Gator

Dope

1. It's extraordinary that the left can't debate Islam without constantly referring to Christianity. Try actually arguing in favour of Islamic practices and Muslim immigration without referencing Christianity in the same breath. You won't be able to. 2. I'm not interested in your personal story or family history. No weight is added to your argument. 3. Whether you're smart enough to realise it, or not (the latter), Christianity has shaped the West's culture and values. Totally !

So Christianity "annoys you more" than a political ideology that subjugates women and gays and wants to dominate the world ? A barbaric theology that abhors freedom and wants the extermination of every living Jew. A religion that allows wife beating and rape, as long as you marry the woman afterwards. A religion that allows sex with a goat, as long as you kill it afterwards. But the left is more annoyed by Christianity, which is the bedrock of the civilised western world and indeed framed the values of your own country. That's leftism for you in a nutshell. It's a sickness. Btw, if you ever take the time to research polls in the Muslim world you'll be frightened to know that this tiny percentage of radicals is far from tiny. Over half of the middle east supports death to apostates, etc. It's a myth that only a small percentage of Muslims are fundamentalists. Islam is Islam. And it's radical. Thankfully, most westernised Muslims are not, but why any civilised country would want to import people on mass from these backwater shitholes is beyond me. The Saudis don't want them, yet unsurprisingly no-one from the left is critical.

Christians worship the new testament, Dolt. And why does every quarter-wit leftist bring up Christianity in their insane attempts to defend the indefensible, which is Islam ? Why do the left not demonstrate against honour killings, FGM, child brides, subjugation, gays hanged from cranes or thrown from buildings, women stoned to death for being raped, etc. etc. ? In Sweden 77% of sexual assaults are committed by 2% of the male Muslim population. Where are the leftists protesting about this insanity now infecting Europe ? And all deranged leftists do is stutter but what about the Old Testament... Check out all the other stats where polled Muslims in the middle east, as well as the west support honour killings, suicide bombers, death to apostates, and other niceties. I'm completely certain that leftism is a mental illness. There can be no other explanation. As for Lambie ? I can't abide her. She's an ill-bred feral fool. The fact that we share concerns over Islam being compatible with western democracies, or our values, is about the start and end of our unity ticket; and even then there'd be fundamental differences. I don't have much time for Hansen either, although I firmly believe she means well and has definitely improved as a political force. Twenty years will do that. Thankfully, many Muslims are westernised and have no interest in orthodox Islam. Many have little idea about the Quran themselves, which is why some leave the religion when they delve deeper and discover the truth about this insidious ideology. An ideology where the most radical teachings come from Mosques. Are you aware of what a Mosque really is and what happens there ? It's not like a little church on a corner where Granny goes on a Sunday. The Sunnis and Shia hate each other's guts after 1400 years, so don't expect any peaceful resolution in the middle east any time soon. Do yourself a favour and look at videos/photos from Iran and Afghanistan in the 1970s, where women wore skirts and had their hair flowing. Not a medieval anti-rape sack in sight. Veiling isn't a requirement of the Qur'an. And it sure as hell is a terrible symbol of female subjugatuon. I won't waste more time on the topic, because I'm not clever enough to cure a mental illness. In the meantime give yourself an uppercut.

