Obama's Mistaken and Incromprehensible ISIS Strategy (1 Viewer)

[Bladerunner]

To be fair, I did call him a liar. I suppose it would have been more appropriate (in more ways than one) to say he is known to lie.

WHY the thought in your mind is the same??????




Blade

 

[Steve R.]

To be fair, I did call him a liar. I suppose it would have been more appropriate (in more ways than one) to say he is known to lie.

WHY the thought in your mind is the same??????

MY my,,,,we keep going further down in the gutter.........

Having said that,,,really hope you have a nice Thanksgiving Holiday!

Quite true, the conversation (if you can call it that) keeps going further into the gutter. Frothingslosh makes offensive remarks against the person to inflame the conversation instead of respecting the viewpoints of others who do not agree with his viewpoints. Furthermore to support his accusations Frothingslosh purposely misconstrues what others have stated in an incendiary demeaning manner. Frothingslosh appears to be more enamored with tossing smug self-righteous "hand-grenades" against the person, as a distraction, from discussing the topic at hand.

So, because French and Belgian natives launched the terror attacks in Paris, you want to force Syrian refugees to stay in the areas where they're being slaughtered. Brilliant.

I'm gaining weight, so you need to stop smoking.

See how dumb your logic is?

A bogus re-characterization that goes beyond what was stated by me. Note the offensive derogatory comment that followed: "See how dumb your logic is?".

Seriously, Steve, you really should do your research before posting crap like that. You just sound like a Fox News shill

A groundless response by Frothingslosh that refuses to acknowledge the source of my facts. See my response below.

The problem is that no matter how many facts I supply, you will still maintain that they are faulty in some manner since only your so-called facts will count as the truth.

Furthermore: Please explain how you supposedly know that my facts come from Fox News? The sources cited below, as you will note, are not from Fox News.

Obama’s fanciful claim that Congress ‘proposed’ the sequester

White House Admits (Third Time) President Obama Fibbed On Sequester

Obama’s Most Successful Lie!

Obama condemns the very sequester he proposed, complemented, and then signed into law. Also note that the economic collapse Obama predicted, never occurred. Obama speech boils down to mean spirited fear-mongering. U-tube video: Obama Sequester FULL Speech: Republicans Are Putting Economy At Risk To Help The Wealthy

BladeRunner, below notes, the arrogance of Frothingslosh in assuming that his "facts" are the only reasonable "facts". Cherry picking facts is a known strategy to bias an argument. Frothingslosh is free to do that; but, as BladeRunner correctly points out: "Those facts depend upon which side of the tracks you are on...". Frothingslosh needs to accept (but does not have to agree) that the facts of others constitute legitimate comments.

Ah, yes, you cannot refute my response because they are all provable facts, so you'll just say I'm wrong, provide no examples, and leave.

Got it.

Those facts depend upon which side of the tracks you are on and you know we are polar opposites.
You're wrong Frothy:

Ah, so instead you're just falling into full-blown islamophobia, scapegoating all Muslims for the actions of a few. They were neither Syrians nor refugees.

The use of inflammatory accusations that are concocted.

Yeah, Blade has just lost his freaking mind and shown everyone what a miserable excuse for a human being he really is at this point.

He has apparently also lost the ability to speak coherently.

Vile demeaning diatribe.

Good catch, ALC.

What I see the progressive left chipping away at are:

• Officially sanctioned homophobia
• Officially sanctioned racism
• The right of the police to kill whomever they want without oversight or repercussion
• The Right's attempts to eliminate the entire First Amendment (via PATRIOT, pushes to put Creationism into schoolbooks, calls to track, exclude, and/or imprison people for their religious beliefs, etc)
• Officially sanctioned xenophobia
• The slow but ongoing corruption of Capitalism to American Capitalism, the conversion of the Republic into an Oligarchy, and the creeping institutionalization of economic serfdom
• The Religious Reich's ongoing attempts to convert America into a theocracy
• The GOP's relentless assaults on voting rights

If those are the US values Steve holds so highly, then I cannot help but argue that we're better off without those particular values.

I never stated that I hold any of values listed above. So how does Frothingslosh legitimately claim that I hold those views? Can he somehow read my mind? Should I label Frothingslosh, with great indignation, a liar?

