Khizr Khan should read the constitution.

EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3928
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Khizr Khan should read the constitution.

The media and Dems speading their lies again. Turns out the president can ban Muslim immigration. The constitution only forbids a religious test for public office. Obama has already demonstrated the president can issue executive orders to keep or deport whomever he pleases. Dems don't seem to have a problem with the president having this authority now.

Also, his supposed insult was really an insult of Islam treating women as second class. The media now thinks that if you loose a son in a war, you can't be critisized ever. BS, he entered the political arena by talking at a political convention. So if he can dish it out, he should be able to take it back. Besides if you look at Mr. Khan's background, he is an immigration lawyer for Muslims. So his attack on Trump was probably about money he'd loose if Trump was elected. If he want to be mad at a politician for loosing his son, why not Hillary who voted for the Iraq war.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/02/khizr-khan-deletes-law-firm-website-proving-financially-benefits-pay-pl...

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Obama has yet to deport an

Obama has yet to deport an entire visible majority. You're drawing comparisons where there are none.

FYI: Trump supported the war on Iraq too.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Obama has yet

Vastet wrote:
Obama has yet to deport an entire visible majority. You're drawing comparisons where there are none. FYI: Drumpf supported the war on Iraq too.

Yep and double yep... but later he reversed his decision which didn't matter because he is a dork


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:The media and

EXC wrote:

The media and Dems speading their lies again. Turns out the president can ban Muslim immigration. The constitution only forbids a religious test for public office. Obama has already demonstrated the president can issue executive orders to keep or deport whomever he pleases. Dems don't seem to have a problem with the president having this authority now.

Also, his supposed insult was really an insult of Islam treating women as second class. The media now thinks that if you loose a son in a war, you can't be critisized ever. BS, he entered the political arena by talking at a political convention. So if he can dish it out, he should be able to take it back. Besides if you look at Mr. Khan's background, he is an immigration lawyer for Muslims. So his attack on Trump was probably about money he'd loose if Trump was elected. If he want to be mad at a politician for loosing his son, why not Hillary who voted for the Iraq war.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/02/khizr-khan-deletes-law-firm-website-proving-financially-benefits-pay-pl...

 

Bullshit, that is not what he or democrats advocate you fucking asshole. It is called tact. Context of situation. There is no religious test to serve in any office of public trust that includes military asshole. It is one thing to say far too many women are second class in the Middle East and those subjugations are Quran based. But even Sam Harris who is a huge critic of Islam is calling Trump nuts. I can value McCain's service myself, being a democrat, witout valuing his economics. 

 

So unless you can show me in the Constitution that Mulsims are barred from service you can go fuck yourself. And remember the bullshit you are spewing here because far too many Christians think an atheist is unfit for political office and military service. 

 

Trump does not understand his role as a politician. He does not underestand you cannot us a position of pulic trust as an episode of Jerry Springer. He does not understand the difference between criticism, blasphemy and what he is doing which is bigoted demagoguery. It is vile enough that he is employing Jim Crow and McCarthism to pander to fear. 

What Hitchens did was blasphemy, not demagoguery. What Harris was doing was blasphemy, not demagoguery. Those parents were not advocating censorship, they were simply saying "how dare you attack our son after what he did". 

 

Sam Harris once said "Islam is the motherload of bad ideas". Yea and? The history of the west still can be traced back to the same relative degree of barbarism that only secular law has put a leash on. Harris and Hitchens don't/didn't focus on one religion, and even the sexism of Islam Trump tried to employ still ignores that Islam didn't invent sexism, and even Jews and Hindus and Buddhists have their pockets and degrees of it. But that isn't why Trump was wrong. There is no legal law preventing him from being an asshole while holding public office, but just like his failed businessess he got rich sticking others with the bill, he doesn't understand the difference between legal vs moral. It is flat out dangerous to use a political office for the dangerous tactic of divisive rhetoric to the degree of demagoguery. If you want to see what that looks like move to North Korea or Iran or Saudi Arabia, that is what fear and demagoguery look like, and Trump is using that same tactic, and that is extremely dangerous on a global scale.

 

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/brotherrichard/2016/07/sam-harris-on-why-donald-trump-is-a-dangerous-candidate/

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Trump cannot have it both

 Trump cannot have it both ways, if he opens his vile toxic pie hole, others have the right to respond. That is all they did. 

Now if you insist on dragging this bullshit out further I can post links of stories and history of the sexism rooted in every religion. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian yet again ignores the

Brian yet again ignores the topic and makes a fool of himself.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3928
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
 Do you even bother reading

 Do you even bother reading anything? What Trump was suggesting was banning Muslim immigration. He or I said nothing about Muslim citizens serving in the military. Where in the constitution does the president not have this authority? You can't answer that. You're too stupid to debate anyone. So crank up the profanity, that is all an idiot has to say.

 I don't need someone that supports Sharia law telling me about the constitution. Why do the Dems allow a man that supports legal wife beatings to speak at their convention? They are insane.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It is called

Brian37 wrote:
It is called tact.



(spit take) LOOOOLLLLLLLL holy shit, the irony is killing me inside!!!!

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I don't need

EXC wrote:

I don't need someone that supports Sharia law telling me about the constitution. Why do the Dems allow a man that supports legal wife beatings to speak at their convention? They are insane.




do you know for a fact that khan supports sharia law? because there is nothing in islam that binds a muslim to accept sharia law, and many, within the muslim world and without, do not. sharia is not quran. sharia is not din.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3928
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:EXC wrote:I

iwbiek wrote:
EXC wrote:

I don't need someone that supports Sharia law telling me about the constitution. Why do the Dems allow a man that supports legal wife beatings to speak at their convention? They are insane.


do you know for a fact that khan supports sharia law? because there is nothing in islam that binds a muslim to accept sharia law, and many, within the muslim world and without, do not. sharia is not quran. sharia is not din.

Of course you're not going to get any info on Mr. Khan in the mainstream.

http://www.alipac.us/f9/khizr-khan-has-written-extensively-sharia-law-335675/

Of course he nows disavows it, kind of like Trump disavowing his support for Iraq war. But of couse there is a double standard.

They also don't tell you how much money he looses if Trump gets his immigration ban.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Of course you're

EXC wrote:

Of course you're not going to get any info on Mr. Khan in the mainstream.

http://www.alipac.us/f9/khizr-khan-has-written-extensively-sharia-law-335675/

Of course he nows disavows it, kind of like Drumpf disavowing his support for Iraq war. But of couse there is a double standard.

They also don't tell you how much money he looses if Drumpf gets his immigration ban.

The Muslim attorney writes that, “it has to be admitted, however, that the Quran, being basically a book of religious guidance, is not an easy reference for legal studies. It is more particularly an appeal to faith and the human soul rather than a classification of legal prescriptions.” Khan added that, “the major portion of the Quran is, as with every Holy Book, a code of divine exhortation and moral principals.”


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm thinking-

Everyone should take a re-look at the constitution.

What does it mean by the term "freedom". or "people". The constitution deals strictly with people's relations with each other and an established government. Getting right down to the bottom of the matter, Freedom means frdom from everyone else, and government. No person, or any government agency, or "the government" has any legal right or rights over anyone----------------------except if a person commit a crime, or is in military service, referred to GI- Government Issue. No person has the right to attempt any takeover of another, without consent of the person. Under the constitution and what it means and intents are, evey person is free form every other. To attpmt any takeover of another person for any reason is "UNCONSTITUTIONAL).  If this is not correct, then the document is meaningless and we all have the right to enslave another by what ever means the government alloows---which, it cannot allow, without breaking the tennants of the constitution itself.

If, "freedom" does not mean freedom from evryone and government--- as we can see from the system in place,  there is no freedom. It is outside the constitution to own anyone, or even make the attempt. In the case of employment (a classic case of unconstitutional process) an employer has no legal possesion of a pesron. All labor must be done by agreement, and an employer cannot make any attrempt at the will to subjigate another for labor. A corporation, company, person has no more legal standing then ----one's own person. The government itself is complicit in this process--by fostering a system of subjugation by default. A proper US Government under the US constitution cannot be part of any subjugational system. The money system being connected to everything has led to a system of subjugation via the use of money which becomes needed by everyone. One can only aquire money from another person, and in order for that to be one MUST become subjugated to another person to aquire it. This amounts to mutual forced servatude which has to be an unconstitutional process. Forced servatude by any means is still forced survatude.

How then you may ask---how are we to have an ecomomy---Tuff shitski, the constituion does not create one. The constitution does not allow government to create an economy either, if so, government can't do it without removing rights and freedom. Any tax that the government applies cannot be the means that one becomes subject to another. If so, that means that the government can tax a person into subjugation of others to come up with the money. Government can not tax if one has to loose freedom to pay it. IE- proerty tax. If one has to pay tax to keep their property, and loose the property for non-payment---then you have the rights to use the property but not own it. If in order to pay the tax one must become subject to another--it's an unconstitutional tax. One owns it or they don't.

You may ask, well dummy Old Seer how is this supposed to work. OK, it's not supposed to work, the founders of the US of A didn't complete the constitution becasue they couldn't get it to work either, so they left it to upcoming generations to kick the shit out of each other until it collapses. What makes anyone think that the US of A founders could make a civilization any better then any one before them.Most of the big fight that goes on around here is from avoiding subjugation.

Civilizations do not get founded on freedom. They are founded on the concept of-a few over the many. If there is to be money, then money will rule, and the one's aquireing the most money become the government. ---------------As can be seen---------If government equals money then government represents money and Vice versa----and it is impossible for it to end up any other way.    Civilization doesn't work, because it's nothing more then a system of subjugation in trade for goodies. 

If civilizations can only be founded on subjugation of the masses toward a central cause, then the constitution is moot, null and void, becasue it does not allow such a system of mutual subjagation by default or any other. Technically, the constitution dosen't create a civilization, it disallows it. How can one be free but yet subjugated to others?????? Very simple. Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Everyone

Old Seer wrote:

Everyone should take a re-look at the constitution.

