Now who would have thought the Muslims were misleading the West

[VinBucFan]

Again, are these countries not pursuing democracy? It seems like you guys need to read what the original article of this thread was about. I'll give you a hint to start you on the right path, no where does it say that they aren't pursuing democracy.

"Since Hosni Mubarak fell from power in Egypt last year, the Muslim Brotherhood has repeatedly promised moderation and vowed not to "monopolize political institutions in the new Egypt." But right now a committee is forming to write a new Constitution. The "moderate" Brotherhood controls the parliament and tried to stack the committee's membership so that it held a controlling majority. On Tuesday, however, a court blocked the effort."

I am guessing we have a different view as to what "pursuing democracy" means.  If the part in bold is not enough (it's only an example) then I think most reasonable minds would say the implication of the article that started this thread is that these countries are NOT pursing democracy as promised, at least not as the term democracy is understood most places.

[CBWx2]

Again, are these countries not pursuing democracy? It seems like you guys need to read what the original article of this thread was about. I'll give you a hint to start you on the right path, no where does it say that they aren't pursuing democracy.

"Since Hosni Mubarak fell from power in Egypt last year, the Muslim Brotherhood has repeatedly promised moderation and vowed not to "monopolize political institutions in the new Egypt." But right now a committee is forming to write a new Constitution. The "moderate" Brotherhood controls the parliament and tried to stack the committee's membership so that it held a controlling majority. On Tuesday, however, a court blocked the effort."

I am guessing we have a different view as to what "pursuing democracy" means.  If the part in bold is not enough (it's only an example) then I think most reasonable minds would say the implication of the article that started this thread is that these countries are NOT pursing democracy as promised, at least not as the term democracy is understood most places.

Then what court blocked them? Ours?

[CBWx2]

Also, Bubbles, were you aware that Egyptian officials have disqualified Shater and other Islamist candidates from running in the election? Yes, the very same democratic election you claim they are not trying to pursue?

[VinBucFan]

Again, are these countries not pursuing democracy? It seems like you guys need to read what the original article of this thread was about. I'll give you a hint to start you on the right path, no where does it say that they aren't pursuing democracy.

"Since Hosni Mubarak fell from power in Egypt last year, the Muslim Brotherhood has repeatedly promised moderation and vowed not to "monopolize political institutions in the new Egypt." But right now a committee is forming to write a new Constitution. The "moderate" Brotherhood controls the parliament and tried to stack the committee's membership so that it held a controlling majority. On Tuesday, however, a court blocked the effort."

I am guessing we have a different view as to what "pursuing democracy" means.  If the part in bold is not enough (it's only an example) then I think most reasonable minds would say the implication of the article that started this thread is that these countries are NOT pursing democracy as promised, at least not as the term democracy is understood most places.

Then what court blocked them? Ours?

Huh? So you mean that because the people involved were not successful they are "pursuing democracy"? I guess we do have a different view.  Trying to stack a committee (one example provided by the author) is not "pursuing democracy."  A court blocking it is not "pursuing democracy", maybe, at very best, it is, for now, a sign of a multi-branch government, but that would be a view that even Pollyanna might find optomistic. Maybe you think the Muslim Brotherhood was just playing around?  Oh well.

Anyway, what was the point of the entire article if not to question whether there Muslim contries were legitmately interested in democracy?  Maybe I am missing something?

[VinBucFan]

Also, Bubbles, were you aware that Egyptian officials have disqualified Shater and other Islamist candidates from running in the election? Yes, the very same democratic election you claim they are not trying to pursue?

