Well yes, but not in the same way that you and I probably disagree on the best rock and roll song of the past decade. We disagree with you because what you're saying is directly contrary to overwhelming historical evidence that's virtually unanimously acknowledged by US historians.

That's in line with the current government's desire to cut off any reference of Jesus and Christianity, or in other words, our roots. And, of course, since that's what they want to be known, that's where most false evidence (Which is overwhelming only because that want so much for that to be truth that is known) comes up.

Why do you think that schools don't teach anything related to God or the Bible anymore? Why do you think they stopped having the pledge of allegiance said by every member in classroom of a school?

From someone who explains the basis better than I ever could at the moment.

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2010/08/us-constitution-and-biblical-principles.html

Say it's biased, say it's slanted, but don't say that it cites passages and things which are not written.

A noteworthy quote, "The basic foundation of our morals is the Ten Commandments, and the Founding Fathers drew from the Ten Commandments the basic principles that would govern our system of laws, and courts."

Yes, of course I'm posting this because it supports my argument.

We (are supposed to) have freedom of religion, but you're required to follow the laws which stem from that religion (or rather it's book; word), but not to wholly follow the religion itself. That would be considered interfering with one's worship which the government is not supposed to do but have done so.

Are you arguing that the institution of historical study at large is embroiled in a conspiracy theory?

If not I don't follow you.

If so uh........................

Yes. It's exactly what I'm saying and the reason why you're skeptical is because most of the fabricated evidence is what you've seen and therefore have been brought to believe, but just because it's the majority of what exists doesn't make it true or not part of a conspiracy, there's so much of it because it's the idea that you're wanted to believe, and their tactic is "well, when there's so much evidence, why would anybody deny it?"

Again, there's plenty of evidence brought forth over the years (that you really have to search for) that supports what I'm saying, but it doesn't even amount or compare to the majority. :notgood:

Occam's razor mate.

Yeah, and there's also the fact that what I just said could be labelled as a logical fallacy or whatever.

I think when you go out into the real world and begin to experience the shear complexity of things you'll start to realize that this simply isn't possible.

History professors in particular build their careers off of revision. There is constant reassessment and reinterpretation of the past going on in nearly every subject you can imagine. It's never as simple as a conclusion being cast in stone and locked away in the vaults to be secretly tampered with once first scholarly consensus is reached.

The odds of say, John Locke's Two Treatises of Government being a modern forgery, are one in impossible.

Yeah, but, 'history is written by the victor'. The victor can also be divided upon itself and have different ways of wanting to re-write history, or one can have a way to re-write it and the other may want it to be known and written as it originally happened.

The idea which I'm just only not ever scraping the surface of is immense. And it's all connected and purposed to a desire of control and taking away of one's independence, which is the opposite drive of one of the main ideas from which we were founded upon.

Why do you think that schools don't teach anything related to God or the Bible anymore?

Because schools are public institutions and not all of the public is Christian. Every US citizen pays taxes to support the public education system, not just Christians. So people have a right to be able to send their kids to school to get an education that teaches them secular truth, and then to handle passing their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) to their children in their own way as a family. This makes perfect sense. It is not a government conspiracy to destroy Christianity.

If public schools, which are government funded, were teaching a particular religion then that would essentially be making it into a state religion, which is exactly what the founders were trying to avoid when they wrote "congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion."

---------- Post added at 01:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 AM ----------

At some point I think you are going to have to face the fact that there is a serious problem with your belief system if you this consistently can only justify things by invoking some kind of nationwide conspiracy to destroy the truth.

At some point you're going to have to face the fact that the thinking you're employing here is virtually the same as that of people who believe the world is controlled by disguised alien lizard people.

Y'all insist that the evidence is either fabricated or real, but what if it never existed in the first place? *insert dramatic music cue* :erm:

Regardless of that, I'm very impressed how quick this thread has grown, as well as how respectful we all are here (at the moment, at least). I may not have much opinion or care for the many topics at hand here that I didn't even know existed, but I'm glad I made the move to actually open this thread. It shows our manners of thinking and responding in conversation, which is what I would've most wanted. Where things will go from here is a matter of what happens next. The only definitive one being that I probably won't post here much, seeing as I'd rather my mind be in other places. Still, it wouldn't hurt to say something every now and then.

To another 4 years of pure nonsense!

At some point I think you are going to have to face the fact that there is a serious problem with your belief system if you this consistently can only justify things by invoking some kind of nationwide conspiracy to destroy the truth.

At some point you're going to have to face the fact that the thinking you're employing here is virtually the same as that of people who believe the world is controlled by disguised alien lizard people.

Yeah, exactly. It sounds crazy. But I was (and still am) going to give a more elaborate explanation rather than just sentences that can't describe years of evidence.

Yeah, exactly. It sounds crazy. But I was (and still am) going to give a more elaborate explanation rather than just sentences that can't describe years of evidence.

Okay. But there are very, very elaborate explanations about how all the world's leaders are alien lizardmen.

If you would read George Orwell's 1984, it would make much more sense.

Watch They Live too.

:laugh:

If you would read George Orwell's 1984, it would make much more sense.

Watch They Live too.

:laugh:

I have read it. It reminds me much more of Trump than Obama.

Note that I am perfectly aware that my continued and insistent describing of this idea comes at the possible cost of one's discerning that I'm just insane. :p

I don't think you're insane. In all honesty, I think you are somewhat indoctrinated.

But I also think you're intelligent enough to pull out if it, if you give yourself the opportunity.

I have read it. It reminds me much more of Trump than Obama.

Trump is much more genuine, forthright, and outspoken. Obama's a typical politician.

To another 4 years of pure nonsense!

http://imgur.com/Q4KAtqi.gif

I don't think you're insane. In all honesty, I think you are somewhat indoctrinated.

But I also think you're intelligent enough to pull out if it, if you give yourself the opportunity.

:iveseenthings:

or rather read, as well as have been told, things that you really don't want to know, but that you should know. The first time I put it all together, I was in shock and awe. It was nearly unbelievable, but it also fit together in such a way that it made sense.

:iveseenthings:

or rather read, as well as have been told, things that you really don't want to know, but that you should know. The first time I put it all together, I was in shock and awe. It was nearly unbelievable, but it also fit together in such a way that it made sense.

This is what all conspiracy theorists say.

I know.

as well as how respectful we all are here (at the moment, at least).

RayMan probably spent today recovering from his hangover instead of getting smashed again. We'll see what happens tomorrow night. :laugh:

---------- Post added at 01:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:28 AM ----------

And on that note, I'm out for this one. See you later, lovelies.

I wish I still had this paper written by a psychologist on the nature of conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists.
The common characteristic is that the lack of evidence is proof of the existence of the conspiracy.

"There's nothing here."
"That's because 'they've' taken it."
"What proof do you have?"
"Well, it's missing, which means 'they' must have taken it."

Big elaborate conspiracies are the superstitions of the modern age. They are, in their own way, comforting, because they give us assurances that life is not random, and that when things go bad, you can blame an anonymous shadowy adversary.

Because we would rather believe there are monsters in the woods than to accept that we walk through the forest alone.

Yeah, but, 'history is written by the victor'. The victor can also be divided upon itself and have different ways of wanting to re-write history, or one can have a way to re-write it and the other may want it to be known as it originally happened.

This is why peer reviewing and institutional integrity exist.

The media you subscribe to thrives on sensationalist conspiracy theories, but in practice a conspiracy is extraordinarily difficult to pull off, and the more parties involved, the more it is guaranteed to get blown wide open.

In an age where Wikileaks makes regular headlines, do you have the slightest grasp of what it would take for our government to convince tens of thousands of scholars in an international collaborative community to unanimously subscribe to an extraordinary plot to rewrite the original sources of our history and reinterpret them along a strict ideological guidelines?

^^ Just another example of "begging the question", i.e. circular reasoning.

An infinite regression which, in terms of propaganda, would be equivalent to a hall of mirrors, or in colloquial terms: utter bullshit.

The common characteristic is that the lack of evidence is proof of the existence of the conspiracy.

Thing is, there's no lack of evidence. Yes, I know that I've already said multiple times that 'and there is plenty of evidence to back this up', but in truth, there is, and it's not an easy job to find it because it's buried in the majority of evidence which attempts the disprove the latter, because the latter attempts to expose the former.

---------- Post added at 12:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 AM ----------


This is why peer reviewing and institutional integrity exist.

The media you subscribe to thrives on sensationalist conspiracy theories, but in practice a conspiracy is extraordinarily difficult to pull off, and the more parties involved, the more it is guaranteed to get blown wide open.

In an age where Wikileaks makes regular headlines, do you have the slightest grasp of what it would take for our government to convince tens of thousands of scholars in an international collaborative community to unanimously subscribe to an extraordinary plot to rewrite the original sources of our history and reinterpret them along a strict ideological guidelines?

Yes. Money. Control. The basis of this whole prism is very simple, and more than half of the world's political or governmental figures would gladly oblige to it.

God it must be depressing to view the world through such a cynical lens.

---------- Post added at 01:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:44 AM ----------


Yes. Money. Control. The basis of this whole prism is very simple, and more than half of the world's political or governmental figures would gladly oblige to it.

If this were true there would be no such thing as whistle blowers.

In fact, you wouldn't exist.

You would have been paid off by now, obviously. And like all humans you would lack the integrity to tell the truth in spite of it.

---------- Post added at 01:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 AM ----------

That's just... I don't really know how to penetrate that sort of mentality. You're just going to have to go out and experience the world and come to the realization on your own eventually.

Bear in mind, this whole........thing goes both ways. You don't believe me just as much as I don't believe the general consensus widely offered by officials on this stuff. You don't even need to experience this... in fact numerous individuals have been subjected to the governments drive to gain control or whatever by any way of means. There are countless records of, for example, farmers being thrown off their own property; after being taken to court following being accused of stealing pesticides which the 'government' or whomever sprayed on their crops so they could accuse them of stealing and so they're to be arrested and thrown in jail.

Just an example, out of countless others.

Go ahead and call it another logical fallacy, if you will.

---------- Post added at 12:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 AM ----------


God it must be depressing to view the world through such a cynical lens.

Not with Donald Trump in office! :smrt:

He, for another example, is aware of all of this, and is purposing all things he can do in his power to get rid of all of it.

I'm sorry, I'm tired right now; nothing's coming out right. :erm:

Bear in mind, this whole........thing goes both ways. You don't believe me just as much as I don't believe the general consensus widely offered by officials on this stuff. You don't even need to experience this... in fact numerous individuals have been subjected to the governments drive to gain control or whatever by any way of means. There are countless records of, for example, farmers being thrown off their own property; after being taken to court following being accused of stealing pesticides which the 'government' or whomever sprayed on their crops so they could accuse them of stealing and so they're to be arrested and thrown in jail.

Just an example, out of countless others.

Go ahead and call it another logical fallacy, if you will.

That may well happen.

It's insanely different from confiscating all record of enlightenment political philosophy world-wide and rewriting it to suit an agenda with full backing from tens of thousands of scholars and publishers in a global community which holds accuracy as its most fundamental measure of excellence.

But that's only one of their means of getting the population to believe something that they want you to.

It's just one. But it's a big contributor to their cause.

What you fail at is any method of assessing the practical implications of a conspiracy succeeding vs the probability that scholarly consensus is simply more or less right.

No, because I've seen both sides of it; enough information (or differing consensuses) to be able to discern.

Think about it; why wouldn't I want to believe that our government is going to take care everything, and it'll be all okay? Anyone wants to believe that is the case, but it isn't. They could give a flying fuck about our health or safety. Literally all they could care for is money and control; and there's been an elaborate conspiracy to bring these results planned out by certain individuals that you don't know name of, it's been complied to for years.

But that's only one of their means of getting the population to believe something that they want you to.

It's just one. But it's a big contributor to their cause.

I mean lol 9/11, governments can taint evidence in on-going events even when the scale is quite large. That is extremely different from rewriting something that happened 300 years ago and has been the subject of ceaseless study among an enormous community of scholars and philosophers and politicians ever since.

One of the defining characteristics of adolescence is absolute certainty.

And frankly I'm not sure a 9/11 could happen today in America given the extent of handheld communication/recording devices and the ease of releasing evidence anonymously.

One of the defining characteristics of adolescence is absolute certainty.

There's also plenty of uncertainty.

I remember. There's basically no middle ground. Teenagers are like horny Sith.
You don't really grow out of it until the mid twenties.

I mean lol 9/11, governments can taint evidence in on-going events even when the scale is quite large. That is extremely different from rewriting something that happened 300 years ago and has been the subject of ceaseless study among an enormous community of scholars and philosophers and politicians ever since.

This makes it seem like you won't consider any more than two or three methods of inciting fear and gaining control in the conspiracy that I'm proposing, while there's many, many more than just 2 or 3. Bear in mind that while some of these may differ drastically, they're still able to be and are purposed to the same general goal and effect.

Also; Bush did 9/11 :p

This makes it seem like you won't consider any more than two or three methods of inciting fear and gaining control in the conspiracy that I'm proposing, while there's many, many more than just 2 or 3. Bear in mind that while some of these may differ drastically, they're still able to be and are purposed to the same general goal and effect.

This is too vague for me to understand what you're saying.


Also; Bush did 9/11 :p

We might never know what happened on 9/11 in full detail, but we know certain aspects of the official reports were falsified.

The least sinister interpretation is that the government dulled down some of the details after the fact to cover up the extremity to which national security was breached.

It's our generation's JFK assassination basically, except with far more gruesome consequences. I'll always be fascinated by it. One of the few major conspiracy theory topics that actually has some merit.

I remember. There's basically no middle ground. Teenagers are like horny Sith.
You don't really grow out of it until the mid twenties.

Yep, I hold further testament to these statements. But good to know.

---------- Post added at 01:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:37 AM ----------


This is too vague for me to understand what you're saying.

Yeah, I completely understand. It is very vague. At some point in the very near future I'll attempt to make a generally detailed (eh, can't make any promises at the moment), the while succinct explanation which brings to light more pieces of the...puzzle, and how they fit together.

Hoo...


We might never know what happened on 9/11 in full detail, but we know certain aspects of the official reports were falsified.

The least sinister interpretation is that the government dulled down some of the details after the fact to cover up the extremity to which national security was breached.

It's our generation's JFK assassination basically, except with far more gruesome consequences. I'll always be fascinated by it. One of the few major conspiracy theory topics that actually has some merit.

It would of course make perfect sense for the operation to have been entirely carried out by terrorists, but it also makes sense how the government could've been heavily involved and they've tried to cover it up. Alex Jones is a leading figure in this conspiracy and I think his theory makes perfect sense. A leading factor (not just of his, but in general) is that there was demolition placed at the base of and inside the building(s), and that the way how they went down, looked to numerous experts and other people more like it was demolitioned rather than caused by a plane crash. There's footage even of around that time where various individuals are asked about it who were very skeptical about the whole thing. They more or less believed that the twin towers were demolitioned. I personally don't see how a plane(s?) could inflict that much damage.

---------- Post added at 02:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:44 AM ----------

Speaking of Alex Jones, I thought this was hilarious (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFy61gXY2B4)

George, do you ever wonder what a bullet might do to a person when it's hit near the stomach? Well, coming from a personal experience (just to hit the right notes here), they do quite a lot to damage them to the point of death.

What I'm trying say here is that it's pretty likely that a plane hitting a building (a Twin Tower) can do a lot damage when approached a certain way. Plus, just because it "looks demolished," doesn't mean it actually was.

You can say all you want about Trump, but this 9/11 shit is rubbing me the wrong way. Just tell me the Holocaust didn't happen next.

George, do you ever wonder what a bullet might do to a person when it's hit near the stomach? Well, coming from a personal experience (just to hit the right notes here), they do quite a lot to damage them to the point of death.

What I'm trying say here is that it's pretty likely that a plane hitting a building (a Twin Tower) can do a lot damage when approached a certain way. Plus, just because it "looks demolished," doesn't mean it actually was.

Mind you, that this is still just speculation. Nothing is for fact, but if I remember correctly, (I'll have to find the video again) when the plane hit the building the way it did, and the building came down how it did, I don't know, something just didn't add up.

Just bumping in to get a few words off my chest.

I'm not one to follow politics (and frankly, I completely forgot about the elections) but the recent news and unrest around town has been a little worrying to me. I'm ashamed to admit that I know very little about the political system and climate in America at my old age, most of that I spent focusing on what I love the most: computers and video games.

Maybe I'm letting things get the better of me, but I'm hoping this blows over soon, and through my naivety I hope peace is restored. I don't want anyone to get hurt, because no one can hold a conversation better about hobbies than another human being.

Sorry for butting in.

There were US fighters present at Flight 93 when it went down. That's something I have inside knowledge of from my time working for the government. They made no effort to cover it up and the information was available to anyone who cared to look. If it happened to crash of its own accord just as the Air Force was about to blow it out of the sky, well, that's an awkward coincidence they'll never live down. Shooting it down was a reasonable thing to do under the circumstances as we know them but would have been an absolute disaster to reveal to the public. I generally think it was never formally exposed because people didn't fundamentally disagree with the decision to cover it up in the first place, at the time. Kind of surprised it didn't come out with Snowden, but maybe records had been altered by then or simply weren't available.

