San Bernadino: Supporters vs. Soldiers

President Obama said today the San Bernadino shooters were not affiliated with a specific terrorist group or part of a bigger cell.

The President's team also affirmed that they had as of yet uncovered no indication the killers were part of an organized group or formed part of a broader terrorist cell.

Obama will address the nation on the shooting and our response to terror threats tomorrow night.

Yesterday, an unofficial ISIS news account praised the couple as supporters. Today, ISIS official radio station, al Bayan, referred to them as supporters in Arabic. The English audio version refers to them as "soldiers of the Khalifah" (available here at 3'20" in.) The French version says sympathizers. If supporters rather than soldiers is correct, which most analysts on Twitter seem to think is the case, the attacks may have been inspired by ISIS but not directed by ISIS (or al Qaida.)


No one has figured out the couple's motives. The factual inconsistencies in various media reports continue. There are a lot of conspiracy theories floating around, none of which have been proven to be more than speculation. Everyone who is talking, from family lawyers to estranged family members of the wife in Pakistan, seem to have an agenda -- disassociation from the couple's heinous actions.

Conservatives want to blame Obama and urge war. They claim the FBI is hiding something. Liberals want to focus on the need for gun control.

Authorities say the wife pledged allegiance to al Baghdadi on Facebook using another name minutes before the attack. They also say Syed had non-recent "contact" with insignificant al Nusra and Al Shebbab linked persons -- but those are both al Qaida not ISIS. It's hard to know why they think it was really her. (They've also said the couple erased their online footprints in the days prior to the attacks, so why would she post something at the last minute?)

Personally, I am back at square one. The inconsistent media reports and in many cases dubious sources make the couple's motives and a lot of the facts too hard to decipher. Official documents, like the marriage certificate and records from her pharmacy school help a little, but not enough. For now, this couple seem like mere puppets. Whose pulling their strings is completely up in the air. Even ISIS doesn't seem to know, referring to them as supporters in one version and soldiers in another. I think I'll wait until there's credible evidence of who was behind these attacks before speculating further or wading into conspiracy theory territory.

< NY Times Runs Gun Control Editorial on Front Page | Over-Reacting to ISIS Threat >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    motives . . . (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 10:21:08 PM EST
    A Muslim who has taken offense at someone whom he believes has insulted Islam or the prophet Mohammed needs no other motive or cause to kill the person alleging causing the offense and in fact, he is encouraged to do so by a variety of sources.

    The news tells us that the male shooter and an outspoken Christian at work had disagreed on whether or not Islam was a religion of peace and probably a few other things.  

    For a Muslim, what other motive do you need than to know that your co-worker has insulted the faith?

    The Pakistan Penal Code prohibits blasphemy against any recognized religion, providing penalties ranging from a fine to death. From 1987 to 2014 over 1300 people have been accused of blasphemy, mostly non-Muslim religious minorities. . .

    Over 50 people accused of blasphemy have been murdered before their respective trials were over,[2][3] and prominent figures who opposed blasphemy laws (Salman Taseer, the former governor of Punjab, and Shahbaz Bhatti, the Federal Minister for Minorities) have been assassinated.[1] Since 1990, 62 people have been murdered as a result of blasphemy allegations.[4]

    According to one religious minority source, an accusation of blasphemy commonly subjects the accused, police, lawyers, and judges to harassment, threats, attacks and rioting.[5]

    Various fiqhs (schools of jurisprudence) of Islam have different punishment for blasphemy, depending on whether blasphemer is Muslim or non-Muslim, man or woman.[3] The punishment can be fines, imprisonment, flogging, amputation, hanging, or beheading.[6][7]

    Muslim clerics may call for the punishment of an alleged blasphemer by issuing a fatwā.[8][9]

    Some Muslims simply answer to a higher authority than the US and state codes.

    When is comes to (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by lentinel on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 02:23:58 PM EST
    the question of whether this or similar attacks (as the one in Boston) is by supporters of soldiers... in my opinion it is a distinction without a difference.

    Just (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 08:12:13 PM EST
    a guess but more than likely it seems they were inspired by someone. I guess if there was some actual meeting it will come out later on.

    Follow the money (none / 0) (#2)
    by ragebot on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 08:40:53 PM EST
    Jerlyn is right about too many MSM reports that don't jibe.

    Problem for me is how this guy could be making $US53K and do everything he did.  He lives in a high state, was traveling, supporting a new wife and soon a new kid.  Not to mention he bought guns, ammo, tools and supplies for bomb making.

    I know it is not really that expensive to put together this type of attack in the bigger picture but it is not clear to me he had the resources to do it on his own.

    I'm thinking (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 10:04:21 PM EST
    ...that he had a bunch of maxed-out credit cards he didn't plan to pay off.

    According to KABC-TV News in L.A., ... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 11:51:40 AM EST
    ... a former neighbor of Farook's named Enrique Marquez first bought the assault rifles used in the attack, and that the purchase was made three years ago. Marquez has since checked himself into a hospital, and the FBI searched his Riverside home last night, although FBI Director James Comey also noted that he was not a suspect at this point.

    Koran 33:61 (none / 0) (#5)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 10:32:18 PM EST
    Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them: Then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbours for any length of time: They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy).

    --Koran 33:61

    Deuteronomy 20:16 (none / 0) (#6)
    by lentinel on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 04:56:26 AM EST
    But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes,

    Deuteronomy 20:16


    most J and C (none / 0) (#8)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 08:04:13 AM EST
    Most Jews and Christians believe that God gives somewhat different instructions at different times, with the result that most Jews and most Christians alive today do not believe that dt 20:16 applies to them in today's world or circumstances . . . esp in light of the post-Deuteronomonic revelation.  

