Now that AG Barr has declared the Constitution null and void, he has presented the American people with a condescending "summary" of the Mueller Report. We prefer to read the real thing.

Collusion and obstructions of justice abound. This is known simply from news reports over the years that have not been denied by the criminal Trump Organization/Administration.

A few examples --- Russia contacts the president's son and offers a meeting in which Hillary will be dissed and the son gleefully accepts the meeting when he should have immediately informed the FBI of election interference by a foreign power. Making matters worse, Trump's crowd lies about the meeting until the son finally confesses. Trump himself is caught lying about it on video.

Campaign Chairman Manafort offers secret GOP internal polling data to a Russian agent presumably to target vulnerable areas in the 2020 election.

The president's son-in-law attempts to create a back-channel communication path to Russia via the Russian Embassy and not detectable by US Intelligence. (Or at least he thought so).

Trump's National Security Advisor met with the Russian Ambassador to discuss eliminating sanctions. This was after previous President Obama warned Trump about Flynn who Obama said was a disaster and which proved to be true.


As a sample of today's distraction du jour, Trump has withdrawn all funding from the Special Olympics in his budget. Can you imagine anything more mean-spirited?

Next is obstruction of justice. Even Barr couldn't bring himself to clearly "exonerate" Trump.

The dufus is on a one man blitz, throwing his weight around and getting out his own narrative well ahead of the facts of the Barr report, which have no facts, just his opinion. He can't afford too much speculation to dampen his base so expect more red meat to the loony crowd. You think he doesn't know that not just Mueller's report, but a few more investigations are aiming right up his wazoo?

He has little choice but to holler and scream while he can. He is good at distraction and changing the subject isn't he?

He is good at distraction and changing the subject isn't he?


Isn't that what its all about? So what your saying is that Trump, is 'the Master' of the politics of distraction.


WE WIN!!

Once again, nothing to see here, it is old news

Isn't that what its all about? So what your saying is that Trump, is 'the Master' of the politics of distraction.


WE WIN!!


He is also a con man, grifter, and a liar and cheater. Is that the standard for good behavior from the WH?


Once again, nothing to see here, it is old news

LOL, don't be distracted or fooled as there is more to be revealed besides the report by Roy Cohen... I mean Dufus appointee AG William Barr's Summary.

Once again, nothing to see here, it is old news

So true. The hatred of Trump on this board is really amazing to watch. The party of tolerance has become the party of hatred and insult.

The party of tolerance has become the party of hatred and insult.
Anyone wanna mention Hillary's name? or Obama's? Wonder what the other party's members would say...have said....

To be critical is one thing. To use hateful and offensive language is a different matter. And yes, Trump is a great offender in that regard, but he is no worse than some posters on this board.

So true. The hatred of Trump on this board is really amazing to watch. The party of tolerance has become the party of hatred and insult.

Focused ENTIRELY on the one who hates and insults others, along with his aiders, abettors, and sycophants who accepts his behavior as our president , and how easily you turn the other cheek (Not specifying which check). His words and behavior at his Michigan rally disgusts me.

Focused ENTIRELY on the one who hates and insults others, along with his aiders, abettors, and sycophants who accepts his behavior as our president , and how easily you turn the other cheek (Not specifying which check). His words and behavior at his Michigan rally disgusts me.

I have no problem with being critical of the pres, and have done so myself, but I would suggest that if you don't like hateful, insulting speech, then set a good example by not using it yourself.

I don't consider the truth as being hateful or insulting.

And yes, Trump is a great offender in that regard, but he is no worse than some posters on this board.
No one on this board has ever come CLOSE to the hate and scorn and ridicule and vituperation and mockery and bullying (I could list more....) that Trump spits out.

Again, a convenient position for a liberal to take.

Again, a convenient position for a liberal to take.
I'm a Republican. I know hate and scorn and ridicule etc. when I hear and see it.

I didn't say you were a democrat. I said you were a liberal. Just going on your support of issues, that sure seems to be the case. As to scorn and ridicule, I'm glad to find out you oppose the scorn and ridicule directed at Trump on this board.

Focused ENTIRELY on the one who hates and insults others, along with his aiders, abettors, and sycophants who accepts his behavior as our president



All's I hear is somebody hollering foul, foul!!!

What would you suggest Trump supporters do?


He sucked everybody into playing his game, from the start ( Remember nobody wanted to respond to his ridiculousness...but they all fell for it)...lets all talk sh*te. It doesn't mean anything when somebody talks sh*te (I'm a Racist if I didn't vote for Obama, I'm a sexist if I don't vote for Hilary, I'm a homophobe if I don't support Same sex marriage, I'm a Jesus freak if I speak of truth on and on it goes)...Actions speak louder than words.


I believe Trump is trying his best. The economy is doing Great. People are tired of the Dems bullsh*te as well. People seem to prefer Trumps bullsh*te over Dems bullsh*te...AND YOUZ GOTS TO LIVE WITH IT! Dems the Rules.



The Dems don't (they never did) want to play by the rules. They are two faced and Have no Honor. After all this the Dems call foul, how childish.








No one on this board has ever come CLOSE to the hate and scorn and ridicule and vituperation and mockery and bullying (I could list more....) that Trump spits out.



Keep working on it...The night is still young.

I didn't say you were a democrat. I said you were a liberal. Just going on your support of issues, that sure seems to be the case. As to scorn and ridicule, I'm glad to find out you oppose the scorn and ridicule directed at Trump on this board.
I am conservative at times. I try to maintain a good balance so I obey the two greatest commandments. Trump's behavior and words make me very sad -- me as an educator, as a librarian, and as a psychotherapist.

His mean and bullying nicknames for just a few people who have dared disagree with him:
Kim Jong-un "Rocket Man"
Steve Bannon "Sloppy Steve"
Hillary Clinton "Croked Hillary"
Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas"
Chuck Schumer "Cryin' Chuck"
Jeb Bush "Low Energy Jeb"
Bernie Sanders "Crazy Bernie"
Ted Cruz "Lyin' Ted"
Al Franken "Al Frankenstein"
Marco Rubio "Little Marco"
Adam Schiff "Pencil Neck"

What nickname would he give YOU?

Rather similar to someone calling him "Dufus"? Why is it you have a problem with Trump calling others names, but no problem with others calling him names?

No one on this board has ever come CLOSE to the hate and scorn and ridicule and vituperation and mockery and bullying (I could list more....) that Trump spits out.


You are 100% correct. No one on this board comes close to the incredible nastiness that Trump exhibits on a daily basis. By now, the entire planet is aware that Trump is a psychological mess, and a madman like Trump is to be feared because he has his his fingers on WMD. He is unique in American history.

His sycophants on this board are quick to condemn his bizarre behavior while praising what he has done "for the economy". The truth is that he has done nothing for the economy. In fact, his economic policies have been destructive - tariffs that he doesn't understand and are ruinous to American business, flamboyant promises about bringing back manufacturing and mining that are complete fabrications, much ballyhooed income tax policies that have not remotely produced the revenue he swore they would do (and which he said he and his rich friends would be hurt by because the benefits went to the middle class - HOGWASH!), and more and more.

The good economic situation the nation is experiencing is a result of Obama's corrective policies which brought us (and the world) out of the Republican-fostered Great Recession. Even economists from both sides of the aisle agree.

Trump is a master at self-promotion. Other than his silly television show where he gained such notoriety, he is an abysmal failure. Had he placed his inheritance in the stock market, he would have gained much more wealth than his disastrous forays into airlines, vodka, steaks, casinos (who but Trump ever lost money in a casino? - 4 bankruptcies), Trump University - an out and out fraud which cost him $25 million in penalties after swearing he would forever fight the lawsuit), and a dozen or so more failures.

Worse than Trump are the Republicans who rarely utter a peep about what he's doing to the country and the planet. That includes his supporters here.

America will get over Trump as he becomes a bad memory. But the rest of the world will forever remember that this great nation once elected a proto-fascist to lead it.

He's the president and his bad words, bad actions, and bad behavior deserve calling out, and he deserves close scrutiny by his opposition. You supporters may as well get use to the opposing views, but if you want civility and fair debate, then learn to read links. Otherwise don't throw rocks and not expect them to come back.

You shouldn't take such criticism of yo' boy personally, it's not you, it's ALL him!

His sycophants on this board are quick to condemn his bizarre behavior while praising what he has done "for the economy". The truth is that he has done nothing for the economy. In fact, his economic policies have been destructive - tariffs that he doesn't understand and are ruinous to American business, flamboyant promises about bringing back manufacturing and mining that are complete fabrications, much ballyhooed income tax policies that have not remotely produced the revenue he swore they would do (and which he said he and his rich friends would be hurt by because the benefits went to the middle class - HOGWASH!), and more and more.

So many false statements. The economy has added more than a half million manufacturing jobs and is adding those jobs at a rate better than in the past twenty years, but he has done nothing for the economy? Wow. What a statement. The entire paragraph above is just an example of name-calling (sycophants) and Trump hatred so extreme that you cannot see the plain truth. Obama had eight years and never produced a healthy economy. It was the slowest recovery from a recession in history.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-why-manufacturing-jobs-growth-has-been-so-strong-2018-08-03

If you don't like Trump, then I can understand that. He has a loud, undisciplined mouth. He is arrogant. We are still engaged in deficit spending, much like Obama did. I get all of that. But his policies have led to an economic revival such as we have not seen in a long time. He has appointed conservative judges who actually believe in the rule of law and not just making it up as they go along. He takes our southern border and North Korea seriously and continues to support religious liberty and traditional marriage. All of this makes him, in my mind, far superior to the consummate politician we had before, and certainly better than the most corrupt politician of my lifetime, HC.



but if you want civility

I guess you don't see the humor in that quote. If You want to continually call him "Dufus" and his supporters (which does not include me) "sycophants", then that's fine until you want to start accusing Trump of using name-calling and offensive language which is, of course, the very thing you are doing. If it's wrong for him, then it's wrong for you as well. But I will admit you do pretty well, all in all, and if you want to accuse me of nit-picking, then you might be about half right.

Now that AG Barr has declared the Constitution null and void, he has presented the American people with a condescending "summary" of the Mueller Report. We prefer to read the real thing. agreed ;the rest of the op is not worth responding to except that a full copy with redactions agreed to by Mueller will be released to Congress by 4/15 . Mueller has NOT disputed Barr's contention that he found no evidence of collusion . As for obstruction ; Barr AND Dep AG Rosenstein BOTH read Mueller's report and determined that there were no grounds for the charge of obstruction . Recall ;Rosenstein BOTH advised Trump to fire Comey AND appointed Mueller .

There will be redactions based on the well known standards of protection of source and methods ; information that would compromise ongoing investigations that Mueller punted to district courts and Grand Jury proceedings . I don't like it but that is the standards and in no way does it suggest cover up .

I see a protracted legal battle between congress and DOJ to get the full unredacted report, and there is precedence set by the Watergate prosecutors. I think the House has a legal standing and obligation to view and evaluate any evidence concerning oversight of the executive branch even if the DOJ is constrained to do so. Barr may just be buying time for the dufus to poison the well and would be wise to avoid a cover up, or obstruction himself.

You had to see this coming even before Barr was appointed. Even if the dufus gets re-elected, like Nixon did, he will still have some explaining to do. It will be a fascinating chess game this summer.

It's over. There was no collusion. Time for the suffering democrats to get over their supreme disappointment.

I say there was no collusion. I refer, of course, to collusion with Russia. Now if you want to talk about collusion between the Clinton campaign and the DNC, not to mention CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and much of the rest of the news media, to get her nominated and then elected, then you are on the right track. And that is what should worry us far more that any minor interference the Russians might have engaged in.

This has to have been the biggest non event in history, but then it is beside those other non events of the Trump presidency

I think the process is just getting started and you both should try and keep up. You both seem to be rather stuck.

Two years and the process is just getting started, spare my days or is that daze

Two years and the process is just getting started, spare my days or is that daze

My thought exactly .

LOL, the Clintons have had so many investigations over the years, I lost count and they are still calling for MORE. You complain about two years investigating the dufus as too long.

That's the definition of HYPOCRISY.

LOL, the Clintons have had so many investigations over the years, I lost count and they are still calling for MORE. You complain about two years investigating the dufus as too long.

That's the definition of HYPOCRISY.

Do you think it might be because there is some substance to why they should be investigated

Do you think it might be because there is some substance to why they should be investigated?

As much as I would love to see the Clinton Foundation investigated, I guess we should just be deliriously happy she is not pres and move on. Too many problems to solve to spend much time arguing about that, especially now that it's become clear that there was no Russian collusion. Let's move on and try and solve some problems.

You've obviously read the Mueller report so care to share?

You've obviously read the Mueller report so care to share?

Still clinging to your last desperate hope, I see. Good luck with that.

You don't mind if we wait for the details rather than the limited Barr Summation do you? That's hardly desperation just prudent due diligence. Trust but VERIFY kind of thing.

That's hardly desperation just prudent due diligence.

You didn't feel that way when it was Kavanaugh's rear end on the line. No evidence whatsoever other than the ramblings of pretty forgetful woman. Where was the due diligence then?

Sure I did, but the senate sham incompetent investigation didn't pass the smell test unlike the efficient comprehensive Mueller Investigation.

Sure I did, but the senate sham incompetent investigation didn't pass the smell test unlike the efficient comprehensive Mueller Investigation.

An efficient investigation which disproved the prime terms of reference and still you won't let go

I doubt you have read Mueller's report either Clete and that's what we have been waiting for. Until that happens we have no facts despite the dufus victory lap.

I doubt you have read Mueller's report either Clete and that's what we have been waiting for. Until that happens we have no facts despite the dufus victory lap.

It seems you disbelieve everything the administration says, even the AG. You think the devil is in the detail or in the White House, but he has resided in the White House for a long time

You will get Mueller's report, or at least a redacted version which is what is required by law. And no doubt the dems will find sentences and phrases which seem to show that martians really landed in New Mexico or whatever. There is such a hatred of Trump that dems latch on to any desperate hope they can find. They have let the likes of Maxine Waters drive this ridiculous impeachment conversation to the place where they have forgotten the American people. In the meantime, we continue to run up debt like drunken sailors, but no one pays attention to that because of the smelly politics in the whole thing. It makes me glad to be a citizen of heaven and to be serving the one true King.

It seems you disbelieve everything the administration says, even the AG. You think the devil is in the detail or in the White House, but he has resided in the White House for a long time

Trust but verify, but I admit I do not trust the dufus or his sycophants at all so show me the details. That's FAIR isn't it.

You will get Mueller's report, or at least a redacted version which is what is required by law. And no doubt the dems will find sentences and phrases which seem to show that martians really landed in New Mexico or whatever. There is such a hatred of Trump that dems latch on to any desperate hope they can find. They have let the likes of Maxine Waters drive this ridiculous impeachment conversation to the place where they have forgotten the American people. In the meantime, we continue to run up debt like drunken sailors, but no one pays attention to that because of the smelly politics in the whole thing. It makes me glad to be a citizen of heaven and to be serving the one true King.

The law requires that House has the full report in which to exercise their due diligience of oversight as written in the Constitution. I can agree with your concerns of debt, or more broadly fiscal management, but you like your tax cuts, but you cannot hide behind your dual citizenship of heaven and Earth but follow a devil down his path.

The law requires that House has the full report in which to exercise their due diligience of oversight as written in the Constitution.

What law is that?


you cannot hide behind your dual citizenship of heaven and Earth but follow a devil down his path.

More name calling. Are you taking lessons from Mr. Trump?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_oversight

Is it name calling, or the truth?

Is it name calling, or the truth?

I didn't take your link since I'm pretty sure President Trump is not a devil.

The link was to the law as applicable to why the dems house can LEGALLY get the unredacted Mueller report. You asked, I provided.

The link was to the law as applicable to why the dems house can LEGALLY get the unredacted Mueller report. You asked, I provided.
And Sneaky Barr said the complete report will be available to Congress on April 15. Congress goes on its Spring break April 12.

The link was to the law

No, the link was to a Wiki article giving a general overview of the function of the Congress. Nice try.


Sneaky Barr I thought you were opposed to name calling.

And you need to dig a little deeper. The Congress will get a redacted version.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/29/708128772/mueller-report-to-be-given-to-congress-by-mid-april-attorney-general-barr-says

"Nadler and other Democrats had asked for a complete release by April 2 (https://www.npr.org/2019/03/28/707622007/democrats-demand-full-mueller-report-lay-out-argument-for-continued-investigatio), but Barr said it would a take little longer to make the necessary redactions to protect grand jury material, sources and methods, and ongoing investigations, a process that Mueller is assisting in."

You have a problem with the intelligence committee seeing the unredacted version? What are you guys hiding?

You have a problem with the intelligence committee seeing the unredacted version? What are you guys hiding?

I don't know who the "you guys" are, but I have no interest at all in not letting them see the entire report. The law, however, at least as I understand it, does not allow for it. But that's OK. You dems are starting to look like unreasonable fanatics when you refuse to just quietly step back and move on.

There is a process in place for the AG to release an unredacted copy to the Intel committee IMMEDIATELY. It was used by Jaworski in the Watergate investigation. Barr knows that. That's okay. There is a legal remedy available to the congress also.

What you don't know how to handle lying, cheating, bullies? Giving them what they want is not an option. Step back quietly indeed!

There is a process in place for the AG to release an unredacted copy to the Intel committee IMMEDIATELY. It was used by Jaworski in the Watergate investigation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Jaworski's report contained any grand jury testimony. That is the part that is protected by law and is to be confidential.

Keep going with this. Trump probably loves it because the public is starting to see this for what it's been all along, which is an effort by the "hate Trump" crowd to get to him at any price. It has very little, in my view, to do with justice. It is just a vindictive effort to get to Trump.

Secret from the public yes, and considering the grand jury's work is still proceeding rightfully so, but that shouldn't stop it from being held from the Intell committee, who gets briefed at the highest levels of any ongoing investigations by the intelligence community on a regular basis.

Regardless the hate the dufus crowd is bigger than you think, and his supporters are hardly a majority of the country. Besides the vast majority wants to know what Mueller found even repubs and dufus supporters. Unlike you who may believe his lie, he has not been exonerated by ANYBODY of obstruction of justice.

You can quietly back away and move on if you want to. I expect dems to press forward, despite what the right wing noise machine or the dufus says.

Nadler is a phony . When the Starr report was ready and the law required it's full release ;Nadler did all he could to prevent it's release .

You know and I know that it would be illegal to release Mueller's report unedited .
He can't release materials about ongoing investigations, classified materials, disputes among prosecutors as to the meaning of the law.
Mueller indicted 37 people and probably investigated more than that and many of them were not indicted, and material about them can't be released legally .Assuming Trump waived his right to privacy or executive privilege ,there are still parts of the report that cant be released as much as you and I wish so.

We may never see it, but for sure our lawmakers should under classification of course. Nadler may have failed before, but I think that he may prevail on this one. Might take a while since Starr was more than happy to squeal on Clinton. Barr will protect the dufus though as much as he can, for as long as he can.

Every republican in Washington is hoping the dems continue this ridiculous witch hunt. It makes them look sillier by the day.

Maybe so, but as more is revealed you may be glad dems are doing their due diligence. TRUST BUT VERIFY! What's forgotten in all this is all the witches that have been caught.

Some witch hunt!

After 4 times over a few years, Trump can't even remember where his father was born. He keeps saying Germany instead of New York City, the actual birthplace. Even after several corrections by his staff, he continues to give the wrong location. The man is clearly mentally disabled. No joke.

His tweet shrieks are getting shriller and shriller as the noose tightens. The committee that wrote the Mueller report claims Barr misrepresented the report. Is anybody surprised that Trump's flunky Barr did that? The committee says there's a lot of bad info about Trump that Barr simply ignored.

To top it all off, another committee is legally demanding Trump's tax returns for the last six years. Individual and corporate.

Funny thing about Trump - you'd think that for the thousands of dollars he spends on a suit and a topcoat, he could get them to fit. Weird.

Keep on dreaming.

Keep on dreaming.

Wake up!

"The noose is tightening." No, the Mueller report has basically exonerated Trump.

"His tweet shrieks are getting shriller and shriller." Fair enough statement.

"The man is clearly mentally disabled." Ridiculous statement.

As to his tax returns, it's just yet another example of the sickening fishing expedition the dems see themselves on and a gross overreach of federal power which should alarm everyone. Every person's tax returns are confidential. The IRS seems to have no problems with them. It is no one's business but Trump's.

Until we see the Mueller report, exoneration is an unsubstantiated opinion. Congress has the power and authority to see the presidents tax return, that's just the law, and to add it's our business to scrutinize the fellow in the white house diligently. You may want to take the word of a lying, cheater as fact, many are NOT, and we who do not require more answers to our questions. That's just due diligence no matter how you spin it.

Such scrutiny is part of the job JL.

1. Barr did not write the summary alone . He wrote it WITH Mueller and Rod Rosenstein . Do you really think either of them would be involved in covering up the content of the report if it in any way revealed criminal obstruction ;or that Trump colluded with the Russians ?

2.Congress can TRY to obtain Trump's tax returns by making a request to Sec Treasury Steve Mnuchin under §6103 .It is doubtful he will honor the request . Maybe a so called whistlblower in the IRS could hand them over . But they would then be illegally obtained . There is no valid or justifiable reason to access the president’s returns other than the political quest to arm the Democrats with unsavory allegations against Trump. They certainly have not argued any real legislative reason for wanting the see them .

jilsenbe has a good point . He has had his taxes audited by the IRS ;including under the politicized IRS of the emperor's reign . You know ;the IRS that was targeting conservative groups to deny them non-profit status ? That IRS . And they found nothing .Mueller almost certainly got his hands on Trump's returns during the course of his investigation. IF there were anything wrong with them we would've already heard about it .

1. Barr did not write the summary alone . He wrote it WITH Mueller and Rod Rosenstein .
Where did you read that?

Two officials with knowledge of Barr’s thinking suggested that in writing his summary, Barr was cautious about deviating from a Justice Department practice to “not disclose derogatory details in closing an investigation."

1. Barr did not write the summary alone . He wrote it WITH Mueller and Rod Rosenstein . Do you really think either of them would be involved in covering up the content of the report if it in any way revealed criminal obstruction ;or that Trump colluded with the Russians ?

2.Congress can TRY to obtain Trump's tax returns by making a request to Sec Treasury Steve Mnuchin under §6103 .It is doubtful he will honor the request . Maybe a so called whistlblower in the IRS could hand them over . But they would then be illegally obtained . There is no valid or justifiable reason to access the president’s returns other than the political quest to arm the Democrats with unsavory allegations against Trump. They certainly have not argued any real legislative reason for wanting the see them .

jilsenbe has a good point . He has had his taxes audited by the IRS ;including under the politicized IRS of the emperor's reign . You know ;the IRS that was targeting conservative groups to deny them non-profit status ? That IRS . And they found nothing .Mueller almost certainly got his hands on Trump's returns during the course of his investigation. IF there were anything wrong with them we would've already heard about it .

You make a lot of assumptions not based in facts, but the process is the process and the politics is not lost on any of us. The dufus boys will fight, and so will the dems. This is a popcorn match up for me as things develop. For the rest it appears we just root for our team and see what comes of it. The Dufus's basic tactic though is tie things up in court, so he probably has a lot of lawyers ready to go.

You may want to take the word of a lying, cheater as fact

Oh please. That's exactly what you did with Hillary and Obama, so don't be so quick to judge.

I am taking the word of Barr. In what way has he demonstrated himself to be a liar and a cheater?

Tomder, please post the link where Barr said he wrote his summary with Mueller's and Rosenstein's input.

That is what Tomder contended. Barr would only be lying is BARR said he did that when in fact he did not.

My understanding is the Barr is presently working with Mueller to decide what needs to be redacted.

yeah like the courts have been his friend.

Mueller has been great at redacting his own court filings so I'm dubious if he suddenly needed Barr to do it for him.

The economy has added more than a half million manufacturing jobs and is adding those jobs at a rate better than in the past twenty years, Obama had eight years and never produced a healthy economy. It was the slowest recovery from a recession in history.


I meant to type mining but manufacturing got in there - my error. Obama brought us out of the recession which you acknowledged in a backhanded way. For hate, nothing surpasses the comments of you and yours re Obama and the Clintons.



But his policies have led to an economic revival such as we have not seen in a long time.


The revival began with Obama. Look it up.



He has appointed conservative judges. He takes our southern border and North Korea seriously and continues to support religious liberty and traditional marriage. All of this makes him, in my mind, far superior to the consummate politician we had before, and certainly better than the most corrupt politician of my lifetime, HC.


He is supposed to appoint judges who are guided by the LAW, not by an ideology. What he has done with the southern border is arguably the worst thing he has done out of many many disgusting things. Children in cages, separated from their mothers! He has now given a murderous madmen in North Korea standing in the world and he says he loves him. And all this makes him, IN YOUR MIND, far superior to Hillary Clinton. Your hatred is showing.


He says he can't release his tax returns because they're being audited. An audit has nothing to do with releasing a tax return. Nixon released his under audit.

He gets more and more confused on a daily basis. He still hasn't figured out that his father wasn't born in Germany. Today he walked his threats against Mexico back when somebody informed him what a disaster that would be for the economy. So he went back to tariffs - a simple concept he seems unable to grasp. But he graduated with honors and uses big words. So sad.

I was mistaken when suggesting that Mueller assisted in writing the Barr letter . I was not mistaken in saying Att Gen Rosenstien (who appointed Mueller ,and volunteered to wire up to attempt a 25th Amendment coup on Trump ...in other words ,no fan of the President ) assisted Barr in writing the letter . I am also correct in noting that Mueller is assisting Barr in preparing the redactions for the release of Mueller's report to Congress (not to the public).

In doing this I am sure they are taking in the recent DC circus court decision McKeever v Barr that supports Rule 6(e) of the Federal rules of Criminal Procedure that Grand Jury proceedings cannot be disclosed .At very least ,Barr and Mueller Must redact any information that was obtained by a Grand Jury proceeding . They also will do the standard redactions protecting sources and methods ,and classified information .

Although all of us would like to see the report un-redacted ;and some of us would also like to see the full disclosure of the filing that led to the FISA approvals that permitted the emperor's justice Dept to spy on an opposing Presidential campaign ;it just is not going to happen . So the bleating cries of 'cover up ' will continue .

Although all of us would like to see the report un-redacted ;and some of us would also like to see the full disclosure of the filing that led to the FISA approvals that permitted the emperor's justice Dept to spy on an opposing Presidential campaign ;it just is not going to happen . So the bleating cries of 'cover up ' will continue .

Probably true. Core values are becoming so wildly different amongst various groups that it is hard to see how we will be able to hold together. When liberals argue that late term abortions and even infanticide are perfectly acceptable, then I don't know how that gap can be bridged.

JL: When liberals argue that late term abortions and even infanticide are perfectly acceptable...
How can Republicans scream that abortion (of white fetuses...) is a sin, yet allow (brown) refugee and migrant babies and children suffer and die? Hmmm, methinks I've figured it out.

How can Republicans scream that abortion (of white fetuses...) is a sin, yet allow (brown) refugee and migrant babies and children suffer and die? Hmmm, methinks I've figured it out.

Big difference. No republican advocates what you have stated, and I challenge you to find a single quote from any prominent republican which would show that. On the other hand, every prominent dem I can think of is in favor of late term abortions, and several have advocated for infanticide.

For someone who claims to be against hate speech, you sure are dabbling in it yourself. Your post so illustrates what I have observed in liberals. Since the truth is not favorable to you, then just make things up. That was a disappointing post, and most especially what your last sentence seemed to infer.

And many repubs like you are just plain against ALL abortions for any reason. So what?

JL: No republican advocates what you have stated, and I challenge you to find a single quote from any prominent republican which would show that.
Of course, no repub is going to actually SAY that. Why is it implied and actually happening that way?

Of course, no repub is going to actually SAY that.

Which is why you had to make the whole thing up. Hmmm. Methinks I've figured out why.

Like wind mills cause cancer? That kind of making stuff up? Nothing wrong with being pro life, but making stuff up about all dems support late term abortions on demand is a straight up fallacy, and I guess you think repubs women never have legal abortions too?

OK. Tell me which dem candidate for president does not support late term abortions.

You tell us since all the dems have been messaging health care, and kitchen table issues, and not those social issues that the right wing gets hyped about.

They all support late term abortions, so now you might want to simply admit you were the one making things up.

Show me your evidence.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/2020-democrat-hopefuls-united-against-life-marriage-religious-freedom

OK. Tell me which dem candidate for president does not support late term abortions.
And how about repub candidates and repubs in general? How many have encouraged and even paid for girlfriends' or wives' abortions?

Barr said that Mueller was given the opportunity to review the summary Barr released last month detailing the Mueller's conclusions, and the special counsel declined to do so.https://www.channel3000.com/news/politics/national-politics/barr-faces-congress-for-first-time-since-end-of-mueller-investigation/1067229728

How many have encouraged and even paid for girlfriends' or wives' abortions?

1. I don't know. How many of the last round of republican candidates for the nomination can you say for sure either encouraged or paid for an abortion for a wife/girlfriend?
2. That shouldn't bother you since you seem to be fine with abortion.

It's none of your business whether women make the choice for abortions and totally irrelevant who is for them or not. The law is cllear on first and second trimester abortions being LEGAL.


Barr said that Mueller was given the opportunity to review the summary Barr released last month detailing the Mueller's conclusions, and the special counsel declined to do so.https://www.channel3000.com/news/pol...ion/1067229728 (https://www.channel3000.com/news/politics/national-politics/barr-faces-congress-for-first-time-since-end-of-mueller-investigation/1067229728)

I watched his rather good sidestep of questions but like he said he made his moves and the congress will make theirs. In other words the 4 step stall is in effect.

2. That shouldn't bother you since you seem to be fine with abortion.
Not true! Stop making blanket statements.

It's none of your business whether women make the choice for abortions and totally irrelevant who is for them or not. The law is cllear on first and second trimester abortions being LEGAL.

First of all, the law is most certainly not clear. It varies from state to state. But even if that was true, the law about slavery was crystal clear prior to 1861. Would you have suggested to someone that it was none of their business whether someone owns slaves? Thank goodness the abolitionists did not hold to your philosophy.


Not true! Stop making blanket statements.

I'm just going on your complete refusal to ever take a stand against abortion when it comes up for discussion on this board, such as right now. If you are opposed to abortion, then be opposed to it 24/7. Take a clear stand and oppose it. Otherwise it seems strange to protest the rather obvious conclusions others reach about your position.

First of all, the law is most certainly not clear. It varies from state to state. But even if that was true, the law about slavery was crystal clear prior to 1861. Would you have suggested to someone that it was none of their business whether someone owns slaves? Thank goodness the abolitionists did not hold to your philosophy.

Now you conflate abortion to slavery. That's mighty self righteous of you, and rather insulting. Even more insulting is putting your opinions on others in so disgusting a manner. I understand WG's position quite well and respect it even though you don't.

Abortion is the killing of innocent human lives. It doesn't bother you and I get that, but I will oppose it to my dying day. And I'll say it again. I'm glad the abolitionists didn't have a philosophy of not bothering to protest something simply because it is legal.

BTW, WG won't come out and say it very often, but she says she is against abortion, so perhaps you don't know her position well at all.

BTW, WG won't come out and say it very often, but she says she is against abortion, so perhaps you don't know her position well at all.
You're not a good listener, ummm reader. You still haven't told me who's going to take care of all those babies, especially the disabled and brain-dead and deformed ones.

Republicans and abortion: "Do as I say, not as I do."

You're not a good listener, ummm reader. You still haven't told me who's going to take care of all those babies, especially the disabled and brain-dead and deformed ones.

Republicans and abortion: "Do as I say, not as I do."

OK. Fine. Tell us your position. Are you in favor of abortion or opposed to it? You have said in the past you are opposed, but it's like pulling teeth to get you to actually come forward and take a stand. What is your position??

Man are you a pain! She is against it but doesn't get all militantly in the personal business of others and has stated repeatedly all the drawbacks of your types who insist on making law to control the personal choices of others. You have life and BS all mixed up. Even I am against abortions and think there is a better way, but life and people are not always in sync with that notion or evidently yours.

I think you're like a dead beat dad who refuses to take responsibility for creating life. When will you recognize that multiplying is what life does on this planet beyond anything else. You should be passing out pills for the morning after, instead of trying to stop a human from the prime function.

OK. Fine. Tell us your position. Are you in favor of abortion or opposed to it? You have said in the past you are opposed, but it's like pulling teeth to get you to actually come forward and take a stand. What is your position??
If the pregnant female has talked with her parents (yes, even very young women get abortions), her doctor, her spouse or boyfriend and the pregnancy is in the first trimester, I have no objection to abortion. If the female is pregnant because of rape or incest, I would encourage abortion as soon as possible. If the fetus has been found to be defective in some way, the female, her partner, and the doctor should thoroughly discuss all the ramifications of delivering the baby or aborting it. In general, Christians have no legal and moral right to force their beliefs (in this case, abortion) on anyone else.

Now, JL, please answer MY question.

In general, Christians have no legal and moral right to force their beliefs (in this case, abortion) on anyone else.

1. So ONLY Christians cannot force their beliefs on others, or is that true for everyone?
2. Surely you can see the foolishness of that line of argument. You just got through saying what you believe should happen in various situations, but then say that Christians have no right to force their beliefs on others. But isn't that exactly what you are doing? "Wondergirl believes you should not force your beliefs on others, so WG will force that belief upon you." How convenient for you.

As to your question, who takes care of the children now? And if there are not enough people to take care of them, can we just kill them? Please explain to me the difference between killing the child before birth and killing the child after birth. I also don't understand why it would alright to kill an unborn child with serious physical/mental problems, but not OK to kill the child after he/she is born. Why do you draw that distinction?

Perhaps we would be better served to determine, as a nation, that children are truly valuable, so much so that becoming pregnant, or fathering a child, is a genuinely serious matter, and that every child should be raised in a family with a mother and father. We could further decide that sex is intended for the marriage relationship and is not a recreational activity. I doubt we will do that because that would cause us to actually have to shoulder responsibility, so we will continue to watch movies and television shows that glorify the exact opposite. The answer is actually rather simple, but it inconveniences us, so we reject it. That is the great wickedness of this age.

Would you be OK with abortion in the first trimester on the basis on gender selection?

1. So ONLY Christians cannot force their beliefs on others, or is that true for everyone?
Do you want Sikhs or Muslims or atheists or PETA or evolutionists to force their beliefs on you?

2. Surely you can see the foolishness of that line of argument. You just got through saying what you believe should happen in various situations, but then say that Christians have no right to force their beliefs on others. But isn't that exactly what you are doing? "Wondergirl believes you should not force your beliefs on others, so WG will force that belief upon you." How convenient for you.
You asked what I believe. I told you. Now you're saying my opinion has become universal truth and I'm forcing my belief on others? I shouldn't have bothered....

As to your question, who takes care of the children now? And if there are not enough people to take care of them, can we just kill them? Please explain to me the difference between killing the child before birth and killing the child after birth. I also don't understand why it would alright to kill an unborn child with serious physical/mental problems, but not OK to kill the child after he/she is born. Why do you draw that distinction?
Again, you refuse to answer my honest question. Females get pregnant with children they can't take care of for whatever reason. Then what?

Perhaps we would be better served to determine, as a nation, that children are truly valuable, so much so that becoming pregnant, or fathering a child, is a genuinely serious matter, and that every child should be raised in a family with a mother and father. We could further decide that sex is intended for the marriage relationship and is not a recreational activity. I doubt we will do that because that would cause us to actually have to shoulder responsibility, so we will continue to watch movies and television shows that glorify the exact opposite. The answer is actually rather simple, but it inconveniences us, so we reject it. That is the great wickedness of this age.
That's why I suggested males be rendered sterile until such time they are willing to marry and have a family they will support. Then, the couple can have their fun without worry.

Would you be OK with abortion in the first trimester on the basis on gender selection?
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Again, you refuse to answer my honest question. Females get pregnant with children they can't take care of for whatever reason. Then what?

I did answer it. Who takes care of them now? Would not the same people take care of them? But if it's too much bother, then I suppose we can just kill them. You did not tell me why it would be OK to kill a physically/mentally disabled child a month prior to birth, but not OK a month after. That, after all, seems to be your position. I don't understand it. I would think that if it is wrong after birth, then it would be wrong before birth. That is, in fact, my view on it. Life is sacred.


You asked what I believe. I told you. Now you're saying my opinion has become universal truth and I'm forcing my belief on others? I shouldn't have bothered....

I think you know exactly what I'm talking about. You have a belief that I should not be able to force my belief on others, so you are prepared to insist that I follow your belief. You are doing exactly what you profess to object to.

Are you OK with couple deciding to abort a baby at ten weeks if the baby is female but they want a boy? No other reason that that.

I did answer it. Who takes care of them now? Would not the same people take care of them? But if it's too much bother, then I suppose we can just kill them. You did not tell me why it would be OK to kill a physically/mentally disabled child a month prior to birth, but not OK a month after. That, after all, seems to be your position. I don't understand it. I would think that if it is wrong after birth, then it would be wrong before birth. That is, in fact, my view on it. Life is sacred.

I think you know exactly what I'm talking about. You have a belief that I should not be able to force my belief on others, so you are prepared to insist that I follow your belief. You are doing exactly what you profess to object to.

Are you OK with couple deciding to abort a baby at ten weeks if the baby is female but they want a boy? No other reason that that.
Apparently I'm going to have to drive to Mississippi and meet with you at the local IHOP or maybe McDonald's so we can hash this out in person. You don't answer my questions, and you claim I don't answer yours. I'll blame the Internet now. Maybe the fault lies elsewhere.

Drive carefully! (need a smiley face here)

I'll try one more time. Who will take care of those babies? Who takes care of them now? Moms, dads, grandparents, brothers, sisters, etc.

Drive carefully! (need a smiley face here)

I'll try one more time. Who will take care of those babies? Who takes care of them now? Moms, dads, grandparents, brothers, sisters, etc.
My question: "Females get pregnant with children they can't take care of for whatever reason. Then what?"
My answer: Nobody takes care of them. The fetuses were aborted. Had they not been, who knows where they end up -- with relatives (hopefully caring and loving ones, but no guarantee), in abusive homes, with single mothers (who may already have other children and who will probably have more -- gotten keep those boyfriends happy....), maybe adopted out but more likely stuck in our very broken foster-care system.

Yes. Much better to just kill them and not have to be inconvenienced by the whole thing. Too much trouble.

I actually answered your question in a way I think you missed. We need an adjustment in our country concerning sex and children. I will not watch your movie if you brag about your sexual exploits. I will not listen to your music. I will not watch your television show. I will not adjust my moral values to suit your liberal sexual ideas and that includes endorsing abortion just because you don't want to control yourself. If you become pregnant with all of the birth control available now, then in most cases you did something stupid. If you father a child and don't support that child, then you are a scumbag. If you advocate for a family structure other than a married father and mother, then I don't listen to you. We are done making excuses because children are too important. I know you will say that as a Christian I don't get to advocate for changes in our culture, but you are wrong about that.

That's my answer. Fix the problem, and the symptoms of the problem will lessen dramatically. It would solve most of the problems you described and many more besides.

Fix the problem, and the symptoms of the problem will lessen dramatically. It would solve most of the problems you described and many more besides.
The only way to fix the problem is to prevent the fetus from being conceived in the first place unless it will have loving, stable, mentally healthy, married parents.

The only way to fix the problem is to prevent the fetus from being conceived in the first place unless it will have loving, stable, mentally healthy, married parents.

So you are suggesting sterilisation, yes, please prevent any more of your people from being added to the world

So you are suggesting sterilisation, yes, please prevent any more of your people from being added to the world
This time I'm suggesting birth control. But unfortunately, that doesn't always work.

This time I'm suggesting birth control. But unfortunately, that doesn't always work.

No for some peculiar reason it hasn't worked, it seems the promiscious don't use it

No for some peculiar reason it hasn't worked, it seems the promiscious don't use it

Pretty much hit the nail on the head.

No for some peculiar reason it hasn't worked, it seems the promiscious don't use it
And I know several young republican women who each have four kids already and don't know who the fathers are. Guess they should go on Maury Povich's tv show for DNA tests.

What difference does it make what political party they are associated with? The should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

What difference does it make what political party they are associated with? They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Ashamed, now there is a concept that hasn't seen the light of day in a long while

How do you know they are not ashamed which is a self defeating trap within itself. For sure heaping MORE shame on them is hardly an effective way of finding a positive solution. You just make a bad situation even worse.

How do you know they are not ashamed which is a self defeating trap within itself.

Well now let's think about that. You have one baby out of wedlock and don't even know who the father is, then you are ashamed of yourself, so you decide to stop that shameful behavior and start acting like an adult. That I can believe. But you certainly don't just go blindly and willfully on and do it three more times. And you think they are ashamed? Really?

How little you understand your fellow human through their trials and tribulation. Obviously the behavor is but a symptom of a greater issue that needs resolving, and shaming will never work. Just the opposite is often the case. Of course you do not understand it and to be frank, very few do, so such behavior goes without the proper help and keeps perpetuating itself.

It can take years of the proper help to rescue someone from their own insane behavior. Surely you have sen that in your work with addicts and multiple births or any other abnormal behavior falls in this broader category of behavior. Until the underlying issue is identified and dealt with then you cannot expect a positive outcome.

To reduce this to a moral issue is not the way to go, since clearly the mind is stuck and needs reprogramming. Is not doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results the very definition of insanity? Complex for sure.


Well now let's think about that. You have one baby out of wedlock and don't even know who the father is, then you are ashamed of yourself, so you decide to stop that shameful behavior and start acting like an adult. That I can believe. But you certainly don't just go blindly and willfully on and do it three more times. And you think they are ashamed? Really?

Addicts and alcoholics cross that line many times despite the shame and guilt of their actions... but you already know that. Pathological is the word I think fits.

And you think they are ashamed? Really?
I know them personally and will ask next time I see them. I'm guessing the male lovers would say, "It was the women's fault. God gave them to us to be with us and give us pleasure, so we went along with it." (Sound familiar?)

To reduce this to a moral issue is not the way to go, since clearly the mind is stuck and needs reprogramming.



Without the Law there is no guilt or sin; no forgiveness (False sense, no need for forgiveness). Teenagers are using repeat abortions as a form of birth control. Legalizing Abortion, only exchanged the truth for a lie...The Law discovers guilt and sin. The aftermath of an "illegal abortion" should allow the forgiving love and cleansing grace that only the Gospel can express.

I know them personally and will ask next time I see them. I'm guessing the male lovers would say, "It was the women's fault. God gave them to us to be with us and give us pleasure, so we went along with it." (Sound familiar?)

I don't want anybody and everybody to enter into my house, so I keep the door closed. Now if I leave the door open and an unwanted person enters, it is that person's fault for entering, but I was rather foolish to leave my door open and encourage that action.

There is a lesson there.

I don't want anybody and everybody to enter into my house, so I keep the door closed. Now if I leave the door open and an unwanted person enters, it is that person's fault for entering, but I was rather foolish to leave my door open and encourage that action.

There is a lesson there.
Yes, there is. WWJD? You ask the stranger if he's hungry, sit him down at the kitchen table and feed him, then when he's finished, sit across from him and get to know him.

You completely missed the point. It had nothing to do with doors and strangers. It had to do with your lady friends. Think more carefully. Analogy.

You completely missed the point. It had nothing to do with doors and strangers. It had to do with your lady friends. Think more carefully. Analogy.
In that response to me, you totally missed MY point and analogy.

But your analogy doesn't fit. Your lady friends did not get to know the "strangers" they "fed". They don't even know which stranger was responsible for having to add on to the house. You need to tell them what the Bible says about letting anyone and everyone into the front door. They should know of their sin before God which needs to be dealt with.

America will get over Trump

If only that were true. Look around you, we are living in a reality show...and America loves reality shows.

But your analogy doesn't fit. Your lady friends did not get to know the "strangers" they "fed". They don't even know which stranger was responsible for having to add on to the house. You need to tell them what the Bible says about letting anyone and everyone into the front door. They should know of their sin before God which needs to be dealt with.
YOU're STILL missing it! My analogy had nothing to do with my "ladyfriends." It had to do with your house analogy.

But my house analogy WAS about your friends.

But my house analogy WAS about your friends.
It was a very poor one. Their houses weren't left unlocked accidentally. They had issued invitations.

Their houses weren't left unlocked accidentally. They had issued invitations.

Must have sent a lot of invitations if they don't even know who the father is. Keep the door closed and locked until you have a ring on your finger. I know you don't like to accept simple, common-sense answers, but that's the answer. And for those of us who are Christians, it goes hand in hand with the teachings of the Bible. The same answer also applies to men who have regard for the will of God.

Must have sent a lot of invitations if they don't even know who the father is. Keep the door closed and locked until you have a ring on your finger. I know you don't like to accept simple, common-sense answers, but that's the answer. And for those of us who are Christians, it goes hand in hand with the teachings of the Bible. The same answer also applies to men who have regard for the will of God.
Oh, I agree with you about having the ring first, and actually did that myself! But others disagree with me. For some reason, I just can't control their needs and passions. And many of those I've known over the years have been white and attend church regularly.

https://scontent.fmem1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/56476763_2510564235674249_506084659436716032_n.png ?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ht=scontent.fmem1-1.fna&oh=0f6a3ec1d8a3ac69b5391f52c219ae2f&oe=5D44A2AE

Just my observation, but even among Christians the will of God is interpreted differently. To be fair the same dynamic is present among the Muslims as well. If there is but one God, why do humans fight amongst themselves over the trivial regional, cultural customs, tradition, and dogma that surround whatever version of God they subscribe too?

Just my observation, but even among Christians the will of God is interpreted differently. To be fair the same dynamic is present among the Muslims as well. If there is but one God, why do humans fight amongst themselves over the trivial regional, cultural customs, tradition, and dogma that surround whatever version of God they subscribe too?
Even in the one sub-division of the Lutheran denomination that I belong to, they can't agree about who God is and what we are to believe! I recently proofread a paper on Sikhism for a college student and was amazed at how similar Sikhism is to Christianity. And most religions have the Golden Rule embedded in them. Yes, Tal, why do humans fight amongst themselves over who God is???

Even in the one sub-division of the Lutheran denomination that I belong to, they can't agree about who God is and what we are to believe! I recently proofread a paper on Sikhism for a college student and was amazed at how similar Sikhism is to Christianity. And most religions have the Golden Rule embedded in them. Yes, Tal, why do humans fight amongst themselves over who God is??

Yes, there are similarities in the moral codes of most religions, but the person of Jesus Christ sets Christianity light years apart from the others. No other major religion had God come to earth as a man to both show us how to live and to give His life as a ransom for our sins. His life glows and shines brilliantly, and as a result we do not simply preach a moral code but rather a message of faith in the One who gave Himself for us and Who comes to live within us that we might effectively live for Him. Every major Christian denomination believes that. It is the core message of Christianity. So is Christianity similar to other religions? On the surface yes, but not in the vitals.

So is Christianity similar to other religions? Not at all.
Take a comparative religion course. Yes, Jesus is the stand-alone in Christianity. As for moral teachings, most religions agree, which makes me think they have a common foundation somewhere back in man's history.

Yes, Jesus is the stand-alone in Christianity. As for moral teachings, most religions agree, which makes me think they have a common foundation somewhere back in man's history.

Jesus is not merely a stand-alone. He is God come to earth. He completely sets Christianity apart from all other religions by His amazing love, worth, power, and wisdom. All other religions are based upon the idea that, by doing the right things, man can become acceptable to God. Only the Christian faith rejects that idea.

So Christians are better than anybody else because they have Jesus? I suppose that's cool if you are a Christian. I got no problem with that, as long as you keep it in your yard and out of mine.

So Christians are better than anybody else because they have Jesus?


I don't think that is what he's saying.

So Christians are better than anybody else because they have Jesus?

You have a talent for drawing the most strange conclusions.

It wasn't a conclusion, it was a QUESTION. Your talent seems to be dodging direct questions, or you got no answer. I don't know which it is. Most of my other Christian friends and family don't see it that way, they get beyond the labels and self designations.

It wasn't a conclusion, it was a QUESTION. Your talent seems to be dodging direct questions, or you got no answer. I don't know which it is.
I've been hanging around Christians all my long life, so I know what they think, believe, and how they act. Please, JL, answer Tal's question.

OK. I still have no idea how you would have even come up with the question, but the answer is very simple. ""to give his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven, to shine on those living in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the path of peace.” luke 1:77-79"

So the superiority belongs to God, not to people. Christians are people who have acknowledged their sinful condition and their residence in darkness and the shadow of death. They are similar to someone drowning and appealing for a lifeguard. It has nothing to do with being better than someone else. It has to do with the greatness and mercy of God displayed in Jesus. That is why you cannot say that the Christian faith is similar to other world religions in an really meaningful way. It is not. To say that is to downplay the glory and importance of Jesus.

Just my observation, but even among Christians the will of God is interpreted differently. To be fair the same dynamic is present among the Muslims as well. If there is but one God, why do humans fight amongst themselves over the trivial regional, cultural customs, tradition, and dogma that surround whatever version of God they subscribe too?


Who's fighting who? I don't know, why don't you ask the Israelites.

Maybe it has to do with the Shedding of Blood. Christians have the Blood of Jesus...that is the difference.

Why not ask the many across the globe who flee their homelands in fear. Why can't we ask YOU why your peeps came here?

Just my observation, but even among Christians the will of God is interpreted differently. To be fair the same dynamic is present among the Muslims as well. If there is but one God, why do humans fight amongst themselves over the trivial regional, cultural customs, tradition, and dogma that surround whatever version of God they subscribe too?


Because it is our Nature. The lusts to Sin dwells in human Nature. It is not Humans fighting amongst themselves, it is Humans fighting against God. It is no wonder why the World hates the Jews... everybody seeks its destruction!

Why not ask the many across the globe who flee their homelands in fear. Why can't we ask YOU why your peeps came here?
My (poor) German ancestors came here in the mid-1800s to escape from the wars in their country. I'm all for giving a home to refugees.

Because it is our Nature. The lusts to Sin dwells in human Nature. It is not Humans fighting amongst themselves, it is Humans fighting against God. It is no wonder why the World hates the Jews... everybody seeks its destruction!
And the religious fundamentalists (Christians and Muslims mostly) want to usher in the Apocalypse after Armageddon in the Middle East has taken place.

And the religious fundamentalists (Christians and Muslims mostly) want to usher in the Apocalypse after Armageddon in the Middle East has taken place.

Fantasy land.

Fantasy land.
They even say so!!!! Then Jesus will return for judgment.

Who said that?

If there is an isolated fundamentalist Christian or two scattered about saying that, it certainly does not justify your statement.