All Hank, all the time.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Uh, I think that he's been in time out since at least 2002, and I wouldn't even want to guess when someone first called asshole on him.

Let's try to keep it on topic and without TOS violation. I think you will find defamation trips the latter............

My blood sugah's a little low today; don't push me...............

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
They asked that Sharia be applied in their family matters.

What the hell do you think that means?

I don't know, it could mean a lot of things. First, I'm not sure that everyone means the exactly the same thing when they say "Sharia." Much as you and I don't often mean the same thing when we say "constitutional."

Second, I don't know what they mean by family matters. It could be a limited to a desire to have Sharia to govern the legal relationships among family members (e.g. who is married, who gets custody of children, etc). Or it could mean that Sharia governs all matters within family discretion (i.e. I get to stone my wife for any number of slights.)

Third, I don't know if they mean just the rules or also the penalties.

Fourth, there are lot of Christians running around this country who want their religious principles incorporated into the law of family matters as well (e.g. abortion, divorce, contraception, custody, "traditional" marriage).

Finally, you don't know these things either as the article you quoted makes no tempt to explain it.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
They asked that Sharia be applied in their family matters.

What the hell do you think that means?

That's the problem, the left defends these extremist nuts but has no idea whom they are defending or what the end result is or will be. The MoveOn crowd thinks that they would live in peace and prosperity in the Islamic Republic of America, honoured for all of their hard work in making it possible. The only validation will be seeing the look of shock and horror on their faces when they are the first to go to the soccer stadium.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The quotes were mine, as some on this board would argue the "Comfy Chair" is torture.

What brought these guys down was the type of investigatory work that folks like Wonk want to prevent as treasonous.

From what I've seen, what brought these guys down was the type of investigatory work that no one on this board objects to at all.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Adder
I don't know why you think you need to pop in every once in awhile to remind us that you are a racist asshole. We know already.

I'm posting about the majority of British Muslims saying all Westerners are immoral retards, and you chime in to call ME a racist against British Muslims? Lovely.

[SlaveNoMore]

Adder
I don't know, it could mean a lot of things. First, I'm not sure that everyone means the exactly the same thing when they say "Sharia." Much as you and I don't often mean the same thing when we say "constitutional."

Second, I don't know what they mean by family matters. It could be a limited to a desire to have Sharia to govern the legal relationships among family members (e.g. who is married, who gets custody of children, etc). Or it could mean that Sharia governs all matters within family discretion (i.e. I get to stone my wife for any number of slights.)

Third, I don't know if they mean just the rules or also the penalties.

Fourth, there are lot of Christians running around this country who want their religious principles incorporated into the law of family matters as well (e.g. abortion, divorce, contraception, custody, "traditional" marriage).

Finally, you don't know these things either as the article you quoted makes no tempt to explain it.

Penske
That's the problem, the left defends these extremist nuts but has no idea whom they are defending or what the end result is or will be. The MoveOn crowd thinks that they would live in peace and prosperity in the Islamic Republic of America, honoured for all of their hard work in making it possible. The only validation will be seeing the look of shock and horror on their faces when they are the first to go to the soccer stadium.

QED

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
QED

I don't know about adder, but I can't condemn or condone until I know what they are talking about. It seems like you made up the part about how if whoever was asking for limited sharia got it, wives could be stoned. So you were condemning out of hand.

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
QED

Yes, by pointing out that the article does not contain enough details to know what was really asked for, that naturally means I was defending them.

What I should have done, if I was a rational thinker like you, would have been to assume that while sitting in a meeting with a senior British official, they requested to bring the rule of the Taliban to Britain and were shocked and dismayed that they did not get instant agreement.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I've said all along that I didn't think we should have gone in, but having dome so, we couldn't pull out without leaving some kind of lasting order. At one point I hoped we could plan a staged pullout over the course of a few years. Subsequent events have led me to change my mind on that score.

You've agreed that we need to change thought and you also have agreed that we can only do that by being on the ground. So is your only problem with where we went in?

However, you are either missing or ignoring my main point. Far more important than being in Iraq is a presence in Israel, Lebanon, and Syria.

1 step at a time.

[Adder]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I don't know about adder, but I can't condemn or condone until I know what they are talking about. It seems like you made up the part about how if whoever was asking for limited sharia got it, wives could be stoned. So you were condemning out of hand.

What she said.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I don't know about adder, but I can't condemn or condone until I know what they are talking about. It seems like you made up the part about how if whoever was asking for limited sharia got it, wives could be stoned. So you were condemning out of hand.

Slave makes up a lot these days. That's why he's in time out, too.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I don't know about adder, but I can't condemn or condone until I know what they are talking about. It seems like you made up the part about how if whoever was asking for limited sharia got it, wives could be stoned. So you were condemning out of hand.

Leaving aside whatever aspects of sharia they may be pushing for, or whatever aspects of sharia may be debatable -- do you find it at all disturbing that people would suggest that a subset of the population should be judged by a different set of laws?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You've agreed that we need to change thought and you also have agreed that we can only do that by being on the ground. So is your only problem with where we went in?

Yes. That was my primary objection, although I also think that if we weren't outright lied to, the Administration was selectively uninformed in what they used as justification.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You've agreed that we need to change thought and you also have agreed that we can only do that by being on the ground. So is your only problem with where we went in?



1 step at a time.

You people are insane.

Occupy Palestine and Lebanon? Yes, that would be a lovely way to incite worldwide jihad against the US -- on a scale far beyond anything we've seen to date. Leaving aside the thousands of US lives and trillions of US dollars that this decades-long misadventure would cost, do you have even a clue of how many Arabs we would kill in the process? We've just seen what Hezbollah is capable of -- do you think that they will respond more kindly to a US invasion and occupation? And do you think that our response would be anything less destructive than Israel's?

As for occupying Israel -- going to war with a democracy and an ally, because we've decided that they don't think right -- I can only say that next time I'm in wonk-land, I hope he shares whatever stuff he's been sampling.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Leaving aside whatever aspects of sharia they may be pushing for, or whatever aspects of sharia may be debatable -- do you find it at all disturbing that people would suggest that a subset of the population should be judged by a different set of laws?

Why should they, its all stuff Slave made up. didn't you read all of the cogent criticism?