They remember how they kicked our ass in Mogadishu Spence. They don't fear or respect us. A navy destroyer is sitting a short distance away from that life boat and it is not the least bit intimidating. They would die for less given the chance.

I appologize for comparing JohhnyD to you.

So, again, how does that relate back to Obama?
this is not a new relationship. I think we could nuke a town and they won't fear us; desperate people are often brave or foolhardy...

I think you're just trying to reverse engineer the situation to make a point that's idiological and not realistic. These people in Somalia are so numb to violence and carnage that they don't seem to fear anything. The notion that their behavior is shaped by a perceived US weakness is silly, they have a profitable business going and to date haven't had anyone really squeeze them.

How is a destroyer supposed to intimidate them anyway? Without the hostage the destroyer wouldn't be there. There's little to nothing the destroyer can do while the hostage is on the boat, that's why the FBI in involved with the negoiation.

-spence

I wasn't asking for clarification. I was asking for an example, which you couldn't provide.

The difference in most of my posts aren't some regurgitation of something I heard on the radio or FoxNews, like many people around here. When I post something, it's pretty clear when I'm stating fact (because I support it with examples) and when I'm stating an opinion.

Nothing childish putting up the definitions. Wanted to make sure any examples you provided included how Obama is "marked by or suggestive of immaturity", because I don't think there are any.

OBama is president, thats why. The buck stops here. He has been president since January and he is still blaming someone else for all his problems. I don't see that as being mature. At what point in the liberals sense of things does what he does actually reflect on OBama and his appointments. At what point does it stick to him, or are those suits made of teflon he wears? What he has said to the world so far hasn't changed anything has it? It falls back on OBama just the way it did on Bush, Clinton, Bush41, Reagan..... Or just because OBama is president the rules change back, and it doesn't have anything to do with how the entire world, or us, views our leaders. I'll see this forum in the fall after my Vineyard trip. Too much to do.

I chose not to. What I said is readily apparent to just about anyone.

Obama focuses on anything but the economy and Conservatives drag him across the coals because he hasn't fixed the economy in 3 months of office.

It was Obama's call to send the Navy ships to the scene. How exactly was he suppose to prevent the situation from happening??

By your logic, because Bush was President at the time, 9/11 was Bush's fault.

c'mon JD...we all know that 9/11 was Clinton's fault...

Bama gave the finger several times during the campaign, that was very childish...
ordered pizza from 850 miles away...childish
whines evertime he's criticized...childish
apologizes for others to elevate himself...childish
sent the Oval Office bust of Churchill back to England...childish
hasn't gotten the kids their puppy yet...stupid


there's plenty to list...got my own things to do...I just think he's an a-hole...he continually proves it...

Ya, they're just poor fishermen, just trying to feed their families. : rolleyes:

This one makes me laugh... please explain?

Curious as to why you chose this over the "puppy" comment :rotflmao:

-spence

Because the pizza comment is a big load of crap. Here's the real story:
http://news.aol.com/political-machin...-pizza-really/

We'll call it Pizza-gate. Add this to Teleprompter-Gate, Lipstick-Gate, Birth Certificate-Gate and Secret Muslim-Gate

And Conservatives wonder why support for their party is dying.


Also, none of the "points" scott mentioned could be defined as childish. But the Conservatives just try to take any negative word they can think of and try to make it somehow applicable without any real evidence like scott and Swimmer have done above.

You forgot flag-pin gate, pledge gate, lack-of-military-experience gate, appology gate, Liberal-wus gate, Ayers-BFF gate etc...

The fundementals of the GOP are strong, the problem is that the liberal mainstream media is reporting things as if there's some confusion.

Michael Steel has been playing his cards perfectly and has a secret plan you'd understand if you had half a brain.

The GOP has a strong record of fiscal restraint (remeber the Contract with America?) that resonates with middle America. The current Republicans in Congress were just running up a tab to make Obama's spending look worse. The media hides this fact because it makes the GOP look too smarter.

This is a Christian Nation after all, and with the Rapture due along any day now, I think we're all going to see who's united and who's not. I'd wager the Starbucks are going to be pretty busy the day after judgement day.

-spence

Question--why should you always take two Republicans fishing with you?

If you take only one, he'll smoke all your pot, but if you take two, they won't smoke any.:humpty:

BSSB is funny.

I'm starting to worry about you Spence Alynski...you used to be somewhat coherent....now you are just babbling:jester:

the MIGHTY O hit the trifecta today...got the Ted Kennedy bred "WATER" Dog on the way(I "HOPE" it pees on his leg)...I think they named it Mary Jo...or Bo Bridges or something like that....found a temporary location to photo-op worship...... and he singlehandedly donned a wetsuit and fins and bubbled over to the pirates Zodiak where he killed three pirates...rescued the evil American tresspasser, took the fourth prisoner and immediately apologized profusely to anyone was offended by our presence in the region, blamed it all on American arrogance and vowed that things would be changing now that he rules America...he is some kinda man!
I can see why you love him so....

This statement says it all, this guy is a %$%$%$%$ing p%&Y^y. It is an act of terrorism, the crew was terrified, the captain is terrified, the us public is
terrified, the world is terrified.

Actually I was making fun of you.

-spence

And now they're dead. In the end, the authorization to shoot-to-kill if necessary had to be provided by that "%$%$%$%$ing p%&Y^y" you mentioned.

That "%$%$%$%$ing p%&Y^y" has also authorized a number of bombings of terrorist camps in Pakistan.

Also, piracy is not the same as terrorism.

The latest outrage is the very word ‘terrorism’ has been banned by the Obama administration and replaced by the phrase ‘man caused disasters’. I kid you not.
SPIEGEL: ‘Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word “terrorism.” Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?’
Janet Napolitano, President Obama’s new Homeland Security Secretary: ‘Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.’
Obviously, Obama plans on taking the United States back to a pre 9/11 mentality in dealing with the threat of Islamic terrorism. When one can’t even use the word ‘terrorism’ to describe terrorist incidents, something is seriously wrong.

this is correct, pirates wear eyepatches, have parrots on their shoulders and some have peg legs and/or hooks where their hands once were....


[QUOTE=Spence]
Actually I was making fun of you.

-spence

that's why I love you Spence Alinsky, you have an incredible sense of humor... :uhuh:

I'd like you to please find me something concrete that asserts the word "terrorism" has been banned. I doubt you will...

The context of the interview remark in question was that the DHS has to be prepared for all kinds of disasters, and that the Obama Administration doesn't intend to pepper their prepared remarks with "9/11" and "terrorism" every third word in an attempt to scare the hell out of everyone like the Bush Administration seemed to do.

There are thousands of blog rants on this topic and not a single one of them that I read actually forms a conclusion.

Last week at the airport I noticed the official Security Threat was still at ORANGE or "A HIGH CHANCE OF TERROR ATTACK".

High chance? You think I'm going to get on the effing plane if I think there's really a HIGH chance of attack?

-spence

you must have missed this in your daily talking points from the administration...it's weeks old...get up to speed..

"terrorist" has also been banned...we're now referring to them as "justifiably angry victims of American arrogance"

The ignorance of some that post here shines through as brightly as the sun on a warm day.

Looks like a new day means a new definition needed for the disillusioned:

Terrorism as defined by the US Federal Criminal Code:
... activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping

Someone explain to me how the Pirates taking over ships for nothing more than profit is terrorism.

The Somalians are no different than bank robbers on steroids. They aren't trying to affect government policy or incite fear into the population. They are trying to extort money from companies.

They aren't terrorists, they're extortionists.

"


So you are saying that Obama and the Democrats are actually Pirates? OK, I'll go along with that...

So the pirates activities were not violent, or life-threatening, nor were they meant to coerce a civilian population to hand over money?

You libs crack me up...

News
World news
Global terrorism
Obama administration says goodbye to 'war on terror'
US defence department seems to confirm use of the bureaucratic phrase 'overseas contingency operations'
Comments (11)
Oliver Burkeman in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 March 2009 17.40 GMT
Article history
The war on terror, George Bush once declared, "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated". But Barack Obama's administration, it appears, has ended it rather more discreetly - via email.

A message sent recently to senior Pentagon staff explains that "this administration prefers to avoid using the term Long War or Global War On Terror (Gwot) ... please pass this on to your speechwriters". Instead, they have been asked to use a bureaucratic phrase that could hardly be further from the fiery rhetoric of the months immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The global war on terror is dead; long live "overseas contingency operations".

Rumours of the imminent demise of the war on terror had been circulating for some time, and some key officials have been mentioning "overseas contingency operations" for weeks. The US defence department email, obtained by the Washington Post, seems to confirm the shift, although the Office of Management and Budget, which reviews the public testimony of administration personnel in advance, denied reports that it had ordered an across-the-board change in language.

Tony Blair was an avid supporter of Bush's terminology - "whatever the technical or legal issues about a declaration of war, the fact is we are at war with terrorism", he once said - but experts came to agree that the phrase was unhelpful.

A war on terror was too broad ever to be won, they argued, while defining not a group or ideology but a type of violence as the enemy was incoherent.

Even Donald Rumsfeld, one of the war's architects, tried in vain to persuade Bush to rebrand it the "global struggle against violent extremism", or GSave. Writing in the Guardian in January, the foreign secretary, David Miliband, said it had been a mistake that may have caused "more harm than good".

Since taking office, Obama has taken several concrete steps to shift direction, ordering the closure of Guantanamo Bay and the CIA's secret prisons, and moving to end harsh interrogation practices.

"Declaring war on a method of violence was like declaring war on amphibious warfare," said Jeffrey Record, a strategy expert at the US military's Air War College in Alabama.

"Also, it suggested that there was a military solution, and that we were at war with all practitioners of terrorism, whether they threatened American interests or not. 'War' is very much overused here in the United States - on crime, drugs, poverty. Everything has to be a war. We would have been much smarter to approach terrorism as the Europeans do, as a criminal activity."

But he was not enthusiastic about the replacement term. "I'm not sure it means much of anything," he said. "And I'm not sure we're going to make any great progress by replacing one unfortunate term with another."

The ignorance of some of the Conservatives here is amazing.

On your deluded understanding, bank robbers are terrorists because they want to coerce the teller to hand over money. A speeder is a terrorist because speeding is life-threatening. Someone who gets in a fight is a terrorist because their actions are violent.

The lack of rational and common sense within you conservatives is pathetic.

Meanie :rude:

haha...