What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

England becoming a Caliphate. US next (1 Viewer)

I do have to say though, that it really does bug the #### out of me when liberals defend even the sh#tty aspects of Islam. It's ok to dislike Islam but still stand up for the rights of Muslim people.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
whoknew said:
Surely you see the contradiction there, right?
Click to expand...
What is your specific concern?  I totally get that an ideological test of any sort is naturally exposed to potential abuses.  The McCarran-Walter Act of the 50's comes to mind.  But I don't think that means we should completely abandon the idea of an improved vetting process designed to weed out those whose core beliefs are in direct opposition to the Constitution.  We do some level of that ideological testing right now, through background checks and the interview process.  All I'm advocating is going into a little more detail.  

Does anyone in here think we should be letting anyone into this country who believes in Sharia Law?

 
Higgs said:
What is your specific concern?  I totally get that an ideological test of any sort is naturally exposed to potential abuses.  The McCarran-Walter Act of the 50's comes to mind.  But I don't think that means we should completely abandon the idea of an improved vetting process designed to weed out those whose core beliefs are in direct opposition to the Constitution.  We do some level of that ideological testing right now, through background checks and the interview process.  All I'm advocating is going into a little more detail.  

Does anyone in here think we should be letting anyone into this country who believes in Sharia Law?
Click to expand...
This country has never made a religious test a requirement for entry into this country and to do so would probably violate the Constitution.

In addition some facts about Sharia:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/5-facts-you-need-to-know-about-sharia-law_us_5788f567e4b03fc3ee507c01

Sharia is primarily about a personal relationship with God. 
Sharia is an Arabic word that means a path to be followed, commonly a path that leads to water. This image of a road leading to the sustenance needed for life is a powerful one. Faraz Rabbani, an Islamic scholar, explained to the BBC: “The linguistic meaning of Sharia reverberates in its technical usage: just as water is vital to human life, so the clarity and uprightness of Sharia is the means of life for souls and minds.”
Sharia is drawn from two main sources ― the Quran, Islam’s holy book, and the Sunnah, or the example set by the Prophet Muhammad. It encompasses both a personal moral code and a general religious law that can influence the legal systems of Muslim-majority countries. It’s also a living body of law ― it developed over the centuries and is still being examined with fresh eyes by Muslim scholars and believers today.
Many religions have legal codes that offer ethical and moral guidelines for practitioners of the faith ― from the canon law of the Catholic Church to Jewish religious rules and practices, called Halakhah (which, like Sharia, also means “the path that one walks.”) And just as opinions about these laws vary greatly within each of these traditions, Muslims around the world fall on a vast spectrum when it comes to how to interpret Sharia. 
Asking a Muslim to stop believing in Sharia is like asking her to stop practicing her religion. It is a blatant attack on religious liberty.
Much like Jewish Halakhah, which can influence everything from a person’s diet to the clothes they wear, Sharia is a set of laws that covers all aspects of a Muslim’s life, imbuing even mundane acts with a touch of divine significance. 
According to the American Muslim scholar Imam Suhaib Webb, there are five main things that Sharia law aims to preserve: Life, learning, family, property, and honor.  From these main goals come laws about things like marriage, eating, worship, financial transactions, and many other essential aspects of living in a community.  
 
Slapdash said:
Doesn't sound like Mr. Constitution has any idea what is in the first Amendment.  Nobody should be surprised. 
Click to expand...
Free speech protects an American citizen from being arrested by the Government.  It doesn't afford a free pass to immigrants applying for entry into the United States.  My God you are having a brutal night in here.  :lmao:   Go to bed and give it a rest.  Tomorrow is a new day.   :thumbup:

 
Higgs said:
Free speech protects an American citizen from being arrested by the Government.  It doesn't afford a free pass to immigrants applying for entry into the United States.  My God you are having a brutal night in here.  :lmao:   Go to bed and give it a rest.  Tomorrow is a new day.   :thumbup:
Click to expand...
:lmao:

 
squistion said:
This country has never made a religious test a requirement for entry into this country and to do so would probably violate the Constitution.

