Hal 9000

NO, you wouldn't see it - that's sort of the problem here.

It's a foundation, a charity - who cares which Canadian charity we're referring to. If it's the fact that the charity is somehow connected to Ivanka (although, it's pretty much just her name they're using), then your love and support for all things Hillary (who is actually the one organizing the money for the Clinton Foundation), just simply places you in the same hypocritical conundrum as Omni. I'd like to think you're putting me on and not actually a ...however!

If a country (China, Japan, USA...whoever) buys $110billion - or even a $Billion from Canada in lumber or minerals and drops off a cheque for The Terry Fox foundation or Habitat for Humanity, then sure...Thanks for that. That's just good business. Now, because you're still not getting it...somehow, If a country (China, Japan, USA...whoever) dropped off that cheque and then we signed a deal buying oil, or aircraft or plastics or coffee...whatever FROM THEM, then obviously I would take issue with that.

OK, let me sort this out. The Clintons can take donations and then give out contracts to those people - good! A country buys $110B worth or arms with USA and tosses in a donation - bad! Answer it? No, didnt think so! Just like Dialamah, it takes about 2 questions to trip you up and prove your hypocrisy, to prove that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Answer the fking question!

NO! I'm directing the question at you -- and i expect an answer!

OK, let me sort this out. The Clintons can take donations and then give out contracts to those people - good! A country buys $110B worth or arms with USA and tosses in a donation - bad!

The two scenarios are quite different - I assure you that. Regardless, am I to understand that you now see that the Clinton Foundation was just a wheel greaser for political favours?

Wilbur - I am trying real hard to explain this without insulting your intelligence, but maybe that's just not possible. Ok, so here are two different scenarios; 1) I am representing my company and using shareholders money to purchase a fleet of pick-ups. I go to Dodge, Ford and Chevy. The Dodge salesmen knows I also represent a foundation and pledges $1,000 to that foundation if I buy their trucks - If I do buy from Dodge (and take the pledge), I am now using my professional influence and spending shareholder money to improve my private foundation. This is how the Clintons operate, this is corrupt! 2) I am representing my company and using shareholders money to purchase a fleet of pick-ups. I go to Dodge, Ford and Chevy. I decide that the best trucks and best deal is from Ford. I hear that the Ford dealer supports a foundation and I talk to the shareholders and decide that we'll donate $1000 to that foundation. This is the Ivanka situation and totally legal, totally acceptable.

Well, I still don't think you understand the concept of who is making the purchase and who is the seller. In this scenario, it could be argued that the seller (Lockmart) used money to secure a sales deal - this is the Clinton formula....and arguably corrupt. Now, if the Saudi's gave 100$million to Ivanka's foundation and Trump signed a deal for America or americans to BUY FROM THEM, that would be the Clinton formula and again - corrupt.

The $100Mil. is split between 2 countries (at least). Let's say the Saudi's are spending $50Million. So, what is $50Million of $110,000,000,000.00. (that is $110 thousand million dollars)? It's nothing, it's like buying McDonalds and dropping the nickel into the charity can. It's like buying a new car and tossing the salesperson a 20$ Tim Hortons card. Also, it's a foundation run by the World Bank and Invanka doesn't really have any control of the money.

Ny dream is to hope we can get back to the idea of "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend your right to say it". That we can have good open dialogue and put forth an argument without a group of people shutting down free speech, looting, breaking windows, setting fires and attacking people with bike locks because they choose to support a different idea. My dream is to send my kids to a rock concert or sporting event without the presence of the military and know that they'll come home. My dream is to golf at St. Andrews in Scotland.

The obvious problem with this concept is that she actually believes it. Jocularity, no! She is a person of influence and actually believes that if we were just a little nicer, that the attacks would go away. Of course, even the most radical on here like Peter F and Dialamah (don't let her kid you, she knows the truth) know that is folly, it's not our fault and there is nothing we can do. So, what chance do we have when people like this woman have actual influence. Yikes!

Shouldn't it be goat anal rescues?

Why won't they?

Yes, I suppose some muslims weren't involved - we don't know how many that some is. However, even of those not involved, at least 20%-60% support the bombing.

Well, there have now been 10 people arrested and of course the bomber - that's now 11 that we know of. Three of these were family members who were going on the own suicide missions. Are they all crazy, all alienated? C'mon, I can call it what is. This isn't a lone shooter plugging someone at an abortion clinic, this is a network. These are people who believe that giving their lives to the cause is just, that's not crazy, that's not an aberation - you do understand that, right?

OH, and here we go with the loner or crazy excuse - anything but Islam...right?

So, if it's about the Caliphate, then it's about them not us, not how "poorly" they're treated (even though the west has bent over backwards for them) or how alienated they are, it's about the Caliphate - their religion - Islam. OK, so 20-30% of muslims believe (admittedly) in the Caliphate. Lets go with 20%, that's 350 million people who want to see us dead - for what? OK, that means that 350 million or 1 out of every 5 Muslims (I think it's more...but) wants you , your wife, and your children dead. Why? because of Islam. In englend stats show that at least 20% of Muslims believe that suicide bombings are just, other polls say up to 60%. At least 1 in 5 maybe 2 or 3 out of 5 Muslims in England think that blowing up 8-18 YO girls is justified. These girls had their arms, legs and heads blown to pieces and up to 60% of Muslims in England are OK with it. It took 2 days to identify some of these girls because their heads were blown apart - because of Islam.

You see, there is the "alienated" youth excuse. There is no evidence of this - that's your own imagination. All evidence shows that he was close to his family and community and he was getting a good education. You'll say anything to let this guy off the hook.

I thought this was about a caliphate? Are you calling Dialamah wrong?

No, didn't think you'd answer. At least you're smart enough to when your painted into a corner. That's something, I guess.

UGGGG....!

Thanks, I'm waiting for Dialamah to come up with something - I'm sure she's got a better answer than that.

Who is buying and who is selling - that's the key here. I honestly can't believe that you don't see it.