Politics Who's Gonna Win?

Ace, our basis of law been for civil courts to defer to religious authorities on matters of religion when both parties agree.

You are fear-mongering and nothing more.

With regard to Sharia, folks are simply pointing out your ignorance of the law and you refuse to accept that your concerns are not legitimate.

And on the issue of gender, you appear to support the right of a religious majority to legislate its beliefs on the minority when the Constitution is there to protect the minority.

 

ace...to be clear, i am referring, consistently, to the staging of islam in conservative ideology. what i hold you to account for is (1) repeating it even though you do not know what you're talking about and even more (b) pretending that this discourse represents some kind of "legitimate concern." it doesn't. it represents the manipulation of people who know nothing about islam for political purposes by the conservative media. period. i pass no particular judgment about why this nonsense appeals to you, except to the extent that you've demonstrated repeatedly that you know nothing about islam. but that doesn't seem to stop you from repeating stupid shit about it. why is that?

 

I feel I should post on the thread question, having participated in the more OT parts.

I think "who will win?" is a question too soon. I can't tell yet. If an election was called tomorrow, I would anticipate Obama winning, but crippled in a similar way to the way he is now. A lot depends on who the Republicans put up. If they go for the lunatic right, I think Obama may well pick up more "not lunatic" votes and will win more clearly. If, however, the right can put up a credible candidate, the disappointment in Obama may cause some of his voters to stay at home, thus providing the Republicans with a President.

 

I thought the corner stone on this subject was a question.

I admit a level of ignorance. It is true I do not accept that my concerns are illegitimate.

I support the law being blind to all. I stated many times that for example marriage is a religious issue. The law should be blind in regard to treating married people differently than single people - and if people enter into a "union" that it is more or less a contract and should be a "civil union" regardless of sex. this has always been my position, and it is clear. I have no idea of what you believe in this regard - so perhaps we would be better served by you sharing your thoughts on the subject and not on me personally.
--- merged: Oct 10, 2011 8:44 PM ---

Perhaps someone else can help me understand your point, I have read and re-read what you have written on this subject and I don't get it. If I ask a question, i know you won't directly respond other than more vague personal attacks.
--- merged: Oct 10, 2011 8:50 PM ---

I agree, the discussion on religion is pointless.

The national election will come down to Romney v. Obama. It will be a toss up. The true focus of the Right will be winning the Senate, the rest is more or less for entertainment or diversion. If liberals fail to see where the real fight is, winning the Senate will be easy. Obama has put many Senators in his party in a poor situation for reelection.

 

maybe you'll understand it if i quote redux from above, who is saying the same thing:

what you really don't get is the other part that i've been saying. but this follows, i suspect, from your refusal to accept that your "concerns" are not legitimate.

so i'll write it again, but slowly: to say the concerns of rightwing islamophobes are "legitimate" is no different from saying that the concerns of anti-semites are "legitimate"--because they circulate within some community of anti-semites. that's foul, ace. and that's what you're arguing.

 

Actually, I should express my gratitude to Redux for this post, too...

It saved me going on interminably as to why we don't have Sharia Law. Our system works the same way, roughly.

 

In addition to that opinion, he has also gone on record to say that he regards homosexuality to be a sin, and doesn't deny his intention to reverse the repeal of DADT. He may not as yet have revealed his entire position on the homosexuality issue but I don't feel it's a mis-characterization to draw the conclusion (from what he has revealed) that he'd be adverse to promoting greater equality for gays and lesbians.

That the Israelis base their occupation of that land on a belief that it's their god-given right to be there is a fairly simple point that is not up for debate. Rather than try and water it down with semantics, you probably should have just chosen to ignore it.

BTW, what would determine the governing law in that dispute. I mean, whose law would it be? Israeli law, international law? If it were as simple as a legal land dispute, don't you think it could have been sorted out by now? Again, I think your comments on this issue are nothing more than mimicry of a party line where there is no compromise or inclination towards a resolution that might bring peace in that region.

I don't understand this response. The question was "What are the chances that will happen? (regarding Sharia law infiltrating our Constitution)
Are you saying that our basis of law will not change even if Sharia law is instituted?
Or are you saying there's no way Sharia law will ever find it's way here because you and others are standing guard at the gates preventing all Muslims from entering the sacred realm?

Well, there's Reasonable fear (fear in the face of real danger) - If one can imagine a reality where US Sharia law is very real possibility and measures must be taken to prevent it from happening.
Unreasonable fear (fear out of proportion to any actual threat) - Some Muslims in the US advocate Sharia law but the prospect of that actually happening is miniscule
Paranoid fear (fear over a threat that doesn't exist) Possibly created and maintained for purposes of control.

You decide.

I don't consider you personally to be any of these things but I do question anyone who would align themselves with a party that makes statements and adopts platforms that are reflections of these opinions.

 

My school of thought is that when a person expresses a concern, the concern is legitimate until it is addressed. Your way of thinking on this issue is odd at best, but I am assuming I am missing something. You can not simply respond to a concern by saying the concern is not legitimate and think it is a job well done, problem solved. In my view that approach fails.
--- merged: Oct 11, 2011 7:58 PM ---

O.k., I'll bite - give an example. Help me see the light.
--- merged: Oct 11, 2011 8:05 PM ---

I would say international law, if not resolved by war.

I understand the so called complexities. But it is not a complex question - the problem is that the answer is will be unacceptable to one faction or the other.

Americans will not allow it to happen.

That is a judgmental attitude that I do not share. I respect the fears others have, even if I personally don't understand them. If I can help a person over come a fear, I will do what I can.

 

ace, you haven't advanced anything i regard as a legitimate concern for months. seriously. simply because you imagine something to be the case doesn't make it a legitimate concern. see the example of how that "thinking" operates when you apply it to anti-semitism. but it's not only that: i don't take your positions seriously because you have demonstrated over and over that you cannot deal with arguments or information that fall outside your narrow viewpoint. so in those few cases where you do advance a point that is worth consideration, and i or someone else outlines arguments or presents information to counter that point, you twist and squirm and digress and resort to stupid analogies. so it appears that all you're interested in is testing whether your viewpoint can remain consistent and you don't really care about either the logical basis or factual underpinnings.

and in the case of ben and jerry's, you aren't even making sense.

many people have tried to get you to alter your modus operandii, but you can't or won't do it. you imagine this to be some kind of display of integrity, from what i've read. that you appear to believe that does not make it legitimate. it's just some arbitrary thing you happen to believe. like those people who believe they're jesus. does the fact that they believe they're jesus make their beliefs about being jesus legitimate concerns? well, maybe they are, but only within that population of people who believe they're jesus. it's not a whole lot different here.

 

Right, I am not a legitimate person...Tea Party is not legitimate...anyone with a view different than yours is not legitimate... I got it.

Question for everyone else - who is more tolerant?

 

Under the Uniform Arbitration Act, religious bodies like the Institute for Christian Conciliation (http://www.peacemaker.net/site/c.nuIWL7MOJtE/b.5394441/k.BD56/Home.htm ) and the Beth Din of America (http://www.bethdin.org/ ) have the legal authority to arbitrate civil disputes involving religious matters.

Sharia law in the US is no different. It does not and cannot circumvent the Constitution nor does it impose Sharia law on anyone other than those who voluntarily agree to it.

Your sources that suggest something more nefarious are promoting ignorance and intolerance and your fear is baseless.

And the suggestion that a Muslim running for president or public office for which an oath (or affirmation) is required somehow raises Constitutional question is even more ignorant of the law.
--- merged: Oct 11, 2011 8:41 PM ---

No one suggested that you are not a legitimate person but that the manner in which you engage others is often illegitimate given that you wont accept facts or data (not opinion) that are counter to your rigid ideology.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

As to your opinion, it would help immensely if you could support that opinion with facts and not anecdotes, or worse, irrelevant questions with the intent to misdirect or divert the discussion.

 

I agree that there are methods of mediation and arbitration in order to avoid legal proceedings. But I do not see this as dual judicial tracks, in fact it is clear that this can not be used in certain situations, taken from the link you provided:

I also agree that if the above is similar to what is happening in other countries, that in no way should mediation and arbitration be considered as a dual judicial system or as Cain may have said "living under Sharia Law." However, I do stand by my view that underground systems of justice exist and that those systems circumvent the real law and real justice.

Our perspectives are different. I know you are going to go on and on about how I ignore this or that...but if for a moment you can look at the issue a bit more broadly you may see the potential problem. I give an example (again I know your standard response, so you can save it or stop reading):

I see marriage as a religious issue. Christian doctrine says that marriage is between a man and a woman. I would not support a constitutional amendment for what I consider a religious issue. I would not support legal interpretation of the law or changes to the Constitution for Christianity, Islam, Sharia Law or any religious doctrine. I know the basis of our law and it has served us well - there is a risk of regression - a risk on many fronts. If you don't share this broader concern, not just in the context of Sharia Law but in the context of other religions as well I think you (not me) are ignoring real risks.

I find it interesting that I believe you would respond to a Christianity question differently than a Islamic question in this context. My fear is not baseless, I doubt you have ever taken the time to understand it.

I can read.

You folks often make false assumptions about what I believe and rarely take any interest in understanding a point of view that you do not share.

 

What are the choices?

 

The term "marriage" is difficult, but I think I agree with this.

The religious ceremony is quite separate from the legal union (and, legally speaking, irrelevant). The religious ceremony has no legal basis on its own. In fact, in the UK, some moslem women have "married" in moslem terms and then discovered that they are not "married" in the eyes of the law.

The legal part is about being conjoined by someone who is licensed to do so. The paperwork has to be done. This could be an Elvis look-alike in Vegas or a priest, imam or rabbi.

Equally, it could be a registrar of births, deaths and marriages. This is often the case for civil union between gay couples here (as many religious institutions won't marry them).

 

How about Ace v. Roach.
--- merged: Oct 11, 2011 9:31 PM ---

My issue on marriage involves how the government treats married compared to not married. The law should be blind on the question, i.e. there should not be different tax rates for married compared to not married. Otherwise, a "civil union" between two people, is a contract. I think anyone should be able to enter into such an agreement - even multiple agreements. I am libertarian on issues like this. I am not in step with most Tea Party people on social issues.

 

Let me see if I can follow the discussion about "Who's Gonna Win."

When someone raised legitimate concerns about Cain proclaiming an unwillingness to have a Muslim in his administration and his suggestion that being gay is a lifestyle choice, the discussion was diverted by Ace to a question of a perceived threat of Sharia law, of which he noted his own ignorance, and a question of the constitutionality of a Muslim running for president.. Upon addressing his self-proclaimed ignorance and exposing his irrational fear of Sharia law as a threat to the rule of law in the US and the unquestionable constitutionality of any citizen of any religion running for president, he diverted the discussion once again to one of marriage.

Ace, when do we get to the play conservative connect the dots between gay marriage and bestiality?

 

We all make assumptions, have beliefs and points of view. But they are just that and have no concrete relevance in discussion and debate.

Attempting to counter facts presented with one's own point of view is non productive in moving a discussion forward. It's the practice of doing so that tends to sidetrack discussions - and we're all guilty of doing it from time to time.

You're right, I for one, have no interest in your point of view but I'm always willing to consider facts which may reflect your point of view.

If this topic were titled "Who is more tolerant - Aceventura or Roachboy?" I might jump in.

 

tolerance. now what does that mean exactly? taking seriously positions that are based on a one-dimensional framework that's informed policies that have been implemented for over 30 years with the result of a rapidly imploding american empire and an economic crisis that no-one can seem to figure a way to address? how does that work? o that's just your opinion man? so anything goes? that's intellectually irresponsible. and it runs in a direction that incapacitates democratic debate. taking seriously positions that are based on racist fabrications? on what grounds? taking seriously the absence of factual information in a political argument? then what is a political argument? is a political argument about anything you can make up that you decide to call political? in a democratic context, it has to be possible to show that positions are destructive and that information is false. without that, any kind of democratic politics is impossible. sometimes it seems that is what the contemporary populist right wants---a political context that's collapsed into itself, that renders itself incapable of making coherent judgments so that the Economic Betters for whom the populist right carries shit can get about exercising their Important Prerogative of Capital Accumulation unimpeded by any pesky intervention by an informed public.

tolerance on a message board in the context of a political debate is quite different from tolerance of other human beings in meat-space. i have little doubt that, believe it or not, ace and i could enjoy a fine malted beverage or 3 in reality and have far more productive, interesting discussions than happen here, in part because a typical social situation is less defined in terms of expectations and in part because we are both likely quite nice people who write things in these boxes in ways that sound quite different than either of us are as human beings.

that said, the systematic violation of the basic rules of political argument is not particular to ace. it's a feature of conservative identity politics in general. ace happens to approach that identity politics in a particularly rigid way when he writes. and because he recycles conservative argumentation in a rigid manner, because he cannot process information outside that framework and routinely ignores both arguments and information that contradict that, because he resorts to all manner of digression and squirming to avoid dissonance, and because it's obvious that this is the m.o., all he has left is to play victim. which he does periodically.

personally, i would prefer a more interesting game.

 

There is a major struggle going on in the Republican Party between (for lack of a better description) the Tea Party and the "establishment". Big money and the big power brokers will support Romney. The Tea Party faction is still splintered, i.e. libertarians - Paul, religious right wing - Perry, anti-politician - Cain. It is because of the Tea Party being splintered that Romney will bet the nomination. Don't need polls to see this. Unless there is some big shake-up the path is set.