News Bogus Claim - Obama wants to implement Sharia Law

[lisab]

They are quoting the Imam's own book. Is that a right-wing nut site?

*crickets*... *chirp*...

You originally said there are "those on the left" calling for Sharia law in the United States. You did not back that up, instead you posted some dumb-@ss right wing blog - not a reputable source - that the mosque is a so-called 'victory mosque':

I also think it's close to the nature of what it is to open a mosque. It opens up a seat of government. When a mosque is open, there's a claim of territory. When you open a mosque it establishes Islamic law within the purview of the mosque. There is a history of Islam putting up mosques that are associated with claims of victory.

The site you linked is full of lots of that kind of crap, like this:

He (the Imam) seems to suggest (Sharia) should replace the U.S. Constitution.

Bolding mine. "Seems to suggest"? Really? That counts as a legit source? Again, I'm calling it BS. I know you really, really want to believe what you wrote - see "truthiness".

The crickets you hear are an echo.

 

[loseyourname]

The zaniness you find at the bottom of an internet article is hardly limited to rumors about Obama. People think the Federal Reserve System intentionally crashed the world financial markets so that JP Morgan Chase could gobble up debt-riddled competitors, for Christ's sake. The internet naturally gives voice to every single whack job you would have never known existed before its advent.

 

[Barwick]

You originally said there are "those on the left" calling for Sharia law in the United States. You did not back that up, instead you posted some dumb-@ss right wing blog - not a reputable source - that the mosque is a so-called 'victory mosque':

No I didn't, go back and read the post... I said those on the left were sympathetic to the calls for Sharia Law:

And I should have clarified: It isn't the majority of the left that's saying we should impose Sharia Law. What I meant was, when a call is made for Sharia Law to be allowed in a community or certain segment of the population, it is the Left that is most commonly heard saying "I'm ok with that".

Now, do I go around calling MSNBC, CNN, CBS, etc all "dumb-@ss socialist propaganda machines"? No. Though that's what they are, I judge the stories on each site on an individual basis.

 

[Gokul43201]

Now, do I go around calling MSNBC, CNN, CBS, etc all "dumb-@ss socialist propaganda machines"? No. Though that's what they are, I judge the stories on each site on an individual basis.

What you think they are is irrelevant. For the purpose of sourcing claims on this forum, citations to original sources are required whenever possible. A blog may be acceptable if it is directly quoting a primary source, but not if it is providing its own interpretation and commentary.

 

[Evo]

No I didn't, go back and read the post... I said those on the left were sympathetic to the calls for Sharia Law:

So, back that up with a mainstream acceptable source, not someone's personal opinion. It's against forum rules to state opinion as fact.

 

[Barwick]

So, back that up with a mainstream acceptable source, not someone's personal opinion. It's against forum rules to state opinion as fact.

What do you want? Transcripts from meetings? What "major, mainstream" media outlet is going to report on something so small and seemingly insignificant to most Americans?

 

[Evo]

What do you want? Transcripts from meetings? What "major, mainstream" media outlet is going to report on something so small and seemingly insignificant to most Americans?

So, you have no valid source. Thanks for confirming that, not that there was any doubt.

 

[Barwick]

So, you have no valid source. Thanks for confirming that, not that there was any doubt.

No, the news outlets that cover this aren't biased towards your liberal point of view like the so called "mainstream" media is. Since when do YOU get to define what is mainstream?

Regardless:

http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a6107-08.opn.html

While recognizing that defendant had engaged in sexual relations with plaintiff against her expressed wishes in November 2008 and on the night of January 15 to 16, 2009, the judge did not find sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct to have been proven. He stated:

"This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

The case was later overturned by a more sane court:

As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State's statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.

Now, if I didn't think you're going to ignore my references STILL, I'd go and find more, but why should I waste my time arguing with you?

 

[Evo]

No, the news outlets that cover this aren't biased towards your liberal point of view like the so called "mainstream" media is. Since when do YOU get to define what is mainstream?

Regardless:

http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a6107-08.opn.html



The case was later overturned by a more sane court:



Now, if I didn't think you're going to ignore my references STILL, I'd go and find more, but why should I waste my time arguing with you?

This doesn't support your claim.

A mainstream news source is a well known recognized news source, it is not a blog, it is not an opinion piece. This is what the mentors have agreed upon for this forum.

 

[Barwick]

This doesn't support your claim.

A mainstream news source is a well known recognized news source, it is not a blog, it's is not an opinion piece. This is what the mentors have agreed upon for this forum.

You think "mainstream news sources" aren't opinion pieces?

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/d...ng-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/

Oh, and in case that isn't "mainstream" enough for you, I'll link the Fox News article (mainstream yet?) that quoted and used the Daily Caller as its source for their article:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...tted-protect-candidate-obama-jeremiah-wright/

Oh and here's another, but it has the word "Christian" in the name of the company so it must be full of wackjobs

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0722/JournoList-Isolated-case-or-the-tip-of-the-iceberg

So far, news organizations like the Post and National Public Radio, whose journalists took part in the list and have been quoted by the Daily Caller, are staying mostly mum about the scoop. The Post – which is at the center of the JournoList debacle because the list was run by Post reporter Ezra Klein – has declined comment, citing it as a "personnel matter."

And as testament to my point about your high and mighty "mainstream" sources, get on Google and type in the word "Journolist". Click through page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc... and tell me when you come to a "mainstream" source that has an article on Journolist, and ISN'T an editorial. Good luck. To find that one on Fox News I had to search site:www.foxnews.com[/URL] Journolist and start digging before I found that one.

 

[Evo]

You think "mainstream news sources" aren't opinion pieces?

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/d...ng-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/

This isn't mainstream.

Reported news in a mainstream news source is acceptable as a source, editorials and opinion pieces are not acceptable and this has been made clear to you several times.

And as testament to my point about your high and mighty "mainstream" sources, get on Google and type in the word "Journolist". Click through page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc... and tell me when you come to a "mainstream" source that has an article on Journolist, and ISN'T an editorial. Good luck. To find that one on Fox News I had to search site:www.foxnews.com[/URL] Journolist and start digging before I found that one.[/QUOTE]What is a "Journolist"? Why would I need to look for an article on it? And what does that have to do with you making bogus claims that you can't back up?

Edit: Journolist - a private Google Group. This has nothing to do at all with your claim.

 

[Barwick]

This isn't mainstream.

Reported news in a mainstream news source is acceptable as a source, editorials and opinion pieces are not acceptable and this has been made clear to you several times.

What is a "Journolist"? Why would I need to look for an article on it? And what does that have to do with you making bogus claims that you can't back up?

Good Lord... this is exactly what I am talking about.

You're the moderator, take the time to read what I submitted, even though it's not "mainstream" according to you. It answers all the questions you just asked me.

Since your view of "news" is only what comes from obviously biased sources, I will give you a bit of old news:

Journolist was a group where liberal (yes, they were all admittedly liberal) journalists conspired together to suppress news stories that were detrimental to Barack Obama's election, both during the primary vs Hillary Clinton, and in the general election. They also said some nasty things about conservatives, wishing people died, talking about how it would be funny, yadda yadda... They discussed making up claims of racism about conservatives in order to distract people from the real issues, despite there being no evidence, etc.

It is all true, and admitted to by the people who were later exposed. It resulted in resignations, etc. Heck, here, have a billion and a half references on the scandal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList#References

It's one of the biggest scandals exposing the media of modern times, and yet you haven't heard about it. Honestly, just for ONCE, please open your mind and read something other than what you consider to be mainstream. As a physicist, I'm sure you're glad that SOMEONE listened to Galileo and Copernicus, despite the powers-that-be in what was at the time a corrupt version of the church, refusing to listen to their reason. There IS in fact truth out there outside what you think is "mainstream".

 

[Barwick]

Edit: Journolist - a private Google Group. This has nothing to do at all with your claim.

*covers ears* LALALALALALALALALALALALAAAA!

Nothing to see here folks! It's true because I say so!

You have GOT to be kidding me... there's enough evidence in the Journolist archives (if the full archives exist anywhere), that if bias were illegal, we could convict these people in a court of law.

 

[Evo]

Good Lord... this is exactly what I am talking about.

You're the moderator, take the time to read what I submitted, even though it's not "mainstream" according to you. It answers all the questions you just asked me.

I don't see a single news report stating that

those on the left were sympathetic to the calls for Sharia Law:

Post the news article from a mainstream source that backs up your claim. I need the specific quote and the link. You're breaking forum rules by continuing to post off topic.

 

[Barwick]

I don't see a single news report stating that

Post the news article from a mainstream source that backs up your claim. I need the specific quote and the link. You're breaking forum rules by continuing to post off topic.

I'm done trying to argue with you. I just showed how mainstream sources like your precious CBS, MSNBC, etc are NOT going to write about things like this because they are biased, and yet you demand I find something that isn't present from biased media sources.

At least admit my point that these "mainstream" sources you demand are NOT in fact neutral and do NOT report on everything that is out there, therefore your demand is unfulfillable.

 

[Evo]

I'm done trying to argue with you. I just showed how mainstream sources like your precious CBS, MSNBC, etc are NOT going to write about things like this because they are biased, and yet you demand I find something that isn't present from biased media sources.

At least admit my point that these "mainstream" sources you demand are NOT in fact neutral and do NOT report on everything that is out there, therefore your demand is unfulfillable.

No one is saying that they are neutral, the point is that since they are well known, it is well known what their bias is. That's the point.

Posting someone's opinion and claiming it as a fact as you did is a violation of the forum rules.

 

[Jack21222]

Is it against forum rules to suggest a poster seek psychiatric help for paranoid delusions? I'm not necessarily talking about anybody in this thread, of course...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oklahoma "Sharia Law Amendment", State Question 755 (2010)

The Oklahoma International Law Amendment is on the November 2, 2010 general election ballot in the state of Oklahoma as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The measure would require that courts rely on federal or state laws when handing down decisions concerning cases and would prohibit them from using international law or Sharia law when making rulings.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oklahoma_%22Sharia_Law_Amendment%22,_State_Question_755_(2010 )

 

[Amp1]

Rabid declaimers often make up myths and untrue stories usually when they don’t have legit claims. Sharia law wasn’t instituted by the prophet Muhammad instead it was introduced later in Islam’s history. My opinion is that some zealous, puritanical persons found in the introduction of Sharia law a means of mass control of a particular population. Since the ME societies are for the most part patriarchal, it made it easier to deny human rights to women and/or others who are not a part of that ruling body.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My last post had a bad link.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oklahoma_"Sharia_Law_Amendment",_State_Question_755_(2010)

Also

As the country grapples with its worst economic downturn in decades and persistent unemployment, voters in Oklahoma next week will take up another issue — whether they should pass a constitutional amendment outlawing Islamic law, or Shariah...

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/MEASURE+WOULD+OUTLAW+SHARIA+OKLAHOMA+WHERE+DOESN+EXIST/3743178/story.html

 

[mugaliens]

This isn't mainstream.

As interesting as the topic might be to me, I don't see it as either mainstream, or supportable.

Is a motion to close the thread out of order?

 

[WhoWee]

As interesting as the topic might be to me, I don't see it as either mainstream, or supportable.

Is a motion to close the thread out of order?

Oh, come on, let's see where Ivan goes with this - it could be fun.

 

[Gokul43201]

Can I post in this thread even if I'm not Ivan?

Today, I watched TV for about 20 minutes. This is not a common thing for me, since I don't have a TV, and so only watch when I happen to visit someone or if I'm at a bar, or somesuch. It's been a while.

But that brief spell of watching taught me that the claims in the thread title and OP are not as isolated and fringy as I'd thought them to be.

Some examples I came across:

Angle, a Republican running against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, met with a Nevada tea party group in late September and was asked to share her thoughts about Muslims “wanting to take over the United States” and “taking over a city in Michigan.”

Angle responded: “We’re talking about a militant terrorist situation, which I believe isn’t a widespread thing, but it is enough that we need to address, and we have been addressing it,” according to a recording of the event the Mesquite Local News provided to multiple media outlets.

“My thoughts are these. First of all, Dearborn, Mich., and Frankford, Texas, are on American soil and under constitutional law. Not sharia law. And I don’t know how that happened in the United States,” Angle added. “It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43451.html

When asked about this later:

LARSON: Now did you say though that Sharia law was in place in Dearborn right now?

ANGLE: I had read that in one place, that they have started using some Sharia law there. That's what I had read.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/sharron_angle_on_sharia_law_in.html

And I guess that's how these things become widespread.

Here's a related incident involving Birther proponent, Steve King of Iowa:

QUESTION: I keep reading that Obama keeps bringing small quantities of Muslims into this country. Why can’t Congress stop that?

KING: You know, I don’t know what the basis is of that. I wouldn’t be surprised that that is the real factual basis.

This shouldn't come as any real surprise to people that know about King. I didn't.

In general, it looks to me like the conspiracy mill is going berserk. Just today, the Pentagon spokesperson, Geoff Morrell had to refute outrageous claims being repeated on Fox, right wing radio, and by people in Congress like Michelle Bachmann, about Obama diverting 10% of the US Navy for a trip he was making to India.

I think there has been a lot of creative writing that's been done on this trip over the last few days. We obviously have some support role for presidential travel ... but I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd, this notion that somehow we are deploying 10 percent of the Navy, some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier in support of the president's trip to Asia; that's just comical.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/india.asp

 

[WhoWee]

Is this one of those "Bogus Claims"?
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2621639/posts

or should we believe this?
http://nation.foxnews.com/gm/2010/11/04/obama-lets-gm-execs-fly-private-jets-again
"White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said it was "not accurate" to say that the government approved GM's decision to use private jets."

I'd like to know if Obama approves of the use of jets to promote the IPO?

 

[WhoWee]

I found another "Bogus Claim" - that Obama is spending a lot of money and has a huge entourage on his trip to India. How much could 40 planes and a few thousand people cost - certainly not millions - right?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021841-503544.html

"Earlier this week, the Press Trust of India reported that the United States will "be spending a whopping $200 million per day on President Barack Obama's visit" to Mumbai."

 

[D H]

I found another "Bogus Claim" - that Obama is spending a lot of money and has a huge entourage on his trip to India.

Who wee! This one is a doozy.

When I first heard this doozy it involved sending 2,000 people to rent 800 rooms in the Taj Mahal Hotel, with 40 planes carrying those 2,000 people. Now it has grown to 3,000 people, 34 warships, passenger planes plus a fleet of escort fighter jets, ...

My first thought: Obama is making two or three people share a hotel room (2,000 people in 800 rooms)? What a cheapskate! Let's take those numbers as a given, and let's give a truly outrageous price of $1,250 per night for one of those rooms. Okay, there goes the first million dollars. Where is the other 199 million? They have to eat. I would guess that a $1,000 per diem just might cover costs. So, another 2 million. We only have 197 million to go.

40 passenger planes carrying 2,000 people means only 50 people per plane. Party time! Let's make those planes jumbo jets (Boeing 747 capacity = 500 people) so that our civil servants can properly spread out. That might up the ante by another few million dollars per day. Maybe. Call it 7 million. The math so far: We've accounted for $10 million by some extremely bogus math. Where is the other $190 million?


Some facts: Taj Mahal Hotel in New Delhi has 294 rooms and suites. That alone makes it just a tad difficult to rent "all 800 rooms" in the hotel. Then there is cost. I just went to their website to book a room. Without any discounts whatsoever, they want to charge me $354 for a single room.

My $1000 per diem is a bit over the top. This State Department website, http://aoprals.state.gov/web920/per_diem_action.asp?MenuHide=1&CountryCode=1155 shows that allowances for New Delhi are $380 max (nice!) for hotel room plus $106 for meals and incidentals (also very nice).

The numbers will never add up. This is a doozy of epic proportions.

Prediction: Suppose the cost of this trip turns out to be $40 million total rather than $200 million per day. I predict that the promulgators of this particular doozy will not retract their previous statements. They will instead complain about Obama's $40 million trip as a sign of Obama's excesses.

 

[WhoWee]

Maybe they're adjusting for inflation (Obama is printing money - QE-2)?

 

[turbo]

Maybe they're adjusting for inflation (Obama is printing money - QE-2)?

Already debunked by Snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/india.asp

 

[Office_Shredder]

You have to include the hundred dollar bills that Obama and his entourage will be using to snort coke

 

[WhoWee]

Already debunked by Snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/india.asp

LOL For a moment, I thought you were using snopes to debunk the threat of inflation relative to QE-2.