I'm sorry you refuse to see their teachings as
Posted By: hate but they are......sm on 2008-10-11
In Reply to: And as a westerner, did you show respect - McC campaign trying to blame O for Troopergate. s
I can give you confession after confession of Muslims who have denounced those teachings once they were free from that country. They admit they are teachings of hate; even though they believed some of them were similar to Christian teachings, they couldn't understand why they were taught to hate by their teachings. I can give you many who say this....but of course I suupose you will say they don't know what they're talking about either.
Pay close attention to a paragraph under the head of Christianity and Islam, where he quotes a verse from Sura 5:51......and what he has to say after that.
http://www.everystudent.com/wires/abdul.html
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
No tolerant teachings at all.......
Their teaching...
The first sura of the Qur'an is an example of this. It is a short prayer that is repeated by devout Muslims each day and ends with these words:
Keep us on the right path. The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not (the path) of those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of those who go astray. (1:6-7)
Muhammad was once asked if these words pertained to Jews and Christians. His response was, "Whom else?" (Bukhari 56:662).
4 years Islamic teachings
--
He was signed up for Islamic teachings 4 hours
nm
He learned Islamic teachings "inside" the school..
--
I refuse to discuss
religion with Moonies or Scientologists. There is just no common ground. The same way as I refuse to discuss politics with people who actually consider Fox a news station. They are indoctrinated and innoculated from the truth by daily coordinated talking points to distort any event (such as saying Charlie Gibson looking down his nose at SP or was too rough on her) to favor their desire to keep the corrupt repubs in power. It's a waste of my time.
But they refuse to understand.........
He has yet to prove citizenship.... and for those that say he IS a citizen, even if he were born in Hawaii, his stepfather (who is Muslim) adopted him in Indonesia. Once he was adopted by his stepfather, his stepfather renounced Obama's U.S. citizenship. The United States does NOT recognize dual citizenship with Indonesia....never has in the past either. Indonesia does NOT recognize dual citizenship, so Obama cannot have dual citizenship. The only way to reclaim his U.S. citizenship is to go through the Immigration Dept just like anyone else, fill out the necessary paperwork, and wait for his hearing. He has no paperwork to prove that either. He knows he does not. If he did, all he would have to do is show his immigration papers but he can't because he doesn't have them.
You can only have dual citizenship with a country that allows that. Obama's stepfather renounced Obama's U.S. citizenship and claimed him Muslim, as was his father. His stepsister even says he is Muslim through and through....
Now, that being said, supposedly Indonesia had tried to begin a new dual nationality law as of ག or so, but Obama hasn't filled out any paperwork for that as an Indonesian either. As of གྷ the new law in Indonesia had not even been implemented. There is a lot of red tape and still many who object to dual nationality allowances.
Our law says in order to be a "natural born citizen"..
The U.S. Law in effect during Obama's birth stated if you are born abroad to one U.S. parent and a foreign national, the U.S. parent must have resided in the United States for ten (10) years, five (5) of which were after the age of Fourteen (14) in order to register the child's birth abroad in the United States as a "natural born" U.S. citizen.
Either way.....he AIN'T a citizen of this country....
I refuse to waste my
time reading biased, inaccurate opinions. Got a prob with that? Yours only.
I did....you refuse to accept it.
Go tweak someone else for a while.
No, I refuse to try and debate you anymore
because you can't be anything but condescending and ugly.
Those who refuse to learn from history..... sm
are doomed to repeat it. The following is a link written by an elderly woman who grew up in Nazi Germany. See how many dots you can connect.
http://carylmatrisciana.com:80/x2/content/view/74/1/
I refuse to conform and I just don't fit in," .......so he was fired!!
'TOO PATRIOTIC'?? That's reason for dismissal from a job? What the h@ll is this country coming to?
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=576612
I was trying to illustrate that you REFUSE to see what's in front of your face, that you must twi
it and turn it and manipulate it until it becomes something completely different and ugly, and you adopt THAT as the truth, when it isn't even close to what the real truth is.
Three fingers are three fingers. Nothing more. Nothing less. No hidden meaning. Just three fingers that the rest of the sane, intelligent, reasonable WORLD sees and recognizes as THREE FINGERS, as I said in my post.
A simple "I refuse to hear the truth" would do.
What Conyers is doing is playing by the rules. This is a HJC hearing, not a congressional hearing. There have been a number of ridiculous restrictions on what they can or cannot say imposed on this process. For example, they are not allowed to utter the word "impeachment" and Bush's name in the same sentence. Absurd. In spite of all the obstacles, he opened the hearings and has vowed to see it through and to bring the truth into the public discourse once the investigation is concluded. He is quite aware of the fact that he is putting his reputation as a senior member of Congress on the line, so it would make sense that what goes on there is compelling. He is doing nothing to distract or circle around THE ISSUES. He is moving the process along. He is chairing the committee. All the details of the restrictions, who put them there and why, Conyer's position, etctera, can be found in the numerous links that have been provided and is well summarized in DK's interview.
The difference between him and you? Are you serious? He is familiar with every single player, position, stance, viewpoint, piece of evidence and rebuttal. He is a fact checker. He is not considering this evidence on the basis of hearsay. He is evaluating the integrity of the proof as it is presented. You, on the other hand, say you know all you need to know because you have "heard it from other democrats." In other words, you are not willing to even listen to the prosecution case or its evidence as it is presented directly from the source. Instead you talk all around what is really taking place inside those chambers. You are still doing it, trying to twist this into something it most definitely is not. Here's the deal. When you can't win on the issues, out comes the smear and smut.
No one said anything about your having made anything up about Niger. No matter how hard you try, you cannot make this about that one single subject. There are literally scores of talking points and hundreds of pieces of evidence to sift through. You are not the least bit interested in any evidence. If you were, you would watch the interview and post you rebuttals. You're not doing that. You are obsfuscating. It's what you do. What possible difference could it make in terms of valid claims and conclusive evidence whether this process occurs in formal or informal impeachment hearings? Truth is truth. Proof is proof.
You are not interested in hearing from all the witnesses or seeing all the proof. Exactly the opposite. You want to see no witnesses and no proof, unless of course it backs your own contentions. Stop trying to imply that the process is rigged. In the post 9/11 politics of fear world, the republicans would classify the White House address, if they could get away with it. Preponderance of the evidence usually is all that is required to achieve majority vote. If that evidence is incomplete, you have the republicans to thank for that. Do you really think that all that info held in secret is vital to national security? The only thing it is vital to is covering the neoCONS behinds.
You doest protest too much. More obstacles. Be honest. This is not about you want this and you want that. It's what you DON'T want that is plain to see. You don't want to face the reality that they just might be onto something. Another pot shot at Clinton. You really think that lying about an affair is a more serious impeachable offense than misleading an entire nation on the reasons for going to war? One thing is for sure here. As long as you continue to refuse to view the process as it is happening, instead of what you speculate about what may or may not be going on, you really do not have any way to justify anything you are saying about it. You say you have heard what DK has said. Okay. Did you watch the interview? What was in it? You must have skipped over the stuff about the live blogging from inside the chambers. The information is available for those who are interested. Go to the links. It's all in there….including information on how to follow it on a day-to-day basis.
Since the rest of this post has disintegrated into non-stop personal attack, I will not waste my time with it. Clearly, you will not engage yourself in any direct, honest, informed dialogue on this subject. This is still about your comfort zone. This just goes to show how extremely intolerant you are whenever anybody tries to challenge your ideas and how terrified you really are with what might be coming out of those chambers.
Just ignore them, ms, obviously they refuse to read the whole thing....nm
x
And yet you STILL refuse to condemn child sexual abuse!
When this was first posted, it was posted before there were separate political boards. Still, there was no response.
You people have done nothing by drive-by sniping posts for the last couple weeks, to the point where some of them had to be removed by the moderator.
Yet you're AFRAID to post outrage over child sexual abuse?
I guess we can leave it at that. You're obviously more outraged that I posted regarding this subject than you are at the subject itself.
And THAT speaks volumes.
Yeah, guess Obama supports refuse to look at all
nm
Yeah, agreed. Obama supporters refuse to see his
nm
It's actually more distracting to refuse to do someting that is a traditional symbol of our count
You are an American, right? You better enjoy your free speech while you still have it.
Facts are always called opinions by the left when they refuse to acknowledge them...sm
The facts within the article are true. No matter how much you want to ignore them.
You are so blind.
I refuse to forget history...can't afford to be "condemned to repeat it"
He created this cluster with his cronies and they should be held accountable.
Soldiers and peace officers pledging to refuse to obey sm
An invitation to soldiers and peace officers across the United States to pledge to refuse illegal orders – including "state of emergency" orders that could include disarming or detaining American citizens – has struck a chord, collecting more than 100,000 website visitors in a little over a week and hundreds of e-mails daily.
Link to article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91530
Oath Keepers website: http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/oath-keepers-declaration-of-orders-we.html
|
