Skip to main content

All of these attacks are by cowards and people that have mental deficiencies and are horrible in that they target innocent people no matter race or religion or whatever.  If you can remember though contrast the New Zealand attack and thew way that most mainstream media is covering it compared to many of the other terror attacks that have happened that involved Muslim attackers.

For one the media cannot help but stumble over itself in repeating over and over and over again how the New Zealand attack was carried out by "White Extremist" and even though there is nothing in what the man said that would associate him with liking Trump the media is insistent upon finding some ways to tie him or white nationalist to Trump.  Trump never was racist until he decided to run for President as a Republican and then he became, to so many and the media, racist.  On the other hand when there  was an attack by a Muslim then you'd find a harder time finding a Trump supporter in Detroit or Chicago than finding the words Muslim extremist associated with those attacks.

The media is so giddy and eager to mention, over and over, how this attack was by a white extremist but when there is an attack by a Muslim or minority you have to dig and wait and labor to discover the nationality and/or religion of the attacker.  ALL terror attacks are wrong and horrible and those guilty deserve death and even that isn't good enough to avenge for their actions but there is a distinguishable difference in the way most media outlets cover these events and I fully believe those differences are politically motivated and reveal a bias that pervades most media outlets.  Often times I wonder if the way the media covers these events doesn't exacerbate the problems and create or heighten problems that otherwise may not have existed or may not have risen to a level of threat.  

Be as the Bereans ( Acts 17:11 )

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

there are Christians being killed in several countries with little or no coverage.  There is slavery is several countries with zero coverage.  pedophilia is several countries with zero coverage.  However let one lone white male bump someone and the media screams.  yes the media is to blame for some and I wouldn't be surprised if some were somehow staged by governments.  

I for one am not ashamed of being white, and wish no ill to any group.  However I will defend my family.

gbrk posted:

All of these attacks are by cowards and people that have mental deficiencies and are horrible in that they target innocent people no matter race or religion or whatever.  If you can remember though contrast the New Zealand attack and thew way that most mainstream media is covering it compared to many of the other terror attacks that have happened that involved Muslim attackers.

For one the media cannot help but stumble over itself in repeating over and over and over again how the New Zealand attack was carried out by "White Extremist" and even though there is nothing in what the man said that would associate him with liking Trump the media is insistent upon finding some ways to tie him or white nationalist to Trump.  Trump never was racist until he decided to run for President as a Republican and then he became, to so many and the media, racist.  On the other hand when there  was an attack by a Muslim then you'd find a harder time finding a Trump supporter in Detroit or Chicago than finding the words Muslim extremist associated with those attacks.

The media is so giddy and eager to mention, over and over, how this attack was by a white extremist but when there is an attack by a Muslim or minority you have to dig and wait and labor to discover the nationality and/or religion of the attacker.  ALL terror attacks are wrong and horrible and those guilty deserve death and even that isn't good enough to avenge for their actions but there is a distinguishable difference in the way most media outlets cover these events and I fully believe those differences are politically motivated and reveal a bias that pervades most media outlets.  Often times I wonder if the way the media covers these events doesn't exacerbate the problems and create or heighten problems that otherwise may not have existed or may not have risen to a level of threat.  

You are aware of the lawsuits concerning race, lost by Mr. Trump, prior to becoming POTUS, right?

You are aware the New Zealand shooter left a 'Manifesto' proclaiming the virtues  of White Supremacist  and how Trump inspired his actions, right?

Let that sink in for a minute. ....

A White Supremacist , in New Zealand, drew  his inspiration for a mass shooting from the spouting of the current POTUS.

L. Cranston posted:
gbrk posted:

All of these attacks are by cowards and people that have mental deficiencies and are horrible in that they target innocent people no matter race or religion or whatever.  If you can remember though contrast the New Zealand attack and thew way that most mainstream media is covering it compared to many of the other terror attacks that have happened that involved Muslim attackers.

For one the media cannot help but stumble over itself in repeating over and over and over again how the New Zealand attack was carried out by "White Extremist" and even though there is nothing in what the man said that would associate him with liking Trump the media is insistent upon finding some ways to tie him or white nationalist to Trump.  Trump never was racist until he decided to run for President as a Republican and then he became, to so many and the media, racist.  On the other hand when there  was an attack by a Muslim then you'd find a harder time finding a Trump supporter in Detroit or Chicago than finding the words Muslim extremist associated with those attacks.

The media is so giddy and eager to mention, over and over, how this attack was by a white extremist but when there is an attack by a Muslim or minority you have to dig and wait and labor to discover the nationality and/or religion of the attacker.  ALL terror attacks are wrong and horrible and those guilty deserve death and even that isn't good enough to avenge for their actions but there is a distinguishable difference in the way most media outlets cover these events and I fully believe those differences are politically motivated and reveal a bias that pervades most media outlets.  Often times I wonder if the way the media covers these events doesn't exacerbate the problems and create or heighten problems that otherwise may not have existed or may not have risen to a level of threat.  

You are aware of the lawsuits concerning race, lost by Mr. Trump, prior to becoming POTUS, right?

You are aware the New Zealand shooter left a 'Manifesto' proclaiming the virtues  of White Supremacist  and how Trump inspired his actions, right?

Let that sink in for a minute. ....

A White Supremacist , in New Zealand, drew  his inspiration for a mass shooting from the spouting of the current POTUS.

I, for one, didn't care to read his rant nor will I but somewhere in, even the highly liberally biased news, reporting was the statement made that the shooter detested Trump and felt that China was closer to what his utopian society would be.  What does seem apparent is that President Trump is living, rent free, in your mind because you can't seem to get a biased view of him out of there.  You, I dare to say, really know as much about Donald Trump as I do Hillary or any other candidate the Democrats are running yet you are so convinced of his racism. 

It's amazing how Trump went all those years, darling of the left and liberals and Democrats how he was sought after for donations and sought after to be around and NEVER a hint or care about anything racist at least up and until he descended that elevator and threw his hat in the Republican ring for President.    What I do know about Trump is far more people, including minorities, that actually know Trump, speak up highly for him as a man of character and someone who is NOT racist.  They pulled this exact same thing about Reagan and will any Republican from now on out.  I don't know Trump personally nor do I know any of these politicians other than what I have heard them say while in front of the media.  What I have heard though is the media on a crusade to convince the public, with 95% negative reporting, that Trump is some bafoon and some evil dictator that needs to be vanquished from office.  

Sorry but I'm not buying into it and if you are trying to sell that this deranged shooter in New Zealand somehow was influenced by Trump or holds anything similar in mind with Trump then have at it because there is nothing that will convince you otherwise.  

Jack Hammer posted:
A liberal that can kill a number of people without much concern 
can't be believed in anything he might write.
Although the craving idiots will flock to backup every word he says.

 

Only a fool would blame Trump 

You are aware of that right? Let that sink in for an hour, it should
take about that long for the unaware, like ya'llselfs

Maybe NZ should analyze itself and see why someone wanted to shoot up a mosque. It has nothing to do with the US or Trump.

What the shooter said about Trump:  “As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure. As a policy maker and leader? Dear god no.”   https://www.itv.com/news/2019-...-mostly-introverted/

The man the shooter actually wants to emulate most is Sir Oswald Mosley, a British Fascist:    https://www.britannica.com/bio...d-Mosley-6th-Baronet   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Mosley

Brenton Tarrant seemed to have held all the trendy modern "isms" before he became what he calls himself now, an eco-fascist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ootings#cite_note-54

 

 

Open sourced wikipedia is constantly being edited to scrub info about the shooter. Try Heavy.com: https://heavy.com/news/2019/03/brenton-tarrant/

Of note about his choice of means to kill: "He wrote that he chose firearms for the attack because he believed it would mobilize the “left wing” in the United States to “abolish the second amendment,” which would in turn upset the “right wing” and fracture the U.S. “along cultural and racial lines.” 

CNN right out of the gate made statements under the cover of "assumed", "allegedly"  with out getting all the info.   This is what upsets many people, telling us what to think rather than what is true.   Now there are different reports, the early reports from CNN etc. and then later reports of "what the info really is".  Which is true we will never know since we wont see or if we do won't take the time to read info direct from shooter.  However both will be out there stirring the pot and causing future challenges.   Face it, what ever the trigger doesn't matter because anyone that turns it into violence is crazy.  The sad thing is because the is a white male, there are those that will decide white males are the problem.  There are those that will blame guns, rather than the crazy.   

Even sadder is more will jump on the ban wagon on each side without good info or thinking. 

Stanky posted:

Open sourced wikipedia is constantly being edited to scrub info about the shooter. Try Heavy.com: https://heavy.com/news/2019/03/brenton-tarrant/

Of note about his choice of means to kill: "He wrote that he chose firearms for the attack because he believed it would mobilize the “left wing” in the United States to “abolish the second amendment,” which would in turn upset the “right wing” and fracture the U.S. “along cultural and racial lines.” 

If that was his intent, shouldn't trump call out and denounce extremists? We've had attacks in churches, mosques and synagogues in the US, by white extremists.  The president should make it his top priority to prevent the country from becoming divided along cultural and racial lines.

Jack Hammer posted:
NAIO, The way you think and how any president thinks about
major events will not be thought of in the same way.

 

I don't remember a time when these things happen and Trump
didn't put it down.

What good does it do Trump to say anything...the left still jumps him and they jump all over any of his family that says anything. Why even bother?

Last edited by Jutu
Naio posted:
Stanky posted:

Open sourced wikipedia is constantly being edited to scrub info about the shooter. Try Heavy.com: https://heavy.com/news/2019/03/brenton-tarrant/

Of note about his choice of means to kill: "He wrote that he chose firearms for the attack because he believed it would mobilize the “left wing” in the United States to “abolish the second amendment,” which would in turn upset the “right wing” and fracture the U.S. “along cultural and racial lines.” 

If that was his intent, shouldn't trump call out and denounce extremists? We've had attacks in churches, mosques and synagogues in the US, by white extremists.  The president should make it his top priority to prevent the country from becoming divided along cultural and racial lines.

It is the President's job to enforce the laws of the land, so that covers any form of terrorism by any member of any race or culture. A white "christian" supremacist who shoots up a mosque should have his head placed upon a pike as much as a  Muslim who uses a vehicle to run over infidels. That's equal application of the laws.

As to public morality, obviously that is entirely up to us, the public. Presidents have the bully pulpit, but they shouldn't raid clan rallies, Black Panther meetings or even mosques with radical clerics without cause. It is permissible for the FBI to find informants within those groups and act when there is enough proof that laws are being broken or there is reason that an attack is imminent.

Jutu posted:
Jack Hammer posted:
NAIO, The way you think and how any president thinks about
major events will not be thought of in the same way.

 

I don't remember a time when these things happen and Trump
didn't put it down.

What good does it do Trump to say anything...the left still jumps him and they jump all over any of his family that says anything. Why even bother?

Because he's the president.  That's part of the job.  If he doesn't know how to lead or want to lead, mar a lago is thataway------>

Stanky posted:
Naio posted:
Stanky posted:

Open sourced wikipedia is constantly being edited to scrub info about the shooter. Try Heavy.com: https://heavy.com/news/2019/03/brenton-tarrant/

Of note about his choice of means to kill: "He wrote that he chose firearms for the attack because he believed it would mobilize the “left wing” in the United States to “abolish the second amendment,” which would in turn upset the “right wing” and fracture the U.S. “along cultural and racial lines.” 

If that was his intent, shouldn't trump call out and denounce extremists? We've had attacks in churches, mosques and synagogues in the US, by white extremists.  The president should make it his top priority to prevent the country from becoming divided along cultural and racial lines.

It is the President's job to enforce the laws of the land, so that covers any form of terrorism by any member of any race or culture. A white "christian" supremacist who shoots up a mosque should have his head placed upon a pike as much as a  Muslim who uses a vehicle to run over infidels. That's equal application of the laws.

As to public morality, obviously that is entirely up to us, the public. Presidents have the bully pulpit, but they shouldn't raid clan rallies, Black Panther meetings or even mosques with radical clerics without cause. It is permissible for the FBI to find informants within those groups and act when there is enough proof that laws are being broken or there is reason that an attack is imminent.

Agreed.  Listen up gbrk, jutu and jackhammer...

Stanky posted:
Naio posted:
Stanky posted:

Open sourced wikipedia is constantly being edited to scrub info about the shooter. Try Heavy.com: https://heavy.com/news/2019/03/brenton-tarrant/

Of note about his choice of means to kill: "He wrote that he chose firearms for the attack because he believed it would mobilize the “left wing” in the United States to “abolish the second amendment,” which would in turn upset the “right wing” and fracture the U.S. “along cultural and racial lines.” 

If that was his intent, shouldn't trump call out and denounce extremists? We've had attacks in churches, mosques and synagogues in the US, by white extremists.  The president should make it his top priority to prevent the country from becoming divided along cultural and racial lines.

It is the President's job to enforce the laws of the land, so that covers any form of terrorism by any member of any race or culture. A white "christian" supremacist who shoots up a mosque should have his head placed upon a pike as much as a  Muslim who uses a vehicle to run over infidels. That's equal application of the laws.

As to public morality, obviously that is entirely up to us, the public. Presidents have the bully pulpit, but they shouldn't raid clan rallies, Black Panther meetings or even mosques with radical clerics without cause. It is permissible for the FBI to find informants within those groups and act when there is enough proof that laws are being broken or there is reason that an attack is imminent.

One more thing. If you're going to type "christian", do the same for "muslim."  Because average everyday christians don't want to be lumped in with white supremacists and average everyday muslims don't want to be associated with islamic extremists.

Naio posted:
Stanky posted:
Naio posted:
Stanky posted:

Open sourced wikipedia is constantly being edited to scrub info about the shooter. Try Heavy.com: https://heavy.com/news/2019/03/brenton-tarrant/

Of note about his choice of means to kill: "He wrote that he chose firearms for the attack because he believed it would mobilize the “left wing” in the United States to “abolish the second amendment,” which would in turn upset the “right wing” and fracture the U.S. “along cultural and racial lines.” 

If that was his intent, shouldn't trump call out and denounce extremists? We've had attacks in churches, mosques and synagogues in the US, by white extremists.  The president should make it his top priority to prevent the country from becoming divided along cultural and racial lines.

It is the President's job to enforce the laws of the land, so that covers any form of terrorism by any member of any race or culture. A white "christian" supremacist who shoots up a mosque should have his head placed upon a pike as much as a  Muslim who uses a vehicle to run over infidels. That's equal application of the laws.

As to public morality, obviously that is entirely up to us, the public. Presidents have the bully pulpit, but they shouldn't raid clan rallies, Black Panther meetings or even mosques with radical clerics without cause. It is permissible for the FBI to find informants within those groups and act when there is enough proof that laws are being broken or there is reason that an attack is imminent.

One more thing. If you're going to type "christian", do the same for "muslim."  Because average everyday christians don't want to be lumped in with white supremacists and average everyday muslims don't want to be associated with islamic extremists.

There is a good reason for the difference. At worst Jesus Christ commanded his disciples to sell their cloaks for swords, one of which Simon Peter used to cut the ear off one of the men who apprehended Jesus which drew a rebuke from Jesus. 

Muslims however have some rather disjointed commands from the Prophet Mohammad. The earlier quotes from Mohammad were more peaceful during the time when their numbers were small. Later when their numbers were higher we get quotes like below:

We have used the most widely available English text of the Qur’an and readers are welcome to verify our quotes from the holy book. Please have an open mind and read through these verses again and again. The following quotes are taken from the most trusted Yusufali’s translation of the Qur’an.

The Qur’an tells us: “not to make friendship with Jews and Christians” (5:51), “kill the disbelievers wherever we find them” (2:191), “murder them and treat them harshly” (9:123), “fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem”

(9:5). The Qur’an demands that we fight the unbelievers, and promises “If there are twenty amongst you, you will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, you will vanquish a thousand of them” (8:65).

Allah and his messenger want us to fight the Christians and the Jews “until they pay the Jizya [a penalty tax for the non-Muslims living under Islamic rules] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (9:29).

Allah and his messenger announce that it is acceptable to go back on our promises (treaties) and obligations with Pagans and make war on them whenever we find ourselves strong enough to do so (9:3). Our God tells us to “fight the unbelievers” and “He will punish them by our hands, cover them with shame and help us (to victory) over them” (9:14).

The Qur’an takes away the freedom of belief from all humanity and relegates those who disbelieve in Islam to hell (5:10), calls them najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (9:28), and orders its followers to fight the unbelievers until no other religion except Islam is left (2:193).

It says that the “non-believers will go to hell and will drink boiling water” (14:17). It asks the Muslims to “slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet of the unbelievers, that they be expelled from the land with disgrace and that they shall have a great punishment in world hereafter” (5:34).

And tells us that “for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods” (22:19-22) and that they not only will have “disgrace in this life, but on the Day of Judgment He shall make them taste the Penalty of burning (Fire)” (22:9).

The Qur’an says that “those who invoke a god other than Allah not only should meet punishment in this world but the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to them, and they will dwell therein in ignominy” (25:68).

For those who “believe not in Allah and His Messenger, He has prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!” (48:13). Although we are asked to be compassionate amongst each other, we have to be “harsh with unbelievers”, our Christian, Jewish and Atheist neighbours and colleagues (48:29). As for him who does not believe in Islam, the Prophet announces with a “stern command”: “Seize ye him, and bind ye him, And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire. Further, make him march in a chain, whereof the length is seventy cubits! This was he that would not believe in Allah Most High. And would not encourage the feeding of the indigent! So no friend hath he here this Day. Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds, Which none do eat but those in sin.” (69:30-37)

The Qur’an prohibits a Muslim from befriending a non-believer even if that non-believer is the father or the brother of that Muslim (9:23), (3:28). Our holy book asks us to be disobedient towards the disbelievers and their governments and strive against the unbelievers with great endeavour” (25:52) and be stern with them because they belong to Hell (66:9).

The holy Prophet prescribes fighting for us and tells us that “it is good for us even if we dislike it” (2:216). Then he advises us to “strike off the heads of the disbelievers”; and after making a “wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives” (47:4). Our God has promised to “instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers” and has ordered us to “smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them” (8:12).

He also assures us that when we kill in his name “it is not us who slay them but Allah, in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself” (8:17). He orders us “to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies” (8:60). He has made the Jihad mandatory and warns us that “Unless we go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish us with a grievous penalty, and put others in our place” (9:39). Allah speaks to our Holy Prophet and says “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern against them. Their abode is Hell – an evil refuge indeed” (9:73).

He promises us that in the fight for His cause whether we slay or are slain we return to the garden of Paradise (9:111). In Paradise he will “wed us with Houris (celestial virgins) pure beautiful ones” (56:54), and unite us with large-eyed beautiful ones while we recline on our thrones set in lines (56:20).

There we are promised to eat and drink pleasantly for what we did (56:19). He also promises “boys like hidden pearls” (56:24) and “youth never altering in age like scattered pearls” (for those who have paedophiliac inclinations) (76:19). As you see, Allah has promised all sorts or rewards, gluttony and unlimited sex to Muslim men who kill unbelievers in his name. We will be admitted to Paradise where we shall find “goodly things, beautiful ones, pure ones confined to the pavilions that man has not touched them before nor jinni” (56:67-71).

In the West we enjoy freedom of belief but we are not supposed to give such freedom to anyone else because it is written “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good) (3:85). And He orders us to fight them on until there is no more tumult and faith in Allah is practiced everywhere (8:39).

As for women, the book of Allah says that they are inferior to men and their husbands have the right to scourge them if they are found disobedient (4:34). It advises to “take a green branch and beat your wife”, because a green branch is more flexible and hurts more. (38:44). It teaches that women will go to hell if they are disobedient to their husbands (66:10). It maintains that men have an advantage over the women (2:228).

It not only denies the women’s equal right to their inheritance (4:11-12), it also regards them as imbeciles and decrees that their witness is not admissible in the courts of law (2:282). This means that a woman who is raped cannot accuse her rapist unless she can produce a male witness.

Our Holy Prophet allows us to marry up to four wives and he licensed us to sleep with our slave maids and as many ‘captive’ women as we may have (4:3) even if those women are already married. He himself did just that. This is why anytime a Muslim army subdues another nation, they call them kafir and allow themselves to rape their women. Pakistani soldiers allegedly raped up to 250,000 Bengali women in 1971 after they massacred 3,000,000 unarmed civilians when their religious leader decreed that Bangladeshis are un-Islamic. This is why the prison guards in Islamic regime of Iran rape the women that in their opinion are apostates prior to killing them, as they believe a virgin will not go to Hell.

https://centerforinquiry.org/b...uslims-of-the-world/

You might note that the highlighted passage is from a secular Muslim. Islam is a bipolar religion, but not all of it's followers are homicidal maniacs. At face value, someone killing a non-Muslim could be a good Muslim according to some of that faith.

"....which would in turn upset the “right wing” and fracture the U.S. “along cultural and racial lines.” 

As to public morality, obviously that is entirely up to us, the public.

Now do the old testament.

Which way is it going to be? 

Are we going to keep looking for ways to divide ourselves?  Or are we going to work together in the spirit of democracy?

Last edited by Naio

Jewish voters are furious at Dems’ defense of Ilhan Omar

About time.

Jewish voters furious at Democrats’ defense of Rep. Ilhan Omar say they’re done with the party that has held their support for generations.

“We felt we had a home there,” said Mark Schwartz, the Democratic deputy mayor of solidly blue Teaneck, NJ. “And now we feel like we have to check our passports.”

Jordan Manor of Manhattan, who calls himself a “gay Jewish Israeli-American,” laments, “The party I thought cared about me seems to disregard me when it comes to my Jewish identity.”

Mark Dunec, a consultant in Livingston, NJ who ran for Congress as a Democrat in 2014, says, “I’m physically afraid for myself and for my family,” adding, “I see my own party contributing to the rise of anti-Semitism in the United States.”

Last edited by giftedamateur
Naio posted:

"....which would in turn upset the “right wing” and fracture the U.S. “along cultural and racial lines.” 

As to public morality, obviously that is entirely up to us, the public.

Now do the old testament.

Which way is it going to be? 

Are we going to keep looking for ways to divide ourselves?  Or are we going to work together in the spirit of democracy?

Pardon me, aside from Samaritans, no one lives the Old Testament way with burnt offerings and "eye for an eye". Jewish people made some big changes to how they worship and live more than a millennium and a half ago.

Where did you get the idea that I support treating Muslims differently than anyone else? They are covered by our Constitution and laws just like everyone else. That said, I might be old and forgetful at times, but that doesn't make me senile or stupid and facts that I find distasteful still are facts.

It doesn't matter who likes it or not, Obumer divided the country
as in race. Then liberal Dems magnified and multiplied the hate
Jan. 2017 for their love of Helda where they stirred the pot to a degree
never seen before in the US and continues just as hate filled today.
 
The hate has over flowed to point of resulting in their hate has included
America itself.  The libs couldn't care less for the health of the country
as long as they can destroy it rather than not being in control.

 

Jack Hammer posted:
It doesn't matter who likes it or not, Obumer divided the country
as in race. Then liberal Dems magnified and multiplied the hate
Jan. 2017 for their love of Helda where they stirred the pot to a degree
never seen before in the US and continues just as hate filled today.
 
The hate has over flowed to point of resulting in their hate has included
America itself.  The libs couldn't care less for the health of the country
as long as they can destroy it rather than not being in control.

 

Remember when we would have a Muslim terror attack in the US and Obama would call it "work place violence or a lone wolf attack"? He never called out anyone, he made excuses. No matter what Trump says, they still aren't happy. Liberals are forever talking about "white, Christian, Republican old men" and wanting them to die out.

If you are a democrat you hate white males...especially Christians, want open borders...want the destruction of our country, to be able to kill babies at birth, help spread Islam in the US, take from productive folks to give to unproductive people, do away with law enforcement and our military, disarm the country and stay in power forever to have things taken from working folks and handed to them. Take a look at what democrats just put into offices and support, no matter what they say. IF Satan did exist he would be a democrat. They can enjoy it until the day they have to start eating their pets. Of course their leaders will be well taken care of.

Jack Hammer posted:
It doesn't matter who likes it or not, Obumer divided the country
as in race. Then liberal Dems magnified and multiplied the hate
Jan. 2017 for their love of Helda where they stirred the pot to a degree
never seen before in the US and continues just as hate filled today.
 
The hate has over flowed to point of resulting in their hate has included
America itself.  The libs couldn't care less for the health of the country
as long as they can destroy it rather than not being in control.

 

Forum Republicans have said they'd rather give America to Russian than a Democrat. Democrats are the only True Patriots left in America.

L. Cranston posted:
Jack Hammer posted:
It doesn't matter who likes it or not, Obumer divided the country
as in race. Then liberal Dems magnified and multiplied the hate
Jan. 2017 for their love of Helda where they stirred the pot to a degree
never seen before in the US and continues just as hate filled today.
 
The hate has over flowed to point of resulting in their hate has included
America itself.  The libs couldn't care less for the health of the country
as long as they can destroy it rather than not being in control.

 

Forum Republicans have said they'd rather give America to Russian than a Democrat. Democrats are the only True Patriots left in America.

I don't accept that, but if you have heard such then whom do you attribute those statement to?  I'm wondering if that is what was said or you just heard it that way based upon your own biases and prejudices.  We all are biased and prejudice in certain ways and I don't mean that as negatives necessarily.   I'm not using the words in terms or racism and with regards to race and gender etc...  

Taking what you said though, on face value, if I was going to be snarky with my answer I would reply that saying they would rather give America to the Russians than a Democrat, these days, with many of the current group of Democrats, is saying essentially the exact same thing.  It's getting to the point that some Democrats, today, are in their philosophy and beliefs quasi Communist already.  They put on the cloak of Socialism and pronounce socialism as their preferred way of government yet when you analyze their suggestions and goals they appear far more Communistic than socialistic.  

Regarding being Patriotic, if you take the definition of the word:

"having or expressing devotion to and vigorous support for one's country"

then it is the Republicans that seem, today, to be exhibiting conformity to the strict definition than most of the prominent Democrats.  Take the new freshman class of Democrats, at least those who are very vocal as well as the candidates for President in 2020 and what I'm hearing is a desire to change our nation, our country, to be something more aligned with Europe or  conforming to Socialism than Capitalism and what the United States Constitution defines.  I see far more Republicans pronouncing love for their country, as it exists under our Constitution than I'm seeing Democrats today.  True there are many patriotic Democrats who love our country as there are many Republican and libertarian and Independents but if when I hear Bernie Sanders and AOC as well as other Democratic candidates for 2020 speak I hear a theme that wants to change America from what it is to be more Socialist and something that our founders never intended for the nation to be.   What I'm saying is I respectfully disagree with your assessment.

Most who understand and comprehend the Constitution realize that the document LIMITS greatly the powers and reach of the Federal Government and makes powers and reach of the Individual States far greater and more prevalent.  Maybe people have forgotten just how great America is and how we became so great and strong.  I pray there are enough who realized what we have to understand that it can be lost.

teyates posted:

I must be pretty dense this morning, but did not understand a single thing you said nor what it had to do with the question which you asked. Other than my POV about Putin, and yes, I might would prefer Putin over Clinton the majority of the time.  At least with him you know where you stand.

__________________________________________

The question posted was... Would you pick Putin over any Democrat. This was teyates answer. 

You can accept whatever you wish. Most Republicans have chosen to reject reality for some time now.

Supporting Corporations isn't supporting Americans.

America's Democrats are the only people fighting for Americans. To help ALL Americans. The only True Patriots left.

Last edited by L. Cranston
L. Cranston posted:
teyates posted:

I must be pretty dense this morning, but did not understand a single thing you said nor what it had to do with the question which you asked. Other than my POV about Putin, and yes, I might would prefer Putin over Clinton the majority of the time.  At least with him you know where you stand.

__________________________________________

The question posted was... Would you pick Putin over any Democrat. This was teyates answer. 

You can accept whatever you wish. Most Republicans have chosen to reject reality for some time now.

Supporting Corporations isn't supporting Americans.

America's Democrats are the only people fighting for Americans. To help ALL Americans. The only True Patriots left.

So what's your pointless point. 

 

Jack Hammer posted:
L. Cranston posted:
teyates posted:

I must be pretty dense this morning, but did not understand a single thing you said nor what it had to do with the question which you asked. Other than my POV about Putin, and yes, I might would prefer Putin over Clinton the majority of the time.  At least with him you know where you stand.

__________________________________________

The question posted was... Would you pick Putin over any Democrat. This was teyates answer. 

You can accept whatever you wish. Most Republicans have chosen to reject reality for some time now.

Supporting Corporations isn't supporting Americans.

America's Democrats are the only people fighting for Americans. To help ALL Americans. The only True Patriots left.

So what's your pointless point. 

 

That you're still an idiot.

Thanks for helping prove my pointless point.

L. Cranston posted:
teyates posted:

I must be pretty dense this morning, but did not understand a single thing you said nor what it had to do with the question which you asked. Other than my POV about Putin, and yes, I might would prefer Putin over Clinton the majority of the time.  At least with him you know where you stand.

__________________________________________

The question posted was... Would you pick Putin over any Democrat. This was teyates answer. 

You can accept whatever you wish. Most Republicans have chosen to reject reality for some time now.

Supporting Corporations isn't supporting Americans.

America's Democrats are the only people fighting for Americans. To help ALL Americans. The only True Patriots left.

Actually supporting and helping Corporations is helping out a great number of Americans and Americans who need help and support.  You aren't going to see numbers of people put to work by poor people or by Government.  It's the Corporations and big businesses that help Americans to thrive and make an exceptional living when compared to much of the rest of the world.   The growth of American industry and companies like Ford Motor Company and General Motors as well as American Steel companies put countless numbers of Americans to work in good paying jobs so a Government making sure that industry and big companies have a beneficial and prosperous environment to grow in helps maintain  a job base for Americans who otherwise would have less meaningful jobs, if they had jobs at all.  

I'm not saying that a function of Government shouldn't be to help create an environment  beneficial for all Americans to find and have a job but a function of doing that is to ensure that corporate America grows and can compete with industries and companies in other lands and nations.  You certainly don't create jobs and wealth by punishing the wealthy and punishing people with initiative.  

 

 

gbrk posted:
L. Cranston posted:
teyates posted:

I must be pretty dense this morning, but did not understand a single thing you said nor what it had to do with the question which you asked. Other than my POV about Putin, and yes, I might would prefer Putin over Clinton the majority of the time.  At least with him you know where you stand.

__________________________________________

The question posted was... Would you pick Putin over any Democrat. This was teyates answer. 

You can accept whatever you wish. Most Republicans have chosen to reject reality for some time now.

Supporting Corporations isn't supporting Americans.

America's Democrats are the only people fighting for Americans. To help ALL Americans. The only True Patriots left.

Actually supporting and helping Corporations is helping out a great number of Americans and Americans who need help and support.  You aren't going to see numbers of people put to work by poor people or by Government.  It's the Corporations and big businesses that help Americans to thrive and make an exceptional living when compared to much of the rest of the world.   The growth of American industry and companies like Ford Motor Company and General Motors as well as American Steel companies put countless numbers of Americans to work in good paying jobs so a Government making sure that industry and big companies have a beneficial and prosperous environment to grow in helps maintain  a job base for Americans who otherwise would have less meaningful jobs, if they had jobs at all.  

I'm not saying that a function of Government shouldn't be to help create an environment  beneficial for all Americans to find and have a job but a function of doing that is to ensure that corporate America grows and can compete with industries and companies in other lands and nations.  You certainly don't create jobs and wealth by punishing the wealthy and punishing people with initiative.  

 

 

According to Republican theory, now, no American should have had a job pre 1960. Corporations couldn't afford to hire employees with all that tax burden. Yet, it's called the 'golden age'. History shows that Republican talking point to be false. 

Last edited by L. Cranston
According to the Dems theory, now, would "permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military." That's just the start of the stupidity 
liberal dems would change the world, it's called a death spiral. 
 
The first things to go would be every living  tree on earth along with
anything that will burn. 
 
All businesses would be out of business and the "i ain't working group,"
would have all the money, until they ran out of dope/drugs and died.
 
 
Jack Hammer posted:
According to the Dems theory, now, would "permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military." That's just the start of the stupidity 
liberal dems would change the world, it's called a death spiral. 
 
The first things to go would be every living  tree on earth along with
anything that will burn. 
 
All businesses would be out of business and the "i ain't working group,"
would have all the money, until they ran out of dope/drugs and died.
 
 

One party supports clean air, water, and a better planet. One party couldn't care less about anything other than corporate profit.

Democrats will always be the True American Patriots while Republicans practice scorched earth policy.

Last edited by L. Cranston

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×