The Evangelical Universalist Forum

How To Live Under An Unqualified President by John Piper

Practices Christian Living
#538

The story, which was anonymously sourced, alleged that members of Trump’s campaign team communicated with Russian agents at around the same time that hackers published personal emails stolen from Democratic National Committee staffers and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta.

However, Comey flatly disputed all of that.

“That report by the New York Times was not true. Is that a fair statement?” Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, asked.

“In the main, it was not true,” Comey replied. “The challenge, and I’m not picking on reporters, about writing on classified information is: The people talking about it often don’t really know what’s going on, and those of us who actually know what’s going on are not talking about it.”

So much for the anonymously sourced torrent of hit pieces that the Washington Post, the New York Times and CNN had come to specialize in. Comey’s testimony had already shot down another CNN anonymously sourced story. Now he took down one of the New York Times’ big hit pieces. But in a way it doesn’t really matter.

The media game has fundamentally changed. In the past having a big prestigious story be disproven in this way would be damaging to the credibility of a major media outlet. Today it doesn’t matter. The slew of anonymously sourced tales being vomited out as breaking news is a tactic. And the stories are disposable. They produce X amount of hits. And then it’s Mission Accomplished.

-http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/266944/comey-ny-times-trump-russia-story-was-fake-news-daniel-greenfield

1 Like
#539

Not quite accurately stated, Steve. It is not the case that 40% of Muslims believe Sharia law should be the law of the land, but that SOME ELEMENT of Sharia law should be the law of the land.

#540

:unamused:

#541

You really must practice that eye roll, Dave: :laughing:

Perhaps if you add a few body jesters to it :question: :laughing:

#542

steve 7150 wrote:
if 40% or more muslims believe Sharia law s/b the law of the land then over time you are inviting large amounts of people into a country who want to overthrow your government and way of life.

Not quite accurately stated, Steve. It is not the case that 40% of Muslims believe Sharia law should be the law of the land, but that SOME ELEMENT of Sharia law should be the law of the land.

The polls i saw simply referred to Sharia Law but even if it’s “some element” of Sharia, what element and who decides? Even with “some element” that would be violating our Constitution about the govt not imposing a religion. Of course once “some element” is imposed , how long would it take for other elements to be deemed necessary?

#543

Realistically? Unless you have a Muslim president…A Muslim majority in Congress…And a Muslim majority, on the Supreme Court…It probably will never happen - in the US.

Take more then one wife - for example. Well, Mormons would probably love it (at least some would). Muslims would love it. But it’s still not legal - in the US.

And should it ever be passed - here is my reaction: :laughing:

#544

C’mon, Randy, I learned from the master! :laughing:

Ever since I went all hyperbole by using the word ‘all’ that one time, I’ve thought back about the deafening silence after the most outrageous things about Trump are presented as facts. If it is the facts that are important, why the double standard?

#545

Trump should learn to play the role more “officially”. in other words, no Twitter Tweeting. Follow what Mike Pence suggests. Etc. Then the press would have less - to talk about. Sure, the press will blow things up - out of proportion. There is only so many Korean missiles launches, mass killings happening, etc. - in the news. So they must blow things up a bit - to boost the ratings. It’s business as usual. :smiley:

Perhaps if Trump developed, a since of humor? And took some lessons, from the Jerry’s (i.e. Seinfeld and Lewis), the press might have a different spin? :laughing:

https://az616578.vo.msecnd.net/files/2017/04/02/636267568297015367-1791934451_gif-of-success-taking-care-of-business.gif

#546

MUSLIM STABBERS SAID, “THIS IS FOR ALLAH”. MEDIA CENSORED “ALLAH”

No Allah please, we’re British.

Nursery worker is left with broken ribs and needing stitches after she was punched and kicked to the ground and slashed with a Stanley knife by three girls shouting ‘Allah will get you’

Karrien Stevens, who runs Little Diamonds Nursery in Hermon Hill, London said a member of staff was punched, kicked and slashed with a ‘Stanley knife’ while on her way to work this morning.

She was attacked from behind and then stabbed in the arm as her assailants chanted ‘Allah’, however police are not treating it as a terrorist incident.

And the Beeb won’t even report the Allah part.

