[Buster]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Sure, unpack it line by line, or simply find one passage you can critique on the actual content of the passage, not on the Coulter straw man BS.

Ok, I'll do a few.

Tonight we are honoured to stand here as parents of Captain Humayun Khan and as patriotic American Muslims -

This creates a worthwhile discussion on what aspects of Islam he may or may not agree with. Does he agree with Islamic doctrine, on say, the oppression of women? Or gays? Given what we know about Islamic doctrine on these topics, and perhaps the addition of a hijab an indication of her silence? We actually still do not know the answer to these questions. I would hate to think that the DNC put someone on the stage that believes, say, in the killing of apostates, or blasphemers against Muhammed.

To wonder about his beliefs after he indicated an association Islamic doctrine is not bigoted. And outrage does not make it bigoted.

If someone from the Westboro Baptist Church was speaking, and identified themselves as such, you might wonder how closely they associate themselves with WBT doctrine. (Ie, do they hate homosexuals.) This is an appropriate question to ask yourself. I would have no questions, if he had not identified himself as a Muslim. But then he wouldn't be on the stage, would he? You don't gain many points by throwing an atheist Pakistani up there.

He vows to build walls, and ban us from this country.

Who is "us"? Muslims? He doesn't want to ban Muslims from the United States. Does he mean the Khans? They are citizens. Banning citizens was never a consideration for Trump.

Let me ask you: have you even read the United States constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. [he pulls it out] In this document, look for the words 'liberty' and 'equal protection of law'.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but my understanding is that Trump's immigration proposals are not un-constitutional. Jimmy Carter did a similar thing. I don't like them, as I am a proponent of open-borders from a libertarian perspective. But I'm not sure there is a constitutional argument against the immigration policy, or the protection of liberty and equality for non-citizens.


Why is this important? I really wish it wasn't. But this type of victim-card, double-speak is not good for the discourse. Trump's response is not good for the discourse. And yet it dominated the week.