What does it mean by the term "freedom". or "people". The constitution deals strictly with people's relations with each other and an established government. Getting right down to the bottom of the matter, Freedom means frdom from everyone else, and government. No person, or any government agency, or "the government" has any legal right or rights over anyone----------------------except if a person commit a crime, or is in military service, referred to GI- Government Issue. No person has the right to attempt any takeover of another, without consent of the person. Under the constitution and what it means and intents are, evey person is free form every other. To attpmt any takeover of another person for any reason is "UNCONSTITUTIONAL).  If this is not correct, then the document is meaningless and we all have the right to enslave another by what ever means the government alloows---which, it cannot allow, without breaking the tennants of the constitution itself.

If, "freedom" does not mean freedom from evryone and government--- as we can see from the system in place,  there is no freedom. It is outside the constitution to own anyone, or even make the attempt. In the case of employment (a classic case of unconstitutional process) an employer has no legal possesion of a pesron. All labor must be done by agreement, and an employer cannot make any attrempt at the will to subjigate another for labor. A corporation, company, person has no more legal standing then ----one's own person. The government itself is complicit in this process--by fostering a system of subjugation by default. A proper US Government under the US constitution cannot be part of any subjugational system. The money system being connected to everything has led to a system of subjugation via the use of money which becomes needed by everyone. One can only aquire money from another person, and in order for that to be one MUST become subjugated to another person to aquire it. This amounts to mutual forced servatude which has to be an unconstitutional process. Forced servatude by any means is still forced survatude.

How then you may ask---how are we to have an ecomomy---Tuff shitski, the constituion does not create one. The constitution does not allow government to create an economy either, if so, government can't do it without removing rights and freedom. Any tax that the government applies cannot be the means that one becomes subject to another. If so, that means that the government can tax a person into subjugation of others to come up with the money. Government can not tax if one has to loose freedom to pay it. IE- proerty tax. If one has to pay tax to keep their property, and loose the property for non-payment---then you have the rights to use the property but not own it. If in order to pay the tax one must become subject to another--it's an unconstitutional tax. One owns it or they don't.

You may ask, well dummy Old Seer how is this supposed to work. OK, it's not supposed to work, the founders of the US of A didn't complete the constitution becasue they couldn't get it to work either, so they left it to upcoming generations to kick the shit out of each other until it collapses. What makes anyone think that the US of A founders could make a civilization any better then any one before them.Most of the big fight that goes on around here is from avoiding subjugation.

Civilizations do not get founded on freedom. They are founded on the concept of-a few over the many. If there is to be money, then money will rule, and the one's aquireing the most money become the government. ---------------As can be seen---------If government equals money then government represents money and Vice versa----and it is impossible for it to end up any other way.    Civilization doesn't work, because it's nothing more then a system of subjugation in trade for goodies. 

If civilizations can only be founded on subjugation of the masses toward a central cause, then the constitution is moot, null and void, becasue it does not allow such a system of mutual subjagation by default or any other. Technically, the constitution dosen't create a civilization, it disallows it. How can one be free but yet subjugated to others?????? Very simple. Smiling

Interesting point of view.

Freedom up to a specific point. Those who take the freedom too far and try to destroy the Union or freedoms of others, then they are crossing the line


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:The media and Dems

EXC wrote:

The media and Dems speading their lies again. Turns out the president can ban Muslim immigration. The constitution only forbids a religious test for public office. Obama has already demonstrated the president can issue executive orders to keep or deport whomever he pleases. Dems don't seem to have a problem with the president having this authority now.

Also, his supposed insult was really an insult of Islam treating women as second class. The media now thinks that if you loose a son in a war, you can't be critisized ever. BS, he entered the political arena by talking at a political convention. So if he can dish it out, he should be able to take it back. Besides if you look at Mr. Khan's background, he is an immigration lawyer for Muslims. So his attack on Trump was probably about money he'd loose if Trump was elected. If he want to be mad at a politician for loosing his son, why not Hillary who voted for the Iraq war.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/02/khizr-khan-deletes-law-firm-website-proving-financially-benefits-pay-pl...

 

No asshole, a president having the power of executive order is one every president has, and every president under both parties has used it to deport and also for immigration reform. There still is a check on the president's power, and that power is congress and the Supreme Court. What Dems are condemning isn't exective power, but the implication by the GOP and Trump of WW2 cattle car demagoguery.

And what does Khan have to do with deporting anyone asshole? He and his family were here legally. Trump simply shit on someone who didn't deserve it for no other reason but to get attention and pander to assholes like you.

That wasn't Sam Harris or Bill Maher or Ayaan Hersi Ali critiizing the treatment of women in Islam, that simply was not the context to do such a thing you fuckwad. It was simply a cheap shot having absolutely nothing to do with lagit criticism. It was pandering and using demagoguery.

It is one thing to say "Women on average in the Middle East are not treated as well and that is religious sexism". It is quite another to use scapegoating demagoguery about individuals you don't know personally, and in politics that kind of rhetoric is toxic. And if you want me to point to Christian sexism and Jewish sexism and Buddhist sexism and Hindu sexism I am more than ready to point out those histories as well.

And Muslims are not the only group Trump has scapegoated, he's done it to Hispanics, captured Veterians, and judges and the media. Everything to Trump is a target and everything is everyone else's fault but his. Same bullshit Hitler used to rise to power "Make Germany Great Again". In Trump's case Godwin's law is quite accurate.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3928
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Trump simply

Brian37 wrote:

Trump simply shit on someone who didn't deserve it for no other reason but to get attention and pander.

Not true at all. Mr. Kahn decided to attack Mr. Trump first. His supposed attack was just to point out that he may be repressing his wife which is something Sharia law requires. And Mr. Kahn has supported Sharia law in past writings. I don't need a lecture from someone that supports Sharia about equal rights and dignity.

I state the facts, now you spew the vulgar language.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The question is.

Is Sharia Law compatable with the constitution.

I've spent a fair amount of the day studying this--and I say it isn't. (i don't care to present myself as an authority on any of this)

It's not necessarily that big of a deal at this time becasue in the US a person't feet and/or hands cannot be cut off for theivery.

But, is that actually Islamic law. I could'nt find where it wasn't.

That leaves two things to consider.

1- to be a Muslim one must conform to Islamic law just as is a qualification in any religion. The muslims that come to the US have modified the religion to fit the constitution.

Or

2- If they modified it, it isn't Islam. Frome what I see there's apparently a morphing going on.

 So, what is it. So far I have to put the works in the "illogical column". (religions aren't very logical anyway and don't rely on it)

Just a simple question comes to  mind taking one item only into accounts. Do they believe ( and is it an actual belief) that a thief gets hands and feet cut off. Yes-No. If yes-then it's not compatable with the constitution.

 I don't care to be kicking anyone's religious guts out here. But, what is it, yes or no. The Muslims themselves don't seem to know.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:1- to be a

Old Seer wrote:
1- to be a Muslim one must conform to Islamic law just as is a qualification in any religion.



absolutely not true. in terms of manistream islamic thought, it is not a fundmental of islam to accept sharia. which sharia would you accept? there are four major schools in sunni islam alone.


Old Seer wrote:
2- If they modified it, it isn't Islam. Frome what I see there's apparently a morphing going on.



this is the essentialist fallacy, pure and simple. what is "islam" then? any definition you (or anyone else) come up with will most likely be a narrow ideal, bearing little resemblance to the religion in practice. all religions "morph" constantly. muhammad himself changed several things during his career. not only would "original" 7th century islam be mostly unrecognizble to a muslim today, it probably would have been mostly unrecognizable to a muslim in the 10th century.


i mean, purely in terms of logistics, islam in america can't look like it does in saudi arabia--nor can islam in iran, pakistan, tunisia, or bosnia-herzegovina, just as christanity in india cannot look like it does in the US.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Is Sharia Law

Old Seer wrote:

Is Sharia Law compatable with the constitution.

I've spent a fair amount of the day studying this--and I say it isn't. (i don't care to present myself as an authority on any of this)

It's not necessarily that big of a deal at this time becasue in the US a person't feet and/or hands cannot be cut off for theivery.

But, is that actually Islamic law. I could'nt find where it wasn't.

That leaves two things to consider.

1- to be a Muslim one must conform to Islamic law just as is a qualification in any religion. The muslims that come to the US have modified the religion to fit the constitution.

Or

2- If they modified it, it isn't Islam. Frome what I see there's apparently a morphing going on.

 So, what is it. So far I have to put the works in the "illogical column". (religions aren't very logical anyway and don't rely on it)

Just a simple question comes to  mind taking one item only into accounts. Do they believe ( and is it an actual belief) that a thief gets hands and feet cut off. Yes-No. If yes-then it's not compatable with the constitution.

 I don't care to be kicking anyone's religious guts out here. But, what is it, yes or no. The Muslims themselves don't seem to know.

 

No of course sharia law isn't compatable, but what does that have to do with the western concepts of common law? I really hate this fucking paranoid bullshit that somehow 1 religion on a planet of 7 billion is magically going to take over the entire planet and make us one giant Islamic theocracy. Fucking nonsense and fucking bullshit. Not even China or Russia or even North Korea would put up with that, much less Isreal or Japan or Australia.

 

The books of Abrham ALL THREE, are tribal books, reflecting the rival times they lived under. The Bible NEVER advocates modern common law. You still have a head boss who is immovable, not ellected, and at best "allows" by his whim, not human consent, a puppet government "leave to ceazar". Saying that the Quran is worse than the bible misses the context of history and the fact they are still the same line of superstion and all three having an ultimate power that is immovable. The only difference between the west and the east is that the west has had a longer time keeping Christianity on a leash. Christianity has been used to justify the dark ages, witch hunts, slavery, genocide of Native Americans, sexism even today, and homophobia, even today. Secular law is what keeps the west more civil, not religion.

 

Criticism and blasphemy is one thing, but delusional paranoia is another. You don't protect Muslims because you like every word in the quran. You protect your fellow human because you would want that same protection yourself. Attacking claims in a book is one thing, but I get sick of that being used to excuse blanket presumption of guilt.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Brian37

EXC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Trump simply shit on someone who didn't deserve it for no other reason but to get attention and pander.

