Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

Given the habit of Muslims to demand to live under Islamic law rather than secular law Carson has a great point. So long as he is talking about the opinion that people should not vote for a muslim rather than not allowing a muslim to run then I see no problem. In fact I give him props for freeling speaking his mind.


http://www.inquisitr.com/1381989/u-s-public-opinion-on-arabs-and-islam-declines-sharply-poll-suggests/

The entire issue is a moot point though because there is no way in Hell that America would elect an Islamic president. Nor should we, Islam is a failed religion, and a dangerous one.

So that's why there's loads of (mostly Moslem) Syrian refugees flooding into Europe right now, trying to get away from Europe.

You really are so stupid.

or not

You really are stupid. You're a bigot who tries to justify his bigotry but is far too stupid to be able to do so.

Here's a handy hint. Those Nazi websites you like to visit are run by racist idiots who are as stupid as you, so you won't get anything useful there.

This is no different from what the British Jewish community has been doing for a long time. If two orthodox Jews both agree to allow a religious court to handle their divorce they can. Nobody is saying the Jews are trying to foist Abrahamic law on us.

If two Moslems both agree to allow a Sharia court to settle their affairs they should be allowed to. British law takes primacy, the Shariah court only has the power to arbitrate over those who consent to go there. It has no jurisdiction whatsoever over non Moslems or Moslems who don't want to use it, just like the Jewish religious courts.

You really have a problem with people consenting to do things.

People can consent to whatever they want, but if they violate the laws of the land they get the resulting punishment. Once can not opt out of the collectives laws in a just society. You people will end up regretting allowing your laws and standards be ignored on religious grounds.


So you are arguing that the Daily Mail is a Nazi publication?

They've got a track record of supporting fascists.





In any event they're hardly a credible source. The Daily Mail is a joke, nobody takes it seriously.



It didn't take you long to backtrack, that's typical behaviour of someone hopelessly out of their depth. First of all you get all hysterical about Moslem immigrants imposing Shariah law on the population, using the Daily Mail, of all things, as a source. Then when the truth of the matter is pointed to you, you grudgingly accepted that consenting adults should be allowed to do what they want.

Then, aware you're on the back foot and looking like an idiot, you raise a complete red herring about Moslems not being able to break the law. Nobody is saying they should. You've just been listening to too many scare stories, financed by the wealthy elite and, aimed at semi literate gullible morons who'll believe any old bollocks as long as it fits in with their racist ideology.

Good answer. He's on about "THE" blacks, "THE" jews and of course: "THE" Muslims who as a group get a plan of the day and march in lock-step. Even al Qaeda hates ISIS hates Shiia hates Wahabi hates Sunni.

A good way to find a bigot is to find someone who refers to any class of humans as "THE". Hawkeyes points himself out.

The problem is, he's such a perfect stooge that I think people may think we're working together. He's my patsy, gifting me with lines like this.



How can anyone argue it's not?

I would like to clear the air and state Hawkeye isn't giving me stupid answers to make me look good, it's because he genuinely is that stupid. Although I expect a lot of people won't believe me, such stupidity normally only abides in the realm of satire.

I dunno Izzy. No-one could accidentally be that stupid. I think he's in awe of you.

He's certainly doing me a lot of favours.

I've seen, I've been following up after being out of town and its been a good laugh the whole time. Serious drubbing and the boy is still game. Keep it up.

Leaving for Eugene, OR and then Phoenix, AZ on Friday so I'll be mostly out of pocket for three weeks or so, though Bladino and TonyRM will think I've been suspended.

The Rude Pundit - Why Do GOP Candidates Hate the Constitution?
On The Late Show last night, Stephen Colbert was doing his usual slice-'em-so-they-don't-know-they've-been-diced interview with a Republican, in this case nattering, nasal-voiced, Cubo-Canadian Texan, conservadouche Ted Cruz, who happens to be running for president. Talking about same-sex marriage, Colbert challenged Cruz on whether or not marriage-defining should be left to the states. Cruz said, as he often does when a Supreme Court decision goes against his dickish beliefs, "I don't think we should entrust governing our society to five unelected lawyers in Washington."

Cruz knows better. He has to know better. He clerked for Justice William Rehnquist, under whose leadership the Supreme Court invalidated dozens of state and federal laws, you know, the kind passed by elected legislators.

But apparently Cruz, like most of the Republican candidates, doesn't give a **** what's actually in the Constitution. They are living with some fantasy Constitution, one that apparently is merely toilet paper to whatever political whims some jack-off GOPer can come up with. 'Cause, see, Article 2, Section 2 of the real Constitution is pretty goddamn clear: The President "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law."

That right there means that it isn't some crazy notion that "unelected" lawyers (or, more precisely, judges) make the decisions on the laws. In fact, Article 3 of the real Constitution specifically empowers the Supreme Court to do that. If you have a problem with the Supreme Court being unelected and deciding the constitutionality of laws, then you have a problem with the very thing you proclaim you'll protect. And this ****'s in the Articles, not in the bonus Amendments.

We've had Donald Trump, Chris Christie, and Rand Paul want to shitcan the 14th Amendment to end birthright citizenship because of all the Mexican babies clogging up the playgrounds or something. We've had Ben Carson seeming to not understand that there is an Article 6 that specifically prohibits a religious test in order to hold any office in government anywhere in the United States. At what point will Lindsey Graham want to suspend the 3rd Amendment so that Marines can forcibly quarter themselves at his home ("Ya'll go ahead and use mah showah. I'll just stand heah and watch you a-scrubbin' your loins and pecs")? The candidates then say that they want to appoint to the court an "originalist" who doesn't view the Constitution as adaptable to the times, like Antonin Scalia, who, by the way, is an unelected judge.

This is not even getting into the right's high, hard love for the 10th Amendment above just about everything else in the Constitution. Cruz, Mike Huckabee, and Bobby Jindal are all 10th Amendment in your face about same sex marriage or Common Core or whatever the federal government does that they think sucks. Jeb Bush got himself into trouble with gun nuts because he said to Stephen Colbert that the 10th Amendment gave states the right to regulate the 2nd Amendment, something he quickly backtracked on because, hell, nobody says anything even vaguely sane about the completely misinterpreted 2nd Amendment and survives the GOP primary.

And yet, time and again, these candidates will proclaim that President Obama has destroyed or **** on or wiped his taint sweat with the Constitution. Yet their own words show, time and again, that, at best, they don't actually understand what's in it. At worst, except for the 2nd and 10th Amendments and the ability to use the military, they actually, actively hate it.

(The Rude Pundit believes in a living Constitution. Amend that bad girl. Get money out of elections. Revisit the 2nd Amendment.)

Note: The Rude Pundit's biennial fundraising has been an amazing success so far thanks to the bestest readers on the internets. It's awesome that this is all free, and he stopped taking ads a long time ago. But click on over if you can afford it and toss some monetary love in the PayPal pot. Think of it as a karmic subscription.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2015/09/why-do-gop-candidates-hate-constitution.html

Carson WAS affirming Article 6.

Why do Bloggers only pick and choose short statements without looking at the entire context of the remark?

No he wasn't. He said he thought Muslims should not be allowed to hold Executive office:



Don't you believe your lying eyes and ears?

First, how anyone in the UK can say anything about Islam is laughable. Half your country follows Sharia law.

And Muslims are conquering Europe with help from fools like you.

Carson believes Islam requires one to put your faith before the constitution. So based on his opinion, he believes right now a Muslim ahould not run for President.

Many made (and still make) the same argument about the Jews. So far, no Jewish Presidents.

Same idea.