That's corroborated by eye witnesses, government agency statements in the early aftermath before the official story took root, the fact that there were no debris at the crash site, and even the 9/11 Report acknowledging that passengers probably didn't succeed in entering the cockpit, by the way. Were passengers actively trying to take the plane back when it was shot down? Maybe.

But we weren't told the full story, and that casts shade on the whole event.

Should it? I don't know. I think the extent to which they totally blundered that one suggests that other cover-ups would be just as obvious. Twin Towers look like they came down as claimed--the collapses originate at the impact sites. The Pentagon is more of a mystery just because we have so little visual evidence to work with and you'd have to be a flight expert to understand the rest of the data. But the fact that 93 was very likely shot down will always leave me morbidly curious about the rest.

George, it kinda saddens me, because I think you're a cool young man, that you're so indocrinated in your beliefs. You can deny it all you want, but it's so obvious how what you believe is what the people around you believe and taught you to. You are kind of the typical super conservative christian that doesn't allow the United States of America to grow. You're the typical religious person who thinks, that just because a country wants to not be based in religion, to treat everyone equal, you think there's a complex conspiracy to take down Christianity. Seriously, no. Just no. Just because we want to give gay people rights does not mean at all that we want to end Christianity, or anything similar to that, really. I'm sorry but I cannot stand the victimism christians like that. I do hope, like people have said here, that when you're older you seriously grow out of it. I'm not saying you stop believing in Jesus but it'd be nice if you grew out of that super conspiracy nut and super religious conservative thoughts and beliefs that you have.

I will wait and see if clonemaster wants to post his detailed evidence. If not, I still think this conversation has been productive.

George, it kinda saddens me, because I think you're a cool young man, that you're so indocrinated in your beliefs. You can deny it all you want, but it's so obvious how what you believe is what the people around you believe and taught you to. You are kind of the typical super conservative christian that doesn't allow the United States of America to grow. You're the typical religious person who thinks, that just because a country wants to not be based in religion, to treat everyone equal, you think there's a complex conspiracy to take down Christianity. Seriously, no. Just no. Just because we want to give gay people rights does not mean at all that we want to end Christianity, or anything similar to that, really. I'm sorry but I cannot stand the victimism christians like that. I do hope, like people have said here, that when you're older you seriously grow out of it. I'm not saying you stop believing in Jesus but it'd be nice if you grew out of that super conspiracy nut and super religious conservative thoughts and beliefs that you have.

If I've ever seen a person be such a literal personification of every stereotype that makes a Conservative to the point of outright confusion in the person's existence, it would George.

It's almost like a music heavy Conservative made a robot to be his son in order to not be alone after the rest of his down to earth family left him over how obsessed he became.

The chimp has a valid excuse…

Well I got Trump trolled.

Apparently the kid who shot up the mosque in Quebec was a white nationalist Trump supporter.

I'd not really paid attention to the story and Sean Spicer described it as a Muslim terrorist attack in one of his press conferences, so I just took it for granted that was true.

Need to be more vigilante about alternative facts.

In fairness to Spicer, it initially was actually thought to be a Muslim attack by many news outlets.
Then when more details were made available, the story changed.
Which is why I don't really pay attention to the details of these types of stories until two or three days after the event, when people can be more certain of things.

dp

So this is where all those posts from 'last image you lol'd at' went.
XD

Also: Trump did get into the record books by being one of the fastest presidents EVER to get a below 50% approval rating.
GG.

Are you kidding me?

Since when hasn't the press and the gov't run with "Muslim Terrorists!!!" first, regardless of whether it's true? I mean, for goodness sakes, a rep from the Canadian government had to place a complaint with FOX to have them take down a tweet that they were still running identifying the shooter as a Muslim a day after the fact.

Why would anyone except gullible fools believe anything Spicer has to say to begin with? He's paid to pitch propaganda.

In fairness to Spicer, it initially was actually thought to be a Muslim attack by many news outlets.
Then when more details were made available, the story changed.
Which is why I don't really pay attention to the details of these types of stories until two or three days after the event, when people can be more certain of things.

The actual culprit turned himself in immediately after the crime. When police arrived, an immigrant fearing that the gunman had returned ran from the scene. He was briefly detained and released once they sorted things out. Unofficial sources (correctly) reported that one of the two individuals detained was a Moroccan immigrant. Trudeau contacted the White House and encouraged them to not make assumptions based upon this report but rather wait for an official statement. The White House declined and publicly stated that the Quebec City attack was another example of why the President's travel ban was justified.

Can media be excused for reporting that one of the detainees was from Morocco? Of course. Can they be excused for blowing this up into a Muslim terrorist attack without any confirmation from the Canadian government? We're used to it at this point in America, but it demonstrates a complete lack of journalistic integrity. Can the President be excused for taking this and further blowing it up into justification for his foreign policy? Holy fuck no.

The Moroccan immigrant was the one who called 911.

In fairness to Spicer, it initially was actually thought to be a Muslim attack by many news outlets.
Then when more details were made available, the story changed.
Which is why I don't really pay attention to the details of these types of stories until two or three days after the event, when people can be more certain of things.

I don't even believe he deserves that qualifier. Think about it this way: if the initial report had been that it was a conservative white male who was a Trump supporter, who wants to bet Spicer would have said "we are waiting until the initial reports are confirmed" or whatever. He jumped on that because it fit his narrative. If it didn't he'd have been doing everything he could to divert attention away from it.

"Fairness"? Toward a stooge who openly lied to the press and public? Get outa here.

"Fairness"? Toward a stooge who openly lied to the press and public? Get outa here.

But that's like, everyday politics.

Spicer is a press secretary, not a politician.

kill all muslims.
cruzade them up the ass back to their sand dunes.

Thanks for that insightful contribution, kooshy.

of course its insightful, its an honest comment. says a lot more than the politically correct cancer that ravages people like a plague.
if i were given a death note, the world would have been a better place by now.
hell, you tell me theres a bomb that can make arabia into the arab sea just by pressing a button, which guarantees the complete destruction of every single terrorist, but also a great loss of "innocent" muslim life, then ill press it before they finish telling me what it does.

because i have -100% compassino for these terrorists and their collaborators. whichs is every muslim as the qouran states is perfectly fine AND encouraged to lie to non muslims about things. so by definition, every muslim is a terrorist sympathizer. and for tthat THEY MUST DIE.

and theres also that whole "fuck as many 9 year olds as you please, and then enslave them" bit in that book too.
awesome in fiction, soul crushingly horrifying in real life.

ROKUSHO is an example of why pedos need to be sentenced for more than 10 years.

under my rule that makes stalin and our fuhrer look like the pope, pedophiles are sentenced to death by alligator.
i also have no appreciation for pedos. fuck pedos.

I don't think I've ever interacted with a person composed entirely of hate before.
Fascinating.


Although, a little does go a long way.

Double post.

It's what happens when you spend ten years in the state as bunk bitch to a Samoan known only as Sweet 'n' Low.

Good news is he hasn't pulled a Pee-wee Herman in months.

I don't think I've ever interacted with a person composed entirely of hate before.
Fascinating.


Although, a little does go a long way.

I think that Kooshy just wants us to believe he is full of hate. It is how he compensates for something. We may never truly know what that is.

But when I imagine it, I see -- or perhaps see is not the right word, for it's only the lack of something that's perceptible -- I perceive a void, roiling in and out of reality, buried deep in his gut. Not in his heart, shriveled and barricaded though that may be. It's in that place that seems to exist inside us but that the coroner never notices when he cuts our corpses, that the physician never senses when she examines our insides, but that we know is there. It's the place that flutters when we yearn and sinks when we lose.

There, in that place, something in our feisty little Kooshington Bear is metaphysically missing. He doesn't want us to know, so he hides it with what he perceives to be the opposite of vulnerability.

Will he ever be whole? That is a question only the Kooshmeister himself can answer. But in the meantime, he will post a bunch of tryhard shit for attention.

Or to sum up: He was born with a heart two sizes too small.

or maybe this is the internet and im unwinding?
i dont hate muslims, i just dont feel anything for them. if they all die i wont shed a tear, nor am i gonna throw a party, im just gonna say "oh, they died". if im offered the bomb and press the button, it will be with the most poker face anyone has ever seen.

pedos on the other hand, yeah, i hate them.

or maybe this is the internet and im unwinding?
i dont hate muslims, i just dont feel anything for them. if they all die i wont shed a tear, nor am i gonna throw a party, im just gonna say "oh, they died". if im offered the bomb and press the button, it will be with the most poker face anyone has ever seen.
Yes. That's called being a sociopath, and it is a prime attribute of hitmen and serial killers.
So, I don't find this an improvement.

And if this how you react when you 'unwind' you have some very deep anger issues that deserve professional attention. This is not an insult, it is a suggestion on how not to end up dead or in prison.

Still troll(?) profile.

Ya gotta learn to use the religion against itself.

Can't tell ya how many times I've heard some religious person go 'hate the sin, not the sinner' and expect me to give them a damn cookie because they're so 'tolerant'.

But, these same assholes, then get PISSED at me when I go 'hate the religion, not the religious'.


IDK MBFF J

Yes. That's called being a sociopath, and it is a prime attribute of hitmen and serial killers.
So, I don't find this an improvement.



ive been waiting so long for this:




also, unwind was probably not the word i should have used. more like "saying stuff i feel on the internet with my poker face because it means nothing to me but people will almost certainly think im spewing fire and brimstone when im just expressionlessly eating oreos as i typed that".


now, i have to wait for a comission to finish rendering. re7 isnt gonna buy itself.

Now, may I address my point that the United States was indeed founded upon Christian and / or Biblical precepts, concepts, or principles, and / or it's relation to the foundation and institution of the United States of America...

Many, many, many more than numerous passages and quotes from the Congressional Record are consistent with the point I've been trying to affirm; and if this doesn't affirm the point, then I don't know what the hell will, so please, bear with me.

The following are 6 pages which are related to this subject; from the Congressional Record—House of Representatives; Vol. 147, No. 140; October 17, 2001 (https://www.congress.gov/crec/2001/10/17/CREC-2001-10-17.pdf); b 1500: What Made America Great







PDF of this respective section of the document; https://www.congress.gov/crec/2001/10/17/CREC-2001-10-17-pt1-PgH7120-3.pdf
Some noteworthy quotes, all found on page H7123 ();

Do you know that 67 percent of Americans today believe that the phrase ‘‘separation of church and state’’ is part of the Constitution? Remember, the words ‘‘separation, church and state’’ do not ever appear in the first amendment and appear nowhere together anywhere in the Constitution. Here is the truth: our Founding Fathers had every intention of establishing a distinctly Christian Nation. They had every intent of also giving freedom to Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, or Hinduism. Their intent was to establish a distinctly Christian Nation, but one where no one Christian denomination ruled over the other denominations, as had been the case in so much of Europe. They wanted to honor the fact that under God, all men are created equal in value and rights.


In a landmark decision rendered February 29, 1892, against the claim of the cult called the Church of the Holy Spirit that Christianity was not the faith of the people, the Supreme Court did two powerful things in its ruling. First, Justice Josiah Brewer stated,

‘‘Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that they should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian. No purpose of action against our religion can be imputed to any legislation, State or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to this present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.’’


Based on this report, in May of 1854, in joint session of Congress, this resolution was passed. This is a resolution passed by the Congress, and I quote:

‘‘The great vital and conserving element in our system of government is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.’’

That was this Congress in May of1854.
And the following 7 pages which are also very well related to this subject; from the Congressional Record—House of Representatives; Vol. 155, No. 191; December 16, 2009 (https://www.congress.gov/crec/2009/12/16/CREC-2009-12-16.pdf): The Religious Heritage of the United States








PDF of this respective section of the document; https://www.congress.gov/crec/2009/12/16/CREC-2009-12-16-pt1-PgH15487-2.pdf
Some noteworthy quotes. both found on page H15488 ();
Now, the great thing about our Constitution, it does allow for freedom of religion and a freedom not to worship at all. That is because they’re based on the teachings of Christ and his willingness to allow all men to make their own decisions for themselves, knowing, as he did, that one day, all people will meet their maker.


Ben Franklin goes on and says: ‘‘I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that, ‘except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we, ourselves, shall become a reproach and a byword down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.
And some more, all found on page H15489 ();
On April 25, 1799, Jedidiah Morse said: ‘‘Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.’’

James Madison, the fourth President, March 4, 1815, in his Thanksgiving Day proclamation said: ‘‘No people ought to feel greater obligations to celebrate the goodness of the Great Disposer of events and of the destiny of nations than the people of the United States. His kind providence originally conducted them to one of the best portions of the dwelling place allotted for the great family of the human race. He protected and cherished them under all the difficulties and trials to which they were exposed in their early days. Under His fostering care, their habits, their sentiments, and their pursuits prepared them for a transition in due time to a state of independence and self-government.’’


And John Quincy Adams in 1821 on July 4 said, ‘‘The highest glory of the American Revolution was this, it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of the civil government with the principles of Christianity, wherefrom the day of the Declaration they, the American people, were bound by the laws of God which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct.’’

Noah Webster, 1833, said: ‘‘The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from, vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.’’
So, in conclusion, what does this tell you? The point I've been attempting to affirm? Most definitely yes.
We don't say "One Nation, Under God" in our pledge of allegiance, and don't state "In God We Trust" for nothing, you know. The United States of America is indeed a Christian nation, and was founded upon such principles. That is the fact of the matter.

---------- Post added at 04:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:12 AM ----------


George, it kinda saddens me, because I think you're a cool young man, that you're so indocrinated in your beliefs. You can deny it all you want, but it's so obvious how what you believe is what the people around you believe and taught you to. You are kind of the typical super conservative christian that doesn't allow the United States of America to grow. You're the typical religious person who thinks, that just because a country wants to not be based in religion, to treat everyone equal, you think there's a complex conspiracy to take down Christianity. Seriously, no. Just no. Just because we want to give gay people rights does not mean at all that we want to end Christianity, or anything similar to that, really. I'm sorry but I cannot stand the victimism christians like that. I do hope, like people have said here, that when you're older you seriously grow out of it. I'm not saying you stop believing in Jesus but it'd be nice if you grew out of that super conspiracy nut and super religious conservative thoughts and beliefs that you have.

Ponyo, this is simply something that you just don't *grow out of*.

First off, conspiracy rant incoming
....No, especially not from what I've seen come together - what of this...thing; this prism; this conspiracy. It's insane! It's lunacy! But most sadly and regrettably, it's true. And it's because we as the American people paid no attention over the years and let government involve themselves where they've no absolute constitutional right, or otherwise.

The highest authorities - of which we know no names of (though George Soros and John D. Rockefeller are (were) quite possible participants), for the most part, intend for us and our government to become globalist, and socialistic; they have crafted and devised an elaborate strategic outline of an ultimate and collective goal of governmental power, control, politicizing of certain things that have no business being politicized, or in other words; governmental involvement where they do not belong; excess of and too many regulations or government-funded institutions, and overall deprivation of freedom, independence, liberty; pretty much everything the United States stands for, and one of it's big dependencies or bases of operation is simply money; billions are made off of what they're involved in, or as well as the sort of exchanges, deals or agreements that are made between points of function within the government, etc, it goes on and on. The entire reason how this is possible is simply because there is evil; a lot of these individuals are evil, and it's an evil means of control which is basically against the constitution; the founding documents; our republic and how it was originally meant in general. These people would rather disregard - or even destroy these documents; which are vital to our founding and being as a country. Fuck no.

Absolutely not. This will not happen under a Donald Trump presidency, and under God. Enough of us are not going to let it happen. Whatever Trump sees as necessary, that which is also square within his constitutional authority and power, will be done, carried out, or executed; regardless of if the majority of the Democratic idiots who won't keep their traps shut claim that what the president means to do so is unconstitutional, unlawful, or immoral; really, whether they like it or not, it will be done, whatever is necessary to stop this secretive drive, is going to be carried out by the president. That's the way and is, and that's why the liberals and democrats are putting up such a fuss.

And individuals such as; Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Andrew Breitbart, Mark Steyn, Alex Jones, Janet Parshall, James O'Keefe, etc among others have invested a majority of their timing researching and finding out of this information; they tell the truth to the best of their ability, wherever possible; they always have, and always will, and they are some prime sources to be properly informed of actual events and happenings, or anything else concerning politics in the now. Say that they're biased, slanted, if you will, but this is not the case. They're well supportive of Donald Trump (a few, like Hannity, even personally know him) for very good and completely legitimate reasons. In fact, take the occasion to listen to their program(s) a minimal of 7 times before going straight off to say they're slanted just because they support Trump's cause. It isn't fucking detrimental propaganda like it's insisted as so often around here. If what most of what they say of Donald Trump is good, it's because he's a damn good president, and he's doing good (make that great) things - because they tell the truth of what happens. It's as simple as not lying to be compensated for supporting a really flawed cause and narrative.

It's entirely your choice as to whether any of you at all believe any of this, at all, but it in fact is the truth, and should you continue to not think so, it is most likely because of the majority of evidence purposed to discredit and disprove our evidence, which is purposed only to expose the shit that the other side is doing and for the truth to be known, and is consistently put to the most broad circulation of general information through fabricated evidence and research to make it seem like ours is the fake evidence, and theirs is the true evidence, and to keep what they're doing a secret from every individual by any means they can. It's simply deflecting all of our attempts to expose their wrongdoings back to the other direction; that's why and how it 'goes both ways'. This will of course make for a convincing opposition to this whole cliched idea of a government conspiracy, which is why most of you don't believe a word of it, and might think I'm crazy or something - and that's exactly why those devious little bastards have done what they've done.
Of course, what I believe is because of what I've been taught; I think that's the case with most people, and yet there is always time of where one will begin to question their beliefs and want to be more independent, at which point you really decide for yourself what you want to believe.

Obviously, and regardless of this, I've still held my stance in the (certain) type of Christianity and conservatism; seeming to me as for me to wholly identify as a conservative, there would be a necessary fusion between Traditionalist, Christian, Limited government, and Libertarian conservatism. - there is absolutely nothing wrong with this; one of the very defining concepts of conservatism is limited form of government, something that The Declaration of Independence very clearly affirmed; others are such as; liberty, freedom, equality, independence, etc; which Republicanism is overall consisting of (conservatism and classical liberalism are essentially of and within Republicanism; the guiding political philosophy of the United States). Other key concepts are; small or limited (by law) government, low(er) taxes, a limit to regulation(s); as well as a limit to where the government is allowed involvement in; that includes government (funded) institutions, free enterprise (capitalism), among others I'd have to look more into for to be mentioned.

Almost of all of these are affirmed by the "founding documents', and are essentially in danger, jeopardy, under violation, general opposition, by and of the overall [social; not classical] liberal progressivism insistently proposed by the current Democratic party; Because democracy is guilty of the flawed 'Tyranny of the majority' aspect, this unstable form or system of government will therefore only inevitably end up as an oligarchy; with despotism and tyranny (in some ways, it already has), and technically should not even be allowed to exist as a political party. Yes, I am aware that our Republic is derived from a Democracy, but the distinct difference here is that the rights of the government aren't subject to majority rule, and is instead limited by law as to what they are allowed to do and exactly how much involvement they have in those doings. This is the essence of a republic. ("The essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government")

There is as well absolutely no mention whatsoever of the word 'democracy' in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or any other documents along these lines. (like any of the 50 state's constitutions) The founding fathers took as example the past eventual failures of all other forms of government, and did everything they could to keep us the United States from having a democracy; which is found to be incompatible with everything which our three documents clearly detail, constitute, describe, and stand for. The United States is (supposed to be) a republican government; "Real liberty is never found in despotism or the extremes of a democracy".

So, essentially, conservatism is within entire conformity to what the United States as a nation was originally intended to be, and is still supposed to be, as well as the three founding documents; the Constitution (that which describes the way the government is structured and how it operates); Declaration of Independence (that which declares us free and independent and announces the creation of a new country - the US); Bill of Rights (that which spells out American's rights in relation to the government; like civil rights, liberties; freedom of speech, press, and religion).

On these grounds (literally), there's absolutely nothing wrong with my being a 'super conservative', (I think the correct term would be 'radical' instead of 'super' :p) but I've described the somewhat confusing criteria.

The United States' connection and relation to Christianity, and it's importance, I addressed in the above post.

Yes, Clonemaster, I too, can search specifically for things that just pander to my belief, and make it look like the total truth.

If I've ever seen a person be such a literal personification of every stereotype that makes a Conservative to the point of outright confusion in the person's existence, it would George.

It's almost like a music heavy Conservative made a robot to be his son in order to not be alone after the rest of his down to earth family left him over how obsessed he became.

:laugh:

---------- Post added at 04:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:15 AM ----------


Yes, Clonemaster, I too, can search specifically for things that just pander to my belief, and make it look like the total truth.

:tommydissapproves:

Man, all you did was the same thing as the first time. I don't know how to explain any more clearly that a handful of isolated quotes from framers about how significant they think God's influence in history is does not prove that the constitution was based on the Bible, or that they meant for the country to be governed by religious principles.

You're right, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the constitution. But there's a reason why people associate it with the constitution, and if the game you want to play is throwing around quotations, let's talk about where it does come from. It's from Jefferson, in reference to the first amendment, saying, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

I am not going to go through each of the quotations you posted because frankly I just don't have the patience for it, but let's focus on the Ben Franklin one because I think it's a perfect example of the illogic of all this.

��I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth�that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that, �except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.� I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we, ourselves, shall become a reproach and a byword down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest."

Emphasis is mine. Now, what is Franklin saying here? It's very clear that he's saying he believes in their own efforts to come up with a government themselves, they had the aid of God. Just as, in so many stories of the Bible, those who express faith in God are protected. Shadrack and his boys walked through fire unharmed, Samson was given the strength to topple a temple, the Israelites could succeed in battle against superior forces. Countless examples. Franklin is invoking these kinds of successes, and also the failures of those who tried to succeed without faith in God like the builders of the tower of Babel. In other words, he's saying that he believes God's providence allowed for the creation of the United States, and their success against Britain.

All a powerful statement of personal faith. Not in any way an indication that the principles of the constitution came from the Bible. In fact, this quote actually seems to contradict that notion directly. He says that he believes without the aid of God's providence, they would fail in their endeavor of establishing government by human wisdom. Seems fairly clear the Bible would not fall under "human wisdom" to a believer, correct? If they were getting the principles of the government from the Bible why would he express it that way?

But it's extremely obvious to anyone who has objectively studied the history of these things why he phrases it that way - because the continental congress debated tirelessly, drawing principles from reason and the most modern philosophy of the day, what would be the most just and resilient form of government they could devise. They did not pore through the Bible and find it there. Its complexity and its imperfections are sure signs that it was designed by the limited thinking of human beings, intelligent and determined though they may have been. And Franklin himself says so right in the quotation you're trying to use to prove otherwise.

All I can say beyond this is I hope you'll remember the example of the inauguration crowd. There is a point buried in that exchange which runs much deeper than just an argument about numbers. There is a reason I harped so much about perspective and the way the appearance of truth can shift when you change it. I cannot overstate the importance of trying different perspectives and, so to speak, "zooming out."

Someday I hope you get the chance to explore the world on your own terms and not those handed to you by ideological warriors like Hannity.

�\_(ツ)_/�

You're Your time to waste, I suppose.

�\_(ツ)_/�

You're time to waste, I suppose.

I am not! >:O

Tell that to the brick wall.

I meant it as a joke about you're misspelling.

I should have gone with "what did you call me" instead.

Goddam dB. I thought I corrected that.

Receive an unprecedented level of letters, phone calls, emails, and regional office visits complaining about Betsy DeVos.

Spend a weekend at a spa resort with the Koch brothers.

Release a statement that Betsy DeVos is overwhelmingly qualified and the best possible choice for Secretary of Education.

Way to drain the swamp Republicans.

It's quite frustrating, too, because two Republican senators have actually broken with the rest and said they will not vote for her. Assuming all the democrats do the same, we would only need 1 more Republican to suddenly sprout a conscience.

We've been spamming the hell out of Toomey's office here in PA but I'm quite confident he's not going to come around. I'm crossing my fingers, but expecting the worst.

Yeah, we were at his local office Tuesday. His own representative was pretty openly frustrated because he agreed with us and knew our complaints wouldn't accomplish shit.

---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------

He said they gave up on emails and phone calls because they're coming in faster than they can be processed, but letters still sometimes get read.

I just finally got a reply to an email I sent him, but it was just a canned response.

I didn't know you were in PA! Do you go to Tuesdays With Toomey in Philly?

Cambria county at the moment so the kids can be around family. Looking forward to moving back to Pittsburgh as soon as humanly possible. Living in Trump country makes me an angry and vindictive person. <_<

---------- Post added at 01:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:26 PM ----------

But yeah, we did the Toomey Tuesday thing this week and will be making it a weekly routine.

I'd never done anything political before in my life. Trump's at least succeeded in dragging a lot of liberals off of their couches.

The only rally I'd ever attended prior to Trump's presidency was the Stuart & Colbert one.

Now I've marched in the street three times in the space of just last week.

It's definitely changing a lot.

Trump's at least succeeded in dragging a lot of liberals off of their couches.

Or just plain ole anti-fascists.

Well, yes, I suppose we've gone off the deep end a bit when I find myself using "liberal" and "doesn't want World War 3" interchangeably.

Still don't really get why Christians like this guy, but hey it's your religion.

Just remember, the ahistorical Jesus was a huckster in his own time too. The history is a little murky on the question if the Hun's were underwriting his three man act, though.

Just remember, the ahistorical Jesus was a huckster in his own time too.

Okay, I'll bite. What are you referring to?

That snake oil salesmen have always marketed their goods based on received truth, not fact based truth.

Sure, but going by all sources we have on the historical jesus, he didn't sell anything, so I'm confused as to what you mean about him specifically.

Still don't really get why Christians like this guy, but hey it's your religion.

I'm a Christian. It's completely nonsensical that a Christian would support Trump, in my opinion. But yes, there are Christians who do.

Not just that "there are Christians" who do. Protestant, Catholic, Evangelical, and Mormon demographics all voted much more heavily in favor of Trump than Clinton (in the Evangelical case the Clinton voters are almost nonexistent).

Not just that "there are Christians" who do. Protestant, Catholic, Evangelical, and Mormon demographics all voted much more heavily in favor of Trump than Clinton (in the Evangelical case the Clinton voters are almost nonexistent).
You do realize that "Protestant, Catholic, Evangelical, and Mormon" are all Christians...or at least fall under 'Christianity'...right?
O_o

Unless you're like my grandmother who thinks Catholics aren't 'real' Christians, but rather 'pagans who like Jesus the most'.
-Bible Belt Southern Baptist, ya'll...I'll never understand their 'reasoning'.
:P


I also finding it rather...troubling...that groups who CLAIM to be for 'traditional marriage' would vote for a guy who has cheated on all his wives, or at least 2 of 3, while talking about his willingness to bang his daughter.

Maybe I was unclear. My point is that saying "there are Christians" implies they're a minority when in fact the majority of Christians voted for him.

---------- Post added at 10:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 PM ----------



while talking about his willingness to bang his daughter.

Not entirely fair, he never said that. The comment was creepy and awkward but he didn't say "I would totally fuck Ivanka."

I read it as separate from 'real CHRISTIANS' verses, you know...those 'other' sects.

I've seen that a LOT in my life.

Different sects think they're the one 'true way' and everyone else is just playing at it.

Like a hot wheel verses a real car.

Unless you're like my grandmother who thinks Catholics are 'real' Christians, but rather 'pagans who like Jesus the most'.
-Bible Belt Southern Baptist, ya'll...I'll never understand their 'reasoning'.
:P

Didn't know the Bible Belt was that progressive. You can still hear that in pockets of rural PA today. I wasn't allowed to play with my next door neighbor growing up because he was Catholic and I'm only 32. <_<

Didn't know the Bible Belt was that progressive. You can still hear that in pockets of rural PA today. I wasn't allowed to play with my next door neighbor growing up because he was Catholic and I'm only 32. <_<
I fucked up the words. AreN'T, not are.

STORY TIME!

She's about as 'progressive' as someone who tried to run out 'those mexicans with too many cars' who tried to move near her.
-Lady waged a war of 'keep it old, keep it white' in her street for YEARS.

Her side of the family is FILLED with the very 'why did you betray us dating outside of our race...god placed each color separate for a reason', 'evolution is evil', 'atheist eat babies', 'god hates figs'...type of xtians.
-While, at the same time, being part Native-American (which doesn't count, because...reasons?).

My other family side is about the same, but less 'betrayal at dating outside race' and more 'well, as long as you don't breed with one of the mud races it's okay', while claiming homosexuals are the only people who rape children...


It's one of the reasons I have little to do with either side.
That level of bigotry just doesn't sit with me very well.
'God is love' with a GIANT fucking attached attached to it.


My grandmother really had no choice but to learn a bit of 'tolerance' for the Catholics.
My birth mother's family is almost all Southern Baptist/Evangelical.
My father's family is almost all ROMAN Catholic.


I was baptized three times because of their bullshit.

Once before my first birthday by the Baptists.
Another around 2.5 years of age by the Catholics.
And then ANOTHER time, around 3 years of age, by the grandmother, after my parents got divorced.
-She thought my soul needed to be purified because of her daughter's sins and 'ya know, those Catholic ones don't really count'.

She almost vomited when I came out as a bisexual atheist.
My grandfather asked me to leave his house, he was actually pretty liberal and tolerant, till she 'got over it'.
:lol:

:SMH:

Didn't notice the typo, I was just thinking "well at least it was his grandmother and not his mother". :P

---------- Post added at 01:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 AM ----------

By the way, Toomey's voicemail box in DC is taking calls again.

---------- Post added at 01:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:34 AM ----------

The travel ban situation seems to be legal chaos at the moment. Apparently Trump issued a secret second order calling for the destruction of all visa records irt these countries, so when the judge ordered them to be reinstated they said "sorry, we don't have them anymore"? News agencies are struggling to get a straight story out of this.

---------- Post added at 01:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 AM ----------

And that was illegal because they were evidence in the on-going lawsuits that were filed the day that the original executive order came down?

---------- Post added at 01:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:38 AM ----------

Different news reporting different stories. The whole thing is a mess.

By the way, Toomey's voicemail box in DC is taking calls again.

I will try again tomorrow then. It will only be a ceremonial effort though - it's clear enough that his mind is made up at this point. I just don't want his answering service to have a moment's peace.

Here's a perfect example why people say they believe Trump is authoritarian. His reaction (on Twitter, of course) to the federal judge who suspended his Muslim ban:

"The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!"

"When a country is no longer able to say who can, and who cannot , come in & out, especially for reasons of safety & security - big trouble!"


The judge is "so-called." Apparently Mr. Trump does not think the rule of law is important, unless it is coming from him directly. If he's not being allowed to do what he wants to do, it "takes law-enforcement away from our country" -- i.e., his law is the only legitimate law.

I should be used to it by now but I will never in a million years understand how anyone can feel anything but embarrassment at having this guy in the white house.

You can thank, in part, the nostalgia, rose-colored glasses-bring-back-the-good-old-days-let's-make-America-white-again low information voters. These are the folks who think Mad Men was a documentary, not fiction.

They want to return to a world where white guys were in charge, women stayed at home and Blacks, Latinos and Asians did the nasty jobs that good white folk wouldn't dirty their hands with.

BTW, it's a Modern Family world, not a Mad Men one.

Others have opined that Bannon et al are testing the waters to see what they can get away with vis a vis the courts; recall the DHS officers at Dulles, acting like Praetorian Guards, refusing to comply with the first court order and deny lawyers access to detainees, which is open contempt for the law of the land.

Ironic Trump complained about Pres. Obama's Executive Orders and yet that's all Trump's issued.

Trump's going to give Wall Street a tax cut and gut Dodd Frank and let them play casino again with the nation's money. Has everyone forgotten how we got into the Great Recession?

And here's how Trump has impaled the little guy:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/20/real_estate/trump-suspends-fha-premium-rate-cut/

Short version: struggling homeowners will pay higher mortgage costs.

This is why it's so important to delay the Supreme Court nomination as long as possible. There is grey area right now surrounding the right of the judiciary to challenge orders which state "national security" as their motive. If the supreme court rules that no order using this verbiage can be challenged, the judicial branch of our government relinquishes its authority to act as a check and balance to the president. He can literally begin all orders with "As a matter of national security" and rule with absolute authority as a dictator.

Presumably he chose his supreme court nomination for the purpose of seeing to it this is achieved.

---------- Post added at 12:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:10 PM ----------

And that's just the doomsday outcome. They could simply vow to rule in favor of the President at all times and it would have the same effect, it would just be an under the table sort of agreement that they could revoke in the future. That's more likely and nearly as dangerous.

---------- Post added at 12:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 PM ----------

The main difference being that lower courts could at least continue to temporarily freeze the President's orders and force him to slow down his policy rollout.

The travel ban situation seems to be legal chaos at the moment. Apparently Trump issued a secret second order calling for the destruction of all visa records irt these countries, so when the judge ordered them to be reinstated they said "sorry, we don't have them anymore"? News agencies are struggling to get a straight story out of this.
I have not seen this anywhere remotely credible. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but I would need specific sources.
And yes, this would be a problem for the administration because it would be destroying evidence in an ongoing investigation.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan

This is why it's so important to delay the Supreme Court nomination as long as possible. There is grey area right now surrounding the right of the judiciary to challenge orders which state "national security" as their motive. If the supreme court rules that no order using this verbiage can be challenged, the judicial branch of our government relinquishes its authority to act as a check and balance to the president. He can literally begin all orders with "As a matter of national security" and rule with absolute authority as a dictator.