This list above was simply added for the disingenuous purpose of making a misleading assertions that vilify the viewpoints of conservatives. Beside not contributing to the topic at hand. Furthermore, Frothingslosh complains that others don't provide evidence of their assertions. Where is the evidence that the list cited above represents the official talking points of conservatives?

The list above, is simply a list of fanatical leftist opinions, not supported facts.

Additionally, free speech is selectively applied. If you are for LGBT rights, that is endorsed free speech that is profusely complimented. Verbally question LGBT rights, you are automatically designated a bigot. Even worse, you may be found guilty of hate speech and end-up in jail.

(emphasis added)

Proof of someone being jailed for verbally questioning LGBT rights or be exposed for the liar you are.

I used the word "may", yet Frothingslosh improperly asserts that if I can not document an example, that I am somehow a liar as an offensive provocation.

Study: Nearly half of Millennials not always on board with free speech

"According to a study from the Pew Research Center, 40% of people surveyed between the ages of 18 and 34 think offensive statements made about minorities should be federally regulated. Fifty-eight percent, however, defended First Amendment rights."

Federal regulation, if imposed, would be one more incremental step in the trend towards limiting free speech and the possible imposition of fines and jail time.

In the post below, note the emergence of the concept "microaggression". Which could be considered a step toward making speech considered "offensive" a crime based on the article above.

America’s higher education brought low"

Melissa Click is the University of Missouri academic who shouted “I need some muscle over here” to prevent a photojournalist from informing the public about a public demonstration intended to influence the public. ... The University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, an irony-free campus, declared the phrase “politically correct” a microaggression."

While the following involves a Canadian: Man Faces 6 Months in Jail For Disagreeing With Feminists on Twitter it can be viewed as part of a nascent trend.

"A Canadian man faces 6 months in jail for disagreeing with feminists on Twitter, a case that one journalist warns “could have enormous fallout for free speech. 54-year-old Greg Elliott could be charged with criminal harassment simply for expressing his opposition to a campaign by activists Steph Guthrie and Heather Reilly to publicly shame a young man in Northern Ontario.”

It Begins! Montana Man Being Prosecuted for 'Hate Speech' and Holocaust Denial

"Via Volokh Conspiracy, a disturbing criminal case out of Montana, where Flathead County resident David Lenio, 28, is being prosecuted for making disparaging remarks about Jews on Twitter and denying that the Holocaust happened."

Free speech is under attack in Wisconsin

"The John Doe investigation illustrated the dangers free speech faces today. Based on an unconstitutional legal theory — one the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled was "unsupported in either reason or law" — government agents reportedly stormed the homes of private citizens in pre-dawn raids, seized their electronics, denied their right to speak with an attorney, and in at least one case held a child without allowing him to see or speak to his parents — all because they took an active interest in public policy.
...

Think about that for a second. Just because these private citizens hold certain political beliefs, they were identified, harassed and intimidated. This is precisely what government reporting laws would enable. As these examples illustrate, it has nothing to do with transparency and everything to do with silencing opponents."

Student says Cal Poly Pomona is trying to silence his vegan campaign

"Although virtually all academics say they support freedom of speech, many also argue that campuses have good cause to be sensitive to activities that could provoke vulnerable young adults. Colleges are charged with protecting the personal safety of students and must juggle the interplay of sexual, racial and ethnic dynamics that could lead to charges of harassment or bullying and potential lawsuits.

Many colleges have adopted policies — such as restricting protests and other activism to certain campus locations and enforcing broadly defined speech codes — that civil libertarians say violate the 1st Amendment rights of students.
...
A recent report by an advocacy group, however, found that more than 55% of the nation's top public and private universities maintained policies that prohibit protected speech."

The word "sensitive" above constitutes "code" to potentially allow adverse administrative action to be taken against a person who is practicing free speech that some people of authority may subjectively consider "offensive".

The Anti-Free-Speech Movement at UCLA

"Today, activists at UCLA are demanding that administrators punish some of their fellow students for expressive behavior that is clearly protected by the First Amendment."

