Congressman: American schools should be modeled after madrassas

[kraychik]

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/07/05/Muslim-Congressman-Wants-American-School-Curriculum-To-Follow-The-Koran

At ICNA-MAS (Islamic Circle of North America/Muslim American Society) 2012: Congressman André Carson advocated the American school system should be modeled after "madrassas" where the foundation is the Koran.

This is the same congressman that lied about the Tea party throwing anti-black racist slurs at the Capitol, and suggested that the Tea Party wants to bring back Jim Crow laws. Apparently, in the minds of socialist Muslim Democrats, fiscal responsibility is now akin to anti-black racism.

[Canuckistani]

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/07/05/Muslim-Congressman-Wants-American-School-Curriculum-To-Follow-The-Koran

At ICNA-MAS (Islamic Circle of North America/Muslim American Society) 2012: Congressman André Carson advocated the American school system should be modeled after "madrassas" where the foundation is the Koran.

This is the same congressman that lied about the Tea party throwing anti-black racist slurs at the Capitol, and suggested that the Tea Party wants to bring back Jim Crow laws. Apparently, in the minds of socialist Muslim Democrats, fiscal responsibility is now akin to anti-black racism.

Another Breitbart delicious serving of Kool-Ade.

Not sure what the underlined part has to do with the title?

Nor how worried I should be about all those socialist Muslim Democrats wreaking havoc in that other country down south. Are there many of them? Do they plan to move in on Canada next? We're already socialist, so we're easy pickings, except we ain't got no Democrats.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Canuckistani

[bush_cheney2004]

...Nor how worried I should be about all those socialist Muslim Democrats wreaking havoc in that other country down south. Are there many of them? Do they plan to move in on Canada next? We're already socialist, so we're easy pickings, except we ain't got no Democrats.

Yes...just like Canadian health care professionals and patients moving "south".

[kraychik]

Another Breitbart delicious serving of Kool-Ade.

Not sure what the underlined part has to do with the title?

Nor how worried I should be about all those socialist Muslim Democrats wreaking havoc in that other country down south. Are there many of them? Do they plan to move in on Canada next? We're already socialist, so we're easy pickings, except we ain't got no Democrats.

Of course you don't understand the relevance of the section you underlined to the thread. The Tea Party is, in simple terms, largely a single-issue movement: they want more economic liberty. Andre Carson lied when he accused the Tea Party at the Capitol of shouting anti-black racist slurs at him him in 2010. This is typical from Democratic politicians and other leftist/socialist/communist elements in American society, which equates fiscal responsibility with racism. It's stupid, it's dumb, it's ridiculous, it's offensive, but it's how the left tends to operate.

[bleeding heart]

Of course you don't understand the relevance of the section you underlined to the thread. The Tea Party is, in simple terms, largely a single-issue movement: they want more economic liberty.

For sure! Remember "Keep your Government hands off my Medicare"?

[kraychik]

For sure! Remember "Keep your Government hands off my Medicare"?

Considering older people in the later stages of their lives have been paying into and planning their lives around the reception of Medicare, that's not an unrealistic demand from seniors. Eventually Medicare will need to be phased out, or greatly reduced. Obama's policies are also going to be destructive to Medicare, considering he is playing a shell-game by shifting costs to the states and proclaiming that the so-called "Affordable Care Act" will reduce the federal deficit over time. Tea Party concerns about the economic destruction wrought by Obama's policies (including his gutting of Medicare) are well-grounded.

[bleeding heart]

Considering older people in the later stages of their lives have been paying into and planning their lives around the reception of Medicare, that's not an unrealistic demand from seniors.

Wishing to keep Medicare is not an unreasonable demand, certainly not.

Believing that it is a non-governmental entity, and the "socialists" are planning to phase it out, is obviously unrealistic...to the point of being delusional on more than one level.

I'm only pointing out that many of the Tea Party "libertarians" are nothing of the sort.

[kraychik]

Wishing to keep Medicare is not an unreasonable demand, certainly not.

Believing that it is a non-governmental entity, and the "socialists" are planning to phase it out, is obviously unrealistic...to the point of being delusional on more than one level.

I'm only pointing out that many of the Tea Party "libertarians" are nothing of the sort.

So Tea Party folks that want reduced government encroachment over the economy are automatically hypocritical if they want the maintenance of Medicare for current seniors? There's a lot of room for advocating more economic liberty in America while still being concerned about cuts to Medicare which many seniors have made central to their retirement plans. There's a lot of space in between puritanical libertarians on the one hand and socialistic policies on the other.

[Argus]

Of course you don't understand the relevance of the section you underlined to the thread. The Tea Party is, in simple terms, largely a single-issue movement: they want more economic liberty.

The Tea Party was begun as a rebellion against the way the rich corporate interests got huge bailouts of taxpayer money. Since most of those involved weren't particularly bright the movement was quickly co-opted by the wealthy, and now angrily lobbies for whatever will benefit the rich at the expense of themselves (yes, they really ARE that stupid). They're unrepentantly religious and believe in literal interpretations of the original US Constitution, not unlike the Taliban, which are also originalists. In fact, the Tea Party and the Taliban have much in common. Most of the Tea Party have a sort of Daniel Boone mythology where they long for the days when people were alone on the frontier with just their trusty musket to take care of all their needs. They're not unlike the Taliban in that respect, who long to bring society back to the seventh century, when Islam was supreme. They're anti-government and anti-society. Their religious beliefs are as close to mainstream Christianity as the Taliban's are of mainstream Islam, which is to say, they really aren't Christians, they just think they are. They're a herd of brainless, mindless angry sheep easily manipulated by the smirking media experts, and spin doctors hired by the likes of the Koch brothers, and their success is sustained by money from the elites and the general political ignorance and malaise of the American people.

[Shady]

Wishing to keep Medicare is not an unreasonable demand, certainly not.

It's very unreasonable to wishing to keep Medicare without any reforms.

[Shady]

The Tea Party was begun as a rebellion against the way the rich corporate interests got huge bailouts of taxpayer money. Since most of those involved weren't particularly bright the movement was quickly co-opted by the wealthy, and now angrily lobbies for whatever will benefit the rich at the expense of themselves (yes, they really ARE that stupid). They're unrepentantly religious and believe in literal interpretations of the original US Constitution, not unlike the Taliban, which are also originalists. In fact, the Tea Party and the Taliban have much in common. Most of the Tea Party have a sort of Daniel Boone mythology where they long for the days when people were alone on the frontier with just their trusty musket to take care of all their needs. They're not unlike the Taliban in that respect, who long to bring society back to the seventh century, when Islam was supreme. They're anti-government and anti-society. Their religious beliefs are as close to mainstream Christianity as the Taliban's are of mainstream Islam, which is to say, they really aren't Christians, they just think they are. They're a herd of brainless, mindless angry sheep easily manipulated by the smirking media experts, and spin doctors hired by the likes of the Koch brothers, and their success is sustained by money from the elites and the general political ignorance and malaise of the American people.

This is a common misconception. The Tea Party is about economic issues, not religous issues. Are there religious people in the Tea Party? Sure, just like in most other groups. But they're focus is on government debt, and government bailouts. It has nothing to do with the so-called Koch brothers, or Bilderburg group, etc.

[bleeding heart]

So Tea Party folks that want reduced government encroachment over the economy are automatically hypocritical if they want the maintenance of Medicare for current seniors?

No. They're ignorant dummies who don't even understand that it is a government program, what they otherwise refer to as--gasp!--an entitlement.

After all, they think the centrist-capitalist in the White House is an extremist socialist...but then, they believe everything they're told by the slightly smarter knuckledragging morons among them.

They admire Glenn Beck. They sigh at the sight of Sarah Palin.

They also pretend to worship at the altar of Ayn Rand...that would be bad enough, what with her nihilistic silliness and her admiration for child-murderers as "real men"....but even funnier, they haven't read Rand, because they read nothing. (Hell, even subtitles connote fruity foreign films, and distract from the esplosions.)

It's all moot anyway; as was widely predicted, what little of the Tea Party was a genuine, principled grassrooots movement has been utterly co-opted by one of the two most powerful political parties on the planet.

They're just Republicans now, and will do as they're told by their "betters."

Edited July 7, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Shady]

No. They're ignorant dummies who don't even understand that it is a government program, what they otherwise refer to as--gasp!--an entitlement.

No, the ignorant dummies are the people who don't understand that the cheif government trustee of Medicare has warned that the program will go bankrupt and collapse upon itself unless serious reforms are undertaken.

[Argus]

This is a common misconception. The Tea Party is about economic issues, not religous issues. Are there religious people in the Tea Party? Sure, just like in most other groups. But they're focus is on government debt, and government bailouts. It has nothing to do with the so-called Koch brothers, or Bilderburg group, etc.

Don't tell me it has nothing to do with the Kochs when they fund have the bloody movement.

And the Tea Party is about supporting economic policies which favour the rich, and NOT THEM. If that isn't a clue as to how dumb they are I don't know what is.

[Argus]

No, the ignorant dummies are the people who don't understand that the cheif government trustee of Medicare has warned that the program will go bankrupt and collapse upon itself unless serious reforms are undertaken.

