put away those skull caps, scarfs and crosses people
looks like berlin is following suit after the french began banning "religious symbols". only instead of banning them for students, in berlin, it's the public sector employees facing the ban. quite frankly, if this were tried here in the us, the hand wringers would be up in arms over the apparent abridgement of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and the rest of us would be saying: right on. keep 'em seperate folks.
posted by bothenook at 01:37
3 Comments:
i've been doing so with a reason. you will note that i often include the french as well. now why would that be? could it possibly be because the democratice PRETENDER for the presidency has continuously remarked that we should be following the lead of "the french and the germans"? although he has toned that down tremendously since after the primaries, because now he's talking to an audience of more than just true believers. glad you finally figured it out. "old europe" has been held up as this paragon of elan and civility, and i'm lifting the skirts a little to show the dirty feet below the ball gowns. these are the folks that kerry has on many occasions courted favor from. that's all.
ah dwardo, once again sweeping right through the point on to grand fallicies... the point, once again, is to continue pounding on the leadership of the dems almost pathological need to emulate the "nobility and social acumen" of the old europeans. that was a quote of kerry's i heard on that dratted NPR one night. you see, you have a blindness that is common, one that comes from seeing the big ball of fire talking without looking behind the curtain to see who and what is running your political party.
(this ought to be good) your turn
and i quote:
"especially : of or constituting a political party associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives."
i'm afraid that even the "liberals" in this country didn't read that definition. since the beginning of "liberalism" as a political force, the economic freedom espoused by the liberals is to free the general public of any need to worry about their economy, because we are going to take it all away for programs "we" feel are for the good of the people, regardless of how small a slice of the total that may be. and the greatest driving force in the "liberal" world is to not only get the active participation in the government by making huge swaths of the populace dependent on government programs, but they insure the rest of our participation by garnishing our wages "for the good of ...."
so how does the modern liberal movement satisfy those definitions that you so graciously posted as a means of educating me? or is this typical of the left, sqawk out one side of the mouth to distract the easily swayed, and bark out the other passing laws to keep the rest of us in line? smoke and mirrors, friend, smoke and mirrors.
Post a Comment
<< Home