RE: Go France

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Go France

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Go France

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Go France - 8/15/2016 11:31:06 AM

PeonForHer

Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

So while you and many others only see the facade they show the outside world, what happens away from public eyes is very very different.
You see them as mild-mannered Muslim people who are kind and moderate and not much different than us.
Out of sight, they revert back to very Islamic traditions and in many cases, that is quite extreme.

How do you come to know such stuff, FD? It's hidden away from most of us ... but, despite your being clearly not friendly to Islam - you're privy to these secrets? How does that work?

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)

Profile

Post #: 101

RE: Go France - 8/15/2016 1:31:50 PM

DesideriScuri

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

If there are enough legal US citizens that vote in support of a change that isn't against the US Constitution (and the change falls under the authority of the Federal Government), then, that change should happen. There is this "consent of the governed" thing here. As long as a thing isn't un-Constitutional and it falls under the authorities of the Federal Government, if enough people support it, then government should do it.

There is no mechanism for poplar referendum in the Federal governing process. Sorry about that.

There is such a thing as an Amendment, isn't there? And, if there is enough support for something that Constitutionally falls under the Authority of the Federal Government, isn't there some way the people could make their voices known so as to have it happen
Might not be a direct vote referendum, but there certainly is a form of referendum there.

DS, the last i remember was the Equal Rights for Women Amendment campaign, which took several years, lots of money, and was defeated. So, yeah, you're correct. Then of course there is lobbying by all sorts of interest groups.

I thought candidate Obama was going to get the lobbyists out of DC and fundamentally change the way DC works?!?

Um no. He did not pledge to get "them out of D.C." He was not elected King.
He promised to keep lobbyists from running his administration. In the first few days of his presidency he signed an executive order prohibiting employment for anyone who had lobbied for any group during the previous two years. However, there were loopholes: waiver and recusal. So, you are right. Obama did break that campaign promise apparently.
So, you got that swipe in at the president but you are diverting from the point we were discussing: "If only we had a system by which we could have someone in DC representing us."
source

I admit I was wrong in my thinking. I could have sworn he said he was going to get the lobbyists out of DC. It was probably more likely getting the influence of lobbyists out of DC.

And, it wasn't just a diversionary swipe at the POTUS. You brought lobbying up, not I.

Getting rid of lobbying in DC, by the way, is something I truly support. Lobbying and petitioning government are not the same thing.

_____________________________

What I support:

A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
Personal Responsibility
Help for the truly needy
Limited Government
Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to vincentML)

Profile

Post #: 102

RE: Go France - 8/15/2016 1:52:59 PM

vincentML

Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

I admit I was wrong in my thinking. I could have sworn he said he was going to get the lobbyists out of DC. It was probably more likely getting the influence of lobbyists out of DC.

And, it wasn't just a diversionary swipe at the POTUS. You brought lobbying up, not I.

Getting rid of lobbying in DC, by the way, is something I truly support. Lobbying and petitioning government are not the same thing.

There are, idk, hundreds, maybe more Lobbying groups, firms, and individuals in DC, each i think protected by free speech and right to assemble. I can't imagine how it would be accomplished. I have read that many in Congress depend on Lobbyists to write legislation Of course, Congress members are known to spend x number of hours a day across the avenue* from the House and Senate on the phones begging for money. I cannot imagine Congress voting to prohibit lobbying. Seems unconstitutional and financially impractical.

*They are not allowed to solicit funds from within the holy confines. Somehow it blemishes the secular religion when you solicit from inside the church. Makes them feel all prostitution-y.

I suggested lobbying in reply to your plea for more direct representation.

source

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

Profile

Post #: 103

RE: Go France - 8/15/2016 6:03:02 PM

DesideriScuri

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I admit I was wrong in my thinking. I could have sworn he said he was going to get the lobbyists out of DC. It was probably more likely getting the influence of lobbyists out of DC.
And, it wasn't just a diversionary swipe at the POTUS. You brought lobbying up, not I.
Getting rid of lobbying in DC, by the way, is something I truly support. Lobbying and petitioning government are not the same thing.

There are, idk, hundreds, maybe more Lobbying groups, firms, and individuals in DC, each i think protected by free speech and right to assemble. I can't imagine how it would be accomplished. I have read that many in Congress depend on Lobbyists to write legislation Of course, Congress members are known to spend x number of hours a day across the avenue* from the House and Senate on the phones begging for money. I cannot imagine Congress voting to prohibit lobbying. Seems unconstitutional and financially impractical.

Financially impractical? I don't give a rat's ass if it's more difficult for Federal representatives to raise money. Actually, that's a lie. I want it to be more difficult for them to raise money.

We have elected officials who are in government to represent us, the voters. They are supposed to work for us. We didn't elect the SEIU to help craft Obamacare. If our elected officials aren't actually writing the laws, then they are not actually representing us.

quote:

*They are not allowed to solicit funds from within the holy confines. Somehow it blemishes the secular religion when you solicit from inside the church. Makes them feel all prostitution-y.

Separation of church and state, no? Almost seems like if they solicited and accepted funds from a church/mosque/temple/etc., it smacks of religious favoritism. That might make it look like the official is establishing a religion, or might craft laws to do so.

quote:

I suggested lobbying in reply to your plea for more direct representation.

I know why you brought it up. Don't bring it up and expect no one to use it in a way you don't agree with.

_____________________________

What I support:

A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
Personal Responsibility
Help for the truly needy
Limited Government
Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to vincentML)

Profile

Post #: 104

RE: Go France - 8/16/2016 1:38:38 AM

MariaB

Posts: 2969
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB
There are women who are forced to cover and there are women who choose to cover. To make a blanket ban is to oppress those with free choice for the sake of those who are forced. The French are forcing and restricting thousands of women who choose to wear the hijab. Can you not see the hypocrisy in that?

The French have already banned extremist Islamic attire. What Cairns is banning on the beach isn't extremist clothing.

No woman have chosen to wear the hijab. The reason why they wear it, is because they were taught that they would not be respected as human beings IF they refuse to wear it.

They wear it because they believe it brings them respect.

If wearing "something" determines the level of respectability, and it's soooo extreme to the extent that I can't show my face or my hair. It's no longer a choice.

It's not oppression to ban it in countries where we can respect women, EVEN if they show their face or their hair.

Maria, you love to use Iranian Muslims and your experience with them as examples, but let me remind you, ORIGINAL PERSIANS don't cover up! And ORIGINAL PERSIANS AREN'T Muslims!

They were all forced to be Muslims by the sword.

Can any of your Iranian Muslim friends today leave Islam openly without consequences from their own government?

I see them as Prisoners of the evil religion Islam. They did not have a choice.

This is Iranian women Fashion BEFORE Islam took over!

The image you have shown was during the reign of the Shah. The Shah of Persia was a very westernized Shia. Persia has been Shia since it fell to the Arabs in the 7th century, just one century after the Pagan Brits started converting under force to Christianity.

_____________________________

My store is http://e-stimstore.com

(in reply to Greta75)

Profile

Post #: 105

RE: Go France - 8/16/2016 4:14:35 PM

Politesub53

Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

No, in my community where I live.
So I get real people's views, face to face, not keyboard cowboys.

Funny you mention keyboard cowboys, given you didnt refute me when i as good as said you are talking bollocks ( See my post #76)

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)

Profile

Post #: 106

RE: Go France - 8/16/2016 5:18:17 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

"Separation of church and state, no? Almost seems like if they solicited and accepted funds from a church/mosque/temple/etc., it smacks of religious favoritism. That might make it look like the official is establishing a religion, or might craft laws to do so. "

What about Israel via AIPAC ? That is a racially and religiously bigoted nation and they freely admit it.

T^T

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

Profile

Post #: 107

RE: Go France - 8/17/2016 5:12:08 AM

DesideriScuri

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
"Separation of church and state, no? Almost seems like if they solicited and accepted funds from a church/mosque/temple/etc., it smacks of religious favoritism. That might make it look like the official is establishing a religion, or might craft laws to do so. "
What about Israel via AIPAC ? That is a racially and religiously bigoted nation and they freely admit it.
T^T

Candidates are not allowed to solicit or accept money from other countries. They are allowed to go to a different country and stump for the American Citizens in that country, to donate to his/her campaign.

_____________________________

What I support:

A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
Personal Responsibility
Help for the truly needy
Limited Government
Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 108

RE: Go France - 8/21/2016 4:07:12 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Greta75

Because there are injustice carried on these women in Muslim countries where we have no jurisdiction on. And they are being controlled by their dress code.

Why is that any of your business? Don't you have a job?

When they are in a non-islamic country, after so many years of brainwashing that, they wouldn't be treated as humans IF they were to bare some skin. And We can be talking about, simply a one piece swim suit. Not even asking for a bikini.

Do you wear a bikini?

I don't think we should mind our own business on such matters. There are certain cultures that are not welcome in non-Muslim countries.

How would you feel if they were to assume the same attitude and march about a billion or so people over that third world shithole called singapore and have them take a shit leaving singapore under about a quarter mile of shit.

One of it, is making the women feel like they can't even show their face, or they will be mistaken as sluts.

Are you mistaken for a slut when you show your face?

It ends in non-Muslim countries.

Now that is what I call a firm grasp of the obvious timmy.

These women trying to escape their own countries have been forced to cover up for so long, they literally need to be supported in a different culture they are escaping to, that it is okay to show skin, show your face.

So do you want to send them to "re-education" camps and brain wash their religion and their culture from them?

You know everybody who ever travelled to Saudi Arabia tells me, that the poor women, ALL shed their hijab in relief the moment the plane is safely in the air and out of Saudi's jurisdiction. Beneath it, they wear normal clothes. They love make up and high heels too and pretty dresses.

You know everybody who ever read one of your post tells me that you are ignorant as a stone and as dumb as a post.

(in reply to Greta75)

Profile

Post #: 109

RE: Go France - 8/21/2016 9:37:02 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

What, are you really trying hard to be a fucking asshole or what ? You have really outdone yourself.

T^T

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 110

RE: Go France - 8/22/2016 4:46:39 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

What, are you really trying hard to be a fucking asshole or what ?

No. I do not try at all. What I do is critique the post of others. I am sure you have noticed that I have critiqued more than a few of yours.

You have really outdone yourself.

Thank you.
Comming from someone like you that is high praise.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 111

RE: Go France - 8/22/2016 7:10:58 AM

Edwird

Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: BamaD

You are aware that the Europeans came to these places as invaders, not refugees?

Is that what the history channel told you? Is that what your lady phd history teacher told you?
The history books do not speak of soldiers on the mayflower.
Why do you think the puritans were invaders? Why do you think roger williams was an invader? The history books tend to indicate that they were refugees from religious persecution.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

The Puritans fled persecution from the Crown for trying to practice their own brand of religious persecution on British soil.

They wanted to burn witches under their own screed, screw the Crown.

They took the boat West, and so they did.

They also had better lakes and ponds in the new country, from which to dip 12 yr. old girls head down from a pole and fulcrum into the water.

Gotta love that.

Then flooded by the Calvinists, and the Protestants, with all their acquisition for its own sake mantra.

What made this country great.

< Message edited by Edwird -- 8/22/2016 7:19:44 AM >

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 112

RE: Go France - 8/22/2016 7:14:47 AM

Edwird

Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline

The Ulster 'defense' terrorists and US banker and other corporista CEOs are of the same stock.

(in reply to Edwird)

Profile

Post #: 113

RE: Go France - 8/22/2016 7:22:34 AM

Edwird

Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline

Screwing everybody you can, in whatever way possible, is god's work, according to the Protestants.

That explains so many things, both domestic and foreign, about the troubles we have today.

I wish I had figured that out earlier in life.

< Message edited by Edwird -- 8/22/2016 7:26:01 AM >

(in reply to Edwird)

Profile

Post #: 114

RE: Go France - 8/22/2016 7:54:47 AM

Edwird

Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline

Were it not so ingrained in the Western 'mind' to live your life and wake up every day in hyper-agressive mode, we might not even have a clue about the Middle East today, nor they about us.

I love the food from my local Middle East deli, but was the artificial demarcations imposed by Britain and their and US oil companies after WW I necessary for that? Were the later invasions necessary for that?

Now we find out what idiots we are. There were at least a few ME delis in the US in the '50s, just as there were Jewish and Irish and German and Italian places to eat. And now there is the internet.

If we had only held off a few years.

Unfortunately, we did all this invasion crap, and have set ourselves behind, at least for 50 years, 100 years not being an overestimation.

We are STILL living in the 19th century, mentally,

< Message edited by Edwird -- 8/22/2016 7:58:55 AM >

(in reply to Edwird)

Profile

Post #: 115

RE: Go France - 8/22/2016 8:03:29 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Edwird

Screwing everybody you can, in whatever way possible, is god's work, according to the Protestants.

We remain unconvinced that the protestants are the only believers of that dogma.

(in reply to Edwird)

Profile

Post #: 116

RE: Go France - 8/22/2016 8:08:03 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Edwird
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
ORIGINAL: BamaD

You are aware that the Europeans came to these places as invaders, not refugees?

Is that what the history channel told you? Is that what your lady phd history teacher told you?
The history books do not speak of soldiers on the mayflower.
Why do you think the puritans were invaders? Why do you think roger williams was an invader? The history books tend to indicate that they were refugees from religious persecution.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

The Puritans fled persecution from the Crown for trying to practice their own brand of religious persecution on British soil.

They wanted to burn witches under their own screed, screw the Crown.

My point was that they were refugee not invaders...that they were assholes was the reason for their being refugees.

(in reply to Edwird)

Profile

Post #: 117

RE: Go France - 8/22/2016 8:13:21 AM

Edwird

Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline

Certainly not.

Just saying that they've been the best at promoting and demonstrating that particular religion thus far.

Didn't mean to leave the coat tail folks out.

But also wanted to head off all the "It's all the Jews' fault!" crapolla that comes up immediately in these things.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 118

RE: Go France - 8/22/2016 8:21:45 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Edwird

Certainly not.

Just saying that they've been the best at promoting and demonstrating that particular religion thus far.

Didn't mean to leave the coat tail folks out.

But also wanted to head off all the "It's all the Jews' fault!" crapolla that comes up immediately in these things.

Just as it was the swiss who taught the germans how to be anal it was the catholics who taught the prostestants about compound interest.

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 8/22/2016 8:22:54 AM >

(in reply to Edwird)

Profile

Post #: 119

RE: Go France - 8/22/2016 8:44:51 AM

Edwird

Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

Le Monde points out that no French law bans the wearing of full-body swimsuits. "The law on the full-face veil only bans covering the face in public... The burkini, which covers the body but does not hide the face, is thus a totally legal garment."

he could have created less fuss if he made it a nudist beach