[Don Jones]

Norman, I PM'ed you as I suggested to John.

[John Whitworth]

It would be a good start if more than 50% (or whatever it is) of Americans voted. Why don't you? Because you feel it's a stitch up between the powerful, perhaps?

Over 70% of us voted in the referendum. We thought it mattered.

[W.F. Lantry]

From a popular right-of-center publication today:

"Alone in his bedroom on a dark and stormy night, Donald Trump was inventing some tax returns, when the devil appeared before him.

“Fear not,” the devil said. “You need not file tax returns. Ever. Also, I will make sure you are elected president this year and again in 2020.

“But in return, you must sell me your soul. You must betray all decent principles. You must pander, trivialize and deceive. You must gain victory by exploiting bigotry, fear, envy and greed. And you must conduct a campaign based on lies, sham, hype and distortion.”

“So?” Trump said. “What’s the catch?”"

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...on-says-226520

[Skip Dewahl]

Rather, you must all be dupes to fall for Khan who is a con willing to use his son's corpse to advance his beliefs
http://therightscoop.com/turns-out-k...ro-sharia-law/

[Don Jones]

Come on now. Out with it. Who farted?

[Skip Dewahl]

Having an air-conditioned nap under your dutch oven blankie, eh, boopie?

[Matt Q]

Skip,

I had a quick read. What they say he's written, and what I read him writing are not the same. For example,

Khan promotes Muslims to use Al-Muwatta, the oldest book on Islamic Sharia law, written by Muwatta Imam Malik. He says that it should be used “to bring about legal uniformity in the Muslim nation”

But if you actually read the quoted text you'll see Khan is telling a historical story, and in the story it's a caliph who proposes the Al-Muwatta should be used to bring about legal uniformity in the Muslim nation, and then Khan tells us that someone called Malik, who has a clear heart and mind, rejects the proposal saying that Muslim scholars can disagree in good faith.

Now if I had to say whose side Khan was on, I'd say Malik's. But no one with any sense could attribute the caliph's view to Khan.

As far as I can see, whoever's come up with this "evidence" has read through looking for anything that sounds bad (or "extremist") in Khan's discussion and treated it as if it were Khan's own view.

Whoever has written this article doesn't know how to read a text. Or alternatively, is wilfully choosing not to.

Matt

[Brian Allgar]

Originally Posted by Matt Q

Whoever has written this article doesn't know how to read a text. Or alternatively, is wilfully choosing not to.

Don't waste your time trying to reason with Skip by demonstrating facts, Matt. Your last sentence describes him perfectly. And his vile, contemptible remark about Mr Khan is worthy of his mentor, the mendacious Donald.

[Roger Slater]

Originally Posted by Skip Dewahl

Rather, you must all be dupes to fall for Khan who is a con willing to use his son's corpse to advance his beliefs

Who is using whom? Trump's senior campaign spokesperson just went on television and blamed Obama for Khan's death, saying it was all because Obama changed the rules of engagement, and holding Obama and Clinton personally responsible. Perhaps even Skip will see how implausible that charge is when reminded that Khan died in 2004, five years before Obama became president. Is it not therefore incredibly slimy and exploitative of Trump to have his spokesperson say what she did?

[Brian Allgar]

Charlie, I had always believed that dinosaurs became extinct 66 million years ago. Thank you for your posts, which show me that I was clearly mistaken.