Herman Cain: Communities Have The Right To Ban Mosques

This guy is not longer a joke, he's simply despicable.

Chris Wallace asked Herman Cain about a mosque being built in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. After arguing that Islam doesn't qualify as a religion or something under the 1st Amendment, they got to the heart of the matter.

So Wallace asked the inevitable question: does any community have the right to ban mosques? “Yes, they have a right to do that,” Cain replied, without skipping a beat. He later added that, while he is not willing to discriminate based on religion, “I’d rather err on the side of caution.”

Cain has a rather convoluted understanding of the US Constitution, at least when it comes to it's applicability to Muslims in this country.

I didn't like John McCain's attempts to rewrite the 1st Amendment through campaign finance reform laws and I don't like candidates for President like Cain who think some people may only build houses of worship at the sufferance of their fellow citizens.

Yes, mosques must follow the same laws and regulations as any other religion nor should they be granted any special consideration because in some areas Islam is "the de facto state religion". But the wholesale banning of them because people don't like Muslims or what they believe in? I'll stand with the Constitution.

Guys like Cain profess to revere the US Constitution yet they are strangely willing to ignore it when it either suits their personal beliefs or political needs. Personally, I'd prefer to live the selective and creative interpretations of the plain meaning of those indecipherable old words to liberals.

Below the fold, a personal story.

I haven't been following this particular mosque building controversy but a couple of years ago I had the chance to get to know a woman from that area whose son was serving in Iraq. It was probably about 2005 and I was trying to raise money to do a documentary about National Guard troops being deployed.

If you recall, in the early days of Iraqi Freedom we were relying heavily on Guard troops. I wanted to focus on the 'citizen soldiers' and some of the outreach efforts they were doing to Iraqi civilians. It was ad-hoc COIN before COIN was cool.

At the time, I was trying to collect stories that I wanted to include in the project. One of the people I got connected to was a woman from around Murfeesboro. Her church had decided to collect goodies for the troops and send it to them during the deployment. She told her son to ask his fellow soldiers what kind of things they wanted. He met with the unit;s Chaplin and they talked to the guys about creating a list. What they decided was that instead of asking for comfort items for themselves, they'd have their families to send stuff for the Iraqi civilians they were meeting. Her son said, yes we have it rough compared to what we're used to but we'll be out of here soon enough. These people have never had anything so let's help them while we can.

What happened then was the church back home would get a list every month or so and send it around the community. On Sundays they'd set up big collection bins and when they were filled they'd ship it off to Iraq.

After one or two of these shipments this woman got worried that maybe the clothes or books they were sending were some how culturally inappropriate. She wasn't sure what to do so she decided to call the Islamic center a few towns over (it might be this one, I don't remember the exact towns). She told me she was nervous because she'd never met a Muslim before and was worried that maybe he was anti-war and would be angry that her son was in Iraq.

She eventually called and told the Imam the story. About half way in, he stopped her and said, "I'd be happy to help but more importantly...is your son ok? Is he well?" She told me she broke down crying on the phone. In retrospect she couldn't believe she was worried about talking to this man.

Eventually the Imam would come to their church to meet the people who had given so much to people they had never and would never meet. In return some folks went to his mosque or Islamic center. The families of some of the soldiers got to meet people with relatives who were from the area their loved were stationed in and that it helped them get through their loved ones deployment.

Now look, this is one anecdote that's 6 or so years old and I'm enough of a cold hearted conservative to know there are plenty of bad actors in the world. Or that every mosque is simply about "peace and outreach". Maybe things got in the area after the brutal years of 06-07, I don't know.

Still, I'll always remember this story, especially her voice as she choked up at the memory of her first conversation with an actual Muslim. I'll be damned if I think letting a fool like Cain rewrite the Constitution would make things better.

Posted by: DrewM. at 01:22 PM



Comments

1 Haven't seen the Herman Cain bit of Fox News Sunday yet, but FNC just played a clip where he's saying something like "of course there are good muslims and they're free to worship as they like". Apparently as long as they don't want to build a mosque.

Posted by: Anachronda at July 17, 2011 01:28 PM (6fER6)

2
I don't think it's a matter of Cain wanting to re-write the Constitution. I think it's worse: He. Has. No. Clue. What. It. Says.
He strikes me as tossing out what he thinks are populist sentiments, and is completely unaware of how ignorant he is. Then, after one of his handlers informs him just how completely he's shown his ass, AGAIN, he'll stumble it back a bit.
Why he's still part of the conversation is beyond me. He makes Ron Paul look like a fucking genius.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at July 17, 2011 01:29 PM (lGFXF)

3 I see bannings coming soon.

Posted by: robtr at July 17, 2011 01:29 PM (MtwBb)

4
Simple: change the Constitution to ban islam:
http://tinyurl.com/2qj2nx
Islam is a cancer, we wouldn't inject cancer into our bodies voluntarily, why should we allow islam free reign to destroy our civilization?

Posted by: Rebar at July 17, 2011 01:30 PM (uPpYX)

5 Yes, mosques must follow the same laws and regulations as any other religion nor should they be granted any special consideration because in some areas Islam is "the de facto state religion".That's a very poor understanding of islam. Islam is, at its core, a political ideology that demands the power of state. But, I guess DrewM knows islam so much better than Ataturk did. What an idiot he was, thinking that no democracy could exist if the political demands of islam were allowed into the government, even in small ways.

islam is NOT a religion. It is a political ideology. Now, if you want to talk about how despicable it is that Cain thinks some twisted poltiical ideology like Naziism, shouldn't be building tax free and getting the same Constitutional rights as an actual religion, then that is one thing. But islam is NOT a religion. Period.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 01:31 PM (G/MYk)

6 He's done. Not because of this one-off statement, but because it never occurred to him thatthe statementwould be a problem. Expect similar self-inflicted injuries in the future.
It's OK. He'll always have his pizza empire.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at July 17, 2011 01:31 PM (C0Z3w)

7 Well, that didn't take long.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 01:32 PM (piMMO)

8 Are we sure that this has not been edited out of context? If he actually said that he is toast but we need to make sure first.

I would not put it past Chris Wallace to edit the answers.

Posted by: Vic at July 17, 2011 01:33 PM (M9Ie6)

9
this thread------ten foot pole
nope
IT'S A TRAP!!

Posted by: navycopjoe (baracudus maximus is coming) at July 17, 2011 01:33 PM (R7NIt)

10
I see bannings coming soon.

Posted by: robtr at July 17, 2011 01:29 PM (MtwBb)

You may be prophet.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 01:33 PM (piMMO)

11 The paradox of a free society is that its enemies use those freedoms to destroy it from within. If it isn't Islam, it's "progressivism."

Our only weapon is education and being informed, and the "progressives" control those.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at July 17, 2011 01:33 PM (UlUS4)

12 IT'S A TRAP!!

Posted by: navycopjoe (baracudus maximus is coming) at July 17, 2011 01:33 PM (R7NIt)

Quick Joe! Grab the beer! It's gonna be a doozy!

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 01:34 PM (piMMO)

13 What if the hypothetical mosques in question are proven to be housing terrorists and planning mayhem? In THAT case - which I would assume is what Cain actually meant - you are damn right, communities should have the right to ban them.

Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 01:35 PM (B60j2)

14 This will be my last comment ever about Cain:

He was, is, and will not be a serious candidate.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at July 17, 2011 01:35 PM (7utQ2)

15 Helen Thomas said he should go back to the pizzeria.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at July 17, 2011 01:35 PM (UlUS4)

16 They may not have a right to ban mosques, but they can ban them just like they ban lots of other establishments through zoning laws.

Posted by: booger at July 17, 2011 01:35 PM (9RFH1)

17
12 its 730am here!!! even retired sailors wait till 8
although i am going to huck a can of gas on this thread in just a second...

Posted by: navycopjoe (baracudus maximus is coming) at July 17, 2011 01:36 PM (R7NIt)

18 Any new Christian churches going up in Dearborn?

Posted by: long toss at July 17, 2011 01:36 PM (1MdAW)

19
Serious Cat's List:

Sara Palin
Rick Perry
Herman Cain
Thad McCottter


Posted by: Serious Cat at July 17, 2011 01:36 PM (bAySe)

20 Drew, your argument, IMO, dances ever so closely to the moral equivalency tripe that liberals love to trot out and that leads us squarely to a PC world where no one's thoughts or actions can be seen as inferior or wrong.

I submit, for your consideration, that Islam is not a religion in the sense of religions protected by the Constitution, but is a geopolitical movement.

You know what's despicable? Letting those who have vowed to see your destruction build recruiting centers in all of your cities.

We'll win the WOT when we realize we're in one.




Posted by: The Hammer at July 17, 2011 01:37 PM (32ubA)

21 This will be my last comment ever about Cain:He was, is, and will not be a serious candidate.

In the beginning, it just sounded so good to listen to someone who did not sound like the usual politician. His colors showed soon enough.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 01:39 PM (piMMO)

22 In various conservative blogs, I've faced intense criticism for defending Islam under the 1st Amendment. There is a strain of thought that Islam is nothing but a cult that preaches hatred and thus cannot be treated the same as other religions. It is a dangerous strain of thought usually peddled by liberals against Christianity. Of course, some would say my comparison of Islam and Christianity just goes to show that I don't understand what's at stake, etc.

I haven't followed everything Rep. Allen West has said on the matter of Islam but he has tread similar ground. It's funny how the plain language of the Constitution can become so relative: "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

[Yes it says "Congress shall make no law" but the 14th Amendment has incorporated the First Amendment against the states, for any "constitutional scholars" who might have otherwise raised the point.]

Posted by: Crispian at July 17, 2011 01:39 PM (ULTcD)

23 But it's Palin that's unelectable.

Posted by: Dick_Nixon at July 17, 2011 01:39 PM (NFw02)

24 Is running for President a business in and of itself?
That was the whole '08 McCain operation right there. Not winning the election as a goal, but running for President as a goal. The consultants get paid regardless, and then move on to the next election. An actual victory would have been so disruptive to their careers, they could not even imagine what it would look like.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at July 17, 2011 01:39 PM (C0Z3w)

25 Herman Cain must be despicably crazy. After all, who would propose any ban on building mosques in "one of the largest muslim nations in the world," but one that "is not a Christian nation"?

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 01:40 PM (G/MYk)

26 As backward as it would be, where in the Constitution does it say that a COMMUNITY can't do so? How does a COMMUNITY define a STATE religion?

Posted by: West Town at July 17, 2011 01:40 PM (ujFbE)

27 Their are 1st Amendment exceptions for speech and the press. For example, I can't tell DrewM to go kill someone, nor can the press give out details of military operations.

The 1st Amendment isn't absolute for speech, or the press. Why should it be for religion?

If a religion is shown to be violent, intolerant, and oppressive, why shouldn't it be banned? Islam is a disgusting practice started by a violent pedophile.

If you tolerate Islam, you tolerate evil.

Posted by: Old grizzled gym coach at July 17, 2011 01:41 PM (QBQcg)

28 Our only weapon is education and being informed, and the "progressives" control those.Then take education away from the "progs" through elections.
Any new Christian churches going up in Dearborn?
I have no idea. But if folks are being prevented from exercising their religion, the answer is to apply the law, not burn down the Constitution.


Posted by: pep at July 17, 2011 01:41 PM (6TB1Z)

29 I'm with Drew M. If everyone could just talk to one muslim and then burst into tears, think how much closer we'd be to world closeness, as a world.

Posted by: lovey at July 17, 2011 01:41 PM (hAlzW)

30 Serious Cat, don't count out Pawlenty. I recommend reading "The Tragedy of Tim Pawlenty" over on tnr.com

Posted by: Crispian at July 17, 2011 01:42 PM (ULTcD)

31
okay, for this to be true, then would anyone accept churches like the church of jesus christ christian or a santana church?
the aryan nation and other white power groups have their own churches because they mixed their hatred with religion
do you see islam as a political arm or religious group?
how about the devil worship groups?

Posted by: navycopjoe (baracudus maximus is coming) at July 17, 2011 01:42 PM (R7NIt)

32 Ban mosques... no. Shut down hate cults and those inciting murder and rape... yes!
That's where he went off track. You're welcome to practice any religion that does not break the law. You are not welcome to practice a cult of death and criminality. If a particular mosque had meetings enjoining sedition against America, or the killing or harming of those of another religion, or the killing or harming of those who speak out against this religion, then the elders should be given a chance to reform the mosque. Failing that, close it by force of law.

Posted by: I can do stream of concsiousness too at July 17, 2011 01:43 PM (EhYdw)

33 Hey, can we get a thread on the Murdoch scandal? I know that we dont like to ignore stuff that harms "our side".

/hides under desk

Posted by: Mr. Pink at July 17, 2011 01:43 PM (VidfH)

34 If you tolerate Islam, you tolerate evil.
Posted by: Old grizzled gym coach at July 17, 2011 01:41 PM (QBQcg)
That's my belief as well.
Now, time for the popcorn and beers.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 01:43 PM (Ci8Q9)

35 He's done, like an extra-crispy thin crust.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 01:43 PM (UxDMk)

36 So glad that your deep, deep understanding of Islamic theology can be summed up in an anecdotal story from years ago. I guess the crying mother is all it takes to understand a death cult, right? I guess that you fail to understand that some Muslims are more than happy to threaten with death imams of 'peaceful' mosques if they don't tow the line with Islamic fundamentalism. When they start teaching death to America theology, they are just 'hijacking a peaceful religion', right? If conservatives are this ignorant of Islam, we don't stand a chance.

Posted by: Rightwingva at July 17, 2011 01:44 PM (a00Gf)

37 I think communities should act before they have a pesky mosque to ban noise pollution. I would never live within sound range of one that blasts the prayers on an outdoor speaker, yuck; and they do push this as soon as they have clout from what I've heard.

But Cain is wrong. I somewhat think Islam is more a political orientation than a religion; and therefore have sympathy to the 'ban it' notions. But we have to isolate and outlaw only the political aspects if we don't want to lose more of own liberties -assuming we have any left after 18 more months of the JEFF.

Posted by: PaleRider at July 17, 2011 01:44 PM (m+nIW)

38 Besides the need to preserve the constitution, there is another thing: The idea of simply using an outrightgovernment ban as a cudgel is unsophisticated thinking.Running straightto the government to ban things you don't likeis what the other side does.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at July 17, 2011 01:45 PM (C0Z3w)

39 Some of the commenters seem to be as confused about the first amendment as Cain.

No, communities can't ban mosques through zoning laws, anymore that they can ban churches. They can restrict them, as long as it is in a neutral way. For example, they can say that no house of worship can be placed in a residential neighborhood, but they can't say churches, yes, but mosques, no.

You also can't ban Islam as a political movement. Although our government did cross that line with communist political groups in the 50's, it wouldn't fly today.

I would differentiate this case from the ground zero mosque. They could have used the historical landmark laws to say that a mosque could not be built at that particular location.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at July 17, 2011 01:45 PM (ibO5E)

40 This is somewhat akin to entitlements. Some folks want to try and squeeze the fat, evil genie back into the bottle. Just not gonna happen.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at July 17, 2011 01:45 PM (vbh31)

41 Old grizzled gym coach,

Uhhh... couldn't you use that same line of thought to ban "thought crimes" and "hate speech"? We don't tolerate racism, but we sure as hell should not want to see it banned if we are to remain a free country.

Posted by: Serious Cat at July 17, 2011 01:46 PM (bAySe)

42 Lose more of OUR own liberties. Curse my poor proof reading.

Posted by: PaleRider at July 17, 2011 01:46 PM (m+nIW)

43 Toleration of those I have identified as not to my liking must stop. I have some ideas as to how can I accomplish that.

Posted by: Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili at July 17, 2011 01:46 PM (6TB1Z)

44 I'd like to see things your way, Drew. But I don't. I don't believe Islam will play nice. I do believe Islam is a cancer.

I'd be fine with banning immigration from all Muslim countries.

The constitution is not a suicide pact.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at July 17, 2011 01:47 PM (QcFbt)

45 Btw, there's lots of anecdotal stories all over these here intertubes about the religion of pieces, women getting stoned to death, gays being hanged, beheadings aplenty, they'll leave you all weepy and shit.

Posted by: booger at July 17, 2011 01:48 PM (9RFH1)

46 I'd be fine with banning immigration from all Muslim countries.
Me too. So what?
there's lots of anecdotal stories
True. That's why we rely on a set of basic principles to guide us. It's called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Posted by: pep at July 17, 2011 01:49 PM (6TB1Z)

47 No, communities can't ban mosques through zoning laws, anymore that they
can ban churches. They can restrict them, as long as it is in a neutral
way. For example, they can say that no house of worship can be placed
in a residential neighborhood, but they can't say churches, yes, but
mosques, no.



Um, yeah, that was my point genius.

Posted by: booger at July 17, 2011 01:50 PM (9RFH1)

48 do you see islam as a political arm or religious group?how about the devil worship groups?

Posted by: navycopjoe (baracudus maximus is coming) at July 17, 2011 01:42 PM (R7NIt)
The Organization of the Islamic Conference has 57 member nations. Now tell me about all the other "religions" that have the same sort of thing. 57 states.
Islam was nothing but the formalization of desert arab culture - stealing a bit of "religious" legitimacy via twisted, plagiarized lies from the Old and New Testaments and insertion of Mo into the Biblical bloodline ... as if - that was built to support an existing and expanding land empire. No other "religion" even comes close to such a circumstance and purpose. islam is what it is, and religion is the leasxt of it. Every actual religion introduced some sort of original meta-physical ideas that were of interest (some more than others). islam introduced ... NOTHING of meta-physical interest. islam introduced the marriage of state power and unrestricted proselytization in the canonical texts and in the core esssence of the ideology.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 01:50 PM (G/MYk)

49 I just find it funny that according to political correctness and the MFM, hating Christianity and denigrating its followers is A-OK, but disliking Islam and its followers is somehow racist, evil hatred.

Posted by: Mr. Pink at July 17, 2011 01:50 PM (VidfH)

50 I love you guys who think the Constitution is awesome but it's so weak it's going to be toppled by some backwards 7th Century religion.

Even if Islam isn't a religion but a political movement, it's still covered by the First Amendment. Sure advocating the violent overthrow of the US government isn't covered but even the extreme example of advocating for the democratic imposition of Shira Law would be legal. It's actual implementation would run afoul of the Constitution but that doesn't mean people can't advocate for it.

Don't fall into the liberal trap of thinking, "things I don't like" = "things that are unconstitutional".

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 01:50 PM (dw7rB)

51 I like Cain as a fiscal conservativebut I'm thinking that's as far as my admiration can go. This reminds me of a point Charlton Heston made about how you can'tallowgovernment to make exceptions to amendments at will.Otherwise those amendments no longer protect the rights of the people and they become pointless. To paraphrase Chuck, you can no more say "you have the right to bear arms, exceptassaultweaponsand .50 calibers" than you can say "you have freedom of religion, exceptBuddhism and Islam."

Posted by: Crusty at July 17, 2011 01:51 PM (e/u95)

52 You can have any religion you want, as long as it's Christian.

In China I guess their war against Buddhism is well-grounded. Even our Constitution would be no impediment!

Posted by: Crispian at July 17, 2011 01:52 PM (ULTcD)

53 I think DrewM's point is that freedom and the US Constitution can withstand anything including a hate cult like Islam.

Love conquers all is not just a message you can leave on her nightstand the next morning. It means something.

Posted by: badanov at July 17, 2011 01:53 PM (PLRdG)

54
i think when it comes down to it, let the people of the community vote on it
if you want to go pure constitution, then all hate laws should be struck down

Posted by: navycopjoe (baracudus maximus is coming) at July 17, 2011 01:53 PM (R7NIt)

55 Even if Islam isn't a religion but a political movement, it's still covered by the First Amendment. Sure advocating the violent overthrow of the US government isn't covered but even the extreme example of advocating for the democratic imposition of Shira Law would be legal. It's actual implementation would run afoul of the Constitution but that doesn't mean people can't advocate for it. Don't fall into the liberal trap of thinking, "things I don't like" = "things that are unconstitutional".
Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 01:50 PM (dw7rB)
Actually you are wrong about that. If Islam is a political movement then it has to register as one to keep it's tax free status. It can't do it under the guise of being a church.
Although that holds true for a bunch of religions and they get called on it from time to time.

Posted by: robtr at July 17, 2011 01:54 PM (MtwBb)

56
28
Then take education away from the "progs" through elections.

Really?! The AFT/UFT/SEIU/AFSCME/AFL-CIO are going to disappear, just like that?! The leftist clap trap has infected academia for almost 50 years now thanks to the likes of Bill Ayers. And as for elections, yeah those will be fair and square. Sheesh.

Posted by: pep at July 17, 2011 01:41 PM (6TB1Z)

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at July 17, 2011 01:54 PM (UlUS4)

57 I have no interest in Cain for president, but at least he understands that the death cult is athreat to western civilization. should a community be allowed to ban mosques? absolutely.

Posted by: exceller at July 17, 2011 01:54 PM (Z7Znk)

58 Wow. He's off my list. I'm just waiting for Perry now anyway. Nice story DrewM.

Posted by: PugBoo at July 17, 2011 01:54 PM (20jXV)

59 What the hell is wrong with people that they think just cuz they don't like a particular religion that out around be forbidden?? What kind of big brother society do you want to live in? Do you, in all your superior wisdom get do decide what qualifies for 1st amendment protections and what doesn't? You Jake me sick. There is exactly zero difference between you and the damn leftwing fascists. None. Get bent, and leave my movement the hell alone. We don't want or need your type pretending to be small government conservatives.

Posted by: Thirtyandseven at July 17, 2011 01:54 PM (U7joH)

60 48 agreed

Posted by: navycopjoe (baracudus maximus is coming) at July 17, 2011 01:55 PM (R7NIt)

61 11 The paradox of a free society is that its enemies use those freedoms to destroy it from within. If it isn't Islam, it's "progressivism." Our only weapon is education and being informed, and the "progressives" control those.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at July 17, 2011 01:33 PM (UlUS4)
No, what has happened is that the Non Governmental societal contol machanism of SHAME, public shunning, and dislike, has been destroyed by Multiculturalism and Political Correctness...
If I point at a Moslem, and say he is the member of a hateful religion? I'm the bad guy, even though its true...
If I point at a Flamming Homosexual in assless chaps, and say I don't like his lifestyle??? (when his ass is hanging out in front of my kids)... I'm the bad guy...
When I cannot, in my own business, decide who to hire, or who to serve??? ie, MY freedomof association (and NOT to associate) is hindered by LAW???
The check on Freedom should not be the law, but the disdain and disassociation of the society around you (if your lifestyle is incompatable)...

Posted by: Romeo13 at July 17, 2011 01:55 PM (NtXW4)

62 They can restrict them, as long as it is in a
neutral way. For example, they can say that no house of worship can be
placed in a residential neighborhood, but they can't say churches, yes,
but mosques, no.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at July 17, 2011 01:45 PM (ibO5E)
Sure they can so much as they do for any other non-religious organizations, of which islam is one. mosques still have to have the priveleges extended to them as other POTLITICAL organizations, but mosques are not in the same league as churches and synagogues. They are not of the same character in our society. Period. And they are just not the same in any implementations.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 01:56 PM (G/MYk)

63 Thanks to my thunderbolt for that exercise in word replacement.

Posted by: Thirtyandseven at July 17, 2011 01:56 PM (U7joH)

64 "I love you guys who think the Constitution is awesome but it's so weak
it's going to be toppled by some backwards 7th Century religion."

At the risk of a ban hammerin', that's a pretty weak strawman to prop up on us.

Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 01:57 PM (B60j2)

65 progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 01:50 PM (G/MYk)

+ 1000 or so.

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at July 17, 2011 01:58 PM (UqKQV)

66
61 If I point at a Flamming Homosexual in assless chaps, and say I don't like his lifestyle??? (when his ass is hanging out in front of my kids)...
sweet hell, where do live?!!!!

Posted by: navycopjoe (baracudus maximus is coming) at July 17, 2011 01:58 PM (R7NIt)

67 if you want to go pure constitution, then all hate laws should be struck down
Posted by: navycopjoe (baracudus maximus is coming) at July 17, 2011 01:53 PM (R7NIt)


I do and they should.

Isn't that the default conservative position?

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 01:58 PM (dw7rB)

68 Man, I knew DrewM was going to hear from those who think Islam is evil, not a religion but a hate cult, and Muslims are by definition hostile to us. What a squish he is!

I know there are Muslims who want to kill us all. I know there's a significant, important subset of Muslims who are at war with us, and a widely-held interpretation of Islam that commands them to be so.

I joined the Army to fight that enemy. As a result of that I deployed, and met Muslims who detest the use of their religion to justify murder. Who hate the Islamist fanatics more than any of us could, and who view their theology as a cancerous form of Islam.

There are Muslims out there who are taking their lives in their hands to stand with the United States of America. A good many of them are going to be murdered for having been on our side, after our Commander-in-Chief finishes "ending" the wars in which he has "no interest in victory."

For any of you who are convinced all Muslims are the enemy, if you support our troops, I ask you to look up SSG Ayman Taha. Is he the norm? No. Just remember that this man fought and died for us, and that there are others like him.

Posted by: JPS at July 17, 2011 01:59 PM (I8+0q)

69 [Yes it says "Congress shall make no law" but the 14th Amendment has
incorporated the First Amendment against the states, for any
"constitutional scholars" who might have otherwise raised the point.]

Yes and incorporation is made-up bullshit. Bull. Shit.

It was made up by people who were so stupid they had to go to law school.

For instance, there is no right to free speech, there is a restriction on Congress. "Congress shall make no law..."

There is a right to firearms ("shall not be infringed") but no universal constitutional right to free speech. Sorry. Ain't there.

Posted by: AmishDude at July 17, 2011 01:59 PM (73tyQ)

70

I must say it is mind-blowing that he would make such a colossal mistake. Not only is he toast, but he is potentially radioactive for anyone who is associated with him. The last thing you want is to open yourself up to attack ads claiming you're A-OK with banning religions.

Posted by: Serious Cat at July 17, 2011 01:59 PM (bAySe)

71 What?

How dare someone speak out for the survival of this country! Why we have a document that I am sure it says "in case of an Emergency, wrap yourself in this document and set yourself on fire." Good to see the same idiocy and document worship here that became a fetish over at LGF before it went belly-up.

Sorry but after WWII Meim Kampf was banned in Europe. Guess we need something bigger than 911 to ban this fucking doctrine from Hell. Islam is incompatible with the foundations of Democracy, there is no mild version. In fact it is incompatible with humanity. It is the BORG! It will slip in as community centers and mutate into mega-mosques with the call to pray amplified out over our cities.

(See Detroit for Reference)

(See Christians forbidden to pass out literature in an American-Muslim city)

(See England for Reference)

(See Gert Wilders for Reference)

(See implementation of Sharia Law in Europe)

(See the burning of the cars in Paris)

(See our moronic security theater at Airports)

But like liberals it looks like some here must have a specific number of necessary dead Americans before they give themselves permission to fight back against this disease.

I agree on one thing Herman Cain is toast, he should have had enough sense to realize this country is filled with Constitutional Fetishzers. The founders would NEVER have put up with Islam in this country, not after the Barbary Pirates experience (See Jefferson's interpretation of Islam for Reference)

Posted by: Jehu at July 17, 2011 02:01 PM (j6BJc)

72 At the risk of a ban hammerin', that's a pretty weak strawman to prop up on us.

Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 01:57 PM (B60j2)



New here?



Banned for charging someone made a strawman argument? Doesn't happen.
Like the US Constitution, we're made of sterner stuff here.



Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 02:01 PM (dw7rB)

73 Um, yeah, that was my point genius.

Then learn how to make it. You said that communities could ban mosques. They can not. Any idiot who says they can does not believe in our constitution.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at July 17, 2011 02:01 PM (ibO5E)

74 "I must say it is mind-blowing that he would make such a colossal
mistake. Not only is he toast, but he is potentially radioactive for
anyone who is associated with him. The last thing you want is to open
yourself up to attack ads claiming you're A-OK with banning religions."

Maybe so. Like it or not, though, a majority of Americans are going to agree with Cain, ads or no.

Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 02:01 PM (B60j2)

75 I do and they should.Isn't that the default conservative position?

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 01:58 PM (dw7rB)
It is.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 02:01 PM (G/MYk)

76 Islam is not a religion. Cain is unable to make the case coherently.

Posted by: Nickie Goomba at July 17, 2011 02:01 PM (jeLTI)

77
67 Isn't that the default conservative position
you know, i'm not sure
STOP MAKING ME THINK AT 8AM!!!!!

Posted by: navycopjoe (baracudus maximus is coming) at July 17, 2011 02:02 PM (R7NIt)

78 Posted by: JPS at July 17, 2011 01:59 PM (I8+0q)

Not all Muslims; the point is not what individuals are or believe, but what Islam is and promotes.

The man you mentioned did what he did and is what he is despite Islam. Poor argument......

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at July 17, 2011 02:02 PM (UqKQV)

79
Even among Muslims there are differences of opinion - the Sharia branch seems to be the most destructive, and the one that has always given civilizations (even Muslim ones) the most trouble.
As long as a congregation isn't advocating burning everything down, it isn't a problem.
When they start saying that their law is the only law in a country that separates "state" from "religion", that's when they step over the line. And that's what we have to delineate.
Unfortunately, until we have legislators and judges in place who are willing to UPHOLD those laws, we're going to have problems.
And I don't care what your religion may be - you are not allowed to hide behind the guise of religion to justify stockpiling weapons.....

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at July 17, 2011 02:02 PM (EOxFP)

80 And still, some percentage of "conservatives" will support this guy. Hey, maybe Mitt Romney's only connection to pizza is that he helped launch Domino's; and Domino's pizza is The Vomit, but I'm still voting for him!

Posted by: ParisParamus-Hewitt at July 17, 2011 02:02 PM (QN76w)

81 The argument that Islam is a political organization rather than a religion is ridiculous at best. Take a step back from your own Christianity for a minute and you will start to notice that there are an awful lot of dogmatic rules and regulations.....almost like a political platform. All communities of people work towards common goals. Call it religion, call it politics, call it a cult, call it whatever, but don't single out the "other" because you are scared of it. This type of argument against Islam is too similar to the third reich's argument against Judaism for me.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 02:02 PM (YyMmz)

82 I think what Cain keeps getting hung up on is the Sharia Law part of Islam. I response on that is two-fold. Sharia law is NOT part of the Koran. It is one of those handed down things. Secondly, even if it is considered a "requirement" of the religion, here in the U.S. that issue has already been addressed in multiple cases.

Most of those cases that come o mind are stuff like the Sangria faith where they slaughter chickens in a bloody public ritual. The courts have ruled that communities can ban those actions, but not ban the religion. Also, some of the more fringe Christian faiths use snakes in worship. The courts have ruled that communities may ban the use snakes but not the faith.

So Cain needs to start approaching Sharia from that perspective. Communities and the government can and should ban Sharia law in the U.S. but may not ban Islam or the building of temples.

Posted by: Vic at July 17, 2011 02:03 PM (M9Ie6)

83 73
Um, yeah, that was my point genius.Then
learn how to make it. You said that communities could ban mosques. They
can not. Any idiot who says they can does not believe in our
constitution.
Oh, well, i'm real sorry that you don't have the capacity to understand that "restricting" is just a nice, polite term for a ban, i'll try to remember to talk down to your third grade level from now on.

Posted by: booger at July 17, 2011 02:04 PM (9RFH1)

84 There are Muslims out there who are taking their
lives in their hands to stand with the United States of America. A good
many of them are going to be murdered for having been on our side,
after our Commander-in-Chief finishes "ending" the wars in which he has
"no interest in victory."For any of you who are convinced all
Muslims are the enemy, if you support our troops, I ask you to look up
SSG Ayman Taha. Is he the norm? No. Just remember that this man
fought and died for us, and that there are others like him.

Posted by: JPS at July 17, 2011 01:59 PM (I8+0q)
Winston Churchill, The River War (1899):"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries.

Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science‹the science against which it had vainly struggled‹the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 02:04 PM (G/MYk)

85 Actually, I don't think we should ban mosques, but I do think we should ban immigration from Muslim countries.

And I do think a rigid adherence to the Constitution (which sounds so wonderful) is not enough to deal with great evil. Did we never resort to extra-Constitutional measure when fighting Communism? Really? And when we did resort to those *extreme* measures, did we kill the Constitution for all time? No, of course not.

In unusual circumstances, you take unusual actions.

Most western countries are just shutting down immigration in general -- because they aren't willing to say, hey, we just don't want to be flooded with Muslims.

I'd rather we just take the hit. I want us to still siphon off the best and brightest from around the world. We should have an IQ test, an income/asset requirement, and a not-a-muzzie requirement.

The muslim world is still breeding like rabits. There's plenty of Pakistanis and Somalis eager to move to the west and live like parasites.

We can be polite and end up like Sweden where women used to be able to walk around at night alone, but now can't because the muzzie scum are such incurable rapists.

How nice that Sweden wasn't evil and racist and excluded all those Muslims. Instead they let them in and sit back while the muzzies gang-rape the Swedish women. How progressive! How cosmopolitan of the Swedes! How noble!

Posted by: Clubber Lang at July 17, 2011 02:04 PM (QcFbt)

86 Cain is unable to make the case coherently.

Yeah, he's not ready for prime-time, something that has worried me since he lost out on being a Senator, but Mrs928 really likes him.

Meh.

Posted by: toby928™ at July 17, 2011 02:05 PM (GTbGH)

87 At the risk of a ban hammerin', that's a pretty weak strawman to prop up on us.

Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 01:57 PM (B60j2)



New here?



Banned for charging someone made a strawman argument? Doesn't happen.
Like the US Constitution, we're made of sterner stuff here.

* * *

Sort of. I'm used to being here on Ace's watch.

We're much more worried about the statists among us who will use any means necessary - including using Muslims who'd cut their heads off - to topple the Constitution. They've got a much bigger head start and are nearer their goal than we'd probably like to admit.

Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 02:05 PM (B60j2)

88 When I cannot, in my own business,
decide who to hire, or who to serve??? ie, MY freedomof association
(and NOT to associate) is hindered by LAW???
The check on Freedom should not be the law, but the
disdain and disassociation of the society around you (if your lifestyle
is incompatable)...

Posted by: Romeo13

Serial strawmen on the field, fifteen-yard penalty.

If you don't see the difference between attempting to ban mosques and the ramble above, I'm not sure what kind of discussion is possible.

The point of the argument is whether or not governments (Fed, state, local) can ban mosques. They can't.

Flying off to 'freedom of speech and association' is non-sequitur. Your right to speech does not equal the right to ban religions. Freedom of assembly does not give us the power to curb religious practice.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at July 17, 2011 02:06 PM (/9Ezq)

89 At the risk of a ban hammerin', that's a pretty weak strawman to prop up on us.

Dude. We regularly eat our own here. Not only have you not crossed the line, you can't even see the line from where you're standing.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 02:06 PM (piMMO)

90 I don't have a problem with his statement.
There are some who don't think were at war with Islam, they on the other hand know they are at war with us.
How often does a typical Mosque denounce violence when one of its members gets fiesty? Not too often eh? Something to think about.

Posted by: gdonovan at July 17, 2011 02:06 PM (Jo8Um)

91
Islam is a murderous political ideology, but I find the vast majority of Muslims are "bad" Muslims -- by which I mean, they're nice people who don't believe all that murderous hate crap in the Koran. When you call them on it, they change the subject, make excuses, or get mad; they're embarrassed by the murderous stuff and they won't defend it raw.

So why don't they leave the faith? Because it's hard to turn your back on something that's been a part of your identity from your childhood. Easier to officially stay in while you doubt or ignore the ugly parts.

But the confrontation has to come at some point. I'd like to see a townhall where the non-Muslims who don't want a mosque say "Here's why we distrust you," then read from the Koran about hating on Christians and Jews and all the anti-woman shit. Demand that the Muslims explain that if these are the words they live by, how is the stuff they'll be preaching safe for everyone else in the community and consonant with American laws.

Posted by: arhooley at July 17, 2011 02:07 PM (L2e/0)

92 I don't disagree. We are being over-run by muslim politics. Look at London.

Posted by: STacy at July 17, 2011 02:07 PM (Pp1s7)

93 You know, if Cain had speculated that local governments should have the right to restrict the expansion of Phelps' church, nobody would bat an eye.

Posted by: AmishDude at July 17, 2011 02:07 PM (73tyQ)

94 Cain didn't say Congress could ban mosque construction.
He said local communities can.
Cities and counties have zoning ordinances that affect the construction of ANY building, including churches, temples, mosques, etc.
Should NYC not have the power to prohibit construction of a large mosque adjacent to Ground Zero?
I think Cain's position is right, but he needs to be prepared to expound upon his answers more thoroughly to prevent being misunderstood.
And conservatives should be wary of jumping on Cain when he utters a comment like this. Don't join the libs who rejoice in blasting statements like this without getting Cain to elaborate in his own defense.

Posted by: Kortezzi at July 17, 2011 02:07 PM (8/lWb)

95 45
Btw, there's lots of anecdotal stories all over these here intertubes
about the religion of pieces, women getting stoned to death, gays being
hanged, beheadings aplenty, they'll leave you all weepy and shit.

I go with Booger on this....and for all of Drew's crying, we don't see many Muslims protesting other Muslims setting off bombs, or marching against honor killings, or attempting to achieve the equality of the sexes, or supporting Gay rights, or even agreeing to live and let live. And in fact, Islam insists pretty much everywhere that it be given primacy.

In fact, when it comes to Islam, live and let live does not seem to be an aphorism that they live by. And Drew, you should check out the Organization of Islamic Countries bill of Human Rights.






Posted by: Jack at July 17, 2011 02:07 PM (8IAHO)

96 the confusion for many is that they still think and act as if Islam is some benignreligion to be respected and tolerated.It only masquerades as a religion, but it's reallya totalitarian political ideology hellbent on conquering and/or killing disbelievers.

Posted by: exceller at July 17, 2011 02:08 PM (Z7Znk)

97
91 "Here's why we distrust you," then read from the Koran
then you get charged with a hate crime and/or beaten by a rabid mob when you walk outside

Posted by: navycopjoe (baracudus maximus is coming) at July 17, 2011 02:09 PM (R7NIt)

98 Oh, well, i'm real sorry that you don't have the capacity to understand
that "restricting" is just a nice, polite term for a ban, i'll try to
remember to talk down to your third grade level from now on.

When a community says that you are not allowed to open an auto body shop in a part of town zoned as residential, but you can open it in one that is zoned as industrial, that is not a ban, it is a restriction.

Words, they have different meanings. Get a dictionary to help you out with that.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at July 17, 2011 02:09 PM (ibO5E)

99 So why don't they leave the faith? Because it's hard to turn your back
on something that's been a part of your identity from your childhood.
Easier to officially stay in while you doubt or ignore the ugly parts.

Also, the death sentence for apostates. Yes, it might be very unlikely in the US, but there's always going to be some unhinged kid who's going to take the Imam's words seriously.

Posted by: AmishDude at July 17, 2011 02:09 PM (73tyQ)

100 "So Cain needs to start approaching Sharia from that
perspective. Communities and the government can and should ban Sharia
law in the U.S. but may not ban Islam or the building of temples."

Posted by: Vic at July 17, 2011 02:03 PM (M9Ie6
What, then, do we do about all the Muslims already here who believe Sharia is only the logical outcome of following the life example of Mohammed according to the Koran and Hadith. To them, Sharia is the bedrock of their concept of salvation. Allah demanded it of Mohammed, Allah demands it of them. What to do?

Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 02:10 PM (B60j2)

101 Mmm. Popcorn.

Posted by: homer simpson at July 17, 2011 02:11 PM (oUG6f)

102 totalitarian political ideology hellbent on conquering and/or killing disbelievers.

Posted by: exceller at July 17, 2011 02:08 PM (Z7Znk)
Exactly. Why don't we let Stalinists and Maoists start churches? The Church of Pol Pot, maybe, for a spicy Southeast Asian variety......

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at July 17, 2011 02:11 PM (UqKQV)

103 Posted by: Jack at July 17, 2011 02:07 PM (8IAHO)

And, unfortunately, any muslim who does speak out is branded an infidel and puts the lives of their entire family in jeopardy.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 02:11 PM (piMMO)

104 Islam is a force of evil. The proper response is to destroy it.

Mohammad is just a Hitler who won. Literally. He was a murderer, a terrorist, a child-rapist, a slave-trader, and a warlord.

If Hitler had won and his followers created some bullshit religion out of Mein Kampf and the random crazed ravings of Hitler's diseased brain ... that would produce the modern equivalent of Islam.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at July 17, 2011 02:11 PM (QcFbt)

105 Sort of. I'm used to being here on Ace's watch.
Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 02:05 PM (B60j2)


It's always Ace's watch here.

Some of us get to post and uphold his standards when he's not around but they are always his standards.

If you find you're comments being fucked with or deleted, let Ace know. He runs a pretty free shop here. Not just for commenters but posters as well. It's actually one of the things that makes this such a great place.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 02:11 PM (dw7rB)

106 We all realize of course that Islam is Sharia and Sharia is a form of govt., so what Cain says is not out of line. Don't be fooled............

Posted by: Sukie Tawdry at July 17, 2011 02:12 PM (MPtFW)

107 Exactly. Why don't we let Stalinists and Maoists start churches? The
Church of Pol Pot, maybe, for a spicy Southeast Asian variety......

It's here. It's called Hollywood.

Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 02:12 PM (ECjvn)

108 Yes, it might be very unlikely in the US, but there's always going to be some unhinged kid who's going to take the Imam's words seriously.
Isn't the most susceptible group to Islamic radicalization second-generation Middle Eastern immigrants? Apologies if I'm recalling this incorrectly.
Anybody here see The Third Jihad?

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at July 17, 2011 02:13 PM (9hSKh)

109
104 his followers created some bullshit religion out of Mein Kampf and the random crazed ravings of Hitler's diseased brain
it is thechurch of jesus christ christian

Posted by: navycopjoe (baracudus maximus is coming) at July 17, 2011 02:13 PM (R7NIt)

110 Also, the death sentence for apostates. Yes, it might be very
unlikely in the US, but there's always going to be some unhinged kid
who's going to take the Imam's words seriously.

Although less likely, when a circumstance affects my family, it is my family with which I am concerned. The vague statistics don't do much when you fear for the life of your own daughter.

They are enslaved to a much greater degree than they might even recognize.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 02:13 PM (piMMO)

111 To them, Sharia is the bedrock of their concept of salvation. Allah
demanded it of Mohammed, Allah demands it of them. What to do?

No community that I know of allows implementation of Sharia law in the U.S.

Posted by: Vic at July 17, 2011 02:14 PM (M9Ie6)

112 When a community says that you are not allowed to open an auto body shop
in a part of town zoned as residential, but you can open it in one that
is zoned as industrial, that is not a ban, it is a restriction.

And because that auto body shop cannot open in that residential zone, it's been effectively banned from that area. Understand? Probably not.

Posted by: booger at July 17, 2011 02:14 PM (9RFH1)

113 I once belonged to a Santana church, but then Zappa showed me the way, hehe...

You people do realize that once of the reasons liberals want the Constitution to go away because they believe it keeps half the world in chains under a CHRISTIAN EMPIRE? Think about that when you try to claim that Islam is somehow different than any other religion.

You don't have to go that far back in history to find a time when EVERY religion was also a system of laws, and a violent geopolitical movement.

Also, people seem to think of Muslims as some single, unified force when that's actually LESS true of Muslims than just about anyone else, which is one of the main reasons that their part of the world sucks.

Posted by: KirkCameronLeftMeBehind at July 17, 2011 02:14 PM (iZ6fL)

114 Why not ban Muslim immigrants from immigrating in the first place? Id love to know the number of Muslims here pre- and post-1965. Just another thing to hate the treasonous Kennedy and the jewish open borders fanatics Cellar and Hart.

Posted by: White RB at July 17, 2011 02:14 PM (LrLv1)

115 "Islam is a murderous political ideology, but I find the vast majority of
Muslims are "bad" Muslims -- by which I mean, they're nice people who
don't believe all that murderous hate crap in the Koran. When you call
them on it, they change the subject, make excuses, or get mad; they're
embarrassed by the murderous stuff and they won't defend it raw."

Ever consider the possibility they're engaging inf taquiya, or however it's spelled? That they're lying to your infidel face because they don't yet have the power to force you to pay tax, convert or die? That's the biggest fear I have: it is IMPOSSIBLE to know which Muslim is or isn't telling the truth about a desire for or against Sharia. You cannot know who is a sleeper.

Sorry to sound paranoid, if anyone thinks I am, but it's a fact. No one suspected Hassan until it was way too late.

Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 02:15 PM (B60j2)

116
105 but they are always his standards.
???????
shit, his standards must me as low as my wife's standards in husbands then

Posted by: navycopjoe (baracudus maximus is coming) at July 17, 2011 02:15 PM (R7NIt)

117 progressoverpeace

You obviously do not know what is considered a religion under the Constitution.

Posted by: Crispian at July 17, 2011 02:15 PM (ULTcD)

118 Posted by: arhooley at July 17, 2011 02:07 PM (L2e/0)
Interesting take and I agree but for me it all boils down to this.
All Muslims are complicit with their extremist terrorist brethren in their refusal to denounce them. That's all I need.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 02:15 PM (r/KvE)

119 Sorry to sound paranoid, if anyone thinks I am, but it's a fact. No one suspected Hassan until it was way too late.

Although there was every reason to suspect him.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 02:16 PM (piMMO)

120 Scientology, a totally fake religion gets all the protections of the first amendment.

Posted by: SurferDoc at July 17, 2011 02:16 PM (STdkO)

121 111
To them, Sharia is the bedrock of their concept of salvation. Allah
demanded it of Mohammed, Allah demands it of them. What to do?

"No community that I know of __________ allows implementation of Sharia law in the U.S."

Key word you left out is "knowingly."

Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 02:16 PM (B60j2)

122 It's wrong to ban mosques.

Let them build, let them worship.

But when one of their flock sends money to terrorists, or goes jihadi, shut the place up until the investigation is over. Some mosques are just fronts for global jihad. It's a fact.
Investigate crimes already on the books.

Don't try to go totalitarian to fight totalitarianism.

Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 02:16 PM (ECjvn)

123 Whoever it was that cried should interview any of the many Arab Christian immigrants who fled persecution and mass murder in the M.E.

Islam is an effective tool for ruthless murderous political thugs who kill or exile anyone trying to live in peace alongside them--as well as anyone who refuses to 'convert. This happens everywhere Muslims get governmental power.

Everywhere. Ask the Copts in Egypt these past few months

Repeat after me: It's not a religion; it's not a religion.....



Posted by: SantaRosaStan at July 17, 2011 02:17 PM (UqKQV)

124 ErikW,

What you need is not relevant to the Constitution.

Posted by: Crispian at July 17, 2011 02:17 PM (ULTcD)

125 The Cain segment back up on FNS in just a couple of minutes.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 02:17 PM (piMMO)

126 And conservatives should be wary of jumping on Cain when he utters a
comment like this. Don't join the libs who rejoice in blasting
statements like this without getting Cain to elaborate in his own
defense.
Posted by: Kortezzi at July 17, 2011 02:07 PM (8/lWb)


You know what? Being a candidate for President, let alone actually being President, means saying things right the first time. If you constantly have to "elaborate" in your own defense, maybe the solution is to stop running your damn mouth off without thinking. Or get a fucking TelePromter for the guy.

And spare me the zoning argument you make. Cain never said a damn word about that, he was only talking about "Sharia Law" and the content of the religion.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 02:17 PM (dw7rB)

127 Don't try to go totalitarian to fight totalitarianism.
Succinctly put.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 02:18 PM (piMMO)

128 Cain is the type of charismatic guy that often looks good to voters until they get a close look at the details. I don't think Cain is or was a serious candidate. But, I can understand where he is coming from. Look at this:

"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery—then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” –Jessie Jackson

Inasmuch as Islam is a totalitarian political ideology masquerading as a religion, and that mosques are often organizing centers for jihad, I can see why Cain would voice that sentiment. As we should all know, Islam is at war with the non-Muslim world. Has anyone heard of Dar-al-Harb and Dar-al-Islam? That refers to the house of Islam, or house of submission (where Islam rules) and the house of war (everywhere else).

The fact that most Muslims are peaceful and may not seek to destroy our western civilization is moot. The ones who are in charge do.

Clearly, under our constitution mosques or any other "religious" building cannot be forbidden. It would take a constitutional amendment to change that, which is unlikely.

At the same time, bringing millions of Muslims to the United States is just asking for trouble. Our liberal policies may be the death of us. I am in favor of ending all Muslim immigration to America, and repatriating as many as we can who are already here. Muslims need to be quarantined in their own historical lands. Look what has happened to Europe. Do you want that here? Islam is antithetical to all that we hold dear, democracy, liberty, individual freedom– things that are under attack anywhere Muslims live in significant numbers. In exchange, we get hatred of Jews and Israel, misogyny and creeping Sharia law.

With respect, Drew, you should know better.

Posted by: Mystery Meat at July 17, 2011 02:18 PM (9AJat)

129
No one suspected Hassan until it was way too late.<<<

Except for all of the people who did. They just feared the Army's PC police and kept quiet about it.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at July 17, 2011 02:19 PM (lGFXF)

130
Also, the death sentence for apostates. Yes, it
might be very unlikely in the US, but there's always going to be some
unhinged kid who's going to take the Imam's words seriously.

Posted by: AmishDude at July 17, 2011 02:09 PM

I think it's more likely total, utter exclusion from your community and your family evermore. That's more of a motivating factor than fear that some dumb kid will execute you. Just guessing, but that's my guess.

Posted by: arhooley at July 17, 2011 02:19 PM (L2e/0)

131 I hope this isn't the top thread for hours.

Just sayin'

Posted by: toby928™ at July 17, 2011 02:19 PM (GTbGH)

132 This type of argument against Islam is too similar to the third reich's argument against Judaism for me.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 02:02 PM (YyMmz)
You don't seem to understand the simple differences between the three. They are stark. Judaism has a governmental component bundled in with the religion. It is a combination Nation/Religion. In fact, Judaism represented the first Nation-state with an abstract concept of citizenship based on common beliefs towards life and meta-physics. Judaism is part political ideology, but the government of Judaism was limited in scope. It was limited to the Promised Land. Jewish Law was not to rule over anyone else, and much of it didn't even apply to non-Jews living in Israel. It was, in any event, the first limited, Constitutional government. Judaism was also anti-proselytization, thereby not representing an expansionist threat to anyone in that way. It was a limited government contained within a much larger religion.Christianity moved in the opposite direction on both accounts. It lost all desire for political power (in the religious texts, not that others wouldn't parlay Christianity into a political force, mostly because something had to glue Europe together in the fall of the Western Roman empire) and gained proselytization in the core of the religion. Christianity introduced many new concepts as it concentrated much in the after-life, which Judaism never spent much time with.
Then, hundreds of years after Christianity ... thousands of years after Judaism ... islam comes along. Mo steals bits and pieces from Judaism and Christianity. But he perverts them (to make them palatable to the cultures he's initially addressing and to himself, of course - and then he calls the Jews and Christians liars because the original stories disagree with Mo's new versions ... chutzpah, indeed) and finds incredibly toxic combinations. One such is that he takes the governmental role of Judaism and the proselytization of Chrisitianity and throws them together in a dangerous cocktail. That is the driving force of the expansionist, aggressive, violent framework that he built to be known as islam.Chrisitianity is related to Judaism in that Jews created Christianity. Islam had no input from Jews or Christians, in any real way, and is as different and independent from them as Washington D.C. would bear no relation to some guy in India who starts a new "religion" today and declares George Washington to be G-d and Washington D.C. to be the new Jerusalem. That idiot would have no rights to claim on our capital city. islam is only part religion by awful mimicry. It is politics.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 02:20 PM (G/MYk)

133 Strange. After all the acts of terrorism, after all the honor killings, after all the mosques being used as recruiting sites for a death cult, after all these "religious leaders" preaching a morality more suited to 7th century barbarians than modern, rational human beings; we still have those stupid, stupid, stupid people with their "religion of peace" crap. We still have those people who fall all over themselves shouting how we are "not at war with Islam"; when in reality these people simply too blind to notice that Islam is at war with us - and has been for 1400 years. Herman Cain is "despicable"? Why - because he's noticed that our idea of religion doesn't exactly jibe with Islam's idea of religion. Because he's noticed that Moslem clerics aren't exactly marching in the streets proclaiming the Prophet was wrong - it isn't alright to lie to, rape, rob and kill your non Moslem neighbors - no matter what it says in the Koran. Why is it that the same people who can figure out that Communism - as it's written - is far worse in practice. Can't seem to figure out that Islam is even worse in practice then written - and that's pretty bad. Would it be "despicable to point out that some communities might not want a Neo-Nazi or Ku Klux Klan meeting hall - where the Neo Nazis or Klansmen plot their acts of terror - in their communities. Ace you seem to have swallowed whole, the leftist crap that if we don't allow everything, then soon we won't allow anything. Would you learn something about Islam - like the fact that a mosque is often more than a mosque - but often a victory monument. "Despicable"? Most times you're dead on, but this time you're simply sounding politically correct.

Posted by: Mike Giles at July 17, 2011 02:20 PM (DbIwF)

134 @115 Actually, everyone suspected Hassan but they told themselves and each other that their suspicions were racist and islamophobic.

I knew a very liberal white girl who was out late one night and saw a couple sketchy looking black dudes walking toward her. She wanted to cross the street. But she didn't because she thought that would be racist.

Luckily for her she only got mugged.

Funny thing is, she still thinks it's racist to cross the street to avoid sketchy looking black dudes.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at July 17, 2011 02:21 PM (QcFbt)

135 Aren't abortion clinics houses of worship for liberals?

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at July 17, 2011 02:21 PM (AF1jB)

136
when a mosque performs its first same sex marriage, i'm consider it a religion
............start holding my breath

Posted by: navycopjoe (baracudus maximus is coming) at July 17, 2011 02:21 PM (R7NIt)

137 But the confrontation has to come at some point. I'd like to see a
townhall where the non-Muslims who don't want a mosque say "Here's why
we distrust you," then read from the Koran about hating on Christians
and Jews and all the anti-woman shit. Demand that the Muslims explain
that if these are the words they live by, how is the stuff they'll be
preaching safe for everyone else in the community and consonant with
American laws.

Quoting verbatim from the Koran is racist. Or something.

Posted by: Ignatz D. Mouse at July 17, 2011 02:21 PM (2oX2J)

138 Posted by: weft cut-loop at July 17, 2011 02:06 PM (/9Ezq)
Nice way to MISS the point....
IF we had actual freedom of Speech, and association,away from the now perverse Political Correctness, they would not be building these mosques here as the rest of the populace, would not be making them feel welcome.
The statement was in relation to an earlier post... that talked about how Others use the Freedoms granted by a free society, to destroy it...
And I was attempting to explain thatsome of the Checks within a Free Society to misbehaviour by a group... that of shunning... and of not giving them service if too far out... is now hindered by Law...

Posted by: Romeo13 at July 17, 2011 02:22 PM (NtXW4)

139 You obviously do not know what is considered a religion under the Constitution.

Posted by: Crispian at July 17, 2011 02:15 PM (ULTcD)
Religion is defined in the Constitution? And you obviously don't know what a political ideology is.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 02:22 PM (G/MYk)

140 This type of argument against Islam is too similar to the third reich's argument against Judaism for me.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 02:02 PM (YyMmz)

Ignorance is bliss, eh? Godwin strikes again.......

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at July 17, 2011 02:22 PM (UqKQV)

141 ErikW,What you need is not relevant to the Constitution.
Posted by: Crispian at July 17, 2011 02:17 PM (ULTcD)
I understand that, that's why I didn't mention the Constitution in context with what I was saying.
I was merely voicing my disgust and hatred for an evil culture.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 02:22 PM (r/KvE)

142 when a mosque performs its first same sex marriage, i'm consider it a religion
............start holding my breath
Posted by: navycopjoe (baracudus maximus is coming) at July 17, 2011 02:21 PM (R7NIt)
I thought you were already married?

Posted by: robtr at July 17, 2011 02:22 PM (MtwBb)

143 Any power that is granted for limiting mosques or temples or churches will still be there when the demographics and culture change.

In thirty years when the Hispanic population is a majority in an area, would we want them to have the power to stop construction of all but Catholic churches? Would we want the Armenians in Glendale and Pasadena to only allow Armenian churches?
Only gay churches in San Fransisco?

The problem with power is that everyone gets a chance to wield it eventually.


Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 02:23 PM (ECjvn)

144 No one suspected Hassan until it was way too late.<<<

Except for all of the people who did. They just feared the Army's PC police and kept quiet about it.'You are correct. I should have wrote, no one acted on Hassan until...

Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 02:24 PM (B60j2)

145 With respect, Drew, you should know better.
Posted by: Mystery Meat at July 17, 2011 02:18 PM (9AJat)


Know what better?

I was advocating for a halt in Muslim immigration on 9/11/01 until we could check out everyone who was already here. I can't link it because that was about 3 years before this blog was even created or 4 before I even found it.

A friend of mine once made the "tiny minority" argument and I said the exact same thing...one-It's not that tiny and two-They're the ones that count.

That doesn't change the fact that we don't ban or punish people's thoughts and beliefs, we deal with their actions. You start messing with that bright line (and we have done too much of that already with hate crimes and speech codes) and it doesn't end up well for anyone.


Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 02:24 PM (dw7rB)

146 Tune into One Imam Five Gays, premiering this Fall on MTV!

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at July 17, 2011 02:24 PM (AF1jB)

147 Religion is defined in the Constitution? Which section / article ???


Posted by: SantaRosaStan at July 17, 2011 02:24 PM (UqKQV)

148 This thread needs a bit of a tension reliever:
How about this?
That outfit DEFINITELY has the X Factor! Tulisa shows off her curves in a bandage dress as she celebrates her 23rd birthday

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at July 17, 2011 02:25 PM (9hSKh)

149 This type of argument against Islam is too similar to the third reich's argument against Judaism for me.

Were there really Jews plotting to overthrow Germany, like the Nazis said there were?

Are there really Muslims plotting to overthrow America, like many MUSLIMS say there are?

Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 02:25 PM (B60j2)

Posted by: compass and chain at July 17, 2011 02:25 PM (KzLjZ)

151 Posted by: weft cut-loop at July 17, 2011 02:06 PM (/9Ezq)
What.... I can't build my new pyramid? with the new Alter with blood channels???
Help help... I'm being Oppressed!

Posted by: Aztec High Priest at July 17, 2011 02:26 PM (NtXW4)

152 Really?! The AFT/UFT/SEIU/AFSCME/AFL-CIO are going to disappear, just
like that?! The leftist clap trap has infected academia for almost 50
years now thanks to the likes of Bill Ayers. And as for elections, yeah
those will be fair and square. Sheesh.

Did I say that it would be easy? No, but that's the price you pay for a representative government, if you can keep it. It beats mob rule.

Posted by: pep at July 17, 2011 02:26 PM (6TB1Z)

153 I agree that Wallace is despicable.

Cain just needs a little help in expressing the broader concept of Islam being a terrorist organization.

Posted by: sTevo at July 17, 2011 02:26 PM (uIz80)

154 52% of this country is already demonstrably stupid.
Do we really want to give them another dangerous toy to play with?



Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 02:28 PM (ECjvn)

155 Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 02:24 PM (dw7rB)
I'm not 'punishing' anyone's 'thoughts or beliefs'. I'm objecting to what Muslims actually do--and to what their death cult openly advocatesI don't want to give murders and savage hate-mongers an organized, established, open forum and organizational infra-structure, with tax-exempt status and Constitutional protection

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at July 17, 2011 02:28 PM (UqKQV)

156 No Mosque in Murfreesboro? Where are the motel owners down that way supposed to pray? I say allow it in the condition that anything can be built on each side and across the street.

Posted by: Jimma at July 17, 2011 02:28 PM (TfRqk)

157 What the fuck! I thought I ambled upon a Little Green Footballs thread.

Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 02:28 PM (HlEu/)

158 Also, the death sentence for apostates.

Posted by: AmishDude at July 17, 2011 02:09 PM (73tyQ)
That's #3 of the Five Pillars of islam, For Western Dummies:1) islam means "submission2) muslims have to kiss the ground 5 times a day, every day - just to constantly remind themselves of what inconsequential, unimportant, insignificant pieces of trash they are3) apostacy is punishable by death4) the islamic calendar is a purely lunar calendar - never to be in sync with any solar calendar and thus, never to be in sync with the West. The additions of any intercalaries is punishable by death.5) there are no days of rest in islam and no holidays of joy. This should tell you a hell of a lot.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 02:29 PM (G/MYk)

159 In reference to 132

What? You can justify anything you want, but my main point is that ALL religions have political elements, just as any community of people do. Just because Islam is not part of "your" community does not make it invalid under the constitution. To make an entire community the enemy is what hitler did, and is what this Muslim argument reminds me of, regardless of your justifications.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 02:29 PM (YyMmz)

160 Banning mosques is a horrible, unconstitutional and wrong headed idea. That said, I would like to see the same standards of separation of church and state applied to Islam that are currently applied to Christianity*. The PC mentality in this country treats Islam with such kid gloves that we end up with situations like they have in Dearborn. No, you can't blast your prayers to the entire city over a PA system. No, you can't hide your face on your drivers license. No, you can't have special private courts so that you can maintain your oppression of women. Etc, etc.

(*Actually, I'd like to see much stronger standards applied to both Islam and Christianity, and any other religion for that matter.)

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 02:29 PM (P8oOy)

161 Drew is strictly correct, but also neither as smart nor as sympathetic as he thinks he is on this. The first amendment works because we have an unspoken Deal regarding religion. The Deal is, churches get left alone, though church-goers may involve themselves in politics, as long as we all agree in very general terms about the primacy of the state's secular authority and the responsibility of churches to be a conscience without actually seeking direct political power.

(There's an interesting bit in Democracy in America where Tocqueville relates how pastors and priests of all denominations are respected by people of all denominations, which is surprising to a European, and he ties it to the common understanding of the time that pastors just didn't seek office or involve themselves in politics. Which, by the way, seems on its face to violate our modern understanding of the 1st amendment and the religious test clause, but was apparently a useful and perhaps necessary step in establishing real religious freedom and neutrality in America.)

