DescentBB

Top Gun wrote:I'm still wondering where this scenario comes from in the first place, other than random chest-thumping, since none of you are ever going to be in a position like this anyway.

It's interesting though to look at why it isn't likely to unfold here. I say it is, in part, because our constitution protects chest thumping AND the acts of self defense we can extend on behalf of our fellow citizens when they are facing imminent threats. Chest thumping, as you call it, sometimes has a useful role to help maintain our tradition of self reliance and a way to bring up the next generation with the understanding that we have to stand up. the liberal mindset that the police should handle everything is a really stupid idea. They aren't designed to prevent, they are designed to react after the fact.

If you are successful in wrongfully shaming generation after generation of potential citizen protectors into believing that taking pride in the inclination to stand up and fight is wrong then you have made it that much easier to supplant what once was great with what should never be. Sharia law will never be put in place in the America I was brought up in...but the progressive liberals have made destroying that America a priority.

Long live the freedom and and confidence of a cool headed american who will quickly step up and put down a threat and hopefully those days when part of his confidence came from knowing he wasn't alone in a crowd will multiply to their former numbers.
If you try to openly murder someone here you wont have just one guy with a pistol to run from. I hope it is always that way and I hope one day you all can say that no matter what part of the country you live in...even the solid blue parts.

Luke 6:27-31 (King James Version)

27But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

28Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

29And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.

30Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

Matthew 5:38-42 (King James Version)

38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Pretty sure he wasn't advocating violence to the threat of an aggressor.

Will Robinson wrote:

Top Gun wrote:I'm still wondering where this scenario comes from in the first place, other than random chest-thumping, since none of you are ever going to be in a position like this anyway.

It's interesting though to look at why it isn't likely to unfold here. I say it is, in part, because our constitution protects chest thumping AND the acts of self defense we can extend on behalf of our fellow citizens when they are facing imminent threats. Chest thumping, as you call it, sometimes has a useful role to help maintain our tradition of self reliance and a way to bring up the next generation with the understanding that we have to stand up. the liberal mindset that the police should handle everything is a really stupid idea. They aren't designed to prevent, they are designed to react after the fact.

No, it's primarily because our nation is a secular democracy that happens to be the most prosperous on Earth, so the sort of social conditions that drive religious extremism of that magnitude simply don't exist here. Do you think our Constitution's free speech protections alone (last time I checked, there's no reference to self-defense in the document) would prevent anyone from getting stoned or something equally heinous if we'd been living the Lifestyles of the Dirt Poor and Dusty for generations? I somehow doubt that.

If you are successful in wrongfully shaming generation after generation of potential citizen protectors into believing that taking pride in the inclination to stand up and fight is wrong then you have made it that much easier to supplant what once was great with what should never be. Sharia law will never be put in place in the America I was brought up in...but the progressive liberals have made destroying that America a priority.

Brilliant little straw man there. All fear the Red...er, Progressive Menace!

And I've gotta say, you guys do an absolutely fantastic job of twisting other people's sentiments to fit your own mindsets. A++, would read again. Though before that, I would be interested in where exactly I said that the sentiment of fighting to uphold justice is "shameful" in the least. I'll wait.

woodchip wrote:I never was good at just standing by when someone was injured or intimidated. The alternative of standing by and doing nothing would eat at me the rest of my life. If one takes the time to analyze a situation the way some of you are, then you will never intervene. If you can live with that, so be it.

get back to me when you've gone through being heroic.

Top Gun wrote:No, it's primarily because our nation is a secular democracy that happens to be the most prosperous on Earth, so the sort of social conditions that drive religious extremism of that magnitude simply don't exist here. Do you think our Constitution's free speech protections alone (last time I checked, there's no reference to self-defense in the document) would prevent anyone from getting stoned or something equally heinous if we'd been living the Lifestyles of the Dirt Poor and Dusty for generations? I somehow doubt that.

