ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
yeah a low level magistrate issued it without consulting anyone about not well thought out at all. however i do think people should be tried when there is evidence towards warcrimes
Liberals Hate Success
- Thread starter RickWhite
- Start date
abe23
Active Member
Your post is a pretty good illustration of how dumbed down our politics have become. First off, the word "liberal" means something different to americans than it does to everyone else. In europe and everywhere else in the world, a liberal is someone who favors free markets and personal freedoms, whereas over here it basically means anyone left of centre. If I were ever to describe myself as a "liberal" it would be in that sense, but I am obviously to the left of many of you on here, so I'll consider myself lumped in with the 'libs'....
Nobody hates capitalism and everyone accepts the idea that free markets lead to more prosperity for everyone, except for a few crazies. However, a lot of us feel that those markets need a minimum of regulation to be able to function effectively and that there are certain instances where the market fails to deliver.
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your tirade but I guess your problem is that your to dumb or lazy to understand nuance. Just because some people choose not to see the world in black in white doesn't mean they are against capitalism or any of this other bullshit...
The president is a liberal he has the most power in government. I guess your whole observation just went out the window
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
nonsense - really? Is this nonsense?
From The Sunday Times
September 14, 2008
Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts
Abul Taher
ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.
Full story here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
Now that is just typical. Instead of refuting my points, you cop out by calling me lazy and dumb. Who is the one being lazy and dumb? Here is a hint - it's the guy who resorts to name calling because he lacks the ability to form a legitimate rebuttal. that would be you.
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
I said Liberals are FOR the weak, not that they ARE the weak. Go sit in the back of the class.
so you're against the less fortunate?
Leothwyn
Well-Known Member
Actually, you also said that liberals are against success and power. I'd say president is a fairly successful and powerful position. Back of the class with you.
Do you ever get bored with making super-simplified generalizations? As usual, you're obviously not really looking for serious debate... just one more pile-up thread of bitching about liberals, parroting right wing entertainment, and patting each other on the back for being so right.
Abe got it right - your OP is about as dumbed down as it gets.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
lol you make a weak assertion that savage was banned only to appease the british muslims. then you bring something compleatly unrelated into the discussion... sharia courts?? what has that got to do with anything apart from another excuse for you to put down muslims again as i said before your religious hatred is very clear....
Q&A: Sharia law explained
By Dominic Casciani
Home affairs reporter, BBC News
Lord Phillips, the most senior judge in England and Wales, has said that principles of sharia law could play a role in some parts of the legal system. But how does the sharia system work and fit into society?
What is Sharia?
Sharia law is Islam's legal system. It is derived from both the Koran, as the word of God, the example of the life of the prophet Muhammad, and fatwas - the rulings of Islamic scholars.
But Sharia differs in one very important and significant way to the legal traditions of the Western world: it governs, or at least informs, every aspect of the life of a Muslim.
What does it cover?
Western law confines itself largely to matters relating to crime, contract, civil relationships and individual rights.
Sharia is however concerned with more. Sharia rulings have been developed to help Muslims understand how they should lead every aspect of their lives according to God's wishes.
What does this mean in practice?
All sorts of things in daily life. For example, many young Muslims ask themselves what they should do if colleagues invite them to the pub after work or college.
Many people would of course make up their own mind about the appropriate course of action. But others may turn to a Sharia scholar for advice.
So Sharia covers a lot of very mundane and banal daily issues where observant Muslims want to ensure they act within the legal framework of their faith.
So how are rulings made?
Like any legal system, Sharia is complex and its practice is entirely reliant on the quality and training of experts.
There are different schools of thought, which consequently lead to different rulings.
Scholars spend decades studying the law and, as with Western law, an expert on one aspect of Sharia is by no means the authority on another.
Islamic jurists issue guidance and rulings. Guidance that is considered a formal legal ruling is called a Fatwa.
Do people go to court?
Sharia courts exist in both the Muslim world and in the Western world.
In parts of the Muslim world the criminal courts and their punishments are of course drawn from the rules of Sharia.
In the West, Muslim communities have established Sharia courts to largely deal with family or business disputes.
The internet has become a popular way of seeking a ruling with scholars. Some of the guidance to Muslims in the west which has been considered most outlandish has come from these sources, particularly where the scholar has no knowledge of the realities of western life.
Why is Sharia mentioned in the same breath as public executions?
Of all the issues around Islamic law, this remains the most controversial in Western eyes - and its presentation the most infuriating for Muslims.
Muslims say the Western world misrepresents Sharia by focusing on beheadings in Saudi Arabia and other gruesome punishments. The equivalent, they say, would be a debate about the history of Western law focused on America's electric chair.
Some modern Muslim scholars say that while Sharia includes provisions for capital and corporal punishment, getting to that stage is in fact quite difficult.
The most famous Muslim thinker in Europe, Tariq Ramadan, has called for a moratorium on these penalties in the Muslim world.
He argues that the conditions under which such penalties would be legal are almost impossible to re-establish in today's world.
But Muslims can be executed for converting?
Apostasy, or leaving the faith, is a very controversial issue in the Muslim world and the majority of scholars believe it is punishable by death.
But a minority of Muslim thinkers, particularly those engaged with Western societies, argue that the reality of the modern world means the "punishment" should be left to God - and that Islam itself is not threatened by apostasy.
The Koran itself declares there is "no compulsion" in religion.
Egypt's most senior cleric has faced a storm in the Middle East after floating some of these ideas but the debate may well continue for many generations to come.
So what kind of Sharia are we talking about in the UK?
The key issues are family law, finance and business. In practice many Muslims do turn to Sharia guidance for many of these day-to-day matters, particularly family disputes.
And how does this work in practice?
Muslims are increasingly looking to the example of Jewish communities which have long-established religious community courts.
These "courts" are legally recognised in English law as a means for warring parties to agree to arbitration. The law sees this as a practical way of helping people to resolve their differences in their own way, without clogging up the local courts.
But what about incorporating Sharia into British law?
In two important areas British law has incorporated religious legal considerations. British food regulations allow meat to be slaughtered according to Jewish and Islamic practices - a touchstone issue for both communities.
Secondly, the Treasury has approved Sharia-compliant financial products such as mortgages and investments. Islam forbids interest on the basis that it is money unjustly earned. These products are said by supporters to meet the needs of modern life in a way that fits the faith.
Has any western nation allowed Sharia to be used in full?
Not at all. Canada is widely reported to have come close - leading to protests in 2005.
But in reality the proposals were little different from the existing religious arbitration rules here in the UK.
Experts considered establishing Sharia-related family courts to ease the burden on civil courts - but said these would have to observe the basic human rights guarantees of Canadian law.
What about Sharia and women?
Some Muslim women in Britain are concerned about how their rights are protected. Take marriage for example.
Muslims only consider themselves truly married once they have conducted the Islamic ceremony, known as the nikah. In some cases, this means that there is a cultural view that the British civil ceremony, which enforces legal rights under the law, is not important.
Some mosques are aware of this issue and now demand to see a marriage certificate as a condition of the nikah. Others do not. Many women want Muslim leaders to do more to ensure their rights are protected under British law.
Does Sharia allow men to instantly divorce wives?
There is an idea that men merely have to say the Arabic for divorce three times (known as the triple talaq) and that is sufficient - and there are some men who think they have this right.
In practice, not only do texts show Muhammad disagreed but today, where Sharia courts are properly run, the words are merely a symbolic part of a rigorous process.
Marriage is a contract in Islam. Scholars expect three-month cooling-off periods, dialogue, arbitration and counselling. However, Talaq is a very complicated area of Sharia law with conflicting views - see internet links for one example.
So women have reservations about Sharia?
Some Muslim women in the West would be worried about protection of their rights in Sharia courts where there is discrimination against them because of patriarchal and cultural control in their communities.
This does not mean that they are necessarily opposed to Sharia - only there are concerns about the fairness of its application.
