Ron Paul vs. David Horowitz

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by chiknthief on April 20, 2011 at 9:52am

I like libertarian views on fiscal policies. On all the rest, I view liberal---tarians as pure crackpots. Beck and Horowitz are dead on. I have zero confidence in liberal--tarians when it comes to national defense. Zero !!!

 

Ron Paul is a good congressman but I believe he'd be a lousy president. Of course if the election comes down to a choice between Ron Paul or obama, I'd have to vote for Ron. Lesser of the two evils.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Blessing on April 20, 2011 at 9:38pm

chiknthief said:

I like libertarian views on fiscal policies. On all the rest, I view liberal---tarians as pure crackpots.

So us "liberal---tarians" are "pure crackpots" on the Second Amendment, then, as well?

I haven't seen many times where Horowitz has invoked the Second as a potential defense against terrorists, but I don't expect him to do that.

Beck and Horowitz are dead on. I have zero confidence in liberal--tarians when it comes to national defense. Zero !!!

Ron Paul is a good congressman but I believe he'd be a lousy president.

So the Constitution shouldn't apply where national defense is concerned?!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CyberWiz Beezer on April 20, 2011 at 10:22pm

There can be NO Sharia law in the US... I don't care if those Mooooslims set up their own walled communities in Dearborn or SaltLake or wherever. NO SHARIA LAW IN THE USA ,!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Blessing on April 20, 2011 at 11:04pm

CyberWiz Beezer said:

There can be NO Sharia law in the US... I don't care if those Mooooslims set up their own walled communities in Dearborn or SaltLake or wherever. NO SHARIA LAW IN THE USA ,!!

LegallyIf they set up a walled, gated community (like Tanoan – I have a friend who lives there), they can establish whatever rules they want, so long as those rules don't violate the public laws – city and county ordinances, state statutes, U.S. Code.

And if they keep the malum prohibitum aspects of their sharia–based rules within those walls, what business is of it of mine? I don't have to visit anyone in that compound, and they won't be imposing their malum prohibitum upon me, so I don't see a problem.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by chiknthief on April 20, 2011 at 11:27pm

I enjoy giving you libs heck sometimes, Mike. No offense meant.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CyberWiz Beezer on April 20, 2011 at 11:48pm

What can go wrong inside their walls.?
Beat their women to death
Stone same
Sexual mutilation of sub-teens
Appendage separation
Beheadings
Rape of 8 year olds
Marriage to hundreds of teen girls
.....Walls don't keep people in or out..... So what's to prevent same on the streets... Look up the YouTube video of the Dallas cab driver who killed his teenage daughters for wearing Western clothes. Look up anything Muslim. Read about the NJ Judge who dismissed the husband who beat his wife nearly to death because "It's OK by Sharia Law"..

Sorry,,,,under ANY circumstances.... NO SHARIA LAW IN THE USA ,!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Blessing on April 21, 2011 at 1:24pm

CyberWiz Beezer said:

What can go wrong inside their walls.?
Beat their women to death
Stone same
Sexual mutilation of sub-teens
Appendage separation
Beheadings
Rape of 8 year olds
Marriage to hundreds of teen girls
.....Walls don't keep people in or out..... So what's to prevent same on the streets... Look up the YouTube video of the Dallas cab driver who killed his teenage daughters for wearing Western clothes. Look up anything Muslim. Read about the NJ Judge who dismissed the husband who beat his wife nearly to death because "It's OK by Sharia Law"..

Sorry,,,,under ANY circumstances.... NO SHARIA LAW IN THE USA ,!!

First, all of these crimes are Malum in se offenses – they're illlegal because they're inherently bad things to do, in that one person is coercively harming another, as opposed to Malum prohibitum offenses – things that are illegal because a majority of those amongst the Legislature (or ulema, as applied to sharia), such as the prohibition on alcohol.

Second, NONE of these offenses are unique to Islam – there are plenty of instances of such behavior being conducted by those calling themselves "Christians," "Hindus," "Buddhists," etc. ALL of these religions have parts that tell the believers to be nice to each other and everyone else. Yet these sorts of things happen.

There's an outfit in present-day Uganda calling itself the Lord's Resistance Army doing just those sorts of things in the name of their peculiar mix of "Christianity" and animism. Should I assume that all Christians who haven't heard of these clowns, and thus haven't denounced them, are on board with their program?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CyberWiz Beezer on April 21, 2011 at 3:40pm

Sorry,,,,under ANY circumstances.... NO SHARIA LAW IN THE USA ,!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CyberWiz Beezer on April 24, 2011 at 5:51am

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/04/islamic-honor-killing-in-kentucky...

Islamic honor killing in Kentucky: Muslim slits throats of his three children, rapes his wife and hits her with a hammer
Because he suspected her of infidelity. This happened in 2006, but is just coming to trial now for some reason.

Of course, this story makes no mention of Islam. Said Biyard is just a "Somali man." And generally whenever an honor killing takes place in North America or Europe, the mainstream media tells us that honor killing is a cultural practice that has nothing to do with Islam -- despite several facts indicating the contrary. It is no accident or coincidence that Muslims commit 91 percent of honor killings worldwide. A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2). In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law.

Syria in 2009 scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences for honor killings, but "the new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honour 'provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing.'" And in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that "Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values."

Nonetheless, the media drumbeat is constant: honor killings have nothing to do with Islam. And as long as that continues, we will see more and more murders like this one.

"Police describe grisly scene in Somali man's trial in deaths of his children," by Jason Riley in the Courier-Journal, April 18 (thanks to Twostellas):

Louisville Metro Police officers described in court on Monday a grisly scene when they walked into the home of Said Biyad's family on Oct. 6, 2006, with a trail of blood starting in the hallway and leading to bedrooms with his four children lying dead, their throats cut.
“He left them laying in pools of their own blood,” Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Christie Foster said in her opening statement about Biyad, whose murder trial began on Monday in Jefferson Circuit Court.

Foster told Judge James Shake that Biyad “brutally” killed his four children — Goshany, Khadija, Fatuma and Sidi Ali, ages 2 through 8 — and raped and assaulted his wife before turning himself in at police headquarters and admitting what he had done.

Detective Brenda Wescott testified that three of the children were found in one room, with the youngest apparently trying to put her thumb in her mouth before she died. The other child was found in a separate room in bed, partially covered in blankets.

Wescott, who had to compose herself once during her testimony, said she arrived at the scene to find a veteran officer looking “shell-shocked.”...

Defense attorney Mike Lemke said in his openings to Shake that they believe Biyad is mentally ill and will offer expert testimony that he is a paranoid schizophrenic.

Lemke said Biyad has for years believed people were trying to kill him and get his money, and that he was a multimillionaire celebrity.

He said this trial will show “clear evidence of a person who is mentally ill” and provide a “peek into a brain that does not function in a normal way.”...

The first witness for the prosecution, Officer James Clark, said Biyad was sitting calmly in the lobby of the police station on Seventh and Jefferson streets, his hands crossed, when he first met him.

Biyad “kept saying he had done very bad things,” Clark said.

Clark testified that Biyad told his story, in broken English, “matter-of-factly.”

Biyad told police he had slit the throats of his children, making a motion by sweeping his hand across his neck, and believed they were dead. He said his wife, Fatuma Amir, may also be dead. Amir was beaten and raped, but survived.

Clark said Biyad was angry because he believed his wife was cheating on him and he was asked to pay money to the elders to have a relationship with her.

Biyad allegedly raped his wife and beat her with a hammer before she was able to lock herself in a room.

Biyad said he then went to the rooms of each of his children, cutting their throats, before throwing the knife in a garbage can, according to court documents.

When Officer Krissy Hagan went to the home, she said she heard Amir crying inside.

“A sob I won't forget,” she said.

Biyad is not facing the death penalty through an agreement between defense and prosecutors and the maximum sentence he faces is life in prison.

What kind of agreement?

Posted by Robert on April 19, 2011 8:11 AM | 61 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |
Categories: honor killing
« Previous Entry | Home Page | Next Entry »
¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥
61 Comments
Schnellmann_org | April 19, 2011 8:39 AM | Reply
...However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2). In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law.
http://newstime.co.nz/honor-killings-to-offspring-are-allowed-in-is...
(video) "Honor" killings are allowed by Sharia Law (o2.4, ‘Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2.)

duh_swami | April 19, 2011 8:46 AM | Reply
Biyad is mentally ill and will offer expert testimony that he is a paranoid schizophrenic.

The expert testimony will be by a psychiatrist, or psychologist, who are not expert in the effects of Islam on a submitters mind...It is entirely possible and even probable that Islam and paranoid schizophrenia fit together like hand and glove...But the psychiatrist will only examine the glove, and not the hand in it...Of course it is always possible that Biyad will start running off at the mouth and give Islam credit for his behavior...But in America, 'Islam made me do it' is not yet a legal defense, but they are working on that...

Buraq | April 19, 2011 9:03 AM | Reply
There's always method in Islamic madness. And Biyad's behavior is typical of someone who belongs to a so-called religion that believes peace is an obstacle to its objectives.

Naram-Sin | April 19, 2011 9:22 AM | Reply
Generally, the agreemnent between the prosecution and defense would be in exchange for a quilty plea. At that point the trial would only deal with sentencing. The article is unclear on this and it appears not to be the case. Other articles indicated that by agreement the trial is not a jury trial (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110417/NEWS01/304180020/10...|head), and this may be what led to the removal of the death penalty. A jury trial would be a bit more expensive and more risky for the prosecution because the defence would only need to find one simpathetic juror. The prosecution may also feel that because of the questionable mental state of the defendant it would never get a death sentence and seeking one would be a waste of time and money in any case.

Personally, I don't think the prosecution should ever give up the death penalty in a situation such as this, as it sends the wrong message.

pokermutt | April 19, 2011 9:43 AM | Reply
Nothing, and I mean nothing, surprises me anymore about muslims. I am a true blue Islamoloathe.

Sorry, but I feel compelled to do the following to answer a couple of posters from days ago:
------------------------------------------------------------
Off Topic Off Topic

A reply to EASTVIEW and INFIDEL PRIDE from a previous thread on a technical issue:

The founders of Signalism, Messieurs Poker Mutt and London Jim, stand by one of the key tenets of Signalism,

The West is analog, Islam is digital.

This has not, as yet, been fully fleshed out nor its profundities fully plumbed. I and LJ are going on gut instinct and proceeding as time and energy permit. Analog vs digital, in one aspect only, is about richness vs barrenness, colour vs black and white. What’s more, analog can exist on its own—digital cannot. Hence, one of the under-appreciated factors in the urgency of establishing the worldwide caliphate. FYI, the Signalist Party has a worldwide membership of two. At three, we become a mass movement.

But here is what I want to say to the both of you: Taqiyya exists in marketing! Make of this what you will and keep up the good work. I always find a nugget or two in your posts. A copy and paste from Wikipedia.

“Speakers marked as digital:
Modern speakers marketed as 'digital' are always analog speakers, in most cases driven by an analog amplifier. The widespread use of the term 'digital' with speakers is a marketing ploy intended to claim better suitability with 'digital' source material (e.g., MP3 recordings), or impute 'higher technology' than some other speaker, and perhaps higher price. If pressed, manufacturers may claim the term means the product is 'ready' for input from digital players; this is true of essentially all speaker systems.” END.

“for input from digital players” means that the receiving device has a digital to analog converter for feeding to the analog transducer, the speaker.

If analog ain’t invited to the next party thrown by the modern and hip, quadruple the amount of booze and drugs to be brought. But that ain’t right…right?

If anyone is interested here are the two posts that prompted the above:

pokermutt replied to comment from Eastview | April 17, 2011 10:17 AM | Reply
Hello and thank you Eastview. You said,

"Hmmm...Gonna have to think about this. In today's world, "analog" is usually taken to denote being old and outdated, while "digital" means modern and hip. I'm sure this isn't what you mean to suggest, Poker Mutt and London Jim. Perhaps you have in mind that Islam is digital in the sense that it is binary, polar, inflexible, while the analog nature of the West lies in its infinite flexibility?"

I replied,
Yes and yes and more. Listening to zeros and ones would first of all be impossible, and then it would be boring. Digital has to be converted into an analog signal and fed to an analog transducer like a speaker and then one hears music to the ears. Anything that is of value to a human is analog.

Then Infidel Pride got in on the action.

Infidel Pride replied to comment from Eastview | April 18, 2011 12:46 AM | Reply
That's what struck me about their quotes. I disagree - analog means a continuous signal while digital means a step function. Humans can hear digital signals as well - it just is a case of converting an electrical signal - be it digital or analog - into audio or video.
As far as humans go, once digital achieves a resolution that exceeds what eyes can sense or ears can hear, it's practically analog. For instance, if in a video clip you have more frames per second than what the human eye can pick up, what you'll have is a continuous, rather than a jarring, video stream. That's why I disagree w/ the 'Islam is digital' statement - if a digital signal has a high enough resolution, it becomes analog, but if Islam becomes more Islamic, it doesn't become non-Islamic.
pokermutt replied to comment from duh_swami | April 19, 2011 9:47 AM | Reply
That was a brilliant analogy. I'm pasting it.

PMK | April 19, 2011 9:52 AM | Reply
What did the children do to merit 'honor killing'? They certainly weren't unfaithful to him.
George | April 19, 2011 10:36 AM | Reply
Biyad “kept saying he had done very bad things,” Clark said.

Insane or islam? I thought one of the keys to an insanity defense is a failure to understand right vs. wrong. His own statement would indicate that he did know that difference. But then, since islam specializes in the promotion and celebration of practically everything that's wrong (by civilized standards), a case could be made that all muslims are insane. Of course, being "insane" means they're not really responsible--something or someone else is always to blame. Islam means never having to say you're sorry. Unless you're lying...

But all that misses the point: What are these Somalis doing in Kentucky? Shouldn't they be in Somalia? Did they pay their own way here? Is their presence here good for the fabric of our society? Is there any reason not to expect more of the same from them? At any and all levels--can we afford them here? Do we want this in our neighborhoods?

This isn't rocket science. If we don't want our countries to look like those 57 islamic hellhole countries...just STOP IMPORTING MUSLIMS! Let them kill their own islamic families in their own islamic countries and clean-up their own islamic messes...on their time and their dime, not ours...

CGW | April 19, 2011 10:53 AM | Reply
The horrible face of islam . . .

tanstaafl replied to comment from PMK | April 19, 2011 11:06 AM | Reply
Muslim parents (and grandparents) may kill their offspring if the parents feel their children are not on the "right path". (In the Qur'an, the chapter entitled "The Green Man".

("Show us the straight path, The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray."
Muslims generally interpret "those whom Allah has favored," "those who earn Allah's anger," and "those who go astray" as Muslims, Jews, and Christians, respectively. 1:6-7)
Tom Billesley | April 19, 2011 11:14 AM | Reply
A jury trial and only one muslim juror?
The slaves of Allah don't seek retribution for a father killing his children and do not consider it possible to rape a wife. As for wife beating, that's only frowned upon if it visibly damages the "chattel".

Infidel Pride replied to comment from pokermutt | April 19, 2011 11:18 AM | Reply
Pokermutt

I'm getting the impression that you are confusing digital vs analog w/ audio vs electrical. That's not the issue here. Ultimately, any waveform - audio, voltage, current - can be either analog or digital. In case of audio, when the signal is digital, it changes the timbre of the sound. Different waveforms - square, sawtooth, sine - will give you different timbres, like the sounds of guitars, pianos, fluglehorns... What you probably referred to was the conversion of electrical signals into audio signals, which is by no means the same as an analog-digital or digital-analog converter.

Expressed in calculus, a digital signal is not going to be differentiable (i.e. derivatives wrt time cannot be derived with the transition spike of a square wave) whereas an analog signal will be. However, in the physical world, nothing will happen in absolute zero time - it will take some nanoseconds at least, which is why, in the end, it does turn out to be differentiable. But in electronics, a lot of approximations are made for the sake of simplifying the design of such circuitry, which is then used to produce essentially digital signals.

Digital signals, depending on their resolutions, can be made to approximate analog signals using step functions. So where you'd normally see a sine waveform, instead, you'd see a staircase like waveform following the same trajectory. This is also the principle behind pulse code modulation, where you have a high frequency carrier signal being shaped by the modulating waveform so that it can be transmitted. At the end, it can either be made analog, or passed through a digital signal processor to produce an output of appropriate resolution. The advantage to the latter being that noise is automatically eliminated.[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[................ MORE ................]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion