It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
REGRESSIVELEFTClearly a double standard regardless of the semantics of the situation. Please try harder tho.
REGRESSIVELEFTAlso she was SOS at the time of the incident so again you are an idiot.
A very well educated idiot.
No, the evidence fell in her favor, that is the difference. They could prove Patraeus had intent, they believed they could not do the same for Hillary, whether you agree with them or not.
Yeah, she was SoS at the time, but they can't punish her now as she is a "civilian". Christ. Do I have to spell everything out for you?
He keeps digging himself a deeper hole. His VP pick is going to further alienate any independent voter that followed Sanders. Pro-Life, pro-gun (fine by me), pro-surveillance, anti-gay, anti-environment, and pro-big business. Yikes.
.LeoRight. All 1.5 billion of them hate America and want to kill all of us.
No of course not, but... it should be alarming that while the vast vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, there are millions and millions of terrorist sympathizers within Islam and Muslim communities. According to Pew research, 15% of Muslims in Turkey believe that suicide terrorism in the defense of Islam is often justified. That equates to almost 12 million people who think that it's often ok to blow up innocent people in the name of Islam. And this is in Turkey, the supposedly "secular" ally we have in the Middle East. Millions and millions of people aren't pulling the trigger but they are more than ok with it happening. And when this mindset and ideology wants to enter a liberal society, it needs to be critically looked at and examined. Would you agree?
foolmetwiceThis is why we need downvotes
While Tour's delivery is a little less than subtle, Hitchens is rather spot on in that clip.
onenerdykidNo of course not, but... it should be alarming that while the vast vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, there are millions and millions of terrorist sympathizers within Islam and Muslim communities. According to Pew research, 15% of Muslims in Turkey believe that suicide terrorism in the defense of Islam is often justified. That equates to almost 12 million people who think that it's often ok to blow up innocent people in the name of Islam. And this is in Turkey, the supposedly "secular" ally we have in the Middle East. Millions and millions of people aren't pulling the trigger but they are more than ok with it happening. And when this mindset and ideology wants to enter a liberal society, it needs to be critically looked at and examined.
I just think that so many crazy awful violent things have been done in the name of Christianity even in recent history that criticizing islam in the context of its influence being more problematic than christianity/white western culture can seem awfully hypocritical and kind of eurocentric n just succumbing to fear mongering propaganda mccarthyism type stuff idk
foolmetwiceNo of course not, but... it should be alarming that while the vast vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, there are millions and millions of terrorist sympathizers within Islam and Muslim communities. According to Pew research, 15% of Muslims in Turkey believe that suicide terrorism in the defense of Islam is often justified. That equates to almost 12 million people who think that it's often ok to blow up innocent people in the name of Islam. And this is in Turkey, the supposedly "secular" ally we have in the Middle East. Millions and millions of people aren't pulling the trigger but they are more than ok with it happening. And when this mindset and ideology wants to enter a liberal society, it needs to be critically looked at and examined.
I just think that so many crazy awful violent things have been done in the name of Christianity even in recent history that criticizing islam in the context of its influence being more problematic than christianity/white western culture can seem awfully hypocritical and kind of eurocentric n just succumbing to fear mongering propaganda mccarthyism type stuff idk
foolmetwiceI just think that so many crazy awful violent things have been done in the name of Christianity even in recent history that criticizing islam in the context of its influence being more problematic than christianity/white western culture can seem awfully hypocritical and kind of eurocentric n just succumbing to fear mongering propaganda mccarthyism type stuff idk
No doubt Christianity has led to many atrocities & fuck ups and still continues/contributes to some of the world's problems. I won't be the one who says that Christianity is the answer, but it has at least gone through a Reformation, an Enlightenment and been softened by secular pressure. Islam has seen none of that, and it shows. This further demonstrates that not all religions are equally bad or affect the world in the same way. Some are better, some are worse, and I for sure would put Islam in the "worse" category.
And just because Christianity has done bad things in the past it doesn't mean that a Christian/western society can't criticize Islam for doing bad things now. Even if western society is being hypocritical, the sad truth about hypocrites is they're still right, it's just that their actions just don't jive with their words. If western society says "hey you shouldn't be killing innocent people", the claim is still valid regardless if the west behaves that way or not. Being a hypocrite doesn't detract from the truthfulness of a claim, it just means they suck at living up to their standards (which we can still fault them for).
Anyone else find it somewhat ironic that Newt is calling for a deportation of any Muslim who believes in Sharia law, while the GOP is actively trying to bring in Christianity to the US government, schools, and interpretation of rights?
.MASSHOLE.Anyone else find it somewhat ironic that Newt is calling for a deportation of any Muslim who believes in Sharia law, while the GOP is actively trying to bring in Christianity to the US government, schools, and interpretation of rights?
Atheists are just as pathetic as muslim. Newsflash dickhead the white folks who came before you had to fight these things called the crusades to stop the planet being conquered by Islam.
PeppermillRenoAtheists are just as pathetic as muslim. Newsflash dickhead the white folks who came before you had to fight these things called the crusades to stop the planet being conquered by Islam.
What makes you think I am atheist? Maybe I just don't believe in religion playing a dominating role in society and education.
And yes, I know all about the Crusades and it is clear you're knowledge is limited. The Crusades were not an attempt to repel Islamic invaders, but rather an attempt to protect Christians in Islamic lands, capture Jerusalem, and other lands that Christians believed belonged to them.
An interesting tidbit, my family, as counts within the HRE, were involved in the Crusades. We've got books and memoirs from that era over in Germany.
PeppermillRenoAtheists are just as pathetic as muslim. Newsflash dickhead the white folks who came before you had to fight these things called the crusades to stop the planet being conquered by Islam.
How you equate "the separation of church & state" with being 1)atheist and 2)just as pathetic as Muslims is beyond me. Your tenuous grasp on the history & purpose of the Crusades has already been touched upon, but let me know just how much you would have enjoyed living in Spain during the height of the Inquisition. Life under a literalist interpretation of the Holy Bible is just as bad as one under a literalist interpretation of the Qur'an, so don't act like Christianity is all peachy or that we would be much better off if our laws were based on what's in the Bible.
PeppermillRenoAtheists are just as pathetic as muslim. Newsflash dickhead the white folks who came before you had to fight these things called the crusades to stop the planet being conquered by Islam.
Athiests are just as pathetic as muslim? What have I done wrong by being an atheist? Because I don't believe in fairy tales and pray to a magic man in the sky?
36ChambersOfWuThe people in the club are not killers, they were helpless, they couldn't have changed the situation. Unless one of them had a gun on them. If they had they could have prevented most of the deaths. In that situation they could be viewed as responsible for others deaths. My definition of a murderer. The Orlando shooter is a murderer, he was responsible for the deaths. Hillary is a murderer because she is responsible for the deaths in Benghazi. She would be like a person in that club with a gun. She could have prevented deaths, but she chose to go to bed and do nothing.
Also please find where I said Trump is a savior. I thought I even said somewhere he is not a great candidate, oh I almost forgot, I am dumb I probably didn't say that
Based off this I'm assuming that you think having more guns could have prevented the scenario. Well, get your head out of your ass and understand (1) carrying a loaded gun around a crowded nightclub while your drinking is verging on retarded (2) you cant just take wild shots at a moving target while people are running all over the place or you'll kill them too (3) the dude had a semi-auto rifle, body armor, other weapons, and told the hostages that he had a bomb on him. Shooting at him could have triggered it and he had the upper hand anyway.
I support concealed carry for a select few people, but having more guns aint gonna do shit
PeppermillRenoAtheists are just as pathetic as muslim. Newsflash dickhead the white folks who came before you had to fight these things called the crusades to stop the planet being conquered by Islam.
What the actual fuck...Do you mean to tell me that believing in ignorant scripture is more realistic than believing in science and reason? You want to use the crusades as a basis for your argument? Weak. The Mongols didn't believe in Christianity, they all but swallowed up the Western world yet that worthless religion remains. The crusades were over Jerusalem, the Holy Land, far from trying to install a single world religion. Saladin would never have been able to take the entirety of Europe. The Holy Roman Empire was too strong for that...I literally can't believe you posted that bullshit...
DeforestationBased off this I'm assuming that you think having more guns could have prevented the scenario. Well, get your head out of your ass and understand (1) carrying a loaded gun around a crowded nightclub while your drinking is verging on retarded (2) you cant just take wild shots at a moving target while people are running all over the place or you'll kill them too (3) the dude had a semi-auto rifle, body armor, other weapons, and told the hostages that he had a bomb on him. Shooting at him could have triggered it and he had the upper hand anyway.
I support concealed carry for a select few people, but having more guns aint gonna do shit
You have decent logic because yeah guns and alcohol is probably not the best idea but having more strict gun laws is just going to keep hunters and law abiding citizens (like me) from having guns. If you are willing to break the law and kill someone you are willing to break the law and obtain illegal guns. And even if the murderer couldn't get a gun because of the new law then as you saw in France it doesn't take a gun to kill someone
36ChambersOfWuYou have decent logic because yeah guns and alcohol is probably not the best idea but having more strict gun laws is just going to keep hunters and law abiding citizens (like me) from having guns. If you are willing to break the law and kill someone you are willing to break the law and obtain illegal guns. And even if the murderer couldn't get a gun because of the new law then as you saw in France it doesn't take a gun to kill someone
Stricter/better/more comprehensive gun laws won't necessarily prevent law abiding citizens from having guns, they just become more difficult to obtain. You'd still be able to own guns but more checks & training would theoretically or potentially be in place. You would think that responsible gun owners would want more to be done on this front so that fewer guns end up in the hands of untrained, uneducated, and/or mentally unstable people.
And because a person can kill others without using a gun, it doesn't follow that we shouldn't do a better job of controlling who can own dangerous weapons. Yes, if someone is fully committed to killing someone, he will find a way to do it. But you would think that making it harder for that person to get his hands on actual purpose-built weapons should be done first.
.MASSHOLE.Anyone else find it somewhat ironic that Newt is calling for a deportation of any Muslim who believes in Sharia law, while the GOP is actively trying to bring in Christianity to the US government, schools, and interpretation of rights?
Right, a genocidal 7th century political ideology centered around the worship of mass-murdering pedophile, vs the Judeo-Christian morals of Western civilization and the founders. What irony.
ToursRight, a genocidal 7th century political ideology centered around the worship of mass-murdering pedophile, vs the Judeo-Christian morals of Western civilization and the founders. What irony.
I guess you want religion in the government then, but the religion of your choice.
I am against religion in any government. I don't want the government using a religious rationale to dictate what I can and cannot learn in school, what women can and cannot do with their bodies, who can and cannot marry, and ultimately, what I can and cannot say.
vailsux.comHas anyone ever told you big dicks in your ass are bad for your health?
That's funny, given that your mother was quite the fan, and here you are as a result, a living, breathing shit stain.
But of course, if I recall correctly you said you were Mormon. No wonder you have so much sympathy for polygamist pedophiles, your "prophet" was one too!
.MASSHOLE.I guess you want religion in the government then, but the religion of your choice.
I am against religion in any government. I don't want the government using a religious rationale to dictate what I can and cannot learn in school, what women can and cannot do with their bodies, who can and cannot marry, and ultimately, what I can and cannot say.
So I'll ask again, which parts of Sharia are your favorite?
Why should the US grant entry to anyone who believes in and follows Sharia?
Well, you seem to be against the idea of barring entrance to potential Sharia terrorists.
Sharia Islam has no rights under the 1st Amendment, because the practice of Sharia Islam infringes on the rights of all other religious groups to worship in peace.
ToursWell, you seem to be against the idea of barring entrance to potential Sharia terrorists.
Sharia Islam has no rights under the 1st Amendment, because the practice of Sharia Islam infringes on the rights of all other religious groups to worship in peace.
Key word is potential. I would argue there are potential terrorists everywhere.
But I imagine you will go on about how Islamists are all dangerous and they have a history of issues.
Are you a judge on the Supreme Court now or a religious scholar?
Sharia Islam in Malaysia seems to exist hand in hand with a regular civil court system as they only apply it to the civil sphere.
But you're a Trump supporter, you speak in generalities.
.MASSHOLE.Key word is potential. I would argue there are potential terrorists everywhere.
But I imagine you will go on about how Islamists are all dangerous and they have a history of issues.
Right, because according to an Islamist-sympathizer like yourself, Islamism has nothing at all to do with terrorism (jihad) in comparison to any other ideology. Except for all the Islamic terrorist attacks being carried out every other day now it seems.
So again, you're quite skillful at evading questions, what aspects of Sharia do you find make it "not dangerous" to western societies? (I'm making the questions easier for you)
And, if any part of the political ideology of Sharia is dangerous, why allow in adherents to that ideology?
.MASSHOLE.Sharia Islam in Malaysia seems to exist hand in hand with a regular civil court system as they only apply it to the civil sphere.
There's a certain danger in being clueless as well.
Sunday, 29 May 2016
"Prime Minister Najib Razak’s government threw its support in parliament last week behind an Islamic penal code that includes amputations and stoning, shocking some of his allies and stoking fears of further strains in the multi-ethnic country."
CampeadorRight, because according to an Islamist-sympathizer like yourself, Islamism has nothing at all to do with terrorism (jihad) in comparison to any other ideology. Except for all the Islamic terrorist attacks being carried out every other day now it seems.
So again, you're quite skillful at evading questions, what aspects of Sharia do you find make it "not dangerous" to western societies? (I'm making the questions easier for you)
And, if any part of the political ideology of Sharia is dangerous, why allow in adherents to that ideology?
The links between jihad and Islamism are undeniable, but Islamism without terrorism is possible.
I ask you, what do you think of the Ottoman Empire? A Islamist ruling society that had religious freedom for all its constituents.
You are asking me a question about an ideology I do not follow and am not well-versed in, but I will bite.
The ideas of charity, daily prayer, dress code, and other daily-life matters are not dangerous to western societies. Certain sects of Christianity and Judaism have similar requirements, but not all believers follow them. The same can be said for followers of Islam.
Because any rational being can select and choose which aspects of certain ideologies they believe in. Not all Islamists agree with a violent jihad, but do not agree with Western lifestyles.
CampeadorThere's a certain danger in being clueless as well.
Sunday, 29 May 2016
"Prime Minister Najib Razak’s government threw its support in parliament last week behind an Islamic penal code that includes amputations and stoning, shocking some of his allies and stoking fears of further strains in the multi-ethnic country."
Forgot a section. I had a feeling you would find this article. I take pleasure in seeing you try and fail to manipulate things to your advantage.
“It applies only to certain offences and this comes under the jurisdiction of the Syariah court and is only applicable to the Muslims. It has nothing to do with non-Muslims.” He added that the punishments would be limited and canings meted out under the law would not injure or draw blood."
vailsux.comHas anyone ever told you big dicks in your ass are bad for your health?
this is straight up funny as hell
CampeadorRight, because according to an Islamist-sympathizer like yourself, Islamism has nothing at all to do with terrorism (jihad) in comparison to any other ideology. Except for all the Islamic terrorist attacks being carried out every other day now it seems.
So again, you're quite skillful at evading questions, what aspects of Sharia do you find make it "not dangerous" to western societies? (I'm making the questions easier for you)
And, if any part of the political ideology of Sharia is dangerous, why allow in adherents to that ideology?
you are such a fucking uneducated fuck. do you know what jihad means? struggle. fuckface. have you not read any of his posts? he repeatedly states he is AGAINST religion in government, which is exactly what sharia law is! you fucking retard, how about you go to Community college and learn a little bit you fucking moron. cause you can't even read a reply right
Who watched the 60 minutes interview last night? It was Sarah Palin bad haha.
Pence came off as a complete yes man who disagreed with most things Trump says, but just wants the VP seat. Pence was way over the top and obviously disingenuous with his non stop praising of Trump.
Trump declined to answer literally any policy question, and instead gave the same "make America great again" answers without any how. When pressed how, or about any kind of plan the most specific he got was to say that we will make "them" respect us again.
I just don't understand how anyone with a degree of intelligence can think this guy is a good candidate.
californiagrownWho watched the 60 minutes interview last night? It was Sarah Palin bad haha.
Pence came off as a complete yes man who disagreed with most things Trump says, but just wants the VP seat. Pence was way over the top and obviously disingenuous with his non stop praising of Trump.
Trump declined to answer literally any policy question, and instead gave the same "make America great again" answers without any how. When pressed how, or about any kind of plan the most specific he got was to say that we will make "them" respect us again.
I just don't understand how anyone with a degree of intelligence can think this guy is a good candidate.
ToursThat's funny, given that your mother was quite the fan, and here you are as a result, a living, breathing shit stain.
But of course, if I recall correctly you said you were Mormon. No wonder you have so much sympathy for polygamist pedophiles, your "prophet" was one too!
californiagrownWho watched the 60 minutes interview last night? It was Sarah Palin bad haha.
Pence came off as a complete yes man who disagreed with most things Trump says, but just wants the VP seat. Pence was way over the top and obviously disingenuous with his non stop praising of Trump.
Trump declined to answer literally any policy question, and instead gave the same "make America great again" answers without any how. When pressed how, or about any kind of plan the most specific he got was to say that we will make "them" respect us again.
I just don't understand how anyone with a degree of intelligence can think this guy is a good candidate.
I hate the idea of trump but I really hate the idea of Hillary. America definitely loses in November either way. Kind of sucks.
BombogenesisI hate the idea of trump but I really hate the idea of Hillary. America definitely loses in November either way. Kind of sucks.
I'm guessing you didn't watch the interview. If you did, and you still think Trump is a better option, I'd like to know why. Seriously, it was Sarah palin-esque.
ToursWhy should the US grant entry to anyone who believes in and follows Sharia?
This is where it is helpful to make the distinction between religious Islam and political Islam. Someone can personally believe in whatever they want, including Islam, and still not infringe upon the rights of others. They keep it to themselves as their personal system of belief. Whether they are a Muslim, a Satanist, a Christian, a racist, a -name-your-vicious-ideology-here, if they keep it to themselves and don't force it upon others then welcome to America, this is what our Constitution guarantees. Religious Islam is no more a threat to someone than any of the others, when it exists in this capacity.
This obviously changes once the believers want to impose it on others, and this is the goal of political Islam. Political Islam is what is contrary to our Constitution, just as political Christianity is or political Satanism, political racism, etc.
You can believe in whatever you want and act however you want, just so long as it does not infringe upon the freedom of someone else. Once that line has been crossed, then the law should come down on them 100%.
onenerdykidThis is where it is helpful to make the distinction between religious Islam and political Islam. Someone can personally believe in whatever they want, including Islam, and still not infringe upon the rights of others. They keep it to themselves as their personal system of belief. Whether they are a Muslim, a Satanist, a Christian, a racist, a -name-your-vicious-ideology-here, if they keep it to themselves and don't force it upon others then welcome to America, this is what our Constitution guarantees. Religious Islam is no more a threat to someone than any of the others, when it exists in this capacity.
This obviously changes once the believers want to impose it on others, and this is the goal of political Islam. Political Islam is what is contrary to our Constitution, just as political Christianity is or political Satanism, political racism, etc.
You can believe in whatever you want and act however you want, just so long as it does not infringe upon the freedom of someone else. Once that line has been crossed, then the law should come down on them 100%.
Even though we may disagree at times, I always appreciate your rational approach.
However, I will say that it is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate Islam from Islamism, since they're both based on the same set of rules. Rules, I might add, that if not followed make one an apostate, with a death sentence.
californiagrownI'm guessing you didn't watch the interview. If you did, and you still think Trump is a better option, I'd like to know why. Seriously, it was Sarah palin-esque.
Because he doesn't want to import hundreds of thousands of highly likely terrorists from Syria.
Any other questions?
What part of importing potential terrorists do you find so appealing?
