“You say shit like that, and then people will buy into it.”

[SkyDekker 1,124]

Quote

Sharia is fine if you want to live by those principles. Nothing to do with "scary", but that seems to be the "go to" response tactic from some folks who can't otherwise defend its place or fit in the free world.

Israel has incorporated parts of Sharia law for their Muslim population. Really no reason why people cannot voluntarily agree to arbitration under any set of principles, be it Sharia, Halacha, Canon or anything else.

Quote

Here, it is completely at odds with our laws and Constitution. Incompatible, irreconcilable principles.

Bullshit. If two muslims draw up a prenuptial agreement according to Sharia law, it would be upheld by US courts.

[muff528 3]

kallend

.....
A nice admission that your previous post was a load of BS and you knew it.

So, either the new guy was too stupid to assess conditions in the country at the "scheduled" departure date and re-evaluate the wisdom of evacuating the country ...or he said "This cluster-fuck is Bush's baby. Let's bug out on his scheduled date and we can blame him for anything that happens in the region for the next eight years ...or longer. Screw the Iraqis".

[muff528 3]

SkyDekker

Quote

Sharia is fine if you want to live by those principles. Nothing to do with "scary", but that seems to be the "go to" response tactic from some folks who can't otherwise defend its place or fit in the free world.

Israel has incorporated parts of Sharia law for their Muslim population. Really no reason why people cannot voluntarily agree to arbitration under any set of principles, be it Sharia, Halacha, Canon or anything else.

Possible that their constitution allows for that.

Quote

***Here, it is completely at odds with our laws and Constitution. Incompatible, irreconcilable principles.

Bullshit. If two muslims draw up a prenuptial agreement according to Sharia law, it would be upheld by US courts.

No problem as long as there is no conflict with US law.

[turtlespeed 212]

SkyDekker

Quote

Sharia is fine if you want to live by those principles. Nothing to do with "scary", but that seems to be the "go to" response tactic from some folks who can't otherwise defend its place or fit in the free world.

Israel has incorporated parts of Sharia law for their Muslim population. Really no reason why people cannot voluntarily agree to arbitration under any set of principles, be it Sharia, Halacha, Canon or anything else.

***Here, it is completely at odds with our laws and Constitution. Incompatible, irreconcilable principles.

Bullshit. If two muslims draw up a prenuptial agreement according to Sharia law, it would be upheld by US courts.

I wonder . . . Would the woman have to prove or disprove coercion?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,124]

Quote

Here, it is completely at odds with our laws and Constitution. Incompatible, irreconcilable principles.

Bullshit. If two muslims draw up a prenuptial agreement according to Sharia law, it would be upheld by US courts.
No problem as long as there is no conflict with US law.

So Sharia is completely at odds with your laws and constitution with incompatible and irreconcilable principles, but the application of Sharia is fine as there is no conflict with US law.

[aphid 0]

kallend

Hey Marc,

Your favorite "news" source has been caught fabricating falsehoods yet again.

mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/03/breitbart-caught-passing-photo-cleveland-s-nba-championship-parade-image-trumps-jacksonville-rally/212174

From your link: UPDATE: Breitbart issued the following correction: "A photograph that was incorrectly attributed on social media to the rally in Jacksonville has been removed."

Using any variant of social-media as a go-to source without thorough vetting while professing to be a News Network is laughable beyond imagination.

An aside to [muff528] - no response to this?
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4809783#4809783

[muff528 3]

Damn, you got me on a technicality! OK, I'll walk the word "completely" back and replace with "for the most part". I'll be waiting for quantitative analysis and comparison of points of contention and agreement between the two doctrines. I will even replace "for the most part" with "that one, single point" if it comes down to that.

But, that's your argument? That there might be some aspect of Sharia that does not violate our laws or Constitutional principles?

But, here's the thing ...while it may be OK for us to allow some aspects of Sharia, for example, to be practiced here (as long as there is no conflict with our laws), Sharia, itself, is not flexible to faithful adherents.

[Coreeece 2]

SkyDekker

Quote

was a supporter of Sharia and has advocated as much in his Islamist writings,

Ohhh, scary. Sharia.

Did they mention anything about Halacha, or is only Sharia scary?

Some people shit their pants at the mere sight of the ten commandments.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[kallend 1,631]

muff528

***.....
A nice admission that your previous post was a load of BS and you knew it.

So, either the new guy was too stupid to assess conditions in the country at the "scheduled" departure date and re-evaluate the wisdom of evacuating the country ...or he said "This cluster-fuck is Bush's baby. Let's bug out on his scheduled date and we can blame him for anything that happens in the region for the next eight years ...or longer. Screw the Iraqis".

So you think it's OK for the USA to renege on a signed agreement with a sovereign foreign nation, when the head of that nation expressly opposes any further intervention.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 622]

While others simply chuckle.

[kallend 1,631]

Coreeece

***

Quote

was a supporter of Sharia and has advocated as much in his Islamist writings,

Ohhh, scary. Sharia.

Did they mention anything about Halacha, or is only Sharia scary?

Some people shit their pants at the mere sight of the ten commandments.

The ten commandments were ripped off from the Egyptian Book of the Dead ("I have done away sin for thee and not acted fraudulently or deceitfully. I have not belittled God. I have not inflicted pain or caused another to weep. I have not murdered or given such an order. I have not used false balances or scales. I have not purloined (held back) the offerings to the gods. I have not stolen. I have not uttered lies or curses.") and the code of Hammurabi. They are also mirrored in Islam.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[muff528 3]

aphid

***Hey Marc,

Your favorite "news" source has been caught fabricating falsehoods yet again.

mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/03/breitbart-caught-passing-photo-cleveland-s-nba-championship-parade-image-trumps-jacksonville-rally/212174

From your link: UPDATE: Breitbart issued the following correction: "A photograph that was incorrectly attributed on social media to the rally in Jacksonville has been removed."

Using any variant of social-media as a go-to source without thorough vetting while professing to be a News Network is laughable beyond imagination.

An aside to [muff528] - no response to this?
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4809783#4809783

Sorry, missed it.

"Snopes seems to have a differing view of what Mr. Khan is purported to have done. On review, they concluded that "in no part suggested support for Sharia law or membership in the Muslim brotherhood and appeared to be an academic piece, not an advocacy paper."

source: http://www.snopes.com/...m-brotherhood-agent/ "

First, I don't consider Snopes to be the final arbiter of truth. I disagree with their assessment that the paper "appeared to be (only) an academic piece". IMO, it looks like he is disagreeing with "most jurists" in their classification of Islamic Law as outlined in the first part of the paper. Although we can only see the first page, it does seem to me that he is advocating a strict interpretation of Islamic Law and that the Quran is the source of that law, stating "that even the Sunnah derived its authority from clear injunctions of the Quran." This, to me, looks like it could be a very interesting read and I'd like to see the rest of the paper.

Obviously, written in 1983 or 84, he could have become westernized.

[aphid 0]

kallend

So you think it's OK for the USA to renege on a signed agreement with a sovereign foreign nation, when the head of that nation expressly opposes any further intervention.

Both of your current presidential candidates seem to be okay with blowing off international agreements.

NAFTA and the TPP, for examples.

[kallend 1,631]

muff528

First, I don't consider Snopes to be the final arbiter of truth.

Funny how the right whines repeatedly that Snopes, Factcheck, Politifact ... are biased.

Okham would suggest that it's more likely that the truth is biased against right wing lies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[muff528 3]

kallend

***

First, I don't consider Snopes to be the final arbiter of truth.

Funny how the right whines repeatedly that Snopes, Factcheck, Politifact ... are biased.

Okham would suggest that it's more likely that the truth is biased against right wing lies.

Looks like I'm reading the same paper the Snopes folks are reading. Just different interpretations.

[billvon 2,402]

> But Trump's "plan" is a reactionary end result of decades of dereliction and neglect and politicization of
>our immigration policy.

And yet illegal immigration is at its lowest level in decades.

>We are now facing the prospect of thousands of refugees and immigrants from an area where we are
>actively engaged in hostilities with an enemy that has no problem with infiltrating civilian refugees and
>has stated as much . . . .

And have been dealing with that (successfully) for decades as well.

>Speaking for myself, I support a rigorous vetting process WRT incoming refugees/immigrants
>from those areas.

Then it sounds like you support Obama's plan to rigorously vet incoming refugees.
========
White House Says Syrian Refugees Face Rigorous Screenings
WSJ
By Miriam Jordan
Nov. 17, 2015 6:33 p.m. ET

The Obama administration and representatives of the U.S. agencies that resettle refugees are pushing back against calls to suspend or re-evaluate admissions of Syrians, saying the refugees already undergo the most rigorous screening of any foreigners entering the country.

