Democrats Looking To Ramp Up The Fascism

[Spurtacular]

I'm asking you one of the simplest yes or no questions that could be asked of you.

Derp, did I say James Buchanan was evil?

Yes or no.

All you have to do is post the word "Yes" or the word "No."

You are throwing a tizzy. :lmao

[Pavlov]

You are throwing a tizzy. :lmaoYou're projecting but not answering a simple yes or no question.

I know you can do it. Give it a try.

Did I say James Buchanan was evil?

Yes or no.

[Spurtacular]

I'm asking you one of the simplest yes or no questions that could be asked of you.

Derp, did I say James Buchanan was evil?

Yes or no.

All you have to do is post the word "Yes" or the word "No."

You've clarified your position and I haven't pressed that particular matter further. Why are you throwing a tizzy?

[Pavlov]

You've clarified your position and I haven't pressed that particular matter further. Why are you throwing a tizzy?There is no tizzy being thrown by me.

I asked you a simple question that you are certainly intelligent enough to answer with a yes or no.

There is no gotcha involved. I want to see if you can actually do it.

Did I say James Buchanan was evil?

Yes or no.

[Spurtacular]

There is no tizzy being thrown by me.

I asked you a simple question that you are certainly intelligent enough to answer with a yes or no.

There is no gotcha involved. I want to see if you can actually do it.

Did I say James Buchanan was evil?

Yes or no.

Compulsion / tizzy....why split hairs, really.

[Pavlov]

Compulsion / tizzy....why split hairs, really.OK. You simply can't do it.

Really.

[Spurtacular]

OK. You simply can't do it.

Really.

I'm okay with you believing that. So, tell us why Buchanan is the worst president.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1109843664862355461

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1109862805224644608

[Infidel Lives Matter]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1109862805224644608

Expected.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1110040196811153408

[Pavlov]

I'm okay with you believing that.It's true.

:lol

[Spurtacular]

It's true.

:lol

Tell us about how Buchanan triggers you.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1110328480812675073

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit/status/1110691784890433537

[midnightpulp]

Does Soros worship Moloch? Or is his only allegiance to mammon?

[Chris]

Does Soros worship Moloch? Or is his only allegiance to mammon?

Bohemian Grove

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lovethetruth.com%2Fjis_images% 2Fcremation_of_care.jpg&f=1

Soros is not on the list according to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bohemian_Club_members


I know you were being snarky, but I figured this would be interesting to others.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1110703298217041920

[midnightpulp]

Bohemian Grove

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lovethetruth.com%2Fjis_images% 2Fcremation_of_care.jpg&f=1

Soros is not on the list according to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bohemian_Club_members


I know you were being snarky, but I figured this would be interesting to others.

Not at all snarky. Billionaires indeed only care about money. Our money is imbued with any number of occult symbolism, mean the worship of money translates into worship of the occult. See my latest reply in the indoctrination tread. Trump similarly worships mammon, which is why it's surprising you're not totally skeptical of him, especially with his support of Israel.

[Chris]

6Ty4iLTAJ5k

[Chucho]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1110703298217041920

Getting rid of insurance companies is a good idea, pal.

[Spurtacular]

Getting rid of insurance companies is a good idea, pal.

:cry the solution, obviously :cry

[Chucho]

:cry the solution, obviously :cry

Said the sociopathic weirdo who wants to be loved by a black transvestite.

[Spurtacular]

Said the sociopathic weirdo who wants to be loved by a black transvestite.

You gonna ever explain your narrative? I'm guessing no.

[ElNono]

Bohemian Grove

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lovethetruth.com%2Fjis_images% 2Fcremation_of_care.jpg&f=1

Soros is not on the list according to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bohemian_Club_members

I know you were being snarky, but I figured this would be interesting to others.

What's special about it? Looks like just another rich gentlemen gathering...

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/EpochTimes/status/1111714832305262593

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1111711056559308803

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1111717203651383296

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1111308591296843777

[Spurtacular]

https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1111308591296843777

We need to be more humane and build the wall.

[Chris]

We need to be more humane and build the wall.

If we just get rid of all the white nationalists we can finally have Sharia Law in the United States.

[Winehole23]

There already is Sharia Law in the US and it's no problem. Lots of religions have laws that believers are consensually bound by. If you're not a member, they don't apply.

[Winehole23]

Have you ever talked to a Catholic about marriage law?

Similar deal.Religions have rules.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1111731229051641856

[Spurtacular]

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1111731229051641856

:lol Corporate cuck

[Chris]

Twitter suspends pro-life "Unplanned" movie account on opening weekend.

[Pavlov]

Twitter suspends pro-life "Unplanned" movie account on opening weekend.Well it's not suspended now. Must've been a terrible time.

[Chucho]

Well it's not suspended now. Must've been a terrible time.

Why do you think they lifted the suspension? Why do you think they suspended the account initially?

[Pavlov]

Why do you think they lifted the suspension?Probably someone told them.


Why do you think they suspended the account initially?Don't know. Must've been terrible.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/bigleaguepol/status/1111982158107820032

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1112017609623588864

[Pavlov]

https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1112017609623588864

There should be more negative stories about him. He's a miserable human being.

[Chucho]

https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1112017609623588864

You act surprised. He picked a fight with the media from the get-go. That was his second biggest mistake. Continuing the grudge and never demonstrating self control with his verbal diarrhea is his biggest.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1112063110020546561

[ChumpDumper]

https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1112063110020546561That could actually hurt if some kind of a boycott happens.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/fordnation/status/1112064068402044928

This is what you get when you buy into climate change hysteria. They bend you over ; )

[Chucho]

https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1112063110020546561

Just more of the over privileged and elite telling people how to live and think.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/ReneeCarrollAZ/status/1112049733596381184

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/ReneeCarrollAZ/status/1112070801014980608

[Chris]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D27zFIIUcAEB9BL.jpg:large

[Spurtacular]

https://twitter.com/ReneeCarrollAZ/status/1112070801014980608

:lmao Chumpettes

[Chris]

:lmao Chumpettes

She was huffing and puffing over a hat :lol

[Spurtacular]

https://twitter.com/ReneeCarrollAZ/status/1112049733596381184

:lmao Chumpettes

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/1111763898443669504

[Chris]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D27uKuwXgAAebBj.jpg:large

[Will Hunting]

If you want to call AOC a socialist that’s actually somewhat valid, but the idea that Obama is a socialist is absurd.

[Chris]

If you want to call AOC a socialist that’s actually somewhat valid, but the idea that Obama is a socialist is absurd.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41E43r6994L._SX327_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

[koriwhat]

You act surprised. He picked a fight with the media from the get-go. That was his second biggest mistake. Continuing the grudge and never demonstrating self control with his verbal diarrhea is his biggest.

fuck the MSM! i hope he continues to call out them propaganda networks.


https://twitter.com/ReneeCarrollAZ/status/1112049733596381184

dumbasses... btw kaitlin's videos are great and they show just how insane the most lefty losers are.


https://twitter.com/ReneeCarrollAZ/status/1112070801014980608

more dumbasses

[Spurtacular]

the idea that Obama is a socialist is absurd.

:lmao

[Will Hunting]

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41E43r6994L._SX327_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


:lmao
You guys got me there, tbh.

[Pavlov]

:lol "radical"

[Spurtacular]

You guys got me there, tbh.

He tried to make his crowning achievement universal healthcare. I don't know what you think a socialist is if not that.

[ElNono]

He tried to make his crowning achievement universal healthcare. I don't know what you think a socialist is if not that.

There was nothing universal about Obamacare. You couldn’t have given more handouts to Big Pharma and Insurance COs.

Barry was a Wall Street, Goldman Sachs favorite son. Those don’t really strike me as very socialist.

[Pavlov]

There was nothing universal about Obamacare. You couldn’t have given more handouts to Big Pharma and Insurance COs.

Barry was a Wall Street, Goldman Sachs favorite son. Those don’t really strike me as very socialist.But it is radical, right?

[Nathan89]

https://twitter.com/ReneeCarrollAZ/status/1112070801014980608

Nothing to see here just trying to step on the rights of others because they don't think like me. And then she tries to justify her actual actions she clearly supports with the potential actions of others that she is not supportive of.

[Spurtacular]

Nothing to see here just trying to step on the rights of others because they don't think like me. And then she tries to justify her actual actions she clearly supports with the potential actions of others that she is not supportive of.

:lol Ignorant lady thinks the turban is the province of muzzies, too.

[Chris]

Nothing to see here just trying to step on the rights of others because they don't think like me. And then she tries to justify her actual actions she clearly supports with the potential actions of others that she is not supportive of.

1. Create an imaginary enemy
2. Justify your wrath
3. Use whataboutery when confronted

That's the Liberal playbook in a nutshell.

[Will Hunting]

He tried to make his crowning achievement universal healthcare. I don't know what you think a socialist is if not that.
He’s a socialist for implementing Bob Dole’s healthcare plan?

[Spurtacular]

He’s a socialist for implementing Bob Dole’s healthcare plan?

:lol Whataboutism

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1111730966177943553

Canada is fucked and unfuckable.

[DMC]

There already is Sharia Law in the US and it's no problem. Lots of religions have laws that believers are consensually bound by. If you're not a member, they don't apply.

:lmao

no

Religious rules are not the same as Sharia law. For one, they aren't all Islamic which they would have to be to be Sharia law. 2 it's not legally binding by a court of law and not legally enforceable.

Damn you're way the fuck off the reservation.

[Spurtacular]

https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1111730966177943553

Canada is fucked and unfuckable.

Why aren't they boycotting China if this is what they actually believe? Liberals are bull shitter money grabbers.

[Spurtacular]

There already is Sharia Law in the US and it's no problem.

:lmao blakehole

[Winehole23]

:lmao

no

Religious rules are not the same as Sharia law. For one, they aren't all Islamic which they would have to be to be Sharia law. 2 it's not legally binding by a court of law and not legally enforceable.

Damn you're way the fuck off the reservation.Not really, you just drank too much.

I wasn't saying Sharia law was the civil code here, it never could be; but Sharia Law does apply to believers anywhere in the world, as spiritual law, no different from Jewish or Christian law.

There is Sharia Law anywhere there are Muslims just like you find Halacha wherever you find observant Jews. The fear that any religious law will become the civil code in the US is rank fearmongering.

[Winehole23]

Do you think Muslims are trying to get Islamic spiritual law instituted as a civil code of law in the US, DMC (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=20665)?

[ElNono]

Not really, you just drank too much.

I wasn't saying Sharia law was the civil code here, it never could be; but Sharia Law does apply to believers anywhere in the world, as spiritual law, no different from Jewish or Christian law.

There is Sharia Law anywhere there are Muslims just like you find Halacha wherever you find observant Jews. The fear that any religious law will become the civil code in the US is rank fearmongering.

You have to see this as an affront to advocates of the US moving into a Christian theocracy. Separation of church and state is offensive, and Sharia or Halacha are competitors to the goal.

[boutons_deux]

US moving into a Christian theocracy. Separation of church and state is offensive, and Sharia or Halacha are competitors to the goal.

Christians have to be pretty stupid, gullible, inflammable to be conned into "Sharia,etc" taking over America, but there are 10Ms of VERY STUPID, connable Christians.

Did you see where that obese Atlanta tele evangelising grifter pastor who bought his wife a $250K Italian supercar begging his sheeple for money to buy his so-called church a new roof? Fucking assholes thinking giving money to grifter pastors is gonna get them into heaven, or a better seat in heaven.

[Winehole23]

You have to see this as an affront to advocates of the US moving into a Christian theocracy. Separation of church and state is offensive, and Sharia or Halacha are competitors to the goal.White nationalism and dominionist theology seem to be walking hand in glove; their battle cry is RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

The status of white people and Christians as the most persecuted minorities in human history lends it moral weight.

[DMC]

Do you Muslims are trying to get Islamic spiritual law instituted as a civil code of law in the US, DMC?

Can you rephrase that? Not sure if you're asking me what I think or what I know.

[DMC]

Not really, you just drank too much.

I wasn't saying Sharia law was the civil code here, it never could be; but Sharia Law does apply to believers anywhere in the world, as spiritual law, no different from Jewish or Christian law.

There is Sharia Law anywhere there are Muslims just like you find Halacha wherever you find observant Jews. The fear that any religious law will become the civil code in the US is rank fearmongering.

It's a huge stretch to call self imposed rules "laws" since they cannot be enforced. Who in the US is issuing fatwas? Don't conflate Sharia with Sharia law. Do we have Christian law since Christians also have the 10 Commandments?

[DMC]

White nationalism and dominionist theology seem to be walking hand in glove; their battle cry is RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

The status of white people and Christians as the most persecuted minorities in human history lends it moral weight.

Muslims have far more in common with the right wing extremist Christians than with the left. The idea that the enemy of your enemy is your friend really doesn't work with Muslims. You keep at it though. Maybe one day someone will forget all the violence and nonsense each religion perpetuates and endorses in the name of some invisible overlord.

[Winehole23]

It's a huge stretch to call self imposed rules "laws" since they cannot be enforced. Who in the US is issuing fatwas? Don't conflate Sharia with Sharia law. Do we have Christian law since Christians also have the 10 Commandments?Having pantsed yourself stating there is no Sharia Law in the US, now you want to have a semantic dispute about whether it is really law.

To believers, it is law. In any society which is not theocratic, "spiritual law" describes rules consensually binding the in-group.

If you're confused about whether or not it means, or is supposed to mean, a civil code of law, that's hilarious.

[Winehole23]

The idea that the enemy of your enemy is your friend really doesn't work with Muslims.Yeah, you're such an expert on what Muslims are.

[Mikeanaro]

1. Create an imaginary enemy
2. Justify your wrath
3. Use whataboutery when confronted

That's the Liberal playbook in a nutshell.
The pillars of Peronism, Chavism, Castrism and other dictatorial regimes too.

[DMC]

Having pantsed yourself stating there is no Sharia Law in the US, now you want to have a semantic dispute about whether it is really law.

Otherwise I can call any form of self-imposed rule "law". Your slippery slope is duly noted, so don't shift the burden of proof to the naysayer. You claimed it exists here. Prove it.


To believers, it is law. In any society which is not theocratic, "spiritual law" describes rules consensually binding the in-group.

So do they jail and punish their members based on this law? Do they have courts that interpret these laws and issue fines and sentences to offenders?

Law, in the "legal sense" is not the same as rules and rituals in the religious sense.

Still waiting for you to point out the legal ramifications for violating Sharia law in the US.


If you're confused about whether or not it means, or is supposed to mean, a civil code of law, that's hilarious.
What's hilarious is watching you tap dance around this assertion you made and refuse to address the implications were it true.

[DMC]

Yeah, you're such an expert on what Muslims are.

Belief practiced fundamentally is the purest form of that belief yet fundamentalists of both religions are seen as extremists. Like you did above with the concept of "law", any crazy ass belief can be polluted and diluted into something that appears almost passive at first glance.

[Winehole23]

DMC, tap dancing fool.

Never makes a mistake, always blames semantics.

[DMC]

DMC, tap dancing fool.

Never makes a mistake, always blames semantics.

So you made a mistake?

Ever heard of the "Establishment clause"?

By your usage of the word "law", I can say any form of law exists if it's practiced by anyone. But we know it's not really a law if it doesn't apply to others.

[Pavlov]

Meh, if all parties agree to it sharia law can be followed just like letting a beth din arbitrate a matter.

[DMC]

Meh, if all parties agree to it sharia law can be followed just like letting a beth din arbitrate a matter.

:lmao

[Alanis Morissette]

1. Create an imaginary enemy
2. Justify your wrath
3. Use whataboutery when confronted

That's the Liberal playbook in a nutshell.
:lmao

and isn’t it ironic...

[Pavlov]

:lmaoWhat's funny about it?


Please try to explain yourself.

[Chris]

"There already is Sharia Law in the US and it's no problem."
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fthetyee.ca%2FOpinion%2F2016%2F03% 2F30%2FIdiot-610px.jpg&f=1

[Winehole23]

^^^self-impersonation

[Chris]

*posts irrelevant video and Bible verse for some half-assed troll attempt

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1112412803057569797

[Chris]

I can't see any trannies right now though. Am I doing this wrong mono? How do I celebrate trannies mono?

[Chris]

dumbasses... btw kaitlin's videos are great and they show just how insane the most lefty losers are.

I seen lots of her stuff when Trump was running in 2016. She got bigger balls than Owen Shroyer out there trying to have a conversation with these mongoloids.


https://twitter.com/ReneeCarrollAZ/status/1112425059690283009

[Spurtacular]

:lmao

and isn’t it ironic...

:lol

[Spurtacular]

I seen lots of her stuff when Trump was running in 2016. She got bigger balls than Owen Shroyer out there trying to have a conversation with these mongoloids.


https://twitter.com/ReneeCarrollAZ/status/1112425059690283009

:lmao Chumpettes

[Chris]

:lmao Chumpettes

Look at the dude on the left with the black hoodie (I just noticed it) Baphomet pentagram right on the front.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/TigerLetsRoll/status/1112360033650655232

[DMC]

What's funny about it?


Please try to explain yourself.

What is the definition of "law" in how it's being used in "Sharia law"?

[Pavlov]

What is the definition of "law" in how it's being used in "Sharia law"?So you're not going to explain yourself and want to drag me into another semantic quagmire.

Figures.

Your question alone makes it obvious that there are multiple definitions. If you find one fits what I said, use it.

Easy.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1112463274887602176

[Spurtacular]

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1112463274887602176

Not news, really. California did it. All the liberal states follow their lead within two years.

[Winehole23]

1112491191248080896

[DMC]

So you're not going to explain yourself and want to drag me into another semantic quagmire.

Figures.

Your question alone makes it obvious that there are multiple definitions. If you find one fits what I said, use it.

Easy.

That's what I thought.

Unless you can show me that followers of Sharia law in the US can impose punishments otherwise illegal in the US, you're simply wrong. Muslims in the US may believe Sharia should be practiced, but they cannot impose these punishments on others legally.

You want to exclude that part though and pretend their beliefs and commandments constitute "law". It doesn't do that any more than the Bible's commandments constitute law.

[boutons_deux]

1112491191248080896

:lol It's the shithole TX Repugs, angling to be Raptured into Heaven with Christ, not lefties, who want to penalize boycotters of Israel

[Pavlov]

That's what I thought.

Unless you can show me that followers of Sharia law in the US can impose punishments otherwise illegal in the US, you're simply wrong. Muslims in the US may believe Sharia should be practiced, but they cannot impose these punishments on others legally.

You want to exclude that part though and pretend their beliefs and commandments constitute "law". It doesn't do that any more than the Bible's commandments constitute law.Semantic bullshit.

Just what I thought.

Unless you're a mind reader and knew I used an incorrect definition of the word law, you're a twat.

And wrong.

I told you exactly how it's used. You want to argue something else entirely..

Because you're a twat.

Suck it up.

[Chris]

Pavlov is angry and flustered.

[Pavlov]

Pavlov is angry and flustered.Nah, I fully predicted that twat's response.

Sorry, Qhris. You can still suck him off if you want. That's not against the law.

[Chris]

I'm still laughing over this doozy:



"There already is Sharia Law in the US and it's no problem."
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fthetyee.ca%2FOpinion%2F2016%2F03% 2F30%2FIdiot-610px.jpg&f=1

[Pavlov]

DMC and his lil' buddy want to pretend binding arbitration is not and has never been a thing ever.:tu

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/ColumbiaBugle/status/1112543852416528387

Weird how that happens.

[Winehole23]

you seem to think Islamic spiritual law is some kind of threat to civil society in the US, or a harbinger of fascism, but your support for this hypothesis is mainly assumed.

Why do you think so?

[Winehole23]

the minority rides roughshod over the supermajority:


We are told that America is divided and polarized as never before. Yet when it comes to many important areas of policy, that simply isn’t true.


About 75 percent of Americans favor higher taxes (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/04/democrats-taxes-economy-policy-2020-1144874) for the ultrawealthy. The idea of a federal law that would guarantee paid maternity leave (https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/02/08/majority-support-requiring-paid-leave)attracts 67 percent support. Eighty-three percent favor strong net neutrality rules (https://thehill.com/policy/technology/364528-poll-83-percent-of-voters-support-keeping-fccs-net-neutrality-rules) for broadband, and more than 60 percent want stronger privacy laws (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/27/americans-complicated-feelings-about-social-media-in-an-era-of-privacy-concerns/). Seventy-one percent think we should be able to buy drugs (https://www.kff.org/health-costs/press-release/poll-majorities-of-democrats-republicans-and-independents-support-actions-to-lower-drug-costs-including-allowing-americans-to-buy-drugs-from-canada/) imported from Canada, and 92 percent want Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices. The list goes on.
The defining political fact of our time is not polarization. It’s the inability of even large bipartisan majorities to get what they want on issues like these. Call it the oppression of the supermajority. Ignoring what most of the country wants — as much as demagogy and political divisiveness — is what is making the public so angry.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/opinion/oppression-majority.html

[Winehole23]

this is not a picture of a "heavily polarized" nation, as the pundits would have it. These policies are wildly popular and are outside of the political mainstream because a minority have figured out how to suppress the will of the supermajority.https://boingboing.net/2019/03/05/overton-windows-r-us.html

[ElNono]

https://twitter.com/ColumbiaBugle/status/1112543852416528387

Weird how that happens.

What's the conspiracy here?

[boutons_deux]

the minority rides roughshod over the supermajority:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/opinion/oppression-majority.html

"The defining political fact of our time is not polarization.

It’s the inability of even large bipartisan majorities to get what they want on issues like these.

Entire categories of public policy options are effectively off-limits because of the combined influence of industry groups and donor interests.

It is not a concession to populism, but rather a respect for democracy, to suggest that two-thirds of the population should usually get what they ask for."

... because the oligarchy has seized control of govt by corrupting politicians with their pocket change.

"legislative stagnation"? the oligarchy has rigged the country in the oligarchy's favor, and the oligarchy PAYS (a little) to have that status quo untouched.

Capitalism is incompatible with democracy, and with hated Labor

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1112785113924792323

[spurraider21]

So you made a mistake?

Ever heard of the "Establishment clause"?

By your usage of the word "law", I can say any form of law exists if it's practiced by anyone. But we know it's not really a law if it doesn't apply to others.
the establishment clause places limitations on congress and congress alone.

you cant apply it to religious institutions in the same manner you cant apply it to private businesses

your contention is that it's not "law" because its not a law enforced by the US or state governments. thats a semantics discussion, and its not surprising you find yourself in one

[spurraider21]

That's what I thought.

Unless you can show me that followers of Sharia law in the US can impose punishments otherwise illegal in the US, you're simply wrong. Muslims in the US may believe Sharia should be practiced, but they cannot impose these punishments on others legally.

You want to exclude that part though and pretend their beliefs and commandments constitute "law". It doesn't do that any more than the Bible's commandments constitute law.
only if you assume that the imposition of punishment is the bright line to decide what is a law and what isnt

[Pavlov]

only if you assume that the imposition of punishment is the bright line to decide what is a law and what isntOf course he jumps straight to punishments and all-or-nothing idiocy. He's got to punish det straw man. It's his law.

[Chris]

you seem to think Islamic spiritual law is some kind of threat to civil society in the US, or a harbinger of fascism, but your support for this hypothesis is mainly assumed.

Why do you think so?

You seem to think this...


https://twitter.com/Imamofpeace/status/1112626458390728704



...is right here in the United States and it's no problem.

Why do you think so?

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/1112704939443269632

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/RepMattGaetz/status/1112814516235128834

[spurraider21]

more useless token bills? :lol

[koriwhat]

That's what I thought.

Unless you can show me that followers of Sharia law in the US can impose punishments otherwise illegal in the US, you're simply wrong. Muslims in the US may believe Sharia should be practiced, but they cannot impose these punishments on others legally.

You want to exclude that part though and pretend their beliefs and commandments constitute "law". It doesn't do that any more than the Bible's commandments constitute law.

That's because pav is the very definition of a beta male even more than cuckBlake.

[Pavlov]

https://twitter.com/RepMattGaetz/status/1112814516235128834

How many cases of legal infanticide happened last year?

[DMC]

the establishment clause places limitations on congress and congress alone.

you cant apply it to religious institutions in the same manner you cant apply it to private businesses

your contention is that it's not "law" because its not a law enforced by the US or state governments. thats a semantics discussion, and its not surprising you find yourself in one

I asked for a definition of how "law" was being used in that context.

Sharia law is enforced. Sharia isn't.

:cry "but semantics"

Dude you're a fucking lawyer. You more than anyone should appreciate the differences that words can make in arguments.

[DMC]

more useless token bills? :lol
Aren't these also laws if people agree to follow them?

[spurraider21]

Aren't these also laws if people agree to follow them?
sure. and i'm pretty sure thats the crux of the argument against people want to codify their religious laws. if christians look at the bible and say gay marriage shouldnt be practiced, then the christian community is more than welcome to observe the laws of their faith and not marry people of the opposite sex.

but the government's laws aren't subject to people's "agreement to follow" them.

but the reason i call this "infanticide bill" a token bill is because there is no state where infanticide is legal. its a political stunt, just like kamala harris' "anti-lynching" bill or the recent bill to condemn anti-semitism. they're worthless.

[DMC]

only if you assume that the imposition of punishment is the bright line to decide what is a law and what isnt

The fact that Islamic law is a legal system and this "Sharia law in the US" isn't. That's all I needed to know. You want to redefine "law" to mean "code of conduct" but there are almost endless codes of conduct including Judaic ones that aren't laws. They are simply "commandments" from non-existent deities or illiterate cave dwelling warlords.

[spurraider21]

I asked for a definition of how "law" was being used in that context.

Sharia law is enforced. Sharia isn't.

:cry "but semantics"

Dude you're a fucking lawyer. You more than anyone should appreciate the differences that words can make in arguments.
the lawyer shtick is played out. that i'm a lawyer doesnt mean that debates over semantics and be pedantic, given the context. what the word "law" in sharia law means to you or me isn't relevant. neither of us are muslim, neither of us observe their religious law. the only question we care about, i would think, is if the state or federal governments are going to codify those laws. they aren't. so no, they won't be laws of the US, or laws of the state of texas/california/virginia, etc.

they are still laws, just not in any of the jurisdictions that apply to you or me. i dont know that the ability to punish is a requirement of having a law. i mean the US Code defines how the flag can be honored, and states you cant wear it as clothing. but there's no means for the government to penalize you for violating that code

[DMC]

sure. and i'm pretty sure thats the crux of the argument against people want to codify their religious laws. if christians look at the bible and say gay marriage shouldnt be practiced, then the christian community is more than welcome to observe the laws of their faith and not marry people of the opposite sex.

but the government's laws aren't subject to people's "agreement to follow" them.

but the reason i call this "infanticide bill" a token bill is because there is no state where infanticide is legal. its a political stunt, just like kamala harris' "anti-lynching" bill or the recent bill to condemn anti-semitism. they're worthless.

So as a lawyer are you then dedicated to litigation of religious "laws"?

Show me where Sharia law exists and isn't part of the legal system, then how it's anything different than a simple self enforce code of conduct, like the ketogenic diet. Are there ketogenic laws?

[DMC]

the lawyer shtick is played out. that i'm a lawyer doesnt mean that debates over semantics and be pedantic, given the context. what the word "law" in sharia law means to you or me isn't relevant. neither of us are muslim, neither of us observe their religious law. the only question we care about, i would think, is if the state or federal governments are going to codify those laws. they aren't. so no, they won't be laws of the US, or laws of the state of texas/california/virginia, etc.

they are still laws, just not in any of the jurisdictions that apply to you or me. i dont know that the ability to punish is a requirement of having a law. i mean the US Code defines how the flag can be honored, and states you cant wear it as clothing. but there's no means for the government to penalize you for violating that code

Doesn't the US jurisdiction apply to you and me?

Code and law are not the same things. Otherwise it could be unlawful to wear the flag as clothing. Would you be ok with that since you're here pretending "law" and "code" are the same things.

[spurraider21]

So as a lawyer are you then dedicated to litigation of religious "laws"?

Show me where Sharia law exists and isn't part of the legal system, then how it's anything different than a simple self enforce code of conduct, like the ketogenic diet. Are there ketogenic laws?
if by "laws" you are only referring to state/government enacted laws that all people in their jurisdiction are bound to, then no those arent laws in that context, obviously.

as a lawyer, i can only practice based on laws that are codified by the state (i dont regularly practice federal law). thats the purpose of the legal profession in the US. when i was admitted to the CA state bar, i became licensed to practice in all california state courts. so that would obviously exclude laws of religion, which do not have the same reach as laws passed by legislatures

[DMC]

if by "laws" you are only referring to state/government enacted laws that all people in their jurisdiction are bound to, then no those arent laws in that context, obviously.

as a lawyer, i can only practice based on laws that are codified by the state (i dont regularly practice federal law). thats the purpose of the legal profession in the US. when i was admitted to the CA state bar, i became licensed to practice in all california state courts. so that would obviously exclude laws of religion, which do not have the same reach as laws passed by legislatures

Still waiting for an answer to the Sharia law question.

Who's playing the semantics game again?

[spurraider21]

Doesn't the US jurisdiction apply to you and me?
of course. but nobody here claimed that the laws of islam apply to you and me, even if some people in the US bind themselves to it.


Code and law are not the same things. Otherwise it could be unlawful to wear the flag as clothing. Would you be ok with that since you're here pretending "law" and "code" are the same things.
um, the code is quite literally a collection of the existing laws in a given area. they are the same thing. when people look up "laws" they are looking up things like the US Code, or the Code of Civil Procedure, or the Evidence Code, etc etc. they're synonymous in the context of laws enforced by the government

[Winehole23]

You seem to think this...


https://twitter.com/Imamofpeace/status/1112626458390728704



...is right here in the United States and it's no problem.

Why do you think so?Because that isn't a typical example. Sharia isn't the civil code here, just like it isn'tn most of the rest of the world. In most of the world it's spiritual, not civil law. As such, Sharia Law poses zero risk to anyone in the USA.

[DMC]

Because that isn't a typical example. Sharia isn't the civil code here, just like it isn'tn most of the rest of the world. In most of the world ot's spiritual, not civil law. As such, Sharia Law poses zero risk to anyone in the USA.


law1
/lô/
noun
1.
the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
"they were taken to court for breaking the law"
synonyms: rules and regulations, system of laws, body of laws, constitution, legislation, code, legal code, charter; jurisprudence
"the law of the land"

[spurraider21]

"country or community"
"actions of its members"
:lol

[DMC]

of course. but nobody here claimed that the laws of islam apply to you and me, even if some people in the US bind themselves to it.

Islamic law is a legal system. How can that exist without being applied?


um, the code is quite literally a collection of the existing laws in a given area. they are the same thing. when people look up "laws" they are looking up things like the US Code, or the Code of Civil Procedure, or the Evidence Code, etc etc. they're synonymous in the context of laws enforced by the government
So the collection of laws in the US are the code. Where is Sharia law in that?

[DMC]

"country or community"
"actions of its members"
:lol

it may enforce by the imposition of penalties. :lol

Since the US doesn't recognize their code of conduct nor allow them to impose harsh punishments on their "members", they may not impose these penalties in the US ergo no law.

But you're saying Muslim Americans aren't part of the community?

[spurraider21]

Islamic law is a legal system. How can that exist without being applied?

So the collection of laws in the US are the code. Where is Sharia law in that?
its not part of the us code, nor any state code. neither the US government or any state government has any right to enforce religious law

[Chris]

Wasting your time. They are incapable of admitting when they are completely full of shit. I'm curious what a "typical example" of Winetroll's version of Sharia Law is.

[Winehole23]

Go stuff yourself, DMC. Any religious scholar would know what I mean, you're just being dense: usage is king.

[DMC]

its not part of the us code, nor any state code. neither the US government or any state government has any right to enforce religious law

Neither does any individual since Americans are protected from such by law.

Since it's not part of the US code or any state code, it's not law. It's just a code of conduct, like the Boy Scout honor pledge.

[DMC]

Go stuff yourself, DMC. Any religious scholar would know what I mean, you're just being dense: usage is king.

No you were intentionally obtuse to suggest Sharia law is in effect in the US. Are you Muslim?

[Winehole23]

Wasting your time. They are incapable of admitting when they are completely full of shit. I'm curious what a "typical example" of Winetroll's version of Sharia Law is.You've been led by the nose by paranoid online fearrmongers. You have no idea what's typical and what's not.

[spurraider21]

it may enforce by the imposition of penalties. :lol

Since the US doesn't recognize their code of conduct nor allow them to impose harsh punishments on their "members", they may not impose these penalties in the US ergo no law.
depends on what the penalties are. to the extent the penalties cause for violence, yeah they'd be void in the US. the free exercise of religion is limited to the extent that it directly conflicts with state or federal law. if the penalty is violent in nature (stoning, beating, etc) it obviously would be illegal to enforce.

to the extent the punishment is some form of excommunication or banishment from that institution, they're able to have that, as far as i'm aware

[Winehole23]

No you were intentionally obtuse to suggest Sharia law is in effect in the US. Are you Muslim?Sharia Law is observed wherever you find observant Muslims.We have observant Muslims in the US, therefore Sharia Law is already exists and is observed in the USA.

[spurraider21]

Neither does any individual since Americans are protected from such by law.

Since it's not part of the US code or any state code, it's not law. It's just a code of conduct, like the Boy Scout honor pledge.
its not a law of the united states or any state therein, correct.

[Chris]

You've been led by the nose by paranoid online fearrmongers. You have no idea what's typical and what's not.

So you got nothing. That's typical.

[Pavlov]

"country or community"
"actions of its members"
:lolYOU MUST DISREGARD EVERY DEFINITION EXCEPT THE ONE I USE I AM IN CHARGE NOT THE DICTIONARY ENTRY I POSTED

[Winehole23]

Observant Muslims got Sharia Law, they live in the USA, and it's not a threat to anyone. No more or no less than rhe religious observances of Catholics and Jews.

[spurraider21]

I asked for a definition of how "law" was being used in that context.

Sharia law is enforced. Sharia isn't.

:cry "but semantics"

Dude you're a fucking lawyer. You more than anyone should appreciate the differences that words can make in arguments.
actually interested in where you got this notion that sharia and sharia law are different things

[DMC]

depends on what the penalties are. to the extent the penalties cause for violence, yeah they'd be void in the US. the free exercise of religion is limited to the extent that it directly conflicts with state or federal law. if the penalty is violent in nature (stoning, beating, etc) it obviously would be illegal to enforce.

to the extent the punishment is some form of excommunication or banishment from that institution, they're able to have that, as far as i'm aware

You're also being evasive and using shady tactics to try to be right.

Countries That Follow Sharia Law
Rank Countries That Follow Sharia Law
1 Afghanistan
2 Iran
3 Iraq
4 Maurtania
5 Pakistan
6 Saudi Arabia
7 Sudan
8 Yemen


So in these countries that follow Sharia law, is the limit of the punishment to banish people from the institutions? Take their membership status away?

Stop being dishonest, Philo.

[DMC]

actually interested in where you got this notion that sharia and sharia law are different things

Otherwise it's just another way of saying "belief". If that's what you (Winehole) mean then you're being obtuse to suggest anyone here would be against it.

[spurraider21]

You're also being evasive and using shady tactics to try to be right.

Countries That Follow Sharia Law
Rank Countries That Follow Sharia Law
1 Afghanistan
2 Iran
3 Iraq
4 Maurtania
5 Pakistan
6 Saudi Arabia
7 Sudan
8 Yemen


So in these countries that follow Sharia law, is the limit of the punishment to banish people from the institutions? Take their membership status away?

Stop being dishonest, Philo.
so thats a list of countries where the government enforces and/or has codified sharia.

cool.

winehole never said the US enforces sharia law

[Pavlov]

http://wikiworldorder.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/steelman-strawman.gif

[DMC]

depends on what the penalties are. to the extent the penalties cause for violence, yeah they'd be void in the US. the free exercise of religion is limited to the extent that it directly conflicts with state or federal law. if the penalty is violent in nature (stoning, beating, etc) it obviously would be illegal to enforce.

to the extent the punishment is some form of excommunication or banishment from that institution, they're able to have that, as far as i'm aware


so thats a list of countries where the government enforces and/or has codified sharia.

cool.

winehole never said the US enforces sharia law

What are the punishments?

[spurraider21]

What are the punishments?
i dont know.

it cannot contain violence, though. the state has a near monopoly on violence

[DMC]

i dont know.

it cannot contain violence, though. the state has a near monopoly on violence

So then the law isn't really the law. It's the suggestion, based on the definition of "law" that I showed.

Now I expect you to argue the meaning of "may" to also mean "may not".

A person can subscribe to Sharia, be Muslim and not be allowed to act on their beliefs since they involve crossing into the US legal system laws. In those cases the Sharia law isn't in effect. The concept may still guide people's actions, just as laws in the US may cause Americans in other countries to act in certain ways, but that doesn't mean the US laws are in effect in those countries.

[spurraider21]

So then the law isn't really the law.
its not the law of the US or any state therein. we've been over this.


It's the suggestion, based on the definition of "law" that I showed.
no. i just said i dont know what the punishments are, and that they cannot include violence. the consenting group/members dictate what the punishment is. could be damnation, could be some form of excommunication. i dont know, i'm not a sharia scholar.

[DMC]

its not the law of the US or any state therein. we've been over this.

So the law doesn't exist in the US. The people who believe the law exists live here, and they obey the commandments, but they don't practice the law because they are not allowed to.


no. i just said i dont know what the punishments are, and that they cannot include violence. the consenting group/members dictate what the punishment is. could be damnation, could be some form of excommunication. i dont know, i'm not a sharia scholar.
Well in the countries that have adopted Sharia law, they certainly do include violence. So this Sharia law you believe exists in the US is what exactly? Still waiting.

[spurraider21]

So the law doesn't exist in the US.
it does. the US just doesnt enforce it.


The people who believe the law exists live here, and they obey the commandments, but they don't practice the law because they are not allowed to.
they might not be able to levy the same punishments that they do in other countries. that doesn't mean they dont practice the law here.


Well in the countries that have adopted Sharia law, they certainly do include violence. So this Sharia law you believe exists in the US is what exactly? Still waiting.
sharia law is the religious law that tells followers what they should/should not do. you seem to think a law is only a law if it is endorsed and enforced by the state/nation against all residents. thats the meaning that we may give on a day to day basis, but thats not the exclusive definition, as you saw in the very definition you posted here

[Pavlov]

More straw incoming.

[DMC]

it does. the US just doesnt enforce it.
You established already - Neither do they ergo non-existent.


they might not be able to levy the same punishments that they do in other countries. that doesn't mean they dont practice the law here.

Sure it does. If Sharia law means eye for an eye, and you cannot impose that, then you're not practicing Sharia law. You're practicing your hybrid version of it.


sharia law is the religious law that tells followers what they should/should not do. you seem to think a law is only a law if it is endorsed and enforced by the state/nation against all residents. thats the meaning that we may give on a day to day basis, but thats not the exclusive definition, as you saw in the very definition you posted here
It does more than tell them what they should do. It tells others what they should do when followers don't obey. Stop watering the shit down to make it palatable, Philo. Since they cannot dish out the prescribed punishments, the law is moot ergo non-existent. Otherwise you can say any group of two or more people who adhere to a code have a law and that law is in effect.

[Pavlov]

YOU MUST DISREGARD EVERY DEFINITION EXCEPT THE ONE I USE I AM IN CHARGE

[DMC]

https://i.imgur.com/w8kikz5.jpg

Why would you quote yourself saying that?

[DMC]

What is the definition of "law" in how it's being used in "Sharia law"?

:lol

2 pages of "muh definition" after refusing to specify

[Pavlov]

https://i.imgur.com/w8kikz5.jpg

Why would you quote yourself saying that?I was repeating my earlier post. When I post in all caps it's suggesting some other poster's rant.

Sorry for the confusion. Keep working det pitchfork.

[Pavlov]

:lol

2 pages of "muh definition" after refusing to specifyYou already know it and you've been trying to use a different definition for days.

:lol DerpMC

[Pavlov]

Here I'm quoting myself because I successfully predicted exactly what you would do for the next few days.
So you're not going to explain yourself and want to drag me into another semantic quagmire.

Figures.

Your question alone makes it obvious that there are multiple definitions. If you find one fits what I said, use it.

Easy.

[DMC]

I was repeating my earlier post. When I post in all caps it's suggesting some other poster's rant.

Sorry for the confusion. Keep working det pitchfork.

You quoted yourself. You're the only person I am aware of here who goes on full tilt while talking to yourself.

[Pavlov]

You quoted yourself. You're the only person I am aware of here who goes on full tilt while talking to yourself.:lol narrative

[spurraider21]

You established already - Neither do they ergo non-existent.

Sure it does. If Sharia law means eye for an eye, and you cannot impose that, then you're not practicing Sharia law. You're practicing your hybrid version of it.

It does more than tell them what they should do. It tells others what they should do when followers don't obey. Stop watering the shit down to make it palatable, Philo. Since they cannot dish out the prescribed punishments, the law is moot ergo non-existent. Otherwise you can say any group of two or more people who adhere to a code have a law and that law is in effect.
i'm not making it palatable. i personally disagree with the content of sharia and along with everybody on this board, never want the US or any state therein to recognize, codify, or enforce it. this type of religious mumbo jumbo is backwards thinking stuff and holds us back as a species, and thats not limited to the muslim faith.

you posted a definition of law and now dont like that definition of law.

sharia isn't now nor has it even been a law of the US or any state therein. that doesnt mean sharia isn't practiced here by willing participants. its not an all or nothing endeavor. just because they aren't stoning gays to death on the streets of minneapolis doesnt mean they aren't practicing it.

[DMC]

i'm not making it palatable. i personally disagree with the content of sharia and along with everybody on this board, never want the US or any state therein to recognize, codify, or enforce it. this type of religious mumbo jumbo is backwards thinking stuff and holds us back as a species, and thats not limited to the muslim faith.

you posted a definition of law and now dont like that definition of law.

sharia isn't now nor has it even been a law of the US or any state therein. that doesnt mean sharia isn't practiced here by willing participants. its not an all or nothing endeavor. just because they aren't stoning gays to death on the streets of minneapolis doesnt mean they aren't practicing it.

The definition clearly states that the law may impose penalties for violation. Having a code doesn't give you any legal right to impose penalties. It certainly doesn't give Sharia law believers the right to impose penalties that Sharia law prescribes ergo they cannot practice that law. Law that cannot be practiced isn't in effect.

[spurraider21]

The definition clearly states that the law may impose penalties for violation. Having a code doesn't give you any legal right to impose penalties. It certainly doesn't give Sharia law believers the right to impose penalties that Sharia law prescribes ergo they cannot practice that law. Law that cannot be practiced isn't in effect.
yeah, you're taking it as an all or nothing. either they can stone gays in the street or its not sharia. they can observe their laws however they want. the community/house of worship dictates it

[DMC]

"Is it true that Sharia does prescribe harsh punishment for acts such as adultery?"

"I want to caution against reducing Sharia to just one or two legal principles and picking out certain punishments as being characteristic of Sharia. It is much more fruitful to start with Sharia’s fundamental objectives."

This kind of misdirection and sidestepping questions like this is part and parcel of the Muslim religion and apologists for Sharia law. It doesn't fucking matter how fruitful they make your life, if they kill you for fucking your neighbor then that's a non starter. They always shy away from addressing the elephant in the room.

[DMC]

yeah, you're taking it as an all or nothing. either they can stone gays in the street or its not sharia. they can observe their laws however they want. the community/house of worship dictates it

Then it's not a law. Doing whatever they want isn't law, not by any standard I ever read or heard of.

[spurraider21]

Then it's not a law.
its observed in the manner the community and its members see fit. its not a state or federal law that binds any unwilling participant

[DMC]

its observed in the manner the community and its members see fit. its not a state or federal law that binds any unwilling participant

It says nothing about "it's members see fit".

It says "the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members".

You are using the term "community" here to mean any group of people with common beliefs. Since the statement also uses "country" then the term "community" would most likely mean a city, state or jurisdiction.

If people can do whatever they want, then it's not Sharia, unless you also think they can call it whatever they want. The point of a "law" is that you are not allowed to do whatever you want, because by law you have to walk a certain path (Sharia).

[DMC]

:lol narrative

You did quote yourself then changed your own quote.

That's full tilt.

[spurraider21]

It says nothing about "it's members see fit".

It says "the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members".

You are using the term "community" here to mean any group of people with common beliefs. Since the statement also uses "country" then the term "community" would most likely mean a city, state or jurisdiction.

If people can do whatever they want, then it's not Sharia, unless you also think they can call it whatever they want. The point of a "law" is that you are not allowed to do whatever you want, because by law you have to walk a certain path (Sharia).
:lol why? Because it supports your narrative?

[Pavlov]

You did quote yourself then changed your own quote.

That's full tilt.That's narrative.

You've been trying to force your narratives on everyone for two days and it's just not working.

You posted a definition that actually fits what everyone else is saying and now you don't want anyone to use it.

Full tilt.

Sorry, DerpMC.

[Pavlov]

:lol why? Because it supports your narrative?:lol his semantic backflips

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1112915353728774144

[DMC]

:lol why? Because it supports your narrative?

I already said why - "Since the statement also uses 'country'"...

Did you just ignore that?

So unless you want to consider "country" to mean anywhere but the city, then you need to accept that the definition is using a geographical land mass occupied by people and "community" means subsections of that country. So federal laws or local laws, but religious laws are merely codes and seemingly very malleable since you think people can do whatever they want.

[DMC]

That's narrative.

You've been trying to force your narratives on everyone for two days and it's just not working.

You posted a definition that actually fits what everyone else is saying and now you don't want anyone to use it.

Full tilt.

Sorry, DerpMC.

I haven't said anything that's incorrect. I showed you quoting yourself. Quoting yourself when no one is even talking to you equates to talking to yourself. Then you disagreed with yourself and changed your own words.

That's full tilt.

[Pavlov]

I haven't said anything that's incorrect. I showed you quoting yourself. Quoting yourself when no one is even talking to you equates to talking to yourself. Then you disagreed with yourself and changed your own words.

That's full tilt.You've been told exactly what everyone means according to your own definition and you been turning backflips trying to change the definition you posted and decided to disagree with.



That's full tilt, twat.

[DMC]

You've been told exactly what everyone means according to your own definition and you been turning backflips trying to change the definition you posted and decided to disagree with.



That's full tilt, twat.

Chumpy on 24 hour monitoring duty, living the dream from that dank room :lol

[Pavlov]

Chumpy on 24 hour monitoring duty, living the dream from that dank room :lolDerpMC arguing with this guy he makes narratives about with his fat hands nonstop. :lol

[DMC]

DerpMC arguing with this guy he makes narratives about with his fat hands nonstop. :lol

Anyone come in and change your shitsack out yet? :lol

[Pavlov]

Anyone come in and change your shitsack out yet? :lol:lol moar narratives

You petition the dictionary publisher to change the definition you posted yet?

[Winehole23]

Neither does any individual since Americans are protected from such by law.

Since it's not part of the US code or any state code, it's not law. It's just a code of conduct, like the Boy Scout honor pledge.In principle, not so different.

Religious code being the civil law and neighborhood Promise Keepers being the local constabulary might not be the best idea, but societies choose for themselves.

If you think 1.2 percent of the US population is theatening to make Sharia the civil code in the US, you're cracked.

[DMC]

In principle, not so different.

Religious code being the civil law and neighborhood Promise Keepers being the local constabulary might not be the best idea, but societies choose for themselves.

If you think 1.2 percent of the US population is theatening to make Sharia the civil code in the US, you're cracked.

No one even hinted at that last sentence.

In principle, the rules of Scrabble are also laws and every argument can devolve into a solipsism when you realize you've lost.

[DMC]

:lol moar narratives

You petition the dictionary publisher to change the definition you posted yet?

Why, you can just take alternative meanings to every word in it.

[Pavlov]

DMC's syntax gets more formal when he's losing.

Then he breaks.

[Pavlov]

Why, you can just take alternative meanings to every word in it.

No need. Your definition covered my point beautifully just like I said it would.

Covered the others too.

Don't remember your owning yourself so completely tbh.

It's funny.

[DMC]

No need. Your definition covered my point beautifully just like I said it would.

Covered the others too.

Don't remember your owning yourself so completely tbh.

It's funny.

The fact I had to explain it to you says all I need to know about you and your colostomy bag. :lol

Your shtick is to keep interrupting until someone gives you the time of day, then just go all Mouse stupid until the other person goes to sleep.

[Winehole23]

No one even hinted at that last sentence.Chris hints at it all the time ITT.

[Winehole23]

So does Derptacular.

[Winehole23]

Nathan89 seems more focused on the "Mexicans," but Chris is close behind.

[DMC]

Chris hints at it all the time ITT.

You weren't responding to him.

[Winehole23]

Contextually clear, or should be. Have you read through the thread?

I commented through much, so caught much along rhe way.

[Winehole23]

We're taking about Sharia, 'member?

[Winehole23]

We're having a fluid, unmoderated, wide ranging adult conversation, please try to keep up!

[Pavlov]

The fact I had to explain it to youYou didn't have to.

I explained it all before you even ramped up your semantics machine.

So you have to turn to your narratives.


Your shtick is to keep interrupting until someone gives you the time of day, then just go all Mouse stupid until the other person goes to sleep.No, I was done arguing anything when I predicted exactly what you would do.

The fact I have to explain this to you proves you're just being a twat.

[Pavlov]

We're taking about Sharia, 'member?DMC is never talking about the topic of discussion.

He has no opinion or belief.

He's simply a troll.

[Winehole23]

He's simply a walking corncob.

Corncobbing it up all over the place.

[Pavlov]

He's simply a walking corncob.

Corncobbing it up all over the place.He wants people to think he's up your ass for some reason.

[Winehole23]

Motor mouth doing motor mouth things.

Hard to take too personally, mainly it's pathetic.

[Winehole23]

He used to be a pretty good poster, now he just gnaws ankles pretty much.

[Winehole23]

He wants people to think he's up your ass for some reason.OIC, just saw the comment in the other thread.

Ha. The previous take still obtains.

[Winehole23]

It's gauche to beg for attention.

[Winehole23]

DMC and his lil' buddy want to pretend binding arbitration is not and has never been a thing ever.:tuthis is a salient point.

If, subject to a contractual bond, people bind themselves to arbitration in disputes, this is a normal legal condition in our system

If halal for employment contracts and TOS for goods and services, why not in marriage and family law,, if all parties agree?
.

[Winehole23]

Ever talked to Roman Catholics about annulment?

[Winehole23]

It's an imperfect analogy, but works roughly the same.

Divorce isn't really a thing. You have to get it annuled if you want to be remarried and remain in the church.

[Winehole23]

this is a salient point.

If, subject to a contractual bond, people bind themselves to arbitration in disputes, this is a normal legal condition in our system

If halal for employment contracts and TOS for goods and services, why not in marriage and family law,, if all parties agree?
.This is the part where religious law can become the law in our system. When people agree to binding arbitration

[Winehole23]

In our system, it is an ordinary condition of employment to limit one's rights contractually. So it goes in family life, if one so chooses.

[Pavlov]

This is the part where religious law can become the law in our system. When people agree to binding arbitrationYeah, it's legal, binding and internationally recognized.

BUT IF WE'RE NOT EXECUTING ADULTERESSES IT DOESN'T COUNT

[Winehole23]

Yeah, it's legal, binding and internationally recognized.Freedom of religion.

So long as you're white and have a North American pedigree.

[DMC]

It's gauche to beg for attention.


this is a salient point.

If, subject to a contractual bond, people bind themselves to arbitration in disputes, this is a normal legal condition in our system

If halal for employment contracts and TOS for goods and services, why not in marriage and family law,, if all parties agree?
.


Ever talked to Roman Catholics about annulment?


It's an imperfect analogy, but works roughly the same.

Divorce isn't really a thing. You have to get it annuled if you want to be remarried and remain in the church.


This is the part where religious law can become the law in our system. When people agree to binding arbitration


In our system, it is an ordinary condition of employment to limit one's rights contractually. So it goes in family life, if one so chooses.

Holy shit

Gather your thoughts.

Of course people can agree to abide by a set of rules. They cannot impose punishments that violate US law in the process.

[Winehole23]

No one said they could, corncob.

[vy65]

No one even hinted at that last sentence.

In principle, the rules of Scrabble are also laws and every argument can devolve into a solipsism when you realize you've lost.

That's not what solipsism means.

[DMC]

That's not what solipsism means.

I know what it means.

[DMC]

No one said they could, corncob.

So you wanted to counter Chris' comment about Sharia law being adopted in the US by saying it already exists, then you want to claim you didn't mean it how Chris meant it, that you meant "law" as a set of religious rules not recognized by state or federal governments?

How exactly does that counter Chris' comment?

[Winehole23]

What's Chris's argument as you see it?

If it's that it's a bad idea to have a sectarian civil code, I agree with him. If it's that Islamic spiritual law is an incipient civil code in the USA, that's crazy talk.

[vy65]

I know what it means.

No, you don't.

[vy65]

https://twitter.com/TigerLetsRoll/status/1112360033650655232

Article I, Section II, Paragraph III: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

lol it doesn't

[DMC]

No, you don't.

Sure I do. When I need you I'll retain you.

[Chris]

Sure I do. When I need you I'll retain you.

He comes up yonder from the salt mines once in a blue moon.

[Winehole23]

That's not what solipsism means.what DMC calls solipsism in this case is any idiom other than his own.

No one other than DMC and Chris had any problem with what I was saying or seemed to misunderstand it.

Coming from a humanities background with an emphasis on medieval and ancient reference to spiritual law isn't at all unusual. It isn't even that far away from contemporary usage: other posters got it.

[vy65]

Chris avoiding the constitution like the plague ...

[Winehole23]

Policing usage is bullshit if people get what you're saying.

[vy65]

Sure I do. When I need you I'll retain you.

Sorry bud, ain’t no way you can afford me fee.

[vy65]

Policing usage is bullshit if people get what you're saying.

Agreed, but there’s a distinction between re-appropriation and flat out ignorance.

[Winehole23]

Chris avoiding the constitution like the plague ...of course.

He seems to want a sectarian civil code too. That precludes a rigorous insistence on the original compact.

[Winehole23]

Agreed, but there’s a distinction between re-appropriation and flat out ignorance.That sounds fair to me, the pointy end was aimed at DMC, not you.

I thought what he was saying that my use of "spiritual law" was a solipsism. I do not think so, but DMC disagrees, and as we all know he's never wrong.

[Winehole23]

Agreed, but there’s a distinction between re-appropriation and flat out ignorance.

Magpie Chris is hilariously ignorant of the Consitution.

[Winehole23]

He puts it up on a pedestal, but is too shy to peek up its skirt to see its shame.

[DMC]

Sorry bud, ain’t no way you can afford me fee.

That's what the last whore said.

[vy65]

Magpie Chris is hilariously ignorant of the Consitution.

The last time he tried dabbing his feet in the water, things didn’t go so great for him.

[DMC]

That sounds fair to me, the pointy end was aimed at DMC, not you.

I thought what he was saying that my use of "spiritual law" was a solipsism. I do not think so, but DMC disagrees, and as we all know he's never wrong.

No, I was saying eventually the argument would devolve into nothing more than solipsism. You keep moving back into the nebulous.

[vy65]

That's what the last whore said.

Sure. But you still can’t pay my fee solipsist.

[DMC]

Sure. But you still can’t pay my fee solipsist.

So intimidating.

[vy65]

That sounds fair to me, the pointy end was aimed at DMC, not you.

I thought what he was saying that my use of "spiritual law" was a solipsism. I do not think so, but DMC disagrees, and as we all know he's never wrong.

Having read through his inane semantic prodding, nihilism would have been a more accurate term.