Look at the dude on the left with the black hoodie (I just noticed it) Baphomet pentagram right on the front.Chumpettes
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.
Not news, really. California did it. All the liberal states follow their lead within two years.
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 cons ute "law". It doesn't do that any more than the Bible's commandments cons ute law.
It's the hole TX Repugs, angling to be Raptured into Heaven with Christ, not lefties, who want to penalize boycotters of Israel
Semantic bull .
Just what I thought.
Unless you're a mind reader and knew I used an incorrect definition of the word law, you're a .
And wrong.
I told you exactly how it's used. You want to argue something else entirely..
Because you're a .
Suck it up.
Last edited by Pavlov; 03-31-2019 at 09:48 PM.
Pavlov is angry and flustered.
Nah, I fully predicted that 's response.
Sorry, Qhris. You can still suck him off if you want. That's not against the law.
I'm still laughing over this doozy:
"There already is Sharia Law in the US and it's no problem."
DMC and his lil' buddy want to pretend binding arbitration is not and has never been a thing ever.
Weird how that happens.
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?
the minority rides roughshod over the supermajority:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/o...-majority.htmlWe 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 for the ultrawealthy. The idea of a federal law that would guarantee paid maternity leaveattracts 67 percent support. Eighty-three percent favor strong net neutrality rules for broadband, and more than 60 percent want stronger privacy laws. Seventy-one percent think we should be able to buy drugs 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://boingboing.net/2019/03/05/ov...dows-r-us.htmlthis 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.
What's the conspiracy here?
"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
the establishment clause places limitations on congress and congress alone.
you cant apply it to religious ins utions 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
only if you assume that the imposition of punishment is the bright line to decide what is a law and what isnt
Of course he jumps straight to punishments and all-or-nothing idiocy. He's got to punish det straw man. It's his law.
You seem to think this...
...is right here in the United States and it's no problem.
Why do you think so?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
