Should the USA follow this example of Putin?

1. 0

   Old Poolmanposted 9 years ago

   The following is supposedly taken from a speech made by Vladimir Putin.  Based on all the immigration problems we face today should we consider taking the same stance?
   
   Vladimir Putin’s SHORTEST SPEECH EVER—
   On August 04, 2013, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, addressed the Duma, (Russian Parliament), and gave a speech about the tensions with minorities in Russia:
   In Russia, live like Russians. Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Russia, to work and eat in Russia, it should speak Russian, and should respect the Russian laws. If they prefer Sharia Law, and live the life of Muslim’s then we advise them to go to those places where that’s the state law.
   
   Russia does not need Muslim minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell ‘discrimination’. We will not tolerate disrespect of our Russian culture. We better learn from the suicides of America, England, Holland and France, if we are to survive as a nation. The Muslims are taking over those countries and they will not take over Russia. The Russian customs and traditions are not compatible with the lack of culture or the primitive ways of Sharia Law and Muslims.
   When this honorable legislative body thinks of creating new laws, it should have in mind the Russian national interest first, observing that the Muslims Minorities Are Not Russians.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      The Frog Princeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Putin had it right on the mark with that speech.  All of the sudden this nation is supposed to remake the rules for who?  I don't think so...

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Old Poolmanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Jim, I could agree with that.

         replyreport
      2. 72

         rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         It depends. If they vote and you don't things may change according to the majority. It is not up to the government to determine what laws are cultural. only to enact those that are passed by the majority. No one is looking out for your rights but you.

         replyreport
   2. 61

      Aaron Seitlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I agree.There's jumping on the racist bandwagon and there's facing up to the farcical political correctness that's distorting society.I vehemently believe that everyone has their place in society and if you make excessive demands from the State then you don't deserve to be a citizen.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Old Poolmanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         It is interesting how some who left their own homeland because they didn't like it there want to change our country to be just like theirs.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            OH YES INDEED, they talk about how better their country was.  Well, if it is SO GOOD, return there...... Obviously, something was wrong with their country or they wouldn't have immigrated to America.  The totally audacity!

            replyreport
         2. 72

            Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Howdy Poolman. I don’t think we have had a chance to chat since Cliven Bundy called out his militia.
            
            Your words echo from another century:
            
            “It is interesting how some who left their own homeland because they didn't like it there want to change our country to be just like theirs.”
            

            replyreport
            1. 89

               GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Be nice Quill, although the comment was ripe for the plucking, fairness would indicate a little context might be in order.
               
               I believe that to many Americans, (not all of them knotheads), Old Poolman's comment is a prevailing feeling.
               
               Cliven Bundy's "militia" is, I hope, a small and extreme subset of those many Americans that find resonance in Old Poolman's comment. You may feel it a valid response, I think it a little overdone. Optimistically, for all our sakes, I hope I am right and you are wrong.
               
               But the Indian's... Even though I don't think the two "immigration" instances are comparable, the larger question is how many more centuries before today's citizens can shed the mistakes of yesterday's citizens? Is our past such a yoke that we must endure a repetition in silence?
               
               We all remember Mama saying, "Two wrongs don't make a right."
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Earth to GA! Earth to GA! Wake up there, my friend.
                  
                  I was being nice, a lot nicer then your flawed interpretations. I see it did not take you very long to misconstrue my post and to regurgitate nonsense. As for fairness, your false assumptions prove you lacked both fairness and comprehension. Thank you for volunteering context on behalf of Poolman but my post does not need context from you. You have already added context that ought not to be there.
                  
                  “ I believe that to many Americans, (not all of them knotheads), Old Poolman's comment is a prevailing feeling.”
                  
                  For starters, I do not care about Poolman’s comment as it applies to prevailing feelings. That is your opinion. It is not mine. I was pointing out the irony in his words. Obviously, this nuance passed you by unnoticed.
                  
                  “ Cliven Bundy's "militia" is, I hope, a small and extreme subset of those… blah, blah, blah…etc.”
                  
                  Secondly, except for a comment he left on one of my hubs in August, the next most recent occasion on which Poolman and I exchanged comments was on the Cliven Bundy militia thread. {1} I said nothing in my latest post to him about his words having a connection to Bundy’s militia but you attribute this delusional unstated “context” to my opening reminder.   
                  