There's a component of Islam that doesn't share that understanding, that in fact is engaged in an explicit project to claim secular authority, not only through direct political power where it can, but also by influence of peer pressure in civil society. And it's not only terrorists seeking that, it's an appreciable minority of hard-line peaceful muslims. I am not saying there aren't many truly loyal and integrated muslims; ironically the idiots demanding acceptance at any price for all muslims are the ones throwing those modern integrated muslims under the bus.

Sooner or later we're going to have to have this out. We're in the very early stages of colonization, not assimilation, but we have an example of what later stages of colonization look like in Europe. It isn't pretty, and it would be better to follow Thomas Jefferson's example and take a close and honest look about the political-secular ambitions of Islam than to take the advice of DrewM and other useful idiots and wait until we're dealing with gang attacks on un-scarved women to wonder what's going on.

Posted by: Dave R. at July 17, 2011 02:30 PM (dVPFl)

162 Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 02:29 PM (YyMmz)

Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler

There. Saved you some typing.

Mr. Godwin S. Law is on hold for you on Line 2.

Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 02:31 PM (ECjvn)

163 Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 02:29 PM (G/MYk)
Nicely put, thank you.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 02:31 PM (r/KvE)

164 Posted by: sTevo at July 17, 2011 02:26 PM (uIz80)
Thats the real problem...
I think he knows that Islam is not 'just' a religion.... that its houses of worship are used for other purposes... that you can't have Islam without Sharia... but was not clear...
Face it, if you read the Koran, there is NO way you can be a by the book Moslem, and support the US Constitution... they are incompatable documents.
So why should we allow ANY organization to be on US soil, whose goal is to destroy the very foundation of our Constitution and way of life... even if it does 'cloak' itself as a religion, by saying Allah told them to overthrow us?

Posted by: Romeo13 at July 17, 2011 02:31 PM (NtXW4)

165 Islam is all fluffy bunnies, rainbows, and very nice people. Except for the large portion (or, in MSM language, "tiny minority") who want to kill everyone who isn't a believer.

Posted by: Ignatz D. Mouse at July 17, 2011 02:32 PM (2oX2J)

166 149

Oh, ok. Good argument. Let's gas em!

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 02:32 PM (YyMmz)

167 Never trust a Muslim.

Posted by: garrett at July 17, 2011 02:32 PM (5heTz)

168 I live in West TN and have followed this story somewhat. The local issue is the same as ground zero. The organizers of the project have allegedly similar shady connections to possible radical out-reach programs. The basic issue is transparentcy in financing that the backers of ground zero could not provide. The citizens of Murfreesboro will not be complicient in supporting terrorism PERIOD.

Posted by: compass and chain at July 17, 2011 02:33 PM (KzLjZ)

169 What? You can justify anything you want, but my main point is that ALL
religions have political elements, just as any community of people do.
Just because Islam is not part of "your" community does not make it
invalid under the constitution.

Who here said they have a problem with Islam just because it 'is not part of 'our' community? Post number please.

To make an entire community the enemy
is what hitler did, and is what this Muslim argument reminds me of,
regardless of your justifications.

First, you've repeatedly failed to justify your decision to lump us in with Nazis.

Second, I ask again...were there any Jews actively plotting to overthrow Germany? Are there any Muslims plotting to overthrow the West in general and the U.S. in particular? I suspect you know the answers to both those questions.


Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 02:34 PM (B60j2)

170 wish I had spell check.

Posted by: compass and chain at July 17, 2011 02:35 PM (KzLjZ)

171 I see some comparisons to Christianity popping up like they always do in threads like this.

First off, the Constitution was written by Christian men, voted into effect by Christians. Its concepts are entirely from Biblical doctrine and ideas. It was the modern world's first attempt to create a political system based on the Judeo-Christian ethic.

I find it peculiar we would now use such a document to defend and allow the darkest force in the history of the world to flourish here.

And for Christian-bashers gazing at the dark-ages. The dark-ages were a result of men rejecting spiritual truth. Not until Martin Luther and the early reformers forged a path back to Scripture and the actual teachings of Christ did light, both political, religious and scientific break out again in Europe, and thence to America. (Almost all the early scientists were devout Christians...even Galileo)

When Muslims return to their roots, it is the murder, mayhem and conquest of their founder. Christian reformation gave us Western Civilization as we know it. Islamic reformation gives us Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan. It gives us beheaded school girls on country roads in Indonesia. It gives us 911. It gives us politically correct backlash so Americans vote for a half-Muslim, cool black guy, but an idiot none-the-less. All because of a lack of facing up that we are in a total war, there is no compromise with evil. Are individual Muslims OK?...sure they are, lots of Germans were not NAZI's. They still watched Jews and Christians marched off to death camps.

Posted by: Jehu at July 17, 2011 02:35 PM (j6BJc)

172 Walled compounds in the woods for training terrorists, fake charities, sedition, treason, and conspiracy is right out.

If someone uses a mosque for cover the whole organization needs to be investigated with a microscope.

No-Knock policy on the books, the membership rolls, the property, everything as soon as someone goes jihadi or does an honor killing or female circumcision.


Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 02:35 PM (ECjvn)

173


Will someone PLEASE show me three examples of how the influx
of Islam has actually benefited the West? I mean beyond mealy-mouthed feel good
platitudes of “sharing” or “diversity” or “exposure”. I want hard truths. Our
oil is cheaper? Fuck no. Okay. How about the improvement of the rights of women
in the Islamic world? Nope. What about the practice of “honor killings”. Oh
shit – dozens in England last year? Well….I’m thinkin’…….hey, how about the
notion that the INCREASE in Islam IN the West results in a DECREASE in radicals
FROM the west. Fuck! That fails too! Well, hey, the good news is Muhammed is the
most popular name in Britain today, replacing “Jack”. And I’m all for it. Jack’s
are such assholes.




Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 02:35 PM (HlEu/)

174 162

Good argument too. I mention hitler, so my argument MUST be bullshit.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 02:35 PM (YyMmz)

175 What the fuck! I thought I ambled upon a Little Green Footballs thread.

Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 02:28 PM (HlEu/)

Oh, ok. Good argument. Let's gas em!

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 02:32 PM (YyMmz)
I love the internets. Lucid arguments; intelligent arguments.....

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at July 17, 2011 02:35 PM (UqKQV)

176 Oh, ok. Good argument. Let's gas em!

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 02:32 PM (YyMmz)

Fool. I now regret ever replying to you.

Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 02:36 PM (B60j2)

177 Islam itself is despicable. They bought the tickets, they knew what they were getting in to.

I say, let 'em crash.

Posted by: Pointer Count at July 17, 2011 02:37 PM (xcBkZ)

178 167
Never trust a Muslim.
----
What he said. To me, the simple act of calling moslems "muslim" is too generous. For some reason - on or about 9-11-2001 the spelling changed.

Posted by: Jimma at July 17, 2011 02:37 PM (TfRqk)

179 Every community makes Mormons have a legal fight over building their temples.
they always cry in the zoning meetings non-stop

Posted by: hypocrites at July 17, 2011 02:37 PM (cNbYO)

180 Walled compounds in the woods for training terrorists, fake charities, sedition, treason, and conspiracy is right out.If someone uses a mosque for cover the whole organization needs to be investigated with a microscope.No-Knock
policy on the books, the membership rolls, the property, everything as
soon as someone goes jihadi or does an honor killing or female
circumcision.

Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 02:35 PM (ECjvn)

I would LOVE to see Cain - or anyone - cite your list in an interview.

Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 02:38 PM (B60j2)

181 In case you aren't watching, during this FNS segment, Liz Cheney looks like she's going to take off Podesta's head at one point.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 02:39 PM (piMMO)

182 Every community makes Mormons have a legal fight over building their temples. They always cry in the zoning meetings non-stop

It's their special Mormon underwear. Much too tight.

Posted by: Ignatz D. Mouse at July 17, 2011 02:39 PM (2oX2J)

183
I'll let Billy Connolly speak for me about Islam (and this after he blasted Christianshttp://tinyurl.com/3ggfqwt

Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 02:39 PM (HlEu/)

184 What he said. To me, the simple act of calling moslems "muslim" is too generous. For some reason - on or about 9-11-2001 the spelling changed.

----

It happened quite a while before that. When I learned about Islam in 7th grade Social Studies, they were spelling it "muslim" and that would have been 1978-ish.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 02:39 PM (P8oOy)

185 To find evidence of Christian conquest, terror, torture, and oppression you only need to open a History book.


To find evidence of muz conquest, terror, torture, and oppression you only need to pick up a copy of today's newspaper.

I know what side I am on.

Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 02:40 PM (ECjvn)

186 Good argument too. I mention hitler, so my argument MUST be bullshit.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 02:35 PM (YyMmz)
the Attempted Walk-Back. Fail. You clearly implied that your opponents are the same as Nazis who committed mass murder. Now you want to dance.
Bullshit is as bullshit does......

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at July 17, 2011 02:40 PM (UqKQV)

187 Islam isn't a religion. It's an insane death cult that threatens the lives and freedom of every human being on the planet.

Sooner or later this existential threat to civilization is going to have to be dealt with, and sooner or later we're going to need people in power who understand that.

Herman Cain isn't despicable, he's realistic.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 17, 2011 02:41 PM (Ohzoo)

188 To me, the simple act of
calling moslems "muslim" is too generous. For some reason - on or about
9-11-2001 the spelling changed.

Is there a difference in meaning for each spelling? Honestly never considered the different spellings before now.

Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 02:41 PM (B60j2)

189 Here is the statement with some fuller context...you may disagree, but it's not so unhinged sounding as the op makes it out to be, IMO. He does make a constitutional argument in the last paragraph.



“They have the right to do that,” Cain said on Fox News Sunday, expressing his concerns with Sharia law. “I’m willing to take a harder look at people that might be terrorists.”


Cain’s comments were in reference to a Tennessee town
that is attempting to ban a mosque in its community. “That’s not
discriminating based upon their particular religion,” he said. “There is
an aspect of them building that mosque that doesn’t get talked about.
And the people in the community know what it is and they’re talking
about it.”


“Our Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state,” Cain
said. “Islam combines church and state. They’re using the church part of
our First Amendment to infuse their morals in that community, and the
people in the community do not like it.”

Posted by: The Hammer at July 17, 2011 02:42 PM (32ubA)

190
I agree that Wallace is despicable.

He certainly is capable of dividing the moron nation, that's for sure.

I still like him. Very much so, in fact. He often plays the devil's advocate in an argument and that leaves him in a position, sometimes, where folks think his questioning mirrors his own beliefs. Actually, I see it as allowing the guest to argue against the point (moron) in a safer environment.

He hasn't lost me yet.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 02:42 PM (piMMO)

191 184
What he said. To me, the simple act of
calling moslems "muslim" is too generous. For some reason - on or about
9-11-2001 the spelling changed.

----

It happened
quite a while before that. When I learned about Islam in 7th grade
Social Studies, they were spelling it "muslim" and that would have been
1978-ish.
----
It was spelled both ways, if you google the exact verbage in google news, it pretty much ended in 2001. I trust them as far as their vest will spread their vapor.

Posted by: Jimma at July 17, 2011 02:42 PM (TfRqk)

192 186

Clearly implied was the same mindset, not the same actions.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 02:43 PM (YyMmz)

193 Good argument too. I mention hitler, so my argument MUST be bullshit.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 02:35 PM (YyMmz)

You never bothered making an argument, fool.

By the way, that's the 2nd time you haven't capitalized Hitler (a proper name) but you do capitalize Muslim. Now I wonder why you made that conscious choice...

Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 02:45 PM (B60j2)

194 If the North Carolina Church of Cocks, Ballsand Bombs had perpetrated all the violence that Islam has in just the past ten years, nevermind the entire history of the religion, and Herman Cain said "fuck no" to their bullshit, would Drew M. still be defending them? Even if the NCCCBB DID have 1 billion followers? And treated their women like jellyfish shit? Hey Drew, pick a different fuckin' point to make on this blog, lad.

Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 02:46 PM (HlEu/)

195
Clearly implied was the same mindset, not the same actions.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 02:43 PM (YyMmz)
Your dancing is as bad as your logic.
You're saying that people who want to deny a mosque in Tennessee are the same as Nazis who murdered 10+ million people. Pure genius......

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at July 17, 2011 02:46 PM (UqKQV)

196 Communities have rejected all manner of development proposals. The matter becomes before the zoning board and the residents show up and express opinions, sometimes swaying the opinion of the board who is subject to voters in the community. Oftentimes the proposal is a legal use of a properly zoned parcel of land. Some people don't want a pot paraphernalia store in their neighborhood for example.

Drew here thinks special consideration should be given to Muslims and that any plan they may have should be approved on the spot with no input from the community. Well it doesn't work that way. Is it Constitutional to prevent a property owner from doing something with his land because others may oppose it? It would depend on the situation but I can say here in Michigan it happens ALL THE TIME.

If someone put forth a proposal to erect a new Synagogue or church in the Arab dominated area of Dearborn, you can rest assured the opposition would be loud coming from the Islamic community. Is that right? No, but the fact remains the project would probably be killed.

As others have noted, there is a particular pattern that emerges wherever Muslims coalesce and attain critical mass. The "no-go" zones in London are one example of dozens throughout the Western world. Communities have every right to be concerned that a similar problem could happen to them. The concept of "when in Rome..." means nothing to Muslims. They do what they do and they don't give a crap about the laws or culture of whatever community they may find themselves. They begin making demands and set up their own separate community based on their world view.

Posted by: Ken Royall at July 17, 2011 02:46 PM (9zzk+)

197 #1: You guys suck and are just as bad as Hitler, who also sucked
#2: Also, Hitler.
#3. And Racism.
#4. Additionally, Hitler.

I rest my case. For real. Suck it wingnuts!

Posted by: For really real at July 17, 2011 02:47 PM (QcFbt)

198 I still like him. Very much so, in fact. He often plays the devil's
advocate in an argument and that leaves him in a position, sometimes,
where folks think his questioning mirrors his own beliefs. Actually, I
see it as allowing the guest to argue against the point (moron) in a
safer environment.

Agreed. Wallace is an excellent interviewer.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 17, 2011 02:47 PM (Ohzoo)

199
If the North Carolina Church of Cocks, Balls and Bombs had perpetrated all the violence that Islam has in just the past ten years, nevermind the entire history of the religion, and Herman Cain said "fuck no" to their bullshit, would Drew M. still be defending them? Even if the NCCCBB DID have 1 billion followers? And treated their women like jellyfish shit? Hey Drew, pick a different fuckin' point to make on this blog, lad.

Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 02:47 PM (HlEu/)

200 It was spelled both ways, if you google the exact verbage in google news, it pretty much ended in 2001.

I'm skeptical. But even if I were to grant it, so what? There's not a whole lot of standardization in the way that Arabic phonemes are rendered in English. Perhaps you'd prefer to go back to calling them "Musselmen?"

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 02:47 PM (P8oOy)

201 Islam isn't a religion. It's an insane death cult that threatens the lives and freedom of every human being on the planet.Sooner or later this existential threat to civilization is going to have to be dealt with, and sooner or later we're going to need people in power who understand that.Herman Cain isn't despicable, he's realistic.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 17, 2011 02:41 PM (Ohzoo)
This. We are in a Holy War. This is good vs. evil. That's not cool or fashionable or popular to say but that's the deal.
Yes, I'm coming from a Christian perspective but even if one isn't religious, it should be pretty obvious that Islam is at least the enemy of freedom and should be completely wiped out.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 02:48 PM (r/KvE)

202 I think we can ALL agree that we shouldn't eat the goat until three days after we've laid with it...am I right?

Posted by: Mohammed fucks goats at July 17, 2011 02:48 PM (5heTz)

203 The organizers of the project have allegedly similar shady connections
to possible radical out-reach programs. The basic issue is transparentcy
in financing that the backers of ground zero could not provide.

Posted by: compass and chain at July 17, 2011 02:33 PM (KzLjZ)



Ah, "allegedly", "shady" and "possible"? Well, why didn't Cain just say that? I
mean with that standard of proof of course we can override the plain
meaning of the Constitution!



BTW-When did we get on board with the idea that every-time someone wants
to build something, they have to open their books up to the government?



Suppose an anti-abortion group connected with some small Christian sect
wanted to buy a building in NYC and open a counseling center. Should the
city be able to say, "not until you show us your books and we examine
all your donors because some anti-abortion types have advocated and used
violence in the past"?



Are you ok with that? I'm not. Whether or not someone has the money to complete a project isn't the government's concern.

If the people involved in this mosque have some terrorist ties, there are currently laws on the books that allow the government to go after them. They should use them.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 02:48 PM (dw7rB)

204 Cain, very much like obama, is not qualified to run for President. His continued presence in the Field only gives fuel to those who want to paint us as fascist extremists. A seemingly nice guy in way over his head.

Posted by: nevergiveup at July 17, 2011 02:48 PM (7wmOW)

205 Why then can't they with every mosque built in USA support or help
build, or rebuild a Church, Synagogue or Temple in an Islamic ruled country if religious
equality is so important?

Think of all those Philippines in Saudi Arabia would love to have their rights to their houses of worship as well don't they? The richest country in the world has the worst human rights practise and we let their religious intolerance tentacles reach this far into the free world as well because of PCism.

Posted by: a-reader at July 17, 2011 02:48 PM (CYW2T)

206 There's nothing wrong with banning mosques. I applaud Cain for having the balls to say it, even if it means it will torpedo his candidacy.

Abusing the first amendment by allowing it to be used by enemies of the entire Constitution is WRONG.

Posted by: Chris R at July 17, 2011 02:49 PM (QiNmA)

207
I think we can ALL agree that we shouldn't eat the goat until three days after we've laid with it...am I right?

Posted by: Mohammed fucks goats at July 17, 2011 02:48 PM (5heTz)
Only if you married the goat when she was nine years old

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at July 17, 2011 02:49 PM (UqKQV)

208 Perhaps you'd prefer to go back to calling them "Musselmen?"

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 02:47 PM (P8oOy)

No, I like applesauce too much to do that.

Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 02:50 PM (B60j2)

209 Getcher popcorn and peanuts here!

Posted by: NotAMolly at July 17, 2011 02:50 PM (ADJFU)

210 Cain, very much like obama, is not qualified to run for President.

Goddamn right.

Posted by: Robert Byrd, Rotting Corpse, Esq. at July 17, 2011 02:52 PM (B60j2)

211 80% of allmosques in our country have materials supporting violent jihad. That's all you really need to know.

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 02:52 PM (froiv)

212 195

One more time, and I'll type slowly..........

Taking your frustrations out on a community rather than an individual law breaker is bad.

All religions are also political movements in nature. Religious leaders and politicians make rules about what you can or cannot do. Islam is no different from Christianity, Judaism, or Scientology in that most basic mission of all religions.

To single out Islam is absurd.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 02:52 PM (YyMmz)

213 Aren't abortion clinics houses of worship for liberals?

Yes, it's a strip mall temple of Baal.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 02:53 PM (JEvSn)

214 good on Cain for saying this. islam infests and takes over everywhere its introduced. they allow no liberty or freedom. drew you are being naive. look at what is happening in europe. islam needs to be stopped. there are no good muslims, none.

Posted by: chas at July 17, 2011 02:53 PM (jtIeP)

215 Yeah,

What a Jerk, Citizen Cain is...

Thinking bad things about the weirdos who are "moderately" muslim...

(Honest to GAWD is there NO ONE on his staff to tell him when to STFU?)

This is SUCH bullshit!

Take a gander at the graduating class of Cairo University ca. 1978.

Not a HIjab or N'Qaa to be found.

Now take a look at a picture of a Middle School in Toronto 2011.

They not ony sepaerate the boys from the girls, they actually make the menstruating girls sit out from the prayer session because they are "unclean".

SRSLY?,

I thought getting my Period in Jr. Hi was weird enough...

Fuck me!

If I had to report to a special "unclean" section of a mandatory weekly religious assembly, once every 28 days, I would have quit school altogether!

Posted by: Deety at July 17, 2011 02:54 PM (pGciH)

216 If the people involved in this mosque have some terrorist ties, there are currently laws on the books that allow the government to go after them. They should use them.
Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 02:48 PM (dw7rB)
I'll get right on that!

*snicker*

Posted by: Eric Holder at July 17, 2011 02:54 PM (r/KvE)

217 80% of all mosques in our country have materials supporting violent jihad. That's all you really need to know.
Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 02:52 PM (froiv)

Then you go in and arrest all those involved and close those dens of iniquity and seize their assets and deport of those who are not citizens. But first ya have to get rid of the progressives in the White House. But ya do it legally

Posted by: nevergiveup at July 17, 2011 02:54 PM (7wmOW)

218

If Islamic rule is so wonderful how come there are so many fleeing Islamic ruled countries in droves any chance they can?



Already in a Toronto school, they have Friday prayer in the cafeteria
and make the girls sit separately and out right ban the ones
menstruating. But this is the same city that thinks a "Black Only" secondary school is progress so they opened one.
BTW I also don't think banning mosques is the answer here either.
Mr. Cain is a nice man but he's too naive for the job, hope he comes along politically though.
Thanks for the provocative article well worth discussing further.

Posted by: a-reader at July 17, 2011 02:54 PM (CYW2T)

219 212
What number of mosques with jihadists attending changes your mind?

Posted by: NW Bob at July 17, 2011 02:54 PM (cXZNN)

220 Muslim. Moslem. Moooslum. Musselman.

I think muzzie works. Affectionately short. Also "suckers of cock". Mohammedan goat-fucker has a nice ring to it. Buggering human scum?

I'm flexible. I just want to find something respectful that we can all agree on. Gang-raping human detritus, perhaps? Islamo-trash?

Posted by: Clubber Lang at July 17, 2011 02:54 PM (QcFbt)

221 Islam is no different from Christianity, Judaism, or Scientology in that most basic mission of all religions.
BULL SHIT

Posted by: 2 x 4 Interpretive Dancer at July 17, 2011 02:55 PM (5heTz)

222 Excuse me Drew, but Islam isn't a religion, it's an ideology in the spirit of Communism, Fascism, etc but dressed a bit differently.

As for the mosque issue, meh. The thing is, if a muslim owns the land, he can build whatever he wants, and nothing much we can do about it. The minute that mosque is used to provide material aid to terrorism, however, it should be razed.

Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 02:56 PM (LD21B)

223 203 exactly! However, they are not just "building something", they're building a tax-exempt religious facility. Don't all charitable organizations have to prove their backing? I think that's all the citizens of Murfreesboro are asking. The Tennessean has done a lot of coverage on this story.

Posted by: compass and chain at July 17, 2011 02:56 PM (KzLjZ)

224 Sorry to spoil it for you guys, but Cain loses.

Posted by: Spoily McSpoilerson at July 17, 2011 02:57 PM (JX1Xp)

225 No, shit, Drew? You've taken the HQ all Charles Johnson because of a sweet story? Way to start a civil war, bro.

I'm with Clubber Lang (147) and Justice Charles Jackson; the constitution is not a suicide pact

Posted by: HobbieHawk at July 17, 2011 02:57 PM (tzRmy)

226 Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 02:52 PM (YyMmz)

Type as slow as you like, genius, but you know what you wrote and you own it. You're the poster child for Godwins' Law--because you don't know enough and aren't smart enough to make a worthwhile argument.

So you toss in the 'hitler' reference--because that's all you've got.

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at July 17, 2011 02:57 PM (UqKQV)

227 Taking your frustrations out on a community rather than an individual law breaker is bad.

Agreed, if you know who the lawbreaker is and don't have to deal with the very real possibility that the leaders of a mosque, church, etc, and members of a flock are fellow conspirators. Unfortunately, that's the one thing we can't know for sure about ANY mosque until the FBI catches a lucky break. The Muslims know we can't know it and are capitalizing on it (see CAIR).

This is a very important point several of us have tried to make but which you either choose to overlook or just cannot comprehend. Either way, it's why you are a fool.

Posted by: Robert Byrd, Rotting Corpse, Esq. at July 17, 2011 02:57 PM (B60j2)

228 Islam is no different from Christianity, Judaism, or Scientology in that most basic mission of all religions.

Nice lumping Scientology in with us, you stain.

Difference is, the other three won't saw your fuckin head off.


You are wrong.

Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 02:57 PM (ECjvn)

229 To single out Islam is absurd.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 02:52 PM (YyMmz)
Yes ... why islam different from all these "other" religions? Why, indeed? Can't see anything different about them in the world. It's not like Turkey and Pakistan have only managed to barely survive islam. But, that's nothing.
And it's only the oddest of coincidences that mosque building and muslim complaining and representation in the US has exploded (if I may use that dscriptive term) since 9/11. It was just a sheer coincidence that all of the arab groups would quietly disappear and be replaced by muslim groups ... and as we see pan-islamic fervor sweeping out the old pan-arab nationalists throughout the arab world ...Yeah. islam is just like Judaism and Chrisitianity. No difference at all. Just words, I guess.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 02:58 PM (G/MYk)

230 Good thing we have concern troll For Real here to set us all straight. So nice to have our moral better here to guide us.

And so wise he is! So knowledgeable about all these world religions. Especially Islam. Such a strong defender of Islam.

What would we do without fuckwads like For Real to explain to us that we are all Nazis?

Posted by: Clubber Lang at July 17, 2011 02:58 PM (QcFbt)

231 Um, not to interrupt what looks to be a completely not at all volatile thread, but the World Cup is on* and the Japanese are showing themselves to be a class act.

* I know soccer is chump change around here but the US is in it

Posted by: laceyunderalls at July 17, 2011 02:59 PM (Vw1BG)

232 Islam is no different from Christianity, Judaism, or Scientology in that most basic mission of all religions.

To single out Islam is absurd.
Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 02:52 PM (YyMmz)

Well that's horse shit. And not very good horse shit at that. Get back to me when you can demonstate that Jews and Christians teach their children to hate the infidels and declare Jihad and Shadids a virtue.

Posted by: nevergiveup at July 17, 2011 02:59 PM (7wmOW)

233 All religions are also political movements in
nature. Religious leaders and politicians make rules about what you can
or cannot do. Islam is no different from Christianity, Judaism, or
Scientology in that most basic mission of all religions.



Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 02:52 PM (YyMmz)
btw, this is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read on the internets. No wonder you had to toss Adolf in.

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at July 17, 2011 02:59 PM (UqKQV)

234 Cain is wrong. But despicable? I can't stand it when our side hopes to preempt condemnation by the left by being the first to condemn. weak

Posted by: some dope at July 17, 2011 02:59 PM (+kznc)

235 Islam is no different from Christianity, Judaism, or Scientology in that most basic mission of all religions.
Um, one of these things is not like the other, at least in howtheir adherentsgo about proselytizing.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at July 17, 2011 02:59 PM (9hSKh)

236 Posted by: laceyunderalls at July 17, 2011 02:59 PM (Vw1BG)

Hey I'm watching The World Cup. Wouldn't miss is. Go USA

Posted by: nevergiveup at July 17, 2011 03:00 PM (7wmOW)

237 Cain/Murdock!

Posted by: As if, and stuff... at July 17, 2011 03:00 PM (7FgWm)

238 Posted by: nevergiveup at July 17, 2011 03:00 PM (7wmOW)
Soccer sucks, but agreed, go USA!

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at July 17, 2011 03:01 PM (9hSKh)

239 219

Give me some cited date, and not just about Islam. I want data from all religious congregations, Islamic, Christian, or other, regarding their membership's history of violent crime, including rape and murder.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:01 PM (YyMmz)

240 Drew M -- About 87% of Mosques are funded by the ... SAUDIS and espouse a hard-line Jihadist/Wahabbi view. The amount of hate, filth, and violence emanating from your average Mosque is frightening. All that "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" just doesn't "just happen" it comes from Imams preaching violence and Jihad. Your Imam in the story probably turned around and screamed Jihad at the Mosque -- just in Arabic so Stupid Americans are fooled by the idiot multiculti/pc garbage that even "conservatives" gobble down like crummy sodas.

Cain is correct. Mosques are like Nazi/Aryan Brotherhood Pagan Temples -- if your local Skinheads were worshiping Odin and Thor and preaching race war pretty much any community would have the right to ban them -- because the threat of violence emanating from that religion is not protected by the First Amendment. Islam and local US mosques do this on a daily basis.

What you advocate is anarcho-tyranny. Any crummy third world religion preaching hate and violence, can do whatever it wants protected by the color of law and inflict violence constantly on the infidel. Meanwhile Joe Average who doesn't like Jihadists in his neighborhood gets hauled away and thrown in prison for "Hate Thought" or something. I'm not a Cain fan, but here he is correct. Islam is not like Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or even Santeria. It is based fundamentally on Jihad, and violence against non-believers. You can't take that out of it, and Islam should not be treated like say Mennonites or your local Al Gore-fundraising Buddhist Temple.

In point of fact we already restrict (for the moment) Islam by forbidding Polygamy.

Your views are not Conservative. They show a complete surrender of Western Culture, in favor of absurd legalism, anarcho-tyranny, and desire to curry favor with crummy Third Worlders. Communities should be able to ban religions that organize hate against them. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and I'm sick of fake Western Guilt. Muslims no more belong in America than say, Christianity does in Saudi Arabia. I'll agree to let Mosques exist in the US when Mecca and Medina are filled with Churches and Bibles. In the meantime Saudis can ban Christianity and Judaism, and Buddhism, and everything else, and we can ban Mosques. The whole world does not have an open invite to come here and boss us around.

Posted by: whiskey at July 17, 2011 03:01 PM (L03mw)

241 Are you ok with that? I'm not. Whether or not someone has the money to complete a project isn't the government's concern.
Actually the government takes that position quite a bit, sometimes to the extent of making you post a bond gauranteeing completion of the project if you can't show you have financing to complete it. They also require bonds to gaurantee completion of any public infrastructure you agree to do even if you do have financing.
When you apply for a buidling permit you have to list your construction financing or the account that contains the funds to complete the project.

Posted by: robtr at July 17, 2011 03:01 PM (MtwBb)

242
This just in - "Charle's Johnson jerking off tonewest post by Drew M."
What the fuck, dude?

Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 03:01 PM (HlEu/)

243 Also, Cain isn't being despicable, it's a natural reaction to muslim atrocities. And here's the thing, they aren't stopping nor even slowing down.


Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 03:01 PM (LD21B)

244 I'm flexible. I just want to find something respectful that we can all
agree on. Gang-raping human detritus, perhaps? Islamo-trash?

"Ragheads" always worked for me. Or "subhuman throwbacks". Whichever. A butcher by any other name still slices off heads.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 17, 2011 03:02 PM (Ohzoo)

245 I guess I've missed out on all these parts that conservatives don't think really count.

Anyone got a list?

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 03:02 PM (dw7rB)

246 I don't recall Catholics around the world blowing up shit when the pope gets lampooned on SNL. Moslems are a little too touchy. And it is after all a death cult.

Also of the three meanings for the word "peace" in the moslem world, they never seem to use the one that means actual peace.

Salaam is the peace of submission. It's the drawn out pronunciation of "slm" in "Islam," (written Arabic has no vowels) the Arabic word for submission and obedience, and in "Moslem" or "Muslim," the Arabic word for "one who submits."

Hudna, the second Arabic word translated in English as "peace," means cease-fire, a temporary truce.

Suhl, the third Arabic term for "peace," is the most interesting, the one we must insist on Arabs using, the one they always avoid and refuse to use. Suhl means reconciliation.

Hat tip to Jack Wheeler for the pasted part of the three meanings.


Posted by: Jimma at July 17, 2011 03:02 PM (TfRqk)

247 Nice lumping Scientology in with us, you stain.Difference is, the other three won't saw your fuckin head off.

But if you piss them off, Scientology might lock you up inside a luxury ship for awhile, block your sidewalk or dump you to die in a cult-approved hospital. Which is just as bad as sawing off living, screaming heads because, after all, "all religions are the same."

Posted by: Robert Byrd, Rotting Corpse, Esq. at July 17, 2011 03:03 PM (B60j2)

248 I think that if you look at the civil society in Muslim countries around the world, if you look at how those societies have economic, political, and religious freedom, if you look at what those cultures produce in the way of film, literature, music, painting, sculpture, if you look at how minorities and women are treated,

IN OTHER WORDS, if you look at what Islamic societies create and perpetuate, then you must be willfully blind to think that those countries are nice places to live and work for the average person, or for the non-Muslim laborer there on a work visa. Look at what Islam does and then decide if that is what you want for your neighbors, your grandchildren, or your descendants.

Islam is a totalitarian theocratic form of government. Want to be able to accuse some one of blasphemy? Or insulting the prophet? Or insulting Islam? Then Islam is for you.

Anyone who says anything different is selling something.

Posted by: Jack at July 17, 2011 03:03 PM (8IAHO)

249 MUFF DIVE

Posted by: Women's Soccer 2 x 4 at July 17, 2011 03:04 PM (5heTz)

250 Give me some cited date, and not just about Islam. I
want data from all religious congregations, Islamic, Christian, or
other, regarding their membership's history of violent crime, including
rape and murder.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:01 PM (YyMmz)
Yes, good tactic: Don't advance an idea, but demand 'cited date'.
You're in a Hole of Your Own Making, genius. My advice: Cease digging

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at July 17, 2011 03:05 PM (UqKQV)

251
Give me some cited date, and not just about Islam. I want data from all
religious congregations, Islamic, Christian, or other, regarding their
membership's history of violent crime, including rape and murder.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:01 PM (YyMmz)

F.O. You're in a position to demand nothing.

Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 03:06 PM (B60j2)

252 Posted by: Jimma at July 17, 2011 03:02 PM (TfRqk)
Thanks for that reminder.
This word usage of "peace" (i.e "absence of war")and "reconciliation" (what we think of as real "peace")in Islam is also explained in Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran, and the Revolt of Islam.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at July 17, 2011 03:06 PM (9hSKh)

253 This one is simple.
Cain is wrong because the USA recognizes Islam as a legitimate religion.
The USA is wrong because Islamshould not be recognizedas a legitimate religion.
Two wrongs don't make a president.

Posted by: Meremortal at July 17, 2011 03:07 PM (7FgWm)

254 Sheesh. I know CJ went all moonbatty and everything, but why did the "nuke Mecca" crowd have to show up here?

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 03:07 PM (P8oOy)

255 I don't want to give murders and savage hate-mongers an organized, established, open forum and organizational infra-structure, with tax-exempt status and Constitutional protection
They already have constitutional protection, which is the entire point of this thread.
A lot of commenters keep pointing out that it's difficult or impossible to build churches and other places of worship for non-Mulims in Islamic countries.
Yes, exactly. We're not like them, nor should we strive to be like them when it comes to a de facto banning of specific religions.
Islam sucks, I know. Know what sucks worse? Shredding our Constitution every time there's a crisis of some sort.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:07 PM (WRW1S)

256 I swear, For real sounds and reasons like a teenager. Why am I wasting my time with it.

Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 03:07 PM (B60j2)

257 250

Didn't think you had any real data, just opinion.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:07 PM (YyMmz)

258
"I guess I've missed out on all these parts that conservatives don't think really count.
Anyone got a list?"


Fuck that, champ! The onus is on you. You made the initial point via your hatred
for Herman Cain: "he's simply despicable"
So, you make the list! You show us the benefits of Islam to the West. Maybe then we'lltry and fail to show you the
benefits of the Constitutionon Islam other than enabling it as a political force.



Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 03:08 PM (HlEu/)

259 Yes and incorporation is made-up bullshit. Bull. Shit.

A well cut jib indeed. For the sake of the discussion it may be that Cain believes the first amendment has not been incorporated. This is also consistent with his second amendment views.

Posted by: Bob Saget has not been banned yet at July 17, 2011 03:08 PM (NLWij)

260 Islam sucks, I know. Know what sucks worse? Shredding our Constitution every time there's a crisis of some sort.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:07 PM (WRW1S)
Yup

Posted by: robtr at July 17, 2011 03:09 PM (MtwBb)

261 I'd be willing to ban every single mosque in this country. We're at war, in case you forgot, with a violent, fascistideology masquerading as a "religion". Mosques are an extenstion of that and serve as recruiting centers.
World-wide terrorism in the name of their "allah", terrorist cells dot our landscape, (Jamaat al Fuqua) and their avowed goal is a global Caliphate:
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant," and, "The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."---Omar Ahmad, CAIR founder

This kills me:

Yes, mosques must follow the same laws and regulations as any other religion nor should they be granted any special consideration because in some areas Islam is "the de facto state religion". But the wholesale banning of them because people don't like Muslims or what they believe in? I'll stand with the Constitution.
Scuse me, but Islam is diametrically opposed to a Democratic Republic. They're not interested in your touching loyalty to the U.S. Constituion.
They believ in killing the infidel; that includes YOU sweetcakes.
The creeping Islamification in this country is alarming.
Michael Bloomberg, the idiot mayor of NYC thinks it's just a dandy idea to allow a bunch of Islamic terrorist-supporting thugs to build a terrorist recruitng center mosque two blocks from ground zero.
Michigan has become quite the muslim enclave: http://tinyurl.com/3eo5jnh
We're saddled with a Dhimmi-in-Chief and a craven asshole for a DOJ head who think FOREIGN MUSLIM TERRORISTS deserve Miranda Rights, Constitutional considerations, and civilian trials.
Some of you might want to start bowing to Mecca right now and expedite the process, but don't expect the rest of us to follow suit.

Posted by: SFC MAC at July 17, 2011 03:09 PM (WB46i)

262 255 de facto banning of specific religions.

Cain said that?

Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 03:09 PM (B60j2)

263 >>>First off, the Constitution was written by Christian men, voted into
effect by Christians. Its concepts are entirely from Biblical doctrine
and ideas. It was the modern world's first attempt to create a
political system based on the Judeo-Christian ethic.

Umm....what? Everything you have written in this paragraph, with the partial exception of the first sentence, is completely false, and false on the level of "down is up, water is dry," not just different shades of meaning. The concepts of the Constitution are taken from Enlightenment (that is to say, secular and rationalistic) ideas, not Biblical doctrine in the slightest (to say nothing of "entirely," as you hilariously assert). How in god's name could you make this mistake? Are you just asserting something you think would be nice to be true?

If the Constitution were based on Biblical doctrine and Judeo-Christian ethic, then Christianity would have been enshrined as the official state religion (among many, many MANY other things). Religious tolerance -- the nut of what we're debating here -- would not have been anywhere near the equation. Search the Bible all you want...you will not find a single word spoken in praise of religious tolerance or the political equality of all confessions. And yet, strangely enough, that's the bedrock upon which our nation stands. Go figure!

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 03:09 PM (hIWe1)

264 Why don't we let Stalinists and Maoists start churches?

Um, last time I checked, we do. I am sure that there are cults that have some of those characteristics, and I am sure that there are some of them that have physical churches in physical buildings. Do I like that? Nope.

But the Constitution doesn't give a rat's ass about what I like.

This simple concept often eludes "liberals", such as the ones who are videoed signing petitions about banning Fox news or Rush Limbaugh, because they "lie".

ps. Not trying to imply that the commenter I quoted is like that, just making a point that we don't ban any kind of "church" that I know of. The reason you don't see them is they aren't exactly popular, and/or their members aren't very much out in the open about them.

Posted by: sherlock at July 17, 2011 03:09 PM (thr9V)

265 USA is dominating the 0-0 tie.

In blasphemy related news, Mohammad was a false prophet. A child-raping, slave-trading piece of shit. And Islam is an evil cancer on the world that, inshallah, will be wiped from the face of the earth. :-)


Posted by: Clubber Lang at July 17, 2011 03:09 PM (QcFbt)

266 Suppose the Bloods and Crips get themselves a smart lawyer, and decide to be "religions"? Would that mean we have to start calling them the "Crips Community"?
All this talk about communities misses the point. The "community" is whoever is standing around. And if we want our communities to be decent places to live, it is way past time we stopped inviting gangsters to come live in them.

Posted by: NotSoFast at July 17, 2011 03:10 PM (eQa5p)

267 203 Drew M.

BTW-When did we get on board with the idea that every-time someone wants to build something, they have to open their books up to the government?


The argument is not based on the stupid minutia that you keep injecting. It is not based on a sterile reading of the Constitution. It is based on the common sense of just men and women that see no advantage in letting an anti-civilization, anti-American philosophy, anti-human cult, take root in America. Until the argument goes beyond your stupid legalisms and fetishistic worship of a document and addresses the very spirit of Islam, you are wasting your time and ours.

Unlike you I recognize existential evil. I do not need a paper to tell me Islam is evil in root and branch. Neither will a paper stop me from all I can do to resist and find ways to destroy this doctrine of demons.

It is Satanic in origin, and has always had one ultimate goal and that is to crush the life and soul out of every human being. It was Satan's clever answer to a Christianity that spread across the world in 300 years. Islam drew upon the only two legitimate ideologies/revelation that had revealed the nature of God to humanity.

Like God's ape, Satan revealed his true nature to humanity via Islam. You want to see what God is like when he becomes a human? That would be Jesus Christ. Want to see what Satan would be like if he became human? That would be the child-rapist, and mass murderer Mohammed.

Posted by: Jehu at July 17, 2011 03:10 PM (j6BJc)

268 I am going to go order a pizza, later

Posted by: robtr at July 17, 2011 03:10 PM (MtwBb)

269 Why am I wasting my time with it.
Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 03:07 PM (B60j2)
TWEEET!
Failure to ask in the form of a question!
Five yards from the spot of the penalty! Repeat first down!

Posted by: Referee Alex Trebeck at July 17, 2011 03:10 PM (r/KvE)

270
"I guess I've missed out on all these parts that conservatives don't think really count. Anyone got a list?"
Fuck that, champ! The onus is on you. You made the initial point via your hatred for Herman Cain: "he's simply despicable"
So, you make the list! You show us the benefits of Islam to the West. Maybe then we'll try and fail to show you the benefits of the Constitution on Islam other than enabling it as a political force.

Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 03:11 PM (HlEu/)

271 Also, Cain isn't being despicable, it's a natural reaction to muslim atrocities. And here's the thing, they aren't stopping nor even slowing down.
Yes, it's a natural, knee-jerk reaction that completely flies in the face of the Constitution, which a President is sworn to uphold.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:11 PM (WRW1S)

272 Throughout history, Islam has served as an invasive societal parasite whose sole function has been to subjugate and murder the host.

It is human barbarism at its most fundamental and evil. The Nazis had nothing on these animalistic fucks.

Our Constitution was drafted to protect the expression of legitimate religion. It was never meant to enable mass murder.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 17, 2011 03:11 PM (Ohzoo)

273 I'm torn. I can understand Cain's trepidation. Islam is not so much a religion, as it is a political movement using the guise of religion to conquer the world using threats, violence and terror.

Anyone here who thinks islam is a respectable religion, I can only assume you have not read the koran.

Still, would not vote for him as President. I still have feelings for teh Fred. And in lieu of that, John Bolton. Now there's a guy who knows what's what, and the energy and balls to deal with it.

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 03:12 PM (+tzv7)

274 Yes, exactly. We're not like them, nor should we strive to be like them when it comes to a de facto banning of specific religions.
Islam sucks, I know. Know what sucks worse? Shredding our Constitution every time there's a crisis of some sort.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:07 PM (WRW1S)
Islam doesn't 'suck'. Islam openly advocates murder and conquest, and a significant number of its followers take it seriously and act on its instructions.My 'cited date' ( for 'for real' ) is hundreds of recent events, including 9/11, Fort Hood, etc
It's not a religion; Islam should therefore not have the perks and advantages of a religion. That is my view, and it is not 'shredding the Constitution'.

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at July 17, 2011 03:12 PM (UqKQV)

275 "I guess I've missed out on all these parts that conservatives don't think really count.
Anyone got a list?"


Fuck that, champ! The onus is on you. You made the initial point via your hatred
for Herman Cain: "he's simply despicable" So, you make the list! You show us the benefits of Islam to the West. Maybe then we'lltry and fail to show you the
benefits of the Constitutionon Islam other than enabling it as a political force.




Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 03:08 PM (HlEu/)

Damn, son, loan me one of your balls, you'll still have three to spare. Bra-f'n-vo.

Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 03:13 PM (B60j2)

276 Our Constitution was drafted to protect the expression of legitimate religion. It was never meant to enable mass murder.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 17, 2011 03:11 PM (Ohzoo)

I don't think the Framers of the COnstitution ever expected the like of todays "Progressive Democrats"?

Posted by: nevergiveup at July 17, 2011 03:13 PM (7wmOW)

277 IN OTHER WORDS, if you look at what Islamic societies create and
perpetuate, then you must be willfully blind to think that those
countries are nice places to live and work for the average person, or
for the non-Muslim laborer there on a work visa.
Posted by: Jack at July 17, 2011 03:03 PM (8IAHO)


I don't want to live in a Muslim nation for pretty much the reasons you give. I'm also not to crazy about the idea of living in one where certain religions can be banned by majority vote either.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 03:14 PM (dw7rB)

278 I'll get right on that!
*snicker*

Posted by: Eric Holder at July 17, 2011 02:54 PM (r/KvE)

But first, let me mine this booger from my nose.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 03:14 PM (piMMO)

279
Islam sucks, I know. Know what sucks worse? Shredding our Constitution every time there's a crisis of some sort.




Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:07 PM (WRW1S)
You know what sucks even worse than those two? Considering the Constitution to be a suicide pact.

Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 03:15 PM (LD21B)

280 psst...Drew...can you put up a World Cup/Open Thread?

Posted by: laceyunderalls at July 17, 2011 03:15 PM (Vw1BG)

281 274

I have lots of cited data too, Christians committing murder, rape, kidnapping, etc, etc.....happens every single day.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:15 PM (YyMmz)

282 I have lots of cited data too, Christians committing murder, rape, kidnapping, etc, etc.....happens every single day.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:15 PM (YyMmz)
Then cite.

Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 03:16 PM (LD21B)

283 You know what sucks even worse than those two? Considering the Constitution to be a suicide pact.

Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 03:15 PM (LD21B)

Over my dead cold body

Posted by: nevergiveup at July 17, 2011 03:16 PM (7wmOW)

284 It's to the point where nobodyis allowed tohave any opinion about anything---because everyone has the right to squawk, andeveryone has the right to *not* hearothers' squawking---so who's gonna get their way? The makers of the rules, that's who.
PC triumphs by getting *everyone* to shut up. (except for phrases approved by the almighty gov't, that is).....fkn commies.
Won't be long now before we're enslaved and bound. Not with chains mind you, but regulation.

Posted by: stillwater at July 17, 2011 03:16 PM (0GpN4)

285
Posted by: Clubber Lang at July 17, 2011 03:09 PM (QcFbt)

I am intrigued by your religion and would like to join your church.

Posted by: garrett at July 17, 2011 03:17 PM (5heTz)

286 The concepts of the Constitution are taken from Enlightenment (that is
to say, secular and rationalistic) ideas, not Biblical doctrine in the
slightest (to say nothing of "entirely," as you hilariously assert).
Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 03:09 PM (hIWe1)


Wrong. Our Constitution is based on the minimal configuration the Founders could make for functioning levels of government in a self-governing, Christian, individualistic society. There are many things that are left out of our Constitutional formulation because these are controls best left to individuals and their religions/families to handle. But, this base culture must be civilized enough to allow such a minimal government to work. Without the underlying Christian culture (and it could only have happened on this scale with a Christian culture) the US' Constitutional Republic was built and implemented.

It is with people like you who seem to operate under some strange notion that governments are independent of the underlying culture of the citizenry who make a mockery of what was always common sense.

The Enlightenment went in an entirely different direction, as Europe was never able to really grok the concept of separated powers or limited government (even to this day), as they constructed governments for nameless, faceless, personality-less masses to be controlled by the central authorities.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 03:17 PM (G/MYk)

287 Islam sucks, I know. Know what sucks worse? Shredding our Constitution every time there's a crisis of some sort.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:07 PM (WRW1S)
Yes but this isn't a crisis of some sort. This is a battle for the survival of our way of life that has been going on for thousands of years.
I don't wish to shred the Constitution and I agree it's not an easy subject to approach. Hell, I don't even know what the answer is but we need to recognize that Islam is evil and cannot be tolerated if we are to survive.
I give Muslims the stare down any time I see them. It's not much but it's how I let them know that they are being watched.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 03:17 PM (r/KvE)

288 Blame the person, not the religion.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:17 PM (YyMmz)

289 I have lots of cited data too, Christians committing murder, rape, kidnapping, etc, etc.....happens every single day.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:15 PM (YyMmz)
The hits just keep on comin'.............

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at July 17, 2011 03:17 PM (UqKQV)

290 I have lots of cited data too, Christians committing murder, rape, kidnapping, etc, etc.....happens every single day.
Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:15 PM (YyMmz)
Individuals sure, but NOT in the name of their religion. And don't throw the crap about the Crusades at me. Lets keep this in the 20th Century.

Posted by: nevergiveup at July 17, 2011 03:17 PM (7wmOW)

291 279

Islam sucks, I know. Know what sucks worse? Shredding our Constitution every time there's a crisis of some sort.




Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:07 PM (WRW1S)
You know what sucks even worse than those two? Considering the Constitution to be a suicide pact.


Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 03:15 PM (LD21B)
Because allowing a mosque to be built is exactly the same thing as committing suicide.

Posted by: robviously at July 17, 2011 03:18 PM (JYBAr)

292 I'm also not to crazy about the idea of living in one where certain religions can be banned by majority vote either.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 03:14 PM (dw7rB)
But you do want to severely restrict muslim immigration, right?

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 03:18 PM (G/MYk)

293 277 ...certain religions can be banned by majority vote either.

A community seeking to shut down a jihad-tied mosque (the original issue, iirc) is the equivalent of banning a religion?

Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 03:18 PM (B60j2)

294 282
I have lots of cited data too, Christians committing murder, rape, kidnapping, etc, etc.....happens every single day.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:15 PM (YyMmz)
Then cite.


Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 03:16 PM (LD21B)

Yeah, I'd like to see this "data" too.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 17, 2011 03:19 PM (Ohzoo)

295 Because allowing a mosque to be built is exactly the same thing as committing suicide.


Posted by: robviously at July 17, 2011 03:18 PM (JYBAr)
I take it you don't believe that muslisms intend on subverting the US?

Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 03:19 PM (LD21B)

296 It is human barbarism at its most fundamental and evil. The Nazis had nothing on these animalistic fucks.
...say what you want about the tenants of National Socialism, Dude. At least it's an ethos!

Posted by: Walter Sobchek at July 17, 2011 03:19 PM (5heTz)

297 282

I was using the same citing method used in post 274.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:19 PM (YyMmz)

298 I don't think the Framers of the COnstitution ever expected the like of todays "Progressive Democrats"?

Posted by: nevergiveup at July 17, 2011 03:13 PM (7wmOW)
They did see the insanity of the French Revolutionaries - the originals.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 03:20 PM (G/MYk)

299 Hey that's funny, I just opened my copy of the Constitution to check the 1st Amendment, here's what it didn't say: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except in the case of Islam which is icky and has a bunch of people we don't like."

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 03:20 PM (hIWe1)

300

I was using the same citing method used in post 274.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:19 PM (YyMmz)
Except that muslim terrorist acts are a matter of public record, your data? Not so much.

Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 03:20 PM (LD21B)

301 294 282 I have lots of cited data too, Christians committing murder, rape, kidnapping, etc, etc.....happens every single day.
Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:15 PM (YyMmz)
Then cite.
Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 03:16 PM (LD21B)
Yeah, I'd like to see this "data" too.
You h8ers and your foolish desire to see real "data"... can't you just trust your betters?

Posted by: Michael Mann et al at July 17, 2011 03:21 PM (9hSKh)

302 NICE HEAD

Posted by: Women's WC Soccer 2 x 4 at July 17, 2011 03:21 PM (5heTz)

303 All religions are not the same. In fact, Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism all make quite different claims.

Funnily enough, while Christianity, Judaism and even Hinduism has the equivalent of the Golden Rule (essentially, do as you would be done by) Islam emphatically does not.

I simply have not seen all that much to convince me that Islam is a peaceful or even benign religion, and all too much that indicates otherwise.

And yet there is a constant, ubiquitous refrain from the MSM, some bloggers, most of our elected officials, and a lot of bureaucrats, that Islam is a religion of peace. And that is a problem. I am being told one thing, yet I constantly see another. I think that a lot of people are lying to me and that there is nothing wrong with my eyes.

I know! Those tornadoes that really destroyed those communities in the mid-west....I bet that a lot of Muslim charities sent money there right? Right? Or that local mosques organized donations of food and equipment? Right? All of those patriotic Muslims who are our fellow citizens. We see so much of them at times of tragedy.


Posted by: Jack at July 17, 2011 03:21 PM (8IAHO)

304 Islam sucks, I know. Know what sucks worse? Shredding our Constitution every time there's a crisis of some sort.Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:07 PM (WRW1S)
What's worse is thinking the Constitution will protect you from another 9/11 by the "peaceful religion of Islam". I'll opt for a strong national defense and a homeland security agency (not the one we have right now) that actually targets and profiles muslims. Stop the PC bullshit approach to monitoring and arresting muslim organizationswithin our borders. Jamaatal Fuqra, CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Arab-American Action Network, have no fucking business in this country. I would keep close tabs on every mosque in this country. Every. Single. Fucking. One.

Posted by: SFC MAC at July 17, 2011 03:22 PM (WB46i)

305 I think I'd better repeat that on the mosque question, I don't think we can do anything about them being built, but what we CAN do is halt muslim immigration.

Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 03:22 PM (LD21B)

306 I want to thank Charles for this wonderful thread.

Posted by: Killgore Trout at July 17, 2011 03:22 PM (2oX2J)

307 So, you make the list! You show us the benefits of Islam to the West.
Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 03:08 PM (HlEu/)

I never said Islam benefited the West. The thing is, religions don't have to justify themselves to be protected. That's actually kind of the point of the whole thing.

I guess according to your "logic", (if others will forgive the bastardization of the word) if the likes of Hitchens or Dawkins could "prove" to majority's satisfaction that religion, especially Christianity, doesn't benefit the nation or has done more harm than good, then it too could be banned.

Personally, I'm glad that's not on the table as an option.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 03:22 PM (dw7rB)

308 Look at all those jackass's at the World Cup sitting there in Jackets and Tiers? It's fucking sporting event you tight ass bastards. Wear a funny tea shirt and paint your face for G-D's sake

Posted by: nevergiveup at July 17, 2011 03:22 PM (7wmOW)

309 I was using the same citing method used in post 274.Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:19 PM (YyMmz)
I can cite over three thousand counts of murder committed by Muslims in the name of Islam right off the top of my head, you ignorant shit.

What have you got?

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 17, 2011 03:23 PM (Ohzoo)

310 Cain/Murdock!

Posted by: As if, and stuff... at July 17, 2011 03:00 PM (7FgWm)

Meremortal, you are, without a doubt, one of the biggest losers I've ever encountered on the web. And that's saying something.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 03:23 PM (piMMO)

311 The author, DrewM, is either ignorant or a useful idiot. America tolerates other belief systems as long as they don't involve breaking citizens' legs or picking their pockets, both of which Islam does where ever it goes. The Constitution is not a suicide compact. Defining Islam as a pure religion and undefiled before God is like describing the KKK to be like vacation Bible school. Just because the KKK wore vestments and were enamored of crosses did not give them protected status as a religion. Islam should be stripped of "religious" status in America. Only a fool cannot see what the injection of Muslim populations and their "religion" have done to the cultures and sense of safety of Western nations, and how intolerant and homicidal they are toward Jews, Christians, and infidels in nations where they dominate, or even gain a toehold. There will continue to be blood between Islam and the rest of the world. America has a chance to minimize the damage, but not when fools and lawyers allows Islam to hide behind The Constitution and to use "religion" as a subterfuge to undermine the fabric of an undeniably Christian USA. Being in denial that We who are not Muslims are at war with those who are will only hasten Our destruction as a nation. Tennessee has been chosen as a battle ground by Islam for a strategic reason.

Posted by: twolaneflash at July 17, 2011 03:23 PM (zSTiQ)

312 Islam doesn't 'suck'. Islam openly advocates murder and conquest, and a significant number of its followers take it seriously and act on its instructions.
My 'cited date' ( for 'for real' ) is hundreds of recent events, including 9/11, Fort Hood, etc
It's not a religion; Islam should therefore not have the perks and advantages of a religion. That is my view, and it is not 'shredding the Constitution'.
I don't need it laid out for me every way in which Islam sucks. I know.
Trying to declare it a non-religion, however, is Orwellian at best. Of course it's a religion, they pray to and worship what they percieve to be a god andthey maintain religious beliefs (don't eat pork or drink alcohol, etc). It fits every definition of a religion.
A shitty, violence-prone religion that calls for governing every aspect of life and calls for worldwide domination, but a religion just the same. Just how far would you like to go in re-defining words in the Consitution in order to twist it's meaning?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:23 PM (WRW1S)

313 I was using the same citing method used in post 274.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:19 PM (YyMmz)
I'm '274', you pathetic clown, and the incidences of murder in the name of Islam is a long and well-publicized list. Mumbai, Daniel PearlAnyone rattling off the hundreds of 'citations' will sound like that Billy Joel song.

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at July 17, 2011 03:23 PM (UqKQV)

314 Personally, I'm glad that's not on the table as an option.

Charles, you make an excellent point.

Posted by: Killgore Trout at July 17, 2011 03:23 PM (2oX2J)

315 I have lots of cited data too, Christians committing murder, rape, kidnapping, etc, etc.....happens every single day.

You're delusional. The only Christian, Jewish or Scientologist terrorist organizations are in your own mind.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 03:24 PM (JEvSn)

316 This is the problem of post 1965 immigration. The Christian background of the nation was once so pervasive that it was taken for granted.

Now America and the West are increasingly filled with millions of millions of fellow citizens who do not share any similar moral, religious, or philosophical values. Hence the crumbling of the state.

Japan is well known as a xenophobic, racist society. And they fiercely resist immigration because ... they just don't like having many non-Japanese around.

The upside of that is Japan will survive. 100 years from now Japan will still exist. The Japanese will still exist. They will survive their current panty-sniffing, shut-in loser phase that the Japs have sunk into in recent years, and someday re-connect to their prouder traditions.

Will America or England or France be recognizable in 100 years?

Posted by: Clubber Lang at July 17, 2011 03:24 PM (QcFbt)

317 Simple: change the Constitution to ban islam:
It's not necessary.
Islam its notions of Sharia Law are utterly incompatible with the vision [held by the founders]of what this nation would be.
The big problem, here, of course, is that the "Talmud" [and the teachings of the Talmud's major, ah, "itinerants"] is also utterly incompatible with the original concept of this nation, and [of course], the Talmudic folks own most of the major media outlets in this nation [and even own - or at least"pwn" -many of the minor media outlets, like Ace of Spades].
So to point out the obvious about the cancerwhich isIslam is to tread onto forbidden ground.

Posted by: originalist at July 17, 2011 03:25 PM (YO91k)

318 You want some hummous with that taquiya? Sucker dumbass, mebbe they will behead you last.

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 03:26 PM (Vrb/j)

319 You're wrong, Drew. A recent study has shown that something like 80% of mosques are now radical. We don't have to agree to cut our own throats in the name of tolerance. You have to use a little common sense. Fuck the mosques.

Posted by: ahem at July 17, 2011 03:26 PM (rXe8u)

320 I agree Islam has a large political component, but the same geniuses whining that it isn't a religion are the same ones that would argue the loudest if you said America was not a Christian nation.

Islam is a religion. Many of its teachings are despicable, and it expressly urges a global caliphate. So what? It doesn't stop being a religion just because it's all encompassing.

Posted by: Brad at July 17, 2011 03:26 PM (zTZGo)

321 All you have to do is to enforce the laws against inciting insurrection against the Legitimate Gov. of the United States and the wealth fare of the Citizens of the United States. That really should be enough

Posted by: nevergiveup at July 17, 2011 03:27 PM (7wmOW)

322 >>>The argument is not based on the stupid minutia that you keep injecting.
It is not based on a sterile reading of the Constitution. It is based
on the common sense of just men and women that see no advantage in
letting an anti-civilization, anti-American philosophy, anti-human cult,
take root in America. Until the argument goes beyond your stupid
legalisms and fetishistic worship of a document and addresses the very
spirit of Islam, you are wasting your time and ours.

You do realize that you sound EXACTLY like every liberal you've ever spoken to about the Constitution, right up to and including the part about "fetishistic worship of a document," right? You do realize that this is EXACTLY the argument they make about, say, the 2nd Amendment ("C'mon, you can't fetishistically worship a document written 250 years ago, we need to ban guns to keep our streets safe!"), right?

I kind of wonder if you do. I suppose your response would be, "well I'm right and they're wrong -- guns are good." But you don't seem to grasp that once you've opened the Pandora's box of rejecting certain bits of the plain text and meaning of the Constitution because "it's just so important this time!" then you have left yourself completely defenseless on rational and logical grounds to anyone who would want to toss out other parts (like, say, a liberal who thinks that 1st Amendment free speech rights aren't as important as shutting down Fox News because "it lies"). And at that point, because it's just two people arguing about their different value systems, there's no answer. It's a free-for-all. And then the entire fucking system dissolves into an exercise in brute power: the law becomes whatever the faction in power wants it to be, Constitution be damned.

This is what you don't get. But what do I know, I'm just a fetishistic worshipper of some stupid document written by a bunch of dead white men.

(Isn't that reverence for the Constitution -- even when it leads to outcomes we don't personally approve of -- supposed to be the core defining belief of conservatism? Yeah, I thought so. Therefore: you're basically a progressive in your own way.)

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 03:27 PM (hIWe1)

323 309

Ignorant shit? Excellent argument.

My data is the homicide rate in the U.S., a Christian nation.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:28 PM (YyMmz)

324 Learn more about Islam

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 03:28 PM (froiv)

325 Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:23 PM (WRW1S)

I'm not "Orwellian" --any more than I'm 'shredding the Constitution'. Try a different line than ad hominem.

I don't think that any group claiming to be a religion should be given the protection and status of a religion under the Constitution. I think those people in Tennessee have the right to deny a mosque being built on a particular site.

I understand and appreciate your point of view, but disagree.

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at July 17, 2011 03:28 PM (UqKQV)

326 My data is the homicide rate in the U.S., a Christian nation.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:28 PM (YyMmz)
Wow.... and all those homicides are done in the name of Christianity?
Pure genius.

Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 03:28 PM (LD21B)

327 My data is the homicide rate in the U.S., a Christian nation.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:28 PM (YyMmz)
Do you like gladiator movies???

