Thursday, July 19, 2018 • Evening Edition • "We Wipe Last. Not Before."

The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

Comics news, comic book reviews, feature articles about comics, interviews with comic creators, plus the greatest comic book and pop culture discussion in the Outhouse forums!

Advertisement

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!

User avatar

KingPagla

WTF is this rank?

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

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

Spidey-Man

Postby 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.


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.

Spidey-Man

Postby 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.


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 :smt102

Spidey-Man

Postby 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.


There is no sharia law threat. However, there is a threat of domestic terrorism from radicalized muslims

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.


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.
User avatar

AaronW

Rain Partier

Postby 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.


I didn't make the world. :smt102

I used to be so full of tolerance. :cry:
User avatar

AaronW

Rain Partier

Postby 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.


PWNT!

Spidey-Man

Postby 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.


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?
User avatar

Frag

REAL OFFICIAL President of the Outhouse

Postby Frag » Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:09 am

Rob: your first post was very good. It was the point I was making as well.
User avatar

AaronW

Rain Partier

Postby 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?


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.

Spidey-Man

Postby 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.


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.

Spidey-Man

Postby 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.


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.
User avatar

KingPagla

WTF is this rank?

Postby 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 :smt102

Why does she care about what's happening in Michigan?
User avatar

MrBlack

WTF is this rank?

Postby MrBlack » Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:23 am

I think Rob makes some excellent points all around. Bravo.

Spidey-Man

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

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


Why does she care if the constitution is being subverted in Michigan? :-D :lol:

Im not saying it is BTW.
User avatar

KingPagla

WTF is this rank?

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

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

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: chap22, FaceBook [Linkcheck], Glacier16, Turd Crapley and 47 guests