RI Bills Fan Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 I'm curious. How many people agree with his stance on new Mosques. Yahoo Article
DC Tom Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Depends...am I allowed to disagree with him, or does it make me a racist because he's black? Or does that apply only to black Democrats? (No, I don't agree with him. Not even remotely.)
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Depends...am I allowed to disagree with him, or does it make me a racist because he's black? Or does that apply only to black Democrats? (No, I don't agree with him. Not even remotely.) What if you agree with him because he IS black? Is that racist? GG and Booster need to make the call.
RI Bills Fan Posted July 19, 2011 Author Posted July 19, 2011 Nope, don't agree with him at all. No surprise there. Depends...am I allowed to disagree with him, or does it make me a racist because he's black? Or does that apply only to black Democrats? (No, I don't agree with him. Not even remotely.) I'm not sure what race has to do with this. I could see Pat Buchanan giving the same quote and/or answers. What if you agree with him because he IS black? Is that racist? GG and Booster need to make the call. And if I disagree with you because you're an idiot does that make me an Idiotist? (Or would that just mean I'm DC Tom?) Again what does his race have to do with anything? He's stating a purely political idea that ignores race and cannot be defined along racial barriers. My opinion is still evolving. Evolution is a wonderful thing. I'm happy for you. Please drop by and see us again when you've developed the capacity for independent thought.
GG Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 I'm curious. How many people agree with his stance on new Mosques. Yahoo Article Cut him some slack. He's enjoying the times where whitey finally ranks someone below blacks.
OCinBuffalo Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 If we are take Cain at face value...if we are to take this argument at face value, then, it all depends on whether you can prove that Islam is not a religion, only, but also a political unit that is capable of subverting local, state, and Federal law. But really, it depends on which interpretation of Islam will specifically be practiced at this specific Mosque. If you look at the "Islam is the Answer" people's interpretation of Islam, then it is most certainly a subversive political unit, we should treat it no different than we treat the KKK or the Black Panthers, and these people have every right to keep it out of their community. "Islam is the Answer" means what it says. Instead of Marxism, instead of capitalism, their stated objective is to impose Islam on the world. They want to destroy our culture, laws, and way of life, and replace them with their own. We, as free people, have every right to resist them and their actions, to include setting up a base of operations in our neighborhood. If you look at rational Muslims' interpretation of Islam, then the laws of Islam Cain is describing are as relevant to our civil discourse as the goofy laws in the Bible: they represent 0 threat to us as does this Mosque. So, this really comes down to which interpretation will be practiced at the Mosque. It literally comes down to the actions of the the people, not the labels and/or the stereotypes. If the Mosque is to be used for worship, gathering, celebrations, etc., that's one thing. If it is to be used for subversive political actions, that's another. It depends on what they do, not what anybody says. If this was happening near me, I would say "Welcome to the community, I look forward to seeing how you contribute to it", and, then sit back and see what happens. We are Americans, and as such we are about giving everybody at least a first chance, if not a second one.
1billsfan Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 If we are take Cain at face value...if we are to take this argument at face value, then, it all depends on whether you can prove that Islam is not a religion, only, but also a political unit that is capable of subverting local, state, and Federal law. But really, it depends on which interpretation of Islam will specifically be practiced at this specific Mosque. If you look at the "Islam is the Answer" people's interpretation of Islam, then it is most certainly a subversive political unit, we should treat it no different than we treat the KKK or the Black Panthers, and these people have every right to keep it out of their community. "Islam is the Answer" means what it says. Instead of Marxism, instead of capitalism, their stated objective is to impose Islam on the world. They want to destroy our culture, laws, and way of life, and replace them with their own. We, as free people, have every right to resist them and their actions, to include setting up a base of operations in our neighborhood. If you look at rational Muslims' interpretation of Islam, then the laws of Islam Cain is describing are as relevant to our civil discourse as the goofy laws in the Bible: they represent 0 threat to us as does this Mosque. So, this really comes down to which interpretation will be practiced at the Mosque. It literally comes down to the actions of the the people, not the labels and/or the stereotypes. If the Mosque is to be used for worship, gathering, celebrations, etc., that's one thing. If it is to be used for subversive political actions, that's another. It depends on what they do, not what anybody says. If this was happening near me, I would say "Welcome to the community, I look forward to seeing how you contribute to it", and, then sit back and see what happens. We are Americans, and as such we are about giving everybody at least a first chance, if not a second one. Well put. There are two prongs to Islam, one is a religion and one is a political movement. The political side wants to infiltrate and use our laws against us even if it takes decades or centuries to do so. Communities should be able to ban mosques as long as mosques support sharia law. This is America, sharia law and our country's laws can not coexist.
DC Tom Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 I'm not sure what race has to do with this. I could see Pat Buchanan giving the same quote and/or answers. Has nothing to do with it. It was a backhanded commentary on the "If you don't agree with Obama, you're racist" crap.
Adam Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 I don't agree with him at all. What is going on in Mufreesboro is downright despicable.
ieatcrayonz Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) I'm curious. How many people agree with his stance on new Mosques. Yahoo Article Cain, who is Christian, referred to the planned Murfreesboro mosque as an "infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion" during interviews with reporters at a campaign stop in Murfreesboro. I am sure there is more to this than just a mosque, but the article is short on details. I think the cases of denying people the ability to build religious buildings, should be the exception, not the rule. Places of worship much be free, but ask yourself this honestly: If a bunch of Canadians barged into your town and wanted to "erect" a shrine of Celine Dion because they worship her, would you stand there and let it happen? Two words: property value. Two more words about the statue itself: :sick: Edited July 19, 2011 by ieatcrayonz
/dev/null Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) If a bunch of Canadians barged into your town and wanted to "erect" a shrine of Celine Dion That is the only plausible scenario for Celine Dion to be the cause of something to become erect Edited July 19, 2011 by /dev/null
ieatcrayonz Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 That is the only plausible scenario for Celine Dion to be the cause of something to become erect Not for Canadians its not. :sick:
OCinBuffalo Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 I don't agree with him at all. What is going on in Mufreesboro is downright despicable. There is nothing despicable about resisting a subversive and diabolical, political organization. In fact, the opposite is the case: If I was to set up a Neo-Nazi political organization in New Mexico, and start telling your neighbors that you were their enemy, that you were stealing from them, that the only way to stop you was to join my group, and that our goals are to remove all Jewish, or other non-white, influence from New Mexico and replace it with WASP influence.... ....you had better stand up to me. You had better not sit there an take it. That would be despicable. As an American, I would expect better from you. The "Islam is the Answer" people are some of today's Nazis/Fascists/Marxists. How many more lessons from history do we need understand that resisting people like this fully, and immediately, is the only choice?
1billsfan Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 There is nothing despicable about resisting a subversive and diabolical, political organization. In fact, the opposite is the case: If I was to set up a Neo-Nazi political organization in New Mexico, and start telling your neighbors that you were their enemy, that you were stealing from them, that the only way to stop you was to join my group, and that our goals are to remove all Jewish, or other non-white, influence from New Mexico and replace it with WASP influence.... ....you had better stand up to me. You had better not sit there an take it. That would be despicable. As an American, I would expect better from you. The "Islam is the Answer" people are some of today's Nazis/Fascists/Marxists. How many more lessons from history do we need understand that resisting people like this fully, and immediately, is the only choice? That's already happening. Remember the South Park episode (that wonderfully irreverent and satirical Comedy Central cartoon which finally found itself a target completely off limits)?... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/201_(South_Park) How about our own government's capitulation?... http://www.newsmax.com/FrankGaffney/MuslimBrotherhood-hillaryclinton/2011/07/20/id/404307 "The Islamists who see the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference as a kind of new caliphate uniting and advancing the interests of all Muslims will not be satisfied, however, with anything less than the realization of their ultimate objective: an international directive to all U.N. member states to prohibit and criminalize expression that is deemed offensive by any Shariah-adherent parties"
OCinBuffalo Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 That's already happening. Remember the South Park episode (that wonderfully irreverent and satirical Comedy Central cartoon which finally found itself a target completely off limits)?... http://en.wikipedia....201_(South_Park) How about our own government's capitulation?... http://www.newsmax.c...07/20/id/404307 "The Islamists who see the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference as a kind of new caliphate uniting and advancing the interests of all Muslims will not be satisfied, however, with anything less than the realization of their ultimate objective: an international directive to all U.N. member states to prohibit and criminalize expression that is deemed offensive by any Shariah-adherent parties" The first one was a corporation making a choice, so I really don't care. They have a right to run their business how they see fit. The second one is completely unacceptable. Keeping with another South Park meme: it's unacceptable AND intolerable as well. Not only do I refuse to accept these people, I refuse to tolerate them in any way, shape or form. IF they are US citizens, then by definition they are traitors. IF they are not, then by definition they are enemies. What are we supposed to be doing with traitors and enemies?
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 The first one was a corporation making a choice, so I really don't care. They have a right to run their business how they see fit. The second one is completely unacceptable. Keeping with another South Park meme: it's unacceptable AND intolerable as well. Not only do I refuse to accept these people, I refuse to tolerate them in any way, shape or form. IF they are US citizens, then by definition they are traitors. IF they are not, then by definition they are enemies. What are we supposed to be doing with traitors and enemies? It's pretty sad that we are overly indoctrinated to be PC that these clowns and liberal media champion their cause under the guise of religious freedom. Religious freedom and religous fanatacism that wants to destroy our country and way of life are 2 vastly different entities. the first should be protected and the later imprisoned. Kudos to Mr. Cain for speakinghis convictions and calling them out for what they are while knowing how eagerly the libtard media will pounce on him for it
Magox Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 Cut him some slack. He's enjoying the times where whitey finally ranks someone below blacks.
LeviF Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 I don't agree with him at all. What is going on in Mufreesboro is downright despicable. There is nothing despicable about resisting a subversive and diabolical, political organization. So you went from a big "if" in your first post in this thread, to Murfreesboro is "resisting a subversive and diabolical, political organization"? Or am I not following that right?
Recommended Posts