Politicsislamicapologytour

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 10:32 AM

 

Once and for all, Obama is not an Islamic apologist.

He is trying to drive a wedge between decent Islamics, and extremists. AND IT IS WORKING. His coalition, is local. The decent Islamics are coming out against the extremists.

And the guy is clearly a genius, as that is what I do with right wingers, and Republicans.

It is cheaper than bombs, and creates no collateral damage. Fox News keeps trying to get Obama to admit that it is ISlam itself. They want a holy war. They want Armeggedon. They want to stoke world war.

So, Fox trots out a crew of EXXXXXXXXXXXXX military, and then, when they spew world war cheerleading, they then say Obama is ignoring the advice of the military.

Obama is right, Fox and warmongers are wrong.

18 replies, 977 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply Once and for all, Obama is not an Islamic apologist. (Original post)
Guyzilla Sep 2014 OP
City Kitty Sep 2014 #1
Jenny Fromdablock Sep 2014 #11
smalllivingeddy Sep 2014 #17
Shredded Hedly Sep 2014 #2
EGTrise Sep 2014 #4
I814U2CY Sep 2014 #3
Guyzilla Sep 2014 #5
I814U2CY Sep 2014 #6
Guyzilla Sep 2014 #7
I814U2CY Sep 2014 #9
Magyar Sep 2014 #14
railroad wings Sep 2014 #10
JoePolitics Sep 2014 #8
GiovanniJones Sep 2014 #12
Guyzilla Sep 2014 #13
Guyzilla Sep 2014 #15
smalllivingeddy Sep 2014 #16
Guyzilla Sep 2014 #18

Response to Guyzilla (Original post)

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 10:40 AM

1. They Can't Help Themselves

They're so determined to hate anyone with a (D) after their name that they take it to comical extremes. How else could our president be a weak-willed ineffectual extremist socialist dictator? How else could he be a stupid Harvard graduate? A to-he-manner-born member of the 1% who grew up in a small, modest apartment with his grandparents and worked his way into the Ivy League on his merits? How else could a professor of Constitutional Law know less about the Constitution than somebody with an 8th grade education living in BFE?

They have no solutions, just feces they throw around hoping some will stick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to City Kitty (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 11:29 AM

11. OK...

They're so determined to hate anyone with a (D) after their name that they take it to comical extremes.

Name a few people with an (R) by their name that you respect and think are doing a good job for our country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenny Fromdablock (Reply #11)

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 12:43 PM

17. I admit that, at this point that would be a challenge.

There was, and is Jon Huntsman, but the Republicans essentially drummed him out of the Party because he believes that, "Conservation is Conservative."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guyzilla (Original post)

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 10:42 AM

2. youre trying to deal with a new rash of sock puppets

Who are here to disrupt, antagonize and generally make fools of themselves. They aren't worth your precious time nor intellect.

Hi buzzard, LG, the doctor, Darth, wiking, irony, cowman in NV, 5kull5ukkor, et al

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shredded Hedly (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 10:58 AM

4. I noticed the sock eruption as well.

Maybe it's the phase of the moon or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guyzilla (Original post)

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 10:54 AM

3. "Islamics"?

 

Are you trying to say, "Muslims"?


His coalition, is local. The decent Islamics are coming out against the extremists.

...

It is cheaper than bombs, and creates no collateral damage.
How about when that coalition starts dropping bombs and kicking in doors?

Fox News keeps trying to get Obama to admit that it is ISlam itself. They want a holy war. They want Armeggedon. They want to stoke world war.
It's a little early to be hitting the ethers, don't you think?

Or is this an all-natural thing with you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 10:59 AM

5. Almost your whole post is personal.

 

I will address the legitimate part.

Obama is trying to limit civilian casualties. He is not signing off, at least yet, on kicking in doors. His aim, is not to create MORE TERRORISTS. Nice to have a CIC with a brain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guyzilla (Reply #5)

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 11:10 AM

6. Asking if you're inventing new words when you mean to say something else is not personal.

 

I have no idea what "Islamics" is supposed to mean.

"Islamic" is an adjective. You're employing the word as a plural pronoun.

We all have typos but you used the term multiple times.

Obama is trying to limit civilian casualties.
You can't do that from 30,000 feet with 2,000 lbs. warheads.

