Leaderboard

I won't be surprised when the conflict of interest stories begin to emerge from this gong show, not only Ivanka and Jarrod, but Trump himself.

It never fails to amaze me that no one here ever condones why the US is taking such a biased approach in foreign policy cosying up to the despotic saudi regime.... All I hear from right wing nutjobs is they are our friends on war on terror. Really? Same guys who masterminded Al Qaeda, ISIS, 9/11 and literally all terrorist activities? Yah, hypocrisy sucks!

The current plan to defend Islam...the indefensible...is to apparently blame Islam's critics for Islam's violence. Novel idea to say the least. The theory seems to be: shut-up and Islam will be loving and peaceful. Sort of like blackmail. Thus the argument has to be that since Islam = Peace...it's critics are the source of all the violence. Conversely, all death is the same in her world as you so ably pointed-out. It has to be or Islam has problems...and Islam is problem free. Now, apparently...according to dialamah...I am ISIS...not ISIS is ISIS. She really believes this...I think. She also believes there was peace at some point between Islam and the West. I broke that peace when I did 9-11...of course. And let me tell you, I had to pull a lot of strings to make it happen and look like Muslims did it.

I have in the past and you dismiss it with something called abrogation, never mind that actual Muslims believe and follow those verses. You've also informed us many many many times that if a Muslim does follow any of the Quranic verses related to peace, tolerance, acceptance, etc., they aren't really Muslims. Your version of Islam is as extreme as ISIS and you attack anyone who fails to accept it.

Like the child who doesn't want to contradict their father when he has a bigotted outburst.....so he doesn't cheer him on.....but at least he hasn't gotten his white hood out to truly embarass you.

I do agree that the religion is not/has not done enough to get this under control. It seems to me like the parent of a super bratty child who freaks out if anyone else says anything to the child, yet refuses to discipline them themselves. Unfortunately, it's getting to the point where the rest of the world needs to step and in and deal with them. Same with bratty children - eventually, they get out into the real world and it's becomes a really hard life for them because they are so offensive to others that they are avoided.

It is this bit that made me think you are referring only to me and Dialamah. Anyway glad to have sorted out the misunderstanding....

Under Sharia, it is DEATH. Pretty simple...and compelling.

Boeing laughs at lying Harjit Sajjan's F-18 warnings...deadbeats. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sajjan-boeing-bombardier-cansec-1.4139748

As I said, I either respond or I don't respond to comments I don't agree with. But I will not be dictated to by you (general MLW forum poster "you") or Dialamah, about what I do or do not respond to. Y'all can judge me and name-call me all you want. The only thing I'm serious about - is that I seriously don't care how you or Dialamah judge me, based on some comments on a few topics on an internet forum.

See, this is where you (general MLW forum poster "you") and Dialamah are being overly sensitive. I see you guys having freak-outs when someone makes a comment "BUT IT'S NOT ALL MUSLIMS" and frantically start searching for news items to derail the discussion. The difference with me is that I am confident that most people here know that already and are only speaking in general terms. I am confident that most people here are not idiots who believe ALL Muslims do those things. Getting different perspective is good, but when "different perspectives" are presented to just derail discussions and are given in an accusatory way.... Well, it's all in the presentation, sometimes.

Sometimes I see comments I don't agree with....sometimes I respond, sometimes I ignore. I just don't appreciate having someone else here dictate HOW, WHEN and WHAT I respond to.

Why can't we be against BOTH? Why does it have to be one or the other for you? Why are we not allowed to speak about Muslim extremism without derailing the subject into the morality of selling arms to the Saudis? Why are we not allowed to speak of Muslim extremism without frantically searching the interwebs for some random example of some weirdo Christian group doing something similarly stupid? This is your issue - assuming that anyone who disagrees with Muslim extremism automatically gives every other slightly related issue a pass. You completely miss the scale and scope of the problem and demand that everyone discuss it in a manner preferable to you - which means disregarding the Muslim extremism and only discussing what you will ALLOW to be discussed. Altai used to make up all kinds of "rules" for discussing things, too.

Some folks believe that if they are just a bit more smarmy...just a bit more aloof and superior...you'll see the "error of your ways" and see that indeed they are better than you in every way. Then they wonder why they get beat-up a lot. Oh dear...the checks and balances worked and California didn't get to tell everybody what to do. How disappointing for you. Good thing, though, that Trump invented the Electoral College in time for the election. Eh?

Its no lie, you and your ilk have routinely called for the mass killing and deaths of Muslims at our hands on multiple occasions for a decade or more in this forum alone.

Great video for our fellow knee jerkers to watch..... If it wasn't for the contribution of these muslims we would be singing 'Deutschland ist über alles' along with some members on this forum....

Buy me Big Mac and fries....love you long time !

May 31st, 1916 The Battle of Jutland is fought. The only major naval engagement of WW1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jutland

You have made numerous comments about me being an agent of Israel and Zionists so lighten up. With due respect don't fling out pro Israel Zionist references and not expect me to come back and call your responses pro Iran. They are. If the shoe fits wear it. Given the comments we have both sent each other I am surprised only now you sem to let being pro Iranian bother you. Lol. Come on lighten up. You dish out a lot of Zionist stuff. I take it tongue in cheek. Don't get high almighty. That said, you have a right to challenge my point because its a sensitive topic and I am not trying to insult all Muslims or Orthodox Jews or anyone else. I am being blunt though. There are internal issues in the ME that range far beyond blaming Jews or the Euro colonialists who in fact Arab nations had no problem working with to try wipe out Israel. When it suited Arab Regimes they were and are only too hapy to get in bed with Euro colonialists. Excuse me but if you point the finger at Euros, its absurd. There were thousands of years of internal ME society turmoil long before some white guy from Frane or Germany or Britain got involved. As for your analysis, you always avoid referring to the roles of China and Russia in the ME but are quick to slam the US? Why is that? Let's get real. Muslims in the ME are and have always been there own worst enemy. The sheer volume of internal strife evidences that. It was that way 4,000 years ago with Jews. They actually created a religious script to avoid internal fighting. The whole concept of a "chosen" people had nothing to do with defining them as better in the eyes of God, but entering into a collective agreement with God. If Hebrews agreed to worship God collectively, it was said God would do the same in reverse. This was an allegory designed to redefine Hebrews with a collective identity. Muhammed did the same with what would then turn into Muslim followers. In his religion the concept of a Jew being part of a collective nation and for that matter Christians becoming a collective has been problematic from the get go. Miuhammed defines non Muslims as not equal to Muslims and not capable of enjoying the same eights as Muslims. In the Koran creating a Muslim state where the religion is enforced through Sharia law through its government is an essential ingredient. Christianity though the Catholic Church not directly being government influenced state politics. As states evolved democratically, the power and connection between the state and the church ha sgrown much more distant although it prevails in certain countries. For Jews, being dispersed into the diaspora and always being defined by Christians in Christian states or Muslims in sharia law states as inferiors not able to have the same legal rights. this religious based concept remains. At the pith and substance of the Muslim world's battle with Jews is that the Koran is interpreted to state Jews are infidel, and not capable of having a collective let alone state structure because that would make them equal to Muslims. They are defined as going to hell unless they convert. They are defined as dhimmi and khafir. Being anti Zionist is just old recycled Muslim religious doctrine stating Jews can't have the same legal rights as Muslims. In the Christian world Jews as in the Muslim world, could not own land. Christianity has evolved and continues to evolve past its animosity towards the Jewish collective as having inherited the consequence of Jewish forefathers not recognizing Christ as THE messiagh. For the most part mainstream Christianity has denounced the blood libel and the disagreement as to whether Jesus was THE Messiah, one of many Messiahs, or referred to himself and all of us as Messiahs, remains a hot topic of debate within the Christian world not just with other religions. Islam has progressive Muslims who refuse to follow the Koran as do fundamentalists. They do not read in the Koran that it said Jews can not have the same legal rights. It reads the Koran passages as not saying women are inferior, gays are evil, etc. Fundamentalist Islam is most always the fuel in Middle East terrorism. Part if its beliefs also define gthe West as an imperfect society for pursuing material values and our sexual and moral practices. Let's be blunt. The depictions of Muslim terrorists as martyrs who will be awarded virgins in heaven for blowing themselves up mixes sexual and political references. Most religions do. Religion defines and tries to control primal instincts such as sexual drive or sexual assault and incest. Its not an accident in Somalia and Libya and other failed Muslim states, rape, incest, has increased. Its part of the complex puzzle of addressing numerous social and other behavioural issues. The clash between West and East is not just about Zionism or Euro colonialists, its about attitudes towards sexual behaviour, materialism, what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Its not an accident Muslim fudnamentalists whether they be in Iran or in ISIS controlled areas, have young Muslim men enforcing sexual laws. There is no way someone coming from a society that views gays as evil and women as inferior and sex out of wedlock as evil and the right of women to control their own bodies, etc. is not going to clash when they come to the West. Sometimes they clash the same fundamentalist Amish, Jews or Christians clash. Fundamenta; sects of Christianity and Judaism reject mainstream moral views. The difference is they don't engage in terrorism. Ultra orthodox Jews and Amish or very conservative Catholics or Protestants are not running around in the name of God blowing things up. I find it interesting the two faced hippocrate Trudeau who sits in Mosques in Canada embracing Islamic mullahs who define gays as evil, women who choose the right to control their bodies as evil, and Jews as cursed people, now calls out the new Conservative leader as being too religiously conservative. Andrew Scheer does not impose his personal Catholic views on everyone-Trudeau imposes his religious views on everyone. Trudeau in one breath embraces the very fundamentalist theology he then rejects Scheer for having-the difference-Scheer is a Catholic, so its o.k. to ridicule his beliefs, Trudeau's Muslim fundamentalist friends with the same beliefs however, are his "friends" not to be ridiculed for having the same beliefs. Excuse me some of us are fed up with the double standard. It is fueling are frustration in debates about Islam, religion in general, and what social values this nation should have. Scheer is a classic conservative who believes religion is a private matter. Trudeau believes its a public matter and will use it to portray Trudeau's views on it as the only acceptable ones. Excuse me but Trudeau and trendy leftist Liberals who are getting into bed with fascist Muslim fundamentalists are full of sheeyat. Its why Trudeau will spit morality if he thinks he hears anti Muslim comments but remain silent when he hears anti semitic or anti Christian comments from the very people he stands and giggles with in photo ops. I respect progressive and gentle Muslims. Its why I embrace Amidyah Islam or Islmaili Islam. Its why I reject the Sunni and Muslim approaches across the ME as we speak. I oppose them and the terrorism they fail to control because they have failed to engage in critical analysis of their own intolerance. I have no problem with social conservatives. If they believe abortion is wrong, homosexuality is wrong-that is their private religious view. If they keep it out of politics I am o.j. with that. Howwever certain fundamentalists including certain Jews, Muslims, Siekhs and Muslims want to use politics to impose their religious beliefs. If they do I challenge them for that. That is not Islamophobia. Fundalentalist Muslims don't get to use the anti Muslim card if they have views I disagree with. If I call all Muslims evil then yes you do. I never have. I don't come on this board and lambast Muslims for having Muslim states. You do with Jews for having one state. You blast the entire West in your comments and then in the next breath pose as a victim Muslim defending all Muslims because some of us challenge certain Muslim views. No thanks. I aint buying it. You want to call certain people bigots for painting all Muslims as evil, I support you. Call me that which you do repeatedly, I call you out on it for what you are, someone trying to censor me for challenging certain Muslim views-you are hiding behind an anti Muslim card to avoid debating certain issues. You've used that tactic over and over again. Have a nice day. The wise guy got upset when I asked him if he was going to eat the whole box of twinkies. Lol I didn't want yone I just wanted to know whether he was going to stand up or downwind from me. Rue 1342

Kathy Griffin expresses her "art"...and liberal stupidity. http://thehill.com/homenews/media/335721-tapper-kathy-griffins-trump-photo-disgusting

America can still be great without millions of illegals from Mexico, Canada, and other nations.

Yes...this is what democracy looks like....when they lose.

Has nothing to do with me...I served long after NATO was born. I just wanted to point the history for these nations who are suddenly so worried about Trump and NATO. If Canada wishes to remain a NATO deadbeat, then don't bitch about U.S. "isolationism"

Apart from her own personal choices and associated struggles in "the west", I wonder how her vision of feminism and LGBTQIA++++++ is doing in many predominantly Muslim nations, wherein Christians or Jews are "the other".

Then we become Greece, and suddenly people see even their government pensions taken away. I'm okay with that. My stock portfolio is going really well, and much of it is in US stocks.

I wish you were right. However, I look an example now: many Israelis look the same as Palestinians, as most are Semites. Look how that has turned out. Look at Africa and the fighting between different tribes. Look at the Shiites and Sunnis. Look at the Catholics and Protestants.

You're free to think the moon is Islamic.

The differences here, of course, are that the cross does not represent any particular POLITICAL leanings. Women are not being massacred all over the planet for not wearing a cross and no one is trying to force legislation to demand to wear the cross at inappropriate times.

A co-worker is Catholic, wears a cross everyday, and attends Church at least weekly. She thinks abortion is a personal choice. Another co-worker attends a different Christian Church and also wears a cross, attends weekly but disagrees with her Churches stance on homosexuality. Assuming you know what someone believes because of what they wear is brainless stupidity.

Leitch did a good job getting the message about Canadian values out and many Canadians agreed with her. Trudeau doesn't believe in this. Many Canadians do partly because Leitch made it a central issue.

Your video provided a snippet of Dawkins' comment. Here is the context: Whether there is an all-knowing, all-loving creator or there isn't... the world we see works as if there isn't. The world is full of pain, suffering, injustice, fear, misery... delivered without compassion or discrimination. As you say, the rain falls on the righteous and the unrighteous. The video attributes qualities like "equality" and "generosity" to God, but we don't see these qualities embodied in his creation. One baby can be born with a million-dollar trust-fund and loving parents... the next can be born with leukemia. That bears more resemblance to the "pitiless indifference" Dr Dawkin describes than to Dr Craig's "equality and generosity". Everyone already has their own idea of right and wrong. Even among Christians alone, the definition of right and wrong has been hotly debated constantly, for almost as long as Christianity has existed. Your video suggests that "equality", "generosity", and "sacrifice" are objectively as "good", and "greed", "abuse", and "discrimination" are objectively "evil". And yet Christians have continuously debated and changed their ideas of all of these things over the centuries. Dr Craig confidently proclaims that Abuse is objectively evil, and yet in centuries gone by, Christians have committed horrific acts of abuse in the belief that they were doing God's work. Torture and slaughter of witches and pagans and heretics, for example. Equality? Christians proudly note that Christians were leaders of the movement to abolish slavery in America. They're not quite as proud that Christians were also leaders of the US movement to retain slavery, or that Christians were the ones who captured and kept the slaves in the first place. Discrimination? Christians continue to debate which kinds of discrimination are and aren't acceptable, to this very day. Some Christians believed that the Bible supported segregation. Dr Craig says that discrimination is objectively evil, yet many different kinds of discrimination have been embraced by Christians over the ages, so clearly this is a subjective issue, not an objective one. Discrimination remains a hot-button issue in the United States right now as some Christians go to court to claim that their religion requires them to discriminate against others. If Christians are tapped into an objective morality, how have Christian views on so many issues changed so dramatically over the ages? One might suggest that there could still be an objective morality and we're just not able to agree on what it actually is... but is there any real difference between a subjective morality and an objective moral absolute that's continually being re-evaluated through ongoing subjective interpretation? I'd suggest that there isn't. Is a moral absolute even possible? Even the most clear-cut commandment-- thou shalt not kill-- isn't an absolute. We can all agree that there are situations where killing is necessary. Trying to figure out if you're in such a situation is a matter of subjective judgment. What about greed? The video says that greed is evil, but people actually spend a lot of time and energy trying to rationalize or justify greed. The video says that God is Love, and all of this objective morality flows from that principle, and that the objective morality it talks about stems from the commandment to "love thy neighbor as thyself". And yet, people spend a lot of time and energy trying to find reasons to not love their neighbors. You yourself, betsy, recently posted a message explaining that you feel that this most central principle of the New Testament actually only applies to other Christians. The video includes an image of a newspaper with the headline "Man Kills Child" as something we universally recognize as wrong. Yes, we do. And it's not just humans, either. Most types of animals feel the same way. Every creature has some strategy for making sure its offspring survive. For some types of animals, it's simply a matter of having so many offspring that the law of averages says enough survive to continue the species. For other types of animals-- mammals, birds-- care and nurturing are part of making sure their offspring survive. Most of us have seen some of the enchanting animal videos on the internet. One of my favorites is one where a big dog shows up in a yard and tries to grab a toddler... in a flash, a little house-cat attacks the dog like a fluffy little cyclone, chasing it away from the toddler. In another, a child falls down and hurts himself... mom arrives on the scene, but the family cat arrives too, thinks the woman has hurt the child, and makes her back away. A dog sees a girl swimming, and jumps into the lake, chomps a mouthful of her hair, and swims frantically to pull her to shore. A momma dog nursing an orphaned kitten along with her own puppies. We see these videos and think it's cute or funny, but they also illustrate something much more important. They demonstrate how other animals, not just humans, are able to form bonds, even bonds that transcend species. And they illustrate the powerful instinct of protecting and nurturing their young. This is something that, as you say, is written in our hearts. And not just human hearts. It is transcendent. If there were mammals that didn't have this instinct, they've gone extinct. If there are people born without the instinct to protect their young, they're not going to pass that gene on to future generations, because they aren't going to have descendants. There might have been societies where there were no limits on killing, but those societies probably didn't last long. Every human society has some minimum amount of principles to preserve order and unity and make sure the group survived. Every society that didn't have the minimum amount of principles to ensure its own survival died out. Further on the issue of "Man Kills Child", we can look at two examples from the Bible in which God explicitly tells men to kill children. One of them is when the Israelites massacred the Amalekites. God instructed the Israelites to kill every last man, woman, and child, even infants, even their farm animals. Everything. Nothing was to be left. If one supposes the killing of children to be an objective evil, this has to be pretty tough to reconcile with the notion of God as the definition of good. But Dr Craig tries anyway... he wrote an essay on the subject. "Obviously this sounds pretty bad, but..." Ultimately, the fact that Dr Craig can attempt to rationalize such a horrific event as "not actually evil" demonstrates that no matter how black and white a case of "objective morality" appears, there's subjective wiggle-room. A second example of God killing a man to kill a child is when God told Abraham to kill his own son. Luckily for Isaac, God stopped him at the last minute, once he had seen that Abraham really did intend to go through with it. What was the point of this? To make Abraham prove that his obedience to God was absolute... that he'd do what God told him, no matter how wrong it seemed. What's the message here? The message is don't trust your instincts, that morality that is "written in our hearts". The message is, don't listen to that innate sense of right and wrong that we possess... obey your religion instead. But if God is the source of this "objective morality" we all supposedly possess, why would religion come into conflict with it? And yet we see this in our world today. We see parents who believe in faith-healing ignoring their childrens' suffering because they think God wants them to. Like modern versions of Abraham, they're sacrificing their children because they believe God requires it. Surely this would fall under Dr Craig's notion of "objectively evil", and yet here we are in 2017 with children dying from easily treatable diseases because parents are convinced that God wants it that way. -k