about this forum

[Clevfan4life]

Cal always leaves out crucial context

[The Cysko Kid]

 

I understand your position. I have an atheist friend that I am pretty close with and honestly I have more in common with him than any extremist who calls himself Muslim because we both believe in human decency and we have similar values in terms of how people should be treated. Whether you arrive at those values by being a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, atheist... I couldn't care less.

 

I'm not blind, I see the terrorist attacks same as everyone else. Your choice of words is very important: "proclivity to bomb planes and buildings and try to pass it off as religious duty." That last part especially is key. In the act of trying to pass it off as religious duty, we empower them if we believe that they are correct, and that blowing up shit REALLY is their religious duty. When I say they are wrong, that it is not their religious duty, and not only that, but they are performing a sin in the eyes of the religion, I say that from a position that I can substantiate from religious sources.

 

I don't think McVeigh was motivated by religion. I think he was motivated by anti-government feelings. If Muslims want to point out that Christians have committed a lot of atrocities in history, there is plenty of evidence for that. I used to be into that, but now I see it as counterproductive. This 'battle' between religions is stupid. Conflict all over the world is being caused by people who have extreme ideologies of various types and a lack of tolerance. ISIS, KKK, Neo-Nazi and White Supremacy movements, Christian Right, PKK, 'Saffron terrorism', etc, they are all cut from the same cloth: You can only live if you are like us.

I'll try to explain why I mistrust Islam. Please don't view this as an attack because I'm able to diffetentiate individuals from institutions. Unlike some of the people here I've bothered to read up on Islam to some degree because I rather like history and so I like to know the context of historic periods such as the Abbasid and umayyed caliphates and the crusades. So I know that Islam allows for tolerance but it's largely up to whoever is in charge interpreting the Quran and Hadith. There's also dhimmitude and jizya. Islam worries me because over the various empires there's a constant: it's always ISLAMIC rule they're after. When Napoleon conquered most of Europe he didn't do it for the glory of Christ or to advance Christianity he did it for the oldest reasons: power, to be king. Hitler had his own nefarious motivations but religion was not one of them. Interestingly Hitler was said to have admired the aggressiveness of Islam, the way it rewarded war and was spread at the point of the sword and was said to have felt it would suit the German temperament.

 

So though this is long and rambling I hope it gives some insight as to why I take a din view of Islam and why I distrust it. I dislike it for the reasons Hitler admired it. Where Islam rules it is the enemy of freedom and human rights. I can't accept so oppressive a doctrine that it literally means "submission". I see that some Muslims are trying to modernize the religion to make it compatible with 21st century values and I support that but there's a stumbling block: the queran and Hadith are to be taken literally, as the literal word of God, and unfortunately they are rooted firmly in 7th century values with no way to update them for the modern era without rebuking the literal word of God. Therefore ISIS are not only Muslims - they are the purest Muslims living by the literal word of God.

 

I've no issue with modernized Muslims in America as long as America remains secular and American values and law are always always always placed before Islamic considerations like Sharia and the Constitution always takes precedence over the 'word of god' whether it be the gospel or the Quran.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

I'll try to explain why I mistrust Islam. Please don't view this as an attack because I'm able to diffetentiate individuals from institutions. Unlike some of the people here I've bothered to read up on Islam to some degree because I rather like history and so I like to know the context of historic periods such as the Abbasid and umayyed caliphates and the crusades. So I know that Islam allows for tolerance but it's largely up to whoever is in charge interpreting the Quran and Hadith. There's also dhimmitude and jizya. Islam worries me because over the various empires there's a constant: it's always ISLAMIC rule they're after. When Napoleon conquered most of Europe he didn't do it for the glory of Christ or to advance Christianity he did it for the oldest reasons: power, to be king. Hitler had his own nefarious motivations but religion was not one of them. Interestingly Hitler was said to have admired the aggressiveness of Islam, the way it rewarded war and was spread at the point of the sword and was said to have felt it would suit the German temperament.