More than four million Syrians have fled their country since war erupted there in 2011. But while hundreds of thousands have reached Europe, only a tiny fraction, 2,150, have been admitted into the U.S., after a lengthy background-vetting process that typically takes years.
=========

So who to trust on immigration? Obama, who has enforced a years-long, rigorous screening on refugees (turning most of them away) and helped bring illegal immigration to its lowest level in 40 years - or Trump? Trump doesn't have much of a track record on immigration, so it's hard to say what he would do. But perhaps his actions in the past would lend some illumination:

=======
Gaps in Melania Trump's immigration story raise questions

A racy photo shoot is prompting fresh scrutiny of the would-be first lady's early visits to the United States.

By Ben Schreckinger and Gabriel Debenedetti
Politico
08/04/16 05:22 AM EDT

. . .

While Trump and her husband, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, have said she came to the United States legally, her own statements suggest she first came to the country on a short-term visa that would not have authorized her to work as a model. Trump has also said she came to New York in 1996, but the nude photo shoot places her in the United States in 1995, as does a biography published in February by Slovenian journalists.

The inconsistencies come on top of reports by CBS News and GQ Magazine that Trump falsely claimed to have obtained a college degree in Slovenia but could be more politically damaging because her husband has made opposition to illegal immigration the foundation of his presidential run.
========

[SkyDekker 1,124]

Quote

Sharia, itself, is not flexible to faithful adherents.

Considering there are multiple versions of Sharia, from differing schools, with differing opinions, this too is false.

[normiss 622]

Trump's hypocrisy, as well as that of the majority of his supporters, is insane.

Laughably insane.


Her immigration issues are interesting, I was unaware of those.

[muff528 3]

SkyDekker

Quote

Sharia, itself, is not flexible to faithful adherents.

Considering there are multiple versions of Sharia, from differing schools, with differing opinions, this too is false.

It seems that, according to Mr. Khan, (the present discussion is about Mr. Khan) there is only one version.

[SkyDekker 1,124]

muff528

***

Quote

Sharia, itself, is not flexible to faithful adherents.

Considering there are multiple versions of Sharia, from differing schools, with differing opinions, this too is false.

It seems that, according to Mr. Khan, (the present discussion is about Mr. Khan) there is only one version.

And this is a problem. A big enough problem justifying Trump's attack on a family who have lost a son fighting for nothing but American ego?

And before you react to the last part, Iraq was no threat to the US or any of it's freedoms.

[muff528 3]

kallend

******.....
A nice admission that your previous post was a load of BS and you knew it.

So, either the new guy was too stupid to assess conditions in the country at the "scheduled" departure date and re-evaluate the wisdom of evacuating the country ...or he said "This cluster-fuck is Bush's baby. Let's bug out on his scheduled date and we can blame him for anything that happens in the region for the next eight years ...or longer. Screw the Iraqis".

So you think it's OK for the USA to renege on a signed agreement with a sovereign foreign nation, when the head of that nation expressly opposes any further intervention.

Well, I disagreed with our exit simply based on a predetermined exit date without regard to our objectives and our great costs in lives and wealth. Having said that, I think that if we were going to leave we should have just gotten the hell out ...Vietnam-style. ....Especially when when "the head of that nation expressly opposes any further intervention". Instead we left personnel there for what purpose?

[muff528 3]

SkyDekker

******

Quote

Sharia, itself, is not flexible to faithful adherents.

Considering there are multiple versions of Sharia, from differing schools, with differing opinions, this too is false.

It seems that, according to Mr. Khan, (the present discussion is about Mr. Khan) there is only one version.

And this is a problem. A big enough problem justifying Trump's attack on a family who have lost a son fighting for nothing but American ego?

And before you react to the last part, Iraq was no threat to the US or any of it's freedoms.

Trump attacked Khan because Khan attacked Trump. That's all. I have noticed that in virtually every personal attack made by Trump, it was a direct response to a personal attack on him. May be one or two exceptions, but I'm not keeping score. BTW - I really am not a Trump supporter. I am a Hillary non-supporter.

[SkyDekker 1,124]

Quote

Trump attacked Khan because Khan attacked Trump.

Even if that is true, that is a problem. One would hope that a president of a major country is able to control his emotions and anger a little better.

[rehmwa 2]

SkyDekker

Quote

Trump attacked Khan because Khan attacked Trump.

Even if that is true, that is a problem. One would hope that a president of a major country is able to control his or her emotions and anger a little better.

FIFY

(taking out your anger is what husbands, military people, and secret service members are for)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,123]

It is the nature of being president or a candidate to be attacked. If you can't deal with that without attacking back, you're seriously unsuitable for the job. Does anyone here doubt that Trump will have an enemies list, and that he'll use the power of the presidency to get back at his enemies?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)