Rue

I am not sure how arguing Obama is a poo head makes Trump less of a poo head. I don't think that is how it works. Now mind you I conceded the theory of relativity appears flawed at the moment due to new equations seeming to suggest what we think is reality only becomes reality when we see it as reality meaning it does not exist unless we first decide to see it which would mean neither Obama are Trump are poo heads just illusions but I will go with the old theory of relativity for now and say one poo head does not undo another's poo or Obmapoo = Trumpoo squared.

Is that like the first line of a joke, what's the difference between a lefty and a righty? Hey I know, which hand has the blisters on it?

Yes all politicians do I mean you could argue what Churchill did rallying the British was fear mongering in one sense. I appreciate you being a pro Trump supporter you see nothing wrong in it,. I distinguish the fear mongering. When its directed at a specific category of people, and dehumanizes them as Trump does with every single opponent, I have a problem with it, and its not just say Latinos, its anyone he disagrees with. To think his discourse of what someone in the most powerful office on the planet should engage in is I would argue sad. He's lowered the dialogue to Mussolini rants or the ravings of a banana republic dictator. It is a style of leadership based on ridiculing and insulting others. In my day we called it snot nose behaviour and the silver spoon sneering and ridiculing the servant bringing him his tea usually ran into him in an alley and beat the snot out of his nose. Today such people hide behind flunkies they seem to fire every second day.

1. Kadr was successfully sued for $134 million in a Utah court which Canadian courts refused to acknowledge in 2017 when the widow of the decease attempt to collect it from Kadr in Canadian court. 2. Since then Omar who claims to this day to be a devout Muslim has used $3 million of the money he was awarded to buy a shopping mall in Edmonton. https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/amid-ongoing-court-battles-omar-khadr-uses-3m-of-his-settlement-money-to-buy-edmonton-mall 3. Kadr who claims to this day he is a devout Muslim does not follow his own religion in particular he does NOT acknowledge: "1.Qur’an 6:151 says, “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” (i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted). 5:53 says, “… whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.” 2. If the motive for terrorism is religious, it is impermissible in Islamic law. It is forbidden to attempt to impose Islam on other people. The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.” (-The Cow, 2:256). Note that this verse was revealed in Medina in 622 AD or after and was never abrogated by any other verse of the Quran. Islam’s holy book forbids coercing people into adopting any religion. They have to willingly choose it. 6. Terrorism or hirabah is forbidden in Islamic law, which groups it with brigandage, highway robbery and extortion rackets– any illicit use of fear and coercion in public spaces for money or power. The principle of forbidding the spreading of terror in the land is based on the Qur’an (Surah al-Ma’ida 5:33–34). Prominent [pdf] Muslim legal scholar Sherman Jackson writes, “The Spanish Maliki jurist Ibn `Abd al-Barr (d. 464/ 1070)) defines the agent of hiraba as ‘Anyone who disturbs free passage in the streets and renders them unsafe to travel, striving to spread corruption in the land by taking money, killing people or violating what God has made it unlawful to violate is guilty of hirabah . . .” 9. The Qur’an demands of believers that they exercise justice toward people even where they have reason to be angry with them: “And do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness.”[5:8]" source for above:https://www.juancole.com/2013/04/islamic-forbids-terrorism.html He also does not practice this basic precept of Islam: "Charity and punishment It is narrated by Anas bin Malik that the Prophet said: Verily charity appeases the wrath of Allah and eases the sufferings of death. (Tirmidhi)" source: https://mail.yahoo.com/d/folders/1?.intl=ca&.lang=en-CA&.partner=none&.src=fp Whether Kadr even practices zakat by donating 2.5% of his wealth annually to the needy is another question but he also ignores this basic set of precepts of Islam:. source:https://www.al-islam.org/greater-sins-volume-1-ayatullah-sayyid-abdul-husayn-dastghaib-shirazi/fifth-greater-sin-murder He also ignores this basic precept of Islam: "Repenting For Murder By way of repentance, a person who has committed a willful murder should surrender himself to the heir of the murdered person. The successors of the murdered person have a choice of either avenging the death or accepting the ‘diyah’. That is, they can forgive him or kill him in retribution. If the murderer is forgiven, Three things become obligatory on him: 1) Freeing a slave 2) Feeding sixty poor people 3) Keeping sixty fasts If freeing a slave is not allowed by the law, the other two penalties should be fulfilled. Accidental and Intended Murder Even in the case of an accidental murder the heirs of the victim are to be paid the ‘diyah’. But they should forgive the killer. Apart from this the Three penalties should be imposed, that is, freeing a slave, feeding sixty people and fasting for sixty days. Similarly cutting off a part of someone’s body is a Greater Sin. Those who intend to study this subject in detail are requested to refer to the books of Jurisprudence." In Islamic law Kadr committed Qati-i-amd: "2.1. Qatl-i-amd (Intentional murder) Qatl-i-amd (Intentional murder) is the deliberate killing of another with a lethal weapon or instrument such as club, a sharp stone, or fire. The jurists have stated that there are three basic conditions for intentional murder: (i) the victim must be a living human being; (ii) the victim must have died as a result of the action of the accused and (iii) the offender has willful intention of causing death of the victim." Nothing in Islamic law discusses or allows diminished capacity. The bottom line is if Kadr was a true Muslim he would not touch the money he was awarded as he knows it comes from a sinful act. Interesting all the people who claim Islam is a peaceful religion and does not condone terrorism condone what this person did in the name of Islam and engage in a Western concept of diminished capacity to claim he didn't need to follow his own religion which he claims to this day he follows without question. Kadr is a two faced murderer.

