See other Editorial Articles
Title: What Do Muslims Want?
Source:
National Review
URL Source: http://article.nationalreview.com/? ... hlYzEwYzkwYzc3YTQ2OWQxMjJhMTE=
Published: Apr 9, 2007
Author: Raymond Ibrahim
Post Date: 2007-04-10 03:29:47 by mirage
Keywords: None
Views: 1006
Comments: 82
All humans generally live according to some set of priorities. A person may make a priority of health, of pleasure, of study, of almost anything, really. But it is practically a law of nature that a person must make a priority of something. Even those who lead unstructured existences unconsciously live according to some set of unarticulated priorities, if only according to something so basic as the primal need for food, drink, and shelter. For many people, religious practice — striving to obey God’s commandments — is a high priority, the highest, even. Yet this priority can come into conflict with the character of the society in which one lives. This is undoubtedly the case for devout Muslims who voluntarily relocate to Western nations. This invariably will compromise what many of them profess to be their ultimate priority: living in accordance to the divine laws of Allah (i.e., sharia — most of which is derived from the words and deeds of seventh-century Mohammad). Some of these Muslims arrive in the West and don’t want to compromise. Consider some recent news stories: A few Muslim cashiers working at Target stores in Minneapolis are refusing to scan customer purchases that may contain pork. Instead of swiping the products themselves — which is their job — they are inconveniencing the customers or fellow employees by having them do it. Muslim cab drivers have long been discriminating against customers carrying or suspected of carrying alcohol. Officials at the St. Paul International Airport estimate that, on average, alcohol-bearing customers seeking cab rides are denied 77 times per month. Some blind customers have also been turned down on account of their seeing-eye dogs. Muslims in Seattle have requested (and been granted) regularly scheduled hours for their exclusive use of public pools; an all-Muslim-girls basketball team at a Chicago university demanded that men be barred from attending their matches; some 200 Muslim women signed a petition at a Michigan fitness center demanding separate workout times for men and women, or at least the erection of a screen divider between the men’s and women’s section (which was granted). All of these issues revolve around the Muslim desire to live according to Allah’s laws — which, among other things, ban contact with pigs, dogs, and alcohol, and have rigid social guidelines, especially concerning interaction between the sexes. From a religious point of view, the anti-social behavior of these Muslims can be, if not excused, then certainly understood. They are doing only what their religion commands them to do. And their refusal to compromise on these points demonstrates that adherence to the commandments of Islam is a priority of the utmost importance to them. However, if living in strict accordance to sharia is the first priority of some Muslims, one wonders: Why have they voluntarily come and immersed themselves in infidel countries that do not recognize sharia law and, indeed, allow many things that run counter to it, such as the selling and consumption of alcohol and pork and the liberal intermingling of the sexes? Most of the Muslim countries that Muslims abandon for the West are much more conducive to the Muslim lifestyle and uphold many if not all aspects of sharia law. Yet, each year, thousands of supposedly “ultra-devout” Muslims forsake these countries and, of their own free will, come and surround themselves with wine-imbibing, swine-eating libertines. Why? It is for the same reason that everyone else comes to the West — for the “good life.” They come in order to be prosperous and to enjoy opportunities, security, and equality the likes of which they could never have in their own countries (ruled quite often — no surprise — according to sharia). The vast majority of Muslims emigrating from the Islamic world do not leave due to necessity — say, oppression or starvation. No, they come to the infidel West solely to prosper materially. But why are Muslims of the “ultra-pious” variety seeking after material comfort in the first place — especially when doing so will almost certainly undermine their professed desire to live strictly according to the sharia? Coming to live in a democratic country composed of some 300 million infidels is bound to affect any Muslim’s observance of sharia. These pious Muslims risk coming into daily contact with, not only pork, alcohol, and dogs, but all sorts of other defilements: flamboyant homosexuals, scantily clad women (who are often in positions of authority!), gamblers and usurers, to name a few. Are they not concerned that they, or especially their children, might become contaminated by the licentious and seductive practices of the