Sharron Angle: Muslim law taking hold in parts of US
Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*
*Membership spots not really limited!
Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*
*Membership spots not really limited!
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
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 ![]() |
||
|
||
|
||
There is no sharia law threat. However, there is a threat of domestic terrorism from radicalized muslims
its interesting that entire article while it mentions al qaeda does not actually come out and say radicalized muslims though that is clearly what they mean given the AQ connection and thenm the list of a dozen events all involving home grown muslim terrorists. P.C. also, its not just christian xenophobia. jews, atheists, and the like are not loving on muslims rigth now. in other words, people. |
||
|
||
|
||
I didn't make the world. ![]() I used to be so full of tolerance. ![]() |
||
|
||
|
||
PWNT! |
||
|
||
|
||
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? |
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
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. |
||
|
||
|
||
It's a ruling that says even though he raped her repeatedly before, he won't do it now because he's not married to her I find the logic dubious. |
||
|
||
|
||
I know what you don't have a problem with. Im asking for a legal argument as to why part of the constitution applies to them and part doesn't. Including some parts of the same amendment. |
||
|
||
|
||
Why does she care about what's happening in Michigan? |
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Why does she care if the constitution is being subverted in Michigan? ![]() ![]() Im not saying it is BTW. |
||
|
||
|
||
'Cause there are Muslims with aspirations of World Domination involved? |
||
leave a comment with facebook
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: FaceBook [Linkcheck], Google [Bot], jephd and 29 guests
Advertisement |
---|
|