And so is a large majority of the US... I love it, talk bad about Obama and your anti American. Talk bad about Bush...and its ok. Double standards of the left will never cease to amaze me.
The three big NO NO's in the Liberal PC world. 1. Disagree with Obama you are a Racist 2. If you were raised in a hetero family and live a hetero life style, you are a bigot. 3. If you disagree with a certain religious philosophy, you are not tolerant. And the fourth NEW addition: 4. If you are pro-life you are a murderer. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=11309353&postcount=57 I figured I would self-quote IN CONTEXT before my stalker has a chance to do it first.
(Multiply by about 1000, and you get the idea - endless stream of invective for the elected Prez of the U.S. (used to be, he is an Islamic terrorist plant, who would overthrow the U.S. on gaining office....guess that kind of went out the door; Anyway, I guess this crap is something like "I have respect for the office and the President," as long as one is in bizarro land). This isn't limited to one end of the spectrum, Host. There is ample evidence for a boatload of hate and bullshit coming from certain rightist quarters, here on DP alone, obviously. I say, to hell with all blinders - blind leftists, blind rightists, leave little room for thinking; dogmatic left, dogmatic right - it's the same crap, and should be condemned - whatever corner of the ideological universe one comes from. Hahahah - I see Mia has leapt to an attempt at excusing such behavior...quick, Mia, your tap dance shoes await...."context," once again, from our duplicitous young lad. Always, "context" as to why he calls Obama a rapist, applauds murder and the death of others, etc. "Context." No red rep over the last few days, Jer - my greens are getting lonely!
Well he is quick to say that the Muslim who carried shot up the army recruiting base was a lone incident....
Host, You say this bastard's crime was the first terrorist attack since 9/11. You wouldn't consider John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo's murder spree of 2002 a set of terrorist attacks (with apparent plans to recruit, train and unleash cadres more, across the country)? More, what of all the mass killings in the last several years? Why consider this lone gunman's crime an act of terror, while the mass killings of the last several years are not to be considered acts of terror? What of the several attempted mass killings? Oh, and Mia - thanks for the red, right on cue; as I said, it contrasts nicely with the green.
Because according to US Law, the shooting of the recruiting station falls under terrorism. I have displayed the USC on this forum a few times now and don't feel the need to do it here. And, since I was not clear, let me clarify my point. It is the first attack by inslamic extremists. There were plans to attack other government facilities.
But you said this was the first terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Didn't you mean by this that the recruiting station murder was the first act of terrorism, since 9/11? If so, The shooting spree of Muhammed and Salvo was very much considered a terrorist act, under the very law you've included elsewhere, and mirrored in much of State laws, Host. (In fact, this is what probably condemned Muhammed under Virginia law alone). Therefore, what you said was incorrect, if we include only the 2002 murder spree. More, while I don't agree with the notion that we include only "Islamic extremist" terrorist attacks, and ignore the plethora of attacks from others that have taken place since 9/11/01, even if we do, there have been other religiously motivated attacks since 9/11 - do you disagree with this? My point is that I'm pretty hard pressed to ascribe something this asshole did to some grave deficiency in this president, vis-a-vis his predecessor, when there were ample terrorist attacks during all of the last several years (using your definition - mass murders, mass injuries, mass attempted murders, for a host of political, religious, and just plain psychotic reasons - sometimes, all 3 admixed).
No, you can try to twist my words around all you want. I clarified what I intended to say. It is quite clear. The first islamic extremist attack. Thats ok, don't blame the current pres. Maybe waterboarding aint such a bad idea now huh? Wait until something bigger comes along that some harsher interrogation methods would have prevented. Again, the left, never willing to admit their wrong
Hostlonestar, don't fall into Paul's trap. That's what he does. Once you take his bait, he'll spend all day provoking you and then playing the victim. Your best bet is to just ignore him. At one point last year I proceeded to get a restraining order. You really don't want him stalking you. He'll call you, he'll PM you, he'll hound you and post all kinds of ridiculous out of context posts in an effort to again, provoke you. When you engage him, he'll cry foul and start throwing temper tantrum's like a 2 year old. Your best bet is the ignore button. It's done worlds for me, and the majority of people here that have had enough of his childish diatribe and abuse.
Host - please let's understand each other. I don't believe I've twisted anything. I responded to: Which I pointed out was inaccurate. You then specified "Islamic extremist attack," and I've also pointed out that there have been any number of mass attacks post 9/11, some by religious freaks (claiming to act in the name of Allah, or Jehovah, or whatever god impelled them to murder), some by others with other political issues, some just plain whacked. I think these shouldn't be ignored. And a word, hoping you'll not go down an unfortunate road. Despite Mia's lies, you are free to ask around the website on my character, etc. (this would includes lots of folks from all over the spectrum) - Mia gets caught up in his own web of bile, and in response, he cries foul - as should be obvious by any number of posts where he talks about "respecting the office of the president," etc., while calling the current prez a child rapist, Islamic terrorist (literally), ignorant fuck, etc., and argues his approval of murder, or death, as a means to solve his petulant issues. It goes back a long way, to include his joining in trashing my brother, a Vietnam vet, who had recently died - all to score a couple of points on this forum. His attempt to portray me as some kind of psychopath is an old thing - and he hopes, I guess, to get others to believe him. As I've never been anything other than transparent, feel free to visit: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=9778643&postcount=73, and what follows on the page, to include comments by several folks that seemed to show other than what Mia would hope. Please - I mean this sincerely - don't follow down his ignorant road. If you prefer to ignore his hypocrisy, etc. - your call entirely, buddy - and I mean that sincerely, I don't have an issue with you, as you've never given cause, and I hope to continue on a respectful dialogue. Mia's attempt to ingratiate himself to you now by his bullshit should be a flag, and not a source of comfort. Paul
Good point. Actually, attacking a recruiting station, as well as attempting to assassinate a head of state (then-President Bill Clinton) or a former head of state (ex-President George Bush Sr.), is, according to US Law, a Casus Belli (cause for war). The Geneva Contention wholeheartedly agrees with this. An act of terrorism (an attack on civilian non-combatants) is considered Casus Belli and does not require United Nations approval.
Well at least he is making one right move by allowing the banks to begin paying back the TARP money after they were almost forced to turn the money into shares for the Government.
You really think he has anything to do with that? BTW, the rating is way into the dumps today: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
I dont think so. I think his hands are tied. But at least he is not bitching on TV about how his stress tests are showing they still need to keep the TARP money.
Don't they wish.... I guess you'll be liking your manditory health insurence that Obama wants to impose on every damn citizen.
What I heard today shocked me. Obama wants to make health insurance mandatory, right? Well, he is going to create government-run healthcare to help with this. And, according to the news this morning to pay for the government-run care, they are going to tax the healthcare that employers provide, so it will cost employers MORE to provide their employees with health insurance. And you know what happens when healthcare costs rise, you get less coverage or it gets cut entirely. UHHHHH, does this make sense to anyone else? Let's make healthcare mandatory, and on top of that, let's make it harder for employers to provide healthcare by taxing them to death so we can pay for government-run healthcare. Thus, more people will NOT be covered by their employer while making healthcare mandatory. YEAAAAAA, makes total sense to me.....