Obama's Foreign Policy

[Townsend]

Go have a beer or something.

Later.

I anticipated that eventually Libya would turn to Hamas or The Brotherhood and become a more fundamental Islamic state

Why did you anticipate that?

[swake]

Since 1960 women have had the right to vote in Libya. Under this form of government, that is now over.

This is from article six of the document. It's says that your statement is wrong:

The State shall guarantee for all woman (sic) all opportunities which shall allow her to participate entirely and actively in political, economic and social spheres.

Can you explain how the three most populous Muslim majority nations have elected female leaders and we have not? That's not even counting India which has the world's third largest Muslim population which has also had elected female leaders.

[swake]

Later.


Why did you anticipate that?

Faux News told him so. He's basically a Newscorp newsbot.

[Gaspar]

This is from article six of the document. It's says that your statement is wrong:

Can you explain how the three most populous Muslim majority nations have elected female leaders and we have not? That's not even counting India which has the world's third largest Muslim population which has also had elected female leaders.

We will have to see where that goes.  If they are intending to use Sharia, this may only be lip service.  Depending on who their backer becomes (Hamas et. al.) that may change.

For now, I will stand corrected on that matter.

[Townsend]

We will have to see where that goes.  If they are intending to use Sharia, this may only be lip service.  Depending on who their backer becomes (Hamas et. al.) that may change.

For now, I will stand corrected on that matter.

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of that.

[Gaspar]

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of that.

Of what?

[Townsend]

Of what?

Even while kind of admitting your mistake you still manage to group them together and say "lip service" due to their region/religion/whatever your're using to justify this stance you insist on taking.

This isn't a "liberal", as you put it, stance.  You're doing this wrong.

[Gaspar]

Even while kind of admitting your mistake you still manage to group them together and say "lip service" due to their region/religion/whatever your're using to justify this stance you insist on taking.

This isn't a "liberal", as you put it, stance.  You're doing this wrong.

You may be right.  They may have every intention of preserving or even expanding freedoms in that country.  You can see that they are very cautious about actually spelling it out, but then again this is just a first draft.

Just so I understand, what "stance" do you think I am taking?

[Hoss]

You may be right.  They may have every intention of preserving or even expanding freedoms in that country.  You can see that they are very cautious about actually spelling it out, but then again this is just a first draft.

Just so I understand, what "stance" do you think I am taking?

How are you not dizzy after today?  Srsly?

[Townsend]

Just so I understand, what "stance" do you think I am taking?

You can look back and see that you've grouped people of Islamic faith as one.  They aren't.  I'm sure many of them, who do not live in a politically free society, would love to have the freedoms you and I enjoy.  If the USA lost it's collective mind and adopted some of the laws/guidelines some of the "Kerns" would like to have, we'd be in the same boat.

Don't get me wrong, I tend to group many people of faith together but you seem to do it as a "us against them".  I do it because of the flying spaghetti monster.

[Gaspar]

Is that all you got from that?

It has noting to do with "grouping people together."  It has everything to do with two societies, one with government imposed morality, dictated by strict religious doctrine, and one that promotes the absolute opposite, trying to find common ground.

I'm willing to bet majority of people living in countries like Iran, or Sudi Arabia admire and want the same freedoms we have.  That's not the point.  The point is that governments framed on religion do not provide for that freedom, and once established, do not change without overthrow. . . nor do they get along very well with us.

As you can see, the very first article in Libya's constitutional draft (transitional) establishes Sharia.  Did the majority of people get to make that decision? NO

Does that tell you that perhaps that established principal is important to those who wish to be in power?  YES

Do you think that a nation established under Sharia law ever gets the right to revoke that law without revolution?

[Hoss]

Is that all you got from that?

It has noting to do with "grouping people together."  It has everything to do with two societies, one with government imposed morality, dictated by strict religious doctrine, and one that promotes the absolute opposite, trying to find common ground.

I'm willing to bet majority of people living in countries like Iran, or Sudi Arabia admire and want the same freedoms we have.  That's not the point. The point is that governments framed on religion do not provide for that freedom, and once established, do not change without overthrow. . . nor do they get along very well with us.

As you can see, the very first article in Libya's constitutional draft (transitional) establishes Sharia.  Did the majority of people get to make that decision? NO

Does that tell you that perhaps that established principal is important to those who wish to be in power?  YES

Do you think that a nation established under Sharia law ever gets the right to revoke that law without revolution?

I'll remember you said that the next time a debate about separation of church and state comes up.  Because there are MANY republican lawmakers who think that the Constitution is a document framed on religion.  The Christian religion.  And it partially is.  Didn't we base the Constitution in many ways from the Magna Carta which has some root in Christianity?

[Gaspar]

I'll remember you said that the next time a debate about separation of church and state comes up.  Because there are MANY republican lawmakers who think that the Constitution is a document framed on religion.

Please do.  The constitution is most certainly not a document framed on religion.  I don't see how it could be.

[we vs us]

I'm still amazed that through all that, we're still confusing Arabs with Muslims.  Can we all go back and read our wikipedia entries again?

[Gaspar]

I'm still amazed that through all that, we're still confusing Arabs with Muslims.  Can we all go back and read our wikipedia entries again?

That's a good point, but not that important.  Our relationship difficulties with Arab nations is not due to race.  It is do the philosophical differences.