Coming soon to a bank near you…?
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
Stealth shariah = “When in Rome, do as the Vandals did.”
This is a bad idea.
We’re fucked.
I’m not sure what the objection is here; Sharia banking is one of the few things about Islam that isn’t crazy, and basically concerns itself with structuring loans in an economically conservative fashion. It’s not some sort of crazy anti-American sabotage plan any more than are the sovereign wealth funds run in part by Islamic theocracies. Perhaps I’m missing something?
You tell me.
The slopes are slippery I think.
Will the banks have foot wash stations?
Cause duh this leads to everybody having to make sharia complianty things available by Baracky’s stupid ass dirty socialist mandate. He’s such a tool like that. Dirty socialist fag.
I’m for it if it means I can pay off my car in bean pies.
(I know.)
“You tell me.”
Tell you what? I’m trying to figure out what exactly concerns you about this. Sharia finance is simply a different way of structuring loans and Treasury is simply looking into adopting some of these practices, which have nothing to do with any particular religion other than the fact that a particular religion thinks it’s some sort of holy Allah-ordained system.
Well, at any rate, happy belated election; I’m off to go drink at a Sharia bar.
Sharia finance is simply a different way of structuring loans
Clitoridectomy is simply a different way of structuring sexuality.
Just don’t buy any pigs with that loan, BB.
I guess that’s only tricky if you’re a hog farmer, which I’m not. Never could figure out how deep to plant them.
The world knows America has lost it’s will to fight for our western democracy.
This unilateral embracing of multiculturalism is going to turn out bad I fear.
here
Clearly if the words sharia and jihad are mentioned, and the bush administration is behind it, we can expect a rational response.
But I thought O! was going to get all of the underground, offshore, and hidden money in the economy…?
More hypocrisy…
Hope and Change is a failure. Baracky is elected, yet our trolls still offer NOTHING.
You’re still here, meya?
Get on that free gas, bitch.
“Tell you what? I’m trying to figure out what exactly concerns you about this. Sharia finance is simply a different way of structuring loans and Treasury is simply looking into adopting some of these practices”
Awesome!
So it’s cool if I rub bacon fat on my Sharia checks, right?
But, wait…the 12th Imam might be working check out at my local Tom Thumb. Christ he’d melt like the Wicked Witch of the West cuz he touched a “pig fat” check I wrote to pay for good aloe toilet paper.
That would be awful for him. No Jews killed & condemed to death by a filthy pig check just for some comfortable toilet paper.
Sorry.
While you’re just an asshole, I like to treat mine well.
Guess your American Sharia fella is just fucked.
I need your wisdom and guidance Barrett. Exactly how hard do I laugh at you?
I need your wisdom and guidance Barrett. Exactly how hard do I laugh at you?
I believe that’s all covered in his book. He’ll be along shortly to show you where to get one.
“Clearly if the words sharia and jihad are mentioned, and the bush administration is behind it”…
“Clearly” someone’s in their junior year in college.
““Clearly†someone’s in their junior year in college.”
I’m not surprised that our ignorance about sharia finance won’t be answered by comments on a thread entitled “sharia finance 101”?
Barrett..so you think it’s ok for the US Treasury to incorporate some Islamic (or Sharia) principles into our banking system? You have no problem with Saudi Arabia getting a slim grip on our monetary policies? Islam (or Sharia) is NOT innocuous!! As a theocracy, they have no divide between religion and governing. It will bastardize our money/banking system and basically provide Islam some control, and do you think it will stop there? Do you have ANY idea what Sharia Law is?
Our monetary/banking system is the perfect place to grab some control…see what it has done to western europe, NOW THEY’RE FUCKED!!
I’m not surprised that our ignorance about sharia finance won’t be answered by comments on a thread entitled “sharia finance 101″?
Read No. 15. There’s plenty of information to remedy your ignorance there, if you’re serious.