Bombs are area effect weapons. Bullets are direct weapons.

If that is his goal then neither you nor he are smart enough about the fundamentals of the weapon systems employed to be comment.

He is not signing off, at least yet, on kicking in doors.
Operative word:

YET

News flash: (and if you or Obama were smart enough about the fundamentals of war you'd know this) Wars are not won from the air.

Wars are won by controlling the contested territory.


His aim, is not to create MORE TERRORISTS.
No. He is casualty and risk averse. He doesn't want to do anything to sully his reputation.

He's an egoist that will create more unnecessary casualties than is required.

You think bombs and drones create fewer terrorists?

You know what else creates terrorists:

radical mosques and weak presidents

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #6)

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 11:17 AM

7. "You can't do that from 30,000 feet with 2,000 lbs. warheads"

 

You can do that, when you bomb at night. But then, Fox ridicules you for not killing every last one of them, kill till you are tired, kill till the cows come home. Kill and then kill some more.

I will look for the youtube of the fucking fool on Fox that ranted this.


"No. He is casualty and risk averse. He doesn't want to do anything to sully his reputation.

He's an egoist that will create more unnecessary casualties than is required. "

And you and all like you, are the same ones that wanted to imprison us liberals, when we challenged Bush. Now, it is patriotic. If he says yes, you ruin him, if he says no, you ruin him. It is fundamentally unamerican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guyzilla (Reply #7)

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 11:28 AM

9. I'm not condemning Obama for fighting ISIS.

 

I'm worried the pissant, do-nothing, little leftist tool won't actually fight and that he's so worried about optics he'll put US troops at undue risk.


Fox ridicules you for not killing every last one of them, kill till you are tired, kill till the cows come home. Kill and then kill some more.
You obviously watch more Fox than I do (Which is no big deal because if you watch ANY Fox, you watch more than I do).

However, that being said, the nature of war is this:

Level as much violence as possible until the enemy is dead, is no longer materially capable of mounting resistance or loses the will to fight.

That is war. Militaries are organized to produce as much of this violence as possible as efficiently as possible.

You cannot half-ass your way through it.

You do not get to fight it with fairy tales and good intentions.

The enemy gets to do whatever he wants and is capable of doing.

ISIS is capable and motivated.

Obama has to be willing to accept the risks inherent in waging war. He has to be willing to accept the fact that he has to commit to ground operations.

Yes, that will produce casualties for US troops.

But in the long run it will most effectively destroy the enemy and his capacity to fight.

It will also go a long way in dispelling the notion that the US is too cowardly to fight a real war (and let's face it: they really mean DEMOCRATS).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #9)

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 12:07 PM

14. Nuts !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guyzilla (Reply #7)

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 11:29 AM

10. They're so knee jerk against Obama

That even the most casual non political voter can see what the RW is about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guyzilla (Original post)

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 11:26 AM

8. Let the crazies rant.

And mock their silliness.

These are folks that have been wrong over and over demanding to be heard now as if they'd been right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guyzilla (Original post)

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 11:36 AM

12. Islamics?

Sorry, it is the Islamocratic Party. Please fix your OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GiovanniJones (Reply #12)

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 12:06 PM

13. Brilliance, I hope they get it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guyzilla (Original post)

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 12:31 PM

15. As to my use of Islamics, it is properish.

 

It refers to all things Islam. And so, it is correct. I will endeavor to use Muslim when referring only to persons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guyzilla (Original post)

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 12:40 PM

16. While I think that some of your analysis is highly speculative

it is just common sense and good international politics to seek allies as opposed to making more enemies.

It does not make Obama a genius to recognize this. It is to his credit that he does recognize it, but it only indicates (a minimum of) basic competence in international relations.

That Faux News and its warmongers don't appreciate that essential point however, makes them (how should I put this kindly?)--shall we say, among the very last sources that we should want to consult for guidance in such matters unless it is with the caveat that just maybe we should seek their advice to seriously consider doing just the opposite of what they advise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smalllivingeddy (Reply #16)

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 12:43 PM

18. Hey, you are stealing the Republican agenda.

 

Do the opposite of what the Dems propose, even if it was OUR idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicsislamicapologytour