Obama, again with the cheap insults

[Jim in CT]

Ah, the soothing, unifying words of our president...

"At first, they (Republicans) were too scared of the press being too tough on them in the debates. Now they are scared of 3-year-old orphans. That doesn't seem so tough to me."

I absolutely cannot stand this guy. Nothing but petty insults for everyone who disagrees with him. He's challenging their courage, for God's sake. Have we ever in our history, had a president so juvenile, so petty, so vindictive? THIS is the guy that was supposed to unite us?

Godo for Ted Cruz for calling him out. Cruz said ""It is utterly un-befitting of a President to be engaging in those kinds of personal insults, attacks. Let's have a debate on Syrian refugees right now. We can do it anywhere you want. I'd prefer it in the United States and not overseas where you're making the insults. It's easy to toss a cheap insult when no one can respond."

How long, O Lord?

[ecduzitgood]

https://www.youtube.com/embed/UXodRLLkth4
But everyone loves Obama, well maybe not everyone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Doover]

Democraps have ALWAYS been on the wrong side of American history.
Democrap's where the Tories whom the 3%ters fought in the Revolutionary War.
Democrap's succeeded from the Union when the Republicans, a Political Party formed for two reason,(1) to free the slaves (2) fight back the corruption of the Democraps, where elected to free the slaves.
And so on.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

https://www.youtube.com/embed/UXodRLLkth4
But everyone loves Obama, well maybe not everyone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He lost me long ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

democratic socialist democrats: remenber U did not vote in the first black president even tho UUUU thought he was black....If Ben Carson is to B elected he will B the first black president.....your current president is of mixed race even tho U like to use political correctness

[Doover]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

democratic socialist democrats: remenber U did not vote in the first black president even tho UUUU thought he was black....If Ben Carson is to B elected he will B the first black president.....your current president is of mixed race even tho U like to use political correctness

Ew uoo you might get a cogent argument from Slick Willy supporters on whom is blackier.
If getting porked by females of the color black is the high bar, Cigar Boy Bill WINS again!!

[Fly Rod]

VERY SURPRISED THAT SPENCE OR NEBE HAS NOT JUMPED ON THIS....

[Nebe]

You didn't see my response ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

some great points...



Why Does the Left Continue to Insist that Islamic Terrorism Has Nothing to Do with Islam?

By Jonah Goldberg — November 21, 2015


Dear Reader (Including those of you stunned by the news that Charlie Sheen has a sexually transmitted disease. Not since Jim J. Bullock announced he was gay have I been more shocked),

If you Google “Christian terrorism,” you’re probably a jackass to begin with. But if you do — bidden not by your own drive to jackassery but by the natural curiosity inspired by this “news”letter — you’ll find lots of left-wing trollery about how the worst terrorist attacks on American soil have been committed by Christians. Much of it is tendentious, question-begging twaddle. But I really don’t want to waste a lot of time on whether Tim McVeigh was a Christian or not (he really wasn’t).

What I find interesting is that many of the same people who clutch their pearls at the mere suggestion that Islamic terrorism has anything to do with — oh, what’s the word again? — oh right: Islam, seem to have no problem making the case that “Christian terrorism” is like a real thing. Remember how so many liberals loved — loved — Obama’s sophomoric and insidious tirade about not getting on our “high horses” about ISIS’s atrocities in the here and now because medieval Christians did bad things a thousand years ago? They never seem to think that argument through. Leaving out the ass-aching stupidity of the comparison, it actually concedes the very point Obama never wants to concede. By laying the barbaric sins of Christians a thousand years ago at the feet of Christians today, he implicitly tags Muslims with the barbarism committed in their name today.

Now, I see no need to wade too deeply into the theology here, but I think I am on very solid ground when I say that Islamic terrorism draws more easily and deeply from the Koran than Tim McVeigh drew from the Christian Bible. Of course, you’re free to disagree. In a free society, everybody has the right to be wrong in their opinions. (But don’t tell anyone at Yale that.)

THE BIG LIE

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton said: “Let’s be clear, though. Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Now, unlike some people who e-mail me in ALL CAPS, I have no problem with politicians saying, “Islam is not our adversary.” In fact, I think it would be disastrous if our political leaders went around saying anything like “Islam is our enemy.”


It’s the second part of that Hillary quote that I have trouble with. Yes, some — most! — Muslims are peaceful. And while peacefulness and tolerance don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand (just look at opinion polls in the Muslim world on questions of sharia, homosexuality, women’s equality, free speech, and, of course, the Joooooooz), let’s stipulate that a great many Muslims are tolerant in their own fashion, too.

But it is simply a lie — an obvious, glaring, indisputable, trout-in-the-milk lie — that Muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

Simply put, this is nonsense. But it’s not just nonsense. It is highly refined nonsense. If nonsense were radioactive, you could dump a barrel of it in a centrifuge, wait a few weeks, and out would come the claim that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Just off the top of my head is my hair. But figuratively speaking off the top of my head: The jihadists say they are motivated by Islam. They shout “Allahu akbar!” whenever they kill people. “Moderate Muslims” in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere have been funding Islamic radicals around the world for nearly a century. This morning in Mali, terrorist gunmen reportedly released those hostages who could quote the Koran. The leader of ISIS has a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies and openly talks about restoring the Caliphate.


Oh, one other thing: The Islamic State is called the Islamic State. I used to eat at a restaurant called “Burrito Brothers.” Saying the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam is like telling someone eating a burrito they bought at Burrito Brothers that Burrito Brothers has “nothing whatsoever” to do with burritos.

And like many other highly enriched radioactive substances, this nonsensical notion is weaponizable. It is dangerous. I would like to think that if you had an honest conversation with Hillary Clinton away from the cameras, she would say something like, “Of course, Islamic terrorism has a lot to do with Islam. But we can’t say that publicly because we have to isolate the radicals, not radicalize the moderates.”


That is an entirely defensible position intellectually. But that doesn’t make the “This Isn’t Islamic” claim any less of a lie. And what makes the lie dangerous — very dangerous — is the possibility that, to borrow a phrase from Barack Obama, these people believe their own bullsh***. The danger is twofold. On the one hand, if you engage an enemy without actually understanding its motivations and ambitions, you will inevitably screw it up because you’ll be constantly surprised by the facts on the ground. As Irving Kristol once said, “When we lack the will to see things as they really are, there is nothing so mystifying as the obvious.”

On the other hand, if you are trying to rally political support for your strategy, while at the same time giving the public every reason to believe you’re operating from a home-base in fantasyland, only fellow bullsh***ers and fools will rally to your banner. And, you’ll lose the confidence and trust of those people who see through the fog of bovine excrement.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

some great points...

Interesting you'd find such gravitation towards a grotesque masturbatory example of circular logic.

Who has ever said Islam has *nothing* to do with it?

Keep reading stuff like this = ISIS wins.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Interesting you'd find such gravitation towards a grotesque masturbatory example of circular logic.

Who has ever said Islam has *nothing* to do with it?

Keep reading stuff like this = ISIS wins.

"Who has ever said Islam has *nothing* to do with it?"

Because only an idiot would say that, right?

Hilary: "Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism."

First, there are a lot of Muslims out there, who are carrying out terrorism, in the name of Islam. You define a terrorist by the idea that they are fighting for, and these people are fighting for Islam. They are therefore, Muslim terrorists.

Let's talk about the Muslims who aren't terrorists. Are most of them "tolerant"? Is there a Muslim country on this planet ,where it's a nice place to be a Jew or a homosexual? Or a woman for that matter?

Spence, what the hell is wrong with liberals? Open your eyes. By and large, these are not what you'd call "tolerant" people. The men must wear beards, the women must dress like ninjas, and remain illiterate.

Spence, what is to be gained, exactly, when you cast aside factual empirical evidence, in favor of political correctness? For what purpose?

Jesus God Almighty.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The men must wear beards, the women must dress like ninjas, and remain illiterate.

The literacy rate of young females in Iran is 98.5%. 60% of university students in Saudi Arabia are women, in fact there are 8 Muslim nations in the Middle East where more women than men go to University.

The bigger problem with women in many Islamic nations is that they can't find work for their skills.

Oh, and name one Muslim country where growing a beard is mandatory.

Conclusion = Jim clueless.

[spence]

Some interesting analysis...

http://www.cato.org/blog/syrian-refu...ecurity-threat

[Sea Dangles]

Uh oh
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Tolerance is relative. Historically most Muslim nations have been as tolerant as anyone, but the Cold War and other power influences have certainly shaped the situation today. To describe Muslim nations "in general" for anything would be a great disservice.

The historical equality of Muslim nations compared to anyone else depends on how far back such relative equality existed, where, and how long it lasted. In Spain from the eighth to the 12th century, such relative equality of tolerance existed, though by todays standards it would be considered not only intolerant but oppressive. And, in Spain, even though the Muslims had conquered and ruled it, they were outnumbered by Christians, which made it more difficult to be as harsh as in those areas where they were the majority. And the tolerance deteriorated for various reasons including wars with Europeans, the demise of more "enlightened" rulers replaced by more austere Islamic ones, and external forces from Islamic fundamentalists.

But, though cases of relative Muslim tolerance had existed in certain places in the past, after the end of "Al-Andalus," the so called golden age of Islamic rule in Spain, Muslim tolerance, by and large, steadily degraded to its relatively intolerant character of today. The "relative" tolerance of long ago ceased to exist. Not so much because Muslim rule is not really, with some exceptions, more intolerant today than in the past, it's just that compared to most other nations, it is no longer relatively equal in tolerance. Quite the opposite.

Remember this from a previous post: "there is the fact that Islamic law takes circumstance into account. When Muhammad was weak and outnumbered in Mecca, he preached peace and tolerance (hence why Meccan Suras appear peaceful); when he became strong in Medina, he preached war and went on the offensive (hence why Medinan Suras are violent and intolerant). This dichotomy—preach peace when weak, wage war when strong—has been Islamic modus operandi for centuries."

The amount of tolerance embraced by Muslims toward non-Muslims is, for the most part, dependent on the governing power they possess. As I pointed out to you in an older thread, even an influential Canadian Muslim (forget his name) who insists that Islam is a religion of peace, and that it is wrong to characterize Islam as intolerant . . . even he admitted that when Muslims become the majority population things (like tolerance and equality) go wrong.

In a like manner, population demographics is one of the engines of cultural change. Mass immigration, especially of a group which holds strong fundamental beliefs alien to the ethos of the host country, and whose relative birthrate is much higher than the host, invokes the mostly unspoken fear of conflict and fundamental cultural change. Such migrations have historically proved that fear to be valid. Western Europe is visibly showing the beginnings of the conflict and cultural change induced not merely by the Muslim immigrants, but by the increasing numbers of "home grown" Muslims. And the demographics of countries with the largest Muslim populations are on a course of becoming Islamic nations within a couple of generations.

We are told by those who want to allow, for instance, large numbers of refugees--in this case mostly Muslims--that we have this really good vetting process and the chance of importing terrorists is very small. And that home grown terrorists are more likely than refugee terrorists. That may be true. Or not as true as some past statistics seem to demonstrate. But it totally focuses on the refugees--not on the generations produced by those refugees and the culture and belief system by which they raise those generations--the future "home grown" Muslims.

Refugees who have gone through the vetting process may well have no terrorist intentions, and may truly be grateful to be rescued from horrific conditions. But their children, being raised as Americans, won't have the need to be grateful, and, like most children, many may have a conflicting emotional allegiance between the culture which their parents instilled in them and the prevailing American culture. A pride in their origins can, at least in some, probably in many, instill a bitterness against this country for what they perceive as its unjust wars against those like themselves. And they can, as are at least some, be radicalized into "home grown" terrorists. But worse than that to me would be the change, by demographic "shift," of the philosophical and governing foundation of this country into one diametrically opposed to it.