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at July 17, 2011 03:29 PM (UqKQV)

328
I have lots of cited data too, Christians committing murder, rape, kidnapping, etc, etc.....happens every single day.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:15 PM (YyMmz)



Oh please you're so deluded, lets just pick the last 10 years, I can quickly name,
911, Bali x2, London, Spain, India x2 - Beslen, Fort Hood and etc.. and likely I'm missing some all done in the name of Islam.
Show me where other religions have terrorized and mass murdered to this extent in the name fo their religion?

Put up or shut up.

Posted by: a-reader at July 17, 2011 03:30 PM (CYW2T)

329

Islam is a religion. Many of its teachings are despicable, and it
expressly urges a global caliphate. So what? It doesn't stop being a
religion just because it's all encompassing.

Posted by: Brad at July 17, 2011 03:26 PM (zTZGo)
So as long as its adherents claim to be a religion, anything can be a gov't recognized religion?

Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 03:30 PM (LD21B)

330 My data is the homicide rate in the U.S., a Christian nation.
Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:28 PM (YyMmz)

Again that crime is NOT done in the name of a religion nor is it done to promote a particular religion. But I guess that salient point is beyond your understanding.

Posted by: nevergiveup at July 17, 2011 03:30 PM (7wmOW)

331 Fuck the mosques.
XI-ty!!!!!1!

Posted by: Roman Senator at July 17, 2011 03:30 PM (qGgcC)

332 Jeff B regurgitated Umm....what? Everything you have written in this paragraph, with the partial exception of the first sentence, is completely false, and false on the level of "down is up, water is dry," not just different shades of meaning. The concepts of the Constitution are taken from Enlightenment (that is to say, secular and rationalistic) ideas, not Biblical doctrine in the slightest (to say nothing of "entirely," as you hilariously assert). How in god's name could you make this mistake? Are you just asserting something you think would be nice to be true?

I suppose the fact that nearly all the framers sat in churches which for 50 years before the revolution preached political and religious freedom. The early framers had no knowledge of Islam, or very little. Freedom of religion to them meant the various flavors of Christianity....and yes Judaism. The phrase, "Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness," were oft quoted over American pulpits before ever enshrined in our founding documents.

The ethos and common understanding of Americans at our beginning was not the retroactive view of secularists such as yourself. But people close to the land, with a moral code founded in American Churches. They did not study the writings of the intellectuals of their day. And the intellectuals of their day were the founders, most of them devout Christians, to pretend they were otherwise is to project your hope upon history. Europe is another story (See the French Revolution)

Posted by: Jehu at July 17, 2011 03:31 PM (j6BJc)

333 I'm sorry if some people think this is not "diverse" and "tolerant" enough for disintegrating 21st century America, but Islam is simply a primitive, barbaric political system dressed up as a religion. Islam has three options for non-believers; conversion to Islam, slavery or death. It is plainly stated in the Koran for anyone to read. Islam is completely incompatible with Western culture and traditions. Europe is finally catching on to this, but probably too late to save themselves from this malignant tumor. I fervently hope that we still have enough of a survival instinct to save America.

Posted by: nraendowment at July 17, 2011 03:32 PM (KQVeV)

334 You know who the real assholes here are? The people who make the LGF jokes.

First, you're not funny or even remotely original.

Second, do you really think this thread is full of nothing but shills agreeing with me? If so, get thee to a remedial reading class ASAP!

Third, the simple fact you can make these comments without getting banned or even threatened with banning shows that this place is nothing like LGF.

Most commenters here set the bar pretty high when it comes to the quality content. The lame and boring nature of your so-called "contributions" are really hurting the average. That's unforgivable sin you are committing and it has nothing to do with your opinion on the post

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 03:32 PM (dw7rB)

335
My data is the homicide rate in the U.S., a Christian nation.

In other words, you don't have shit. Thanks, you equivocating cunt.

My point stands.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 17, 2011 03:32 PM (Ohzoo)

336 The early framers had no knowledge of Islam, or very little.
Posted by: Jehu at July 17, 2011 03:31 PM (j6BJc)


I doubt this line, remember the Barbary pirates and what we did about them? And what of all the history of European/Islam entanglements? I think they were well aware of Islam.

Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 03:32 PM (LD21B)

337


Drew M. said: "I guess according to your "logic", (if others will forgive the
bastardization of the word) if the likes of Hitchens or Dawkins could
"prove" to majority's satisfaction that religion, especially
Christianity, doesn't benefit the nation or has done more harm than good, then
it too could be banned."
I made no claim to logic, but to instinctive common sense and, heaven
forfend, passion. So, if you've bastardized "logic" in citing it when
none was proffered, then, well, you've proven the bastard. I made no premise.
Nor any A+B=fuck all.
Further, Hitchens and Dawkins (amazing you'd use them to SUPPORT your point)
are quite invested in undermining religion in the West and are well on their
way to doing just that precisely by their disingenuous relativism. Something
you’ve employed in your post by adamantly, confidently, and without reservation
describing Herman Cain, a successful, black American businessman as “despicable”.
Yet, ready to disparage and/or dismiss anyone who might consider the activism
inherent in Islam the same – that is – “despicable”.


Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 03:33 PM (HlEu/)

338 Allowing millions of Muslims to settle in the west will force the West to become more like Russia. The only way Russia has pacified it's muzzies is to occasionally brutally kill large #s of them.

Sad thing is we didn't have to make this choice. America was largely built as a way for different Christian sects to learn to live in peace. And then later it added a small # of Jews. And that turned out ok.

Russia never had this option. Once the Russian Empire chose to conquer muslim lands, it had to deal with a sizeable muzzie population. We are needlessly letting a 5th column establish itself within our country.

The muzzies will push and push, they will commit atrocities. This will push the non-muzzies to get ever more aggressive to fight back. Right now, the West is trying the lets-be-total-pussies approach to appease the muzzies. But that won't work since it just encourages the muzzies.

This sucks because the muzzies are going to push the West to become ever more authoritarian in order to survive. All because of unchecked immigration.

This didn't have to happen.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at July 17, 2011 03:33 PM (QcFbt)

339 I thought his comment about not appointing Muslims was a red flag. This confirms it. Too bad.

I've also been bothered for some time about the lack of info about how he got the KC Fed job and what he actually did/accomplished there.

Posted by: Y-not at July 17, 2011 03:33 PM (5H6zj)

340 Herman is ignorant in many respects, but he could do nowhere near the amount of damage the over-educated pinhead Obama has inflicted on this country.

When a muslim can quit Islam without being murdered by his fellow muslims, I may then start thinking about considering Islam to be a religion.

Posted by: Buddha at July 17, 2011 03:33 PM (Ehkdx)

341 I'm also not to crazy about the idea of living in one where certain religions can be banned by majority vote either.

Yeah, like Islam is in any danger of being banned anywhere in the world.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 03:34 PM (JEvSn)

342 330

Dead is dead, regardless of why they are killing. Christians commit murder all the time.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:34 PM (YyMmz)

343 How 'bout we bring back the Aztec and Mayan religions? They have really cool looking temples as well. The right to practice these religions has been repressed for far too long...

Posted by: RKM at July 17, 2011 03:34 PM (+dg6m)

344 A shitty, violence-prone religion that calls for governing every aspect of life and calls for worldwide domination, but a religion just the same. Just how far would you like to go in re-defining words in the Consitution in order to twist it's meaning?
Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:23 PM (WRW1S)
Oh come on, Hollowpoint. You just said yourself that Islam is violence prone. You don't think that itself should disqualify Islam from being an acceptable religion?

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 03:34 PM (r/KvE)

345 I'm also not 'twisting the Constitution' -- although to you that's probably essentially the same as 'shredding' it.

I'm not sauteing, flambeing it, roasting it with taters, or raguing it.

I think a Serious Discussion should begin on just what Islam is, and ain't

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at July 17, 2011 03:34 PM (UqKQV)

346 I live 35 miles from Murfreesboro. It's grown to be a mid-sized Southern town centered around Middle Tennessee State University, which has increasingly pulled the town to the left, as in many university towns. And yet the town itself remains fairly conservative.

The residents were not given the chance to show up in hearings to protest the building of this mosque. The planning commission made it a done deal and then word got out what they had done. This is not just some little building with a minaret on it, it's planned to be 50,000 sq. feet when completed. And that space is supposed to include residential quarters for Muslim families, from what I have read. It's in a residential neighborhood as well. There are other large buildings which house Christian denominations in Rutherford County, but they typically are built along major roads that also include apt. complexes and commercial centers. This mosque is certainly atypical in this regard.

The citizens who object to this mosque do so from a variety of standpoints, but two are paramount: That their local government didn't make the project known until it was too late to object in any meaningful way, and that they do not wish to see a larger Muslim community grow up in their midst.

As to snooping around in the mosque after its built for bad stuff going on, yeah, that'll happen. The PC crowd has already circled the wagons to howl about how all religions are equal.

Posted by: janis at July 17, 2011 03:35 PM (FpbdP)

347 The imam in your anecdote was likely lying to the mother as instructed to by the koran. How in fuck do you reconcile free speech rights with an ideology committed to lie in order to dominate and subjugate "infidels". That goat fucker hung up and laughed at the woman's naivete.

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 03:35 PM (Vrb/j)

348 Dead is dead, regardless of why they are killing. Christians commit murder all the time.
Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:34 PM (YyMmz)

Are you really as stupid as you sound?

Posted by: nevergiveup at July 17, 2011 03:35 PM (7wmOW)

349 Oh come on, Hollowpoint. You just
said yourself that Islam is violence prone. You don't think that itself
should disqualify Islam from being an acceptable religion?


Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 03:34 PM (r/KvE)
Especially for tax-exempt status, eh?

Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 03:35 PM (LD21B)

350 I made no claim to logic, but to instinctive common sense and, heaven
forfend, passion.
Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 03:33 PM (HlEu/)


Oh, you're a liberal. That explains a lot.

BTW- I didn't use them to support my position. I simply pointed out they could use your "logic" or "common sense" and "passion" to argue for something you wouldn't like very much.

I explicitly rejected them and you.

Do try and keep up.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 03:35 PM (dw7rB)

351 Dead is dead, regardless of why they are killing. Christians commit murder all the time.
Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:34 PM (YyMmz)
So you know the religious affiliation of every murderer in the U.S.?
Next.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 03:36 PM (r/KvE)

352 I've also been bothered for some time about the lack of info about how
he got the KC Fed job and what he actually did/accomplished there.

I've looked too and can't really find anything about his tenure. You'd think the MSM would be digging around. Then again, what's that saying about interfering when your enemy is destroying itself?

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 03:36 PM (piMMO)

353 >>>The imam in your anecdote was likely lying to the mother as instructed
to by the koran. How in fuck do you reconcile free speech rights with an
ideology committed to lie in order to dominate and subjugate
"infidels". That goat fucker hung up and laughed at the woman's naivete.

Amazing.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 03:37 PM (hIWe1)

354 Islam is like lawyers. The bad 99 percent give the 1 percent good ones a bad name.

Posted by: chillin the most at July 17, 2011 03:37 PM (6IV8T)

355
It's simple pushback.

Nothing wrong with that.

I think communities have a right to object when the enemy establishes a base in their own backyard, sorry

Posted by: Trump at July 17, 2011 03:38 PM (hK2Ya)

356 I love some of the comments calling Scientology a religion. A product of some third rate sci-fi hack who attracted dimwits with lots more money than sense, including a lot of entertainers, is the definition of a cult. And lots of lawyers to keep the apostates from spilling the fucking beans.

Posted by: Captain Hate at July 17, 2011 03:38 PM (zsvKP)

357 Oh, you're a liberal. That explains a lot.



Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 03:35 PM (dw7rB)
Tbh, you're one to talk. You're defending Islam. I mean, damn.

Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 03:38 PM (LD21B)

358 How do you like my new hat?

Posted by: pastafarian founder at July 17, 2011 03:38 PM (piMMO)

359 Drew, I urge you to learn more about Islam. Jihadwatch has a short Islam101 page that very quickly explains what we are up against.

The problem here is that some people seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "freedom of religion" actually means. It DOES NOT mean that we have the freedom to practice every element of our religion. If a part our religion is contrary to the law of our country, the law overrides the religion.

For example, if I claim that God hascome to me in a vision and told me that in order to find salvation I must kill everyone with a L in their name, I can't actually start killing people with L's and then claim that the law can't touch me because it's my religion. If I recruited others into my stupid death cult, the community at large should be able to protest a group of murderers building a "sanctuary" in their city.
The government can't stop me from believing that God wants me to kill people, but it sure as hell can stop me from acting on it, or punish me ifI do.

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 03:39 PM (froiv)

360 My data is the homicide rate in the U.S., a Christian nation.

Abdel Aziz Rantisi = Casey Anthony?

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 03:39 PM (JEvSn)

361
Hahaha - Dude, be as dismissive as you want - you're the one with a Charle's Johnson thread on your hands.

Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 03:39 PM (HlEu/)

362 Islam is like lawyers. The bad 99 percent give the 1 percent good ones a bad name.
Posted by: chillin the most at July 17, 2011 03:37 PM (6IV8T)
You're an optimist, aren't you?

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 03:40 PM (r/KvE)

363
I love some of the comments calling Scientology a religion. A product
of some third rate sci-fi hack who attracted dimwits with lots more
money than sense, including a lot of entertainers, is the definition of a
cult. And lots of lawyers to keep the apostates from spilling the
fucking beans.

It's all starting to unravel. Every time someone defects they spill the beans. And, they make for good South Park, so there's that.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 03:40 PM (piMMO)

364 Yes but this isn't a crisis of some sort. This is a battle for the survival of our way of life that has been going on for thousands of years.
I don't wish to shred the Constitution and I agree it's not an easy subject to approach. Hell, I don't even know what the answer is but we need to recognize that Islam is evil and cannot be tolerated if we are to survive.
I give Muslims the stare down any time I see them. It's not much but it's how I let them know that they are being watched.
Hyperbole much?
We're nowhere near the point of facing an existential threat to our survival. 9/11 was an evil, cowardly act that left thousands dead, but it didn't threaten to destroy us, nor would any other such attack. Not even close.
If terrorism threatens our way of life it'll be beacuse of our reaction to it, not the act of terrorism itself. Curently that reaction has been limited to putting up with TSA groping, the possibility that our phone calls to Pakistan might be tapped, and kicking the shit out of countries that so richly deserved it.
Re-defining what freedoms the Constitution protects- that is a greater threat than anything some goat fucking barbarian can pull off.
By all means- keep tabs on suspect mosques, investigate where warranted, limit immigration,etc. Suggesting that our Constitutional freedoms should be thrown out the window, however, goes much too far.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:41 PM (WRW1S)

365 It DOES NOT mean that we have the freedom to practice every element of our religion. If a part our religion is contrary to the law of our country, the law overrides the religion.

How is building a mosque going against the laws of the land?

Posted by: Y-not at July 17, 2011 03:41 PM (5H6zj)

366 Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 03:39 PM (froiv)

Exactly.

Muslisms can call Islam a religion all they want, but it doesn't qualify it to receive tax-exempt status from gov't.

Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 03:41 PM (LD21B)

367 The Casey anthonys of the U.S. have killed far more Americans than any jihadists.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:41 PM (YyMmz)

368 >>>Oh, you're a liberal. That explains a lot.

This. Here's the ugly fucking truth for every person invoking "common sense" and the depths of their passionate conviction in this thread: you are liberals. You are behaving like progressives. The law suddenly isn't something known, set in stone, codified and consistent, it's "whatever I feel in my heart should be the case right now." The way liberals think about the world, in other words. Seriously, if you can't see the parallel you're willfully blind.

Oh let me guess, "this time it's different." No. It's NEVER different. You are either a constitutional conservative or you're someone who doesn't really respect the basic tenets of American freedom and is willing to bend or break them in order to go after a group you really hate (yes, even if that group might also hate you back...that doesn't change the calculus, you don't get it.)

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 03:41 PM (hIWe1)

369 Hmm. Quite a thread. Well, at least we can say this for our lineup of Republican candidates: They're doing much of the winnowing for us. However, eventually there had better be some wheat under all this chaff.

Posted by: George Orwell at July 17, 2011 03:42 PM (AZGON)

370
All I know is, of all the Republican candidates - Herman Cain is despicable!

Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 03:43 PM (HlEu/)

371 329

Pretty much. The bar is awful low, which is the way it should be -- there's a lot of screwball shit out there, but if you genuinely believe it, the government shouldn't be able to tell you not to.

Posted by: Brad at July 17, 2011 03:43 PM (zTZGo)

372 If we have to consider Islam a religion, their right to practice it ends where it breaks our laws. For example treason, sedition, murder and mutilation.
Putting a mosque near Ground Zero is legal but in extremely poor taste on their part, and they can't be heard to complain about being hated as a result.

Posted by: real joe at July 17, 2011 03:43 PM (w7Lv+)

373 The Casey anthonys of the U.S. have killed far more Americans than any jihadists.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:41 PM (YyMmz)

I beg your pardon.

Posted by: Central Florida Jury...Justice for All! at July 17, 2011 03:44 PM (piMMO)

374 342
330





Dead is dead, regardless of why they are killing. Christians commit murder all the time.

That is true. But no Christian priest says that God will reward them for it. Nor does the Pope. I bet most Christians don't either.

Now as for Islam, there are lots of Imams and lots of Muslims who do support sectarian murder, and in fact reward Muslims who kill non Muslims.

But as you say, Christians and Muslims are just the same.

Posted by: Jack at July 17, 2011 03:44 PM (8IAHO)

375 Surprising no one as yet has pointed out that DrewM's use of the dreaded "Anecdotal Argument" to confirm his thesis renders it Epic Fail status- this is the worst way possible to make a case in defense of the Constitution. We may as well have Phil Donahue or Oprah make his case for him (complete with on-cue tearful renderings- Drew- time to leave squishy-squishy land and man up to cold, hard reality). One only need look to the land- Britain- which BTW is the progenitor to our Constitution, to see what grave peril they are in for letting the Barbarians through the Gates.

Posted by: jokin at July 17, 2011 03:44 PM (Mpulp)

376 Pretty much. The bar is awful low, which is the way
it should be -- there's a lot of screwball shit out there, but if you
genuinely believe it, the government shouldn't be able to tell you not
to.

Posted by: Brad at July 17, 2011 03:43 PM (zTZGo)
Um, gov't can tell you what to believe, that is settled. But receiving tax-exempt status? That's something else. Not qualifying for religious tax-exempt status is not telling them they can't believe in whatever kooky idea they fancy. I'd hope you haven't conflated the two.

Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 03:45 PM (LD21B)

377 Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 03:23 PM (piMMO)
As If,
Your most endearing quality is your lack of a sense of humor. ;D

Posted by: Meremortal at July 17, 2011 03:45 PM (7FgWm)

378 @For real
A Muslim is told they are not allowed to leave islam.
If they leave islam another Muslim is allowed to kill them with inpunity.
If a Muslim parent preceives his daughters to be 'leaving Islam' he's allowed to kill them, but given they can have up to four wifes and as many kids as they can afford - he's not concerned of the one female. Or a Muslim father can barter his young daugher in a marriage contract to release him from a debt- to his brother or uncle, or anyone at all - no freedom for her on this soil and that doesn't seem to bother you progs.

Posted by: a-reader at July 17, 2011 03:46 PM (CYW2T)

379 Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 03:39 PM (froiv)

I have no love for Islam, quite the opposite in fact. But this isn't about Muslims, it's about us and our conceptions of a free society.

Of course religious freedoms, like all freedoms, have boundaries. But they are on specific actions, not beliefs.

People are allowed to practice religions that have elements the majority doesn't like but that doesn't mean it's ok to limit their freedom of belief and association.

The government can't stop me from believing that God wants me to kill
people, but it sure as hell can stop me from acting on it, or punish me
ifI do.

Exactly. But that's not the issue here. No one is saying, "I'm a Muslim and my relgion requires me to kill infidels therefore can't be prosecuted for those killings" is a legitimate or protected defense.

You can start your "Church of Lauren Gets to Kill People" and even have your own building where you preach that idea. What you can't do is kill someone.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 03:46 PM (dw7rB)

380 Why was this ridiculous article allowed on this blog?

The Constitution forbids the US Congress from making any laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. THAT'S IT.

It says nothing at all about what local communities can and cannot do. Holy fucking shit, I can't believe people still do not understand this.

Marxist education is doing wonders.

Posted by: Rip at July 17, 2011 03:46 PM (onO2O)

381
For Drew @:40http://tinyurl.com/3pdwrar

Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 03:46 PM (HlEu/)

382 pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2007/02/proposed-constitutional-amendment.html

pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2007/02/proposed-constitutional-amendment.html

A Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Background and justification to Amendment 28

Whereas Religion is defined as an institution dedicated to improving social conscience and promoting individual and societal spiritual growth in a way that is harmless to others not participating in or practicing the same;

Whereas the United States of America was founded on the ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice ones religion of choice, or no religion, and that there would be no compulsion of religion, nor state sanctioned religion, nor a religious test for participation in the body politic;

Whereas Islam includes a complete political and social structure, encompassed by its religious law, Sharia, that supersedes any civil law and that Islam mandates that no secular or democratic institutions are to be superior to Islamic law;

Whereas Islam preaches that it and it alone is the true religion and that Islam will dominate the world and supplant all other religions and democratic institutions;

Whereas Saudi Arabia, the spiritual home of Islam does not permit the practice of any other religion on its soil and even moderate Muslims states such as Turkey and Malaysia actively suppress other religions;

Whereas Islam includes as its basic tenet the spread of the faith by any and all means necessary, including violent conquest of non-believers, and demands of its followers that they implement violent jihad (holy war) against those un-willing to convert or submit to Islam, including by deception and subversion of existing institutions;

Whereas on 9/11/2001 19 Muslim hijackers acting in the name of Islam killed 3,000 Americans, and numerous other acts of terrorism have been directed at the American people around the world;

Whereas representatives of Islam around the world including Osama Bin Laden (architect of 9/11), the government of Iran including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, HAMAS, Hezbollah, and other Islamic groups have declared jihad (war) on America, and regularly declare that America should cease to exist;

Whereas there is no organized Islamic opposition to violent proponents of Islam;

Therefore: Islam is not a religion, but a political ideology more akin to Fascism and totally in opposition to the ideals of freedom as described in the United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:

Article I

The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.

The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.

Article II

As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.

Article III

Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.

The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islams history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.

The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.

Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.

Article IV

Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.

Posted by: Horatio at July 17, 2011 03:47 PM (TV9kz)

383
same old, Same old. When we get a church in Mecca I will be OK with one there.

Posted by: DNJAX at July 17, 2011 03:47 PM (/Q6MZ)

384 "Christians commit murder all the time."

Not in the name ofChristianity. That's the difference.
Muslims are instructed by Islam to either kill, convert, or tax all nonbelievers. Those are the only options.
Islam can be broken into two parts, Mecca and Medina. The Meccan verses are relatively peaceful (though not exclusively) because they came at the time when Muhammad was building his religion and co-opting bits and pieces of the Abrahamic religions around him. This is where you'll find things like "There is no compulsion in religion."
When Muhammad was run out of Mecca and fled to Medina, the verses become much more extreme and violent. It is here where you will find such verses as the Verse of the Sword and the requirement that Muslims make non-Muslims "feel subdued."
In Islam, there is a concept called abrogation. This means that if there are two verses that conflict, the latter verse, chronologically, is the one that is interpreted as the "true" word of God. The Verse of the Sword was one of the last Surah's recorded during the life of Muhammad. Thus, Muslims are bound not by the verse that says "there is no compulsion in religion" but rather by the verse that says "When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful."

This is the problem with Islam. Violence against non-believers is mandatory.

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 03:47 PM (froiv)

385 The Casey anthonys of the U.S. have killed far more Americans than any jihadists.

And that fool Obama sent the SEALs to take out Osama, when Casey Anthony was the real killer all along!

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 03:48 PM (JEvSn)

386 >>>Surprising no one as yet has pointed out that DrewM's use of the dreaded
"Anecdotal Argument" to confirm his thesis renders it Epic Fail status-
this is the worst way possible to make a case in defense of the
Constitution. We may as well have Phil Donahue or Oprah make his case
for him (complete with on-cue tearful renderings- Drew- time to leave
squishy-squishy land and man up to cold, hard reality). One only need
look to the land- Britain- which BTW is the progenitor to our
Constitution, to see what grave peril they are in for letting the
Barbarians through the Gates.

Britain doesn't have a written constitution, only a history of traditions, which is actually the reason they're in trouble -- free speech and freedom of religion isn't nearly as secure there anymore in the absence of a written document preventing erosion over time.

Why some people here seem so eager to throw out the U.S.'s great political advantage in that regard is beyond me. But hey, anything to go after today's enemy, right? Who cares about what happens tomorrow? Or whether it violates every moral and ethical precept we have ever stood for as a nation with a charter of negative liberties? Let's get those goddamn Muslims!

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 03:49 PM (hIWe1)

387 Posted by: Rip at July 17, 2011 03:46 PM (onO2O)

Yes, and it also does not say that gov't shall hand out tax-exempt status to any and all that profess to be a religion.

Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 03:49 PM (LD21B)

388 Suggesting that our Constitutional freedoms should be thrown out the window, however, goes much too far.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:41 PM (WRW1S)
That's not what he's suggesting. "" Hyperbole much? ""
( Tossing out passive-aggressive cliches detracts from your argument )

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at July 17, 2011 03:49 PM (UqKQV)

389 Guess we can call up the remnants of old KKK chapters down here and tell 'em, hey boys, the heat's off! The Defenders of the Constitution came through for you.

You can put your robes back on, take your crosses back up, and resume your community activities.

America tolerates murderous cults, guys, so no worries.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 17, 2011 03:49 PM (Ohzoo)

390 Like it or not, izlam *must* continue to be defined as a 'religion' or else it bloody WILL become our 'state'...

Posted by: stillwater at July 17, 2011 03:49 PM (0GpN4)

391 Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 03:38 PM (LD21B)

I've never defended Islam.

I've been trying to defend the plain and obvious words of the Constitution.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 03:49 PM (dw7rB)

392 Hyperbole much?
Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:41 PM (WRW1S)
Not enough. Evidently you don't get it.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 03:50 PM (r/KvE)

393 This. Here's the ugly fucking truth for every
person invoking "common sense" and the depths of their passionate
conviction in this thread: you are liberals. You are behaving like
progressives. The law suddenly isn't something known, set in stone,
codified and consistent, it's "whatever I feel in my heart should be the
case right now." The way liberals think about the world, in other
words. Seriously, if you can't see the parallel you're willfully
blind.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 03:41 PM (hIWe1)
What does a "year" mean in the Constitution? Does an islamic year count?BTW, wipe your chin, dude. That's embarrassing.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 03:50 PM (G/MYk)

394 Yeah Cain is the crazy one. It's much saner to fight Islam by spending billions of dollars and countless lives trying to spread democracy in Islamic nations then to consider banning the practice of Islam, whose basic tenet is to destroy us.
The founding fathers would have never dreamed of letting people walk into this country whose greatest ambition is to destroy it. Hell it would have been unheard of seventy-five years ago. Now we have conservatives championing their cause.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 03:51 PM (GZitp)

395 It says nothing at all about what local communities
can and cannot do. Holy fucking shit, I can't believe people still do
not understand this.





Posted by: Rip at July 17, 2011 03:46 PM (onO2O)
That's my point; you made it better than I did.

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at July 17, 2011 03:51 PM (UqKQV)

396 I'm trying to figure out what country some of you still think you live in. This isn't a free society here. Did not San Fran. just ban circumcision?
In this society, a community sure as hell can restrict religious worship and practices.

Posted by: Rich at July 17, 2011 03:52 PM (Jotvs)

397 Rather than trying to "stare moslems down", I think it would be more helpful to be kind, and provide them with an example of enlightened humanity when met with in our local communities. Being kind to one another. Prove the imams wrong.

You never know if one of those girls with their heads covered are looking for ANY sort of kindness, and being shown kindness, opens a door in the soul to something better.

Not saying to give in, just saying, don't TOTALLY paint everyone with the same brush. People are people. Some just grow up under different and sometimes more challenging circumstances.

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 03:52 PM (+tzv7)

398 The Constitution forbids the US Congress from making any laws respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
THAT'S IT.



It says nothing at all about what local communities can and cannot do.
Holy fucking shit, I can't believe people still do not understand this.

WILL YOU STOP PUTTING OUR CONSTITUTION IN A SHREDDER?!

Posted by: Loyal Defender of the First Amendment at July 17, 2011 03:52 PM (Ohzoo)

399 Jeff B's emetic flow: This is what you don't get. But what do I know, I'm just a fetishistic worshipper of some stupid document written by a bunch of dead white men.

From your own mouth.

However to most conservatives we were happily surprised to find the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence nearly echoes our own thoughts and foundations of conservatism and freedom. Most of which came via religious teaching, and understanding of Biblical morality, and our own observations in life of injustice and tyranny.

That religiously informed men then wrote down what for thousands of years was already in the Bible, but updated it to serve as the foundation of a government who's rights were derived by the consent of men, and such rights initially came from God to each individual.

Well that seems only to be a surprise to liberals and pseudo-conservatives like yourself. I am glad there is a Constitution, however I do not need one to inform me of what is right and wrong, what is stupid or intelligent. You however seem to derive all earthly authority by something written on paper, when it is long past it should have been written in your mind and heart.

Your arguments remind me of the philosophical stand of the Pharisees, where many could quote by memory vast sections of Scripture. But when the living embodiment of Scripture stood before them, they were enraged and put him to death.

What I am telling you is that America and Americans are more than its Constitution, and protection from an alien human-destroying cult is the business of all freedom loving men and women, whether the Constitution anticipated such a battle or not.

Some of us know the danger we see and we authorize ourselves to stand in the way, whether a document or someone as arrogant as you gives us permission.

As Christ said when his disciples were found breaking a Pharisaic law..."the law was made for man, not man for the law." Any one of us here is GREATER than the Constitution. And that statement is not to be taken lightly or abused, as surely as the sun comes up, you will delight yourself in abusing that statement, and its meaning.

It is fools like you and Drew M. that seek to now imprison Americans with a document, when we face our greatest danger, and you refuse to see reality, but castigate men that do mention what we face. Therefor the labeling of Herman Cain as "despicable." No his sin was he was honest, he just expected others to be honest also.

Charles Johnson has nothing to teach you.

Posted by: Jehu at July 17, 2011 03:52 PM (j6BJc)

400 Oh come on, Hollowpoint. You just said yourself that Islam is violence prone. You don't think that itself should disqualify Islam from being an acceptable religion?
Depends on what you mean by "acceptable". Do I accept Islam as personally accpetable? No, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a religion and therefore protected under the First Amendment.
Should we sit back and say nothing? No. Should we pretend that Islam isn't the motivation behind most of the world's terrorists? No. Should we investigate mosques an Muslims suspected of supporting terrorism? Definitely. Should we tell the truth to anyone considering converting to Islam? Absolutely.
Should we engage in Orwellian double-speak to redefine the meaning of the word "religion" (or any other word)as it pertains to the Constitution? No.
As despicable as we find the KKK, Fred Phelps, neo-Nazis, Communists, and Islam, we punish people for their actions, not for thoughtcrimes or fear of what they might do in the future.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:52 PM (WRW1S)

401 "You can even have your own building where you preach that idea. What you can't do is kill someone. "

Not true. Look at Waco, or the Orthodox LDS church (sorry, can't remember exactly what theycall themselves).
If an organization is using religion as a veil for illegal activity (even if the members actually believe the mumbo jumbo the leader is spewing) the government can step in.

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 03:52 PM (froiv)

402 You can start your "Church of Lauren Gets to Kill People" and even have
your own building where you preach that idea. What you can't do is kill
someone.

Oh yes you can. As long as the media just claims the killer acted alone and was suffering from mental illness. Nothing to see here, move along.

Then you can continue to preach your hatred and inspire another killer, who acted alone, was suffering from mental illness, rinse, repeat.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 03:53 PM (JEvSn)

403 The United States went to war with the Mormons and Mormonism over friggin polygamy.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 03:53 PM (G/MYk)

404 "Yes and incorporation is made-up bullshit. Bull. Shit."

I'll say the same thing to you that I like to say to libby gun-grabbers. If you don't like the 14th Amendment (or in their case, the 2nd), repeal the fucker. It's been done before. Until then, it's the supreme law of the land. Don't like it? Tough shit.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 03:54 PM (UxDMk)

405 #382 -- The "proposed amendment" you have there (which would be longer than any other one in the Constitution by a factor of ten) is one of the most vile things I've ever read. Anyone who would endorse that is, quite frankly, a fucking barbarian: you're not American, you have no fidelity to American constitutional values or understanding of what "liberty" actually means.

I do love the hilarious internal contradictions, however. Article II: "Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United
States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited." Article IV:
"The practice of Islam
within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected."

No problems there!

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 03:54 PM (hIWe1)

406 Drew we get it and agree, CONSTITUTION....it MUST and should be followed...but don't try to convince us Islam doesn't SUCK the big one. Cain may have errored on technical constitutional grounds, but NOT on basic theme of Islamic douches trying to destroy this country from within.

Posted by: Knightbrigade at July 17, 2011 03:55 PM (eRhz+)

407 Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 03:49 PM (dw7rB)

Ok, I think you and I were probably talking past each other, as I said upthread that I don't think we can really do anything about mosques being built.

However, I'm not convinced that the first amendment applies here. And certainly I don't believe that Islam should be accorded gov't sanctioned, tax-exempt status. They have ably disqualified themselves there.

Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 03:55 PM (LD21B)

408 "'m trying to figure out what country some of you still think you live
in. This isn't a free society here. Did not San Fran. just ban
circumcision?

In this society, a community sure as hell can restrict religious worship and practices."


THIS!

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 03:56 PM (Vrb/j)

409 It is fools like you and Drew M. that seek to now imprison Americans
with a document, when we face our greatest danger, and you refuse to see
reality, but castigate men that do mention what we face
Posted by: Jehu at July 17, 2011 03:52 PM (j6BJc)


Ah, living by the Constitution is "imprisoning" America. Ezra Klein and Laurence Tribe would be oh so proud.

BTW-if you think al Qaeda is or was ever a greater danger than the Soviet Union, you're even dumber than I thought.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 03:56 PM (dw7rB)

410 What a pile of steaming fertilizer Drew has asked us to shallow!
I suggest the author review American history and explain the tolerance of the Mormon church in the 19th century and even today. How was was it protected?

Can anyone explain to me why anyone would sanction a religion that:
-allows the murder of anyone leaving that religion (Islam)
-sanctions the killing of infidels
-permits and encourages the lying and cheating of unbelievers
-treats women as chattel

How can anyone cite the Constitution to protect a religion that will overthrow this very document?
We are supposed to pledge to support the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. If we only pause to examine how the Constitution is interpreted in Dearborn Michigan we see that the defenders of this "religion" are knaves and fools.

I do not support Islam anywhere whenit dictates that It is the supreme law of the land. Anyone who has lived in a Muslim dominated country knows there is no tolerance for others, only exploitation and rape of other cultures.

To those who interret the Constitution as a suicide pact will have to explain to me why the founding fathers clearly didn't tolerate Islam nor would have extended the first amendments protections to it.

I suggest one read Jefferson's or Churchill's thoughts on Islam. Then come back and tell me why it should be tolerated.

The BRITISH UNDERSTOOD THE REALITY OF JUSTICE AND RELIGIONS. WHEN THE GOVERNOR OF INDIA WAS TOLD IT WAS THE RELIGIOUS CUSTOM OF INDIA TO BURN THE WIDOWS OF MEN WHO HAD DIED HE REPLIED IN BRITAIN IT WAS THEIR CUSTOM TO HANG MEN WHO BURNED WOMEN.

Now tell me who is the realist this man or those who argue that there is a place for Sharia law in the USA.

You'll note what happens to nations like France and the UK or even Dearborn that allow mosques.
Finally I'll ask Drew to do an article telling us about the glorious history of other religions under Islam. Like the Iraqi Christians or Jews.
I say Drew needs to be sent to live in Dearborn. We don't need any dhimmies telling us to prepare for our chains and why such tolerance is the sign of a superior culture.
The graveyards of the world are dotted with such fools who lead their civilizations into the boneyards.

Posted by: Molon Labe at July 17, 2011 03:57 PM (g5MrG)

411 Did not San Fran. just ban
circumcision?

That was just to drive out all the Jews. The Muslims will continue their practices unabated.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 03:57 PM (JEvSn)

412 Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 03:52 PM (froiv)

What happens after something is built is different than saying communities can ban something before it's built because they don't like the people building it.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 03:59 PM (dw7rB)

413 Your most endearing quality is your lack of a sense of humor. ;D

You're right MM. Shame on me for not finding the humor in the completely bullshit and unfounded attack upon me this morning. It's always the folks who participate in such events that then want to cry foul when it doesn't work out to their advantage.

poor, poor MM.

I assure you. I am laughing now.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 03:59 PM (piMMO)

414 From Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.
Here's how it works:
2%As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens.
2% - 5%At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.
5%From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply.
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
10%When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections
20%After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues,
40%At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare
60%From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non- believers of all other religions (including non- conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
80%After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim
100%100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-al-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrassas are the only schools, and the Koran is the only “Word”,
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

Posted by: jmb at July 17, 2011 03:59 PM (dKV8D)

415 As despicable as we find the KKK, Fred Phelps, neo-Nazis, Communists, and Islam, we punish people for their actions, not for thoughtcrimes or fear of what they might do in the future.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:52 PM (WRW1S)
Except for Phelps (that I know of), the others you mentioned all have blood on their hands.
That doesn't make sense, dude.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 03:59 PM (r/KvE)

416 "Being kind to one another. Prove the imams wrong."

It doesn't matter. The penalty for leaving Islam is death. Not just in Saudi Arabia, not just in Pakisatan. In America. Honor killings are being swept under the rug right here, right now. Once a Muslim, always a Muslim unless you pay with your life. Women are terrified to leave Islam because they don't want to end up like Aminah and Sarah Said. Islam uses our tolerance against us, but how long are we to tolerate women being beaten to death by their own fathers? How long are we to tolerate young boys being taught Jihad before they are taught to read?
Are we to become England, where just days ago Mulsims took to the streets and began a "Sharia enforcement"?
Mosques are simply a front for the worst form of organized crime we have ever seen. It's time they are treated as such.

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 04:00 PM (froiv)

417 BTW-if you think al Qaeda is or was ever a greater danger than the Soviet Union, you're even dumber than I thought.

Uh, you might want to research that first.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 04:00 PM (JEvSn)

418 >>>Well that seems only to be a surprise to liberals and
pseudo-conservatives like yourself. I am glad there is a Constitution,
however I do not need one to inform me of what is right and wrong, what
is stupid or intelligent.

No, but you do need one to inform you what is LEGAL, you stupid fuck. You're free to have your own thoughts about what is right or wrong. But we're not really arguing about that, are we? (Is there anyone in this thread who's defending the religious tenets of Islam on substantive grounds?) We're talking about what is allowed under the laws of United States. What Cain proposes -- what a disturbing number of people on this thread seem to be agreeing with -- isn't just wrong ethically (we can agree or disagree about that), it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL and therefore ILLEGAL.

You don't simply get to decide that "yeah, maybe it's unconstitutional, but fuck that, the Constitution doesn't matter in this case!" Yes, yes it does. It is the highest law of the land. That's not mere opinion.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 04:00 PM (hIWe1)

419 #410: Virtually every one of those can be found in the Old Testament. So I guess we'll be shutting down the churches and synagogues too, right?

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:00 PM (UxDMk)

420 That was just to drive out all the Jews.

Driving out Jews is a Constitutionally-protected form of religious expression. Anyone who would oppose that is a not-American fucking barbarian.

Posted by: Loyal Defender of the First Amendment at July 17, 2011 04:00 PM (Ohzoo)

421 Why was this ridiculous article allowed on this blog? The Constitution forbids the US Congress from making any laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. THAT'S IT. It says nothing at all about what local communities can and cannot do. Holy fucking shit, I can't believe people still do not understand this.
Shhh... let the non-retarded people talk. Or at least those aware of the existence of the 14th Amendment.
Local communities can no more ignore the First Amendment than they can any other Amendment.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 04:01 PM (WRW1S)

422 Here. This is the problem: how does a free society protect itself against enemies intent on abusing its freedoms in order to destroy it? Many are the tyrannies that have been freely elected. So we observe the Constitution to the letter and go down with the ship when Islam takes over. What kind of victory is that? You can die knowing that you stuck to your ideals? Well, so did they. And they prevailed. Sometimes you have to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I want my kids to live without Shari'ah. And for that, I'm willing to compromise the Constitution.

Posted by: ahem at July 17, 2011 04:02 PM (rXe8u)

423 #419 - site your references in the OT, and then we'll talk.

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 04:02 PM (+tzv7)

424 ********However, I'm not convinced that the first amendment applies here.*******

Uhhhhhhhhh, what? This isn't brain science dude.

The Constitution wasn't written in simple language for a reason -- so the people could understand it. The first amendment has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with this.

All you have to do is READ the Constitution.

And there is nothing that says the federal government suddenly has jurisdiction over religions if they are tax exempt, either. Just stop listening to people on tv, seriously.

Posted by: Rip at July 17, 2011 04:02 PM (onO2O)

425 336 The early framers had no knowledge of Islam, or very little.
Posted by: Jehu at July 17, 2011 03:31 PM (j6BJc)

I doubt this line, remember the Barbary pirates and what we did about them? And what of all the history of European/Islam entanglements? I think they were well aware of Islam.


Jefferson knew little about Islam, he studied all he could AFTER the Barbary pirates episode, which was years after the Constitution, his opinion of Islam went from little knowledge to complete disgust, as anyone that studies that aberration. I knew little about Islam until 911, as most Americans. If Americans have not informed themselves and read a few histories about Islam, then they cared nothing for the sight of our greatest buildings destroyed and people burning to death and throwing themselves out of those buildings. To this day the media restricts those images...why?

Posted by: Jehu at July 17, 2011 04:02 PM (j6BJc)

426 "What happens after something is built is different than saying communities can ban something before it's built because they don't like the people building it."

Hogwash! Community standards have long been recognized when it comes to what can and can not be built. Just try to get a KKK hall built across from a historically black church.

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 04:03 PM (froiv)

427 I meant the Constitution WAS written in simple language.

Posted by: Rip at July 17, 2011 04:03 PM (onO2O)

428 >>>As Christ said when his disciples were found breaking a Pharisaic
law..."the law was made for man, not man for the law." Any one of us
here is GREATER than the Constitution.

My god, this is so backwards I feel like I'm living in a fantasy world. You may believe this in your own personal life, but as a matter of actual American legal principle the exact opposite is true: NONE of us is greater than the Constitution. No man, be he a beggar or the President of the United States, is outside its laws. Moreover, you surely must have heard several times in your life the maxim that what makes America truly great is that "we are a nation of laws, not of men." Not only do you not seem to understand why this is such an important thing, you would actually invert that in your own ideal world.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 04:03 PM (hIWe1)

429 Do I get a say in any of this?

Posted by: Santeria Chicken at July 17, 2011 04:03 PM (piMMO)

430 Posted by: Knightbrigade at July 17, 2011 03:55 PM (eRhz+)

You and I may agree but there are people arguing it's okay to hold a majority vote on this sort of thing and ban mosques because people don't like Islam.

I never said I like Islam. The point of my anecdote was two fold...

First, it just triggered the memory.

Second, like it or not Muslims are born and live in the US. Even if you could marginalize them by constitutional fiat, that's a really, really bad idea. You simply can't say "some Muslims are bad, so we're going to take away the rights of all them".

Conservatives are rightly proud of America's ability to assimilate others. We simply can't pretend all strains of Islam are the same (any more than all strains of any religions are). We need infect Islam in America with America and make sure it's not the other way around. There's some material to work with, simply declaring all American-Muslims outside the basic protections of America would defeat that goal. What's the upside to that exactly?

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 04:05 PM (dw7rB)

431 It's like the prime directive doesn't always make sense or something......

Posted by: dagny at July 17, 2011 04:05 PM (CuAny)

432 The 14th amendment says: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

No State. No State. No State.

A state is not a local community.

And let's not forget the 14th amenndment was ratified unlawfully.

Posted by: Rip at July 17, 2011 04:06 PM (onO2O)

433 We need infect Islam in America with America and
make sure it's not the other way around.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 04:05 PM (dw7rB)
Dude ... you're shroomin, aren't you?

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 04:07 PM (G/MYk)

434 The Constitution forbids the US Congress from making any laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. THAT'S IT
Posted by: Rip at July 17, 2011 03:46 PM (onO2O)

Ah, so states can pass laws prohibiting gun ownership since the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government?

Personally, I'm not good with that but I guess you are.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 04:07 PM (dw7rB)

435 What a bunch of scared pussies.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 04:08 PM (YyMmz)

436 So now the Constitution is a suicide pact? The founders never envisioned something like Islam spreading here when they wrote the first amendment. Nothing wrong with amending it again to exclude Islam. A religion whose main doctrine is to subjugate us.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 04:08 PM (GZitp)

437 "You simply can't say "some Muslims are bad, so we're going to take away the rights of all them".
We are not saying that. We are saying that Islam is bad. Not only bad, but actually directly contrary to the values of our country. Islam preaches treason. There might be moderate Muslins, but there is no moderate Islam.

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 04:08 PM (froiv)

438 Lauren, have you heard of Pamela Geller in NYC and her efforts to rescue battered muslim women? We HAVE to set an example and help where we can.

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 04:09 PM (+tzv7)

439 Except for Phelps (that I know of), the others you mentioned all have blood on their hands.
That doesn't make sense, dude.
Yes, they all have blood on their hands and/or express anti-American sentiment. That was the point- we don't punishthese people based on their beliefs, we punish them based on their actions.
Yes, if a KKK member gives a speech calling for his members to kill black people, that's actionable. The same should (and does) go for Muslims who call for terrorist acts.
In this country, we fight abhorrent speech and opinions with more free speech. It's neither necessary, legal or desireable to dictate which opinions or religions deserve First Amendment protection- they all do.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 04:09 PM (WRW1S)

440 Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 04:03 PM (froiv)

The KKK isn't a religion.

And by the way, I think they should be able to burn crosses on their own property or open an office across from a black church.

And people should be able to picket the hell out of that office and do whatever they can legally do to make their lives a living hell.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 04:10 PM (dw7rB)

441 No man, be he a beggar or the President of the United States, is outside its laws.
Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 04:03 PM (hIWe1)
I confess that I keep arguing because I know in my heart what is evil but I also understand that the Consitution is the law and the law is not always applied fairly.
What annoys me is that our President believes that he IS above the law.
Dear God, get this asshole out of here.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 04:10 PM (r/KvE)

442 "some Muslims are bad, so we're going to take away the rights of all
them".

It's not about individual Muslims, it's about Islam. Good grief Drew you're sounding just like a liberal.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 04:10 PM (GZitp)

443 Drew, the Constitution was written to restrain the federal government.

You guess I'm good with states prohibiting gun ownership? Are you throwing strawmen out there because you're stupid or just angry on the internet?

Posted by: Rip at July 17, 2011 04:11 PM (onO2O)

444 We HAVE to set an example and help where we can.
Yeah. Saving the women from Islam is a wonderful idea.

Posted by: dagny at July 17, 2011 04:11 PM (CuAny)

445 No State. No State. No State.





A state is not a local community.





And let's not forget the 14th amenndment was ratified unlawfully.

Okay, slowly now:

1.) The term "state" in the 14th Am applies to any STATE ACTOR, that is to say, any act taken by a government entity, whether that be on the federal, state, or municipal level. You don't get a "freebie" just so long as you pass an unconstitutional law on the town level, as opposed to the statewide level. This is so obvious that even you must acknowledge it's true. Otherwise, what would prevent a town from, say, banning guns entirely within its premises? Or banning Jews from living or worshiping within city limits? Or blacks for that matter? Hey, it's not the STATE itself that's doing it, it's just a smaller, more local community! (Note, this is exactly what the Supreme Court just addressed in DC v. Heller.)

2.) Seriously? You're going to argue that the 14th Amendment isn't even legitimately a part of the Constitution now? You're not one of those League of the South irredentist types, are you? Should we just disenfranchise black people too, while we're at it?

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 04:11 PM (hIWe1)

446 We need infect Islam in America with America and make sure it's not the other way around.

So you're calling for an Islamic Reformation? Good luck.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 04:11 PM (JEvSn)

447 I don't like having my head cut off. But if I have to choose between losing my head to some bearded guy with shit on his left hand, and destroying the Founding Document, then I guess I know what I'm going to do.

There are other people around me who still have their heads, but they're just fucking retards living in a fantasy world in which they get to put the Constitution in a shredder.

Wait.... hey Abdul! There's a Jew over the-- *gaaack*

Posted by: Loyal Defender of the First Amendment at July 17, 2011 04:11 PM (Ohzoo)

448 We need infect Islam in America with America and
make sure it's not the other way around.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 04:05 PM (dw7rB)
Dude ... you're shroomin, aren't you?


Drew, I love ya, but that was a little make love, not war. You wouldn't by any chance, be a fan of bell-bottoms would you?


Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 04:13 PM (piMMO)

449 The KKK isn't a religion.

Oh, and Islam is?

Says who?

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 17, 2011 04:13 PM (Ohzoo)

450 "We need infect Islam in America
with America and make sure it's not the other way around"
Stunningly naive.

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 04:13 PM (Vrb/j)

451 Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 04:10 PM (GZitp)

How exactly do you separate the two in a case like this?


Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 04:13 PM (dw7rB)

452 Drew M. cites this iman, perhaps he thought it better not to cite the imans in the UK that have preached against British soldiers and ordered his faithful to disrupt the burials of slain British soldiers.
He obviously sees the Constitution as a suicide pact. I note that we have a nation where there are many who will have fits if the mere mention of god is intoned at any public event.

We are asked to forget the wearing of the cross or reading the Bible at many schools is some sort of crime yet we are told to tolerate those who refuse to pick up the blind and halt with their aid dogs because of their religion.

I am sick and tired of those who on one hand view the Constitution as a living or flexible document than to look at the intentions of what the founders intended.

Such ignorance is breath taking. Laws and restrictions at the time of the Constitution extended to who could hold public office based on religion in most states. In Mass. Catholics, Baptists, Quakers etc could not hold office. The same applied to about every state but Pennsylvannia.
Times change, attitudes change, but no one would tolerate a polticial system that called for the murder of non adherents and the overthrow of the legitimate government. How then can one defend a system that uses "religion" as a shield against the same restrictions that would otherwise make it a criminal enterprise?

Posted by: Molon Labe at July 17, 2011 04:13 PM (g5MrG)

453 DrewM, and sycophants, a simple question:

Do you believe that mosques are legitimate first-strike military targets when we fight overseas, based on the fact that mosques have always been the logistical centers and warehouses for arms?

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 04:13 PM (G/MYk)

454 Yes, if a KKK member gives a speech calling for his members to kill black people, that's actionable. The same should (and does) go for Muslims who call for terrorist acts.
Yet the SEIU can beat people up at will? Shabazz a booboo can threaten anyone? Holder can give guns to murderers? etc.

Posted by: dagny at July 17, 2011 04:13 PM (CuAny)

455 And people should be able to picket the hell out of that office and do
whatever they can legally do to make their lives a living hell.
That's because they're a small bunch of kooks. But how about entire neighborhoods where the police won't go? Are you going to picket there or make their lives a living hell? Not if you want to live.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 04:14 PM (JEvSn)

456 Yes Jeff B., that is exactly what I'm saying. Why don't you go read what actually happened during its ratification?

Posted by: Rip at July 17, 2011 04:14 PM (onO2O)

457 "The KKK isn't a religion."

Of course it is. They are acting out of their belief that God has ordained them as the superior race. Can't they build across the street from Rev. Wright's church? Why not?
Dianne, I have heard of the NYC project. It's great. Too bad Ms. Geller is called a bigot for trying to save people's lives.

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 04:15 PM (froiv)

458 The kkk is protected. They march through main street of my town every year under police escort.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 04:16 PM (YyMmz)

459 Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 04:13 PM (piMMO)

No it's hard hearted realism.

There are some American Muslims (very few to date) who will want to be jihadis.. There are some who will never become jihadis (so far the overwhelming majority). The ones who could go either way are being fought for by the jihadis. Should we concede that undecided group to them? That seems self-defeating to say the least.

The major complaint with the vast majority of American Muslims is they make excuses for the jihadis or refuse to acknowledge that their religion, unlike any other in the US, breads a violent subset.

We need to be honest about with them while trying to co-opt them to rightside and be honest about what's going on in their midst.

Simply banning mosques, even if you could, doesn't help US security.


Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 04:18 PM (dw7rB)

460 How exactly do you separate the two in a case like
this?Posted by: DrewM.
at July 17, 2011 04:13 PM (dw7rB)

Why would I have to separate it? If one chooses to practice Islam they are free to do so, just not here. We wouldn't dream of letting Nazi's roam free about our country during WW11 yet for some reason the door are open to people who believe in an ideology just as dangerous now.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 04:18 PM (GZitp)

461 "but they're just fucking retards living in a fantasy world in which they get to put the Constitution in a shredder."

Again, the constitution does not give a free pass to every aspect of any given religion. Treason dressed up as religion is still treason.

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 04:18 PM (froiv)

462 The kkk is protected. They march through main street of my town every year under police escort.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 04:16 PM (YyMmz)
But New York City would have had their zoning variances bottled up for decades, and likely fines raining on their property incessantly, if they had tried to build something at Ground Zero.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 04:18 PM (G/MYk)

463 Yes, if a KKK member gives a speech calling for his members to kill black people, that's actionable. The same should (and does) go for Muslims who call for terrorist acts.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 04:09 PM (WRW1S)
But they've already done that. It's what they do. It's their reason to exist.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 04:18 PM (r/KvE)

464 #453 - Yes. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if Iran ever nukes ANYONE! - we will nuke the fuck out of mecca. Problem solved, allah, the stone idol, disintegrated.

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 04:19 PM (+tzv7)

465 Yeah. Pamela Geller does a lot toward trying to help or to remember women who have been or could be the victims of muslim "honor killings". Yet another reason that islam/mosques/etal shouldn't be considered anything but a terrorist front group.

Posted by: dagny at July 17, 2011 04:19 PM (CuAny)

466 So you're calling for an Islamic Reformation? Good luck.
Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 04:11 PM (JEvSn)

Unpossible; Islam is completely decentralized, which is a reflection of the disorganized minds of the fuckheads that wrote that third-rate porn called the Koran. There's no way to rein in the nutjobs, which is a feature not a bug.

Posted by: Captain Hate at July 17, 2011 04:19 PM (zsvKP)

467 #423:

Women as chattel:

Genesis 3:1: Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."


1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

1 Timothy 2:12
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
Ephesians 5:23-33

For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.


Killing nonbelievers:
Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Honor killing:

Leviticus 21:9: "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."


It's all there. Not too surprising, since Islam is basically Judeo-Christianity with the serial numbers filed off.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:20 PM (UxDMk)

468 And by the way, I think they should be able to burn crosses on their own property or open an office across from a black church.

One wonders where all these people keep getting this inability of the KKK to form groups etc. To all you people siting the KKK and another hate group for that matter:

1. It is not against the law to from a KKK local group and hold meetings.
2. The State can NOT restrict their activities except where it violates law.
3. Courts have repeatedly rule that KKK members can hold marches and gatherings as long as they comply with local rules that forbid hate speech and violence. And that hat3e speech includes burning a cross as long as they do it in a manner that does not provoke incendiary acts. i.e. if some KKK coven wants to burn a cross in the privacy of their own property on the back 40 somewhere they are free to do that. They just can not go down to some local black church and burn it on public or church property with the intent of intimidating the church members.

Posted by: Vic at July 17, 2011 04:21 PM (M9Ie6)

469 We need infect Islam in America with America and
make sure it's not the other way around.

We have about 1400 years to see how that strategy has worked. 1400 years of failure.

Islam has proven itself one of the strongest, most resilient cultures in the history of mankind. It has taken over cultures much stronger and long-lived than America before. The Persians had an empire long before Islam. The middle east was the cradle of Christianity. Islam has proven its ability to infect widely disparate cultures, to embed itself, and to replace and expel to previous culture. Persian, Turkish, Indonesian, South Asian, Arabic, east Africa, west African, central Asian, Slavic.

Trying to "infect" Islam with America is like trying to "infect" crack cocaine with your steely resolve and self-determination.

Islam has only ever been expelled by force.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at July 17, 2011 04:21 PM (QcFbt)

470 464 #453 - Yes. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if Iran ever nukes ANYONE! - we will nuke the fuck out of mecca. Problem solved, allah, the stone idol, disintegrated.
Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 04:19 PM (+tzv7)
How about nuking Tehran first just so we don't risk making it bigger than it has to be.

Posted by: buzzion at July 17, 2011 04:21 PM (oVQFe)

471 410: Virtually every one of those can be found in the Old Testament. So I guess we'll be shutting down the churches and synagogues too, right?

cite the text, please.

Posted by: garrett at July 17, 2011 04:21 PM (qGgcC)

472 Haha, and you're trying to tell me the word State does not mean State. Hahaha. Yeah ok, it REALLY means any government entity at all! Riiiight.

I really don't care what the SC rules. The problem is people like you that let them get away with bullshit.

Posted by: Rip at July 17, 2011 04:21 PM (onO2O)

473 But they've already done that. It's what they do. It's their reason to exist.
Thank you! Why do so many people not understand this simple point?

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 04:21 PM (JEvSn)

474 Such ignorance is breath taking. Laws and restrictions at the time of the Constitution extended to who could hold public office based on religion in most states.

14th Amendment, Skippy. Look it up. Read it. Don't like it? Repeal it. Until then, it's the law of the land. Sorry.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:21 PM (UxDMk)

475 Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 04:15 PM (froiv)

The KKK isn't a religion. There are Aryan churches but the KKK itself isn't one of them.

But seriously, you continue arguing that a religion with about a billion adherents worldwide isn't actually a religion because a bunch of people on a website say so.

Conservatives are supposed to deal in reality. I guess that's another thing that goes out the window when anyone says "Muslim".

The big problem with that is dealing in unreality actually undermines our security, not enhances it.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 04:22 PM (dw7rB)

476 Simply banning mosques, even if you could, doesn't help US security.
You don't know shit about Anwar Al-Awlaki do you?

Posted by: dagny at July 17, 2011 04:22 PM (CuAny)

477 It's all there. Not too surprising, since Islam is basically Judeo-Christianity with the serial numbers filed off.












Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:20 PM (UxDMk)
Wow, you just nailed the modern Christian culture.
Not.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 04:22 PM (r/KvE)

478 #471: #467.

There are plenty more.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:22 PM (UxDMk)

479 Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:20 PM (UxDMk)

Hi there.

Posted by: The New Testament at July 17, 2011 04:23 PM (1ujL8)

480 It has been said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Islam is far more than a religion. It is a political philosophy bent on the destruction of all that stands in its path. Islam is only interested in the dialog of force. Herman Cain is right.

Posted by: Donald Kotowski at July 17, 2011 04:24 PM (bXomv)

481 It's all there. Not too surprising, since Islam is basically Judeo-Christianity with the serial numbers filed off.

You mean with all the guilt replaced with shame?

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 04:24 PM (JEvSn)

482 "Again, the constitution does not give a free pass to every aspect of any
given religion. Treason dressed up as religion is still treason."

and this.


Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 04:25 PM (Vrb/j)

483 #479: Didn't bother reading #467, did you? Hint: Corinthians, Timothy, et al are in the New Testament. I included them specifically because I knew someone would try the "stuff in the Old Testament only applies if it conforms to my prejudices, otherwise it's null and void" tactic.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:26 PM (UxDMk)

484 Treason dressed up as religion is still treason."

Jane Fonda has proven that treason is OK whether associated with religion or politics as long as it is leftest treason.

Posted by: Vic at July 17, 2011 04:26 PM (M9Ie6)

485 Posted by: dagny at July 17, 2011 04:22 PM (CuAny)

You mean the guy who fired Nidal Hassan on the idea of shooting up Ft. Hood from somewhere in Yemen? Yeah, I'm sure banning mosques would have stopped that.


Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 04:27 PM (dw7rB)

486 @ 478

which is why Baptist Methodist and Lutheran women wear burkas and are subject to clitoral circumcision.... thanks for the brilliant Christian - hating insight.


Posted by: pretzel logic at July 17, 2011 04:27 PM (Lnsuu)

487 There are plenty more.

Then you should have no problem helping For Reelz cite examples of Christians actually stoning women to death any time within living memory, the way Muslims do about every half-hour.

And...... go.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 17, 2011 04:27 PM (1ujL8)

488 DrewM
Jeff B
Hollowpoint

The real Pillars of the "Community"

Posted by: usefulidiotleague at July 17, 2011 04:27 PM (Mpulp)

489 "But seriously, you continue arguing that a religion with about a billion adherents worldwide isn't actually a religion because a bunch of people on a website say so."

I never said that it wasn't a religion. I said that it is both a religion and a violent, expansionist ideology.
The latter is hiding under the cover of the former.

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 04:28 PM (froiv)

490 For instance, homosexuality is an "abomination" in the Old Testament. That still applies. Eating shellfish is an "abomination" in the Old Testament, but that no longer applies. Oddly, no one has ever been able to cite (or "site", as one of you would have it) the verses that say it's now okay to eat lobster.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:28 PM (UxDMk)

491 Didn't bother reading #467, did you?

No, I didn't read your mewling horseshit. Nor am I Christian, so you can't play that card with me.

Now answer my question, stupid.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 17, 2011 04:28 PM (1ujL8)

492 Islam is a religion alright but a religion that is a threat to our culture and our very lives. It's a religion that commands it's followers to make all people submit to Islamic law.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 04:28 PM (GZitp)

493 No it's hard hearted realism.

I really was just teasing.

This is a problem with no clear answers. In ideal circumstances, the path you profer is the path to take. Unfortunately, I have this weird little tick-tick-tick sounding in the back of my mind that reminds me we are only this far from the next attack. The fact that muslims cannot openly state their objections to the extremists without fear of retribution is going to make it very difficult, and very time-consuming, to bring them into this century.

Even so, I would not sacrifice our Constitution for the sake of eliminating their presence in a community.

This is a fight like we've never encountered. And no matter how it is fought, there will always be a divide in this country as to whether the method was right or wrong.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 04:29 PM (piMMO)

494 @485

You mean the guy who fired Nidal Hassan on the idea of shooting up Ft.
Hood from somewhere in Yemen? Yeah, I'm sure banning mosques covert jihadi funding and training facilities would have
stopped that.


