Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not to ban them, but just limit their power here until we figure out exactly what their over all political goals are, and to see if said goals run contrary to what we as American's believe as citizen's of this country."Free societies are not safe" is your read ?Forbids a religious test sure, but that period in which that was written only encompassed religions that were compatible to our nation, and not any that were not compatible to our nation. So for Americans of the period there would be no religious test or challenge to the religions of the time by government to be brought against them, otherwise by using some sort of test to exclude those who were religious as American's. Foreigner's is an entire different situation, where as we aren't supposed to allow them to come here seeking to change our beliefs or religions or to push a religion upon us that is not compatible to our culture, beliefs or system here.The links in Post #75 are mostly meaningless. There are a handful of small or inconsequential nations that do not recognnize Islam as a religion. The only one of any significance is Italy. And that lack of recognition has nothing to do with Islam not being a religion and everything to do with denying Islam tax exempt status. Italy does not recognize the Hindu religion either. They do not deny either is a religion. They simply deny them religious tax exemptions.
Our constitution forbids having a religious test for holding office. And remember, the supremacy clause means the US Constitution is the law of the land.
Claiming that the times were different is the same as claiming the times were different for the 2nd Amendment.
This nation was founded on principles of religious freedom. That is why they came here.
Here is the issue. This is a nation founded on the ideals of freedom. Free societies are not safe. They never will be. There will always be risks involved in free societies.
It brings to mind a quote by Samuel Adams:
"“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
You are correct, so why is the left attempting to weaken our society by doing the very thing your posting is speaking against ?
Because fear mongering is a tried and true method of getting elected. It goes hand in hand with the shift in news coverage from a service to the public to big business. And when do people watch the news? When they are afraid. Scare the public with news stories and they will watch more and more news, which boosts ratings even more, which makes more profits.
Even this thread is a product of the fear mongering. There are 3.45 million Muslims living in the US. But the news and talk shows make it sound as though every Muslim is a blood-thirsty terrorist. So the knee-jerk reaction is to ban them.
Leftist Muslim ass-kissers perpetually try to push the idea that "the body of "Al Qaeda" does not equal the body of "Islam""KKK" is not a religion and "Islam" is not a vigilante group. You'd have to either compare political activists, e.g. KKK vs. A Qaeda, or you compare religions, Christianism vs. Islam. And of course the latter is a fallacy anyway since the body of "KKK" does not equal the body of "Christians" just as the body of "Al Qaeda" does not equal the body of "Islam", so you can't use the latter.
And either way it's irrelevant anyway since the point is entirely about CAUSATIONS, not fucking "body counts'.
Thought you'd get away with that huh. I clean up, OK?
Sometimes being of limited knowledge on some things is actually a blessing. This way I can't do what you are doing then, otherwise by attempting to twist everything into pretzels in order to attack this nations concerned citizens about some very important issues. My common sense and upbringing guides most of my opinion's here.Want to try that in English or is your anger getting the best of you ?Forbids a religious test sure, but that period in which that was written only encompassed religions that were compatible to our nation, and not any that were not compatible to our nation. So for Americans of the period there would be no religious test or challenge to the religions of the time by government to be brought against them, otherwise by using some sort of test to exclude those who were religious as American's. Foreigner's is an entire different situation, where as we aren't supposed to allow them to come here seeking to change our beliefs or religions or to push a religion upon us that is not compatible to our culture, beliefs or system here.This post is nothing more than an example of the IGNORANCE and BRAINWASHING from leftist media, common to most liberals,
1. The fact of Islam's masquerade as a religion, to shield themselves from criticism was already well explained in Post # 75 with no less than 25 links in support. Read and learn.
2. The claim that Article 6 Section 2 of the Constitution is only about federal power vs state is obviously wrong. That is in part 2 of Section 2. I referred to part 1 of the section (before the semicolon). That part of the section is EXACTLY about supremacism, which is why it contains the word "supreme"
For those too dumb (or too brainwashed ) to understand, I will separate Article 6, section 2's two parts (which contain 2 separate ideas) into different colors > Red for part 1, and blue for part 2
The use of the word "and" shows that 2 separate ideas are being expressed.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The links in Post #75 are mostly meaningless. There are a handful of small or inconsequential nations that do not recognnize Islam as a religion. The only one of any significance is Italy. And that lack of recognition has nothing to do with Islam not being a religion and everything to do with denying Islam tax exempt status. Italy does not recognize the Hindu religion either. They do not deny either is a religion. They simply deny them religious tax exemptions.
Our constitution forbids having a religious test for holding office. And remember, the supremacy clause means the US Constitution is the law of the land.
Och, it's the wee bairn of the No True Scotsman fallacy, the "No True Religion".
What a great argument. Goes down like a lump of warm haggis.
Again? Terrorists excuse terrorism? Once again the body count for the KKK is sadly lacking compared to Islam.The klu Klux clan using or attempting to adopt Christianity in order to justify it's beliefs or disgusting activities, uh is a failed attempt by the left to use the klu Klux clan as a means to attack Christianity. Always remember that people aren't dumb about these things, and people know how to discern between the good and the bad within the world. One might think that all blacks are victim's in America, and that because of this thinking that any action taken by a black against his fellow man out of anger, might be justified or an excuse can be made for it, but people are smarter than this crazy notion as well. Doesn't stop the race card from being thrown willy nilly, but whose counting anymore right ??
Actually the Klan required that any incoming member be a Christian, and specifically a Protestant one.
The big Klan, the one we have all the pictures of, the one that spread nationwide, was founded by an ex-Methodist minister, using a bible, an unsheathed sword and an American flag. Stone Mountain Georgia, Thanksgiving 1915.
It's right here on the application forms.
"Christian terrorism" if you like. Their targets included Jews, Catholics, immigrants in general, labor unions, blacks, drunks (Klan were strongly pro-Prohibition) and adulterers, philanderers and "loose women". I call 'em a Christian Taliban.
Klanners would often walk into church services, in full regalia, and make donations.
There was at least one occasion they pulled a (white) woman out of her house and whipped her for the 'crime' of "not going to church". When her fifteen year old son came out to defend her, they whipped him too. They were heavy into the flagellation thing.
And now a similarly-partisan hack Scotsman picking cherries moves on to the Apples and Oranges fallacy. Fruity, dood.
"KKK" is not a religion and "Islam" is not a vigilante group. You'd have to either compare political activists, e.g. KKK vs. A Qaeda, or you compare religions, Christianism vs. Islam. And of course the latter is a fallacy anyway since the body of "KKK" does not equal the body of "Christians" just as the body of "Al Qaeda" does not equal the body of "Islam", so you can't use the latter.
And either way it's irrelevant anyway since the point is entirely about CAUSATIONS, not fucking "body counts'.
Thought you'd get away with that huh. I clean up, OK?
So lemme guess. You have no clue what the No True Scotsman fallacy is. Want some haggis?
I love the poorly educated. They're such cat toys.
Every discussion such as this becomes a battle between those who know what Islam is all about and those who don't know the first thing about it or especially its history of conquest.
The latter group invariably defends it through a number of fallacious means, most notably by pretending that those resisting it's totalitarian, supremacist nature are reacting to an ethnicity, not a political doctrine. They have been trained to do so through a simple conditioned response, and literally salivate every time the Islam dinner bell rings.
While I don't think a nominal Muslim should be prevented from serving office, I find all the bloviating p.c. leftist crap as irritating as it is ignorant. Shouldn't people be expected to know at least a LITTLE something about subject matter before holding forth with their prattle?
PS =- the liberal catchprase "fear mongering" has already fizzled out, along with white supremacist, Nazi, divisive, and tolerance.
100% wrong. When one can find passages in the holy text that literally spell out their bad actions, we have to put some blame on the religion, or we are not having an honest discussion. We have to be able to point at the immoral parts and say, "stop doing that", without a bunch of feckless, spineless sissies throwing themselves, unsolicited , in front of a bad set of ideas like human shields.Hmm, no, that's wrong, too. We can also put some blame on the religion. It's not an all or nothing proposal.The Christian's didn't require their members to be only of the klansman duh.... See how that works ? So it is that some denominations get weird or stupid. What Cha gonna do right ?The klu Klux clan using or attempting to adopt Christianity in order to justify it's beliefs or disgusting activities, uh is a failed attempt by the left to use the klu Klux clan as a means to attack Christianity. Always remember that people aren't dumb about these things, and people know how to discern between the good and the bad within the world. One might think that all blacks are victim's in America, and that because of this thinking that any action taken by a black against his fellow man out of anger, might be justified or an excuse can be made for it, but people are smarter than this crazy notion as well. Doesn't stop the race card from being thrown willy nilly, but whose counting anymore right ??
Actually the Klan required that any incoming member be a Christian, and specifically a Protestant one.
The big Klan, the one we have all the pictures of, the one that spread nationwide, was founded by an ex-Methodist minister, using a bible, an unsheathed sword and an American flag. Stone Mountain Georgia, Thanksgiving 1915.
It's right here on the application forms.
Klanners would often walk into church services, in full regalia, and make donations.
There was at least one occasion they pulled a (white) woman out of her house and whipped her for the 'crime' of "not going to church". When her fifteen year old son came out to defend her, they whipped him too. They were heavy into the flagellation thing. "Christian terrorism" if you like. Their targets included Jews, Catholics, immigrants in general, labor unions, blacks, drunks (Klan were strongly pro-Prohibition) and adulterers, philanderers and "loose women". I call 'em a Christian Taliban.
The ultimate point being, the fact that the Klan held up the Holey Babble as its mascot, does not mean the Holey Babble offered itself to the Klan for that purpose. So while we can accurately describe them as "Christian terrorists", we cannot reverse-engineer that and claim Christianism therefore was their causation.
Same thing with Islam and spectacular political acts.
In short, correlation does not equal causation.
Correct. But the Klan did require their members to be Christians.
If I need to put it in even smaller words, the religion isn't responsible for the terrorism. The terrorists are responsible for the terrorism.
Sounds easy, doesn't it?
No, we cannot do that, squirm to get out of losing the point though you may. Christianism never told the Klan to "go ye forth and lynch the black people". Nor did it tell them to "smite the labor unions", "dash the alcoholics' heads against the rocks", or "whippeth ye yon maiden for she does not go to church". They came up with that shit..
As I also said above, David Duke keeps running as a Republican. That doesn't mean the Republican Party went and asked him to.
In both cases they're trying to ride a horse they think will get them places. Nobody asked the horse.
HO ly FUCKing SHIT summa y'all are dense as a box o' rocks.
It's an illustration of reform OF christianism. Please pay attention. You are rabid and making silly errors.Again, NO it is NOT "an illustration of reform" by Christianism
Leftists like to blabber about things from 60 years ago. PBS puts on neverending "shows" of old, back & white footages of civil rights campaigns, skirmishes between cops and protestors, ample supply of Jim Crow stuff, to do what ? make people think all this is still going on today ? To create a mood of anti-estabishment, anti-government, andNumber one, Spunkles, NOBODY KNOWS how many lynchings might be attributed to Klan elements versus how many by non-Klan elements. You DO NOT have those stats, I guarantee it*. Moreover this childish bullshit about limiting the Klan to "blacks" because that's all your tiny little mind can deal with is further dishonesty. The KKK went after blacks, Jews, Catholics, immigrants, labor unions, drunks, philanderers, "loose women", gamblers, debtors and basically anybody who didn't play the white Euro Christian Protestant role. That's why I call 'em the American Taliban.
So you admit that this is just an excersize in self-aggrandizing for you, and not one of true substance regarding the core issue ??Every discussion such as this becomes a battle between those who know what Islam is all about and those who don't know the first thing about it or especially its history of conquest.
The latter group invariably defends it through a number of fallacious means, most notably by pretending that those resisting it's totalitarian, supremacist nature are reacting to an ethnicity, not a political doctrine. They have been trained to do so through a simple conditioned response, and literally salivate every time the Islam dinner bell rings.
While I don't think a nominal Muslim should be prevented from serving office, I find all the bloviating p.c. leftist crap as irritating as it is ignorant. Shouldn't people be expected to know at least a LITTLE something about subject matter before holding forth with their prattle?
