It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Islamic Immigration is Illegal in the US

page: 11
55
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Don't like Islam? Don't convert to it. Your opinion on it, and the hateful opinions of the hyperbolic xenophobic bigots on this site is irrelevant. Muslim Americans have the same rights as everyone else in this country and we don't make or enforce laws based on religion. And we never will. So all this anti-Muslim BS around here accomplishes nothing. Other than allowing you and others of your ilk to get each other off with self-righteous rhetoric.




posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

After first saying "not one iota of this is original" and back pedaling, you still insist on saying:


I have claimed only that the second paragraph of your OPs is verbatim from multiple sources.


Again, this is the entire second paragraph you claim is copied verbatim. Here is what I wrote:


The Immigration and Nationality Act, passed June 27, 1952, becoming public Law 414 established both the law and the intent of congress regarding immigration of aliens to the United States, and is still in effect today.


Here is what I read in the text forwarded to me from my friend:


The Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality for the United States. That act, which became public law 414, established both the law and the intent of congress regarding the immigration of Aliens to the US and remains in effect today.


If you have tried Hooked on Phonics I am sure even someone of your obviously limited potential can see that they are not the same. In other words, they are not copied verbatim as you repeatedly claim. You lied. Repeatedly.

Here is the first sentence of the third paragraph:


Islam, as guided by the Koran, Sharia Law, and the Hadith, all require complete submission to Islam, which, by its very definition, is antithetical to the United States government, the Constitution and the Republic.


Here is what I read in the text forwarded to me:


This, by its very definition, rules out islamic immigration to the United States, but this law is being ignored by the White House. Islamic immigration to the US would be prohibited under this law because the koran, sharia law, and the hadith all require complete submission to islam which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic.


Once again we see they are not the same as you repeatedly claim. It makes one wonder exactly WTF you have been ranting about all this time.

Just for sake of science I would like to try a simple experiment. For the 67 total words that were in the text forwarded to me that I used in starting this thread: ~original author unknown, used with permission from source provider.

Now, tell me. What exactly has changed? After all your bitching and moaning and libeling, there must be one hell of an answer to that coming. I cant wait to see it...
edit on 21-12-2015 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I suggest that some take a wee break from their computers and maybe...
1.Have something to eat.
2.Have something to drink...like some eggnog,hot chocolate with large marshmallows!
Don't worry,be happy and have a Merry Christmas.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: peter vlar

I said I quoted two sentences, two. And not even word for word from the original piece I saw.


As I have demonstrated by citing more than one source that has the exact same text as the 2nd paragraph of your OP, it IS word for word. Denying that makes you look beyond foolish when the links and appropriate text is there in black and white. The only one lying and plagiarizing is you. You're so hung up on it yet you haven't actually provided something that counts as a citation. You claim a "friend" forwarded you something hence your OP, that you did not copy anything word for word and yet there it is, word for word. Who's a liar? Not I.


You deny that and ignore it so I called you a lair, which you are. You respond by insisting I quote you. Fine. Here is your demand:



Please quote where I have lied about that?


And here is your quote:


not an iota of this is original work


It's not original work. You copied part of it verbatim and paraphrased other portions. It's not your original work. If you provided a legitimate citation and showed us your source material it would shut me right up wouldn't it? But you won't do that. You are in fact the liar and a cowardly one at that.




You insist on repeatedly calling me a plagiarist.


If the shoe fits...


Then you back pedal three times blaming it on being over zealous or facetious. In other words, you lied.


Since I sitting right here and standing by my claims of plagiarism I am hardly back pedaling. Any more circular reasoning to throw at me?


You cry like a stuck pig about citation. I demonstrate that clearly the original author is unknown and proper citation can not be give. The only citation that matters is the correct one. Attributing the work to anyone else is worse than not citing a source at all.


So you've never actually written anything for publication or done an ounce of actual research or else you would know how this all works. The source YOU HAVE USED AND OBTAINED YOUR INFORMATION FROM is what is to be cited. You refuse to do so which leads me to believe you have plagiarized far more than I can prove. But nobody will ever know because you won't source your material. It's rather suspicious.


There is no winning with people like you. If I cite a reference we both know is not the original author you will go off about that just like you go off on this.


Not at all. If you had cited anything I wouldn't have bothered going down this road let alone checking the veracity of your material. A quick google search pulled up multiple sources demonstrating the same words verbatim. That's on you not me.


Of course you will deny that, because its true. So, knowing it is not necessary under the circumstances, I provide you with my source, a close personal friend, who has given me permission to use those two sentences you have such a hard on for, without citing him as the source. And your objection is...?


That saying "my close personal friend gave me the info" is not a citation. It's a cop out and its disingenuous.


None of this is in any way about the topic, by the way. You claim to hold the T&C's so high yet you ignore them completely when it serves your purpose - distract and derail.