FTFY

Posted by: pretzel logic at July 17, 2011 04:29 PM (Lnsuu)

495 Treason dressed up as religion is still treason
Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 04:18 PM (froiv)

So every practicing American Muslim is a traitor?


Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 04:29 PM (dw7rB)

496 Dead is dead, regardless of why they are killing. Christians commit murder all the time.
Posted by: For real
Yeah, but not in the name of Christianity. Praise Jesus is typically not followed by beheading or shooting.

Posted by: kansas at July 17, 2011 04:29 PM (A+g5T)

497
Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:20 PM (UxDMk)

Don't be an idiot. People still say "love, cherish, and obey" in their wedding vows. It is no indication of "chattel" status. Further, you talk about Jewish law which is restricted in space to Israel (a LIMITED plot of land). This is a threat to no one outside of that land. Unlike islam, which takes that aspect of Judaism and expands it to the whole of the universe. But, you don't see a difference. I guess the ability to discern between limited government and limitless authority escapes you.

As to honor killing. LOL. You pick out the example of a PRIEST's daughter - not just anyone's, but a priest's!! - and put that up against mohammed who strangles his 13 year old to death (because she stared provacatively at the wrong kind of boy) and then sits down for a nice family dinner ... Yeah, a culture just like any other, that ...


Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 04:30 PM (G/MYk)

498 #487: You've never heard of Northern Ireland, I take it.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:30 PM (UxDMk)

499 People still say "love, cherish, and obey" in their wedding vows.

Only the woman promised to obey, dipshit.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:31 PM (UxDMk)

500 491 Didn't bother reading #467, did you?No, I didn't read your mewling horseshit. Nor am I Christian, so you can't play that card with me.Now answer my question, stupid.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 17, 2011 04:28 PM (1ujL
You mean your "question" about the New Testament which he answered for you that one of the lines in that was from the New Testament which you would have known had you looked at it?

Posted by: buzzion at July 17, 2011 04:31 PM (oVQFe)

501 498
#487: You've never heard of Northern Ireland, I take it.

Answer me.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 17, 2011 04:31 PM (1ujL8)

502 But they've already done that. It's what they do. It's their reason to exist.
Again- you're making my point for me.
Their right to exist as an organization, freely express their beliefs, and peaceably assemble are still protected under the Constitution. If one calls for murder, then they canbe (and have been)arrested. That some of them in the past have called for or committed murder in accordance to their agenda doesn't invalidate their rights as an organization until it gets into RICO territory.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 04:31 PM (WRW1S)

503 #487: You've never heard of Northern Ireland, I take it.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:30 PM (UxDMk)
Keep digging that hole buddy....

Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 04:31 PM (LD21B)

504 One other thing this illustrates is this is the second issue that Cain has taken the non-incorporation stance on. A while back he took a non-incorporation stance on the second amendment.

So at least he is consistent. Perhaps he should say that. Or maybe he has and Fox edited it out.

Posted by: Vic at July 17, 2011 04:32 PM (M9Ie6)

505 #491:

Translation: you have no response.

The "mewling horseshit" was direct quotes from the Bible. Dumbass.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:32 PM (UxDMk)

506 Yeah, but not in the name of Christianity. Praise Jesus is typically not followed by beheading or shooting.
Posted by: kansas at July 17, 2011 04:29 PM (A+g5T)
No, it's usually followed by a potluck lunch while being entertained by a praise band.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 04:33 PM (r/KvE)

507 I included them specifically because I knew someone would try the "stuff
in the Old Testament only applies if it conforms to my prejudices,
otherwise it's null and void" tactic.

Well, you've got me there. I guess I've been wrong with all that compassion and forgiveness, when I just should have been killing motherfuckers old school. I'll get right on it after I beat the wife.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 04:33 PM (JEvSn)

508 Posted by: buzzion at July 17, 2011 04:31 PM (oVQFe)

I already know you're a parsing piece of shit, buzz, which is why I didn't ask you.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 17, 2011 04:33 PM (1ujL8)

509 Jeff B ejaculated:

You don't simply get to decide that "yeah, maybe it's unconstitutional, but fuck that, the Constitution doesn't matter in this case!" Yes, yes it does. It is the highest law of the land. That's not mere opinion.

Really? What law applied here before the Constitution? So men made it up. Men can make up other laws, especially for self-protection. You go ahead and give head to the Constitution, while the Mosque gets built in your neighborhood. Listen to your daughters cry about being stalked by Muslim men calling them whores for wearing a dress or makeup.

Jerk yourself off as you hear the call to prayer on loudspeakers 5 times a day...at least it will not be those damnable Catholic church bells.

As far as your Holy Constitution it has been mostly shredded, are you living in a dream world or something? One more liberal justice on the Supreme court and you can kiss Original Intent goodbye.

You need to stop thinking allegiance and worship of a document will protect you from evil. Worship of the Bible did not protect millions of Russian and Chinese Christians from the plague of death introduced by another gang that also worshiped written words.

The Maoists all carried their little Red Books and quoted from them as they burned their neighbors. If freedom is not in the hearts of men, it will be taken from them, whether they cling to words or not.

Even the moron FDR imprisoned the Japanese in complete disregard of the Constitution, out of an immediate danger and threat. Hindsight is great as we found out most of those Japanese were loyal Americans, they had the misfortune of distinct racial features at a time of all out war.

Muslims have the distinct characteristic to believe in a religion that is the death of the world, Constitutional obedience or not. Something that you forget is liberals seek and find a way around your Constitution daily in nearly every court in the land. Vote for no gay marriage? Sorry but a judge found it unconstitutional. You are a stupid man if you think the Constitution radiates controlling power over mankind like the rays of the sun. It is now part of a judicial system that is mostly corrupt. Wake the hell up.

You have no magical protection anymore, if you ever did. Your only protection will be a living relationship with the Creator, who allowed us to write down a pale imitation of Divine Freedom and justice, but school time is over. Time for the real thing for each of us, or have you noticed people are facing death and disaster and out of control government everywhere, even here, the last refuge of freedom.

Posted by: Jehu at July 17, 2011 04:33 PM (j6BJc)

510 So every practicing American Muslim is a traitor?Posted by: DrewM.
at July 17, 2011 04:29 PM (dw7rB)

Ask them. Are they willing to renounce Sharia and Jihad-ism? If they are, fine but I doubt you'll find many that will.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 04:33 PM (GZitp)

511 #503:

Digging what hole? Are you claiming that Christians didn't kill each other in Northern Ireland?

Do tell.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:33 PM (UxDMk)

512 @ 502

RICO territory


ahahahahahahahahahahaha

Posted by: Holder's DOJ at July 17, 2011 04:33 PM (Lnsuu)

513 You mean the guy who fired Nidal Hassan on the idea of shooting up Ft. Hood from somewhere in Yemen? Yeah, I'm sure banning mosques would have stopped that.
He is an American Imam, now based in Yemen. Prior to leaving for Yemen, he filled many a young American with Jihad bullshit from his local Mosque.

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 04:34 PM (froiv)

514 #501: "Answer you" how?

You asked for an example of Christians murdering within living memory. I pointed to Northern Ireland.

Hint: that means you lose. Sorry.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:35 PM (UxDMk)

515 Translation: you have no response.

No, you had no response to me. You cannot give me any examples of Christians running around stoning women to death the way Muslims do, as I knew you wouldn't be able to.

Nice try, stupid. You can sit down now.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 17, 2011 04:35 PM (1ujL8)

516 One other thing this illustrates is this is the second issue that Cain has taken the non-incorporation stance on. A while back he took a non-incorporation stance on the second amendment. So at least he is consistent. Perhaps he should say that. Or maybe he has and Fox edited it out.
I doubt he's thought it through that thoroughly.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 04:36 PM (WRW1S)

517 #467 - Nice try. You forgot about Jesus, who suffered to take the punishment for our sins, and admonished us to be kind to one another. And was just as kind to women as he was to men.



Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 04:36 PM (+tzv7)

518 @514 I think you mean to say



#winning

Posted by: pretzel logic at July 17, 2011 04:37 PM (Lnsuu)

519 Gee War ignores everything and creates a strawman he demands to be answered. What a shock.

Posted by: buzzion at July 17, 2011 04:37 PM (oVQFe)

520 "So every practicing American Muslim is a traitor?"

No. Some are completely ignorant of what their religion teaches, and some are afraid to leave less they find themselves without a head.
The remainderseek a Shariah state. Based on the studies showing the prevelance of Jihad material in mosques, if a woman is wearing a traditional Hijab, or a man has a "Muhammad style" beard, they attend a mosque that preaches Jihad.

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 04:38 PM (froiv)

521 Posted by: Vic at July 17, 2011 04:32 PM (M9Ie6)

Why do you keep wondering if Fox edits him to look bad? They are the only ones who will even have him on. I've never heard him complain about it.

Besides, isn't Fox News Sunday live?

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 04:38 PM (dw7rB)

522


Do tell.



Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:33 PM (UxDMk)
And that is relevant, how?

Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 04:38 PM (LD21B)

523 #515: Ah...as long as it's not stones, it's cool. Guns, knives, car bombs, gasoline. Those don't count.

Someone is stupid here all right, but it ain't me, Skippy.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:38 PM (UxDMk)

524 Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 04:34 PM (froiv)

Yeah, I know. And now he does it via computer from Yemen (like he did with his 'prize' American Nidal Hassan).

Banning mosques isn't going to change any of that.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 04:39 PM (dw7rB)

525 And that is relevant, how?

Now you're just playing stupid.

The decades-long religious-based terrorism in Northern Ireland isn't relevant at all. Riiiiiight.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:40 PM (UxDMk)

526 519
Gee War ignores everything and creates a strawman he demands to be answered. What a shock.Posted by: buzzion at July 17, 2011 04:37 PM (oVQFe)


Shhhh. Go back to sucking Christian-hating cock. You'll enjoy it more and you're better at it anyway.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 17, 2011 04:40 PM (1ujL8)

527 Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:38 PM (UxDMk)

Oh its you all right. You are not the first, and likely not the last, to bring up Ireland, and guess what? It doesn't prove your point.

Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 04:40 PM (LD21B)

528 "So every practicing American Muslim is a traitor?"


yes

Posted by: ploome at July 17, 2011 04:40 PM (XPUCK)

529 Well then. Guess it's settled. You guys can continue your bitchspittle back and forth on the minutiae and try to make yourselves feel tolerant or intelligent or what the feck ever. My oath included foreign or domestic. An enemy is an enemy. A lawyer for an enemy is the first round.

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 04:41 PM (Vrb/j)

530 That some of them in the past have called for or committed murder in accordance to their agenda doesn't invalidate their rights as an organization until it gets into RICO territory.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 04:31 PM (WRW1S)
Well, I'll have to defer to you on that one. I don't know dick about particular laws.
I'll let my opinion on Muslims stand, tho. They are the enemy and I will not treat them as my neighbor.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 04:41 PM (r/KvE)

531 Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:40 PM (UxDMk)

You are not fooling anyone, but go ahead and feel proud of yourself.


Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 04:42 PM (LD21B)

532 Dumbass.
Finally, some eloquence. That gem right there was pretty persuasive, eh?

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at July 17, 2011 04:42 PM (vbh31)

533 @523 so the Constitution of the US applies in Northern Ireland???


I must be the stupid one.

Posted by: pretzel logic at July 17, 2011 04:42 PM (Lnsuu)

534 As to honor killing. LOL. You pick out the example of a PRIEST's daughter - not just anyone's, but a priest's!!

And, to clarify (as some might not notice) this is "a Jew of the priest class", here, not a later Christian priest, which is why it was such a specialized instruction that you chose as an "honor killing" example.

Judaism, of course, has its tribal elements. Judaism was tribal from the start. But, not entirely tribal. That was the base, but anyone who subscribed to the ideas could join and become "part of the Tribe". Jews did not proselytize and never sought to bring anyone in (with the instructions in Judaism even being to have to turn interested converts away three times) but we were still part tribal. So, you bring up one specific tribal part of old Judiasm, that has not been operative for almost 2 thousand years ... and that is your comparison to the muslim guy down the road throwing a radio in his daighter's bathtub because she shook the hand of an infidel. Okey doke.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 04:42 PM (G/MYk)

535 It doesn't prove your point.

The point was that Christians can, and do, commit large-scale terrorism. Dipshit.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:42 PM (UxDMk)

536 Could somebody explain then how in Dearborn, MICHIGAN, America, muslim prayers ring out daily, but church bells are offensive to them-even in nearby cities??? Muslims do not assimilate. A woman cannot walk around in Dearborn in shorts-even non-muslim women. And sharia law does exist in Dearborn. They have muslim mortgages, and Quicken Loans in Michigan advertises that they do muslim mortgages.

Posted by: chillin the most at July 17, 2011 04:42 PM (6IV8T)

537

Cross posting this thread at Little Green Footballs so all
37 of Charles’ remaining posters and his own dozen or so sockpuppets - as well asDrew M.’s three or four supporters on this
thread - can circle jerk together over their moral and constitutional superiority.
Allahpundit of Hotair.com is invited to oversee their efforts. The rest of us racists, bigots, and zealots can go somewhere else and hang our heads in shame at our collective intolerance. Oh, andwe'll need beer.

Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 04:43 PM (HlEu/)

538 Why do you keep wondering if Fox edits him to look bad? They are the
only ones who will even have him on. I've never heard him complain about
it.Besides, isn't Fox News Sunday live?

I don't trust Chris Wallace. He is as bad as any liberal at NBC. And it can't be live because they show it at three different times during the day.

And none of them ever complain about being edited. Even Palin didn't complain when ABC traded answers between questions. They think it is a losing war.

Posted by: Vic at July 17, 2011 04:43 PM (M9Ie6)

539 Pizza Roll you must answer War about his specific question. See he thinks you quoted stuff about stoning women so you must admit that you don't know of any examples in recent times of Christians stoning women. That way he can declare victory over you while ignoring any point you were trying to make or what you said.
Oh and you're wrong about Islam being Judeo-Christianity with the serial numbers filed off. Its a bastardized perversion of those.

Posted by: buzzion at July 17, 2011 04:43 PM (oVQFe)

540 >>>Really? What law applied here before the Constitution?

Um...English Common Law, as developed over 700 previous years of statutes and court decisions, governed the colonies before the ratification of the Constitution. Every court in the American colonies referred to Blackstone's Commentaries for the (very regular, very predictable) application of law in disputes. Not "biblical law," as you so ignorantly seem to think.

This isn't hard, you know. The problem is that you don't know the correct answers so you're just making up "it's the bible!" bullshit. "Biblical law," such as it is (or you take it to be), hasn't been the law of the land in English speaking nations since Henry II's decisive expulsion of Catholic canon law from secular matters.

But go ahead, keep telling yourself that it's all based on some cod-mystical "inherited understanding" of 'Biblical law' (a term which doesn't even have any meaning outside of your own personal definition). I'm sure you'll find at least one other person in this thread to agree with you, which proves you're correct.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 04:44 PM (hIWe1)

541

Only the woman promised to obey, dipshit.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:31 PM (UxDMk)
Uh .. yeah. And it's still the same for many, Einstein. That doesn't make them chattel, except in your fevered mind. It is the acceptance of two different roles for man and woman. Of course, that notion is almost hate-speech these days.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 04:45 PM (G/MYk)

542 Is dere a guy named buzzion in 'ere? He ain't paid 'is dues fer da month.

Posted by: United Brotherhood of Ankle-Biters Local 303 at July 17, 2011 04:45 PM (1ujL8)

543 Could somebody explain then how in Dearborn, MICHIGAN, America, muslim
prayers ring out daily, but church bells are offensive to them-even in
nearby cities???
Posted by: chillin the most at July 17, 2011 04:42 PM (6IV8T)

Too much immigration and not enough assimilation.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 04:45 PM (dw7rB)

544 "Banning mosques isn't going to change any of that."

You are forgetting the very vast segment of the Muslim population that falls into the "doesn't know what the hell their own religion teaches" camp. When those folks run into a friendly neighborhood Imam at the friendly neighborhood Mosque who teaches them that they must commit Jihad for Islam, youhave a new crop of radicalized youths ready to do battle.

This is by design, btw. It is part of a concerted effort to spread Islam and Shariah to America.

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 04:45 PM (froiv)

545 Oh, andwe'll need beer.,......ya think?

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 04:45 PM (Vrb/j)

546 specialized instruction that you chose as an "honor killing" example.

Deuteronomy 22:13-20:

13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

That would be the sound of you shutting the fuck up that I hear, right?

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:46 PM (UxDMk)

547 War don't you have to go make a "funny" joke about Christine O'Donnel somewhere?

Posted by: buzzion at July 17, 2011 04:46 PM (oVQFe)

548 "Too much immigration and not enough assimilation. "

Muslims do not assimilate. See Al-Hijra

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 04:47 PM (froiv)

549 Posted by: chillin the most at July 17, 2011 04:42 PM (6IV8T)

That's why when we talk about creeping Islam it's not just about terrorism, they took a U.S. city and made it into something unrecognizable to most Americans. This is not what the first amendment was about.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 04:47 PM (GZitp)

550 Let them build their mosque...let us start an airline that bans Muslims. Freedom of association and private property rights for all!

Posted by: Spike at July 17, 2011 04:47 PM (WLxeI)

551 Well, I'll have to defer to you on that one. I don't know dick about particular laws.
I'll let my opinion on Muslims stand, tho. They are the enemy and I will not treat them as my neighbor.
Nobody is suggesting you have to like them, be nice to them or even that you can't hate them if you so choose. Feel free to speak out and tell them "we don't want you here", that's your right. Speak up and tell your community and the world why Islam is a false, destructive religion- anyone tries to stop you, the First Amendment has your back.
The Constitution does, however, prohibit you or anyoneelsefrom deciding which religions get to builda house of worship and which ones don't.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 04:48 PM (WRW1S)

552 542
Is dere a guy named buzzion in 'ere? He ain't paid 'is dues fer da month.

Get in line. We get first dibs on him.

Posted by: United Brotherhood of Sycophants Local 303 at July 17, 2011 04:48 PM (1ujL8)

553 @523

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:38 PM (UxDMk)

This is really a stupid argument on your part, ZPR.

No one who's killing (or actually was killing- crime's a better racket now) whether Catholic or Protestant is killing because "Our Lord and Savior jesus Christ commanded us to kill X".

You can't find that kind incitement to murder cause it's not there. The Koran is full of kill X passages. If you don't think so, you've never read it. I have.

Catholics or Protestants are killing in Ireland despite Christ's teaching.

Muslims kill because of Mohammed's/Koran's teaching.

So yeah, you're stupid or disingenuous- typical for a libtard.

Posted by: naturalfake at July 17, 2011 04:48 PM (I49Jm)

554 I don't agree with buzzion about much, at any time (nor he with me), but I have to say that he's got the upper hand along with Pizza Roll on the "really fucking questionable Biblical passages" issue here.

The problem is that I also really love Undead States and his Christine O'Donnell jokes.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 04:49 PM (hIWe1)

555 so handguns banned = Constitutional


Muslim jihadi support bases on Main Street banned =
UNConstitutional horror!!!!

Posted by: pretzel logic - taking notes at July 17, 2011 04:49 PM (Lnsuu)

556 Muslims do not assimilate. See Al-Hijra

We are no longer a melting pot. Hell, we aren't even a soup. We are now referred to as a tapestry.

Yeah. Learned that in humanities class. Nearly threw up.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 04:50 PM (piMMO)

557 An intellectual exercise: KKK decides to create a chapter in Harlem.

What's Drew's reaction?

A. They have a Constitutional right to do so and anyone who opposes is a despicable bigot

B. A Constitutional right can't always be applied to the real world situations, it would obstruct the life of the citizens and pose a danger to the chapter members, etc'

PS. I know there is a difference between KKK and a Mosque. KKK members didn't commit ideological murders since the 60s.

Posted by: nati at July 17, 2011 04:50 PM (QCO1w)

558 . That doesn't make them chattel, except in your fevered mind. It is the acceptance of two different roles for man and woman.

The two "different roles", of course, being that he tells her what to do, and she does it. Yeah, only a "fevered mind" would equate that with chattel/slave status. Dipshit.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:51 PM (UxDMk)

559 The point was that Christians can, and do, commit large-scale terrorism. Dipshit.

The IRA and UDA are Christian terrorist groups? You are on crack.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 04:52 PM (JEvSn)

560 That would be the sound of you shutting the fuck up that I hear, right?

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:46 PM (UxDMk)
I find it amusing when a libtard tries to use Scripture they don't believe in or understand against those who do.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 04:52 PM (r/KvE)

561 Catholics or Protestants are killing in Ireland despite Christ's teaching.

Not according to them.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:52 PM (UxDMk)

562 @#520 Lauren - SO TRUE!

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 04:53 PM (+tzv7)

563 find it amusing when a libtard tries to use Scripture

I find it amusing when an alleged Christian is brutally ignorant of the content of his own sacred text.

And I'm not a "libtard", dipshit. Hint: there are other choices besides "liberal" and "pig-ignorant religious fascist".

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:54 PM (UxDMk)

564 I just want to add that Zombie Pizza Roll if human fuckstain piece of shit.

Seriously, dude, fuck you.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at July 17, 2011 04:54 PM (QcFbt)

565 jeff b = drew m = chamberlain = fucking idiots.

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 04:55 PM (Vrb/j)

566 #557 -

I'm pretty sure that DrewM.'s response would be a variation of option A. The fact that you don't understand that is what's sort of frustrating about these debates.

In fact, I can tell you exactly what he would say: "Of course the KKK has a right to create a chapter in Harlem. They're fucking morons if they do so, however, and they should expect that they're going to catch a crapton of flak from everyone in the country if they try it. They should also probably expect that people are going to try to beat the shit out of them on the street, and although those people should be prosecuted as criminals if that happens, that doesn't mean that they're not still idiots for failing to realize it was a likely outcome. But yes, they have a constitutional right to set up shop there if they decide they want to...god knows why they would, however."

See, the reason I can write DrewM's response out for him is not because I'm his sockpuppet, it's because the principles we're defending here have simple, consistent, broad-based application. As I keep saying, this isn't hard.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 04:55 PM (hIWe1)

567

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:46 PM (UxDMk)

So? It seems emininetly reasonable for the time. What were your ancestors doing? What is mahmoud doing right now in Pakistan? In choice parts of Britain? In France?

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 04:56 PM (G/MYk)

568 554 I don't agree with buzzion about much, at any time (nor he with me), but I have to say that he's got the upper hand along with Pizza Roll on the "really fucking questionable Biblical passages" issue here.The problem is that I also really love Undead States and his Christine O'Donnell jokes.
Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 04:49 PM (hIWe1)
Its not as if the biblical quotes about women being subserviant to husbands or death sentences for certain acts are really that debateable. They are there. The religions though are capable of reform and not practicing in those ways now. His point about "the same with serial numbers filed off" isn't that accurate though either.

Posted by: buzzion at July 17, 2011 04:56 PM (oVQFe)

569 The Constitution does, however, prohibit you or anyoneelsefrom deciding which religions get to builda house of worship and which ones don't.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 04:48 PM (WRW1S)
Not necessarily. I live in a rural area and I can gaurantee that a mosque won't be built here, even if some muzzie wanted to.
I know that's seperate from your point but I insist on being a stubborn sumbitch!

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 04:57 PM (r/KvE)

570 "pig-ignorant religious fascist".

Yet you having nothing to say about the subject at hand, Islam. You'd rather call Christians fascists.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 04:57 PM (GZitp)

571 467
#423:


Women as chattel:
[...]

None of these verses point to women being considered "chattel". You are selectively quoting the Bible without providing context and you completely misunderstand the biblical definition of submission versus that of the Koran. Furthermore, if you read further you will find that God gave instructions for husbands, which will help you interpret some of the verses you quoted.

As for some of the other scriptures, we could argue about God's covenant with Israel but that would be a rabbit trail. Regardless, you will find numerous instances of God's grace and mercy to Israel and the gentiles in the Old Testament.

Posted by: '80sBaby at July 17, 2011 04:57 PM (o2lIv)

572 "failure to even recognize who your enemy is. will end in failure" - paraphrased from every sentient warrior who ever lived.

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 05:00 PM (Vrb/j)

573 @561

Catholics or Protestants are killing in Ireland despite Christ's teaching.
Not according to them.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:52 PM (UxDMk)

Sorry, you're pig-ignorant if you think that.

Find me a quote....one quote that supports your view.

What you'll find is a lot of talk about them what stole our land and protty traitors and papist fooks.

But what you'll very specifically not find is any one of them Protestant or Catholic quoting Jesus Christ as justification for murder.

Again, stupid or disingenuous, and typical for a libtard.

Posted by: naturalfake at July 17, 2011 05:00 PM (I49Jm)

574 Is this the soccer thread? Speaking of soccer, did you know that Christianity totally sucks and that these so-called "Christians" are just as bad as jihadis?

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Douche at July 17, 2011 05:00 PM (QcFbt)

575 And I'm not a "libtard", dipshit. Hint: there are other choices besides "liberal" and "pig-ignorant religious fascist".

Wow. You're a classic libtard. Right down to the denial.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 17, 2011 05:01 PM (1ujL8)

576 but what if they are nice well behaved KKK guys who pay their bills and are model citizens .....








at least until the signal is given....

Posted by: pretzel logic - taking notes at July 17, 2011 05:01 PM (Lnsuu)

577 Buzzion said - Oh and you're wrong about Islam being Judeo-Christianity with the serial
numbers filed off. Its a bastardized perversion of those.

EXACTLY!!!!! SPOT ON!!!!

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 05:01 PM (+tzv7)

578 And I'm not a "libtard", dipshit. Hint: there are other choices besides "liberal" and "pig-ignorant religious fascist".

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:54 PM (UxDMk)
Oh noes, you wound me!
next...

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 05:02 PM (r/KvE)

579


One last time - this is a post and thread befitting Littlegreenfootballs.com


I came to AoSHQ precisely because of LGF's crack-up. I have no interest in
reliving that shit over here.
There is NO DOUBT that DrewM. is an honest, awesome, true and dear
conservative. Probably more true and consistent than most of us. I love the guy
and his posts and his work.
Even if he rightly thinks I'm a piece of shit.


But we do not need these sorts of posts here at Ace. Not because we're a bunch
of group think idiots. We're not. But because there are certain (few) issues we
don't need to be smacking each other over. In this instance - Herman Cain and Islam.
I love DrewM (in a blogging sense), even as I'm blasting him. I trust his
bonafides. I also believe he is likely a more consistent conservative than I am.
What I don't care to get into is what LGF called "Passion
threads" (started with opinions on the movie The Passion of the Christ).
It did ZERO good for anyone. It divided allies. There wasn't "honest debate", as much as
various sides pretending desiring so. It was a constant flame war that created unnecessary
fractures and hurt feelings at the site. It was never the same. And now it's
shit. We don't need that here.


Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 05:02 PM (HlEu/)

580 One admonition to husbands:

Ephesians 5: 25-30:

25 Husbands, love your
wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26that he might sanctify her,
having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27so that he might present
the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such
thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28In the same way husbands should love their wives as
their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29For no one ever hated his own
flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30because we are members of his
body.

Posted by: '80sBaby at July 17, 2011 05:03 PM (o2lIv)

581 ZPR, just curious. Did you de-lurk today? I don't remember seeing your hash before.

I'm always kind of amazed when someone de-lurks because, given the intensity that often permeates the threads here, I can't believe the restraint that the lurkers are capable of.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 05:03 PM (piMMO)

582 Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 04:55 PM (hIWe1)

And the reason the KKK would be harassed and marginalized if they decided to create a chapter in Harlem is because we as a society reject their viewpoint. But in the end the KKK isn't a threat to our way of life.
Islam is, it's also spreads an ideology that is just as disgusting as what the KKK believes. Yet we open our communities to them in the name of diversity.
There is something wrong with this picture.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 05:03 PM (GZitp)

583 Pizza Roll crapped 514 #501:
"Answer you" how?
You asked for an example of Christians murdering within living memory. I pointed to Northern Ireland.

Hint: that means you lose. Sorry.

Rarely can you find such a combination of Historical Ignorance, mixed with stupidity, then frost with ant-Christian Hysteria...well done!

In all your examples and selective quoting of scripture you fail to point out that the Revelation of God to man has been progressive (in the good sense of that word). Old Testament is elevated from physical law and obedience to the teachings of Christ, that what is in the heart trumps law.

Now we are into the 3rd phase that what is in the spirits of men trumps heart and law and will be made a permanent part of our aspect. To those who are good let them remain good (eternally) to those who are evil let them remain evil (eternally)

Any man that commits murder or subjugates another human being, or destroys the faith of a child is NOT following the teachings of Christ. We have a book that gives us the model of spirituality to attain too, it is a lifetime of work.

Islam has a book that describes the evil they must attain to. Even if a Muslim has a tendency to good, his founding book demands of him evil. Even someone as childish and worthless as you may see the distinction but I doubt it.

Posted by: Jehu at July 17, 2011 05:03 PM (j6BJc)

584 Jeff B: "As I keep saying, this isn't hard"
Jeff Bs wife's gigolo: " That's what she said!"

Posted by: usefulidiotleague at July 17, 2011 05:05 PM (Mpulp)

585 I say the community just makes it that the mosque can go up once the Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed on 9/11 is rebuilt.

Posted by: buzzion at July 17, 2011 05:05 PM (oVQFe)

586 is as different and independent from them as Washington D.C. would bear
no relation to some guy in India who starts a new "religion" today and
declares George Washington to be G-d and Washington D.C. to be the new
Jerusalem


Silly. Everyone knows that Haile Selassie of Ethiopia is God and only through the spiritual use of cannibals and the rejection of Babylon can one achieve true enlightenment.

Posted by: Jamaican Rasti at July 17, 2011 05:06 PM (IhHdM)

587 Cain has a problem expressing himself in PC terms. I think most people understands what he was talking about though. His mistake was not to have drawn a distinction between Islam and Islamism.

The two main problems in the world today come from basically the same product, but in two different flavors. On one hand we have a political ideology that sees itself as a "moral order"; Socialism. On the other hand we have a moral order that sees itself as a "political ideology"; Islamism. Both are 'centrally planned' and are totally intolerant of decent with the centrally issued views.

Like it or not, our laws don't have any moral agenda. Their only purpose is to keep each of us from violating the rights of others. Legal Justice may serve our moral needs, but it is not inherently a moral system. It isn't Good or Evil. (Justice is blind.)

According to the Rule of Law (Legal Justice), men of all different races, ethnicities, and beliefs, are all members of the same peer group.

According to the rules of Social Justice, which is a moral order, they are not.
.

Posted by: gastoorgrab at July 17, 2011 05:06 PM (sTBZu)

588 Zombie Pizza Roll
"there are other choices besides freedom and forever sucking the barbed cock of satan" Liberalism comes to mind but is perilously close to option #2.


Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 05:06 PM (Vrb/j)

589 Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 05:02 PM (HlEu/)
Dude, this mild.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 05:07 PM (r/KvE)

590 An intellectual exercise: KKK decides to create a chapter in Harlem.
Hardly an "intellectual" exercise.
Here are your two choices:
A.) The KKK has the right to form a chapter there, butothers alsohave the rigth tospeak out in oppostion to the KKK and let them know that they're not welcome. Those on either side who get caughtcommiting crimes get arrested.
B.) Local politicans decide "fuck the Constitution, we don't want them here" and ban them from forming a chapter. The KKK sues, wins, and probably gets awarded local taxpayer money in the process.
Pick option A if you give a shit about the Constitution, pick B if you don't.
If the First Amendment only applied to opinions we agree withand/or religions we don't find objectionable, it would be rendered both unnecessary and meaningless.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 05:08 PM (WRW1S)

591 Jeff, we know for a FACT that KKK chapter in Harlem would never be allowed by either the local authorities or the feds on grounds of immediate danger of riots or any other constitution-trumping national security excuse.

Same thing about a Nazi chapter in Borough Park.

It boils down to the fact that communities do have a limited but nonetheless viable option of determining what are the limits to provocative shit that threatens their character.

I supported Terry Jones' right to burn the Quran in his own Church, but if he'd do it next to a Dearborn Mosque he's get arrested for disturbing the public peace or whatever they could think of. And rightfully so.

The strict constitutionalist approach does not hold water, it's just not what's going on in the real World, and it was never applied the way you may think it should be applied.

Posted by: nati at July 17, 2011 05:09 PM (QCO1w)

592 Okay, to the folks who think Islam should be banned:
How precisely would you give the state this power? And how will you make sure it won't be twisted into banning Christianity or banning some group that you belong to?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:09 PM (s7mIC)

593 An intellectual exercise: KKK decides to create a chapter in Harlem.



What's Drew's reaction?



A. They have a Constitutional right to do so and anyone who opposes is a despicable bigot



B. A Constitutional right can't always be applied to the real world
situations, it would obstruct the life of the citizens and pose a danger
to the chapter members, etc'



PS. I know there is a difference between KKK and a Mosque. KKK members didn't commit ideological murders since the 60s.Posted by: nati at July 17, 2011 04:50 PM (QCO1w)

A.

Every time.

Though I never said Cain or people who agree with him are bigots.

If you go with B you simply are validating the idea of a Heckler's Veto. It's one of the favorite tools liberals have to silence conservatives.

I'm on record as supporting free speech even when it pisses off Muslims. This isn't about muslims or Islam for me, it's about our freedoms.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 05:09 PM (dw7rB)

594 This IS mild. Jeebus.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 05:09 PM (r/KvE)

595 What can I say? If a mosque was built in my neighborhood, I'd get the hell out, asap. And I would do the same with the hassidic. It's not a lack of tolerance, it's just that cults are pains in the arse.

Posted by: mike at July 17, 2011 05:09 PM (nVRkb)

596 #587 So because Cain isn't equipped to speak acceptable PC to DrewM, he deserves to be labeled not merely a "joke", but "simply despicable"?

Posted by: jokin at July 17, 2011 05:10 PM (Mpulp)

597
I say the community just makes it that the mosque can go up once the
Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed on 9/11 is rebuilt.
I wanted a Synagogue to be built in Riyadh. Too much too soon?

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 05:11 PM (JEvSn)

598 593 No drewm, you didn't call him a bigot, just "simply despicable". That kind-of falls into Hitler territory methinks.

Posted by: jokin at July 17, 2011 05:12 PM (Mpulp)

599 Quick question. How many different armed conflicts are going on currently around the world between different faiths? Follow-up: What faith is almost universally found in one side of the conflicts because it absolutely cannot tolerate the existence of any other faiths? And we are supposed to think of that as a "religion"? Really?
As many have said, there are indeed many wonderful, kind, and moderate muslims. Sadly, Islam is not moderate. Anywhere.
Going forward in this world, there really is a simple two choice question. Choose one:
1: Western Civilization
2: Islam

Posted by: Lord Humungus at July 17, 2011 05:13 PM (Yv6gq)

600 The example is not a KKK chapter in Harlem, it's a Grand Wizard in the military. That is what islam enjoys. And a particularly slimy bunch of imams they've brought in, too.

And the public expenses for foot washing basins. Friggin FOOT WASHING!! WTF?

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 05:13 PM (G/MYk)

601 Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 05:02 PM (HlEu/)

I appreciate the kind words but this place had a combative, very few holds barred sensibility long before LGF cracked up.

To my mind the problem with LGF isn't that they have too much passion it's that only approved passions, approved topics is allowed.

It's the group think that killed LGF, not the fighting.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 05:13 PM (dw7rB)

602 Posted by: '80sBaby at July 17, 2011 05:03 PM (o2lIv)
Nice! Ephesians is my fave, I like the part about armoring up.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 05:13 PM (r/KvE)

603 And I would do the same with the hassidic.

Sudden Hasidic syndrome?

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 05:14 PM (JEvSn)

604 If the First Amendment only applied to opinions
we agree withand/or religions we don't find objectionable, it would be
rendered both unnecessary and meaningless.


Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 05:08 PM (WRW1S)
But Islam isn't just about a disagreement or something we find objectionable, it's about ending our freedoms and to ultimately subjugate us. I disagree with Mormonism, I disagree with Scientology but their ultimate goal isn't to bring me to live under their law.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 05:14 PM (GZitp)

605 I supported Terry Jones' right to burn the Quran in his own Church, but if he'd do it next to a Dearborn Mosque he's get arrested for disturbing the public peace or whatever they could think of. And rightfully so. The strict constitutionalist approach does not hold water, it's just not what's going on in the real World, and it was never applied the way you may think it should be applied.
Posted by: nati at July 17, 2011 05:09 PM (QCO1w)
Actually didn't a judge rule that the police in Dearborn violated their rights for stopping that? I don't know if it was Jones, but I recall a post about the judge smacking down the police chief there for stopping a demonstration that was Anti-Islam.

Posted by: buzzion at July 17, 2011 05:14 PM (oVQFe)

606
601 - fair enough - and, again, probably right!

Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 05:15 PM (HlEu/)

607 What can I say? If a mosque was built in my
neighborhood, I'd get the hell out, asap. And I would do the same with
the hassidic. It's not a lack of tolerance, it's just that cults are
pains in the arse.

Posted by: mike at July 17, 2011 05:09 PM (nVRkb)
You must live in a rural area. In my city it's getting to the point where you can't spit without hitting one.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 05:15 PM (piMMO)

608 592 Okay, to the folks who think Islam should be banned:
How precisely would you give the state this power? And how will you make sure it won't be twisted into banning Christianity or banning some group that you belong to?

Your are right, to identify an evil one time will make us stupid in the future and we will identify good as evil and ban that also. Either you have enough morality to recognize evil and resist or you do not. I am for banning the practice of Islam as according to its book it is bent on conquest of all other systems, is that not enough? If not how about a law of reciprocation? For every church built in Saudi Arabia, they can build a tomb of death here?

Posted by: Jehu at July 17, 2011 05:15 PM (j6BJc)

609 Drew M is arbiter of all that is despicable. That. is. all.

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 05:16 PM (Vrb/j)

610 Posted by: jokin at July 17, 2011 05:12 PM (Mpulp)

Calling someone "despicable" is now akin to Hitler?

Godwin is going to need a new law then.


Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 05:16 PM (dw7rB)

611 Why shouldn't communities ban mosques? Once they are installed, they seem to gain super rights, ringing their bells or "singing" at all hours. Endangering communities through direct counter-government "preaching". And often, the mosques are built by outsiders who then bring people in to it. That is the first smart thing Cain HAS said, if for him it was political, without substance, and expressed in a botched manner. If a church hierarchy and congregation acted like muslims do, I would want them fragging banned too! Duh.

Posted by: Doom at July 17, 2011 05:16 PM (1awZ0)

612 But Islam isn't just about a disagreement or something we find
objectionable, it's about ending our freedoms and to ultimately
subjugate us.

But this applies to lots of ideologies. Communism, socialism, etc. Do we start banning them all?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:17 PM (s7mIC)

613 So, what we have here is a case of Muslim Derangement Syndrome, huh?!




*throws and runs

Posted by: Call me Molotov.... at July 17, 2011 05:17 PM (piMMO)

614 That's definately a nice story. Isn't it a shame that the majority of good muslims are too terrified of "pislamists" to speak out against the radicals. Until they start, i would like to err on the side of caution. I simply don't trust people who belive lying to infidels is honorable. Sorry....

Posted by: marine43 at July 17, 2011 05:17 PM (+LGd0)

615 Well, since somebody else mentioned Big Purple Baseballs first ...

There was once serious discussion back in the day (Yes, I actually went on that site years ago) about the King Fahd Mosque which just happens to be a couple of miles from my home. Allegedly, the Muhammedans had built a tunnel under Washington Blvd. It was never clear why .... and I had, and have, driven over that part of the street hundreds of times, never seeing any evidence of the mysterious tunnel ...

Posted by: Chuckit at July 17, 2011 05:17 PM (6ng9F)

616 592
Okay, to the folks who think Islam should be banned:
How precisely
would you give the state this power? And how will you make sure it
won't be twisted into banning Christianity or banning some group that
you belong to?


Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:09 PM (s7mIC)

You pass a simple amendment banning the practice of Islam.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 05:18 PM (GZitp)

617 If the First Amendment only applied to opinions we agree with and/or religions we don't find objectionable, it would be rendered both unnecessary and meaningless.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 05:08 PM (WRW1S)

If the police or the feds believe (or pretend to believe) there may be a security risk, the First Amendment is null and void. That's a fact right there.

You may claim it's wrong, but that's how it us.

Now, if you think the application of the 1st is lacking in the past 100 years - fine. But if your outrage is because suddenly one person claims that the current standard should ALSO be applied to Muslims, who apparently are now a protected class, that just doesn't hold water.

Posted by: nati at July 17, 2011 05:18 PM (QCO1w)

618 Your are right, to identify an evil one time will make us stupid in the
future and we will identify good as evil and ban that also.

The problem is that the "we" in your sentence changes over time. Why couldn't the power to ban Islam now be used in the future to ban Christianity later?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:19 PM (s7mIC)

619 Here's the difference. If the KKK tried to build a site in Harlem. The zoning commission , and building inspectors, and everybody else would pull every possible bureaucratic trick to stop them. And everybody would pretend not to notice.

If it somehow managed to get built it would face constant vandalism, harassment and intimidation. And the police and local judiciary would look the other way.

Life would be made so intolerable that the KKK dudes would give up. A thousand crimes, large and small, would be committed against them. Often by the authorities whose job it would be to protect them.

And all the liberals who support building mosques would be fine with these extra-legal actions to harm the KKK and it's members. Because they hate the KKK and don't believe it deserves the same protections as everybody else.

(Just to be clear, I'd be among the people who looked the other way. If I saw a KKK office being vandalized ... I wouldn't report it. Most things short of deadly violence against the KKK and I'd look the other way, because I also hate the KKK.)

Posted by: Clubber Lang at July 17, 2011 05:19 PM (QcFbt)

620 None of these verses point to women being considered "chattel". You are selectively quoting the Bible without providing context and you completely misunderstand the biblical definition of submission versus that of the Koran. Furthermore, if you read further you will find that God gave instructions for husbands, which will help you interpret some of the verses you quoted.
As for some of the other scriptures, we could argue about God's covenant with Israel but that would be a rabbit trail. Regardless, you will find numerous instances of God's grace and mercy to Israel and the gentiles in the Old Testament.
Posted by: '80sBaby at July 17, 2011 04:57 PM (o2lIv)
Speaking of submission, you know what Islam means, right?

Posted by: Lord Humungus at July 17, 2011 05:20 PM (Yv6gq)

621 If the police or the feds believe (or pretend to believe) there may be a
security risk, the First Amendment is null and void. That's a fact
right there.
Posted by: nati at July 17, 2011 05:18 PM (QCO1w)


This word "fact", I do not think it means what you think it means.



Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 05:20 PM (dw7rB)

622 This is what Islam wants.
""Islam will be made supreme in the land. Islam will be the ruling system in the land." "Under the Khalifah we will be unified. One state. Not 57 states, but one state." "One united state." "The military be in the hands of the Muslims." "Al Aqsa will be taken back from the crusaders."
-Chicago conference.

This is what is going on right now in England.
"London, Asharq Al-Awsat- Hard-line fundamentalists have pledged to ban alcohol and gender mixing in new areas throughout the United Kingdom where Shariaa will be imposed. According to this plan, a large number of posters bearing the slogans “no gambling”, “no music and concerts”, “no nudity or vice”, and “no drugs and smoking” will be distributed. The posters announce “Beware: You are entering a Shariaa-controlled zone - Islamic rules enforced.”

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 05:20 PM (froiv)

623 "London, Asharq Al-Awsat- Hard-line fundamentalists have pledged to ban
alcohol and gender mixing in new areas throughout the United Kingdom
where Shariaa will be imposed. According to this plan, a large number of
posters bearing the slogans “no gambling”, “no music and concerts”, “no
nudity or vice”, and “no drugs and smoking” will be distributed. The
posters announce “Beware: You are entering a Shariaa-controlled zone -
Islamic rules enforced.”

egad.

Good thing the citizenry is unarmed, huh?

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 05:22 PM (piMMO)

624 Herman Cain is at a disadvantage as a politician: He's actually studied the subject and is ahead of most of the population in knowledge of Islam.

Posted by: Brett_McS at July 17, 2011 05:25 PM (iA6nz)

625 You must live in a rural area. In my city it's getting to the point where you can't spit without hitting one.

Isn't that a hate crime?

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 05:26 PM (JEvSn)

626 Wow. This is disappointing.
I had no idea that there were so many people here who are just completely intolerant of Islam here at the HQ.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:27 PM (s7mIC)

627 Soccer match is over and this thread is getting long in the tooth. How about a new, shiny one?

Posted by: Y-not is back from Park City at July 17, 2011 05:27 PM (5H6zj)

628 To those interested in the war between Christianity and Islam, a little noticed but important item has occurred. Southern Somalia is about to split off and become a Christian nation. The New York Times fails to mention the 'Christian' part of the amazing feat in any detail, but drops to it's knees and slurps on George Clooney's privates for most of its article.

TinyURL is giving me fits right now but a search for ...

christian south somalia

should yield the article.

Posted by: Jamaican Rasti at July 17, 2011 05:28 PM (IhHdM)

629 The
posters announce “Beware: You are entering a Shariaa-controlled zone -
Islamic rules enforced.”

Can't they just make Islam more British rather than make Britain more Islamic?

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 05:29 PM (JEvSn)

630 This is a dead end, the author got sucked into an emotional story, bought a line of taquiya from a skilled deceiver, and now wishes the moronation to be dhimmified,.. if just a little. Author thinks we have an imperative to afford an ideology that is directly opposed to our Constitution,....Constitutional rights. Thereby both validating it's authority and usurping the same simultaneously,....Brilliant!.

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 05:29 PM (Vrb/j)

631 I never thought it would be possible for both sides of an argument to alienate me so completely. A few notes:

1. It seems to me that building a mosque or a church of any kind would fall under the rubrik of "...the free exercise thereof," for constitutional purposes.

2. People who are saying "Islam is not a religion," are wrong. It is most certainly a religion. It has been recognized as such for hundreds of years, and certainly has a more legitimate claim to the title than lots of other religions, including some Christian sects. That said, it does differ from Christianity in that it prescribes a form of government. Muslims are free to advocate for Sharia, however, to the extent that the tenets of Sharia are incompatible with the Constitution, they should not be enacted.

3. People saying that "individual communities" can ban religions are... well, I have to question their sanity. Imagine if the religion in question were, say, Catholicism? Still legitimate for communities to ban it? (Hint: The KKK tried that.)

4. Those bringing up the example of Mormons and polygamy are all wet. Banning polygamy was a condition of the treaty whereby Utah was admitted to the union. Treaties are distinct from "laws" under the Constitution.

5. Those who believe that all Muslims are traitors, or desire the overthrow of the US government simply haven't met enough Muslims. Those seeking recourse to the "divided loyalty" argument are either ignoring, dismissing, or not aware of the history of Catholicism in the United States.

6. The above points not withstanding, it is foolish not to recognize that there are groups using organized Islam for the purpose of conduction violent jihad. It's foolish to pretend they're not. I see no reason why mosques and Islamic groups shouldn't have to be transparent about their funding and teachings. Such groups found to be in violation, it seems to me, can and should be considered criminal organizations under the RICO act. Also,

7. It seems to me that what Cain actually said is much milder than what he's being made out to have said.

8. I wouldn't have a problem with the citizens of Mufreesboro regulating the location and, e.g., noise levels of the mosque, provided they're okay with the same standard being applied to Christian churches. (I've been to M' boro. There's a Christian church on just about every corner.)

This really isn't that hard. It's perfectly possible to recognize Islam as a religion under the First Amendment, with the attendant freedoms, while still recognizing that individual Muslim groups may be using the religion as cover for illegal activities. But hey, I guess that's far too reasonable a position to take in a thread on the Internet, eh?

Oh yeah, and:

9. Scientology ain't a religion. No way, no how.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 05:29 PM (P8oOy)

632 "completely intolerant of Islam here at the HQ."

Why should I tolerate an ideology that would kill me on the spot if given the chance, rape and enslave my daughters, and strap a suicide vest on my sons?

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 05:29 PM (froiv)

633 Can't they just make Islam more British rather than make Britain more Islamic?

Oh, wait, that's totally stupid. Sorry about that.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 05:29 PM (JEvSn)

634 626
Wow. This is disappointing.
I had no idea that there were so many
people here who are just completely intolerant of Islam here at the HQ.


Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:27 PM (s7mIC)

Damn straight I'm intolerant of Islam. It goes against everything I believe. It promotes hatred and death. Why should I be tolerant of anything it has to offer?

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 05:30 PM (GZitp)

635 I'm concerned about the intolerance of Islam displayed here by so many so-called "conservatives".

Posted by: Concern Troll Who is Concerned at July 17, 2011 05:30 PM (QcFbt)

636 Okay, to the folks who think Islam should be banned:
How precisely would you give the state this power? And how will you make sure it won't be twisted into banning Christianity or banning some group that you belong to?
Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:09 PM (s7mIC)

Under the 1st amendment, it's impossible to ban any political movement. However, it may be possible to make movements politically and socially unviable, which was done with the American Nazi movement and partially against the CPUSA.

The tools that can be used to render Islam unviable are indeed authoritarian (which raises a major concern of "what if we're next"), but they do not contradict the 1st amendment, at least as it's been practiced for a very long time.

If these authoritarian and "despicable" tools are not enacted, the 1st amendment may be replaced by the 1st law of Sharia. Defensive democracy has been practiced before, why not now?

Posted by: nati at July 17, 2011 05:31 PM (QCO1w)

637 Looking at this again.

Despicable was a bridge too far.
It sounds like panties in a bunch.

Perspective is useful on this.

We are attacked day in and day out by muz. A free American man has the right to offer his ideas on limiting the spread of a harmful ideology.

Drew, do you plan to march in support of a KKK-sponsored Rec Center in San Fransisco?

Will you support Aryan Nation floats in the Pride Parade?

Ideologies should be judged by the harm or benefit they do to the community.

Intolerant, anti-woman, and political ideologies are not welcome in this country and should not be subsidized or encouraged.

Banning construction may not lead to a solution. But those people in that town deserve a say in what gets built, just like a strip club or marijuana dispensary.



Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 05:31 PM (ECjvn)

638 "Why should I tolerate an ideology that would kill me on the spot if
given the chance, rape and enslave my daughters, and strap a suicide
vest on my sons?"

This,.....and,...marry me?

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 05:32 PM (Vrb/j)

639 "Can't they just make Islam more British rather than make Britain more Islamic?"

No. Muhammad went to Medina to increase his territory. Muslims immigrate in order to expand dar al-Islam. (I can't get italics off. Sorry)

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 05:32 PM (froiv)

640 Why do so many here at HQ want to start a needless war against Islam -- a Religion of Peace?

This concerns me.

Posted by: Concern Troll Who is Concerned at July 17, 2011 05:32 PM (QcFbt)

641 (Personal affirmation, not directed toward anyone in particular....)
I shall maintain my opinions,whether considered by others as:
incorrect
offensive
disagreeable
inferior
discriminatory
unacceptable....
in fact, as long as everyone elseis allowed topossess their own, so shall I.
G-d bless America.

Posted by: stillwater at July 17, 2011 05:32 PM (0GpN4)

642 LOL chemjeff - are you trying to start a fight? Or maybe I didn't realize before that you're a dumb ass?

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 05:33 PM (+tzv7)

643 Why should I tolerate an ideology that would kill me on the spot if
given the chance, rape and enslave my daughters, and strap a suicide
vest on my sons?

You know who also does this? CHRISTIANS!

Posted by: Zombie Pissa ROFLMAO at July 17, 2011 05:33 PM (JEvSn)

644 "marry me?"
My husband might have something to say on that matter.

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 05:34 PM (froiv)

645 7. It seems to me that what Cain actually said is much milder than what he's being made out to have said.
FNS comes on again at 6:00. It doesn't sound good, but it doesn't sound particularly crazy.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 05:34 PM (piMMO)

646 But Islam isn't just about a disagreement or something we find objectionable, it's about ending our freedoms and to ultimately subjugate us. I disagree with Mormonism, I disagree with Scientology but their ultimate goal isn't to bring me to live under their law.
They can hold believe whatever they want. If they and their religion call for our freedoms being replaced with Sharia law, who gives a shit until they try and act on it? Whether they're allowed to build mosques or not doesn't make it any more or lesslikely that they'll succeed, which they obviously wouldn't.
Be they white supremicists, black nationalists,Communists, Nazis orreligious radicals, there have been multiple organizations that for generations have been calling for an end to our way of life and freedoms, and sometimes using violence and terrorism in their attempts to do so.
It wasn't unconstitutional sanctions that prevented them from succeeding, it was a rejection of their philosophy by our citizens that relegated them to ineffective fringe groups.
Do you have so little faith in the American people that you believe allowing Muslims to build mosques will leadthe majority- or even a large minority- of Americans into surrendering their freedoms and way of life? If not, why so eager to weaken our fundamental freedoms to prevent it?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 05:34 PM (WRW1S)

647 chemjeffs dumbassery is well documented.

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 05:34 PM (Vrb/j)

648 Why should I tolerate an ideology that would kill me on the spot if
given the chance, rape and enslave my daughters, and strap a suicide
vest on my sons?You know who also does this? CHRISTIANS!

Posted by: Zombie Pissa ROFLMAO at July 17, 2011 05:33 PM (JEvSn)

Bride: "I promise to love, cherish, obey .... aaaaagghghhhhhhhhh!!!"

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 05:35 PM (G/MYk)

649 620 Speaking of submission, you know what Islam means,
right?

Two completely different things. If you study both words plus the related verses and their context, you will see that plainly. Saying it's the same is employing false equivalence.

/The Greek word in Ephesians is hupotasso, willing obedience.

Posted by: '80sBaby at July 17, 2011 05:35 PM (o2lIv)

650
Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 05:29 PM (froiv)

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 05:30 PM (GZitp)

That's funny. I've had Muslim students in my class. Not once did they blow me up. Not once.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:35 PM (s7mIC)

651 lowandslow , chemjeff is being sarcastic.

There is no debate about the true nature of Islam, the debate is whether they should be allowed to destroy the Republic in the name of some sob story about an Imam who DrewM has a mancrush on.

Posted by: nati at July 17, 2011 05:36 PM (QCO1w)

652 "My husband might have something to say on that matter."


Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 05:36 PM (Vrb/j)

653 The tools that can be used to render Islam unviable are indeed
authoritarian (which raises a major concern of "what if we're next"),

Nice enormous elephant you have there.

How did you get it in the living room?

Many of you need to take a brief look at the definition of "bigot." I am no fan of Islam, but I am a fan of the Constitution.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at July 17, 2011 05:37 PM (7utQ2)

654 @646
They can hold believe whatever they want. If they and their religion
call for our freedoms being replaced with Sharia law, who gives a shit
until they try and act on it?

Hey that's exactly what my Lebanese buddy's family used to say.
They live in Tampa now.
Funny how that works.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at July 17, 2011 05:37 PM (QcFbt)

655 Bride: "I promise to love, cherish, obey .... aaaaagghghhhhhhhhh!!!"

I have facts! Don't make me go quoting First Timothy bitches!

Posted by: Zombie Pissa ROFLMAO at July 17, 2011 05:37 PM (JEvSn)

656 There was this one time I took a cab from this guy who was clearly Muslim. He didn't blow me up either. He wasn't even wearing a suicide vest. I felt cheated.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:38 PM (s7mIC)

657 chemjeffs dumbassery is well documented.


Wait a minute. Jeff does not deserve this.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 05:38 PM (piMMO)

658 FNS comes on again at 6:00. It doesn't sound good, but it doesn't sound particularly crazy.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 05:34 PM (piMMO)

Please, crissy wallace said this morning, "if the US doesn't raise the debt ceiling, then our ratings could suffer, even if we continue to pay our obligations ... because we'd have to be cutting something like 40% from our domestic programs ... so we'd be a worse risk ..." [paraphrased from memory, but it was that stupid for real]. I can't imagine anything said on the show will be dumber or crazier than that.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 05:38 PM (G/MYk)

659 Here's how to ban Islam w/o endangering actual religions.

Posted by: OhioCoastie at July 17, 2011 05:38 PM (LdSDu)

660 the debate is whether they should be allowed to destroy the Republic in
the name of some sob story about an Imam who DrewM has a mancrush on.


ouch. heh.

Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 05:38 PM (ECjvn)

661 "There is no debate about the true nature of Islam, the debate is whether
they should be allowed to destroy the Republic in the name of some sob
story about an Imam who DrewM has a mancrush on."

thank you

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 05:38 PM (Vrb/j)

662 That's funny. I've had Muslim students in my class. Not once did they blow me up. Not once.

Yep, Taqqiya's a bitch. Now try teaching anywar in dar al-Islam while openly rejecting Islam.

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 05:38 PM (froiv)

663 Lauren, have you heard of Pamela Geller in NYC and her efforts to rescue battered muslim women? We HAVE to set an example and help where we can.Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 04:09 PM (+tzv7)
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams
Do I have sympathy for these women born into this satanic ideology? Sure. But if U.S. law enforcement/courts weren't such PC wussies, the punishment of the batterers would've been severe enough to dissuade the next incidence. The head chopper in NY state should have gottenthe death penalty immediatelyon conviction (but no, taxpayers will be paying for his room and board for the next 25 years -- if we're lucky)as should the father who ran over his daughter because she was too Westernized. These people are living in the 7th century. The only enlightenment the muzzie ideology embraced was chemistry, specifically, bomb making.
Our founders championed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I believe they would be spinning in their graves to know that now means "rescuing untold numbers of a people they would've never allowed to set foot in the country and constantly looking over their shoulder while walking in certain American cities for fear of bodily harm!
The founders were anxious about needed craftsmen being alowed into the country because they envisioned a just and moral people and never knew how a stranger would fit in. Their main worry was that the newcomer would insist on bringing his traditions and refuse to assimilate. Wonder what they'd think of Little Somalia in Minnesota?
How does the guarantee of life, liberty and happiness translate to our local, state and federal govts spending manpower and capital to police mosques, terrorist training compunds all along the East Coast as well as tracking terrorist organizations like CAIR and radical professors?There are better ways to spend your life. This is a problem we're agreeing to let fester unabated.
The founders had common sense. Putting up with these barbarians is the epitome of stupidity.

Posted by: Leathernecks rock. Look it up. at July 17, 2011 05:38 PM (Ew27I)

664 Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 05:29 PM (Vrb/j)

This isn't an emotional story I bought into, it's simply looking at what a candidate for the GOP nomination actually said.

The fact that someone running for President could have such a piss poor understanding of what is allowable under the Constitution is worth talking about.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 05:38 PM (dw7rB)

665 I had no idea that there were so many people here who are just completely intolerant of Islam here at the HQ.
Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:27 PM (s7mIC)
Intolerant? I downright loathe them.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 05:39 PM (tQhx/)

666 Please, crissy wallace said this morning, "if the US doesn't raise the
debt ceiling, then our ratings could suffer, even if we continue to pay
our obligations ... because we'd have to be cutting something like 40%
from our domestic programs ... so we'd be a worse risk ..." [paraphrased
from memory, but it was that stupid for real]. I can't imagine
anything said on the show will be dumber or crazier than that.

If "journalists" understood finance, they wouldn't be "journalists". Math is hard, you know.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 05:39 PM (P8oOy)

667 It wasn't unconstitutional sanctions that prevented them from
succeeding, it was a rejection of their philosophy by our citizens that
relegated them to ineffective fringe groups.
Do you have so little faith in the American people that you believe
allowing Muslims to build mosques will leadthe majority- or even a
large minority- of Americans into surrendering their freedoms and way of
life? If not, why so eager to weaken our fundamental freedoms to
prevent it?

It would be one thing if Americans were rejecting the ideology of Islam but we really aren't. I hate to say it but yes I do have that little faith in most Americans. We can all see what Islam brings, one look at Dearborn and anyone can see it but we pretend it isn't so. We have Americans that can't tell the difference between good and evil. All because the liberal idealism of anti-discrimination.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 05:40 PM (GZitp)

668 The last time I went to the grocery store, there was a woman wearing a hajib. I thought she might try to ram her grocery cart into mine while shouting Allahu Ackbar and then attack me with some Arabian dagger or something. I guess she left her weapons at home that day. Man did I ever luck out.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:40 PM (s7mIC)

669 "Wait a minute. Jeff does not deserve this."

"There was this one time I took a cab from this guy who was clearly
Muslim. He didn't blow me up either. He wasn't even wearing a suicide
vest. I felt cheated."

if you say so

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 05:41 PM (Vrb/j)

670 Drew M. is illustrative of the fuzzy headed views at the upper most levels of government. If you love those who wish you ill and seek to destroy you, they will magically respect you and embrace your attitudes.

Such views silenced the common sense blessed military leaders when they saw an extreme jihadi officer, Maj. Hassan who went on to kill his fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood. It allows our "betters" to select terrorists to recruit other imans to recruit the most lawless and violent criminals in the name of tolerance.
Of course the vast majority of Muslims aren't suicide bombers. They only create an atmosphere that tolerates suicide bombers and encourages the care and feeding of such extremists. They recruit, train, educate, and finance such people. The vast majority of Muslims will not inform on jihaddies but rather do whatever they can to support them.

Has anyone seen vast demonstrations of Muslims protesting the excesses of sharia or the fanatics? Or have you seen the multitudes of Islam dancing in joy on 9-11 over the murder of thousands of innocents?
Of course the vast majority of Muslims wish you well. Just ask the adherents of other religions in Iraq, Iran or Lebannon.

Just sleep, believe, obey and your unicorns and magical beans will arrive free of charge.

Prepare for what is approaching.

Posted by: Molon Labe at July 17, 2011 05:41 PM (g5MrG)

671 Seriously though, ChemJeff. Read up on Al-Hijra

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 05:41 PM (froiv)

672 Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 05:38 PM (froiv)

But the Muslim students in my class weren't under threat or compulsion. They could have blown up the entire class of 90+ infidels if they wanted to. Damn they missed a good opportunity.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:42 PM (s7mIC)

673 "The last time I went to the grocery store, there was a woman wearing a
hajib. I thought she might try to ram her grocery cart into mine while
shouting Allahu Ackbar and then attack me with some Arabian dagger or
something. I guess she left her weapons at home that day. Man did I
ever luck out."

fucktard ignores real men who actually face the threat

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 05:42 PM (Vrb/j)

674 The last time I went to the grocery store, there was
a woman wearing a hajib. I thought she might try to ram her grocery
cart into mine while shouting Allahu Ackbar and then attack me with some
Arabian dagger or something. I guess she left her weapons at home that
day. Man did I ever luck out.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:40 PM (s7mIC)
Heh. That is funny.
I spent most of 2002 in Tel Aviv. That's pretty much how shit went. It still makes me chuckle, here. We should all be able to chuckle about it for a good, long time.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 05:42 PM (G/MYk)

675 Legalized child murder got worked into the fuckin Constitution somehow.

Don't tell me we can't entertain the thought of ways to save our people from a murderous death cult in our midst whose stated mission is to make the world slaves.

Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 05:43 PM (ECjvn)

676 I stand by my belief that the best way to combat fundamentalist Islam is with bacon, booze, and porn. Give them a taste of the AoS lifestyle and they'll wonder why they ever bothered with that Allah stuff.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 05:43 PM (P8oOy)

677 Seriously though, if Islam is such a murder cult, how do Muslims wander around the country on a daily basis and manage not to blow anyone up?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:43 PM (s7mIC)

678 Be they white supremicists, black nationalists, Communists, Nazis or religious radicals, there have been multiple organizations that for generations have been calling for an end to our way of life and freedoms, and sometimes using violence and terrorism in their attempts to do so.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 05:34 PM (WRW1S)

If these movements were big, organized and well funded? Yip, there were some pretty severe actions against them.

CPUSA in the hight of the Cold War had 100,000 members - was outlawed and fiercely persecuted, and as a result their ranks went to a 1000, most of them FBI informants.

If they wouldn't be handled the way they were, who knows? You may have posted your purist demagoguery on the "Ace of the Red Hearts" party approved blog.

Posted by: nati at July 17, 2011 05:45 PM (QCO1w)

679 fucktard ignores real men who actually face the threat

But if the Islam-is-a-murder-cult crowd is correct, you face that threat too every single time you go to the grocery store. The guy you pass in the cereal aisle might be a Muslim wearing a suicide vest! How can you be sure?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:45 PM (s7mIC)

680 Seriously, the muder-cultists really suck at their jobs, because just last week, I was having a pleasant conversation with a Muslim woman and her daughter, and neither of them killed me!

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:46 PM (s7mIC)

681 I stand by my belief that the best way to combat fundamentalist Islam is
with bacon, booze, and porn. Give them a taste of the AoS lifestyle and
they'll wonder why they ever bothered with that Allah stuff.

Finally, an ideology we can all get behind!

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 05:46 PM (piMMO)

682 chemjeff

You do know that the overwhelming majority of KKK members never did anything violent, right? Does that mean we should be accepting of the KKK? For most it was just a Christian fraternal order that encouraged men to lead clean, sober, Christian lives -- the hating of Jews, Catholics, and Blacks was secondary. It was a lot like Obama's old church. It appealed to racial and religious pride and bigotry to motive its members to live better. And some members occasionally lynched people.

Obama's church tried to get black men to live better by saying the evil white man wants you be to a lazy drug addict criminal who doesn't support his family. So let's fuck the white man by being responsible and sober.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at July 17, 2011 05:47 PM (QcFbt)

683 fucktard ignores real men who actually face the threat
Yeah, we here at AOSHQ are known for our anti-military stance on just about every damn thing. Go peddle that elsewhere, please.

Are you guys listening to yourselves? We're talking about the internal workings of the country...not the external threat. If you can't or won't make that distiction or work the math on that, you are just as bad as the billion Muslims who think five million Israelis are an existential threat.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at July 17, 2011 05:47 PM (7utQ2)

684 I stand by my belief that the best way to combat fundamentalist Islam is
with bacon, booze, and porn. Give them a taste of the AoS lifestyle and
they'll wonder why they ever bothered with that Allah stuff.

In fact, an interesting counter insurgency we could wage might involve leaving care packages containing a BLT, a sixer of Sam Adams (brewer, patriot), and a couple of old Hustlers lying around in the streets of Dearborn-like communities.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 05:47 PM (P8oOy)

685 in the name of some sob
story about an Imam who DrewM has a mancrush on

I could top that story, easily. My son had a nice Islamic family that moved next to him. {insert details that would make DrewM wet his panties}

Ah, screw the details about how nice they were, or the quality of the weird music that flowed from their windows at all hours of the day and night, or how pleasant the wife was as she dashed from the house to the car before my son had a chance to befoul her chastity with a 'hello', despite her being all completely encased in black fabric. Let me skip to the ending. Six a.m., half a dozen black Chevy Suburbans pull into neighbors driveway. End of story.

Posted by: Jamaican Rasti at July 17, 2011 05:47 PM (IhHdM)

686 Again, ChemJeff, spend 5 minutes and read about Al-Hijra. The ultimate goal of those who immigrate to America is to make America an Islamic state. Their methods go beyond violence, something you can't seem to understand.

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 05:47 PM (froiv)

687 I stand by my belief that the best way to combat fundamentalist Islam is with bacon, booze, and porn. Give them a taste of the AoS lifestyle and they'll wonder why they ever bothered with that Allah stuff.
Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 05:43 PM (P8oOy)

Muslims' first and foremost goal is supremacy, everything is permitted when war against infidels is waged. Most Americans just don't get it.

The Hamburg cell did all what you describe with surplus in order to "keep their cover" (wink wink).

Posted by: nati at July 17, 2011 05:47 PM (QCO1w)

688 I guess she left her weapons at home that day. Man did I ever luck out.

There's an Iranian guy at work that wears an empty pistol holster under his shirt. Everyone is convinced he will come into work one day and start shooting. But no one will go to HR for fear of the backlash.

But to your point, not all Iranian's working for the company are considered potentially dangerous.

Posted by: WTF do I know at July 17, 2011 05:47 PM (JEvSn)

689 But if the Islam-is-a-murder-cult crowd is correct,
you face that threat too every single time you go to the grocery store.
The guy you pass in the cereal aisle might be a Muslim wearing a
suicide vest! How can you be sure?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:45 PM (s7mIC)

I don't know Jeff, go ask the families of those killed on 9/11 and get back to us on how you can spot them. Don't pretend this about individual Muslims and not Islam, you know better.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 05:47 PM (GZitp)

690 But if the Islam-is-a-murder-cult crowd is correct, you face that threat
too every single time you go to the grocery store. The guy you pass in
the cereal aisle might be a Muslim wearing a suicide vest! How can you
be sure?


So, all of them aren't, so none of them are?


Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 05:47 PM (ECjvn)

691 Seriously though, if Islam is such a murder cult, how do Muslims wander around the country on a daily basis and manage not to blow anyone up?
They aren't yet under threat from the Muslims who would have them do so. Yet.
Pay more attention to what is happening in Great Britain andthe rest ofEurope, jeff.
Humanity has gained nothing from Islam, and itstands to lose everything to its most devout adherents.

Posted by: garrett at July 17, 2011 05:49 PM (qGgcC)

692 "The last time I went to the grocery store"
chemjackoff, why are you such a fucking liar? and why do you risk the wrath of honest to god america loving warriors? What the fuck is your problem, are you just contrarian or are you a straight up asshole?

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 05:50 PM (Vrb/j)

693 So, all of them aren't, so none of them are?

Some of them are, so all of them are?

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 05:50 PM (P8oOy)

694 Three kinds of muz:

Those that finance the jihad.

Those that kill for the jihad.

Those that do neither but hope the jihad succeeds and wipes out all us infidel swine so they can inherit the Earth.


Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 05:51 PM (ECjvn)

695 Some of them are, so all of them are?

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 05:50 PM (P8oOy)

How many does it take? Have all of you completely forgot about 9/11 already?

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 05:51 PM (GZitp)

696
Posted by: Clubber Lang at July 17, 2011 05:47 PM (QcFbt)

Fine, then don't go to KKK meetings. That's different than wanting the KKK banned.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:52 PM (s7mIC)

697 Does Herman Cain know that possessive "its" has no apostrophe?

Posted by: Brennan at July 17, 2011 05:52 PM (ntN6Q)

698 Are you guys listening to yourselves? We're talking about the internal workings of the country...not the external threat.
When a sufficient number of Muslims infiltrate a community, the threat goes internal.

Posted by: Those other men in black at July 17, 2011 05:52 PM (Ew27I)

699 Fuck the muzzies, fuck Muhammad, fuck Islam, fuck the Koran.

smoochie boochie bitches

Posted by: Muhammad's Left Nut at July 17, 2011 05:53 PM (QcFbt)

700 What to say? Have there been Muslims who fought and died for the U.S.? Yes. There also have been Muslims who killed their own brothers in arms as well.

Islam is an ideology. I despise IT. A Founder said "I care not if you worship 20 gods or no god as long as it doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg."

It's that last part some Constitution folks overlook. Islam when truly implemented "picks your pocket" with a jizya tax "is a per capita tax levied on a section of an Islamic state's non-Muslim citizens, who meet certain criteria."

Now the "breaking the leg" part. We all know what happens when you disagree with Islam or God forbid make a cartoon about Mohammed. You are on the business end of a blade.

You wanna talk personal stories? I've met quite a few Muslims. One was downright evil. The rest were pleasant fellows until you disagreed with them.

We can keep running around looking for Marxists under every rock. Meanwhile Hezbollah, et all are amassing at our Southern border. 35 training camps have been active for years here in the U.S. The Muslim Brotherhood (Ikwhan) has been at work here in the States since the '60s.

The Marxists used the very freedoms we love against us and the Ikwhan is doing the same.

If a mosque preaches the destruction of the U.S. shut it down. No one can tell me that any of our Founders would've allowed that. After the Revolutionary War they took from the Loyalists everything they had and made their lives miserable.

What's it going to take a Mumbai attack in our cities with thousands dead and street combat which is phase 4 of the Ikwhan's Project to overthrow the U.S. before we truly understand the enemy?

Posted by: Lou at July 17, 2011 05:53 PM (Q8eRK)

701 Man did I ever luck out.
Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:40 PM (s7mIC)
Nine years ago I went to play disc golf with some buddies and we stopped at the local muzzie quickie mart to grab some drinks. The place was empty.
The next day was 9-11.
Those cocksuckers knew what was going to happen, Chemjeff.
Don't be an asshole.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 05:53 PM (tQhx/)

702 How many does it take? Have all of you completely forgot about 9/11 already?

Completely.

Now who is being an asshole?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at July 17, 2011 05:53 PM (7utQ2)

703 So, all of them aren't, so none of them are?

Nope - but maybe these hyperbolic generalizations about ALL OF ISLAM being a "murder cult" is a bit over the top.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:53 PM (s7mIC)

704 How can you be sure?
You can't be jeff, unless you knwhe's not a Muslim.

Posted by: garrett at July 17, 2011 05:53 PM (qGgcC)

705 DrewM,
You have not done your homework. You need to master the definitions of "taqiyya" and "dhimmi" and spend more time reading Robert Spencer, Phyllis Chesler, David Horowitz, Jamie Glazov and Kathy Shaidle. I also recommend "Londonistan" by Melanie Phillips. You can find all of them except Ms. Phillips in the newsfeed at my blog, A Conservative Lesbian.
P.S.
The spam filter here always rejects my URL for having the word "lesbian" in it, so that's why I haven't filled it in. Word: Disqus and Intense Debate are free comment plug-ins and worth looking into.

Posted by: Cynthia Yockey at July 17, 2011 05:53 PM (7clbg)

706 If these things called "Earthquakes" exist and occur ... why aren't all the cities torn down by these alleged earthquakes, already? WHy aren't there earthquakes every single day? Why isn't there an earhtquake in my living room?


There is no such thing as an "earthquake", I submit!!

Posted by: chemjeff's Deep Thoughts at July 17, 2011 05:53 PM (G/MYk)

707 "But if the Islam-is-a-murder-cult crowd is correct, you face that threat too every single time you go to the grocery store. The guy you pass in the cereal aisle might be a Muslim wearing a suicide vest! How can you be sure?"

You know absolutely nothing about Islam as an ideology, yet you sit here pretending that those of use who have actually done research on the matter are a bunch of ignorant hicks.
You know that little muslim woman at the store? She hates you. She's waiting on the day when all of America ison it's knees facing Mecca. That is the ultimate goal. If that goal is realized, you can kiss all of your freedom goodbye. I hope you like the way your wife looks in a burka. Right now Islam is simply laying the groundwork. It's subtle, and patient. It allows people like you to make jokes about how stupid people like me are to have actually read the Koran and Hadiths and believe that they say what is clearly written.

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 05:54 PM (froiv)

708 Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 05:46 PM
but their leaders do that already, hypocrisy runs deep in Arabia; why it's almost like... hmmm.... like Hollywierd Greentards in private jets and mega mansions

Posted by: chuck in st paul at July 17, 2011 05:54 PM (EhYdw)

709 The CPUSA was never "outlawed". It was branded "subversive" because it adopted policies in lockstep with the Russians.

Membership dropped because it became unpopular until the Jane Fonda crowd came around in the mid 60s.

Posted by: Vic at July 17, 2011 05:55 PM (M9Ie6)

710 Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 05:50 PM (Vrb/j)

I'm late to this party, but apparently we have at least one "straight up asshole" here, and it isn't chemjeff.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 17, 2011 05:55 PM (LH6ir)

711 Some of them are, so all of them are?

Ignoring a real threat and surrendering to sharia because it makes you feel like Oprah isn't a good way to leave a civilization for our children any more than turning the US into a police state.

We know who hates us. Find the bad ones, watch the rest.


Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 05:55 PM (ECjvn)

712 OK - I see what you mean about chemjeff.

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 05:55 PM (+tzv7)

713
Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 05:50 PM (Vrb/j)
A little of both, I suppose.I don't want Islam banned because I support anyone's natural right to worship any faith they want.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:56 PM (s7mIC)

714 One more thing. Why is it that this "majority" of Muslims are allowing the massacre and persecution of non-Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.?


Posted by: Lou at July 17, 2011 05:56 PM (Q8eRK)

715 One more thing on the CPUSA. They say they really no longer need to exist since the Democrat party has completely adopted their entire platform.

Posted by: Vic at July 17, 2011 05:56 PM (M9Ie6)

716 I was once in Tornado Alley. And I was not hit by a single tornado.
In fact there was a very nice breeze, which I'm sure some wingnut bigot would like to call a tornado.

Posted by: Muhammad's Left Nut at July 17, 2011 05:56 PM (QcFbt)

717 And I mean I see that chemjeff is a straitup asshole.

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 05:57 PM (+tzv7)

718 Nope - but maybe these hyperbolic generalizations about ALL OF ISLAM being a "murder cult" is a bit over the top.

That's true, there are millions of Muslims protesting around the world, shouting "Not in my name!" whenever an terrorist attack takes place.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 05:57 PM (JEvSn)

719 Wow, some chick in a burqa just delivered my pizza. Strange days indeed, huh?

Posted by: Breaker19 at July 17, 2011 05:57 PM (qdI7N)

720 I had high hopes for Herman Cain.
I figured his skills at at leadership, strategic insight, negotiation annd butt-kicking would be more than enough to fix Congress ... apparently,I was wrong.

As for Islam, as long as there are enough people who take the Koran, the hadiths, etc., literally, EVERYONE else is at risk ... risk of truly ugly things.
Perhaps Christianity was like this too, but not today. And this is due to internal debates, decisions and actions on the part of Christians.
Remember the fool in Egypt, perhaps 3 weeks ago, who said on Egyptian TV (video at HotAir, and here too, IIRC)that when he wanted a girl, he simply went down to the market and bought one? Technically, your sisters, daughters, granddaughters, nieces, etc., are at risk. Today. For real. But remember that it is the might of Western arms that keeps them safe. Today.
I've known several muslims over the years, all adults. Some I genuinely believed took their religion seriously, but only in the internal and personal way; sort of like very many Christians.Some said they immigrated as they simply wanted to get out from undr the yoke of the imams. And some treatedislam as simply a personal identifier: it's what they write down when asked. Perhapsall were too Westernized. But others ... like many in Europe today ...not so much.
This question is settled, as far as North America and Europe (and I suspect China and India) are concerned, but it still needs to be settled in the Middle East. Seeing that it gets settled over there seems a good plan.

Posted by: Arbalest at July 17, 2011 05:57 PM (DyEUW)

721 You need to master the definitions of "taqiyya"

Taqiyya is a too-conventient concept. Ever read conspiracy literature. It's infuriating in that any time someone puts forth evidence against the supposed conspiracy, it's taken to be evidence that that person is in on the conspiracy. Taqiyya is the same. "You say that the vast majority of Muslims have never done anything violent? Taqiyya!" It's an all-purpose evidence dismisser.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 05:57 PM (P8oOy)

722 DrewM: "This isn't an emotional story I bought into, it's simply looking at what a candidate for the GOP nomination actually said."

Then why the need for the emotional anecdotal argument (that you "bought into")at all?
Use of the word "despicable" should be reserved for describingthe jihadists, not for those willing to speak out against the evil they perpetrate.

Posted by: jokin at July 17, 2011 05:57 PM (Mpulp)

723 "Nope - but maybe these hyperbolic generalizations about ALL OF ISLAM being a "murder cult" is a bit over the top."

I explained Mecca vs. Medina, abrogation, and the Verse of the Sword earlier in the thread. Why don't you go educate yourself about the true nature of Islam before you dismiss what we're saying.

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 05:57 PM (froiv)

724 You claim that rain exists? Hah! I am looking outside my window now ... and THERE IS NO RAIN!! It does not exist!

Q.E.D.

Posted by: chemjeff's Deep Thoughts at July 17, 2011 05:57 PM (G/MYk)

725 "If these things called "Earthquakes" exist and occur ... why aren't all
the cities torn down by these alleged earthquakes, already? WHy aren't
there earthquakes every single day? Why isn't there an earhtquake in
my living room?


There is no such thing as an "earthquake", I submit!!"

Because you are dhimmi ready, weak and ready to be dominated.

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 05:57 PM (Vrb/j)

726 Fuck you, Dianne.

Posted by: Y-not is back from Park City at July 17, 2011 05:57 PM (5H6zj)

727 I understand DrewM's point, but he is seeing Islam as just another religion.

It isn't.

It is a revolutionary political philosophy that uses religion to manipulate and control its adherents. From that perspective, banning mosques seems reasonable, because part of Islam's philosophy is the destruction of the United States of America.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 17, 2011 05:58 PM (LH6ir)

728 Ignoring a real threat and surrendering to sharia because it makes you
feel like Oprah isn't a good way to leave a civilization for our
children any more than turning the US into a police state.

When did the surrender to Sharia happen?

I'll shorten it up for some of you: We have to destroy the Constitution to save the Constitution.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at July 17, 2011 05:58 PM (7utQ2)

729 Ignoring a real threat and surrendering to sharia because it makes you
feel like Oprah isn't a good way to leave a civilization for our
children any more than turning the US into a police state.We know who hates us. Find the bad ones, watch the rest.

Which is exactly what I've been saying. And for the record, Oprah can go pound sand. Unless she gives me a car.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 05:59 PM (P8oOy)

730 Perhaps you will be killed last. congrats!

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 05:59 PM (Vrb/j)

731 And whether you agree with banning Islam in the U.S. or not these kinds of statements will further marginalize Cain.

Every time he goes on this show with Chris Wallace he gets one of these setup questions. After a while you would figure he would either wise up or quit going on the show.

But old Wallace is getting exactly what he wants. A rating bonanza and pissing on a fiscal conservative at the same time, a two-fer.

Posted by: Vic at July 17, 2011 06:00 PM (M9Ie6)

732 Wow, some chick in a burqa just delivered my pizza. Strange days indeed, huh?

Which hand was she carrying it in?

Posted by: garrett at July 17, 2011 06:00 PM (qGgcC)

733 I spent 6 months in coastal Florida during so-called Hurricane season.

Not one hurricane.

There was a nice thunderstorm, though. There I was, enjoying nice coastal Florida, and not not a single one of those thunderclouds went all Hurricanrana on my ass.

The bigotry on display in this thread concerns me. Bigots! Haters! Bigoted-hating-big-bucket-bigots!11!

Posted by: Concern Troll Who is Concerned at July 17, 2011 06:00 PM (QcFbt)

734 There is no such thing as an "earthquake", I submit!!

Equally abusurd: There's an occasional earthquake! We should never go outside! In fact, let's make it illegal to go outside!

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 06:00 PM (P8oOy)

735 Posted by: Y-not is back from Park City at July 17, 2011 05:57 PM (5H6zj)

Girl, it has been one hell of a day.

It seems it's now Jeff's turn. All of these fucking hashes are appearing out of nowhere today to call the regulars, well, just about anything you can think of. It's been a real peach of a day.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 06:00 PM (piMMO)

736 Farmer Joe 80% of all mosques in America support violent Jihad.
The only mosques that don't are those that have less than 20 members, and do not follow Shariah.

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 06:01 PM (froiv)

737 so sad Herman...
He coulda been a contenda!

Posted by: Brian J at July 17, 2011 06:01 PM (9GVb9)

738 Use of the word "despicable" should be reserved for describingthe
jihadists, not for those willing to speak out against the evil they
perpetrate.
Posted by: jokin at July 17, 2011 05:57 PM (Mpulp)

I would never use a word as mild as "despicable" when describing a jihadist.

I'd suggest if you think "despicable" covers what jihadists are and do, you aren't trying hard enough.


Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 06:01 PM (dw7rB)

739 #726 - not really interested

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 06:02 PM (+tzv7)

740 DrewM Maybe this will help next time:
From the Collins Dictionary:
despicable
If you say that a person or action is despicable, you are emphasizing that they are extremely nasty, cruel, or evil. adj (emphasis) The Minister said the bombing was a despicable crime.

Posted by: jokin at July 17, 2011 06:02 PM (Mpulp)

741 You know that little muslim woman at the store? She hates you. She's
waiting on the day when all of America ison it's knees facing Mecca.

The problem with your hypothesis is that it is not falsifiable. I say "she doesn't hate me", you say "taqiyya" (even if it doesn't apply). There is no possible evidence that will change your mind.

So I go by my own observations. You say "Muslims hate me and want to kill me". I encounter many Muslims in my life who didn't kill me, didn't appear to want to kill me, didn't seem to hate me, and, with some of whom, I had pleasant conversations. In my experience your hypothesis does not seem to be supported.

But what if they all are seething with rage against me? I'm sure there are a few former students of mine who think I'm an asshole as well. But they haven't yet tried to slash my tires or kill me.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:03 PM (s7mIC)

742 Farmer Joe 80% of all mosques in America support violent Jihad.

The only mosques that don't are those that have less than 20 members, and do not follow Shariah.

And should be investigated, and if found to be advocating violence, shut down. Read what I've read, don't cherry pick my comments.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 06:03 PM (P8oOy)

743 Dianne and modgi seem to be rather aggressive for new commenters.

Or, they are trolls looking for a fight.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 17, 2011 06:03 PM (LH6ir)

744 Almost there!

Posted by: Land of the Free & Home of the Enslaved at July 17, 2011 06:03 PM (Ew27I)

745 Posted by: Vic at July 17, 2011 05:56 PM (M9Ie6)

LMAO

Oh, wait. Shit. It's true!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 17, 2011 06:04 PM (LH6ir)

746 Equally abusurd: There's an occasional earthquake! We should never go outside! In fact, let's make it illegal to go outside!

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 06:00 PM (P8oOy)
Er ... we have local building codes for communities in earthquake-prone areas. My analogy stills works - far past its expected application, I'll say. It's good analogue genes.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 06:04 PM (G/MYk)

747 A little of both, I suppose.
I don't want Islam banned because I support anyone's natural right to worship any faith they want.
Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:56 PM (s7mIC)
You're an atheist, aren't you?

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 06:04 PM (tQhx/)

748 All Mosques (which are schools for crimes against humanity) in the United States should be bulldozed to the ground. In their place statues of Charles Martel beheading Mohammad should be erected.

Posted by: FeralCat at July 17, 2011 06:04 PM (vfiok)

749 717
And I mean I see that chemjeff is a straitup asshole.


Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 05:57 PM (+tzv7)

Fine. No Christmas presents for you!

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:04 PM (s7mIC)

750 But they haven't yet tried to slash my tires or kill me.

Try speaking out against Sharia and then get back to us.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 06:05 PM (JEvSn)

751 #743 - I have been coming to and commenting on this blog for YEARS. I was probably here even before you. I just don't comment very often anymore because someone else usually says it better.

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 06:06 PM (+tzv7)

752 Oh, wait. Shit. It's true!


Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 17, 2011 06:04 PM (LH6ir)
Yes they actually did say that.

Posted by: Vic at July 17, 2011 06:06 PM (M9Ie6)

753 We have to destroy the Constitution to save the Constitution.

Bullshit. That's not what I'm saying.

When did the surrender to Sharia happen, you ask?

Every time a political action is taken in the name of islam and it is let slide so as not to offffeeeeend anyone.

Every time a murder is called an "honor killing" instead of a murder.

Every time someone performs or defends female circumcision.

Every time a large tract of woodland full of muz with rifles is fenced off and cops are not allowed to go inside because it's a "religious compound".

Every time a rule is made or a tax dollar is spent to coddle, placate, and submit to izlam that no way in Hell would be done for anyone else.

That's when we surrender to sharia.



Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 06:06 PM (ECjvn)

754 Islam is not a religion. It is a totalitarian killing machine. The worst the world has ever known. If you don't even know what it is, you don't know what you are talking about.

Posted by: FeralCat at July 17, 2011 06:06 PM (fRSUC)

755 You're an atheist, aren't you?

No, actually. Why do you ask?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:06 PM (s7mIC)

756 >>>The next day was 9-11.
>>>Those cocksuckers knew what was going to happen, Chemjeff.
>>>Don't be an asshole.Just like the Jews knew in advance too, right? Seems like everyone was in on it except the Christians!

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:07 PM (hIWe1)

757 Posted by: jokin at July 17, 2011 06:02 PM (Mpulp)

Yeah, I think it's despicable to say some people's basic constitutional rights are open to a vote, even though they've done nothing wrong.

IMO that's a despicable position for a candidate for President to take.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 06:07 PM (dw7rB)

758 Or, they are trolls looking for a fight.

Not looking for a fight, just personally affected by this.

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 06:08 PM (Vrb/j)

759 Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:03 PM (s7mIC)

I thought that it was already shown that you are an asshole?

Seriously, you seem to have accepted the definition of Islam as "just another religion," and it simply isn't. As I said up-thread, it is a revolutionary political philosophy that uses religion to manipulate and control its members. That some, perhaps many of those members are peaceful can't be argued -- it is axiomatic. Most people, regardless of religion, are peaceful. It's that minority of Muslims who are violent, and the structure of the religion that approves of and directs that violence that causes the trouble.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 17, 2011 06:08 PM (LH6ir)

760 Dianne and modgi seem to be rather aggressive for new commenters. Or, they are trolls looking for a fight.
I'm going with "just plain stupid".
Perhaps the Free Republic comments section shut downfor theweekend or something.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 06:08 PM (WRW1S)

761 "But what if they all are seething with rage against me? I'm sure there are a few former students of mine who think I'm an asshole as well. But they haven't yet tried to slash my tires or kill me."

Those (non-muslims) students also aren't following a violent ideology that teaches hate against all non-muslims.

The thing you seem so quick to overlook is the fact that all these "friendly" muslims you've encountererd self-identifiy with Islam. Now, as I've said before, they might be ignorant or afraid, but if they are true believers, they see you as absolute scum who should be subdued or killed.

Would you self identify with a group that announced to the world that everyone outside the group should be killed? Why would you respect someone who does?

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 06:09 PM (froiv)

762 Did you hear about that guy who caught his wife cheating and killed her? It's the institution of marriage, I'm telling you. It's a death cult. We should ban marriage before more victims are converted to its radical precepts.

Posted by: progressoverpeace's logic at July 17, 2011 06:09 PM (s7mIC)

763 Some of these comments from you dirty infidels are all part of a conspiracy to put forth a pack of lies that
Muslims have ever been unjust to Christians and Jews and women. Never!
All Christian and Jews and women are very fortunate to be living in
lands ruled by their wise and benevolent Muslim benefactors. I am now
very confident that our dear brother Hussein el Obama will soon denounce
Pamela Geller and this blasphemes infidel flotilla of spies and
provocateurs that hurt the feelings of all good Muslims everywhere. Soon
after that he will also denounce all disbeliever attacks on the
Prophet, Peace be upon
Him.Then he will throw his full personal support, as well as that of
the 98% of all Americans who dearly love him, behind the U.N. resolution
passed in December of 2009 prohibiting defamation of Islam including
making such defamation a crime under international law and announce that
he will turn over to us any such criminals that are within his
jurisdiction to us for just and fair punishment. Our dear brother
Hussein el Obama will then call for the expulsion of all Jews from
Palestine so that Muslims can once again return to their rightful
homeland there. On behalf of America he will then denounce all of the
Crusades and demand that reparations be paid to Muslims and all the land
in Europe
that was stolen from them be returned. Our dear brother Hussein el
Obama will then also declare that America and all his totally loyal
Generals will wholeheartedly agree to meet and enforce all of the
demands that Muslims may make in the future. Allah
willing.

Posted by: Aleph at July 17, 2011 06:11 PM (vfiok)

764 Conservatism = Freedom ,....Islam = Slavery,........that is all. We don't want to have to choose but the fuckers insist.

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 06:12 PM (Vrb/j)

765 Drew. I do think that despicable was a poor choice of words on your part that needlessly got the dander up of a lot of people. If you had said Cain was wrong, stupid, misguided, etc. Lots of words you could have used instead of despicable. You could have even said that the statement was despicable. But you said the man was despicable.

When talking with my Democratic family I've used the word despicable to describe Obama. They get very, very offended. I don't curse about Obama around family. The word despicable conveys the total disgust I have towards the man. It's about as far as I can go in polite society without seriously damaging relationships. The word carries a lot of weight.

I guess I do think you needlessly insulted a large % of your readership. I think you could have conveyed your message just as well with just slightly more diplomatic language. Just saying his statement was despicable instead of the man would have been enough to soften the blow.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at July 17, 2011 06:12 PM (QcFbt)

766 No, actually. Why do you ask?
Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:06 PM (s7mIC)
You don't seem to have any religious conviction.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 06:12 PM (tQhx/)

767 Posted by: progressoverpeace's logic at July 17, 2011 06:09 PM (s7mIC)
No, jeff. That was just your logic with my name slapped on. Try again. You can do it.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 06:12 PM (G/MYk)

768 Would you self identify with a group that announced to the world that
everyone outside the group should be killed? Why would you respect
someone who does?

No I wouldn't self-identify with a group like that. Whether I respect them or not is a different question. They didn't harm me, didn't seem to want to harm me, so what they believed, deep down in their soul, about me or other infidels doesn't seem to matter.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:12 PM (s7mIC)

769 Yeah - I'm just stupid. Ignore me.

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 06:12 PM (+tzv7)

770 Doesn't seem to matter in a practical sense, anyway.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:12 PM (s7mIC)

771 Just like the Jews knew in advance too, right?

Anything that might affect the spot price of Gold. We get a memo.

Posted by: garrett at July 17, 2011 06:13 PM (qGgcC)

772 We should ban marriage before more victims are converted to its radical precepts.

That ship sailed. You'll be able to marry your goldfish in New York later this year.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 06:13 PM (JEvSn)

773 You don't seem to have any religious conviction.

Why do you think religious conviction would lead me to favor banning Islam?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:13 PM (s7mIC)

774 So that now this horse is well and thoroughly dead, did any other Republican candidates make any horrible and "despicable" gaffes today on the Sunday shows?

Has Bachmann called for repeal of the 13th Amendment and a return to chattel slavery?

Let's see who else is a conservative. Oh, Perry. Has he called for mandatory drugging of all females under the age of 16 and chastity belts for same?

Wait, he hasn't gone on FNS yet. Maybe later when he announces.

Funny how Romney doesn't get these questions.

Posted by: Vic at July 17, 2011 06:14 PM (M9Ie6)

775 >>>Those (non-muslims) students also aren't following a violent ideology that teaches hate against all non-muslims.
Lauren, why don't you look up the "No True Scotsman" fallacy before posting another comment on this blog? Because that's what you (and a ton of others) here keep engaging in.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:14 PM (hIWe1)

776 I am urging all Zionist, Christian and
other Infidel forces who are working with Pamela Geller and Robert
Spencer against the Islamic Holy Forces of Allah to submit immediately.
Otherwise, we will hold them responsible for their actions. Any attempt
to fight the Islamic Holy forces of Allah is pointless. We are committed
to putting all of the internet and then all of the world under our
jurisdiction.

You cannot overcome the Islamic Holy Forces of
Allah now that we have our brother, Imam Hussein Obama, in control of
your military and FBI and TSA and Secret Service and Department of
Homeland Security and FCC and your health care rationing and food supply
and soon the internet with the help of our brothers in the White House
and at ICANN and then over radio and television with the help of our
brothers at FCC. Any individual or group that tries to fight the Islamic
Holy Forces of Allah will now be harassed and humiliated by our TSA
brothers if not prosecuted and imprisoned by our
brother Eric Holder. And our sister Michelle will control what your
children may or may not eat and what they are to be taught. Soon no web
sites or radio or television stations or newspapers will be permitted
that in any way blasphemy Islam or in any way at all insult the feelings
of Muslims or that fail to meet any and all demands that Muslims may
make in the future. With the help of our brother, Imam Hussein Obama,and
our brothers at ICANN and FCC the Islamic Holy Forces of Allah will
take over all of the internet and broadcast media and easily overcome
Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer and their Zionist, Christian, other
Infidel forces and their American Thinker lackeys and stooges. Allah
willing.

The great dream of Islam will come true. Muslims dream
to see flags that read: “There is no God but Allah” fluttering in the
wind atop a Grand Towering Mosque at Ground Zero, a Mosque in the Pentagon, a Mosque at Reagan National Airport
and then
a Mosque at the Temple Mount and a Mosque at Haram al-Sharif, and the
whole White House converted into a mosque and then even American Thinker
will become fully compliant with Sharia Law, Allah willing.

Posted by: Aleph at July 17, 2011 06:14 PM (NmAt0)

777 Just like the Jews knew in advance too, right? Seems like everyone was in on it except the Christians!
Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:07 PM (hIWe1)
A HAHAHAHA!!!!!!
No douchebag, move along.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 06:15 PM (tQhx/)

778 >>>Yeah - I'm just stupid. Ignore me.

Yes you are and don't worry we will.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:15 PM (hIWe1)

779 Drew. I do think that despicable was a poor choice of words on your part
that needlessly got the dander up of a lot of people. If you had said
Cain was wrong, stupid, misguided, etc. Lots of words you could have
used instead of despicable. You could have even said that the statement
was despicable. But you said the man was despicable.
Posted by: Clubber Lang at July 17, 2011 06:12 PM (QcFbt)

Oh well.

Part of blogging is an honest reaction. There it is.

And let's not forget this isn't exactly Cain's first rodeo with this. Remember the whole "not comfortable appointing Muslims" to his administration and that he'd require some sort of extra loyalty test if he did appoint one?

It's not his feelings about Muslims that are despicable (though I'm starting to get that sense), it's his casual disregard for some very basic and important concepts about religion and government in this country.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 06:16 PM (dw7rB)

780 They didn't harm me, didn't seem to want to harm me, so what they
believed, deep down in their soul, about me or other infidels doesn't
seem to matter.

So if the majority of your neighbors hated Jews it be cool as long as they didn't hassel you? I think this was tried once before somewhere.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 06:16 PM (JEvSn)

781
"I'm going with "just plain stupid".

Perhaps the Free Republic comments section shut downfor theweekend or something."


You go with that fuckwit, I love to be misunderestimated.

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 06:16 PM (Vrb/j)

782 Why do you think religious conviction would lead me to favor banning Islam?
Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:13 PM (s7mIC)
Okay smartass, you tell me why.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 06:17 PM (tQhx/)

783 Those people quoting "the constitution" don't seem to realize that The Constitution is a limit on the <i>Federal</i> government, not local or state governments.

Herman Cain was talking about local communities, not the Federal government. Therefore criticism of him on the basis of "the constitution" is stupid.

Thank me!

Posted by: Brett_McS at July 17, 2011 06:17 PM (iA6nz)

784 "Salaam is the peace of submission.
It's the drawn out pronunciation of "slm" in "Islam," (written Arabic
has no vowels) the Arabic word for submission and obedience, and in
"Moslem" or "Muslim," the Arabic word for "one who submits."

This is incorrect. First of all, "slm" is a verb.

Secondly, 'salaam' does, in fact, mean "peace." i.e. 'salaam 3laykum.' 'Islam' means "submission." 'Saleem' means "safe." 'Istasalam' means "surrender."

Also, written Arabic does have vowels: the alef, the yeh, and the wow. Certain grammar-Nazis quibble about that on some technical detail, but they're jackasses. Even Arabs consider them to be vowels.

Posted by: dawnfire at July 17, 2011 06:17 PM (16TCF)

785 Mosque-A place to hide explosives while claiming it's a place to worship. Also good for small arms training for jihad, the personal struggle where Army psychiatrists shouting Allah Akbar kill other soldiers.

Posted by: kansas at July 17, 2011 06:17 PM (A+g5T)

786
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 17, 2011 06:08 PM (LH6ir)

I don't think it is "just another religion". I do think there is more than a touch of "the Necromonger way" (from Chronicles of Riddick, if you've seen it) present in Islam. It does bother me. But it only really affects me if that hatred gets expressed to me in some fashion or another. Look, if deep down in your soul you hate my guts and wish to see me dead, you have every right to believe that and, quite frankly, I don't care. I'll begin to care when you start slashing my tires. That's all I'm really arguing.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:17 PM (s7mIC)

787 >>>No douchebag, move along.

No, I won't, not until you clarify what you meant. Are you really contending that "those guys" knew about 9/11 in advance? That Muslims as a whole (or some large non al-Qaeda subset therein) knew in advance?

If so, do you realize how fucking, self-discreditingly crazy this makes you?


Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:17 PM (hIWe1)

788 Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 06:12 PM (+tzv7)

Wow, thanks for the permission, but I think that most here have already started ignoring you.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 17, 2011 06:18 PM (LH6ir)

789 What did I say that you challenge?

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 06:18 PM (Vrb/j)

790 You know, it occurs to me that the REAL problem with LGF going tits-up
is that it made so many of its stupid, more insane, bigoted, flat-out
Muslim-hating cocksuckers just migrate over here in the mistaken belief
that we were like them. We're not.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:18 PM (hIWe1)

791 "My fewwo Amewicans..." (beginning of my 2013 ignauguwal speech)

Posted by: Elmer Fudd at July 17, 2011 06:18 PM (qdI7N)

792 "They didn't harm me, didn't seem to want to harm me, so what they believed, deep down in their soul, about me or other infidels doesn't seem to matter."

It matters because the ultimate goal is Shariah. We are simply not as far along in the process as Europe, but we're on the same path.

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 06:18 PM (froiv)

793
Okay smartass, you tell me why.I don't know. I honestly have no idea what my faith, or relative lack thereof, has to do with this discussion.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:18 PM (s7mIC)

794 And let's not forget this isn't exactly Cain's first
rodeo with this. Remember the whole "not comfortable appointing
Muslims" to his administration and that he'd require some sort of extra
loyalty test if he did appoint one?

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 06:16 PM (dw7rB)
That's another good example to apply the KKK analogy to. If someone said they weren't comfortable appointing KKK members, or Communists, or such to an adminstrative position would you have a problem?
This is the difference between a "religion" and a political ideology at the most obvious level. Heck, most people wouldn't mind a liberal saying he wouldn't appoint a conservative to an administration post - and they shouldn't.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 06:18 PM (G/MYk)

795 LOL #778 - I have been coming to this bog for YEARS and have posted here MANY times. I was probably here even before you.

I'm not new. And I forgive you.

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 06:19 PM (+tzv7)

796 What occurs to me is you're a fucking half wit, appeasing a sworn enemy doesn't fucking work

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 06:19 PM (Vrb/j)

797 >>>Why do you think religious conviction would lead me to favor banning Islam?

Exactly. I'm a pretty devout Christian. You don't see me calling for a 28th Amendment criminalizing Islam, as so many here seem to think is Totally Okay.

(I can just imagine the next deployment of the No True Scotsman fallacy: "no, you're not really a true Christian after all, then!")

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:19 PM (hIWe1)

798 >>Seriously though, if Islam is such a murder cult, how do Muslims wander around the country on a daily basis and manage not to blow anyone up?

Because they are not good Muslims?

Srsly.

I cannot claim to be a true Christian, but I sure as shit know, understand and have researched the faith that I was born into, culturally.

As for those followers of the child-rapist "prophet" better known as known as Mohamed...

12th Century, Tribal Goat Fuckers, the lot of you...

You contribute NOTHING of value to this world.

(Oh, and fuck me about Algebra already! People like YOU would have burned that translator at the stake in Yemen already!)

Your religion is based on nothing better than military conqust of one ethnic group over another.

Don't care...

Never have, never should!

Although, it is interesting to see how easily your culture adapts to Marxism...



Posted by: Deety at July 17, 2011 06:19 PM (pGciH)

799 Muslim morals consist only in

attending mosque regularly on the appointed Sabbath, and in breaking the ten

commandments all the balance of the week. It comes natural to them to kill and enslave and lie and

cheat in the first place, and then they go on and improve on nature until they

arrive at perfection

Posted by: Bessie at July 17, 2011 06:20 PM (fRSUC)

800 Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 06:16 PM (Vrb/j)

He's not the only one who is going with that analysis.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 17, 2011 06:20 PM (LH6ir)

801 Herman Cain was talking about local communities, not the Federal
government. Therefore criticism of him on the basis of "the
constitution" is stupid.

So if someone from your "local community" came by your house and arrested you for making Internet postings against Islam, you'd be cool with that?

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 06:21 PM (P8oOy)

802 Ha anybody seen Jeff B and Killgore Trout at the same time?,,,......hmmmm.

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 06:22 PM (Vrb/j)

803 >>>LOL #778 - I have been coming to this bog for YEARS and have posted here MANY times. I was probably here even before you.>>>I'm not new. And I forgive you.

1.) You were not here before me.

2.) Even if you were, does it fucking matter? Are you going to whip out your cock next and insist on measuring it in front of me? You could have been here before the beginning of time and still be a fucking moron without any ideas worth contributing. Hell, CEDARFORD was here before most of you posters, for fuck's sake. Downtownlad. I could go on.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:22 PM (hIWe1)

804 No, I won't, not until you clarify what you meant. Are you really contending that "those guys" knew about 9/11 in advance? That Muslims as a whole (or some large non al-Qaeda subset therein) knew in advance?If so, do you realize how fucking, self-discreditingly crazy this makes you?
Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:17 PM (hIWe1)
Oh that?Yes it was commonly known that they dipped out. My former employer at the time was looking to purchase the property to build a second restaurant but the owners disappeared the day before 9-11.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 06:23 PM (tQhx/)

805 bigoted, flat-out
Muslim-hating cocksuckers
Islam is the religion of peace. There's no threat, just go back to sleep.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 06:23 PM (JEvSn)

806 Jeff, the facts about the jihadi make up of Mosques in this country support my claims about the nature of Islam. Just because the truth is uncomfortable doesn't make it any less true.

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 06:23 PM (froiv)

807 Ha anybody seen Jeff B and Killgore Trout at the same time?,,,......hmmmm.

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 06:22 PM (Vrb/j)
Jeff B is more of a Pilot Fish.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 06:24 PM (G/MYk)

808 You know, it occurs to me that the REAL problem with LGF going tits-up
is that it made so many of its stupid, more insane, bigoted, flat-out
Muslim-hating cocksuckers just migrate over here in the mistaken belief
that we were like them. We're not.

This.

I drifted away from the left because I couldn't stand the kneejerk PC stuff, and the casual acceptance of socialism and rejection of the idea of individual rights, but I'll never really be on the right because of the kind of bigotry I've seen here today. Guess I'm destined to remain unaffiliated.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 06:24 PM (P8oOy)

809 Anyway, when I said nevermind, just ignore me, I was only kidding. I have no problem giving my opinion.

I'm with Lauren. She knows what she's talking about.

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 06:24 PM (+tzv7)

810 1.) You were not here before me.2.) Even if
you were,

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:22 PM (hIWe1)
ROFLMAO.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 06:25 PM (G/MYk)

811 Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 06:23 PM (froiv)

would you be okay with non-jihadi mosques? Or do you claim that they don't exist?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:25 PM (s7mIC)

812 Farmer Joe
I drifted away from the left because I couldn't stand the kneejerk PC
stuff, and the casual acceptance of socialism and rejection of the idea
of individual rights, but I'll never really be on the right because of
the kind of bigotry I've seen here today. Guess I'm destined to remain
unaffiliated.

Concern troll much?

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 06:25 PM (Vrb/j)

813 This is the difference between a "religion" and a political ideology at the most obvious level. Heck, most people wouldn't mind a liberal saying he wouldn't appoint a conservative to an administration post - and they shouldn't.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 06:18 PM (G/MYk)
Problem is that Islam is ALSO a political ideaology and system.... even to the point of having its own Legal System...

Posted by: Romeo13 at July 17, 2011 06:26 PM (NtXW4)

814 And Jeff B? - suck it!

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 06:26 PM (+tzv7)

815 Old and Busted: Conservatives who support upholding the text and intent of the US Constitution.
New Hotness: Conservatives who feel the US Constitution doesn't apply to people or groups they dislike.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 06:27 PM (WRW1S)

816 >>>Ha anybody seen Jeff B and Killgore Trout at the same time?,,,......hmmmm.

You ARE ex-LGF refuse, aren't you? I don't even really know who that guy is (I get that he's one of Charles' flunkies, or somesuch). But finding out that you're one of the Islam-hating freaks from that cesspool, merely migrated over here to plague us with your scumbaggery, makes a lot of sense.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:28 PM (hIWe1)

817 but I'll never really be on the right because of the kind of bigotry I've seen here today.

There's nothing to fear from Islam. The terrorists are perverters of the true religion of peace. Islam is compatable with democracy. Sleep. Sleep.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 06:28 PM (JEvSn)

818 Anyone who looks at the history of Christianity in Lebanon, or Egypt, or Iraq and gets concerned about letting large #s of muslims in their country is a bigot! Disgusting, filthy bigotsss. Nasssty bigotsssesss.

We will stops thems won't we precious? Yesss, yessss! We will call them namesss. Bigotssss!!11!! Nasssty, filthy bigotssss, my precious! Then we will purgessss them and their nasssty commentssess. Call them freepersss we will! Nasssty freeperrsss and lizardroidsssss. With their hate speechesssss. Nasssty, fillthy bigotsssses!

Posted by: Gollum-defender of Islam at July 17, 2011 06:28 PM (QcFbt)

819
Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 06:24 PM (P8oOy)
Farmer Joe, my story is kinda similar. I was on my way to becoming a muddle-headed casual leftist before I found Rush Limbaugh back in the early 90's. I then drifted towards pretty hard core libertarianism, and now I describe myself as 50-50 conservative/libertarian.Don't worry, you and I agree more with the conservative movement more than we disagree with it.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:29 PM (s7mIC)

820 Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:17 PM (s7mIC)

Of course I have seen it. I am not a savage. But the fact that you don't mention the far superior "Pitch Black" proves to me that you have no taste in movies.

chemjeff, you are one of the more rational around here, but saying that you will care only when it affects you personally is just insane. Islam's hatred of you and the society in which you live has been expressed countless times. How many are dead because of Islam? Let's narrow it down. How many last week? How many last month? And I will not go back to 9/11, because that's too easy.

Islam has much more than a touch of conquest. It is National Socialism under the guise of religion. It is conquest by design, not by necessity. We can't change the design, but we can restrict its access to our society -- and controlling mosques seems like a reasonable way to do that.


Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 17, 2011 06:29 PM (LH6ir)

821 >>>Oh that?Yes it was commonly known that they dipped out. My former
employer at the time was looking to purchase the property to build a
second restaurant but the owners disappeared the day before 9-11.

You're a psychopath if you believe that. Seriously. You're no different from 9/11 Truthers, or Birthers, or Moon-landing-was-faked nuts.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:29 PM (hIWe1)

822
Posted by: Romeo13 at July 17, 2011 06:26 PM (NtXW4)

I know, but DrewM and his sycophants refuse to even recognize the difference between a religion and a political ideology and how that is viewed legally, as well as subjectively. DrewM throws a conniption fit because Cain said that he wouldn't appoint muslims, but Drew wouldn't have a problem if Cain said that he wouldn't appoint commies, or even just liberals. But Drew won't even address these, because it take much of the rest of his argument down - whatever the hell it is that he's trying to argue

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 06:29 PM (G/MYk)

823 Hollowpoint - (or should I say empty head?) - You are completely missing the point - except for the one on your head.

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 06:29 PM (+tzv7)

824 Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:28 PM (hIWe1)

Welcome to the team, Jeff. I was accused this morning of being a troll from Hot Air.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 06:30 PM (piMMO)

825 'would you be okay with non-jihadi mosques? Or do you claim that they don't exist?'

Yes, the mosques that do not support Jihad are very different than those that do. For the most part, they are simply not orthodox. Women don't wear Hajib, prayer lines aren't really enforced, and the congregations are very small. They're like the Unitarians of the Muslim world. Islam could exist with the rest of society if there were a massive, massive overhaul of the ideology with the deadly elements cast aside. There are some willing to do this, and they should be supported.

The problem is that t hese progressive mulsims are not really standing on any sort of solid ground from a theological perspective. All interpretation of Islam ended in the 7th century (iirc), and is now banned. There are no knew "revelations" and Muhammad is still held up as the perfect man. Basically, Islam would have to be completely gutted back to Mecca.

If this happened, Islam could coexist with the rest of the world. It has to start from inside Islam, however, and the threat of death keeps many from trying.

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 06:31 PM (froiv)

826 Concern troll much?

Please. I've been here for years. I've met Ace, Laura W., and Dave In Texas (among others) in person. I left the Democratic Party during Clinton's first term.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 06:31 PM (P8oOy)

827 Please. I've been here for years. I've met Ace,
Laura W., and Dave In Texas (among others) in person.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 06:31 PM (P8oOy)
A second degree relic?

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 06:32 PM (G/MYk)

828 Basically, there are two arguments: 1) Constitutional law; 2) Life and Death. It's really a matter of which perspective is most important to you. It's an imponderable problem and not one we should be losing friends over---although Drew is wrong. Hahaha.

Posted by: ahem at July 17, 2011 06:32 PM (rXe8u)

829 Oh give it a rest, Jeff B.
Everyone knows you're a troll, stop trying to act serious.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 06:32 PM (tQhx/)

830 Exactly. I'm a pretty devout Christian. You don't
see me calling for a 28th Amendment criminalizing Islam, as so many here
seem to think is Totally Okay.(I can just imagine the next
deployment of the No True Scotsman fallacy: "no, you're not really a
true Christian after all, then!")

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:19 PM (hIWe1)

You and the other Jeff seem to think you're better then us because you've bought into the liberal dogma of tolerance. But what has your tolerance of Islam brought us? Are we better people? Are we safer?You wonder why emotions get hot it's because people like you will ultimately get more people killed. This isn't a joking matter.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 06:33 PM (GZitp)

831 Bit dog hollers.

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 06:33 PM (+tzv7)

832 New Hotness: Conservatives who feel the US Constitution doesn't apply to people or groups they dislike.

Um, wouldn't the goal of implementing Sharia law be against the Constitution?

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 06:33 PM (JEvSn)

833 >>>Please. I've been here for years. I've met Ace, Laura W., and Dave In
Texas (among others) in person. I left the Democratic Party during
Clinton's first term.

Meanwhile I've never seen the guy who's accusing you of being a troll before today.

Maybe he only comes out for threads where he can get into Islam-bashing, I dunno.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:34 PM (hIWe1)

834 It matters because the ultimate goal is Shariah. We are simply not as far along in the process as Europe, but we're on the same path.
1.) Build mosque in Bumfuck, TN.
2.) ????
3.) Holy shit we're all living under Islamic law!!!

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 06:34 PM (WRW1S)

835 "Old and Busted: Conservatives who support upholding the text and intent of the US Constitution.

New Hotness: Conservatives who feel the US Constitution doesn't apply to people or groups they dislike."


You do know that the constitution is a limit on Federal power? Local communities and states are not limited by the constitution. They can make up their own constitutions (which they indeed do).

The Federal Constitution is not relevant to this discussion.
Again, Thank me!

Posted by: Brett_McS at July 17, 2011 06:34 PM (iA6nz)

836 We jusssst wantsss to sssay how dissssappointed we are with all the nasssty, filthy bigotssss.

Thisssssss concernsssss ussss, my precious. Yesssss, it concernsss ussss.

Posted by: Gollum-Concern Troll of Islam at July 17, 2011 06:34 PM (QcFbt)

837 Guess What? This is a big fucking deal and alot of serious thinking Americans see this as one of the most significant challenges we will face in the near future. You just keep calling us less "tolerant" or "multicultural" or whatever the fuck it is you think will get you in the the best graces of whoever will be your next master.

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 06:34 PM (Vrb/j)

838 Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:29 PM (hIWe1)

I was busy scratching my balls, which is far more important than anything this nitwit has to say. But...thanks for pointing it out.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 17, 2011 06:36 PM (LH6ir)

839 I am quite amazed how many commentators here don't understand the meaning and purpose of their own Federal constitution.

Herman Cain's comments were not relevant to The Constitution. Deal with it!

Posted by: Brett_McS at July 17, 2011 06:36 PM (iA6nz)

840
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 17, 2011 06:29 PM (LH6ir)
Look, they can hate me all they want. I don't care. That's not reason enough to ban the entire religion.Murderers should be prosecuted and/or killed. I've got no problem with that. If they are Muslim or not, it makes little difference to me.If you all are right about Islam's nefarious goals, then the time to do something about it is when they start inciting rebellion. But what if there is no rebellion?
And you're right, my taste in movies sucks.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:36 PM (s7mIC)

841 Oh dear Lord, Truman. That sidebar link is one of the funniest things I've seen in days.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 06:37 PM (piMMO)

842 You go with that fuckwit, I love to be misunderestimated.

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 06:16 PM (Vrb/j)

Not possible.

What a cockbite you are, little man.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at July 17, 2011 06:37 PM (lGFXF)

843 >>>You do know that the constitution is a limit on Federal power? Local
communities and states are not limited by the constitution. They can
make up their own constitutions (which they indeed do).
>>>The Federal Constitution is not relevant to this discussion.
To repeat: IF YOU BELIEVE THIS THEN YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT LAW. THIS IS INCORRECT AS A QUESTION OF FACT. With one minor exception (automatic grand juries) every one of the Bill Of Rights (the CONSTITUTION, see?) has been incorporated to (i.e. applies to) the states by 14th Amendment.
You, quite literally, don't even have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about. This is serious crackpot territory.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:37 PM (hIWe1)

844 And you're right, my taste in movies sucks.

And restaurants.

Doh!

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 06:37 PM (piMMO)

845 Islam has no history of building monuments to itself in the form of Mosques.
None.

Posted by: IslamoFact #373 at July 17, 2011 06:38 PM (qGgcC)

846 1.) Build mosque in Bumfuck, TN.
2.) ????
3.) Holy shit we're all living under Islamic law!!!


Dude, go to Amsterdam and try walking down a street holding hands with another guy and see how long it takes to get your ass beat.
The Dutch are finding out too late.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 06:38 PM (JEvSn)

847 Um, wouldn't the goal of implementing Sharia law be against the Constitution?
No. Having a goal, no matter how vile or un-American, is not unconstitutional without an underlying act. We don't ban thoughtcrimes in this country, nor should we.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 06:38 PM (WRW1S)

848 Posted by: Brett_McS at July 17, 2011 06:34 PM (iA6nz)

Check out the 1st amendment to the federal Constitution. It is in fact quite germaine.

The real issue is whether Islam is a religion or a political ideology. I say it's political. DrwM and others seem to think that it is a religion.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 17, 2011 06:39 PM (LH6ir)

849 829
Oh give it a rest, Jeff B.
Everyone knows you're a troll, stop trying to act serious.
Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 06:32 PM (tQhx/)
Hey now. He's a dumbass, not a troll.

Posted by: buzzion at July 17, 2011 06:39 PM (oVQFe)

850 You and the other Jeff seem to think you're better then us because you've bought into the liberal dogma of tolerance.

I don't think I'm better than you. If I did, that would make me a liberal. FTR I think we are all deeply flawed human beings.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:39 PM (s7mIC)

851 Look, they can hate me all they want. I don't care. That's not reason
enough to ban the entire religion.

What reason is there to ban a religion Jeff? Or is there no line with you? If it ultimately brings down our country, so be it? Is that what you're saying?

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 06:39 PM (GZitp)

852 It must be easier to make pizza that install cable, this fucker is all hat, no ranch.


Posted by: Larry, the cable guy at July 17, 2011 06:39 PM (hXJOG)

853 We don't ban thoughtcrimes in this country, nor should we.

Really? Conspiracy is not a crime?

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 06:40 PM (JEvSn)

854 >>>Everyone knows you're a troll, stop trying to act serious.

Yeah, not like the guy who seriously believes that the Muslims all knew about 9/11 in advance.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:40 PM (hIWe1)

855 "1.) Build mosque in Bumfuck, TN.
2.) ????
3.) Holy shit we're all living under Islamic law!!!"

Instead of insultin geveryone who's done research, why don't you try to learn something.

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 06:40 PM (froiv)

856 Modgi@837:

I agree that it's a big fucking deal, and I certainly don't think nothing should be done about it. I just happen to disagree that the way to go about it is to arbitrarily decide that the Constitution just doesn't happen to apply to someone I don't like.

And yes, I reserve the right to be flat out appalled at the bigotry that's been on display in this thread. Look at the slurs that have been trotted out: "muzzies" "ragheads" etc. Just as terrorists use Islam for cover, so do bigots use conservatism (and liberalism as well, but that's another discussion). I will never consider myself a full on conservative as long as this shit goes on, because as long as it goes on, the leftie assholes who call us bigots will be right.


Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 06:40 PM (P8oOy)

857 I think we are all deeply flawed human beings.
Fuck you.
I'm shallow. Ask my ex-wife.

Posted by: garrett at July 17, 2011 06:41 PM (qGgcC)

858 Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 06:39 PM (GZitp)

Hatred can't bring down a nation. Typically people have to do stuff, like incite rebellion or insurrection. I'm not in favor of that, whether it be from Muslims or not.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:42 PM (s7mIC)

859 If you all are right about Islam's nefarious goals, then the time to do something about it is when they start inciting rebellion. But what if there is no rebellion?Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:36 PM (s7mIC)
IT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!
Dear God.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 06:42 PM (tQhx/)

860 >>>Really? Conspiracy is not a crime?

Nope. At least not the way you seem to understand it. You have to take affirmative actions in furtherance of the conspiracy (i.e. not just sit around and talk) before it becomes a crime. So yes, you could get together with a bunch of your friends and say "gee, wouldn't it be nice if we did [X]." It's only when one of you goes out and opens a new bank account for laundering funds, or buys fertilizer to make a bomb, that it becomes a crime.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:42 PM (hIWe1)

861
If I'm not mistaken, Islam is the root of all evil. The founders got a chance to send many to meet their virgins as one of the first oders of overseas business. The pirates along the coast of Africa. The slaves were bought by Europeans from Moslem slave traders. And to top it off, the mythical "Mohamed" child moletser which they revere, never actually existed.
So fuck them all. The constitution isn't a suicide pact.

Posted by: jimmah at July 17, 2011 06:43 PM (TfRqk)

862 Let's see, first amendment to the constitution: "Congress shall make no law...".

Congress. That would be the Federal Congress, no?

Case closed.

Posted by: Brett_McS at July 17, 2011 06:43 PM (iA6nz)

863 Posted by: Brett_McS at July 17, 2011 06:43 PM (iA6nz)

You know nothing about the law.

Case closed.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 06:44 PM (dw7rB)

864 Kali-Ma! Kali-Ma!

Posted by: Thuggee at July 17, 2011 06:44 PM (qGgcC)

865 It's only when one of you goes out and opens a new bank account for
laundering funds, or buys fertilizer to make a bomb, that it becomes a
crime.

My bad, no Muslims are currently doing that. Sorry.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 06:44 PM (JEvSn)

866 You do know that the constitution is a limit on Federal power? Local communities and states are not limited by the constitution. They can make up their own constitutions (which they indeed do).
The Federal Constitution is not relevant to this discussion.
Again, Thank me!
Thank you for reminding me how many complete and total imbecilessuch there are on the Internet. Sometimes I forget.
Your position is that local communities and statesare under no obligation to obey the Bill of Rights, oris itjust this particular clause of the First Amendment that they're free to disregard?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 06:44 PM (WRW1S)

867 What a cockbite you are, little man.

cockholster bitch, you dont fucking know me

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 06:44 PM (Vrb/j)

868 What reason is there to ban a religion Jeff?

I don't think there is a good enough reason to ban an entire religion. I think there are definitely good reasons to prosecute and/or kill people who commit violent acts in the name of a religion. But the woman wearing a hajib doing some grocery shopping at the local Piggly Wiggly? She can hate me all she wants but she's not harming me so I don't care.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:44 PM (s7mIC)

869 IT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!
Dear God.

Where's the rebellion? Is it being televised?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:46 PM (s7mIC)

870 Hatred can't bring down a nation. Typically people
have to do stuff, like incite rebellion or insurrection. I'm not in
favor of that, whether it be from Muslims or not.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:42 PM (s7mIC)

It's not hatred, it doctrine.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 06:46 PM (GZitp)

871 >>>Thank you for reminding me how many complete and total imbecilessuch there are on the Internet. Sometimes I forget.
I never forget. But what depresses me is how many of them seem to have felt free to come hang out at AoSHQ.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:46 PM (hIWe1)

872 >>>Hey now. He's a dumbass, not a troll.

Coming from you this is practically an endorsement. Thanks!

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:46 PM (hIWe1)

873 Many commentators here have bought into the leftist mission to make the Federal government all-powerful. But that is certainly not what the founders had in mind. They wanted the states and local communities to take care of everything but those limited powers enumerated in the constitution for the Federal government.

Sure, things have drifted beyond that now, but that's because of the leftist push. We don't have to go along with that.

Posted by: Brett_McS at July 17, 2011 06:47 PM (iA6nz)

874 >>>Where's the rebellion? Is it being televised?