 

So though this is long and rambling I hope it gives some insight as to why I take a din view of Islam and why I distrust it. I dislike it for the reasons Hitler admired it. Where Islam rules it is the enemy of freedom and human rights. I can't accept so oppressive a doctrine that it literally means "submission". I see that some Muslims are trying to modernize the religion to make it compatible with 21st century values and I support that but there's a stumbling block: the queran and Hadith are to be taken literally, as the literal word of God, and unfortunately they are rooted firmly in 7th century values with no way to update them for the modern era without rebuking the literal word of God. Therefore ISIS are not only Muslims - they are the purest Muslims living by the literal word of God.

 

I've no issue with modernized Muslims in America as long as America remains secular and American values and law are always always always placed before Islamic considerations like Sharia and the Constitution always takes precedence over the 'word of god' whether it be the gospel or the Quran.

Spoken like a true Air Farce who never fought in combat.

[The Cysko Kid]

What, like someone with a modicum of intelligence and not an emotional hate-ape? That's OK with me. You do whatever it is you do and I'll worry about me.

[calfoxwc]

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/youll-be-shocked-with-how-many-american-muslims-want-sharia-law/

 

To honest, it has to be really offensive for American Muslims who don't believe

like some do.

 

Unfortunately, per this poll, 51% of American Muslims support sharia law.

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/youll-be-shocked-with-how-many-american-muslims-want-sharia-law/

 

"According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts."

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/youll-be-shocked-with-how-many-american-muslims-want-sharia-law/#ixzz4XOLGWnKT

[calfoxwc]

[The Cysko Kid]

To be fair I'm much more (and I do mean much more) worried about Mexico than Muslims. The shit Mexicans do with complete abandon make ISIS look like pretty reasonable guys. Complete disregard for humanity down there and they can just stroll over the border any time they want. I won't regale you with the filthy details but if you were inclined you could easily find the most violent, horrific, disgusting examples of humanity on certain sites and they're all Mexicans. If liberals were forced to watch this stuff for a few minutes they might revise their opinion of Trump's wall plan.

[MLD Woody]

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/youll-be-shocked-with-how-many-american-muslims-want-sharia-law/

 

To honest, it has to be really offensive for American Muslims who don't believe

like some do.

 

Unfortunately, per this poll, 51% of American Muslims support sharia law.

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/youll-be-shocked-with-how-many-american-muslims-want-sharia-law/

 

"According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts."

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/youll-be-shocked-with-how-many-american-muslims-want-sharia-law/#ixzz4XOLGWnKT

 

 

and that poll was conducted by.....

 

 

The Center for Security Policy (CSP) is a Washington, D.C.-based national security think tank whose activities are focused on exposing and researching perceived jihadist threats to the United States. The Center has been widely accused of engaging in conspiracy theorizing by a range of individuals, media outlets and organizations. They have been described as "not very highly respected"^[1] by BBC News and "disreputable" by Salon. The Southern Poverty Law Center designated the CSP as a "conspiracy-oriented mouthpiece" in 2016.^[2] It has faced strong criticism from people across the political spectrum, but has also had its reports cited by political figures such as Donald Trump and Michele Bachmann.^[3][4]

[calfoxwc]

I'll accept the BBC, but salon and the southern poverty law center???

 

that makes the poll far more legit.

 

There are other aspects to the conclusion:

 

http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/poll-most-u-s-muslims-would-trade-constitution-for-shariah/

According to a local newspaper report, Omar Ahmad, a founder of CAIR, told a conference hall packed with California Muslims in July 1998 that Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant.

The reporter paraphrased Ahmad saying, “The Quran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”

When CAIR issued a statement in 2003 denying Ahmad made the remarks and claiming the paper had issued a retraction, WND News Editor Art Moore talked to the reporter and two of her editors and found that they stood by the story. Moore then spoke with CAIR national spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, who repeated the claim that the paper had issued a retraction. When Moore informed Hooper that the reporter and the editors stood by the story, the CAIR communications director ended the call. But he called back a few minutes later saying he wanted to amend CAIR’s statement to say that the Muslim organization was seeking a retraction. Three years later, however, when the issue came up again, CAIR still had not contacted the paper.

On April 4, 1993, Hooper told a reporter for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

Hooper appeared on Michael Medved’s radio show in October 2003 and stated: “If Muslims ever become a majority in the United States, it would be safe to assume that they would want to replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic law, as most Muslims believe that God’s law is superior to man-made law.”