You should permanently start all your comments with "yeah, but . . ."  or maybe everyone else should just rad them that way.  I think what you mean is "YES . . . the Muslim Brotherhood, who already control parliment, tried to stuff a committee and . . .  YES that is anti-democratic . . . . BUT . . ."Egyptian officials have disqualified Shater and other Islamist candidates from running in the election"

Its your failure to offer the "yeah, but" comsined with your seeming failure to either understand or acknowledge what the point of the article was . . . that . .  well . . .  ugh . . . again, your comment, which is maybe better described as a lecture, was that the article never said they were not pursuing democracy. I think you even offered a "hint"

Again, are these countries not pursuing democracy? It seems like you guys need to read what the original article of this thread was about. I'll give you a hint to start you on the right path, no where does it say that they aren't pursuing democracy.

I'll give you a "hint"   . . . that is INDEED what the entire article says , albeit not in those exact words . .. . . it questions whether Muslim countries are legitimately interested in democracy. . . . you are the one that is adding facts from OUTSIDE the article, right?

[VinBucFan]

Also, Bubbles, were you aware that Egyptian officials have disqualified Shater and other Islamist candidates from running in the election? Yes, the very same democratic election you claim they are not trying to pursue?

Why?

[CBWx2]

Also, Bubbles, were you aware that Egyptian officials have disqualified Shater and other Islamist candidates from running in the election? Yes, the very same democratic election you claim they are not trying to pursue?

Why?

Let me try and explain it to you Bubbs, because clearly you're having difficulty with this. The article was talking about The Muslim Brotherhood going back on it's word to not interfere with elections, not that the country of Egypt was not trying to pursue democratic elections. If the Brotherhood WAS in charge of the election process, then your and wreck ship's condemnation of the country would be spot on, but the fact that they are NOT in charge of the process and the ones who ARE in charge of the process have denied them the opportunity to rig the election means that Egypt IS trying to have a fair democratic election. Are you capable of comprehending that? I realize this is a problem for you.

[VinBucFan]

Also, Bubbles, were you aware that Egyptian officials have disqualified Shater and other Islamist candidates from running in the election? Yes, the very same democratic election you claim they are not trying to pursue?

Why?

Let me try and explain it to you Bubbs, because clearly you're having difficulty with this. The article was talking about The Muslim Brotherhood going back on it's word to not interfere with elections, not that the country of Egypt was not trying to pursue democratic elections. If the Brotherhood WAS in charge of the election process, then your and wreck ship's condemnation of the country would be spot on, but the fact that they are NOT in charge of the process and the ones who ARE in charge of the process have denied them the opportunity to rig the election means that Egypt IS trying to have a fair democratic election. Are you capable of comprehending that? I realize this is a problem for you.

Usually when you start talking down, as in bold, its because your knowledge by link is starting to strain.  I just asked a simple question, in fact one word. I don't see an answer in that paragraph.  I just asked "why" was Al-Shatar and what you described as "other Islamist candidates" disqualified? I am sking the question because I don't want to be accused of trying to read your mind.  I think I know what you meant, but just asked for a clarification and I got . . . . well . . . . filibuster

[TheChronicHotAir]

It is 100% unacceptable for anyone to want laws shaped to reflect the tenets of their faith. 100% unacceptable. Which is why I'm sure that you will both agree that anti-abortion legislation, anti-contraception legislation, anti-gay marriage legislation, and the teaching of intelligent design in schools should all be banned at once. It's good that we can all agree here.

 

"In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered this punishment for three men convicted of sodomy:

On Wednesday, the Taleban ordered the execution of three men for sodomy in the southern town of Kandahar, southern Afghanistan. They were ordered to be buried alive under a pile of stones and a wall was pushed on top of them by a tank.

Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed."

AIM HIGH!!!
Those SCUMBAGS set the bar pretty high.... (or low)....

[CBWx2]

Also, Bubbles, were you aware that Egyptian officials have disqualified Shater and other Islamist candidates from running in the election? Yes, the very same democratic election you claim they are not trying to pursue?

Why?

Let me try and explain it to you Bubbs, because clearly you're having difficulty with this. The article was talking about The Muslim Brotherhood going back on it's word to not interfere with elections, not that the country of Egypt was not trying to pursue democratic elections. If the Brotherhood WAS in charge of the election process, then your and wreck ship's condemnation of the country would be spot on, but the fact that they are NOT in charge of the process and the ones who ARE in charge of the process have denied them the opportunity to rig the election means that Egypt IS trying to have a fair democratic election. Are you capable of comprehending that? I realize this is a problem for you.

Usually when you start talking down, as in bold, its because your knowledge by link is starting to strain.  I just asked a simple question, in fact one word. I don't see an answer in that paragraph.  I just asked "why" was Al-Shatar and what you described as "other Islamist candidates" disqualified? I am sking the question because I don't want to be accused of trying to read your mind.  I think I know what you meant, but just asked for a clarification and I got . . . . well . . . . filibuster

Oh well. I tried. Keep arguing incorrect points, Vince. I suppose it's difficult to change something you've become so accustomed to.

[VinBucFan]

Also, Bubbles, were you aware that Egyptian officials have disqualified Shater and other Islamist candidates from running in the election? Yes, the very same democratic election you claim they are not trying to pursue?

Why?

Let me try and explain it to you Bubbs, because clearly you're having difficulty with this. The article was talking about The Muslim Brotherhood going back on it's word to not interfere with elections, not that the country of Egypt was not trying to pursue democratic elections. If the Brotherhood WAS in charge of the election process, then your and wreck ship's condemnation of the country would be spot on, but the fact that they are NOT in charge of the process and the ones who ARE in charge of the process have denied them the opportunity to rig the election means that Egypt IS trying to have a fair democratic election. Are you capable of comprehending that? I realize this is a problem for you.

Usually when you start talking down, as in bold, its because your knowledge by link is starting to strain.  I just asked a simple question, in fact one word. I don't see an answer in that paragraph.  I just asked "why" was Al-Shatar and what you described as "other Islamist candidates" disqualified? I am sking the question because I don't want to be accused of trying to read your mind.  I think I know what you meant, but just asked for a clarification and I got . . . . well . . . . filibuster

Oh well. I tried. Keep arguing incorrect points, Vince. I suppose it's difficult to change something you've become so accustomed to.

A simple "why" stopped you in your tracks. Hmmmmm

[dbucfan]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/16/us-officials-scrambling-to-confirm-reports-american-terror-leader-death-in/?test=latestnews

Hmmm - a potential difference between religions? 

[VinBucFan]

Also, Bubbles, were you aware that Egyptian officials have disqualified Shater and other Islamist candidates from running in the election? Yes, the very same democratic election you claim they are not trying to pursue?

Why?

Let me try and explain it to you Bubbs, because clearly you're having difficulty with this. The article was talking about The Muslim Brotherhood going back on it's word to not interfere with elections, not that the country of Egypt was not trying to pursue democratic elections. If the Brotherhood WAS in charge of the election process, then your and wreck ship's condemnation of the country would be spot on, but the fact that they are NOT in charge of the process and the ones who ARE in charge of the process have denied them the opportunity to rig the election means that Egypt IS trying to have a fair democratic election. Are you capable of comprehending that? I realize this is a problem for you.

http://www.france24.com/en/20121123-morsi-protesters-torch-muslim-brotherhood-offices-egypt

Irony . .  . .drip . . drip . . drip

[spartan]

Well, i didn't see this one coming. 

Islam is not conducive to freedom when it is the dominant power. Anybody who thought otherwise is either naive or stupid to be frank. Look around the world and history. Islam is fine when it is a minority, but the the larger it becomes as a demographic the more belligerent and demanding it becomes.

[VinBucFan]

Well, i didn't see this one coming. 

Islam is not conducive to freedom when it is the dominant power. Anybody who thought otherwise is either naive or stupid to be frank. Look around the world and history. Islam is fine when it is a minority, but the the larger it becomes as a demographic the more belligerent and demanding it becomes.

QFT