[Ter]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/5- ... c3ee507c01

Huffington post..
Don't read that shit, it is toxic, made by feminists, read by feminists.

[Rich]

The problem is your governmental system. Executive presidencies are bad, at all levels of elected government. The best system would be to abolish the (executive) Presidency and the Senate and elect the House by proportional representation. I can't guarantee that such a system would give you a Prime Minster you liked, but I can guarantee it wouldn't ever give you a head of government like Trump. Trump only had the support of about 35% of the Republican primary electorate. A minority of the minority. This is why you can never talk about Trump without Hilary coming up.

You see in my book, nothing I've seen since Trump took office dissuades me from the view that Trump was better than the other 16 Republican candidates and he was better than Hilary Clinton after she advertised herself as the Neo Con's bitch. Hilary and the other 16 were determined to bomb the Assad regime, support the Sunni Arab terrorists and see Syria's Infidel population genocided. All of them were worse supporters of Saudi Arabia and worse hate mongers towards Russia.

I want to see North Korea disarmed at a minimum, but preferably regime change. I've seen nothing that these other candidates would be better than Trump on North Korea. I'd rather we stumbled into war with North Korea by accident than appeasement continue.

[Godstud]

Huffington post..
Don't read that shit, it is toxic, made by feminists, read by feminists.

That doesn't mean that what I posted is wrong. This has nothing to do with feminism. Terribly hateful argument. Irrelevant, as well.

Can you dispute the article, or not?

[Hindsite]

Yes, that's exactly what it's like, but people have this bizarre view of Sharia, that is not based in reality, but on ignorance and fear.

5 Things You Need To Know About Sharia Law

You do NOT need to worry about Sharia dominating American life and courts.
Because nothing trumps the U.S. Constitution. No national Muslim organization has ever called for Sharia to supercede American courts.It’s completely beside the point of Sharia and it’s not something American Muslims want.

And yet, during the run-up to the 2012 election, efforts to ban Sharia law popped up in at least two dozen states across the country ― a development that Gingrich, then a presidential hopeful, helped spur on. Many claim the initiative was a response to an imagined threat that was more about promoting anti-Muslim sentiment than about preserving American law.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/5- ... c3ee507c01

In 2008 a Moroccan man and his 17-year old wife immigrated to America. Not long after she filed a restraining order against him, claiming her husband was raping her. The husband did not deny their sexual relations were non-consensual, but said that in his religion, the wife was supposed to submit and do all that he desired of her. The New Jersey judge found that given his understanding of Islam, he did not intend to commit a crime, and was therefore innocent. The restraining order was denied.
Cases like this set off alarm bells that shariah law is coming to America, and in fact is already here. Called “creeping shariah,” this case is given as just one further example of our nation forsaking its heritage in an effort to be politically correct and yield to the pressures of local Muslims to live by their own laws, and not our own.
http://www.zwemercenter.com/the-applica ... ed-states/

Sharia law in the United States of America ("America") has reached penetration phase 3 (see Spread of Islam).

As the number of court cases in which civil law and Sharia law clash rose across America, many American states introduced bills banning their state courts from accommodating Sharia law.

Many of those bills have been stalled by the Muslim Brotherhood, which accuses the bills' sponsors and supporters of Islamophobia, campaigns against their re-election, and sues in court. States that have managed to pass Sharia law-blocking legislation, known as "ALAC" (American Laws for American Courts), are listed on Islamization of America.

While fighting to a draw in many state legislatures, Sharia law has been advancing faster, in many cases unopposed, in other American institutions, as follows:

● An increasing number of America's public schools are commemorating Muslim holidays, serving Halal food, and holding Islamic prayers towards Mecca. In 2014, Rocky Mountain High School in Fort Collins, Colorado became the first American high school to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in Arabic, replacing "One nation under God," with "One nation under Allah" (see Allah Moon God).

● Bill Clinton was the first US president to hold a White House Eid al-Fitr dinner at the end of Ramadan, the Muslim month-long, dawn-to-dusk fast. Eid al-Fitr includes six Takbirs, the raising of hands and shouting, "Allahu Akbar!" to declare that Allah is "greater" (than the God of Christianity and the idols of other religions - see Jesus vs. Muhammad and Halal). Every US president since Clinton, including George W. Bush, held this blasphemous dinner for a total of 20 years (1996 to 2016) until Donald Trump scrapped it in 2017.

● In 2000, the Republican National Convention became the first US presidential convention to open with a Muslim prayer to Allah.

Keith Ellison Muslim● In 2007, Quran for the first time was used to swear into office a new US Congressman, Keith Ellison (right). In 2017, this former spokesman for Nation of Islam became the second highest leader of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

● In 2009, a Christian US soldier at Baghram Air Force Base in Afghanistan received Bibles in two local languages from his American church as planned. The US army confiscated those Bibles and instead of at least returning them to his church, burned those Bibles. When Terry Jones, a pastor in Florida, announced his plan to burn a copy of the Quran in 2010, General David Petraeus, the commander of the US military in Afghanistan, publicly objected to his plan, while US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounced his plan as "disgraceful" (see Bible vs. Quran and War against Islam).

● In the landmark 2010 pro-Sharia ruling on S.D. v. M.J.R., Judge Joseph Charles Jr. of New Jersey concluded that the Muslim ex-husband repeatedly had raped (see Taharrush) his Muslim ex-wife. After testimony from the Muslim man's imam, the judge denied the ex-wife's request for a permanent restraining order against her ex-husband, citing the Muslim man's "belief."

● To attract and manage Muslim wealth, an increasing number of American financial institutions quietly began taking steps to become Sharia-compliant. This includes donating a percentage of their annual profits to Islamic groups that are designated by their Sharia-compliance advisors, many of whom belong to the Muslim Brotherhood and funnel funds to Jihadi groups (the donations must go to one or more of eight recipient categories, one of which is Jihad), including Hamas and Hezbollah (see Hitler's Islam, how to Stop Islam).
http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/ame ... a-law.html

[Godstud]

So one or two incidents every few years, amongst a population of over 320 million, is evidence of Sharia taking over the USA? The rest is simply your OWN fundamentalist religious bullshit, Hindsite.

I'm sorry, but this is fear-mongering of the lamest kind. Christianity taken to the extreme, like you take it, is as bad as Islam, at it's worse.

[Hindsite]

So one or two incidents every few years, amongst a population of over 320 million, is evidence of Sharia taking over the USA? The rest is simply your OWN fundamentalist religious bullshit, Hindsite.

I'm sorry, but this is fear-mongering of the lamest kind. Christianity taken to the extreme, like you take it, is as bad as Islam, at it's worse.

We Christians will fight against Islam and Sharia law taking over the USA. But it will try, because Islam is the Antichrist religion of the Devil. That is why we Christians voted for Trump, because he has sounded the warning against Islamic terrorism and will do what he can to protect us. That is what true American patriotism is all about. Praise the Lord.

[Stormsmith]

Well, here we are on Armistice Day. Trump's insulted 17 agencies who work to protect America and Americans. Then, after tossing all the evidence those agencies unearthed on Putin/Russia as having hacked your computer systems, and based on sweet Fanny Adams, he says he trusts Putin because Putin said he never touched your computer systems, and stop being meanies to Putin.

He can't pronounce "patriot". No surprise if he has no clue as to the meaning,

[Hindsite]

Well, here we are on Armistice Day. Trump's insulted 17 agencies who work to protect America and Americans. Then, after tossing all the evidence those agencies unearthed on Putin/Russia as having hacked your computer systems, and based on sweet Fanny Adams, he says he trusts Putin because Putin said he never touched your computer systems, and stop being meanies to Putin.

The truth is that only 3 of the 17 intelligence agency heads attributed any fault to the Russians. The Fake news left that part out and reported it as if all 17 intelligence agencies agreed. And those three agency heads were Democrats. As to this date those 3 Intelligence agency heads have yet to present any proof that the Russians hacked the DNC computer system. The evidence points to an inside job with the use of a thumb drive. And no evidence has been presented to Congress that proves any collusion with Trump and the Russians to effect the Presidential election either.

[Godstud]

We Christians will fight against Islam and Sharia law taking over the USA. But it will try, because Islam is the Antichrist religion of the Devil. That is why we Christians voted for Trump, because he has sounded the warning against Islamic terrorism and will do what he can to protect us. That is what true American patriotism is all about. Praise the Lord.

Even Christianity, taken to its extreme, like what you like, is a threat to the USA. There is no reasonable threat from Sharia. It's all bullshit and fear-mongering. It would never stand up against the Constitution, unless Christian fundamentalists tear it down, like they are trying to now. This is what Christian extremists are trying to do, and it'll open the door for abuse.

The truth is that only 3 of the 17 intelligence agency heads attributed any fault to the Russians.

Please provide a source for this claim(other than Fox news or stupid youtube videos- try to be unbiased for a change). It's patently false.

[Hindsite]

:lol: Even Christianity, taken to its extreme, like what you like, is a threat to the USA. There is no reasonable threat from Sharia. It's all bullshit and fear-mongering. It would never stand up against the Constitution, unless Christian fundamentalists tear it down, like they are trying to now. This is what Christian extremists are trying to do, and it'll open the door for abuse.

No, Christianity is no threat to the USA. Christianity is the only religion that can help save the USA.

Please provide a source for this claim(other than Fox news or stupid youtube videos- try to be unbiased for a change). It's patently false.

No, it is not false. I have already provided the source before, so you look it up. My mistake it was 4 according to the original source correction.

[Godstud]

You provided no source with your claim. As usual.

[Igor Antunov]

The truth is that only 3 of the 17 intelligence agency heads attributed any fault to the Russians. The Fake news left that part out and reported it as if all 17 intelligence agencies agreed. And those three agency heads were Democrats. As to this date those 3 Intelligence agency heads have yet to present any proof that the Russians hacked the DNC computer system. The evidence points to an inside job with the use of a thumb drive. And no evidence has been presented to Congress that proves any collusion with Trump and the Russians to effect the Presidential election either.

Re-posting these indisputable facts for maximum effect. Just goes to show how fake the lying media is.

[Godstud]

Where your SOURCE? So far all you do is post what one person said, and anecdotal evidence is not a source.

Are you guys so dumb that you can't use the copy/paste function on your computer anymore?

[Hindsite]

Where your SOURCE? So far all you do is post what one person said, and anecdotal evidence is not a source.

Are you guys so dumb that you can't use the copy/paste function on your computer anymore?

Okay, my memory was off by one. It was 4 instead of 3. I just heard the President answer that question and he said it was 4 instead of 17. So apparently that means the other 13 did not make the assessment that the Russians hacked into the DNC computer system. That is 13 against 4. Why take the word of the few over the many?

President Trump also told the reporter that he believed Putin believed Russia did not hack our election as well as believing what our intelligence agencies believed as they do. Then he said it is time to move on to have better relations.

[Godstud]

Still no source. I think, at this point, that you're simply lying about it, since you won't provide something as simple as a source for your bullshit claim.

[Buzz62]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... legal.html

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/ad ... uling.html

Enjoy...from Asia...

[Godstud]

Hey Buzz62. I will. It's 35 C and lovely all the time. I hope you freeze your tiny little boy balls off in Toronto.

Please show some additional sources, and not ones that are heavily right wing biased, please.

[Hindsite]

Still no source. I think, at this point, that you're simply lying about it, since you won't provide something as simple as a source for your bullshit claim.

This is not the source I originally posted, but it is just as good.

A rather large New York Times correction

The Jan. 6. hacking assessment was a conclusion drawn by analysts representing three intelligence agencies acting "under the aegis" of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, former DNI chief James Clapper testified on May 8.

He said specifically that the conclusion that Russia meddled in the election to benefit Trump was a "coordinated product" from the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency, "not all 17 components of the intelligence community."

Clapper added that the CIA, FBI and NSA analysts were "hand-picked."

Though the three agencies worked independent of one another, and each came to the same conclusion, it's inaccurate to claim the entire community came up with the agreement, the former ODNI chief testified in response to questions from Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn.

"[T]here were only three agencies that directly involved in this assessment plus my office," Clapper said.

Franken pressed, "But all 17 signed on to that?"

"This was a special situation because of the time limits," Clapper said, adding, "the sensitivity of the information, we decided, it was a conscious judgment, to restrict it to those three. I'm not aware of anyone who dissented, or disagreed when it came out."

Though the director of National Intelligence speaks for his community, his office's assessment doesn't necessarily mean each agency independently reached the same conclusion, as the Times' Sunday report suggested.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-rat ... le/2627527

Former NSA experts say it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak—an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.

Despite all the media coverage taking the veracity of the ICA assessment for granted, even now we have only the uncorroborated assertion of intelligence officials to go on. Indeed, this was noticed by The New York Times’s Scott Shane, who wrote the day the report appeared: “What is missing from the public report is…hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack…. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’”

There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source—claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative.

The Intelligence Community Assessment, the supposedly definitive report featuring the “high confidence” dodge, was greeted as farcically flimsy when issued January 6. Ray McGovern calls it a disgrace to the intelligence profession. It is spotlessly free of evidence, front to back, pertaining to any events in which Russia is implicated. James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, admitted in May that “hand-picked” analysts from three agencies (not the 17 previously reported) drafted the ICA. There is a way to understand “hand-picked” that is less obvious than meets the eye: The report was sequestered from rigorous agency-wide reviews. This is the way these people have spoken to us for the past year.

ll those interviewed came in between 90 percent and 100 percent certain that the forensics prove out. I have already quoted Skip Folden’s answer: impossible based on the data. “The laws of physics don’t lie,” Ray McGovern volunteered at one point. “It’s QED, theorem demonstrated,” William Binney said in response to my question. “There’s no evidence out there to get me to change my mind.” When I asked Edward Loomis, a 90 percent man, about the 10 percent he held out, he replied, “I’ve looked at the work and it shows there was no Russian hack. But I didn’t do the work. That’s the 10 percent. I’m a scientist.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new ... -dnc-hack/

[Stormsmith]

Godstud

My point was that Trump, on Armistice Day whilst abroad, gave a speech that dissed America's intelligence agencies and the evidence they accrued (Re Russian hacking) and accepted, with zero evidence Putin's claims. That's about as unpatriotic as it gets.

[Buzz62]

Hey Buzz62. I will. It's 35 C and lovely all the time. I hope you freeze your tiny little boy balls off in Toronto.

I will thanks. Its part of being a Canadian...

Please show some additional sources, and not ones that are heavily right wing biased, please.

Why? Does the internet not work so good over there?