Value Voters Summit

[Honus]

I suppose this shows a lack of respect for people whose world views differ from from own, but I think many of those attending the Value Voters Summit are numskulls. (That is the preferred spelling, by the way. "Numbskull" is acceptable, buy "numskull" is preferred.)

Why do I think these people are numskulls? This is why:

... "We should have a federal law that says sharia law cannot be recognized by any court in the United States," Gingrich said to a standing ovation from the audience...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/gingrich-calls-for-federal-law-banning-shariah-law-in-us.php?ref=fpa

That already is the law, you numskulls.

[Billybob]

Originally Posted by Honus

I suppose this shows a lack of respect for people whose world views differ from from own, but I think many of those attending the Value Voters Summit are numskulls. (That is the preferred spelling, by the way. "Numbskull" is acceptable, buy "numskull" is preferred.)

Why do I think these people are numskulls? This is why:That already is the law, you numskulls.

There where already laws against acts like assault, battery, murder, slander, libel, discrimination etc. before Hate Crimes legislation was passed, where you against that law on the grounds that those acts already laws against them?

Yup, there is no shortage of idiots in america, and no shortage of sleazy politicians who are willing to exploit their irrational fears.

The idiots can be forgiven, but guys like Gingrich should know better.

[Honus]

Originally Posted by Billybob

There where already laws against acts like assault, battery, murder, slander, libel, discrimination etc. before Hate Crimes legislation was passed, where you against that law on the grounds that those acts already laws against them?

I don't agree that we already had hate crime laws before that legislation came along. We had laws prohibiting assault and battery, for example, but we did not have a law that provided for enhanced punishment if the assault and battery was motivated by racial hatred or some other type of hatred specified in the legislation. What Newt is talking about is entirely different.

Federal judges are governed by the Constitution, the rules of court, federal statutes and regulations, federal case decisions, and, in some cases, the laws of the various states. They are not permitted to decide cases according to Sharia law or any other religious law. Judges in state courts are governed by the same sources, as the Alabama Supreme Court learned back in the 60s when the U.S. Supreme Court forced them to follow their own state laws. Newt knows this. Apparently many attending the Summit don't.

I am not well versed on the law of hate crimes, but I tend to think they are a bad idea. While it would be gratifying to impose enhanced punishment on those who commit crimes motivated by hatred, the law is too blunt an instrument for that purpose. IMHO.

[Billybob]

Originally Posted by Honus

I don't agree that we already had hate crime laws before that legislation came along. We had laws prohibiting assault and battery, for example, but we did not have a law that provided for enhanced punishment if the assault and battery was motivated by racial hatred or some other type of hatred specified in the legislation. What Newt is talking about is entirely different.

Federal judges are governed by the Constitution, the rules of court, federal statutes and regulations, federal case decisions, and, in some cases, the laws of the various states. They are not permitted to decide cases according to Sharia law or any other religious law. Judges in state courts are governed by the same sources, as the Alabama Supreme Court learned back in the 60s when the U.S. Supreme Court forced them to follow their own state laws. Newt knows this. Apparently many attending the Summit don't.

I am not well versed on the law of hate crimes, but I tend to think they are a bad idea. While it would be gratifying to impose enhanced punishment on those who commit crimes motivated by hatred, the law is too blunt an instrument for that purpose. IMHO.

So in reality there is no law specifically denying consideration of Sharia but by default the only law that is supposed to be considered is Federal, State or Municipal statues, correct? And if some judge somewhere decides to abide by some element of Sharia contrary to Federal/State/Municipal in a ruling there is a mechanism by which that ruling eventually would be invalidated, as has already occured, correct?

[Matt L]

Billybob, we don't need a law. We have the first amendment to the Constitution.

And to think, some of you guys whine when us bad liberals fight Christian influence in laws.

[Billybob]

(That is the preferred spelling, by the way. "Numbskull" is acceptable, buy "numskull" is preferred.)

Got some etymological authority for that! Preferred by who?

The origin of the word appears to be a contraction of the adjective-numb & the noun-skull first used in the early 1700's = numbskull.

[Billybob]

Originally Posted by Matt L

Billybob, we don't need a law. We have the first amendment to the Constitution.

And to think, some of you guys whine when us bad liberals fight Christian influence in laws.

I suspect Newt wasn't counting on your vote anyway!

[Matt L]

Originally Posted by Billybob

I suspect Newt wasn't counting on your vote anyway!

Your suspicion is confirmed. But I can still think he's an idiot for using this as a wedge issue.

[Billybob]

Originally Posted by Matt L

Your suspicion is confirmed. But I can still think he's an idiot for using this as a wedge issue.

Is your complaint based on Newt using "this" as a "wedge issue", anyone using "this" as a "wedge issue", or anyone using using any "wedge issues"? Or is is Newt using any issue any way?

[Skid Row Joe]

Which political office is Newt Gingrich running for?


The left fringe sure gets worked up about the average citizen in America..... LOL

[Matt L]

Originally Posted by Billybob

Is your complaint based on Newt using "this" as a "wedge issue", anyone using "this" as a "wedge issue", or anyone using using any "wedge issues"? Or is is Newt using any issue any way?

What are you rambling about?

I used to respect Newt, even if I disagreed with him. Now I think that he is either an idiot, or is lying about his actual beliefs. Well, there's an outside chance that he has absolutely no knowledge that this country actually has a constitution. I'm sure that you understand that I reject that possibility.

Originally Posted by Matt L

I used to respect Newt, even if I disagreed with him. Now I think that he is either an idiot, or is lying about his actual beliefs.

I agree, and I don't believe he is an idiot.

[Honus]

Originally Posted by Billybob

(That is the preferred spelling, by the way. "Numbskull" is acceptable, buy "numskull" is preferred.)

Got some etymological authority for that! Preferred by who?

The origin of the word appears to be a contraction of the adjective-numb & the noun-skull first used in the early 1700's = numbskull.

The dictionary websites seem to prefer "numskull." I would have spelled it "numbskull" myself.

[Billybob]

Originally Posted by Matt L

What are you rambling about?

I used to respect Newt, even if I disagreed with him. Now I think that he is either an idiot, or is lying about his actual beliefs. Well, there's an outside chance that he has absolutely no knowledge that this country actually has a constitution. I'm sure that you understand that I reject that possibility.

Actually the exact opposite of rambling, I'd hoped that I had asked as simply and succinctly as possible but I gather it wasn't simple enough for you!

I never intended to overburden your capacity to comprehend; your stated concern was that "he (Newt) is an idiot for using this as a wedge issue".

To anyone who can read it seems there are three elements contained with that statement. Who the user is, what the issue is and whether an issue is used as a "wedge"

I was simply trying to determine if your complaint was based only on that circumstance which has those particular three elements mutually inclusive.

I don't recall you complaining about any leftist use of divisive issues or of their use of "wedge" issues, so I tried to ask as simply as possible the exact nature and extent of your complaint.

It was as much a rhetorical question as one that I could expect you might be able to understand and cogently respond to, so don't fret that it might be unanswerable for you.