“You say shit like that, and then people will buy into it.”

[SkyDekker 1,127]

Quote

Soon, the Khan's will be tossed aside and forgotten

Not if your candidate wins. Then they will be allowed to walk around, as long as they wear their identifying mark and don't wander too far from their house.

You know, for National Security.

Then as a way to raise employment, we will get some people to ensure that all Muslims follow those new rules. To set them apart from the regular police, maybe they can wear some dark brown shirts, maybe with orange epaulettes.

[muff528 3]

SkyDekker

Quote

Soon, the Khan's will be tossed aside and forgotten

Not if your candidate wins. Then they will be allowed to walk around, as long as they wear their identifying mark and don't wander too far from their house.

You know, for National Security.

Then as a way to raise employment, we will get some people to ensure that all Muslims follow those new rules. To set them apart from the regular police, maybe they can wear some dark brown shirts, maybe with orange epaulettes.

LOL ...those are things that are done (and have been done) by Democrats and Socialists. In this country it has historically been done by leaders who've had support of a sycophantic Congress. Trump won't have that kind of "partisanship-uber-country" kind of support. No President should. Besides, we've already recently seen "brownshirt" activity in this country and it wasn't by the "tea-partiers".

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

In this country it has historically been done by leaders who've had support of a sycophantic Congress.

Which leaders?

Quote

Besides, we've already recently seen "brownshirt" activity in this country

What was it?

Quote

and it wasn't by the "tea-partiers".

Trump isn't a Tea Partier. He isn't anything.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DanG 1]

The attack against Trump was completely warranted. His racist and anti-Muslim rhetoric needed to be countered by someone military supporters would listen to. Unfortunately some people throw their support for the military away when it suits them.

Either way, if you were not just as bothered by the Republicans hauling out the mother of the Benghazi victim, then you might be a little partisan.

- Dan G

[kelpdiver 2]

muff528

The Dems launched a direct personal attack against Trump through their surrogate, Khan. Then they tried to insulate themselves from retaliation by hiding behind the Khan's dead son ...Hamas-style. Disgusting, but that's how they roll. Soon, the Khan's will be tossed aside and forgotten just like Cindy Sheehan. Would've worked against anyone else ....but this time....Trump.

Trump can only blame himself for this one.

Be honest - your problem with Khan is that he makes your draft dodging, Constitution hating, racist candidate look like ... well like that. Was it Joe the Plumber in the last election that the GOP played the same game?

The Trump campaign should have taken their licks and STFU. Instead they:

- suggested Obama killed him, 5 years before he took office. Suggested Hillary killed him, because she voted yes to the authorization. (Somehow Bush, the President, the one that sold the war on a pile of propaganda, wasn't remotely involved)
- suggested the Dad viciously attacked for saying mean words to the remarkably thin skinned Trump.
- suggested the Mom was being suppressed by scary Muslim culture
- and probably worst, claimed that Trump too had made sacrifices by building jobs instead of serving.

This behavior only reinforces the belief that he's trying to lose.

Quote

Besides, we've already recently seen "brownshirt" activity in this country and it wasn't by the "tea-partiers".

Trump started that one too when he encouraged his supporters to beat up protesters and promised to pay their legal fees. This lead to a number of cowardly sucker punchings. In legal terms, this is called inciting violence. Then opponents escalated it even further.

[billvon 2,402]

>The Dems launched a direct personal attack against Trump through their surrogate, Khan. Then they
>tried to insulate themselves from retaliation by hiding behind the Khan's dead son ...Hamas-style.

They didn't need to insulate themselves. Trump didn't attack the DNC, he went right after the Khans. (To use your analogy, Trump would rather shoot the kids to begin with.)

[muff528 3]

billvon

>The Dems launched a direct personal attack against Trump through their surrogate, Khan. Then they
>tried to insulate themselves from retaliation by hiding behind the Khan's dead son ...Hamas-style.

They didn't need to insulate themselves. Trump didn't attack the DNC, he went right after the Khans. (To use your analogy, Trump would rather shoot the kids to begin with.)

No, when Iran attacks Israel through their surrogates (Hamas), Israel retaliates against the surrogates, not Iran. Hence, the analogy. The Khan's attacked Trump personally. They did not rebut his ideas for enforcing immigration laws and vetting entrants with an alternate better or more "common-sense" idea.

The notion that the success of any administration's immigration policy is measured by the number of deportations is laughable at best.

[muff528 3]

jakee

Quote

In this country it has historically been done by leaders who've had support of a sycophantic Congress.

Which leaders?

Roosy for one. My own grandparents suffered the "hairy eyeball" from that bunch even while family members of my father's generation were deployed overseas. Also, the rise of the KKK under "Progressive" leadership might be another example. Can't leave out the current sycophantic support of marginally Constitutional decrees and programs.

Quote

Quote

Besides, we've already recently seen "brownshirt" activity in this country

What was it?

Violent protesters and disruptors at Trump rallies is what I had in mind. Classic, almost definitive Brownshirt tactics. But other organized violent protests that might also qualify.

Quote

Quote

and it wasn't by the "tea-partiers".

Trump isn't a Tea Partier. He isn't anything.

Whether Trump isn't or isn't is a T.P. is, in itself, irrelevant to my remark.

[muff528 3]

kelpdiver

Trump started that one too when he encouraged his supporters to beat up protesters and promised to pay their legal fees. This lead to a number of cowardly sucker punchings. In legal terms, this is called inciting violence. Then opponents escalated it even further.

I think he was telling his supporters to defend themselves against violence directed at them. At least he didn't tell his supporters to bring a gun if they bring a knife.

[kelpdiver 2]

muff528

I think he was telling his supporters to defend themselves against violence directed at them. At least he didn't tell his supporters to bring a gun if they bring a knife.

utter bullshit. Did you actually believe it when you wrote it?

That would be the definition of trumpiness.

John McGraw cold cocked a guy that was being escorted out by the event police. There is no way to argue that the victim was directing violence at McGraw.

[muff528 3]

kelpdiver

***
I think he was telling his supporters to defend themselves against violence directed at them. At least he didn't tell his supporters to bring a gun if they bring a knife.

utter bullshit. Did you actually believe it when you wrote it?

That would be the definition of trumpiness.

John McGraw cold cocked a guy that was being escorted out by the event police. There is no way to argue that the victim was directing violence at McGraw.

Do you actually believe you should use that logic when discussing the actions of a member (or members) of any group ...or just members of groups you disagree with? How about members of a group who are committing murder after being incited, even if indirectly, by folks from the highest levels of local and national governments and by members of the clergy? Do these assassins represent all members of that group? How about Muslims? Did you know that it was a Muslim who shot up the club in Orlando? It was Muslims who exploded a bomb at the Boston Marathon. Are you ready to indict nearly two billion Muslims because of those actions? I would pretty much bet money that Trump didn't tell anyone to sucker punch someone who was being escorted out of a rally. He may have said something beforehand, but I only recall statements made after that incident about responding to a violent protester with violence, usually while answering dumbass questions by a hostile "journalist". I've also heard other politicians from all sides falsely "paraphrasing" or embellishing some of Trump's statements regarding that issue.

[billvon 2,402]

Quote

How about Muslims? Did you know that it was a Muslim who shot up the club in Orlando? It was Muslims who exploded a bomb at the Boston Marathon. Are you ready to indict nearly two billion Muslims because of those actions?

Trump - and most Trump supporters - are.

Quote

I would pretty much bet money that Trump didn't tell anyone to sucker punch someone who was being escorted out of a rally.

If you encourage violence, and promise haven and financial support for those who commit violence, you share in the blame for that violence.

[kallend 1,632]

What about Trump's batshit crazy spokesperson, who seems to think Obama is a Time Lord:

www.rawstory.com/2016/08/cnn-grills-katrina-pierson-with-fierce-fact-checking-over-capt-kahns-death-and-it-destroys-her/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[muff528 3]

billvon

Quote

How about Muslims? Did you know that it was a Muslim who shot up the club in Orlando? It was Muslims who exploded a bomb at the Boston Marathon. Are you ready to indict nearly two billion Muslims because of those actions?

Trump - and most Trump supporters - are.

Some others, too. But Trump's "plan" is a reactionary end result of decades of dereliction and neglect and politicization of our immigration policy. We are now facing the prospect of thousands of refugees and immigrants from an area where we are actively engaged in hostilities with an enemy that has no problem with infiltrating civilian refugees and has stated as much ...and has done so with other countries that have accepted them. Speaking for myself, I support a rigorous vetting process WRT incoming refugees/immigrants from those areas. Trump supporters may or may not agree.

Quote

*** I would pretty much bet money that Trump didn't tell anyone to sucker punch someone who was being escorted out of a rally.

If you encourage violence, and promise haven and financial support for those who commit violence, you share in the blame for that violence.

Again, I'm not sure if Trump's statements were before or as a result of the McGraw incident. Really don't know, but I doubt that Trump told his supporters to go out and attack protesters without provocation. Could be wrong, though. As far as "financial support" he said in the LA Times article that he was "looking into" helping with McGraw's legal fees. This tells me that he is waiting for facts regarding the incident. Don't know.

[muff528 3]

kallend

What about Trump's batshit crazy spokesperson, who seems to think Obama is a Time Lord:

www.rawstory.com/2016/08/cnn-grills-katrina-pierson-with-fierce-fact-checking-over-capt-kahns-death-and-it-destroys-her/

Yes, Pierson acknowledged the mistake with the time line. But, when she was trying to make her larger point that Obama's evacuation and abandonment of Iraq created conditions which resulted in even more US military being killed the CNN reporters didn't want to hear about it. Also, turned out to be not so healthy for those Iraqis who were trying to move into the 21st Century. And when Pierson brought up the fact that the Constitution-thumping Khan was a supporter of Sharia and has advocated as much in his Islamist writings, all the CNN reporters had was "an audible sigh" and “Katrina, he doesn’t stand for it, he never has stood for it,” the CNN host insisted. “He carries around the U.S. Constitution. He abides by the Constitution.” Maybe Khan has changed his mind, maybe not.

[kallend 1,632]

muff528

***

What about Trump's batshit crazy spokesperson, who seems to think Obama is a Time Lord:

www.rawstory.com/2016/08/cnn-grills-katrina-pierson-with-fierce-fact-checking-over-capt-kahns-death-and-it-destroys-her/

Yes, Pierson acknowledged the mistake with the time line. But, when she was trying to make her larger point that Obama's evacuation and abandonment of Iraq created conditions which resulted in even more US military being killed the CNN reporters didn't want to hear about it.

Maybe the CNN reporters were aware (as you are not) that it was Bush who negotiated and signed the timeline for US troop withdrawals from Iraq. So maybe they just didn't want to hear more right wing BS and revisionist history.

georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/12/20081214-2.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,127]

Quote

was a supporter of Sharia and has advocated as much in his Islamist writings,

Ohhh, scary. Sharia.

Did they mention anything about Halacha, or is only Sharia scary?

[aphid 0]

muff528

***

What about Trump's batshit crazy spokesperson, who seems to think Obama is a Time Lord:

www.rawstory.com/2016/08/cnn-grills-katrina-pierson-with-fierce-fact-checking-over-capt-kahns-death-and-it-destroys-her/

Yes, Pierson acknowledged the mistake with the time line. But, when she was trying to make her larger point that Obama's evacuation and abandonment of Iraq created conditions which resulted in even more US military being killed the CNN reporters didn't want to hear about it. Also, turned out to be not so healthy for those Iraqis who were trying to move into the 21st Century. And when Pierson brought up the fact that the Constitution-thumping Khan was a supporter of Sharia and has advocated as much in his Islamist writings, all the CNN reporters had was "an audible sigh" and “Katrina, he doesn’t stand for it, he never has stood for it,” the CNN host insisted. “He carries around the U.S. Constitution. He abides by the Constitution.” Maybe Khan has changed his mind, maybe not.

Snopes seems to have a differing view of what Mr. Khan is purported to have done. On review, they concluded that "in no part suggested support for Sharia law or membership in the Muslim brotherhood and appeared to be an academic piece, not an advocacy paper."

source: http://www.snopes.com/khizr-khan-is-a-muslim-brotherhood-agent/

[muff528 3]

kallend

******

What about Trump's batshit crazy spokesperson, who seems to think Obama is a Time Lord:

www.rawstory.com/2016/08/cnn-grills-katrina-pierson-with-fierce-fact-checking-over-capt-kahns-death-and-it-destroys-her/

Yes, Pierson acknowledged the mistake with the time line. But, when she was trying to make her larger point that Obama's evacuation and abandonment of Iraq created conditions which resulted in even more US military being killed the CNN reporters didn't want to hear about it.

Maybe the CNN reporters were aware (as you are not) that it was Bush who negotiated and signed the timeline for US troop withdrawals from Iraq. So maybe they just didn't want to hear more right wing BS and revisionist history.

georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/12/20081214-2.html


Completely aware of Bush's timeline. But the goal was to leave Iraq in a reasonably stable state with a functioning democratic government that represents all factions regardless of any artificial schedule. Things happen that do not cooperate with schedules and exit strategies. It was very predictable what would happen to Iraq after withdrawal of troops at the time it actually happened. They simply were not ready to stand alone and secure as a nation.

Oh yeah! We were supposed to steal their oil too. We bugged out before we could fill our pockets.

[muff528 3]

SkyDekker

Quote

was a supporter of Sharia and has advocated as much in his Islamist writings,

Ohhh, scary. Sharia.

Did they mention anything about Halacha, or is only Sharia scary?

Sharia is fine if you want to live by those principles. Nothing to do with "scary", but that seems to be the "go to" response tactic from some folks who can't otherwise defend its place or fit in the free world. There are places where it is the law of the land and those who adhere to it seem to like and defend it. Here, it is completely at odds with our laws and Constitution. Incompatible, irreconcilable principles.

[Phil1111 911]

muff528

*********

What about Trump's batshit crazy spokesperson, who seems to think Obama is a Time Lord:

www.rawstory.com/2016/08/cnn-grills-katrina-pierson-with-fierce-fact-checking-over-capt-kahns-death-and-it-destroys-her/

Yes, Pierson acknowledged the mistake with the time line. But, when she was trying to make her larger point that Obama's evacuation and abandonment of Iraq created conditions which resulted in even more US military being killed the CNN reporters didn't want to hear about it.

Maybe the CNN reporters were aware (as you are not) that it was Bush who negotiated and signed the timeline for US troop withdrawals from Iraq. So maybe they just didn't want to hear more right wing BS and revisionist history.

georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/12/20081214-2.html


Completely aware of Bush's timeline. But the goal was to leave Iraq in a reasonably stable state with a functioning democratic government that represents all factions regardless of any artificial schedule. Things happen that do not cooperate with schedules and exit strategies. It was very predictable what would happen to Iraq after withdrawal of troops at the time it actually happened. They simply were not ready to stand alone and secure as a nation.

Oh yeah! We were supposed to steal their oil too. We bugged out before we could fill our pockets.

What about the idea that subsequent to the election of an Iraq government that being Iyad Allawi's. That perhaps, just perhaps, Iran and Sunni -Shia ideology had more to do with the current situation in Iraq than US politics.

Sometimes US politicians, US citizens and US journalists need to look objectively at Geo-politics.

Bush, Obama and US interests don't pre-determine world events.

[kallend 1,632]

muff528

*********

What about Trump's batshit crazy spokesperson, who seems to think Obama is a Time Lord:

www.rawstory.com/2016/08/cnn-grills-katrina-pierson-with-fierce-fact-checking-over-capt-kahns-death-and-it-destroys-her/

Yes, Pierson acknowledged the mistake with the time line. But, when she was trying to make her larger point that Obama's evacuation and abandonment of Iraq created conditions which resulted in even more US military being killed the CNN reporters didn't want to hear about it.

Maybe the CNN reporters were aware (as you are not) that it was Bush who negotiated and signed the timeline for US troop withdrawals from Iraq. So maybe they just didn't want to hear more right wing BS and revisionist history.

georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/12/20081214-2.html


Completely aware of Bush's timeline.

A nice admission that your previous post was a load of BS and you knew it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,632]

Hey Marc,

Your favorite "news" source has been caught fabricating falsehoods yet again.

mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/03/breitbart-caught-passing-photo-cleveland-s-nba-championship-parade-image-trumps-jacksonville-rally/212174

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ryoder 1,390]

kallend

Hey Marc,

Your favorite "news" source has been caught fabricating falsehoods yet again.

mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/03/breitbart-caught-passing-photo-cleveland-s-nba-championship-parade-image-trumps-jacksonville-rally/212174

So what happened to rushmc?
He hasn't posted since the 28th.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[muff528 3]

Phil1111

..........
What about the idea that subsequent to the election of an Iraq government that being Iyad Allawi's. That perhaps, just perhaps, Iran and Sunni -Shia ideology had more to do with the current situation in Iraq than US politics.

Sometimes US politicians, US citizens and US journalists need to look objectively at Geo-politics.

Bush, Obama and US interests don't pre-determine world events.

Yes, the big lesson that we failed to learn from Iraq was that the various despotic dictators who ruled over the various factions within each of their (artificial) borders were necessary evils in containing internal conflicts. Human rights loses. But, the region was destined to blow up sooner or later anyway, either through outside interference (whether well-intentioned or not) or through internal uprisings against persecution and genocides. These problems go back way before Bush was even born. I don't think we even now fully understand how alien our western philosophies and ideals are to them ...and vice versa.