You'll be pleased to know that Islamic leaders consider leftists useful idiots. They'd like you. Islam is not just a religion but a political system as well. The state is intended to be inseparable from religious rule. Islamic law, or Sharia, is complete and not designed to coexist with or be subordinate to other legal systems. Muslims are not meant to be ruled by non-Muslims. The Qur'an is very clear that they are to resist unbelievers by any means until Islam establishes political supremacy. This doesn't mean that everyone must be forced to become Muslim, but rather that everyone must submit to Muslim rule. Many Muslims are loyal to the non-Muslim countries in which they live, of course, but it is in spite of Islamic teaching. Islam does not believe in freedom or democracy. These are man-made laws. They only accept God's law. Here's some light reading for you from archives I've found over the years (note - I'm not going to spend much time debating a leftist, but happy to try and make you a bit smarter on the topic): The Qur'an: Qur'an (5:3) - "This day have I perfected your religion for you." This verse is often interpreted to mean that any government outside of Sharia is unnecessary at best, and corruptive at worst. Qur'an (18:26) - "[Allah] maketh none to share in his government." This was probably intended as a slam against polytheists and the Christian belief in the Trinity, but it has also been used as the basis for criticizing earthly governments. Qur'an (19:64) - "And we do not descend but by the command of your Lord; to Him belongs whatever is before us and whatever is behind us and whatever is between these, and your Lord is not forgetful." Qur'an (4:141) - "...And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers." Qur'an (63:8) - "...might belongeth to Allah and to His messenger and to the believers; but the hypocrites know not." The "hypocrites" are defined as Muslims in name only, those who do not submit to the theocracy of Allah. Qur'an (5:49) - "So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee" Allah's Qur'an takes priority over the desires of the people. A democratic nation is by nature one that is not governed by Islamic law, meaning that a Muslim citizen would have divided loyalty. It's clear from this verse which side he must choose. Qur'an (3:28) - "Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah." The word 'friend' is Awliyaa which is inclusive of friends, protectors and helpers - the components of civil society. See also verse 5:51 Qur'an (4:123) - "Not your desires, nor those of the People of the Book (can prevail): whoever works evil, will be requited accordingly. Nor will he find, besides Allah, any protector or helper." Qur'an (28:17) - "O my Lord! For that Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace on me, never shall I be a help to those who sin!" It is difficult to reconcile this verse with the civic duty of a public office holder in a pluralistic society. Qur'an (4:59) - "O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you..." Oddly enough, this verse is sometimes used in an attempt to make the case that Muslims should respect a non-Muslim civil government. But a careful reading makes it clear that the rulers Muslims are to obey are from among their own body of believers. This verse commands strict obedience to the leader (even if he steals and flogs them, according to a hadith reported by Sahih Muslim). How can this refer to a non-Muslim leader when other parts of the Qur'an call for violent Jihad against persecution from non-believers? See also 9:29, which establishes the ideal relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. From the Hadith: Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them" Bukhari (53:392) - While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews." We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." Additional Notes: In Islam, loyalty is to Allah and his religion. It cannot be to a kafir country. As the former mufti of the Grand Mosque in Mecca put it in a recent fatwa, "His homeland may be not Islamic, so how can he be loyal to his homeland?" Scholar Jamal Badawi insists that, "Muslims should not melt in any pot except the Muslim brotherhood pot." A CAIR executive director (in the United States) recently said, "if we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land." The Calcutta Qur'an Petition says of Muslim communities that "even fresh converts tend to become highly orthodox people and follow the sayings of [the Qur'an] with a fanatical zeal with the result that whichever country as their sizable number amongst its population can never have peace on its soil." Where Muslim minorities exist, there is unusual social strain manifested by dissention, demand and disloyalty, as well as