JayJayH

Man, that's a total buzzkill. LOL

I guess the search for the One is still on. I'm sure someone will turn up by November.

I know it makes a good meme.

But if we assume that 60% of the 42 million African-Americans show up to vote in November, and that they vote for Trump on the lower end - 12% for Trump (polls suggest 10% - 25%).

That's 3 million.

Yes, I've acknowledged he has a grave following amongst the uneducated. So those uneducated black people so think he'll really get them a job. They're too stupid to realize we've always been ignored and will continue to be ignored. Mostly nobody does nor care about us political wise.

It's funny you are praising this black guy for punching someone because he supports Trump.

If this was because his life was in danger or anything else he'd be called a thug, not word, his rat by many.

I really don't like separating people into groups by their race. That's one of the main reasons I no longer call myself a liberal. I was on board when liberals talked seriously about socioeconomic differences, rather than pandering to people as monolithic groups based on their skin color. I have far more in common politically with a middle class black family, than I do with a West Virginian coal miner or a white billionaire.

I am not praising the guy for punching anyone. And I used to think the 'left-wing media' narrative was pretty damn close to conspiratorial. Which is why find it almost creepy to realize that we do have a media so hellbent on portraying a certain narrative that they willfully ignore any suggestion to the contrary.

Glad he acknowledged he only has one black supporter instead of pretending he has millions

He does have millions. He's polling in the 10% - 25% range among African-Americans (depending on the poll). Let's say he gets a post-1964 Republican average of 12ish %. That's over a million.

For context, Redding, CA is a small town where 1.2% of the population of the population is black. I wouldn't really expect a massive African-American turnout.

The fact that no one is commenting on the incident he referred to in this context however, is quite astonishing to me.

The only person who has ever worn a KKK outfit to a Trump rally was a white liberal protester. He ended up being punched in the face by a black Trump supporter.

Yet, headlines at the time typically read "white racists at Trump rallies!!"

Thank you so much! That's what I was needing to hear. To help understand what the deal is, I first traveled to see her in December for 3 weeks. Where we got engaged, exactly a month later she had an awful car wreck and I flew straight there and stayed for nearly 2 months. Now I'm planning to go back for the remainder of my 90 days period. So I don't want to have to worry about not being able to go back in July, which is when I hope to be able to bring her back to America with me and start our life!

You should be fine

I think I'm finally fully understanding the deal. Like I said my 180 day period started December 30th. Therefore, 180 days from then is June 27th. Within that period I can travel up to 90 days without a visa. So after June 27th, a new 180 day period starts wherein I'm allowed another 90 days visa free. This is all me traveling to the Schengen zone. Correct me if I'm wrong in my thinking.

The reason I'm concerned is, I have a ticket confirmed and bought for July 18th and I want to make sure that I have no chance of being denied for going over my 90 day period. But since my first trip was December, I should be okay to travel then.

You should be fine. There's never any guarantee of being allowed into any country unless you're a citizen of that country, just like condoms do not guarantee unwanted pregnancy. They just state "you should be fine."

I really don't hear of a lot of Americans turned away. I have one friend who frequently visits the Netherlands for long period of time, twice a year. Last time he entered, the Dutch border agent who stamped his passport jokingly said "Why don't you just move here?" to which my friend answered "Give me a visa to do so and I'll move tomorrow." Passport stamped, "welcome to the Netherlands", 75 day trip, no problem.

"I have a friend..." is not really empirical evidence of anything. Bottom line though is that while U.S. CBP and Canadian CBSA tend to assume you're an intending immigrant until satisfied otherwise, European border agents tend to assume you're just a tourist until they have reason to suspect otherwise. While CBP can turn travelers away on somewhat substantiated "hunch", European border agents generally turn you away only with substantial evidence. For example if you entered Oslo Airport with all of your life belongings and 15 copies of your resume printed in Norwegian.

So to answer your question - If you went for 90 days in December, you would have left in March. If you return in July, you should be fine.

Ah, okay, I understand. I'm trying to grasp all of the rules and regulations that are associated with immigration. I was under the impression that all countries under the VWP followed the same rules and such. But, it appears it's just the US. I just don't want to get turned around when I arrive in Norway because they find it suspicious that I've traveled so much within this year.

The only reciprocity is the 90 day visa-free travel. How each country implements this is different. Norway is part of the Schengen area - A shared European external border, kind of how i.e. Kentucky and Texas share the same external U.S. border, Norway and i.e. Italy share the same external Schengen border.

In the U.S., the law states you're allowed to visit for 90 as a tourist.

In the Schengen area, the law states you're allowed to visit for 90 days as a tourist within a 180 day period.

In other words,

If you visit the U.S. for 90 days, go home, and return a week later for another 90 days, it is up to the CBP officer at the border to determine whether your new 90 days are still for tourism.

If you visit the Schengen area for 90 days, go home, and return a week later for another 90 days, you're already maxed out within that 180 day period.

http://www.latimes.com/travel/deals/la-tr-spot-20150329-story.html

Plain and simple, if you visit the Schengen area for 90 days as a tourist, you'll have to wait 90 days before you can return as a tourist.

On the flip side, Schengen border agents tend to question you a lot less than CBP officers do.

you guys want to know what i love most about this election potus 2016? being told by older women democrats that i'm sexist and don't even realize it all because i won't vote for hillary.

You misogynist you.

Welcome to the other side of social justice. Where being told you're "racist", "sexist", "bigoted", "ableist", "homophobic" and "transphobic" and don't realize it happens on the daily.

Drumpf has the highest level of dislikeability numbers of all three remaining candidates. But I am sure that is only because so many Americans suffer from an inability to see how a crotchety, racist, bully, with the biggest combination of raging ego and hyper sensitivity to criticism of any candidate ever, who often refers to himself in the 3rd person and for decades has pretended to be someone else to praise himself, might not be seen as a good choice for President.

You don't have to like Donald Trump to be concerned with the direction of the far left these days. I'm no fan of Trump. I'm a lifelong liberal.

Luckily, I can't vote so I don't have to make a decision between Trump or Hillary.

Bottom line is, I'm not reading too much into Trump's unfavorable ratings. Plenty of people will likely vote for him despite loathing the guy, simply because the far left turns them off even more.

Meanwhile, the last person who was hung for blasphemy in the UK for example, was in 1697.

Actually, let me correct myself. The last person who was murdered for blasphemy in the UK was in 2016.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/29/man-from-bradford-charged-with-murder-of-glasgow-shopkeeper-asad/

Yes it took you months to respond to me. No worries. ;-)

I'm going to leave this right here for you

[...]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/2-church-pastors-among-32-192400986.html

Guess we'll pin this on Allah too

I'm not sure we're speaking the same language. You're saying bad [edited - VJ Moderation] things happens in every religion, and are committed by people who proclaim every religion. I agree 100%.

I'm talking about scope. Size of problem.

Show me an actual governmental body anywhere that implements Biblical law. Show me a Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Baha'i, Jain, etc. society where (1) strict adherence to scripture is law, and (2) the punishment for leaving said society is death.

I am absolutely certain that there exists a crazy cult of Christians somewhere in Kansas - Westboro Baptist Church for example - Who think Biblical law should be the law of the land. The difference is, they're fringe groups. Usually laughed at by greater society, and when they do do something crazy, they are generally arrested and go to prison. This is true whether we're talking about Kansas, Ireland or the Philippines.

But I am not talking about fringe groups. In northern Nigeria, Mauretania, Yemen, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Brunei you are put to death for blasphemy. In Algeria, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, the Maldives, Morocco, Oman, Sudan and Turkey, the punishment is usually lengthy prison sentences. Meanwhile, the last person who was hung for blasphemy in the UK for example, was in 1697.

Apostasy. The act of leaving a religion. Considered a right in virtually every country in the world. Except, in Mauretania, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia. Iran, Afghanistan. Pakistan, Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE it is punishable by death, while in northern Nigeria, Egypt, Oman, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Malaysia and Indonesia, you are thrown in prison. It remains a crime in Morocco, Algeria, Libya and all Muslim-majority former Soviet Republics as well. In Bangladesh, Turkey, Tunisia, Albania and Bosnia it isn't a crime, but severe social pressure exists. I've heard people tout Bangladesh for its secular penal code before for example. Yet atheists are frequently hacked to death by machetes there, while the government really doesn't care.

If a Christian group in Colorado for example subjected its members to death threats for insulting Jesus that's one thing. If it threatened death upon members for leaving, that's another. We'd call it a cult. If the State of Colorado and a majority or significant plurality of Colorado's population supported this cult, what would we call it?

There is no Muslim-majority society on this planet where some form of religious law isn't enforced. Actually, you could argue Albania and Bosnia as exceptions to this, while Kazakhstan seems pretty lax in enforcing its more outlandish religious laws. What do they all have in common? They are former Soviet or Yugoslav Republics where religion was severely discouraged (if not de facto banned) for most of the 20th century. Likewise, some African countries like Senegal and Guinea are Muslim-majority and secular. What do they generally have in common? Islam is watered down and indigenous African beliefs tend to replace Islamism.

Catholicism has 1.2 billion adherents worldwide, the majority of whom live in secular societies, and where scriptures have been watered down and mostly cherry picked to fit into secular society. Where some religiously inspired laws do exist, they pertain mostly to issues of abortion, divorce or same-sex marriage. Extreme groups exist, and are usually considered "crazy" fringe elements.

Islam has 1.4 billion adherents worldwide, the majority of whom live under some form of Sharia law. Where secular laws exist, they are generally either secondary to religious laws, or exist alongside severe social pressure to conform to religiosity. Extreme groups are not just ISIS or Al Qaida, but the governments of most of the countries.

Do we have this problem in the U.S.? No. Muslims here make up less than 1% of the population, are generally spread very thin, and have traditionally had high levels of education and income. The U.S. has never had mass immigration of uneducated and low-skilled workers from the Muslim world. Mass immigration to the U.S. has historically been from Europe, Latin America and East Asia.

France and the U.K. have both had decades of mass immigration from all over the world. But how many problems have France really had with integrating its quarter million Vietnamese immigrants? None. How many Brits ever really complain about the Indians? None. Meanwhile, the U.K. now openly have sharia tribunals existing alongside British courts.

Do I 'hate Muslims?' No. Absolutely not. I support actual secular Muslims like Maajid Nawaz in everything that they do. I want to see Islam get rid of its stigma and its crazies relegated to the fringes. I'd love to see the day when Muslim women aren't forced, pressured or brainwashed into covering up, when imams discuss whether to ordain gay marriages rather then whether or not to kill them, when drawings of Mohammed are just as offensive and normal as drawings of Jesus, and when the far left stops treating conservative Muslims any different than they treat evangelical Christians, Mormons and southern Baptists.

What is so scary to me about the left these days. And I mean the far left. Is that whenever you offend Islam or Muslims, they scream "racism!" and "Islamophobia!"

Yet, if you had drawn incendiary pictures of Jesus in the Middle Ages, would the far left be shouting "Christianophobe!" or "Racist!" at people while the church burned them at the stake for heresy?

I say let's offend Islam and Muslims even more. Let's push Islam's boundaries to the brink. After all, we live in a secular society today because of people who challenged the Vatican, pushed boundaries and offended the church as it was into ridicule.

So your argument is because we've made it a law we are better. Ok. I'll take the, however, please tell all the parents of dead women and children in America it's ok because no one yelled Allah while raping, beating or killing them.

3 women die a day due to domestic violence.

350,000 children and counting when it comes to sex trafficking.

Ow, let's not talk about born again Jesuses and Christian sects in Texas, you know, like the one they removed 32 kids from and the kids had kids and were married off to men in their 60s.

Here's a small taste of American christian cults

persecution. With that in mind, here are the most famous and infamous cults in American history.

1. Branch Davidians

[...]

We drink the same kool-aid over here, the way it's made is just different.

I haven't been on this forum in a month, but I always like the debates here so I'm replying even though it's a month later.

"however, please tell all the parents of dead women and children in America it's ok because no one yelled Allah while raping, beating or killing them."

- I didn't say that. But suggesting we have a rape epidemic equal to that of the Congo or a general view of women equal to that of much of the Islamic world is not true either.

Put it this way, a murder in Vermont is every bit as much a murder as one that occurs in Chicago. But realistically, if you talk about murder rates in America, you'll get nowhere if you keep making the claim that Burlington, VT and Chicago, IL are equally bad. Or that religious radicalism is equally widespread in Christian and Islamic communities.

I'm in no way saying we haven't had crazy Christian cults in the U.S., Europe, even in Africa. Heck, even Joseph Kony proclaims himself to be a Christian. Some Jewish settlers on the West Bank are no better than the Palestinians who blow themselves up on Israeli buses and various Hindu nationalists in India don't exactly have clean records. Christianity has one of the most barbaric, brutal histories out of any religion.

The reason I often single out Islam is because crazy cults within the Islamic world aren't just limited to sects of hundreds or a couple thousand brainwashed individuals who live in compounds, try to self-segregate from society or begin a precursor to the apocalypse etc. Jihadist groups and networks are far larger, far more organized and enjoy far more popular support in the Islamic world than the Branch-Davidians, the Mason family, the Westboro Baptist church or Joseph Kony could ever dream of. But talking about ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Qaida, the Taliban etc etc etc, as if they were the only crazies is like when liberals almost convince themselves that Ted Cruz is sane because he's standing next to the Donald.

Some form of crazy cult status in the majority of Middle Eastern countries is systematized, it's present in majorities of populations and even in government. What's crazy cult status? When significant portions of the population of a country believes in chopping the heads off apostates, I consider it religious fanaticism. When significant portions of adherents believe in the death penalty for homosexuals, stoning of women, death for blasphemy and all the other good things that come with Sharia - That's cult status.

When the 1,400 year old texts that lay the foundation for Sharia are actually implemented as law, whether formal or informal, that's systematized religious fanaticism on a scope and scale we just don't see anywhere else. And we're not talking fringe societies. We're talking virtually every major Muslim-majority society - Including some in Europe.

I love poking fun at Answers in Genesis, and trust me, every time a local school board tries to put Biblical creationism into school science book, I cringe.

I also praise myself lucky to live in a secular, liberal democracy where our everyday religious nutjobs are more concerned with gay marriage than gay death. I also praise myself lucky to live in a country where our real religious wackos are either dead, in prison or making money in the netherworlds of televangelism rather than being members of the Supreme Court - Or a Sharia court for that matter.

I think we both agree that religious fanaticism occurs happens everywhere.

The scope of it however, does vary from religion to religion.

Very cisgendered, white male full of privilege kinda post...with a touch of SJW....

"Islam is more like a cancer"....did the Hitch ever write like this????

I have about the same amount of cisgendered, white male privilege as an impoverished, unemployed West Virginian ex-coal miner.

I did have a socioeconomic advantage growing up however.

Looks like the right wing rabid dog ABC has him up by 3

Loving it

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

I'm guessing he'll drop a bit behind Hillary again once the #bernieorbust crowd heals their wounds and Gary Johnson becomes a name known also outside political circles.

But by all means, this could become a lot closer than anyone could have imagined.

Yes, I know I need copies of the medical, I'll make sure to ask for that when I'm there. Hopefully the i-693 isn't needed for the AOS then, it was just confusing.

Did you have to translate the medical and x-ray papers or they were both in English? The proof of no TB and syphilis is in the medical papers, right?

I never had to translate anything. The X-Ray came on a CD (those may be obsolete nowadays), and the medical was sent directly from the doctor to the embassy - I never actually saw the medical.

I'm busy, can't type too much. We have thousands of gun deaths a year by Christians. Tell you what, let someone shoot you while yelling allah, let someone shoot you while yelling Jesus and let someone shoot you while yelling nothing. Tell me which one hurt the worst.

Nuns cover themselves... because of religion. Have you seen the Amish?

What about sex and human trafficking in u.s. prevalent for women and children? How about the amount of women being killed by their husbands. Good thing we have separation of church and state that's the biggest difference I see

I don't really care whether they shout Jesus, Allah or Spaghetti. Whether the perpetrator is personally Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist etc. is also irrelevant.

There is no organized, global movement to deliberately kill civilians in the name of any God except for Allah.

ISIS has a quarter million members. Add Al Qaida, the Taliban, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf, Jemmah Islamiyah, Ansar al-Islam, Jabath al-Nusra, Hezbollah etc. etc. and you have millions of jihadists.

Well-organized, well-funded groups of religious extremists who have no quarrels with killing innocent civilians in the name of their God.

Gun deaths in the U.S. are rarely from organized religious organizations. When they are committed by organized groups, it's usually street gangs with little no proclaimed religious affiliation. Different group, different problem, different solution.

I'll quote myself here:

Islamism is not just radical jihadism, but the Islamic orthodoxy that is spread through the world like a cancer by well-funded powers in Saudi Arabia, Iran and in the Gulf. It wasn't until the 1970s that Muslim women in many countries actually began covering up - The hijab today, is celebrated as the pinnacle of diversity by much of the left. Some will even go as far as calling it a symbol of feminism. What it really is, is religious orthodoxy. It's just politically incorrect to say that because hijab-wearing women are viewed as an oppressed minority, while calling Victorian dress-clad women are not viewed as an oppressed minority.

Nuns, ministers, imams, rabbis etc. are a different matter.

We sort of laugh at the Amish. We sort of chuckle at women dressed in Victorian-style dresses. We are trying meanwhile, to push this narrative of the hijab as a natural part of mainstream, secular Islam. It is not, and never really was. It should be discouraged by the left, in the same way the left would discourage other medieval ways of telling women how to dress.

Here's the thing: If I chuckle when I see an Amish woman in a black dress, it's "understandable." If I chuckle when I see a girl wearing a hijab, I'm a "bigot."

Sex trafficking in the US and Europe is a felony, seldom committed in the name of Jesus, still punishable by up to life in prison, with very own police task forces set up for the sole purpose of combating it. Women being killed by their husbands is considered murder anywhere, eligible for the death penalty in various US states. Legal in large swathes of the Middle East, where it is excusable if the woman committed adultery.

Look. I'm not saying that crimes don't happen anywhere else. I'm not saying that if a woman was raped by a Somali Muslim in Minneapolis, it was the fault of Islam.

I'm saying that there are inherent, underlying problems within Islam, as practiced in most of the Middle East, that prevent a much needed reformation of the religion as a whole.

Reforming Islam won't solve the problem of sex tourism in Cambodia. It won't solve global warming. It won't lower crime rates on the south side of Chicago.

This is the problem: Rape is far more accepted (legal when married) in large swathes of the Middle East than anywhere else. The punishment for adultery is death in most of the Middle East. The punishment for apostasy is death in much of the Middle East. The accepted punishment for being gay is death in much of the Middle East. The role of women according to Sharia is archaic, even when you compare it to the role of women in the most conservative Christian households in America. Does this make Muslims bad people? Of course not.

Christianity is like herpes. You'll have annoyances here and there. Sometimes a big rash. Then it goes away for a while, but you never really get rid of it.

Islam is more like cancer. Sometimes benign, sure. Some liberals might say that green juice will help. But on the whole, what you really need is chemotherapy to make the deadly parts go away.

where does make sure everyone has the resources or access to resources to fix the leak and future leaks fit in?

Far right: #### off. Not my problem. Blame the left when you steal water from your neighbor to survive.

Far left: Rich white males should pay for your plumber. Blame the right for not having paid for your house in the first place.

Center-right: Equal opportunity requires a tiny bit of government. The rest is on you.

Center-left: Equal opportunity requires some more government. The rest is on you.

You're new.

I'm not comparing anything to sharia. ChrisSharia is a running joke in the CEHST section. I call it conservative ChrisSharia. People in the section like to talk about Islam while failing to speak on atrocities Christians commit, blowing up abortion clinics, limiting women's rights and proposing to murder gays

I've been here for 5 years, but I haven't been in this section for a while. I agree that the right needs to do a better job of reigning in its own crazies. I would still contend that as a whole, mainstream Christianity is currently in 1970, whereas mainstream Islam is somewhere in 1770. There are plenty of sane, rational, secular Muslims, as there are plenty of sane, rational, secular Christians.

Alas, I would contend that fundamentalism is a lot more prevalent in Islam than it is in Christianity, in the same way that poverty is much more prevalent in India than it is in the US.

Of course we have dire poverty in the US - And it should be dealt with as such. But to solve the problem of poverty in general, there are far bigger problems than pockets in New Orleans and Detroit.

Have you read the Bible? Killing non believers, keeping slaves, stoning women, eye for an eye, etc

Yes. I threw out much of the Old Testament a long time ago. I'm a hypocritical Christian. I pray in private, cherry pick the parts of the Bible that I like and ignore or make excuses for the parts that I don't like. It works for me and seems to work for most of America's "mainstream Christians." I respect any Muslim who cherry picks the Quran to fit Western secularism, while throwing out the parts about stoning women and murdering infidels, hating on gays, fornication, making women wear certain outfits, rubbing religion in your face, etc.

I look forward to the day that mainstream Islam too, is cherry picked and becomes mostly a private matter.

The point with the statement above, and the analogy to poverty was to say that nowhere have I ever seen literal Biblical law applied as official policy - At least not for a century or three. Sharia law, by some interpretation or another, is the law of the land in nearly every Muslim-majority country. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of beauty within Islamic culture. I've been to mosques in both Cairo and Tehran. Wonderful places, wonderful people. I don't want to see it eradicated or anything to that extent.

But I want to see the cancer that is Islamism dealt with in an honest fashion - Islamism is not just radical jihadism, but the Islamic orthodoxy that is spread through the world like a cancer by well-funded powers in Saudi Arabia, Iran and in the Gulf. It wasn't until the 1970s that Muslim women in many countries actually began covering up - The hijab today, is celebrated as the pinnacle of diversity by much of the left. Some will even go as far as calling it a symbol of feminism. What it really is, is religious orthodoxy. It's just politically incorrect to say that because hijab-wearing women are viewed as an oppressed minority, while calling Victorian dress-clad women are not viewed as an oppressed minority.

We sort of expect that churches and Christian-owned bakeries in rural Indiana should cater to same-sex couples. We don't expect the same out of mosques in Dearborn, MI. We laugh when some crazy sect in rural Utah only allows their adherents to marry only within their religion, but we sort of accept it as "their culture" when we talk of Muslim women being barred by their families from marrying non-Muslim men.

So while a crazy lone wolf lunatic shot some people at an abortion clinic in Colorado last year (and was called a domestic terrorist by Mike Huckabee), 170 American citizens traveled to Syria to fight for a barbaric self-proclaimed caliphate - Which actually keeps slaves.

So I tend to agree with the likes of Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchins, Dave Rubin etc, etc, in that we certainly have our crazies. But our crazies are not as crazy as their crazies. At least not on nearly the same scale. And this notion that all religions are equally bad on the same scale, is liberal bulls**t in the name of protecting people according to their rank on some invisible hierarchy of victimhood.

The day "Muslim fundamentalists" are picketing abortion clinics, "Islamic extremists" are protesting gay marriage, and "Jihadists" are fighting for Islam by opposing gender-neutral bathrooms - I'll find stories of that one crazy sect that did so and so, and refrain from insisting that there is a fundamental need for Islam as a whole to go through a large scale secular reformation.

Not bad, there is nothing really Left about them. Sometimes I think Politics is a circle and they have gone all the way around.

Yes. I would contend that there is nothing "liberal" or "progressive" about judging an idea or person based on said person's "level of oppression" rather than their merit.

I would also contend that there is nothing "small government" about using government to ban what isn't "moral."

Left is a misleading term as these people have nothing to do with the Left as I understood it.

I realise Liberal in the US does not mean what it does in the UK, not that keen on that either.

Activists?

Regressive Left.

The left's version of the evangelical right. You know, ban concepts/words we don't like. Silence discussion by "Goddidit/Socialism" or "Bigotry and racism." Shelter yourself from perfectly reasonable opposing viewpoints because they're "not in the Bible" or "triggering."

The faucet is leaking in your own house:

(domestic policy)

Far right approach: Convince people there is no leak. Do nothing until the house is flooded. Blame the left for the flood.

Far left approach: Convince people that faucets are the cause of society's problems. Ban faucets. Blame the right for the subsequent lack of running water.

Center-right approach: There is a leak, with a tiny bit of regulation, the market will probably fix it.
Center-left approach: There is a leak, with a little more regulation, the market will probably fix it.

Your neighbor's faucet has a bigger leak:

(foreign policy)

Far right approach: Fix your neighbor's leak by blowing up his house. Blame the left for letting it leak in the first place.
Far left approach: The neighbor's leak is the right's fault. Do nothing and convince people our own leak is worse.

Center-right approach: Propose three plumbers are needed to help your neighbor.

Center-left appeoach: Propose only one plumber is needed to help you neighbor.

------------------------------

How did we get to the point where the GOP is pandering to the far right, and the Democrats are pandering to the far left?

Having sex is bad and shouldn't be done. Being raped is worse and the victim should be severely punished. Welcome to ChrisSharia

While I agree entirely with the point you're making, I am failing to see how being expelled from a private university constitutes "severe punishment" when compared with Sharia.

It's a little like saying, yes, putting someone in prison for a year for shoplifting is "severe." But it does not belong in the same conversation as chopping their hands off.

Compared to Sharia, Biblical law is not a serious threat to the human rights situation in any country (perhaps except for Uganda).

Inshallah and and thank the Mormon God for that.

"Severe" is a relative term.

My mistake - I read the post you referenced again, and I read it wrong. Apologies!

To make it clear, I agree with you, and my response was a misreading of what the previous poster had said.
Too late to edit or delete my previous post, please disregard.

I think you'd be hard pressed to make the statement "Most Muslims are terrorists" from the Pew Research data. What the data does show however, is that the wider Islamic world is centuries behind as far as basic human rights go. No non-Islamic country has apostasy laws. No non-Islamic country has the death penalty for LGBT people (though Uganda was the target of an angry international community when it passed a harsh anti-LGBT law a few years back - But it's not an Islamic country, so it's okay for the far left to loudly and publicly protest against Uganda).

What I miss from the left is an acknowledgement of the sheer size of the "religious nutjob" problem we see in the Islamic world vs. the rest of the world, and a firm stand against Islamic orthodoxy and support for moderate secular Muslims. Today, the likes of Maajid Nawaz and Sarah Haider are being called Islamophobic bigots by the far left.

In the same fashion, the right should embrace secular Muslims like Maajid Nawaz and others who are trying to reform Islam from within. Islam isn't going away, but the religion as a whole is in sore need of reformation and secularization.

Until "Islamic fundamentalism" means refusing to serve wedding cakes at a gay wedding, Islam should be subject to intense scrutiny - Particularly from the left. When "radical Muslim" is synonymous with protesting gender neutral bathrooms, no one needs police protection for blasphemy, and "crazy Muslims" are picketing abortion clinics, then we're at a place where Islam = "Just another religion."

Based on the lack of data that comes will th that outlandish claims about most Muslims are terrorists and the claims that all studies support this as fact, I thought I would level set on the definition of a study. Hence the examples. I don't think you have the studies that show that most Muslims are terrorists.

Headline:

"Isis document leak reportedly reveals identities of 22,000 recruits"

Source: The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/09/isis-document-leak-reportedly-reveals-identities-syria-22000-fighters

This of course doesn't include most ISIS members, nor members of Boko Haram, Al Qaida in [the Maghreb/Arabian peninsula/wherever], Ansar-al-Islam, Abu Sayyaf, Jemaah Islamiya, Jabath al-Nusra, Afghan Taliban, Pakistani Taliban, Janjaweed, [fill in other militant Islamofascist organization of your choice].

Without firm, peer reviewed studies to back this up, I would argue that you'd be hard pressed to find an organized non-Islamic terrorist organization anywhere with over 22,000 members - Let alone the additional hundreds of thousands of jihadists ready to deliberately kill and maim civilians for the sake of their ideology in the name of the other plethora of Islamofascist terrorist organizations.

Thus, "most terrorists are Muslim", although politically incorrect to say, isn't factually incorrect.

Of course, the definition of "terrorism" can be debated - Though I'd argue that any of the above organizations, including all of their hundreds of thousands of fighters are, by definition, "terrorists."

I am not sure how we ever got to a point where the statement "Most terrorists are Muslim" somehow became "Most Muslims are terrorists." The two statements have absolutely nothing to do with one another and mixing them up doesn't solve anything.

Please reference your "studies"

Pro-Tip: News articles, commentary , drudge reports and polls do not meet any bar that I would consider a study.

Headline:

"Isis document leak reportedly reveals identities of 22,000 recruits"

Source: The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/09/isis-document-leak-reportedly-reveals-identities-syria-22000-fighters

This of course doesn't include most ISIS members, nor members of Boko Haram, Al Qaida in [the Maghreb/Arabian peninsula/wherever], Ansar-al-Islam, Abu Sayyaf, Jemaah Islamiya, Jabath al-Nusra, Afghan Taliban, Pakistani Taliban, Janjaweed, [fill in other militant Islamofascist organization of your choice].

Without firm, peer reviewed studies to back this up, I would argue that you'd be hard pressed to find an organized non-Islamic terrorist organization anywhere with over 22,000 members - Let alone the additional hundreds of thousands of jihadists ready to deliberately kill and maim civilians for the sake of their ideology in the name of the other plethora of Islamofascist terrorist organizations.

Thus, "most terrorists are Muslim", although politically incorrect to say, isn't factually incorrect.

Of course, the definition of "terrorism" can be debated - Though I'd argue that any of the above organizations, including all of their hundreds of thousands of fighters are, by definition, "terrorists."

I am not sure how we ever got to a point where the statement "Most terrorists are Muslim" somehow became "Most Muslims are terrorists." The two statements have absolutely nothing to do with one another and mixing them up doesn't solve anything.

While I have no problem with a private religious university objecting to premarital sex (no one is forced to go there), this is bordering Sharia.

Let's all agree that the left and the right have their own crazies to reign in.

I would support $100/pack of smokes. Just raise the tax by a dollar every month until we are at $100/pack, completely eradicate it from modern life.

If we had a single-payer healthcare system like the NHS, I would be in line with that, plus a progressive sales tax on added sugar.

But without a public option, I can't really think of a legitimate way that a state or federal government can justify charging $95 in taxes for a pack of Camels. Perhaps if it was used to pay for independent cancer research and stop-smoking help for smokers. Even that's pushing it in my view.

SJW have turned into the kid that cried wolf. Running out of things that actually matter, the "oppressed" among us continue to look for injustices that don't exist because they don't have anything better to do like have real jobs or families.

You're telling me that making up new things to tell people that they should be hurt and offended by isn't a real job?

You sound like a straight, white, cisgender male - The privilege which undeniably exudes out from every crevice of your existence means you are not privileged to have a valid, acceptable opinion on the matter.

Yep . The person who wrote the article sounds sore. The writer's bf/gf probably ran off with a "bearded hipster" - lol;)

I didn't care too much about the beard. I kept the car

I was pretty bitter I couldn't keep the Vitamix though.

I thought VJ was a Safe Place?

Sorry, this isn't Yale. VJ is a place for learning.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/

“In your position as master,” one student says, “it is your job to create a place of comfort and home for the students who live in Silliman. You have not done that. By sending out that email, that goes against your position as master. Do you understand that?!”

“No,” he said, “I don’t agree with that.”

The student explodes, “Then why the f**k did you accept the position?! Who the f**k hired you?! You should step down! If that is what you think about being a master you should step down! It is not about creating an intellectual space! It is not! Do you understand that? It’s about creating a home here. You are not doing that!”