How Far Will the SCOTUS Go On Behalf of Muslims ?

[protectionist]

geller loses credibility because she gets basic facts wrong. you lose credibility because you can't see that.

take for instance your citing of geller on ahmed saleem. he wasn't the leader of cair, or even cair in florida. he didn't 'target for rape children between ages 10 and 14.' he drove to a house where he believed he was meeting a single 12 year old. there was no child trafficking, as geller claims, and there was no actual sex, as she puts in her headline.

that's why she loses credibility. she gets basic facts wrong.

You dumb ass. You're posting stuff that I already refuted a few posts ago, Try reading the thread, before you come tumbling in here like some kind of clueless circus clown.

Nice try. I didn't say Saleem was THE leader of CAIR, did I ? I believe YOU said that. And I didn't say he was THE leader of CAIR in Florida either. Your words, not mine. As for what Saleem did, he got arrested for it.
EARTH TO OGWHATEVER: You don't arrested for just driving to the house of a 12 year old. But he DID get arrested didn't he ? Get it ? And Geller isn't the one originally claiming the child trafficking, the police are doing that. Until I hear anything to the contrary, I'll go with Sheriff Grady Judd and the other cops.
Your last 2 sentences could have been right if you had inserted YOUR name, instead of the word "she". She (Geller) said nothing wrong. YOU did.,

From the Geller article >>

1. "Investigators said the men all went to a home in Clermont with the hopes of having sex with a child." CORRECT STATEMENT - I saw those investigators saying exactly that on the TV news report.

2. "“These are very dangerous people and they are after our children,” said Grady Judd of the Polk County Sheriff’s Office. CORRECT STATEMENT - I saw him say that on the news too.

3. Geller, in her headline, didn't say there was actual sex occuring, as you stupidly accuse. The headline was >> "CAIR Leader Ahmad Saleem Arrested in Major Child Sex Trafficking Ring Bust, Sex with Children as Young as 10". That is just describing the type of crime ring it was, nothing more.

Strike 1. Strike 2. Strike 3.

Looks like ogibillm struck out (again)

 

[protectionist]

So does anyone want to try to refute this sign ? Want to try to claim that these 5 CAIR goons have not been arrested on jihad terror-related crimes ? Step right up.

 

[protectionist]

Protectionists - Have written well-researched books on Islamization, with thousands of sources.

Islamapologists - Know nothing about Islamization, so they resort to invalidation - attacking the protectionists who DO know about Islamization.

Invalidation is hard-wired into Islamapologists.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are projecting again. You destroyed your own OP, SCOTUS is neutral on religion, Title VII in this case outweighs company policy, and the great majority of posters here are laughing at you, Protectionist. Your delusions simply won't let you accept your argument is a failure.

I told you. Title VII has nothing to do with this case. You're a poor student.

I am a great student, you are woefully inadequate teacher.

The student is now the master, and you need to pay attention.

 

[A Perez]

It is not true that the hijab was i violation of the Look Policy, because the Supreme Court just told you that Hijab is an exception to such policy pursuant to Title Vll.

Law of the USA > Policy of a clothing store.

FALSE! The hijab violated the company's "look policy" What do you think we're all talking about here ? Are you getting enough sleep ?

If Title Vll didn't exist, then it would have been a violation. But it exists.

 

[protectionist]

I am a great student, you are woefully inadequate teacher.

The student is now the master, and you need to pay attention.

Of course that is ridiculous. You proved that not only am I your teacher, the author of the Islamization Quiz, but you are the lowest ranked Islamization student, with a grade of ZERO on the Quiz. Every question I've tossed out you, you've dodged and been unable to answer a single question.

Who are the 5 CAIR guys shown in the AFDI poster on the bus ? ogibillm says Pameal Geller has no credibility. lol... Is Pamela Geller right ? Are the CAIR 5 all convicted criminals ? And if so, what were they convicted of ? Come on man. Step up to the plate. These buses are driving around in our streets. These guys faces are out in front of us. What's the score with them ? You know who ? You know what ? You know ANYTHING ?

You claim to know something about this subject, but every question you got, you've flunked. You remain MR QUIZ ZERO.

 

[protectionist]

If Title Vll didn't exist, then it would have been a violation. But it exists.

Title VII exists, but it has no bearing on this case. How could it ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Protectionist cannot even build a basic case for his loaded question fallacy of an OP.

Of course he can't.

 

[protectionist]

Protectionist cannot even build a basic case for his loaded question fallacy of an OP.

Of course he can't.

You can't even get the English language right. Try reading the title of the OP. It 's a QUESTION. And questions aren't cases. Get it ? Nor can you present any answers for the question. Or any answers for anything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A loaded question fallacy is one of the most basic fallacies in logic.

Add the fact Protectionist is very illiterate in that he reads only the literature on the subject he likes.

 

[protectionist]

A loaded question fallacy is one of the most basic fallacies in logic.

Add the fact Protectionist is very illiterate in that he reads only the literature on the subject he likes.

FALSE! I HATE Islamization. And have read extensively on it.

I've also read about immigration (Invasion by Michelle Malkin, In Mortal Danger by Tom Tancredo, and State of Emergency by Pat Buchanan) Also read The Brief Against Obama by Hugh Hewitt, Disease by Mary Dobson, Outrage (a consumer protection book) by Dick Morris & Eileen McGann, Save the Animals by Ingrid Newkirk, and many other books of many different subjects.

Looks like Joke Starkey dropped the ball again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

True. Your OP is a loaded question fallacy, dead in the water on first posting. You, Protectionist, truly do not understand Islam or the Constitution or the US Code.