Nah man, but it is on Sirius/XM satellite radio.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:47 PM (hIWe1)

875 Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:44 PM (s7mIC)

You should drop by our next pot-luck.

Posted by: Thuggee High Priest at July 17, 2011 06:47 PM (qGgcC)

876 "You do know that the constitution is a limit on Federal power? Local
communities and states are not limited by the constitution. They can
make up their own constitutions (which they indeed do)."

This isn't correct either. Might wanna stroll on over to the 14th Amendment or check out, I don't know, Article I Section 10? Article IV? Maybe read up on the doctrine of incorporation? While not exactly intuitive, neither is it that hard, honestly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

Christ, people, for 'Constitution-loving conservatives,' a whole bunch of you seem to fall exactly into the 'the Constitution means whatever I want it to mean' camp that you so readily accuse liberals of belonging to.

Posted by: dawnfire at July 17, 2011 06:48 PM (16TCF)

877 #872 I know who I would choose, and it's not you.

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 06:48 PM (+tzv7)

878 She can hate me all she wants but she's not harming me so I don't care.

Is your point valid if you were a Coptic Christian in Egypt? Or is this the Obama, "we're not Greece" analogy?

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 06:48 PM (JEvSn)

879
Communities certainly ban Christian Churches. Just try to get a building permid to build a church on your own property. Sorry, I don't think we can do that--you know, the neighbors would complain. It doesn't fit into our plan for growth. Whatever lie is topmost in some liberal's head. Ask the folks at Grace Church in Elk Grove how their new church is coming along. Oh, sorry, they had to abandon their 10 year old property and move into a commercial building.
Heaven forbid they should ban a mosque where they teach terrorism and sedition in most services.

Posted by: TimothyJ at July 17, 2011 06:48 PM (w7YPP)

880 Posted by: Brett_McS at July 17, 2011 06:47 PM (iA6nz)

Are the states bound by the 2nd Amendment?

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 06:48 PM (dw7rB)

881
You should drop by our next pot-luck.

Posted by: Thuggee High Priest at July 17, 2011 06:47 PM (qGgcC)



Are you holding it at Applebee's? Because then I might visit.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:48 PM (s7mIC)

882 I'm getting out of this one.


Somewhere in the space between banning a religion we don't like and letting a vile ideology steamroll the country into the dustbin of Hell is the answer. Just like most things.

Sensible, legal, equal laws for the monitoring of criminal activities within all groups of people already exist. They need to be followed to the letter and criminals prosecuted and imprisoned.
The muz need to stop reflexively bitching every time anyone asks questions of their flock. They have lots of cleaning to do in their house.

Local communities should be able to control the type of projects that get built in their area. Voting on a mosque is no different than voting of a titty bar or tobacco store or a Wal-Mart.

Watch the muzlims, trace the ties to terrorism. Pluck the bad apples out of the mosque and sit their asses in prison. Save as many people from the shitty parts of the ideology as possible through education and intervention. Especially the women.

Make crimes like beating, torture, harassment and mutilation against women and child abduction in the name of religion a serious hate crime.








Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 06:49 PM (ECjvn)

883 But what depresses me is how many of them seem to have felt free to come hang out at AoSHQ.
Anyone who fails to see Islam forthe existential threatit is, is a fool, JeffB and chemjeff.

Posted by: garrett at July 17, 2011 06:50 PM (qGgcC)

884 Fuck this thread, no wonder obama will be president for life, so called consertaves are weak minded and have no will. You want to defend shit that has nothing to with what made us great. Good luck with that,......meh.

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 06:51 PM (Vrb/j)

885 >>>Many commentators here have bought into the leftist mission to make the
Federal government all-powerful. But that is certainly not what the
founders had in mind. They wanted the states and local communities to
take care of everything but those limited powers enumerated in the
constitution for the Federal government.>>>Sure, things have drifted beyond that now, but that's because of the leftist push. We don't have to go along with that.

Again, you are insane. The Bill of Rights is a charter of NEGATIVE liberties. It doesn't make the federal government (or the state governments) more powerful, it makes them LESS so. Each Amendment describes something that government (federal or local) CANNOT do, not a right that is merely granted to the people by a benevolent overlord.

Not only do you not know jack shit about the law, your underlying "legal philosophy" (if you can call it that) is incoherent.

Why do I make the mistake of thinking that if I argue with an idiot long enough he'll suddenly stop being one?

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:51 PM (hIWe1)

886 Where's the rebellion? Is it being televised?
Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:46 PM (s7mIC)
Yeah, every time Obama goes on TV.
You cannot be this dense.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 06:51 PM (tQhx/)

887
Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 06:48 PM (JEvSn)
Sure, I imagine it is. But what is your point? That if your neighbor hates your guts, it's okay for the cops to show up and haul him away for that reason alone?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:51 PM (s7mIC)

888 Are the states bound by the 2nd Amendment?

Nope.

Posted by: Elena Kagan at July 17, 2011 06:52 PM (JEvSn)

889 The real issue is whether Islam is a religion or a political ideology. I say it's political. DrwM and others seem to think that it is a religion.
Here's how Merriam-Webster defines "religion":
1a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance


2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices


3 archaic: scrupulous conformity

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Sure looks like Islam meets that criteria. Can you provide any definition of religion that excludes Islam? Can you even make one up?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 06:52 PM (WRW1S)

890 What depresses me are all the morally superior fucksticks who post here. Other sites need their moral wisdom and guidance, too.

This concerns me. I am. Filled. With concern.

Posted by: Concern Troll Who is Concerned at July 17, 2011 06:53 PM (QcFbt)

891 >>>Anyone who fails to see Islam forthe existential threatit is, is a fool, JeffB and chemjeff.

Who says that I'm denying that Islam poses a serious threat to Western civilization? All I'm talking about is the means by which one goes about addressing it. And pissing all over the Constitution (and in doing so betraying befouling the very tradition of liberty that we seek to uphold) is the wrong fucking way.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:53 PM (hIWe1)

892 I'm still waiting for DrewM to tell me if he would have any problem with Cain saying that he wouldn't appoint communists, or leftists, or whatever to his administration? This should an easy one, really. Come on, Drew. You can do it!

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 06:54 PM (G/MYk)

893 But what depresses me is how many of them seem to have felt free to come hang out at AoSHQ.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:46 PM (hIWe1)
So if people don't agree with you that makes them imbeciles? Just for the record, you thought that War of the Undead States' Christine O'Donnell slams were so fucking funny. A little humility about your sense of humor, or sense of anything, might be called for.

Posted by: Captain Hate at July 17, 2011 06:54 PM (zsvKP)

894
What a cockbite you are, little man.

cockholster bitch, you dont fucking know me<<<

Nobody knows you, and yet you come in here swinging your tiny e-dick like you're running the show. You better be posting this on a laptop covered in the blood of all the towelheads you just killed using nothing but your balls.
C'mon, Rambo - get out there and show us how it's done.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at July 17, 2011 06:54 PM (lGFXF)

895 If some condo association can ban the flying of an American flag, then I'd have to think a mosque can be banned by a community. If the community in question does not want it, they shouldn't be forced in the name of political correctness to accept it - whether you agree with their decision or not.

Posted by: NumberTwo at July 17, 2011 06:54 PM (ScD5a)

896 Chemjeff and Jeff B are just mentally retarded in grasping reality.

No offense to disabled people. They have no choice.

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 06:55 PM (+tzv7)

897 If some condo association can ban the flying of an American flag, then
I'd have to think a mosque can be banned by a community.
Posted by: NumberTwo at July 17, 2011 06:54 PM (ScD5a)

Wait, you don't get the difference between the rules made by a voluntary association of people and government action?

For real?

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 06:57 PM (dw7rB)

898 If some condo association can ban the flying of an American flag, then I'd have to think a mosque can be banned by a community.

Swing and a miss. When you buy a condo you agree as a condition of the purchase to abide by the decisions of the condo association. It's not a criminal law, it's a contract.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 06:57 PM (P8oOy)

899 >>>So if people don't agree with you that makes them imbeciles? Just for
the record, you thought that War of the Undead States' Christine
O'Donnell slams were so fucking funny. A little humility about your
sense of humor, or sense of anything, might be called for.

People who disagree about which candidate to support = one thing.

People who start shrieking about how the Constitution is just "a document we shouldn't fetishize," or that the 1st Amendment doesn't actually apply to the states, or that we need to simply overlook the very core laws and principles which govern the entire fucking country to 'get Muslims' = a very different thing, and you shouldn't have any difficulty in discerning the difference.

The former are welcome. (I might think they're idiots sometimes, but hey, that's life.) The latter are toxic scumbags who sure a shit aren't conservatives, I can tell you that much. No conservative I know is that cavalier about THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES for God's sake. I mean, that's liberal talk! "The Constitution is just a piece of paper!" "We can't get wrapped up in some vague principles, we have to act now and do what's right!" "I'm using common sense, don't talk to me about the law!" Seriously now...every one of these is the exact sort of shit you can hear your friendly local liberal spouting off on a daily basis. It's depressing as all hell, is what it is.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:58 PM (hIWe1)

900 >>Don't fall into the liberal trap of thinking, "things I don't like" = "things that are unconstitutional".

>>Don't fall into the trap of "things that are unconstitutional = things that won't happen" mister!<<

I'm not sure that alexthechick and I have much more in common than stompy-boots and a tendency to pop off in a funny way (I HOPE that I am as funny as she!) on smart military blogs....

But, have you considered what kind of vetting you would have to do to make this site "halal" in order to appease the "moderate" musslemans?

So far as I know, alexthechick doesn't have ANY male relative OKAYing her posts or tweets.

Neither do I.

I would like to keep it that way, thankyouverymuch.

It is a grave mistake (in my opinion) to confuse Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Religion with state sanctioned APPROVALl of same.

Even, tacitly.

No!

TheseTribal Goat Fuckers and Pederasts are NOT our equals!

As a woman, I depend upon the likes of you, Drew M. to make that distinction clear to the Pedarasts.and Goat Rapers.

(Yeah, if I was busy being gang-raped in Tahir Square I would totally have looked for a "Western" looking dude to save me. But...I wouldn't have been on Tahir Sqare that evening. Just sayin'...)

Multi-Culti BS aside...

She MUST have gone in expecting to be Groped /Fondled!!!



Posted by: Deety fighting Sharia at July 17, 2011 06:58 PM (pGciH)

901 Sure, I imagine it is. But what is your point? That if your neighbor
hates your guts, it's okay for the cops to show up and haul him away for
that reason alone?

My point is that you can't tolerate intolerance. This isn't an individual were talking about, it's a religion with a billion adherents.

As Derb says:

Democracy, multiculturalism, mass immigration — pick any two.

Is Islam compatable with democracy? I don't think it is, and I don't want to find out here if it's not.

We can have save the social experiments for another time.

Posted by: Elena Kagan at July 17, 2011 06:58 PM (JEvSn)

902 Again, you are insane. The Bill of Rights is a
charter of NEGATIVE liberties. It doesn't make the federal government
(or the state governments) more powerful, it makes them LESS so. Each
Amendment describes something that government (federal or local) CANNOT
do, not a right that is merely granted to the people by a benevolent
overlord.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:51 PM (hIWe1)
No, it isn't you blithering idiot. For trials and juries (Amend VI and VII) it is a charter of positive instructions to all levels of government as to what they MUST do for the citizenry.Don't you know that repeating any idiocy the Indonesian Imbecile stuttered is usually a bad move.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 06:59 PM (G/MYk)

903 If some condo association can ban the flying of an American flag, then I'd have to think a mosque can be banned by a community. If the community in question does not want it, they shouldn't be forced in the name of political correctness to accept it - whether you agree with their decision or not.
When choosing to live in a homeowners assocation, you sign a contract agreeing to their terms- what you can display, what kind of grass you can grow, etc. Different scenario, though if they explicitly excluded people based on protected statuses such as race or religion, they'd find themselves losing a lawsuit.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 06:59 PM (WRW1S)

904 He was always a despicable joke. I think most Republicans realized this from the beginning. Bachmann is also a despicable joke, and I look forward to everything she has to say, particularly about Satan, gays and Melissa Etheridge's breasts.

Posted by: Jordan at July 17, 2011 07:00 PM (4z6KA)

905 Jeff B - you are now wasting your time posting anything long. No one is listening to you anymore.

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 07:00 PM (+tzv7)

906 Who says that I'm denying that Islam poses a serious threat to Western civilization? All I'm talking about is the means by which one goes about addressing it.
Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:53 PM (hIWe1)
Muslim suicide bombers don't give a shit about your cutesy lawyer speak, dickbag. By the time you can come up with some excuse they've probably already klled a dozen Jews on the way to the Wall.

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 07:01 PM (tQhx/)

907 All I'm talking about is the means by which one goes
about addressing it. And pissing all over the Constitution (and in
doing so betraying befouling the very tradition of liberty that we
seek to uphold) is the wrong fucking way.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:53 PM (hIWe1)

Banning one particular religion that holds it's loyalty to spreading a form of law and culture above our own is not pissing all over the constitution. We keep following your way of dealing with it we will soon become a police state. Christ almighty we already can't travel without being subjected to unreasonable search. We've already spent a fortune in lives and money trying to win hearts and minds and we've accomplished little of nothing. Your way of addressing it isn't working.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 07:01 PM (GZitp)

908 A quick socratic type note on realpolitik:

1. Is it more likely that Muslim terrorist groups will get investigated under a liberal or conservative government?

2. Is it more or less likely that a conservative government will be in power if the left can continue to beat it with the "bigotry" stick?

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 07:01 PM (P8oOy)

909 I am concerned that people who I disagree with are still posting comments even though I called them bad names and said they were bigots and called them idiots. And then other idiots agree with them, even I clearly said that the first idiot was a bigot and stupid. And also a bigot. And the I even said, more in sadness than anger, how much their bigotry and stupid was weighing on me. Depressing me that there was so much idiocy and bigotry on what was once a great website.

Look folks, AoSHQ has been a smart, military blog for over 200 years now. I can't stand by and let this flood of freeper bigotry and world net idiocy overwhelm two centuries of conservative dick jokes.

Therefore I will stand my post. I will purge the comments section through sheer force of will. Or stupidity. One of those. I know I have one of those.

And with my great ring of stupid I will insult your face and your comment until you tire of my insults and go watch Copa America on Univision. For you are teh stupid. And teh bigot. With your bigoted stupidity. And also the stupidity of your bigot-ness.

You shall not pass!!!! At least not without being called a stupid, stupid rat monster. I mean bigot.

Posted by: Concern Troll Who is Futiley Trying to Purge The Comments Section of a Website he Does Not Own at July 17, 2011 07:03 PM (QcFbt)

910 I'm still waiting for DrewM to tell me if he would have any problem with Cain saying that he wouldn't appoint communists, or leftists, or whatever to his administration? This should an easy one, really. Come on, Drew. You can do it!
The Constitution prohibits religious tests. It does not prohibit ideological tests.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 07:03 PM (WRW1S)

911 Banning one particular religion that holds it's loyalty to spreading a
form of law and culture above our own is not pissing all over the
constitution.

Yes it is: "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." NOT, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, provided that it shows sufficient loyalty to this constitution."

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 07:03 PM (P8oOy)

912 Again, you are insane. The Bill of Rights is a
charter of NEGATIVE liberties. It doesn't make the federal government
(or the state governments) more powerful, it makes them LESS so.


Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 06:51 PM (hIWe1)

LOL. The overwhelming, crushing power of the government is never felt more so by your average, law abiding citizen, than when he gets unfortunately intertwined with some court case, as either juror or alleged material witness. That simple law-abiding citizen will have all rights to privacy stripped of (as the court pursues the rights of the dendant, first and foremost) and all rights of freedom, generally, taken away at the judge's whim. The creation of courts and use of juries of peers necessarily required a strengthening of government.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 07:06 PM (G/MYk)

913 >>>No, it isn't you blithering idiot. For trials and juries (Amend VI and
VII) it is a charter of positive instructions to all levels of
government as to what they MUST do for the citizenry.
*sigh*

No, you're wrong in point of fact. Prior to the Founding, trials were considered an automatic right (and jury trials for any crimes above a certain level of gravity) -- this is a Common Law tradition that extends all the way back to Edward I, IIRC. Their inclusion in the Constitution was not meant as an affirmative grant of a new privilege (which would be a POSITIVE right) but rather a NEGATIVE restriction on the ability of the Federal government to withdraw that right to a trial that was otherwise presupposed to already exist.

Hence the language in the 7th Amendment about right to a jury in civil trials "being preserved." Not newly promulgated, but preserved. It was already there, now it's simply being affirmed. Just as the right to keep and bear arms, or the right to freedom of speech, religion, and assembly were already presumed to exist, and the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent the government from restricting them.

Again: you don't actually *know* what the hell you're talking about. And you can get as smug or aggressive about it as you want, but that only embarrasses you more when you go out and step on your dick like in the above post.

Way to be super-confident in saying something completely wrong.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 07:06 PM (hIWe1)

914 This was a stupid posting.

Posted by: ray at July 17, 2011 07:07 PM (BbH5o)

915 I think we should let the lawyers run everything.

Nothing could go wrong.

Wait, whut?

Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 07:08 PM (ECjvn)

916 Just curious...what other rights are Muslims not entitled to if their home community votes against it?

Can Muslims vote? Are they allowed to engage in speech? May they assemble?

Come on guys...let's hear the list of rights we take for granted but get to vote on if Muslims or Islam is involved.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 07:08 PM (dw7rB)

917 Hooo, boy. Just got in on the last of this thread. Herman said nothing wrong. The Constitution doesn't allow anyone toinfringe on the freedomto worship as one likes. It says nothing about a communitee zoning laws that says where a church may or may not be built. That goes for Baptitsts and Methodists, including the religion of goat shit worship.
Methinks many people here are quick on the draw to turnonourselves without thinking shit through. Drew and many of the "coasters" seem to be doing this a lot lately.

Posted by: Soona at July 17, 2011 07:08 PM (45Uzs)

918 Yes it is: "...or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof." NOT, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, provided
that it shows sufficient loyalty to this constitution."

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 07:03 PM (P8oOy)

You're under the belief that the founders risked their lives and freedom to separate themselves from a tyrant only to allow a form of religion to waltz right in and subject us to a form of ideology far worse then what they were fighting. How do you square that?

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 07:09 PM (GZitp)

919 Also you are bigot.
And a stupid.
Don't forget bigot.
Probably racist, too. I bet you don't watch Telemundo.
I bet you've never lived in Africa.
How many muslim wives do you have? That's what I thought.

Bigot.

Posted by: Concern Troll Who is Futiley Trying to Purge The Comments Section of a Website he Does Not Own at July 17, 2011 07:09 PM (QcFbt)

920
Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 07:06 PM (hIWe1)

You're not quite clear on what "positive" and "negative" mean, I see. Not surprising.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 07:09 PM (G/MYk)

921 "No, it isn't you blithering idiot. For trials and juries (Amend VI and
VII) it is a charter of positive instructions to all levels of
government as to what they MUST do for the citizenry."

Uh huh... and so forcing the government to go through a certain process and jump through hoops that, by their nature, benefit the citizenry v. the government (i.e. the defendant in a criminal prosecution) is, somehow, NOT a restriction on the government. That is, taking away the power for a judge to summarily declare you guilty actually does not dis-empower the government.

Really? And who's the blithering idiot here?

Quibble about policy and perfect worlds all you want, but Jeff B. seems to be right on the money on all Constitutional legal points he has made, and those of you screaming otherwise are merely demonstrating your woeful ignorance.

Posted by: dawnfire at July 17, 2011 07:09 PM (16TCF)

922 You see Jeff, if the government must provide counsel for the defense, then that is what normal people call a "positive requirement". Something the government MUST do for the accused.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 07:11 PM (G/MYk)

923 >>>Hooo, boy. Just got in on the last of this thread. Herman said nothing
wrong. The Constitution doesn't allow anyone toinfringe on the
freedomto worship as one likes. It says nothing about
a communitee zoning laws that says where a church may or may not be
built. That goes for Baptitsts and Methodists, including the religion
of goat shit worship.

Since you're probably not going to read the rest of this thread where we've already dealt with this, I'll just reiterate: as a matter of actual constitutional law, you're completely incorrect. Discriminating against Baptists or Methodists would be every bit as illegal as discriminating against Muslims. Now you could craft a law or zoning restriction that was content-neutral (i.e. no houses of worship in this area because it's residential and we don't want the traffic) on its face, and that would probably pass muster. But even facially-neutral zoning laws have been struck down on 1st Amendment grounds if it was possible to discern a discriminatory intent underneath the surface.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 07:11 PM (hIWe1)

924 You're under the belief that the founders risked their lives and freedom
to separate themselves from a tyrant only to allow a form of religion
to waltz right in and subject us to a form of ideology far worse then
what they were fighting. How do you square that?

I square that on the basis that the founders were of a religion that was being suppressed in England, and therefore put a safeguard in the Constitution to see that no religion would be suppressed in the US.

Really the Constitution, despite what liberals and lawyers (BIRM) would have you believe is a pretty simple document to read. The words "except Muslims" or the equivalent appear nowhere in it.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 07:12 PM (P8oOy)

925 Just curious...what other rights are Muslims not entitled to if their home community votes against it?Can Muslims vote? Are they allowed to engage in speech? May they assemble?Come on guys...let's hear the list of rights we take for granted but get to vote on if Muslims or Islam is involved.

You cool with the Ground Zero Mosque, right?


Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 07:13 PM (ECjvn)

926 Somewhere in the space between banning a religion we don't like and
letting a vile ideology steamroll the country into the dustbin of Hell
is the answer.

Islam is never, ever, ever, going to "steamroll the country into the dustbin of Hell." For that to happen we would need a majority of our politicians, military, and police to convert to Islam and begin enforcing Shariah law, and we would need a majority of the citizens to either convert or submit.

Americans are seething mad over the banning of the incandescent light bulb, but you think we're going to passive accept living under an Islamic theocracy?

Please. Islam taking over the country ought to be way down on our list of things to worry about.

Posted by: Llarry at July 17, 2011 07:13 PM (uQA8F)

927 Is Islam compatable with democracy? I don't think it is, and I don't want to find out here if it's not.

Well, that is also the point of my mocking earlier. We pass by Muslims on the street every single day and we manage not to go explodey. Seems to me it's not as incompatible as you think it is.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 07:13 PM (s7mIC)

928 Come on guys...let's hear the list of rights we take for granted but get to vote on if Muslims or Islam is involved.

Better yet, how about a list of rights that a muslim isn't afforded by their religion, in direct contradiction with our laws?

Posted by: garrett at July 17, 2011 07:14 PM (qGgcC)

929 916
Just curious...what other rights are Muslims not entitled to if their
home community votes against it?

Can Muslims vote? Are they
allowed to engage in speech? May they assemble?

Come on
guys...let's hear the list of rights we take for granted but get to vote
on if Muslims or Islam is involved.


Posted by: DrewM.
at July 17, 2011 07:08 PM (dw7rB)

That's kind of the point, there is no compromise when comes to dealing with Islam. These individual Muslims can practice there beliefs all they want, in Muslin nations. That's my point. I don't believe there is a way Islam can coexist inside the United States, it will eventually lead to ruin.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 07:14 PM (GZitp)

930 DrewM, if I were to take all your posts and replace Islam and Muslim with Fascist and Facism, would you still support your beliefs?

Because I see very little distinction between the Islamists and Fascists. But maybe I'm wrong and the Muslim Brotherhood are reasonable men.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 07:14 PM (JEvSn)

931 Hence the language in the 7th Amendment about right to a jury in civil trials "being preserved."
Not newly promulgated, but preserved. It was already there, now it's
simply being affirmed. Just as the right to keep and bear arms, or the
right to freedom of speech, religion, and assembly were already presumed
to exist, and the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent the government
from restricting them.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 07:06 PM (hIWe1)
Oy. You are a whole mess of illogic. The right to a jury trial cannot "just exist" because juries do not just exist. Some government, or some organization with the power of force must create them. Your right to free speech and self-defense (as well as armed to be able to defend the State) are different rights. Do you REALLY not understand this? I mean, no joking, now ...The creation of juries was a positive requirement on the governments. End of story. Get a brain.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 07:14 PM (G/MYk)

932
When the number of mosques approaches the number of synagogues, scud missles will start flying.

So we have a couple of decades before we will see any real trouble.

In the meantime, profile, don't discriminate.

Posted by: sTevo at July 17, 2011 07:15 PM (VMcEw)

933 You American wingnut bigots shouldn't worry. We have tons of Muslims over here and things turned out fine. Really great bunch of guys. I tease them about their beards, they burn me alive ... it's all good-natured fun.

Posted by: Coptic Christian Being Burned Alive in his Church at July 17, 2011 07:15 PM (QcFbt)

934 You can't argue with the devil. Peals before swine.

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 07:16 PM (+tzv7)

935 Really the Constitution, despite what liberals and
lawyers (BIRM) would have you believe is a pretty simple document to
read. The words "except Muslims" or the equivalent appear nowhere in it.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 07:12 PM (P8oOy)

That's doesn't mean they wouldn't have if they were under the same threat of it as we are today, why is that so hard to grasp?

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 07:17 PM (GZitp)

936 Oy. You are a whole mess of illogic. The right to a jury trial cannot
"just exist" because juries do not just exist. Some government, or some
organization with the power of force must create them.

And as Jeff pointed out, that was done by English Common Law, long before the founding of the US.

But hey, as long as we're on the subject, can "individual communities" deny Muslims the right to trial by jury?

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 07:17 PM (P8oOy)

937 We're talking here about with-holding local planning permission for a type of building in a town. That is a subject for Federal oversight? How far we have come, baby!

There are 'dry' towns, no? Is that "unconstitutional"? (Since drinking is surely the religion of some people?)

Posted by: Brett_McS at July 17, 2011 07:18 PM (iA6nz)

938 It's all fucked up. The Constitution is being used as a suicide pact. But drewm, with the Final Word,declares the Constitution as CLEARLY stating that:
"Congress shall make no lawprohibiting a genocidal cult whose founding, visible and documented history, andSTATED GOALis to enslave and conquer by any means necessary, the entire human population to undermine, subvert and make worthless this Constitution."
So its cool.

Posted by: drolmorg at July 17, 2011 07:19 PM (QygYK)

939 That's doesn't mean they wouldn't have if they were under the same threat of it as we are today, why is that so hard to grasp?

Interesting. What other provisions would be in or omitted from the Constitution if history had unfolded differently? Perhaps we should implement those as well.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 07:19 PM (P8oOy)

940 EEEH!

Ground Strike!

Thunder-Lightning Crackle!

(Super Scary!)

Super, Awesome... you mean!

Eh, even if it gets windy, I don't think we'll see real rain.

In fact, I'd bet on it now!

Anyways, there is gonna be one hell of a Lightning Show in the Catalina Mountains.

Wheee!

I wish I lived in Oro Valley....

I bet the weather looks cool as hell bumping up against Pusch Ridge....

Posted by: Deety at July 17, 2011 07:20 PM (pGciH)

941 But hey, as long as we're on the subject, can "individual communities" deny Muslims the right to trial by jury?

No, but individual Muslims can deny patients their right to life at Fort Hood.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 07:22 PM (JEvSn)

942 --And as Jeff pointed out, that was done by English Common Law, long before the founding of the US.

The Constitution is our Supreme Law. You understand that, right? Everything that was put into the Constitution was put there, for the first time and for a very specific reason, including the form it was put in. The jury requirement and other parts of trials are POSITIVE instructions to all levels of government regarding trials. That's how they wrote it. The idiots screaming "The Constitution Bill of Rights is a charter of negative liberties" are just too stupid to check out the friggin amendments before they open their mouths. That's not my problem. And the Constitution is a collection of all sorts of delegations of power and building of limits. One of the most important POSITIVE instructions to the federal government is that it MUST INSURE all states Republican forms of government.

Jeff B said something stupid and now he's trying to double down. He likes doing that.

--But hey, as long as we're on the subject, can "individual communities" deny Muslims the right to trial by jury?

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 07:17 PM (P8oOy)
No. That is all addressed int he amendments. Go read them yourself. It'll take all of 40 seconds.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 07:23 PM (G/MYk)

943 Posted by: Deety at July 17, 2011 07:20 PM (pGciH)
I miss Tucson.

Posted by: garrett at July 17, 2011 07:24 PM (qGgcC)

944 Interesting. What other provisions would be in or
omitted from the Constitution if history had unfolded differently?
Perhaps we should implement those as well.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 07:19 PM (P8oOy)

Are you really pretending the founders would have opened our borders to allow mass infiltration of Muslims and allowed them to practice and spread their ideology? Hell the debate on the religious test clause should clue you in a little on that.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 07:24 PM (GZitp)

945 We pass by Muslims
on the street every single day and we manage not to go explodey. Seems
to me it's not as incompatible as you think it is.

By all the Djinni, that's a mighty long and delightfully wet tongue you have there son! A little to the left please.

Posted by: The Holy Prophet Mohammed, balls in the breeze at July 17, 2011 07:24 PM (xcBkZ)

946 >>>The creation of juries was a positive requirement on the governments. End of story. Get a brain.

Alright, since you've demonstrated that you really don't understand the point I'm trying to make when I talk about the Bill of Rights as a charter of negative liberties, I don't see what the point is in continuing this conversation is. But one last attempt: I'm not saying that a right to trial by jury wasn't created by someone, somewhere, at some point. (In fact, it was created in prototypical form by Henry II in the Assize of Clarendon in 1166.) What I'm saying is that the Bill of Rights merely reflected rights that were already in long-standing existence. It didn't create anything new or special.

I think part of the problem is that you seem not to understand that the U.S. Constitution didn't just introduce law into a previously lawless land, like a big fresh start or something. Prior to the Constitution, and indeed afterwards (indeed, all the way down to TODAY) America was governed by English Common Law, which had in place several traditional 'English liberties' that were, as I said, presupposed to exist before and after the ratification of the Constitution. The point of the Bill of Rights, then, was not to grant a whole new set of freedoms, making America this totally awesome NEW experiment in political liberty or anything, but rather to ensure that the new federal government could not encroach upon rights that already existed at the time. THAT is why it's a charter of "negative" liberty: it restrains the government rather than granting specific privileges to citizens.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 07:25 PM (hIWe1)

947 "All religions are also political movements in nature. Religious leaders
and politicians make rules about what you can or cannot do. Islam is
no different from Christianity, Judaism, or Scientology in that most
basic mission of all religions."

So which part of Christianity/Judaism/Buddhism/Hinduism/Confucianism says it's alright to make war upon all other religions - including lying to them and/or making slaves of their people - until they accept that particular religion.

Thought experiment. There is a revival of the Aztec religion. And you find true believers willing to have their beating hearts, torn from their chests. Should a community be willing to have a temple erected in their community?

Posted by: Mike Giles at July 17, 2011 07:25 PM (DbIwF)

948 9. Scientology ain't a religion. No way, no how.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 05:29 PM (P8oOy)
We've reached a point of agreement.

Posted by: Captain Hate at July 17, 2011 07:26 PM (zsvKP)

949 The Constitution is our Supreme Law. You understand that, right?
Everything that was put into the Constitution was put there, for the
first time and for a very specific reason, including the form it was put
in.

But this did not happen in a vacuum, and in many cases the "very specific reason" was that it was a feature of English Common Law that the Founders wished to preserve. (See how the word "preserved" is in there?) You talk as if there had never been any kind of law before the Constitution was written, or if there was, the Founders weren't aware of it.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 07:27 PM (P8oOy)

950 I gotta agree with the Coptic guy. Lebanon has tons of muslims and there's never been a problem. We get along great. Sure, I have a couple gaping head wounds, but that's a price worth paying to make sure Lebanon doesn't descend into the pit of right-wing anti-muslim bigotry I'm seeing expressed here.

Posted by: Lebanese Christian Being Stoned to Death at July 17, 2011 07:29 PM (QcFbt)

951 Just think of islam like scientology. Same thing in the long run.

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 07:30 PM (+tzv7)

952 Are you really pretending the founders would have opened our borders to
allow mass infiltration of Muslims and allowed them to practice and
spread their ideology? Hell the debate on the religious test clause
should clue you in a little on that.

They did allow Muslims to practice their religion.

Benjamin Franklin:

"


And it being found inconvenient to assemble in the open air, subject to
its inclemencies, the building of a house to meet in was no sooner
propos'd, and persons appointed to receive contributions, but sufficient
sums were soon receiv'd to procure the ground and erect the building,
which was one hundred feet long and seventy broad, about the size of
Westminster Hall; and the work was carried on with such spirit as to be
finished in a much shorter time than could have been expected.




Both house and ground were vested in trustees, expressly for the use of
any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say
something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not
being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in
general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a
missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his
service."


http://tinyurl.com/42jqc2h

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 07:32 PM (s7mIC)

953 But one last attempt: I'm not saying that a right to trial by jury
wasn't created by someone, somewhere, at some point. (In fact, it was
created in prototypical form by Henry II in the Assize of Clarendon in
1166.) What I'm saying is that the Bill of Rights merely reflected
rights that were already in long-standing existence. It didn't create
anything new or special.

If you think this relates to any point I was making, then you are really beyond help. You don't even understand that everything written in the Constitution is CREATED for our nation at that point, since it is the Supreme Law of the land and the first of its type. The instruction that juries will be provided - whether they were already being provided or not - is a CREATION of that power to the governments to INSURE that they will always be created, not that they are done by some arbitrary choice for this time.

You are just plain incorrect in how you understand negative instructions (don't do) and positive instructions (you must do). The Ten Commandments should have let you know the difference. Old and all, but they still work.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 07:33 PM (G/MYk)

954 Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 07:27 PM (P8oOy)
You also don't seem to understand what "positive", "negative", and "creation" mean in this context.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 07:34 PM (G/MYk)

955 Are you really pretending the founders would have opened our borders to
allow mass infiltration of Muslims and allowed them to practice and
spread their ideology? Hell the debate on the religious test clause
should clue you in a little on that.

Hardly. They included in the Constitution the power of the Federal Government to regulate immigration. A power which I would LOVE to exercised a little more coherently, especially, but not exclusively, with regard to immigration from Islamic countries. What I'm saying that with regard to practicing their religion, Muslims have exactly the same rights as anyone else, and that, yes, is by the Founders' design.

Would the Founders have done the same thing if Islamic terrorism had been an issue in 1789? Who knows? They might also have made specific provisions for the regulation of aviation or the Internet if such things had existed. But they didn't, and we are bound to abide by the constitution as it exists. If you really, really think that the rights protected by the First Amendment should not apply to Muslims, there is a mechanism for you to attempt to do that. It's called Amendment, and it's absurdly difficult, again, by design.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 07:35 PM (P8oOy)

956 Why hasn't someone proposed having the Islamofascists freely exercise their religion at the Universalist Unitarian Church? They're a 'diverse welcoming community of open hearts and minds'?

Posted by: Make them live up to their own book of rules at July 17, 2011 07:36 PM (aUS3D)

957 chemjeff says "wahh whahh wahh wahh whaa."

Yeah, that's what I heard too. A bunch of unintelligible bullshit.

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 07:36 PM (+tzv7)

958 You also don't seem to understand what "positive", "negative", and "creation" mean in this context.

Thanks for the laugh.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 07:36 PM (P8oOy)

959
Local Building Codes, Ace. I'd fight any building I did not want in my community.
Of course, if we were going by your standards, all a Wal-Mart would need to do to be built anywhere, is to have a mosque inside of it.

Posted by: houndofdoom at July 17, 2011 07:37 PM (CFrIf)

960 It's called Amendment, and it's absurdly difficult,
again, by design.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 07:35 PM (P8oOy)

And that's exactly what I've been advocating here isn't it?

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 07:37 PM (GZitp)

961 Under the present interpretation of incorporation Cain is wrong. On the other hand it is the present interpretation that is a stretch. The privileges and immunities clause in the 14th doesn't change the wording of the 1st. It still says "Congress shall make no law..." and it makes no mention of the states. The common view of incorporation requires you to pencil in the words "or the states". None of the other amendments in the bill of rights mentions any particular body like Congress by name so they are obviously applicable to the states, but with the 1st it is a matter of how literally you want to read the document. And I don't think taking a more literal approach to the Constitution makes someone despicable or un-american or anti-american or whatever.

BTW don't most state constitutions have a bill of rights guaranteeing freedom of religion and speech and so forth? I would think that even if the 1st only applied to Congress these state protections would prevent local communities from harassing or oppressing religious minorities.


Posted by: Mr. Book at July 17, 2011 07:38 PM (L1sKL)

962 Of course, if we were going by your standards, all a Wal-Mart would need
to do to be built anywhere, is to have a mosque inside of it.

That's pure genius! Then I can build a Wal-Mart in downtown San Francisco and those liberal cocksuckers can't stop it!

Posted by: Zombie Sam Walton at July 17, 2011 07:39 PM (JEvSn)

963 Son, we aint got the balls to to do what it takes to reform Piss-lam, do what we do best, kill em.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Majid_al-Khoei

Posted by: meleager at July 17, 2011 07:40 PM (4FHNs)

964 And that's exactly what I've been advocating here isn't it?

Let us know how that works out for you.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 07:41 PM (P8oOy)

965 >>>You also don't seem to understand what "positive", "negative", and "creation" mean in this context.

Yeah, like there's no possibility that you might be the one misusing the word, as opposed to me, Farmer Joe, 10,000 legal scholars, and James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, all of whom referred to "negative liberties" in exactly the same way as we described it.

No, we're all wrong and obviously don't understand what the words mean (hint: ever considered that they might be "terms of art," as it's put in the legal world?), whereas you, Super Legal Genius, are the only one who's right.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 07:42 PM (hIWe1)

966
Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 07:36 PM (+tzv7)
Uhoh. Dianne doesn't like me. She might even hate me. Guess I'll call the cops on her and have her hauled away. Because, you know, she's probably a subversive.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 07:43 PM (s7mIC)

967 "We can be polite and end up like Sweden where women used to be able to walk around at night alone, but now can't because the muzzie scum are such incurable rapists."

What you said is not true.

Do you even know any Swedish women?

Yes, it's true that Muslim stranger rape is a massive problem in Sweden, Europe, and elsewhere --- including Islamic countries, and even on pilgrimages to Mecca, of all things. What ISN'T true is that most Swedish women know about it. It is well hidden from them. They haven't a clue.

So, therefore, they don't fear more than they used to.

Posted by: Random at July 17, 2011 07:43 PM (NiKDs)

968
DrewM, if I were to take all your posts and replace Islam and Muslim
with Fascist and Facism, would you still support your beliefs?
Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 07:14 PM (JEvSn)

You do know there's a Nazi Party in this country, right?

BTW-I simply do not buy into the slight of hand that Islam isn't a religion and therefore is the same as a political ideology.

A bunch of people simply have declared that Islam isn't a religion but it turns out comments on a blog aren't actually legally binding.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 07:43 PM (dw7rB)

969 >>>Under the present interpretation of incorporation Cain is wrong. On the
other hand it is the present interpretation that is a stretch. The
privileges and immunities clause in the 14th doesn't change the wording
of the 1st.

The Bill of Rights isn't incorporated to the states by operation of "Privileges and Immunities" clause. (Now if Clarence Thomas had his way, it would have been...) Rather, it's incorporated by the Equal Protection clause.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 07:44 PM (hIWe1)

970 Let us know how that works out for you.

It won't work out for us. And all we can do now is pray that 9/11 wasn't just a good start.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 07:44 PM (JEvSn)

971 Let us know how that works out for you.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 07:41 PM (P8oOy)

And your way is working out? Do you like being strip searched to fly?

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 07:45 PM (GZitp)

972 I thoght my Dad was exaggerating....

Nope!

She honestly has a clip-board and her hair is VERY Debby Wasserman- Shultz!

OooWeee!

We gots a STORM blowing in!!!

Meh, I get to have way more fun , looking at my back-yard and noting who (lizards, bunnies and Quail) don't show up and who do..

I can't imagine how much your life must SUCK that you can't just enjoy a rumbling storm but feel the need to piss on your neighbors "the instant" that the wind knocks their Garage Light out of alignment.

Oh, and Fuck!You and the HOA you rode in on...

Posted by: Deety says Wahoo! at July 17, 2011 07:46 PM (pGciH)

973 And equal protection changes the wording of the 1st how?

It still says what it says. You are the one reading extra words into it.

Posted by: Mr. Book at July 17, 2011 07:46 PM (L1sKL)

974 It won't work out for us. And all we can do now is pray that 9/11 wasn't just a good start.

So maybe the solution is to investigate individual mosques and organizations for criminal activity, rather than to try to outlaw the entire religion.

Naaaah.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 07:46 PM (P8oOy)

975 You do know there's a Nazi Party in this country, right?

With members who have direct access to the President, Attorney General and Secretary of State?

Let me know when that happens.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 07:46 PM (JEvSn)

976 I see noted constitutional scholar Brett_McS returned but didn't answer my question.

Maybe you missed it Brett_McS but I'm wondering if you think the 2nd Amendment operates against the states or not.

Help me out Brett_McS...does it or doesn't it?

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 07:47 PM (dw7rB)

977
Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 07:42 PM (hIWe1)

Explain to me how negative actions (restrictions) on a government help with assembling and running a jury of peers? I mean, I know how a government being restricted from passing laws about religions are to leave the free expression unfettered, but I'm wondering where this magical NEGATIVE instruction to the government is that causes the right to a jury to have a jury pop up out of nowhere? I wonder how a government could generate a jury of peers if that government didn't take onto itself the coersive power to jail any upstanding citizen who refused to acquiesce and be a slave to the government for some amount of time (without having comitted any crime)? That's a lot of governmental power that you think is derived from negative instructions that only restrict the government?

Where did you learn English, man?

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 07:47 PM (G/MYk)

978 And your way is working out? Do you like being strip searched to fly?

Please point out where I said that I'd have a problem with profiling young Arab men at airports.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 07:48 PM (P8oOy)

979 Local Building Codes, Ace. I'd fight any building I did not want in my community.
Of course, if we were going by your standards, all a Wal-Mart would need to do to be built anywhere, is to have a mosque inside of it.
Communities can pass and enforce building codes, but they can't tailor them such that they target (explicitly or implicitly) a church based on it's religion.
The code could prohibit buildings based on size, height, or commercial activity, but not on religion.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 07:48 PM (WRW1S)

980 Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 07:46 PM (JEvSn)

Now that? That was an impressive non-sequitur.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 07:49 PM (dw7rB)

981 I'm wondering where this magical NEGATIVE instruction to the government
is that causes the right to a jury to have a jury pop up out of
nowhere?

It is NEGATIVE in the sense that it DENYS the Federal government the power to MAKE LAWS that would DENY you a trial by jury. That's what NEGATIVE means in this context. It PREVENTS the government from taking action to deny you a right. The terms "positive" and "negative" have nothing to do with what the government must do to guarantee that you have that right.

Jesus!

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 07:51 PM (P8oOy)

982 That was an impressive non-sequitur.
Sorry, you're right. The American Nazi party is just as big a threat and has as much political influence as radical Islam. My bad.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 07:52 PM (JEvSn)

983 Gee, I'm so sad I missed all this bullpuckey.

I think the only proper conclusion to be drawn is that we're all idiots, and we will drown in a sea of blood because we're too God-damned stupid to either be able to read words or recognize when a house is on fire.

Now, if the people who couldn't read words and the people who couldn't see when a house was on fire were *the same people*, the problem would be horrific but solutions present themselves.

But since half of people can't read words and the other can't see when a house is on fire, we're pretty much God-damned boned, and that's what I have to say about that.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 17, 2011 07:53 PM (bxiXv)

984 Despicable? Seriously? I could see mistaken, wrong, deluded, or confused but despicable? What is it about guys on the right that think they have to out-condemn anyone who strays even slightly to show they're even more pure than the left?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 17, 2011 07:54 PM (r4wIV)

985 >>>It is NEGATIVE in the sense that it DENYS the Federal government the
power to MAKE LAWS that would DENY you a trial by jury. That's what
NEGATIVE means in this context. It PREVENTS the government from taking
action to deny you a right. The terms "positive" and "negative" have
nothing to do with what the government must do to guarantee that you
have that right.>>>Jesus!
Exactly correct.

How is that meaning not really obvious? The government is RESTRAINED from taking away your right to a trial (or a trial by jury for certain cases) and just throwing you into jail.

I mean, for Christ's fucking sake, this may be law, but it isn't rocket science.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 07:54 PM (hIWe1)

986 BTW-I simply do not buy into the slight of hand that Islam isn't a religion and therefore is the same as a political ideology.Would you like to subscribe to our newsletter?

Posted by: moslim brohood at July 17, 2011 07:56 PM (4FHNs)

987 How is that meaning not really obvious?

PoP is evidently of the "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" school of debate.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 07:58 PM (P8oOy)

988 Someone reported a house on fire?

Who has the Environmental Impact Statement and Ground Perc Test results?

Posted by: The EPA at July 17, 2011 07:59 PM (xcBkZ)

989 It is NEGATIVE in the sense that it DENYS the
Federal government the power to MAKE LAWS that would DENY you a trial by
jury. That's what NEGATIVE means in this context. It PREVENTS the
government from taking action to deny you a right. The terms "positive"
and "negative" have nothing to do with what the government must do to
guarantee that you have that right.Jesus!

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 07:51 PM (P8oOy)
Wrong. Juries are not created by denying any other laws. That's beyond silly (and frankly, it reeks of the argument that the Commerce Clause can regulate non-activity as activity, in the vacuous sense). Juries are CREATED by law. They do not just appear in Nature. That law to create them (how, what force is possible, who has to particiapte, ...) are POSITIVE laws detailing actions that the government must take. The instruction was to that the government HAD TO PROVIDE this. Positive. Come on, I know you guys are smart enough to figure this out.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 07:59 PM (G/MYk)

990 Has anyone heard/read of any recent developments with the French burqa ban?





Posted by: derit at July 17, 2011 08:01 PM (FQlFL)

991 Jeff, you wanna get 989? I can't take it anymore.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 08:03 PM (P8oOy)

992 So no takers on what other rights American Muslims don't enjoy like the rest of us?

Come on guys....how the fuck are you going to save America unless you have a whole list of ways to rip up the Constitution? Why do you guys hate America so much you can't list even one other right we need to prevent Muslims from exercising unless we vote on it first?

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 08:06 PM (dw7rB)

993
Repeat after me:
ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION.
ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION.
ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION.
Islam is a totalitarian religious ideology. It prescribes three, count 'em three, outcomes for non-Muslims. They are:conversion to Islam, subjugation to Islam (paying the jizya) or death. There is no fourth choice. What other "religion" has this feature, Drew?
Perhaps Cain could've been more artful, Drew, but it is you who are completely, utterly, clueless.
http://tinyurl.com/6c854u8

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama, mmmm-mmmm-mmmm at July 17, 2011 08:07 PM (xN4os)

994 Let me make it even simpler for jeff and the Farmer, amendments that don't incur any necessary expenditures can be viewed as NEGATIVE. They cost nothing and can be followed without any action taken.

Those amendments that necessarily incur expenditures on the government's part (in fulfilling them) are to be viewed as POSITIVE charters. These amendments cannot be fulfilled without an expenditure - without an action by the government.

I don't know how much more simply I can frame this situation for you.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 08:07 PM (G/MYk)

995 Please point out where I said that I'd have a
problem with profiling young Arab men at airports.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 07:48 PM (P8oOy)

Again, you believe Islam can be fought within the boundaries of liberalism, I do not. But if you're wrong people will die and our country will be weakened. I think those are compelling reasons to amend our constitution.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 08:07 PM (GZitp)

996 Screw you, Happy Birthday! You infidel dog! I keeeel you!

Posted by: Joyous Ramadamadingdong ePub at July 17, 2011 08:08 PM (xcBkZ)

997 Why do so many here go along with the leftist project to expand the power of the Federal government (through deliberate miss-reading and judicial activism) to reach down into local communities? (Rhetorical, I know the answer). But so much was deliberately left to the states and local communities for a reason.

And I happen to be a paid up member of the American Short Sleeve Association - motto "The right to bare arms".

Posted by: Brett_McS at July 17, 2011 08:08 PM (iA6nz)

998 Posted by: Brett_McS at July 17, 2011 08:08 PM (iA6nz)

For the THIRD time...does the 2nd Amendment act on states or not?

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 08:09 PM (dw7rB)

999 ha

Posted by: toby928™ at July 17, 2011 08:10 PM (GTbGH)

1000 So, based on the above comments we can
conclude that:

1) Islam is a religion
2) Islam can build
mosques wherever they want and no one can stop them as long as it has a Wal-Mart attached
3) Islam isn't
a threat but if it was that's ok as long as they only hate us in
secret
4) If they kill anybody or build a bomb, that's a crime but
only the individuals involved can be prosecuted and not all Muslims
are at fault
5) Working towards Sharia law is compatable with the
Constitution
6) Juries predated the Constitution
7) We can
profile young Arab men (I prefer women myself)
We all gonna
drown in our own blood
9) Herman Cain is despicable
10) There's
an American Nazi party so there

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 17, 2011 08:11 PM (JEvSn)

1001 993
So no takers on what other rights American Muslims don't enjoy like the
rest of us?

Come on guys....how the fuck are you going to save
America unless you have a whole list of ways to rip up the Constitution?
Why do you guys hate America so much you can't list even one other
right we need to prevent Muslims from exercising unless we vote on it
first?


Posted by: DrewM.
at July 17, 2011 08:06 PM (dw7rB)

What the hell are you talking about? Restricting people from practicing and spreading an ideology that's ultimate goal is our destruction isn't the same as what you're saying.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 08:11 PM (GZitp)

1002 For the THIRD time...does the 2nd Amendment act on states or not?

Not even.

Posted by: Sonia Sotomayor at July 17, 2011 08:12 PM (JEvSn)

1003 Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 08:11 PM (GZitp)

So name the rights you'd restrict Muslim from practicing.

List 'em please.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 08:12 PM (dw7rB)

1004 ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION.
Islam is a totalitarian religious ideology.
Thanks for clearing that up for us. It's not a religion, just a religious ideology. Got it.
In other news, water is not wet, it is a liquid that causes wetness.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 08:13 PM (WRW1S)

1005 It looks like things are starting to die down a bit over here.

All out of acid and viagra?

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 08:14 PM (piMMO)

1006 What the hell are you talking about? Restricting people from practicing
and spreading an ideology that's ultimate goal is our destruction isn't
the same as what you're saying.

So you want to tell Muslims that they can't practice Islam, but you don't want to deny them their rights? huh?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 08:16 PM (s7mIC)

1007 So name the rights you'd restrict Muslim from practicing. List 'em please.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 08:12 PM (dw7rB)
Would you have a problem if Cain said that he wasn't going to bring any communists into his administration, or leftists? islam is a political ideology as they are, so why are you bothered by someone not wanting muslims in his administration? You were big on the stupid KKK comparisons, let 'er rip.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 08:17 PM (G/MYk)

1008 So name the rights you'd restrict Muslim from
practicing. List 'em please.

Posted by: DrewM.
at July 17, 2011 08:12 PM (dw7rB)

Supporting the spread of Jihadism and Sharia. Because both those beliefs are incompatible with our culture and way of life. And you cannot separate them from Islam, that's the whole point. If they wish to practice that, they have no business being our country, there are Islamic countries where they are free to practice it, let them go there.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 08:17 PM (GZitp)

1009 What other "religion" has this feature, Drew?

A religion doesn't necessarily cease to be a religion just because it has a feature that is not found in other religions. Is Hinduism a non-religion just because it features gods that aren't found in other religions?

Nobody in this thread is arguing that Islam is, in totality, a nice peaceful group of folks that are totally in harmony with American tradition. We're arguing that people have rights, and you can't just deny them these rights because they happen to belong to a group that happens to be on your shit list.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 08:18 PM (P8oOy)

1010
"Thanks for clearing that up for us. It's not a religion, just a religious ideology. Got it."
Another clueless person. You didn't watch the link.
Sorry, I forgot to give it the full title. Islam is a religious, legal, political, economic, social and military totalitarian ideology. The religious aspect is the only one you apparently see. For those of us that pay attention, we see the full spectrum.People like us haveseen it since about the 9th century.
Open your eyes.

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama, mmmm-mmmm-mmmm at July 17, 2011 08:19 PM (xN4os)

1011 So you want to tell Muslims that they can't practice
Islam, but you don't want to deny them their rights? huh?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 08:16 PM (s7mIC)

They can practice it in any number of Islamic nations.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 08:19 PM (GZitp)

1012 Again, you believe Islam can be fought within the boundaries of
liberalism, I do not. But if you're wrong people will die and our
country will be weakened. I think those are compelling reasons to amend
our constitution.

I was unaware that profiling on the basis of age and race was within the boundaries of liberalism.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 08:20 PM (P8oOy)

1013 Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 08:17 PM (GZitp)

So you can't name one.

Maybe next time Cain is on FNC he'll come up with one for you.


Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 08:20 PM (dw7rB)

1014 We're arguing that people have rights, and you can't
just deny them these rights because they happen to belong to a group
that happens to be on your shit list.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 08:18 PM (P8oOy)
No. We're arguing over whether:1) islam is a religion (LOL) or a political ideology, like communism?2) Is islam in a war, generally and widely, against the US and the West, whether we acknowledge it or not?3) Whether islam outside of the US is entitled to the priveleges we extend to normal religions, outside of our Constitution?

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 08:21 PM (G/MYk)

1015 So you can't name one.Maybe next time Cain
is on FNC he'll come up with one for you.Posted by: DrewM.
at July 17, 2011 08:20 PM (dw7rB)

I just named two, don't pretend I didn't.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 08:22 PM (GZitp)

1016 So name the rights you'd restrict Muslim from practicing.

The right for me not to break a broom handle off in their asses.




Posted by: Duke Nukem at July 17, 2011 08:22 PM (xcBkZ)

1017 Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 08:22 PM (GZitp)

Where? Seriously, I don't see it.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 08:23 PM (dw7rB)

1018
"Is Hinduism a non-religion just because it features gods that aren't found in other religions?"
You guys are morons. And I don't mean that in the nice, AOSHQ kinda-way.
Does Hinduism havereligious, legal, political, economic, social and military aspects? Does Hinduism not allow for the mere existence of other religions?
Didn't think so. Clueless. Islam is not a religion.

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama, mmmm-mmmm-mmmm at July 17, 2011 08:23 PM (xN4os)

1019 and, of course, you and jeff were arguing that the VI amendment states that Congress will make no law restricting the natural appearance and operation of juries and trials. They are just everywhere, like my ability to speak, and it is only (so you two claim) that the government is not allowed to snuff out these wild juries.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 08:24 PM (G/MYk)

1020 Posted by: Duke Nukem at July 17, 2011 08:22 PM (xcBkZ)

Hush, the adults and progressoverpeace are talking here.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 08:25 PM (dw7rB)

1021
Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 08:21 PM (G/MYk)
Ah, now I understand. You don't speak English. I was talking about what we're arguing (i.e., the argument we're putting forward), not what we're arguing over (i.e., the issue being discussed).I'm afraid this blog is mostly frequented by English speakers, and I don't really speak any other language fluently enough to have this kind of discussion in it. (I speak a little Spanish, but it's been a long time, and these days I'm pretty much down to "Where is the bathroom?" and "A beer, please."

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 08:26 PM (P8oOy)

1022 We're arguing that people have rights, and you can't just deny them these rights because they happen to belong to a group that happens to be on your shit list.
Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 08:18 PM (P8oOy)

Of course you can. Ask any Japanese-American older than 65.

Posted by: nati at July 17, 2011 08:26 PM (QCO1w)

1023 Anyone can be a constitutional scholar, because the US constitution is a simple and readable document. What people mean by "constitutional scholar" these days is someone who is familiar with, and probably on-board with, all the distortions and cruft that have grown up around it under decades of activism by the left. I don't even want to know about that stuff. Unless we get back to the original meanings we are doomed. End of story.

Posted by: Brett_McS at July 17, 2011 08:27 PM (iA6nz)

1024 and these days I'm pretty much down to "Where is the bathroom?" and "A beer, please."
Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 08:26 PM (P8oOy)
Not necessarily in that order I presume.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 08:27 PM (dw7rB)

1025 >>>Let me make it even simpler for jeff and the Farmer, amendments that
don't incur any necessary expenditures can be viewed as NEGATIVE. They
cost nothing and can be followed without any action taken. >>>Those
amendments that necessarily incur expenditures on the government's part
(in fulfilling them) are to be viewed as POSITIVE charters. These
amendments cannot be fulfilled without an expenditure - without an
action by the government.

Oh dear...okay, one more try.

What you have described above might be ONE WAY of describing a "positive" vs. "negative" breakdown in the amendments to the Bill of Rights.

It is not, however, the one that people are talking about (and by people I mean all legal scholars, as well as the Founding Fathers who also used the term, and me and Farmer Joe) when THEY use the concept "positive liberty" vs. "negative liberty." We are using a different definition, and one whose meaning trumps yours because:

1.) The definition I'm referring to has been in common usage when discussing the nature of American freedoms as set forth in the Bill of Rights for literally over two centuries, and therefore has a meaning that is widely understood (by everyone except, it seems, you)

2.) I have never seen, in the entire time I have spent studying American political theory and practicing constitutional law, a definition like yours. (And yes, I am a lawyer who Does This Shit For A Living...which only matters insofar as it means that I'm not just pulling this crap out of my ass) It's literally orthogonal, so unrelated to any other relevant questions used to analyze the political function of the Bill of Rights, that it is meaningless as an analytical framework. You might think it's a clever distinction, but it isn't really -- what does value does the idea of "government expenditures" have a means of classifying political rights? It's as random and unrelated to the true underlying relationship between law and liberty as, say, classifying dogs based not on breed but rather on the color of their paws.

Therefore, once more with feeling: When legal scholars (or the Founders, for that matter) are talking about "negative" vs. "positive" liberties, what are referring to is the idea that some nations (or states, or communities) had charters of POSITIVE liberties, in the sense that they were written from the implicit position that the State controlled all political power and rights, and merely deigned to grant some privileges (and thus were "positive," in the sense that they were stipulated and specified and enumerated).

By contrast, the U.S. Constitution was quite innovative in the way that it defined the government's power in exactly the opposite way, a way that would never have been conceived of by a king or an all-powerful sovereign, but only could have been come up with by a group of Enlightenment philosophes who had been imbibing hefty quantities of John Stuart Mill: as a charter of negative liberties, a document that didn't reserve all power to the government and merely dole out concessions to the citizens but rather started from the assumption that liberties rights already inhered with the citizens, and therefore that the government needed to be restrained from infringing them in certain sacrosanct areas.

What makes the Constitution so unique, so revolution, is that unlike any such document before it, it operated not upon the citizens, but the GOVERNMENT. It does say "citizens are granted the right to freedom of speech and religion," but rather "the right to freedom of speech and religion [i.e. a right that's presumed by the wording to already exist] shall not be infringed." That's why it's described as "negative" -- it doesn't grant rights to people, it places restrictions on the government.

Okay, I've explained this as thoroughly and numbingly as I'm capable of. If you don't get it at this point, I give up.

P.S. The Constitution is really fucking brilliant, by the way. I mean, it's impossible not to study it, and the way the framers put it together, and not fall in love with America all over again. That's why it's worth taking the time to explain this shit to you, and why it's worth defending its principles against idiots like the "Nuke Mecca" crowd.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 08:29 PM (hIWe1)

1026 Posted by: Brett_McS at July 17, 2011 08:27 PM (iA6nz)

Still no answer about the 2nd Amendment and the states?

Why, it's almost as if you did answer me you'd either blow up your anti-incorporation stance or find yourself in the position for arguing against a national right to bear arms.

Sucks when your idiotic talking points clash with your ideology, huh?



Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 08:29 PM (dw7rB)

1027
Of course you can. Ask any Japanese-American older than 65.

I regard that as an enormous injustice that we perpetrated on those people. A couple of things to keep in mind in these kinds of discussions:

1. Just because it happened doesn't necessarily mean that anyone thinks it was right, and

2. Just because the Supreme Court has ruled on something doesn't necessarily mean that anyone thinks it was the right ruling.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 08:30 PM (P8oOy)

1028 Islam is a religious, legal, political, economic, social and military totalitarian ideology.
But to an extent, most "religions" are a legal, political, economic, social and whatever the hell other label you want to give them outfit that also have an ideology.

Don’t believe me (of course you don’t). Lets take one: Catholics. And I am not picking on the Catholics. I married one. I raise my 3 children as Catholics. I just happen to have a little more familiarity with Catholics.

Political: I guess all the pro-life stuff I get at mass around election times are just a coincidence. I guess that voter guide I get at mass around election time is a public service announcement, because the Catholic church has no political agenda.

Economic: Please don’t start me on that “give to the poor” stuff I put up with constantly from the pulpit.

Social: I gotta explain this one………really?

Legal: Go ask any divorced Catholic who couldn’t get an annulment if they agree with the proposition that the Church has no “legal” purpose. I would suggest asking that question a good 20 feet away. Or maybe by text. Might be safer.

The point: the vast majority of religions have elements of what you claim disqualifies Islam as a religion.

If not having these elements is a qualification for being a religion, then the only true religion is the Mallamutt Church of Sunday Morning Watching ESPN on the Couch. Call me Father Mallamutt. And go forth and sin no more, my son, for I grant thee absolution.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life and aspiring Sports Reporter at July 17, 2011 08:30 PM (OWjjx)

1029 Supporting the spread of Jihadism and Sharia. Because both those beliefs are incompatible with our culture and way of life.

Why stop at Muslims? Why not kick out all the theocrats?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 08:32 PM (s7mIC)

1030 What people mean by "constitutional scholar" these days is someone who is familiar with, and probably on-board with, all the distortions and cruft that have grown up around it under decades of activism by the left.
People like Robert Bork. Who is frequently referred to as a Constitutional Scholar.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life and aspiring Sports Reporter at July 17, 2011 08:33 PM (OWjjx)

1031 Ack. Correction:

It DOESN'T say "citizens are granted the right to freedom of
speech and religion," but rather "the right to freedom of speech and
religion [i.e. a right that's presumed by the wording to already exist] shall not be infringed."

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 08:33 PM (hIWe1)

1032 Why not kick out all the theocrats?

We got timewarped to ancient Judah? Man, we are so fucked.

Posted by: Sonia Sotomayor at July 17, 2011 08:34 PM (JEvSn)

1033 If not having these elements is a qualification for being a religion,
then the only true religion is the Mallamutt Church of Sunday Morning
Watching ESPN on the Couch. Call me Father Mallamutt. And go forth and
sin no more, my son, for I grant thee absolution.

Good evening, Father Mutt.

When does confession begin?

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 08:35 PM (piMMO)

1034 I believe in gravity induced Islam - from at open cargo door of a C-130 at 20,000 feet.

Posted by: Soona at July 17, 2011 08:36 PM (45Uzs)

1035 >>>Anyone can be a constitutional scholar, because the US constitution is a
simple and readable document. What people mean by "constitutional
scholar" these days is someone who is familiar with, and probably
on-board with, all the distortions and cruft that have grown up around
it under decades of activism by the left. I don't even want to know
about that stuff. Unless we get back to the original meanings we are
doomed. End of story.

Maybe it's true that anyone can be a constitutional scholar. But based on the evidence of your comments, it's pretty obvious that not everyone actually is.

Welcome to Brett McS's America, where the right to keep and bear arms doesn't apply to the states, and where unreasonable searches and seizures, bans on freedom of religion, speech association, and the elimination of jury trials are all Okey Dokey Super Constitutional just so long they're not done by the federal government!

Anyone want to live in that America? Anyone?

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 08:37 PM (hIWe1)

1036 Charles, is that you?

Posted by: Spacejesus at July 17, 2011 08:38 PM (BbH5o)

1037 Sorry, I forgot to give it the full title. Islam is a religious, legal, political, economic, social and military totalitarian ideology. The religious aspect is the only one you apparently see. For those of us that pay attention, we see the full spectrum. People like us have seen it since about the 9th century.
Open your eyes.
Please, do share with us the New and Improved definition of "religion" that exists solely in your head. The way it's defined everywhere else, Islam is without question a religion but apparently you're operating under an alternate definition that the rest of us haven't been made privy to.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 08:39 PM (WRW1S)

1038 Going back to the star-gazing thread. JeffB is still taking a dump over here.

Posted by: Soona at July 17, 2011 08:39 PM (45Uzs)

1039 Hush, the adults... are talking here.

If this is what you call "adults"... no wonder America is in trouble of being overrun by enemies foreign and domestic. Pretending the enemy isn't real, organized, and actively pursuing an objective - doesn't make the problem go away.

I came to kick ass and chew bubblegum, and I'm all out of gum - but looks like you have plenty. Is that 'Pansy' flavor you have there?

Posted by: Duke Nukem at July 17, 2011 08:39 PM (xcBkZ)

1040 >>>I regard that as an enormous injustice that we perpetrated on those
people. A couple of things to keep in mind in these kinds of
discussions:>>>1. Just because it happened doesn't necessarily mean that anyone thinks it was right, and >>>2. Just because the Supreme Court has ruled on something doesn't necessarily mean that anyone thinks it was the right ruling.

Yeah. Korematsu is actually still good law, technically speaking. Anyone want to stand up for that ruling, though?

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 08:40 PM (hIWe1)

1041
Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life and aspiring Sports Reporter at July 17, 2011 08:30 PM (OWjjx)
You are free to leave the Catholic Church at any time. Really. They won't make you worship. They don't seek to kill, forcibly convert or tax non-Catholics. Because the Catholic Church is not totalitarian like Islam. No religion is totalitarian like the "religion" of Islam.
Really, go read about it. Watch the video I posted. Search "Answering Muslims."
Knowledge is power.

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama, mmmm-mmmm-mmmm at July 17, 2011 08:40 PM (xN4os)

1042 What people mean by "constitutional scholar" these days is someone
who is familiar with, and probably on-board with, all the distortions
and cruft that have grown up around it under decades of activism by the
left.



To some extent I agree with this. I dated a lawyer for a while who spent a good deal of time trying to convince me that "interstate commerce" didn't necessarily mean transactions that occur across state lines, and that I didn't understand this because I wasn't legally trained. My argument that the only parts of the Constitution that, according to lawyers, mean something considerably more subtle than what they actually say are those parts that, interpreted broadly, allow for increased regulation and taxation, was "cynical" according to her.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 08:41 PM (P8oOy)

1043 List 'em please
1) the right to call murdering their daughters and wives "honor" killings
2) THE RIGHT TO RAPE
3) the right to plunder the infidel
4) the right to submit to allah or be killed
5) the right to kill jews
i could go on, but whats the point....

Posted by: moslim brohood at July 17, 2011 08:41 PM (4FHNs)

1044 off sock

Posted by: moslim brohood at July 17, 2011 08:42 PM (4FHNs)

1045 "I'll stand with the Constitution."

Uh, no Drew, you sanctimonious blowhard, you won't. You'll stand with the SCOTUS created doctrine of incorporation that forces the Bill of Rights (and all of the related SCOTUS caseblaw) on local governments.

Posted by: Hinky at July 17, 2011 08:44 PM (nxErQ)

1046 We got timewarped to ancient Judah? Man, we are so fucked.

Well do you think Muslims are the only ones who want to impose a religious book as the secular law of the land?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 08:45 PM (s7mIC)

1047 Are they giving away merit badges for conservatives prepared to storm the barracades in defense of the rights of islam? Did the left run out of lawyers?

America is not a First Amendment virgin. There have been numerous institutional and individual instances in which religious freedom has been abridged in the past including riots against Mormons, rights of parents to withhold medical treatment, refusal of blood transfusions by Jehovah's Witnesses, determination of Con. Objectors during the draft etc etc etc

Almost all of these have been adjudicated over time by the legal system, generally without the need for conservatives rending their garments and beating their breasts and demanding that advocates for one side or the other be SHUNNED AND SILENCED.

Cain has a right to his opinion. He may not prevail in court; in fact it may not even get that far. But where I would like to see us focus is defending the rights of Christians to disagree with homosexuality without being censured or silenced, and the right of Christians in Egypt and elsewhere to live without being murdered for their religion. Let the izzies defend their rights; they sure as heck are not going to defend ours except in rare cases. And here's a missing clue -- the left does not give a ratsass if conservatives defend islamic rights. Our noose will not be relaxed for good behavior.

So stop wasting our time ripping into Cain on this. He wasn't my top choice, he still isn't, fine to disagree with him but lose the bombast and find something more important to talk about.

Posted by: DaMav at July 17, 2011 08:46 PM (QNU76)

1048 Uh, no Drew, you sanctimonious blowhard, you won't. You'll stand with
the SCOTUS created doctrine of incorporation that forces the Bill of
Rights (and all of the related SCOTUS caseblaw) on local governments.

Are you actually, seriously arguing that states can deny you constitutional rights that the federal constitution guarantees? I mean, I guess I can see that position as a technical thing, but what's the point of having rights if some other government can deny them to you?

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 08:47 PM (P8oOy)

1049
"Please, do share with us the New and Improved definition of "religion" that exists solely in your head. The way it's defined everywhere else, Islam is without question a religion but apparently you're operating under an alternate definition that the rest of us haven't been made privy to."
Name for me the other religion that is totalitarian and has been from its very inception. Name another religion that features the execution of gays, forced clitorectomies and capital punishment for those who leave said religion. We've only known this for twelve centuries or so. Name another "religion" like it.
The more you study Islam, the more you can distinguish it as a totalitarian ideology. What it is not, and never has been, is a religion.

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama, mmmm-mmmm-mmmm at July 17, 2011 08:47 PM (xN4os)

1050 Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it. Look advanced to more added agreeable from you! However, how could we communicate?

Posted by: A Stolen Life Audio Book at July 17, 2011 08:48 PM (RBINN)

1051 Are they giving away merit badges for conservatives prepared to storm the barracades in defense of the rights of islam? Did the left run out of lawyers?
It's not a matter of defending Islam. It's a matter of defending the Constitution from those who would wipe their ass with it the moment it benefits those they dislike.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 08:49 PM (WRW1S)

1052 Are they giving away merit badges for conservatives prepared to storm
the barracades in defense of the rights of islam? Did the left run out
of lawyers?

Arguing for a strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights is a leftist position? Funny, I kind of thought the conservative position was to regard the Constitution as meaning what it says.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 08:49 PM (P8oOy)

1053 Guys, stop saying Islam isn't a religion. Its a religion, it just isn't only a religion. Seriously, the fact that many members of the faith also build a total government and totalitarian system doesn't make it not also a religion.


Its just long past time we had a real discussion about what makes a religion too toxic to permit in a free society - because, despite Drew's comments, that can happen even with the 1st amendment protections.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 17, 2011 08:50 PM (r4wIV)

1054 Posted by: Hinky at July 17, 2011 08:44 PM (nxErQ)

Hey, if you want to defend NY and Chicago's gun control laws on the grounds of federalism, you're certainly welcome to.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 08:50 PM (dw7rB)

1055 Name for me the other religion that is totalitarian and has been from its very inception. Name another religion that features the execution of gays, forced clitorectomies and capital punishment for those who leave said religion. We've only known this for twelve centuries or so. Name another "religion" like it.
Different religions are different.
Answer the question- what is your personal definition of "religion"?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 08:51 PM (WRW1S)

1056 My Muslim instincts make me think about killing Americans all day long.

Posted by: Guy Behind 7-11 Counter at July 17, 2011 08:51 PM (mRKwV)

1057 where the right to keep and bear arms doesn't apply
to the states, and where unreasonable searches and seizures, [blah blah blah]

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 08:37 PM (hIWe1)
Oh stop. None of this has to do with incorporation. The 2nd amendment addresses a right of THE PEOPLE. It is beyond the states or the federal government. It is an individual right. Incorporation has nothing to do with it.
Likewise, the 4th: "The right of the people". These both address direct rights of individuals which cannot be abrogated by any government, local, state, or federal.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 08:52 PM (G/MYk)

1058 I am unable to have my own thoughts...Bin Laden still condoms them from beyond the grave, as he does every single non Jew originating from the middle east

Posted by: Guy Behind 7-11 Counter at July 17, 2011 08:53 PM (mRKwV)

1059 Its just long past time we had a real discussion about what makes a
religion too toxic to permit in a free society - because, despite Drew's
comments, that can happen even with the 1st amendment protections.

I can, to some extent, agree with this. I would love to see a consensus emerge as to what constitutes a strain of Islam that could be compatible with the West. (Yes, it would probably involve a pretty major reformation.)

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 08:53 PM (P8oOy)

1060 "...many Americans have succumbed to the fiction that Islam is a "religion of peace" and that worldwide jihad is merely a pipedream of the radical few. The litmus test for Islam as a "religion of peace" will be the day when churches and synagogues can be built throughout the Muslim world and when Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims can practice their religious beliefs openly and freely in all Muslim countries...and not before. Since many mosques are known to be breeding grounds for jihadist murderers, Muslims should be prohibited from building mosques anywhere in the West.

Islam must be viewed, not as the world's second largest religious denomination, but as an invasive alien culture that has not evolved appreciably beyond its 7th century roots.

If Islam cannot be banned from our shores on the basis that it is far more than just another religious sect seeking religious freedom...that it is, in fact, an invading force that occupies and holds territory by terrorizing and out-populating the indigenous peoples...then T.B Macaulay was right when, in 1859, he characterized the US Constitution as being "all sail and no anchor." Instead, we must acknowledge that our Constitution invites such liberalization of 1st Amendment principles as to be a self-destructing instrument. If it does not allow us to protect ourselves from a religious sect that seeks not religious freedom, but social and political dominion through violent means, then it will not allow us to protect ourselves from the drunken savagery of a rampaging motorcycle gang. It's all a matter of scale."

http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/987

Posted by: Horatio at July 17, 2011 08:54 PM (TV9kz)

1061 to an extent, most "religions" are a legal, political, economic, social and whatever the hell other label you want to give them outfit that also have an ideology.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life and aspiring Sports Reporter at July 17, 2011 08:30 PM (OWjjx)

A Religion can be anything, the fact that a group of people believe XYZ is God's commandment has nothing to do with the properties of XYZ.

So that's a bad analysis on your part.

Islam can be judged by us based on how countries with Muslim majorities behave, and by how Muslim minorities behave in non-Muslim countries.

Terrorism and Jihad are the rule, not an exception.

The exception is a couple of former USSR states which are mildly Islamic but peaceful, and perhaps Albania. Other than that, all Islamic nations are vile and hostile.

Why do you believe "our" Muslims HAVE to become an exception, rather than a rule? Isn't it bigotry of soft expectations?

Posted by: nati at July 17, 2011 08:54 PM (QCO1w)

1062 Likewise, the 4th: "The right of the people". These both address direct rights of individuals which cannot be abrogated by any government, local, state, or federal.

Whereas the First is at the mercy of politicians. Gotcha.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 08:54 PM (P8oOy)

1063 >>>Uh, no Drew, you sanctimonious blowhard, you won't. You'll stand with
the SCOTUS created doctrine of incorporation that forces the Bill of
Rights (and all of the related SCOTUS caseblaw) on local governments.

You're goddamn right I'll stand with the concept of incorporating the Bill of Rights to the states. I find it utterly incomprehensible that anyone wouldn't. I mean, you're SERIOUSLY arguing that the First Amendment shouldn't apply to you or me in our daily lives? That the states have a right to restrict our freedom of speech or religion?

I'll be the first person in line to criticize huge swathes of ConLaw jurisprudence as relates to things like the Commerce Clause (which isn't part of the Bill of Rights, by the way) or bullshit 'penumbral' elaborations on the Bill of Rights (like the "right" to abortion, which was found in an equally non-existent "right to privacy" through a series of benighted Warren Court-era decisions. But to stand there and say that, hey, the Bill of Rights shouldn't apply to anything but the federal government...that's crazy-talk.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 08:54 PM (hIWe1)

1064 Cain's problem here is that the challange of Islam to the West's cultural, economic, and political traditions; ignoring the spiritual aspects, isn't in the job description of the President.

That debate needs to be engaged by VDH, Spenger, the Pope, etc.

I don't have a problem censoring those who espouse the non-spiritual aspects Islam, what we need is a practical tool to seperate the religious from the profane.

Posted by: Jean at July 17, 2011 08:55 PM (/FT0A)

1065 Uh, no Drew, you sanctimonious blowhard, you won't. You'll stand with the SCOTUS created doctrine of incorporation that forces the Bill of Rights (and all of the related SCOTUS caseblaw) on local governments.
How dare the Supreme Court interpret the 14th Amendment the exactly how itwas intented to be interpreted:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 08:55 PM (WRW1S)

1066 So whats wrong with killing a religion? You dont hear of the Zoarasterians or pagans orthe animists or the christians of north africa or bizantium complaining , do you?

Posted by: moslim brohood at July 17, 2011 08:56 PM (4FHNs)

1067 Curse your Christian god and his auto correct iPhone texting...should have been controls, not condoms...I obviously don't use those

Posted by: Guy Behind 7-11 Counter at July 17, 2011 08:56 PM (mRKwV)

1068 Regardless what we think of it, a billion or so people think islam is a religion. So it's a religion. We have to deal with it as such.

Until they have a change from within to soften and do away with some of the more disgusting aspects of it the best we can do is play whack-a-mole with the craziest of them as they show themselves.

On a sadder note, No good comes of these discussions anymore. It just becomes a huge brawl with everyone kicking and biting.

It is instructive to learn who among us believes they are above criticism and infallible. The ones who merely tolerate us little people from their thrones on high.





Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 08:56 PM (ECjvn)

1069 Whereas the First is at the mercy of politicians. Gotcha.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 08:54 PM (P8oOy)
The first only addresses Congress. The States each have their own versions of the first and that is what they are bound to.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 08:56 PM (G/MYk)

1070 lol, yeah, disagreeing is one thing. I disagree with Cain on this -- now how 'bout dat deficit? lol

Having a full blown in public hissy about the rights of islam? Sounds more leftist than anything else but I'm bored by this bs already. Not sure who the Drama Queens are trying to impress but you have a right to your opinion just like Cain so enjoy it.

Posted by: DaMav at July 17, 2011 08:56 PM (QNU76)

1071 It's a matter of defending the Constitution from those who would wipe
their ass with it the moment it benefits those they dislike.

You mean, like defending it against the totalitarian objectives of mooslims?

Posted by: Duke Nukem at July 17, 2011 08:57 PM (xcBkZ)

1072 Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 08:55 PM (WRW1S)

But that's not the REAL Constitution or something.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 08:58 PM (dw7rB)

1073 Whereas the First is at the mercy of politicians. Gotcha.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 08:54 PM (P8oOy)
Though peaceable assembly and redress of grievances are explicitly individual rights of the people addressed in the 1st.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 08:58 PM (G/MYk)

1074 961 is right on. I respect some commenters from both sides and probably don't possess the knowledge that Drew, Jeff B, and PoP possess, but I bow to Mr Book in articulating my own thoughts so well. Can we apply the 14th to the first as we can the second? "Congress" is not specified in the Second.

Posted by: West Town at July 17, 2011 08:58 PM (knQcy)

1075 "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
Either you recognize evil, no matter how benign it masks itself, or you pretend to be so tolerant and enlightened that someday your daughters get to parade around everyday in a hefty bag costume or get raped simply because there is nothing wrong with it.Sounds great. You are not a bigot. Sleep well.

Posted by: Lord Humungus at July 17, 2011 08:58 PM (Yv6gq)

1076 I don't have a problem censoring those who espouse the non-spiritual
aspects Islam, what we need is a practical tool to seperate the
religious from the profane.

Yes, provided that such censorship is limited to kinds of things we normally censor (i.e., direct threats, conspiracies, incitement, etc.) And to this end, I'd love to see some American Muslims really start to talk about a reformation in Islam. I think it could be done.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 09:00 PM (P8oOy)

1077 On a sadder note, No good comes of these discussions anymore. It just becomes a huge brawl with everyone kicking and biting.It is
instructive to learn who among us believes they are above criticism and
infallible. The ones who merely tolerate us little people from their
thrones on high.

Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 08:56 PM (ECjvn)
Oh I dunno; I think Farmer Joe's made his points pretty effectively considering that I basically came to this disagreeing with him.

Posted by: Captain Hate at July 17, 2011 09:01 PM (zsvKP)

1078 It is instructive to
learn who among us believes they are above criticism and infallible. The
ones who merely tolerate us little people from their thrones on high.
Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 08:56 PM (ECjvn)

Oh the poor martyr!

You like the old lady in Holy Grail...bitching about being repressed when no such thing is happening. Who the fuck is acting like they above criticism and treating you like you're a little person?



Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 09:01 PM (dw7rB)

1079 >>>Oh stop. None of this has to do with incorporation.
The 2nd amendment addresses a right of THE PEOPLE. It is beyond the
states or the federal government. It is an individual right.
Incorporation has nothing to do with it.
>>>Likewise, the 4th: "The right of the people". These both address direct rights of individuals which cannot be abrogated by any government, local, state, or federal.

Okay, so what about the 1st amendment? That refers to the "right of the people" to peaceably assemble, exercise free speech and freedom of religion. But it also says "Congress shall make no law." So I suppose that it's strictly a federal-only thing?

Look, you can claim the Constitution means what you want it to mean 'til you're blue in the face. But you'd still be wrong as a matter of law. The fact is that, until after the Civil War, NONE of the amendments of the Bill of Rights were formally incorporated to the states. In other words, the distinction you claim to draw about "the people" or whatnot is a non-existent one in terms of legal doctrine. Moreover, the 2nd amendment wasn't even technically incorporated against the states until THREE YEARS AGO (in the DC v. Heller decision, praise Jesus). So the 2nd Amendment, which you just cited as obviously being an individual right for all Americans, was no such thing as far as state action was concerned until the SCOTUS finally put its foot down.

Many developments of constitutional law doctrine over the past hundred years have been silly, to say nothing of downright iniquitous (see my post above, about Commerce Clause jurisprudence, or various 'penumbral' interpretations of a right to privacy used to find a right to abortion). But incorporation? You cannot be a conservative, or a lover of liberty, and tell me this is a bad thing. Instead, you're just a guy who would trade federal authoritarianism for state local authoritarianism.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 09:02 PM (hIWe1)

1080 And to this end, I'd love to see some American
Muslims really start to talk about a reformation in Islam. I think it
could be done.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 09:00 PM (P8oOy)
Maybe I spoke too soon; good luck with that happening. The decentralization of Islam is what effectively prevents a reformation imo.

Posted by: Captain Hate at July 17, 2011 09:03 PM (zsvKP)

1081 What Muslim Leaders Say About Islam Dispels the Myth that Jihadists are a "Fringe" Element

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2010/10/what-muslim-leaders-say-about-islam.html

Posted by: Horatio at July 17, 2011 09:04 PM (TV9kz)

1082 Oh the poor martyr! You like the old lady in Holy
Grail...bitching about being repressed when no such thing is happening.
Who the fuck is acting like they above criticism and treating you like
you're a little person?

Drew, maybe I misunderstand, but I didn't get the feeling sifty was talking about you. I could be totally wrong.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 09:04 PM (piMMO)

1083 Oh the poor martyr! You like the old lady in Holy
Grail...bitching about being repressed when no such thing is happening.
Who the fuck is acting like they above criticism and treating you like
you're a little person?

Fuck you, ya fuckin drama queen. Don;t start poking me with your little spindly stick. When I reach a point where I need sympathy from the likes of you, your opinion and bunched panties will be the least of my worries.

I didn't say repressed, did I?

Interesting that you would pipe up when I didn't mention any names.

Get back on your fuckin high-horse and ride Cowboy.




Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 09:06 PM (ECjvn)

1084 Oh I dunno; I think Farmer Joe's made his points pretty effectively
considering that I basically came to this disagreeing with him.

Thank you! That may be the first time I've heard something like that in an Internet discussion.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 09:07 PM (P8oOy)

1085 Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 09:04 PM (piMMO)

I don't think he/she was either. I don't think I've said anything to him.

But there's always someone who plays the "poor little me" card. It just pisses me off.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 09:08 PM (dw7rB)

1086 "So I go by my own observations. You say "Muslims hate me and want to
kill me". I encounter many Muslims in my life who didn't kill me,
didn't appear to want to kill me, didn't seem to hate me, and, with some
of whom, I had pleasant conversations. In my experience your
hypothesis does not seem to be supported."

And I have no doubt that the majority of the Japanese on some hellhole in the Pacific would have preferred to be back in Japan.
Does that mean that you should have treated all of them all as Buddhist pacifists? If you go by the teachings of MUSLIMS THEMSELVES - unless you are also a believer - that woman is required to hate you. For some reason, we have people who won't give Muslims the courtesy of treating them as believing Muslims. It's as if you treated all Catholics as if they were all "ashes and palms" Catholics, and refused to believe that any of them were devote. I think a lot of this is nothing more than projection. People who don't take their own religions seriously - if they have any at all - simply refuse to believe that others take theirs seriously. People who refuse to believe that Muslims are truly Muslims are, in reality, racists.

Posted by: Mike Giles at July 17, 2011 09:08 PM (DbIwF)

1087 You like the old lady in Holy Grail...bitching about being repressed when no such thing is happening.

Drew, I think that is an old man, not an old woman. Time to call it a day. You won't change any more minds here.

Posted by: pep at July 17, 2011 09:09 PM (6TB1Z)

1088 Maybe I spoke too soon; good luck with that happening. The
decentralization of Islam is what effectively prevents a reformation
imo.

Yeah, I said "possible" not "easy." It seems preferable to suppression, anyway.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 09:09 PM (P8oOy)

1089 >>>Thank you! That may be the first time I've heard something like that in an Internet discussion.

I wish I could be as levelheaded in my posting as you are.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 09:09 PM (hIWe1)

1090 You won't change any more minds here.

Which I naturally assert just as someone admits to changing his mind.

Posted by: pep at July 17, 2011 09:10 PM (6TB1Z)

1091 Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 09:06 PM (ECjvn)

So who were you referring to when you wrote that? You must have some specific people in mind. I'm curious.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 09:10 PM (dw7rB)

1092 Which I naturally assert just as someone admits to changing his mind.

Heh.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 09:11 PM (P8oOy)

1093 Pleeeeease stop...........alluh b'Gak!.....behead me, behead me....just do it now......please?

Posted by: the chicken at July 17, 2011 09:11 PM (0GpN4)

1094 Posted by: pep at July 17, 2011 09:09 PM (6TB1Z)

I thought it was a guy playing a woman.

But you're right. It's Dennis the Peasant.


Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 09:13 PM (dw7rB)

1095 But there's always someone who plays the "poor little me" card. It just pisses me off.

You mean anyone who gets tired of your holier-than-thou condescension?

Seriously, Drew, fuck you. And you being "pissed off" concerns me like a cloudy fuckin day internet warrior.

And I'm a 38 year old man, just for your fuckin edification.




Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 09:13 PM (ECjvn)

1096 Muslims should be free to worship and build houses of worship.If they than commit any crime or conspire to commit any crime they should be punished like anyone else.They should also be held to the same moral and ethical standards as everyone else ie no polygamy etc.Again if they break the laws of this country they should be prosecuted.Do I like them?No.Do I trust them(in general)?No.Does it matter what I think?No.

Posted by: steevy at July 17, 2011 09:13 PM (AGQ6G)

1097 I'm curious

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if you were.

Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 09:14 PM (ECjvn)

1098 Muslims should be free to worship and build houses of worship.If they
than commit any crime or conspire to commit any crime they should be
punished like anyone else.They should also be held to the same moral and
ethical standards as everyone else ie no polygamy etc.Again if they
break the laws of this country they should be prosecuted.Do I like
them?No.Do I trust them(in general)?No.Does it matter what I think?No.

Exactly this. Very succinctly put.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 09:14 PM (P8oOy)

1099 1098 As far as building "houses of worship" ,the WTC(in the effectecd area mosque was a terrible public relations idea.Do they have a right?Yeah.Should they?No.Can they?Yeah.

Posted by: steevy at July 17, 2011 09:14 PM (AGQ6G)

1100 various 'penumbral' interpretations of a right to privacy used to find a right to abortion)

Aren't you using a "penumbral interpretation" to change the word Congress to Congress or the states in the 1st?

Posted by: Mr. Book at July 17, 2011 09:15 PM (L1sKL)

1101 Answer the question- what is your personal definition of "religion"?
A wrong that cannot be proven right. And piss on islam.
"Let (reverence for the law) become the political religion of the nation, ...."
Abraham Lincoln

Posted by: moslim brohood at July 17, 2011 09:15 PM (4FHNs)

1102 Posted by: steevy at July 17, 2011 09:13 PM (AGQ6G)

Oh sure 1098 comments later someone comes around and sums it all up.

Show off.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 09:16 PM (dw7rB)

1103 Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 09:13 PM (ECjvn)

I don't think (though I could be wrong) I addressed a single comment to you until you wrote that.

I may get snotty with some people but I try not to throw the first barb (though that's not always something I succeed at). Also, this thread doesn't exist in space. There are some folks I've been through this or similar fights with, so there's sometimes leftover antagonism.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 09:20 PM (dw7rB)

1104 "...tiny e-dick..."

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at July 17, 2011 06:54 PM (lGFXF)


What a lovely phrase.

Well done sir. Well done.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 17, 2011 09:20 PM (LH6ir)

1105 Still no answer about the 2nd Amendment and the states?

Passive voice. "Shall not be infringed". You see, the first amendment has a subject to the sentence, "Congress". Active voice. The second was "incorporated" from day 1. Not the first. It's English!
I'll say the same thing to you that I like to say to libby gun-grabbers.
If you don't like the 14th Amendment (or in their case, the 2nd),
repeal the fucker. It's been done before. Until then, it's the supreme
law of the land. Don't like it? Tough shit.

No it isn't. The doctrine of incorporation was invented by PSSTHTGTLS (people so stupid they had to go to law school) starting in the '20s.

It doesn't have to be repealed because it wasn't written into the 14th amendment in the first place. It isn't there.

Posted by: AmishDude at July 17, 2011 09:22 PM (73tyQ)

1106 Which I naturally assert just as someone admits to changing his mind.

Posted by: pep at July 17, 2011 09:10 PM (6TB1Z)
If that's me you're referring to, he didn't change my mind; I just thought he made his points well by admitting to current events which make this an issue where honest disagreements can exist while still adhering to his viewpoint. I can respect an opponent who does that without trying to get over on his temporary adversaries.

Posted by: Captain Hate at July 17, 2011 09:23 PM (zsvKP)

1107 They should also be held to the same moral and
ethical standards as everyone else ie no polygamy etc.

Nope. That violates equal protection for polygamists.

Posted by: Super-genius Supreme Court justice at July 17, 2011 09:23 PM (73tyQ)

1108 "BTW-I simply do not buy into the slight of hand that Islam isn't a religion and therefore is the same as a political ideology."

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 07:43 PM (dw7rB)


Work on your reading comprehension. It is by no means a slight [sic] of hand.

It is "sleight," by the way.

You had a run of several months where you didn't irritate me with your pompous, underhanded pronouncements of the flaws in other's arguments.

I guess that run is over.




Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 17, 2011 09:24 PM (LH6ir)

1109 The problem with being an advocate for the First Amendment is that you invariably end up defending people you really don't like. Do I like the Illinois Nazis? No. Should they have been allowed to march in Skokie? Yes. Do I like the Klan? No. Do they have a right to rally? Yes. Do I like truthers? No. Do they have a right to promote their vile theories? Yes. Do I like flag burners? No. Do they have a right to do it? Yes.

On the other hand, I know there are plenty of folks who would grab onto those exceptions we'd carve out in our rights, and twist them to only allow a very narrow range of what's permissible. Hell, on some college campuses, it's almost an offense to express a conservative idea, and there are plenty of people who would love to make that true off campus as well.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 09:25 PM (P8oOy)

1110 Holy shit.

Still?

Okay, but just wake me up when it's time to let some towelhead exercise his constitutional right to cut my head off.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 17, 2011 09:26 PM (Ve65I)

1111 1109 Well,yeah,this is a problem.Tolerance does NOT include bending over backward.Mormons had to change a tenet of their religion before Utah was admitted to the Union.

Posted by: steevy at July 17, 2011 09:27 PM (AGQ6G)

1112 When the credible surveys of muslims show a majority supporting terrorism and/or the application of sharia in the US, we have to stop allowing them to come here, and we must seek to keep them from "ghetto-izing", and we have to protect ourselves from their influence.

Look at the BILLIONS sucked out of our economy because of our PC habit of letting them move here and visit here. America was built by WASPs, and the less WASP-like the immigrant the more it changes us. Do we really hate the America that existed before we started importing 3rd world immigrants in mass numbers?

It isn't like only .1% of muslims support killing infidels, blasphemers and heretics, it is at least a huge minority in every country polled.


Posted by: Smarty at July 17, 2011 09:27 PM (U8Dcy)

1113 Well,yeah,this is a problem.Tolerance does NOT
include bending over backward.Mormons had to change a tenet of their
religion before Utah was admitted to the Union.

Posted by: steevy at July 17, 2011 09:27 PM (AGQ6G)



The Indonesian guy in the White House just happens to be the product of a polygamous, muslim family, interestingly ... with the half-brother in the refrigerator box and all.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 09:28 PM (G/MYk)

1114 Okay, but just wake me up when it's time to let some towelhead exercise his constitutional right to cut my head off.

Wouldn't you just prefer to sleep through that exercise?

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 09:29 PM (piMMO)

1115 I don't think (though I could be wrong) I addressed a single comment to you until you wrote that.
Just bear in mind that a fart stinks up a room regardless of where it's aimed.

I got no business telling you or anyone else how to write or behave, and you are far from the only condescending and over-righteous asshole on this thread. You aren't even close to unique in that. You just happened to pipe up and start pissing my direction.

You feel free to be as snotty and judgmental as you feel. It's my fault for letting it get to me.

Reasonable people can disagree about the MANY and LABYRINTHINE dangers faced by this nation and the methods for making them right.

My alarms go off when anyone appears to be smacking someone on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

Unless they are Ron Paul supporters. Fuck those guys.


Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 09:31 PM (ECjvn)

1116 On the conlaw tip, nati at 1024 has a point. Korematsu, bitches. There's still-valid (albeit universally condemned by the great and good) precedent that in extremis the government can carve out a chunk of the population and deprive them of substantially all rights and privileges, and the Supreme Court won't do shit.

All it takes is the military really, really wanting to do it, plus a World on Fire, a declaration of war and our closest brush with collectivism (aside: those who think Obama is the furthest left we've ever gone or could ever go don't know what the fuck you're talking about). Re-create the 1940s, and you can do whatever you want to Muslims under Korematsu.

The irony is, the modern court has granted this kind of carte blanche only to the military and the feds, precisely the opposite end of the spectrum from the concerns of local communities.

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 09:31 PM (nsxc+)

1117 Posted by: AmishDude at July 17, 2011 09:22 PM (73tyQ)


How do you get around the plain words of the 14th Amendment?

All persons born or naturalized
in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No
State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Not even Clarence Thomas makes the argument you do. He would have incorporated the 2nd under the "privileges or immunities" language vice "due process".

Why is he wrong in your mind?

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 09:32 PM (dw7rB)

1118 The mosque planned for Murfreesboro, TN is about 100 times bigger than it needs to be. It is funded by Saudi money and the actual persons involved in its creation are nearly all secret.

Middle Tennessee was forced to absorb tens of thousands of muslim "refugees" after the first gulf war. Our elite overlords thought that Nashville and its surrounds would be a peachy place to inject the fungus of islam without any input from the residents.

Now some shadowy figures with who knows what connections are building a mega-mosque and, once again, the residents have no recourse.

Posted by: Cooter at July 17, 2011 09:33 PM (C06Qq)

1119 "The mosque planned for Murfreesboro, TN is about 100 times bigger than it needs to be."

Then, fine. Block it for that reason. Let 'em sue and claim it's pretext.

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 09:34 PM (nsxc+)

1120 1120 Investigate,dig,sue.It's the American way of war.

Posted by: steevy at July 17, 2011 09:35 PM (AGQ6G)

1121 The real problem with the TN case seems to be that the mosque was put on a fast-track. It appears that the powers-that-be had no interest in the rough-and-tumble that would have accompanied a new Starbucks, let alone a church.

Islam has gotten the PC treatment because Muslims tend to kill people. Nobody cares about Hindu or Buddhist temples being built. Everytime there's a violent Muslim act, we all turn our heads and pretend we didn't see it. Hell, if Muslims would spend 1/10th of their time condemning their own rather than complaining about discrimination which is often overwhelmed by PC deference, we wouldn't have a problem.

But people who lived in mob neighborhoods liked the fact that the mafia was there. It made them feel powerful and protected.

Posted by: AmishDude at July 17, 2011 09:35 PM (73tyQ)

1122 @DrewM: Gratuitous name calling of a prominent conservative: check. The obligitory personal sob story: check. Doubling down and lashing out whencritizised: check.Liberalism, its a hell of a drug.

Posted by: MrPaulRevere at July 17, 2011 09:36 PM (OwqP6)

1123 Oops, didn't refresh for the last hour. Yes, JeffB, I guess I'll be That Guy "defending" Korematsu. Not "defending" it on the merits, definitely not, just saying

a) still valid
b) I'm not sure -- maybe you are? -- that in truly parallel conditions this Supreme Court wouldn't rule the same way. Lot more Frankfurters on this Court than Blacks.

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 09:36 PM (nsxc+)

1124 the need to protect against espionage outweighed Fred Korematsu's individual rights,
And they still do. And always will when faced with an internal enemy faction, to think otherwise is naive, no matter your persuation.

Posted by: moslim brohood at July 17, 2011 09:37 PM (4FHNs)

1125 oops, Black *wrote* Korematsu. Hugo, man, what the fuck?!

Fine, more Frankfurters than Jacksons.

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 09:38 PM (nsxc+)

1126 Posted by: MrPaulRevere at July 17, 2011 09:36 PM (OwqP6)

You can call it gratuitous, I think it's well earned considering what he said.

You don't care about my story, fine. It wasn't supposed to make anyone feel warm and fuzzy about Muslims but if people want to think that, whatever.

What you call "lashing out when criticized" I would call debate. I thought that's part of what we did here.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 09:39 PM (dw7rB)

1127 A larger issue in the Ground0 mosque is the favoritism (establishment) that project had before the light switch was thrown when comparrd to the small greek orthodox church that cant even get their calls returned.

Posted by: Jean at July 17, 2011 09:39 PM (/FT0A)

1128 Btw, as a veteran Drew-Jeff h8r, even I think the LGF stuff is stupid. Anyone getting banned for disagreeing? Then stow it.

Yeah, I know, "this is how it starts." RINO-Taqiyyah?

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 09:40 PM (nsxc+)

1129 "It wasn't supposed to make anyone feel warm and fuzzy about Muslims"

Uh-huh.

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 09:40 PM (nsxc+)

1130 1123 Right on.This is a huge problem.

Posted by: steevy at July 17, 2011 09:40 PM (AGQ6G)

1131 1129 Exactly.

Posted by: steevy at July 17, 2011 09:41 PM (AGQ6G)

1132 No
State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Not
even Clarence Thomas makes the argument you do. He would have
incorporated the 2nd under the "privileges or immunities" language vice
"due process". Why is he wrong in your mind?

Because he's a lawyer. All due respect to justice Thomas, lawyers think they know a lot more than they do. He also has to pretend precedent has meaning even when it's stupid because he wants his own decisions to stand.

The Second doesn't need to be incorporated because it's in the passive voice. The First is not an enumeration of rights. Properly understood, the first amendment is a restriction on the power of government. If you assert that it is a statement of rights, you misunderstand the whole purpose of the Constitution.


Posted by: AmishDude at July 17, 2011 09:42 PM (73tyQ)

1133 Just curious...

Let's say Casey Anthony wanted to build a daycare center in Tampa ... should the people of that community be allowed to deny her claim? Does she have a right to build there? Could the city be sued for discrimination?

My first instinct is yes, of course, communities should be able to determine -- so long as they don't discriminate based on color -- what kinds of things are allowed in their neighborhoods. Isn't that how the free market of ideas works? The good ones get accepted and the bad ones go away, right?

However, I'm not so sure after reading all of these comments. I'm conflicted.

Posted by: Legacy at July 17, 2011 09:42 PM (rjFpy)

1134
The legislation that I am about to sign provides
for a restitution payment to each of the 60,000 surviving Japanese-Americans
of the 120,000 who were relocated or detained. Yet no payment
can make up for those lost years. So, what is most important
in this bill has less to do with property than with honor. For
here we admit a wrong; here we reaffirm our commitment as a nation
to equal justice under the law.
-Ronald Reagan on signing the act which paid compensation to Japanese Americans interned during



Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 09:44 PM (dw7rB)

1135 Justice Thomas is right, by the way. Privileges & Immunities gets you everywhere you need to go and avoids a lot of other foolishness.

On the same tip, the Thirteenth Amendment should have been independent authority for civil rights, voting, etc. legislation, both then (1860s) and "now" (1960s). Yes, deriving all the latter from the second section of XIII is penumbral and fuzzy and loose, but the alternative to XIII.2 is XIV, the Mother of All Penumbras.

I guess it never would've flown. But whoever up top said the Fourteenth Amendment is dodgy has more than half a point. It's there, it functionally rebooted the whole megillah, it ain't going anywhere - but the ratification was shaaaaaady.

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 09:44 PM (nsxc+)

1136 Fuck the Japanese -stuff FDR said

Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 09:45 PM (ECjvn)

1137 @DrewM this is the definition of gratuitous: "This guy is not longer a joke". And your personal sob story is totally irrelavent. I am sick to death of personal sob stories, this is how Obamacare was sold to the nation.

Posted by: MrPaulRevere at July 17, 2011 09:45 PM (OwqP6)

1138 Let's say Casey Anthony wanted to build a daycare center in Tampa ...
should the people of that community be allowed to deny her claim? Does
she have a right to build there? Could the city be sued for
discrimination?

The city council would make her life hell, she'd have to fill out so many forms she'd have to hire people to get writer's cramp for her and nobody would call people protesting outside of the potential site bigots.

Posted by: AmishDude at July 17, 2011 09:47 PM (73tyQ)

1139 Posted by: AmishDude at July 17, 2011 09:42 PM (73tyQ)

Sorry but "he's a lawyer" is an insult not an argument.
Properly understood, the first amendment is a restriction on the power
of government. If you assert that it is a statement of rights, you
misunderstand the whole purpose of the Constitution.

Yes it is, which is why the criticism of Citizens United is stupid. It's not that corporations are people, it's that Congress simply can't write that law.

It doesn't mean that that restrictions was passed on to state governments through the 14th Amendment. We had just fought a war over the nature of the relationship of the states and the federal government after all.


Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 09:49 PM (dw7rB)

1140
"The constitution is not a suicide pact."
Yes it is. Particularly in its aspect of drawing from the Declaration of Independence. Remember this:
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection
of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes
and our sacred Honor."
YMMV, but that sure as heck reads as a suicide pact to me. Those men were willing to die to hold to those values.
For the Constitution, we either continue that and hold to those samevalues as expressed by the guaranteed rights, or we are very much committing "suicide" - even if our bodies are alive, our spirit as Americans is dead, and we will have killed it.
There is of course a concurrent obligation to defend those values from external assault and destruction, but not by voiding those rights"first". The principal of the supremacy of the law over religious doctrine is long established legal precedent in this country. Muslims are free to believe whatever they like, but their freedom of religion does not extend to violating our laws in any degree.
If we are so feeble as to be unable to defend those laws, according to the due process expected of us under the Constitution, then it is we who have committed suicide, not others who have committed homocide. We must accept our responsibility to keep this country and its values alive; we cannot casually cede that to others then blame them for failing to do our job.

Posted by: Sam at July 17, 2011 09:50 PM (V9Tsq)

1141 Under an Originalist understanding of the Constitution, the states can do this legally, just like they can establish a state church.

Being an agnostic myself, I don't like it, but it's true.

Posted by: MlR at July 17, 2011 09:51 PM (isNKI)

1142 Um, important clarification to my 1141 (Holy Shit!)
It doesn't mean that that restrictions was WASN'T passed on to state
governments through the 14th Amendment. We had just fought a war over
the nature of the relationship of the states and the federal government
after all.

Just a bit of difference in meaning.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 09:51 PM (dw7rB)

1143 "where unreasonable searches and seizures, bans on freedom of religion, speech & association, and the elimination of jury trials are all Okey Dokey Super Constitutional just so long they're not done by the federal government!

Anyone want to live in that America?"

At the cost of looser union? Maybe.

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 09:53 PM (nsxc+)

1144 -Ronald Reagan on signing the act which paid compensation to Japanese Americans interned during They did their time., not willingly, but not brutaly, as ours and did in bataan and elsewhere. but in the end, necessary.. Fuck your moral equilivance. Get back to me when muslims do the fucking same.

Posted by: moslim brohood at July 17, 2011 09:55 PM (4FHNs)

1145 Posted by: AmishDude at July 17, 2011 09:47 PM (73tyQ)

See, that's what I thought. It's about ideas. Why would anybody want such hateful shit in their community.

Posted by: Legacy at July 17, 2011 09:55 PM (rjFpy)

1146 I have a question for you Drew, if the Tennesee Muslims wanted to build a mosque, that was say10 times the size of the Vatican and that was denied would you support them?

Posted by: MrPaulRevere at July 17, 2011 09:55 PM (OwqP6)

1147 Under an Originalist understanding of the Constitution, the states can
do this legally, just like they can establish a state church.
Posted by: MlR at July 17, 2011 09:51 PM (isNKI)

Do you think Thomas would ok a state sponsored religion at the state level?

He's pretty much the only origialist on the court at the moment and I simply can't imagine him voting to up hold The Church of Illinois for example.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 09:56 PM (dw7rB)

1148 And no - inconvenient as it may be to the PC narrative - orthodox aka original Islam, is not compatible with either the constitution or individual liberty. It recognizes nothing beyond religious decree, at either the state or federal level. There is no public or private spheres as we understand them, only the religious. When Muslims are able to live in free societies, it is only because they are bad Muslims.

Posted by: MlR at July 17, 2011 09:57 PM (isNKI)

1149 Although XIII/XIV still cut down to the states. The reason why we gradually incorporated most of the BoR, all the criminal/trial stuff especially, was because states were being dicks in specifically racist ways, not because they were thuggish per se.

That's the irony - now that most of the racist poison has been purged from the system, it'd be nice to try federalism, but we can't, because the purging was accomplished at the (on balance necessary but still negative-consequence-generating) cost of state expansion across the board.

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 09:57 PM (nsxc+)

1150 I agree that Islam is not JUST a religion. It's a political/judicial ideology wrapped up in religious trappings. However even if that's the case. Towns should not be able to ban them anymore than they should be able to ban any other political organization from their town.

Posted by: Waste at July 17, 2011 09:58 PM (0Odpl)

1151 I am sorry to say I now get why certain independents and liberals say Republicans are all creepy Christians just waiting to impose their views on people using government.

Looks at the candidates...

1) Michelle Bachmann who's husband want to "pray away the gay." Now I would be okay with that, say, if it was just a program to help conflicted Christian gays choose absitence if their religious feelings were so strong...but then he goes and calls gays barbarians needing civilizing...

2) Herman Cain

I hope to God that Perry or Pawlenty get going stronger...Pawlenty may be a fundie, but I don't hear too much religious crazyness out of him. Perry, I have no idea.

You know, I have never heard Palin bring on any gonzo Christian talk. Maybe that's why I like her, and why the left goes crazy about her.

I guess if I start getting these vibes I get to vote for Romney. Thank you so-cons for forcing us to vote for the milque toast.

Posted by: sexypig at July 17, 2011 09:58 PM (zoo9h)

1152 They did their time., not willingly, but
not brutaly, as ours and did in bataan and elsewhere. but in the end,
necessary.. Fuck your moral equilivance. Get back to me when muslims do
the fucking same.
Posted by: moslim brohood at July 17, 2011 09:55 PM (4FHNs)

"They did their time"?

They were American citizens who were never charged with any crimes. You are pretty cavalier about sending innocent Americans to camps with no due process.

I really hope you never get control of any levers of powers.


Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 09:59 PM (dw7rB)

1153 I hate to break Godwins Law, but I have a question. Suppose that German fellow had framed his mainly political philosophy as a religion? With one or more transcendental beings, but with every other facet of his philosophy intact. Even though the US was at war with Germany during WW2, would the Constitution have allowed us to suppress the Church of Aryanism? Even though their loyalties were suspect and they might well be in communication with their coreligionists in Germany?

Posted by: Mike Giles at July 17, 2011 09:59 PM (DbIwF)

1154 The only guy who will be good enough for you on freedom is RP, however you don't like his foreign policy.

@1143: MIR:
No it isn't. The 14th ammendment changed that.

Posted by: Texan Economist at July 17, 2011 10:01 PM (TC/9F)

1155 Knemon -- good posts in the tail end of this thread, and I actually agree with almost all of what you say.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 10:01 PM (hIWe1)

1156 *Why would anybody want such hateful shit in their community?

Another thing, does the law say they are owed a place of worship outside of their home? You know, they can still freely worship Islam at home.

I don't know. It's a fine line to walk.

Posted by: Legacy at July 17, 2011 10:02 PM (rjFpy)

1157 The part I don't agree with is 1145.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 10:02 PM (hIWe1)

1158 "islam is NOT a religion. It is a political ideology. Now, if you want to talk about how despicable it is that Cain thinks some twisted poltiical ideology like Naziism, shouldn't be building tax free and getting the same Constitutional rights as an actual religion, then that is one thing. But islam is NOT a religion. Period."

Um, but Nazis DO get tax free status.

Posted by: Texan Economist at July 17, 2011 10:02 PM (TC/9F)

1159 By the way, Drew, Jeff 1, Jeff 2, all the others:

"No religion is totalitarian like the "religion" of Islam."

This has been said a hundred ways. Let's grant it for the sake of argument here. You then say "but it doesn't say anywhere in invisible ink 'except a uniquely dangerous/fucked-up religion' in the First Amendment."

But there is such a thing as a safety valve, an emergency clause. Korematsu is only the tip of the iceberg with that stuff. Every war -- the necessary ones included -- grows the state and weakens the Bill of Rights (as well as the main-text structural balance between the branches).

Are you saying just that we're not at that point in re the GWOT, or that we can't ever get to that point? Because if the latter, are you saying that we've wrongly crossed the point in all previous wars, but no matter how bad this one gets we can't/won't now?

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 10:02 PM (nsxc+)

1160 Do you think Thomas would ok a state sponsored religion at the state level?He's
pretty much the only origialist on the court at the moment and I simply
can't imagine him voting to up hold The Church of Illinois for example.



Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 09:56 PM (dw7rB)
Though I may personally like him, history isn't accountable to Thomas' approval (AKA appeal to authority). States had established churches when they signed the Constitution. No one saw it as being incompatible with doing so.The states' powers were in theory significant, in contrast to the federal government's.

Posted by: MlR at July 17, 2011 10:03 PM (isNKI)

1161 Posted by: Legacy at July 17, 2011 10:02 PM (rjFpy)

No, the law doesn't say they are owed anything but it's pretty clear the government can't prevent them from practicing their religion because of their beliefs.

(And yes, government can prevent actions like human sacrifice, even if it's part of a religion. This isn't about specific actions, it's a question of not approving of certain beliefs.)

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 10:05 PM (dw7rB)

1162 @DrewM,you've chosen not to respond to my question @1148 which I find telling. So much for 'debate'.

Posted by: MrPaulRevere at July 17, 2011 10:08 PM (OwqP6)

1163 Point is, in the end, most Japanese - Americans proved their loyality to America by sacrifice.against virilant racism and suspicion and opposition to the expansionist empireduring war. war makes strange bedfellows. Your bedfellows , well good luck.

Posted by: meleager at July 17, 2011 10:10 PM (4FHNs)

1164 States had established churches when they signed the Constitution. No one saw it as being incompatible with doing so.
Posted by: MlR at July 17, 2011 10:03 PM (isNKI)

But the federal government didn't and couldn't. That's the argument over what the XIV Amendment did to the relationship between the federal and state governments.

And as much as we'd like to write the Supreme Court out of the picture, it is there.

I don't think it was meant to be as powerful as it's become but I also don't think it was ever supposed to be as impotent as many wish it were either.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 10:10 PM (dw7rB)

1165 Jeff B. - Unity 2011!

Thanks to the whole crew, this thread made great 450-mile roadtrip entertainment.

I think you're being too rough on progress over peace. Gov't expenditure, or here, more specifically the creation of "offices" (even the weird and ephemeral example, the jury), isn't *entirely* "orthogonal" (by the way -- really?? really??) from the original concerns and context of the Founders, and it survives in a lot of admin law.

Yes, the easy out is to say that VI and VII restrain the gov't in that it can't do X to you (which gets you to VIII) without following certain rules -- but PoP has a good point that the federal jury (all that VI and VII are contemplating prior to the reboot) sure seems to be being created as a Thing by them. Yes, juries previously existed - but the question was, will they exist in the Federal Government?

Because, to follow out the common-law angle, the states exist in the world of the common law -- so sure, juries there taken for granted in 1787-89 -- but the feds aren't like that. The feds, originally, are the CROWN, and there's massive anxiety about that. Prior to 1688, the crown and the jury were frienemies at best, and there was no guarantee in 1789 the emerging national government would turn out more liberal (good sense) than its parent.

Common-law juries are the ultimate localist institution, which ties in with another concern of progress and others on this thread. Up until very recently a *tacit* or de facto mosque ban probably could be said to have covered the entire country. Was this always unconstitutional and now we realize it, or did it somehow become unconstitutional recently? Either answer does make you a judicial progressive of some kind, we're just haggling.

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 10:11 PM (nsxc+)

1166 Posted by: MrPaulRevere at July 17, 2011 10:08 PM (OwqP6)

I didn't see it.

Depends I guess on if they owned the land and could under local zoning laws (which I'm not a fan of but we must deal with the world as it is, not as we'd like it).

Note that Cain didn't base his argument on zoning laws, he based it on the content of the religion. Those are very, very different things.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 10:12 PM (dw7rB)

1167 All tyrants have used "resettlement" as demographic warfare against populations that they want subverted.

The Chinese transplant Chinese to Tibet, the Russians transplant Russians to the 'stans, and the socialists in power transplant 3rd worlders to areas where they hope to tip the voting patterns to 51% democrat 49% GOP.

So this isn't about the freedom of citizens to build churches, this is about an invasion, supported by the 5th column at home and in this case Saudi Arabia, and they have as their GOAL the dismantling of the US as we know it.

Posted by: Smarty at July 17, 2011 10:12 PM (U8Dcy)

1168 (oh, plus, even though the jury was forced on the crown for the most part *in england* by the 18th century, of course there was no such guarantee in the colonies)

Don't exaggerate the continuity between pre-revolutionary common law, on either side of the ocean, and post-. We started developing unique features almost immediately.

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 10:13 PM (nsxc+)

1169 (that "X" up ther ein "do X to you" isn't the tenth amendment, but "do ex" in the sense of "do something unspecified.")

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 10:14 PM (nsxc+)

1170 "They were American citizens who were never charged with any crimes. You
are pretty cavalier about sending innocent Americans to camps with no
due process."

If I understand the immigration laws at that time, Japanese could not become naturalized citizens - which would have made them enemy aliens. Of the native born Japanese Americans, since these immigration laws were passed in the early 20's, many of them must have been the minor children of these enemy aliens. In addition, the Japanese were simply excluded from West Coast, and these camps were supposed to have been temporary. However, once they were in the camps they found though many of them did leave to take jobs in the war industries. Others - being unsure how it was going to turn out - "hedged" their bets, and stayed in the camps - in case the Japanese won. BTW, has there even been a study done to see if Japanese-Americans wanted to stay in the camps? Having all your needs met by the government, in a nation that was still pulling out of the Depression might have been seen as attractive.

Posted by: Mike Giles at July 17, 2011 10:14 PM (DbIwF)

1171 But the federal government didn't and couldn't.
That's the argument over what the XIV Amendment did to the relationship
between the federal and state governments.


Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 10:10 PM (dw7rB)


Not nearly as much as the introduction of federal individual income taxes did. Governmental power tends to come down to an issue of funding. Governments will take as much power as they can buy, and no less.


Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 10:16 PM (G/MYk)

1172 1051 Farmer Joe: "what's the point of having rights if some other government can deny them to you?"

In context, they were sweeteners responding entirely to fear of the federal government. Only after the Reconstruction Reboot does the fedgov stop states from doing stuff to Joe Citizen rather than vice versa.

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 10:16 PM (nsxc+)

1173 Posted by: Mike Giles at July 17, 2011 10:14 PM (DbIwF)


The majority were US citizens.

About 77,000
American citizens and 43,000 legal and illegal resident aliens
were affected by the order.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 10:18 PM (dw7rB)

1174 @DrewM @1168 We shall agree to disagree and all of that. I was profoundly disappointed in your post and I'll leave it at that.

Posted by: MrPaulRevere at July 17, 2011 10:20 PM (OwqP6)

1175 BTW, has there even been a study done to see if Japanese-Americans
wanted to stay in the camps? Having all your needs met by the
government, in a nation that was still pulling out of the Depression
might have been seen as attractive.
Posted by: Mike Giles at July 17, 2011 10:14 PM (DbIwF)

I don't even know what to say about that.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 10:21 PM (dw7rB)

1176 JeffB 1081 -

" But incorporation? You cannot be a conservative, or a lover of liberty, and tell me this is a bad thing"

Sure you can. You just have to have a more state-centered mindset. Almost everyone on this board, and in the nation -- me included -- are American nationalists in the sense that we fully live the Reboot. But some people -- massively overrepresented online, btw -- aren't.

I'm not saying they're (all) neoconfederates, just that they either prize localism for its own sake or because they think, whatever negative shit localities will do if left unguided by Goddess Federalia, the only way to stop the Road to Serfdom is to keep shit local.

You saying they're entirely wrong?

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 10:22 PM (nsxc+)

1177 Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 10:05 PM (dw7rB)

How does taking away their mosque affect their ability to worship?

Posted by: Legacy at July 17, 2011 10:23 PM (rjFpy)

1178 The 14th Amendment's an interesting case. But it can also be argued that by the time of the 14th Amendment the Federal government had so thoroughly upended the original balance of powers between the state and federal governments as to obscure it entirely. It also wasn't considered at the time nearly as revolutionary as it has been made since then by repeated debatable Supreme Court precedents.

Of course, our current legal regime is so illegitimate under an original understanding that I admit the entire argument resembles an angels on pins scenario at this point, anyway.

Posted by: MlR at July 17, 2011 10:24 PM (isNKI)

1179 War is not crime. War is not crime. It is war. In times of war, the law is silent. We have lost that wisdom necessary to protect us.
If we could get over this leftist construct we might get somewhere.

Posted by: meleager at July 17, 2011 10:24 PM (4FHNs)

1180 Of course, our current legal regime is so illegitimate under an original
understanding that I admit the entire argument resembles an angels on
pins scenario at this point, anyway.
Posted by: MlR at July 17, 2011 10:24 PM (isNKI)


How is it illegitimate? The Constitution contemplated a process by which it could be changed. It was never meant to be static forever and always.

So yeah, the original regime isn't 100% in place but we're talking about changes make by actual amendments here.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 10:31 PM (dw7rB)

1181 "In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar (mohammed), the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent god; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE...Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant...While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon the earth, and good will towards men"John Quincy AdamsSixth President of The United States of America1830

Posted by: Lord Humungus at July 17, 2011 10:33 PM (Yv6gq)

1182 How does taking away their mosque affect their ability to worship?
Posted by: Legacy at July 17, 2011 10:23 PM (rjFpy)

I guess there are a lot of nice ways to frame it (like fellowship) but the reality is simply the government doesn't have the power to get into the whys of it. If people wish to build a place of worship (that meets local, non-content based rules), the government simply has no power to stop them. Religions don't have to explain or convince a government that they need a place, it's simply their right to have one.




Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 10:36 PM (dw7rB)

1183 >>>You saying they're entirely wrong?

I don't know about *entirely* wrong, but I come down pretty hard on the side of the Union, and I do consider John C. Calhoun to be the closest thing America has ever had to an evil genius, and I emphasize both "genius" and "evil." Now I certainly am a federalist as well (in the modern legal sense of the word), but yes, my preference for localism state-centered interpretation of the national charter stops at the edge of the waters of the Bill of Rights.

Incorporation to the states, however messy and haphazard its development was (and as I hinted earlier in the thread I agree with both you and Justice Thomas that had we used the Privileges Immunities Clause a lot of idiocy could've been avoided) was the final step in the perfection of American liberty in my opinion. I don't think that people who come by a different view honestly are evil or stupid -- well, except the neo-Confederates, I fuckin' hate those guys -- but do wonder where their priorities lie. Mine are with the starting principle that denying the government -- be it national or state or local -- power over the citizen is always a good thing, and that exceptions to this principle need to be carved out carefully and upon the bedrock of similarly fundamental principles rather than mere contingency.

I do suppose that such an attitude -- which is libertarian rather than strictly conservative in certain aspects, I'll grant -- runs up against a preference for "do what you want" localism. And I'll also grant that my pro-incorporation position (even though ratified by the simple reality that it's the world we live in) opens the states to abuse by federal judges who over-interpret and distort the Constitution into grotesque shapes with activist rulings. But the trade-off is one worth making, in my opinion.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 10:39 PM (hIWe1)

1184 You know what? Forget that last question. I just realized what I just did ... basically just parsed the Constitution like liberals did with the second amendment.

But yeah, Islam is gonna have to addressed at some point in this country -- we can't pretend a problem doesn't exist. However, the wording of the Constitution is pretty clear and should be respected.

Posted by: Legacy at July 17, 2011 10:41 PM (rjFpy)

1185 "Mine are with the starting principle that denying the government -- be it national or state or local -- power over the citizen is always a good thing"

Yeah, but (in a time of peace) you can only deny a lower level power by giving a higher level power. That's fine to the extent power can be trusted to do what you set it up to do.

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 10:45 PM (nsxc+)

1186 I do suppose that such an attitude -- which is libertarian rather than
strictly conservative in certain aspects, I'll grant -- runs up against a
preference for "do what you want" localism.

What difference does it make what level of government is stepping on your rights? There are times I think I'd love to live in an unincorporated area just so I wouldn't have to deal with a city government.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 10:45 PM (P8oOy)

1187 Again, DrewM, fuck your moral equivalence. We were obligated by the right of preservation to imprison those whomay haveenemy sympathies. Again, it matters not what persuation you are, this is a reality you refuse to admit.

Posted by: meleager at July 17, 2011 10:47 PM (4FHNs)

1188
When my father-in-law was interred at Arlington National Cemetery two years ago, I made a point of visiting the grave of the son of a friend, a nineteen year old who had died in Iraq. Around him were the graves of other OIF heroes. Some were marked with crosses, and some with stars of David, and some with the wheel of Buddhism, and some with nothing at all. And some bore the star and crescent of Islam.

I'm not fond of Islam. Had Mohammed never lived, the world probably would be a better place today. And I think that its extremists are the greatest threat to peace that the world faces today - as well as the boldest advocates of totalitarianism, which is why leftists find them so congenial. But as long as this is the United States of America, everyone can worship in peace in the manner of their choosing without requiring my say-so, or Herman Cain's, or any other man's.

Posted by: Brown Line at July 17, 2011 10:47 PM (eSNPj)

1189 (what i mean by 'in a time of peace' is in internal rebellion the lower level tries to block the higher level's power).

As for the legitimacy of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, nah. Amar's wrong here and Ackerman's right. Even internal to the ratification process they repeatedly changes the rules for whether the south would or wouldn't be counted in the vote. (It's fine to exclude them as punishment/rehab. It's not fine to hokey-pokey them in and out as needed, unless it was still just war emergencies, but then we're talking about a very different form of legitimacy, bought with steel instead of votes. Victor's justice is a thing, which is why I'm not a neoconfed. But it's a foul thing, if justice can ever be foul.)

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 10:48 PM (nsxc+)

1190 We were obligated by the right of preservation to imprison those whomay haveenemy sympathies.

Ah the cry of every tyrant in history.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 10:49 PM (dw7rB)

1191 "What difference does it make what level of government is stepping on your rights? "

Well, for starters, the feds have the broadest reach, the most resources and the most info about you.

States are incompetent. Ever get out of jury duty? Sure. Ever get out of a federal obligation?

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 10:51 PM (nsxc+)

1192 Well, war against the empire of japan qualifies Roosevelt as a tyrant...I see your point

Posted by: meleager at July 17, 2011 10:52 PM (4FHNs)

1193 "Ah the cry of every tyrant in history."

