What does being a "Liberal" mean? (US)

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

phantom menace of sharia law is a threat to American society.

Out of curiosity, have you seen some of the info out of France regarding this?

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

Out of curiosity, have you seen some of the info out of France regarding this?

French leaders of the IMF pose a greater threat to American society that Sharia law.

[classicman]

found this online...

“This study represents a timely contribution to the debate developing around the country: To what extent is the Islamic politico-military-legal doctrine of Shariah being insinuated into the United States? The analysis complements and powerfully reinforces the warnings contained in the Center’s bestselling 2010 “Team B II” Report, Shariah: The Threat to America. It confirms that Shariah’s adherents are making a concerted effort to bring their anti-constitutional code to this country.


“Together with follow-on analyses now in preparation, we hope to equip those who share the Center’s commitment to the Constitution of the United States, to the liberties it guarantees and to the democratic government it mandates to thwart those like the Muslim Brotherhood who would supplant freedom with Shariah law. Clearly, we must work to keep America Shariah-free, or risk inexorably losing the country we love.”

Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases

On the releasing the study, the Center for Security Policy’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed: The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with constitutional protections. Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy. The Center’s analysis, however, found 15 trial court cases, and 12 appellate court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases. put it that, “…There is scant evidence that American judges are resolving cases on the basis of shariah.” To the contrary, our study identified 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate court published cases. Some commentators have tried to minimize this problem, claiming, as an editorial in yesterday’s . The study evaluates 50 appellate court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law. The analysis finds that Shariah has been applied or formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. - The Center for Security Policy today released an in-depth study--

cannot link though -

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

found this online...


cannot link though -

Frank Gafney is one of those conservatives who claim the Obama administration has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood

And, as in the case above, never provides documentation --> fear mongering.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

never provides documentation --> fear mongering.

I hope you are not directing that at me, but rather the author...

It was a facebook link to an article. I was gonna look for the original, but I'm lazy. Figured someone else here might have seen/read ... whatever.
I don't think its that big of an issue, but I haven't researched much and that which I have seen is from the polar extremes.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

I hope you are not directing that at me, but rather the author...

It was a facebook link to an article. I was gonna look for the original, but I'm lazy. Figured someone else here might have seen/read ... whatever.
I don't think its that big of an issue, but I haven't researched much and that which I have seen is from the polar extremes.

Directed at Gaffney, who also suggests that the Obama administration manipulated the redesign of the Missile Defense Agency to look like his campaign logo and then that the new logo incorporates the Islamic crescent as well.

What could be code-breaking evidence of the latter explanation is to be found in the newly-disclosed redesign of the Missile Defense Agency logo (above). As Logan helpfully shows, the new MDA shield appears ominously to reflect a morphing of the Islamic crescent and star with the Obama campaign logo. (For a comparison, the previous logo is below.)

http://biggovernment.com/fgaffney/20...es-a-crescent/

The fact remains that most of the current Republican candidates are playing to the fear of Sharia coming to America. Some are more extreme that others but all all fear mongering.

[classicman]

I was referring to Sharia law and its effect in France.
Sheesh, could you get off the talking points and have a conversation?
If not, just say that you're not interested in a dialogue.

[Fair&Balanced]

I dont think a discussion of France is relevant to US liberalism or conservatism.

So, no. I am not interested in discussing France as a means of avoiding the fear mongering by conservatives in the US.

I am much concernced about the intolerance of Republican presidential candiates, some conservative talking heads and pseudo-media types who spread misinformation and fear based on inuendo and dubious if not downright ludicrious accusations that unfortunately some people believe.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

A liberal is not one who believes that the phantom menace of sharia law is a threat to American society. Religious fear mongering is much more a conservative ideal.

You brought it up initially.

Originally Posted by classicman

Out of curiosity, have you seen some of the info out of France regarding this?

Question related to post...

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

French leaders of the IMF pose a greater threat to American society that Sharia law.

snark... back on talking point

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

The fact remains that most of the current Republican candidates are playing to the fear of Sharia coming to America. Some are more extreme that others but all all fear mongering.

more snark...

Originally Posted by classicman

I was referring to Sharia law and its effect in France.
Sheesh, could you get off the talking points and have a conversation?
If not, just say that you're not interested in a dialogue.

2nd attempt ...

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

I don't think a discussion of France is relevant to US liberalism or conservatism.

So, no. I am not interested in discussing France as a means of avoiding the fear mongering by conservatives in the US.

So the reality is that you brought up a subject and when a legitimate question (related to the topic you brought up) was raised, you didn't actually want to discuss it.
and you say "WTF"

[classicman]

ok UG, thanks.

[Fair&Balanced]

I raised what I think is a legitimate and serious issue of most (not all) of the conservative Republican candidates for president and some (not all) American conservative "thinkers" playing to the anti-Muslim fears of some (not all) American conservative voters through unsubstantiated allegations, inuendo and guilty by association and you want to shift the discussion to Sharia law in France? WTF?

Why not just post one of your tasteless anti-Muslim jokes.
(note the smiley)

[lookout123]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced
phantom menace of sharia law is a threat to American society.

Originally Posted by Classicman
Out of curiosity, have you seen some of the info out of France regarding this?

I took Classic's post as a legitimate question. Your position appears to be that sharia law is no threat to American society. He asked if you had seen some of the repurcussions of the issue in France.

While I may be wrong about his intent, you have to admit that sometimes a question is just a question.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by lookout123

I took Classic's post as a legitimate question. Your position appears to be that sharia law is no threat to American society. He asked if you had seen some of the repurcussions of the issue in France.

While I may be wrong about his intent, you have to admit that sometimes a question is just a question.

As a liberal, I can find common ground for discussions with most fiscal conservatives. You and I demonstrated how that is possible.

When it comes to social issues, I find it much more difficult, particularly when the issue is deflected (to circumstances in a different country with different laws) by the other side rather than be addressed head on. IMO, that deflection is a common theme among religious social conservatives (not suggesting that Classicman fits that characterization, but simply that his deflection was characteristic).

[Fair&Balanced]

More legitimate than if you and I were having a discussion of liberal v conservative positions on the Second Amendment and I raised the issue of gun control in France and the EU?

More:
Here's another example. It is illegal for the media in France to publish pictures of "perp walks" with persons in handcuffs, until they are found guilty.

The point is the two systems of justice are different in many respects.

IMO, it was a convenient way to dodge the issue of the level of intolerance among the religious social conservatives in the US. The same ones who want to amend the Constitution to deny rights to selected citizens.

[Fair&Balanced]

And I pointed out why I thought it was illegitimate, irrelevant and a dodge, given the significant differences in the systems of justice.

So we disagree on legitimacy and I guess that makes me like UG?