Bill Cosby

[Sinfix_15]

Bill Cosby: We Should All Be More Like Muslims - Fox Nation (http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/06/10/bill-cosby-we-should-all-be-more-muslims)

The iconic stand-up and star of the beloved sitcom The Cosby Show routinely weighs in on cultural matters.
This past weekend, Cosby penned an op-ed for The New York Post in which he detailed some of the flaws in modern society. He also suggested we should take a page out of the Koran if we want to have healthier families, less crime and more productive people.
I’m a Christian. But Muslims are misunderstood. Intentionally misunderstood. We should all be more like them. They make sense, especially with their children. There is no other group like the Black Muslims, who put so much effort into teaching children the right things, they don’t smoke, they don’t drink or overindulge in alcohol, they protect their women, they command respect. And what do these other people do?
They complain about them, they criticize them. We’d be a better world if we emulated them. We don’t have to become black Muslims, but we can embrace the things that work.


245129

[bu villain]

I think you are missing the point. He is suggesting we live like the people "who put so much effort into teaching children the right things, they don’t smoke, they don’t drink or overindulge in alcohol, they protect their women, they command respect." I'm pretty sure he is not recommending we act like violent Islamic radicals. If he said we should take a page from the bible, I wouldn't assume he meant we should all act like Westboro Baptist Church.

[Sinfix_15]

I think you are missing the point. He is suggesting we live like the people "who put so much effort into teaching children the right things, they don’t smoke, they don’t drink or overindulge in alcohol, they protect their women, they command respect." I'm pretty sure he is not recommending we act like violent Islamic radicals. If he said we should take a page from the bible, I wouldn't assume he meant we should all act like Westboro Baptist Church.

Good way to teach our kids.
TheReligionofPeace - Islam: Taqiyya and Lying (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/011-taqiyya.htm)

[Sinfix_15]

Also, help me understand what is unique about a black muslim and a muslim?

[RandomGuy]

one is better at basketball

[.blank cd]

Islamophobic thread is Islamophobic

[Sinfix_15]

Islamophobic thread is Islamophobic

Me simply quoting Bill Cosby is Islamophobic....

I find it funny how a christian bashing atheist is such an "Islamaphiliac". I guess it's just the hive mind. Anything other black people support, you must support.

Who is the queen bee? Oprah or Beyonce?

[.blank cd]

Me simply quoting Bill Cosby is Islamophobic....

I find it funny how a christian bashing atheist is such an "Islamaphiliac". I guess it's just the hive mind. Anything other black people support, you must support.

Who is the queen bee? Oprah or Beyonce?

You taking a quote from Cosby out of context, and then sticking a picture of a killer next to it is islamophobic.

I've never once bashed Christianity

[Sinfix_15]

You taking a quote from Cosby out of context, and then sticking a picture of a killer next to it is islamophobic.

I've never once bashed Christianity

It's a picture of a black muslim....

[Sinfix_15]

Blacks recruited for terror by al-Qaida (http://www.wnd.com/2007/05/41700/)

[bu villain]

Good way to teach our kids.
TheReligionofPeace - Islam: Taqiyya and Lying (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/011-taqiyya.htm)

I'm afraid that site is a little untrustworthy since the main banner on its front page says Islam is "one really messed up religion". It's very easy to misrepresent what a religion is about should that be your goal. Likewise, I do not condemn Judaism even though the Old Testament is full of despicable acts and rules?


Also, help me understand what is unique about a black muslim and a muslim?

I'm assuming you are asking about the difference between the two. He is probably referring to black muslims because he is not personally familiar with many non-black muslims. Self titled black muslims have some cultural differences from middle eastern muslims, which also have differences from southeast asian muslims or African muslims. Think of how Lutherans and Methodist are both Christians but have different interpretations of certain aspect of Christianity. It's similar to that.

[bu villain]

It's a picture of a black muslim....

And Timothy McVeigh was a white Christian. Taking the worst example of a group is not a valid argument against a group as a whole. You are trying to prove guilt by association.

[Sinfix_15]

And Timothy McVeigh was a white Christian. Taking the worst example of a group is not a valid argument against a group as a whole. You are trying to prove guilt by association.

I see the potential for radicalization in all religion. I also see a history of violence and oppression with all religion. Every religion needs to be "kept on a leash", especially Islam. With the blood on the sidewalk still wet from the latest radical muslim terrorist attack, pardon me for thinking Bill Cosby is an ignorant jackass for using his platform to put out a muslim apologist statement.

[bu villain]

I see the potential for radicalization in all religion. I also see a history of violence and oppression with all religion. Every religion needs to be "kept on a leash", especially Islam. With the blood on the sidewalk still wet from the latest radical muslim terrorist attack, pardon me for thinking Bill Cosby is an ignorant jackass for using his platform to put out a muslim apologist statement.

I didn't see him apologize for anything but I also didn't read the original op-ed because you didn't link to it. Bill Cosby has said some crazy shit in his day but the particular statement you quoted doesn't stand out to me as anything to get worked up over. I believe in the wake of an muslim terrorist attack is an appropriate time to remind people of the good values most muslims have. Keep in mind, like you, I think we would probably all be better off without organized religion as we know it.

[.blank cd]

Another black man is an ignorant jackass for supporting something you don't agree with. Color me fucking surprised.

Anyone else seeing a pattern here?

[BanginJimmy]

Another black man is an ignorant jackass for supporting something you don't agree with. Color me fucking surprised.

Anyone else seeing a pattern here?

I see the pattern, its funny cause you have one thats a mirror image of his.


On topic, Sinfix is taking Cosby completely out of context and focusing only on the word Muslim. Devout Muslims actually do live by a very strict regime that includes taking care of their bodies. A lot of Americans can learn from them.

And, I still distrust devout muslims, but lets not confuse the teachings with the teacher.

[Sinfix_15]

Another black man is an ignorant jackass for supporting something you don't agree with. Color me fucking surprised.

Anyone else seeing a pattern here?

Another ignorant jackass being defended by you for being a black man. color me fucking surprised.

Anyone else seeing a pattern here?

[Sinfix_15]

I see the pattern, its funny cause you have one thats a mirror image of his.


On topic, Sinfix is taking Cosby completely out of context and focusing only on the word Muslim. Devout Muslims actually do live by a very strict regime that includes taking care of their bodies. A lot of Americans can learn from them.

And, I still distrust devout muslims, but lets not confuse the teachings with the teacher.

You could say "we could all be a little more like Hitler", speaking to his determination, but you wouldnt want to say something like that. I'm sure someone like Bill Cosby would be offended.

[Echonova]

Where is Richard Pryor when we need him the most?

[.blank cd]

I see the pattern, its funny cause you have one thats a mirror image of his.And what pattern might that be? Providing you with facts where you can't find any? That's definitely the mirror image of Sinfix.

[BanginJimmy]

And what pattern might that be? Providing you with facts where you can't find any? That's definitely the mirror image of Sinfix.

Even your responses are the same. I am actually starting to think you 2 are 1 person. Maybe bipolar, maybe trolling. Definitely not sane and serious.

[Browning151]

And what pattern might that be? Providing you with facts where you can't find any? That's definitely the mirror image of Sinfix.

You are as willfully ignorant as you claim Sinfix to be, only yours comes with a side of perceived intellectual superiority.

[.blank cd]

You are as willfully ignorant as you claim Sinfix to be, only yours comes with a side of perceived intellectual superiority.

Willfully ignorant of what?

[Echonova]

You are as willfully ignorant as you claim Sinfix to be, only yours comes with a side of perceived intellectual superiority.


Willfully ignorant of what?Masterfully done.



http://i1084.photobucket.com/albums/j402/Echonova2/81233665.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

Even your responses are the same. I am actually starting to think you 2 are 1 person. Maybe bipolar, maybe trolling. Definitely not sane and serious.

we're not the same person. I have a bigger penis and am better at basketball.

[bu villain]

You could say "we could all be a little more like Hitler", speaking to his determination, but you wouldnt want to say something like that. I'm sure someone like Bill Cosby would be offended.

That is not the best comparison because Hitler is one man whose bad qualities far outweighed the good ones thereby making it difficult to separate the good qualities from the bad. Muslims are a group of over 1 billion people who by in large are peaceful. If someone said that Hitler's determination and cunning was impressive, I don't think you would get that much backlash. It is all about how you present the argument and how clearly you separate the good aspects from the bad.

[Sinfix_15]

That is not the best comparison because Hitler is one man whose bad qualities far outweighed the good ones thereby making it difficult to separate the good qualities from the bad. Muslims are a group of over 1 billion people who by in large are peaceful. If someone said that Hitler's determination and cunning was impressive, I don't think you would get that much backlash. It is all about how you present the argument and how clearly you separate the good aspects from the bad.

And who is the decider that the good qualities of islam far outweigh the bad?

[BanginJimmy]

And who is the decider that the good qualities of islam far outweigh the bad?

Certainly not you.

[.blank cd]

And who is the decider that the good qualities of islam far outweigh the bad?

Facts and statistics for starters.

[BanginJimmy]

Facts and statistics for starters.


Too broad and divsrse of a group to even use stats to back up any particular argument. Just like any facts and stats to define Christianity would have to be narrowed down to account for each particular sect.

[.blank cd]

Too broad and divsrse of a group to even use stats to back up any particular argument. Just like any facts and stats to define Christianity would have to be narrowed down to account for each particular sect.

There's a solid billion Muslims in the world, if *more* than 500m are NOT murderous radical fundamentalists, Id say that the good qualities outweigh the bad.

This message brought to you by math.

[BanginJimmy]

There's a solid billion Muslims in the world, if less than 500m are NOT murderous radical fundamentalists, Id say that the good qualities outweigh the bad.

This message brought to you by math.

You're too stupid for this conversation.


This message brought to you by reality.

[Browning151]

There's a solid billion Muslims in the world, if less than 500m are NOT murderous radical fundamentalists, Id say that the good qualities outweigh the bad.

This message brought to you by math.

Uh, less than half are NOT radicals? Doesn't that make the non radicals a minority?


I think Jimmy may be on to something......

[.blank cd]

Typo. Don't put your own carts before the horse.

[Sinfix_15]

Certainly not you.


003.054
YUSUFALI: And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah.
PICKTHAL: And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.
SHAKIR: And they planned and Allah (also) planned, and Allah is the best of planners.

003.055
YUSUFALI: Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.


The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same.





So i am to trust a religion that specifically tells me it is going to deceive me? Especially when said religion stands against every aspect of the american lifestyle.

[Sinfix_15]

And if i dont trust them....

YUSUFALI: Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.
PICKTHAL: Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in the world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained.
SHAKIR: Surely (as for) those who speak evil things of Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and the here after, and He has prepared for them a chastisement bringing disgrace.

[Sinfix_15]

Some more reading material from this great religion....

Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/024-qmt.php#024.013)

[bu villain]

Sinflix, don't you think actions of a vast majority of Muslims are much more important than the words in the book they claim to follow?

[RandomGuy]

And who is the decider that the good qualities of islam far outweigh the bad?
Bill Cosby, apparently

[Sinfix_15]

Sinflix, don't you think actions of a vast majority of Muslims are much more important than the words in the book they claim to follow?

Not when the book they claim to follow has led some portion of them into believing that killing americans is their ticket to heaven.

[bu villain]

Not when the book they claim to follow has led some portion of them into believing that killing americans is their ticket to heaven.

I strongly disagree with that mentality. Do you judge Christians the same way? That is, by how the most heinous among them interpret the bible?

[Sinfix_15]

I strongly disagree with that mentality. Do you judge Christians the same way? That is, by how the most heinous among them interpret the bible?

Christianity is a lot less radical than Islam....

Did you take the time to read any of the scripture i've posted?

[Echonova]

Ladies and gentlemen, can I please have your attention. I've just been handed an urgent and horrifying news story. I need all of you, to stop what you're doing and listen.


White House: Syria crosses 'red line' with use of chemical weapons - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/politics/syria-us-chemical-weapons/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

We are going to give military support to the Syrian rebels.

[Sinfix_15]

Ladies and gentlemen, can I please have your attention. I've just been handed an urgent and horrifying news story. I need all of you, to stop what you're doing and listen.


White House: Syria crosses 'red line' with use of chemical weapons - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/politics/syria-us-chemical-weapons/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

We are going to give military support to the Syrian rebels.

They should just mail the rebels a case full of "gun free zone" signs and deliver a speech telling them not to listen to the voices that tell them tyranny is always lurking right around the corner.

[bu villain]

Christianity is a lot less radical than Islam....

That seems like a very subjective thing to me. Some Muslims may be more "radical" than most Christians but I wouldn't consider most Muslims "radical" either.


Did you take the time to read any of the scripture i've posted?

Yes I read them but I don't know the context of the Koran very well so I'm not going to jump to any conclusions. Like I said, the Old Testament has a lot of really crazy shit in it but I also know that Jews don't follow all the rules in it. I apply the same criteria to Islam. I'm more concerned with people's actions than trying to guess how literally they take every aspect of their holy book.

[.blank cd]

Christianity is a lot less radical than Islam...

This is false. Are you not aware of radical factions of Christianity? It's easy to miss since it doesn't happen in America that often

You do know there's a reality outside of your personal bubble, right?

[Sinfix_15]

This is false. Are you not aware of radical factions of Christianity? It's easy to miss since it doesn't happen in America that often

You do know there's a reality outside of your personal bubble, right?

I'm aware of the bat shit crazy christians in the world.
http://www.blackpast.org/files/blackpast_images/wright_jeremiah_0.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

The power of indoctrination and propaganda on display here.

Two people siding against the prominent religion of their home country to defend the prominent religion of conflict nations who also happen to despise everything about our home country.

[.blank cd]

The power of indoctrination and propaganda on display here.

Two people siding against the prominent religion of their home country to defend the prominent religion of conflict nations who also happen to despise everything about our home country.

You literally have no idea what you're talking about do you?

[Sinfix_15]

You literally have no idea what you're talking about do you?

Educate me....

provide me with a story that took place in the last 50 years where a christian committed a terrorist attack in the name of christ that is even remotely comparable to any of the muslim terrorist attacks....

Where you specifically have muslims saying..."islam is why i did this"...

What you've currently been doing is saying "Christian B got a speeding ticket, he was speeding because hes a christian"....


yet you keep ignoring all the muslim terrorist attacks where we even have video of the people saying " ISLAM IS WHY I DID THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE ARE GOING TO KEEP DOING THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BECAUSE OF ISLAM......."

That is how you operate. You jump to conclusions and make assumptions against your opposition and then give the cause you support every single benefit of the doubt possible.

[Sinfix_15]

Timothy McVeigh's attack had nothing to do with christianity.... nothing at all.....

yet you keep using him as an example of christian terrorism......

Show me terrorist attacks where christianity is the cause...... because we have plenty where Islam is.

[Sinfix_15]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_sAZrW8zQcec/TRWqoi0cdYI/AAAAAAAADAU/a0HDwhQI11Y/s400/muslim-outrage.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQzKutJs93qi-QIovQbwG2L22WHjQO2uIBtUf8CD3hZw70wiFJnPQ

http://barenakedislam.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/abullah-hakim-quick-image-from-harrys-place.jpg

http://www.instablogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/islam-will-dominate-the-world_OmYeq_16105.bmp

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003190671/4119622555_1Islam_dominate1_xlarge.jpeg

[Sinfix_15]

http://www.first-amendment-rights.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/April-29-Protecting-Terrorists.jpg

[.blank cd]

Show me terrorist attacks where christianity is the cause...... because we have plenty where Islam is.Just tell me when to stop

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutaree

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripura_rebellion

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(USA)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Rudolph

Do you need more examples of Christian terrorism? Or is that good enough?

[Sinfix_15]

Just tell me when to stop

Hutaree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutaree)

Insurgency in Northeast India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripura_rebellion)

2011 Norway attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks)

Lord's Resistance Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army)

Army of God (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(USA))

Eric Rudolph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Rudolph)

Do you need more examples of Christian terrorism? Or is that good enough?

Looks as if you cant read. You literally have no idea what you're talking about do you?

[.blank cd]

Looks as if you cant read. You literally have no idea what you're talking about do you?

Did you not just ask for examples of Christian terrorism?

Or did you want examples that only fit your unique definition of terrorism?

[Sinfix_15]

Did you not just ask for examples of Christian terrorism?

Or did you want examples that only fit your unique definition of terrorism?

You listed a bunch of christian groups, not specific acts. Most of your links were to groups outside of the united states. Even giving you credit for all of them, they dont ad up to 1 muslim attack.

Show me a specific attack, in the united states, where a terrorist committed a terrorist act in the name of christianity, where they claimed religion as their reason for committing that act of terrorism.

A muslim can blow up a building, kill 1000 people, say "death to america, i did this because of islam" and the response is always "dont call them islamist terrorist"

[.blank cd]

You listed a bunch of christian groups, not specific acts. Most of your links were to groups outside of the united states. Even giving you credit for all of them, they dont ad up to 1 muslim attack.

Show me a specific attack, in the united states, where a terrorist committed a terrorist act in the name of christianity, where they claimed religion as their reason for committing that act of terrorism.
So you didn't read any of the links I posted. Why am I not surprised.

Religious Terrorism is terrorism, whether its done in the name of Christian beliefs or Islamic beliefs. Whether 5 people are killed in the process or 5000.

You can't make up unique definitions of concepts that already exists and dismiss them when they don't conform. Lol

[Sinfix_15]

So you didn't read any of the links I posted. Why am I not surprised.

Religious Terrorism is terrorism, whether its done in the name of Christian beliefs or Islamic beliefs. Whether 5 people are killed in the process or 5000.

You can't make up unique definitions of concepts that already exists and dismiss them when they don't conform. Lol

You linked this as an example of christian terrorism.

Various groups are involved in the Insurgency in Northeast India, India's north east states, which are connected to the rest of India by a narrow strip of land known as the Siliguri Corridor.In the region several armed factions operate. Some groups call for a separate state, others for regional autonomy while some extreme groups demand complete independence.

Northeastern India consists of 7 states (also known as the seven sisters): Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, and Nagaland. Tensions exist between these states and the central government as well as amongst the tribal people, who are natives of these states, and migrant peoples from other parts of India.

The states have accused New Delhi of ignoring the issues concerning them.[citation needed] A feeling of second-class citizenship meted out to them by the rest of India has led the natives of these states to seek greater participation in self-governance. There are existing territorial disputes between Manipur and Nagaland, Nagaland and Assam, Meghalaya and Assam, and Mizoram and Assam, often based on historical border disputes and differing ethnic, tribal or cultural affinities.[citation needed] There has been a number of insurgent activities and regional movements in all parts of the northeast, often unique in character to each state. Military action by the armed and paramilitary forces and political action have led to the intensity of these insurgencies fluctuating and to the resolution of the insurgency in Mizoram.[citation needed]

Regional tensions have eased off as of late, with Indian and state governments' concerted effort to raise the living standards of the people in these regions. However, militancy still exists within the region. At present insurgent activity is present in Assam, Manipur, Nagaland and Tripura.

[Sinfix_15]

So a christian killing a single person is the same as a muslim killing 2000 people in the name of islam specifically........

Even if there's is no link to christianity other than a person being christian, or if the muslim admits to committing the crime because of islam?

These actions are the same?

I just want to clarify before calling you a moron.

[Sinfix_15]

I'm going to lunch..... your stupidity has overwhelmed me today.

[.blank cd]

So what we've learned today is that if terrorism doesn't fit Sinfix' unique definition of terrorism, its not terrorism. And that he only reads what he wants to read.

[Sinfix_15]

So what we've learned today is that if terrorism doesn't fit Sinfix' unique definition of terrorism, its not terrorism. And that he only reads what he wants to read.

The topic -

Christian terrorism vs Islamic terrorism.

Your goal: provide examples of terrorism in america that can be shown to be in the name of Christ. Not simply crimes committed by christians..... but crimes committed BECAUSE of christianity.

Example: Billy reads his bible and thinks God wants him to kill penguins. Billy bombs the penguin embassy in the name of God. < Accepted.
Bad example: Billy is a christian. Billy robs a liquor store because he cant afford to pay his rent and is mad at the government. < Not accepted.



We have clean cut cases of terrorism where the terrorist says directly that he is acting on behalf of Islam............... Show me examples of this with christianity.

[.blank cd]

The topic -

Christian terrorism vs Islamic terrorism.

Your goal: provide examples of terrorism in america that can be shown to be in the name of Christ. Not simply crimes committed by christians..... but crimes committed BECAUSE of christianity.

Example: Billy reads his bible and thinks God wants him to kill penguins. Billy bombs the penguin embassy in the name of God. < Accepted.
Bad example: Billy is a christian. Billy robs a liquor store because he cant afford to pay his rent and is mad at the government. < Not accepted.



We have clean cut cases of terrorism where the terrorist says directly that he is acting on behalf of Islam............... Show me examples of this with christianity.

I gave you a list of them. Do you need more than the examples I've given?

[Sinfix_15]

I gave you a list of them. Do you need more than the examples I've given?

No, you did not.

3 of your links are on topic.

Do you really think there's as many christian terrorists as there are islamic terrorists??????????????????????????????

What do you think the death toll would be if you added up islamic terrorist attacks in the united states and then compared them to religious terrorist attacks on behalf of christianity???

10-1 ratio? 50-1 ratio????? 100-1???? 1000-1?

[Sinfix_15]

Muslim Statistics (Terrorism) - WikiIslam (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_(Terrorism)#cite_note-8)

WebCite query result (http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.threatrate.com/MEDIA/THEEVERCHANGINGPROFILEOFTHESUICIDEBOMBER/tabid/83/Default.aspx&date=2012-09-16)


"Most global jihadis are not illiterates raised in poor slums, but from well-off families and with advanced education degrees."

"2/3 of UK terror suspects are from middle-class backgrounds, 1/2 are married (some have children), and 90% can be categorized as ‘sociable’ people with a high number of friends."

"More than 45% of people convicted of Al Qaeda-associated terrorist offences in the UK have attended university/higher education institutions, or studied/achieved vocational or further education qualifications."

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/uploads/6/68/IEP_global_terrorism_index_top_10.png

[Sinfix_15]

Note: 95% of all suicide bombings world wide are committed by muslims.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/uploads/1/14/Support_for_suicide_bombing.gif

[Sinfix_15]

Islamic 'Honour' crimes against women in UK rising rapidly, figures show - Atlas Shrugs (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/12/islamic-.html)

How about we take a look at how muslims treat women.........

[Sinfix_15]

UK: Political Correctness hampers efforts against forced marriage of underage Muslim girls | BARE NAKED ISLAM (http://www.barenakedislam.com/2011/02/24/uk-political-correctness-hampers-efforts-against-forced-marriage-of-underage-muslim-girls/)


"Thousands of Muslim women are annually disfigured by acid thrown in their face for the crime of asking for a divorce. When a Muslim woman is disfigured it doesn’t even make the local paper in an Islamic country, it is not even considered a crime. At best the man responsible gets a tap on the wrist."

[bu villain]

The power of indoctrination and propaganda on display here.

Two people siding against the prominent religion of their home country to defend the prominent religion of conflict nations who also happen to despise everything about our home country.

Just because I won't condemn a billion people (Muslims) doesn't mean I am siding against Christianity. And I certainly don't despise the USA, I really have no idea where you got that idea from. I don't agree with everything we do but I think our country is pretty fucking awesome for the most part.

[Sinfix_15]

Just because I won't condemn a billion people (Muslims) doesn't mean I am siding against Christianity. And I certainly don't despise the USA, I really have no idea where you got that idea from. I don't agree with everything we do but I think our country is pretty fucking awesome for the most part.

What is it about our country that makes it "pretty fucking awesome" ? if you had to name the most important thing....

[bu villain]

What is it about our country that makes it "pretty fucking awesome" ? if you had to name the most important thing....

The fact that people like you can say the most hateful things on a public forum about the most powerful people in the world and nothing will happen to you.

[Sinfix_15]

The fact that people like you can say the most hateful things on a public forum about the most powerful people in the world and nothing will happen to you.

I agree.... that is "fucking awesome". Could i do the same thing in a predominantly muslim country? Do muslims share your/our belief in free speech? The muslims that come to america, do they think freedom of speech is "fucking awesome" too? Are they coming here to enjoy the freedoms we americans share or for some other reason? if so, what is that reason?

Lets say i wanted to dress up as "Pimp Mohammed" for holloween and walk around with 4 bikini clad "hoes" on my arms... would this be ok in a predominantly muslim country? if not... how big of a ticket would i get? would they fine me or take me to jail? what would happen?

[.blank cd]

No, you did not.

3 of your links are on topic.Every one of them were on topic if you read them.


Do you really think there's as many christian terrorists as there are islamic terrorists??????????????????????????????

What do you think the death toll would be if you added up islamic terrorist attacks in the united states and then compared them to religious terrorist attacks on behalf of christianity???

10-1 ratio? 50-1 ratio????? 100-1???? 1000-1?Death toll is not a prerequisite of terrorism.

[bu villain]

I agree.... that is "fucking awesome". Could i do the same thing in a predominantly muslim country? Do muslims share your/our belief in free speech? The muslims that come to america, do they think freedom of speech is "fucking awesome" too? Are they coming here to enjoy the freedoms we americans share or for some other reason? if so, what is that reason?

No you could not do that in a predominatly muslim country. You couldn't do that in a lot of non-muslim countries either. Some muslims do share our belief in free speech. Muslims come to America for many reasons. Most probably come for the education and economic opportunities. Many are also born here. I don't really understand what you are getting at here. I honestly believe lack of education, lack of economic opportunity, US occupation of muslim countries, and US caused civilian casualties are much more the cause of Islamic terrorism than Islam itself. Islam is just a cloak of righteousness they like to wrap their anger in.


Lets say i wanted to dress up as "Pimp Mohammed" for holloween and walk around with 4 bikini clad "hoes" on my arms... would this be ok in a predominantly muslim country? if not... how big of a ticket would i get? would they fine me or take me to jail? what would happen?

This would be significant if only muslim countries had antiquated and barbaric practices and no one else did. That is not the case however. There is correlation here, but not causation.

[Sinfix_15]

No you could not do that in a predominatly muslim country. You couldn't do that in a lot of non-muslim countries either. Some muslims do share our belief in free speech. Muslims come to America for many reasons. Most probably come for the education and economic opportunities. Many are also born here. I don't really understand what you are getting at here. I honestly believe lack of education, lack of economic opportunity, US occupation of muslim countries, and US caused civilian casualties are much more the cause of Islamic terrorism than Islam itself. Islam is just a cloak of righteousness they like to wrap their anger in.



This would be significant if only muslim countries had antiquated and barbaric practices and no one else did. That is not the case however. There is correlation here, but not causation.

So the way muslims treat women is based on a lack of education, economic opportunity, US occupation and US causes civilian casualties and not directly because of the religious practices they follow?

Is it far fetched for me to think that a culture that allows violence towards women for marital transgressions is also prone to act violently towards other opposing ideologies? or for me to be hesitant to trust these people in a country that couldnt be more polar opposite of their beliefs?

Should america change to accommodate muslims? Should we apologize to them when they respond violently to being offended by our freedom?

We embargo other countries in the name of human rights. Should we not view muslims/muslim countries in the same regard? Do you feel muslim women have rights?

[bu villain]

So the way muslims treat women is based on a lack of education, economic opportunity, US occupation and US causes civilian casualties and not directly because of the religious practices they follow?

I was referring to Islamic terrorism specifically. However, I do think poor treatment of women is due to lack of education. That does not mean it would change overnight just because they took a women's rights class because culture has a lot of momentum. But over time, I do think education would solve the issue. Not that long ago, America treated women as second class citizens. What do you think changed our beliefs? I don't think it had anything to do with religion.


Is it far fetched for me to think that a culture that allows violence towards women for marital transgressions is also prone to act violently towards other opposing ideologies? or for me to be hesitant to trust these people in a country that couldnt be more polar opposite of their beliefs?

I think its far fetched for you to think over a billion people are a single monolithic culture. I also wouldn't describe assuming they won't physically attack you as "trusting" them. I wouldn't expect you to trust them any more or less than a random Christian, Jew, Hindu, Bhuddist, or anyone else on the street.


Should america change to accommodate muslims? Should we apologize to them when they respond violently to being offended by our freedom?

We should change according to our citizens wills through our constitutional processes. Some of those citizens are mulsim, many are not. They all get their (preferably equal) say. No we shouldn't apologize for being attacked violently. We should apologize for violently killing innocent people though, which happens regularly.


We embargo other countries in the name of human rights. Should we not view muslims/muslim countries in the same regard? Do you feel muslim women have rights?

I do feel muslim women have rights. I think we should be careful trying to impose our will on other countries. As a general principle, I am fine with embargoes on countries that violate human rights though.

[Sinfix_15]

I was referring to Islamic terrorism specifically. However, I do think poor treatment of women is due to lack of education. That does not mean it would change overnight just because they took a women's rights class because culture has a lot of momentum. But over time, I do think education would solve the issue. Not that long ago, America treated women as second class citizens. What do you think changed our beliefs? I don't think it had anything to do with religion.

The way they treat women is terrorism. We do not educate terrorist. Correct me if i'm wrong, but Seal team 6 didn't kick down Bin Laden's door to read him a self help book.

Dont compare using "stay in the kitchen" jokes or women not getting paid the same as a comparison to men being allowed to rape and torture women. We shouldnt reach out to change any country, yet we can welcome any country that decides to change itself. If they dont change.... let them stay where they are.




I think its far fetched for you to think over a billion people are a single monolithic culture. I also wouldn't describe assuming they won't physically attack you as "trusting" them. I wouldn't expect you to trust them any more or less than a random Christian, Jew, Hindu, Bhuddist, or anyone else on the street.

The book says what the book says. When you claim to follow islam, i assume you do just that.... Show me another religion that tortures their women as a direct result of their religious practices. In a previous post you agreed that i wouldnt be safe in a muslim country..... why should i feel stepping on american soil is going to change their view? if they would throw acid on or rape my gf for wearing a short skirt in their country, why should i think being here changes their mentality?




We should change according to our citizens wills through our constitutional processes. Some of those citizens are mulsim, many are not. They all get their (preferably equal) say. No we shouldn't apologize for being attacked violently. We should apologize for violently killing innocent people though, which happens regularly.
The will of our citizens? what is an american citizen...... ? the "will of our citizens" is constantly being diluted by socialism. "Come to america, vote for us, we will take care of you with our tax money"




I do feel muslim women have rights. I think we should be careful trying to impose our will on other countries. As a general principle, I am fine with embargoes on countries that violate human rights though.

We should be careful of trying to impose our will on other countries while welcoming them to impose their will on us.

[bu villain]

The way they treat women is terrorism. We do not educate terrorist. Correct me if i'm wrong, but Seal team 6 didn't kick down Bin Laden's door to read him a self help book.

Dont compare using "stay in the kitchen" jokes or women not getting paid the same as a comparison to men being allowed to rape and torture women. We shouldnt reach out to change any country, yet we can welcome any country that decides to change itself. If they dont change.... let them stay where they are.

You can call brutality towards women whatever you want but it doesn't change what it is. And I wasn't talking about women jokes or equal pay, I was talking about lack of voting rights, legal rape of women slaves etc. Islam was not responsible for all the abuses women have endured in this country or in any other. The question isn't whether Islamic countries are models of women's rights, clearly they are not, it is whether or not Islam is the cause. There is too long a history of the mistreatment of women around the world to place the blame solely on Islam.


The book says what the book says. When you claim to follow islam, i assume you do just that.... Show me another religion that tortures their women as a direct result of their religious practices. In a previous post you agreed that i wouldnt be safe in a muslim country..... why should i feel stepping on american soil is going to change their view? if they would throw acid on or rape my gf for wearing a short skirt in their country, why should i think being here changes their mentality?

Again, you are equating the laws in Islamic countries (which are typically very far from democratic) with the views of the average muslim. That is not the case. Do you think all self proclaimed jews refuse to wear certain linens? Why not, it's in their holy book isn't it? Their holy book is not nearly as important as their actions and I haven't heard of any muslim in America throwing acid on a random girl in a short skirt.


The will of our citizens? what is an american citizen...... ? the "will of our citizens" is constantly being diluted by socialism. "Come to america, vote for us, we will take care of you with our tax money"

How exactly is the will of the citizens being diluted by socialism? I think what you mean is the ideals of the founding fathers are being diluted by the will of the citizens.


We should be careful of trying to impose our will on other countries while welcoming them to impose their will on us.

How are they imposing their will on us. Anything we change is at our own acceptance. No muslim army has invaded our country and killed our leaders. They haven't appointed puppet leaders for us like we have done in their countries (Shah or Iran, Hussein, Musharref, etc).

[Sinfix_15]

How exactly is the will of the citizens being diluted by socialism? I think what you mean is the ideals of the founding fathers are being diluted by the will of the citizens.

The majority of people voting for welfare programs are the ones with a prefix before american. The powers that be want to offer voting rights and tax money to anybody who takes a step over the boarder.... It's easier to buy a vote than it is to earn one, especially when you're reaching in someone else's pocket to cash the check.

[Sinfix_15]

So you admit that muslims mistreat women, but its ok because theyre not the only group in the world that does so.

You also admit that islam itself is radical, but its ok since people arent following the book word for word.





All i know is this...... it sure feels good to be an atheist.

[bu villain]

The majority of people voting for welfare programs are the ones with a prefix before american. The powers that be want to offer voting rights and tax money to anybody who takes a step over the boarder.... It's easier to buy a vote than it is to earn one, especially when you're reaching in someone else's pocket to cash the check.

What does a prefix have to do with anything. Does a prefix make them not American? If the people voluntarily give up their rights, then that is still the "will of the people". You seem to want to define "will of the people" to mean a set of ideals and values that never change but as long as people change, so does the "will of the people"

[bu villain]

So you admit that muslims mistreat women, but its ok because theyre not the only group in the world that does so.

You also admit that islam itself is radical, but its ok since people arent following the book word for word.

I admit that SOME muslims mistreat women, not ALL muslims and I never said it was okay. The Koran is not radical compared to the Old Testament in my opinion. But I do agree with your characterization that what people do is far more important than what is in any book. I don't care if someone says their holy book says to rape and murder every living creature as long as they don't actually rape anyone/anything.

[Sinfix_15]

What does a prefix have to do with anything. Does a prefix make them not American? If the people voluntarily give up their rights, then that is still the "will of the people". You seem to want to define "will of the people" to mean a set of ideals and values that never change but as long as people change, so does the "will of the people"

What you support is the will of the majority, not the will of the people. What about the will of an individual? My set of ideals and values are the principles this country was founded on and no, they shouldnt change.

[Sinfix_15]

I admit that SOME muslims mistreat women, not ALL muslims and I never said it was okay. The Koran is not radical compared to the Old Testament in my opinion. But I do agree with your characterization that what people do is far more important than what is in any book. I don't care if someone says their holy book says to rape and murder every living creature as long as they don't actually rape anyone/anything.

If your book guides you to do things that you do not believe in, then perhaps its time for you to quit claiming that religion. This is the problem with all organized religions.... people just need to belong to something.... anything... because they dont know how to exist without some manufactured purpose. Islam is a shit religion. I dont doubt that some of the moral principles contained within are not useful.... but collectively, it has radicalized a large portion of the world and is responsible for millions of women not being able to live free. I absolutely despise a religion that could hold women in such low regard and can only imagine the type of weak minded evil men who practice it. If i had to think up a benefit for this religion it would probably be that who knows what these simple minded individuals would do if not for being subdued by their fantasy existence.

It's absolutely ridiculous how much our nation caters to these rejects and apologizes for offending them. The "land of the free, home of the brave" sure is starting to sound like the land of the bleeding heart liberal pussy.

[bu villain]

If your book guides you to do things that you do not believe in, then perhaps its time for you to quit claiming that religion.

I agree but it's not for you or me to decide what religion people claim as their own.


This is the problem with all organized religions.... people just need to belong to something.... anything... because they dont know how to exist without some manufactured purpose.

I agree this is often true. This is also exactly why I say I'm more concerned with peoples actions that with what is in any book. Most people who claim a religion, do not follow it to the letter of their guiding book.


I dont doubt that some of the moral principles contained within are not useful.... but collectively, it has radicalized a large portion of the world and is responsible for millions of women not being able to live free.

This is what I am disagreeing with. I don't blame Islam for radicalization. Islam has been around for a pretty long time but it is only now that we have been the target of such terrorism. It's simply a clash of cultures. Blaming it on Islam is an oversimplification in my opinion.


It's absolutely ridiculous how much our nation caters to these rejects and apologizes for offending them. The "land of the free, home of the brave" sure is starting to sound like the land of the bleeding heart liberal pussy.

I honestly don't see how we cater to Muslims in this country. What laws have been passed to make their lives easier and non-muslims lives harder?

[Sinfix_15]

I agree but it's not for you or me to decide what religion people claim as their own.



I agree this is often true. This is also exactly why I say I'm more concerned with peoples actions that with what is in any book. Most people who claim a religion, do not follow it to the letter of their guiding book.

The ones who follow the book word for word are the radicals. I can pick something about every single religion that i like.... but i claim no religion. More people need to be free thinkers and not conform to belonging to a group. If you call yourself a Muslim, i assume you follow Islam, not cherry pick from it. Even if you dont support the radical parts of it, you're a walking advertisement for recruiting others who may be more prone to being radicalized.




This is what I am disagreeing with. I don't blame Islam for radicalization. Islam has been around for a pretty long time but it is only now that we have been the target of such terrorism. It's simply a clash of cultures. Blaming it on Islam is an oversimplification in my opinion.

I agree it's a clash of cultures..... so why bring them together? especially when one's belief is not to accept other beliefs. In america we welcome all..... but we should change that..... to we welcome all who welcome all. If you dont share our views, then GTFO.




I honestly don't see how we cater to Muslims in this country. What laws have been passed to make their lives easier and non-muslims lives harder?

Our president spent tax money running apologies in muslim countries. Our DOJ wants to make it illegal to insult islam. People like Bill Cosby lip servicing islam... people saying "dont call them islamic terrorists".... that's what they are.....

[bu villain]

What you support is the will of the majority, not the will of the people. What about the will of an individual? My set of ideals and values are the principles this country was founded on and no, they shouldnt change.

Yes the will of the people is generally the will of the majority. There are 300,000,000 individuals in this country, we can't live by all their individual wills simultaneously. They are often contradictory. Your key word in the last sentence is "shouldnt". You can argue about what everyone's ideals and values should or shouldn't be (and you should stand behind your POV while listening to others) but the reality is that ideals and values are in constant flux. Even the founders were not a monolithic group that agreed on everything.


The ones who follow the book word for word are the radicals. I can pick something about every single religion that i like.... but i claim no religion. More people need to be free thinkers and not conform to belonging to a group. If you call yourself a Muslim, i assume you follow Islam, not cherry pick from it. Even if you dont support the radical parts of it, you're a walking advertisement for recruiting others who may be more prone to being radicalized.

I agree that more free thinking would be better but when someone tells me they follow a religion, I actually assume they cherry pick from it. I have never known a single person in my life, from any religion, who followed every single detail of their claimed religion.


I agree it's a clash of cultures..... so why bring them together? especially when one's belief is not to accept other beliefs. In america we welcome all..... but we should change that..... to we welcome all who welcome all. If you dont share our views, then GTFO.

First of all, its one of our ideals. We allow all people to speak their mind whether we agree or not. Right or wrong. I think turning away people who don't share our views is antithetical to the American spirit.


Our president spent tax money running apologies in muslim countries. Our DOJ wants to make it illegal to insult islam. People like Bill Cosby lip servicing islam... people saying "dont call them islamic terrorists".... that's what they are.....

We now live in a global world. What happens in one country across the world does have an affect on us and we certainly have an effect on them. We can't bury our head in the sand and be complete isolationists. You won't change anyone's mind by avoiding them. As far as I know, it's still legal to insult Islam in this country. Bill Cosby is just one man with an opinion, it doesn't force you or anyone else to agree with him. I hear about "Islamic Terrorism" on practically a daily basis so I'm really not worried about the speech being quelled.

[Sinfix_15]

Yes the will of the people is generally the will of the majority. There are 300,000,000 individuals in this country, we can't live by all their individual wills simultaneously. They are often contradictory. Your key word in the last sentence is "shouldnt". You can argue about what everyone's ideals and values should or shouldn't be (and you should stand behind your POV while listening to others) but the reality is that ideals and values are in constant flux. Even the founders were not a monolithic group that agreed on everything.

Yes you can and the BOR was constructed in such a way for you to do just that. The first two amendments speak to the thought process. The first two things they felt the need to mention were freedom of religion, press and expression and the right to bear arms. It didnt say "freedom to study the religion of the day or religion of the region". It doesnt matter if 99% of the US is muslim and i am the 1% who isnt, the BOR was constructed to allow me to exist and in the event the rule imposed by the paper did not stand true to the majority, as a last resort, i am armed to defend myself.

In my opinion, the first two amendments are the protectors of all rights. The right to speak out about wrong doings.... and the right to fight back if they wont listen. When our government tries to remove either of those rights, then we have a serious problem.

[bu villain]

Yes you can and the BOR was constructed in such a way for you to do just that. The first two amendments speak to the thought process. The first two things they felt the need to mention were freedom of religion, press and expression and the right to bear arms. It didnt say "freedom to study the religion of the day or religion of the region". It doesnt matter if 99% of the US is muslim and i am the 1% who isnt, the BOR was constructed to allow me to exist and in the event the rule imposed by the paper did not stand true to the majority, as a last resort, i am armed to defend myself.

In my opinion, the first two amendments are the protectors of all rights. The right to speak out about wrong doings.... and the right to fight back if they wont listen. When our government tries to remove either of those rights, then we have a serious problem.

No the bill or rights doesn't allow you to enact every indivdual's will simultaneously. If 99% of the American people no longer wanted freedom of religion or the right to bear arms (which I think you are assuming all muslims want), those amendments would be repealed rather quickly. And no piece of paper will stop you from defending yourself anyway unless you allow it to.

[Sinfix_15]

No the bill or rights doesn't allow you to enact every indivdual's will simultaneously. If 99% of the American people no longer wanted freedom of religion or the right to bear arms (which I think you are assuming all muslims want), those amendments would be repealed rather quickly. And no piece of paper will stop you from defending yourself anyway unless you allow it to.

The answer to the question politicians keep asking....

"what does anyone need an AR15 for?"

[Echonova]

If your book guides you to do things that you do not believe in, then perhaps its time for you to quit claiming that religion. This is the problem with all organized religions.... people just need to belong to something.... anything... because they dont know how to exist without some manufactured purpose. Islam is a shit religion. I dont doubt that some of the moral principles contained within are not useful.... but collectively, it has radicalized a large portion of the world and is responsible for millions of women not being able to live free. I absolutely despise a religion that could hold women in such low regard and can only imagine the type of weak minded evil men who practice it. If i had to think up a benefit for this religion it would probably be that who knows what these simple minded individuals would do if not for being subdued by their fantasy existence.

It's absolutely ridiculous how much our nation caters to these rejects and apologizes for offending them. The "land of the free, home of the brave" sure is starting to sound like the land of the bleeding heart liberal pussy.I see what you did there. ;)



vvv

If you don't understand see this thread... Good times.
http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/topic/323939-evolutionists-care-discuss.html

[bu villain]

The answer to the question politicians keep asking....

"what does anyone need an AR15 for?"

I have no problem with you owning an AR-15 but don't delude yourself into thinking it will stop the repeal of the first and second amendment if that is the "will of the people".

[Sinfix_15]

I have no problem with you owning an AR-15 but don't delude yourself into thinking it will stop the repeal of the first and second amendment if that is the "will of the people".

If they ever come for our freedom, you're welcome to hand yours over without i fight. I wont be joining you.

[bu villain]

If they ever come for our freedom, you're welcome to hand yours over without i fight. I wont be joining you.

Honestly I have a hard time believing anything will be happening politically in the US in my lifetime that shooting someone will help with. But if the unimaginable happens, I will fight, with or without an AR-15.

[Sinfix_15]

Honestly I have a hard time believing anything will be happening politically in the US in my lifetime that shooting someone will help with. But if the unimaginable happens, I will fight, with or without an AR-15.

We are on that path......

[bu villain]

We are on that path......

While I agree that our liberties are being encroached upon over time, I see two general ways it could go. First, it could reach a point where most of the public says enough is enough and starts voting for representatives who will start reversing the course. Second, we could continually lose more liberty and the people will accept that as necessary or even good. I don't think having an AR-15 will affect the outcome either way though.

[Sinfix_15]

While I agree that our liberties are being encroached upon over time, I see two general ways it could go. First, it could reach a point where most of the public says enough is enough and starts voting for representatives who will start reversing the course. Second, we could continually lose more liberty and the people will accept that as necessary or even good. I don't think having an AR-15 will affect the outcome either way though.

Yeah, because americans are immune to facing the troubles that every country on this planet has faced for the entire existence of humanity. Somewhere in the world people are being killed by their own government as we speak. It's also not as cut and dry as saying it's only the government. What about in the event of a societal collapse? Something you're sure to say isnt possible, but we're already witnessing the tip of the iceberg. People told to lock up in their homes as terrorists run rampant in the streets of boston. Where was the NSA to prevent that?

Current democratic strategy is to open the boarders to anyone with a pulse who will vote D and offer them tax payer funded programs to buy their support, in addition to removing every safeguard that could stop them. What happens when the money runs out and we have streets filled with government dependents? You're so quick to blame economic opportunity for crime rates, yet you support policies that make people dependent on handouts. What does the person living on handouts do when the hand is no longer there?????

Now we have our government contemplating bringing syrians here as if america is just some time share vacation resort for the world. America is not a homeless shelter for the planet...... this is our home. Our government is elected to represent us.... not syria, not africa, not china, not mexico, not iraq, not iran, not korea, not afghanistan......

We dont secure our own boarders yet we borrow money from china to help pay for us securing the boarders of foreign countries......

This government is made up of tyrants.

[BanginJimmy]

What about in the event of a societal collapse?

It wont happen in any of our lifetimes, but I really do believe we are on this path, probably by the end of the century, unless there is a drastic change that takes place. What am I talking about? I have been reading Inferno by Dan Brown and the premise of the book got me looking into it and there is very compelling evidence that says at some point in this century or very early in the next world population will expand beyond its ability to feed itself. World population is the reason we have genetically enhanced corn, soy beans etc, enhanced meats, lack of drinking water, and increased greenhouse gasses. If next year the US banned the use of geneticly enhanced products, a very sizable portion of the US population would starve.

[bu villain]

Yeah, because americans are immune to facing the troubles that every country on this planet has faced for the entire existence of humanity. Somewhere in the world people are being killed by their own government as we speak. It's also not as cut and dry as saying it's only the government. What about in the event of a societal collapse? Something you're sure to say isnt possible, but we're already witnessing the tip of the iceberg. People told to lock up in their homes as terrorists run rampant in the streets of boston. Where was the NSA to prevent that?

I'm not claiming extreme events such as societal collapse are impossible, just that the two paths I described above will happen first. That is more than enough time to prepare for such an unlikely event. Rome didn't fall in a day and neither will we. I really don't see how the terrorist incident in Boston is evidence of a coming societal collapse. Israel deals with terrorism on their homeland on a daily basis and their society doesn't collapse. If anything, foreign terror attacks would help unite our society.


Current democratic strategy is to open the boarders to anyone with a pulse who will vote D and offer them tax payer funded programs to buy their support, in addition to removing every safeguard that could stop them. What happens when the money runs out and we have streets filled with government dependents? You're so quick to blame economic opportunity for crime rates, yet you support policies that make people dependent on handouts. What does the person living on handouts do when the hand is no longer there?????

I see a lot of evidence that contradicts your claim. For example, the Obama administration deported more people than Bush did in 8 years and border security has only increased. It is not a rule that if someone receives help, they are forever dependent upon continuing help. What do people living on handouts do when the hand is no longer there? Probably the same thing they did before those "handouts" were around. We didn't live in anarchy before the New Deal so why would you think we would live in it if those programs were abolished? Plus they will be reduced long before they would be abolished. Again, there will be no overnight collapse. It will be long and slow if it happens.


Now we have our government contemplating bringing syrians here as if america is just some time share vacation resort for the world. America is not a homeless shelter for the planet...... this is our home. Our government is elected to represent us.... not syria, not africa, not china, not mexico, not iraq, not iran, not korea, not afghanistan......

Do you really consider giving asylum to people being slaughtered by their government the equivalent to giving someone a vacation time share? America is built on immigrants and refugees. We have accepted refugees from all over the world for the entirety of this country's existence. Allowing Syrian refugees isn't going to matter in the grand scheme of things for this country. It's a humanitarian effort with little long term implications.


We dont secure our own boarders yet we borrow money from china to help pay for us securing the boarders of foreign countries......

This government is made up of tyrants.

First of all, we don't need to "borrow" money from China. We can print our own. It's one of the great things about being a sovereign nation and having a fiat currency. Second... nevermind, this is getting out of control. You can't stick to a single topic long enough to resolve anything. You went from Islam to American ideals to the bill of rights to societal collapse to refugees and border security within a single page. I'm responsible for following you down these schizophrenic paths but I think I'll stop now. We can continue in a new thread if you like.

[.blank cd]

Second... nevermind, this is getting out of control. You can't stick to a single topic long enough to resolve anything. You went from Islam to American ideals to the bill of rights to societal collapse to refugees and border security within a single page. I'm responsible for following you down these schizophrenic paths but I think I'll stop now. We can continue in a new thread if you like.

:LMAO:

See what I mean? You can't reason with people like him. All he does is move on to different thought paths, and when you point him out on it, you're automatically defeated. He has a problem expressing his political thoughts in a coherent manner, and he is incapable of advancing his knowledge outside of his self-reinforced belief system.

He's the new preferredduck

[Sinfix_15]

:LMAO:

See what I mean? You can't reason with people like him. All he does is move on to different thought paths, and when you point him out on it, you're automatically defeated. He has a problem expressing his political thoughts in a coherent manner, and he is incapable of advancing his knowledge outside of his self-reinforced belief system.

He's the new preferredduck

Says Blankcd the radical self righteous liberal. You're the most delusional idiot this site has to offer. Every time i talk to you i feel like i'm talking to Al Sharpton's son.

[Sinfix_15]

I'm not claiming extreme events such as societal collapse are impossible, just that the two paths I described above will happen first. That is more than enough time to prepare for such an unlikely event. Rome didn't fall in a day and neither will we. I really don't see how the terrorist incident in Boston is evidence of a coming societal collapse. Israel deals with terrorism on their homeland on a daily basis and their society doesn't collapse. If anything, foreign terror attacks would help unite our society.

The boston bombings is an example of how this government contributes to a potential collapse. While 2 terrorists were running free, the entire town was locked down and forced to hide in their homes. The government then ignored 4th amendment rights to "come to the rescue". Every family in that city was at the mercy of two men..... It's a glimpse of how the government expects you to handle a societal collapse.... hide... wait.... sound familiar??




I see a lot of evidence that contradicts your claim. For example, the Obama administration deported more people than Bush did in 8 years and border security has only increased. It is not a rule that if someone receives help, they are forever dependent upon continuing help. What do people living on handouts do when the hand is no longer there? Probably the same thing they did before those "handouts" were around. We didn't live in anarchy before the New Deal so why would you think we would live in it if those programs were abolished? Plus they will be reduced long before they would be abolished. Again, there will be no overnight collapse. It will be long and slow if it happens.

If that's the case..... lets ditch the hand outs so people can go back to living like normal. Society is collapsing now...... how long you think it will take is debatable. What's hilarious is that most lefties seem to think global warming is an immediate danger.... yet they would disregard the decline of society just as swiftly as you. "long and slow" "not in our lifetime"...




Do you really consider giving asylum to people being slaughtered by their government the equivalent to giving someone a vacation time share? America is built on immigrants and refugees. We have accepted refugees from all over the world for the entirety of this country's existence. Allowing Syrian refugees isn't going to matter in the grand scheme of things for this country. It's a humanitarian effort with little long term implications.

It's just ironic to me how our government seems to fight tooth and nail to make sure we dont know anything about anyone who enters this country, just step over the boarder and cast your vote.... doesnt matter who you are, where you came from or if you're a citizen......

But they need to know the contents of every american citizens phone calls, emails, medical records..... and then want to know my life story if i decide to purchase a gun.




First of all, we don't need to "borrow" money from China. We can print our own. It's one of the great things about being a sovereign nation and having a fiat currency. Second... nevermind, this is getting out of control. You can't stick to a single topic long enough to resolve anything. You went from Islam to American ideals to the bill of rights to societal collapse to refugees and border security within a single page. I'm responsible for following you down these schizophrenic paths but I think I'll stop now. We can continue in a new thread if you like.

Yep.... those crazy schizophrenic people and their crackpot theories about how the NSA and IRS is spying on people, how the DOJ is attacking conservatives, how the government is running guns.......

You cant keep bluffing after you've shown your hand. It's no longer schizophrenic or a conspiracy theory.... it's called being right.

[.blank cd]

The boston bombings is an example of how this government contributes to a potential collapse. While 2 terrorists were running free, the entire town was locked down and forced to hide in their homes. The government then ignored 4th amendment rights to "come to the rescue". Every family in that city was at the mercy of two men..... It's a glimpse of how the government expects you to handle a societal collapse.... hide... wait.... sound familiar??Can you give an example of the government actually ignoring 4th amendment rights in that case, and not your interpretation of the government ignoring 4th amendment rights? My guess is, according to constitutional law, what you think happened and what actually happened are not the same.


What's hilarious is that most lefties seem to think global warming is an immediate danger.... yet they would disregard the decline of society just as swiftly as you. "long and slow" "not in our lifetime"... Haven't heard of anyone thinking global warming is an immediate danger, especially in the scientific community.


Yep.... those crazy schizophrenic people and their crackpot theories about how the NSA and IRS is spying on people, how the DOJ is attacking conservatives, how the government is running guns.......

You cant keep bluffing after you've shown your hand. It's no longer schizophrenic or a conspiracy theory.... it's called being right.Being called right by those same conspiracy theorists. Hmmm

[.blank cd]

Says Blankcd the radical self righteous liberal. You're the most delusional idiot this site has to offer. Every time i talk to you i feel like i'm talking to Al Sharpton's son.

I think you're unsure of what delusional and radical means. Just because everything you say is demonstrably false doesn't make me either of those.

[bu villain]

The boston bombings is an example of how this government contributes to a potential collapse. While 2 terrorists were running free, the entire town was locked down and forced to hide in their homes. The government then ignored 4th amendment rights to "come to the rescue". Every family in that city was at the mercy of two men..... It's a glimpse of how the government expects you to handle a societal collapse.... hide... wait.... sound familiar??

I don't find this convincing. Two dangerous men were being pursued after committing a violent act against random civilians and police asked people to stay inside for their safety until the suspects were caught. This just seems like good procedure, I don't see how this is contributing to a potential societal collapse. Unless people were arrested for not staying in their homes, I don't see the problem.


If that's the case..... lets ditch the hand outs so people can go back to living like normal. Society is collapsing now...... how long you think it will take is debatable. What's hilarious is that most lefties seem to think global warming is an immediate danger.... yet they would disregard the decline of society just as swiftly as you. "long and slow" "not in our lifetime"...

I don't believe society is collapsing right now at all. The effects of global warming are not exactly an immediate danger but if we want to prevent it from being a major problem in the future, the sooner we act, the better of we will be. That is why there is a sense of urgency. If you are about to drive into a brick wall, you don't say everything is fine because we haven't hit the wall yet. You start braking ahead of time. Societal collapse would follow the same rules if you thought it was coming soon (which you apparently do) but most people don't see it that way and they wouldn't agree on what to do to prevent it anyways.


It's just ironic to me how our government seems to fight tooth and nail to make sure we dont know anything about anyone who enters this country, just step over the boarder and cast your vote.... doesnt matter who you are, where you came from or if you're a citizen......

I don't understand how you come to that conclusion at all. The first time my wife came to this country they tossed her luggage and held her for hours asking random questions. She even had a visa which she got after interviewing at the consulate. And just letting anyone vote also isn't true. Hell, they wouldn't even let me vote at the station down the street from me because it wasn't my registered location.


But they need to know the contents of every american citizens phone calls, emails, medical records..... and then want to know my life story if i decide to purchase a gun.

I agree with you that they are too intrusive in many aspects of our personal information.


Yep.... those crazy schizophrenic people and their crackpot theories about how the NSA and IRS is spying on people, how the DOJ is attacking conservatives, how the government is running guns.......

You cant keep bluffing after you've shown your hand. It's no longer schizophrenic or a conspiracy theory.... it's called being right.

I don't understand what you are talking about here. I didn't say anything about conspiracy theories. I said your posts go down schizophrenic paths. That is, you can't stick to a single subject.

[Sinfix_15]

Can you give an example of the government actually ignoring 4th amendment rights in that case, and not your interpretation of the government ignoring 4th amendment rights? My guess is, according to constitutional law, what you think happened and what actually happened are not the same.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWsbBhzxYw8

[Sinfix_15]

I don't find this convincing. Two dangerous men were being pursued after committing a violent act against random civilians and police asked people to stay inside for their safety until the suspects were caught. This just seems like good procedure, I don't see how this is contributing to a potential societal collapse. Unless people were arrested for not staying in their homes, I don't see the problem.


An entire city unable to defend itself because it's been disarmed by it's government is forced to hide inside their homes as terrorists run free. The government then goes house to house searching homes at their leisure. Sounds like the america our forefathers wanted.

[Sinfix_15]

I think you're unsure of what delusional and radical means. Just because everything you say is demonstrably false doesn't make me either of those.

You're not smart kid. No matter how much you bury your posts in self righteousness.

[.blank cd]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWsbBhzxYw8

Still looking for an example of the government ignoring the 4th amendment in the Boston massacre case. I know you feel like this is an example, but unfortunately, according to the 4th amendment, this isn't one of them.

[.blank cd]

An entire city unable to defend itself because it's been disarmed by it's government is forced to hide inside their homes as terrorists run free. The government then goes house to house searching homes at their leisure. Sounds like the america our forefathers wanted.

How was the city disarmed? As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure the guy in the example you gave had a gun. Can you cite where the city was disarmed and the citizens within it were thus unable to defend themselves?

[Sinfix_15]

How was the city disarmed? As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure the guy in the example you gave had a gun. Can you cite where the city was disarmed and the citizens within it were thus unable to defend themselves?

Boston has some of the most strict gun control laws in the country.

So according to you it's ok for the government to go house to house and search an entire city? Using military, pointing guns at families and doing as they please?

[.blank cd]

Boston has some of the most strict gun control laws in the country.I know about the gun control laws. I wasnt asking about those. I was asking how the city was disarmed. How was the city disarmed? No one in the entire city of Boston had a gun?


So according to you it's ok for the government to go house to house and search an entire city? Using military, pointing guns at families and doing as they please?According to the 4th amendment, not me, what happened in that video clip was completely legal. Unless you have evidence of the opposite....

Would it be entirely possible for you to separate your emotions from your discussion?

[Sinfix_15]

I know about the gun control laws. I wasnt asking about those. I was asking how the city was disarmed. How was the city disarmed? No one in the entire city of Boston had a gun?

Gun control laws disarm law abiding citizens. Of course someone in the city had a gun..... the two terrorists who were rampaging through the city and the policy who were violating people's homes and families.


According to the 4th amendment, not me, what happened in that video clip was completely legal. Unless you have evidence of the opposite....

Would it be entirely possible for you to separate your emotions from your discussion?

About what i expect from a radical like you. You will bend in any way to support government abuse of power.

"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal" - MLK

[.blank cd]

Gun control laws disarm law abiding citizens. Of course someone in the city had a gun..... the two terrorists who were rampaging through the city and the policy who were violating people's homes and families.But the rest of the citizens in the city had guns.




About what i expect from a radical like you. You will bend in any way to support government abuse of power.You believe that the exigent circumstance clause is a government abuse of power?


"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal" - MLKGodwin's Law. When loosing an argument, resort to Hitler.

[BanginJimmy]

I swear, every time I look into this thread I get a little dumber.

[Sinfix_15]

You believe that the exigent circumstance clause is a government abuse of power?
2 people on the loose is a cause to search an entire city????
You could make a case for "exigent circumstances" for anything..... and given this government's track record for abusing power, i'm sure they will continue to do just that.


Godwin's Law. When loosing an argument, resort to Hitler.
yep, ole dumb ass Dr King, he should have just shut his mouth and let the government take care of him.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120120104900-greene-racial-story-top.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

Blank's law, when losing an argument, think you're winning an argument.

[.blank cd]

2 people on the loose is a cause to search an entire city????
You could make a case for "exigent circumstances" for anything..... and given this government's track record for abusing power, i'm sure they will continue to do just that.No, you can't. It's pretty specific.

[bu villain]

An entire city unable to defend itself because it's been disarmed by it's government is forced to hide inside their homes as terrorists run free. The government then goes house to house searching homes at their leisure. Sounds like the america our forefathers wanted.

Boston has not been disarmed. There are probably hundreds of thousands of legal guns there like in every other major city. I honestly I am not sure how you come to such a conclusion that they were disarmed. How were they "forced" to hide? Was anyone arrested for simply being outside? Did they arrest anyone who refused to let them search their home without a warrant?

[BanginJimmy]

Was anyone arrested for simply being outside?

At least 2 were 'detained' while I was listening to the Boston and Watertown police scanners.

[bu villain]

At least 2 were 'detained' while I was listening to the Boston and Watertown police scanners.

Do you have any more details on why they were detained and what the particular circumstances were? I can't judge how reasonable it was without knowing more.

[Sinfix_15]

Boston has not been disarmed. There are probably hundreds of thousands of legal guns there like in every other major city. I honestly I am not sure how you come to such a conclusion that they were disarmed. How were they "forced" to hide? Was anyone arrested for simply being outside? Did they arrest anyone who refused to let them search their home without a warrant?

Did you watch the video??? refusing was not an option....everyone was *FORCED* to comply....

[Sinfix_15]

No, you can't. It's pretty specific.

No it isnt... are you retarded?

[.blank cd]

No it isnt... are you retarded?

I'm not retarded. I guess the maker of the specific law was retarded. Blame him for being so specific and making you wrong yet again. I don't make the laws, I just find out what they were, post them on here, and make you look like an imbecile with extreme consistency.

[.blank cd]

Did you watch the video??? refusing was not an option....everyone was *FORCED* to comply....

The video is of ONE single house. How is that everyone?

[Sinfix_15]

I'm not retarded. I guess the maker of the specific law was retarded. Blame him for being so specific and making you wrong yet again. I don't make the laws, I just find out what they were, post them on here, and make you look like an imbecile with extreme consistency.

yep, you're retarded. Thanx for the confirmation.

[.blank cd]

Sinfix, why is it that the things you post, and your feelings are always the opposite of what actually happen?

[Sinfix_15]

An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a search warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape.

Give me a scenario where you could NOT apply this to ANY instance where a fugitive was being pursued?

[Sinfix_15]

Sinfix, why is it that the things you post, and your feelings are always the opposite of what actually happen?

You're delusional, something ive been aware of long before this thread.

[.blank cd]

An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a search warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape.

Give me a scenario where you could NOT apply this to ANY instance where a fugitive was being pursued?

Did you read at all what you just posted?

[Sinfix_15]

The irony of blank ideology is down right hilarious to me..........

No matter how wrong something the government does, he looks to the letter of the law to defend them.
The letter of the law would have once allowed me to actually own him.

oh the irony.....

[Sinfix_15]

Did you read at all what you just posted?

Are you really this simple?

[.blank cd]

If an armed fugitive is running down the street and cops are in pursuit and the fugitive trips on his shoelace and falls flat on his face, the cops CANNOT enter the home down the street with a no knock warrant.

If the armed fugitive is running down the street and cops are in pursuit and the fugitive breaks into your home, the cops CAN and WILL enter your home to arrest him without your consent.

What part about that is difficult to understand?

[.blank cd]

Do you believe that if the fugitive breaks in your home and closes the door behind him, and the cops are pursuing him, that they should ask your permission and wait for your approval before entering?

[Sinfix_15]

If an armed fugitive is running down the street and cops are in pursuit and the fugitive trips on his shoelace and falls flat on his face, the cops CANNOT enter the home down the street with a no knock warrant.

If the armed fugitive is running down the street and cops are in pursuit and the fugitive breaks into your home, the cops CAN and WILL enter your home to arrest him without your consent.

What part about that is difficult to understand?

I understand the law, it's your lack of reading comprehension and falsely advertised intelligence that is getting in the way of you understanding the point.

[.blank cd]

Is anyone else in this thread having difficulty understanding the concept of exigent circumstances within the warrant clause?

Does anyone else think cops should ask permission and wait for approval when pursuing an armed suspect into your home?

Or is Sinfix alone in this?

[.blank cd]

I understand the law, it's your lack of reading comprehension and falsely advertised intelligence that is getting in the way of you understanding the point.

What is your point? You haven't made one other than the fact that you disagree that cops should be able to come into your home while pursuing an armed suspect to your front door. And it seems like only you share in this belief.

Am I spot on here?

[Sinfix_15]

Is anyone else in this thread having difficulty understanding the concept of exigent circumstances within the warrant clause?

Does anyone else think cops should ask permission and wait for approval when pursuing an armed suspect into your home?

Or is Sinfix alone in this?

They didnt pursue the suspect until he entered a home........... they locked down the entire city and went searching for the suspect.

based on the letter of the law, you could apply exigent circumstances to ANY fugitive on the loose.

[Sinfix_15]

What is your point? You haven't made one other than the fact that you disagree that cops should be able to come into your home while pursuing an armed suspect to your front door. And it seems like only you share in this belief.

Am I spot on here?

will you come with me one day on a trip? i want you and i to take a ride to the NAACP and tell them that everything done to black people was legal. I want to ask them all the shut up. Owning slaves was perfectly legal and right.... they need to quit slandering the good name of slave owners who were doing nothing more than following the law. Because if the letter of the law is worded in such a way that it allows you to do something, then so be it. Legality > morality.

[.blank cd]

They didnt pursue the suspect until he entered a home........... they locked down the entire city and went searching for the suspect.

based on the letter of the law, you could apply exigent circumstances to ANY fugitive on the loose.

The home you saw in the video was the home of the person who called the police and said the fugitive was on his property. Exigent circumstance applies. There's no argument about it.

[.blank cd]

will you come with me one day on a trip? i want you and i to take a ride to the NAACP and tell them that everything done to black people was legal. I want to ask them all the shut up. Owning slaves was perfectly legal and right.... they need to quit slandering the good name of slave owners who were doing nothing more than following the law.

Why would you need me there while you humiliate yourself?

What does state sanctioned racism and slavery have to do with the protection of evidence and the occupants?

[Sinfix_15]

The home you saw in the video was the home of the person who called the police and said the fugitive was on his property. Exigent circumstance applies. There's no argument about it.

they went door to door searching............................. it wasnt 1 house.... it was every house..... until they found him.

[Sinfix_15]

Why would you need me there while you humiliate yourself?

What does state sanctioned racism and slavery have to do with the protection of evidence and the occupants?

Exactly...... it was state sanctioned. That is the point. It doesnt matter if it was right or wrong, only that it was legal. Legality is the end all. If you can manipulate a law in such a way that it allows you to do something, more power to you. Owning slaves was legal. You should not be allowed to slander law abiding citizens.

[.blank cd]

What is immoral about the exigent circumstance clause?

Do you believe that police SHOULDN'T be allowed to enter your home if there's an armed fugitive inside and they're positive he's there, they should still wait for your approval or refusal?

[.blank cd]

they went door to door searching............................. it wasnt 1 house.... it was every house..... until they found him.

No. The house you saw the police entering without knocking and announcing was the home of the man who called the police and said "this guy is on my property right now"

[Sinfix_15]

Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists. The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact.[3] There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified. These include: clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence; limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.
Exigency may be determined by: degree of urgency involved; amount of time needed to get a search warrant; whether evidence is about to be removed or destroyed; danger at the site; knowledge of the suspect that police are on his or her trail; and/or ready destructibility of the evidence.[4] In determining the time necessary to obtain a warrant, a telephonic warrant should be considered. As electronic data may be altered or eradicated in seconds, in a factually compelling case the doctrine of exigent circumstances will support a warrantless seizure.
Even in exigent circumstances, while a warrantless seizure may be permitted, a subsequent warrant to search may still be necessary.[5]

[.blank cd]

How many times are you gonna post it? I know what it says.

No one else's home was entered illegally that day

[Sinfix_15]

No. The house you saw the police entering without knocking and announcing was the home of the man who called the police and said "this guy is on my property right now"

They went door to door searching, you fucking brain washed imbecile. Have to beat you over the head with reality for you to accept it. You are wrong........... now shut the fuck up.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=E3XsD-U1oOk

[Sinfix_15]

How many times are you gonna post it? I know what it says.

No one else's home was entered illegally that day

quoted for proof of ignorance.

[.blank cd]

They went door to door searching, you fucking brain washed imbecile. Have to beat you over the head with reality for you to accept it. You are wrong........... now shut the fuck up.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=E3XsD-U1oOk

What part of that video looked like an unconstitutional search to you?

[.blank cd]

It's amazing how consistent your stupidity is.

[Sinfix_15]

So your argument goes from "only 1 house was searched and they called the police" to " all those other searches were constitutional"

You've clearly been proven wrong, the only place you're right is in the reality constructed in your own mind. You're not smart kid.... the more you pretend to be, the more obvious it is that you're a moron. You're a narcissist with a highly inflated evaluation of your own intelligence. Burying your post in self righteousness wont hide it.

[.blank cd]

Someone please back him up. I'm an idiot apparently and something unconstitutional is going on in these videos that NO ATTORNEY IN THE COUNTRY has discovered.

Anyone.

[.blank cd]

So your argument goes from "only 1 house was searched and they called the police" to " all those other searches were constitutional"

You've clearly been proven wrong, the only place you're right is in the reality constructed in your own mind. You're not smart kid.... the more you pretend to be, the more obvious it is that you're a moron. You're a narcissist with a highly inflated evaluation of your own intelligence. Burying your post in self righteousness wont hide it.

Name one thing that was unconstitutional that happened in any of those videos. One thing and you'll prove me wrong.

My argument went from "only 1 house was entered without a warrant" to "only one house was entered without a warrant."

[Sinfix_15]

Someone please back him up. I'm an idiot apparently and something unconstitutional is going on in these videos that NO ATTORNEY IN THE COUNTRY has discovered.

Anyone.

Again, you lack reading comprehension. Not once have i said this wasnt "exigent circumstance"..... i actually said the opposite.... that EVERYTHING could fall under exigent circumstance. Legality doesnt make it right. This is a misuse of the letter of the law.

Again.... come back to reality kid. Take your time, slow down... read things twice if you need to.

[Sinfix_15]

I'm a cop, i'm chasing a bank robber. My car runs out of gas. The fugitive says "so long copper.... i'm going to mexico". I lock down every road and house on the way to mexico and send out police to start searching homes for the fugitive.

Exigent circumstance, by the letter of the law. Also an exaggerated example of exactly what happened in Boston.

The point is, the vagueness of this law can be exploited. Legality =/= right. What happened in Boston was not right.

[Sinfix_15]

My work here is done. Blank, you're a moron. Quit trying so hard.

[.blank cd]

What do you believe is not right? That they can come into your house without permission when a fugitive is in it? Or that they can go door to door and ask to search any house they want?

[.blank cd]

I'm a cop, i'm chasing a bank robber. My car runs out of gas. The fugitive says "so long copper.... i'm going to mexico". I lock down every road and house on the way to mexico and send out police to start searching homes for the fugitive.

Exigent circumstance, by the letter of the law. Also an exaggerated example of exactly what happened in Boston.

The point is, the vagueness of this law can be exploited. Legality =/= right. What happened in Boston was not right.

Your example does not fall under exigent circumstance.

[.blank cd]

Are you saying that cops going from house to house and searching homes of people who give consent is not right?

[bu villain]

I'm a cop, i'm chasing a bank robber. My car runs out of gas. The fugitive says "so long copper.... i'm going to mexico". I lock down every road and house on the way to mexico and send out police to start searching homes for the fugitive.

Exigent circumstance, by the letter of the law. Also an exaggerated example of exactly what happened in Boston.

The point is, the vagueness of this law can be exploited. Legality =/= right. What happened in Boston was not right.


Your example does not fall under exigent circumstance.

While I agree that legality is not the same as ethical or moral, I have to agree with blank in regards to your proposed scenario. There is not a judge in the country who would rule that to fall under exigent circumstances. There would be a lot of successful lawsuits against the police in that scenario.

[BanginJimmy]

Do you have any more details on why they were detained and what the particular circumstances were? I can't judge how reasonable it was without knowing more.

All I know is what was on the police scanner. Both were simply out walking when they stopped for the cops.

[Sinfix_15]

While I agree that legality is not the same as ethical or moral, I have to agree with blank in regards to your proposed scenario. There is not a judge in the country who would rule that to fall under exigent circumstances. There would be a lot of successful lawsuits against the police in that scenario.

It's an exaggerated example of exactly what happened in boston......

[.blank cd]

It's an exaggerated example of exactly what happened in boston......

No. Not even remotely close

[bu villain]

It's an exaggerated example of exactly what happened in boston......

I understand your point was that vagueness in laws can be exploited. Certainly this is true but it is also anticipated. This is one of the primary purposes of the judiciary branch; to interpret and apply laws. So while the police can theoretically claim whatever outrageous interpretation they want, as in your exaggerated scenario, they will ultimately be checked by the judiciary. There is nothing about the Boston event that leads me to believe that our system of checks and balances have failed in this regard.

[Sinfix_15]

I understand your point was that vagueness in laws can be exploited. Certainly this is true but it is also anticipated. This is one of the primary purposes of the judiciary branch; to interpret and apply laws. So while the police can theoretically claim whatever outrageous interpretation they want, as in your exaggerated scenario, they will ultimately be checked by the judiciary. There is nothing about the Boston event that leads me to believe that our system of checks and balances have failed in this regard.

How many times did the checks and balances say no to wire tapping?

[David88vert]

Ok, I think that we need to understand the Fourth Amendment in regards to reality in a situation like Watertown's searches.

The Fourth Amendment is there to protect the citizens from being unfairly prosecuted by the government for an illegal search/seizure. It does not physically prevent the officers from entering your premises/property if they decide to.

In the case of Watertown, the vast majority of citizen's knew who the officers were looking for, and gave their consent to search. In their cases, if the officers found anything illegal, they could legally arrest and charge them with a crime, and seize anything that they found, and the court would uphold it.

If they did not give consent, that did not mean that the officers could not enter their houses. The officers had to choose to balance out what was more important, and they clearly considered an armed and dangerous terrorist to be of more concern than a little pot or an illegal gun. In their cases, the officers could still enter and search, and even seize anything they found; however, by not giving consent to a search, their lawyers could get any evidence that was seized dropped in court. This is how our system is designed to work. You should never give consent to a search, but you cannot physically prevent the officer from entering and searching without "obstructing an officer" - which is another charge.

[David88vert]

How many times did the checks and balances say no to wire tapping?

I am going to assume that you are referring to the FISA courts oversight of the Patriot Act and the ones related specifically to it, and not any traditional non-FISA wire tapping warrants that happen to be requested every day. If so, six, that we are aware of.

[bu villain]

How many times did the checks and balances say no to wire tapping?

David already answered the question. Even if you believe the checks and balances failed in one particular case, are you implying that the general principle of checks in balances is invalid? What do you propose instead?

[Sinfix_15]

David already answered the question. Even if you believe the checks and balances failed in one particular case, are you implying that the general principle of checks in balances is invalid? What do you propose instead?

Only works if we hold government accountable, something we no longer do. The government rules over us and answers to nobody. 536 people decide how millions should live their life.

[bu villain]

Only works if we hold government accountable, something we no longer do. The government rules over us and answers to nobody. 536 people decide how millions should live their life.

Again I ask, what do you propose be done about it? Also, if we don't like how government is performing, why do we keep electing the same people over and over?

[Sinfix_15]

Again I ask, what do you propose be done about it? Also, if we don't like how government is performing, why do we keep electing the same people over and over?

Same reason sheep follow the shepherd or cows walk into the slaughter house.

[bu villain]

Maybe the third try is the lucky number...

What do you propose we do about it?

[Sinfix_15]

Maybe the third try is the lucky number...

What do you propose we do about it?

Support any and every measure to reduce government and increase freedom. Oppose any and every measure that increases government or reduces freedom.

Accept personal responsibility and quit calling on the machine for assistance or failure protection.

[.blank cd]

Support any and every measure to reduce government and increase freedom. Oppose any and every measure that increases government or reduces freedom.

Accept personal responsibility and quit calling on the machine for assistance or failure protection.

So....Anarchy?

[Sinfix_15]

So....Anarchy?

You spelled America wrong.

[.blank cd]

You spelled America wrong.

Pretty sure I spelled Anarchy right

[Sinfix_15]

Pretty sure I spelled Anarchy right

Shouldn't use words you don't understand the meaning of.

[BanginJimmy]

Again I ask, what do you propose be done about it? Also, if we don't like how government is performing, why do we keep electing the same people over and over?


Because the American voting public is ignorant. That ignorance is caused by profound laziness and stupidity. Politicians of both sides fear an intelligent voter more than anything else.

[.blank cd]

Shouldn't use words you don't understand the meaning of.

And yet you still say words like 'government', 'liberal', and 'democrat'. Interesting.

[Sinfix_15]

And yet you still say words like 'government', 'liberal', and 'democrat'. Interesting.

I understand completely. Maybe one day you will take your blinders off.


Ronald Reagan - " Man is not free unless government is limited." Liberal - "ANARCHY!!!!"

[.blank cd]

Ronald Reagan - " Man is not free unless government is limited." Liberal - "ANARCHY!!!!"

LOL. If you only understood how "liberal" Ronald Reagan was. It would blow your feeble little mind

[Sinfix_15]

LOL. If you only understood how "liberal" Ronald Reagan was. It would blow your feeble little mind



“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

"Some of you may remember that in my early days, I was sort of a bleeding heart liberal. Then I became a man and put away childish ways."

[bu villain]

Because the American voting public is ignorant. That ignorance is caused by profound laziness and stupidity. Politicians of both sides fear an intelligent voter more than anything else.

Right but that is how our constitution is set up. Everyone gets to vote no matter how ignorant, lazy, or stupid they are. That's why I asked what is the proposed alternative that is better? Certainly a benevolent dictator could be much better but it could also be much worse because dictators don't have track record of being benevolent. Sinflix seems to advocate anarchy or at least something much closer to it. I see that as creating as many problems as it solves. Personally, I think we should be dumping way more effort into education. That could at least help with the ignorant part.