How liberals argue

[Ragman]

Edit: Please tell me there wasn't really a movie called Frankenweenie.

There was.




Frankenweenie (2012) | Official Site | Disney Movies

 

[Brisco]

The Youtube title pretty much sums it up.

How Liberals Argue - YouTube

Conversation went a little off topic.......way tooo deep for me. (Sharia Law - Etc)

So......to get back on Topic.......this is what I see when 2 Democrats are Arguing with each other......

Hell........this is Pretty Much how I see ALL Liberals / Democrats in General........

 

[LDB]

Nah, they make way more sense than liberals and are probably a lot more educated and intelligent too.

 

[Ragman]

[h=2] How Liberals Argue[/h]​

Liberal: The USA has fifty states.
Conservative: No, it doesn’t.
Liberal: Yes, it does. The USA has fifty states.
Conservative: What about Guam? What about that Guam, huh? Or the Virgin Islands?
Liberal: Those are territories, not states. The USA has fifty states.
Conservative: Oh, so you’re saying those don’t count?
Liberal: Yes.
Conservative: Oh, so the people there don’t count? They’re not good enough, huh? I thought you liberals wanted everybody to be counted.
Liberal: No, I said the territories don’t count as states. The USA has fifty states.
Conservative: You’re really something, you know that? You liberals are always going on about how all of us conservatives are racists, how we don’t care about anybody but people who look like us. But you don’t even want to count the blacks who live in Guam as Americans.
there's more...

