Jump to content

B-Man

Community Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    69,613

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by B-Man

    Islamic Terrorism

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    Bumped from reply #1791

     

     

    Book: More militant Islamics ´than ever before in history´
    by Paul Bedard

     

    Original Article .....from the London Center of Policy Research

     

     

     

     

    Incubators of Islamic Supremacism: Surveillance in Muslim communities is indispensable for defeating terrorism.
    With no hope of winning an argument on the facts, demagogues resort to the argument ad hominem. Too often, it works. And in the modern “progressive” West, no demagogic tactic works better than branding one’s political adversaries as racists.
    That is why the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most influential Islamic-supremacist organization, dreamed up the term “Islamophobia.” It is why Western progressives, stalwart allies of the Brotherhood, have lustily embraced the Islamophobia smear tactic — even sought to engrave it in our law, in brazen violation of the First Amendment.
    It beats trying to refute the irrefutable nexus between Islamic scripture, sharia supremacism, and jihadist terror. It beats trying to rationalize the sheer idiocy of a policy, their policy, that idealizes Islam as the irenic monolith they would like it to be, rather than the complex of competing and contradictory convictions it is. Of the latter, the most dynamic is the conviction that Islam is an alternative civilization determined to conquer the West by force, by political pressure, by cultural aggression, and by exploiting Western civil liberties (liberties that are forbidden in the sharia societies Islamists would impose).

    Ted Cruz found himself in the middle of this demagogic storm this week. Reacting to the latest jihadist atrocity in Brussels, in which 31 were killed and 230 wounded, Senator Cruz argued that to protect our national security against radical Islamic terror networks, it is imperative for law enforcement to conduct surveillance in Muslim communities.

    Cruz was not calling for a dragnet targeting all Muslims. In his presidential campaign (to which I am an adviser), he has stressed the importance of identifying the enemy as radical Islam. That is not campaign rhetoric; it is how we figure out who warrants surveillance — and far from being anything new, it is how counterterrorism was done before President Obama came to power. Yet, as night follows day, the Islamist-leftist alliance pounced with the fury of an emperor whose lack of clothes has just been noticed.
    It is simply, undeniably, a fact that some Muslim mosques and surrounding communities are hotbeds of Islamic supremacism, a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam that holds that Muslims must struggle against non-believers — by force and by all other means –- until Allah’s law (sharia) is established throughout the world. Islamic supremacism is not the only way of construing Islam, and millions of Muslims reject it. This, however, does not undo the remorseless fact that millions of Muslims accept it, that it is a mainstream construction of Islam (it is, for example, the Islam of the Muslim Brotherhood), and that it has a considerable following in the West.

     


    We are ''tolerant'' and ''progressive'&#39

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    Yep.

     

    With that, that is the difference between the progressives and conservatives. The cons are just heartless bastards that will always paint with a wide,negative brush first... Assume the world is as unconpassionate and dishonest as they are. Call me a naive fool, but I'd rather error on the positive side first.

     

     

    You appear to not be a naïve fool ............but just a fool.

     

    Conservative, religious oriented people have been shown time and time and time and time again to be more charitable and forgiving towards people.

     

    Progressives, not so much.

     

     

     

     

     

    .

    Ted Cruz

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    Lol.................

     

     

    They got the John Edwards story right, didn’t they? That’s all we’ve been hearing today on social media.

     

     

    In a bombshell world exclusive, The National ENQUIRER has learned that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death was a highly planned “political assassination” orchestrated by the CIA and carried out by a $2,000-a-night hooker! A top Washington, D.C. source said the Feb. 13 death of the 79-year-old jurist at a remote Texas ranch just 15 miles from Mexico was part of a “shocking conspiracy that tracks back to the CIA and the White House!”

     

     

     

    http://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/antonin-scalia-murder-conspiracy-prostitute-sex-scandal/photo/149939/

    The Destruction of North Carolina

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

     

    Round 2. Fight!

     

    1) http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/24/us/north-carolina-to-limit-bathroom-use-by-birth-gender.html

    It is not making major news here in NC and is majorly supported yet misrepresented by even the local press. This law dignifies that men are men and women are women. This law allow is rather silly but it's going to embroil the state in heavy legal battles for the foreseeable future.

     

     

     

     

    Boy am I glad that we have all this time to debate transgender bathrooms, what with jobs in abundance and democracy as we know it not being threatened at all

    Is Closing Gitmo and Releasing Terrorists Impeachable?

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    Yes, but this Gitmo bs is the overreach you mention. He says he is going to close Gitmo regardless.

     

     

     

    "Not only is that absolutely immoral, but it is also illegal. Congress has passed more than three laws making it illegal for the President to release Guantanamo terrorists, and yet he does it anyway.

    Now, his plan is to release half of them back to the Middle East and integrate the other half into American prisons, which is also ILLEGAL!"

     

     

    With the climate of everyday Americans and ever increasing terror attacks ....................Let him try it.

     

     

    Let me paraphrase President Jackson's famous quote-------

     

    "...the decision of the Supreme Court President has fell still born,

     

    and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia America to yield to its his mandate,"

    Is Closing Gitmo and Releasing Terrorists Impeachable?

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    Obama is explicitly breaking the law.

     

     

     

    I do not disagree 3rd,

     

    I wish that I could see a way to make that clear to the part of America that doesn't see the danger of too much executive power.

     

    (It only seems to matter if The Donald gets it) ....................If the left uses it its okay I guess.......... -_-

     

     

    But it is my opinion that at this point, the country is better served by simply stopping Mr. Obama's overreach for 45 more weeks,

    and not giving him any other platform to preach from.

     

    Let him fade away to the "Back Tees" of history.

     

     

     

     

    .

    Obama To Name Court Pick Today

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    Is Sonia Sotomayor hearing cases or arguing them herself?

     

    Last summer we were already watching the debate over Puerto Rico’s failing finances boil over as their governor threatened US lawmakers with electoral consequences if their municipalities and state run utility companies weren’t allowed to declare bankruptcy. That’s a tall order to fulfill because current law treats the territory differently from the fifty states, forbidding them from doing so to escape their debts. Amending those laws to create a special allowance for them is currently under debate in Congress, but it’s unclear if there is sufficient support for the measure. The bankruptcy question reached the Supreme Court this week, with Puerto Rico’s chief creditors for their utilities arguing that they shouldn’t be stiffed on the money owed. Given the straight forward wording of the law, this one appeared to be a no brainer until, as Noah Feldman of Yahoo Finance News describes it, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor stepped in and basically argued Puerto Rico’s case for them.

     

     

    Before Tuesday, I’d have said that Puerto Rico had no chance to win its legal fight to let its municipalities and utilities declare bankruptcy. That’s how the island hopes to resolve its overwhelming debt problems,
    but the federal bankruptcy code says that it can’t…

    Then Sonia Sotomayor stepped in. Oral arguments before the Supreme Court rarely change the outcome of a case, yet Tuesday’s session may turn out to be the exception. In a fascinating and unusual argument, Justice Sotomayor, who is herself of Puerto Rican descent, spoke by my count an astonishing 45 times. Sotomayor left no doubt that she was speaking as an advocate…

    First, Sotomayor walked Puerto Rico’s attorney, Christopher Landau, through his own argument with a precision that exceeded his own. She answered other justices’ hostile questions for him, better than he did. Then she dominated Matthew McGill, the lawyer for the creditors of Puerto Rico’s electrical utility, who are fighting the bankruptcy bid. In the second half of the argument, the other justices mostly stood by and let her go at him.

     

     

     

    Last summer, when we first began covering this story, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit delivered a unanimous ruling saying that the law simply doesn’t allow for this to happen.

     

    For their part, Puerto Rico is arguing that they should be able to craft their own bankruptcy laws outside of the federal system. Sotomayor not only bought the argument, but apparently argued it on behalf of the the defendants better than their own attorney did.

     

    What’s really strange here is that the other liberal justices, originally skeptical of the premise, seemed to allow Sotomayor to sway them, bringing them around to her position.

     

    Justice Elena Kagan did something that’s rare in an oral argument: She announced that Landau (speaking under Sotomayor’s tutelage) had clarified her view. “I
    think I get what you’re saying now, which I didn’t when I started,” Ka
    gan told Landau. Initially, Kagan had seemed skeptical that Puerto Rico’s argument could be made to fit the statutory text. Now she was claiming to see the light…

    Justice Stephen Breyer, who had seemed skeptical of Landau’s position, also appeared to change sides, or at least to be considering doing so.

