If we did not allow Muslim foreigners into the United States...........

[Pogo]

I think I am on the same page as you, but when read what you wrote in the context you had wrote it earlier in, I took it to me something different, especially when you wrote about according to who is it harmful, then I applied the part about the victims at the hands of their killers whom do not abide by our constitution, and even hate it actually, yet here they are living among us now. I thought you were making a case to honor all religions with the use of the constitution no matter what, and without exception. This is where I began my rebuttal.. I apologize for miss-understanding you...

Not at all, I'm not sure you did misunderstand; it sounds like you had it basically. Not to "honor" all or any religion, but just to let them be.

Just a clarification, the Constitution is not for people to abide by; it's for the government to abide by.

By the way, does that graphic I posted that keeps getting copied, convey its meaning? Do you get what it's there for? That's a Nazi-era anti-Jewish propaganda poster, used to demonize a particular class of people in order to eliminate them. In other words the same thing the OP has been doing with this thread. That's the problem all of us from all over the political spectrum have with this bigot thread.

OK, it's cool to just let a religion be, but when it promotes the killing of infidels meaning us from within our own borders, and it begins to make good on such beliefs or ideals by the implementation of such acts (lets not for get those honor killings either that have taken place), then it is no longer protected or falls under what the constitution had written for religious activities or regarding the religions in which it was intended for (IMHO) or should such a religion be recognized by the American government at all or it shouldn't be until it cleans up it's act. How many more attempts at bombings or actual bombings must we chance to them, if they are different than the religions we have had here since the beginning, and have been living in peace pretty much with since the beginning ? I don't think there are to many now whom want to take to many more chances with a radical wing of this religion, and the problem is, is that they can live within the religious confounds of the religion until they (the radicals)strike, so what to do what to do ? If we can't get a group of people to police themselves, and to let others know who is amongst them that are bad or a threat, then Houston we have a major problem now don't we ?

You may be starting from a false premise here (in bold). Again, two assholes (not a religion) committed the bombing in Boston. Just as an asshole with a Ryder truck committed the bombing in Oklahoma City (not a religion) and another asshole (not a religion) bombed an abortion clinic in Birmingham, etc etc etc. The OP in his bigoted blindness wants to pin Boston on "foreign Muslims" but there's no justification whatsoever for that basis. He just wants to persecute his target because he's never met one and spends all his time immersed in television.

He would actually try to sell the idea, for example, that "Islam" committed 9/11 even though the perps clearly had a political agenda. Yet he won't pin Scott Roeder on Christianism or the Unabomber on atheism, so his logic applies only to his despised group. Which is why it's illegitimate logic, and why the premise is inoperative.

 

[beagle9]

You really haven't read this thread from the beginning, have you beagle?

No, i'm just picking up on some of the post and comments being made.

Go ahead and read the whole thing, then see how you feel about the OP.

Uh Oh, so you feel by reading the whole thread, that it will make me want to get off of this thread and fight the good fight somewhere else for Americans and America ? Could be, as I have not read the whole thread that's for sure...Yikes...... I'll hang around as long as you all will, then I will bolt when you all do, is that OK ?

 

[beagle9]

Not at all, I'm not sure you did misunderstand; it sounds like you had it basically. Not to "honor" all or any religion, but just to let them be.

Just a clarification, the Constitution is not for people to abide by; it's for the government to abide by.

By the way, does that graphic I posted that keeps getting copied, convey its meaning? Do you get what it's there for? That's a Nazi-era anti-Jewish propaganda poster, used to demonize a particular class of people in order to eliminate them. In other words the same thing the OP has been doing with this thread. That's the problem all of us from all over the political spectrum have with this bigot thread.

