H. Res. 569 Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards American Muslims

a reply to: nullafides

Why a "resolution" to protect one religion that actually their laws goes against the American constitution?

Really, who are they pandering too, the obvious more terrorist attacks that will be heading American citizens side here in the US?, is this a preparation for what will become a wave of anti Islam in the US because terrorist would no stay away from killing American citizens?, so in the way of protecting Muslim and Islamic followers terrorist will be protected too.

The ramifications of stupid laws that actually end protecting criminals and no their victims.

Give it to the deep pockets in Washington that now are influencing this year political campaigns with foreign benefactors from the middle east.

In their books Americans and America deserve terrorist attacks, and terrorist have rights.

Better get the names behind this bill and then follow the money trail, can any of you imagine if Islam gets into our politics?

a reply to: marg6043

I would venture there is a high probability that the purpose behind it.

a reply to: roadgravel


Rep. Beyer, Donald S., had time to go and visit a Mosque to show how much he love Islam but didn't had the dignity to go and visit the victims of San Bernardino massacre, no even a gesture of a prayer for them.

He is a disgrace.

Rep. Beyer Leads Show of Force For Inclusion at F.C. Mosque

U.S. Rep. Donald S. Beyer Jr. led a large delegation of regional elected officials to participate in noon prayers at the Dar Al-Hijrah mosque on Route 7 in Falls Church Friday.

Under the leadership of Imam Johari Abdulmalik, the noon sermon and prayers known as Jumu’ah was also attended by U.S. Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton of D.C. and U.S. Rep-. Betty McCollum of Minnesota along with Virginia State Representatives Barbara Favola, Alfonso Lopez, Scott Surovell, Mark Keam, Kaye Kory, Marcus Simon and Kathleen Murphy.

fcnp.com...

Political rats like this will sell American to terrorist.

a reply to: nullafides

So what you are saying is that freedom of Speech is eclipsing their freedom of Religion?

Or Freedom of speech is bashing bigoted hate speech if it is directed towards Islam?

I think being rhetorical is asking a question that you know the answer to or making a statement solely for an effect so, if I say something that is the true it is not rhetoric correct? It kind of puts me at odds with that resolution. a reply to: nullafides

a reply to: nullafides

You mean like the hateful actions of the guy who lit the TX Mosque on fire?

a reply to: marg6043

Why would he go to San Bernardino? He represents a district in the Commonwealth of Virginia, not in California, let alone the District that encompasses San Bernardino. Shouldn't you be making a stink about the Representative for the correct district? The rep., whether you agree with him or not, went to a Mosque in his own district. Muslims from his district vote too. You're creating a boogeyman out of a strawman. good job.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: nullafides

You mean like the hateful actions of the guy who lit the TX Mosque on fire?

Umm. Yeah. And ?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: nullafides

So what you are saying is that freedom of Speech is eclipsing their freedom of Religion?

Or Freedom of speech is bashing bigoted hate speech if it is directed towards Islam?

Somehow, you seem to think I am in favor of this resolution.

Again, I'd like to cordially invite you to go the link I posted...and read it for yourself.

And then re-read what I said.

a reply to: nullafides

the guy in Texas who lit the mosque on fire was a member of the mosque.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: nullafides

Why a "resolution" to protect one religion that actually their laws goes against the American constitution?

Nobody is being protected from anything. This resolution does nothing more than pay lip service towards an ideal presented by a group of congressman. It's non binding and has no legal authority whatsoever. Did you read the actual house.gov page or are you just going defcon 1 based on confirmation bias?

Really, who are they pandering too, the obvious more terrorist attacks that will be heading American citizens side here in the US?,

I'm sorry, could you say that again in English so that I can better grasp your intended meaning? Other than the query regarding pandering, the rest of it makes no sense grammatically.

is this a preparation for what will become a wave of anti Islam in the US because terrorist would no stay away from killing American citizens?, so in the way of protecting Muslim and Islamic followers terrorist will be protected too.

It's nothing at all. The entire line of rhetoric sounds a little paranoid. When 93 people have been killed by terrorist attacks on US soil since 2001(with just over 1/3 of them by Muslims) whereas over 150,000 died from the Flu alone in just 2013.

The ramifications of stupid laws that actually end protecting criminals and no their victims.

It's not a law and protects neither one class over another. At its worst, this is a massive waste of time and space in an already congested legislative session.

Give it to the deep pockets in Washington that now are influencing this year political campaigns with foreign benefactors from the middle east.

In their books Americans and America deserve terrorist attacks,

and terrorist have rights.

And on the flip side, we're using $2 Billion dollar planes to blow up $100 tents. If people had a better sense of history and what we have done to the Middle East since installing the Shah back upon the Throne of Iran, they might better grasp that sometime you reap what you sow.

Better get the names behind this bill and then follow the money trail, can any of you imagine if Islam gets into our politics?

It would turn out about as well as allowing dominionist Christians into office or into the 2016 presidential race *cough* ted cruz *cough*

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: nullafides

the guy in Texas who lit the mosque on fire was a member of the mosque.

Yes....and?

You pal, just want to argue for the sake of arguing. Down to the point where you saw a topic you don't like, feel it goes against your own religion...and didn't bother reading. Didn't bother realizing what my intent was.

Now, if you cannot figure it out, fine.

But, I'm not arguing over something so silly.

a reply to: nullafides
the article said that it was to go after those who would do these act against Muslims yet it was a Muslim doing it.

so now what.

It turns out there are few cases of this where members and imams are the one doing the graffiti on their own Mosque i.e. Corona Mosque, drawing attention of the MSM ginning up the Islamaphobic atmosphere.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

What can you expect, Islamic terrorist massacre people in San Bernardino, people start to get angry against Muslim so they have to divert attention way from the fact that Islam kills.

a reply to: marg6043

Christians never kill? I was the only atheist in my entire battalion. I had 2 Muslim translators, a Muslim medic, a couple of Jews and a few hundred Christians and we all had one job, walk out the back bay of a C-130A and kill any enemy we came in contact with per ROE. This was all under GHW Bush as my CIC. Guys who were already serving during 9/11 and those who enlisted after had the pleasure of serving a CIC who claimed the voices from god guided him in the early days of the war as well as pointed him towards Iraq. Under the guidance of a devout Christian being guided by god, our military slaughtered 100's of 1000's of innocent Iraqis. But they were Muslims so I guess it didn't count right?

a reply to: nullafides

But it infuriates me that our elected officials are doing this kind of money and time wasting crap instead of something that could truly help Americans....

They've already ruined everything for us they just need to look busy while pandering for votes.

Its about time for them to do whats right instead of just what get votes.

I wonder if the Muslims will be able to just make the claim, that someone offended them, for the law to take action. This would be very useful to anyone who held a grudge against another.

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
I wonder if the Muslims will be able to just make the claim, that someone offended them, for the law to take action. This would be very useful to anyone who held a grude against another.

Again, this is NOT a law.....

originally posted by: nullafides

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
I wonder if the Muslims will be able to just make the claim, that someone offended them, for the law to take action. This would be very useful to anyone who held a grude against another.

Again, this is NOT a law.....

Not yet.

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

All this is, is a resolution paying lip service to a cause du jour. it's the equivalent of a city proclaiming February 12th to be(insert name of random celebrity) day while giving them a key to the city and having a party. Only this doesn't get a key or a party. It's a non binding resolution. And nobody would attempt to make this a law, it violates the 1st and 14th amendments. Anyone thinking this means a damned thing is way too paranoid.