Public medical care is certainly sustainable. I don't get you people who think it isn't. It's CHEAPER than privately run medical care! There is, in the end, only one payer, and that is the ordinary citizen. His money goes to fund medical services, regardless of whether it's public or private. The difference in private medical care is you have to fund the care, plus huge profits for all involved, so of course, it costs much more. I get that private industry usually is more efficient than government. But that's not the case here. Every study has shown that there is more administrative cost, more red tape, in private medical care than public medical care. And it's inherently inefficient since in order to compete, every hospital has to have every piece of expensive high-tech gear, even if it's only actually operating 20% of the time. I'm not suggesting ours is anywhere close to perfect, but it's not as wasteful of money and resources as the American private medical care system.

If Medicair in the US is in trouble it's simply because the Republicans have starved the federal treasury of cash while implementing tax code changes which allow the wealthy corporations to drastically reduce their taxes.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

Public medical care is certainly sustainable. I don't get you people who think it isn't. It's CHEAPER than privately run medical care!

"Cheaper" isn't always better.

There is, in the end, only one payer, and that is the ordinary citizen. His money goes to fund medical services, regardless of whether it's public or private. The difference in private medical care is you have to fund the care, plus huge profits for all involved, so of course, it costs much more.

Correct...since when is it a crime for medical providers, underwriters, device manufacturers, and pharma to expect to earn a profit? Would you operate a private business as a non-profit, losing millions per year?

I get that private industry usually is more efficient than government. But that's not the case here. Every study has shown that there is more administrative cost, more red tape, in private medical care than public medical care. And it's inherently inefficient since in order to compete, every hospital has to have every piece of expensive high-tech gear, even if it's only actually operating 20% of the time.

Sure...that's why some Canadian provinces have contracts with private American hospitals and clinics to provide services. The highest rated "systems" are a mix of private and publicly funded care (e.g. France).

I'm not suggesting ours is anywhere close to perfect, but it's not as wasteful of money and resources as the American private medical care system.

Agreed...."yours" is way more efficient because of lower costs and longer wait times (i.e. less capacity). It is also the most expensive universal access system in the world.

If Medicair in the US is in trouble it's simply because the Republicans have starved the federal treasury of cash while implementing tax code changes which allow the wealthy corporations to drastically reduce their taxes.

The U.S. has higher constitutional priorities than providing "free" health care for all.

Edited July 7, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Shady]

If Medicair in the US is in trouble it's simply because the Republicans have starved the federal treasury of cash

That's just not true. You obviously haven't read the Medicare Trustees report. I guess you're also unaware of Obama's $500 billion dollar raid on Medicare to use to fund Obamacare.

Also, Medicare is funded by a specific payroll tax that has never been cut by Republicans or anyone for that matter. So no, no so-called starving of any federal treasury.

[Michael Hardner]

Actually the Tea Party has guaranteed Muslim Education with "no state oversight regarding curriculum or educational standards"

link

Of course, to us liberals, this is typically hilarious of the actions of a movement that is often characterized as a dim-witted populist movement with no ideas about the impacts of their actions.

I will start a new thread on this one, as it seems pretty juicy.

[bleeding heart]

It's very unreasonable to wishing to keep Medicare without any reforms.

So you're critical of the Tea Party mouth-breathers? Finally.

[kraychik]

The Tea Party was begun as a rebellion against the way the rich corporate interests got huge bailouts of taxpayer money. Since most of those involved weren't particularly bright the movement was quickly co-opted by the wealthy, and now angrily lobbies for whatever will benefit the rich at the expense of themselves (yes, they really ARE that stupid). They're unrepentantly religious and believe in literal interpretations of the original US Constitution, not unlike the Taliban, which are also originalists. In fact, the Tea Party and the Taliban have much in common. Most of the Tea Party have a sort of Daniel Boone mythology where they long for the days when people were alone on the frontier with just their trusty musket to take care of all their needs. They're not unlike the Taliban in that respect, who long to bring society back to the seventh century, when Islam was supreme. They're anti-government and anti-society. Their religious beliefs are as close to mainstream Christianity as the Taliban's are of mainstream Islam, which is to say, they really aren't Christians, they just think they are. They're a herd of brainless, mindless angry sheep easily manipulated by the smirking media experts, and spin doctors hired by the likes of the Koch brothers, and their success is sustained by money from the elites and the general political ignorance and malaise of the American people.

This is a complete mischaracterization of the Tea Party. Thank you for your post, however, because it serves to illustrate the typical ignorance of the leftist Canadian regarding the primary theme of the Tea Party movement. Everyone should take a moment to read this nonsense and realize that this is the narrative describing the Tea Party manufactured by most of the leftist Canadian media outlets. Leftist friends of mine who I spoke to about this over the years told me about how "racist" an "bigoted" and "religious" the Tea Party was, surprise surprise, they all read and watch CBC. It is also a grassroots movement, contrary to your myth of it being an artificial construct of the evil greedy rich elite. You want to see artificial movements? Go take a look as many leftist protests with paid "demonstrators" (who often don't speak English and have names like Miguel or Rosita).

[kraychik]

This is a common misconception. The Tea Party is about economic issues, not religous issues. Are there religious people in the Tea Party? Sure, just like in most other groups. But they're focus is on government debt, and government bailouts. It has nothing to do with the so-called Koch brothers, or Bilderburg group, etc.

There's a Christian element to the Tea Party, but it's a mild undercurrent. It's also completely understandable given the blatantly anti-Christian sentiment of the contemporary left. It's a reactionary to what they accurately perceive as an assault on their religious values.

[kraychik]

No. They're ignorant dummies who don't even understand that it is a government program, what they otherwise refer to as--gasp!--an entitlement.

After all, they think the centrist-capitalist in the White House is an extremist socialist...but then, they believe everything they're told by the slightly smarter knuckledragging morons among them.

They admire Glenn Beck. They sigh at the sight of Sarah Palin.

They also pretend to worship at the altar of Ayn Rand...that would be bad enough, what with her nihilistic silliness and her admiration for child-murderers as "real men"....but even funnier, they haven't read Rand, because they read nothing. (Hell, even subtitles connote fruity foreign films, and distract from the esplosions.)

It's all moot anyway; as was widely predicted, what little of the Tea Party was a genuine, principled grassrooots movement has been utterly co-opted by one of the two most powerful political parties on the planet.

They're just Republicans now, and will do as they're told by their "betters."

Tea Party folks that I've spoken to seem to be far more knowledgeable about politics, economics, and their relevant history than you. It's also rich for an average-at-best individual like yourself to snicker and sneer at Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, who I have no doubt are far more intelligent, educated, and accomplished than you'll ever be. Your condescension of "they haven't even read Ayn Rand" implies that you have, I suppose? Am I to assume that one cannot understand communism without having read the communist manifesto, according to what you're clearly implying? If I have't read "Atlas Shrugged", can I not understand Ayn Rand's philosophy? Don't worry about answering those two questions, they're simply rhetorical.

[kraychik]

Don't tell me it has nothing to do with the Kochs when they fund have the bloody movement.

And the Tea Party is about supporting economic policies which favour the rich, and NOT THEM. If that isn't a clue as to how dumb they are I don't know what is.

Assuming the Koch brothers have funded the Tea Party in one form or another, how does that do anything to support your false narrative of the Tea Party being an overtly religious gang of morons serving the interests of the rich (as if the interests of the rich are contrary to those of everyone else, which is a socialist narrative)? You even suggested that the Tea Party is similar to the Taliban, which pretty much tells us everything we need to know about your ideological point of departure when it comes to political discourse.

[Canuckistani]

"Cheaper" isn't always better.

Agreed...."yours" is way more efficient because of lower costs and longer wait times (i.e. less capacity). It is also the most expensive universal access system in the world.

It is when the outcomes are the same. Or better if you take infant mortality and life expectancy into account. But that probably has more to do with less income inequality and a better social support system.

You're wrong about our system being the most expensive. France, which you tout, and Germany both spend more. And yes, we should look to Europe to improve our healthcare system. Unfortunately the horror show down south about theirs drowns out any possibility of introducing any more private elements into ours for fear of the slippery slope. (Our system is about 70% public, yours is about 50% public)

UNITED STATES: 15.9 pct of GDP, $6,657 per capita

BRAZIL: 7.9 pct of GDP, $371 per capita

CANADA: 9.7 pct of GDP, $3,430 per capita

CHINA: 4.7 pct of GDP, $81 per capita

FRANCE: 11.1 pct of GDP, $3,807 per capita

GERMANY: 10.7 pct of GDP, $3,628 per capita

INDIA: 5.0 pct of GDP, $36 per capita

ISRAEL: 7.9 pct of GDP, $1,533 per capita

JAPAN: 8.2 pct of GDP, $2,936 per capita

MEXICO: 6.4 pct of GDP, $474 per capita

SOUTH AFRICA: 8.7 pct of GDP, $437 per capita

SWEDEN: 8.9 pct of GDP, $3,598 per capita

RUSSIAN FEDERATION: 5.2 pct of GDP, $277 per capita

UNITED KINGDOM: 8.2 pct of GDP, $3,064 per capita

[bush_cheney2004]

You're wrong about our system being the most expensive. France, which you tout, and Germany both spend more.

...and yet Canada's results are anything but "world class".

And yes, we should look to Europe to improve our healthcare system. Unfortunately the horror show down south about theirs drowns out any possibility of introducing any more private elements into ours for fear of the slippery slope.

Typical anti-American, Canadian paralysis. But no problem sending patients "down south" for health care procedures.