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.
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"Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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?
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 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.
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.....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The answer to the question politicians keep asking....
"what does anyone need an AR15 for?"
I see what you did there.
vvv
If you don't understand see this thread... Good times.
http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/...e-discuss.html
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.
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......
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
: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.
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??
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"...
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.
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.
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.
Haven't heard of anyone thinking global warming is an immediate danger, especially in the scientific community.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"...
Being called right by those same conspiracy theorists. HmmmYep.... 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree with you that they are too intrusive in many aspects of our personal information.
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.
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.
You're not smart kid. No matter how much you bury your posts in self righteousness.
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.
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?
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?
According to the 4th amendment, not me, what happened in that video clip was completely legal. Unless you have evidence of the opposite....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?
Would it be entirely possible for you to separate your emotions from your discussion?
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.
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
But the rest of the citizens in the city had guns.
You believe that the exigent circumstance clause is a government abuse of power?About what i expect from a radical like you. You will bend in any way to support government abuse of power.
Godwin's Law. When loosing an argument, resort to Hitler."Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal" - MLK
I swear, every time I look into this thread I get a little dumber.
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.
yep, ole dumb ass Dr King, he should have just shut his mouth and let the government take care of him.
Last edited by Sinfix_15; 06-19-2013 at 07:38 AM.
Blank's law, when losing an argument, think you're winning an argument.
No, you can't. It's pretty specific.
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?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
