Balloon guy 158 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 So a guy dressed up as a zombie Mohammad costume at a Halloween party. The guy is an atheist ( arrogant in your face idiot, duh ) and his buddy had a zombie Pope costume on. A muslim guy sees him and is offended, so he attacks him. ( note the zombie Pope was ignored )The judge allows the muslim's defense that he was obeying sharia law and dismisses his assault charges.Thanks lefties in America, your efforts are making great strides in destroying our country's laws. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 So a guy dressed up as a zombie Mohammad costume at a Halloween party. The guy is an atheist ( arrogant in your face idiot, duh ) and his buddy had a zombie Pope costume on. A muslim guy sees him and is offended, so he attacks him. ( note the zombie Pope was ignored )The judge allows the muslim's defense that he was obeying sharia law and dismisses his assault charges.Thanks lefties in America, your efforts are making great strides in destroying our country's laws.I'm not sure the blame for this one falls on the left; the right is the side that is constantly trying to say that particular religious beliefs should be integrated into law, this is the next natural step of that. Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Yeah, I really didn't feel like going into all the complexities, but over the last 60 years there is no compelling data that changing tax rates on the rich leads to additional tax collections on the rich, yet it is repeatedly offered up as a budget solution. I think this article would've been more interesting if they had discussed it as percent of GDP, since that has a much bigger effect on revenue.You are completely wrong about this, but since you are irrational you will continue to ignore all of the clear evidence. See post #474 and lots of other posts I've made.http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...p;#entry3495620 Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 So a guy dressed up as a zombie Mohammad costume at a Halloween party. The guy is an atheist ( arrogant in your face idiot, duh ) and his buddy had a zombie Pope costume on. A muslim guy sees him and is offended, so he attacks him. ( note the zombie Pope was ignored )The judge allows the muslim's defense that he was obeying sharia law and dismisses his assault charges.Thanks lefties in America, your efforts are making great strides in destroying our country's laws.First, this is hardly a "great stride".Second, I'm sure liberals are overwhelmingly opposed to implementing sharia law so I don't know what your point is. Link to post Share on other sites
colonel Feathers 5 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Tax the rich, it always works.And by always, I mean "never".You know damn well, it never has been if it works.Its to make the people who pay no taxes, feel better if they think the rich is gettin screwed. Link to post Share on other sites
AmScray 355 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 First, this is hardly a "great stride".Second, I'm sure liberals are overwhelmingly opposed to implementing sharia law so I don't know what your point is.I read the transcript of what the judge said. Methinks someone was afraid of having to hire 24.7 security for the rest of his life, should he have come off as 'insensitive'. Muslims, for whatever they aren't, are certainly consistent in their application of violence. That really is a fascinating situation, though, and makes for hilarious political bedfellows.You have ordinarily "anti-Muslim" Conservative retards realizing that intellectual consistency demands they be forgiving of the ornery little Mohammed, seeing as if John Q Christian had punched out an athiest wearing a Zombie Jesus costume, they would've applauded the judge's reasoning. You have faggots on the left, ordinarily hysterically pro "tolerance", having to make a decision between their god of nogod, or their god of making excuses for exotic brown people... Decisions, decisions. Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 That really is a fascinating situation, though, and makes for hilarious political bedfellows.You have ordinarily "anti-Muslim" Conservative retards realizing that intellectual consistency demands they be forgiving of the ornery little Mohammed, seeing as if John Q Christian had punched out an athiest wearing a Zombie Jesus costume, they would've applauded the judge's reasoning. You have faggots on the left, ordinarily hysterically pro "tolerance", having to make a decision between their god of nogod, or their god of making excuses for exotic brown people... Decisions, decisions.I think support for Muslims on the left is a lot lower than you think. Islam is evil and should be systematically opposed, but arbitrarily slaughtering and torturing Muslims is an extremely stupid and immoral way to go about it. Speaking of fascinating, here's a fun supreme court case coming up- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/opinion/...le-do.html?_r=1Just kidding. There's no suspense here since we all know the $C will rule that corporate "people" have the right to kill and torture with impunity. After all, some people are a hell of a lot more equal than others. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I see "micro$oft" sometimes but never "$C." Link to post Share on other sites
