about this forum
-
Am I not allowed to respond to this thread? In a way that is very much on topic. The topic being your twisted interpretation of this board.
It sounds like you want to censor me. Which is a very liberal snowflake thing to do.
-
As I understand it, because of the desperate need to void obamao's
exec order, that in itself shut the door abruptly. I don't know how he
can gradually adjust his exec order from the effects of obamao's.
I believe more people have been imposed on, losing their chances
to make their flights because of the immigration "protesters", than the
109 people who were actually detained for further vetting.
It's tough to fix a problem that Obamao created. A bit abrupt, sure, but
that is being fixed. I don't know how else the change could be made.....
As I understand it, because of the desperate need to void obamao's
exec order, that in itself shut the door abruptly. I don't know how he
can gradually adjust his exec order from the effects of obamao's.
I believe more people have been imposed on, losing their chances
to make their flights because of the immigration "protesters", than the
109 people who were actually detained for further vetting.
It's tough to fix a problem that Obamao created. A bit abrupt, sure, but
that is being fixed. I don't know how else the change could be made.....
They lost in the PR war though and they will need to do better in that regard. I think they will learn from this experience and be more prepared to fight the PR war in the future. They already know the MSM will not treat them fairly.
-
As I understand it, because of the desperate need to void obamao's
exec order, that in itself shut the door abruptly. I don't know how he
can gradually adjust his exec order from the effects of obamao's.
I believe more people have been imposed on, losing their chances
to make their flights because of the immigration "protesters", than the
109 people who were actually detained for further vetting.
It's tough to fix a problem that Obamao created. A bit abrupt, sure, but
that is being fixed. I don't know how else the change could be made.....
They lost in the PR war though and they will need to do better in that regard. I think they will learn from this experience and be more prepared to fight the PR war in the future. They already know the MSM will not treat them fairly.
They lost in the PR war though and they will need to do better in that regard. I think they will learn from this experience and be more prepared to fight the PR war in the future. They already know the MSM will not treat them fairly.
True. Seems like winning the pr war is a lost cause, though. So much of the media plays
in with the false fear-mongering narratives of the likes of Reid, Schumer, Pelosi,
the whole bunch. Without Fox news, for one, there isn't any winning of the pr war
without stooping to their level. So much contrived controversy, falsely based agitation...
on purpose. I have no idea what the answer is. Every time Trump or Bush makes a mistake,
all hell breaks loose. But obamao made a mistake, there's silence. Can anybody imagine if
Trump had presided over Benghazi?
-
They lost in the PR war though and they will need to do better in that regard. I think they will learn from this experience and be more prepared to fight the PR war in the future. They already know the MSM will not treat them fairly.
True. Seems like winning the pr war is a lost cause, though. So much of the media plays
in with the false fear-mongering narratives of the likes of Reid, Schumer, Pelosi,
the whole bunch. Without Fox news, for one, there isn't any winning of the pr war
without stooping to their level. So much contrived controversy, falsely based agitation...
on purpose. I have no idea what the answer is. Every time Trump or Bush makes a mistake,
all hell breaks loose. But obamao made a mistake, there's silence. Can anybody imagine if
Trump had presided over Benghazi?
True. Seems like winning the pr war is a lost cause, though. So much of the media plays
in with the false fear-mongering narratives of the likes of Reid, Schumer, Pelosi,
the whole bunch. Without Fox news, for one, there isn't any winning of the pr war
without stooping to their level. So much contrived controversy, falsely based agitation...
on purpose. I have no idea what the answer is. Every time Trump or Bush makes a mistake,
all hell breaks loose. But obamao made a mistake, there's silence. Can anybody imagine if
Trump had presided over Benghazi?
At least they fight back which always bothered me about Bush who rarely did. I heard Dennis Miller give some good advice to Sarah Palin years ago about dealing with the media. He said every time Palin spoke with the MSM she should have the attitude they are her enemy not a friend. And they were. When Trump initiated his policy he needed to have his spokespeople in place immediately to counter the false narrative this was a ban on Muslims. They will probably never win the PR war with a corrupt biased media but I would like to see them make the effort instead of handling it like Bush did.
-
That is excellent. I guess being nice gets ya run over...they do need to
"fight back"
-
Palin was also her own enemy
-
Guys guys we're being so unfair. Cal just wants to turn over a new leaf. 8 years of incessant bullshitting has taken its toll. He just wants everyone to know his bullshit was our fault cause we wouldnt listen to him.
Do i have that about right cal?
-
Cal bullshitted and trolled and attacked the president for the last 8 years, but only because he remember liberals totally doing the same exact thing to Bush. But now we just need to stop and respect president Trump... I mean come on.
-
One thing I like about Trump which bothered me about Bush. Trump fights back every time. Bush rarely fought back which was a primary reason his approval ratings were so low when he left office. When you don't fight back you have basically accepted the charges leveled against you.
One thing I like about Trump which bothered me about Bush. Trump fights back every time. Bush rarely fought back which was a primary reason his approval ratings were so low when he left office. When you don't fight back you have basically accepted the charges leveled against you.
Agree, but sadly, Trump is going to have to battle this media for at least 4 years. He brought it on himself when he went after Megan Kelly. The media will never let that go.
Ultimately, we Americans won't be better off with this feud going on.
-
-
One thing I like about Trump which bothered me about Bush. Trump fights back every time. Bush rarely fought back which was a primary reason his approval ratings were so low when he left office. When you don't fight back you have basically accepted the charges leveled against you.
Agree, but sadly, Trump is going to have to battle this media for at least 4 years. He brought it on himself when he went after Megan Kelly. The media will never let that go.
Ultimately, we Americans won't be better off with this feud going on.
Agree, but sadly, Trump is going to have to battle this media for at least 4 years. He brought it on himself when he went after Megan Kelly. The media will never let that go.
Ultimately, we Americans won't be better off with this feud going on.
So, when obaMao talked about "lipstick on a pig" about Palin, why didn't HE "bring it on
to himself" then? The media never gave him crap about it. cept Fox news...
They happily gave him a pass. for eight years.
-
As for that Osiris: I personally don't hate Muslims. I don't hate Christians either. But to be honest I have an unfavorable opinion of both religions. Judaism too. I'm cool with Hindus and buddhists. I would say I have a slightly more unfavorable opinion of Islam because of their proclivity to bomb planes and buildings and try to pass it off as religious duty. Christians are also huge assholes but I don't know the last time they bombed a plane full of people. A lot of Muslim apologists try to pass the Oklahoma city bombings off as Christian terrorism but there's no evidence McVeigh was religiously motivated.
As for that Osiris: I personally don't hate Muslims. I don't hate Christians either. But to be honest I have an unfavorable opinion of both religions. Judaism too. I'm cool with Hindus and buddhists. I would say I have a slightly more unfavorable opinion of Islam because of their proclivity to bomb planes and buildings and try to pass it off as religious duty. Christians are also huge assholes but I don't know the last time they bombed a plane full of people. A lot of Muslim apologists try to pass the Oklahoma city bombings off as Christian terrorism but there's no evidence McVeigh was religiously motivated.
I understand your position. I have an atheist friend that I am pretty close with and honestly I have more in common with him than any extremist who calls himself Muslim because we both believe in human decency and we have similar values in terms of how people should be treated. Whether you arrive at those values by being a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, atheist... I couldn't care less.
I'm not blind, I see the terrorist attacks same as everyone else. Your choice of words is very important: "proclivity to bomb planes and buildings and try to pass it off as religious duty." That last part especially is key. In the act of trying to pass it off as religious duty, we empower them if we believe that they are correct, and that blowing up shit REALLY is their religious duty. When I say they are wrong, that it is not their religious duty, and not only that, but they are performing a sin in the eyes of the religion, I say that from a position that I can substantiate from religious sources.
I don't think McVeigh was motivated by religion. I think he was motivated by anti-government feelings. If Muslims want to point out that Christians have committed a lot of atrocities in history, there is plenty of evidence for that. I used to be into that, but now I see it as counterproductive. This 'battle' between religions is stupid. Conflict all over the world is being caused by people who have extreme ideologies of various types and a lack of tolerance. ISIS, KKK, Neo-Nazi and White Supremacy movements, Christian Right, PKK, 'Saffron terrorism', etc, they are all cut from the same cloth: You can only live if you are like us.
"I said, 'I need someone who's going to want to get on the roller coaster with me knowing that it's not always going to be fun,'" -Paul DePodesta -
-
Cal always leaves out crucial context
-
As for that Osiris: I personally don't hate Muslims. I don't hate Christians either. But to be honest I have an unfavorable opinion of both religions. Judaism too. I'm cool with Hindus and buddhists. I would say I have a slightly more unfavorable opinion of Islam because of their proclivity to bomb planes and buildings and try to pass it off as religious duty. Christians are also huge assholes but I don't know the last time they bombed a plane full of people. A lot of Muslim apologists try to pass the Oklahoma city bombings off as Christian terrorism but there's no evidence McVeigh was religiously motivated.
I understand your position. I have an atheist friend that I am pretty close with and honestly I have more in common with him than any extremist who calls himself Muslim because we both believe in human decency and we have similar values in terms of how people should be treated. Whether you arrive at those values by being a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, atheist... I couldn't care less.
I'm not blind, I see the terrorist attacks same as everyone else. Your choice of words is very important: "proclivity to bomb planes and buildings and try to pass it off as religious duty." That last part especially is key. In the act of trying to pass it off as religious duty, we empower them if we believe that they are correct, and that blowing up shit REALLY is their religious duty. When I say they are wrong, that it is not their religious duty, and not only that, but they are performing a sin in the eyes of the religion, I say that from a position that I can substantiate from religious sources.
I don't think McVeigh was motivated by religion. I think he was motivated by anti-government feelings. If Muslims want to point out that Christians have committed a lot of atrocities in history, there is plenty of evidence for that. I used to be into that, but now I see it as counterproductive. This 'battle' between religions is stupid. Conflict all over the world is being caused by people who have extreme ideologies of various types and a lack of tolerance. ISIS, KKK, Neo-Nazi and White Supremacy movements, Christian Right, PKK, 'Saffron terrorism', etc, they are all cut from the same cloth: You can only live if you are like us.
I'll try to explain why I mistrust Islam. Please don't view this as an attack because I'm able to diffetentiate individuals from institutions. Unlike some of the people here I've bothered to read up on Islam to some degree because I rather like history and so I like to know the context of historic periods such as the Abbasid and umayyed caliphates and the crusades. So I know that Islam allows for tolerance but it's largely up to whoever is in charge interpreting the Quran and Hadith. There's also dhimmitude and jizya. Islam worries me because over the various empires there's a constant: it's always ISLAMIC rule they're after. When Napoleon conquered most of Europe he didn't do it for the glory of Christ or to advance Christianity he did it for the oldest reasons: power, to be king. Hitler had his own nefarious motivations but religion was not one of them. Interestingly Hitler was said to have admired the aggressiveness of Islam, the way it rewarded war and was spread at the point of the sword and was said to have felt it would suit the German temperament.I understand your position. I have an atheist friend that I am pretty close with and honestly I have more in common with him than any extremist who calls himself Muslim because we both believe in human decency and we have similar values in terms of how people should be treated. Whether you arrive at those values by being a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, atheist... I couldn't care less.
I'm not blind, I see the terrorist attacks same as everyone else. Your choice of words is very important: "proclivity to bomb planes and buildings and try to pass it off as religious duty." That last part especially is key. In the act of trying to pass it off as religious duty, we empower them if we believe that they are correct, and that blowing up shit REALLY is their religious duty. When I say they are wrong, that it is not their religious duty, and not only that, but they are performing a sin in the eyes of the religion, I say that from a position that I can substantiate from religious sources.
I don't think McVeigh was motivated by religion. I think he was motivated by anti-government feelings. If Muslims want to point out that Christians have committed a lot of atrocities in history, there is plenty of evidence for that. I used to be into that, but now I see it as counterproductive. This 'battle' between religions is stupid. Conflict all over the world is being caused by people who have extreme ideologies of various types and a lack of tolerance. ISIS, KKK, Neo-Nazi and White Supremacy movements, Christian Right, PKK, 'Saffron terrorism', etc, they are all cut from the same cloth: You can only live if you are like us.
So though this is long and rambling I hope it gives some insight as to why I take a din view of Islam and why I distrust it. I dislike it for the reasons Hitler admired it. Where Islam rules it is the enemy of freedom and human rights. I can't accept so oppressive a doctrine that it literally means "submission". I see that some Muslims are trying to modernize the religion to make it compatible with 21st century values and I support that but there's a stumbling block: the queran and Hadith are to be taken literally, as the literal word of God, and unfortunately they are rooted firmly in 7th century values with no way to update them for the modern era without rebuking the literal word of God. Therefore ISIS are not only Muslims - they are the purest Muslims living by the literal word of God.
I've no issue with modernized Muslims in America as long as America remains secular and American values and law are always always always placed before Islamic considerations like Sharia and the Constitution always takes precedence over the 'word of god' whether it be the gospel or the Quran.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
I'll try to explain why I mistrust Islam. Please don't view this as an attack because I'm able to diffetentiate individuals from institutions. Unlike some of the people here I've bothered to read up on Islam to some degree because I rather like history and so I like to know the context of historic periods such as the Abbasid and umayyed caliphates and the crusades. So I know that Islam allows for tolerance but it's largely up to whoever is in charge interpreting the Quran and Hadith. There's also dhimmitude and jizya. Islam worries me because over the various empires there's a constant: it's always ISLAMIC rule they're after. When Napoleon conquered most of Europe he didn't do it for the glory of Christ or to advance Christianity he did it for the oldest reasons: power, to be king. Hitler had his own nefarious motivations but religion was not one of them. Interestingly Hitler was said to have admired the aggressiveness of Islam, the way it rewarded war and was spread at the point of the sword and was said to have felt it would suit the German temperament.I understand your position. I have an atheist friend that I am pretty close with and honestly I have more in common with him than any extremist who calls himself Muslim because we both believe in human decency and we have similar values in terms of how people should be treated. Whether you arrive at those values by being a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, atheist... I couldn't care less.
I'm not blind, I see the terrorist attacks same as everyone else. Your choice of words is very important: "proclivity to bomb planes and buildings and try to pass it off as religious duty." That last part especially is key. In the act of trying to pass it off as religious duty, we empower them if we believe that they are correct, and that blowing up shit REALLY is their religious duty. When I say they are wrong, that it is not their religious duty, and not only that, but they are performing a sin in the eyes of the religion, I say that from a position that I can substantiate from religious sources.
I don't think McVeigh was motivated by religion. I think he was motivated by anti-government feelings. If Muslims want to point out that Christians have committed a lot of atrocities in history, there is plenty of evidence for that. I used to be into that, but now I see it as counterproductive. This 'battle' between religions is stupid. Conflict all over the world is being caused by people who have extreme ideologies of various types and a lack of tolerance. ISIS, KKK, Neo-Nazi and White Supremacy movements, Christian Right, PKK, 'Saffron terrorism', etc, they are all cut from the same cloth: You can only live if you are like us.
So though this is long and rambling I hope it gives some insight as to why I take a din view of Islam and why I distrust it. I dislike it for the reasons Hitler admired it. Where Islam rules it is the enemy of freedom and human rights. I can't accept so oppressive a doctrine that it literally means "submission". I see that some Muslims are trying to modernize the religion to make it compatible with 21st century values and I support that but there's a stumbling block: the queran and Hadith are to be taken literally, as the literal word of God, and unfortunately they are rooted firmly in 7th century values with no way to update them for the modern era without rebuking the literal word of God. Therefore ISIS are not only Muslims - they are the purest Muslims living by the literal word of God.
I've no issue with modernized Muslims in America as long as America remains secular and American values and law are always always always placed before Islamic considerations like Sharia and the Constitution always takes precedence over the 'word of god' whether it be the gospel or the Quran.
I'll try to explain why I mistrust Islam. Please don't view this as an attack because I'm able to diffetentiate individuals from institutions. Unlike some of the people here I've bothered to read up on Islam to some degree because I rather like history and so I like to know the context of historic periods such as the Abbasid and umayyed caliphates and the crusades. So I know that Islam allows for tolerance but it's largely up to whoever is in charge interpreting the Quran and Hadith. There's also dhimmitude and jizya. Islam worries me because over the various empires there's a constant: it's always ISLAMIC rule they're after. When Napoleon conquered most of Europe he didn't do it for the glory of Christ or to advance Christianity he did it for the oldest reasons: power, to be king. Hitler had his own nefarious motivations but religion was not one of them. Interestingly Hitler was said to have admired the aggressiveness of Islam, the way it rewarded war and was spread at the point of the sword and was said to have felt it would suit the German temperament.
So though this is long and rambling I hope it gives some insight as to why I take a din view of Islam and why I distrust it. I dislike it for the reasons Hitler admired it. Where Islam rules it is the enemy of freedom and human rights. I can't accept so oppressive a doctrine that it literally means "submission". I see that some Muslims are trying to modernize the religion to make it compatible with 21st century values and I support that but there's a stumbling block: the queran and Hadith are to be taken literally, as the literal word of God, and unfortunately they are rooted firmly in 7th century values with no way to update them for the modern era without rebuking the literal word of God. Therefore ISIS are not only Muslims - they are the purest Muslims living by the literal word of God.
I've no issue with modernized Muslims in America as long as America remains secular and American values and law are always always always placed before Islamic considerations like Sharia and the Constitution always takes precedence over the 'word of god' whether it be the gospel or the Quran.
Spoken like a true Air Farce who never fought in combat.
-
What, like someone with a modicum of intelligence and not an emotional hate-ape? That's OK with me. You do whatever it is you do and I'll worry about me.
-
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/youll-be-shocked-with-how-many-american-muslims-want-sharia-law/
To honest, it has to be really offensive for American Muslims who don't believe
like some do.
Unfortunately, per this poll, 51% of American Muslims support sharia law.
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/youll-be-shocked-with-how-many-american-muslims-want-sharia-law/
"According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that βMuslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.β When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).
More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts."
-
-
To be fair I'm much more (and I do mean much more) worried about Mexico than Muslims. The shit Mexicans do with complete abandon make ISIS look like pretty reasonable guys. Complete disregard for humanity down there and they can just stroll over the border any time they want. I won't regale you with the filthy details but if you were inclined you could easily find the most violent, horrific, disgusting examples of humanity on certain sites and they're all Mexicans. If liberals were forced to watch this stuff for a few minutes they might revise their opinion of Trump's wall plan.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind...
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better π
Register Login