(01-27-2012 04:28 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-27-2012 04:24 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Fantastic! Pretty soon, I'll have enough of you on ignore that I won't have to read anything here.

SumOfAllFears
Show this Post
The contents of this message are hidden because SumOfAllFears is on your ignore list.
RobertN
Show this Post
The contents of this message are hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.
I'mMoreAwesomeThanYou
Show this Post
The contents of this message are hidden because I'mMoreAwesomeThanYou is on your ignore list.
RobertN
Show this Post
The contents of this message are hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

Damn, who pissed in your Lucky Charms?

If I wasn't too lazy to go and change my settings they'd probably be on my list too. Well, all except for Robert.

(01-27-2012 04:39 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(01-27-2012 04:27 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-27-2012 04:16 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(01-27-2012 03:29 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-27-2012 02:51 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Depending on the degree of social conservative we're talkin here, the study may not be that far off. It all depends on what they value.

I'd say they'd still beat fiscal liberals in an IQ study when spotting the liberals 50 points.

I don't think so. To be a fiscal liberal you have to know so much theory that you apparently don't need to know the basics.

Hence the stupidity. Regurgitating a failed ideology is neither a sign of intelligence nor a sign of logical thinking.

It's intelligent. Some serious numbers and thinking have to happen to come up with this stuff. It is however, the definition of insanity.

Sitting around debating the equivalent of why 2 + 2 should equal eleventy isn't a sign of intelligence.

(01-27-2012 04:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It's the absolute definition of hysteria to take what was said and reach the extreme positions you did...

You didn't say it.... You demonstrated it, and continue to

So when I say

Quote:It is hysterical on its face though to claim that average Americans are in any danger of being subjected to Sharia law.

... I'm taking this.....

Quote:Call me crazy. … Some people would infuse Sharia Law in our courts system if we allow it. I honestly believe that. So even if he calls me crazy, I am going to make sure that they don’t infuse it little by little by little. … American laws in American courts, period.

.... and making it sound extreme? It sounds extreme on its face to anybody who knows what he's talking about. I'm not mischaraterizing what he said. Further, the state of Oklahoma passed a "Save Our State" ballot initiative banning Sharia law from its courts. Yes, a whole state is crazy and islamaphobic enough to do that. Scary. If anything I'm understating their hysteria.

(01-27-2012 04:28 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-27-2012 04:24 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Fantastic! Pretty soon, I'll have enough of you on ignore that I won't have to read anything here.

SumOfAllFears
Show this Post
The contents of this message are hidden because SumOfAllFears is on your ignore list.
RobertN
Show this Post
The contents of this message are hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.
I'mMoreAwesomeThanYou
Show this Post
The contents of this message are hidden because I'mMoreAwesomeThanYou is on your ignore list.
RobertN
Show this Post
The contents of this message are hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

Damn, who pissed in your Lucky Charms?

Well, everyone of these guys, at a minimum. This is the first time I've seen this many posts in a row entirely ignored. Seemed noteworthy, and I'm hoping to build on my success...

(01-27-2012 04:24 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Fantastic! Pretty soon, I'll have enough of you on ignore that I won't have to read anything here.

SumOfAllFears
Show this Post
The contents of this message are hidden because SumOfAllFears is on your ignore list.
RobertN
Show this Post
The contents of this message are hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.
I'mMoreAwesomeThanYou
Show this Post
The contents of this message are hidden because I'mMoreAwesomeThanYou is on your ignore list.
RobertN
Show this Post
The contents of this message are hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

F_uck off, B!tch.

(01-27-2012 07:11 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(01-27-2012 04:24 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Fantastic! Pretty soon, I'll have enough of you on ignore that I won't have to read anything here.

SumOfAllFears
Show this Post
The contents of this message are hidden because SumOfAllFears is on your ignore list.
RobertN
Show this Post
The contents of this message are hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.
I'mMoreAwesomeThanYou
Show this Post
The contents of this message are hidden because I'mMoreAwesomeThanYou is on your ignore list.
RobertN
Show this Post
The contents of this message are hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

F_uck off, B!tch.

Type louder I don't think he can hear you.

(01-26-2012 04:23 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

Quote:As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood.

While this post was probably started to criticize conservatives, it's actually criticizing minoritities, you know then ones, the people who call exit exams racist because they can't pass them.

Where can I find these minoritities? How do they differ from regular tities?

(01-27-2012 07:28 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(01-27-2012 07:11 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(01-27-2012 04:24 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Fantastic! Pretty soon, I'll have enough of you on ignore that I won't have to read anything here.

SumOfAllFears
Show this Post
The contents of this message are hidden because SumOfAllFears is on your ignore list.
RobertN
Show this Post
The contents of this message are hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.
I'mMoreAwesomeThanYou
Show this Post
The contents of this message are hidden because I'mMoreAwesomeThanYou is on your ignore list.
RobertN
Show this Post
The contents of this message are hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

F_uck off, B!tch.

Type louder I don't think he can hear you.

Thanks for the quote, so now the loser can see it.

(01-27-2012 07:43 PM)Howl-n-Prowl Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 04:23 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

Quote:As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood.

While this post was probably started to criticize conservatives, it's actually criticizing minoritities, you know then ones, the people who call exit exams racist because they can't pass them.

Georgia plates. My minority theory is correct.

(01-27-2012 04:51 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(01-27-2012 04:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It's the absolute definition of hysteria to take what was said and reach the extreme positions you did...

You didn't say it.... You demonstrated it, and continue to

So when I say

Quote:It is hysterical on its face though to claim that average Americans are in any danger of being subjected to Sharia law.

... I'm taking this.....

Quote:Call me crazy. … Some people would infuse Sharia Law in our courts system if we allow it. I honestly believe that. So even if he calls me crazy, I am going to make sure that they don’t infuse it little by little by little. … American laws in American courts, period.

.... and making it sound extreme? It sounds extreme on its face to anybody who knows what he's talking about. I'm not mischaraterizing what he said. Further, the state of Oklahoma passed a "Save Our State" ballot initiative banning Sharia law from its courts. Yes, a whole state is crazy and islamaphobic enough to do that. Scary. If anything I'm understating their hysteria.

You realize that this supposed hysteria is in response to 5 courts in the UK allowing sharia law, rather than the law of the land, to decide cases. While I'd certainly accept that these people are at least as interested in the publicity they are getting as the law... But to act as if what happens in the uk could NEVER happen here, ESpECIaLLy in a thread propping up a study done in the uk and trying to project that onto the us.

Yes... Acting as if attention seeking politicians are actually afraid of imminent sharia law is foolish. Acting as if there is absolutely no possibility that what is currently happening in the uk could NEVEr happen here is equally foolish. It's the same think when people like you claim that republicans are trying to take us back to slavery, or are trying to make it a crime to be gay or whatever other crazy extreme position you want to project.

Do YOU think it's okay to let religious law decide cases in this country?

Mississippi is the most conservative state in the nation according to Gallup with 50.5% of residents ID themselves as conservative and is also the state with the lowest cumulative IQ (94.2) GAME,SET & MATCH

(01-28-2012 07:10 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Mississippi is the most conservative state in the nation according to Gallup with 50.5% of residents ID themselves as conservative and is also the state with the lowest cumulative IQ (94.2) GAME,SET & MATCH

It's also, by a large margin, the most African American State... If I did not believe you were incapable of correctly using statistics I might believe you hate black people.

(01-27-2012 10:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2012 04:51 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(01-27-2012 04:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It's the absolute definition of hysteria to take what was said and reach the extreme positions you did...

You didn't say it.... You demonstrated it, and continue to

So when I say

Quote:It is hysterical on its face though to claim that average Americans are in any danger of being subjected to Sharia law.

... I'm taking this.....

Quote:Call me crazy. … Some people would infuse Sharia Law in our courts system if we allow it. I honestly believe that. So even if he calls me crazy, I am going to make sure that they don’t infuse it little by little by little. … American laws in American courts, period.

.... and making it sound extreme? It sounds extreme on its face to anybody who knows what he's talking about. I'm not mischaraterizing what he said. Further, the state of Oklahoma passed a "Save Our State" ballot initiative banning Sharia law from its courts. Yes, a whole state is crazy and islamaphobic enough to do that. Scary. If anything I'm understating their hysteria.

You realize that this supposed hysteria is in response to 5 courts in the UK allowing sharia law, rather than the law of the land, to decide cases. While I'd certainly accept that these people are at least as interested in the publicity they are getting as the law... But to act as if what happens in the uk could NEVER happen here, ESpECIaLLy in a thread propping up a study done in the uk and trying to project that onto the us.

Yes... Acting as if attention seeking politicians are actually afraid of imminent sharia law is foolish. Acting as if there is absolutely no possibility that what is currently happening in the uk could NEVEr happen here is equally foolish. It's the same think when people like you claim that republicans are trying to take us back to slavery, or are trying to make it a crime to be gay or whatever other crazy extreme position you want to project.

Do YOU think it's okay to let religious law decide cases in this country?

This is stupid. My understanding is those UK cases involved voluntary arbitration in family law cases. That's a matter of contract; if you agree to have your divorce settled by religious rules by some religious arbitrator then have at it. But that doesn't mean anyone else is in danger of having Sharia law imposed on them against their will. Our constitutional rights and legal system will stay in place until Muslims get the necessary majority to change them. I'm speaking as a lawyer here. You and Cain have nothing to be afraid of. It's my sincere hope that the both of you can overcome your islamophobia.

And it's a fact that being gay was a crime until Lawrence v Texas was decided 8 years ago (the case Perry fought and lost and completely forgot about on the debate stage). Texas outlawed sodomy, or any form of gay sex. And don't tell me it wasn't criminalizing "being gay" because it only punishes actions.

Max... Texas sodomy law dates back decades... If you're going to be angry, get your facts straight

As to the voluntary actions you speak of... You are intentionally avoiding the issue and focusing on hysteria. While people are certainly free to agree to things for any reason they wish, does it not seem unconstitutional to you for the state to recognize religious law? Even in marriage, you must file papers with the state, have waiting periods, witnesses, pay fees, have a license... You don't go get married at the church and then expect the state to recognize it.

I get what you're saying, but you keep focusing on the means that politicians and media use to get attention rather than the principles behind the comments.

There are numerous cases in this country where religious freedom was declared criminal, despite the fact that the actions obviously were sanctioned by the religion and entered into voluntarily.. Which is the bar youve set for the Uk decisions... The branch Davidians, the jeffords guy marrying the children... Should THEIR cases have been decided using THEiR laws, or ours? While I agree that the Oklahoma law is currently unnecessary, and canes and newts comments clearly indicate that they are WAY ahead of the curve... Those cases WILL be brought up by an attorney next time some sect violates federal or state laws. They are simply stating early, that religious laws that violate OUR laws will not be tolerated. How is this offensive?


Interestingly.... The sodomy ruling you speak of was a 2003 challenge To a 1986 ruling basically upholding sodomy laws... The majority opinion, that upheld the laws, was written by Byron white... A Kennedy nominee... The dissent by Harry blacknum, a Nixon appointee. The democrat argued that consensual sex was protected through the marriage contract which didnt exist for hmosexuals or unmarried partners for that mattert. It was the republican who said consensual activities were protected through privacy... Even in the Lawrence dissent, the dissent was with regard to the vagueries of the opinion, rather than the decision itself. Justice Thomas even said he would overturn the texas law in the opinion he wrote.

I think You need to get your facts straight

I know Texas sodomy law dated back decades. When did I ever say otherwise?

It boggles my mind that you would argue it was a liberal invention. When interpreting law, SCOTUS justices don't make their decisions on the basis of outcome (except maybe Bush v Gore). Scalia has taken stands leading to liberal outcomes because that's where his constructionist philosophy takes him.

Religious freedom and the right to contract stops when it involves illegality. So no the Branch Dividians or Jeffords can't do whatever they want. This applies equally to Muslims.

It's difficult to argue in abstracts on law. Show me the cases you're talking about, lay out the facts and make your case that Sharia law can be imposed on Americans by anything short of legislative enactment. But I'm telling you you're wasting youf time. I've heard the arguments before and they usually boil down to comity or enforcement of contract.

(01-28-2012 04:10 PM)Max Power Wrote:  It boggles my mind that you would argue it was a liberal invention. When interpreting law, SCOTUS justices don't make their decisions on the basis of outcome (except maybe Bush v Gore). Scalia has taken stands leading to liberal outcomes because that's where his constructionist philosophy takes him.

Not surprisingly you don't recognize the stupidity in making such a statement and then saying one case you liberals just can't move past, a case that was rightly decided by law, is an exception.

And it was a 7-2 decision that there was an equal protection violation. You liberals conveniently forget that. You also forget that Gore could have kept going. The decision didn't stop him from pursuing further action. He chose to stop.

Let's also remember, at no single point was Gore ever in the lead in Florida post recount. At no time did he take the lead, and that was only counting counties where he had a huge advantage.

(01-28-2012 07:10 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Mississippi is the most conservative state in the nation according to Gallup with 50.5% of residents ID themselves as conservative and is also the state with the lowest cumulative IQ (94.2) GAME,SET & MATCH

Your assumed correlation doesn't explain the rotted-out city of Detroit, overwhelmingly Democrat for years. Nor the typical labor union rally, which aren't exactly populated with Rhodes Scholars, to put it kindly. And the Occupy protests haven't exactly been drawing Einsteins out of the woodwork either.

But putting all this aside... the claim that higher IQ and greater book-smarts equates to better governance has floated around the Internetz for a while now, and is usually pared up with questionable "blue states have a better IQ" studies. Thus, the conclusion: The highly educated make better leaders, and liberals - with their supposed higher intellectualism - is therefore better suited for public leadership positions. The conclusion is, of course, invalid. To wit, many of the world's worst leaders throughout history have been well-read, articulate, degreed - some from the most prestigious institutions - and intelligent. Not to go all Godwin here, but I'm sure Hitler and Goebbels were "smarter" than your average Mississippian. There are career criminals, even seriel killers, who have high IQs.

A small business owner from semi-rural Kansas with only a HS degree can make as good of civil decisions, if not better, than someone who's lived within the sterile academic walls of an Ivy League for a decade. Further, there's a tendency amongst the "multi-degreed" to become so egotistic that they believe their rigid method should be implemented, based on those degrees (i.e. "I know what's right for you... I'm 'smart'").

(01-28-2012 04:57 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-28-2012 04:10 PM)Max Power Wrote:  It boggles my mind that you would argue it was a liberal invention. When interpreting law, SCOTUS justices don't make their decisions on the basis of outcome (except maybe Bush v Gore). Scalia has taken stands leading to liberal outcomes because that's where his constructionist philosophy takes him.

Not surprisingly you don't recognize the stupidity in making such a statement and then saying one case you liberals just can't move past, a case that was rightly decided by law, is an exception.

And it was a 7-2 decision that there was an equal protection violation. You liberals conveniently forget that. You also forget that Gore could have kept going. The decision didn't stop him from pursuing further action. He chose to stop.

Let's also remember, at no single point was Gore ever in the lead in Florida post recount. At no time did he take the lead, and that was only counting counties where he had a huge advantage.

Show me one other case Justice Scalia invoked the Equal Protection clause.

But that was an aside concerning only the legal analysis and I was half kidding anyway. Let's try and stay on topic.

(01-28-2012 07:43 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Show me one other case Justice Scalia invoked the Equal Protection clause.

Show me another voting case like this that was put in front him. Fool.

Quote:But that was an aside concerning only the legal analysis and I was half kidding anyway. Let's try and stay on topic.

Convenient.