Liberal: First of all, I never said all conservatives are racists.
Conservative: Yes, you did.
Liberal: No, I didn’t.
Conservative: Michael Moore says it.
Liberal: I’ve never heard him say that.
Conservative: Yes, he does! He most definitely does!
Liberal: Look, I don’t know what he says. That’s beside the point. And the people in Guam “count,” whatever that means. I don’t even know who lives in Guam; I don’t know the first thing about Guam. I’m just saying Guam isn’t a state – it’s a territory. The USA has fifty states.
Conservative: What about Puerto Rico?
Liberal: What?
Conservative: What about Puerto Rico, huh? You love all those Mexicans coming across the border stealing our jobs – you must LOVE Puerto Rico, right?
Liberal: I’ve never been to Puerto Rico.
Conservative: Well, I have, and those kind of people would be pretty offended to hear liberals like you saying they aren’t real Americans!
Liberal: I didn’t say that!
Conservative: You said they didn’t count!
Liberal: I didn’t say that either! No, wait, just wait… (takes deep breath). I only said the USA has fifty states. Puerto Rico isn’t a state – it’s a commonwealth.
Conservative: And they don’t speak English!
Liberal: Well, many Puerto Ricans do.
Conservative: How do you know that? I’ve been there – you haven’t!
Liberal: All right, OK, fine, whatever. But the USA has fifty states.
Conservative: Well, I say Puerto Rico counts.
Liberal: Fine, but not as a state.
Conservative: Well, that’s YOUR opinion.
Liberal: It’s not my opinion – it’s a fact.
Conservative: Says you!
Liberal: No, not just “says me.” It’s a fact. Look it up.
Conservative: I don’t have time.
Liberal: You don’t have time to find out if the USA has fifty states?
Conservative: Listen, you may have time to sit around all day surfing on your liberal websites, downloading Michael Moore, but I’ve got things to do.
Liberal: Like reading about blacks in Guam and Mexicans in Puerto Rico?
Conservative: See, that’s why you guys always lose. I’m trying to have a nice conversation, and you just keep up with the insults!
Liberal: Listen, I didn’t mean to insult you.
Conservative: Oh, yes you did!
Liberal: No, look, I’m sorry, OK? I didn’t mean to insult you. Honestly. It’s just that… well, the USA has fifty states. That’s a fact. And I’m just trying to state a fact, and you’re getting very defensive, and…
Conservative: Oh, so now I’m defensive.
Liberal: Well…
Conservative: You just said you weren’t going to insult me!
Liberal: Look, I’m just trying to say the USA has fifty states!
Conservative: According to YOUR sources!
Liberal: MY sources?! What are you talking about? Look it up!
Conservative: I told you, I don’t have time to spend all day cruising the internet, looking up geography questions! Maybe if you were busier at your job, trying to live the American Dream, you wouldn’t have time for all this hate!
Liberal: I work hard at my job!
Conservative: Then why are you spending all day downloading Michael Moore?
Liberal: I don’t spend all day downloading Michael Moore! I don’t even know what you mean by that! All I’m saying is that the USA has fifty states!
Conservative: Again, according to YOU!
Liberal: Not just me! Here, here’s the World Book Encyclopedia. Look it up – it’s fifty states!
Conservative: Oh, sure, the World Book! Yeah, like I’m going to believe the World Book!
Liberal: What?
Conservative: Come on, it’s a liberal rag!
Liberal: (Long, teeth-gnashing pause) Look, just look up “United States of America.” Ten bucks it says, “the USA has fifty states.”
Conservative: Ten bucks, huh?
Liberal: Yeah, ten bucks. (pause) Wait, that’s the “M” volume.
Conservative: I know.
Liberal: You need to look under “U” for “United States.”
Conservative: I’m not looking for “United States.” I’m looking for “Moore, Michael.”
Liberal: What?!
Conservative: And when I find a big glowing article about him, you’re going to owe me ten bucks!
Liberal: Why would I owe you ten bucks?!
Conservative: You bet me ten bucks that the World Book Encyclopedia isn’t liberal.
Liberal: No I didn’t!
Conservative: Yes, you did! You bet me ten bucks that I couldn’t find a liberal article in the World Book. So when I find Michael Moore’s picture, you owe me ten bucks!
Liberal: Oh, my lord…
Conservative: AHA!
Liberal: Listen, you idiot, just because you found Michael Moore’s picture in the World Book doesn’t mean that I owe you ten bucks! It doesn’t mean the World Book is a liberal encyclopedia! And it certainly doesn’t mean the USA doesn’t have fifty states!!
Conservative: Oh, no? Look at this!
Liberal: (pause) “Massachusetts”?
Conservative: Bingo!
Liberal: What the hell does Massachusetts have to do with anything?
Conservative: The COMMONWEALTH of Massachusetts!
Liberal: So?
Conservative: So you said Puerto Rico is a commonwealth!
Liberal: Oh, no…
Conservative: You ADMITTED Puerto Rico was a commonwealth! Admit it, you said it!
Liberal: Oh, man…
Conservative: So if Massachusetts is a commonwealth, and Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, then they BOTH must be states! HA!
Liberal: OK, look…
Conservative: You owe me twenty bucks!
Liberal: What?
Conservative: Come one, pay up! Twenty bucks, let’s go!
Liberal: I don’t owe you twenty bucks!
Conservative: And I’m not even counting Pennsylvania!
Liberal: Pennsylvania?
Conservative: That’s a commonwealth, too!
Liberal: It’s a commonwealth, but…
Conservative: And Washington!
Liberal: All right, look, I lived in Seattle – Washington is NOT a commonwealth!
Conservative: Seattle’s not even a state – it’s a city!
Liberal: Yes, it’s a city, in Washington State! Washington’s a state!
Conservative: I’m talking about Washington D.C.
Liberal: What?
Conservative: Washington D.C. It’s a city.
Liberal: I know what it is!
Conservative: Well, you liberals are always going on about “Statehood for Washington!” Which, you admit, is already a state!
Liberal: Washington D.C. is not a state!
Conservative: Washington State is!
Liberal: You just said Washington D.C.!
Conservative: And you said it should be a state!
Liberal: I never said that! I mean, it should be… but I never…look…
Conservative: Should Washington be a state?
Liberal: Well…
Conservative: Simple question.
Liberal: Washington State?
Conservative: Yes or No?
Liberal: Washington State or Washington D.C.?
Conservative: Right.
(Long pause)
Conservative: He snorts cocaine.
(Long, painful pause)
Liberal: (slowly) This is Washington D.C. you’re talking about.
Conservative: Yeah. The mayor snorts cocaine.
Liberal: Actually, he’s no longer the mayor…
Conservative: I don’t think a state should have a governor who’s used drugs.
Liberal: He’s not the governor; Washington’s not a…
Conservative: Except maybe California.
Liberal: OK, OK, stop for a moment…
Conservative: I mean, that was a long time ago…
Liberal: Listen, listen…
Conservative: I don’t see Michael Moore making any movies about cocaine in Washington State, do you?
Liberal: Please, STOP!
(pause)
Liberal: Look, I’m just trying to make a simple point here…
Conservative: What about…
Liberal: STOP!!!
(long pause)
Liberal: I’m just trying to make a SIMPLE point here. It’s not a big deal – it’s just a fact. The USA has fifty states. That’s all! Yes, Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, but it isn’t counted among the fifty states. Yes, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are commonwealths too. So are Virginia and, I think, Kentucky. I don’t know about Kentucky for sure, and you know what – it doesn’t matter! They’re considered states, OK? They’re states. Washington D.C. isn’t one, even though I wish it was. Guam isn’t one. There are only fifty. Fifty states. Fifty stars on the flag – fifty states. That’s all. Fifty.
(long pause)
Conservative: Rush is so right about you people.
Liberal: Huh?
Conservative: Rush. He gets it. You people are the worst.
Liberal: I don’t…
Conservative: Here I am, trying to have an honest political discussion, and all you can do is bring up this liberal claptrap! You call people like Rush racists, but you don’t want to count Mexicans as Americans. You insult the Governor of California every chance you get. You get all your information from encyclopedias and Michael Moore. You want free cocaine in Washington, and you want Seattle to become a commonwealth, and you won’t pay me my fifty dollars even after I proved that blacks run Guam! And then, worst of all, you insult our flag and our troops!!! You disgust me!
Liberal: Good-bye.
Conservative: See, there you liberals go again! Sneaking off to download porn from Kentucky! I’m not forgetting you owe me 100 dollars!
(pause)
Conservative: That’s it, cut and run!
(long pause)
Conservative: Why do you hate America?