                  “But the Indian's... Even though I don't think the two "immigration" instances are comparable, the larger question is how many more centuries before today's citizens can shed the mistakes of yesterday's citizens? Is our past such a yoke that we must endure a repetition in silence?”
                  
                  The image is the essence of the irony. I am sorry you did not comprehend the obvious. Beyond that, this paragraph is totally irrelevant to anything I said in my post. I would add, however, that Americans should always be reminded of this country’s mistakes. To be reminded is not to be blamed. Our history is not a yoke to be endured but it does contain lessons we should never forget.
                  
                  “We all remember Mama saying, "Two wrongs don't make a right.”
                  
                  Well, Gus, be sure to tell Mama how, in this case, you managed to get everything wrong and nothing right.
                  
                  Now, mix another pitcher of martinis. I would like mine garnished with an olive and a lemon twist.
                  
                  {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2574698

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Oh my, such an emotionally forceful and critical response seems to indicate I was way off-base in my reading of your comment to Old Poolman. Although I was on my second martini when I hit the submit button for my response to you, I haven't poured the first one yet, and except for the Bundy mis-connection, your clarifications haven't helped me see the error of my understanding yet.
                     
                     "...I was being nice, a lot nicer then your flawed interpretations. I see it did not take you very long to misconstrue my post and to regurgitate nonsense. As for fairness, your false assumptions prove you lacked both fairness and comprehension. Thank you for volunteering context on behalf of Poolman but my post does not need context from you. You have already added context that ought not to be there. "
                     
                     My interpretation of your response was that he was hypocritical and  wrong. And the addition of the Indian photo above Old Poolman's quote appeared to indicate you equated his thought with what might have been a thought of the Indians relative to early American settlers.
                     
                     It may appear obvious to you that my interpretations were flawed, but...
                     
                     Your following criticisms, (beyond the Bundy clairifcation),  do little to help correct my flawed interpretations, unless you mean the point about not caring whether his sentiment reflects that of any fellow Americans. To which I will admit that your effort to find a related image to further illustrate the point you were making did not lead me to comprehend your lack of interest in that bit of context.
                     
                     Hopefully, if I think on it a bit more I will see the the parts of my response to you that fit your description;"...your false assumptions prove you lacked both fairness and comprehension. Unfortunately I am not optimistic about any revelation concerning fairness, as multiple rereads still leave me scratching my head about where I was unfair to your response.
                     
                     "For starters, I do not care about Poolman’s comment as it applies to prevailing feelings. That is your opinion. It is not mine. I was pointing out the irony in his words. Obviously, this nuance passed you by unnoticed."
                     
                     I can see now that the connection of Old Poolman's comment and prevailing feelings did assume a context that was unimportant to you. But I am puzzled that such an incorrect, (although not originally obvious one), assumption warrants such an adamant denial. And since my first assumptions were apparently so wrong, I hesitate to make another, but could the Indian thing be the irony you say I missed. The nuance you are so certain went unnoticed?
                     
                     "Secondly, except for a comment he left on one of my hubs in August, the next most recent occasion on which Poolman and I exchanged comments was on the Cliven Bundy militia thread. {1} I said nothing in my latest post to him about his words having a connection to Bundy’s militia but you attribute this delusional unstated “context” to my opening reminder.   
                     
                     Hah! I see the error of my ways. Upon rereading your response to Old Poolman I see that I did make a false connection between your Bundy mention and Old Poolman's comment. (Obviously I did not remember your exchanges on the Bundy thread) You are right, I was wrong. But, since my response was a contextual explanation, and not a criticism of your point, I remain puzzled that it warranted such an emotional condemnation...
                     
                     "The image is the essence of the irony. I am sorry you did not comprehend the obvious. Beyond that, this paragraph is totally irrelevant to anything I said in my post. I would add, however, that Americans should always be reminded of this country’s mistakes. To be reminded is not to be blamed. Our history is not a yoke to be endured but it does contain lessons we should never forget. "
                     
                     Well, I don't think I missed the irony; I wrote, "...Even though I don't think the two "immigration" instances are comparable,..." which seems to imply I connected the two, and that you were saying Old Poolman's comment could easily have been one the Indians may have had. Yep, that's irony alright.
                     
                     As for the rest about yokes and past mistakes, while agreeing with your explanation of the importance of historical lessons, I still see the validity of my perspective that your portrayal of his comment as ironic to be an inference that he was wrong to think that way, and my contention that your irony implied an invalid comparison of circumstances.
                     
                     I spoke with Mama, she doesn't think I got everything wrong either, but she did add that three wrongs also don't make a right.
                     
                     On the other hand, it was good to see such an emotional exhibit from you, instead of your typical fact-checking corrections. And since I am a purist that will not corrupt a good martini with whimsical garnishes, I will make my first of the night a virtual toast to you.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
            2. 0

               Old Poolmanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Quill - Good point on the history of the American Indians.  I can hardly wait for the day when the long time citizens of this country are either slaughtered or herded onto reservations by the new comers.
               
               I'm really not sure if you agree or disagree with the concept of both legal and illegal immigrants changing our country and way of life.  But it is always a pleasure to have you stop by and offer your commentary.  You have a great way of making others rethink their opinions on most any subject.

               replyreport
      2. 0

         Old Poolmanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Aaron - The PC Police may well be the final nail in the coffin of the USA as we knew her.

         replyreport
      3. 72

         Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Greetings Mr. Seitler.
         
         I am so sorry but it is hard for me to comprehend your claim that an American should be denied citizenship because of requests submitted to the government. Citizens of this country, Mr. Seitler, have the right to petition the government without limit in order to express their views and to ask for change. The first amendment of the Bill of Rights states, “Congress shall make no law …abridging…the right of the people…to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” {1}
         
         Clearly, you are not aware of your own rights or mine.
         
         {1} http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Aaron Seitlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Oh Quilligrapher, you acerbic rogue,
            You're right,perhaps I shouldn't have made the grandiose statement that their right of citizenship should be revoked.However,do you not agree that all this pandering to minorities is nonsensical? I don't mean to exaggerate but it does seem to have come to an unacceptable level.

            replyreport
            1. 72

               Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Hello once more, Mr. Seitler. I truly appreciate the tone and content of your reply!
               
               First, you are correct about the harsh tone in my post. I apologize to you. Barbed comments are a weakness that I struggle to control. I am very sorry and I will try to do better. Please forgive me if I fail.
               
               I am happy to answer your question regarding the concerns expressed by minority citizens. As I recall, you were agreeing with the racist contents of a hoax speech falsely attributed to President Putin. You said that everyone, including minorities, if I understand your statement correctly, “has their place in society and if you make excessive demands from the State then you don't deserve to be a citizen”.
               
               I am relieved to see you reconsider what we both agree was a “grandiose statement.”
               
               I do not agree, however, with the notion that any citizen, minority or not, should be criticized for exercising the Constitutionally protected privilege to petition the government for a change. Nor do I agree that respecting that privilege is “pandering” or “nonsensical.” Your post makes it clear. You do.
               
               You claimed “I don't mean to exaggerate but…” That is precisely what you have done to justify your stated position.
               
               I am having a hard time understanding how you determined what, exactly, is an “unacceptable level” when legally advocating according to the guarantees in the First Amendment. In your mind, is the “ unacceptable level” more than once a year, less than twice in a decade, or is it every time you happen to disagree with the need for change? Or even worse, is it “unacceptable” just because, as you said, minorities have gone beyond “their place in society?”
               
               There will always be minorities looking to be heard above the din. Your position, Mr. Seitler, would deny them a voice because they are Latinos, Muslims, Jews, Christians, atheists, pagans or whatever group may displease you. I will always stand with them against the prejudice you have expressed.
               
               “The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.” ― John F. Kennedy
               
               Again, Mr. Seitler, I hope you will accept my apology and overlook my frequent overbearing comments. I will try to do better. I promise.
               

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Aaron Seitlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Hello again Quill,
                  First and foremost I'd like to say how refreshing it is that you have a good grounding in history and you aren't just opining.
                  Next,I'd like to say (in case there was any confusion) that I'm not an American,I'm an Englishman but I do read up on American domestic policy avidly. It seems that America is also plagued by the same kind of suffocating PC that we get over the pond.
                  I feel that you don't quite understand exactly what I am referring to which is perhaps my fault for being vague.Let me tell you how it is in England.Unfortunately, abuse of the human rights system has led to difficulties extraditing immigrant criminals and although I accept that there are many homegrown benefits cheats,there are many foreigners that come to the UK to claim benefits.I know I sound like an inarticulate racist but it happens-often.The NHS is also on its knees and the health tourists that pop over here aren't helping
                  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ … lions.html
                  But more significantly to this debate,British values are challenged specifically by the Muslim population.I presume you know about the Trojan Horse debacle in Birmingham (google it if you don't) and there have been many occasions of vote rigging in elections,both local and national.I find it absurd that multiculturalism has led to the damage of one of the oldest democratic systems in the world.And most recently,the muslim youth that have been persuaded,in the UK, to fight in ISIL.Is that not ridiculous? This is what I mean when I say "unacceptable".