Not necessarily. When you see some fool prattling on and on spewing logical fallacy after logical fallacy after logical fallacy, it's child's play to simply call out the fallacy itself. I've made a whole career of it here. And I couldn't have done that if there weren't so many fallacious arguments flailing about expecting different results.
This thread has been a treasure trove. We've seen Strawmen, Special Pleading, Cherrypicking, Sweeping Generalizations for miles, endless Appeal to Emotion, No True Scotsman, and of course at the base of all of them the good ol' cum hoc ergo propter hoc. It's a fallacy hunter's wet dream up in here. If we could harness the fallacy energy from this thread alone Manhattan would never have gone dark last night.
Do we hear the supposed "good guy Muslims" asking for changes to the Koran ? If anybody has any info on that, let's hear it.
Leftists like to blabber about things from 60 years ago. PBS puts on neverending "shows" of old, back & white footages of civil rights campaigns, skirmishes between cops and protestors, ample supply of Jim Crow stuff, to do what ? make people think all this is still going on today ? To create a mood of anti-estabishment, anti-government, andNumber one, Spunkles, NOBODY KNOWS how many lynchings might be attributed to Klan elements versus how many by non-Klan elements. You DO NOT have those stats, I guarantee it*. Moreover this childish bullshit about limiting the Klan to "blacks" because that's all your tiny little mind can deal with is further dishonesty. The KKK went after blacks, Jews, Catholics, immigrants, labor unions, drunks, philanderers, "loose women", gamblers, debtors and basically anybody who didn't play the white Euro Christian Protestant role. That's why I call 'em the American Taliban.
Southern Poverty Laughingstock Center does the same thing. They fill their coffer$$$ by sending out mail asking for donations$$, while scaring paranoid liberals half to death, with worthless stories about neo-nazis, KKK, and other such mostly impotent extremist groups of the past.
Just more hypocrisy of the left, because on one hand they want to erase history, and yet on the other hand they want to keep it alive and well for the purpose of promoting white guilt etc.Leftists like to blabber about things from 60 years ago. PBS puts on neverending "shows" of old, back & white footages of civil rights campaigns, skirmishes between cops and protestors, ample supply of Jim Crow stuff, to do what ? make people think all this is still going on today ? To create a mood of anti-estabishment, anti-government, andNumber one, Spunkles, NOBODY KNOWS how many lynchings might be attributed to Klan elements versus how many by non-Klan elements. You DO NOT have those stats, I guarantee it*. Moreover this childish bullshit about limiting the Klan to "blacks" because that's all your tiny little mind can deal with is further dishonesty. The KKK went after blacks, Jews, Catholics, immigrants, labor unions, drunks, philanderers, "loose women", gamblers, debtors and basically anybody who didn't play the white Euro Christian Protestant role. That's why I call 'em the American Taliban.
Southern Poverty Laughingstock Center does the same thing. They fill their coffer$$$ by sending out mail asking for donations$$, while scaring paranoid liberals half to death, with worthless stories about neo-nazis, KKK, and other such mostly impotent extremist groups of the past.
So you admit that this is just an excersize in self-aggrandizing for you, and not one of true substance regarding the core issue ??Every discussion such as this becomes a battle between those who know what Islam is all about and those who don't know the first thing about it or especially its history of conquest.
The latter group invariably defends it through a number of fallacious means, most notably by pretending that those resisting it's totalitarian, supremacist nature are reacting to an ethnicity, not a political doctrine. They have been trained to do so through a simple conditioned response, and literally salivate every time the Islam dinner bell rings.
While I don't think a nominal Muslim should be prevented from serving office, I find all the bloviating p.c. leftist crap as irritating as it is ignorant. Shouldn't people be expected to know at least a LITTLE something about subject matter before holding forth with their prattle?
Not necessarily. When you see some fool prattling on and on spewing logical fallacy after logical fallacy after logical fallacy, it's child's play to simply call out the fallacy itself. I've made a whole career of it here. And I couldn't have done that if there weren't so many fallacious arguments flailing about expecting different results.
