Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013

[UncleBuck]

I believe buck is referring to denying gays a legal marriage and all the benefits that come along with it. My opinion is to have a civil union license that grants the same rights as a marriage license.

Then the gays are happy and the pillow clutchers get to keep the word marriage. Everybody wins.

why do you believe that gays should be relegated to second class citizens whose love is not worthy of marriage?

 

[UncleBuck]

They already monitor pregnancy for WIC. That is a big program.

i'm talking about outlawing abortion, something the christian sharia law lovers have in common with actual sharia law.

you'd have to monitor every pregnancy in the nation.

religious extremists, whether they be muslim or christian, love this idea.

 

[Dr Kynes]

kkkynes,

you forgot a few things.

firstly, you forgot arizona, kansas, louisiana, south dakota, oklahoma, and tennessee.*

secondly, the first amendment already exists and is sufficient.

third, you're too much of a pussy to just admit that these measures are just xenophobia designed to drive out bigoted republican idiots like you to the polls.

fourth, i'm not sure why there is any worry about sharia law considering what a small minority muslims in america are, and how xenophobic and bigoted people like you, who are a large segment of the population, are.

fifth, the much more pressing concern is christian "sharia" law, but you of course never have a peep to say about that.

point, the first: as the "first amendment clearly only limits the Congress and the actions of Congress, it is in no way a bar to state actions
point, the second: many states (including New Jersey, New York, Massachussetts etc...) had an "official religion" for quite some time, Massachusetts only de-establishing theirs in 1833
point, the third: proposing a law is not the same as enacting a law. you know this. and considering the level of stupidity currently enjoyed by many laws in america, this particular movement is a breath of fresh air.
point, the fourth: prohibition of the establishemnt of, or using the nonsense from, sharia courts in american jurisprudence is entirely consistent with the first amendment, the application of sharia is contrary to the first amendment. do try to keep up.
point, the fifth: once again slipping in an ad hominem for no purpose save to display your inability to argue your position, thanks.
point, the sixth: any judge who attempts to use judaic or christian law in the courtroom would be pilloried, mostly by you. a judge cannot even donate ART with the ten commandments on it without the left shitting themselves in hyper-rage.
point, the seventh: considering that sharia is based on arbitrary and idiotic "Fatwas" and no code of law or justice as rational people understand it, considering sharia "precedent" should already be forbidden, however it HAS been used and cited in US courts.
point, the eighth: oklahoma's law (passed, enacted, struck down by a federal court) is vacated, and the rest of your list has nothing to do with sharia, they prohibit the consideration of FOREIGN OR RELIGOUS LA (all of them)

"The Pew Forum says the other five states still have their restrictions on court consideration of foreign or religious law. But the laws enacted in Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota and Tennessee are more neutral than the Oklahoma law and do not cite Sharia or other religious laws in particular."

~ http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/05/19/Under-the-US-Supreme-Court-Islamic-law-in-US-courts/UPI-64481368948600/#ixzz2fOjIHndq


"The study’s findings suggest that Shariah law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. Some commentators have said there are no more than one or two cases of Shariah law in U.S. state court cases; yet 50 significant cases were found just from the small sample of appellate published cases.

The Report’s Key Findings include:
• 22 trial court decisions refused to apply Shariah; 15 utilized or recognized Shariah; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at the trial court level, but was applicable at the appellate level.
• 23 appellate decisions refused to apply Shariah; 12 utilized or recognized Shariah; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the appellate decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.
• The 50 cases arose in 23 different states: 6 cases were found in New Jersey; 5 in California; 4 each in Florida, Massachusetts and Washington; 3 each in Maryland, Texas and Virginia; 2 each in Louisiana, Iowa and Nebraska; and 1 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and South Carolina."

​

~ http://publicpolicyalliance.org/media-kit/shariah-law-and-american-state-courts-report/

 

[UncleBuck]

So you post a picture of Mitt Romney, and now all of the sudden we are supposed to forget Obomber is running our country? The "anti-war" liberal that drops bombs? What is with the distraction, and why are you trying so hard to divert?.... Again

it's actually you trying to divert with your off-topic cartoons.

the fact is that the religious right is every bit as extremist as the muslims who practice sharia law are, and there are many more of you religious zealots in this nation.

you religious extremists are a much bigger concern than sharia law ever would be.

 

[FreedomWorks]

Obomber's new war will do wonderful things for the environment I'm sure

 

[UncleBuck]

point, the first: as the "first amendment clearly only limits the Congress and the actions of Congress, it is in no way a bar to state actions
point, the second: many states (including New Jersey, New York, Massachussetts etc...) had an "official religion" for quite some time, Massachusetts only de-establishing theirs in 1833
point, the third: proposing a law is not the same as enacting a law. you know this. and considering the level of stupidity currently enjoyed by many laws in america, this particular movement is a breath of fresh air.
point, the fourth: prohibition of the establishemnt of, or using the nonsense from, sharia courts in american jurisprudence is entirely consistent with the first amendment, the application of sharia is contrary to the first amendment. do try to keep up.
point, the fifth: once again slipping in an ad hominem for no purpose save to display your inability to argue your position, thanks.
point, the sixth: any judge who attempts to use judaic or christian law in the courtroom would be pilloried, mostly by you. a judge cannot even donate ART with the ten commandments on it without the left shitting themselves in hyper-rage.
point, the seventh: considering that sharia is based on arbitrary and idiotic "Fatwas" and no code of law or justice as rational people understand it, considering sharia "precedent" should already be forbidden, however it HAS been used and cited in US courts.
point, the eighth: oklahoma's law (passed, enacted, struck down by a federal court) is vacated, and the rest of your list has nothing to do with sharia, they prohibit the consideration of FOREIGN OR RELIGOUS LA (all of them)

"The Pew Forum says the other five states still have their restrictions on court consideration of foreign or religious law. But the laws enacted in Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota and Tennessee are more neutral than the Oklahoma law and do not cite Sharia or other religious laws in particular."

~ http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/05/19/Under-the-US-Supreme-Court-Islamic-law-in-US-courts/UPI-64481368948600/#ixzz2fOjIHndq


"The study’s findings suggest that Shariah law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. Some commentators have said there are no more than one or two cases of Shariah law in U.S. state court cases; yet 50 significant cases were found just from the small sample of appellate published cases.

The Report’s Key Findings include:
• 22 trial court decisions refused to apply Shariah; 15 utilized or recognized Shariah; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at the trial court level, but was applicable at the appellate level.
• 23 appellate decisions refused to apply Shariah; 12 utilized or recognized Shariah; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the appellate decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.
• The 50 cases arose in 23 different states: 6 cases were found in New Jersey; 5 in California; 4 each in Florida, Massachusetts and Washington; 3 each in Maryland, Texas and Virginia; 2 each in Louisiana, Iowa and Nebraska; and 1 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and South Carolina."

​

~ http://publicpolicyalliance.org/media-kit/shariah-law-and-american-state-courts-report/

oh, wow!

look at all that sharia law!

i bet none of that incredibly small fraction of cases ever gets overturned, eh?

let's continue to worry about sharia law!

 

[FreedomWorks]

it's actually you trying to divert with your off-topic cartoons.

the fact is that the religious right is every bit as extremist as the muslims who practice sharia law are, .

This thread is not about Sharia Law

 

[UncleBuck]

Obomber's new war will do wonderful things for the environment I'm sure

what new war?

you still trying to divert away from what a religious extremist you are, and how you want to impose your religious zealotry on the secular citizens of this nation?

 

[Dr Kynes]

i'm talking about outlawing abortion, something the christian sharia law lovers have in common with actual sharia law.

you'd have to monitor every pregnancy in the nation.

religious extremists, whether they be muslim or christian, love this idea.

reductio ad retardum.

no-one has argued this, only leftist pundits assert this, and it is in no way applicable to the agrument at hand.

 

[UncleBuck]

This thread is not about Sharia Law

doer made it about sharia law.

however, if you want to talk about what an idiot you are for believing that the earth is cooling, that is welcome as well.

 

[FreedomWorks]

let's continue to worry about sharia law!

This thread is not about Sharia Law

 

[UncleBuck]

reductio ad retardum.

no-one has argued this, only leftist pundits assert this, and it is in no way applicable to the agrument at hand.

nope.

if abortion was outlawed, how would you make sure none occurred?

hint: you'd have to monitor every pregnancy.

 

[UncleBuck]

This thread is not about Sharia Law

then talk about your belief that the earth is cooling, despite the entirety of evidence completely to the contrary.

 

[UncleBuck]

removed.

don't call me retarded for pointing out how religious zealots like you want to impose your morality upon others.

 

[UncleBuck]

and i go right back to ignoring your ignorant reactionary ass.

you are constitutionally incapable of arguing civilly, or even stating a position without splattering shit all over yourself, the subject, your own assertions, and anyone standing too close to you.

have a douche, apply your vagisil, and try to keep your yeasty-ass vagina from going all Swamp Thing for at least a few hours.

MUSLIMS! a

you keep flapping your bigoted mouth about the non-worry of sharia law, the rest of us will continue to worry about the real concern, christian zealots and their enablers like you.

 

[Flaming Pie]

why do you believe that gays should be relegated to second class citizens whose love is not worthy of marriage?

Buck, what is marriage? What is your definition?

 

[UncleBuck]

Buck, what is marriage? What is your definition?

a marriage is a civil institution, thus it is a matter of civil rights.

again, why do you want to relegate gays to second class citizens whose love is not as worthy as yours?

 

[Flaming Pie]

nope.

if abortion was outlawed, how would you make sure none occurred?

hint: you'd have to monitor every pregnancy.

haven't we had this conversation? Lol. How do they make sure we don't have minors drinking, or people stealing, or countless other things that are illegal?

yo

 

[NLXSK1]

a marriage is a civil institution, thus it is a matter of civil rights.

again, why do you want to relegate gays to second class citizens whose love is not as worthy as yours?

Who is preventing them from getting married?

 

[Flaming Pie]

a marriage is a civil institution, thus it is a matter of civil rights.

again, why do you want to relegate gays to second class citizens whose love is not as worthy as yours?

what would make it second class? The word? Or the part where they have equal protection and rights under the law?