Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Typical American stupidity, you got people talking about "Shar'ia" when thirty percent of those on the Supreme Court are Jews while they only make up two percent of the American population, we should be worrying about Talmudic compliant.
When you knowingly help funnel money into the hands of a Saudi who thinks we got what we had coming to us when terrorists from his country attacked us? Yes.
Bull Moderator cut: language! you can make all the claims you want but it does not make it so. Like I said, if someone wanted to research where every dollar ends up we would be surprised that some of it goes to places we would not openly support. Using your criteria, we all have blood on our hands and I do not accept that premise. Now I believe that the picture was of you.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 07-23-2010 at 11:12 PM..
Reason: Please use appropriate language
Typical American stupidity, you got people talking about "Shar'ia" when thirty percent of those on the Supreme Court are Jews while they only make up two percent of the American population, we should be worrying about Talmudic compliant.
I understand, it's an ego thing, and in my opinion, she is, how could a sane person say I have blood on my hands.
Actually her chain of culpability is pretty logical.
If the assumption is that Saudis support terrorism then anyone who increase the income of Saudis also indirectly funds terrorism.
I make this argument with drug users all the time. If you purchase illegal drugs that are imported into the country you have some measure of culpability with drug violence where ever the trails of those drugs traveled through.
Pretty simple actually.
You watch Fox news, Fox derives its income based upon viewership, the more viewers, the more money, the more money the greater the return to its investors, if an investor is a Saudi and the Saudis personally support terrorism... get it?
Bull chit! you can make all the claims you want but it does not make it so. Like I said, if someone wanted to research where every dollar ends up we would be surprised that some of it goes to places we would not openly support. Using your criteria, we all have blood on our hands and I do not accept that premise. Now I believe that the picture was of you.
We're not talking about researching where every dollar ends up, just those that are earned by the second largest shareholder in a massive news conglomerate that you KNOW is lining the pockets of the Saudis and thereby supporting Shariah law.
You know this.
You don't have to research it.
And yet you don't care. You're willing to continue to consume his product and finance his promotion of a belief system you decry as murderous. How does that not equal having blood on your hands?
When they get finished ruining the country they get to run off to Israel, but we have to remain here and suffer the consequences. As I've said on this forum in the past "Americans need to start loving their children more then they love Jews, or we are finished as a nation."
Actually her chain of culpability is pretty logical.
If the assumption is that Saudis support terrorism then anyone who increase the income of Saudis also indirectly funds terrorism.
I make this argument with drug users all the time. If you purchase illegal drugs that are imported into the country you have some measure of culpability with drug violence where ever the trails of those drugs traveled through.
Pretty simple actually.
You watch Fox news, Fox derives its income based upon viewership, the more viewers, the more money, the more money the greater the return to its investors, if an investor is a Saudi and the Saudis personally support terrorism... get it?
Using this criteria, we should all research who owns, or is part owner of everything we watch or spend our money on because it could mean we have blood on our hands...how asinine.
Washington Times Runs Another Picture Of Kagan In A Turban To Claim She Will Impose Shariah Law On America
Needless to say, Kagan is not involved in a secret conspiracy involving Harvard Law School, TARP, Islamic bankers, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, Harvard’s Islamic Finance Project serves an entirely benign purpose. Because many Islamic nations forbid banks from charging interest at a fixed or predetermined rate, their economies have historically been hindered by inadequate access to credit. The Islamic Finance Project is one of many projects studying how to enable businesses and individuals to effectively borrow money without violating this prohibition. Rather than offering a mortgage, for example, an Islamic bank might purchase the house outright and then sell it to the lender in installments — thus achieving the same effect as a mortgage without charging a forbidden interest payment.
People need to be more suspicious of The Washington Times owned by The Reverend Sun Myung Moon than Kagan. The paper is a propaganda rag and if the misinformsation originated here it is so par for the course.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
