quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

Lmao, was I arguing geography with you? No.

No, your link when you were characterizing the drop in employer based health care was exploitable. The rest of your links are mostly right wing blogs. When you go to the host site for your links and every article is a republican talking point, making an educated guess that the site is biased is probably accurate

quote:

Phydeaux

The figure of 11000 madrassas over the 8 year period was from a speech I gave in 2002, and another in 2006. I'll see if I can find the end notes for you.

In the mean time, let me give you some facts and figures I have to hand:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

Phydeaux

The figure of 11000 madrassas over the 8 year period was from a speech I gave in 2002, and another in 2006. I'll see if I can find the end notes for you.

In the mean time, let me give you some facts and figures I have to hand:

A proper link, or you are bullshitting again.

You say you accept Saudi funded groups supported terrorism, so all you have left is the notion that the middle easts most dictatorial country has no clue what is citizens are doing with Saudi money. Its a false premise if ever there was one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

Lmao, was I arguing geography with you? No.

No, your link when you were characterizing the drop in employer based health care was exploitable. The rest of your links are mostly right wing blogs. When you go to the host site for your links and every article is a republican talking point, making an educated guess that the site is biased is probably accurate

Don't merely assert that its exploitable - back up your words.

It gets tiresome to actually use facts to correct you - again and again and again.

My last 10 links in this thread

the official kuwait website.
Lonely planet - commercial website
Education web site
wiki
Google Earth
washington post
The Week - a UK digital media
Islam Daily
Pew Research center
The New York Times
Land Destroyer - OOOH a blog - however with articles such as "Stop Imperialism" not really right wing now is it.
Plus the article I quoted (from LD) was from the nytimes....


Gee, not a single "right wing blog"

Just curious - do you care about facts or accuracy at all when you speak - or do you just say whatever?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

Lmao, was I arguing geography with you? No.

No, your link when you were characterizing the drop in employer based health care was exploitable. The rest of your links are mostly right wing blogs. When you go to the host site for your links and every article is a republican talking point, making an educated guess that the site is biased is probably accurate

Don't merely assert that its exploitable - back up your words.

It gets tiresome to actually use facts to correct you - again and again and again.

My last 10 links in this thread

the official kuwait website.
Lonely planet - commercial website
Education web site
wiki
Google Earth
washington post
The Week - a UK digital media
Islam Daily
Pew Research center
The New York Times
Land Destroyer - OOOH a blog - however with articles such as "Stop Imperialism" not really right wing now is it.
Plus the article I quoted (from LD) was from the nytimes....


Gee, not a single "right wing blog"

Just curious - do you care about facts or accuracy at all when you speak - or do you just say whatever?

Let me clarify. Mostly right wing bent sites with obvious bias and blogs with right wing bias. Here are two of your sources you used in the 25 violations of law. The first you either copy pasted or paraphrased, forget which now.

https://www.committeeforjustice.org/content/25-violations-law-president-obama-and-his-administration
The committee for justice home page admits they are conservative

This second is a beaut I am saving in my phone. You cited the first link. Notice it literally has blog in the url

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/again-2nd-time-dhs-caught-defies-judges-stay-obamas-illegal-immigration-amnesty

The homepage also demonstrates that mrctv is a conservative site, including endorsing republican nominees twice. Additionally, one of the endorsements is by one of the guys from duck dynasty. Though this was not cited by you, it demonstrates the typical bias that is fundamental in a significant portion of your citations

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/duck-commander-phil-robertson-ted-cruz-my-man-im-voting-him


It's not that all your citations are biased, but a large portion are and you unabashedly cite them as truth

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

Lmao, was I arguing geography with you? No.

No, your link when you were characterizing the drop in employer based health care was exploitable. The rest of your links are mostly right wing blogs. When you go to the host site for your links and every article is a republican talking point, making an educated guess that the site is biased is probably accurate

Don't merely assert that its exploitable - back up your words.

It gets tiresome to actually use facts to correct you - again and again and again.

My last 10 links in this thread

the official kuwait website.
Lonely planet - commercial website
Education web site
wiki
Google Earth
washington post
The Week - a UK digital media
Islam Daily
Pew Research center
The New York Times
Land Destroyer - OOOH a blog - however with articles such as "Stop Imperialism" not really right wing now is it.
Plus the article I quoted (from LD) was from the nytimes....


Gee, not a single "right wing blog"

Just curious - do you care about facts or accuracy at all when you speak - or do you just say whatever?

Let me clarify. Mostly right wing bent sites with obvious bias and blogs with right wing bias. Here are two of your sources you used in the 25 violations of law. The first you either copy pasted or paraphrased, forget which now.

https://www.committeeforjustice.org/content/25-violations-law-president-obama-and-his-administration
The committee for justice home page admits they are conservative

This second is a beaut I am saving in my phone. You cited the first link. Notice it literally has blog in the url

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/again-2nd-time-dhs-caught-defies-judges-stay-obamas-illegal-immigration-amnesty

The homepage also demonstrates that mrctv is a conservative site, including endorsing republican nominees twice. Additionally, one of the endorsements is by one of the guys from duck dynasty. Though this was not cited by you, it demonstrates the typical bias that is fundamental in a significant portion of your citations

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/duck-commander-phil-robertson-ted-cruz-my-man-im-voting-him


It's not that all your citations are biased, but a large portion are and you unabashedly cite them as truth

And?


Lets confine the talk to specifics, for a minute. Lets talk the one you consider to be a real beaut, a real egregiously biased web-site.

Contrary to what you think, I don't rely on the opinions of the blogger; When I am answering your - or other allegations, I will remember a quote, or
a political point which furthers my point. I then google, and find a site that has the information correct. I really don't care about the bias of the site; its the facts that matter.

In this case (and in the large majority of all my cites) I am referencing a fact - in this case, the site had large quotations from the Washington Times which was the only portion of the site I used. Since liberal media dominates the google results, it is often difficult to find access to older news stories, with the points I wish to make. I vet the portion I am interested.

So my refutation on this specific point is threefold

a). Every news source has "bias". I don't see you discounting quotes that appear in the NY Times. Which has a known liberal bias, and 5 cases of plagiarism or making up the facts in the last 5 years.
b). If you believe the quality of the quotation is suspect - provide evidence. If you think the Washington Times did not say that - support your allegation.
c). Intellectual honesty really requires you to admit that this is not really citing a blog for evidence. The origination of the news was the washington times.

Now, on the whole you and other liberals make the allegation that I don't provide cites, and that my cites are "right wing", and they are low quality "blogs"

The last time you made that accusation, I presented what my cites were; there was only one cite that could be considered a blog - and it was a LEFT wing cite.

So you made this allegation again, so I went back and compiled all my cites in the 25 violations thread. They are:

-OP - where I stated I don't agree with all the opinions of the post; I was not trying to pass this off as fact, merely interesting article.
Nixon articles of impeachment.
NYTimes
Wikipedeia
Wikipedeia
US constitution
Jonathan Gruber
NineStateAttorneyGeneralx4 (Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Washington )
SupremeCourt.org
Supreme Court
Judicial Watch
IRS Website
Ballotpedia - the encyclopedia of American Politics
Heritage.org
The Federal Register.
I cited- niemanwatchdog, because that was *your* source.
OutsidetheBeltway - a democrat new media 3 times because you and Otter wouldn't look at the link.
Wikipedia


1. So the orignal citation was a website that has more than 200,000 members. No question that it is conservative; but it has done briefs for the Supreme Court so you can't really argue that they aren't professional.
2. Other than that - the only blog I cited - was the one YOU quoted, to recite back to you what your own source actually said.
3. I provided more citations for my quotes than any liberal commenter; I believe the highest liberal commenter provided 6 citations. And I provided the second highest number of citations - second only to bounty.
4. I cited 5 liberal sites, 3 conservative sites - and 10 neutral cites - such as the federal register, the supreme court, the constitution.


So, in point of fact - I cite four times more frequently than you do; I cite higher quality sources than you do, and my cites are less partisan than yours.
Please have the courtesy to admit you are wrong - that it was *your* bias that caused you to remember facts selectively.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

Lmao, was I arguing geography with you? No.

No, your link when you were characterizing the drop in employer based health care was exploitable. The rest of your links are mostly right wing blogs. When you go to the host site for your links and every article is a republican talking point, making an educated guess that the site is biased is probably accurate

Don't merely assert that its exploitable - back up your words.

It gets tiresome to actually use facts to correct you - again and again and again.

My last 10 links in this thread

the official kuwait website.
Lonely planet - commercial website
Education web site
wiki
Google Earth
washington post
The Week - a UK digital media
Islam Daily
Pew Research center
The New York Times
Land Destroyer - OOOH a blog - however with articles such as "Stop Imperialism" not really right wing now is it.
Plus the article I quoted (from LD) was from the nytimes....


