MilProGuy
Regular Member
This is true.
Surely, we don't want to go back to the days of "whites only" drinking fountains and "colored entrances" to our neighborhood theaters.
I know I certainly don't want to.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Radio Commercial has libs going crazy
- Thread starter hunter45
- Start date
This is true.
Surely, we don't want to go back to the days of "whites only" drinking fountains and "colored entrances" to our neighborhood theaters.
I know I certainly don't want to.
Jack House
Regular Member
That doesn't sound like you at all.
I think that if the CRA was repealed tomorrow, very few things would change. Most businesses these days are corporate run and they care very little about who they cater to so long as they're getting paid. There may be a few private businesses that start discriminating, but most will probably bankrupt.
The OC movement is a good example of this. In most cases it seems that corporations and even small businesses are unwilling to discriminate against armed citizens, even though they certainly have the right to do so.
I think that if the CRA was repealed tomorrow, very few things would change. Most businesses these days are corporate run and they care very little about who they cater to so long as they're getting paid. There may be a few private businesses that start discriminating, but most will probably bankrupt.
The OC movement is a good example of this. In most cases it seems that corporations and even small businesses are unwilling to discriminate against armed citizens, even though they certainly have the right to do so.
rscottie
Regular Member
You are absolutely correct, Islam is the second largest religion in the world, which is why we as American's that are not followers of Islam have so much to be worried about.
See, you wish to point out that there are only so many fanatics amongst the Muslim ranks that wish to kill us. I call BS. When the towers fell on 9/11, Muslims were dancing in the street and cheering in Muslim enclaves around the world, including some right here in America. Reporters had a hard time finding one Muslim to speak out against the attacks.
We had Muslims saying that America had gotten what she deserved, we had Muslim sympathizers talking about "America's chickens coming home to roost."
What you did not see were "good" Muslims demanding the end to the violence against America or even trying to clean house. When these "good" Muslims decide to clean house and start policing their own, I may reconsider my disdain for the bulk of them.
Do people not understand that Muslims view ANYONE that is Non-Muslim as an Infidel? They only have two cures for an Infidel, conversion or death.
Well, I ain't converting and do not plan on letting them kill me.
People can slam Christians all they want but when Christians speak of non-Christians it is in terms of the soul and spiritual death, not actual physical death. So basically, Christians will say you are going to Hell but will not send you there for not attending Sunday Service.
I suggest anyone bringing up the Inquisitions to research a little more. Those times were very turbulent and had seen Muslim Hoards that would come in and kill off whole towns of non-Muslims and take over. There was not a lot of tolerance for Muslims after that. The Inquisitions spread the net much wider than just the Muslims and targeted Christians that they felt were not Christian enough as well as other non-believers.
Bringing up the Inquisitions is a poor comparison for what is occurring right now in History with Islamic Fascism and its quest to dominate the world.
I will speak out against the Westboro Baptist Church as I think they are despicable. But, as looney as I think they are, I have no fear of them attempting to behead me for not joining their ranks.
When I see more Muslims speak out against the radical ones that attend the same Mosques that they do, when they start to run them out, when they help to actually stop them, I may not laugh when I hear people refer to Islam as the "Religion of Peace." Hell, I may even become more tolerant.
Tawnos
Regular Member
Infidel is actually a Christian term for non-Christians. Muslims call those of us who don't believe in any gods "kafir", which is different than what they call Christians (Ahl-e-kitab - "people of the book").
The more you know!
Last edited:
The Westboro people are NOT Christians just as none of the aforementioned organizations are Christian. (KKK and others.) A lot of groups claim to be Christian but their stated beliefs and actions prove otherwise. And individual people will do nutty things but that does not change my faith in God. It just makes me sorry for the misguided people (doing the nutty things).
Tawnos
Regular Member
No true Scotsman.
I think he was trying to establish that the minority does not define the majority; and emphasize that the majority does define the majority.
KKK - big but was ultimately a minority.
Wesboro - tiny minority.
Muslims who hate America - majority.
thebigsd
Founder's Club Member
They don't claim to be Christians. They BELIEVE that they are Christians. In fact, KKK members must profess a belief in Jesus Christ as the savior of mankind....
Tawnos
Regular Member
SavageOne
Regular Member
You do of course realize Allah is the Arabic word for God. While we're at it "God" isn't the deity's name either, it kind of a title. Would you go around saying "In Jehovah We Trust" or how about when someone sneezes you can say "Yahweh Bless You". Both should be correct to Christianity since they worship the "god of Abraham"(you know... God of the Jews). I would also point out that Muslims believe in Jesus, and Mary, and Moses, etc., etc. , they just believe that Mohammad was a later prophet of God.
