The blame game gets even more crazy

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think a politician is less likely to lie or do bad things if said politician gives a non-"meaningless" oath.

All this "Muslim By Birth" rubbish sounds a lot like the "Jewish by Birth" rubbish that got a lot of people killed.

Besides, who gives a s**t if he's a Muslim or a 3rd generation Renegade Baptist (like me.)? Surely he should be castigated or lauded on his ability to run the nation, not which invisible deity he chooses to bow to. He's hardly in the Taliban. Are American girls being forced to wear a burqua? Are American men law-bound to grow a beard? No.

He moved around a lot when he was young; for a time he did attend Catholic school. No one has accused him of being Catholic.


I've explained this to you before, but you are too stupid to understand basic English.

"Communist government" is a contradiction in terms. A communist society, by definition, would have no government at all. No such society has ever existed (at least not on a large scale).


Can you quote the Sura to corroborate that claim, or are you just parroting something you read in a right-wing chain e-mail?

It most certainly is not acceptable for a Muslim to lie about their faith, so the fact that Obama claims not to be Muslim is sufficient proof that he is not.

Add to that, the only people who appear to be claiming he IS Muslim are not Muslims. I've not seen any Muslims making a big song and dance about it.

If he was Catholic people would be yelling about his "allegience to the Church." Truth be told, Catholism would consider it a sin to break an oath they swore upon God's name.



So we're changing the definition of Communism now to fit your beliefs? The USSR was a Communist Regime, Stalin was a Communist. I don't care what online hack site you got your definition from, you look at an Encyclopedia that hasn't been made Politically Correct (and I actually have a set of Encyclopedia Volumes), it would completely torpedo your arguments.



I really don't want to have to out my English Translation of the Quran that I had to read for a Medieval History Class right now.

Muslims lie when it is in their interest to do so and “Allah” will not hold them accountable for lying when it is beneficial to the cause of Islam. They can lie without any guilt or fear of accountability or retribution. A lie in the defense of Islam is approved even applauded in their “holy” books.

Muslims are permitted to lie: (1) to save their lives, (2) to reconcile a husband and wife, (3) to persuade a woman into a bedroom and (4) to facilitate one on his journey. Muslims are even permitted to disavow Islam and Mohammed if it is not a genuine heart-felt rejection. Muslims will tell you that concealment of a truth is not an abandonment of that truth if it benefits Islam.

Mohammed gave permission for a follower to lie in order to kill a Jewish poet who had offended Mohammed. I could provide many examples of permissible lying from the Koran and Hadith and will do so when my critics accuse me of hatred and bigotry because of this column. My motives are not important but the truth is. However, many unprincipled people do not consider truth important. It is political correctness that sits on the throne to be worshiped.

http://www.muslimfact.com/bm/terror-in- ... -bri.shtml



Apparently it is okay to do so if it benefits the cause of Islam.

But there is just as much rational basis for claiming Obama to be a Catholic as there is for him to be a Muslim. This is just typical paranoid right-wing crankery.


Um... no. We are sticking with the exact same definition of Communism that the word has always had since Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto in 1848. I'm sorry that you suck at history and are borderline illiterate, but facts are facts and words have actual meanings.


The USSR was not Communist. It was intended to be Socialist, and it is a matter of debate whether it actually achieved that goal. The USSR, for much of its history, was Stalinist. Stalin claimed to follow in the Marxist-Leninist tradition of trying to achieve democratic socialism as a means to eventually reaching Communism, but his actual beliefs and policies were clearly a syncretic blend of nationalism and totalitarian socialism.


I'm basing my argument on primary source documents, which trump encyclopedias any day. And even encyclopedias (unless you use the ridiculous Conservapedia) will tell you that Communists hope for a stateless society.


Sorry, but citing an obviously biased polemical site is meaningless. Quote the Sura in question or you're full of crap.

That's normally what I go with most of the time. He has no reading comprehension ability rather less ability to think logically about anything...so I mostly just don't bother. Trying to explain communism to a person who doesn't even understand why the Nazis were right wing is just beyond possible.

Change the subject. Yet again. Because you can't address a logical argument. I think I should begin counting the times you do this.

WP already keeps such a count for you, underneath his name and joined date.

There are extremists in every religion in every part of the world. Many and to be honest I would say most muslims are incredibly ashamed of things that radical muslims are doing, especially in westernized socieites. THey are ashamed of 9/11, they want to respect and embrace the way of life that their new countries have offered them. Look at all the christian cults to see what radical thinking christians can do. It is not as simple as blaming a religion as the fact is saying a religious teaching in another language says something is wrong. Translation is not as simple as just putting words together, many other languages do not have the words that we use in the english language and the english language differs in different countries anyway. We all have our own versions of things. The bible may be the bible, but the way it is interpreted by catholics, protestants, anglicans, etc, all differs. It may be more similar than catholic to muslim but they difffer and the same differences could logically be expected to be seen in interpretations of the quaran. The quaran was written thousands of years ago like the bible was, and the language used today in every day society is very very different to what is read in the bible. Churches interpret that for us and we are expected to believe that interpretation. You can believe all you want, but what one interpretation of the quaran says and what another says is very very different. The so called quotes from the english translation of the quaran that have been quoted on this site are just so standard mainstream 21st century writing that there is no way it could be a literal translation. A literal translation would then require it to be interpreted and that does not require interpretation at all, and for that simple reason I will not believe it. A book from 1000 years ago is not in any language written word for word to a way that we would write today and read today and yet that is exactly what that so called translation is like.