HawkShack.com

Boy, talk about a trifecta, a perfect storm, or what ever analogy you want to use to apply to this situation. Here's a short recap:

First off, the black face controversy. Up until a few months ago, I hadn't heard of it. Oh, sure, I knew of the minstrel era, Al Jolson, etc, but I never heard of it being used by whites in college frat houses, clubs, costume parties, Halloween, etc. Beside it being racially insensitive, I don't see the humor in it and it's unclear to me what the motivation was. I've heard some say that due to these recent relavations, that the old Jim Crow south is still alive and well.

The sitting Virginia Governor has botched it big time. When the scandal first arose, he admitted it was him and immediately apologised, but a few days later, he reversed course and denied that it was him in the picture, and photo experts cannot identify the man in the picture. He refuses calls on him to resign. Then oddly enough, one of those that was calling on him to resign, the sitting AG, had his own black face incident arise. Unlike the Gov who has denied being the person in the photo, has admitted to it yet even though he has called on the Gov to resign, says that he won't resign himself. Both are Dems and the party wants badly to wash their hands of the incident.

Next comes the sitting Lt. Gov, who would be 2nd in line to the Governor's mansion. He had an old accuser come out of the woodwork and accuse him not of sexual misconduct or attempted sexual assault as was the case in the Kavanaugh hearings, but of forced sex, ie rape. The Lt. Gov vehemently denies it, admits to having had sex with the woman but swears it was consensual, another he said, she said. Then a few days later, a 2nd woman, unrelated to the first, has come forward and accuses him of raping her. Both women supposedly told others about the incident and are willing to testify against the Lt. Gov. A bill to impeach the Lt. Gov will be introduced to the Virginia legislature this week.

My take on all of this? IMO the black face scandal, although reprehensible and insensitive, should not be an act worthy of destroying their careers, and had it not been for the fact that the Gov has changed his story, I more than likely would not be calling on either of them to resign. I'd rather see the voters exercise their opinions and vote them out of office, even if it were to take some sort of recall election to do so.

The Lt. Gov.'s scandal is much worse as we're talking about an actual crime. We still need to consider him innocent until proven guilty, but the charges are very serious and must be investigated. I don't know what the statute of limitations are in Virginia and if he's still subject to criminal prosecution, but it would seem that an impeachment inquiry would be an approprite measure that would honor the rights of the accused to be judged as innocent until proven guilty as well as give the 'victims' their day in court.

The alledged rape charge against the Lt. Gov. has the potential to extend to one of the most storied men's CBB program as he was a member of the Duke University basketball team. Their head coach is a slam dunk HOF'er, not unlike Joe Paterno at Penn State. Part of the accuser's story is that she tried to report the rape but was rebuffed by college officials. Duke coach "K" denies any knowledge of it.

Long post, and that's the condensed version!

The Virginia governor is a Democrat, so he's not getting as hammered as usual by the media. They are barely reporting he is a Democrat. The Democratic Party has been mixed in their reactions. Pretty typical.

As far as the blackface controversy goes, it's been around a long time.. This has been a bad idea for a long, long time. i still remember Ted Danson being vilified for wearing blackface when he was dating Whoopi Goldberg back in the 80s. I personally don't care if someone does it to dress up as someone they admire like when some couple dressed up as Beyonce and Jay-Z, but doing it as some kind of comedy or in an insulting manner and you should probably be ripped apart.

The whole anti-cultural appropriation movement currently en vogue with the left is dumb and pathetic as with most of their ideas. It has no teeth. It would be like Anglo-Saxon people claiming cultural appropriation if a man of African descent rapped in English. It's just stupid. I hope the Left Wing eats itself over things of this nature if they want to be this stupid.

Aseahawkfan wrote:The Virginia governor is a Democrat, so he's not getting as hammered as usual by the media. They are barely reporting he is a Democrat. The Democratic Party has been mixed in their reactions. Pretty typical.

Boy, I don't know what media you've been watching, but they've all been covering it. Just last night, MSNBC's Chris Mathews spent a good 15 minutes of his program discussing it.

Aseahawkfan wrote:As far as the blackface controversy goes, it's been around a long time.. This has been a bad idea for a long, long time. i still remember Ted Danson being vilified for wearing blackface when he was dating Whoopi Goldberg back in the 80s. I personally don't care if someone does it to dress up as someone they admire like when some couple dressed up as Beyonce and Jay-Z, but doing it as some kind of comedy or in an insulting manner and you should probably be ripped apart.

I can certainly see how done in the wrong way is insulting, such as the shot next to the guys in the KKK garb, and I saw one even more outrageous that had black mannequin hanging in a mock lynching. But dressing up as Michael Jackson (who's skin color was as white as my own) and lip syncing some of his songs is not necessarily offensive IMHO. Besides, this is juvenile stuff from over 30 years ago, and people can and do change as they mature. I know that I hadn't developed my own sensitivity to the feelings of others when I was in my early 20's. My biggest sin back then was joke telling, which I know now to be wrong and insensitive.

Aseahawkfan wrote:The whole anti-cultural appropriation movement currently en vogue with the left is dumb and pathetic as with most of their ideas. It has no teeth. It would be like Anglo-Saxon people claiming cultural appropriation if a man of African descent rapped in English. It's just stupid. I hope the Left Wing eats itself over things of this nature if they want to be this stupid.

Yesterday on MSNBC, I saw a black female VA state legislator saying that all 3 needed to go, but that the timing had to be right so that the Republicans wouldn't gain the governorship. IMO that's proof that she cares more about politics than she does about doing what's right. If it's that eggregious, then the offender should be thrown out immediately.

Aseahawkfan wrote:The Virginia governor is a Democrat, so he's not getting as hammered as usual by the media. They are barely reporting he is a Democrat. The Democratic Party has been mixed in their reactions. Pretty typical.

As far as the blackface controversy goes, it's been around a long time.. This has been a bad idea for a long, long time. i still remember Ted Danson being vilified for wearing blackface when he was dating Whoopi Goldberg back in the 80s. I personally don't care if someone does it to dress up as someone they admire like when some couple dressed up as Beyonce and Jay-Z, but doing it as some kind of comedy or in an insulting manner and you should probably be ripped apart.

The whole anti-cultural appropriation movement currently en vogue with the left is dumb and pathetic as with most of their ideas. It has no teeth. It would be like Anglo-Saxon people claiming cultural appropriation if a man of African descent rapped in English. It's just stupid. I hope the Left Wing eats itself over things of this nature if they want to be this stupid.

Are you high? the self loathing democratic party and Mainstream media are all over this scandal demanding that all three leave ASAP, that is until they think about the fact the 4th in line is a republican.

As for Trump and Faux and guys like you who cant stop defending the indefensible conservative movement and are instead piling on this controversy are you serious??? The POTUS is a pussy grabbing racist who thought there were "very fine people" on both sides of the riot in charlottesville where a neo nazi ran over and killed a woman and aryan nations troops marched with torches chanting "blood and soil".It took trump 3 days to mildly criticize david Duke when he voiced his support for Trump during the election.

Trump criticized Judge Curiel, an american citizen native born in Indiana but of Hispanic genealogy as being unfair to judge his phony Trump university because he was a "mexican". Paul Ryan at the time had the stones to call it "the classic definition of a racist statement" but then he and pretty much everyone else but Bob Corker and Jeff Flake who sacrificed their careers to do the right thing signed up for the Trumptard zombie army.

So let's summarize. Conservative christian evangelicals have as their standard bearer a man who covers both aspects of the Virginia scandal, trumps them as a matter of fact. He's an admitted sexual abuser with over 20 known victims as young as 13 years old and a straight up racist by his own actions and words and not a peep of a hint of a suggestion he should step down.He backed pedophile Roy Moore and stood by the drunk rapist Kavanaugh to boot.

Meanwhile Dems kicked out Al Franken for some off color comments to women and a few side of boob touches and butt pats during photographs, utterly jettisoned Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer etc and now they are coming after Northam etc over some stupid sophomoric inappropriate costumes 35 years ago in the case of Northam and the #3 and much more serious allegations of rape against the lieutenant governor.

It's interesting that a poll of african american virginians shows a majority favor Northam staying .It's the Dem Pres candidates and the self loathing white power brokers in the party along with the national black *leaders* spearheading the charge to depose Northam. I agree the left wing is a bunch of ninnies "eating itself" in the race to see who can be the most progressive liberal nutcase but the right is utterly ceding and destroying their mantle of moral superiority, family values etc. They really just need to STFU.

All 3 may end up staying.

It appears as if Gov. Northham has weathered the storm. As Hawktalk indicated, his support amongst black voters is solid as 58% think he should stay, and he's embarked on a "learning/apology tour" which seems to be doing well. It's unclear to me whether blacks are not as offended by the black face incidents as their white counterparts seem to be or if they are giving him a pass because he's of the same political ideology. I have a sense that if this were a conservative, they'd be screaming bloody murder. And if the Gov. stays, the AG certainly won't have to resign over a similar incident.

As far as the Lt. Gov goes, apparently the impeachment clause in the Virginia Constitution only applies to crimes committed while in office. I had assumed that it was similar to the US Constitution, which only specifies "high crimes and misdemeanors," doesn't give a time frame, and is vague enough to mean that a crime is essentially whatever Congress says it is. I had assumed that Virginia lawmakers would have been able to hold a trial and impeach him if they saw fit, but I honestly don't know what their options are.

But he was seen as a rising star in the Democratic party and regardless of whether or not he is able to survive this crisis, it's unlikely that he'll ever be able to mount another successful state wide or nation wide campaign. His political career is for all intents and purposes finished.

RiverDog wrote:All 3 may end up staying.

It appears as if Gov. Northham has weathered the storm. As Hawktalk indicated, his support amongst black voters is solid as 58% think he should stay, and he's embarked on a "learning/apology tour" which seems to be doing well. It's unclear to me whether blacks are not as offended by the black face incidents as their white counterparts seem to be or if they are giving him a pass because he's of the same political ideology. I have a sense that if this were a conservative, they'd be screaming bloody murder. And if the Gov. stays, the AG certainly won't have to resign over a similar incident.

As far as the Lt. Gov goes, apparently the impeachment clause in the Virginia Constitution only applies to crimes committed while in office. I had assumed that it was similar to the US Constitution, which only specifies "high crimes and misdemeanors," doesn't give a time frame, and is vague enough to mean that a crime is essentially whatever Congress says it is. I had assumed that Virginia lawmakers would have been able to hold a trial and impeach him if they saw fit, but I honestly don't know what their options are.

But he was seen as a rising star in the Democratic party and regardless of whether or not he is able to survive this crisis, it's unlikely that he'll ever be able to mount another successful state wide or nation wide campaign. His political career is for all intents and purposes finished.

Northams tone deaf "indentured servants" remark did not help him but I think its clear he will stay on as there is no mechanism to remove him, although I would imagine this is his last stand in politics as well after his goofy apology/retraction, michael Jackson moonwalk nonsense .The AG is totally safe as his account pales in comparison to Northam, no yearbook photos and an admission with no proof of guilt beforehand.

The LT governor's position is more tenuous IMO. If there are 2 women who tell basically the same story of the type of sexual assault its entirely possible there are more. And it's not the situation across the aisle where victims can be intimidated by an entire political party including the POTUS and one news network willing to destroy the women who accuse the POTUS, a senatorial candidate and a SCOTUS nominee of sexual misconduct.

There's a much more gentle and receptive tone in the Democratic party to their accusations coming from everywhere but the Fairfax camp so we will see about that one.

For all its fault the Democratic party has taken the me too movement much more seriously to their credit and it's probably a big reason why women of every economic background, educational status etc. abandoned trump and the GOP in droves in the midterms.

Hawktawk wrote:Northams tone deaf "indentured servants" remark did not help him but I think its clear he will stay on as there is no mechanism to remove him, although I would imagine this is his last stand in politics as well after his goofy apology/retraction, michael Jackson moonwalk nonsense .The AG is totally safe as his account pales in comparison to Northam, no yearbook photos and an admission with no proof of guilt beforehand.

With the type of support he's received lately, this scandal does not necessarily mean the end of his career.

Hawktawk wrote:The LT governor's position is more tenuous IMO. If there are 2 women who tell basically the same story of the type of sexual assault its entirely possible there are more. And it's not the situation across the aisle where victims can be intimidated by an entire political party including the POTUS and one news network willing to destroy the women who accuse the POTUS, a senatorial candidate and a SCOTUS nominee of sexual misconduct.

I didn't think you could resist comparing Fairfax's situation to Kavanaugh. They are not even in the same ball park. Kavanaugh was never even accused of rape or committing any kind of sexual act, consensual or forced, exposure, etc. Better quit while you're behind.

Hawktawk wrote:For all its fault the Democratic party has taken the me too movement much more seriously to their credit and it's probably a big reason why women of every economic background, educational status etc. abandoned trump and the GOP in droves in the midterms.

Women abandoned Trump? Women have been voting decidedly Democratic for decades. I thought that was common knowledge.

RiverDog wrote:Yesterday on MSNBC, I saw a black female VA state legislator saying that all 3 needed to go, but that the timing had to be right so that the Republicans wouldn't gain the governorship. IMO that's proof that she cares more about politics than she does about doing what's right. If it's that eggregious, then the offender should be thrown out immediately.

I know you are not going to like this but I don't see her position much different than I do your and Talks position on Trump. You'd rather vote for someone with Socialist agenda than to vote for Trump who has been the most conservative president since Reagan and maybe even more than him. I get it, you don't like how he talks but once socialism takes over, it is like wildfire. I know you said in another thread that we could weather the storm and pick up the pieces after but I disagree. Once socialism takes hold, you can't stop it. Look at Cambodia, Venezuela, Cuba or any other socialist nation and how fast they fell.

Regarding the Virginia situation, the dems are in a real big quandry.

1. They can't let the republican (4th in line ) take over because this will be a census year and each state's census is run by the governor as to who is counted.
2. If the governor has to leave for black face so does the AG of VA. That takes out both of those guys and leaves the Lt. Gov. at the mercy of the courts.
3. If they force out the Lt. Gov so that the current governor can appoint a replacement and then step down so that the new Lt. Gov can ascend and the republican won't get the seat then you are looking at the top 3 democrat politicians in VA. are in deep doo-doo but only the black guy gets canned? That won't go over very well at all with their constituents.
4. If they all stay where they are, they will de-fang the eventual dem nominee for president for calling Trump a Racist, sexist.
5. If they all stay in office then Trump will turn the state into his column in 2020.

Yep, they are in deep kimchi.

RiverDog wrote:Yesterday on MSNBC, I saw a black female VA state legislator saying that all 3 needed to go, but that the timing had to be right so that the Republicans wouldn't gain the governorship. IMO that's proof that she cares more about politics than she does about doing what's right. If it's that eggregious, then the offender should be thrown out immediately.

Idahawkman wrote:I know you are not going to like this but I don't see her position much different than I do your and Talks position on Trump. You'd rather vote for someone with Socialist agenda than to vote for Trump who has been the most conservative president since Reagan and maybe even more than him.

I agree, but you're wrong about my not liking the association. Take out Hawktalk's the over-the-top characterizations and the disagreement he has with every single thing Trump does or says and there's more similarities to our positions than differences. And yes, I'll vote for just about anybody not named Hillary in order to get Trump out and worry about cleaning up the mess it creates later. So long as the socialists don't take over both branches of government, they're not going to be able to advance their agenda.

Idahawkman wrote:Regarding the Virginia situation, the dems are in a real big quandry.

1. They can't let the republican (4th in line ) take over because this will be a census year and each state's census is run by the governor as to who is counted.

2. If the governor has to leave for black face so does the AG of VA. That takes out both of those guys and leaves the Lt. Gov. at the mercy of the courts.

I don't know the laws of the states Fairfax's crimes were supposedly committed in (one happened when Fairfax was at Duke, which is in NC), but the statute of limitations may have expired, so he may not be subject to legal prosecution.

Idahawkman wrote:3. If they force out the Lt. Gov so that the current governor can appoint a replacement and then step down so that the new Lt. Gov can ascend and the republican won't get the seat then you are looking at the top 3 democrat politicians in VA. are in deep doo-doo but only the black guy gets canned? That won't go over very well at all with their constituents.

The charges against the Lt. Gov. are a thousand times more serious than the other two guys. Plus Fairfax's accusers are both black. I don't think that race will enter into the equation no matter what the eventual outcome is.

Idahawkman wrote:4. If they all stay where they are, they will de-fang the eventual dem nominee for president for calling Trump a Racist, sexist.

5. If they all stay in office then Trump will turn the state into his column in 2020.

Yep, they are in deep kimchi.

I wouldn't be so sure. First off, the election is 21 months away. Voters have notoriously short memories. Secondly, it's not going to de-fang anyone so long as they condemn Fairfax.

IMO what's more likely to make an impact is how the Dems react to their newly elected female Muslim Rep, who tweeted some very anti Semitic remarks last weekend, and it's not the first time she's done it. If they don't kick her off the Foreign Affairs Committee as the R's did with their own wayward soul that called himself a white nationalist, Trump and the R's will be able to draw a contrast between their intolerance for race/religious hatred vs. that of the Dems. But, as I said, the election is a long ways off.

[quote="RiverDog"

I don't know the laws of the states Fairfax's crimes were supposedly committed in (one happened when Fairfax was at Duke, which is in NC), but the statute of limitations may have expired, so he may not be subject to legal prosecution.[/quote]
Neither has expired yet but I think the NC charge only has like 7 months left. The MA charge is more likely to be prosecuted since the MA DA said they would investigate the allegations if the lady made a formal charge against him.

The charges against the Lt. Gov. are a thousand times more serious than the other two guys. Plus Fairfax's accusers are both black. I don't think that race will enter into the equation no matter what the eventual outcome is.

Doesn't matter. The optics of it is terrible. 3 guys in trouble and the only one forced out, pressured, etc is the black guy and not the two old white guys? Just won't look good for the dems.

I wouldn't be so sure. First off, the election is 21 months away. Voters have notoriously short memories. Secondly, it's not going to de-fang anyone so long as they condemn Fairfax.

IMO what's more likely to make an impact is how the Dems react to their newly elected female Muslim Rep, who tweeted some very anti Semitic remarks last weekend, and it's not the first time she's done it. If they don't kick her off the Foreign Affairs Committee as the R's did with their own wayward soul that called himself a white nationalist, Trump and the R's will be able to draw a contrast between their intolerance for race/religious hatred vs. that of the Dems. But, as I said, the election is a long ways off.

Not to mention her personal attacks today on the Venezuelan ambassador nominee today. (I think that is the guy she attacked today with allegations and then wouldn't let him respond to her. She's going to have to be reined in if the Dems don't want to be tied to her. I hear they tried to have an intervention with her in her district before she came to Washington and tried to bring her up to speed on the history but they came out of that meeting thinking they hadn't broke through to her. Should be interesting....)

RiverDog wrote:Boy, I don't know what media you've been watching, but they've all been covering it. Just last night, MSNBC's Chris Mathews spent a good 15 minutes of his program discussing it.

Discussing it? I'm listening to the same media attacking Trump relentlessly for nearly everything he does. Comparatively speaking, this is a weak reaction. If this was a Republican or Trump scandal, I guarantee they would be blasting it about 50 times as loud and you know it.

Just like if it were Russia that killed the journalist in Turkey, Dems would be crying a 100 times louder. But they're more interested in politics and power, so high gas prices hurt both parties.

Which is why I say the Trump investigation is more BS. All these politicians allow worse when it suits their political interests. And people like you and Hawktawk seem to be fine with it as long it's not Trump.

I think that is the guy she attacked today with allegations and then wouldn't let him respond to her. She's going to have to be reined in if the Dems don't want to be tied to her.

Saw that- holy sht.

I think that is the guy she attacked today with allegations and then wouldn't let him respond to her. She's going to have to be reined in if the Dems don't want to be tied to her.

burrrton wrote:Saw that- holy sht.

I didn't see that, and couldn't get anything on google. Can you give me a link?

IMO what's more likely to make an impact is how the Dems react to their newly elected female Muslim Rep, who tweeted some very anti Semitic remarks last weekend, and it's not the first time she's done it. If they don't kick her off the Foreign Affairs Committee as the R's did with their own wayward soul that called himself a white nationalist, Trump and the R's will be able to draw a contrast between their intolerance for race/religious hatred vs. that of the Dems. But, as I said, the election is a long ways off.

You know what she posted about Israel is the general belief in the Muslim community? That's why I find Dems defense of Islam so utterly ridiculous. The only left wing guy sounding the alarm is Bill Maher and they're shouting him down about it.

I work with and have known a bunch of Muslim folk. I talk politics with them all the time listening to how they see the world. I haven't met a single one, I'm talking well over 20 or 30 people from various nations like Jordan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Bosnia, and more than a few others. Not a single one thinks well of Israel. They don't necessarily hate the Jewish people, but they believe Israel and the Zionist movement as it is called there is evil, anti-Islam, and that Israel will one day be destroyed. The most moderate folk think Israel is a lying nation that America supports. Some of the other viewpoints involve Israel running America and Israel causing 9/11 to kill Saddam and take over the oil Iraq and other such things. I've read their news stories in the Middle East and Islamic nations, they do not like Israel at all. It is the general attitude in the Middle East that Israel should be destroyed and taken back into Muslim hands.

Folks would be very surprised if Muslims gained power in Western nations. Many are very good family oriented folk, but they are notoriously conservative. They make hardcore American Christians look tolerate. There is a general belief that Islam is absolutely right. Even the moderate, friendly folks become very uptight and obstinate if you question Islam at all. I talked with highly educated Muslims who believe Islam can do no wrong. It was crazy to me, but I guess I liken it to Christians before Democracy when religious law ruled the land and any questioning of religion was a crime. They all grew up in societies where if you question Islam, you might be killed or imprisoned.

Somalia where this lady comes from homosexuality is the death penalty. I recall discussing this with some Somali folk, they said yes, that is the law in Somalia. Most of them believed homosexuality was wrong, a few believed it was a capital offense. Fortunately not many young Somalia Muslims believed homosexuality was a capital offense. Mostly the males and the older ones at that. It was a real eye opener to hear that in many nations they still jail or kill homosexuals. Even our conservatives aren't pushing anything like that.

Aseahawkfan wrote:You know what she posted about Israel is the general belief in the Muslim community? That's why I find Dems defense of Islam so utterly ridiculous. The only left wing guy sounding the alarm is Bill Maher and they're shouting him down about it.

I work with and have known a bunch of Muslim folk. I talk politics with them all the time listening to how they see the world. I haven't met a single one, I'm talking well over 20 or 30 people from various nations like Jordan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Bosnia, and more than a few others. Not a single one thinks well of Israel. They don't necessarily hate the Jewish people, but they believe Israel and the Zionist movement as it is called there is evil, anti-Islam, and that Israel will one day be destroyed. The most moderate folk think Israel is a lying nation that America supports. Some of the other viewpoints involve Israel running America and Israel causing 9/11 to kill Saddam and take over the oil Iraq and other such things. I've read their news stories in the Middle East and Islamic nations, they do not like Israel at all. It is the general attitude in the Middle East that Israel should be destroyed and taken back into Muslim hands.

Folks would be very surprised if Muslims gained power in Western nations. Many are very good family oriented folk, but they are notoriously conservative. They make hardcore American Christians look tolerate. There is a general belief that Islam is absolutely right. Even the moderate, friendly folks become very uptight and obstinate if you question Islam at all. I talked with highly educated Muslims who believe Islam can do no wrong. It was crazy to me, but I guess I liken it to Christians before Democracy when religious law ruled the land and any questioning of religion was a crime. They all grew up in societies where if you question Islam, you might be killed or imprisoned.

Somalia where this lady comes from homosexuality is the death penalty. I recall discussing this with some Somali folk, they said yes, that is the law in Somalia. Most of them believed homosexuality was wrong, a few believed it was a capital offense. Fortunately not many young Somalia Muslims believed homosexuality was a capital offense. Mostly the males and the older ones at that. It was a real eye opener to hear that in many nations they still jail or kill homosexuals. Even our conservatives aren't pushing anything like that.

I don't doubt your analysis of how she came about her opinion. But she can no longer serve just her own opinion or that of other Muslims, she's representing a diverse group of constituents that voted for her to represent their interests as well and she's going to have to at least show some sense of tolerance.

Pelosi had better act quickly to get this woman back in line. Although Minnesota and the upper Midwest isn't flush with Jews, they've been a faithful electorate for the Dems over many decades that could be critical in close elections in states like Florida. She's just one more example of how radical and extreme the Democratic Party has become.

RiverDog wrote:
I didn't think you could resist comparing Fairfax's situation to Kavanaugh. They are not even in the same ball park. Kavanaugh was never even accused of rape or committing any kind of sexual act, consensual or forced, exposure, etc. Better quit while you're behind.

Women abandoned Trump? Women have been voting decidedly Democratic for decades. I thought that was common knowledge.

*Judge* Kavanaugh was accused by Ms Blasi Ford of attempting to remove her swimsuit and grinding his body on her while covering her mouth with his hand to prevent her screams as he and Mark Judge laughed. In the case of Ms Ramirez he is accused of exposing himself and shoving his junk in her face causing her to come into contact with it.In the case of MS Swetnick he and Mark Judge are accused of being present at a party where she was drugged and gang raped. In all these instances he is described as being stupid drunk.There are two other allegations of unspecified sexual misconduct the alleged victims chose not to make public but the fact their accounts exist was leaked by staff of the REPUBLICAN representative they were reported to.

I get it RD, you don't believe the women and I do but if those aren't allegations of attempted rape or sexual assault I don't know what is...Have you really even followed the scandal at all?

approximately half the country sees it my way but he's confirmed by a republican senate that would have confirmed Kevin Coe were he a republican nominee so I guess I'm "behind". My beliefs are set in stone and I won't ever quit voicing them where they are appropriate to the discussion.

As for Trump and women voters I was speaking in relative terms. He garnered 44% of the women's vote in 2016 and 52% of white women's vote, remarkable with a white female opposing him. Current polls put his approval among all women in the mid 30s and Suburban women's support for republican candidates was about half in the midterms he personally made about himself than what it was for Trump in 2016 .

In all the generic vote for democrats was 9 million more votes than republicans, over 60 million votes were cast for Democrats(approximately what McCain and Romney pulled in the general election) in an election with one of the highest midterm voter numbers ever and in which things such as the Kavanagh spectacle brought out the republican base in force.Now with some of the crackpot Dems having been elected and going off the rails with their newfound power he is inching back up into the low to mid 40% range among all voters so time shall tell but his remarkable showing among women in 2016 will likely never be repeated by he or any other republican candidate.

[quote="idhawkman"]
I know you are not going to like this but I don't see her position much different than I do your and Talks position on Trump. You'd rather vote for someone with Socialist agenda than to vote for Trump who has been the most conservative president since Reagan and maybe even more than him. I get it, you don't like how he talks but once socialism takes over, it is like wildfire. I know you said in another thread that we could weather the storm and pick up the pieces after but I disagree. Once socialism takes hold, you can't stop it. Look at Cambodia, Venezuela, Cuba or any other socialist nation and how fast they fell.

I'd RATHER NOT vote for socialism, thanks and show me where I said that ID. I've made it clear I am a lifelong conservative and former straight ticket broken glass republican since 1978. For me it's much more the man than the majority of the message although he has turned up the ugly filthy underbelly of every caricature of the party I and many others have been trying to dispel for decades. Racist. Bigoted, Misogynist. Anti woman. Party of the rich.etc etc etc..Now we know his nuts are in Putin's satchel as he does his bidding in every meaningful situation as well, hardly reaganesque and its nauseating to hear the comparison.

But long before that all became as clear as I predicted it would I rejected the p#ssy grabbing name calling 5th grader syntax speaking grifter. The man more unfit to represent america to the world than any other and i thought Obama was bad, Carter....

It p1ssed me off having to vote for Gary Johnson who I agreed with about half of what he stood for as opposed to agreeing with about 80% of what my former party with a sane rational leader stood for.I don't want to have to vote for a democrat to send the only message this Trump party will understand but I will and had anyone said that to me 3 years ago Id have said they were crazy. I don't care for loons like this muslim chick or this Occasio Cortez but You Trump zombie army soldiers need to understand HE IS THE REASON THEY ARE IN POWER.Trump the man, if you can call him a man. The person himself is driving this shift.

And one more thing about this great *conservative * leader* hes presided over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR in additional national debt in spite of a steadily growing economy in the 10th year of expansion, relative peace from a military standpoint and so on.Obama's last deficit was well under half that even though he inherited an economy in absolute freefall, the great recession. Google his statements as candidate Trump about what he was going to do about the debt.I dare you

He's a guy who inherited a barn full of hay and a 7 year bull market and he will leave it empty as he gives away huge tax cuts to the wealthiest americans while average joes see their tax returns shrivelled up as bad as his little mushroom.

RiverDog wrote:
I didn't think you could resist comparing Fairfax's situation to Kavanaugh. They are not even in the same ball park. Kavanaugh was never even accused of rape or committing any kind of sexual act, consensual or forced, exposure, etc. Better quit while you're behind.

Women abandoned Trump? Women have been voting decidedly Democratic for decades. I thought that was common knowledge.

Hawktawk wrote:*Judge* Kavanaugh was accused by Ms Blasi Ford of attempting to remove her swimsuit and grinding his body on her while covering her mouth with his hand to prevent her screams as he and Mark Judge laughed. In the case of Ms Ramirez he is accused of exposing himself and shoving his junk in her face causing her to come into contact with it.In the case of MS Swetnick he and Mark Judge are accused of being present at a party where she was drugged and gang raped. In all these instances he is described as being stupid drunk.There are two other allegations of unspecified sexual misconduct the alleged victims chose not to make public but the fact their accounts exist was leaked by staff of the REPUBLICAN representative they were reported to.

I reject what you are claiming as evidence. Ford's sworn testimony before the Senate was that he "tried" to disrobe her and that he "grinded" on her with his hand over her mouth. At no time did she ever say that Kavanaugh exposed himself, fondled her breasts, put his hands in her pubic area, etc. Sure, the accusations are bad, but they don't constitute rape and there were no reported physical injuries or evidence due to her encounter. As far as your other comments, I do not consider them evidence as they were not taken under oath. They're all just hearsay.

But even if what you believe is true, that differs drastically from Fairfax. Both him and his accuser admits that there was sexual acts committed. That was never the case with Kavanaugh.

I get it RD, you don't believe the women and I do but if those aren't allegations of attempted rape or sexual assault I don't know what is...Have you really even followed the scandal at all?

It's not about my believing one person or the other. I honestly don't know who to believe. Due to the amount of time that has elapsed, even the sharpest of human memories can and do begin to cloud. Even completely honest, clear minded, and credible people's recollection of events can and have been influenced by other stimuli. That's why we have statutes of limitations. It's about giving the accused the benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty.

Hawktawk wrote:approximately half the country sees it my way but he's confirmed by a republican senate that would have confirmed Kevin Coe were he a republican nominee so I guess I'm "behind". My beliefs are set in stone and I won't ever quit voicing them where they are appropriate to the discussion.

So what? Approximately 70% of the country believes that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. Does that mean that there was a conspiracy? That case, of which I've done extensive reading about, is a great example of what I'm talking about when the passage of time starts compromising witnesses recollection of events and how outside stimuli can influence what they recall. In the case of the JFK assassination, multiple witnesses that were interviewed by police hours after the shooting changed their initial stories based on subsequent conspiracy theories they were subjected to. For example, some of the emergency room doctors in Texas that first treated JFK, all very intelligent, rational people, had made statements about their observations of the location and description of the wounds that would seem to support a conspiracy only to have to admit that their recollections were wrong after they were confronted with undeniable proof to the contrary, ie the autopsy photos and xrays, after they saw them for the first time. That particular incident I saw on a PBS-Nova broadcast on the 25th anniversary of the shooting.

I'm going off on a tangent here, but when there is a lack of physical evidence or timely statements, it's virtually impossible to tell who's recollection of events are the truth, or if either's is true, when as much time has elapsed as was the case in the Kavanaugh hearings.

Fair enough on the time lapse but there is clearly allegations that were made. Ms Ramirez also gave a sworn statement as did Ms Swetnick. As for that matter did Mark Judges former girlfriend who stated that he had ashamedly admitted to participating in gang sex with passed out women. Again your not correct in all your assertions but it is what it is. Unprovable so you just have to decide who sounds more credible. I thought he sounded like a lying weasel and that was before the allegations of sexual impropriety.

But case closed, Now that he voted to restrict the state of Virginia to 1 doctor who could perform abortions Susan Collins is catching hell for her deciding vote and he said he respected the constitution on that too so just another lie. Not a fan of the procedure but having paid for one in 1978 I can't be the judge not to mention its legal in every other industrialized nation on the planet as far as I know.If RBG passes away in the next 2 years it will be america held hostage in terms of a court that will be 1000 miles to the right of where this country is heading.

Hawktawk wrote:Unprovable so you just have to decide who sounds more credible.

RiverDog wrote:No, you can't make that judgement, not when that much time has elapsed and when someone's life and/or career hangs in the balance. The standard is innocent until proven guilty, not who sounds more credible.

When Bill Clinton looked straight into the camera, shook his finger at it, and exclaimed that "I did not have a sexual relationship with that woman!", did you believe him? Did he sound credible? I sure thought so. And how about Pete Rose, who swore on a stack of bibles that he never bet on baseball. Did he sound credible?

If there is no tangible evidence or timely statements, you cannot pass judgement based exclusively on who "sounds" more credible.

Hawkawk been citing popular opinion as proof for ages now. He thinks because people agree with him on some poll, he is right. Never seen such pathetic evidence for supporting an opinion myself. Then again his irrational nature causes him to seek anything that supports his viewpoint since his evidence is so weak.

Now I guess he's pro-Abortion. So Mr. Good Christian is now hammering on Kavanaugh for his stance on Abortion. That's very rich as they say, very rich. Hawktawk is completely selling out his values to rail against Trump. We'll see what God has to say to him a the pearly gates for suddenly supporting abortion.

RiverDog wrote:I don't doubt your analysis of how she came about her opinion. But she can no longer serve just her own opinion or that of other Muslims, she's representing a diverse group of constituents that voted for her to represent their interests as well and she's going to have to at least show some sense of tolerance.

Pelosi had better act quickly to get this woman back in line. Although Minnesota and the upper Midwest isn't flush with Jews, they've been a faithful electorate for the Dems over many decades that could be critical in close elections in states like Florida. She's just one more example of how radical and extreme the Democratic Party has become.

Because of Trump. "conservatives" like Hawktawk are willing to sell us out to the Dems and Socialism solely because of his Trump hate. He talks about Trump bringing the nation down, but what about him? What about the anti-Trump movement leading to the fracturing of the Republicans while the socialists are rising in this nation? Where is his responsibility in all of this if he sells us out to the loony left as they build power the use to fracture the conservative movement? What's worse 4 years of Trump or socialists gaining too much power in this nation?

For me it's the socialism, one of the most toxic forms of government in history. Wealth hating, tyrannical socialists using the power of government with violence to bring about massive wealth transfers that make us all poor.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Because of Trump. "conservatives" like Hawktawk are willing to sell us out to the Dems and Socialism solely because of his Trump hate.

You can toss me into that mix as well. Because I consider Trump such a piss poor leader, I'm willing to vote for a Socialist just to get Trump out of office. My logic is that so long as the government remains divided that who ever controls the executive branch won't be able to advance their agenda, anyway.

A good example of the long term hurt Trump is doing to this country is the end run he's trying to get around Congress on to build his wasteful and government land grab border wall. Even his own justice department is telling him that he's embarking on a very risky legal strategy, and many Republicans are worried that he's going to set a dangerous precedent, allowing a future Dem POTUS to declare a national emergency for something like global warning or gun violence. That's why I think it so imperative that we get Trump out of office. He's becoming a tyrant.

Aseahawkfan wrote:For me it's the socialism, one of the most toxic forms of government in history. Wealth hating, tyrannical socialists using the power of government with violence to bring about massive wealth transfers that make us all poor.

I agree completely. But the problem is that Trump's candidacy has given us two choices, both totally unacceptable, and he's driving the middle of the country away from the R's and conservatives and into the arms of the socialists. It's the same thing that Hillary did on the opposite end of the spectrum 3 years ago with her candidacy: She drove middle of the road voters to Trump.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Hawkawk been citing popular opinion as proof for ages now. He thinks because people agree with him on some poll, he is right. Never seen such pathetic evidence for supporting an opinion myself. Then again his irrational nature causes him to seek anything that supports his viewpoint since his evidence is so weak.

Now I guess he's pro-Abortion. So Mr. Good Christian is now hammering on Kavanaugh for his stance on Abortion. That's very rich as they say, very rich. Hawktawk is completely selling out his values to rail against Trump. We'll see what God has to say to him a the pearly gates for suddenly supporting abortion.

Honesty you trump and drunk rapist worshiping shill you need a little reading comprehension . I said “s IM NOT AFAN OF THE PROCEDURE!!!!!what does that mean ????my point was that Kavanaugh said he respected the procedure as settled law during his confirmation but then voted for the most restrictive law in the country making him a liar just like at numerous other times in the hearing which I and many many millions believe. It doesn’t mean we are right but it means we aren’t loons and our hypothesis is as good as yours about something only Kavanaugh and his alleged victims really know the truth .

I said every industrialized nation on the planet allows abortion in one form or another . That’s just stating a fact. Another fact is that abortion like gun control is a political football used by both parties to rile up their rabid base when in reality guns aren’t going away and neither is abortion . Maybe instead of declaring an emergency on the southern border trump should declare an emergency with 500k abortions annually anb ban them by executive order. But he won’t, just pay lip
Service to it while republican lawmakers including possibly himself use the procedure to clean up their messes. As for God and I just stfu ok? We get along just fine and as a man who has read the Bible 7 times,preached, sang at weddings and funerals many times , given to the poor I assure you God is not a trump man.

RiverDog wrote:I didn't see that, and couldn't get anything on google. Can you give me a link?

Someone may have beaten me to it, but here:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ilhan+omar+abrams

My beliefs are set in stone and I won't ever quit voicing them where they are appropriate to the discussion.

And I won't ever quit reminding you she can't remember the date, the time, the location, who was there, how she got there, how she got home, and literally every witness she named say they have no idea what she's talking about.

If you believe her, it's because you're gullible and are choosing to believe what you want to be true rather than looking at the facts.

burrrton wrote:Someone may have beaten me to it, but here:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ilhan+omar+abrams

No one beat you to it. I'll have to watch the video when I have time as the written descriptions (I read 3) tends to align with the writer's political idealogy.

Thanks!

burrrton wrote:
And I won't ever quit reminding you she can't remember the date, the time, the location, who was there, how she got there, how she got home, and literally every witness she named say they have no idea what she's talking about.

If you believe her, it's because you're gullible and are choosing to believe what you want to be true rather than looking at the facts.

Ill go through this one more time with you Burrton and hopefully we can avoid the ad hominem personal insults and juvenile name calling this time.First of all I do not believe these 3 women who are known to the public, Blasi Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick just made something up to take down a conservative SCOTUS nominee knowing that a Republican president and a republican senate were just going to confirm the next conservative judge. That's #1.What was their motivation.

All 3 can prove proximity(ie) they lived in the same community or attended the same college at the same time , same circle of friends etc. As a MOF Ramirez and Kavanaugh are in a group photo with mutual acquaintances some of whom are referenced in her report.
When the allegations broke Kavanaugh spent 3 days huddling with several lawyers at the WH during which time Trump avoided him like the plague and gave many indications he was on the verge of dumping him. Trump made public comments such as "looks like he may have had a drinking problem" and referred to Blasi ford as "credible" and " a very fine person". Then of course he read the polls and the rest is history.

Kavanaugh went on Faux news with his visibly upset wife and gave an absolute powder puff interview where he used the phrase "a fair process" 21 times in just a few minutes. Why does a righteously indignant honest innocent and viciously attacked man need talking points and a faux interview and a bunch of lawyers etc. Just didn't look too innocent to me.

Now about Blasi Fords testimony. IMO the things she FREELY ADMITS SHE DOESN'T REMEMBER GIVE HER MORE CREDIBILITY.Things such as date, what house, how she got home. She remembers getting assaulted by a drunk Kavanaugh while a drunk Mark Judge laughs and guards the door. The stereo turned up. the hand over her mouth. She remembers she was wearing a one piece suit and he "tried" to rip it off. That it was upstairs.

There's this thing called shock that can prevent a victim from remembering details surrounding the period of the attack while having the event itself indelibly seared into their memory. Happens all the time.I told a story a while back of being attacked at a party in rivers neck of the woods the tri cities in the early 80s. Don't remember the town, the time the month, the year , what kind of car i was riding in, nothing but the assault and the name and face of the perp like it was yesterday.

She remembers a few friends that attended the party with her but the only witness she names is Mark Judge who was actually a participant so its not surprising the friends she remember being at the party don't remember something she testified they didn't see or that they don't remember being at a party 40 years ago when nothing happened to them at all.She admitted under oath that she never told anyone at the time and only began sharing her story with her husband in 2010 and then with a therapist in 2012.

And other than one woman named as a witness by Judy Swetnick the alleged gang rape victim these friends say to a person they may not remember the night in question but they absolutely believe these women and don't think they would lie about such a thing.Thats called a character witness, very common. Blasi Fords attorney requested that the senate interview Judge under oath but he asked to be excused from testifying under oath and of course the utterly corrupt republican senate committee was more than happy to oblige.

Burrton don't you think if this was some scurrilous takedown of an innocent upstanding Jurist they would have had their story together better, witnesses to the assault, he ripped off her suit and treated her like as piece of raw meat etc? Names, places, times? Again as I've said if this is just what Democratic hit job women do then show me the allegations against Gorsuch?

As I've said repeatedly she passed a lie detector test. I gave you a link of what Kavanaugh thought of them 2 years ago " a great tool for law enforcement" and you called me a tool and said I was back on ignore so whatever.She passes a test that presumably asked if she was lying or telling the truth. Passed. "no indication of deception".

The FBI wasn't allowed by their client the White House counsel to interview her husband, the former FBI agent who conducted her polygraph, her therapist, Mark Judges girlfriend who gave a sworn statement that Judge had admitted participating in gang rapes of drunk women.
In all over 40 people who grew up with and went to college with Kavanaugh who volunteered to be interviewed were ignored.The FBI wasn't allowed to put anyone under oath either.

These are the "facts" There are more actually but I've already got carpal tunnel syndrome I can understand where decent reasonable honest intelligent people can disagree about anything under the sun and I think that describes you and I as well. The bottom line is I don't KNOW what happened but neither do you. I have a hunch, a gut feeling. So do you.We just disagree on what our gut is telling us, what the known facts and holes in the accounts mean to us.

The only people who really know what happened are the women in question and the alleged perp/s unless Kavanaugh and Judge were so drunk they didn't remember it in the morning or to this day. been there, done that but Kavanaugh said to the senate committee he never got that drunk so I guess not.....


Have a great day Burrton. Dude is a SCOTUS justice. Whatever. end of discussion.

RiverDog wrote:You can toss me into that mix as well. Because I consider Trump such a piss poor leader, I'm willing to vote for a Socialist just to get Trump out of office. My logic is that so long as the government remains divided that who ever controls the executive branch won't be able to advance their agenda, anyway.

A good example of the long term hurt Trump is doing to this country is the end run he's trying to get around Congress on to build his wasteful and government land grab border wall. Even his own justice department is telling him that he's embarking on a very risky legal strategy, and many Republicans are worried that he's going to set a dangerous precedent, allowing a future Dem POTUS to declare a national emergency for something like global warning or gun violence. That's why I think it so imperative that we get Trump out of office. He's becoming a tyrant.

Then you're going to screw this country bad when you find out socialism can't be undone, at least not for years, once implemented. Trump will get some kind of compromise on his stupid wall. Socialists in power will be far worse. Trump has a few more years and you want to push the government socialist for an unknown number of years and think that is better? Screw that.

Just let him finish his stupid term, then he can go on his way.

RiverDog wrote:No one beat you to it. I'll have to watch the video when I have time as the written descriptions (I read 3) tends to align with the writer's political idealogy.

Thanks!

Yeah, just watch the video, not the descriptions. She's *way* out of her depth.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Just let him finish his stupid term, then he can go on his way.

My first preference is to let him finish out his term. At this point, it's going to take nearly that long to go through an impeachment process anyway. But it's pretty hard for me to ignore all the sleazy crap that he's been doing. I think that the guy is as guilty as sin over a whole range of stuff that could very well be considered a "high crime." I'm for continuing these investigations so as to weaken his re-election bid.

But he has to be gotten rid of by 2020, and I'm willing to vote for nearly anyone to achieve that goal. I can't imagine what this country would look like if he were to serve all the way through 2024. Government shutdowns, manufactured national emergencies, endless investigations, world wide trade wars, aimless foreign policy. t's just a frigging mess.

RiverDog wrote:My first preference is to let him finish out his term. At this point, it's going to take nearly that long to go through an impeachment process anyway. But it's pretty hard for me to ignore all the sleazy crap that he's been doing. I think that the guy is as guilty as sin over a whole range of stuff that could very well be considered a "high crime." I'm for continuing these investigations so as to weaken his re-election bid.

But he has to be gotten rid of by 2020, and I'm willing to vote for nearly anyone to achieve that goal. I can't imagine what this country would look like if he were to serve all the way through 2024. Government shutdowns, manufactured national emergencies, endless investigations, world wide trade wars, aimless foreign policy. t's just a frigging mess.

How is it is a mess? We're in one of the best economic periods in history. Is your life really that bad? It seems people are confusing disliking someone with the nation being a mess. We're absolutely fine besides the very, very annoying infighting between the parties. It is literally the main thing that is annoying about all of this. It's Trump and the Democrats fighting more than anything else making this whole situation annoying.

Even the trade war is making slow and steady progress and needed to be done. China is a problem and needed to be reined in. The rest of the stuff has mostly been settled. I still don't know what has been a "high crime." Hopefully you don't reach hawktawk levels of dumb because you can't stand Trump.

The guy and the reactions to him are tiresome, but the nation is just fine. Let the guy rage against the Dems a few more years, then hopefully he'll be done. Then I'm sure we'll get some new guy with a quieter public image and the raging will continue at some lower decibel level rather than the 20 on the 10 scale we're on now.

Aseahawkfan wrote:How is it is a mess? We're in one of the best economic periods in history. Is your life really that bad? It seems people are confusing disliking someone with the nation being a mess.

Yea, probably a poor choice of words on my part. But I do think that Trump is dangerous in that his work habits are extremely sloppy, that he doesn't care to educate himself on an issue, and that he makes so many decisions by the seat of his pants. We've been lucky these past 2 years in that we haven't been faced with a real crisis.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Even the trade war is making slow and steady progress and needed to be done. China is a problem and needed to be reined in. The rest of the stuff has mostly been settled. I still don't know what has been a "high crime." Hopefully you don't reach hawktawk levels of dumb because you can't stand Trump.

I want him out nearly as bad as Hawktalk does, and it's not just that I don't like him, in particular his immigration stance. And as I said above, I don't think he's qualified. But my preference is that we get rid of him via the ballot box.

Aseahawkfan wrote:The guy and the reactions to him are tiresome, but the nation is just fine. Let the guy rage against the Dems a few more years, then hopefully he'll be done. Then I'm sure we'll get some new guy with a quieter public image and the raging will continue at some lower decibel level rather than the 20 on the 10 scale we're on now.

It might be fine now, but the guy is pushing the two sides of the spectrum to the end. He's enabling the left just like HRC enabled the right, and we could end up with a horrendeous successor. And as I stated above, his management style and personality could be very dangerous should we ever be faced with a genuine crisis. I don't trust him to do the right thing.

RiverDog wrote:It might be fine now, but the guy is pushing the two sides of the spectrum to the end. He's enabling the left just like HRC enabled the right, and we could end up with a horrendeous successor. And as I stated above, his management style and personality could be very dangerous should we ever be faced with a genuine crisis. I don't trust him to do the right thing.

If the 71 year old Twitter fiend could stop tweeting, all of the annoyance would go away. He's not actually dangerous for the nation. He's not a particularly war-like person. The most dangerous thing about Trump is his mouth. As far as how he handles things behind closed doors, I trust that far more than I do his tweeting. Put him in a situation where he can sit down and talk and make a deal, he's fine. Put him front of a mic or his twitter account and he's trying to get "ratings" of various kinds. Then he's a headache.

We've already discussed this. The vast majority of his decisions and policies are fine. It's the tweeting and arguing that is the most annoying. The area I find most hypocritical and strange is that he's been more leftist in his war policies than most presidents, yet the left is to full of hypocrisy they won't acknowledge it.

I think that is the guy she attacked today with allegations and then wouldn't let him respond to her. She's going to have to be reined in if the Dems don't want to be tied to her.

burrrton wrote:Saw that- holy sht.

RiverDog wrote:I didn't see that, and couldn't get anything on google. Can you give me a link?

In case it hasn't been posted yet, here's the link to a cspan video within the article. The dems have got to stop this "answer yes or no" gotcha questioning as it is going to really set the public against them as it did in this inquisition.
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/14/ilhan-omar-elliott-abrams-hearing/

Aseahawkfan wrote:They make hardcore American Christians look tolerate. There is a general belief that Islam is absolutely right. Even the moderate, friendly folks become very uptight and obstinate if you question Islam at all.

RiverDog wrote:
I don't doubt your analysis of how she came about her opinion. But she can no longer serve just her own opinion or that of other Muslims, she's representing a diverse group of constituents that voted for her to represent their interests as well and she's going to have to at least show some sense of tolerance.

You may have missed the section of Asea's comment I highlight here but this says it all. This is also why if you ask a Muslim which law should be obeyed if they conflict (US law or Sheria) they will say Sheria everytime. (sorry about the spelling on sheria but I only know the name not the spelling and autocorrect is not coming up with anything for me).