In addition some facts about Sharia:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/5-facts-you-need-to-know-about-sharia-law_us_5788f567e4b03fc3ee507c01

Sharia is primarily about a personal relationship with God. 
Sharia is an Arabic word that means a path to be followed, commonly a path that leads to water. This image of a road leading to the sustenance needed for life is a powerful one. Faraz Rabbani, an Islamic scholar, explained to the BBC: “The linguistic meaning of Sharia reverberates in its technical usage: just as water is vital to human life, so the clarity and uprightness of Sharia is the means of life for souls and minds.”
Sharia is drawn from two main sources ― the Quran, Islam’s holy book, and the Sunnah, or the example set by the Prophet Muhammad. It encompasses both a personal moral code and a general religious law that can influence the legal systems of Muslim-majority countries. It’s also a living body of law ― it developed over the centuries and is still being examined with fresh eyes by Muslim scholars and believers today.
Many religions have legal codes that offer ethical and moral guidelines for practitioners of the faith ― from the canon law of the Catholic Church to Jewish religious rules and practices, called Halakhah (which, like Sharia, also means “the path that one walks.”) And just as opinions about these laws vary greatly within each of these traditions, Muslims around the world fall on a vast spectrum when it comes to how to interpret Sharia. 
Asking a Muslim to stop believing in Sharia is like asking her to stop practicing her religion. It is a blatant attack on religious liberty.
Much like Jewish Halakhah, which can influence everything from a person’s diet to the clothes they wear, Sharia is a set of laws that covers all aspects of a Muslim’s life, imbuing even mundane acts with a touch of divine significance. 
According to the American Muslim scholar Imam Suhaib Webb, there are five main things that Sharia law aims to preserve: Life, learning, family, property, and honor.  From these main goals come laws about things like marriage, eating, worship, financial transactions, and many other essential aspects of living in a community.  
Click to expand...
Let's simplify things - would you let someone into this country who believes that the punishment for women committing adultery is death?  How about a belief that homosexuals should be put to death as well?  You're ok letting someone into the country with those beliefs?  Yes or no?

 
Higgs said:
Free speech protects an American citizen from being arrested by the Government.  It doesn't afford a free pass to immigrants applying for entry into the United States.  My God you are having a brutal night in here.  :lmao:   Go to bed and give it a rest.  Tomorrow is a new day.   :thumbup:
Click to expand...
You really have no idea what the 1st amendment protects.  

I'm having a fine night.  A little worried that our idiot president has started some trouble, but it is easier when I can help expose such an ignorant bigot

 
Slapdash said:
You really have no idea what the 1st amendment protects.  

I'm having a fine night.  A little worried that our idiot president has started some trouble, but it is easier when I can help expose such an ignorant bigot
Click to expand...
:lol:

Hey RBM - DRINK!  :banned:

 
Higgs said:
18 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

Doesn't sound like Mr. Constitution has any idea what is in the first Amendment.  Nobody should be surprised
Click to expand...
Free speech protects an American citizen from being arrested by the Government.  It doesn't afford a free pass to immigrants applying for entry into the United States.  My God you are having a brutal night in here.  Go to bed and give it a rest.  Tomorrow is a new day.  
Click to expand...
Nice deflection.

This is not a free speech first Amendment issue, it has to do with freedom of religion, which is also covered under that same amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Higgs said:
Said the guy who didn't use a period.   :lmao:

My God you are so rattled right now.  Hit the sack Slappy.
Click to expand...
Eh, I'm certainly not a stickler for grammar myself.   Periods at the end of a single statement are optional in my book.  That said, you made two grammar errors in your post.  Maybe you should stop calling others out as a pitiful deflection tactic.

 
No, the Constitution Does Not Bar ‘Religious Tests’ in Immigration Law

Properly vetting would-be immigrants’ religious beliefs is not only legal — it would be wise and prudent. 

Of all the ignorant pronouncements in the 2016 presidential campaign, the dumbest may be that the Constitution forbids a “religious test” in the vetting of immigrants. Monotonously repeated in political speeches and talking-head blather, this claim is heedless of the Islamic doctrinal roots on which foreign-born Islamists and the jihadists they breed base their anti-Americanism. It is also dead wrong.

The clause said to be the source of this drivel is found in Article VI. As you’ll no doubt be shocked to learn, it has utterly nothing to do with immigration. The clause states, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (emphasis added). On its face, the provision is not only inapplicable to immigrants at large, let alone aliens who would like to be immigrants; it does not even apply to the general public. It is strictly limited to public officials — specifically to their fitness to serve in government positions.

This is equally clear from the clause’s context. Right before the “no religious Test” directive, Article VI decrees that elected and appointed officials “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution[.]” An oath of office customarily requires the official to “solemnly swear” that he or she will support and defend the Constitution, “so help me God.” (See, e.g., the oath prescribed by federal law.) The Framers tacked on the “no religious test” clause to clarify that the mandate of a solemn oath before taking office did not mean fidelity to a particular religious creed was required. The same principle informs the First Amendment’s prohibition on the establishment of a state religion.

This is as it should be. The Constitution prescribes very few qualifications for even the highest offices because its purpose is to promote liberty, which vitally includes the freedom to elect whomever we choose, to vote our own private consciences. The principal check on public officials is the ballot box, not the law’s minimalist requirements.

As voters, we have the right to weigh a candidate’s religious beliefs as a significant part of the total package. We have done so from the Republic’s founding — and to this day, virtually all candidates take pains to wear their faith, however nominal, on their sleeves. When the loathsome Jeremiah Wright fleetingly became an issue in the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama did not thunder, “Under the Constitution, you must not inquire into my religious beliefs!” He threw the Rev under the bus. When it comes to choosing those who will represent us, we do not limit ourselves by intrusive laws, but we reserve the right to bring to bear any consideration, including religion, that we deem relevant.

What works in the narrow context of qualification for public office does not extend to other aspects of governance — in particular, security.

As we have previously observed, it is specious to claim that the Constitution forbids a religion test in matters of immigration. This is not merely because the Constitution has nothing to say on the matter (for, as we’ve also noted before, the original presumption was that immigration enforcement would be left to the states, with the federal government limited to prescribing the qualifications for citizenship). It is also because Congress has long expressly made inquiry into religion part of immigration law, specifically, in determining what aliens qualify as “refugees,” and whether aliens qualify for asylum.

Unlike the process of scrutinizing and choosing public officials, the public does not get to vet and elect aliens who wish to enter our country. We rely on government officials to do that. It is thus entirely appropriate that intrusive regulations be imposed to limit their discretion. As abominable as the concept may be to transnational progressives, the sovereign in the United States is still “We the People.” And just as we have a right to consider the religious convictions of candidates for public office, so too do we have a right to require scrutiny of the beliefs of aliens who petition for entry into our country — a privilege we are under no obligation to confer. This includes beliefs the alien may regard as tenets of his faith — especially if such “faith tenets” involve matters of law, governance, economy, combat, and interpersonal relations that, in our culture’s separation of church and state, are not seen as spiritual.

The necessity of examining these principles is driven by Islam. The political class and other opinion elites have campaigned tirelessly, and in collusion with cagey Islamists, to idealize Islam, to portray it as part of the American fundament. Out of intellectual sloth and political correctness, we fail to discern that there is no single, definitive Islam — there is, rather, a wide spectrum of Muslim sects, some of which are deeply spiritual, others just totalitarian political ideologies fueled by religious fervor.

We further fail to acknowledge that Islam is alien to the West. President Obama likes to claim Islam has always been part of our history; he conveniently omits that it is a history fraught with hostility: Barbary corsairs were preying upon American merchant ships in the Mediterranean decades before the American Revolution. And while Western societies are based on tolerance and pluralism, modern Islam’s most influential iterations are intolerant conquest creeds that rigorously resist assimilation. Islamist leaders exhort Muslims to integrate into the West but oppose our culture and plant the flag of sharia. Before our eyes, the practice of this “voluntary apartheid” strategy is tearing Europe asunder.

Of course, the fact that the Constitution does not forbid a religious test for immigration does not mean the imposition of one would be prudent policy. We have Muslim friends and allies who embrace the West; who reject fundamentalist sharia-supremacism, resist Islamists, and help us fight jihadists. It would be costly to adopt a policy that slams our doors on them.