Last edited:
SavageOne
Regular Member
While it has been pointed out that your dates are wrong on the Pledge, let's just say you were talking about the late 1700's. If there were no "violent middle eastern cults trying to kill Americans", why did the Marines go to the shores of Tripoli?
JC_Biggs
Regular Member
all i got to say is
OoRAHHH
OoRAHHH
GLOCK21GB
Campaign Veteran
OK. 1% ARE evil & vial & according to you the other 99% of Muslims are such good Allah fearing people that want nothing peace & harmony...LOL....I CALL BIG TIME BS TO THAT...Where the frack are the good 99% ???? are they coming out on TV saying they do not associate with the evil Middle eastern Muslims ?????? NOPE...They are SILENT..Because they SUPPORT what the Evil Muslims are doing. Evil flourishes when good men do nothing...how about this.... Islamic Extremism flourishes when good Muslims do nothing.... blah blah blah.... Keep drinking the PC kool aid, see if i care.
GLOCK21GB
Campaign Veteran
Because of Pirates & $$$$$$$ MONEY...here you go >>>
The First Barbary War (1801–5)
Pirate ships and crews from the North Africa's Berber states of Morocco, Tripoli, Tunis, and Algiers (the Barbary Coast), although nominally governed by the Ottoman Empire, were the scourge of the Mediterranean. Capturing merchant ships and enslaving or ransoming their crews provided the Muslim rulers of these nations with wealth and naval power. In fact, the Roman Catholic Trinitarian Order or Order of "Mathurins" had operated from France for centuries with the special mission of collecting and disbursing funds for the relief and ransom of prisoners of Mediterranean pirates.
The war stemmed from the Barbary pirates’ attacks upon American merchant shipping in an attempt to extort ransom for the lives of captured sailors, and ultimately tribute from the United States to avoid further attacks, much like their standard operating procedure with the various European states.[1] Before the Treaty of Paris, which granted America’s independence from Great Britain, American shipping was protected by France during the Revolutionary years under the Treaty of Alliance (1778–83). Although the treaty does not mention the Barbary States in name, it refers to common enemies between both the U.S. and France, which would include the Barbary States or pirates in general. As such, piracy against American shipping only began to occur after the end of the American Revolution, when the U.S. government lost its protection under the Treaty of Alliance.
This lapse of protection by a European power led to the first American merchant shipping seized after the Treaty of Paris. On October 11, 1784, Moroccan pirates seized the brigantine Betsey.[2] This first act of piracy against the U.S. ended in a positive light, as the Spanish government negotiated the freedom of the captured ship and crew; however, Spain offered advice to the United States over how to deal with the Barbary States. The advice was to offer tribute to prevent further attacks against merchant ships. The US Minister to France, Thomas Jefferson, decided to send envoys to Morocco and Algeria to try to purchase treaties and the freedoms of the captured sailors held by Algeria.[3] Morocco was the first Barbary Coast state to sign a treaty with the U.S. on June 23, 1786. This treaty formally ended all Moroccan piracy against American shipping interests. Specifically, Article 6 of the treaty states that if any captured Americans, be it done by Moroccans or by other Barbary Coast states dock at a Moroccan city, said Americans would be set free and be under the protection of the Moroccan state.[4]
American diplomatic action with Algeria, the other major Barbary Coast state, was much less successful than with Morocco. Algeria began piracy against the U.S. on July 25, 1785 with the capture of the schooner Maria and the Dauphin a week later.[5] All four Barbary Coast states demanded a sum of $660,000 compared to the limited allocated budget of $40,000 given to the envoys to achieve peace.[6] Diplomatic talks to achieve a reasonable sum for tribute or for the ransom of the captured sailors struggled to reach any headway. The crews of the Maria and Dauphin remained in captivity for over a decade, and soon were joined by other ships captured by the Barbary States.[7] In 1795, Algeria came to an agreement with the U.S. that resulted in the release of 115 sailors they held, at the cost of over $1 million. This amount totaled about 1⁄6 of the entire U.S. budget,[8] and this amount was demanded as tribute by the Barbary States to prevent further piracy. The continuing demand for tribute ultimately led to the formation of the United States Department of the Navy, founded in 1798[9] in order to prevent further piracy attacks upon American shipping as well as to end the extremely large demand for tribute from the Barbary States.
