. That's because when female genital mutilation is legal and a cultural norm, you don't have these acts as documented crime. Also, rape is also basically legal, and it is inherent in their culture and religion. Leave it to the liberal to not see anything passed statistics. I suggest you take a look at this book and other writings by Nawal El Saadawi to get an idea how inherently fucked up this culture is and it's treatment of women. http://www.amazon.com/Nawal-El-Saadawi-Reader/dp/1856495140/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1458168759&sr=8-9&keywords=Nawal El Saadawi You do realize that one of her most famous quotes is, "The feminists who are aware of the effects of patriarchy realize that we are all in the same boat from the dangers of patriarchy, and that the oppression of women is universal," ...right?
OH I'm sorry that I forgot that we live in a black and white world. There is no such things as different degrees, only bad or good.
If you seriously think women are treated as badly in the United States or the western world, you are completely clueless. Obviously women have issues here, but can you really argue that it is ANYWHERE near the same level? I don't even know what to say...
|
On March 17 2016 07:30 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2016 07:27 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 05:58 Plansix wrote:
Man, every country with majority Muslim population must be a violent hell hole if that is true??? So why isn’t that the case? Oh yeah……. It doesn't help your case that having a predominantly Muslim population is pretty strongly correlated with a country (or even a section of a country) being a violent hell hole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_countryTopping the list are some wonderful charming peaceful prosperous nations like Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Or by total Muslims, Indonesia and Pakistan are your best bets. Seems like there's no correlation at all here. Correlation =/= Causation
Coupled with the rest of the facts - the known lack of human rights within those countries as mandated by scripture, a pretty explicit set of violent tendencies that are well-documented and stated, radical fundamentalism that is much more pronounced than any other religious organization - I'd say that the correlation plus supporting facts do indeed imply causation. There is only so much you can brush off and ignore before you have to start acknowledging a less-than-pleasant truth. Or not - so far the ability of many on the left to ignore the nature of Islam has been nothing short of astounding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
