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 Fly Rod

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

Was in Vegas all week. Glad you're thinking about me though.

[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.

[spence]

Some interesting analysis...

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

[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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

(1)What about Hilary saying that Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism? If she believes that Muslims are no more linked to contemporary terrorists than the Amish, is she of sound enough mind to be POTUS?

(2) Would you call Muslims 'tolerant'? I used hyperbole about literacy (though literacy rates for women are a lot lower than your statistic in Iraq and Afghanistan). Would you describe Muslim nations, in general, as "tolerant" of Christians, Jews, or homosexuals? They're not even tolerant towards each other for that matter.

I await your thoughtful reply.

Also, what do you think of your hero's comments that everyone who wants to be thoughtful about refugees, isn't as "tough" as he is? Of course, he hurls those insults in a forum where he cannot be challenged. How very brave.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

(1)What about Hilary saying that Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism? If she believes that Muslims are no more linked to contemporary terrorists than the Amish, is she of sound enough mind to be POTUS?

She didn't say that. You should watch her full comments instead of a soundbite off of Drudge or your girlfriend on FOX.

(2) Would you call Muslims 'tolerant'? I used hyperbole about literacy (though literacy rates for women are a lot lower than your statistic in Iraq and Afghanistan). Would you describe Muslim nations, in general, as "tolerant" of Christians, Jews, or homosexuals? They're not even tolerant towards each other for that matter.

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.

Also, what do you think of your hero's comments that everyone who wants to be thoughtful about refugees, isn't as "tough" as he is? Of course, he hurls those insults in a forum where he cannot be challenged. How very brave.

He can and is being challenged. I think the GOP is using the issue to score points and pulling some Dems along with them. Obama should and is pushing back, I don't have an issue with this.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

She didn't say that. You should watch her full comments instead of a soundbite off of Drudge or your girlfriend on FOX.


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.


He can and is being challenged. I think the GOP is using the issue to score points and pulling some Dems along with them. Obama should and is pushing back, I don't have an issue with this.

"She didn't say that"

Dozens of outlets are attributing that exact quote to her. If you have proof that she didn't say that, can you share it please?

"Tolerance is relative"

I don't know what that means. So that clerk in Kansas City is relatively tolerant? Or do only bigots who are sympathetic to the left, get called "relatively tolerant"?

"Historically most Muslim nations have been as tolerant as anyone"

Tell that to the Israelis. That may be the stupidest thing you have ever typed. Doesn't Islam mean "submission"? When have they ever celebrated diversity?

"To describe Muslim nations "in general" for anything would be a great disservice"

OK, I see. So only liberals get to make generalizations, like when Obama said conservatives "don't seem so tough to me". Or when Hilary says that conservatives are waging "a war on women", I don't recall you being opposed to her using generalizations.

Sorry, what's good for the goose, especially when it's true. The vast majority of Muslim nations, aren't great places to be a Christian, a Jew, a homosexual, or a woman. I am truly sorry if that fact makes Hilary look like the moron she is, but it's still a fact.

"I don't have an issue with this (Obama's using petty insults)."

I for one am shocked that you defend him. In equally shocking news, scientists announced today that water is wet.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Tolerance is relative. the left proves this on a daily basis



Historically most Muslim nations have been as tolerant as anyone

I know right...and historically most leftists fancy themselves most tolerant too...particularly when in a room full of leftists, of course, when they leave that room...tolerance becomes relative...


I'll give you credit, you can sure regurgitate the talking points, especially the ones that make absolutely no sense


you should go easy on the cheap insults though, you sound like Obama and Trump

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"She didn't say that"

Dozens of outlets are attributing that exact quote to her. If you have proof that she didn't say that, can you share it please?

Take 3 seconds to search for the actual speech, you can watch the video. If taking a single line out of context is your idea of journalism I guess that could explain quite a lot...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Take 3 seconds to search for the actual speech, you can watch the video. If taking a single line out of context is your idea of journalism I guess that could explain quite a lot...

I'm pretty sure we've offered you the opportunity to watch the video with the exact words of the speeches/statements on many occasions where she and others like Obama lied...and you claimed she/they didn't mean what she/they actually said....sooooo...which is it???

must be relative

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

I'm pretty sure we've offered you the opportunity to watch the video with the exact words of the speeches/statements on many occasions where she and others like Obama lied...and you claimed she/they didn't mean what she/they actually said....sooooo...which is it???

must be relative

Name one.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Name one.

When it was alleged Bill was cheating, she said that he wasn't cheating, but rather, he was the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

She said she came under sniper fire.

[Sea Dangles]

Uh oh
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Tolerance is relative. Historically most Muslim nations have been as tolerant as anyone,.

Spence, I know you will rarely answer guestions, but please tell me where you found this fact and it's source.

These people have been intolerant within themselves and others who don't believe the same as themselves
and at war with each other for thousands of years.
Educate me with your references and comparisons.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence, I know you will rarely answer guestions, but please tell me where you found this fact and it's source.

These people have been intolerant within themselves and others who don't believe the same as themselves
and at war with each other for thousands of years.
Educate me with your references and comparisons.

I don't think it's a simple answer, my take is an understanding based on a lot of reading. It would be easy to assemble data showing Muslims to be both tolerant and intolerant, as one could do for Christianity just as easily.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think it's a simple answer, my take is an understanding based on a lot of reading. It would be easy to assemble data showing Muslims to be both tolerant and intolerant, as one could do for Christianity just as easily.

worst answer...or non-answer... ever

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think it's a simple answer, my take is an understanding based on a lot of reading. It would be easy to assemble data showing Muslims to be both tolerant and intolerant, as one could do for Christianity just as easily.

Cute ... And you lumped in the Christian's too . Very Obama like 👍🏻
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

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...53f_story.html

My wife taught at Princess Nora University for three years and confirms most of the stuff in this article. There is a problem with the religion itself, not as much with the desire of some Muslim countries' leaders--they can't, as yet, get around the religious laws in order to actually make reformational change. Iran, which inherited some advances imposed by the Shah, is a bit more advanced.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think it's a simple answer, my take is an understanding based on a lot of reading. It would be easy to assemble data showing Muslims to be both tolerant and intolerant, as one could do for Christianity just as easily.

"I don't think it's a simple answer"

Then why, when you needed to defend Hilary's crazy comments, did you provide this simple answer..."Historically most Muslim nations have been as tolerant as anyone"

When you wanted to show that Hilary was correct, you sure made it sound simple.

The Muslims are tolerant. Tell that to the Jews and the homosexuals who live there. I guess you can't tell it to the homosexuals, as they might be extinct there by now, what with all the genocide tolerance and all.

"based on a lot of reading"

What did you read? The MSNBC guide of how to respond to thoughtful people?