- Joined
- Jun 17, 2010
- Messages
- 9,800
- Reaction score
- 2,719
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
You totally missed that one...:rofl
No, I didn't. I got that he was busy being an ass. I just chose to respond as though he were not.
You totally missed that one...:rofl
Moderator's Warning: |
Let's get back to the scintillating topic of a proposed building that would be located two blocks away from ground zero. |
For me, what I "see" from the current Administration based on President Obama's agenda is a President who is brave enough and bold enough to tackle many of the issues that have been so widely ignored by prior Administrations that affect so many of us.
Really quickly, since this is way off topic, but the Baptist church threw my mother out, publicly, and referenced doing so, and her being damned to hell, in front of my sister and I(aged 7 and 5). I have personal reasons for disliking the baptist church, and freely admit it is not an entirely rational emotion. This is also off the point I was trying to make.
Could you answer the question about the points you tried to equate between Islam and Christianity? This is the third time I've asked you to explain yourself.
Oh hey, let me help. See, when people ignore your question over and over? They have no intention of answering it. You asking a question does not perforce entitle you to an answer. HTH.
Since you don't speak for Redress your response only reflects your own intentions.
No ****, you can still defend the Constitutions while condemning the actions being taken which are protected by the Constitution. For example I don't have to support the Nazi Party to support their right to public protest. You can actively condemn the Nazi party while still supporting the Constitution, the two things are not mutually exclusive.
That's ****ing bull****, that mother ****ing POS islamist wants a sharia compliant U.S., said that the U.S. was partially responsible for 9-11, said that OBL was made in the USA, and refuses to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization.
Explain yourself Redress.
the very high percentage of muslims who accept and extol terrorism and violence as a means to accomplish political goals
Where is the evidence that supports this is true with a high percentage of Christians?
the very high percentage of Christians who seek to subjugate the world under Christianity
Again, your evidence please.
the unwillingness of Christians to separate the religious elements of it from the practice of the political
Evidence please
the unwillingness of Christians to modernize or reform islam so as to suppress the violent components of their texts from being applied in modern times
Evidence please
the consistent intolerance and oppression of non-Christian minorities inside Christian -majority nations, while demanding their "rights" while living in non-Christian majority nations
Again, evidence please.
You cannot simply substitute Christianity for Islam and pretend you don't have to explain why. Please do so.
IRA, Abortion clinic bombers, Hutaree.
Remember the crusades?
The Raw Story | Huckabee: Amend Constitution to be in 'God's standards'
Replace Islam with Catholic, and violent with child molesting.
This story kinda shows that.
I figured it was pretty obvious.
I'm going to take a risk and make a statement I know is going to paint me in a bad light, but...
In a way, American policy may have led to 9/11. It goes back to our nation's foreign policy where the U.S. supported fostering Arab/Isreal relations but held a very negative/narrow view of Muslim extremism. I'm sure history will show that we had reason to be so suspecious, but by being the leading in fostering an attitute that over time has left Muslims nations out of world political affairs, we've inadvertantly created this world view that Muslim ideology is evil when in reality only those nations that take an extreme, radical view of Islam have proven themselves to be wrong. Radical Islam fought back, i.e., 9/11, but honorable Islam even here in our country condemned their actions.
Again, filter out the white-noise and review the historical content then reach your own conclusion on the matter.
I'm going to take a risk and make a statement I know is going to paint me in a bad light, but...
In a way, American policy may have led to 9/11. It goes back to our nation's foreign policy where the U.S. supported fostering Arab/Isreal relations but held a very negative/narrow view of Muslim extremism. I'm sure history will show that we had reason to be so suspecious, but by being the leading in fostering an attitute that over time has left Muslims nations out of world political affairs, we've inadvertantly created this world view that Muslim ideology is evil when in reality only those nations that take an extreme, radical view of Islam have proven themselves to be wrong. Radical Islam fought back, i.e., 9/11, but honorable Islam even here in our country condemned their actions.
Again, filter out the white-noise and review the historical content then reach your own conclusion on the matter.
I've always been a firm believer that in order to discern what the truth really is, one must seek knowledge for himself. With so much information being thrown at us each and every day from so many sources, the only way to filter out the political "white-noise", IMO, is to take a step back and collect information from as many non-partician sources as possible and apply that knowledge based within its historical content.
I'm going to take a risk and make a statement I know is going to paint me in a bad light, but...
In a way, American policy may have led to 9/11.
It goes back to our nation's foreign policy where the U.S. supported fostering Arab/Isreal relations
but held a very negative/narrow view of Muslim extremism.
I'm sure history will show that we had reason to be so suspecious, but by being the leading in fostering an attitute that over time has left Muslims nations out of world political affairs,
we've inadvertantly created this world view that Muslim ideology is evil when in reality only those nations that take an extreme, radical view of Islam have proven themselves to be wrong.
Radical Islam fought back, i.e., 9/11,
but honorable Islam even here in our country condemned their actions.
Again, filter out the white-noise and review the historical content then reach your own conclusion on the matter.
I get that Obama is backing away from a perceived notion that he's weighing in on a local matter which is, to say the least, inflammatory and will do him or Democrats zero good politically. That he feels the compunction to say anything is... ill advised and naive. He should avoid this subject like the black plague. What the hell is he thinking - he needs to shut his pie hole and continue blaming Bush for something.
I disagree. The President IS the face of our nation in every respect. As such, he has a responsibility, if not a duty, to defend our nation's values whenever and wherever those values are being sorely misrepresented. You folks have to remember the world is watching. CORRECTION: The Muslim world is watching. And while many here in the U.S. will view this as the President appeasing radical Islam, the truth is he is upholding America's values and the constitutionality of this Mosque being built. To do otherwise is hypocritical, a reversal of basic human rights (freedom of religion) and subversion of the very Constitution we all hold so dear. It's a shame that so many of you don't see that but instead would rather inject politics into this matter at ever turn.
Sad...very sad.
the idea of a mosque being built there, just touches raw nerves from 9/11, and the idea of anything representing islam/ muslims being built there, will drive many absolutely crazy, regardless if building it there is absolutely legal or not...feelings that i understand, and it makes me wonder why, supporters of this mosque, would want to build there...they have to have known what kind of response they would get.My understanding is that few have actually challenged the right of the mosque to build there, which is the only thing that Obama has claimed to have defended. I'm not sure how he's defending an American value if that value wasn't seriously questioned.
I disagree. The President IS the face of our nation in every respect. As such, he has a responsibility, if not a duty, to defend our nation's values whenever and wherever those values are being sorely misrepresented. You folks have to remember the world is watching. CORRECTION: The Muslim world is watching. And while many here in the U.S. will view this as the President appeasing radical Islam, the truth is he is upholding America's values and the constitutionality of this Mosque being built. To do otherwise is hypocritical, a reversal of basic human rights (freedom of religion) and subversion of the very Constitution we all hold so dear. It's a shame that so many of you don't see that but instead would rather inject politics into this matter at ever turn.
Sad...very sad.
B) Who gives a **** if the Muslim world is watching as if they have a single thing to say in regards to defending religious tolerance. Should we be dictating domestic policy in regards to what the Muslim world thinks?
The Muslims didn't have any excuse to attack us. Our foreign policy was in our best interest. That's the same as saying that it's our fault that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
But ultimate WE were responsible. I don't mean to hijack the thread, but WE did cut off Japan's access to natural resources, in this case, oil. WE backed them in a corner. WE were the leading discenting voice in imposing an oil embargo upon them. As such, the Japanesse Empire fought back. End result = the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Do yourself a favor, go back and read WWII history then come back and maybe we can discuss this matter futher. But for the sake of this issue where U.S. policy may have foster Muslim extremist angst, I think WE repeated the same mistake. Again, I'm not saying that we weren't justified, but you have to see things in their proper historical content to gain a full understanding of what led to certain events.
But ultimate WE were responsible. I don't mean to hijack the thread, but WE did cut off Japan's access to natural resources, in this case, oil. WE backed them in a corner. WE were the leading discenting voice in imposing an oil embargo upon them. As such, the Japanesse Empire fought back. End result = the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Using this logic, Japan was actually responsible because they took the actions that forced us to take the actions that led them to bomb us.
The state of the economy, not some localized issue over the siting of a Mosque, will be the leading driver of November's elections.