I have witnessed Mexican immigrants, documented or undocumented, come here and be very productive, more so than a large portion of "home grown" Americans. They are grateful for and happy about the opportunity to live a good life--by the sweat of their own brow. But I have seen many of their children born and raised here, feel they have no occasion to be grateful, but, rather, to be bitter about what they perceive as, or are told exists, discrimination against their "people." Some, through an educational system that is often subsidized, become lawyers, activists, judges who advocate against "the system" and seek "social justice," and militate for amnesty for millions of illegals and for the entry of more millions. They have already impacted American culture and will do even more so. They may well be the dominant "race" (la Raza) in a couple of generations.

That may be a good thing. I have no opinion about that. I really like my Mexican neighbors. I like a lot about the Latino culture. And I have met many really nice Muslims. And I like their food . . . and some of their culture. But that is neither here nor there.

What I most deeply wish is that immigrants of all stripes would cherish the freedom which, supposedly, they came here for. And I want them to understand and appreciate the American foundational governing structure under which freedom is most likely to flourish. And to defend and protect it.

For the Latinos I have great hope.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Is the root of the violence religion or politics? That's the question you should be asking.

In the case of so-called radical Islam, the answer is both. Fundamental Islam is both religion and government. There is no separation between those "roots" in jihadism.

That's why I have more confidence that Latino immigrants and their progeny could embrace the foundational American governmental system. The vast majority of them who are religious are Christian. There is a basis for a theological separation of church and state in the foundation of Christianity. Christ said to render unto Caesar (the state) what is "Caesar's and render unto God which is God's. It was exactly that basis which was one of the driving forces of the American Revolution and the constitutional founding of this country. It was that Judeo-Christian ethic which allowed secular and religious freedom to exist together under the over-arching principal of individual freedom.

That's why I have much less, if any, confidence that truly Muslim immigrants and their progeny who remain truly Muslim could embrace our constitutional principals of government. The basis, the foundation, the fundamental principle of Islam is the joining of politics and religion. For a true Muslim they are one and the same, and that juncture is not compatible with our foundational principles.

There is the hope that Islam will be reformed, and that might have the best chance of happening in our multi-cultural society with all of its supposedly superior benefits in the quality of life and freedom of choice. We hope that Islam can be seduced into reformation. The problem is that if you remove the joining of politics and religion from Islam, it is no longer Islam. The founder of Islam, Mohammed, specifically made religion and state the same entity. If you remove either from Islam, it is no longer the same thing.

Obviously, if Islam were to be compatible with our constitutional system and could be made so by removing either religion or politics from it, it would have to be the politics. But then what would be left? If the statist aspect is removed from Islam, it becomes a gutted shadow of what made it "great" and what was the driving force and principle in its foundation and growth. And its guiding rules embodied in the Quran and the Hadith would have to be so greatly revised as to become a different entity--maybe some offshoot or sect of its original ties to Judaism or the twelve tribes. I doubt that such a contradictory reformation can happen.

I think that so long as Muslims remain a small, relatively powerless group in the broad national sense, they can be a productive, cooperative, and "very nice" people with sporadic or unreported incidences of honor killings or other various gruesome doings that are part of their culture. When they become a majority the good, "nice", things begin to fall apart.

And, so long as Islam where it is the ruling power, is at war with the West, especially the great Satan America, there is that emotional, spiritual attachment to it and its war in the hearts and souls of faithful Muslims, even here in the U.S. And therein lies the potential, the probability, that young idealistic, truly Muslim, minds will be "radicalized."

And Islam's greatest friend here, ironically, is secular progressivism. It is the progressive/socialist hope that religion of all sorts will become hypocritical shadows of "faith" and fade away by force of strictly humanistic values of fairness, equality, and elimination of class disparities. It sees success in the marginalization of and perceived irrelevance of Christianity (so can let it wither and be destroyed in Muslim countries without protesting or doing much to help, and chastising Christians here reminding them of their past sins). And it sees the necessity of helping Muslim dissidents, refugees, and "moderates" in the hope that they too will weaken the fundamentals of their faith so that Islam is slowly "reformed"--and fades away.