infidel West? If their priority is truly to strictly follow sharia, should they not remain in their Muslim countries of origin, which, if not as prosperous as the West, are definitely more conducive to the Muslim lifestyle? Or, could it be that, despite all the ruckus (and subsequent headlines) made by these Muslims, living in accordance to Allah and his sharia is not their first priority, after all? At least, not to the degree that they would be unwilling to put this priority at substantial risk for the sake of living the good life, in a strictly secular and materialistic sense. Furthermore, if common sense does not dissuade them from relocating to the West, the very sharia they claim to want to closely observe should. For instance, if pork and alcohol are condemned (e.g., Koran 5:4; 2:219), voluntarily living among infidels, idolaters, and atheists is looked on no better. The Koran declares: “O you who believe! Take neither Jews nor Christians as friends…whoever among you turns to them is one of them” (5:51). There are countless verses and traditions, in fact, that make it clear that Muslims are to be in a constant state of animosity toward non-Muslims, waging war through tongue and teeth in order to spread Islam, and, when finally in a position of superiority, discriminating against those who refuse to convert (see, for example, 3:28, 5:73, 5:17, 9:5, 9:25, etc). When the Meccans persisted in their unbelief, refusing to accept the prophet-hood — and subsequent authority — of Mohammad, he finally abandoned his kinsfolk with these parting words, which some Muslims believe still define the proper relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims: “We [Muslims] disown you [non-Muslims] and what you worship besides Allah. We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us — until you believe in Allah alone!” (60:40). So why are some Muslims making public scenes here in the United States over scanning bacon or transporting customers with sealed bottles of wine in their luggage while at the same time freely choosing to live with — and of course benefit from — those whom they are commanded to hate and wage war upon, or at the very least, disavow and be clean of? “Straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel” has long been a sure sign of hypocrisy. All Muslims who freely migrate to the West must understand that they can’t have it both ways — that they can’t have their cake and eat it, too. They must choose between either strictly upholding the laws and customs of 7th-century Arabia (in which case they should remain in their “sharia friendly” countries of origin) or, if prosperity and comfort is their first choice, let them relocate to the West, but prepare to assimilate — that is, compromise — to some degree. It’s a simple question of priorities.
Poster Comment: An interesting take on "multiculturalism" and the clash of societies.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-16) not displayed.
.
.
.
#17. To: YertleTurtle (#13)
In fact if Jewish taxi drivers found it objectionable to transport liquor or seeing eye animal companions, they'd probably become getaway drivers for ADL bombing missions or chauffers for elitist bankers.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
The stories I could tell you about driving a taxi. I had to keep a diary. I once picked up an old guy from the hospital who asked to smoke. I said sure, I don't mind. He lit a cigarette, took a big drag, then informed me his doctor had just told him he had lung cancer. But I'm not giving up, no sir, he told me. I got to stay around to torment the old lady! I burst out laughing. Couldn't stop, in fact.
"Be convinced that to be happy means to be free and that to be free means to be brave. Therefore do not take lightly the perils of war." -- Thucydides
And the Zionist federal media keeps the anti-Muslim hit pieces coming. It is now common knowledge among the idiot American masses that had we not invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein and his fleet of ocean going battle camels would have landed in Jacksonville and would have conquered and controlled way past St. Louis by now.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
I've always thought that if someone tried to invade the U.S. they'd be met at the beach by 100,000 guys in pick-up trucks and after ten minutes the sand would be strewn with empty shotgun shells and beercans. Then everyone would go home.
"Be convinced that to be happy means to be free and that to be free means to be brave. Therefore do not take lightly the perils of war." -- Thucydides
Unfortunately too many Americans actually believe this.
And they are impossible to reason with, as FOX news et al would not lie to them.
You and I know that would happen--and if the battle went any distance inland, there'd be a American ambush wainting behind every bush, wall, tree and rock. Here is a question: would, then, those of us Americans be called "insurgents?"
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Danny Glover's campaign in NYC was because blacks have trouble flagging cabs but, most people don't understand that nig....I mean, African Americans don't tip and they commit the majority of assaults and robberies. If I saw an eekwal waiting to head up to 139th street and a businessman with luggage I'd take the airport run over the Harlem trip. Could you blame me? Even if I don't get tipped at the airport (which is unlikely unless that passenger is black too) I probably wouldn't be robbed or murdered when I arrive. But, Harlem is dangerous and the cops attitude seems to be, "Hey you drive a cab so you should expect it".
“Straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel” has long been a sure sign of hypocrisy. All Muslims who freely migrate to the West must understand that they can’t have it both ways — that they can’t have their cake and eat it, too. They must choose between either strictly upholding the laws and customs of 7th-century Arabia (in which case they should remain in their “sharia friendly” countries of origin) or, if prosperity and comfort is their first choice, let them relocate to the West, but prepare to assimilate — that is, compromise — to some degree. It’s a simple question of priorities. I'm always amused when someone criticizes the devout for trying to find a path to God, which is, after all, our highest calling in life. I mean, really. Isn't it offensive when some Jew refuses to take off his beanie and walks around with curls on the side of his head and refuses to eat anything you offer him because it isn't "kosher"? I mean, what's up with that? And isn't it inconvenient when some foreigner Boodist shaves his head and wears a weird robe and sandals even in winter time, and they won't even step on a cockroach? A lousy cockroach! Or when some flaky Amish chick want to wear headscarves and hand woven clothes and won't drink soda or even drive in a car? But she still shows up at Wal- Mart, doesn't she? Or when some Baptist weirdo won't have a beer like normal people? I mean, these fuckin' weirdos who won't blend in and stuff. They got the wrong priorities, man.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
Absolutely on target.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
Most people charged with crimes in this country get either court appointed lawyers or public defenders. You prefer a system without them? Fine. Get ready to build even more prisons.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
Here is a question: would, then, those of us Americans be called "insurgents?" If an invasion comes from without, you can bet that it will be with the full support of our national Vichy government, and that it will be US draftees who are going up into the hills of tennessee after patriots. And yes, they will call us "insurgents".
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
I agree. I am not impressed by their religious and social intolerances any more then those of cops who steal people's pipes and plants and allow liquor stores to remain unmolested.
I gotta wonder what is wrong with you. Did your parents drop you on your head? Were you raised in some throwback hillbilly white trash Atlanta Ghetto? What on earth makes you think that posting "nig... I mean African Americans" is going to gain you anything but scorn from anyone anywhere? This is just flamebait from a keyboard bigot who wouldn't have the courage to say something so deeply offensive in front of his target audience. I'm embarrassed for you.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
Actually, I consider that a courtesy.
Remember the movie Groundhog Day? Good flick. What if instead of waking up over and over to the same day, time went on, but everyone in the town suffered from a recurring amnesia? And what if instead of falling in love, Bill Murray's protagonist wanted to be mayor? That'd be a neat movie.
Gets my respect. Plenty of people think like that all the time, producing heavy self-regulatory activity in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. That section of the brain is heavily involved in Newspeak. A man who doesn't need "respect" is a dangerous dawg. All that has to happen is for him to not get struck by lightning, and he undermines the Prevailing Righteousness. Friend of a friend uses the n-word all the time. This bothered my friend's wife a lot. She got all in a huff over it, and the guy liked to tweak her. One day she screamed at him, and he slightly relented: "O.K., O.K. I promise I won't use it around your black friends." (Which of course just made her madder. :)
Remember the movie Groundhog Day? Good flick. What if instead of waking up over and over to the same day, time went on, but everyone in the town suffered from a recurring amnesia? And what if instead of falling in love, Bill Murray's protagonist wanted to be mayor? That'd be a neat movie.
What n-word?
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
Without public defenders / yes ... without Illegals / yes, that too !!! Public Defenders are known as public pretenders for very good reason. Our judicial system is way broke, there is no justice for the common people and to imply otherwise is disingenuous.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Allah needs to lighten up on his followers - they deserve a break.
