[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by Drabdr

Brett, I agree with many of the points you have been making. And it is entirely in line with how I feel about Obama anyway (not very good) and about racial pandering (which agitates me probably even more). I could see appointing one, and someone else. But to find two means someone spent a lot of time looking for the correct combination. We have bigger concerns in our country than to be spending time on that junk.

Terrorists that are Muslim are a small subset of the Muslim community at large. There are some very proud Muslim Americans that are as angry with the radicals as any other group. Heck, the Americans with Middle Eastern background were as hurt and angry after 9/11 as anyone. This is their country too, they were attacked too.

I think what scares you is that it's possible that these individuals are "seeds"; and may create havoc in those appointments. That's entirely possible. However, I tend to look at it that they are probably more American and Patriotic than I. They will work harder than any other individual in that position to protect our borders; to help weaken these cells, and protect our borders.

I would have chosen differently, but like most other things in the past year, they seem little concerned with my thoughts.

If things go well, Obama will win some political pandering points over the next year.
If things don't go well on this, well.....

It is my belief they were picked because they were muslim...liberal thinking for the underdog scenario.

There are so many spinoffs of the religion that its hard to determine who is good and who is bad..............I sure wouldnt want anyone following our old testament....that would be the equivalent..The muslims make up a small percentage of the population,most are harmless and are like the rest of the country.
However the ordeal in texas is not the first time we have had problems in this area{I would also like to point out I created the thread prior to that occuance}...take into account that they are a small percentage times the occurrences and we see that we have a much higher risk involved.....yes it is a shame that it is that way.....but on the other side of the coin it is best to play it safe...we did not see the other occurrences coming,so therefore how are we capable of seeing future occurances....the appointments are high positions,this is the concern.......lets face it we dont know the faith that well....the only thing we do know is that a few hide behind it and stomp a hole in our butt.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by aka Brett

You agreed it was a poor choice...that is the line of thought.
I have said many times I have no problems with muslim..dont label me as discriminating

I have never stated that there should be legal restriction barring muslims....why must you insist I have stated such.
Have never stated to limit the presidents choice.
Is search working?................change your argument or use the search feature to quote me.

Winter is coming ,you need to get in a couple days riding while you can

You agreed it was a poor choice.

I stated it was a poor political choice......your main concerns address the welfare of the US.

I have said many times I have no problems with muslim

I LOL'd..................
What was that again about restricting them from 'the top of the totem pole'?

I have never stated that there should be legal restriction barring muslims....why must you insist I have stated such.

No...I have asked you how you intend to legalize your religious discrimination.

Have never stated to limit the presidents choice.

Brett....most of your argument poised at limiting a President's choice according to religious discrimination. There are pages of it in this thread

I keep asking you:
....how do you intend to impose legal restrictions barring people from government appointments on the basis of religion?
This is not an issue of the President's choice, it's an issue of limiting the President's choice......and that is your argument.
I think you have a Constitutional problem to address and it's obvious you dodge it because you likely don't have an answer.

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Brett.....the difference is in scale, not the opinion or thought...the SCALE of it. I could well have the same basic opinion, but a quite different premise. That would surely come through in the way I present my thoughts, the notions behind my conclusions, etc. You know, the scale/depth/internal stewing of a thing. It is also detectable in a persons word usage to what part of the scale they rest or arrest their arguments on. Don't you agree?

GeeSHHH...do I have to continually explain myself

You really need to get out of California

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by aka brett

you really need to get out of california

:d:d:d:d....lololololol

That is a perfect example Brett... maybe on both our ends

[Drabdr]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

One, What? American?
Someone else, what? Person?
Two what? Americans? People?
I am confused

Sorry for confusion. I don't think even Obama goes out and picks just anyone. There are a small group of choices. These choices have, say, 30 criteria.

To add "oh, and make sure they are Muslim" makes it 31.

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I stated it was a poor political choice......your main concerns address the welfare of the US.


I LOL'd..................
What was that again about restricting them from 'the top of the totem pole'?


No...I have asked you how you intend to legalize your religious discrimination.



Brett....most of your argument poised at limiting a President's choice according to religious discrimination. There are pages of it in this thread

I keep asking you:
....how do you intend to impose legal restrictions barring people from government appointments on the basis of religion?
This is not an issue of the President's choice, it's an issue of limiting the President's choice......and that is your argument.
I think you have a Constitutional problem to address and it's obvious you dodge it because you likely don't have an answer.

As stated prior
Use your search jack...or change your argument.....I insist

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

One, What? American?
Someone else, what? Person?
Two what? Americans? People?
I am confused

Bummer....I understood exactly what he said

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by aka Brett

Bummer....I understood exactly what he said

Yes, Brett we know Gees

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Drabdr

Sorry for confusion. I don't think even Obama goes out and picks just anyone. There are a small group of choices. These choices have, say, 30 criteria.

To add "oh, and make sure they are Muslim" makes it 31.

it's time, i'm thinking, to actually ask figure this out:
anybody really have a clue about these "appointments"?....one was to a non-policy group outside of the government, used only in an advisory capacity (thats the one on foreign policy)

the other was some sort of vice something or other in homeland security.....

do either of these even require presidential approval?
are y'all just assuming that because they're muslim, they musta come down from the boss?

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by iltos

it's time, i'm thinking, to actually ask figure this out:
anybody really have a clue about these "appointments"?....one was to a non-policy group outside of the government, used only in an advisory capacity (thats the one on foreign policy)

the other was some sort of vice something or other in homeland security.....

do either of these even require presidential approval?
are y'all just assuming that because they're muslim, they musta come down from the boss?

I would also be interested in this myself....I appoint you to research what you can find and post back

[Drabdr]

Originally Posted by aka Brett

It is my belief they were picked because they were muslim...liberal thinking for the underdog scenario.

I might not agree with you if it was just one pick. But with two... I am of the opinion that they went out of their way to line up those appointments.

Originally Posted by aka Brett

There are so many spinoffs of the religion that its hard to determine who is good and who is bad..............I sure wouldnt want anyone following our old testament....that would be the equivalent..The muslims make up a small percentage of the population,most are harmless and are like the rest of the country.
However the ordeal in texas is not the first time we have had problems in this area{I would also like to point out I created the thread prior to that occuance}...take into account that they are a small percentage times the occurrences and we see that we have a much higher risk involved.....yes it is a shame that it is that way.....but on the other side of the coin it is best to play it safe...we did not see the other occurrences coming,so therefore how are we capable of seeing future occurances....the appointments are high positions,this is the concern.......lets face it we dont know the faith that well....the only thing we do know is that a few hide behind it and stomp a hole in our butt.

The problem is that we can't play it that safe. There are many, many that are very American, very patriotic people who believe in this country more than anyone. There are better ways to screen these candidates that just being Muslim. There are threads here about Racism in the South. Most have done very well at not painting every white guy in the South as a racist. We just need to be careful of going after every person of Muslim faith.

I'll state again... I would not have made those choice in appointments.

[Drabdr]

Originally Posted by iltos

it's time, i'm thinking, to actually ask figure this out:
anybody really have a clue about these "appointments"?....one was to a non-policy group outside of the government, used only in an advisory capacity (thats the one on foreign policy)

the other was some sort of vice something or other in homeland security.....

do either of these even require presidential approval?
are y'all just assuming that because they're muslim, they musta come down from the boss?

Here's a start....

http://www.excellenceintransition.or...emNumber=10019

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by aka Brett

As stated prior
Use your search jack...or change your argument.....I insist

I'll ask you again.....how do you intend to impose legal restriction barring people from government appointments on the basis of religion?
This is not an issue of the President's choice, it's an issue of limiting the President's choice......and that is your argument.
I think you have a Constitutional problem to address and it's obvious you dodge it because you likely don't have an answer.

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I'll ask you again.....how do you intend to impose legal restriction barring people from government appointments on the basis of religion?
This is not an issue of the President's choice, it's an issue of limiting the President's choice......and that is your argument.
I think you have a Constitutional problem to address and it's obvious you dodge it because you likely don't have an answer.

You didnt come up with anything in search huh.
So once again show where I said to limit the president choice by means of legal restriction.
Search jack................................Search you ole hound.....and please let your next response be results of these searches.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by Drabdr

I might not agree with you if it was just one pick. But with two... I am of the opinion that they went out of their way to line up those appointments.



The problem is that we can't play it that safe. There are many, many that are very American, very patriotic people who believe in this country more than anyone. There are better ways to screen these candidates that just being Muslim. There are threads here about Racism in the South. Most have done very well at not painting every white guy in the South as a racist. We just need to be careful of going after every person of Muslim faith.

I'll state again... I would not have made those choice in appointments.

I would prefer the issue of religion was overlooked and the individual vetted on his own character and motivation.
Nothing has been posted on the two men beyond what >f posted.

While I see Brett's concern, I also see the issue of religious discrimination in this issue growing beyond the present focus of Islam. Once a policy is accepted, it's acceptable to use against other religious groups and I'm well aware from past debates, there are those that would impose their beliefs upon the rest of society if not opposed by law.