Herman Cain said that he would Not appoint a Muslim to any position in his administra

[TheBrain]

Where is your proof that I said anyone who is against Islam thinks all Muslims support Sharia? Reread what I wrote.



Yes, I have read Sunni's posts. He can endorse it all he wants. He isn't going to get his way.

no, he isn't going to get his way, because people can see that that is what Muslims want and aren't going to allow it. I mention him because he pulls the same shit as Bass pulls here, calling Muslims who don't support Sharia and terrorism "uncle Mohommads"

You are a blatant liar.

I do not support terrorism and never have.

A Muslim who does not condemn Muslim terrorists is in fact a supporter of Muslim terrorists you piece of shit.

 

[Big Hoss]

I don't condemn muslim "terrorists" either as long as they are attacking people who don't belong in their country or are killing/occupying their country or muslim countries.

 

[Sunni Man]

A Muslim who does not condemn Muslim terrorists is in fact a supporter of Muslim terrorists you piece of shit.

You really are a retard.

Lack of condemnation does not equal support.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

By assuming that all Muslims subscribe to that ideology he is dissenting from it becomes a bigoted statement/policy.

Dude's a racist.

Once again your analogy is false.

Dude, racism goes to a form of bigotry that is predicated on skin color or ethnicity. It has nothing to do with ideological dissent. Islam is a religious system of thought, in general terms, an ideology! Bigotry proper is what you're talking about, i.e., holding to an idea in the face of a counterargument that either refutes the logic or the facts of one's position. These things are not synonymous. Cain is not a racist.

Earlier in this thread, I said that Cain made a mistake, both logically and politically. He should have simply said that he would not appoint anyone, regardless of their religious affiliation, who did not share his political worldview.

(On the other hand, Muslim's who embrace classical liberalism are rare.)

You are clearly abusing the meaning of language and mangling logically distinct categories of things. That's makes you a bigot proper.

Get real. The only one you're deceiving is yourself.

 

[Sallow]

Hey TheBrain.

Please don't go blowing up any Federal Buildings.

Fuckwad.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I endorse a modified form of sharia that does not violate any tenants of the Constitution.

There can never be any type of Sharia in the United States, ‘modified’ or otherwise. Sharia is anathema to the Anglo-American judicial tradition; its lack of a doctrine of precedent and an appellate process alone make it unworkable.

See S.D. v. M.J.R., a New Jersey case where a ‘Sharia ruling’ was overturned by an appellate court.

Otherwise, a decision by any elected official to not hire based on religion is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

 

[TheBrain]

Hey TheBrain.

Please don't go blowing up any Federal Buildings.

Fuckwad.

Absolutely ZERO chance that I will do so. Which is slightly higher than the odds I give you of graduating high school.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Otherwise, a decision by any elected official to not hire based on religion is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

It is no such thing. Presidential appointees serve at the pleasure of the president. You're logic necessarily implies that a religious group can appeal to the courts on behalf of its members not being appointed by the president. There is no such construct, nor should there be.

 

[TheBrain]

Hey Luissa, here is an example of a moron calling someone a racist for disagreeing with Obama when the guy made no mention of race

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/169232-yea-obama-6.html#post3695600

but it never happens does it.

 

[Sunni Man]

I endorse a modified form of sharia that does not violate any tenants of the Constitution.

There can never be any type of Sharia in the United States, ‘modified’ or otherwise. Sharia is anathema to the Anglo-American judicial tradition; its lack of a doctrine of precedent and an appellate process alone make it unworkable.

Lack of case presedent is no problem.

We will just keep hammering away at it and eventually we will win some of the cases.

Then over time we will have several case presedents which will lay the foundation for our agenda.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Lack of case presedent is no problem.

We will just keep hammering away at it and eventually we will win some of the cases.

Then over time we will have several case presedents which will lay the foundation for our agenda.

Uh, no, it’s Sharia that doesn’t acknowledge precedent – if it adopts a precedent doctrine it won’t be Sharia any longer, making the issue moot.

 

[Sunni Man]

Lack of case presedent is no problem.

We will just keep hammering away at it and eventually we will win some of the cases.

Then over time we will have several case presedents which will lay the foundation for our agenda.

Uh, no, it’s Sharia that doesn’t acknowledge precedent – if it adopts a precedent doctrine it won’t be Sharia any longer, making the issue moot.

You don't have a clue as to what you were talking about.

 

[TheBrain]

Lack of case presedent is no problem.

We will just keep hammering away at it and eventually we will win some of the cases.

Then over time we will have several case presedents which will lay the foundation for our agenda.

Uh, no, it’s Sharia that doesn’t acknowledge precedent – if it adopts a precedent doctrine it won’t be Sharia any longer, making the issue moot.

You don't have a clue as to what you were talking about.

How would Sharia get around the whole constitutional issue of it not being legal to beat a woman for "crimes" she's committed?

 

[Sallow]

Hey TheBrain.

Please don't go blowing up any Federal Buildings.

Fuckwad.

Absolutely ZERO chance that I will do so. Which is slightly higher than the odds I give you of graduating high school.

Hmm..dunno..you've molested kids.

Blowing up federal buildings aren't so far fetched for a creep like yourself.

Really..turn yourself in.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. If he had said he was going to stop muslin immigration, and start sending all Muslims to where they came from then I would actively campaign for him.
2. But just saying he won't have a Muslim in his government is like saying he is sorta against child sexual abuse.
3. No I didn't read the whole thread.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Luissa]

Hey Luissa, here is an example of a moron calling someone a racist for disagreeing with Obama when the guy made no mention of race

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/169232-yea-obama-6.html#post3695600

but it never happens does it.

Are you retarded? I mean it? Are you?

You can't possibly think that you could lie like this and get away with it.

See below from earlier in the thread:

you REALLY deny that there are a substantial number of people in this country who claim that people only disagree with Obama b/c he's black? You really want to take that position?

I'm sure there are plenty of people who think that way. Just like there are plenty of idiots like Cain who think that all Muslims are part of a seekrit creeping Sharia plot.

Gee, is that me saying it happens?

Why yes it is.

I wont even bother to challenge you to cite where I said it never happens because you know you can't. I think that quote is enough to prove you are full of shit. You're just being a jackass for the sake of being a jackass.

 

[Zona]

Be nice to conhog.

 

[TheBrain]

I'm sure there are plenty of people who think that way. Just like there are plenty of idiots like Cain who think that all Muslims are part of a seekrit creeping Sharia plot.

Wow... double standard is double.

Keep dreaming.

You get that quote yet?

How about all those accusations of racism every time someone is critical of Obama? How's that search coming along?

At least try to put the illusion of substance into the strawman you are trying to construct.

Hey Luissa, here is an example of a moron calling someone a racist for disagreeing with Obama when the guy made no mention of race

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/169232-yea-obama-6.html#post3695600

but it never happens does it.

Are you retarded? I mean it? Are you?

You can't possibly think that you could lie like this and get away with it.

See below from earlier in the thread:

you REALLY deny that there are a substantial number of people in this country who claim that people only disagree with Obama b/c he's black? You really want to take that position?

I'm sure there are plenty of people who think that way. Just like there are plenty of idiots like Cain who think that all Muslims are part of a seekrit creeping Sharia plot.

Gee, is that me saying it happens?

Why yes it is.

I wont even bother to challenge you to cite where I said it never happens because you know you can't. I think that quote is enough to prove you are full of shit. You're just being a jackass for the sake of being a jackass.

I believe I was responding to THIS part of the conversation



where you CLEARLY challenged anyone to find a quote of someone calling someone a racist on this board for disagreeing with Obama. I never even implied that you said it NEVER happens. I merely responded to YOUR challenge to find a quote.

Poor little Luissa

 

[Luissa]

Wow... double standard is double.

Keep dreaming.

You get that quote yet?

How about all those accusations of racism every time someone is critical of Obama? How's that search coming along?

At least try to put the illusion of substance into the strawman you are trying to construct.

Are you retarded? I mean it? Are you?

You can't possibly think that you could lie like this and get away with it.

See below from earlier in the thread:

I'm sure there are plenty of people who think that way. Just like there are plenty of idiots like Cain who think that all Muslims are part of a seekrit creeping Sharia plot.

Gee, is that me saying it happens?

Why yes it is.

I wont even bother to challenge you to cite where I said it never happens because you know you can't. I think that quote is enough to prove you are full of shit. You're just being a jackass for the sake of being a jackass.

I believe I was responding to THIS part of the conversation



where you CLEARLY challenged anyone to find a quote of someone calling someone a racist on this board for disagreeing with Obama. I never even implied that you said it NEVER happens. I merely responded to YOUR challenge to find a quote.

Poor little Luissa

To the bolded first:

Hey Luissa, here is an example of a moron calling someone a racist for disagreeing with Obama when the guy made no mention of race

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/169232-yea-obama-6.html#post3695600

but it never happens does it.

"but it never happens does it"

It will be interesting to hear your rationalization for how that isn't implying I said it never happens. Actually, it wont be interesting. It will be lame. But whatev.

To your confusion as to the crux of the whole argument as you have gone astray:

Equivalency and criticizing him is racist

You're in lala land, dude.

So it's not racist to criticize Obama then anymore?

You can't have it both ways Little lulu.

Either they're both fair game, or it's racist. So what's it going to be? Willing to give up the defamation of character or open Brackets up for real criticism?

The idea that you are a racist if you criticize Obama is a fantasy in your own mind. People manage to criticize him every day ... even here ... without getting called a racist. If not then you would be able to pull an accusation of racism in every thread critical of Obama on this board. You can't. I repeat: get a clue.

Seriously, man, stop hitting yourself.

What's even funnier is you cite a rightwinger calling someone a racist tongue and cheek as your example

We should've given Obama more money to buy shovels. How can you have shovel-ready jobs without shovels? Damn Republicans.

We all know that you just want the shovels to bury black people.

Racist!

It takes skillz to fail this hard

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Only Republitards would praise and throw their weight behind an openly religiously intolerant House Negro like Herman Cain who picks on Muslims by telling far right whites what they want to hear to garner support for himself, but let those far right whites get hustled by their pet House slave.

Well well... look at this. The 'no true scotsman' stance on black people. It's cause he wasn't 'down for the struggle' enough for you? Should we fire up another chorus of "Barack the Magic Negro" for you?

Bass' rant is shameful, disgusting.

Here's another "Uncle Tom" he can rag on who tells the truth:

There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. … There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public. —Booker T. Washington​

Yeah Booker T Washington was a considered an Uncle Tom by many during his, this was the man who said to drop our buckets and accommodate the white man, what sane man would do that? My rant was disgusting it was on point from someone who knows about the African American but someone from the outside looking in wouldn't know that.