Like the word "sensitive" above, the word "punish", is more explicit "code" to potentially allow adverse administrative action to be taken against a person who is practicing free speech that some people of authority may subjectively consider "offensive". Who knows, "punish" could morph a crime requiring jail time. Then again, maybe people will see the issue of "microagression" as a falsehood and it will die.

Smith College to review media access policies following press ban at student protest

"Smith College is reviewing its media access policies after student protesters last week banned reporters from covering a sit-in unless they expressed solidarity with the movement. ... Similar to rules enforced at the University of Missouri and other campuses nationwide, media members were not allowed to cover the sit-in unless they openly supported the movement, MassLive reported."

Of course, I have selected "proof" which supports my assertions. I trust that Frothingslosh appreciates the fact that I have done my own research and not cited Fox News as a source of information. Frothingslosh, of course is free to find his own "proof" that may refute my facts. Hopefully, it can be done without descending into the gutter.


I did take time-off to make an apple pie totally from scratch. Happy Thanksgiving to all.

 

[Bladerunner]

Steve R. to your last post #162,,


Thanks and Amen

Blade

 

[Frothingslosh]

in other words you are a certified card carrying left wing liberal extremist.

You too have a nice Thanksgiving Holiday.

Blade

Well, according to Fox News, facts and reality DO have a liberal bias.

 

[jeremy.lankenau]

Then you should know what God has in store for His people (YOU). Is that the reason you do not believe in him.. If you ignore him, he will go away. You more than anyone else know God helped Israel during the independence war of 1948 and again in the 6-day war, 1967 and the 1972-3 war. The enemy saw Armies of Angels and simply gave up.........You deny this....... Evidently I am more in tune with your people than you are.

May you have a nice Thanksgiving with your family.

Blade

I can't make the connection logically here, so you may have to help me. How does me wanting peace, even knowing history, indicate my lack of belief in G-d, and you being more in tune with my people than me? Your hubris in your extremely narrow worldview is staggering and offensive.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Originally Posted by Frothingslosh View Post
So, because French and Belgian natives launched the terror attacks in Paris, you want to force Syrian refugees to stay in the areas where they're being slaughtered. Brilliant.

I'm gaining weight, so you need to stop smoking.

See how dumb your logic is?

A bogus re-characterization that goes beyond what was stated by me. Note the offensive derogatory comment that followed: "See how dumb your logic is?".

Actually, I used a reductio ad absurdum to show how idiotic your argument was, seeing as it's a textbook example of the fallacy of the undistributed middle. If you get offended because I called your logic dumb after showing how ridiculous it is, that's not my problem.

Originally Posted by Frothingslosh View Post
Seriously, Steve, you really should do your research before posting crap like that. You just sound like a Fox News shill

A groundless response by Frothingslosh that refuses to acknowledge the source of my facts. See my response below.

\
Actually, this is a case of you being dishonest. The response you quoted here was in a different thread entirely, about a different topic and reply, despite your attempt above to make it look like I posted it as part of the response you're quoting here. Even Bladerunner doesn't go around pulling posts from different discussions into different topics in order to create a straw-man.

The fact is that that was the summary statement from a very long reply to THIS post, which I took apart in detail, and which you have decided to take out of context in order to generate a straw man argument on this topic as part of an overall extremely long ad-hominem.

<cut several paragraphs of ad-hominem attacks>

I used the word "may", yet Frothingslosh improperly asserts that if I can not document an example, that I am somehow a liar as an offensive provocation.

"May" is weasel-wordage used to create doubt when the facts do not support your cause. And asteroid MAY destroy world tomorrow. A monkey MAY sit down at a typewriter, randomly start banging out keys, and turn out Romeo and Juliet. The UK MAY decide tomorrow that the US is still British property and land troops to assert control. Charlie Sheen MAY announce that he has found God and is moving into a monastery.

I challenged you to find a single case in the US where someone was imprisoned for hate speech and nothing else, and you have so far failed.

Study: Nearly half of Millennials not always on board with free speech
Federal regulation, if imposed, would be one more incremental step in the trend towards limiting free speech and the possible imposition of fines and jail time.

In the post below, note the emergence of the concept "microaggression". Which could be considered a step toward making speech considered "offensive" a crime based on the article above.