mk 11 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Islam is evil and should be systematically opposeduh...what? Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 uh...what?Ooh, I can translate this one!He's saying that Islam isn't "a good thing" and we should "be against it." Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Ooh, I can translate this one!He's saying that Islam isn't "a good thing" and we should "be against it."but, you know, more genocidey. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/opinion/...le-do.html?_r=1Just kidding. There's no suspense here since we all know the $C will rule that corporate "people" have the right to kill and torture with impunity. After all, some people are a hell of a lot more equal than others.As usual, the NYT completely misinterprets reality with statements like this:Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, which removed restrictions on political spending by contributions and wildly expanded the concept of corporate personhood.That's just nonsense, and they know better. As for the case at hand, certainly the people who knew about and sanctioned violence against others should be punished accordingly. Whether "the corporation" -- presumably the shareholders -- should be punished for the actions of a few is certainly a subject for debate, but do we really want to open the door to everyone who holds stock being criminally liable for everything every company they own does? So if you have a 401K you can be sued because a branch of one of the companies you have in your mutual fund once made a kid work 16 hours without parent's permission?I think a more sensible position would be that anyone who knew about or should have reasonably been expected to know about a crime should be responsible. Passing that burden onto shareholders just seems silly.EDIT: The fact that this is being compared to CU at all shows just how shoddy the level of journalism is at NYT. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 EDIT: The fact that this is being compared to CU at all shows just how shoddy the level of journalism is at NYT.It's an opinion piece.The NYT and the IHT have probably the best coverage of foreign affairs for Americans Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 uh...what?There are degrees of evil, but due to Islam's irredeemable incompatibility with modern civilization and values I think you would be justified in calling it evil. A primary problem is that most Muslims do not believe in separation of church/state. Their ideal government is a religious tyranny that treats non-believers(and women) as permanent second class citizens. There are Muslims that have argued against this, but they seem to be very much a minority. A second major problem is the extreme hostility to opposing or moderate views. Trying to kill or violently suppress "unbelievers" is absolutely unacceptable. This makes Islam an unusually poor candidate for secularization as Christianity did for the most part. You can argue that this hostility is a historical artifact, but it seems more likely that it is part of their core beliefs. As hard as it is to get Christians to accept modern science, it seems that it would be completely impossible to get most Muslims to.Islam is a very demanding religion, which tends to promote "piousness contests" in which extreme views tend to win out. So even if an extreme view is not categorically promoted in the Koran, it is likely that the extreme interpretation will be adopted. Of course there is also the violence problem. A decent part of what Muslims get blamed for has been provoked by the US, Israel and Russia. But even excluding that, they seem to have a proclivity for resorting to violence. Extreme religious devotion and acceptance of violence is a very bad combination. In theory a small percent of Muslims can adequately assimilate in a modern country. They seem to be doing just fine in the United States. But when that percent starts to rise you tend to have problems, as Europe is finding out the hard way.As for "systematically oppose", obviously I'm not talking about genocide. Killing countless thousands of innocent Muslims like we have is pretty much the worst way to oppose Islam. Instead, we need to promote a foreign policy that is remotely in line with commonly accepted ethics like justice and freedom. Rather than target whole nations or indiscriminately target individuals, we need to act as a global police that only goes after those individuals who are proven to commit terrorist acts. Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 As usual, the NYT completely misinterprets reality with statements like this:That's just nonsense, and they know better. As for the case at hand, certainly the people who knew about and sanctioned violence against others should be punished accordingly. Whether "the corporation" -- presumably the shareholders -- should be punished for the actions of a few is certainly a subject for debate, but do we really want to open the door to everyone who holds stock being criminally liable for everything every company they own does? So if you have a 401K you can be sued because a branch of one of the companies you have in your mutual fund once made a kid work 16 hours without parent's permission?I think a more sensible position would be that anyone who knew about or should have reasonably been expected to know about a crime should be responsible. Passing that burden onto shareholders just seems silly.EDIT: The fact that this is being compared to CU at all shows just how shoddy the level of journalism is at NYT.So you're saying that corporations are not people? Well I guess we can agree on that. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 So you're saying that corporations are not people? Well I guess we can agree on that.That's right, they are not, and vice versa. The point in CU is that people do not lose their fundamental right to free speech just because they choose a particular legal structure for their financial affairs.I have yet to have anyone explain what all the fuss about "corporations are people" is about in specific terms. Not slogans, very specifically, which "rights" corporations have that they should NOT have that were granted to them on the basis of "corporations are people". Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 and they know better.I disagree. Having worked in the journalism industry I can emphatically state that most journalists are good writers and terrible thinkers, and I seriously doubt that they realize how biased they are. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 bin Laden was in regulat contact with Pakistan spy agency Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 bin Laden was in regulat contact with Pakistan spy agencyBin Laden being in contact with higher-ups in Pakistan was just something I think everyone assumed was obviously true.But Chavez only has a year to live.....burying the lead! Link to post Share on other sites
mk 11 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Ooh, I can translate this one!He's saying that Islam isn't "a good thing" and we should "be against it."Do you agree with this? Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Do you agree with this?I mean, I'm not out there protesting or anything, but I think so. Link to post Share on other sites
mk 11 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I mean, I'm not out there protesting or anything, but I think so.Like.....really? You are in favor of singling out one specific religion to oppose, despite the fact that everything the U.S. was meant to stand for is the exact opposite of that? Do you feel the same about all other organized religions? This is a much more easily defended position. Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Like.....really? You are in favor of singling out one specific religion to oppose, despite the fact that everything the U.S. was meant to stand for is the exact opposite of that? Do you feel the same about all other organized religions? This is a much more easily defended position.I'll let vb speak for me since, um, he is the main source of my beliefs on the matter.I think its incorrect to characterize people who take the religion at its word as "extremists". Yes, I see how they are extreme in their beliefs and behavior. But the subtext of this term -- and people often say this explicitly -- is that the religion is really a peaceful, positive thing at its heart, and this small group of folks is perverting it into something violent. I think this view is dangerous and incorrect. Its apologist and enabling. First, is it true that these "extremists" believe something different from the majority of muslims? I think this is probably true only within the united states, where religious views are heavily secularized by the culture. The koran itself puts people intending to be "mainstream" muslims in a difficult position. Compare with christianity. The Old Testament says some pretty heinous things. Christians though have a way out of following the gruesomeness of the old testament and still maintaining the bible's literal truth: jesus came and changed things. Modern muslims have no such out. These principles are written into the Koran and the theology states that the word of the prophet is the word of allah. These principles motivate much more than a few random acts of violence; they are at the root of the conflict with Israel for example, and entire countries (e.g. Iran) leverage these principles in their political opposition to western culture. Until there is an official theological change within Islam that separates itself from its own violent and divisive canon (something like the protestant reformation probably needs to happen), muslims have not earned the right to dismiss these people as "extremists". It also behooves us to keep the pressure on them to do this, because the longer we pretend that Islam is a positive force in the world the more we put off this necessary change. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Well luckily there are plenty of examples of the law holding a heavy hand on the Christians, so it kind fo balances itself out. Link to post Share on other sites
mk 11 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I think this view is dangerous and incorrect. Its apologist and enabling.It is neither dangerous nor incorrect. In fact, exactly the opposite is true.Regarding the moral superiority of the Bible over the Koran with regard to calls to violence and the destruction of non-believers, the Bible is WAY fucking worse, both in terms of volume and extremity, and it's not even remotely close. There are minority, extremist wings of all religions. The Islamists are no different than the Christian fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics or those who burned women at the stake and called them witches. The Islamists have demonstrated a large sway within their populations in certain countries, and that is due to a total lack of options for these populations, but because this is so absolutely does not mean it is fair or correct to lump the entire religion with the few who are attempting to pervert the minds of the literally billions of otherwise peaceful practitioners.Have you guys been watching a lot of Pat Robertson or something? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now