 

[Turtle]

 

[RLENT]

They are already there. You don't hear a word from the moderate Muslims when the extremists do something stupid.

If you're not hearing it, then you really aren't paying attention ... or are willfully ignoring it ...

BTW, I know that you know way better than to rely on the MSM to report it ...

And it is no secret they are trying to get parts of Sharia law accepted by the courts.

Read the NY Times article at the 3rd link below:

"Yet, for all its fervor, the movement is arguably directed at a problem more imagined than real. Even its leaders concede that American Muslims are not coalescing en masse to advance Islamic law. Instead, they say, Muslims could eventually gain the kind of foothold seen in Europe, where multicultural policies have allowed for what critics contend is an overaccommodation of Islamic law."

They had to pass a law recently in Oklahoma to stop the introduction of any of it.

They didn't "have" to do anything ... it was something that was ginned up by "Islamophobia Inc":

Fear, Inc. | Center for American Progress

You would do well to examine who it is that is behind the push to implement such laws ... at the root of all of it, you'll find this guy:

David Yerushalmi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interestingly enough he used to work for an Israeli think tank ...

"In fact, it is the product of an orchestrated drive that began five years ago in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, in the office of a little-known lawyer, David Yerushalmi, a 56-year-old Hasidic Jew with a history of controversial statements about race, immigration and Islam. Despite his lack of formal training in Islamic law, Mr. Yerushalmi has come to exercise a striking influence over American public discourse about Shariah."

David Yerushalmi, the Man Behind the Anti-Shariah Movement - NYTimes.com

Yerushalmi is a man who Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League has called an "extremist" and "racist bigot" (and he was right) ... from the ADL's web page on Yerushalmi:

"One of the driving forces behind Shari'a-related conspiracy theories and growing efforts to ban or restrict the use of Shari'a law in American courts is David Yerushalmi, an Arizona attorney with a record of anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-black bigotry."

ADL Profile: David Yerushalmi

BTW - the Oklahoma has already been struck down as unconstitutional:

Oklahoma Ban on Sharia Law Unconstitutional, US Judge Rules - Law Blog - WSJ

Remember, this has all moved forward since 9/11. Just the fact that it is being discussed here should tell you something.

Yeah ... never underestimate the ability of racist and religious bigots to attempt to take advantage of an opportunity when it presents itself.

 

[RLENT]

Click here and read it. Be forewarned, you won't like it.

What's not to like - the article you list (from an organization that is at Ground Zero of Islamophobia Inc) - states the following - which you didn't quote - and also addresses davekc's (false) claim that "You don't hear a word from the moderate Muslims when the extremists do something stupid":

Muslim women were quick to denounce the supreme court's decision. Among them, Souad Sbai, president of the Organization of Moroccan Women in Italy.

She said, "It is a shame, this verdict is worthy of an Arab country where the Sharia would be in vigor. In the name of multiculturalism and respect of traditions, the judges apply two kinds of rules: one for the Italians and one for the immigrants. A Catholic father that would have acted this way would have been severely sentenced."

And:

But France might not be the panacea either. Indeed in one very publicized case, last June, a French judge ruled in favor of a Muslim man who wanted the annulment of his marriage because his wife turned out not to be a virgin. What this decision amounted to was the endorsement of the repudiation concept.

This decision triggered a huge outcry from politicians, and various organizations. In November, a French court of appeal overturned the decision. Interestingly, a large majority of French Muslims, about 80 percent are very secular and totally reject any kind of Sharia law being implemented in the homeland of human rights.

And:

Williams argued that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt within a Sharia court.

But contrary to what Williams advanced, Sadiq Khan, a British Muslim MP said that Sharia courts would discourage Muslims from developing links with other cultural and ethnic groups. He feared also that women could be "abused" by Sharia courts, which may give unequal bargaining power to the sexes.

So I'd say that it's pretty clear that there is some push back even within the Muslim community itself ...

Beyond that, I'd say that something I think people tend overlook in all the hysteria (and much of it is hysteria), is the nature of our legal system and polity, which in many ways is very different from what exists in Europe.

As to the Gatestone Institute:

Without a doubt the notion of sharia law being implemented in Europe and in the US on any wide scale in such a manner that supersedes civil courts, or in any imminent fashion is wildly overblown by the wackos.

Of which, the Gatestone is one ...

Gatestone Institute - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies

The Sugar Mama of Anti-Muslim Hate | The Nation

Nina Rosenwald - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies

By the same token, it has crept in and is creeping far more than those with their head in the sand are aware.

Do you have some reportage on this phenomena that you would care to share ?

BTW, as just a side note, I think it is quite interesting (and perhaps somewhat telling) that in terms of application of sharia law, countries which are members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (27), where secular civil and criminal law reigns supreme and sharia does not apply at all, far outnumber the relatively few countries (10) where sharia law applies in full.

 

[RLENT]

Ragman:

Nailed it ...

 

[davekc]

If you're not hearing it, then you really aren't paying attention ... or are willfully ignoring it ...

BTW, I know that you know way better than to rely on the MSM to report it ...


Read the NY Times article at the 3rd link below:




They didn't "have" to do anything ... it was something that was ginned up by "Islamophobia Inc":

Fear, Inc. | Center for American Progress

You would do well to examine who it is that is behind the push to implement such laws ... at the root of all of it, you'll find this guy:

David Yerushalmi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interestingly enough he used to work for an Israeli think tank ...



David Yerushalmi, the Man Behind the Anti-Shariah Movement - NYTimes.com

Yerushalmi is a man who Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League has called an "extremist" and "racist bigot" (and he was right) ... from the ADL's web page on Yerushalmi:



ADL Profile: David Yerushalmi

BTW - the Oklahoma has already been struck down as unconstitutional:

Oklahoma Ban on Sharia Law Unconstitutional, US Judge Rules - Law Blog - WSJ


Yeah ... never underestimate the ability of racist and religious bigots to attempt to take advantage of an opportunity when it presents itself.

You provided more items than I was aware of. I was aware that the Oklahoma deal had been struck down, but it was (or I) using it as a indication that people are watching and trying to react to real or perceived changes that may or may not be coming. That was the only point I was trying to make.
That was the point of my original post.

 

[Ragman]

Ragman:

Nailed it ...

 

[cheri1122]

Thanks, RLENT, for the links. One thing that puzzles me: the quote about 80% of French Muslims being secular - is that not an oxymoron? How can one be both? I mean, there are degrees of adherence to religious laws and customs, but secular means areligious [none at all], so how can one be a secular Muslim?

 

[RLENT]

You provided more items than I was aware of. I was aware that the Oklahoma deal had been struck down, but it was (or I) using it as a indication that people are watching and trying to react to real or perceived changes that may or may not be coming. That was the only point I was trying to make. That was the point of my original post.

Got it.

In complete fairness to you dave, my original response to you was overly harsh and just a tad bit knee-jerkish (if not actually plain jerkish ) ...

The fact of the matter is my original statement in reply to you:

"If you're not hearing it, then you really aren't paying attention ... or are willfully ignoring it ..."

... was really unfair ... since it is entirely and easily possible to be unaware of such matters even if one is paying attention and not willfully ignoring them ...

The reality is such things are not generally covered by the MSM and one largely has to make a concerted and not insignificant effort to search it out and find it, usually at more esoteric and non-mainstream venues ...

My apologies ...

 

[RLENT]

Thanks, RLENT, for the links.

You're quite welcome.

One thing that puzzles me: the quote about 80% of French Muslims being secular - is that not an oxymoron? How can one be both? I mean, there are degrees of adherence to religious laws and customs, but secular means areligious [none at all], so how can one be a secular Muslim?

Probably in much the same way that one can be a secular Jew or a secular Christian ...

I think secular in this context means not devoutly religious - or perhaps even areligious - but identifying with the culture that surrounds the particular religion involved, perhaps as a consequence of their early religious training or upbringing.

Example:

A person nominally celebrates Christmas.

Does this necessarily mean they are really a true believer ?

Same thing might possibly be said for nominal celebration of Hannukah or Purim ...

 

[RLENT]

An alternative (and possibly more likely) explanation to the one I provided above, although I'm not sure of the intent of the originator of the claim (80% are secular etc.):

The principle of secularism in Islam means favoring a secular state and secular society with a separation between Islam and public life. Secularism in the Muslim countries refers to the ideology of promoting the secular political and social values as opposed to Islamism. It is often used to describe the separation of public life and civil/government matters from religious teachings and commandments.

Many Muslim-majority countries are secular. Secular states had existed in the Muslim world since the Middle Ages. The quest for Secularism has inspired some Muslim scholars who argue that secular government is the best way to observe sharia; "enforcing [sharia] through coercive power of the state negates its religious nature, because Muslims would be observing the law of the state and not freely performing their religious obligation as Muslims," says Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, a professor of law at Emory University and author of a book on the future of sharia.

Islam and secularism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

British Muslims for Secular Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And an interesting article on the subject, in terms of the ramifications:

Why Muslims should love secularism - Daily News Egypt

 

[witness23]

If you're not hearing it, then you really aren't paying attention ... or are willfully ignoring it ...

BTW, I know that you know way better than to rely on the MSM to report it ...

They didn't "have" to do anything ... it was something that was ginned up by "Islamophobia Inc":

You would do well to examine who it is that is behind the push to implement such laws ... at the root of all of it, you'll find this guy:

Interestingly enough he used to work for an Israeli think tank ...

BTW - the Oklahoma has already been struck down as unconstitutional:

Yeah ... never underestimate the ability of racist and religious bigots to attempt to take advantage of an opportunity when it presents itself.

You were much more kind in your response than I would've been. Kudo's to you for pointing out the woeful ignorance of the whole "sharia law" taking over America thingy.

 

[davekc]

Got it.

In complete fairness to you dave, my original response to you was overly harsh and just a tad bit knee-jerkish (if not actually plain jerkish ) ...

The fact of the matter is my original statement in reply to you:



... was really unfair ... since it is entirely and easily possible to be unaware of such matters even if one is paying attention and not willfully ignoring them ...

The reality is such things are not generally covered by the MSM and one largely has to make a concerted and not insignificant effort to search it out and find it, usually at more esoteric and non-mainstream venues ...

My apologies ...

No problem. One of the values of EO. Many items that aren't picked up by generic sources can be found right here. Same with many of your threads on Israeli/Palestinian conflicts. I am pretty up to speed on what the MSM reports, but not the other items due to lack of research. And it goes without saying, that much of what the MSM reports is slanted or sound bites with no details due to time constraints or agenda.
While not up on everything, have to be open to new information regardless of the topic.

 

[davekc]

You were much more kind in your response than I would've been. Kudo's to you for pointing out the woeful ignorance of the whole "sharia law" taking over America thingy.

 

[LDB]

Got it.

In complete fairness to you dave, my original response to you was overly harsh and just a tad bit knee-jerkish (if not actually plain jerkish ) ...

A common truth.

 

[Brisco]

A common truth.

And Occurrence.................

 

[WanderngFool]

RLENT - that'll learn ya. Never take the high road on a driver's forum. Like goldfish they circle. They look for weakness. They smell blood. They attack!!!