MSNBC's Uygur to Okla. Voters: You're a Bunch of Idiots for Passing Anti-Sharia Law
MSNBC apparently doesn't have viewers in Oklahoma. If it does, Cenk Uygur just alienated about 70 percent of them.
At the close of the 3 p.m. EST hour today, the MSNBC substitute anchor mocked the Sooner State for passing into law a constitutional amendment that forbids state courts from using the principles of Islamic sharia law in court proceedings.
The measure, Question 755, also forbids laws from foreign countries from being used by judges to inform their decisions.
[Video posted below page break]
Uygur's complaint was five-fold: 1) It's a silly waste of ink -- no one has tried to use sharia law in Oklahoma courts thus far 2) It's unnecessary -- the U.S. Constitution forbids use of religious law in federal and state court proceedings 3) It's actually unconstitutional 4) The ballot question is predicated on irrational fear and hatred of Islam and finally 5) It's discriminatory against Muslims.
Of course, Uygur may not realize it, but points two and three are contradictory on their face. If sharia law is already unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution, what's the harm of codifying that in a state constitutional specifically?
Uygur failed to explain how an amendment to the state constitution specifically forbidding the enforcement of religious teaching by courtroom fiat transgressed the U.S. Constitution, other than noting that a federal judge has issued a temporary injunction halting enforcement pending a hearing.
As to the fourth point, Uygur may be correct that some Oklahomans who voted in favor of Question 755 did so out of animus against the Muslim faith, but Uygur failed to cite any empirical data to back his offensive claim that the vast majority of Oklahoma voters are Islamophobic or at best thoughtless dupes.
Finally, as regards the fifth point, in fairness to Uygur, perhaps the ballot question could have been written to include ban and all religious legal traditions besides sharia -- such that Orthodox Jewish rabbinical rulings or Catholic canonlaw -- from being enforced by court fiat.
Yet Uygur himself would insist that the vast majority of Oklahoman and American Muslims by and large don't follow or have any use for sharia law:
There's this weird paranoia running through the country that Islam is about to take over. Really?! Are there Muslim hordes at the gates of Tulsa?! This is what happens when people drive a campaign of fear and hatred against an "other."
[...]
Look at the mindset: they really believe that Muslims are these evil creatures that kill innocent women and children. I don't know if they know this, but Muslims love their children too.
That being the case, it begs the question where the harm in Question 755 would be.
As I noted in an earlier blog post, there has been at least one case in an American court in which sharia law has been coopted by a judge in a manner detrimental to a defenseless woman:
Does Sharia law allow a husband to rape his wife, even in America? A New Jersey trial judge thought so. In a recently overturned case, a “trial judge found as a fact that defendant committed conduct that constituted a sexual assault” but did not hold the defendant liable because the defendant believed he was exercising his rights over the victim. Fortunately, a New Jersey appellate court reversed the trial judge. But make no mistake about it: this is no isolated incident. We will see more cases here in the United States where others attempt to impose Sharia law, under the guise of First Amendment protections, as a defense against crimes and other civil violations.
In S.D. v. M.J.R., the plaintiff, a Moroccan Muslim woman, lived with her Moroccan Muslim husband in New Jersey. She was repeatedly beaten and raped by her husband over the course of several weeks. While the plaintiff was being treated for her injuries at a hospital, a police detective interviewed her and took photographs of her injuries. Those photographs depicted injuries to plaintiff’s breasts, thighs and arm, bruised lips, eyes and right check. Further investigation established there were blood stains on the pillow and sheets of plaintiff’s bed.
The wife sought a permanent restraining order, and a New Jersey trial judge held a hearing in order to decide whether to issue the order. Evidence at trial established, among other things, that the husband told his wife, “You must do whatever I tell you to do. I want to hurt your flesh” and “this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you.” The police detective testified about her findings, and some of the photographs were entered into evidence.
The defendant’s Imam testified that a wife must comply with her husband’s sexual demands and he refused to answer whether, under Islamic law, a husband must stop his sexual advances on his wife if she says “no.”
The trial judge found that most of the criminal acts were indeed proved, but nonetheless denied the permanent retraining order. This judge held that the defendant could not be held responsible for the violent sexual assaults of his wife because he did not have the specific intent to sexually assault his wife, and because his actions were “consistent with his [religious] practices.” In other words, the judge refused to issue the permanent restraining order because under Sharia law, this Muslim husband had a “right” to rape his wife.
Besides the fact that the ruling is wrong as a legal matter, and offensive beyond words, it goes to the heart of the controversy about the insidious spread of Sharia law—the goal of radical Islamic extremists.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Why is it so difficult for
Submitted by WarEagle66 on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 7:11pm.
Why is it so difficult for Leftists to allow the laws of our nation to stand as they have for a very long time? When you move to America you are supposed become an American, and you leave your other country behind, in that you follow our laws.
What a fkn idiot.....
Submitted by nonncom on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 11:02pm.
Nobody said it HAD happened.....they people just don't want it TO happen.....BTW, somebody want to inform this jerkoff it's already been an issue in this country?...
Flypaper
Submitted by KC Mulville on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 7:13pm.
Possession is 9/10ths of the law, so they say. Getting there first, even in cultural matters, is an important first step. You hear of places in Europe where there are recommendations to incorporate sharia law. The people of Oklahoma are simply laying down a marker. To call them rubes is just Uygur trying to pander to his audience.
Uygur is the one who is an idiot.
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 12:10am.
Uygur is the one who is an idiot.
Look at the mindset: they really believe that Muslims are these evil creatures that kill innocent women and children.
Maybe he should have a good look at what Sharia hath wrought in Britain:
in 2008 the UK Independent did a study and found that there were around 17,000 honor attacks on young girls and women a year by Muslims holding up Sharia ideals. This “honor violence” included kidnappings for forced marriages (girls as young as 11), sexual abuse and murder.
So, Mr. Uygur, better to say upfront before it even comes up that it ain't gonna fly here.Oh, and by the way, thanks to Britain's caving to Muslims and letting them have their own courts, they now want Full Sharia Law
Motherbelt, Careful now,
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 12:31am.
Motherbelt,
Careful now, careful....
Jer doesn't like it when us Conservatives go "overboard" in attempting to stop Sharia Law from entering our court rooms. LOL
It never ceases to amaze me and I do not know why, I should not be, but Liberals can once in a blue moon still shock me with their radicalism. Liberals who love to claim that they are pro-women, feminist stand up for a religion, Islam, which is not only anti-women, but it is mysoginist. It hates women. It believes women are to be treated worst than t hey treat their own animals.
Incredible that Sharia Law has been used in our court rooms in New Jersey to let a man off for raping his wife and idiots like Uygur and individuals like Jer are saying this was overboard. I thought Liberals cared about women?
I wonder how Liberals will
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 12:49am.
I wonder how Liberals will respond to this
It is going to be tricky. Their favorite radical President is being attacked by their favorite radical religion.
Under sharia...
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 1:12pm.
Under sharia she should be beaten by her husband and/or other male member(s) to whom she is related for initiating contact with a male to whom she is not related.
Hey, I'd get that 3-day marriage thing sharia allows just so I could beat her (joke-about the beating thing).
exactly, set the precedent
Submitted by botg on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 12:07am.
exactly, set the precedent and don't get stuck in reactive role
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Moronic dhimmi
Submitted by even steven on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 7:15pm.
I have the right to not only reject Islam as a legitimate religion, I have the right to say I reject it as a legitimate religion. It is nothing more than a cult or a hate group. The brain dead PC crowd can go pound sand.
I'm with you, Steven.
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 1:19pm.
Islam is socio-political system which demands submission and if one does not submit you are deemed "guilty of a crime against Allah" and deserve to be killed. So much for the "religion of peace".
This judge held that the
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 7:15pm.
This judge held that the defendant could not be held responsible for the violent sexual assaults of his wife because he did not have the specific intent to sexually assault his wife, and because his actions were “consistent with his [religious] practices.” In other words, the judge refused to issue the permanent restraining order because under Sharia law, this Muslim husband had a “right” to rape his wife. I believe this judge has made it legal for Christians to harrass, discriminate against, and physically assault Gays if it is consistant with their religious beliefs.Once again, where is NOW?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 7:22pm.
Once again, where is NOW? Surely they don't condone the beating and raping of a woman because she is the property, I mean wife, of a muslim?
They are hiding in their
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 7:25pm.
They are hiding in their burqua's. They are not allowed to speak unless their white Liberal men allow them to speak.
MSDNC. Now Al Queda
Submitted by Thoreau on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 7:23pm.
MSDNC. Now Al Queda certified! WooT! Halal or not at All! What's this "Constitution" you j0000's yapping about? Infidel scum!
An ounce of prevention is
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 7:31pm.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Interestingly, there are amny state legislatures that have passed laws or encoded into their Constitutions that the only form or marriage is defined as that between a man and a woman. they do this to make sure there are not court challenges when a homo couple/triple/ect ... wants to divorce in Texas and get all teh benefits of marriage; or for taht matter marry and marry what they wish like their dog.
From the Sooner State
Submitted by ScottyKUtah on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 7:32pm.
Once this passed, we knew that the CAIR crowd would immediately seek to block it somehow. Some of us are amazed on just how fast they found the liberal judge (appointed by Clinton!) to grant the injunction.
Also irritating is that the outgoing attorney general is a democrat (being replaced with a republican!) and didn't even bother to file a brief in support of the law, or even show up to the hearing at all.
The muslims and CAIR crowd were calling us the usual bigot/racist/isalmophobic etc weeks before the election happened. Way to destroy whatever goodwill you might have generated.
The leader of the OKC chapter of CAIR, from what I understand, was FLOWN IN to Oklahoma to file the suit. He's not even an Oklahoman!!
Two of our other state questions are about to be challenged. The decision to use English in official government business, and the requirement to show an ID when voting.
It gets pretty frustrating when you follow the process, only to see the progressives/liberals undo everything you do with a friendly judge and/or government official.
If this thing actually goes to trial, it will be interesting to see the CAIR crowd try and whitewash what sharia law actually is.
Well, Oklahoma has a choice,
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 7:54pm.
But if I were them, along with AZ, LA, and Texas. I would ignore the federal judge, inform them they have no jurisdiction and carry out the law. I would further defund any judgeship in my state who will not carry out State law. These rouge lawyers need to be rained in, we are over law'ed and the lawyers have way more power then the people. Time to throw them out!
I was furious with Jindal when he allowed the Fed/lawyers to shut down our clean up efforts on our coast. He should had told them to pound sand. Jan Brewer should enforce the new imigration law, and tell the Fed to either start doing their jobs, or stay out of AZ! Time to put an end to this BS, the Fed has no right to order any State to do jack.
Obama is a lawyer, the only
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 9:00pm.
Obama is a lawyer, the only good lawyer is a @@@@ one.
Boudin, Vicki Miles LaGrange
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 11:12am.
Boudin, Vicki Miles LaGrange is the name of the judge. She was appointed by David Waters(D) some time back. And as a point of interest, there are calls to have her removed from the bench. Most of us here voted for this. The NJ judge was just the beginning, we belive, and we want it stoped at our borders.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Sooner Infidels!!!
Submitted by bigdaddy on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 7:34pm.
Chop Their Heads Off!!!
(Allah Be Praised)
"The law is unnecessary"
Submitted by ThisnThat on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 7:35pm.
-- no one will really try to impose sharia law in this country, right? Right?
Yeah, right -- just like no one would ever think about trying to re-define marriage as "two men buggering each other" either, right? Right?
This is called pre-emption. For a very, very good reason.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
State Constitutions
Submitted by williamhenley on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 8:19pm.
NO federal judge has the lawful ability to nulify or stay a Constitutional amendment of any State. Only the SCOTUS can hear cases in which the Constitution of a State is involved, therefore, Okla. can and should ignore this judges stay and go ahead and enact the law as voted on by it's peoples.
A federal judge has the
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 9:03pm.
A federal judge has the ability to say if it is or not Constitutional as a state constitution shall not supersede the Constitution. But there is the right to take it up to SCOTUS.
Of course they do, assuming a federal
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 9:41pm.
Of course they do, assuming a federal law or Constitutional issue is involved. And, for the record, the amendment in question reads like it was written by a ten year old. It's embarrassing, not to mention vague, overbroad and virtually unintelligible.
Jer
edited.
Ahhh---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 10:08pm.
written in lawyerspeak, you say.
MD
Jer, Overboard? only you
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 11:42pm.
Jer,
Overboard? only you Jer would claim that stopping Sharia Law from entering our court systems is overboard.
why do Liberals love to defend Islam? why is it that when it comes to a huge and bright spot light on Islam, on sharia law, Liberals run to defend Islam? why Jer?
Oh, wait, you are going to say I am claiming things about you that are not true, right?
Maybe if you would have stopped at vague, but when you added overboard that is when it is clear as day that you are defending the indefensible.
This forum clearly points out two incidents where American judges used religious beliefs/Sharia Law to claim that a Muslim was not responsible for his horrific crimes and you claim that it is overboard for voters to vote on something that will assure us that Sharia Law will never be used in our courts?
Why do Liberals, who claim with all of their heart and mind to be pro-women stand up, defend a religion, Islam, that is not only anti-women, but it is through and through misogynists?
I guess for Liberals rape is wrong, evil, etc, unless of course it is committed as Sharia Law dictates. wow!
while 99% of the time I am no longer shocked by how twisted the logic of Liberals is and how true hypocrites a lot of them are, this type of stuff still amazes me.
Rape Jer is wrong, 100% wrong and it should NEVER be justified under ANY religion. Any religion which today still justifies rape is evil and as such it should NEVER be used in our court system to justify a man rapping his wife. You, as a lawyer, should be applauding this, but don't worry, I've worked with lawyers. Sadly, they are some of THE most morally corrupt individuals in our society. Not all, but most of them. I know some fine, upstanding lawyers, but they are in the minority. Sadly, you seem to fall in the category of the former.
How dare you say that this is overboard? How dare you sir?! How dare you claim that protecting our courts from Sharia Law is overboard? Why don't you take your wife and daughter and have them live under sharia law for 1 week and then come back and tell us it is overboard? How dare you?!
When will Liberals start standing up for Muslim women who are gravely suffering under honor killings, genetilia mutilation, rape, force marriages all done in the name of Islam? When will Liberals stand up for Muslim women who are considered to be worth 5 camels in Sharia Law? when Jer, WHEN?! When will Liberals stand up for Muslim women who can't go out without a male escort?! Can't date anyone who is not approved by all the males of the family? when Jer? When will your Liberal kind stand up for women?
When will Liberals stop excusing Muslims, Islam and Sharia Law?
"Why do liberals"
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 11:49pm.
and, lawyers rush to defend Islam? It's called billable hours, LA. Billable hours. The Geoffrey Feigers of this world realize that Islam is a cash cow, and so, rush to talk shows and crash scenes to leave their business cards in the hands of those who are "offended" by something like Oklahoma daring to stand up and say, Hell no, no sharia or international law in our courts.
Listen, idiot... If you are
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 12:00am.
Listen, idiot...
If you are going to refer to me as morally corrupt, I don't feel any special obligation to treat you with respect.
Now, you little pathetic punk, reread what I posted. Hint: It wasn't "overboard".
And then get the hell out of my face, and don't bother me.
Jer
Jer, Cut and paste from
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 12:36am.
Jer,
I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word "Overboard" is, right Jer? Not only is Clinton your god, you act just like he did. "Me, me? Did I do that?" "Nah, it depends how the words "is" is defined!" HAHAHA!!!
Cut and paste from above for our resident Radical Liberal to read his own words….
Read it slowly, Jer. Read your own words, especially the word OVERBOARD! LOL
You always get offended when I point the truth about you, my morally corrupt lawyer. Ooops, I did it again. LOL
If you aren't morally corrupt, you have some serious issues, like most Liberals.
But heck, I mus thave misread your post...let me cut and paste it, put it below and see.....reading....reading....hmmmm.........
#18 Of course they do, assuming a federal
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 8:41pm.
Of course they do, assuming a federal law or Constitutional issue is involved. And, for the record, the amendment in question reads like it was written by a ten year old. It's embarrassing, not to mention vague, overbroad and virtually unintelligible.
Jer
edited.
There is an old saying, Jer, that goes something like this…. The TRUTH HURTS! BWAHAHAHA!!!
I am sorry that I spoke the truth Jer. I truly wasn’t aiming at hurting your Liberal feelings. I was just appalled at your overboard comment.
Maybe I misread the word…let me check, let me check….hmmmm……NOPE, yes you typed and posted the word overboard. You clearly state that the amendment in questions amongst other things that you believe it is, it is also overboard.
If you are going to get offended by what you say and how other point out the monstrosity of what you say, make sure you do not say it.
For a lawyer, you are definitely quite slow my friend.
By the way, I respect you as a human being, I do not respect the monstrocity of a comment that you made. I do not respect the fact that you believe it is overboard to stop a religious law from infesting our court rooms which justifies the rapping of women.
But what the heck, a Liberal’s favorite pass time is to be offended when a Conservative points out to how radical and anti-women the Liberal’s comments are.
You insulted yourself, women and humanity with your overboard comment, Jer. Look in the mirror and yell at yourself.
You aren't an idiot Jer. I wouldn't stoop as low and call you an idiot. However, and sadly, you ARE a radical Liberal. HAHA!!
for once attempt to not be a Liberal and do not get offended at a Conservative who pointed out the radicalism of your comment. Apologize for your comment and at least attempt to care about women unlike most Liberals.
So you respect "morally
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 12:51am.
So you respect "morally corrupt" human beings? That's interesting, twit. Anyway, if you have a touch of dyslexia, I will retract the charge of idiocy. However, you remain a pathetic little punk.
On the other hand, if you are not dyslexic, then I must regrettably inform you that you are also an idiot.
Jer
Jer, Do you know how to
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 1:09am.
Jer,
Do you know how to read? Nah, i don't think so. While you are accusing me of being unable to read, you seem to have misread my post. Read it again, son. I clearly state that, "...you SEEM..." to fall on the former. I never said that I was 100% sure you are a morally corrupt lawyer. HAHAHA!!! you are getting offended by what you read, not by what I typed. LOL hmmm....whose the one with dyslexia problems? HAHA!
Point out EXACTLY where I said you are morally corrupt? LOL
This is fun Jer, do it again. Tell me how I can't read and then you get offended by something I never said about you. FUN! FUN!
and I respect all human beings, I do not respect their sins. If you can't tell the difference between the two, you are beyond help. We all have the ability to get to Heaven, all of us are sinners. God respects us all equally. It is us who do not respect God equally. But I am not God, I will not judge you. Thus, I respect you, not your sins.
However, you and I both know that you used the word Overboard referring to this amendment. Now you are attempting to deflect from people noticing your Liberal radicalism and from your careless attitude towards the honor of a woman by claiming that you never said it and making feable and laughable attempts at insulting me.
Son, my young child, it doesn't work with me. I advice you, son, not to go down this dark, dark path that you are starting to walk on. It will lead you to no good.
Oh, no, Jer called me a pathetic little punk. What shall I do? haha!!!
Yes, Jer, I know, I know, you do not like it when your radicalism is pointed out.
Now, nothing on answering the inconvinient questions, eh? LOL
so, you claimed you never said the word overboard. are you willing to be a man and take your lie back? or will you remain a radical Liberal lawyer and keep on lying and pretend that you are outraged.
Oh wait. you'll have the great come back of, "you are a twit" LOL But before you call me a twit again....anything on your lie that you never said overboard? LOL
Liberallies...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 1:20am.
Please look at the following word and then type what you see in a reply to this post:
O V E R B R O A D
Thanks,
Jer
Hey Jer("tso")
Submitted by gfrrman on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 2:10am.
not trying to be a smartass, but is this word a "lawyer word"?...cause I can't for the life of me find it in ANY dictionary....I'm just askin' since YOU'RE the "lawyer"???????
G
gfrrman...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 2:45am.
Google the word and you'll get thousands of examples of the term and its usage, such as this one.
That link isn't opening for me now, I'll get you another one in a sec.
Try this.
Jer
hate to say jer("tso")
Submitted by gfrrman on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 2:59am.
the definition is rather "overboard" at the least. Your case is OVER..I have no more questions your honor. The defendants' case is WEAK at BEST. Damn Jer I can see that. You have NO argument when you just put that up. I expected better....but as usual..."tso". I have no fight in this argument, but IIIIII even see with your "evidence" YOU HAVE NO CASE. Pretty sad that you are so pathetic when you argue....I WOULD NEVER HIRE YOU AS A "lawyer". I'm DEEPLY disappointed. Even I see right through....simple common me,.. psych/phys...imagine that...funny that.hmmmmmmm....tsk...tsk. You have NO CREDIBILTY on this site..that was PATHETIC!!!!
I REALLY AM DISAPPOINTED..."tso"...just damn
G
gfrrman, The word overbroad
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 3:05am.
gfrrman,
The word overbroad doesn't fit with what Jer said. I think he was typing too fast and ment to write overBOARD, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, whether he used overBOARD or overBROAD the guy is attacking an initiative for SPECIfICALLY saying that Sharia Law was never to be used.
His case is more thank weak, it is pathetic!
Believe me, most lawyers, like Jer, think they are smarter and know more than they really do.
Liberallies, agreed
Submitted by gfrrman on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 3:21am.
and I am in agreement with you or whoever earlier said, "WHERE IS N.O.W."!!!!!!!!!! THEY have no cred and ANY other womens' rights groups or for that fact the FREAKIN' U.N(Sorry, good for a laugh) or female rights' group anywhere???? Where is the outrage? WHERE? Islam is nothing but a (religion)cult of oppression, depression, suppression, murder, beheading, cowards and MOST OF ALL...INTOLERANCE...there I said......bring it!!....NOT CONDUCIVE IN the U.S A.
G
Is this series of posts an
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 3:30am.
Is this series of posts an example of your "not trying to be a smartass"?
You toddlers enjoy yourselves.
Jer
Jer the radical, Poor
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 3:45am.
Jer the radical,
Poor mental midget. He has been out done and out gun. Like always, he comes to a gun fight with spit balls.
The child doesn't have the intellectual honesty to see his own radicalsim and the poor guy gets upset when it is proven that he is merely a mental midget.
the word overBroad as used by Jer implies that he believes that not all of Sharia Law should be banned from our Justice System. that specific parts, not all of sharia law should be banned.
but as always, See Jer run when it gets too hot in the kitchen for him. Always count on a Liberal NEVER take responsability ofr his radicalism and quite frankly, stupidity.
Gfrrman, Excellent. Islam
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 3:51am.
Gfrrman,
Excellent.
Islam is intolerant, it demeans women, it allows for the rapping of women, it allows women to be used as objects, it allows women to be considered less than second class citizens. It allows for female genitelia mutilation, it allows for honor killings.
Yet, here we have the PERFECT example of radical Left wingers who love to stand up for Sharia Law, for Islam.
how the hell can anyone in their right mind say that the initiative to ban all of Sharia Law is too broad and then tell us we are the toddlers. I much rather be a toddler than a Sharia Law defender like Jer.
Jer is standing against an initiative that would stop Sharia Law from ever becoming law of Oklahoma. that is all we need to know about his radicalism.
the best defense this radical wacko has is calling us toddlers. How utterly and truly small of him. He can't even see how truly radical he is or if he does, he just doesn't care.
Liberallies, the answer
Submitted by gfrrman on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 3:55am.
is easy, "grasshopper",....liberals are just like Islam...THEY HATE AMERICA AND ALL THAT IT STANDS FOR!!!...'Nuff said
G
This from a guy incapable of
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 3:13am.
This from a guy incapable of performing a one-word google search.
I'm disappointed, but I can't say that I'm surprised.
Jer
Sorry Jer
Submitted by gfrrman on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 3:26am.
you lost the case AGAIN!!!...SmarmOlBERMAN doesn't fly here...your WEEEEAAAK definition, like Obamas can't be re-explained...YOU LOOOOOOOOOOOSE
Don't know how you have a client...guess you don't suggest they come to NB to see you "expertise". Yet you will still steal their $$$$.
G
gfrrman...dictionary definition
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 2:52am.
Here's Merriam-Webster definition of overbroad.
Jer
Merriam-Webster
Submitted by gfrrman on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 3:05am.
only didn't have OverBLOWN...OVER THE MOONBAT, OVER THE MOON Did I miss those? Come on. That "MW" was really bad. Sorry, I ain't here to bust your chops but you,as a "lawyer" using that???? Clientele must be small...sorry.
G
gfrrman, this is from one
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 3:19am.
gfrrman,
this is from one of radical Left winger Jer's links
ï The Court concluded that the Ordinances' intention was not sincere because the laws were overbroad. That is, they outlawed far more about Santería practices than was absolutely necessary to prevent the alleged cruelty to animals and harm to the public.
Hmmmmm... I ask Jer, did the initiative demand that Sharia Law be completly outlawed go too far? Did the Oklahoma initiative outlaw far more about Sharia Law than is absolutely necessary to prevent the cruelties to women and other human beings?
what part of Sharia Law should our Justice system take into account, Jer?
Jer was much better off when I had misread his overBROAD word as overBOARD. LOL He is telling us that banning all of Sharia Law is a bad thing. This man is a true Left wing radical.
It looks like Jer is not only a radical, but it looks like he is also a bad lawyer and a Sharia Law sympathizer.
what part of Sharia Law should our court system take into account, Jer? Overbroad? LOL
Little one, it was just an
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 3:21am.
Little one, it was just an example of how the term is used--not a source for supporting an argument.
Geez...you and gfrrman deserve each other.
Jer
Jer, My radical nut job
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 3:30am.
Jer,
My radical nut job Jer, are you serious? Will you then tell use all what you ment by the term overBROAD then? LOL
You are a radical who is sad that the Sharia Law ban was too overbroad. What part of Sharia Law should we keep, Jer?
you got into this mess all by yourself, but you do not have the intellectual honesty and you are too much of a mental midget to admit how ridiculous and radical you are coming across. keep it coming son.
Does someone always have to
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 3:18am.
Does someone always have to hold your hand, sonny?
Here's another. Now, it's really difficult to understand, so you may need to ask mommy for help.
Jer
The elitist one wonders
Submitted by gfrrman on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 3:45am.
how far we peons should bow to such grateful patrons. Jer, NOW you're getting to who you REALLY ARE. You are a clone of the ASS THAT IS IN WHITE HOUSE AND ALL THAT SURROUND HIM. You don't know anymore than me so just STFU. Here it is AGAIN ASSHAT.......OVERBROAD/OVERBOARD...you had BOTH in YOUR POSTS....GOT and then tried to explain it away like all liberal MYRMIDONS do. I got it the first time. You were being an elitist ass and thought you'd throw big words around.. BFD!!!.. Doesn't work on this site especially with you and 3rd grade hop-scotch crap. I want to know, that if you are such a "lawyer", how is it that you are ALWAYS ON THIS SITE AT ALLLLLL HOURS OF THE DAY? Waitin' for that "Douchebag and Douchebag Lawyers, Inc" call? I believe you a BIG LIAR. SHOW ME THE DAMNED WEBSITE YOU CREATED FOR YOUR "LAW FIRM"!!! I'm a big boy I can take it!!! "Now it's really difficult to understand so you may need to ask your mommy for help"(You coward, you would NEVER say that to my face, tough guy......condescending liberal ASS!!!)
G
gfrrman, don't let this
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 3:57am.
gfrrman,
don't let this wacko get to you. Just point out his radicalism.
There is NOTHING more than Liberal wackos like Jer hate than putting a mirror infront of them.
Just shine a light on his radicalism and watch his head explode.
Liberals hate it when you call them what they are. Intellectual dishonest individuals who believe they know more than everyone else.
Liberallies, Jer
Submitted by gfrrman on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 4:09am.
knows exactly how I feel about him...and I've told it many times. STUPID, by definition, liberal.... and cannot understand things that are understandable to a liberal....totally INCAPABABLE. I see it EVERYTIME I SEE HIM POST. And is SUPPOSEDLY a "lawyer"?...I DO NOT BELIEVE IT. Thinned skin/spineless lib, like Oblaima that has NO real experience in the real world...I "see/feel" it with people. They project then change subject......then blame ....then re-explain...typical psych cases I've seen 1000's+ over the years...quite fun to toy with. He though, is the classic left wing myrmidon. love it..Jackasses like these make my day.(you know that would be an insult to a jackass---jackasses work REAL HARD ALL DAY and you NEVER hear them complain..lol)
G
Liberallies and gfrrman look really stupid
Submitted by Denny Crane on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 6:23am.
You both misread a simple post. You went off for hours on long rants all because YOU misread what he wrote. Even when you finally realized that you were the ones wrong, you still kept ranting and ranting and ranting. Why? Because he is a liberal?
Overbroad means VAGUE.
Overboard means TOO MUCH.
Jer was responding to the statement "NO federal judge has the lawful ability to nulify or stay a Constitutional amendment of any State."
He responded with "Of course they do, assuming a federal law or Constitutional issue is involved. And, for the record, the amendment in question reads like it was written by a ten year old. It's embarrassing, not to mention vague, overbroad and virtually unintelligible."
written by a ten year old ...... embarrassing..... vague.....virtually unintelligible.
His entire post was saying it was poorly written, that's all.
You assumed just because he is a liberal that he is defending sharia. When called on it you still went on rant after rant after rant. When you finally realized you made a mistake you still went on rant after rant after rant. You seem to have Ranting On Liberal Derangement Syndrome. ROLDS. And seriously you look like an A$$.
No where did Jer in anyway defend Islam or sharia.
I can't understand how someone can go off for so long over their OWN MISTAKE.
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
Coming up with new names,
Submitted by bretzysdude on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 8:25am.
Coming up with new names, Jer, is a low blow.
*snicker*
Yeap, Jer has come up with an
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 12:28am.
Yeap, Jer has come up with an alter ego. A fake Conservative that is out to help him.
He thinks Liberals before him haven't attempted to play this sad game. They usually do this when they have lost the argument and need a "Conservative" to help them look sane. HAHAHAHA!!!
Sad Jer, very SAD!!!
The only one looking stupid and as a useful idiot is Denny Crane
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 11:46am.
Mr. Denny Crane,
I do not know you. I could careless who you are, but let us get something straight.
1) the only one looking stupid here is you. Our resident Liberal radical was off his meds last night. The man spends way, way too much on NB and claims to be a lawyer. He is neither rational nor intelligent. He is constantly spewing Left wing propaganda.
2) Why are you doing Jer's bidding? I saw how he begged you, enlisted you to come and help him on this thread because he considered you intelligent. Are you serious? is this how weak minded you are? Something tells me that Mr. Denny Crane may have two personalities, but I'll check on that before I make it official. But nice to see how easy a Liberal can twist a Conservatives mind, weak Denny Crane, weak.
3) I more than acknowledge my mistake once I realize it. However, as I stated, every single one of my posts to him stand, all he needs to do is replace the word overBOARD with overBROAD.
Radical Left wing nut Jer was crying about me misreading his post. He then turns around and does EXACTLY the same thing he is accusing me off. He misread my post and claimed I said something I never said. I was man enough to apologize, Jer doesn't have the intellectual honesty to also apologize. Nice to see that you, Denny Crane, defend an intellectual dishonest Liberal.
4) Maybe you can explain to us, how the law is vague? How the initiative, which clearly and SPECIFICALLY says that it will ban Sharia Law vague, overbroad? If the law was overbroad, as our resident radical Liberal Jer claims, why does it specifically and clearly state that Sharia Law will be banned? Using Jer's overbroad term in the legal sense, he is claiming that banning Sharia law is too vague that only specific parts of Sharia Law should be banned. Thus it is more than fair to ask this radical left wing nut, Jer, which parts of Sharia Law should be allowed in our justice system and which ones shouldn't since according to him Question 755 is overbroad.
Question 755 read in part, "This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law."
so, tell us, since Jer is an intellectual midgent and dishonest, what part of "...it forbids courts from cconsidering or using Sharia Law." do you and your Master Jer consider overbroad and vague? LOL
5) This is not the first time that radical left wing Jer comes running to defend Islam, Muslims, Sharia Law for its radicalism. Every time questions are posed to him that by answering he will show he stands against the radicalism of Islam, the poor kid plays the victimhood card. This time he went a step farther and went crying to an easily manipualted Conservative to come to his aid. LOL
LOL
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 11:59am.
This is not the first time that radical left wing Jer comes running to defend Islam, Muslims, Sharia Law for its radicalism.
Evidence for that? Perhaps a post or two? If not for defending islamic radicalism, perhaps for the "radical left wing" part?
LOL
Good one Fut
Submitted by Denny Crane on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 12:22am.
3) I more than acknowledge my mistake once I realize it. However, as I stated, every single one of my posts to him stand, all he needs to do is replace the word overBOARD with overBROAD. All you need to do is CHANGE WHAT HE SAID and your RANTS would stand. Just because I am defending him, you go on a rant against me? Weak FUT. You went off on him (and now me) for defending Sharia Law. Neither of us ever defended islam or sharia. EVER. The only thing Jer said was the law was poorly written, not that it was a bad idea. Easily manipulated? Not hardly, you went OVERBOARD on rant after rant after rant because YOU READ the word wrong. You seem obsessed with ranting on liberals that post here. So much that when you misread what they say you apologize and then CONTINUE RANTING. "Lib free or die"We Are The 53%
Denny Crane, You said,
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 12:29am.
Denny Crane,
You said, "
The only thing Jer said was the law was poorly written, not that it was a bad idea.WOW!!!! really?! Not only are you weak and easily manipuated by a radical Left wing nut, now you are also a liar. Seriously, Denny Crane? Don't forget that he also said, among other things, that the law is overBROAD! hahaha!!!! Care to keep your claim that he ONLY thing Jer said was the law was poorly written? He also said it was vague. You may want to read the garbage Jer writes before you jump to the defense of this radical Left winger. LOL
By saying that the law is overBROAD it directly implies that not all of Sharia Law should be banned, but individual and specific parts of Sharia Law. Sorry, whether he did it on purpose or not, he defend Sharia Law. So, I ask again, what part of Sharia Law should be banned, if not all of it, Denny Crane or should we say Penny Lane?
Get to know the meaning of the word overBROAD in legal jargon before you start talking about what you clearly know nothing about.
Weak, Jer, I mean Penny Lane, I mean Denny Crane, EXTREMELY and utterly weak on your part.
You, Jer, Denny Crane, or what ever other name you are attempting to go buy..... has proven to be a radical Left wing nut who attempts to come across as a moderate and you have clearly fallen for his constant victimhood card which he loves to play when his radical words pin him against the wall. Every time that I ask him direct and specific question, he weasels out of them by claiming that he is being attacked.
ed Sharia Law.
Hey, Liballies
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 12:53am.
I've been curious about just one thing for two or three years now:
How many words per minute can you type? Both sustained and short bursts.
Thanks,
Jer
Jer, LOL, I can type well
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 4:14am.
Jer,
LOL, I can type well over 100 per minute. However, it comes to a point that I can type incredibly fast, but my spelling gets progressively worst. Two things get on the way, the speed and for whatever reason, my brain starts mixing Spanish and English. Yes, I am weird. LOL, but I can type very, very fast.
you funny guy liberallies
Submitted by Denny Crane on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 1:44am.
I will stand by Jer in this case, because 1. He is correct. He never defended Sharia.
It's not my fault that you didn't understand what he said. You have gone on rant after rant because you are seeing something that isn't there.
Now you are resorting to calling me names? Fail.
Liar? Penny Lane? ROFL
http://dictionary.getlegal.com/overbroad
compare vague
Saying something is vague is NOT the same as saying it's WRONG.
Get a grip.
We Are The 53%
Denny Crane, I am giving
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 4:12am.
Denny Crane,
I am giving you a chance to get out of the hole you are quickly digging yourself in, but you aren’t taking the bait friend.
1) Jer said that the law was a lot more than just vague. He said it was “…embarrassing, not to mention vague, overbroad and virtually unintelligible.”
2) Are you sure you want to stick with your “…ONLY thing he said is that the law is vague…”??
3) Don’t be so proud, just admit you made a mistake and that you are defending a radical Left wing nut.
4) I am not insulting you, Denny Crane, I am pointing out to the obvious. Either you are lying with you claim that the only thing Jer said is that the law is vague or you misread, like I did, what he considers the law to be.
5) Once again, by claiming that the law is overbroad, he implies and you by defending him now, also imply, that not all of Sharia Law should be banned from being used in our justice system. His overbroad claim points to the fact that he wants specific parts of Sharia Law to be banned, not all of it. Thus, the obvious question for you and him to answer is, what specific part, so it is not vague as Jer claimed, should be banned?
6) Why would anyone claim that a law that CLEARLY AND SPECIFICALLY, WITHOUT ANY VAGUENESS, states that SHARIA LAW IS NEVER TO BE USED IN AMERICAN COURT SYSTEMS claim that the law is overbroad and vague? Easy to make a statement when he doesn’t defend it and then he has the backing of an easily manipulated Conservative when he is asked to defend his statement.
7) Jer also claimed, in our exchange here, that I said things that I never said. You were quick to defend Jer, but have not once asked Jer to apologize like you asked me to. Hmmmm….and you aren’t taking sides? You also came in here insulting me and calling me names. You called me stupid, now you are crying over me calling you a name? BWAHAHAHA!!! Seriously? LOL
8) Once again, I urge you to get to know the meaning of the word overbroad in legal jargon before you keep on defending Jer’s radical statement. You are clueless here and driving blind. You and Jer? The blind leading the blind. LOL
9) Jer unintentionally put up a link to a case that clearly shows how the word overbroad is used in our court system. I urge you to do further research before you keep on digging yourself in a hole. And before you cry about me insulting you, look at the title of your first post directed at me. But typical of those who know little about what they are talkign about, they can dish it out, by cry when their medicine is given to them.
Liberallies
Submitted by Denny Crane on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 5:41am.
You are seeing more than is there.
I never asked you to do anything. except "get a grip"
1. yes that is exactly what he said. Your first 3 rants were because you misread what he said.
3. I am proudly admitting that I am defending Jer in this instance. Because you ranted against him for saying something he never said.
4. You insulted me by calling me a Liar.
5. Don't see it. I agree with the law, I think sharia should be banned. All I saw was him describing it as not being written clearly, that is his opinion as a lawyer. He never said he disagreed with it's intent.
6. I don't know, maybe if you asked Jer to explain what he said without a 600 word rant, he might explain what he meant.
7. Just read back through the thread, Jer never said you said anything. I never asked you to apologize. I never called you stupid, I said you look stupid, and you seem to have ranting on liberal derangement syndrome. And I explained why.
8. whatever
9. Wasn't crying, I was laughing.
We Are The 53%
Denny Crane, 1) You read
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 12:10pm.
Denny Crane,
1) You read back through the thread and don't see Jer claiming that I said something I never said? Go back and reread the thread. He said that I claimed he was morally corrupt lawyer. I NEVER said that, I said it seemed like he was a morally corrupt. I actually explained to him, after he also claimed that I respected "morally corrupt" lawyers, how I respect all human beings, but not their sins and how I never said he was morally corrupt. LOL
Once again, both you and him are crying over me going after Jer for something he never said and both of you are doing the same to me. LOL Can we all say you two are a pair of hypocrites? YES WE CAN!! :-)
At least have the decency to admit when you are wrong and being a hypocrite.
2) Sorry Denny Crane, you lied, 100% lied, when you claimed and clearly wrote that the ONLY thing that Jer said was that the law was vague. You clearly lied. Once again, be man enough to admit that you were wrong and that you lied.
It is a lie to say that the ONLY thing that Jer said was that the law was vague. Now you have lied to me twice. In my book, Conservative or Liberal, that makes you a huge liar. Don't like it, stop lying, liar.
3) I learned a long time ago with Jer that he is your typical Liberal weasel that when he is asked to explain the radical and outrageous stuff that he writes, he slimes out of answering a direct question by claiming the victimhood card. I am unsure why now I would waste my time, as I did a few times in the past, by asking this radical Left wing nut to explain himself.
He, like so many radical Left wing nuts, believes that his opinions are facts that can stand on their own because he believes them.
4) As I said, he was better off when i had misread his overBROAD as over BOARD. Saying that the law is overBROAD means that he doesn't want the whole law to be banned, but specific parts. As I said, you keep on digging yourself in a hole and you are too ignorant on this matter to know how ignorant you are coming across.
5) You've taken a stand based on Jer beggin you to come in here and defend him . How easily you have been manipualated. You can repeat all you want that I am going after Jer because of Liberal Deragement Syndrome. LOL Once again, you attack me, like saying that I look stupid, but then cry when I return the favor. :-)
let me know what the hypocrite you see in the mirror tells you when you inform him he is a hypocrite.
6) Once again, you are CLUELESS as to how the courts in the USA use the word overBROAD. Jer, as a lawyer, (if he is one) chose this word for a reason. This is a very precise word to use in our justice system, by a lawyer or judge. By using this word, my poorly informed one, Jer clearly feels that banning all of Sharia Law is vague, an overeach, an overeaction. He wants specific parts of the law banned from our Justice System, not all of it. Do yourself a favor, do what first year law students quickly learn to do and read up on the countless of cases which use the word overBROAD. LOL Oh yeah, I know....it is easier for the lazy minds that are too proud to admit they screwed up royaly to say, "...whatever..."
7) You and Jer, the blind leading the blind.
Keep it coming, it is fun to see you digging yourself in a deep, deep hole. I gave you the chance to get out of it, but you just kept on digging and digging.
liberallies
Submitted by Denny Crane on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 8:36pm.
Using your reasoning, I could call you a liar too. But I won't.
Since you are so obsessed with splitting hairs, I will give you that it wasn't the ONLY thing he said. But your rants were over him using the word overboard which he didn't use. Then when you realized your mistake, you were too hardheaded to objectively look at what he wrote, and continued to rant. Once again, the intent of his statement was to say the amendment was poorly written, not that it was a bad idea.
I would be amazed if he would try to explain his opinions to you since no matter what he says, you would go off on a tirade.
We Are The 53%
Btw, Jer
Submitted by gfrrman on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 3:50am.
Sharia Law ok in US with the RAPING of women? Stoning of Women? Not Allowing women to drive cars? Which is ok with you MR "Lawyer" Jer? Which one or how many are ok with YOU......as "lawyer" Which ONE or ALL??? You have NO CREDIBILITY and I believe you as a "lawyer is a LIE!!!!
G
WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE SET ASIDE POLITICS JUST FOR A
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 1:30am.
MOMENT...
And assist poor Liberallies with the above word [ OVERBROAD] which he continues to misread?
Jer
Jer, My friend who can't
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 2:30am.
Jer,
My friend who can't read "...it SEEMS..." while you are accusing me of not being able to read OVEBROAD...
Ok, ok....for once, I will admit I did misread it.....you got me! darn, you got me!!! HAHAHA!
I think in the five plus years on NB this is my second or third mistake I make on Newsbusters. LOL
and as always I am more than willing to eat crow for my mistake. I am almost perfect, but no that perfect. :-)
Hmmmmm.....however, HOLY SMOKES! HOLY TOLEDO! ARE YOU SERIOUS?!
The initiative is OVErBROAD?! It specifically states that it wants to ban Sharia Law?! BWHAHAHAHA! How specific do you want it, Jer? WOW!!!
Every single point that I made stands, just replaced the word overboard with overbroad.....There was NOTHING overbroad about attempting to stop our courts from using Sharia Law, which the ballot specificially states. NOTHING overbroad about stoping a religious set of laws which allow men to get away with rape!
My questions to you still stand, every single one of them. When will Liberals stand for women other than standing up for their "right" to murder a baby in the womb of a women?
Please someonoe assist poor Jer in reading the initiative for him. The ballot initiative was not overbroad and someone help poor Jer read where I said that it SEEMS like he is the latter, NOT that I know he is 100% a corrupt lawyer. HAHAHA!!!
Like I said, every single point of mine stands whether it was overboard, which it was not or overbroad, which you did say.
YOU, JER!, have a problem with an initiviate that specifically states that Sharia Law cannot be used in our Justice System, you are STILL a radical LIberal that refuses to stand up for women's right.
My apologies radical Liberal, please replace overbroad in my above posts with what you did say, overbroad. Overbroad is a lie from you and pure radicalsim from a far Left wing nut, known as Jer. LOL
Overbroad? and the ballot initiative clearly name Sharia Law! Someone read the initiative to Jer. HAHAHA!!!
Liberallies
Submitted by gfrrman on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 2:40am.
what the hades does "overbroad" mean? I can't find it?..."super serial"
G
grffman, Here is a link
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 3:02am.
grffman,
Here is a link with the meaning of the word.
Jer, our radical Left winger is just attempting to impress us. The word overbroad is not commonly used, but it is used in legal jargon. He forgets that I worked a lot with self-deluded, pompous lawyers who like too many doctors believe they are the greatest gift to the world.
Most of us "poor", "regular" folk woudl have simply said that the initiative was too broad. Remember, lawyers always want to sound smarter than they are, Jer is not an exception to this rule. :-)
Liberallies
Submitted by gfrrman on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 3:12am.
It's like me using the word myrmidon, except, Jer can look up the word and since he is stupid by nature being a liberal he just DOESN'T get it. I get "overbroad" that it is a word that means SOOOOOOOOOO many things that only liberals with their "gray areas" of the law, think that others DON'T get. Except when 1+ 1 = 2 and the kids can't get it, people like Jer say that's ok, long as you feel good about it. STILL doesn't add up.
G
Gffrrman, Jer has a lot of
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 3:25am.
Gffrrman,
Jer has a lot of explaining to do if we go with overBROAD. He needs to answer what part of Sharia Law should be used in United States courts and which ones shouldn't.
By using the word overBROAD and so vehemently forcing me to see it, he clearly is telling us that he believes that there are certain parts of Sharia Law which he would gladly embrace and have our court system embrace. He simply doesn't want all of sharia law to be banned, he wants us to be specific.
Ok, gffrrman, now look at Jer heads explode. LOL
You feeling OK?
Submitted by Denny Crane on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 6:25am.
Cuz you sure do seem to know exactly what Jer is thinking, even though he never said anything like that.
We Are The 53%
Let's see, Jer's favorite
Submitted by bretzysdude on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 8:27am.
Let's see, Jer's favorite Beatles song is "Penny Lane"... ooh, he can come up with the name Denny Crane! Didn't see that one coming.
bretzydude...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 2:21am.
I thought we had been getting along pretty well for some time now. If you have an issue with me, why don't you address me directly about it.
I would appreciate it.
Jer
Jer, By the way, I love
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 12:24am.
Jer,
By the way, I love your red herrings.....you always get offended at me when you find the questions I post to you to be quite inconvinient for you to answer.
So, I guess like always you will not answer my questions, right Jer? Here, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and try again....will you answer the questions below and stop with your red herrings of getting offended.
Why do you always get offended when a mirror is set infront of you and you can see the true image of the radical words/ideas that you put on NB?
When will Liberals start standing up for Muslim women who are gravely suffering under honor killings, genetilia mutilation, rape, force marriages all done in the name of Islam? When will Liberals stand up for Muslim women who are considered to be worth 5 camels in Sharia Law? when Jer, WHEN?! When will Liberals stand up for Muslim women who can't go out without a male escort?! Can't date anyone who is not approved by all the males of the family? when Jer? When will your Liberal kind stand up for women?
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2010/11/09/cenk-uygur-oklahoma-voters-youre-bunch-idiots-passing-anti-sharia-law#comment-1374313#ixzz14qklL9Xf
Nonsense Jer
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 8:52am.
assuming a federal law or Constitutional issue is involved
Talk about being over-broad. And who gets to interpret this? BS, The fed has no business making one law fits all, problem is they have been doing it for so long, the folks have neglected to show them their follie. The Fed likes to hold money over the heads of States to get them to capitulate, well I for one would like to see a few States start doing the same. If I had anything to do with it, AZ would not send a single dime to the FED, and use those monies to enforce and deport. Texas likewise, and any State that wants to opt out of Obama care should be prepared to use the tactic as well.
The Fed is to protect the Union against all enemies, but it has become the enemy
People in Oklahoma
Submitted by Redrowan2000 on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 8:34pm.
People in Oklahoma are not islamophopic they are islamosavvy.
Thanks for that one ninja.
Don.t let the bastards grind you down"
Red
Muslims love their children?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 8:35pm.
Muslims don't love their children more than they hate infidels. That's why they will allow bombs strapped to their little bodies and let them become suicide murderers. That way they can"insure" that they will go to heaven. What thoughtful parents!
This country needs Sharia law like we need Mao's little Red Book, or is that the next precedent to be introduced into U.S. courts?.
Cenk needs to read "The Virginian" and smile when he calls Okies stupid. In the words of that famous TV "star," Joy Behar, "come to (Oklahoma) and say that, bitch!"
Moslems also like having them
Submitted by Dan Diego on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 8:46pm.
Moslems also like having them around for "innocent women and children died" headlines when a Hellfire drops in.
Islam ensures Lil Ms. Jihad will keep supplying sons and daughters to fight the infidels.
His arguments are
Submitted by goldbough on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 8:45pm.
His arguments are terrible.
1) It's a silly waste of ink -- no one has tried to use sharia law in Oklahoma courts thus far Now we're wasting ink? The government wastes infinitely more than that in a few days. They're being proactive because they see it coming. 2) It's unnecessary -- the U.S. Constitution forbids use of religious law in federal and state court proceedings Just because the Constitution forbids something doesn't mean our current leaders will abide by it. 3) It's actually unconstitutional Since when has "unconstitutional" meant anything to liberals except when it benefits them? 4) The ballot question is predicated on irrational fear and hatred of Islam Irrational fear of bombings and plane hijackings? 5) It's discriminatory against Muslims How? They live in the USA and should abide by our laws. Why should we cater to them? If I go to Iran, shouldn't I expect to be under their laws? People don't carry their country's laws with them wherever they go.Welcome to Cenk.
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 8:58pm.
He's strictly stream of consciousness. His examples don't often fit the cases he tries to apply them to. He'll cite somebody's words and then take tremendous liberty with "what they mean". He's a blathering head for the "right side".
Having seen him on Youtube, I couldn't imagine him being recruited for cable. But then again, there's that diversity that he provides, is not much signal or light.
Listen Stenk
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 10:30pm.
If you don't like the way the laws are here, head back home and do everyone a favor.
Mr Sheperd
Submitted by Denny Crane on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 3:19am.
I know it's just a typo but it was very funny reading that the judge refused to issue a retraining order.
I think all idiots that would beat and rape their wife need to be retrained!
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
One of the things i normally
Submitted by Francisco on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 3:34am.
One of the things i normally appreciate in conservatives is that they tend to tell it like it is, PCness be damned... So i find it a bit cringe-inducing to see otherwise smart people deny with a straight face that this initiative is anything but a "referendum" on Islam. Nothing wrong with that, but it is what it is... This law is the equivalent of a ballot initiative to ban murder by stoning... Whatever commendable purpose it might serve, it is not a legal purpose..
[Edit: just to be clear on my personal position, if i was an voter in that state I would have voted "yes" as many times as ACORN would allow]
Did you read what you wrote?????
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 8:27am.
This law is the equivalent of a ballot initiative to ban murder by stoning... Whatever commendable purpose it might serve, it is not a legal purpose..
Since when is ban[ning] murder by stoning NOT a legal purpose?
And WHO, pray tell, is claiming that this initiative is NOT a referendum on Islam?
Liberals are the ones pretending. They pretend that you can have Islam without all that messy wife beating and honor killing stuff.
Wake up and smell the camel in the tent.
Sharia law: not by conquest, but by capitulation.- Me
I think you misunderstood
Submitted by Francisco on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 11:02am.
I think you misunderstood me...
Imagine that a ballot initiative was held that banned specifically "murder by stoning"... Since "murder" as a whole is already (extremely) illegal, such an initiative, if ever made law, would, on account of it' redundancy, serve absolutely no useful legal purpose, even if no one could argue with the moral righteousness of such a law.. that was the point i was trying to make.
Since sharia is, in principle, already illegal by virtue of the constitution (and most definitely other statutes, specially if it involves niceties like rape and murder), this particular law is redundant. As far as i can gather it seemed to serve only a political purpose (a "referendum" of sorts)...
As for the second point, in the original post, when Uygur states that the vote was motivated by "animus against the muslim faith" the author seemed faux-outraged at this "offensive claim", when it seems obvious to me (and apparently to you too) that that was precisely the motivation behind this initiative. "animus" does not have to mean "hatred" but it does entail disapproval... That was why i commented that this seemed out of character for a conservative .. It goes without saying that I think liberals tend to be more disingenuous with these things and you can easily infer that from my comment...
I'm One Of Them There Dumber Than Dirters
Submitted by WayfarerWalk on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 12:43pm.
Yeah, I'm a Oklahomie and I'm proud of it. Yeah, I'm one of the uninformed rubes who are scared to go out at night, afraid of Uri hiding around the corner, and voted for this amendment. With the examples given above from South Dakota and New Jersey, it seems that, contray to arguments otherwise, an amendment of this type is needed. Nevertheless, it seems the court will once again intervene against the will of the people.
Enough about that, what gets in my crawl, as a Okie, is the perception that we are all ignorant jackals clinging to our Bibles and guns, that we are backward hicks that come out from under our rock every two years and vote, and vote uninformed. Mr. Uygur and his pals might be surprised that we actually have indoor plumbing and the Natives don't live in Tepees. If Mr. Uygur would actually visit this great state he would notice how diverse we are as a population, a population that happens to be vastly conservative, hence why he and his hate us so. Mr. Uygur would find if he came to my place of employment that we have a high percentage of Muslim working here from countries around the globe, we work closely together and peacefully together, by golly, we are actually friends even though I'm a Christian. I could also go on and on about how us stupid Okies are leaders in medical research, have a Oklahoma Space Authority which operates a space port for aerospace r&d, and on and on.
But what do I know, I'm just a hick from the sticks.
Looking forward....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 1:22pm.
....to leaving CA to the illegals, gangs, and elected criminals and moving to OK where people have some sense.
Welcome
Submitted by WayfarerWalk on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 2:58pm.
I want to be the first to welcome you. I know you can't be all bad, calling yourself a Cowboy over a Sooner!
It's kind of Ironic how
Submitted by TCinAZ on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 1:16pm.
Cenk, who's a self-proclaimed "Atheist!" (from the Rooftops!) and reminds people Of that fact as often as Possible, always seems to get a Wild Hair (or Hare) up his ... and then feels compelled to comment About it every time a Law or an Ordinance is passed (or there's even an Attempt to pass one) in our country that moves to ban the Most violent and Vile version of his "former" religion.
Oh, and Btw, Cenk, since you're also fan of Doug Hooper...
"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.."- Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR
In October 1998, CAIR demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as "the sworn enemy." According to CAIR, this depiction was "offensive to Muslims."
In 1998, CAIR denied bin Laden's responsibility for the two al Qaeda bombings of American embassies in Africa. According to Ibrahim Hooper, the bombings resulted from "misunderstandings of both."
I thought I'd remind You, that Turkey ain't just for Thanksgiving and Christmas Dinner anymore. As there are Also Flights In and Out of Our County, To Turkey, Every Day.
Hate To Break It To You, But Medved Says It's Unconstitutional
Submitted by TheReal7Sticks on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 7:03pm.
First of all, a little correction to your statement here: "Of course, Uygur may not realize it, but points two and three are contradictory on their face. If sharia law is already unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution, what's the harm of codifying that in a state constitutional specifically?
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2010/11/09/cenk-uygur-oklahoma-voters-youre-bunch-idiots-passing-anti-sharia-law#comment-form#ixzz14vHfZkk4"
Well, first of all, ever heard of the 14th amendment? You know, that law that establishes that states as well as as Congress can not make a law respecting nor denying a religion? Pretty inconvenient little truth for you to handler, ain't it.
Michael Medved says it best that if two devout Muslims entered into a contract that would wish for to be examined by Sharia law, that would be unconstitutional. How would you feel if I were behind a law that I'd hypothetically submit that forbade practicing Catholics from using the catechism of the Catholic Church to back up a contract in a court? Well, as much as I wish I could, I can't because it would be in violation of the first and 14th amendments.
Damn, that Constitution can sure be inconvenient sometimes, can't it? >_<'