I'm with Carson

[CID1990]

What race is an Iranian?

Not the top demographic on the NEAP tests, that's what race.

/derailment

[CAA Flagship]

Do you mean Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Hamas), master of taqiyya and darling of CAIR?

Meh...you can't trust any Middle Easterners...or Westerners...

Yeah, but he spoke White.

[Chizzang]

Yeah... what's best for the country (according to whom)
There are a whole bunch of really brainwashed and not very bright people
who think some kind of deranged fire breathing JESUS is what's best for America

Ask our now famous county clerk...

And yet every election- year after year- repudiates the panicky cry that we are being overrun by flesh eating aliens (religious fundamentalists/communists/wimminists/war on wimminists/enviro whackos/atheists/satanists etc etc etc)

This ^ is because we live in a Republic
Which by the way is the only thing that has saved us from the FRINGE
There is no doubt in my mind that - by now - this country would be a Christian mirror of Iran
were we NOT a Republic and the logic that resides within that format

We fancy ourselves a lot of things - but that fact - is all that has saved us from the Fringe loony's

[CID1990]

And yet every election- year after year- repudiates the panicky cry that we are being overrun by flesh eating aliens (religious fundamentalists/communists/wimminists/war on wimminists/enviro whackos/atheists/satanists etc etc etc)

This ^ is because we live in a Republic
Which by the way is the only thing that has saved us from the FRINGE
There is no doubt in my mind that - by now - this country would be a Christian mirror of Iran
were we NOT a Republic and the logic that resides within that format

We fancy ourselves a lot of things - but that fact - is all that has saved us from the Fringe loony's

well let's hope that holds true against the progressive looneys as well - the mere fact that Bernie Sanders is, at this moment in time a serious candidate is evidence that the lunatics are running the nuthouse on both sides

[LeadBolt]

My guess is that Carson is taking members of the US Muslim CAIR community at face value n some of their past statements:


[quote]“If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” said Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch.

Omar Ahmad, CAIR's chairman, announced in July 1998 that "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran ... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."

... Ihsan Bagby, a future CAIR board member, stated in the late 1980s that Muslims "can never be full citizens of this country," referring to the United States, "because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country."[quote]

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/08/ ... z3mV2lYQ45" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know these references have some age on them, but these kinds of statements by American Muslims are disturbing.

[Chizzang]

My guess is that Carson is taking members of the US Muslim CAIR community at face value n some of their past statements:

“If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” said Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch.

Omar Ahmad, CAIR's chairman, announced in July 1998 that "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran ... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."

... Ihsan Bagby, a future CAIR board member, stated in the late 1980s that Muslims "can never be full citizens of this country," referring to the United States, "because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country."

What's MORE disturbing than these comments is that they are universally IGNORED by the left
When they should be key talking points and areas of intense discussion

There is no separation of Islam and State by the very definition of the religious text

[∞∞∞]

into thread...


































































...then explodes.

Alalalalalalalalalala motherfuckers!

[dbackjon]

This ^ is because we live in a Republic
Which by the way is the only thing that has saved us from the FRINGE
There is no doubt in my mind that - by now - this country would be a Christian mirror of Iran
were we NOT a Republic and the logic that resides within that format

We fancy ourselves a lot of things - but that fact - is all that has saved us from the Fringe loony's

well let's hope that holds true against the progressive looneys as well - the mere fact that Bernie Sanders is, at this moment in time a serious candidate is evidence that the lunatics are running the nuthouse on both sides

Sanders is not a lunatic - he is far left, but his ideas have a lot of merit to implement to keep America on track, and to keep America from sliding into a plutocracy.

[LeadBolt]

well let's hope that holds true against the progressive looneys as well - the mere fact that Bernie Sanders is, at this moment in time a serious candidate is evidence that the lunatics are running the nuthouse on both sides

Sanders is not a lunatic - he is far left, but his ideas have a lot of merit to implement to keep America on track, and to keep America from sliding into a plutocracy.

Do you have a source for the bolded part above?

[CAA Flagship]

I liked Carson too. And that EdMcMahon was a stitch! Hey-ohh!

[dbackjon]

Sanders is not a lunatic - he is far left, but his ideas have a lot of merit to implement to keep America on track, and to keep America from sliding into a plutocracy.

Do you have a source for the bolded part above?

https://berniesanders.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

My guess is that Carson is taking members of the US Muslim CAIR community at face value n some of their past statements:

What's MORE disturbing than these comments is that they are universally IGNORED by the left
When they should be key talking points and areas of intense discussion

There is no separation of Islam and State by the very definition of the religious text

Man those statements sound nasty. Are those CAIR's official positions? When do I have to start turning toward Mecca?

[kalm]

into thread...


































































...then explodes.

Alalalalalalalalalala motherfuckers!

[CAA Flagship]

[GannonFan]

well let's hope that holds true against the progressive looneys as well - the mere fact that Bernie Sanders is, at this moment in time a serious candidate is evidence that the lunatics are running the nuthouse on both sides

Sanders is not a lunatic - he is far left, but his ideas have a lot of merit to implement to keep America on track, and to keep America from sliding into a plutocracy.

Sanders means well, but a lot of his ideas have no merit other than they sound nice. Universal health care, repeal of all free trade laws and mandate that companies that sell stuff in America has to make it here, free tuition at all public universities, etc. In a perfect world, a lot of that would be great, but how he plans to deal with the economic depression that would likely result from a massive upheaval of the world economy is not spelled out in his positions on the issues. I do like his plans to mandate 10 days of paid leave for everyone, an there are plenty of other good ideas in his platform. A sprinkling of realism into his platform would go a long way to making it reasonable. Right now it's pretty much a "we should have everything we want and we shouldn't have to do much to get it" ethos that is not really attainable in the world we live in. I tell you, though, he would be elected in Greece in a landslide if he made his last name more Greek-sounding. Something like Sandersapopolis.

[LeadBolt]

Do you have a source for the bolded part above?

https://berniesanders.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Chizzang]

What's MORE disturbing than these comments is that they are universally IGNORED by the left
When they should be key talking points and areas of intense discussion

There is no separation of Islam and State by the very definition of the religious text

Man those statements sound nasty. Are those CAIR's official positions? When do I have to start turning toward Mecca?

CAIR's official position is to make sure the left stays sound asleep

[JohnStOnge]

Why do you hate Democracy?

It's evangelical Christians that we should not be voting for since they want to get rid of the Constitution and establish a theocracy and they have 25% of the vote

I don't think there's any reason to believe Evangelical Christians want to get rid of the Constitution. On the other hand, there IS a reason to believe Muslims want to do that. Go to http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/2 ... lam-part-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for an example of what I'm talking about. The web page I linked is at an Islam apologetics site. It's pro Islam.

And look at what it says. I think you should read the whole thing to see what I'm talking about. But here is one interesting excerpt:

As we have mentioned, in Islam God is acknowledged the sole sovereign of human affairs, so there has never been a distinction between religious and state authority. In Christendom, the distinction between the two authorities are said to be based upon records in the New Testament of Jesus, asking his followers to render unto Caesar what was his and unto God what was His. Therefore throughout Christian history until the present times, there have always been two authorities: ‘God and Caesar’, or ‘the church and state.’ Each had its own laws and jurisdictions, each its own structure and hierarchy. In the pre-westernized Islamic world there were never two powers, and the question of separation never arose. The distinction so deeply rooted in Christendom between church and state has never existed in Islam.

If somebody is really a Muslim, they are going to be interested in establishing Islamic Law. If you vote for them, you are nuts. You're a homosexual. You may not agree with me because I say homosexuality is a disorder. But I also think homosexuals should be free to practice homosexuality. Islam is not going to tolerate that. Under Islamic Law, you're going to be killed. Sorry. But that's just that's just the truth. If you as a homosexual are willing to vote for Muslims to hold public office you are PARTICULARLY nuts.

[dbackjon]

Why do you hate Democracy?

It's evangelical Christians that we should not be voting for since they want to get rid of the Constitution and establish a theocracy and they have 25% of the vote

I don't think there's any reason to believe Evangelical Christians want to get rid of the Constitution. On the other hand, there IS a reason to believe Muslims want to do that. Go to http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/2 ... lam-part-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for an example of what I'm talking about. The web page I linked is at an Islam apologetics site. It's pro Islam.

And look at what it says. I think you should read the whole thing to see what I'm talking about. But here is one interesting excerpt:

As we have mentioned, in Islam God is acknowledged the sole sovereign of human affairs, so there has never been a distinction between religious and state authority. In Christendom, the distinction between the two authorities are said to be based upon records in the New Testament of Jesus, asking his followers to render unto Caesar what was his and unto God what was His. Therefore throughout Christian history until the present times, there have always been two authorities: ‘God and Caesar’, or ‘the church and state.’ Each had its own laws and jurisdictions, each its own structure and hierarchy. In the pre-westernized Islamic world there were never two powers, and the question of separation never arose. The distinction so deeply rooted in Christendom between church and state has never existed in Islam.

If somebody is really a Muslim, they are going to be interested in establishing Islamic Law. If you vote for them, you are nuts. You're a homosexual. You may not agree with me because I say homosexuality is a disorder. But I also think homosexuals should be free to practice homosexuality. Islam is not going to tolerate that. Under Islamic Law, you're going to be killed. Sorry. But that's just that's just the truth. If you as a homosexual are willing to vote for Muslims to hold public office you are PARTICULARLY nuts.

I wouldn't vote for a religious extremist of any stripe.

And check the statements of people like Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, etc - you know, most of the GOP field, that want to overthrow the Constitution.

They are far more dangerous because they have the support of tens of millions, plus have actually been elected to office.

[Chizzang]

Why do you hate Democracy?

It's evangelical Christians that we should not be voting for since they want to get rid of the Constitution and establish a theocracy and they have 25% of the vote

I don't think there's any reason to believe Evangelical Christians want to get rid of the Constitution. On the other hand, there IS a reason to believe Muslims want to do that. Go to http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/2 ... lam-part-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for an example of what I'm talking about. The web page I linked is at an Islam apologetics site. It's pro Islam.

And look at what it says. I think you should read the whole thing to see what I'm talking about. But here is one interesting excerpt:

As we have mentioned, in Islam God is acknowledged the sole sovereign of human affairs, so there has never been a distinction between religious and state authority. In Christendom, the distinction between the two authorities are said to be based upon records in the New Testament of Jesus, asking his followers to render unto Caesar what was his and unto God what was His. Therefore throughout Christian history until the present times, there have always been two authorities: ‘God and Caesar’, or ‘the church and state.’ Each had its own laws and jurisdictions, each its own structure and hierarchy. In the pre-westernized Islamic world there were never two powers, and the question of separation never arose. The distinction so deeply rooted in Christendom between church and state has never existed in Islam.

If somebody is really a Muslim, they are going to be interested in establishing Islamic Law. If you vote for them, you are nuts. You're a homosexual. You may not agree with me because I say homosexuality is a disorder. But I also think homosexuals should be free to practice homosexuality. Islam is not going to tolerate that. Under Islamic Law, you're going to be killed. Sorry. But that's just that's just the truth. If you as a homosexual are willing to vote for Muslims to hold public office you are PARTICULARLY nuts.

All of this ^ is charming and I don't completely disagree
BUT: Religion in general needs to stay as FAR AWAY from logic and reason as possible
which means it needs to be in no way involved with running a free country

Organized Religion has its own structure that at its very core conflicts with freedom and equality
and is entirely based on fantasy and conjecture - NOT - reason and logic

For those reasons alone Religion can NEVER be part of a reasonable well managed government



Keep your religion inside you tax free church

[JohnStOnge]

And check the statements of people like Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, etc - you know, most of the GOP field, that want to overthrow the Constitution.

Those people don't want to overthrow the Constitution. What I've heard them say lately is that they want to nix the idea that the Supreme Court is the final word on the Constitution so that we have to go along with whatever the Supreme Court says regardless of how obviously absurd it is. They want to do something to stop a situation in which the Judiciary's practice of failing to follow the Constitution is out of control.

Their point is that the Judiciary is NOT following the Constitution. And they are absolutely correct. They are DEFENDING the Constitution, not attacking it. All they have been arguing for is to get back to actually following the Constitution instead of allowing an oligarchy to rule by fiat.

[Ivytalk]

into thread...


































































...then explodes.

Alalalalalalalalalala motherfuckers!

Oh, piss off! Don't you have a new house to fortify?

[dbackjon]

And check the statements of people like Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, etc - you know, most of the GOP field, that want to overthrow the Constitution.

Those people don't want to overthrow the Constitution. What I've heard them say lately is that they want to nix the idea that the Supreme Court is the final word on the Constitution so that we have to go along with whatever the Supreme Court says regardless of how obviously absurd it is. They want to do something to stop a situation in which the Judiciary's practice of failing to follow the Constitution is out of control.

Their point is that the Judiciary is NOT following the Constitution. And they are absolutely correct. They are DEFENDING the Constitution, not attacking it. All they have been arguing for is to get back to actually following the Constitution instead of allowing an oligarchy to rule by fiat.

Um - that IS overthrowing the Constitution. The Judiciary IS following the Constitution - just because you and they don't like the outcome.


It is scary that so many in power either are too stupid too understand the Constitution, or are so theocratic that they want to ignore the parts they don't like.

[JohnStOnge]

Um - that IS overthrowing the Constitution. The Judiciary IS following the Constitution - just because you and they don't like the outcome.

No it's not and no they're not. And it's pretty obvious that the Supreme Court does not follow the Constitution.

Can you look at me with a straight face and tell me that the Constitution says that the Federal Government can tell a farmer he can't grow wheat on his own land to feed his own livestock with no commerce involved at all because the Constitution says Congress has the power "“to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes?" Really? Are you seriously going to argue that that says Congress has the power to tell a farmer that he can't grow wheat on his own land to feed his livestock?

And the Court does that kind of crap all the time. It's OBVIOUS that they don't follow the Constitution. If you actually look at the thing and also take the context of the times during which various provisions in it were crafted and ratified you'd have to be blind not to see that they've been making crap up.

Saying "we're not going to continue to tolerate the Judiciary making crap up" is not overthrowing the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't say the Judiciary can just make crap up. It doesn't even say the Judiciary has the power of Judicial review. The only thing that's said the Judiciary has the power of Judicial review is the Judiciary.

[Ivytalk]

Um - that IS overthrowing the Constitution. The Judiciary IS following the Constitution - just because you and they don't like the outcome.

No it's not and no they're not. And it's pretty obvious that the Supreme Court does not follow the Constitution.

Can you look at me with a straight face and tell me that the Constitution says that the Federal Government can tell a farmer he can't grow wheat on his own land to feed his own livestock with no commerce involved at all because the Constitution says Congress has the power "“to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes?" Really? Are you seriously going to argue that that says Congress has the power to tell a farmer that he can't grow wheat on his own land to feed his livestock?

And the Court does that kind of crap all the time. It's OBVIOUS that they don't follow the Constitution. If you actually look at the thing and also take the context of the times during which various provisions in it were crafted and ratified you'd have to be blind not to see that they've been making crap up.

Saying "we're not going to continue to tolerate the Judiciary making crap up" is not overthrowing the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't say the Judiciary can just make crap up. It doesn't even say the Judiciary has the power of Judicial review. The only thing that's said the Judiciary has the power of Judicial review is the Judiciary.

Dback can't look at anyone with a straight face.