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     As a fellow Englishman let me query some of the claims you make.
                     
                     Firstly you mention the abuse of Human Rights in this country, unfortunately the biggest abusers of Human Rights is the current government who propose to abolish them.
                     http://www.economist.com/news/britain/2 … ying-right
                     
                     Many home grown benefits cheats! How many? As unemployment benefit only accounts for 3% of the welfare bill, even if 100% of them were cheats, it wouldn't make a lot of difference but as government figures suggest that only 1% of benefits are fraudulently claimed, eliminating all fraudulent claims would only account for 0.003% of the welfare bill, it really isn't worth getting in a sweat about.
                     If you look at this anti cheat site http://www.benefitfraud.org.uk/ they reckon that cheats probably cost us at least £5 billion a year. Even if we accept this rather than the government figure of £1.2 billion a year, that £5 billion is still only less than 2.5% of the cost of welfare.
                     As for the claim that many foreigners come to the UK to claim benefits, that's only uninformed scaremongering. Sure some probably do but really, enough to get hot under the collar about, I think not.
                     http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/fac … -pay/16332
                     
                     Let's look at the far from modest problem of health tourists, well actually it is very modest, despite the Torygraph article you posted being correct in the cost of health tourism, it actually only accounts for just 0.06% of the NHS budget! I really wouldn't describe that as far from modest!
                     Oh, and without immigrants there would be no NHS!
                     
                     As for many occasions of vote rigging in local and national elections, well I can find some, but no cases exclusively run by  Muslims. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me with a few references.
                     
                     Again, it isn't multiculturalism that is destroying democracy in the UK, it is again the present government that is destroying democracy.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Aaron Seitlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Hiya Holden,
                        I appreciate your querying and I shall do my best to explain myself.
                        Yes,I'm not a fan of the governement's new initiative to abort the historic human rights which have been a tenant of this country for hundreds of years.However,let us not distract ourselves from the issue at hand.A case in point is Abu Qutada who managed to evade justice for far too long on the basis of his human rights.And there are a whole backlog of hate preachers and criminals out there who cannot be prosecuted due to...you guessed it,human rights.It's a marvellous thing,human rights,but we must not let them get abused as it only fuels the argument that they should be abolished.
                        Your statistics are reassuring but on principle,I'm still "getting into a sweat" as this whole "something-for-nothing" culture that has been cultivated by the benefit system is destabilizing society.It seems that anything that people get for free is abused.
                        And believe me,I'm well aware that  "without immigrants there would be no NHS".They are the backbone of that organisation but personally,I think that we now have plenty of immigrants so curbing immigration would not be an economic problem.
                        With regards to the Islamic vote rigging and bullying,this is the example I had in mind http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/poli … 090123.ece
                        You seem very critical of the incumbent government.Is that borne out of a left-wing disposition or a dismissal of the competency of politicians in general?

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Eeyup Aaron, This idea that anything should be abolished because a few people abuse it is extremely silly. Would you abolish speed limits because they are abused by some? Or decriminalise theft because some steal?
                           Whether you like it or not, Abu Qutada followed the due process of the law, a law that as strongly protects the innocent as the guilty and the Jordanian court found him not guilty of terrorism charges.
                           
                           This whole something for nothing culture is actually cultivated by those who wish to distract us from the real problems, The vast unemployment problem we have was not generated by the unemployed and the vast subsidies given to low paid workers were not generated by the low paid but by those who deliberately pay low in the knowledge that we will pick up the tab and not expect them to share their massive profits.
                           And don't forget, those abusing the system add up to less than 1% of expenditure.
                           
                           Your example of Islamic vote rigging is an example of some Islamic's bringing pressure to bear on other Muslims to prevent them from voting! Whilst I see the wrong in that I'm confused by somebody who is claiming that Muslim influence is wrong objecting to that!
                           
                           My criticism of the incumbent government is nothing to do with my political leanings beyond my hatred for anything that  oppresses us at the expense of others. My hatred would equally apply to any government that rode rough shod over peoples rights, that crushed so many of its own and who lied so blatantly to us.

                           replyreport
   3. 89

      GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Rather than assembling the choir, I bet a good exchange can be had if you asked;
      
      "What's wrong with this perspective?"
      
      My perspective is the the US is not Russia, and I don't want us to be. But, if the sharp edges were trimmed from his extremes... I think I could find a lot to agree with in his speech.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Old Poolmanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         GA, I look at like if you invited someone to your home and they immediately wanted to change the way you live.  What other country would tolerate those who entered our country illegally marching down the streets waving their own flag in protest?
         
         No easy answer to this one but I do think the PC Police are leaning way to far in the wrong direction.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I certainly agree with you about the PC police. And you home invitation analogy isn't completely wrong.
            
            But... and I am not taking issue with your response... Do we really want to be like any other country? Look at the problems we scream about when we complain that some folks want us to be more like Europe. Or  any of the other declarations like, " well so and so does it why can't we, etc. etc." Or "We are the only 1st world nation that doesn't do something, etc. etc."
            
            I agree with several aspects of Putin's speech. Just not all  of them, and not to the extremes he declares.
            
            We should be proud that our nation allows those illegals to march - without being shot or jailed, but we should not be proud that we have allowed this problem to develop, or that we allow emotions rather than the rule of law to guide our policies.
            
            We should be proud that honest Muslims, Hispanics, or any of the other stereotypes want to come to our country - but we should insist on a little of Putin's perspective to guide our acceptance of them into our society.
            
            What's wrong with expecting them to learn our language or accept our cultural norms, (not the nasty habits, for all you folks salivating over that comment)? We should not be asking them to give up their heritage, but we should have every expectation that their heritage and culture should become second to their new American heritage and culture.
            
            Putin, in my opinion, got it right on a lot of points. He just goes too far on most of them. America never has been, or ever should be, a "my way or the highway" kinda nation.
            
            Just sayin'
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Old Poolmanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               GA - Very well stated my friend.  This situation is far more complicated than I am able to truly comprehend.  On one hand I am like you and proud that we are the only country where this would be allowed.  On the other hand, I am disgusted with people from other countries dictating what we should and should not do in our own country.  We allow people from all religions to build their own churches and worship in peace including Muslims.  In other countries right now Christians are being instructed to covert to Islam or be killed.
               
               Somewhere in between the extreme freedom and liberties we allow and those who kill others because of their religion lies a happy medium.
               
               The world is changing quickly and not for the better in my opinion.  But the PC Police will continue to swing the pendulum as far to the left as they can.  Only when we get back somewhere near the middle will this madness stop.

               replyreport
   4. 60

      John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Me thinks that this is either a hoax or Putin is woeful ignorant of the history of his own country!
      
      Islam is one of the traditional religions of Russia and 14% of the population call themselves Muslim.
      In contrast, only 4.4% of the population of England call them selves Muslim.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Old Poolmanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         John, I believe Putin's point was about immigrants to Russia not trying to change Russia to their way of thinking or way of life.  I see nothing at all wrong with this.

         replyreport
2. 60

   mishpatposted 9 years ago

   Would Vlad consider living in a "white house?"  We can change the rules for him like is done for other "immigrants."
   
   P.S.  Why not post this question over in Religion and Philosophy, then sit back and watch the fireworks.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Never thought about posting this over there.  Good suggestion but I was just interested in how others felt about this speech by Putin.

      replyreport
3. 63

   maxoxam41posted 9 years ago

   But who is Putin talking to in reality? Who hides behind the Muslims? The U.S. So what does it mean? That contrary to the majority of countries that were subdued by those savages, the U.S. won't destabilize Russia through its so-called "freedom revolutions".
   Who hides behind the demonstrations in Honk Kong? The U.S.. Who hides behind the Uyghur "rebellion"? The U.S.. So indirectly Putin is talking to the U.S. by telling them (CIA and government) that they won't succeed in their implosion of the Russian society like they did in Czechoslovakia, Libya, Iraq, Syria (?)...
   Furthermore in what way can you parallel what is happening in Russia with America? Is there an ISIS groupuscule in America attempting to destabilize the country? NO, then in what way your question is EVEN relevant? You are consciously making the amalgam to fuel intolerance.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Max - I appreciate your view of the subject.

      replyreport
      1. 63

         maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Is it an euphemism for relegate?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Old Poolmanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Sorry but I'm not understanding you Max.

            replyreport
4. 64

   breakfastpopposted 9 years ago

   There is no question in my mind that Putin got it right. Immigrants who came to this country years ago, came to assimilate and become Americans. They learned the language and did everything they could to adopt American customs. Because they did so, they succeeded. Now people coming in expect America to adapt to their presence. They refuse to learn the language and assimilate, so they remain on the fringes of society,  causing problems for themselves and others. If you want to come to America to live, become an American. If you want America to change for you, go home.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Well said Patti, and you pretty well mirror my feelings on the subject.  Don't come to my house and start telling me how to live.  If you don't like it at my house you are welcome to go back where you came from.
      
      What really is so difficult to understand about this?  Why should we force other Americans to change the way they live because of the demands of non-citizens of this country.  Try moving to any other country in the world and start making demands on them.  I have a hunch they will quickly show you the exit door.

      replyreport
      1. 64

         breakfastpopposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         You bet anyone entering most other countries will be shown out the door if they start making demands. Countries that didn't do that are reaping the horrors of that mistake. France has a large Muslim population that is so separate and so dangerous that French police and firemen are afraid to enter the neighborhoods. My blood seethes when I learn of situations where the pledge is not being said for fear of insulting students from other countries. If we don't get some common sense into the equation we will soon be living in the United States of Mexico!

         replyreport
         1. 60

            John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            The World book of Facts puts the Muslim population of France at 5-10% of the population. Still far less than the indigenous Muslim population of Russia.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Old Poolmanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               John, are you counting just the one's who are in the country legally or all of them?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  I suspect that 5-10% indicates all of them. A more precise figure would suggest an actual coount.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Old Poolmanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     John, I rather doubt that number includes the total number living in your country.  Almost every country has non-citizens living within their borders the government is not aware of.
                     
                     From what I have read most of Europe is suffering immigration problems similar to the US.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Well you did ask about France rather than the UK!
                        There are probably illegals of every race and religion , even Christians, in every country!

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Old Poolmanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Of course there are illegals living in most every country.  It is just that some countries deal very harshly with illegals while others including the US pretty much ignore the problem.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              And others, like the UK, cash in on them.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 Old Poolmanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 John, exactly how does the UK cash in on illegal immigrants?  Do those illegally in your country get to take advantage of your welfare system and socialized medicine or are they excluded?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 60

                                    John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    By their very definition of "illegal" they get to take advantage of nothing except if they are caught, then we pay to repatriate them.

                                    replyreport
   2. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Yes indeed, spot on Breakfastpop.   Now they came in, not wanting to assimilate to our language, rules, and regulations.   In addition to that, they take umbrage when such things are suggested.  Our Excuse of a "President" is not sanctioning closing the borders and the illegals and god-knows-what-else are coming across the borders. Illegals with long dormant communicable diseases and now ebola is in the United States. 
      
      At least Putin HAS it right regarding the immigration issue!   Our Sad Excuse of  a "President"  is taking this country to hell, first with the illegals and now the ebola outbreak.  Our so-called "President" or rather the Demon in Chief wants to DESTROY America as he has a racial, anticolonial, and anticapitalist animus against her because she is a 1st world, capitalistic nation. If he does not destroy America in one way, he will destroy it in another!  He HATES America, TOLD YOU SO, TOLD YOU SO!

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Old Poolmanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         GM - That is exactly the point.  Why go somewhere that is supposed to be a better place and then try to change it to be like the place you came from?
         
         Too many are just not seeing what is really happening to our country.  Like I said before, try moving to another country and trying to change the way they do things and see what happens.
         
         The outright refusual of many to even try to learn basic English pretty much says it all.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            There is a lot of assumptions here!
            If you moved to a foreign country where Christianity was not the recognised religion, would you immediately convert or would you look to practice your own religion without any desire to change the country?
            
            What are they actually trying to change?
            
            What do you base your assumption that many refuse to try to learn even basic English?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Old Poolmanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               John - Here in the USA we have thousands, if not millions, of people from Mexico and South America who don't speak English.  Many of our phone systems make us choose between Spanish and English when the call is answered.  Most official documents such as ballots must now be published in Spanish and English.
               
               Granted this has nothing to do with Muslims and their religion but it is real.
               
               As a Christian, I would not move to a country where Islam was the primary religion.  I would certainly not move to a country where Islam was the primary religion and begin demanding my rights to build my own church on their soil.
               
               In this country we have always allowed religious freedom to everyone and I don't see that changing.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Here in the UK we have bi-lingual forms and road signs. It doesn't hurt.
                  
                  I didn't ask if you would move, I asked you if you did move.
                  
                  As for your country allowing religious freedom, it seems that that falls down when the religion is Muslim.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Old Poolmanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     John, I think you are way off base on that last remark.  We have not denied Muslims the right to build their mosques or practice their religion anywhere in this country.
                     
                     If you know of anything that proves me wrong please share it with us.
                     
                     Are you by any chance a Muslim?

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Do a spot of googling and I think you'll find that you are not as embracing as you believe.
                        
                        Why should you think I'm Muslim?
                        Is it because I don't share the general paranoia about Islam?

                        replyreport
         2. 85

            gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            EXACTLY, for example, there are immigrants who simply refuse to learn English, instead conducting business in their native language.  They find learning English as an affront, notice the increase in bilingual classes.   Before, immigrants HAD to learn English if they wanted to succeed in America.   Extreme Liberalism is going to KILL America!  Time to use our voting power to get the extreme Liberal element OUT, OUT!

            replyreport
            1. 64

               breakfastpopposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               What's interesting is that this refusal to assimilate is keeping these immigrants poor and dependent on the government. The burden of keeping these people housed and fed falls to the American taxpayer and the cost is enormous. England had better wise up as well, before they turn into Muslim nation. It has already been predicted that France will become Muslim in under 50 years. The goal of Islam is to establish a world caliphate. When will we wake up and smell reality. As for the stream on illegals entering the United States, we had better put a stop to it before we turn into a third world nation. We have laws on the books. It is time this lawless administration enforced them. Remeber the song that said, Close the doors, they're coming through the windows"? Well, that seems to be our policy right now and it has put all of us in danger.

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Obama wants America to be third world.   He had in his agenda from the beginning.   Hopefully people will wise up and see him for what he is.   He intend to dismantle America and her sociopolitical, socioeconomic, and sociocultural systems bit by bit by bit.  He is DANGEROUS and many people are asleep at the wheel so to speak.  They hang on to his every word like mindless, lobotomized sheeple!
                  

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Old Poolmanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     GM - We have to realize that many of those who are now hooked on food stamps, free cell phones, WIC, and other entitlements are content with this type system.
                     
                     They would not be at all upset if we do become third world as that is practically how they are living now.

                     replyreport
                     1. 85

                        gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Of course NOT, they would welcome it and applaud THE NEW AMERICA.  They would even think of it as karma comeuppance for the "racist, imperialistic, capitalistic" America.   Oh BOY, I am sickened about this.   I envisioned a better America as I got older with intelligent, civilized people in charge, not extreme LIEberal radical wingnuts that we have in the White House and in Congress!
                        
                        The extreme Liberal philosophy is to SAVE the world.  Many Liberals espouse such a philosophy.  This philosophy is foolhardy at best.  The best philosophy is self-reliance and responsibility in addition to accountability.   Each tub sits on its own bottom.   Let other countries take care of their own problems.  If they swim, fine; if they sink, fine.  While we are on this discussion, let's us send ALL the illegals home; it has been proven now that these illegals are nothing but trouble.  See hate to tell the LIEberals, TOLD YOU SO, TOLD YOU SO!

                        replyreport
5. 60

   John Holdenposted 9 years ago

   As I suspected the OP was a report of a hoax with no foundation in truth.
   
   http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/putinduma.asp

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      John - Thanks for the input but Snopes has been proven to be a less than reliable source of information on some issues.
      
      It does sound like a speech Putin would have made, and it sure opens up opportunities for discussion.  I doubt we will ever know for sure if this is fact or fiction.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Ok so let's assume that in this one instance Snopes is wrong.
         Are Hoax slayer,and truth or fiction wrong as well?
         
         Well it doesn't matter because it is very easy to access transcripts of Putin's speeches, he made no speeches at all on the day claimed and none anything like the claimed speech on any other day.
         
         How often have you heard Putin speak to be able to claim that it sounds like a speech he would have made?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Old Poolmanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I don't know John.  I guess all I can do is call Putin and ask him myself.  Why don't you just stand by until he calls me back.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               But how would you know it was Putin calling?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Old Poolmanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  That is a great question John.  I guess it would be better if I just went to see him.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     That would be much better, I await your return.

                     replyreport
               2. 85

                  gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  

                  replyreport