[Stoner]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

Would it be fair to say that the appointments were political tokenism? Was this an attempt to appease Muslim-Americans who oppose American presence in the Middle East? Forgive me if I am repeating others; I confess to not having read this entire thread.

First off....there is little worth in reading the whole thread in order to 'catch up'
Most appointments are likely tokenism of some manner.

Personally.....I think it was politically stupid to be placing followers of Islam into security positions at this time.

Essentially, Brett has presented an argument to insert religious discrimination into our legal system.
How he accomplishes that is the mystery.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by buffoon

Jeez Brett that is really sad. You couldn't find a better way of self self-disqualification than to quote this "source"

Daniel Pipes of all people. How pathetic can you get?

Ah.....the power of Google

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Ah.....the power of Google

Putting in (just for the heck of it) "are Muslims dangerous?" Pipes' site comes up second. Daniel must be getting old to have lost first place.

Replace "dangerous" with "evil" and Pipes doesn't even make first page. I reckon he's losing it. Doesn't make him a credible source at all anymore.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Stoner

First off....there is little worth in reading the whole thread in order to 'catch up'
Most appointments are likely tokenism of some manner.

Personally.....I think it was politically stupid to be placing followers of Islam into security positions at this time.

Essentially, Brett has presented an argument to insert religious discrimination into our legal system.
How he accomplishes that is the mystery.

it's no mystery ....the Department of True Religion...they could qualify appointees based on those the "ten points"......though you don't really need that many....anyone who 1) worships a god that is not a triad (father, son, and holy ghost), and 2) whose religion has an attachment to a country other than america would be banned from service on the grounds of not being either patriotic or loyal to america......the resulting field would yield the "safe" choices, according to brett's source.

[Stoner]

I meant legally _

[valis]

Originally Posted by aka Brett

Naw we would cut down imports by about a third.
take care of bussiness at home before taking care of the rest of the world.
You truly have to be a danger to society to be in jail.....weed or failure to pay child support wouldnt do it..

Obamas Opininion ruled correct?..muslims for the appointments?//whos do you like better.........Myself would give it to retired generals or the sort...but thats just me

that's hardly near the truth, according to *your* statements. There would be widespread religious persecution, and that I don't cotton to.

A person in this country has a right to be free; you want to be a dictator and tell people what they have to believe in or else, take your hatred and go someplace else and rule.

[Bastiat]

Originally Posted by Stoner

So far no one has responded with a credible link showing it was a religious appointment......that I requested numerous posts ago.

Of course no one posted a link that said it wasn't. Point is we don't know and will never know, however that doesn't mean the speculation doesn't have a modicum of validity.

But that's not Brett's argument.
Brett doesn't want the option to choose a Muslim open to the President.
So I've been asking.......how can this be accomplished legally?
How can an appointment be legally blocked on the grounds of religion?

It's not Brett's FIRST argument. As you follow along he has gone beyond his original indefensible point to modify it by pointing out why appoint Muslims (two) to these posts when they represent a very small minority of the available population to fill the positions.

Don't read me as defending the position, however it does raise an interesting point.

[valis]

Originally Posted by iltos

superb response, >f

seconded and carried.

[Bastiat]

Originally Posted by ekim68

And, yet you keep coming back...

I watch train wrecks too, and this thread is a train wreck.

Keep watching.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by Bastiat

Of course no one posted a link that said it wasn't. Point is we don't know and will never know, however that doesn't mean the speculation doesn't have a modicum of validity.




It's not Brett's FIRST argument. As you follow along he has gone beyond his original indefensible point to modify it by pointing out why appoint Muslims (two) to these posts when they represent a very small minority of the available population to fill the positions.

Don't read me as defending the position, however it does raise an interesting point.

Of course no one posted a link that said it wasn't.

Indeed.
So I take it Brett's claim is obviously based upon speculation.

It's not Brett's FIRST argument.

Rereading Brett's first post, that statement appears incorrect.
excerpt from his first post>

Anyway this article deals with national security and the obvious strong effort by Obama to get Muslims into the last place they need to be.

Brett did not argue the individual based on merits ....purely religion.

As you follow along he has gone beyond his original indefensible point ....

Looks more like he was desperate to distance himself from it at times for the sake of debate.

Don't read me as defending the position, however it does raise an interesting point.

Don't read into my posts that I'm defending Islam.
The issue still stands........how is Brett going to legally construct a mechanism to restrict appointment by religious profiling?

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by iltos

brett.....please don't cut and paste entire articles.
that's general policy at TSG to avoid copyright issues.

you can link to articles as you've done, or c/p snippets to support your own words.

It is rare for me to c /p entire articles about one percent
I see that you removed 100 percent

If you are going to begin this practice you will never be able to leave the obama thread my friend......as you have weeks of editing to do.....then a few more weeks in a handful of other threads
I will help you track down the thousands of posts in 4 or 5 threads to make it easier for you if you like

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by buffoon

Jeez Brett that is really sad. You couldn't find a better way of self self-disqualification than to quote this "source"

Daniel Pipes of all people. How pathetic can you get?

You lefts will discredit anything.....I mean anything...that why I dont provide many links its a waste...isny anything wrong with Pipes

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by stoner

most appointments are likely tokenism of some manner.

personally.....i think it was politically stupid to be placing followers of islam into security positions at this time.
.

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by Stoner

So far no one has responded with a credible link showing it was a religious appointment......that I requested numerous posts ago.


But that's not Brett's argument.
Brett doesn't want the option to choose a Muslim open to the President.
So I've been asking.......how can this be accomplished legally?
How can an appointment be legally blocked on the grounds of religion?

He can choose who ever he wants its an appointment.....an appointment
do you know what an appointment it?
There is nothing to have to block jack....its like picking apples from a tree..go get the one you want...

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by valis

that's hardly near the truth, according to *your* statements. There would be widespread religious persecution, and that I don't cotton to.

A person in this country has a right to be free; you want to be a dictator and tell people what they have to believe in or else, take your hatred and go someplace else and rule.

I am not persecuting religions...practice what you want....however with the many spinofffs of islam it is hard to keep track of the good guys from the bad guys....so really why take the chance

Homeland security...appointing 2 muslims..a deliberate action by the president...risky