    Being a devout and observant Muslim today generally also means believing in sharia law being the right and God-chosen law for the whole earth.  All the fiqs and madhabs of Islam have punishments for blasphemy, usually death.


    The killers are dead and we can't interview them.  Do you wish to offer your best guess as to their motivations?


    You ask.... (4.25 / 4) (#9)
    by lentinel on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 08:56:36 AM EST
    The killers are dead and we can't interview them.  Do you wish to offer your best guess as to their motivations?


    I do not.

    I did, however, wish to draw a semblance of equivalence between the wrath inspired by the bad guys, them, and the good guys, us.

    In fact, Deuteronomy does the Koran quote one better. It says kill everything that breathes - not just people. Goats. Oxen. Chickens. The lot.

    And then, render the earth barren.


    But how you deign to speak about what "most Jews and Christians believe" is head-explosion worthy.
    As well as what "devout and observant" Muslims believe. Sweeping generalizations get us nowhere in my opinion.


    While, admittedly, no expert, (none / 0) (#26)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 02:41:02 PM EST
    I don't know of any current Jewish or Christian Rabbis, Bishops, or, Priests who adhere to, or, advocate such ancient instructions that you quote. While one can always find an outlier to "prove" anything, the equivalence you're using is universally rejected.

    On the other hand, I doubt finding many Mullahs who preach strict Sharia law would take but a minute.  

    Having said that, and, it's only my guess, but, I would assume there are many Mullahs who would like to teach a more modern, non violent, form of Islam. However, in light of the mayhem taking place worldwide today, it's quite understandable that fear of retribution would tamp down their exuberance in teaching a more benign Islam.


    Like to mtroduce you to (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 03:53:19 PM EST
    Pastor Kevin Swanson

    As you can tell from his Googke he is quite a well known fellow.
    He recently threw a shindig in Iowa that was attended by, meaning he shared the stage with, three presidential candidates.   Including the one who is now in second place Ted Cruz, probably not by coincidence Mr Cruzs own father is a pastor who shares and preaches many of Pastir Swansons views.
    During what became known as the kill the gays rally he repeatedly quoted the old testament.   Which is exactly the instructions she was advocating.


    Btw (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 03:56:50 PM EST
    That rally was huge.   Many thousands.

    Howdy, (none / 0) (#35)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 04:26:04 PM EST
    I'm not deaf, dumb, blind, nor (I don't think)  stupid.

    It's why I, specifically interjected the word, "outlier," in qualifying my comment above.

    The incident you referred to is one of way too many for us to be satisfied with. But, Donald Trump also draws "thousands" to his rallies, and, I'm confident will be trounced when the whole country has a chance to speak. And, I think that same ratio would hold when comparing the diseased character you mentioned to the whole religious community of this country.

    While I'm at it, I hope I didn't misinterpret what you were saying. If you were saying, "I agree with you, and speaking of outlier nutcases, Boy, have I got one for you," then you know, I, regrettably, couldn't agree with you more.


    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 04:29:43 PM EST
    How you can call a nationally known guy who throws a party that's attended by three presidential candidates and 10s of thousands of people, an "outlier".

    And btw, he is FAR from alone.  There are dozens, hundreds of his ilk.  I just picked one.


    Heres (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 04:33:13 PM EST
    10 more

    If needed I can come up with a much longer list.


    Correction dept (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 05:41:52 PM EST
    Allow me before someone else does.  That rally was probably not attended by 10s of thousands.  It might have been.   I know I heard thousands.  I honestly can't remember how many.

    But that guy absolutely has 10s of thousands of followers.  And he is one of many.


    And btw (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 05:57:00 PM EST
    Not trying to be a smarty pants shooter.  There's is really no reason why you would necessarily be aware of these people and this, sizable, extremist Christian lynch mob unless you follow this stuff.  I do.   I'm on a half dozen mailing lists of right wing and hate watch orgs.  
    And while most of that was anti gay there is just as much anti Muslim.   Anti Catholic.   Anti liberal.  

    These people are out there.   They are networked.  They feel threatened, marginalized, persecuted and left behind.   Their political power is shrinking but it's still huge.   They will not go quietly.


    lol, I don't think you're a smarty pants (none / 0) (#53)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 06:18:47 PM EST
    It's just a question of how far we stretch the word, "outlier."

    I remember, as a young kid living in NYC, watching on a neighbor's round, Dumont TV screen, the wackiest preacher you could imagine, screeching some of the vilest crap imaginable.

    While the numbers may be larger now, relative to the 340 million Americans going about their daily business, they still remain a distinct minority.

    I'm not saying they're not something to keep a close watch on, but, simply using empirical data, the overt, real damage done by these wanna-bees is quite tiny compared to the 100's of thousands of actual deaths cause by international terrorism.

    That's today, of course; tomorrow, anything is possible.


    And what if one of their number (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 06:47:20 PM EST
    Became president?  Ted Cruz was there, at kill the gays. When pressed later his response was the Pastir was "not explicit" in his teaching to kill the gays.   I will let you decide how explicit he was.  Three candidates were there.  One former governor one sitting governor and a sitting US Senator who is currently second in the race for the republican nomination.

    Outliers?  If you say so.


    He says he's ready to go to jail.. (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 07:04:14 PM EST
    it's not him saying gays should be killed, God says it..

    Allahu Akbar

    Just when I think Trump makes the other candidates look sane, they make him look sane.


    There is a reason (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 07:13:53 PM EST
    Smart republicans fear.a Cruz candidacy even more than a Trump candidacy.  

    "taking an instant dislike of him (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 07:22:49 PM EST
    is a good way to save time"

    Mr Haney.

    A truly monumental as#hole.