OK, it's cool to just let a religion be, but when it promotes the killing of infidels meaning us from within our own borders, and it begins to make good on such beliefs or ideals by the implementation of such acts (lets not for get those honor killings either that have taken place), then it is no longer protected or falls under what the constitution had written for religious activities or regarding the religions in which it was intended for (IMHO) or should such a religion be recognized by the American government at all or it shouldn't be until it cleans up it's act. How many more attempts at bombings or actual bombings must we chance to them, if they are different than the religions we have had here since the beginning, and have been living in peace pretty much with since the beginning ? I don't think there are to many now whom want to take to many more chances with a radical wing of this religion, and the problem is, is that they can live within the religious confounds of the religion until they (the radicals)strike, so what to do what to do ? If we can't get a group of people to police themselves, and to let others know who is amongst them that are bad or a threat, then Houston we have a major problem now don't we ?

You may be starting from a false premise here (in bold). Again, two assholes (not a religion) committed the bombing in Boston. Just as an asshole with a Ryder truck committed the bombing in Oklahoma City (not a religion) and another asshole (not a religion) bombed an abortion clinic in Birmingham, etc etc etc. The OP in his bigoted blindness wants to pin Boston on "foreign Muslims" but there's no justification whatsoever for that basis. He just wants to persecute his target because he's never met one and spends all his time immersed in television.

He would actually try to sell the idea, for example, that "Islam" committed 9/11 even though the perps clearly had a political agenda. Yet he won't pin Scott Roeder on Christianism or the Unabomber on atheism, so his logic applies only to his despised group. Which is why it's illegitimate logic, and why the premise is inoperative.

I think that all see themselves as representatives of a group or some cause within a group, whether it be religious or not, and they see themselves as being under siege in their beliefs or could be in their religious beliefs if be the case maybe or possibly, so the establishment of evidence and the facts in which leads to the truth should be priority, and to see how deep does it all go by investigation of, then the judgments can be made properly and so on and so forth, and this once find out all the details and evidence in such situations. Then it's up to the group who had been falsely represented to disown and disavow themselves from such acts and such radicalness that has gained some sort of momentum among their group or groups in false representation of or not. If a group will not separate themselves from these folks who do such bad things or think such bad things outwardly, then you find that you have a group who is supportive and cheering these people, even when they may not have direct contact with them or rather they do by evidence of.

 

[Pogo]

No, i'm just picking up on some of the post and comments being made.

Go ahead and read the whole thing, then see how you feel about the OP.

Uh Oh, so you feel by reading the whole thread, that it will make me want to get off of this thread and fight the good fight somewhere else for Americans and America ? Could be, as I have not read the whole thread that's for sure...Yikes...... I'll hang around as long as you all will, then I will bolt when you all do, is that OK ?

No, he wants you to understand where the OP's head is, so that you don't look silly defending him. That's why I posted that compendium for you. Are you afraid to read it?

 

[Pogo]

OK, it's cool to just let a religion be, but when it promotes the killing of infidels meaning us from within our own borders, and it begins to make good on such beliefs or ideals by the implementation of such acts (lets not for get those honor killings either that have taken place), then it is no longer protected or falls under what the constitution had written for religious activities or regarding the religions in which it was intended for (IMHO) or should such a religion be recognized by the American government at all or it shouldn't be until it cleans up it's act. How many more attempts at bombings or actual bombings must we chance to them, if they are different than the religions we have had here since the beginning, and have been living in peace pretty much with since the beginning ? I don't think there are to many now whom want to take to many more chances with a radical wing of this religion, and the problem is, is that they can live within the religious confounds of the religion until they (the radicals)strike, so what to do what to do ? If we can't get a group of people to police themselves, and to let others know who is amongst them that are bad or a threat, then Houston we have a major problem now don't we ?

You may be starting from a false premise here (in bold). Again, two assholes (not a religion) committed the bombing in Boston. Just as an asshole with a Ryder truck committed the bombing in Oklahoma City (not a religion) and another asshole (not a religion) bombed an abortion clinic in Birmingham, etc etc etc. The OP in his bigoted blindness wants to pin Boston on "foreign Muslims" but there's no justification whatsoever for that basis. He just wants to persecute his target because he's never met one and spends all his time immersed in television.

