Caution this video does have a few very graphic, not prolonged, but none the less very graphic spots. They are no worse than what one would see in a movie theatre or on television.....that does not make it OK because it is very graphic.

The rest of the video is very telling about the radical Islamists and their intent to "Burn America".

Look very closely at the bottom of the video which is where the English closed caption is presented.

I do not care what your party allegiance is, we are up against a very organized, much more so than Al Queda. Read the accompanying article as well.

A weak or timid America will only lose against these sworn killers of America and Americans:

Caution some graphic content:

New Islamic State Video Calls for Attacks on the American Homeland, Promises Another 9/11 | PJ Tatler

Caution some graphic content.

After a couple of days and only 37 hits on this thread there is a conclusion one could reach.

That the number of real active participants on this forum is extremely low (much lower than I would have thought anyway).
That the threads and responses with much higher numbers in the hundreds is mainly point and counterpoint and counter counterpoint, etc is among a very few people.....most like more like half the 37(?).

If the original post had received hundreds of looks and no responses it would have been indicative of a higher forum participant count.

Confirms (in my opinion) the low number of participants.

Originally Posted by Guest

After a couple of days and only 37 hits on this thread there is a conclusion one could reach.

That the number of real active participants on this forum is extremely low (much lower than I would have thought anyway).
That the threads and responses with much higher numbers in the hundreds is mainly point and counterpoint and counter counterpoint, etc is among a very few people.....most like more like half the 37(?).

If the original post had received hundreds of looks and no responses it would have been indicative of a higher forum participant count.

Confirms (in my opinion) the low number of participants.

Just like to reiterate their faux news and right wing blog points. The same tired few from the extreme right.

Originally Posted by Guest

Just like to reiterate their faux news and right wing blog points. The same tired few from the extreme right.

What the does that useless comment have to do with or contribute to the subject. As usual never anything to contribute but always ready with a smart comment.

A major contributor to why the participation count (remember that? It is the subject) on this forum is low and dwindling.

Pretty short list of things you need to know.

Originally Posted by Guest

After a couple of days and only 37 hits on this thread there is a conclusion one could reach.

That the number of real active participants on this forum is extremely low (much lower than I would have thought anyway).
That the threads and responses with much higher numbers in the hundreds is mainly point and counterpoint and counter counterpoint, etc is among a very few people.....most like more like half the 37(?).

If the original post had received hundreds of looks and no responses it would have been indicative of a higher forum participant count.

Confirms (in my opinion) the low number of participants.

Sounds like you should either stop reading the forum or make a contribution ?

I think the anonymous Guest protocol is what's reducing the participation ... good intentions gone awry

Originally Posted by Guest

After a couple of days and only 37 hits on this thread there is a conclusion one could reach.

That the number of real active participants on this forum is extremely low (much lower than I would have thought anyway).
That the threads and responses with much higher numbers in the hundreds is mainly point and counterpoint and counter counterpoint, etc is among a very few people.....most like more like half the 37(?).

If the original post had received hundreds of looks and no responses it would have been indicative of a higher forum participant count.

Confirms (in my opinion) the low number of participants.

It's low participation because of everyone having the same name of Guest. Ridiculous, because they can be answering their own posts and half of all posts could be just one person, like the kook on Topix (haven't looked there in months), and this is the first time I've looked here in over a month. It's a waste of time because of the instant pinning of racist labels on people who disagree with AGENDA, NOT skin color, and blaming everything wrong under the sun onto "Faux News" and viewers.

It's not adult-like discussion. It's a waste in here. Bye.

Originally Posted by Guest

It's low participation because of everyone having the same name of Guest. Ridiculous, because they can be answering their own posts and half of all posts could be just one person, like the kook on Topix (haven't looked there in months), and this is the first time I've looked here in over a month. It's a waste of time because of the instant pinning of racist labels on people who disagree with AGENDA, NOT skin color, and blaming everything wrong under the sun onto "Faux News" and viewers.

It's not adult-like discussion. It's a waste in here. Bye.

Aw, we will miss you!

There are those who remain nameless and yet call every comment to be racist when skin color was not mentioned. How can the term "grumpy old men" be racist?

Blaming things on Faux News and their right wing viewers is the same as THEM saying liberals are ALL followers of Marx.

So, my grumpy "friend", your waste is waste on two sides.

Originally Posted by Guest

How can the term "grumpy old men" be racist?

.

You really don't get it ... even after several attempts?

Originally Posted by Guest

You really don't get it ... even after several attempts?

...and you have yet to explain how the phrase "grumpy old men" is racist. It may be age"ist", sexist, or humor" ist" but not racist.

Originally Posted by Guest

...and you have yet to explain how the phrase "grumpy old men" is racist. It may be age"ist", sexist, or humor" ist" but not racist.

You're being disingenuous, yet again ...

When you use the epithet you either say, or imply, white men. You know that. I know that. And any reader of this forum know that.

It is indeed racist, in addition to having the other "ist" qualities that the Left employs and enjoys.