Khashoggi

27,357 Views | 292 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Limited IQ Redneck in PU
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Nothing wrong with dating a Muslim. Nothing wrong with dating anyone .

Divorcing the mother of ones children..on the other hand... not the best .
I know several people, both men and women, for whom divorce was the best of bad options. One friend's husband sank into alcoholism and became violent when drunk. She decided it was time to get a divorce while sitting in her car, wondering if it was safe to enter her own home, and realized she could no longer live like that. Another acquaintance discovered her husband, with whom she co-taught a Sunday school class, was a longtime user of prostitutes and visited several every week. A third friend's husband was a serial adulterer; when she found out, he offered a Newt Gingrich scenario--he was happy to stay married, but he would continue to have affairs and expected her cooperation. One man's wife developed a psychiatric issue right after they married where she became so jealous he could not even read magazines or watch television at home because his wife would accuse him of looking at pictures of women. That marriage lasted less than a year but produced a son, whom he had to gain custody of, because the mother was mentally ill and incapable of caring for him. My friend was his second wife--they've now been married for 35 years, so the problem wasn't him, except that he didn't pick up the problem signs before his first marriage.

Never assume that someone who is divorced didn't have good reasons.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

DaveyBear said:

Do you guys, the lefties that are obsessed about sexual misconduct, even know what the age of consent is in Mexico?

They do. Why import folks from Sina Loa, or the middle east if the age of consent is 12 or what their body frame can handle?

Just curious, I am asking for a professor from California.

I am guessing they can handle issues that our liberal professors can not.

Age of consent has always been arbitrary. Check out first century Judea.
Check out 21st century Bangladesh, many African nations , Alfghanistan and the FLDS Mormons right here in the U.S., and another criminal Mormon cult.
fubar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You probably shouldn't assume that someone who has kids but isn't married is, in fact, divorced.

We'd be wiser to quit assuming various things about people we don't know. And if we assume something, at least not attribute the worst to another. It gets kind of old reading that kind of **** here.

If you know what I mean.

And I think you do.
Gunter gleiben glauchen globen
robby44
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Nothing wrong with dating a Muslim. Nothing wrong with dating anyone .

Divorcing the mother of ones children..on the other hand... not the best .

Gunny Hartman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Gunny Hartman said:

HuMcK said:

You can tell which way this is going: admin allies in Congress have started a whispered smear campaign against Kashoggi (echoed in this very thread with references to the Muslim Brotherhood), Lindsey Graham came out breathing fire but now has adopted the softer Trump line about waiting for a "thorough" investigation of the Saudis into themselves, Corker says the admin is basically withholding evidence from the Foreign Relations Committee and refusing to provide briefings on the matter. Seems like the Saudis have Trump more or less over a barrel on this one, either through financial ties or something else, so he's going to suck their d!cks loudly hoping it will all blow over. I don't expect any real response from the US unless it comes from Congress, and even then it's no guarantee that response would be faithfully implemented by the Executive branch.

Do you deny that he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood? And if not, do you deny that they are a radical islamist, terrorist organization?
Our government doesn't consider them a terrorist organization.

Yet it is by a number of governments in the Middle East. Presumably we didn't have that designation so that Obama could continue to appoint its members to various positions in our government, which he so loved to do.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Canada2017 said:

Nothing wrong with dating a Muslim. Nothing wrong with dating anyone .

Divorcing the mother of ones children..on the other hand... not the best .
I know several people, both men and women, for whom divorce was the best of bad options. One friend's husband sank into alcoholism and became violent when drunk. She decided it was time to get a divorce while sitting in her car, wondering if it was safe to enter her own home, and realized she could no longer live like that. Another acquaintance discovered her husband, with whom she co-taught a Sunday school class, was a longtime user of prostitutes and visited several every week. A third friend's husband was a serial adulterer; when she found out, he offered a Newt Gingrich scenario--he was happy to stay married, but he would continue to have affairs and expected her cooperation. One man's wife developed a psychiatric issue right after they married where she became so jealous he could not even read magazines or watch television at home because his wife would accuse him of looking at pictures of women. That marriage lasted less than a year but produced a son, whom he had to gain custody of, because the mother was mentally ill and incapable of caring for him. My friend was his second wife--they've now been married for 35 years, so the problem wasn't him, except that he didn't pick up the problem signs before his first marriage.

Never assume that someone who is divorced didn't have good reasons.


Totally agree....there are many times when divorce is the best option .

Buddha Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gunny Hartman said:

Doc Holliday said:

Buddha Bear said:

Doc Holliday said:

Why are you guys more upset about some foreigners murdering another foreigner in another country than you are about an illegal alien foreigner murdering American citizen Kate Steinle in this country?
Not sure how 2 unrelated events are a partisan issue.

Both are tragic. Deport the illegals, certainly the criminals first, and anyone with a criminal record.

Protect journalists, and call out countries for their human rights issues. Scary that a hit squad can come in with a bone saw, kill someone and make a body disappear at an embassy. If Iran did that we'd be getting capitalized Trump tweets all week. Let the sanctions begin.
The issue I have is that I don't believe the left's outrage because they are not outraged at this happening on our own soil.



Anyone ever hear about the leftist media covering the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Burma? No? Strange that. It must be because the Burmese aren't a threat to their beloved Iran.
I've seen plenty of coverage. Not sure it's all been considered leftist media sources. It's kinda old news now. The rohingya are all in Bangladesh now. Also, the Guardian, NY Times, CNN & BBC covered the journalists that got baited and jailed for exposing the massacre.
Gunny Hartman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Some folks here seem to be struggling with the obvious overarching point; to whit, while the Burmese genocide has certainly generated some coverage, it pales in comparison to the near wall to wall coverage that Kashwhatever has been receiving lately.

Not sure why that's so difficult to understand. For some due to limited mental capacity, it probably is difficult, and to others it's likely they're just gamely trying to prove a point even when they know they are incorrect.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gunny Hartman said:

Some folks here seem to be struggling with the obvious overarching point; to whit, while the Burmese genocide has certainly generated some coverage, it pales in comparison to the near wall to wall coverage that Kashwhatever has been receiving lately.

Not sure why that's so difficult to understand. For some due to limited mental capacity, it probably is difficult, and to others it's likely they're just gamely trying to prove a point even when they know they are incorrect.
"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."

Plus, false equivalence. The Saudis knew Khashoggi was coming to their consulate, they sent a team to murder him on foreign soil, and then they lied about it. Does diplomatic immunity in the U.S. cover the dispatch of thugs to carry out hits on people once they enter a foreign consulate (and are thus on foreign soil)? I would hope not. The Turks (no great defenders of human rights) are rightfully angry about this incident.

Plus, Khashoggi was a columnist for the Washington Post. Note that the police pay a lot more attention to murders of their own--and that, when police are killed, that death tends to get much more coverage in the news and attention from police than an ordinary, garden variety shooting that happens on a daily basis in
America. Because police are (rightfully) angry that one of their own died in the line of duty. Remember the awful coverage of the beheading of Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal, who was beheaded by the Taliban after being forced to say, "I am a Jew and my mother is a Jew."? But the Taliban didn't lie about what they'd done; they bragged about it. In their eyes, it wasn't a crime. Is that how you feel about Kashoggi, because he wrote for the Post and because his murder has proved inconvenient for Trump?
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Richard Spencer's wife appears to have good reasons to get a divorce.

In 2012, he smashed her head into the floor while she was down on the ground, she wrote. In 2014, when she was four months pregnant with their first child, he "attacked" her by getting on top of her and holding her neck and jaw, she wrote in the exhibit.

"In the next few days, upon arriving to Canada, my mother noticed bruises on my jaw, chest, and leg," Koupriianova wrote. Photos she said were from the incident are attached in the court filing, though the images as they were distributed to reporters by the court were of low quality and hard to make out. She also included a July 2014 email exchange with Spencer that she said occurred after the incident.

"To be perfectly honest, I am not ready to converse with you after what you've done. My jaw is bruised," she wrote.

"I understand," Spencer wrote back, according to the exhibit. "I'm sorry, and I feel terrible."

Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Democrats are a cancer on our country!

Kashmuslim dies .....

Ok, carry on now .....
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gunny Hartman said:

Some folks here seem to be struggling with the obvious overarching point; to whit, while the Burmese genocide has certainly generated some coverage, it pales in comparison to the near wall to wall coverage that Kashwhatever has been receiving lately.

Not sure why that's so difficult to understand. For some due to limited mental capacity, it probably is difficult, and to others it's likely they're just gamely trying to prove a point even when they know they are incorrect.

Whew, heckuva switch from your claim that leftist media didn't cover Myanmar, which you must have known was BS since you used Burma, the old name, as a possible Google hindrance. Welcome back to reality.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

DaveyBear said:

Do you guys, the lefties that are obsessed about sexual misconduct, even know what the age of consent is in Mexico?

They do. Why import folks from Sina Loa, or the middle east if the age of consent is 12 or what their body frame can handle?

Just curious, I am asking for a professor from California.

I am guessing they can handle issues that our liberal professors can not.

Age of consent has always been arbitrary. Check out first century Judea.
And of course, there was no consent in Mary's case.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

quash said:

DaveyBear said:

Do you guys, the lefties that are obsessed about sexual misconduct, even know what the age of consent is in Mexico?

They do. Why import folks from Sina Loa, or the middle east if the age of consent is 12 or what their body frame can handle?

Just curious, I am asking for a professor from California.

I am guessing they can handle issues that our liberal professors can not.

Age of consent has always been arbitrary. Check out first century Judea.
And of course, there was no consent in Mary's case.
The man who says in his heart that there is no god is truly a fool in every sense of the word.

26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28 And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; [e]blessed are you among women!"
29 But [f]when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. 30 Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end."
34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I [g]do not know a man?"
35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible."
38 Then Mary said, "Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Carlos Safety said:

TexasScientist said:

quash said:

DaveyBear said:

Do you guys, the lefties that are obsessed about sexual misconduct, even know what the age of consent is in Mexico?

They do. Why import folks from Sina Loa, or the middle east if the age of consent is 12 or what their body frame can handle?

Just curious, I am asking for a professor from California.

I am guessing they can handle issues that our liberal professors can not.

Age of consent has always been arbitrary. Check out first century Judea.
And of course, there was no consent in Mary's case.
The man who says in his heart that there is no god is truly a fool in every sense of the word.

26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28 And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; [e]blessed are you among women!"
29 But [f]when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. 30 Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end."
34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I [g]do not know a man?"
35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible."
38 Then Mary said, "Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

That's not consent, that's notice of a done deal.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Carlos Safety said:

TexasScientist said:

quash said:

DaveyBear said:

Do you guys, the lefties that are obsessed about sexual misconduct, even know what the age of consent is in Mexico?

They do. Why import folks from Sina Loa, or the middle east if the age of consent is 12 or what their body frame can handle?

Just curious, I am asking for a professor from California.

I am guessing they can handle issues that our liberal professors can not.

Age of consent has always been arbitrary. Check out first century Judea.
And of course, there was no consent in Mary's case.
The man who says in his heart that there is no god is truly a fool in every sense of the word.

26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28 And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; [e]blessed are you among women!"
29 But [f]when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. 30 Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end."
34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I [g]do not know a man?"
35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible."
38 Then Mary said, "Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

That's not consent, that's notice of a done deal.
Uh, no, the angel said the Holy Spirit will come upon you. There was no "done deal" prior to Mary agreeing. Atheists and agnostics really have the same issue. They are foolish.
Gunny Hartman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Gunny Hartman said:

Some folks here seem to be struggling with the obvious overarching point; to whit, while the Burmese genocide has certainly generated some coverage, it pales in comparison to the near wall to wall coverage that Kashwhatever has been receiving lately.

Not sure why that's so difficult to understand. For some due to limited mental capacity, it probably is difficult, and to others it's likely they're just gamely trying to prove a point even when they know they are incorrect.

Whew, heckuva switch from your claim that leftist media didn't cover Myanmar, which you must have known was BS since you used Burma, the old name, as a possible Google hindrance. Welcome back to reality.

It is difficult to fathom how mentally limited people like you and Jinx must be to not have the capacity to understand a simple compare and contrast example. I pity you.

But it's unsurprising considering my thesis which gains more proof every day that it's impossible to be a person ruled by reason and be a leftist.
Gunny Hartman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Gunny Hartman said:

Some folks here seem to be struggling with the obvious overarching point; to whit, while the Burmese genocide has certainly generated some coverage, it pales in comparison to the near wall to wall coverage that Kashwhatever has been receiving lately.

Not sure why that's so difficult to understand. For some due to limited mental capacity, it probably is difficult, and to others it's likely they're just gamely trying to prove a point even when they know they are incorrect.
"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."

Plus, false equivalence. The Saudis knew Khashoggi was coming to their consulate, they sent a team to murder him on foreign soil, and then they lied about it. Does diplomatic immunity in the U.S. cover the dispatch of thugs to carry out hits on people once they enter a foreign consulate (and are thus on foreign soil)? I would hope not. The Turks (no great defenders of human rights) are rightfully angry about this incident.

Plus, Khashoggi was a columnist for the Washington Post. Note that the police pay a lot more attention to murders of their own--and that, when police are killed, that death tends to get much more coverage in the news and attention from police than an ordinary, garden variety shooting that happens on a daily basis in
America. Because police are (rightfully) angry that one of their own died in the line of duty. Remember the awful coverage of the beheading of Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal, who was beheaded by the Taliban after being forced to say, "I am a Jew and my mother is a Jew."? But the Taliban didn't lie about what they'd done; they bragged about it. In their eyes, it wasn't a crime. Is that how you feel about Kashoggi, because he wrote for the Post and because his murder has proved inconvenient for Trump?

What your closing question clearly is intended to imply is a screaming indictment for how sick and perverse a person you truly are. I fervently hope that you are a loner (which is almost a certainty) so that your mental illness is not needlessly harming others in this world.
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Florda_mike said:

Democrats are a cancer on our country!

Kashmuslim dies .....

Ok, carry on now .....
Well, there is deep thinking Mikey!
robby44
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

J.R. said:

Canada2017 said:

J.R. said:

Canada2017 said:

Muslims kill another Muslim. Don't care.

Better to focus on our own people who are murdered in the US everyday by criminals, drugs and drunk drivers .
You know, I really take offense to that. My girlfriend is Muslim (Muslim light as she says). I'd venture to say that she a better person and live a better life than many, many "Good Christians" I know. Kinda hateful on your part. You cannot group ever person in every religion together. There is a big difference between being Muslim and being an Isalmist. Big difference. Having said all that, the Saudi's ain't our friends. Nor, do they share our values. Their brand of Wahabism is terrible. The have oil and we use them to buttress Iran.


Girlfriend ?

Thought you were a rich mid fifties happily married family guy with several kids and a illegal Mexican maid .

Your story seems to be .....'flexible ' .

Well since u want to pry into my personal. 50, not married, 1 kid in college , one senior in HS. Still have the house keeper. Never said anything about being rich(whatever that means). I have mentioned what I do and past careers. Yes girlfriend. Getting back to ur hateful comment... knock if off


Well you have certainly ( repeatedly ) implied you are wealthy . Whatever .



I believe he mentioned he lives in Highland Park. So in case you're not familiar with Dallas yeah that means wealthy
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gunny Hartman said:

Sam Lowry said:

Gunny Hartman said:

HuMcK said:

You can tell which way this is going: admin allies in Congress have started a whispered smear campaign against Kashoggi (echoed in this very thread with references to the Muslim Brotherhood), Lindsey Graham came out breathing fire but now has adopted the softer Trump line about waiting for a "thorough" investigation of the Saudis into themselves, Corker says the admin is basically withholding evidence from the Foreign Relations Committee and refusing to provide briefings on the matter. Seems like the Saudis have Trump more or less over a barrel on this one, either through financial ties or something else, so he's going to suck their d!cks loudly hoping it will all blow over. I don't expect any real response from the US unless it comes from Congress, and even then it's no guarantee that response would be faithfully implemented by the Executive branch.

Do you deny that he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood? And if not, do you deny that they are a radical islamist, terrorist organization?
Our government doesn't consider them a terrorist organization.

Yet it is by a number of governments in the Middle East. Presumably we didn't have that designation so that Obama could continue to appoint its members to various positions in our government, which he so loved to do.

The CIA opposes designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization because they have "rejected violence as a matter of official policy and opposed al-Qa'ida and ISIS."

Our response to Khashoggi's death and our actions in general should be related to a coherent set of goals that we're trying to achieve, not based on stubborn, often outdated partialities and animosities. Minimizing terrorism and nuclear proliferation should be at the top of the list, which at the moment means we should be pursuing a better relationship with Iran.
Gunny Hartman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lol. The same country whose leaders have vowed "Death to America" and refers to us as "the Great Satan?" Yeah, I don't think they're of a mind to have a "better relationship," at least in the way that normal humans think of a relationship. The only way to deal with lunatics like that is through strength, because that's all they understand and respect.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gunny Hartman said:

Lol. The same country whose leaders have vowed "Death to America" and refers to us as "the Great Satan?" Yeah, I don't think they're of a mind to have a "better relationship," at least in the way that normal humans think of a relationship. The only way to deal with lunatics like that is through strength, because that's all they understand and respect.
Rhetoric is just that. Their actions have been largely responsible for the decimation of ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
Gunny Hartman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Gunny Hartman said:

Lol. The same country whose leaders have vowed "Death to America" and refers to us as "the Great Satan?" Yeah, I don't think they're of a mind to have a "better relationship," at least in the way that normal humans think of a relationship. The only way to deal with lunatics like that is through strength, because that's all they understand and respect.
Rhetoric is just that. Their actions have been largely responsible for the decimation of ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

Just because they backed their boy Assad, another ruthless dictator, doesn't make them the good guys all of the sudden.
corncob pipe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gunny Hartman said:

Jinx 2 said:

Gunny Hartman said:

Some folks here seem to be struggling with the obvious overarching point; to whit, while the Burmese genocide has certainly generated some coverage, it pales in comparison to the near wall to wall coverage that Kashwhatever has been receiving lately.

Not sure why that's so difficult to understand. For some due to limited mental capacity, it probably is difficult, and to others it's likely they're just gamely trying to prove a point even when they know they are incorrect.
"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."

Plus, false equivalence. The Saudis knew Khashoggi was coming to their consulate, they sent a team to murder him on foreign soil, and then they lied about it. Does diplomatic immunity in the U.S. cover the dispatch of thugs to carry out hits on people once they enter a foreign consulate (and are thus on foreign soil)? I would hope not. The Turks (no great defenders of human rights) are rightfully angry about this incident.

Plus, Khashoggi was a columnist for the Washington Post. Note that the police pay a lot more attention to murders of their own--and that, when police are killed, that death tends to get much more coverage in the news and attention from police than an ordinary, garden variety shooting that happens on a daily basis in
America. Because police are (rightfully) angry that one of their own died in the line of duty. Remember the awful coverage of the beheading of Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal, who was beheaded by the Taliban after being forced to say, "I am a Jew and my mother is a Jew."? But the Taliban didn't lie about what they'd done; they bragged about it. In their eyes, it wasn't a crime. Is that how you feel about Kashoggi, because he wrote for the Post and because his murder has proved inconvenient for Trump?

What your closing question clearly is intended to imply is a screaming indictment for how sick and perverse a person you truly are. I fervently hope that you are a loner (which is almost a certainty) so that your mental illness is not needlessly harming others in this world.

she is married to bubbadog
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gunny Hartman said:

Sam Lowry said:

Gunny Hartman said:

Lol. The same country whose leaders have vowed "Death to America" and refers to us as "the Great Satan?" Yeah, I don't think they're of a mind to have a "better relationship," at least in the way that normal humans think of a relationship. The only way to deal with lunatics like that is through strength, because that's all they understand and respect.
Rhetoric is just that. Their actions have been largely responsible for the decimation of ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

Just because they backed their boy Assad, another ruthless dictator, doesn't make them the good guys all of the sudden.
Of course not. But it all goes back to what our goals are, or what they should be. I say fight terrorism. If Iran can help us do that, it's for the better. If we're more interested in destabilizing Syria and keeping Al Qaeda and ISIS on life support to further the goal of regime change, I admit Iran won't be much help.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
corncob pipe said:

Gunny Hartman said:

Jinx 2 said:

Gunny Hartman said:

Some folks here seem to be struggling with the obvious overarching point; to whit, while the Burmese genocide has certainly generated some coverage, it pales in comparison to the near wall to wall coverage that Kashwhatever has been receiving lately.

Not sure why that's so difficult to understand. For some due to limited mental capacity, it probably is difficult, and to others it's likely they're just gamely trying to prove a point even when they know they are incorrect.
"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."

Plus, false equivalence. The Saudis knew Khashoggi was coming to their consulate, they sent a team to murder him on foreign soil, and then they lied about it. Does diplomatic immunity in the U.S. cover the dispatch of thugs to carry out hits on people once they enter a foreign consulate (and are thus on foreign soil)? I would hope not. The Turks (no great defenders of human rights) are rightfully angry about this incident.

Plus, Khashoggi was a columnist for the Washington Post. Note that the police pay a lot more attention to murders of their own--and that, when police are killed, that death tends to get much more coverage in the news and attention from police than an ordinary, garden variety shooting that happens on a daily basis in
America. Because police are (rightfully) angry that one of their own died in the line of duty. Remember the awful coverage of the beheading of Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal, who was beheaded by the Taliban after being forced to say, "I am a Jew and my mother is a Jew."? But the Taliban didn't lie about what they'd done; they bragged about it. In their eyes, it wasn't a crime. Is that how you feel about Kashoggi, because he wrote for the Post and because his murder has proved inconvenient for Trump?

What your closing question clearly is intended to imply is a screaming indictment for how sick and perverse a person you truly are. I fervently hope that you are a loner (which is almost a certainty) so that your mental illness is not needlessly harming others in this world.

she is married to bubbadog


You know this how ?
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Carlos Safety said:

quash said:

Carlos Safety said:

TexasScientist said:

quash said:

DaveyBear said:

Do you guys, the lefties that are obsessed about sexual misconduct, even know what the age of consent is in Mexico?

They do. Why import folks from Sina Loa, or the middle east if the age of consent is 12 or what their body frame can handle?

Just curious, I am asking for a professor from California.

I am guessing they can handle issues that our liberal professors can not.

Age of consent has always been arbitrary. Check out first century Judea.
And of course, there was no consent in Mary's case.
The man who says in his heart that there is no god is truly a fool in every sense of the word.

26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28 And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; [e]blessed are you among women!"
29 But [f]when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. 30 Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end."
34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I [g]do not know a man?"
35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible."
38 Then Mary said, "Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

That's not consent, that's notice of a done deal.
Uh, no, the angel said the Holy Spirit will come upon you. There was no "done deal" prior to Mary agreeing. Atheists and agnostics really have the same issue. They are foolish.
Uh, no, I think she was told what was going to happen. She wasn't asked to consent in the story. It was predetermined beginning with the immaculate conception. At least Yahweh didn't disguise himself to look like Joseph the way Zeus did as Amphitryon, when he wanted a mortal woman.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Gunny Hartman said:

Sam Lowry said:

Gunny Hartman said:

Lol. The same country whose leaders have vowed "Death to America" and refers to us as "the Great Satan?" Yeah, I don't think they're of a mind to have a "better relationship," at least in the way that normal humans think of a relationship. The only way to deal with lunatics like that is through strength, because that's all they understand and respect.
Rhetoric is just that. Their actions have been largely responsible for the decimation of ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

Just because they backed their boy Assad, another ruthless dictator, doesn't make them the good guys all of the sudden.
Of course not. But it all goes back to what our goals are, or what they should be. I say fight terrorism. If Iran can help us do that, it's for the better. If we're more interested in destabilizing Syria and keeping Al Qaeda and ISIS on life support to further the goal of regime change, I admit Iran won't be much help.
It's all about competing religious views and furtherance of those beliefs. Iran's policies have nothing to do with preventing terrorism or assisting us in any shape or fashion in fighting terrorism. They are all barbaric countries with barbaric religous beliefs. Cooperation with the U.S. is contingent to what is expedient at the moment, financially and strategically.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

Gunny Hartman said:

Sam Lowry said:

Gunny Hartman said:

Lol. The same country whose leaders have vowed "Death to America" and refers to us as "the Great Satan?" Yeah, I don't think they're of a mind to have a "better relationship," at least in the way that normal humans think of a relationship. The only way to deal with lunatics like that is through strength, because that's all they understand and respect.
Rhetoric is just that. Their actions have been largely responsible for the decimation of ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

Just because they backed their boy Assad, another ruthless dictator, doesn't make them the good guys all of the sudden.
Of course not. But it all goes back to what our goals are, or what they should be. I say fight terrorism. If Iran can help us do that, it's for the better. If we're more interested in destabilizing Syria and keeping Al Qaeda and ISIS on life support to further the goal of regime change, I admit Iran won't be much help.
It's all about competing religious views and furtherance of those beliefs. Iran's policies have nothing to do with preventing terrorism or assisting us in any shape or fashion in fighting terrorism. They are all barbaric countries with barbaric religous beliefs. Cooperation with the U.S. is contingent to what is expedient at the moment, financially and strategically.
So what? Our cooperation with other countries is contingent on what's expedient for us, or at least it should be.
bubbadog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

corncob pipe said:

Gunny Hartman said:

Jinx 2 said:

Gunny Hartman said:

Some folks here seem to be struggling with the obvious overarching point; to whit, while the Burmese genocide has certainly generated some coverage, it pales in comparison to the near wall to wall coverage that Kashwhatever has been receiving lately.

Not sure why that's so difficult to understand. For some due to limited mental capacity, it probably is difficult, and to others it's likely they're just gamely trying to prove a point even when they know they are incorrect.
"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."

Plus, false equivalence. The Saudis knew Khashoggi was coming to their consulate, they sent a team to murder him on foreign soil, and then they lied about it. Does diplomatic immunity in the U.S. cover the dispatch of thugs to carry out hits on people once they enter a foreign consulate (and are thus on foreign soil)? I would hope not. The Turks (no great defenders of human rights) are rightfully angry about this incident.

Plus, Khashoggi was a columnist for the Washington Post. Note that the police pay a lot more attention to murders of their own--and that, when police are killed, that death tends to get much more coverage in the news and attention from police than an ordinary, garden variety shooting that happens on a daily basis in
America. Because police are (rightfully) angry that one of their own died in the line of duty. Remember the awful coverage of the beheading of Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal, who was beheaded by the Taliban after being forced to say, "I am a Jew and my mother is a Jew."? But the Taliban didn't lie about what they'd done; they bragged about it. In their eyes, it wasn't a crime. Is that how you feel about Kashoggi, because he wrote for the Post and because his murder has proved inconvenient for Trump?

What your closing question clearly is intended to imply is a screaming indictment for how sick and perverse a person you truly are. I fervently hope that you are a loner (which is almost a certainty) so that your mental illness is not needlessly harming others in this world.

she is married to bubbadog


You know this how ?
[sounds of popcorn popping]
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

Gunny Hartman said:

Sam Lowry said:

Gunny Hartman said:

Lol. The same country whose leaders have vowed "Death to America" and refers to us as "the Great Satan?" Yeah, I don't think they're of a mind to have a "better relationship," at least in the way that normal humans think of a relationship. The only way to deal with lunatics like that is through strength, because that's all they understand and respect.
Rhetoric is just that. Their actions have been largely responsible for the decimation of ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

Just because they backed their boy Assad, another ruthless dictator, doesn't make them the good guys all of the sudden.
Of course not. But it all goes back to what our goals are, or what they should be. I say fight terrorism. If Iran can help us do that, it's for the better. If we're more interested in destabilizing Syria and keeping Al Qaeda and ISIS on life support to further the goal of regime change, I admit Iran won't be much help.
It's all about competing religious views and furtherance of those beliefs. Iran's policies have nothing to do with preventing terrorism or assisting us in any shape or fashion in fighting terrorism. They are all barbaric countries with barbaric religous beliefs. Cooperation with the U.S. is contingent to what is expedient at the moment, financially and strategically.
So what? Our cooperation with other countries is contingent on what's expedient for us, or at least it should be.
All I'm pointing out is that none of them should be trusted as long as their societies are held captive to their religion. Terrorism is a part of their way of life. In the case of Iran, their interest in defeating ISIS is for control of competing religious ideology and dominance in the Middle East, not fighting terrorism. They are just as intent on bringing down the U. S. and the Saudis they are ISIS.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

Gunny Hartman said:

Sam Lowry said:

Gunny Hartman said:

Lol. The same country whose leaders have vowed "Death to America" and refers to us as "the Great Satan?" Yeah, I don't think they're of a mind to have a "better relationship," at least in the way that normal humans think of a relationship. The only way to deal with lunatics like that is through strength, because that's all they understand and respect.
Rhetoric is just that. Their actions have been largely responsible for the decimation of ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

Just because they backed their boy Assad, another ruthless dictator, doesn't make them the good guys all of the sudden.
Of course not. But it all goes back to what our goals are, or what they should be. I say fight terrorism. If Iran can help us do that, it's for the better. If we're more interested in destabilizing Syria and keeping Al Qaeda and ISIS on life support to further the goal of regime change, I admit Iran won't be much help.
It's all about competing religious views and furtherance of those beliefs. Iran's policies have nothing to do with preventing terrorism or assisting us in any shape or fashion in fighting terrorism. They are all barbaric countries with barbaric religous beliefs. Cooperation with the U.S. is contingent to what is expedient at the moment, financially and strategically.
So what? Our cooperation with other countries is contingent on what's expedient for us, or at least it should be.
All I'm pointing out is that none of them should be trusted as long as their societies are held captive to their religion. Terrorism is a part of their way of life. In the case of Iran, their interest in defeating ISIS is for control of competing religious ideology and dominance in the Middle East, not fighting terrorism. They are just as intent on bringing down the U. S. and the Saudis they are ISIS.
I have not seen evidence of that. Iran is actively at war against ISIS; not so against the US.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

Gunny Hartman said:

Sam Lowry said:

Gunny Hartman said:

Lol. The same country whose leaders have vowed "Death to America" and refers to us as "the Great Satan?" Yeah, I don't think they're of a mind to have a "better relationship," at least in the way that normal humans think of a relationship. The only way to deal with lunatics like that is through strength, because that's all they understand and respect.
Rhetoric is just that. Their actions have been largely responsible for the decimation of ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

Just because they backed their boy Assad, another ruthless dictator, doesn't make them the good guys all of the sudden.
Of course not. But it all goes back to what our goals are, or what they should be. I say fight terrorism. If Iran can help us do that, it's for the better. If we're more interested in destabilizing Syria and keeping Al Qaeda and ISIS on life support to further the goal of regime change, I admit Iran won't be much help.
It's all about competing religious views and furtherance of those beliefs. Iran's policies have nothing to do with preventing terrorism or assisting us in any shape or fashion in fighting terrorism. They are all barbaric countries with barbaric religous beliefs. Cooperation with the U.S. is contingent to what is expedient at the moment, financially and strategically.
You are reading material into the text that is not there. That is not very scientific.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

Gunny Hartman said:

Sam Lowry said:

Gunny Hartman said:

Lol. The same country whose leaders have vowed "Death to America" and refers to us as "the Great Satan?" Yeah, I don't think they're of a mind to have a "better relationship," at least in the way that normal humans think of a relationship. The only way to deal with lunatics like that is through strength, because that's all they understand and respect.
Rhetoric is just that. Their actions have been largely responsible for the decimation of ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

Just because they backed their boy Assad, another ruthless dictator, doesn't make them the good guys all of the sudden.
Of course not. But it all goes back to what our goals are, or what they should be. I say fight terrorism. If Iran can help us do that, it's for the better. If we're more interested in destabilizing Syria and keeping Al Qaeda and ISIS on life support to further the goal of regime change, I admit Iran won't be much help.
It's all about competing religious views and furtherance of those beliefs. Iran's policies have nothing to do with preventing terrorism or assisting us in any shape or fashion in fighting terrorism. They are all barbaric countries with barbaric religous beliefs. Cooperation with the U.S. is contingent to what is expedient at the moment, financially and strategically.
So what? Our cooperation with other countries is contingent on what's expedient for us, or at least it should be.
All I'm pointing out is that none of them should be trusted as long as their societies are held captive to their religion. Terrorism is a part of their way of life. In the case of Iran, their interest in defeating ISIS is for control of competing religious ideology and dominance in the Middle East, not fighting terrorism. They are just as intent on bringing down the U. S. and the Saudis they are ISIS.
I have not seen evidence of that. Iran is actively at war against ISIS; not so against the US.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/09/28/u-s-closes-consulate-southern-iraq-following-attacks-blames-iran/1461122002/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-blames-iran-for-iraq-attacks-threatens-to-respond-decisively/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-iran/iran-attacks-iranian-kurdish-opposition-group-base-in-iraq-idUSKCN1LO0KZ
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.