muff528

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.

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.

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.

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".

Phil1111

..........
What about the idea that subsequent to the election of an Iraq government that being Iyad Allawi's. That perhaps, just perhaps, Iran and Sunni -Shia ideology had more to do with the current situation in Iraq than US politics.

Sometimes US politicians, US citizens and US journalists need to look objectively at Geo-politics.

Bush, Obama and US interests don't pre-determine world events.

Yes, the big lesson that we failed to learn from Iraq was that the various despotic dictators who ruled over the various factions within each of their (artificial) borders were necessary evils in containing internal conflicts. Human rights loses. But, the region was destined to blow up sooner or later anyway, either through outside interference (whether well-intentioned or not) or through internal uprisings against persecution and genocides. These problems go back way before Bush was even born. I don't think we even now fully understand how alien our western philosophies and ideals are to them ...and vice versa.

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?

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. There are places where it is the law of the land and those who adhere to it seem to like and defend it. Here, it is completely at odds with our laws and Constitution. Incompatible, irreconcilable principles.

kallend

******

What about Trump's batshit crazy spokesperson, who seems to think Obama is a Time Lord:

www.rawstory.com/2016/08/cnn-grills-katrina-pierson-with-fierce-fact-checking-over-capt-kahns-death-and-it-destroys-her/

Yes, Pierson acknowledged the mistake with the time line. But, when she was trying to make her larger point that Obama's evacuation and abandonment of Iraq created conditions which resulted in even more US military being killed the CNN reporters didn't want to hear about it.

Maybe the CNN reporters were aware (as you are not) that it was Bush who negotiated and signed the timeline for US troop withdrawals from Iraq. So maybe they just didn't want to hear more right wing BS and revisionist history.

georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/12/20081214-2.html


Completely aware of Bush's timeline. But the goal was to leave Iraq in a reasonably stable state with a functioning democratic government that represents all factions regardless of any artificial schedule. Things happen that do not cooperate with schedules and exit strategies. It was very predictable what would happen to Iraq after withdrawal of troops at the time it actually happened. They simply were not ready to stand alone and secure as a nation.

Oh yeah! We were supposed to steal their oil too. We bugged out before we could fill our pockets.

Thanks.. Now I see that they are replacing the quotes. Didn't notice that before. I'm using Opera browser. Funny thing is that when view the list of topics under "Speakers Corner" the topic appears normally with the quotes. When viewed under "My Topics" the quotes are replaced by the diamond symbols. I updated Opera from version 38 to 39. No change.

kallend

What about Trump's batshit crazy spokesperson, who seems to think Obama is a Time Lord:

www.rawstory.com/2016/08/cnn-grills-katrina-pierson-with-fierce-fact-checking-over-capt-kahns-death-and-it-destroys-her/

Yes, Pierson acknowledged the mistake with the time line. But, when she was trying to make her larger point that Obama's evacuation and abandonment of Iraq created conditions which resulted in even more US military being killed the CNN reporters didn't want to hear about it. Also, turned out to be not so healthy for those Iraqis who were trying to move into the 21st Century. And when Pierson brought up the fact that the Constitution-thumping Khan was a supporter of Sharia and has advocated as much in his Islamist writings, all the CNN reporters had was "an audible sigh" and “Katrina, he doesn’t stand for it, he never has stood for it,” the CNN host insisted. “He carries around the U.S. Constitution. He abides by the Constitution.” Maybe Khan has changed his mind, maybe not.

billvon

Quote

How about Muslims? Did you know that it was a Muslim who shot up the club in Orlando? It was Muslims who exploded a bomb at the Boston Marathon. Are you ready to indict nearly two billion Muslims because of those actions?

Trump - and most Trump supporters - are.

Some others, too. But Trump's "plan" is a reactionary end result of decades of dereliction and neglect and politicization of our immigration policy. 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 has done so with other countries that have accepted them. Speaking for myself, I support a rigorous vetting process WRT incoming refugees/immigrants from those areas. Trump supporters may or may not agree.

Quote

*** I would pretty much bet money that Trump didn't tell anyone to sucker punch someone who was being escorted out of a rally.

If you encourage violence, and promise haven and financial support for those who commit violence, you share in the blame for that violence.

Again, I'm not sure if Trump's statements were before or as a result of the McGraw incident. Really don't know, but I doubt that Trump told his supporters to go out and attack protesters without provocation. Could be wrong, though. As far as "financial support" he said in the LA Times article that he was "looking into" helping with McGraw's legal fees. This tells me that he is waiting for facts regarding the incident. Don't know.

kelpdiver

***
I think he was telling his supporters to defend themselves against violence directed at them. At least he didn't tell his supporters to bring a gun if they bring a knife.

utter bullshit. Did you actually believe it when you wrote it?

That would be the definition of trumpiness.

John McGraw cold cocked a guy that was being escorted out by the event police. There is no way to argue that the victim was directing violence at McGraw.

Do you actually believe you should use that logic when discussing the actions of a member (or members) of any group ...or just members of groups you disagree with? How about members of a group who are committing murder after being incited, even if indirectly, by folks from the highest levels of local and national governments and by members of the clergy? Do these assassins represent all members of that group? How about Muslims? Did you know that it was a Muslim who shot up the club in Orlando? It was Muslims who exploded a bomb at the Boston Marathon. Are you ready to indict nearly two billion Muslims because of those actions? I would pretty much bet money that Trump didn't tell anyone to sucker punch someone who was being escorted out of a rally. He may have said something beforehand, but I only recall statements made after that incident about responding to a violent protester with violence, usually while answering dumbass questions by a hostile "journalist". I've also heard other politicians from all sides falsely "paraphrasing" or embellishing some of Trump's statements regarding that issue.

