The whole fake news nonsense has been purposely created to discredit anything negative, or which may show him in a bad light. To the point when demonstrably clear facts can be challenged
----------------
The fake news stuff was pretty big, I just don't think whoever wrote his speeches fully understand what it was so it sort of fizzled out
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
The whole fake news nonsense has been purposely created to discredit anything negative, or which may show him in a bad light. To the point when demonstrably clear facts can be challenged
----------------
The fake news stuff was pretty big, I just don't think whoever wrote his speeches fully understand what it was so it sort of fizzled out
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Regretfully it's (to date) been the primary (media) objective of the administration.
Fake news was originally bogus (mostly on Facebook) sites, made to look like genuine MSM. Which subsequently evolved to include sources which embellished, misrepresented news.
Trump however, has turned it on it's head. And has branded everything, from the BBC, Washington Post, CNN, CBS...I could go on..as "fake news"
comment by Brightdave: (U11711)
posted 50 minutes ago
Sir Digby
Did I claim the right didn't have individuals who were stupid?
My point was towards words such as racist, bigot, fascist, comparing anything to Hitler, really didn't help the cause. But I guess you disagree which is fair enough, why do you think these people were uncomfortable voting for Hilary?
-----------------------------------
No you didn't claim the right didn't also have stupid folk nor deny their existence. You did just call out the left, which is your prerogative of course, but I find it disingenuous. You make out that it is the Left's actions that are at fault, when clearly BOTH sides do so.
It find it polarising and see it so often on FB that I stopped reading most comment sections of the news channels I follow. Painting half the picture destroys reasonable debate in most instances as the whole Godwin's law concept is inevitably invoked sooner rather than later.
You make an incorrect assumption about me. I do dislike the appallingly low level of political discourse from BOTH sides. The whole 2016 election has been a race to the bottom. Michelle O might claim to take the high road, but no one else is even trying.
I do think Trump is a duplicitous, antagonistic a$$e, because he lies, winds everyone up and is an a$$e. The hyperbole such as likening him to Hitler is not good for the left OR the right's cause. Ramping the language up to the point it is now leaves no where to go to when something or someone truly bad (or good) does happen. The frequency of such extreme language being thrown around by everyone will leave us all ambivalent and further jaded by the system.
By the way, I didn't and don't particularly like Clinton. I'm a lefty, but I try to be critical of the left when they feck up too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why did trump win?
comment by Galvs...Friend of Reason. (U10415)
posted 2 hours, 12 minutes ago
Do I completely miss the point in asking why Allah made slaves in the first place?
It's all very well helping them, and being the first ever people to do so but if you go back just a little bit further....I dunno... I find it hard to get my head round an all powerful being fackin things up and then coming back and telling someone to rectify it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand... are you saying that Go made human beings slaves to other human beings?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Galvs...Friend of Reason. (U10415)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
I was asking that yes...though I guess we are to believe the humans made the other humans slaves...a fair assumption imo.
I guess then I am asking why it should be seen as moral to help slaves whilst keeping them..as slaves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends on what your definition of a slave is and what type of people those 'slaves' are.
Like I said in my lengthy explanation to itsonlygame, the remaining slaves were captives of war or POW's. People who went out of there way to try and kill Muslims during that period in history because they didn't like the spread of Islam.
The definition of slave you probably have is of people picking cotton, breaking rocks with a pick axe, being to told to dance and sing on demand and if they didn't comply they'ed by hung, castrated, whipped or torn apart by dogs.
Muslims were told to feed the POW's the same food they ate, give them the same clothes they wore and if they struck them, they would have to set them free.
Have you seen how other countries treat POW's? Even our own country and America have an appalling record with detainees.
This treatment of captives during the Prophets time rendered them totally useless and so they were released. The illusion that these POW's were slaves was used so that 'slave masters' didn't think that they were being forced to give up there slaves and instead it was voluntary.
The Arabic word for slave 'Abd' was never used because they weren't slaves.
The type of slavery which helped build America was abolished by Islam. Kidnapping and abduction of people to sell on as slaves was totally outlawed.
This obviously changed in the Muslim world sometime after the Prophets death but that's why it's important to be able to distinguish between Islam and Muslims.
