Congressman: American schools should be modeled after madrassas
#1
Posted 06 July 2012 - 10:31 AM
At ICNA-MAS (Islamic Circle of North America/Muslim American Society) 2012: Congressman André Carson advocated the American school system should be modeled after "madrassas" where the foundation is the Koran.
This is the same congressman that lied about the Tea party throwing anti-black racist slurs at the Capitol, and suggested that the Tea Party wants to bring back Jim Crow laws. Apparently, in the minds of socialist Muslim Democrats, fiscal responsibility is now akin to anti-black racism.
#2
Posted 06 July 2012 - 10:36 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/07/05/Muslim-Congressman-Wants-American-School-Curriculum-To-Follow-The-Koran
At ICNA-MAS (Islamic Circle of North America/Muslim American Society) 2012: Congressman André Carson advocated the American school system should be modeled after "madrassas" where the foundation is the Koran.
This is the same congressman that lied about the Tea party throwing anti-black racist slurs at the Capitol, and suggested that the Tea Party wants to bring back Jim Crow laws. Apparently, in the minds of socialist Muslim Democrats, fiscal responsibility is now akin to anti-black racism.
Another Breitbart delicious serving of Kool-Ade.
Not sure what the underlined part has to do with the title?
Nor how worried I should be about all those socialist Muslim Democrats wreaking havoc in that other country down south. Are there many of them? Do they plan to move in on Canada next? We're already socialist, so we're easy pickings, except we ain't got no Democrats.
Edited by Canuckistani, 06 July 2012 - 10:37 AM.
#3
Posted 06 July 2012 - 10:39 AM
...Nor how worried I should be about all those socialist Muslim Democrats wreaking havoc in that other country down south. Are there many of them? Do they plan to move in on Canada next? We're already socialist, so we're easy pickings, except we ain't got no Democrats.
Yes...just like Canadian health care professionals and patients moving "south".
"Access to a wait list is not Access to healthcare" - Chief Justice Beverly McLauchlin
#4
Posted 06 July 2012 - 10:45 AM
Another Breitbart delicious serving of Kool-Ade.
Not sure what the underlined part has to do with the title?
Nor how worried I should be about all those socialist Muslim Democrats wreaking havoc in that other country down south. Are there many of them? Do they plan to move in on Canada next? We're already socialist, so we're easy pickings, except we ain't got no Democrats.
Of course you don't understand the relevance of the section you underlined to the thread. The Tea Party is, in simple terms, largely a single-issue movement: they want more economic liberty. Andre Carson lied when he accused the Tea Party at the Capitol of shouting anti-black racist slurs at him him in 2010. This is typical from Democratic politicians and other leftist/socialist/communist elements in American society, which equates fiscal responsibility with racism. It's stupid, it's dumb, it's ridiculous, it's offensive, but it's how the left tends to operate.
#5
Posted 06 July 2012 - 11:07 AM
Of course you don't understand the relevance of the section you underlined to the thread. The Tea Party is, in simple terms, largely a single-issue movement: they want more economic liberty.
For sure! Remember "Keep your Government hands off my Medicare"?
--Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
#6
Posted 06 July 2012 - 11:18 AM
For sure! Remember "Keep your Government hands off my Medicare"?
Considering older people in the later stages of their lives have been paying into and planning their lives around the reception of Medicare, that's not an unrealistic demand from seniors. Eventually Medicare will need to be phased out, or greatly reduced. Obama's policies are also going to be destructive to Medicare, considering he is playing a shell-game by shifting costs to the states and proclaiming that the so-called "Affordable Care Act" will reduce the federal deficit over time. Tea Party concerns about the economic destruction wrought by Obama's policies (including his gutting of Medicare) are well-grounded.
#7
Posted 06 July 2012 - 12:03 PM
Considering older people in the later stages of their lives have been paying into and planning their lives around the reception of Medicare, that's not an unrealistic demand from seniors.
Wishing to keep Medicare is not an unreasonable demand, certainly not.
Believing that it is a non-governmental entity, and the "socialists" are planning to phase it out, is obviously unrealistic...to the point of being delusional on more than one level.
I'm only pointing out that many of the Tea Party "libertarians" are nothing of the sort.
--Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
#8
Posted 06 July 2012 - 12:07 PM
Wishing to keep Medicare is not an unreasonable demand, certainly not.
Believing that it is a non-governmental entity, and the "socialists" are planning to phase it out, is obviously unrealistic...to the point of being delusional on more than one level.
I'm only pointing out that many of the Tea Party "libertarians" are nothing of the sort.
So Tea Party folks that want reduced government encroachment over the economy are automatically hypocritical if they want the maintenance of Medicare for current seniors? There's a lot of room for advocating more economic liberty in America while still being concerned about cuts to Medicare which many seniors have made central to their retirement plans. There's a lot of space in between puritanical libertarians on the one hand and socialistic policies on the other.
#9
Posted 07 July 2012 - 07:54 AM
Of course you don't understand the relevance of the section you underlined to the thread. The Tea Party is, in simple terms, largely a single-issue movement: they want more economic liberty.
The Tea Party was begun as a rebellion against the way the rich corporate interests got huge bailouts of taxpayer money. Since most of those involved weren't particularly bright the movement was quickly co-opted by the wealthy, and now angrily lobbies for whatever will benefit the rich at the expense of themselves (yes, they really ARE that stupid). They're unrepentantly religious and believe in literal interpretations of the original US Constitution, not unlike the Taliban, which are also originalists. In fact, the Tea Party and the Taliban have much in common. Most of the Tea Party have a sort of Daniel Boone mythology where they long for the days when people were alone on the frontier with just their trusty musket to take care of all their needs. They're not unlike the Taliban in that respect, who long to bring society back to the seventh century, when Islam was supreme. They're anti-government and anti-society. Their religious beliefs are as close to mainstream Christianity as the Taliban's are of mainstream Islam, which is to say, they really aren't Christians, they just think they are. They're a herd of brainless, mindless angry sheep easily manipulated by the smirking media experts, and spin doctors hired by the likes of the Koch brothers, and their success is sustained by money from the elites and the general political ignorance and malaise of the American people.
#10
Posted 07 July 2012 - 08:00 AM
It's very unreasonable to wishing to keep Medicare without any reforms.Wishing to keep Medicare is not an unreasonable demand, certainly not.
Voted Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010
#11
Posted 07 July 2012 - 08:02 AM
This is a common misconception. The Tea Party is about economic issues, not religous issues. Are there religious people in the Tea Party? Sure, just like in most other groups. But they're focus is on government debt, and government bailouts. It has nothing to do with the so-called Koch brothers, or Bilderburg group, etc.The Tea Party was begun as a rebellion against the way the rich corporate interests got huge bailouts of taxpayer money. Since most of those involved weren't particularly bright the movement was quickly co-opted by the wealthy, and now angrily lobbies for whatever will benefit the rich at the expense of themselves (yes, they really ARE that stupid). They're unrepentantly religious and believe in literal interpretations of the original US Constitution, not unlike the Taliban, which are also originalists. In fact, the Tea Party and the Taliban have much in common. Most of the Tea Party have a sort of Daniel Boone mythology where they long for the days when people were alone on the frontier with just their trusty musket to take care of all their needs. They're not unlike the Taliban in that respect, who long to bring society back to the seventh century, when Islam was supreme. They're anti-government and anti-society. Their religious beliefs are as close to mainstream Christianity as the Taliban's are of mainstream Islam, which is to say, they really aren't Christians, they just think they are. They're a herd of brainless, mindless angry sheep easily manipulated by the smirking media experts, and spin doctors hired by the likes of the Koch brothers, and their success is sustained by money from the elites and the general political ignorance and malaise of the American people.
Voted Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010
#12
Posted 07 July 2012 - 08:20 AM
So Tea Party folks that want reduced government encroachment over the economy are automatically hypocritical if they want the maintenance of Medicare for current seniors?
No. They're ignorant dummies who don't even understand that it is a government program, what they otherwise refer to as--gasp!--an entitlement.
After all, they think the centrist-capitalist in the White House is an extremist socialist...but then, they believe everything they're told by the slightly smarter knuckledragging morons among them.
They admire Glenn Beck. They sigh at the sight of Sarah Palin.
They also pretend to worship at the altar of Ayn Rand...that would be bad enough, what with her nihilistic silliness and her admiration for child-murderers as "real men"....but even funnier, they haven't read Rand, because they read nothing. (Hell, even subtitles connote fruity foreign films, and distract from the esplosions.)
It's all moot anyway; as was widely predicted, what little of the Tea Party was a genuine, principled grassrooots movement has been utterly co-opted by one of the two most powerful political parties on the planet.
They're just Republicans now, and will do as they're told by their "betters."
Edited by bleeding heart, 07 July 2012 - 08:24 AM.
--Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
#13
Posted 07 July 2012 - 08:24 AM
No, the ignorant dummies are the people who don't understand that the cheif government trustee of Medicare has warned that the program will go bankrupt and collapse upon itself unless serious reforms are undertaken.No. They're ignorant dummies who don't even understand that it is a government program, what they otherwise refer to as--gasp!--an entitlement.
Voted Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010
#14
Posted 07 July 2012 - 08:44 AM
This is a common misconception. The Tea Party is about economic issues, not religous issues. Are there religious people in the Tea Party? Sure, just like in most other groups. But they're focus is on government debt, and government bailouts. It has nothing to do with the so-called Koch brothers, or Bilderburg group, etc.
Don't tell me it has nothing to do with the Kochs when they fund have the bloody movement.
And the Tea Party is about supporting economic policies which favour the rich, and NOT THEM. If that isn't a clue as to how dumb they are I don't know what is.
#15
Posted 07 July 2012 - 08:48 AM
No, the ignorant dummies are the people who don't understand that the cheif government trustee of Medicare has warned that the program will go bankrupt and collapse upon itself unless serious reforms are undertaken.
Public medical care is certainly sustainable. I don't get you people who think it isn't. It's CHEAPER than privately run medical care! There is, in the end, only one payer, and that is the ordinary citizen. His money goes to fund medical services, regardless of whether it's public or private. The difference in private medical care is you have to fund the care, plus huge profits for all involved, so of course, it costs much more. I get that private industry usually is more efficient than government. But that's not the case here. Every study has shown that there is more administrative cost, more red tape, in private medical care than public medical care. And it's inherently inefficient since in order to compete, every hospital has to have every piece of expensive high-tech gear, even if it's only actually operating 20% of the time. I'm not suggesting ours is anywhere close to perfect, but it's not as wasteful of money and resources as the American private medical care system.
If Medicair in the US is in trouble it's simply because the Republicans have starved the federal treasury of cash while implementing tax code changes which allow the wealthy corporations to drastically reduce their taxes.
Edited by Argus, 07 July 2012 - 09:17 AM.









