United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Nevada Senate hopeful Sharron Angle: Muslim law takes hold in Dearborn, other U.S. cities Read more: Nevada Senate hopeful Sharron Angle: Muslim law takes hold in Dearborn, other U.S. cities
Source:
AP
URL Source: http://www.freep.com/article/201010 ... ing-over-Dearborn-other-cities
Published: Oct 8, 2010
Author: AP
Post Date: 2010-10-08 15:44:21 by go65
Keywords: None
Views: 75318
Comments: 116
LAS VEGAS — U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle told a crowd of supporters that the country needs to address a “militant terrorist situation” that has allowed Islamic religious law to take hold in some American cities. Her comments came at a rally of tea party supporters in the Nevada resort town of Mesquite last week after the candidate was asked about Muslims angling to take over the country, and marked the latest of several controversial remarks by the Nevada Republican. In a recording of the rally provided to the Associated Press by the Mesquite Local News, a man is heard asking Angle : “I keep hearing about Muslims wanting to take over the United States ... on a TV program just last night, I saw that they are taking over a city in Michigan and the residents of the city, they want them out. They want them out. So, I want to hear your thoughts about that.” Angle responds that “we’re talking about a militant terrorist situation, which I believe it isn’t a widespread thing, but it is enough that we need to address, and we have been addressing it.” “My thoughts are these, first of all, Dearborn, Michigan, 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,” she said. “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.” Dearborn has a thriving Muslim community. It was not immediately clear why Angle singled out Frankford, Texas, a former town that was annexed into Dallas around 1975. Responding to the same question, she also drew comparisons between the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the Nazi Holocaust. She said the property owners behind the proposed Islamic community center near ground zero should move it in deference to the people who died there. “There was, in Auschwitz, I think it was Auschwitz, it was at least a prisoner of war camp, where the Catholic Church owned some property and they were going to build a church there. They had every right to do it but they stepped aside and said, no, we are going to allow the Jewish people to make a monument because they lost lives,” she said. “They had a responsibility to be sensitive to what had happened there and it is exactly the same thing as 9/11. Ground zero, we have a responsibility to be sensitive to the loss of a nation, to the loss of families, to the loss of life that happened there.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-25) not displayed.
.
.
.
#26. To: war, bad eye (#21)
The government. The city council had to pass an amendment to the noise ordinance to allow the mosques to do this. These call to prayers are LOUD and they are very disruptive to families, sleeping babies, office workers, etc. Muslims don't care about the disruptive nature of the noise, because they are required to stop what they are doing and pray 5 times a day when they hear this. It seems to me that this is nothing more than trespassing and property owners should be able to sue the mosques and city to stop it. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.
They also don't care because everybody else is an 'infidel'.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
You're aware of the first amendment, aren't you? Which do you believe would prevail? A city noise ordinance that abridges religious practice or religious practice?
A) Their intent was not to distribute but to disturb. They make that clear at the onset. That alone obviates the religious nature of their presence there. B) If the streets were closed by permit, and I am sure that they were, their right to trespass for the purpose of distribution of religious tracts is not paramount to the people who secured that permit and their right of association. C) It is still a lie to claim that Sharia law is being enforced. D) What Christian church were they representing at that fair?
Ha Ha You're all in favor of that when it suits, you, aren't you, Abdul.
Typical response from you. Give me an example when I have opposed it. Thanks.
You favor free speech for liberals only. You don't think people who own a business have free speech. Even thought the constitution clearly say no nada no laws prohibiting free speech. You should start at dictionary.com and look up the word no. You don't know what "no" means.
Actually I've never seen war ask for any poster's banning unlike others here who generally call themselves conservatives. Business owners and corporate stockholders are two different entities. One of the biggest corporate stockholders in the world is CALPERS.
Liar. Ownership has nothing to do with speech. The day that I can invite Exxon to dinner in my home is the day i will accept the fact that a business is a person. I don't BELIEVE that the business has a right to speech.
#25. To: war (#20) Maybe was used rhetorically. They WERE violating the 1st amendment rights of the Christians who were disturbing nothing. But you'll never admit that, Abdul.
They are one of the most aggressive too. Speech and the expression of thought is a natural law proposition. The right of determination is a natural law proposition as well. Natural law applies uniquely to humans. A commercial enterprise is a contrivance of man that is not necessary to his existence and, therefore, natural law does not apply to the governance of the contrivance.
A) They established no foundation that they were Christians. B) They WERE trespassing. C) Be more precise with your language.
A) They established no foundation that they were Christians. So? The religion of sawed off heads thought they were. B) They WERE trespassing. Public property. C) Be more precise with your language. Have no idea what you mean.
It seems to me that she's provided exactly zero evidence to back up what she's claiming here.
What does NO mean? NO LAW RESTRICTING FREE SPEECH. Dude business don't talk so of course they don't have free speech. When you go to the drive thru at McDonalds that speaker isn't the building talking. It is an individual hooked up through a speaker. So you are right businesses don't have free speech and even if they did they can' talk. But individuals do have free speech. Even if they work for a company. This is an example of you being dishonest and disingenious just to push your restarted agenda. Remember any law passed that said no free speech would be a constitutional violation. NO LAW... Time for you to quit spinning.
You don't need a permit to protest.
Again...slowly...businesses do NOT engage in speech, they engage in commerce. A business has NO rights. Any law regulating business is not constrained by the Bill of Rights. just to push your restarted agenda. Thanks for summing yourself up for me...
Read the constitution you fucking dumb ass. They aren't allowed to pass any laws restricting free speech. NO LAW. Address that asswipe. Buildings don't talk moron. Quit arguing stuff you know isn't true. Fucking idiot.
Thanks. And brushing your teeth is good for you.
A business cannot speak. Use common sense.
Does that make it immune from anti-trespass laws. Have no idea what you mean. MAYBE you shouldn't use words that you don't mean.
What does "no law" mean?
It means that there isn't a law. What does this mean: Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech... And what good is it to something that cannot speak? That campaign law did not stop any PERSON from speaking.
It doesn't mean there isn't a law. It means congress cannot make any law that prohibits free speech. You're a waste of time.
How should they stop these "businesses" from speaking?
Does a piece of paper really walk and talk in your world?
Ovwerturn the erronious ruling granting 'personhood' to corporations. They certainly do not deserve free speech. They have the people and capital to out yell the voters as a whole, and this is not a level playing field for a fre society to hold fair and impartial elections.
war: "I don't BELIEVE that the business has a right to speech". I know there are other's like you, but none so visable as the two of you are today. You are a pair of the most useless, worthless, the most IGNORANT waist of skin and air I have ever seen...but like I said, there are others. People like you are so g-damn focused on 'us against them', that you either don't know what precious gifts you have, your freedoms and liberties, or you'd go out of your way and throw them away, just to piss off someone you don't agree with on other issues..... YOU JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE, OR UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU HAVE, AND HOW TO USE THEM.... But that isn't even the worst of it, your kind don't want to know, you don't want to learn, and pass these things on to your future generations, you'd rather get the best of some faceless, nameless, anonymous poster than protect the future of your children. JMHO! BILL OF RIGHTS: Amendment I "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances".
"I really wanna care. I wanna feel somethin'. Let me dig a little deeper:. No, My give-a-damn's busted"~ Messina Jo Dee
How do you stop a corn cob from playing golf?
You used a lot of words to say nothing. I don't care if it's Teacher's United, Coal Miner's United or Citizen's United...as long as it's incorporated it's not a person and it is not protected by the Bill of Rights.
There's a difference between an abridgment and a prohibition. But I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference. You think Exxon and US Steel can fuck and have kids.
Mike. Congress shall make no law... You can't stop anyone from speaking. People who own companies can speak freely too. No one granted personhood to buildings or companies. Companies can't speak dimmy. People who own corporations are entitled to speak in any and every manner they choose. If that is not true then tell me how congress should stop speech.
No one is disputing that. Speaking in the guise of a corporation is a wholly different issue.
I have no idea what that means. Are you referring to the religion that your hero, The Boy Blunder, subscribes to because of his wanting Bin Laden's head brought to him in the Oval Office?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances". Are you into the ethyl alcohol now? It will cause hallucinations much like your tirade. A corporation is not the human individual mentioned in the Bill of Rights even if your dreams tell you different. Giving corporations these rights dilutes the rights of real human beings but I wouldn't expect you to think this far ahead.
Speaking in the guise of a corporation is a wholly different issue. I'm amazed that anyone would argue that an entity structured such that allows it's individual owners to be free of personal responsibilitie's and legal liabilities for the failures of the entity would argue these entities should have individual rights as delineated in the BOR.
It was one of the more moronic decisions ever made by the SCOTUS.
Quit lying Stoner.
Goldi Jr., your pantaloons are showing.
So is your stupidity and ignorance, jerx.
Hilarious...
Comments (67 - 116) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestDefine "they" please. The town or the mosque?
Rule of law: B students wind up working for C students. A students teach.
#27. To: jwpegler (#26)
#28. To: jwpegler (#26)
The city council had to pass an amendment to the noise ordinance to allow the mosques to do this.
#29. To: no gnu taxes (#25)
(Edited)
#30. To: war (#28)
You're aware of the first amendment, aren't you?
#31. To: no gnu taxes (#30)
(Edited)
#32. To: war (#31)
#33. To: A K A Stone (#32)
You favor free speech for liberals only. You don't think people who own a business have free speech. Even thought the constitution clearly say no nada no laws prohibiting free speech. You should start at dictionary.com and look up the word no. You don't know what "no" means.
#34. To: A K A Stone (#32)
You don't think people who own a business have free speech.
#35. To: war (#31)
Typical response from you. Give me an example when I have opposed it.
#36. To: mininggold (#33)
(Edited)
One of the biggest corporate stockholders in the world is CALPERS.
#37. To: no gnu taxes (#35)
They WERE violating the 1st amendment rights of the Christians who were disturbing nothing.
#38. To: war (#37)
#39. To: go65 (#0)
“My thoughts are these, first of all, Dearborn, Michigan, 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,” she said. “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.”
#40. To: war (#34)
I don't BELIEVE that the business has a right to speech.
#41. To: war (#37)
#42. To: A K A Stone (#40)
#43. To: war (#42)
#44. To: A K A Stone (#41)
You don't need a permit to protest.
#45. To: A K A Stone (#43)
Read the constitution you fucking dumb ass.
#46. To: no gnu taxes (#38)
Public property.
#47. To: war (#45)
#48. To: A K A Stone (#47)
#49. To: war (#48)
It means that there isn't a law.
#50. To: war (#48)
#51. To: A K A Stone (#50)
How should they stop these "businesses" from speaking?
#52. To: A K A Stone (#50)
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#53. To: mininggold, A K A Stone, war (#51)
mininggold: "Does a piece of paper really walk and talk in your world"?
#54. To: A K A Stone (#50)
How should they stop these "businesses" from speaking?
#55. To: Murron (#53)
#56. To: A K A Stone (#49)
(Edited)
It means congress cannot make any law that prohibits free speech.
#57. To: Ferret Mike (#52)
#58. To: A K A Stone (#57)
#59. To: no gnu taxes (#38)
(Edited)
So? The religion of sawed off heads thought they were.
#60. To: Murron (#53)
BILL OF RIGHTS: Amendment I
#61. To: war (#58)
(Edited)
No one is disputing that.
#62. To: mininggold (#61)
#63. To: A K A Stone (#40)
This is an example of you being dishonest and disingenious [sic] just to push your restarted agenda.
#64. To: A K A Stone (#43)
Read the constitution you fucking dumb ass.
#65. To: Fred Mertz, A K A Stone (#64)
Goldi Jr., your pantaloons are showing.
#66. To: Fred Mertz (#64)
...pantaloons...
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]