America’s higher education brought low"While the following involves a Canadian:

And while these are all legitimate news sources about a trend I whole-heartedly agree is extremely worrying, none of them are cases of someone being imprisoned for hate speech.

Man Faces 6 Months in Jail For Disagreeing With Feminists on Twitter it can be viewed as part of a nascent trend.

Infowars?!? INFOWARS?!?!?!? BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA What next, North Korea's official news? Even that, after all, is more of a news source than fucking INFOWARS! I mean, we're talking about the guy who guaranteed that Jade Helm was actually an invasion of Texas by Obama in order to round up all the conservatives and imprison them in FEMA death camps disguised as WalMart stores. The guy who announced that the tornados in Oklahoma a couple years back were actually an attack on Oklahoma by Obama. The guy who regularly declares every major terrorist attack in the US, from 9/11 to Sandy Hook to the Boston Marathon bombings to be false flag operations with Obama behind them. That the world is secretly being run by a band of devil-worshiping pedophiles.

You know what, if you use Infowars as a legitimate source (not to mention the hate group you cited a few pages back), then you're fucking insane and there is just no point talking to you. I was going to go through the rest of your points and debunk them point-by-point, but there's obviously no point, as you will obviously not only pull in comments made in other threads about other topics and use them out of context to pretend I said them here, but you're obviously just going to reject anything I say out of hand because it doesn't tie in to your 'Obama serves the New World Order pedophiles who are taking over the world for their space lizard masters' conviction.

I'm just embarrassed that I thought you were merely crazy enough to buy into everything Fox News says, as opposed to being a batshit-insane Infowars follower.

 

[Alc]

Your hubris in your extremely narrow worldview is staggering and offensive.

Hang around, he gets better

He will now:
a) Ignore you
b) Give you a bible reference and pretend that it explains away everything he said that was offensive, selfish or nonsensical as something jesus wants people to do/say
or
c) Create some response that implies or states directly that whatever you've said is because you're a liberal and want to "feeeeel goooood".

 

[Steve R.]

I'm just embarrassed that I thought you were merely crazy enough to buy into everything Fox News says, as opposed to being a batshit-insane Infowars follower.

You have no interest beyond demeaning the basis for whatever another person who does not agree with you has to say and then liberally tossing in degrading insults. You have a one-sided intolerant "closed" mind.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Hang around, he gets better

He will now:
a) Ignore you
b) Give you a bible reference and pretend that it explains away everything he said that was offensive, selfish or nonsensical as something jesus wants people to do/say
or
c) Create some response that implies or states directly that whatever you've said is because you're a liberal and want to "feeeeel goooood".

At least he's moved on from his rants about Liberals being part of a grand satanist conspiracy aimed at destroying the US.

 

[Alc]

At least he's moved on from his rants about Liberals being part of a grand satanist conspiracy aimed at destroying the US.

I'm 99% sure he's a troll and he's laughing himself sick at us still continuing to talk to him. Unfortunately, hypocritical, religious whackjobs are something I find impossible to ignore, so until I come to my senses and just ignore him, I'll still be here.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I'm 99% sure he's a troll and he's laughing himself sick at us still continuing to talk to him. Unfortunately, hypocritical, religious whackjobs are something I find impossible to ignore, so until I come to my senses and just ignore him, I'll still be here.

Honestly, I've had that feeling for some time now. He went too crazy too fast.

 

[Bladerunner]

I can't make the connection logically here, so you may have to help me. How does me wanting peace, even knowing history, indicate my lack of belief in G-d, and you being more in tune with my people than me? Your hubris in your extremely narrow worldview is staggering and offensive.

NO, because you are Liberal and most liberals are Godless. Who was it that told you I did not want peace......Frothy?????Your listening to the wrong person.....

Do you believe in God????????Did you know that the Bible says that 2/3 of Jews living at the time of the Great Tribulations will die a everlasting death. Do you believe in Jesus???????Who die at the Cross for our sins. If you are Jewish, how can you turn away from God and Jesus,,,You have a special place in His heart..He calls you His People,,,His People,,,,,, can it get any better than tha.t How can you forsake that. I just don't understand. But here you are, listening to a far left extremist and Bad mouthing everyoneone who loves that very same God and only wants the best for everybody. I just don't understand.

