The long nightmare has just begun: Inauguration of a fraud.

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
This has already led to Nixon impeachment comparisons:

FBI refused White House request to knock down recent Trump-Russia stories

White House officials had sought the help of the bureau and other agencies investigating the Russia matter to say that the reports were wrong and that there had been no contacts, the officials said. The reports of the contacts were first published by The New York Times and CNN on February 14.

The direct communications between the White House and the FBI were unusual because of decade-old restrictions on such contacts. Such a request from the White House is a violation of procedures that limit communications with the FBI on pending investigations.​
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Or among the numerous treatments of the story we haven't read all of the same. But you'd have to be inclined to deliberate reason to see that and be as interested in an honest difference as you are in whatever you're up to.

So...nuts to you then. :D

Saint Trump can do no wrong. All the while he's bumbling his way through the implosion of the administration being managed by Stephen Bannon, his supporters are still going to claim him as political savior.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
This has already led to Nixon impeachment comparisons:

FBI refused White House request to knock down recent Trump-Russia stories

White House officials had sought the help of the bureau and other agencies investigating the Russia matter to say that the reports were wrong and that there had been no contacts, the officials said. The reports of the contacts were first published by The New York Times and CNN on February 14.

The direct communications between the White House and the FBI were unusual because of decade-old restrictions on such contacts. Such a request from the White House is a violation of procedures that limit communications with the FBI on pending investigations.​

great - impeach trump, get President Pence sworn in and let's get going on reversing roe v wade and all the homo crap :thumb:
 
Last edited:

Danoh

New member
This has already led to Nixon impeachment comparisons:

FBI refused White House request to knock down recent Trump-Russia stories

White House officials had sought the help of the bureau and other agencies investigating the Russia matter to say that the reports were wrong and that there had been no contacts, the officials said. The reports of the contacts were first published by The New York Times and CNN on February 14.

The direct communications between the White House and the FBI were unusual because of decade-old restrictions on such contacts. Such a request from the White House is a violation of procedures that limit communications with the FBI on pending investigations.​

Yep :thumb:

There's lots more out there regarding one thing or another as to that fraud in the WH; but I often don't bother posting it - the extremists on here are as bad as the Media they continually point their hypocritical finger at - they only focus on stories and or threads favorable their delusion and smokescreen bickering :chuckle:
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
This is such an excellent analysis. Well worth the time to read it:

TRUMP, PUTIN, AND THE NEW COLD WAR
What lay behind Russia’s interference in the 2016 election—and what lies ahead?

By Evan Osnos, David Remnick, and Joshua Yaffa


170306_r29508-1456x750-1487880784.jpg
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
H.R. McMaster Breaks With Administration on Views of Islam


WASHINGTON — President Trump’s newly appointed national security adviser has told his staff that Muslims who commit terrorist acts are perverting their religion, rejecting a key ideological view of other senior Trump advisers and signaling a potentially more moderate approach to the Islamic world.

The adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, told the staff of the National Security Council on Thursday, in his first “all hands” staff meeting, that the label “radical Islamic terrorism” was not helpful because terrorists are “un-Islamic,” according to people who were in the meeting.

That is a repudiation of the language regularly used by both the president and General McMaster’s predecessor, Michael T. Flynn, who resigned last week after admitting that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence and other officials about a phone call with a Russian diplomat.

It is also a sign that General McMaster, a veteran of the Iraq war known for his sense of history and independent streak, might move the council away from the ideologically charged views of Mr. Flynn, who was also a three-star Army general before retiring.
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
Muslims who commit terrorist acts are perverting their religion

Yeah, pick up a Quran. It is a book of peace, and part of that peace is to either have nothing to do with infidels, or destroy them.

It's just a fact, Jack. Muslims just don't live up to the latter, so they go the former and call their dealings with others tolerance. There's a reason why Islam is not blended into our culture like the Jews, you see, because they are intrinsically opposed to it.

You all's perception of Islam was completely made up, and you've spent so much time laboring under it that you now try to call it fact.
Sorry, but you're mentally ill in continuing to labor under a visibly false narrative :wave2:
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Yeah, pick up a Quran. It is a book of peace, and part of that peace is to either have nothing to do with infidels, or destroy them.

It's just a fact, Jack. Muslims just don't live up to the latter, so they go the former and call their dealings with others tolerance.

Kinda like alt-right fundamentalist Christians who would be happy to turn the Middle East into "glass."
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Yeah, pick up a Quran. It is a book of peace, and part of that peace is to either have nothing to do with infidels, or destroy them.
Except for the fact that that's not part of their actual orthodoxy, which is why only a sliver of fanatics are trying to harm others, mostly other Muslims who disagree with them, but a lot of us too.

So what do you know about their book, how it's read and how passages are in relation to chronology?

Anyway, you should post the verses you're speaking to so people can understand that you're not just parroting a thing you heard or read without looking into it...you know, assuming that's the case.

Given the odds, here's a link to an actual Muslim answer from someone versed in his own faith (link).

Oh, he says you're full of (hopefully, but not likely) beans. :poly:
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
Except for the fact that that's not part of their actual orthodoxy, which is why only a sliver of fanatics are trying to harm others, mostly other Muslims who disagree with them, but a lot of us too.

:rotfl:
Islam began it's extremism before Mohammad even hit the dust.

This notion you all have of Islam is made up- it's something that you have all repeated so many times that you forgot that you invented it.

What a moderate Muslim says is in tolerance, it is not what they really believe. They don't follow modern virtue, they follow medieval virtue because Mohammad doesn't leave any other option- you are by default an enemy of God to them. They still stone people for apostasy hombre, I mean come on now :rolleyes:
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
:rotfl:
Islam began it's extremism before Mohammad even hit the dust.

This notion you all have of Islam is made up- it's something that you have all repeated so many times that you forgot that you invented it :freak:
For those of you playing at home, I first asked Cruc to produce the actual verses his analysis rested on so the skeptical could understand he wasn't simply parroting something he heard and, instead, that he had actually read and understood and formed his own criticism.

He couldn't manage it.

Then I provided a link to Muslims actually answering on the point. And he did whatever that self-congratulatory bit of nonsense he posted above this was in lieu, because the alternative for him would be personally embarrassing.

And that's the truth you find often enough at the heart of any bigot.
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
For those of you playing at home, I first asked Cruc to produce the actual verses his analysis rested on so the skeptical could understand he wasn't simply parroting something he heard and, instead, that he had actually read and understood and formed his own criticism.

He couldn't manage it.

Then I provided a link to Muslims actually answering on the point. And he did whatever that self-congratulatory bit of nonsense he posted above this was in lieu, because the alternative for him would be personally embarrassing.

And that's the truth you find often enough at the heart of any bigot.

I added to my last post, but I'll just say it again anyway- they still stone people for apostasy.

How much more do you need to know before you realize that you're laboring under a delusion. You want to get into a debate on the book that tells them to do it? Are you aware that there is no New Testament section of the Quran :chuckle:
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
:chz4brnz:These are yes or no questions
I put more meat on the bone, though I'd agree they're questions that require an unambiguous answer. That's all yes or no give you. I'm giving you that and more.

Are you a pro-abort? Do you defend homos? Do you defend Islam?
Here's the relevant part of the post you should have read, again. Let's take it issue by issue.

Am I pro-abortion? It's hard for me to imagine anyone not knowing the answer to that. I've argued against it for years, won my first notice by Knight for a post on that very point which I believe made it to the POTY he compiled. But for the sake of the newbies about:
I have never supported abortion.
I can't imagine the educational lack that would produce the semblance of ambiguity in reading that answer. But if somehow the lack of "no" was really calling "never" into question (and God alone knows how) then what follows should help...assuming anything could:

Not even as an atheist. It is a fundamental violation of human right and a morally indefensible act.
Now I don't know your neighborhood, but in mine that's not how people who support a thing speak of it.

The only argument anyone could advance for it in any case would exist where a pregnancy is an immediate threat against the life of the mother, as a form of self defense. And given the right of the unborn even that's problematic.
Or, even the best argument for an exception isn't without problem.

Next up, do you defend homosexuality?
I have never supported homosexuality,
Again, a real toss up. [/sarcasm] Or, try it this way. Read both of those opening sentences, but place a "Yes," or "No," before them. See what happens.

It's a sin. I'm a Christian. I'm not going to tell anyone that it's good to sin, that it doesn't work a harm, because all sin does, which is one reason we have grace and the need for it.

Beyond that, I note the thing that some have tried to use to dishonest effect.
though I have always contended it is a purely moral choice and not one our government should be in the business of policing.
There are all sorts of sin that in our compact are ultimately between the sinner and God, not the sinner and the state.

Last batter up. Do you defend Islam? Okay, this one isn't as direct in answer and people who have a problem with unsimplified answers might struggle. I can see that. So I'll help at the outset: the answer is that I'm a Christian and as such I'm an adversary of Islam, Judaism and any other opposing world view. I attempt to be a genial and open one, and always an honest one. So I can't support or defend their orthodoxy in comparison with my faith, but my own faith requires my opposition be above board. What I've done and would do for any religion that's slandered or libeled is what I've done here.

As Christians, we don't have to lie about Islam to oppose it's tenets and teachings. In fact, distorting or approaching any other faith dishonestly damages our witness. It is that I oppose in others. There's reason enough to differ honestly and strongly. Or, as I put it in my last:
I'd defend any religion against an attack that isn't an honest and informed criticism. When people, mostly bigots like Sod or Cruc, attempt to spread misinformation about another religion instead of simply standing up for their own and distinguishing the faith of Christ from its echoes in the world it makes a sad commentary on their own lack of confidence in their faith.
 
Last edited:

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
I added to my last post, but I'll just say it again anyway- they still stone people for apostasy.
Some do. Most don't. I saw what appeared to be more you saying whatever about Islam without verse and particulars, again.

How much more do you need to know before you realize that you're laboring under a delusion.
I know what someone who doesn't have more than a spoon fed bit of nonsense will tend to do when questioned or pushed on a point of bias.

You're illustrating it wonderfully by the way. :thumb:

You want to get into a debate on the book that tells them to do it?
Why, you know someone who's read it?

Are you aware that there is no New Testament section of the Quran :chuckle:
That about the extent of your understanding, is it. :plain:
 
Top