Gee, not a single "right wing blog"

Just curious - do you care about facts or accuracy at all when you speak - or do you just say whatever?

Let me clarify. Mostly right wing bent sites with obvious bias and blogs with right wing bias. Here are two of your sources you used in the 25 violations of law. The first you either copy pasted or paraphrased, forget which now.

https://www.committeeforjustice.org/content/25-violations-law-president-obama-and-his-administration
The committee for justice home page admits they are conservative

This second is a beaut I am saving in my phone. You cited the first link. Notice it literally has blog in the url

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/again-2nd-time-dhs-caught-defies-judges-stay-obamas-illegal-immigration-amnesty

The homepage also demonstrates that mrctv is a conservative site, including endorsing republican nominees twice. Additionally, one of the endorsements is by one of the guys from duck dynasty. Though this was not cited by you, it demonstrates the typical bias that is fundamental in a significant portion of your citations

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/duck-commander-phil-robertson-ted-cruz-my-man-im-voting-him


It's not that all your citations are biased, but a large portion are and you unabashedly cite them as truth

And?


Lets confine the talk to specifics, for a minute. Lets talk the one you consider to be a real beaut, a real egregiously biased web-site.

Contrary to what you think, I don't rely on the opinions of the blogger; When I am answering your - or other allegations, I will remember a quote, or
a political point which furthers my point. I then google, and find a site that has the information correct. I really don't care about the bias of the site; its the facts that matter.

In this case (and in the large majority of all my cites) I am referencing a fact - in this case, the site had large quotations from the Washington Times which was the only portion of the site I used. Since liberal media dominates the google results, it is often difficult to find access to older news stories, with the points I wish to make. I vet the portion I am interested.

So my refutation on this specific point is threefold

a). Every news source has "bias". I don't see you discounting quotes that appear in the NY Times. Which has a known liberal bias, and 5 cases of plagiarism or making up the facts in the last 5 years.
b). If you believe the quality of the quotation is suspect - provide evidence. If you think the Washington Times did not say that - support your allegation.
c). Intellectual honesty really requires you to admit that this is not really citing a blog for evidence. The origination of the news was the washington times.

Now, on the whole you and other liberals make the allegation that I don't provide cites, and that my cites are "right wing", and they are low quality "blogs"

The last time you made that accusation, I presented what my cites were; there was only one cite that could be considered a blog - and it was a LEFT wing cite.

So you made this allegation again, so I went back and compiled all my cites in the 25 violations thread. They are:

-OP - where I stated I don't agree with all the opinions of the post; I was not trying to pass this off as fact, merely interesting article.
Nixon articles of impeachment.
NYTimes
Wikipedeia
Wikipedeia
US constitution
Jonathan Gruber
NineStateAttorneyGeneralx4 (Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Washington )
SupremeCourt.org
Supreme Court
Judicial Watch
IRS Website
Ballotpedia - the encyclopedia of American Politics
Heritage.org
The Federal Register.
I cited- niemanwatchdog, because that was *your* source.
OutsidetheBeltway - a democrat new media 3 times because you and Otter wouldn't look at the link.
Wikipedia


1. So the orignal citation was a website that has more than 200,000 members. No question that it is conservative; but it has done briefs for the Supreme Court so you can't really argue that they aren't professional.
2. Other than that - the only blog I cited - was the one YOU quoted, to recite back to you what your own source actually said.
3. I provided more citations for my quotes than any liberal commenter; I believe the highest liberal commenter provided 6 citations. And I provided the second highest number of citations - second only to bounty.
4. I cited 5 liberal sites, 3 conservative sites - and 10 neutral cites - such as the federal register, the supreme court, the constitution.


So, in point of fact - I cite four times more frequently than you do; I cite higher quality sources than you do, and my cites are less partisan than yours.
Please have the courtesy to admit you are wrong - that it was *your* bias that caused you to remember facts selectively.

I reposted mrctv.org to remind people of a republican blog you posted. Stop lying.

Are you really incapable of searching for things like Hurricane Patricia of 2015 on your own? Because my facts are public knowledge, anyone can read the information for any number of sources and don't have to have their hand held like a child. Stop being blindly partisan, stop lying and stop picking fights because you can't outsmart people

The fact that you have repeatedly been proven to be a liar and manipulater is plain for all to see

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

You might be able to whip out historical data from 15-22 years ago in a snap. Of course, as with your usual aspersions, you are citeless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

You might be able to whip out historical data from 15-22 years ago in a snap. Of course, as with your usual aspersions, you are citeless.

