I officially pulled the plug and signed off for good on the only other firearms specific website I visit.

This is the last one.

Dave's site seems to be the last one where people who don't have a liberal leaning viewpoint are not shouted down or moderated off by people who have "I'm a left leaning liberal with a gun and I hunt" taglines in their posts. Who then are the first to complain about the "politics" on the board, unless those politics mirror their own.
Thanks, Mr. Weber. And, to Dave K., James M., Keith, Canvasback, and the others, who point out the glaring hypocrisy of those who not only don't agree with the second ammendment, but, hold people who do in open contempt, on a firearms specific information site, for believing exactly what the second ammendment says. Dave K posted the list of elected representatives who were trying to get the federal government off the back's of gunsmiths, that had not a single democrat taking part, damning evidence, any firearm owning, thinking person would conclude. We don't likely need long drawn out debates over politics, but, a link to an article illustrating an incremental nudge, by some crooked politician, attempting to push a wedge between us and the second, as James M has often taken the time to do, is useful and warranted, on a firearms specific board.
Politics are involved with the ownership and safe keeping of firearms. And, when it isn't, the will be no ownership or keeping of arms.

Best,
Ted

This post of mine was scrubbed over on 16ga.com this morning.

http://ijr.com/2016/09/695609-marine-col...lutely-blazing/

It's a shame that we've come to this point.

Thanks Ted for your open support:
I have long suspected that you and many others who choose to remain silent have these same opinions. I and others you listed have openly stated that we believe there is no place for overt objectors to the 2nd Amendment on a firearms board. Why Dave chooses to permit them to remain here continues to be a mystery as he has never stated any reason for doing so.
On the other hand; other forums such as the Smith & Wesson board will penalize anyone bringing up politics even if it gun related. Many members have been expelled for stating political views.
I have long suspect that this "policy" is because a small group of anti-gun trolls such as we have here objected to the forum management thereby silencing the majority. This is no different then what the so called "mainstream news media" does today to those who don't follow the "democratic party line".
I will also again state that we are in for the fight of our lives come November not only for the 2nd Amendment but for the very right to continue having the U S Constitution remain the law of the land.
I could go on but I think I've made my point.
Jim

Interesting, as I read your comment, there is a live address to the un. If a small handful get there way, it sounds like joe average will have to contend with the feelings of global politics and progress towards the lowest common denominator.

'Evidence' hasn't mattered in the slightest bit for quite some time. It's odd how taking the high road has come to mean we need to follow pc rules.

James,
I think Dave K, Keith and a few others might share with you that I'm not always silent, but, I feel other people can put the argument in better terms than I can. I am far from Gods gift to the spoken or written word.
Craig, I really shoulda' called you out by name, the emperor with no clothes would have had you killed right away, and I mean that as a compliment.
The arguments you have had here with naked fools are hilarious, in a way only you can pull off. Thanks.

Best,
Ted

Uhg (sp?) This thread already sucks.

_____________________________
Fighting side of me. Merle Haggard

Well, good thing we have an expert on suck, right here. Where did your Phd in suck come from?


Best,
Ted

20 years in the military.


____________________________
The Army doesn't solve problems. It overwhelms them. (forgot who said that but it's funny as hell)

As good a place as any. I meant it in the very best possible way, and hope I didn't imply that satisfaction didn't ooze from the pores of those upon whom you had plied your trade. I didn't mean that.

The military have any double guns, then?

Do you?


Best,
Ted

Well Ted:
I see it didn't take long for one of the Libtard trolls to show up. He's on my ignore list and I only saw his post because you quoted it in a response of your own. As usual and like all trolls everywhere he has NOTHING of value to contribute and is only posting to try to disrupt and anger the rest of us.
Jim

James,
Everyone has a role to play. Some are a fountain of knowledge on the topic of the double guns we love, some are like a drunken court jester.
It's a big tent site, I like to think. But, some people I value more on the subject of the topics of the day, so to speak.

Have a great day.

Best,
Ted

Dave does allow people to vent here which is uncommon on any other board.

If it came down to it I think this would be my last board also.

TED & OTHERS,

I'm solidly in your camp on politics and values. But I suggest you grow a "thicker skin" and not let these idiot protesters get under it. I just ignore or or delete their dribble, and don't let it upset me, or ruin my day. And I never get into word battles with the uninformed. Just let it go...

I have always enjoyed your wise commentary on SxS's, and hope you will continue to offer such.

gold40

First, please let me say thank you Ted. It was very kind of you to mention me. I know I have said this before but I generally just try to be the canary in the coal mine. I think it may help some to see where they may be headed if they aren't careful.

Secondly, I too appreciate all the links James M posts. But unlike James, I'm quite happy to have the dissenting voices that show up here on occasion. Always good to know what the enemy is thinking.

Ted, I know the forum you are referring to, I know the thread you probably read and I too rolled my eyes at what is frankly a juvenile response. As you say Ted, ownership of guns IS POLITICAL. We didn't ask that it be that, but others have made it that way.

And finally, here's a shout out to my internet buddy Lloyd for starting the whole thing! Good going Lloyd.

Grow a thicker skin? You think? Geez. 20 year vet and a NRA Benefactor member and I still can't get any love. I need a drink.

___________________________
Pretty small tent you right wing nuts operate under

I love you, LR. Have a couple tequila. Good for whatever ails ya!

As for Dave's list that Ted referred to, I wrote my Senator, Democrat John Tester, to complain about that ruling. He replied that he was protesting it too.

The group hug is really sweet and since all y'all feel so good about yourselves I'll not bother reminding you of the actual reality of the status of gun owners etc

have another day
Dr.WtS

You know what would help? More Bluegrass.....

This isn't the worst thought, but it implies that the 'pro' folks are just running on emotion. True this thread may have been started by someone who 'felt' like starting it, but I suspect it has more to do with policy than ruffled feathers.

A good example of what our 'friends' here may be thinking is summed up by nca. He said he doesn't care about any dem anti gun agenda or policy, he supports the dems because he agrees with and supports ALL their other policy without exception. Take a quick look at the example above, back a few months ago, Montana sen tester threw his full support and endorsement behind hrc.

I wouldn't argue with a screen name, but maybe it's not the worst idea to let that agenda known that it won't always be rubber stamp sailing to the far left.

Thrifty,

Your close on my position, but still oh so far away. Kindly restate my position without the spin.

Won't be helped by ignoring it or putting your head in the sand. It's at risk now because others have worked hard to put reasonably unfettered ownership at risk. Stands to reason we need to work hard to keep the option to own available.

Seems to me we've all decided how we'll vote around here and won't be changing any minds. Barring some big surprise in October or a blow out in the debates our Country is divided about 50/50 as usual in recent years.

Edge probably goes to Clinton. We'll have good government with either one of them and happily wave goodbye to President Obama. I'll vote Trump thank you...Geo

Ted:

Don't let my "bomb-throwing" ruin a valuable resource for you. I get a little worked up every once in a while about some event in the world and I tend to vent in this fashion. I know that a couple of the denizens over on that site are pretty rabid lefties and I enjoy gigging them just a little. I'd like to believe that I do it in good taste, but that may not be universally agreed with. I'm a little disappointed that I got censored by the poor-soul running things there, but I appreciate the fact that he's been keeping things running since the passing of the original founder & owner. Since I don't have to listen to the incessant whining, I'm probably a little tone deaf.

Canvasback: Sorry we're going to miss you this trip. Let's keep trying.

Nearly had me there, I choose to retract & refrain.
Anyhoo I need to get a Cyl choke for my Hatsan Escort.
O.M

Lloyd, Ted,

My question for you guys is why? I'm presupposing that you are referring to the 16 gauge forum which has a ban on "political" topics or more broadly stated has a rule to keep topics limited to the 16 gauge. I checked out the offending article (from the thread that supposedly got shut down), that Lloyd linked to, and it doesn't seem to fit the rules of the forum that, as members of that site, you agreed to adhere to. So if the owner of the site and the fellow authorized to run it has made a rule, why do you feel that its ok to violate it to giggle some lefties? And Ted, why are you so upset if the site is enforcing the known rules?

It is a private site. To be members, you have to get permission to participate. As conservatives, I am sure that you each respect ownership rights in property, and one of those rights is to lay down the rules that guests/members have to follow to be part of the club.

Why are you each incensed when the rules are upheld?

Chris,
I was member 7 or 8 over there, actually I can't remember what number, but it was very soon after Doug Oliver started it. The rules kinda' crept in over the years. There were changes in them, to be sure. What I signed up for has changed a bit, to be sure. I knew the owner, and he was fairly loose with long term members giving permission to list items they had for sale that were not 16 gauge related, for example, something that has changed mostly due to newer members protesting to the guy that has been left running it. There are at least two newer regulars who feel the need to add their voices when they see something that they don't feel should be permitted, anywhere on the site. They are not moderators, or administrators. Dave had a similar problem here with an individual who felt the need to add running commentary on the for sale section, which, has been corrected. A beautiful thing, I might add.

My problem is the way it is enforced over there. The A-hole first class that put the link to a thread, that was unrelated to what Lloyd had posted, where a member was told in no uncertain terms to stand down with his joke about what ISIS initials stood for, has in his tag line (I'm para-phrasing, since, I'll no longer have anything to do with the site) words to the effect he is a leftist liberal who shoots fuzzy critters, and then a list of guns he does it with. I would also expect he was the clown that ran to tattle on Lloyd for his link, which, I don't remember Lloyd having much to say about it, except it made him sad. I don't know that it was him for sure, but, there wasn't a bunch of commentary on that post. It got scrubbed sometime after I pointed out A-hole first class' hypocrisy, and (politely, even if Drew doesn't think I have it in me) bid adeu to the site. I didn't call him the A-hole first class he is, but, I should have, and will, hence forth.

See, the A-hole first class makes a political statement every time he posts. Every time. No one, that I'm aware of over there, has in their tag line words about how they are a conservative and support certain outdoor sporting groups, as, they would be told to change that. And, A-hole first class shouldn't be allowed to have a statement like that in his tag line to begin with, if it is a politics free site.

But, he does. See where I'm going with this, Chris? It is exactly like when there is a counterpoint article in the Mpls Star and Tribune on, say, global warming, with a plea for some critical thinking, and honest scientific sceptisism, and the hordes write the editor that anyone who has that notion should be lumped in with the people who deny the Holocaust. Not only are they unwilling to listen to you, but, they are unwilling to allow you to speak your opinion.

And I'm sick of that. So, you are correct, it is a private site, and said private site can find someone else to add whatever enlightenment (not much, maybe, but, whatever) I added over the years, for the members-I'm out. Period.

My decision.

I'll repeat what I said that night, I wish every single one of them nothing but the very best. Adios.

Best,
Ted

Ted,

As I said in the "Down One" Thread, I've been busy for the last few days and missed this current fray until now.

Let me first thank you for your kind words, and then congratulate you for nailing it on the glaring hypocrisy we see so often when these sorts of controversies crop up. I don't imagine that things are any different on the 16Ga.com site. I saw some of it recently on the Parker site after checking King Brown's dishonest mischaracterization of the banter there. This much is certain... King would be banned there if he posted some of the same anti-2nd Amendment crap as he does here.

Two thing really jumped out at me in this thread, and bear repeating. You said, "Politics are involved with the ownership and safe keeping of firearms. And, when it isn't, the will be no ownership or keeping of arms."

And James (canvasback) said,"But unlike James, I'm quite happy to have the dissenting voices that show up here on occasion. Always good to know what the enemy is thinking."

canvasback and I have sparred a bit on this matter, because we have a slight difference of opinion. Personally, like Jim, I too could live without the anti-gun trolls we have here. But canvasback could not have made a better choice of words when he described them as the enemy. Anyone who openly or secretly supports and defends those who wish to eliminate my gun rights is no friend to us. These people betray us and stab us in the back. Sadly, most are too stupid to see that they also are doing it to themselves. They don't call them Libtards for nothing. Others don't care because they are trolls. They pretend to be gun guys. No real gun guy could support Obama or Hillary unless they were brain dead.

And only a complete idiot like Ed Good could repeatedly state that the 10th Amendment allows the States to pass restrictive gun laws that preempt, usurp, and violate the 2nd Amendment. It would take someone of Ed's mentality to take issue with the post that Lloyd made on the 16 Ga. site.

Funny how some of the same kind of people who obviously support San Fran QB Colin Kaepernick's freedom to disrespect our country also wish to suppress any speech which is geared toward maintaining our gun rights. Yes Jim, Libtard is the correct term.

I don't know any liberal gun owners that are anti-2nd amendment. I have hunted with one, former Dem candidate for the state legislature, for over 40 years. He's also retired military. Obviously a gun owner. Some people take "support the 2A" as a synonym requiring one to support virtually anyone owning virtually any weapon they wish--because when the Constitution was written, private citizens could pretty much own anything the military had. I don't think the Founders envisioned nukes, or even tanks with all weapons systems functional.

I'm sure my hunting partner (I can ask him at some point) would agree that gun control measures such as a ban on high cap magazines simply don't make sense. I trained on the M-1, which passes most high cap bans because it uses an 8 round clip. I can assure you, although I don't own an M-1 any more, that with a very short period of re-familiarization, I can shoot that gun about as fast as anyone with a high cap magazine. Reloading is a piece of cake if you have more clips. Stupid to think restricting magazine capacity is going to make much difference. I disagree with those who think so.

But I have zero interest in trying to chase someone off a gun-oriented BB, assuming they own guns, because they don't happen to own a handgun or a black rifle or whatever. Or even because they think I don't need to own one. This is a doublegun board. If they own a doublegun and want to talk about doubleguns, that's good enough for me. They think I don't need to own a handgun or a black rifle but I do . . . we agree to disagree and go on from there. This country is getting too damned polarized as it is. And gun owners are a minority. Best we make an effort to stick together, assuming we want to continue owning and shooting our guns.

Watch out or the politically correct Mr. Sniffle'bean will rear her ugly head.

I used to occasionally hunt birds with a VERY LIBERAL fellow. His position was that a person should be allowed to own ONLY one shotgun and one rifle for hunting, but no handguns. Eventually we parted ways.

gold40

I recall. back in the 50s, when one could buy, via mail, a WWII 20mm anti-tank rifle, plus ammo, without a problem. One also could "open carry" without a problem.

Much less gun violence back then.

As Robert Heinlein observed: "An armed society is a polite society."

Well that's just completely unworkable. One should be allowed to own at least two rifles for hunting. You don't want to shoot a squirel with a 30-30 nor a deer with a .22.

Chris,
That presumes anyone who is making the law has any of your interests at heart when they write it. That is seldom the case, since, the law isn't about you, it is about controlling you, which, is a near orgasmic thrill for some people out there.
The laws about one gun have already been put on the books in some places in Europe (you never wondered about why a drilling exists, Chris? It is only practical for someone who has been told he can only use and own a single gun) and if the left could, they would do it here as well. Regardless of how it works out for you and me in actual use.

Best,
Ted

Well Ted, that is true for legislation of any nature. My sarcasm of the principle may have been lost in translation. BTW, thanks for your response to my question I posed to you. Granted, I look at it a bit differently, but I appreciate the dialogue nonetheless.

Still waiting for Lloyd though....

Teddy take hiz marbles and go home...

Unfortunately the actual motivation is nothing more than getting re-elected. Generally the most effective way is pandering to that misguided/misinformed/and usually semi-stupid base. People proper mean nothing since that is a malleable mass. Works in a general election as well as we now see with the incredibly stupid Trump base, responding to arm waving and high volume yapping about unrealizable generalities and totally devoid of any realistic connection to the current reality that the rest of the world seems to be experiencing.

The sad truth is that the getting re-elected hinges on nothing more than a pragmatic what works and as soon as it is politically expedient gun owners will finds themselves friendless and alone - and likely gunless. Just recall that not long ago the cons controlled WH and Congress and how much good came in your direction then. The NRA has been nobody's' friend except themselves (new buildings, pay raises, etc) for decades and has done nothing to promote some rational approach to opposing the anti's. But they have managed to promote the nutcase-with-a-gun image in so effective a way that I have to wonder who they really represent.

I may not live to see that but it is well on the way now.

have another day
Dr.WtS

L. Brown:
I agree with much of what you said above. But I'll state that my primary reservation is with no "gun owners" are against the 2nd Amendment. This is primarily a double gun hunting forum and the trolls that do post here want the rest of our gun owning rights severely curtailed. The trolls will argue all day that there's no way the 2nd Amendment can be abolished but that isn't necessary to severely curtail our rights. It can easily be crippled by making those rights more and more restrictive until many give up as it's just too difficult to acquire a firearm. I believe you can actually get a pistol permit in NYC if you want to expend a couple of years of your time and spend hundreds of dollars to do so. Ditto for Washington DC.
The Supreme Court with 8 members currently would in all likelihood split 4 - 4 on the individual right to keep and bear arms were it to come up today. If A gun grabber like Clinton is elected you can be sure the 9th appointment would join the other 4 in overturning the ruling on this right.
So is it important that everyone stay as current as possible insofar as what's going on in this area? I firmly believe this is the case and that's why I post firearms related information some of which in NOT in the regular news.
I've never cared to win any kind of "popularity contest" on this forum and will continue to post information that I think the membership here want's to know even if some of the more "astute" members like Hause are so knowledgeable they have no need for it.
If he or his cabal of toadies don't like what I post on this subject then don't read it. It's as simple as that.
Jim

nca225: It sounds like I was unaware of some of the later dialog in that post, because it had been scrubbed when I logged on yesterday. As to your question....in retrospect, I'm sorry I made that post. Yet another angry old white guy moment, I fear.