There is also an indirect, "relative," tie between the progressives and the Muslims. Both share the principle of the "benevolent" all-powerful State. And both are incompatible with our founding constitutional structure. And both, at their true fundamental core, are (or can be re Islam) the enemy within that corrupts and destroys the character and foundation of this country. On the other hand, both would like to see the other disappear. But, in the meantime, each can be a tool of the other.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That's why I have much less, if any, confidence that truly Muslim immigrants and their progeny who remain truly Muslim could embrace our constitutional principals of government. The basis, the foundation, the fundamental principle of Islam is the joining of politics and religion. For a true Muslim they are one and the same, and that juncture is not compatible with our foundational principles.

I think it ultimately comes down to what people want from life. Democracy, personal freedoms? I'd wager that there's a lot of similarities with Judeo Christian ethics at the individual level. Granted that Islam has a closer tie to politics than Christianity structurally, but this has also been bastardized by Cold War politics the past 60 years.

I also don't see much difference between a devout Muslim recognizing the Constitution as the basis for US government versus an evangelical Christian. I doubt those who can't deal with it are going to be banging down the door to immigrate any time soon.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think it ultimately comes down to what people want from life. Democracy, personal freedoms? I'd wager that there's a lot of similarities with Judeo Christian ethics at the individual level. Granted that Islam has a closer tie to politics than Christianity structurally, but this has also been bastardized by Cold War politics the past 60 years.

I also don't see much difference between a devout Muslim recognizing the Constitution as the basis for US government versus an evangelical Christian. I doubt those who can't deal with it are going to be banging down the door to immigrate any time soon.

"I'd wager that there's a lot of similarities with Judeo Christian ethics at the individual level"

Wrong. I don't see Jews or Christians treating their women, or homosexuals, the way that Muslims do. And that's not just jihadists I'm talking about.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I doubt those who can't deal with it are going to be banging down the door to immigrate any time soon.

Didn't the 09/11 hijackers, and the brothers who planned the Boston Marathon attack, come here legally, and subsequently killed Americans because they hate our way of life?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Didn't the 09/11 hijackers, and the brothers who planned the Boston Marathon attack, come here legally, and subsequently killed Americans because they hate our way of life?

Well according to the freelance writer/ film maker Bernie's thinking, he must of thought they
came to make a statement that the runners were using up too much 02 and exhaling too much carbon dioxide.
Brilliant man, way ahead of his time. Eletist with 3 years of college at Brooklyn College and 1 year at Chicago.
This is who we want to be our Commander in Chief??

[Nebe]

The issues in Syria Jim. The issues in Syria.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

The issues in Syria Jim. The issues in Syria.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if only that were true

[Nebe]

That's what he said during the debate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Climate change leads to crop failure leads to hunger leads to uprising leads to terrorism
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Doover]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Climate change leads to crop failure leads to hunger leads to uprising leads to terrorism
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ah, the hysterical ravings of the edumacated Democrap mind.

Classic!

[Fly Rod]

Nebe....now I know Y Jessi James robbed banks, the dust bowl of the thirties that reached to DC...yup it was climate change that made him do it or was it the locust......LOL....

[buckman]

[QUOTE=Nebe;1086862]Climate change leads to crop failure leads to hunger leads to uprising leads to terrorism
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/QUOTE

Seems reasonable 😜
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Climate change leads to crop failure leads to hunger leads to uprising leads to terrorism
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bernie should have explained that to Obama or Bush long ago. They could have suppressed uprising and terrorism simply by sending boatloads of grains to make up for crop failures.

But wait . . . don't the folks who breed terrorism live in the lands that produce the oil that is used to create climate change. Dang . . . they could stop pumping oil; which would prevent climate change; which would save their crops; which would remove the need for uprising and terrorism . . .

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

. . . they could stop pumping oil; which would prevent climate change; . . .

oh my........

[scottw]

hey Eben, you know that Assad is a Socialist...right?....maybe you should consider Syria...I hear there's plenty of room opening up and they have tons of raw material for your glass blowing...