Here's Why To Not Let Your State Go Blue

[Lysistrata]

Hasan was dishonorably discharged. But what does this have to do with you deliberately falsely reporting Obama's religion?

The point is that Hasan was NOT dishonorably discharged before he slaughtered 13 US Army soldiers and wounded 38 others. He was allowed to walk around in middle eastern clothes instead of his Army uniform, in violation of Army regulations, for almost a year.

He spouted off jihadist rhetoric lectures to soldiers, when he was supposed to be lecturing about Army psychology, and he recited passages from the Koran and hadiths, constantly.

No one could stop him because Obama (commander in chief) approved of what he was doing. Only a Muslim jihadist could possibly act that way. There is no other answer.

Obama's OK of ISIS activity is more proof of his Islamism, as are many other things (which you never hear on CNN)

Sources? Including for the content of his lectures?
I don't know the regulations about being on-base in civilian clothing.
I don't think that Obama ever knew he existed until the shooting.

Like I say, I don't know the military rules. However, I do know that General Boykin was walking all over the Pentagon spouting fundamentalist "Christian" stuff with "The Christian Embassy" and even wore his uniform to fundamentalist "Christian" rallies. Did Obama or Bush know about this? Do you actually think that presidents know about this stuff?

You are grasping at straws.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Unless a hell of a lot in that regard has changed since 2014, in the U.S., no, they don't for the most part.

​

Surely you will acknowledge that there were far more than 140K crimes committed in 2000. Furthermore:

• 2010/2015 -- The Criminalization of Immigration in the United States
  • Immigrants are less likely than native-born individuals to engage in criminal behavior.
  • In 2010, 10.7% of native-born men aged 18-39 without a high school degree were incarcerated compared to 2.8% of Mexican immigrants and 1.7% of Guatemalan and Salvadoran immigrants.
• 2014 -- ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report
  • 177,960 --> The quantity of undocumented immigrants deported in 2013 who were convicted criminals
• 2015 -- U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to Sen. Flake
  • "Between FY 2010 and FY 2014, there were 121 unique criminal aliens who had an active case at the time of release and were subsequently charged with homicide-related offenses." That's about nine per year.
• 2013 -- Prisoners in 2013
  • There were 73,665 inmates in state and federal prisons who are not U.S. citizens.
• 2000 -- On Immigration and Crime
  • With few exceptions, immigrants are less crime prone than natives or have no effect on crime rates.
• 2000/2007 -- Why Are Immigrants' Crime Rates So Low?
  • Butcher and Piehl examine the incarceration rates for men aged 18-40 in the 1980, 1990, and 2000 Censuses. In each year immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than natives with the gap widening each decade. By 2000, immigrants have incarceration rates that are one-fifth those of the native-born.
• 2013 -- Understanding the Impact of Immigration on Crime
  • Spenkuch found that a 10% increase in the share of immigrants increases the property crime rate by 1.2% and that immigrants have no on violent crime rates. He found too that Mexican immigrants account entirely for the effect on property crime rates, committing 3.5 to 5 times as many property crimes as the average native; however, all other immigrants commit less than half as many crimes of any sort as natives.
• Various years -- Multiple researchers found that the population of immigrants is either not correlated or negatively correlated with crime rates.
  • Secure Communities (S-COMM) program [1] analysis -- Miles and Cox used the phased rollout to see how S-COMM affected crime rates per county. If immigrants were disproportionately criminal, then S-COMM would decrease the crime rates. They found that S-COMM “led to no meaningful reduction in the FBI index crime rate” including violent crimes. Treyger et al found that S-COMM did not decrease crime rates nor did it lead to an increase in discriminatory policing that some critics were worried about.
    • Does Immigration Enforcement Reduce Crime? Evidence from “Secure Communities”
    • Immigration Enforcement, Policing, and Crime
  • 2000 -- Exploring the Connection between Immigration and Violent Crime Rates in U.S. Cities, 1980–2000
    • Ousey and Kubrin looked at 159 cities at three dates between 1980 and 2000 and found that crime rates and levels of immigration are not correlated. Their research found that “[v]iolent crime is not a deleterious consequence of increased immigration.”
  • Immigration and the Recent Violent Crime Drop in the United States
    • Using time‐series techniques and annual data for metropolitan areas over the 1994–2004 period, [Stowell et al] assessed the impact of changes in immigration on changes in violent crime rates. Their multivariate analyses showed that violent crime rates tended to decrease as metropolitan areas experienced gains in their concentration of immigrants. This inverse relationship was especially robust for robbery.

