What is your
opinion about Mit Romney?
Personally to me Mit = Obama.
Don't see anything different between the two at all.
To the rather dimwitted people that think that this thread is infractable and/or in violation of rules, please look at the thread in my signiture. Thank you and Good day.
Personally to me Mit = Obama.
Don't see anything different between the two at all.
To the rather dimwitted people that think that this thread is infractable and/or in violation of rules, please look at the thread in my signiture. Thank you and Good day.
Comments
-
Yes we are permitting political discussions... just keep it mature folks!
Back to topic:
I think the Republican Party itself is still unorganized to have a solid presentation for the Presidential Race. It's one thing to put out there a candidate, it's another with the solid backing of the Elephant or Donkey behind ya.
Funding-wise, Obama def is a higher level, and he hasn't even delved into the set-aside money for incumbent Presidents (our tax-dollars)
Reason I mention funding is that in a political race money is power and can lead to a higher amount of influence one can dish out.
Also, were there a lot of endorsements for Romney? That's another power tip is to have a good number of well-connected endorsements. -
The difference between Obama and Romney is that Obama is a democrat and Romney is a republican.Nasty_Maste wrote: »Ron Paul 2012!
Ron Paul supporters are still out there?
Dang, I bet there's still some Cain supporter out there calling for the 9-9-9 plan... -
-
Yes we are permitting political discussions... just keep it mature folks!
Back to topic:
I think the Republican Party itself is still unorganized to have a solid presentation for the Presidential Race. It's one thing to put out there a candidate, it's another with the solid backing of the Elephant or Donkey behind ya.
Funding-wise, Obama def is a higher level, and he hasn't even delved into the set-aside money for incumbent Presidents (our tax-dollars)
Reason I mention funding is that in a political race money is power and can lead to a higher amount of influence one can dish out.
Also, were there a lot of endorsements for Romney? That's another power tip is to have a good number of well-connected endorsements.
Unfortunately you`re right. Money is everything in politics. Obama is expected to rise around one billion. Mitt is expected to rise around 800 million. The U.S is in dire need for campaign finance reform. Abolish super pac`s, and lower the campaign donation limit from $2,500 to $100.
Also ALL presidential candidates need to receive a fair change. Abolish the two party system. I think its very clear that the two party system is not working. The parties are dividing America more and more with each political cycle and this divided government will lead to the demise of our country. Lets vote for people not parties. And while we are at it, get rid of the electoral college and decide our elections with the popular vote! -
Integrity[ wrote: »Unfortunately you`re right. Money is everything in politics. Obama is expected to rise around one billion. Mitt is expected to rise around 800 million. The U.S is in dire need for campaign finance reform. Abolish super pac`s, and lower the campaign donation limit from $2,500 to $100.
Also ALL presidential candidates need to receive a fair change. Abolish the two party system. I think its very clear that the two party system is not working. The parties are dividing America more and more with each political cycle and this divided government will lead to the demise of our country. Lets vote for people not parties. And while we are at it, get rid of the electoral college and decide our elections with the popular vote!
Yeah, money is important. However, if it is obvious that a candidate is not likeable, then no amount of money will tip the race. Example: Bloomberg is not president right now.
Abolish the two party system? I don't think it's legal to prevent people from joining parties. People have to wake up by themselves; I did read a few months ago that 40% of American voters are now independents, which gives me great hope
Electoral college--I totally agree with you. When voting for president, you are not voting as a citizen of your state. You are voting as a citizen of the United States of America. However, this is not a priority because in the vast majority of cases, the popular vote and the electoral vote coincide in result. (Notable exceptions: Rutherford B. Hayes and George W. Bush :mad:) -
Electoral college--I totally agree with you. When voting for president, you are not voting as a citizen of your state. You are voting as a citizen of the United States of America. However, this is not a priority because in the vast majority of cases, the popular vote and the electoral vote coincide in result. (Notable exceptions: Rutherford B. Hayes and George W. Bush :mad:)
To me the Electoral College seems old fashioned and I truly think it should be nullified. It was from a time when not everyone knew who was up for election (before mass communication), but in modern times there's a significant increase in public knowledge of said candidates through the everyday use of the internet, television, and what we call "the media". -
Nasty_Maste wrote: »but in modern times there's a significant increase in public knowledge of said candidates through the everyday use of the internet, television, and what we call "the media".
There is an increase in public knowledge of are political system and those that are running for election. Problem is every media outlet are in some way biased. The presenter must make choices of what to show and what not to show, what to emphasize and what not to emphasize, what words to use to describe what is... -
I don't know if what you guys are really saying would even be that well off.
Most Americans don't know their own rights.
Most Americans don't even vote; or are too lazy/stupid to register to vote. The founding fathers were right in their decision I think. The only issue is that the whole system continues to do the very things that they warned against.
Also, I am a Ron Paul fan in the sense of his monetary, foreign policy, and social policy. However I am a bit scared of what he would do with some of the government organizations.
You guys mentioned superpacs and how they should be banned, but the issue is that when they made them limited it just led to more organized corruption. Moreover, the sad thing is that even though they shouldn't exist, how are you going to convice a group of people that got elected with them to give them up? It would be like asking Congress to call for a terms cap. They just wouldn't do it. -
RawrJafrikan wrote: »I don't know if what you guys are really saying would even be that well off.
Most Americans don't know their own rights.
Most Americans don't even vote; or are too lazy/stupid to register to vote. The founding fathers were right in their decision I think. The only issue is that the whole system continues to do the very things that they warned against.
Also, I am a Ron Paul fan in the sense of his monetary, foreign policy, and social policy. However I am a bit scared of what he would do with some of the government organizations.
You guys mentioned superpacs and how they should be banned, but the issue is that when they made them limited it just led to more organized corruption. Moreover, the sad thing is that even though they shouldn't exist, how are you going to convice a group of people that got elected with them to give them up? It would be like asking Congress to call for a terms cap. They just wouldn't do it.
Congress at one point was pushed in the corner when polls showed nearly seven in ten registered voters would like super PACs to be illegal, but later on a supreme court judge said
is would be unconstitutional to ban super-pac`s. Super pac reform still remained on the table and still does, but no representative of congress sponsored legislation the had a shot at passing with a divided house.
I agree with you on Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a genius but we need the Department of Agriculture and others. Honestly Jafrikan do you think Dr.Paul will be able to pass
legislation that would abolish the Department of Homeland Security? Forget a divided house,
Republicans and Democrats would strike it down. Nothing to be scared about. -
both of them are really fake people, mitt romney is about as liberal as a republican can get, also he flip flops on a lot of subjects which just tells me he will be another puppet if elected, however i would rather much see someone else in office than obama, our debt can't get much worse, who gives egypt 1.5 billion dollars when are over 14trill in debt...only obama
-
Honestly, you're never going to have a perfect candidate in the election. Obama at least does what I expect him to, even though he's done some things that were worse than what I expected him to do. But I expected that...
I also support Ron Paul, by far the best candidate in this election, even though I disagree with him on half the issues. -
Foreign ad started in 1947 by providing financial and technical assistance through the European Recovery Act.President John F. Kennedy established the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). It was the first U.S. foreign assistance organization whose primary emphasis was on long-range economic and social development assistance to foreign countries. My point is, I dislike the current president has well but it's not fair to attack him on foreign ad.who gives egypt 1.5 billion dollars when are over 14trill in debt...only obama
You're Exactly right there will never be a perfect candidate.Honestly, you're never going to have a perfect candidate in the election. Obama at least does what I expect him to, even though he's done some things that were worse than what I expected him to do. But I expected that...
I also support Ron Paul, by far the best candidate in this election, even though I disagree with him on half the issues.
Unfortunately Ron Paul's not going to receive the nominee. After the election he's going to retire. I imagine he will stay politically active but other then that he won't run for office again... After everything is done, Ron Paul transformed the political landscape. The Libertarian party is now the 3rd biggest party. The federal reserve now has oversight, and many more things. Whether people like it or not, every election there's going to be a Ron Paul. -
Integrity[ wrote: »Foreign ad started in 1947 by providing financial and technical assistance through the European Recovery Act.President John F. Kennedy established the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). It was the first U.S. foreign assistance organization whose primary emphasis was on long-range economic and social development assistance to foreign countries. My point is, I dislike the current president has well but it's not fair to attack him on foreign ad.
You're Exactly right there will never be a perfect candidate.
Unfortunately Ron Paul's not going to receive the nominee. After the election he's going to retire. I imagine he will stay politically active but other then that he won't run for office again... After everything is done, Ron Paul transformed the political landscape. The Libertarian party is now the 3rd biggest party. The federal reserve now has oversight, and many more things. Whether people like it or not, every election there's going to be a Ron Paul.
he couldn't stop it though? especially if a islamic radical group "muslim brotherhood" is going to take office. -
Isn't that how most candidates win?Nasty_Maste wrote: »I think Romney is only getting popularity from telling the people what they want to hear and not what he's actually going to do.
Edit: That and he has some very wealthy people that have it in their best interest to get him into office -
he couldn't stop it though? especially if a islamic radical group "muslim brotherhood" is going to take office.
The muslim brotherhood is not "radical" or so from what I have read. They have splinter groups that become radical but the party itself isn't radical.
That would be like to say the Republicans are radical because of the survivalist groups out there that support them.
Sorry man, but this kind of ignorance is pretty dangerous. -
he couldn't stop it though? especially if a islamic radical group "muslim brotherhood" is going to take office.
I strongly oppose foreign aid in general. End all foreign aid, including aid to israel.
The Muslim brotherhood advocates democracy and freedom. They don't try to silence other opposite parties. They didn't want even a president seat and they chose to leave this position to the poor secular parties to get. Thanks for the MBs charity in giving some chance to un popular secular parties. Hopefully this will convince the atheist in secular parties to accept Muslims.
The problem is with not with secularism, it is with Radical secular groups and few radical Christians who advocate that all Muslims should be jailed and all Muslim parties should be banned. Anyone who understands democracy knows that you should respect the others even if they are different.
I am glad that nearly all the Egyptian population support democracy and like and welcomed the recently unbanned Muslim parties to elections. Now Muslim parties won 75% of the vote in the first free elections in 80 years. This is democracy. -
I ant a American so I don't follow there politics that well but what I get from it is...
Mitty is a richy makes like what 20 mill a year?
So I would say he would have more interest in keeping the taxes for the rich lower.
and probably increase it for the middle class to get some money out of there were it would effect allot of Americans so less spending = bad for economy ofc
and ya obama probably the same as he did the last 4 years but could be better if he grow a pair of balls and did what he actually wants to do.
Anyway, I would say give obama another 4 years it would be more logical and better than mitty in any way.
P.s Ron Paul has no chance people should really get over it that guy has some good stands but just shouting "Ron Paul 2012" didn't help him at all as you have noticed in votings
He is not a "real" republican as the reps say I guess that is why the ignore him so hard.
Would have been better if he acted more "republican" and than when it was him vs obama started he should came out with his own real plans slowly he would than get votes from republican votes(Reps vote for reps blindly not all but most do!) and democrats votes to since he has some plans that appeal to democrats voters to.
Anyway I ant a American nor do I really follow the politics of America but that is the idea what I get from watching some news items/videos etc. -
RawrJafrikan wrote: »The muslim brotherhood is not "radical" or so from what I have read. They have splinter groups that become radical but the party itself isn't radical.
That would be like to say the Republicans are radical because of the survivalist groups out there that support them.
Sorry man, but this kind of ignorance is pretty dangerous.