It does give a hint as to what sharia compliance, as it would be practiced by a US institution, means:
“Since sharia-finance funds like the IMANX may invest in companies that are not completely halal  that derive their profit from interest or other sharia-prohibited activities  returns on investment in those companies must be purified by donating a portion of that ROI to charity.”
But not much.
returns on investment in those companies must be purified
That’s gay.
Ah, OK, the bailout’s making more sense now.
“Since sharia-finance funds like the IMANX may invest in companies that are not completely halal”…
So, meya, halal investment guru that you are, does that mean they won’t be investing in Blackwater?
I know those guys aren’t halal.
They eat ham sandwiches in the field.
Not halal…
Too bad though.
Blackwater stock has taken off like a fucking bottle rocket!!!
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/gaffney_obama_islamic/2008/11/05/148071.html
Why are you guys engaging a fucking concern troll?
Fill up my tank, bitch!
Yes, but, like, Newsmax.
Call me when the NYT speaks on the subject.
Meantime, let Meya do her own homework. Or else, start agitating for a variety of alternate ethnic and religious principles and practices to be introduced into US banking. Think of it as a multicultural enterprise.
Me, I’m big into the Gypsy system. And I’m tired of trolling carnivals to do my alternative banking.
…which have nothing to do with any particular religion other than the fact that a particular religion thinks it’s some sort of holy Allah-ordained system.
Other than the fact.
Barrett seems to spend a lot of time on things other than the facts, I have noticed.
Just a modern version of the jizya. Or tribute, a la the Barbary Pirates.
Sounds like Kwanza.
We should try Jewish banking. Oh wait . . . .
“Me, I’m big into the Gypsy system.”
Oh! Oh! [hand raised]
Jeff, can I get my nose pierced with an “O” thingy or a bull ring or something?
I so wanna work in the carnival! The Obama-Cylons are having all the fun.
It’s not fair!
I wanna doom America too!
Do sharia loans require collateral damage?
Do sharia bankers’ hours include five prayer breaks each day? ‘Cause if so, I’m never going to get to the front of the line.
Is Ramadan a sharia bank holiday? ‘Cause if so, I’m gonna have to make a big withdrawal every October.
Does sharia banking law impose death penalties for early withdrawal?
Does the banker stone your wife for kiting checks? Does a trust fund for a girl mature at 9yo?
What about piggy banks?
It looks like these seminars began in 2002 as part of the effort to battle the financing of terrorism. Of course, the more likely explanation is that it’s really yet another example of the Bush administration embracing sharia.
Christmas Club Accounts?
If sharia banking means I won’t be able to use my credit card to pay for lunch at Porky’s House of Bacon, there’s going to be some serious ass-kicking.
“According to the Quran, the zakat funds are meant for “the poor and the paupers …, for those in bondage and debt, and for the wayfarers.” All these are conventional recipients of charity. The funds are also to be used for the “bureaucracy,” those who collect and administer the funds. But two other items are also mentioned which deserve special attention. The funds are to be used in “the service of Allah” … and for “gaining over [or reconciling, or inclining] the hearts … ” to Islam (QurAn 9:60).
“In the technical vocabulary of Islam, the first phrase, “in the service, or way, of Allah,” means religious warfare, or jihad. Zakat funds are to be spent on buying arms, equipment, and horses. The
second phrase, “gaining over, or reconciling, hearts,” means “bribes” in unadorned language. The faith of new converts should be strengthened with the help of generous “gifts,” and that of adversaries should be subverted by the same means. This was an important limb of the Prophet’s religious offensive and diplomacy, and as the Quranic verse shows, it had for the Prophet, as it still has for his followers, a heavenly sanction.”
— Ram Swarup, “The Poor Tax”, Understanding Islam Through Hadis”,
I’ll sign up for Sharia Banking as soon as Jimmy Dean Sausage goes halal…
…and Earl Campbell Hot Links are sliced and served on tooth picks at the Sharia Bank teller windows.
Possibly the only bank where the tellers are all masked.
“Possibly the only bank where the tellers are all masked.”
Well the FBI wouldn’t have to worry much.
Bank Robber: (whisper) Give me all the money, I have a bomb inside the bank.
Teller: Yeah, well I have a bomb too!…and I’m wearing mine kafir!
Shariah compliant finance. Because, you know, money works best according to religious principles. Like wouldn’t our economy rawk if we just got rid of that pesky usury business?
And because it involves the word “charity,” it has lefties at “hello”. BB’s prepared to let it get to first base before the blind date even starts.
Shariah compliant finance. Exactly where WILL the moonies draw the line?
Have to second Hubris’ comment. I remember reading the Bush administration “reaching out” to Muslims in this vein. Again, I think the man, from what little I know of him, is a good man, but…As for BB saying this is A-ok with him? LOL. If there was a “christian” banking system, he’d be up in arms. Remember it’s all about bongs and abortions for BB. And yes, I realize that Islam is against both those things, but, shit man, they’re like swarthy and shit.
i’d gladly pay u for a hamburgalar on tuesday
but i be hungry monday
i’d pat ur dog on wenesday
if it wasn’t so filthy
72 virgins
or a blow-up doll?
dre: what about piggy banks.
Heh. You win the Daily Internets.
Sharia—baby—Sharia can you come out tonight
why don’t you come out to my twist party
where the bright moon shines
we’ll dance the night away, I’m gonna make you mine—
Sharia—baby—Sharia can you come out tonight
you—better ask your mama tell–her everything is all right
why don’t you come out with your red dress on
mmm ya look so fine
move it nice and easy, girl—ya make me loose my mind
Sharia—-Sharia baby—
Sharia won’t you come out tonight
come come, come out tonight, come come, come out tonight…
#55-sweet!
i like to bury my dolls so’s just the heads
be showing
then i rock rock rock!
You know, Sharia also entails discriminating against gay people, so by supporting the Republican Party, you’re all Sharia compliant! Give yourselves a big round of applause! GO PROPOSITION 8! PRAISE ALLAH!
In all seriousness, though, your objections are kind of all over the place here. No one’s talking about giving a small portion of Treasury funds to Hamas; they’re simply considering adopting certain reasonable banking practices that Muslims happen to be fond of and which almost certainly predate Islam anyway. They’re not talking about making it illegal to invest in a fucking Boar’s Head plant, for instance, and people who engage in banking practices that Muslims engage in aren’t going to turn into Muslims. This seems to be one of those cases in which none of you really know what it is that you’re worried about and don’t really understand the subject in question anyway. That makes me sad!
:-(
That’s my sad face! IT IS NOT REALLY MY FACE IT IS ONLY AN ABSTRACT REPRESENTATION ZOMG!
Anyway, I remain of the position that Carthage must be destroyed.
Wow, if only Gaffney and Spencer were as informed as Hubris! Nothing to see here. I’ll just send them Hubris’ link!
Boy, won’t they have egg on their faces for not knowing as much about this as Hubris! And to think, they’re concerned. Silly xenophobes.
Yes, BB. Republicans are all homophobes. Even the gay ones! Some of whom post here! Self haters! You GO girl!
And really, I’ll put my money on Spencer and Gaffney understanding the issue better than us both. Even as well-informed on every subject as you are, and as consistently opposed to multiculturalizing institutions as I am.
I didn’t say that all Republicans are all homophobes. You’re simply attributing a patently false assertion to me so that you can refute it. I don’t know what you hope to accomplish by that.
Right, you just said they’re all into discriminating against them. For fun, I’d guess. Thanks for pointing that critical distinction out, Barrett. I’ll bet Jeff feels just silly now having missed the nuance.
California is a denizen of Republicans? Who knew?
No, I didn’t say that “they’re all into discriminating against them.” I said that the Republican Party does, and that you guys tend to support the Republican Party, which puts you that much more in line with Islamic nonsense even if you’d prefer not to be involved with such things. I imagine that Jeff, for instance, does not wish to discriminate against gays and probably wishes that the GOP would stop making such things a cornerstone of its utterances and policy implementations, and I imagine that many of the people who post here feel the same way.
California Republicans – 34%
Prop 8 passed with 52.4% of the vote. Who are the rest of those
homophobesdiscriminators, Barrett?Oh, bullshit.
If you’re gonna dance, Barrett, at least do the Macerena or something. There might be some entertainment value in watching that.
“California is a denizen of Republicans? Who knew?”
I’m sure the current Republican governor has an inkling that there are enough Republicans in California to turn out for an election and vote for Republicans and Republican-supported propositions. The gays probably realize that, too, since they get to have their marriages taken away from them all thanks to Proposition 8.
The court should write the laws as they see fit and people should just fucking deal with it. Otherwise, people could get their feelings hurt.
How’s that libertarian thing working out for you, Barrett?
“Who are the rest of those homophobes discriminators, Barrett?”
Democrats and Independents.
“If you’re gonna dance, Barrett, at least do the Macerena or something.”
The quote you pasted is exactly how I characterized it to be – a statement that the Republican Party actively discriminates against gays and that you support the Republican Party. It doesn’t say that all Republicans discriminate against gays. I’ve also explicitly said that I don’t think that all Republicans discriminate against gays, so perhaps, for a change, you could show some good faith.
“The court should write the laws as they see fit and people should just fucking deal with it. Otherwise, people could get their feelings hurt.
How’s that libertarian thing working out for you, Barrett?”
It looks like you’re trying to attribute more views to me that I don’t happen to have. I don’t think the “court should write laws as they see fit;” I think they should interpret the state or national constitution in accordance with its original intent.
And that statement is utter bullshit in a thin veneer over the unmistakable homophobe inference that you claim isn’t there. A policy on retaining the existing definition of marriage is not discrimination. So, what is this “active discrimination” you see?
Yet when they did the former and violated the latter, you have a problem with the the people drawing in their leash because, you know, it made people sad.
“And that statement is utter bullshit in a thin veneer over the unmistakable homophobe inference that you claim isn’t there.”
And *that* statement really proves your point and you win the internet for making it.
“A policy on retaining the existing definition of marriage is not discrimination.”
That policy specifically targets a subsection of marriages and renders them illegally invalid. If you don’t consider that to be discrimination, then I’d be interested in learning your definition of discrimination, because I’m sure it’s really neat.
“So, what is this ‘active discrimination’ you see?”
You know those anti-sodomy statutes that were in effect in many places up until recently, when one of the last ones in Texas was struck down? I consider the making and enforcement of laws that criminalize consensual sexual behavior among consenting adults to be “active discrimination.” I also consider the anti-gay mass mailings I get from major conservative organizations like Family Research Council to constitute “active discrimination” insomuch as they routinely call for the return of such laws and so do some of the folks who show up to hang with Mitt Romney at Liberty Sunday telecasts and mourn that we no longer execute gays as we are commanded to do by Judaism and Christianity and Islam, although I support anyone’s right to think or say anything they’d like about gays and obviously oppose “hate speech” laws.
“Yet when they did the former and violated the latter, you have a problem with the the people drawing in their leash because, you know, it made people sad.”
My understanding is that the court considered bans on such things to be unconstitutional; you may or may not agree and I may or may not agree, not knowing much about the Californian constitution. I have a problem with “the people drawing in the leash” of the gays and preventing them from engaging in certain forms of consensual contracts with each other, and I certainly don’t trust “the people” when they talk all of this happy talk about liberty and then turn around and support such nonsense as well as the criminalization of drugs and prostitution, because it thus becomes clear that liberty is not their ultimate objective.
And by “illegally invalid,” I mean simply invalid, of course. Imma go get some coffee.
I like coffee in the mornings but really it’s good anytime I think. Sharia financing is a lot like gay marriage. Lefty wedge issues what they can be on the victimy side of and help people understand that no you are not an American yeah I know you thought you were but no for real you are a victim.
I guess I’m just a bigot regarding Prop 8. But I can live with that.
A subset of “marriages” recently created by dint of the court deciding to legislate. And a policy implemented by the people in a lack of appreciation for that judicial legislation. But I know this is awful because it made some people sad.
And you’re suggesting that those were implemented by Republicans?
And the Phelps clan are Democrats. So, they’re “The Democrat Party”, right? Ridiculous. Here’s how you could make a convincing argument: Present the submitted bills or party platforms that demonstrate your thesis. Or, you could continue to waste time cartooning. I tell you this because I’m a giver.
California law provides for consensual contracts between gay couples and Prop 8 doesn’t change that. It only restates the definition of marriage.
“Here’s how you could make a convincing argument: Present the submitted bills or party platforms that demonstrate your thesis.”
Okay. Will the GOP 2008 party platform do? It states:
“Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it.”
FOR THE CHILDREN!
It goes on to target gays who are serving in the military and those would who like to:
“To protect our servicemen and women, and ensure that America’s Armed Forces remain the best in the world, we affirm the timelessness of those values, the benefits of traditional military culture, and the incompatibility of homosexuality with military service.”
I’m assuming you don’t think that discriminating against gays constitutes discrimination.
“And the Phelps clan are Democrats.”
I know, and Al Gore went to fundraisers at their home during the 1980s, and I’m not too big on him or his damned wife or the Democratic Party in general, but insomuch as that the GOP plank contains a bunch of argle-bargle about how gays should be barred from the military whereas the Democratic plank does not, and seeing as how poll data clearly indicates that Republican voters tend to be more hostile towards gays in general than are Democrats, I think it’s safe to say that there’s more anti-gay sentiment in the Republican Party than there is in the Democratic Party.
“So, they’re “The Democrat Partyâ€Â, right? Ridiculous.”
The Phelps clan are not active participants in the Democratic Party who get face time with presidents and major candidates for the presidency. Tony Perkins is. You know the difference between someone who is denounced by pretty much everyone in both parties someone who is actively courted and listen to by, say, Mitt Romney, Tom DeLay, and George W. Bush.
“California law provides for consensual contracts between gay couples and Prop 8 doesn’t change that.”
Prop 8 changes the constitution in order to bar a certain form of contract between gay couples.
So, how about GOP platform with the stuff about how homosexuality is “incompatible with military service?” Any thoughts on that one?
Hey, all 4 of these Republicans oppose SSM. You may be on to something, Barrett. Looks like we got 4 more years of O’Same after all.
Clearly this only ends when we have our first gay president. Baracky should foreswear a second term I think so we can elect us one and get on with the healing.
FOCUS…this discussion is NOT ABOUT PROP 8…FUCKING GROW UP AND SEE THE BIGGER PICTURE!!!
Anyone that thinks that Saudi Arabia’s “innocent” muzzling into our banking/monetary system sees it as “just expanding their investments” deserves a good stoning just for their stupidity. Now “stupidity” is not an edict of the Quran but it clearly endorses it, hence its successful spread into all western countries. Our collective desperation shouldn’t ever allow our enemies to get into a position to squeeze our nuts into submission.
“Multiculturalism” is a “fairness” misnomer that will lead this country into the trap of western europe, most of whom have literally been overtaken by “niceness” to it’s own peril. All those that have allowed such innocuous practices as Sharia (or Islamic) Finance to bail them out are now at the mercy of its ever growing muslim community. Holland now experiences a dutch minority to muslims and expects in 10-11 years a complete muslim society.
But happyfeet, I thought we were told a couple of years ago that we already had one?
Ack. Didn’t count I guess. It’s like how Sarah Palin wasn’t a for real woman I think.
“Hey, all 4 of these Republicans oppose SSM. You may be on to something, Barrett. Looks like we got 4 more years of O’Same after all.”
No kidding. All four are active participants in discrimination to some degree or another, and all four support ridiculous laws that criminalize the consensual behavior of tens of millions of American citizens. And two of them belong to a party which is actively seeking to throw gay servicemen out of the military, as you’ve wisely failed to acknowledge.
“FUCKING GROW UP AND SEE THE BIGGER PICTURE!!!”
OKAY!
And?
Just as discriminating against women constitutes discrimination. That’s about all you’ve got and I’ll give it to you. Register them all for the draft, I say. Fat or skinny, tits or no, rump rangers, carpet munchers and breeders alike. Anybody can peel potatoes, assuming we can ever get that contract back from KBR. I don’t care what anybody, including those nasty Republicans Bill Clinton what ordered it and the other one what wrote it, Colin Powell, say about it.
Are you sure that’s what you meant to say, Barrett?
Maybe you ought to read it, Barrett.
Gays are not exempted from taking part in marriage. And I have the right to get an abortion.
Prop 8 merely puts into the CA constitution what that nasty Republican Bill Clinton put into federal law when he signed the DOMA. Marriage is between one man and one woman. No one has had anything other than a label taken away from them. Which must be wrong because it made them sad, right?
I don’t care if gays are in the military but gay marriage I think is really sad. Saddling gay people with heteronormative institutions is oppressive I think. They’re not very clever I don’t think. Might as well demand the right to be stoned for adultery while they’re at it.
Fixed that for you, ‘feets.
Thanks, P. Exactly so.
Yes, it was brilliant of me to not be reading and responding to your post that hadn’t been posted while I was writing the one that landed right after it. Also, being psychic ROXX!!!
“Are you sure that’s what you meant to say, Barrett?”
Yes; noticed how I used the present tense. Gore met with Phelps before he started doing the stuff that everyone dislikes him for; back then, he was just a run-of-the-mill anti-gay Christian weirdo, and now he’s gone overboard and thus doesn’t have quite the influence as, say, Tony Perkins or James Dobson. Again, you obviously know this.
“Gays are not exempted from taking part in marriage.”
“SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.”
“Gays are not exempted from taking part in marriage.”
“SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.”
“Gays are not exempted from taking part in marriage.”
“SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.”
Let’s see if that works.
“Prop 8 merely puts into the CA constitution what that nasty Republican Bill Clinton put into federal law when he signed the DOMA.”
I know, both strip recognition of gay marriages on the part of a state or federal government.
BTW, where are those Republican anti-sodomy proposals you were telling us about, Barrett?
Yes, that’s right. You see, gays are either men or women, and either way, they’re legally eligible to partake in marriage. What they’re not entitled to do is redefine it any more than I’m entitled to redefine “African-American” or “Woman” and get me some of them public contracting preferences.
Except that no such recognition existed to be stripped, with the recent exception of that legislated from the bench and granted to people who knew damned well that there was a better than average chance of that decision being overturned in a matter of months. If you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to get a fresh hanky. This one’s soaked.
Maybe we could get Mayor Cicciline to run, though I don’t know if we can get him married by ’12. He’s not really the monogamous sort. But if anybody brought up his brother John going to federal prison and how he got there, we could be all “HOMOPHOBE!!!”
That sounds like fun.
“BTW, where are those Republican anti-sodomy proposals you were telling us about, Barrett?”
As I mentioned, Republicans and “conservatives” tend to be more supportive of such things, which is why many of their activists and state legislators were actively opposed to the overturning of sodomy law, generally for the wrong reasons. Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, and the Family Research Council, among other groups of less significance, were all upset, for instance. The governor thought the law was swell and said so.
all four support ridiculous laws that criminalize the consensual behavior of tens of millions of American citizens
Barrett, you fucking liar.
Don’t panic Alice. Go ahead and take that cock in the ass, no one will prosecute you.
You just can’t claim it is a legal marriage.
Now go beat up an old lady, all the fags are doing it.
“Barrett, you fucking liar.”
RAAAAGGGEEEEEE!!!!!!
In that quote, I was talking about laws concerning drugs and prostitution and such things. Everyone seems to have understood this except for you.
Prostitution a lot grows our economy from the bottom up I think.
So you were blowing smoke out of your ass when you said…
…in response to my request for a description of “active discrimination” in the Republican party, then? Got it.
Oh, and that second quote in my #100? Totally about drugs and prostitution.
“Yes, that’s right. You see, gays are either men or women, and either way, they’re legally eligible to partake in marriage.”
Great, I’ll let them know. “Hey, it turns out that you can marry another consenting adult, just not the one of your choice!”
“Except that no such recognition existed to be stripped, with the recent exception of that legislated from the bench and granted to people who knew damned well that there was a better than average chance of that decision being overturned in a matter of months. If you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to get a fresh hanky. This one’s soaked.”
As you say, there was that “recent exception” which was implemented based on the state court’s reading of the state constitution, and which resulted in quite a few marriages among gays who were happy to have finally been recognized as officially being married, which means a lot to many gays because of the difficult situation they’ve faced throughout history. If you don’t feel bad for the people who were crying their eyes out the other day when they were informed that the state would no longer recognize their marriages in the same way that it recognizes the marriages of their fellow citizens, that’s certainly your right. And if you think it’s cute and funny to talk about how much you don’t care about those people’s struggle to be fully accepted into society, then that’s also your right.
“So you were blowing smoke out of your ass when you said…”
I’m sorry, that was the most recent example of Republicans being in favor of the enforcement of sodomy laws. Did you want me to cite an example of them actually making the anti-sodomy law?
Wow, if only Gaffney and Spencer were as informed as Hubris! Nothing to see here. I’ll just send them Hubris’ link!
Boy, won’t they have egg on their faces for not knowing as much about this as Hubris! And to think, they’re concerned. Silly xenophobes.
“Is there someone else up there we could talk to?”
I hear them blacks ain’t too big on the gayness.
I think they went, like, 97% for Obama. Someone should have told them that Focus on the Family would welcome them. Maybe they would have gone, say, 9% for Republicans.
TIDAL WAVE!
At any rate, one answer is Idaho, which actually re-instituted its sodomy law briefly, this having been signed into law by a Republican governor. Again, Democrats do it, too, or used to, but obviously tend to be opposed to the concept of such laws whereas the somewhat more religiously “conservative” constituents that make up a relatively large portion of the GOP obviously tend to be for them. So, I mean, I don’t even know what you think you’re arguing here. Perhaps you should state your position very clearly so that even a guy like me, who’s too stupid to see the inherent virtue of the Republican Party, can understand it.
Idaho is never the answer, Barrett.
Jeff, thank you for posting this story..but this discussion is an indication of the ignorance that will destroy this country.
I don’t give a shit about gay rights, if it means that we’re moving towards our next generation witnessing and participating in the stoning or public flogging of their own parents (gay or straight) for any indiscretions that our society FREEly condones, etc, etc, etc…
Sharia (or Islamic) compliant finance is a small step for short-sighted, desperate, and ignorant Americans, but a giant step for Islam. Islam spreads like a cancer, by force, if necessary, they don’t fight for rights, they fight to spread…it will forcefully relieve each of us of one “little [harmless]” right at a time. It should be a MAJOR concern for ANY GAY, LESBIAN, OR FEMALE or those that are acquainted with persons of this “persuasion”.
So it may behoove you all to get your heads out of your “asses” (pun intended)..It might help to either stop thinking with your dick or your ass.
I would say Idaho is almost never the answer, because what if somebody asks, “What state is Pocatello in,” and you’ve ruled out Idaho ever being the answer, what can you say?
Clearly this only ends when we have our first gay president. Baracky should foreswear a second term I think so we can elect us one and get on with the healing.
Barrack and thor could just come out of the closet. thor might even be able to help Michelle find fruit that way.
I’m sorry, that was the most recent example of Republicans being in favor of the enforcement of sodomy laws. Did you want me to cite an example of them actually making the anti-sodomy law?
Sodomy laws aren’t discriminatory, BB.
Happyfeet’s zippy pith knocks the sox off some of the more laboured responses. Didn’t Jefferson say (I think): Banks are more dangerous than any standing army”. Sharia law has probably got some good points but what makes it dangerous, and I’m including in this a lot of the extremist crap I read on this site, is its inflexibility, severity and medieval barbarity.In New Zealand, which has just gone way Right in their general election, some people are supporting sheep/human interfaces recognised by law. Here we just like fruits and vegetables. If I liked it up the bum I’d be careful of them Idaho potatoes. Lotsaluck, Mindlesley.
“Sharia law has probably got some good points ”
Something about goats I’m sure.
Would you? That would probably be helpful.
And now, based on the sequence of predictable events I spelled out earlier, they’re not happy. I understand that, though I’m having trouble recalling when they were enslaved or lynched or refused the vote or made to sit at the back of the bus. I’m sure you’ll enlighten me. But in the meantime, I’m going to maintain that we don’t need to change the lexicon because a small minority will be sad if we don’t. Do you disagree with that notion, Barrett?
You got me there, Barrett. LET’S REWRITE THE CONSTITUTION AGAIN!!! THIS TIME WITH COMPASSION!!!
i don’t see where there’s a problem with gays being accepted in society, outside of those nasty Republican Godbotherers who probably hate them some niggers too. I avoid them and I recommend the same to, well, everybody.
sun68, please calm down. We’re old friends chewing the fat here. Do you know how to find LGF and Jihad Watch, because if not, I can show you.
No problem. This…
…your position, is bullshit. If you need me to say it again, another 50 posts from now, just ask.
PBP..sorry still going thru the [pres-elect] grieving process..a couple shots and a ham sandwich should take the defying edge off. Thanks for the info.
And again, because SCF says “charity” BB is prepared to give it a hug with open arms (no kiss though, Republicans might be hiding in the bushes, watching your threadjack).
Here’s the question, BB.
What in the living name of Fuck do we need Shariah Compliant Finance…for?
Are you prepared to argue that Muslims who currently live in or do business with the U.S. are now incapable of meeting their zadek requirements on their own? What is the benefit of the change going to be? Because right now, all I see is “oh, it’s just nicer than our big mean system.” Which is typical moon juice as far as I can tell.
The North American Islamic Trust owns 69.8 percent of the Dow Jones Islamic Fund. The Justice Department identified NAIT last June as an unindicted co-conspirator in supporting Hamas’s murderous anti-Israeli terrorism. The Trust also owns Albany, New York’s Masjid As-Salam mosque. In April 2007, its founder, Mohammed Mosharref Hossain, and imam, Yassin Muhiddin Aref, received 15-year prison sentences for assisting an FBI sting that feigned an operation to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat in Manhattan with a shoulder-fired missile.
So it seems that Sharia-Compliant financing DOES mean that you fund Hamas.
Hello All visitors by means off Shubhinetwork, we provide you an opportunity of online job,off add a posting which you can do sitting at your homes it self & also free off cost. So ShubhiNetwork Welcome Peoples from Any part of the world to come and join their hand with it. Sign up Free 100ore information visit below this site
——-
Shubhinetwork
———–
SEO–SEO
My online job is freelance programming on rentacoder.com and i also maintain a couple of websites.`,”