From the findings of the studies above, both Census-data driven ones and macro-level ones, the notion that immigrants are more crime-prone than natives does not hold water. There are numerous reasons why immigrant criminality is lower than native criminality. One explanation is that immigrants who commit crimes can be deported and thus are punished more for criminal behavior, making them less likely to break the law.


There is, of course, one crime genre whereof illegal immigrants commit almost exclusively are the perpetrators: immigration offenses. Because immigration violations are crimes, to the extent immigration-law-only offenses are included in immigrant crime, doing so materially overstates immigrant crime rates, thereby denuding greatly their legitimacy for asserting that immigrants commit more crime than do non-immigrants.


Note:

1. The Secure Communities program (S-COMM) uses a federal information-sharing partnership between DHS and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that helps to identify in-custody aliens without imposing new or additional requirements on state and local law enforcement. For decades, local jurisdictions have shared the fingerprints of individuals arrested and/or booked into custody with the FBI to see if those individuals have a criminal record and outstanding warrants.
   
   Under S-COMM, the FBI automatically sends the fingerprints to DHS to check against its immigration databases. If these checks reveal that an individual is unlawfully present in the United States or otherwise removable, ICE takes enforcement action -- prioritizing the removal of individuals who present the most significant threats to public safety as determined by the severity of their crime, their criminal history, and risk to public safety – as well as those who have violated the nation’s immigration laws.
   
   S-COMM proved beneficial for facilitating deportations, but not useful at reducing crime rates. Note that the remark to which this post is a response is about immigrants' criminality, not the government's success at/rate of deportations.

Here's why to not waste your time clicking/reading liberals' looney and souped up links. Liberals love "studies" (actually con jobs). They refer to ones by liberal sources (university professors, think tanks, media, etc., and then tell us we have to accept them because they're soooo authentic and respectable.

They especially love their "studies" when they're concocted to produce just the notions they want us all to believe. If I had a dollar for every liberals "study" that turned out to be false, I'd buy a mansion. Sometimes this common liberal study error characteristic comes from pure deceit (intentional propaganda). In other "studies", it's a result of simply being founded from typical, liberal, wrongheaded, preconceived notions.

Check out this farce (a typical "study") >>

The Stephens-Davidowitz racism study >> (exposed in the book, Mugged, by Ann Coulter, pg. 240-241).

In this farce, published as undeniable in the New York Times, it was contended that some places in the US were more racist than other places. The study contended that because 57% of Denver, CO, voted for Obama in 2008, and only 48% of Wheeling WV did, that Wheeling was the 7th most "racist" city in America, while Denver was the 4th most “enlightened” city.

Problems here are twofold. First, in places like the Times, the only 1 dimension at play was Obama's race. The Stephens-Davidowitz study failed to consider that Obama was the most fabulous, celebrity-backed candidate for president in a long time - something more important to people in Denver than in West Virginia.

Secondly, on Nov. 2, 2008, two days before the election, Obama vowed to bankrupt the coal industry. He threatened to impose huge fines on coal companies for emissions of greenhouse gases. West Virginia's economy is 99% (energy) and 60% (business taxes) dependent on coal. The real way to test Stephens-Davidowitz theory about West Virginians would be to run a non-flashy black candidate who had not pledged to destroy the coal industry, and THEN compare votes.

Here's an alternative to the faulty Stephens-Davidowitz study that the New York Times admired so much >> Ann Coulter did a study on states inclinations to racism, also. In Ann's study, different states were compared by participation in the military - an institution with a high lever of close quarter racial mixing, jaw to jaw, in military barracks (hell for racists).

The least racist states were Montana, Texas, Wyoming, Alabama, Alaska, and Idaho. The most racist ones were Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.

They refer to ones by liberal sources (university professors, think tanks, media, etc., and then tell us we have to accept them because they're soooo authentic and respectable.

I expect one to accept or reject the findings of supporting material I present because the methodology the researcher(s) used to arrive at the results is legit. Anyone who wants to object to one or more findings in the supporting content I provide need only identify the material methodological flaw(s). (Obviously, I wouldn't cite the study if I saw that there are material methodological flaws in it.)

An existential material methodological inadequacy in Rep. Gaetz's claim, one that the other member failed to check for him-/herself before repeating the claim, is why I rejected that claim, not because either of them is more or less credible, not due to the political party to which either of them belongs, or not anything else.

I don't care who says what. The methodology whoever used to arrive at their conclusion is what matters.

• Is the applied mathematical rationale "legit?"
  • Application/Calculation -- Usually one need not specifically check this, particularly simple arithmetic; however, a quick once over of the raw data to see whether the arithmetic appears to be correct/fitting is a good idea. Glancing at the three rows for "drugs" is all it took for me to know the Gaetz's methodology does not soundly/cogently support the claim he made. Hell, the mere fact that there are three "drugs" rows immediately made it obvious that his claim was inaccurate.
  • Theory -- Is the person using a fitting mathematical approach. For example, has a claimant or researcher inaptly used or cited raw counts rather than proportions?
• Are there material qualitative incongruities between a tested sample and a larger population to which the sample's behavior is extrapolated?
  • Is the sample size fitting?
  • Did the researcher/claimant control for material variations between the sample and the corresponding population?
• Doe the claims made follow from the data used and the analysis performed?
  • Does the study show correlation yet the researcher/claimant has asserted causation?
  • What are the limits of the analysis performed or data used?

The above are just some of the things to look for when reviewing/reading a study.

• Writing a Critique or Review of a Research Article
  
• Step'by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: quantitative research
  
• Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: qualitative research

While nobody here is going to actually write a "proper" critique of a study, the questions one must ask and answer for oneself are the same, and it really just takes from a few seconds to a few short minutes -- however long it takes to peruse the methodology and scan the conclusion(s) -- to "ask and answer" those questions. (Obviously, if one isn't mathematically or logically adept, it could take longer.) To wit, it took me far longer to compose post 52 than the half a second it took to see the data on which Gaetz had relied didn't align with his (thus that of the other member who repeated/cited it) claim.

They refer to ones by liberal sources (university professors, think tanks, media, etc., and then tell us we have to accept them because they're soooo authentic and respectable.

There are times when an appeal to/reliance upon authority is the best one can do; however, almost none of the matters of public policy are such things. (The exception being public policy based on national security classified information.) You know who's not an authority?

• The news reporter/anchor on one's TV screen. That person is a communicator (1) of the fact that others who are experts have gathered and analyzed information and (2) what be the information gathered, analysis performed and conclusions reached by thos others.
• The editorialist who's writing about something other than their field of expertise. E.g., when a physicist writes and editorial about something other than physics and related stuff, s/he's merely an editorialist, not an expert offering an expert opinion.
• People who outwardly seem to be, but who can't/won't give straight answers, direct and unequivocal questions, back up their claims will one or more fallacious lines of so-called support, people who've developed a track record of saying anything regardless of whether they know it's so or not so....Folks like that aren't authorities; they are demagogues....they're just running their f*cking mouths.

Check out this farce (a typical "study") >>

The Stephens-Davidowitz racism study >> (exposed in the book, Mugged, by Ann Coulter, pg. 240-241).

??? How can we? You don't provide a link to it. You don't give us the title of it.

You'll see me asking for source links, not because I want to confirm that "so and so" actually said "such and such"/arrived at "such and such" conclusion. I ask for the source links so I can review the methodology the speaker/writer used to justify their claim. For the most part, I'm willing to accept that "so and so" literally said "such and such."

I wasn't saying to check out the study. I was saying to check out Ann Coulter's review of the study in the book Mugged, pg. 240-241, where there's considerably more information about it than I have posted here. And that information is necessary, because the study itself doesn't report its own obvious failing. Ann does. However, I have posted the jist of what I meant to convey.

If anyone needs more, they can try this >>

Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, "How Racist are We ?Ask Google", New York Times, June 9, 2012.

I wasn't saying to check out the study. I was saying to check out Ann Coulter's review of the study in the book Mugged, pg. 240-241

Um, okay, but why would anyone check out Coulter's analysis of the study when they can review it for themselves?

One of the key points I was making in post 85 is that one doesn't need Coulter's or any other information distiller's review/assessment about the merits of a study. Think about it:

• One can take a few moments to read her sh*t about a study (or that of some other distiller's), or
• ONe can take a few moments to read the study for oneself, and not need Coulter's or anyone else's input about it.

If anyone needs more, they can try this >> Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, "How Racist are We ?Ask Google", New York Times, June 9, 2012.

The New York Times doesn't publish studies. They talk about them.

1. Seth Stephens-Davidowitz's (SSD) NYT article is a third-party editorial. [1] [2] So too is his book on which that essay is based. SSD, in his book, talks about and refers to studies, but his book isn't a study.

So Coulter reviewed and editorialized about another writer's editorial. I'm sorry, but I don't have time for that, and I'm 75% retired. I don't know who having any sense and less time that I would make time for that. Why? Because it's more work to read and assess the legitimacy of Coulter's (or anyone else's) analysis of another person's analysis of yet another person's study that than it would be to read the study itself and perform one's own analysis. To wit:

• To credibly refute/accept a claim/inference SSD makes and that is based on a (or several) study on which he relied, one must:
  1. Read the study(s) to see if it's methodologically sound and it's conclusions are cogent given the study's methodology.
  2. Evaluate SSD's claim/inference to determine whether it goes beyond (or doesn't) what can be rationally claimed/inferred based on the study(s).
• To credibly refute/accept a claim Coulter (or someone else) makes about SSD's claim/inference made based on a study upon which SSD relied, one must:
  1. Read and evaluate the study(s) to see if it's methodologically sound and it's conclusions are cogent given the study's methodology.
     
  2. Read and evaluate SSD's claim/inference to determine whether it "oversteps," misrepresents, etc. (or doesn't) what can be rationally claimed/inferred based on the study(s).
     
  3. Read and evaluate Coulter's (or other editorialist's) claim/inference to determine whether it "oversteps," misrepresents, etc. (or doesn't) what can be rationally claimed/inferred based on what SSD wrote.

Surely you can see that simply leaving Coulter or any other distiller's (third party reviewer's) thoughts out of the picture is markedly more efficient, especially if one isn't being paid to evaluate someone else's work/ideas.

• If all the third-party reviewer (TPR) [1] has to say is "so and so's ideas are flawed and here's why,"
  • Provided one doesn't know about "so and so" and their ideas in the first place, one's not missing out by not reading the third-party reviewer's analysis/distillation of "so and so's" ideas.
  • Provided one does know about "so and so's" ideas, then one can evaluate them for oneself, thus having no need for the TPR's analysis.

Notes:

1. As go opinion pieces, be they in books, magazines, newspapers, blogs, etc., the first and second parties are the author and his/her audience. Anyone else is a third party.
2. If SSD has a designated spot in the paper, his editorial is called a column. If he does not, his piece is just a third-party editorial, as opposed to being a NYT editorial, which is one that reflects the NYT's editorial board and publisher's opinion. One can identify the editorial board's/publisher's opinion pieces by the absence of a byline. The editorial board and publisher don't need a byline because whose opinion it is is shown in the middle (usually) of the very top of the page in title case.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Readers can turn to the part of the paper where the members of the editorial board and publisher are noted if one wants more than that; a papers own opinion is the opinion of all of board's members and that of the publisher/owner.
   
   Here is the NYT's op-ed page (opposite the editorial page). It contains third-party editorials.
   
   
   
   
   
   Below are editorials that present the opinion of the NYT's editors and publisher.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

 

[protectionist]

Hasan was dishonorably discharged. But what does this have to do with you deliberately falsely reporting Obama's religion?

The point is that Hasan was NOT dishonorably discharged before he slaughtered 13 US Army soldiers and wounded 38 others. He was allowed to walk around in middle eastern clothes instead of his Army uniform, in violation of Army regulations, for almost a year.

He spouted off jihadist rhetoric lectures to soldiers, when he was supposed to be lecturing about Army psychology, and he recited passages from the Koran and hadiths, constantly.

No one could stop him because Obama (commander in chief) approved of what he was doing. Only a Muslim jihadist could possibly act that way. There is no other answer.

Obama's OK of ISIS activity is more proof of his Islamism, as are many other things (which you never hear on CNN)

Sources? Including for the content of his lectures?
I don't know the regulations about being on-base in civilian clothing.
I don't think that Obama ever knew he existed until the shooting.

Like I say, I don't know the military rules. However, I do know that General Boykin was walking all over the Pentagon spouting fundamentalist "Christian" stuff with "The Christian Embassy" and even wore his uniform to fundamentalist "Christian" rallies. Did Obama or Bush know about this? Do you actually think that presidents know about this stuff?

You are grasping at straws.

You are partially ignorant of important history (no surprise - liberals are all notoriously information deprived), and you are partially pretending. Hard to believe that in 2018, people would not know about this. But that's how it is when yu watch CNN, MSNBC, PBS.

 

[Lysistrata]

Hasan was dishonorably discharged. But what does this have to do with you deliberately falsely reporting Obama's religion?

The point is that Hasan was NOT dishonorably discharged before he slaughtered 13 US Army soldiers and wounded 38 others. He was allowed to walk around in middle eastern clothes instead of his Army uniform, in violation of Army regulations, for almost a year.

He spouted off jihadist rhetoric lectures to soldiers, when he was supposed to be lecturing about Army psychology, and he recited passages from the Koran and hadiths, constantly.

No one could stop him because Obama (commander in chief) approved of what he was doing. Only a Muslim jihadist could possibly act that way. There is no other answer.

Obama's OK of ISIS activity is more proof of his Islamism, as are many other things (which you never hear on CNN)

Sources? Including for the content of his lectures?
I don't know the regulations about being on-base in civilian clothing.
I don't think that Obama ever knew he existed until the shooting.

Like I say, I don't know the military rules. However, I do know that General Boykin was walking all over the Pentagon spouting fundamentalist "Christian" stuff with "The Christian Embassy" and even wore his uniform to fundamentalist "Christian" rallies. Did Obama or Bush know about this? Do you actually think that presidents know about this stuff?

You are grasping at straws.

You are partially ignorant of important history (no surprise - liberals are all notoriously information deprived), and you are partially pretending. Hard to believe that in 2018, people would not know about this. But that's how it is when yu watch CNN, MSNBC, PBS.

Know about exactly what? What you claim is "truth" has a trail of being made up. Fox? Breitbart, Coulter. Alex Jones? Boykin wasn't at the Pentagon strutting with his cult buddies? Obama and Bush knew about Hasan and Boykin? I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you cheap.

 

[protectionist]

Know about exactly what? What you claim is "truth" has a trail of being made up. Fox? Breitbart, Coulter. Alex Jones? Boykin wasn't at the Pentagon strutting with his cult buddies? Obama and Bush knew about Hasan and Boykin? I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you cheap.

You actually deny that Hasan was jihading to the troops in Fort Hood ? Day-um. You guys are further detached than I thought. Well, I was downloading a video of him doing just that in the earlier stages, when still wearing his uniform, but the download knocked out my minutes.

Until later this month, I'm stuck with this goofy minutes thing. I'll give you the link, At least its a start, but I would suggest you do some reading. I'll give you some suggestions in a few minutes.

I just knocked out a ton of my data. Hope you appreciate.

 

[RealDave]

Donald Trump raped a 13 year old girl & you didn't care.

You show how shallow a poster you are in this forum, With zero evidence, you throw accusations around. By the same token, we could say that YOU raped a 13 year old girl.

A civil suit against Donald Trump alleging he raped a 13-year-old girl was dismissed in California in May 2016, refiled in New York in June 2016, and dropped again in November 2016.

All of the information about this lawsuit comes solely from the complaint filed by a so-called “Katie Johnson,” (unknown if that is a legit name), and no one has as yet located, identified, or interviewed her. She was scheduled to appear at a press conference on 2 November 2016 but didn’t show up.

Looks like somebody was looking to make a big, quick buck, and then got cold feet. Dude, anybody can SAY anything.

The was accused is now grown woman & she had a witness. She dropped the accusation after receiving threats.

And you STILL voted for him so shove your fake concern about rape.

You are just pissed off because you know that it fits into Trmp's mental being. He gropes women & as a thing for underaged girls. Probably why he liked Roy Moore.

 

[RealDave]

Hasan was dishonorably discharged. But what does this have to do with you deliberately falsely reporting Obama's religion?

The point is that Hasan was NOT dishonorably discharged before he slaughtered 13 US Army soldiers and wounded 38 others. He was allowed to walk around in middle eastern clothes instead of his Army uniform, in violation of Army regulations, for almost a year.

He spouted off jihadist rhetoric lectures to soldiers, when he was supposed to be lecturing about Army psychology, and he recited passages from the Koran and hadiths, constantly.

No one could stop him because Obama (commander in chief) approved of what he was doing. Only a Muslim jihadist could possibly act that way. There is no other answer.

Obama's OK of ISIS activity is more proof of his Islamism, as are many other things (which you never hear on CNN)

Wow, and you accused me of making up shit. You are quite the bigoted POS.

I am sue Hassan asked Obama & Obama said it was OK.

Calling Obamaa Muslim fits into your immense stupidity - like the good little Trumpette you are.

 

[protectionist]

Hasan was dishonorably discharged. But what does this have to do with you deliberately falsely reporting Obama's religion?

The point is that Hasan was NOT dishonorably discharged before he slaughtered 13 US Army soldiers and wounded 38 others. He was allowed to walk around in middle eastern clothes instead of his Army uniform, in violation of Army regulations, for almost a year.

He spouted off jihadist rhetoric lectures to soldiers, when he was supposed to be lecturing about Army psychology, and he recited passages from the Koran and hadiths, constantly.

No one could stop him because Obama (commander in chief) approved of what he was doing. Only a Muslim jihadist could possibly act that way. There is no other answer.

Obama's OK of ISIS activity is more proof of his Islamism, as are many other things (which you never hear on CNN)

Sources? Including for the content of his lectures?
I don't know the regulations about being on-base in civilian clothing.
I don't think that Obama ever knew he existed until the shooting.

Like I say, I don't know the military rules. However, I do know that General Boykin was walking all over the Pentagon spouting fundamentalist "Christian" stuff with "The Christian Embassy" and even wore his uniform to fundamentalist "Christian" rallies. Did Obama or Bush know about this? Do you actually think that presidents know about this stuff?

You are grasping at straws.

You are partially ignorant of important history (no surprise - liberals are all notoriously information deprived), and you are partially pretending. Hard to believe that in 2018, people would not know about this. But that's how it is when yu watch CNN, MSNBC, PBS.

Know about exactly what? What you claim is "truth" has a trail of being made up. Fox? Breitbart, Coulter. Alex Jones? Boykin wasn't at the Pentagon strutting with his cult buddies? Obama and Bush knew about Hasan and Boykin? I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you cheap.

For an excellent, powerfully informative account of the Nidal Hasan/Obama connection see >> The Grand Jihad; How Islam and the Left Sabotage America, by Andrew C. McCarthy (lead prosecutor in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing)
Page 357-365.

Remember that Obama doesn't come right out out proclaim himself as a jihadist. He simply wears that by his actions (or more exactly his inactions) And that includes the inactions of HIS agencies >> FBI, Defense Dept investigator, FBI's Joint terrorism Task Force, etc. as for the usually loudmouth media, they said nothing, the Fort Hood officers under DOD gag order.

I'm undergoing a constant hacking attack right now, but I'm fighting my way through it. Cant post as much as I want, but you're getting some good stuff.

 

[RealDave]

Since the crime rate among illegals is lower than US citizens, you are safer living among illegals than your beer guzzling, gun toting, rebel flag carrying buddies.

This is the kind of idiocy we get at USMB. Ho hum. Gag. It's like saying the knowledge of 30 year olds is lower than that of 5 year olds. Pheeeew!

Illegals commit crimes as soon as they enter the US illegally. Duh!

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

Since the crime rate among illegals is lower than US citizens, you are safer living among illegals than your beer guzzling, gun toting, rebel flag carrying buddies.

This is the kind of idiocy we get at USMB. Ho hum. Gag. It's like saying the knowledge of 30 year olds is lower than that of 5 year olds. Pheeeew!

Illegals commit crimes as soon as they enter the US illegally. Duh!

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

Jesus fuck you are stupid. You know damn well what is being discussed but you in your dishonesty & inability to make an argument, fall back on dumb shit like this.

I'd rather live in as community of illegal immigrants than a community of your ilk. I can live better without the bigotry & hate you spew.

 

[protectionist]

The was accused is now grown woman & she had a witness. She dropped the accusation after receiving threats.

And you STILL voted for him so shove your fake concern about rape.

You are just pissed off because you know that it fits into Trmp's mental being. He gropes women & as a thing for underaged girls. Probably why he liked Roy Moore.

ALLEGED threats (so SHE says). You have habit of believing unsubstantiated hearsay, and posting it as if it was established.

Roy Moore's accusations are also unsubstantiated. Your posts are thin as a piece of paper.

 

[Lysistrata]

Know about exactly what? What you claim is "truth" has a trail of being made up. Fox? Breitbart, Coulter. Alex Jones? Boykin wasn't at the Pentagon strutting with his cult buddies? Obama and Bush knew about Hasan and Boykin? I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you cheap.

You actually deny that Hasan was jihading to the troops in Fort Hood ? Day-um. You guys are further detached than I thought. Well, I was downloading a video of him doing just that in the earlier stages, when still wearing his uniform, but the download knocked out my minutes.

Until later this month, I'm stuck with this goofy minutes thing. I'll give you the link, At least its a start, but I would suggest you do some reading. I'll give you some suggestions in a few minutes.

I just knocked out a ton of my data. Hope you appreciate.

Hasan was dishonorably discharged. But what does this have to do with you deliberately falsely reporting Obama's religion?

The point is that Hasan was NOT dishonorably discharged before he slaughtered 13 US Army soldiers and wounded 38 others. He was allowed to walk around in middle eastern clothes instead of his Army uniform, in violation of Army regulations, for almost a year.

He spouted off jihadist rhetoric lectures to soldiers, when he was supposed to be lecturing about Army psychology, and he recited passages from the Koran and hadiths, constantly.

No one could stop him because Obama (commander in chief) approved of what he was doing. Only a Muslim jihadist could possibly act that way. There is no other answer.

Obama's OK of ISIS activity is more proof of his Islamism, as are many other things (which you never hear on CNN)

Sources? Including for the content of his lectures?
I don't know the regulations about being on-base in civilian clothing.
I don't think that Obama ever knew he existed until the shooting.

Like I say, I don't know the military rules. However, I do know that General Boykin was walking all over the Pentagon spouting fundamentalist "Christian" stuff with "The Christian Embassy" and even wore his uniform to fundamentalist "Christian" rallies. Did Obama or Bush know about this? Do you actually think that presidents know about this stuff?

You are grasping at straws.

You are partially ignorant of important history (no surprise - liberals are all notoriously information deprived), and you are partially pretending. Hard to believe that in 2018, people would not know about this. But that's how it is when yu watch CNN, MSNBC, PBS.

How does this relate to Obama. Not only do I want to know how Obama knew about Hasan, but also I want to know whether Bush knew about him. Not only is this from Fox, which is a propaganda machine, but the video states that Hasan's talk occurred in June, 2007. Obama was only sworn in in January, 2009, so what did Bush know about Hasan? What action did Bush take against him?

 

[protectionist]

Jesus fuck you are stupid. You know damn well what is being discussed but you in your dishonesty & inability to make an argument, fall back on dumb shit like this.

I'd rather live in as community of illegal immigrants than a community of your ilk. I can live better without the bigotry & hate you spew.

"Dumb shit" like the LAW, and the millions of illegal invaders who have broken it ? Liberalism is a mental disorder.

As for "hate" it can be good or bad. One thing I hate is imperialist countries (Mexico, China, India, Phillipines, etc) invading my country with millions of illegal aliens, who steal jobs, and pillage the economy for $138 Billion/year (remittances$$$) + tens of Billions$ more in the anchor baby racket, as well as impose all the harms of immigration* upon the American people.

I also hate traitor "Americans" who support all this 21st century style imperialism. Like you.

* Harms of Immigration

1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).

2. Wage reduction.

3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($138 Billion/year).

5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6. Increased crime.

7. Increased traffic congestion.

8. Increased pollution.

9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11. Overcrowding in government offices.

12. Overcrowding in schools.

13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14. Cultural erosion.

15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)

16. Introduction of foreign diseases

17. Influx of terrorists.

 

[Lysistrata]

The was accused is now grown woman & she had a witness. She dropped the accusation after receiving threats.

And you STILL voted for him so shove your fake concern about rape.

You are just pissed off because you know that it fits into Trmp's mental being. He gropes women & as a thing for underaged girls. Probably why he liked Roy Moore.

ALLEGED threats (so SHE says). You have habit of believing unsubstantiated hearsay, and posting it as if it was established.

Roy Moore's accusations are also unsubstantiated. Your posts are thin as a piece of paper.

You believe people very selectively. There are many witnesses against both. Why should we automatically believe in the denials of people who have every reason to lie and disbelieve so many others; people who have no reason to lie? Neither trump nor moore has a good reputation. In fact, both of them have pretty bad reputations.

 

[protectionist]

You believe people very selectively. There are many witnesses against both. Why should we automatically believe in the denials of people who have every reason to lie and disbelieve so many others; people who have no reason to lie? Neither trump nor moore has a good reputation. In fact, both of them have pretty bad reputations.

Reputations aren't validity in American justice. One is INNOCENT unless proven guilty. Neither Moore nor Trump has been proven to be guilty of having done anything illegal.

What we should do is NOTHING, unless clear, undeniable proof if presented.

You are who is believing selectively. My view is I don't know, and thus I don't accuse.

 

[protectionist]

How does this relate to Obama. Not only do I want to know how Obama knew about Hasan, but also I want to know whether Bush knew about him. Not only is this from Fox, which is a propaganda machine, but the video states that Hasan's talk occurred in June, 2007. Obama was only sworn in in January, 2009, so what did Bush know about Hasan? What action did Bush take against him?

Hasan only became radical in 2009, under the tutelage of his mentor al-Awlaki (al Qaeda proselitizer who was later killed by US drones), and when he arrived in Fort Hood in June of 2009. He was entirely Obama's responsibility.

Obama was Commander in Chief of the US military. All the officers in Fort Hood wanted Hasan out. They however, were under the duress of Obama, who outranked all of them. Are you playing dumb ?

Maybe you just don't know the military rankings and responsibilities.
Again see >> The Grand Jihad; How Islam and the Left Sabotage America, by Andrew C. McCarthy (lead prosecutor in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing), Page 357-365.

READ BABY! READ! I challenge you.

 

[Lysistrata]

You believe people very selectively. There are many witnesses against both. Why should we automatically believe in the denials of people who have every reason to lie and disbelieve so many others; people who have no reason to lie? Neither trump nor moore has a good reputation. In fact, both of them have pretty bad reputations.

Reputations aren't validity in American justice. One is INNOCENT unless proven guilty. Neither Moore nor Trump has been proven to be guilty of having done anything illegal.

What we should do is NOTHING, unless clear, undeniable proof if presented.

You are who is believing selectively. My view is I don't know, and thus I don't accuse.

The people who did the accusing know what happened. Do you disbelieve all of the men who accused Catholic priests of misconduct way back when they were boys? Why parade "innocent until guilty," a criminal defense now, when the statutes of limitations have expired for much of this. Do you actually think that all of these people are lying? Given the poor reputations of people like trump and moore, why uphold them? Do you think that all of their accusers have bad reputations? Especially trump, who has admitted to being a whore and a predator for much of his life. moore? What's he got? He has a reputation as being a shit. I don't doubt that he went after teenage girls decades ago. Tell me why their accusers have worse reputations than they have.

 

[protectionist]

The people who did the accusing know what happened. Do you disbelieve all of the men who accused Catholic priests of misconduct way back when they were boys? Why parade "innocent until guilty," a criminal defense now, when the statutes of limitations have expired for much of this. Do you actually think that all of these people are lying? Given the poor reputations of people like trump and moore, why uphold them? Do you think that all of their accusers have bad reputations? Especially trump, who has admitted to being a whore and a predator for much of his life. moore? What's he got? He has a reputation as being a shit. I don't doubt that he went after teenage girls decades ago. Tell me why their accusers have worse reputations than they have.

They could be lying. Absolutely. The loon left is pulling out all the stops to bring down Trump and the GOP Congress. Nothing is beneath these scumbuckets.

I would not say that Moore or Trump has a bad reputation. That's propaganda that you et al simply CHOOSE to believe. You haven't presented a shred of EVIDENCE against Moore or Trump. Just like all the accusers, you're just blowing a lot of hot air around.

 

[Lysistrata]

How does this relate to Obama. Not only do I want to know how Obama knew about Hasan, but also I want to know whether Bush knew about him. Not only is this from Fox, which is a propaganda machine, but the video states that Hasan's talk occurred in June, 2007. Obama was only sworn in in January, 2009, so what did Bush know about Hasan? What action did Bush take against him?

Hasan only became radical in 2009, under the tutelage of his mentor al-Awlaki (al Qaeda proselitizer who was later killed by US drones), and when he arrived in Fort Hood in June of 2009. He was entirely Obama's responsibility.

Obama was Commander in Chief of the US military. All the officers in Fort Hood wanted Hasan out. They however, were under the duress of Obama, who outranked all of them. Are you playing dumb ?

Maybe you just don't know the military rankings and responsibilities.

The people who did the accusing know what happened. Do you disbelieve all of the men who accused Catholic priests of misconduct way back when they were boys? Why parade "innocent until guilty," a criminal defense now, when the statutes of limitations have expired for much of this. Do you actually think that all of these people are lying? Given the poor reputations of people like trump and moore, why uphold them? Do you think that all of their accusers have bad reputations? Especially trump, who has admitted to being a whore and a predator for much of his life. moore? What's he got? He has a reputation as being a shit. I don't doubt that he went after teenage girls decades ago. Tell me why their accusers have worse reputations than they have.

They could be lying. Absolutely. The loon left is pulling out all the stops to bring down Trump and the GOP Congress. Nothing is beneath these scumbuckets.

I would not say that Moore or Trump has a bad reputation. That's propaganda that you et al simply CHOOSE to believe. You haven't presented a shred of EVIDENCE against Moore or Trump. Just like all the accusers, you're just blowing a lot of hot air around.

So you believe them, even after what is on tape from trump, and all of the people who have called him and moore out for wrongdoing. trump has made no secret of being a whore, and moor is a member of a crazy cult that goes after teenagers and then lies about it. Again, what makes their accusers into liars? You are challenging their accusers, but you have no reason to pronounce them liars.

 

[IsaacNewton]

After a while you just go blue, it stays with you. Like Coooostanza.

 

[Rambunctious]

Best reason not to allow your state to go blue;

California!