In your honest opinion can you not see how any of this legislation was way ahead of it's time?
On the comparison of Trump and Hitler...
Hitler didn't start out killing Jews, he used hatred and racist rhetoric and was extremist in nature just like Trump.
How are we supposed to learn from history if we don't try and recognise another Hitler before that person grows in power and commits similar atrocities.
waiting to see what happens before we do anything or pretending that it's 2017 and so schit like that will never happen again isn't good enough.
Trump isn't going to reintroduce gas chambers for Muslims but I'd put good money on him destroying another middle-eastern country and in the process murdering millions more.
Trump has now tweeted to clarify his comments on Sweden. Stated he was referring to a Fox News broadcast.
Further proof that the US president obtains intelligence/information from watching TV. Unbelievable.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 55 minutes ago
Trump has now tweeted to clarify his comments on Sweden. Stated he was referring to a Fox News broadcast.
Further proof that the US president obtains intelligence/information from watching TV. Unbelievable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox News no less.
Have you seen the Twitter responses? Brilliant
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 55 minutes ago
Trump has now tweeted to clarify his comments on Sweden. Stated he was referring to a Fox News broadcast.
Further proof that the US president obtains intelligence/information from watching TV. Unbelievable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox News no less.
Have you seen the Twitter responses? Brilliant
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Especially from the Swedish embassy
comment by Galvs...Friend of Reason. (U10415)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 11 hours, 45 minutes ago
comment by Galvs...Friend of Reason. (U10415)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
I was asking that yes...though I guess we are to believe the humans made the other humans slaves...a fair assumption imo.
I guess then I am asking why it should be seen as moral to help slaves whilst keeping them..as slaves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends on what your definition of a slave is and what type of people those 'slaves' are.
Like I said in my lengthy explanation to itsonlygame, the remaining slaves were captives of war or POW's. People who went out of there way to try and kill Muslims during that period in history because they didn't like the spread of Islam.
The definition of slave you probably have is of people picking cotton, breaking rocks with a pick axe, being to told to dance and sing on demand and if they didn't comply they'ed by hung, castrated, whipped or torn apart by dogs.
Muslims were told to feed the POW's the same food they ate, give them the same clothes they wore and if they struck them, they would have to set them free.
Have you seen how other countries treat POW's? Even our own country and America have an appalling record with detainees.
This treatment of captives during the Prophets time rendered them totally useless and so they were released. The illusion that these POW's were slaves was used so that 'slave masters' didn't think that they were being forced to give up there slaves and instead it was voluntary.
The Arabic word for slave 'Abd' was never used because they weren't slaves.
The type of slavery which helped build America was abolished by Islam. Kidnapping and abduction of people to sell on as slaves was totally outlawed.
This obviously changed in the Muslim world sometime after the Prophets death but that's why it's important to be able to distinguish between Islam and Muslims.
In your honest opinion can you not see how any of this legislation was way ahead of it's time?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course I can....my point was that if we are to praise such forward thinking, (rightly so) we should also be able to question the backward nature of the other stuff.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can question what you perceive to be potentially backwards. I didn't arrive at this point in my life without first scrutinising Islam.
I wasn't religious at all when I was younger, the way the world changed after 9/11 forced me to research Islam.
One thing people have to do when they scrutinise a religion though is approach it with sincerity. If you still find it backwards after that then fair enough.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Galvs...Friend of Reason. (U10415)
posted 15 minutes ago
Not just Islam........all religions that were written (by men or dictated by almighty supernatural beings to men) thousands of years ago.
As for scrutiny, I approach it with the sincerity of logic and reason hence why it appears backwards to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you find the belief in God, Angels and Virgin births backwards. As far as Islam is concerned I think if you took the time to research it's actual earthly laws you'd agree with much of it.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Galvs...Friend of Reason. (U10415)
posted 1 minute ago
I find belief in the supernatural backwards
Of course our early humans looked at the skies in fear & reverence: they didn't know any better.
Comets or eclipses seen as punishments etc..