Including Lincoln.

Drew = Neoconfed?

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 10:52 PM (nsxc+)

1194 Can a brother get a table dance?

Posted by: Rep. Clement Vallandigham at July 17, 2011 10:54 PM (nsxc+)

1195 Drew = Neoconfed?
Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 10:52 PM (nsxc+)


If I were, I'd be the most ideologically confused one in history.



Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 10:55 PM (dw7rB)

1196 "If I were, I'd be the most ideologically confused one in history."

OK, then address the point I and others way before me have been trying to get you to address. ARE YOU SAYING

a) Sure, in *theory* Islam could rise to the level where some Korematsu Shit became necessary, it's just not there yet
a1) and I don't it ever will be

or

b) Even though all previous wars have had varying degrees of constitutional erosion, temporary or permanent, this one can't ever, even if it were actually a third world war. (Some think it is; I assume you don't).

IOW, are we arguing empirics or purely principles here?

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 10:57 PM (nsxc+)

1197 Knemon --

RE: The questionable ratification of the 14th 15th amendments, I'm completely familiar with the case against their kosherness (hell, I've even seen Chemerinsky eloquently discourse on the subject) and as a historical matter, I think there's a reasonable technical case there. But then there was a technical case in favor of secession as well (which was ably made by John Calhoun, who I gather you've read as you seem well-versed on this stuff...hence the reason I consider him an evil genius). The point is, we fought a civil war in order to settle both questions (and the ones raised by the 14th 15th Am were implicit in the conflict every bit as much as slavery and Union), so in a sense I agree with the claim of "victor's justice," I just don't see it as being nearly as foul as you do in this case. Nor, for that matter, do I lose much sleep over, say, Nuremberg (another textbook example of victor's justice), which is one of those cases that gets the dander of international law professors in an uproar.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 10:59 PM (hIWe1)

1198
1200 comments. You have got to be fucking kidding me.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at July 17, 2011 11:00 PM (lGFXF)

1199 I mean, you can go right down the list. Every war through WWII involved either rounding up people on ethnic lines (including every "indian war"), imprisoning, expelling and otherwise screwing with domestic dissenters, or both. Is it just that post-WWII that stuff won't ever happen anymore?

If you say yes -- how confident is your "yes?" This war's been going on for 10 years and I've noticed a considerable erosion in people's concern for their own and certainly others' liberties just in that space of time. If it's truly a new or endless war, you sure it won't start showing more and more signs of the bad old wars?

(I'm not trying to whine in a Howard Zinn way about the straight thuggishness of our war machine, by the way. I think all or most of our wars have been necessary and fought with a lighter touch at home and abroad than other countries'. I'm just saying, even a just war feeds a beast I don't like.)

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 11:02 PM (nsxc+)

1200 >>>1200 comments. You have got to be fucking kidding me.

More than any Palin thread in recent memory! Believe it or not, after a certain point they actually started getting pretty good. Now that the Nuke Mecca crowd has shuffled off back to whatever site sent them here in the first place, and Knemon's playing (sane) Devil's advocate, they might be getting even more interesting.

Amazingly, no spam yet either.

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 11:03 PM (hIWe1)

1201 " Nor, for that matter, do I lose much sleep over, say, Nuremberg (another textbook example of victor's justice), which is one of those cases that gets the dander of international law professors in an uproar."

Oh no you didn't.

Posted by: Henry Wirz at July 17, 2011 11:03 PM (nsxc+)

1202 sic semper tyrannus !!!
shout out for drewm

Posted by: meleager at July 17, 2011 11:04 PM (4FHNs)

1203 The best pdf to flash for mac pdf converter Windows and Mac OSX pdf converter for mac | pdf converter pdf to swf
converter Powerful
evidence: using PDF to IMAGE Converter, U can convert pdf to all kinds of image
formats: JPEG, PNG, GIF, BMP, PCX, TGA, TIFF. U can also adjust the color,
quailty, resolution, page of the files converted!
Using pdf to word
converter, U pdf to flash for mac can convert pdf to all kinds of pdf
formats to Word. U can also adjust the color, quailty, resolution, page of the
files converted | .baby steps, I guess. pdf to
word converter pdf to
word converter pdf to
word converter pdf to
word converter pdf to
word converter pdf to
word converter pdf to
word converter pdf to swf
convert pdf
files pdf file converter pdf
to flash converter










video to ipad converter

Optimal preset formats
for iPad, Galaxy Tab, Dell Streak, iPhone, iPod, Gphone, Blackberry, PS3, Xbox,
PSP, Wii, DV, etc.





ipad converter iPad Video Converter is then designed for iPad
fans to convert videos to iPad. iPad converter This special
ipad video converter can convert all video formats to iPad compatible formats. DVD to ipad ipad to Mac
transfer ipad to
computer transfer ipad transfer epub to ipad |

Posted by: rennee at July 17, 2011 11:06 PM (9+e7a)

1204 >>>Posted by: Henry Wirz at July 17, 2011 11:03 PM (nsxc+)

Oh man, I could actually spend all night on Andersonville. Now that's a pretty disgraceful example of victor's justice, we'll agree on that. I'm not even saying I think Wirz was necessarily innocent, just that the trial was such a travesty of justice. The star witness was an imposter!

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 11:07 PM (hIWe1)

1205 OK, then address the point I and others way before me have been trying to get you to address.
Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 10:57 PM (nsxc+)

Right, I've been ducking questions and evading giving an opinion.

Anyway...I'm not sure where this fits in your scheme of choices but my position is simply being an American who also happens to be a Muslim simply is not and should never be enough to get you labeled an enemy of the state. .

That said, do I think profiling is a reasonable tool? Of course. Do I think we should pretend that the one thing all Islamic terorists have in common is...Islam? Of course not.

We can be adults about the challenges we are facing (and have been for a good long while now) without shredding the Constitution.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 11:07 PM (dw7rB)

1206 #1205 only happened because I tempted fate, didn't it?

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 11:07 PM (hIWe1)

1207 But see look this is why you are at heart a RINO, no matter how substantively conservative you are on plenty of issues: your attitude towards the feds re the states, and not just on north/south history shit, is nationalist.

A lot of what the tea party is is, I think, a postmodern (sorry, but here it's i think appropriate in the sense of like a revived anachronistic repurposed transformed thing, like steampunk) revival of pre-New Deal anti-federalism.

The biggest single faction of that is of course the (white) south, but it had a presence everywhere, even in the backwoods of the otherwise progressive northeast.

You and the other Kilgores With a Human Face here seem to be by and large either DC types or lawyers elsewhere. (Sweepin REAL broadly here, mea culpa). Your orientation is so federal that all this stuff sounds like goobledygook to you, and that's not bad, but it means you:the new Tea-ified base::a blind manicasso.

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 11:08 PM (nsxc+)

1208 "(sane) Devil's advocate"

Man that'd look good on a business card.

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 11:09 PM (nsxc+)

1209 Now that the Nuke Mecca crowd has shuffled off back
to whatever site sent them here in the first place

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 11:03 PM (hIWe1)

Care to point that out to us, where was this "nuke Mecca" mantra? Or are you just falling back on your liberal instincts to label everyone that doesn't agree with you as an extremist? Asshole.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 11:09 PM (GZitp)

1210 Let me play again, and ask a queson that has been hinted at:
Suppose that there is a group of people in a country, in small numbers, small enough so that they are clearly not the majority, who share a common creed/belief system/etc., that advocates a number of things that are directly contrary to the established beliefs/norms/etc. and laws of the larger population.
What should the larger population do?
Now for a real-life case: Islam.
The Koran, hadiths and the rest of Islam teach that slavery, the buying and selling of other humans in the same manner as cattle and other livestock,is acceptable, that the lawsof the land (Europe, the US, and elsewhere) are illegitimate and to be replaced with shari'a, that non-muslims effectively have no rights .. the list goes on, and all commenters on this thread seem to be aware of this ...
What should we, all non-muslims, do?
Looking at Saudi Arabia, or the Sudan, or Lebanon, or Egypt (today), we see what the result of Islamic rule is: even the remaining masks of civilization, toleranceand reciprocity are falling away.
The Constitution and all the Constitutional arguments are fine and good, but they only make sense when there is no question of the rule of law, specifically Constitutional law. When that's gone, what then?
I don't see this event on the horizon ... given the new interpretation of the Commerce Clause, Libya, ... maybe I do.
Perhaps exposing, by name, the agencies and bureaucrats that facilitate muslim immigration would help to greatly reduce it, returning the discussion to more of a paper, hypothetical one.

Posted by: Arbalest at July 17, 2011 11:09 PM (DyEUW)

1211 blind man: P icasso.

being an emoticon hitherto unknown to me.

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 11:09 PM (nsxc+)

1212 So that's a bad analysis on your part. Islam can be judged by us based on how countries with Muslim majorities behave, and by how Muslim minorities behave in non-Muslim countries.
Here was the point: an argument has been made that Islam is not a religion (and hence, not protected by the First Amendment) because it has a “political/legal/whatever” element to it.

Under the First Amendment, the government can’t discriminate against the building of an Islamic Mosque because its an Islamic Mosque.

Some here were trying to get around this very simple point by asserting that Islam is not a religion. The elements were the basis for support of this argument.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life and aspiring Sports Reporter at July 17, 2011 11:09 PM (OWjjx)

1213 Ok 1207 I can agree on. The question is , what then? If we find that the religion of islam is actively hostile to the constitution?

Posted by: meleager at July 17, 2011 11:10 PM (4FHNs)

1214 Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 11:08 PM (nsxc+)

Who was that addressed to?

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 11:11 PM (dw7rB)

1215 Islam, what is it good for?

Posted by: L Tolstoy at July 17, 2011 11:11 PM (1fB+3)

1216 Posted by: meleager at July 17, 2011 11:10 PM (4FHNs)

I think the problem with that question is this idea that "the religion of Islam" is so monolithic.

There are plenty of Christians who have pre-material sex, Jews who have known the earthly delight of bacon and Muslims who don't want to live under some 8th Century legal code.

So when we talk about "Islam" and "Muslims" we need to keep in mind those are pretty broad categories.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 11:15 PM (dw7rB)

1217 We can be adults about the challenges we are facing
(and have been for a good long while now) without shredding the
Constitution.

Posted by: DrewM.
at July 17, 2011 11:07 PM (dw7rB)

Failing to address a rising threat to everything we hold dear is not being an adult. Profiling and wiretaps isn't going to change anything. At the end of the day Islam will be Islam and there's no point in pretending Muslims deep down are just like us. It just isn't so.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 11:15 PM (GZitp)

1218 Now that the Nuke Mecca crowd has shuffled off back to whatever site sent them here in the first placehey, I'm still here!! But first dibbs to the israelis for medina !

Posted by: meleager at July 17, 2011 11:17 PM (4FHNs)

1219 Drew - you, Jeff, others. You know who you are. I say Kilgores affectionately, btw - upthread I said and I'll repeat that until bannings start it's an unfair comparison - but as I've heckled you before you fulfill a role. Beating back the hordes. A RINO overseer on the moron plantation.

I kid. I kid.

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 11:17 PM (nsxc+)

1220
You are all much more likely to be enslaved or exterminated by my Death's Head Legions than someamorphous Islamic threat.
Just thought I'd point that out. It may comfort some.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at July 17, 2011 11:19 PM (lGFXF)

1221 1218 - Drew, here you're entirely right. But there's a relatively new and very aggressive phrase of the story of Islam in America. It hasn't taken over everywhere, but it's real, and it's spectacular(ly insidious and dangerous).

Again, are you denying this? Is part of your argument implicitly "hey and things aren't even that bad anyway!" deal? Or is this an absolute "on this constitutional rock we stand come what may" deal?

You have been asked this now in one form or another literally dozens of times on this thread. Why do you avoid answering it?

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 11:19 PM (nsxc+)

1222 Failing to address a rising threat to everything we hold dear is not being an adult.
Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 11:15 PM (GZitp)

Personally, I count America's tradition of religious freedom to be among the things I hold dear.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 11:20 PM (dw7rB)

1223 A RINO overseer on the moron plantation
That is my job!

Sincerely

His Excellency, Mallamutt Da Da, RINO President for Life and Supreme Commander of All RINO Forces, Conquerer of Puritans in General and Ace of Spades HQ in Particular.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life and aspiring Sports Reporter at July 17, 2011 11:21 PM (OWjjx)

1224 "Personally, I count America's tradition of religious freedom to be among the things I hold dear. "

People also hold 'not getting blown up' dear. Are you saying come back and see you when things get worse because you're not seeing the required showing? Or are you saying "Never, never, never!" (speaking of neoconfeds).

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 11:22 PM (nsxc+)

1225 @1218 Drewm
that is not a problem for me, as I am areligious. I dont give a shit. Its that " believe what you want, but ifyou fuck with me, I'll kill you"Jacksonian in me.

Posted by: meleager at July 17, 2011 11:24 PM (4FHNs)

1226 I would just like to summarize this thread with one obvious point: Herman Cain has no business running for President.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life and aspiring Sports Reporter at July 17, 2011 11:25 PM (OWjjx)

1227 Personally, I count America's tradition of religious
freedom to be among the things I hold dear.

Posted by: DrewM.
at July 17, 2011 11:20 PM (dw7rB)

And I hold the fact that we aren't a quasi-police state, always on the lookout for internal threats by followers of Islam dear. So don't pretend your the vanguard of our way of life.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 11:26 PM (GZitp)

1228 Oh......and LAST!

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life and aspiring Sports Reporter at July 17, 2011 11:27 PM (OWjjx)

1229 Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 11:19 PM (nsxc+)

I agree that there's a societal element in the war with Islamic motivated terrorism.

Aside from the constitutional issues, I simply don't think banning mosques or marginalizing Islam is an effective way to fight that battle. You can't ban an idea. You have to confront it and try and shape it.

I like the idea of engaging Muslims in America, what I don't like is the lefty version of elevating Islam or surrendering to it because it's a tool to bash traditional American values.

So while I wouldn't ban mosques, I also wouldn't let Muslim women get away with wearing a veil while getting their driver's license photo either.. I wouldn't let public schools get away with indoctrinating kids about Islam in ways they would never try with Christianity.

Make sense?

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 11:27 PM (dw7rB)

1230 Personally, I count America's tradition of religious freedom to be among the things I hold dear.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 11:20 PM (dw7rB)
You mean back when there were pretty much ZERO muslims in America? The good old days when people would not dare to even try to claim an islamic exemption to kick blind people out of taxis and not take anyone who has any alcohol on him?Yeah. What happened? The US went from ZERO muslims to millions in a quick couple of decades and we found something that is called a religion, from afar, but is clearly a political ideology up close. And it's violent and aggressive and anti-Western in every possible sense. And Drew pines for how things were with actual, spiritual religions ... when everyone was civilized. Okey doke, there. We invited the third world over. But don't kid yourself into thinking it's anything remotely like the first world. It isn't. FIrst world laws don't make first world societies. First world societies make first world laws, but only because they already adhere to them as a general part of the underlying culture. You don't get this part.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 11:29 PM (G/MYk)

1231 No. You're not getting the point. What I'm saying is, let's say that the situation looked a lot more like WWIII. The entire OIC is openly at war with us and our Allies. Terrorism has increased by an order of magnitude in frequency and severity.

Different result then? Any Korematsu Escape Hatch? Or you're an absolutist on this one?

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 11:30 PM (nsxc+)

1232 Aside from the constitutional issues, I simply don't think banning
mosques or marginalizing Islam is an effective way to fight that battle.
You can't ban an idea. You have to confront it and try and shape it.Posted by: DrewM.
at July 17, 2011 11:27 PM (dw7rB)


Are we shaping Islam or is it shaping us? If a place like Dearborn is any indication it's the latter.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 11:31 PM (GZitp)

1233 @1228 I would just like to summarize this thread with one obvious point: Herman Cain has no business running for President.

Yeah, he jumped off my list after his appearance on John Stossel's show.

It was painful.

Just watch this segment on abortion: http://youtu.be/r5zgEdfrfoQ

Posted by: Legacy at July 17, 2011 11:34 PM (rjFpy)

1234 . You can't ban an idea. You have to confront it and try and shape it.BS. Thats all, BS. As I said above, we have not the balls to shape it. only to destroy it.

Posted by: meleager at July 17, 2011 11:37 PM (4FHNs)

1235 Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 11:30 PM (nsxc+)

It's a silly question because we'll never get there.

First of all, we rounded up the Japanese because they were fairly easy to identify and were a relatively small population (120,00+/-).

We didn't round up people of German decent throughout the Midwest and Pennsylvania. There were too many of them and how would you ID them?

Now, I don't know off the top of my head, but I'd bet during WWII we found reasons to arrest or deport known leaders in German and Italian related groups.

I could easily imagine a similar targeted operation against known Islamic leaders with connections to unsavory overseas groups.

Hell, we've did that after 9/11 but with some level of due process.

But will we ever just round up millions because we know they've attended a mosque at some point? No.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 11:38 PM (dw7rB)

1236 Posted by: meleager at July 17, 2011 11:37 PM (4FHNs)

We don't have the balls to stand up to people who demand special treatment for Muslims but we do have the balls to destroy it?

That seems backwards.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 11:40 PM (dw7rB)

1237
First, the little anecdote was pretty....I can't say this any more politely...pathetic. Oh, the imam asked about my son, see many muslims are wonderful and Islam isn't bad. The problem with this lack of thinking is that it says because some members of a group are decent, the entire group can't be bad. It would be the same logic as saying because the neighborhood KKK member helps the old lady across the street, there are good KKK members and bad KKK members, and the KKK is an organization that has been subverted by radicals. No, Islam is a violent, supremacist movement with religious trappings.
Second, as many have pointed out, the Constitution was developed for a specific culture that was based on the general Christian moral framework. It won't last under any sort of other culture.
Third, a recent survey estimated the 80% of mosques taught some level of radical (i.e. traditional) Islamic teachings. Sounds like Cain had the right idea.

Posted by: Terrahawk at July 17, 2011 11:40 PM (PyDzI)

1238 1237 Drew:
"We didn't round up people of German decent throughout the Midwest and Pennsylvania. There were too many of them and how would you ID them?"
I recall reading something happening along these linesduring WW1. Also, teaching German fell out of favor then. I'm looking for a link.

Posted by: Arbalest at July 17, 2011 11:42 PM (DyEUW)

1239 We didn't round up people of German decent throughout the Midwest and Pennsylvania. There were too many of them and how would you ID them?Please. Get off the fucking intertubes with your revisionist bullshit. Your sounding like a NAZI

Posted by: meleager at July 17, 2011 11:43 PM (4FHNs)

1240 Posted by: meleager at July 17, 2011 11:43 PM (4FHNs)

You have some proof we rounded up American citizens of German decent in internment camps?

Please share. I'd love to learn.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 11:46 PM (dw7rB)

1241 Yeah, he jumped off my list after his appearance on John Stossel's show. It was painful.
Saw it live. Wasn’t pretty. Look, guys like Cain are refreshing for a while. They are candid, do things differently, they are a great change of pace early in a campaign season. But as the campaign rolls on, and the novelty wears off, they find their numbers sagging, the attention they are getting waning and their donations drying up and resort to saying even more controversial things to get the media attention back.

Congratulations Herman Cain. Your 15 minutes are over.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at July 17, 2011 11:46 PM (OWjjx)

1242 We did round up German Americans in WW2, over 10,000. They were mostly immigrants and members of the American Bund party. The Feds also had records on, and monitored tens of thousands more German Americans. They weren't allowed to join the military and had their movements restricted. Hmm, sounds rational while fighting a radical ideology bent on conquest and working to undermine our country..

Posted by: Spacejesus at July 17, 2011 11:48 PM (BbH5o)

1243 "I recall reading something happening along these lines during WW1. Also, teaching German fell out of favor then. I'm looking for a link."

Germans, either the largest or second-largest group in the country, were bullied into vanishing. It was the price of not getting run out of town on a rail (as happened, 1773-style, in some places).

They came back for one hurrah with the Bund in the 30s, but the huge dog-that-didn't-bark of the first half of the twentieth century in this country the Incredible Vanishing German.

Considering what was going on in the fatherland, that's definitely a good thing.

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 11:49 PM (nsxc+)

1244 Initial link

Posted by: Arbalest at July 17, 2011 11:49 PM (DyEUW)

1245
During WWI, the government really did crack down on people of German descent. Some local churches in my area which still performed services in German were required to stop. And I believe all people who were born in Germany were required to carry documentation and report job changes, address changes, etc. to the government. Considering how close WWI was to WWII, most people probably figured WWI had screened out most of the bad eggs by WWII.
Okay Drew, would you support the following:
1. No Muslim immigration to the US.
2. All non-US who are Muslim have to leave the country.
3. Any Muslim call for the implementation of Sharia law is stripped of citizenship and deported.

Posted by: Terrahawk at July 17, 2011 11:50 PM (PyDzI)

1246 "You have some proof we rounded up American citizens of German decent in internment camps? "

What percentage of American Muslims are citizens?

Seriously, I have no idea.

Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 11:50 PM (nsxc+)

1247 We also had over 4000 ethnic Germans from around Latin America arrested and brought to the USA and put in camps during the war!

Posted by: Spacejesus at July 17, 2011 11:54 PM (BbH5o)

1248 Well, my mother is german heritage, and personal accounts dont mean much, but many german citizens were interred.dispite your ignorance, as others will provide proof.and ..the german bund was outlawed

Posted by: meleager at July 17, 2011 11:56 PM (4FHNs)

1249 Posted by: Arbalest at July 17, 2011 11:49 PM (DyEUW)



But they appear to apply to non-US citizens.



This is the headline from the NYT article cited in the first note says
"All male subjects of German Empire 14 years old and older"



No one would argue that a country at war has the right to intern citizens of the country they are at war with.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 11:57 PM (dw7rB)

1250 Posted by: Spacejesus at July 17, 2011 11:54 PM (BbH5o)
Posted by: meleager at July 17, 2011 11:56 PM (4FHNs)


Don't conflate "German nationals" with American citizens of German decent. Those are very different things.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 11:58 PM (dw7rB)

1251 Posted by: Knemon at July 17, 2011 11:50 PM (nsxc+)

Neither do I.

I doubt the government has anything approaching a realistic number either.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 11:59 PM (dw7rB)

1252 No one would argue that a country at war has the right to intern citizens of the country they are at war with.
Hypocrit. and
TYRANT !!!

Posted by: meleager at July 18, 2011 12:00 AM (4FHNs)

1253 You don't allow radical ideologies into government institutions where they can corrupt and undermine. No fascists, no communists, no extremist of any type, including those who believe it is ok to kill other people in defense of their "religion"

Posted by: Spacejesus at July 18, 2011 12:00 AM (BbH5o)

1254 My guess is it's pretty low. A huge percentage came here within the last 20 years, I know that. I also know the pre-1990 population skewed very young, male and unmarried -- not generating a lot of citizens yet then.

Posted by: Knemon at July 18, 2011 12:02 AM (nsxc+)

1255 It wasn't just German tourists who were stranded here, it included American citizens of German heritage.

Posted by: Spacejesus at July 18, 2011 12:02 AM (BbH5o)

1256 How about this as a broad outline of a plan for dealing with Islam in America:

1. No more visas or green cards issued to people from Muslim countries. All resident aliens from Muslim countries must apply to get their green cards renewed, and as part of the application process, must have a background check.

2. All US foreign aid to Muslim countries stops immediately. Aid could resume if and when such countries allow freedom of religion.

3. The FBI shall investigate all Muslim groups for ties to known terrorist organizations.

4. The TSA shall reorient its policies to focus primarily, but not exclusively, on Arab men between the ages of 20 and 40.

5. Behind the scenes, the US government will lean hard on Muslim leaders to advocate for an interpretation of Islam stressing personal choice, and explicitly renouncing any sort of violent jihad.

It seems to me that all of these things are constitutional and only the Foreign aid provision would require an act of Congress.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 18, 2011 12:04 AM (P8oOy)

1257 Drew:
Wiki includes the following excerpted sentences:
"President Woodrow Wilson issued two sets of regulations on April 6, 1917, and November 16, 1917, imposing restrictions on German-born male residents of the United States over the age of 14. ... ... ... ...
Among the notable internees were the geneticist Richard Goldschmidt and 29 players from the Boston Symphony Orchestra.[5] Their music director, Karl Muck, spent more than a year at Fort Oglethorpe, as did the music director of the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra, Ernst Kunwald."
The implication is that these people were legally admitted and potentially intent upon becoming citizens ... if they weren't already.
I'm still searchg for more links.

Posted by: Arbalest at July 18, 2011 12:06 AM (DyEUW)

1258 They interned those German Americans who were members of the Bund party, or who were born in Bavaria and became American citizens later. The focus was on trying to contain the ideologically and those who believed in it because they could be subversive and dangerous.

Posted by: Spacejesus at July 18, 2011 12:06 AM (BbH5o)

1259 @farmerjoe
how about just fuck them all and let those who want freedom and LIBERTY first stand up for it ?

Posted by: meleager at July 18, 2011 12:09 AM (4FHNs)

1260 Bing "German American internment"-->many links, veracity unknown. There are mentions of Italian-American internments ...

Posted by: Arbalest at July 18, 2011 12:12 AM (DyEUW)

1261 Posted by: meleager at July 18, 2011 12:00 AM (4FHNs)

No, I'm someone who understands that different people have different legal statuses and that different rights go which those statuses.

See, I don't think a non-American terrorist captured outside the boundaries of the US has the same legal rights as an American citizen within the boundaries of the US.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 18, 2011 12:13 AM (dw7rB)

1262 how about just fuck them all and let those who want freedom and LIBERTY first stand up for it ?

Do you want a serious answer to that, or did you just want to posture?

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 18, 2011 12:14 AM (P8oOy)

1263 Don't conflate "German nationals" with American citizens of German decent. Those are very different things.

as long as you dont conflate Islamic supremists with american citizens . they are very different things.

Posted by: meleager at July 18, 2011 12:15 AM (4FHNs)

1264 Leave it to a lawyer to be completely ignorant of actual American history. Just simply google German American internment.

Posted by: Lord Humungus at July 18, 2011 12:15 AM (Yv6gq)

1265 Posted by: Arbalest at July 18, 2011 12:06 AM (DyEUW)

Legally admitted has nothing to do with it.

Even Green Card holders (in the modern context) can be held if we go to war with the country they have citizenship in.

Citizenship is a bright line. Actually, native citizenship is the real line since naturalized citizens can have their citizenship revoked.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 18, 2011 12:15 AM (dw7rB)

1266 Drew: Try this link
It has many further links, and deals with those born in the US

Posted by: Arbalest at July 18, 2011 12:18 AM (DyEUW)

1267 It wasn't just German tourists who were stranded here, it included American citizens of German heritage.
Posted by: Spacejesus at July 18, 2011 12:02 AM (BbH5o)

I said in 1237 "Now, I don't know off the top of my head, but I'd bet during WWII we
found reasons to arrest or deport known leaders in German and Italian
related groups."

So yeah, I'm sure there were some targeted arrests.

The question I was responding to was about "some Korematsu Shit became necessary". There simply was no mass arrest of German American citizens on the scale (either in absolute numbers or percentage of population) as there was with American citizens of Japanese decent.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 18, 2011 12:21 AM (dw7rB)

1268 wow... Drew when you posted this, was ya thinkin 1300 comments!?
Did Rodney King show up yet to let us all get along??? lol

Posted by: Knightbrigade at July 18, 2011 12:21 AM (eRhz+)

1269 No, I want a serious answer...and it wont come from farmer joe in the heartland, but from the muslimes who are now in America. I'm not expecting anything.

Posted by: meleager at July 18, 2011 12:22 AM (4FHNs)

1270 There simply was no mass arrest of German American
citizens on the scale (either in absolute numbers or percentage of
population) as there was with American citizens of Japanese decent.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 18, 2011 12:21 AM (dw7rB)
The Germans didn't manage to hit us at home. The Japanese did. Perhaps your integratively complex mind can figure that little nugget in?

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 18, 2011 12:23 AM (G/MYk)

1271 No, I want a serious answer...and it wont come from farmer joe in the
heartland, but from the muslimes who are now in America. I'm not
expecting anything.

So, posturing then.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 18, 2011 12:24 AM (P8oOy)

1272 Posted by: Arbalest at July 18, 2011 12:18 AM (DyEUW)

They were not placed in camps, but their constitutional rights were also
shelved; some were tarred and feathered, and two were actually lynched.
They were the targets of patriotic Americans who viewed them as the
enemy among us. They were victims of vitriolic, British propaganda and
nativism, the disease of our American culture that maintains that the
native inhabitants, the first immigrants, are better than the latter
ones.

So there were no camps (in WWI).

Jonah Goldberg basically accused W

Posted by: DrewM. at July 18, 2011 12:24 AM (dw7rB)

1273 Ok, premature send there.

Goldberg basically said Wilson was running a fascist state at one point.

I only skimmed that paper but it really doesn't sound like something we should be aiming to repeat, does it?


Posted by: DrewM. at July 18, 2011 12:26 AM (dw7rB)

1274 Anyway, it's late and I've been at this on and off most of the day.

I'm out.

Good night all.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 18, 2011 12:27 AM (dw7rB)

1275 But ... I guess you think America was used to sneak attacks and didn't mind Pearl Harbor so much ... No, not much cultural revulsion at that ...

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 18, 2011 12:27 AM (G/MYk)

1276 sure , just like you.How can anyone answer a question like that? There isnt an answer. If you have one, please tell.

Posted by: meleager at July 18, 2011 12:30 AM (4FHNs)

1277 So there were no camps (in WWI).Jonah Goldberg basically accused W
Posted by: DrewM. at July 18, 2011 12:24 AM (dw7rB)
Yep. None. Please disregard Fort Douglas, Utah.

Posted by: Lord Humungus at July 18, 2011 12:33 AM (Yv6gq)

1278 "I only skimmed that paper but it really doesn't sound like something we should be aiming to repeat, does it?"
Read a bit more, the anti-German events were really nationwide, and seemingly spontaneous ... and apparently against people with very many of the same cultural values.
I'd rather not repeat such things, but I also realize the fragility of laws ... Theives, bank robbers, arsonists, drug dealers ... they all know that what they do is illegal.
But people with a different set of values, specifically ones that say our values are inferior and illegitimate ... We have a problem, and it might eventually be outside of our laws to fix. What then?

Posted by: Arbalest at July 18, 2011 12:37 AM (DyEUW)

1279 I don't know the question. But, the answer is ... "we're fucked".

Posted by: cherry π at July 18, 2011 12:40 AM (OhYCU)

1280 Worst blog post ever...

Posted by: Spacejesus at July 18, 2011 12:45 AM (BbH5o)

1281 Why isnt the ACLU suing to stop this using this so called separation of CHURCH STATE?

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at July 18, 2011 12:49 AM (vA9ld)

1282 With all of this Herman Cain banning mosques controversy going on, I suggest a simple solution. Congress should pass a law creating a Religion Review Board. The RRB will perform thorough investigations of every religious group, and after these investigations will issue Official First Amendment Permits which will allow such groups to practice their religion without government interference.

Posted by: Morons for Cain at July 18, 2011 12:54 AM (lALGU)

1283 This is why I no longer post and rarely read. Islam is a political death machine and anyone who supports any aspect of it is a tool or an illiterate. THEY ARE NOT BEING SUBTLE. THEY HAVE TOLD US WHAT THEY WANT AND WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO TO ACHIEVE IT. <good bye>

Posted by: dead, not sleeping at July 18, 2011 01:17 AM (0iX1V)

1284 I'm sure about half of the folks populating this thread will have their heads separated from their bodies in total disbelief, within their lifetime. The other half's last words will be "told ya so, you fool", as theirs flop into the bucket.
But both halves will be dead. Yay America, but we did love you. In theory.
So there's that.

Posted by: Derak at July 18, 2011 02:13 AM (ceuE8)

1285 DrewM is engaging in agitprop. I hope there is no way that he actually subscribes to the bullshit that he's pushing. He, Like Chad over at DoublePlusUndead, is nothing more than a Charles Johnson wannabe. They both act like a true patriot to fit in, but they are actually children of the PC/diversity/multi-culti cult and are mouthpieces for the self-loathing leftarded gang of thieves that will sell us down the river in the name of tolerance. Fuck that. The only reason that we have a navy and a Marine Corps (that's pronounced "core," DrewM), is because we've been at war with Musselmen for over 200 years. You may wish to prostate yourself in front of your executioner, but I will opt out. Fuck you, appeaser. Fuck you with the barbed cock of Allah. You're no better than that weepy little bitch Chucky Johnson. *sniff* Goddamn, I never thought that I'd witness this sort of bullshit here. Constitution? Really? Your compatriots claim a definition of "religion" in the founding documents? You are Ted Kennedy reincarnated...go ahead and pine for your extermination, tool.

Posted by: skh.pcola at July 18, 2011 02:16 AM (vsFI8)

1286 I'd just like to point out that a lot of the so-called Constitutional amendments have been ripped apart by the Bush and Obama Administrations, specifically the 4th.

I'd also like to know how effective the incorporation of Heller has been when NYC still has ridiculous gun control laws? And if NYC isn't forced to change things, doesn't that shed some light on the pro-"local community" maneuverings the anti-mosque fellas are clamoring for?

I'm going to bed, but I definitely will check to see if I can get some answers to that second paragraph in the morning.


Posted by: The Q at July 18, 2011 02:21 AM (NdE8F)

1287 we aren't a quasi-police state

Oh yes we are.

Posted by: NSA wiretappers and TSA gropers at July 18, 2011 02:23 AM (NdE8F)

1288 @1288 The Q

The reason for giving more power to local control isn't because communities and states always make the right decision. It's because they're more likely to make a better decision than an all-powerful central government. Essentially the question is "where do you want bad decisions made: at the local or national level?" Bad decisions made at the local level do less damage than bad decisions at a national level. Also, when people see other communities do stupid things, they're more likely to take government seriously and actually think about what makes good policy rather than spouting off ridiculous, vapid nonsense because they think liberals are well-intended and conservatives are evil poopyheads.

Posted by: JohnJ at July 18, 2011 02:39 AM (Tt6ky)

1289 Geez, I'm always late to the party. Anyway, if I missed it, could someone give me the post # showing where Murfreesboro, TN got elected to Congress.

Posted by: Tantorus Maximus at July 18, 2011 03:03 AM (3Ohzw)

1290 We just want to thank the indefatigabledefenders of the Constitution in this thread,for their tireless andcourageous efforts, yea, riskinggrievous bodily harm (you know who you are!)from these crazy wingnut revolutionaries(they know who they are!),who would as soon kill you and ravage your sister/wife/mother/brother in seeking their brutal form of warped justice againstwe fellowpeace-loving seekers of freedom and liberty. I believe former prostitute and brothel keeper poet laureate, Maya Angelou, said it best: "In diversity there is beauty and there is strength" and who could disagree with that (except these twisted racist warmongers who post on AOSHQ)?
BTW, we're currentlylooking to hire such well-spoken obfuscators defenders of our American way of life as yourselvesagainst the infamous despicable champions of tyranny.
BTW2 Charles Johnson's phonehas beendisconnected,thanks to ATT for forwarding us to this,his new site.

Signed,
Ibrahim Hooper
Anthony Romero
Susan Herman
Faisal and Daisy Abdul Rauf
Dr. Sami Amin Al-Arian
Louis Farrakhan

Posted by: jokin at July 18, 2011 03:08 AM (HwMIQ)

1291 Dang, I missed all the passionate Islam talk by sleeping.Not that there's anything to talk about. Kind of like arguingwhether the pile of dog shit should be picked up, with someone who feels it has the right to be there.

Posted by: jimmah at July 18, 2011 03:15 AM (TfRqk)

1292 I am for bombing Mecca during the haji. I am for turning Islamic republics into glass parking lots or glowing embers. I am for impressing upon Moslems a proper respect for the United States. Japan prospered after having done so as did Germany.

But. HERE, in this country, we don't visit the sins of others upon the children or neighbors. I have no problem with mosques. Make sure their noise doesn't disturb the peace (our local Catholic church had to stop the bell ringing you could hear from a 1/2 mile away because idiot neighbors were 'disturbed' - gander, meet goose). We didn't burn down the churches in the south when they were the meeting places of the KKK and where they planned murder and mayhem.

Principles are really tough things.....especially when you don't like their result. But principled people stick to them, liberals get to making excuses....

Posted by: Tracy Coyle at July 18, 2011 03:23 AM (1ytkt)

1293 Does a community have a right to ban a Wal-Mart? Or a Hooters?

Posted by: nick at July 18, 2011 03:44 AM (S2Q0B)

1294 Daniel Pearl was unavailable for comment.

Posted by: Tristan Phillips at July 18, 2011 06:21 AM (30pBm)

1295 "DrewM is engaging in agitprop. I hope there is no way that he actually
subscribes to the bullshit that he's pushing. He, Like Chad over at
DoublePlusUndead, is nothing more than a Charles Johnson wannabe."

If that were true I wouldn't be reading your comment, would I? When folks say they have no idea how a Muslim or a mosque could be tolerated, and eliminating peaceful mosques is the solution to the war on terror (or if they say there is no such thing as a peaceful mosque or that Islam isn't a religion) they are simply telling us something about themselves. They aren't telling us anything about Islam... they clearly haven't bothered to learn about it. We're at war with Islamofascists, whom all must die or somehow be contained, and it's worth learning about before spouting off. There's a huge difference between a moderate Muslim and the nuts. Is is logical within the Islamic tradition? According to the nuts, no. So what?

Posted by: Dustin at July 18, 2011 06:24 AM (519+h)

1296 Things must be pretty slow over at your place if you can make the time to come over here and guest-post, Chuck.

Posted by: Lobar Pendulum at July 18, 2011 07:05 AM (FJDXI)

1297 Yes, mosques must follow the same laws and regulations as any other
religion nor should they be granted any special consideration because in
some areas Islam is "the de facto state religion".
But the wholesale banning of them because people don't like Muslims or
what they believe in? I'll stand with the Constitution.

DrewM,

I heard that exchange between Cain and Wallace. Wallace set up the questions. Cain said that he looks for solutions at the point where the problem arises, and that he visited within the community in question. In this instance, the Mosque affiliates are attempting to maintain and disseminate Sharia Law rather than advocating the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land; and that ground zero American community rejects the idea that Sharia Law or Muslim theocracy is protected within America by the US Constitution.

I didn't listen to the entire exchange following Wallace's attempts to apply the universality of Muslim rights regardless of abuses of human rights in America by Muslim mosques, btw, all of which are funded and assigned imams by the wealthy Saudi fundamentalists.

I certainly didn't hear Cain propose "the wholesale banning of them because people don't like Muslims or
what they believe in". -- Cain spoke of a specific instance regarding what that instance necessitates according to those who've been victimized in order to maintain the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land where a Sharia Law Mosque that funds and enables anti-American terrorism disturbs the peace.

Posted by: maverick muse at July 18, 2011 07:27 AM (lpWVn)

1298 When folks say they have no idea how a Muslim or a mosque could be
tolerated, and eliminating peaceful mosques is the solution to the war
on terror (or if they say there is no such thing as a peaceful mosque or
that Islam isn't a religion) they are simply telling us something about
themselves. They aren't telling us anything about Islam... they
clearly haven't bothered to learn about it.Posted by: Dustin at July 18, 2011 06:24 AM (519+h)


Well I'm glad you're here to tell us all about this peaceful Islam. Where in the Koran and Haddiths can I learn about this peaceful side? You must know what with all your in depth studying of Islam.
You know Dustin it's one thing to defend the Constitution it's another to engage in Islamic apologetics.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 18, 2011 07:38 AM (GZitp)

1299
As with so many complex problems, the story of the Gordian Knot is instructive. Rather than worry about what the constitution in its current form does or does not allow, the real answer is simply to amend it to exempt Islam and its adherets from any constitutional/legal protection. It would be necessary to define Islam adequately, so that all it's vile sects could be covered fully. Once that's done we need not worry about any other issues. Islam alone will be dealt with. No other element of the constitution's meaning would need to be debated.
This would be the ideal solution. The Muz would grant NO rights, not even a rightto life, to any other group. F--k them. They should eat what they'd feed to others. Let them live with no rights. Let them see how they likeit. Let it be open season on them, like they make it open season on their neighbors everywhere on earth that the Muz take control. Burning a mosque down should not be a crime. Pushing them out of your neighborhood should not be a crime. Rounding them up for deportation should be legal as well - though I doubt it would be necessary. Once they had to live the way they want others to live, they'd get out of here on their own accord and at their own expense.
What a great thing that would be! Once less problem in a nation that seems to have nothing BUT problems these days.

Posted by: Reactionary at July 18, 2011 08:26 AM (xUM1Q)

1300 I guess it comes down to this: Some "men" (lawyers, clowns, emasculated hunch-backed hooting retards... whatever) will always desperately lick the cojones of those they perceive as stronger, in the hope that they are killed last. Some here are irrepressibly eager to give those swarthy bearded barbarians every ounce of careful, white-gloved consideration ...and slobber, lots of slobber.

They sure can dress that up in purty words too.

Posted by: The Sultan of Swat at July 18, 2011 08:42 AM (/20v+)

1301 No word on the tunnel yet ...

Posted by: Chuckit at July 18, 2011 09:09 AM (3Mpzf)

1302 Concern? pah, poor fools DO NOT UNDERSTAND Islam.
The "imam" got from the poor woman:Troop strengths
Morale.
Locale.
Personal Family info that can be used to blackmail either the soldier or the soldier's family.
That imam was a perfect practioner of Taquiyya.
Drew, I presume YOU would be the one to offer the scorpion a ride, knowing what it was in the firsst place?Show no surprise when it bites you.

Posted by: NJ Mike at July 18, 2011 09:18 AM (IyHum)

1303 A tadpole has gills and lives in water - but it is not a fish; it is the embryonic form of a frog.

Islam has a holy book and and prayers but it is not a religion in the Western sense of the word; it is the embryonic form of an Islamic government. Its expressed intent is the overthrow of the United States government and its replacement with Sharia law. Exactly what part of "Death to the Infidel" do you not understand?

What David Koresh was doing was much more of a religion than Islam is.

The only, and I mean only, difference between Islam and a Death Cult such as was formed by Charles Manson is the number of followers. If Manson had been a little more intelligent and had waited to have his cult start killing people until he had millions of followers -most of whom didn't kill people- would we be obligated to recognize a 'Manson Family' as a religion?

The true nature of Islam was totally exposed in the Al Sadr incident in Iraq. Al Sadr was a young cleric who had a militia. He and his troops were trapped in a Mosque by US troops. Al Sadr had the women and children in the Mosque slaughtered by his Militia with the intent of blaming their deaths on the US forces. However he was ordered to surrender by a senior Cleric before the US forces fired a shot. He gave up - leaving the helpless people he killed behind. IT NEVER OCCURRED TO ANYONE IN THE ISLAMIC HIERARCHY THAT HE HAD DONE ANYTHING WRONG - OTHER THAN GETTING CAUGHT TRYING TO FRAME INFIDELS - AND NOTHING WAS EVER DONE TO HIM FOR HIS BUTCHERING OF INNOCENTS IN AN ISLAMIC CHURCH; HE IS STILL A CLERIC. None of the clerics who preach violence have ever been excommunicated.

Exactly how blind and stupid are you people? To claim that Islam is a religion worth the protection of the US constitution requires a Barack Obama level of willful ignorance.

The KKK uses crosses and ecumenical robes - is it a religion?

This post will doubtless get me banned - since not only am I saying something controversial - but to anyone with the intellectual honesty required to admit it was their fault when they got sun burned it should be obvious I am correct.

Perhaps it can be argued that this is a case where the truth won't sell politically - that is also possibly true - though I have more faith in the average American than those who would cynically argue that point.

Are we in a war for survival or aren't we? If we are - everyone would do well to understand who the enemy really is. I leave you with only one question:

"Exactly what do you do with a billion member Manson Family?"



Posted by: An Observation at July 18, 2011 09:29 AM (ylhEn)

1304 "
You know Dustin it's one thing to defend the Constitution it's another to engage in Islamic apologetics.


Posted by: lowandslow at July 18, 2011 07:38 AM (GZitp)"
One of my biggest problems with Islamofascism is that it insists there is only one true islam. And of course, a lot of Islam's detractors have fallen for that crap, hook line and sinker.We can't kill them all, and thankfully, we do not really need to.

It's not Islamic 'apologetics' to note the plain truth that there is a huge difference between a woman mutilating Jew killing terrorist and many of the Muslims we see in our country, some of whom serve honorably in our armed forces to kill Islamofascists.
You just don't know what the hell you're talking about. Like many purists, your idea of being cool is to take the most extreme position. You hate them the most, so you must be right, and anyone with a different view is apologizing for satan himself.I'm more interested in actually winning the GWOT. My view, which is hardly novel, is to influence the middle east towards modern civilization. A religious war isn't even possible.
I don't know why I even bother.

Posted by: Dustin at July 18, 2011 09:32 AM (519+h)

1305 NFL jerseys,NBA jerseys,NHL jerseys and MLB Jerseys from http://nflnfl.us with discount price,free shipping,you can order the jerseys online and pay by your credit card,its easy and fast

Posted by: bob at July 18, 2011 09:43 AM (KB3u/)

1306
1297"...He...is nothing more than a Charles Johnson wannabe."
==========
You know, I've been thinking the same thing. Having read DrewM's original post, and his responses to some of the comments here, I have been struck by his resemblance to the Pony-tailed Potentate. Not only in content, but also in his whiny, sanctimonious writing style. The resemblance really is amazing.

Posted by: Harry the Hobo at July 18, 2011 09:45 AM (mQMnK)

1307 Pipe fitting
Pipe fittings
Carbon steel pipe fitting
Carbon steel pipe fittings
Butt weld pipe fitting
Butt welded pipe fitting
Butt welding pipe fitting
Seamless pipe fitting
Steel pipe fitting
Pipe elbow
Pipe tee
Pipe bend
90 degree elbow
180 degree elbow
Equal tee
Seamless elbow
A234 wpb pipe fitting
Butt welded elbow

Posted by: jason at July 18, 2011 09:46 AM (kMobi)

1308 It's not Islamic 'apologetics' to note the plain truth
that there is a huge difference between a woman mutilating Jew killing
terrorist and many of the Muslims we see in our country, some of whom
serve honorably in our armed forces to kill Islamofascists.You just don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Posted by: Dustin at July 18, 2011 09:32 AM (519+h)


Again with this garbage. It doesn't make any difference how many Muslim in this country seem peaceful enough. I don't have to meet one Muslim to determine what Islam is all about. All you have to do is read their doctrine to determine that their followers believe in something that is not compatable with our culture. To suggest you can tell how much of a threat Islam is by the people you meet just shows how ignorant you are on the subject.
Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, I know what Islam teaches, you don't.

Posted by: lowandslow at July 18, 2011 09:50 AM (SR3Ru)

1309 But. HERE, in this country, we don't visit the sins of others upon the
children or neighbors. I have no problem with mosques. Make sure their
noise doesn't disturb the peace (our local Catholic church had to stop
the bell ringing you could hear from a 1/2 mile away because idiot
neighbors were 'disturbed' - gander, meet goose). We didn't burn down
the churches in the south when they were the meeting places of the KKK
and where they planned murder and mayhem.Principles are really
tough things.....especially when you don't like their result. But
principled people stick to them, liberals get to making excuses....

How dare you falsely lay claim to principles. Yes religious freedom is an important principle which needs to be defended... but Islam is not a religion and it has no claim to religious freedom in this country.

The KKK is not a religion; it is a terrorist organization - so is Islam.

How do you identify a terrorist organization? By its actions and stated goals. The stated goal of Islam is the overthrow of the US Government and its replacement by Sharia Law. Actions: do you know what an IED is? Do you remember the Twin Towers? Do you remember the attempted Time Square bomber, the shoe bomber? These were all done in the name of Islam. Were any of the people involved rebuked by Islam? Were they excommunicated? No, they are seen as Martyrs.

Bottom line: Terrorist organization - no valid claim to religious religious status. If a Christian church had the stated goal of overthrowing the US government and replacing it with religious law and it failed to excommunicate its followers who committed terrorist acts then it would lose religious exemption also.

That is the application of principles.



Posted by: An Observation at July 18, 2011 10:27 AM (ylhEn)

1310
We didn't burn down the churches in the south when they were the meeting places of the KKK and where they planned murder and mayhem.
We also didn't have outreach programs to KKK members. Or worry about offending moderate KKK members. Or say how we needed to sensitive to the needs of KKK members if they decided to build an outreach center in a black neighborhood.

Posted by: Terrahawk at July 18, 2011 10:56 AM (PyDzI)

1311 Does Godwin's Law apply if the discussion is about Nazis in the first place?

Islam was deeply allied with the Nazis in WWII - the whole idea of killing all the Jews came from the Grand Mufti - Hitler originally wanted to banish the Jews to the middle east.

I am not so sure that anyone can site "Godwin's Law" when discussing modern Islam.

The Holocaust - just another gift of Islam to the west.

Posted by: An Observation at July 18, 2011 11:30 AM (ylhEn)

1312 Hey, Drew, just in case anyone has failed to mention it thus far, you are despicable and couldn't hold a candle to Herman Cain.

Posted by: Dave at July 18, 2011 11:36 AM (Xm1aB)

1313 to "an observation' in 1311:
Please take your 'offense' and pack it. Because YOU don't want to acknowledge Islam as a religion does not make it so. I didn't say that the KKK was a religion, I said it met in churches, was protected by those churches, was supported, or at least tolerated by the communities it based itself in. Many KKK member thought they were doing gods work, were 'good christians' and their supporters agreed. Only when local communities turned on them were they routed. How many people that you share your life with want to impose your brand of religious beliefs on others by the application of 'right and wrong' according to God? I'll be sure to note your defense of those as 'natural'.

to Terrahawk in 1312
As I noted above, the KKK got community support, or at a minimum tolerance.

We call one person with delusions of world domination a lunatic and make sure they don't hurt themselves or others. We call one person with delusions of world domination WITH A MILITARY a threat and should eliminate such as soon as possible. I'll tolerate you or anyone else proclaiming that your or their god has told you what is right and wrong for ME, what I won't tolerate is your or their attempt to impose it on me.

Christianity is NO LONGER violent. Judaism is NO LONGER violent. But both had their times. I am for eliminating the sources of funding and military support of violent Islam. Moslems in this country can yell at the corner near a service member's funeral their version of gods plan just as well as 'Christians'.

And yea....I've got principles.


Posted by: Tracy Coyle at July 18, 2011 12:33 PM (1ytkt)

1314 Drew, you're exactly right. We can no more ban the building of mosques and remain within the bounds of the Constitution than we can prohibit Mormons from holding political office. Someone noted that the Constitution isn't a death-pact, but I'd rather die than see it trampled in such a manner. Herman Cain has just shown himself completely unqualified to write, approve, or enforce laws.

Posted by: JeffreyS at July 18, 2011 12:54 PM (zIesC)

1315 Has anyone commented on this story yet? My two cents. Islam is a socioeconomic political system disguised as a religion. It's main goal is to subjugate and control EVERYONE. It spreads by conquest either thru the use of force or by overpopulation.Total control over the entire world is it's true goal. It does not need to be banned. Islam needs to be destroyed. It is the epitome of evil asits one true goal is to destroy rational, free thought and individual rights.

Posted by: Jeffersonian at July 18, 2011 12:55 PM (oZ3AI)

1316 1316 Someone noted that the Constitution isn't a death-pact, but I'd rather die than see it trampled in such a manner. Herman Cain has just shown himself completely unqualified to write, approve, or enforce laws.

Oh dear Lord! Yet another sanctimonious "Jeff" sockpuppet. Somehow, Ihave the feeling thatyour Patrick Henry imitation rings a little hollow. I'm guessing instead, you'll show yourself to becompletely qualified in supportingthe institution of Sharia Law when that day soon comes= all in the name ofseeing the Constitution utrampled, of course.

Posted by: jokin at July 18, 2011 02:52 PM (+AIYe)

1317 Wow! No way am I going to read the (currently) >1300 messages. Here's my belated 2¢ worth after reading just the first 100.

Cain is out, period, anyway, for many reasons. I was interested in him for about a minute. Then he lost me. Never mind Cain. I want to address the bigger issue.

The real problem is, does a tax-exempt have open books? IIRC, "religious" groups do not. Let's see the full financial disclosure. Can we see clearly what they're doing? Too often, "religions" of all kinds are just cover for something else. Is a mosque a front for Islamonazi subversion of Constitutional America? Does some Christian Fundamentalist group secretly or semi-openly promote political agendas or candidates? Does a Pastafarian promote mayhem and violence? Then, they're not engaged in tax-exempt qualifying activities, and should be re-categorized, or arrested, whatever is called for by just standards.

Just as America determined, the hard way between the 18th & 21st Amendments, that we ought not criminalize all who bend the elbow just because Carrie Nation's husband was a drunk, so we dare not ban all who claim to be Muslim, Fundamentalist, or even Nazi, individually or collectively. There are Biblical Christians who freely suffer "witches" to live despite Exodus. I presume there are Muslims who liberally ignore the Koranic exhortation to kill all non-believers. We cannot prejudicially declare of others, "they believe this way, so ban them" — that would, in fact, be violating the 1st Amendment. We can rightly say, "if they do this, they are criminal."

If an individual or organization is guilty of transgressing the rights of others, and that includes (just in my 2¢ opinion) by throwing up your booze on my shoes, blowing your smoke where my children play, your ringing loud churchbells or braying bullhorn prayers where I live and sleep, and your putting up those dam' streetlights that now shine across my property when we used to be a nice dark rural area, and lots of other violations implicitly protected by the Constitution. All of these with case-by-case possible exceptions and pro and con arguments, I know, but you get the idea.

A mosque is a mosque. Terrorists are terrorists. If there are terrorists in the mosque, take it out, by whatever means the People must. If they are all sweetness and silliness like Little Mosque on the Prairie, despite what their scriptures say, then we must live and let live.

We don't need to get jumpy and impose rules which twist the law to ban what we dislike today but which will be used to ban what we like tomorrow when the Other Party is in power — we see that often enough, right? The law of the land is the Golden Rule. It is not add ban cell phone driving, and then ban drinking a soda or eating a burrito while driving, and then ban wearing the wrong shade of sunglasses while driving, and so on to every niggling detailed regulation, but enforce the prohibition of reckless endangerment when it's apparent.

(Fine points exist. That woman we saw on the highway the other day, with a cellphone to one ear and her hand over the other so she could hear; her speed varied oddly, but she was staying in one lane. Should she get a warning or be jailed? I leave that to our trained law enforcement officers and courts, imperfect though they may be.)

The balance of law and liberty may require careful scrutiny in individual cases, but the principle is still simple: your right to swing your fist ends when it threatens my nose. Want to build something called a mosque? Fine. Want to have an exception so you can practice the evil aspects of Sharia law? Go away. Go far, far away. And never come back.

You know, like that.

The problem with commenting is, post in haste, repent at leisure. I reserve the right to reconsider anything I wrote here. tl;dr? meh. Who reads this far down a thread, anyway? Carry on, good people!

Posted by: A Mindful Webworker at July 18, 2011 03:06 PM (g9gb0)

1318 Communities have a right to ban strip clubs, hog farms, mosques, and go-cart tracks if they choose to. PERIOD. Cain is right. Drew is wrong, and his outrage is unwarranted.

Posted by: nick at July 18, 2011 03:46 PM (S2Q0B)

1319 I am so tired of people who say they'd rather die than see the Constitution trampled. We see it every day where Christianity is concerned never uttered a word when Christians were burned to death at Waco for their beliefs.

Where are they were prayers are banned everywhere by the usual suspects. Willing to die for the Constitution? Snicker.
When a nation or culture abandons commonsense and the knowledge of right and wrong it inevitably declines into the a child's fantasy and magical thinking where all that matters is not being responsible for your actions or its consequences.

Such people allowed Maj Hassan to carry out his desires. PC stopped people from taking action at the risk of their careers. We now see these same people telling us to place our lives at risk, but no worry, not all Muslims want to force Sharia on America.

Like lawyers the 99% of Muslims give a bad name to the remaining 1%.

Let us ignore the 99% and lecture the ignorant and bigoted about that one per cent.

Posted by: Molon Labe at July 18, 2011 04:11 PM (g5MrG)

1320 1319... and so on to every niggling detailed regulation, but enforce the prohibition of reckless endangerment when it's apparent.
Is 80% mosque/radicalizedrate apparent enough to start in on the niggling?

Posted by: jokin at July 18, 2011 04:20 PM (+AIYe)

1321 There's two points prominently made in the 1300 or so comments above.

1) Islam is both a religion and a militant political movement according to it's founder, it's primary religious text, it's long history of military conquest, and it's living proponents

2) and as a Religion, it is problematic under the 1st Amendment to restrict the free exercise of the non militant aspects nor the people who want to practice "Muslim Lite" because their kids "might" be recruited at the local mosque for jihad

I think it's going to be dangerous in the future based on the U.K. experience, in France, the Balkans and the devolution of Lebanon as more mosques are built with Saudi oil money here and abroad, and their leaders sent to the more radicalized institutions of higher learning for Imams, and return as has happened.

Currently if a whole community finds it distasteful that a mosque is in their midst they can restrict the height or broadcast from the minarets but hardly the building and free excercise thereof under law.

If recruitment and radicalization is / does happen getting search warrants, wiretap, clandestine video warrants is about the best that will happen and prosecute the individual perps, probably more than one or two times per location.

Murphreesborough would probably be on a better footing if they said building of a mosque was conditional ... on the good citizens of Murfreesborough being able to build the First Baptist Evangelical Church in Mecca as well as the Temple Isaiah for Jewish worshippers in Mecca.

It would probably be a fair statement that all further mosque construction in the U.S., particularly that funded by foreign entities should be conditional on such a development including the mosque a block and a half from Ground Zero.

Posted by: Scotts_cove at July 18, 2011 05:51 PM (QBaZV)

1322

here is no denying that buying Swiss Replica Watches
has become a trend in modern society. However, it is not an easy task
to find a high quality one especially you a freshman in the related
field. You have to collect as much information as you can about the
retailer who you are going to deal with because its credit standing
directly influences the quality to the timepiece. Therefore, Replica Rolex
of guidelines are offered for you to make a right decision.

Firstly, you can never to too cautious on checking the details of a
replica watch. A reputable website usually comes with a good number of
pictures which display the watch details such as markings, engravings,
materials and dial face features. Everyone wants to buy an imitation
with high grade leather strap or stainless steel bracelet. Usually
speaking, the quality Rolex Replica
is made up of sapphire crystal glass and Swiss made movement so that
the durability and time accuracy are ensured.

Secondly, make sure that you are buying from a reliable source. It
should be evaluated before you make a choice on the style. As far as we
know, there are a large number of dealers who are doing the similar
business. At a temporary time, it is impossible to have a thorough
knowledge about all of them. Thus, you are recommended to search as much
information as you can to evaluate its reputation. For a good Rolex Daytona,
it always comes with available telephone number which can be used for
consultant or online services. What is more, the trustworthy website
guarantees periodical refund for quality issue Swiss Replica Omega.
According to my experience, the best way is to check the customer
satisfaction including the positive and negative feedbacks from the
previous buyers.

Posted by: tian at July 18, 2011 09:25 PM (XvXJT)

1323 Ace buried this turd of blog posting fast. Maybe I'll add this site back to my favorites.

Posted by: spacejesus at July 18, 2011 10:24 PM (BbH5o)

1324
Herman Cain is the un-appointed, ineloquent spokesmen for the real and WARRANTED anxiety of the American majority. Thats usually how these things happen.
Supreme Court Jurisprudence from a case in 1921(?), which I believe was called Milwaukee Social pub vs. Wisconsin or somesuch (I am informed, though not well footnoted, admittedly) held that the Constitution does not shield entities that wish the destruction of theUS Constitution.
You will find no meaningful claimant to the title "muslim" that believes man-made law (US Constitution - by definition) can ever claim authority over Allah-made law (theSharia - by religious dictat). This means that each and every time they conflict, supplications must be made to Western law (under Taqqiya) - until such times as the numbers tilt upward enough locally - and they challenge western law outright, (as we're seeing in several European jurisdictions). Mosques don't go away,BTW, once built. Unless you count the ones uprooted inSpain and Greece- which is more to the point.
We need a big, rich debate on Islam. Because we need a new category for it. Its not a coiincidence that we don't have one, and not a coiincidence that it hasever been OUTSIDE westerncivilization -ever wary of opportunity. Slamming it in our cookie-cutter "religion" category - is a mistake of world-changing proportions, one we will rue.
After all, our Constitution permits criticism of Islam -an untidy mess left by the fore-fathers you will soon hear your "moderate" friends exhorting us to "fix".
Americans need to understand Islam much better, not the cry-baby apologia pushed by Hamas/CAIR - but the real, un-coy eschatology practiced unchanged for 14 centuries, upheld by all four schools of traditional Islamic jurisprudence. They're doing us a favor - you see - freeing us from the deceptions and lies - of men (whether we ultimately like it or not) and replacing our "likes" with the ineradicable coda breathed by the Architect of the Universe himself.
Trouble is, they generally don't place much catchet on debate, when it doesn't include lecturing US - on tolerance, forbearance and "peace."
My fellow Americans: Build all the Bhuddist temples, Indian Pow-Wow circles, Mormon temples you want. Just please. Please. PLEASE - stop building mosques. Our litigant class is not the last bulwark you want standing betweeen you and local sharia law.
The hijab controversy du jour, the "conscientius objector" in the 101st, MAJ Hasan - these don't add up to conspiracy - BUT THEYRE NOT COIINCIDENCE. The quran is the "source code". And its bad. The mosque is the hive.

Posted by: Greeney at July 19, 2011 02:13 AM (9BA57)

1325 Thank you very much http://www.fakeoakleyglasses.net/

Posted by: Fake Oakley Sunglasses at July 19, 2011 05:11 AM (GKtg6)

1326 Bear in mind, islam is designed to change over time (from Mecca to Medina, Remember?):

"Police 'cover up' violent campaign to turn London area 'Islamic" by Andrew Gilligan, The Telegraph, June 12, 2011.

Posted by: Highplains at July 19, 2011 10:21 AM (XDafY)






Processing 0.2, elapsed 0.2232 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0599 seconds, 1335 records returned.
Page size 840 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat