Quote from: zewazir on April 01, 2017, 09:47:34 AM
Progs don't run my state yet, but they're making significant inroads in the larger population areas. The change in power balance comes from the fact that the larger population areas are outgrowing the rural areas by a factor of 3-1. (Hard to call it "urban" when talking to people who live in cities with more people than my entire state!)  And yes, a majority component of that urban growth is the result of incoming progs from CA. NY and other hard core commie regions of the east contribute also, all of them basically running from the total ruin they've made of their home states, only to come here and start promoting the same things that made them move in the first place. (Progs really are brain dead. The Zombie Apocalypse started a long time ago!)

OTOH, a lot of democrat natives who otherwise lean conservative are starting to realize what Reagan realized long ago - the democratic party has left their ideology behind in favor of Marxism. So they're starting to move to the right and change their registration from democrat to independent. At the same time, "Just leave me the hell alone" conservatives are waking to the fact they can no longer stay out of politics and expect to just be left alone. As such, there is a marked resurgence of conservatism in the political arena.

Still love my state, and looking around, cannot see anywhere better politically that isn't facing the same influx of progs.

Would be nice if at least SOME of our CA invaders were conservatives.

They always claim they are escaping liberal lunacy when moving in, my neighbor is a Bay area transplant that claimed libs drove them out, but she was the first to start a petition drive to install sidewalks and streetlights.
Said she was tired of driving 30 minutes to get a Starbucks, that the local town should build one, when asked who should pay for it, she said: "why the town, of course".

We are wilderness, roads 12' wide chip n seal in terrible condition with water bars that would rip the bottom out of a low rider, but it's why we're here, bad roads keeps out the riffraff
Point is, unless they're native, they'll always want to bring home with them, the ignorant bastards.

Quote from: supsalemgr on April 01, 2017, 11:27:52 AM
Why would conservative move to CA?

Speaking of these internal invasions. It reminds me of what my late fraternity brother Lewis Grizzard wrote. I paraphrase.

"Come on down. enjoy our weather.  Marry our women. Just don't tell us how you did it in Cleveland. We don't care. Don't like it here? Delta is ready when you are. Have you back in Cleveland in 1 1/2 hours." 

Ca is still majority Conservative, dims just cheat, it really is that simple.

Quote from: topside on April 01, 2017, 11:55:32 AM
Nicely done - a dig on Ohio in a quote from a personal friend! You've got a lot of range.   

I'm from Cincinnati though and we throw Cleveland under the bus all the time. Cincinnati governance seems to be about 100 years behind everyone else. That's a good thing some of the time - hope we never catch up.

Kentucky is just across the river. There was never much debate about having unisex out-houses. Kentucky ships some of them to CA ... CA calls them Tiny Houses. 

I hear OR is going to follow suit on CA - OR is the CA wannbes - snowflakes are fresher there. But OR is going to put their homeless in the "tiny houes" out in their yards. Just dig a hole underneath.

This just keeps getting better. I'm having a good day (satirically). Alright ... I'll stop. Sorry. Pretty soon Solar's gunna put me in the penalty box again. Where did I put that Oxycodone? Oh - Blake must have taken it.  It's been a long week - I need to get out more.

I'm still waiting for Boo to show up.

I think OR is pretty successful in developing their own libs.

Quote from: topside on April 01, 2017, 12:05:01 PM
BTW - this whole Montana and Sharia law thing set me off - blew my mind. Really? Montana and Sharia law. I thought these two were from the opposite ends of the political world and would be the last to every meet up ... not until everything had about turned into background noise (thermodynamically speaking) would these two meet. I need a "my mind was just blown" emoji ... I'll substitute this one: 

I'm still thinking the whole story is an April Fools prank. Just say it is. Let me in on it guys.

No the whole story isn't an April Fools prank; I listed the bill number and provided the link.  I also provided info on sharia law and how the lower courts have ruled in favor of in over twenty states and provided a link.  I wish this was all a bad joke; but unfortunately it isn't.  IF more people knew what was going on, I'd say they'd be singing a different tune to Trump's 'Muslim' ban and limiting refugee immigration.  IF we don't hold our majority; it's just a matter of time before the DEMS permanently change not only the demographics of our country but our rule of law.  Why you ask?   $$$$   Eventually, they may get more than they bargained for.

Quote from: Ms.Independence on April 01, 2017, 03:05:14 PM
No the whole story isn't an April Fools prank; I listed the bill number and provided the link.  I also provided info on sharia law and how the lower courts have ruled in favor of in over twenty states and provided a link.  I wish this was all a bad joke; but unfortunately it isn't.  IF more people knew what was going on, I'd say they'd be singing a different tune to Trump's 'Muslim' ban and limiting refugee immigration.  IF we don't hold our majority; it's just a matter of time before the DEMS permanently change not only the demographics of our country but our rule of law.  Why you ask?   $$$$   Eventually, they may get more than they bargained for.

I saw your reference - was just hoping you were the master of the elaborate April Fools ruse. I'm pretty uninformed about this area and your references are of great benefit. 

The idea that the Dims want to diversity our rule of law is just unthinkable - hard for me to grasp. It's like trying to figure out why a terrorist wants to blow themselves up. There's no about of money or power worth allowing radicals to overtake the rule of our land - what an unbelievable blind spot.

History plainly shows such false "tolerance" is doomed to fail. Lock a pacifist in a room with an extremist ... what do you get. Not a reformed extremist - you get a dead pacifist.

It sounds like the libs really buy into their COEXIST bullshit; COEXIST just means to believe in nothing at all and let the belief's of others rule over you. The libs need to print a "Save the Whales, Hug the Trees, Kill the Babies" bumper sticker to go with that one.

Quote from: Ms.Independence on April 01, 2017, 03:05:14 PM
No the whole story isn't an April Fools prank; I listed the bill number and provided the link.  I also provided info on sharia law and how the lower courts have ruled in favor of in over twenty states and provided a link.  I wish this was all a bad joke; but unfortunately it isn't.  IF more people knew what was going on, I'd say they'd be singing a different tune to Trump's 'Muslim' ban and limiting refugee immigration.  IF we don't hold our majority; it's just a matter of time before the DEMS permanently change not only the demographics of our country but our rule of law.  Why you ask?   $$$$   Eventually, they may get more than they bargained for.

For the record? That was a media claim, there never was a Muscum ban, as much as I wish there had been.

Quote from: topside on April 01, 2017, 03:23:24 PM
I saw your reference - was just hoping you were the master of the elaborate April Fools ruse. I'm pretty uninformed about this area and your references are of great benefit. 

The idea that the Dims want to diversity our rule of law is just unthinkable - hard for me to grasp. It's like trying to figure out why a terrorist wants to blow themselves up. There's no about of money or power worth allowing radicals to overtake the rule of our land - what an unbelievable blind spot.

History plainly shows such false "tolerance" is doomed to fail. Lock a pacifist in a room with an extremist ... what do you get. Not a reformed extremist - you get a dead pacifist.

It sounds like the libs really buy into their COEXIST bullshit; COEXIST just means to believe in nothing at all and let the belief's of others rule over you. The libs need to print a "Save the Whales, Hug the Trees, Kill the Babies" bumper sticker to go with that one.

It really is disheartening that the left (including RINO's) is so bent on political correctness that they cannot see or don't want to see how it is destroying our country.  It's hard to believe that 16 years have passed since the attack on 9/11.  Prior to that, I had never heard of Sharia law, nor had I any worry about the Middle East becoming the beast that they are. My focus was on the apparent and obvious (at least to me) negative impact of illegal immigration.  Now we have yet more reason to get a grip on who is coming into this country and here we sit. Yes President Trump got the ball rolling on building the wall and signed two e.o.'s on immigration ... yet here we sit; both issues are stalled.  Sure, Congress is in part to blame, but it is my opinion that if Trump actually knew the functionality of the government and his authority, he may be weathering things a little better and moving forward. His attack on the Freedom Caucus befuddles me.

Quote from: Solar on April 01, 2017, 12:37:54 PM
They always claim they are escaping liberal lunacy when moving in, my neighbor is a Bay area transplant that claimed libs drove them out, but she was the first to start a petition drive to install sidewalks and streetlights.
Said she was tired of driving 30 minutes to get a Starbucks, that the local town should build one, when asked who should pay for it, she said: "why the town, of course".

We are wilderness, roads 12' wide chip n seal in terrible condition with water bars that would rip the bottom out of a low rider, but it's why we're here, bad roads keeps out the riffraff
Point is, unless they're native, they'll always want to bring home with them, the ignorant bastards.

I cannot say I've ever heard a CA transplant say they moved to MT to escape the prog society. It's always about our mountains, clean air, access to nature, etc. The thing that makes my blood boil more than any other is the way progs insist we run things like they're used to back home. If they liked it so much back there, why'd they leave? Or, from the other end, do they really think MT would still be the place that it is if we did run things like progs?  The proof, of course, lies in the fact that the more progressive the city (town to most of the rest of the U.S.) the more problems it has. Which pretty much describes how all prog dominated area goes - the more the progressives control, the worse things get.  You'd think people would figure it out.

snip~

HELENA — After a lengthy debate, with Democrats and Republicans disagreeing on the intent of a Senate bill to prohibit state courts from applying foreign law, the legislation advanced in the House largely along party lines with a 56-44 vote.

Senate Bill 97, carried by Keith Regier, R-Kalispell, doesn't specifically mention Sharia law, but it was the only kind of foreign law mentioned during testimony in both the Senate and House judiciary committees.


more @
http://billingsgazette.com/news/government-and-politics/house-advances-bill-that-would-prohibit-sharia-law/article_4648cf03-89e8-5a65-8be6-325bd21f91a8.html

Quote from: walkstall on April 01, 2017, 09:05:24 PM

snip~

HELENA — After a lengthy debate, with Democrats and Republicans disagreeing on the intent of a Senate bill to prohibit state courts from applying foreign law, the legislation advanced in the House largely along party lines with a 56-44 vote.

Senate Bill 97, carried by Keith Regier, R-Kalispell, doesn't specifically mention Sharia law, but it was the only kind of foreign law mentioned during testimony in both the Senate and House judiciary committees.


more @
http://billingsgazette.com/news/government-and-politics/house-advances-bill-that-would-prohibit-sharia-law/article_4648cf03-89e8-5a65-8be6-325bd21f91a8.html

Glad to see it!

Quote from: walkstall on April 01, 2017, 09:05:24 PM

snip~

HELENA — After a lengthy debate, with Democrats and Republicans disagreeing on the intent of a Senate bill to prohibit state courts from applying foreign law, the legislation advanced in the House largely along party lines with a 56-44 vote.

Senate Bill 97, carried by Keith Regier, R-Kalispell, doesn't specifically mention Sharia law, but it was the only kind of foreign law mentioned during testimony in both the Senate and House judiciary committees.


more @
http://billingsgazette.com/news/government-and-politics/house-advances-bill-that-would-prohibit-sharia-law/article_4648cf03-89e8-5a65-8be6-325bd21f91a8.html

This should be combined with the "Political Fiction" topic or visa-versa.

I looked at the bill as posted by MsIndy in the other thread. It's a fine bill but superfluous - unnecessary. It's ridiculous that the MT Pubs even introduced the bill and the good people of MT had to pay their wage. Even worse that the Dims argue against it!

As said prior, Sharia law is not the law of the land and so not applicable ... irrelevant. No foreign law is! Same with Mosaic law for that matter (article addresses that too).

Any US judge that gives any attention to applying Sharia law that is independent or in contradiction to US law should be put-out immediately. Any lawyer that tries to use Sharia law as a defense should be subject to objection by the opposing council and it should be sustained by the judge. Sure - you can generalize it to foreign law. We don't need a bill to preclude it - by definition we uphold our laws. We need a bill that makes it illegal not to punish those who use foreign law that either contradicts or goes beyond our own laws.

In Montana - any judges giving attention to Sharia law should be tarred and feathered and put in stocks for 30 days - in Iraq. That's the law that the Pubs need to put on the books. Would be fine for a federal law too.

Quote from: topside on April 02, 2017, 10:34:41 AM
This should be combined with the "Political Fiction" topic or visa-versa.

I looked at the bill as posted by MsIndy in the other thread. It's a fine bill but superfluous - unnecessary. It's ridiculous that the MT Pubs even introduced the bill and the good people of MT had to pay their wage. Even worse that the Dims argue against it!

As said prior, Sharia law is not the law of the land and so not applicable ... irrelevant. No foreign law is! Same with Mosaic law for that matter (article addresses that too).

Any US judge that gives any attention to applying Sharia law that is independent or in contradiction to US law should be put-out immediately. Any lawyer that tries to use Sharia law as a defense should be subject to objection by the opposing council and it should be sustained by the judge. Sure - you can generalize it to foreign law. We don't need a bill to preclude it - by definition we uphold our laws. We need a bill that makes it illegal not to punish those who use foreign law that either contradicts or goes beyond our own laws.

In Montana - any judges giving attention to Sharia law should be tarred and feathered and put in stocks for 30 days - in Iraq. That's the law that the Pubs need to put on the books. Would be fine for a federal law too.

I'm guessing Montana wanted to send a message that even unofficial sharia law districts would not be tolerated.
These districts are not uncommon.  http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/nogozones.asp  On that subject, why do feminist not condemn sharia law?

Quote from: s3779m on April 02, 2017, 02:19:27 PM
I'm guessing Montana wanted to send a message that even unofficial sharia law districts would not be tolerated.
These districts are not uncommon.  http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/nogozones.asp  On that subject, why do feminist not condemn sharia law?

They would lose their heads.   

Prior stated; .."That study examined a sample of fifty cases and found that in twenty-seven of them, in twenty-three different states, the courts in question allowed the use of shariah, generally to the detriment of women and/or children whose rights under our Constitution were infringed."...

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/01/05/shariah-in-american-courts-the-expanding-incursion-of-islamic-law-in-the-u-s-legal-system/

It is my understanding that there are a few states that have introduced legislation to further protect themselves; the legislation introduced forbids courts from considering or using international law and some legislation goes even further to specifically prohibit sharia law.

http://www.upi.com/Under-the-US-Supreme-Court-Islamic-law-in-US-courts/64481368948600/

I guess it's like the argument for the border wall. We shouldn't need a law that says that Sharia law isn't the law of the land - should not be used to adjudicate. But you don't just rely on the natural expectation. You also put in a law to underscore the fact. Then you make examples of some early offenders. Then you do ten other things to act as boundaries - not sure what, but you can't rely on just one barriers - you need seveal these days. Set the law down, wall it in, lock it up, then throw away the key. Otherwise, the libs will weasel a way to use it.

I should have seen this! Did you ever realize that law is just short of wall spelled backwards? I think I saw somewhere that the original spelling was llaw. Ok - I thought it was kinda funny in this context. Can Solar put you in the penalty box for bad humor?

Seriously, it's too bad that anyone has to put so much work into this issue. The natural barrier should be sufficient. So much energy into making something happen that should naturally. I'm still incredulous that this is even an issue in the US.