We've moved on as a species yet some religious still to this day will blame a tsunami on God punishing homosexuals or something equally ridiculous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think we have moved on as a species, isn't over 90% of the worlds population religious in some way. I need to double check that, buy you will find far more religious folk than athiests.
Believing in a creator isn't outside the realms of possibility far from it. Some people believe other alien beings created us, whilst other think we are in a simulated universe like the Matrix.
Believing a presence created everything shouldn't be that controversial to scientists or athiests considering the other theories floating about like the multiverse theory.
Do you personally believe that it's possible that Multpiple universes exist in which another version of you is living a different reality. Do you believe its possible that we are living in a simulated universe or that we could have been created by aliens.
These are all things deemed possible by scientists.
Generally speaking, I don't think that people who believe humans are part of a simulation, or were created by aliens, or multi-verses etc etc go around killing people that don't subscribe to their view.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Galvs...Friend of Reason. (U10415)
posted 4 minutes ago
Possible
.............not ABSOLUTELY TRUE which is what the religious know for sure.
You're telling me these are the same though?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not saying they are the same I'm just saying that all these things are within in the realms of possibility to scientists, even the idea of a creator.
This is why I find it baffling that the idea of a God is ridiculed by athiests.
Is the idea of a creator unbelievable or the idea that a creator would establish a set of rules to abide by?
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 18 minutes ago
Generally speaking, I don't think that people who believe humans are part of a simulation, or were created by aliens, or multi-verses etc etc go around killing people that don't subscribe to their view.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if you've noticed but scientists have created weapons of mass destruction to help protect their countries and the ideologies they were founded upon.
The persuit to force western style democracy down the throats of those in the Middle East has resulted in millions dying. All because they didnt subscribe to their idea of 'democracy' and 'freedom'.
If you think religion is the only type of ideology people are willing to die for or kill for then you are mistaken.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sign in if you want to comment
Anything Goes Politics Edition
Page 90 of 274
91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95
posted on 19/2/17
The whole fake news nonsense has been purposely created to discredit anything negative, or which may show him in a bad light. To the point when demonstrably clear facts can be challenged
----------------
The fake news stuff was pretty big, I just don't think whoever wrote his speeches fully understand what it was so it sort of fizzled out
posted on 19/2/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 19/2/17
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
The whole fake news nonsense has been purposely created to discredit anything negative, or which may show him in a bad light. To the point when demonstrably clear facts can be challenged
----------------
The fake news stuff was pretty big, I just don't think whoever wrote his speeches fully understand what it was so it sort of fizzled out
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Regretfully it's (to date) been the primary (media) objective of the administration.
Fake news was originally bogus (mostly on Facebook) sites, made to look like genuine MSM. Which subsequently evolved to include sources which embellished, misrepresented news.
Trump however, has turned it on it's head. And has branded everything, from the BBC, Washington Post, CNN, CBS...I could go on..as "fake news"
posted on 19/2/17
comment by Brightdave: (U11711)
posted 50 minutes ago
Sir Digby
Did I claim the right didn't have individuals who were stupid?
My point was towards words such as racist, bigot, fascist, comparing anything to Hitler, really didn't help the cause. But I guess you disagree which is fair enough, why do you think these people were uncomfortable voting for Hilary?
-----------------------------------
No you didn't claim the right didn't also have stupid folk nor deny their existence. You did just call out the left, which is your prerogative of course, but I find it disingenuous. You make out that it is the Left's actions that are at fault, when clearly BOTH sides do so.
It find it polarising and see it so often on FB that I stopped reading most comment sections of the news channels I follow. Painting half the picture destroys reasonable debate in most instances as the whole Godwin's law concept is inevitably invoked sooner rather than later.
You make an incorrect assumption about me. I do dislike the appallingly low level of political discourse from BOTH sides. The whole 2016 election has been a race to the bottom. Michelle O might claim to take the high road, but no one else is even trying.
I do think Trump is a duplicitous, antagonistic a$$e, because he lies, winds everyone up and is an a$$e. The hyperbole such as likening him to Hitler is not good for the left OR the right's cause. Ramping the language up to the point it is now leaves no where to go to when something or someone truly bad (or good) does happen. The frequency of such extreme language being thrown around by everyone will leave us all ambivalent and further jaded by the system.
