Why do Muslim women only go left?

No … he's a poor cook.

 

OK, now that we are into this sexism matter, I'll ask: Which religion on planet Earth is known for not being sexist?

 

Why are you asking? You think we have some kind of competition going on? It has already been pointed out that the sexist attitude displayed in 6-eyeds jokes is just as typical for conservative christians. This too doesn't make Sharia law or islamic attitude towards women less sexist. Societal progression can make islamic societies less sexist, same happened in western christian societies. It even made a significant amount of religious citizens less sexist.

 

I like and agree. Sexism is everywhere, and so is racism. I do want to use this opportunity to say Europe is in my own opinion is the most civilized, most liberal, and offers the most equality for women. The United States has yet to pass a meaningful equal pay law to protect women. I'm assuming that women in the US military do get equal pay, according to rank. However, I do read regularly that many suffer sexual abuse during service. Similarly, other minority groups seem to fair better in Europe. Muslims get much better pay in Europe, as opposed to America. Here even if a Muslim has a master's degree, they still expect him to work at a McDonald's so other stupid menial job, instead of his field of expertise. Teaching jobs are great in New York and California, but in places like Republican controlled Indiana the pay stinks. I know people who held teaching jobs in Dubai and Bahrain and got ten times the salary they were offered in the USA. In America the good jobs go to white men first.

 

I disagree with you. Nobody is entitled to free income. You are entitled to earn your income. You are not entitled to someone else's. They are, however, entitled to give you whatever they want (not what YOU want) of their income, but you are still not entitled to it, or to the product of anyone else's labors. Involuntary servitude is forbidden under our laws.

 

The thing is: in the current system involuntary servitude applies sooner to people on benefits who have to comply to certain obligations in order to get by, than on the people who get by and pay taxes (of which some may go to the lesser fortunate. Who still are not getting it for free).

I agree citizens are not entitled to free money without anything in return under the current system. But I'm not sure how many people here think differently. It appears not many people think free really means free
Under a different system being entitled to a basic income regardless of employment could be normal. But then too it would not be literally free.

 

Your right wing extremist fantasy don't hold water. Congress has THE POWER to tax you. Your position is identical to that of the Confederates after they lost the Civil War. That was when they claimed the 16th Amendment wasn't ratified, because the Confederate members of Congress did not vote. The matter went to the Supreme Court and has been resolved. Congress has the power to tax you, and can take your property under imminent domain law, and can take your guns and pickup trucks too.

 

I don't see what is extremist about the stance that nobody is entitled to free income. Or do you call another idea of him a right wing extremist fantasy? Can you clarify?

How is this identical to Varmint s view exactly? I sincerely don't see it.

How does this relate to the topic of being entitled to 'free' income exactly?

 

The above statements evinces an extreme ignorance of history. The Civil War happened nearly 50 years before the 16th Amendment was illegally ratified in open defiance (or ignorance) of all three taxing clauses of our Constitution. It was done as a necessity to support the communist-inspired central banking system which became known as the (non)Federal Reserve Bank. Under it's original form, the citizens didn't have any obligation to pay income taxes. Only businesses and commercial enterprises had to pay. Private citizens didn't have to start paying until WWII, and the president at that time told everyone live on radio broadcast that it would only last for two years due to the war effort, after which time it would revert back to it's original and proper form.

As to "imminent domain" laws: Property may not be seized without due process and just compensation. That is still law under our Constitution, and it's still valid under most laws. The problems arise when someone decides to re-define the law and it's requirements to justify taking "anything we want, for whatever reason we want". The solution to this is terse, if not altogether brutal, but very effective. You might have read about the last time this remedy was employed in your history books if you grew up here in the USA. Not something we really want to do, as long as we can bear the injustice, but anything can happen when government turns from benevolent to malevolent.

 

See here, if allowed: HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT
If not, do a google search yourself. You'll find a lot if you actually pay attention to what you're reading.
And with that, I'm done. I see no further reason to hijack the op's thread. Start another, if you wish, and feel free to let me know if you do.

 

That's what I thought you would say. It sounds like you never heard of the Necessary and Proper clause of OUR Constitution.

 

I feel that your words have given me great strength

 

Yes, I can clarify my statement. The claim in his (V armint) premise is that no one is entitled to free income. That statement is ridiculous, because nearly the entire world gives free income to many classes and facets of their population. The royal families of Europe give their aristocratic brethren all sorts of cash. The oil rich nations in the Middle East give free monthly income to their citizens. The State of Alaska gives free income annually. The city of Stockton California gives $500 each month to the locals. Canada has free income they call Old Age Pension. America has free income called Social Security. Iraq has Taqaud which is similar to old age pension. At each university in America, students get Pell Grants which amount to free income, because they don't have to be paid back. I am amazed by the number of people who do not think before they contend.

 

same thing happened in Canada but it was WW1 and with the same promise. Looks like your government took note.

 

Old age pension in Canada is not free, We pay for the pension plan. You really have no clue. I suppose you think our healthcare is free too.

if self-employed, you pay the full 10.2%. Your contributions are based on your net business income. It is not something you are entitled to if you move here in old age, Sorry to break the news to you.

everything you say is extremely off base. I do not know where you get your info from but you really need a new source.

 

There is the real world and then there is storms world.

 

Doubletake

What?

Radio broadcasts during WWII

Lolz, what are you like 100?

 

it is something people mostly learned from their parents, or grandparents and was something that really irked them. So you hear these things or you learn in whe; you learn about the history In Your country. Australia had this happen too in 1915 a fed tax was imposed for the war effort which was suppose to go away after

 

I have a weird fascination with war history including WW2