England headed for A Caliphate

[Elixir]

Christian right and western liberal democracy are like oil and water. The Bible is a basis for a theocracy. We have separation of church and state.

Hey! It works this way too.

I do not appreciate the misquote. Not my words.

He should have prefaced the post with the traditional all-caps FIFY. But I don’t think anyone got tripped up thinking it was an unaltered post, after “this way too”.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think those young Muslim men should be required to each bring their own 50 virgins.

Ha cha cha!

What are YOU so excited about?
Those are THEIR goddam virgins!

A virgin Sophia Vergara might make me convert.

 

[ZiprHead]

A Muslim Texan sought to find his place in the party at the state GOP convention. He left in tears | Houston Public Media

Muslim delegates and attendees hoping to participate in the state Republican convention were shunned and rejected by members as they espoused themes of party unity ahead of the November election.

www.houstonpublicmedia.org

To some extent, Mohamed Hussein knew he was preparing to enter the lion's den.

But he made the decision to attend the Republican Party of Texas Convention to confirm for himself that he had a place in the GOP, even as members of the party have railed for months about the urgency of ending Sharia Law and the so-called "Islamification" of Texas.

What he found was a party that didn't want him. He arrived with hope but left in tears after being told explicitly that he should leave the country.

Hussein was among at least four Muslims who arrived at the convention in earnest — not as protesters, but as delegates or attendees — to participate in the annual meeting of the state's most hardlined Republicans as they vote on the party's priorities and hear from GOP leaders. Two prevailing themes from the Houston gathering were party unity and combatting Sharia Law, a movement that veered into outright Islamophobia by members of the convention.

"When they say Sharia-free, that means Muslim-free, no practices of Islam," Hussein said in an interview with The Texas Tribune. "No one is calling for the state to implement Sharia laws."

Hussein said he was in disbelief that he was told to convert or leave — for the first time in his life — at a Republican convention with the tagline, "Unity drives victory."

 

[Tigers!]

You're insinuating that some of it is lies.

No I'm not. I'm suggesting that anyone who believes that a privately sponsored report, initiated by a known ultra right wing nutjob, might not be biased and might not make exaggerated claims is, in my view, more than a little gullible.

Whereas a report generated by a government or police force trying to cover their failures would be any less biased and might not make exaggerated claims?
That would be more believable? Only to the the gullible.

 

[laughing dog]

You're insinuating that some of it is lies.

No I'm not. I'm suggesting that anyone who believes that a privately sponsored report, initiated by a known ultra right wing nutjob, might not be biased and might not make exaggerated claims is, in my view, more than a little gullible.

Whereas a report generated by a government or police force trying to cover their failures would be any less biased and might not make exaggerated claims?
That would be more believable? Only to the the gullible.

No one suggested that.

 

[Tigers!]

You're insinuating that some of it is lies.

No I'm not. I'm suggesting that anyone who believes that a privately sponsored report, initiated by a known ultra right wing nutjob, might not be biased and might not make exaggerated claims is, in my view, more than a little gullible.

Whereas a report generated by a government or police force trying to cover their failures would be any less biased and might not make exaggerated claims?
That would be more believable? Only to the the gullible.

No one suggested that.

The AntiChris suggested that a report generated by a organisation that does not met his criteria for 'trustworthiness' must be suspect.
Government reports are all too often not vessels of virtue or truth either. So many factors affect whatever report may be generated by whomever.
I'll not shoot the messenger just because I do not necessarily approve or like the message they carry. They need to be tested.

 

[Bomb#20]

You're insinuating that some of it is lies.

No I'm not. I'm suggesting that anyone who believes that a privately sponsored report, initiated by a known ultra right wing nutjob, might not be biased and might not make exaggerated claims is, in my view, more than a little gullible.

Whereas a report generated by a government or police force trying to cover their failures would be any less biased and might not make exaggerated claims?
That would be more believable? Only to the the gullible.

No one suggested that.

That is exactly what TVacc suggested! (And TAC clicked an "I agree" at him.)

Crowdsource funded, published and chaired by Rupert Lowe, leader of Restore Britain. A report with no legal authority behind it.
Wouldn't be my first choice.

If and when the government report comes out, it will have "the legal power to call witnesses and to require organisations to produce documents and records".

The British government's independent inquiry will be chaired by Baroness Anne Longfield. So it would come down to reviewing this report and looking for conflicts with Rupert Lowe's. And with the power to compel witnesses and documents, you say they will in all likelihood "water down and whitewash" it. By what means? Not pursuing avenues of investigation? Ignoring evidence? This should become evident.
My point is you chose a questionable reference that supports your belief rather than challenging your belief and seeking the truth. To what end?
Sure, we all eventually push the I believe button. Let's just wait for the report with evidence to back it up. I trust the press will hold it up to the light.

What the devil do you think his point was, if not to suggest the government would be more believable?!? The guy even bolded "independent inquiry"!

 

[Derec]

A Muslim Texan sought to find his place in the party at the state GOP convention. He left in tears | Houston Public Media

Muslim delegates and attendees hoping to participate in the state Republican convention were shunned and rejected by members as they espoused themes of party unity ahead of the November election.

www.houstonpublicmedia.org

When exactly did England annex Texas?

 

[TV and credit cards]

You're insinuating that some of it is lies.

No I'm not. I'm suggesting that anyone who believes that a privately sponsored report, initiated by a known ultra right wing nutjob, might not be biased and might not make exaggerated claims is, in my view, more than a little gullible.

Whereas a report generated by a government or police force trying to cover their failures would be any less biased and might not make exaggerated claims?
That would be more believable? Only to the the gullible.

No one suggested that.

The AntiChris suggested that a report generated by a organisation that does not met his criteria for 'trustworthiness' must be suspect.
Government reports are all too often not vessels of virtue or truth either. So many factors affect whatever report may be generated by whomever.
I'll not shoot the messenger just because I do not necessarily approve or like the message they carry. They need to be tested.

You have no evidence the creepy guy in the windowless van intends to do you harm. Hop in and gather evidence.
Or Donald Trump won't pay the bill. Go ahead and do the work.
This is gullibility.
Trusted sources. A person's or organization's history. Professional review of the work and confirmation. Motivation for funding/outcome. Timing of report. Omissions. These are the things we look for or rely on others in the particular field of expertise to find for us.

See, there's a time for hard evidence and a time for determining likelihood. You are analyzing information. You are trying to determine the likelihood a source of information is accurate in the most objective manner you can muster.

 

[The AntiChris]

You're insinuating that some of it is lies.

No I'm not. I'm suggesting that anyone who believes that a privately sponsored report, initiated by a known ultra right wing nutjob, might not be biased and might not make exaggerated claims is, in my view, more than a little gullible.

Whereas a report generated by a government or police force trying to cover their failures would be any less biased and might not make exaggerated claims?
That would be more believable? Only to the the gullible.

You should investigate the   Loaded question.

 

[The AntiChris]

You're insinuating that some of it is lies.

No I'm not. I'm suggesting that anyone who believes that a privately sponsored report, initiated by a known ultra right wing nutjob, might not be biased and might not make exaggerated claims is, in my view, more than a little gullible.

Whereas a report generated by a government or police force trying to cover their failures would be any less biased and might not make exaggerated claims?
That would be more believable? Only to the the gullible.

No one suggested that.

That is exactly what TVacc suggested! (And TAC clicked an "I agree" at him.)

You're clearly wrong. No such thing was suggested. This is unusually sloppy argumentation for you.

 

[steve_bank]

411 posts of debate would indicate that Islam in the west is a troublesome issue regardless of reasons why.

 

[Bomb#20]

You're insinuating that some of it is lies.

No I'm not. I'm suggesting that anyone who believes that a privately sponsored report, initiated by a known ultra right wing nutjob, might not be biased and might not make exaggerated claims is, in my view, more than a little gullible.

Whereas a report generated by a government or police force trying to cover their failures would be any less biased and might not make exaggerated claims?
That would be more believable? Only to the the gullible.

No one suggested that.

That is exactly what TVacc suggested! (And TAC clicked an "I agree" at him.)

You're clearly wrong. No such thing was suggested. This is unusually sloppy argumentation for you.

TVacc appears to disagree with you.

I take it from your highlighting that you're challenging the premise that the UK government tries to cover up its failures. I would not have thought that was a controversial premise in the wake of the Post Office scandal.

 

[The AntiChris]

TVacc appears to disagree with you.

I think your reading is suspect. Best to let TVacc speak for his/her self.

Whereas a report generated by a government or police force trying to cover their failures would be any less biased and might not make exaggerated claims?

I take it from your highlighting that you're challenging the premise that the UK government tries to cover up its failures.

Of course not. I 'm simply not accepting that I (or TVacc) implied that we would not view a report stipulated to be "generated....to cover up their failures " as either biased or exaggerated.

Obviously the point that Tigers! was attempting to make was that a report generated by police or government might be biased or exaggerated. Of course it could be. The important question is how you decide which sources are, overall, most trustworthy. I suspect that in Trump's America you'll have different views than we have in the UK.

 

[Patooka]

TVacc appears to disagree with you.

I take it from your highlighting that you're challenging the premise that the UK government tries to cover up its failures. I would not have thought that was a controversial premise in the wake of the Post Office scandal.

Please cry harder, snowflake.

 

[TV and credit cards]

TVacc appears to disagree with you.

I think your reading is suspect. Best to let TVacc speak for his/her self.

Whereas a report generated by a government or police force trying to cover their failures would be any less biased and might not make exaggerated claims?

I take it from your highlighting that you're challenging the premise that the UK government tries to cover up its failures.

Of course not. I 'm simply not accepting that I (or TVacc) implied that we would not view a report stipulated to be "generated....to cover up their failures " as either biased or exaggerated.

Obviously the point that Tigers! was attempting to make was that a report generated by police or government might be biased or exaggerated. Of course it could be. The important question is how you decide which sources are, overall, most trustworthy. I suspect that in Trump's America you'll have different views than we have in the UK.

Bold - Exactly.
It's a matter of what we find doing our homework as I've indicated in post #409. Isn't this what critical thinking is all about? Will the government cover things up? Will the press bring it into the light of day?
We should all look at both individuals in charge or their reports, the funding, the reports themselves, and the review of the reports.
Then pick one and push the I believe button.