One would think a guy as smart as you could at least back up his bulshit claim, especially on such a staggering increase.

I am guessing your Google is fucked huh.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


Across the three countries, there are perhaps six million students at madrassas. That is a small share of the Muslim school-going population, but the problem lies with the fact that some of the Pakistani and Afghan graduates are internationally known terrorists and murderers.

How would that compare with the number of internationally known terrorists and murderers that attended yale?
How would the body count differ?

quote:


I am referencing a fact - in this case, the site had large quotations from the Washington Times which was the only portion of the site I used.

quote:

While their numbers remain contested, according to conservative estimates there are approximately 20,000 madrassas in Pakistan (USCIRF 2011)...

Post 9/11 madrassas have come under increasing public and international scrutiny for their growing numbers, alleged linkages to terrorist groups/organizations and serving as breeding grounds for terrorism...

...according to the Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) Pakistan 2011) these studies show that there is no automatic (and necessary) link between madrassas and militancy. However, there is evidence to suggest that some madrassas have connections with militant/terrorist groups and that over the years their members have been radicalized as a result of “state sponsored” exposure to jihad in Afghanistan and Kashmir (ICG Asia Report No. 36 2002). For instance, a study by the Brookings Institute, highlights the linkages between militancy and madrassas such as the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam and the Dar-ul-Uloom Haqqania from where the Afghan Taliban leadership reportedly graduated (Brookings Analysis Paper #14, November 2001). Another 2010 survey examining the role of Islam in Pakistani society found that, while many madrassa students had tolerant views, 82% of those belonging to Deobandi madrassas saw the Taliban as a model for Islamizing Pakistan (Ali, 2010)...

While the majority of madrassas do not impart military training or education, it is estimated that between 10-15% of madrassas are affiliated with violent extremist religious/political groups.1 These madrassas teach a brand of violent political jihad, extol suicide bombing and impart ideological and other training that encourages violence. Preaching and sermons at madrassas serves as an important recruitment tool, especially for young males. Madrassas also function as sanctuaries and meeting places for militants. Most of these madrassas trace their origins to post 1979 when madrassa number rose from a few hundred to the thousands...

According to one estimate, Saudi Arabia reportedly spent more than one billion dollars per year to fund madrassas responsible for recruiting, mobilizing public opinion and training jihadis and other vehicles of Islamist militancy in Pakistan (Alexeiv, 2003)...

quote:

Madrassas or Islamic seminaries figure prominently in the discourse on Islamic extremism and militancy in Pakistan...

No doubt, most madrassas provide free education, food and shelter to a large number of students. These institutions cannot be viewed as neutral seats of learning. Some linkages can be identified between madrassa education and environment and militancy but other factors also contribute to religious extremism and militancy...

Madrassa education emphasises a literalist approach towards religious text. It is highly conservative, monolithic and sectarian in perspective, and questions the legitimacy of those who do not share their perspective on religion and society. Their worldview is characterised by hostility towards whosoever is described as an adversary. This could be non-Muslims and those Muslims who are viewed as misguided or non-genuine...

The madrassa creates a mindset among young people that makes them vulnerable to the appeals of militants to join them in holy war. Some of the madrassas have connections with militant groups or they allow militant leaders to visit and approach students for recruitment. Militants also recruit young people through mosque prayer leaders who may be linked with militant and sectarian groups. Even those who do not join militant groups support their ideology and actions from the sidelines...

The long-term solution to extremism and militancy cannot be articulated without regulating the madrassas, especially those that have the reputation for supporting militant groups or openly preach religious and cultural intolerance. A check on highly politicised madrassas will limit the capacity of these madrassas to socialise young people into religious orthodoxy and militancy and thus make them vulnerable to the appeals of militant groups.

-Dr. Hasan-Askari Rizvi [maybe he really works for fox news? or even lives in "amerika": and hangs out with sean Hannity?]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

So now we have it, as shown by posts from Bounty and Phydeaux.

The Wahibbi Madrassas were funded by Saudi Arabia. These same madrassas also teach terrorism. But wait, the saudis dont support terrorism in any way, nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean guv ?

One day some of you on the right will catch on.

Oh yeah.the Maddrassas only increased under Clintons watch....... Even if they where built in some countries and funded by others, none of which had Clinton as President.

The political grandstanding on the right is bullshit at its finest.