Danno

Once again, no one here is discussing the Muslim religion, just Sofiyya, Pike and yourself.
You pull the same ####### in every discussion. You turn a discussion of a specific 'x', and claim it's a broad-brushed discussion about 'c'.

I call your BS. There are millions of Muslims living in Muslim countries that sponsor terrorism, and example after example of Islamic Imams that preach the Quoranic gospel of Holy War, issue calls for death for as little an offense as cartoons. There are countless examples of Islamic spiritual leaders who advocate and inspire others to mutilate and/or kill women. You appear to be living in a PC bubble devoid of influence by pesky little things called verifiable documented facts.

Sorry Pike, you are a pot calling the kettle black. You insist on clinging to your opinion even when inconvenient FACTS get in the way. Name ONE time that you admitted that you were wrong here.
Be glad that they didn't ask you what your major major biggest mistake was in life.
Sheesh!

We are not discussing Islam, we are discussing the actions of those committing atrocities in the last decade in the name of Islam. If you are going to teach anyone about Islam, you need to teach them about it, not us.

I doubt paul or anyone else thinks all Muslims are terrorists but like it or not, it's getting harder and harder to sell "it's just a few bad apples messing up our Peaceful religion".
IN the USA we have been fortunate with our Muslim Citizens, I heard today something like 75% of attacks in the UK were from UK born Muslims.... now THAT is a serious problem especially if it is a sign of things to come.

DING DING DING
and we have a winner.
The first lefty to see a race angle!
Give that VJer a cigar!

Many of us saw this coming and now it's time for Gore and the others who have been waving these flames to take responsibility.
When you keep screaming the house is on fire WE MUST REACT NOW.... don't be surprised when some loose cannon take you at your words.

I doubt paul or anyone else thinks all Muslims are terrorists but like it or not, it's getting harder and harder to sell "it's just a few bad apples messing up our Peaceful religion".
IN the USA we have been fortunate with our Muslim Citizens, I heard today something like 75% of attacks in the UK were from UK born Muslims.... now THAT is a serious problem especially if it is a sign of things to come.

CATO is a well respected source.... if you don't like their findings.. post another trusted source don't expect me to keep posting until you get numbers you like.

I thought it was interesting the term "hate crime" was not even used. As you pointed out... just try to imagine a group of whites targeting Blacks of Latinos then try to imagine it noit being a huge story.
And if we did have a group of whites attacking Latinos..... who would be to blame... Rush, Beck, and the usual.
When Blacks do it.... "There are deeper social things at play."

DING DING DING
and we have a winner.
The first lefty to see a race angle!
Give that VJer a cigar!

Don't tell me that was baby oil at the end...

Clearly from the stats provided, these hatecrime charges are way out of balance when you look at population numbers and when they are most often used.
In my experience, the only racially motivated attacks... have Been not "against" blacks but carried out "By" blacks.
MAybe you have known people who attacked Blacks... for being black, but I highly doubt it.
Hate crimes laws are a gross mockery of "equal protection under the law".