In May 2015, WND reported that an informal survey of Somali-American Muslims on the streets of Minneapolis showed widespread support for Islamic law as preferable to U.S. law.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/poll-most-u-s-muslims-would-trade-constitution-for-shariah/#LE8hUgmIbGlHujR4.99

[calfoxwc]

globally, the percentage skyrockets.

 

https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/statistics-the-muslim-worlds-problem-over-70-of-muslims-support-sharia-law-90-support-execution-of-apostates-2/

 

this is worrisome... since so many are coming here....

[calfoxwc]

https://counterjihadreport.com/category/muslim-polls/

 

These profound threats to US constitutional liberties notwithstanding, polling data reveal an ominous—and growing—proportion of American Muslims wish to impose Sharia on America.

Wenzel Strategies during October 22 to 26, 2012, polled 600 US Muslims of high socio-economic status. When asked, “Do you believe that criticism of Islam or Muhammad should be permitted under the Constitution’s First Amendment?, 58% replied “no,” while only 42% affirmed this most basic manifestation of freedom of speech, i.e., to criticize religious, or any other dogma. Indeed, oblivious to US constitutional law, as opposed to Islam’s Sharia, a largely concordant 45% of respondents agreed “…that those who criticize or parody Islam in the U.S. should face criminal charges,” while 38% did not, and 17% were “unsure”. Moreover, fully 12% of this Muslim sample even admitted they believed in application of the draconian, Sharia-based punishment for the non-existent crime of “blasphemy” in the US code, answering affirmatively, “…that Americans who criticize or parody Islam should be put to death.” Three years later, in June of 2015, data from a survey of another 600 US Muslims conducted by the respected political pollster Kellyanne Conway revealed 51%, “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Sharia.” (A “mere” 25% of those polled agreed that “violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad”)

Why is Sharia supremacism—diametrically opposed to US Constitutional law—so alarmingly prevalent among US Muslims? The inescapable conclusion, validated in Senate Judiciary Committee testimony this week by Department of Homeland Security whistleblower Philip Haney, is that mainstream institutional Islam within the US inculcates this liberty-crushing mentality. Haney’s presentation mentioned in passing the mainstream Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, (AMJA). Well-accepted by the broader American Muslim community, the Islamic scholars affiliated with AMJA have attained influential positions in universities, Islamic centers, and mosques throughout the United States. AMJA scholars train American imams, and issue online “fatwas”, Islamic Sharia rulings, to guide individual Muslims. Should the mainstream AMJA accomplish its unabashed goal of implementing Sharia in North America, the organization has already issued, for example, a ruling which sanctions the killing of non-Muslim “blasphemers.”

[calfoxwc]

Minnesota Somalies....

 

really?

 

https://youtu.be/NGaO3NKJa-8

[Pumpkin Eater]

OBF, when obama instituted his restriction...on one country....was it done so abruptly that people landing on US soil who had valid entry papers already squared away, were forced to turn around?

 

Trump knee jeked this. And that to me, precisely because i feel its a valid idea, is unacceptable and nearly worthy of impeachment. He ruined this idea by making it hyper partisan and frankly smacking of racism and/or religious prejudice. The fact he had to make a punlic statement saying this wasnt a muslim ban...means someone apprised him of that land mine he just stepped on. Thsts why i was astounded at what giuliani did.

.

 

How about the Cubans he stranded his last week in office?

[MLD Woody]

I see you threw a bunch of posts at that wall to hope something would stick. Maybe I'll look later

 

My point was your poll was not by a reputable source and it had a clear agenda going into the polling

[calfoxwc]

[Osiris]

I won't view it as an attack. You have carried yourself in a reasonable and respectful way and I appreciate it. I also appreciate your efforts to try and learn about something rather just make stuff up like some other people like to do. You raise so many points worth discussing here that I will respond inline below. First though, I'd like to ask, in the reading you've done, did you read primary sources or interpretive ones? I have always favored primary sources where possible, because it allows me to make my own conclusions, not the ones the author of the interpretive text wants me to have. Interpretation is going to be a big theme in my responses below, too. I apologize if I am long-winded but I hope you will take the time to read them.

 

 

I'll try to explain why I mistrust Islam. Please don't view this as an attack because I'm able to diffetentiate individuals from institutions.

 

No worries. I appreciate your honest dialog.

 

Unlike some of the people here I've bothered to read up on Islam to some degree because I rather like history and so I like to know the context of historic periods such as the Abbasid and umayyed caliphates and the crusades.

 

Excellent, I love history too. I took history courses in college. Of most relevance here was History of the Crusades and History of World Religions. In any case, viewing Islam through a solely historic lens means you will observe the behaviors of people and nations. These behaviors are not always religiously motivated, and even when they are, we can only attribute the behaviors to their interpretations of their religion. What you won't get at in a direct manner is an understanding of the belief system that exists in the Qu'ran itself.

 

So I know that Islam allows for tolerance but it's largely up to whoever is in charge interpreting the Quran and Hadith.

 

Interpretation is the keyword here. There are many ways to interpret the Quran, and that does pose a serious challenge, because it isn't a single "type" of text. Imagine someone combined a memoir with a self-help guide with some law book. That's kind of what you are getting with it. Just because the memoir parts of it recount some of the events that occurred doesn't mean that those stories were meant to guide behavior in perpetuity. Yet this is how people like Daesh manipulate information to try and justify their actions.

 

Now here's the important point. Their have been many interpretations of the Quran, but Saudi Arabia has used it's position, being the lands where the religion was born and where pilgrims travel to, to dominate the 'interpretation market' and push out other more mainstream interpretations like those that come out of Al-Azhar University in Cairo (another major source of interpretation. Also, see this link). It is also the same country where Wahhabism, which you probably know is one of the most conservative interpretations out there along with Salafism. Thus, they've used their position to proliferate their views. If you have ever opened a Quran, you will see that often every page is accompanied by commentary by whoever is publishing that edition. They are not allowed to change the original text, but they can guide how the reader interprets it with their footnotes. Needless to say, Wahabi guidance has been, in my opinion, a big detriment to the Muslim world.

 

Fortunately, there are interpretations out there that are counter to Wahabiism that are gaining popularity. In fact, the Quran I own is published by the authors of this interpretation, one that has the Saudi's pissed off ( a fact that makes this interpretation all the more credible, in my opinion). Here's a great article on the subject as well as some of the stuff I touched on above:

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/29/the-american-quran-pissing-off-the-saudis.html

 

There's also dhimmitude and jizya.

 

Nobody is practicing these concepts anymore, except for maybe Daesh. This is a place where the Muslim world has universally modernized. I would not hold a negative view of Christians for witch trials and the Spanish Inquisition because those practices were abandoned. I always like to remind people that Islam is a younger religion than Christianity and has not had 2017 years to reform. It's been around for about 1400 years. When Christianity was 1400 years old, we had things like the Spanish Inquisition that I mentioned above.

 

Islam worries me because over the various empires there's a constant: it's always ISLAMIC rule they're after. When Napoleon conquered most of Europe he didn't do it for the glory of Christ or to advance Christianity he did it for the oldest reasons: power, to be king. Hitler had his own nefarious motivations but religion was not one of them. Interestingly Hitler was said to have admired the aggressiveness of Islam, the way it rewarded war and was spread at the point of the sword and was said to have felt it would suit the German temperament.

 

I think its a bit of a simplification to say that the motivations are purely religious. You have a desert people with limited resources trying to grow. I have always believed that war, regardless of the lipstick someone puts on it, is about acquisition of resources. In my historical studies, I encountered plenty of accounts of minority populations of various Caliphates expressing their preference for being in the Muslim Empire because they said they were treated better than under Christians. No doubt, there were others who felt the opposite, too.

So though this is long and rambling I hope it gives some insight as to why I take a din view of Islam and why I distrust it. I dislike it for the reasons Hitler admired it. Where Islam rules it is the enemy of freedom and human rights. I can't accept so oppressive a doctrine that it literally means "submission".

