Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

[Fixiwee]

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.

[Vuk]

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)

[Strike For The South]

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?

[Vuk]

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?

[Strike For The South]

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.

[Vuk]

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 ) 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.

[Lemur]

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.

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.

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"?

[Strike For The South]

Vuk. Aren't you in Hungary right now?

[Vuk]

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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...

[Fixiwee]

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?

[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

[KukriKhan]

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?

[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.

[CountArach]

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

[InsaneApache]

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.

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.

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.)

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

[Major Robert Dump]

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

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.

[Lemur]

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."

[Fixiwee]

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

[Fixiwee]

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.

[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.

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