Sorry man, liberal media has gotten to the most of american people, the only reason people don't know this stuff is because they keep it out, you have to get your news from multiple sources including other countries, i have read other middle eastern news sites claiming that they are a radical group, including many other countries, they have been behind the burning of 3 churches and killings of christians, you never hear that in america because obama supports them.
if you study the middle east this is how it works
we send money to one group (for weapons)
to fight another group who we send money to (for weapons)
we keep them neck at neck while being able to control oil prices
while the third group is actually in control (saudi arabia) (who allows us to recieve oil)
it's always been the same and will be for a while, it's an old technique to get 2 of your enemies to take each other out.
this is from only one news website but can be found in multiple forms on others
"They detail the Brotherhood’s objectives of advancing the global conquest of Islam and reestablishing the Islamic Caliphate, the public and private duties of jihad and the struggle Muslims must wage against Israel."
sorry but that doesn't sound like democracy to me....they're just jihadist
the whole egyptian riot? set up by the cia
they will make people look good to get them in power, but you will watch in 5 years, there will be no difference from the mubarak? regime
just like it is in syria, just how it was in iraq, just how they tried in iran, just how they did with al gayda in afghan -
Sorry man, liberal media has gotten to the most of american people, the only reason people don't know this stuff is because they keep it out, you have to get your news from multiple sources including other countries, i have read other middle eastern news sites claiming that they are a radical group, including many other countries, they have been behind the burning of 3 churches and killings of christians, you never hear that in america because obama supports them.
if you study the middle east this is how it works
we send money to one group (for weapons)
to fight another group who we send money to (for weapons)
we keep them neck at neck while being able to control oil prices
while the third group is actually in control (saudi arabia) (who allows us to recieve oil)
it's always been the same and will be for a while, it's an old technique to get 2 of your enemies to take each other out.
this is from only one news website but can be found in multiple forms on others
"They detail the Brotherhood’s objectives of advancing the global conquest of Islam and reestablishing the Islamic Caliphate, the public and private duties of jihad and the struggle Muslims must wage against Israel."
sorry but that doesn't sound like democracy to me....they're just jihadist
the whole egyptian riot? set up by the cia
they will make people look good to get them in power, but you will watch in 5 years, there will be no difference from the mubarak? regime
just like it is in syria, just how it was in iraq, just how they tried in iran, just how they did with al gayda in afghan
Sources and historical evidence please. I'm pretty sure that the 3 churches burning and the executions of Christians are not connected to the Muslim brotherhood but if I can get a legit source than i can't complain.
I don't see this and I read many historical documents from anti American to overtly patriotic. I'll agree with sending the weapons part, but America doesn't control oil prices. It never has, never will. It influences the price but does not control it.
And to say that Saudi Arabia is solely in control just simply does not make sense. Oil is exported and imported from all over the world. Also, hint hint, one of America's greatest exports is oil (Hmmm I wonder why).
I mean, do you really believe in that "Muslims want to take over the world" bullcrap? I mean, if they really wanted to, don't you think a third of the world could have already done that? That kind of ignorance is really really bad dude... And the whole Jihad thing... (if you have read the Quran/Koran) doesn't actually advocate a militant take over, it's meaning is inner struggle.
The whole egyptian riot set up by the CIA? So are you saying that Tunisia's riots were set up by the CIA? Because that was the root of the coined "Arab spring". And I have relatives that live in Tunisia, and they can assure you that riots have been going on there for years, its just that people haven't been serious about it until a few years ago.
The whole historical context of Syria, Iran, and Iraq are completely different and the only thing that could possibly connect them is that they are Muslim countries. US involvement is different with each one of them. -
RawrJafrikan wrote: »Sources and historical evidence please. I'm pretty sure that the 3 churches burning and the executions of Christians are not connected to the Muslim brotherhood but if I can get a legit source than i can't complain.
I don't see this and I read many historical documents from anti American to overtly patriotic. I'll agree with sending the weapons part, but America doesn't control oil prices. It never has, never will. It influences the price but does not control it.
And to say that Saudi Arabia is solely in control just simply does not make sense. Oil is exported and imported from all over the world. Also, hint hint, one of America's greatest exports is oil (Hmmm I wonder why).
I mean, do you really believe in that "Muslims want to take over the world" bullcrap? I mean, if they really wanted to, don't you think a third of the world could have already done that? That kind of ignorance is really really bad dude... And the whole Jihad thing... (if you have read the Quran/Koran) doesn't actually advocate a militant take over, it's meaning is inner struggle.