He would actually try to sell the idea, for example, that "Islam" committed 9/11 even though the perps clearly had a political agenda. Yet he won't pin Scott Roeder on Christianism or the Unabomber on atheism, so his logic applies only to his despised group. Which is why it's illegitimate logic, and why the premise is inoperative.

I think that all see themselves as representatives of a group or some cause within a group, whether it be religious or not, and they see themselves as being under siege in their beliefs or could be in their religious beliefs if be the case maybe or possibly, so the establishment of evidence and the facts in which leads to the truth should be priority, and to see how deep does it all go by investigation of, then the judgments can be made properly and so on and so forth, and this once find out all the details and evidence in such situations. Then it's up to the group who had been falsely represented to disown and disavow themselves from such acts and such radicalness that has gained some sort of momentum among their group or groups in false representation of or not. If a group will not separate themselves from these folks who do such bad things or think such bad things outwardly, then you find that you have a group who is supportive and cheering these people, even when they may not have direct contact with them or rather they do by evidence of.

What you're saying here if I digest all that correctly, is "guilty until proven innocent". Or in more detail, "guilty until they disavow their own religion even though we, not they, determined it to be a causation".

And that's BS.

 

[Unkotare]

No, i'm just picking up on some of the post and comments being made.

Go ahead and read the whole thing, then see how you feel about the OP.

Uh Oh, so you feel by reading the whole thread, that it will make me want to get off of this thread ...

NO, it will give you a clue as to what and who you are defending.

 

[beagle9]

You may be starting from a false premise here (in bold). Again, two assholes (not a religion) committed the bombing in Boston. Just as an asshole with a Ryder truck committed the bombing in Oklahoma City (not a religion) and another asshole (not a religion) bombed an abortion clinic in Birmingham, etc etc etc. The OP in his bigoted blindness wants to pin Boston on "foreign Muslims" but there's no justification whatsoever for that basis. He just wants to persecute his target because he's never met one and spends all his time immersed in television.

He would actually try to sell the idea, for example, that "Islam" committed 9/11 even though the perps clearly had a political agenda. Yet he won't pin Scott Roeder on Christianism or the Unabomber on atheism, so his logic applies only to his despised group. Which is why it's illegitimate logic, and why the premise is inoperative.

I think that all see themselves as representatives of a group or some cause within a group, whether it be religious or not, and they see themselves as being under siege in their beliefs or could be in their religious beliefs if be the case maybe or possibly, so the establishment of evidence and the facts in which leads to the truth should be priority, and to see how deep does it all go by investigation of, then the judgments can be made properly and so on and so forth, and this once find out all the details and evidence in such situations. Then it's up to the group who had been falsely represented to disown and disavow themselves from such acts and such radicalness that has gained some sort of momentum among their group or groups in false representation of or not. If a group will not separate themselves from these folks who do such bad things or think such bad things outwardly, then you find that you have a group who is supportive and cheering these people, even when they may not have direct contact with them or rather they do by evidence of.

What you're saying here if I digest all that correctly, is "guilty until proven innocent". Or in more detail, "guilty until they disavow their own religion even though we, not they, determined it to be a causation".

And that's BS.

How hard is it to separate ones self from a radical who has high jacked your religion or cause to commit holy war on the infidels or even religious war on the U.S. Government for that matter, example in the case of Oklahoma bombing once all the facts were in so on and so forth ? It's actually easy to separate oneself or your group from a person who may have used your religion or your groups cause to bring harm upon somebody or many in this nation, and everyone will know instantly when this happens, and will except it when it happens. I know I would as long as it is backed up.

 

[testarosa]

I'm new here and this is why I love America, this is freedom of speech at it's finest. lmao and getting acclimated and getting my courage up before I jump in and get my a$$ chewed off from one side or the other.

 

[beagle9]

Go ahead and read the whole thing, then see how you feel about the OP.

Uh Oh, so you feel by reading the whole thread, that it will make me want to get off of this thread ...

NO, it will give you a clue as to what and who you are defending.

I don't think I am defending anyone really, but just trying to make sense of it as best I can. I rather just came in on some post that were making some weird claims or rebuttals to others who are posting, and that is where I stepped in, but you could be right that I am on a thread that is not very honorable, and for that I will leave when you and pogo do. Hey what makes you think that I am not helping here also ? I may be changing the original OP's perspective on things who knows ?

 

[beagle9]

Gotta go for now, but have fun anyways... I am under the weather right now, so much so that I can barely hold my head up....yikes.... It's been interesting, but now it's time for some cough syrup and rest.

 

[Kondor3]

Take care, Beags...

 

[S.J.]

It's interesting to watch the libs talk about religious freedom when it comes to muslims coming to the U.S. to kill Americans, and then defend the Obama administration's routine attacks on the first, second, and fourth amendments. Sounds like gross hypocrisy to me.

 

[Aristotle]

It's interesting to watch the libs talk about religious freedom when it comes to muslims coming to the U.S. to kill Americans, and then defend the Obama administration's routine attacks on the first, second, and fourth amendments. Sounds like gross hypocrisy to me.

Why aren't there more Muslim attacks in Michigan seeing how Michigan has the highest percentage of Muslims in the United States?

 

[S.J.]

It's interesting to watch the libs talk about religious freedom when it comes to muslims coming to the U.S. to kill Americans, and then defend the Obama administration's routine attacks on the first, second, and fourth amendments. Sounds like gross hypocrisy to me.

Why aren't there more Muslim attacks in Michigan seeing how Michigan has the highest percentage of Muslims in the United States?

What does that have to do with what i said?

 

[Aristotle]

It's interesting to watch the libs talk about religious freedom when it comes to muslims coming to the U.S. to kill Americans, and then defend the Obama administration's routine attacks on the first, second, and fourth amendments. Sounds like gross hypocrisy to me.

Its relevant when you mention Muslims coming to the U.S to kill Americans. I want to challenge this by asking you with Michigan having the largest muslim population in the United States, why aren't there more attacks in Michigan if Muslims are coming to the United States to kill Americans.

 

[Aristotle]

*Crickets*

 

[S.J.]

*Crickets*

What do you mean, "crickets"? Just because there are more muslims in Michigan than everywhere else, doesn't mean there would be more violence in Michigan. You're desperate to make a point but you've made no point.

 

[Kondor3]

It's interesting to watch the libs talk about religious freedom when it comes to muslims coming to the U.S. to kill Americans, and then defend the Obama administration's routine attacks on the first, second, and fourth amendments. Sounds like gross hypocrisy to me.

Why aren't there more Muslim attacks in Michigan seeing how Michigan has the highest percentage of Muslims in the United States?

Ummmmm... because they're a tiny minority and don't dare show their true colors yet?

 

[Aristotle]

It's interesting to watch the libs talk about religious freedom when it comes to muslims coming to the U.S. to kill Americans, and then defend the Obama administration's routine attacks on the first, second, and fourth amendments. Sounds like gross hypocrisy to me.

Why aren't there more Muslim attacks in Michigan seeing how Michigan has the highest percentage of Muslims in the United States?

Ummmmm... because they're a tiny minority and don't dare show their true colors yet?

Wait they're a minority and wont show their true colors?

I don't understand, I thought Muslims hate this country? Surely attacks in Michigan would be prominent because there is a heavy population.

 

[Kondor3]

Why aren't there more Muslim attacks in Michigan seeing how Michigan has the highest percentage of Muslims in the United States?

Ummmmm... because they're a tiny minority and don't dare show their true colors yet?

Wait they're a minority and wont show their true colors?

I don't understand, I thought Muslims hate this country? Surely attacks in Michigan would be prominent because there is a heavy population.

Not heavy enough to tip the scales, as is beginning to happen in parts of the U.K. such as Londinistan.