Not true at all. Mr. Kahn decided to attack Mr. Trump first. His supposed attack was just to point out that he may be repressing his wife which is something Sharia law requires. And Mr. Kahn has supported Sharia law in past writings. I don't need a lecture from someone that supports Sharia about equal rights and dignity.

I state the facts, now you spew the vulgar language.

 

Fuck you asshole, yep, typical bully, "He started it".... Yep, that is what bullies do, when they get called out they falsely play victim and then accuse the other of what they are doing themselves. You are fucking acting like this was Trump's first insult. No you fucking asshole, he attacked McCain too, but not just Veterians EVRYONE YOU DIPSHIT! Then he pisses his pants when people put a mirror to his face.

 

Nither McCain or Khan's son were accused of any crimes during their service, neither went AWOL. No a soldier should not be free from criticism, but you keep missing the fucking point, that there was noting about either to cricise. McCain at least is alive to defend himself verbally. The reason he was captured had nothing to do with his effort or intent, but our bad policy, and that was not his fault. But it is far worse to pick on Khan's mother or her son because he is not arround to defend himself or his mother. What Trump did was vile, what he did was not blasphemy or criticism, what he did was piss on someone for no good reason other than to get attention. 

Now asshole, would you like me to post a story of asshole RTwing Jews who held back an airline because those asshole men refused to sit next to women? Our military is NOT subject to a religious litmus test. It has not just Christians, but Jews and atheists and Buddhists and Muslims. And all of our service personell DO take that oath to protect even the right to offend them. But you asshole, don't understand like Trump, the difference between legal and moral, or context. 

And the worst part of you defending that asshole is that you are too fucking stupid to accept, he panders to the worst religious right wing in our country, people who think an atheist is unworthy to serve or hold office. 

Khan didn't start shit asshole, Trump did last year when he anounced his run.

 

"Vulgar".... No assshole "Vulgar" is calling Mexicans rapists. Vulgar is imlying mass deportation at a WW2 German scale. Vulgar is calling a captured Veteran a loser. Vulgar is attacking a sitting judge who is under no suspicion of a crime. Vulgar is  joking as a politician about kiling a rival. Your orange douchebag doesn't seem to understand that running for our highest office isn't an episode of Jerry Springer. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Obama has yet

Vastet wrote:
Obama has yet to deport an entire visible majority. You're drawing comparisons where there are none. FYI: Trump supported the war on Iraq too.

Not ignoring shit asshole. No president has the sole power to single out any group like Hilter singled out Jews, and that is a good thing we in the west don't think like that. Poliicians should not be talking about a "Mexican question" or a "Muslim question" anymore than it was right for Hitler to talk about the "Jewish Question".But the GOP and Trump ARE marketing scapegoating demgagoguery of entire groups. Offensive speech sceases to deserve protection when it gets to the point of advocating eradication. And having a politician demagogue entire labels is dangerous. 

 I don't give a shit what Trump supported, he is an opportunist and a sociopath and megalomaniac. 

And if EXE thinks Bretfart is objective, he is a fucking moron.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: wrote:Drumpf

EXC wrote:

wrote:

Drumpf simply shit on someone who didn't deserve it for no other reason but to get attention and pander.

Not true at all. Mr. Kahn decided to attack Mr. Drumpf first. His supposed attack was just to point out that he may be repressing his wife which is something Sharia law requires. And Mr. Kahn has supported Sharia law in past writings. I don't need a lecture from someone that supports Sharia about equal rights and dignity.

I state the facts, now you spew the vulgar language.

Depends on how you look at it. Drumpf has attacked the Muslim faith, many might say Kahn had been indirectly attacked first.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: 1- to be a

Old Seer wrote:

1- to be a Muslim one must conform to Islamic law just as is a qualification in any religion. The muslims that come to the US have modified the religion to fit the constitution.

2- If they modified it, it isn't Islam. Frome what I see there's apparently a morphing going on.

What form of Islamic teachings did you examine? Or are you comparing only one form of Islam to the constitution?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Old

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

1- to be a Muslim one must conform to Islamic law just as is a qualification in any religion. The muslims that come to the US have modified the religion to fit the constitution.

2- If they modified it, it isn't Islam. Frome what I see there's apparently a morphing going on.

What form of Islamic teachings did you examine? Or are you comparing only one form of Islam to the constitution?

There is only 1 Islam just like there is only one Christianity, and one Jewish religion and one Buddhist religion. The thousands of sub sects and different interpretations of all those, is what you are talking about. Under western law and under the U.S. Constituon people can hold very vile positions like the KKK and Nazi Skinheads, and even if this husband did or does think she is second to him, that is no different to me than when our fundy Christains say similar things and to say they don't is bullshit. What made what Trump said wrong, wasn't the criticism of treament of females, what made it wrong was the context of the situation and his role as a politician. And again, Khan was not the first target Trump has done that too. Trump has carpet bombed everyone not for any pragmatic criticism, but is treating politics like an episode of Jerry Springer.

You want to blaspheme Islam, or Christianty or Jews or Hindus or Buddhist or even atheists, Trump's tactics are not blasphemy, but demagoguery. Trumps tactics are way beyond merely offending. 

