This Is Not A Democracy, It's A Republic........
Nice, jenn! Obviously, you saw my Kerry-sex-change post over at Opinionnation!
So, what is he now Theresa?
We need to urge Minnesotans to wake up and find a way to boot the muslim, bigot and US hater Ellison out of office. In this day and age no muslim should be granted the priviledge of representing citizens of the US. Islam is simply incompatible with western ideals.
Wake up.
I like the Rosie/Donald feud. Fuckin' hilarious.
If you haven't seen the video of the both of them, Hot Air has it.
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/...-on-each-other/
Rosie said some mean things but damn... you don't want to F with the Don
And Hot Air has round 2 between Rosie and Don.
Don calls her an animal
"Don calls her an animal" ROTFLMAO. Really, I have no ass left it been laughed off!!! Op, could it get any funnier. It's like finally people are saying, WOW, this fat bee-yotch has some serious double standards. See my mission statement at the top of this blog.
D- I agree. Until the day comes where Muslims take to the street like the illegals did and protest the maimings, the killings, the IED'S... well then....
I think there are plenty of reasons why Ellison is not fit to do his job, but the fact that he's a muslim shouldn't be a reason.
Banning candidates from running based on their religion is entirely incompatible with an American democracy.
Virgil Goode is a dipshit. All of America's immigration problems could be solved simply by ENFORCING existing laws.
I'm a legal immigrant. I did things the legit way and it took three years - but becoming a Permanant Resident of the United States is one of the things I'm proudest of.
If and when I become a US Citizen, I will make sure to campaign against and vote against people like Ellison, because that's the way democracy works.
"Banning candidates from running based on their religion is entirely incompatible with an American democracy."
Islam itself is completely against any western values we have. Muslims believe, or are forced to believe, that islam is above all man-made laws and takes precedence. Unless islam itself evolves into something more compatible with the freedom we associate with the west, muslims should be HIGHLY discouraged from political office. In fact, until they get their shit together, they should be banned from enetering the US or any other nation.
We're taking the first step into becoming what Europe is today. I want no part of that lunancy.
"because that's the way democracy works."
Muslims have used and will continue to use our laws and values against us until they're in positions where we can't stop them. Is that what you want?
Rosie needs to be taken down like the Berlin Wall and the Donald he can do it..
It's nice to see that we aren't the only ones sick of her shite.
"Muslims have used and will continue to use our laws and values against us until they're in positions where we can't stop them."
Yes, this is clearly shown in the way they use "our own" media.
I think my husband said it well last night when we were discussing the Haditha 8.
How can we fight a war when our soldiers are tried for murder of people who one second are holding a gun shooting at them, and the next drop the gun and cry "civilian".
My every though, hope and if I prayed, parayer is with the Haditha 8 and their families.
Muslims believe, or are forced to believe, that islam is above all man-made laws and takes precedence.
I think there are Christian sects that have similar beliefs toward Biblical law vs. secular law. I had a debate with someone who viewed the Constitution as illegitimate for that reason. I had fun with that one.
Gotta love the she's an animal line. And him calling her a bully.
For some laughs I'm adding a link to a heartfelt Christmas message from a terrorist.... pretty funny.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=T_S74ZDa2EA
Banning candidates from running based on their religion is entirely incompatible with an American democracy.
Devout Muslims are required by their very religion to put Islamic Law before all others. They are required to do their best to replace the current form of government with Islamic law.
NOW, ask yourself this. How can someone who's religion dictates the fall of any government take an oath of office where they must swear to protect the Constitution and our Democracy?
Mornin all...what's the consensus?
I've already asked myself that James, and I found the answer is, they can't.
Kelly, that was classic.
Kitty,Consensus of what?
That ShitKitty is an idiot.
Mudkitty asks:
"Mornin all...what's the consensus?"
To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects. Dame Margaret Thatcher
Next Question! 
VW
NOW, ask yourself this. How can someone who's religion dictates the fall of any government take an oath of office where they must swear to protect the Constitution and our Democracy?
How do you reconcile that with the Constitution's prohibition on religious tests for public office?
If you wish to disqualify someone from office on the basis of their religion, then the solution is to get your ideas out into the market so the populace doesn't vote in Muslim candidates.
Unless you want to tell me how any such actions are in fact constitutional.
I think there are plenty of reasons why Ellison is not fit to do his job, but the fact that he's a muslim shouldn't be a reason.
Banning candidates from running based on their religion is entirely incompatible with an American democracy.
In regards to Dennis Prager who raised the stink, I think many misunderstand his argument. He's not calling for a religious test (as he perceives it). He regards the act of swearing in on the Bible, or having it present during the ceremony, as an act of tradition; of paying homage to the Judeo-Christian heritage and values that have made our country possible.
"How do you reconcile that with the Constitution's prohibition on religious tests for public office?"
A muslims duty is to islam, not the country. That should be sufficient to deny any muslims the priviledge of holding public office.
Secondly, I don't know of any other "religion" that allows active deception to further it's goals. Ellison can lie his ass off, swear on the bible, drink and have gay sex as long as he was working towards the dissolution of the current government in favor of an islamic one.
Thirdly, went the constitution was written, muslims weren't going around killing anything in sight including other muslims and hadn't as far as I know openly proclaimed that the goal of islam is world domination and the death or conversion of everyone on it.
This is simply common sense and the western world is sorely lacking in it. If islam was truly the religion of peace no one would give a rats ass about it.
If you want to see what happens when you let muslims into western governments look at Europe. It will soon be a lost cause.
Granted Trump was slightly out of line, it's about damn time someone talked back to that loud-mouth, urchin. Her constant assault on anyone more attractive than her (which only leaves the democratic party) is a painful tirade.
Trump, you da man.
The Donald v Rosie. Handbags at dawn.
Although the Donald did make me laugh when he said he'd send someone to steal Rosie's girl friend, which shoudn't be that hard to do.
It reminded me of what Shane Warne said to English cricketer:
English cricketer, "Warne, why are you so fat"?
Warnie, "Because everytime I shag your wife she give me a biscuit (cookie)".
MERRY CHRISTMAS, MY FRIENDS!
MAY GOD BLESS ALL OF YOU!
Holy crap Kris... that was seriously funny!!!
Wit, you too dear have a wonderful Christmas I'll see you in May!!!
Darwin,
"Should be sufficient" provides no evidence that it is, especially since a federal law banning someone from office based on religion violates at least four if not five clauses in the Constitution. I'll be happy to list them.
It is constitutional principles that apply and not common sense. That's just the way it is.
What religion professes a duty to his or country anyway? Wouldn't that disqualify anyone with religious beliefs? I'm a bit confused by this one.
All religions claim a higher alligence than country.
B.S. Kitty.
Oh really? Name one that doesn't. (Buddism doesn't count...it's a philosophy.)
Name me an average American who say's that their god comes before their country.
Mudkitty,
You forgot that we are a Judeo-Christian nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles, at least that's what the hacks that populate WorldNetDaily, The Constitution Party and Roy Moore's house want you to believe.
Oh, and don't even try to argue the separation of church and state because Katherine Harris said that was a myth too.
Ok...in all seriousness...
Jenn, how is your question relevant to the one Kitty asked? Just because an average American may not put religion over country doesn't change the principles of those underlying principles, principles which assumably profess a faith and committment to a higher being.
Because, Geek, Kitty says religions claim a higher alligence than country. But religion is nothing more that the people that "follow" it. And most that follow Christianity would put country before god. That's my opinion.
Then again, what do I know, I'm an atheist.
Because, Geek, Kitty says religions claim a higher alligence than country. But religion is nothing more that the people that "follow" it. And most that follow Christianity would put country before god. That's my opinion.
That's your opinion and that's fine. I don't need to agree or disagree to make my point, which is that whether or not someone's religious beliefs makes them qualified to serve in a public office, absent a constitutional amendment, is a determination that can only be made through the elections. If you don't wish to vote for someone for whatever reason you choice, so be it. However, any attempt to legislate in the manner I think Darwin is suggesting violates our core constitutional principles.
"If you don't wish to vote for someone for whatever reason you choice, so be it. However, any attempt to legislate in the manner I think Darwin is suggesting violates our core constitutional principles."
You're stuck in definitive shades of black and white and can't, or won't see the grey. Up until this point a persons religion or lack of, was not an issue when it came to public office.
However, we have more than enough proof and evidence that shows that muslims, (especially devout muslims) will supercede the Constitution with islam when and if it's called for. I'm not talking about violating the Constitution, I'm talking about using our heads and the common sense that God gave us to see what's in front of us.
If islam were truly the religion of peace that so many claim it is, or if the imaginary "moderate" muslims existed and voiced their opposition to what's happening today, then this wouldn't be an issue.
The people who designed and wrote the Constitution expected people to use some fucking common sense when applying it. They did not forsee the idiocy and political correctness that has diseased the minds of so many and endangered what they envisioned and created.
That particular article of the Constitution should be temporaily amended to disallow muslims from serving in public positions until the threat of islam has disappeared.
"Common sense [is] the foundation of all authorities, of the laws themselves, and of their construction." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:92
Commenting by HaloScan