The televised interview, which was shared on Twitter, shows a cut at 17 seconds - the point where users suggested Ms Stevens would have gone on to make her comments about Islam.

At this point in the clip users say the interview skips, suggesting two pieces of footage were spliced together.

The reason some Twitter users believe that these comments were edited out is because Ms Stevens is quoted in a written BBC Online article saying the women ‘shouted out “something to do with Allah and the Koran”.’

A BBC spokesman admitted the television clip was edited to fit their news report, but would not confirm which comments made by Ms Stevens were removed from their broadcast.

It’s not as if this sort of thing is newsworthy. Besides it would just lead to more Islamophobia. If you report that the attackers mentioned, “Allah”, people might draw the erroneous conclusion that Islam had something to do with it and that Islam might even promote violence. Best to erase that pesky stuff.

#547

I’m pragmatic, Dave. Let me dialogue and make friends with moderate Muslims - if possible.

At the same time, I take lessons in defense - from this guy :smiley:

#548

Randy - it is pragmatic to take the path you are on.

I do get concerned when I read headlines like these:

-A NEIGHBOUR of the Westminster terrorist who killed four people says she is “shocked” at his horrific actions because he seemed a “nice guy”.
-Beloved “nice guy” Muslim neighbor is bloodthirsty London jihad terrorist
-Paris attacks: Salah Abdeslam was a ‘really nice guy’, says neighbour of terrorist suspect fugitive. Salah Abdeslam, who is on the run

  • Paris attacks: Samy Amimour, the ‘nice guy’ who became a jihadi … and that nice guys with loving parents and decent jobs can be terrorists too.
    -Like the so-called Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad – another nice guy turned terrorist – the Tsarnaev brothers appeared to have …
    -Haji Terrorists Open-Fire on Canadian Nightclub – Media Refers to … An average-sized guy, mid 30s, nice guy but no hesitation from him at all.
    -Terrorist behind Jakarta attack ‘a good man’: Brother … Ali’s neighbours also remembered the man they described as “nice and humble” once …

While we cannot paint ‘ALL’ with the same brush, just based on the fact that MANY of the recent terrorists have lived in neighborhoods, were nice and polite, educated etc. - prudence is still the keyword.

And vetting is still key - though being fought by many on the Left.

#549

steve7150 wrote:

The polls i saw simply referred to Sharia Law but even if it’s “some element” of Sharia, what element and who decides? Even with “some element” that would be violating our Constitution about the govt not imposing a religion. Of course once “some element” is imposed , how long would it take for other elements to be deemed necessary?

Realistically? Unless you have a Muslim president…A Muslim majority in Congress…And a Muslim majority, on the Supreme Court…It probably will never happen - in the US.

Take more then one wife - for example. Well, Mormons would probably love it (at least some would). Muslims would love it. But it’s still not legal - in the US.

The operative word is “incrementally” which is happening in Europe as there are over 80 Sharia courts operating in the UK. They keep giving in because they are afraid of muslim violence, so they keep giving in but very quietly.

#550

If history is a guide - JIhad vs the Crusades

#551

There’s an interesting article entitled:

Sharia law in Europe. No courts needed

It also contains an interesting YouTube video:

#552

What did you think of the vid I posted, Randy? I thought it made good sense.

#553

I like the video, Dave. But the video I shared, is from "

I like to know a bit about the background, of the PhD fellow - in your video.

Does he - for example - belong to this faculty of distinguished professors :question: :wink:

#554

I enjoyed that post of yours as well.

#555

Thanks for that video, Dave.

Previously, I had heard from several sources that the Crusades were undertaken as a defense against Muslim aggression, though popular opinion views the Crusaders as the monsters. Here is an article from Christianity Today that helps us to see the Crusades as defense rather than aggression — but also aggression I suppose, in the sense that the Crusaders regained some of the territories over which the Muslim aggressors had taken control.

#556

Thanks for the link. It cut me off after a bit but what I read was good.

#557

Here’s a YouTube video of Sharia law in Indonesia. Please DON’T watch if, if you have a week stomach.

I wonder if Dave and Steve, are in this video :question: Nobody can say, I don’t present BOTH sides. :laughing: