It ain't about Trump

[ChurchSoldier]

thehill.com/homenews/house/346284-nra-spokeswoman-calls-for-democrat-to-resign-after-calling-nra-threat

"I’m just going to say it. #NRA & DLoesch are quickly becoming domestic security threats under President Trump," Rice tweeted. “We can’t ignore that.”" NY (D)Representative Kathleen Rice

I started a thread asking on what basis would the proponents of “impeach Trump” mindset would actually impeach him. The gist of the answers was they don’t like him.

This article is an amazing look into the true thoughts of how the ruling class see you and me. At least those of use who think we should hear both sides of a viewpoint and avail ourselves of our rights enumerated in the Constitution.

This article continues the apoplectic reaction liberals have had since Trump won the nomination. He represents the average American. They seem to think he is going to give some power back to the people and it has sent them over the edge.

It started with our security agencies calling any Bible believing Christians a threat. Now it has morphed into any American who wants to embrace their rights. As we have seen demonstrated, it will soon transform into anyone who doesn’t think like them will be labeled a national security threat.

It is becoming more clear the greatest threat feared by our political class is the American people themselves.

Your comments are welcome.

 

[randomuser]

I started a thread asking on what basis would the proponents of “impeach Trump” mindset would actually impeach him. The gist of the answers was they don’t like him.

False. There are and were a lot of non-ad-hominem reasons supporting why impeachment would be appropriate. Are you seriously expecting people to believe the false starting point to your discussion?

 

[dvdjs]

Morever, few posters on that thread were proponents of impeachment - even among posters who do not support Trump.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It started with our security agencies calling any Bible believing Christians a threat.

A gross exaggeration. What you just said just never happened.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

False. There are and were a lot of non-ad-hominem reasons supporting why impeachment would be appropriate. Are you seriously expecting people to believe the false starting point to your discussion?

Feel free to comment on that thread about impeachment. This one is more about a different topic.

 

[dvdjs]

It started with our security agencies calling any Bible believing Christians a threat.

That is quite a charge. Can you provide some evidence to back it up? Real evidence, not just some internet article that says so.

Now it has morphed into any American who wants to embrace their rights. As we have seen demonstrated, it will soon transform into anyone who doesn’t think like them will be labeled a national security threat.

Can you provide some evidence for that? The linked article certainly does not.

PS It has been the rule there that the thread title is taken from the headline of the link.
Why do you post a title that hasn’t much of anything to do with the link?

 

[ChurchSoldier]

That is quite a charge. Can you provide some evidence to back it up? Real evidence, not just some internet article that says so.

Can you provide some evidence for that? The linked article certainly does not.

PS It has been the rule there that the thread title is taken from the headline of the link.
Why do you post a title that hasn’t much of anything to do with the link?

foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/23/does-army-consider-christians-tea-party-terror-threat.html
“Soldiers attending a pre-deployment briefing at Fort Hood say they were told that evangelical Christians and members of the Tea Party were a threat to the nation and that any soldier donating to those groups would be subjected to punishment”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

PS It has been the rule there that the thread title is taken from the headline of the link.

Yes, it used to be a rule. That rule and all the other rules specific to the World News forum on CAF have been quietly removed and have not been enforced for nearly a year.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

A gross exaggeration. What you just said just never happened.

See post #7 please.

More importantly though, for education purposes and in the attempt to be a more informed human being, it might be worthwhile to actually talk to people from the other side or research their points before making baseless comments about based comments. It would benefit our society to have a bit more charitable discussion.

 

[randomuser]

Feel free to comment on that thread about impeachment. This one is more about a different topic.

I’m commenting on THIS thread because you’re basing it upon FALSE information. The answers on THAT thread provided reasons for impeachment that had nothing to do with whether or not they liked him – which is what you’re claiming. That’s called a “straw man” argument.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

I’m commenting on THIS thread because you’re basing it upon FALSE information. The answers on THAT thread provided reasons for impeachment that had nothing to do with whether or not they liked him – which is what you’re claiming. That’s called a “straw man” argument.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1060964

Feel free to go over there and summarize and I would be happy to discuss them with you.

I used the thread about impeachment to provide context. I could have just as easily put a link to the MSM touting fake news stories. It’s not about “the impeachment allegations” as much as the apoplectic reaction, as has been demonstrated again in this thread.

In the first three responses it was insinuated I was a liar 3 times. Might be a record!

Thanks for your reply.

 

[Reuben_J]

Feel free to comment on that thread about impeachment. This one is more about a different topic.

Up to a couple of months back, there were posters, some who are still here, did talk about impeachment of the President, though it was more of a wishful thinking probably hoping that the Russian collusion thing and the so-called obstruction of justice would lead to that.

As we can see now, much of that talk has fizzled off and the Russian bogeyman seems anything but fading away. The Democrats who from the beginning refused to allow their servers be examined which were the source of all the hacking accusation probably purposely staged the accusation hoping it will uncover Trump’s business transaction which they could use for the collusion evidence.

Look like all the effort comes to naught and perhaps some red faces all around.

 

[dvdjs]

foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/23/does-army-consider-christians-tea-party-terror-threat.html
“Soldiers attending a pre-deployment briefing at Fort Hood say they were told that evangelical Christians and members of the Tea Party were a threat to the nation and that any soldier donating to those groups would be subjected to punishment”

A better quote from the same article:

A soldier who attended the Oct. 17th briefing told me the counter-intelligence agent in charge of the meeting spent nearly a half hour discussing how evangelical Christians and groups like the American Family Association were “tearing the country apart.”

