I am having a tough time following your first paragraph. You jumped on me (erroneously) thinking I was generalizing about those who follow Islam. But then, you indicate that "pretty much every Muslim convert who converted as an adult I've encountered have severe personal or mental health issues." I presume you are making a legitimate point that I'm not getting, but I think that there are other posters, who if they stated something like that, would be getting flamed right now. I get that if you grew up Muslim and left the faith, you have way more information than I do, but I'm trying to wrap my head around what position you are taking. On your Trump stuff, you are assuming that everyone who supports Trump does so for the same reason and that somehow that qualifies as either 1) idiocy; or 2) racism. I think a lot of folks on here agree with you. But, it strikes me as incredibly intolerant and the kind of generalization we should all be trying to avoid.
Do you believe there is a certain threshold where supporting someone reveals a great deal of information about their character and ideology? For example, do you think you can make a judgement of an individual if they supported a individual Hitler? I think Trump's values and is lack of basic moral decency is displayed on his chest in a very obvious manner.
Can we not do this tonight? I plan to watch the game and hang out with my family. I am not ignoring you and respect your desire and ability to debate. But, I'm exhausted tonight and would rather save this for another day. Ok?
Do I post in a manner where you feel compelled to reply to me immediately? It's fine dude. Reply at your leisure. I'm also preparing for the game. Ordering from my favorite Chinese place, riping a bowl and hopefully enjoy a Rockets win.
in the "Dems in disarray" department . . . Pelosi was "visibly angry" by AOC tweeting etc. last week during the Omar hand slap negotiations: During a leadership meeting on Tuesday night, Pelosi grew angry and raised her voice to Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) when Dingell pulled out her phone and read a tweet by Ocasio-Cortez, according to two people who were there and requested anonymity to disclose details of a private meeting. In the tweet, Ocasio-Cortez defended Omar, her close friend, as Pelosi and her leadership team were readying an initial version of the resolution responding to Omar’s foreign allegiance remark. In the meeting, Dingell agreed with Ocasio-Cortez’s assessment that House Democrats shouldn’t be focused on rebuking one of their own but should also be calling out homophobia, racism and xenophobia in general. According to the people in the room, Pelosi was offended at the suggestion that Democrats didn’t already stand up against all forms of hate and grew visibly angry. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...210e58a94cf_story.html?utm_term=.4c375933ae8a
I still don't know what part of Omar's tweets were anti-semitic? Claiming someone having dual loyality is anti-semitic apparently? So let me get this straight. If a politician goes out if their way to support a statute that states that private businesses should be fined because they decide to boycott a foreign country's products or services because they disagree with them, which is essentially violating first amendment rights, is it anti-semitic to state that that politician favors the allegiance of said foreign nation over our own first amendment rights? It makes logical sense to me at least that the politician favors a foreign power at the expense of our constitution. Also, our court system agrees what Omar was criticizing was unconstitutional. So now apparently our court system is anti-semitic. I don't think any of these claims of anti-semitism would be thrown around so loosely if Omar wasn't a hijabi Muslim.
Well, when you see things like stoning, it's hard to defend the Arab culture's views on women. But, in things like the Hijab, not being able to drive, the women not being able to talk to male strangers, the fact that they must be accompanied in public etc -- what can look like oppression to some can look like protection to another. More simply put, the "guardianship" system requires obligations/protection/provision toward the women, on the part of the men. I had a cabbie tell me all about it one time I was in the UAE. And while western society surely finds such restrictions appalling, I wonder if the men in the Arab societies aren't wise after all: they know their societies are rough and tumble and violent, and thus take measures to protect their womenfolk. But none of the above helps the Dems in their increasingly fractured party. And looking at someone like Omar, one has to wonder: what is she, essentially, at her core? A feminist? A liberal/leftist? A Muslim? As the Democrats are finding out, one cannot be all those things at the same time.
Ed Morrissey at the Week asks if Pelosi's Speakership is over: {Hers} is not the behavior of someone who commands authority within her caucus. It's the behavior of someone who's afraid of her caucus. Pelosi might hold the gavel and have the office, but she's not wielding any authority or power. One has to wonder just how long Pelosi will even hold the gavel. On Monday, she told The Washington Post Magazine that the effort to impeach President Trump would be more wisely applied to other Democratic initiatives. "He's just not worth it," Pelosi insisted, saying that the impeachment path would be needlessly "divisive to the country." How long will Pelosi hold that view? Until Ilhan Omar and other progressives insist that she changes her mind, or else? https://theweek.com/articles/828518/nancy-pelosis-speakership-over
Who is Ed Morrissey and why should I care? oh he his a conservative blogger who I should listen to on matters of the Democratic Speaker of the House. Seems legit.
So the author has no merit to speak of, he just wrote something you agree with.S That's neither scholarly nor academic.
That is such a relief, because some other random guy in the webosphere thought otherwise. Looks like this issue is settled until Os resumes his Confirmation Bias Tour of the web for more supporting evidence.
I assume it's something like born again Christians being somewhat annoying in their early years but much more fundamentalist.