If you want to get elected in the US than yes what Trump does, fear monger such issues and present immigrants or illegals as a mortal threat in need of shooting with guns and a President who claims he will deport them all, did work last election. The question is do we expect more from politicians then getting elected by fear mongering? Is that the best we can do fear people and appear to people's fear of others? https://highexistence.com/12-psychological-tactics-donald-trump-uses-to-manipulate-the-masses/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/donald-trump-and-the-politics-of-fear/498116/ I find Trump simply to be a retread of Mussolini: source: http://www.thehypertexts.com/Donald Trump Benito Mussolini Parallels Fascists.htm "According to the 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts who authored The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, he is like Hitler, Mussolini and other leaders with cultish followers in important respects: (1) Trump craves attention and has a "mirror-hungry" leader personality; (2) his followers perceive Trump as a superhuman who is above the law and the need for morality or even common decency; (3) his followers blindly believe Trump's wild assertion, however untrue; (4) his followers blindly comply with Trump's directives for action; (5) his followers provide Trump with unqualified emotional support (he can "feel the love" when he's surrounded by his base). "

The thread was hijacked to deny the holocaust. I would like to know if Charles Anthony will again ban me for responding to Taxme as he did on another thread when Taxme did the same thing. Well Mr. Anthony? Where are you? You want to tell the forum what a thread highjacking is ? You banned me 3 days for responding to such comments ...have the decency not to hide from me after repeatedly asking you for clarification...speak up...please...when does changing the topic of the thread get your attention...when only some complain? Your silence speaks loudly. Leaving me no other choice. You ignore me privately what now with this thread? You want me to continue? I can only...deny you exist.

In regards to the first paragraph the sites you refer to are run by neo Nazi holocaust deniers and were clearly proven false. In regards to the second paragraph the role of Japan and Italy has clearly been covered in history. Your subjective ontention it has not is contradicted by public archives. Your ignorance of those discussion does not mean they do not exist but do evidence you are ignorant of them and again are only to happy to illustrate your ignorance. Your last paragraph is classic holocaust denial and trivialization and you again refer to yourself as a "we" thinking this makes your opinions shared and therefore more credible. You are no we. Your words are your own and simply reflect your neo Nazi agenda. You came on this this thread to hijack it and deny the holocaust and trivialize it. Y Your hijacking has nothing to do with the topic. Go start a thread denying the holocaust.

Derangement syndrome is something all politicians carry. It's just in Don Trump's case he can spread it through a pathogen called Trump zombies.

The fallacy can be found in your answer above and in particular the reference, "to serve Muslims who believe in Islam and have those "religious beliefs". You interestingly should have put the quotation marks on the word "those" not religious beliefs. Your entire premises is built on the assumption that as long as a Judge is Islamic and their subject is Islamic there is no issue since you assume they are of the same following or religious beliefs. You are well aware that each Mullah, each Imam, each alleged Islamic Judge many not have the same Islamic beliefs as other Muslims. So it depends on what "THOSE" Islamic beliefs are. Please do not tell me an Ismaili Muslim would be ruled on impartially by a Shiite Judge or a Sunni Muslim would be judged upon fairly by a Sharia Judge/ So "THOSE" religious beliefs becomes crucial. Islam has never had one prevailing interpretation-and each sect so to speak has its own interpretations of sharia law not to mention within sects there are different interpretations as well. The point you were made and do not understand is any religious official judging people does so based in his interpretation of Islam based on his religious views. They are not automatically fair or objective simply because the subject and judge are both Muslims. More to the point, we all come from religious with different people holding different interpretations of the same supposed religion. T This is why Canada separates religion from state. Our laws must treat people of different religious values using the same objective standards of analysis, not ones based on our religious views. We find that less likely to attract bias in decisions. Its why we have a Charter of Rights and legal doctrine such as the rules of natural justice, doctrine of fairness, standard of reasonability or correctness.

Leftists.

Careful now I warned you. https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/why_michelle_obama_may_jump_into_the_race.html https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michelle-obama-new-hampshire-poll-would-be-front-runner https://thepoliticalinsider.com/poll-shows-michelle-obama-as-front-runner-if-she-entered-2020-presidential-race/ https://www.good.is/articles/draft-michelle-obama-for-president https://www.change.org/p/voters-in-the-united-states-draft-michelle-obama-for-president-in-2020

Putin was cultivated to be the thug for the mob in the Kremlin. He was groomed in St. Pettersburgh and made his way to the top after having a reputation of being a sociopath in the KGB and working with the Stasni in East Germany. He started off as a hit-man for the Stasni on loan from the KGB. He is a classic sociopath. He has zero emotions, is ruthless, has a very high intelligence quotient, can analyze quickly and does not have emotions distorting his decisions. He is ruthless and he runs a bankrupt shell of a government whose every move is controlled by the mob. Putin is just a mob flunkie. The only way Putin goes down is if the mob has had enough of him. He's got carte blanche by the mob to do what he wants as long as he protects them. Putin has to constantly kill off his opposition which he has in terms of political opponents but none of the people he has wacked are mob. Even smart guys who make money for the mob get rubbed out when their egos get too big-ask Benjamin Seigel. In Putin's case he has done their bidding but there is a fine line with a sociopath's ego and the mob he works with. Invariably one day they will clash and he gets bullet between the eyes. Its the nature of the business. You need to show how ruthless your ego is to survive but cultivating it means you constantly have to reinvent it though new displays of power to prove it still exists or people thing you have lost your strength and this invites a challenge... and so inevitably in one of those reinvention power displays you always go one too far and wack the wrong person and become expendable. Putin reminds me of Jimmy Hoffa only with a lot of head smarts and more control of his temper.

Sanders is as much a Democrat as Trump is a Republican. Trump is a Democrat who ran for the Republicans out of convenience. Saunders was never a Democrat. He was an independent. He only ran for the Dems as it made him more legit. Nothing in what either stands for is part of their respective party's mainstream platforms. In the US independent politicians know if they don't join a mainstream party and hijack it, they do not get elected. Trump, Saunders and Biden are all decrepit. they all need a diaper change.

Hey mine was an official portrait of Don off duty.

How can Eye answer for the Republican Senators? Only they can. As for the orange man, if you see nothing wrong in what he did it would me impossible for Eye to do anything about that. You might want to consider cornea transplants or maybe a new glasses prescription?

You forgot this one:

Of course they are. It goes to the basic issue of his credibility. Again the fact you don't want to acknowledge anything that could show something defective about his morality does not make it irrelevant. Clearly your definition of irrelevant is based on your subjective partisan perspective that anything negative about him should be ignored.

.He's too busy. Someone bought him a shirt without buttons on the cuffs and some cuff links and he's been trying to figure out what to do about both ever since.

He would need a diet, new teeth, and the dumb and dumber haircut would not work. I would suggest he grow a salt and pepper beard, colourful socks , hip hugger pants, and a little more oopah in his gait to keep up with Lord Justin of Trudeau. He is the epitome of the chubby boy at school with the big head everyone shot spit balls at. Hey is it just me or doesPeter MacKay looks like a moose? Seriously Baird was more right wing than Harper. Might have been be a little bit too polarizing had he ran. I don't doubt the right wing of the party aint happy with Peter Moose.

I heard through the grapevine he refrained from running because he did not want his personal lifestyle becoming an issue. I will say this, at least he never hid being gay when he got elected unlike Trudeau and Morneau. I respect his integrity but its a political reality you outed and why beat around the bush. (not Bush Chaney)

Just because you disagree with someone does not make their argument idiotic. The analogy you were given and do not understand and call idiotic is about who has the right to tell you or I what to do with our bodies. You want the state to have the power to dictate others believe it should remain with the individual. Both sides of this debate deserve equal consideration. This is an issue of who has final say as to what WOMEN do with our bodies.t to control their wombs and what is inside them to the state. I disagree. Doesn't make me an idiot or even pro-abortion. 21 week pregnancy abortions are not the norm in Canada, are already regulated and not approved by the CMA and physicians don't engage in them unless they have good reason to, i.e., threat to the woman's life, fetal distress and severe deformities, rape, incest. I think with due respect the over 21 week argument is just a pretext to be anti-abortion but couch it to make it sound more reasonable. Those of you pointing to 21 weeks let's face it are anti-abortion at any time. Using 21 weeks is just an arbitrary no. Why 21? Why not 19, 20, 23? People always fall back to personal anecdotes about this issue but the bottom line is it comes down to the relationship between the woman carrying the child and her physician and every time you ask the state to intervene and violate the sanctity of that relationship you open the door to unintended issues. Also can we please get some perspective on the issue. Physicians who provide abortions offer options and provide counselling. So do nurses, social workers, police, firefighters , paramedics , child protection lawyers, teachers to name just a few.There are a lot of people out there you don't see offering judgement free support and options to abortion but also support a woman's right to control her body. Its not a black and white issue.

You are misrepresenting this exercise. Using a personal anecdote does not justify you making a generalization that its done. Again I repeat, for anyone who takes time to study the issue they would know post 21 week abortions are rare because the CMA does not allow doctors to do them unless there is a threat to the woman's life. They are not common place. You are asking for a law for an activity that is already regulated. Also I am not sure and I never understand where you feel you have the right to tell anyone else what to do with their body. You clearly feel some religious or moral imperative to save a life by controlling someone else's body and telling that person how she must behave. You really think you can hold someone in prison until they are forced to give birth. You want pregnancy enforcement police units?

Its true while the politicians dither it costs business money I get that however with due respect to that impatience because it is costing huge amounts of business loss, the laws in Canada on the issue of land access with the railways is not by any means clear. The treaty wordings and confused interpretations in court are e a legal landmine of unresolved legal issues as to land access and rights and the Charter's wording obliges us to inherit and honour native treaties and laws and incorporate them so its not by any means an easy issue. So while the methods may be wrong to defend these rights, the arguments behind them are not necessarily wrong and natives could if they wanted go to court and get all kinds of injunctions tying this up in court for years causing far more harm than what is going on now for business which explains the reluctance of politicians to force the issue more accurately then turning this into a simplistic race issue suggesting minorities can break the law and whites can not.

Ease up their Patton-Rommel we live in what is called a democracy.

I personally think the idea of using military as police is not efficient anyways. I was forced to do it indirectly in Israel and I can tell you from my perspective no soldier wants to police civilians. They want nothing to do with it. I know soldiers spit on the face equally by both sides in the area they had to police. People do not understand soldiers are trained to fight soldiers and having to go after terrorists dressed as civilians or even real citizens protesting is not something anyone wants to do as a soldier although I defer to soldiers on it. I did volunteer medic stuff so I never carried a gun and only dug toilets or pulled nails out of barefeet or cleaned rat bites and stupid shit like that but I know the soldiers I knew hated it. They signed up to deal with other soldiers not arresting screaming pregnant women smuggling guns. But such is life. In this case, the police are in a no win situation. The politicians are hiding and without going into a long explanation no one wants to hear the laws are completely unclear as to a conflict between certain aboriginal rights to land and pipelines and so even tough what native peoples are doing blocking the trains is criminal, it is related to unclear laws and therefore political considerations that remain unresolved so Trudeau hides from them as he has since he got re-elected. You notice since re-election he no longer grabs the camera and has delegated anything controversial to his ministers especially that little munchkin lady and Deputy PM now. Garneau the Transport Minister has no directives you can tell in his vague answers. The bottom line is Indigenous Affairs not Garneau has to deal with this and they are afraid because the indigenous nations are split on this issue with some in favour and some against and then we have American natives who have come up to Canada and they believe under the Jay's Treaty anywhere in North America is their land and they have the right to protest. It will have to be settled as millions of dollars in unrelated commerce are being impacted negatively by the rail block. I think politically arresting people might inflame a situation and make martyrs and make it worse so they are hoping for cooler heads and diplomacy at this point but it does not seem anyone with any true authority for the feds is doing anything. Calling it a provincial police matter is a bloody cop out if you excuse the expression and asking the military to force there way into the situation is not going to work. Asking soldiers to engage in action againstthe people they take an oath to protect is not what they asked for. I defer to Dougie and Army on it. I do not mean to talk for them.