57 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
That's a difficult position.
If you buy (I don't know how much, but let's say 50) procent of your oil from Muslims, saying the Islam is the greatest thread America faces.
Good, maybe we'll reverse Keystone and use Canadian oil
Stop Obama from selling out America!
You don't remember that a number of Islamic colleagues and
business associates used to call George W. Bandar Bush? His buyout from his failing company came from Saudi businessmen, and was so generous it allowed him to buy into the Texas Rangers BB team.
The "selling out" has been going on for decades under many administrations of both stripes. There are no "good guys" here, but Obama is certainly less culpable than others having inherited a Tontine of disasters so to speak.
If you can figure out how to get the Tar Sands to the United States without polluting either country, I'm sure the Canadian government would be delighted at the influx of cash. But the kicker is "without polluting either country".
There is a great deal of pollution being generated on-site as we converse, and a great deal of opposition to the current "It's not our country, what *** **** do we care?" attitude which comes from many of the partners in the plan very few of whom are Canadian. There have been memos published which indicate that those on site are warned of inspections in advance, and other less savoury goings on. Of course all of this is inherent in Adam Smith, and takes no notice of subsequent judicial or even mathematical information. John Nash was awarded the Nobel prize for introducing a formula for including people's interests into the area of Economics. Of course he was crazy, as is anyone who think that the 99% have any right tp disagree at all.
Bush's company was named Spectrum 7. In 1986, it was bought by Harken Energy Corporation, a U.S. company based in the Fort Worth area. In the deal, Bush got 1 share of Harken stock for every 5 shares of Spectrum that he owned.
He used the Spectrum as collateral for a loan to buy his part of the Texas Rangers.
Suppose this retired general had a history of making bigoted comments about blacks or Jews instead of Muslims. Would you still be angry about West Point's decision?
I wondered the same thing.
let's say this general went around publicly stating that catholics are the greatest threat facing america right now... would uninviting him from talking at the best military academy in the world be less offensive to James in that circumstance?
Hey, one day Islam might actually react a different way when they reach that critical mass of population in a country. You keep hoping against historical precedent. Others prefer to learn from history.
"Hey, one day Islam might actually react a different way when they reach that critical mass of population in a country."
What does this have to do with the OP or Josh's comment ?
Notice he didn't answer the question.
because it's easily found
RE: You keep hoping against historical precedent.
You keep hoping against historical precedent. Others prefer to learn from history.
Strange that you don't apply the above statement (made by you) to all those hearings on Obamas Birth Certificate.
You're answering a question nobody asked
sorry you didn't understand the answer
there's not anything more I can do to correct that for you.
I had a feeling there wasn't
Classic James -- post something you can't defend, then try to tap dance your way out of it.
No prob, I'll bow out and spare you any more dance moves.
RE: there's not anything more I can do
Yes there is
There are 1.6 billion of them, and they are a majority in a number of countries.
By the way, you didn't answer my question.
Since you want to play that game.
As for Jews, you'd have to ask the inhabitants of Gaza & West Bank, as for blacks you'd have to ask the remaining whites in the former South Africa, now called Mozambique. How about asking Serbs concerning Kosovo, their "former" homeland in regard to Albanians? You can watch the actions of Mecha and La Raza in the southwest USA too. Critical mass, it has meaning for population groups too. Having fun yet?
I'm not the one playing games here
Let me guess -- you think it's OK to discriminate against Muslims because there aren't "enough of them" in the US to give them the same protections as everyone else (?)
Is that your rationale?
Is that what you get from it?
This country has 3 main ideological threats today. Socialism, Communism, Islamism. All of those systems are antithetical to American ideals and therefore threats against America. If Islam wants to abandon the parts that make it a requirement on their part to try and take over and rule every country they come into, then first it wouldn't be Islam and second, nobody would have much of a problem with it, other than the heresy against God it involves. For instance, Idolatry. If someone wants to go bow down to an idol and worship it as if it's something, and that's all, it's no threat to me or America really beyond it's silliness of concept. If instead they believe their idol tells them to go forth and conquer the country they live in and use subversion, terror tactics, ad nauseum, then both they and that idol become anathema to me. If Judaism decided along with most of it's adherents in the US decided that they had some obligation to subdue America and impose Mosiac Code of Justice on everyone, whether they were Jewish or not, then I'd feel the same way toward them. I hope that helps your understanding or misunderstanding, as the case may be.
It sure does
You think it's OK for someone in US military uniform to make bigoted statements about Muslims because they practice a religion that doesn't jibe with your personal religious beliefs (your citing of "heresy against God" which I can only take to mean that their God isn't "the real God" in your opinion).
Sorry, James, but that's not how things work in this country, as much as you might like them to.
because neither of you live here. What you do to screw up your own countries is your own business. Which does make one wonder why JP spends so much time messing around with politics of other countries instead of the one he's living in.
RE; why JP spends so much time messing around with politics
why JP spends so much time messing around with politics of other countries instead of the one he's living in.
AND you know I don't "mess around with politics in Canada" HOW?
I could be an equal opportunity messer.
Didn't you make a post about Canadian health care a couple days ago?
Are you tracking/stalking me?
No response/answer expected.
You appear to be speaking from IGNORANCE Josh
What he has spoken out against (and that has been INTERPRETED by some and the liberal media as being anti-Muslim) has pretty much been about their expectations of having Sharia Law supersede the codified laws of the land and since some liberal judges have indeed acquiesced to Sharia Law, speaking out against it is only right if not politically correct.
I remember a long ago conversation about beating a wife you were aghast about but now you sound like if Muslims want to be able to do just that or go even further with "honor killings" it is A OK and saying otherwise is tantamount to bigotry and anti-Muslim rhetoric. Can't have it both ways boyo.
Of course maybe y'all jus bin joshin' us.
Yes, yes, Ed
In brief, bigotry is OK as long as you agree with the position the bigot has taken.
As I said to James, that's not how things work in America.
You sound a lot like...
...the ignorant tools on the far right who has no personal experience with Islam and assumes that Sharia law is a goal for muslims in the U.S.
It is in Canada
Should we assume the US has different type of Islam here?
It isn't there either
Don't believe everything you read at WorldNetDaily, James.
Please learn to read correctly.
I never said it was there. I said it's Canada where they WANT to get Sharia law for their community.
How did Shariah come to be considered in Canadian jurisdictions?
In 1991, Ontario was looking for ways to ease the burdens of a
backlogged court system. So the province changed its Arbitration Act to
allow "faith-based arbitration" - a system where Muslims, Jews,
Catholics and members of other faiths could use the guiding principles
of their religions to settle family disputes such as divorce, custody
and inheritances outside the court system.
It's voluntary - both parties (a husband and wife) have to agree to go
through the process. But once they do, the decisions rendered by the
tribunal are binding.
The Ontario government has been reviewing its Arbitration Act and on
Dec. 20, 2004, it released a report conducted by former attorney general
Marion Boyd. Among her 46 recommendations was that:
The Arbitration Act should continue to allow disputes to be
arbitrated using religious law, if the safeguards currently prescribed
and recommended by this review are observed.
Earlier in the year, the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice said it
wanted to set up its own faith-based arbitration panels under the
Arbitration Act, based on Shariah law.
You said "it is in Canada"
I replied "It isn't there either."
My reading comprehension skills are just fine, but you seem to have skipped over the part where they were also taking Jewish, Catholic and other religious laws into account.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)