Political demagoguery must be addressed in the strongest condemnation, to not do so is to reapeat the horrors of the past.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
That's the problem

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

1- to be a Muslim one must conform to Islamic law just as is a qualification in any religion. The muslims that come to the US have modified the religion to fit the constitution.

2- If they modified it, it isn't Islam. Frome what I see there's apparently a morphing going on.

What form of Islamic teachings did you examine? Or are you comparing only one form of Islam to the constitution?

I'm having---what is it? Let's put aside for a moment the one's that would be compatable with the constitution. That leaves the ones that aren't. After looking over various websites I can't decide what's what. But, there are those that allow hands and feet removed if you steal a car. Those particular sects (whatever) can't be compatable with the constitution.

The Saudi government is still chopping off hands, heads, feet and anything else they can find, that's a known. In our world here of the US that's considered "extreme", and if so the Saudi government has to be extremists. I'm not saying that if they come here they'll be cutting off hands and feet, but, that religion can't be compatable with the US constitution. The question here is not what they would do or not do, the beliefs would be considered "extreme". If ISIS is killing floks they deem infidels --well- ---that's within their sect of Islamic law. Then they would have the construct of the same religion the Saudis have. From practical reasoning, the Saudis are under Sharia law, and so is ISIS. Look at the hypocacy here. That's why I put the whole works in the "illogical column". It looks to me like Mr Kahn should be answering the question----which sect does he belong to, -----and can he deny the particulars. I don't see how.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
ok, so instead of saying

ok, so instead of saying "muslim" you should be more specific and say "wahhabi" or "salafi," and probably something more specific than that.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
What you have here

iwbiek wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
1- to be a Muslim one must conform to Islamic law just as is a qualification in any religion.

absolutely not true. in terms of manistream islamic thought, it is not a fundmental of islam to accept sharia. which sharia would you accept? there are four major schools in sunni islam alone.
Old Seer wrote:
2- If they modified it, it isn't Islam. Frome what I see there's apparently a morphing going on.

this is the essentialist fallacy, pure and simple. what is "islam" then? any definition you (or anyone else) come up with will most likely be a narrow ideal, bearing little resemblance to the religion in practice. all religions "morph" constantly. muhammad himself changed several things during his career. not only would "original" 7th century islam be mostly unrecognizble to a muslim today, it probably would have been mostly unrecognizable to a muslim in the 10th century.
i mean, purely in terms of logistics, islam in america can't look like it does in saudi arabia--nor can islam in iran, pakistan, tunisia, or bosnia-herzegovina, just as christanity in india cannot look like it does in the US.
is why I'm confused. If we take what you said here Muslims could adapt what is regarded as Christianity and and call it Islam. If it's all goin g to keep morphing in all directions all religions are the same. So, whos' who. Back in the dark ages those claiming to be Christians choped people to peices too, so were they muslims at that time and they're Christians now---or Are muslims christians now. It seems none of these religions are making sense. Old Seers don't have a religion--- to even touch the idea we ran into hypocacy.
Do your own experiement--understake creating your own religion for everyoine else and see if you can avoid hypocacy. You won't be able to. It's the same with government. The reason the world is the way it is today is becasue hypocracy doesn't work. Smiling

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I'll say that there is no

I'll say that there is no absolute when it comes to religion, except for the beholder. People will interpret things the way they want to, which is why Christians ignore all those old testament sections where you are supposed to stone your kid if he is disrespectful or if a person eats shellfish. It doesn't fit in to their scheme of things so they ignore it. It's a fucking wonder why people bother to attach themselves to a religion and instead just go out and do what ever the fuck they want; the same goes for these Islamic bullshitters who claim to be following the exact worth of their prophet. They have already ignored some of the teachings because it doesn't fit in to their political plans.

How Islamic is the Islamic State? Not very, say experts: How group hand-picks what it wants from the Koran and accounts of Muhammad's actions to wage its jihad.

Daily Mail - http://tinyurl.com/hnn5t73

ISIS Is Ignoring Islam’s Teachings on Yazidis and Christians

Time.Com -  time.com/3093732/isis-iraq-yazidis-and-christians/


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3928
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:"Vulgar"....

Brian37 wrote:

"Vulgar".... No assshole "Vulgar" is calling Mexicans rapists.

So the 80% of Hispanic women that claimed they were raped immigrating to the US. Are they liars or just vulgar? You're too much of coward to answer if these women should be believed.

Brian37 wrote:

Vulgar is imlying mass deportation at a WW2 German scale. 

We're doing them a favor. Giving the millions of workers that came to the hellhole that trickle down economics created a ticket back to the socialist paradice that came from.

Brian37 wrote:

Vulgar is calling a captured Veteran a loser. Vulgar is attacking a sitting judge who is under no suspicion of a crime. Vulgar is  joking as a politician about kiling a rival.

None of which happend. I know Trump tries to conseal his meaning, he just doesn't understand how smart you are at figuring out that he's Aldolf Hitler reincarnated.

Brian37 wrote:

Your orange douchebag doesn't seem to understand that running for our highest office isn't an episode of Jerry Springer. 