Which T&C have I violated? If that is the case, at the bottom right hand corner of your screen is a button labeled "alert". Click it and report me to the moderators. The only real distraction is your refusal to supply a legitimate citation. Most likely because you have plagiarized more than I have already shown. So it's to your benefit not to show your source material. Don't worry, I don't expect people like you to have an ounce of honor or integrity. If you did, you would be more concerned with upholding the constitution insteqad of reinterpreting legislation to exclude Muslim refugees. It's a great day to be an American!!!



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: peter vlar



Now you want me to cite a reference from something I never even saw?


So you're claiming its a total coincidence that your passage is the exact same wording, verbatim, as 3 other xenophobic racists? not buying it.


Get off my thread. Mods, please - this is enough.


Wait... I thought you said I was the one crying like a stuck pig? Why are you running so hard from the truth? The number of replies from you in such a short time span makes it look like I've touched a nerve. Just show us your source material and it all ends and I wander off this thread. Until then, unless ATS bans me or asks me to leave you be, I'm not going anywhere sweetheart.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: peter vlar

After first saying "not one iota of this is original" and back pedaling, you still insist on saying:



I have claimed only that the second paragraph of your OPs is verbatim from multiple sources.


But you admitted earlier it wasn't an original idea and that you got it from your friend. Which is it? but IM the one back pedaling! please... keep going, I haven't had this good of a laugh in a long time!


Again, this is the entire second paragraph you claim is copied verbatim. Here is what I wrote:



The Immigration and Nationality Act, passed June 27, 1952, becoming public Law 414 established both the law and the intent of congress regarding immigration of aliens to the United States, and is still in effect today.



Here is what I read in the text forwarded to me from my friend:



The Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality for the United States. That act, which became public law 414, established both the law and the intent of congress regarding the immigration of Aliens to the US and remains in effect today.


So you claim. But you haven't linked your source material. And the fact is, as I've demonstrated quite bluntly, your exact words are verbatim in multiple sources written prior to you starting this thread. You wouldn't think that a little suspect?


If you have tried Hooked on Phonics I am sure even someone of your obviously limited potential can see that they are not the same. In other words, they are not copied verbatim as you repeatedly claim. You lied. Repeatedly.


Not only did I not lie, I provided citations and links to the source material proving that you are full of it.

The only link you provided was to the text of the legislation. Legislation which you don't even understand. You're using other peoples words and trying to prop them up when you clearly don't have a firm grasp on the subject at hand.

I must definitely be on to something here or else you wouldn't avoid giving up your source like a child protecting their Halloween candy.


Here is the first sentence of the third paragraph:



Islam, as guided by the Koran, Sharia Law, and the Hadith, all require complete submission to Islam, which, by its very definition, is antithetical to the United States government, the Constitution and the Republic.



Here is what I read in the text forwarded to me:



This, by its very definition, rules out islamic immigration to the United States, but this law is being ignored by the White House. Islamic immigration to the US would be prohibited under this law because the koran, sharia law, and the hadith all require complete submission to islam which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic.


Wow... you didn't copy every word there, only part of it. good for you. But when you can't provide a citation, its your word that must be taken at face value that this is actually from your source material. As a result of your lack of understanding of what you advocate for in the OP, the veracity of your word is rather lacking. Especially without a citation and then the ludicrous rationalizations why you are avoiding giving an appropriate citation. I never would have got into grad school with skills like yours.


Once again we see they are not the same as you repeatedly claim. It makes one wonder exactly WTF you have been ranting about all this time.


Based on what you claim is your source, but nobody knows what your source is when it lacks a citation for others to engage in due diligence and ascertain its actual veracity.. This is pathetic and you don't even realize.



Just for sake of science I would like to try a simple experiment. For the 67 total words that were in the text forwarded to me that I used in starting this thread: ~original author unknown, used with permission from source provider.


I don't know what text was forwarded to you. I only know what you claim was forwarded to you and that your exact words are from other source material that existed prior to you creating this thread and that despite your magic claims of close friend for a source, you haven't demonstrated a citation. most likely because you've been caught red handed.


Now, tell me. What exactly has changed? After all your bitching and moaning and libeling, there must be one hell of an answer to that coming. I cant wait to see it...


What's changed? The 2nd paragraph of your OP is still 100% verbatim from other material the existed prior to this threads creation and you're still a lying plagiarist. Sooooo... Nothing has changed.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: mamabeth
I suggest that some take a wee break from their computers and maybe...
1.Have something to eat.
2.Have something to drink...like some eggnog,hot chocolate with large marshmallows!
Don't worry,be happy and have a Merry Christmas.



I'm good to go then Mama, I just finished eating! Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you as well. Though the cocoa and marshmallows does sound tempting haha



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Closed for Staff review.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join