Some of that good ol' fashioned bigotry

[quantumspirit]

Here's an idea....since Bush claimed bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 and since Bush said 6 months after he did not care where bin Laden was we should ask Bush for proof he's not playing board games in the White House basement with Mr. Forgotten.

I can't believe Beck did not get fired for that. I can't believe such a stupid question would fly.

Glenn Beck and Bill Maher are the reasons I have had it with CNN.

 

[utdbear]

I think it might just be me, but I think Bill Maher is on HBO. He also outdrew everybody on the premiere night of his special. I know the radical Islam apologists on here are going to dismiss it as bigotry, but its going to raise a lot of questions.

 

[oldbetang]

CAIR has had multiple members convicted of supporting terrorists. This isn't racism. Its fact. They support Hezbolla and Hamas, and have been condemned by other members of the American Muslim community for it. Additionally, several of their members have been found to be either terrorists, or convicted of supporting terrorists. Obviously an organization can't be responsible for the behavior of all of its members, but at the same time, when you have a founding member of a division funneling money to Hamas for a decade, your civil-rights coordinator stockpiling AK-47s, and your director of community relations convicted of supporting terrorists, something has gone a little wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critic...s#CAIR.27s_support_of_terrorist_organizations


As for the Dubai ports deal - the company involved was a state-owned company. That meant the ports would be under the ownership of another nation. That nation was one of the last nations to break off relations with the Taliban and has been listed as a good friend of Hamas. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that they're Al Qaeda supporters, but it doesn't mean we just hand over our ports to them either.


Racism is illogical hatred based on race. It is not illogical to look at countries or organizations that have had shady dealings or shady members, and treat them as shady. Racism would be saying "oh, a bunch of CAIR members supported terrorists, therefore all Muslims support terrorists" (actually it would be closer to religious bigotry, but w/e). The point being, it isn't illogical hatred to say "hmm. Group X has a lot of members who have been proven to support terrorists. I wonder if other members of the group support terrorists."

As for Mr. Ellison, he has definately had some dealings with CAIR. The thing is, on the whole, I think CAIR has more idealistic members who are completely innocent of any terrorists dealings whatsoever than they do people who actually support terrorists. The problem is, they have an 'us against them' mentality. That is, they are not policing their own members, because 'they support us!' I'm not talking about an opinion-based witch hunt, I am talking about simple checks like making sure your money is going where its supposed to be going and not to, say, terrorists.

While I am unsure how good of a congressman Mr. Ellison make, there's a lot of people I can say that about and I think he deserves a shot.

Awesome post!

 

[ElvisFan42]

Awesome post!

So I assume you suspect President Bush also?

http://wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24940

If not, it's simply racist.

 

[rosewaning]

So I assume you suspect President Bush also?

http://wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24940

If not, it's simply racist.

Let's not forget Bill Clinton also.

 

[DrFate]

So I assume you suspect President Bush also?

http://wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24940

If not, it's simply racist.

I suspect the VP. Remember he helped arm the muslims to kill the christians in the Bosnian mess. Ancient history by now I guess.

 

[DrFate]

Seems to me that we gave that up around 1776.

 

[Zimfan]

So I assume you suspect President Bush also?

http://wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24940

If not, it's simply racist.

It seems like every time I read a paper or catch up in the political threads here at cf, I see something that makes me long for the next presidential election.

 

[kiwimac]

Just a question. How much of a majority in both houses would Bush need to overturn the 22nd amendment?

 

[CCGirl]

Just a question. How much of a majority in both houses would Bush need to overturn Roosevelt's two-term amendment?

Could you elaborate for all of us who live outside the USA? Thanks!

 

[kiwimac]

After President Roosevelt's death the 80th United States Congress authored an amendment which would allow a president of the US a maximum of two terms in office.

The Twenty-second Amendment of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for the President of the United States, providing that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." Prior to the adoption of the amendment, the Constitution set no limit on the number of presidential terms. The United States Congress passed the amendment on March 21, 1947. [1] It was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 27, 1951.
Franklin Roosevelt, who served from 1933 to 1945, is the only president to have been elected to more than two terms. [2]

From Wikipedia

 

[CCGirl]

After President Roosevelt's death the 80th United States Congress authored an amendment which would allow a president of the US a maximum of two terms in office.



From Wikipedia

Thanks!

So, he could have a bill passed that does away with a Constitutional amendment? And if it is passed, that's it? You can have amendments amending amendments? I only ask because I have no idea of the powers there. Why was this amendment passed originally? (We have no such thing here in Canada). Do you really think the US public would allow this to happen, without another "terrorist" attack?

 

[variant]

Thanks!

So, he could have a bill passed that does away with a Constitutional amendment? And if it is passed, that's it? You can have amendments amending amendments? I only ask because I have no idea of the powers there. Why was this amendment passed originally? (We have no such thing here in Canada). Do you really think the US public would allow this to happen, without another "terrorist" attack?

The amendment process requires a 2/3rds vote of both congress and senate to propose the amendment, or proposition by 2/3rds of the states by a constitutional convention, and ratification by 3/4ths of the state legislatures to amend the constitution.

The Constitution can be amended in any way imaginable, including the revoking of prior amendments seen in the 18th amendment (prohibition) being repealed by the 21st.

 

[KomissarSteve]

The amendment process requires a 2/3rds vote of both congress and senate to propose the amendment, or proposition by 2/3rds of the states by a constitutional convention, and ratification by 3/4ths of the state legislatures to amend the constitution.

Right, although for CCGirl's sake, I'll point out that this much consensus in Congress or the state legislatures over a "slam-dunk" political issue - much less a genuinely divisive one - is a rare thing indeed.

 

[Ringo84]

This most certainly was bigotry.

This Congressman, Ellison, was singled out because he was Muslim. Never had he given us any reason at all to doubt his loyalty to country or his sincerity about serving his constituents or the American people. But because he's Muslim, and because we happen to be fighting against radical Muslims, he was equated with terrorists.
Even more "controversial" was the fact that he chose to take an oath on the Q'uran. Even though the Constitution makes it quite clear that no religious test is to be administered for public office, not to mention the fact that the oath itself is symbolic and has no bearing on the Congressman's job, some people decided that since this guy happened to be a Muslim, he must be a terrorist who wants to kill us.

If someone had tried to equate a Christian Congressperson with Fred Phelps or some other extreme faction of Christianity, there would've been hell to pay. It was a shameful display of bigotry....bigotry I want no part of.

If Beck, as well as Virgil Goode, can't handle religious freedom in this country, I suggest they go elsewhere.
Ringo

 

[kiwimac]

But where else would take them?

 

[oldbetang]

This most certainly was bigotry.


If Beck, as well as Virgil Goode, can't handle religious freedom in this country, I suggest they go elsewhere.
Ringo

If that was bigotry then the term bigotry has been diluted so much as to be meaningless. Having said that, if you can't handle the fact that others enjoy freedom of speech, then I suggest you go elsewhere.

 

[SummerMadness]

If that was bigotry then the term bigotry has been diluted so much as to be meaningless. Having said that, if you can't handle the fact that others enjoy freedom of speech, then I suggest you go elsewhere.

If you look at the definition of bigotry, you point is counter to the meaning of the word.

bigotry
noun
Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion

Saying the term bigotry has been diluted doesn't make it so, you have to provide support to back up your statements if you're going to say the definition of bigotry has somehow changed.

 

[Ringo84]

If that was bigotry then the term bigotry has been diluted so much as to be meaningless. Having said that, if you can't handle the fact that others enjoy freedom of speech, then I suggest you go elsewhere.

Absurd. You take one part of my post, distort it, and ignore the rest of it.

Your assertion that calling Goode and Beck's comments bigotry is "diluting the meaning" of the word is false. As SummerMadness pointed out, bigotry is defined as "Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion". These men singled Congressman Ellison out because a.) he was Muslim, and b.) because he chose to take an oath on the Q'uran, even though there has never been any reason at all to question Ellison's loyalty to country. People just assumed that since he was a Muslim, he must also be a terrorist. You know that if Ellison was a Christian and had been attacked the same way, there would have been hell to pay.

Nobody has ever said that either Beck or goode didn't have a right to their comments, no matter how stupid they may be. Including me. What I meant when I said that they should leave is that anti-Muslim sentiment such as the type they displayed during this non-controversy does nothing but help the same terrorists that want to kill us. I question both men's sincerity about freedom when they would attack a fellow American and a newly-elected congressman for doing absolutely nothing wrong. Accusing a Muslim congressman of wrongdoing or treason due to his religion is no better than the way in which some people single out Christians, assuming them to be Bible-beating extremists.

Since you are apparently so concerned with Beck and Goode's rights, I wonder why you aren't concerned about Ellison's rights. He has done nothing wrong. Nevertheless, his good name is being slandered due to the god he happens to worship - and from the same people who are often whining and complaining about similar persecution against Christians. Shameful. I am one born-and-bred Virginian who is ashamed to claim Goode as one of my elected officials.

I stand by my comments.
Ringo

 

[oldbetang]

Absurd. You take one part of my post, distort it, and ignore the rest of it.

Your assertion that calling Goode and Beck's comments bigotry is "diluting the meaning" of the word is false. As SummerMadness pointed out, bigotry is defined as "Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion". These men singled Congressman Ellison out because a.) he was Muslim, and b.) because he chose to take an oath on the Q'uran, even though there has never been any reason at all to question Ellison's loyalty to country. People just assumed that since he was a Muslim, he must also be a terrorist. You know that if Ellison was a Christian and had been attacked the same way, there would have been hell to pay.

Nobody has ever said that either Beck or goode didn't have a right to their comments, no matter how stupid they may be. Including me. What I meant when I said that they should leave is that anti-Muslim sentiment such as the type they displayed during this non-controversy does nothing but help the same terrorists that want to kill us. I question both men's sincerity about freedom when they would attack a fellow American and a newly-elected congressman for doing absolutely nothing wrong. Accusing a Muslim congressman of wrongdoing or treason due to his religion is no better than the way in which some people single out Christians, assuming them to be Bible-beating extremists.

Since you are apparently so concerned with Beck and Goode's rights, I wonder why you aren't concerned about Ellison's rights. He has done nothing wrong. Nevertheless, his good name is being slandered due to the god he happens to worship - and from the same people who are often whining and complaining about similar persecution against Christians. Shameful. I am one born-and-bred Virginian who is ashamed to claim Goode as one of my elected officials.

I stand by my comments.
Ringo

I'm not familiar with Goode and do not know what he is alleged to have stated. My response was regarding Glenn Beck, who is anything but bigoted. In his interview with Ellison, he was playing on the impression that a majority of americans have of of Muslims and in doing so was offering Ellison the opportunity to explain why that impression is irrational or unfounded. If you were familiar with Glenn Beck at all, you would know that he is not a bigot.

"I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."​

Hmmm! Bigotry? I don't think so.