By the way, I didn't and don't particularly like Clinton. I'm a lefty, but I try to be critical of the left when they feck up too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why did trump win?
posted on 19/2/17
comment by Galvs...Friend of Reason. (U10415)
posted 2 hours, 12 minutes ago
Do I completely miss the point in asking why Allah made slaves in the first place?
It's all very well helping them, and being the first ever people to do so but if you go back just a little bit further....I dunno... I find it hard to get my head round an all powerful being fackin things up and then coming back and telling someone to rectify it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand... are you saying that Go made human beings slaves to other human beings?
posted on 19/2/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 19/2/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 19/2/17
comment by Galvs...Friend of Reason. (U10415)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
I was asking that yes...though I guess we are to believe the humans made the other humans slaves...a fair assumption imo.
I guess then I am asking why it should be seen as moral to help slaves whilst keeping them..as slaves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends on what your definition of a slave is and what type of people those 'slaves' are.
Like I said in my lengthy explanation to itsonlygame, the remaining slaves were captives of war or POW's. People who went out of there way to try and kill Muslims during that period in history because they didn't like the spread of Islam.
The definition of slave you probably have is of people picking cotton, breaking rocks with a pick axe, being to told to dance and sing on demand and if they didn't comply they'ed by hung, castrated, whipped or torn apart by dogs.
Muslims were told to feed the POW's the same food they ate, give them the same clothes they wore and if they struck them, they would have to set them free.
Have you seen how other countries treat POW's? Even our own country and America have an appalling record with detainees.
This treatment of captives during the Prophets time rendered them totally useless and so they were released. The illusion that these POW's were slaves was used so that 'slave masters' didn't think that they were being forced to give up there slaves and instead it was voluntary.
The Arabic word for slave 'Abd' was never used because they weren't slaves.
The type of slavery which helped build America was abolished by Islam. Kidnapping and abduction of people to sell on as slaves was totally outlawed.
This obviously changed in the Muslim world sometime after the Prophets death but that's why it's important to be able to distinguish between Islam and Muslims.
In your honest opinion can you not see how any of this legislation was way ahead of it's time?
posted on 19/2/17
On the comparison of Trump and Hitler...
Hitler didn't start out killing Jews, he used hatred and racist rhetoric and was extremist in nature just like Trump.
How are we supposed to learn from history if we don't try and recognise another Hitler before that person grows in power and commits similar atrocities.
waiting to see what happens before we do anything or pretending that it's 2017 and so schit like that will never happen again isn't good enough.
Trump isn't going to reintroduce gas chambers for Muslims but I'd put good money on him destroying another middle-eastern country and in the process murdering millions more.
posted on 20/2/17
Trump has now tweeted to clarify his comments on Sweden. Stated he was referring to a Fox News broadcast.
Further proof that the US president obtains intelligence/information from watching TV. Unbelievable.
posted on 20/2/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/2/17
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 55 minutes ago
Trump has now tweeted to clarify his comments on Sweden. Stated he was referring to a Fox News broadcast.
Further proof that the US president obtains intelligence/information from watching TV. Unbelievable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox News no less.
Have you seen the Twitter responses? Brilliant
posted on 20/2/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/2/17
comment by Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 55 minutes ago
Trump has now tweeted to clarify his comments on Sweden. Stated he was referring to a Fox News broadcast.
Further proof that the US president obtains intelligence/information from watching TV. Unbelievable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox News no less.
Have you seen the Twitter responses? Brilliant
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Especially from the Swedish embassy
posted on 20/2/17
comment by Galvs...Friend of Reason. (U10415)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 11 hours, 45 minutes ago
comment by Galvs...Friend of Reason. (U10415)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
I was asking that yes...though I guess we are to believe the humans made the other humans slaves...a fair assumption imo.
I guess then I am asking why it should be seen as moral to help slaves whilst keeping them..as slaves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends on what your definition of a slave is and what type of people those 'slaves' are.
Like I said in my lengthy explanation to itsonlygame, the remaining slaves were captives of war or POW's. People who went out of there way to try and kill Muslims during that period in history because they didn't like the spread of Islam.
The definition of slave you probably have is of people picking cotton, breaking rocks with a pick axe, being to told to dance and sing on demand and if they didn't comply they'ed by hung, castrated, whipped or torn apart by dogs.
Muslims were told to feed the POW's the same food they ate, give them the same clothes they wore and if they struck them, they would have to set them free.
Have you seen how other countries treat POW's? Even our own country and America have an appalling record with detainees.
This treatment of captives during the Prophets time rendered them totally useless and so they were released. The illusion that these POW's were slaves was used so that 'slave masters' didn't think that they were being forced to give up there slaves and instead it was voluntary.
The Arabic word for slave 'Abd' was never used because they weren't slaves.
The type of slavery which helped build America was abolished by Islam. Kidnapping and abduction of people to sell on as slaves was totally outlawed.
This obviously changed in the Muslim world sometime after the Prophets death but that's why it's important to be able to distinguish between Islam and Muslims.
In your honest opinion can you not see how any of this legislation was way ahead of it's time?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course I can....my point was that if we are to praise such forward thinking, (rightly so) we should also be able to question the backward nature of the other stuff.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can question what you perceive to be potentially backwards. I didn't arrive at this point in my life without first scrutinising Islam.
I wasn't religious at all when I was younger, the way the world changed after 9/11 forced me to research Islam.
One thing people have to do when they scrutinise a religion though is approach it with sincerity. If you still find it backwards after that then fair enough.
posted on 20/2/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/2/17
comment by Galvs...Friend of Reason. (U10415)
posted 15 minutes ago
Not just Islam........all religions that were written (by men or dictated by almighty supernatural beings to men) thousands of years ago.
As for scrutiny, I approach it with the sincerity of logic and reason hence why it appears backwards to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you find the belief in God, Angels and Virgin births backwards. As far as Islam is concerned I think if you took the time to research it's actual earthly laws you'd agree with much of it.
posted on 20/2/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/2/17
comment by Galvs...Friend of Reason. (U10415)
posted 1 minute ago
I find belief in the supernatural backwards
Of course our early humans looked at the skies in fear & reverence: they didn't know any better.
Comets or eclipses seen as punishments etc..
We've moved on as a species yet some religious still to this day will blame a tsunami on God punishing homosexuals or something equally ridiculous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think we have moved on as a species, isn't over 90% of the worlds population religious in some way. I need to double check that, buy you will find far more religious folk than athiests.
Believing in a creator isn't outside the realms of possibility far from it. Some people believe other alien beings created us, whilst other think we are in a simulated universe like the Matrix.
Believing a presence created everything shouldn't be that controversial to scientists or athiests considering the other theories floating about like the multiverse theory.
Do you personally believe that it's possible that Multpiple universes exist in which another version of you is living a different reality. Do you believe its possible that we are living in a simulated universe or that we could have been created by aliens.
These are all things deemed possible by scientists.
posted on 20/2/17
Generally speaking, I don't think that people who believe humans are part of a simulation, or were created by aliens, or multi-verses etc etc go around killing people that don't subscribe to their view.
posted on 20/2/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/2/17
comment by Galvs...Friend of Reason. (U10415)
posted 4 minutes ago
Possible
.............not ABSOLUTELY TRUE which is what the religious know for sure.
You're telling me these are the same though?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not saying they are the same I'm just saying that all these things are within in the realms of possibility to scientists, even the idea of a creator.
This is why I find it baffling that the idea of a God is ridiculed by athiests.
Is the idea of a creator unbelievable or the idea that a creator would establish a set of rules to abide by?
posted on 20/2/17
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 18 minutes ago
Generally speaking, I don't think that people who believe humans are part of a simulation, or were created by aliens, or multi-verses etc etc go around killing people that don't subscribe to their view.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if you've noticed but scientists have created weapons of mass destruction to help protect their countries and the ideologies they were founded upon.
The persuit to force western style democracy down the throats of those in the Middle East has resulted in millions dying. All because they didnt subscribe to their idea of 'democracy' and 'freedom'.
If you think religion is the only type of ideology people are willing to die for or kill for then you are mistaken.
posted on 20/2/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/2/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Page 90 of 274
91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95