Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Islam vs Declaration of Independence

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Islam vs Declaration of Independence

    So I listened to this lecture. My first reaction was of political correctness. "Because she speaks of God, then it won't have relevance". Then I thought, "well she made a mistake by specifying the Judeo-Christian God as "The" God. Then I realized as I listened that I too have been taught to speak in terms eliminating God from the scenario, (specifically Judeo-Christian God) if it is to be an intellectual conversation. Hmm. Perhaps I didn't want the reputation of being a "Holy Roller", No, I think I tried to speak in terms that non believers could comprehend.

    But what I've come to understand is that non believers will never comprehend that man is not capable of creating law that affords us the utmost God given right to life and liberty. Man alone is not capable of defining life and liberty without the guidance of God.

    To own a slave, is not a God given right!
    To abort a child, in incubation stage is not a God given right!
    To take the life of others, is not a God given right!
    To stone women, is not a God given right!
    To offer less rights to women than men, is not a God given right!
    To mutilate a woman's anatomy is not a God given right!

    So look at what man's law has allowed. Each of these things are or have been legal by man made law at some place in time. Yet each of these laws involve taking the God given right to life and liberty away from another.

    It is shameful that in America, laws existed that allowed these God given rights to be taken from another. Slavery for example. Thank GOD, yes GOD that Americans have stood up to recognize the sins of their fellow man, fought, and abolished slavery. God always knew this was wrong, but it took the American man quite a while to figure that out.

    And now there is horrific shame upon America for allowing the slaughter of innocent human beings in America, using the mantra, "freedom of choice". Well, there you go. Man found a loophole to be able to supercede the child's God given right to life.

    Which brings us to Islam. If Islam preaches practices against US culture, is it protected by the first Amendment?

    I anticipate opposition to the thread below, but it will be interesting to see what facts the opposition will use to rebut her. Can an intellectual conversation take place on this forum? Without spewing only opinions and placing labels on one who disagrees? Can we analyse her theory without analysing each other? Islam Has No Right to Build Mosques, Spread Islam, or Institute Sharia Law In America

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfWeAwliyQA
    Last edited by OldmanDan; 05-22-2016, 10:33 AM.

  • #2

    Humans love to play games with words. The use of words to justify foolish, immoral and dangerous behaviour & ideas has been with us since the very beginning.

    With this game of words, we justify our rejection of God and His laws. We like to "do it our way" for the day. And "our way" is ever changing - with the winds of our moods, we make and change our "laws" to reflect how we 'feel' at that particular moment in time.

    Mankind doesn't want, or like to admit that this is a problem that could be easily and simply be ended by following the laws God gave us.

    Then there is Islam. Strangely enough we have Christians being taken to court for not baking cakes for homosexual "weddings," for not taking pictures at homosexual "weddings" etc etc.

    We NEVER see people of the Muslim faith being taken to court for such things. No, our "activists" don't seem to want to harass and harangue Muslims, ONLY CHRISTIANS ! Why is that ?

    Strangely, we're told we have to "tolerate" gays ... and Muslims ... fine and dandy, lets not ask ourselves how "tolerant" Muslims are of gays. No, nevermind that.

    Are we scared of Islam because of 9-11 ? Because they kill us with terrorist acts so regularly ?

    So, we're now allowing Islam to slowly take our nation over. We will deserve the outcome if we continue to be so foolish to allow it with our idiotic fantasies of "multiculturalism" and "tolerance."

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      So, we're now allowing Islam to slowly take our nation over. We will deserve the outcome if we continue to be so foolish to allow it with our idiotic fantasies of "multiculturalism" and "tolerance
      Multiculturalists cannot grasp that the reason people separated into cultures and nations in the first place was to have some homogeneity. Sometimes when these cultures absorbed other cultures while retaining a little of the culture who blended in it worked out and order remained. But there were some cultures that would simply not fit in, would not acculturate and insisted on changing the culture they moved into, into theirs. There are accounts of this in human history, and we should have learned something from the exercises in the past. Some cultures will simply not assimilate. And we need to recognize this fact, and not force it, or promote it. Islam, certain sects of it, that are what is called conservative, have no intention of assimilating. They are wanting to change the culture they move into, into their idea of what it should be. You can conquer a culture simply by mass miagration and high birth rates as the indigenous have lower birth rates. And this has been seen in islam, its history.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

        Multiculturalists cannot grasp that the reason people separated into cultures and nations in the first place was to have some homogeneity. Sometimes when these cultures absorbed other cultures while retaining a little of the culture who blended in it worked out and order remained. But there were some cultures that would simply not fit in, would not acculturate and insisted on changing the culture they moved into, into theirs. There are accounts of this in human history, and we should have learned something from the exercises in the past. Some cultures will simply not assimilate. And we need to recognize this fact, and not force it, or promote it. Islam, certain sects of it, that are what is called conservative, have no intention of assimilating. They are wanting to change the culture they move into, into their idea of what it should be. You can conquer a culture simply by mass miagration and high birth rates as the indigenous have lower birth rates. And this has been seen in islam, its history.
        Oh they assimilate. They assimilate the culture they came into ! Exactly as you say; "... mass migration and high birth rates as the indigenous have lower birth rates."

        That and using our views of "tolerance" and "diversity" to their advantage until they can assimilate us - and they're in the process of doing just that. Denying this truth is exactly what they would like for us to do - hence, the liberal is Islams best friend right now.

        Right now ... in the end the liberal will be among the first to be slaughtered for their views of "tolerance" and "diversity." No ? Yes !!! What happens to "homosexuals" in Islam ? What do you think they will do to the people who encourage all of these 'lbgt' issues ?

        We'll then see just how "tolerant" they are. We'll learn the truth - again - about the current ideas of "tolerance" and "diversity." They destroy.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

          Oh they assimilate. They assimilate the culture they came into ! Exactly as you say; "... mass migration and high birth rates as the indigenous have lower birth rates."

          That and using our views of "tolerance" and "diversity" to their advantage until they can assimilate us - and they're in the process of doing just that. Denying this truth is exactly what they would like for us to do - hence, the liberal is Islams best friend right now.

          Right now ... in the end the liberal will be among the first to be slaughtered for their views of "tolerance" and "diversity." No ? Yes !!! What happens to "homosexuals" in Islam ? What do you think they will do to the people who encourage all of these 'lbgt' issues ?

          We'll then see just how "tolerant" they are. We'll learn the truth - again - about the current ideas of "tolerance" and "diversity." They destroy.
          Well the modern liberal along with the modern conservative are incoherent in their beliefs, that is, the beliefs are incoherent due to a disconnect from the reality they actually live in. I was just thinking about this last night. The old conservatism was very pro business, and there is nothing wrong with that for business has to be represented as well as the People. But those old cons would have thought sending our industrial capacities to a poor nation for greater profits, especially if they were communist, would have been off the table. You think goldwater was a free trading globalist? Hell, he would probably have jap slapped you if you even said that was what you wanted to do. So this madness of destroying your own people comes from both the modern libs and the modern cons.

          All, or most of the troubles we have are created by not allowing intelligence, reason and rationality operate. The troubles we do have are created by groups, with agendas, that are mostly or completely devoid of intelligence. This applies to this push for multiculturalism, to have a goal of that, in order to achieve some dreamed up culture or rainbows and unicorns results. Except how much more evidence to you need to see it creates a fragmented nation, a divided nation, is that is not what anyone should want. America is proof that certain cultures can indeed assimilate into American culture, which was English derived and western European. But during our mass immigration periods people were literally dying to come to America, the new world, where there were no dictators, and kings lording over you, where there was freedom, and if you worked hard you had a shot at living much better than the commoners in the nation you came from. These people wanted to be americans, and they wanted to assimiliate. And they did. For there was not a driving religious force that forbid the assimiliation, as it is in Islam, quite a bit of it. The problems we have had come from one group, and its the conservative sunni sects, of which there are many.


          Both the modern liberal and the modern conservative unlike the old progressives and old conservatives have something in common. Neither consider the best interests of the People, the common good, nor the best interests of the nation itself. And that is the insanity here that is at the very foundation of our current problems, and those in Europe. For now to be standing up for our interests is nationalism, or isolationism, or some other engineered propaganda term. We have not looked out for our own interests, the common good, and specifically the best interests of the American people since JFK. He was the last one. His brother Ted, changed our immigration policy seeking multiculturalism over assimilating into the American culture. Both parties have allowed 10s of milions of poor Mexicans to come in, take construction jobs and depress wages for americans, even as they were shipping boat loads of our middle class creating jobs to poor nations to benefit the elites. From immigration to free trade, our politicians are intent on destroying what made America great in the first place.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

            Well the modern liberal along with the modern conservative are incoherent in their beliefs, that is, the beliefs are incoherent due to a disconnect from the reality they actually live in. I was just thinking about this last night. The old conservatism was very pro business, and there is nothing wrong with that for business has to be represented as well as the People. But those old cons would have thought sending our industrial capacities to a poor nation for greater profits, especially if they were communist, would have been off the table. You think goldwater was a free trading globalist? Hell, he would probably have jap slapped you if you even said that was what you wanted to do. So this madness of destroying your own people comes from both the modern libs and the modern cons.
            True, they just use different methods.

            The destruction they cause comes from what ? Why would 'leaders' destroy ? Not saying they don't, but why ?

            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
            All, or most of the troubles we have are created by not allowing intelligence, reason and rationality operate. The troubles we do have are created by groups, with agendas, that are mostly or completely devoid of intelligence. This applies to this push for multiculturalism, to have a goal of that, in order to achieve some dreamed up culture or rainbows and unicorns results. Except how much more evidence to you need to see it creates a fragmented nation, a divided nation, is that is not what anyone should want. America is proof that certain cultures can indeed assimilate into American culture, which was English derived and western European. But during our mass immigration periods people were literally dying to come to America, the new world, where there were no dictators, and kings lording over you, where there was freedom, and if you worked hard you had a shot at living much better than the commoners in the nation you came from. These people wanted to be americans, and they wanted to assimiliate. And they did. For there was not a driving religious force that forbid the assimiliation, as it is in Islam, quite a bit of it. The problems we have had come from one group, and its the conservative sunni sects, of which there are many.


            Both the modern liberal and the modern conservative unlike the old progressives and old conservatives have something in common. Neither consider the best interests of the People, the common good, nor the best interests of the nation itself. And that is the insanity here that is at the very foundation of our current problems, and those in Europe. For now to be standing up for our interests is nationalism, or isolationism, or some other engineered propaganda term. We have not looked out for our own interests, the common good, and specifically the best interests of the American people since JFK. He was the last one. His brother Ted, changed our immigration policy seeking multiculturalism over assimilating into the American culture. Both parties have allowed 10s of milions of poor Mexicans to come in, take construction jobs and depress wages for americans, even as they were shipping boat loads of our middle class creating jobs to poor nations to benefit the elites. From immigration to free trade, our politicians are intent on destroying what made America great in the first place.

            It doesn't make sense, even for them ! So, it must be, as you say; "..groups, with agendas, that are mostly or completely devoid of intelligence." & "For now to be standing up for our interests is nationalism, or isolationism, or some other engineered propaganda term."

            Propaganda words and games we play with them.

            Much like the statement in the opening post; " ... there is horrific shame upon America for allowing the slaughter of innocent human beings in America, using the mantra, "freedom of choice"."

            Yet we have accepted this as a "part of life" in America because a small group of arrogant fools decided that killing people was a "right." Oh.... Oh yes, yes of course, these aren't people actually - they can't be, or we've legalized MURDER !!! The word games we've played on ourselves.

            What is it ? Fools leading fools ? The blind leading the blind ? Fools leading the blind - some other combination ?

            But, lets attempt to address what the topic is before we get far astray - we always do.

            MSC asks;

            "..Can we analyse her theory without analysing each other? Islam Has No Right to Build Mosques, Spread Islam, or Institute Sharia Law In America."

            And also brings up an interesting point concerning the hypnotic effects culture has had on how we think and discuss things with others when she says:

            ".. I listened to this lecture. My first reaction was of political correctness. "Because she speaks of God, then it won't have relevance". Then I thought, "well she made a mistake by specifying the Judeo-Christian God as "The" God. Then I realized as I listened that I too have been taught to speak in terms eliminating God from the scenario, (specifically Judeo-Christian God) if it is to be an intellectual conversation. Hmm. Perhaps I didn't want the reputation of being a "Holy Roller", No, I think I tried to speak in terms that non believers could comprehend."

            Then mankinds methods and beliefs about "law," what it is etc:

            "what I've come to understand is that non believers will never comprehend that man is not capable of creating law that affords us the utmost God given right to life and liberty. Man alone is not capable of defining life and liberty without the guidance of God."

            That is a true statement. Men are all too capable, and willing, to defile life & liberty left to themselves.

            I've been able to watch about half of the video. I'll get a better chance to watch it entirely tomorrow.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              The destruction they cause comes from what ? Why would 'leaders' destroy ? Not saying they don't, but why ?
              Probably some of the destructive actions come from a belief, like multiculturalism, with all joining hands that didn't tend to be joined, and singing cumbaya. It's romanticism driving some of this immigration policy, but a dangerous romanticism. It makes one feel good to think of society with people from all over the world, living in harmony. It just ignores the reality that some cultures will not tend to create such a culture, that is so different from their own, when religion is involved.

              The other reason, is driven by a philosophy, that one could call neoliberalism. It's trickle down in one aspect, and then placing capitalism that only maxes out profits in place of the health, common good, and economic security of the citizens in that nation. It's not that these politicians are wanting to destroy this country, it's the power of the elites who profit greater by neoliberalism, and the political system that ties politicians to the money of these self interested elites. The devastation of the people is just the outcome of this, so no intent by politicians to destroy America. But the change in philosophy that came in with Reagan, in regards to the American economy, has yielded what you see today. And by now we should know of the corrupting influence and power of big money when allowed to enter into politics.

              There isn;t some grand conspiracy for a few elites to control the world, as some think. It is only that neoliberalism, a totally different way of looking at a nation's economy has replaced the New Deal way of looking at an economy. Neoliberalism seeks to max out profits of the owners, at any and all costs, and the way corporations are related and interact with society changes drastically. Under the New Deal philosophy, the economy was seen more as the engine that provided for americans who worked, and by that work they could prosper, and attain security. And we structured it as much as allowable to yield that result. Which meant, profits could not be maxed out. This was the great change that Reagan brought in, and back, from the Gilded Age. The evidence supports this bird's eye view.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                So to touch on multiculturalism. The key here is that people come to the new world to be part of the new world. The settlers spoke english. They had Judeo Christian faith.They created the constitution. Those are facts. So obviously the fabric of society will be based on what people know. Clearly Spanish would not be the official language, a language unfamiliar to most. People created from what they knew and created quite a wonderful place based on their deductions. Because it was a new land and people migrated, it is factual that they came from other cultures. But it does not appear in any way that the intent for the new world was for immigrants to continue there culture so we would be a nation of diversity. That is something that came as the brain child of long after. The point of the new land was so people could be free to live as they choose, but also understood that there needed to be national law with a constitution to build and maintain a country of freedom as promised and desired. One culture.

                So our forefathers saw the necessity of controlling immigration or they would not have created Article 1 section 9, clause 1. People say it is unconstitutional to screen people by religion when allowing them to enter the US. But the constitution does not afford rights to people who have not yet entered the US. Religious freedom is a right to Americans once they have entered the US, not a right for immigrants who desire to enter the US. Saying it is not the American way to control immigration according to cultural conflict, strictly because the culture is part of a religion, is not accurate.

                The American culture insists on the right to life. This meaning is obvious. Forget for now about the life of the unborn. (another discussion). So for one to assimilate they must respect and come to believe that no one has the right to take another life. Not a woman's, a child's, a parent's, a sister's, a homosexual's, a stranger's, etc.

                Liberty. Each individual has the right to liberty. To assimilate one must respect a woman's right to liberty. To live life and make their own choice without threat of bodily harm or incarceration. And homosexual have the same right to make their choice of who to lay down with, with out the threat of bodily harm, death, or incarceration. Liberty for all, means all. Woman, etc.

                So one question is: If Islam did not preach that some deserve death, bodily harm, or incarceration for practicing their right of liberty, then what exactly would be left for Islam to teach and what would their daily rituals look like?

                I once posted a link about countries who believed in Sharia law. Most of them did, and all had some in the country that didn't believe in it in mass. But the "moderate" ones, who don't believe that ISIS like groups are interpreting Sharia law correctly, still believe in Sharia law that does not afford liberty to all people, women taught to be submissive to men, eg.: can not drive a car, must cover their faces, and some moderates even believe in bodily harm and or incarceration for woman, gay's, and even some men for practicing liberty,

                So this culture, Islamic culture, seems to be a very difficult to assimilate to the American Culture. The constitution allows for a screening process. Our constitution in no way say's that if people wanting to immigrate, come from a culture that is in major conflict with America, they should not be excluded if the culture is attached to a religion. Religious freedom once in America does not conflict with congresses right to control immigration based on cultural differences or even religious differences for that matter. But that has not come into play. Different religions that coincide with American culture are not being excluded. We don't see a movement trying to keep Buddhists out. It is about the cultural difference. It only seems logical under our constitution, that a culture so different than American culture, should not allow too many to come in at one time. Logically, the more changing one has to do, the longer it will take to change. That's not bigoted. That just logical.

                My conclusion is that people who live Islam come from a culture that is in mass conflict with the American culture. Therefore under our constitution the congress should use their right to control the influx of people who practice the conflicting Islam culture. And in fact are responsible to limit the immigration under Article 4, section 4, in order to protect Americans and the American culture. And congress is also charged to repel invasion of conflict into our country under Article 1, section 8, clause 15. So for any official to speak of multiculturalism or allowing all religion's to immigrate unrestricted, is in fact an unconstitutional voice and an un-American sentiment.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by msc View Post
                  So to touch on multiculturalism. The key here is that people come to the new world to be part of the new world. The settlers spoke english. They had Judeo Christian faith.They created the constitution. Those are facts. So obviously the fabric of society will be based on what people know. Clearly Spanish would not be the official language, a language unfamiliar to most. People created from what they knew and created quite a wonderful place based on their deductions. Because it was a new land and people migrated, it is factual that they came from other cultures. But it does not appear in any way that the intent for the new world was for immigrants to continue there culture so we would be a nation of diversity. That is something that came as the brain child of long after. The point of the new land was so people could be free to live as they choose, but also understood that there needed to be national law with a constitution to build and maintain a country of freedom as promised and desired. One culture.

                  So our forefathers saw the necessity of controlling immigration or they would not have created Article 1 section 9, clause 1. People say it is unconstitutional to screen people by religion when allowing them to enter the US. But the constitution does not afford rights to people who have not yet entered the US. Religious freedom is a right to Americans once they have entered the US, not a right for immigrants who desire to enter the US. Saying it is not the American way to control immigration according to cultural conflict, strictly because the culture is part of a religion, is not accurate.

                  The American culture insists on the right to life. This meaning is obvious. Forget for now about the life of the unborn. (another discussion). So for one to assimilate they must respect and come to believe that no one has the right to take another life. Not a woman's, a child's, a parent's, a sister's, a homosexual's, a stranger's, etc.

                  Liberty. Each individual has the right to liberty. To assimilate one must respect a woman's right to liberty. To live life and make their own choice without threat of bodily harm or incarceration. And homosexual have the same right to make their choice of who to lay down with, with out the threat of bodily harm, death, or incarceration. Liberty for all, means all. Woman, etc.

                  So one question is: If Islam did not preach that some deserve death, bodily harm, or incarceration for practicing their right of liberty, then what exactly would be left for Islam to teach and what would their daily rituals look like?

                  I once posted a link about countries who believed in Sharia law. Most of them did, and all had some in the country that didn't believe in it in mass. But the "moderate" ones, who don't believe that ISIS like groups are interpreting Sharia law correctly, still believe in Sharia law that does not afford liberty to all people, women taught to be submissive to men, eg.: can not drive a car, must cover their faces, and some moderates even believe in bodily harm and or incarceration for woman, gay's, and even some men for practicing liberty,

                  So this culture, Islamic culture, seems to be a very difficult to assimilate to the American Culture. The constitution allows for a screening process. Our constitution in no way say's that if people wanting to immigrate, come from a culture that is in major conflict with America, they should not be excluded if the culture is attached to a religion. Religious freedom once in America does not conflict with congresses right to control immigration based on cultural differences or even religious differences for that matter. But that has not come into play. Different religions that coincide with American culture are not being excluded. We don't see a movement trying to keep Buddhists out. It is about the cultural difference. It only seems logical under our constitution, that a culture so different than American culture, should not allow too many to come in at one time. Logically, the more changing one has to do, the longer it will take to change. That's not bigoted. That just logical.

                  My conclusion is that people who live Islam come from a culture that is in mass conflict with the American culture. Therefore under our constitution the congress should use their right to control the influx of people who practice the conflicting Islam culture. And in fact are responsible to limit the immigration under Article 4, section 4, in order to protect Americans and the American culture. And congress is also charged to repel invasion of conflict into our country under Article 1, section 8, clause 15. So for any official to speak of multiculturalism or allowing all religion's to immigrate unrestricted, is in fact an unconstitutional voice and an un-American sentiment.
                  I think moderate muslims who would not choose sharia over secular are perfectly fine to be americans. That should be a means test, with investigation done to help insure this is so. There has to be intelligence involved in who comes into to get a shot at becoming an American. We should not hand citizenship out like santa claus hands out candy to the kids. This is much so consequential that that. Assimiliation should be the goal, for if not, you help to create division within a nation. Division is unhealthy to any society, and it always creates problems which cost money to address. This is what intelligence sees. Immigration was done to get the people to settle the west, initially. Later on we needed factory workers to man our factories and we used immigration to address this need. But there should be a need before you have go after immigrants. There has to be control, as you control every aspect of human existence. We should not leave it up to fickle and folly, but have intelligence driven policy. You should never do it to obtain a rainbow society because of romanticism and fantasy. That's nuts. That's not intelligence, its utter stupidity. And looks like we have very very stupid since Teddy Kennedy did what he did. The guy was a drunk. Can't trust the judgement of a drunk.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Shuria has zero chance of being enacted in Europe or the US I don't understand why so many Americans are so terrified about it.
                    Muslims are only a small fraction of the US population and even most of them think Shuria law is nuts due to it's treatment of women and anyone not following the strict rules.

                    There's more chance of me becoming President and my first act being to demand that everyone watch at least one episode of Star Trek a day or face life in prison.
                    My second act would be that Dungeons & Dragons be made the national sport and everyone must train for 2 hours a day.

                    I have a feeling I'd be named best President ever after that.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Has anyone taken the time to watch the entire video posted in the opening post ?

                      I was able to. The lady is correct, but I don't believe the brainwashed people in American govt. today will act on any of what is happening. They just aren't able to, not because it isn't their job to, but because they don't know how or even that they should.

                      This is what happens when simpletons and fools become "leaders."


                      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                      I think moderate muslims who would not choose sharia over secular are perfectly fine to be americans. That should be a means test, with investigation done to help insure this is so. There has to be intelligence involved in who comes into to get a shot at becoming an American. We should not hand citizenship out like santa claus hands out candy to the kids. This is much so consequential that that. Assimiliation should be the goal, for if not, you help to create division within a nation. Division is unhealthy to any society, and it always creates problems which cost money to address. This is what intelligence sees. Immigration was done to get the people to settle the west, initially. Later on we needed factory workers to man our factories and we used immigration to address this need. But there should be a need before you have go after immigrants. There has to be control, as you control every aspect of human existence. We should not leave it up to fickle and folly, but have intelligence driven policy. You should never do it to obtain a rainbow society because of romanticism and fantasy. That's nuts. That's not intelligence, its utter stupidity. And looks like we have very very stupid since Teddy Kennedy did what he did. The guy was a drunk. Can't trust the judgement of a drunk.
                      And we've elected "drunks" of one kind or another since - hence our troubles. The leaders follow the people and the people follow the leaders and when both are foolish, there's going to be problems.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                        Shuria has zero chance of being enacted in Europe or the US I don't understand why so many Americans are so terrified about it.
                        Muslims are only a small fraction of the US population and even most of them think Shuria law is nuts due to it's treatment of women and anyone not following the strict rules.

                        There's more chance of me becoming President and my first act being to demand that everyone watch at least one episode of Star Trek a day or face life in prison.
                        My second act would be that Dungeons & Dragons be made the national sport and everyone must train for 2 hours a day.

                        I have a feeling I'd be named best President ever after that.
                        Most Muslims do not think Sharia law is nuts. Here is a link. Are there stats to discredit this link?
                        51% of U.S. Muslims want Sharia; 60% of young Muslims more loyal to Islam than to U.S.

                        https://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/5...am-than-to-u-s

                        Muslims are only a small fraction of the US population and perhaps Sharia will never be enacted, but that doesn't address the resistance of the muslim population to assimilate to US culture and their pushes to try and get Sharia enacted. This is a resistance that the US does not need to exist.

                        http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/0...ange_310px.png
                        http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/r...hange_310px-2/

                        Smaller things do not pose a major threat. But things grow, and as they grow, they become a larger threat. When they are allowed to grow large enough it becomes much harder to fight off the threat. We saw this in Germany, we see this with ISIS, happening in the US gov't ,and with every problem in our everyday lives.

                        It's not logical to bring a lot of people from a culture that resists US culture in large numbers, especially when they multiply at a greater rate than people that do not come from such a conflicting culture. We're not talking about Sharia law being enacted. We're talking about not making America a more divided country with more challenges than necessary. The US does not owe those who want to immigrate to the US anything. And if it's not beneficial for America, it is not necessary.
                        Last edited by msc; 05-25-2016, 05:27 AM.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          You think a poll on a site called Jihad Watch is unbiased?

                          Really?

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                            You think a poll on a site called Jihad Watch is unbiased?

                            Really?
                            Polling conducted by reputable pollsters of muslims in the ME is very concerning for it supports what MSC is saying. I do not agree with MSC on many things, but you gotta be intellectually honest here Peter.

                            We just have to respect and side with the moderate muslims, the ones who want islam to exist within a secular state, where everyone has freedom to worship their gods. But their religion does not dictate policy and law. This is a problem with more muslims than you might be willing to accept, not sure about you.

                            Islam needs a reformation, badly. But the very nature of Islam, the guts of Islam, has made this impossible in a large scale manner. Here where I live, the Hindus still retain some of their culture, but they assimilated well. The muslims here have not. They live in little pockets and seem to want to turn this culture into their Islamic culture. I am speaking only of where I live, for that is the only place that I can observe it. And it bothers me that the Saudis, who practice wahabism, a very conservative sect of the sunnis, are building mosques all over Europe and America. I believe they want to infiltrate every western nation, and then breed like rabbits, as our birth rates are so low, as is europes. Project this forward, and what do you end up with, in regards to a religion that really has no plan to assimiliate? There is more than one way to change a western nation to what islam wants. We used to be better at seeing such things, but now its racism, or nationalism, thanks to the modern liberal mindset. Modern libs are just as dangerous as modern cons. The thinking process of people has gone to hell.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                              You think a poll on a site called Jihad Watch is unbiased?

                              Really?
                              Look I'm trying to have an intellectual conversation analysing the substance of her lecture on US law regarding immigration and the Islam culture. I'd like to use reality based information opposed to the usual opinion spewing that we all do. This comment: "You think a poll on a site called Jihad Watch is unbiased?" has nothing to do with the information on the site. I went through other links with similar information and posted this one. I fairly invited you to offer up a link with statistics that back up your "opinion" that most US Muslims think Sharia law is nuts.

                              So let's get back on track. I stated that US Muslims are not assimilating well to US culture. I provided information that shows most people coming from Islamic culture are not leaving the conflicting culture behind while assimilating to US culture. Therefore those practicing Muslim culture should have limited entry to the US because they are not assimilating as well or as quickly as other cultures.

                              You stated that Most US Muslims think Sharia law is nuts, which implies that there is not an assimilation problem coming from and practicing Islamic culture. Which implies that greater numbers of Muslims coming into America will not cause a significant threat that makes it harder for our country to united as one nation with cultures that meld with the fabric of US law.

                              Now, if you want to show me that my conclusion is wrong, and you are correct, then you're going to need to show me information that you've gathered explaining how you came to your conclusion. Can you do that?

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X