a cohesive group identity that resists self-reflection and thrives on the perception of victimization by the majority. Islam teaches that nations are in one of two major categories - Dar-al Harb (house of war) and Dar-al-Islam (Muslim rule). Any nation that is not Muslim is therefore, by definition, at war with Islam (or, at best, in contradiction to the preferred order). Muslims cannot be expected to maintain loyalty to a nation that is at war with their religion. To be fair, some Muslim scholars contend that there is a middle ground, Dar al-Ahd (land of covenant) or Dar al-Sulh (land of truce), in which non-Muslim countries agree to allow Muslims to practice their faith and evangelize freely in exchange for peace (rights that are formally denied to infidels in Islamic lands). Scholars consider this a transitional period leading to the eventual triumph of Islam via conversion. The practical definitions of Dar al-Ahd and Dar al-Sulh are somewhat nebulous. Some feel, for example, that denying Muslims their own system of law and Sharia courts constitutes an interference with Islam. Others believe that these states of condition only applied in Muhammad's day. Still others feel that a truce has a ten year-limit, and can be broken anytime by the Muslim party. Another difficulty with these "middle ground" options is that there is no central authority to declare which non-Muslim nations fall outside the category of Dar al-Harb. Ultimately, true Muslims are citizens of the ummah (Islamic community) and not of any country - and the ummah has no recognized leader. Even a government of Muslims is not necessarily a Muslim government. Islam requires Islamic law, therefore theocracy is the only pure form of government. In fact, this is what propels the vast majority of violence in the Muslim world, which victimizes Muslims themselves more than any other group. Although Muslim apologists sometimes claim that Islamic terrorists aren't Muslim by virtue of the fact that they kill other Muslims, the Qur'an advocates striving against both unbelievers and hypocrites, the latter of which are Muslims who profess Islam, but do not support Islamic rule over the way of the infidel as required (see Muslim 20:4696). Hypocrites include any government which does not uphold strict Sharia, as well as those that make alliances with a non-Muslim country (thereby making covenants and truces quite difficult to legitimize). This is the real reason terrorists kill fellow Muslims, particularly local police, troops and officials who are in the service of such governments. One of the most influential Islamic scholars of the modern age, Egyptian Sayyid Qutb, says that Muslims have a duty to overthrow any non-Islamic governments by violent means. He explains: "Islam is not merely a belief, so that it is enough merely to preach it. Islam, which is a way of life, takes practical steps to organize a movement for freeing man. Other societies do not give it [Islam] any opportunity to organize its followers according to its own method, and hence it is the duty of Islam to annihilate all such systems, as they are obstacles in the way of universal freedom. Only in this manner can the way of life be wholly dedicated to Allah, so that neither any human authority nor the question of servitude remains, as is the case in all other systems which are based on man's servitude to man." [Quoted from Andrew Bostom's The Legacy of Jihad] Elsewhere, Qutb puts it even more bluntly: The foremost duty of Islam in this world is to depose Jahiliyyah (unbelievers) from the leadership of man, and to take the leadership into its own hands and enforce the particular way of life which is its permanent feature." [Quoted from Robert Spencer's Religion of Peace?] In a book promoted by the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Islamic scholar Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi writes that "Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation that rules it. Islam requires the earth – not just a portion – but the whole planet.” (source) Whether or not a Muslim believes in active rebellion against secular or non-Muslim rule (and most may not), it is does not change the fact that Islam is defined by allegiance to Allah and his self-proclaimed messenger, Muhammad. Therefore any extraneous loyalty that is in contradiction to what Allah has already established would be strictly forbidden. [It should be noted that Muslims as individuals vary widely in their understanding of and allegiance to Islam. While ideological scrutiny may be appropriate for certain sensitive positions in the intelligence, military or law enforcement communities, simply being a Muslim is not sufficient grounds for denying employment to or making assumptions about any such individual.]

I forgot sharia-loving Israel-hating weirdos

I'm not going to waste too much time debating an hysterical far- left buffoon for two reasons. It's an utter waste of time and Choke has already provided comprehensive reasons as to why the system works. Besides, what's the point of arguing over the system that was in place and won't be changing ? Talk about an exercise in futility. You rabid climate alarmists, border- free, safe-space, high taxing, lazy socialists can keep whining for the next 8 years.

The parties switched platforms, but are still the same frigging parties ! You're a dill of the highest order, so it doesn't surprise me that you favour a popular vote.

You lefties will have to stop those tears, although I'd be lying if I didn't admit they gave me immense satisfaction. Slavery ? That's a laugh. It was the Democrats who kicked and screamed and opposed Lincoln all the way. The Democrats are the party that wanted to retain slavery. And no, the electoral college vote is a very good system. Do some research before mouthing off.

Popular vote ? Trump won 33 of 50 states. Clinton 17. It's not Trump's fault that California is full of deranged regressives.

Which is not what you said.

That's not my recollection.

The last product they sold us took a year to fix. They can wait a year this time.

Not withstanding being inhibited by all of the club's woes I reckon Grimes was also a victim of a changing game. Early in his career he was rock solid across half-back where he was strong overhead, read the play well and played within his limitations. One felt comfortable when he had the ball in hand and he was a reliable general. But as the game has evolved the back-line has become the generator for attack. Speed and bold ball-movement by foot and hand has become the backman's weapon. It doesn't suit Jack's slow and steady play. Jack was dependable and reliable but struggled to adapt to a more attacking game. As his comfort zone changed his foot skills and decision making were increasingly challenged and put under the microscope. It never suited his game. One of the few players I'll remember very fondly.

I don't know enough about Smith, other than his impressive game yesterday, but I'd love him to develop into an Isaac Smith type wingman. Isaac Smith has incredible endurance and I have no idea how Joel goes in the endurance stakes, but Smith and Hunt running the lines is an exciting prospect. I actually want to leave Hunt in his current role, as I suspect he finds it easier playing behind the ball, so would be interested to know if a tall wing role would suit Joel.

Hibberd and Barlow came from the VFL, so it's certainly a reasonable pathway, but I think it's definitely harder for key position players. Keilty has a better chance than McInerney, but I wouldn't back on either making it.

Agreed. McInerney did nothing for me and I don't see an AFL quality kpp with Keilty. Liam McBean looked great at VFL level, but his AFL form exposed the gulf between senior and seconds football. Mitch Brown is a terrific VFL footballer and while he's shown a bit at the higher standard I don't project regular games at Essendon. He may get rookied, but I see little more than a depth player.

The great Dale Carnegie explained back in the 1930s that it's impossible to 'win' an argument. It is especially so when the other person is deranged.

Unlike some, including debates I've had with my Brother, I really do think we let down some previous draft picks with poor development. I suspect most were just bad selections, but development and a club's culture is ultra-important. I still believe that you can't make chicken salad out of chicken ***, but there's always that balance.

Not semantics, just a mistake. This business of people being "taken around" Hunt is an utter nonsense. Taylor only had access to players available at pick 57, not those taken before. Name ONE pick after Hunt that is any good. I'll disagree on Salem. He's a young player with tremendous class that is miles off his best. Let's talk when he's played 60-80 games. As for Kennedy-Harris and Neal-Bullen, neither does much for me either, but I don't expect him to nail every 40+ pick. Do you ? Steven Wells has plenty of failures. Taylor's record looks superb to me any way I want to slice it or dice it.

You do realise that none of those players were available to the MFC in the 2013 draft ? They were all rookie upgrades and selected in drafts prior to 2013 - Hunt's draft.

So it's not a myth then ? A myth is a false belief, but now you're saying the jury is out ? Btw, I don't agree with your evaluations and some of your judgments are either too early or wrong. Who was taken after Hunt that makes this selection anything other than stunning ? We were desperate to improve our midfield, so I can't see any logical supporter questioning the Brayshaw decision. He'll be a star in my view. Your concerns on Weideman at such an early stage seem very premature, but fair enough, your opinion. Oscar and vandebBerg are very good picks after 50 of the ND - "limitations" or no limitations. Oliver may go down as one of the best picks by a recruiter since the inception of the draft (1986). And no, it's far too early to call Salem a "disappointment" on the back of an injury plagued third year. He's already shown his class in his first two. I find your assessments strange. You'd have to go out of your way to take the negative position you seem to have.

I think you'll find that the Dogs just pipped us for least experienced with 60 games.

You're reading far too much into things. You're looking for smoke and mirrors. Before the season is over clubs virtually never concede anything in the media, He'll be a Dee.

It would have been nice and in no way do I think Roos thought he was compromising a win, but for me it would have been small fry in the bigger picture.