    Sigh, this is awful...If true (none / 0) (#33)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 04:09:59 PM EST
    ISIS has recruited experts with chemistry, physics and computer science degrees to wage war with weapons of mass destruction against the West, a shocking European Parliament report has claimed.
    The terror organisation, according to the briefing document, 'may be planning to try to use internationally banned weapons of mass destruction in future attacks'.
    The document, which was compiled in the aftermath of the deadly attacks on Paris claimed that ISIS has already smuggled WMD material into Europe.  
    British police forces have already been training to deal with a potential chemical or biological warfare attack

    A European Parliament report has warned that ISIS has already smuggled CBRN material into the EU
    Experts fear that ISIS will be able to exploit a failure of EU governments to share information on possible terrorists.  
    Already, British police forces have been conducting exercises on how to deal with various types of terrorist attack. But the EU report claims that government should 'consider publicly addressing the possibility of terrorist attack using chemical, biological, radiological or even nuclear materials'.


    No idea if it's true (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 04:16:12 PM EST
    But raise your hand if you are surprised.  

    I think that this is high-caliber bedwetting. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 10:14:04 PM EST
    And why do I say that? Because you cut and pasted the text of your post directly from an article in one of Fleet Street's more sensationalist right-wing tabloids, The Daily Mail.

    Not for nothing have discriminating British readers nicknamed The Daily Mail "The Fearmonger's Bible," and have further described it as "[the] only brand of toilet paper that, when used, leaves more [$h!t] on you than you started with."

    Also, the next time you quote from your source material verbatim, please cite and credit that source appropriately, either through direct reference or at least via hyperlink. Otherwise, it's really not at all fair to the reporter / writer, even if he does sling this sort of dreck for a wingbat tabloid.

    Besides, you wouldn't want the rest of us here to believe that YOU are concocting this sort of nonsense on your own -- would you?



    Sigh (none / 0) (#72)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 05:52:39 AM EST
    why are so concerned about who is reporting, and not the report itself.
    Are you saying that there is no European Parliamentary Report, which is what the crux of the article was about. Rip apart the content of the article, prove it false, do that , I will say the report is erroneous.
    There is editorial discretion being utilized on WHAT newspapers are allowed to report nowadays. The report that 72 members of DHS were on the no fly zone was for some reason missing from the NY Times, Washington Post, but quotes were obtained from a Dem Congressman. So, is the report true, or not? The NY Times will not report that, it takes away from the argument that the DO NOt Fly list is full of terrorists, the Do Not Fly list is chock full of typical Government bureaucratic errors.

    Oh, and by the way, below is the actual report referenced by that British rag

    December 2015
    EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service
    Author: Beatrix Immenkamp
    Members' Research Service
    PE 572.806 EN
    ISIL/Da'esh and 'non-conventional'
    weapons of terror
    The European Union and its Member States must prepare for the possibility of a
    chemical or biological attack on their territory by the self-styled 'Islamic State' in Iraq
    and the Levant (known variously as IS, ISIS or ISIL, and by the Arabic acronym 'Da'esh'). Since the beginning of October 2015, terrorist attacks in Ankara, the Sinai Peninsula, Beirut, Paris and Tunis, for which ISIL/Da'esh has claimed responsibility, have cost the
    lives of 500 people. Immediately following the latest attack in Paris, the jihadist
    terrorist group threatened further attacks in European cities.
    ISIL/Da'esh has vowed that future strikes will be more lethal and even more shocking. This has prompted experts to warn that the group may be planning to try to use
    internationally banned weapons of mass destruction in future attacks. On
    19 November 2015, the French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, raised the spectre of
    ISIL/Da'esh planning a chemical or biological attack. At present, European citizens are
    not seriously contemplating the possibility that extremist groups might use chemical,
    biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) materials during attacks in Europe. Under
    these circumstances, the impact of such an attack, should it occur, would be even
    more destabilising. European governments and EU institutions need to be on alert, and should consider
    publicly addressing the possibility of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological,
    radiological or even nuclear materials. The EU institutions have devoted considerable
    efforts to preventing a CBRN attack on European soil and preparing worst-case
    scenarios. However, some gaps remain, in particular with regard to information- sharing among Member States.


    ... and short on any actual specifics. Author Beatriz Immenkamp says that member states "must prepare for the possibility of a chemical or biological attack on their territory by the self-styled 'Islamic State' in Iraq and the Levant[.]"

    Fair enough, even if she is stating the painfully obvious, given that governments in the West have been preparing contingency plans for just such a possibility for the better part of two-plus decades, certainly since the First Gulf War in early 1991 and the sarin gas attack on Tokyo's subway system in March 1995.

    But from what content you posted -- still no hyperlink, BTW -- Ms. Immenkamp provides no concrete evidence that ISIS has actively and successfully recruited trained nuclear physicists and chemical warfare specialists to its cause.

    Instead, she notes that "European citizens are not seriously contemplating the possibility that extremist groups might use chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) materials during attacks in Europe." Well, of course they're not doing so, because they're too busy living their own daily lives to allow themselves to be reduced and consumed by hysteria.

    Further, I'd offer that this particular statement speaks volumes about what she likely considers to be the intended audience for her report, i.e., those who glean their news from tabloids such as The Daily Mail, and are prone to be taken in by the lurid and sensational.

    And anyway, isn't collective threat assessment and mitigation properly the role of government, and not of the citizenry which empowers that government to act on its behalf? I seriously doubt that western governments are standing pat in the face of an existing and clearly evolving, if still relatively remote, menace.

    So as I said, I consider this to be little more than high-octane bedwetting, only in this case such fearmongering apparently has an official EP letterhead attached to it.

