Posted on 09/03/2011 7:41:56 PM PDT by Hojczyk
“Aericans in general are not interested in committing political suicide or simply do not realize they are doing so.”
No, I think FMG meant REAL, not political, suicide. As in death.
And that would be right - it’s SO far beyond a “moral” issue. This struggle we face daily against political correctness and Islamism is literally one of life and death.
(FMG - correct me if I’m wrong, ok?”
Brilliant. Now we’ve even got a respected precedent from one of our allies, to quote on this subject.
We just need some leaders (and that includes candidates) to simply say the same thing. They can even credit PM Gillard when doing so.
No, it's because they're stupid.
New York Times has been banned from our home for over 20 years... because they promote idiocy.
Does that include abridging the right to engage in voluntary contracts between consenting adults? Let's not get carried away here.
ML/NJ
“....only IF they spend the time first getting educated on it by people such as Brigitte Gabrielle....”
.
Not necessary — all they have to do is buy a cheap Koran, read its teachings and use common sense. And please forget about GW’s inane “Islam is a ROP” statement. (He’s still living in that dreamworld.)
They should also ask themselves why it is that every politician or well-known personality in the world, who is critical of Islam, receives death threats from muslims and need a personal bodyguard to protect himself and family from harm.
Is that how a “peacefull religion” practices its beliefs? Is there any other ideology that poses this type of threat to our society?
Good grief, one does not have to attend seminars and other meetings — just read what is happening to non-muslims under shariah law.
>The potential for political suicide comes from the leftist leadership at all levels.<
.
Perhaps so, but the “conservative leadership” does nothing to prevent it from happening. The GOP is a gutless organization. Politicians on either side of the political aisle, with perhaps a few exceptions, are more interested in getting re-elected than serving the welfare of their country. Their jobs are so well paid and the perks are enormous.
Term limits is the only answer to stop this malpractice.
Is that how a “peacefull religion” practices its beliefs? Is there any other ideology that poses this type of threat to our society?
They wouldn’t be a threat if both sides of the aisle had a spine. The liberals should have a spine because while you can argue that some pederastry is tolerated, they hate gay pride, and homosexuals are disproportionately killed by radical islamic organizations, and frankly they only recently asked the British Immams to get replaced, but backed down soon after. Trust me, when power is in play, the left is going to get ground under the feet of radicalism unless they can show the gut they show to Christians, but facing the firey Immams shows them to pretty much be little more than cowards.
Plenty of right-wingers figure they simply will get spared because they don’t practice behaviors despised by Islam, but let them have their way, and people who feel like criticizing the system will be made examples of. While I don’t like certain behaviors, I do appreciate the right to criticize certain beliefs and/or behaviors.
And so, the sad part is, there is not enough political muscle being exerted by either side, and so both sides are on the risk of ultimately being marginalized. As the old saying goes, “divided we fall”.
Not sure what your point is. Same-sex marriage?
My point is that people engage in associations with voluntary bylaws all the time. Obviously those bylaws cannot run afoul of civil law, or redefinitions of English language; or they ought not to. To the extent that Sharia doesn't run afoul of civil law we ought not to be bothered by it (except that the people who wish to live this way are Muslims) any more than we should be troubled by rules established by the New York Racing Association.
ML/NJ
One major problem with Sharia law is the common-law concept of undue influence. A Muslim who refuses to be subject to Sharia law, where Sharia is available, is considered an apostate.
The penalty for apostasy under Islam is death, so be carried out by any Muslim having opportunity to do so. Allowing Sharia law as an option makes it non-optional for any Muslim.
“I always try to think there’s a bright side to every bad situation. Mabe if Sharia Law became dominant someday, no more NY times?”
Was there a bright side for Jews being confined to ghettos (and even worse) in Nazi Germany?
No bright side. It would be the terrible precursor to more horrific things - we’d actually long for a NY Times.
“Good grief, one does not have to attend seminars and other meetings — just read what is happening to non-muslims under shariah law.”
you’re preaching to the choir with me. No, my point was not about “attending seminars” - it was that experts like the ones I named are masters at taking apart every debating point of Lefties, Progressives and Muslims like Cair. Candidates would do well to get the knowledge of those who have had years of first-hand experience (and all have the bodyguards you cite) as debate coaches to arm themselves against all the attacks, media trickery and gotcha questions they’ll encounter and learn how to smack them down effectively in public.
Surely you’ve seen Herman and others stumble in the past when taken on by hostile media on this subject. I can promise you that folks like Gabriel, Emerson, Spencer, etc., never falter and have a factual comeback for every question - I’ve heard them for years.
They’re all patriots who love this country and would, I feel sure, be happy to consult one on one with any candidates who want to fight the dangers of Islam and Sharia. They could teach them how to answer each question and criticism that will bombard them.
Time is of the essence - yes, reading the Koran is a start, but there are early sections that appear peaceful. One needs to know, for instance, that the latter violent part (once Muhammad went to Medina) supersedes the first peaceful part. Experts such as those mentioned can interpret it and add important background and knowledge. Anyone can go online and listen to a few of their speeches with Q&A. I highly recommend BG first, then Spencer, Horowitz, Geller, Emerson and Babbin.
“To the extent that Sharia doesn’t run afoul of civil law we ought not to be bothered by it (except that the people who wish to live this way are Muslims) any more than we should be troubled by rules established by the New York Racing Association.”
That would be Ron Paul’s misinformed response exactly.
>They could teach them how to answer each question and criticism that will bombard them.<
.
I think they know damn well what the answer should be if asked about Islam, (they’re not stupid) but they are all too PC and spineless to truthfully respond.
Remember that their lives depend on people voting for them — they can’t make a living in the real world. They have learned to talk in half-truths and know when to keep their mouths shut even if the entire world comes tumbling down around them.
Be prepared to not hear anything about Islam mentioned in any of the upcoming debates.
“Remember that their lives depend on people voting for them — they can’t make a living in the real world.”
If you’re not familiar with Herman Cain’s life and career, they’re impressive and worth checking out. He’s “made a living in the real world” for forty years, and a nice one at that as well as being a self-made man. He’s never been a politician but decided after his grandchild was born that something needed to be done to set things right. Occasionally, there are people who want to make a difference. To do that requires the power and authority to accomplish it and sometimes that means getting elected to public office - a high one.
But to get elected so you can do good, you have to get through to enough voters. And to do THAT, you have to be knowledgeable enough to debate, speak in detail, support your stand and educate the public - in this case, on radical Islam, something most of them are ignorant about.
Herman’s tried a couple of times and the media has mocked him, twisted his words and tried to paint him as an ignorant, right-wing bigot - which does no one any good. He simply needs more facts at his disposal to feel comfortable enough not to get shaken by them. If you watched the last debate, Rick Santorum did an admirable job of arguing Iran/radical Islam with clueless Ron Paul, but got cut off by the moderator due to the ridiculous time constraints set. He’s more knowledgeable because of the committees he’s served on, and I’ve heard him speak at length on the subject before.
Herman is alright, but the competency of the rest of them is questionable, to say the least. Somehow I’ve started to doubt the capability and sincerety of our politicians.
I get the feeling that they are all in it for themselves.
Yes, I’ve not only seen that clip, but saw/heard a lot of these moments originally (such as George S’s interview w/BHO when he said “my Muslim faith”).
Believe me, I’m not bashful in stating my heartfelt belief (and there’s also SO much evidence there with his words, deeds and policies) that we do have a Constitutionally unqualified, Marxist, traitorous, America-hating Muslim occupying our White House. It makes me sick at heart - in fact, I’d researched him for a year before the election in ‘08 so that when he was called the winner that night, I immediately burst into tears had a mini-breakdown over it.
We have GOT to remove this dangerous traitor and his evil gang, and I will vote for anyone running against him next November - he/she just better be a winner. It’ll also be key for us to make greater gains in Congress and win back control of the Senate, regardless of who the ‘12 POTUS is.
BHO can’t be gone soon enough.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.