 

Regarding freedom and human rights, there are a many quotes from the Quran that I can point to that disagree with your point of view. I am not saying that Muslims haven't violated human rights and freedom, but show me a group of people that hasn't. I'm saying that if they were following their religion to the letter of the law, they wouldn't be doing that. These are things you will not encounter if your studies have approached this topic from a purely historical point of view. In the first days of the religion, two of the first acts under Islam in regards to human rights was to outlaw female infanticide and to give women property rights. These were revolutionary occurrences in the Arabian peninsula in the 600s AD. If you've ever observed the Muslim pilgrimage, there is a reason everyone wheres exactly the same white clothes. It's a symbol of the equality of human beings in the eyes of God. If you've seen the movie Malcolm X, I believe he touches on this.

 

Regarding the meaning of the word Islam. A quick fact about Arabic. Arabic words have what you could call three-consonant roots. In the case of the word "Islam", this root is SLM (iSLaM). Words that mean the same or similar things will all contain this three-consonant root. So, Islam does mean "submission" but not in the context you are using it, and it also means "peace". It does not mean that Muslims should run around forcing people into submission. Their is a Quranic quote that says "There is no compulsion in religion," meaning that you can not force someone to become Muslim. So the kind of submission that the word Islam does mean is to "willingly submit one's will to God so that they may find inner peace". This is a personal decision, not one to be forced on someone, because otherwise, it would not lead to inner peace.

 

There is a correlational misunderstanding of the term 'jihad'. The word primarily means "to conduct an internal struggle to better one's soul." That means through praying and doing good deeds and staying away from bad ones. The "holy war" meaning is the secondary meaning, and even in that case, it's only to be used in terms of a defensive struggle to defend one's homeland. Needless to say, Daesh and Wahabiism have done a good job of screwing that up.

 

I see that some Muslims are trying to modernize the religion to make it compatible with 21st century values and I support that but there's a stumbling block: the queran and Hadith are to be taken literally, as the literal word of God, and unfortunately they are rooted firmly in 7th century values with no way to update them for the modern era without rebuking the literal word of God.

 

This comes down to interpretation again. If someone takes a 7th century interpretation, they will have 7th century values. If they take a 21st century interpretation(as I do, and as the Qu'ran I linked above does), you'll come out with 21st century values. It is no surprise to me that the 21st century Quran is coming out of America. I have always believed that it is America that can save the soul of Islam from Wahabiism's 7th century view. It is my view that if one takes a 7th century interpretation of the Quran, you will come away finding a huge number of contradictions. If you take a more modern view, there are fewer contradictions.

 

You are correct that the Quran are the word of God as viewed by Muslims, but incorrect in believing that the Hadith are. The Hadith are a collection of things that Muslims believe Mohammed said or did. It's an unfortunate fact that many Muslims do regard them on the same level as the Quran, so I can't fault you for not knowing the difference. There is a movement called "Quran alone" in the Muslim world that completely rejects the Hadith because a) the Quran states that it is the only source of guidance that Muslims need, and the Hadith contain things that contradict the Quran, and c) many of the Hadith come from dubious sources. My personal view is it is fine to follow a Hadith so long as it is consistent with what's in the Quran (which begs the question, why do you need the Hadith at all, then?).

 

Therefore ISIS are not only Muslims - they are the purest Muslims living by the literal word of God.

 

This couldn't be further from the truth. In the Quran, God told people not to commit suicide, yet they strap on bombs and blow themselves up. God said "there is no compulsion in religion" yet they force people to follow them at the point of a gun. God said if you kill an innocent, it's as if you've killed all mankind, yet they kill innocents every single day. It is again, a worse-than-Wahabi interpretation of the Quran that these scum use to justify their actions.

I've no issue with modernized Muslims in America as long as America remains secular and American values and law are always always always placed before Islamic considerations like Sharia and the Constitution always takes precedence over the 'word of god' whether it be the gospel or the Quran.

 

On this we can agree 100%. What I wish America would do is support the modernization movements so that they can become the principle interpretation and counter the influence of Wahabiism. Perhaps we are seeing that to some extent since it is an American publish, Harper Collins, that published the Quran I mentioned above. As a Muslim-American, I personally find American values and law to be very compatible with my interpretation of my religion, so there is no conflict for me.

 

Anyway, thank you for having this dialog. I really appreciate it. I hope you will take a moment to read the link I shared above.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

[calfoxwc]

[Westside Steve]

I haven't really seen any threats I take seriously and the only ones that I've seen that someone from the outside might take seriously were back in the days of mr. T Bunker and Walter White.

I figured Diehard can take care of himself and throws enough shit that we shouldn't be surprised if somebody throws it back.

 

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan]

I laugh at most of these so called threats or insults. Just hot air is all t hey are. If you take them seriously or are offended, get the fuck out or don't read them to begin with. I'm set in my viewpoints, and if you don't like them, don't read them.

[Axe]

My POV

 

[BaconHound]

The lack of self awareness has reached new heights. Absolutely mind boggling. I honestly don't understand how you can go about as you do, and then blame everyone else for ruining your safe space.

 

 

 

+1

[tiamat63]

The lot of you are basically throwing shit at one another being that there is no real discussion or exchanging of ideas here.

 

This forum is pretty much cancer.

[calfoxwc]

Well, there is no internet therapy to send liberals into honesty, no-knee jerking,

osiris whining like a baby mongoose that got skunked, and Tiam with a bad

case of super hot pepper indigestion..

 

because they lost the election. We lost twice, their dang turn, get over it. boo freaking hoo.

[Osiris]

The lot of you are basically throwing shit at one another being that there is no real discussion or exchanging of ideas here.

This forum is pretty much cancer.

Observe the discussion between me and Cysko in this thread. It's a real discussion.

[calfoxwc]

good, you learned your lesson. kudos. at least for the moment.

You're the one who rarely showed up because you couldn't gloat

over your obaMao, but you show up all the time now, to bitch about

the new guy is doing, smart off to anybody who disagrees with you,

even before he got inaugurated. "der"

[The Cysko Kid]

I won't view it as an attack. You have carried yourself in a reasonable and respectful way and I appreciate it. I also appreciate your efforts to try and learn about something rather just make stuff up like some other people like to do. You raise so many points worth discussing here that I will respond inline below. First though, I'd like to ask, in the reading you've done, did you read primary sources or interpretive ones? I have always favored primary sources where possible, because it allows me to make my own conclusions, not the ones the author of the interpretive text wants me to have. Interpretation is going to be a big theme in my responses below, too. I apologize if I am long-winded but I hope you will take the time to read them.

 

 

I did read it and found it interesting although there's many fundamentalists attacking it. That must be a good thing, I suppose. Off-topic, as a writer are you familiar with Neal Gaiman's Sandman series? I was reading some old trade paperbacks and I came across a really neat story centered in Baghdad during Haroun Al-Raschid's (Aaron the good? Is that an acceptable translation?) reign as Caliph called Ramadan. Definitely worth a read.

 

You mentioned Athiesm before and I wanted to point out I'm not an athiest either. I consider myself an Agnostic. I don't know what happens after and I don't consider myself qualified to act as if I do. If there is a god, I figure being a generally good person and doing the right thing the majority of the time will win him/her/it over and if it decides that I'm fucked because I didn't do confession or ate meat on Friday or ate pork or didn't pray to mecca, then it is probably an asshole anyway. I hope the Hindu karmic wheel business is correct because honestly, even as I get older and more beat down in life I still think it's pretty cool and I wouldn't mind doing it all over again.

[The Cysko Kid]

Some of these guys on here, as I'm sure you well know, are never going to be worth having any sort of theological discussions with. Even though I don't believe any religious doctrine I find all of them interesting and worthy of discussion in their own right.

[calfoxwc]

when os visited before, rarely, nobody could have been more respectful to him.

but then, he came back loaded for bear because his obamao's agenda

was toast, and he was pouting, po'd that Trump won.

 

too bad. I liked the other os that wasn't bitching and going off the deep end

with insults because I disagreed with him about the ottoman empire.

you would have thought somebody snuck up behind him and whacked him

with a two by four or something. It isn't just os, though. The left is

acting out like che and his cohorts.

 

At least they aren't bombing buildings or anything like os's obamao's friends, bill ayers and

bernadine dorn.

[The Cysko Kid]

Maybe, just maybe, you should look at the common denominator here and wonder if everyone is really a bitchy pouty attacker out to get ol' gee-whiz Cal, or if maybe you're over the top and it is ridiculous.