We don't live like that because we chose to protect ourselves from any forces that would put us on the 'Dirt Poor and Dusty' plantation.
The Bill of Rights pretty much outlines the type of freedom that allows us to defend ourselves, not just with arms but with words, etc. And although you won't find a literal explanation of my right to act in self defense of another it ultimately is the Constitution/Bill of Rights that guarantees the States or Cities can't make my doing so an illegal act.
I mention the 'right' to self defense as one of the 'reasons' we don't see religious mobs, or fascist mobs, or any kind of mob force their way of life on us because that is the very foundation of how this country was formed and the method by which it was taken from the King. Citizens stood up and fought off the oppressive force.
You don't see citizens in other countries who both, accept living under a class system and craft a document like the Constitution. The two very different spirits don't coexist in the same person.
So it is that individual freedom and autonomy that keeps us from having a mob of who-ever stoning our neighbors for what-ever offense. the constitution isn't some magic paper that once written will protect you like a spell! It is no talisman, it is badge of honor, a warning to the oppressors that the people living here won't allow themselves to be tortured and they back that up with strong deeds and, yes, sometimes there is some bravado that goes with the territory and I pointed out how it serves a purpose or at least it is a symptom of the underlying character that creates and maintains the kind safety we enjoy.

Top Gun wrote:

If you are successful in wrongfully shaming generation after generation of potential citizen protectors into believing that taking pride in the inclination to stand up and fight is wrong then you have made it that much easier to supplant what once was great with what should never be. Sharia law will never be put in place in the America I was brought up in...but the progressive liberals have made destroying that America a priority.

Brilliant little straw man there. All fear the Red...er, Progressive Menace!

And I've gotta say, you guys do an absolutely fantastic job of twisting other people's sentiments to fit your own mindsets. A++, would read again. Though before that, I would be interested in where exactly I said that the sentiment of fighting to uphold justice is "shameful" in the least. I'll wait.

I didn't say "you said" anything. Use a little common sense and actually try to capture the point i raised instead of trying to parse some words to best suit your dramatic retort.
If you are of the liberal mindset that I described and you would shame people for 'talking up' defending a fellow citizen who was being stoned then I gave an example of how you are, in a way, undermining one of the the strengths of our nation and that can ultimately lead to the very situation that you say won't happen here.
Unless you really do believe the Constitution is a magic piece of parchment and all the blood sweat and tears that procured our freedoms were just extraneous chest thumping by guys who scare you needlessly...

America could use a little more of the fabled John Wayne character and a little less of the self absorbed metro sexual weenie-elite.

There is a huge difference between saying, "standing up for a person in this situation is likely to get you killed," and saying, "you should never use violence to defend another person because violence is icky."

Will Robinson wrote:

Top Gun wrote:No, it's primarily because our nation is a secular democracy that happens to be the most prosperous on Earth, so the sort of social conditions that drive religious extremism of that magnitude simply don't exist here. Do you think our Constitution's free speech protections alone (last time I checked, there's no reference to self-defense in the document) would prevent anyone from getting stoned or something equally heinous if we'd been living the Lifestyles of the Dirt Poor and Dusty for generations? I somehow doubt that.

We don't live like that because we chose to protect ourselves from any forces that would put us on the 'Dirt Poor and Dusty' plantation.

I don't know if it was as much of a choice as it was having the leg-up in the first place. Remember that the original colonies were founded by inhabitants of a few different European nations, all of whom had more advanced technology than the people living here before them. As a result, our country eventually wound up putting many of said original inhabitants into some very Dirt Poor and Dusty living conditions, not to mention attempting to completely subjugate another certain group of people. When you compare that to areas of the world that have been under the thumb of various greater powers for literally centuries, you start to see a big disparity.

I didn't say "you said" anything. Use a little common sense and actually try to capture the point i raised instead of trying to parse some words to best suit your dramatic retort.
If you are of the liberal mindset that I described and you would shame people for 'talking up' defending a fellow citizen who was being stoned then I gave an example of how you are, in a way, undermining one of the the strengths of our nation and that can ultimately lead to the very situation that you say won't happen here.
Unless you really do believe the Constitution is a magic piece of parchment and all the blood sweat and tears that procured our freedoms were just extraneous chest thumping by guys who scare you needlessly...