Presumably he chose his supreme court nomination for the purpose of seeing to it this is achieved.

[/COLOR]And that's just the doomsday outcome. They could simply vow to rule in favor of the President at all times and it would have the same effect, it would just be an under the table sort of agreement that they could revoke in the future. That's more likely and nearly as dangerous.[
Even this is a Doomsday scenario and quite unlikely. There is this impression that judges are just puppets of the administration that appoints them. They aren't. While being of a similar (but not necessarily the same) ideological bent as the president appointing them, they are, if remotely competent (and generally they are, even if you don't agree with them,) obligated to follow the rule of law before anything else. For example, the judge who overturned the ban on a national level was a conservative W appointee. The ban is so problematic from a legal standpoint (involving issues of due process and not being able to provide any proof that it would actually do anything useful,) that I doubt even most of the conservative judges on the Supreme Court would back him. I don't even know if the guy he's trying to appoint now would.

Left or right, the one thing judges really hate are plaintiffs that don't respect the process. Don't expect Trump to win very many court rulings, especially if he keeps being the dick he's been so far.

i read somewhere that the judge, just before being sworn, was told by a senator that her job would include "learning to say no to the president".

apparently the fine line said "but you must not do it, or face the consequences"

I have not seen this anywhere remotely credible. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but I would need specific sources.
And yes, this would be a problem for the administration because it would be destroying evidence in an ongoing investigation.

Yeah, they'd sorted it out by this morning. Basically no one went in and pressed shift+delete on all of the electronic records or anything like that. Most people should be good to go. The ones who had their visas physically revoked at airports etc while the ban was in effect have to reapply and that was inaccurately reported to impact all 100,000 revoked visas. Whether the process for those who have to reapply is from the ground up or just a matter of shuffling some additional paperwork, I don't know, but tl;dr: media overreacted.

As far as the courts are concerned, you've got a huge chunk of Congress selling their votes to the highest doner. It would be nice to believe that the Supreme Court takes its job more seriously, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking Trump would appoint anyone he can't purchase. It's really a matter of whether the rest of the Supreme Court can be bought. I'm not sure that the integrity of lower courts really matters if that can be achieved?

Pah, Religion, what a quaint Concept... :laugh:

Buying a Supreme Court Justice is not as easy as it sounds. The only one I've ever heard credible reports of being on the take was Thomas. There are a lot of mechanisms in place to keep this from happening.
There was an analysis I heard a while back (vague, I agree,) but the gist of it was that even crooked politicians aren't consistently crooked. If they were, they wouldn't be able to charge top dollar for their influence.
Bork couldn't get past a Republican Senate. Neither did Bush succeed in getting his personal attorney. (I forget her name.) Candidates need to be credible.


PS, that same standard of destroying evidence also applies to confiscated visas. They'd have to return them.

@TK Toomey's facebook (https://www.facebook.com/senatortoomey/) dropped a post where he complained about people from outside of PA sending countless letters and calls. It's been about 4 hours and already 11,000 people have responded with a PA zipcode and "no to DeVos". Worth hopping on the bandwagon whether Toomey cares or not, I think.

Hard to cover up tens of thousands of identifiable PA residents telling you you're wrong in a matter of a few hours.

As one of my FB friends pointed out on that post, DeVos contributed 60k to his campaign fund, and is from Michigan. He apparently didn't mind hearing from her.

"Trump supporter evacuated from Oroville dam: 'I feel like a refugee'" (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/14/trump-supporter-evacuated-oroville-dam-sikh-temple-shelter)

“The Muslim faith itself teaches peace..."

Bullshit. That's exactly the issue. You can go to the Quran and clearly see how that's not the case. Why? Because I'm pretty sure the 'Muslim faith' teaches chaos to the extent that you are to convert anybody who is not Muslim, and if they resist, you are supposed to kill them. That is the issue. It isn't a peaceful religion.

There's absolutely nothing wrong, or 'unconstitutional' about the travel ban. It's solely purported to our country's safety, and sovereignty. And it's been amazing the past couple weeks as I've seen so many (of the left) so strongly affirm that it is when it simply is not. And at that, it's only temporary anyway. It is not permanent.

You never cease to impress me in your missing the point of things.

Speaking of travel bans, how do you react to them putting the "temporary" ban on hold. Sounds like your president doesn't have all the power now, does he?

---------- Post added at 09:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 PM ----------

I do agree with the point though that the ban should've been in all countries. Terrorists and other dangerous people exist outside of the chosen territories, ya know.

You never cease to impress me in your missing the point of things.

That wasn't the point. I was focusing on another.

---------- Post added at 11:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 PM ----------


Speaking of travel bans, how do you react to them putting the "temporary" ban on hold. Sounds like your president doesn't have all the power now, does he?

How do I react? Well, the left is literally freaking out and doing everything they can to delay any of Trump's actions or executive orders. Like having a judge do something he's no legal right to; rejecting an executive order - that was entirely constitutional. It's pathetic. They're acting like he's unhinged and out of control.

He does have all the power (that's of a president), but it pretty easily seems like he doesn't often enough.

“The Muslim faith itself teaches peace..."

Bullshit. That's exactly the issue. You can go to the Quran and clearly see how that's not the case. Why? Because I'm pretty sure the 'Muslim faith' teaches chaos to the extent that you are to convert anybody who is not Muslim, and if they resist, you are supposed to kill them. That is the issue. It isn't a peaceful religion.

Wow

FUCKING WOW

Whoever feed you this bullshit is fucked in the head. I've seen many peaceful Muslims that still are very heavy to their beliefs. Hell, I've seen people of my religion be more sadistic and extreme than that of Muslims. But you don't see those cases because "Christianity is the religion of the nation, you see. How could there possibly be any issue?. Well, every religion has their problems, but don't act like Muslims are a special case of it.

You're really starting to lose me, pal. I'd be scared as hell if you do things purely because it's "Trump Approved."

Fucking hell...

I do agree with the point though that the ban should've been in all countries. Terrorists and other dangerous people exist outside of the chosen territories, ya know.

Yeah, there were other countries that were just as susceptible as the ones detailed in the order that should've been counted.

How do I react? Well, the left is literally freaking out and doing everything they can to delay any of Trump's actions or executive orders. Like having a judge do something he's no legal right to; rejecting an executive order - that was entirely constitutional. It's pathetic. They're acting like he's unhinged and out of control.

Well my reaction to that is: They're just doing their job. No ifs or but. It's just the way things are designed to keep control.


He does have all the power (that's of a president), but it pretty easily seems like he doesn't often enough.

Which should always be the case. Can't let one man have all the power (though his chosen associates are close to him, so that will probably still be the case then).

Wow

FUCKING WOW

Whoever feed you this bullshit is fucked in the head. I've seen many peaceful Muslims that still are very heavy to their beliefs. Hell, I've seen people of my religion be more sadistic and extreme than that of Muslims. But you don't see those cases because "Christianity is the religion of the nation, you see. How could there possibly be any issue?. Well, every religion has their problems, but don't act like Muslims are a special case of it.

You're really starting to lose me, pal. I'd be scared as hell if you do things purely because it's "Trump Approved."

Fucking hell...

You know there are Muslims that clearly don't follow that part of the Quran? Maybe because they'd like to live in peace with everyone else?

Jesus, you just acted as if I suggested blowing up the White House*. My god, I never said the Muslim faith was the only religion with the problem. It's just what's brought to question as of now.

Edit: To be crystal clear, I am perfectly well aware that there are plenty of peaceful Muslims, so I'm not going there if that's what you think.

---------- Post added at 11:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 PM ----------


Well my reaction to that is: They're just doing their job. No ifs or but. It's just the way things are designed to keep control.

That was absolutely not the judge's place to deny an executive order that was completely square within his constitutional right to make, and was not by any means immoral or unconstitutional. The judge did so on the grounds that it was the opposite, but that's just not it. Trump is the only one trying to keep control, here. Robart was allowed to do what he did, that doesn't mean it was his standing or right to. Honestly, he should be fired. He didn't do his job well.

What they did isn't keeping control, it's disobeying the law. But they can try to convince us otherwise, and that's another issue.

The media's more or less come around to what I've been saying from day 1. There's 30-35% of the country that want to be a part of this authoritarian movement, because they derive a personal sense of empowerment from it, and no amount of pointing out why something is factually inaccurate, massively detrimental to national security, openly explicitly racist, unconstitutional, etc, is going to phase them in any way shape or form. They have ceased to care about these things. What's important is uniting the 65% of America that hasn't.

The media's more or less come around to what I've been saying from day 1. There's 30-35% of the country that want to be a part of this authoritarian movement, because they derive a personal sense of empowerment from it, and no amount of pointing out why something is factually inaccurate, massively detrimental to national security, openly explicitly racist, unconstitutional, etc, is going to phase them in any way shape or form. They have ceased to care about these things. What's important is uniting the 65% of America that hasn't.

:this:

---------- Post added at 10:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 PM ----------


You know there are Muslims that clearly don't follow that part of the Quran? Maybe because they'd like to live in peace with everyone else?

Jesus, you just acted as if I suggested blowing up the White House*. My god, I never said the Muslim faith was the only religion with the problem. It's just what's brought to question as of now.

Edit: To be crystal clear, I am perfectly well aware that there are plenty of peaceful Muslims, so I'm not going there if that's what you think.

The way you phrased it sounded too general. Like, you had to make a follow up post to clarify what you meant. It's just vague. Granted, I probably shouldn't be jumping to conclusions, but that tone was just unhealthy.

I've seen many cases of people following just the specifics of a religion, so what you say makes sense. I'm just tired of the generalizations that a lot of Muslims have to go through in their lives. Just because we have generally dangerous people doesn't mean it goes for all of them. It makes me sick.


That was absolutely not the judge's place to deny an executive order that was completely square within his constitutional right to make, and was not by any means immoral or unconstitutional. The judge did so on the grounds that it was the opposite, but that's just not it. Trump is the only one trying to keep control, here. Robart was allowed to do what he did, that doesn't mean it was his standing or right to. Honestly, he should be fired. He didn't do his job well.

What they did isn't keeping control, it's disobeying the law. But they can try to convince us otherwise, and that's another issue.

We have had many judges that have went against constitution before, so even if you can make the most articulate argument that this judge is corrupt, this won't be the last time.

As my ole pappy used to say, the only good Nazi is a dead Nazi.

You know what Clonemaster? I like you. You're not like the other people here on FFShrine. Oh no, don't get me wrong, they're fine people, good Americans. But they're content to sit back, maybe download a film soundtrack, maybe argue about FLAC. They're good fine people, Clonemaster. But they don't know what the queers are doing to the internet.

You know that Johnny Werzner kid - the kid who uploads soundtracks in the film music forum? He's a fine kid. Some of the shriners say he smokes crack, but I don't believe it. Anyway, for his 10th birthday, all he wanted was a burrow owl, just like his old man. "Dad, get me a burrow owl. I'll never ask for anything else as long as I live". So the guy breaks down and buys him a burrow owl. Anyway at 10:30 the other night I go out into General Discussion and there's the Werzner kid idling. I said, "What are you looking for?" He said, "I'm looking for my burrow owl." I say, "Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! Everybody knows that a burrow owl lives in a hole in the ground! Why the hell do you think they call it a burrow owl, anyway?!" Now Clonemaster, do you think a kid like that is gonna know what the queers are doing to the internet?

I first became aware of this about 10 years ago, the summer my oldest boy Bill Jr. died. You know that carnival that comes to the forums every year? Well this year it came with a thread called the Mixer. The OP said "Keep your posts on topic at all times." But Bill Jr., he was a daredevil, just like his old man. He was shitting up the thread saying, "Hey everybody! Look at me, look at me!" POW! He was decapitated. They found his head over by the Role Playing Games forum. A few days after that, I open up my old hotmail account and there's a mass email in there, from Final Fantasy Online. And it's addressed to Bill Jr. And it's entitled, "Do you know what the queers are doing to our internet?"

Now Clonemaster, if you look at the internet around any large Final Fantasy forum with a big underground homosexual population - EyesonFF, perfect example. Look at the internet around EyesonFF, Clonemaster. You can't build a web site on it, you can't grow a community in it. The administration says it's due to poor posting. But I know what's really going on, Clonemaster. I know it's the queers. They're in it with the furries! They're building dens for gay wolfmen! I swear to God!

You know what Clonemaster, I like you. You're not like the other people, here on FFShrine.

They always said I was different.

But wait a minute, I don't know what the queers are doing to the internet either. Did you assume that I did? Apologies - I actually don't. And you say they're in it with the furries? Holy shit! News to me, I must say. But best I don't involve myself where I'm not to tread.

The media's more or less come around to what I've been saying from day 1. There's 30-35% of the country that want to be a part of this authoritarian movement, because they derive a personal sense of empowerment from it, and no amount of pointing out why something is factually inaccurate, massively detrimental to national security, openly explicitly racist, unconstitutional, etc, is going to phase them in any way shape or form. They have ceased to care about these things. What's important is uniting the 65% of America that hasn't.

I think you're confusing authoritarian with authoritative. President Trump is authoritative, not authoritarian. He's not a fucking 'unhinged' fascist dictator. He's a US president. And he's setting up to be a pretty damn fine president at that; such an unbelievably good one, with what he's done, how much he's accomplished, and the good it's actually brought on.

(hint: to see what the president has done, take off the Fakestream™ Media goggles)

The reason why the certain things have ceased to be cared about is because there's no worth in caring about bullshit; delusive and deceitful points of claim (always made by the left/media, who almost never have any verifiable sources, other than their head). We can't be made out to look bad, irresponsible and crazy because we choose to disregard a falsified narrative, consistently put out by the left-wing liberal-democrats and the media. It just isn't the truth. It's deplorable and downright absurd. And it's obviously slanted and purposed to a defamatory objective.

To think otherwise, I can only imagine one would have to be actually taking the 98% of what the media (or anything else that pushes 'that narrative') says about Donald Trump for truth, and in the case of being made aware of what the media does, I haven't an idea why anyone would do so at this point, unless their incessant lying and abusively biased demeanor is somehow...condoned, in some way.

But see, this is just it; no one has ever once successfully pointed out how or why anything that's in question was factually inaccurate, massively detrimental to national security, openly explicitly racist, unconstitutional, etc, with anything substantial to actually support it, unless you count the blatant lying, and simple saying of otherwise ("this is such and that is not!"), or the incredibly annoying and unbelievably outrageous insistence of numerous claims that 'the travel ban is unconstitutional and immoral', but that doesn't do a damn thing for anybody. Tell me, and detail, exactly how, in the holy hell, this is so. It isn't, for the last time, Goddammit.

It is entirely constitutional. It is entirely square within (I love saying that) Trump's presidential and constitutional authority and power to make such an executive order. It's not a threat to national security, it is for our national security. Though I admit it should be counted for every country, the detailed countries are susceptible sources of individuals who intend to commit terrorist acts against the US. And verifiably so; like, Syria has been on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list since that list’s inception, for example. It makes perfect sense that we'd temporarily ban entry of those coming from those specified countries until proper vetting can be conducted. It's a way of ensuring our safety and sovereignty.

Those who continue to argue otherwise really have no factual basis for doing so. Those who do so bearing that in mind are knowingly and purposely lying. The countless false claims made by those lunatics of the left, (like Elizabeth Warren), who will not shut the hell up about it, and the fakestream media, of course, who is also every bit of guilty as anybody else, it...well, it's pissing me off, quite simply. It's put me to a loss for words, almost. There's nowhere in any section or law of the governmental structure that states Trump had no authority to do what he did. And they sit there and tell us otherwise....the while acting as if Trump is a lunatic 'for even considering such a thing!'.

But there is a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act 212) that says something of great interest:

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

There. ^Right there. (can you see it?) It's undeniable. It's completely legal. It's in bold italic. It details the president’s authority to declare such suspensions. And for it to have been persisted in the notion that Trump passing that executive order was unconstitutional makes the loss of common sense and perception of reality believable, unless it's already been known that these affirmations are just wrong, but still they persist because they just cannot accept defeat. That's gotta be it.
As for us, the population, well, it's vital and up to us to look for what the law says instead of what the media says on the subject. It's our responsibility.

This proves one of my points. The media is disrespectfully and shamelessly lying to us, and attacking the president, without legitimate justification, on a daily and regular basis. I've said it a million times, and I'll probably repeat it until it gets through. But it might never. Sigh.

Nah, this doesn't have to be replied to. I just ranted. (this post was supposed to be much shorter)


The way you phrased it sounded too general. Like, you had to make a follow up post to clarify what you meant. It's just vague. Granted, I probably shouldn't be jumping to conclusions, but that tone was just unhealthy.

I've seen many cases of people following just the specifics of a religion, so what you say makes sense. I'm just tired of the generalizations that a lot of Muslims have to go through in their lives. Just because we have generally dangerous people doesn't mean it goes for all of them. It makes me sick.

