[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Difference being, I'm just dropping truth bombs while Buster tries to divert attention from the main topic by focusing on minutiae.

Of course you think they're "truth bombs". In fact, they're generally simplistic nonsense... but that's beside the point, because they're clearly drive-by troll jobs. Buster's at least arguing his point, even though I think he's wrong. I see no value in your posts. I mean, if they were funny, maybe. At least MMF sometimes manages that much.

Originally Posted by Buster

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.

I disagree with the implication. The proper interpretation of Islamic doctrine is not the subject of the speech. What he thinks about it doesn't strike me as particularly relevant in this context. Suggesting "maybe he's an Islamist, we don't know, maybe he oppresses his wife" is just speculation without any point to it and isn't productive. It's just mind-reading, which is one of the problems typically associated with the regressive left. "He's saying this, but maybe he thinks this other thing based on who he is." Stick to the words actually coming out of the guy's mouth.

It's also statistically kind of silly; American Muslims are largely moderates, and there is nothing but moderate, secular rhetoric in what he actually talked about.

Who is "us"? Muslims? He doesn't want to ban Muslims from the United States.

He does want to prohibit Muslims from entering the USA on the basis of their religion, though, which I think is clearly what he's referring to.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but my understanding is that Trump's immigration proposals are not un-constitutional.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't suggesting they were, just sort of rhetorically and insubstantially bashing Trump for being ignorant and un-american in light of the concepts of "liberty" and "equal protection".

He was clearly appealing to represent the community of Muslims in his speech. He was defending the character and sacrifices of Muslims.

I again disagree. He mentioned that Trump had smeared the character of Muslims, but this was in no way the thrust of the speech. Rather, the point, I think, was summarized best in the following passage:

Originally Posted by Khan

Go look at the graves of the brave patriots who died defending America. You will see all faiths, genders, and ethnicities. You have sacrificed nothing and no one. We cannot solve our problems by building walls, sowing division. We are stronger together.

Again, a lot of emotionally-charged rhetoric, but hardly divisive, identity-politics stuff. Quite the opposite, really.

In her newspaper Op-ed a day later she said that an individual Muslim terrorist cannot represent the religion.

Ok, well I didn't read the op-ed. That sounds like the usual sort of obfuscation and "No True Scotsman" nonsense one often hears, unfortunately, but I can't speak to it not having read it. I'm just looking at the speech transcript.