Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

Term limits is just another cure for the symptoms not the problem. Just as the 17th amendment failed to make Senators more accountable and instead just removed the state governments from having a say in federal policy, term limits will do no good except limit the time good members of Congress can make positive progress. Get rid of the temptation, get rid of the gifts, get rid of the lobbyists and special interest groups who should have followed the rules, voted for who they thought was the best candidate and live with the consequences, not undermine the entire process with their secretive ********.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Seems like a tricky issue though. If you give them more than one term, they will still probably act the same way until their last term. And if you only give them one term, then who do we elect president? Someone who has served on term in the state senate and one term in the US senate?

---

Sort of like we have now? :eyebrows:
But yeah, I agree term limits may not be the answer. The problem is really with us- the voters. We keep sending the rats back to office because they bring home the bacon, or pork, as it were. People can overlook a lot of shady dealings or back scratching as long as their representative brings in federal dollars. :shame:

Rush Limbaugh coins the phrase "anal poisoning" to describe President Obama's effect on other people: “But the slobbering [over Barack Obama], the slobbering… this guy, folks I’m telling ya, if he keeps this up throughout the G20, Gordon Brown will come down with anal poisoning and may die from it.”

-edit-

Oh, this has to be one of the Hysteria Award Winners: So this Prof. at Yale gives speech at a Yale Club event where he says that "sharia law, among other foreign laws, could have applicability within the United States in certain circumstances." The event is summarized and answered (volubly) in the pages of NRO in March of 2007. Why am I bringing this up?

Well the dude got some sort of appointment at State, and now Fox News is claiming that this means President Obama may want to enshrine Sharia law in the U.S.A. No, I am not making this up. Ye gods, do these people eat extra bowls of Crazy Flakes in the morning?

ALISYN CAMEROTA (Fox anchor): The White House is defending its nominee to be State Department Legal Adviser. Now, some of the criticism of this nominee, Harold Koh, is based on remarks that he reportedly made saying that Islamic Sharia law should apply in U.S. courts, even though those laws are used in some countries to justify stripping women of basic rights and even worse, frankly.

Nonie Darwish is with the group Arabs for Israel. She is also the author of the book “Cruel and Usual Punishment.” Nonie, thanks for joining us this morning.

NONIE DARWISH: My pleasure, thank you.

CAMEROTA (Fox): So this man, Harold Koh, this potential State Department nominee has impressive credentials. He’s a Dean at Yale University, but he also has a history of supporting Sharia law — even here in the U.S. What are some of the things that he has said in the past that has raised eyebrows?

DARWISH; Well, uh, I heard that he doesn’t mind referring to laws, foreign laws and integrating them into the U.S. legal system. It’s very hard for me to imagine that an American official can incorporate Sharia law, because Sharia is totally at odds with our bill of rights, and our Constitution. Sharia does not allow freedom of religion. It dscriminates against women, against non-Muslims. There is no equal rights under Sharia.

A Muslim head of state can come to power through seizure of power, not through elections. A Muslim head of state must be obeyed even if he is unjust. A Muslim woman can be beaten by her husband. There are so many laws that are totally against our Constitution.

CAMEROTA (Fox):Does it go so far to recommend honor killings in the event that a woman has done something inappropriate, or even public stonings?

DARWISH: Sharia law does not discriminate between crime and sexual sin, so you can have somebody who murders a non-Muslim and if you murder a non-Muslim, you won’t have the death penalty. But if a woman commits a sexual crime, like having a boyfriend, it is legal to kill a woman who commits apostasy or commits sexual crime. There are three murders allowed under Sharia law. The first one is to kill an apostate. The second to kill an adulterer, and to kill a highway robber. A Muslim can kill a non-Muslim and he will never get the death penalty.

CAMEROTA (Fox):Sorry to interrupt you, Nonie, but the picture we’re seeing there is of that nominee, Harold Koh. He reportedly back in 2007 told the Yale Club in Greenwich, Connecticut, that, quote, “in an appropriate case, he didn’t see any reason why Sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States.” What might that appropriate case be?

DARWISH: I cannot think of one case that can bring us any benefit from Sharia. While there are many people in the Middle East fighting Sharia, and, we are not doing a service to the reformists in the Middle East by acknowledging that Sharia is the kind of law that we can respect here in America. Sharia is totally barbaric. It is anti-woman. It is anti non-Muslims, and uh, I cannot even think of one thing except the brutal punishment of criminals.

CAMEROTA (Fox):Okay now very quickly, since the Obama Administration surely knows Harold Koh’s position on this, why would they be tagging him as the State Department nominee?

DARWISH: Perhaps he is trying to appease Muslim countries, but this is the wrong kind of policy because we’re standing against progress in the Muslim world. The Muslim world has a lot of reformers who are trying to progress because the laws of Sharia support Jihad. Supports Jihad against non-Muslims. It is the duty of a Muslim head of state to do Jihad, and by Jihad, the definition of Jihad according to mainstream Sharia books is a war with non-Muslims to establish the religion.

Do we want to confirm that Jihad is ok against us in America? This is Sharia!

CAMEROTA (Fox): Excellent question. Nonie Darwish, thank you so much for joining us this morning and giving us all of this background.

DARWISH: Thank you very much, my pleasure.

You just wait Lemur, you just wait. When they come to drag you outside and stone you for being an infidel I would come to defend you, cept all my guns and internet will have been taken away. We will see who is laughing then, and it won't be kid with corndogs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Oh, this has to be one of the Hysteria Award Winners: So this Prof. at Yale gives speech at a Yale Club event where he says that "sharia law, among other foreign laws, could have applicability within the United States in certain circumstances." The event is summarized and answered (volubly) in the pages of NRO in March of 2007. Why am I bringing this up?

Well the dude got some sort of appointment at State, and now Fox News is claiming that this means President Obama may want to enshrine Sharia law in the U.S.A. No, I am not making this up. Ye gods, do these people eat extra bowls of Crazy Flakes in the morning?

---

lol Lemur, it does not disturb you that Obama wants to put this guy onto a position often considered the springboard to the Supreme Court? He has said before that he thinks US law should be overridden by International Law. That means that the constitution of this country could be made invalid by what some socialists over Britain do. He is talking about completely underminging US law and the soverignty of the US government. And I do not know if you know it or not Lemur, but Sharia law is the incarnation of everything radical in islam. You know how people say that islam is not bad to women, and islam does not promote terrorism, it is just these radical countries of extremists. Well it is Sharia law that these extremists follow. It is Sharia law that Osama Bin Laden follows, and it is under Sharia law that the 911 attacks were made. Do you honestly think there is any reason NOT to be concerned when a guy like this is being nominated for one of the highest legal positions in the country? Perhaps you would like me to cite for you exactly what Sharia law means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

lol Lemur, it does not disturb you that Obama wants to put this guy onto a position often considered the springboard to the Supreme Court? He has said before that he thinks US law should be overridden by International Law. That means that the constitution of this country could be made invalid by what some socialists over Britain do. He is talking about completely underminging US law and the soverignty of the US government. And I do not know if you know it or not Lemur, but Sharia law is the incarnation of everything radical in islam. You know how people say that islam is not bad to women, and islam does not promote terrorism, it is just these radical countries of extremists. Well it is Sharia law that these extremists follow. It is Sharia law that Osama Bin Laden follows, and it is under Sharia law that the 911 attacks were made. Do you honestly think there is any reason NOT to be concerned when a guy like this is being nominated for one of the highest legal positions in the country? Perhaps you would like me to cite for you exactly what Sharia law means.

---

I think you have been drinking to much of the kool-aid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

lol Lemur, it does not disturb you that Obama wants to put this guy onto a position often considered the springboard to the Supreme Court? He has said before that he thinks US law should be overridden by International Law. That means that the constitution of this country could be made invalid by what some socialists over Britain do. He is talking about completely underminging US law and the soverignty of the US government. And I do not know if you know it or not Lemur, but Sharia law is the incarnation of everything radical in islam. You know how people say that islam is not bad to women, and islam does not promote terrorism, it is just these radical countries of extremists. Well it is Sharia law that these extremists follow. It is Sharia law that Osama Bin Laden follows, and it is under Sharia law that the 911 attacks were made. Do you honestly think there is any reason NOT to be concerned when a guy like this is being nominated for one of the highest legal positions in the country? Perhaps you would like me to cite for you exactly what Sharia law means.

---

You do know that treaty law is above normal U.S. law, right? It's not Obama that says that, it's the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

You do know that treaty law is above normal U.S. law, right? It's not Obama that says that, it's the Constitution.

---

Yup

Treaty has a much more narrow definition in the senate and as noted in the article the executive branch and the legislature have had fights over it.

That means that the constitution of this country could be made invalid by what some socialists over Britain do.

We have socialists in Britian... and they are in charge?!

Well thats great news... unfortunatly socilaist policys are non existant... socialist mp's are non existant*... and socialist rhetoric is non existant*...

So we have socialists in charge who don't enact socialist policy, don't use socialist rhetoric and don't class themselves as socialists... im starting to think we may not have socialists in charge at alll....

*from those actually in power... i guess there probably would be a few fairly socialist labour mp's mulling around the back benches unhappy...

OH MY GAWD!!!! HE SAID SOMETHING!!!! OH MY GOD. AND HE CALLED US AXIS OF DISOBEDIENCE!!! I COULD DEAL WITH TAX EVASION BUT NOT THIS REVOLUTION IS COMING RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR GET UR SABERS HURRY

Oh, wait, he's also been a fierce critic of GWBs dumbhead move to invade Iraq, a critic of GWBs treatment of detainees, and a critic of all GWBs attorneys general.....funny the conservatives aren't really talking about that so much as they are talking about this one thing he said this one time at band camp. I think I may be onto something.....

I found out where the crazy is coming from ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I found out where the crazy is coming from ...

---

If he is calling Hitler a fascist he should study history.

Oh I loves me some Glenn Beck. At least he's funny. I just rented his stand-up DVD. He may be a sabre rattler, but he does it with style.

Oh dear, fried chicken eatery renames itself after 44th President. I don't see this ending well

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...2chicken1.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I found out where the crazy is coming from ...

---

lol, I have heard of Glenn Beck before, but I thought he was only a comedian, I did not know he did politics. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Oh, wait, he's also been a fierce critic of GWBs dumbhead move to invade Iraq, a critic of GWBs treatment of detainees, and a critic of all GWBs attorneys general.....funny the conservatives aren't really talking about that so much as they are talking about this one thing he said this one time at band camp. I think I may be onto something.....

---

Sure, that makes sense Dump! So what if I am an outspoken critic of GWB's policies, yada yada, but I make an isolated statement that I think all Jews should be wiped off the face of the earth and a Nazi regime set up. Sorry for an extreme analogy, but you get the point, right? Who gives a flying-:daisy: what else he says when he says something like that. That IS worthy of intense focus, as the theoretical comment I made would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

OH MY GAWD!!!! HE SAID SOMETHING!!!! OH MY GOD. AND HE CALLED US AXIS OF DISOBEDIENCE!!! I COULD DEAL WITH TAX EVASION BUT NOT THIS REVOLUTION IS COMING RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR GET UR SABERS HURRY

---

Yes, peacefully exercising our political voice (as Democrats do all the time...when they are not holding violent rallies, burning flags, buildings, and people, throwing stones and molatov cocktails at people, etc) as is both our constitutional right and our duty as citizens to do make sure an appointee we think will be harmful to our country does not get in is sabre-rattling? Funny you say that, yet almost all the violence and vandalism that is done with political motivation is done by the left, not the right. During the Republican convention look at all the violence and destruction that leftwing wackjobs did as they protested that America should dare to have more than their one party.
You think it is unreasonable to get concerned when obama appoints someone guilty of tax evasion as secretary of the treasury?!! Or even worse, when he wants to appoint someone who said what this guy said? You think that is a small thing that should be overlooked? If it was a Republican, I garuntee that you and every other leftist on this board would be burning this thread down with your protest.

Seriously, answer me two questions:
1. Do you know what Sharia Law is?
2. Do you have any idea as to the unConstitutional consequences that would result if we instated Sharia Law in America?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Oh I loves me some Glenn Beck. At least he's funny. I just rented his stand-up DVD. He may be a sabre rattler, but he does it with style.

---

I love Beck as well, he has one of the better op-ed columnist style shows on the air. He's also cleaning the competition's clocks in the ratings. Since leaving CNN for Fox the scope of Beck's success is astounding, he not only trounces the competition but he manages to command a prime time sized audience in his late afternoon time slot (5pm EST), it's insane.

Speaking of which, based on the ratings I've seen since I began working here at CNN big bad Fox seems to be benefitting enormously from the Democrats' control of Congress and the White House. Fox absolutely dominates the ratings now, it's a full fledged massacre from 4pm to 12am. It's as if their afternoon/prime-time lineup has morphed into the 1927 Yankees and the rest of cable news is like a bunch of also-rans from the bush leagues. The powers that be here at CNN are starting to panic, our ratings are tanking and the brain trust suits that were chest pounding and strutting about during the boom times leading up to the election are now crapping their pants.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/play...26716&src=news
Interesting. What do you all think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Seriously, answer me two questions:
1. Do you know what Sharia Law is?
2. Do you have any idea as to the unConstitutional consequences that would result if we instated Sharia Law in America?

---

Muslims make up .4% of a population that is overwhelmingly Christian. Somehow I just don't see it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Muslims make up .4% of a population that is overwhelmingly Christian. Somehow I just don't see it

---

Population does not matter Strike. If a few people in the government decide to impose Sharia law, then the majority suffers under it. Just look at history Strike, tiny amounts of people in governments have always ruled the majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Population does not matter Strike. If a few people in the government decide to impose Sharia law, then the majority suffers under it. Just look at history Strike, tiny amounts of people in governments have always ruled the majority.

---

And who will lead this charge for Sharia law?

The tiny minority in goverment will quietly push it through with a few leftys who are muslim obseesed... dont you watch any conspiracies ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Just look at history Strike, tiny amounts of people in governments have always ruled the majority.

---

But you are aware that rulers need the acceptance of the majority? If not you get a revolution.
And I don't see a muslim majority in any of the western states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixiwee

But you are aware that rulers need the acceptance of the majority? If not you get a revolution.
And I don't see a muslim majority in any of the western states.

---

Not at all, and esp not in the States. In the States we have a belief that if we are not satisfied with something we have the power to change it, and if it is not changed, it MUST be because it is the will of the people, and we do not need to revolt against the government, but join activist groups and change the minds of the people. I tell you agian, look at history. Look at how many times things have been done in American history by the government directly against the wishes of majority of the citizens. We have had no revolutions against our government yet. (and no, the war betweent he states does not count, it was not a revolution)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Not at all, and esp not in the States. In the States we have a belief that if we are not satisfied with something we have the power to change it, and if it is not changed, it MUST be because it is the will of the people, and we do not need to revolt against the government, but join activist groups and change the minds of the people. I tell you agian, look at history. Look at how many times things have been done in American history by the government directly against the wishes of majority of the citizens. We have had no revolutions against our government yet. (and no, the war betweent he states does not count, it was not a revolution)

---

Whom will do it then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Whom will do it then?

---

What do you mean whom will do it? :P Obama is trying to get a guy in who said he wants to do it. Don't play dumb.

EDIT: So let me get this right Strike, you are saying I am being unreasonable to assume that when a guy is put into power, he will try to do what he has said he thinks should be done? That does not make very much sense on your part. If someone said that they think all blacks in the country should be killed, don't you think it would be reasonable to assume that if you put them in a position to do so it is likely that they will try? And don't you think that is a reason for concern? Why then is it far fetched to be concerned that a guy who believes the US should be ran by Sharia law may be put into a position where he would have power to pursue that and possibly bring it about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

What do you mean whom will do it? :P Obama is trying to get a guy in who said he wants to do it. Don't play dumb.

EDIT: So let me get this right Strike, you are saying I am being unreasonable to assume that when a guy is put into power, he will try to do what he has said he thinks should be done? That does not make very much sense on your part. If someone said that they think all blacks in the country should be killed, don't you think it would be reasonable to assume that if you put them in a position to do so it is likely that they will try? And don't you think that is a reason for concern? Why then is it far fetched to be concerned that a guy who believes the US should be ran by Sharia law may be put into a position where he would have power to pursue that and possibly bring it about?

---

The man floated an idea in academia filled with "maybes" and "coulds" I'm not worried.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

The man floated an idea in academia filled with "maybes" and "coulds" I'm not worried.

---

Not really Strike, he is a professor, and he expressed that thought it is what the US should do. Even so though, don't you think it warrants concern when he "floats around" ideas like that? Think of my (over used :beam:) example: If I "floated around" an idea that I think all blacks should be killed, don't you think it would warrant concern if I was put in a position where I may have the power to bring that about? Sorry, but I would oppose anyone who "floated" Nazi ideas around, and I oppose anyone who "floats" Sharia law supremacy ideas around. Surely there is someone far less dangerous and equally (or more so) qualified who could fill the position. I do not think America should take chances by giving people like that the power to fufill their ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

What do you mean whom will do it? :P Obama is trying to get a guy in who said he wants to do it. Don't play dumb.

---

The dude said that some aspects of Sharia might be applicable in some situations. And he said this in an academic setting.

But by all means, remove the qualifiers and turn it into a battle cry. And remember that crazy flakes are an important part of every kid's breakfast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Not really Strike, he is a professor, and he expressed that thought it is what the US should do.

---

I have yet to see any quote in which he says that integration of Sharia is what "the US should do." Provide a source, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Sorry, but I would oppose anyone who "floated" Nazi ideas around, and I oppose anyone who "floats" Sharia law supremacy ideas around.

---

Sir, put down the dramatics and step away from the unmarked black helicopter. Sharia law is not exclusively about killing infidels and stoning homosexuals. I can easily imagine a situation in which, say, two Algerian immigrants have a contract with one another based on Sharia, and now one of them has broken it. Say you're the judge; these two men had a contract. Assuming this contract does not violate existing laws in the U.S.A., might it not be enforceable? And what about regulating some of the looser forms of Islamic lending? Again, so long as the agreements/contracts/business norms fall within the law here, I don't see why taking their Sharia into account is the end of Western Civilization.

To expand on your Godwin-confirming example of Nazi Germany: We have integrated lots of ideas, practices and personnel from the Nazis. Hello, Volkswagen Beetle? Hello V2 rocket program? Hello Operation Paperclip? Hello Werner Von Braun? Hello blitzkrieg? Not only did you drag out the rotting corpse of Nazi Germany, but you did it to no purpose.

Islam is not a solid wall of thuggery, and their law is not one long violating of human rights. People live their lives, do their business, and they needs ground rules. Your hysteria about an academe musing on the applicability of exterior law when applied in the U.S. is unbecoming, sir. And from which aspect of your buttocks did you pluck the word "supremacy"?