Well, since I don't consider myself to be of the liberal persuasion, and since I also never denigrated the concept of defending the weak, I'm not really sure how anything you said applies to me. If you go back and read what I originally wrote, you'll see that my point was that talking about what one would or wouldn't do in a stoning-type situation when one will likely never encounter such a situation is just that...talk. Unless you're going to play Rambo all over the Middle East, I think it's far more productive to figure out how we can stop said situations than to imagine ourselves going all action-movie on their perpetrators.

Remember, John Wayne played idealized fictional characters. He didn't have to deal with a little thing called the Real World.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:I never was good at just standing by when someone was injured or intimidated. The alternative of standing by and doing nothing would eat at me the rest of my life. If one takes the time to analyze a situation the way some of you are, then you will never intervene. If you can live with that, so be it.

get back to me when you've gone through being heroic.

I'm getting back to you. How many incidents would you like me to tell you about?

Top Gun wrote:...
Remember, John Wayne played idealized fictional characters. He didn't have to deal with a little thing called the Real World.

Yea I know, his real name was Marion Morrison and I have no idea of what kind of person he was in 'real life' except you can make a pretty good guess that he wasn't too far from the persona that was at the core of most of his work. It is that character that I'm pointing to, not some action he played out on screen. It's a shame, a real shame that you don't seem to know of this characteristic that he put into his roles and likely embodied in real life. I imagine most young people today don't know it either and one reason they don't is the Hero has been attacked by the left as a dangerous person.
There was a time when young men sought to be like 'John Wayne' (and similar role models that came before his) and the world is a much better place as a result of those aspirations because a lot of those young men went on to lift us up, keep us safe and inspire us to take the high road.

There is a vacuum created by the banishment of the John Wayne's from our collective character and it is being filled by pimps and players and you see the youth who aspire to be like the new heros acting out their new roles and we all are suffering for it.

There is a vacuum created by the banishment of the John Wayne's from our collective character and it is being filled by pimps and players and you see the youth who aspire to be like the new heros acting out their new roles and we all are suffering for it.

QFT. You gotta see where your going before you can get there.

Now you're just off on a "those damn kids today" rant. Been there, seen that.

Bet51987 wrote:I agree but I like multiculturism. My friends and I go to all the summer events and festivals we can get to. Italian (my heritage), Polish, Irish, Spanish and Indian just to taste the food and listen to the different music and see the dances. The Indian event is my favorite because the women dressed in silk sarees are just beautiful. I even bought one for a dance but chickened out at the last minute and wore western. I only wear it at the Indian festival.

With that said, I can't use the word culture when referring to Muslim heritage since it's tied to Islamic law. So I can't place it in the same category as the ones I listed above. I can't even use the word "tradition".

When I type "India dress" in google and then select "images" I see beauty and culture but when I type in "Muslim dress" I see "requirement" not culture. I see Islam.

Bee

Don't get me wrong Bee. I like the myriad cultures that make up the U.S. and the world. I'd be a pretty boring place if we were all the same. That happenstance of history has created the wonderful melting pot of our nation (although quite a few people may disagree). But in Europe, the recent cultural changes happening under the guise of accepting "multiculturalism" may be part of something more far reaching and drastic. My question to you is what laws and customs from another culture, especially one so foreign as Islam to a historically Christian Europe, should another nation integrate and accept into itself? Muslims that have immigrated to Europe have become a large segment of many local populations now and are starting to ask for the application of their own cultural laws.

woodchip wrote:I'm getting back to you. How many incidents would you like me to tell you about?

start with one.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:I'm getting back to you. How many incidents would you like me to tell you about?

start with one.

Back before I joined the Marines I was working for a cement contractor to earn money for college. A mexican green carder and I were hand grading a area in a cul-de-sac prior to a cement pour. Four other mexicans (not working for our company) came up and started threatening the guy I was working with. Some neighborhood turf thing I guess. He was kinda on the small size and so I stepped between him and the four bothering him . They wanted to know what I was doing and I told them I didn't like the odds. Then I said if they had a beef with the guy I was working with to take it up after work. They then left.

Heroic? Nah. I just did what I felt was right. The question is, how would of most people responded. Walk away? Figure it was a gang issue and best not get involved? This was long before cell phones so you couldn't plan on making a 911 call.

This enough to satisfy your curiosity Ferny or do you need more incidents.

Nuts to you, Null, I have a new signature too.

And to quote the band Big&Rich, "I'm the only John Wayne left in this town!"
So I'm gunna step back outta this conversation, as the weak aren't allowing it to go anywhere.

John Wayne chickened out of World War II for the sake of his acting career. Sounds like a self absorbed metro sexual weenie-elite to me.

woodchip wrote:
This enough to satisfy your curiosity Ferny or do you need more incidents.

that'll do for now.

This thread is priceless. I'll overlook the chest beating and rants about facing stone throwing mobs with a handgun and cut to the real issue(or, at least, I THINK it was what you all started discussing): Sharia law in the US. To think, for one moment, that such an outcome is a possibility or a threat to the American nation is ludicrous. Further, to focus, legislate or keep raising the issue is among the most counter-productive things any citizen could do, IMO. This nation has REAL problems......declining economic structure, aging infrastructure, political dysfunction, and most of all, a populace which is entirely too selfish and willing to embrace ignorance. A step back will reveal that the US got to be a dominant power for one key reason:
We were the most technologically advanced, industrially productive place on the planet. Why? Largely because we embraced a strong public education system and STRONGLY encouraged each succeeding generation to study and learn. We will fail, as a nation, if we continue down the current path. More people know who American Idol contestants are than can identify the Supreme Court justices. More people watch "Jersey Shore" than participate in school boards and local politics. A majority of students in a recent poll chose the career of 'personal assistant to a celebrity' over Airline Pilot, business executive, physician or research scientist, as their life goal. Keep this up and Sharia law won't be the issue, but speaking Mandarin might come in handy.........

I suspect a rash of double-accounts so that people can agree with themselves.

SilverFJ wrote:I suspect a rash of double-accounts so that people can agree with themselves.

actually with Slick thats not the case. I know him from a different forum and for the Most part he thinks before posting. I thought he'd add some to this forum, so I invited him, and yes he's hardcore liberal. but thats part of the fun of conversation when you have someone to discuss with even though you might not agree. unlike some of the trolls that pop in

Well, I suspected it, but there are a few others that I'm pretty sure are other people, gets kinda redundant.
Welcome, slick.

CUDA wrote:and for the Most part he thinks before posting.

I'm glad you were honest enough to let them know 'for the most part', Cuda.

.......and, I'm not so sure the hearty welcome above hasn't been rescinded already.......

Dude, just don't be a dick, and I'll still welcome you. I have a pair, you know.

SilverFJ wrote:Dude, just don't be a dick, and I'll still welcome you. I have a pair, you know.

sure, but three of a kind beats.....ah, nevermind.

This thread is priceless. I'll overlook the chest beating and rants about facing stone throwing mobs with a handgun and cut to the real issue(or, at least, I THINK it was what you all started discussing): Sharia law in the US

The original post was about the lashing of a 14 year old girl to death due to the ruling of a sadistic monster of an old man and his "ideals" under islam.

To think, for one moment, that such an outcome is a possibility or a threat to the American nation is ludicrous.

Elements of shariah law are already being taken into consideration under agreed upon "arbitration" in "domestic cases." In the UK, these agreements have prevented women from "refusing" sex to their husbands in cases that would normally be considered rape (marital or otherwise.) You can be sure these "agreements" for arbitration in an islamic "family court" are forced upon the women involved with threats and intimidation.

Muslim communities segregate themselves and subject their people to shariah regardless of the "law of the land" in less overt ways until they can change the laws of the countries they reside in to conform to shariah.

Imagine the "law" that cults like the Davidians or polygamist leader Warren Jeffs inflicted on their little enclosed communities, including forced "marriage" of children and so on repeated thousands of times all over the world.

It just so happens that this "cult" is islam and its law is shariah.

New little snippet from Indonesia:

Irdayanti Mukhtar, 34, received nine lashes by Sharia Police for having a relationship with another man, even though she is said to be in the process of divorcing her husband.

The harsh punishment was meted out in front of a crowd of 200 people outside the Al Munawwarah Mosque in Jantho, Indonesia.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ffair.html

Now is this happening in the US? No- not in such an overt way, but you can be certain that punishment is meted out by muslim families or communities in the US under the rule of shariah in spite of our rule of law.

Watch for "islamic family courts" to pop up more and more here in the US as they have in the UK and other countries.

TB, two points:
What, in the experience of US legal practice, gives you the faintest idea that such acts would not be criminal in this country? When have we ever allowed special practices to override civil rights, if such
practices were not protected by legislation or the Constitution?

Secondly, you do realize that we have a very substantial number of Muslim adherants in the US? How come such practices are not more widespead already.

As I stated earlier, alarmism over Sharia in the US is merely a smokescreen, and a xenophobic, bigoted smokescreen at that. We have real problems to deal with, and the way some men avoid dealing with problems is pointing the finger at some imagined 'threat', to serve as a boogeyman.

callmeslick wrote:
As I stated earlier, alarmism over Sharia in the US is merely a smokescreen, and a xenophobic, bigoted smokescreen at that. We have real problems to deal with, and the way some men avoid dealing with problems is pointing the finger at some imagined 'threat', to serve as a boogeyman.

I would of agreed with you.....prior to 9/11.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:
As I stated earlier, alarmism over Sharia in the US is merely a smokescreen, and a xenophobic, bigoted smokescreen at that. We have real problems to deal with, and the way some men avoid dealing with problems is pointing the finger at some imagined 'threat', to serve as a boogeyman.

I would of agreed with you.....prior to 9/11.

9/11 was indeed a trauma, but then again, after the Oklahoma city bombing, we didn't go all crazy worrying about ex-servicemen, now did we? I don't see how that in any way suggests any situation that would lead to Sharia law. Further,
since Sharia law is enforced differently in every Muslim culture, speculation by us in the Western world is sort of an exercise in pointlessness. I return to my original point: Can't you see more serious threats facing the US to focus on, to the point where worrying about such a non-starter is counterproductive?

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:
As I stated earlier, alarmism over Sharia in the US is merely a smokescreen, and a xenophobic, bigoted smokescreen at that. We have real problems to deal with, and the way some men avoid dealing with problems is pointing the finger at some imagined 'threat', to serve as a boogeyman.

I would of agreed with you.....prior to 9/11.

9/11 was indeed a trauma, but then again, after the Oklahoma city bombing, we didn't go all crazy worrying about ex-servicemen, now did we? I don't see how that in any way suggests any situation that would lead to Sharia law.

Except the Oklahoma guy was not shouting "God is Great" and no videos of Christians dancing in the streets showed up on you tube.

woodchip wrote:Except the Oklahoma guy was not shouting "God is Great" and no videos of Christians dancing in the streets showed up on you tube.

....that you saw. I suspect there was celebration in many quarters. Images can be used to manipulate very nicely, thank you, and when the act is committed by people you don't understand(either in terms of culture or religion) it gets real easy to demonize a larger group because of the views of a small minority within that group.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Except the Oklahoma guy was not shouting "God is Great" and no videos of Christians dancing in the streets showed up on you tube.

....that you saw. I suspect there was celebration in many quarters.

Suppositions in such matters does not fly here. Perhaps on the Democratic Underground Movement Board (D.U.M.B.) tho.

woodchip wrote:Suppositions in such matters does not fly here. Perhaps on the Democratic Underground Movement Board (D.U.M.B.) tho.

BS. Are you telling me that a sizeable number within the goofball militia movement didn't celebrate?
Just because they weren't dancing in your town square doesn't equate to not celebrating.

What, in the experience of US legal practice, gives you the faintest idea that such acts would not be criminal in this country?

Depending on the acts involved, yes they are criminal- but they are prosecuted only when overt. Many times these are "overlooked" or minimized when they are not something as obvious as a decapitated wife. (Founder of Islamic TV station accused of beheading wife) http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-16/just ... s=PM:CRIME

When have we ever allowed special practices to override civil rights, if such practices were not protected by legislation or the Constitution?

You would be surprised how much "latitude" is given to the offenders of our law in the name of political correctness (and in countries such as the UK and France.) Crimes are simply not prosecuted or the offenders are charged with lesser offenses unless forcibly brought into the public view and are no longer as easily covered up.

We must treat everyone equally (as hard as it already is in view of PC.)

Secondly, you do realize that we have a very substantial number of Muslim adherants in the US? How come such practices are not more widespead already.

There are certain sects like the Sufi that are much more tolerant and non-violent, certainly (although they themselves are attacked and killed as heretics or apostates by Sunni or Shia islamists.)

And like I have posted in the past- most muslims are like most catholics- they don't practice everything that is preached. However, all too often violence against the non-compliant female, infidel or apostate is smiled upon, preached and encouraged in the mosque.

I don't think Father Flannery is going to tell you to go beat your wife "gently" when she doesn't obey your wishes as her "duties" as an obedient wife demand.

It is the "devout" muslim that one is to be wary of. I think you will see that the perpetrator of islamic violence has been described as devout many times. (Ft. Hood mass murderer for instance.)

As I stated earlier, alarmism over Sharia in the US is merely a smokescreen, and a xenophobic, bigoted smokescreen at that.

For some reason the left has taken up the cause of islam as another "oppressed" minority simply because it isn't that EVIL patriarchal Christianity practiced by those seething red-eyed republican devils.

Islam is every bit as "patriarchal," discriminatory and WORSE than Christianity has been or ever was.

Supremacist bigots shouldn't be overlooked simply because they don't wear white sheets and burn crosses.

Nor should we exclude any cult that advocates violence against the nonbeliever from scrutiny or prosecution simply because it is their "cultural norm."

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Suppositions in such matters does not fly here. Perhaps on the Democratic Underground Movement Board (D.U.M.B.) tho.

BS. Are you telling me that a sizeable number within the goofball militia movement didn't celebrate?
Just because they weren't dancing in your town square doesn't equate to not celebrating.

You have examples? If not you are spouting conjecture. Keep trying tho as those uneducated masses will no doubt believe you.

woodchip wrote:You have examples? If not you are spouting conjecture. Keep trying tho as those uneducated masses will no doubt believe you.

here's a pip. Plenty more for you to locate with very little effort required:
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/in-honor ... y-mcveigh/

by the way, I am not put off by calling me for examples. I tend not to cite links to bolster what I feel are obvious facts, but respect that you, and others, ask for backup, as opposed to yelling, "Liar, Liar!!" or similar. CUDA described you folks well.

Wow, a poem. I can understand why this did not make the 6:00 news. Not quite the level of jihad tho.

woodchip wrote:Wow, a poem. I can understand why this did not make the 6:00 news. Not quite the level of jihad tho.

kinda moving the goalposts, aren't we, chief? I stated that wingnuts celebrated McVeigh, as wingnuts celebrated 9/11. You asked for proof. I provided one of many examples, and you come back with the above? If you read the writers words, the poem celebrates the killing of infants in a day care center as the first shots of the new Revolution. Pretty damn close to 'jihad', and possibly even less palatable.

No goal post to move. Of course you on the left pay great credence to blogs and how truthful they are

Tell me, how do you know this isn't some whacked out liberal making a post to paint a picture of adulating adherents endorsing what happened ? You jumped on Cuda for linking some off the wall source, kindly do not do so yourself.

haha that's rich. you end up debating someone who doesn't agree with you woody and you already assume he's a leftie.

but that's alright. I already know you're about as slippery to pin down as a greased hog in a county fair.