OR ... they don't have to live here. They weren't born here, they are guests even if they become citizens. Their citizenship is based upon the privilege granted to them by a federal judge. People born here have a "birthright". There is a major difference.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
As they should be; they are "passenger cars." Now, the question you need to ask is why does your state issued certificate of title bear the term "passenger car" when you do NOT haul passengers for profit? Write DMV (or the state agency which issues those registrations) and ask them why they have falsified the records. BTW, falsification of records is a federal crime under Title 18 United States Code.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
It's also a state crime in every state of the union !!!
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Our judicial system is way broke, there is no justice for the common people and to imply otherwise is disingenuous. So better they have no defense at all? Did you know that it was public defenders who got cases re-tried or investigated and exonerated something like five death row guys in Illinois? That's five guys who'd be dead under your "non-disingenuous" system. The reason they call Public Defenders "Public Pretenders" is because it rhymes. And it's cute. And private lawyers profit from the notion. Public defenders are under paid and have a higher caseload than private lawyers, so in some areas they lose more cases. But you want to see real incompetence? Look at the leaches who get on the private bar appointment lists who sleep through capital cases. As for the illegals, I'm all for closing the borders. But nobody in the political world seems to have either the clout or the balls to do it.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
Time for RICO suits to begin. Failing that, the solution will come from the muzzles of our rifles, and some good stout rope.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
The difference is between the person who follows his path without dragging people along with him -- and those who wish to drag everyone with him. Prohibition is a fine example of Baptists dragging everyone else along for the ride. Is that "just fine" or is it not?
Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.
Prohibition is a fine example of Baptists dragging everyone else along for the ride. Is that "just fine" or is it not? It wasn't just the Baptists. It was a lot of other denominations, too, as well as a lot of "liberal" better-society types and temperance leagues and all that stuff, too. I'm against prohibition of alchohol for some of the same reasons I'm against the prohibition of nearly all recreational drugs. Because prohibition has in the past proven a deadly failure; and in the present it is proving itself a deadly failure. Also, Christ himself drank, and so did all of the apostles (presumably responsibly, although who knows, they didn't have cars ...) so it seems kind of weird for any Christian to be pushing for the prohibition of alcohol. But the prohibitions rammed down our throats by the Baptists were passed through democratically and politically; so I don't see them in the same light as someone imposing the Khoran or Sharia or Talmud or Paul's laws on us; not to say there wasn't a relationship there, for there certainly was; but freedom is a tricky business. It's hard to consistently favor freedom when that means you have to let other people be "free" to advocate for lessening the very freedom that permits them to speak. Or to freely practice their wacky religion.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
Traditionally, "Tolerance" meant not killing the guy living next to you because he was different - you let him do whatever he wanted (except capital crimes, of course) behind closed doors. Granted, it is usually a small minority who gets in other peoples' faces, but should not the same general societal rules be for everyone? Thus, I'm amazed at the people on this thread who are saying "All Jews are evil and all Muslims are good" - this is stupid. There are idiots in every group and extremists in every group. There are both good and bad to be found everywhere. So what's with the lobotomy? Why is the brain shutting down and not realizing that simple fact of reality?
Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.
There are both good and bad to be found everywhere. So what's with the lobotomy? Why is the brain shutting down and not realizing that simple fact of reality? We're being bombarded by strange ideas, and many of them are contradictory. We are told that a left wing conspiracy is ramming fascism down our throats in the name of "tolerance" and "diversity"; and tolerance and diversity become dirty words associated with the all-time dirty word, "liberal". Or there's the dreaded "multiculturalism" being foisted on us poor, unsuspecting victims... I call bullshit. If you look up tolerance and read the definition, it really doesn't have much of a downside. If you look up diversity, liberal and multiculturalism, there's not much there that a true blue American raised in the spirit of liberty and the melting pot could disagree with much. You are right about the lobotomy, though. And it's frightening. A large group of people have been lobotomized into thinking that torture is okay, pre-emptive war is just fine, and all Muslims should be atomized. People are okay with cops kicking in doors, tasering people to death, prison without trials, etc, etc... I think if the founding fathers had possessed a crystal ball and could have seen what the American people would become, they'd have blown off the whole "revolution" thing. Why bother to put themselves through the agony of it if we were ultimately to become a nation no freer than Britain under George III? If they'd known we'd be installing an elected dynasty to the throne of America, and that the people would be willingly putting the noose of Empire and militarism around their own necks, I think they'd have despaired of the whole undertaking.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
I gotta wonder what is wrong with you. Did your parents drop you on your head? Were you raised in some throwback hillbilly white trash Atlanta Ghetto? What on earth makes you think that posting "nig... I mean African Americans" is going to gain you anything but scorn from anyone anywhere? This is just flamebait from a keyboard bigot who wouldn't have the courage to say something so deeply offensive in front of his target audience. I'm embarrassed for you. Your shrieks of simulated outrage are duly noted, counselor.
"What on earth makes you think that posting "nig... I mean African Americans" is going to gain you anything but scorn from anyone anywhere?"__bluedogtxn
So is your ridiculous race-baiting bullshit, Klansman.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
There is an open conspriacy to shove things down our throats. Fortunately, in America, things tend to be done out in the open - and it is now a free-for-all :) Traditional "diversity and multiculturalism" was to take the best from everywhere and assimilate it. The modern version is balkanization where communities are encouraged to NOT assimilate. America used to think of herself as having a common language. We are now told by many people that is a bad idea. America used to think of herself as being "one people" - Americans - but from everywhere. Now we have "Irish-Americans" and "African-Americans" and "Jewish-Americans" and "Mexican-Americans" -- there are no plain old "Americans" anymore. America used to be a meritocracy. Nowadays you win the jackpot if you are born with a particular heritage and hue. You get bonus points if you're also female and gay. America used to promote self-sufficiency and self-reliance. These days, "progressives" tell us that is no longer needed and that society as a whole needs to take care of everyone as opposed to what we used to do, which was to encourage people to take care of themselves. The extreme right wing wants to disassemble ALL of the safety nets due to how they have evolved and been misused. Historically, everyone has always known there are homosexuals. Historically, they kept it to themselves. Nowadays, it is considered 'chic' to throw it in peoples' faces. OF COURSE there is backlash when that happens, its just common sense to expect that when throwing something in someone's face. So now we get EVERYONE throwing EVERYTHING in EVERYONE's faces and EVERYONE is pissed off as a result. I don't understand how we got from being a polite society to "celebrate ME and you're damned to hell if you don't think like I do!" (which is what 'celebrate diversity' really means in its modern usage) I've been trying to figure out what the actual "line" was where common sense and individuality was and where collectivism and the tyranny of the minority started taking over and the best I can come up with is it was a slow boil for the frog. Maybe I'll never understand, but I'll never give up trying to understand it.
Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.
America used to think of herself as being "one people" - Americans - but from everywhere. Now we have "Irish-Americans" and "African-Americans" and "Jewish-Americans" and "Mexican-Americans" -- there are no plain old "Americans" anymore. America used to be a meritocracy. Nowadays you win the jackpot if you are born with a particular heritage and hue. You get bonus points if you're also female and gay. America used to promote self-sufficiency and self-reliance. These days, "progressives" tell us that is no longer needed and that society as a whole needs to take care of everyone as opposed to what we used to do, which was to encourage people to take care of themselves. The extreme right wing wants to disassemble ALL of the safety nets due to how they have evolved and been misused. Heh. When was that? We've had German language schools and Greek schools and Italian language schools and even German, French, Cajun and Spanish speaking towns continuously since the birth of the nation. We've always thought of ourselves as "one people", but we've always also said, "except for them dirty Krauts or them unwashed Micks or them nasty Niggers or them awful greasers or those filthy Cajuns or them damn Yankees or them damn rednecks or them lousy kikes or godless Coolies..." There's never been a time in our history when we didn't have a class of second class citizens or "guest workers" or "illegals" or "resident aliens" within our borders. So don't gimme that "one people" crap. We've got our castes, too. "America used to be a meritocracy?" That's a joke, right? Because up until recently if you were born with a particular heritage and hue (a WASP), you won the jackpot. Now that heritage and hue have changed to a different set of heritages and hues; but we've always had our aristocracy, too. They've passed congressional and senate seats back and forth for more than two centuries. "America used to promote self-sufficiency and self-reliance"... We still do. The difference is that we no longer seem to be able to tolerate the fact that a lot of people are congenitally neither self-sufficient nor self-reliant, and will starve or wind up homeless or die of disease or starvation. In the words of Christ, "the poor we will always have with us". A bunch of crazy "progressives" want to actually put these people in shelters or feed them or give them (gasp) free medical care; while good solid Americans want them freezing in the streets or dying in gutters or begging at the back doors of churches or dumpster diving like they used to. Back in the good ole days. I'm not trying to diminish what you've posted, but you've posited an America that never existed. Are we simmering frogs? Probably, but I'd suggest to you that the causes are the growth of government, the growth of the military industrial complex and intelligence secret government and the imminent death of our constitution. Trotting out liberalism and tolerance and diversity as bogeymen when the real threat is tyranny, militarism and fascism is at best a distraction, at worst it pits friends of liberty against each other.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
What I describe is what we were becoming in the 1960s before the "Great Society" took hold. At that point, things veered off in the Collectivist direction. I'm not saying we should throw people into the snowbank, but down in California, there were welfare people living better than I did. The average "housing voucher" in San Jose' in 2000 was $2200 a month. I lived in a $900 dive apartment. Likewise, "public housing" officials in San Diego put up an oceanfront apartment complex claiming "Why should only the rich enjoy the good life?" You can do the math on the rest. Like all movements, once the activists win, they can't leave it alone and the movement is hijacked by more radical elements and becomes a mockery of itself by pushing things too far.
Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.
This is certainly true, but the "Great Society" stuff LBJ launched was about the only good thing he did. Has welfare gone too far? Probably, although Clinton brought back good old fashioned miserliness with his conservative welfare reforms. My point was that the social safety net or the lack thereof is a sliding scale kind of thing along which there will always be contentious disagreement. What should concern us, I think, is less about how many folks are on welfare or how much they get and more about the destruction of our fragile constitutional democracy and its replacement with an increasingly inherited monarchy or empire.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
Of concern should simply be how much money is being spent on programs. Right now more than half of the Federal Budget is spent on entitlements, transfer payments, and other such social subsidy. Just to correct, Clinton vetoed the Republican Congress' "welfare reform" three times before finally signing it and then claimed credit for it. Clinton did not want to touch the system as it was. To go back, yes, there were German speaking schools in the past, but generally they were private schools. Nowadays we have that in the public schools, which is an error in terms of giving kids what they need to get ahead. Given that I have a lot of family who are schoolteachers, I could go on about education for years and not even scratch the surface. IMO, the system will collapse in on itself as more and more money is diverted to useless activities and will therefore be a self-correcting problem albeit with a lot of pain in the interim. With peak oil, massive population growth, and crushing debt, I don't see too much additional expansion (read: not more than 50 years) before things correct of their own accord. So, for me, I'm not worried. I'm more concerned about people who have based their plans on the system as opposed to themselves. A few good energy shocks and interest rate hikes will cause a heck of a lot of pain. Fortunately, silly arguments tend to vanish when bad times hit.
Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.
We could go round and round about who initiated welfare reform and who stole the credit for it. I think that Newt and his boys took credit for what was basically a Clinton reform, but either way, what resulted was a very much reformed system that is still in effect today. Many people were dropped from welfare rolls due to this reform. As for the growth in "entitlements" you don't get anywhere near half the federal budget unless you throw social security into the mix, and that's something that we've all paid into as workers; with the expectation that we'd get some back. That ain't welfare and it ain't transfer payments; it's deferred compensation.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
So is your ridiculous race-baiting bullshit, Klansman. Tell me, do you agree with christine's post or not? Your reply will go a long way as a qualifier when you lecture us on the lost principles of Americanism. And, for the sake of argument, what will you do when someday your skin color is your uniform, and all those soul bruthas you railroaded into prison don't think of you as fondly as you do them? I hope you have some young, juicy daughters to give them to prove your bone fides. Otherwise, you'll be classified as just another hypocritical "liberal" who doesn't mind throwing welfare and food stamps (and public defenders) at them but don't want them to move in next door or marry your daughter(s). (PS: This is your cue to piously proclaim that you wouldn't mind if your daughter marries a darkie. Please do that for me, will you? I ddouble ddawg ddare you! HAH!)
"What on earth makes you think that posting "nig... I mean African Americans" is going to gain you anything but scorn from anyone anywhere?"__bluedogtxn
Toss about four fifths of the military budget in there, and you and I are on the same page, I think.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
"Again, free speech on this forum means that people can express their love or hatred for anyone, any group, any race, any culture, or any thing, as long as they adhere to the three contingencies listed above. Everyone else on this forum is similarly at liberty to exercise their free speech right to challenge, debate, argue, or agree with the ideas and speech of another." Absolutely. But if you are foolish enough to think that you can drop N-bombs here and not encounter a "challenge, debate, argument" with your use of them, you are out of your mind. you ask: "What will you do when someday your skin color is your uniform, and all those soul bruthas you railroaded into prison don't think of you as fondly as you do them?" Are you nuts? Are you predicting the takeover of America by "soul-bruthas" and "darkies"? Because that's just more silly, reactionary racist crap. The "darkies" have about as much chance of taking over as the Chinese do, which is nil. If you want to fear someone because of their ethnicity, you'd do better to fear Hispanics, frankly. You say that: "This is your cue to piously proclaim that you wouldn't mind if your daughter marries a darkie. Please do that for me, will you? I ddouble ddawg ddare you! HAH!" and that this is my cue to "prove my liberal credentials". Okay, I'll take that dare. If my daughter marries a "darkie" and he's smart, ambitious, going somewhere, and treats her and my wife and the rest of my family with respect, I'll support the marriage 100%. If he's ignorant, going nowhere, close minded or an anti-Christian, then I'll oppose it. And I don't care how white, smart, ambitious or pious he is, if he drops a single N-bomb in my house or in front of me, I'll vehemently oppose the marriage. Because that's a word that was vile in Mark Twain's day no less than it is vile today, and anyone who thinks it is appropriate usage is an idiot, be he black, white or whatever. And I have two young, fine, beautiful and intelligent daughters, neither one of whom is "juicy". And anyone who'd call them juicy to my face would get a definite and unmistakeable response.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
post deleted.
Since Social Security funds were diverted by LBJ into the general fund and the Supremes have ruled that FICA is "just another tax" and that there are no rights to Social Security -- it has to be viewed as just another line-item in the Federal Budget. Alas, that's the world we live in. Increasing spending on entitlements and silliness. Less spending on things that make a difference and catering to the lowest common denominator. Check your local school budget for details. Pay close attention to "special needs" and "special education" for a real shock. Also, get the figures on 504 and IEP. It'll blow your mind.
Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.
Comments (58 - 82) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestIn fact if Jewish taxi drivers found it objectionable to transport liquor or seeing eye animal companions, they'd probably be permitted to discriminate.
#18. To: Diana (#15)
ROTFLOL!!!
#19. To: HOUNDDAWG, Diana (#12)
Until then it's just another anti-Muslim hit piece.
#20. To: wbales (#19)
ocean going battle camels
#21. To: wbales (#19)
It is now common knowledge among the idiot American masses that had we not invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein and his fleet of ocean going battle camels would have landed in Jacksonville and would have conquered and controlled way past St. Louis by now.
#22. To: wbales (#19)
#23. To: YertleTurtle (#20)
U.S. they'd be met at the beach by 100,000 guys in pick-up trucks
#24. To: YertleTurtle, mirage, Diana, Burkeman1, IndieTX, noone222 (#13)
I actually knew some Jewish cab drivers (yes, Jews drive taxis). They never discriminated. None of us did, except when we thought the pick-up was dangerous.