The little black diamonds with question marks. see picture

What do they mean?

kelpdiver

Trump started that one too when he encouraged his supporters to beat up protesters and promised to pay their legal fees. This lead to a number of cowardly sucker punchings. In legal terms, this is called inciting violence. Then opponents escalated it even further.

I think he was telling his supporters to defend themselves against violence directed at them. At least he didn't tell his supporters to bring a gun if they bring a knife.

jakee

Quote

In this country it has historically been done by leaders who've had support of a sycophantic Congress.

Which leaders?

Roosy for one. My own grandparents suffered the "hairy eyeball" from that bunch even while family members of my father's generation were deployed overseas. Also, the rise of the KKK under "Progressive" leadership might be another example. Can't leave out the current sycophantic support of marginally Constitutional decrees and programs.

Quote

Quote

Besides, we've already recently seen "brownshirt" activity in this country

What was it?

Violent protesters and disruptors at Trump rallies is what I had in mind. Classic, almost definitive Brownshirt tactics. But other organized violent protests that might also qualify.

Quote

Quote

and it wasn't by the "tea-partiers".

Trump isn't a Tea Partier. He isn't anything.

Whether Trump isn't or isn't is a T.P. is, in itself, irrelevant to my remark.

billvon

>The Dems launched a direct personal attack against Trump through their surrogate, Khan. Then they
>tried to insulate themselves from retaliation by hiding behind the Khan's dead son ...Hamas-style.

They didn't need to insulate themselves. Trump didn't attack the DNC, he went right after the Khans. (To use your analogy, Trump would rather shoot the kids to begin with.)

No, when Iran attacks Israel through their surrogates (Hamas), Israel retaliates against the surrogates, not Iran. Hence, the analogy. The Khan's attacked Trump personally. They did not rebut his ideas for enforcing immigration laws and vetting entrants with an alternate better or more "common-sense" idea.

The notion that the success of any administration's immigration policy is measured by the number of deportations is laughable at best.

SkyDekker

Quote

Soon, the Khan's will be tossed aside and forgotten

Not if your candidate wins. Then they will be allowed to walk around, as long as they wear their identifying mark and don't wander too far from their house.

You know, for National Security.

Then as a way to raise employment, we will get some people to ensure that all Muslims follow those new rules. To set them apart from the regular police, maybe they can wear some dark brown shirts, maybe with orange epaulettes.

LOL ...those are things that are done (and have been done) by Democrats and Socialists. In this country it has historically been done by leaders who've had support of a sycophantic Congress. Trump won't have that kind of "partisanship-uber-country" kind of support. No President should. Besides, we've already recently seen "brownshirt" activity in this country and it wasn't by the "tea-partiers".

Boomerdog

Quote

As a veteran how can you not be disgusted by his attitude?

By 'his,' I take it you are referring to Trump. For the record, I am disgusted. Trump stepped all over his schlong on this one.
Instead of both parties making a positive argument for their policies and positions, they also bring up what I would call "show pony victims" of the opposition's actions, policies, etc. The RNC did with the families of those killed at Benghazi. The DNC did it with Khan. Pimping grief to tug on the heart strings of the faithful and the undecided for votes is IMHO, offensive.
Now with respect to Mr. Khan. He made the decision to go up and speak. Is he that naive/stupid to think opposition research was not going to vet his history in spite of the fact his son was KIA'd in Iraq? The families of those killed in Benghazi were subject to the same.
Finally, as we see form the posts, opinions fall along partisan lines. I'll go back to what I stated previously, pimping another's grief to tell the world your opponent sucks the big one is a bad strategy for all of the risk involved and the craven behavior of those who enable it.
My 25 cents and a cup of coffee's worth.

The Dems launched a direct personal attack against Trump through their surrogate, Khan. Then they tried to insulate themselves from retaliation by hiding behind the Khan's dead son ...Hamas-style. Disgusting, but that's how they roll. Soon, the Khan's will be tossed aside and forgotten just like Cindy Sheehan. Would've worked against anyone else ....but this time....Trump.

BADASS!

Very disappointed in the Howard Dean concert ...errr .... speech. Not finishing with the "primal scream" is like going to a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert and not hearing Freebird. He did tease it though.

Amazon

......
Are you good at running thru the Hershey squirts.....

I'd dam sure be finding out!

headoverheels

***

I guess normiss' delivery is just better.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4807954#4807954

Some people just can't tell a joke.

Amazon

******I find it amazing they would allow the public to drive through a place unsupervised where opening your door or window could mean death.

You haven't been to a game park in Africa then


Channeling Jeff Goldblum......

"Must go faster"

I don't have to out run the tiger. I just have to out run you!

Nothing shook my confidence more than the loss, for the first time while in the sport, of someone I knew. It even caused me to question my involvement in this sport. (Same feeling of apprehension happened to me for the same reason in a different sport earlier in my life.) For me, this happened quite some time after my first cutaway, which, in itself, was a confidence builder. I think maybe that, for you, your loss and your first cutaway were early in your jumping career and in quick succession. I can certainly see a natural fear or uncertainty building under those circumstances.

Bernie's run served two very important purposes for the Dems. They should pay him and his donors for his services to them:

First - He kept Hillary in the news during the entire pre-convention election season. If not for Sanders, there would be absolutely nothing to report about Clinton's campaign during the months the Republican races were taking place. He gave the media an opportunity to periodically herald Hillary's tough fought victories. With nothing to report, the public might have completely forgotten that there was even another candidate in the running.

Second - Sanders unknowingly served as an expendable trial balloon for a possible future assault on the Presidency by the extreme left wing of The Party. That data is even now being interpreted and analyzed.

I think his candidacy was allowed to progress by the DNC for both reasons.