Various letters and testimonies by captured sailors described their captivity as a form of slavery, even though Barbary Coast imprisonment was different from slavery practiced by the U.S. and European powers of the time.[10] Barbary Coast prisoners were able to obtain wealth and property, along with achieving status beyond that of a slave. One such example was James Leander Cathcart, who rose to the highest position a Christian slave could achieve in Algeria, ending up as an adviser to the Algerian Dey, or king.[11] Even so, most captives were pressed into hard labor in the service of the Barbary pirates, and struggled under extremely poor conditions that exposed them to vermin and disease. As word of the poor treatment reached back to the U.S., through freed captives' narratives or letters, American civilians were pushing for direct action by the government to stop the piracy against U.S. ships.
In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [12]
Jefferson reported the conversation to Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay, who submitted the Ambassador's comments and offer to Congress. Jefferson argued that paying tribute would encourage more attacks. Although John Adams agreed with Jefferson, he believed that circumstances forced the U.S. to pay tribute until an adequate navy could be built. The U.S. had just fought an exhausting war, which put the nation deep in debt. Federalist and Anti-Federalist forces argued over the needs of the country and the burden of taxation. Jefferson's own Democratic-Republicans and anti-navalists believed that the future of the country lay in westward expansion, with Atlantic trade threatening to siphon money and energy away from the new nation on useless wars in the Old World.[13] The U.S. paid Algiers the ransom, and continued to pay up to $1 million per year over the next 15 years for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. Payments in ransom and tribute to the privateering states amounted to 20% of the U.S. government's annual revenues in 1800.[citation needed]
Jefferson continued to argue for cessation of the tribute, with rising support from George Washington and others. With the recommissioning of the American navy in 1794 and the resulting increased firepower on the seas, it became increasingly possible for America to refuse paying tribute, although by now the long-standing habit was hard to overturn.
wanna read more...go look it up
Last edited:
Jack House
Regular Member
Because the news is the utmost reliable source of information on anything?
This is an AK47, right? That's what I heard on the news, so it must be true!
They can believe it all day long but their actions claim otherwise.
Daylen, I wasn't really saying that. Consensus doesn't dictate truth.
Jack House
Regular Member
You realize that there are those in the Islamic world that will say the same thing about the extremists, right?
Does not matter if you consider them Christians or not. What matters is that the Westboro Baptist Church claims to be Christians and follow the bible. The irony here, is that they more or less do, they just take it to the extreme, just short of being militant. I haven't bothered researching their group too much, but don't they more or less believe the same thing as most Christians, just being extreme about it?
If I am mistaken, then feel free to provide examples of their ideology conflicting with mainstream Christian ideology.
Posted using my HTC Evo
Does not matter if you consider them Christians or not. What matters is that the Westboro Baptist Church claims to be Christians and follow the bible. The irony here, is that they more or less do, they just take it to the extreme, just short of being militant. I haven't bothered researching their group too much, but don't they more or less believe the same thing as most Christians, just being extreme about it?
If I am mistaken, then feel free to provide examples of their ideology conflicting with mainstream Christian ideology.
Posted using my HTC Evo
frommycolddeadhands
Regular Member
Mainstream Christian doctrine = God loves everyone. In fact, He loved the world so much that He sent Christ (His son) to die upon the cross for our sins.
Westboro doctrine = God hates homosexuals, Jews, US soldiers, mormons, catholics, the nation of India, and a laundry list of others. They believe that every tragedy in the world is brought down as God's wrath and is linked to homosexuality in some way. They believe that homosexuals should be put to death. They also believe that the current president is the Anti-Christ, in league with Satan and Pope Benedict XVI.
Pretty huge gap between those two ideologies.
frommycolddeadhands
Regular Member
Back to the original topic
Is the guy in the original video discriminating against one particular group of people? Yep. By definition he sure is.
Is that his right? Yep, it sure is.
As I often advise folks who are offended by such things: Change the channel and/or simply don't give 'em your money.
Is the guy in the original video discriminating against one particular group of people? Yep. By definition he sure is.
Is that his right? Yep, it sure is.
As I often advise folks who are offended by such things: Change the channel and/or simply don't give 'em your money.
Jack House
Regular Member
Many main stream Christians believe that Obama is the antichrist and that a lot of tragedies happen because of the wrath of god. Christians believe that god hates homosexuality and a host of other things, the WBC has taken that to the extreme and applied that hatred to the "sinner" as well.