Construction Workers Vow Not to Build NYC Mosque
CBNNews.com
Friday, August 20, 2010
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2010/August/Construction-Workers-Vow-Not-to-Build-NYC-Mosque/
A group of New York construction workers have pledged not to take part in the building of the proposed mosque near New York City's Ground Zero.
The supporters of the "9/11 Hardhat Pledge" are planning to attend a rally protesting the construction of the $100 million Islamic center on Sunday, August 22.
The rally, which is being sponsored by The Coalition to Honor Ground Zero, will also include is the families members of the firefighters and other victims who lost their lives in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
"The Coalition to Honor Ground Zero, the 9/11 Families and first responders are heartened by the support of the many patriots from around America who will be joining the Coalition on Sunday to seek the truth about this mosque, its Imam, and his financial supporters," said Tim Brown, a firefighter who was at the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
According to The Post Chronicle, Brown lost 93 friends that day.
"Thousands of people are signing up from all over the country," Andy Sullivan, a construction worker from Brooklyn, told The New York Daily News. "People who sell glass, steel, lumber, insurance. They are all refusing to do work if they build there."
"Hopefully, this will be a tool to get them to move it," he said. "I got a problem with this ostentatious building looming over Ground Zero."
====================================================
The 911 Hard Hat Pledge
Posted by Elena on August 9, 2010 at 5:09am in General, Uncategorized Town Hall
View Discussions
The 911 Hard Hat Pledge
Andy Sullivan of Blue Collar Corner, is the field supervisor of a huge east coast construction firm. He has initiated the 911 Hard Hat Pledge in response to our spineless elected officials and civic leaders who have betrayed the people of New York in their opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque.
According to a Siena poll, 61% of New Yorkers are opposed, and 26% support the Cordoba House, a 13-story mosque to be built two blocks from Ground Zero on top of the ashes of the 3000 innocent lives and tragic heroes murdered in the September 11 terrorist attack. Mr. Sullivan is calling on all union and non-union tradesmen to make the pledge and refuse to work on the proposed mosque site or accept any associated contracts. He blogged the message:
"To my readers please send me your names if you will make the 911 pledge and refuse to participate in the building of the Ground Zero Mosque. Go to my message board and state your trade or job that you do and join us. Our leaders are failing us it’s up to us. I want my children to grow up in a nation of pride and freedom but as was once told to me freedom only comes at great cost. God bless you all and God Bless America!"
Please go to Blue Collar Corner and take the pledge and distribute this to your friends and associates in the construction and manufacturing trades. Our deepest gratitude goes to all the patriotic Americans who have already signed on and pledged not to participate in the construction of the mosque, which is a symbol of the triumph of Islamic supremacism over freedom. We know that America will remain free and strong by the responses of the red-blooded patriots in the construction trades who have pledged not to work on the site even though they may be unemployed at the time. Freedom is not free and this is the time to stand up for freedom.
God bless you all.
http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/the-911-hard-hat-pledge?xg_source=activity

The truth is, these same people who masquerade as open minded around here are clearly the same ones jumping at every chance to delete and silence others.
They are the on-line version of ..."Book Burners".

The Amish are required to "dress plain" there are many faiths which require various clothing rules... you however can not see where all this leads for an employer.
Three strikes and you are out.
And theres that favorite slur again.

It's sad that so many people have so little knowledge of what the role of the military is.
The Military excludes people for all kinds of reasons things like tattoos with nudity or depicting a pot leaf.
For being over weight, for being too short, for poor eye vision and a host of other conditions.
The main question has always been will this change make the service perform better? Will it have negative effects?
SOmetimes Changes can bring about both good and bad but ...the god outweigh the bad such as when Blacks were integrated with the rest of the service, though there were conflicts they were out weighed by logistics and other improvements.
THe question is, how do kissing Marines, improve the Corps?
Sure Homos have always served in the military and one would suppose that some have even performed exceptional in their duties.... but the same can be said of Child molesters or drug addicts as they too have served. MAny of these taking-points are meaningless to the question; Do homosexuals or any other person in a fringe lifestyle have a "Right to serve"?
The clueless relate the military as a 9-5 job where you can keep your private life at home..... for many troops their home life is the military as you eat, bunk, work, recreation with the same guys in your unit.
This change will bring about a title wave of questions, every thing from barracks to bring a date to the Ball, to Gay-clubs on base to cross dressing and transgender rights?
Will Gays be tested for AIDS more often..... as they still are hundreds of times more likely to be infected?
..... in a profession where blood is both spilled often..... and sometimes required for transfusions this is not something a civilian bean counter would even consider.
Also, Can Gays marry if in a state which allows, will they get base housing and pay?
These situations / questions are endless.... yet amusing.
But really the one question I would like to have input on is.... "what improvements will this bring to the armed forces"?

It's sad that so many people have so little knowledge of what the role of the military is.
The Military excludes people for all kinds of reasons things like tattoos with nudity or depicting a pot leaf.
For being over weight, for being too short, for poor eye vision and a host of other conditions.
The main question has always been will this change make the service perform better? Will it have negative effects?
SOmetimes Changes can bring about both good and bad but ...the god outweigh the bad such as when Blacks were integrated with the rest of the service, though there were conflicts they were out weighed by logistics and other improvements.
THe question is, how do kissing Marines, improve the Corps?
Sure Homos have always served in the military and one would suppose that some have even performed exceptional in their duties.... but the same can be said of Child molesters or drug addicts as they too have served. MAny of these taking-points are meaningless to the question; Do homosexuals or any other person in a fringe lifestyle have a "Right to serve"?
The clueless relate the military as a 9-5 job where you can keep your private life at home..... for many troops their home life is the military as you eat, bunk, work, recreation with the same guys in your unit.
This change will bring about a title wave of questions, every thing from barracks to bring a date to the Ball, to Gay-clubs on base to cross dressing and transgender rights?
Will Gays be tested for AIDS more often..... as they still are hundreds of times more likely to be infected?
..... in a profession where blood is both spilled often..... and sometimes required for transfusions this is not something a civilian bean counter would even consider.
Also, Can Gays marry if in a state which allows, will they get base housing and pay?
These situations / questions are endless.... yet amusing.
But really the one question I would like to have input on is.... "what improvements will this bring to the armed forces"?

