about_average
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Posts
- 11,430
Or they could just like dogs, or have owned a dog they miss.
Even the most hardened criminals sometimes have a soft spot for certain things.
Even the most hardened criminals sometimes have a soft spot for certain things.
about_average
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Posts
- 11,430
Hey dumbass, Sharia law doesn't take precedent over constitutional l anywhere in the US. Your continued harping on it and pretending it does doesn't make it so.
Sharia has the same recognition in the US as Halakhah.
NeverEndingMe
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Posts
- 15,925
maybe this will wake the French people up that their country is fucked...time to kick out the muslums
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
You may not be aware but an American General during WWII, close to FDR, once suggested rounding up German Americans, until told there were over twenty million of them in the Middle West.
And at least one of them was named "Eisenhower."
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
“Muslims are the vilest of animals…”
“Show mercy to one another, but be ruthless to Muslims”
“How perverse are Muslims!”
“Strike off the heads of Muslims, as well as their fingertips”
“Fight those Muslims who are near to you”
“Muslim mischief makers should be murdered or crucified”
“Show mercy to one another, but be ruthless to Muslims”
“How perverse are Muslims!”
“Strike off the heads of Muslims, as well as their fingertips”
“Fight those Muslims who are near to you”
“Muslim mischief makers should be murdered or crucified”
NeverEndingMe
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Posts
- 15,925
U
unregistered
Guest
It has never been American law or custom that a foreigner can't live and work in this country unless he or she is preparing for citizenship. Many have always come -- many still do -- with the intention of making some money and then returning to the old country.
U
unregistered
Guest
True.
False. Jeez, that's the kind of thinking underlying the Immigration Act of 1924, with its frankly racist national-origins quotas. If such policy had been consistently applied throughout our history, only British immigrants ever would have been allowed -- even the Irish would have been frozen out.
Last edited:
From Salon:
Friday, Jan 9, 2015 07:00 AM EST
The “blame the left” crew: What the right’s new Hebdo attack is really about
It was predictable that the awful attacks on a satire magazine would be blamed on the "decadent left." Here's why
Heather Digby Parton
It was inevitable that liberals would end up being condemned for the horrific attacks on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hedbo in which 12 people were killed by what appear to have been Muslim extremists. Yes, I know it seems strange on the face of it that anyone would think liberals would be responsible for the actions of ultra-conservative religious fanatics, but this is nothing new. It goes all the way back to the capture of John Walker Lind, the “American Taliban,” when conservative wags such as Ann Coulter declared that he naturally became a member of that violent, conservative religious sect because he was raised in Marin County, California, and was thus a liberal role model:
Conservative writer Andrew Sullivan famously issued this indictment, just five days after 9/11:
It never struck these people as odd that liberals — the coalition that includes feminists, gays and promotes religious pluralism, including atheism — would throw in with conservative fundamentalists, but there it is.
Sullivan later apologized for his remarks. I’m sure you’ll be shocked to learn that Coulter did not.
This idea never really went away, however. It’s as if some people cannot conceptualize the idea that their enemies might not be in cahoots with one another. Even gay-loving atheists and jihadis, which has to be one of the oddest alliances of all time. It took on a slightly different cast when the Danish cartoon controversy erupted back in 2006. At that time, the right was very critical of the left for allegedly failing to throw the blasphemous and insulting cartoons in the jihadists’ faces and show proper regard for Western notions of free speech by telling Muslims everywhere in no uncertain terms what they could do with their prohibition on images of the Prophet Mohammed. William Kristol of the Weekly Standard put it this way:
He was including that liberal squish George W. Bush in his criticism, by the way. His state department had issued a statement condemning the cartoons as being “unacceptable.”
Fast forward to the horrific events of this week in Paris and we’ll see the same refrain. Liberals are once again at least partially responsible for the terrible acts of what appear to be ultra-conservative fanatics because they have failed to properly defend free speech.
Yesterday, Jonathan Chait in New York magazine quoted the Time magazine Paris bureau chief Bruce Crumley in the wake of the earlier firebombing of Charlie Hebdo in 2010, angrily condemning what he called “‘majority sections’ of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that ‘they’ aren’t going to tell ‘us’ what can and can’t be done in free societies?” He was obviously talking about the attitudes and practices of Islamophobes throughout Europe, but did take the magazine to task for its overall offensiveness as well.
Chait sarcastically says, “Crumley carefully noted, terrorism is bad, too. But his primary villain was the satirical magazine that provoked the attacks.” Oddly, later in the piece he quotes Crumley saying that societies cannot give in to the hysterical demands of extremists and that violence and intimidation cannot be condoned, but his point seems to be that beyond that any discussion or disagreement with the substance of the free speech in question is off limits.
Chait writes:
He’s not speaking of liberalism in the parochial American sense, obviously, but the criticism hits the same people. He goes on to quote Jay Carney, Obama’s former press secretary, who very mildly pointed out at the time that insulting depictions of the Prophet Mohammed are entirely legal but that publishing them showed questionable judgment and concludes:
So much for that old American trope about freedom of speech: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” By defending the “practice,” he apparently means we are also obligated to refrain from objecting to what people say as well, which is a very different proposition. This essentially says that in defending freedom of speech you must give up your own right to free speech lest you help the terrorists — which is a bit strange.
And it’s a concept over which the great right-wing defenders of American values are going to find themselves in conflict. After all, the shoe was on their religious feet not that long ago:
How about this?
People get upset about things people say and often condemn them for saying it because it’s offensive to them or others. It’s certainly not an exclusively liberal thing unless you think that fundamentalist Islam is liberal or that conservative Catholics like Rudy Giuliani and Pope Benedict are left-wingers. (But it must be noted that in all the situations outlined here, the only person to use the power of the state to try to shut anyone up was Rudy Giuliani.)
Arthur Goldhammer wrote a very insightful piece about this latest horror in Al Jazeera. He pointed out that Charlie Hedbo was more than just a satirical magazine. It followed a certain unique French tradition that was “an equal opportunity offender, and it reveled in its freedom to vex, irritate and derange.” It’s doubtful many people would feel it necessary to defend the substance of everything in its pages — how could they without having their heads explode? No, what we must defend is the principle under which they were allowed to say what they said, period. That is inviolable. And that principle also allows people to condemn Islam or Charlie Hedbo — or both in the very same breath. Once you start policing what people say in the name of free speech you’ve already lost the argument.
And yes, under that principle, we must also defend William Donohue’s right to say the cretinous, idiotic things he says. And we can certainly also feel free to condemn him for saying it. In doing so, we are not advocating that he be silenced. We are using our right of free speech to say we think he’s a cretinous idiot and we wish he would stop being one.
Friday, Jan 9, 2015 07:00 AM EST
The “blame the left” crew: What the right’s new Hebdo attack is really about
It was predictable that the awful attacks on a satire magazine would be blamed on the "decadent left." Here's why
Heather Digby Parton
It was inevitable that liberals would end up being condemned for the horrific attacks on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hedbo in which 12 people were killed by what appear to have been Muslim extremists. Yes, I know it seems strange on the face of it that anyone would think liberals would be responsible for the actions of ultra-conservative religious fanatics, but this is nothing new. It goes all the way back to the capture of John Walker Lind, the “American Taliban,” when conservative wags such as Ann Coulter declared that he naturally became a member of that violent, conservative religious sect because he was raised in Marin County, California, and was thus a liberal role model:
Conservative writer Andrew Sullivan famously issued this indictment, just five days after 9/11:
It never struck these people as odd that liberals — the coalition that includes feminists, gays and promotes religious pluralism, including atheism — would throw in with conservative fundamentalists, but there it is.
Sullivan later apologized for his remarks. I’m sure you’ll be shocked to learn that Coulter did not.
This idea never really went away, however. It’s as if some people cannot conceptualize the idea that their enemies might not be in cahoots with one another. Even gay-loving atheists and jihadis, which has to be one of the oddest alliances of all time. It took on a slightly different cast when the Danish cartoon controversy erupted back in 2006. At that time, the right was very critical of the left for allegedly failing to throw the blasphemous and insulting cartoons in the jihadists’ faces and show proper regard for Western notions of free speech by telling Muslims everywhere in no uncertain terms what they could do with their prohibition on images of the Prophet Mohammed. William Kristol of the Weekly Standard put it this way:
He was including that liberal squish George W. Bush in his criticism, by the way. His state department had issued a statement condemning the cartoons as being “unacceptable.”
Fast forward to the horrific events of this week in Paris and we’ll see the same refrain. Liberals are once again at least partially responsible for the terrible acts of what appear to be ultra-conservative fanatics because they have failed to properly defend free speech.
Yesterday, Jonathan Chait in New York magazine quoted the Time magazine Paris bureau chief Bruce Crumley in the wake of the earlier firebombing of Charlie Hebdo in 2010, angrily condemning what he called “‘majority sections’ of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that ‘they’ aren’t going to tell ‘us’ what can and can’t be done in free societies?” He was obviously talking about the attitudes and practices of Islamophobes throughout Europe, but did take the magazine to task for its overall offensiveness as well.
Chait sarcastically says, “Crumley carefully noted, terrorism is bad, too. But his primary villain was the satirical magazine that provoked the attacks.” Oddly, later in the piece he quotes Crumley saying that societies cannot give in to the hysterical demands of extremists and that violence and intimidation cannot be condoned, but his point seems to be that beyond that any discussion or disagreement with the substance of the free speech in question is off limits.
Chait writes:
He’s not speaking of liberalism in the parochial American sense, obviously, but the criticism hits the same people. He goes on to quote Jay Carney, Obama’s former press secretary, who very mildly pointed out at the time that insulting depictions of the Prophet Mohammed are entirely legal but that publishing them showed questionable judgment and concludes:
So much for that old American trope about freedom of speech: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” By defending the “practice,” he apparently means we are also obligated to refrain from objecting to what people say as well, which is a very different proposition. This essentially says that in defending freedom of speech you must give up your own right to free speech lest you help the terrorists — which is a bit strange.
And it’s a concept over which the great right-wing defenders of American values are going to find themselves in conflict. After all, the shoe was on their religious feet not that long ago:
How about this?
People get upset about things people say and often condemn them for saying it because it’s offensive to them or others. It’s certainly not an exclusively liberal thing unless you think that fundamentalist Islam is liberal or that conservative Catholics like Rudy Giuliani and Pope Benedict are left-wingers. (But it must be noted that in all the situations outlined here, the only person to use the power of the state to try to shut anyone up was Rudy Giuliani.)
Arthur Goldhammer wrote a very insightful piece about this latest horror in Al Jazeera. He pointed out that Charlie Hedbo was more than just a satirical magazine. It followed a certain unique French tradition that was “an equal opportunity offender, and it reveled in its freedom to vex, irritate and derange.” It’s doubtful many people would feel it necessary to defend the substance of everything in its pages — how could they without having their heads explode? No, what we must defend is the principle under which they were allowed to say what they said, period. That is inviolable. And that principle also allows people to condemn Islam or Charlie Hedbo — or both in the very same breath. Once you start policing what people say in the name of free speech you’ve already lost the argument.
And yes, under that principle, we must also defend William Donohue’s right to say the cretinous, idiotic things he says. And we can certainly also feel free to condemn him for saying it. In doing so, we are not advocating that he be silenced. We are using our right of free speech to say we think he’s a cretinous idiot and we wish he would stop being one.
The actually existing ones are not "failed," you know.
about_average
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Posts
- 11,430
Yeah, when I typed that I wasn't considering that he was born and raised in Paris and so unlikely to have farmed.
In any case, it's not unheard of for evil people to do nice things occasionally.
about_average
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Posts
- 11,430
He also wanted to round up (after the war) all german officers above the rank of captain, or some such, and summarily execute them.
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
Giuliani did not try to use the power of the state to shut anybody up. What he did was threaten to refrain from paying people millions of dollars so they could put on display things most people find repulsive and blasphemous.
If I had seen the collage, I probably would have been disgusted by it also, but I would not have called for its elimination. At the same time, I would have objected to being required to sponsor it, either personally or through my tax dollars.
U
unregistered
Guest
Freebird49
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
- Posts
- 653
Attacks in Paris?
Yes but??? This is the verbal diarrhea we get when a Muslim pointy-head is interviewed."Islam is the religion of peace........... but we must never insult the prophet." Yeah right.
The red neck Tea Party types wanted to build a wall between Mexico and the US. Maybe we should make it a world wide project. Start with a massive wall between Europe and the Middle East.
Yes but??? This is the verbal diarrhea we get when a Muslim pointy-head is interviewed."Islam is the religion of peace........... but we must never insult the prophet." Yeah right.
The red neck Tea Party types wanted to build a wall between Mexico and the US. Maybe we should make it a world wide project. Start with a massive wall between Europe and the Middle East.
[shrug] That's just a radical cleric's interpretation of Islam. Most Muslims wouldn't buy it.
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
But Sharia law is creeping in. Here is an example, and I'm sure there are many others: http://allenbwest.com/2013/11/sharia-law-coming-swimming-pool-near/
ETA: Here's a more extreme case: http://nationalreport.net/city-michigan-first-fully-implement-sharia-law/
Last edited:
U
unregistered
Guest
U
unregistered
Guest
U
unregistered
Guest
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Enough will however it's become a rather trendy thing to do in case you have just totally been living under a rock or such a partisan dip shit you actually tune it out and pretend it isn't any kind of issue, to busy making up excuses for their behavior to notice.
All hippie dippie dip shit kum bye ah stupid aside, there are more Muslims out there that are actively trying to KILL YOU just for being you in the name of their prophet than there are people in this country and 2x as many willing to look the other way while they do it. Some of them right here in the US of A...hopefully the FBI/DHS is doing their job and has a microscope up their pee holes.
Because you're right it is just some Muslims, but it's enough.
Last edited:
And you know that how?
