So if I respond to some else's comment about the Constitution that means I brought it up? Weak!Why did you bring up pooping on the supermarket floor (using your logic, you did)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Champ967
Printable View
So if I respond to some else's comment about the Constitution that means I brought it up? Weak!Why did you bring up pooping on the supermarket floor (using your logic, you did)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Champ967
I think we're on the same page. We use a word or phrase to summarize a concept that's clearly there. The lack of the phrase doesnt mean the concept is lacking.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
My point was that the lack of an explicit invitation to immigrants in the Constitution does not mean such an invitation is not understood or implicit
Sorry -- I thought you'd started it. My bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
Did we just become best frenemies?
https://giphy.com/gifs/3oeSAD00YsGzUPTmqA/html5
This is complicated.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
Personally, I agree. But it's a bigger discussion than I prefer to broach on an already wide-ranging thread.
I'd like to encourage you to check out the Perception Gap Study. Most -- in fact, the overwhelming majority -- of Democrats are much less extreme than you may think. Conversely, Republicans and conservatives are, on the whole, far less extreme than many Dems make them out to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
It's been said that cable news and social media are making people more extreme in the views. But that may not be the case. What really seems to happening is that media is making us think that the other side is more extreme than they really are.
Take a few minutes are read through some of the summaries -- https://perceptiongap.us/
Yes!Quote:
Originally Posted by detltu
I feel like I have read a similar study but I participated in this one. My perception gap was -5%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Champ967
Apparently I underestimated the following:
views on police (+5%)
2nd amendment (+20%)
I overestimated Democratic response to:
Patriotism (proud to be an American) (-11%)
Sexual assault (-19%)
Open Borders (-24%)
Socialism (-3%)
ICE. (-8%)
I would say overall pretty good considering it says the average perception gap is 27% for republicans. With the way the questions are worded I would assume most people could easily agree with most of the items.
Positive gap numbers indicate overestimates of how partisan or extreme the other side is, while negative numbers indicate the opposite.
I have to say looking through the percentages both sides are more extreme than I would have thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Champ967
How can you disagree that Donald Trump is a flawed person?
It's not a question of whether you view him favorably or unfavorably. That would certainly get some mixed answers.
They ask that? Seems biased to me somewhat looking for a 90% saying yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by detltu
Everyone on this planet is flawed.
That was my though. Easy yes. Less than 50% of Republicans answered yes!Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
I would expect different results if they asked if Donald Trump was a flawed President.
To me that is a question with a clear right and wrong.
I have to believe people answered no thinking the question was some sort of trick to make it look like Republicans have a negative view of Trump or something.
Trump just got another 1.375 billion to build the wall and no restrictions on where it can be built.
IMHO, the regressives are committing bribery with foreigners people groups and most probably with the same foreign governments behind the scenes and behind Trumps back (such like John Kerry) with the below.
Tom Homan: 2020 Dems making promises to illegals 'guaranteeing' Trump win
Send them back or in-prison them at Guantanamo!!Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Massive MS-13 bust: 96 members charged in Long Island takedown...
Mexico danger map updated as US warns of widespread violent crime...
'I'm Kidnapped': Father's Nightmare on Border...
Finished the book. Great read. Man! what might have been.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Hulegu Khan never returned to the Middle East. Instead he left one of his generals, Kibutea, in charge. Kibutea approached the Crusaders who at this time were held up in isolated castles scattered across the region and offered an alliance. His proposal was to ally with the Christian soldiers and attack the Muslims under the leadership of Mamluk Qutuz. The Battle of Ain Jalut was a tactical draw, but a strategic Muslim victory. The Mongol/Christian army, numbering about 12,000, was unable to move the Muslim army, numbering 18,000 off the heights which covered the passage through the mountains. It was a close thing though. Heavy Crusader cavalry attacked the Muslim center and punched a hole through the line. But Kibutea was not the general he needed to be. At the crucial moment, victory at hand, he hesitated. His own cavalry commanders were screaming for permission to attack. "the Christians have achieved a break through and we must follow up!" Instead Kibutea, seeing the Muslims move troops from their northern flank to reinforce the center, ordered his cavalry attack up the steep hills to the north. They were greatly slowed by the terrain and did not achieve the swift success that was needed. By then the Crusaders were played out and had to fall back in the face of fresh Muslim troops. By the end of two days of fighting, the Muslims still held the pass and Kibutea ordered a retreat all the way back to Damascus.
If Hulegu Khan had returned with his 60,000 man army and followed his own plans to crush the Muslims, history would have been, would be today, quite different. The Mongols hated the Muslims...weren't enthralled with Christian Europeans either, but were willing to live with Christians. Hulegu's plans were to sweep through Egypt into northern Africa to extend the Mongol empire. The Mamluks, in Egypt, were the last standing bastion of organized Islam remaining in 1260. Political concerns in Mongolia, and throughout the Mongol empire, prevented Hulegu from carrying out his plans. The Mongol leadership, thousands of miles away, saw the isolated Muslims, in Egypt, as no threat.
Slowly, as the Mongol Empire faded, the Muslims pushed back and regained lost territory.
The book does not conclude that Hulegu would have/could have extinguished Islam completely. More than likely the Mamluks, a warrior clan themselves, would have abandoned Egypt in favor of invading sub-Sahara regions...getting out of the way of the Mongols...and established themselves elsewhere. Still, the Battle of Ain Jalut is referred to as the event that saved Islam.