Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bomb explosion in New York.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    I think most posters here at this forum could care less of what a Muslim thought of us. Muslims can be as bad a bigot as any Redneck Southerner. Why should I watch my biases if they don't watch their's?

    Pruitt
    As a Southerner you should know better: too many years of not watching your biases led to a whole lot of needless pain and suffering. Certainly there's no need to repeat that crap, on any one's part.
    I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

    Comment


    • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
      Does any one think that we can bring back the Chinese Exclusion Act? We can really use one of those right about now.
      Were there any Chinese carrying out terrorist attacks against your country?
      In the case of Muslims these days you're all so aloof that you don't see what threat letting in even more Muslims will do they've killed over 4000 Americans in the last 20 years and it's going to keep on going until the hostilities end which isn't going to be any time soon.

      Comment


      • Actually I have watched my biases as an adult. I have known many minorities and a few Muslims over the years. I treated them all as individuals. I think this definitely places me in the minority here in the South. There are many contradictions in what other regions perceive of the South.

        When my ex loaded up a rental truck to flee to Pennsylvania, my daughter's two Black Personal Care attendants helped with the packing and loading. The guy she was going to move in with stood there and "supervised". While watching, he was heard to make remarks about how he would not allow a Black person to care for any of his kids. He also used the word "N-----r" a lot! He would have fit right in with a number of David Duke's friends in Louisiana, but he was worse, he was a Yankee and talked funny!

        I can't rant too hard about Yankees because one of my Great Great Great Grandfathers was a Union Civil War veteran from New York!

        I try and treat Yankees with courtesy, even when they show terrible manners to tell me how the South should be doing things different. They should spend some time and effort getting their own place in order. Once they get things right up there, then they can share what worked for them and what did not work.

        Pruitt
        Last edited by Pruitt; 20 Sep 16, 18:55.
        Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

        Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

        by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

        Comment


        • Poverty and racism is far more rampant in the south than it is in the north. So there probably are a few things they need to take note of in order to catch up.
          "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
          - Benjamin Franklin

          The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
            There, fixed it for you.
            -Its a fact that Muslims have committed the most casualties against ISIL.

            -Also a # of reports have suggested that American Muslims are most responsible for informing the authorities about terrorist Muslims.

            These two points must absolutely be answered to by everyone involved in the discussion just as we all must address the fact that ISIL exists.
            Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
            Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

            George S Patton

            Comment


            • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              Actually, no, someone who is declared anarchist is not going to be allowed to immigrate on the basis of politics. Those that are home grown are usually put on law enforcement watch lists.
              Since Sharia law is a political / legal system based on religion it is fair game as a test for immigration. It doesn't ask so much if you're Muslim, but rather do you as a Muslim want to impose religious laws and government on the country you want to live in. The later is a political views test. Too bad for the Muslim that their religion mixes politics into it intimately.



              So, if in WW 2 Japanese and German citizens were fleeing their countries because we were bombing the holy $h!+ out of them we have some duty to take them?
              I call complete BS on that. We have no duty or obligation to take those in Syria fleeing from a civil war. Why should we be obligated in any way to sort out the supposed "innocents" from terrorists, insurgents, and others actively fighting that war?
              Tell you what. You want them here? How about you sponsor a family. Let them live with you. You can pay their Obamacare policy and support them too.
              Me? They ain't got nothin' comin'. Next time maybe they won't tolerate a brutal dictatorship in their own country.
              Most Syrians have remained in Syria..and many Syrians are fighting ISIL...those points ought to be entertained.

              If practiced correctly, Torah Law, Canon Law and Sharia law treat everyone equally. Now this approach is so good that it not only disagrees with your points on Sharia, but most important it is yet another weapon to be used against the preachers of ISIL.

              But If Muslims have to answer if they support Sharia law, then Jews must answer if they support Torah Law. Catholics must answer if they support Canon law. Any religious person must be asked if they want to impose their religious laws onto others.



              The founding fathers and common Americans alike stood for religious freedom for Muslims, Jews, Christians and Polytheists.. I posted documentation of this in other threads.
              Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
              Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

              George S Patton

              Comment


              • Winston Churchill said something to the effect of,
                "Americans will always do the right thing after they exhaust all other options"
                We are watching his predictions of the 1930s being replayed.
                Of course the samething can be said of all Western countries.
                The greatest challenge facing nations who (once upon a time) cherished Liberty is our unwillingness to commit to any long term commitment or challenges.
                Radical Islamist have shown a willingness to carry out a long term multigenerational commitment to thier ideals.
                Our change with every election, this is true of European democracies and our country.
                China also takes long range planning very seriously. We on the other hand are very short term oriented, we want fast solutions, even if the result fails to resolve any problem we just want someone to tell us they fixed everything so we can go back to our 30 min, sitcoms, and bad beer.
                Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by VinceW View Post
                  Were there any Chinese carrying out terrorist attacks against your country?
                  Then why were they excluded?

                  Originally posted by VinceW View Post
                  In the case of Muslims these days you're all so aloof that you don't see what threat letting in even more Muslims will do they've killed over 4000 Americans in the last 20 years and it's going to keep on going until the hostilities end which isn't going to be any time soon.
                  I live within walking distance of many thousands of Muslims, from a wide variety of countries. The overwhelming majority of them do nothing more offensive than bad driving and BO. Some minute share of Muslims commit acts of terror. That's a fact. It's also a fact that they represent only a tiny share of Muslims as a whole. Just like all Canadians are not hockey players, not all Muslims are terrorists. Indeed, some are fighting the terrorists tooth and nail. So before we hit the panic button and start excluding Muslims the way we did Chinese, I'd think it would behoove us to try to find out who our allies are, who our enemies are, and how to undermine those who'd seek to do us harm, while not hampering those who just want to lead normal lives.

                  The operative word here should not be Muslim, but terrorist. Somehow, however, after listening to all the Archie Bunkers here, I'm led to believe that injuring Muslims is more important, and more desirable, than effectively combating and hampering terrorists. Say what you want about Muslim, but terrorist is decidedly a matter of choice, and a matter of action. Those actually involved with crime and violence should be far higher priorities than some schmuck dressed like a tent.

                  Unless, of course, you're suggesting that dressing like a tent should now be classified as a crime.
                  I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                    Then why were they excluded?



                    I live within walking distance of many thousands of Muslims, from a wide variety of countries. The overwhelming majority of them do nothing more offensive than bad driving and BO. Some minute share of Muslims commit acts of terror. That's a fact. It's also a fact that they represent only a tiny share of Muslims as a whole. Just like all Canadians are not hockey players, not all Muslims are terrorists. Indeed, some are fighting the terrorists tooth and nail. So before we hit the panic button and start excluding Muslims the way we did Chinese, I'd think it would behoove us to try to find out who our allies are, who our enemies are, and how to undermine those who'd seek to do us harm, while not hampering those who just want to lead normal lives.

                    The operative word here should not be Muslim, but terrorist. Somehow, however, after listening to all the Archie Bunkers here, I'm led to believe that injuring Muslims is more important, and more desirable, than effectively combating and hampering terrorists. Say what you want about Muslim, but terrorist is decidedly a matter of choice, and a matter of action. Those actually involved with crime and violence should be far higher priorities than some schmuck dressed like a tent.

                    Unless, of course, you're suggesting that dressing like a tent should now be classified as a crime.
                    The Chinese didn't have any terrorists attacking Americans so that was done solely on racism.
                    There's no good reason to allow more of a group of people that have members that will kill innocent people (4000 in America so far) that the country is at war with and it doesn't matter much which countries they come from Muslim terrorists have come from many different Muslim countries they shouldn't be coming here under the current circumstances.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stonewall_Jack View Post
                      Most Syrians have remained in Syria..and many Syrians are fighting ISIL...those points ought to be entertained.
                      Or not. It's only the mass of refugees that we're concerned about. You offer another red herring argument here.

                      If practiced correctly, Torah Law, Canon Law and Sharia law treat everyone equally. Now this approach is so good that it not only disagrees with your points on Sharia, but most important it is yet another weapon to be used against the preachers of ISIL.
                      The Torah doesn't preclude a non-Jewish government, a secular government, nor does it conflict with most modern legal systems in general. Instead, it is an add on that practicing Jews follow in addition to the laws of a nation.

                      Sharia is different. It imposes a Islamic based set of laws on the land and government. Even then, it doesn't treat everyone equally. Non-Muslim and Muslim are treated differently. Men and women get radically different treatment too. It replaces modern systems of law with one based solely on religious principles.

                      Some examples:

                      • Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
                      • Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death.
                      • Criticizing or denying Allah, the god of Islam is punishable by death.
                      • A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
                      • A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
                      • A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
                      • A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
                      • Girls' clitoris should be cut (Muhammad's words, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
                      • A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
                      • A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
                      • A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
                      • A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it.
                      • Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
                      • A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
                      • A woman's testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries ½ the weight of a man's.
                      • A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
                      • A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
                      • A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
                      • Meat to eat must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be "Halal".
                      • Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.

                      But If Muslims have to answer if they support Sharia law, then Jews must answer if they support Torah Law. Catholics must answer if they support Canon law. Any religious person must be asked if they want to impose their religious laws onto others
                      The problem here is that Jewish law and Catholic canon don't conflict with secular sets of laws whereas Sharia is in stark contrast, and often criminally in conflict with, secular Western law sets.
                      Practicing Sharia in the West to the full extent of the rules will land whoever does it in prison in pretty short order, particularly with regard to treatment of women.

                      The founding fathers and common Americans alike stood for religious freedom for Muslims, Jews, Christians and Polytheists.. I posted documentation of this in other threads.
                      But, they too wouldn't have stood for imposition of Sharia on Americans, not for a minute. Sure, they'd say "Practice Islam all you like, but the second you kill a non-Muslim under Sharia for something like getting a Muslim friend to convert to to Christianity you're going to hang for it."

                      Sharia is completely incompatible with the modern world. It's a brutal set of 14th Century rules that should be burned to the last copy. It has no more place in the world today than readopting the Aztec or Mayan legal system.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        Or not. It's only the mass of refugees that we're concerned about. You offer another red herring argument here.



                        The Torah doesn't preclude a non-Jewish government, a secular government, nor does it conflict with most modern legal systems in general. Instead, it is an add on that practicing Jews follow in addition to the laws of a nation.

                        Sharia is different. It imposes a Islamic based set of laws on the land and government. Even then, it doesn't treat everyone equally. Non-Muslim and Muslim are treated differently. Men and women get radically different treatment too. It replaces modern systems of law with one based solely on religious principles.

                        Some examples:

                        • Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
                        • Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death.
                        • Criticizing or denying Allah, the god of Islam is punishable by death.
                        • A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
                        • A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
                        • A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
                        • A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
                        • Girls' clitoris should be cut (Muhammad's words, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
                        • A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
                        • A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
                        • A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
                        • A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it.
                        • Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
                        • A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
                        • A woman's testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries ½ the weight of a man's.
                        • A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
                        • A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
                        • A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
                        • Meat to eat must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be "Halal".
                        • Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.



                        The problem here is that Jewish law and Catholic canon don't conflict with secular sets of laws whereas Sharia is in stark contrast, and often criminally in conflict with, secular Western law sets.
                        Practicing Sharia in the West to the full extent of the rules will land whoever does it in prison in pretty short order, particularly with regard to treatment of women.



                        But, they too wouldn't have stood for imposition of Sharia on Americans, not for a minute. Sure, they'd say "Practice Islam all you like, but the second you kill a non-Muslim under Sharia for something like getting a Muslim friend to convert to to Christianity you're going to hang for it."

                        Sharia is completely incompatible with the modern world. It's a brutal set of 14th Century rules that should be burned to the last copy. It has no more place in the world today than readopting the Aztec or Mayan legal system.
                        And he wonders why some of us consider him another "Jihad John".
                        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                        “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                        Present Current Events are the Future's History

                        Comment


                        • QUOTE:
                          ...

                          All in all, Muslim terrorists had a busy Saturday.

                          Naturally, the media rushed to target the real danger to Americans: Donald Trump.

                          Half an hour after the Chelsea bombing, Trump stated, in typically vague militaristic language, that a bomb had gone off in New York City, and that America needed to get “very tough.” This prompted apoplexy from members of the media, who deemed it unthinkable that Trump could label the incident a “bombing” without full confirmation. Hillary Clinton, too, attempted to scold Trump for his premature articulation: “It’s important to know the facts about any incidents like this. I think it’s always wiser to wait until you have information before making conclusions.” Of course, Clinton and her media allies conveniently ignored the fact that Trump turned out to be right.

                          And that was only their first line of attack.

                          Next came the inevitable attempts to paint Trump as the source of the attacks.
                          ...
                          http://www.dailywire.com/news/9299/s...aign=position7
                          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                          “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                          Present Current Events are the Future's History

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                            QUOTE:
                            ...

                            All in all, Muslim terrorists had a busy Saturday.

                            Naturally, the media rushed to target the real danger to Americans: Donald Trump.

                            Half an hour after the Chelsea bombing, Trump stated, in typically vague militaristic language, that a bomb had gone off in New York City, and that America needed to get “very tough.” This prompted apoplexy from members of the media, who deemed it unthinkable that Trump could label the incident a “bombing” without full confirmation. Hillary Clinton, too, attempted to scold Trump for his premature articulation: “It’s important to know the facts about any incidents like this. I think it’s always wiser to wait until you have information before making conclusions.” Of course, Clinton and her media allies conveniently ignored the fact that Trump turned out to be right.

                            And that was only their first line of attack.

                            Next came the inevitable attempts to paint Trump as the source of the attacks.
                            ...
                            http://www.dailywire.com/news/9299/s...aign=position7
                            The difference is not so much left right but lawyers versus normal people. A lawyer will always hesitate to "rush to justice." Why? Because stalling in the legal system is always a good idea. Never taking a chance or risk is how lawyers try to operate. They want to know all the answers before anyone asks a single question.

                            It is a sure recipe for gridlock and inaction. It is the antithesis of how businesses and the military operate (or should operate). In these arenas hesitation and indecision are sure losers to taking some reasonable and calculated risks and moving ahead to win or make a profit.

                            One more reason Hillary is wrong for America... She's a liar and a lawyer.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                              Then why were they excluded?



                              I live within walking distance of many thousands of Muslims, from a wide variety of countries. The overwhelming majority of them do nothing more offensive than bad driving and BO. Some minute share of Muslims commit acts of terror. That's a fact. It's also a fact that they represent only a tiny share of Muslims as a whole. Just like all Canadians are not hockey players, not all Muslims are terrorists. Indeed, some are fighting the terrorists tooth and nail. So before we hit the panic button and start excluding Muslims the way we did Chinese, I'd think it would behoove us to try to find out who our allies are, who our enemies are, and how to undermine those who'd seek to do us harm, while not hampering those who just want to lead normal lives.

                              The operative word here should not be Muslim, but terrorist. Somehow, however, after listening to all the Archie Bunkers here, I'm led to believe that injuring Muslims is more important, and more desirable, than effectively combating and hampering terrorists. Say what you want about Muslim, but terrorist is decidedly a matter of choice, and a matter of action. Those actually involved with crime and violence should be far higher priorities than some schmuck dressed like a tent.

                              Unless, of course, you're suggesting that dressing like a tent should now be classified as a crime.
                              Their goal is not to attack terrorist, it's to attack liberals and the other real bad guys. Much more important. The word 'effective' is alien to them.
                              “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                              “To talk of many things:
                              Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                              Of cabbages—and kings—
                              And why the sea is boiling hot—
                              And whether pigs have wings.”
                              ― Lewis Carroll

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                                Or not. It's only the mass of refugees that we're concerned about. You offer another red herring argument here.
                                Its a vital fact that negates the view Syrians are not doing anything about their homelands. Note how some folks in this debate view Syrians as worthless, lazy. What I present shows the Syrian people to very much care about their lands. We have taken in many refugees from Africa and the Middle East...we can handle a few thousand refugees from Syria.

                                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                                The Torah doesn't preclude a non-Jewish government, a secular government, nor does it conflict with most modern legal systems in general. Instead, it is an add on that practicing Jews follow in addition to the laws of a nation.
                                A sort of praise for Jews but not Muslims?

                                Thats ok, but it opens the door for folks to criticize Jews and Torah Law but praise Muslims and Sharia. My approach is clearly a healthy and true approach.... which is that both Torah and Sharia when practiced correctly treat all people equally.

                                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                                Sharia is different. It imposes a Islamic based set of laws on the land and government. Even then, it doesn't treat everyone equally. Non-Muslim and Muslim are treated differently. Men and women get radically different treatment too. It replaces modern systems of law with one based solely on religious principles.

                                Some examples:

                                • Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
                                • Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death.
                                • Criticizing or denying Allah, the god of Islam is punishable by death.
                                • A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
                                • A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
                                • A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
                                • A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
                                • Girls' clitoris should be cut (Muhammad's words, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
                                • A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
                                • A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
                                • A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
                                • A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it.
                                • Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
                                • A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
                                • A woman's testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries ½ the weight of a man's.
                                • A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
                                • A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
                                • A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
                                • Meat to eat must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be "Halal".
                                • Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
                                The same arguments are made against Jews, here they are,

                                http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False..._child_sex.htm

                                its the same type of hype that sites like the following use,

                                http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

                                TAG note the pictures and just the hype that those sites try and stir.


                                Because of the fact that Jews fought alongside Muhammad and early Muslims, and that Atheists lived in early Muslim lands as equals negates any sort of view that a proper Islamic society mistreats non Muslims.



                                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                                The problem here is that Jewish law and Catholic canon don't conflict with secular sets of laws whereas Sharia is in stark contrast, and often criminally in conflict with, secular Western law sets.
                                Practicing Sharia in the West to the full extent of the rules will land whoever does it in prison in pretty short order, particularly with regard to treatment of women.



                                But, they too wouldn't have stood for imposition of Sharia on Americans, not for a minute. Sure, they'd say "Practice Islam all you like, but the second you kill a non-Muslim under Sharia for something like getting a Muslim friend to convert to to Christianity you're going to hang for it."

                                Sharia is completely incompatible with the modern world. It's a brutal set of 14th Century rules that should be burned to the last copy. It has no more place in the world today than readopting the Aztec or Mayan legal system.
                                In the USA, there can never be any Sharia, Torah or Canon Law. Jews Christians and Muslims who argue for that are arguing for something that is impossible to put into law. So before anyone even brings up religious laws...it would take a group to take over the USA to actually have religious laws here in the USA. I like the current system of law in the USA...but lets also remember that not all democracies are perfect, and not all Theocracies have been bad places to live.
                                Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
                                Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

                                George S Patton

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X