It's fair to say that many leading Muslim women are more concerned about how existing British equality measures and human rights laws can be used to improve their position and voice in society.
Haul me to Heaven
New Member
Most liberals crave sucess and power for their own right and agendas.
Most liberals are against success and power of those they diagree with. And many will do almost anything to hender the exposure of this fact. Need I mention 'The Fairness Doctrine'?
Less government. Less tax. More accountability to theor Oaths of Office. More Judges willing to bust corrupt public servants. Less rubber stamp judges. More/harder penalties for 'servant' corruption.
You get the gist.
j
Most liberals are against success and power of those they diagree with. And many will do almost anything to hender the exposure of this fact. Need I mention 'The Fairness Doctrine'?
Less government. Less tax. More accountability to theor Oaths of Office. More Judges willing to bust corrupt public servants. Less rubber stamp judges. More/harder penalties for 'servant' corruption.
You get the gist.
j
abe23
Active Member
Really, point by point...?
I mentioned I like capitalism, right? And you say we need the FDA and antitrust laws, so we agree on that.
White people are not evil oppressors and the US is not an imperialist country. That's retarded. Where did you hear that?
I don't like 'black racists' anymore than I do white ones. But they aren't the ones doing most of the hate crime, can we agree? And yes, I do think it's fair that we let natives govern themselves on their reservation...
And black crime? Really? I didn't know it came in colors. You think there are different solutions to 'black' crime than there is to white crime? I'd like to hear you elaborate on that a bit. And what kind of 'fixing' are you talking about? Do you think we need a final solution to the problem?
There will be muslim assholes who want to kill us no matter what we do and few would argue that it's ONLY because of our policies. I just happen to think that our approach to the problem (i.e. GWOT crusade, let's invade iraq and torture people) actually causes more problems than it solves. It needs to be more about law enforcement with some serious intelligence and special operations stuff on the side than having the military be our main tool. That said, I think a lot of irreparable damage has already been done in terms of convincing your average muslim that what's going on is about our security and not about fighting islam. It's not blaming jihad terrorism on america to say that our actions sometimes have consequences...
There.
Leothwyn
Well-Known Member
Replace the word 'liberals' with 'conservatives', and it still works.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
wouldnt just 'americans' work well too?Replace the word 'liberals' with 'conservatives', and it still works.
Leothwyn
Well-Known Member
Exactly- both sides want their political power. And, to some extent, we all want some power and success... it's human nature.
Haul me to heaven pretty much boiled it down (without acknowledging that it goes both ways) - each side dislikes the other sides power and success, and Rick's latest silly generalization doesn't make much sense.
Haul me to heaven pretty much boiled it down (without acknowledging that it goes both ways) - each side dislikes the other sides power and success, and Rick's latest silly generalization doesn't make much sense.
abe23
Active Member
Right...and you personally know this because you're so willing to discuss politics with people who disagree with your neanderthal views. That was sarcasm by the way.
How about we change the topic and ask why you 'conservatives' always want to play the victim rather than talk about facts...? Fairness doctrine? I think you do have to elaborate a bit there. That doesn't even exist anymore....
Mr Tambourine Man
Member
The difference between someone who makes 15k a year and 500k a year is primarily hard work, personal responsibility, and merit. The difference between the guy who makes 500k a year and 500 million a year, however, is primarily luck, having a rich, well-connected family that can mentor you effectively from birth, and taking advantage of the many opportunities only afforded to the super-rich. (This is just a general rule, of course there's exceptions.) I believe this because I don't think the average 500k guy is lazy, dumb or not already obsessed with his career and doing everything he can to get ahead in life.
So, making it to the ranks of the super-rich is like winning the lottery. You have to be smart and obsessed, but 99% of those people only make it to the 500k - 1 million range. What's missing? Luck and connections. Sorry, but if we took 1% more from those people (which will have zero impact on their standard of living) and gave it to the people who win the reverse lottery in life (being born into an abusive family, getting schizophrenia in your 20s), so that they don't have to live like animals for the rest of their lives despite trying their best with the hand they were dealt, I'd sleep like a baby.