Neither, however, can we remain willfully blind to the fact — and it is a fact — that as Muslim populations grow in Western societies, sharia supremacism and the formation of insular communities where jihadism flourishes grow with them. At the moment, France is under jihadist siege, with parts of the country teetering on the brink of violent upheaval. The difference between France and the United States lies not in the kinds of Islam practiced but the size of the Muslim population. France is a country of 66 million, and thanks to its policies of open-borders and indifference to assimilation, Muslims are now 10 percent (perhaps more) of the total population. We, with a total population five times the size, have only half the number of Muslims — about 3 million, roughly 1 percent of our population.

As Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) points out, though, President Obama has orchestrated a dramatic increase in Muslim immigration to the U.S. In just the first five years of his administration, a staggering 680,000 green cards were issued to migrants from Muslim majority countries, a pace that continues — and will continue absent a change in policy. This, Senator Sessions hastens to add, does not include other would-be immigrants, such as the thousands of refugees Obama (and Hillary Clinton, should she succeed him) plan to admit from Syria and other jihadist hot spots.

Is it a coincidence that violent jihadist attacks have increased in our country as the Muslim population has climbed?

Promotion of assimilation and fidelity to the Constitution have been historical bedrocks of immigration policy. Indeed, before immigrants are naturalized as citizens, they must swear what is pointedly called an “oath of allegiance.” It calls on them to renounce any foreign sovereigns by whom they have been ruled, and to honor our Constitution — principles that are inimical to sharia supremacism. We should resist a categorical ban on Muslim immigration; but nothing in the Constitution prohibits the commonsense vetting of immigrants for beliefs that are antithetical to our principles, regardless of whether the immigrant perceives such beliefs as religious or political in nature.

We should welcome immigrants who embrace our principles, seek to assimilate into our society, and are value-added for — rather than a strain on — our economy. But if, in an era of jihadist violence, we cannot seriously vet immigrants to determine whether they fit this bill, it would be better to have a categorical ban. And if, based on an illiterate construction of the Constitution, the political class insists that its fictional “no religious test” rule forbids not only a categorical ban but the heightened scrutiny of Muslim aliens, it would be better to prohibit immigration across the board.

The United States government’s first obligation is to shield the American people from foreign threats, not to shield foreign threats and render the American people defenseless.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
This country has never made a religious test a requirement for entry into this country and to do so would probably violate the Constitution.

In addition some facts about Sharia:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/5-facts-you-need-to-know-about-sharia-law_us_5788f567e4b03fc3ee507c01

Sharia is primarily about a personal relationship with God. 
Sharia is an Arabic word that means a path to be followed, commonly a path that leads to water. This image of a road leading to the sustenance needed for life is a powerful one. Faraz Rabbani, an Islamic scholar, explained to the BBC: “The linguistic meaning of Sharia reverberates in its technical usage: just as water is vital to human life, so the clarity and uprightness of Sharia is the means of life for souls and minds.”
Sharia is drawn from two main sources ― the Quran, Islam’s holy book, and the Sunnah, or the example set by the Prophet Muhammad. It encompasses both a personal moral code and a general religious law that can influence the legal systems of Muslim-majority countries. It’s also a living body of law ― it developed over the centuries and is still being examined with fresh eyes by Muslim scholars and believers today.
Many religions have legal codes that offer ethical and moral guidelines for practitioners of the faith ― from the canon law of the Catholic Church to Jewish religious rules and practices, called Halakhah (which, like Sharia, also means “the path that one walks.”) And just as opinions about these laws vary greatly within each of these traditions, Muslims around the world fall on a vast spectrum when it comes to how to interpret Sharia. 
Asking a Muslim to stop believing in Sharia is like asking her to stop practicing her religion. It is a blatant attack on religious liberty.
Much like Jewish Halakhah, which can influence everything from a person’s diet to the clothes they wear, Sharia is a set of laws that covers all aspects of a Muslim’s life, imbuing even mundane acts with a touch of divine significance. 
According to the American Muslim scholar Imam Suhaib Webb, there are five main things that Sharia law aims to preserve: Life, learning, family, property, and honor.  From these main goals come laws about things like marriage, eating, worship, financial transactions, and many other essential aspects of living in a community.  
Click to expand...
Who would have guessed you would be a sharia law apologist . 

 
Homer J Simpson said:
I do have to say though, that it really does bug the #### out of me when liberals defend even the sh#tty aspects of Islam. It's ok to dislike Islam but still stand up for the rights of Muslim people.
Click to expand...
When a group of people take rights away from even their own they have forfieted their own rights

 
HellToupee said:
Who would have guessed you would be a sharia law apologist . 
Click to expand...
I would of (Brando) laid ten-to-one on this sad sack defending the free exercise of a doctrine that allows for no free exercise.

You can't make it up, so squistion has to actually write it down. From an authority no less than a (swoon!) HuffPo blogger to give it the imprimatur of weight.

 
wikkidpissah said:
 I was mildly astounded to watch a world free to believe what it wanted choose to believe in nothing - unless bodyart & artisan food, Fox News & Clown Posses, Roll Tide & frikkin Patriots, games & memes are belief systems - but flabbergasted that i miss private, personal devotion and peer, parish pressure's regulation of behavior & care.
Click to expand...
I'm mildly astounded by this sentiment, but agree with and appreciate the full comment. I'm surprised by the surprise because those that had their fingers on the pulse of commercial and artistic endeavors damn straight announced it or diagnosed it in no uncertain terms.

 
Homer J Simpson said:
I do have to say though, that it really does bug the #### out of me when liberals defend even the sh#tty aspects of Islam. It's ok to dislike Islam but still stand up for the rights of Muslim people.
Click to expand...
You would think all of that would be obvious, but no matter how powerful and moral the arguments contra Sharia law are, the religious "zealots" of the homegrown Christian persuasion are not to be given an inch by the multi-cultural, relativistic left, a religion all neatly its own (but without God! Or hope and redemption!)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Slapdash said:
Eh, I'm certainly not a stickler for grammar myself.   Periods at the end of a single statement are optional in my book.  That said, you made two grammar errors in your post.  Maybe you should stop calling others out as a pitiful deflection tactic.
Click to expand...
Actually, he made three errors. Aside from the missing commas in the second two sentences, the first sentence is a fragment. I'm guessing that's what the emoticon is laughing at, but considering it never stops laughing to explain itself, that's really just an assumption. 

 
rockaction said:
You would think all of that would be obvious, but no matter how powerful and moral the arguments contra Sharia law are, the religious "zealots" of the homegrown Christian persuasion are not to be given an inch by the multi-cultural, relativistic left, a religion all neatly its own (but without God! Or hope and redemption!)
Click to expand...
OK

 
Homer J Simpson said:
OK
Click to expand...
And those of us secular humanists that side with the Christians because of the utter barbarism of these state-sanctioned religious practices.

We are truly blessed by men with foresight in their principles and axioms about political science, if not always the extension of those rights to the weaker among us.

 
rockaction said:
I'm mildly astounded by this sentiment, but agree with and appreciate the full comment. I'm surprised by the surprise because those that had their fingers on the pulse of commercial and artistic endeavors damn straight announced it or diagnosed it in no uncertain terms.
Click to expand...
i appreciate your appreciation  - since we're generally not inclined to agree - but i dont understand the 2nd,"fingers on the pulse" part and would like to. plz expand - 

 
Higgs said:
And, right on cue - looks to be another radical Islamic terrorist attack in Sweden today.  I wonder if the perpetrator was from one of those no-go zones that Squidward said didn't exist.  http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/europe/stockholm-truck-crash/index.html
Click to expand...
The existence of no-go zones in Sweden has been debunked and I am not going to provide the links again, as you will continue to just parrot the same discredited meme as you once again have done here. And an isolated incident of an Australian 60 Minutes crew being attacked by a some thugs while filming, where there were no serious injuries (to even require medical attention) does not constitute proof of a no-go zone.

 
squistion said:
The existence of no-go zones in Sweden has been debunked and I am not going to provide the links again, as you will continue to just parrot the same discredited meme as you once again have done here. And an isolated incident of an Australian 60 Minutes crew being attacked by a some thugs while filming, where there were no serious injuries (to even require medical attention) does not constitute proof of a no-go zone.
Click to expand...
:lmao:  From the 60 minutes video: "There are now 55 declared no-go zones in Sweden".  https://youtu.be/y8OY_KUNqQ4

 
Higgs said:
Right, why listen to right wing 60 Minutes.  How about a Swedish newspaper?  

https://www.svd.se/55-no-go-zoner-i-sverige
Click to expand...
A right wing Swedish newspaper is not very authoritative (plus I would like to see a translation as I don't speak/read Swedish to see exactly what they are claiming).