Did you know that the Jewish people are God's time clock and my friend,,,time is running out. Look to Israel news to figure this out.

Blade.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Gotta be trolling. No one can get more offensive by the hour.

 

[Frothingslosh]

And also, if Blade things I'm far Left, I pity the fool when he meets an actual far Left individual, like, oh, say, an anarchist or an actual communist.

 

[jeremy.lankenau]

Yep, either a troll or a southern baptist...but the two are nearly indistinguishable.

Blade, I thought it was only 144,000 that would be saved? So maybe you should revise your theology to write off 99% of my people instead of 66% to fit your religious dogma or your "prophetic" clock.

But to keep the thread on topic: Blade, your paradigm is at least consistent. You would write off refugee's because they are all out to get you (maybe rejoice in their death and misfortune as "god's judgment"). And you would easily dismiss the death of a people because it lines up with how you think the world is going to end. Hell, you probably think hurricanes and earthquakes are god's judgment on America for allowing same-sex marriage.

 

[Bladerunner]

And also, if Blade things I'm far Left, I pity the fool when he meets an actual far Left individual, like, oh, say, an anarchist or an actual communist.

Hi Frothy...your a SOCIALIST...one step away from Communism..and when socialism does not work out (and it never has in the history of man), there are only two directions to go,,,captialism or communism... For you,,,my bet is Communism.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Yep, either a troll or a southern baptist...but the two are nearly indistinguishable.

Blade, I thought it was only 144,000 that would be saved? So maybe you should revise your theology to write off 99% of my people instead of 66% to fit your religious dogma or your "prophetic" clock.

But to keep the thread on topic: Blade, your paradigm is at least consistent. You would write off refugee's because they are all out to get you (maybe rejoice in their death and misfortune as "god's judgment"). And you would easily dismiss the death of a people because it lines up with how you think the world is going to end. Hell, you probably think hurricanes and earthquakes are god's judgment on America for allowing same-sex marriage.

jeremy......You really do not know your Bible do you...During the Great Tribulations, (3.5 years) 144,000 of Gods servants, (Jewish) will preach the Gospels of Jesus Christ in an attempt to save as many souls as possible. The Bible tells us that there will be those people and Nations that will live thru the GT for they see the power of God and come back to him.. They will be brought into the 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ here on earth.. The dead will remain dead for this one thousand years before judgement by God himself. 2/3 of the Jewish people that are not taken by the Rapture,,, will die during this time because they do not believe.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Yep, either a troll or a southern baptist...but the two are nearly indistinguishable.

Blade, I thought it was only 144,000 that would be saved? So maybe you should revise your theology to write off 99% of my people instead of 66% to fit your religious dogma or your "prophetic" clock.

But to keep the thread on topic: Blade, your paradigm is at least consistent. You would write off refugee's because they are all out to get you (maybe rejoice in their death and misfortune as "god's judgment"). And you would easily dismiss the death of a people because it lines up with how you think the world is going to end. Hell, you probably think hurricanes and earthquakes are god's judgment on America for allowing same-sex marriage.

No,,,God's Judgement is in Romans 1. and it has already started here in the USA.

Blade

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Steve R posted:

The progressive left also believes that laws can be selectively applied and selectively interpreted to serve their political objectives. From the concept that the US is a nation of laws this is wrong. (Of course the political left will not acknowledge this.)

In the spirit of fairness, this is absolutely true. The U.S. is a nation of laws, but the laws can become outmoded, out of date, useless. Personally, I believe in setting a "sunset" date on EVERY LAW IN THE BOOKS, even regarding murder and ra**, so that we can assure that changes in the law reflect changes in society or science.

Rules of evidence, for example, need to be updated when new methods come into play. Cases in point from history: Fingerprint analysis; DNA matching; automated facial recognition. (The latter affects "probable cause" arrests.)

The "Jim Crow" laws of the Old South, for example, were laws on the books; they needed to be re-interpreted to expose them for the racist and patently unequal treatment of black people. The "Separate but Equal" concept eventually was overturned ("Brown vs. Board of Education" I believe) because revisitation and reinterpretation revealed the true unfairness associated with the previous laws in force before 1954.

Juries are letting people off the hook these days for things such as the "battered wife" syndrome (where it can be reasonably shown). We are reconsidering the concepts of mental capacity and whether persons of limited capacity actually possess the mens rea to commit a crime in strict definition of the term "criminal activity."

"Jury nullification" is a phrase that ultra-right-wing types don't want you to know about, but it is EXACTLY in line with this little concept that applies to EVERYONE: Laws are LIVING documents. There IS a thing called progress. We CAN and SHOULD revisit laws frequently to assure that they are still applicable.

A jury that decides a law is way too harsh has every right to reduce charges or dismiss them if they feel the prosecutor is going over a line somewhere. This is why some states have put in laws regarding juries that can reduce the original charges. I've personally been on a jury where this happened and I voted for the reduction. (We dropped a charge from "Aggravated ra**" to "forcible ra**.")

The other part of "selective application" is that juries CAN and SHOULD hold not only the perpetrator of a crime to strict standards, but they should also hold the prosecutor to strict standards. There are these pesky little concepts called "Due Process of Law" and "Freedom from Excessive Punishment" (a.k.a. "let the punishment fit the crime.")

I had a long debate with a friend on this subject. We reached a point of full agreement on this concept: If you are going to use the full power and weight of the government against someone, you MUST be sure that you have the right someone and that you have the facts right as what that someone did. Otherwise, you have a spiral descent into an Orwellian police state where freedom has no meaning other than governmental doublespeak. This is why government is "BY the people, for the people, and OF the people." If the people change their minds over time, government MUST change to catch up.

It is precisely because of this concept that gay marriage bans were deemed improper and illegal. The only purpose they serve is to punish people for being different than the extreme Religious Right. I believe in laws and enforcement as much as anyone else you might find. Hell, I work for the U.S. Military and have a job that clearly involves my devotion to the concept of law. But I also believe in the dynamic nature of law.

The reason I object to the issues offered by hard-line religious adherents is that their law is not dynamic. It is static and admits of no possibility of change. This is Neolithic thinking at its worst. If we cannot outgrow those outmoded "set in stone" viewpoints, we are doomed to go no farther than anything else that is set in stone.

I see I got on my soapbox. Sorry if I bored some of you, but every now and then I see something that needs examination. Guess Steve's post and the subsequent furor pushed one of my "orator" buttons.

I hope all of you had good weekends. With no disrespect intended to any, I offer best wishes for a good month of December!

 

[Steve R.]

Seems that MichaelAdams understands the Democratic viewpoint concerning Islamic extremism. From the Washington Times:

MUSLIM: "We did this because our holy texts exhort us to to do it."
DEMOCRAT: "No you didn't."
MUSLIM:"Wait, what? Yes we did..."
DEMOCRAT: "No, this has nothing to do with religion. You guys are just using religion as a front for social and geopolitical reasons."
MUSLIM: "WHAT!? Did you even read our official statement? We give explicit Quranic justification. This is jihad, a holy crusade against pagans, blasphemers, and disbelievers."
DEMOCRAT: "No, this is definitely not a Muslim thing. You guys are not true Muslims, and you defame a great religion by saying so."
MUSLIM: "Huh!? Who are you to tell us we're not true Muslims!? Islam is literally at the core of everything we do, and we have implemented the truest most literal and honest interpretation of its founding texts. It is our very reason for being."
DEMOCRAT: "Nope. We created you. We installed a social and economic system that alienates and disenfranchises you, and that's why you did this. We're sorry."
MUSLIM: "What? Why are you apologizing? We just slaughtered you mercilessly in the streets. We targeted unwitting civilians - disenfranchisement doesn't even enter into it!"
DEMOCRAT: "Listen, it's our fault. We don't blame you for feeling unwelcome and lashing out."
MUSLIM: "Seriously, stop taking credit for this! We worked really hard to pull this off, and we're not going to let you take it away from us."
DEMOCRAT: "No, we nourished your extremism. We accept full blame."
MUSLIM: "OMG, how many people do we have to kill around here to finally get our message across?"