- This topic has 41 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Bitey said:
If they just want to squat, not learn English, and not pay taxes then they can GTFO my country cause I am not paying my hard earned dollars to pay for their babies.
it’s not their fault they are doing work NO ONE else wants to do. It’s also not their fault they are being hired by the same people that complain like yourself (no offense). It’s also not their fault they are paid pennies. These people DO pay taxes believe it or not. Sales tax. They buy our liquour, cigarettes, and food, all of which is (or should be) taxed. The squatters you speak of, well i bet their are more citizens that squat way harder than these illegals that actually work for retardedly cheap. Only thing missing from that arizona immigration law, is the barcodes and star of david sleeves.
Oh and this just in, the mexican truckers are about to go on strike in leu of this. That’s 40 percent of the souths produce that won’t be making it up to all the sweet podunk towns down here.
You want to know how to drive down health care costs? Regulate fast food joints, “vitamin shops” aka pill stops, and health education reform. Keyword education. 3/4th of the nations youth today are unfit for military service. by 2030 we have a serious threat to national security, in the form of fatass kids.
NuRayZ said:
it’s not their fault they are doing work NO ONE else wants to do.
There’s no job in America that an American won’t do. You show me a man that won’t clean toilets or build roads to feed his family and I’ll show you a lazy liberal *edited* that doesn’t give a rats *edited* about his family.
NuRayZ said:
It’s also not their fault they are being hired by the same people that complain like yourself (no offense).
There’s a bash out of nowhere… Bitey doesn’t hire otheres to do his work and “people like him” never will.
NuRayZ said:
It’s also not their fault they are paid pennies.
If they were legal they would get minimum wage. It’s the law. So yeah, it is their fault.
NuRayZ said:
These people DO pay taxes believe it or not. Sales tax. They buy our liquour, cigarettes, and food, all of which is (or should be) taxed.
So they pay MAYBE $1000 in taxes. In return they get many times that amount in social, medical, and educational benefits and handouts.
NuRayZ said:
Only thing missing from that arizona immigration law, is the barcodes and star of david sleeves.
Why is it that liberals can’t stand having to prove you’re a legal citizen/resident? What is it about the federal immigration laws that you hate so much and if you dislike it that much why don’t you simply remove them? You have the votes to do anything you *edited* well please and your representatives have already proven that they’ll lie, release false studies, and vote against the wishes of their own constituents so why not just make everyone that sets foot on our soil a legal citizen?
NuRayZ said:
Oh and this just in, the mexican truckers are about to go on strike in leu of this. That’s 40 percent of the souths produce that won’t be making it up to all the sweet podunk towns down here.
I’ve never seen a Mexican trucker and I’ve traveled I85 and I40 a great deal over the last few years. I would say it affects border states more than other states but NC has one of the highest population of illegal immigrants in the US, in fact HALF our latinos are illegal. If there are none or few here, I seriously doubt a strike would be an issue anywhere, especially with so many truckers in the US begging for long-haul freight jobs.
Hey there’s an idea. *edited* the illegals off so they go on strike, meanwhile the Americans who do the same job, contrary to typical liberal talking points, willingly and gratefully retake the work that illegals stole from them.
NuRayZ said:
You want to know how to drive down health care costs? Regulate fast food joints, “vitamin shops” aka pill stops, and health education reform. Keyword education. 3/4th of the nations youth today are unfit for military service. by 2030 we have a serious threat to national security, in the form of fatass kids.
You mentioned Nazi Germany earlier, not even Hitler did as you just proposed. Declaring what we can and cannot eat, hell, Castro would praise Obama for that. Oh wait, Castro has already praised Obama for his “reform” work.
I don’t see how you think it’s the fault of the illegal that they are picked up in groves off the street to get work? YES, if they were legal they would get paid more, but if people don’t REFUSE them, why would they take the hastle to fill out the proper documentation? I also wasn’t trying to point out Bitey would ever pick up an illegal, i just meant, average americans like him or me or you. They might have an issue with the current legislation, but will still go around and pick up illegals because they have a quick job needed done, like a bad *edited*ter, poor roof, etc. And how about some links or actual references next time you make allegations the government lied to us; wouldn’t surprise me seeing EVERY administration since the dawn of man has done so one way or another.
And MasterP, there are mexican truckers:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3486604
-70 to 200 truckers plan to boycott route from Nagales to California
-40% of anything mexican that you eat comes from Nagales
-Not as big a deal for people who don’t eat mexican, but down here it is.
yeah, hitler wouldn’t have thought about that cause he just threw people in ovens.