Not too worry. We will guide you.

 

[protectionist]

True. Your OP is a loaded question fallacy, dead in the water on first posting. You, Protectionist, truly do not understand Islam or the Constitution or the US Code.

Not too worry. We will guide you.

I understand ALL of it. You are the ignorant MR QUIZ ZERO, who will remain that way because you refuse to accept the truth. And you couldn't "guide" a housefly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You understand none of that, and you are simply not taken seriously even a little bit. SCOTUS does not appease Muslims. It does not listen to you, and neither will America.

You are here for grins and chuckles only.

You amuse the members of the board.

 

[ogibillm]

A loaded question fallacy is one of the most basic fallacies in logic.

Add the fact Protectionist is very illiterate in that he reads only the literature on the subject he likes.

FALSE! I HATE Islamization. And have read extensively on it.

I've also read about immigration (Invasion by Michelle Malkin, In Mortal Danger by Tom Tancredo, and State of Emergency by Pat Buchanan) Also read The Brief Against Obama by Hugh Hewitt, Disease by Mary Dobson, Outrage (a consumer protection book) by Dick Morris & Eileen McGann, Save the Animals by Ingrid Newkirk, and many other books of many different subjects.

Looks like Joke Starkey dropped the ball again.

again, you're choosing to read only biased sources.

i could read a hundred books on wwii, each detailing german victories with meticulous notes. I might come to the conclusion that germany won the war. that doesn't make it true though.

that's you with islam. you only choose sources that confirm your biases. if you were doing the same thing studying wwii you'd be picking up rosetta stone - german edition asap.

 

[RandomVariable]

The topic of the hajib was brought up in another thread. The question is whether the hijab is required by islamic law. The koran says it is but some muslims say it is not, presumably because they don't want to wear it. My point is that SCOTUS must have determined that the hajib is required by islamic law. If not then this leaves religious requirements to the discretion of the follower, i.e. anything goes. True?

 

[jon_berzerk]

actually the case was remanded back to the tenth circuit

Clarification please.

Clarification please


indeed

please read the actual opinion of the court

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-86_p86b.pdf


"The Tenth Circuit misinterpreted Title VII’s requirements in granting summary judgment. We reverse its judgment and remand the case for further consideration consistent with this opinion."

 

[jon_berzerk]

The topic of the hajib was brought up in another thread. The question is whether the hijab is required by islamic law. The koran says it is but some muslims say it is not, presumably because they don't want to wear it. My point is that SCOTUS must have determined that the hajib is required by islamic law. If not then this leaves religious requirements to the discretion of the follower, i.e. anything goes. True?

the question asked was whether

the applicant need to claim the hajib as a religious item to the employer

in order to bring on a religious discrimination lawsuit for failing to hire her based on the item

 

[ogibillm]

geller loses credibility because she gets basic facts wrong. you lose credibility because you can't see that.

take for instance your citing of geller on ahmed saleem. he wasn't the leader of cair, or even cair in florida. he didn't 'target for rape children between ages 10 and 14.' he drove to a house where he believed he was meeting a single 12 year old. there was no child trafficking, as geller claims, and there was no actual sex, as she puts in her headline.

that's why she loses credibility. she gets basic facts wrong.

You dumb ass. You're posting stuff that I already refuted a few posts ago, Try reading the thread, before you come tumbling in here like some kind of clueless circus clown.

Nice try. I didn't say Saleem was THE leader of CAIR, did I ? I believe YOU said that. And I didn't say he was THE leader of CAIR in Florida either. Your words, not mine. As for what Saleem did, he got arrested for it.
EARTH TO OGWHATEVER: You don't arrested for just driving to the house of a 12 year old. But he DID get arrested didn't he ? Get it ? And Geller isn't the one originally claiming the child trafficking, the police are doing that. Until I hear anything to the contrary, I'll go with Sheriff Grady Judd and the other cops.
Your last 2 sentences could have been right if you had inserted YOUR name, instead of the word "she". She (Geller) said nothing wrong. YOU did.,

From the Geller article >>

1. "Investigators said the men all went to a home in Clermont with the hopes of having sex with a child." CORRECT STATEMENT - I saw those investigators saying exactly that on the TV news report.

2. "“These are very dangerous people and they are after our children,” said Grady Judd of the Polk County Sheriff’s Office. CORRECT STATEMENT - I saw him say that on the news too.

3. Geller, in her headline, didn't say there was actual sex occuring, as you stupidly accuse. The headline was >> "CAIR Leader Ahmad Saleem Arrested in Major Child Sex Trafficking Ring Bust, Sex with Children as Young as 10". That is just describing the type of crime ring it was, nothing more.

Strike 1. Strike 2. Strike 3.

Looks like ogibillm struck out (again)

here's geller, again repeating her lies.
Muslim jailed in biggest child sex exploitation case in Sweden s history Pamela Geller Atlas Shrugs Islam Jihad Israel and the Islamic War on the West

Last week, a CAIR Youth Leader in Florida was arrested for similar crimes: sex trafficking, exploitation and rape of children

and again, he was not a CAIR employee at the time, he was not arrested for sex trafficking, exploitation, or rape of children.

do you understand now why she's a shit source?

 

[protectionist]

Oh hell. Now you've got him started posting his litany of links. That means to him he has "won" his argument.

You're wrong as usual. My argument is won, with or without the links. And in your case, my arguments are AUTOMATICALLY won. I don't even have top post at all.