Plus, the supply-side argument--i.e., the super-rich invest, take away from them and the economy suffers for everyone--is stupid. I could just as easily say poor people spend most of their income, give to them and the economy prospers for everyone. Without hard numbers and actual research, anyone can make up a superficially-plausible argument to support their view.
So, making it to the ranks of the super-rich is like winning the lottery. You have to be smart and obsessed, but 99% of those people only make it to the 500k - 1 million range. What's missing? Luck and connections. Sorry, but if we took 1% more from those people (which will have zero impact on their standard of living) and gave it to the people who win the reverse lottery in life (being born into an abusive family, getting schizophrenia in your 20s), so that they don't have to live like animals for the rest of their lives despite trying their best with the hand they were dealt, I'd sleep like a baby.
Plus, the supply-side argument--i.e., the super-rich invest, take away from them and the economy suffers for everyone--is stupid. I could just as easily say poor people spend most of their income, give to them and the economy prospers for everyone. Without hard numbers and actual research, anyone can make up a superficially-plausible argument to support their view.
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
I see nobody is able to tackle my original post head on. Lots of straw men and red herrings but nobody has addressed why the far Left is automatically against everything they see as successful or powerful. Even the notion of "establishment" is bad in their eyes. "Fight the establishment" is a common mantra of the left. But, establishment is a term that in itself denotes success, as in an established business, person or other entity. This mantra is telling because there is no mention of any particular wrong doing of "the establishment." There is no cry to improve the establishment or to fight certain policies of the establishment, just to fight it as if everything about it is wrong simply by nature of it being established.
See if you can find anything written by the far Left espousing America's virtue. See if you can find anything Liberal that juxtaposes the rights of Arabs living in Israel Vs Arabs living in Muslim countries. See if you can find any Liberal writing that discusses the fact that Democracies are synonymous with human rights where as Socialism is synonymous with a lack of human rights.
Chances are you will need to go to Conservative sources to find any of this. Why is this the case?
See if you can find anything written by the far Left espousing America's virtue. See if you can find anything Liberal that juxtaposes the rights of Arabs living in Israel Vs Arabs living in Muslim countries. See if you can find any Liberal writing that discusses the fact that Democracies are synonymous with human rights where as Socialism is synonymous with a lack of human rights.
Chances are you will need to go to Conservative sources to find any of this. Why is this the case?
Haul me to Heaven
New Member
There is no way you're going to get an answer.
Why?
They are unwilling to see their true self image in the mirror of truth and fact. They have an opinion of who they are and what they want to be and, when confronted with facts showing that they are not what they want to be, they say it's not their fault; it's the fault of another.... which is their opinion.
They fail to understand the difference between their right to have an opinion and their opinion being right.
The closed loop of a collapsed mind.
They have been victims of sever mind sodomization techniques. The sad part is- they even don't know or care to know that they are victims of their own idologies.
Why?
They are unwilling to see their true self image in the mirror of truth and fact. They have an opinion of who they are and what they want to be and, when confronted with facts showing that they are not what they want to be, they say it's not their fault; it's the fault of another.... which is their opinion.
They fail to understand the difference between their right to have an opinion and their opinion being right.
The closed loop of a collapsed mind.
They have been victims of sever mind sodomization techniques. The sad part is- they even don't know or care to know that they are victims of their own idologies.
abe23
Active Member
I answered your original post in detail above. Your original premise was based on some nonsensical notion that somehow everyone who is left of centre reflexively despises capitalism and success. I can think of some very successful people who would take issue with that. Richard Branson comes to mind. And again, the way you use the term liberal means absolutely nothing. Again, maybe it's because people like yourself don't care about nuances and details that they assume that any form criticism is equal to 'hating'.
Mr Tambourine Man
Member
That's because you're more interested in railing against abstract "Liberals" than engaging in good faith with other human beings. I read your OP and responded to the small portion that actually was relevant to me and my views.