The whole egyptian riot set up by the CIA? So are you saying that Tunisia's riots were set up by the CIA? Because that was the root of the coined "Arab spring". And I have relatives that live in Tunisia, and they can assure you that riots have been going on there for years, its just that people haven't been serious about it until a few years ago.
The whole historical context of Syria, Iran, and Iraq are completely different and the only thing that could possibly connect them is that they are Muslim countries. US involvement is different with each one of them.
http://bit.ly/J02xOm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Copts
this is their most holy book, this isn't even part of the jihad...
The Quran:
Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.
Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').
Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.
Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"
Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).
shall i continue? i've read the quran a dozen times maybe, at this point there is no need for me to further this argument...there is no ignorance in there -
Dude.... Just look at the sources. And really? I asked for legitimate. Not some bullcrap you find on the web by people that are mad.The Quran:
Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.
http://quran.com/2Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
http://quran.com/2[
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.
http://quran.com/2Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Dude... this exact quote is in the Bible. It's talking about the End of the world and how Jesus will come and save us; most Christians believe. Read the line write before it.
This is exactly what I'm talking about: Taking things way out of context snip it by snip it and claiming that this is what Muslims are about. The same thing can be done to Christians, and it happens all the time. Its bull**** but somehow people like you and others believe it.Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').
I consider myself somewhat of a Christian and I don't believe in the Trinity bullcrap. If any Trinitarian would like to explain to me the evidence of the Trinity using NIV edition I would love to see how you would even try to do so. And don't give me stuff from John and try and twist the ambiguous language metaphorically while ignoring the literal.Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.
http://quran.com/4Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"
http://quran.com/4Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
http://quran.com/4Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).
http://quran.com/4
Read the statements before and after this quote. Once again, a prime example of taking things out of context.shall i continue? i've read the quran a dozen times maybe, at this point there is no need for me to further this argument...there is no ignorance in there
Dude... are you serious... All you did was copy paste from some website proving to me that you have not read the Quran, and simply you just don't care. Then again, I wouldn't blame you.
I think you should consider that people do the same thing to the bible. They constantly bring up things from the Old testament and they mismatch with the New to try and diss on the Christian religion as well as take words out of context. What you are doing is this, but with Islam. And I'm not even that religious and I know this stuff.
Next thing I'm thinking is that you are going to say you have read the Bible. But if you have, then you know that people constantly take things out of context. We can always look at John and Mark for that and how churchs often use this as a platform to pretty much make things up about Jesus.
http://www.666soon.com/verses_commanding_jihad_and_murd.htm
Also, Wikipedia? Like really? Come on. I looked at the sources and no where does it mention anything about the churchs burning and there is literally no source behind what is being said. Example: source 20. And then if you look at 21, the whole book is a pretty much the most biased piece I have read yet behind some statements against Japan after WW2. How this proves that Muslims want to take over the world is beyond me, but please, try and prove that point. And where is the connection with the Muslim brotherhood? That they are Muslim?
That would be like saying Republicans want to make everyone Christian because the majority of them are Christian. This kind of Post hoc ergo propter hoc is really really dangerous and makes anyone look really stupid bro... You can't be serious... -
The MB is a political party and should be distrusted like all other political parties. The Quran and the Bible both contain many passages that are ridiculous. If u assume all ppl take them that literally then christians and muslims are all radically dangerous.
Sry for sloppy writing; am on phone
Categories
- All Categories
- Z8Games
- Off-Topic - Go To Game OT Forums
- 1 Z8 Forum Discussion & Suggestions
- 16 Z8Games Announcements
- Rules & Conduct
- 5.2K CrossFire
- 954 CrossFire Announcements
- 945 Previous Announcements
- 2 Previous Patch Notes
- 1.4K Community
- 122 Modes
- 601 Suggestions
- 85 Clan Discussion and Recruitment
- 274 CF Competitive Forum
- 19 CFCL
- 26 Looking for a Team?
- 704 CrossFire Support
- 52 Suggestion
- 116 Bugs
- 29 CrossFire Guides
- 166 Technical Issues
- 47 CrossFire Off Topic