The Meteor on Course

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Iow she had received emails with classified info, right?  She may not have understood she had been forwarded such, but she had received them.

I deem her careless, or someone like myself that only wants to worry about one email account. And from the sound of it, there are plenty others that use the same email account or used the same email account for both personal and work.

[ERayR]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

CFR. Also, CFR that current attempts to follow Sharia in the US have taken legal precedence over public law.

Simply compare the equality of male and female under Sharia. 

[ERayR]

10 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

There is absolutely no evidence of influence peddling by Clinton. Mishandling of retroactively classified information between official staff and any Cabinet level official is not criminal, if inappropriate. Clinton did not lie about it to the FBI. It is they that matter.

 

There is none so blind as those who will not see.

[ERayR]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Why do you need to ask the question?  I am talking about Donald Trump's immoral rhetoric and bigotry, of course I would also be troubled by criminal behavior of any other candidate. It sounds to me that you're thinking from inside the partisan political box.

I am saying that, even if you vote for Trump, the anti-Muslim wave he's riding and perpetuating is immoral and it is within our Christian duty to push back against it. It is especially important that his supporters demand better speech and behavior from him to provide him with an incentive to be decent. If we want righteous leaders we should expect righteousness.

I am not inside any box.  What I am doing(as distasteful as it is) is to classify behaviors as to their level of immorality.  I find a lack of political correctness much less immoral than felonious criminal behavior.

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist Walid Shoebat is the source which should mark the claim with a strong degree of skepticism.

Furthermore, think this through.  What wild claim did Mr. Khan make in his speech?  He essentially made the point that Trump wanted to prevent people like him and his wife from coming to the US, people who have every intention of raising honorable and patriotic Americans who are willing to serve and even sacrifice for America. 

Do you really want to refuse to believe that claim? Khan provided an example with his son, but even if you whack-a-mole and discredit him, there are many more Muslims and children of immigrants serving the country honorably, many in the military, and there are other Muslim soldiers who have died in service of the USA. In orther words, these are our brothers and sisters, children of God, like everyone else.

Second, Khan implied that Trump had little interest or understanding of what we believe to be the divinely inspired US Constitution. Do you dispute this as a reasonable assertion?  Trump has advocated war crimes, he has recommended a religious test for both citizens and non-citizens, he has recommended a national registry of Muslims. He has repeatedly shown a blatant ignorance of how government works.

So, believe what you want about Mr Khan, believe the disgusting allegations about his son, but you cannot escape the concrete reality of Trump's policies, bigotry, and ignorance.

While you may discredit real proof just because of the source of the proof, that Khirz Khan authored himself, was exposed by Mr Shoebat, it doesn't change what Mr Khan did write (see highlighted area stating that the Shariah law is the highest law there is, meaning that the U.S. constitution by default is, "subordinated," to the Shariah): http://linkis.com/shoebat.com/2016/07/amTCP

If Khirz Khan truly believes that the Shariah is the supreme law, he is an infiltrated terrorist who won't abide the U.S. constitution as the supreme law of the land and has absolutely no business being in our country, regardless of his son who died in the line of duty, where along with that duty there is an oath to uphold the U.S. constitution as the supreme law, period.

That unconstitutional war that Mr. Khan's son was killed in, in 2004, was voted most enthusiastically by Hillary to happen. Without Hillary that the late Capt, Khan wouldn't have even been sent there in the first place to die. What about the other parent of a deceased patriot that Hillary never even acknowledged: http://ntknetwork.com/benghazi-mother-hillary-clinton-kills-people/

Mr Shoebat wasn't the only one to suggest that Khirz Khan was a part of the Muslim Brotherhood: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/289976-roger-stone-suggesting-khizr-khan-part-of-muslim-brotherhood#

And I think there is a very real reason why all the mainstream media is completely silent, with absolutely no movie critique on the single highest grossing film, in the documentary category, to hit the box office this year; Hillary's America. I haven't seen it yet but I'm pretty sure it will be quit damaging to the treasonous, criminal called Hillary Clinton. It hit the box office July 22nd.
 

I'm all for helping refugees, but I'm 100 percent against bringing Muslim terrorists inside our borders. At the very least I think any immigrant should be questioned thoroughly to see if they would uphold the Shariah law if it were possible, and should be denied entry for doing so, because they would be unwilling to abide by the constitution, and have absolutely no business bringing their evil ways here. The Shariah is an evil law, and that any religion that says they are a religion of peace couldn't possible follow it and not have that claim be a bold faced lie. The Shariah and the U.S. constitution are completely incompatible.

If Hillary has her way, it will only keep the open borders flowing with illegals that get to remain here every time they simply claim to have been hear since before 2014, when they get caught. If you think that it is only immigrants coming from south of the border who are sneaking in across our border, all you have to do is ask any Texan whose properties are being trespassed upon by these criminals en route to infiltrate our country, how many Muslim prayer rugs, Korans, and English dictionaries from Arab speaking languages they are finding? This threat is very real, and not just some crazy conspiracy theory. There are real facts to back it up, and conspiracy fact is very different than conspiracy theory.

I'm not for Trump so much as for Hillary being put where she belongs... In the Big House, not the White House. These modern day Gadinton Robbers/King Men(and women) are here and the establishment wants them in place of where there are much better qualified Americans to be running things. (If you don't think that these are indeed kingmen, then you have to ask yourself why on Earth did the establishment think that there are pretty much only two families capable of running our country, out of the the roughly 324,000,000 Americans that live here? ....the Bushes and the Clintons.  I think in light of the reality, Trump isn't so ignorant as you think he is, and bigotry against terrorists is a good thing. Trump didn't say to get rid of all Muslims, he only wants to stop more of the coming in temporarily while we asses the situation, in order to stop the radicalized Muslims from further infiltrating our country. This is even constitutionally correct to do, since it is the presidents job to protect our country from threats, both domestic and foreign.

[waveslider]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

CFR. Also, CFR that current attempts to follow Sharia in the US have taken legal precedence over public law.

https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/upload/wysiwyg/article pdfs/Shariah_VS_Constitution.pdf

[waveslider]

41 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I deem her careless, or someone like myself that only wants to worry about one email account. And from the sound of it, there are plenty others that use the same email account or used the same email account for both personal and work.

I deem her careless too, so much so that she is completely incompetent to lead our country. Her work as Secretary of State, concerns national security and that type of behavior is completely and utterly irresponsible of such an important job.

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, waveslider said:

It was illegal. It is a federal crime to negligently handle classified information under 18 U.S.C. 1924 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/pdf/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap93-sec1924.pdf

No it is not. Even FBI Director James Comey said so.

Comey: Clinton Mishandled Classified Information but Did Not Break the Law

[thesometimesaint]

16 hours ago, waveslider said:

This link I posted earlier in this thread compiled a long list of the criminal behaviors of the Clinton family: https://youtu.be/dqIlD8cGBAM

So the best you can do is a You Tube Video?

Ever hear of The Arkansas Project?

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Project

[thesometimesaint]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

That seems like a pretty broad generalisation but for the sake of argument, I'll can grant it for a significant number. How about simply sticking to the existing stringent process of documentation?  Why say "no Muslims" just because there is difficulty with some from war-torn countries? Continue to expect that all refugees go through the process.

Actually it is a 2 year investigation process.

SEE http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/20/us/why-it-takes-two-years-for-syrian-refugees-to-apply-to-enter-the-united-states.html?_r=0

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, waveslider said:

I deem her careless too, so much so that she is completely incompetent to lead our country. Her work as Secretary of State, concerns national security and that type of behavior is completely and utterly irresponsible of such an important job.

Secretary Clinton was refused a secure E-mail server. Judicial Watch isn't exactly Hilary friendly.

SEE http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-documents-show-that-nsa-rebuffed-hillary-clintons-attempts-to-obtain-a-secure-blackberry/

BTW Concerning E-mails

SEE http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/clinton-e-mail-report-shows-broken-it-system-693093443953

Edited August 3, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Why do you need to ask the question?  I am talking about Donald Trump's immoral rhetoric and bigotry, of course I would also be troubled by criminal behavior of any other candidate. It sounds to me that you're thinking from inside the partisan political box.

I am saying that, even if you vote for Trump, the anti-Muslim wave he's riding and perpetuating is immoral and it is within our Christian duty to push back against it. It is especially important that his supporters demand better speech and behavior from him to provide him with an incentive to be decent. If we want righteous leaders we should expect righteousness.

I found myself pondering? Especially after the Khans-trump issue if we would be having the same reaction if this was us Mormons who were being questioned about our place in American society. Did we feel it was justified back in the 1800's when we were often questioned and under government scrutiny...even with MMM under our belt. We still are questioned on oppression of women, racism, general backwardness, etc. if the Bundies were pointed as a reason to higher government scrutiny of Mormons would we be ok with that? If trump was stating that Mrs. Jensen wouldn't speak up about her dead son because of her Mormon faith, would we have a bigger problem with him? Would we be ok having all of our character be made circumspect based off of the most extreme actions people have taken in our communities. Ones no one agrees with, No one wants, and there are so few doing such that it becomes a search of 1 in a million. If the answer differs and we would expect different treatment it feels to me that we our struggling with the 2nd most important commandment. If we expect more compassion and balanced views of our community but will not give it to another there is a problem.

I have not seen enough solid/numerical evidence to prove that Muslim populations are exceptionally more dangerous than other minority groups...religious, ethnic, racial or otherwise. Or even different from the majority groups which seem to forget about retaliatory hate crimes that are rising in number. I haven't seen much difference between this and what was done to us or to the Japanese or a list of others who we placed in circumspect because their person, ideology, or lifestyle were viewed as different. I believe it's easy to forget that because people feel justified and assume unfair prejudice is a function of irrationality. we forget that most of the time it's not. That even overt racists have their reasoning to bolster their sense of fear, superiority, and hatred. 

It is astounding to me how easy it is to repeat history. That just by changing the name of them out group, the same questions and concerns come up and can be excused as this time, no really this time, our forgetting that they are our brothers and sisters makes perfect sense.

 

With luv,

BD

[Meadowchik]

The low level of public discourse is something we must now work to mitigate, not just between us adults, but also our children:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153745170831130&id=18468761129&refid=7&ref=bookmarks&notif_t=feed_comment&_ft_=qid.6314639771164823295%3Amf_story_key.-1797565814045051539&__tn__=C

[waveslider]

39 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

No it is not. Even FBI Director James Comey said so.

Comey: Clinton Mishandled Classified Information but Did Not Break the Law

The law on the books, which I cited, says different than FBI Director James Corney. It only shows how deeply these guys are bought off and paid for.

[thesometimesaint]

So now you're the chief law enforcement officer of the US.

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The low level of public discourse is something we must now work to mitigate, not just between us adults, but also our children:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153745170831130&id=18468761129&refid=7&ref=bookmarks&notif_t=feed_comment&_ft_=qid.6314639771164823295%3Amf_story_key.-1797565814045051539&__tn__=C

I liked the last sentence, "it can't be more than 6th grade, 5th grade and it sways downward". 

Trump now has something against babies too.  http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/watch-donald-trump-throw-crying-baby-out-of-rally-w432269 

And this about his taxes...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/opinions/warren-buffett-challenge-to-trump/index.html

Wow, there are so many articles on Trump, for Hillary too. But with Hillary I see more educated speech unlike Trump. I really didn't notice Trump having such a tough time putting a sentence together on his show "The Apprentice".

[waveslider]

32 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Secretary Clinton was refused a secure E-mail server. Judicial Watch isn't exactly Hilary friendly.

SEE http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-documents-show-that-nsa-rebuffed-hillary-clintons-attempts-to-obtain-a-secure-blackberry/

BTW Concerning E-mails

SEE http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/clinton-e-mail-report-shows-broken-it-system-693093443953

 

8 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

So now you're the chief law enforcement officer of the US.

No, but since when is a law enforcement officer, chief or not, a judge to interpret law? Especially when he admits that Clinton is guilty: https://youtu.be/pD6zGqcNF64

[waveslider]

38 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

So the best you can do is a You Tube Video?

Ever hear of The Arkansas Project?

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Project

References to Wikipedia are just as liable to lies as are those of Youtube videos. I posted the video because it outlines a bunch of the very real scandals that surround the Clintons all the time. They aren't just isolated incidences but all very similar, where evidence constantly gets tampered with and then gets found out that the Clintons lied about, as light gets shed on the missing evidences.
 

[Meadowchik]

43 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I found myself pondering? Especially after the Khans-trump issue if we would be having the same reaction if this was us Mormons who were being questioned about our place in American society. Did we feel it was justified back in the 1800's when we were often questioned and under government scrutiny...even with MMM under our belt. We still are questioned on oppression of women, racism, general backwardness, etc. if the Bundies were pointed as a reason to higher government scrutiny of Mormons would we be ok with that? If trump was stating that Mrs. Jensen wouldn't speak up about her dead son because of her Mormon faith, would we have a bigger problem with him? Would we be ok having all of our character be made circumspect based off of the most extreme actions people have taken in our communities. Ones no one agrees with, No one wants, and there are so few doing such that it becomes a search of 1 in a million. If the answer differs and we would expect different treatment it feels to me that we our struggling with the 2nd most important commandment. If we expect more compassion and balanced views of our community but will not give it to another there is a problem.

I have not seen enough solid/numerical evidence to prove that Muslim populations are exceptionally more dangerous than other minority groups...religious, ethnic, racial or otherwise. Or even different from the majority groups which seem to forget about retaliatory hate crimes that are rising in number. I haven't seen much difference between this and what was done to us or to the Japanese or a list of others who we placed in circumspect because their person, ideology, or lifestyle were viewed as different. I believe it's easy to forget that because people feel justified and assume unfair prejudice is a function of irrationality. we forget that most of the time it's not. That even overt racists have their reasoning to bolster their sense of fear, superiority, and hatred. 

It is astounding to me how easy it is to repeat history. That just by changing the name of them out group, the same questions and concerns come up and can be excused as this time, no really this time, our forgetting that they are our brothers and sisters makes perfect sense.

 

With luv,

BD

It's true that percentage of terrorists among Muslims is vanishingly small.  And also, it's also true that the number of deaths caused by terrorists is incredibly small compared to other deaths. For example, gun deaths from 2001 to 2013 were about 330,000 in the US, while deaths from terrorism were 3,030.

I'd say one of our biggest challenges as humans is properly remembering. Last December one of Trump's spokespeople walked out the idea of doing more than talking, and therefore using nukes offensively against our enemies....just in time for those who remembered Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be mostly gone and unable to remind us.

We have to represent those who remembered.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Meadowchik

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, waveslider said:

References to Wikipedia are just as liable to lies as are those of Youtube videos. I posted the video because it outlines a bunch of the very real scandals that surround the Clintons all the time. They aren't just isolated incidences but all very similar, where evidence constantly gets tampered with and then gets found out that the Clintons lied about, as light gets shed on the missing evidences.
 

My husband has been talking about these videos, my husband even thinks the Cintons may have something to do with some deaths of those that might snitch on them. Suffice it to say he doesn't like Hillary, and he likes Trump telling it like is. But is Trump telling it like it is or are the videos correct? 

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Secretary Clinton was refused a secure E-mail server. Judicial Watch isn't exactly Hilary friendly.

SEE http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-documents-show-that-nsa-rebuffed-hillary-clintons-attempts-to-obtain-a-secure-blackberry/

BTW Concerning E-mails

SEE http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/clinton-e-mail-report-shows-broken-it-system-693093443953

She shouldn't be in a position to run the most powerful military in the world if she can't even get herself up to date enough to use a computer. Regardless of the saying you can teach old dogs new tricks, but not if they are too lazy to want to learn them. If they are that lazy then they have no business trying to gain the most powerful position in the world.

[waveslider]

27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My husband has been talking about these videos, my husband even thinks the Cintons may have something to do with some deaths of those that might snitch on them. Suffice it to say he doesn't like Hillary, and he likes Trump telling it like is. But is Trump telling it like it is or are the videos correct? 

You can reference every single thing brought up in this video and research it all, thanks to Google search and it all checks out as far as I have looked into it all, so yes this video is trusted by me. As with everything we need to do our own homework because there are a lot of forms of misinformation out there, but the truth is still there if you dig for it. It seems to me that Trump really is telling it like it is for the most part. He has fudged a few p-curves before, as all politicians do to some extent or another. For the most part though the truth can hurt and is ugly to those who aren't ready to hear it. Trump doesn't really try to cushion the blow at all though and that is why so many people feel like he is so abrasive. I think it is amazing that most racist and bigoted party is always the people who are so quick to call those telling it like it is a bigot. I don't think Trump is the answer to our countries problems, the corruption goes far too deep within our governmental systems for him to fix everything, but it sure does seem like it would be a pretty decent attempt at trying to pull us out of the nose dive we are currently in, albeit far too late. I'm pretty sure that if for some reason he was able to beat the rigged system and actually become the president, it wouldn't take long for the establishment to take him out and pin it on yet another patsy that would look like a crazed shooter who assassinated him.

I look forward to seeing the movie that is playing in theaters now:

It should shed a bit of light on things that the media tries so hard to keep hidden from everyone.

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I found myself pondering? Especially after the Khans-trump issue if we would be having the same reaction if this was us Mormons who were being questioned about our place in American society.

How many Mormons have become radicalized enough to commit so many horrible acts against humanity? I personally, as a Mormon, would be very quick to denounce the beliefs of those who are radicalized. Unfortunately for most of these Muslims they can't denounce it as a member of the Islamic religion because they would be in violation of their very own Shariah law. So most of them don't and the ones who do are in a very real threat of being put to death for it, according to the Shariah.
 

It's pretty hard to compare, if you ask me. The situations and circumstances are very different than they have ever been with Mormons.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, waveslider said:

 

No, but since when is a law enforcement officer, chief or not, a judge to interpret law? Especially when he admits that Clinton is guilty: https://youtu.be/pD6zGqcNF64

He didn't say that. Again Comey did not say she was guilty of any crime.

 

5 minutes ago, waveslider said:

How many Mormons have become radicalized enough to commit so many horrible acts against humanity? I personally, as a Mormon, would be very quick to denounce the beliefs of those who are radicalized. Unfortunately for most of these Muslims they can't denounce it as a member of the Islamic religion because they would be in violation of their very own Shariah law. So most of them don't and the ones who do are in a very real threat of being put to death for it, according to the Shariah.
 

It's pretty hard to compare, if you ask me. The situations and circumstances are very different than they have ever been with Mormons.

Again that is an absolute lie.

SEE http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/muslim-clerics-condemn-terrorism_us_566adfa1e4b009377b249dea

[waveslider]

21 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

He didn't say that. Again Comey did not say she was guilty of any crime.

 

Again that is an absolute lie.

SEE http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/muslim-clerics-condemn-terrorism_us_566adfa1e4b009377b249dea

If 70,000 Muslims are standing up to radical Muslims I applaud that. I still wonder about there very scriptures and belief in the Shariah though. Especially when they have verses like this in the Quran(included are different translations of the verse):

Sahih International: [Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

Pickthall: When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.

Yusuf Ali: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

Shakir: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

Muhammad Sarwar: Your Lord inspired the angels saying, "I am with you. Encourage the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers and you will strike their heads and limbs;

Mohsin Khan: (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."

Arberry: When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, 'I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers' hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!'