     

     

     

    There’s another wrinkle to this case because this time the court will be deciding the case with only seven justices voting. (Samuel Alito is recused.)

     

    As an aside, this is yet another example of how the lack of a replacement for Antonin Scalia doesn’t stop the court from performing its duties, this time to the advantage of the liberal justices.

     

    The real question here, however, is how much the justices are supposed to be hearing cases as opposed to arguing for one side or the other themselves. The fact that Sotomayor is of Puerto Rican heritage herself shouldn’t really be a factor here so much as asking if it’s appropriate for her to be essentially acting as the advocate for one of the parties seeking a decision. Challenging the arguments of the two sides is normal, but Sotomayor seems to be contradicting everyone in a robe who has heard the case before her, claiming that Puerto Rico can essentially rewrite the laws to suit their own needs.

     

     

     

     

    And people still worry that we’ve politicized the Supreme Court to the point where it no longer serves its designated purpose. Amazing, eh?

    What is better, no guns, or more guns?

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    New Jersey nonsense: Actor faces 10 years in prison for using a prop gun in movie

     

     

    How insane are New Jersey’s gun laws? Governor Chris Christie has had to issue two general pardons in order to stop or reverse gross miscarriages of justice over nonsensical prosecutions. Will Christie go for the hat trick? Carlo Goias had better hope so, before he does a ten-year stretch in prison because he used a pellet gun while making a film in the Garden State:

     

    Carlo Goias, whose stage name is Carlo Bellario, was charged under New Jersey’s strict gun law. It requires permits for firearms, including the airsoft gun Goias used while filming a car chase scene.

    Goias rejected a plea deal offer Tuesday that could have sent him to jail for less than a year. He faces up to a decade behind bars because of prior felony convictions that prosecutors say include theft and burglary.

    “I was shooting a movie — I wasn’t committing a crime intentionally,” Goias recently told The Associated Press. “Robert De Niro doesn’t ask Marty Scorsese is if he has gun permits. We’re actors. That’s for the production company to worry about.”

    Some state lawmakers say the case highlights the need for New Jersey to change its gun laws.

     

     

    Some say? It’s true that Goias hasn’t exactly been an angel, and with his record, no state would allow him to possess firearms. However, in other states, no one would have accused Goias of doing so. A pellet gun does not use gunpowder, so it’s not a firearm — except in New Jersey. The Airsoft gun Goias had doesn’t even fire metal pellets — it fires nonlethal plastic pellets under power of compressed air. It’s a prop, not a threat.

     

    More to the point, it would be clear to anyone except a New Jersey prosecutor that there was not only no criminal intent, there was no danger of a crime at all. Goias was acting in a low-budget film, not participating in a heist. The production startled some in the neighborhood, who misunderstood what was happening and called the police. Instead of recognizing this as a misunderstanding, the police arrested Goias, who then got held in jail for four days while his friends and family tried to raise enough money to meet the $10,000 bail demand.

     

    Four days in jail. For using a non-lethal air-powered pellet gun. While making a movie. And the case is hardly over — the district attorney plans on prosecuting Goias for felony possession of a firearm to send him back to prison. Goias, who at least had been trying to become a productive member of society, might end up stuck in the criminal cycle for the rest of his life because he took a part in a low-budget movie.

     

    Clearly, no film production company of any size should ever do business in New Jersey. And just as clearly, the state’s legislature should take action to put an end to these insane prosecutions of people who have no intent to commit any crime at all. In the meantime, though, Christie should get his pardon pen at the ready to put an end to this injustice, too — if he hasn’t packed it up along with his presidential aspirations.

    Trump Alone at the Top

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted · Edited by B-Man

    But I'm with you. I think his campaign is theater designed to unravel Hilary's opponents and make her appear to be the moderate choice.

     

     

    As is the Sanders Campaign.

     

    Sure, she is to the right of the Leftist Socialist...........................................

     

    but she is just as far from the Center Moderate as Cruz is from the right.

×
×
  • Create New...