Republican Sharia Law

http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-...nst-sharia-law

Oh the irony....


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3429834.html


Sharia law HAS come to America, and it's been brought to us by the republicans.
We can quibble all day as to whether the NSA collecting numbers is 'destroying' our civil liberties, but here is an actual action by REPUBLICANS that in fact destroys our civil liberties. Here is real life, boots on the ground legislation that IS '1984'.

Alan, perhaps the reason there has been an up-tick in the purchase of that book is because the republicans are using it as a guide. They should add 'The Handmaids Tale' to their reading list.

If Wisconsin is successful in this, and there is no indication they won't be, more republican controlled states will push this type of thing through.
Life under Tea Party Taliban rule....hows that working for ya Wisconsin?


“When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and waving a cross,”

Damned Gosh Darned Republicans. Standing up for the 2nd Amendment and suggesting local legislation to make sure people know that there may be a living baby rather than a simple clump of cells prior to destroying it.

You're right! The War on Wimmenses Women continues unabated.




Edited in order to ensure appreciation.

Oh yes, guerilla tactics all wrapped up in "life".

My friends in WI are all pretty horrified by both. I've had a vaginal ultrasound. It was miserable, and I was there voluntarily. Women's reproductive freedoms are definitely under assault, in many places.

Alan, I would appreciate you not choosing condescending language.

peggy, you made me laugh with the title of this thread.

The last time this came up during the last state doing the same thing, didn't we conclude that Planned Parenthood does transvaginal ultrasounds before abortions? This was a quote from their rep a little more than a year ago:

That’s just the medical standard,” said Adrienne Schreiber, an official at Planned Parenthood’s Washington, D.C., regional office. “To confirm the gestational age of the pregnancy, before any procedure is done, you do an ultrasound.”

She goes on to say later that if the woman is uncomfortable with the transvaginal ultrasound, she's going to be less than delighted with the actual abortion procedure which is even MORE invasive and "miserable."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redfox

Alan, I would appreciate you not choosing condescending language.

---

LOL, it's a condescending thread (not that there's anything terribly wrong with that) designed not to provoke discussion, but rather to inflame emotions. Looks like it worked. ;)

By the way, there is a difference between condescension and sarcasm. Sarcasm is usually obvious to everyone while condescension is oftentimes in the eyes of the beholder.

Alan, I am practicing the respect I hope for in all exchanges on this forum. Mocking me & laughing at my request is a huge deterrent to me to engaging with you. If we were in person, perhaps you would have been able to see my affect, which was disappointment at the language you chose. Is it possible for all of us to frame this conversation in adult language?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lilies

The last time this came up during the last state doing the same thing, didn't we conclude that Planned Parenthood does transvaginal ultrasounds before abortions? This was a quote from their rep a little more than a year ago:

That’s just the medical standard,” said Adrienne Schreiber, an official at Planned Parenthood’s Washington, D.C., regional office. “To confirm the gestational age of the pregnancy, before any procedure is done, you do an ultrasound.”


She goes on to say later that if the woman is uncomfortable with the transvaginal ultrasound, she's going to be less than delighted with the actual abortion procedure which is even MORE invasive and "miserable."

---

The medical standard doesn't currently include requiring the ultrasound technician to provide a detailed description of everything they see in detail as they are doing the procedure.

It does open some interesting doors - with government mandated medical procedures on the books, what others could be mandated?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redfox

Alan, I am practicing the respect I hope for in all exchanges on this forum. Mocking me & laughing at my request is a huge deterrent to me to engaging with you. If we were in person, perhaps you would have been able to see my affect, which was disappointment at the language you chose.

---

Redfox, I don't want to hurt your feelings by disagreeing with you, but do you honestly believe that you didn't single me out because of my use of the term "War on Wimmenses", while deliberately ignoring "Republican Sharia Law" & "Tea Party Taliban"? If you are honestly practicing respect, you would have been disappointed in both so please forgive me for seeing this as nothing more than an attempt to silence those you may perceive to be ideological rivals.

Often, there is a place for irreverance and friendly sarcasm, especially in threads such as this. I'm sorry you don't agree.

I'm also sorry to be forced to respond to this sort of thing publicly. My sincerest apologies to our membership.

My feelings aren't hurt, I am disapponted by your disrespectful language. Done here now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redfox

My feelings aren't hurt, I am disapponted by your disrespectful language. Done here now.

---

redfox, I do appreciate you watching our backs here, but I do honestly think Alan was just engaging in 'spirited banter'. To be truthful, he does sound a bit condescending in that post, but not really over the top. But, just wait for my answer, and I'll return in kind.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Damned Gosh Darned Republicans. Standing up for the 2nd Amendment and suggesting local legislation to make sure people know that there may be a living baby rather than a simple clump of cells prior to destroying it.

You're right! The War on Wimmenses Women continues unabated.





Edited in order to ensure appreciation.

---

Cause, those slutty sluts aren't smart enough to know what pregnancy means, right? They probably think it's a puppy or something...Sheesh! Women sure are stoopid!!:~)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Cause, those slutty sluts aren't smart enough to know what pregnancy means, right? They probably think it's a puppy or something...Sheesh! Women sure are stoopid!!:~)

---

LOL, I'll let you sucker me into something like this once, but you can't make me do anything more that's gonna get me sent to bed without supper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redfox

Is it possible for all of us to frame this conversation in adult language?

---

It does not seem a likely outcome, given the title and tone of the initial post.

Pardon me now, I must finish composing my "Democrats Eat Kittenz" thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

It does not seem a likely outcome, given the title and tone of the initial post.

Pardon me now, I must finish composing my "Democrats Eat Kittenz" thread.

---

Hey, as long as you have links dude, go for it!:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

LOL, I'll let you sucker me into something like this once, but you can't make me do anything more that's gonna get me sent to bed without supper.

---

Well, you might get supper, but it will be served by a woman in a burka, if you live in Wisconsin.
I can't believe any reasonable "keep government out of my private life" republican would support this.
Do you actually support this Alan? Do you think this is a reasonable government action? Or do civil rights only apply to men?
Maybe men should have a trans-penile probe before they...well, you know, 'spill their seed, so to speak, starting at about, oh, 12 or so?:0!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redfox

Is it possible for all of us to frame this conversation in adult language?

---

I think that a lot of issues these days, such as those that peggy raised, break down these days in a similar manner: On the one side is an assertion of human decency, social conscience and/or civil progress, and on the other side is an assertion of self-interest, personal entitlement, or reactionary preference. Those priorities tend to seem more brusque by their very nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bUU

On the one side is an assertion of human decency, social conscience and/or civil progress, and on the other side is an assertion of self-interest, personal entitlement, or reactionary preference.

---

I think the primary problem with this view is that almost everyone considers themselves to be in the first group rather than the second. Is the "assertion of human decency" made more authoritatively by those who hold with the woman's right to choose or the child's right to live? By the need to provide government benefits or the need to maintain a functioning economy? By the advocates of privacy or the advocates for security?

There are many conflicting priorities and interests that a democracy needs to balance, and making the assumption that one's side of any particular issue is the only true and moral position strikes me as naive at best and arrogant at worst.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

I think the primary problem with this view is that almost everyone considers themselves to be in the first group rather than the second.

---

I don't think so. When push comes to shove, and we talk about the motivations behind the first side versus the second side, the arguments set forth by the second side are challenges to the assertion that such tenets of decency, conscience, or progress are their concern. For example, in discussions about universal healthcare, those opposed present the argument, "We shouldn't have to pay more because other people don't have enough to pay for their own," i.e., an assertion of self-interest, personal entitlement and reactionary preference. They don't make a cogent, defensible argument (for example) that, "Those who cannot afford healthcare are better-off without it," or that, "Society is better off with people who cannot afford healthcare dying in the streets."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

Is the "assertion of human decency" made more authoritatively by those who hold with the woman's right to choose or the child's right to live?

---

You may have hit on the only major issue for which the reactionary preference itself has some rational claim to decency. (To be clear, it must be recognized as a valid claim, for the reasons you implied, even though we may personally reject the notion.) This is more of a traditional dispute - where, because there isn't a side that prevails on the basis of the decency versus self-interest test that I alluded to earlier, the ethic of reciprocity and the locus of personal privilege should prevail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

By the need to provide government benefits or the need to maintain a functioning economy?

---

The problem with this assertion is that the former is real - there is no question about the impact of inadequate healthcare - while the claim that an economy couldn't function has been claimed before about the economy the way it is now. It's just something people say because they are desperately trying to defend self-interest or personal entitlement, and they need a defense for their perspective that cannot be proven wrong because it is an assertion of something that they claim would happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

By the advocates of privacy or the advocates for security?

---

Which side is on which side of that debate, though?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

There are many conflicting priorities and interests that a democracy needs to balance, and making the assumption that one's side of any particular issue is the only true and moral position strikes me as naive at best and arrogant at worst.

---

That's different from saying, though, that the other side's position is definitively indecent, antisocial, and/or regressive. There are indeed many possible paths forward, but the specific comments that peggy's comments are confronted with most often are distinctly tainted by those maladies of self-interest, personal entitlement, or reactionary preference. There may be other sides that are indeed defensible approaches. As a matter of fact, I think those distinctions would return to the stage if the abject self-serving perspective lost its place in society. Those distinctions even exist, albeit less attention is paid to it, within the rest of society. A good example of this was seen during the Occupy demonstrations, when different shades of socially-conscious perspective debated with each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bUU

That's different from saying, though, that the other side's position is definitively indecent, antisocial, and/or regressive. .

---

I don't see that it is. Either statement requires the same unfounded assumption of moral superiority. A flippant OP gets a flippant response, and it must be because the respondor is coming from a position of "reactionary preference" against what is clearly the "moral assertion". Being shocked and offended that someone would hold opposing views does not seem to me to be an adequate defense of the ethical high ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

I don't see that it is. Either statement requires the same unfounded assumption of moral superiority.

---

As I have expressed it, over that specific, other perspective. I have not expressed it as such over all other perspectives, which is what your original claim was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

Being shocked and offended that someone would hold opposing views does not seem to me to be an adequate defense of the ethical high ground.

---

I suppose, but I'm not the one "shocked and offended". If you recall, I'm the one "naive or arrogant".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Hey, as long as you have links dude, go for it!:)

---

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QmWbG2e27N...0/Obamacat.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yossarian

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QmWbG2e27N...0/Obamacat.jpg

---

He he!! Of course if cats ruled the world all us humans (and dogs too) would be under Sharia Law so it would more likely be "Kittens eating democrats...republicans give them integestion" :-)!

As for the articles - well I couldn't get the second one and I think Peggy et al knows my position on the "gun debate" so won't restate it here. However a barqua is a fine place for us womenfolk to hide several assult rifles under :-)!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

As for the articles - well I couldn't get the second one and I think Peggy et al knows my position on the "gun debate" so won't restate it here. However a barqua is a fine place for us womenfolk to hide several assult rifles under :-)!

---

This is why I am so fond of wearing the kilt - easy enough to stow a Sterling SMG under there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

This is why I am so fond of wearing the kilt - easy enough to stow a Sterling SMG under there.

---

I always wondered what men have on under those kilts :devil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

redfox, I do appreciate you watching our backs here, but I do honestly think Alan was just engaging in 'spirited banter'. To be truthful, he does sound a bit condescending in that post, but not really over the top. But, just wait for my answer, and I'll return in kind.;)

---

Hell hath frozen over!!! Peggy is defending Alan??!! Run for your lives before the rain of hot hail engulfs us all!!! :devil::devil:

I also thought Alan was using spirited banter based on the title and content of the thread. But then, I always enjoy the spirited banter on "The Peggy and Alan Show" (theme songs and lyrics to the tune of the Ichy and Scratchy Show from the Simpsons). I enjoy tuning in every week ;-)!

For myself, as a democrat and a gun owner, I personally thought the first article was pretty out there and way off the mark. Certainly not what I have seen of both republicans or other gun owners. Maybe I just run with the wrong crowd :-)!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

....Maybe I just run with the wrong crowd :-)!

---

You are running with the right cloud and WHEN are you going to join us on the dark side? haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lilies

You are running with the right cloud and WHEN are you going to join us on the dark side? haha

---

Well maybe if you bring back McCain :-)! Him - if he gives me Universal healthcare, lets me keep my guns, pro gay marriage, anti-illegal immigration rights, pro military, anti war, pro business, smaller government, higher taxes for govmint social programs for impoverished people, tax write offs for business that create jobs in this country for citizens ...and on and on. She feignts to the right! Then, KerPOW, she feignts to the left - she's one rock-em sock-em robot. Or maybe just a confused blonde :-))!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yossarian

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QmWbG2e27N...0/Obamacat.jpg

---

:laff::laff::laff:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

Hell hath frozen over!!! Peggy is defending Alan??!! Run for your lives before the rain of hot hail engulfs us all!!! :devil::devil:

I also thought Alan was using spirited banter based on the title and content of the thread. But then, I always enjoy the spirited banter on "The Peggy and Alan Show" (theme songs and lyrics to the tune of the Ichy and Scratchy Show from the Simpsons). I enjoy tuning in every week ;-)!

For myself, as a democrat and a gun owner, I personally thought the first article was pretty out there and way off the mark. Certainly not what I have seen of both republicans or other gun owners. Maybe I just run with the wrong crowd :-)!

---

Humm....not sure what links you are talking about, but the first link I posted was to some republicans putting anti-sharia laws in their platform, as if ANYONE was trying to put sharia law into OUR laws. And the second link was to the Wisconsin republican legislature passing mandatory vaginal ultrasounds for all the (apparently) stupid women in that state Who don't know what pregnancy means.
I was trying to point to the irony of these republicans who fear monger about something that isn't/never will happen, then force their own brand of 'sharia law' on the women of Wisconsin.
Oh, and it wasn't just some slippery slope, maybe could happen, snarky post/link. Nope, the really scary thing is, this actually is happening. Right here in the good 'ol US. Women, subjected to an invasive body probe, against their will, in order to get a legal, safe medical procedure.

Not sure where you got guns from that, but I do find it incredibly ironic that we have long, drawn out discussions about WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IF THIS AND THAT HAPPENS, and look out cause Obama/NSA/Justice department just might do this awful thing if this happens and this happens and this happens...yet here is a truly invasive, civil rights sucking, Taliban emulating bit of legislation that actually happened, and it gets immediately brushed off and diverted to guns or kitten eating or something. Unbelievable.

But, hey, why talk about something that has actually happened when it is so much more fun to speculate on how the NSA is going to send armed IRS agents to your house after Obama has droned you in the coffee shop.:0!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

:laff::laff::laff:

---

Fact check, peggy, fact check! Everyone knows Obama prefers other sorts of meat....


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1FMWR99gYk..._eats_dogs.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Humm....not sure what links you are talking about, but the first link I posted was to some republicans putting anti-sharia laws in their platform, as if ANYONE was trying to put sharia law into OUR laws. And the second link was to the Wisconsin republican legislature passing mandatory vaginal ultrasounds for all the (apparently) stupid women in that state Who don't know what pregnancy means.
I was trying to point to the irony of these republicans who fear monger about something that isn't/never will happen, then force their own brand of 'sharia law' on the women of Wisconsin.
Oh, and it wasn't just some slippery slope, maybe could happen, snarky post/link. Nope, the really scary thing is, this actually is happening. Right here in the good 'ol US. Women, subjected to an invasive body probe, against their will, in order to get a legal, safe medical procedure.

Not sure where you got guns from that, but I do find it incredibly ironic that we have long, drawn out discussions about WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IF THIS AND THAT HAPPENS, and look out cause Obama/NSA/Justice department just might do this awful thing if this happens and this happens and this happens...yet here is a truly invasive, civil rights sucking, Taliban emulating bit of legislation that actually happened, and it gets immediately brushed off and diverted to guns or kitten eating or something. Unbelievable.

But, hey, why talk about something that has actually happened when it is so much more fun to speculate on how the NSA is going to send armed IRS agents to your house after Obama has droned you in the coffee shop.:0!

---

Oh no - you cut off the part of my post where I stated I couldn't get the second article so didn't want to comment on that. Maybe the tin foil hat was emitting rays blocking my internet access to the article... or was it something else like government blocking access to certain media :-) :-) . I wasn't trying to be snarky either. Just thought the idea that republicans would use "the need for protection against sharia Law " as an excuse to own guns as pretty out there. I will refrain from using spirited banter or joking in the future.

Peggy, I wanted to add that while I agree that no woman should be made to do an ultrasound to determine fetal age prior to an abortion if another method is available, I can not see how anyone can equate one states requirement for that to a multinational legal system affecting millions and millions of people worldwide. There is no comparison between requiring an ultra sound before abortion and stoning a married woman to death for adultery because she was gang raped. So while I thought both your articles were worth discussion seperately, the way you tied them together and the general gist of your OP made me believe it was an attempt at inflamming, baiting, and bashing republicans (and I say that as a democrat and Obama supporter) rather then serious discussion. Again, I apologise if my attempt at light hearted humor offended you, I was just joking as I do enjoy the interaction between you and Alan. I often find it very enlightening and I learn a lot. So I'll save my crappy jokes for other areas of these forums :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lilies

The last time this came up during the last state doing the same thing, didn't we conclude that Planned Parenthood does transvaginal ultrasounds before abortions? This was a quote from their rep a little more than a year ago:

That’s just the medical standard,” said Adrienne Schreiber, an official at Planned Parenthood’s Washington, D.C., regional office. “To confirm the gestational age of the pregnancy, before any procedure is done, you do an ultrasound.”

She goes on to say later that if the woman is uncomfortable with the transvaginal ultrasound, she's going to be less than delighted with the actual abortion procedure which is even MORE invasive and "miserable."

---

A medical standard is one thing. Making it a legal requirement is entirely another. MEdical care should be between the patient and the medical provider. I do see the inconsistency between the idea of small gov't and the idea of gov't being so big it can tell people they must have an ultrasound. Sometimes it seems as if 'small gov't' really means 'a gov't that makes people do exactly what I want them to do and nothing I don't want them to do.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reader99

A medical standard is one thing. Making it a legal requirement is entirely another. MEdical care should be between the patient and the medical provider. I do see the inconsistency between the idea of small gov't and the idea of gov't being so big it can tell people they must have an ultrasound. Sometimes it seems as if 'small gov't' really means 'a gov't that makes people do exactly what I want them to do and nothing I don't want them to do.'

---

Exactly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

Peggy, I wanted to add that while I agree that no woman should be made to do an ultrasound to determine fetal age prior to an abortion if another method is available, I can not see how anyone can equate one states requirement for that to a multinational legal system affecting millions and millions of people worldwide. There is no comparison between requiring an ultra sound before abortion and stoning a married woman to death for adultery because she was gang raped. So while I thought both your articles were worth discussion seperately, the way you tied them together and the general gist of your OP made me believe it was an attempt at inflamming, baiting, and bashing republicans (and I say that as a democrat and Obama supporter) rather then serious discussion. Again, I apologise if my attempt at light hearted humor offended you, I was just joking as I do enjoy the interaction between you and Alan. I often find it very enlightening and I learn a lot. So I'll save my crappy jokes for other areas of these forums :-)

---

Spartana, I wasn't trying to inflame. If the actual information inflames, well, that isn't my fault, but what I would believe the natural reaction to such legislation. At least I would hope that would be the reaction. I guess my major disappointment is that it apparently isn't. That's what offended me, really.
We love to speculate on these forums on this and that slippery slope, but when I post an ACTUAL bit of civil liberty being lost, it seems to dissolve into humor and 'gee, I love my gun more than you love your gun', which actually didn't have anything to do with the topic.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. This isn't apples to oranges. it's apples to apples, and the fact that it's republicans who are doing this, across the country, again, isn't my fault. I'm just reporting the truth. Please, find a more direct connection to these actions across the country and I'll gladly accept, but the truth is, the 'connection' is republican legislatures. Period.

Now, and here is where I maybe wasn't clear, Sharia law is RELIGIOUS law, and this anti-women vaginal probe law is a RELIGIOUS law. Period. There is the connection. I admit I wasn't very good at analogies in school, but it doesn't take much thought to see this connection. I just found it ironic. Perhaps I'm alone in that.

Sharia law didn't blossom, fully formed, overnight, in the countries it is law. It started with just such RELIGIOUS based laws being accepted, more often that not, aimed at women. It went from "you might want to wear a burka".. to.. "you should wear a burka".. to.. "you will wear a burka".

And, well, is stoning women really that far behind?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3327974.html
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/1...gender-people/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3443591.html

Again, if you can find a common denominator other than these are republican legislatures, then bring it on. Maybe that's an uncomfortable truth for some, but there you are. Again, not my fault.
These are not speculative 'slippery slopes' but actual bits of repressive legislation. But, I guess it isn't as important as I thought. Maybe these women should shove a gun up their vaginas. Then maybe it will be deemed important.:devil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Now, and here is where I maybe wasn't clear, Sharia law is RELIGIOUS law, and this anti-women vaginal probe law is a RELIGIOUS law.

---

I wouldn't consider the requirement for an ultrasound prior to an abortion to be religious law. Beyond a certain point in the pregnancy, I'd consider it to be common sense and certainly no more invasive than the actual abortion.

I'm also one of those people who believe that there are two parties to each abortion, the mother and the child. I know that isn't popular in some quarters but I can't help but be in favor of any requirement that reminds people of the victim. Sort of like an automatic appeal for folks on death row.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

I wouldn't consider the requirement for an ultrasound prior to an abortion to be religious law. Beyond a certain point in the pregnancy, I'd consider it to be common sense and certainly no more invasive than the actual abortion.

I'm also one of those people who believe that there are two parties to each abortion, the mother and the child. I know that isn't popular in some quarters but I can't help but be in favor of any requirement that reminds people of the victim. Sort of like an automatic appeal for folks on death row.

---

There is a big difference in having an ultrasound done to determine fetal age and having one that requires the technician to point out the fetus' features and organs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creaker

There is a big difference in having an ultrasound done to determine fetal age and having one that requires the technician to point out the fetus' features and organs.

---

Yes, features and organs are a sign of humanity.