#25. To: mirage (#0)
Author: Raymond Ibrahim...
#26. To: Burkeman1 (#4)
But until then- NR should shut the fuck up and start to adhere to some of the principles they ONCE said they believed in. Pathetic cowards and Fearmongers.
#27. To: noone222 (#7)
Not only are "taxpayers" funding the housing, medical and food needs of illegals that could give a shit about our culture, they're paying for their lawyers too
#28. To: wbales (#23)
You and I know that would happen--and if the battle went any distance inland, there'd be a American ambush wainting behind every bush, wall, tree and rock.
#29. To: YertleTurtle (#5)
"These drivers should be fired."
#30. To: HOUNDDAWG (#24)
most people don't understand that nig....I mean, African Americans
#31. To: bluedogtxn (#25)
Isn't it offensive when some Jew refuses to take off his beanie and walks around with curls on the side of his head and refuses to eat anything you offer him because it isn't "kosher"?
#32. To: bluedogtxn, HOUNDDAWG (#30)
What on earth makes you think that posting "nig... I mean African Americans" is going to gain you anything but scorn from anyone anywhere?
#33. To: Tauzero (#32)
Friend of a friend uses the n-word all the time.
#34. To: bluedogtxn (#27)
You prefer a system without them?
#35. To: mirage (#0)
All of these issues revolve around the Muslim desire to live according to Allah’s laws — which, among other things, ban contact with pigs, dogs, and alcohol,...
#36. To: lodwick (#35)
Allah needs to lighten up on his followers - they deserve a break.
#37. To: YertleTurtle, Burkeman1 (#5)
there is not one "free-market" taxi in the United States. All are heavily regulated by the goverment.
#38. To: BTP Holdings (#37)
#39. To: noone222 (#34)
Public Defenders are known as public pretenders for very good reason.
#40. To: noone222 (#38)
It's also a state crime in every state of the union !!!
#41. To: bluedogtxn (#25)
#42. To: mirage (#41)
The difference is between the person who follows his path without dragging people along with him -- and those who wish to drag everyone with him.
#43. To: bluedogtxn (#42)
It's hard to consistently favor freedom when that means you have to let other people be "free" to advocate for lessening the very freedom that permits them to speak. Or to freely practice their wacky religion.
#44. To: mirage (#43)
Traditionally, "Tolerance" meant not killing the guy living next to you because he was different - you let him do whatever he wanted (except capital crimes, of course) behind closed doors.
#45. To: bluedogtxn, Zipporah, christine, rowdee, robin, lodwick, Diana, Minerva, Jethro Tull, Tauzero (#30)
(Edited)
most people don't understand that nig....I mean, African Americans
#46. To: HOUNDDAWG (#45)
Your shrieks of simulated outrage are duly noted, counselor.
#47. To: bluedogtxn (#44)
#48. To: mirage (#47)
America used to think of herself as having a common language. We are now told by many people that is a bad idea.
#49. To: bluedogtxn (#48)
#50. To: mirage (#49)
Like all movements, once the activists win, they can't leave it alone and the movement is hijacked by more radical elements and becomes a mockery of itself by pushing things too far.
#51. To: bluedogtxn (#50)
#52. To: mirage (#51)
Just to correct, Clinton vetoed the Republican Congress' "welfare reform" three times before finally signing it and then claimed credit for it. Clinton did not want to touch the system as it was.
#53. To: bluedogtxn, Zipporah, christine, rowdee, robin, lodwick, Diana, Minerva, Jethro Tull, Tauzero (#46)
Your shrieks of simulated outrage are duly noted, counselor.
#54. To: mirage (#51)
IMO, the system will collapse in on itself as more and more money is diverted to useless activities
#55. To: HOUNDDAWG (#53)
Tell me, do you agree with christine's post or not?
#56. To: bluedogtxn (#55)
(Edited)
#57. To: bluedogtxn (#52)
.
.
.