6 hours ago, Tug said:

Grouse is 100% correct it’s not about America it’s about Donald a mentally ill bigiot and rasist as far as blaming Donald directly for what that criminal did in nz not directly but his retroic definitely encourages this and as far as being on the left as long as that man has any influence I cannot vote republican he is a blight on us it will take years to repair the damage he has created 

I am so sick of reading and hearing this constant criticism of the President.  The next thing we hear will be that Trump had a hand in the sun coming up.  One crazy person decided all by himself to kill a bunch of people.......the easiest weapon to use to kill a lot of people is a bomb or gun.   Maybe he didn't know how to make a bomb......in any case, neither the ownership of guns or the ruminations of our President can be the reason this nut case decided to do what he did.  New Zealand's Prime Minister now wants gun controls......because ONE nutcase did something horrible.  So you ban guns and someone else makes bombs.  A few people out of billions are crazy enough to do this kind of stuff........we can't stop them so quit being such a bunch of cry babies and get on with life.   

59 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

 

Right, and google doesn't have algorithms or anything. Its all just a generic, click-based, and wholly user generated outcome. 

 

Do a google search for Fox News, an 'all' search not a news search this time, and then post a screen shot of the results showing the majority are for Fox articles and perhaps then come back and apologize for wasting our time with your infantile misunderstandings.

7 hours ago, webfact said:

Donald Trump on Sunday championed a Fox News personality who made anti-Muslim remarks as his White House rejected any attempt to link the U.S. leader to a shooter who killed 50 people in two New Zealand mosques.

 

The NZ Pm reported that she spoke to Trump and when he asked what support he could give, her reply was that if the U.S. wants to provide support, then show “sympathy and love for all Muslim communities.”

 

Let’s watch to see if he does.

6 minutes ago, TGIR said:

I am so sick of reading and hearing this constant criticism of the President.  The next thing we hear will be that Trump had a hand in the sun coming up.  One crazy person decided all by himself to kill a bunch of people.......the easiest weapon to use to kill a lot of people is a bomb or gun.   Maybe he didn't know how to make a bomb......in any case, neither the ownership of guns or the ruminations of our President can be the reason this nut case decided to do what he did.  New Zealand's Prime Minister now wants gun controls......because ONE nutcase did something horrible.  So you ban guns and someone else makes bombs.  A few people out of billions are crazy enough to do this kind of stuff........we can't stop them so quit being such a bunch of cry babies and get on with life.   

 

If we can't stop some people wanting to kill lots of people then we should make sure that war weapons remain easily available?  Makes sense.

3 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

The NZ Pm reported that she spoke to Trump and when he asked what support he could give, her reply was that if the U.S. wants to provide support, then show “sympathy and love for all Muslim communities.”

 

Strong, strong virtue signal. 

34 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Pirro, a supporter of the president, was rebuked by Fox News last Sunday over comments she made questioning whether a Muslim congresswoman, Ilhan Omar, was more loyal to Islamic sharia law than the U.S. Constitution.

 

If she were, she would not be alone.

 

 

 

Its an American thing, there are also a similar percentage of Christians who think that they should be able to live under biblical law, they don't really understand their constitution in America.

5 hours ago, quandow said:

GAWD, you Trump supporters, wake up!

They don't want to wake up.  They enjoy their sick dreams.

7 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

If we can't stop some people wanting to kill lots of people then we should make sure that war weapons remain easily available?  Makes sense.

 

"War weapons" 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

If we can't stop some people wanting to kill lots of people then we should make sure that war weapons remain easily available?  Makes sense.

Makes sense to me......j

 

Just now, Thainesss said:

 

Strong, strong virtue signal. 

 

Weak, weak attempt at a comeback.

4 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

"War weapons" 

 

 

 

Yes, he used the AR-15, an assault rifle designed for infantry use, what did you think it was designed for, hunting?

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

Its an American thing, there are also a similar percentage of Christians who think that they should be able to live under biblical law, they don't really understand their constitution in America.

Fair enough, but apparently thats wrong because "right wing white people" do it, and those people are bad, so lets mock and marginalize them while supporting and defending when Muslims do it, even when they do it to a more extreme manner, because they are brown people. 

 

Because liberalism... Or something... Definitely not hypocrisy, though. 

6 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

Fair enough, but apparently thats wrong because "right wing white people" do it, and those people are bad, so lets mock and marginalize them while supporting and defending when Muslims do it, even when they do it to a more extreme manner, because they are brown people. 

 

Because liberalism... Or something... Definitely not hypocrisy, though. 

 

Where do you get this constant dribble of misunderstandings?  Yes, it is "apparently" wrong to completely disrespect the constitution, but who is defending or supporting Muslims who seek Sharia law?  What do you mean by "they do it to a more extreme manner"????  We were talking about percentages of people who want to live under the religious law, so what could be more or less extreme, they either want that or not.  Nothing to do with who is brown or white, there are plenty of brown Christians seeking biblical law, they have the constitution in their way just like the Muslims, so colour has nothing to do with it and in reality that is just a fantasy of yours.

50 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Its an American thing, there are also a similar percentage of Christians who think that they should be able to live under biblical law, they don't really understand their constitution in America.

Really? Source, please.

44 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Where do you get this constant dribble of misunderstandings?  Yes, it is "apparently" wrong to completely disrespect the constitution, but who is defending or supporting Muslims who seek Sharia law?  What do you mean by "they do it to a more extreme manner"????  We were talking about percentages of people who want to live under the religious law, so what could be more or less extreme, they either want that or not.  Nothing to do with who is brown or white, there are plenty of brown Christians seeking biblical law, they have the constitution in their way just like the Muslims, so colour has nothing to do with it and in reality that is just a fantasy of yours.

how can sharia law be compatiple with the us constiution ??? and how can 51 % muslims respect the us constitution if they wish to live under their religious law the sharia ??

wbr

roobaa01

7 hours ago, DoctorG said:

How is this any different from Omar saying that Jewish Americans owe allegiance to Israel?

 

Ah, it isn't but you have to understand political correctness has nothing to do with truth, sense and logic!

 

Omar, Muslim anti Jewish - PC see this a fashionably correct.

 

Challenging Omar - PC this as bad. Regardless of anything and just because they say so.

 

PC - the new elite wannabees of our age.

11 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Really? Source, please.

Here's a source:  I grew up in the Bible Belt of the American South.  As a kid in a Southern Baptist Sunday School class, I was told that the "Negro" (as opposed to the common term for blacks outside church at the time) had been decreed by the Christian god to subjugation by the "white man."  I can promise you that advocacy of Christian Law over the Constitution, of which few had knowledge, would have found favor among a huge majority.

8 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

how can sharia law be compatiple with the us constiution ??? and how can 51 % muslims respect the us constitution if they wish to live under their religious law the sharia ??

wbr

roobaa01

 

It isn't compatible, nor is the US constitution compatible with canonical law, which was my point as you don't hear the same people moan about the many more millions of Christians who support the abolition of the constitution in favor of their religious law.  How can 57% of Republicans respect the US constitution if they want to live under their religious law, Canon law?

The PC crowd has really hit a low with their response to this horrific attack.

 

After Nice (86 dead), Bataclan (90 dead) or Manchester (22), the mantram was "grieve, don't get angry." Put down a flower or two, pray together for peace, don't "look back in anger", as the Manchester song went. And heaven forbid anyone should try to link those atrocities to Islam.

 

With this attack, all that has been jettisoned; it's get angry, unearth the "far-right" influences potentially responsible for the actions and go after them. No problem this time in identifying the philosophy responsible.

 

Nobody does sickening hypocrisy like the politically correct.

23 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Really? Source, please.

 

Surely you are not completely oblivious to the Christian movements attempts to subvert the constitution in favor of their barbaric old laws?

 

Santorum said "... a country that is given rights under the god, under god, not any god, the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, and that God that gave us rights also gave us a responsibility, and laws, by which our civil laws have to comport with. A higher law. God's law."

 

Huckabee said "…I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view…”

 

Remember the attempt to prevent abortions using religious law?  Yeah, that was deemed unconstitutional.  When was the last time some Sharia law made it past legislators?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some off topic posts and the replies have been removed. 

3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

The PC crowd has really hit a low with their response to this horrific attack.

 

After Nice (86 dead), Bataclan (90 dead) or Manchester (22), the mantram was "grieve, don't get angry." Put down a flower or two, pray together for peace, don't "look back in anger", as the Manchester song went. And heaven forbid anyone should try to link those atrocities to Islam.

 

With this attack, all that has been jettisoned; it's get angry, unearth the "far-right" influences potentially responsible for the actions and go after them. No problem this time in identifying the philosophy responsible.

 

Nobody does sickening hypocrisy like the politically correct.

 

We did not go after Islam last time as that would have been completely ridiculous, it would be like going after any old Republican following this attack.  But what we did do is go after the hate preachers who had inspired those attacks, and that is what we are doing this time.  I'm sorry, I  know you so wanted it to be all unfair but it isn't, all murderous folk get treated the same.

46 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Really? Source, please.

 

2 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

 

 

????????????  you provide a right leaning Fox News screenshot from O’Reilly, purportedly supplied by what some describe as a right wing islamaphobic hate group (center for security policy) then ask for sources to be provided for a benign reply.... you guys... so funny.

32 minutes ago, oobar said:

Here's a source:  I grew up in the Bible Belt of the American South.  As a kid in a Southern Baptist Sunday School class, I was told that the "Negro" (as opposed to the common term for blacks outside church at the time) had been decreed by the Christian god to subjugation by the "white man."  I can promise you that advocacy of Christian Law over the Constitution, of which few had knowledge, would have found favor among a huge majority.

As I suspected, sheer speculation unsupported by any factual evidence.

Just now, farcanell said:

 

????????????  you provide a right leaning Fox News screenshot from O’Reilly, purportedly supplied by what some describe as a right wing islamaphobic hate group (center for security policy) then ask for sources to be provided for a benign reply.... you guys... so funny.

No, what's laughable is your lack of evidence to refute facts you don't like.

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Didn't take long for the anti Trumpers to try and imply he is responsible for an event that happened in another country.

Trump must be an amazing person to be responsible for everything that happens in the entire world.

"The accused gunman praised Trump in a manifesto as "a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose.""  

Speaks for itself. 

17 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Surely you are not completely oblivious to the Christian movements attempts to subvert the constitution in favor of their barbaric old laws?

 

Santorum said "... a country that is given rights under the god, under god, not any god, the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, and that God that gave us rights also gave us a responsibility, and laws, by which our civil laws have to comport with. A higher law. God's law."

 

Huckabee said "…I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view…”

 

Remember the attempt to prevent abortions using religious law?  Yeah, that was deemed unconstitutional.  When was the last time some Sharia law made it past legislators?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've just looked up the word "santorum" and wished I hadn't!

 

Enlightening though the views of religious zealots like Rick Santorum and and Mike Huckerbee may be, there is no empirical evidence that they represent 51 percent of American Christians. 

 

As for Sharia, I don't know about the US, but an estimated eighty or so Sharia courts (euphemistically referred to as "councils") are already up and running in the UK, where 43 percent of Muslims are on record of wanting Sharia law, with only 22 percent against.

 

Sorry, but facts really do matter more than feelings.

8 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

No, what's laughable is your lack of evidence to refute facts you don't like.

Please provide a source for the facts you champion, such that I can see the actual polling, question construction, results etc.... because a tv screen shot, as provided by yourself, from a program hosted by a liar, is not a valid source

16 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

We did not go after Islam last time as that would have been completely ridiculous, it would be like going after any old Republican following this attack.  But what we did do is go after the hate preachers who had inspired those attacks, and that is what we are doing this time.  I'm sorry, I  know you so wanted it to be all unfair but it isn't, all murderous folk get treated the same.

It is utterly absurd to suggest that this attack is being treated in the same way as the routine slaughter carried out by Islamists across the globe. 

 

Perhaps it is the extreme rarity of this kind of far-Right atrocity that makes it so shocking; attacks by Islamists are so routine as to have become, as the mayor of London said "part of life in a big city." In February alone there were 150 deadly Islamic terror attacks in 22 different countries, causing over 800 deaths. Not that you'd find that out from reading the legacy media.

 

Now, we have the situation where a Muslim Imam, no less, calls for a "crackdown on far-Right extremism". Had anybody ever suggested a crackdown on Islamic terrorism, they would have been vilified as bigoted Islamophobes.

 

The PC idiots are, as usual, rigidly enforcing their double standards.

5 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

If the government entitles itself to every bit of everyone income (the ONLY way the GND could happen and even then would bankrupt the US economy and sent the worlds economy into turmoil) in an effort to do as they wish, then the government owns the means of production, and is in fact, communism. You can sugar coat it all you want but that doesn't change the fact that its communism, even if the people can own land and property in name only. 

 

Here is a child's definition for you, so you can understand:

 

 

So by official definition there are no TRUE communist countries existing currently. Yet you fear something which apparently doesn't exist.