It's sad that so many people have so little knowledge of what the role of the military is.
The Military excludes people for all kinds of reasons things like tattoos with nudity or depicting a pot leaf.
For being over weight, for being too short, for poor eye vision and a host of other conditions.
The main question has always been will this change make the service perform better? Will it have negative effects?
SOmetimes Changes can bring about both good and bad but ...the god outweigh the bad such as when Blacks were integrated with the rest of the service, though there were conflicts they were out weighed by logistics and other improvements.
THe question is, how do kissing Marines, improve the Corps?
Sure Homos have always served in the military and one would suppose that some have even performed exceptional in their duties.... but the same can be said of Child molesters or drug addicts as they too have served. MAny of these taking-points are meaningless to the question; Do homosexuals or any other person in a fringe lifestyle have a "Right to serve"?
The clueless relate the military as a 9-5 job where you can keep your private life at home..... for many troops their home life is the military as you eat, bunk, work, recreation with the same guys in your unit.
This change will bring about a title wave of questions, every thing from barracks to bring a date to the Ball, to Gay-clubs on base to cross dressing and transgender rights?
Will Gays be tested for AIDS more often..... as they still are hundreds of times more likely to be infected?
..... in a profession where blood is both spilled often..... and sometimes required for transfusions this is not something a civilian bean counter would even consider.
Also, Can Gays marry if in a state which allows, will they get base housing and pay?
These situations / questions are endless.... yet amusing.
But really the one question I would like to have input on is.... "what improvements will this bring to the armed forces"?

It's sad that so many people have so little knowledge of what the role of the military is.
The Military excludes people for all kinds of reasons things like tattoos with nudity or depicting a pot leaf.
For being over weight, for being too short, for poor eye vision and a host of other conditions.
The main question has always been will this change make the service perform better? Will it have negative effects?
SOmetimes Changes can bring about both good and bad but ...the god outweigh the bad such as when Blacks were integrated with the rest of the service, though there were conflicts they were out weighed by logistics and other improvements.
THe question is, how do kissing Marines, improve the Corps?
Sure Homos have always served in the military and one would suppose that some have even performed exceptional in their duties.... but the same can be said of Child molesters or drug addicts as they too have served. MAny of these taking-points are meaningless to the question; Do homosexuals or any other person in a fringe lifestyle have a "Right to serve"?
The clueless relate the military as a 9-5 job where you can keep your private life at home..... for many troops their home life is the military as you eat, bunk, work, recreation with the same guys in your unit.
This change will bring about a title wave of questions, every thing from barracks to bring a date to the Ball, to Gay-clubs on base to cross dressing and transgender rights?
Will Gays be tested for AIDS more often..... as they still are hundreds of times more likely to be infected?
..... in a profession where blood is both spilled often..... and sometimes required for transfusions this is not something a civilian bean counter would even consider.
Also, Can Gays marry if in a state which allows, will they get base housing and pay?
These situations / questions are endless.... yet amusing.
But really the one question I would like to have input on is.... "what improvements will this bring to the armed forces"?

IF she has any facts wrong... point them out.
<....silence>

SUPREME COURT TO FACE MECCA
May 12, 2010

Americans can thank the Supreme Court for the attempted car bombing of Times Square, as well as any future terrorist attacks that might be less "amateurish" and which our commander in chief will be unable to thwart unless the bomb fizzles.
Over blistering dissents by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, five Supreme Court justices have repeatedly voted to treat jihadists like turnstile jumpers. (Thanks, Justice Kennedy!)
That's worked so well that Obama's own attorney general is now talking about making massive exceptions to the Miranda warnings -- exceptions that will apply to all criminal suspects, by the way -- in order to deal with terrorists having to be read their rights as a bomb is about to go off.
Let's be clear: When Eric Holder thinks we're being too easy on terrorists, we are being too easy on terrorists.
Either the five liberal justices demanding constitutional rights for terrorists are out of their minds, or the religious worship of President Franklin D. Roosevelt has got to stop. According to liberal logic in the war on terrorism, FDR was a bloodthirsty war criminal.
When six Germans and two Americans were suspected of plotting an attack on U.S. munitions plants during World War II, FDR immediately ordered them arrested and tried in a secret military tribunal held behind closed doors at the Department of Justice.
Within weeks, all were found guilty. Six of the eight, including one U.S. citizen, were given the electric chair. One German was sentenced to life in prison and the other American citizen -- who had turned himself in and revealed the plot to the FBI -- got 30 years.
The Supreme Court upheld the secret trial, but didn't get around to producing an opinion until after Old Sparky had rendered its own verdict.
Consider that the eight saboteurs never actually did anything other than enter the country illegally, which I gather is considered a constitutional right these days (except in my future home state of Arizona).
Still, FDR had them executed or imprisoned after trial in a secret military tribunal.
How many future car bombers would be discouraged if Faisal Shahzad were tried by military tribunal and executed by, say, the end of the month? What if Army doctor Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had already gotten the chair?
But we can't do that because, according to five Supreme Court justices who aren't "progressive" enough for American liberals, terrorists waging war on U.S. soil get full constitutional protections.
So, instead, we're left arguing about whether an exception should be made to Miranda rights in the case of a terrorist who plotted with foreign agents to plant a car bomb in Times Square. ("You have the right to remain violent ...")
We are at war. The Supreme Court has no right to stick its fat, unelected nose into the commander in chief's constitutional war powers, particularly in a war against savages whose only reason for not nuking us yet is that they don't have the technology. (The New York Times hasn't gotten around to printing it.)
The reason Democrats are obsessed with controlling the courts is that unelected judges issuing final edicts is the only way liberals can attain their insane policy agenda. No group of Americans outside of Nancy Pelosi's district would vote for politicians who enacted laws similar to the phony "constitutional rights" liberal justices proclaim from the Supreme Court.
President Obama would rather surrender his authority as commander in chief to the Supreme Court than get blamed for deciding to treat terrorists as if they're Paris Hilton facing a drunk driving charge. Let the court do it.
(Recall that Obama's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attack, in a civilian court in New York was even less popular with the American people than Jay Leno at 10 p.m.)
Meanwhile, elected Democrats in Congress are also happy to yield their law-making authority to the court, so they don't have to be the ones voting for laws mandating late-term abortions; hard-core pornography on the Internet; government-sanctioned race discrimination; forced cross-district busing; confiscatory property tax hikes to fund socially engineered school desegregation plans; bans on the public observation of religious traditions shared by most Americans; free education, health care and welfare benefits for illegal immigrants; and a redefinition of the 2,000-year-old institution of marriage against the express wishes of voters in every state to vote on it.
(Note: This is only a partial list.)
The Supreme Court has become a Blue Ribbon Commission for Lunatics, issuing binding edicts in 5-4 votes that Americans would never in a million years vote for. Distinguishing between Elena Kagan and any other Democratic nominee is like distinguishing between Hannibal Lecter and Vlad the Impaler.
http://www.anncoulter.com

Actually this was a big PR screw-up (foreign flags) at amnesty rallies during the last push for "reform", since then the word has gotten out to leave those flags home and bring American flags,
Thats why you don't see nearly the number of foreign flags at these rallies anymore.
For me there is nothing unusual or wrong in people being proud of their country and flying their flags.......however it's kinda stupid to do it while you are trying to convince America you came her to be "Americans" rather than to make money.
.... Not that there is anything wrong with coming to make money... just do it under our system.

Actually this was a big PR screw-up (foreign flags) at amnesty rallies during the last push for "reform", since then the word has gotten out to leave those flags home and bring American flags,
Thats why you don't see nearly the number of foreign flags at these rallies anymore.
For me there is nothing unusual or wrong in people being proud of their country and flying their flags.......however it's kinda stupid to do it while you are trying to convince America you came her to be "Americans" rather than to make money.
.... Not that there is anything wrong with coming to make money... just do it under our system.

Forgive me but your story sounds about as accurate as your link.
If they were locking people up in AZ for not having a passport on them to prove citizenship, half the state would have been locked up.
You can do better.