A soldier makes a claim about one CI agent - not our security agencies, as you posted. We have a few words out of 30 minutes. It’s been a while since 2013: has a case been made?

The link does not provide probative evidence for your claim.

So as to your premise:

It started with our security agencies calling any Bible believing Christians a threat. Now it has morphed into any American who wants to embrace their rights. As we have seen demonstrated, it will soon transform into anyone who doesn’t think like them will be labeled a national security threat.

We thus far have two links that provide essentially nothing to support with idea.

Is this thread really about news at all?

 

[dvdjs]

Up to a couple of months back, there were posters, some who are still here, did talk about impeachment of the President, though it was more of a wishful thinking probably hoping that the Russian collusion thing and the so-called obstruction of justice would lead to that.

As we can see now, much of that talk has fizzled off and the Russian bogeyman seems anything but fading away. The Democrats who from the beginning refused to allow their servers be examined which were the source of all the hacking accusation probably purposely staged the accusation hoping it will uncover Trump’s business transaction which they could use for the collusion evidence.

Look like all the effort comes to naught and perhaps some red faces all around.

Interesting story. But strikingly detached from reality.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/23/does-army-consider-christians-tea-party-terror-threat.html
“Soldiers attending a pre-deployment briefing at Fort Hood say they were told that evangelical Christians and members of the Tea Party were a threat to the nation and that any soldier donating to those groups would be subjected to punishment”

This does not support your claim, which was:

*“It started with our security agencies calling any Bible believing Christians a threat.” *

The officer speaking at the pre-deployment briefing was speaking on his own initiative and not speaking for his organization. The article you cited goes on to say:

Meanwhile, the public affairs office at Fort Hood is denying the soldiers’ allegations.

“The allegations you are asking about were brought to the attention of the Fort Hood leadership immediately and a (sic) inquiry is occurring,” read a statement from Tom Rheinlander, the public affairs director at Fort Hood. “At this time, initial information gathered about the training and what you claim occurred is not substantiated by unit leadership and soldiers present at this training venue.”

The Agency clearly does not support the view that you claim they support.

Also the article you cite does not give the briefer a chance to tell his side of the story. Perhaps what he said was “Some groups claiming to be Christian are a threat to our security” and those inductees sympathetic to those groups expanded the accusation in their minds to include “all Bible believing Christians.”

Also the piece is clearly an** opinion piece**, not a news story.

Also the guy who wrote that opinion piece also wrote his latest book, “The Deplorables’ Guide to Making America Great Again.” So it is clear where his political ideologies lie.

In short, your claim is just wrong.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

A better quote from the same article:

A soldier makes a claim about one CI agent - not our security agencies, as you posted. We have a few words out of 30 minutes. It’s been a while since 2013: has a case been made?

The link does not provide probative evidence for your claim.

You are so funny!

I attempted Proverbs 26:5. Will apply Proverbs 26:4.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

See post #7 please.

More importantly though, for education purposes and in the attempt to be a more informed human being, it might be worthwhile to actually talk to people from the other side or research their points before making baseless comments about based comments. It would benefit our society to have a bit more charitable discussion.

There is nothing uncharitable about calling a gross exaggeration a gross exaggeration, or saying that the thing your claimed happened never happened. I have nothing against you personally. It is only the facts that I am concerned with.

 

[dvdjs]

This does not support your claim, which was:

*“It started with our security agencies calling any Bible believing Christians a threat.” *

The officer speaking at the pre-deployment briefing was speaking on his own initiative and not speaking for his organization. The article you cited goes on to say:

The Agency clearly does not support the view that you claim they support.

Also the article you cite does not give the briefer a chance to tell his side of the story. Perhaps what he said was “Some groups claiming to be Christian are a threat to our security” and those inductees sympathetic to those groups expanded the accusation in their minds to include “all Bible believing Christians.”

Also the piece is clearly an** opinion piece**, not a news story.

Also the guy who wrote that opinion piece also wrote his latest book, “The Deplorables’ Guide to Making America Great Again.” So it is clear where his political ideologies lie.

In short, your claim is just wrong.

 

[CatholicFireman]

youtube.com/watch?v=2I91DJZKRxs

 

[CatholicFireman]

thehill.com/homenews/house/346284-nra-spokeswoman-calls-for-democrat-to-resign-after-calling-nra-threat

"I’m just going to say it. #NRA & DLoesch are quickly becoming domestic security threats under President Trump," Rice tweeted. “We can’t ignore that.”" NY (D)Representative Kathleen Rice

I started a thread asking on what basis would the proponents of “impeach Trump” mindset would actually impeach him. The gist of the answers was they don’t like him.

This article is an amazing look into the true thoughts of how the ruling class see you and me. At least those of use who think we should hear both sides of a viewpoint and avail ourselves of our rights enumerated in the Constitution.

This article continues the apoplectic reaction liberals have had since Trump won the nomination. He represents the average American. They seem to think he is going to give some power back to the people and it has sent them over the edge.

It started with our security agencies calling any Bible believing Christians a threat. Now it has morphed into any American who wants to embrace their rights. As we have seen demonstrated, it will soon transform into anyone who doesn’t think like them will be labeled a national security threat.

It is becoming more clear the greatest threat feared by our political class is the American people themselves.

Your comments are welcome.

youtube.com/watch?v=2I91DJZKRxs