    Silly me, but I'm now reminded of a certain presidential administration that once held power in our country a dozen years ago, and which never missed an opportunity to warn Americans about the grave and existential threat posed by an Iraqi WMD program which actually no longer existed.

    Speaking for myself only, if you and others on the right desire to live your lives in perpetual and mortal dread of The Other and What If, that's entirely your business.

    Take such reasoning to its logical conclusion, and no doubt you'll soon be quaking and trembling in your shoes at the mere thought of any happenstance. I really don't appreciate being taken along for this particular ride, so yeah, you can color me as skeptical of your breathless claims.

    While I fully recognize the world's potential for mayhem and support our government's efforts to mitigate its likelihood to the extent possible, I refuse to allow myself to be enslaved by the fear of chance -- a fear which, at this present time, appears to be approaching the level of unhinged and irrational amongst too many otherwise intelligent persons.



    ... I'm providing the link to the original EP report so that they can read it and decide for themselves.

    Upon reflection, I was clearly unfair in my earlier comment about its author Beatrix Immenkamp, who has basically reviewed and recounted already existing literature and reports on the subject. She likely prepared her report upon request of one or more members of the European Parliament and / or its leadership, and she was not personally attempting to sway public opinion. The same, however, cannot be said for writer Darren Boyle, who penned that unfortunate and misleading article for The Daily Mail.

    In other words, the European Parliament is presently reviewing contingency plans which are already in place in EU member states, and will be assessing the need for further steps based upon the following outlook and conclusion:

    "As part of ongoing efforts to monitor returning foreign fighters and radicalized individuals in EU Member States (see EPRS briefing on 'Foreign fighters'), there may be scope for intelligence services to screen and monitor these individuals for specialist CBRN knowledge. Platforms made available by the Commission could present an opportunity to share this information among Member States.

    "The example of the French Government may prompt other EU Member States, particularly those most concerned with jihadist threats following the Paris attacks, to openly address the possibility of a terrorist attack involving non-conventional weapons. Is it time for EU governments to routinely equip emergency crews with antidotes to an attack involving non-conventional weapons and to increase security around key installations, for example? Do Member States need to consider the possibility of raising the public's awareness of the possibility of terrorist attacks involving CBRN material and inform the public of specific measures that have been taken to protect it?" (Emphasis is mine.)

    Mr.  Boyle deliberately sensationalized select aspects of Ms. Immenkamp's report for The Daily Mail's intended audience, by highlighting them out of context while altogether ignoring the entirety of her report's substance.

    In olden days, this was called "spinning a yarn." Nowadays, it's simply a willful misrepresentation. I would suggest that you actually read Ms. Immenkamp's EP report, both in full and for comprehension, and not further emulate Mr. Boyle's unfortunate example by culling out of context and presenting to us only those portions of her executive summary which comport to your own paranoid worldview.



    You refer (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 11:49:00 AM EST
    to the Old Testament to TRY and establish a moral equivalency between the acts of the radical islamists and those who oppose them.

    The Old Testament is a book of history, parables, laws and prophecies. It was fulfilled by the birth, life and teachings, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

    That means that Christians are not under the Old Testament. Mosaic laws do not apply to them.

    Unfortunately, that is not the case with Islam.


    So, now you're a theocratic scholar ... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:22:34 PM EST
    ... with a particular expertise in Christianity and Islam. Saints preserve us!



    What I think is most revealing (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:57:34 PM EST
    About this kind of thing is how the right has absolutely no problem  quoting from the Old Testament as nutbag pastor Kevin Swanson did at the kill the gays rally recently.. But when called on it its all "ooooooh no!!! You are quoting the Old Testament !! That has nothing to do with what we believe!!"

    We are all about peace and love. It's them eeeeevile mooslims that preach hate and death.


    Bravo Howdy. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 07:49:26 AM EST
    "That means that Christians are not under the Old Testament. Mosaic laws do not apply to them."

    Jim is now just blatantly pulling crapola out of his hind end. Every single argument made by every so-called christian about the evils of homosexuality comes from the old testament. Yet, according the biblical scholar Jim, "christians are not under the old testament." BWAHHHAHAHAHAH!


    It's amazing if you think about it... (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 11:35:21 AM EST
    ...that they haven't come up with a fresh argument in 3,000 years.

    It may be time to let go of the past.


    Gene Wilder probably said it best: (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:13:08 PM EST
    Broken link (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:30:10 PM EST
    But I'm looking forward to it

    Oops. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 03:47:56 PM EST
    So much wisdom (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 04:06:52 PM EST
    In one little movie

    Well.. (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:32:09 PM EST
    other than that, they're all social liberals.

    And I am also correct (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 04:41:18 PM EST
    Are you actually opining that the Old Testament and Mosaic law was not fulfilled??

    And can you give me the parts of the Koran that have been fulfilled??


    No, I'm not. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 05:11:19 PM EST
    jimakaPPJ: "Are you actually opining that the Old Testament and Mosaic law was not fulfilled??"

    Rather, I'm opining that you're a know-nothing moron who has absolutely no business defining other people's religion and faith for either him / her or anyone else. Honestly, listening to adults like you and your creepy doppelgänger friend zaitz discuss religion is like watching preschoolers squabble with one another in a playground over who has the nicer imaginary friend. You make atheism a genuinely attractive proposition.

    Adios, payaso.


    Pffft (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 05:18:43 PM EST
    They do.   They really do.

    Ah the Donald I love (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 07:39:57 PM EST
    The Internet is a wonderful place. It let's such sorry examples of a man as you write and publish insults that you would not dare say in person.

    Now, slink away, dear Donald. Your raising and lack of self control is showing.


    I'd say them in person. (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 07:55:42 PM EST
    if I didn't think you might start shooting.

    You're asking tent revival yes-or-no questions (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 04:52:33 PM EST
    to people who are indifferent as to whether it was fulfilled or not.

    You and the other taliban need to get together and hash it out.


    I see that jondee can't answer the question (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 07:45:14 PM EST
    Let me help you.

    Yes Mosaic law has been fulfilled. Christians live under the New Covenant.

    No. There is no such dampening of commands to kill, etc., in the Koran.


    Where's the part in the New Testament (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 08:06:41 PM EST
    Where it talks about the righteousness of blowing little "human shields" to smithereens?

    Glad you asked (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 10:31:02 AM EST
    Like 22:36

    Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    The Christian faith does not embrace letting your enemies kill you.

    In the example you, rather dumbly, use HAMAS placing human shields around the sites they launch rockets into Israel from.

    But rather than condemn them you attack Israel.

    Your bigotry is plain to see.


    My bigotry is directed at idiiots (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 01:35:04 PM EST
    like people who claim to be social liberals, but shill for a party that wants to kill gays and calls the Paris victims devil-worshippers..

    Those are your people, Jim. Own it.


    Which explains why prominent (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 07:53:43 PM EST
    menbers of your party go to Kill The Gays rallies..

    Because the Bible is so clear that every Christan interprets it the same way you do.


    History? (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 04:04:13 PM EST
    The Old Testament is a book of history,

    Adam and Eve?  The Tree of Life?  Tower of Babel?  Noah and the Flood?  40 years wandering, lost in a desert the size of a stadium parking lot, while food magically rains from the skies?  Darwin was wrong?

    The Old Testament is a book of...laws...

    Are these "laws" still valid or not?  Since homosexuality is not mentioned in the NT, Leviticus is always given as the evidence that God doesn't dig gay people.  But the God of Leviticus is okay with enslaving people and selling their children, and not okay with wearing clothes that combine cotton and wool.

    Is Leviticus still in force or not?

    If the OT has been superseded, as they said in the Army, and the content is no longer in force, why is it still in print. other than to confuse the issues?  Clearly there are people who have not caught up to your level of theology, and still buy it hook, line and cliche.  God is a trickster for sure, using the Bible to confuse and divide His followers.


    More history (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 04:26:21 PM EST
    The Old Testament is a book of history

    We know from the OT that Jehovah was one of a group of deities, the Elohim.  As He insisted to Moses, He was the chief of that group, and you better worship HIM before you go worshiping the other members of the Elohim, i.e. Baal, Asherah, etc.  My question, the Elohim seemed to disappear after Genesis.  These were powerful deities, so where did they go and why did they go there?

    Many Christians think that Satan tempted Eve, even though that is not what the scripture says.  How do you explain this confusion?

    We know from the NT that public prayer is associated with hypocrisy, and that Jesus opposed it, saying that such prayers would not be answered.  Why do you believe so many politicians defy Jesus by praying in public?  Aren't Christians supposed to RESPECT Jesus?

    And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

    But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

    Some thoughts: (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 07:29:54 PM EST
    The snake was Satan. Unless, of course, you know some talking snakes.

    You write:

    "We know from the NT that public prayer is associated with hypocrisy..."

    No. That is too sweeping. Public prayer may be associated with hypocrisy. In MT 6 Jesus is discussing public actions and is saying if you are going to glorify yourself do it privately.

    I have no answer to your question re Elohim. I think I will pose that question to our preacher.

    Is Leviticus still in force or not? No. It is not.

    Mathew 5:17-18

    17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

    18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

    Many people grasp that last phrase: "until everything is accomplished."

    Everything was accomplished with His crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension.  

    Many Christians violate the principle of love the sinner and hate the sin. In this matter I believe in letting God decide. And BTW, God has not been in contact with me.


    Dying laughing (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 08:24:57 AM EST
    I tried to read, I really did

    But when you start out Some Thoughts:  The snake was Satan

    I just can't spare the bandwidth at that point Jim and I'm laughing too hard to care ;)

    I know, I'm going to burn in hell.


    So you know some talking snakes (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 10:32:58 AM EST
    When you gonna be on TV?

    Those quotes are ambiguous to say the least (none / 0) (#101)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 04:54:13 PM EST
    as proven by the fact that so many Republicans think the Old Testament still applies.

    You (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by FlJoe on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 04:24:21 PM EST
    mean the Ten Commandments have been rescinded? that's news to me.

    some of the behavior of Syed (none / 0) (#7)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 07:54:54 AM EST
    According to the news, on the day of the attack with the meeting that was also or was becoming some sort of party . . . .

    he entered apparently without a gun, had a conversation with someone, got angry, and then he and his wife returned and shot people.

    The "news" does not tell us what he got angry about . . . but we know from the previous and ongoing behavior of people in such as Pakistan that insulting Islam and/or insulting Mohammed are a sufficient cause for many Muslims to both get angry and murder others.

    According to the "Islam and blasphemy" article at wiki, there are five major fiqs or madhabs being cited.  These are schools of jurisprudence.

    Generally the punishment for blaspemy is mandatory death.  Some of the 5 major schools of jurisprudence say that that if the person doing the blasphemy is a non-Muslim, he may escape the punishment by converting to Islam and repenting.

    Shafi'i - recognizes blasphemy as a separate offense from apostasy, but accepts the repentance of blasphemers. If the blasphemer does not repent, the punishment is death.[98][99]

    Ja'fari (Shia) - views blasphemy against Islam, the Prophet, or any of the Imams, to be punishable with death, if the blasphemer is a Muslim.[100] In case the blasphemer is a non-Muslim, he is given a chance to convert to Islam, or else killed.[101]

    Osama bin Laden, at one or more points prior to the 9/11 attacks, invited America to avoid them (he had declared war on the US) by  converting to Islam.

    So, walking into the party and having a conversation with a guy whom you believe has insulted Islam, and then returning with a gun to shot him may have a basic rationale.

    news re the woman shooter . . . (none / 0) (#10)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 10:53:11 AM EST
    Overnight a family friend of the Maliks in Pakistan told ABC News her father, Gulzar Malik, was an engineer who spent most of his career in Saudi Arabia. He was known for helping the poor and building a mosque in his neighborhood, the family friend said. He was also an ultra-conservative Salafist Sunni who held strong anti-Shia views.

    Hum . . . her dad built and supported a Salafi mosque . . . What, in all of England, by the furthest stretch of the imagination, possible problem could there be in that? . . .

    Salafism has become associated with literalist, strict and puritanical approaches to Islam and - particularly in the West - with the Salafi jihadists, who espouse offensive jihad as a legitimate expression of Islam against those they deem to be enemies of Islam.[6]

    In recent years, Salafi methodology has come to be associated with the jihad of extremist groups that advocate the killing of innocent civilians. . .

    Salafism is sponsored globally by Saudi Arabia and this ideology is used to justify the violent acts of Jihadi Salafi groups that include Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, and the Al-Shabaab.[82][83] In addition, Saudi Arabia prints textbooks for schools and universities to teach Salafisim as well as recruit international students from Egypt, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Africa and the Balkans to help spreading Salafisim in their local communities.[82][83]

    Some other Islamic groups, particularly some Sufis, have also complained about extremism among some Salafi. It has been noted that the Western association of Salafi ideology with violence stems from writings "through the prism of security studies" that were published in the late 20th century and that continue to persist.[84]

    Sounds like she was all in (none / 0) (#24)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 02:06:08 PM EST
     Malik, the 29-year-old female shooter in the deadly San Bernardino rampage, was a onetime "modern girl" who became religious during college and then began posting extremist messages on Facebook after arriving in the U.S., a family member in Pakistan told the Los Angeles Times.

    The family member, in Malik's hometown of Karor Lal Esan who asked to not be identified, said Malik's postings on Facebook were a source of concern for her family.

    "After a couple of years in college, she started becoming religious. She started taking part in religious activities and also started asking women in the family and the locality to become good Muslims. She started taking part in religious activities of women in the area," the family member told The Times.

    "She used to talk to somebody in Arabic at night on the Internet. None of our family members in Pakistan know Arabic, so we do not know what she used to discuss," the family member said. The family speaks Urdu and a dialect of Punjabi known as Saraiki.


    Interesting that she was so close in age and rage (none / 0) (#66)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 09:06:31 PM EST
    to Bernardine Dohrn, who was 27 when she cofounded the Weather Underground.

    There was no hierarchy in the anti war protest movement either.


    "Onward, Christian Soldiers": (none / 0) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:16:04 PM EST
    At his weekly Friday convocation of 10,000 students, faculty and staff at Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA, school president Jerry Falwell Jr. urged each of them to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon on campus:

    "Let's teach them a lesson if they ever show up here," he said during remarks which then appeared to target Muslims. "I've always thought if more good people had concealed carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walked in."

    Falwell afterward sought to clarify those remarks, telling the Associated Press that he was referencing Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik. Nevertheless, his statements earned an immediate and sharp rebuke from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who called them reckless, rash and repugnant.


    Idiotic (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:48:03 PM EST
    Republicans are the best PR for the jihadists in the world. Falling right into the trap set by OBL.

    With prominent republicans.... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by desertswine on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:32:47 PM EST
    some with even a chance to become president,threatening a new holocaust (make Muslims wear badges, internment camps, "special databases," tracking devices, etc, etc), it's a surprise that there aren't more jihadists. Do they think that only certain people can hear them?  

    If only the right wing media reports on them, (none / 0) (#21)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:54:57 PM EST
    then yes. And now we have that other evangelical charlatan, Ted Cruz, telling the cheering crowds he "will carpet bomb [ISIS] into oblivion." And then ends with his comic touch of wanting to find out "if sand glows in the dark."

    Add in the fascist-fawning cheering crowds for deep effect.

    This is the GOP on steroids. The major media organizations edit these events to fit their own agendas.


    The audience is, therefore, (none / 0) (#23)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:57:27 PM EST
    right-wingers and jihadists alike. That's kinda the plan...

    Would it help (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:56:18 PM EST
    For Trump to be nominated and then humiliated in a crushing defeat?

    It might.


    It also might not. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 04:53:23 PM EST
    We Americans are not exactly the collectively brave souls we otherwise like to think of ourselves as being. We've been stampeded in the past into doing some remarkably stupid things, whenever they've been prompted by fear. Electing a racist ideologue as president is not out of the realm of possibility here, particularly given the breathtaking level of ignorance in this country.

    I suppose we have (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 04:55:50 PM EST
    But I don't believe that you believe Donald would be elected.  

    ... that Ronald Reagan could ever be elected president. In that regard, what I might believe personally right now is completely irrelevant, because a lot of things can happen over the course of the next eleven months. I've always been consistent in urging everyone to never take an election for granted.

    Good advise (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 05:22:59 PM EST
    But Donald, back in the spring you were insisting repeatedly that Donald would be out of the race, back to private business and forgotten for months at this point.   And ridiculing anyone who disagreed.   I still have the scars.

    Now you are afraid he will not only win the primary but the general election?

    What did I miss.

    Donald is a dangerous man.  But he will never be elected president and I'm pretty sure you know that as week as I do.


    I still don't think Donald (none / 0) (#48)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 05:29:57 PM EST
    Will win the nomination.

    No votes have been cast yet, and please tell me you do not trust the state of polling today.

    On this part I am not sure, but remember reading something, many of the primaries are NOT winner take all, even if the Winter of Trump gets extended, he will not have enough delegates to be nominated at the convention.

    And then the political junkies have their food fight,

    Myself, I still see Rubio, maybe Christie emerging, there is so much time , but Donald makes good press, he does get free TV time daily.
    But I see the anyone but Trump coalition forming ...eventually, just not now.


    As an aside (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 05:33:48 PM EST
    You will see a lot more of this-

    One of Florida's biggest conservative Republican moneymen -- and a billionaire backer of Jeb Bush -- is so disgusted by Donald Trump's candidacy that if he has to, he'll do the unthinkable:

    "If I have a choice -- and you can put it in bold -- if I have a choice between Trump and Hillary Clinton, I'm choosing Hillary," Miami healthcare magnate Mike Fernandez told the Miami Herald on Friday. "She's the lesser of two evils."

    And Trevor
    Of course you do


    I've (none / 0) (#51)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 05:47:02 PM EST
    Been wrong before,

    But that is my best guess,

    Process of elimination

    Plenty of time to go

    I have no say in the matter,
    Registered Independant


    I freely admit that I did not foresee ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 10:31:19 PM EST
    ... the now fully-fledged wingbat insurrection that's currently taking place in the GOP against that party's establishment. That last time that happened to the Republicans was in 1976, when Ronald Reagan challenged President Gerald Ford for the GOP nomination.

    That said, I've enjoyed the circus to a point, but now, it's getting both poisonous and scary. Regardless of the fact that I'm an avowed Democrat, I think it bodes ill for the country to see one of its two major political parties slide into a fascist frenzy.

    Either the Republican moderate establishment asserts itself and reins in its crazy uncles and aunts, or we all could be facing some real problems here. Because that means the moderates have become completely ineffectual, and some genuine crackpots may well be calling the GOP's shots in short order.



    Most republicans (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 10:38:12 PM EST
    Are comparing it to 1964 and Goldwater.  I agree.  Donald ain't Reagan.

    Actually he's Goldwater (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 10:39:14 PM EST
    On steroids

    Goldwater would be a RINO (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 07:56:32 AM EST
    in today's GOP.

    It probably is much like Goldwater '64. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 01:29:07 AM EST
    I was simply noting that the last internal insurrection in the GOP was '76,  when the right nearly denied their party's own incumbent president the nomination.

    '76 .. (none / 0) (#79)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 08:46:19 AM EST
    Around the same time that the Terry Nichols-militia wing of the NRA overwhelmed the sane-sportsmen wing..

    The moderates (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 06:13:25 AM EST
    going back to Reagan allowed this disease to take over the GOP. A friend of mine says the GOP hasn't been conservative since Reagan and that's probably true.

    That being said it seems the only way for the moderates to take back control of the GOP is for the party to lose in a landslide and even then it's going to take some doing. They are going to have to figure out a way to get rid of talk radio and make Fox News actually start reporting facts instead of ginning up hysteria on the right. They're going to have to start taking out people like Trey Gowdy in elections. I see no move here in GA at all to start taking out the GOP congressional crackpots.


    Reagan ushered in the era (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 08:40:29 AM EST
    of the religious right as a political movement..

    This attempt to salvage his legacy by rewriting history and pretending this didn't happen under his watch is revisionism at it's worst.

    Now we have Cruz, Huckabee, and Jindel's favorite pastor publicly calling the Paris victims devil-worshippers..


    Yeah, (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 08:47:22 AM EST
    that's kind of my point. He's the one that started this disaster in the GOP. Even Ole Nixon didn't believe in mixing politics and religion IIRC.

    Actually that's total BS (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 08:37:25 AM EST
    Reagan would be polling behind George Pataki in this primary season.   From taxes to science to you pretty much name it Reagan was Alan Grayson compared to today's Republican Party.

    The Reagan they have created is a complete fiction.


    I'm talking (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 08:49:31 AM EST
    about the GOP being traditionally conservative which means separation of church and state, a belief in privacy and controlling government spending none of which Reagan believed in.

    Yeah, I know the GOP has created this whole fantasy Reagan but Reagan is the one that opened up the road to the disaster that is happening today.


    I guess (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 08:56:24 AM EST
    But he did it by appearing thoughtful and sane in order to get lots of moderates to vote for him.   Which is where the comparisons to Donald break down.  Donald is doing everything he can possibly do to drive away moderates.  And even moderate republicans.   His approach really is the opposite of Reagan.
    The only thing they have in common is "strength" (please note quotes).  Reagan was thoughtful and sane strength Donald is psychopathic buggeyed hair on fire strength.

    I know you were not talking about Donald but we were above.  Or someplace.


    At this (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 09:13:10 AM EST
    point it's gone past just Donald. I wouldn't say Cruz is anymore sane than Donald at this point and perhaps even less sane. Rubio is heading down that same road now. Donald seems to be the pied piper leading the entire GOP off the cliff.

    I believe the motive (none / 0) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 03:33:25 PM EST
    of the jihadists attacks are to give Americans a sense that they are not safe. The inculcation of terror so as to convert our over-whelming power and defenses to all the strength of a wet dish-rag and, in so doing,  make us afraid of improbable dangers and to overreact to the fear.  The over-reaction to fear is clearly the best way that an infinitely inferior power can bring real destruction to our country.  

    And, as we have seen in the Ebola "crisis" fear can have an irrational impact on the electorate.  Fear can cause us to check our brains at the door of the polling place and that is, in my view, a goal of the terrorists. If the jihadists are trying to recruit, it is, essentially and more effectively, for voters for a demagogue such as  Trump, Cruz or Rubio.

     The presidency of any these exploiters of fear would further jihadists goals to do this great country harm that they could never otherwise dream of doing solely on their own power --from denial of climate science to denial of civil liberties, and much in-between, so as to make the USA unrecognizable.


    ... climate and feeling of uncertainty and dread in an occupying enemy, and intimidate a local population into either turning against that enemy or at the very least, not take that enemy's side.

    It is the tactic of choice that's adopted when one side in an armed conflict obviously doesn't have the resources and / or firepower to go mano a mano with their opponents on the battlefield.

    The adoption / use of terrorist and guerrilla tactics offers no guarantee of success in an armed conflict, and in fact runs a great risk of becoming counterproductive and undermining one's own cause. Because should that particular cause fail to garner any real level of popular support, terror tactics can prompt the local populace to quickly turn against it, which in turn effectively deprives guerrillas of a base from which they can conduct their operations, and a safe harbor to which they can retreat afterward.

    (That's what happened to the Sendero Luminoso movement in Peru 25-plus years ago, when the violence it engendered prompted citizens to elect as their president the hardliner Alberto Fujimori, who promised to crush that movement. This eventually resulted in the 1992 capture of the Sendero Luminoso leader Abimael Guzmán and the subsequent dissipation of its forces, many of whom either turned to cocaine trafficking or relocated north to Colombia to join FARC.)

    But as no less than Ronald Reagan once noted, we really ought to remember that one man's terrorist is often another's freedom fighter. American colonial rebels used terrorism to great effect against both Tory loyalists and British troops alike during the Revolutionary War, particularly in the southern colonies. And less than 2,000 Irish Republican Army guerrillas under the leadership of young Michael Collins managed to tie in knots nearly 100,000 British troops and Ulster militiamen during the Irish War of Independence (1919-22). In both those instances, the guerrillas enjoyed a base level of support amongst the local populace.

    Fear is one of humankind's most powerful emotions, and if it's unchecked -- well, let's just say that we're prone to making mistakes when we're under emotional duress, and leave it at that. Fear is what prompted many Americans to vote for George W. Bush's re-election in 2004. How'd that work out for us?



    I am surprised, yes surprised (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 07:32:17 PM EST
    Nevertheless, his statements earned an immediate and sharp rebuke from Virginia Gov. DEMOCRAT Terry McAuliffe, who called them reckless, rash and repugnant.



    You ought (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 08:01:02 PM EST
    to start worrying about the fact that no one in the GOP seems to be able to stand up to the wackos. As a matter of fact anytime anyone points out that they are wackos the GOP plays the Christian victim card.

    Terry Mac probably got points with a lot of voters for that nonsense while the GOP cowering in fear and unable to make a stand lost points.


    GA, the fear that most of the folks (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 10:41:30 AM EST
    I know is of the current administration.

    The "Washington" Repubs are seen as doing nothing.

    Will the country elect a true outsider??

    I don't know but it would be fun to watch.

    BTW - Face it. You want the Repubs to pick a candidate that the base will not support. That was McCaun in '08 and Romney in '12. This time it would be Bush Again.


    I frankly (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 10:55:20 AM EST
    don't care who the Repubs pick but the further right the better. After losing the popular vote all but once over the last 25 years the GOP still doesn't understand why and thinks that it's because their base didn't show up. I think they should nominate someone who does make their base show up so they can lose and we can be done with this silly argument. The truth is the GOP base is 39% of the voters in the country. The GOP candidates are repellent to 61% of the country and according to Gallup only 28% of the country approves of the GOP. So go for it big guy!

    If you don't care why are you attacking? (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 11:46:00 AM EST
    As a partisan Demo, if you actually believe what you claim, you should be cheering for Trump instead of claim that he can't win, etc., etc.

    And as you know, the voters are split 40-20-40.

    After the base is secured the fight is over the 20.

    The Demos have almost all of the blacks and most of the hispanics. It would be foolish of the Repubs to repeat the failures of the last two elections and ignore their base.


    I am (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 12:02:04 PM EST
    cheering for Trump. However the larger problem is the entire GOP is controlled by fundamentalist wackos that are hurting the country RIGHT NOW.

    No, the voters are not split 40/20/40. That's a myth. According to Pew they are split 39 R 48D and 13 I. So for the GOP to win they basically have to get all the 13% of voters. There is a reason Republicans are spilling their guts in terror over the 2016 election and talking about a complete wipe out in Washington of the GOP and it even taking down state legislatures.

    What you don't realize is the GOP base showed up in 2012. You also aren't willing to admit that there just is not enough of a GOP base to win.


    Show me (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 02:19:36 PM EST
    the Pew site.

    Here (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 05:15:33 PM EST
    ya go silly

    Sorry it undercuts the wingnut welfare narrative.


    It would be foolish for the Repubs (none / 0) (#98)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 02:30:56 PM EST
    to ignore their base..

    Which is they're saying Kill The Queers now and condemning the Paris devil-worshippers.


    Legal question (none / 0) (#84)
    by ruffian on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 09:59:24 AM EST
    Can Farood's sister sue Trump? He has been telling all and sundry that she knew about the attacks ahead of time. Can she sue the media outlets that show him spewing his foundation-less attacks?

    Trump would welcome that (1.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 10:43:50 AM EST
    It would keep the horrible pictures and failure of the Obama admin the "moderate" Muslims in front of the voters.

    failure of the Obama admin and the (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 10:44:43 AM EST
    Thank god his legal wisdom is free (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 11:29:30 AM EST
    Seen leftovers?

    Oh my god oh my god oh my god