As far as I can tell, this take on gun control hasn't come up. Generally, the squabbles tend to come up when when someone claims they are one thing, but discuss, support, and interact in the opposite way. I think, if all we had to do is keep nukes out of civilian hands, there is still a fair amount of evidence that ideological lines have been drawn by left wing leaders to restrict side by side barreled shotguns among other types of civilian firearms.

"Most gun owners are deeply private about what’s in their gun collection – both for fear of government intrusion, and for fear of theft. Several gun owners agreed to talk to the Guardian in detail about their collections only on the condition that their full names or precise locations not be disclosed.

Like Risenhoover, many super-owners described gun collections that had grown organically or even haphazardly, with different guns added for a mishmash of reasons, from practical need to the appreciation of a gun’s historical significance or aesthetic value."

Gun inequality: US study charts rise of hardcore super owners | US news | The Guardian

I just ran across this information in the Guardian which I think re-enforces my opinion that the less publicly known about you or your collection the safer you will be. And craig d I believe I posted access to a conversation held with one of Clinton's aides during the convention where she stated that Clinton's ultimate goal was the confiscation of all firearms.
Jim

James M, I think what you do is great - keep it up.

Craig, you must not be recalling Joe Biden's reference to a shotgun (I believe he may have specified double, although I can't remember for sure) as a good home defense weapon. That being said, without doubt there are lefties who'd like to put far more restrictions on gun ownership. And if you happen to live in the wrong state, they probably will succeed in doing so. Have succeeded, in some states. Makes me very glad that the last state I lived in (WI) finally got CCW (pretty much automatic without training for a vet like me), and just a few years ago, IA--where I live now--went from "may issue" CCW (giving county sheriffs power over who got permits) to "shall issue" (meaning the sheriff has to show cause to refuse you a permit)--again with a simple background check and my DD-214. Good to know things have been heading the right way in the Heartland--if, unfortunately, that's not the case on the coasts.

Leave it to Larry Clown to rush to defend an extreme anti-gunner like Joe Biden. Larry, the ex-CIA Intelligence Analyst has apparently missed a lifetime of anti-2nd Amendment rhetoric from Biden. Biden's pandering comments on the double gun meant to justify bans on semi-autos like AR-15's demonstrate his ignorance. And Larry's too.



Larry says he doesn't know of any Liberal gun owners who are anti-2nd Amendment. And he also says that high cap magazine bans would be stupid. How'd he miss what his older brother King had to say about that?

So, what's going down in N. Carolina, S. Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, along the coasts that we should be concerned about? The way I see it, IA was just slow to do what these coastal states did long ago. How 'bout not lumping us in with the Left Coast and New England. There's little in common there, by comparison.

SRH

Happens to everyone Lloyd. I know I've had similar moments as well.

My apologies, Stan. Guess I should have said the Northeast Coast and the lower West Coast. IA was slower to get there than it should have been--and WI was even slower--but very good, IMO, that they're both there now. And those changes run counter to the trend in states like California, and some states in the Northeast. Good for us; bad for them.

You would think the ex-CIA Intelligence analyst Larry Clown would get tired of showing us just how often his observations are so far off the mark.

But this is the same guy who recently went on for several days telling us why he won't vote for the only pro-2nd Amendment candidate in this year's Presidential election. So he tells us he celebrates gun rights victories in the Heartland while he supports politicians who promise to infringe upon gun rights.

Some people still haven't mastered connecting the dots. You can't make this shit up!

Muslim sympathizers like Larry Brown shouldn't own a firearm of any sort.

That goes to show that if statements are stupid enough, they can be funny--but still a crock of BS. I worked in the Arab world when terrorists were killing Americans, Joe. My wife lost her college roommate on PanAm 103--and one of my CIA bosses lost his son on the same flight. One of my State Dept friends was a hostage when the Iranian "students" occupied the American embassy. After I left CIA, I continued to work CI/CT (that'd be counterintelligence/counterterrorism) analysis as a Military Intelligence officer for another 20+ years. Joe, you probably didn't know what a Muslim was until after 9/11.

But I do understand that the best way to deal with Islamist terrorism is not to put a whole lot of American boots on the ground. That plays right into AQ/ISIS propaganda. "Here come the Crusaders again!" Nope. Support and assist our Muslim allies, who are doing most of the boots on the ground work. They're fighting for their countries, and it's obviously more their war than it is ours. Besides Joe, if we had to count on guys like you signing on the dotted line to fight for your country, I have a feeling we'd be in really bad shape.

Hmmm - yeah, sometimes I just can't help but wonder where are those bands of outraged militant Xtians off to fight the filthy arabs.


have another day
Dr.WtS

They were over there Dr. Wanker, doing a bang up job until your boy Obama pulled them out prematurely and left an obvious power vacuum that hundreds of brilliant analysts... obviously not guys like Larry... said would result in Al Qaeda moving in to fill the void. It was even worse as the more militant and violent ISIS was born and swept through the middle east. There have been 43 Islamic terrorist attacks in 2016 worldwide. Now the fight is here with Islamic terror attacks in the U.S. happening on a pretty regular basis. With Obama's and Hillary's foreign policy record, jOe may not need to sign up to fight Muslim terrorsists. He can do it right here.

HAHAHAHA That's really funny - you a really funny guy!!! In case you haven't noticed the US military is not typically "outraged militant Xtians". You know WTF I meant and you are welcome to ignore the common reality which seems to escape your notice. You appear to have no understanding at all of what is happening internationally. Your appraisal of the "doing a bang up job" is nothing less than delusional. ReTard !!!! HAHAHAHA

have another day
Dr.WtS

Right Libtard Dr. Wanker, I know exactly what you meant. And it was a lot of outraged militant Christians, and Jews, and others who joined our all volunteer military knowing there was a good chance they would be called upon to fight Radical Islamic extremism. And they were doing a bang-up job in spite of Obama reducing the number of troops in the Surge, and Liberal Left Rules of Engagement that tied their hands and prevented them from getting the job done quickly and efficiently.

I notice in the other thread how you ignored the common reality of the gains gun owners had the last time Conservatives controlled the WH and Congress, and also ignored the threats we faced since your boy Obama was elected in 2008. Talk about being delusional.

It must be quite a blow to your inflated ego to realize that you aren't near as bright as you think you are. Not even close. In fact, you put the Tard in Libtard. Allow me to grade your performance. F- as in FUDD.

[quote=keith]

They were over there Dr. Wanker, doing a bang up job until your boy Obama pulled them out prematurely and left an obvious power vacuum that hundreds of brilliant analysts... obviously not guys like Larry... said would result in Al Qaeda moving in to fill the void. [/quote/]

Darn, Keith . . . I wish Wonko hadn't quoted you. That's the only way I read your stuff, since I have you on ignore. Matter of fact, I was no longer "in the business" when Obama decided to pull EVERYONE out of Iraq (which he probably did because he had to keep at least one campaign promise, having found himself unable to close Gitmo). And although I don't think it took any particular brilliance, I said that pulling out of Iraq totally was a very bad move. Said so long before AQI reappeared on the scene as ISIS. All of Petraeus' gains with the Anbar Sunni tribes . . . down the tubes.

Whichever candidate wins this election, he or she needs to have the following sitting front and center on the desk in the oval office: NEVER ENGAGE IN REGIME CHANGE WITHOUT NEAR CERTAINTY THAT THE NEW REGIME WILL REPRESENT A FOREIGN RELATIONS VICTORY FOR THE UNITED STATES.

Apology accepted, Larry. We're on the same page on this issue.

All my best, SRH

We are for sure, Stan. I was darned glad to see those changes made in WI and IA. And I was also very glad to see idiotic suggestions to require nontox for doves in Iowa and on all DNR-managed land in WI defeated as well. Even out here, with lots of shooters and hunters, we have to be vigilant.

I stand by what I said.

Wonko,

Just a heads up, but you are dealing with a conditioned response from one of Pavlov's dogs here.

One of the most beautiful songs ever written, anywhere...

https://youtu.be/5qqedFPZVbg


__________________________
peoples that rode with Woody, and you Bob Dylan...

And here I thought you were a supporter of the Second Amendment, Joe. Guess not. Suggesting a veteran shouldn't have the right to own a firearm . . . do you sit on your ass when the colors pass or when they play the National Anthem too, Joe?

I like veterans that are proud of our country and don't support Muslims or their twisted cult that hides behind the guise of being a religion....

jOe,

I'm interested to know what traits you think makes Islam a cult. FYI, I don't disagree with that statement, just wondering what your parameters are.

Only cult followers would be willing to blow themselves.

Wonko,

Just a heads up, but you are dealing with a conditioned response from one of Pavlov's dogs here. [/quote]


OMG !!! Now he's gonna think I agree with YOU! Whatever aaaaammmmmm I gonna do?!?!?

And you should be careful of your metaphor. That could easily be construed as Pavlov Abuse.


have another day
Dr.WtS

Anything else for your criteria?

I'm quite proud of having served my country for 35 years. (30+ military, 5 CIA.) That service included 2 years in the Arab world, and a bunch of years working counterintelligence/counterterrorism. The idea that I "support" Muslims is laughable. Black September, among other Arab terrorist organizations, was killing Americans while I was in the Arab world. I supported killing them first. Still do, where terrorists of any stripe are concerned.

The job of an intelligence officer is to help decision-makers understand the enemy, actual or potential. Islamist terrorists are our REAL enemy, without question. I have no hesitation about using the term, and I don't shed any tears when they're killed . . . although I'd rather have them captured, because you get more intelligence out of live prisoners than you do dead terrorists. (And I wish we still had a green light to use EIT's--that is, enhanced interrogation techniques, to include waterboarding--on terrorist detainees. They seek martyrdom, so threatening them with death isn't very effective. But properly-applied "discomfort" can produce results.)

Islam is no more a cult than are Christianity or Judaism. Contrary to what many believe, the vast majority of Muslims are not interested in killing infidels. Currently, they're killing more of each other--which they've been doing for centuries--than they are non-Muslims. And in the war on Islamist terrorism, most of our boots on the ground allies are other Muslims. Things work out better that way. Of course, Joe, if you'd like to go join up with the forces fighting terrorists in Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya or anywhere else--rather than spending your time looking for them under your bed--nah, no chance of that. You're too busy interacting with the other trolls that live under the same bridge you do. With that I renounce any efforts at attempting to educate you to the real world and the real threats rather than the make believe world you live in.

Thanks Larry for your years of service and dedication to the nation, but I have to ask. Do you see a potential assimilation problem here? Is that current activity the equivalent of what Christians and Jews are doing?

And these are the good folks? Maybe, it shouldn't be a wonder if certain communities are reliable fund raisers for certain causes, and law enforcement can have a tough time locating honor killers in similar neighborhoods.

Craig, we have enough problems to deal with already without guessing at potential problems. In general, Muslims in this country have assimilated much better than they have in Europe. (Not to mention the fact that we don't have nearly as many of them, in terms of %, as do many European countries.) My hometown--Waterloo, Iowa--got a pretty fair influx of Bosnian immigrants some time ago. It's very seldom that you hear a complaint about them. One of them--arrived as a 10 year old war refugee--was elected to the Iowa Legislature at age 23. Female, no hijab in the photos I've seen of her.

What I try to avoid doing is lumping all members of religions, ethnic groups etc together. One of my mentors in Military Intelligence was COL Phillip Freund. Phil, as a young Jewish refugee from Germany back in the 1930's, was refused entry into this country (along with his mother) because they were Germans. They were on the ocean liner St. Louis . . . the infamous "voyage of the damned". They were lucky enough to disembark in Great Britain and eventually got here, sponsored by a relative. But most of those German Jews ended up in either Belgium or the Netherlands, and very shortly thereafter--after the Germans marched in--found themselves in the camps. Where hundreds were executed. All because we decided to keep Germans out of this country. That's one side of the story concerning Jews. But here's another side: Do the names Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and David Greenglass mean anything to you? They were key players in the Soviet spy ring that penetrated the Manhattan Project. American Jews, but Communists who betrayed their country. When Julius and Ethel went to the electric chair, I'm sure COL Freund would have been happy to throw the switch. The point being that there are good and bad of all religions, all ethnic groups, etc.

jOe, you can't win by debating the transgender coward nca225 because he/she has no brain. I'm sure you recall recently when the goofy Larry Clown made the ridiculous statement that there will never be enough Muslims in the U.S. to have any significant influence. Apparently the brilliant ex-CIA Intelligence Analyst hasn't noticed the multi-billion dollar Dept. of Homeland Security, the long security lines at airports, or the Massacre of the Month Club they've started here. But here's 5 reasons why Islam can be considered a cult:

http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/01/five-reasons-why-islam-is-a-cult/

People like Larry Brown is the reason our country is in such dire shape in the world now.

Islam matches the “Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups” according to the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA).

Here are some of these characteristics, according to the ICSA:

The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry — or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar — or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
The leader is not accountable to any authorities.
The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

I know it is hard to imagine — 20% of humanity is tied up in a deceptive murderous cult — but that’s exactly what the situation is. Islam is a contagious cult that incites its followers to commit violence. Either the non-Muslim world unites and deals with this intellectual Islamic scourge, or Islam will continue its expansion.

Oh No! jOe, I think you just pretty much described the doublegunshop BBS. Who'ed have thought?...Geo

Sounds about right Geo... about 20% of Doublegunshop BBS tied up in a deceptive anti-2nd Amendment cult... with King Brown as their Messiah, and Obama and Hillary as their gods.

Oh, I forgot, you won't see this because you IGNORE my posts. Never mind.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with jOe but, according to those criteria, Islam kinda fits.

However, there are occasionally some Christian groups that qualify as well. Do we label all Christians members of a cult?

The real question is what percentage of Muslims qualify. Is it all of them? 75%? 25%. The problem is that with over 1.5 billion adherents, even 1% is a lot of people who can cause a lot of harm (as we have been witnessing).

What Islam has missed is the philosophical progress that the Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment brought to Christianity.

Sounds reasonable Larry, but now it reads like you're validating the fringe left wing in a way that you refuse to support the so called fringe right wing. You doubled down on the 'all religions are equal' rhetoric with the new qualifier, ethnicity.

Isn't using the example, a assimilates better than b, the same as saying, there is no problem with some 3600 black on black murders in chicago during one watch, because it wasn't 3700? Or, pay a few looters to put on a show, and change the mantra to some social justice.

Anyway, a bit back, you were the one that mention who the true enemy is and mention you weren't shy about using the term 'islamist terrorist'. Did you arrive at that by intelligence based profiling, or educated 'guessing at potential problems'? Or, does the bad guy get to look, pray and act like a terrorist before we're bold enough to crank pc up to a higher notch, some in a fringe way, some in a tacit way?

Everyone who believes in the writings in the Koran has the makings of an Islamic terrorist craigd. Look at some of these Koranic verses... you won't find this stuff in the Bible. This is what is preached in Mosques:

*Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them(2:191)

*Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood (9:123)

*When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them (9:5)

*Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax (9:29)

*Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable (3:85)

*The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them (9:30

*Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam (5:33)

*The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque (9:28)

*Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies (22:19)

*Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them (47:4)

*The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them (8:65

*Muslims must not take the infidels as friends (3:28)

*Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an (8:12)

When the KKK says this kind of thing about blacks, we justifiably call them a hate group. But King and his little brother Larry defend the same rhetoric from Islam.

CB: I don't believe mainstream Christianity fits into this:

"However, there are occasionally some Christian groups that qualify as well. Do we label all Christians members of a cult?"

But When you get to fringe groups like the Branch Davidians(of Waco notoriety) and Jim Jones's cult that met their sad end in Guyana they at least in my opinion fit the bill.
Jim

Jim, that's part of my point.

You won't find any stuff like that in the New Testatment.

The Old Testament quotes God as ordering the Jews to perform genocide and ethnic cleansing when they entered the Promised Land. Which, the Old Testament reports, in some instances, they did.

Thanks for the correction/clarification Mike. I have been in many modern day churches and synagogues, and that stuff is not being preached.

When the Pastor of my Church began asking the congregation to pray for more gun control about 10 years ago, I first wrote him a letter explaining why I felt that was wrong, and why I was also certain it would be offensive to many of his congregants who owned guns and enjoyed shooting and hunting. Then I spoke with him about it personally, and also invited him to go shooting. He stopped asking us to pray for gun control. We can question our clerics, and reason with them.

That's my understanding of Christianity. I don't have to go through a priest or a pastor to have a relationship with the Almighty.

The stuff in the Old Testament, along with TV preachers, makes me suspicious of priests/pastors/rabbis/imams in general. I often wonder if they report accurately their interactions, or lack thereof, with divine beings.

AmarriloMike

"The Old Testament quotes God as ordering the Jews to perform genocide and ethnic cleansing when they entered the Promised Land. Which, the Old Testament reports, in some instances, they did."

Would you please provide a chapter and verse citation? I don't remember reading this and I'd like to do a review.
Jim

Off the top of my head, the book of Joshua.

24 They answered Joshua, “Your servants were clearly told how the Lord your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to wipe out all its inhabitants from before you. So we feared for our lives because of you, and that is why we did this. 25 We are now in your hands. Do to us whatever seems good and right to you.”
----------------------------------------------------------
After an all-night march from Gilgal, Joshua took them by surprise. 10 The Lord threw them into confusion before Israel, so Joshua and the Israelites defeated them completely at Gibeon. Israel pursued them along the road going up to Beth Horon and cut them down all the way to Azekah and Makkedah. 11 As they fled before Israel on the road down from Beth Horon to Azekah, the Lord hurled large hailstones down on them, and more of them died from the hail than were killed by the swords of the Israelites.

12 On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel:

“Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”
13
So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on[v] its enemies,

as it is written in the Book of Jashar.

The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!
----------------------------------------------------------------

20 When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

---------------------------------------------------------------

24 Then Joshua, together with all Israel, took Achan son of Zerah, the silver, the robe, the gold bar, his sons and daughters, his cattle, donkeys and sheep, his tent and all that he had, to the Valley of Achor. 25 Joshua said, “Why have you brought this trouble on us? The Lord will bring trouble on you today.”

Then all Israel stoned him, and after they had stoned the rest, they burned them. 26 Over Achan they heaped up a large pile of rocks, which remains to this day. Then the Lord turned from his fierce anger. Therefore that place has been called the Valley of Achor[f] ever since.

--------------------------------------------------------------

8 Then the Lord said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land. 2 You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king, except that you may carry off their plunder and livestock for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city.”

---------------------------------------------------------------

20 The men of Ai looked back and saw the smoke of the city rising up into the sky, but they had no chance to escape in any direction; the Israelites who had been fleeing toward the wilderness had turned back against their pursuers. 21 For when Joshua and all Israel saw that the ambush had taken the city and that smoke was going up from it, they turned around and attacked the men of Ai. 22 Those in the ambush also came out of the city against them, so that they were caught in the middle, with Israelites on both sides. Israel cut them down, leaving them neither survivors nor fugitives.

------------------------------------------------------------

24 When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the wilderness where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. 25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai. 26 For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed[a] all who lived in Ai. 27 But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the Lord had instructed Joshua.

This is from Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy, chapter 7

1: "When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Gir'gashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Per'izzites, the Hivites, and the Jeb'usites, seven nations greater and mightier than yourselves,
2: and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them.
3: You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons.
4: For they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.
5: But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their Ashe'rim, and burn their graven images with fire.
6: "For you are a people holy to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth.
16: And you shall destroy all the peoples that the LORD your God will give over to you, your eye shall not pity them; neither shall you serve their gods, for that would be a snare to you.
Deuteronomy, chapter 20

16: But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes,
17: but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Per'izzites, the Hivites and the Jeb'usites, as the LORD your God has commanded;
18: that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done in the service of their gods, and so to sin against the LORD your God.

While it can be interesting to quote Scripture, I'm not so sure it logically extends that Christians and Jews are making headlines for some new crusade, drum roll, against anyone. We should keep in mind that it's the law that most are forced to follow, not God.

That's why there's a push to incorporate sharia into US law, and punish the entire body of Christianity by stripping any reference to God out of the pc safe zones of our lives. I want to feel better, but I sense micro aggression.

Sounds reasonable Larry, but now it reads like you're validating the fringe left wing in a way that you refuse to support the so called fringe right wing. You doubled down on the 'all religions are equal' rhetoric with the new qualifier, ethnicity.

[/quote]

"Equal" is YOUR word, Craig. Where did I use it? The Cubs and every other team in Major League Baseball are all Major Leaguers . . . but they're obviously not all "equal". In terms of their records, no other team is equal to the Cubs . . . this year. My point is that it's bad to generalize about members of any religion. Or any ethnic group. There are a lot more Muslims, for example, who are not terrorists than who are. Matter of fact, the percentage of Muslims who are terrorists, out of their worldwide population of over a billion, is quite small. In this country, the number of Muslims is slightly greater than the population of Chicago. Who's responsible for more murders this year . . . Muslims or residents of Chicago?? And with Orlando in the body count, this is an unusually high year for Islamist terrorist-caused deaths in this country. The most in any year, in fact, since 9/11.

Anyhow, I never said that all religions are equal.

Lots of pretty nasty stuff in the Old Testament, James. How about sex slaves? Numbers 31: 17-18, Moses' instructions to the Israelite army after defeating the enemy: "Now kill all the boys. And kill all every woman who has slept with a man. But save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." So they were doing the sex slave thing long before Mohammed ever walked the earth.

As for Christians disregarding all of that stuff because it's Old Testament . . . hear what Jesus Himself had to say on the subject (Matthew 5:17): "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them." Doesn't sound like a renunciation of the Old Testament to me.

Libtards who get their panties in a knot over criticism of Muslims just because only a fraction of them are suicidal terrorists are funny. They somehow do not feel the same way when they lump all gun owners into one basket even though only a very small percentage of gun owners ever use their guns to murder anyone.

Law abiding gun owners almost universally condemn murderers, but so-called peace loving Muslims are doing very little to reverse the teachings of radical Islam, because it is ingrained into their cult-religion. Yes, they do fight it in their own countries after it has festered and spilled over into separate sects blowing each other up. They have been doing that for centuries. But some people who are ignorant of history wish to bring that to your home town.

The ex-CIA Intelligence Analyst Larry Clown still wishes to massage the numbers to make excuses for the FACT that Muslim extremists have become much more active here and abroad ever since the foreign policy blunders of Obama, Clinton, and Kerry have turned the entire Middle East into a Jihad zone. Trying to contain cancer with pinpricks after you have screwed up and spread it into the entire body obviously isn't working. But it is once again an election year, and creating false perceptions and narratives are more important than keeping the country safe.

Speaking of Liberals attempting to create false perceptions, here's a very interesting story about apparently widespread voter fraud in Colorado just days after the Liberal New York Times called it a myth:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dead-people-voting-in-colorado/article/2602775

Craig that wasn't what I was doing.

First I disagreed with keith that there was no encouragement of violence and killing in the Bible.

James M. asked me where the genocide and ethnic cleansing that I referenced appeared in the Bible. I answered him.

Now THIS is a perfect example of the "Proof Texting of Scripture" that Drew Hause wrongly accused me of a couple days ago in his drama laced "Down One" farewell thread, where he didn't actually leave. Talk about an out of context version of Scripture to falsely attempt to show that Jesus was supporting a continuation of Old Testament violence and genocide. Wow!

Bet you won't see Drew taking his "Bro Larry", Larry Clown to task for it either.

I know Mike. All I was pointing out was that, like my discussion with Larry, sometimes we seem to bend over backwards to fabricate similarities. But, like Larry has evolved to, we're not all equal.

Larry, batter up. If muslims are no more of a cult than Christians or Jews, are we implying some degree of equality. Maybe not, but we're equivocating. How about, muslims are no better a baseball team than than the Christians or Jews. Does that mean, for that league they all get a participation trophy?

My understanding of the New Testament is pretty well summarized by the Sermon on the Mount. That sermon, for me, pretty well contradicts the quote Larry made from Matthew. Larry quoted it correctly though.

I feel like I have the theory of Christianity down pretty good. It's the practice that is difficult for me.

I know Larry quoted it correctly. People who engage in proof texting typically do quote the Scripture correctly. They just take those words out of context in order to prove their point. It was Larry's insane interpretation that constitutes proof texting of Scripture.

But Larry will go to any length to defend Islam, even to the point of trying to equate it with Christianity. And Drew Hause will likely never take him to task for it even though Drew falsely accused me of doing that very thing a couple days ago in his personal attacks on me. The only reason for that is because Drew agrees with his "Bro Larry" philosophically on unrelated matters, and disagrees with me. Hence my reasons for publicly calling a man of the cloth a hypocrite. Those are the points I was making.

In my opinion, the New Testament is the antithesis of those quotes from the Koran that keith posted.

I often read articles where Obama and the liberal media tell us that the terrorists and ISIS aren't following the Koran. But those verses that keith quoted are in the Koran. Until they tell me why those Muslim terrorists aren't following the Koran when they murder Jews and Christians for being Jews and Christians I think they are full of it. That stuff is in the Koran. Those Muslim apologists need to give an explanation of why those verses are being incorrectly applied by ISIS.

Quote:
"12 On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel:

“Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”


I am a practicing Christian and place great faith in the Bible but they in "Sun stand Still" got it wrong. At the time the Bible was written it was universally believed that the sun revolved around the earth and by stopping the sun the Israelis were able to continue pursuing the Amorites in daylight and defeat them. We know of course that if the sun had in fact stood still it would have made no difference in the times of day and night since the earth revolves around the sun and it is the earth that would have had to stand still.
So one has to wonder just how much else the author got wrong in the account as to what happened in this instance?
Jim

I guess if nothing positive comes out of this thread at least I've read more Scripture than I have in the last year. The Lord surely does work in mysterious ways.

Think I'll skip church tomorrow and go golfing.
____________________________
Trouble is the fellow owes me 40 bucks...
https://youtu.be/sx5te3VkTtQ

Lonsome:

I sure hope that the Lord and his instructions to the Jews were misrepresented in our Old Testament. Could have happened in the oral history period of the Jews, before they were able to write things down.

There is surely a big difference between the beliefs of Moses and Joshua and the beliefs of Jesus and his disciples.

Craig, you're stretching. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all religions. Further, they are all MONOTHEISTIC religions. Kinda like France, Germany, and Italy are all nations. Further, they are all European nations. Does that make France, Germany, and Italy alike? Try linguistic differences, for starters. But obviously, they do have the similarities I pointed out in common, don't they? Which country is better? Which religion is better? Simple answer: Muslims will vote for Islam, Christians for Christianity, and Jews for Judaism. Just like the French would vote for France, the Germans for Germany, and the Italians for Italy.

Mike, you can find a lot of contradictory verses in the Koran. And some Muslim scholars will explain that these verses take precedence; other Muslim scholars will say otherwise.

Here's something interesting: Just this past January, "hundreds of Muslim scholars and intellectuals" gathered in Marrakesh, Morocco--the result of which was the Marrakesh Declaration. The declaration begins by referring to the current situation in the Muslim world, which " . . . enabled criminal groups to issue edicts attributed to Islam, but which, in fact, alarmingly distort its fundamental principles and goals . . . " Pretty much a direct shot at ISIS and AQ.

What people have to remember about Islam is that it is a non-hierarchical religion. (Especially true of Sunni Islam.) There is no pope, no cardinals, bishops, etc. Any imam can issue a "fatwa" (religious declaration). However, the authority and power of that fatwa is only determined by however many Muslims respond to it by crying "Allah u Akbar!" and following the guidance it spells out. Otherwise it's meaningless. And that quote from the Marrakesh Declaration shows that there's no shortage of Muslim scholars who don't agree with what ISIS and AQ are preaching.

Another example: The Taliban has preached that girls are not to be educated. Yet there are more women attending university in both Iran and Saudi Arabia--two very conservative Muslim countries--than there are men. And in fact, the Koran has nothing at all to say about education for women (and very little to say about education for men, other than studying the Koran). So who's to rule on whether the Taliban is right or the Saudis and the Iranians are right on the subject? Answer: Whoever has the power to enforce the rules.

It's seeming here like the lone wolf/work place violence crime narrative doesn't hold water. I think it's important to note that you gave examples, but you did not exclude the US.

If dissenting 'Muslin scholars' are not in power at the local mosque, then it doesn't matter if they gather and disagree. They are wrong.

Why aren't 'we', the US, profiling imams and giving them the full procto exam? When a rotten egg is found, shouldn't the doors be shut down and the entire congregation criminally investigated/arrested? Islam is no more a cult than Christianity or Judaism? Individual humans, known as imams, can have the ideology of the taliban and be completely 'right' if they hold power? If not many cults, what are you describing, community organizations?

Seems like the more you claim the bad apple is to blame, the more you demonstrate that the whole, at the minimum locally, is to blame. Maybe, it's the answer to prayers. All shooting and hunting clubs should set up a mosque on site, then we'd always be right.

Larry:

But the "Kill the Jews and the Christians and take their wives and daughters" (parapharased) verses are still in the Koran. When do those verses apply to practicing Muslims? Under what circumances?

I haven't ever seen an explanation.

Zakaria / GPS had a show about peaceful Muslims. Zakaria, at the beginning of the show, threw in some Old Testament verses similar to the ones I posted here. He went on to explain a two part Koran. But it is ordered the exact opposite of the Christian Bible. The first part is the love, peace, feed the poor part. The second part is the "Kill Jews and Christians and take their stuff" part, still paraphrased. That is, the part written later is the violent part. Just the opposite of the Bible, which has the vengeful, stoning, genocidal part at the beginning and then the "peace, turn the other cheek, walk the extra mile" in the later part. Jesus cancelled out the revenging, violent, part of the Old Testaement.

Our Muslim citizens have the same rights as all citizens. To practice their religion, equal protection under the law, freedom of speech, etc...

But the non-citizen Muslims outside our nation's borders have no right to come here. We don't owe them admittance. Until someone can explain to me what circumstances require Muslims to practice the violent part of the Koran I am against bringing in Muslim immigrants, particularly from areas with high ISIS demographics - like Syria.

Edit: Zakaria's show was actually titled "Why Do They Hate Us"

I'm with Mike on this one.

Absent a hierarchical structure, the problem seems to be largely how to tell, at the mosque level, the good imans from the bad. Some of the mosques seem to be refuges even for those self-radicalized off the internet.

So until we have vetted every single practicing iman at every single mosque in NA, and until all those mosques speak relatively as one in condemning violence against non Muslims, against women, against children and against each other, until they accept and find a way to co-exist within our legal structure and as contributors to NA society, I would advocate no more Muslim immigrants.

And I say this as someone who is generally a strong supporter of immigration into my own country. I just feel like we have gone off the rails on what criteria we use and what we ask of immigrants once they arrive on our shores. It's not for us to accommodate immigrants, it is for them to find a way to fit in.

I think there're basically two ways to tell good from bad imams. First, I think the 'intel' has already figured it out, the question is admitting who the bad eggs are that are supposed to be responsible for enforcing existing law. And second, from the congregation's point of view, if the imam hasn't been run off, then they're 'right'. If an imam is overthrown by some law enforcement micro aggression, then the vacuum is filled with similar 'righteousness' by the patrons.

If you read your 'condemnation' criterion, take a look at what's missing. In NA, maybe we should be profiling military aged males. When it comes to humanitarian relief, maybe we should be helping the victims, women and children, not military aged males.

Patriotic US citizens are regularly called on to defend US values on foreign battlefields. Excluding military aged males, those seeking NA values assimilation, would incentivize them to ply their trade for the US' interest in radicalized imam infested areas with colonial ambitions. Of course, that also covers the military aged males that don't want to assimilate. Times they are a changing though, there's indication that there may be a developing class of military aged females.

Craig, just dealing in generalities, not trying to get into the minutia.

I agree, importing military age males is a vastly worse idea than women and children, although look at the Boston marathon bombers' family.

Frankly I don't think men between the ages of 18 and 50 should have been allowed to swarm into Europe as refugees. Let the women and children flee, for the rest, stay and fight to get your homes back.

Irrelevant. What is in Koran doesn't have all that much too do with why they are fighting us and don't like us.

PS. You claim to be a Christian. Perhaps instead of trying to understand other faiths you should read your bible learn to understand it and practice what it preaches.

In case you hadn't noticed that is exactly like the Xtians today. Any meathead can start a "church" and promote any version of the gospel they feel like. And there are hundreds of them some even with enviable TV shows and incomes.

have another day
Dr.WtS

It has everything to do with it.

I made it through the Great Debate last night without puking! Two things got proven: preparation matters and Hillary is no longer center left, she's hanging right out there in far left field with the loonies.

Not much about guns though. It seems Trump wants to disarm the gang-bangers and Hillary thinks that's unfair and biased unless all Americans are disarmed.

Trump showed he could contain himself when he has to and Madame Secretary proved that if you want 8 more years of socialism, she's your girl...Geo

Geo ""Not much about Guns" on this I have to disagree. She came after us gun owners with a vengeance and with as much vitriol as I've even seen her display. It should be obvious that she really hates gun owners and if she were ever elected MAJOR gun control restrictions would be put in place just as soon as she could appoint another Supreme Court toady and gut the2nd Amendment.
Jim

Relax guys. Trump will win the election and Hill will be a historical footnote.

There go the Canucks again. Lulling must be a Canadian thing?...Geo

Hahaha!

It must be some kind of Canadian sarcasm. While I'm not interested in voting for either candidate looking objectively from the sidelines I would say first debate results are Hillary 1 Donald 0.

PJ,
Looking at the dabate from the popular media, you might say that. But, I assure you, for the first 1/2 hour, Hilly was Donald's b!tch, and few people will put down their phones for any longer than that.
I don't have a cell phone. But, I'll bet you do.


Best,
Ted

No sarcasm and no lulling. Trump is winning the election.

Reader/viewer polls on who won the debate, which really are reporting the views of decided voters, are solidly in favour of Trump. If you consider a sample base of over 2 million to be sufficiently large enough to get a read. And those results are from media organizations that include Time, Fortune, CBS, MSNBC, Slate and other classic MSM outlets.

Navel gazing by the media about who won is meaningless. The only impact the media may have, like when they attacked Al Gore about the sighs, is if they can pour through the tapes of the debate and find something meaningless they can take out of context and pound to death over the next five weeks.

In a world where the masses see all politicians as liars (Trey Goudy is the exception) no one cares that Trump is a bullshit artist. They are all bullshit artists. The media hasn't quite figured this out yet. We discount Trumps lying because they all lie. So let's move onto the possible benifits of a Trump presidency.

I have more to say on this subject but not now. This is Ted's thread and I don't want to highjack it. Lol

Hi James:

I hope you are right. The last time I did the math the bookies have Clinton at about a 70% chance to win and Trump at about 30%:

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

But they had the odds on Brexit as "stay". So maybe they will be wrong again.

Geo, I said Clinton landslide. That's not lulling. That's barbarians at the gate, according to what I read here.

Yeah King, the only LULLING you do here is your attempts to convince U.S. gun owners that extreme anti-gunners like Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton do not pose a threat to our 2nd Amendment Rights.

Hey, I notice you do not seem anxious to revisit your dishonest statement in the "Down One" thread where you said I "VOWED" to keep that thread alive.

You sure do have a talent for running away from your own words. Does that make you a Fringe, or an It, or a Disingenuous Fraud?

That's right King, you did. I just hope you are listening to the same Reuters pollsters who assured Brexit was a no go...Geo

One can swim like "fish in water" on Hunter's Campfire of 24 Campfire forums. Unlike here that is tough a place therefore one really needs a "thick hide" to survive. Might as well tell you like Slavic Nationalist Forums that forum is also actively monitored. Not a problem one just needs to know what phrases and words to avoid and what to substitute in their place.

Geo, they told me, I think, it would be close but most likely Remain. They were staying with us in Canada on election night when the returns were coming in. Within 15 minutes, they were disturbed that their "algorithms"" were wrong, recognized the vote would be Leave.They also believed at the time the US would go Clinton, just looking at demographics. Neck-and-neck now with predictions seven of 10 Americans say likely Clinton, I'll check on stirrings of entrails. One of our prime ministers, in a bit of word play, said only dogs believed in poles. I'm coming to that point too.

Donald Trump

Trump on Google


"Unwavering support of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Get serious about prosecuting violent criminals. Get gang members and drug dealers off the street to make our cities and communities safer. Empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves. Expand mental health programs keep the violent mentally ill off of our streets."

This is summary of precisely just what responsible Americans want in in a President: I can guarantee you that:

1. The "mainstream news media" will play this down as much as possible.
2. This is what most blue collar union workers believe but won't state publicly due to union pressure.
3. It is just about 180 degrees out of sync with what Clinton is proposing and you can couple the above with her at most tepid support for the police which IMO will cost her dearly in November.
Jim

Unbiased polls aren't getting a proper cross section due to changes in technology. Biased polls get the answers those who paid for the poll want. Media edit and twist the results of all polls to prove whatever point they are trying to make.

King's mistake, as is the mistake of almost all the media, and the rest of the chattering classes, is that they are only talking to themselves and they discount and ignore by their own standards of prejudice(dumb, redneck, white, angry, racist etc) the voices they don't want to listen to.

James, you qualified your generalization by saying "almost" all the media isn't what you say it is. There are polling companies respected for integrity. You discriminate, observe the difference. Discerning citizens do the same by taking their findings into account, knowing they're snapshots on a given day of what people say they're thinking on issues.

Admittedly this poll is being conducted by a conservative entity but IMO you'd have to be deaf, dumb and stupid not to believe otherwise with the evidence available now:
Jim

https://theconservativerepublic.com/poll-fbi-involved-cover-hillary-clinton/

If you don't care to respond the tally is 97% believe there's a cover up.

How does FBI involvement support a cover-up, please? Doesn't the FBI respond to complaints in the same way as our federal RCMP: investigate and charge where it and prosecutors believe they have a good case?

Mistake? It seems more like an intentional selective use of the 'results' to advertise the left to 'others'. Of course, we'll use the thoughtful man's civil definition of convoluted inferences, but I think he associated you with discrimination. Are lefty voters that thoughtful, or do they latch onto key words that trigger their feelings?

James M all that poll means is that 97% of those that both saw and responded to the poll think that there is a cover-up. It is not a valid poll.

But the FBI handed out immunity like Peanut M&Ms. One of the Fox talking heads said that all the administration figures refusing to answer a question by invoking their Fifth Amendment rights made it look like an investigation of a Cosa Nostra family.

Mike:
I thought that was clear in my citing the source of the poll. You can look elsewhere and still fine the most Americans believe this is true as well.
Jim

http://nypost.com/2016/09/28/the-fbis-hillary-email-probe-is-looking-even-more-like-a-coverup/

King, research polling companies. The respected ones. The industry in in crisis because they are having difficulty accessing the broad cross section of people to answer their questions. New communication technology has striated their access. When they contact people now, it's not random....too much self selection.

I thought immunity was to force testimony by clearing the self incrimination dodge...Geo

I thought immunity is offered to one party or another. How does it work out when both sides have immunity? Why not just decline to prosecute?

James understands discrimination clearly in distinguishing respected polling organizations from suspect ones. Although we're often conservative and liberal in our political opinions, convoluted inferences aren't needed to get our points across, as with most members here. Any "feeling" is to engage and respect other opinions. Trump is even more respectful and discriminating: he said after the debate he held back because he “didn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings.”

Oh. I get it. Immunity went way past the wiping the server and extended to perjury as well. That way they just lie about who (nobody apparently) told them to do it and no one can do anything about it. Nah, the FBI chief is not in the tank...Geo

The real sick joke here is Cheryl Mills was needlessly given immunity. As an attorney working for Clinton all she had to do was claim attorney-client privilege and that would have been the end of it.
My understanding is that the FBI director is stating that they will NOT re-open the investigation even with the new facts that have come to light. Up until recently I have for the most part refused to believe that crookedness was spread this far and deep into the Obama administration. Initially O'Reilly exonerated the FBI Director stating "he is a good honest man". O'Reilly retracted that statement last night on his program. based upon the most recent developments. I'm still expecting even more damaging information from Wikileaks over the up coming weeks.
My opinion of our Federal government has reached a nadir and I doubt if I'm alone with this opinion.
Jim

Nah, can't be. It's probably just coincidence that the IT fellow got the free immunity pass for 'wiping' away a bunch-o-stuff after he got the congressional order to preserve the records.

King, I was just kidding about that discrimination stuff. There's no way the rhetoric would resonate with those college think tank genius' whining about being entitled to a free vacation in 'higher' education. Ain't that the way to show the value of a college degree.

Don't know nothin' about college degrees. Haven't got one.

Lucky you King. The student loan debt sits at well north of 1.4 trillion and growing. Maybe our gal will take a page out comedy central and start up the aca, affordable college act. I wonder if 'free' state college is a signal to college ceo's to raise their tuitions? How're the new public service announcements going to sound, if you like your college degree, you can keep you college degree, why not it's just a piece of paper.

The FBI Director has been acting as if he had no intention of really investigating Mrs Clinton. As has been mentioned the FBI handed out immunity from prosecution like candy to a roomful of kids. There never was any intent to indict anyone, the FBI gave everyone but Mrs Clinton immunity. No grand jury was ever empaneled. Director Comey has several times said that Mrs Clinton showed no "obvious intent" to violate the statute concerning lawful handling of classified material. "Obvious intent" or "intent" are not mentioned in the law, only the fact that classified material has been mishandled. Comey is making it up as goes along.
There are numerous press articles pointing out the entire process has been deliberately mishandled.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/james-comeys-clinton-immunity-1475017121
http://observer.com/2016/09/the-fbi-investigation-of-emailgate-was-a-sham/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20...urley/91092182/ This article by George Washington U Law Professor Jonathan Turley is very convincing. He is a very well known and widely respected liberal law professor.

The fix was in, all the way from the top IMHO.

Best!

What's new? The inquiry said it was mishandled, Clinton told a world audience the other night it was mishandled and admitted blame.

Your opinion the FBI Director "has been acting as if he had no intention of really investigating Mrs Clinton" is interesting but still an opinion.

"There never was any intent to indict anyone" imputes a motive and could be accurate if not for the words any and anyone---but still an opinion.

Well Craig . . . not all of Christianity is hierarchical either (like the Catholic Church and many other denominations are). There are exceptions, as Wonko pointed out. You familiar with the crazy Phelpsies that demonstrate at military funerals? Should we be "profiling" them? Branch Davidians? Given terrorism laws, if an imam is actively advocating terrorism, he'd likely be in trouble.

Re "profiling" in general: Law enforcement can't do it. You can "stop and frisk", but if you stop and frisk a very high percentage of one ethnic group, you're going to be in trouble. Intelligence, however, CAN profile. If a case of Chinese espionage is suspected, counterintelligence would be looking very hard at Chinese Americans. Why? They're the people Chinese intelligence targets. If it's Russians we're worried about, CI would be looking at sudden, unexplained wealth. They buy their traitors. If you know how the enemy operates, that's how you target. But that's intel, not law enforcement. And intel isn't concerned with making legal cases. If it comes to that point, intel will turn over their information to LE, and they take it from there. Somewhat complex, but that's the difference between the two. Prior to 9/11, the FBI's counterterrorism agents couldn't even exchange information with their criminal agents. That's changed since, but they still have to be careful if they want a successful prosecution.

Re a much later comment about college debt: Old guys like King (if he'd gone to college) and me (and I did--BA and MA) didn't have a huge concern. I graduated debt free, with no scholarships. But then my first semester (spring 1964), tuition was only $126. I could pay that with the money I made pumping gas, doing work-study on campus, and serving in the National Guard.

Leave it to the brilliant ex-CIA Intelligence Analyst Larry Clown to use the Branch Davidians as an example of extremist Christians to compare to extremist Muslims.

Should Branch Davidians or other extreme Christian sects be profiled craigd???

Well, I seem to recall that Bill Clinton's Attorney General Janet Reno kinda profiled them to death. After an expensive 51 day taxpayer funded siege of their Waco Compound, they were attacked with guns and tanks, and about 80 people were killed and burned to death in a massacre that could have easily been avoided. The main target, David Koresh routinely jogged outside the compound prior to the siege, and could have easily been apprehended without any loss of life.

Once again, we see that the use of "Larry" and "Intelligence" in the same sentence is pure comedy. And once again, Larry shows us that he just cannot keep to the topic of a thread, even though he criticizes others for doing the same.

I can understand the difference between the two. I'm pretty sure, though not a hundred percent, that 'we' were discussing sensationalized homeland shootings. You mentioned you were not hesitant to utter the words 'islamist terrorist'. At that point, you did not mention that pc would be the only thing that mattered, and that your identification of an enemy did not mean that citizens were not going to be protected from that enemy.

Yes, if 'phelpsies' are repeatedly involved in mass terroristic type shootings and bombings, they should be profiled even if the word isn't used. You've decided to continue the equivocating between Christianity and Islam by electing to compare them. Have you been able to dig up any CURRENT reason for law enforcement or intelligence, other than pc, to waste very limited resources on all inclusive investigation.

I've always mentioned that it seems laws are in place, but selective application sure looks like political motivation. You mentioned if an imam were bad that they would be 'likely' to be investigated. Why can't we say 'will'? Why did I bring up 'imam' again, it's because you keep insisting that if 'hierarchical' can be used, then there's some excuse for criminal or terrorist activity.

As for college debt, I can't see the current freebie mentality being anywhere near similar to the mindset that it took for you to work for your education. I believe 'free' will be a multi trillion dollar dead end, but I'm positive, the 'investment' will be worth it. New generations of 'leaders' are being conditioned to fight micro aggression, create safe zones, and turn off their feelings if something doesn't promote pc.

Craig, the simplest (and quite accurate) definition of terrorism: violence with a political motive. A bank robbery is not terrorism . . . unless the robbers are using the money to fund terrorist acts. Under that definition, it seems that blacks who target white cops for attack/assassination are terrorists. So we have issues in this country with terrorists who are not Muslim.

Given that Christianity and Islam are the two largest religions in the world (I think . . . maybe Buddhism somewhere close), how can one avoid comparing them? Stop and think historically for a moment, Craig. Much of the Muslim world was under the colonial rule of Christian nations not so long ago. Some of those Muslim nations had to resort to what might be called terrorism--or maybe revolution, depending on how you look at it--to throw off the colonial yoke. If you haven't seen the movie "The Battle of Algiers" about the Algerian war of independence, it's worth checking out. War of independence . . . kinda sounds like us against the British, doesn't it? So, let's see . . . Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Syria, Lebanon . . . all former French colonies (not to mention a few African nations sub-Sahara, mostly Muslim, that were also French.) Egypt, what was then Palestine, Jordan, Iraq . . . all formerly parts of the British Empire. Not to mention Pakistan and Bangladesh. Again, add to that list various sub-Saharan Muslim nations, also part of Great Britain's empire. Indonesia was a Dutch colony. And this didn't end until after WWII. So pretty darned recent. Begin to understand why many Muslims--who tend, in general, to have very long memories when it comes to history (Sunnis and Shiites don't get along because of a battle that happened well over 1,000 years ago!) aren't always so well-disposed towards Christians and Christianity.

But as I explained previously, law enforcement cannot profile in the same way intelligence can--because they're trying to build cases that will stand up in court, and profiling can be used as a defense by those being charged. And it's not like this country hasn't had relatively recent incidents with non-Muslim terrorists. The radical left, continuing on from Vietnam days for sometime afterwards. Tim McVeigh--the most successful singleton terrorist this country has ever seen, based on body count from one attack. That's from the radical right. But the reason I said that an imam would LIKELY be investigated if he were bad: there has to be some evidence that he is. Law enforcement can't do blanket coverage of every mosque while neglecting every church. That'd be obvious profiling. Intelligence can. And if they can provide reliable information that something's going on in a mosque, then law enforcement can take a harder look.

Complicated . . . but remember, we're a nation that bends over backwards to protect minorities. Maybe because, at various points in our history, we haven't done such a good job of protecting minority rights.

And I don't believe I ever suggested that college should be free. That being said, it's clearly far less affordable now than it was for me. Darned near impossible for a kid without some scholarship assistance--probably quite a bit--to make it through college debt free, even if they work their butts off.

And you need to read what that dean at the U of Chicago wrote to incoming freshmen about safe zones, trigger warnings, etc. At least some indication that some college administrators are realizing that they've gone too far in the PC direction.

Not really an opinion; a deduced fact. To indict some one for a Federal crime in the US a Federal Grand Jury must be empaneled and must itself indict the alleged perp. No grand jury=no intent to indict. It is just that simple. The FBI cannot itself indict anyone. And NO Federal Grand Jury was ever called in re Mrs Clinton.

I agree that thing can get very complicated, much of it having to do with history, but I think I can discount all of history based on the policies we're being told are good for us.

Did you notice jean kerry threaten putin yesterday. He was whining about something that they didn't hold to from a couple or three years back. Whether he felt entitled to whine or has the russians trembling in their boots, he apparently couldn't care less about history.

How about that iranian money deal, a good investment? Do you think jean k. learned from history that the iranians prefer cash to electronic payoffs for funding their 'projects'? Are jean and the current pres trying to make history by welcoming a new member into the nuclear community?

Just kidding around Larry, point being, if our policy makers have no respect for history, what good does it do for us philosophers to worry too much about it.

And no, you didn't mention college should be free, but maybe you'll notice that it's the policy of the gal who would would be the guardian of the last eight years. By the way, why does 'bending over backwards to protect minorities' mean, drum roll, gun control? History tells me, at least one side should learn learn it's lesson and know better than to trust a reasonable, civil sounding lefty.

Thanks, and I now note you qualified it as IMHO.

Craig, sometimes "policies" really are good for us; sometimes not; more often somewhere in between. That's more or less the nature of democracy. One policy that is NOT good, and that the president should have carved in stone on his or her desk: "The United States should not engage in "regime change" (like in Iraq, Libya, etc) unless we are quite certain that the new regime will represent a foreign policy gain for OUR country."

Concerning Christians again: Did you miss out on the preachers (believe I read about 3 of them) that actually said what Mateen did in Orlando was good because he was killing gays? I'd say those guys could stand a little scrutiny from law enforcement. Islamist terrorism is good if they only kill gays???

I would think it's 'policy', from somewhere higher up, to decline scrutiny for some that should be under a little scrutiny. I think it's 'policy' for the gay lobby to choose getting thrown under the bus after that left wing inconvenience. The coordinated effort is truly amazing.

Preachers say all sorts of things. Sadly, no one's asking hillery why she gave mateen's gay hating old man a vip seat at her rally just a couple of months after the shooting. What a message, huh, three preachers on one hand, and a possible prezidette on the other. I know whose decisions and policies need a little more scrutiny.

I don't know what optics are worse craig, having the father of a criminal come uninvited or giving prime seating to a child molester. Wait a second, I do know which one is worse, child molester.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/donald-trump-mark-foley-campaign-rally/index.html

Optics?

"Optics?"

That's how philosophers say, "well that doesn't f'ing look good"

More properly mal optics but close enough for doublegun bbs.


____________________________
https://youtu.be/raFGMnFhiKs

npca, no problem, I defer to your expertise. You still aren't reading with much comprehension. I already knew the gay and assorted alphabet coalition would gladly be thrown under the bus, if it's for team progress. Look at it as yet another non gun related policy that tickles your fancy. Need anything else cleared up?

Well since you asked;
1. Some evidence that the Clinton campaign directly invited Mateen's old man.
2. A brief explanation on how you need to rely on some else's judgment that a child molester is worse then the father of murderer. That might provide some insight into your own judgment.

You seem to be alarmingly concerned with sexual deviance, I'm sure you're welcome on the left. Of all your players, the 'child' shouldn't be an ideological punchline.

Speaking of optics. Didn't we we learn just a few months ago that the wanna be prezidette's husband in name only, took 26 party flights on pedophile express air? Who's looking out for the epstein kids, hill?

1:30 ha ha ha ha! I'm definitely not tough enough to pull that off!

1:58. is he dead?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x-Jlfi4uq4&feature=share

___________________________
Just sitting here with my Ka-Bar, sharpening some punji sticks...

You seem to be intentionally obtuse here. Or are you? The sexual deviants seem to be on your boy's side. Wants to date his own daughter, chums around with a child molester, and uses a sex tape as his winning strategy. Welcome to the new GOP policy, same as the old GOP policy.