Well, it's a damn shame. I do feel sorry for the peaceful individuals of Islam who rightfully choose to disregard the respective part of the Quran and allow themselves to live in peace with others of a different religion. Their Muslim majority gives them a bad name by committing terrorist acts because of difference in religion and such. And, look, I wouldn't have said what I said if it wasn't the truth. But that is in fact what the Muslim faith teaches. And I guess it 'set me off' when I saw it referred to as a religion of peace, because that's far from the truth. All the certain type of Muslims are doing is following the Quran, but that's a chaotic turnout, unfortunately, and that's where the concern for Muslims stem from. No, they're not the only religion with a problem, but Islam is the one with the biggest problem because it doesn't technically allow harmony with other religions. That's why it's such an issue. That's why it is the religion brought to question here. Because there is concern of our safety when you have a possible terrorist entering the country. It's paranoid, but it makes sense.


We have had many judges that have went against constitution before, so even if you can make the most articulate argument that this judge is corrupt, this won't be the last time.

Well it should be the last time. I've actually heard of the possibility of this particular judge's impeachment, which is a totally right thing to be done.

---------- Post added at 12:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 AM ----------

@TK; I noticed you replied to my last post concerning the topic of Christianity and such. Apologies, because I think I had a dentist appointment that day, I never noticed you'd replied, and I never remembered to check until more recently. I didn't mean to leave you hanging. So I'll get a reply out as soon as I have the opportunity.

I just want to see what happens in the next four years to know where the hell this all goes. Trump can sure be well in acting on his promises, but I'm not entirely certain what the long term effects will be. It can just go any direction God pleads it to be. Hopefully a better one, but you just can't be completely certain.

I've been meaning to ask you, George: how did you manage to found your current beliefs and do you expect any changes? Because while I may be very different regarding out political beliefs, you sure seem like a smart and capable man. One pretty much suited to defend his stance on the world if necessary.

Well, to answer your question... the folks always listened to Limbaugh, but that honestly never really had any impact on me until I started caring about politics and seeing how much of it had great importance, and its impact. That wasn't until much later. But I think the main thing(s) was a couple of conversations with my parents, following that I had overheard some dialogue and asked questions, and going out on the web to research a little bit for myself and to find and see everything come together, and seeing that all the things that these conservative talk-show hosts and sites are actually truthful in what they're saying, and research this stuff themselves; either from actual contacts, or from some of the same various websites I've found information on myself. I don't know, I guess that isn't the definitive answer. But I wanted to affirm that I didn't just blindly become a conservative without some self-directive. There was a point of an epiphany-like process involved when I realized how much of what I knew was or wasn't necessarily the case, or what it was widely made out to be. But I might explain better when I'm not tired. I didn't want to be overly-succinct, or misunderstood. Perhaps I didn't word something right... but yeah.

Wait a minute, I still didn't answer the other point. Sorry about that.

Do I expect any changes? Well that depends on what you mean; if you mean in Washington and politically, hell yeah I do. Trump's going at an astonishing rate. Things are always happening. But I don't expect the left to give up anytime soon, if that's what you meant either.

huntertech, youre forgetting one important thing: the qouran says that its perfectly acceptable to lie to non muslims. so even if you see a muslim shoot someone right in front of you, and you ask him if he shot that person which, again, you just saw him do, he will tell you that he didnt. despite you being right there.

now think of everyday muslim person, the lies they may have told.


sorry, but islam is a really problematic religion. yes, all religions are a problem, but while catholics no longer go witch-burning and calling crusades, they dont go around blowing themselves up taking several innocent, normal (ie, non muslms) people with them, or straight up shooting them.

i will never trust a muslim as long as their shitty book says its ok to lie to me.

[/COLOR]@TK; I noticed you replied to my last post concerning the topic of Christianity and such. Apologies, because I think I had a dentist appointment that day, I never noticed you'd replied, and I never remembered to check until more recently. I didn't mean to leave you hanging. So I'll get a reply out as soon as I have the opportunity.

That's OK. I felt like we pretty much established everybody's view on the situation, but feel free to add if you'd like to. I'm not jumping into the current issue at the moment for lack of time, but will respond to that if you'd like.

---------- Post added at 08:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:17 AM ----------


huntertech, youre forgetting one important thing: the qouran says that its perfectly acceptable to lie to non muslims. so even if you see a muslim shoot someone right in front of you, and you ask him if he shot that person which, again, you just saw him do, he will tell you that he didnt. despite you being right there.


Can you actually cite a passage for this or are you just repeating something you've heard? I would like to see the specific passage that explicitly says it.

Can you actually cite a passage for this or are you just repeating something you've heard? I would like to see the specific passage that explicitly says it.


16:106 - Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah , and for them is a great punishment;

layman: i can lie to you, but its ok because i believe in allah fiercely.

theres an arab word for it: taqiyya. google it because i cant be botheres with muslim shit outside of cute arab girls.

please dont make me ever quote this book of shit.
and i mean literal shit since i wipe my ass with pages of it. lasts me longer than 4 toilet papers. and they are cheaper.

lol

Blessed is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. Pslam 137:9

---------- Post added at 06:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 AM ----------

American Evangelical Christians generally know their arguments are a train wreck and just don't care. At the end of the day, the Bible and Quran are just political tools for them. Why work hard to be successful in life when you can just point to a few arbitrary passages in a book and interpret them in insanely incoherent/inconsistent ways to "prove" your demand for entitlements?

16:106 - Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah , and for them is a great punishment;

layman: i can lie to you, but its ok because i believe in allah fiercely.

That's not a layman's interpretation. I think it is actually very generous to claim that is any kind of interpretation at all, since it's essentially a completely different statement in almost every conceivable way. The passage you quoted is basically about the true nature of faith. Its point is that what you say doesn't ultimately determine what's in your heart. One who is being persecuted and forced to renounce their faith verbally, it says, is not doing anything wrong if they still believe in their heart, but a person who willingly renounces their faith is genuinely turning away from God.


theres an arab word for it: taqiyya.

Yes, and what this word literally means is "caution." It is the practice of hiding your religious belief to avoid facing persecution. It is not about lying in general, it's about not speaking up in a case where someone might kill you for your religious views. (Or, I figure many would interpret, deport you or ban you from seeking refuge in a safe country).

No, the Koran doesn't say "it's acceptable to lie to non Muslims." It essentially reassures you that if you are forced to lie by non Muslims threatening your life, God won't regard this as you having rejected him.


please dont make me ever quote this book of shit.

I will demand specific quotations any and every time you make dubious claims about it. Either deal with that, or stop talking about things you don't know anything about.


and i mean literal shit since i wipe my ass with pages of it. lasts me longer than 4 toilet papers. and they are cheaper.

No you don't.

I don't think cleaning your ass with pages of books feels good, at all.

I don't think cleaning your ass with pages of books feels good, at all.

Kooshy's into some pretty kinky stuff.

It's okay Kooshy, scat is just one more in your list of fetishes.

lol

Blessed is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. Pslam 137:9

---------- Post added at 06:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 AM ----------

American Evangelical Christians generally know their arguments are a train wreck and just don't care. At the end of the day, the Bible and Quran are just political tools for them. Why work hard to be successful in life when you can just point to a few arbitrary passages in a book and interpret them in insanely incoherent/inconsistent ways to "prove" your demand for entitlements?

Massive generalization of a huge amount of people; not especially helpful to anyone. Yes there are certainly Christians and Muslims who use their own religious passages WAY out of context, but that's the thing - it's out of context. Like your use of Psalm 137:9. I'm too lazy to type it out, but this guy has an interesting interpretation (https://www.quora.com/Does-Psalm-137-9-NRSV-Happy-shall-they-be-who-take-your-little-ones-and-dash-them-against-the-rock-mean-that-God-is-okay-with-killing-babies-under-certain-circumstances). Note that some translations use the word "happy" instead of "blessed", which of course entirely changes the meaning. My advice: don't just cherry pick the most shocking verse you can find without looking at the SURROUNDING text. I'd say that goes for pretty much any book.

You say this, but it's what Biblical inerrancy types do pretty much always to prove their points.

I'm pretty well aware of the passage's historical context.

You say this, but it's what Biblical inerrancy types do pretty much always to prove their points.

I'm pretty well aware of the passage's historical context.

So we are in agreement, then? As I said, I don't deny there are many who use passages out of context/

I don't know if we are in agreement because I don't know your broader perspective. I specified Evangelical Christianity and you seemed a bit troubled by my post unless I misinterpreted you, so I would imagine we disagree on some level regarding what can be considered rational interpretation of Biblical texts.

But perhaps not.

So...how about the pedophile thing.

Man...

You mean that Greek guy? All pedos should be sent to the salt mines.

You mean that Greek guy? All pedos should be sent to the salt mines.


i think he means muhammeds documented wedding to a 6 year old. and consumating it when shes 9.
the sick fuck.

also, i didnt need to go look far, tk, all i had to do was was the muslim girl i know about the passage that says its ok to lie to muslims. and she posted that, as well as the layman.

i know, i know, asking muslim to post where it says its ok to lie to normal people? goog thing shes only a muslim by name as she doesnt care. otherwise i wouldnt have nueds of her.

(She's also 9.)

i think he means muhammeds documented wedding to a 6 year old. and consumating it when shes 9.
the sick fuck.

also, i didnt need to go look far, tk, all i had to do was was the muslim girl i know about the passage that says its ok to lie to muslims. and she posted that, as well as the layman.

No she didn't. Actually I doubt she exists.

This would not be a valid counterargument even if it was true though. Just because someone identifies as a muslim doesn't mean they are automatically correct about what the Koran says, and I just explained in detail what the passage you quoted actually says and what taqiya means, all of which you ignored, presumably because you have no response to it that doesn't expose your ignorance.

since when do you care about islam? are you a muslim? would explain why you defend this shit. and as a muslim, would automatically mean everything you said is a lie and the opposite is true. get the fuck away from me you potential terrorist, i have a slice of bacon at hand at all times (this is not a joke) for the likes of you.
also, miam is real, but for obvious reasons i wont tell you her real name because you might end up stalking her on fb.

i believe i once posted a pic of her saying how shes my archetype for my arab girl. dont remember if it was on this forum or another. but i definetely posted a pic.

extra also: what i posted is not up for interpretation, it is what it is. you as a muslim should know. but then again, that very line says you can lie to normal people.

its like those scilons who deny the story of xenu, and will ferventently deny it.....until you pay 100k dollars and then they tell you the story. the story they denied to you before.

No, I'm not a Muslim. You don't have to be one to object to the dissemination of disinformation about Islam.

Your pretend Arabic girlfriend doesn't exist just because you posted a picture of an Arabic girl somewhere once, and it doesn't prove that she wrote your shitty post about things the Koran doesn't say that was written entirely in your own distinctive "edgy 14 year old pretending to be a grownup" voice.

...that was written entirely in your own distinctive "edgy 14 year old pretending to be a grownup" voice.

Okay, good, so I'm not the only one who thinks so. :p

---------- Post added at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 PM ----------


So...how about the pedophile thing.

Man...

Sigh... you're not referring to that Milo guy, are you?

your own distinctive "edgy 14 year old pretending to be a grownup" voice.


Okay, good, so I'm not the only one who thinks so. :p

You guys fall for b8 way too easily.

Kooshy isn't smart enough to b8. He is sincerely trying to be cool.

You guys fall for b8 way too easily.

I've always thought he came off that way. It isn't every instance, but I think it's safe to say there's a bit of superiority in there too. Or maybe that's just me.

Sigh... you're not referring to that Milo guy, are you?

Who else would we be referring to? Any other notable pedophilia related incidents you know of?

Dude was an asshole anyway, so I'm not surprised.

Sigh... you're not referring to that Milo guy, are you?
Maybe I am.
Maybe I ain't.

Gotta keep an air of coyness. ;)

Who else would we be referring to? Any other notable pedophilia related incidents you know of?

Dude was an asshole anyway, so I'm not surprised.

I'm not surprised either, but for a different reason. This is a defamation attempt. The media is trying to take him down, and frame him, only because he's a conservative, and advocate for ideas they don't want in the circulation. He's being held guilty for things he's never done nor supported. He doesn't promote pedophilia, he's never promoted it. Especially being indeed a victim himself, I don't know why he would ever. Think about that. Any questionable things he's said have been blown way out of proportion. And though he's sincerely apologized, and personally said he's never supported this, the deceptive headlines persist. And you know, he's in fact called out three other people who had actually done things related to child abuse and the act itself. What would exactly make him an individual who condones these perverted activities? Where exactly is the evidence of it? I mean footage that hasn't been cut to misrepresent an individual. He's been wrongfully accused, with not much of anything that actually backs it up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1Cb2KttkEo&feature=youtu.be

(a noteworthy moment here at 5:33 - 6:27 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1Cb2KttkEo&feature=youtu.be&t=5m33s), particularly, and I don't want to hear a damn thing about the nature of the channel. And another significant moment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1Cb2KttkEo&feature=youtu.be&t=7m19s))

Here, he explains this pretty well. He puts rather succinctly what is happening. Try listening to the dude who's trying to be straight and honest about this, not the controlled media. He is the victim here, of...basically a coordinated hit job. Somebody knows when they've been wrongfully accused of something they didn't do. I think you can easily tell how he feels about this. But also, understand this, the media has no factual basis to these statements and claims. And the while ignoring and disregarding the actual evidence of many other real pedophile networks going on or that have gone on (Anthony Weiner... John Podesta..., etc), they are making very shallow claims and accusations against this guy.

All they have to do is quite simply call him a pedophile, or supporter of such activities, and people go crazy. This is why I'm not surprised.

---------- Post added at 11:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 PM ----------


Maybe I am.
Maybe I ain't.

Gotta keep an air of coyness. ;)

I mean, I guess. But I don't see the point. :p

---------- Post added at 11:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 PM ----------

But guys, I'm not just ranting. I'm literally fed up. I've been fed up for a while. It's an aggravation when you know what's happening, you know the real story, you've seen no indication of what activities claims bear, yet the media's biased reporting insists otherwise. Any individual from the left, having said anything related or similar whatsoever, or having done or supported even the things Milo's being accused of, they would blatantly disregard it. It bothers me. They're going to target anybody who disagrees with them whatsoever.

You're seriously defending the guy? You got serious guts, even though you've proven that time and time again.

I'm more referring to what I've actually heard him say before this incident and his general views to judge. So I guess I'm biased in that aspect.

Still, I'm just glad that guy still got a comeuppance of sorts.

---------- Post added at 10:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 PM ----------

Dude, we're not accusing you of ranting. Conisdering the way you talk, I do genuinely believe you think and conform to the ways you currently follow.

It's just we all think and believe certain things differently here. And this topic is just what really proves it.

---------- Post added at 10:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 PM ----------

And we're all biased to a certain extent. There's no denying it.

youre not gonna bait me into proving miam exists. thats the good thing about seeing things for what they are, i dont have to prove anything. that you dont believe that, is not my fault. like jack sparrow said: you wouldnt believe in the truth even if youre told it.

and thats something i wont nor dont lose sleep over. believe whatever fantasy you want to believe. meanwhile ill be in the real world.
thats the perk of being a realist i guess.

bunch of radical muslims kill innocent normal people with prejudice just because they dont believe in their pedo leader, then the more they do it, the more they themselves cement the fact muslims are dangerous.
its a social experiment. pavlov cruelly trained dogs to salivate by ringing a bell then give food, until eventually the dog would salivate just by ringing the bell.
likewise, there can be no more murders in 10 years, but the hate and mistrust for muslims is already permanently ingrained in the minds of people. centuries will be needed to destroy that hate.
and seeing we are not any closer to eliminating this cancer that is islam, the hate will continue. thanks to those same muslims who continue to proliferate their hate and mistrust.

when muslims stop:

letting local imams preach hate against western way of life
abusing muslim women (ie, eliminate sharia law)
harrass normal women because they dont do sharia.
kill innocent people with suicide bombers
impose their will on those who extended a helping hand.
have 6 year olds forcefully marry some 50 year old fat fuck just because he wanter her.
make lying to normal people one of their beliefs.
kill those who dont believe in their pedo leader.
resisting to be civilized.

then and only then will I stop hating and mistrusting muslims.
ONLY THEN.

when mexico sheltered haitians, they were grateful, they followed mexican law, and didnt cause trouble.
as soon as muslims locusted their way into europe, crime rates went up 200%.
i went to france last year. i wont return until they are driven out. ive seen cleaner streets in red light districts.

youre not gonna bait me into proving miam exists.

Don't worry, I genuinely believe in the existence of your fictional Arabic girlfriend who's a learned Muslim scholar but agrees with you about everything ever and writes exactly like you do.

Don't worry, I genuinely believe in the existence of your fictional Arabic girlfriend who's a learned Muslim scholar but agrees with you about everything ever and writes exactly like you do.

dont ever be a fisherman, you would fail so hard you probably wouldnt even know how to get to a boat.

Was Milo's pedophile quote twisted out of context to oust him? I'm inclined to think so. What's pathetic was that it took something of that magnitude to make the GOP grow a spine against one of the biggest threats in this far right populist movement.

Everything I saw said that it was about a video in which he "appears to defend pedophilia" which is a completely accurate description of what's in the video. I get that he says that he didn't mean it the way it sounded, and fine, but it's kind of hard to understand what the hell he actually did mean. I'd say people probably overreacted to it because they're already predisposed to believe the worst about him, but he's such a prick that that's not difficult to understand.

I never actually watched the video. I just based the assumption on a few out of context quotes I saw and Milo's tendency to say random shit for the sake of offending people.

Just sat through it in full and yeah, he's pretty straight-up defending pedophilia. lol me

whos this milo everyone speaks about? all i think about is the kid from the oblongs.

whos this milo everyone speaks about? all i think about is the kid from the oblongs.

Quiet. Grownups are talking.

then why are you here?

then why are you here?

Someone's gotta chaperon you.

but im older than you. why is a kid here if we grownups are talking?

anyway, just googled this milo. oh.. that guy? never heard of him.
after reading 3 pulls pages of google results, the only thing i cared about everything he said was his approval of boys having sex with women.
everything else, ewww.

also, an unnatural AGAINST unnaturals? SOMEONE GIVE THIS MAN AN AWARD.

but im older than you.

No you're not.

You're seriously defending the guy? You got serious guts, even though you've proven that time and time again.

I'm more referring to what I've actually heard him say before this incident and his general views to judge. So I guess I'm biased in that aspect.

Still, I'm just glad that guy still got a comeuppance of sorts.

I was just bothered that this guy's views of pedophilia were widely misrepresented, especially with he himself having been a victim, something he's openly admitted, and since he's a conservative his being a target by the left's media makes a lot of sense. As I've said, even after the apology of anything questionable he's said, even after his insistence that he doesn't support pedophilia, the falseness persists.


Dude, we're not accusing you of ranting. Conisdering the way you talk, I do genuinely believe you think and conform to the ways you currently follow.

It's just we all think and believe certain things differently here. And this topic is just what really proves it.

This topic is one of the most complicated out of any. It's a very sensitive, unnecessarily controversial, time-consuming subject. As I've said before, it's basically an endless debate, but I'm very glad there's a thread for it. Thank you for making one.

I didn't necessarily mean that I was accused of ranting, though it's exactly what I'm doing, or I at least feel that way almost every time I start talking about it. And almost every time I start talking about it, it turns into a wall of text.

I understand that almost every one of us has a very strong belief or opinion about the current political happenings, and how it's thought of Trump in his behavior, and such and such, and so and so. It's only natural, but it's problematic when an individual is not being free-thinking about the information they take in, and process as opinion of something or fact about what's going on. The mainstream media is not trustworthy, but it doesn't help when anything far-right is already looked at as wrong. There's the preconceived notion that any conservative website, talk-show host, YouTube channel - anything, independent media in general, is biased and automatically wrong or irresponsible to follow as a credible source for information. I've gotten flak for posting a link to something like O'Keefe's Project Veritas, or any article that supports my point in the first place, and it's gotten to really bother me.

It bothers me, because I've seen how the majority of conservative websites don't intentionally twist information whatsoever, or purposely misrepresent material. Whenever they have, they've almost always corrected themselves. Rather, they just report what's really happening, they don't want to lie to you, they don't look at you as you're stupid, or that you need to be told what to think about something or someone, they know that an individual is an independent free-thinker, and they're well aware of that person's right to know what's going on, not be lied to about it. They, very clearly along with Trump, also try to expose the media when they report dishonestly. They call them out, they hold them accountable for their dishonesty, their bias for the globalist left, and liberal-democrats, and ultimately, their refusal to, and their disregard for their professional obligation to report the truth on most occasions. They try to expose the corruption of the whole Washington establishment - everything.

I don't really like it when conservative values are wrongfully criticized, I don't like it when I post a link to an article that's automatically chastised for supporting Donald Trump and or being apart of the conservative group, as if there's any good reason exactly why it must it be immediately believed that it's biased and slanted, for that exact preconceived notion alone, and for no other real, substantial reason. Especially when conservatism and republicanism is the only way to go; it's the only way things will work, and the conservative system by itself has proved this time and time again. It's never been explained, or proven, in a convincing manner, why conservatism is wrong in any way, shape, or form.

Articles from Media Matters, a news outlet funded by many socialists and the like, such as George Soros, (I mean, he's such a horrible, evil person, who's invested and funded awful things, and operations; he's all up in this conspiracy. Only some adequate research is to be necessary to understand why he should not be regarded well, at all) anyway, articles from Media Matters that falsely claim that James O'Keefe (Project Veritas) edits his (their) videos to misrepresent evidence is not helping. Once more, there is just nothing to prove such claims, and the only thing he's out to do is expose corruption in 'trusted' areas of government or elsewhere. But of course it can be easily claimed that O'Keefe 'brings his dishonest, doctored videos to the world of political campaigns', but not proven. And I mean except for simply saying in a more analysis-sort-of-way that it's so. It's an attempt to discredit him, because he's exposing things they do not want being exposed. Media Matters would of course claim otherwise than the truth because they're funded by these same biased, socialist, globalist, yada yada yada, individuals at certain positions, who are in it for special interest(s) and financial gain or compensation; who are gradually pushing this political correctness and control of everything, and other criminal operations...and of course they wouldn't want any of that exposed. That's why they would frame or discredit him.

But likewise, I don't like it when Breitbart and Infowars and the like are criticized for being fake news, and Alex Jones and others as fear-mongers, by the fake news, and of course also by the people who believe them. It's the independent media, aka alternative/conservative media, that reports the facts, the truth, about what is really happening. They have done the research to know this information, they have contact with the sources, they will cite the sources, and they won't usually withhold information.

I mean, how is a site like this (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/) with Andrew Breitbart on the site's banner, a red flag to anybody? Or this (http://rickwells.us/)? How would any of those be considered slanted or biased in any way?

By the way, these are both two very trustworthy sites to listen to. Not wrongfully biased, in other words. I think this is one of the major issues here. The conservative sites, and the individuals, Hannity, Jones, Limbaugh, etc need to stop being looked it in this bad light. They don't deserve the flak that they get. There's no reasonable explanation for these false claims of bias, either. I don't criticize the media because I don't like them, (although, at this point...) I criticize them, because they are dishonest, and they are deceitful in their reporting. And we need to understand that, in order to understand what is happening, and what they mean to accomplish by their systematic bias against Donald Trump and the White House, and the administration, and anybody or anything they don't like. (you see, that's what they accuse Trump of doing) We need to understand the liberal-democrat's goals, objective, and desired outcome in order to understand many, many things. and I can't explain it all at once.

It's very hard to believe a controlled media that almost entirely puts out negative stories and material on our president - almost nothing ever positive. They wouldn't want you think about him positively, they want you to think of him as an unhinged president who's mentality we need to judge; who's administration we need to 'keep in check'. Compare their news coverage of President Obama, in comparison with President Trump. It's a forced slanted view of whomever they wish to control your opinion about.

It's entirely from the mainstream media, and all other outlets that follow their leftist agenda, that the idea that conservative sites do exactly what we've accused the media for doing, has come from. Nowhere else. All they have to do to make it seem wrong is act like it is wrong. All they have to do is tell you that Infowars and Alex Jones are the propagators of 'fake news', and that we are the real news, we will tell the truth, always. It's the only thing they need to do to keep their undeserved credibility. A certain amount of the population would never question them. They can all sit at a table and act concerned about the 'fake news', and act concerned for the president's stability all they want. That doesn't make it right, nor does it make it the truth, or the fact. It's a very big problem; they don't represent the people, they will lie to you, daily, and push a systematically planned agenda on the population, whether we know it or not, whether we want to believe it or not, and the independent media outlets, the ones that they've convinced you are the enemy, are the only ones at this point in time, who are willing to be straight and honest with you, and represent we, the people. And it's crucial that we understand this. At some point, this will all blow up in our faces, and those who hadn't will wish they had.

I'm not fear-mongering. It's not my place to incite fear, nor is it the media's place to (but that's exactly what they're doing; notice their intended view of the administration). I'm not trying to lie, I'm trying to explain what is happening, and why we should acknowledge, and realize it.

But of course, I'm the indoctrinated, crazy, irresponsible-about-logic conservative conspiracy theorist, who's trying to explain this whole insane prism of evil government control. But I just can't do it that well because it's seriously nearly impossible for any one person to handle. 'Cause then you get people like Alex Jones (not that there's anything wrong with that lol), who are very hard to believe with the whole cliche of a government conspiracy existing closely with all of this, and so am I apparently for the same similar reason.

Understand this, it isn't about being right about everything. It's never my intention to. It's about knowing the truth and the fact about vital happenings and events and such in Washington; things that can be proven by non-fabricated evidence, not taking a mainstream news media outlet's word when they say they have 'multiple sources', but that never really have any real source to cite, and it's important to have faith in the right places and outlets to be delivered this information, by an honest demeanor. And if that isn't enough, I think there's always unbiased websites or other places in general to get the non-agenda-driven fact, 'cause that's where the conservative sites get their information most often anyway, if not by their own research endeavors, or even just by simply looking at with their own eyes at what's happening.

Take notice how the mainstream media has taken it upon themselves to act as the warriors to discredit their numerous convicted of fake news; Infowars, Breitbart, etc. It's literally only a deflective strategy of our own exposition attempts of their own wrongdoings. That's it. That's all they have to do. Is make the same, by their meaning, false claims back to the their accusers. But also take notice of how offended they act when they are rightfully criticized. 'It's un-American! It's unconstitutional! It incites violence.' They only have to say it's wrong, they never have to say why. Or they may, but it sounds the most ridiculous. They just expect you to believe their bald-faced lies. They purport an entirely different reality from the one we all actually live in, by continuing to make the conviction, for example, of Russian contact and involvement in the election and such. While there's absolutely no evidence to back those phony claims up, and while there's absolutely no way it's possible, it still deserves the headline as the truth, because they say so.

Is that not a red flag to anybody?

But I don't really see why you shouldn't believe the president when he tells you something, for real. All he's done, is kept his promise(s). He's inherited a mess, (his own words) and he's been doing everything he can to fix it. For the first time in years, great things are really happening. And you know, people believed Obama, that he'd keep his word for what he supposedly meant to do, and then he didn't. It's not as if he did what he said he'd do, but he lied to all of us. Such a disrespectful display from an untrustworthy politician. And you can tell how this was, for an example, there was a huge turn-around at the time of the second election of 2012 when people realized this; though Mitt Romney wouldn't have been right for the position either, that's beside the point.

The point, yeah... well, one of them, is this whole thing, what the media does, the news points they push, the way they talk to us, is so reprehensible, unbelievably outrageous, and so abusively biased, it's just.... dammit.

And I'm sorry for almost always taking on the same 'tone' while explaining things like this, like "they want you to believe this and that, but everything you've ever know is wrong! It's the government! It's the globalists!", stuff like that, but it's hard (for me) to do it any other way. I'm just always afraid that it's started to sound all the same, and everything. But I'm working on that. On top of that, I see it as beneficial for me to be making these long posts, but the only time I ever really get the time of day is right now, late at night.

Edit: And not to mention the immense censorship that has been done recently to Infowars, Natural News, and Breitbart by the likes of Google, Twitter and such, and sponsorship being taken away over their conservative place. For another example, Breitbart's app was removed from the app store. They've as well been recently taken off AdRoll. Amongst other means of banning the conservative voice, it is ridiculous.

A spoken example, from David Knight (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbvbSEjRuV4&feature=youtu.be&t=40m4s)


And we're all biased to a certain extent. There's no denying it.

Yeah, it's just important that truth not be sacrificed while being biased. Though that may go against the word's definition, it's only an individual's choice to believe whatever they please. It's their own responsibility. And especially as of the current, it's important for one to keep from falling from the popularized deceitful claims about what Trump is doing as president, or how he's acting.

Considering that I've seen more from the liberal perspective in the many political posts that I've seen, I've never really considered what the conservative outlook might look and be like (besides yours). Going through the sites you linked, they seem like fine enough people that are just doing their jobs, and aren't really really making too big a deal out of certain things like I've seen in other places.

However, I still very much see bias present, even if it's not as noticeable as a more common news site would. Being that they're very conservative, it's probably the most immediate thing I can gather from the place, as well as primary focus on political affairs (which should be obvious). Yet, at least it still feels very genuine in way I wouldn't really feel regarding conservatives in other places (though that's probably because they're actually believers).

Thus, it's unfortunate when someone's beliefs are being blocked in general (unless it's very questionable), so these guys shouldn't be an exception really.

Still, in the I've been raised and taught, I just can't follow the conservative beliefs. It's clear that the people of my world are very much anti-Trump and are pretty much against the way America is being run. And I have seen a lot of actual legitimate evidence for it that others here have recognized as well. It's just what I've come to accept and believe. Thus, it's hard for me to really argue much when I know that there wouldn't be any shift in one's beliefs whatsoever. It feels very pointless to me after a while (which is why I don't write as much here). I can very well recognize when something is well written, but that's it. I'd much rather let them believe what they believe until nothing can be denied if a viewpoint has notable and definitive changes. I'm just more inclined to believe the people I know than the ones that are far and distant from me.

I'll be the judge of what's real and fake, as it's my own opinion that'll matter most in personal life.

A biased/slanted news site is any that has a specific political agenda. There are plenty of biased/slanted news sites on the left side of things as well, and if people link to news stories from them I'd question them just as much. I don't know how to say this any differently, but you're just flat out wrong about your belief that conservative news sites all just strive to present plain facts.

The thing is, a biased source isn't necessarily always one that is inherently bad, but it depends on what you're looking for. I read/watch Democracy Now! and The Intercept a lot, both of which are very obviously politically left sources. But the entire reason for their existence is as activist media. I know perfectly well that I read them because I'm generally in agreement with them on most issues and so they often bring things to my attention that are specific to my interests. But I would never use these sites as my sole source of information, nor do I think they'd want me to.

Ultimately there's an issue of principle even if you trust the source to be accurate. It's the same reason why, for example, a "study" done by a religious organization on a topic related to their own beliefs would not be widely considered reliable evidence for anything - as long as a potential motive exists to run things in such a way that it helps make your own views look supported by the results, people are skeptical about whatever conclusions are drawn. Thus we have processes where research is peer reviewed, checked by professionals in the related field to ensure that its methodology was sound and that the group conducting it isn't doing so under any kind of ideological banner.

What you call "fake news" mostly includes organizations that in their reporting strive for neutrality. (Like we talked about before, this doesn't include editorial writing, in which the whole point is that the author is expressing personal views). To this day, I've yet to see a single example of something that CNN, for example, lied about even though Trump and his followers go around claiming they do it constantly.

---------- Post added at 09:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 AM ----------

Example: you recently claimed that during the Milo debacle the media lied about him and called him a pedophile. I see no evidence of this at all. Here's CNN's report on the story:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/21/media/milo-yiannopoulos-downfall/index.html

"Milo resigns from Breitbart amid child sex comments" is the headline. It happened in a "firestorm over unearthed comments in which he seemed to endorse sex between 'younger boys and older men.'"

These are completely accurate comments and don't accuse Milo of pedophilia. In the video he does indeed seem to endorse such relationships. Milo himself essentially agreed with this in his resignation statement, saying he used a "poor choice of words." The word choice was poor because it seemed to defend pedophilia when he says that is not what he meant to express at all. Okay, fair enough. Some might doubt the sincerity of what he's saying, some will believe him. The point is that this article just presents the facts.

In the United States we have a legal concept called libel. Trump has said he wants to expand it so that anything someone says about him he doesn't like can be legally punished, but as of now, what it means is that you're not allowed to knowingly publish false information about a person that negatively impacts them. If CNN or any other major media source published something that says, "Milo Yiannopoulos proven pedophile, resigns in disgrace" he could and I assume would sue them for insane amounts of money and he'd most certainly win it. The fact that he isn't suing anybody should tell you all you need to know. There's no libel here.

Considering that I've seen more from the liberal perspective in the many political posts that I've seen, I've never really considered what the conservative outlook might look and be like (besides yours). Going through the sites you linked, they seem like fine enough people that are just doing their jobs, and aren't really really making too big a deal out of certain things like I've seen in other places.

However, I still very much see bias present, even if it's not as noticeable as a more common news site would. Being that they're very conservative, it's probably the most immediate thing I can gather from the place, as well as primary focus on political affairs (which should be obvious). Yet, at least it still feels very genuine in way I wouldn't really feel regarding conservatives in other places (though that's probably because they're actually believers).

Thus, it's unfortunate when someone's beliefs are being blocked in general (unless it's very questionable), so these guys shouldn't be an exception really.

Still, in the I've been raised and taught, I just can't follow the conservative beliefs. It's clear that the people of my world are very much anti-Trump and are pretty much against the way America is being run. And I have seen a lot of actual legitimate evidence for it that others here have recognized as well. It's just what I've come to accept and believe. Thus, it's hard for me to really argue much when I know that there wouldn't be any shift in one's beliefs whatsoever. It feels very pointless to me after a while (which is why I don't write as much here). I can very well recognize when something is well written, but that's it. I'd much rather let them believe what they believe until nothing can be denied if a viewpoint has notable and definitive changes. I'm just more inclined to believe the people I know than the ones that are far and distant from me.

I'll be the judge of what's real and fake, as it's my own opinion that'll matter most in personal life.

Okay, well, exactly. It's entirely up to each and every one of us to believe whatever we believe, for whatever reason. It's our responsibility (to think for ourselves), and we shouldn't be told what to think about someone or something, without being allowed the opportunity to observe all sides of the story. That's especially where the censoring of the conservative media is very wrong, and most definitely unconstitutional. But I think one of the most proving factors here; one of the defining lines, is how it all ends up affecting our lives and at which point it does so. After Trump's first term, many things will have changed, and improved, the country and economy will be in better shape, etc, and no matter what they media says about it, it doesn't change that, and it won't change that. In some cases, this is the only way anything will be ever proven to anybody. On some occasions, this is only way the truth will be believed. And we always have to keep in mind that there is only one, there's never an alternative to the reality.

A biased/slanted news site is any that has a specific political agenda. There are plenty of biased/slanted news sites on the left side of things as well, and if people link to news stories from them I'd question them just as much. I don't know how to say this any differently, but you're just flat out wrong about your belief that conservative news sites all just strive to present plain facts.

Haha, no. I don't buy that I'm just 'flat-out wrong' on my belief that conservative news sites all just strive to present plain facts. That isn't good enough for me. They often enough cite sources. CNN et al. have pretended they have sources, not usually citing any actual names. They've proven how they can never be trusted, except for like, 2-5 % of the time. Believe it or not, they have delivered upon their professional obligations every once and awhile, Trump has praised them for that, when they do it, but they haven't proven they can be trusted. Especially now more than ever.

Sean Hannity (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cDcnD4-Zdo&feature=youtu.be&t=6m52s) and Newt Gingrich (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRGmFnJS9DM&feature=youtu.be&t=54s) explaining some of this better than I ever could.

Yes, I know, woo-hoo, Fox News. But they're almost one of the only of the mainstream media that's proven they can be much more trustworthy than most other outlets. They were also not colluded with the Clinton campaign as most other outlets were; Wikileaks has proven this. Yet nobody, not even anybody here, has ever mentioned the blatant corruption they have exposed, which proves a lot of my claims, and a lot of others. But Fox also has some great people; Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, etc, but they also have some 'eh' people; Shepard Smith, no others I can think of at the moment. And one of the other things I appreciate about them is often having individuals of both sides on to debate; it displays both sides of the story. Hence 'fairly balanced' to the some degree.


The thing is, a biased source isn't necessarily always one that is inherently bad, but it depends on what you're looking for. I read/watch Democracy Now! and The Intercept a lot, both of which are very obviously politically left sources. But the entire reason for their existence is as activist media. I know perfectly well that I read them because I'm generally in agreement with them on most issues and so they often bring things to my attention that are specific to my interests. But I would never use these sites as my sole source of information, nor do I think they'd want me to.

Even with you bearing that in mind, and even with you not utilizing them as the sole source of information (no one should ever do that, I for example almost daily do the 'Donald Trump' Google search to see what's going on in the mainstream media), what you regularly watch/listen to has an immense effect on one's belief system, a heavy influence, i.e. what you'll generally believe and how you will view certain things, topics, places, or people. It makes particular things more or less believable.

I will say this; the liberal-democrat left and the conservative right (or rather, alt-right) have each proven how they can be and how they operate, so there's a difference between the two and each of their media(s) and how they handle topics and reports.

But just keep in mind; there's something about being biased, and there's something about being wrongfully biased. There's a difference.


Ultimately there's an issue of principle even if you trust the source to be accurate. It's the same reason why, for example, a "study" done by a religious organization on a topic related to their own beliefs would not be widely considered reliable evidence for anything - as long as a potential motive exists to run things in such a way that it helps make your own views look supported by the results, people are skeptical about whatever conclusions are drawn. Thus we have processes where research is peer reviewed, checked by professionals in the related field to ensure that its methodology was sound and that the group conducting it isn't doing so under any kind of ideological banner.

There have been way too many cases of individuals taking part in these 'peer reviewed' research studies that are paid or told to say certain things, or have a certain opinion about something, and check in/whatever to provide the conclusive results that they would want to be broadly put out in the circulation and provided as the 'un-biased' truth and research that we should base facts upon, when in truth it's more liberally-biased than anything.

Here's an interesting passage(s) from the New York Post (http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/liberal-bias-in-academia-is-destroying-the-integrity-of-research/);
"A forthcoming article in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, published by Cambridge University Press, describes this problem in detail.

The article, whose lead author is New York University’s Jonathan Haidt, finds that academic psychology has lost nearly all of its political diversity in the last 50 years and that the validity of the discipline has been “undermined” as a result.

And while the authors note that greater political diversity would improve things, nonliberals face a “hostile climate and discrimination.”

Just how bad is the problem? It’s not just that few academics voted for Mitt Romney. At a recent meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Haidt asked the audience by show of hands to identify themselves by their political orientation.

He estimates the resulting ratio of liberals to conservatives at 267:1. If anything, it was probably worse, since many conservatives don’t want to be “outed” to their colleagues.

This ideological one-sidedness, according to Haidt and his co-authors, has consequences far beyond the common bullying of conservative students.

They cite, for instance, a paper about the “denial of environmental realities” by some of their colleagues in the British Journal of Social Psychology.

When subjects exhibit the “denial of the possibility of an ecological crisis” or the “denial of the danger of disrupting balance in nature,” the authors characterize them as tapping into a “primitive” belief system.

In other words, if you don’t subscribe to modern environmentalist propaganda, you might as well be Caveman Og, swinging your club at wooly mammoths. Haidt and his colleagues patiently explain how terms like “balance of nature” and “crisis” are vague.

Since they are not “facts,” it’s not possible to be “in denial” about them. “Disagreement,” they write, “is not the same … as denial.” Such concepts are skipped over in grad school, apparently."
You can of course question the article all you want, but I think it provides a well enough explanation and, uh, uh, citing of sources to explain why there might be wrongful bias in a lot of peer reviews.
Even so, the peer review system has its own deep flaws anyway. It isn't to be utilized as the sure-fire way for proving anything.


What you call "fake news" mostly includes organizations that in their reporting strive for neutrality. (Like we talked about before, this doesn't include editorial writing, in which the whole point is that the author is expressing personal views). To this day, I've yet to see a single example of something that CNN, for example, lied about even though Trump and his followers go around claiming they do it constantly.

Rightfully.

Examples of actual fake news stories;

-Trump's comments about Sweden ('last night in Sweden') are false
-Russia's involvement in the election or anywhere else in any wrongful manner
-Trump's criticizing the press and mainstream media is unconstitutional and un-american, and incites violence
-Executive order/travel ban is unconstitutional

These are examples of widely-pushed 'real' fake news stories that misrepresent facts and / or actual happenings or events, by the mainstream, *ahem*, excuse me, fakestream media outlets. This is a bunch of bullshit.

Often enough, it's the literal saying of otherwise than what really happened. I don't believe for a second that they strive for neutrality; or even follow their obligatory 'ethical standards'... anymore, if I'm to be generous. Reality, and truly debunked fake news stories and subjects have proven this; and even quite possibly somewhere in the 'over 200 hours' of leaked audio from CNN (or, who I, and many like to call, the Communist News Network) in Atlanta may as well prove their overall deceitfully-purposed agenda, but I've not had to time to sift trough any of that. But even so, 'Aid the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.' does not fucking sound right for any 'factual' and 'non-biased' media reporting I've ever heard of.

Let me tell you something right now, ya never going to find any 'leaked audio' of Alex Jones or Mike Adams, or Jon Rappoport explaining their allegedly wrongfully-biased agenda or intentions to lie to people, because there is none, and they don't have one, and you'd be damn sure that the liberal-democrat left is doing everything they can to possibly find any footage or audio alike to that. Meanwhile, insiders or contacts from CNN provide O'Keefe and Project Veritas with inside audio that, at some points, most likely exposes a lot of the shady stuff they discuss behind closed doors. And uh, their biased agenda/intention to misrepresent information, because there is one, and they do have one.


Example: you recently claimed that during the Milo debacle the media lied about him and called him a pedophile. I see no evidence of this at all. Here's CNN's report on the story:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/21/media/milo-yiannopoulos-downfall/index.html

"Milo resigns from Breitbart amid child sex comments" is the headline. It happened in a "firestorm over unearthed comments in which he seemed to endorse sex between 'younger boys and older men.'"

These are completely accurate comments and don't accuse Milo of pedophilia. In the video he does indeed seem to endorse such relationships. Milo himself essentially agreed with this in his resignation statement, saying he used a "poor choice of words." The word choice was poor because it seemed to defend pedophilia when he says that is not what he meant to express at all. Okay, fair enough. Some might doubt the sincerity of what he's saying, some will believe him. The point is that this article just presents the facts.

In the United States we have a legal concept called libel. Trump has said he wants to expand it so that anything someone says about him he doesn't like can be legally punished, but as of now, what it means is that you're not allowed to knowingly publish false information about a person that negatively impacts them. If CNN or any other major media source published something that says, "Milo Yiannopoulos proven pedophile, resigns in disgrace" he could and I assume would sue them for insane amounts of money and he'd most certainly win it. The fact that he isn't suing anybody should tell you all you need to know. There's no libel here.

I think you misunderstood me, I never claimed he was accused of pedophilia or of being a pedophile, and if that's what your point's based off, then it isn't really valid, because I did not say that. (Although I unintentionally said 'All they have to do is quite simply call him a pedophile', but that was really more of an explanation of how out-of-hand things can become, I didn't meant that's what was reported) I said that the media is lying about him by the overall tone and persisting implication that he supports and promotes pedophilia, once again, even after his apology, as well as more importantly his being clear that he doesn't support pedophilia. Saying his comments 'seemed to defend pedophilia' (even though it wasn't even very direct enough) the while having the sections of the press conference or quotes of his saying he doesn't, is like essentially lying. Even if directly, or by implication, which it mostly seems to be, there exists the misleading belief in the article that he supports pedophilia. The overall idea is misleading.

For a nit-picky sort of example, they don't even provide the whole press conference, only a selected section of it. They don't even show or provide the alleged clips either; a site like Breitbart News or Constitution Rising would most definitely do so.

His comments do not directly indicate that 'he seemed to endorse sex between "younger boys and older men."'. That is not a fact. He does not promote pedophilia, or 'sex with 13-year olds'. These are not facts. This is mostly blown out of proportion.

The source for this 'witch-hunt', which is the Reagan Battalion, a pretend-conservative activist group that is 'linked to progressive activists and far left movement “Indivisible.”', who have 'have indirect links to far left George Soros groups.'. They were behind disruptions at GOP Town Hall rallies, for example. They were purposely out to defame Milo, and they being of the left, the while supposedly stating they're of the conservative right, makes complete sense, and the media picked up on their story fast. I speculate they even already knew about it beforehand, but that's only my suspicion.

"BREAKING: Organizers That Took Out Milo Linked to Far Left George Soros Groups" (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/breaking-organizers-took-milo-linked-left-leaning-george-soros-groups/)

This article cites sources of two other articles/reports;

"Behind Reagan Battalion: The group that took down Milo Yiannopoulos has ties to Democratic activists" (http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/reagan-battalion-milo-yiannopoulos-never-trump/)

"‘Indivisible,’ With Ties to George Soros, Sows Division Against Trump, GOP Lawmakers" (http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/10/indivisible-with-ties-to-george-soros-sows-division-against-trump-gop-lawmakers/)

So, the Reagan Battalion, who pretends to be conservative, but really has both direct and indirect ties to the left, has set out to destroy Milo's reputation/misrepresent/blow out of proportion his views on pedophilia. I do believe that the video(s) were deceptively edited to support their claims, especially with Milo having said such after he's reviewed his comments and the footage. It's also like saying 'this man supports pedophilia/child abuse' the while providing the evidence they already expect you to look at with the implication of how that is what he means with the sensitive statements he made, while providing the preferred context and most likely editing out moments where he most likely makes clear what he means, or what doesn't put him in as much a guilty light, though I don't disagree that he used a poor choice of words. And I understand how it could be misunderstood, but it was widely misrepresented. The context it was all provided within wasn't the deserving context. But he knows what he meant, and he's made clear what he meant, and that's what really matters.

"Let us pray for our brothers & sisters who are being rounded up & kept in fema like camps to be returned back to Mexico. All they wanted was the American dream & a better life while making money & providing for their families, while running from poverty & corruption."

I don't want to hear any of this "Trump made the right choice" bullshit. This is just fucked up.

Call me when there's an actual legal way to get them to stay here.

Those people in that pic legal or illegal??

Those people in that pic legal or illegal??

What do you think?

Again, if you tell me on how people can legally get here, then I might shut up. I won't guarantee it though.

That depends entirely on how they're in the country; legally or illegally. Bear in mind they all bear and retain the right to be vetted, and to enter the country legally, by the standard protocols. Apparently these people were not, unfortunately. But everybody has the right, nobody kept them from doing it by the law, how it's supposed to be done.

I'd like to think they're illegal (as wrong as that sounds), cause if they're legal then there's no reason they should be treated like that.

For the record, just because I voted for him does NOT mean I always support him 100% of the time nor agree on what he does. This whole immigration thing could be handled much more humanely.

At the same time, he said he was going to work on it, and he's trying. I don't know the details, just that he changed his tune on his immigration policy during his speech last night. Apparently for the better.

Lastly, if people would LEGALLY come in to this country, there wouldn't be this clusterfuck of an immigration problem. If you were born here, great. If you're migrating from another country and go through the proper steps and get your citizenship, I'm so happy for you. If you come in to the country illegally and reap the benefits of American citizens, that's a different story.

^Yes. There are the proper steps for a path to US citizenship, nobody confiscated their ability to follow them and become a liberty-loving citizen who loves the American dream.

I also noticed how the original Facebook post makes them look more like victims to an oppressive presidency. I don't really like that.

Was it CNN, Huffpost or NY Times? :laugh:

Here (https://www.facebook.com/byron.bossman/posts/1105512986260639), I think. But I could predict that the aforementioned would make a thing out of it, though.

Would a "Victims of Jewish Crime" or "Victims of Black Crime" unit be disturbing?

Trump supporters need to answer this.

That's an irrelevant question. Any crime is disturbing.

I'd like to think they're illegal (as wrong as that sounds), cause if they're legal then there's no reason they should be treated like that.

For the record, just because I voted for him does NOT mean I always support him 100% of the time nor agree on what he does. This whole immigration thing could be handled much more humanely.

At the same time, he said he was going to work on it, and he's trying. I don't know the details, just that he changed his tune on his immigration policy during his speech last night. Apparently for the better.

Lastly, if people would LEGALLY come in to this country, there wouldn't be this clusterfuck of an immigration problem. If you were born here, great. If you're migrating from another country and go through the proper steps and get your citizenship, I'm so happy for you. If you come in to the country illegally and reap the benefits of American citizens, that's a different story.

The problem with treating human beings like categories and statistics should be more obvious than it apparently is. I think a lot of Americans must envision immigrants as sort of old west drifter types who thought they could make it big in the world living as outlaws. But a huge chunk of them came here to provide better lives for their children, many came here as children and have absolutely no better control over their origin than you or I, and quite a few came here as illegal refugees whose alternative option was death. Our "legal process" is a petty technicality to them by comparison to any of this.

We look at immigration in an ass-backwards way, like the lawful process is a right of passage or something, when we really ought to conceive of it as a regrettable national security necessity. Focus should be on controlling the causation, not punishing the consequences.

---------- Post added at 02:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 AM ----------


That's an irrelevant question. Any crime is disturbing.

You're an irrelevant question.

---------- Post added at 02:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:12 AM ----------

"POTUS said something that makes me uncomfortable but I am a POTUS fan so I'll just pretend it never happened." Talk to me when your testicles descend.

You're an irrelevant question.

https://media.giphy.com/media/l46C5RvfKLFtlR0pG/giphy.gif

if they were legal they woudnt be there. simple as that.
a legal inmigrant is as american as the bald eagle.

That's an irrelevant question. Any crime is disturbing.

You commit a crime every time you download music from here, genius. Am I to be disturbed by that?

Sharing isn't a crime, though.. it shouldn't be, and even biggest organizations have agreed to it. The real crime is when you are lucrating off it. What Bart Oss does for example is a crime. Everytime a share is monetized.

But everybody has the right,

Unless you happen to be from a banned country, if Trumpy had his way.

---------- Post added at 12:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 PM ----------


That's an irrelevant question. Any crime is disturbing.

The American Revolution was a crime.

https://media.giphy.com/media/l46C5RvfKLFtlR0pG/giphy.gif

I simple adore this GIF. I'm going to save it. I shall be using it a lot :laugh:


if they were legal they woudnt be there. simple as that.
a legal immigrant is as American as the bald eagle.

http://imgur.com/EymqvGw.gif

You commit a crime every time you download music from here, genius. Am I to be disturbed by that?

That's a very different crime from the sort that was at question. Y'all know what I meant.

---------- Post added at 07:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:53 PM ----------


Unless you happen to be from a banned country, if Trumpy had his way.

Even in this case, vetting or 'extreme' vetting is conducted before they're allowed into the country.


The American Revolution was a crime.

Sure... to the oppressive British government of the 1700s. :whatever:


I simple adore this GIF. I'm going to save it. I shall be using it a lot :laugh:

I love it too. One of my favorite things about it is how fed up he looks, and the expression of outright disapproval he gives. It well describes my reaction to many, many things. :p

Yeah, and illegal immigration is a crime to the oppressive US government of 2017 (and many years before).

The point is that "a crime is a crime" is a black and white, one-dimensional way of looking at an issue that is complicated and many-faceted. In fact there are many cases where acts that are unlawful are still morally justified, as you have just acknowledged by agreeing that the American Revolution was justified despite being illegal. Therefore to claim any illegal action is disturbing isn't sufficient. You need to show that that act is not just illegal but justifiably illegal and therefore immoral.

Yeah, and illegal immigration is a crime to the oppressive US government of 2017 (and many years before).

The point is that "a crime is a crime" is a black and white, one-dimensional way of looking at an issue that is complicated and many-faceted. In fact there are many cases where acts that are unlawful are still morally justified, as you have just acknowledged by agreeing that the American Revolution was justified despite being illegal. Therefore to claim any illegal action is disturbing isn't sufficient. You need to show that that act is not just illegal but justifiably illegal and therefore immoral.


becuase theres law, and then theres justice.
one is not the same as the other.

(btw im agreeing with you)

(btw im agreeing with you)

I don't have the time right now, but I'll be sure to do some serious contemplating as to what I did wrong when I can.

---------- Post added at 12:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 AM ----------


I simple adore this GIF. I'm going to save it. I shall be using it a lot :laugh:

Here, I have another one for you that I'm sure would also appropriately represent your views.

https://s2.postimg.org/6jcfkk11l/totallywasntmockingadisability.gif

Yeah, and illegal immigration is a crime to the oppressive US government of 2017 (and many years before).

-refers to the US government of 2017 as oppressive

But, yes, to a large extent, this has been true, as for example much of our current governmental structure is corrupt and outright broken; the deep state, etc, and has been for quite some time, especially in the past eight years (you know what and whom I'm referring to), but given that Trump's administration follows through with, and is even allowed to make the proper choices and decisions that advances this country towards the right path; it's originally-intended future state, there's no such thing as calling it oppressive, as even at this moment, this current crisis is improving every day, as a result of many of his actions or executive orders having a direct effect on what they were intended for, and it's entirely because of our president, and his administration, and I have never been so damn proud to have a president in office than I am now.


The point is that "a crime is a crime" is a black and white, one-dimensional way of looking at an issue that is complicated and many-faceted. In fact there are many cases where acts that are unlawful are still morally justified, as you have just acknowledged by agreeing that the American Revolution was justified despite being illegal. Therefore to claim any illegal action is disturbing isn't sufficient. You need to show that that act is not just illegal but justifiably illegal and therefore immoral.

Well, to address, I was way too candid and succinct with my response of 'any crime is disturbing'. What I should've said, is any crime (like hate crimes) committed by or against a demographic, group of people, race - whatever, is disturbing.


Here, I have another one for you that I'm sure would also appropriately represent your views.

https://s2.postimg.org/6jcfkk11l/totallywasntmockingadisability.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/l46C5RvfKLFtlR0pG/giphy.gif

Come on, TK. Why use that totally shallow example to disparage support of Donald Trump? And actually, this is another example of a 'fake news' story. CNN's headline is 'Trump mocks reporter with disability', when, looking back, we see how many other individuals he's mocked who weren't disabled, (like Ted Cruz, for example) and it was the same hilarious tactic with the flailing of the arms and such. And on top of that, from his remarks, he was not even aware that reporter was disabled. And the mainstream media really had a field day with that one.

"The True Story: Donald Trump Did Not Mock a Reporter’s Disability" (https://www.catholics4trump.com/the-true-story-donald-trump-did-not-mock-a-reporters-disability/)

"Even MORE Video Evidence Trump Did Not Mock Reporter’s Disability" (https://www.catholics4trump.com/even-more-video-evidence-trump-did-not-mock-reporters-disability/)

This is very much in line with the media's tendency to jump on any little thing they could use to their advantage to smear his reputation. It's stupid. We know he wouldn't do that.

CNN's headline is 'Trump mocks reporter with disability', when, looking back, we see how many other individuals he's mocked who weren't disabled, (like Ted Cruz, for example) and it was same hilarious tactic with the flailing of the arms and such.

Um. You pretty much confirmed what TK was trying to go for here. :p

Good.

Good.

Trump: I can keep complaining about the false media, but really, what's the point when you've already won?

Because they so often straight up lie about what's happening, and that would bother anybody immensely who is, as the president, trying to do those respective things they constantly spread misinformation about, and whom is literally trying to better the country for everybody, and people snarl, and rage, and get triggered, and throw a fucking hissy fit about him like fucking idiots entirely because of the false and distorted reality the mainstream media proposes, and this will reflect on anybody's behavior or opinion about Trump who believes it. I completely understand his frustration.

---------- Post added at 12:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 AM ----------

Because of shit like this, for example.

"Morning Mika Calls Trump Administration A Dictatorship – Twice" (http://rickwells.us/morning-mika-calls-trump-administration-dictatorship-twice/)

I'd honestly be outraged at our 'free press' or 'free media' for spreading misinformation about my administration.

---------- Post added at 12:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:54 AM ----------

Or, I mean, like, this guy in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpLAzAZXi2A) puts fairly well plenty examples of their complete bullshiting everybody. I'd personally recommend a watch of its entirety to anybody, because I think their hypocrisy and bullshit needs to be made more aware of.

By the way, I'll be linking to a lot of articles/videos and commentating on them in the very near future.

"The True Story: Donald Trump Did Not Mock a Reporter’s Disability" (https://www.catholics4trump.com/the-true-story-donald-trump-did-not-mock-a-reporters-disability/)

"Even MORE Video Evidence Trump Did Not Mock Reporter’s Disability" (https://www.catholics4trump.com/even-more-video-evidence-trump-did-not-mock-reporters-disability/)

That sure wasn't fun, but I did watch all these videos, and in none of them is he making the same hand gestures or vocal noises.

Obviously, no one knows precisely what he was thinking and feeling when he made those gestures and sounds. But maybe there's a generational issue here. When I was a kid, before it had started to become socially unacceptable, we used to mock retarded people all the time. It was like calling things "gay" when you meant they were stupid or shitty. We didn't think about the fact that it was actually cruel and insensitive - it was a socially normal thing, so we did it. One of the ways you implied someone was retarded was putting your arm in that position, and moving it from side to side. Sometimes you'd hit your chest with it. You'd make noises like "duuuuhh duuuuh" while you were doing it. It had nothing to do with any kind of specific implication about a specific disability - I doubt any of us knew what Kovaleski's disability was at the time (and I still don't know much of anything about it). It was just the general "I'm a retard" motion for mocking people. It looked (and sounded) pretty much exactly like what Trump was doing in that video, and not at all like what he's doing in all those other videos that supposedly "prove" he wasn't mocking a person's disability.

Does anyone really believe that Trump knew the exact nature of this guy's disability? The idea that he made hand motions Kovaleski doesn't make and therefore couldn't have been mocking his disability is a pretty enormous stretch. All I see here is more attempts to demonize the media for reporting what he actually did and what it actually looked and sounded like.

Would a "Victims of Jewish Crime" or "Victims of Black Crime" unit be disturbing?

Trump supporters need to answer this.

That sure wasn't fun, but I did watch all these videos, and in none of them is he making the same hand gestures or vocal noises.

Obviously, no one knows precisely what he was thinking and feeling when he made those gestures and sounds. But maybe there's a generational issue here. When I was a kid, before it had started to become socially unacceptable, we used to mock retarded people all the time. It was like calling things "gay" when you meant they were stupid or shitty. We didn't think about the fact that it was actually cruel and insensitive - it was a socially normal thing, so we did it. One of the ways you implied someone was retarded was putting your arm in that position, and moving it from side to side. Sometimes you'd hit your chest with it. You'd make noises like "duuuuhh duuuuh" while you were doing it. It had nothing to do with any kind of specific implication about a specific disability - I doubt any of us knew what Kovaleski's disability was at the time (and I still don't know much of anything about it). It was just the general "I'm a retard" motion for mocking people. It looked (and sounded) pretty much exactly like what Trump was doing in that video, and not at all like what he's doing in all those other videos that supposedly "prove" he wasn't mocking a person's disability.

Does anyone really believe that Trump knew the exact nature of this guy's disability? The idea that he made hand motions Kovaleski doesn't make and therefore couldn't have been mocking his disability is a pretty enormous stretch. All I see here is more attempts to demonize the media for reporting what he actually did and what it actually looked and sounded like.

I actually had a reply typed up days ago, but I ended losing it, and said 'fuck it'. And I haven't really had the time to type anything up recently anyway. But what I was going to attempt to explain is already better explained in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueCdV_wCVrc

One of the main points is that, if Trump really intended to mock the reporter for his disability, he would necessarily have to be standing more still with his wrist in limp position, as that would reflect the usual behavior of Kovaleski when he himself is speaking, which is shown in the video at this point (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueCdV_wCVrc&feature=youtu.be&t=7m48s). The thing is, the media sported this around as if he acted with intent and had already been aware of the nature of Kovaleski's disability, and because of this, that makes him a bad person, and that would make him an 'improper', or rather 'inappropriate' president, according to the MSM.

---------- Post added at 01:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 AM ----------

"CNN Cuts Feed of Congressman After He Reveals Facts About Refugees" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hkHraAaW-0)

Perfect set of examples for how CNN handles the situation when actual truth - and not a controlled narrative - is being spoken on their network.

So...how much blood needs to be on their hands for the 'real America' to stop voting for the GOP?

Well, if there weren't... say, RINOs in the GOP, then I don't believe voting for it would be an issue. But it's a bit complicated. The GOP stands for something, and too many individuals act in name only and not for its fundamentals.

*snicker*

Well, if there weren't... say, RINOs in the GOP, then I don't believe voting for it would be an issue. But it's a bit complicated. The GOP stands for something, and too many individuals act in name only and not for its fundamentals.
At some point what something was and what something is can't be denied.

The Dems WERE the party of the KKK, now the GOP is.

The GOP WAS the party of smaller but better government, now they're just whores to the elitists whose cocks they gleefully suck.

The GOP WAS the party of morality, now they keep electing & promoting the most morally corrupt people see in an age.

The GOP may been a beacon of light and good and stood for that something, somewhere, some when...but now they do not.

The GOP of my grandparents is dead.
In it's place is Mos Eisley Spaceport.

At some point what something was and what something is can't be denied.

The Dems WERE the party of the KKK, now the GOP is.

The GOP WAS the party of smaller but better government, now they're just whores to the elitists whose cocks they gleefully suck.

The GOP WAS the party of morality, now they keep electing & promoting the most morally corrupt people see in an age.

The GOP may been a beacon of light and good and stood for that something, somewhere, some when...but now they do not.

The GOP of my grandparents is dead.
In it's place is Mos Eisley Spaceport.

90% or more of major political office holders in this country for the past decade or so are either leftists who believe in hard left policies or leftists who believe in hard left policies but think that if a republican was in charge of imposing those identical hard left policies, it would somehow succeed. The latter are referred to as "RINOs", and they make up the bulk of the current GOP whereas conservatives are the dwindling minority. With that in mind, much of what you just said is unfortunately true. The part about GOP being KKK is unadulterated nonsense, but I'll allow it. The problem today is that the majority of people who vote for the GOP don't know the difference between the RINO and the conservative, because there are 20 RINOs for every one conservative. The whole system is diluted with them. Ever since 2000, every man who received the R nomination was a RINO. Many of those who ran in the primaries were RINOs. Still, if I had a choice between Romney and Obama, I'll take Romney. It doesn't mean I think Romney is a conservative. It doesn't mean I think Romney is the best man for the job. But we have to deal with the cards we are dealt, however shitty they may be. Trump was nominated because this time around, the majority of voters were tired of politicians in general. However, the majority of GOP voters still do not see the difference between a RINO and a conservative, they only see the difference between a career politician and someone who is clearly not. So among Fiorina, Trump, and Carson, Trump stood out as the most bombastic. I didn't vote for him in the primary. But was he a better choice than Clinton? I say yes, and so do many in America. We had to deal with the cards we were dealt. Trump is by no means a conservative. In fact, I would probably have preferred both of the non-politician candidates mentioned above over him. But what's done is done. I have to agree with you on most of what you said, but the first thing you said indicates to me that you are characterizing the GOP as conservative ideology, when a conservative views the things you have said, taken literally, to be a condemnation of the left. The GOP and its true values are not what conservatives vote for. If you are intending to condemn conservative ideology, you should amend your statements to specifically condemn *conservative* ideology, not the d̶e̶m̶o̶c̶r̶a̶t̶i̶c̶ republican party.

Well, it took more than a year, but the coup is complete. Republican tie breaks in the Supreme Court henceforth should be viewed as acts of tyranny with no legal standing. Suffer them, never legitimize them.

Elections have consequences. Not voting has consequences. 42% of Americans did not get off their asses and did not vote. In the end only voting matters.

Because Clinton winning would've been so much better. And because it's not okay for people to simply not believe in politics and not trust anyone there at all.

Because Clinton winning would've been so much better.
Yes. Yes she would have.

Elections have consequences. Not voting has consequences. 42% of Americans did not get off their asses and did not vote. In the end only voting matters.

It's more complicated than that. Republicans hold the largest House majority since 1928 in an election where Democrats got the most votes. The Republican President lost the popular vote. Republicans suspended the law to shut down the ninth supreme court seat for over a year in a literal if non-violent coup. Voting is becoming increasingly less relevant as we cease to be a democracy.

Still important, obviously, but if we complacently sit back and assume we can just take all the power back in 2018, it's not going to happen.

Trump won by very small margins in key states. Pennsylvania: 68,236. Michigan: 11,837. Wisconsin: 27,257. Total: 107,330.

The Michigan Football Stadium holds 107,601 persons. If that number of people had voted for Clinton, she'd be president. So voting matters. When almost half the country doesn't vote, it matters.

Because Clinton winning would've been so much better.


Yes. Yes she would have.

What the fuck did I just read.

---------- Post added at 03:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:17 PM ----------


Voting is becoming increasingly less relevant as we cease to be a democracy.

*Democratic-Republic

We should really stop saying 'democracy', because we aren't one. The 'republic' part of a democratic-republic is such a vital one as it by law limits what government is allowed to do and what measure of involvement they hold.

A page on politics, hein!!! :)

---------- Post added at 06:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:35 PM ----------


Because Clinton winning would've been so much better.

It does not matter who wins. Clinton, Obama, Trump.including the european ones.... etc. they are all puppies controlled by 3 Corporations: City of London, Washington DC and Vatican City, that run the World.

---------- Post added at 06:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:40 PM ----------

http://wakingtimesmedia.com/3-corporations-run-world-city-london-washington-dc-vatican-city/

---------- Post added at 06:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:40 PM ----------

Most people are unaware that one of the greatest threats to their freedom may be a United Nations program which plans to depopulate 95% of the world.

While the mainstream media has ignored the freedom-infringing nature of Agenda 21, the world’s leaders and the United States have passed another “biodiversity” plan which many are calling the current program’s “evil twin.”

According to the United Nations website, Agenda 21 is a “comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations system, government, and major groups, in every area in which humans have impact on the environment”.


http://humansarefree.com/2015/12/obama-and-un-just-passed-agenda-21-on.html


decryted :)

http://humansarefree.com/2016/04/agenda-2030-aka-new-world-order.html

Save the Earth, Eat Soylent Green.

Move over clonemaster, the experienced conspiracy theorists have arrived.

Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990

You don't seem very much like the real Anaximander

Trump eats his own farts.

Save the Earth, Eat Soylent Green.

and plant trees too.

Mike Pence look like one of the Children of da corn all growed up

Mike Pence look like one of the Children of da corn all growed up
http://pa1.narvii.com/6139/68fc27f343e46a309703d87f486b9174e4afd05f_hq.gif

http://pa1.narvii.com/6139/68fc27f343e46a309703d87f486b9174e4afd05f_hq.gif


He's also got a touch of Damien.

http://pa1.narvii.com/6139/68fc27f343e46a309703d87f486b9174e4afd05f_hq.gif


He's also got a touch of Damien.

So...yeah.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/saudi-arabia-execute-apos-atheist-124114852.html