Vuk. Aren't you in Hungary right now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixiwee

And I don't see a muslim majority in any of the western states.

---

Do you count Albania as a Western state now that it is in NATO? If so, it is 70% Muslim. Regardless of that, Britain does not have a Muslim majority - and yet...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Vuk. Aren't you in Hungary right now?

---

So? That does not mean I do not pay close attention to the news and talk to people in the States regularly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Yes, peacefully exercising our political voice (as Democrats do all the time...when they are not holding violent rallies, burning flags, buildings, and people, throwing stones and molatov cocktails at people, etc) as is both our constitutional right and our duty as citizens to do make sure an appointee we think will be harmful to our country does not get in is sabre-rattling? Funny you say that, yet almost all the violence and vandalism that is done with political motivation is done by the left, not the right. During the Republican convention look at all the violence and destruction that leftwing wackjobs did as they protested that America should dare to have more than their one party.
You think it is unreasonable to get concerned when obama appoints someone guilty of tax evasion as secretary of the treasury?!! Or even worse, when he wants to appoint someone who said what this guy said? You think that is a small thing that should be overlooked? If it was a Republican, I garuntee that you and every other leftist on this board would be burning this thread down with your protest.

Seriously, answer me two questions:
1. Do you know what Sharia Law is?
2. Do you have any idea as to the unConstitutional consequences that would result if we instated Sharia Law in America?

---

1. I know exactly what Sharia law is and taking a few sentences uttered and turning it into OMGZ we're turning into Iran is over doing it.
2. I know exactly how incompatable Sharia law is with liberty, our constitution, and my way of life, and I've been getting warnings on these boards for making fun of muslims since before you were born. But the fact that I don't agree with it or want it does not make me go nutso because an otherwise very qualified appointee said some stuff to try to pander to muslims sympathizers. What you should be angry about is Henry Kissinger, the herpe who will not go away, being in cahoots with Obama and the string of tax evading people he is appointing. My point is: right fervor, wrong target. Take a deep breath.
3. I'm not a leftist, guy. Things are not black and white. Capitalism does not exist anywhere in the world right now, it is not you vs me. Really.

This is exactly the same rubbish that comes from over scrutiny of every new president, and believe me, Obama will do himself in just fine without your help. Actions speak louder than words. Republicans have been muzzled the last two elections and they are now taking pot shots at anything they can, it's the natural order of things. I expect another flag-burning amendment to come up just before the next congressional elections, like it does every 8 years or so when Republicans need a boost, and just about the time Democrats lose power they will start initiatives they know won't pass and they know the public in general doesn't support because they want reassurance that, if all else fails, well they still got the perceived victim class to go to bat for them. And everyone invokes Hitler, every time, without fail. God, it gets so tiring.

As for your earlier paragraph, please spare me the conservative indignation over the violence of the left. No, really, please. Labeling an entire broad spectrum of people based on the actions of the fringers shows just how little you know of variance, conflict and unholy alliances within parties because, unfortunately, thats how the two party system works, unless of course you are being entirely sarcastic and I'm missing your self aggrandizement. Now, if you don't mind, we can continue this discussion later. When you are done bombing the abortion clinic and ironing your confederate flag give me a call, I'll just be hanging around here making scat porn to fund my Marxist bake sale at the PETA headquarters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

When you are done bombing the abortion clinic and ironing your confederate flag give me a call, I'll just be hanging around here making scat porn to fund my Marxist bake sale at the PETA headquarters.

---

If I believed in siggies, I would siggie this instantly. And I guess it would have to be a Backroom-only siggie, and I'm not even sure if those are working.

Anyway, epic sentence. This is why I read the Org. Normally I expect brilliant flights of rhetoric like this to come from DevDave, so it's an added pleasure to see it from you instead. I LOL muchly and bow in your general direction. Bravo!

Can I get in on that scat porn?

Quote:

---

So? That does not mean I do not pay close attention to the news and talk to people in the States regularly

---

.

It might help to be here if you are going to make those kind of accusations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Do you count Albania as a Western state now that it is in NATO? If so, it is 70% Muslim. Regardless of that, Britain does not have a Muslim majority - and yet...

---

Being part of the NATO does not make a western state. Turkey is part of the NATO and they have a Muslim majority. Suprise eh?
But that's not a western state.

What are you trying to prove with that link? This has nothing to do with the discussion?

Not one dime of extra taxes will be paid by poor people.

Unless they smoke.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixiwee

Being part of the NATO does not make a western state. Turkey is part of the NATO and they have a Muslim majority. Suprise eh?
But that's not a western state.

---

Definitions differ. I don't consider Albania or Turkey western either - I was trying to figure out yours.

Quote:

---

What are you trying to prove with that link? This has nothing to do with the discussion?

---

It has everything to do with the discussion. You don't need a Muslim majority for Muslim influence or Islamic law.

I don't care who's in charge, this is good stuff:

White House Corrects Conference Call Number After Directing Reporters to Sex Line

Journalists seeking to talk a little foreign policy with high-profile Obama administration officials live from the G20 meetings in London this week were solicited for phone sex instead after ringing up the toll-free number given by the White House.

In a press release, the White House accidentally listed a sex line number for journalists seeking an "on-the-record briefing call with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Advisor Jim Jones to discuss the NATO summit."

But after dialing, a soft-voiced female recording that was clearly not Clinton asked for a credit card number if you "feel like getting nasty."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

It has everything to do with the discussion. You don't need a Muslim majority for Muslim influence or Islamic law.

---

You are comparing a minority court with the discussion if the majority will have the sharia.
No offsense, but that's not an argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixiwee

You are comparing a minority court with the discussion if the majority will have the sharia.
No offsense, but that's not an argument.

---

Sure it is. It may be a minority court, but it is still legally binding. The fact there is Sharia law at all is disturbing, whether it is applied the minority and majority. I doubt I am the only one who believes that this will escalate the larger and more influential the population in question becomes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Sure it is. It may be a minority court, but it is still legally binding. The fact there is Sharia law at all is disturbing, whether it is applied the minority and majority. I doubt I am the only one who believes that this will escalate the larger and more influential the population in question becomes.

---

It seems we cannot agree on this issue here.

Have you read the post by Major Robert Dump? It says alot about "how" disturbing the Sharia is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Not one dime of extra taxes will be paid by poor people.

Unless they smoke.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

---

It's *cough* for teh *cough* chil'ren *cough-hackahhhhh- inhale*

Happy to support the kids. Works even if I buy 'net-ciggies from Ukraine, right?

Meanwhile, back at the Castle, Mz O touches HRH. Is this an act of war? An event of eternal damnation? A breach of protocol ? A gesture of kindness? Two women surprised by their fondness for each other?

If Michelle came to my house to deliver an iPod filled with some songs she liked - and thought I might, too, - I'd be OK with her "guiding" me along as if I were a doddering old idiot who needed help... because I am. But, the queen, please.

Someone please tell her to not do that in Thailand or Japan. Hilarity might ensue.

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

It's *cough* for teh *cough* chil'ren *cough-hackahhhhh- inhale*

Happy to support the kids. Works even if I buy 'net-ciggies from Ukraine, right?

---

I'm starting to think the tobacco tax was actually also a hand out to the cigarette manufacturers because, while people may smoke less packs due to the taxes, the taxes on rolling tobacco increased $25 per pound, which effectively raises the price of rolling tobacco by about 100%. So, people who save money by rolling their own are going to be saving practically nothing now and may go back to packs.

Wow, a tax that is 90-100% of the base price. Unbelievable.

I just have to say it: I love this thread <3 :laugh4:

Hmmm.... tea bagging congress, I like this idea, especially when it involves U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter. My god, this is hilarious.

http://www.wmur.com/news/19068098/detail.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Meanwhile, back at the Castle, Mz O touches HRH. Is this an act of war? An event of eternal damnation? A breach of protocol ? A gesture of kindness? Two women surprised by their fondness for each other?

If Michelle came to my house to deliver an iPod filled with some songs she liked - and thought I might, too, - I'd be OK with her "guiding" me along as if I were a doddering old idiot who needed help... because I am. But, the queen, please.

Someone please tell her to not do that in Thailand or Japan. Hilarity might ensue.

:laugh4:

---

Yeah, just read it. Off with her hands and then her head.

YOU DO NOT TOUCH HER MAJESTY! SHE DOES NOT TOUCH YOU! (That's why she wears gloves)

Bloody colonials. :whip: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

So there is room for theological argument as to whether the American reciprocity of touch was allowable given the social dynamics of the situation. (Less explicable was when President George W. Bush winked at the Queen.)

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Also I love the caption. Mickey O is about 6 foot tall and black, Madge is about 4' 6" and white..hilarious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

YOU DO NOT TOUCH HER MAJESTY! SHE DOES NOT TOUCH YOU! (That's why she wears gloves)

---

According to the press, 1960 called and it wants its monarch back.

When Michelle Obama put her arm round the Queen at Buckingham Palace, some of the more excitable elements of the media - particularly the Americans - suggested she may have been guilty of a breach of protocol.

They missed the real story, however. What was far more interesting was that the Queen put her arm round the First Lady.

It is less than 20 years ago that the Australian Prime Minister was branded “the Lizard of Oz” for committing the supposedly heinous crime of putting his hand on the Queen’s back during an official tour of Australia.

Now the Queen is not just putting up with physical gestures of affection from a woman she has only just met, but is reciprocating with one of her own. [...]

A breach of protocol? Hardly. Buckingham Palace was very relaxed today about the incident, and attitudes there have changed significantly since the days of Mr Keating and his lese-majesty. And no, they don’t issue instructions to people about not touching the Queen.

“This was a mutual and spontaneous display of affection and appreciation between The Queen and Michelle Obama,” said a Palace spokeswoman.

At least she didn't shout "Yo Queenie!" :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

At least she didn't shout "Yo Queenie!" :laugh4:

---

Or try to sell her crack or use the word "mother" in an obscene combination. I hear American negros do such things.

Aye 'Moms' always shouting Mutha...... this and Mutha...... that all day long. :egypt:

Quote:

---

And, despite what you might think, those restaurants are exactly like restaurants run by white people, with tables and chairs, and food, and everything:

---

I remember this from a year or two back. Hilarious.

Quote:

---

Buckingham Palace was very relaxed today about the incident, and attitudes there have changed significantly since the days of Mr Keating and his lese-majesty.

---

So it was actually, technically, a mistake. But Her Royalness has the grace to not only ignore it, but to play along. Good on 'er.

The secret, real reason why you never touch the Queen. She's poisonous.

EDIT: Removed hotlinked picture. Please host pictures yourself on a site like photobucket. BG

No more Chia Obama

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/new...lgreens_040309

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The secret, real reason why you never touch the Queen. She's poisonous.

---

Yeah I loved that :laugh4:

Obama prepares to call for an end to nuclear weapons

Quote:

---

During his visit to Prague, the President met with several key Czech leaders. The meeting ended quickly, the men inside stricken with blindness. An Obama aide said about the meeting, "Obama raised his arms above his head, and shouted unto the Lord, our God, 'There shalt be no more nuclear weaponry!' and thus it was so. For God on High is almighty, the Creator of Heaven and Earth."

---

Bad and impractical idea that I don't understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Obama prepares to call for an end to nuclear weapons

Bad and impractical idea that I don't understand.

---

No more Nuclear weapons = Bad idea...

I don't follow.

No nuclear weapons = no threat of reciprocal destruction in war.

However, corollary to that is

No nuclear weapons = no terrorist organization using them on nation states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

No nuclear weapons = no threat of reciprocal destruction in war.

---

Good, we might actually start looking for real diplomacy that isn't at the barrel of a gun then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

No nuclear weapons = no terrorist organization using them on nation states.

---

Spot on.

Where would the nuclear weapons be stored or destroyed? What happens to all that uranium and other radioactive materials?
The idea that we can, peacefully, remove all nuclear weapons and prevent them from being built again to me is the height of optimism. While Obama could remove most major nuclear weaponry, to me it is highly suspect that every nation will move in this direction and it is also highly suspect that terrorists or other guerrilla groups won't figure out the basic method of nuclear weapon creation.

I think it's similar to the Kellogg-Briand Pact that "outlawed war", which sounds nice, but how can we take back something that has already occurred?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Good, we might actually start looking for real diplomacy that isn't at the barrel of a gun then.

---

On the contrary, that is what forced us to keep using diplomacy.

Maniac is quite correct, CA. For the first time in human history, every person had reason to avoid war at all possible costs. Because, for the first time in human history, that war could be the end of humanity.

HOWEVER, that does not mean that we shouldn't be drawing nuclear arsenals. When the US can, by itself, blow the entire world to bits without even needing "help" from the rest of the world on the task, there's something not quite right. Nobody should logically need more than a dozen nuclear bombs, let alone hundreds or thousands.

Does anybody else think that this "universal disarmament" talk (which ain't gonna happen, as Obama well knows) is a ploy aimed in the direction of a certain country that really, really wants to join the nuclear club? (Cough, cough, Iran, cough, cough.)

I wonder how Obama will handle the "Axis of Evil". It's too early to tell.

Meanwhile, the increasing number of American gun crime is getting freaky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

For the first time in human history, every person had reason to avoid war at all possible costs. Because, for the first time in human history, that war could be the end of humanity.

---

I don't know about you, but I think there have been quite a few wars since WWII...

Getting rid of Nukes now isn't feasible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Does anybody else think that this "universal disarmament" talk (which ain't gonna happen, as Obama well knows) is a ploy aimed in the direction of a certain country that really, really wants to join the nuclear club? (Cough, cough, Iran, cough, cough.)

---

Aimed at Iran with what goal? It'd be very foolish to think that he could shame the Iranian leaders into stopping nuclear research with his disarmament talks. But then again, maybe you're right- amateurish foreign policy moves like that seem to be a hallmark of the Obama administration thus far. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I don't know about you, but I think there have been quite a few wars since WWII...

---

Name them, then tell me the defining characteristic of every single one of them that separates them from the continual blood orgies that characterized Europe for 500 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

Name them, then tell me the defining characteristic of every single one of them that separates them from the continual blood orgies that characterized Europe for 500 years.

---

There's no difference at all... so what have Nukes done to stop them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

There's no difference at all... so what have Nukes done to stop them?

---

You see no difference in a war between France and Germany and a war between the United States and Vietnam?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

You see no difference in a war between France and Germany and a war between the United States and Vietnam?

---

People are still dying for moronic causes.

EDIT: Not to say there is no difference, just that war has not been stopped by the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

People are still dying for moronic causes.

EDIT: Not to say there is no difference, just that war has not been stopped by the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

---

The question isn't whether wars occurred, but whether other wars were avoided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

People are still dying for moronic causes.

EDIT: Not to say there is no difference, just that war has not been stopped by the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

---

War has been stopped between those who have them and the capability to deliver them to a target. Especially for a small nation, nuclear capability is necessary. Look what happened to Iraq when Saddam tried to go toe to toe with the US, or the various examples of military hilarity involving Israel and Arab nations. Conventional forces are getting increasingly powerful, complex, and exotic. Personally, I can't blame Iran for wanting a nuclear weapon. They know they can't stand up in a conventional war. I just don't understand how they can possibly perceive their foreign policy is effective in accomplishing it, assuming that they want it for defensive purposes.

*And yes, generally the causes are fairly moronic, however that doesn't stop them from happening now does it?*

Obama wants SCOTUS to overturn a pretty fundamental right of defendants in our legal system; to have the police stop questioning them when they request a lawyer.

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.

The administration's action _ and several others _ have disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, after the Democrat's call for change during the 2008 campaign.

Since taking office, Obama has drawn criticism for backing the continued imprisonment of enemy combatants in Afghanistan without trial, invoking the "state secrets" privilege to avoid releasing information in lawsuits and limiting the rights of prisoners to test genetic evidence used to convict them.

The case at issue is Michigan v. Jackson, in which the Supreme Court said in 1986 that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one, unless the attorney is present. The decision applies even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.

Anything police learn through such questioning cannot be used against the defendant at trial. The opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time.
...
The administration's position assumes a level playing field, with equally savvy police and criminal suspects, lawyers on the other side of the case said. But the protection offered by the court in Stevens' 1986 opinion is especially important for vulnerable defendants, including the mentally and developmentally disabled, addicts, juveniles and the poor, the lawyers said.

"Your right to assistance of counsel can be undermined if somebody on the other side who is much more sophisticated than you are comes and talks to you and asks for information," said Sidney Rosdeitcher, a New York lawyer who advises the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

---

A real shame. It should be obvious that a suspect interrogated for hours, perhaps poor and ignorant of the law, is not on equal terms with a professional interrogator.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Getting rid of Nukes now isn't feasible.

---

Don't worry you uranium loving yanks, Obama isn'T really downgrading your nuclear capabilities, he is actually going to modernise them:2thumbsup:

Yay for "Change!":laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Obama wants SCOTUS to overturn a pretty fundamental right of defendants in our legal system; to have the police stop questioning them when they request a lawyer.



A real shame. It should be obvious that a suspect interrogated for hours, perhaps poor and ignorant of the law, is not on equal terms with a professional interrogator.

CR

---

Linkage man, LINKAGE!

Biden:
Open mouth, insert foot.

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON (CBS) ―

Vice President Joe Biden may not be a doctor, but he dispensed curious medical advice on the morning network news shows Thursday, advising Americans to avoid "confined places," such as airplanes, malls and classrooms. And while he did not mention them specifically, his admonition apparently also included subways, confined spaces used by tens of thousands of New Yorkers and tourists daily.

Later, though, the White House issued a statement saying Biden meant people should avoid confined spaces if they are ill.

Meanwhile in New York City, Biden's comments seemed to sound the bell of alarm. For tens of thousands of New Yorkers and tourists the subway system is the only possible form of transportation.

---

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

Linkage man, LINKAGE!

---

Here it is. From the AP.

Also from the AP is an astonishingly blunt fack check of Obama's 100 day speech:
FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

Quote:

---

"That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One. It actually was him — and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years — who shaped a budget so out of balance.

And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.

---

Additionally, the article took issue with Obama's claims that spending more on preventative medicine would yield huge long-term savings...

Quote:

---

THE FACTS: It sounds believable that preventing illness should be cheaper than treating it, and indeed that's the case with steps like preventing smoking and improving diets and exercise. But during the 2008 campaign, when Obama and other presidential candidates were touting a focus on preventive care, the New England Journal of Medicine cautioned that "sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching." It said that "although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

And a study released in December by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing preventive care "could improve people's health but would probably generate either modest reductions in the overall costs of health care or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame."

---

----

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Biden:
Open mouth, insert foot.

---

It's good to hear from Biden again, I was wondering where he's been. I'm sure Nepolitano was glad that she got to correct someone else's statements for a change. :laugh4: