OftenWrong

The whole quote is “Had Andrew Jackson been a little later, you wouldn’t have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart, and he was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War. He said, ‘There’s no reason for this." Not that I would second-guess him, but it seems clear he was aware that AJ was not around during the civil war. What he meant by the "he was really angry..." part is a little unclear. However he did not say he actually SAW the civil war.

Don't know. I do not follow such types.

What I quoted was said earlier during the same conversation. He knew Jackson was not alive during the civil war.Therefore there is some misconstruing going on.

Certainly the hyperbole coming from leftist media now is reaching near hysterical levels. So much for "they go low, we go high".

BBC documentary on what is being preached at mosques in the UK. Undercover Mosque is a documentary programme produced by the independent television company Hardcash Productions for the Channel 4 series Dispatches that was first broadcast on 15 January 2007 in the UK. The documentary presents video footage gathered from 12 months of secret investigation into mosques throughout Britain. The documentary caused a furore in Britain and the world press due to the extremist content of the released footage. West Midlands Police investigated whether criminal offences had been committed by those teaching or preaching at the Mosques and other establishments . West Midlands Police acknowledge the concerns that some parts of the programme may have been considered offensive, however when analysed in their full context there was not enough evidence to bring criminal charges against any individual. ACC Anil Patani for West Midlands Police said: "As a result of our initial findings, the investigation was then extended to include issues relating to the editing and portrayal of the documentary. The priority for West Midlands Police has been to investigate the documentary and its making with as much rigour as the extremism the programme sought to portray". West Midlands Police complained that the programme had been subject to such an intensity of editing that those who had been featured in the programme had been misrepresented, creating an unfair, unjust and inaccurate perception of both some speakers and sections of the Muslim community within the West Midlands. The resulting complaints to Ofcom were rejected by Ofcom on 19 November 2007. "Undercover Mosque was a legitimate investigation, uncovering matters of important public interest... In a move supported by Channel Four, the makers of the documentary then launched a libel action against the CPS and West Midlands Police. "The statements made by both the West Midlands Police and the CPS were completely unfounded and seriously damaging to our reputation. We feel the only way to set the record straight once and for all is to pursue this matter through a libel action." It gets better... On 15 May 2008 when the matter came to the High Court, West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service apologized to the makers of the documentary for accusing them of distortion and agreed to a payment of £100,000. The statement, released to the media by West Midlands Police, after the High Court hearing, said they now accepted there had been no evidence that Channel 4 or the documentary makers had "misled the audience or that the programme was likely to encourage or incite criminal activity". It added that the Ofcom report showed the documentary had "accurately represented the material it had gathered and dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context". The police statement concluded: "We accept, without reservation, the conclusions of Ofcom and apologise to the programme makers for the damage and distress caused by our original press release." Kevin Sutcliffe, deputy head of current affairs at Channel 4, said the apology was a vindication of the programme team in exposing extreme views. "Channel 4 was fully aware of the sensitivities surrounding the subject matter but recognised the programme's findings were clearly a matter of important public interest. "The authorities should be doing all they can to encourage investigations like this, not attempting to publicly rubbish them for reasons they have never properly explained," he said.

I don't get what the big deal was about this, other than it seems like the media purposely misconstrued what the President said. His initial remarks in that statement included- “Had Andrew Jackson been a little later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War." Obviously he knew that Andrew Jackson was no longer alive when the civil war actually began.

Why do they still preach about intolerance toward Jews, gays, women's rights in their Mosques here in Canada?

No doubt he has tasted that poison fruit.

You're saying a piece of ice is missing from Canada with an area of 90 km x 90 km.

The root of 8000 is... 90. Doesn't seem like much.

Terrorism is not just the act of violence, but the political message that accompanies it. In many cases the violent act is fairly minor. Terrorist action doesn't necessarily even need to be successful but for the fact that it sends a certain message.

Yep, you got that right. The Saudis are among the worst in the ME, culturally speaking and they should be condemned. But if we stop dealing with them from this moral standpoint, our adversaries would have no problem moving right in. Then we'd be screwed. The shit is chess, not checkers.

Sad to hear about your dog.

Canadian content section

It's not that different from drug busts in a sting operation where "fake" drugs are used, or in a potential terrorist investigation where would-be criminals are enticed into planning and preparing to commit crimes for promises of lucrative pay. Consider it a "pre-emptive" form of policing. At least they are stopped before they commit an actual atrocity. Or would you rather wait until someone hurts a child for real before taking action?

All British media is a form of comedy.

Note consistency of headgear worn by these guys- http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/gty_most_wanted_terrorists_jc_161024_4x3_992.jpg

Than what, say? Putting the turban on yourself?

It's too soon to say if there is a paradigm shift, but the most loud mouthed of intentions indicated there would be.

The people who really know what to do are the people who are on the ground, and their commanders. It comes down to a question of, does the commander in chief give them full reign, the benefit of the doubt, or does he purposefully limit their actions. In this regard I think the difference in attitude between a Trump and an Obama should be obvious. Second, as if you know anything about what they are doing on the ground. The fact that we don't hear things doesn't mean things are not taking place. Third, and perhaps most simply stated of all - MOAB

Yes, I support the notion that we fight them over there, to keep them from attacking us here. That was the plan that worked. Under Obama you had the appeasement theory which did not work. ISIS. So we must fight them. There is no other choice. Now, would you prefer we fight them there, or here? Because the Taliban approve of you.

Are we going to admit Universities are producing thin-skinned people? No.

The Taliban and ISIS agree with you.