This thread has been a treasure trove. We've seen Strawmen, Special Pleading, Cherrypicking, Sweeping Generalizations for miles, endless Appeal to Emotion, No True Scotsman, and of course at the base of all of them the good ol' cum hoc ergo propter hoc. It's a fallacy hunter's wet dream up in here. If we could harness the fallacy energy from this thread alone Manhattan would never have gone dark last night.
You are the stupid one, for throwing a lot of worthless junk into the thread that people aren't familiar with, don't recognize, and couldn't care less. You're a very poor poster for a number of reasons, and putting form above content isn't the least of them.Every time I think I've got an idea how fucking stupid you are, you show me that I underestimated.
If you were the only one intended to receive learning, the valid argument of the thread might just as well never have been posted. Learning doesn't seem to be your forte'I admit that pointing out "your argument is complete bullshit" is grabbing low-hanging fruit. That's most of what I do here, because the argument is THAT bad. It's only when a valid argument is made than anybody learns anything, but that clearly was never the purpose of this thread, was it.
Blabber on, if it makes you feel good. That's about all you're doing, Mr Form Above Content; Style Above Substance. Proceed with your show.This thread has been a treasure trove. We've seen Strawmen, Special Pleading, Cherrypicking, Sweeping Generalizations for miles, endless Appeal to Emotion, No True Scotsman, and of course at the base of all of them the good ol' cum hoc ergo propter hoc. It's a fallacy hunter's wet dream up in here. If we could harness the fallacy energy from this thread alone Manhattan would never have gone dark last night.
Even as we speak here's the Fallacist-in-Chief, overtly denying that such fallacies exist, in this case the Appeal to Emotion.
Roll tape.
PS =- the liberal catchprase "fear mongering" has already fizzled out, along with white supremacist, Nazi, divisive, and tolerance.
It was the one thing they had right.And here is reform of bad religion by secular means, in action, today:
Like Americans overall, Muslims now more accepting of homosexuality
The Muslim holy texts spell out exactly what muslims should think and do about gays. And it's not pretty. But yet, in just ten years, the proportion of american muslims accepting of homosexuality has doubled.
Did the Quran change? Did the Hadiths change? Nope.
So, what changed?
Obvious answer.
Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to serve hors d'oeuvres? Somebody has to serve, can't have Mexicans leaving the fields after allA year ago, there was a thread entitled >> "Do Republicans believe a Muslim should be allowed to serve in public office if elected?" I'm now answering that by saying No, Republicans don't believe Muslims should be allowed to serve in public office, elected or not. Furthermore, no American should be OK with Muslims serving in public office.
First of all, in America, Islam is sedition, by virtue of it's supremacism, which is in violation of the Constitution (article 6, section 2, part 1-the Supremacy Clause).
Secondly, Islam is an ideology (masquerading as a religion), which advocates (if not commands) the violation of scores of US laws, including some of the most serious felonies (ex. murder, rape, pedophilia, slavery, sex discrimination)
Not only should Muslims not be part of government in America, but Islam should not exist in America, period. There should be no mosques, no Korans, no Islamic centers, etc
Blabber on, if it makes you feel good. That's about all you're doing, Mr Form Above Content; Style Above Substance. Proceed with your show.This thread has been a treasure trove. We've seen Strawmen, Special Pleading, Cherrypicking, Sweeping Generalizations for miles, endless Appeal to Emotion, No True Scotsman, and of course at the base of all of them the good ol' cum hoc ergo propter hoc. It's a fallacy hunter's wet dream up in here. If we could harness the fallacy energy from this thread alone Manhattan would never have gone dark last night.
Even as we speak here's the Fallacist-in-Chief, overtly denying that such fallacies exist, in this case the Appeal to Emotion.
Roll tape.
PS =- the liberal catchprase "fear mongering" has already fizzled out, along with white supremacist, Nazi, divisive, and tolerance.
Not as you "said"...but as you BABBLED, in your usual, indistinguishable gobbledegook. But then you're not trying to communicate. Your goal is self-aggrandizement, mixed with delusion.Whelp, I never said my list of fallacies was complete. Thank you for pointing out that Tu Quoque is a player too.
As I said --- a fallacy hunter's wet dream.