Well I guess you would know since you obviosly grew up in one.

 

Orange lives matter.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:If we take

Old Seer wrote:
If we take what you said here Muslims could adapt what is regarded as Christianity and and call it Islam.



of course they could, they absolutely could. why not? the only people that makes problems for are scholars and polemicists who like everything neatly categorized because it makes formulating arguments easier.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Not ignoring

Brian37 wrote:
Not ignoring shit asshole.

As I wasn't talking to you, you obviously are ignoring shit. Retard.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Then there's

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I'll say that there is no absolute when it comes to religion, except for the beholder. People will interpret things the way they want to, which is why Christians ignore all those old testament sections where you are supposed to stone your kid if he is disrespectful or if a person eats shellfish. It doesn't fit in to their scheme of things so they ignore it. It's a fucking wonder why people bother to attach themselves to a religion and instead just go out and do what ever the fuck they want; the same goes for these Islamic bullshitters who claim to be following the exact worth of their prophet. They have already ignored some of the teachings because it doesn't fit in to their political plans.

How Islamic is the Islamic State? Not very, say experts: How group hand-picks what it wants from the Koran and accounts of Muhammad's actions to wage its jihad.

Daily Mail - http://tinyurl.com/hnn5t73

ISIS Is Ignoring Islam’s Teachings on Yazidis and Christians

Time.Com -  time.com/3093732/isis-iraq-yazidis-and-christians/

devine revelation. Whoever or whatever the divine is doesn't seem to have everything in one back pack. Apparently the divine makes mistakes, or tells one clergyman one thing and another something else, now, that's religions in general.  Under that idea anyone could be making divine revelations. If Mohamad had to make changes then that's fairly well negates devine revelation in the works.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Brian37

EXC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

"Vulgar".... No assshole "Vulgar" is calling Mexicans rapists.

So the 80% of Hispanic women that claimed they were raped immigrating to the US. Are they liars or just vulgar? You're too much of coward to answer if these women should be believed.

Brian37 wrote:

Vulgar is imlying mass deportation at a WW2 German scale. 

We're doing them a favor. Giving the millions of workers that came to the hellhole that trickle down economics created a ticket back to the socialist paradice that came from.

Brian37 wrote:

Vulgar is calling a captured Veteran a loser. Vulgar is attacking a sitting judge who is under no suspicion of a crime. Vulgar is  joking as a politician about kiling a rival.

None of which happend. I know Trump tries to conseal his meaning, he just doesn't understand how smart you are at figuring out that he's Aldolf Hitler reincarnated.

Brian37 wrote:

Your orange douchebag doesn't seem to understand that running for our highest office isn't an episode of Jerry Springer. 

Well I guess you would know since you obviosly grew up in one.

 

Orange lives matter.

 

Nice asshole. You really think it is a joke to equate my rightful condamnation as being the same demogoguery of Trump.

Fuck you. 

Trump isn't telling it like it is asshole. He is shallow narcissist using the same political tactic of fear and hate and hyper nationalism Hitler used. He isn't using the usual mudslinging that has gone on in our entire political history. He isn't addressing anything of substance. He has for the past year treated politics as his own Jerry Springer shock jock cable program. He isn't a left or right issue now, he isn't a policy issue or ecnomic issue now. He is a very dangerous person. 

I have posted tons republicans and even Sam Harris has called him dangerous. He has GOP former agents warning about him, he has several in his own party saying he has gone too far. But that is what you have consistantly done asshole, I can point to others whom are not me, and you still avoid that merely because you have a personal beef with me.

You want to make excuses for that selfish sociopath, just because you don't like me, you are a fucking moron.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:iwbiek

Old Seer wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
1- to be a Muslim one must conform to Islamic law just as is a qualification in any religion.

absolutely not true. in terms of manistream islamic thought, it is not a fundmental of islam to accept sharia. which sharia would you accept? there are four major schools in sunni islam alone.
Old Seer wrote:
2- If they modified it, it isn't Islam. Frome what I see there's apparently a morphing going on.

this is the essentialist fallacy, pure and simple. what is "islam" then? any definition you (or anyone else) come up with will most likely be a narrow ideal, bearing little resemblance to the religion in practice. all religions "morph" constantly. muhammad himself changed several things during his career. not only would "original" 7th century islam be mostly unrecognizble to a muslim today, it probably would have been mostly unrecognizable to a muslim in the 10th century.
i mean, purely in terms of logistics, islam in america can't look like it does in saudi arabia--nor can islam in iran, pakistan, tunisia, or bosnia-herzegovina, just as christanity in india cannot look like it does in the US.
is why I'm confused. If we take what you said here Muslims could adapt what is regarded as Christianity and and call it Islam. If it's all goin g to keep morphing in all directions all religions are the same. So, whos' who. Back in the dark ages those claiming to be Christians choped people to peices too, so were they muslims at that time and they're Christians now---or Are muslims christians now. It seems none of these religions are making sense. Old Seers don't have a religion--- to even touch the idea we ran into hypocacy.
Do your own experiement--understake creating your own religion for everyoine else and see if you can avoid hypocacy. You won't be able to. It's the same with government. The reason the world is the way it is today is becasue hypocracy doesn't work. Smiling

 

Humans as individuals are never perfect and nobody, is right about everything all the time. But this is one time where I agree with you in that as much as many in the west love to point to the violence of the east forget the prior brutality of Christianity in Europe and even American history. Islam still stems from the same God of Abraham of the Christians and Jews, so if anyone wants to talk about Islam's justifications for violence, it isn't that they are wrong, but don't lie and claim it magically poofed out of nothing. It is simply a different interpretation of the same God. And you can find justifications for violence in the bible and Jewish OT too. The only difference between the east and the west is the west has lerned to keep religion on a leash to a far greater secular degree.

There has never been in the history of our species, much less any written religion, where you had no voilence or divisions, not even Hinduism or Buddhism escape this. There has never been or is now an umbrella label that does not contain competing sub sects with different interperetions as to how to follow those writings or which version or holy person to follow.

If Star Wars or Star Trek or Harry Potter got turned into real religions the same future splitting would happen. Don't laugh, si fi writer L Ron Hubbard created Scientology. 

You cannot get rid of religion by force on a planet of 7 billion. I still hate religion in that it is a horrible way to foster diplomacy, it can, but the problem is it is not universal not even under the same umbrella label for the reasons I stated.

What I have consistantly objected to with Vastet and Ibwiek isn't criticism or blasphemy or even cuss words. This all started years ago when Bob didn't side with Ibwiek after he suggested I talk to Bob. What you are seeing between us now is a bullshit petty beef on their part.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Old Seer

iwbiek wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
If we take what you said here Muslims could adapt what is regarded as Christianity and and call it Islam.

of course they could, they absolutely could. why not? the only people that makes problems for are scholars and polemicists who like everything neatly categorized because it makes formulating arguments easier.

I love how you try to dress the same argument with different words. "Neatly catigorized" code for " sweeping generalization" then stupidly try to claim that I am doing that myself. Trump, not me, is the one using simple language to prey on the hateful and gullible. Now just because I don't know every single verse of every different version of every holy writting in human history, does not mean I do not understand that there is diversity and complexity between humans, there always has been. But the sorce of the word's major religions still believed to day are ripe with competing sub sects and every single one of them started in an age of ignorance of nature and biology and science. 

I do also accept evolution, and I do know that there were no religions 200,000 years ago. I also accept that in 5 billion years we will be long extinct and all our superstitions and religons will die with us and the universe will go on without any record or care for us.

But we can have it your way for the sake of argument.

You, "You are an asshole Brian, you are a hypocrite Brian"

Fine.... Sam does not cuss in his books, he doesn't cuss on his websites, he also doesn't agree with all liberals, and even he has problems with Hillary. So you don't have to take my word for it, here is what Sam says about Trump. 

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az1JyDJ_iKU

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:This all

Brian37 wrote:
This all started years ago when Bob didn't side with Ibwiek after he suggested I talk to Bob.



i'm sick of you bringing up this completely imaginary shit. i never did any such a thing. quote me, motherfucker. go to "Google SEARCH this site!" on the side menu, find this magical discussion you keep bringing up, and fucking quote me. easiest thing in the world, if in fact it exists. put up or shut the fuck up.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
you know what? i just

you know what? i just fucking tried to do it for you. granted, the exchange you’re referring to NEVER TOOK PLACE, so i’m not exactly sure what i should search for, but i googled “iwbiek brian37 talk to bob” and ten pages in i got NOTHING except YOUR FUCKING IMAGINARY RAMBLINGS about shit that NEVER HAPPENED. QUOTE ME, you cowardly, lying fuck, or bring that fucker bob in here to quote me. maybe he remembers the fucking fairy tale you’re referring to. WHY would i have ever asked bob to corroborate DICK? he has cosigned your bullshit from DAY ONE. i would never ask bob for SHIT.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3928
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Trump isn't

Brian37 wrote:

Trump isn't telling it like it is

 

Well I've asked you why is saying that many of Mexicans crossing the border illegally are rapists Trump going to far when even liberal media reports that 80% of the latino women report being raped. Trump is telling it like it is.

You don't answer because you're a coward. You reply with nothing but vulgar cursing because you're a coward and you can do it ananymously over the internet. The cursing make you feel so tuff but you know you're too much of a coward to do it in person to anyone.

You're to much of coward to defend American women from these rapists crossing the border. Too much of a coward to stand up against Islam. At least Trump is showing the courage to be a real man.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
This all started years ago when Bob didn't side with Ibwiek after he suggested I talk to Bob.



i'm sick of you bringing up this completely imaginary shit. i never did any such a thing. quote me, motherfucker. go to "Google SEARCH this site!" on the side menu, find this magical discussion you keep bringing up, and fucking quote me. easiest thing in the world, if in fact it exists. put up or shut the fuck up.




brian, you're such a fucking chickenshit. big-talking motherfucker until someone calls you out, demanding evidence, then you fucking ghost and hope the exchange gets buried and forgotten, just like some bitch like kent hovind. fucking weak-ass trick.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson