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: 75564
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 (1-46) not displayed.
.
.
.
#47. To: war (#45)
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...
Tell us wise one how the govt would stop people who are members of a corporation from speaking freely. Tell us o wise one.
So tell me how the govt should shut them up. Come on you think you know it all tell me/us.
The same way it should shut up a can of beans. You're kind of slow, aren't you?
In the Citizen's United case not one person from Citizen's United spoke and the donors were unknown.
That is not an answer. Answer the point or concede that you are defeated again.
A CAN OF BEANS CAN'T TALK. As I said...you're kind of slow.
Answer the question please. You look stupid talking about beans.
lmao... What I am you ditzy bitch is a wife, retired business owner, mother and grandmother, with a whole lifetime of experiences you don't know a damn thing about, and if cheap shots is all you have, then all you've got are blanks! Oh, and I'm a terrible speller...so fking sue me! The 'wise one' can't, because if she did, she'd be laughed off this forum...but I can show the 'wise one' where she is WRONG...just tell me one thing stone, are we talking about the money corporations and businesses spend to influence elections?
"I really wanna care. I wanna feel somethin'. Let me dig a little deeper:. No, My give-a-damn's busted"~ Messina Jo Dee
Corporations are not owned by people, according to the SCOTUS, they are people. They need to overturn this ruling made in the 1800s and update it to take some of the undo influence foriegn corporations have on our political system.
Give me an example of legislation that has made people honest.
As I said...you're kind of slow. Going to the zoo tomorrow?
BTw, you've been pinged to at least two other threads. Are you going to respond?
Are you going to cry, dwarf?
So tell me how the govt should shut them up. Come on you think you know it all tell me/us. You can't answer this simple question. war this is constitution 101 and you are flunking. Lets see if you run away again.
So when the government arrests anti-war protesters, is it imposing Sharia?
This shows you are not seriously debating. You are afraid to answer. You are looking more and more like a troll.
no
DELETED Strike 1
The question was answered, "restart". You claiming that it was not, is a lie. You didn't like the answer because it reduces your argument to the level of stupidity in which it exists. Hey Exxon...courtesy PING dinner on me tomorrow...whaddaya say?
Ban me now dick and fuck you very much...
Comments (87 - 116) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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...
#67. To: mininggold (#60)
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.
#68. To: war (#58)
Speaking in the guise of a corporation is a wholly different issue.
#69. To: A K A Stone (#68)
#70. To: A K A Stone (#67)
(Edited)
#71. To: war (#69)
#72. To: A K A Stone (#71)
#73. To: war (#72)
#74. To: A K A Stone, mininggold (#67)
(Edited)
Tell us wise one how the govt would stop people who are members of a corporation from speaking freely. Tell us o wise one.
#75. To: A K A Stone (#57)
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#76. To: Ferret Mike (#75)
overturn this ruling made in the 1800s and update it to take some of the undo influence foriegn corporations have on our political system.
#77. To: A K A Stone (#73)
A CAN OF BEANS CAN'T TALK.
#78. To: A K A Stone (#73)
(Edited)
#79. To: war, A K A Stone (#78)
Are you going to respond?
#80. To: war (#78)
#81. To: A K A Stone (#80)
So tell me how the govt should shut them up. Come on you think you know it all tell me/us.
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#82. To: war (#77)
Going to the zoo tomorrow?
#83. To: go65 (#81)
#84. To: A K A Stone (#80)
#85. To: A K A Stone, ExxonMonbil (#82)
#86. To: All (#84)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]