And I can provide you links of newspaper/internet sources from here that have claimed there are "no go" zones in this country (of which there is no truth).

And the 60 Minutes Australian show has made factual errors before, so don't believe just because 60 Minutes says it, that means it is true:

http://www.mamamia.com.au/60-minutes-australia-made-mistakes/

Nine admits 60 Minutes crew ‘made mistakes’ during kidnapping saga.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
wikkidpissah said:
i appreciate your appreciation  - since we're generally not inclined to agree - but i dont understand the 2nd,"fingers on the pulse" part and would like to. plz expand - 
Click to expand...
I think it goes back to the 19th century in European history with Nietzsche's diagnosis of the consumerist without culture, or the "men without chests" and the rise of bourgeois nihilism. 

de Tocqueville and Adam Smith warned against simple machinations of work and productivity, arguing we would get virtueless men and women if we did exactly what we do.  

I think it goes back even longer in American history with warnings by Emerson, pre-dated by the anti-federalists, who wanted smaller, more agrarian-like cultures with pockets of virtue governance vs. the sprawling consumerist goals of the federalists. 

I see also the modern rock stars of the sixties along with advertisers having their pulse on youth culture, e.g., "we're bigger than the Beatles," and generally all of Madison Aenue co-opting the cool as it were and turning it into consumerism.   

William F. Buckley once wrote a famous article that simply reprinted the words to "Nothing" by John Lennon and pointed out some interesting stuff. 

More recently, there's been a lot of work done about social capital and its decline, i.e., civic groups, church groups, community associations, things like that. "Bowling Alone" comes to mind, though I did not read it.  

So people have been saying this for a long time, it's just that very few people were conscious of it or listening. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
I think it goes back to the 19th century in European history with Nietzsche's diagnosis of the consumerist without culture, or the "men without chests" and the rise of bourgeois nihilism. 

de Tocqueville and Adam Smith warned against simple machinations of work and productivity, arguing we would get virtueless men and women if we did exactly what we do.  

I think it goes back even longer in American history with warnings by Emerson, pre-dated by the anti-federalists, who wanted a smaller, more agrarian-like cultures with pockets of virtue governance vs. the sprawling consumerist goals of the federalists. 

I see also the modern rock stars of the sixties along with advertisers having their pulse on youth culture, e.g., "we're bigger than the Beatles," and generally all of Madison Aenue co-opting the cool as it were and turning it into consumerism.   

William F. Buckley once wrote a famous article that simply reprinted the words to "Nothing" by John Lennon and pointed out some interesting stuff. 

More recently, there's been a lot of work done about social capital and its decline, i.e., civic groups, church groups, community associations, things like that. "Bowling Alone" comes to mind, though I did not read it.  

So people have been saying this for a long time, it's just that very few people were conscious of it or listening. 
Click to expand...
Gotcha, somewhat.

Before i took my hiatus from FFA in the spring of '13, i was on quite a bit about our societal problems being rooted in having offered personal freedom to such a great portion of our population - women, non-whites, alternative lifestylers - while simultaneously disposing of, ignoring or revolutionizing three of the four pillars of society - family, parish, community, state - by which we kept the order. The math on that just dont work and I think we're seeing a lot of it coming home to roost.

I'll check out this "Bowling Alone" and if you got stuff of more recency and a minimum of tubthumping, i'll be interested to look at it. I was out of the loop for a long time in order to work on a project, and the Monkeypoop Olympics of our last political season keeps me from joining the fray. I'm a card-carrying, pinkass, Eskimo Sexcommie, but i'm so far left i'm right on a lot of things, so let thought fly. You start pimpin, tho, you'll hope i evaporate.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
FBG Parents: Is There A Growing Post-Pandemic Youth Mental Health Crisis ? (10/30)
Replies
21
Views
3K
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Pip's Invitation
The Next 100 Songs from 1975, aka Sanbornpalooza. #1: Black Friday
9 10 11
Replies
527
Views
33K
Pip's Invitation
Pip's Invitation
Sullie
PSA - Get a flu shot!
2
Replies
75
Views
5K
Sullie
Sullie

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top