The average American who needs something fixed, like a roof or toilet, hires someone who knows WTF they’re doing. That does not include people who don’t do it professionally, like illegals. Think I’m wrong? Go ask around. You’ll find I’m not.
Back on topic, the “Super Best Friends” episode has been pulled from streaming on Netflix as well. It’s a “DVD Only” episode. *edited*…
MasterP said:
Back on topic, the “Super Best Friends” episode has been pulled from streaming on Netflix as well. It’s a “DVD Only” episode. *edited*…
Unless their demographic is consisted of muslims, that really does suck. C’mon Netflix, you’re better than this.
I feel that they should not have depicted Muhammad in any way and that the episodes should be pulled.
MajorMajorMajor said:
I feel that they should not have depicted Muhammad in any way and that the episodes should be pulled.
They make fun of every other religious figure, what makes Muslims so special?
In fact if I remember right the only real thing Mohammad said was something about peace and getting along with other religions, which is what their holy book states they should do. I really don’t see the issue here.
We can pretty much take a chunk out of the “Christian Warriors” topic and apply it here. There will always be people who’ll take a piece out of a religious text and apply it differently.
MasterP said:
MajorMajorMajor said:
I feel that they should not have depicted Muhammad in any way and that the episodes should be pulled.
They make fun of every other religious figure, what makes Muslims so special?
In fact if I remember right the only real thing Mohammad said was something about peace and getting along with other religions, which is what their holy book states they should do. I really don’t see the issue here.
If I had a choice, they wouldn’t poke fun at any religion. I personally turn the show off when they do that *edited* Jesus talk show thing. Not saying their case is special, but when their religion specifically calls for no depiction of Muhammad, then I cannot help but back them and agree the episodes should be pulled.
I will continue to respect their beliefs in general until I see them disrespecting my beliefs in general.
Extremists never speak for the majority, they just speak the loudest.
That’s just the thing, Islam does not forbid the depiction of Muhammad. Only the more zealous sects have problems and some sects have openly depicted him in art and architecture for over a thousand years.
Wikipedia said:
The Qur’an does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental traditions) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating the visual depictions of figures under any circumstances. Most contemporary Sunni Muslims believe that visual depictions of the prophets generally should be prohibited, and they are particularly averse to visual representations of Muhammad.[3] The key concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry, where the image becomes more important than what it represents. In Islamic art, some visual depictions only show Muhammad with his face veiled, or symbolically represent him as a flame; other images, notably from Persia of the Ilkhanate, and those made under the Ottomans, show him fully.[1]
Other Muslims have taken a more relaxed view. Most Shi’a scholars accept respectful depictions and use illustrations of Muhammad in books and architectural decoration, as have Sunnis at various points in the past.[4] However, many Muslims who take a stricter view of the supplemental traditions, will sometimes challenge any depiction of Muhammad, including those created and published by non-Muslims.[5]
There’s also a depiction of Muhammad in the US Supreme Court building, in it he’s seen carrying a sword and the Quran. Where’s the outcry here?
A group of Muslims started a petition for Wikipedia to take down their pictures in the Muhammad article. Wiki told them to *edited* off and guess what happened? Nothing. The whole protest movement died. Know why? Because Wiki demonstrated they have backbone and the balls to stand for what they believe in. I wish more companies and people in the US would do the same…
Answer me this. If the original reason for barring depictions of Muhammad was to prevent idolatry, why does it matter to them when a depiction is published to an audience that is almost entirely non-Muslim. It shouldn’t matter because we can’t be idolaters to a religious figure we don’t believe in. If anything, the interest in the Muhammad depiction could potentially bring people into the religion. There’s irony for you…
MasterP said:
Answer me this. If the original reason for barring depictions of Muhammad was to prevent idolatry, why does it matter to them when a depiction is published to an audience that is almost entirely non-Muslim. It shouldn’t matter because we can’t be idolaters to a religious figure we don’t believe in. If anything, the interest in the Muhammad depiction could potentially bring people into the religion. There’s irony for you…
LOL i really liked that thought. I feel some sects of Islam do not understand the “Face to the Religion” deal to help convert people. That worked well with imagery of Christ for centuries why can’t it with Islam and Muhammad.
I guess the other side is almost like adding a big name actor to a movie. the movie’s story and ideas could have been wonderful to begin with and should have been enough for people to see it but they will see it only for the actor and only keep their attention long enough to see the development of the actor, not any of the other meanings.
LOOSE ANALOGY BUT *edited* YOU
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.