The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

by KingPagla » Fri Oct 08, 2010 8:53 am

by Spidey-Man » Fri Oct 08, 2010 8:53 am

Chesscub wrote:Oh noes! The bad brown people are out to get us.

As opposed to the pasty white Xtian fundamentalists in all branches of the government citing the bible to deny gay people their rights under the Constitution.

by Spidey-Man » Fri Oct 08, 2010 8:57 am

KingPagla wrote:I thought the Tea Party was all about Government staying out of local affairs.

by Spidey-Man » Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:01 am

Iroh wrote:Man they aren't even done using TERRORISM as a scary buzzword and now I get to hear how SHARIA LAW is the besieging us.

This is 100% Christian xenophobia. No threat whatsoever.

The nation's top counterterrorism officials were blunt. The threat from within---of Americans willing to commit terrorist acts--- is growing. FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III told a congressional hearing today that a spike in recent terrorism cases is direct evidence of the evolving threat.

"Groups affiliated with al Qaeda are now actively targeting the United States and looking to use Americans or Westerners who are able to remain undetected by heightened security measures," Mueller said. "It appears domestic extremism and radicalization appears to have become more pronounced based on the number of disruptions and incidents."

Homegrown terrorists represent a new and changing facet of the terrorist threat." Napolitano said, "To be clear, by homegrown, I mean terrorist operatives who are U.S. persons, and who were radicalized in the United States."

The officials all pointed to a series of recent incidents that show that al Qaeda, its affiliates and associates were more active than ever.

"During the past year our nation has dealt with the most significant developments in the terrorist threat to the Homeland since 9/11," Leiter told the committee.

by AaronW » Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:02 am

nietoperz wrote:
That's kind of a scary viewpoint, IMO, and what it implies is that we must become what we are accusing them of being.

by AaronW » Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:05 am

Brain of Steel wrote:
Muslims aren't brown. in actuality, they may be the most diverse religion there is. White brown and black.

pasty white? the people most opposed to gay marriage and gay rights are black americans. next up is hispanic americans. white americans are the most in favor of them.

what rights exist under the constitution are debatable. certainly those passing the 14th amendment were not under the impression it would lead to gay marriage.

by Spidey-Man » Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:09 am

MoneyMelon wrote:
Moron judges terrify me.

I mean, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people, when it comes to campaign contributions.

I don't have much confidence in them.

by Frag » Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:09 am

by AaronW » Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:13 am

Brain of Steel wrote:
That's not moronic. There was long standing precedent and reasonable arguments (on both sides).

and the Supreme Court ruled on corporate personhood in the 1870s. I dont know why people think this was a new thing.

Do you think corporations have the right to protection from search and seizure without a warrant?

Could the government quarter troops in corporate headquarters?

Can a corporation that owns a newspaper be required to publish whatever the government wants (the ny times is owned by a corporation as are all the cable news).

and if not, how would you reconcile your support for those constitutional rights for corporations but not free speech rights in a consistent logical way, other than the fact you happen to think the result is a bad thing? What's your legal argument?

by Spidey-Man » Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:15 am

Regulator wrote:
There's something that's still not connecting and you're still kind of ignoring the last statement. Here is the timeline:

- they get married
- man rapes wife
- they divorce
- no more sex/rape
- lady files restraining order

The man said he felt he could have sex with his wife whenever he wanted because that's his religious belief. They get divorced. That means they're no longer married. That means he doesn't get to have sex with this lady any more. The man didn't go around saying he gets to fuck whoever he wants, he said he gets to fuck his wife. Personally, I think it's a legitimate ruling for a restraining order because motivations behind the potential assailant should play into it. If he's in court saying that he can't submit this lady to his will now that they're not married, it severely mitigates the threat which reduces the need for a restraining order. But we don't know the entire story behind that because we're only getting a paragraph summation in a Fox News story.

Again, this ruling is not a statement on whether or not it is acceptable to rape your wife.

by Spidey-Man » Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:17 am

Aaron wrote:[

I don't have a problem with limiting the rights of legal constructs like corporations in comparison to a living person. Not to the degree you are talking about but in other areas like campaign donations.

by KingPagla » Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:23 am

Brain of Steel wrote:
Where did she say the feds should get involved in local affairs?

I mean if a city really was under sharia law, in violation of the constituotion, that wouild be untenable, but all i see her doing is decrying her perception of a situation, not sending in the troops to secure dearborn

by MrBlack » Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:23 am

by Spidey-Man » Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:33 am

KingPagla wrote:[
Why does she care about what's happening in Michigan?

by KingPagla » Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:56 am

Brain of Steel wrote:
Why does she care if the constitution is being subverted in Michigan?

Im not saying it is BTW.