quantumspirit
evangelical humanist
Glenn Beck and Bill Maher are the reasons I have had it with CNN.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Glenn Beck and Bill Maher are the reasons I have had it with CNN.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.
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.
So I assume you suspect President Bush also?Awesome post!
Let's not forget Bill Clinton also.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.So I assume you suspect President Bush also?
http://wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24940
If not, it's simply racist.
So I assume you suspect President Bush also?
http://wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24940
If not, it's simply racist.
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]
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?
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.
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 you look at the definition of bigotry, you point is counter to the meaning of the word.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.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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?